Has the SSPX Been Regularized?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CradleRC58
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Genesis315 said:
Not quite there yet, but they do seem to be heading there in “installments” as it were, without having to do much on their end. It’s an interesting aspect of Pope Francis’ pontificate. Here’s a better article on this:

favicon.ico
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com

The Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X: Prospects for 2019 (Guest Post)​

by Côme de Prévigny The visit this past November of Father Davide Pagliarani, new Superior-General of the Society of St. Pius X (S…

Since that article other related events have happened such as Ecclesia Dei (essentially created because of the SSPX) was abolished, with Rome noting it being unnecessary since the communities regularly celebrating the EF had reached “proper stability,” and Bishop Huonder–a Swiss diocesan bishop–chose to live out his retirement at an SSPX school without objection from the Pope.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s happening in bits and pieces. Give it time.

I will be one very happy traditionalist Catholic when that day comes.
 
Genesis315 said:
Rome keeps taking away irregularities
Click to expand...
Rome seems to be taking away irregularities, on this, as well as other areas, such as marriage. This may be more a difference in style with this pope, rather than change in substance.

The two prior popes were far more definite about what they meant, and what they didn’t mean. There were fewer loose ends, capable of varying interpretations. On many topics, be cautious about getting your hope or fears up too soon.
 
Last edited:
steph03 said:
I would go further, agree that the Ordinary form is valid
Click to expand...
That’s really the only condition that has been set forth in the past. And even just a single concelebrated OF Mass by their founder and the Pope, with no other conditions, was turned down . . .
 
Psychae said:
And “Why would you want a bishop of the conciliar Church’s permission, anyway? He’s not a true Catholic!”
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, this is not the position of the SSPX, there may be individuals who think this but the SSPX holds that Pope Francis is Pope and the bishops are all Catholic.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion I never really saw why their sacraments were invalid to begin with. They are priests who love the Church.
 
They are priests who love their idea of what the Church should be … which is quite a bit different than loving the Church.
 
Sorry, you’re wrong.

I grew up in the SSPX and know for a fact that this is the position they believe in and preach from the pulpit. “Hold on to the true Faith… we have it, Rome doesn’t” is what they believe and teach.
 
That article is an example of the chatter that comes out from the SSPX on an occasional basis; and it is written from their perspective, not Rome’s.

Slight difference in reliability. The very fact that the article states “Here and there, a commentator strives to know if doctrinal agreements should be reached before considering a practical agreement, reaching back to a configuration that resembles the situation of 15 years ago. But where, concretely, should these discussions lead? Should they wait until Rome has finally condemned Vatican II, or rather are mere safeguards enough? This point remains to be clarified.” should be a massive heads up that someone is living somewhere over the rainbow in Oz.

I have no clue, nor do I care to research anything concerning James Bogle, but since he is not a Vatican spokesman (as Cardinal Muller was on such matters), I consider the matter to have about as much validity as the oft repeated statement from Bishop Fellay that “they are getting closer”.

Speaking of Cardinal Muller, while in his post one of his statements concerning the status was that the SSPX were not “de jure” in schism, but the clearly were “de facto” in schism. And it is going to take a whole lot more than a bishop retiring and living at the SSPX school to resolve this.

As to the issue of confessions, I will leave it up to those in Canon Law and/or sacramental theology as to whether the Pope’s statement concerning the matter granted a form of universal faculties; my understanding is he did not; his comments were to those who sought out an SSPX priest to hear their confession. Either was does not concern me as I don’t go to an SSPX priest to confess.

As to whether that is “chipping away” at the division matters, it should be remembered that first and foremost the Pope has been of a strong pastoral bent; he has made numerous comments to clergy of their need to “smell like the sheep”, i.e.care for them. His concern is for the care of the laity, and any action taken with regards to the laity who go to SSPX priests fits right in, and does not require nor promise any reconciliation with the society.
 
What does it mean fully regularized and why would that be a good news?
 
Some people seem to say that full regularization means Vindication. It means putting a notice that SSPX is fully approved, and that the SSPX retains full independence from the local bishops. They might communicate with the Vatican, as an equal, but not subject to any office there, unlike other religious orders.

But real regularization means something different. I do not think SSPX wants regularization, but the leaders have to present the idea they are actively seeking it, always on the verge, in order to retain maybe half their lay supporters, who desire it.
 
Last edited:
Psychae said:
40.png
MagdalenaRita:
40.png
Psychae:
Why would you want a bishop of the conciliar Church’s permission, anyway? He’s not a true Catholic!”
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, this is not the position of the SSPX, there may be individuals who think this but the SSPX holds that Pope Francis is Pope and the bishops are all Catholic.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you’re wrong.

I grew up in the SSPX and know for a fact that this is the position they believe in and preach from the pulpit. “Hold on to the true Faith… we have it, Rome doesn’t” is what they believe and teach.
Click to expand...
I did not grow up in, not do I attend an SSPX chapel, I can only go by the things I have read from the SSPX, their statements of faqs and following what has been going on with them and the Vatican. In most every thing I have read or heard regarding discussions in the Vatican they always refer to Pope Francis as the Holy Father and they state they do not agree with sedevacantism.

I do agree that they believe that Rome has lost much of the true faith but I understand them to still believe that Francis is the Pope and the bishops are the bishops.

I suspect also that there probably are those that may preach from the pulpit that Francis is not the pope but again, according to their statements that is not the belief as a society.
 
Last edited:
I think I understand. The problem is, the SSPX publishes certain opinions/ beliefs publicly, and teaches & preaches other opinions/ beliefs privately (in their churches etc). The two sets of opinions/ beliefs do not match up.
 
And they are now on their 5th Pope (not that John Paul 1 had much time to dwell on their status or enter negotiations).

Having watched this since its beginning, it appears to me that the Church, in reviewing disputes which have ended up in excommunication (which supposedly is a serious medication intended to cure the problem, i.e. encourage reconciliation - has not had the medical effect of causing the party to reconcile. And as such, they appear to have decided to not find the SSPX in de jure schism, as that is a finding of excommunication.

And unless the SSPX decides to reconcile (as per the requirements set out by Pope Benedict 16), then when the time comes they need to replace bishops either due to death or retirement, it will come to a head. Rome granting them new bishops?

Anything can happen; but the question is more what is likely to happen. Rome seems to be occupied with other issues, as after founding in 1970 and being pretty much a thorn in the side of the Pope (Paul 6) and the escalation of the ordinations (18 years later) this has dragged on for how many years - take your pick. 49 years; 31 years.
 
Yeah that’s not true either, sorry 😐

The SSPX has a lot in common with the original Lutherans… you know, the Protestant “Reformation” and all that.

If you look at quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre and Martin Luther side by side they are nearly indistinguishable. It’s a very telling similarity.

The SSPX is no more Catholic than the people who left the Church and followed Luther way back when. Which is to say, in my opinion, the original Lutherans were quite Catholic; they were just throwing a fit like a spoiled group of toddlers not wanting to listen to Mother Church. Shame on them, and shame on the SSPX.
 
Historically speaking, the SSPX and Lutherans have a lot in common. Just brush up on the history of each movement; it’s pretty obvious. 🤓
 
Hmm interesting. Have never heard that before. Maybe I’ll let you explain just a little more of what you mean.
🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top