Mission Creep in the SSPX

[Jenn]

I did not say if Archbishop Lefebvre did not take a stand for traditionalism and the SSPX did not exist traditionalism would cease to exist,

Yes you did. Here is what you said exactly:

As for Archbishop Lefebvre your are beyond naive if you believe that traditionalism would exist without him

How am I supposed to interpret this statement?

but as facts stand they are responsible for its propagation and continued existence.

No, the facts are that they are partially responsible, not solely responsible. As I've already mentioned, there were TLM's being said in many places long before the SSPX Masses were available. I'm not saying TLM's were thick on the ground, but they were around. In fact, without lay traditional Catholics, who would the SSPX have been saying Mass for or providing the sacraments to? SSPX chapels have become more prevalent mainly because there are traditionalists who want to attend the TLM. The SSPX does not generally "set up shop" in areas where there isn't a good chance of having a relatively decent parish size. They can't afford to do that. They go where they are needed, aka, where the trads are.

[Nic]

Nic,

  Just a question.  Since you don't accept the NO Missae as a Catholic Mass even as promulgated by Rome, do you accept the authority who has put it into use and maintains it to this day?  I don't want a discussion, just a yes or no as to whether you see Paul VI and successors as popes or not? 

  Joe

I will not answer with a mere yes or no, as it is obvious that it is a loaded question.

I am not a sedevacantist, I personally cannot "excommunicate" a Pope or condemn one to heresy, only a future Pope can do such a thing.  For now, I must believe that they are indeed Popes and I pray for them and am obedient to them in all things that I must be.  I only hold to the possibility that a future Pope my declare otherwise.

Also, the "promulgation" of the New Mass is highly disputable.

- In the original version of Missale Romanum, signed by Pope Paul VI, no mention was made either of anyone's being obliged to use the Novus Ordo Missae or when such an obligation might begin.

- Translators of the constitution mistranslate cogere et efficere (i.e. to sum up and draw a conclusion) as to give force of law.  This is erroneous translation.

- The version in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis has an added paragraph "enjoining" the New Missal, but it is in the wrong tense, the past tense, and reads praescripsimus (i.e. which we have ordered) thereby referring to a past obligaiton, and nothing, moreover, in Missale Romanum prescribes, but at most permits, the use of the "New Rite."

I believe that those who wanted the New Mass knew that it could not be truly promulgated without true, traditional Catholics able to easily prove that it wasn't.  Therefore the New Mass was weasled into the Church through ambiguous ecclesiastical loopholes.

BUT, does it follow from the apparent "promulgation" by the Popes that the New Mass is truly Catholic?  No, for the indefectibility of the Church does not prevent the Pope personally from promoting Protestant/Modernist rites in the Latin Rite of the Church.  Moreover, the Novus Ordo Mass:

- is not forced upon the Church, as the TLM can always be said
- is not promulgated regularly
- and does not engage the Church's infallibility.  Let us remember that a  Pope engages his infallibility only when teaching on faith and morals (or legislating on what is necessarily connected to them), but when so doing with full pontifical authority and definitively.  But as regards the Novus Ordo Mass, Pope Paul VI himself has stated

"...the rite and its related rubrics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition." (November 19, 1969).

[Nic]

Ok. This will go nowhere. Thanks for the discussion all

It will "go nowhere" because of the unfounded remarks you have made concerning the SSPX - that all they do is bitch and moan.  Refresh my memory - was it the SSPX or the FSSP that was in Rome speaking about the errors and ambiguities of Vatican II and the New Mass?  Oh, that's right, it was the SSPX. 

The SSPX has a mission to help restore the Church to her original self, and they have found the best formula for doing this.  The FSSP are locked down - they are in chains - so in reality it is them and those like them that only "bitch and moan" about the errors of the day and not take any action.

Don't fool yourself, the SSPX was NOT in Rome to beg for "regularization."  If that was their primary concern they would have taken the same bait the FSSP did years ago.  It was not for their benefit that they were in Rome - it was in hopes of helping Rome to see its errors concerning the implementation of Vatican II and to return to orthodoxy.

[SPB]

Ok, Nic. Ok. Thank you for the discussion One day we'll see, I guess?

[TrentCath]

I did not say if Archbishop Lefebvre did not take a stand for traditionalism and the SSPX did not exist traditionalism would cease to exist,

Yes you did. Here is what you said exactly:

As for Archbishop Lefebvre your are beyond naive if you believe that traditionalism would exist without him

How am I supposed to interpret this statement?

but as facts stand they are responsible for its propagation and continued existence.

No, the facts are that they are partially responsible, not solely responsible. As I've already mentioned, there were TLM's being said in many places long before the SSPX Masses were available. I'm not saying TLM's were thick on the ground, but they were around. In fact, without lay traditional Catholics, who would the SSPX have been saying Mass for or providing the sacraments to? SSPX chapels have become more prevalent mainly because there are traditionalists who want to attend the TLM. The SSPX does not generally "set up shop" in areas where there isn't a good chance of having a relatively decent parish size. They can't afford to do that. They go where they are needed, aka, where the trads are.

I explained the comments you have quoted quite well. If you don't want to accept that explanation so be it, but you're not going to get another one.

You still have not explained who would have trained the priests to say the Traditional Latin Sacraments or provided it in areas where it was totally suppressed? Or provided for example confirmation?

[Jenn]

I explained the comments you have quoted quite well. If you don't want to accept that explanation so be it, but you're not going to get another one.

Let's back up here a minute. You said "I didn't say that". I said "yes you did", and then I quoted you. I didn't ask for further explanations.

You still have not explained who would have trained the priests to say the Traditional Latin Sacraments or provided it in areas where it was totally suppressed? Or provided for example confirmation?

It was totally suppressed in our area. We still had the TLM and we still had priests. Our priests would have been delighted to train a young priest to say the TLM.  And any priest who wants to learn the Latin Mass can do so. Or are you saying that only the SSPX can train new priests in the TLM?

My sister and I were confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre. Another handful of my siblings (I have 9 siblings) were confirmed in Chicago by a Melkite Rite priest who was commissioned to give Confirmation. The rest were confirmed by Cardinal Shote (this may not be how you spell his name) in the Latin Rite in our parish. We were eventually given the use of a parish because our Archbishop was so sick of our independent status that he caved.

We had several NO priests (who incidentally were trained to say the TLM --and not by the SSPX) over the years who wanted to say Mass for us. One in particular (who is still alive) was our parish priest for many years. When he was finally transferred out, he was so enamored of the Latin Mass that he asked our bishop if he could introduce it to his new parish. Another older priest we had was very kindly but he was NO through and through. He once said Mass "to the great spirit in the sky" (before he came to us). He has completely changed. He now voluntarily assists at our parish every Sunday even though he cannot even walk without help and even though he has been retired for years. I'm very, very fond of him.

My point, as I've said before, that while the SSPX is of course partially responsible for the growth of tradition, they are not solely responsible for it. We have a total of two SSPX chapels in this state now. Back then, there were none. There were 3 or 4 independent TLM's at that time that I knew of. There may have been more. We now have 18 different diocesan TLM's (many of them The Institute of Christ the King), and at least 3 or 4 independent chapels. God has provided.

[TrentCath]

Let's back up here a minute. You said "I didn't say that". I said "yes you did", and then I quoted you. I didn't ask for further explanations.

  If you want to play semantics, feel free, but don't expect me to get involved. In context my statement is that ABL and the SSPX deserve the credit for allowing the traditional movement to survive. You have not shown otherwise.

It was totally suppressed in our area. We still had the TLM and we still had priests. Our priests would have been delighted to train a young priest to say the TLM.  And any priest who wants to learn the Latin Mass can do so. Or are you saying that only the SSPX can train new priests in the TLM?

Right, because of course seminaries are entirely pointless, anyone can just learn the stuff, easy as pie. 

No, they need to be taught, and they are best taught by other priests who know the TLM. Further the seminaries allowed seminarians to get a proper formation which was becoming increasingly imposible at almost any other seminary. That is what is meant by without the SSPX and ABL, the Traditional latin sacraments would have died out, they founded seminaries to allow new people to become priests and new generations to learn and celebrate them. This was in fact the entire reason ABL founded the SSPX, so that people could continue to get a proper formation and it was the reason he did what he did in 1988 because he believed if he did not do so the church would lose someting invaluable.

My sister and I were confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre. Another handful of my siblings (I have 9 siblings) were confirmed in Chicago by a Melkite Rite priest who was commissioned to give Confirmation. The rest were confirmed by Cardinal Shote (this may not be how you spell his name) in the Latin Rite in our parish. We were eventually given the use of a parish because our Archbishop was so sick of our independent status that he caved.

So some of you were confirmed by ABL as you've already stated.

We had several NO priests (who incidentally were trained to say the TLM --and not by the SSPX) over the years who wanted to say Mass for us. One in particular (who is still alive) was our parish priest for many years. When he was finally transferred out, he was so enamored of the Latin Mass that he asked our bishop if he could introduce it to his new parish. Another older priest we had was very kindly but he was NO through and through. He once said Mass "to the great spirit in the sky" (before he came to us). He has completely changed. He now voluntarily assists at our parish every Sunday even though he cannot even walk without help and even though he has been retired for years. I'm very, very fond of him.

My point, as I've said before, that while the SSPX is of course partially responsible for the growth of tradition, they are not solely responsible for it. We have a total of two SSPX chapels in this state now. Back then, there were none. There were 3 or 4 independent TLM's at that time that I knew of. There may have been more. We now have 18 different diocesan TLM's (many of them The Institute of Christ the King), and at least 3 or 4 independent chapels. God has provided.

This is all very well and good but my point is I've said before that without the SSPX, objectively speaking, sooner or later the traditional latin sacraments would have ceased to exist, except perhaps in isolated pockets here and there. There would be no seminaries to train new priests, few if any bishops would be willing to give confirmation and certainly wouldn't be travelling to do it, the same to a more extreme extent goes for marriages and orders.

God would of course never abandon his church but as I stated before, I am dealing in facts, not 'what if's' and 'maybe's' and on the facts the ABL and the SSPX were absolutely essential for the survival of the Traditional Latin Sacraments and the traditional teaching of the church.

The other issue I would raise with independent priests is that of Jurisdiction, the SSPX faces the question as well, but the situations are by no means comparable.

I cannot see this discussion going anywhere, so I'm simply going to leave it.

[Old Salt]

I did not say if Archbishop Lefebvre did not take a stand for traditionalism and the SSPX did not exist traditionalism would cease to exist,

Yes you did. Here is what you said exactly:

As for Archbishop Lefebvre your are beyond naive if you believe that traditionalism would exist without him

How am I supposed to interpret this statement?

but as facts stand they are responsible for its propagation and continued existence.

No, the facts are that they are partially responsible, not solely responsible. As I've already mentioned, there were TLM's being said in many places long before the SSPX Masses were available. I'm not saying TLM's were thick on the ground, but they were around. In fact, without lay traditional Catholics, who would the SSPX have been saying Mass for or providing the sacraments to? SSPX chapels have become more prevalent mainly because there are traditionalists who want to attend the TLM. The SSPX does not generally "set up shop" in areas where there isn't a good chance of having a relatively decent parish size. They can't afford to do that. They go where they are needed, aka, where the trads are.

I explained the comments you have quoted quite well. If you don't want to accept that explanation so be it, but you're not going to get another one.

You still have not explained who would have trained the priests to say the Traditional Latin Sacraments or provided it in areas where it was totally suppressed? Or provided for example confirmation?

I personally know of two older priests, who were ordained the the 1950's, who have trained several younger priests to say the TLM in the 70's, and 80's, and these priests in turn have trained other priests to say the TLM now.
These priests were not affiliated with the SSPX, so while the SSPX is largely responsible for keeping the TLM going, there are other priests that have kept it alive.

[Jenn]

  If you want to play semantics, feel free, but don't expect me to get involved. In context my statement is that ABL and the SSPX deserve the credit for allowing the traditional movement to survive. You have not shown otherwise.

It's not semantics. It's pointing out that you made a certain statement despite your assertions that you didn't. I have never disputed that the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre have helped tradition to survive. I dispute only that they are solely responsible.

Right, because of course seminaries are entirely pointless, anyone can just learn the stuff, easy as pie. 

Could you direct me to the post where I insinuated that seminaries are pointless?

No, they need to be taught, and they are best taught by other priests who know the TLM.

There were plenty of priests who knew how to say the TLM. There just weren't plenty who were willing to say the TLM.

Further the seminaries allowed seminarians to get a proper formation which was becoming increasingly imposible at almost any other seminary.

I don't dispute that.

That is what is meant by without the SSPX and ABL, the Traditional latin sacraments would have died out

And I am disputing that the TL sacraments would have died out.

they founded seminaries to allow new people to become priests and new generations to learn and celebrate them.

I don't dispute that, either.

This was in fact the entire reason ABL founded the SSPX, so that people could continue to get a proper formation and it was the reason he did what he did in 1988 because he believed if he did not do so the church would lose someting invaluable.

I don't dispute that, either.

So some of you were confirmed by ABL as you've already stated.

Right. Two of us were and the other 8 were not.

This is all very well and good but my point is I've said before that without the SSPX, objectively speaking, sooner or later the traditional latin sacraments would have ceased to exist, except perhaps in isolated pockets here and there.

If there were isolated pockets, then that does not mean "cease to exist". I'm not suggesting that TLM's were plentiful. They're not exactly plentiful now. If my state relied on the SSPX as their only access to the TLM, there would be hundreds and hundreds of Catholics without access to it.

There would be no seminaries to train new priests, few if any bishops would be willing to give confirmation and certainly wouldn't be travelling to do it, the same to a more extreme extent goes for marriages and orders.

You have no idea if there would be "no seminaries". That's pure speculation on your part.

God would of course never abandon his church but as I stated before, I am dealing in facts, not 'what if's' and 'maybe's' and on the facts the ABL and the SSPX were absolutely essential for the survival of the Traditional Latin Sacraments and the traditional teaching of the church.

You're not dealing with facts. You're speculating on what you think would have happened without the SSPX, and I've given you clear examples of tradition in the absence of the SSPX. Our local SSPX chapel has only been there for about 12 years. And that's one of only two, as I said. Where would the trads in my state be attending the TLM if they had only these 2 chapels to rely on? They'd be staying home or going to the N.O.

The other issue I would raise with independent priests is that of Jurisdiction, the SSPX faces the question as well, but the situations are by no means comparable.

Yes, the SSPX also has the issue of jurisdiction.

I cannot see this discussion going anywhere, so I'm simply going to leave it.

As you wish.

[Old Salt]

I did not say if Archbishop Lefebvre did not take a stand for traditionalism and the SSPX did not exist traditionalism would cease to exist,

Yes you did. Here is what you said exactly:

As for Archbishop Lefebvre your are beyond naive if you believe that traditionalism would exist without him

How am I supposed to interpret this statement?

but as facts stand they are responsible for its propagation and continued existence.

No, the facts are that they are partially responsible, not solely responsible. As I've already mentioned, there were TLM's being said in many places long before the SSPX Masses were available. I'm not saying TLM's were thick on the ground, but they were around. In fact, without lay traditional Catholics, who would the SSPX have been saying Mass for or providing the sacraments to? SSPX chapels have become more prevalent mainly because there are traditionalists who want to attend the TLM. The SSPX does not generally "set up shop" in areas where there isn't a good chance of having a relatively decent parish size. They can't afford to do that. They go where they are needed, aka, where the trads are.

I explained the comments you have quoted quite well. If you don't want to accept that explanation so be it, but you're not going to get another one.

You still have not explained who would have trained the priests to say the Traditional Latin Sacraments or provided it in areas where it was totally suppressed? Or provided for example confirmation?

I personally know of two older priests, who were ordained the the 1950's, who have trained several younger priests to say the TLM in the 70's, and 80's, and these priests in turn have trained other priests to say the TLM now.
These priests were not affiliated with the SSPX, so while the SSPX is largely responsible for keeping the TLM going, there are other priests that have kept it alive.

One of the priest who was trained to offer the traditional sacraments [not associated with the SSPX] asked for permission from the Ordinary to confirm confimandi in his parish [he was the pastor] and received delegation from the bishop to confer Confirmation.
In this same diocese this Ordinary, who is 77, offered the traditional confirmation himself and is in no way affiliated to the SSPX.