Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) In communion with the Chair of Peter, YES or NO?

[Catholic29]

Okay, lets cut to the chase in this wonderful Forum with a poll to end all polls. Six million dollar question is the SSPX in full communion with the Chair of Peter (John Paul II), YES or NO? You have read all the posts and all the Magisterial documents, I leave it up to you…

 

[m134e5]

This type of question has no room for opinions. When you’re in communion with someone, that means you agree with them. The founder of SSPX ordained bishops without the approval of the Vatican. This is a schismatic act, and an archbishop should have known better. Things may have been bad in the Church, so he may have felt it was a necessity, but God can take care of his own Church. He is no different then Martin Luther (at least in regards to obedience).

 

[John_Higgins]

They say they are, but they’re not. Bishop Fellay is a valid but illicit bishop.

John

 

[Fogny]

Catholic29:

Okay, lets cut to the chase in this wonderful Forum with a poll to end all polls. Six million dollar question is the SSPX in full communion with the Chair of Peter (John Paul II), YES or NO? You have read all the posts and all the Magisterial documents, I leave it up to you…

Would it not be fair to point out the two parties are trying to reconcile their differences.

SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X
Priorat Mariae Verkundigung Schloss Schwandegg
Menzingen, ZG, CH-6313 SWIZTERLAND

+Menzingen, 6 June 2004
​

H.E. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos

*Most Reverend Eminence,

*Your letter of December 30, a letter of greetings with the new proposal of an accord did indeed reach us. We have taken some time to answer because it leaves us perplexed. Allow me to respond with the greatest frankness, the only way of making progress.

We are sensitive to your efforts and those of the Holy Father to come to our aid, and we see that this overture on your part is certainly very generous. Accordingly, we are much afraid lest our attitude and our response not be understood. When we made our request that two conditions be met at the beginning of our discussions, and when we repeated that request several times, we were simply indicating a natural and necessary order to follow: before constructing a roadway on a bridge, one must lay its foundations. Otherwise the enterprise is doomed to failure. We do not see how we could arrive at a recognition without passing through a number of steps.

Among these steps, the first seems to us to be the lifting1 of the decree of excommunication. The excommunication applying to the Orthodox was lifted without their in any way changing their attitude towards the Holy See; would it not be possible to do something similar in our regard, for us who have never separated ourselves from the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, which we have always recognized as defined by Vatican Council I. At the time of our2 consecration in 1988 we took an oath of fidelity to the Holy See; we have always professed our attachment to the Holy See and the Sovereign Pontiff, we have taken all kinds of measures to show that we have no intention of erecting a parallel hierarchy: it should not be so difficult to cleanse us from the accusation of schism…

As regards the penalty for the reception of the episcopate, the Code of Canon Law of 1983 foresees that the maximum penalty should not be applied in the case where a subject has acted on the basis of a *subjective *necessity. If the Holy See does not want to admit that there was a state of objective necessity, it should at least admit that we perceive things in this way.

Such a measure would be recognized as a real overture on the part of Rome and would create the new climate necessary for any progress.

At the same time, the SSPX would submit itself to what we could by analogy call an ad limina visit. The Holy See could observe us and examine our development without there being any engagement of the two sides for the time being.

Cont’d

 

[Fogny]

With respect to the formulas that you ask us to sign, they suppose a certain number of conditions that we cannot accept and that leave us very ill at ease.

The propositions suppose that we are guilty and that this guilt has separated us from the Church. In reparation, and to certify our orthodoxy, they ask us for a sort of limited profession of faith (Vatican Council II and the Novus Ordo).

Most of our priests and faithful have been directly confronted with heresy, and often faced with grave liturgical scandal coming from their own pastors, from bishops as well as priests. The whole history of our movement is marked by a tragic succession of events of this kind up to today, as we are joined by religious, seminarians, and priests who have had the same experience. You cannot exact a justified penalty or contrition because alone, abandoned by the pastors and betrayed by them, we have reacted to conserve the faith of our baptism or in order not to dishonor the divine Majesty. It is impossible to analyze the 1988 Consecrations without considering the tragic context in which they took place. Otherwise, things become incomprehensible and justice no longer has its due.

Furthermore, it is often said that our status would be a concession, and that we would be accorded a situation suitable to our *“special charism.”
Must one recall that what we are attached to is the **common **patrimony of the Roman Catholic Church? We do not ask nor do we seek a special status as a mark of singularity, but we want a “normal” place in the Church. So long as the Tridentine Mass is considered a particular concession, we remain marginalized, in a precarious and suspect position. It is in this perspective that we claim a right that has never been lost: that of the Mass for everyone. To reduce this right to an indult (which certain Roman voices hold to be provisory) is already to diminish it.

In the current situation, where everything of a traditional savor immediately becomes suspect, we have need of a protector and defender of our interests in the Curia. It is more a question of representing Tradition at Rome than of establishing a delegate of the Holy See for traditional matters, as in the case of *Ecclesia Dei *today. In order for this organization to have some credibility and to correspond to its purpose, it is important that it be composed of members who belong to Catholic Tradition.

To achieve a “recognition” without having first resolved these questions in principle would be to doom the proposed “practical accord” to failure, for we hope to act tomorrow with the same fidelity to Catholic Tradition as we do today.

Wanting to maintain the frankness with which we address these questions (which is not a matter of arrogance or of lack of charity), we would be condemned tomorrow as we were yesterday.

At baptism a contract is established between the Christian soul and the Church: “what do you ask of the Church?” “The faith.” This is what we ask of Rome: that Rome confirm us in the Faith, the faith of all times, the immutable faith. We have the strict right to demand this of the Roman authorities. We do not believe that we can truly progress towards a “recognition” so long as Rome will not have shown its concrete intention to dissipate the cloud which has invaded the temple of God, obscured the faith and paralyzed the supernatural life of the Church under the cover of a Council and subsequent reforms.

In the hope that this letter may make its contribution to overcoming the current inertia we assure you, Eminence, of our daily prayers for the fulfillment of your heavy duty in this grave hour of Holy Mother Church.

*+Bernard Fellay

*TRANSLATOR FOOTNOTES

 

[EddieArent]

Footnotes weren’t copied in, so I’ll post them below.
[1] ie. A declaration on the invalidity of the decree, for as Bishop Fellay points out later in the following paragraph, the 1983 Code of Canon Law is clear that neither Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer nor the four consecrated bishops of the SSPX were liable for any canonical penalties.

[2] “our” refers to the four bishops of the SSPX, respectively, Bishops Fellay, Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and de Galerreta.

1 is in Bishop Fellay’s third paragraph where he talks about the “excommunications” being lifted.

1. is also in the third paragraph towards the bottom where Bishop Fellay talks about the 1988 consecrations.

 

[Catholic29]

Since the other party has offered their supporting documentation, I thought I would add mine. Or more literally John Paul II’s. The way I see it is that it is Bishop Fellay’s word against his.

Here is the link to the letter vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

APOSTOLIC LETTER
"ECCLESIA DEI"
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)
2. This affliction was particularly felt by the Successor Peter to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church,(2) even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few. For every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross for the salvation of all.

The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church.

1. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
2. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

 

[Catholic29]

1. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.(7)

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended “harmony” which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)

To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.

1. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following:

a) a Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in the light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre;

b) this Commission is composed of a Cardinal President and other members of the Roman Curia, in a number that will be deemed opportune according to circumstances;

c) moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.(9)

1. As this year specially dedicated to the Blessed Virgin is now drawing to a close, I wish to exhort all to join in unceasing prayer that the Vicar of Christ, through the intercession of the Mother of the church, addresses to the Father in the very words of the Son: “That they all may be one!”.

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s. 2 July 1988, the tenth year of the pontificate.

Joannes Paulus PP. II

 

[Catholic29]

(1) Cf. “Informatory Note” of 16 June 1988: L’Osservatore Romano. English edition, 27 June 1988, pp. 1-2.

(2) Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Pastor Æternus, cap. 3: DS 3060.

(3) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751.

(4) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382.

(5) Vatican Council II. Const. Dei Verbum, n. 8. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dei Filius, cap. 4: DS 3020.

(6) Cf. Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16; Vatican Council I, Const. Pastor Æternus, cap. 3: DS 3060.

(7) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 386; Paul VI. Apost. Exhort. Quinque iam anni, 8 Dec. 1970: AAS 63 (1971) pp. 97-106.

(8) Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1364.

(9) Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter Quattuor abhinc annos. 3 Oct. 1984: AAS 76 (1984) pp. 1088-1089.

Copyright © Libreria Editrice Vaticana

 

[pnewton]

No one’s opinion matters except the Holy Father’s by definition of the question. This has been answered repeatedly by the apologists here who quote John Paul II. The answer is a definitive “no”.

Unless some one has a recent document by the Holy Father re-instating the communion the answer will remain"no."

 

[Sean_O_L]

Is it “fair” to take into consideration the “negotiations” for reconciliation in determining whether the SSPX is or is not in full communion with the Catholic Church?

Answer: No!

Archbishop Lefebvre wanted (and his successors are just as adamant) “reconciliation” ONLY on their terms.

As to on-going talks and/or negotiotions - it is, simply, the job of the Pope to attempt to reconcile ALL schismatics and/or heretics, in accordance with the Lord’s desire that they be “one”.

The object of reunion is to be prayed for; but, objectively, it ain’t gunna happen with the present mindset of the SSPX leaders or their most avid supporters.

It is just as much an objective fact that neither will the masses of “old” heretics and/or schismatics be reconciled for quite some time yet.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

They are not. And what I have seen written by some of their adherents, they are moving further away.

PF

 

[EddieArent]

What’s so bad about the SSPX’s terms? They aren’t looking to trash the Novus Ordo in an all or nothing deal as some might imagine. They want every Latin Rite priest to have the right to say the Mass of All Ages along with the truth to come out that the Bishops did no evil which is spelled out in Canon law for those of you in Rio Linda (as Rush would say). Further, if they do come back, what becomes of the indults and other societies (not all use the 1962 Missal, Institute of Christ the King I heard doesn’t anyway)?

 

[atsheeran]

EddieArent:

What’s so bad about the SSPX’s terms? They aren’t looking to trash the Novus Ordo in an all or nothing deal as some might imagine. They want every Latin Rite priest to have the right to say the Mass of All Ages along with the truth to come out that the Bishops did no evil which is spelled out in Canon law for those of you in Rio Linda (as Rush would say).

How can you be in communion with the pope if you want to “trash” the Mass that he celebrates?

Without getting into canonical/legal arguments, it seems clear that you cannot be in communion with the pope if you do not believe what he teaches to be true.

Likewise, are those dissenting priests/theologians who disagree with the Church on issues of abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and euthanasia in communion with the Chair of Peter? How could they be? They do not believe what the pope teaches to be true.

The great thing about having a pope in our Catholic Church is that we always have a clear gauge as to what practices and beliefs we are to adhere.

So here is a test to measure whether one is in communion with the Chair of Peter:

Do I accept the beliefs and practices that the pope holds to be true?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What’s so bad about the SSPX’s terms? They aren’t looking to trash the Novus Ordo in an all or nothing deal as some might imagine. They want every Latin Rite priest to have the right to say the Mass of All Ages along with the truth to come out that the Bishops did no evil which is spelled out in Canon law for those of you in Rio Linda (as Rush would say). Further, if they do come back, what becomes of the indults and other societies (not all use the 1962 Missal, Institute of Christ the King I heard doesn’t anyway)?

We can dictate terms to the Vicar of Christ on Earth?!?!?

 

[gelsbern]

JKirkLVNV:

We can dictate terms to the Vicar of Christ on Earth?!?!?

I have a problem with that title “Vicar of Christ”

Vicar means substitute, and there is no substitute for Christ.

And as far as dictating terms, read some church history, the pope is ONLY INFALLIBLE when he speaks ex cathedra about matters of faith. He does not maintain his infallibility on matters of discipline, that include excommunicating people.

I have been to SSPX masses, SSPV masses, FSSP masses and All of them love the Catholic Church. It is funny that the SSPX is brought up so much in here, when they like the FSSP believe the pope is the pope. The true schismatics are the SSPV, but they are hardly ever mentioned on this forum. Why is that?

I know I may come across as a supporter of the SSPX and in a way I am, but I go to the NO mass as well. The reason I support the SSPX is there is a level of reverence for God, and the Church that is missing anymore from most churches, If most churches were like what we see on EWTN, I doubt this would be an issue, in both cases where there is true respect for the church, you won’t here people talking about Survivor or American Idol while sitting in the pews, you won’t see girls with tight shirts with their navels exposed, you won’t see earrings in young men, while they are in church. You will see reverance and piety.

Perhaps is reverence and piety were brought back to the NO mass, people wouldn’t be leaving in disgust to look for it in a TLM.

 

[atsheeran]

gelsbern:

I have a problem with that title “Vicar of Christ”

Vicar means substitute, and there is no substitute for Christ.

Do you have a problem with a priest offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist in persona Christi ?

 

[gelsbern]

atsheeran:

Do you have a problem with a priest offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist in persona Christi ?

No, because it means that is taking on the role of Christ in the sacrament, but he is not acting as a substitute for Christ, as Christ is present in the Sacrament.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

gelsbern:

I have a problem with that title “Vicar of Christ”

Well then it seems you have a problem with Church teaching.

Lets look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis added)

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is “head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth” (CIC, can. 331).

1560 As Christ’s vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: “Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church.”

and at Canon Law (emphasis added)

Can. 331 The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.

Vicar means substitute, and there is no substitute for Christ.

Thats only one of the meanings.

This is what the definition of vicar found in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary says

vicar:
1 : one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy
2 : an ecclesiastical agent: as a : a Church of England incumbent receiving a stipend but not the tithes of a parish b : a member of the Episcopal clergy or laity who has charge of a mission or chapel c : a member of the clergy who exercises a broad pastoral responsibility as the representative of a prelate

And as far as dictating terms, read some church history, the pope is ONLY INFALLIBLE when he speaks ex cathedra about matters of faith. He does not maintain his infallibility on matters of discipline, that include excommunicating people.

This is a misunderstanding. The pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals when he is doing so in union with the Magisterium. Also he is infallible when he pomulgates the documents of a Council. When he canonizes a saint, that is infallible.

When he excommunicates a person, he is doing so as the Keys were handed to him and what he binds on Earth is bound in Heaven.

Matthew 16
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18
18: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I have been to SSPX masses, SSPV masses, FSSP masses and All of them love the Catholic Church. It is funny that the SSPX is brought up so much in here, when they like the FSSP believe the pope is the pope. The true schismatics are the SSPV, but they are hardly ever mentioned on this forum. Why is that?

Please explain how they the SSPX loves the Church when they refuse to place themselves under its authority?

The SSPV are even worse as they say the Chair of Peter is vancant, they say we haven’t had a Pope since before Vatican II.

The FSSP are the only ones faithful to the Church.

 

[atsheeran]

ByzCath:

Well then it seems you have a problem with Church teaching.

Lets look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis added)

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is “head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth” (CIC, can. 331).

1560 As Christ’s vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: “Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church.”

and at Canon Law (emphasis added)

Can. 331 The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.

Thats only one of the meanings.

This is what the definition of vicar found in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary says

vicar:
1 : one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy
2 : an ecclesiastical agent: as a : a Church of England incumbent receiving a stipend but not the tithes of a parish b : a member of the Episcopal clergy or laity who has charge of a mission or chapel c : a member of the clergy who exercises a broad pastoral responsibility as the representative of a prelate

This is a misunderstanding. The pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals when he is doing so in union with the Magisterium. Also he is infallible when he pomulgates the documents of a Council. When he canonizes a saint, that is infallible.

When he excommunicates a person, he is doing so as the Keys were handed to him and what he binds on Earth is bound in Heaven.

Matthew 16
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18
18: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Please explain how they the SSPX loves the Church when they refuse to place themselves under its authority?

The SSPV are even worse as they say the Chair of Peter is vancant, they say we haven’t had a Pope since before Vatican II.

The FSSP are the only ones faithful to the Church.

Well said!