The role of SSPX in the current state of the TLM

This poll was inspired by some recent discussion…

I always hate it when people spend all their time nit-picking the poll and don’t engage the substance, but I didn’t feel like I could choose just one answer from the selection. I think the SSPX was very influential in the creation of the indult, and thus pivotal for my present enjoyment of its riches, but at the same time I myself can’t be thankful for their disobedience and think their continued disobedience fuels the opposition of many bishops to the reinvigoration of our traditional rite. For instance, the modern French bishops have proven their ability to fritter away centuries of Catholic heritage, but I think even that bungling body of prelates would have reacted differently to news of a wider indult if their primary experience of the old rite were not a parallel hieararchy in opposition to the official church.

I attend the indult but am VERY THANKFUL to the SSPX…

But it is time to “come home” as they can do much more inside the church than their current position. This also assumes that they are free to continue the tradition of the church.

After they accept Vatican II in its entirety. And cease attacking the Mass of Paul VI, which their prelates continue to do, see here. As well as explicit acceptance of Benedict XVI’s primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church.

After all that we may get somewhere.

But yur entitled to daydreams.
Says nothing to the dirth of French seminarians, closing of Fr Parishes, no-priest parishes, Fr 10% N O Sunday Mass attendence.
I do think the the SSPX disobedience is responsible for global warming/cooling, Texas drought and Islamic Jihad though.

The SSPX has vailid concerns about the Church’s well being Post -VII…

One can not ignore the situation and expect it to get better

I picked "Their disobedience has caused a backlash limiting the TLM".

When I was on another forum, I had to listen to an SSPXer rant and rave about the TLM and against the current Mass. It has turned me off to the TLM completely.

Thanks for the link.

After all that we may get somewhere.

  1. None of the conditions are gonna happen.
  2. “Somewhere” could mean for better or worse. SSPX would claim it to be worse.
    Thus #1.

I feel the same way. I had a subscription to the Remnant. The angry overtones and lack of charity turned me off.

I have valid concerns as well,

But could many of these problems be because of the onslaught of the culture from outside the Church, rather than what any Council or Pope said or did?

I agree that such ranting if that’s what it was is really useless if not a turnoff.
However, letting some blathering talking head convince one of what Mass is the one to go to is also superfluous to a decision.
99% of SSPXrs (my experience) just want to worship according to the perennial Catholic Faith and raise their many offspring in the same. You never really hear of or from them. They spend their time practicing their beliefs and leave everyone else alone.
You might tell that person that such rantings are counterproductive to their point of view.

The Church is to speak TO the world, not speak FOR the world.

The SSPX , FSSP and other Traditional groups have grown dispite the onslaught of modern culture.

In the past there have been very anti-Christian cultures ( Pagan Rome ) yet the church grew

The Ambiguous language of VII set the stage for the spirit of Vii which has done great damage to the church and the lost of many souls

But could many of these problems be because of the onslaught of the culture from outside the Church, rather than what any Council or Pope said or did?

There could very well have been a considerable “falling away” of many Catholics from the Church in the aftermath of the 1960’s. However, I don’t believe that these societial changes in any way explain away the problems with the “conciliar church”…is it the Catholic Church? That is the question that many were and are still asking.

From the beginning of the crisis, traditional Catholics have raised what can be described as the “ecclesiological problem” - or as Ratzinger put it in Chile in 1988, “All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people.” Here he echos Frank Sheed, who wrote a book in 1967 entitled, quite extraordinarily, “Is It the Same Church?” and of course Archbishop Lefebvre, who in 1976 famously declared,

“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and from the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church…”

This problem has not disappeared - quite the contrary. It has become more and more manifest that the Conciliar Church lacks the four marks of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity, that the Catholic Church always necessarily possesses.

What is the explanation of this phenomenon?

Their disobedience has caused a backlash limiting the TLM.

I can see your point if an indult is asked today but from a timeline standpoint there was no TLM masses allowed until after the Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated the Bishops who were to continue the good work of the SSPX and was excommunicated for it. .

Do you think there would be an TLM indult with out the SSPX?

Your welcome for the link, I suspect you take Bishop Tissier’s words more seriously than I do.

Anyhow I don’t expect Benedict XVI, nor any of his successors to disown Vatican II or abrogate the Novus Ordo anytime soon. If none of the conditions happen, the SSPX can expect to remain in its “irregularized” state for the forseable future.

I thought calling bishops bungling was enough of a clue that I don’t think very highly of the French bishops. Less than 3% of the French attend Mass every week; the eldest daughter of the Church isn’t even healthy enough to be a pathetic shell of her former self. She is in abject disarray. But you seem to think that the failure of the French bishops somehow discounts the very idea that disobedience might turn them off to the TLM. I don’t think I need their specific example to make a general point: the daydreamer is the individual who thinks every single bishop in the world has kept his attitudes entirely unaffected by the disobedience of the SSPX.

Believe me it was done. This person also threatened lawsuits because of things I and others posted.

Why the person running the forum never banned him is anyone’s guess. I finally had to eMail the forum leader to delete my membership so I could not read any of the posts because they were getting me mad.

As for the TLM, I do not distute its validity and licitness when done within in the Church, but it is something I have no desire to go to.

If the Church which emerged from the Second Vatican Council is no longer the “Catholic Church”, then where is the Catholic Church today? Even the SSPX still claims its head is still present in Rome.

No one, except a couple of very insignificant sects claim the Papacy other than Benedict XVI in Rome. Unless you consider “Michael I”(David Bawden) or “Pius XIII”(Lucian Pulvermacher) to be holder of the Keys. For all I know you may very well be one of them yourself…

Yes. I love short answers!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit