CharlesW :
"Pius V did not do as much codifying as rewriting."

This old thing again, just because some scholar compared a few Missale and discovered some differences, does not make the Rite promulgated by Trent a confection. It also does not help that the scholars of that time wanted to show that the confection of the New Rite from disparate sources, to be something that has precedent in Church history.

Those that have studied the ancient Missals are able to point out that the Trent Missal is almost identical to the Missal used in Rome before Trent. Of course there are differences between this Roman Missal and say the Sarum, Galican, Dominican... but these differences are mainly in Rubrics and Propers, not in the basic texts of the Ordinary.

I am sure I remember that Benedict described the N.O Mass as a banal, of the time product...

It is easy for any of us to look fondly on our creations, and to be convinced that our view is somehow better than others, we see this in many of the writings about the Liturgical movement, Vat II, and the various changes... But are those that were present making the decisions the best judges, what will history say about this period of Church history?

It is all very well for Dom Gueranger (et al) to bring into more general knowledge half forgotten treasures from the Churches past, but this is different from imposing changes from the top down to what hitherto and been something that had grow organically from the bottom up. This can be shown by the many feasts that were celebrated locally e.g Corpus Christi and grew to become one of the more important Feasts of the Church year.

Is a Trastevere bar the best place to write the Canon of the Mass?

The top down approach to Liturgy has led to the mess we have today, and the impotence of Rome to reform bad practice.

As for the Question in the title above,
"Why cite SSPX practice as an example to be considered?" Because we would not want to cite the practice of -------* as an example to be considered.

* insert here Balloon / Cowboy masses celebrated by German Cardinals, or perhaps the celebrations involving Card. Mahoney in California over the years. The examples available...

Charles W—can you recommend a good history of the formation of the Tridentine Mass?

I know I'm not Charles W (unfortunately), but have you thought about Jungmann's The Mass of the Roman Rite? Excellent historical study - don't know that I necessary agree with all of his findings, but the scholarship is none too shabby.

As far as the original question goes, speaking as someone who has attended Mass at Society chapels in the past, I can attest to the fact that SSPX practice isn't uniform by any means. You'll have parishes that encourage active liturgical life - full Gregorian chant, polyphony, chanting of the Divine Office - and then you'll have parishes where it's an uphill battle to get everyone to kneel during the Sanctus at the same time. Much like any other group, a lot of it comes from the general cultural milieu of the area where their chapel is located. As much as we'd like to think things have changed, "German" parishes will have a different mindset from "Irish" heritages (or insert ethnicity here). It does make a difference.

The only traditional community I have seen which has anything approaching a liturgical hegemony of sorts would be the Institute of Christ the King. But I get the feeling that their seminary training is much more focused on the aspect of aesthetics than other communities - one of their patrons is St. Francis de Sales, after all.

Thanks, Stimson, and a_f_hawkins. I love reading anything on all these matters that is historically and doctrinally sound. And don’t have axes to grind.

Kenneth

CharlesW, here we come to what I call the Sacred Doctrine of the Floating Popes, according to which all was sweetness and light before about 1961. You trace trouble back to the 8th Century, but my reading of the Christian West and Its Singers indicates a lot of things were a mess a lot of the time.

It is surprising in ANY era that anything survives, and the liturgy and the Church are ALWAYS under attack. I can’t put my finger on it right now, but the NLM website some years ago ran a quote from St Alphonsus Liguori on how badly the Mass was performed, and in 15 minutes. Popular literature from the Middle Ages documents how badly prepared many diocesan priests were. There was dancing of the Sarabanda in the sanctuary after it was brought back from the New World—though I have had trouble finding a source for this repeated claim—and priests dressed up as a knight for Masses whose musical setting was based on a really annoying French pop song, the Armed Man.

It is a wonder that ANYthing holy survives life among us.

Kenneth

When one examines Missals from the 8th century one is amazed as to how almost identical the Mass was to that from Trent.

That's what I've learned, too.

In fairness, I believed all the foo-foo dust of the revolutionaries that the Novus Ordo would reflect the ACTUAL Mass of the 6th C (or whatever). But I've overcome my Jesuit education, by and large....

the way the SSPX bishops act toward Rome

How does this differ and in what way to the practice of the German bishops to Pope Benedict, or the English bishops? I am sure that other countries have their share of bishops that seem to follow Judas as their role model from among the Apostles.

I don't think the SSPX bishops have been caught lying, unlike say the English...

How does this differ and in what way to the practice of the German bishops to Pope Benedict, or the English bishops?

Here in the USA, we often find Bishops who simply ignore Rome altogether. So do their priests. That's not unique to the USA of course.

Disobedience to Rome, Vatican II, and the pope is rife in the US. But for that disobedience the average Catholic Sunday mass would be giving pride of place to chant in English or Latin, to our patrimony of sacred choral music, to the use of the organ as most suitable for the Roman rite, and.... Disobedience to the disobedient is punishable by summary dismissal from service. It is remarkable how that the disobedient clergy of all ranks cannot tolerate so much as a whiff of disobedience to themselves. And, equally culpable are those disobedient people in the lay caste who rebel against those scarce priests who attempt to shed the pop-mass paradigm, and make life difficult for those musicians who wish to be obedient to the council.

I also suggest "The Organic Development of the Liturgy" by Alcuin Reid.

I have that. It's the Jungmann I don't have and haven't read.

Rome had ceased to be the capital of the Western Empire in 286AD.

By the time of the Danubian/Balkan/Illyrian emperors, Aurelian, Diocletian, Constantine, and others, Rome was wherever the Emperor was located and the capital moved with him. These were emperors who came from the military who essentially took away command of the legions from senators who had traditionally been hereditary commanders.

Justinian toyed with the idea of putting the empire back together until a plague killed nearly half the empire. They were also suffering from the effects of unstable weather patterns which were disastrous for agriculture, along with some volcanic activity. For example, it rained for eleven months at Alexandria around the year 150. Alexandria normally gets one day or so of rain from May until fall. After the Roman Warm Period ended, the climate became more unfavorable and plagues more common. All this significantly weakened them.

How does this differ and in what way to the practice of the German bishops to Pope Benedict, or the English bishops?

In lots important ways: such as getting approval to ordain, etc.

But I'm simply not convinced pointing to bad behavior of Bishop So-And-So justifies bad behavior by the SSPX bishops.

The SSPX bishops do as they please—they take orders from nobody. The hilarious part is that they demand strict obedience from their priests.

(Psst, CharlesW, we don't speak of the Roman (or Medieval) Warm Period(s) anymore. The earth maintained a stable global temperature until the 1950s, when we started global warming.)

a (retired) bishop is now calling for schism

.

Hmmm. I thought he was merely calling for another conclave-election. Does that constitute "schism"?

Kenneth,

If you mean that one need not be a supporter or member of the SSPX in order to reject Modernism, I agree with you. Fundamentally, disobedience seems to be the teaching of Vatican II: don't do what the Church has always done; don't teach what the Church has always taught; claim the obligation of obedience to the disobedient; create so many "options" that it's impossible to violate the rubrics at Mass, except by following the letter of the council.


Unless Pope Benedict is right, that all the documents of Vatican II must be read in the light of the magisterial teaching prior to that point, and in harmony with all of them, I find it perplexing that the council is even called Catholic.

Our fellowship is with those who are obedient to Rome. Separated brethren are just that. This morning brings news that a (retired) bishop is now calling for schism. Count me out.

"Separated brethren" is merely the new (PC) way of saying "schismatic." They mean the same thing. To my knowledge, the Catholic Church has never declared the SSPX to be in schism, because they aren't. Disobedience and schism are not synonymous. Many―perhaps the majority?―of novus ordo priests aren't obedient to Rome. Are you saying that we should or should not be in fellowship with them? Polls show that a vast majority of lay "Catholics" do not accept magisterial teachings. Should we or should we not be in fellowship with these heretics who still have the appearance of being inside the Church?

In any case, if we ourselves are not responsible for any part of the Mass, our attitude should be gratitude for those who put in the effort and awed gratitude for the gift of the Eucharist. That means feeling just as much that you were at Mass at a suburban parish where moderately talented people provide modest but appropriate folk music as you would at a magnificent Gothic Church with magnificently performed polyphony and Chant.

What exactly constitutes "appropriate folk music" for the holy sacrifice of the Mass? I think many of us on this forum were unaware of such a thing.

"The master stroke achieved by Satan is to have thrown everyone into disobedience by virtue of obedience. The most typical example of this fact is that of the ‘aggiornamento’ of religious orders. Through obedience the religious are made to disobey the very laws and constitutions of their founders which they pledged to observe when they took their vows." - Abp. Lefebvre

CharlesW, de facto schism, yes. As far as confusion coming from Rome, how does that differ from the Julius II’s Holy Leaugue of Cambrai? If a town didn’t support him, they got an interdict, which was then lifted and slapped on someone else as people changed sides, if I understand it.

And if a priest teaches heresy in RCIA, (I for some reason don’t see who said that)how is that different than the sale of indulgences? The English historian AG Dickens, who read parish records, found one priest who ran a Shrine where he sold indulgences and flat out heresy. Piers Plowman begins with a similar story. Everyone knew it was going on at the time.

And really, CharlesW, if one reads the Epistles to the Corinthians, has it ever been different?


Kenneth

Here is the call for schism that put me in a bad mood, and I apologize again for being provocative. When I read about this provision of Universi Domenici Gregis, I thought it ill-considered of St JPIi, because vile men don’t care what the law says, and so I knew we would soon be off to the races. Now, here we are. The problem for this bishop is that I have read no evidence Jorge Bergoglio ever campaigned for the job, unless one can see into his soul. He sure had a remarkable knack for being at the right place and saying the right thing, but even at dicastery meetings, he would spend more time talking to the waiters. As with our last President, he seems to have realized people paint their dreams onto his scowling, often silent demeanor. The St Gall group, yes, but what effect would deposing them have? They are so few, or so old, or so dead.

I first read about it in The Dictator Pope, which is now out in English and is well worth a Kindle download. Not so deep as to demand a harcopy.

http://okietraditionalist.blogspot.com/2018/05/okie-traditionalist-interviews-bishop.html?m=1

Fundamentally, disobedience seems to be the teaching of Vatican II: don't do what the Church has always done; don't teach what the Church has always taught; claim the obligation of obedience to the disobedient; create so many "options" that it's impossible to violate the rubrics at Mass, except by following the letter of the council.

I must change this statement, to add emphasis and nuance. Disobedience seems to be the teaching of Vatican II. Among those who claim to interpret it rightly, a noisy group claim "don't do....." and all the rest.

Here is the call for schism

Please reconcile the text of that article with "schism."

And yet, I remain unconvinced of "schism". From my read (admittedly quickly and not leisurely), I did not see definite pronouncements against popes or bishops, but a question that ultimately is submitted to the college of cardinals. Doctors of the Church have discussed whether a pope can be excommunicated, or whether - in such a case - there might be legitimate reasons to question the validity of the election, and the author of the internal article provides a context for which this might have happened in the case of the election of Francis.

The author of the internal link, however, clearly states in summary:

In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal.

That would not indicate a rejection of Ecclesial authority. He supposes a possibility and then states that is above the paygrade of all but the college of cardinals.

We can agree or disagree with the article. But I think we fall into the very trap we would accuse sedevantists of - namely, that they are their own supreme authority - when we casually try to define the validity, licitness, schism, or heresy of individuals and/or groups on our own discernment.

God forbid, dad29; there is no room for such speculation. The esteemed cardinal plainly remains at work, at the Pope's service, and his call for clear and sound teaching, and even his criticism, is not an act of disobedience, let alone a refusal of submission to the Pope.

Moving forward: This led me on to a study of the history of the Council, as well as learning about Fatima and other approved apparitions of the B.V.M., and many other related things, eventually including the positions of the Society of St. Pius X. (Meanwhile I had moved to a different part of the state, and had a baby. Alas, the state of affairs at the new parish was far, far worse than the previous parish. The pastor here preached outright heresy in his homilies.)

So, with my bran-new child in my arms at Mass here, hearing the heresy, and in my mind’s eye sorrowing over the devastation that the New Ways (Novus Ordo Mass, new calendar, new Divine Office, etc.) of the 1960s had wreaked on more than three generations of Catholics of my family—completely hollowing out the faith of great-aunts and uncles, aunts and uncles, all of my siblings—I knew it would be wrong of me to continue to take this precious child to it, to have her faith de-formed by it. The New Ways had destroyed the Faith all over the world.

As these changes to the Church’s worship were completely diabolical in their effects, I could only reason that “by their fruits” I could know them to be so, all right. I have come to believe that Communists and Freemasons infiltrated the Church in the 1930s (at the latest, probably before) and took the reigns of ecclesiastical power. We had been warned for centuries of a catastrophic destruction of the Church of just such apocalyptic proportions—by Our Lady of Good Success, St. John Bosco, Pope Leo XIII, at La Salette, at Fatima, among several examples.

And, if such people are ruling over us—Communists, Freemasons, etc.—even if they HAVE Christ’s authority through their ordinations, we STILL cannot obey them if they command us to do wrong. This is where my sympathy for the Society of St. Pius X comes in.

In the hindsight of the last 50 years I can see that the fruits of the New Worship are evil—and so I no longer participate in these New Ways. Our obedience to the hierarchy’s demands to acquiesce to the New Worship has led generations of us to (unwittingly!) help them destroy the Faith on earth as it had been known until our times. I learned about Obedience vs. Holy Obedience from Archbishop Lefebvre’s "Open Letter to Confused Catholics". (A good read for all Catholics, published before any of his ecclesiastical censures, in 1986.) Yes—we Catholics must obey the divinely-instituted and sacredly ordained hierarchy-- UNLESS they command us to disobey Christ and His Church. Even if they look like they ARE the Church. This is where the importance of the deposit of Tradition comes in. This is how we can evaluate when the change of the “rules” is okay, and when it’s not.

The founding members of the SSPX (and also others folks, at the time) saw early on after the Council what we are seeing through the lapse of years: the almost total destruction of the Church (also: Western Civilization!) through the destruction of its rites. Obedience is only good as far as it honors God; slavish obedience to a tyrant is not holy obedience, for example. If anyone commands us to harm the Church, Christ’s Holy Bride, we must not obey. And this is simply what the SSPX bishops and priests are doing. They are not in rebellion against the Church—they simply will not obey the New Ways that have been spiritually deadly to the beloved former Catholics of my family, and, really, the whole world.

I have never understood why so many people are up in arms about the SSPX due to the issue of obedience when you can step into just about any post-Vatican II Catholic church these days and find it full of disobedience, heresy, and blatant non-adherence to the actual Mass (changing prayers, ad-libbing, ignoring rubrics, focusing on people and not God, etc.).

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but SSPX is irrelevant to most Catholics, as well as, to the bishops. Its influence and effects are limited to its own small circle.

I think it might depend on where you are. Here in my southeastern part of the U.S. they have no presence at all. I understand they are big in France where they are tied to the monarchist party.