Pan Traditionalism

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]Pan-Traditionalists / Drifters
"pan-traditionalists" within Catholic traditionalism. These are individuals who either accept the principles of more than one group and rejecting those of others, who drift around the various traditionalist factions, or who perhaps accept all traditionalist factions and are happy to go to almost any church regardless of its position.
Many traditionalists believe that the indult and independent factions both compliment each other. They believe that pressure from "within" and "without" is necessary to effect long-term change, and that pressure from the outside results in more permission being granted for the group on the inside. Some hold that, in time, eventually there will be no need for the group on the "outside," it will have served its purpose since the traditional Latin Mass and the traditional faith will be unrestricted and free. Those who accept all factions often hold that the Church is currently facing a crisis like that experienced within the Church between 1378 and 1415 when there were three papal claimants and it could not be established who was genuinely pope. At that time followers of one claimant would condemn the other as schismatic and vice versa, but in hindsight it must be concluded that the confusion in the Church was such that neither was truly schismatic and that anyone who simply kept the faith regardless of papal adherence was in reality fully Catholic.
Some traditionalists attend churches of one position while inwardly holding an entirely different position. They generally do so because there is no other church in their area which has the traditional liturgy, or no other traditionalist clergy who teach the true faith free from modern errors. Occasionally some churches attempt to flush these people out, while others have specific protocols in place to prevent against them. For instance, in the indult movement, officially, priests are supposed to establish that those attending their Masses do not, "call into question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970" (Quattuor abhinc annos). The simplest method of 'flushing out' however is for the priest to simply stand in the pulpit preaching something objectionable to those holding a different position, or simply insisting that those of a different position get up and leave. Thirty years ago when the movement was much smaller and church communities were more manageable "drifters" were less of a problem, but today, since the movement has grown so significantly it is much more difficult to avoid. Generally speaking, nowadays, a small element of "drift" is simply accepted.
[/quote]

any comments?

[qfnol31]

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with the method.

[photosynthesis]

what movements would one drift between?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

The NO the SSPX, the sspv etc.

[qfnol31]

I honestly cannot figure out how one could stand doing that.

You go to one place and they're outspoken against the other. And vice versa.

Plus, I think a person would in the end just be unhappy.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

would our drifter homies be in schism?

[qfnol31]

Technically, no. However, they'd be participating in an evil act more than they should be...they would be doing an evil act themselves.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

what is the evil act?

[qfnol31]

The Church says that people may participate with those who are schismatic only if to do otherwise is a moral or physical impossibility.

If they're able to go to all, I don't think that going to a Novus Ordo or an indult Tridentine is physically or morally impossible.

[photosynthesis]

why drift when you can be in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i thought people could go to an sspx chapel no mater what to fufill their sunday obligation?

[qfnol31]

[quote]Some traditionalists attend churches of one position while inwardly holding an entirely different position. They generally do so because there is no other church in their area which has the traditional liturgy, or no other traditionalist clergy who teach the true faith free from modern errors.[/quote]

This makes it sound a lot worse than it sometimes is, I think.

Granted, that doesn't mean they're in the right, but they're not always in the wrong...it's tough to figure out what the author means by this, to be honest.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 20 2005, 12:12 PM']i thought people could go to an sspx chapel no mater what to fufill their sunday obligation?
[right][snapback]831760[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It fulfills their obligation, yes, but it's also a question of whether or not they're adhering to schism by being in attendance.

For that reason, the alternative must be impossible for them to do...namely, they cannot be able to go to a Mass that is in keeping with the Church.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]y traditionalists believe that the indult and independent factions both compliment each other. They believe that pressure from "within" and "without" is necessary to effect long-term change, and that pressure from the outside results in more permission being granted for the group on the inside. Some hold that, in time, eventually there will be no need for the group on the "outside," it will have served its purpose since the traditional Latin Mass and the traditional faith will be unrestricted and free. [b]Those who accept all factions often hold that the Church is currently facing a crisis like that experienced within the Church between 1378 and 1415 when there were three papal claimants and it could not be established who was genuinely pope. At that time followers of one claimant would condemn the other as schismatic and vice versa, but in hindsight it must be concluded that the confusion in the Church was such that neither was truly schismatic and that anyone who simply kept the faith regardless of papal adherence was in reality fully Catholic.[/b][/quote]

this is what im mostly interested in. if someone went between an indult, and the sspx, and the novus ordo. and didn't know which group was correct.

[photosynthesis]

and usually that situation (where schimatic traditionalist masses are the only masses out there) is extremely rare

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

are you reffering to the SSPX?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 20 2005, 12:20 PM']this is what im mostly interested in. if someone went between an indult, and the sspx, and the novus ordo. and didn't know which group was correct.
[right][snapback]831766[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If it was a question of not knowing which is correct, I would say that they need to then do a little more research and prayer...but I don't think that someone should continue going between the different Masses, for lots of reasons.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 20 2005, 10:20 AM']this is what im mostly interested in. if someone went between an indult, and the sspx, and the novus ordo. and didn't know which group was correct.
[right][snapback]831766[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The indult and novus ordo mass are both correct. Theres no way to judge which one is 'correct' when they both are.

As I understand it, it is morally illict to recieve the sacraments from a SSPX Priest. So in judging if it is correct, the simple answer is no.

Pope John Paul II on the SSPX ""I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church’s law" (Ecclesia Dei 5c)"

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

hello there.

i wanted to bump this thread.