SSPX vs Sedevacantism

[maurin]

I don’t know, excubitor, I think that what the Pope didn’t say is every bit as important as what he did say. In one breath he explains that the priests and bishops of the society are suspended a divinis. In the next breath he refers to the faithful receiving the sacraments from them. If your constant preaching of the existence of schism is true, pray tell us where the Pope has said so, and, if you are unable to provide us with such a statement, please do follow your own advice: the Pope is there to be obeyed.

While we appreciate your attempts to interpret the mind of the Pope, I’m sure that there are others more qualified to do so. If the Pope lifted the excommunications of the bishops of the Society, while maintaining their irregular status, would you explain this third state of being you are implying, because it seems that the Pope has spoken clearly. If you have issues with the Pope entering into talks with the Society it seems you might want to consider taking it up with His Holiness, rather than misinforming folks here.

 

[Onegin]

SSPX and the Sedevacantists are alike in that they disobey the Pope.
In fact the Sedevacantists have a superior argument. They say that if you acknowledge the Pope as being the Pope and refuse to obey his direct commands then you are schismatic.

Ecclesia Dei also advise the faithful not to frequent SSPX chapels because of the schismatic mentality.

Pope Benedict XVI in APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO” ECCLESIAE UNITATEM
states
“the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.”

This letter was sent by the Pontifical Commission to an Australian man who was checking the status of the SSPX.
"While the priests of the Society of St Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and to the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no “lay members” of the Society of St Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

Therefore I have no doubt that those who attend SSPX chapels exclusively and regard themselves as being members of the SSPX and have confessions heard there and get married there and who refuse to attend or have any communion at an OF mass are in formal schism. This can easily be deduced by the words of Pope John Paul II in 1988 who stated
“formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”

Nothing from the current Pope has backed away from that statement although he refrains from bluntly stating these things while sensitive negotiations are transpiring.

This fact alone, that the Pope is not able to command the SSPX but must negotiate and cajole with them speaks volumes. The Pope is there to be obeyed by Catholics, not negotiated with. It is true that we can resist the Pope if we believe that he is wrong on a serious matter, but we need to do so with grave fear and trembling and we may not disobey his direct command.

While I appreciate your opinion, I must disagree with your interpretation. I don’t believe that Rome is as hostile towards the SSPX as you suggest. Maurin makes a good point, either the SSPX are irregular, not irregular or some “third state” that no one has mentioned.

 

[maurin]

Allow me to clarify what I’ve said. The third state which is implied by excubitor’s interpretation of the Pope’s words–and we should be clear that excubitor is no more qualified to interpret the Pope than either you or I, which qualification is nil, btw–is between schism and not schismb. Communion with the Holy Father, or excommunication.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Ok, so I know this is a very touchy issue. I am really looking for SSPXers to answer this question for me. I don’t want an argument. I just am looking for an answer/proof.

How can one say that SSPX is not sedevacantist? (Please no snide answers like “you can’t.”)

I know that they accept the Pope as the Pope. Therefore the seat is not vacant. However, I guess I think of this all illogical. No Pope can be a heretic. If so, they cease to be Pope. SSPX holds that Vatican II was heretical (I believe). The Pope says that it is not. Therefore, according to this logic. The Pope is a heretic and the seat is vacant.

Is my logic right or am I missing something?

Also, another issue that I have realized is that sedevacantists seem to listen to their own magisterium and it seems that SSPX does the same? They accept the Pope and the Magisterium but do not listen to them! How does that work?

I know this is very loaded, but I figured I should just get all my questions out. Please answer my questions, and not eachother’s comments.

Pax!

I agree. That position seems untenable. The SSPX claims that Pope Benedict is POPE but then they refuse obedience.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know, excubitor, I think that what the Pope didn’t say is every bit as important as what he did say…

While we appreciate your attempts to interpret the mind of the Pope, …

Do you not see the contradiction here? This is why an argument from silence is not very good. It tends to assume. In light of previous Church statements on the state of the SSPX priests, a non-statement by the Holy Father should not be taken as any change.

 

[maurin]

Pnewton, either one can produce a document of His Holiness which states that the SSPX is in schism, or one can’t produce one. Until one does, it is all just white noise. And I believe you should follow the His Holiness on this one and refrain from saying what he himself does not say.

 

[excubitor]

Pnewton, either one can produce a document of His Holiness which states that the SSPX is in schism, or one can’t produce one. Until one does, it is all just white noise. And I believe you should follow the His Holiness on this one and refrain from saying what he himself does not say.

I did provide one
Pope Benedict XVI in APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO” ECCLESIAE UNITATEM
states
“the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.”

How plain is that. What interpretation is necessary? This is certainly not white noise, but very plain, unambiguous and clear statements. The only reason you would argue that it is white noise is because you do not want to admit what the Pope says, you do not want to agree with it, and furthermore you do not want to obey it. Which in itself is a schismatic act. How many schismatic acts does it take before a person is in schism?

What does the Spirit tell us? Do we need the Pope to tell us we are in schism before we believe it? Or are we convicted by our own consciences when that very first act of schism is performed?

If you are arguing all that Canon Law stuff then you might be able to argue that they may not be in formal schism, but the spirit of schism is evident and should be avoided by Catholics.

Ecclesia Dei also warned Catholics to not make a habit of frequenting SSPX chapels so as not to absorb the** schismatic mentality**.
So the SSPX may not be in formal schism (which is arguable) but they most certainly have a schismatic mentality and that should be enough to tell us that it is dangerous to attend their chapels.
Add to that the Popes clear statement that they have no legitimate ministry.
Ecclesia Dei has also ruled that their confessions are not just illicit but are completely invalid. This should scare the socks off every SSPX-er because if their confessions are not valid then they are still in mortal sin and are desecrating the valid Body of Christ which has been illicitly consecrated.

 

[maurin]

Interesting that the Pope stops short of saying what you misleadingly insist.

Supplied Jurisdiction would not apply for you in the case of the Society and the Sacraments. But it does for those of us who have fled from the NO Parishes where preaching in contradictionof Dogma and morality is the norm and not the exception.

You are free to believe what you want, but there are a few of us who will call your misconceptions exactly that.

Until you can produce a document of the Pope which states the Society is in schism you are guilty of defamation. Please desist.

 

[excubitor]

Interesting that the Pope stops short of saying what you misleadingly insist.

Supplied Jurisdiction would not apply for you in the case of the Society and the Sacraments. But it does for those of us who have fled from the NO Parishes where preaching in contradictionof Dogma and morality is the norm and not the exception.

You are free to believe what you want, but there are a few of us who will call your misconceptions exactly that.

Until you can produce a document of the Pope which states the Society is in schism you are guilty of defamation. Please desist.

OK have it your way. The SSPX are not declared as being guilty of formal schism.
However I have it on the authority of Pope Benedict XVI and the pontifical commission of Ecclesia Dei that the SSPX have:

• no canonical status in the Church
• an illegitimate ministry
• a schismatic mentality
• illicit and invalid confessions
• illicit consecrations of the Eucharist

These are not just my interpretations or ideas. These are direct statements from the Pope and his office.

To all who frequent SSPX chapels I urge. Please desist.

 

[excubitor]

Supplied Jurisdiction would not apply for you in the case of the Society and the Sacraments. But it does for those of us who have fled from the NO Parishes where preaching in contradictionof Dogma and morality is the norm and not the exception.

Supplied Jurisdiction works for those who mistakenly believe that the sacraments they are being provided are valid. This concept rests entirely upon the mercies of God as an extraordinary means of providing forgiveness of mortal sins.

The irony is that as soon as the SSPX priest informs his flock about Supplied Jurisdiction he does by unhappy consequence inform his faithful that their sacraments are invalid by the ordinary means. Which then means that the faithful are no longer ignorant of the fact that their sacraments are invalid which means that supplied jurisdiction no longer applies to them. Ironic is it not?

It takes a brilliant Canon lawyer to argue that Supplied Jurisdiction is applicable in the case of the SSPX. Sorry but it is the height of foolishness to rely upon the Canon lawyer being correct when the ordinary means of reconciliation is just down the road at the local parish. How can we follow a clever canon lawyer who says that the sacraments of penance is valid when the pontifical commission and by extension the Pope says that it IS NOT VALID? If the sacrament was valid by supplied jurisdiction the Pope would have said so. It is the height of recklessness to ignore the words of the Pope and his office because of the sayso of some tricky Canon lawyer who is adept at looking for loopholes in the law to excuse his acts of disobedience.

At the very least the SSPX’er who has no access to the FSSP should make his confession at the local parish and use the SSPX chapel sparingly as it was originally intended and operated, as a mass centre for those with an attachment to the Latin Mass. Since the illicit consecrations of the bishops the SSPX has taken on more and more of the functions which properly belong to the ordinary. I have even heard that the SSPX bishops sit upon the faldstool which is supposed to be reserved for the visiting ordinary bishop and also use the crozier which belongs to the sitting bishop.

These acts speak louder than words that the SSPX is in schism even if the Pope has not explicitly said the words “The SSPX is guilty of Schism”.

But the SSPX disobey. They are aware of all the rules which they break, and what is the excuse every time? Supplied Jurisdiction. Supplied Jurisdiction. Supplied Jurisdiction.

Supplied Jurisdiction is not a license and excuse to disobey and build a mentally schismatic organisation of over 500 priests, it’s for individual situations or extraordinary situations such as in the Great Schism when it was uncertain who the Pope was and who the legitimate bishops were. And today that situation does not apply because the SSPX recognises the Pope and they know who the local ordinary is, both of whom they defy every week when they illicitly exercise their ministry and consecrate the Eucharist and dish out invalid and illicit confessions.

 

[Onegin]

To all who frequent SSPX chapels I urge. Please desist.

Desist from what? Disagreeing with you?

As Rome hasn’t indicated that those attending SSPX chapels should “desist” (on the contrary, Rome has said that those faithful who assist at the SSPX chapels fulfill the Sunday obligation and are NOT schismatic or excommunicated) then I don’t see why you should be reading in a negative obligation.

 

[excubitor]

I don’t know, excubitor, I think that what the Pope didn’t say is every bit as important as what he did say. In one breath he explains that the priests and bishops of the society are suspended a divinis. In the next breath he refers to the faithful receiving the sacraments from them.

Are you suggesting that the Pope is confused. What the Pope said was that the Priests are suspended and their consecrations are therefore illicit. However a priest is always a priest until the day he dies. Therefore he is able to consecrate the Eucharist and it truly becomes the body and blood of Christ. The Pope has also made it clear that Catholics may fulfill their Sunday obligation at the SSPX chapel because the sacrament is valid. However he warns that frequent attendance introduces the danger of absorbing the schismatic mentality of the SSPX. He also has stated via Ecclesia Dei that the sacraments of reconciliation, marriage and confirmation ARE NEITHER VALID or LICIT. The only sacraments which are valid are baptism, Eucharist and Holy Orders and of these the latter two are illicit. (Not sure about Anointing of the Sick)

So it is true to say that their sacraments are invalid if we are speaking in a general context.

The other proviso which the Pope has made, and this applies to those who attend the FSSP chapels also, and that is that to attend the Latin Mass to the exclusion of the OF mass and to refuse to participate in an OF mass is not allowed. To reject the OF mass and to deny its validity or to claim that it is defective or heretical is not permissible. I read this somewhere but now I cannot find it.

Yet I know that many in the SSPX do just that and are so doing exhibit a schismatic mentality by keeping the Latin Mass as a kind of placard that they wave at the Pope. What a tragedy that traditional elements of the faith like the Latin Mass and the rosary have become political footballs and statements to wave at the Pope. Sadly the Latin Mass instead of being seen for what it is, as a pearl of great price, has become associated in the minds of many in the church as a symbol of rebellion and dissension in much the same way after the reformation that the scriptures became a similar symbol of dissension and rebellion. We have the SSPX to thank for that.

I support the actions of the SSPX and the Archbishop who resisted the Pope to his face and who persisted faithfully saying the Latin Mass. But after the illegal episcopal consecrations the whole movement of the SSPX has gone really ugly. There seems to be no end in sight and I fear that in 100 years the SSPX will still be rattling on about supplied jurisdiction and Vatican 2.

 

[maurin]

Actually, ex, I think it is you who is suggesting the Pope is confused. You are the one talking way passed him. He’s actually sitting down with the Society, while you defame them. Please desist.

 

[excubitor]

Actually, ex, I think it is you who is suggesting the Pope is confused. You are the one talking way passed him. He’s actually sitting down with the Society, while you defame them. Please desist.

I am not defaming anyone. I am merely repeating the words of the Pope. Please point to one thing which I have said which is not supported by what the Pope and the pontifical commission has clearly stated.

This is also standard SSPX tactic. Whenever people point out these very same words of the Pope and the PCED, they are labeled as defaming and abusing the SSPX. Calumny is a really good traditionalist word which is thrown about as an accusation against anyone who says boo against the SSPX. It’s bad enough for me. Imagine what it is like for the poor souls in the SSPX who do not tow the party line. They have a torrid time of it. I know this from reading many accounts on the Internet.

So are you going to say that the Pope is defaming and slandering the SSPX when he says that the SSPX has:

• no canonical status in the Church
• an illegitimate ministry
• a schismatic mentality
• illicit and invalid confessions
• illicit consecrations of the Eucharist

Here’s something along the lines of what I was pointing out in my last post
Msgr. Camille Perl (PCED’s Secretary) stated that,* “In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X…If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”
*
It stands to reason that if you refuse to participate in any Novus Ordo mass under any circumstance then you are refusing communion with those who do, including the Pope which is in itself a schismatic act. Again I ask, how many schismatic acts does one have to do before he is in schism?

In that same letter Cardinal Perl made the following statements
“The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions.”

“To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.”

“this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.”

“we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass (SSPX mass)”
latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm

I recommend also that the faithful do not attend SSPX masses which adhere to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre. Although it might not strictly be sin to attend it depends on the motivation for attending.

In my view the motivation for attending an SSPX is almost exclusively sinful according to these provisos given by the Cardinal, especially in cases where an FSSP mass is accessible in a nearby suburb. All the more so now that the Pope has issued Summorum Pontificum, the members of the SSPX could leave the SSPX and approach the local ordinary and ask for him to assign them a chaplain to say the Latin Mass for them and to hear their confessions. Can you imagine the hue and the cry, the stink of betrayal that would be cast upon such people by their SSPX masters if they were to do such a thing.

I have no doubt that they would be ostracised by their families, even as many SSPX’ers have been ostracised for attending NO masses or even for attending FSSP masses. These anecdotes which I find constantly on the Internet are of course not evidence of a schism but certainly adds to the general odour of schism which constantly clings to the movement.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

In my view the motivation for attending an SSPX is almost exclusively sinful according to these provisos given by the Cardinal, especially in cases where an FSSP mass is accessible in a nearby suburb. All the more so now that the Pope has issued Summorum Pontificum, the members of the SSPX could leave the SSPX and approach the local ordinary and ask for him to assign them a chaplain to say the Latin Mass for them and to hear their confessions. Can you imagine the hue and the cry, the stink of betrayal that would be cast upon such people by their SSPX masters if they were to do such a thing.

I have no doubt that they would be ostracised by their families, even as many SSPX’ers have been ostracised for attending NO masses or even for attending FSSP masses. These anecdotes which I find constantly on the Internet are of course not evidence of a schism but certainly adds to the general odour of schism which constantly clings to the movement.

excubitor,

I am sure you mean well, but your assessment of the situation is completely alien to my own experience. The SSPX priests and bishops with whom I am familiar are more like my servants, and certainly not my masters. The only threats I am familiar with come from people who can only offer fear as a reason for why I may not live my Catholic faith where I am loved and cared for. I have no fear of leaving. There is no way Father or anybody else would hate or ostracize me if I so decided. No way.

 

[excubitor]

excubitor,

I am sure you mean well, but your assessment of the situation is completely alien to my own experience. The SSPX priests and bishops with whom I am familiar are more like my servants, and certainly not my masters. The only threats I am familiar with come from people who can only offer fear as a reason for why I may not live my Catholic faith where I am loved and cared for. I have no fear of leaving. There is no way Father or anybody else would hate or ostracize me if I so decided. No way.

Fair enough.
Hypothetically. How do you feel your SSPX servant priest would react if half of his congregation approached the local ordinary to have a chaplain appointed to say the Latin Mass for them under the terms of the Summorum Pontificum?

Hypothetically. Do you feel that you would be free to interview your fellow SSPX-ers and canvas support to approach the local ordinary in this way?

How do you think your SSPX priest and your congregation there would react?

And now that I have your attention and you admit that you are an SSPXer. How do you possibly sleep at night when your Pope, who you recognise, tells you that your sacraments of Penance are INVALID? And what is this business I hear about the SSPX granting annulments? Oh no. I better not mention annulments its one of my hobby horses.

 

[maurin]

In the last diocese I lived in, speaking of the SP, my Pastor told me, “over his dead body would that Latin Mass be said in” his “church.” When I reminded him that it wasn’t his Church, he only glared at me. Church “shopping” in this particular Diocese my ears were assailed by preaching against Marian Dogmas and Catholic Morality. When a Baptist woman minister gave the Homily at one Mass, I called the Chancery where I was told that there is nothing incorrect about guest speakers at Mass, and that the Ordinary approved of them. A group of around 25 petitioned the FSSP, and received a nicely worded response that their presence was not required in that Diocese. That’s when I began assisting at Mass with the SSPX.

When I was transferred to a different Diocese for my job, I saw no reason to stop doingt so. In my more than 4 decades of life as a Catholic NEVER had I been introduced to Catholicism in such a way that Jesus was personal to me. Unencumbered by what I now see as the anthropocentric bent of the avg Mass down here, I am freer to join the wider company of His Saints while still enjoying the company of my fellow worshippers after Mass.

Much of what you offer as supposed proofs, excubitor, were facts under the previous Pontiff. His reign ended 5 years ago. The new Pope has a different tack on the subject. He is also there to be obeyed. You must obey him now, who wrote of the Society as an internal reconciliation within the Church on the accompanying letter to the SP. Desist from going further than he does in your defamatory propaganda.

And let us all pray for the Pope, as he asked, for protection against the wolves he spoke of when he was made our Holy Father.

 

[excubitor]

In the last diocese I lived in, speaking of the SP, my Pastor told me, “over his dead body would that Latin Mass be said in” his “church.” When I reminded him that it wasn’t his Church, he only glared at me. Church “shopping” in this particular Diocese my ears were assailed by preaching against Marian Dogmas and Catholic Morality. When a Baptist woman minister gave the Homily at one Mass, I called the Chancery where I was told that there is nothing incorrect about guest speakers at Mass, and that the Ordinary approved of them. A group of around 25 petitioned the FSSP, and received a nicely worded response that their presence was not required in that Diocese. That’s when I began assisting at Mass with the SSPX.

When I was transferred to a different Diocese for my job, I saw no reason to stop doingt so. In my more than 4 decades of life as a Catholic NEVER had I been introduced to Catholicism in such a way that Jesus was personal to me. Unencumbered by what I now see as the anthropocentric bent of the avg Mass down here, I am freer to join the wider company of His Saints while still enjoying the company of my fellow worshippers after Mass.

Much of what you offer as supposed proofs, excubitor, were facts under the previous Pontiff. His reign ended 5 years ago. The new Pope has a different tack on the subject. He is also there to be obeyed. You must obey him now, who wrote of the Society as an internal reconciliation within the Church on the accompanying letter to the SP. Desist from going further than he does in your defamatory propaganda.

And let us all pray for the Pope, as he asked, for protection against the wolves he spoke of when he was made our Holy Father.

You don’t need to tell me how bad things are. I know how bad they are. However bad as things are they are not as bad as the situation in the church in the first century. Just read through the letters to the churches in the Apocalypse to read about all of the horrendous problems they had. Yet there is no indication that Jesus intended for anybody to leave their parishes and take up with a different church. Every time Jesus said to the churches, “Overcome. He that overcometh shall receive a reward”. Leaving the ordinary church is not overcoming. It is abandoning the church in its hour of need. Part of the reason that the modernists have flourished is because the traditionalists have laid down their swords and have headed for the hills building up on another foundation other than that which was laid.

I suggest that traditionalists should persist in their local parishes, grieving in their hearts like Mary does at all the abuses. Writing the odd letter, being constant in prayer.

I am also opposed to this uncatholic notion of church shopping. It really has to stop. It’s a protestant novelty. We need traditionalists and conservatives in the parishes God has placed them for his purpose to work against the modernist influences in those parishes. The tide of modernism will eventually turn back to tradition, but it will take a lot longer if the traditionalists are all crying in their soup and going off to the SSPX, SSPV. If history is anything to go by the SSPX will continue to splinter and will become the SSPY and SSPZ. This is the work of the devil, divide and conquer, separate the sheep from the main body of the flock so that they may picked off one by one. Surely we learned all these lessons during the protestant reformation. Why ignore history and make all the same mistakes again and again?

I entirely disagree that the current Pope has a different tack towards the SSPX compared to the former Pope. Please give some evidence of this. Please also give evidence that I have said anything other than what the current Pope and the PCED has said. You are making unsubstantiated statements against me and basically slurring me by saying that I am engaging in propoganda and defamation. I am doing no such thing. I am merely commentating on the exact words of the Pope and the PCED.

 

[pnewton]

In the last diocese I lived in, speaking of the SP, my Pastor told me, “over his dead body would that Latin Mass be said in” his “church.” … That’s when I began assisting at Mass with the SSPX.
.

I think your post gives a good lesson to us all not to sit in judgement on the choices of others. While specific stories provide no evidence of what the Church does or does not say, they still serve as a reason to accept each other as they are. Not all may have attached themselves to the SSPX in your situation, but I think we all can understand why you did.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

excubitor
Hypothetically. How do you feel your SSPX servant priest would react if half of his congregation approached the local ordinary to have a chaplain appointed to say the Latin Mass for them under the terms of the Summorum Pontificum?

Rory
I think he would be shocked and perhaps pleased in a way. No one has a greater desire to decrease that the rest of the Church may increase than Father. You seem to have it backwards. It seems more likely to me that Father would visit the Bishop in the hope of some kind of an understanding than would a bunch of us. Father has not one unkind word for our bishop, but he recognizes that as it is around the world, there is a crisis when orthodox Catholics have to beg him, a priest without lawful faculties, to minister unto them because no one with lawful faculties will. Most of the Traditionalists in our diocese need the SSPX to remind them of our continuing subordination to a bishop who to most of us, seems like a devouring wolf, rather than our shepherd. Be assured, he is a moderating influence upon the people.

excubitor
Hypothetically. Do you feel that you would be free to interview your fellow SSPX-ers and canvas support to approach the local ordinary in this way?

Rory
Who could stop me? But I would be against it. The bishop tolerates an indult right now in an industrial section at a bad time. If the SSPX was gone, the indult would be taken away too. I am told that this bishop was asked to consider having an FSSP parish in the major city of the diocese. Nope. If he would ever let them in, they would go straight to the much smaller town where the SSPX priory is. When a bishop sees the Traditional Latin Mass and Traditionalists as his enemy, there is a crisis.

excubitor
How do you think your SSPX priest and your congregation there would react?

Rory
It just isn’t possible that we could think that there is no emergency in the Church.

excubitor
And now that I have your attention and you admit that you are an SSPXer. How do you possibly sleep at night when your Pope, who you recognise, tells you that your sacraments of Penance are INVALID? And what is this business I hear about the SSPX granting annulments? Oh no. I better not mention annulments its one of my hobby horses.

Rory
I think the Church supplies jurisdiction to Father under the circumstances. God loves us. He knows we love His Son, and His Mother, and His Holy Church. I am not telling anybody else to do what I have done. I think we are in a crisis and God does not insist on my going to a parish where it seems to me that my family would have suffered spiritually. That raises an interesting question. Do you think the children of SSPX parishioners are unshriven when they leave the confessional too? Wow. I just could never believe that. Conservatives can be sooooooo legalistic. I am just trying to help you think this whole thing through a little more. I think God is merciful. My children seem to be doing so very well now, and why…if they aren’t really receiving Communion, Confession, and Confirmation? This fear of invalid sacraments shouldn’t be taken lightly, but it doesn’t make any sense in light of the good fruit pouring out of our chapels in contrast to the apostasy and corruption of so many young people in the Novus Ordo parishes. Surely you can appreciate our dilemma. And if you can’t, I believe the good God does. It wouldn’t do any good to cite canon law about what happens in a perceived emergency would it?

I am pleasantly surprised that you exonerate Abp. Lefebvre for resisting the pope in regards to the Traditional Mass. I don’t blame those seminarians or priests who left to form the FSSP after the consecrations, nor do I blame lay people who do not support it. The archbishop commiserated about the decision for a long time because it was difficult for him to do.

But if you support the FSSP and the SSPX up until 1988, you know that the same irregularities existed before as after. Do you think that the confessions and marriages of SSPX priests were valid until 1988? Do you think it is the alleged latae sententiae excommunication that made them invalid. No. If they have ever been invalid, it is because all priests, under ordinary circumstances must be incardinated into the diocese in which they are ministering. This hadn’t existed throughout the late 70’s and 80’s when the bishops were pronouncing that the Traditional Mass had been suppressed. That means that if our sacraments of confession and matrimony are invalid now, they were invalid before 1988 when many current FSSP priests were associated with the SSPX.

I would like to know how it was handled. Maybe you go to an FSSP parish and could find out. Do FSSP priests teach that the confessions they made or weddings they officiated at while SSPX seminarians or priests were invalid? If a bunch of us approached the bishop to ask for a priest, would he in your opinion, need to tell us who have been married at SSPX chapels that they are unmarried? Would he need to withhold Holy Communion from those of us who may have confessed our mortal sins, but invalidly, to an SSPX priest? It seems to me that the best way to find out what the Church really teaches about supplied jurisdiction, is discovered when we find out what happened when large numbers of former SSPX return to a regularized situation. The Society of St. Peter has the answer to that question.

Rory

PS: A while back, I heard something about annulments too, that maybe a handful of priests thought it could be necessary because of the high numbers that are given. But given the crisis in the Church, no wonder there have been so many non-sacramental marriages. In your opinion, does someone “married” in an SSPX chapel need an annulment, or are they just free to marry? Anyway, I think any movement has been squelched and rightly so. Our good priest spoke strongly against the idea.