Friday, March 7, 2008

SP March 7, 2008

By Patrick Archbold

The Remnant Calls for civility in discussion over Good Friday Prayer
It’s no secret that Traditional Catholics find themselves engaged in their own war of words over Pope Benedict’s Good Friday prayer and its ramifications. The question is this: Can we maintain a Chestertonian level of civility as we hash this out? I believe we can and we must.
"A convenient and available church”
San Francisco archdiocese gains Latin Mass, Santa Rosa diocese loses one


Anonymous said...

What I am wondering is why the "Remnant" is determined to keep this pot boiling. By now, those, such as me, who refuse the new prayer, have explained their position admirably. Some will agree with it and others will not. But there is little more that any of us can do about the situation. The "Remnant" seems to be keeping this going in the hope that it will convince--or browbeat--all of us into agreeing with it. It will not. They underestimate their opponents' stubborness and they are only hardening our position against them.

I have seen nothing in the Remnant position which in any way touches my position. I refuse the revision not owing to its content but because of a reasonable inference--whcih is all I need--that it was composed in reaction to a demand from infidels. I have explained very well why this procedure wounds the Mystical Body and risks setting a dangerous precedent.

The legal situation cannot be changed. The Pope has the power and the right to enact this law. However, the law in no way requires faithful, whether clerical or lay, to use the revision. We remain free to use the 1962 formulation and ignore the revision. I have explained why in detail before.

In the long run, the revision will triumph in most places because, in the fullness of time, those such as me will die out, and the old tattered handmissals will all be eventually replaced.

One exception, however, is the S.S.P.X. There is real hope for a rapprochement with the Society today, and it is likely that it will not be required to submit to the 2008 revision. Hence at least some of us may have space in the future to retain the 1962 formulation, which is better Latin for one thing and much better in content, however secondary those conditions may be.

At this point, in this season of Lent, I am starting really to despise the Remnant and Messrs. Matt and Ferrara, as they continue their personal campaigns to force their views down others' throats. We are not going to jump onto their bandwagon, so they can get lost. The best thing they can do right now is to let this drop. They are dividing the traditionalist movement by keeping it up. Given the current situation, the change is made in law and the effects of it are set. There is nothing more for this than to pray on it, and I do NOT intend to invite Mr. Ferrara to pray with me on this.

Let's move on to things which do not divide us.


Anonymous said...

Second Post on This:

I'll make this one short. The reason the "Remnant" keeps this pot boiling is because it wishes to browbeat the S.S.P.X and some others into accepting the revised prayer. It wants to be responsible for a domino effect that can force the Society's hand. It won't work. Bishop Fellay wishes, I think, to make an arrangement with the Holy See, but any added controversy will make that all the harder. The Society mostly ignores such publications as "The Wanderer". It couldn't care less what they say. The "Remnant" is another matter, but Bsp. Fellay has already spoken on this issue and will not back down. Nor should he.

Rome will not make acceptance of this prayer a condition for regularisation for the S.S.P.X. There is no way that something so minor will prevent that. After all, the Pope has been working for over twenty years to heal this rift.


Patrick Archbold said...

I think Mr. Matt absolutely nails the core issue.

I am absolutely 100% sure that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted the prayer. Mr. Matt's article is not browbeating anyone. He lays out a solid argument and reasoning for accepting the authority of the Pope and the prayer. I, for one, am very glad that there are traditionalists such as him speaking with such clarity.

Anonymous said...

I pray for reconciliation of Rome with SSPX, but this changing of the prayer will not advance it. On the contrary, if Bp. Fellay were to attempt anything dramatic there would very likely be a huge split in SSPX. Before this change, I thought "reconciliation" likely; now, humanly speaking, it is dead. Yet I still pray for it.

Anonymous said...

To Mr. Archbold:

Thank you for your very civil tone on this. I am afraid that, having read Matt's and Ferrara's article, I cannot agree. I am 100% sure that that Archbishop Lefebvre would not have accepted this prayer.

I agree with you that Matt's article per se does not browbeat anyone. What I meant was that the Remnant policy as a whole is browbeating those on my side. They seem to think that one article after another will change our minds. But I have not yet seen anything written by them or others which addresses my reason for rejecting the prayer.

Again, I do not see how their arguments will help at this point. I have received e-mails and posts on weblists supporting what I have written on this. Positions are hardening on it. There seems to be no point in continuing the debate. We are now just repeating the same old arguments over and over again.

At the heart of it, from my side of the issue, Ferrara et al. simply do not recognise how damaging the procedure for the change has been. This is now entirely a matter of judgement, not logic. It comes down to an honest assessment of people about how great the effect of this procedure (viz. changing the Sacred Liturgy at the behest of infidels--or appearing to do so) really is. In my view, it is enormous; in theirs, it is either small or even non-existent. Whether all of them are being honest about this, I'm not sure. It concerns me not that they are being mendacious to others but, far worse, that they tell lies to themselves. This is far more harmful to the soul. Do they really think that Pope St Pius X would have responded to infidels' letters by changing the Sacred Liturgy? Perhaps they prefer not to think too hard about that.

It seems to me that the lines are drawn and positions are hardening. As a result, a continuation of the debate is only making for nasty feelings, something working against the penitential spirit of this season. Instead of concentrating on this, we need to move on to other things. I cannot change the law and must recognise that the Pope's decision is legitimate. On the other hand, this law does not require that I receive or use the new prayer--I choose not to do so. So do many many others. Let's leave it at that.

I am concerned that further discussion of this might divide the S.S.P.X because the Society leadership has rejected the change, whereas some Society priests even signed Ferrara's petition. I don't want to see the Society divided right now because it can still grant us one more thing: itself, coming with a jurisdiction that is ordinary, personal, exempt, and universal. That would be even greater than "Summorum Pontificum" in the long run.

I hope that the Remant's campaign does not undermine a possible rapprochement. Rome is not likely to insist on submission to this prayer unless groups such as the Remnant make this an issue when it needn't be. I hope that the Remnant staff will put the good of the Church above the selling of more newspapers.


David L Alexander said...

"What I am wondering is why the "Remnant" is determined to keep this pot boiling."

I quite agree we should move on, Mr Perkins. You have said the same thing, over and over and over again, in the comments boxes of at least three blogs that I know of. In the six years I've been active in the blogosphere, I personally have never seen one individual criticize the Holy Father so relentlessly on a single issue. Even as you complain about the Remnant's persistence, you have written two very long statements in this thread alone. (Oh, and one short one.)

As a wise man once said, "Let's move on to things which do not divide us."

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Alexander:

The reason for the repetition of my arguments is simply that I have never seen any good answers to them. The "Remnant" does indeed present plausible arguments but they never touch on the core of the issue, which is the effect of changing the Sacred Liturgy at the behest of infidels--or appearing to do so (the two are equivalent).

I think that either you or someone else (I may be confusing you with another) tries to answer me by asserting a fallacious 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' to disconnect the rabbis' letter from the Pope's response. Such a response fails to take into consideration what Jone and all the Catholic moralists have to say about reasonable inferences and the degrees of certitude (especially metaphysical versus moral). Since I have never asserted that the Pope's act was malicious, I don't even need moral certitude to claim that the Pope's action was a response to the rabbis' official and publicly-announced letter in particular and the Jewish outcry in general. My inference needs only to be reasonable; that's all--and yet I even have moral certitude, which is more than I need.

There is an overwhelming probablity that the Pope's action was a response to this pressure because the statistical chance that he was just happening to consider revision of that prayer exactly when they bitched is unreasonably small. Why not any other prayer exactly at that time, and why any prayer at all? In fact, given the negotiations with the S.S.P.X, it is reasonable to suppose that the Pope would not have wanted to consider *any* revision at this time. It is quite clear that the Pope wants a deal with the Society, and such an alteration might jeopardise the negotiations. Obviously, the revision was a response to the rabbis' letter and the outcry.

It follows that there is no 'post hoc' fallacy in the position I have presented clearly and repeatedly. A 'post hoc' fallacy occurs when there are two or more *reasonable* and plausible (i.e. internally logical) explanations for an event and somebody claims that one of them must be true merely because it proceeded the other in the order of time.

I have seen no good response to my argument on this. We can do nothing to change the situation because the Pope haS made a legal change and the result is set by his authority. Therefore, I, for one, am willing to move on to other things. In partcular, I think that we should move on to the S.S.P.X situation, the coming clarification from the P.C.E.D. and even the TAC situation.

I'll mention the first of these in my next post. I have never been a S.S.P.X supporter, but I do support most of its aims. However, I think that, once it was offered complete freedom from the local bishops in 2000, it lost its argument from the state of necessity. I argued that in many places on the Internet early in this decade. Afterwards, the I.P.B. broke away owing to these very arguments (although not necessarily because I had made them: others did too).


Anonymous said...

Moving on to other topics, so as not to jeopardise negotiations with the S.S.P.X . . .

I would like to present a consideration which I have posted on a weblist I belong to. The argument is that the Society might have neglected to the warned by that old adage: Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

The Society demanded as one of its pre-condidtions for negotiations that the Holy Father not merely free the old Mass but that he declare that it had never been abrogated, so that all the priests of the Latin Church would have a general right to celebrate it. It is well known that, as a member of the Commission of Cardinals in 1986, this Pope favoured that proposition. However, the Society made the demand during the last pontificate. Some say that it was meant to be a dealkiller, since nobody expected that John Paul II could get it past the liberal prelates.

Then Benedict XVI was elected. He also faced strong opposition from liberal prelates in regard to the old Mass (e.g. the real crisis created when he allowed a new I.P.B. to have the 1962 Liturgy as its normative liturgy). Anyway, as we all know, the Pope admitted that the old Mass had never been abrogated. The norms issued in S.P. restrict the 1962 Liturgy somewhat only because rights of priests and faithful arise from the New. Since there are only so many canonical hours in a day, so many priests having faculties, and so many sacred places in a parish or diocese, rights arising from one Mass will limit those appertaining to the other. The new norms partly separate these rights and partly explain other restrictions and allowances which have been in place all along (e.g. Article 10 on personal parishes).

Now I have been watching the numbers on Traditional Masses for many years. I do not boast in saying that I am a real authority on this (I once even co-created a weblist of them). At present, I compile statistics on them and am a major contributor to the best on-line list out there.

Some statistics in regard to S.P. are truly astounding. For example, between July and the present, more U.S. dioceses have gained regularised every-Sunday Masses (viz. 27) than were gained FOR THE PREVIOUS TEN YEARS. It is phenomenal! Moreover, it will continue at this rate at least to the summer owing to the 'learning lag'. According to my information, scores of priests are presently learning the old Mass. For example, in Protestant N.C. alone, fourteen priests have taken a F.S.S.P. learing course and most of them are already starting up, but not yet on an every-Sunday basis. Not yet--but soon. I am in direct communication with about eight of them.

I will continue on the next post. I find this to be exciting.

Anonymous said...

Continuation on statistics about "Summorum Pontificum" (S.P.) & the S.S.P.X

Now, at present, the ratio of regularised to unregularised (e.g. S.S.P.X & independent) every-Sunday Masses in the U.S.A. is 2.5 : 1. The ratio of dioceses having every-Sunday regularised to unregularised Masses is about 2 : 1. 134 of the 176 U.S. Latin dioceses now have a regularised every-Sunday Mass, and 94% of American faithful live in those sees (because the more populous a see is, the more likely it is to have the old Mass approved by legitimate authority).

Of these 134, the F.S.S.P. and I.C.R. combined supply every-Sunday Masses in 37 dioceses. The S.S.P.X supplies every-Sunday Masses in 64 dioceses (compared to 134 regularised). There are now only four dioceses left in which there is an S.S.P.X every-Sunday Mass but no regularised one. They are Winona and Crookston in Minnesota; Gaylord, in Michigan; and the very populous Las Vegas.

P.K.T.P. To be continued.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P. continuation: statistics.

Now what is most telling and most important is the situation in Latin America. Nearly one-half of all faithful live there and, in the end, what happens there will be decisive for our entire movement.

Now, before S.P., there were very few Traditional Latin Masses in Latin America--even with the Campos in Brazil. One reason was the hostility of the bishops there. Another, I think, was the disconnect between traditionalists there and elsewhere.

So, you would have thought that Latin America would be profitable for the S.S.P.X, which had thirty years to build support and no 'competition'. But the Society has mostly failed there. This is owing to the Latin American mindset. To them, tradition without the Pope's blessing is an oxymoron. If you want to reject the Pope's blessing, you don't pretend to be Catholic but go to the opposite extreme and become Pentecostal.

Consider the very important City of Lima, capital of Peru. It has a HUGE Catholic population and is one of the most populous cities in the world now. After thirty years of labouring in the vineyard, the S.S.P.X could not even provide an every-Sunday Mass there until this year. Even after they finally acquired a chapel for it, they still lacked the manpower and local support to provide it. In contrast, the regularised Oratorians, under S.P., started offering the 1962 Mass just three months ago. And is a success. It took them three months to do what the Society could not do in thirty years.

It is same across Latin America. There is no every-Sunday Society presence in all of Venezuela, in all of Ecuador, in all of Central America (expcept for one recent one in Guatemala) and, until very recently, even in Mexico, the second most-populous Catholic country in the world.

In Colombia, the Society has long had one apostolate at the capital City, Bogota, and recently added one at Bucaramanga. Within only one year, the I.P.B. has established a complete priory at Bogota and, within two, the F.S.S.P. has established an apostolate at Girardota.

In Mexico, we now have a regularised every-Sunday Mass for the first time at Monterrey--a huge city--and the I.C.R. has made an impact at Mexico City.

The S.S.P.X does have an important presence in Argentina but, really, nowhere else in Latin America. It's simple. Latin Americans will embrace tradition with the Pope but will completely reject tradition without the Pope's blessing.


More to come

Anonymous said...

Statistics continued: P.K.T.P.

Now, the S.S.P.X has done much better in Western Europe. France is the most important Society stronghold. But the place where the Society thrives perhaps the most is the very Catholic South-West Germany (esp. Baden W.).

In Germany, however, since S.P. was published, the number of German dioceses having the 1962 Mass every-Sunday has DOUBLED from one-third to two-thirds in just seven months. There have been more gains there in seven months than there were in the previous fifteen years (in this case, that's a rough guess).

Meanwhile, the S.P. has brought the old Mass into most of France, Flanders, the Netherlands, England and Wales, and much of Northern Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. And progress continues in Spain, Austria, Switzerland and Southern Italy. Miraculously, there are now even every-Sunday Masses in overwhelmingly Protestant Sweden and Estonia. There is little happening so far in Ireland and Scotland, and nothing at all for Portugal or Malta.

In France, the liberal stronghold against tradition is the industrial North-East, centred at the old royal capital of Rheims, ruled by archliberal Archbishop Jordan. But even he has now allowed the I.C.R. to say Mass one Sunday a month. I imagine this to improve soon. Then the other leftist bishops in the north-east will fall: Soissons, Châlons, Verdun, Cambrai, Metz, Langres. Nancy has already fallen to S.P.

Once that area has fallen, even the French traditionalists will no longer need the S.S.P.X. The new archliberal President of the German Bishops' Conference, Zöllitsch, continues to hold out aganist us, thereby, ironically, protecting the S.S.P.X in his very Catholic Diocese of Freiburg im Breisgau in the south-west. But he can't hold out for long. There are currently 150 German priests learning the old Mass.

Of course, this all means that traditionalists will soon not need the S.S.P.X(or, I mean, they will regard it as unnecessary). For most traditionalists, it's the Mass that matters, not issues of theology. After all, we are all free to reject Vatican II teachings which contradict earlier teachings, since nothing new in Vatican II is infallble. It as a pastoral Council.

It is thanks to the S.S.P.X that we have gained the 1984 Indult, the 1988 apostolic letter, the thirty-some regularised traditionalist societies and orders (such as the F.S.S.P. and I.C.R.), the Campos precedent, and even S.P. There is one more gift the Society can give to the entire movement: itself. It can gift us with itself as a regularised organisation having (or else delivering) a structure which is ordinary, exempt, personal and universal. In other words, a Campos writ large--an international Campos completely independent of the local bishops.

This was already suggested by Rome to the S.S.P.X in 2000. But the Society, even though Bishop Fellay called it a "Rolls Royce" solution, rejected it. The Society said it would not take such a structure until Rome had granted S.P. and had withdrawn the declarations of excommunication. The Society will even delay this superb offer from Rome until it solves doctrinal issues, which could take forever. It is now time for the Society to issue an official letter to thank the Holy Father for S.P., to express regret for the unapproved consecrations of 1988, and to accept the structure. If it cannot accept the structure on a permanent basis, it could do so ad experimentum while discussions on doctrine are held.

Should it not act, the Society could be in jeopardy. Never mind that. Consider instead how this could eventually put our entire movmement in jeopardy. A powerless S.S.P.X (with few supporters) in a S.P. world could eventually become a world in which Rome compromises our Mass, infecting it with influence from the N.O. The Holy Father has already said that, long-term, he wants a compromise between the T.L.M. and N.O.M. Presumably, it would be a compromised text that could be celebrated in Latin or a more formal vernacular. The change to the Good Friday prayer may very well be the first move in this direction, just as the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon in 1962 was the first move towards liturgical revolution in the 1960s. But this good Pope will not live forever, and he may come to realise that it may be better to traditionalise the NewMass somewhat while also leaving a space for complete tradition in the Church.

A weak Society that is not regularised could never protect tradition. That is why the Society should now make an arrangement with the Apostolic See. Should it not, it might face decimation, thanks to the *success* of S.P.

The Society asked for S.P. and the Pope delivered it. Be careful what you ask for: you just might get it!


David L Alexander said...

"The reason for the repetition of my arguments is simply that..."'re either too lazy or too damned arrogant to accept the burden of proof. It's the attitude that almost got you booted off WDTPRS. Even if you're right, such is the onus for the challenger, not the status quo. "[T]hat it was composed in reaction to a demand from infidels" has yet to be proven (as in a verifiable causal relationship, as opposed to a mere succession of events which may or may not be related).

I'll give you credit for one thing, you've moved on to another topic, if one that feeds off the last one. Really, Perkins, you should consider writing a book. Or at least start your own blog. Yeah, that's it, have you ever thought of that???

Anonymous said...

Dear Alexander wrote:

"'re either too lazy or too damned arrogant to accept the burden of proof. . . Even if you're right, such is the onus for the challenger, not the status quo. "[T]hat it was composed in reaction to a demand from infidels" has yet to be proven (as in a verifiable causal relationship, as opposed to a mere succession of events which may or may not be related)."

First of all, it seems as if the call to civility has already been lost here.

But your argument is incorrect. There is no burden of proof when drawing inferences from facts, only when proposing to demonstrate a fact *absolutely* (e.g. in mathematics) or when accusing someone of a malicious act, rather than a prudential error.

I have never claimed that it is absolutely impossible that the two events (the chief rabbis' official joint and publicly-announced letter and the Popes revision) were coincidental. What I have claimed is that it is reasonable to suppose that they are not. This is statistically verifiable. You could, should you wish, calculate the chance that the Pope made that particualar revision (as opposed to any other one in the thousands of pages of the Missal--or none at all) at that particular time.

So I am only proposing as reasonable that the Pope made the revision in response to the letter and the general outcry. It was never a claim of absolute certitude and, according to all Catholic moralists, I don't even need moral certitude here (even though I have it: read Jone on that).

Let us suppose that there is a huge international outcry and official letters sent by credited leaders to persuade President Bush to allow Americans to vacation in Cuba. And let us suppose that, one week later, he changes the law to allow this. Am I permitted, as a Catholic, to propose that the President's action resulted from the pressure? I am not entering a claim here that the President acted immorally or that there is absolute certitude that he was moved by the outcry. But I certainly could suggest as overwhelmingly reasonable that his action resulted from the outcry and then go on to characterise it (perhaps) as a prudential error. I am merely proposing a reasonable cause for an effect. People are free to agree with it or not.

You need to read up on your Jone and stand down on this, Alexander.


David L Alexander said...

You're right, Perkins, it's getting uncivil. Someone's talking about you the way you talk about the Holy Father.

We might BOTH have to stand down.

Anonymous said...

What did I say about the Holy Father that you do not like? Fr. Z. complained about my "tone" on this but I am not sure what he was referring to.

I have the greatest respect for Pope Benedict XVI. When he was elected, I quite literally jumped for joy (unfortunately, there were relatives downstairs who did not appreciate that).

I am most grateful to this Pope for S.P. and for the example he is setting in liturgy and for his attempts to restore Chant, and for standing firm on priestly celibacy. God bless him! However, when the Pope does something that damages the faith, even if not deliberate on his part, I think it best to defend the Church first.

I don't much like the papolators whom I see in the traditionalist movement. Blinded by S.P., they think that everything the Pope does or says must be good and they jump on the bandwagon instantly. It reminds me of what I saw in the 1960s, as people who had the best of motives (mainly loyalty to Paul VI) egged on prelates when they threw good traditionalist priests right on to the street. I know of elderly people who cried on their deathbeds because they were denied the Sacraments in the tradition form. Forty years later, Benedict XVI admits, in effect, that such acts were abuses of power, since the old Mass was never abrogated. Logic cannot be withstood: One clause in "Summorum Pontificum", 2007, directly contradicts Nos. 2 and 3 of "De Missali Romano", 1971. Is it possible? The popes all think so: they have always stressed that they are not infallible in matters of law. But St. Thomas teaches in his treatise on law that, when an ordinance contradicts a norm of Moral Law, it is not bad law; rather, it fails to qualify as law at all: it is a nullity.

When I criticse the Pope, with due respect, I do so out of love for the Church. The Pope was wrong to remove the tiara from his arms, making him look heraldically like an Anglican bishop. This is important because heraldry is pure symbol. His new arms say to the world officially: I am an Anglican bishop. We Catholics have not set the mitre over the shield now for hundreds of years. Only they do that. This might have not been his doing. We shall see.

He was wrong to remove the title 'Patriarch of the West' from the Annuario (if this was his doing, which I question), he was wrong to sign the seminary document, which rolls out the pink carpet for the sodomites, he was wrong to pray in the Blue Mosque and in a synagogue. Not everything he has done has been good.

This does not mean that I am a wild S.S.P.X supporter. I am not, and have never even attended one of its Masses--never. How many traditionalists can say that? But I refuse to lie to myself and others and approve something the Pope does when I think it to be wrong, and damaging to Holy Church. True love rejoiceth in the Truth.


David L Alexander said...

"What did I say about the Holy Father that you do not like? Fr Z complained about my 'tone' on this but I am not sure what he was referring to...."

That's because you're too busy engaging in long-winded jesuitical sophistry to listen. Here is what he said: "PKTP: A friendly note: If you want to continue posting here, I suggest that you find a new tone. I won’t have continuous ad hominem attacks on people or, especially, invective directed toward the Vicar of Christ."

It's not just coming from me, okay? You wouldn't know this, but I actually could have done without the Holy Father's decision myself. I just don't go all over the internet whining about it.

Love may rejoice in the Truth, but it flourishes in humility.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Alexander:

I was well aware of Fr. Z.'s comment. What I do not know is exactly what words he was referring to. I still don't. I apologise for any untoward remarks that I *may* have intended, just as we confess those sins we don't remember collectively. But I do not mean to offend against the respect due to the Holy Father. While being respectful to him, however, it is perfectly legitimate to defend the Church against all threats and harm, including that coming however unwittingly from a Pope. I am sure that the very stern and emphatic comments of St. Catherine of Siena set an example for this. She certainly did not pull any punches, and she certainly did not confine her remarks to private discourse.

As I recall, I made it absolutely crystal clear that I was not accusing the Pope of any malicious intent but only of a prudential error. The same can be said, I presume, of the seminary document. As for the matter of the arms and the title, I think it probable that these were done by others and that he merely failed to prevent it (possibily he did not notice the changes until they were enacted). In the case of the arms, I have recently seen a re-rendering of them for the Pope's trip to Brazil. The new re-rendering, thank God, has the tiara restored. I don't know if this is official. I have seen no official reference to a change anywhere. But I have learned that the prelate who heraldically rendered the Pope as an Anglican bishop has now been removed--kicked upstairs, in fact. Let's pray for a reversal on these things.

My main point stands. It is that this has been a papacy of mixed benefits and deficits so far. Still, this Pope is significantly better than the last one, who, in turn, was much better for the Church than was Paul VI. Paul VI, in my view, was the worst Pope ever to reign over the last 2,000 years. By this, I am not referring to his moral stature (he was no Alexander VI) but objectively to the effect he had.


David L Alexander said...

May I suggest here and now, Mr Perkins, as the Church approaches Calvary again, that we leave it at that? Oremus pro invicem...

Anonymous said...

I agree. In that spirit, I have written several posts on another subject here. I would very much appreciate your input on it. I respect your views about this. Essentially, I am arguing that the S.S.P.X asked for S.P. and the Pope has delivered it. But this changes the prospects of the Society, does it not? There are some people out there who supported the S.S.P.X because there was nowhere else for them to get the old Mass. Under S.P., that is changing very quickly. This means that the S.S.P.X could be decimated in a few years. Few will prefer tradition without the Pope's blessing to tradition with it. I'm sure you'd agree.

I am arguing, then, that if the Society really wants to help the Church, it should accept the offer already extended to it by the Apostolic See. It can do much good as a regularised force but very little, I think, as a disobedient group.