SSPX Update - Redux

[Julia_Mae]

It’s more complex than just acknowledging the primacy. They must also believe what the Catholic Church believes. The Sui Iuris Churches believe what the Latin Church believes. We’re not separated by beliefs. Our theology is different in focus, but not in content.

I’m sorry, this is too subtle for me. If the SSPX claims to be part of the Romans Catholic Church, and acknowledges the authority of the Pope, then they must affirm Vatican 2. When they reject what the Pope says, orders, requires, they in fact reject his authority.

However, they do not deny the authority of the Holy Father. They have said that they accept his authority, but will not comply. Which is complicated to decipher.

(I know, I quoted out of order) So if they will not acknowledge the authority of Pope Benedict XVI by obedience, but they say they acknowledge the Papacy, but are disobedient to the man, they are refusing to acknowledge the man is legitimately occupying the Chair of Peter. Is there some other way to interpret this?

Is there a link to their acceptance of the Pope’s authority? I’d like to see how they worded it.

 

[JReducation]

I’m sorry, this is too subtle for me. If the SSPX claims to be part of the Romans Catholic Church, and acknowledges the authority of the Pope, then they must affirm Vatican 2. When they reject what the Pope says, orders, requires, they in fact reject his authority.

(I know, I quoted out of order) So if they will not acknowledge the authority of Pope Benedict XVI by obedience, but they say they acknowledge the Papacy, but are disobedient to the man, they are refusing to acknowledge the man is legitimately occupying the Chair of Peter. Is there some other way to interpret this?

Is there a link to their acceptance of the Pope’s authority? I’d like to see how they worded it.

I believe that if you go to the SSPX site, you may find the exact words that Bishop Fellay used.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Where did the Carmelite and Dominican Rites go? They should be under the Latin Rites. They’re not there.

Hey, I didn’t write the thing, I barely understand it myself! Copy it into Word and add the Rites and attach the file. I’m all for fixin’ stuff.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I believe that if you go to the SSPX site, you may find the exact words that Bishop Fellay used.

Well, there are a LOT of documents and I don’t know which on you had in mind, but I did find this:
sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/what_catholics_need_to_know.htm

Let us review the current situation of the Society of St. Pius X and its relations with Rome. Our status with Rome remains and will always be a very important question. When I refer to Rome, of course, I refer to the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II and the hierarchy. Obviously, the Catholic Church is unthinkable without this hierarchy, without its head, the Pope, and so we are attached to it. We adhere to it and at the same time we protest energetically. Despite its adherence, the Society of St. Pius X is considered a black sheep. All kinds of labels are our glory, like “excommunicated,” “schismatic,” etc.

Their “status with Rome” (which he defines as certain persons) is “a very important question.”

The Catholic Church is “unthinkable” without the hierarchy and the Pope and “we are attached to it.”

It.

They are attached to the structure of the Church?

 

[Aramis]

An interesting thread. Not to take us off-topic, but for the information of those who hadn’t heard of this like myself:

So, did I miss an answer? Did the SSPX get some sort of dispensation to keep ordaining subdeacons and acolytes?

No. While they were a Pia Unia, they had permission to install acolytes, and call them subdeacons.

The FSSP and ICRSS have permission to ordain subdeacons, tho’.

 

[Dee_S]

I didnt know about Joseph’s seven joys and griefs.

What are they - can you point to a website with them?

Thanks

Godric

Twitter Theology?

I came across them recently, had been many years since I had prayed them. I have a book about St Joseph Called The Divine Favors of St Joseph by Pere Binet, it was an eye opener to all the priveleges etc of this humble and little known, but very great saint.

The sorrows/joys can be found at the following link:
catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/prayers/view.cfm?id=1008&repos=3&subrepos=3&searchid=966746

 

[numealinesimpet]

I can’t see anything wrong with what this bishop said:

Here are my own reflections on Bp Buckley’s statements:

Church will not reject people, says bishop
irishexaminer.com/ireland/church-will-not-reject-people-says-bishop-218553.html
Friday, January 04, 2013
Report by By Claire O’Sullivan, Irish Examiner Newspaper
The Catholic Church will not reject people because they use contraception, don’t attend Mass every Sunday, have sex outside marriage or live lives that run counter to the ideals of the Church, according to the Bishop of Cork and Ross.

nume: The Catholic Church never rejects “people” but she is mandated to condemn certain types of behaviour. “Hate the sin but love the sinner”. This is what everybody expects the Church to do.

Bishop John Buckley has said the central tenets of Catholicism were not established as rules of memberships but as “ideals”.*

nume: Yet Our Lord said, *"If you love me, you will keep my commandments *(John 14:15-30).
S. Paul adds,
“Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.
I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. (1Cor 10:12–15)
And he adds,
For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! (1Cor 9:16)

Bp. Buckley: “These are all ideals that we must try to live up to. If you do not meet all these ideals, it does not mean that you cannot take your place at the table the Lord has prepared for you.”

nume: There are many in Cork who, if they read this, will definitely take it as an invitation to receive the Blessed Eucharist while they are still in a state of mortal sin, which is a sacrilege – when salvation was only a step away, in the confessional.

Bp. Buckley: The Church is a refuge for the weak, not a home for the perfect.

nume: It is a place where the weak, who are striving to improve, will find help and support to improve – even to strive for perfection. It is not a place where the weak may rest in their sins. That would be the Sin of Presumption. as the Catechism tells us: Presumption is the expecting salvation without doing the things God has set as their prerequisites.

Bp. Buckley: “I welcome all to the Church and I would encourage everyone to welcome all. I will hear no condemnation or rejection of people. Jesus loves his people no less in their absence,” he said.*

nume: The Church welcomes all who wish to find salvation. Jesus loves all, which is why He died on the Cross to give us the Catholic Church. But He also said very clearly,
"Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Mt 7:21)

Bp. Buckley: In an end-of-year interview, he said he welcomed with open arms those who only turn up to Mass once a year, namely Christmas Day.*

nume: With respect, no Bishop has the right to leave it at this - unless he suggests, however tactfully, that they come with the intention of amending their ways. Many Irish who describe themselves as Catholics nowadays get very offended at the very suggestion that they need to amend their ways - including turning up for Mass, relinquishing their cohabitation - and contraceptives are not even up for discussion. If our own pastors will not tell them, who else can? And how else can they begin to live as Christ commanded? From my conversations it is clear that only one or two priests in the diocese tackle these questions, whereas they are dealt with very firmly from the pulpit in the SSPX Mass centres. (and at every Mass, in the correct place, the celebrant prays for the diocesan bishop, and Pope Benedict, by name).

Bp. Buckley: “Irish people have a religious instinct. I believe that firmly. People retain that instinct even though they are not regular Massgoers. They may not attend regularly, but they still retain their affiliations. You will see them at funerals, at communions, even though they may have grown casual or careless,” he says.*

nume: What is a “religious instinct”?
The old proverb is, “It takes three generations to lose the Faith”. The Irish nation are teetering on the edge. Bp Buckley is describing the adherence to empty rituals as though it were a sign of Faith. It is the opposite. Very many people in Ireland bring their children to First Holy Communion as a big social event. The little girls parade around in their lovely white dresses for the rest of the day. Now I do love that – but they are not taught what Holy Communion really is: the diocesan mandated textbooks do not teach it, or else mince around it. The evening in the pub or restaurant overshadows it all. And we have a bad habit of giving very large cash presents to the children. For them it is like Christmas - and with the same pushing of Christ into the background. Confirmation is in effect “The Sacrament of Leaving the Church”. The bishop sees a packed church and believes all is well, as he has said himself on several occasions. But that is the last that most of them are inside a church for years, if ever again. The bishop has been told this, but he will not acknowledge it. And it is very true that the Irish race, whether by heredity or culture, are very open to spiritual influences. (Naturally I am talking in generalities, and assume the reader is able to understand). They make fervent Catholics when they are well formed. But when they lose the Faith they are not satisfied by the mindless alcohol-sex-sport-and-TV (unlike so many Australians and English) but will go for suicide, cults and Satanism. I know some personally. [cont’d]

 

[numealinesimpet]

[cont’d]

Bishop Buckley said that people needed to realise, especially in a time of recession, that religion is about hope and strength and not about condemnation.*

nume: He is giving them no hope, paradoxically. By ‘accepting them as they are’ he is promising to leave them in the hopeless spiritual state they are already in. Before, these sects knew there was no hope of attracting Catholics, because we knew our Faith. People want re-assurance, and an emotional appeal of open arms is not enough. They want rules that they can tell themselves they keep. That is precisely why the groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses are making converts. The Catholic has the Ten Commandments – and the Precepts of the Church – and the Confessional when he falls. But the people are no longer being told these things clearly. As a result, they do not avail of the Sacraments, and then wonder why they are discontented.

Bp. Buckley: “For all the talk of Mass attendance falling, if the church was a political party, it would form a one-party government with an overwhelming majority in this country.

nume: College students at present are leaving the Church in huge numbers – and most of them have never in their lives been taught the catechism. They do not even know what they are rejecting. I was talking to the Principal of a large Second Level (12 - 19) school last week. On pure National statistics, the population here would be 95%+ nominal Catholics. Yet he said the great majority of parents do not attend regular Mass, send their children to First Communion and confirmation as social occasions, and that he would be astonished if a single one of the pupils was able to recite the Ten Commandments.

I am one of the 4 speakers (1 priest + 3 lay) at our (mainstream) parish programme of preparation of children for First Confession and Holy Communion. We give a series of talks to the parents. Actually, it is the parents who need the catechesis. Although well over 95% of them went to Catholic Schools, they actually do not know the basic material we are giving them. Very thankfully, our good priest is aware of this. Not all priests in the diocese can see this at all.

Bp. Buckley: “Jesus Christ is a message of hope, a message of joy, we must share it. As Pope Benedict said ‘many people now think the Church is a collection of prohibitions, but it is not. It’s positive, it’s totally different,” he said.*

nume: Selective quotation here. It is far more, but it is not less. Believe me, the people of Ireland will respect their bishops far more if they see them proclaiming the truth - including the hard sayings - without fear or favour.

• – we will stand behind you.”*

 

[numealinesimpet]

What we have lost in the New Catechesis since 1969

The following is a true story related by Fr Hugh Thwaites S.J.:

At a Catholic Primary School in England in the 1950s, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools was examining the class. At the end of the session, he relaxed and said, “Now, children, I have something to tell you. I have been an Inspector for many years, but now I am due to retire. In fact, you are the last class I shall be inspecting. Now all these years, I have been questioning you pupils. Now that I am at the end of my working life, … would you like to ask me a question? Anything?” There was silence for a moment. The Inspector and the class teacher smiled and waited. At length one young cherub put up his hand. “Yes?” asked the Inspector. The child said, “Why did God make you?” This rocked the Inspector back on his heels. Although perhaps not a very regular chapel-goer, he was a Christian – but he had never actually asked himself that question. He scratched his head and repeated, more to himself than to the class, “Yes! Why did God make me?” And the entire class, in unison, replied, “God made me to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next”! [Westminster Catechism, Q2]. The inspector was so taken aback, and impressed, by this response, that he began a journey that one year later led to his being received into the Catholic Church.

What have we gained by dumping the teaching of the Catechism? And who ordered it? I have never seen a document of Vatican II that said we were to stop teaching the Truths of the Faith in a simple way. The English language Religious Education textbooks, mandated by Diocesan authority, have not been presenting the basic data of the Catholic Faith for decades. Yet bishops in this time have sometimes expressed surprise that the Catechism is no longer being taught in the schools. It is not really true that young college age people are abandoning the Faith: they have never been taught what it is, and neither have their parents.

There are parents who are sending their children to the SSPX Mass centres here and England (I speak only of my personal knowledge) precisely so that they will be taught the catechism. One of my daughters is at a major college in Dublin, and has a wide circle of friends, including very many from Youth 2000, whose functions she attends regularly. She is a regular attender at the SSPX Mass. She knows only one other young person, not SSPX, who has anything but the most rudimentary knowledge of the Faith. And there is no sign of their knowledge being deepened. The very great majority of the students are scathingly critical of the Faith which their ancestors have kept for 1500 years. Yet they do not actually know enough about it to make an informed judgment.

I have noticed that Pope Benedict has very recently decided to transfer the responsibility for catechesis in seminaries. See
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-transfers-responsibility-for-catechesis-seminaries/
As a school teacher (of science and religion), I have been frustrated most of my professional life by the deficient content of the diocesan-approved Religion courses, in Ireland, England and Australia. I do not know what was behind His Holiness’ decision, but if it results in better-informed Catholic youth, then Deo Gratias.

 

[Aramis]

So, did I miss an answer? Did the SSPX get some sort of dispensation to keep ordaining subdeacons and acolytes?

No. While they were a Pia Unia, they had permission to install acolytes, and call them subdeacons.

The FSSP and ICRSS have permission to ordain subdeacons, tho’.

I forgot to mention one element of this. The permissions to institute acolytes come from HH. Pp. Paul VI, in Ministeria Quaedam (1973)…
4. Two ministries, adapted to present-day needs, are to be preserved in the whole Latin Church, namely, those of reader and acolyte. The functions heretofore assigned to the subdeacon are entrusted to the reader and the acolyte; consequently, the major order of subdiaconate no longer exists in the Latin Church. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be called a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of bishops.
(english translation found on adoremus.org)

While a pious union, their bishop-ordinary had granted them permission to ordain men. They were still canonically licit at the time of this letter, so …

The permission for the FSSP and ICRSS to confer the the minor orders by the old rite is a special dispensation to them, but they must consider the subdeacon a minor order, not major. This was done, IIRC, as part of their respective foundings. They preserve the rite as it was in 1962, except for the theological changes in the understandings of certain elements. And since the new law makes all clerks laymen, minor orders have no significant canonical effects.

FSSP minor orders ordinations Nov 2012

 

[JReducation]

I forgot to mention one element of this. The permissions to institute acolytes come from HH. Pp. Paul VI, in Ministeria Quaedam (1973)…
4. Two ministries, adapted to present-day needs, are to be preserved in the whole Latin Church, namely, those of reader and acolyte. The functions heretofore assigned to the subdeacon are entrusted to the reader and the acolyte; consequently, the major order of subdiaconate no longer exists in the Latin Church. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be called a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of bishops.
(english translation found on adoremus.org)

While a pious union, their bishop-ordinary had granted them permission to ordain men. They were still canonically licit at the time of this letter, so …

The permission for the FSSP and ICRSS to confer the the minor orders by the old rite is a special dispensation to them, but they must consider the subdeacon a minor order, not major. This was done, IIRC, as part of their respective foundings. They preserve the rite as it was in 1962, except for the theological changes in the understandings of certain elements. And since the new law makes all clerks laymen, minor orders have no significant canonical effects.

FSSP minor orders ordinations Nov 2012

Bold is mine. So . . . you’re understanding it the same way that I am. That minor orders do not change one’s status from lay to cleric and that it’s not an ordination in the sacramental sense as are deacon, priest and bishop. Or do I misunderstand you?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Good gravy! It looks like the specs for the motherboard on a computer.

I was thinking about the same thing! That is more than I can easily handle!! There is a chapel in the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception built by the Lebonese church/rite/group/??. It is bautiful and one of my favorites. I will imagine that and clear my mind of Julia Mae’s eye chart.

 

[Tomdstone]

Bp. Buckley: “I welcome all to the Church and I would encourage everyone to welcome all. I will hear no condemnation or rejection of people. Jesus loves his people no less in their absence,” he said.

Are you welcomed to receive Holy Communion just as you are?

 

[october_baby]

You said this:

I was trying (not very successfully) to explain why many converts are hostile to Protestant roots. It’s because they were lied to. Not once, but over and over. It’s hard to go to the huge stadiums of televangelist semi-Pentecostal or Evangelical churches, without hearing almost every single Sunday an attack on the Catholic Church worked into the Pastor’s remarks. If you watch the broadcast on TV, you don’t hear those parts. (They also cut out the half-hour harangue to guilt everyone into giving as they pass the baskets.)

When people come from these backgrounds and find the Truth as well as the facts, they get pretty angry at having been purposely misled, not only about the Church, but about what Jesus taught. (“God wants you to be rich!”) I came from the United Church of Christ and while my Pastor once told me I shouldn’t be wearing a pendant that was the head of Christ Crucified because it was “Catholic and He’s not hanging up there, anymore” I never heard a word against the Church otherwise.

I’m also pretty sure that Jewish folks aren’t going to Temple and listening to weekly attacks on the Church by their Rabbis. I’ve always believed that Catholics have much more in common with Jews than with Protestants. Besides, Jewish is an ancient culture as much as a religion. You don’t just walk away from that kind of connection. So these are the reasons some converts resent their Protestant churches, which is a pretty foreign idea to a Jewish convert.

I think we will see the same kind of backlash against the SSPX as more Catholics come home to fidelity to the Pope.

Thank you Julia, for giving an articulate defense of ex-protestant aversion to protestantism.
Personally for me, I didn’t feel lied too, I just get upset by the hostility of catholicism by people, who FOR THE MOST PART don’t know what their talking about, I feel grief for ex-catholic’s who are hostile, when a lot of them are so ignorant of their own faith.

 

[Aramis]

Bold is mine. So . . . you’re understanding it the same way that I am. That minor orders do not change one’s status from lay to cleric and that it’s not an ordination in the sacramental sense as are deacon, priest and bishop. Or do I misunderstand you?

We’re on the same page there. But I’ll note that the SC on the Eastern Churches notes that minor orders DO confer clerical status and requires incardination… but clerk status has never really existed in the East.

So the FSSP and ICRSS are in a gray zone. It will be important to see how the Anglican Ordinariates handle it, given the Anglican tradition of using minor orders.

It’s also important to note that HH Paul VI abolished minor orders only in the Roman Rite - the Dominicans still used them after. So it may be that HH JP and HH Benedict see the FSP and ICRSS as the beginnings of a separate rite, in the same way that HH Clement IV allowed the Dominicans a separate missal based squarely upon Rome’s.

 

[JReducation]

I was thinking about the same thing! That is more than I can easily handle!! There is a chapel in the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception built by the Lebonese church/rite/group/??. It is bautiful and one of my favorites. I will imagine that and clear my mind of Julia Mae’s eye chart.

We’re on the same page there. But I’ll note that the SC on the Eastern Churches notes that minor orders DO confer clerical status and requires incardination… but clerk status has never really existed in the East.

So the FSSP and ICRSS are in a gray zone. It will be important to see how the Anglican Ordinariates handle it, given the Anglican tradition of using minor orders.

It’s also important to note that HH Paul VI abolished minor orders only in the Roman Rite - the Dominicans still used them after. So it may be that HH JP and HH Benedict see the FSP and ICRSS as the beginnings of a separate rite, in the same way that HH Clement IV allowed the Dominicans a separate missal based squarely upon Rome’s.

I can understand the Eastern Churches, because they follow their own code of Canon Law.

It will be interesting how this evolves in the Latin Church.

 

[Dee_S]

Here are my own reflections on Bp Buckley’s statements:

Church will not reject people, says bishop
irishexaminer.com/ireland/church-will-not-reject-people-says-bishop-218553.html
Friday, January 04, 2013
Report by By Claire O’Sullivan, Irish Examiner Newspaper
The Catholic Church will not reject people because they use contraception, don’t attend Mass every Sunday, have sex outside marriage or live lives that run counter to the ideals of the Church, according to the Bishop of Cork and Ross.
This is the slanted opinion of the reporter…not what the bishop said or intended

Bishop John Buckley has said the central tenets of Catholicism were not established as rules of memberships but as “ideals”.*
The central tenets are not a set of rules they do hold up “ideals” for a Christian to strive towards. Nothing to do with the 10 commandments.

Bp. Buckley: “These are all ideals that we must try to live up to. If you do not meet all these ideals, it does not mean that you cannot take your place at the table the Lord has prepared for you.”
We are not expected to be ‘perfect’ before we attend Mass.

Bp. Buckley: The Church is a refuge for the weak, not a home for the perfect.

Bp. Buckley: “I welcome all to the Church and I would encourage everyone to welcome all. I will hear no condemnation or rejection of people. Jesus loves his people no less in their absence,” he said.*
Mercy and Justice are mine, says the Lord.

Bp. Buckley: In an end-of-year interview, he said he welcomed with open arms those who only turn up to Mass once a year, namely Christmas Day.*
The Prodigal Son…who has the right to decide what attitude a shepherd should take to an errant sheep…?

Bp. Buckley: “Irish people have a religious instinct. I believe that firmly. People retain that instinct even though they are not regular Massgoers. They may not attend regularly, but they still retain their affiliations. You will see them at funerals, at communions, even though they may have grown casual or careless,” he says.*
Here he paints reality, reminding them they are a religious people, without criticising…

I still see **nothing wrong **with anything that Bishop Buckley said. He just echoes the words of Christ:
Jesus again in reply spoke to them in parables, saying,

“The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast* for his son.

Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.’

The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike and the hall was filled with guests.

Matthew Chapter 22
usccb.org/bible/matthew/22/

An interview is not a catechism nor should it be used as such.

The invitation to all people to come back to the Church/Faith, no matter what ‘state of grace’ or state of mind they are in, is the function of the Church who’s primary function is to save souls…not condemn them before they even enter the doors of a church.

Who are we to judge any bishop or priest in the performance of his duties?

Add to that, how does anyone know what state any person’s soul is in when they attend Mass… short of sitting outside the confessional taking notes…

 

[numealinesimpet]

The real enemies of the Church are those, on both sides (Trad. and Modernist), who believe they are above the Church.

I would analyse the present chaotic situation in the Church differently. I believe it is the SSPX and those following them who are in the centre.
On one side are the sedevacantists, who observe scandalous events in the Church and jump to the conclusion, against the infallible teaching of Vatican I (which declared that there will always be a visible successor to Peter while the World lasts) “OMyG*d! Look at what’s happening! The pope should stop it! So he can’t be the pope!” These groups show all the hallmarks of schism – particularly an endless splintering. I believe that there are at least 50 ‘vagus’ bishops in the world at present, each with a tiny band of followers, none of them on speaking terms with each other. In the same category, although not strictly sedevacantists, are those who have gone off and held their own conclave. There are now several such antipopes, from the pitiful to the rather sinister (at least one group has an attested occult connexion).
On the other side are those, who out of a misplaced loyalty, equate “The Church” with every directive that comes, or seems to come, from an authority figure in the Church. Such people either deny that there is a State of Emergency in the Church, or else affirm that it is being dealt with appropriately within the mainstream structures. There are those who adopt the position “It’s allowed by the Church! It must be good!” It seems to me that this position cannot be maintained in the face of fully-documented evidence, not to mention the application of S. Thomas Aquinas’ treatment of Laws, Authority and Obedience. See e.g. sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/moral-theology-and-canon-law/on-the-nature-of-law
The SSPX and allied groups seem to me to be making the correct distinctions. I came to this position about 17 years ago, after first following everything I was told after the closure of Vatican II, and on the whole I have found it verified by the course of subsequent events. Being constantly told I am disobedient, excommunicated, or being marginalised is not a situation I enjoy, although it has had abundant compensations, and I am fully aware that many others are keeping the Faith within the mainstream (although vastly more are not, offering lip service while disobeying the commandments), and that the state of individual souls is a matter for the individual and God alone: there are good and bad, pleasant and unpleasant in both the mainstream and the ‘Trads’.
I would have to add that the only group that regularly fall out with me when I do not accept their position are the sedevacs. Of the 6 or so I have encountered personally, all have broken off contact and friendship. In every case it seems to me that there is a mental &/or emotional disturbance. I cast no aspersions and place no blame: the Church is working through a crisis which, like all others through her history, will pass in time – though not leaving the Church unchanged or unscarred.

 

[Aramis]

On the other side are those, who out of a misplaced loyalty, equate “The Church” with every directive that comes, or seems to come, from an authority figure in the Church. Such people either deny that there is a State of Emergency in the Church, or else affirm that it is being dealt with appropriately within the mainstream structures.

The pope is one of those people. Hence, there is, canonically, no state of emergency, and the SSPX are in error.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

The pope is one of those people. Hence, there is, canonically, no state of emergency, and the SSPX are in error.

Thanks for the reminder Aramis. The Pope - in fact several Popes - have explicitly stated that there is no “State of Emergency”.

The world itself is in a bad way, no doubt about that. And so Christian and Catholic people who are influenced by the world around them are not always as faithful and devout as they should be. But that has always been the case since the beginning.

It does no good to find yourself on the wrong side of Peter if you are trying to save your soul. We do best to keep our own selves firmly in line with the Pope, and then, with humility, charity and gentleness, help the people around us to also get in line with the Pope.