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

[Filioque]

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.”

However there have been “legitimate” EF masses for some time in France. Sometimes just to satisfy the faithful and keep them away from the SSPX. The jewel in the crown of SSPX has always been St. Nicholas in Paris. However what most in the US don’t understand is that after the French Revolution all Church property in France was nationalized. So the State actually owns the Church. When the SSPX marched into St. Nicholas and removed the NO altar, set up the church for the TLM, the Archbishop of Paris rather than protesting felt it was better to let the SSPX to have one nice Church than to disrupt the Archdiocese as a whole. So he intervened with the Government and advocated for the SSPX to keep the building. abpve te protests of the more liberal clergy. (it must be remembered at the time the SSPX was not under as many canonical penalties as later on, and the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris thought that the gesture would work to help unite them with the Church.

 

[littlequestion]

FWIW:
In spite of the polarized positions presented in this thread, it appears to me at this time, happily, that only 2 people, (4% of the voters) say anything negative about SSPX since there is the one choice that says they did damage while the other three choices range from neutral effect through helpful and finally heroic.

Just pointing this out because it is encouraging the number of times people repeat legal words like “abrogated” in order to create the false impression that SSPX is or was illicit, excommunicate, schismatic, etc are not misleading most people. There is really very little hostility towards TLM and SSPX.

Most Catholics have deep reverence for Tradition even if they are attending and enjoying more modern forms of the Mass and most would happily accomodate a Latin Mass in their parish. Of course the increased availability would lead to increased resistance to heresy, because the well-balanced Tradtiional Form acts like a recalibration of the spirit after a week of exposure to every whim and fashion out there in the world.

 

[ProVobis]

What about the SSPX in Germany and Poland. They flourished there too, no?

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

FWIW:
In spite of the polarized positions presented in this thread, it appears to me at this time, happily, that only 2 people, (4% of the voters) say anything negative about SSPX since there is the one choice that says they did damage while the other three choices range from neutral effect through helpful and finally heroic.

That would be because the poll is not set up in a: For, neutral, against fashion; but in a: for because of x, neutral, against because of y, and Strongly for because of z, fashion. I voted neutral because Voting against implied that I objected to the EF replacing the OF.

Just pointing this out because it is encouraging the number of times people repeat legal words like “abrogated” in order to create the false impression that SSPX is or was illicit, excommunicate, schismatic, etc are not misleading most people. There is really very little hostility towards TLM and SSPX.

I only used the word abrogated to point out that the TLM wasn’t abrogated, and then later to show that a previous poster had claimed it was.

Most Catholics have deep reverence for Tradition even if they are attending and enjoying more modern forms of the Mass and most would happily accomodate a Latin Mass in their parish. Of course the increased availability would lead to increased resistance to heresy, because the well-balanced Tradtiional Form acts like a recalibration of the spirit after a week of exposure to every whim and fashion out there in the world.

I’m absolutely for the TLM, I’m also absolutely against SSPX.

Pax te Cum,
Iggy.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

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?

Una Voce was founded by a pro TLM bishop and they did everything in their power to promote it in other dioceses, and as I understand even met with some success in spite of the forces of the enemy. So as to the question of where were they with the Traditional Mass before the Indult, the answer was on their way.

For those who claim that the SSPX were fully justified before 1988:
Vatican I's First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ:

And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

Wherefore, we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and, this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful : let him be anathema.

The real question is why didn’t the SSPX practice the virtue of obedience instead of giving scandal by dissidence, why when this crisis was at its highest did Lefebvre et alia take their ball and go home instead of sticking around and fighting the good fight? Why did they give every anti TLM bishop, priest, or layman an example to point to, to demonstrate to disinterested parties that Traditionalism meant Dissidents and later heresy, and schism? Why when the option was presented between the way of christ and the way of anti-Christ, between the way of church and the way of anti-church, why when offered the choice between life and death, blessing and curse, did they not choose life that they may live?

 

[ProVobis]

I only used the word abrogated to point out that the TLM wasn’t abrogated…

Then was it illegally suppressed? Atrophied? The continuity was definitely broken.

 

[ProVobis]

I do not support the SSPX but they do not corner the market on disobedience.

Yep. There were a whole lot of bishops who have not to this day made the Latin Mass “wide and generous” as Pope John Paul II DECREED.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Exactly, but they get a “pass” for their disobedience

Yep. There were a whole lot of bishops who have not to this day made the Latin Mass “wide and generous” as Pope John Paul II DECREED.

 

[Filioque]

Exactly, but they get a “pass” for their disobedience

Originally Posted by jeanannemarie
I do not support the SSPX but they do not corner the market on disobedience.

I’d agree with the two statements if I believed that winning or getting a pass in this lifetime was the final court. However I think we all hope for a more equitable judgement after this life.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Yep. There were a whole lot of bishops who have not to this day made the Latin Mass “wide and generous” as Pope John Paul II DECREED.

Exactly, but they get a “pass” for their disobedience

We know already, there is no one denying that, but it is hardly relevant to this conversation.

Then was it illegally suppressed? Atrophied? The continuity was definitely broken.

Often it was suppressed in individual Dioceses, but through such orthodox and obedient organizations as Una Voce it was gaining wider acceptance. As has been pointed out above SSPX and other dissident groups more than likely did more harm than good.

P.S. This will be my last post for a few days.

 

[Onegin]

I believe my post writes itself.

Alas, I don’t have the benefit of sitting with the Oxford English Dictionary beside me as I type. As I’ve already explained, at least 2 times, I’m NOT using the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “abrogated.” Or the theological one. Or the legal one.

I am using the word as a synonym for “effectively eliminated”, “gone”, “done away with” or anything else you can come up with to mean the same thing. It all conveys the same point. The TLM was extremely difficult to find for a period of time following the implementation of the OF.

 

[po18guy]

We as Christians always seem to be forgetting that prayer is our greatest weapon, not the last resort. It is a universal weakness.

Indeed! The schismatic founders of SSPX could have/should have prayed and lobbied for any worthy aims they had from within the Church. Imagine if someone in 1517 Germany would have done the same. The Church got its reformation from within, and not from without.

 

[Bobby_Joe_1]

It was also made explicitly clear in the same letter that the Tridentine Mass has always been allowed and practiced. It wasn’t the result of SSPX, but it was their disobedience that made it necessary for the Pope to explain that their complaints were unfounded. It should also be noted that it is NOT the Mass of all time, just the Mass of the last 500 years. History and records strongly prove that the apostles practiced differently than the Tridentine Mass.

Dear Boulder 257,
You seem confused on two counts. It is Summorum Pontificum, and not Ecclesia Dei,that made it “explicitly clear” that the Mass of All Time had never been abrogated.

The Mass of the Catechumens, the first part of TLM, was used inthe early church. Catechumens, those undergoing instruction in the Mass, were not allowed to participate in the Canon of the Mass. The canon has remained unchanged from the time Gregory the Great codified it in the 6th century, a bit more than 500 years ago. And, of course, the Consecration is even older, where the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes the blood of Christ, shed for many for the remission of sin.

 

[Boulder257]

Dear Boulder 257,
You seem confused on two counts. It is Summorum Pontificum, and not Ecclesia Dei,that made it “explicitly clear” that the Mass of All Time had never been abrogated.

The Mass of the Catechumens, the first part of TLM, was used inthe early church. Catechumens, those undergoing instruction in the Mass, were not allowed to participate in the Canon of the Mass. The canon has remained unchanged from the time Gregory the Great codified it in the 6th century, a bit more than 500 years ago. And, of course, the Consecration is even older, where the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes the blood of Christ, shed for many for the remission of sin.

Thank you for clearing up the point as it regards to which document stated the same point I made. Ultimately, it does not change the spirit and truth of my original post.

Pax

 

[maurin]

I’m getting a good laugh–or or are these tears in my eyes?–by all this talk about disobedience.

According to Vatican II Latin was to be retained. As was Gregorian Chant. As was Communion on the tongue. There is no credibility in claiming that these are the rule and not exceptions seen very far and very few in between in most dioceses of the world.

Anyone see the irony in today’s “reform?”

 

[michaeldaniels]

That is a point I try to make all the time…but by bringing that up and wanting to truly follow VII, I am a dissident, disobedient outdated Catholic who is holding back progress in The Church

I’m getting a good laugh–or or are these tears in my eyes?–by all this talk about disobedience.

According to Vatican II Latin was to be retained. As was Gregorian Chant. As was Communion on the tongue. There is no credibility in claiming that these are the rule and not exceptions seen very far and very few in between in most dioceses of the world.

Anyone see the irony in today’s “reform?”

 

[GeorgeSword]

I don’t think that the SSPX has or has had any great influence on where the Church is today. There are more orthodox bodies which have preserved the old traditions and liturgy.

 

[michaeldaniels]

For instance??..please elaborate

I don’t think that the SSPX has or has had any great influence on where the Church is today. There are more orthodox bodies which have preserved the old traditions and liturgy.

 

[GeorgeSword]

For instance??..please elaborate

FSSP, Christ the King etc.

 

[ProVobis]

FSSP, Christ the King etc.

The FSSP had been the SSPX and they came in 1988. What about the period before then? How many “orthodox” bishops were ordaining priests to say the Latin Mass before 1988?