There was a comment recently in one of my posts on Bishop Williamson of the SSPX that got me thinking. (dangerous, I know) I have seen this comment here before and on many other blogs that comment on either the traditional liturgy generally or the motu proprio SummorumPontificum specifically. The comment comes in various special forms but all belonging to the same genus. The comment goes something like this.
—Stop criticizing the SSPX [or its leaders] because without the SSPX there would be no motu proprio Summorum Pontificum and there would be no Latin Mass. If they hadn’t done what they did, the traditional liturgy would have been lost forever. We should all be grateful to the SSPX—
Many accept the above comment as obviously true and it is rarely challenged in the places I have seen it. However, is it really axiomatic that without the SSPX we would have no Latin Mass? Is it possible that the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre specifically and the SSPX generally were in fact counter-productive for those seeking the restoration of the Latin Mass? Is it possible that if they had submitted humbly and worked within the church that we would have seen the renaissance of the traditional liturgy much earlier?
Before I delve too deeply into this post, let me take a moment to stipulate that I realize that the issues with the SSPX go beyond the liturgy itself and that the intent of this post is not to criticize the SSPX but to ask some simple questions. Further, I am focusing exclusively on the restoration of the freedom to say the Latin Mass and not on all the other issues, legitmitate or otherwise, raised by the SSPX. With that said, now back to the post.
I think that it is without question that without the SSPX we would not have had a Summorum Pontificum. The larger question is whether, without the SSPX, would we have needed it? It is beyond question that the the TLM became the most recognizable and identifiable aspect of the SSPX. Their trademark if you will. During the last decades, to be identified with the Latin Mass meant, to some degree, to be identified with the SSPX. After the illicit consecrations performed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, to be identified with the Latin Mass meant to be identified with that ‘schismatic act.’
In response to that ‘schismatic act’ , on July 2, 1988 Pope John Paul II issued motu proprio the document Ecclesia Dei. It is also without question that the application of Ecclesia Dei by many Bishops was stingy at best (I am being charitable). Frankly, Bishops were stingy even after Quattuor abhinc annos in 1984 and this was before the consecrations of 1988. However the consecrations of 1988 seemed to harden the lines between the two camps dooming us to two decades of trench warfare with little movement of the lines. Here comes the “what if.”
Of course it is impossible to know what would have happened had the illicit consecrations of 1988 had never taken place. Would the battle lines have hardened the way that they did? What if the SSPX had submitted humbly? (Caveat: Again, I know there are issues here beyond the liturgy) Would an SSPX more in the mold of the FSSP or ICKSP have done more good than SSPX seen to be on the outside? If they had stayed clearly within the church, might we have seen the restoration of the TLM sooner? Might some diocesan Bishops been more open to Quattuor abhinc annos over time if not for subsequent identification with ‘schism.’
Obviously, this is a lot of questions without any answers. “What if” scenarios are by their very nature paths of which we cannot see the end. However, this my point. The concept that we would never have seen the restoration of the TLM were it not for the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX is an equally unknowable “what if” scenario. We simply cannot be sure. We can however speculate on the likelihood of a given outcome. I base my opinion on this likelihood on a few things. The first is my experience here in my diocese.
In my diocese (Rockville Centre) we have a priest who is a long time devotee of the traditional liturgy. Monsignor James Pereda has served his diocese and his Bishop with dedication and humility for years travelling thousands upon thousands of miles to serve the indult community here. A recent report on Rorate Caeli on the recalled some of the history of the Latin Mass on Long Island.
Long Island has always demonstrated a definite interest in the Latin Mass that probably cannot be matched by any other diocese in the U.S. – a statement that can be illustrated by recalling Long Island’s role in the history of the the traditional resurgence, including the unapproved variety. The late Father Gommer De Pauw set up his “Catholic Traditionalist Movement” and Ave Maria Chapel here immediately after Vatican II without local episcopal approval.
The irregular Society of St. Pius X was quick to establish a chapel here, and SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a frequent visitor, celebrating mass confirmations in large rented venues. It was also on Long Island that the Society of St. Pius V was founded in a break with the SSPX. Other independent chapels dot the area, making Bishop Murphy’s solicitude for Traditionalists of his diocese – the seventh largest in the U.S, — especially valuable for the future.
In my mind, it is beyond question that the influence of the SSPX and SSPV here hampered the development and greater use of the TLM within the diocese. I believe that the humble and loyal Msgr. Pereda has done much more for those devoted to the traditional liturgy than any of these other groups. In fact, his position and that of the entire indult community has likely been immeasurably more difficult because of the presence of the SSPX and SSPV. I think that Bishop Murphy’s openness to the traditional Latin Mass community post motu proprio is in large part due to the humility, loyalty, and steadfastness of good priests like Msgr. Pereda.
My thoughts on this matter are simple. If the Holy Spirit desires the eventual restoration of the the traditional liturgy, He does not need a ‘schismatic act’ to achieve that end. Submission in humility is much more likely to achieve the desired end ever more promptly than any act of disobedience. It is for these reasons that I do not accept as axiomatic the concept that “without the SSPX (as it is now) and those consecrations, we would have no TLM.”
Again, this should not be seen as an attack on the SSPX or on the legitimate aspirations of the many faithful who attend their masses. Rather, it should be seen as my questions and thoughts on this matter. I write it simply in the desire to delve into these questions a little further. I look forward to any discussion on this topic as long as it stays respectful. Respectful of each other, the Pope, the Church, the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre.
Additional Note: None of the comments on this post should be longer than the post itself. (You know who you are 😉
April 10, 2008 at 6:29 am
On the last poster’s points. First of all, I mentioned a coming decline and eventual decimation for the S.S.P.X should it not accept regularisation. But I did not mean to suggest that the N.O.M. is, in contrast, healthy and growing. The N.O.M.’s decline was precipitous from 1970 to to about 1985. Since then, it has continued to decline (in terms of Massgoers and ordinations, for example), but at a slower rate. Internationally, while the Church continues to grow in terms of sheer numbers, what ultimately counts is the per centage of faithful in the world. The increase in the per centage of the people on earth who are Catholic slowed to a crawl around 1990 and flatlined by the end of the last century. Then began a decline which is very very slight at first but which will likely accelerate, mutatis mutandis.
But keep in mind that the New Mass is an elephant, next to which we are a mouse, or even a fly. So I do not expect the New Mass to disappear in the foreseeable future. It might disappear owing to a juridical act but not from pressure from below. Not in our lifetimes.
Now, when I was referring to the situation of the S.S.P.X, I was not comparising it with that of the New Mass but with that of regularised Traditional Latin Masses. I will not haul out numbers tonight, but my assessment is that there was an exponential growth in the Society (I refer here to the *rate* of growth) from its foundation in 1970 to about 1990. This rate slowed considerably after the unapproved consecrations of 1988. Growth continued, but at a much slower rate and at a rate that has continued to decline gradually since the mid 1990s. This was caused, I think, by the ‘competition’: the exponential growth in Indult Masses between 1988 and 1993, which continued at a slower rate from 1993 to about 1998 before it also flatlined.
It terms of priests, the Society went very quickly from 100 to 400 but it has taken ages and ages to get from 400 to 500.
Now, along comes “Summorum Pontificum” (S.P.). Everything has changed overnight. We are now seeing a growth in regularised Masses that is unprecedented; it even makes the initial growth under “Ecclesia Dei” look small. For example, in the U.S.A., more dioceses have gained every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses in the last nine months than in the previous ten to twelve years. That is positively AMAZING growth: I’ve never seen anything even remotely close to it. We are living in very exciting times. And, owing to the ‘learning lag’, many more T.L.M.s are coming. That is what has acted like a wild narcotic on the ‘conservatives’ on this blog, so that they dream of having arrived at this point on their own. They would love, somehow, to erase the last three decades and then claim that they did it all by themselves through prayer. They are almost as much as joke as the liberals. Really, a conservative is only a liberal in slow motion.
Now, the problem for the S.S.P.X is that most faithful simply will not attend a Society Mass if a regularised T.L.M. is available. The numbers prove that. And they prove it most where it counts most: in Latin America.
Ultimately, Latin America is everything, and the U.S.A. and Europe are just a joke compared to it. We should all be learning Spanish (even though French is obviously the language of the highest culture by far). Fully one half of the faithful live in Latin America. After nearly forty years of hard work, the S.S.P.X has had very little success there. It has done all right in Argentina and nowhere else. In contrast, owing to S.P., regularised Masses in Latin America are beginning to appear all over the countryside. This is a bit of an exaggeration but the signs are not good for the S.S.P.X. To Latin Americans, a Catholicism not blessed by the Pope is unthinkable. They can imagine going over to wildly emotional Pentecostal Protestantism, but not to ‘a Catholicsm without the Pope’.
The Society has also not done all that well in the U.S.A. Regularised every-Sunday Masses now outnumber those of the Society by a ratio of 2.5:1, soon to be 3:1.
The Society has done best in France and South-West Germany. But now, thanks to S.P., there are regularised Masses all over France: 86% of French faithful have one every Sunday in their dioceses. Once Rheims falls to the forces of goodness and truth and the evil Abp. Jordan capitulates, it will be a mopping up operation for us there. And we are now finally seeing the same thing happening in Germany, where the number of every-Sunday T.L.M. dioceses has MORE THAN DOUBLED in just eight months.
Ecclesia Dei of 1988 definitely slowed the growth of the Society, and seriously. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to the effect of S.P. I think that it will slow Society growth to nil and then begin to cause its decline. If current trends continue, the more moderate Society supporters will leave over the next ten years, and it will become a refuge more and more of the extreme, the insane, the wild, and of fascists, contrarians (which is what I am), distributists, royalists (which is also what I am), eccentrics, ritualists, and what Evelyn Waugh called ‘homosexuals with bad accents’.
I am using a bit of overstatement and humour here to make a point. What I mean is that, as S.P. spreads, the more normal types from the Society will leave, and as they leave, the remaining normals will feel less and less comfortable among the nutcases.
So it is in the best interest of the Society to make an arrangement with the Holy See. And the Church needs the Society right now to deal with the nutcases on the left because those are the lunatics who are really dangerous.
It’s in the best interest of everyone for the Society to become regularised, with the sole exception of the eccentrics, contrarians, and lunatics everywhere.
P.K.T.P.
April 10, 2008 at 11:07 am
On Mr. Sanborn’s comment that the New Mass is “intrisically evil”. This is an expression which has been used by various people at the highest levels in the S.S.P.X. My own view is that this expressions means to be controversial; it seeks to cause trouble. It is the sort of expression that would cause most bloggers here to fulminate against the Society. I don’t think that the expression is constructive; it is meant to distance the Society from those who are attached to the New Mass. The expression has this effect because, in English, ‘evil’ most often includes the subjective element. For example, it carries this subjective meaning in the expression, “Your actions are truly evil”. We use the word in the purely objective sense less often, as in “a lack of education is an evil which harms society”. To solve this problem and diffuse the issue, we can say that the New Mass is faulty in a way which endangers souls.
Now there are many reasons for levelling this charge, but the main one is that the New Mass fails to convey the primary meaning of liturgical Sacrifice; in fact, it is ambiguous about the most important meaning of the Mass itself. One of the ends of the Holy Mass is the inculcation of doctrine: the Mass is our first and greatest catechism. Since the salvation of souls is the highest law and the Sacrifice, properly understood, is the primary means of saving both the living and the dead, this failing is very serious.
I think that Benedict XVI means to fix this problem by altering the text of the New Mass, a liturgy which, despite this serious fault is still valid and is still orthodox, and still fulfils the four ends of prayer.
The quickest and easiest way to rectify the problem is to abolish the Novus Ordo Offertory and restore the Traditional one to the N.O.M. The old Offertory expresses univocally the primary meaning the Sacrifice–the meaning which has been omitted so as not to offend Protestants–in its opening prayer, the “Suspice, sancte Pater”, mainly because of its inclusion of “hostiam [victim]”.
Another way to solve the problem would be to abolish all the alternate Eucharistic prayers, or at least some of them (especially No. 2). But I think that this would encounter far more opposition from the curia and the bishops of the world.
I am not trying to suggest that the New Mass is something I could ever celebrate, no matter how reformed it is. I could not, for it is not the outcome of organic growth. However, it is not wrong for traditionalists to favour a rectification of the New Mass in order to clarify the meaning of the Mass.
There are other problems in the New Mass which need correction. I think that the “Indulgentiam” should be restored to the optional Confiteor, for example. Once again, it was removed because Protestants do not believe in the power of priests to absolve sins, even venial sins.
To be honest with you, Mr. Sanborn, I must say that, quite often, I think that archtraditionalists are only proclaiming some of these faults in polemical terms as an excuse for rejecting the Pope. They feel outrage because of some of the post-conciliar changes, and they want to find ways, I think, of showing their vehement opposition to him. This assessment is based on my own reactions and my own emotions. I too feel real outrage when I see ‘papal youth Masses’ with rock noise (which, in my view, is formally evil) in which adolescents fornicate in tents on the very spot where they will receive Holy Communion the next day. I tool feel outrage when I hear that consecrated hosts are left to the sweepers or that the Pope has prayed in a mosque with infidels whose religion comes from the maw of Hell.
But we must try try try to separate these emotions from right reason and endeavour with all our souls to remain united in obedience to the Vicar of Christ. It does not mean becoming a silly ‘conservative’; we can remains as traditionalists who revile ‘conservatism’ almost as much as we revile liberalism. But we must be Catholic!
Right reason and logic dictate, in my view, that, at this time, the S.S.P.X should strive for reconciliation with Rome, and it should not seek ways to obstruct that or to incite anger on the other side. Let us stick to the facts but keep in mind at all times that the salvation of souls is the first law.
The Pope has made it possible for the Society to reconcile without threatening its mission. The solution is a provisional ordinary structure ad experimentum while discussions ensue. The structure can be established in such a way that either party to it can dissolve it at its pleasure.
My criticism of archtraditionalism (look at all those syllables!) is that it looks for excuses for division. The archtraditionalist runs away when the Pope tries to embrace him, just as the conservative papolater tries to embrace and encourage the Pope even when he does something wrong. Let’s avoid both and rejoice in the truth, always under the authority of St. Peter’s Successor.
P.K.T.P.
April 11, 2008 at 8:11 pm
So, to conclude:
No Latin Mass without the S.S.P.X: Is this an axiom we can take on faith?
Answer: no, it’s an axiom which we can safely believe by considerating the facts, especially the statistical facts.
I’m sure.
P.K.T.P.
April 11, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Anon,
I’m seeing a fair number of words in your posts at the average reader would have to run to a dictionary for…
My use of the words “intrinsic” and “evil” are not meant to be separatist. It shouldn’t be too much to quote the SSPX whose desire is not to anger the uneducated.
It is unfair to cite known atrocities such as our Pope praying with Muslims in a Mosque or in the past, kissing a Koran, and then opine that “archtraditionalists” merely use such facts as a means to reject the Pope. Frankly if one wishes to reject the Pope, he certainly doesn’t need to cite these atrocities to do it.
In fact a cogent argument could be made for the idea that the Novus Ordo Church is the entity that wishes to reject the Pope, or more clearly, the Office of the Holy See.
We see stark contradiction between Vatican II documents and previous documents. Opposing ideas, each claiming to be the truth, for the love of God!
Paul VI freely gave the Papal Tiara to the United Nations!!! Who rejects the Pope here?
Forgive my exclamations… my emotional reaction to such anti-Catholic facts are based on the silly notion that the truth does not change. Perhaps I should better train myself to be more stoic about them… just what the world needs.
This perhaps is the quintessential question in all of the 40 years of hub-bub… Who is for the Pope? Who is for the Office of the Papacy?
Can a man be seated in the Chair of Peter and then dismantle it? Who then are the faithful? Those who say he is wrong or those who say he is right… because he is the Pope?
Millions of souls are likely damned to Hell because of the worldly mess that has been made of our Catholic Church over the last 40 years. In any other organization on the planet, when such disunities and failures arise, who is looked to? The leader! Consider the US Army, consider Coco-Cola for God’s sake.
Since John XXIII, the popes have made an insane mess of the Catholic Church. Should I be afraid to say that? Should I sweep that fact under the rug while souls get swept into Hell? If I become emotional about these issues, am I a separatist? Am I rejecting the Pope?
Let me just ask this quesiton for now and then I’ll shut up for a bit.
Are the Jews assured of salvation in their current state?
SS
April 12, 2008 at 1:00 am
I agree with many of Mr. Sanborn’s points, and I did not mean to suggest that prayers of popes in mosques are acceptable. Such prayers are an abomination, as was the kissing of the Qu’ran by Pope John Paul II. May God forfend such dangerous behaviour, dangerous to souls, that is.
But I mean that the S.S.P.X is not free, if it be truly Catholic, to invent reasons for refusing submission to the Pope. There is such a thing as rightful disobedience but it is only justified as a necessity. When there is no necessity, it is wrong. Pope John Paul II, for all his fault, gave the S.S.P.X a means of avoiding any rightful disobedience. He did this in 2000 when he offered the Society freedom from the local bishops without endangering the Society’s mission. Pope John Paul II offered, in fact, FAR MORE than what Apb. Lefebvre was prepared to accept in 1988. So how can the Society bishops justify their continued disobedience, a disobedience that Abp. L. would not have countenanced for one second? We are not free to disobey just because we are angry, even if this anger is legitimate. Many joined the Protestants in the sixteenth century because they were righteously angry over abuses in the Church. Does that justify disobedience? It does not.
As I see it, from 1976 to 2000, the S.S.P.X was a Catholic organisation in a state of rightful disobedience, even if other faithful need not share its views without compromising their faith. But, since 2000, the S.S.P.X is objectively moving into *real* schism. Pope John Paul II warned about this tendency in 1998: the longer you remain in separation, the greater the risk of this.
So, now, it seems to me, Bishop Williamson does what he can to keep distance between the Society and Rome. He might be motivated by a good heart, but, objectively speaking, his direction is gravely injurious to souls. Souls need union with Rome as a norm. When a union in obedience is possible, it is mandatory. It is now possible.
To make the situation crystal clear to the Society, it is likely also the case that the Society will face decline and then decimation if it does not do the right thing.
P.K.T.P.
April 14, 2008 at 4:35 am
Anon,
Sir. I’m happy you agree with my points about popes praying in mosques, but really, what are you talking about?
Exactly what is the SSPX making up or inventing as you put it in order to refuse submission to the Pope?
Benedict XVI is traveling to the US next week and plans to participate in an “ecumenical” prayer gathering as well as in a Jewish synogogue.
“Benedict’s visit to the Park East synagogue on April 18 is to be the first by any pope to a Jewish house of worship in the United States and the third to any synagogue, The New York Times reported.
“On April 17, the pope’s schedule includes a meeting with 150 religious leaders from various faiths at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington. He has added a separate brief meeting with 50 Jewish attendees when he will present them with Passover greetings.” NEW YORK TIMES
Now… what is the SSPX inventing? False ecumenism? A Pope who contradicts Catholic doctrine… for more than 40 years of his life? Are they inventing bent and broken crosses? Are they inventing a new position about the salvation of the Jews? Are they de-constructing Limbo? Are they saying Catholics may now marry non-Catholics with no obligation to raise their children Catholic? Are they inventing unchecked sex education in Catholic elementary schools?
What in your opinion, or anyone’s for that matter, is the SSPX inventing?
Rome has barely come back to her senses… and I say barely because that’s what it is… on one issue, the TLM… And the SSPX is supposed to simply trust and join the ranks of those who for years allowed them to be hacked at with the most maniacal agendas to squash their very existence?
I am so sick and tired of this attitude toward the SSPX… that somehow they have fault in this whole BS situation. That somehow they’re required by law to placate to the Pope for being right for 35 years.
It has been clear for some time that the SSPX situation is an “internal” matter in the Catholic Church. I’m sure you agree with this since it comes from Hoyos.
What then is the SSPX supposed to accept? On what basis? That they are in schism? Separated?
Is it the excommunication? The so-called excommunication on paper?
Maybe it’s worth honing in on the consecrations for a bit.
It seems for Novus Ordo Catholics, it shouldn’t matter why Lefebvre was told he could not consecrate 4 new bishops. If he was told no, then that’s it… he’s a schismatic rebel… forget the bushels of liberal anti-Christs who pose as bishops all over the world unchecked… let’s focus on the “disobedience” of a guy who had the gall to protect the future of the Catholic Faith.
Why was Lefebvre told not to consecrate his bishops?
And at this point, why would the SSPX publicly change it’s “position” with a man who once again plans to scandalize the remaining Catholic world with his promotion of false ecumenism within the week?
April 14, 2008 at 5:05 am
” False ecumenism?”
Judged by whom?
” A Pope who contradicts Catholic doctrine… for more than 40 years of his life?”
Judged by whom?
At 19 I was all on board with these assesments – what I saw didn’t fit with my vision, I was willing to ascribe it to HIS problem.
From the most pragmatic standpoint the question becomes, how do you feel comfortable setting out the litmus tests or knowing that you act on info that is accurate?
This rings of arguments I hear perenially from our buddies the Greeks – “We are all for the papacy up until it quit being Orthodox!”
This rings of arguments I hear perenially from our buddies the Ultrajectines – “We are all for the papacy up until it quit being rightly understood in 1871!”
This rings of arguments I hear perenially from our buddies the sedevacantists – “We are all for the papacy when we have a REAL one again! How will we know it is real? It will be obvious because…”
1000 difficulties do not make one doubt – my issues with how things have been handled at different levels which were not to my satisfaction are my own issues. I outgrew my days of armchair poping.
Prudential decisions being what they are, they aren’t yours to worry about inasmuch as they don’t affect you. You can easily join up with a TLM parish and work on what IS yours to work on – growth in holiness and a good death. Pray for him that he is wise in prudential decisions, and then leave them to HIM. He will answer for everything he has done, you will answer for what you are responsible for.
You aren’t responsible for ecumenism, you aren’t responsible for the last 40 years. You are responsible for you.
June 19, 2008 at 2:30 pm
“How to Serve Low Mass” CD is a beautiful training exercise for an Altar Server to learn how to serve Low Mass. The instruction was given by a Roman Catholic Priest from Catholic University of America in the 1950s. The training gives an overview of the functions and duties of an Altar Server throughout Mass, as well as the Latin prayers he must recite and when. This CD is a great guide for any Altar Server trying to learn to serve Mass, but also great for a layperson to devoutly learn the prayers and rubrics of the traditional Latin Roman Rite of Mass.
http://www.lulu.com/content/2740010
— I MUST SAY THIS CD WAS TRULY “EXTRAORDINARY FORM” TO THE LETTER. GREAT TRIDENTINE PRAYERS RECITED BY TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC PRIEST AND SERVER.
A MUST HAVE FOR ALL SERVERS, SEMINARIANS, DEACONS, AND PRIESTS.