SSPX and Rome: Reconciliation At Hand?

Whispers in the Loggia ^ | January 30, 2006 | Rocco Palmo

[steadfastconservative]

The problem is that the so-called traditionalists don't understand what Tradition is. "Tradition" with a capital "T" is the "living transmission" of the deposit of faith (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #75-79). Tradition refers to doctrines and teachings that have been preserved and handed by the Church from the time of the Apostles onward.
"Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's
magesterium." (CCC, #83). In other words, these ecclesial traditions are not Tradition per se. Thus, while it is entirely proper to view Vatican II through the lens of Tradition, it is wrong to view it through the lens of these changeable ecclesial traditions.

[TradicalRC]

In other words, these ecclesial traditions are not Tradition per se. Thus, while it is entirely proper to view Vatican II through the lens of Tradition, it is wrong to view it through the lens of these changeable ecclesial traditions.

I do not find it inreasonable to question why the ecclesial tradition that was in place for several centuries was changed virtually overnight in the late sixties. What was the purpose?

[steadfastconservative]

I agree that too many changes were made to the Mass and that these changes were made too quickly. Moreover, individual bishops, priests, liturgists made changes to the Mass that were not permitted by the rubrics adding to the general confusion. However, this is not so much the fault of the Council or of its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy but of those who implemented the decrees of this document, taking them well beyond what the Council Fathers had intended. Hopefully, Benedict XVI will make some reforms to the "reform." The bottom line, though, is that the Church has always reserved the right to make changes to the liturgy (even the Council of Trent recognized this). Therefore, the fact that the Mass had remained relatively unchanged for four hundred years did not mean that it could never be changed.

[TradicalRC]

I agree. But then other questions arise. The council was licit, but the changes made weren't. Why? How did it happen so uniformly? Was there a conspiracy?