Did they not discuss these topics? Or, is the "formula" to discuss them but not hold a strong opinion one way or other? I know very little about these priests. Did they work with others or were they entirely independent?
Most priests were independent because once rome left the faith, these priests left rome. Before V2, every priest was either diocesan or religious. When they left Rome, they were automatically independent, because there were no diocese or religious orders. Trad land was the wild west (but in a good way). So priests were contacted by the laity, who wanted the True Mass and Faith. And more laity heard about such priests, and they asked for the Mass, etc, etc.
Priests flew/drove all over the US to offer mass, to baptize, to perform marriages - not for any specific group, not to start chapels for their movement, not to spread a particular theological view (i.e. 3 Baptisms, Sede, etc) - but to SPREAD THE FAITH. To SAVE SOULS. Take Fr Wathen for example - he started a chapel in Kentucky, but would fly all over the US to say mass for people (even if once a month), so they could have confession, hear Mass, and talk to a real priest about what was going on in the revolutionary diocese down the road. He travelled to Minnesota, TX, California, Indiana, Ohio, Maryland, and other places. And he was far from the only one to do this.
For much of the 70s and 80s, this is how Traditionalism operated. The laity organized to have masses in a converted garage, or a hotel room, or a rented hall. Eventually, if they were lucky and there were enough of them, they bought a chapel and started to fix it up. Maybe they had a small school, because the diocese was NO option for their children. But most people had mass only once or twice a month, especially those who lived in bigger states like MN or TX and who were spread out.
On the laity side, the early pioneers, aside from starting chapels and schools and building relationships with priests, wrote books, debated with diocesan priests, tried to convert their novus ordo family, friends and neighbors. How many books were written by the laity concerning the dangers of the new mass and the new liturgy? Many! Most of the priests didn't have time!
The bottom line is this: Catholics of the 70s/80s were more unified than they are today because they had a common enemy (new rome) and they had a common goal (keep the Faith). Maybe this unity was because this generation grew up as part of a diocese, and were used to working together, and still had the catholic philosophy that the "we" (i.e. the Church) comes before "I" (i.e. my personal views)? They were used to their opinions on church matters ...to not matter. The Bishops/priests ran the diocese, not them. The simple priest was used to doing his duty of offering mass and increasing devotion, not writing high-brow books, delving into theological theories, etc. These were not matters for diocesan priests, but for the Bishop and for officials in Rome. Most, if not all, of traditional catholics at the time had the same "view" on how a church should operate because they all lived this view before V2.
You could also argue that the early catholics didn't have TIME to argue and bicker. Who has time to worry about the status of the pope, when you're trying to build a chapel and pray that God sends you a priest more than once a month? Who has time to worry about a theory, when the REAL danger is the new mass? A real catholic would prioritize his "needs" and prayers over his uneducated thoughts on some theological theory. What catholic is going to take a chance to cause an arguement with a priest, when you depend on him for monthly confession? Are you going to challenge a priest on 3 baptisms when you need him to baptize your child? As the old saying goes: "Beggars can't be choosers." It could also be said that they "Didn't sweat the small stuff." And compared to having mass/sacraments (i.e. KEEPING THE FAITH!), the questions of 3 Baptisms, Sedevacantism, etc are "small stuff". No one is going to be worried about these things on their death bed (God have mercy on their imprudence, if they do).
But nowadays, we are all so removed from catholic normalcy, with a lack of diocese life, a lack of a local bishop, a lack of an organization on a daily basis. In some repects, it is to be expected that arguments arise, when the "leaders" of the Trad movement are dead. The current leadership, in all trad groups, and 99% of we laity - we have NO experience of how the Church "normally" operates. We have no experiece of organization, of a hierarchy, of proper procedures, and of our place in the ecclesiastical food chain (which is quite low).
We also have been blessed with all kinds of chapels, schools, organizations, and talented people. And thus, many of us have the TIME to relax, to "research", to argue about things which the devil uses to create division, chaos and turmoil. Why has this happened?
1. Lack of Humilty. We forget where we came from. Or the younger generations have no experience of the trials and struggles of the past.
2. Lack of focus. We forget the enemy is new-rome. The enemy is not the 'bad pope', but ALL error. The enemy is not "1 baptism" but ALL of V2.
3. Lack of charity. We forget that the goal is TO SAVE SOULS, to convert novus ordo catholics, to preach the truth - not hurl anathemas.
As the 80s came around, the sspx began, which began the growth of groups in the trad world. The SSPX, the FSSP, Sedevacantism, CMRI, etc. People started dividing themselves into "camps" because priests/bishops couldn't get along and first started said "camps". Priests/Bishops started making theological rules and spent their time growing a movement instead of growing devotions and growing saints.
Were there disagreements and theological arguments in the 70s/80s - of course? Did things get heated at times and did priests diagree? Of course, this is human nature. But such attitudes didn't filter down to the laity yet, because the laity mostly cared about having mass more than once a month, or having a school instead of being forced to homeschool. And priests didn't have the opportunity to create a "camp" because people were so spead out, with no chapels, and a property-less "camp" made no sense.
A staving family doesn't argue over what to have for dinner; they are thankful for every meal. Only when the family is "fat and happy" do arguments arise over what to have for dessert. And while human nature tends to gravitate towards "camps", especially when there is a lack of leadership, the 70s/80s overall were filled with people/priests who were more humble, focused and charitable because they were thankful for what they had - the Faith.
Nowadays, people have lost focus on the Faith; they forget where traditionalism came from; they do not know the (very close) past, so they are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past (neo-sspx's mini V2-like apostasy).
A merciful and wise God will return us to the wilderness; make us start from scratch (i.e. resistance), make us humble and thankful for the Faith. If He does not humble us (since prosperity has caused us to sin and lose focus), how many people will lose their souls for lack of charity or for apostasy?
What Pax Vobis explained about not changing and compromising with the times I think only really applies to the SSPX.
It certainly applies to the sspx. It also applies to the FSSP, ICK, (who were born under rome) and any other former trad group that went with rome in the last 20 years (i.e. St Benedict Center, Benedictines from Alabama under Fr Leonard (+RIP), and a number of smaller religious groups).
Topic: Wessex banned (Read 4388 times)