Help -- is this place schismatic?

“Traditional Catholic Latin Mass” is written on a sign at this place near our new house. But it isn’t listed on our diocesan website. Has anybody ever heard of it? And what the heck is “independent?” Is this some schismatic place? I fell like just showing up and asking them, but of course, if I ask them whether they’re “really” Catholic, they’ll say, “Of course!”

St. Michael Chapel & Shrine
507 Rt. 9W, Glenmont, NY 12077
Frs. Joseph Collins, (518) 462-2016
Independent, SU 10 am

1 Like

Most likely some sedevacantist group. Best to stay away.

“Independent” means the priest has broken away from whatever diocese he was a part of. “Independent” priests essentially operate on their own, and are not part of any order, and are in a state of schism with the Church most likely. They are not associated with the SSPX either. I know that some independent priests are break-aways of the SSPX because they felt that the SSPX compromised too much (ie, they think the SSPX is too liberal). If I may make a general statement, it seems that most independent priests are sedevacantist (that is, they don’t think the current pope is the true pope), and many have come to the conclusion that there are only a handful of “true” or validly-ordained priests left in the world. It’s really a cult-like mentality, and I’d advise you to stay away. Plus, you never know where their ordination comes from either, so their sacraments (on top of already being illicit) may be invalid.

:slight_smile: Yo, friends!

Gamera, amigo, UK catholic Guy speaks 100% for me, too, no telling what might be going on!:wink:

Aurelio:thumbsup:

Independent? That is the LAST claim I would want on a Catholic church. I would go ask the priest his status with Rome. Who his Bishop is, etc. He is most likely some random disobedient priest.

“Independant Catholic” - oxymoron. It is necessary to accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome to be part of the Church.

Sometimes they’re just retired priests who say the Latin Mass. Not all independents are sedevacantist either. If you want you should check it out and see. Personally I’d rather go to a Traditional Mass offered by an independent priest than a Novus Ordo.

Even Latin mass said by a sedevacantist priest? And if the priest were truly in good standing with Rome, why would he even bother to advertise the fact that he was an “independent” priest, unless he has other serious “reasons” for doing so.

Not sure…if it was sedevacantist and there is no indult, FSSP or SSPX, I might attend but not receive communion or any sacraments from them. Anyway, a priest doesn’t need permission to celebrate the Ancient Mass because Pius V explicitly gave permission for all time for every priest to say it. The Church is in a great crisis right now and many of the hierarchy throughout the Church including in Rome are influenced by modern liberal errors.

Well, I would certainly ask. Not all “independents” are sedes, or excommunicated, etc. After our beloved parish priest retired, he said Mass in his home, and parts of it were in Latin. He did this with special permission. It was definitely a valid and licit Mass. Just ask.

JC

:hmmm: …seems like you are yourself an independent. Have I interpreted incorrectly? (if so, please forgive me)

Same sort of sign on the SSPX near me, I was also confused at first because they’re not on the diocese website.

After a search of the internet, less than 5 minutes, I found that Fr. Joseph Collins was one of the originial members of the Society of St Pius V. The SSPV is a break away group from the SSPX.

The SSPV are not only schismatic but they are a sedevacantist group.

The Council of Constance under Pope Martin V condemned independent priests:

remember, this is a condemned error:

  1. It is lawful for any deacon or priest to preach the word of God without authorisation from the apostolic see or from a catholic bishop.

Probably schismatic. This particular chapel was founded in the early 70s by a Reverend J Vida Elmer a Hungarian Refugee at the request of a group of Traditionalists who felt the reforms mandated by Vatican II were wrong and had in fact hurt the Church.

As to being sedevacantist, just ask them if they accept the authority of the Holy Father, AND if they sound unconvincing ask them who the Holy Father is. Some of these independent Chapels have their own Pope, Father Lucien Pulvermacher , or as his followers call him Pope Pius XIII, comes to mind who reigns in full pontifical glory from either Spokane, Washington or Kalispell, Montana:thumbsup: .The Holy See may have moved again, so the Holy Father may be in some other location by now. You can’t be too careful when dealing with things these days you know.

I would be EXTREMELY wary and very very careful and circumspect in **any **dealings with this particular group.

In fact, if it were me, I think I would walk on the other side of the street when I pass by.

How did Latin Catholics come to this? How do papists who believe this way explain the words of Jesus:

Luke 22:24-27

24 And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. 25 And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ 26 "But not so with you, but let him who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. 27 "For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table, or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
NASB

What the heck is a papist?

Papists? I assume you are an evangelical Protestant, since no Catholic ever uses that term, which is a term of abuse often used during the Protestant “reformation” by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin to refer to Catholics. Schism, heresy, and confusion historically has been an ever present threat after every general council. Nicaea in 325, Ephesus in 431, Chalcedon in 451, Vatican I in 1870, and Vatican II in 1965 ALL provoked schism by dissatisfied groups, who all claim they are correct, and Rome was wrong. But the Church is STILL here. Surely no mere human institution would have survived such challenges to its authority and unity.

How do Catholics explain?

Let Christ do it for us…
"Thou art Peter and upon this ROCK I will build My Church…
"He who hears you hears Me…
“I give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven…whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven…”

Jesus is a gentle teacher.
The whole of His teachings must be heard.
They must be heard from the guardian whom He left in charge.
Trust…
Peace…
Obedience…

Schism… results from a lack of trust in the divine promise, that Christ will be with His Church always, until the end of time.

A Papist is a Catholic, a follower of the Pope. The term is generally used by anti-Catholics to show that Catholics owe their allegiance to a man, the Pope, rather than God. Most of the people who still use this term, popularized in the reformation and periodically revived during various anti Catholic times. believe all kinds of wierd off the wall stuff about Catholics, so I wouldn’t put a lot of concern into the posters remarks.

PS. The Pope doesn’t wear robes to cover his cloven hoofs, we don’t eat Jewish babies at Mass and we haven’t burned Protestant heretics at the stake for a long long time, even though many apparently believe we still do.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.