To add to the comments already made that pre-1983 a variety of praxis was followed by the SSPX in terms of liturgical editions here is visual evidence from the UK.  The video is a history of the first twenty-five years of the SSPX in the UK.



For 1983 Holy WeeK: At 17:48 there is pre-1956 Palm Sunday and at 18:34 Good Friday Mass of the Pre-Sanctified with black folded chasubles worn by the deacon and subdeacon.  At 18:49 one can see the Sanctissimum returned to the altar. The deacon is still without his folded chasuble but the subdeacon (on the left) can be seen clearly wearing his.  The subdeacon was the late Fr Michael Crowdy a priest of the London Oratory who left to support the work of the SSPX.

And, of course, Plenus here keeps dishonestly conflating the issues that The Nine had with "sedevacantism," even though not all of The Nine were actually sedevacantists, and it was not one of the key issues for The Nine.  What were at issue are some of the very same principles that The Resistance criticize neo-SSPX for.

I can say in my neck of the woods and throughout the SSPX, at least as far as SSPX friends other states knew of,  what those Nine did was a terrible scandal, and that scandal was due to sedeism. At that time, "sedevacantism" was the new buzz word for everyone involved and that issue caused much controversy, disagreements, confusion, and over all much disquietude among the SSPX clergy and the faithful. So whereas you say sedeism played no part, I fully disagree because that was the #1 issue, sedeism was at the very veins of the whole episode whether you and the Nine say it was or not. It most certainly was. Feel free to ask any priest who was there and who and was not among the Nine, they will tell you what I just said.

 The 62 Missal was only in the back ground, as nobody in the pews  could really tell the difference, even for the altar boys there was not much difference. The Nine rejected it because John XIII was not the pope, so he had no authority to impose that missal. Again, this is not something so critical as to cause the scandal. Neither was the annulment issue. Whatever you say, sedeism was the core issue.

The 62 Missal was only in the back ground, as nobody in the pews  could really tell the difference, even for the altar boys there was not much difference. The Nine rejected it because John XIII was not the pope, so he had no authority to impose that missal. Again, this is not something so critical as to cause the scandal. Neither was the annulment issue. Whatever you say, sedeism was the core issue.

As for the Nine rejecting it because John XXIII was not the pope, that is patently false.  In fact, they used the pre-1955 rites (and the 1955 rites were issued by Pius XII, whom they considered a legitimate pope).  Again, not all The Nine were even sedevacantists at the time, and many of them for many years even debated among themselves whether Roncalli was a non-pope, since he was a borderline figure.

As for the laity and even altar boys barely detecting the difference in the 1962 Missal, that was actually one of the points made BY The Nine, that the priests should be able to use the pre-1955 rites since no one would even know the difference (except at Holy Week).

Again, not all The Nine were even sedevacantists at the time, and many of them for many years even debated among themselves whether Roncalli was a non-pope, since he was a borderline figure.

I was a child at the time so I won't debate you on this point, but let's just say it couldn't have been for very long, nor were the debates very public or memorable. Because few Trads alive today remember it. Just look at how many in this thread make the "mistake" about the Nine = Sedevacantist. In fact, for decades now, "The Nine" have been synonymous with sedevacantism, much to your (and others') frustration. But it's an easy mistake, I say!

They quickly fell into the position they were leaning towards -- those who weren't sede from the outset.

I was a child at the time so I won't debate you on this point, but let's just say it couldn't have been for very long, nor were the debates very public or memorable. Because few Trads alive today remember it. Just look at how many in this thread make the "mistake" about the Nine = Sedevacantist. In fact, for decades now, "The Nine" have been synonymous with sedevacantism, much to your (and others') frustration. But it's an easy mistake, I say!

They quickly fell into the position they were leaning towards -- those who weren't sede from the outset.

Yes and no.  Eventually most of them moved toward sedevacantism, but for the past couple decades there was a bit a rift between the core SSPV and those who became more dogmatic SVs.  There's a video from Father Jenkins where he rejects dogmatic sedevacantism ... as promoted by Bishops Sanborn and Dolan, and Father Cekada.  When my family first met Father Jenkins, we asked him about the Pope, and he just said, "We know that he's not out friend and not a friend of Tradition."

But people really have to wake up to the programmed language.  SSPX controlled the narrative and turned the label "sedevacantist" into a term of derision, attempting to attach to it whatever connotations they wanted.  Similary, if you were to ask your average neo-SSPX pew-sitter today, the term "The Resistance" undoubtedly elicits the same negative connotations that "sedevacantist" once did, where the average perception (created by SSPX programming the term) is that it's a h0Ɩ0cαųst-denying conspiracy-theorist anti-Semitic, misogynist racist who went nuts and started schismatically ordaining bishops left and right, some in secret, to the point where The Resistance now have two bishops in every garage, just like they attacked +Thuc long before, and pretty soon you'll have some questioning the validity of +Williamson's orders due to his "mental state".  They'll bring up the splintering and the bizarre antics of the Pfeiffer cult ... all associated in the minds of their pew-sitting sheep with "the Resistance".  So when the word "Resistance" comes up, those are the images, the associations and connotations, that pop up in their minds.  They did the same thing with the term "sedevacantist" back in the day.

Those who control the narrative easily program the minds of the sheep using terms that they weigh down with negative connotations.  We see the government doing it with terms like "conspiracy theorist," "flat earther," "white supremacist," "right-wing extremist."  We've seen it done in Catholic circles with the derogatory term "Lefebvrist" that they used to throw out there, or "Feeneyite", or "sedes"/"sedeism", or "the Resistance", which is quickly reaching the same level of programming among the neo-SSPX sheep that these other terms once had.  So it's a double-edged sword to throw those types of pejorative terms out there.

To counter the pejorative use of "sedevacantist," Father Cekada coined the term "R&R" that they use as a term of reproach/derision against the non-sedevacantists.  That was his way of fighting back against the programmed language.

Each position or principle needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and separated from the extraneous baggage.  So, for instance, look at the principles of the Resistance rather than the antics of Pfeifferville.  Same thing, however, should be done for all the other pejorative terms of derision hurled out there.  Voris at CM was trying to do the same thing, attempting to smear the SSPX as being basically a child predator mafia.

Yes, there's bad behavior everywhere, from Fr. Pfeiffer to the SSPX predators and those who covered for them to various activities of some sedevacantists, etc. ... but our intellects need to rise above the emotional nonsense of evaluating principles based on the behavior of those who hold them.  Many people have left the Conciliar Church due to the predator priests there and use that as a reason / excuse to reject the Catholic faith.  All of this "thinking", or, rather, emoting is on the same level of fallacy.

I recall a story in the early Renaissance where someone was trying to make a convert.  Well, this convert wanted to see Rome and the hierarchy.  So, the person attempting to convert him attempted to dissuade him, knowing that the current Pope and hierarchy were living in debauchery.  But the potential convert insisted and went to Rome.  He came back and reported that he was ready to convert, and this took the one trying to convert him by great surprise.  "After all that you saw there?"  And the potential convert responded, "Any institution that could survive such dereliction, depravity, and debauchery and endure for so long must be protected by God."

Catholics should not have a democrat vs republican, my team vs your team, view on doctrine.  Alas, that is the state of the world today.  False binary, black-n-white thinking.  The whole world has been brainwashed with such.

Agreed.  Look at each argument and each position independently and intellectually ... regardless of the various characters involved (e.g. the likes of Father Pfeiffer and company).

All of the issues are delineated in their Letter to ABL. If people would actually read it, they would see that none of them involved the legitimacy of the pope.

Docuмent2 (traditionalmass.org)

Wow. Who changed the title?  I would say that clerics suing clerics was the scandal.   It set the tone for future disunity amongst the faithful.