We are talking here about changes to the mass customs, traditions, of the English speaking countries. That it all we are talking about here. With regard to those changes, two questions must be distinguished: First, can customs and traditions be legally abrogated by Church authorities? Secondly, is it desirable that they should be undertaken? The answer to the first question is obviously "yes." The Pope, as head of the Church, and the Bishops conferences in say the USA has the right to abolish certain customs/traditions (the SSPX has no authority to change local customs). But the question remains: is it desirable that those authorized should do so and does their abolition always serve the good of the Church?

Centuries ago, Plato taught: "Any change whatever except from evil is the most dangerous of all things." This is why he urges legislators to find a way of implanting this reverence for antiquity. This reverence for antiquity does not mean to go back to what was done 500-2000 years ago, as the modernists "claimed they were doing" in the 1950's and on with the all of their mass changes. The people who claim such, are really enemies of antiquity, for they disregard our forefathers wisdom in building the edifice of our customs. What they did 500 years ago, or what they do in other countries, or other rites, is of no concern to us today, for we have our customs from our forefathers, who were not ignorant people. Was not the foundation of the tactics of the 1950's and on mass change agents this false appeal to antiquity, "the return to the correct more ancient form used in other counties and rites". Notice the same tactic, the same appeal, being employed above in the writing of romanitaspress. Notice the condescending attitude toward our forefathers customs "I refer specifically to that group of ...intransigent pietists.. who since 1903 have stubbornly refused to follow. "

Now, If my grandfather, and my father were alive today, they'd be 123 and 92 years old, and during their time, the custom in the USA was always to kneel at the Sanctus in low and high mass. Somewhere else romanitaspress said that it was an error of the peoples, well, that is just his erroneous (audacious) conclusion, for as far back as my family and missals go, no one ever stood for the Sanctus. Anyone without a horse in the race would call that a custom in the USA.

I don't know what they do/did in France, or anywhere else, but I do know what we did here, and it is what was always done. This country had peoples and priests from Ireland, Italy, Germany, Spain, and France, I have to assume that they were less localized in their final custom, than say France, which only had French. Those priests chose to kneel at the Sanctus (or not stand at the Sanctus) and IT IS the custom in the USA.

Romanitaspress and all of the change agents are just inexperienced in life young men that think once again, just like the 1950's and on, that they invented a better way, just like the Protestant, who thinks that they cracked the code of truth. The truth is that these change agents have lost their reverence for the wisdom of your fathers, they believe that our forefathers were ignorant of what the change agent knows, they think that they have "discovered an ancient secret", a better way.

"Any change whatever except from evil is the most dangerous of all things." This is why Plato urges legislators to find a way of implanting this reverence for antiquity."

Can customs and traditions of English speaking countries be legally abrogated by the SSPX?


The answer is no, the SSPX has no authority to do so. Moreover, they are going against the very reason why the SSPX exists, to preserve the customs. Abp. Lefebvre's had written on his tombstone the words that he wanted for all posterity to see, "Tradidi quod et accepi," "I have transmitted what I received."

Now the SSPX is changing that to: "We will transmit a new and improved way".

The Pope, as head of the Church, and the Bishops conferences in the USA, have the right to abolish certain customs/traditions, but the question remains: is it desirable that those authorized should do so and does their abolition always serve the good of the Church? The results of the changes since the 1950's speak for themselves.

The SSPX has no authority to make changes to the local customs in English speaking countries, maybe, that is why they are undertaking these changes through the children in the schools, and the young students in the seminaries. The promoters of change are introducing the changes by teaching the children. This is a usurpation of the hierarchy of authority, a communistic tactic.
 
The SSPX hierarchy have announced no such changes, they are all coming from the shadows. Our Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles did not spread the faith by hiding it from adults and indoctrinating the children. They had the truth and had nothing to hide. If the SSPX wants to change the low mass postures customs in the USA (that have been around for 100+ years at least), let the District Superior announce the change and explain why it is being done. This communist tactic of teaching through the children, undermines the authority of parents (their superiors), and makes the a mockery of the parents.

To be blunt, it is the action of a coward, who does not come into the light.

"But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God." (John 3:19)

All of those posting a thumbs down to my postings are more than welcome to contribute their comments, this is not a totalitarian thread.

Why not  change?  Because, in our lifetimes, change has proven to lead to corruption, sacrilege, and the Novus Ordo.

The Vatican has told us they are working on a hybrid Order of Mass.  The goal is to eliminate the traditional Mass altogether.  High ranking prelates (including Ratzinger) have written that the mistake in the 1960s-1970s was to introduce the Novus Ordo all at once; that the Mass should have been changed in small steps, a little change--let everyone, priests and people get used to it; a little more change--give the priests and people time to get used to it, etc., etc., etc.

After a few years, the Catholic world would have only known the Novus Ordo and there would have been virtually no traditional movement.  The remnant of Catholics would have been, almost literally, a handful.

Until there has been a restoration of the Church, ALL CHANGE IS EVIL and MUST BE RESISTED IN ALL CASES.  The priests of the Society have no authority to compel change.  They do not have jurisdiction of the faithful.  Bishop Fellay has no jurisdiction over the faithful.  His power extends only to those priests and bishops who willingly follow him and, because the Society is merely a religious fraternity without vows, all are free to depart.

Every suggestion otherwise is from the Evil One.

This is why there should be no change.

Yes.

In tumultuous times, stability, rather than tinkering, is what is needed.

When did the Leonine Prayers change to "for the conversion of Russia"?
This was NOT the original intention back in 1884. Russia wasn't powerful enough to be a recognized threat then.
Who changed the intention and when and why?

In 1929 Pius IX changed the intention to "for the conversion of Russia", for obvious reasons.

Yes.

In tumultuous times, stability, rather than tinkering, is what is needed.

Excellent point!!  This is the point that I keep coming back to in my mind that makes me think as much as any other point that evil was greatly at play in VII.  Consider the tumultuousness of the sixties.  Instead of the church being the unwavering rock, John XXIII calls VII.  In a time of turmoil when a shepherd should be most cautious and conservative, we have the council.  That one decision likely made the devil happier than anything since Adam bit into the apple.

A previous thread along this line of standing for the Sanctus, etc.  incorrectly described what happened in the SSPX chapel in Philadelphia. A French priest decided that the laity should stand for the Sanctus along with some other changes. He had an assistant clank a loud clacker at the point when everyone should stand for the Sanctus (remember Pavlov's dogs?). So instead of kneeling at the Sanctus bell, people were gradually conditioned over several weeks of this (very distracting by the way) to stand for the Sanctus. However, there was RESISTANCE. A small group continued to kneel for the Sanctus. The priest called a meeting. The kneelers spoke out against the changes. (Interestingly enough, all of the rubrics changes that he proposed are present in the N.O. Mass today!) More and more people quietly approached the kneelers to discuss the reason for their RESISTANCE. The kneelers were sincere and credible. More and more people began to kneel. The prior came to address the problem. He  antagonistically stated to a kneeler "Whether you like it or not, the next generation will stand for the Sanctus!" You see, practically all of the SSPX schools CONDITION and INDOCTRINATE their students to stand for the Sanctus, along with other changes. People wrote letters to the Superiors. Father Rostand arrived on the scene. Even he was unable to quell the problem. Still more people RESISTED and knelt for the Sanctus. The French priest was transferred. The new priest described the situation (some standing , some kneeling- basically a three-ring circus at the Sanctus. It was almost impossible to even prayerfully focus ON the Sanctus) to Bp. Tissier who, disgusted with the idea of changing the rubrics in the first place, threw out all of the changes and told the new priest to tell everyone to return to the usual rubrics and KNEEL FOR THE SANCTUS, as is still done currently.