Those who prefer the Indult

[Traditio_in_Radice]

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.

This is hardly confined to the S.S.P.X. The F.S.S.P. has also had people break away, Fr. X being the most recent example. They also have the so-called "Sweet Sixteen" who while still members of the Fraternity as far as I know, are really a splinter group of the worst kind: liberals working from within to destroy. The "endless splintering" is happeneing everywhere in the Church even in the indult world.

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.

Innovations are not compatible with continual conversion and sanctification. Therefore, resistance to innovation is part and parcel of sanctification, especially in today's world, where innovation is the prime danger to the Faith. In other times, the focus has been different because the dangers were different.

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.

Considering how depraved modern culture is, being counter-cultural is a good thing. I daresay that these "extremists" would fit in just fine if they were transported back in time to any Catholic parish in the Middle Ages. Would those of us who are more "reasonable" and accomodated to the world fit in as well? I think no ... I think we would stick out as impious worldlings among the faithful Catholics. The problem is, that the modern world is so upside down, that perfectly normal Catholicism seems "extreme" or "puritanical". Royalcello did a good job of summing up all the great historical figures who took these things that have "nothing to do with Catholicism" seriously. We would do well to imitate the likes of these great men.

 

That aside, I've met many an extremist that attended an indult chapel. Again, not something confined to the S.S.P.X.

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.

Read what some of the fathers of the Church and St. Thomas Aquinas said about women and I don't think you'll find Bp. Williamson so mysogenistic. It is a very recent novelty to consider men and women equal in all ways, including intellectually.

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 ...

Holiness does not depend entirely one one's sincerity, this is an error of Protestant/Modernist thought. We must also refrain from sinning. It is a mix, we must refrain from evil but also do good. A person who does lots of good but at the same time commits grievous sins benefits not at all from the good he does.

 

Many saints are defined by what the did not do, especially martyrs who did not deny Christ even thought it would have saved their lives.

[Immaculata001]

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.

 

(Immaculata001 thinks: Can't see the forest for the trees?)

 

You have portrayed all of these political figures as being central to Catholic religion, or political persuasion being being central to Catholic religion, when they are merely elements of Catholic culture and history -- whether or not one deems a political ideology worthy, feasible, desirable, etc has zero to do with actual spirituality.

 

You like Ferdinand and Isabella, Juan of Austria, and Jan Sobieski; I like Graham Greene, Flannery O'Connor, Andy Warhol,  Edgar Degas, and Dorothy Day.  All of these people were Catholic (very ironically, the person who seems to have had an extremely intense and committed spiritual life was Andy Warhol -- he went to Confession at least once a week, prayed the rosary, and had a private altar in his home, which he would not let any of his associates see; his Confessor and family came out with it after his death.  Looks like Andy Warhol may have been seeking some humility...).

 

Catholicism is not monolithic.  It never has been, and it never will be. When you see people congregate and agitate for spiritual, social, political, and aesthetic dictates that are monolithic, that is the least Catholic expression of Catholicism you can find.  It is worldly.  It is ego-driven.  It is about power and acquiring status and being a member of an in-group.  None of these people are saints, and we are allowed (I would say encouraged) to criticize and even reject ideals they conceived.

 

Further, these factors that dictate our dialogs, interactions, politics are not traditional -- the reactionary element in Catholicism has always been balanced or in dialog with people who are moderate, liberal, or modern. People who are claiming that Catholicism was monolithic have a distorted and mythological view of history and culture.

 

In the past, from what I have gathered from people and literature who actually lived in much earlier times, people would not feel comfortable having a personal litmus test to discern who was authentically Catholic and who was not -- one could describe a person as backsliding, a public sinner, immoral, etc, but no one would dare deny the legitimacy of their religion, seeing as one can't, if a person has been baptized, has access to the sacraments, and professes the Creed.  Rather, it seems to me that people had an understanding of the cultural heritage that Catholicism was, its successes and limits in dictating culture and politics, and had an understanding that it was not monolithic.

 

What we are seeing now is not Catholicism, because it has little or nothing to do with the continual conversion of the individual, or the reconciliation to God -- in fact, it's becoming a religion or an ethos all of its own unconcerned with the worth of every individual soul...

 

Case in point: someone who is not a Catholic, but simply professes the social dictates and ideals of those in the "traditional Catholic movement" can question the legitimacy of an actual Catholic, who professes the Creed, receives the sacraments, has been baptized, and has had a multigenerational lineage of family members who have done the same, within a Catholic cultural context (some of whom became priests and religious, and  nearly all of whom were raised in Catholic boarding houses or convents).  In what trad fantasy land would a scenario like this have happened, in the past?

 

As far as racism in Europe goes, monarchism is only one supposed remedy for the problem of immigration.  I see the problem of immigration in Europe as one of integration, access to economic resources, and cultural preservation.  I don't know that imposing a rigid social hierarchy will remedy the problem, and I don't see any cultural supports necessary for monarchism in existence.  And yes, if one believes others to be inferior to them, one is likely a racist.  There is no need for a polemic because the world has come to an agreement.

 

"Liking your own kind" actually isn't very Catholic, either.  If the early apostles did that, the only people who would be Catholic would be people who are culturally Jews.

[Send_us_PiusXIII]

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 find this argument specious, at best. Even if a priest has absolutely no interest in the TLM and desires to celebrate the NO only, he can’t simply waltz into a diocese and “set up shop”. He must have the approval and operate under the authority of the local bishop. No one argues that these conditions make the NO Mass illegal; only when they’re applied to the TLM.

Any priest has the right to celebrate the TLM privately. In fact, according to editorials that I have read in The Latin Mass magazine, this is what many priests in TLM-unfriendly dioceses, whose bishop has denied them the ability to publicly celebrate the TLM, do. One does not have to agree with the way a bishop exercises his authority to recognize that he has it.

 

 

Yes, it is correct that UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES there is no such thing as a priest working without a bishop; however, I challenge anyone to seriously suppose that Holy Mother Church, gripped as she is so by the very Modernity she fought so hard against at the beginning of the last century, is operating anywhere NEAR normal circumstances. 

 

The power/authority given to bishops [by the way episcopal power weakens and strengthens over the course of histoy] has always been to PROTECT THE FAITHFUL, specifically to make sure that marriages are properly contracted, and that genuine priests are absolving the faithful in Confession.  Instead, this power is being abused and used against the faithful, in many cases.

 

How many times did St. Athanasius here the "submission to the authority of the bishop" argument I wonder?

 

 

[Traditio_in_Radice]

Catholicism is not monolithic.  It never has been, and it never will be. When you see people congregate and agitate for spiritual, social, political, and aesthetic dictates that are monolithic, that is the least Catholic expression of Catholicism you can find.  It is worldly.  It is ego-driven.  It is about power and acquiring status and being a member of an in-group.  None of these people are saints, and we are allowed (I would say encouraged) to criticize and even reject ideals they conceived.

 

The Servant of God Queen Isabella the Catholic is on the path to beatification, here is the website for her cause: http://www.queenisabel.com/

 

Although not listed by Royalcello, Charlemagne is a blessed of the Catholic Church. Engelbert Dollfuss was a saintly man who I have little doubt will be put forward for canonisation when the Church returns to Tradition. He had no ego driving him; he sought only the best for his fatherland and he had the clear vision to see that Catholicism and Catholic principles were what was required.

 

Many Crusaders are in heaven; there was a plenary indulgence granted to those who died on Crusade, and thus there are innumerable uncanonized saints in that group listed by Royalcello.

 

Sure, we are encouraged to criticize and reject the ideals espoused by these great Catholic men ... by Modernists.

 

The fact that Royalcello is not yet a Catholic does not mean that he is incapable of understanding the clear social teachings of Holy Mother Church. That he knows these teachings better than some of us is more a commentary on how much our collective knowledge has been harmed by the present crisis, rather than proof that such teachings about the Social Reign of Christ are false.

[Immaculata001]

Objectively how can one explain this? 

 

I have a really complex, erudite, theological explanation for the films of Andy Warhol and his sexuality (drumroll, please)...

 

HE WAS A SINNER.

 

Which he and God already knew, and which he and God desired to amend.

 

That's how I gauge someone's commitment to Catholicism and conversion; I don't use a personal and subjective evaluation of someone's conduct to determine whether or not they are worthy of grace or mercy.  The question trads seem compelled to answer (as though they even had the authority, for Pete's sake!) is whether or not Andy Warhol ultimately failed in his attempt at reconcilation -- many seem to be answering for the rest of us that we are unworthy and will ultimately fail.

 

It is impossible for us to know, so why would we even bother considering it?

 

Ultimately, I think this is what the polemic is about, between those who do not attend Independant sites and those who do.

[Immaculata001]

He had no ego driving him; he sought only the best for his fatherland and he had the clear vision to see that Catholicism and Catholic principles were what was required.

 

Many Crusaders are in heaven; there was a plenary indulgence granted to those who died on Crusade, and thus there are innumerable uncanonized saints in that group listed by Royalcello.  And likewise, there are many people, Crusaders and others, who do not meet the criteria for plenary indulgences -- so we many assume that like most of us, many Crusaders were not saints, and are in Purgatory...

 

Sure, we are encouraged to criticize and reject the ideals espoused by these great Catholic men ... by Modernists.

 

Uh, I think you missed the point -- the social movement that is pushing a reactionary and monolithic vision of Catholicism is what is power and ego driven -- they use Catholic social figures as a front and banner.  I actually didn't make a judgment of any of the rightist Catholics listed -- if you look closely, you'll see that I included Catholics I liked in the list for inspection/ rejection.

 

Anyhow -- Charlemagne is a Blessed. Very good. Why is he not canonized, or more specifically, how many children did he have, and by whom? There are reasons the Church doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) canonize figures primarily because of the popularity of their social and political teachings, and some rightist saints would fall into that category. 

 

Does following that orthodox teaching, in union with the Church, make me a modernist?  Is modernism a theological designation, or a social and political one (ie: does one's rejection of certain political ideologies qualify one as a modernist)?

[lumengentleman]

There are reasons the Church doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) canonize figures primarily because of the popularity of their social and political teachings, and some rightist saints would fall into that category.

 

 

Not the least of which reasons is because a canonization is a declaration concerning the saint's heart and will, not primarily their mind and intellect.  That is to say, a canonization concerns a person's sanctity, not their sanity, and although the two are obviously related at some level, to canonize a saint does not mean to give an imprimatur to everything they thought, taught, and believed.

 

Cyprian was canonized - and had wrong ideas about heretical baptism.  Hippolytus was canonized - and he was an anti-pope, and had wrong ideas about the Trinity.  Thomas of Aquin was canonized - and his views on the Immaculate Conception could not be admitted as orthodox today.

 

 

[Clarkthepapist]

To say that monarchists are some sort of far out extremist group among Catholics is a pretty bold claim, considering Popes have constantly stated that monarchy is a form of Government fully in line with the principles of Catholicism. Democracy, if you look in history, was a rebellion against the Church. Democracy is right up there in the extreme left with Socialism and communism. To say otherwise is not to know history. 

 

 

You forgot St. Louis of France, he was a saintly Catholic King.

[Immaculata001]

What percentage of Catholics, would you say, are monarchists?

 

Constitutional Republicanism was not a rebellion against the Church, in this country, but a rebellion against the English monarchy...

 

In Europe (France) the Church would not rememdy its own own corruption, and scandalized the masses with its ties to a decadent, monarchist elite, so enter the masons and revolutionaries...

 

This most damning edictment of monarchism is its complete incapacity for self-reform...

[royalcello]

someone who is not a Catholic, but simply professes the social dictates and ideals of those in the "traditional Catholic movement" can question the legitimacy of an actual Catholic

I don't think I "questioned your legitimacy," whatever what would mean.  If anything it was more the other way around.  I felt that you were belittling the way I've approached Catholicism, which is very much connected to everything you were disparaging.  My first Latin mass was a requiem for King Louis XVI, and it's partly my desire to be in communion with historical figures such as those I mentioned that keeps me coming to Mass every week and participating in this forum even though there are still many things that frustrate me and many things that I obviously don't get.

I've seen sentiments like yours expressed frequently on AngelQueen, where people attacked Fr. Kenneth Novak (the priest at the SSPX chapel where I attend mass) for promoting distributist economics in The Angelus; this longing for some sort of "pure" Catholicism that doesn't have anything to do with politics, economics, history, monarchy, agrarianism, or aesthetics, and which no one could ever accuse of being "un-American," "elitist," "unrealistic," or "nostalgic."   Well, that approach has absolutely no appeal to me, and I don't think it's very authentic.

In what trad fantasy land would a scenario like this have happened, in the past?

Well, my particular situation (secular theologically, but pro-Catholic historically, culturally, politically, socially, and aesthetically) didn't and wouldn't exist in "trad fantasy land," when almost everybody was Catholic and those who weren't were adherents of some other religion.  

As far as racism in Europe goes, monarchism is only one supposed remedy for the problem of immigration.

I never said monarchism was a "remedy" for the "problem of immigration."  It would be more accurate to say that the egalitarian spirit that was responsible for abolishing or emasculating monarchies is also responsible for Europe's loss of self-confidence and suicidal immigration policies.   And the error of egalitarianism needs to combatted on multiple fronts.

"Liking your own kind" actually isn't very Catholic, either.  If the early apostles did that, the only people who would be Catholic would be people who are culturally Jews.

The apostles, and subsequently missionaries, had a special charism which is different from the role of laypeople and secular rulers.  "Go forth and teach all nations" does not mean "Invite all nations to be your neighbors so that eventually there will be no nations anymore!"