SSPX update?

[Dee_S]

“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.
http://www.artsofine.com/1a .color study dream of 2 columns_small1.jpg
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

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.

:thumbsup:and:wave:Lormar, nice to see u again & thanks for the info on the St Pius X prayer to Our Lady of Guadalupe. It is an amazing prayer & pic thanks.

 

[Dee_S]

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

:tiphat:…

 

[JReducation]

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?

The red is mine.

You have hit on one of the several reasons why priests, deacons and brothers no longer post on TC Forum. When I first came here, I believe that I was the last religious to join TC Forum one of two who are still here. The other being Friar David, from the Carmelites.

The comment that often went back and forth among us is the fact that posters don’t realize how offensive it sounds when they give the impression that the rest of us have done nothing for almost two generations or that the rest of us do not care about the salvation of souls, or that we are totally helpless without the SSPX and are in need of rescuing by the SSPX. When the SSPX is regularized, these 400 or 500 men will save the more than one million of us clergy and religious who are drowning, because we are either incompetent or heterodox.

In other words, such posting is very condescending, so much so that gradually deacons, priests and brothers who were here stopped posting. When they did post, they were challenged with “The SSPX says this and does that,” or “The SSPX will do this or that for the Church” as if the rest of us have been sitting on our hands. Eventually, they said that they did not have to do this. They have plenty of work in their assignments. They wanted to be of service and a resource to the CAF community; but that did not work out. We even wrote a joint letter to CA.

I’m glad to see a layman say it. As much as people like to take note of the Fathers Leonardo Boff, Hans Kung, Charles Curran, and a few others and the leadership of the LCWR there is also a need to acknowledge that the positions of these individuals are their positions, not those of their communities, their dioceses or their superiors. In addition, they are on in a thousand when we examine the world wide population of priests, brothers, deacons and sisters.

If I had $1.00 for each time that someone throws in my face the Fr. Leonardo Buff was a Franciscan, I would not be short $12,000.00 for my ministry to the unborn. What people don’t mention is that at the time that Fr. Leonardo was very popular, there were 2 million Franciscan men and women around the globe who were very faithful to the Holy Father. Even today, with a lower number of brothers and sisters, in 2009 we were 1.7 million strong. In my own community, we’re admitting an average of two postulants every three months.

The same thing happens with the Jesuits, Salesians, diocesan clergy, religious brothers and religious sisters. The minority gets honorable mention each time the SSPX comes up. The faithful and hard working majority is not noticed or is spoken about as if we were dolts.

I agree that I’m not the sharpest knife in the kitchen. I struggled through school. However, I eventually did complete two doctoral degrees, one in theology. I have had the honor of serving as a seminary professor, missionary, outreach ministry coordinator, spiritual director to priests and seminarians, retreat master, local superior, formation director and now superior general. During these years, I’ve done the best I can to serve the Church, sometimes swimming upstream. I have not been swimming alone.

Along with me have been some of the most dedicated priests, brothers, sisters, deacons, nuns and monks I know.

Avery Dulles, SJ (RIP)
Charlie Chaput, OFM Cap
Sean O’Malley, OFM Cap
Benedict Groeschel, OFM Cap/CFR
Michael Jaworski, FBP (RIP)
Mary Angelica, PCPA
Agnes Donohue, SV
Assumpta Long, OP
Ignacio Larañaga, OFM Cap
Mitch Pacwa, SJ
Wade Meneses, CPM
Francis George, OMI
Thomas Wenski, DD
Felipe Estevez, STD
Victor Galeone, STD
Timothy Dolan, DD

That’s the short list. That’s just a few Americans that come to mind. I can think of several thousand Europeans, Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans, men and women, secular clergy and religious brothers and sisters.

We really need to pray for the SSPX, acknowledge the good that they do, not get pulled into their rebellion and their mindset, but be very careful in how we word our comments. We are alienating good men and women. We’re sending a message that says, “You can’t do this. You need the SSPX to rescue you.” or worse “You have done nothing for 40 years.”

Words have meaning and so does silence.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[RPRPsych]

The comment that often went back and forth among us is the fact that posters don’t realize how offensive it sounds when they give the impression that the rest of us have done nothing for almost two generations or that the rest of us do not care about the salvation of souls, or that we are totally helpless without the SSPX and are in need of rescuing by the SSPX. When the SSPX is regularized, these 400 or 500 men will save the more than one million of us clergy and religious who are drowning, because we are either incompetent or heterodox.

I’ve never met an SSPX priest in my life; they’re not very common in this part of the world.

However, though I have met my share of heterodoxy, I’ve also met wonderful teachers, like the former Principal and Rector of the school I went to; priests who keep going, like the elderly Father I once met who was “retired” on health grounds, but still stayed around to hear our confessions; and religious Sisters, like the Missionaries of Charity here at Pondicherry, who just do the practical work of loving their fellow men in the most concrete way possible.

Using hyperbolic language about the SSPX devalues the wonderful works of these men and women. Ultimately, Christ is our redeemer, not the SSPX.

If I had $1.00 for each time that someone throws in my face the Fr. Leonardo Buff was a Franciscan, I would not be short $12,000.00 for my ministry to the unborn. What people don’t mention is that at the time that Fr. Leonardo was very popular, there were 2 million Franciscan men and women around the globe who were very faithful to the Holy Father.

True, true! For every religious I’ve know who’s a little too much into the New Age, I can count at least twenty to forty who would never think of such a thing.

We really need to pray for the SSPX, acknowledge the good that they do, not get pulled into their rebellion and their mindset, but be very careful in how we word our comments. We are alienating good men and women. We’re sending a message that says, “You can’t do this. You need the SSPX to rescue you.” or worse “You have done nothing for 40 years.”

Words have meaning and so does silence.

I think this says it all. If this thread were to close now, I think that would be only right.

 

[GloriaMaria]

I sincerely hope that the moderators do not close this thread. This thread has been a great gift to me, and I hope that I am representative of many others who may have been reading. I am one of those who are “in the pews” in an SSPX chapel. I have been greatly influenced by reading the posts of BrotherJR, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude which I would love to be able to repay by filling that 12K gap in his operating budget, but alas, no funds.

I happen to be in that funny situation where there is no sanctioned TLM for hours and hours in any direction, this is why I am in those pews. So, I walk the fine line with my family. But, I can see how our mindset had been seriously influenced in some very dangerous ways over the years (with the same questions of validity of the “New Mass”, or questions about absolution from the diocesan priest, etc…). Why didn’t I see that this was wrong? Well, anyone who has been there will tell you that it is part and parcel of the SSPX to inform you that you are “swallowing poison” when you accept sacraments from the diocese. I can tell you that in my experience with a number of different priests, this is told to you either overtly or covertly. But it is still said.

Reading the posts of BrotherJR have jolted me out of the mindset, and my greatest hope for others like me is that God will allow him the time and energy to write a book as he has mentioned in the past.

Also, I’ll have you know that I have since reading this thread sought out my diocesan priest and offered to him the respect and prayers that he deserves.

 

[JReducation]

I sincerely hope that the moderators do not close this thread. This thread has been a great gift to me, and I hope that I am representative of many others who may have been reading. I am one of those who are “in the pews” in an SSPX chapel. I have been greatly influenced by reading the posts of BrotherJR, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude which I would love to be able to repay by filling that 12K gap in his operating budget, but alas, no funds.

I happen to be in that funny situation where there is no sanctioned TLM for hours and hours in any direction, this is why I am in those pews. So, I walk the fine line with my family. But, I can see how our mindset had been seriously influenced in some very dangerous ways over the years (with the same questions of validity of the “New Mass”, or questions about absolution from the diocesan priest, etc…). Why didn’t I see that this was wrong? Well, anyone who has been there will tell you that it is part and parcel of the SSPX to inform you that you are “swallowing poison” when you accept sacraments from the diocese. I can tell you that in my experience with a number of different priests, this is told to you either overtly or covertly. But it is still said.

Reading the posts of BrotherJR have jolted me out of the mindset, and my greatest hope for others like me is that God will allow him the time and energy to write a book as he has mentioned in the past.

Also, I’ll have you know that I have since reading this thread sought out my diocesan priest and offered to him the respect and prayers that he deserves.

Your response is very generous and very humbling. Please pray for my soul. I too struggle with spiritual battles.

I will continue to pray that the Society comes home, that it’s talents, knowledge and experience will give the rest of us the boost that we need and that it will be open to receive what we have to offer in return. It is only through fraternal sharing that one reaches the perfection of love. As St. John says, “God is love.” There’s the map to God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[giuseppeTO]

I hope I live to see the day when being faithful to the Holy Father means more than being in canonical regularity with him.

 

[JReducation]

I hope I live to see the day when being faithful to the Holy Father means more than being in canonical regularity with him.

As St. Francis said to the first brothers, “Tiny steps.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[Faithdancer]

GloriaMaria and GiuseppeTO, I"m wondering if you would care to conjecture on what, in your informal assessment, the general feeling of the SSPX faithful is? I know that the only way to find out with some degree of accuracy would be to do a formal study, such as a survey with an adequate sample size. However I’m wondering what your opinion would be as to whether some or most of those who regularly assist at the SSPX Immemorial Mass would welcome full reconciliation with Rome?

I attended the SSPX Chapel today. I had trouble finding the entrance to the nave proper and found myself in the cry room, at first. The only thing I noted there was a large image of Blessed John Paul II. Clearly, at least in that chapel, he isn’t regarded as an anti-pope.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

I attended the SSPX Chapel today. I had trouble finding the entrance to the nave proper and found myself in the cry room, .

That’s too funny. If you were not awake, I’m sure that awoke you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[Dee_S]

I sincerely hope that the moderators do not close this thread. This thread has been a great gift to me, and I hope that I am representative of many others who may have been reading. I am one of those who are “in the pews” in an SSPX chapel. I have been greatly influenced by reading the posts of BrotherJR, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude which I would love to be able to repay by filling that 12K gap in his operating budget, but alas, no funds.

I happen to be in that funny situation where there is no sanctioned TLM for hours and hours in any direction, this is why I am in those pews. So, I walk the fine line with my family. But, I can see how our mindset had been seriously influenced in some very dangerous ways over the years (with the same questions of validity of the “New Mass”, or questions about absolution from the diocesan priest, etc…). Why didn’t I see that this was wrong? Well, anyone who has been there will tell you that it is part and parcel of the SSPX to inform you that you are “swallowing poison” when you accept sacraments from the diocese. I can tell you that in my experience with a number of different priests, this is told to you either overtly or covertly. But it is still said.

Reading the posts of BrotherJR have jolted me out of the mindset, and my greatest hope for others like me is that God will allow him the time and energy to write a book as he has mentioned in the past.

Also, I’ll have you know that I have since reading this thread sought out my diocesan priest and offered to him the respect and prayers that he deserves.

:hug1:*Deo Gratias

My experience was very similar, except I was there for almost 15 years and it was very painful and tumultous when I eventually, by the grace of God and the help of a very kind diocesan priest, crossed what can only be described (his words) as “The Great Divide”. *

 

[Dee_S]

I hope I live to see the day when being faithful to the Holy Father means more than being in canonical regularity with him.

It is not possible to be partially '“faithful”, either one is in “full communion” or one is not.

The SSPX makes just this claim, using the ‘Eternal Rome’ justification - here are some extracts from an excellent article by Dr Mirus of Catholic Culture which exposes and debunks this dangerous myth:
**Eternal Rome vs. the Magisterium: A Contemporary Myth **

"One may still hope that the Society of Saint Pius X will seek to return to full communion with the Catholic Church. Bishop Bernard Fellay’s comments following the General Chapter of the Society could indicate acceptance of an arrangement similar to that of the Fraternity of St. Peter, or they could indicate a continuing insistence on every aspect of their current identity, including the SSPX rejection of the Magisterium of the Second Vatican Council and the modern papacy (which would make full communion impossible).** But there is one very dangerous expression in these remarks which puts clearly on display a myth often perpetuated by Traditionalists—a myth which must be exploded if authentic reconciliation is to be achieved**. Let us call this the myth of “eternal Rome”.

“Bishop Fellay states: “It is not us [sic] who will break with Rome, the Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.” But of course** the SSPX has already broken with Rome through a refusal of obedience, including the consecration of bishops without the consent of the Holy Father. And the reason for this breach is the myth which Traditionalists have concocted of “eternal Rome”**. Another name for this myth is “perennial doctrine” or “perennial teaching”.”

"I call this a myth because it is used by Traditionalists generally to create a false dichotomy between “eternal Rome” and the authority of the Magisterium today, or between “perennial doctrine” and what the Magisterium has taught since, say, 1960. The myth says that there can be a difference between these two things, and that the former is the rule of faith. But the truth is that there can be no difference between these two things, and that a proper understanding of the Catholic faith is achieved only by obedience to all of the relevant statements of the Magisterium of all times, including our own times."

“The key principle is simply this: The Catholic Faith is unique among all religions in that it contains within it a divinely guaranteed principle of authority, namely the Magisterium of the successors of Peter, and their universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. Against this authority, which comes from God Himself, it is impossible to appeal. And it is precisely her possession of this authority which makes Catholicism unique among all religions, the only faith which is guaranteed by God Himself to be true.”

"Moreover, a corollary is equally clear: Those who reject the Magisterium in their own time, when it is teaching about the questions with which they themselves are intimately engaged, in fact reject the Magisterium whole and entire, the Magisterium of every age, the authority of Christ himself."
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=541

 

[llenadegracia]

I have been trying to follow this thread and reading up from other sources about the situation. But could someone please explain to me in more understandable terms what happened and where SSPX is now?

I just am trying to piece everything together.

 

[Faithdancer]

I have been trying to follow this thread and reading up from other sources about the situation. But could someone please explain to me in more understandable terms what happened and where SSPX is now?

I just am trying to piece everything together.

SSPX is currently in canonical irregularity with Rome. It appears that their masses and Eucharist are valid, though some of their sacraments may not be. The society is not currently in schism. Although full reconciliation looked imminent in early summer 2012, it did not happen. However the door for further discussion and reconciliation is still open between the SSPX and Rome. Anything beyond that is just speculation.

We are not allowed either to recommend or to demonize the SSPX. For my part you are more than welcome to post your thoughts here, “full of grace.”

 

[Faithdancer]

It is not possible to be partially '“faithful”, either one is in “full communion” or one is not.

The SSPX makes just this claim, using the ‘Eternal Rome’ justification - here are some extracts from an excellent article by Dr Mirus of Catholic Culture which exposes and debunks this dangerous myth:
Eternal Rome vs. the Magisterium: A Contemporary Myth

"One may still hope that the Society of Saint Pius X will seek to return to full communion with the Catholic Church. Bishop Bernard Fellay’s comments following the General Chapter of the Society could indicate acceptance of an arrangement similar to that of the Fraternity of St. Peter, or they could indicate a continuing insistence on every aspect of their current identity, including the SSPX rejection of the Magisterium of the Second Vatican Council and the modern papacy (which would make full communion impossible).** But there is one very dangerous expression in these remarks which puts clearly on display a myth often perpetuated by Traditionalists—a myth which must be exploded if authentic reconciliation is to be achieved**. Let us call this the myth of “eternal Rome”.

“Bishop Fellay states: “It is not us [sic] who will break with Rome, the Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.” But of course** the SSPX has already broken with Rome through a refusal of obedience, including the consecration of bishops without the consent of the Holy Father. And the reason for this breach is the myth which Traditionalists have concocted of “eternal Rome”**. Another name for this myth is “perennial doctrine” or “perennial teaching”.”

"I call this a myth because it is used by Traditionalists generally to create a false dichotomy between “eternal Rome” and the authority of the Magisterium today, or between “perennial doctrine” and what the Magisterium has taught since, say, 1960. The myth says that there can be a difference between these two things, and that the former is the rule of faith. But the truth is that there can be no difference between these two things, and that a proper understanding of the Catholic faith is achieved only by obedience to all of the relevant statements of the Magisterium of all times, including our own times."

“The key principle is simply this: The Catholic Faith is unique among all religions in that it contains within it a divinely guaranteed principle of authority, namely the Magisterium of the successors of Peter, and their universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. Against this authority, which comes from God Himself, it is impossible to appeal. And it is precisely her possession of this authority which makes Catholicism unique among all religions, the only faith which is guaranteed by God Himself to be true.”

"Moreover, a corollary is equally clear: Those who reject the Magisterium in their own time, when it is teaching about the questions with which they themselves are intimately engaged, in fact reject the Magisterium whole and entire, the Magisterium of every age, the authority of Christ himself."
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=541

Dee, while Dr. Mirus has academic credentials, what you have quoted are his opinions. Dr. Mirus has no official status within either the SSPX or the CDF. You have essentially quoted an op ed, and it cannot be taken as authoritative in any way. In other words, would it be an acceptable primary or even secondary (i.e. metaresearch) reference for an academic research paper or journal? No, and it is immaterial whether what he says is “true” or “false.”

 

[Aramis]

I have been trying to follow this thread and reading up from other sources about the situation. But could someone please explain to me in more understandable terms what happened and where SSPX is now?

I just am trying to piece everything together.

1970: SSPX gets founded as a local group (pia unio) in France.
1974: many bishops already refusing to incardinate SSPX priests.
1975: local “pia unio” status revoked. Appeal to Rome rejected. Formally, they ceased being a recognized clerical society then. Rome never took active steps to disband them, either.
1976: Ordinations of priests, formal censure by Rome.
1986 or so: Pope promises to allow an episcopal ordination, but gets to pick whom. Rome doesn’t approve the candidates put forward. Rome also makes overtures to regularize the SSPX.
1888: ABp Lefebvre ordains Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta as Bishops. Directly against papal instructions
2 days after: formal excommunication of the bishops, and suspension of all SSPX priests.
2007: Bp. Williamson ordains priests for the SSJK, which had already been excommunicated.
2009: the excommunications are lifted, but the suspensions are not. Canonists note that this renders certain sacraments invalid in the SSPX chapels.
2012: negotiations seem to be at a standoff. SSPX members continue to make provocative statements, Pope Benedict insists on additional clauses that his lead negotiator hadn’t negotiated.
Present: no canonical change since 2009. No visible progress. Rome has demanded a written answer through proper channels.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote in 2009 what is translated as: “Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” Letter Of His Holiness Pope Benedict Xvi To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church Concerning The Remission Of The Excommunication Of The Four Bishops Consecrated By Archbishop Lefebvre

 

[giuseppeTO]

GloriaMaria and GiuseppeTO, I"m wondering if you would care to conjecture on what, in your informal assessment, the general feeling of the SSPX faithful is? I know that the only way to find out with some degree of accuracy would be to do a formal study, such as a survey with an adequate sample size. However I’m wondering what your opinion would be as to whether some or most of those who regularly assist at the SSPX Immemorial Mass would welcome full reconciliation with Rome?

I attended the SSPX Chapel today. I had trouble finding the entrance to the nave proper and found myself in the cry room, at first. The only thing I noted there was a large image of Blessed John Paul II. Clearly, at least in that chapel, he isn’t regarded as an anti-pope.

In my opinion, the vast majority of priests, laity, and Bishops would welcome a full reconciliation with Rome. There are certainly a group who feel that a reconciliation would not be possible until Rome “corrects” aspects of the council that have been promulgated contrary to what was previously understood as the church’s teaching.

In 1966, almost immediately following the end of the Council, Archbishop Lefebvre proposed that he, and the like-minded conservative Council fathers, produce a consortium of guidelines that could be used by Bishops to properly promulgate the teachings of the Council in consonance with the teachings of the church. It appears that early on, he felt that the council was certainly part of the Magisterium of the Church but had the potential to be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the faith.

The SSPX will always have an issue with the Pauline Mass based on the objectives it was predicated on as documented by its authors. However, the validity of the Pauline Mass and of the Council are beyond dispute, in my opinion. The question on whether or not it (or anything else) is pleasing to God is merely conjecture because nobody can be certain what pleases God except God Himself.

But the bottom line to your question, again only IMHO, the majority of priests and laity in the Society feel that the ONLY answer is canonical regularity with the Pontiff and furthermore that only the Successor of Peter can save the church from the crisis it endures.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

But the bottom line to your question, again only IMHO, the majority of priests and laity in the Society feel that the ONLY answer is canonical regularity with the Pontiff and furthermore that only the Successor of Peter can save the church from the crisis it endures.

This is the part that is confusing to me. If certain people and priests feel this way, why do they not reconcile individually? I realize that this is a VERY hard step to take - for anyone leaving their faith background. However, if the only answer is canonical regularity with the Pontiff, then it is within their own power to get that for themselves. Especially for the priests who know they are suspended and that they lack faculties to fully practice their vocation.

Still praying.

 

[JReducation]

I have been trying to follow this thread and reading up from other sources about the situation. But could someone please explain to me in more understandable terms what happened and where SSPX is now?

I just am trying to piece everything together.

Everything that has been said above is quite accurate. I would add to what has been said two points.

**First, **the statement on the “myth of the Eternal Rome” is not just one scholar’s analysis. This is being discussed at almost every pontifical school of theology where the SSPX issue is discussed. There are many reasons why very orthodox schools of theology reject this image of the “Eternal Rome”. Christ does not institute an abstract to lead his Church. He installs a human being, a pope, a fisherman named Simon. It is upon the faith of Simon the Rock (Peter) whom he said he would build his Church. Today, the Chair of Peter is occupied. The Catholic faith is built upon the faith of Peter.

Yes, there is a Rome. She is the mother of all Churches. Is she eternal? No. Like all things, she is finite. At the end of time, she will cease to exist. Does Peter draw his authority from the Church of Rome or does the Church of Rome draw its primacy from the primacy of Peter? The case seems to be the latter. The See of Peter and the Church existed long before there was a Roman Church.

If one says that “Eternal Rome” refers to the Magisterium of all the popes from Peter to Pius XII, then Rome is not so eternal. It appears to have expired along with Pope Pius. In order for Rome to be eternal, the See of Peter must be eternal. The See of Peter only has authority when it is occupied.

If if the See of Peter is vacant, then the papacy has been interrupted. This happens all the time. Whenever a pope dies the See of Peter comes to a complete stop. If Eternal Rome could function without Peter, there would be no need to replace him. When we look at what happens when a pope dies, it tells us that Eternal Rome is dependent on the Magisterium of Peter. When a pope dies, everything comes to a stop. No decisions can be made, not even policy decisions, much less statements on matters of faith and morals. Only the bare minimum to keep the Church operating until the next pope is elected can happen. Even appointments cease to exist. People in certain offices hold those offices until the new election, but they cannot do anything authoritative, because there is pope to sign off on it.

When we examine the fact that the Church is built on the faith of Peter, not on the faith of Rome, that the authority of Peter to teach and govern is transmitted from generation to generation, that the Church of Rome derives its primacy among all of the Catholic Churches from the primacy of Peter, not the other way around (Peter can be in France and he’s still pope), and when we look at what happens when a pope dies, we can see that Eternal Rome is dependent on an Eternal Magisterium that is alive, not one that died in 1958 with Pope Pius XII.

The **second point **that I want to make is that the future of the SSPX is hanging by a thread. We have to pray very hard. No one lives forever. The three bishops left in the SSPX will not live forever. They will need to be replaced or their offices handed over to priests in the Society. If they decide to ordain another bishop to secure the continuity of the SSPX, it’s game over. They will be excommunicated for schism. It will no longer be just a schismatic act.

A schismatic act is an isolated act that creates a chasm between you and the pope. When all things are considered, there is no indication that you’re trying to separate yourself from the Holy See. If after all of these discussions and offers from the Holy See they proceed to ordain another bishop, the question that will be asked is, “Why?” Once you say that you did so in order to secure continuity, you have said that you are creating an apostolic line of succession parallel to the papacy. This is what happened during the great schism, but in greater numbers. They secured their apostolic succession by ordaining valid bishops of like mind, but not bishops who were in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Let’s keep them in prayer. As things stand right now, the CDF has said that it will no longer discuss anything with the SSPX. It’s waiting for the SSPX do decide to come home. To the credit of the CDF, they recognize that these transitions take time. The people in the SSPX are not charlatans. They are honest men. They are convicted of what they believe about the post conciliar Church, even though their beliefs have been called into question by three popes. These men need time to think and pray over this. We should never ask anyone to do something that will affect his soul without giving him the time and space to pray.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[giuseppeTO]

This is the part that is confusing to me. If certain people and priests feel this way, why do they not reconcile individually? I realize that this is a VERY hard step to take - for anyone leaving their faith background. However, if the only answer is canonical regularity with the Pontiff, then it is within their own power to get that for themselves. Especially for the priests who know they are suspended and that they lack faculties to fully practice their vocation.

Still praying.

Sally,

The simple answer to your question is that those who believe that canonical regularity is the most important issue have already reconciled. Those that have not believe that supplied jurisdiction applies to their situation until the proper reconciliation can be made.