Those who prefer the Indult

[kjvail]

I have no problem with the SSPX, if that was what was available to me, I'd be there. But its not, the nearest SSPX chapel is 3 hrs north of me (Ft. Wayne, IN) whereas my FSSP indult is 20 mins or less.

[Immaculata001]

I am uncomfortable with the "irregular" position of the SSPX. In addition, I believe that many members of the SSPX (and their parishioners) are truly schismatic, though they claim that they are not. 

 

The SSPX has good hierarchy, orthodoxy, and orthopraxy, but I would definitely agree with this point...

 

In the talks of the reconciliation with Rome, it seemed to me that people in their hierarchy are proudly clinging to their irregular status, as a means of self-definition and a litmus test which, IMHO, is the hallmark of schism, and has nothing to do with what the Archbishop had in mind.  The actual schisms from the organization itself, within its short timespan, are also a horrible hallmark of schism...

 

I believe the vast majority of people who attend and their priests, though, do it in reaction to what they see in the regular institutional Church, and can no longer be a part of it, as a matter of conscience, which is entirely understandable -- they also want to go somewhere where they can be assured of the legitimacy of the priesthood, etc. 

 

The SSPX has very devoted priests and religious, and I doubt there will ever be a large-scale scandal, over there.  They've also done a great service in bringing the practice of tradition into the limelight, and have been the only vocal defenders of it in the popular imagination and media, for which they should be commended..

[Send_us_PiusXIII]

I belong to an independent chapel in negotiation [hopelessly, I believe] with our bishop.  I don't have a problem with the SSPX, although its founder's principles seem to be being abandoned in favour of "compromise" with Rome.  As far as the Indult goes, I personally find it difficult to reconcile the nature of the "Indult" that is "permission to do something illegal" because the True Mass isn't now nor ever can be made illegal.  I would attend an Indult Mass if I had no other choice, but on the same side I would attend an SSPV Mass if I had no choice.

The only thing about the Indult is many times people who attend the Indult exclusively have the habit of badgering the rest of us with accusations of heresy, and schism for our decision to worship in places with more stability than a Mass conditionally granted by a bishop that could be revoked at his mere whim.

[CampeadorShin]

Originally posted by Send_Us_PiusXII

As far as the Indult goes, I personally find it difficult to reconcile the nature of the "Indult" that is "permission to do something illegal" because the True Mass isn't now nor ever can be made illegal.

This is my view as well.  I'm told that the document Quo Primum, written by Pope St. Pius V states this as well, that priests don't need an indult to offer the Mass.

I think some of you didn't correctly interpret my question. (sorry I wasn't specific) 
Let me rephrase my question:

Lets imagine you have BOTH SSPX and Indult where you live.  For those of you who would attend Indult and not SSPX over some issue, what would that issue be?

 Did I come off as hostile BigMike?  I was just curious when I posted my question, I wasn't looking for a debate.

I ain't lookin to argue, just curious as to why someone would stay away from an SSPX chapel if one was near them.  If you wouldn't stay away from the SSPX chapel, then I'm not really typin this for you and I just wasted your time(sry).
 

[Immaculata001]

Lets imagine you have BOTH SSPX and Indult where you live.  For those of you who would attend Indult and not SSPX over some issue, what would that issue be?

 

Just this situation exists, where I live.

 

I used to attend mass at Independent sites (not SSPX), and I've traveled a lot -- I've found problems that seem endemic to Independent sites, and I've decided to avoid them. The SSPX is Independent, and I don't to witness what I've witnessed at many Independent sites.

 

Examples:

 

-- Even when splits with the NO were caused by necessity, the isolation of these sites and fraternities causes them to have a mentality that seems schismatic.  Fear, paranoia, and despair permeates these environments, and people are consumed with the idea of being under siege.

 

--There seems to always be a very vocal and extremist minority active at Independent sites or organizations.

 

-- People don't seem to want reconciliation, and use the status of chapels as a source of self-definition

 

-- I've been repelled by some of the statements by some SSPX bishops, like Bishop Williamson, who've made comments I've felt to be misogynist and racist.  It's repellent.

 

-- I read something a saint wrote about schism and the virtue of obediance, and it troubled me.  I'd witnessed what the saint was speaking of first hand, so things converged in my mind.

 

 

[lumengentleman]

Examples:

 

-- Even when splits with the NO were caused by necessity, the isolation of these sites and fraternities causes them to have a mentality that seems schismatic.  Fear, paranoia, and despair permeates these environments, and people are consumed with the idea of being under siege.

 

--There seems to always be a very vocal and extremist minority active at Independent sites or organizations.

 

-- People don't seem to want reconciliation, and use the status of chapels as a source of self-definition

 

These are all very good points.  The problem is this: at any of those kind of Mass sites, you're going to get a mix of people - some will be just confused Catholics who were scandalized by something they saw in the Novus Ordo, and they don't know where else to go.  They just want the sacraments, and they tend to keep to themselves.  Some will be of that more extreme type that you mention, with a more "vocal" bent; unfortunately, these Mass sites tend to attract malcontents who no longer have a voice in their Novus Ordo circles, and who make up for this lack by claiming a loud voice within their new Trad circles.

 

When the dust settles on this whole ugly affair, the first category of people will find their way back into the Church's visible structure, and the malcontents will stay right where they are, insisting that their dwindling numbers are only further vindication of their position - the "remnant" mentality is extremely hard to jettison.

 

I would imagine this is why Rome cautions against going this route; it would be very easy for a confused and lost Catholic to be won over by the prominent and charismatic character of the more vocal types.

 

What a mess ... this is what we get for opening the doors to the Modern World, I guess. 

[CampeadorShin]

Thank you Immaculata.  I still have a few things I'm curious about. (my brain thirsts)

Posted by Immaculata comments by El Campy

-- Even when splits with the NO were caused by necessity, the isolation of these sites and fraternities causes them to have a mentality that seems schismatic. 

Which splits are you referring to specifically?  Hmm, schismatic mentality?  I don't understand what you mean by that.  Can you go into that in detail plz?

Fear, paranoia, and despair permeates these environments, and people are consumed with the idea of being under siege.

Under siege.  Hmm, this occurs with any religious community, but you mean differently.  Am I right?  Can you explain how they become consumed?

 

--There seems to always be a very vocal and extremist minority active at Independent sites or organizations.

Extremists exist in every group, but how do you mean?  Are they sedes in independant chapels? (plz lets not discuss sedevacantism in this thread) Or do you mean something else?  What do you mean when you say extremist?

-- People don't seem to want reconciliation, and use the status of chapels as a source of self-definition

I can see this happening.  But some groups don't see themselves as needing reconciliation, they see themselves as not having done anything wrong.  Or do you mean differently?

-- I've been repelled by some of the statements by some SSPX bishops, like Bishop Williamson, who've made comments I've felt to be misogynist and racist.  It's repellent.

Hmm, women hating statements and racism.  I've never come across this.  Can you tell me what was specifically said?  I agree, this does repel people, but these might just be Williamson's opinions, in which case he should get in trouble and/or repent.

-- I read something a saint wrote about schism and the virtue of obediance, and it troubled me. 

Ooh, saints.  Can you provide me with this?  I like reading things written by saints.  I doubt the SSPX is in Schism though.  There are those who have come out to admit the SSPX were not validly excommunicated.  Among them there are Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and other Church officials.

I'd witnessed what the saint was speaking of first hand, so things converged in my mind.

Oh, wow.  Can you go into detail plz?  I'm hoping to learn how to avoid such places.  While I do hold that the SSPX isn't schismatic, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them (such as the ones that broke off of the SSPX to form the SSPV, lets not discuss them either in this thread plz) crossed the line against the SSPX.  Though I have not heard of any recent cases.

[Immaculata001]

 

 

Which splits are you referring to specifically?  Hmm, schismatic mentality?  I don't understand what you mean by that.  Can you go into that in detail plz?

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to name names -- but I think we all know that many of the Independent fraternities that now exist were once with the SSPX.  In my travels I've also encountered priests that either splintered from the SSPX, or organizations that were affiliated with them. 

 

The endless splintering, the lack of unity, isn't a marker of Catholicism, but of schism.  If the Holy Spirit were guiding "the movement," and if the initial split was in reaction to the radical changes of the Second Council shouldn't the first split have but the only necessary one? Why the fragmentation?

 

Further, the most visible commentators don't really seem to the have a plan for the conversion of the masses and/or the institutional Church hierarchy -- what I mostly see is anger, resentment, fear, and vitriol.  Yes, what happened was despicable and perverse (IMHO, there was possibly a demonic influence of some at the Council).  But aren't these men primarily concerned with the sanctification of souls? How are polemics and battles going to do that? Shouldn't evangelizing do it, even for those who are apostate? (If we're saying it's impossible, we have no faith)

 

Under siege.  Hmm, this occurs with any religious community, but you mean differently.  Am I right?  Can you explain how they become consumed?

Most definitely, I've witnessed this with religious communities and individuals.  But in this specific case, it is my opinion that people perceive themselves as a source of resistance, almost as a social force or movement -- this is erroneous. 

 

Priests and laity should be concerned with their own continual conversion and sanctification.  Yes, I believe that SSPX priests are concerned with it, but their most visible agenda seems to be about resisting innovations.  Further, peoples' spirituality is being morphed into an act of resistance (social, political, even aesthetic or ethnic).  This is not Catholicism.  We are not Catholic in reaction to XYZ, but pursuing a true Catholicism should be how we orient ourselves.  People may not be rabid about it, but they're being less reasonable and measured in their perspectives...

 

 

Extremists exist in every group, but how do you mean?  Are they sedes in independant chapels? (plz lets not discuss sedevacantism in this thread) Or do you mean something else?  What do you mean when you say extremist?

 

In my travels I've found a sizable number of sedes at Independent sites.  In conversations with Independents, they've leaned towards sedprivationism, whether they know it or not. 

 

When I say extremists I mean people who are entirely unreasonable and almost counter-cultural in their beliefs.  Their ideas are tainted with Manichism(sp), Jansenism, Puritanism, racism (particularly in Europe), or belief in authoritarian political ideologies. None of these things has anything to do with Catholicism, and yet they are their primary occupations.

I can see this happening.  But some groups don't see themselves as needing reconciliation, they see themselves as not having done anything wrong.  Or do you mean differently?

I don't mean that the SSPX should repent of its initial action that it felt was urgently necessary (with which I actually would agree).  I'm talking about all of us being reconciled to God, unifying the Church and restoring a true Catholicism.  I have a sad feeling that their are some in the Independent sites that would not welcome unity even if all their desires were met -- they would still harbor distrust and resentment for the institutional Church, and perceive it as tainted...

 

 

Hmm, women hating statements and racism.  I've never come across this.  Can you tell me what was specifically said?  I agree, this does repel people, but these might just be Williamson's opinions, in which case he should get in trouble and/or repent.

I'm not going to look for it, but the article in which he stated something to the effect of "real ideas are not for real girls," and  basically stated that higher education is not for women because they are intellectually inferior to men is a pretty clear example of misogyny, IMHO.  In that same thread, people spoke of either his or another bishop's comments on the supposed racial superiority of Western Europeans to non-Europeans -- that actually is racism. 

 

Bishops teach the laity and exercise authority, which is especially significant in an organization like the SSPX.  They  seemed like very reckless and ill reasoned ideas, to me.  It makes me suspicious of the entire organization, and we're they're heading, ideologically, if this is the social vision of their Bishops.

 

Ooh, saints.  Can you provide me with this?  I like reading things written by saints.  I doubt the SSPX is in Schism though.  There are those who have come out to admit the SSPX were not validly excommunicated.  Among them there are Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and other Church officials.

Funny thing is that I don't believe the SSPX were validly excommunicated either (I also know that we don't need permission to attend the traditional Mass, because we have the right to assist in perpetuity).  I don't recall the name of the Saint, but I revisited what I read over and over again and it troubled me. 

 

Worse still, I knew I needn't refer it to an independant priest, because they would reflexively deny it, without thoughtful consideration.   I don't believe my conversion is about having talking points to defeat the doubts I have about my own holiness or correct action.  I believe that one should actually ask oneself if one may be in error.  I continued attending Independent sites for about 1 year, and then I left...

Oh, wow.  Can you go into detail plz?  I'm hoping to learn how to avoid such places.  While I do hold that the SSPX isn't schismatic, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them (such as the ones that broke off of the SSPX to form the SSPV, lets not discuss them either in this thread plz) crossed the line against the SSPX.  Though I have not heard of any recent cases.

Please refer to my original comments about things I felt were endemic to Independent sites; the saint treated those matters, and what vices they were born of (pride, disobedience).

[lumengentleman]

Yes, I believe that SSPX priests are concerned with it, but their most visible agenda seems to be about resisting innovations.  Further, peoples' spirituality is being morphed into an act of resistance (social, political, even aesthetic or ethnic).  This is not Catholicism.

 

I hadn't thought to put it that way, but you're absolutely right.  A person's spirituality is often measured (subconsciously, perhaps) by how much or how hard one resists.  You attend an independent chapel?  Ok, that's a start.  You absolutely refuse to go to the Novus Ordo, under any circumstances?  Ok, we're getting better.  You also refuse to have anything to do with the Indult, even on Holy Days when nothing else is available?  And you refuse to pray the Luminous Mysteries, ever, even outside the formal Rosary?  Wow, you must be really holy.

 

Wait - you also refuse to watch TV, refuse to listen to the radio, refuse to even enter a grocery store where rock music is playing, refuse to look at secular magazines, refuse to let your daughters wear pants, refuse to associate at all with your friends and family members who don't believe as you do?  You're practically a saint.

 

It's odd that spirituality should come to be defined by what a person does not do ... this was a real wake-up moment for me, when I realized that some of my friends in the Novus Ordo were far, far holier than I will ever be, but I always wrote them off and assumed they were spiritual beginners, because ... well, isn't it obvious?  Wouldn't anyone who is truly holy be able to perceive the wickedness of the Novus Ordo in a heart-beat? 

[royalcello]

Further, peoples' spirituality is being morphed into an act of resistance (social, political, even aesthetic or ethnic).  This is not Catholicism.

......

Their ideas are tainted with ... racism (particularly in Europe), or belief in authoritarian political ideologies. None of these things has anything to do with Catholicism, and yet they are their primary occupations.

Tell that to Charles Martel, the Crusaders, Ferdinand & Isabella, Don Juan of Austria, Jan Sobieski, Henri de La Rochejaquelein, Antonio Salazar, Engelbert Dollfuss, and Francisco Franco.  Somehow Catholicism over the centuries has had quite a bit to do with defending one's homeland, people, and civilization against one's enemies, foreign and domestic.  While genuine racial hatred is indeed incompatible with Catholicism, much of what is labeled "racism" is merely a healthy preference for one's own kind, which Catholicism has never condemned.  And there is nothing wrong with promoting "authoritarian political ideologies" as an alternative to decadent modern democracy and republicanism.

Frankly I would be suspicious of any French traditionalist Catholic who was not a monarchist and an opponent of Muslim immigration--which is enough to get one labeled a "racist" these days.

What is wrong with "aesthetic" resistance?  There's a lot to resist, and a lot to fight for.  Some of us struggle with "pure" spirtuality and are far more easily drawn to things like Gothic churches, incense, Gregorian chant, polyphony, and  vestments.  The ugliness and banality of the Novus Ordo is one of its worst aspects.   The aesthetics of Tradition are valuable for their own sake.

I get the impression that you would make monarchists, opponents of democracy and equality,  European patriots, and those whose Catholicism (or in my case, attraction to Catholicism) is inseparable from love of traditional aesthetics unwelcome or at least marginalized in the traditionalist movement. Since real Catholic civilization throughout most of its history was unapologeticaly monarchical, hierarchical, particularist, and beautiful, I find that absurd.