Where would The Catholic Church be at today without the SSPX?

[manualman]

It’s a good thing that the thousands of years of Catholic Tradition prior to Vatican II include more than just dictating which way the Priest faces, right?

Actually, I’d say that the priest facing the high altar was a catholic tradition, not a Catholic Tradition, if you know what I mean… That said, I personally think it was a bad move to put him on the other side facing us. People today already suffer from excesive ego as it is. Why make it worse? The ad orientum puts the priest at the front of us and we all face God together. Much better, but not a Tradition. Just a tradition.

 

[Filioque]

Wasn’t the Agatha Christie Indult permission to use the 1967 Missal in one or two countries? But it does show that even Protestants, many of whom signed the petition, acknowledged and requested the preservation of one of the Church’s best-loved treasures. But you can say that the SV’s also helped preserve the ancient Latin Mass. I don’t know if survival is the issue here, but to what degree the Latin Mass actually saved by the SSPX and others who had to stand up to Rome in order to preserve this liturgy. Almost all bishops wanted no part of the old rite and were ready to thwart all efforts to keep the old rite alive. Even the FSSP had to brave it out as second-class citizens of the Church, though they were considered to be in full communion.

While it started with the indult to use the 1965 Missal, (essentially the 1962 with suppressed prayers at the foot of the altar, and last gospel) it allowed for either a Latin/English or all Latin. Even if the 1962 was not granted initially, it was one of the first steps in for a restoration of the 1962 rites on a widespread basis.

Throughout the history of the Church those who hold to a higher standard have been ridiculed and treated with distain. What made them saints was their humiltiy and obedience to both their superiors who abused their authority and the basic principles of the Faith. St. Rita was banished to an uninhabited area of her convent. St. Padre Pio was refused faculties to offer Mass in public, preach and hear confessions for years. Various other Saints were labeled as oddballs and subjected to all sorts of discrimination. What made them different was they were subject to their superiors, and by that trial by fire, went from being a holy person to becoming great saints. It is less being treated as second class citizens than how we deal with being treated as second class citizens.

 

[Boulder257]

Everytime I read one of these arguments I am immediately drawn to Mark 7:1-13. Especially Mark 7:9

“You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”
He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God
in order to uphold your tradition!”

We must recognize that the Bishops have been given the authority to bind and teach, not us.

The current prelate of Opus Dei tells us "Traditionalism,” in its different forms, is a sickness based on a mistaken concept of Tradition. In its genuine meaning, “Tradition” plays an important role in the Church along with Sacred Scripture, from which it is inseparable. In Vatican II; there one finds both what is new and what is traditional.

 

[Lormar]

Boulder

Are those your OD priest’s exact words - Traditionalism in its different forms is a sickness based on a mistaken concept of Tradition?

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

And I defy you read my posts before responding.

I never said it was officially “abrogated” with a Capital “A”. The TLM did, however, very nearly disappear with a few rare exceptions.

Okay, but if the New Mass abrogated the TLM, how could the TLM have remained in use without the “disobedience” of someone, somewhere at some point?

Oxford English Dictionary:

abrogate

• verb formal repeal or do away with (a law or agreement).

— DERIVATIVES abrogation noun abrogator noun.

— ORIGIN Latin abrogare ‘repeal’.

I believe my post writes itself.

 

[CB_Catholic]

To answer the question directly as posted: Where would the Catholic Church be today without the SSPX?–It would have one less schism to deal with and one less group with irregular status to deal with, and less confusion on the part of the traditionally-minded laity. They would have set a far better example for people if they had remained obedient and joined with others interested in preserving the EF who remained in the bosom of Holy Mother Church, and they probably hindered things with their disobedience. Dissent is just as bad from “traditionalists” as it is from “liberals”. Both endanger the unity of the Church. The sooner they get their irregular status taken care of and the sooner their priests regain all their faculties regarding the Sacraments, the better off everybody will be.

 

[MIKE46]

If I am not mistaken, Una Voce is a lay organization, correct? How could they have celebrated it, taught it or kept it going? They may have kept interest in it alive to a small degree amongst the laity and that is highly debatable, but what about the Priesthood? T Remember there was no internet so getting the message out would have been and apparently was quite difficult. I personally never even heard of them until around the time of the indult and I was pretty active in trying to find Traditional Masses in those days. The Church certainly didn’t advertise the fact that a lay organization such as Una Voce existed. The fact remains there would have been none or very few qualified priests to celebrate the Traditional Mass were it not for the SSPX. In fact, many if not most of the first priests that celebrated the Traditional Mass after the indult were SSPX Priests, former SSPX Priests and older Priests brought out of retirement. Precious few new Priests were involved at all.

The fact is you needed a religious group dedicated to the preservation of the Traditional Mass and at the time the SSPX was it.

Of course having a lay organization such as Una Voce does dovetail with some of the stated views of Vatican II that more lay participation was needed.

I would add to this that at the time most Bishops worldwide flat out forbad the celebrtation of the Traditional Rite in their Dioceses at all. Given that where would they even be celebrated?

 

[Filioque]

To answer the question directly as posted: Where would the Catholic Church be today without the SSPX?–It would have one less schism to deal with and one less group with irregular status to deal with, and less confusion on the part of the traditionally-minded laity. They would have set a far better example for people if they had remained obedient and joined with others interested in preserving the EF who remained in the bosom of Holy Mother Church, and they probably hindered things with their disobedience. Dissent is just as bad from “traditionalists” as it is from “liberals”. Both endanger the unity of the Church. The sooner they get their irregular status taken care of and the sooner their priests regain all their faculties regarding the Sacraments, the better off everybody will be.

Good posting, except that schism begetting schism, there are several groups that bucked the “authority” of SSPX, and many “Independent” chapels that have spun off from SSPX. If these be included in the “fruits” of the SSPX, it is worse than just one more schism.

 

[Lormar]

As I said in one of my replies here, I am no SSPX fan at all. But I notice a real animosity towards them here. I get the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that you (plural you) blame them for more than the liberals are responsbile for. I don’t think it’s fair to put them in the same category. The SSPX wanted to preserve the Mass and tradition, not wipe it off the face of the earth and change the Church to such an extent that it ceased to be.

I was born in the early fifties. It wasn’t until I was 35 years old that I even heard of ABL, the SSPX, or that the TLM existed anywhere still; and I lived in a major east coast archdiocese. So, if the TLM was so prevalent without the SSPX, where was it?

 

[michaeldaniels]

Really…can’t we say the same about the RCC?..there are plenty of spin offs from The Catholic Church that are heretical…the ones calling for homosexual marriages, women’s ordination, etc…should we blame The Catholic Church for them??? Since you seem to want to blame the SSPX for the SSPV and other independent groups…whats fair is fair.

Good posting, except that schism begetting schism, there are several groups that bucked the “authority” of SSPX, and many “Independent” chapels that have spun off from SSPX. If these be included in the “fruits” of the SSPX, it is worse than just one more schism.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Nice post…I agree…there is a lot of hatred and vitriol for them on here

As I said in one of my replies here, I am no SSPX fan at all. But I notice a real animosity towards them here. I get the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that you (plural you) blame them for more than the liberals are responsbile for. I don’t think it’s fair to put them in the same category. The SSPX wanted to preserve the Mass and tradition, not wipe it off the face of the earth and change the Church to such an extent that it ceased to be.

I was born in the early fifties. It wasn’t until I was 35 years old that I even heard of ABL, the SSPX, or that the TLM existed anywhere still; and I lived in a major east coast archdiocese. So, if the TLM was so prevalent without the SSPX, where was it?

 

[Boulder257]

Boulder

Are those your OD priest’s exact words - Traditionalism in its different forms is a sickness based on a mistaken concept of Tradition?

That is the exact wording from not a priest, but the prelate of Opus Dei. Here is the Q&A from the Opus Dei website

Q.From the doctrinal point of view, is the Work traditionalist or traditional? And how does that fit in with Vatican II?Patricia Mayorga, in El Mercurio (Santiago, Chile)

A.“Traditionalism,” in its different forms, is a sickness based on a mistaken concept of Tradition. In its genuine meaning, “Tradition” plays an important role in the Church along with Sacred Scripture, from which it is inseparable.

The Church has a splendid history. Her spiritual treasures—the saints—light up with their lives the past twenty centuries, and light up our lives today. The Church is also the source of culture, of incomparable works of art, science, literature, education, and charity. This history also lives in the heart of every human being through Jesus Christ, who is the same today, yesterday, and forever.

The Second Vatican Council spoke to us about all of this. Its documents also enable us to hear the voice of our Founder, who preached many of those same ideas beginning in the 1930s. All of the Church’s councils form a unity of teaching doctrine, none of it contradictory. And so, if I may put it this way, Opus Dei finds its doctrinal patrimony in Vatican II; there one finds both what is new and what is traditional.

The link is here, opusdei.us/art.php?p=8031

 

[Filioque]

Really…can’t we say the same about the RCC?..there are plenty of spin offs from The Catholic Church that are heretical…the ones calling for homosexual marriages, women’s ordination, etc…should we blame The Catholic Church for them??? Since you seem to want to blame the SSPX for the SSPV and other independent groups…whats fair is fair.

I do not support the Pro-Homosexual, Womanpriest, or Protestant Church rejection of the Authority of the Church either. They are just as culpable for their disobedience to the Church as the SSPX. But that’s not what this thread is about. If it was, I’d have commented on the other side here too.

The SSPX, and the SSPV, Independents, the Thuc Line Sede groups etc all claim that Rome is wrong and needs to listen to them, in the same way as the Liberal Groups. Even worse, they tell us Rome is no longer the seat of the Catholic Church and only they preserve the faith correctly. SSPX claims of supplied jurisdiction don’t meet with either the letter or the spirit of the Law. In many places one has to sign allegences to the SSPX and foresware any attachment to the diocese or other Traditionalist groups to be confirmed or receive First Holy Communion. To establish oneself as the only legitimate authority in the Church as the SSPX has sometimes done, is definatly a schismatic mentality.

As the SSPX claims that the rejection of the authentic use of the Pauline Missal, and the rejection of the rubrics that allows for Clown Masses, and Cheese Head Masses, any number of Include the practicing Homosexual, and ordain Lesbians as priests crowd “fruits” of Vatican II, rather than point out that like the SSPX they are people who reject the authority of the Holy See, I think it is only fair to point out where the SSPX takes a detour from the Magesterium;

 

[pnewton]

As I said in one of my replies here, I am no SSPX fan at all. But I notice a real animosity towards them here. I get the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that you (plural you) blame them for more than the liberals are responsbile for.

I do not think anyone has made that claim. You will find the liberal fringes listed above are not well received here.

 

[Holly3278]

I voted that the SSPX has had a positive effect on Liturgy. That said, I am against the SSPX because they are a schismatic group. I don’t know that the universal allowance of the Traditional Latin Mass would have ever come about without the SSPX.

 

[Lormar]

I came back to clear up a misconception that many of you have about the SSPX.

The SSPX was founded with the approval of and in the Diocese of Fribourg, not to preserve the TLM, but to establish a traditional seminary. Many seminarians had been coming to ABL complaining about the wretched conditions in the French seminaries. There was no place for them to go that wasn’t bad, so they asked ABL to help them.

The SSPX was not begun in disobedience. What happened later is documented in “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefbvre Vol. 1” by Michael Davies.

 

[ProVobis]

While it started with the indult to use the 1965 Missal, (essentially the 1962 with suppressed prayers at the foot of the altar, and last gospel) it allowed for either a Latin/English or all Latin. Even if the 1962 was not granted initially, it was one of the first steps in for a restoration of the 1962 rites on a widespread basis.

You seem to be quite knowledgeable on these things. Since there were quite a few years involved in transitioning to the New Rite, when was the 1962 Missal set as the standard for the Indult/EF? 1984?

 

[Timbothefiveth]

The church would be better off, same as if the orthodox or protestants hadn’t broken off. I think we’d still have the TLM, pope Benedict seems to support it and remember that all the SSPX guys probably would probably be in the Catholic church. They might even have more influence in keeping the TLM.

 

[ProVobis]

The church would be better off, same as if the orthodox or protestants hadn’t broken off. I think we’d still have the TLM, pope Benedict seems to support it and remember that all the SSPX guys probably would probably be in the Catholic church. They might even have more influence in keeping the TLM.

That would be difficult to see in a country like France, where today one of every two Mass goers attend the EF. The SSPX et al was pretty much all they had since their bishops were very much opposed to the Pope’s directive to make the Mass more “wide and generous.”

 

[Filioque]

You seem to be quite knowledgeable on these things. Since there were quite a few years involved in transitioning to the New Rite, when was the 1962 Missal set as the standard for the Indult/EF? 1984?

I spent several years with the SSPX, and was a seminarian early on at Econe. I don’t claim to know everything. While I’m grateful for the experience with the SSPX, it developed into somethng different from what Abp. Lefebvre intended, and (IMO) as he grew older and his health failed others manipulated him and the direction that the SSPX was going. That is not to say that many of the bishops around the world and the Catholic press did not mistreat and misrepresent him, nor that they ignored the Pope. I got to the point that I could no longer abide by the direction and the means the SSPX was using to achieve their goals.

As to the 1962 being a standard, I’ll have to look it up, however I seem to recall that Ecclesia Dei was the defining moment from the Holy See, although probably earlier. I know that there were several priests and even the Seminary in Ridgefield, (prior to the opening of Winnona) where the pre 1955 rubrics were used, but when Abp Lefebvre visited they quickly conformed with the 1962 rubrics. Abp. Lefebvre more than once made statements to seminarians that he did not like everything about the 1962 missal but that it was the last acceptable edition. Prior to that time he did allow everything from the 1970 missal back to the Old Holy Week Rites (pre-1955) at the discretion of the priest celebrating the Mass. When push came to shove, (I’ll have to search my brain for a date) he took a hardline stance.