How Does Satan Get Trads?

[Jacafamala]

I cannot speak for the ICRSS, but I have had much experience with the FSSP and the IBP, and they are both extremely Traditional and Catholic in all aspects.

Well I can speak for the Institute on that point, I've been going to one of their Apostlates for years. Extremely traditional. Patrick and Mith, get a grip.     Sometimes satan attacks trads by encouraging them to be a little too fanatical.

I've made a similar post to this in the past, but it may be worth repeating here.

I came to tradition largely through the Institute and still attend Masses with them from time to time.  Institute priests are, in many ways, models for the priesthood.  They're kind, intelligent, and constantly gentlemen.  They embody a fantastic balance between giving the priesthood its rightful dignity and also being fatherly to their flock.

That being said, I've never, ever heard an Institute priest preach on the crisis.  While their homilies are always good, to not talk about the crisis at all is a major failing point.  It is endangering souls daily.  Now, I suspect that many Institute priests would like to speak about it, but they're in a precarious position in that they're forced to implicitly accept the errors of the Conciliar Church and the Novus Ordo.

Maybe some of you have different experiences with Institute priests.  I certainly hope so.

I've had different experiences. Some ICK priests talk more on it than others. Granted, it's not going to be anything to the extent that you'd probably get at an SSPX chapel, but at the Institute most everyone grouses about the NO at the coffee hour, anyway, lol, so manybe we'll make it to heaven after all?

Can you give an example on why it's fair say the Institute priests are endangering souls because they don't speak on the crisis enough?

I support the Institute and their seminary and I'm glad to be able to do so. Sometimes I go to the FSSP, too. I've never been to the SSPX, maybe someday. For now I'm sure hubs would strongly object to it and it would cause mucho family problems. Anyway, I am happy where I am. 

Why do I feel like I have to defend these organizations at a traditional forum? I'm disappointed about that, really. Berating the Fraternity, the Institute, the Society or sedevacantism, and the Holy Father, by-the-way, shouldn't be allowed. Vox at least had that right. It kept things civil, not this "my pops better than your pop" kind of stuff I'm seeing here.

There's a distinct difference between berating and critiquing.  No one is allowed to use polemical terms here for the Institute, the Fraternity, SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc.  All are considered faithful Catholics.

It would be ludicrous to have a traditional Catholic forum and to not have folks who found various groups to be in error on one issue or another.  We wouldn't have multiple groups if this wasn't the case, and we wouldn't be charitable if we didn't discuss these things (so long as it is done respectfully).

As far as what I posted earlier, I said that the crisis endangers souls, not the Institute.  I do think that the Institute priests are wrong to omit the crisis from their homilies and I think that that omission puts those who attend their masses at some risk.  That being said, I understand that Institute priests are in a very precarious position and I deeply respect every Institute priest that I've ever known.

I'm hearing these places endanger souls. That is a huge slap in the face kind of an insult to a priest whose given his life to doing quite the opposite; to saving souls..

[LouisIX]

I cannot speak for the ICRSS, but I have had much experience with the FSSP and the IBP, and they are both extremely Traditional and Catholic in all aspects.

Well I can speak for the Institute on that point, I've been going to one of their Apostlates for years. Extremely traditional. Patrick and Mith, get a grip.     Sometimes satan attacks trads by encouraging them to be a little too fanatical.

I've made a similar post to this in the past, but it may be worth repeating here.

I came to tradition largely through the Institute and still attend Masses with them from time to time.  Institute priests are, in many ways, models for the priesthood.  They're kind, intelligent, and constantly gentlemen.  They embody a fantastic balance between giving the priesthood its rightful dignity and also being fatherly to their flock.

That being said, I've never, ever heard an Institute priest preach on the crisis.  While their homilies are always good, to not talk about the crisis at all is a major failing point.  It is endangering souls daily.  Now, I suspect that many Institute priests would like to speak about it, but they're in a precarious position in that they're forced to implicitly accept the errors of the Conciliar Church and the Novus Ordo.

Maybe some of you have different experiences with Institute priests.  I certainly hope so.

I've had different experiences. Some ICK priests talk more on it than others. Granted, it's not going to be anything to the extent that you'd probably get at an SSPX chapel, but at the Institute most everyone grouses about the NO at the coffee hour, anyway, lol, so manybe we'll make it to heaven after all?

Can you give an example on why it's fair say the Institute priests are endangering souls because they don't speak on the crisis enough?

I support the Institute and their seminary and I'm glad to be able to do so. Sometimes I go to the FSSP, too. I've never been to the SSPX, maybe someday. For now I'm sure hubs would strongly object to it and it would cause mucho family problems. Anyway, I am happy where I am. 

Why do I feel like I have to defend these organizations at a traditional forum? I'm disappointed about that, really. Berating the Fraternity, the Institute, the Society or sedevacantism, and the Holy Father, by-the-way, shouldn't be allowed. Vox at least had that right. It kept things civil, not this "my pops better than your pop" kind of stuff I'm seeing here.

There's a distinct difference between berating and critiquing.  No one is allowed to use polemical terms here for the Institute, the Fraternity, SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc.  All are considered faithful Catholics.

It would be ludicrous to have a traditional Catholic forum and to not have folks who found various groups to be in error on one issue or another.  We wouldn't have multiple groups if this wasn't the case, and we wouldn't be charitable if we didn't discuss these things (so long as it is done respectfully).

As far as what I posted earlier, I said that the crisis endangers souls, not the Institute.  I do think that the Institute priests are wrong to omit the crisis from their homilies and I think that that omission puts those who attend their masses at some risk.  That being said, I understand that Institute priests are in a very precarious position and I deeply respect every Institute priest that I've ever known.

I'm hearing these places endanger souls. That is a huge slap in the face kind of an insult to a priest whose given his life to doing quite the opposite; to saving souls..

You're making it personal.  It's not.

What I said was that not talking about the greatest crisis in the history of the Church while it's going on is risky.  If you disagree with that then I'd love to hear why.  But saying that it's insulting is beside the point.

[Jacafamala]

I cannot speak for the ICRSS, but I have had much experience with the FSSP and the IBP, and they are both extremely Traditional and Catholic in all aspects.

Well I can speak for the Institute on that point, I've been going to one of their Apostlates for years. Extremely traditional. Patrick and Mith, get a grip.     Sometimes satan attacks trads by encouraging them to be a little too fanatical.

I've made a similar post to this in the past, but it may be worth repeating here.

I came to tradition largely through the Institute and still attend Masses with them from time to time.  Institute priests are, in many ways, models for the priesthood.  They're kind, intelligent, and constantly gentlemen.  They embody a fantastic balance between giving the priesthood its rightful dignity and also being fatherly to their flock.

That being said, I've never, ever heard an Institute priest preach on the crisis.  While their homilies are always good, to not talk about the crisis at all is a major failing point.  It is endangering souls daily.  Now, I suspect that many Institute priests would like to speak about it, but they're in a precarious position in that they're forced to implicitly accept the errors of the Conciliar Church and the Novus Ordo.

Maybe some of you have different experiences with Institute priests.  I certainly hope so.

I've had different experiences. Some ICK priests talk more on it than others. Granted, it's not going to be anything to the extent that you'd probably get at an SSPX chapel, but at the Institute most everyone grouses about the NO at the coffee hour, anyway, lol, so manybe we'll make it to heaven after all?

Can you give an example on why it's fair say the Institute priests are endangering souls because they don't speak on the crisis enough?

I support the Institute and their seminary and I'm glad to be able to do so. Sometimes I go to the FSSP, too. I've never been to the SSPX, maybe someday. For now I'm sure hubs would strongly object to it and it would cause mucho family problems. Anyway, I am happy where I am. 

Why do I feel like I have to defend these organizations at a traditional forum? I'm disappointed about that, really. Berating the Fraternity, the Institute, the Society or sedevacantism, and the Holy Father, by-the-way, shouldn't be allowed. Vox at least had that right. It kept things civil, not this "my pops better than your pop" kind of stuff I'm seeing here.

There's a distinct difference between berating and critiquing.  No one is allowed to use polemical terms here for the Institute, the Fraternity, SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc.  All are considered faithful Catholics.

It would be ludicrous to have a traditional Catholic forum and to not have folks who found various groups to be in error on one issue or another.  We wouldn't have multiple groups if this wasn't the case, and we wouldn't be charitable if we didn't discuss these things (so long as it is done respectfully).

As far as what I posted earlier, I said that the crisis endangers souls, not the Institute.  I do think that the Institute priests are wrong to omit the crisis from their homilies and I think that that omission puts those who attend their masses at some risk.  That being said, I understand that Institute priests are in a very precarious position and I deeply respect every Institute priest that I've ever known.

I'm hearing these places endanger souls. That is a huge slap in the face kind of an insult to a priest whose given his life to doing quite the opposite; to saving souls..

You're making it personal.  It's not.

What I said was that not talking about the greatest crisis in the history of the Church while it's going on is risky.  If you disagree with that then I'd love to hear why.  But saying that it's insulting is beside the point.

Where we are we know all about the crisis. I do take it personally, because I love these priests they're good priests. I'm not going to sit idly when I'm hearing that these groups are "sitting back and taking it easy" because they believe the no to be licit. That doesn't mean they recommend it, you know.   

[LouisIX]

I cannot speak for the ICRSS, but I have had much experience with the FSSP and the IBP, and they are both extremely Traditional and Catholic in all aspects.

Well I can speak for the Institute on that point, I've been going to one of their Apostlates for years. Extremely traditional. Patrick and Mith, get a grip.     Sometimes satan attacks trads by encouraging them to be a little too fanatical.

I've made a similar post to this in the past, but it may be worth repeating here.

I came to tradition largely through the Institute and still attend Masses with them from time to time.  Institute priests are, in many ways, models for the priesthood.  They're kind, intelligent, and constantly gentlemen.  They embody a fantastic balance between giving the priesthood its rightful dignity and also being fatherly to their flock.

That being said, I've never, ever heard an Institute priest preach on the crisis.  While their homilies are always good, to not talk about the crisis at all is a major failing point.  It is endangering souls daily.  Now, I suspect that many Institute priests would like to speak about it, but they're in a precarious position in that they're forced to implicitly accept the errors of the Conciliar Church and the Novus Ordo.

Maybe some of you have different experiences with Institute priests.  I certainly hope so.

I've had different experiences. Some ICK priests talk more on it than others. Granted, it's not going to be anything to the extent that you'd probably get at an SSPX chapel, but at the Institute most everyone grouses about the NO at the coffee hour, anyway, lol, so manybe we'll make it to heaven after all?

Can you give an example on why it's fair say the Institute priests are endangering souls because they don't speak on the crisis enough?

I support the Institute and their seminary and I'm glad to be able to do so. Sometimes I go to the FSSP, too. I've never been to the SSPX, maybe someday. For now I'm sure hubs would strongly object to it and it would cause mucho family problems. Anyway, I am happy where I am. 

Why do I feel like I have to defend these organizations at a traditional forum? I'm disappointed about that, really. Berating the Fraternity, the Institute, the Society or sedevacantism, and the Holy Father, by-the-way, shouldn't be allowed. Vox at least had that right. It kept things civil, not this "my pops better than your pop" kind of stuff I'm seeing here.

There's a distinct difference between berating and critiquing.  No one is allowed to use polemical terms here for the Institute, the Fraternity, SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc.  All are considered faithful Catholics.

It would be ludicrous to have a traditional Catholic forum and to not have folks who found various groups to be in error on one issue or another.  We wouldn't have multiple groups if this wasn't the case, and we wouldn't be charitable if we didn't discuss these things (so long as it is done respectfully).

As far as what I posted earlier, I said that the crisis endangers souls, not the Institute.  I do think that the Institute priests are wrong to omit the crisis from their homilies and I think that that omission puts those who attend their masses at some risk.  That being said, I understand that Institute priests are in a very precarious position and I deeply respect every Institute priest that I've ever known.

I'm hearing these places endanger souls. That is a huge slap in the face kind of an insult to a priest whose given his life to doing quite the opposite; to saving souls..

You're making it personal.  It's not.

What I said was that not talking about the greatest crisis in the history of the Church while it's going on is risky.  If you disagree with that then I'd love to hear why.  But saying that it's insulting is beside the point.

Where we are we know all about the crisis. I do take it personally, because I love these priests they're good priests. I'm not going to sit idly when I'm hearing that these groups are "sitting back and taking it easy" because they believe the no to be licit. That doesn't mean they recommend it, you know.

I never said that Institute priests sit back and take it easy nor did I say that they recommend the NO.  I also never said that they were bad priests.  Again, it's nothing personal.  I came to traditionalism through the Institute.

But saying that we don't need to hear about the crisis because "we all know about the crisis" doesn't really make sense to me.

1) Some people truly don't know about the crisis.  Most of us know a lot, but not everything that there is to know. 

2) Knowing about it is one thing.  We also need to be reminded and inspired.  Some of us need the kick in the ass on a regular basis.  We all know about virtue, the importance of prayer, the sacraments, etc. and yet we constantly need to be confirmed and reminded about these things lest we get lazy or subconsciously slide into error.

[Gottmitunsalex]

Here we go again:
In regards to the new mass.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pnlxjTaJoo&feature=youtu.be[/yt]

[Mithrandylan]

Which crisis do they teach about?  Michael Voris' crisis?  The cosmetic, Dolanite conspiracy?  Or the crisis of ABL and Co? 

Do they warn their parishioners about the NO?  About how in it's wake, millions of souls left the Church and how everything about it is protestant?  Do they tell their parishioners not to attend it?  What about the other sacraments?  Have they sought to retain integrity of orders, by ensuring ordinations and consecrations in the Old Rite?  What about doctrine?  Do the Church bulletins have blurbs for newchurch Shenanigans like the universal hour of Adoration or religious freedom rallies?  Do they know that Vatican II taught heresy?  Do they warn the faithful about the sinful scandals of Assisi and the like?

I don't know how you can admit to taking this personally and continue in the discussion.  I split time between an indult and sspx for most of my life.  I've seen the longterm effects of indultism.  Very few are immune to it, even though everyone says they are.  I know I thought I would be.

And, as Louis said, it's not personal.  It would be a mistake to continue if that distinction cannot be made. 

[Bonaventure]

If the NO is licit, that means the Church recommends it, irregardless of individuals or groups of priests.

[VeraeFidei]

In my experience, in public ICRSS priests act as if the Crisis does not exist. They are akin to the average conservative Catholic priest of, say, 1960: did not like what VII taught (if he understood, read, or cared), did not like the NO, was wary of new important people in the chancery, but did nothing. Ten years later, he was saying the NO and at best not talking about VII and the ubiquitous problems.

I once heard a fifteen minute sermon on the Subdiaconate by an ICRSS priest. The content was very good - I learned much about the nature and theology of the Subdiaconate. Not once was one single mention or even allusion made to the fact that the Novus Ordo has no subdiaconate and the official Church thinks the Subdiaconate literally no longer exists. These men are not clerics according to the '83 Canon Law.

That is egregiously irresponsible to my mind.

[Jacafamala]

I cannot speak for the ICRSS, but I have had much experience with the FSSP and the IBP, and they are both extremely Traditional and Catholic in all aspects.

Well I can speak for the Institute on that point, I've been going to one of their Apostlates for years. Extremely traditional. Patrick and Mith, get a grip.     Sometimes satan attacks trads by encouraging them to be a little too fanatical.

I've made a similar post to this in the past, but it may be worth repeating here.

I came to tradition largely through the Institute and still attend Masses with them from time to time.  Institute priests are, in many ways, models for the priesthood.  They're kind, intelligent, and constantly gentlemen.  They embody a fantastic balance between giving the priesthood its rightful dignity and also being fatherly to their flock.

That being said, I've never, ever heard an Institute priest preach on the crisis.  While their homilies are always good, to not talk about the crisis at all is a major failing point.  It is endangering souls daily.  Now, I suspect that many Institute priests would like to speak about it, but they're in a precarious position in that they're forced to implicitly accept the errors of the Conciliar Church and the Novus Ordo.

Maybe some of you have different experiences with Institute priests.  I certainly hope so.

I've had different experiences. Some ICK priests talk more on it than others. Granted, it's not going to be anything to the extent that you'd probably get at an SSPX chapel, but at the Institute most everyone grouses about the NO at the coffee hour, anyway, lol, so manybe we'll make it to heaven after all?

Can you give an example on why it's fair say the Institute priests are endangering souls because they don't speak on the crisis enough?

I support the Institute and their seminary and I'm glad to be able to do so. Sometimes I go to the FSSP, too. I've never been to the SSPX, maybe someday. For now I'm sure hubs would strongly object to it and it would cause mucho family problems. Anyway, I am happy where I am. 

Why do I feel like I have to defend these organizations at a traditional forum? I'm disappointed about that, really. Berating the Fraternity, the Institute, the Society or sedevacantism, and the Holy Father, by-the-way, shouldn't be allowed. Vox at least had that right. It kept things civil, not this "my pops better than your pop" kind of stuff I'm seeing here.

There's a distinct difference between berating and critiquing.  No one is allowed to use polemical terms here for the Institute, the Fraternity, SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc.  All are considered faithful Catholics.

It would be ludicrous to have a traditional Catholic forum and to not have folks who found various groups to be in error on one issue or another.  We wouldn't have multiple groups if this wasn't the case, and we wouldn't be charitable if we didn't discuss these things (so long as it is done respectfully).

As far as what I posted earlier, I said that the crisis endangers souls, not the Institute.  I do think that the Institute priests are wrong to omit the crisis from their homilies and I think that that omission puts those who attend their masses at some risk.  That being said, I understand that Institute priests are in a very precarious position and I deeply respect every Institute priest that I've ever known.

I'm hearing these places endanger souls. That is a huge slap in the face kind of an insult to a priest whose given his life to doing quite the opposite; to saving souls..

You're making it personal.  It's not.

What I said was that not talking about the greatest crisis in the history of the Church while it's going on is risky.  If you disagree with that then I'd love to hear why.  But saying that it's insulting is beside the point.

Where we are we know all about the crisis. I do take it personally, because I love these priests they're good priests. I'm not going to sit idly when I'm hearing that these groups are "sitting back and taking it easy" because they believe the no to be licit. That doesn't mean they recommend it, you know.

I never said that Institute priests sit back and take it easy nor did I say that they recommend the NO.  I also never said that they were bad priests.  Again, it's nothing personal.  I came to traditionalism through the Institute.

But saying that we don't need to hear about the crisis because "we all know about the crisis" doesn't really make sense to me.

1) Some people truly don't know about the crisis.  Most of us know a lot, but not everything that there is to know. 

2) Knowing about it is one thing.  We also need to be reminded and inspired.  Some of us need the kick in the ass on a regular basis.  We all know about virtue, the importance of prayer, the sacraments, etc. and yet we constantly need to be confirmed and reminded about these things lest we get lazy or subconsciously slide into error.

Well, are you saying you didn't know about the crisis when you were at the Institute. They never spoke of it?

I'm not going to name names, such as x priest from such and such organization gives sermons that mentions this more than y does. That wouldn't be very prudent to get into that. But yeah, it is spoken of, and as I said, more by some than others and presumably less so than at the Society chapels, I trust.

The sacraments, the Mass, the direction on how to live a holy life are all there just as much as at the society.

In any event, my apologies for the digression. I felt I needed to say something when this whole thing came up. Considering all our "indult" priests do for us, it really wouldn't have been right not to have said something. I'll back off now.

[Jacafamala]

Which crisis do they teach about?  Michael Voris' crisis?  The cosmetic, Dolanite conspiracy?  Or the crisis of ABL and Co? 

Do they warn their parishioners about the NO?  About how in it's wake, millions of souls left the Church and how everything about it is protestant?  Do they tell their parishioners not to attend it?  What about the other sacraments?  Have they sought to retain integrity of orders, by ensuring ordinations and consecrations in the Old Rite?  What about doctrine?  Do the Church bulletins have blurbs for newchurch Shenanigans like the universal hour of Adoration or religious freedom rallies?  Do they know that Vatican II taught heresy?  Do they warn the faithful about the sinful scandals of Assisi and the like?

I don't know how you can admit to taking this personally and continue in the discussion.  I split time between an indult and sspx for most of my life.  I've seen the longterm effects of indultism.  Very few are immune to it, even though everyone says they are.  I know I thought I would be.

And, as Louis said, it's not personal.  It would be a mistake to continue if that distinction cannot be made.

The SSPX has it's purpose and is important, for sure.

But Mith, we have many people who've been here faithfully decade after decade (it used to be an independent chapel) and are still here. People fall away st SSPX chapels, too I am sure.

[Jacafamala]

Now in addition to Mass and the sacraments, I want to add that the way to avoid satan is through Mary. Wear her scapular, say the rosary everyday, do the Consecration as prescribed by St. Louis de Montfort. he will have nothing on us in the end.

[Jayne]

It all gets down to the fundamental issue: is the Novus Ordo liturgy a Catholic liturgy. Not a valid one, for an Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo service is valid, and indeed ancient, but we are not permitted to participate in a non-Catholic sect.

If the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI is Catholic, then the only reason trads attend the traditional Mass is preference, nostalgia, or some other subjective, personal reason.

I do not follow your reasoning.  I believe the NO is a Catholic liturgy, but that there are serious problems with it and the TLM is an objectively better expression of Catholic doctrine.  I consider that a good reason to go to the TLM.

That does not make sense. Your position suggests that the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, can give the Faithful a less than perfect sacrifice to God.

Would anyone prior to this crisis say that the Ruthenian Rite had serious problems, and it is objectively inferior to the Byzantine rite?

As a Sacrifice, it is perfect.  As a manifestation of Catholic doctrine, not so much.

Anyhow, we do not share enough common assumptions to discuss this productively.  I just wanted to point out that you do not seem to understand my reasons. 

[Kaesekopf]

Please trim quotations in the future, folks.

[Bonaventure]

I believe your reasons are wrong.

[Jayne]

I believe your reasons are wrong.

That proves you don't understand them.