Vatican on Society of St. Pius X: Position Insufficient to Restore Full Unity With Church at Present

[Farmville]

That’s irrelevant. This is a disciplinary issue with

Catholics, not Orthodox. The Holy See deals with the Orthodox in different terms, because the Orthodox are not part of the Catholic Church

Thanks for this clarification of RC Doctrine. Again, I think the SSPX would argue that Divine law…dogmatic and moral…preventes Catholics from worshiping in the forms dictated by Vatican II. Of course, from your information, it looks like the reply would be that only the (present) Pope can difine the aforesaid. Nonetheless, it makes for interesting debate, depending on ones views concerning the nature of the Church.

This is relativism at its finest. Just because they believe that the Apostolic See is in error, does not make it so. At the end of the day, Catholics owe their allegiance to the Apostolic See, not to the SSPX. There is only one Magisterium and it’s not the SSPX. Their understanding and questions may have legitimacy within the context of subordination, but not outside of that.

No more relativist from the SSPX viewpoint than any Pope coming up with new definitions for doctrine and overhauls of the liturgy according to his personal jugement.

You cannot set yourself as equal to that who created you and through whom you received life and who can terminate your existence. As an institute of Pontifical Right, the SSPX exists only at the bene placito of the Holy Father. The moment that it says that it exists because it (The SSPX) says it exists, it is in schism. All institutes of Pontifical Right exist only as long as the Holy Father gives them the right to exist. Once he suppresses them, by taking away their right to call themselves Catholic, they cease to exist within the Church. Or they can do this to themselves, if they assume the position that they do not have to submit to the rights of the Pontiff.

Once either of those happens, anyone who supports them, goes into schism with them, as it happened in the Great Schism 1000 years ago. The bishops went and so did those who followed them. They all ceased to be Catholic. They retain Apostolic Succession. That cannot be taken from them. They are outside of the Catholic Church. This is what would happen to the SSPX is the Pope took away their right to be called Catholic or if they decided that they do not have to submit to the Pontiff. Understand, that we’re talking about the Institute. Individuals do not cease to be Catholic. Anyone baptized in the Catholic Church continues to be Catholic, even when he or she is in schism. For that reason, he can return with a simple confession of sins and reasonable penance.

That does not work in the Church, because the Church is vertical. All power and authority flows from the top down. The people are led in worship by the priest. The priest shares in the priesthood of his bishop. The bishop governs in communion with the Pontiff. The Pontiff accounts to no one except to God.

Good summary of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. From this standpoint, I can see how you would call any other opinion irellevant/ relativist, depending on its thrust. Your point on the precarious position of the SSPX seems pretty much summed up by this information, since, because this is the Roman Catholic viewpoint of how the Church works, how can they be “more” in union with one another if they reject the giver of union according to their theology? Again, it seems that they will either have to “rejoin” or as Exilium said, accept that they now have a different opinion, and be from the Vatican’s perspective in the same sitution as EO and OO Churches.

The USA was not instituted by Christ. The Church was.

Don’t get me started…I certainly hope it wasn’t…

As for the Church, indeed it was. Christus Regnat!

As for this debate among the Latins, may Christ and the most holy Theotokos guide all concerned in the SSPX decision.

 

[Farmville]

-double post delated-

 

[JReducation]

No more relativist from the SSPX viewpoint than any Pope coming up with new definitions for doctrine and overhauls of the liturgy according to his personal jugement.

The pope cannot come up with new doctrines. He can certainly restate them in different language and add to their understanding. It’s like a chestnut. The tree is already there in potential. As time passes, the seed breaks open and the first leaves begin to show. It grows and as it grows, you can see it change, but at the same time, it remains the same. The same happens with the development of Christian doctrine. No new doctrine is added, it’s understanding is amplified as we go along.

As to the liturgy, the pope most certainly can overhaul the entire liturgy, if he so chooses. He is the highest liturgist in the Church.

Neither of these is relativism. Both are based on solid doctrine. Relativism enters the picture when we start with “everyone has the right to believe what they believe.”

Good summary of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. From this standpoint, I can see how you would call any other opinion irellevant/ relativist, depending on its thrust. Your point on the precarious position of the SSPX seems pretty much summed up by this information, since, because this is the Roman Catholic viewpoint of how the Church works, how can they be “more” in union with one another if they reject the giver of union according to their theology?

This itself is one of the doctrinal issues at hand. I think that everyone here on CAF is looking for the doctrinal issue in the documents of Vatican II or the form of the liturgy and saying, “The SSPX does not have a doctrinal issue.” The SSPX has a doctrinal issue when it operates outside of the parameters of ecclesiology. It’s doctrinal conflict is in the area of ecclesiology itself.

Once that gets resolved, the form of the mass and the documents of Vatican II can be discussed ad infinitum, without being on a slippery slope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ringil]

I have seen thousands of Catholics since this memo came out. I was at a parish this weekend. No one is interested in this subject. No one asked.

Br. JR, OSF

I don’t know of anyone personally who even knows what the SSPX is. If I ever bring them up in a conversation I get something to the tune of “What? Never heard of it.”

I’ve met a small handful of folks who say something to the effect: “yeah, I heard something about a bishop who denied the holocaust.”

 

[ProVobis]

The bishop has no rightful authority over him, so he can leave whenever he pleases, morally speaking.

I’m not sure I totally agree with this simplification. They are still Catholic and subject to Canon Law, even if their current canonical status hasn’t been fully established.

 

[JReducation]

I’m not sure I totally agree with this simplification. They are still Catholic and subject to Canon Law, even if their current canonical status hasn’t been fully established.

Canon Law requires that a priest be bound to either a diocesan bishop or the superior of an institute that is in good standing with the Church. The bishops of the SSPX are not diocesan bishops. The SSPX is not in good standing with the Church. It does not have a canonical status. Bishop Felay cannot be the canonical superior of the SSPX, because a canonical superior must be approved by either the diocesan bishop, if the society is of diocesan right or by the Holy See, if the society is of pontifical right. Since bishop Felay has never been approved as the Superior General, his position is an internal agreement, not a canonical appointment.

To receive promises and vows in the name of the Church, you must be authorized by the Church to do so. These priests are not canonically bound to the SSPX. This leaves them free to walk. For this reason the Church said that what Archbishop Lefebvre did was a schismatic act. He placed himself, his bishops, priests and deacons outside of the law. it is very dangerous to have clergy and religious who are free to walk. They don’t have to answer to anyone. If they get into trouble, to whom do they answer? On the flip side, if they are being persecuted or are in financial trouble, who bails them out? The Church has no obligation to them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Pork_Roll]

I think the church has been plenty accomidating to the progressive side of the church, why not show the same accomidation to the traditional side? I think despite the act of disobedience which I think can be understood in the context of the times, that the SSPX are more obedient than most catholic colleges and catholic politicans who still can recieve comunion from Cardinal Wuerl.

 

[JReducation]

I think the church has been plenty accomidating to the progressive side of the church, why not show the same accomidation to the traditional side? I think despite the act of disobedience which I think can be understood in the context of the times, that the SSPX are more obedient than most catholic colleges and catholic politicans who still can recieve comunion from Cardinal Wuerl.

First of all, the Vatican has been very patient with the SSPX.

Second, the issue in Cardinal Wuerl’s diocese has nothing to do with this. Canon Law treats them separately and so should we.

Third, disobedience is not the issue here, doctrinal differences is the issue here. The SSPX has a different ecclesiology from that of the Holy Father and Cardinal Levada. It cannot expect the Holy Father or Cardinal Levada to submit to its vision of ecclesiology, since both the Cardinal and the Holy Father are their superiors, not their subordinates.

Fourth, if it were a matter of cutting slack, the pope can cut slack to whomever he wants and not to others. Getting some slack is not a right, but a gift. We can only demand that which we have the right to demand.

The real issue is not about cutting them slack, but about putting closure on this issue which has been dragging on for 40 years or so. It seems that Cardinal Levada has decided to close this one way or another. He has put the burden on Bishop Felay, either give the Vatican what it wants or be responsible for something catastrophic. That’s a heavy moral burden that he’s put on him. He has to accept that or bend a little.

I’m hoping that he’ll bend a little. I believe that if he does bend a little, the Vatican will look at it a sign of hope and will not pull the rug out from under the SSPX, but hold a little and maybe bend a little as well. If he does not bend, God help us all.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

I think the church has been plenty accomidating to the progressive side of the church, why not show the same accomidation to the traditional side?

The Holy See has been very supportive of a large number of traditional groups, particularly in recent years.

 

[TMC]

The Holy See has been very supportive of a large number of traditional groups, particularly in recent years.

And the Holy See has NOT been similarly supportive of progressive groups. Has there been a single example of the Church negotiating doctrinal statements with a progressive group? Or revoking the excommunication of a progressive dissident, without even demanding that the dissident first recant his position? If so, I have not heard of it. The Church has been more than supportive here, it has bent over backward in an unprecedented fashion. Still, it appears the SSPX leadership is unmoved. I hope and pray that the SSPX laity and priests do not follow that example.

 

[ProVobis]

Canon Law requires that a priest be bound to either a diocesan bishop or the superior of an institute that is in good standing with the Church. The bishops of the SSPX are not diocesan bishops. The SSPX is not in good standing with the Church. It does not have a canonical status. Bishop Felay cannot be the canonical superior of the SSPX, because a canonical superior must be approved by either the diocesan bishop, if the society is of diocesan right or by the Holy See, if the society is of pontifical right. Since bishop Felay has never been approved as the Superior General, his position is an internal agreement, not a canonical appointment.

To receive promises and vows in the name of the Church, you must be authorized by the Church to do so. These priests are not canonically bound to the SSPX. This leaves them free to walk. For this reason the Church said that what Archbishop Lefebvre did was a schismatic act. He placed himself, his bishops, priests and deacons outside of the law. it is very dangerous to have clergy and religious who are free to walk. They don’t have to answer to anyone. If they get into trouble, to whom do they answer? On the flip side, if they are being persecuted or are in financial trouble, who bails them out? The Church has no obligation to them.

Br JR, I get that.

I was replying to someone who had already presumed schism on their part and his use of the word “free” bothered me a little. It would be like me saying “I’ve been excommunicated; I no longer have a Sunday obligation or need to do penance on Friday.” But that also leads to another question: if the bishops were to be declared to be in schism and don’t have to follow Canon Law, would they be really free to consecrate other bishops without approval from Rome? I don’t think one can say that either.

 

[Exsilivm]

This itself is one of the doctrinal issues at hand. I think that everyone here on CAF is looking for the doctrinal issue in the documents of Vatican II or the form of the liturgy and saying, “The SSPX does not have a doctrinal issue.” The SSPX has a doctrinal issue when it operates outside of the parameters of ecclesiology. It’s doctrinal conflict is in the area of ecclesiology itself.

Once that gets resolved, the form of the mass and the documents of Vatican II can be discussed ad infinitum, without being on a slippery slope.

I tend to agree - the SSPX do have a doctrinal issue with Rome. You have suggested that the SSPX should, in effect, agree that it does, and “bend even 5 degrees” (a metaphor I really liked, btw.

To my thinking, the natural place for SSPX to bend is on the issue of collegiality. As you have framed it, Brother, the SSPX take a “collegial” stance; maybe not as envisioned by V2, and certainly not as envisioned by its implementers after adjournment of the council itself, but collegial nonetheless. The SSPX has four bishops who say “Rome must listen.” Since they maintain this in their episcopal capacity, what is it if not “collegiality?”

How odd that no one ever seems to argue from this standpoint. Hellenephobia, perhaps?

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, I get that.

I was replying to someone who had already presumed schism on their part and his use of the word “free” bothered me a little. It would be like me saying “I’ve been excommunicated; I no longer have a Sunday obligation or need to do penance on Friday.” But that also leads to another question: if the bishops were to be declared to be in schism and don’t have to follow Canon Law, would they be really free to consecrate other bishops without approval from Rome? I don’t think one can say that either.

If the SSPX falls into schism, it becomes another Church, just like the Orthodox and the Old Catholics. Canon Law would no longer apply to the, because Canon Law only applies to the Latin Church, not even to Eastern Catholics. They have their own laws.

Since they would no longer be under Canon Law, because they would no longer be part of the Catholic Church, they can ordain whomever they want and the ordinations would be valid and licit. Right now, they are ilicit, because they are against the law. Once you’re outside of the reach of the law, it can no longer be illegal. Like the Orthodox, they would have Apostolic Succession as long as they pass the line down from one validly ordained bishop to another. Once this generation dies, the next generation will not be schismatic, because they were not the ones who broke away. It was their ancestors. The generation that breaks away is the generation that is morally responsible for the break and who objectively commits grave sin.

I tend to agree - the SSPX do have a doctrinal issue with Rome. You have suggested that the SSPX should, in effect, agree that it does, and “bend even 5 degrees” (a metaphor I really liked, btw.

To my thinking, the natural place for SSPX to bend is on the issue of collegiality. As you have framed it, Brother, the SSPX take a “collegial” stance; maybe not as envisioned by V2, and certainly not as envisioned by its implementers after adjournment of the council itself, but collegial nonetheless. The SSPX has four bishops who say “Rome must listen.” Since they maintain this in their episcopal capacity, what is it if not “collegiality?”

How odd that no one ever seems to argue from this standpoint. Hellenephobia, perhaps?

Collegiality does not mean telling the pope that he has to listen to you. Collegiality means several other things.

1. The pope and the bishops belong to the same college of bishops.
2. The bishops govern in union with the pope, not beneath the pope.
3. Each diocesan bishop is the lawful head of a particular Church. However, all of these Churches must be in communion with the See of Peter to remain Catholic.

Communion does not mean agreement. Communion means to share in the sacramental life of the Church, her works, her faith and to think with the Church. Who decides what is or is not in communion? The pope does that.

Communion is broken not by isolated events of dissent. A bishop who who tells his people that they should use their conscience in deciding matters of birth control is definitely wrong, but he has not broken communion with the Primacy, because the Primacy does not consider this dissenting statement a crime that puts one outside of the Church. It’s not even mentioned in Canon Law. Communion is broken when you commit a crime, such as ordaining when you’re not supposed to ordain. That’s a crime. In this case, the SSPX bishops commit a crime each time they ordain deacons and priests. They are not allowed to ordain, because they are suspended.

Another way to commit a crime is to do something that is not addressed in the law, but that the Pontiff sees as grave enough to warrant censure. A good example of this was in past history when monarchs refused to offer military assistance to protect the Church’s interest and the popes excommunicated them. They did not commit heresy and they certainly did not violate a canon. But their refusal was grave enough to warrant a censure, because they refused to protect the interests of the Church, which should be the priority of every Catholic.

Those are examples of collegiality and communion or lack thereof.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

If the SSPX falls into schism, it becomes another Church, just like the Orthodox and the Old Catholics. Canon Law would no longer apply to the, because Canon Law only applies to the Latin Church, not even to Eastern Catholics. They have their own laws.

Since they would no longer be under Canon Law, because they would no longer be part of the Catholic Church, they can ordain whomever they want and the ordinations would be valid and licit. Right now, they are ilicit, because they are against the law. Once you’re outside of the reach of the law, it can no longer be illegal. Like the Orthodox, they would have Apostolic Succession as long as they pass the line down from one validly ordained bishop to another. Once this generation dies, the next generation will not be schismatic, because they were not the ones who broke away. It was their ancestors. The generation that breaks away is the generation that is morally responsible for the break and who objectively commits grave sin.

That makes sense. Thanks, Br JR.

 

[Exsilivm]

Collegiality does not mean telling the pope that he has to listen to you. Collegiality means several other things.

Your response surprised me. I thought you said that you said: (1) there is a doctrinal dispute between Rome and the SSPX; and (2) The SSPX should comprimise at least somewhat in order to get the regularisation underway again; because (3) Rome will probably meet the SSPX more than halfway on any given issue, as Rome has demonstrated in the past.

That said, collegiality remains the most logical place for the SSPX to start to “bend the 5 degrees” because this is a dispute between bishops.

There is not going to be a schism about liturgy - Rome has already removed those grounds.

There is not going to be a schism about no salvation outside the Church - the earlier writings, especially of the Fathers, is far too clear. Greeks know from outsiders - the term "xenophobia " is Greek!

Ecumenism? The SSPX will never flex on that.

Collegiality: “Governs with the bishops.” Such a statement has meaning within the context of the history of the Latin Church, its laws, and how those laws have been enforced over time. That history, unless one takes an extremely superstitious view (maybe the better word is "magical’) of history demonstrates change over time between the bishops and Rome, and between the pope and important Christian rulers (or pagan ones, if we go back far enough). Moreover, the SSPX claims a right of some kind - at least a right of resistance - that (as you demonstrated in your response to Pro Vobis) sources from its episcopacy.

Given that Rome is not likely going to call a synod over this, for those who want comprimise, that’s where they are apt to find it.

 

[JReducation]

Your response surprised me. I thought you said that you said: (1) there is a doctrinal dispute between Rome and the SSPX; and (2) The SSPX should comprimise at least somewhat in order to get the regularisation underway again; because (3) Rome will probably meet the SSPX more than halfway on any given issue, as Rome has demonstrated in the past.

That said, collegiality remains the most logical place for the SSPX to start to “bend the 5 degrees” because this is a dispute between bishops.

There is not going to be a schism about liturgy - Rome has already removed those grounds.

There is not going to be a schism about no salvation outside the Church - the earlier writings, especially of the Fathers, is far too clear. Greeks know from outsiders - the term "xenophobia " is Greek!

Ecumenism? The SSPX will never flex on that.

Collegiality: “Governs with the bishops.” Such a statement has meaning within the context of the history of the Latin Church, its laws, and how those laws have been enforced over time. That history, unless one takes an extremely superstitious view (maybe the better word is "magical’) of history demonstrates change over time between the bishops and Rome, and between the pope and important Christian rulers (or pagan ones, if we go back far enough). Moreover, the SSPX claims a right of some kind - at least a right of resistance - that (as you demonstrated in your response to Pro Vobis) sources from its episcopacy.

Given that Rome is not likely going to call a synod over this, for those who want comprimise, that’s where they are apt to find it.

I’m not privy to conversations between Bishop Felay and Cardinal Levada. My guess is that the SSPX is going to have to show collegiality precisely on the issue of Ecumenism. The moment that a bishop says that he will not comply because he’s right and the pope is wrong, the collegiality is broken. It’s him against the pope, with whom he should be of one mind…

Collegiality is a concept of ecclesiology. It means that the Church is governed by the college of Bishops headed by the Bishop of Rome who is the Successor of Peter, Vicar of Jesus Christ and Supreme Pontiff. While the pope is part of the college, his authority surpasses that of other bishops. All other bishops who want to remain in the college must acknowledge that authority when the pope demands it.

Here is the difference between the bishop who tells someone to use their conscience to decide on contraception and the bishops of the SSPX. In the former case, the pope does not demand that the bishop say what he says. It is expected that a bishop will teach what the Church teaching. An expectation is not a demand. Canon Law looks at these very differently

In the former case, the Pope is demanding that Bishop Felay give him the answer that he wants or there are going to be grave consequences, which neither wants to see and the Pope is shifting the entire moral responsibility to Bishop Felay. This is actually something that he can do as Pontiff. He can place the moral burden for unity on the bishop by simply saying that he has said his last word. If the bishop does not alter his position, then it is his fault of there is a schism, because the pope has made it clear to him what is necessary to avoid a schism.

I return to my previous point. To avoid such dire moral consequences and responsibility, it would be in the best interest for all if Bishop Fellay bends at least 5 degrees toward the Vatican.

I was reading on another site where people are creating a false distinction between the Vatican and the pope. We have to be very careful not to fall into conspiracy theories, just because we’re not getting what we want or we have to jump through hoops to get it.

The fact is that the Vatican has always functioned like any other country. Each department, secretariat and congregation is empowered to speak for the pope. When they say something, if the pope does not overrule it, you can safely assume that he approves unless it’s something that he knows nothing about. This is not such a case.

The report clearly says that Cardinal Levada gave the pope the conclusions of the CDF for his approval. The warning contained in that message reflects what the pope is thinking and hoping will not come to pass. It does not mean that he wants it to happen. It means that if the SSPX draws a line in the sand, it will happen.

The most that we can do is hope and pray. But let’s stay away from conspiracy theories. They only frighten people, plant seeds of doubt and mistrust, and they add nothing to solving a problem. Besides, if we’re all trying to save the Church and preserve our faith, such ugliness is contrary to the very thing that we claim to be defending.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Br JR, I get that.

I was replying to someone who had already presumed schism on their part and his use of the word “free” bothered me a little. It would be like me saying “I’ve been excommunicated; I no longer have a Sunday obligation or need to do penance on Friday.” But that also leads to another question: if the bishops were to be declared to be in schism and don’t have to follow Canon Law, would they be really free to consecrate other bishops without approval from Rome? I don’t think one can say that either.

I) They are not authorized form the church to receive vows, nor do they have ecclesiastical authority to govern the faithful, therefore their adherents are free to leave the organization which is illicit whether or not it is outright schismatic.

II) I do not think it is necessarily fair to say I presumed schism; I misunderstood the pope to have declared them to be in schism.

 

[Farmville]

The pope cannot come up with new doctrines. He can certainly restate them in different language and add to their understanding. It’s like a chestnut. The tree is already there in potential. As time passes, the seed breaks open and the first leaves begin to show. It grows and as it grows, you can see it change, but at the same time, it remains the same. The same happens with the development of Christian doctrine. No new doctrine is added, it’s understanding is amplified as we go along.

As to the liturgy, the pope most certainly can overhaul the entire liturgy, if he so chooses. He is the highest liturgist in the Church.

 

[Farmville]

Third, disobedience is not the issue here, doctrinal differences is the issue here. The SSPX has a different ecclesiology from that of the Holy Father and Cardinal Levada. It cannot expect the Holy Father or Cardinal Levada to submit to its vision of ecclesiology, since both the Cardinal and the Holy Father are their superiors, not their subordinates.

Here lies SSPX’s dilemma. Although I sympathize with their desire to maintain Tradition as they see it, they will have to do so in a way that will keep their doctrine logical.

Not to mention ultimately it seems probable that the Vatican will bend far more for them if they just bend a little, so they have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by bending.

 

[JReducation]

Here lies SSPX’s dilemma. Although I sympathize with their desire to maintain Tradition as they see it, they will have to do so in a way that will keep their doctrine logical.

Not to mention ultimately it seems probable that the Vatican will bend far more for them if they just bend a little, so they have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by bending.

Unless the Vatican changes its mind, which is rare, this last communication did not invite Bishop Felay to ongoing dialogue. Without ongoing dialogue, there will be no bending on the part of the Vatican.

The wording of the communique was very clear. Bishop Felay needed to clarify his position or be responsible for a great tragedy, which would be a schism. That does not sound like a position willing to do more talking with Bishop Felay. It sounds like a final gesture to him to say what the Holy Father wants or this conversation is over and you’re in schism.

There have been signs of this coming. Cardinal Levada has expressed that he was tired of them, because they did not understand or did not wish to understand. Many Traditionalist Catholics don’t want to accept, that the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith has a lot of power and influence. If he calls the SSPX schismatic, the Holy Father is not going to overrule him. This does not happen in the Catholic Church.

Being as Pope Benedict once held the same position as Cardinal Levada, he is very sympathetic to and respectful of that office. As much as we love tradition. We have to live in the real Church. The pope is not going to overrule his own men. These men have tried to dialogue with the SSPX for two years and seem to have concluded that the SSPX position is unacceptable. Their recommendation to the Holy Father is to cut them loose. The Holy Father throws out another olive branch that says, “Clarify what you mean,” but he also throw out a not so subtle thread. “If you don’t change your position, you will cause a break that will be catastrophic.” He’s pulling back on this one and putting the moral burden of such a break on Bishop Felay. In other words, if it happens,Bishop Felay will be morally culpable.

This is not the communication of an invitation to talk some more.

I still believe that Bishop Felay will bend. I can’t imagine him wanting to be held morally responsible for a schism, not if he believes in the primacy of the Holy Father as he says he does and not if he loves and respects the Holy Father’s opinions as he says he does.

What is important to people on this forum, since most are lay, is to understand that no matter how much one may like the SSPX or identify with its position, at the end of the day, if the SSPX is declared to be in schism, any supporter will share in the moral culpability. We can’t just say, “That’s the Vatican’s opinion, but I don’t accept it.” We have to accept it for one very logical reason. If the owner of the house says that you’re not welcome until you play by his rules, you’re not welcome, not matter what you think.

They will not be an SSPX Roman Catholic Church. There is only one Roman Church and it’s in communion with the Catholic Church. There are not and cannot be two Roman Churches any more than there can be two Melkite Churches or two Greek Churches. One is either Roman Catholic or other. But not a Roman Catholic that is not in communion with the other 23 Catholic Churches.

We’ll have to wait and see what happens in April. As my mother said, “Expect the worse and hope for the best.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :