|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Jun 10, 2016 0:35:15 GMT -5
What thought process brings one to the Home Alone frame of mind? That the priests don't have jurisdiction or there are no valid orders or I am too far from what I perceive to be an acceptable chapel or what exactly? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jun 10, 2016 6:44:05 GMT -5
That's a broad brush. Maybe it will help to approach it like this: Traditionalism is not the Church and it binds no one in any aspect. Many things done under that name are done outside the law or under a principle called epikeia.
Those who stay at home are not bound in the first place by any one of these chapels. Secondly, they have made a determination that they would rather wait for the judgement of the Church to be safe on these issues. Third, they believe that the lawgiver would not want them to go to these priests and bishops without jurisdition (epikeia).
What I have never seen, from the many good people I know who hold this position, is an explanation as to why they do not seek out old priests in their diocese, or perhaps elsewhere in the world, or Eastern rites.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jun 10, 2016 6:47:36 GMT -5
If you are talking about people who just refrain from attending a local chapel, I will tell you I drove past two that were utter and absolute cults for five years on the rare occasion I could get to Sunday mass. I was not going to support either of those places by my presence or with my money. I would absolutely not subject my children to either of those situations. I believe they were, and still are, a danger to faith.
|
|
|
Post by orthopapist on Jun 10, 2016 21:30:19 GMT -5
The home aloner position exists for a few reasons.
The first is lack of physical proximity to any chapel; throughout Catholic history people lived away from Catholic churches so could not always get to one on Sundays. Also due to a lack of clergy (if one is a sedevacantist/conclavist/etc.), there may not be a chapel nearby.
Additionally, one may as a sedevacantist live near a sedevacantist chapel, but hold that the clergy's orders are illicit and that therefore the chapel ought to be avoided. Also, various scandals have arisen at some chapels, so some sedes have concluded it is better to stay at home. Most if not all of the sede orders are technically illicit, therefore they do not claim to possess ordinary jurisdiction (which I believe is delegated from the pope down to bishops and then to parish priests) but rather supplied jurisdiction for emergencies. Therefore, the faithful could approach such a priest only if they want to for an emergency (if sedevacantism were true, for instance), but I do not believe they can technically fulfill a Sunday obligation by going to such a priest.
Hence often the motivation for being a home aloner sedevacantist is to avoid scandalous chapels or because one is not close to one. For me as a conclavist I'm simply not near any chapel in communion with the pope I follow. Can't think of any other reasons off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 16, 2016 11:45:41 GMT -5
I wrote this post a while ago on the Te Deum forum, but it is also relevant to your question here: ------------------------------------- There have been some attempts on this forum which appear to confuse "Home-Alonism" with Feeneyism or falsely and simplistically generalizes the position making it seem as though all "Home-Aloners" are in one united group or way of thinking.
First off, whether we use this term for convenience or not, let's all acknowledge that this term, "Home-Aloner" is a derogatory term, and the use of it only fans the flames of anger towards Catholics who have adopted this position. The term was developed by a priest well known for his sarcasm and in my opinion, the term like "sedevacantist" has led to a false generalization and stigma attached to those who hold it. When the term was first coined, the "Home-Aloners" were mostly just those concerned with the mission of the "traditional” priests, but in recent years, "Home-Alonism" has expanded to a much broader and complex set of groups.
There are many types of "Home-Aloners" who have adopted their view for different reasons. Some have a very Catholic spirit, while others are fueled with radical pride accompanied by a schismatic spirit, and others hold their home-alone views due to adherence to a heresy, while others hold the view due to other factors.
Some "Home-Aloners" are "complete" "Home Aloners" that have given up all sacramental life, while others are willing to go to the sacraments but only to specific priests, and no other, which for many leads to "Home-Alonism" when they cannot get to those sepcific priests. I consider these "Quasi-Home Aloners" as many in this group live for long periods of time or permanently without the sacraments since they live far from the specific priests that they will only go to. Some cut themselves off from other Catholics while others remain in spirit and non-litugical worship with other Catholics.
Home Alonism breakdown (a list of types from the top of my head). I personally know either in real life or through internet activity those in all of these groups.
1. Only go to priests sent by the Church: these Catholics will only go to priests with a mission from the Church. They may vary with each other on dates, or exactly which priests are sent, but they operate under the same set of principles. This is a Catholic position, as Catholics have no obligation to accept priests that are not sent to them by the Church, that are not trained in an approved manner or ordained with approval by a lawful bishop. One of the most notable families that hold this view are the Gibson's.
2. A variation to the #1: some hold that the priests ordained directly from the original bishops (+Lefebvre, +de Castro Mayer, etc.) would be "sent" but in a vagus state and therefore safe to go to.
3. Another variation to #1: some think that there are no longer any lawful priests, or are not sure where they are, some have given up all sacramental life outside of baptism and marriage.
4. Britons Catholic Library: this is a radical and erroneous position that has been abandoned by the man who initially proposed it. Unfortunately, it lives on with some that have not abandoned it. This position leads to schism.
5. A variation to #4: some while not holding the Britons view, cut themselves off from Catholics who choose to partake of the sacraments from the "unsent" priests. Any cutting oneself off from other Catholics in matters not essential to the Faith is a schismatic act. This grouping is also schismatic.
6. "Heretical" Home Aloners: this group avoids "traditional" chapels not due to the lack of mission on the part of the priests, but due to the fact that the priests will not adopt or directly stand against their heresy. This is very common among Feeneyite heretics, who either withdraw from a chapel, or are expelled for propagating their heresy.
7. Una-Cum Home-Aloners: this group is made up of those that do not have a problem with the lack of mission of the traditional priest, but avoid any validly ordained priest who says the Catholic rite, but una cum with the antipope. (eg. SSPX) Many Catholics do not live near sedevacatist chapels so these Catholics live as de facto "home-aloners". There are also those that will only go to masses "una cum" with the antipope, thinking that "non una-cum" is a schismatic act. So there are two variations to the "una-cum" issue and opposite to each other.
8. "Only go to one group": this type of "Home-Aloner" will only go to one (or some groups and exclude others which could cause them to become "Home-Aloners." For example, the X family goes to SSPV, but Mr. X gets a new job in another state with only CMRI. They will not go to CMRI, so they become "Home-Aloners."
9. Resistance SSPX "Home-Aloners" - this is a newer group that are quasi-homealoners generally will not go to a sedevacatist chapel, but have formed strong disagreements with the SSPX over negotiations with Rome. Many in this group lack regular access to a priest or no access, and will no longer go to SSPX, so become "Home-Aloners."
10. Everyone Else: Some Catholics live near a chapel or priest, but will not go for other theological or non-theological reasons. It may be a personal conflict with the priest, or concern of scandal based on the behavior of the priest or laity at the chapel, or a concern about the validity of the orders of the priest, or some other reason.
|
|
|
Post by chestertonian on Jun 16, 2016 13:09:11 GMT -5
i will go to any TLM diocesan sspx, dominican rite as well as eastern, i just want to be with Jesus and find all the politics surrounding trad-dom to be very overwhelming
but cannot go to any mass due to medical problems/lack of wheelchair accessibility the SSPX priest did say he would come visit when he canhe has not visited yet
idont know how permanent home aloners do it. even withmy status of onlybeing able to go to church once in awhile it is hard, i feel out of sync with the church and thus with God. am often out of sync with liturgical feasts, for our family mass has always been the primary way we celebrate things like christmas, easter, feast days so not being able to go to mass usually means theday goes unacknowledged... and there is also not being in our lord's eucharistic presence, not having the ability to physically sit in a church and just be with Him. he is not equally present everywhere,thre are special graces that you absolutely cannot obtain without being with Our Lord in the holy sacrifice of the mass, for example First Fridays, First Saturdays, etc. you cant get those graces by watching a FSSP mass in florida or a Fr. Cekada mass. youcannot get plenary indulgences without receiving the sacraments. it is difficult not to feel abandoned by god because it seems like he does not want me in his presence after all if he wanted me in his presence he would put me in a situationwhere i could have the choice to enter into his presence where i could receive sanctifying graces
there is a reason why they have the weekly obligation it is to prevent us from spiritual death there is no substitute for actually, being in the physical eucahristic presence of our lord.. not to mention there is something spiritually refreshing about the liturgical rhythm, the order of the mass, the sacred music, the bells, the smells, religious images everywhere you look so that even when you zone out during mass your eyes cannot help but to focus on spiritual images. you canstream mass online but it is a shoddy substitute for actually being there especially when you are interrupted every 5 minutes. often seems like I am away from the grace and love of God.. cut off from the vine and an estranged from the church
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Jun 20, 2016 14:28:56 GMT -5
Thank you for the responses.
|
|