SSPX update?

[RPRPsych]

Alter Christus doesn’t refer to one’s morality (or lack thereof), nor does it refer to whether or not one is beint partisan or not. It refers to the priest during Mass. The Borgias Popes, while deplorable in morality, were “Alter Christus” (not to mention Vicars of Christ).

True, in a strict sense. But I respectfully submit that claiming that your fellow priests’ Masses are sinful, or that you should not confess to them, is not very Christ-like. In many parts of my country, we’re lucky if we can find a confessor in a church even once a week; cross-questioning them or evaluating them about possible “modernism” simply isn’t on the cards.

I’m not so sure about this. Liberation Theology was VERY partisan. You should read the history of the Church in Nicaragua (especially the Jesuits there). Talk about putting the party (in that case, the communist/socialist party) ahead of the Church. Liberal organization are just as guilty (if not more so) of this mentality as the SSPX. The LCWR is doing the same thing.

I’m looking at this more from a “what does the average layman care about?”

Your statement may hold good in some parts of the world. But in many cases, the average lay man or woman isn’t too politically concerned. Most people in my parish would probably sleep through a “political” sermon, and would certainly not turn left-wing on the strength of Father X telling them about Leonardo Boff. But if they heard someone telling them that “you ought not confess to a Modernist”, that gives them an excuse to dodge a Sacrament, and that is grave indeed.

It’s a fact that people in many parts of the world are not as willing to approach the Sacrament of Reconciliation as they used to be. They’re already hearing “it’s not always necessary” from the liberal camp. The minute they start hearing presumptuous statements about “just make a perfect act of Contrition” (and, again, how can you ever be sure you’re “perfect”?), they’ll be even less disposed to make any sort of Confession whatever. A pastor must encourage his flock to participate in the Sacraments, not create imaginary divisions.

Perhaps one reason why the SSPX upset certain people is because beyond their rhetorical excesses, they do point out some real issues going on in the Church. We all know it – the liberal excesses of the post Vatican II period were very damaging to the Church. While the SSPX may not offer the correct solution, their dissatisfaction seems to be rooted in truth.

Calling the Ordinary Form “sinful” is not rooted in truth, I’m sorry. If it’s good enough for the Pope, Lourdes, and St. Peter’s Basilica, it’s good enough for me.

Please note: Yes, I attend an SSPX chapel, but I am not an SSPX partisan. I do not believe their claims about the OF Mass. I do not confess there, either. The priest at the chapel has never said anything negative during Mass. He simply teaches Catholic doctrine.

• PAX

Peace be with you too. Good to hear that about your chapel; would that his fellow priests were more like him, instead of making imprudent posts on the Internet.

 

[JReducation]

Alter Christus doesn’t refer to one’s morality (or lack thereof), nor does it refer to whether or not one is beint partisan or not. It refers to the priest during Mass. The Borgias Popes, while deplorable in morality, were “Alter Christus” (not to mention Vicars of Christ).

I think that RPRPsych is using the term Alter Christus as we Franciscans use it, because he’s speaking to a Franciscan. We use the term to refer to St. Francis of Assisi, who was not a priest, but was called Alter Christus by Pope Gregory IX and the Mirror of Perfection by Pope Alexander V. In this sense, our friend is correct. This is not the way that Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, Dominic Guzman, Teresa of Avila or any other great Catholic reformer would speak about the clergy, the mass or the sacraments. In fact, they were all very good at simply saying, things like “yellow and blue make green,” rather than, “Those priests over there are all wrong and can’t be trusted, because they no longer believe that yellow and blue make green.” They limited themselves to speaking the truth without speaking about people.

It’s fascinating to read the writings of the great Catholic reformers who lived during the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter Reformation. None of them ever mention Luther, Calvin or Henry VIII by name, nor do they even make specific comments about “the Protestants”. They speak about heresy, heretics and truth. It was more of “if the shoe fits, wear it.” There was no finger pointing.

I believe this is where the comment about Alter Christus is pointing to. These Catholic reformers are the type of men to whom we apply the term Alter Christus, as well as to the priest when he is acting in Persona Christi. Alter Christus has many applications in Catholic history.

I’m not so sure about this. Liberation Theology was VERY partisan. You should read the history of the Church in Nicaragua (especially the Jesuits there). Talk about putting the party (in that case, the communist/socialist party) ahead of the Church. Liberal organization are just as guilty (if not more so) of this mentality as the SSPX. The LCWR is doing the same thing.

All of this is true, but it does not address what RPR is addressing, which is the statement made by the priest. The statement made by the priest was highly inappropriate. We can’t obscure that by pointing to other inappropriate statements. We have to say “Yes” or “No”.

Was his statement appropriate or was it totally inappropriate? That’s simple.

Was his statement offensive or not? Simple again.

As our constitutions say, "Let the brothers always reason with the same simplicity as our Holy Father Francis and let them never allow themselves to justify, obfuscate or shield faults by looking toward other’s faults. The one does not justify the other, nor does is heal the damage caused by the fault. The brothers are commanded to attend to the immediate problem before them without complicating the matter, as this is the manner in which our Holy Father acted in imitation of Our Lord, Jesus Christ."

Perhaps one reason why the SSPX upset certain people is because beyond their rhetorical excesses, they do point out some real issues going on in the Church. We all know it – the liberal excesses of the post Vatican II period were very damaging to the Church. While the SSPX may not offer the correct solution, their dissatisfaction seems to be rooted in truth.

Some of their dissatisfaction is rooted in truth or better said, in real problems. Some of their dissatisfaction is rooted in incorrect thinking and in ideology, as was stated by Pope Paul VI, Bl. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI. Very often, it is very difficult for the average person to separate the fact from the ideology when it’s blended.

Please note: Yes, I attend an SSPX chapel, but I am not an SSPX partisan. I do not believe their claims about the OF Mass. I do not confess there, either. The priest at the chapel has never said anything negative during Mass. He simply teaches Catholic doctrine.

• PAX

Which is what I would imagine most of their men do.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[RPRPsych]

I think that RPRPsych is using the term Alter Christus as we Franciscans use it, because he’s speaking to a Franciscan. We use the term to refer to St. Francis of Assisi, who was not a priest, but was called Alter Christus by Pope Gregory IX and the Mirror of Perfection by Pope Alexander V.

Yes, Brother, thanks for clearing that up. I saw that phrase at a Franciscan exhibition in our parish, a year or so ago, and I was writing in that context. I wasn’t specifically referring to the role of the Priest during the Mass, though that is the technical sense of the term.

It’s fascinating to read the writings of the great Catholic reformers who lived during the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter Reformation. None of them ever mention Luther, Calvin or Henry VIII by name, nor do they even make specific comments about “the Protestants”. They speak about heresy, heretics and truth. It was more of “if the shoe fits, wear it.” There was no finger pointing.

And the same applies to many other Church documents that demarcate Truth from error, I guess. The Church’s tone has generally been “This is what is, and this is what is not”, rather than “X teaches what is not, so avoid X like the plague.”

I believe this is where the comment about Alter Christus is pointing to. These Catholic reformers are the type of men to whom we apply the term Alter Christus, as well as to the priest when he is acting in Persona Christi. Alter Christus has many applications in Catholic history.

True, I’ve even read a novel where Bl. John Paul II was described, posthumously, in such terms. That was the sort of meaning I had in mind.

Some of their dissatisfaction is rooted in truth or better said, in real problems. Some of their dissatisfaction is rooted in incorrect thinking and in ideology, as was stated by Pope Paul VI, Bl. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI. Very often, it is very difficult for the average person to separate the fact from the ideology when it’s blended.

I can sympathize with the real problems, but the end does not justify the means, unless we’re talking about God Himself.

Once again, thanks for the note of clarity and charity here, Brother. You’re probably the reason this discussion has lasted so long.

 

[Faithdancer]

True, in a strict sense. But I respectfully submit that claiming that your fellow priests’ Masses are sinful, or that you should not confess to them, is not very Christ-like. In many parts of my country, we’re lucky if we can find a confessor in a church even once a week; cross-questioning them or evaluating them about possible “modernism” simply isn’t on the cards.

I’m looking at this more from a “what does the average layman care about?”

Your statement may hold good in some parts of the world. But in many cases, the average lay man or woman isn’t too politically concerned. Most people in my parish would probably sleep through a “political” sermon, and would certainly not turn left-wing on the strength of Father X telling them about Leonardo Boff. But if they heard someone telling them that “you ought not confess to a Modernist”, that gives them an excuse to dodge a Sacrament, and that is grave indeed.

It’s a fact that people in many parts of the world are not as willing to approach the Sacrament of Reconciliation as they used to be. They’re already hearing “it’s not always necessary” from the liberal camp. The minute they start hearing presumptuous statements about “just make a perfect act of Contrition” (and, again, how can you ever be sure you’re “perfect”?), they’ll be even less disposed to make any sort of Confession whatever. A pastor must encourage his flock to participate in the Sacraments, not create imaginary divisions.

Calling the Ordinary Form “sinful” is not rooted in truth, I’m sorry. If it’s good enough for the Pope, Lourdes, and St. Peter’s Basilica, it’s good enough for me.

Peace be with you too. Good to hear that about your chapel; would that his fellow priests were more like him, instead of making imprudent posts on the Internet.

Thank you for toning down the rhetoric, RPRPsych.

I wanted to comment on the shortage of priests in India that you have noted. Here in the US, we are “importing” priests from- primarily- just a few other countries. I believe Nigeria may be leading the way, but there are a number of priests here now who are nationals of India, the Phillipines, etc. I wonder how it is that the bishops in these other countries are letting their priests emigrate, if there is already a shortage in their own country?

 

[RPRPsych]

Thank you for toning down the rhetoric, RPRPsych.

You’re welcome. It’s always been a bit of a failing with me.

I wanted to comment on the shortage of priests in India that you have noted. Here in the US, we are “importing” priests from- primarily- just a few other countries. I believe Nigeria may be leading the way, but there are a number of priests here now who are nationals of India, the Phillipines, etc. I wonder how it is that the bishops in these other countries are letting their priests emigrate, if there is already a shortage in their own country?

It’s not a shortage of priests, per se, so much as a reduced “supply and demand” (I use the term metaphorically) for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

The small parish near my workplace doesn’t have an official “day” for Reconciliation; you have to approach the parish priest “after hours” and ask for it.

The parish I attend in Pondicherry has a regular “day” (Friday evening, 5:30-6 p.m.) for Reconciliation, and that’s it.

My home parish has a similar day-a-week system (on Saturday evenings, 5 - 6 p.m.), with addition one-day “Reconciliation Days”, usually just before Christmas and Holy Thursday.

All these parishes have more than enough priests to hear Confessions more regularly.

I’m not sure if this is because fewer people confess, or if the clergy has downplayed the importance of the Sacrament, but the problem is one of reduced availability rather than manpower. The missionary orders here are quite separate from the secular clergy, and though some priests do “go West”, that’s not a huge problem for us.

 

[Faithdancer]

You’re welcome. It’s always been a bit of a failing with me.

It’s not a shortage of priests, per se, so much as a reduced “supply and demand” (I use the term metaphorically) for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

The small parish near my workplace doesn’t have an official “day” for Reconciliation; you have to approach the parish priest “after hours” and ask for it.

The parish I attend in Pondicherry has a regular “day” (Friday evening, 5:30-6 p.m.) for Reconciliation, and that’s it.

My home parish has a similar day-a-week system (on Saturday evenings, 5 - 6 p.m.), with addition one-day “Reconciliation Days”, usually just before Christmas and Holy Thursday.

All these parishes have more than enough priests to hear Confessions more regularly.

I’m not sure if this is because fewer people confess, or if the clergy has downplayed the importance of the Sacrament, but the problem is one of reduced availability rather than manpower. The missionary orders here are quite separate from the secular clergy, and though some priests do “go West”, that’s not a huge problem for us.

That is a good point about the missionary orders; they can send their priests whereever they want, and there may indeed be more religious order priests from India in the US then there are non-religious order priests.

Even Opus Dei priests get sent here and there. We recently lost an excellent priest when Opus Dei sent him to Australia. Fortunately his replacement, who is originally from Spain, is equally awesome!

 

[RPRPsych]

Even Opus Dei priests get sent here and there. We recently lost an excellent priest when Opus Dei sent him to Australia. Fortunately his replacement, who is originally from Spain, is equally awesome!

Good for you!

It would be nice if the SSPX could adopt an Opus Dei-like position; promote tradition, but maintain full friendship and loyalty to the Pope and the Church.

 

[Dee_S]

The problem with these statements is that there seems to be two perspectives in reading what is being said. When I read what the CDF said about more time, I did not take it to mean that the CDF was asking for more dialogue. Being a traditionalist myself, I strung the beads together. My conclusion was. “There is no more dialogue . . . now we give the SSPX whatever time it needs to respond to our final offer.” To me, this is crystal clear, not confusing at all.

I agree it is crystal clear. Archbishop Mueller has said that there will be no further dialogue, and in the Declaration under discussion Ecclesia Dei says:

**“Just a few months ago, a culminating point along this difficult path was reached when, on 13 June 2012, the Pontifical Commission presented to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X a doctrinal declaration together with a proposal for the canonical normalisation of its status within the Catholic Church”

“At the present time, the Holy See is awaiting the official response of the superiors of the Priestly Fraternity to these two documents. After thirty years of separation, it is understandable that time is needed to absorb the significance of these recent developments. As Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI seeks to foster and preserve the unity of the Church by realising the long hoped-for reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter - a dramatic manifestation of the ‘munus Petrinum’ in action - patience, serenity, perseverance and trust are needed”.**
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/10/declaration-of-pontifical-commission_29.html

The good bishop read it differently. I have to trust his good will and simply say that being the case that he is a bishop and an intelligent man, I must have missed something that he caught. I wish he would clarify, because I still don’t see the confusion and am sure that others do not see it either.

Too true. In this same sermon he says the following…

“I had sent to Rome the documents of the General Chapter, our final Declaration which is clear, and our conditions for eventually, when the time comes, reaching an agreement about a possible canonical recognition. These are conditions without which it is impossible [for the Society] to live; that would quite simply be self-destruction. For to accept everything that is being done today in the Church is to destroy ourselves. It is to abandon all the treasures of Tradition.”
dici.org/en/documents/sermon-of-bishop-bernard-fellay/

…and appears to be confused by the Ecclesia Dei Declaration but I think I get it. If one looks at the dates, Ecclesia Dei presented the two documents to him on June 13. The General Chapter took place in July. In the above quote Bishop Fellay says that the SSPX sent Rome their final Declaration and conditions taken at this Chapter. We were unaware of this at the time, and no news of this was reported as far as I know, until October 29 when Ecclesia Dei issued their Declaration.

Rome is certainly waiting for a response, on paper, not via the internet or some periodical. Such a response has not been delivered to the Holy See. As far as the Vatican is concerned, the SSPX’s final answer has not arrived. It’s like going to court. Until the jury delivers the verdict to the judge himself, the judge cannot assume anything based on what he reads or hears.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

“Now, to speak about the future, what we will try to do with the Roman authorities is to tell them that it does no good to pretend, for the sake of the faith, that the Church cannot be mistaken. Because, at the level of faith, we are entirely in agreement about the assistance of the Holy Ghost, but you have to open your eyes to what is happening in the Church! It is necessary to stop saying: the Church can do nothing bad, therefore the new Mass is good. It is necessary to stop saying: the Church cannot err, and therefore there is no error in the Council”%between%

 

[JReducation]

…and appears to be confused by the Ecclesia Dei Declaration but I think I get it. If one looks at the dates, Ecclesia Dei presented the two documents to him on June 13. The General Chapter took place in July. In the above quote Bishop Fellay says that the SSPX sent Rome their final Declaration and conditions taken at this Chapter. We were unaware of this at the time, and no news of this was reported as far as I know, until October 29 when Ecclesia Dei issued their Declaration.

“Now, to speak about the future, what we will try to do with the Roman authorities is to tell them that it does no good to pretend, for the sake of the faith, that the Church cannot be mistaken. Because, at the level of faith, we are entirely in agreement about the assistance of the Holy Ghost, but you have to open your eyes to what is happening in the Church! It is necessary to stop saying: the Church can do nothing bad, therefore the new Mass is good. It is necessary to stop saying: the Church cannot err, and therefore there is no error in the Council”%between%

OK, so the short and the long of it is that this is a simple issue of things happening and being said while papers are in transit. Obviously, you can’t address whatever is said on those papers until you have received them.

Bishop Fellay says that it wants to say A, B, and C to the Church, about the future. That’s fine. No problem there. The glitch seems to be that the Vatican is not interested in having another conversation with the good bishop. The Vatican wants an answer that says, “Yes, we accept the Holy Father’s terms” or “No, we do not accept his terms and that’s final.”

This is where negotiations get complicated, when you’re looking for very specific wording in a response and the other party, knowing the wording that you’re looking for, avoids using it in its response. Bishop Fellay is saying* “These are conditions without which it is impossible [for the Society] to live; that would quite simply be self-destruction. For to accept everything that is being done today in the Church is to destroy ourselves. It is to abandon all the treasures of Tradition.”*

The Vatican is waiting to hear them say “We _______________ the authority of the pope to decide what belongs and what does not belong to tradition. We __________________ that the Ordinary Form of the mass is valid and licit. We ______________ that Vatican II is part of the Church’s ongoing tradition.”

Your choices:

a) accept or b) reject

But he’s not using the word reject and he’s not specifically mentioning the points in the presentation made by the Vatican. He’s talking about the Society’s history. If they accept this, they implode. He does not say, “We reject these points because Pope Benedict is wrong.”

I inserted Pope Benedict in there, because it was Pope Benedict who threw the wrench into the wheel at the last minute. Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Levada thought they had it all squared away until the Pope got the document and inserted the points on the pope and tradition, the Council and the OF.

This is going to be a very long dance, until one or the other gets tired of dancing and decides that it’s game over or the SSPX capitulates. Popes don’t capitulate.

We have to observe, try to understand what’s going on, keep them in our prayers and follow the Vatican’s lead on this one. Even if Peter is sailing on a raft, we’re safer with Peter than without him. On this point I strongly disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre who said the opposite. As the Fathers said, “Where there is Peter, there is the Church.” No one said that Peter has to be the perfect ship’s captain. They simply said that where there is the captain, there is the ship. Peter and the bark are inseparable. This is dogma.

Again, if Peter’s bark is nothing more than a raft, I’ll ride on it. Eventually, with time, he will build a luxury cruiser, but not today. That is the reality that the SSPX and all of us must face. The bark has been through a storm. The bark has been through many storms over the past 2,000 years. However, since Peter and the bark are inseparable, the bark cannot sink. If you decide to sail off on your yacht, you may feel comfortable for the short-term, but the long-term is precarious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Lormar]

We have to observe, try to understand what’s going on, keep them in our prayers and follow the Vatican’s lead on this one. Even if Peter is sailing on a raft, we’re safer with Peter than without him. On this point I strongly disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre who said the opposite. As the Fathers said, “Where there is Peter, there is the Church.” No one said that Peter has to be the perfect ship’s captain. They simply said that where there is the captain, there is the ship. Peter and the bark are inseparable. This is dogma.

Again, if Peter’s bark is nothing more than a raft, I’ll ride on it. Eventually, with time, he will build a luxury cruiser, but not today. That is the reality that the SSPX and all of us must face. The bark has been through a storm. The bark has been through many storms over the past 2,000 years. However, since Peter and the bark are inseparable, the bark cannot sink. If you decide to sail off on your yacht, you may feel comfortable for the short-term, but the long-term is precarious.

Thank you, Brother. I have days, too many in fact, where I would not want to admit the truth of what you have written.

There is only one safe place - in the Church with the Pope.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Again, if Peter’s bark is nothing more than a raft, I’ll ride on it. Eventually, with time, he will build a luxury cruiser, but not today. That is the reality that the SSPX and all of us must face. The bark has been through a storm. The bark has been through many storms over the past 2,000 years. However, since Peter and the bark are inseparable, the bark cannot sink. If you decide to sail off on your yacht, you may feel comfortable for the short-term, but the long-term is precarious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I immediately thought of our Lord keeping Peter from sinking as he walked on the sea.

 

[jm8qsf]

Zuqyu Psacr borse louis vuitton Jqclahs Wjovz borse-louisvuittonit.info/

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Zuqyu Psacr borse louis vuitton Jqclahs Wjovz borse-louisvuittonit.info/

Reported

 

[Lormar]

I totally agree. Given their open defiance of Papal Authority, their entrenched attitude towards the Mass and their consistent hostility towards the council Vatican II - it would take some doing for their mindset to change.

To give an example. I personally know a catholic couple who had left the SSPX five years before, who decided to marry. The man refused to be married at a Nuptial Mass because of his deeply ingrained conviction that it was wrong to participate in a New Mass. Thankfully, over a period of time, he slowly lost his mistrust and fear of the Mass being a sacrilege and now accepts it is not bad.

There is a deeper layer that is not obvious to anyone who has never been on the inside. That is - the actual effects of the SSPX ‘resistance’ to the Pope etc on those pious folk who only came in search of reverence and tradition.

I have been trying to tell people this for the longest time on here. And it wasn’t received very well.

If anyone here thinks it is easy to rid your mind of the brainwashing propaganda, think again. To this day I can’t look at a picture of Bl. John Paul II without thinking sinful things. These sinful thoughts come into my mind so fast that I have no chance to stop them - it is an immediate reaction. Where did that come from? I will give you one guess.

 

[Lormar]

Crickets.

This happens all the time. I get the message loud and clear.

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps one reason why the SSPX upset certain people is because beyond their rhetorical excesses, they do point out some real issues going on in the Church. We all know it – the liberal excesses of the post Vatican II period were very damaging to the Church. While the SSPX may not offer the correct solution, their dissatisfaction seems to be rooted in truth.

For me it is just the rhetoric, or mostly. The actions they have taken, while I am defensive of the Church, I understand that I am in not position to judge their motives. But the rhetoric reveals the heart. It is emotionally charged and elicits an emotional reaction. In a way this is good, because I can distance the SSPX from the individual that is using such tactics, even on an SSPX website. For sure I would never want to have such a priest as my priest, but I know I mustn’t judge all SSPX by that person.

As to the dissatisfaction being rooted in truth, that is irrelevant to me for I do not believe their observations to be true. The statistics do not support their opinion of the state of the Church and the anecdotal evidence is not part of my experience.

 

[ProVobis]

He is right about one thing. Only God can judge subjective culpability.

BrJR, Yes, I noticed that too. In fact, the terms subjective and objective in his statement indicate a certain amount of concession on his part IMO. Let’s face it; the rest of it we’ve heard before.

 

[JReducation]

BrJR, Yes, I noticed that too. In fact, the terms subjective and objective in his statement indicate a certain amount of concession on his part IMO. Let’s face it; the rest of it we’ve heard before.

This is actually a principle of moral theology. The other day, CAF radio had a program in which they discussed homosexuality. It ruffled some feathers around here, because the apologists would not say that people who are active homosexuals or lesbians are morally culpable. They kept sticking to the act is objectively gravely sinful. A few people wanted to hear, “THEY are guilty of grave sin.” We can’t say that. We don’t know this. We can only describe what we see, not what we don’t see. We don’t see the conscience. Only God, a confessor and a spiritual director know the conscience of the individual. Being a spiritual director, I can assure you that there are times when one is not sure how culpable the person really is. Sometimes people don’t understand their own actions or their motives.

As I always say, “Man is the only animal smart enough live on a space station and come back, but can’t always tell you why does what he does.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[pnewton]

As I always say, “Man is the only animal smart enough live on a space station and come back, but can’t always tell you why does what he does.”

Perhaps Sir Edmund Hillary was the only one honest with himself.

 

[severus68]

Alter Christus doesn’t refer to one’s morality (or lack thereof), nor does it refer to whether or not one is beint partisan or not. It refers to the priest during Mass. The Borgias Popes, while deplorable in morality, were “Alter Christus” (not to mention Vicars of Christ).

I’m not so sure about this. Liberation Theology was VERY partisan. You should read the history of the Church in Nicaragua (especially the Jesuits there). Talk about putting the party (in that case, the communist/socialist party) ahead of the Church. Liberal organization are just as guilty (if not more so) of this mentality as the SSPX. The LCWR is doing the same thing.

**Perhaps one reason why the SSPX upset certain people is because beyond their rhetorical excesses, they do point out some real issues going on in the Church. We all know it – **the liberal excesses of the post Vatican II period were very damaging to the Church. While the SSPX may not offer the correct solution, their dissatisfaction seems to be rooted in truth.

Please note: Yes, I attend an SSPX chapel, but I am not an SSPX partisan. I do not believe their claims about the OF Mass. I do not confess there, either. The priest at the chapel has never said anything negative during Mass. He simply teaches Catholic doctrine.

• PAX

I refer to your words I have placed in bold. Any issues would be with people. The non-SPPX priests have been seeing to these issues, helping, advising, guiding, being shepherds to their flocks all this while. No one, not the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, priests have been sitting still waiting for the SSPX. Perhaps the SSPX sees different issues which are their own issues?