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 7, 2008 at 3:41 am
“Without Martin Luther, we wouldn’t have had Trent”. Probably true enough, but that does not mean that the Reformation was a good thing.
Forceful assertion of our canonical rights is one thing, disobedience to the Holy Father is quite enother.
How could the Holy Spirit be supporting a movement that has led to several sedevacantist movements such as the SSPV? No one remains in communion with the Church unless sustained by the Holy Spirit. Many of us have remained in full communion with the Holy Father and numerous ancient, orthodox Eastern churches, we have got our Mass back, and IMHO, God is working through Benedict XVI to restore the Church.
The Lefebvrites are Anglicans in disguise – they pick and chose out of pride and vanity.
April 7, 2008 at 4:03 am
David,
I had a whole paragraph about Luther and Trent but I took it out because my post was already too long. While no analogy is perfect, I think that is a good one for my purpose here.
Thanks.
April 7, 2008 at 4:21 am
It was I who made a remark about Luther inspiring the need for Trent a couple of weeks ago. Of course the comparison was challenged as arbitrary. I am not so sure.
It is never a good idea to give credit to bad behavior, as a justification for an eventual good. One effectively claims that the end justifies the means. What if the SSPX were responsible for preserving the Traditional Mass? Does that speak well of our Tradition, that we must resort to disobedience, to pride, to vanity, to preserve it? Some have been quick to charge “papalotry” against those who have defended Rome. Is it any more exemplary to make an idol of a set of books?
If Patrick is guilty of anything, it is of having an original thought, of dispensing with the preconceived notions that obscure objectivity. Such virtue is necessary for the reform of the Church, for it speaks to us of personal reform. It’s high time some of the brilliant minds in this conversation stopped boring the bejeezus out of the rest of us with the usual tired polemics, and speak well of virtue, of overcoming evil with good.
I don’t care which set of books you prefer; any less simply isn’t Catholic.
(That wasn’t too long, was it?)
April 7, 2008 at 2:03 pm
The Lefebvrites are Anglicans in disguise – they pick and chose out of pride and vanity.
While I agree with the substance of Mr. Archbold’s post (I think it could be argued that during the Pontificate of Paul VI especially the partisans of the Bugninist reform were equally or even more disobedient than Msgr. Lefebvre), I think the above comment is unnecessary and uncharitable. One can debate the “what ifs” for centuries, and debate can be a good, but I do not see the point in being non-conciliatory. Indeed, that is part of the reason that I think Bp. Williamson’s comments are often worthy of criticism.
April 7, 2008 at 2:06 pm
They are rather impressed with themselves, aren’t they? Never mind the work of 1000s of priest who never broke ranks with the hierarchy or moved in circles loyal to excommuicated bishops who set up chapels without the permission of the local ordinary.
The FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King, the Benedictines of France, The Society of Saint Vincent Ferrer… (and many more!) Do these groups that are faithful mean nothing?
I think it would be generous to guesstimate that the SSPX had so much as 1.5M supporters worldwide… And +Ratzinger was talking about Liturgical reforms and the heritage of the old rites well before he was Pope…
But it would kill them to admit that maybe it isn’t all about them, and their small and continually fractured movement.
April 7, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“If Patrick is guilty of anything, it is of having an original thought”
I promise, it will never happen again!
***********************************
It is one thing for those in the SSPX to claim credit for the return of the TLM. This is expected. More perplexing to me are those who profess not to attend SSPX masses but readily attribute all progress made on this front to the group.
Like I said, perplexing.
April 7, 2008 at 4:49 pm
What amazes me in all of this is that FIUV (Una Voce International) which predates the SSPX and has worked consistently for the restoration of the traditional Mass and has been consulted by Rome prior to a number of the Motu Proprios never even get a mention. I know most of the work is done very quietly behind the scenes but let’s give credit where credit is due.
April 7, 2008 at 5:46 pm
“More perplexing to me are those who profess not to attend SSPX masses but readily attribute all progress made on this front to the group.”
Locally I know a woman who thinks that the SSPX is the absolute “bee’s knees” and all good things in the Church are from them and the fact they “kept Latin Mass alive”… She has never been to a chapel or met an SSPX priest or even a real live SSPX chapel attendee…
… yet she is convinced that the suns rises and sets around them. Why? I dunno, good marketing?
April 7, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“Why? I dunno, good marketing?”
More like a good distance. Maybe she’d get a better picture of them were she to live in St Mary’s, Kansas, where reputations are made and broken by an SSPX parish priest.
Or so people from there have told me.
April 7, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Your article is excellent and well overdue. Studying for the priesthood in the late eighties and early nineties, I can attest to the damage done to the ‘Seamless Garment of Christ’ by SSPX. Those of us who desired to be faithful to the Church, venerated Tradition and cherished the Church’s patrimony were put on watch as ‘possible schismatics’. The impatience and pride of the leadership of SSPX polluted the Church. B16 acknowledges that the TLM was never abolished after the Council in Summorum Pontificum. The SSPX cannot claim any victory for the TLM. They can, however be blamed for increaing the tension within the Church and by creating an atmosphere of suspicion.
April 7, 2008 at 7:48 pm
” They can, however be blamed for increaing the tension within the Church and by creating an atmosphere of suspicion”
Well said.
The TLM is now permanantly associated in the memory of many as being associated with schismatics. That didn’t do any favors for any parties who loved the TLM and would NEVER have dreamed of pridefully setting up a new church! It just gave ammo to formators and bureaucrats…
April 7, 2008 at 7:54 pm
We need to reconsider this matter. As faithful traditional Catholics, we believe that it was the will of Almighty God that the Mass of the Ages, which has never been abrogated (as I argued on-line for years), would not die. It is the Mass that would not die, as Michael Davies called it. God either used the S.S.P.X to ensure this, or else he allowed the work of the S.S.P.X to deliver this sure outcome.
So we can say that the S.S.P.X was the immediate cause (or the principal or even the necessary immediate cause) of the outcome, but the will of God was the final cause. God can use a clean instrument to achieve His ends or He can bring good out of error, so either is possible.
But I think that those who would argue that the S.S.P.X was not the principal and even a necessary immediate cause historically have a very weak case indeed. In the opening of the text of the 1984 Indult, the authors note the report of the world’s bishops that the New Mass has been received peaceably and welcomed with joy. But they then go on to note that, nevertheless, they detect opposition to the New Mass. The apposition of the two statements makes it look almost as if they are dismissing the bishops’ report as a lie. During this period, the S.S.P.X was experiencing an exponential growth. Rome was worried.
The connexion between the S.S.P.X and “Ecclesia Dei” is undeniable. The latter, which realised the 1984 Indult, was issued only three days after the former. The F.S.S.P., founded that year, was composed entirely of Society members. It was the very first approved traditionalist society of priests–the model for the others.
In 2000, Rome offered the S.S.P.X a ‘personal’ de facto diocese. When the Society rejected this pending fulfilment of pre-conditions, it was offered to the Campos and accepted. You’d have to be blind not to see the connexion there.
The Society’s first pre-condition was delivered by S.P., even though Rome could have delivered the same benefit in other ways (e.g. by erection of an international personal diocese). Post hoc ergo propter hoc? I don’t think so, especially given enormous opposition to the Society’s demand in the curia. I might add that, while, as Cardinal Ratzinger, the Pope did indeed agree with the Society’s view that the old Mass had never been abrogated, he has also made it crystal clear on a number of occasions that what he prefers is a compromise between the two Masses. On one occasion before Davies died, he told him, after a CIEL conference, that most traditional faithful wouldn’t even know if they had witnessed an N.O. versus solemn orientem, in Latin, and with all the smells and bells. On another occasion, Cardinal Ratzinger pointed to the ‘vastly superior’ lectionary of the New Mass, with its ‘richer fare from the table of the Lord’.
God has used the Society to achieve all of this. This does NOT mean that the Society has been a clean instrument. Not at all. But it means that it *might* be a holy and a clean instrument. Therefore, we need to think before we attack the Society of Saint Pius X.
My own view is that God has indeed used the Society as His instrument and that the Society was in a state of rightful disobedience from 1976 to 2000 (although there were other ways for laics, at least, to remain faithful to tradition). However, the plausible state of necessity ended the moment Pope John Paul II, through Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, suggested a ‘personal archdiocese’ for the Society. To show its good faith, Rome actually delivered a personal jurisdiction to the Campos one year later.
The S.S.P.X asked for S.P. and, to its surprise, I think, the Pope delivered. Now the Society must do the right thing both for itself and for the Church and agree to at least a provisional regularisation during a period of discussions over doctrine. The conditions under which disobedience was at least subjectively justified are no longer in force.
P.K.T.P.
P.K.T.P.
April 7, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“The S.S.P.X asked for S.P. and, to its surprise, I think, the Pope delivered…. The conditions under which disobedience was at least subjectively justified are no longer in force.”
Okay, Mr Perkins. Sounds to me like they lost the moral high ground. Can we all stop throwing them laurels until they can get their act together, or do we have to spend another decade hearing about how we couldn’t do without them?
April 7, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Mr. Archbold asks the ‘what if’ question: What if the S.S.P.X had submitted humbly? If we believe that God is behind the survival of the old Mass, we must have faith that God would have found another way to achieve this end. But we cannot limit God by our own suuppositional conditionals. God apparently chose to use the S.S.P.X to achieve these ends. One reason might be to end all this ludicrous and very unmediæval papolatry which we see in ‘conservatives’. How Protestant it is. How Hobbesian it is.
Mr. Archbold says that we don’t know what the outcome of Q.A.A. would have been without the S.S.P.X and its consecrations of 1988. I submit that, while none of us has perfect knowledge unless God reveals it, we do have very clear evidence of the effect of Q.A.A. before the Society’s consecreations of 1988. Between 1984, a period of four years, ONLY NINE bishops in all of North America allowed the old Mass on an every-Sunday basis. If you don’t believe me, ask Mrs. Kraychy: she kept the figures. That is only nine dioceses out of over 2,000 in the Western Hemishpere. There were a few other cases of every-Sunday Masses but these had been cancelled by June of 1988. There were a few other cases of occasional or once-monthly Masses. It was not just a small number but a drop in the Pacific Ocean. The bishops responded to Q.A.A. by forbidding the old Mass. It’s that simple.
Between 1988 and 1993, there was an enormous explosion of permissions, thanks to “Ecclesia Dei”, which resulted directly from the unapproved consecrations. It was approximately a tenfold increase in dioceses with every-Sunday permissions. The rate of increase slowed considerably (since the number of dioceses at any one time is finite, and conditions differ among them) but we saw continued strong growth from 1993 to 1998. The growth line flatlined around 2000 and then picked up slightly immediately after the election of Benedict XVI. The truth is that, even under “Ecclesia Dei”, a very large per centage of bishops (about 30% of them in the U.S.A., e.g.) *still* refused to allow the old Mass.
I am sorry, Mr. Archbold, but there is evidence and it is decisive. Even now, many bishops are doing their utmost to obstruct S.P. Only insistence from Rome is forcing them to compromise a bit. For example, my Bishop has just told us that we can list our Mass in the parish bulletin but he will not allow it to be published in the diocesan newspaper. Even now, after all this, the liberal hardliners are pulling out the stops to keep us down. I note that there is little ‘competition’ from the S.S.P.X in my Diocese (one chapel up-Island and one Mass per month in Victoria).
If the Lord do not build the house, they labour in vain that build it.
P.K.T.P.
April 7, 2008 at 8:20 pm
As a run-of-the mill, likes Tridentine Mass but also likes a well-done N.O, pope-loving Catholic, I think SSPX has done a LOT of damage to the Latin Mass—
For instance, if I was basing my impressions of traditionalists simply on the Pius Xers I’ve met, I’d think that everyone in a chapel veil was a sedevacantist, conspiracy theorist, seeing free-masons in the woodwork, nutjob.
Fortuneatly, I have a number of (at least in some respects) normal traditionalist Catholic friends. But not everyone is so lucky– and if my only exposure to Tridentine Mass had come at the hands of the “masons are everywhere and the pope is a communist because he won’t reveal the true secret of Fatima” crowd, I would have run screaming in the opposite direction.
Basically this points to a fundemental problem in ALL schismatic movements, Left and Right alike– once you lose the anchor that is Rome, you drift into all sorts of crazy currents………
Or to put it more colorfully: Once you enter the cafeteria, you’re guarunteed to end up with a mysterious Jell-O mold full of strange floating objects on your tray……
Which is why I thank God for the Papacy every day! =)
April 7, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Mr. Archbold also refers to the situation on Long Island. But is this supported by the statistics elsewhere in the U.S.A.? With the greatest respect to him, I suggest that informed opinions on this are those which know something of the statistics, which I have been collating and evaluating now for over fifteen years.
The fact is that the S.S.P.X has not done particularly well in the U.S.A., compared especially to France and especially South-West Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Even today, the Society is only present for every-Sunday Masses in 64 U.S. dioceses–out of 176 Latin sees. That means that bishops all over the U.S.A.–a majority of them–forbade the old Mass even when there WAS no S.S.P.X presence.
I am sorry, Mr. Archbold, but your hypothesis is not supported by the evidence. The evidence is that the local bishops have fought tooth and nail to wipe out even the memory of the old Mass, and many of them continue to do so. What little we have apparently only came under Society pressure. I could cite a great many cases in which an Indult Mass was approved right next door to a Society chapel. The evidence is that the bishops have had to be dragged kicking and screaming before they would permit Traditional Latin Masses in their sees. As an example, Bishopo Ramirez of Las Cruces once said that he would allow the old Mass in his Diocese “over my dead body”. He is still the bishop there and there is still no T.L.M. in his very populous see–and there is still no every-Sunday S.S.P.X Mass there.
Let’s not believe what the evidence tells us. Let’s believe what we want to believe. Life is so much more fun that way. Sorry to be so sarcastic about this but I’m getting a tad irritated here because my sense of fair play is being offended. Look, I’m not a Society supporter and have never once attended its chapels. But I do believe in giving a man his due. I am prepared to admit that the Society has done much good because that is what the evidence suggests. It does not mean that we must support the Society or believe that its position is objectively justified. But if we are not fair about the evidence, nobody should respect our views.
P.K.T.P.
April 7, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I think that Deirdre Mundy does make a valid point. But the truth is that, when a small group quite correctly rebels against a norm, that small group may include a mixture of good people and nutcases. Any group in society which is seen to be a small minority will attract the usual extremists, contrarians, fascists, ritualists, sexually-frustrated nitpickers, wild-eyed radicals, conspiracy theorists and those who argue that the Pope is being drugged all day long by his secretary of state.
But we mustn’t let that distract us from the facts. A journalist once told Archbishop Lefebvre that some fascists had appeared at his Masses dressed in very neat S.S. uniforms. He responded by saying, essentially, Look, I can’t prevent lunatics from showing up at my Masses.
P.K.T.P.
April 7, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I am afraid that David Alexander’s initial response here is simply not fair, and it is not consonant with Catholic teaching.
Unlike Hobbesian Protestants, we do NOT subscribe to the error that obedience to a monarch, including the Pope, is an absolute. The authority of the Pope is supreme, plenary, universal, and immediate, but it is not absolute. Ask Athanasius. Hence, in Catholic teaching, there certainly are categories of rightful disobedience, even in regard to the Pope.
It is true that there were ways for at least laics to protect their own souls without in any way supporting the S.S.P.X. However, that does not change the fact that, within our Western Tradition, defence of the old Mass was needed as a means of defending the Faith and saving others. The New Mass, despite being valid and fulfilling the four ends of prayer, nevertheless posed dangers to the faith owing especially to its equivocations, its openness to misinterpretation (particularly as regards the nature of the Sacrifice).
Whether or not any particular Society priest or supporter felt it necessary to support the Society in order to defend the Faith is a question which only each individual can answer. God does not punish us for our mistakes, only for our sins.
As for the S.S.P.V. and the C.M.R.I., these are tiny movements, and you cannot blame the S.S.P.X just because some of its members may have been supporters for all the wrong reasons. You could just as easily say that the Church can’t be good because look at all the heretical movements which have come out of her. In fact, that is PRECISELY what the Muslims said in the eighth and ninth centuries, and it is largely why they converted so many Christians in the Levant at that time.
Lastly, sedevacantism is not a heresy but an opinion about a matter of fact. We all become sedevacantists between the death of one pope and the election of another. Since a pope may lose his office if he falls into formal heresy, it is always possible to think that this has happened. But I add that negligence in considering evidence, or expressing views without due regard for evidence, is also a sin. Obviously, we are bound to assume that the guy in white with the gucci sunglassses is indeed the Pope unless we have VERY good reasons for thinking otherwise.
P.K.T.P.
April 7, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Gentlefolks all,
A few points.
“Without Martin Luther, we wouldn’t have had Trent” Untrue. The Church had been crying out for the reforms of Trent – indeed for a reforming Council – for at least three generations before Trent was opened.
“The Lefebvrites are Anglicans in disguise” Depending upon what a Lefebvrites is, we can certainly say that the great majority of Priests of the SSPX are ‘merely’, if one can use the word in the context, suspended, but SUSPENDED CATHOLIC PRIESTS. That is the view of the Holy See and, in charity, it should be our view too. If God or His Vicar go no further, let us go no further in our polemic either.
“FIUV… never even get a mention” This is a valid point, but in theory and in history. However, in reality, the Church is a clerical organisation. The needs or wishes of layfolk, save in limited and rare circumstances, never have the sympathy of the clergy.
Finally, “More perplexing to me are those who profess not to attend SSPX masses but readily attribute all progress made on this front to the group”. I number myself among them. Where was the Traditional Rite in the Church of the reign of Paul VI? Even pre-1970? Where in the Church of the reign of John Paul I? Where was it in the reign of John Paul II until 1984 or even 1988 or even after that?
There was no compelling motive for any of the last three Popes to restore a rite that was “never abrogated”. None of the last three Popes ever publicly stated that a rite that was being suppressed throughout the world, often forcibly, was “never abrogated”.
Archbishop Lefebvre proclaimed it to the world and the world laughed at him and ignored his words. Yet, Pope Benedict has confirmed what few had the courage to say: “never abrogated”.
St. Vincent Ferrer supported an anti-Pope throughout his life. Did Archbishop Lefebvre do worse that that? I leave that to God to judge. I leave it to the Pope to pass his judgement upon the words of Archbishop Lefebvre: “never abrogated”.
April 7, 2008 at 9:17 pm
“I am afraid that David Alexander’s initial response here is simply not fair, and it is not consonant with Catholic teaching….”
That’s a pretty serious charge. You have not taken the opportunity to point to an exact statement. Rather, you dance around it to make the same old tired point you always do about “papalotry.”
To be obedient to a pope is not the same as to make an idol of him. That is what I said. That is what I meant. That is ALL that I meant.
For you to suggest anything else is scandalous at my expense. I refuse to participate in what is becoming another excuse for a succession of long tirades, oblivious to the point the original author was trying to make.