Traditionalists (SSPX) Catholics, Why not right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dizzy_dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
*As I understand it, a reconciliation would in effect put them in the same status as FFSP and Christ the King, etc. *

If the SSPX agreed to that, they would be giving up on their stated mission, to eventually bring the entire RCC back to Latin. Groups of Latin priests such as FFSP are limitated just to certain parishes and dioceses, and are somewhat isolated from the others.

This isolation limits their ability to expand, which the SSPX wants to do throughout the entire RCC, as well as limiting the ability of priests to get choice parish assignments as well as possible promotions to bishoprics, cardinal positions, etc.

The FFSP seems to have a much more limited mission, so its acceptable to them.
 
The FFSP seems to have a much more limited mission, so its acceptable to them
Click to expand...
Yes, I would say their goal is to bring a Mass to the faithful which is both valid and licit - a more realistic goal than what you say the SSPX goal is.

Don’t you think if there is a universal Indult granted, that then the best chance they would have in reaching their mission would be within the Church rather than in their present Schism?
 
Don’t you think if there is a universal Indult granted, that then the best chance they would have in reaching their mission would be within the Church rather than in their present Schism?
Click to expand...
That depends.

I don’t think they can really reach their goals now, at least not in a reasonable period of time. The advantage to the current situation for the SSPX is they are controlling their own money, properties ,etc.
But in an indult situation, if granted, they stand no chance at all of making progress unless they have an opportunity to move their priests into choice parish assignments, bishops’ seats, and eventually cardinal seats. I don’t think that there are any FFSP cardinals, at least yet, with their indult, and its probably unlikely as most FFSP folks aren’t really in the loop due to their limited mission.

I hate to speak for the SSPX, because I’m not a member, but I don’t think they want to be caught in the same situation, considering their mission. I would hope that the Vatican could pound something out in this situation, but we will see.
 
The SSPX needs to trust that God will restore the Church. They certainly aren’t going to accomplish anything on the fringes. There is no logic to it. If they resolve the schism then the Church has two societies which offer the indult. The primary goal of traditionalists has to be the expansion of the indult to the point where it exists everywhere for everyone who wants it. Then you will get more traditional priests and faithful to halt the abuses of the liberals and progressives.
Peace,
Ryan
 
One of their demands include that every Catholic priest has the right to the 1962 Missal in otherwords a universal indult. They want all restrictions on the 1962 Missal lifted.
 
40.png
Iohannes:
One of their demands include that every Catholic priest has the right to the 1962 Missal in otherwords a universal indult. They want all restrictions on the 1962 Missal lifted.
Click to expand...
Why would that be a problem? I’m not being flip, here, but really want to know.
 
The issue with this indult, as opposed to Quo Primum, is that it requires the consent of the Bishops. For whatever reasons, John Paul II is absolutely and irrevocably committed to the principle of collegiality. The SSPX and many other traditionalists (myself included) would like to see the Pope extend the indult himself to each and every Roman Catholic Priest by his own authority alone. That way, liberal Bishops couldn’t stop priests from offering Mass according to the 1962 Missal.

Where the SSPX goes wrong is demanding this as a term of reconciliation. I think the SSPX must do whatever it takes to make amends with John Paul II. Then they can worry about trying to extend the indult.

First things first! Reconcile with Rome!
Peace,
Ryan
 
at least SSPX has a valid mass.
Click to expand...
But so do the Greek Orthodox. Would you advocate joining a Greek Orthodox parish? Just because the SSPX give lip service to the authority of the Pope does not mean they in fact have “filial devotion” to the Roman Pontiff.

I’m of the opinion that if your parish is not following the rubrics of the liturgy as intended by the Catholic Church, stay in such a parish and be a royal pain in the pastor’s behind until he repents and becomes obedient to his superiors. Too many Catholics give up and go church shopping instead of defending their parish against the so-called “progressive” movement.
 
**I see…Thanks for the explantion. Why do you suppose the bishops oppose an all inclusive indult? Is it a control issue? **
 
I am sure that the desire to keep the venacular Mass available to the faithful must be an pastoral issue with the bishops. I have a feeling that a little “deregulation” might prove to be a short-lived pain. Eventually, just as a matter of practicality, availablity of different Masses would equal demand. Maybe we will get to see this in our lifetime.
 
Should every Catholic priest have the “right” to celebrate ANY of the over 20 liturgical rites approved by the Catholic Church? If not, doesn’t the campaign for the 1962 Roman Missal, one of the 20, sound a bit irregular?

Why is there a “traditional rite movement”? Is there a Byzantine Rite movement? Should the Byzantine Rite be actively campaigning to “convert” Catholics from one approved rite to another, to THEIR rite, because IT’S BETTER than the others?

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if nobody was trying to convert Catholics from one approved rite to another, that such campaigns were seen as the ridiculous effort that they really are?

All of the over 20 rites of the Catholic liturgy are SACRED. Yet, each of the over 20 rites can be abused. I suggest those that “campaign” for their particular approved liturgy are trying to convince us that their prayer is more holy than another’s prayer. I’m not convinced. I’ve been to the FSSP Mass in my diocese, and plan to attend the Byzantine Liturgy. I don’t presume one approved liturgy will be holier than any other.

According to Pope Paul VI (1969):
… after the Council of Trent, the study “of ancient manuscripts in the Vatican library and elsewhere,” as St. Pius V attests in the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, helped greatly in the correction of the Roman Missal. Since then, however, other ancient sources have been discovered and published and liturgical formularies of the Eastern Church have been studied. Accordingly many have had the desire for these doctrinal and spiritual riches not to be stored away in the dark, but to be put into use for the enlightenment of the mind of Christians and for the nurture of their spirit. (Missale Romanum)
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church purposefully changed the liturgy of the Roman Rite, just as Pius V did in 1570. Pius V did not allow every priest to celebrate whichever Rite they desired. He wrote:
“… let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. … This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guarenteed to them by any other manner whatsoever. … This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given” (Quo Primum)
Click to expand...
After Pius V, implementing the decisions of the Council of Trent, there was only ONE normative Roman Missal that ALL churches were to use. Other Roman Rite liturgies were celebrated by indult only. Paul VI did the same thing with the revised Apostolic Constitution *Missale Romanum *(1969).

What the “traditional rite movement” is essentially recommending is that we have TWO normative Latin Rites. This is rather irregular and not very conducive to unity in the Roman Rite. We used to have many Roman Rite Liturgies prior to *Quo Primum *(1570). It seems that was problematic, in Trent’s view and Pius V’s view, thus the need for Quo Primum, which mandated ONE NORMATIVE Latin Rite, with various other Latin Rites by indult.

Bishops ought to be ashamed of themselves for not allowing an indult in their diocese. However, we don’t need two normative Roman Missals. Nor do we need Catholics campaigning for other Catholics to join their parish.
 
A Byzantine Priest may be able to celebrate multiple The Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostrom, St. Basil and St. James without any problems, why cannot a Latin priest celebrate the various Usages?
 
Why is there a “traditional rite movement”? Is there a Byzantine Rite movement? Should the Byzantine Rite be actively campaigning to “convert” Catholics from one approved rite to another, to THEIR rite, because IT’S BETTER than the others?
Click to expand...
Change that to why is there an SSPX movement - remember not all traditionalists are trying to dump the NOM nor trying to convert others and not all who attend legitimate Indult TLM are SSPX.

And I agree with Johannes.

There is some rumble out of Rome that there may soon be a universal Indult because some Bishops have been too “stingy” in allowing the TLM in their Diocese.

To keep denying it in any Diocese is only building up the congregations of the SSPX attendance.
 
40.png
deogratias:
Change that to why is there an SSPX movement - remember not all traditionalists are trying to dump the NOM nor trying to convert others and not all who attend legitimate Indult TLM are SSPX.

And I agree with Johannes.

There is some rumble out of Rome that there may soon be a universal Indult because some Bishops have been too “stingy” in allowing the TLM in their Diocese.

To keep denying it in any Diocese is only building up the congregations of the SSPX attendance.
Click to expand...
That is very true in LA and Orange County, California. In LA, there is an indult Mass near or at a hospital offered once a month. The people are willing to ditch the SSPX Mass to go to the indult, but Cardinal Mahoney only allow once month at that chapel so therefore the people resort to the SSPX Mass 3 times a month. If Cardinal Mahoney granted an indult for the rest of the month, the SSPX chapel would probally close, but the Cardinal doesnt care, only one indult Mass a month.

In Orange County, Bishop Brown decided to revoke the indult at St. Mary’s by the Sea despite the fact that a priest has volunteered to say the TLM, the parish wants it, numerous letters how the TLM positively influence their lives and petitions of 1500+ signatures. For the wide and generous use of the TLM the Bishop decided to revoke the indult, causing the nearby independent Chapel to grow in size. What the Bishop did was terrible and wrong.
 
Maybe a copy of that petition with a letter should be sent to the Holy See and maybe he could be then influenced to change his mind. Meanwhile, pray.
 
Excellent - a true Traditionalist who understands the difference between supporting the 1962 Missal use and the SSPX path.

Mr. Vere is a canon lawyer also and as one would suspect, not well liked now by any SSPX followers (I differentiate between SSPX followers and those who merely attend SSPX masses by the way).
 
I guess I’m confused, from a Canon Law standpoint, why there needs to be a “universal indult” at all. Don’t the requirements of Quo Primum override the need for an Indult?

Myself, I see the SSPX/SSPV/Sedevacantist/Feenyite position unnacceptable, since it denies the authority of the Church’s leaders and the fealty we owe the Holy Father.**

That doesn’t mean their central thesis** (that the changes wrought from Vatican II’s valid, but novel, authorizations in worship/discipline have caused a veritable train wreck in terms of mass attendance/belief in the Real Presence/vocations) is at fault. As valid as the Novus Ordo is (and to claim it is invalid is not acceptable), that doesn’t mean it’s implementation hasn’t caused all kinds of problems.

So I would say the traditionalist position IS right, in the sense of understanding that Vatican II was used and is still used to cause all kinds of problems in the Church. Right understanding of the problem, absolutely wrong approach to fixing the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top