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 9:21 pm
I see no parallel between the Reformation and the disobedience of the S.S.P.X. The Protestants, like the Arians and Nestorians and Monophysites before them, contested Catholic teaching. In order to safeguard the Faith, œcumenical councils are convened. That is why Trent was convened: not to address abuses in the Church but to answer the heretics on points of dogma. The heretics in question were also schismatics because they denied papal jurisdiction. The outcome of Trent was good but Trent would not have been necessary had the Reformation not occurred, and abuses could have been corrected by the usual means: legislative acts of the supreme pontiffs. To turn Mr. Archbold’s ‘what if’ against him, we might say that, had the Reformation not taken place, a lack of rancour may have resulted in something even better than Trent.
In contrast, the S.S.P.X has never contested even one Catholic teaching. On the contrary, it is most of those in the hierarchy who are calling into question the Catholic teaching on the proper relation between Church and State, the proper freedom due to error, the proper power of the bishops in relation to the Pope, the principal purpose of Matrimony, and the principle nature of the Holy Sacrifice (act of reparation and not commemoration of the Last Supper).
Moreover, the Society has never set up a parallel hierarchy or denied communion with the Pope and those he is in communion with.
We can argue that the Society is mistaken in its belief for the need for a rightful disobedience or the existence of a state of necessity. But, in fairness, we really cannot discredit the motives of its members as a group.
But we can and should urge that the Society consider present circumstances and do what is best for the Church, which is to seek a rapprochement.
P.K.T.P.
April 7, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Dear Mr. Alexander:
I was not accusing you of anything. I was merely pointing out that disobediencde to the Pope is not always wrong. We cannot reject the S.S.P.X simply because it is disobedient to the Pope, for then we would have to reject St. Athansius to the extent that he was disobedient to Pope Liberius. Short enough?
P.K.T.P.
April 7, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Why attack the S.S.P.X?
I have seen an increasing desire on this blog and on many others, especially those from ‘conservatives’ or ‘neo-conservatives’, to attack the S.S.P.X while revelling in the benefits imparted by “Summorum Pontificum”. The papolaters are just as bad as the archtraditionalist extremists.
This is not constructive, I think. We must first look to intent and, in justice, assume a good intent on the part of the Society members and supporters except where indicated otherwise in individual cases.
There is overwhelming evidence that everything we have would not have come without the S.S.P.X. But the impressive growth under S.P. suggests that the Society might not be very useful in the future. However, there is still one thing which the Society can deliver for all of us, and that is an international diocese which would include but not be limited to the Society. I have already outlined how this would work and so will not repeat it.
Better to spend our energies to encourage a rapprochement between Rome and the Society. This could still have many good fruits. Let’s pray for that.
P.K.T.P.
April 7, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Deirdre,
Too funny and too true.
April 7, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Mr. Perkins,
You wrote ‘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. ‘
This avoids the point. The either or you setup avoids the point. I do not accept as axiomatic that the Latin Mass was saved exclusively by the SSPX. I do not accept as axiomatic that if the SSPX did not go the direction that they did, we would have no Latin Mass now.
Statistics, especially the ones you cite, are not particularly convincing. Certainly the mood of the Episcopate was not disposed to the TLM in the 80s. No doubt. But it does not follow that the actions of the SSPX helped the cause. I remain, apparently with a number of others, unconvinced.
Once again, let me re-iterate, I am emphatically not attacking the SSPX. Questioning the value of the approach taken by the leadership of the SSPX is not attacking. Hurling around such accusations is not constructive.
Further, my criticisms of Bp. Williamson are not an attack on the SSPX any more that criticisms of Mel Gibson for the dopey things he said is an attack on Catholics. If Bp. Williamson continues to spout nonsense as regular as a geyser in Yellowstone, then I will be there to take pictures. However, that is not the same as criticizing all the people who visit the park. (Killed that metaphor.)
Anyway, debate away but please don’t accuse.
April 7, 2008 at 10:12 pm
“conservatives’ or neo-conservatives’
No no no.
Please, remember the rules of the blog. If you call anyone a NEO anything, you automatically lose the argument on a TKO.
We will let it slide this time, but no more neos.
April 7, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Mr. Perkins,
You write that your sense of fair play is being offended. I am sorry to hear that. Please tell me what I did to offend your sense of justice. I asked some questions, stated my opinion in a respectful way (I believe), and backed it up with some evidence (admittedly anecdotal).
How does this offend your sense of justice?
April 7, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Look, Mr. Archbold, I can’t control what it takes to convince you of anything. But all the facts suggest that the overwhelming majority of bishops did absolutely nothing to promote the Traditional Latin Mass, and most have tried to obstruct it. Some even do so now, men like Bishop Conry of Arundel and Brighton and Bishop Ramirez of Las Cruces, and the liberal hardline hold-outs in north-eastern France (Reims, Soissons, Châlons, Verdun, Cambrai, Metz, &c.).
So, if some force had not worked against them, we would have no access to it. That force is God, since all things happen owing to His will or His allowance, and this is a good and holy thing. What was the means of His action? It was principally the S.S.P.X. There were other instruments but they have been insignificant. Even in the case of Benedict XVI, we see, before his election, mainly a desire to promote a compromise Adoremus-type liturgy. Hence his closeness to Fr. Fessio and crowd.
The statistics I cite are hard facts. There were almost no regularised T.L.M.s before 1984 and almost none between 1984 and 1988, even though the bishops had full freedom in that period. These are facts. Do you dispute them? The S.S.P.X kept the old liturgy alive almost exclusively from 1970 to 1988, a period of almost twenty years.
I have tracked the ‘fight’ since 1988, and I found that getting bishops to approve Masses under E.D. was no easy task. But they did so, mainly because of that document–and that document came three days after the unapproved consecrations. Even so, at least 30% of American bishops, for example, refused to heed the Pope’s words.
In many cases, bishops established Masses right next door to Society chapels (case in point: Idaho), obviously to take away support from the Society.
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. But we should pray that people can see past their fantasies and look at the facts honestly.
There is namore to say (Chaucer).
P.K.T.P.
April 7, 2008 at 10:32 pm
The same fellow who wrote…
“I was not accusing you of anything.”
…also wrote earlier…
“I am afraid that David Alexander’s initial response here is simply not fair, and it is not consonant with Catholic teaching….”
It is an accusation. It is unsubstantiated.
“There is namore to say (Chaucer).”
Does this mean I can come back without having to endure this?
April 7, 2008 at 10:41 pm
For the SSPX to have “submitted” would have meant to say the Novus Ordo Mass… I assume that is what is meant by “submit humbly”.
Since they were correct from the beginning regarding their right to say the Tridentine Mass, what would they have been submitting to? A preference? A forceful nudge?
There never has been a mandate to say the new mass. It has never been illegal to say the old mass.
A priest has an obligation to say mass.
Which should he say? One that offends his Catholic conscience or one that is without doubt pleasing to God?
Should he humbly submit to the faith or to an internal political movement?
The SSPX holds that the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil. Would anyone on this blog want to force anything on anyone of another faith if they believe the thing to be intrinsically evil?
But back to a better point. In the face of a “new mass” that starkly contradicts its own purpose for existing and the mass of all time, the first having no mandate and the other having a mandate, what is a priest or bishop to do? Bow down to pressure? Or adhere to his Catholic conscience?
Steve Sanborn
April 7, 2008 at 10:43 pm
On fairplay and justice.
I don’t believe I was referring to Mr. Archbold in particular on this point.
My point is simply that it seemeth to me that many ‘conservatives’ simply cannot accept the idea that a Society they reject–nay, passionately reject–was necessary to secure access to the Mass they favour.
This may come from a mistaken sense of piety, I’m not sure. Keep in mind that one need not believe that the Society is holy in order to recognise that God used it to attain a good end. God frequently brings good even out of evil. But it seems to me as if conservatives really fear this idea that, perhaps, the Society was right after all. Or is this about pride? Is it a desire among ‘conservatives’ to take credit for the achievements wrought by the Society? Do they want us to think that their prayers would have been adequate to secure benefits which simply did not exist (with very rare exceptions) outside the Society from 1970 to 1988, even to 1989, in fact?
To ‘conservatives’, it is anathema to admit that anything good could have proceeded from such a disobedient child as the Society of St. Pius X. They have this emotional attachment to the Pope which blinds them to analyses of facts. Yes, we should love the Pope but it is not in the spirit of true Catholicism to regard him as a god who can make no mistake. This is more in line with the Protestant Hobbesian ideals of absolute monarchy which we are required to reject with passion. (How I remember a certain relative who told me, as J.P. II alighted from an aeroplane in Toronto, “When that man appears, it is as if God Himself is appearing before us.” What absolute and infamous rubbish that is.)
When our Lord left us, He told us that He must go so that the Holy Ghost can be sent unto us. The Holy Ghost is the presence of God in our world, not the Pope. The Pope has not one but several crucial divine functions, and has an authority unlike that of any other man. But there seems to be a false idea out there that nobody dare deny it to be absolute. Well, it’s not absolute, and the event of the 1960s show us just how fragile it really is. The truth is that the pope can be terribly wrong about just about anything.
I don’t take the opposite side either, and I excoriate the archtraditionalists. But they mostly don’t argue on-line. They just don’t bother and don’t care who agrees with them.
Let’s steer a middle course between the Scylla of papolatry and the Charybdis of rebellion and hope for a fair assessment of the clear facts and a prayer for a reconciliation. The Pope himself wants this, so we needn’t try to pooh-pooh the Society or deny the benefits which would not have come without it.
P.K.T.P.
April 7, 2008 at 11:03 pm
On Mr. Alexander’s remarks:
“I am afraid that David Alexander’s initial response here is simply not fair, and it is not consonant with Catholic teaching….”
This was an objective assessment of what you wrote, not an accusation that you meant to be unfair. I assume the best of you.
But it is not consonant with Catholic teaching to hold that the Society’s disobedience is wrongful simply on the grounds that various groups have, in turn, broken away from the Society. The S.S.P.X is an organisation with official positions, but not everyone in it necessarily holds all the organisation’s positions.
Moreover, it is objectively unfair to imply that “diobedience to the Holy Father” is always wrong, done here by contrasting it to “Forceful exertion of our canonical rights”. Sometimes, a forceful exertion of our canonical rights is not enough. Many priests forcefully insisted on their canonical right to celebrate the unabrogated Mass of 1962 and even on the grounds that it was not abrogated. The result was that they were thrown onto the street and locked out of their rectories. Where, I wonder, is the compensation for them, now that the Pope recognises that they were right all along?
Sometimes, disobedience to legitimate authority is not only morally ordered but even morally necessary, and we, as Catholics are ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to admit that Moral Law trumps the Canon Law and all positive law, in fact. As St. Thomas Aquinas declared in the Summa, if an ordinance of positive law violates a precept of Moral Law, the ordinance is not just ‘bad law’; no, rather it fails to qualify as law at all. It is, instead, ‘no law, but an abuse of power’.
Since De Missali Romano, 1971, which was used to deny priests’ right to celebrate the old Mass, is now clearly proved to be a nullity ab ovo, the disciplining of priests for standing on their rights was morally disordered. It follows that they had a right to join the S.S.P.X (or go independent) in order to safeguard their rights.
As Gratian remarks famously in his “Treatise on Laws”, even the Pope must obey his own laws. He may change a law in order to escape it, but, until he does so, he must obey it. Since the old Mass was never abrogated, it was the Popes who violated their own laws (probably inadvertently: I am not suggesting sin here). So, if disobeying the popes is, as you say, ‘another matter’, the popes should ask why they disobeyed themselves.
But, as some bloggers here say: let’s get away from all this law business. Fine. Great. Then I put it this way: what sort of a man would dare to deny the Mass of Fifteen Centuries, which sustained the martyrs? Is this legitimate? Is this right? It was wrong; it was an objective evil, and those who resisted it were right to do so.
P.K.T.P.
April 7, 2008 at 11:58 pm
“Moreover, it is objectively unfair to imply that “diobedience to the Holy Father” is always wrong, done here by contrasting it to “Forceful exertion of our canonical rights”. Sometimes, a forceful exertion of our canonical rights is not enough. Many priests forcefully insisted on their canonical right to celebrate the unabrogated Mass of 1962 and even on the grounds that it was not abrogated. The result was that they were thrown onto the street and locked out of their rectories. Where, I wonder, is the compensation for them, now that the Pope recognises that they were right all along?”
Alternately, how many SSPX chaplains on O7-08-2007 knocked on the door of the local ordinary asking if they could regularize the position of their chapel now…?
April 8, 2008 at 12:05 am
Deirdre, great post! That’s exactly how most people think when they hear the words “Latin Mass.” If they even know that such a thing exists, anymore.
I recently mentioned going to a Latin Mass at a meeting at my parish and every single person at the meeting was convinced that I had been to a non-Catholic Church. They all said, very firmly, that the Latin Mass wasn’t allowed any more. They were vaguely aware that there was this splinter group in Glasgow that did it and that they “weren’t really Catholic.” They had never heard of the M.P. and weren’t even aware that there had been a licit indult Mass for some time before last August.
April 8, 2008 at 12:07 am
A simple sinner writes (using the insane U.S. month-day-year dating formula):
Alternately, how many SSPX chaplains on O7-08-2007 [i.e. 08/07/2008] knocked on the door of the local ordinary asking if they could regularize the position of their chapel now…?
In essense, I agree! In fact, I have been saying that the obligation to be regularised goes back to 2000, when John Paul II offered them a de facto international diocese. Thank you, Simple Sinner, for joining me on the middle road: the S.S.P.X was right from 1976 to 2000 but has been wrong since 2000, and especially since 2007. The ‘conservatives’ on this blog think that the Society was always wrong (well, except before 1976); the archtraditionalists think that the Society is still right. How blind are both extremes! The Society was right to disobey the unlawful ordinances of the popes between 1976 and 2000–unlawful because the old Mass had never been abrogated and, therefore, D.M.R., 1971, was a nullity. But the Society is wrong to continue in a state of disobedience to legitimate authority because the cause of the state of necessity has ceased.
P.K.T.P.
April 8, 2008 at 1:04 am
“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.”
Mr Archibald,
I greatly appreciate the thought that you put into your article and am very sympathetic to your thesis.
I think that a brief summation of two experiences of mine might add some light to some of the points that you have made.
On the issue of traditionalists who might not attend SSPX Masses but give the society credit for keeping the Tridentine Rite alive, I can at least see how someone in my Archdiocese (of Toronto) might have come to that conclusion based on what transpired here several years ago, when an indult was granted to a parish in my neighbourhood. I recieved a summation of the politics surrounding the decision by a very trustworthy priest whose loyalty to Rome is beyond repute.
Apparentely the decision to grant the indult only occured when our previous ordinary decided that he wanted to put an end to the FSSP presence in the archdiocese, in addition to keeping the Legionnaries of Christ from establishing a foothold here. I was told that when the ordinary put forth his thoughts at a meeting of priests that another cleric raised the objection (or at the very least expressed grave concern) that with an SSPX chapel in the West end of Toronto, that the prohibition of an FSSP presence was pastorally unsound. It was only after that objection was raised that the archbishop decided to grant an indult to the parish in the West end that was under the care of the Fathers of the Oratory. Incidentally, that parish happens to be the one at which I have been attending the Tridentine Mass for the past several years.
I would suspect that the scenario that I just described was not entirely unique, and that similar occurences elsewhere have perhaps left many traditionalists feeling some debt (whether begrudgingly or with enthusiasm) to the SSPX for keeping the issue of the Tridentine Rite alive, even if the decision of their local ordinary to grant an indult was hardly an enthusiastic endorsement of the traditional mass. I could see how in the all too often slow and painful struggles of the laity to wrangle Indults from their local bishops, that the few cases where bishops hesitantly granted them simply to provide an alternative to the SSPX would have been touted as proof of the society’s role in keeping those masses alive.
Of course, the larger question remains as to whether or not the Tridentine Mass would have fared better had it not eventually became associated with the schismatic tendencies of the SSPX, that were often used as further excuse to marginalize it. On that note, I had a somewhat comical experience years ago when a university chaplain found out about my interest in the Tridentine Mass, and decided to make a rather public show of the matter that tried to associate such sympathies with an attraction to schismatic elements. Notwithstanding his dramatic sigh of relief when I assured him that such a connection did not apply to myself, it seems in retrospect as though he knew how to manipulate the situation of the SSPX to portray an attraction to pre-Vatican Two practices as the domain of a form of reactionary Catholic fundamentalism. Though things have since been changing for the better here in Toronto, it is not difficult to see how the more liberal elements in the Church were able for many years to use the schism of the SSPX to silence or marginalize those priests or seminarians who held a love for the older traditions of the Church. Whether or not it would have changed the opinions of any of the “progressives,” at the very least it would have been much more difficult for them to marginalize traditionalists had it not been for the excuse granted by the status of the SSPX.
With Regards,
FM
April 8, 2008 at 2:33 am
Dear F.M.:
I generally agree with your assessments. It is true that the existence of the S.S.P.X has helped to enable the liberals to demonise regularised traditionalism. But (a) regularised traditionalism would not exist in the first place were it not for the S.S.P.X or some similar movement and (b) even if there were no S.S.P.X, all the evidence shows that the bishops were determined to suppress even the memory of the old Mass. Evidence for (b) can be found in the very opening paragraphs of “Quattuor Abhinc Annos”, in which the Congregation for Divine Worship notes that the bishops of the world have reported how everyone just loves the New Mass. This is after the New Mass had driven millions right out of the Church; it is after New Mass and the other reforms decimated the Church according to every leading indicator one chooses to consider.
On (a), virtually our entire movement came into being in the period 1988 to 1993. Immediately after the publication of E.D., and not before, there was a huge increase (from almost zero) in every-Sunday regularised Masses; in fact, it was a tenfold increase in five years in the U.S.A.
But this all came about as a result of a document which was published in direct reaction to the S.S.P.X’s unapproved consecrations. In fact, the unapproved consecrations were done on 29-6-88 and E.D. followed on 2-7-88. That’s a space of only three days. E.D. directly declares that it is promoting the old Mass in order to accommodate traditionalists who do not want to follow the S.S.P.X after its consecrations.
Before 1988, there were only nine every-Sunday Masses regularised in all of the Western Hemisphere, 2 in Canada and 7 in the U.S.A. And even they came as a direct result of S.S.P.X activity.
There is absolutely no evidence that we would have had any movement at all were it not for the S.S.P.X. In England and Wales, under the Cardinal Heenan Indult of 1971, they still did not have EVEN ONE every-Sunday Mass before 1984.
Similarly, the Campos structure was formulated for the S.S.P.X and was only offered to the Priestly Union of St. John-Mary Vianney when the S.S.P.X rejected it pending the fulfilment of its pre-conditions. Essentially, Rome tried to divide unapproved traditionalists by getting the Campos people to leave their affiliation with the S.S.P.X and join up with Rome.
One of those pre-conditions was fulfilled by S.P. It took the Pope over two years to get this through his curia and past the German and French bishops, who even threatened rebellion over it. While it is true that Pope Benedict XVI favoured the legal finding demanded by the Society, it is also known that he much prefers not our Mass but a traditionalised N.O.M. Had Cardinal Ratzinger not been elected Pope, he’d probably be a member of Adoremus, with Frs. Fessio and the other one, the priest in Puerto Rico (forgotten his name).
So, once again, all the evidence suggests that, without the S.S.P.X, we’d have nothing. Of course, it is possible that the Pope could have done this just on a whim. Anything’s possible but not everything is bloody likely. I think it is risible for anyone to claim we could have achieved this without the S.S.P.X. Why on earth would any Pope have extended permission to priests had there not already been an established demand for our Mass?
Let’s suppose there were no Indult Masses and no S.S.P.X to the first part of 2007. Would the Pope have still published “Summorum Pontificum”? For whom? And suppose he had. Who would care?
P.K.T.P.
April 8, 2008 at 3:53 am
“This was an objective assessment of what you wrote..”
The scary thing is, you might actually believe this. You said, “I AM AFRAID THAT DAVID ALEXANDER’S INITIAL RESPONSE HERE IS SIMPLY NOT FAIR, AND IT IS NOT CONSONANT WITH CATHOLIC TEACHING.” (I wrote it like that so you wouldn’t miss anything.) The point is, you made an accusation that a statement of mine is “not consonant with Catholic teaching.” Yes, sir, you are accusing me. To deny that competently involves more than saying, oh, no I’m not.
For the record, sir, I don’t give a rat’s patootie about the circumstances under which a Pope should not be obeyed. What’s more, I suspect very few Catholics worry about it, as opposed to the circumstances under which a Pope SHOULD be obeyed. Do you ever get off your high horse long enough to consider that?
Humility. It’s a virtue. Check it out.
Your inability to engage anyone in this forum, resorting instead to the usual long-winded jesuitical sophistry that has been your contribution to this subject matter in numerous other fora — what the hell do you do anyway, just copy and paste from the last one? — does not add to the conversation, but simply regurgitates another one you already had. Indeed, one reason I think you need your own blog is that the rest of us really don’t have to be there for you to make your point.
Honestly, I’m usually not this hard on anyone in a forum like this, but your polemics have become so repetitive, so tiresome, that sometimes I just need to walk away. On the other hand, I wish to read what others have to say about this. At least they’re succinct.
So you’ve really put me in a bind here. Do I put the check mark in “Email follow-up comments…” or do I not???
April 8, 2008 at 3:54 am
“Additional Note: None of the comments on this post should be longer than the post itself. (You know who you are ;-)”
Actually, Patrick, I don’t think he has the slightest idea who he is.
April 8, 2008 at 11:30 am
Mr. Perkins:
What I am going to say is meant as honest constructive criticism, and not as an insult. (I would email you, but you post anonymously.) You come across as a long-winded pompous bore who is in love with the sound of his own voice. There is nothing in your posts that could not be written in one brief post. If others disagree with you, and you have a counter-argument, that’s fine. But, your primary rhetorical strategy seems to be to filibuster.
You suck all the joy out of debate.