Okay, sometimes these things just happen to hit you hard. At mass on Sunday (Roman Rite low 1962) I happened to be struck by the Secret in my St Andrew Missal 1945 as I pondered on the injustices of not just the attacks on the SSPX but Diocesan TLMs.
May Thy Sacraments, O Lord, keep and guard us; and may they ever defend us against the assaults of the devil.
This is it. This is why they are going so hard, because they know the traditional sacraments sustain the laity in moral rectitude and ward off the tepidity of the new liturgy. They know the SSPX have a far reaching mission, and so they target them first by Ecclesia Dei, then try to nullify their reach by strategically approved alternatives, then finally nuke them. Interestingly each of these have been own goals and have paradoxically increased awareness of the treasures beyond the conciliar project.
Then the Bergolian Gaolers of Tradition and the acceleration of its implementation, betrays exactly how desperate they have become.
It's the sacraments they hate. The theurgy. The consequences of proper formation. They are racing against time.
This is quite true, but let's not portray the Ecclesia Dei clergy as compromisers. They, too, are fighting for the traditional Mass and sacraments, and often very effectively, as they work "from within." If evil men can infiltrate the Church, why can't good ones?
One would rightly wonder how the trad account can be made compatible with the divine origin of the Church. Even if we concede that the changes are on accidentals, it would seem that every liturgical decision has been completely wrong at least from 1910! Not only the 1970's Missal, but almost every change on every sacrament was founded on poor scholarship and theology. That's what one would expect from a purely human institution. Has the Holy Spirit been sleeping?
And this refers to the "not-radtrad" account, according to which the new rites are at least "barely orthodox" (thank God!) and we can receive them when we sadly have no access to the "real deal". The radtrad thesis that some or all of the new rites are heterodox, maybe even of dubious validity, and should not be received, is obviously against the doctrine of indefectibility. But in any case, trads must come to consider how this all fits with traditional accounts of the divine constitution of the Church which have always mantained that we should obey and trust what the Church establishes.
I recently posted something on Facebook and X that is relevant, allow me to place it here as well:
« The Arian controversy lasted for over a century, during which time some churches were in the hands of Arians and some in the hands of Catholics. The liturgical life must have been a mess, and we know from St. Basil the Great that the faithful in some places were reduced to worshiping outside of buildings, in the middle of the desert. If you were born near the start of this crisis and lived a very long life, you wouldn’t have seen the end of it. Regardless, you stayed faithful to the Nicene faith.
The iconoclasm controversy too lasted for over a century, in the course of which icons were smashed and Christians who venerated them were tortured and sometimes martyred. There was a partial restoration (comparable to Summorum), then a savage reversal (comparable to Traditionis), and then a final triumph of orthodoxy. Again, if you were born at the start of this crisis and lived a very long life, you would not have seen the end of it; but that was no reason to stop venerating icons and relics.
Moving forward, the abuses of pluralism (holding multiple sees), absenteeism (holding a see but never living there), investiture (receiving sees from a king or emperor), and commendatory appointments (a man receiving the revenues of multiple offices while never ruling as abbot) took centuries to overthrow, in spite of the fact that they greatly crippled the Church.
On the liturgical front: one pope (Clement VII) authorized the novel breviary of Cardinal Quiñones, another (Paul III) approved it in 1536, and yet a third (Pius V) suppressed it in 1568 as a rupture from tradition. Urban VIII’s meddling with the breviary in order to satisfy Baroque admirers of classical Latin, never accepted by the monastic orders, was partially undone by Paul VI when he restored some of the original texts in the Liturgia Horarum (even if that book has problems of its own). Gregorian chant existed in a state of corruption for centuries before its melodies were restored by the monks of Solesmes with the support of Pius X.
One could go on and on with examples of how major and minor problems took decades and sometimes centuries to resolve. Church history does not take place at the speed of tweets and podcasts; it is more like God himself: “But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet 3:8).
This may not be consoling for someone who suffers under a bad liturgical situation, but it helps to keep things in perspective, reminding us that our duty is, on the one hand, to pray, do penance, and beg the Lord for intervention, and on the other hand to work for real solutions and seek out better alternatives for ourselves (e.g., by moving from one place to another). In this way we recognize the God is the Lord of history and that He has given us intelligence and free will to navigate the crisis.
The saga of “liturgical renewal” is far from over, and if I were a betting man, I’d place a lot of bets on the old rite at this time. It's the "dark horse" candidate. »
I am, of course, familiar with these books and other articles on this site. I don't think they prove their case, but I certainly can't nor do I intend to respond to the whole of them in a substack comment. My comment doesn't intend more than to present my opinion on an argument which of course is obvious enough that responses have been written on it.
As one of my objections to "the project" in general, contained in these and other books, I would point that many or at least some of its theses don't addecuately confront the fact that they are at odds with authentic Magysterium, both pre- and post-CVII, as well as the consensus of theologians or at least their most common opinion. That puts a heavy burden of proof even when we're not dealing with de fide propositions, and I don't think that burden has been overcome. And, inversely, the fact that some traditionalists try to defend their positions by moving away from the "pre-CVII mainstream ultramontanism" which had then the most authority and some Magysterial support, concedes to the non-traditionalist side that the pre-CVII status questionis can be legitimatelly overcome on a bunch of issues. That weakens the traditionalist case when its grounds are the pre-CVII ordinary Magysterium and its real or purported post-CVII contradictions. I also think that the often repeated argument of St. Thomas' opinion on unjust laws is really weak, as he was writing about secular laws and he doesn't seem to consider that those principles about unjust law could apply to universal discipline promulgated by the Roman Pontiff. Add to that Auctorem Fidei LXXVIII and Trent Session VII Canon XIII on the Sacraments. Related to that last canon, the article written on this site arguing that the NO has not been received seems utterly indefensible, as every diocesan Bishop on earth accepted it and that suffices in any sane account. To argue to the contrary one should pretend that universal acceptance means numerical unanimity (which has never been achieved for anything) rather than moral unanimity.
On the matter of the historical examples you present in that facebook post, I don't think that any of them are analogous to this case. Regarding Arianism and Iconoclasm, none of them was ever proffesed by the Roman Pontiff. It's only been disputed if Pope Liberius once for a brief moment of time and under extreme duress faltered in his defense of Orthodoxy, but even conceding that were true it would obviously be null because of lack of freedom, and it was short enough to not affect universal faith and discipline. During those two long crises, Catholics in every part of the world had a center of juridical and doctrinal unity in the Holy See. The abuses of pluralism, absenteesism, etc. are the most analogous to the trad account of the liturgical crisis, but even if they were permitted, and officially so, they were never -as far as I know- backed as ideal or good in themselves by the Magysterium of the Pope or any Ecumenical Council. Nor did the Pope ever concede that the Emperor could by his own right confer investitures "by ring and staff". Finally, on the liturgical front, that a novel Breviary was simply authorized for 30 years cannot be compared to new reformed Breviaries having been universally promulgated. And no one has argued that the Quiñones Breviary was "bad in itself", "non-Catholic", etc., nor that Clement VII exceded his authority in allowing it to be prayed, unlike the official SSPX position vis-a-vis the NO. Similarly with Urban VIII's changes, about which I have not an opinion. Nor can the fact that Gregorian chant was corrupted be remotely compared to the scandalous affirmations that the rites promulgated by the Holy See and used through the whole of the Latin Church "end up diluting and dissipating the very faith", "depart strikingly from the constant and essential qualities of the Church’s liturgy", "[are] not a law", and have "elements" of Gnosticism, Lutheranism, anthropocentrism and Pelagianism, etc.
That problems in the Church can remain for centuries is true, but I just don't see how any of these cases is relevantly analogous to the liturgical reform in that they were never universal discipline promulgated by the supreme authority and steadily held as good in themselves by the Magysterium.
When you appeal to 2 Peter, I hope you're not suggesting that the crisis may continue for a thousand years. Or that the whole of the Ecclesia docens can be in the wrong, even if in its non-infallible teaching, for a thousand years. And I do think that there's a liturgy crisis, and the maintaining of the old rites in communion with the Pope is providential and probably will have a role to play in solving the crisis. But, if we talk about betting, you won't catch me betting against six Popes in a row. I just don't think there's been any case in ecclesiastical history were the Holy See (and the whole College of Bishops!) can crearly be demostrated to have been completely wrong in faith and morals (or liturgy) for 50+ years, or/and that the legitimate response to it may have been resistance. I believe there's great value in the traditional rites, but to any branch of traditionalism which puts itself completely at odds with the Roman See I think that the common saying will apply: qui mange du Pape en meurt.
There are too many things in your response that I disagree with - a full answer would take as long or longer.
Just a quick thought: I am not aware of any branch of traditionalism, apart from the sedes, who put themselves "completely at odds with the Roman See."
Moreover, the fact that there's a consensus among theologians does not rule out that they may be wrong. As you probably know, there has always been a minority opinion that, e.g., canonizations are not necessarily infallible:
And if this could be true, then certainly an imperfect liturgical rite could be promulgated. I see absolutely nothing impossible in that. What I would reject is that any promulgated rite could be heretical or immoral *in se*. Favoring heresy, ambiguous, harmful, inadequate, etc., yes, but not directly contrary to faith and morals. And that suffices to preserve the minimalist understanding of indefectibility.
You don't need to tell me that this minimalist view is not what theologians have typically defended. I know that. I'm calling their view into question.
That there are historical periods of crisis obviously doesn't mean that our current crisis is identical. History never exactly repeats, and the current crisis is in fact quantitatively and qualitatively worse than any that has come before.
Lastly, it is quite a stretch to pretend as if the Holy See has *always and in every case* been a shining beacon of orthodoxy. There have been moments of wavering or misdirection before, including during the Arian crisis, the monothelite controversy, and the late medieval period that precipitated the Protestant revolt. Let's not whitewash papal history in the interests of a cosmetic account of papal primacy.
I appreciate the quick response. About being "completely at odds with the Holy See", even of Sedes one may say that they're not at odds with Rome on principle, but with who they think are false occupants, while retaining the doctrine of Pastor Aeternus. But the SSPX are as opposed to the real Rome as one may be except for recognizing them as Popes, to the point that they systematically deny obsequium religiosum to their teachings, think they've promulgated a rite which is of dubious validity and cannot be licitly attended, ordinarily deny his commands are legitimate, don't think his marriage tribunals should be attended, etc. And, even outside of the SSPX, many think that there's been systematically erroneous ordinary Magysterium and ilegitimate universal discipline for the last 60 years, which is quite the thing. That's what I would call being "completely at odds", i.e. regarding these grave matters. Of course, when the Pope says Jesus is God trads are in agreement and no one sane thinks that the Pope secretly denies it.
And I did not say that the fact that there's a consensus means that absolutely speaking they can't be wrong, but that there's a really heavy burden of proof against the contrary opinion. Much more so when it's not only theologians, but also ordinary Magysterium, even non-infallible one. I just don't think the book on canonizations overcomes that burden of proof (nor comes near it), and even if it made a good enough case, the contrary opinion would still be the most probable, or at least safe. When speaking of canonizations, that would also be somewhat in tension with the *many* miracles that God graciously continues to grant so that canonizations happen, many of which are as clearly proved as they can be (even if we were to grant that the process is not as good as it was in the past, about which I don't know enough). But that goes a bit off topic.
About the minimalist understanding of indefectibillity in regards to liturgy, I just can't see how that doesn't contradict Auctorem Fidei LXXVIII, which condemned the proposition that the Church "could establish discipline, not only useless and too burthensome for Christian liberty to submit to, but also dangerous, hurtful, leading to superstition and materialism". Here the notes of "favoring heresy, ambiguous, harmful" would be contained. "Inadequate" is a much more ample concept, and that I could concede, and obviously the reformers themselves thought that the then established rites were "inadequate" to the time. Similarly with Trent when it condemns that received and approved rites "may be contemned". Sadly many traditionalist do despise the new rites, scandalously insulting them in various ways (clown mass, false mass, bastard rites, etc.). And I do think that one may legitimatelly want for the reform to be undone, or the rites to be re-reformed in a traditional sense, without thus despising the new rites in the sense condemned by the Magysterium. Nor do I say that you or the people of Tradition&Sanity use such gravely scandalous language, but I do think that many propositions about the new rites common in these circles are included in those condemnations.
Lastly, I didn't just say that past crises aren't identical to the current one (which is obvious enough), but that they're not analogous in the relevant sense. Specifically, in that the core elements of the crises, at least in their doctrinal heart, was not steadily adhered to by the Roman Pontiff and the moral unanimity of diocesan Bishops. And I have not denied that the Holy See has wavered here and there (specially if we're talking about moral decadence and abuse of fact rather than doctrine, such as the late medieval period you point to), what I do deny is that it has gravely wavered in a grave matter of faiths or morals (in which universal liturgical discipline would be included) for six Popes in a row. The examples of Liberius (who, if he wavered, was for a moment and under duress) and Honorius (whose letters seem Orthodox and probably was unjustly condemned, even if he didn't defend Orthodoxy strongly enough) are substantially different, and have been sufficiently dealt with for centuries by Catholic authors.
In any case, I greatly appreciate your civil style to argue this matters. And I do read and learn from your writings, even if I'm in disagreement more often than not.
I agree with you that the SSPX goes as far as possible with the "recognize and resist" position, even to the point of incoherence. But that is not the normal traditionalist position outside the SSPX.
Thanks, I hadn't read it. It is in fact interesting, and I do think that Auctorem Fidei and Quo Graviora raise questions about the attitude of the reformers, or at least some of them. What I reject is the idea that these condemnations concern only the traditional rites, as this article seems to affirm: "Pius VI is appealing to the objective truth that the Church cannot err in approving her traditional liturgy". This just goes against the plain reading and the theological reason given, which is that the Holy Spirit guides the Church (and in the XX Century no less than the prior nineteen).
I do concede that an absolute reading of every note there approved would led to unsolvable paradoxes, which would make absurd both the "traditionalist" and the "progressive" cases. If we understand Pius VI to say that every promulgated rite is absolutely perfect, it would be illegitimate both to change the liturgy and to criticize any change once it has actually been promulgated. Here several distinctions should be introduced, e.g. between being positively defective or less good, harmful in itself or accidentally regarding concrete circumstances, and changing the liturgy by individual pastors or regional councils or through the consensus of the College of Bishops and the Pope after long debate between theologians. It would be interesting to read how preconciliar theologians treated this matters; what I think is completely novel is to restrict those notes proper of indefectibility to "traditional rites", rather than what the Church has in fact approved. I also reject what I think is somewhat of a strawman in these articles, that the "ultramontane" case means that the Pope can act arbitrarily or change reality, rather than that the Holy Spirit won't let the Pope act at least *gravely* arbitrarily, so that when he has promulgated a rite we can know that it is not, in fact, harmful.
And I do think that one may favor the old rites without falling under these condemnations, and that liturgical critique with the proper conditions is possible and legitimate in both ways. But I think that many critiques of the NO, and not only those of the SSPX, go far beyond that, e.g. what Mons. Schneider here writes about Gnostic, Lutheran, Anthropocentric and Pelagian elements. I regularly attend both TLM and NO masses and I haven't ever found those elements in the latter, when celebrated according to Church law.
Finally, you write in your article that "no one seriously questions the validity of the Novus Ordo", but that's not true. The SSPX questions its *certain* validity.
The author correctly sees that the entire sacramental order was overhauled, yet stops short of the decisive question. Restoring the old books does not restore the authority, apostolic mission, or even sacramental capacity lost through the new rites. A traditional missal in the hands of a man who cannot demonstrate lawful mission—or valid orders—does not restore Catholic worship. The rite matters, but so does the minister: Who ordained him, who sent him, and by what authority does he act?
I learned somewhat recently that at least some of the new sacraments predate the Novus Ordo by a few years. I was born in 1966 and had always assumed I was baptized in the old rite. I asked my aging parents about that and learned I was baptized by a modernist, Newman Center university priest in the vernacular. I can only assume no exorcism was involved. He smugly told my parents they didn't have to worry about having a lot of kids because Rome was on the verge of allowing contraception.
What a horrible thing for him to say to them - as if children are not a gift from the Lord (as the Psalmist says). Yes, the sacraments were being done in the vernacular starting ca. 1964, in some places earlier. But in 1966 there would still have been (at least a substantial part of) the old rite of baptism.
A detailed history of what went down, starting decades earlier:
https://archive.org/details/3-work-of-human-hands-a-theological-critique-of-the-mass-of-paul-vi_202508
Okay, sometimes these things just happen to hit you hard. At mass on Sunday (Roman Rite low 1962) I happened to be struck by the Secret in my St Andrew Missal 1945 as I pondered on the injustices of not just the attacks on the SSPX but Diocesan TLMs.
Túa nos, Dómine, sacraménta custódiant: et cóntra diabólicos sémper túeantur incúrsus.
May Thy Sacraments, O Lord, keep and guard us; and may they ever defend us against the assaults of the devil.
This is it. This is why they are going so hard, because they know the traditional sacraments sustain the laity in moral rectitude and ward off the tepidity of the new liturgy. They know the SSPX have a far reaching mission, and so they target them first by Ecclesia Dei, then try to nullify their reach by strategically approved alternatives, then finally nuke them. Interestingly each of these have been own goals and have paradoxically increased awareness of the treasures beyond the conciliar project.
Then the Bergolian Gaolers of Tradition and the acceleration of its implementation, betrays exactly how desperate they have become.
It's the sacraments they hate. The theurgy. The consequences of proper formation. They are racing against time.
This is quite true, but let's not portray the Ecclesia Dei clergy as compromisers. They, too, are fighting for the traditional Mass and sacraments, and often very effectively, as they work "from within." If evil men can infiltrate the Church, why can't good ones?
No indeed. As perhaps poorly articulated, they have been part of the renewal.
One would rightly wonder how the trad account can be made compatible with the divine origin of the Church. Even if we concede that the changes are on accidentals, it would seem that every liturgical decision has been completely wrong at least from 1910! Not only the 1970's Missal, but almost every change on every sacrament was founded on poor scholarship and theology. That's what one would expect from a purely human institution. Has the Holy Spirit been sleeping?
And this refers to the "not-radtrad" account, according to which the new rites are at least "barely orthodox" (thank God!) and we can receive them when we sadly have no access to the "real deal". The radtrad thesis that some or all of the new rites are heterodox, maybe even of dubious validity, and should not be received, is obviously against the doctrine of indefectibility. But in any case, trads must come to consider how this all fits with traditional accounts of the divine constitution of the Church which have always mantained that we should obey and trust what the Church establishes.
We have considered this question at considerable length, as you will see from these works:
https://www.amazon.com/Bound-Truth-Authority-Obedience-Tradition/dp/1621389626/
https://www.amazon.com/Ultramontanism-Tradition-Authority-Catholic-Studies/dp/1960711598/
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Hyperpapalism-Catholicism-Disintegration-Theological/dp/1990685102/
and, well, many posts here at Tradition & Sanity.
I recently posted something on Facebook and X that is relevant, allow me to place it here as well:
« The Arian controversy lasted for over a century, during which time some churches were in the hands of Arians and some in the hands of Catholics. The liturgical life must have been a mess, and we know from St. Basil the Great that the faithful in some places were reduced to worshiping outside of buildings, in the middle of the desert. If you were born near the start of this crisis and lived a very long life, you wouldn’t have seen the end of it. Regardless, you stayed faithful to the Nicene faith.
The iconoclasm controversy too lasted for over a century, in the course of which icons were smashed and Christians who venerated them were tortured and sometimes martyred. There was a partial restoration (comparable to Summorum), then a savage reversal (comparable to Traditionis), and then a final triumph of orthodoxy. Again, if you were born at the start of this crisis and lived a very long life, you would not have seen the end of it; but that was no reason to stop venerating icons and relics.
Moving forward, the abuses of pluralism (holding multiple sees), absenteeism (holding a see but never living there), investiture (receiving sees from a king or emperor), and commendatory appointments (a man receiving the revenues of multiple offices while never ruling as abbot) took centuries to overthrow, in spite of the fact that they greatly crippled the Church.
On the liturgical front: one pope (Clement VII) authorized the novel breviary of Cardinal Quiñones, another (Paul III) approved it in 1536, and yet a third (Pius V) suppressed it in 1568 as a rupture from tradition. Urban VIII’s meddling with the breviary in order to satisfy Baroque admirers of classical Latin, never accepted by the monastic orders, was partially undone by Paul VI when he restored some of the original texts in the Liturgia Horarum (even if that book has problems of its own). Gregorian chant existed in a state of corruption for centuries before its melodies were restored by the monks of Solesmes with the support of Pius X.
One could go on and on with examples of how major and minor problems took decades and sometimes centuries to resolve. Church history does not take place at the speed of tweets and podcasts; it is more like God himself: “But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet 3:8).
This may not be consoling for someone who suffers under a bad liturgical situation, but it helps to keep things in perspective, reminding us that our duty is, on the one hand, to pray, do penance, and beg the Lord for intervention, and on the other hand to work for real solutions and seek out better alternatives for ourselves (e.g., by moving from one place to another). In this way we recognize the God is the Lord of history and that He has given us intelligence and free will to navigate the crisis.
The saga of “liturgical renewal” is far from over, and if I were a betting man, I’d place a lot of bets on the old rite at this time. It's the "dark horse" candidate. »
I am, of course, familiar with these books and other articles on this site. I don't think they prove their case, but I certainly can't nor do I intend to respond to the whole of them in a substack comment. My comment doesn't intend more than to present my opinion on an argument which of course is obvious enough that responses have been written on it.
As one of my objections to "the project" in general, contained in these and other books, I would point that many or at least some of its theses don't addecuately confront the fact that they are at odds with authentic Magysterium, both pre- and post-CVII, as well as the consensus of theologians or at least their most common opinion. That puts a heavy burden of proof even when we're not dealing with de fide propositions, and I don't think that burden has been overcome. And, inversely, the fact that some traditionalists try to defend their positions by moving away from the "pre-CVII mainstream ultramontanism" which had then the most authority and some Magysterial support, concedes to the non-traditionalist side that the pre-CVII status questionis can be legitimatelly overcome on a bunch of issues. That weakens the traditionalist case when its grounds are the pre-CVII ordinary Magysterium and its real or purported post-CVII contradictions. I also think that the often repeated argument of St. Thomas' opinion on unjust laws is really weak, as he was writing about secular laws and he doesn't seem to consider that those principles about unjust law could apply to universal discipline promulgated by the Roman Pontiff. Add to that Auctorem Fidei LXXVIII and Trent Session VII Canon XIII on the Sacraments. Related to that last canon, the article written on this site arguing that the NO has not been received seems utterly indefensible, as every diocesan Bishop on earth accepted it and that suffices in any sane account. To argue to the contrary one should pretend that universal acceptance means numerical unanimity (which has never been achieved for anything) rather than moral unanimity.
On the matter of the historical examples you present in that facebook post, I don't think that any of them are analogous to this case. Regarding Arianism and Iconoclasm, none of them was ever proffesed by the Roman Pontiff. It's only been disputed if Pope Liberius once for a brief moment of time and under extreme duress faltered in his defense of Orthodoxy, but even conceding that were true it would obviously be null because of lack of freedom, and it was short enough to not affect universal faith and discipline. During those two long crises, Catholics in every part of the world had a center of juridical and doctrinal unity in the Holy See. The abuses of pluralism, absenteesism, etc. are the most analogous to the trad account of the liturgical crisis, but even if they were permitted, and officially so, they were never -as far as I know- backed as ideal or good in themselves by the Magysterium of the Pope or any Ecumenical Council. Nor did the Pope ever concede that the Emperor could by his own right confer investitures "by ring and staff". Finally, on the liturgical front, that a novel Breviary was simply authorized for 30 years cannot be compared to new reformed Breviaries having been universally promulgated. And no one has argued that the Quiñones Breviary was "bad in itself", "non-Catholic", etc., nor that Clement VII exceded his authority in allowing it to be prayed, unlike the official SSPX position vis-a-vis the NO. Similarly with Urban VIII's changes, about which I have not an opinion. Nor can the fact that Gregorian chant was corrupted be remotely compared to the scandalous affirmations that the rites promulgated by the Holy See and used through the whole of the Latin Church "end up diluting and dissipating the very faith", "depart strikingly from the constant and essential qualities of the Church’s liturgy", "[are] not a law", and have "elements" of Gnosticism, Lutheranism, anthropocentrism and Pelagianism, etc.
That problems in the Church can remain for centuries is true, but I just don't see how any of these cases is relevantly analogous to the liturgical reform in that they were never universal discipline promulgated by the supreme authority and steadily held as good in themselves by the Magysterium.
When you appeal to 2 Peter, I hope you're not suggesting that the crisis may continue for a thousand years. Or that the whole of the Ecclesia docens can be in the wrong, even if in its non-infallible teaching, for a thousand years. And I do think that there's a liturgy crisis, and the maintaining of the old rites in communion with the Pope is providential and probably will have a role to play in solving the crisis. But, if we talk about betting, you won't catch me betting against six Popes in a row. I just don't think there's been any case in ecclesiastical history were the Holy See (and the whole College of Bishops!) can crearly be demostrated to have been completely wrong in faith and morals (or liturgy) for 50+ years, or/and that the legitimate response to it may have been resistance. I believe there's great value in the traditional rites, but to any branch of traditionalism which puts itself completely at odds with the Roman See I think that the common saying will apply: qui mange du Pape en meurt.
There are too many things in your response that I disagree with - a full answer would take as long or longer.
Just a quick thought: I am not aware of any branch of traditionalism, apart from the sedes, who put themselves "completely at odds with the Roman See."
Moreover, the fact that there's a consensus among theologians does not rule out that they may be wrong. As you probably know, there has always been a minority opinion that, e.g., canonizations are not necessarily infallible:
https://www.amazon.com/Are-Canonizations-Infallible-Revisiting-Disputed/dp/1989905641/
And if this could be true, then certainly an imperfect liturgical rite could be promulgated. I see absolutely nothing impossible in that. What I would reject is that any promulgated rite could be heretical or immoral *in se*. Favoring heresy, ambiguous, harmful, inadequate, etc., yes, but not directly contrary to faith and morals. And that suffices to preserve the minimalist understanding of indefectibility.
You don't need to tell me that this minimalist view is not what theologians have typically defended. I know that. I'm calling their view into question.
That there are historical periods of crisis obviously doesn't mean that our current crisis is identical. History never exactly repeats, and the current crisis is in fact quantitatively and qualitatively worse than any that has come before.
Lastly, it is quite a stretch to pretend as if the Holy See has *always and in every case* been a shining beacon of orthodoxy. There have been moments of wavering or misdirection before, including during the Arian crisis, the monothelite controversy, and the late medieval period that precipitated the Protestant revolt. Let's not whitewash papal history in the interests of a cosmetic account of papal primacy.
I appreciate the quick response. About being "completely at odds with the Holy See", even of Sedes one may say that they're not at odds with Rome on principle, but with who they think are false occupants, while retaining the doctrine of Pastor Aeternus. But the SSPX are as opposed to the real Rome as one may be except for recognizing them as Popes, to the point that they systematically deny obsequium religiosum to their teachings, think they've promulgated a rite which is of dubious validity and cannot be licitly attended, ordinarily deny his commands are legitimate, don't think his marriage tribunals should be attended, etc. And, even outside of the SSPX, many think that there's been systematically erroneous ordinary Magysterium and ilegitimate universal discipline for the last 60 years, which is quite the thing. That's what I would call being "completely at odds", i.e. regarding these grave matters. Of course, when the Pope says Jesus is God trads are in agreement and no one sane thinks that the Pope secretly denies it.
And I did not say that the fact that there's a consensus means that absolutely speaking they can't be wrong, but that there's a really heavy burden of proof against the contrary opinion. Much more so when it's not only theologians, but also ordinary Magysterium, even non-infallible one. I just don't think the book on canonizations overcomes that burden of proof (nor comes near it), and even if it made a good enough case, the contrary opinion would still be the most probable, or at least safe. When speaking of canonizations, that would also be somewhat in tension with the *many* miracles that God graciously continues to grant so that canonizations happen, many of which are as clearly proved as they can be (even if we were to grant that the process is not as good as it was in the past, about which I don't know enough). But that goes a bit off topic.
About the minimalist understanding of indefectibillity in regards to liturgy, I just can't see how that doesn't contradict Auctorem Fidei LXXVIII, which condemned the proposition that the Church "could establish discipline, not only useless and too burthensome for Christian liberty to submit to, but also dangerous, hurtful, leading to superstition and materialism". Here the notes of "favoring heresy, ambiguous, harmful" would be contained. "Inadequate" is a much more ample concept, and that I could concede, and obviously the reformers themselves thought that the then established rites were "inadequate" to the time. Similarly with Trent when it condemns that received and approved rites "may be contemned". Sadly many traditionalist do despise the new rites, scandalously insulting them in various ways (clown mass, false mass, bastard rites, etc.). And I do think that one may legitimatelly want for the reform to be undone, or the rites to be re-reformed in a traditional sense, without thus despising the new rites in the sense condemned by the Magysterium. Nor do I say that you or the people of Tradition&Sanity use such gravely scandalous language, but I do think that many propositions about the new rites common in these circles are included in those condemnations.
Lastly, I didn't just say that past crises aren't identical to the current one (which is obvious enough), but that they're not analogous in the relevant sense. Specifically, in that the core elements of the crises, at least in their doctrinal heart, was not steadily adhered to by the Roman Pontiff and the moral unanimity of diocesan Bishops. And I have not denied that the Holy See has wavered here and there (specially if we're talking about moral decadence and abuse of fact rather than doctrine, such as the late medieval period you point to), what I do deny is that it has gravely wavered in a grave matter of faiths or morals (in which universal liturgical discipline would be included) for six Popes in a row. The examples of Liberius (who, if he wavered, was for a moment and under duress) and Honorius (whose letters seem Orthodox and probably was unjustly condemned, even if he didn't defend Orthodoxy strongly enough) are substantially different, and have been sufficiently dealt with for centuries by Catholic authors.
In any case, I greatly appreciate your civil style to argue this matters. And I do read and learn from your writings, even if I'm in disagreement more often than not.
Regarding "Auctorem Fidei", I think you'd find this interesting:
https://onepeterfive.com/does-pius-vis-auctorem-fidei-support-paul-vis-novus-ordo/
I agree with you that the SSPX goes as far as possible with the "recognize and resist" position, even to the point of incoherence. But that is not the normal traditionalist position outside the SSPX.
Thanks, I hadn't read it. It is in fact interesting, and I do think that Auctorem Fidei and Quo Graviora raise questions about the attitude of the reformers, or at least some of them. What I reject is the idea that these condemnations concern only the traditional rites, as this article seems to affirm: "Pius VI is appealing to the objective truth that the Church cannot err in approving her traditional liturgy". This just goes against the plain reading and the theological reason given, which is that the Holy Spirit guides the Church (and in the XX Century no less than the prior nineteen).
I do concede that an absolute reading of every note there approved would led to unsolvable paradoxes, which would make absurd both the "traditionalist" and the "progressive" cases. If we understand Pius VI to say that every promulgated rite is absolutely perfect, it would be illegitimate both to change the liturgy and to criticize any change once it has actually been promulgated. Here several distinctions should be introduced, e.g. between being positively defective or less good, harmful in itself or accidentally regarding concrete circumstances, and changing the liturgy by individual pastors or regional councils or through the consensus of the College of Bishops and the Pope after long debate between theologians. It would be interesting to read how preconciliar theologians treated this matters; what I think is completely novel is to restrict those notes proper of indefectibility to "traditional rites", rather than what the Church has in fact approved. I also reject what I think is somewhat of a strawman in these articles, that the "ultramontane" case means that the Pope can act arbitrarily or change reality, rather than that the Holy Spirit won't let the Pope act at least *gravely* arbitrarily, so that when he has promulgated a rite we can know that it is not, in fact, harmful.
And I do think that one may favor the old rites without falling under these condemnations, and that liturgical critique with the proper conditions is possible and legitimate in both ways. But I think that many critiques of the NO, and not only those of the SSPX, go far beyond that, e.g. what Mons. Schneider here writes about Gnostic, Lutheran, Anthropocentric and Pelagian elements. I regularly attend both TLM and NO masses and I haven't ever found those elements in the latter, when celebrated according to Church law.
Finally, you write in your article that "no one seriously questions the validity of the Novus Ordo", but that's not true. The SSPX questions its *certain* validity.
The author correctly sees that the entire sacramental order was overhauled, yet stops short of the decisive question. Restoring the old books does not restore the authority, apostolic mission, or even sacramental capacity lost through the new rites. A traditional missal in the hands of a man who cannot demonstrate lawful mission—or valid orders—does not restore Catholic worship. The rite matters, but so does the minister: Who ordained him, who sent him, and by what authority does he act?
I learned somewhat recently that at least some of the new sacraments predate the Novus Ordo by a few years. I was born in 1966 and had always assumed I was baptized in the old rite. I asked my aging parents about that and learned I was baptized by a modernist, Newman Center university priest in the vernacular. I can only assume no exorcism was involved. He smugly told my parents they didn't have to worry about having a lot of kids because Rome was on the verge of allowing contraception.
What a horrible thing for him to say to them - as if children are not a gift from the Lord (as the Psalmist says). Yes, the sacraments were being done in the vernacular starting ca. 1964, in some places earlier. But in 1966 there would still have been (at least a substantial part of) the old rite of baptism.