What does "traditional (not Roman) Catholic" mean

[Genesis315]

carol marie:

I looked it over but I still don’t understand. In my RCIA class we briefly covered the different types of Catholics… but I thought if someone was “not Roman” that meant they were Orthodox (like Greek?) which meant they weren’t under the Pope (but different from the SSPX)

The Orthodox are in schism. There are other Catholic rites beside Roman that are in communion with the pope (Byzentine, Melkite, Ukrainian, etc.). The Catholic Church includes all of these. The whole Church being known as “Roman Catholic” came during the reformation as more of a slur.
Servus Pio XII:

It implies Roman Catholic, but usually on te right-side of the spectrum.

There’s no spectrum:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105fea1.asp

 

[palmas85]

Marian Carroll:

Let us hope not. Please refer to Forum Rules: Conduct rule #2

Marian if you check back over the posts you will see that particular term thrown around a lot, and I mean a lot.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Carol Marie, the explanations here are very good.

But the simplest way to find out more about how they are connected to the Church in Chicago is to contact the Office of Religious at 312-751-8333. In fact, at archchicago.org, there is a pdf file from the Pastoral Center. You can also do a search from that site to see if Cardinal George has made any pastoral rulings on anything regarding them.

(His Eminence is currently working with a bishop in Iowa and Bishop Doran in Rockford to curtail an organization that DOES seem to claim to be above canon law and obedience but is using the name Catholic, Love Holy Trinity Blessed Mission.)

There is an article from the Northwest Herald that says the Archdiocese has stated the order is not Roman Catholic:
http://www.nwherald.com/print/282860345936454.php

The Daily Herald had an article from 3/30/2005, by Charles Keeshan, that stated the group was having trouble in getting their zoning for a monastery in Huntley. But, it was one of those “pay for the article before you get to read it all” sites.

The Kane County Chronicle had an article from May 25, 2005, that apparently the group had cleared the hurdle and are going ahead with their building plans:
http://www.kcchronicle.com/MainSection/local/286140190615719.php

:twocents: This is my personal take on it, for what it’s worth
(and remember, even though I am a cradle Catholic, I have asked this question several times of different priests and authority figures, but I could be wrong): I have been taught and it is my understanding that we are not to contribute to the spread of schismatic groups, other denominations or those in error. However, IF we are making a purchase in a legitimate enterprise, and we are getting good in exchange for our money, then we can make the purchase with a clear conscience.

To back me up, I don’t remember if it was in the Family Life section on the CAF boards, but there was some minor controversey over whether the “guilty pleasure” of Starbuck’s was in line with Church teaching, as it was alleged that Starbuck’s had made a contribution to PP. If it’s OK to buy from Starbuck’s, or to purchase used goods from the Salvation Army,*** I*** think it would be OK to keep paying for and drinking the Fraternite de Notre Dame’s coffee and eating their pastry at St. Roger’s Bakery (which as a confessed “foodie” sounds pretty good). But as far as attending any Mass or religious service with them, I think it would be along the lines of canon law concerning any of the separated brethren. To pray that one day they will be in unity with the universal Church is certainly not a bad thing!

I hope this helps.

 

[carol_marie]

Hi Outinchgoburbs,

Yes your post does help. I feel good about eating there because all of their profits go to feeding the poor, which is more than I can say for all the other places I like to eat. If you’re ever out in Algonquin… it’s right off I-90 on Randall Road by the new strip mall. Their pastries are delicious!

I was concerned about them being “real Catholic Nuns” because I’ve told lots of friends about them… that it’s worth the drive - espcially because of the run-by-nuns-thing… so when I read in this AM’s Tribune that they weren’t “Roman Catholic” I was concerned that they were some fringe group that broke away and just dressed like nuns to confuse me? Good to know that’s probably not the case - although we can’t really say that for sure… can we? I suppose the next time I’m in there I could say, “One warm croissant, a small coffee w/ cream… and may I ask what you think of the Pope?”

Blessings ~ from your Chicago Suburb neighbor,
CM

 

[James0235]

carol marie:

I suppose the next time I’m in there I could say, “One warm croissant, a small coffee w/ cream… and may I ask what you think of the Pope?”

They might think very highly of him. It looks like they have the Catechism of the Catholic Church on their website.

And they quote JPII here and JPII, John 23, and Paul VI here.
So, they are definately not secevacantists.

James

 

[Dr.Bombay]

nordskoven:

And I pray for God to preserve us from these “traditional” wolves like those who have decimated Kansas City Catholics. BEWARE!

Wow. I don’t know what group you run with, but my Kansas City Catholic circle hasn’t been “decimated” by anyone. Bishop Finn has just given the Latin Mass Community its own church, which will be renovated and dedicated exclusively to the celebration of the traditional Mass and sacraments. In KCK, Archbishop Nauman is also accomodating to traditional minded Catholics as well.

We know who the nuts are and handle them accordingly. If they’re trying to “infiltrate” something, they’re doing a very poor job.

 

[bear06]

Hmmm…I read another article that says the archdiocese says they are not Roman Catholics. Who knows if they got the quote right. I suspect they do. I’d suggest giving money to the Missionaries of Charity if you’ve got some nearby. They’re in-line with Rome and they’re awesome!

 

[bear06]

Wow! They also have some very strange bedfellows! Yikes!
fraternitenotredame.com/Old%20Pages/En/Fnd/FND.HTM

 

[mamabear7]

palmas85:

Some people felt rightly or wrongly that the church had gone to far Others said the Church had fallen into heresy. Different groups came forth each claiming to be the remnant of the true church that had been abandoned by Rome. Other groups, notably the Society of Saint Pious X were formed to keep alive the traditional approach to the church. While in the process of meeting with Rome on the possibility of re-uniting with Rome the Bishop of SSPX Marcel Lefebrve, consecrated several Bishops without the approval of Rome and thus, became amanable to excommunication. Which he and some of his followers were.

BEFORE ANYONE SAYS ANYTHING, YES I KNOW IT IS AN EXTREMELY SIMPLE EXPLANATION, BUT I’M DOING THIS FROM MEMORY

Still more groups sprang up advocating a return to the Traditional practice of Catholicism mainly in the celebration of the Mass.Some of these groups ordained priests and bishops without the approval of Rome. These consecrations are invalid. I believe in 1982 or 84, then Pope John Paul II, mey he rest in peace, issued what is termed the indult, which allowed for the celebration of the Mass in the traditional manner, often called Tridentine. This allowed priests to celebrated the Mass with the approval of their respective Bishops. Thus the traditional Mass today is more available to the people, legally.

This did not in any way satisfy some of the Traditional groups who put forth well reasoned in some cases and in others utterly absurd arguments against the indult and whether or not one was needed. Some said there was no need for an indult anyway since the Traditional mass had never been “officially” disallowed. Many people felt the church had fallen into heresy and apostacy and refused to comply with Rome. Several other groups were formed with the Vaticans approval to keep the traditioanl mass alive. The Priestly Society of St Peter comes to mind.

AGAIN, I KNOW VERY SIMPLE

So, the current situation is BASICALLY this. The nornative mass of the Church is called the Novus Ordo. The traditional mass, sometimes called Tridentine, is legally celebrated under the trems of the Indult, where permission has been given by the Bishop. Numerous groups, including SSPX continue to celebrate the traditional mass without the approval of Rome. Some say you can legally attend a SSPX chapel to satisfy your Sunday obligation if there is no indult facility available. I never have and I’m not sure as to its’ legality anyway. It is wildly rumored and anticipated that Pope Benedict XVI will grant what is termed the universal indult so that the Traditional Mass can be more widely celebrated.

Many groups have sprung up over the years in an attempt to keep the traditional church alive. Some valid others not. As I said a sad and confusing situation. You have to be very careful who you deal with. Some of these groups are sede vecantist in nature, That means they believe there is no valid Pope and hasn’t been since 1958. Avoid them. Their literature and web sites usually, though not always, identify themselves in that fashion.

I hope this has answered some of your questions. There are many on this forum whose knowledge in this area far exceeds mine so hopefully they can answer the questions better.

Rome said the SSPX Mass is valid so you don’t need to doubt it.

You don’t need an indult to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass because of Quo Primum. There was actually a study done about this a few years ago by higher-ups in the Church (I forget whether they were cardinals or bishops). They determined that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated and everybody has permission to celebrate it. I’ll find a link to prove it if you want.

I don’t recommend attending an Indult Mass because bishops intentionally put them in places where there’s already a TLM to draw attention away from the existing one. Also, I’ve heard that they’re often in bad parts of town and they only allow one TLM Mass per Sunday.

Here’s an interesting fact: both the FSSP (the one you mentioned) and the SSPV (sedevacantists - they believe Benedict XVI isn’t a pope) came from the SSPX. SSPV priests left first because they wanted to say an earlier Mass than the 1962 Missal.

Dr. Bombay, you said that in Kansas City the bishop recently started a Traditional Latin Mass. There was already one at my parish, St. Vincent de Paul, which is run by the SSPX. It’s a very beautiful church and the priests give excellent sermons.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

 

[James0235]

Oh, where to start?

mamabear7:

Rome said the SSPX Mass is valid so you don’t need to doubt it.

True. Valid but illicit.

mamabear7:

You don’t need an indult to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass because of Quo Primum.

Not true. Quo Primum was not dogmatic. It was disciplinary. And popes can not bind their successors in matters of discipline.

mamabear7:

There was actually a study done about this a few years ago by higher-ups in the Church (I forget whether they were cardinals or bishops). They determined that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated and everybody has permission to celebrate it. I’ll find a link to prove it if you want.

No need for a link. In 1986 Pope JPII asked a commisson of 9 Cardinals to study the legal staus of the TLM. They determined that it was never supressed. And, no, it has nothing to do with Quo Primim. When Paul VI issued the 1970 Roman Missal with Missale Romanum he did not supress the 1962 Missal.

The Cardinals informed JPII that the TLM had not been legally supressed but he decided not to publish the findings. Instead, he formed the Ecclesia Dei Commision and gave then and diocesan bishops the authority to allow or disallow the TLM.

The good news is that one of those 9 Cardinals was none other than Joseph Ratzinger. He goes by another name now. And he has been highly supportive of the TLM for many years.

mamabear7:

I don’t recommend attending an Indult Mass because bishops intentionally put them in places where there’s already a TLM to draw attention away from the existing one. Also, I’ve heard that they’re often in bad parts of town and they only allow one TLM Mass per Sunday.

You’ve heard wrong. Yes, many bishops may do these things but there are others who are highly supportive of the TLM.
Otherwise there wouldn’t be parishes such as
St. Michael in Scranton, PA
St. Francis de Sales near Atlanta, GAhttp://www.divinemercy.ca/
Divine Mercy Parish in Vancouver, Canada
Mater Ecclesiae in Berlin, NJ
Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in Pequanock, NJ
St. John Cantius in Chicago, IL
St. Francis de Sales Oratory in St. Louis, MO

None of these parishes offers only 1 Mass on Sunday. And as to indult Masses being in bad neighborhoods, some of these parishes are located in the suburbs. And the number of parishes licitly offering the TLM in the United States grows each year.

And you don’t recommend attending an Indult Mass which is said in union with the Diocesan bishop and with the full permission of that bishop and the Holy See. But you do recommend attending an illicit Mass said under the authority of excommunicated bishops? Do you see anything wrong with this?

mamabear7:

Here’s an interesting fact: both the FSSP (the one you mentioned) and the SSPV (sedevacantists - they believe Benedict XVI isn’t a pope) came from the SSPX. SSPV priests left first because they wanted to say an earlier Mass than the 1962 Missal.

True.
The FSSP was formed by priests who left the SSPX and returned to full communion with the Holy See. Apparently they had a problem belonging to a Society that was lead by illicitly consecrated and consequently excommunicated bishops. And since a priest must be incardinated into a diocese or an approved religious order then all of the priests ordained into the SSPX are done so illicitly.

mamabear7:

Dr. Bombay, you said that in Kansas City the bishop recently started a Traditional Latin Mass. There was already one at my parish, St. Vincent de Paul, which is run by the SSPX. It’s a very beautiful church and the priests give excellent sermons.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

Someone will correct me on this if I am wrong but other than the parishes approved by Bishop Finn there are no parishes in KC which offer the TLM. In order for a parish to exist it must be a part of a diocese. Therefore St. Vincent de Paul is not a Catholic parish. The SSPX realize this and usually call their buildings Chapels and not parishes.

God bless,

James

 

[bear06]

Well, I was going to post a long dissertation but nevermind. You’ve covered it. Thanks for saving my fingers.

You can add St. Margaret Mary’s, Oakland, CA to your list of indults. We’ve had one for 15 years now despite that we had a, how shall I phrase it, very liberal bishop when the indult was originally granted. Our new bishop supports this indult and has even brought in the Institute for Christ the King to service this parish.

 

[James0235]

bear06:

Well, I was going to post a long dissertation but nevermind. You’ve covered it. Thanks for saving my fingers.

You can add St. Margaret Mary’s, Oakland, CA to your list of indults. We’ve had one for 15 years now despite that we had a, how shall I phrase it, very liberal bishop when the indult was originally granted. Our new bishop supports this indult and has even brought in the Institute for Christ the King to service this parish.

You are welcome. But now my fingers hurt.

All of the parishes I listed have more than 1 TLM on Sunday to counter the claim that Indult parishes only have 1 Mass. And with the exception of St. John Cantius all of them exclusively offer the TLM. Actually, that’s not accurate. St. Michael has a NO Mass on Sat evenings.

But here is
St. Margaret Mary in Oakland, CA
seems like a great parish.

And I will also add
Holy Family in Columbus, OH
TLM every Sunday and on 1st Saturdays at 9AM as well as a Vigil Mass for Holy Days.

God bless,

James

 

[bear06]

We only have one but we have a daily TLM if that makes up for it. We have one vigil in English, one morning Mass in English, one “Novus Ordo” in Latin and one TLM. Quite a little potpourri.

 

[mamabear7]

James0235:

And you don’t recommend attending an Indult Mass which is said in union with the Diocesan bishop and with the full permission of that bishop and the Holy See. But you do recommend attending an illicit Mass said under the authority of excommunicated bishops? Do you see anything wrong with this?

No, I see nothing wrong with it. Their sacraments are completely valid. Their sermons are the best I’ve ever heard. Until I left the Novus Ordo for the TLM, I never heard of the Masons, I dressed immodestly, I never considered wearing a veil during Mass out of respect for our Lord, and I never tried receiving our Lord on my tongue instead of touching Him with my dirty hands. There is absolutely nothing wrong - in fact, there is everything right - with the SSPX’s Mass; except that it’s the 1962 Missal instead of an earlier Missal, it’s the same Mass that has been said by most Popes throughout the centuries.

Are you not aware that several canon lawyers told JPII that the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was invalid?

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

 

[TheLuke]

James0235:

And you don’t recommend attending an Indult Mass which is said in union with the Diocesan bishop and with the full permission of that bishop and the Holy See. But you do recommend attending an illicit Mass said under the authority of excommunicated bishops? Do you see anything wrong with this?

If your premises were true, you would have a point. However:

1. The SSPX’s flaw is that they recognise Benedict as a pope and that they say the 1962 missal instead of the one promulgated by the Catholic Church. However, these flaws do not affect the validity of their Masses.

 

[bear06]

Their sacraments are completely valid.

…and completely illicit. BTW, not all of their sacraments are valid. They do not have the faculties from the local bishops to hear confession (unless danger of death where they are granted emergency faculties) and they do not have faculties to officiate at weddings. They can say they are valid all they like but according to current and past canons, they are not. No priest can hear confessions or officiate without being given faculties by the bishop of the diocese.

I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again. If I only had to choose between a "cowboy Mass and an SSPX Mss, I’d pick the repulsive “cowboy Mass” I’d never pick the illicit that is attractive to me no matter how much it glitters!

Until I left the Novus Ordo for the TLM, I never heard of the Masons, I dressed immodestly, I never considered wearing a veil during Mass out of respect for our Lord, and I never tried receiving our Lord on my tongue instead of touching Him with my dirty hands.

I attend the “Novus Ordo” every week and I’ve heard of the Masons, I dress modestly, I’ve considered a head covering but have pretty much come to the conclusion that God doesn’t want one on me at this point in life out of respect for Him and I receive Our Lord on the tongue.

There is absolutely nothing wrong - in fact, there is everything right - with the SSPX’s Mass; except that it’s the 1962 Missal instead of an earlier Missal, it’s the same Mass that has been said by most Popes throughout the centuries.

Here’s one you don’t get too often. SSPX isn’t even good enough.

Are you not aware that several canon lawyers told JPII that the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was invalid?

Are you aware that several have told him it was valid. What’s more, are you aware that the Pope is the final arbiter on this matter as far as ecclesiastical law goes?

 

[bear06]

TheLuke:

If your premises were true, you would have a point. However:

1. The SSPX’s flaw is that they recognise Benedict as a pope and that they say the 1962 missal instead of the one promulgated by the Catholic Church. However, these flaws do not affect the validity of their Masses.

Whoa, James! Before you respond, let me give you a little advice: Don’t bother. I’m just betting Luke actually sounded more like mamabear7 at some point.

 

[mamabear7]

bear06:

…and completely illicit. BTW, not all of their sacraments are valid. They do not have the faculties from the local bishops to hear confession (unless danger of death where they are granted emergency faculties) and they do not have faculties to officiate at weddings. They can say they are valid all they like but according to current and past canons, they are not. No priest can hear confessions or officiate without being given faculties by the bishop of the diocese.

I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again. If I only had to choose between a "cowboy Mass and an SSPX Mss, I’d pick the repulsive “cowboy Mass” I’d never pick the illicit that is attractive to me no matter how much it glitters!

I attend the “Novus Ordo” every week and I’ve heard of the Masons, I dress modestly, I’ve considered a head covering but have pretty much come to the conclusion that God doesn’t want one on me at this point in life out of respect for Him and I receive Our Lord on the tongue.

Here’s one you don’t get too often. SSPX isn’t even good enough.

Are you aware that several have told him it was valid. What’s more, are you aware that the Pope is the final arbiter on this matter as far as ecclesiastical law goes?

That’s horrible that you would choose an invalid and sacrilegious “Cowboy Mass” instead of a beautiful Traditional Latin Mass.

I’d much rather follow the orthodox SSPX bishops than the American bishops who go against Church teaching when it comes to the death penalty, don’t do anything about all the immodesty in their churches, are too timid (for the most part) to tell Kerry and other “Catholics” that they can’t receive the Eucharist, and ordain gay priests. I could go on.

Actually, my post wasn’t like Luke’s. I was saying that I never heard of the Masons until I switched to the TLM with the SSPX, I dressed immodestly, and I almost never heard about saints during sermons. Their confessions are better - the penance is more than just “pray a few Our Fathers”. Now I wear a veil, dress more modestly than I ever have, and receive God on my tongue instead of touching Him with my dirty hands.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

 

[palmas85]

mamabear7:

Rome said the SSPX Mass is valid so you don’t need to doubt it.

You don’t need an indult to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass because of Quo Primum. There was actually a study done about this a few years ago by higher-ups in the Church (I forget whether they were cardinals or bishops). They determined that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated and everybody has permission to celebrate it. I’ll find a link to prove it if you want.

I don’t recommend attending an Indult Mass because bishops intentionally put them in places where there’s already a TLM to draw attention away from the existing one. Also, I’ve heard that they’re often in bad parts of town and they only allow one TLM Mass per Sunday.

Here’s an interesting fact: both the FSSP (the one you mentioned) and the SSPV (sedevacantists - they believe Benedict XVI isn’t a pope) came from the SSPX. SSPV priests left first because they wanted to say an earlier Mass than the 1962 Missal.

Dr. Bombay, you said that in Kansas City the bishop recently started a Traditional Latin Mass. There was already one at my parish, St. Vincent de Paul, which is run by the SSPX. It’s a very beautiful church and the priests give excellent sermons.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

I have heard for years that the indult is not needed or required. However, even if the “official” word may be it is not needed, I would seriously doubt that any priest would celebrate one unless his Bishop said he could. And to be honest, I’m not real sure on the Vatican saying it’s all right for the Traditional Mass to be celebrated anywhere and everywhere.

Are you positive on Rome saying the SSPX Masses are valid? I’d like a link to that one.

I know many people who say not to attend the indult mass ,because of the conditions attached. and becaus ethey believe they are staged to drive the independent chapels out. . Howver, until I see something concrete come from the Vatican, I think I’ll stick to the indult. No disrespect intended, and I’m probably just as much a traditional as you and maybe more, but I still have allegiance to the Holy Father in this regard.

 

[James0235]

mamabear7:

That’s horrible that you would choose an invalid and sacrilegious “Cowboy Mass” instead of a beautiful Traditional Latin Mass.

I don’t think you understand the difference between invalid and illicit.

mamabear7:

I’d much rather follow the orthodox SSPX bishops than the American bishops who go against Church teaching when it comes to the death penalty, don’t do anything about all the immodesty in their churches, are too timid (for the most part) to tell Kerry and other “Catholics” that they can’t receive the Eucharist, and ordain gay priests. I could go on.

Orthodox is not a term I would use to describe bishop Williamson of the SSPX. Anti-semitic, Holocaust-denying, woman-hating (“no girl should go to any university!”) are much more accurate.

And the mosesty required at SSPX chapels has been tied to the amount of money donated. Give enough to the SSPX and you don’t have to follow the dress requirements.

mamabear7:

Actually, my post wasn’t like Luke’s. I was saying that I never heard of the Masons until I switched to the TLM with the SSPX, I dressed immodestly, and I almost never heard about saints during sermons. Their confessions are better - the penance is more than just “pray a few Our Fathers”. Now I wear a veil, dress more modestly than I ever have, and receive God on my tongue instead of touching Him with my dirty hands.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

And there are many thousands of us here who have heard of Masons and who dress modestly (men and women) and who have learned very much about the Saints in sermons and who have not once set foot in an SSPX chapel.

God bless,
James