Reading through this and similar posts the one thing I pick up which pro and anti SSPXers never cover is the nature of the obedience required of a Traditionalist (in the general sense of the word).
What exactly does Rome require? Fundamentally it boils down to three things:
- An acceptance of Vatican II interpreted, for any problematic passages, in the light of the constant teaching of the Church;
- An acceptance of the OF Mass as officially promulgated and printed in the missal;
- An acceptance of current acts of the Magisterium, the nature of which acceptance depends upon the nature of those acts.
With 1. the topic has already been thrashed out: Vat II is an Ecumenical Council and parts of its texts are of the Magisterium and require absolutely the assent of the faithful. Reconciling disputed passages with Catholic Tradition has already been done elsewhere. What I have seen from the Traditional side is a blanket condemnation of Vat II rather than a willingness to look at the actual texts themselves and see if they are really as bad as all that. If certain passages need further subsequent clarifications from the Church it will not be the first time. ‘Outside the Church no salvation’ required quite a bit of explanation.
Nobody is actually making a fuss over 3, at least not to the extent that it precludes a settlement.
The real problem is 2, accepting the OF Mass. To my knowledge, no-one has yet pointed out that the OF Mass, as celebrated in many, if not most, parishes in the world, is not the same thing as the Mass as printed in the missal. It is possible to celebrate an OF Mass in a way that for a casual onlooker would be virtually indistinguishable from an EF Mass. Concomitance is everything. From the beginning the OF Mass was accompanied with liturgical abuses not mandated by the Church and so, in the minds of Traditionalists, it is indissolubly linked with them. But this need not be the case. A bit of context might help.
Over the last two centuries (which isn’t actually that long a time) western society has been steadily secularised, which means that a rejection of religion’s right to intervene in public sphere when its own interests are threatened, has been followed by a dismantling of the moral and social order built up by religion.
Up until about 50 years ago the Church was successful in keeping the secular spirit out of its own structures, largely through a strong and centralised papacy that watched closely for any signs of infiltration. A good example is St Pius X’s reaction to Modernism as expressed in
Pascendi.
I think, however, that is was only a matter of time before the doors were broken down. Up until fairly recently the secular world preserved enough of the old Christian character to foster the idea that peace could be made with it. The violent persecutions of the Revolution were a thing of the past. There was an accommodation between the secular state and the Church, notably in the US. It seemed that both sides could shake hands and live in peace. This I think lay behind the optimism of Vatican II.
The problem though is that the driving force behind secularism remained untouched. A rejection of the principle that religion should mould the moral framework of society meant that the Christian character of that society was running on borrowed steam: sooner or later the steam would have to give out. The necessity a religious man has of accepting current unchristian laws disposes him to accept further unchristian laws in the future. It is an unstoppable process.
In the meantime, though, the secular spirit got into the Church, what Pope Paul VI called the ‘smoke of Satan’ and Lucy of Fatima called a ‘diabolical disorientation’. The tension between a Church and a world that cohabited without seeing eye to eye was finally past. Catholics grew up in a secular world. They absorbed the secular media, were part of secular institutions. Now they could finally have a secular mindset and still call themselves Catholic. This remains the state of the typical contemporary churchgoer today.
This flooding of Church happened on the occasion of Vatican II. It was not directly mandated by the Council, however the misguided euphoria on the occasion of the Council had a lot to do with it. The OF Mass was caught up in this movement and received a stamp that the Church herself did not give it.
The party, however, is nearly over. The secular world has forged ahead, breaking down one after the other of the Christian moral pillars that uphold western society. It is now reaching the point where it is becoming impossible to pretend that an accommodation is possible any longer. The Church inevitably must be sidelined from society and acquire the stigma of a sect. Catholics will be obliged to choose between being socially acceptable seculars or being Catholic. It will no longer be possible to be both. When that happens the driving force behind the secular spirit within the Church will collapse. A Church once again in radical opposition to the world will feel no need to have the world’s spirit within its ranks. Solid doctrine and supernatural liturgies will become the norm again.
), everyone is now an expert with a firmly held view on practically everything, the facts be damned.
