SSPX Crisis

[Mike30]

Well, we think this sometimes. But really it could be entirely possible that if it weren’t for the open rebellion of the SSPX, especially the episcopal ordinations and beyond, that some of the other Bishops of the world would have been less resistant to allowing the TLM in their dioceses eventually.

The thing is, you never really know “what if”.

Given the outright hostility and hatred heaped upn the Extraordinary Form by many many members of the Clergy in those long ago days and the fact that we were pointedly told by the same clergy that the Extraordinary Form had been suppressed and abolished and was in fact illegal to perform, I somehow doubt that the Extraordinary Form would have survived had it not been for the SSPX. I really don’t see how it could have.

It is good to remember that at that time, absolutely no seminaries were teaching it, the only Parishes that were offering it were those with elderly Priests excused from learning the Ordinary Form and they were forbidden to pass it along. Add to that the plain fact that even after John Paul II issued his Motu Proprio a great many Bishops refused to allow it in their Dioceses and if allowed only under the most draconian rules imaginable.

Plus remember the reason the Moto Propio was issued in the first place. An olive branch to who? The SSPX.

No it is pretty clear that without the SSPX the Extraordinary Form wouldn’t be here today except as a curiosity relegated to some liturgical museum.

 

[GloriaMaria]

Given the outright hostility and hatred heaped upn the Extraordinary Form by many many members of the Clergy in those long ago days and the fact that we were pointedly told by the same clergy that the Extraordinary Form had been suppressed and abolished and was in fact illegal to perform, I somehow doubt that the Extraordinary Form would have survived had it not been for the SSPX. I really don’t see how it could have.

It is good to remember that at that time, absolutely no seminaries were teaching it, the only Parishes that were offering it were those with elderly Priests excused from learning the Ordinary Form and they were forbidden to pass it along. Add to that the plain fact that even after John Paul II issued his Motu Proprio a great many Bishops refused to allow it in their Dioceses and if allowed only under the most draconian rules imaginable.

Plus remember the reason the Moto Propio was issued in the first place. An olive branch to who? The SSPX.

No it is pretty clear that without the SSPX the Extraordinary Form wouldn’t be here today except as a curiosity relegated to some liturgical museum.

Just as a note of detail. The Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” was issued by Pope Benedict XVI and not Blessed JPII.

My point was that it is precisely the attitude of rebellion which may be the cause of the hostility that has been seen by some Bishops.

Also, the rules around allowing the TLM are by and large there to allow a Bishop to attend to the greatest number of faithful as possible. If in a parish of 300, 30 people request the TLM, it is perhaps not enough to assign an entire Mass slot to the TLM.

Also, do you really know that no one else had preserved the TLM, besides the SSPX? I mean the liturgical books hadn’t been burned or anything. There are and were priests who were allowed a Celebret (hope I spelled that correctly) to privately say the TLM.

 

[1AugustSon7]

We must never forget that if it were not for the SSPX the TLM would be extinct.

That’s the difference between atheists and theists. Catholics believe God’s will is done, regardless of the will of men; and we pray that we might be given the grace to cooperate with his will freely, voluntarily and happily: to be active agents of and in it.

You are in fact sorely mistaken, and I can prove it from history.

Vernacularism began as a legitimate and very civil debate within the Catholic world before Protestantism became something objective and radical. Saint Thomas More was, for example, one of its greatest proponents all his life. Many other contemporary, faithful Catholic scholars and theologians also promoted it, based on the fact that the Latin Mass was originally, itself, a vernacularization of the Greek, itself a vernacular Mass.

So what happened to vernacularism? As the idea was popular and gaining popularity, radicals naturally parroted the idea and exagerrated its (the idea’s) particular truth, goodness and beauty. They hijacked it and made themselves the great champions of it to such an extent that they monopolized it and it (the idea) became almost inseperable from them (the radicals, soon to be full-blown Protestants) and their actually heterodox and, shortly, heretical ideas.

Vernacularsm did not originally nor even after necessarily equal ("=") Protestantism, as many examples coud show, but the Protestants so fixated on, promoted and flag-shipped the idea that in the popular mind the vernacular Mass became a symbol of Protestantism, rebellion, dissidence, etc. However, calm, cool, thoughtful and utterly faithful Catholic heads could distinguish and defend the originally Catholic idea even to their deaths, with the difference that they ultimately reserved the decision to the Church’s living Magisterium, who alone could authorize such changes.

So the answer to our question is: the vernacular Mass was killed by Protestants and Protestantism, because they converted (and perverted) the idea such that it, in the contemporary, popular mind, irrevocably became identified with rebellion against the Church. Vernacularism = Protestantism; and while there were no shortage of learned Catholics -be they learned layman, theologians or bishops- who knew that the idea was originally a truly Catholic one and remained such so long as it was understood to be ultimately up to the Church’s Magisterium, notwithstanding, in the popular mind vernacularism was effectively equated to Protestantism.

Switch to our day, where the exact same thing is too frequently happening, but in reverse.

I don’t doubt that there are plenty of people even within the hierarchy of the Church who have an aversion and even detestation for Latin and the Latin Mass. They are foolish people who’s folly can and hopefully will be made ever more transparent. However, I think for most of the best and truest Catholics in the Magisterium, their aversion to the Latin Mass is because it has become for so many a symbol of opposition to the Magisterium, be it the living one now reigning or a symbol of opposition to Vatican II or to the Ordinary Form of the Mass (All three are expressions of the Magistrium’s authority regardless, so to oppose one is to oppose the Magisterium). Now if an EF Mass is celebrated to oppose any one of these (and remember that they all represent the Magisterim’s authority) that Mass becomes a sacrilege.

The Sacrament of Unity is celebrated in the Mass; the Mass is the celebration of the Church’s sacred Unity. The whole object of the Mass is to infuse objective unity with Christ and, through, with and in him also with His Church in heaven and also on earth. When a Mass is celebrated that opposes the living, visible expression, sign and servant of that very unity (i.e., the Magisterium) it is - at the very least - vitiated and can even be objectively sacrilegious. Satanists can, if they acquire a Catholic priest, objectively and validly (but not lawfully/licitly) - at least technically, in other words - celebrate a valid Mass; however, everyone realizes it is a sacrilege because it is plainly obvious that they desire the opposite of what the Mass is: they desire the destruction and disunity of the Church.

So, on the contrary - and far from helping the Latin Mass - the rebel, dissident and disobedient groups are in fact vitiating its promotion and success insomuch or insofar as they necessarily force it to become - as a symbol - a sign of opposition to the Church, rather than the sign of unity that it is and is meant to be, which is oc fource the very antithesis of what the Mass is. They therefore threaten to relegate it to the same fate as vernacularism had in the hands of radical Protestants.

----My apologies for any and all typos, the keys on this laptop are atrocious. I basically need a hammer to type!—

 

[Lormar]

Hello!

I just joined this site tonight. I stumbled upon this thred, and so glad that I did.

I just came back to our one , holy, catholic apostolic Church that Jesus Christ founded upon this earth–2 nights ago.

I was with SSPX Roman Cathic Church for apprx 4 1/2 years, and with the “independent” Traditional Roman Catholic Churh for almost 5 years.

My “running” back into the loving arms of our Holy Mother the Church was because of Pope Benedicts’ resignation. It really got me to doing some soul searching. After many days and nights of no sleep, crying, having to go to work every day with this turmoil in my heart was more than I could bear. It felt like my heart was being pierced.

Finally, I had found the answer, and was lead by the Holy Spirt to go to a Roman Catholic Church in my town to a Bible class. I wanted to meet the parish priest.

I have been away from the “modern” Church for many, many, years. In fact I just quit going for nine years before my journey back into the traditional churches. I must admit, I truely loved it there. BUT, as of two days ago, I know how wrong I have been.

The particular night (2 nights ago), I was all ready to go to this Bible class. Instead, a special Mission meeting was being held, and the priest who was to lead the Bible class was hearing confessions!!! Oh yes, I went. He heard, and i was forgiven.

This is my story. I have not yet been to the new Mass yet, but will be going this coming Sunday. I am a bit nervous. Father said I may kneel at Holy Communion, He also said only ONE other parishioner kneels in the entire parish! The new parish I have chosen to belong to is a very large parish.

I am having qualms about peoples dress (shorts–for real!), no veils on the womens’ heads, no communion rail, altar girls, and the Chrismatics. Plus i had face to face Confession.

Father told me I must just persevere…

I would love to join your support group for ex-Trads. I hope you get it going…hopefully more people like us will find this thread.

May God bless us all.

Humble Catholic, my heart goes out to you and believe me when I tell you that I know exactly where you have been and what you went through and what you are going through now.

Feel free to call on us via PM if you need support, prayers…whatever. We are all in this together and understand one another and where we have been and the damage done.

God bless you!

 

[Lormar]

We must never forget that if it were not for the SSPX the TLM would be extinct.

You have no way, absolutely no way, of knowing that for certain. The best you can do is to say that’s what you think.

 

[GloriaMaria]

That’s the difference between atheists and theists. Catholics believe God’s will is done, regardless of the will of men; and we pray that we might be given the grace to cooperate with his will freely, voluntarily and happily: to be active agents of and in it.

You are in fact sorely mistaken, and I can prove it from history.

Vernacularism began as a legitimate and very civil debate within the Catholic world before Protestantism became something objective and radical. Saint Thomas More was, for example, one of its greatest proponents all his life. Many other contemporary, faithful Catholic scholars and theologians also promoted it, based on the fact that the Latin Mass was originally, itself, a vernacularization of the Greek, itself a vernacular Mass.

So what happened to vernacularism? As the idea was popular and gaining popularity, radicals naturally parroted the idea and exagerrated its (the idea’s) particular truth, goodness and beauty. They hijacked it and made themselves the great champions of it to such an extent that they monopolized it and it (the idea) became almost inseperable from them (the radicals, soon to be full-blown Protestants) and their actually heterodox and, shortly, heretical ideas.

Vernacularsm did not originally nor even after necessarily equal ("=") Protestantism, as many examples coud show, but the Protestants so fixated on, promoted and flag-shipped the idea that in the popular mind the vernacular Mass became a symbol of Protestantism, rebellion, dissidence, etc. However, calm, cool, thoughtful and utterly faithful Catholic heads could distinguish and defend the originally Catholic idea even to their deaths, with the difference that they ultimately reserved the decision to the Church’s living Magisterium, who alone could authorize such changes.

So the answer to our question is: the vernacular Mass was killed by Protestants and Protestantism, because they converted (and perverted) the idea such that it, in the contemporary, popular mind, irrevocably became identified with rebellion against the Church. Vernacularism = Protestantism; and while there were no shortage of learned Catholics -be they learned layman, theologians or bishops- who knew that the idea was originally a truly Catholic one and remained such so long as it was understood to be ultimately up to the Church’s Magisterium, notwithstanding, in the popular mind vernacularism was effectively equated to Protestantism.

Switch to our day, where the exact same thing is too frequently happening, but in reverse.

I don’t doubt that there are plenty of people even within the hierarchy of the Church who have an aversion and even detestation for Latin and the Latin Mass. They are foolish people who’s folly can and hopefully will be made ever more transparent. However, I think for most of the best and truest Catholics in the Magisterium, their aversion to the Latin Mass is because it has become for so many a symbol of opposition to the Magisterium, be it the living one now reigning or a symbol of opposition to Vatican II or to the Ordinary Form of the Mass (All three are expressions of the Magistrium’s authority regardless, so to oppose one is to oppose the Magisterium). Now if an EF Mass is celebrated to oppose any one of these (and remember that they all represent the Magisterim’s authority) that Mass becomes a sacrilege.

The Sacrament of Unity is celebrated in the Mass; the Mass is the celebration of the Church’s sacred Unity. The whole object of the Mass is to infuse objective unity with Christ and, through, with and in him also with His Church in heaven and also on earth. When a Mass is celebrated that opposes the living, visible expression, sign and servant of that very unity (i.e., the Magisterium) it is - at the very least - vitiated and can even be objectively sacrilegious. Satanists can, if they acquire a Catholic priest, objectively and validly (but not lawfully/licitly) - at least technically, in other words - celebrate a valid Mass; however, everyone realizes it is a sacrilege because it is plainly obvious that they desire the opposite of what the Mass is: they desire the destruction and disunity of the Church.

So, on the contrary - and far from helping the Latin Mass - the rebel, dissident and disobedient groups are in fact vitiating its promotion and success insomuch or insofar as they necessarily force it to become - as a symbol - a sign of opposition to the Church, rather than the sign of unity that it is and is meant to be, which is oc fource the very antithesis of what the Mass is. They therefore threaten to relegate it to the same fate as vernacularism had in the hands of radical Protestants.

----My apologies for any and all typos, the keys on this laptop are atrocious. I basically need a hammer to type!—

Thank you for taking the time to post this. I learned a lot from it.

 

[GloriaMaria]

We must never forget that if it were not for the SSPX the TLM would be extinct.

I’m not trying to pick on you, honest. This idea really got me pondering something. If, instead of rebellion - (TLM at any cost) the SSPX had instead had taken the OF and concentrated on simply promoting the most reverent, by the books, OF Mass - perhaps it would have gone a long, long way to put in order all of the crazy abuses.

Well, conjecture again. Besides they don’t believe the OF is “good” (their definition of licit) even when done by the books. Or this is what I have heard them say.

 

[Lormar]

Besides they don’t believe the OF is “good” (their definition of licit) even when done by the books. Or this is what I have heard them say.

Yes. I know it by heart as I heard it over and over and over and over again.

I was told:

Archbishop Lefebvre said there is a danger of losing your faith if you attend the new Mass. And if you lose your faith, you might not get it back!!

 

[eonporter]

That’s the difference between atheists and theists. Catholics believe God’s will is done, regardless of the will of men; and we pray that we might be given the grace to cooperate with his will freely, voluntarily and happily: to be active agents of and in it.

You are in fact sorely mistaken, and I can prove it from history.

Vernacularism began as a legitimate and very civil debate within the Catholic world before Protestantism became something objective and radical. Saint Thomas More was, for example, one of its greatest proponents all his life. Many other contemporary, faithful Catholic scholars and theologians also promoted it, based on the fact that the Latin Mass was originally, itself, a vernacularization of the Greek, itself a vernacular Mass.

So what happened to vernacularism? As the idea was popular and gaining popularity, radicals naturally parroted the idea and exagerrated its (the idea’s) particular truth, goodness and beauty. They hijacked it and made themselves the great champions of it to such an extent that they monopolized it and it (the idea) became almost inseperable from them (the radicals, soon to be full-blown Protestants) and their actually heterodox and, shortly, heretical ideas.

Vernacularsm did not originally nor even after necessarily equal ("=") Protestantism, as many examples coud show, but the Protestants so fixated on, promoted and flag-shipped the idea that in the popular mind the vernacular Mass became a symbol of Protestantism, rebellion, dissidence, etc. However, calm, cool, thoughtful and utterly faithful Catholic heads could distinguish and defend the originally Catholic idea even to their deaths, with the difference that they ultimately reserved the decision to the Church’s living Magisterium, who alone could authorize such changes.

So the answer to our question is: the vernacular Mass was killed by Protestants and Protestantism, because they converted (and perverted) the idea such that it, in the contemporary, popular mind, irrevocably became identified with rebellion against the Church. Vernacularism = Protestantism; and while there were no shortage of learned Catholics -be they learned layman, theologians or bishops- who knew that the idea was originally a truly Catholic one and remained such so long as it was understood to be ultimately up to the Church’s Magisterium, notwithstanding, in the popular mind vernacularism was effectively equated to Protestantism.

Switch to our day, where the exact same thing is too frequently happening, but in reverse.

I don’t doubt that there are plenty of people even within the hierarchy of the Church who have an aversion and even detestation for Latin and the Latin Mass. They are foolish people who’s folly can and hopefully will be made ever more transparent. However, I think for most of the best and truest Catholics in the Magisterium, their aversion to the Latin Mass is because it has become for so many a symbol of opposition to the Magisterium, be it the living one now reigning or a symbol of opposition to Vatican II or to the Ordinary Form of the Mass (All three are expressions of the Magistrium’s authority regardless, so to oppose one is to oppose the Magisterium). Now if an EF Mass is celebrated to oppose any one of these (and remember that they all represent the Magisterim’s authority) that Mass becomes a sacrilege.

The Sacrament of Unity is celebrated in the Mass; the Mass is the celebration of the Church’s sacred Unity. The whole object of the Mass is to infuse objective unity with Christ and, through, with and in him also with His Church in heaven and also on earth. When a Mass is celebrated that opposes the living, visible expression, sign and servant of that very unity (i.e., the Magisterium) it is - at the very least - vitiated and can even be objectively sacrilegious. Satanists can, if they acquire a Catholic priest, objectively and validly (but not lawfully/licitly) - at least technically, in other words - celebrate a valid Mass; however, everyone realizes it is a sacrilege because it is plainly obvious that they desire the opposite of what the Mass is: they desire the destruction and disunity of the Church.

So, on the contrary - and far from helping the Latin Mass - the rebel, dissident and disobedient groups are in fact vitiating its promotion and success insomuch or insofar as they necessarily force it to become - as a symbol - a sign of opposition to the Church, rather than the sign of unity that it is and is meant to be, which is oc fource the very antithesis of what the Mass is. They therefore threaten to relegate it to the same fate as vernacularism had in the hands of radical Protestants.

----My apologies for any and all typos, the keys on this laptop are atrocious. I basically need a hammer to type!—

Great thinking here. Learned a lot too.

 

[Genesis315]

That’s the difference between atheists and theists. Catholics believe God’s will is done, regardless of the will of men; and we pray that we might be given the grace to cooperate with his will freely, voluntarily and happily: to be active agents of and in it.

You are in fact sorely mistaken, and I can prove it from history.

Vernacularism began as a legitimate and very civil debate within the Catholic world before Protestantism became something objective and radical. Saint Thomas More was, for example, one of its greatest proponents all his life. Many other contemporary, faithful Catholic scholars and theologians also promoted it, based on the fact that the Latin Mass was originally, itself, a vernacularization of the Greek, itself a vernacular Mass.

So what happened to vernacularism? As the idea was popular and gaining popularity, radicals naturally parroted the idea and exagerrated its (the idea’s) particular truth, goodness and beauty. They hijacked it and made themselves the great champions of it to such an extent that they monopolized it and it (the idea) became almost inseperable from them (the radicals, soon to be full-blown Protestants) and their actually heterodox and, shortly, heretical ideas.

Vernacularsm did not originally nor even after necessarily equal ("=") Protestantism, as many examples coud show, but the Protestants so fixated on, promoted and flag-shipped the idea that in the popular mind the vernacular Mass became a symbol of Protestantism, rebellion, dissidence, etc. However, calm, cool, thoughtful and utterly faithful Catholic heads could distinguish and defend the originally Catholic idea even to their deaths, with the difference that they ultimately reserved the decision to the Church’s living Magisterium, who alone could authorize such changes.

So the answer to our question is: the vernacular Mass was killed by Protestants and Protestantism, because they converted (and perverted) the idea such that it, in the contemporary, popular mind, irrevocably became identified with rebellion against the Church. Vernacularism = Protestantism; and while there were no shortage of learned Catholics -be they learned layman, theologians or bishops- who knew that the idea was originally a truly Catholic one and remained such so long as it was understood to be ultimately up to the Church’s Magisterium, notwithstanding, in the popular mind vernacularism was effectively equated to Protestantism.

Switch to our day, where the exact same thing is too frequently happening, but in reverse.

I don’t doubt that there are plenty of people even within the hierarchy of the Church who have an aversion and even detestation for Latin and the Latin Mass. They are foolish people who’s folly can and hopefully will be made ever more transparent. However, I think for most of the best and truest Catholics in the Magisterium, their aversion to the Latin Mass is because it has become for so many a symbol of opposition to the Magisterium, be it the living one now reigning or a symbol of opposition to Vatican II or to the Ordinary Form of the Mass (All three are expressions of the Magistrium’s authority regardless, so to oppose one is to oppose the Magisterium). Now if an EF Mass is celebrated to oppose any one of these (and remember that they all represent the Magisterim’s authority) that Mass becomes a sacrilege.

The Sacrament of Unity is celebrated in the Mass; the Mass is the celebration of the Church’s sacred Unity. The whole object of the Mass is to infuse objective unity with Christ and, through, with and in him also with His Church in heaven and also on earth. When a Mass is celebrated that opposes the living, visible expression, sign and servant of that very unity (i.e., the Magisterium) it is - at the very least - vitiated and can even be objectively sacrilegious. Satanists can, if they acquire a Catholic priest, objectively and validly (but not lawfully/licitly) - at least technically, in other words - celebrate a valid Mass; however, everyone realizes it is a sacrilege because it is plainly obvious that they desire the opposite of what the Mass is: they desire the destruction and disunity of the Church.

So, on the contrary - and far from helping the Latin Mass - the rebel, dissident and disobedient groups are in fact vitiating its promotion and success insomuch or insofar as they necessarily force it to become - as a symbol - a sign of opposition to the Church, rather than the sign of unity that it is and is meant to be, which is oc fource the very antithesis of what the Mass is. They therefore threaten to relegate it to the same fate as vernacularism had in the hands of radical Protestants.

----My apologies for any and all typos, the keys on this laptop are atrocious. I basically need a hammer to type!—

Great post. The same thing happened with Communion under both species–it became associated with Utraquists as a symbol of rejection of the Church’s authority.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

This thread and the comments I’ve read give me great hope.

Like many, I’ve always loved the TLM and am drawn to it. But my experiences with traditionalists in general have been uncomfortable. My experiences with the SSPX or Sedvacantists have been nothing short of very unpleasant and distasteful.

We must remember we are one Church, with one deposit of faith, under one God and shepherded by one Holy Father.

The things I’ve read here give me great hope. Thank you.

 

[Lormar]

Great post. The same thing happened with Communion under both species–it became associated with Utraquists as a symbol of rejection of the Church’s authority.

I think that is called the sin of scandal. And I know what you mean. Finally for the first time last week I understood the damage done.

It is not really the old Mass, or Holy Communion on the tongue, or mantillas/chapel veils, or incense, or whatever it is that you associate with the “old ways”, but it is the actions of those you associate with those things that has caused you to be repulsed by what are truly holy and/or good pious practices.

Because of the actions, especially the past few months, of a certain group of traditionals who are loosely associated with the SSPX, if I never attended another EF Mass in my life, I wouldn’t miss it. Or anything associated with the “pre-Vatican II Church”. I am so turned off to these things because of the actions of the people associated with them.

This is a long way of saying to you: I agree. It took me the longest time to realize what I have written and the harm done by making of the Mass, as a cardinal once said to either Pope Paul VI or Bl. John Paul II about the SSPX, “a banner” to wave in the face of others.

 

[Melchior_1]

We must never forget that if it were not for the SSPX the TLM would be extinct.

The SSPX was given a “Godfather” offer, rights and privileges that no group since the Jesuits has received, yet it was turned down. This offer included a Right of Exemption, meaning no diocesan bishops could touch them. Like it or not, they could have had a huge impact staying within the Church.

 

[Mike30]

The SSPX was given a “Godfather” offer, rights and privileges that no group since the Jesuits has received, yet it was turned down. This offer included a Right of Exemption, meaning no diocesan bishops could touch them. Like it or not, they could have had a huge impact staying within the Church.

Quite true, however, in all honesty an unbiased reading of their history would seem to indicate that they have good reason to be wary of what is said to them by Vatican and Diocesian officials in some cases Politics often rears its ugly head in these areas.

Not excusing their actions by any stretch of the imagination, but I think I can understand them, at least to a degree.

I think their single greatest failing is not disobedience, or disrespect or even beligerence.

It is pride. Purely and simply put, it is pride.

 

[Mike30]

Just as a note of detail. The Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” was issued by Pope Benedict XVI and not Blessed JPII.

My point was that it is precisely the attitude of rebellion which may be the cause of the hostility that has been seen by some Bishops.

Also, the rules around allowing the TLM are by and large there to allow a Bishop to attend to the greatest number of faithful as possible. If in a parish of 300, 30 people request the TLM, it is perhaps not enough to assign an entire Mass slot to the TLM.

Also, do you really know that no one else had preserved the TLM, besides the SSPX? I mean the liturgical books hadn’t been burned or anything. There are and were priests who were allowed a Celebret (hope I spelled that correctly) to privately say the TLM.

The only other place where the Traditional Mass had been preserved in any significant way, was in the Diocese of Campos in Brazil and they were affiliated with the SSPX although not a part of it. The Bishop there refused to switch over the the new Liturgy in 1969 and became close to the SSPX, in fact very close to the SSPX over the next several years.

The Bishops hostility didn’t have much to do with the so called rebellious attitude. The hostility was evident well before the supression of the Society by the Church. There had not been a rebellious attitude prior to that suppression, which appears to have been more political than anything else. The rebellious attitude really didn’t pop up until after the consecrations by Archbishop Lefebrve in 1988 and the excommunications which followed them. Nah, the rebellious attitude excuse doesn’t work. Most Bishops flat out hated the Extraordinary Form and refused to allow it at all both prior to as well as after the indult, except for the few elderly and infirm Priests who were excused from learning the Ordinary Mass and given permission to celebrate it. Trust someone who was around back in those days, there were not a lot of those Priests. There really weren’t.

That is a fact.

After the indult was issued many if not most of these same Bishops still refused to allow the Extraordinary Form in their Dioceses or payed lip service only to it… And some of the ones that did, , went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that it would be attended by as few as possible. They used every excuse imaginable to thwart any meaningful implementation of it. Everything from not allowing it to be celebrated in the same place twice in a row, to not allowing it to be celebrated at a Church, to restricting its’ attendees to people who had been adults and attending Mass in 1962, etc etc etc… Everything that you can think of. An especially negative saying was that the Extraordianry Form, they didn’t call it that name to be sure, just did not satisfy the spiritual needs of their flocks. Imagine that. The Mass that had satisfied the spiritual needsof millions upon millions for generations all of a sudden, could not. An amazing statement. Absolutely amazing.

Let me clarify, I am not condemning the Bishops. There were more than a few who went to extraordinary lengths to help establish what are today thriving Parishes where the Extraordinary Form is not only celebrated but holds a place of honor. But there were a lot who for theor own personal reasons went out of their way to make things difficult.

So I stand by my statement. The SSPX is almost wholly and soley responsible for the very survival of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and no matter their shortcomings we owe them a debt of gratitude for that, if for nothing else…

I don’t condone disobedience nor disrespect of the Vatican in general,** BUT** maybe in this case, it was necessary to be firm, even obstinant to get the message across.

Who can really say?

 

[JReducation]

We must never forget that if it were not for the SSPX the TLM would be extinct.

This is the kind of comment that boils the oil for many religious communities and other societies of apostolic life. It’s as if they did not exist without the graces of the SSPX.

Have we forgotten that long before Summorum Pontificum we already had the Ecclesia Dei Institutes and several religious orders and congregations that celebrate the Tridentine Form? Don’t you value those people at all?

Norbertines
Franciscans of the Immaculate
FSSP
ICRSS
Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer
Canons of St. John Cantius
Carmelite Monks (not the friars)

There are more, but I can’t recall the names. None of these communities are part of the SSPX, nor were they ever part of the SSPX. They preserved the Tridentine form on their own.

 

[JReducation]

Most Bishops flat out hated the Extraordinary Form

After the indult was issued many if not most of these same Bishops still refused to allow the Extraordinary Form in their Dioceses or payed lip service only to it… And some of the ones that did, , went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that it would be attended by as few as possible. They used every excuse imaginable to thwart any meaningful implementation of it.

These are very serious accusations that you’re making about bishops in a very public arena.

So I stand by my statement. The SSPX is almost wholly and soley responsible for the very survival of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and no matter their shortcomings we owe them a debt of gratitude for that, if for nothing else…

This is inaccurate. The Tridentine form was in use in different institutes long before Summorum Pontificum and the SSPX had nothing to do with those institutes. What MAY be true is that SP was an attempt on Pope Benedict’s part to draw the SSPX home. I say may, because we’ll never know since he’s not saying.

 

[HumbleCatholic]

That’s the difference between atheists and theists. Catholics believe God’s will is done, regardless of the will of men; and we pray that we might be given the grace to cooperate with his will freely, voluntarily and happily: to be active agents of and in it.

You are in fact sorely mistaken, and I can prove it from history.

Vernacularism began as a legitimate and very civil debate within the Catholic world before Protestantism became something objective and radical. Saint Thomas More was, for example, one of its greatest proponents all his life. Many other contemporary, faithful Catholic scholars and theologians also promoted it, based on the fact that the Latin Mass was originally, itself, a vernacularization of the Greek, itself a vernacular Mass.

So what happened to vernacularism? As the idea was popular and gaining popularity, radicals naturally parroted the idea and exagerrated its (the idea’s) particular truth, goodness and beauty. They hijacked it and made themselves the great champions of it to such an extent that they monopolized it and it (the idea) became almost inseperable from them (the radicals, soon to be full-blown Protestants) and their actually heterodox and, shortly, heretical ideas.

Vernacularsm did not originally nor even after necessarily equal ("=") Protestantism, as many examples coud show, but the Protestants so fixated on, promoted and flag-shipped the idea that in the popular mind the vernacular Mass became a symbol of Protestantism, rebellion, dissidence, etc. However, calm, cool, thoughtful and utterly faithful Catholic heads could distinguish and defend the originally Catholic idea even to their deaths, with the difference that they ultimately reserved the decision to the Church’s living Magisterium, who alone could authorize such changes.

So the answer to our question is: the vernacular Mass was killed by Protestants and Protestantism, because they converted (and perverted) the idea such that it, in the contemporary, popular mind, irrevocably became identified with rebellion against the Church. Vernacularism = Protestantism; and while there were no shortage of learned Catholics -be they learned layman, theologians or bishops- who knew that the idea was originally a truly Catholic one and remained such so long as it was understood to be ultimately up to the Church’s Magisterium, notwithstanding, in the popular mind vernacularism was effectively equated to Protestantism.

Switch to our day, where the exact same thing is too frequently happening, but in reverse.

I don’t doubt that there are plenty of people even within the hierarchy of the Church who have an aversion and even detestation for Latin and the Latin Mass. They are foolish people who’s folly can and hopefully will be made ever more transparent. However, I think for most of the best and truest Catholics in the Magisterium, their aversion to the Latin Mass is because it has become for so many a symbol of opposition to the Magisterium, be it the living one now reigning or a symbol of opposition to Vatican II or to the Ordinary Form of the Mass (All three are expressions of the Magistrium’s authority regardless, so to oppose one is to oppose the Magisterium). Now if an EF Mass is celebrated to oppose any one of these (and remember that they all represent the Magisterim’s authority) that Mass becomes a sacrilege.

The Sacrament of Unity is celebrated in the Mass; the Mass is the celebration of the Church’s sacred Unity. The whole object of the Mass is to infuse objective unity with Christ and, through, with and in him also with His Church in heaven and also on earth. When a Mass is celebrated that opposes the living, visible expression, sign and servant of that very unity (i.e., the Magisterium) it is - at the very least - vitiated and can even be objectively sacrilegious. Satanists can, if they acquire a Catholic priest, objectively and validly (but not lawfully/licitly) - at least technically, in other words - celebrate a valid Mass; however, everyone realizes it is a sacrilege because it is plainly obvious that they desire the opposite of what the Mass is: they desire the destruction and disunity of the Church.

So, on the contrary - and far from helping the Latin Mass - the rebel, dissident and disobedient groups are in fact vitiating its promotion and success insomuch or insofar as they necessarily force it to become - as a symbol - a sign of opposition to the Church, rather than the sign of unity that it is and is meant to be, which is oc fource the very antithesis of what the Mass is. They therefore threaten to relegate it to the same fate as vernacularism had in the hands of radical Protestants.

----My apologies for any and all typos, the keys on this laptop are atrocious. I basically need a hammer to type!—

Thank you for your great post, August.

As a new member, you have helped me so much in my few days I have been here. You have helped settle my mind as to what I just “came out of” for the past almost 10 years, plus my leaving the Church altogether for amost 9 yrs which equals 19 years. GULP!

In my heart and mind, I “thought” I had never left our one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church. What a “mind opening” to what had been a very closed mind.

 

[Mike30]

These are very serious accusations that you’re making about bishops in a very public arena.

This is inaccurate. The Tridentine form was in use in different institutes long before Summorum Pontificum and the SSPX had nothing to do with those institutes. What MAY be true is that SP was an attempt on Pope Benedict’s part to draw the SSPX home. I say may, because we’ll never know since he’s not saying.

Maybe you can explain their hostility then. I can think of no other reasons. The incidents that I described are 100% accurate. If the truth is a serious accusation then so be it. I for one am not afraid to speak the truth, no matter who it concerns.You will note that I did not name the various Bishops who did these things. Suffice to say it is a matter of public record and easily verifiable by anyone who lived it, as I did, or who cares to look.

Actually what I have written is accurate and easily verifiable. Most of the institutes you speak of have only come into existance in the past twenty five years or so and several are either splintered off from the SSPX or were affilaited with it in some way. Those are easily verifiable facts as well.

As I recall the Norbertines, while founded hundreds of years ago started to celebrate the Extraordinary Form again in the 80’s if I am not mistaken, well after the SSPX was founded and suppressed and only after the indult. If I remember the Norbertines did have a small group who were especially conservative that came to the US from Hungary in the 50’s, but after Vatican II they followed suit with just about everyone else and switched over to the Ordinary Form. they may have been the ones who began celebrating the Extraordinary Form with them prior to the 80’s if they in fact did so, and I really don’t think they did. I know they did after the indult but before, I don’t think so.

I’m sorry Brother, but those are facts, not rumors. not inventions but cold hard facts. Sorry if they upset you, but too many people refuse to accept that at one time there was a definite movement within the Clergy to abolish the Extraordinary Form completely. If we forget that or ignore it then we are just burying our heads in the sand.

And that really isn’t a good place to be at even if it is comfortable at times.

 

[Kevin812]

This is the kind of comment that boils the oil for many religious communities and other societies of apostolic life. It’s as if they did not exist without the graces of the SSPX.

Have we forgotten that long before Summorum Pontificum we already had the Ecclesia Dei Institutes and several religious orders and congregations that celebrate the Tridentine Form? Don’t you value those people at all?

Norbertines
Franciscans of the Immaculate
FSSP
ICRSS
Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer
Canons of St. John Cantius
Carmelite Monks (not the friars)

There are more, but I can’t recall the names. None of these communities are part of the SSPX, nor were they ever part of the SSPX. They preserved the Tridentine form on their own.

The FSSP broke off from the SSPX.