Poll
Question:
All things being equal, where would you be most likely to attend mass?
Option 1: Diocesan TLM
votes: 13
Option 2: SSPX
votes: 40
Option 3: SSPV
votes: 7
Option 4: CMRI
votes: 3
Option 5: FSSP
votes: 14
Option 6: ICKSP
votes: 10
Option 7: Independent
votes: 10
Option 8: Eastern Rite
votes: 11
Option 9: Gerry Matatics Living Room
votes: 1
We have a where do you attend mass poll, now a where would you attend mass poll.
Imagine that at each of these options, all the priests are orthodox and holy. So no answers like "well, it depends on which priest is a better confessor, etc." Imagine they're all St John Vianney. Imagine that you don't have to drive/walk/bus/ride more than five minutes to get to this place. Another way to phrase the question in the poll for those of you who are thinking too hard might be "if a Catholic Church was built right next to your house, which of these "groups" would you like it to be "led" by?"
Adding your major reasons for choosing what you did are a plus.
I wish we could choose multiple places, instead of just one. I would choose a few, because I would attend them. You might not get the most accurate results possible if we can only choose one. I'll bet a lot of people would pick multiple options.
I would attend SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, or Independant, and maybe FSSP if it was all I had access to, but Independant would be most likely choice.
Really? Maybe I should make a poll to see if that's the forum's consensus.
I am blessed to be able to attend what my first preference is: SSPX
IF Paul VI or JP II are "canonized" my preference will change to SSPV, CMRI or some other sedevacantist chapel/organization.
Is this biggest preference, or anywhere I would go?
Quote from: Bonaventure on December 29, 2012, 08:25:34 PM
Is this biggest preference, or anywhere I would go?
Preference.
You know, I really didn't think it was that complicated. ;D
Quote from: Mithrandylan on December 29, 2012, 08:29:24 PM
Quote from: Bonaventure on December 29, 2012, 08:25:34 PM
Is this biggest preference, or anywhere I would go?
Preference.
You know, I really didn't think it was that complicated. ;D
Gerry Matatics garage.
You can add the IBP there too.
I most identify with the Society of St Pius X.
Looks like SSPX-SO has been forgotten again...
Quote from: tmw89 on December 29, 2012, 10:11:00 PM
Looks like SSPX-SO has been forgotten again...
haha.
Maybe consider it independent.
I honestly don't know how to answer this.
I mean, I mostly agree with the "SSPX-SO", but that's such a dumb name.
I don't know, Eastern I guess. Depends on the rite/parish.
Don't have a group I fully sympathize with anymore. The IBP interested me, but then all that fighting broke out and I don't know what to think anymore.
Who is this Gerry Matatics?
Well, it's a long story. He was a Protestant, converted, was a mainstream traditionalist for awhile, then switched to Culkinism and now believes he's about the only real Catholic left in the world. Up there with Bawden and the Dimonds in the think-yourself-into-a-box hall of fame.
Quote from: beagle on December 30, 2012, 01:28:29 AM
Well, it's a long story. He was a Protestant, converted, was a mainstream traditionalist for awhile, then switched to Culkinism and now believes he's about the only real Catholic left in the world.
Ha - never seen it referred to like that.
Quote from: beagle on December 30, 2012, 01:28:29 AMUp there with Bawden and the Dimonds in the think-yourself-into-a-box hall of fame.
All three are bad, but in varying degrees - sort of like some people drowning in the shallow end of the pool, and others in the deep :P
Culkinism. That's excellent!
If all things really WERE equal, I would attend a Diocesan TLM. By equal I mean:
1. Access to all the sacraments in the traditional form including confession and confirmation.
2. Traditional leadership (going beyond the parish pastor).
3. A Church that was not "wreckovatd" and was wholly dedicated to the TLM.
All things equal I would choose to go to Divine Liturgy at an eastern rite parish. The Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is beautiful. We were rejected by the heretic pastor at our local Ruthenian parish.
Culkinism?
Quote from: Roland Deschain on December 30, 2012, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: MilesChristi on December 30, 2012, 12:01:03 PM
Culkinism?
Macaulay Culkin of Home Alone fame.
I Googled culkinism and it took me a while of skimming past references to Macaulay before i made the connection.
If all the priests were orthodox and traditional, saying the TLM then I think we would all want to attend our local diocesan mass, as most did before the crisis.
However, if we're merely taking distance and travel out of the equation then I would like to be able to attend the Society every weekend. No question.
Quote from: LouisIX on December 30, 2012, 02:53:59 PM
If all the priests were orthodox and traditional, saying the TLM then I think we would all want to attend our local diocesan mass, as most did before the crisis.
However, if we're merely taking distance and travel out of the equation then I would like to be able to attend the Society every weekend. No question.
So that is SSPX as opposed to SSPX-SO, then? ;D
Diocesan TLM or Eastern Rite. These would be similar to traditional Parish life, and I think that is important.
I have seen some IPB Priests in TV but I don't know much about them. Anyone has some info to share about them?
What's the SO stand for in SSPX-SO?
SSPX Strict Observance.
Thanks Mith!
I've seen the label SSPX SO before but I still don't understand - I'm guessing it has something to do with the whole "talks with Rome"?
Is SO = against joining modernist Rome? If so, then that's me.
Quote from: Stubborn on December 30, 2012, 08:03:33 PM
Thanks Mith!
I've seen the label SSPX SO before but I still don't understand - I'm guessing it has something to do with the whole "talks with Rome"?
Is SO = against joining modernist Rome? If so, then that's me.
It's the group associated with Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal down in Boston, KY after they were expelled.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on December 30, 2012, 08:07:21 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on December 30, 2012, 08:03:33 PM
Thanks Mith!
I've seen the label SSPX SO before but I still don't understand - I'm guessing it has something to do with the whole "talks with Rome"?
Is SO = against joining modernist Rome? If so, then that's me.
It's the group associated with Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal down in Boston, KY after they were expelled.
They've branded themselves "Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance" for legal reasons.
SSPV or CMRI, I would if needs be in the past have gone to an SSPX but now, after the SSPX's goofball talks with the Roman modernist heretics and the impending Beatification of JPII (Maciel Marciel anyone) I will never attend there Masses again.
I lul'd at Gerry Matatics living room. ;D
I put Diocesan TLM before I realized where WOULD we go was the question. If I had my way, it would be SSPX, but diocesan TLM for now.
Quote from: beagle on December 30, 2012, 01:28:29 AM
Well, it's a long story. He was a Protestant, converted, was a mainstream traditionalist for awhile, then switched to Culkinism and now believes he's about the only real Catholic left in the world. Up there with Bawden and the Dimonds in the think-yourself-into-a-box hall of fame.
So he says that he is the last Catholic left? Maybe we can get him to turn the lights out when he leaves the room.
What is Culkism?
I would say Independent, with CMRI a close second. Really, for me, it could go either way.
Joe
Quote from: poche on December 31, 2012, 11:30:22 PM
What is Culkism?
being a Home Aloner it seems (because the true mass/ true Church is in hiding)
Quote from: poche on December 31, 2012, 11:30:22 PM
What is Culkism?
People gave a brief explanation above, but it's a reference to Macauly Culkin, a former child actor who is most known for his lead role in the 1990s movie
Home Alone. Hence, culkinism is a (newly coined?) humorous term for the belief that one does not have access to a valid Mass and thus chooses to stay home on Sundays.
Quote from: Penelope on January 01, 2013, 07:45:22 PM
Quote from: poche on December 31, 2012, 11:30:22 PM
What is Culkism?
People gave a brief explanation above, but it's a reference to Macauly Culkin, a former child actor who is most known for his lead role in the 1990s movie Home Alone. Hence, culkinism is a (newly coined?) humorous term for the belief that one does not have access to a valid Mass and thus chooses to stay home on Sundays.
LOL
And I'd likely pick SSPX. I guess. I like what I've seen of the SSPX when we've visited, but I haven't attended them enough on a regular basis to really say.
Talks-wise, I'll never know what to think. We don't know what Rome was offering, so how can we say? I guess I lean toward thinking that the talks were a good thing, and praying that they sewed the right seeds in the right hearts and minds in Rome.
Eastern Rite only. If I have to go to a Western rite church, Anglican Ordinariate if at all possible. If that's not available, probably FSSP. I don't know that I could go anywhere else in good conscience.
Quote from: Melkite on January 03, 2013, 04:48:43 PM
Eastern Rite only. If I have to go to a Western rite church, Anglican Ordinariate if at all possible. If that's not available, probably FSSP. I don't know that I could go anywhere else in good conscience.
How do you mean and how come?
Quote from: Kaesekopf on January 03, 2013, 06:19:10 PM
Quote from: Melkite on January 03, 2013, 04:48:43 PM
Eastern Rite only. If I have to go to a Western rite church, Anglican Ordinariate if at all possible. If that's not available, probably FSSP. I don't know that I could go anywhere else in good conscience.
How do you mean and how come?
Well, I can't really shake the feeling that they are all schismatics. I mean, I guess I could go to an Institute parish, but they are all in the midwest, and I live on the east coast, so that isn't a realistic option. On top of the schismatic feeling, SSPX has some Latin triumphalist tendencies (I imagine SSPV, CMRI and related groups are the same, though I haven't ever seen any instances of it personally) and, imo, they take parts of the New Testament out of context and insist upon things as truly Catholic that are actually contrary to the Gospel (as far as I can tell). I couldn't give you examples off the top of my head, I'm just going by the internal reactions I remember having after reading things in the past.
Oh! Heh. I guess I need to pay attention to poll options. I thought you meant other TLMs and the NO. And I was confused.
Derp derp derp.
Quote from: Melkite on January 03, 2013, 09:33:07 PMI mean, I guess I could go to an Institute parish, but they are all in the midwest, and I live on the east coast, so that isn't a realistic option.
FWIW, there's an ICKSP chapel in North Jersey.
Quote from: Penelope on January 03, 2013, 10:05:52 PM
FWIW, there's an ICKSP chapel in North Jersey.
I live in the Baltimore area, but thanks for the heads up :)
Quote from: Melkite on January 03, 2013, 09:33:07 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on January 03, 2013, 06:19:10 PM
Quote from: Melkite on January 03, 2013, 04:48:43 PM
Eastern Rite only. If I have to go to a Western rite church, Anglican Ordinariate if at all possible. If that's not available, probably FSSP. I don't know that I could go anywhere else in good conscience.
How do you mean and how come?
Well, I can't really shake the feeling that they are all schismatics. I mean, I guess I could go to an Institute parish, but they are all in the midwest, and I live on the east coast, so that isn't a realistic option. On top of the schismatic feeling, SSPX has some Latin triumphalist tendencies (I imagine SSPV, CMRI and related groups are the same, though I haven't ever seen any instances of it personally) and, imo, they take parts of the New Testament out of context and insist upon things as truly Catholic that are actually contrary to the Gospel (as far as I can tell). I couldn't give you examples off the top of my head, I'm just going by the internal reactions I remember having after reading things in the past.
The Eastern Rite should not differ in theology. If they are taking more Eastern Orthodox ways of thinking, that needs to be addressed.
I carry water for the Institute.
Quote from: Dusty Bottoms on January 04, 2013, 04:12:01 PM
I carry water for the Institute.
Finally get one of you guys up in here, lol.
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on January 04, 2013, 03:00:00 PM
The Eastern Rite should not differ in theology. If they are taking more Eastern Orthodox ways of thinking, that needs to be addressed.
Do you mean on actual doctrines individually, or the mindset behind them? I think it is more important to say that if either Catholic or Orthodox theology is taking a way of thinking contrary to the Gospel, then that needs to be addressed.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on January 04, 2013, 04:25:22 PM
Quote from: Dusty Bottoms on January 04, 2013, 04:12:01 PM
I carry water for the Institute.
Finally get one of you guys up in here, lol.
Please...we've already increased our numbers by 100%!
Given the wording of the poll question, I checked 'Eastern Rite' since I am, juridically, a Serbian Rite Catholic. However, things are not always equal in real life and I would rank my preferences as follows: 1) Eastern DL, 2) any 'una cum' TLM, 3) NO.
Quote from: jovan66102 on January 05, 2013, 11:13:44 AM
Given the wording of the poll question, I checked 'Eastern Rite' since I am, juridically, a Serbian Rite Catholic. However, things are not always equal in real life and I would rank my preferences as follows: 1) Eastern DL, 2) any 'una cum' TLM, 3) NO.
What is an una cum tlm?
Quote from: Melkite on January 05, 2013, 11:36:41 AM
Quote from: jovan66102 on January 05, 2013, 11:13:44 AM
Given the wording of the poll question, I checked 'Eastern Rite' since I am, juridically, a Serbian Rite Catholic. However, things are not always equal in real life and I would rank my preferences as follows: 1) Eastern DL, 2) any 'una cum' TLM, 3) NO.
What is an una cum tlm?
A Mass in which the Holy Father is prayed for by name. in other words a 'non-sede' Mass.
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on January 04, 2013, 03:00:00 PM
Quote from: Melkite on January 03, 2013, 09:33:07 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on January 03, 2013, 06:19:10 PM
Quote from: Melkite on January 03, 2013, 04:48:43 PM
Eastern Rite only. If I have to go to a Western rite church, Anglican Ordinariate if at all possible. If that's not available, probably FSSP. I don't know that I could go anywhere else in good conscience.
How do you mean and how come?
Well, I can't really shake the feeling that they are all schismatics. I mean, I guess I could go to an Institute parish, but they are all in the midwest, and I live on the east coast, so that isn't a realistic option. On top of the schismatic feeling, SSPX has some Latin triumphalist tendencies (I imagine SSPV, CMRI and related groups are the same, though I haven't ever seen any instances of it personally) and, imo, they take parts of the New Testament out of context and insist upon things as truly Catholic that are actually contrary to the Gospel (as far as I can tell). I couldn't give you examples off the top of my head, I'm just going by the internal reactions I remember having after reading things in the past.
The Eastern Rite should not differ in theology. If they are taking more Eastern Orthodox ways of thinking, that needs to be addressed.
The Sui Iuris Churches of the East do and should differ in their particular theology which has grown organically since the time of the Apostles. The various Rites of the Church in all their various ways of approaching Christ are of equal dignity. The Eastern Catholic Churches are not Latin scholasticism dressed up in Byzantine vestments.
Of course if you are speaking of the real issues that divide us from the Eastern Orthodox churches such as papal primacy and toleration of artificial BC then you are of course correct.
This has also already been addressed by Pope Leo XIII in Orientalium Dignitas:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13orient.htm
"We have begun to have hope, We are fostering it because its realization would be a great cause for joy, and, it is a fact, We are pursuing more strenuously this work so profitable for the salvation of many. Our goal is to discharge to the utmost degree whatever may be hoped for from the prudent direction of the Apostolic See. The reasons for rivalry and suspicion must be removed; then the fullest energies can be marshaled for reconciliation.
We consider this of paramount importance to preserving the integrity proper to the discipline of the Eastern Churches. For Our part, We have ever rendered extreme attention and concern for this endeavor. In this vein, We have already given instructions for establishing schools to form young clerics of their nationalities. We shall give a like instruction for erecting other institutes. In them the students will cultivate their rites with the greatest devotion, observe them, and have full knowledge of their usages. In point of fact there is more importance than can be believed in preserving the Eastern rites.
Their antiquity is august, it is what gives nobility to the different rites, it is a brilliant jewel for the whole Church, it confirms the God-given unity of the Catholic Faith."
Right. There is a mushy middle of semi-orthodox out there that seem to take things further than that. I run into them now and then, and always feel like giving them each a fat e-lip. I don't know why some of them still claim to be Catholic.
I suppose it's like how we have semi-prots in the west.
Quote from: Roland Deschain on January 05, 2013, 12:35:39 PM
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on January 04, 2013, 03:00:00 PM
Quote from: Melkite on January 03, 2013, 09:33:07 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on January 03, 2013, 06:19:10 PM
Quote from: Melkite on January 03, 2013, 04:48:43 PM
Eastern Rite only. If I have to go to a Western rite church, Anglican Ordinariate if at all possible. If that's not available, probably FSSP. I don't know that I could go anywhere else in good conscience.
How do you mean and how come?
Well, I can't really shake the feeling that they are all schismatics. I mean, I guess I could go to an Institute parish, but they are all in the midwest, and I live on the east coast, so that isn't a realistic option. On top of the schismatic feeling, SSPX has some Latin triumphalist tendencies (I imagine SSPV, CMRI and related groups are the same, though I haven't ever seen any instances of it personally) and, imo, they take parts of the New Testament out of context and insist upon things as truly Catholic that are actually contrary to the Gospel (as far as I can tell). I couldn't give you examples off the top of my head, I'm just going by the internal reactions I remember having after reading things in the past.
The Eastern Rite should not differ in theology. If they are taking more Eastern Orthodox ways of thinking, that needs to be addressed.
The Sui Iuris Churches of the East do and should differ in their particular theology which has grown organically since the time of the Apostles. The various Rites of the Church in all their various ways of approaching Christ are of equal dignity. The Eastern Catholic Churches are not Latin scholasticism dressed up in Byzantine vestments.
Of course if you are speaking of the real issues that divide us from the Eastern Orthodox churches such as papal primacy and toleration of artificial BC then you are of course correct.
This has also already been addressed by Pope Leo XIII in Orientalium Dignitas:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13orient.htm
"We have begun to have hope, We are fostering it because its realization would be a great cause for joy, and, it is a fact, We are pursuing more strenuously this work so profitable for the salvation of many. Our goal is to discharge to the utmost degree whatever may be hoped for from the prudent direction of the Apostolic See. The reasons for rivalry and suspicion must be removed; then the fullest energies can be marshaled for reconciliation. We consider this of paramount importance to preserving the integrity proper to the discipline of the Eastern Churches. For Our part, We have ever rendered extreme attention and concern for this endeavor. In this vein, We have already given instructions for establishing schools to form young clerics of their nationalities. We shall give a like instruction for erecting other institutes. In them the students will cultivate their rites with the greatest devotion, observe them, and have full knowledge of their usages. In point of fact there is more importance than can be believed in preserving the Eastern rites. Their antiquity is august, it is what gives nobility to the different rites, it is a brilliant jewel for the whole Church, it confirms the God-given unity of the Catholic Faith."
The issue is that the last 1000 years of schism and even heresy havd obscured true eastern theology for pseudo-eastern, anti western theology.
And discipline is not theology, at least not how I meant it. Yes, the Eastern Rites will (rightly, no pun intended) do things their own way -- communion of infants, married priests, etc. But their THEOLOGY of the Eucharist, of Holy Orders, of Marriage should be the same, no?
It's substantially the same as our.
I'd be equally inclined to go to both Diocesan and SSPX. I've been leaning a bit more towards the SSPX lately, though.
My preference is Independent, then SSPX, then SSPV. I will go to so-called 'una cum' TLMs.
I chose SSPV.
Although, CMRI came in at a very close second.
This seems like a good thread to bump, considering everything that has gone on in the last few years.
Where would you go to mass now?
Quote from: Patriarch on February 11, 2013, 12:14:08 AM
Although, CMRI came in at a very close second.
The sspv and the cmri are mortal enemies. You are talking no mans land.
Quote from: Roland Deschain on December 29, 2012, 08:24:41 PM
I am blessed to be able to attend what my first preference is: SSPX
IF Paul VI or JP II are "canonized" my preference will change to SSPV, CMRI or some other sedevacantist chapel/organization.
Since it did end happening (for both), I wonder if he changed parishes.
Quote from: ThreeKings on September 23, 2018, 02:54:32 PM
This seems like a good thread to bump, considering everything that has gone on in the last few years.
Where would you go to mass now?
Answer to that question is decided by my spiritual director. Independents and CMRI are out, because they're SV. Probably SSPV, too. Can't go to Resistance either, he says.
Can go to:
SSPX
FSSP
ICKSP
Diocesan TLM
+ Eastern rite Catholic Masses (but I'm not interested).
So that leaves the above 4 among my choices.
Quote from: Philip G. on September 23, 2018, 02:57:59 PM
The sspv and the cmri are mortal enemies. You are talking no mans land.
Probably. However, I no longer attend either. I attend Melkite or Maronite Catholic Divine Liturgies.
I tried a Byzantine Rite in Dayton Oh a couple of times but I could never figure out what was going on and all the bell ringing drove me crazy I then they would give communion out a second time when we were leaving Mass.
That was 'Antidoron', Blessed Bread. Antidoron is not the Blessed Eucharist. Part of the Prosphora (or loaf from which the Eucharist is confected) is reserved to be consecrated into the Precious Body-and-Blood of Our Blessed Saviour Jesus; the other portion is reserved as Antidoron for those unable to partake of the Blessed Sacrament and for those who have received so as to ensure the Sacrament isn't stuck in one's mouth, basically). :)
Quote from: Patriarch on September 23, 2018, 06:55:12 PM
That was 'Antidoron', Blessed Bread. Antidoron is not the Blessed Eucharist. Part of the Prosphora (or loaf from which the Eucharist is confected) is reserved to be consecrated into the Precious Body-and-Blood of Our Blessed Saviour Jesus; the other portion is reserved as Antidoron for those unable to partake of the Blessed Sacrament and for those who have received so as to ensure the Sacrament isn't stuck in one's mouth, basically). :)
I thought the antidoron was just there to make the lucky loser not feel so bad. By lucky loser I mean the lady who baked bread that was rejected, because I understand the clergy has bread baked by multiple parties from whom they select the best.
Quote from: Miriam_M on September 23, 2018, 05:57:51 PM
Quote from: ThreeKings on September 23, 2018, 02:54:32 PM
This seems like a good thread to bump, considering everything that has gone on in the last few years.
Where would you go to mass now?
Answer to that question is decided by my spiritual director. Independents and CMRI are out, because they're SV. Probably SSPV, too. Can't go to Resistance either, he says. Can go to:
SSPX
FSSP
ICKSP
Diocesan TLM
+ Eastern rite Catholic Masses (but I'm not interested).
So that leaves the above 4 among my choices.
Interesting.
My spiritual director says not to attend any of the 4 on your list. And, since I am Roman rite, not eastern, I should only attend Eastern if I have absolutely no other choice.
As for the resistance, both "camps" are problematic. One is a heretical cult, full of perverts, laicized priests, "lay exorcist", and a non-bishop. The other is so secretive, at least in the USA, I can never find a mass, although I would attend.
Independent is great. There are many who are not Sedevecanti. Problems with independent are 1. You really have to investigate their lineage and 2. There is no accountability.
I would go sedevecanti before going to any on your list of 4, but I would have to investigate prior to attending.
I would never attend duarte-costa lineage, as someone here suggested. That line is absolutely NOT Catholic.
Thuc lineage is o.k. but have to investigate. Can only be from one of the last 4 he consecrated, no nutjobs, and no sedevecanti. I don't have a problem with sedeprivation, though, as it is becoming harder and harder to believe Pope Francis is the leader of Our Lord's Church on Earth.
Such terrible times in which we live...
Lord have mercy.
ThreeKings,
Good to know that some Independents are not Sedevacanti. I think my priest would want to make sure that such an Independent had received faculties from the bishop to hear Confessions, or had not lost his faculties if he stays within the same diocese.
We have some priests in our region whom we could call unaffiliated, but that was not my understanding of what an Independent is. (I could have a faulty understanding.) The unaffiliated near me have left their N.O. parishes, having become fed up with the N.O. in general, including the diocesan priorities and their former roles and limitations within it. These men are committed to the TLM but have left their dioceses and now lead small parishes or segments of parishes who want to attend the TLM. These priests I would not necessarily call radically traditionalist (that is, they were not formed in Tradition), but I have noticed that priests who break away from their dioceses and from the N.O. become increasingly disillusioned by Conciliarism and the entire diocesan structure/politics and convert steadily to Tradition.
To a man, priests who exclusively celebrate the TLM report that it changes their priesthood profoundly. Often that change includes conversion to traditional doctrine and spirituality, which are really inseparable from liturgy (properly understood), anyway.
Quote from: Miriam_M on September 24, 2018, 10:44:31 AM
ThreeKings,
Good to know that some Independents are not Sedevacanti. I think my priest would want to make sure that such an Independent had received faculties from the bishop to hear Confessions, or had not lost his faculties if he stays within the same diocese.
We have some priests in our region whom we could call unaffiliated, but that was not my understanding of what an Independent is. (I could have a faulty understanding.) The unaffiliated near me have left their N.O. parishes, having become fed up with the N.O. in general, including the diocesan priorities and their former roles and limitations within it. These men are committed to the TLM but have left their dioceses and now lead small parishes or segments of parishes who want to attend the TLM. These priests I would not necessarily call radically traditionalist (that is, they were not formed in Tradition), but I have noticed that priests who break away from their dioceses and from the N.O. become increasingly disillusioned by Conciliarism and the entire diocesan structure/politics and convert steadily to Tradition.
To a man, priests who exclusively celebrate the TLM report that it changes their priesthood profoundly. Often that change includes conversion to traditional doctrine and spirituality, which are really inseparable from liturgy (properly understood), anyway.
Yes, as far as independent, you have to make sure there is nothing bad surrounding the reason for them becoming independent.
I have never heard the term "unaffiliated". All the independent priests I know have been properly ordained and are under a legitimate bishop, whether in the bishop's diocese or not. I believe many independent priests consider themselves missionaries, as the SSPX was formed to be, thus not needing a local bishops' approval to administer any sacrament.
Maybe "unaffiliated" refers to those priests who have no bishop they report to? I call them "rouge". I would not attend such a mass, as canon law dictates that every priest have a superior.
Quote from: ThreeKings on September 24, 2018, 12:50:51 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on September 24, 2018, 10:44:31 AM
ThreeKings,
Good to know that some Independents are not Sedevacanti. I think my priest would want to make sure that such an Independent had received faculties from the bishop to hear Confessions, or had not lost his faculties if he stays within the same diocese.
We have some priests in our region whom we could call unaffiliated, but that was not my understanding of what an Independent is. (I could have a faulty understanding.) The unaffiliated near me have left their N.O. parishes, having become fed up with the N.O. in general, including the diocesan priorities and their former roles and limitations within it. These men are committed to the TLM but have left their dioceses and now lead small parishes or segments of parishes who want to attend the TLM. These priests I would not necessarily call radically traditionalist (that is, they were not formed in Tradition), but I have noticed that priests who break away from their dioceses and from the N.O. become increasingly disillusioned by Conciliarism and the entire diocesan structure/politics and convert steadily to Tradition.
To a man, priests who exclusively celebrate the TLM report that it changes their priesthood profoundly. Often that change includes conversion to traditional doctrine and spirituality, which are really inseparable from liturgy (properly understood), anyway.
Yes, as far as independent, you have to make sure there is nothing bad surrounding the reason for them becoming independent.
I have never heard the term "unaffiliated". All the independent priests I know have been properly ordained and are under a legitimate bishop, whether in the bishop's diocese or not. I believe many independent priests consider themselves missionaries, as the SSPX was formed to be, thus not needing a local bishops' approval to administer any sacrament.
Maybe "unaffiliated" refers to those priests who have no bishop they report to? I call them "rouge". I would not attend such a mass, as canon law dictates that every priest have a superior.
There are typically 4 orders that are referred to as Mendicants and they are the Order of Preachers, the Friars Minor, the Carmelites, and the Hermits of St. Augustine. Successively other congregations obtained the privilege of the mendicants.
On the other hand the Church appreciated the work of the new orders and exempted them from the jurisdiction of the bishops, granting them extensive faculties for preaching and hearing, confessions, together with the right of burial in their own churches, rights reserved hitherto to the secular clergy.
So unless one is a member of a Mendicant order you are not exempt from needing a local Bishop for faculties. But even a mendicant requires an Abbot for faculties.
Having said that , most of the independents I know attach themselves to a Bishop without Ordinary Jurisdiction and they do this for accountability and Confirmation as they serve no other purpose.
I just want a mass in a traditional rite from someone who isn't an obvious effeminate heresiarch. I'm an infrequent communicant in this tumultuous time, so it's not that; if I get it wrong about presumed validity at a TLM, well, that's a blow, but I'm more worried about valid confessions, to be honest.
I couldn't be bothered about who or whose organisation may or may not be schismatic heretics or whatever. God hasn't afforded me the knowledge of what is really going on and who is or isn't whatever, so bother that, if he wasnt me to avoid whatever, he can tell me or be done with it. :pray3:
Quote from: ThreeKings on September 24, 2018, 12:50:51 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on September 24, 2018, 10:44:31 AM
ThreeKings,
Good to know that some Independents are not Sedevacanti. I think my priest would want to make sure that such an Independent had received faculties from the bishop to hear Confessions, or had not lost his faculties if he stays within the same diocese.
We have some priests in our region whom we could call unaffiliated, but that was not my understanding of what an Independent is. (I could have a faulty understanding.) The unaffiliated near me have left their N.O. parishes, having become fed up with the N.O. in general, including the diocesan priorities and their former roles and limitations within it. These men are committed to the TLM but have left their dioceses and now lead small parishes or segments of parishes who want to attend the TLM. These priests I would not necessarily call radically traditionalist (that is, they were not formed in Tradition), but I have noticed that priests who break away from their dioceses and from the N.O. become increasingly disillusioned by Conciliarism and the entire diocesan structure/politics and convert steadily to Tradition.
To a man, priests who exclusively celebrate the TLM report that it changes their priesthood profoundly. Often that change includes conversion to traditional doctrine and spirituality, which are really inseparable from liturgy (properly understood), anyway.
Yes, as far as independent, you have to make sure there is nothing bad surrounding the reason for them becoming independent.
I have never heard the term "unaffiliated". All the independent priests I know have been properly ordained and are under a legitimate bishop, whether in the bishop's diocese or not. I believe many independent priests consider themselves missionaries, as the SSPX was formed to be, thus not needing a local bishops' approval to administer any sacrament.
Maybe "unaffiliated" refers to those priests who have no bishop they report to? I call them "rouge". I would not attend such a mass, as canon law dictates that every priest have a superior.
Thank you for your clarification. (I think you mean "rogue.")
These priests do have bishops to report to, so in that sense, yes, they are indeed affiliated. I think when I heard the term, it referred to not affiliated formally with a parish but merely operating legitimately within that parish. (No appointed role on the parish level, but permission to celebrate the Traditional Mass in that church location on a regular schedule.)
My liturgical survival list by order of preference:
1. Any TLM;
2. Any Byzantine liturgy;
3. Any bearable NO;
4. High church Anglican or Lutheran.
For instance, I was recently in Constantinople and attended a Spanish-speaking NO in St. Maria Draperis, run by Franciscans. It was pretty banal but it was the best I could manage. I couldn't make it to the Eastern Orthodox mass on time.
1. Byzantine rite (as authentic and delatinized as possible)
2. FSSP (and Orthodox for vespers and matins)
3. Diocesan TLM (and Orthodox for vespers and matins)
4. SSPX (if I'm on my deathbed and it's the only thing around)
5. Orthodox (if I'm on my deathbed and there's no Catholic priest around)
6. Rely on Christ's mercy and hope for perfect contrition
1. SSPX
2. Byzantine
3. SSPV(sorry, Elizabeth!)
4. CMRI
5. FSSP and other approved priestly societies, if I can ascertain whether the priests were ordained by a Bishop consecrated in the Old Rite.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 24, 2018, 04:52:34 PM
My liturgical survival list by order of preference:
1. Any TLM;
2. Any Byzantine liturgy;
3. Any bearable NO;
4. High church Anglican or Lutheran.
For instance, I was recently in Constantinople and attended a Spanish-speaking NO in St. Maria Draperis, run by Franciscans. It was pretty banal but it was the best I could manage. I couldn't make it to the Eastern Orthodox mass on time.
High Church Anglican or Lutheran? Please explain. Those are heretical sects. It is my understanding that we sin by the tacit approval our presence at those liturgies speaiks. Am I wrong? I believed that even in emergency we are not to make use of them, due to no consecration, and no true priestly apostolic succession. Not trying to argue anyone's choices, just want to understand.
Quote from: Miriam_M on September 24, 2018, 02:23:59 PM
Quote from: ThreeKings on September 24, 2018, 12:50:51 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on September 24, 2018, 10:44:31 AM
ThreeKings,
Good to know that some Independents are not Sedevacanti. I think my priest would want to make sure that such an Independent had received faculties from the bishop to hear Confessions, or had not lost his faculties if he stays within the same diocese.
We have some priests in our region whom we could call unaffiliated, but that was not my understanding of what an Independent is. (I could have a faulty understanding.) The unaffiliated near me have left their N.O. parishes, having become fed up with the N.O. in general, including the diocesan priorities and their former roles and limitations within it. These men are committed to the TLM but have left their dioceses and now lead small parishes or segments of parishes who want to attend the TLM. These priests I would not necessarily call radically traditionalist (that is, they were not formed in Tradition), but I have noticed that priests who break away from their dioceses and from the N.O. become increasingly disillusioned by Conciliarism and the entire diocesan structure/politics and convert steadily to Tradition.
To a man, priests who exclusively celebrate the TLM report that it changes their priesthood profoundly. Often that change includes conversion to traditional doctrine and spirituality, which are really inseparable from liturgy (properly understood), anyway.
Yes, as far as independent, you have to make sure there is nothing bad surrounding the reason for them becoming independent.
I have never heard the term "unaffiliated". All the independent priests I know have been properly ordained and are under a legitimate bishop, whether in the bishop's diocese or not. I believe many independent priests consider themselves missionaries, as the SSPX was formed to be, thus not needing a local bishops' approval to administer any sacrament.
Maybe "unaffiliated" refers to those priests who have no bishop they report to? I call them "rouge". I would not attend such a mass, as canon law dictates that every priest have a superior.
Thank you for your clarification. (I think you mean "rogue.")
These priests do have bishops to report to, so in that sense, yes, they are indeed affiliated. I think when I heard the term, it referred to not affiliated formally with a parish but merely operating legitimately within that parish. (No appointed role on the parish level, but permission to celebrate the Traditional Mass in that church location on a regular schedule.)
Yes, thank you for correcting my auto-speller.
A priest is either of a religious order or incardinated into a specific diocese. If they are not incardinated, I do not believe they need specific approval from the diocese to say mass anywhere. However, such priests generally inform the local bishop they are in their "territory", so to speak, as a gesture. Such priests would need approval to utilize local churches but not to say mass at private chapels or homes.
So "unafiliated" seems to mean a diocesan priest who has left his diocese and was not assigned to another. If ordained legitimately, says the tridentine mass, and has a superior, i have heard them called "independent", as they are independent of any diocese.
If the same priest is admitted to a legitimate society, they become a member of that society and no longer a diocesan priest, therefore no longer independent.
That's interesting, I had never heard that about independent churches. Do you by any chance know if St. Athanasius in Vienna, VA is independent or rogue?
Quote from: sedmohradsko on September 26, 2018, 12:29:31 PM
That's interesting, I had never heard that about independent churches. Do you by any chance know if St. Athanasius in Vienna, VA is independent or rogue?
I do not know, but I feel compelled to post an eloquent Comment on their website, from a poster named Michael Mark. It's in response to a poster who objected to the parish not being "in union with Rome."
Michael Mark: "There are some who question the Catholicity of Traditional Catholic Churches who are not "in union" with the current occupants of the Vatican and its hierarchy. Understand that being "in union with Rome" and its local Ordinary currently means suborning the desecration of the Eucharist to unrepentant serial adulterers and other publicly notorious sinners. It involves silently assenting to the public Vatican support of Chinese Communist usurpers of "Catholic" clerical and hierarchical positions while throwing Cardinal Joseph Zen under the bus. "Union" entails throwing money into a Sunday collection basket that supports Lavender and St. Gallen Mafias and other deviants and Canonical criminals. It involves fidelity to Popes who kiss the Koran and pray with Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Animists, and the full spectrum of erroneous belief systems. Finally, union with Rome means worshipping in the soft indifferentism of the Modernist Vatican II liturgy, and Legion of other errors far too numerous to list here.
For those who wish to work toward their salvation and have grown tired of the revolutionary Conciliar Catholic church promulgated by Bugnini, Leinart, and other apostates, Masons, Communists, Protestants, and Jews, a Remnant of the Catholic Church exists here and sporadically throughout the world for those who seek it. To paraphrase what St. Athanasius said in the 4th century under the subjugation of the Arian heretics, they have the buildings and the positions, but we have the True Faith which cannot be taken from us."
ETA:
Quote from: Miriam_M
It's in response to a poster who objected to the parish not being "in union with Rome."
I don't mean an SD poster but a poster to the St. Athanasius Parish Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/St-Athanasius-Roman-Catholic-Church/108195962554933
I would stay away.
" One of the biggest hosts of the Resistance priests and R&R position have been the priests at St. Athanasius church which has been referred to by some as a Resistance church. Recently it has emphatically condemned R&R, publicly dropped the name Francis from the Mass and removed from the Sunday announcements the prayer request for the Pope and finally removed the name of Francis from the Church's missalettes. In addition a three-part series promoting sedeprivationism and DOGMATICALLY condemning R&R was published over three consecutive Sundays in January 2018.
Independently and concomitantly Fr. Chazal published a book with his version of sedeprivationism albeit with a different name. This was reported on Chojnowski's radtradthomist website in March 2018. It is significant because it is predicated on a dogmatic rejection of the R&R principle heresy: that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church.
Three other R&R priests (Pinaud, Rinoult and Roy) have dropped the name of Francis from the Masses over the last few years but similar to Father Ringrose they reject the totalist version of the sedevacantist position for a third option, akin to Sedeprivationism. Hence these priests are shamefully treated and shunned from their Resistance brother clergy.
Quietly Father Ortiz continues his support and assistance for the Pastor of St Athanasius Father Ringrose. It is significant because less than a year ago he asserted that one could not attend sedevacantist masses wherein the name of Francis is publicly excluded. He has always considered them schismatic. Previously Father Ortiz participated in the expulsion of Father Pinaud while now giving his silent cooperation to Fr Ringrose. Silence gives consent. If he has in truth retracted his past position let him do so publicly and offer his apologies to Fr Pinaud. If not, why does he stay in hypocrisy?" http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/04/radtrad-thomist-mentioned-in-st.html
Quote from: St.Justin on September 26, 2018, 01:50:55 PM
I would stay away.
" One of the biggest hosts of the Resistance priests and R&R position have been the priests at St. Athanasius church which has been referred to by some as a Resistance church. Recently it has emphatically condemned R&R, publicly dropped the name Francis from the Mass and removed from the Sunday announcements the prayer request for the Pope and finally removed the name of Francis from the Church's missalettes. In addition a three-part series promoting sedeprivationism and DOGMATICALLY condemning R&R was published over three consecutive Sundays in January 2018.
Independently and concomitantly Fr. Chazal published a book with his version of sedeprivationism albeit with a different name. This was reported on Chojnowski's radtradthomist website in March 2018. It is significant because it is predicated on a dogmatic rejection of the R&R principle heresy: that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church.
Three other R&R priests (Pinaud, Rinoult and Roy) have dropped the name of Francis from the Masses over the last few years but similar to Father Ringrose they reject the totalist version of the sedevacantist position for a third option, akin to Sedeprivationism. Hence these priests are shamefully treated and shunned from their Resistance brother clergy.
Quietly Father Ortiz continues his support and assistance for the Pastor of St Athanasius Father Ringrose. It is significant because less than a year ago he asserted that one could not attend sedevacantist masses wherein the name of Francis is publicly excluded. He has always considered them schismatic. Previously Father Ortiz participated in the expulsion of Father Pinaud while now giving his silent cooperation to Fr Ringrose. Silence gives consent. If he has in truth retracted his past position let him do so publicly and offer his apologies to Fr Pinaud. If not, why does he stay in hypocrisy?" http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/04/radtrad-thomist-mentioned-in-st.html
Fr. Ringrose position should be classified more simply as pessimistic. He has not dogmatically condemned R&R. He may have become privately non una cum, but I can guarantee you he is not red lighting the rest of the una cum resistance, hence he is not dogmatic. He is simply saying that we cannot pick and choose; while at the same time turning into one of those types that picks a date of the past(like 1954) to turn it into an idol. And, that will fail.
Quote from: Philip G. on September 26, 2018, 02:52:54 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on September 26, 2018, 01:50:55 PM
I would stay away.
" One of the biggest hosts of the Resistance priests and R&R position have been the priests at St. Athanasius church which has been referred to by some as a Resistance church. Recently it has emphatically condemned R&R, publicly dropped the name Francis from the Mass and removed from the Sunday announcements the prayer request for the Pope and finally removed the name of Francis from the Church's missalettes. In addition a three-part series promoting sedeprivationism and DOGMATICALLY condemning R&R was published over three consecutive Sundays in January 2018.
Independently and concomitantly Fr. Chazal published a book with his version of sedeprivationism albeit with a different name. This was reported on Chojnowski's radtradthomist website in March 2018. It is significant because it is predicated on a dogmatic rejection of the R&R principle heresy: that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church.
Three other R&R priests (Pinaud, Rinoult and Roy) have dropped the name of Francis from the Masses over the last few years but similar to Father Ringrose they reject the totalist version of the sedevacantist position for a third option, akin to Sedeprivationism. Hence these priests are shamefully treated and shunned from their Resistance brother clergy.
Quietly Father Ortiz continues his support and assistance for the Pastor of St Athanasius Father Ringrose. It is significant because less than a year ago he asserted that one could not attend sedevacantist masses wherein the name of Francis is publicly excluded. He has always considered them schismatic. Previously Father Ortiz participated in the expulsion of Father Pinaud while now giving his silent cooperation to Fr Ringrose. Silence gives consent. If he has in truth retracted his past position let him do so publicly and offer his apologies to Fr Pinaud. If not, why does he stay in hypocrisy?" http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/04/radtrad-thomist-mentioned-in-st.html
Fr. Ringrose position should be classified more simply as pessimistic. He has not dogmatically condemned R&R. He may have become privately non una cum, but I can guarantee you he is not red lighting the rest of the una cum resistance, hence he is not dogmatic. He is simply saying that we cannot pick and choose. So, he is turning into one of those types that picks a date of the past(like 1954), and turns it into an idol. And, that will fail.
I was in Fr. Ringrose's parish for many years. He is most assuredly a Resistance priest.
He signed the 2012 Manifesto with the Resistance priests in August of 2012 objecting to Bp. Fellay's actions, and Fr. Ringrose regularly hosts Bp. Williamson when he comes to the D.C. area. https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-chapels/what-us-resistance-chapels-have-mass-most-regularly/
Quote from: sedmohradsko on September 26, 2018, 12:29:31 PM
That's interesting, I had never heard that about independent churches. Do you by any chance know if St. Athanasius in Vienna, VA is independent or rogue?
The terms "independent" and "rogue" I mentioned apply to priests, not churches.
I do not know Fr. Ringrose's status. Since he used to be with the SSPX, a canonically legitimate order, and left, I would guess he is now independent, unless he has been incardinated into a diocese (which i doubt) or has joined another religious order. According to tradito's mass listing, he is independent.
I do not know if he has a superior. If he does not, he is in violation of canon law, and therefore "rogue". But it sounds like +Williamson may be his superior, so he is probably fine.
Whether or not he is "non una cum," is of no consequence to you. I know for a fact there are many priests who are "non una cum", but tell no one. Does that make their mass illegitimate? No. Possibly illicit, but that is on the priest, not the laity.
I know very little about Fr. Ortiz' lineage.
I know there is much online about them both.
I would not hesitate to attend mass there.
As for "independent churches", there is no such thing. By definition, a Catholic Church is one canonically erected under the direct authority of the pope in a diocese, run by diocesan priests. A religious order, the SSPX, for example, does not have churches. They have chapels.
It is similar to people calling their independent priest their "pastor". A pastor, by definition, implies jurisdictional authority.
The SSPX has been calling their chapels "churches" and their priests "pastors", for a few years now, about the time they signed on the dotted line with Rome in 2012. (The SSPX has no jurisdictional authority, except in Argentina, where they were received into the N.O. years ago.)
These are important distinctions that most people don't pay attention to.
1. Independent
2. SSPX
3. Eastern Rite
4. FSSP or Indult only if I had no other option
I like many independent priests, but try to stick with priests that are under the authority of an order superior, or a good bishop. The independent priest is in a precarious place, there is safety in authority over onesself. To submit is an element of humility. Saying this knowing full well not all authority is holy. But authority is the established norm, in our Church. To remove yourself from the authority over you, may be essential because it is just plain evil. But to just accept the independent status without striving to find proper authority is not the way to go. These priests at times, wear that status as a badge of traditionalism. Actually there is nothing traditional about being independent. Many DO yearn for a bishop, or an order to take them in, and through no fault of their own, are not successful. God knows what they are up against.
So, a bunch of words to say independent is not my preferred status of a priest.
Quote from: Carleendiane on September 28, 2018, 09:19:14 AM
I like many independent priests, but try to stick with priests that are under the authority of an order superior, or a good bishop. The independent priest is in a precarious place, there is safety in authority over onesself. To submit is an element of humility. Saying this knowing full well not all authority is holy. But authority is the established norm, in our Church. To remove yourself from the authority over you, may be essential because it is just plain evil. But to just accept the independent status without striving to find proper authority is not the way to go. These priests at times, wear that status as a badge of traditionalism. Actually there is nothing traditional about being independent. Many DO yearn for a bishop, or an order to take them in, and through no fault of their own, are not successful. God knows what they are up against.
So, a bunch of words to say independent is not my preferred status of a priest.
According to canon law, all priests must have a superior.
There is good reason for this. Any priest without a superior to report to or ground him, is not independent, but rogue, and they often become ill in the head (as Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer et al.)
It IS fault of their own if they do not have a superior, because not only is a priest supposed to follow canon law, but a priest does not have to agree with everything his superior teaches.
Nor is it up to the laity to define "good" bishop, except in regards to his lineage. The rest is the SOLE responsibility of the priest, just as the decision to ordain this or that person a priest is a the SOLE responsibility of a bishop.
A priest is "independent" if he is not incardinated into a diocese nor part of a religious order, but he DOES have a superior.
Quote from: ThreeKings on September 28, 2018, 12:40:51 PM
Quote from: Carleendiane on September 28, 2018, 09:19:14 AM
I like many independent priests, but try to stick with priests that are under the authority of an order superior, or a good bishop. The independent priest is in a precarious place, there is safety in authority over onesself. To submit is an element of humility. Saying this knowing full well not all authority is holy. But authority is the established norm, in our Church. To remove yourself from the authority over you, may be essential because it is just plain evil. But to just accept the independent status without striving to find proper authority is not the way to go. These priests at times, wear that status as a badge of traditionalism. Actually there is nothing traditional about being independent. Many DO yearn for a bishop, or an order to take them in, and through no fault of their own, are not successful. God knows what they are up against.
So, a bunch of words to say independent is not my preferred status of a priest.
I would argue that this summation is incorrect as a "superior " is the cases you refer to means someone with Ordinary Jurisdiction or the "superior" would have no Church authority over anyone. So I would say that anyone, Bishop or Priest, outside of the normal Church structure of Ordinary Jurisdiction is in reality operating in a totally independent manner. On the other hand the term Rogue has very dark and sinister connotations, such as a rogue bull elephant.
According to canon law, all priests must have a superior.
There is good reason for this. Any priest without a superior to report to or ground him, is not independent, but rogue, and they often become ill in the head (as Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer et al.)
It IS fault of their own if they do not have a superior, because not only is a priest supposed to follow canon law, but a priest does not have to agree with everything his superior teaches.
Nor is it up to the laity to define "good" bishop, except in regards to his lineage. The rest is the SOLE responsibility of the priest, just as the decision to ordain this or that person a priest is a the SOLE responsibility of a bishop.
A priest is "independent" if he is not incardinated into a diocese nor part of a religious order, but he DOES have a superior.
Quote from: St.Justin on September 28, 2018, 01:09:56 PM
Quote from: ThreeKings on September 28, 2018, 12:40:51 PM
Quote from: Carleendiane on September 28, 2018, 09:19:14 AM
I like many independent priests, but try to stick with priests that are under the authority of an order superior, or a good bishop. The independent priest is in a precarious place, there is safety in authority over onesself. To submit is an element of humility. Saying this knowing full well not all authority is holy. But authority is the established norm, in our Church. To remove yourself from the authority over you, may be essential because it is just plain evil. But to just accept the independent status without striving to find proper authority is not the way to go. These priests at times, wear that status as a badge of traditionalism. Actually there is nothing traditional about being independent. Many DO yearn for a bishop, or an order to take them in, and through no fault of their own, are not successful. God knows what they are up against.
So, a bunch of words to say independent is not my preferred status of a priest.
I would argue that this summation is incorrect as a "superior " is the cases you refer to means someone with Ordinary Jurisdiction or the "superior" would have no Church authority over anyone. So I would say that anyone, Bishop or Priest, outside of the normal Church structure of Ordinary Jurisdiction is in reality operating in a totally independent manner. On the other hand the term Rogue has very dark and sinister connotations, such as a rogue bull elephant.
According to canon law, all priests must have a superior.
There is good reason for this. Any priest without a superior to report to or ground him, is not independent, but rogue, and they often become ill in the head (as Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer et al.)
It IS fault of their own if they do not have a superior, because not only is a priest supposed to follow canon law, but a priest does not have to agree with everything his superior teaches.
Nor is it up to the laity to define "good" bishop, except in regards to his lineage. The rest is the SOLE responsibility of the priest, just as the decision to ordain this or that person a priest is a the SOLE responsibility of a bishop.
A priest is "independent" if he is not incardinated into a diocese nor part of a religious order, but he DOES have a superior.
This might clarify things for you a bit on this topic:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htm
Quote from: ThreeKings on September 28, 2018, 03:51:11 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on September 28, 2018, 01:09:56 PM
Quote from: ThreeKings on September 28, 2018, 12:40:51 PM
Quote from: Carleendiane on September 28, 2018, 09:19:14 AM
I like many independent priests, but try to stick with priests that are under the authority of an order superior, or a good bishop. The independent priest is in a precarious place, there is safety in authority over onesself. To submit is an element of humility. Saying this knowing full well not all authority is holy. But authority is the established norm, in our Church. To remove yourself from the authority over you, may be essential because it is just plain evil. But to just accept the independent status without striving to find proper authority is not the way to go. These priests at times, wear that status as a badge of traditionalism. Actually there is nothing traditional about being independent. Many DO yearn for a bishop, or an order to take them in, and through no fault of their own, are not successful. God knows what they are up against.
So, a bunch of words to say independent is not my preferred status of a priest.
I would argue that this summation is incorrect as a "superior " is the cases you refer to means someone with Ordinary Jurisdiction or the "superior" would have no Church authority over anyone. So I would say that anyone, Bishop or Priest, outside of the normal Church structure of Ordinary Jurisdiction is in reality operating in a totally independent manner. On the other hand the term Rogue has very dark and sinister connotations, such as a rogue bull elephant.
According to canon law, all priests must have a superior.
There is good reason for this. Any priest without a superior to report to or ground him, is not independent, but rogue, and they often become ill in the head (as Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer et al.)
It IS fault of their own if they do not have a superior, because not only is a priest supposed to follow canon law, but a priest does not have to agree with everything his superior teaches.
Nor is it up to the laity to define "good" bishop, except in regards to his lineage. The rest is the SOLE responsibility of the priest, just as the decision to ordain this or that person a priest is a the SOLE responsibility of a bishop.
A priest is "independent" if he is not incardinated into a diocese nor part of a religious order, but he DOES have a superior.
This might clarify things for you a bit on this topic:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htm
Supplied Jurisdiction applies only in the administration of a Sacrament and at a very specific time and place . It is not always and everywhere. So it does not apply in your usage of a "superior".
1. SSPX or FSSP
2. ICK or D-TLM
3. Eastern Rite
Those would be my traditional options in order of priority. The SSPX is in most of the cities where I've worked so it hasn't been an issue most of the time. I have been to Eastern Catholic churches every now and then, and they're ok. But I'm a Latin rite Catholic and I like going to the TLM as much as possible if I can help it. We had Mass every Saturday and Sunday and on First Fridays back in my hometown. First Friday and First Saturday Mass is very important imho. I would love to have daily TLM. We had daily TLM in the priory I attended and it was Heaven to be there for a while. Obviously, Tradition has a long way to go before we can have even frequent let alone daily Mass in many places. I think there may be as many as 10,000 possible Mass locations where faithful would be glad to have the TLM around the world if they could; unfortunately there is a shortage of Priests and vocations to meet that need. Then, we have needless "competition" and petty politics in traddieland getting in the way of the only thing it should be about: the salvation of all souls.
And for salvation, we need regular Holy Mass, frequent Holy Communion, Eucharistic adoration. Else, you are trying to fly without wings.
ICK or Diocesan TLM's are also ok. In the long run, the way forward for Tradition imho is for the TLM to begin to be said exclusively or almost exclusively in the dioceses again in the next 5-10 or at least 15 years. If we have tens of thousands of Priests worldwide saying the TLM at least on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, that will be a huge step forward for the faithful.
The diocesan Mass is a 15 min journey by car or bike, the SSPX chapel is an hour. The diocesan PP is extraordinarily skilled in singing Masses, also he and his assistants preach homilies that are clear and pointed, and of a definite length. Post Solemn High Mass teas, once a month. The SSPX priests are holy and affable men, but meandering homilies of half an hour and over, plus a problematic former sacristan (he seems to think I can accommodate when I can do no such thing), mean I go there more rarely. I do like how they sing the Office (Sext), though. Tea and talking in the hall after the main Mass, even Sunday, is good. Also the prior is a very good confessor, drawing connections between sins, which helped improve me a good deal.
Well, I have an Independent chapel a mile from home and an SSPX chapel less than 2 miles away. Diocesan TLM 6-7 miles or so.
Really wanted to go to the SSPX or the Independent, but decided not to for reasons I will not go into.
So I go to the diocesan TLM. Open 24/7 with a Perpetual Adoration Chapel, First Friday and Saturday Two Hearts devotion, and more. A true diamond in the rough as diocesan parishes go.
Edit to add: I'm about a 40-45 minute drive from OLMC in Boston, Ky but haven't been there.
1)SSPX
2)BYZANTINE, MELKITE, SYRO MALABAR, MARONITE
3) CMRI, SSPV
4) LIFE OR DEATH SITUATION: ANY CATHOLIC
Quote from: St.Justin on September 26, 2018, 05:00:05 PM
I was in Fr. Ringrose's parish for many years. He is most assuredly a Resistance priest.
He signed the 2012 Manifesto with the Resistance priests in August of 2012 objecting to Bp. Fellay's actions, and Fr. Ringrose regularly hosts Bp. Williamson when he comes to the D.C. area. https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-chapels/what-us-resistance-chapels-have-mass-most-regularly/
We were there for awhile, but left after reading Father's letter with the list of participants in the Vienna meetings. Bad apples, so not worth it. So very grateful that the M. Family got the SSPX Mission going.
Quote from: Carleendiane on September 28, 2018, 09:19:14 AM
I like many independent priests, but try to stick with priests that are under the authority of an order superior, or a good bishop. The independent priest is in a precarious place, there is safety in authority over onesself. To submit is an element of humility. Saying this knowing full well not all authority is holy. But authority is the established norm, in our Church. To remove yourself from the authority over you, may be essential because it is just plain evil. But to just accept the independent status without striving to find proper authority is not the way to go. These priests at times, wear that status as a badge of traditionalism. Actually there is nothing traditional about being independent. Many DO yearn for a bishop, or an order to take them in, and through no fault of their own, are not successful. God knows what they are up against.
So, a bunch of words to say independent is not my preferred status of a priest.
I sympathise. My favourite priest is 'sedevacantist' who I believe is most especially holy and very good man. However, I cannot, typically attend his masses unless I haven't a solid alternative.
Quote from: Carleendiane on September 28, 2018, 09:19:14 AM
I like many independent priests, but try to stick with priests that are under the authority of an order superior, or a good bishop. The independent priest is in a precarious place, there is safety in authority over onesself. To submit is an element of humility. Saying this knowing full well not all authority is holy. But authority is the established norm, in our Church. To remove yourself from the authority over you, may be essential because it is just plain evil. But to just accept the independent status without striving to find proper authority is not the way to go. These priests at times, wear that status as a badge of traditionalism. Actually there is nothing traditional about being independent. Many DO yearn for a bishop, or an order to take them in, and through no fault of their own, are not successful. God knows what they are up against.
So, a bunch of words to say independent is not my preferred status of a priest.
You may not realize that there are independent priests who have several bishops who support them.
You may be right, but your ordinary independent priest has no one over him, which may be why he is dubbed an independent priest. Or am I missing something? I really am not certain.
Thank you 3k for the link. Still feel a bit fuzzy on it. The only ones I know, referred to as independent, have no superior. So I may be jaded on this.
Lack of accountability and obedience to an active Superior has been a horrible problem in Trad circles for decades. :pray3:
Quote from: Carleendiane on November 27, 2018, 07:38:15 PM
You may be right, but your ordinary independent priest has no one over him, which may be why he is dubbed an independent priest. Or am I missing something? I really am not certain.
Thank you 3k for the link. Still feel a bit fuzzy on it. The only ones I know, referred to as independent, have no superior. So I may be jaded on this.
As you guessed, there are things you are missing.
Quote from: Elizabeth on November 28, 2018, 11:14:35 PM
Lack of accountability and obedience to an active Superior has been a horrible problem in Trad circles for decades. :pray3:
Good thing all the independent priests I know are some of the most obedient religious I know as well ;)
to?
Many independent chapels in this country receive support from SSPX or Resistance bishops when it comes to confirmations and other things requiring a bishop's assistance. The majority of independent chapels that I am familiar with have two or more full time priests laboring at the same chapel and living in the same rectory. Furthermore, quite a few independent chapels I can think of are run by boards consisting both of priests and laypersons as members. Checks and balances exist...Independent priests confess their sins to other priests every week and receive spiritual counsel just as any other priest might. "Independent" in these cases does not mean completely isolated; it merely means that they are laboring independent of the local bishop who disapproves of their orthodoxy and militancy. There are many independent chapels that I avoid entirely for various reasons, but to condemn them all wholesale for the mere fact that the priests don't answer to the local modernist bishop is ridiculous.
Solange Hertz in her book Beyond Politics pointed out that in two of the greatest trials of all time, the trial of the angels and the trial of the Jews who lived during the time of Our Lord's Passion, passing required independence from the highest authorities (excepting God). Hertz quotes Scripture and the Fathers to show that it is very likely that Lucifer held a position of authority above the other angels analogous to that of the pope's authority over Catholics. For an angel to be in "good standing" with Lucifer during the time of the trial resulted in failure for that angel and eternal hellfire. When it comes to the trial of the Jews who lived during Our Lord's hour, Caiaphas, a heretical Sadducee, was truly the high priest, recognized as such by Our Lord. To be in good standing with Caiaphas during the Passion was to be disloyal to Jesus Christ.
Which basically makes authority a self-licking ice cream cone, and superfluous, necessitating and even encouraging a Protestant ecclesiology. I don't buy it.
Quote from: Carleendiane on November 27, 2018, 07:38:15 PM
You may be right, but your ordinary independent priest has no one over him, which may be why he is dubbed an independent priest. Or am I missing something? I really am not certain.
Thank you 3k for the link. Still feel a bit fuzzy on it. The only ones I know, referred to as independent, have no superior. So I may be jaded on this.
Independent is a major problem, and they all know it.
Quote from: Elizabeth on November 30, 2018, 10:42:37 AM
Quote from: Carleendiane on November 27, 2018, 07:38:15 PM
You may be right, but your ordinary independent priest has no one over him, which may be why he is dubbed an independent priest. Or am I missing something? I really am not certain.
Thank you 3k for the link. Still feel a bit fuzzy on it. The only ones I know, referred to as independent, have no superior. So I may be jaded on this.
Independent is a major problem, and they all know it.
Which is why they don't dare offer the Rite of Exorcism, BTW.
Quote from: Elizabeth on November 30, 2018, 10:43:48 AM
Quote from: Counter Revolutionary on November 29, 2018, 07:15:40 PM
Solange Hertz
A genius IMO. R.I.P.
In a related side note:
I have a relative who wrote to Solange many many years ago to ask her what she thought about attending mass at Servants of The Holy Family (they were at an abuse filled mass in the diocese at the time) and she responded all favorably. I read the letter myself. An independent chapel by-the-way.
Quote from: Acolyte on November 20, 2018, 09:06:33 PM
Well, I have an Independent chapel a mile from home and an SSPX chapel less than 2 miles away. Diocesan TLM 6-7 miles or so.
I'd walk or bike to the Indy or SSPX chapel myself. :-) I'd do that over the 6-7 miles to the Diocesan TLM.
QuoteEdit to add: I'm about a 40-45 minute drive from OLMC in Boston, Ky but haven't been there.
Quote from: Patriarch on December 10, 2018, 06:15:44 PM
Quote from: Acolyte on November 20, 2018, 09:06:33 PM
Well, I have an Independent chapel a mile from home and an SSPX chapel less than 2 miles away. Diocesan TLM 6-7 miles or so.
I'd walk or bike to the Indy or SSPX chapel myself. :-) I'd do that over the 6-7 miles to the Diocesan TLM.
QuoteEdit to add: I'm about a 40-45 minute drive from OLMC in Boston, Ky but haven't been there.
The Indy chapel priest is one of the most humble priests I've ever met. His sermons are awesome. Chock-full of Doctrine and he presents it without moaning about the NO and VII. Solid catechesis is what you walk away with after one of his sermons.
I have mixed feelings about the pastor at my diocesan parish. Decent sermons and flawless praying of the TLM. He considers himself an ultramontanist. I'm not sure what to think of that.
The other priest there doesn't pray the TLM but his sermons are solid. Some of the weekday Mass regulars have complained about the length of his sermons during the noon Mass, but attendance has actually grown a bit since he arrived. I love his sermons. They are orthodox.
The SSPX chapel has a different priest than the one that was there when I was going there, so I can't say how it is now.
The priest that was there at the time I was going there was fine.
My diocesan parish just works for me. A diamond in the rough. They even roll the NO altar out of the way for the TLM.
It's a special place that just builds my faith stronger every time I'm there.
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2012/09/re-internment-of-two-third-century.html?m=1#.XA9YE8lOk0M
-SSPX
-FSSP
-Eastern Rite
Imagine if Tradition was united with dozens of Bishops, thousands of Priests, millions of faithful around the world all working together for Restoration. We'd definitely have it quickly.
That's what we need, though it seems impossible. Priests should try not to be independent but dependent on Bishops. The nature of sacerdotal orders itself demands it. And the way jurisdiction is usually conferred confirms it.
If someone is unjustly expelled by his Bishop, as happened in the first days and still sometimes happens today, the best thing would be to join a traditional order of Priests (I'd always recommend SSPX) as quickly as reasonably possible, and carry on.
The end goal should always be Restoration in Rome through a traditional Pope. We shouldn't lose sight of that and should work collectively for it.
Quote from: Xavier on December 12, 2018, 12:34:27 AM
Imagine if Tradition was united with dozens of Bishops, thousands of Priests, millions of faithful around the world all working together for Restoration. We'd definitely have it quickly.
That's what we need, though it seems impossible. Priests should try not to be independent but dependent on Bishops. The nature of sacerdotal orders itself demands it. And the way jurisdiction is usually conferred confirms it.
If someone is unjustly expelled by his Bishop, as happened in the first days and still sometimes happens today, the best thing would be to join a traditional order of Priests (I'd always recommend SSPX) as quickly as reasonably possible, and carry on.
The end goal should always be Restoration in Rome through a traditional Pope. We shouldn't lose sight of that and should work collectively for it.
Yes, this is the way it should be, but not if you have to compromise the Faith to do it.
Update:
A revision to my Holy Mass attendance with respect to where I presently attend; my former misapprehension regarding the Holy See having been ameliorated:
1. FSSP
2. ICKSP
3. Maronite (orthodox Catholic; preferably Ad Orientem).
4. Diocesan TLM.
5. Oratorian Ad Orientem Mass.
Quote from: Patriarch on February 13, 2019, 05:04:41 PM
Update:
A revision to my Holy Mass attendance with respect to where I presently attend; my former misapprehension regarding the Holy See having been ameliorated:
1. FSSP
2. ICKSP
3. Maronite (orthodox Catholic; preferably Ad Orientem).
4. Diocesan TLM.
5. Oratorian Ad Orientem Mass.
Why no SSPX?