How Does Satan Get Trads?

[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.

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.

No worries.  As I've said, I'm not trying to belittle the Institute (or anyone else).  I think Institute priests are largely a model of the priesthood itself and they're bringing folks to traditionalism for sure.  I'm a testament to that.

[Mithrandylan]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it. 

[Older Salt]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it.

Or nowhere else to go to a TLM and hear Catholic sermons.

[maryslittlegarden]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it.

It's all some of us have.  Closest SSPX to me is 84 miles and a bad highway in the winter.  I do the best I can with what I have available.  Bishop Williamson quoted this line in his last Eleison Comment - "What cannot be cured must be endured." 

[LouisIX]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it.

Or nowhere else to go to a TLM and hear Catholic sermons.

What's the implication?  That one isn't going to hear Catholic sermons at an SSPX Mass? 

[Older Salt]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it.

Or nowhere else to go to a TLM and hear Catholic sermons.

What's the implication?  That one isn't going to hear Catholic sermons at an SSPX Mass?

Of course not.

I am saying that many Traditional Catholics only have access to Diocesan TLM's, and they maintain the Faith because of that access wherein they receive the Faith.

The statement has no thing to do with the Society.

Sensitive, sensitive!

[LouisIX]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it.

Or nowhere else to go to a TLM and hear Catholic sermons.

What's the implication?  That one isn't going to hear Catholic sermons at an SSPX Mass?

Of course not.

I am saying that many Traditional Catholics only have access to Diocesan TLM's, and they maintain the Faith because of that access wherein they receive the Faith.

The statement has no thing to do with the Society.

Sensitive, sensitive!

I asked a question because what you wrote wasn't clear to me.  How is that being sensitive?

[CoolCat]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it.

Or nowhere else to go to a TLM and hear Catholic sermons.

What's the implication?  That one isn't going to hear Catholic sermons at an SSPX Mass?

Of course not.

I am saying that many Traditional Catholics only have access to Diocesan TLM's, and they maintain the Faith because of that access wherein they receive the Faith.

The statement has no thing to do with the Society.

Sensitive, sensitive!

He's not sensitive, he's predisposed.

[LouisIX]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it.

Or nowhere else to go to a TLM and hear Catholic sermons.

What's the implication?  That one isn't going to hear Catholic sermons at an SSPX Mass?

Of course not.

I am saying that many Traditional Catholics only have access to Diocesan TLM's, and they maintain the Faith because of that access wherein they receive the Faith.

The statement has no thing to do with the Society.

Sensitive, sensitive!

He's not sensitive, he's predisposed.

To what?

[Older Salt]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it.

Or nowhere else to go to a TLM and hear Catholic sermons.

What's the implication?  That one isn't going to hear Catholic sermons at an SSPX Mass?

Of course not.

I am saying that many Traditional Catholics only have access to Diocesan TLM's, and they maintain the Faith because of that access wherein they receive the Faith.

The statement has no thing to do with the Society.

Sensitive, sensitive!

He's not sensitive, he's predisposed.

Oh yeah.

[Older Salt]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it.

Or nowhere else to go to a TLM and hear Catholic sermons.

What's the implication?  That one isn't going to hear Catholic sermons at an SSPX Mass?

Of course not.

I am saying that many Traditional Catholics only have access to Diocesan TLM's, and they maintain the Faith because of that access wherein they receive the Faith.

The statement has no thing to do with the Society.

Sensitive, sensitive!

He's not sensitive, he's predisposed.

To what?

To being sensitive.

[CoolCat]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it.

Or nowhere else to go to a TLM and hear Catholic sermons.

What's the implication?  That one isn't going to hear Catholic sermons at an SSPX Mass?

Of course not.

I am saying that many Traditional Catholics only have access to Diocesan TLM's, and they maintain the Faith because of that access wherein they receive the Faith.

The statement has no thing to do with the Society.

Sensitive, sensitive!

He's not sensitive, he's predisposed.

To what?

To being sensitive.

[LouisIX]

Are you two done yet?

[Mithrandylan]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it.

Or nowhere else to go to a TLM and hear Catholic sermons.

What's the implication?  That one isn't going to hear Catholic sermons at an SSPX Mass?

Depends on the chapel!

OS, you're a riot. 

I've said what I have to say on the issue.

When people pop in to say "I go to the indult for X, Y or Z reason--" fine.  I had my reasons for going to the indult, too.  I don't see what it has to do with the danger to the faith the indult poses.  That's what I'm talking about.  Be very, very careful. 

[Older Salt]

If a person remains a traditional Catholic after long term exposure to the indult, it will be in spite of, not because of it.

Or nowhere else to go to a TLM and hear Catholic sermons.

What's the implication?  That one isn't going to hear Catholic sermons at an SSPX Mass?

Depends on the chapel!

OS, you're a riot. 

I've said what I have to say on the issue.

When people pop in to say "I go to the indult for X, Y or Z reason--" fine.  I had my reasons for going to the indult, too.  I don't see what it has to do with the danger to the faith the indult poses.  That's what I'm talking about.  Be very, very careful.

I was a fornicating, drug abusing, fighting, getting arrested, animal before coming back to the Faith through the Catholic Churches offering of the TLM when it used to be an indult.

Be very careful Mith.