SSPX Could Return This Week - Agreement With Rome Near

[ethelzguy]

As the saying goes “Don’t be so Silly”.

If you want to quote something don’t take it out of context.

What is out of context? It is clear that the SSPX is clinging to a snippet of time in the Catholic Church, refusing to adhere to what has transpired since then, and in some cases before.

As you highlighted…“what was once the mainstream…” apparently isn’t “the mainstream” any more.

What went on in the Middle Ages was “once mainstream” as compared to the 40’s and 50’s as well.

 

[Margarite]

The SSPX seems to claim that everything before VAT II is good and everything else since isn’t good. Well, I was reading the story of St. Teresa of Avila, she was living in a horrible time. The nuns in her order could receive visitors at all hours of the night, wore jewelry, had parties, didn’t pray out of fake humility, saw fake visions, etc… It sounds equal if not worse than today! And then when she tried to reform the Spanish Inquisition kept investigating her. But you notice, she didn’t leave the Church, she didn’t set up her own group that declared themselves better at judging good and evil than the Pope. It took her two years to get permission to start her conservative order, but she didn’t leave.

laudamus te I asked you who gave the SSPX the authority and you answered Cannon law, but could you please give me a quote from cannon law that states that what the SSPX is doing is AOK? I don’t think you can because it is wrong.

You posted this:

I want to apologize to you for all of the SSPX bashing. I am not with the SSPX, don’t know anyone that is.
It is OK to disagree with the SSPX but to bash them more than you would the Orthodox, who have their own pope, or protestants that deny everything is simply wrong.
This situation between the SSPX and Rome is very serious.There are clearly doctrinal issues that need to be resolved. The SSPX interprets Religious Liberty differently that the Vatican II council. Maybe behind closed doors these issues are being worked out. The definition of Ecumenism is different for the SSPX than what is practiced by churchmen like Cardinal Kasper. This needs to be worked out.

I know that the SSPX is frustrated when they see theologians like Hans Kung, who denies papal infallibility among other things, and is allowed to be a priest in good standing and NOT excommunicated. Or theologian Charles Curran who teaches that the pill, abortion, homosexuality, pre-martial sex are fine and dandy and has NOT been excommunicated.

It is in God’s hands. These disputes are nothing new.
This is a good example of charity. Catharina, pnewton, Margarite et al, take note. The venomous lies spewed forth on this thread towards the SSPX is disgusting. I wonder how some of you can sleep at night.

But you see, we don’t deny the problems in the Church, what we do say is that it is wrong for people who claim to be Catholic to “bash” the pope (who is our best hope for healing). We are more upset with the SSPX because they only recently split, and we don’t want them to end up like the protestants and the Easter churches. We want them to come back, but under no uncertain terms. I can’t believe Laudamus Te, that you would prefer to be treated as a protestant! We don’t spew lies, but rather expose the SSPX for what it is. I have to go to mass.

 

[catharina]

I know that the SSPX is frustrated when they see theologians like Hans Kung, who denies papal infallibility among other things, and is allowed to be a priest in good standing and NOT excommunicated. Or theologian Charles Curran who teaches that the pill, abortion, homosexuality, pre-martial sex are fine and dandy and has NOT been excommunicated.

It is in God’s hands. These disputes are nothing new.
This is a good example of charity. Catharina, pnewton, Margarite et al, take note. The venomous lies spewed forth on this thread towards the SSPX is disgusting. I wonder how some of you can sleep at night.

I understand that you are quoting someone else.
However, speaking the truth cannot be called “uncharitable.”

Both Kung and Curran have submittd to the authority of the Pope. When each was censured by the Holy Father, each ACCEPTED the censure. Their response is the polar oposite of the sspx bishops’ ongoing repudiation of Rome’s authority.

 

[Auntie_M]

There was nothing there, and it expired on 6/20. I take no offense at your trying at all…even though it is useless…I have seen the poisonous anti-SSPX sites before. More importantly, I would suggest to you, read the history of the Second Vatican Council…read about the history of Archbishop LeFebvre and the consecrations, read this website:
sspx.org/
Thanks…

Dear I HAVE READ their sites and even attended some of their masses.I have also read all about LeFebvre and the “ordinations” (just another Luther) But when the priest stood IN THE PULPIT and bragged that “We have the Vatican on the run” (before the moto proprio) and have a computer taken out the FRONT door and smashed at the bottom of the steps (cause “father” doesn’t like computers). Yet He and his cohorts are all over the net. There has GOT to be something wrong with that scenerio.

The masses at the SSPX chapels I visited preached HATE from the pulpit. I’m sorry but if I want to hear that, I’ll go to Obama’s church.

Preaching hate is no where in our 2,000 year old history.

 

[ethelzguy]

Preaching hate is no where in our 2,000 year old history.

Weeeeellllllllllllllll…we DO preach to “hate the sin, but love the sinner…”

 

[bobzills]

But you see, we don’t deny the problems in the Church, …

Well then, what are you doing about them? I don’t see your solution to the huge increase in marriage annulments since Vatican II. Here are some statistics:
Marriage annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
Here is a quote from Father Doherty:
Fr. Doherty quotes a Tribunal official as saying:
There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.
Now if the Church has set up tribunals which are giving out marriage annulments to just about anyone who asks for them on the most trivial of grounds, how does that support the teaching of the RCC on the indissolubility of marriage?
And I have read that more and more Catholic couples are living together without the benefit of marriage. Could it be that they are asking themselves as to why go through all the bother and hassel and expense of getting married, when ten or fifteen years down the line, the Church will decide that there really was no marriage anyway because we were using artificial contraception.And what percentage of Caholic couples today are using artificial contraception?

 

[pnewton]

and have a computer taken out the FRONT door and smashed at the bottom of the steps .

Now which one of us hasn’t wanted to do that from time to time. Let he who is without sin throw the first desktop.

 

[JReducation]

There is a big difference between hating the sin and hating the sinner. In addition the point of this thread is the return of the SSPX, not the sins of the SSPX or the popes. “Let him who has not sin throw the first stone.”

The SSPX has been given conditions that they must meet by June 30 if they want the excommunications lifted.

1. They must submit the authority of the Pope.
2. They must cease preaching against the Pope from the pulpit or in public arenas.
3. They must accept that Vatican II was an authoritative council (not an infallible council).
4. Their bishops must be willing to join the other bishops who function in union with the Holy Father, not as lone rangers, and accept that their is no ther Magisterium but the Pope. They cannot be their own Magisterium or claim that previous popes have authority over the current Pope.
5. They may accept to have their own prelature, which would allow them to have their own seminaries and organizations as long as those seminaries and organizations remain faithful to the Pope.

In essence the big question is why are they not willing to accept the authority of the Pope, when the say that they recognize that the Pope is the legitimate successor of Peter and the legitimate head of the Catholic Church.?

Another issue is, if they reject this invitation, their bishops are not in communion with their brother bishops and are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is a requirement of all bishops since the foundation of the Church. Therefore, do their bishops have any episcopal authority? Can four bishops constitute the only legitimate body of bishops for the Catholic Church and over 500 bishops be ignored?

The question of this thread is what is best for the Catholic lay person, if the SSPX leadership refuses to accept this invitation?

Are Catholic lay men and women willing to risk being excommunicated as heretics?

There is no canonical argument against such an excommunication, because a Pope can excommunicate without the use of Canon Law. The Pope is always above Canon Law. He is the Supreme Canon Lawyer. This is in Canon Law itself.

**Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.**

The Pontiff has power over all the churches (dioceses and groups, such as SSPX)

The bishops always join him in communion. There are no lone rangers or four lone rangers.

There are no appeals or recourse against any sentence, this includes a decree of heressy against the members of SSPX, if he so chooses. There is no appeal to a higher authority. The law is not above the Pontif.

The only appeal is to prayer, once such a thing happens.

I for one like some traditions of the Catholic Church, but am not willing to be excommunicated as a heretic for speaking as if I had more authority or knowledge about the faith than the Pope does. This is the point that Ecclesia Dei is speaking about. This is why they are recommending that the next step be a decree of heressy.

You can disagree, but cannot claim to know the truth and say that the Pope does not. You cannot say that the Pope should not be obeyed, because he made a mistake, especially not from the pulpit. That’s what the different Vatican commissions are for, to present these concerns. You must be willing to accept the response, as someone said about St. Teresa of Avila. The same can be said for Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa, Dorothy Day, Catherine of Siena and even Joseph Ratzinger himself.

Ratzinger agreed with John Paul II on some things and simply obeyed on others.

Will the SSPX agree to the conditioins of return? Is the laity willing to risk a decree of excommunication rather than work through the issues from within the Church?

JR

 

[Auntie_M]

Thanks, I will keep you in my prayers…it doesn’t frustrate me however, not at all…I don’t mind pointing out the unjust behavior towards the SSPX…someone has to do it.

UNJUST behavior…my,my piouswoman, you certainly have your blinders on. I have heard and read more “NO” attacks on your sspx websites than I have ever heard here.

 

[JReducation]

Well then, what are you doing about them? I don’t see your solution to the huge increase in marriage annulments since Vatican II. Here are some statistics:
Marriage annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
Here is a quote from Father Doherty:
Fr. Doherty quotes a Tribunal official as saying:
There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.
Now if the Church has set up tribunals which are giving out marriage annulments to just about anyone who asks for them on the most trivial of grounds, how does that support the teaching of the RCC on the indissolubility of marriage?
And I have read that more and more Catholic couples are living together without the benefit of marriage. Could it be that they are asking themselves as to why go through all the bother and hassel and expense of getting married, when ten or fifteen years down the line, the Church will decide that there really was no marriage anyway because we were using artificial contraception.And what percentage of Caholic couples today are using artificial contraception?

Be careful. A decree of nullity is not a disolution of the marriage bond. That teaching remains the same. The marriage bond cannot be dissolved by man.

A decree of nullity is a statement that there never was a marriage bond. There was a wedding, but no marriage.

Given the world in which we live where people enter into marriage without must consideration as to what they are entering into and with the attitude that if it does not work out, I’ll get a divorce, there are many weddings, but few marriages.

A marriage is null and void from the beginning if the person or persons entering the marriage has the attitude that they will get out if the situation gets tough. That kind of thinking automatically invalidates the marriage. We have a lot of that kind of thinking today, probably more than ever before. That’s one reason why we have no many invalid marriages.

Another requirement for marriage is to allow the possibility to have a family. Today more than ever, people are entering marriage with plans to limit their family using means that are contrary to the teaching of the Church. If you enter the marriage with that plan in mind, there is not marriage.

Then you have marriages of convenience. Just look at public figures. In the past we also had these. But society accepted them. Two families married their children to combine their power and resources. Today people marry for other conveniences. For the sacrament to be valid, there must be love, not convenience. Now, we have people admitting that they entered the marriage for convenience. In the past, people saw this a normal. Today, people are willing to admit that this is the wrong reason.

You also have more men and women coming out of the gay closet. This was never done before. A gay man or woman cannot contract a valid marriage. Many have done so as a cover or out of fear of being discovered. As the fear dissipates, people come out of the closet. Or when a spouse discovers that the other is gay, they are more open about it. This makes the marriage invalid. There was never a marriage. This was not the case in the past. People hid these things because of shame.

Finally, you have the domain of psychological maturity. Are the parties mature enough to be married? We did not have the knowledge of human development and psychology 50 years ago that we have today. We can clearly see that some people entered into marriage with some idealistic vision, that was not mature. Inmaturity makes a valid marrige impossible.

The Church is not disolving marriages. It is recognizing that there are many people out there who are not married, even though they went through a wedding ceremony. They can’t be married because they do not meet the criteria for marriage.

Many of these issues did not exist or were kept well hidden and people lived with great suffering and covered it up out of shame.

The Church does not believe that marriage should be a relationship of shame, but one of love and productivity, if possible, children.

JR

 

[Margarite]

Well then, what are you doing about them? I don’t see your solution to the huge increase in marriage annulments since Vatican II. Here are some statistics:
Marriage annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
Here is a quote from Father Doherty:
Fr. Doherty quotes a Tribunal official as saying:
There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.
Now if the Church has set up tribunals which are giving out marriage annulments to just about anyone who asks for them on the most trivial of grounds, how does that support the teaching of the RCC on the indissolubility of marriage?
And I have read that more and more Catholic couples are living together without the benefit of marriage. Could it be that they are asking themselves as to why go through all the bother and hassel and expense of getting married, when ten or fifteen years down the line, the Church will decide that there really was no marriage anyway because we were using artificial contraception.And what percentage of Caholic couples today are using artificial contraception?

I wrote you a while ago about the annulment stuff.
And, as far as what I am doing. Well, I am 19, so outside of this forum, most people won’t listen, I have tried joining my local youth group, but the leader (who knew nothing) wouldn’t let me help her, and it was horrible. So, I have been trying to lead by example until I have a degree (despite SSPX feelings about women and college) to back up my words. I am young yes, and I can understand why people older than me wouldn’t listen to me, so, I lead by example until I am older, wiser, and am old enough that people will listen. Also, a degree in Liberal Arts (Philosophy, Theology, Latin, etc…) will help to back up my words, and I will have the classical training to know how to back up my words successfully. If I was in the SSPX, I couldn’t do anything for years until I found a husband and had children and then I could teach my children, but I still couldn’t teach them as well as I could if I had a degree. But since I am not in the SSPX, I am able to go to college and start trying to help the Church sooner rather than later. God Bless Pope Benedict XVI!
Have a Wonder Full Sunday!
Have a Wonderful St. Peter & St. Paul Feast Day!

PS: Today, we slept in too late to attend our local hybrid mass, so we had to go to the NO. While the music was better than usual, but still bad, the priest gave a great sermon about paying attention and really praying the mass, not just saying the words and doing the actions. It was a really brave sermon considering many of the people there were doing exactly what he was preaching against, but even if it didn’t help them, it did help those of us who do try to pray the mass, it reassured us that he is on our side. We in the NO, aren’t all bad, we are trying, and slowly we are succeeding. This is the same priest who is trying to learn the TLM in his almost non-existent free time!

 

[BrendanD]

since I am not in the SSPX, I am able to go to college and start trying to help the Church sooner rather than later.

If you’re trying to say that the SSPX don’t let women go to college, you should consider that the SSPX’s very own college admits women.

 

[laudamus_te]

laudamus te I asked you who gave the SSPX the authority and you answered Cannon law, but could you please give me a quote from cannon law that states that what the SSPX is doing is AOK? I don’t think you can because it is wrong.

Canon 1323, #4.

But you see, we don’t deny the problems in the Church, what we do say is that it is wrong for people who claim to be Catholic to “bash” the pope (who is our best hope for healing). We are more upset with the SSPX because they only recently split, and we don’t want them to end up like the protestants and the Easter churches. We want them to come back, but under no uncertain terms. I can’t believe Laudamus Te, that you would prefer to be treated as a protestant! We don’t spew lies, but rather expose the SSPX for what it is. I have to go to mass.

Margarite, if criticizing the Pope when he acts counter to the immemorial teachings of the Church is “bashing,” then yes, guilty as charged. But to say nothing when the Pope kisses the Koran, prays in a mosque, attends inter-religious “services” in Catholic shrines; is to comply with error. I’m sorry if you see it as “bashing.” Nowhere is it laid down in Catholic law that the Pope is above criticism. If you can show me where it is proven to be “not Catholic” to criticize the Pope in such grave matters as these, I’ll apologize immediately.

I’m sorry for my harsh language earlier (“spewing lies”). But your statements regarding the SSPX, presented as facts, were most blatantly false.

You do not need to be on some mission to “expose the SSPX.” If they do anything evil, it will expose itself by their fruits. But their thriving society is, to me, a sign that they are blessed with the Holy Ghost.

 

[pnewton]

Have a Wonder Full Sunday!
Have a Wonderful St. Peter & St. Paul Feast Day!

We had a wonderful sermon from St. Augustine (in LOTH). I couldn’t help but reflect back to this topic and the importance of the keys of the kingdom in light of the stewardship passed on from Peter to Pope Benedict XVI. Sure, there have been those since St. Paul who stood against a pope for this or that. But it was always done with the utmost respect for the office, if not the person. I would sure like to see Fellay handle things better than Lefebvre. It has now been twenty years and much harm could have been avoided if only he would have responded at that time with humility and obedience. The good Lefebvre could have done within the confines of the Catholic Church will now never be known.

 

[Margarite]

Canon 1323, #4.

Can. 1323 – The following are not subject to penalties when they have violated a law or precept:
4° a person who acted out of grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or out of necessity or out of serious inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or verges on harm to souls;
But don’t you see, While Lefebvre may have been acting out of fear, at the same time, that act may harm thousands of souls! For argument’s sake, what if Lefebvre was wrong, wouldn’t that put thousands of souls at risk? Just think about that.

Margarite, if criticizing the Pope when he acts counter to the immemorial teachings of the Church is “bashing,” then yes, guilty as charged. But to say nothing when the Pope kisses the Koran, prays in a mosque, attends inter-religious “services” in Catholic shrines; is to comply with error. I’m sorry if you see it as “bashing.” Nowhere is it laid down in Catholic law that the Pope is above criticism. If you can show me where it is proven to be “not Catholic” to criticize the Pope in such grave matters as these, I’ll apologize immediately.

I’m sorry for my harsh language earlier (“spewing lies”). But your statements regarding the SSPX, presented as facts, were most blatantly false.

If you think of the pope as your father, would you say the things you say about the pope if he was your father? Or even if you did, would you say them in the same way? I doubt it.

As far as the pope honoring other religions, it is like a president who honors other political leaders. He may not like the way they do things, he may dislike them entirely, but in the intrest of peace and in the interest of those who are under the care of that person, it is their duty to be cordial.
As far as religion, the Pope is honoring the other religions for what they have done for the world, and honoring their religions just as we expect them to honor ours. He is doing this in the interest of World peace, but also in the interest of converting those who are of different faiths. As St. Francis said “Preach always and when necessary use words.” The pope is preaching with his actions, he is showing Catholicism as a Christian religion where we treat others cordially and even open our arms to them, but at the same time the pope releases very definitive statements such as a year ago when he said that “Christian communities were either defective or not true churches.” And then he contradicted many of his bishops by allowing the EF to be said anywhere at any time. These are hardly the acts of a man who is stepping aside and letting the liberals take over. He is saying, “Yes we do accept that you exist and that you help the world, but we also want to make it clear that we are the best and that you should join us, not be against us. But if you are not for us, we refuse to compromise to persuade you to join up.”

You do not need to be on some mission to “expose the SSPX.” If they do anything evil, it will expose itself by their fruits. But their thriving society is, to me, a sign that they are blessed with the Holy Ghost.
I’m sorry, but I disagree, just because there have been times of extreme trouble in the Church both recently and in the past (See St. Theresa of Avila) doesn’t mean anything bad about the Church. And just because something is thriving doesn’t mean it is good. Look at the protestant communities, they can’t be said to be doing anything but thriving! And we both agree that they are not the Church, not what Christ intended. So, this is a silly argument. Just because something is thriving does not mean that it is good, give the SSPX 400 years, and they will be just like the Protestants. But give them a thousand years or two thousand years, and none of them will compare to the Catholic Church which will still be the same, and will still be thriving.
I’m sure the Pope chose this weekend for the SSPX’s chance to rejoin the Church because it was the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, and I pray that through their intercession, the SSPX will accept the Pope’s terms and will come back to the faith. But if not, don’t worry we will keep praying just as we pray for all other religions to someday join the Church in the fight against the evil one.
Have a Wonder Full Day! (Wouldn’t it be a wonder if the SSPX came back!) It is 107 degrees outside, so I am going swimming! See you tomorrow!

 

[laudamus_te]

Can. 1323 – The following are not subject to penalties when they have violated a law or precept:
4° a person who acted out of grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or out of necessity or out of serious inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or verges on harm to souls;
But don’t you see, While Lefebvre may have been acting out of fear, at the same time, that act may harm thousands of souls! For argument’s sake, what if Lefebvre was wrong, wouldn’t that put thousands of souls at risk? Just think about that.

I have thought about that. The consecrations were not intrinsically evil. As far as harming souls, I can just as easily counter that the NOM is harming souls. It most certainly was harming mine at one point.

If you think of the pope as your father, would you say the things you say about the pope if he was your father? Or even if you did, would you say them in the same way? I doubt it.

I would most certainly speak to my father in the same way as the pope. To not speak out if my father was doing something harmful would be false charity and placing human respect above God.

As far as the pope honoring other religions, it is like a president who honors other political leaders. He may not like the way they do things, he may dislike them entirely, but in the intrest of peace and in the interest of those who are under the care of that person, it is their duty to be cordial.
As far as religion, the Pope is honoring the other religions for what they have done for the world, and honoring their religions just as we expect them to honor ours. He is doing this in the interest of World peace, but also in the interest of converting those who are of different faiths.

The Church does not honor other religions. This is heresy, because it is saying that those religions are good. The Church always is charitable with those of false religions, but never, never honors them. There is an element of good in all false religions, but they are not good of themselves, and are not a means to salvation. Your words are such a sad testament to the confusion which the ecumenism since VII has produced.

As St. Francis said “Preach always and when necessary use words.” The pope is preaching with his actions, he is showing Catholicism as a Christian religion where we treat others cordially and even open our arms to them, but at the same time the pope releases very definitive statements such as a year ago when he said that “Christian communities were either defective or not true churches.”

And just exactly what was JPII preaching when he kissed the Koran? Please tell me. Being mindful that the Koran blasphemes Our Lord.

And then he contradicted many of his bishops by allowing the EF to be said anywhere at any time.

Yes, this was a very brave thing for the Pope to do, and it has been much appreciated, including by the SSPX. Bishop Fellay has thanked him most sincerely for this.

These are hardly the acts of a man who is stepping aside and letting the liberals take over.

You know what it is, Margarite? They are the acts of a man who is attempting to compromise Tradition with Modernism. It does not work - it will never work.

I’m sorry, but I disagree, just because there have been times of extreme trouble in the Church both recently and in the past (See St. Theresa of Avila) doesn’t mean anything bad about the Church. And just because something is thriving doesn’t mean it is good. Look at the protestant communities, they can’t be said to be doing anything but thriving! And we both agree that they are not the Church, not what Christ intended. So, this is a silly argument. Just because something is thriving does not mean that it is good, give the SSPX 400 years, and they will be just like the Protestants. But give them a thousand years or two thousand years, and none of them will compare to the Catholic Church which will still be the same, and will still be thriving.

Well, I wish I had that crystal ball of yours. On second thought, never mind, that’s sinful. Anyway, your opinion about the fruits of the SSPX does not make it true, any more than mine does. We can only disagree.

 

[ProVobis]

Now Bishop Williamson negates many of he beatifications and canonizations after Vatican II.

Well, if he’s excommunicated, why even read what he says? I’d have bitter feelings towards someone (JPII) who damaged my reputation too, not to mention my soul. I’m not saying that he is right, but we should read what he said following Vatican II and before he was excommunicated. After all, what’s he to lose at this point as far as anti-SSPXers go? He’s not going to score too many points with them either way. As I understand it, it’s up to Bishop Fellay to set him straight. He’s the one who will make or break the relationship with the Vatican, not Bishop Williamson, not your local SSPX priest. Of course it’s entirely possible that the SSPX will be accepted in part(s), but that’s another topic.

 

[ProVobis]

If you’re trying to say that the SSPX don’t let women go to college, you should consider that the SSPX’s very own college admits women.

Of course but the truth doesn’t sit well with gossipers and slanderers.

 

[wanner47]

Of course but the truth doesn’t cut it for gossipers and slanderists.

I think all participants in this debate would do well to think more on charity.

I’m heading to Mass in about an hour and will make that a specific prayer intention.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I pray that St Pius X, will guide those who chose his name, back to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, The Roman Catholic Church. and those in union with her.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B