On the verge of a deal with the SSPX?

.- Pope Francis may soon offer the Society of Saint Pius X regular canonical status within the Church, without requiring the acceptance of certain texts of the Second Vatican Council with which they disagree.

It also appears the SSPX may itself be poised to take such a historic step, urging that “perhaps only Pope Francis is able to take this step, given his unpredictability and improvisation”, according to an internal SSPX document that was leaked to the press in recent weeks.

The memo, titled “Considerations on the Church and the position of the Society of Saint Pius X in it”, outlines six reasons why the group should accept an offer of regularization by Pope Francis, provided “an appropriate ecclesial structure” is ensured. It also addresses possible objections raised against such a move.

“It seems the time to normalize the situation of the Society has come,” the memo reads.

The document, dated Feb. 19, was written by Fr. Franz Schmidberger, rector of the SSPX’s seminary in Germany. Fr. Schmidberger had served as superior general of the SSPX from 1982 to 1994.

In the memo, Fr. Schmidberger asserts that the Vatican has been “gradually lowering its demands and recent proposals, no longer speak of recognizing neither the Second Vatican Council nor the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae.”

On April 10, Bishop Bernard Fellay, the current superior general of the SSPX, said before some 4,000 pilgrims in the French city of Le Puy-en-Velay that there is a “profound change” in the Society’s relationship with the Vatican, triggered by the “dire situation” of the Church: “in the midst of this disorder … comes this whisper: ‘No, we cannot force you to accept the Council.’ They perhaps will not say it so clearly, but they did indeed say it to us after all.”

Albeit carefully, these assertions are to some extent matched by similar utterances from Rome.

Archbishop Guido Pozzo, secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei –  the Vatican office of the responsible for doctrinal discussions with the SSPX – said in an April 6 interview with La Croix that “as far as the Second Vatican Council is concerned, the ground covered in the meetings over the past few years has led to an important clarification: Vatican II can be adequately understood only in the context of the full Tradition of the Church and her constant Magisterium.”

“Certain questions can remain ‘subject to discussion and clarification’,” Archbishop Pozzo added.

Similarly, Fr. Schmidberger’s memo asserts that whilst the group would like to “return from its ‘exile'”, further discussions would be expected: “We will not be silent, more over, we will point out the errors by name. Before and after our normalization.”

Reliable sources inside the SSPX have confirmed to CNA that the leaked memo from Fr. Schmidberger, which apparently was meant for circulation among the leadership of the Society, is indeed authentic. Comprising seven sections and running to three pages, it concisely covers a summary of the history of the relationship with Rome and an outline of arguments for a full reconciliation, to the practical considerations of such a move. It even includes a kind of “FAQ”-section, answering the most frequently raised concerns of a reconciliation with Rome from the perspective of those in the SSPX more hesitant about reconciliation with Rome.

Fr. Schmidberger cited several reasons that the time to regularize the canonical situation of the SSPX has some, including that fact that “any abnormal situation lends itself to normalization.” He noted the danger in losing the realization that the Society’s situation is abnormal, and seeing it instead as normal: if the priests of the Society “feel comfortable in this situation of liberty with respect to dependence on the heirarchy, then this implies a gradual loss of the sensus ecclesiae.”

The memo also noted that there are members of the Church’s hierarchy who are sympathetic to them, but that they can only collaborate after regularization, and that the SSPX will need new bishops in the future and that licit consecration should be pursued.

In its conclusion, the text argues that if “God wants to come to the effective aid of His Church, which is bleeding from a thousand wounds, he has thousands of different means of doing so. One of these is the official recognition of the SSPX through the Roman authorities.” It then closes with a prayer for the intercession of the Virgin Mary.

It has been speculated that the normalization of the SSPX would be accomplished by recognizing the group as a “personal prelature,” a canonical structure which so far has only been used for Opus Dei.

The SSPX was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970 to form priests, as a response to what he described as errors that had crept into the Church following the Second Vatican Council. Its relations with the Holy See became particularly strained in 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer consecrated four bishops without the permission of Pope John Paul II.

The illicit consecration resulted in the excommunication of the six bishops; the excommunications of the surviving bishops were lifted in 2009 by Benedict XVI, and since then, negotiations “to rediscover full communion with the Church” have continued between the Society and the Vatican.

In remitting the excommunications, Benedict also noted that “doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.”

The biggest obstacles for the Society’s reconciliation have been the statements on religious liberty in Vatican II’s declaration Dignitatis humanae as well as the declaration Nostra aetate, which it claims contradict previous Catholic teaching.

Archbishop Pozzo addressed this issue in his discussion with La Croix, saying that he considers Nostra aetate as “directives for pastoral action, directions, and suggestions or exhortations of a practical pastoral nature,” adding that “the acceptance of the texts on relations with other religions is not a prerequisite for the canonical recognition” of the SSPX.

“The difficulties raised by the SSPX concerning the Church-State relationship and religious freedom, the practice of ecumenism and dialogue with non-Christian religions, certain aspects of the liturgical reform and its concrete application, remain subject to discussion and clarification but do not constitute an obstacle to a canonical and juridical recognition of the SSPX,” the Vatican official said.

The archbishop noted that following the canonical regularization of the Society, the declarations of Vatican II will “remain subject to discussion and deeper study, in order to obtain greater precision and avoid the misunderstandings or ambivalences that we know to have spread throughout today’s ecclesial world.”

Under Pope Francis several moves have suggested a warming in relations between the Vatican and the SSPX.

In 2015 the Holy See delegated a cardinal and three bishops to visit the seminaries of the SSPX. They were sent to become better acquainted with the society, and to discuss doctrinal and theological topics in a less formal context.

Pope Francis announced in a September 2015 letter on the Jubilee Year of Mercy that during the jubilee year the faithful can validly and licitly receive absolution of their sins from priests of the SSPX.

“I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity,” he wrote.

And Bishop Fellay met with Pope Francis and Archbishop Pozzo April 1-2. Bishop Fellay indicated that at that meeting, the Pope had said the SSPX is Catholic and he would not condemn it, and that he wishes to extend the faculties of its priests.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to On the verge of a deal with the SSPX?

  1. toadspittle says:

    “…perhaps only Pope Francis is able to take this step, given his unpredictability and improvisation”, according to an internal SSPX document that was leaked to the press in recent weeks.”
    Leaked! The Masons at work again!

  2. Louise Ingebrethsen says:

    It’s nice to read about something good, for a change, that the pope is doing…………..Thank you Lord for this. May nothing get in the way of this re-union.

  3. kathleen says:

    Oh yes, Louise, I join in your prayer with all my heart!🙂

    [Fr. Schmidberger] noted the danger in losing the realization that the Society’s situation is abnormal, and seeing it instead as normal: if the priests of the Society “feel comfortable in this situation of liberty with respect to dependence on the heirarchy, then this implies a gradual loss of the sensus ecclesiae.”

    A very important perception! If the SSPX finally decides to accept Pope Francis’ offer of regularisation, those who refuse (and there might well be some members who will) must face up to Fr. Schmidberger’s warning – the implication they have acquired a possible loss of the sensus ecclesiae.

    I sincerely hope I am right in believing that the majority of the SSPX will accept the offer.
    The SSPX has never denied that the post-V2 popes are the legitimate holders of the ‘Chair of Peter’, nor that they themselves are true Catholics, as Pope Francis (amazingly!) affirms, members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Their resistance all originally lay with Msgr. Lefebvre and his followers’ inability, in conscience, to accept some of the dubious documents of V2, and the New Mass. Perhaps if Pope Paul VI (and later, Pope John Paul II) would have at least permitted the ancient Tridentine Mass to have continued to be celebrated at the same time as the Novus Ordo Mass as they were beseeched to do by so many heart-broken Catholics, the break could have been avoided. We shall never know.

    The tragedy that followed meant that a large group of traditional Catholics were removed from the main Body of the Church. It left those faithful Catholics that remained with serious handicaps to deal with the upsurge of Modernism among those brain-washed by the cursed “Spirit of Vatican Two” following in the wake of the Council, with all its blasphemous abuses in practise and ideology! The Church has been left deeply wounded in consequence. It would be a joyous moment indeed if the SSPX were to rejoin the ranks of other traditionalists to help bring the Church back to her former glory.

  4. mmvc says:

    After the AL fiasco I too breathed a sigh of relief when I read the encouraging SSPX article. But then I happened upon this comment on 1Peter5 and my heart sank again:

    Once in a while a flash hunch comes along…here it is (nutty or not):

    Theorem: AL is not about marriage. It’s about unifying the ecclesial communities of the world under a new one world religion by means of changing language and working around consciences:

    – SSPX = “irregular canonical status”
    – Divorced and civilly remarried Catholics = “irregular union”

    AL is a language event that does not have marriage in mind, though it looks like it. It’s bigger than that. It’s a full blown rejection of Traditional Catholicism (though it keeps the wrapping paper and bow) for a new religion that dissolves the barriers between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants (the theological adulterers).

    It brings in the “adulterers”…who are both the civilly remarried divorced Catholics AND the (formal) heretics at the same time. There are “new concrete situations” for everyone “outside”. As the symbol for the Lord’s Church is marriage, the symbol for this new church adulterous marriage, plain and simple.

    The change in language (the word “adulterer” is deemed offensive) is the same that will be applied towards Protestants next year in some new way. It’s “grace” and “mercy”. There will some statement like: “There is a new concrete reality among Christians in the world”.

    They have to let SSPX back in before the next phase can start.

    It’s Vatican III, having used the playbook of Vatican II.

    If the cardinals can remove the “offensive language” of “adulterers”, it can remove the “offensive language” around “no salvation outside the church”. It’s the exact same concern for the exact same pragmatic reasons.

    There is much more nuance I can’t get into, and I’m not referring to individual “separated brethren”, but rather the institutions where the powers and principalities are seated.

    The basic reason this theorem has to be, at it’s kernel, correct is because marriage is the reflection of God’s plan for humanity. If our leaders are playing with marriage, they are not really playing with marriage, they are playing with the divine constitution of the Church. They are playing god, and wish to reform the world and God’s plan for it after their own image. They envision a one-world religion. Of course this is true. It’s a new religion of conscience. There can NOT be a one world religion without a mechanism that gets around Catholic divorce. It’s the final barricade the heretics in Rome need to leap past. When adultery is elevated in it’s depravity, the current game is up.

    And if you disagree, I think I just might live to say “I told you so”.

    Therefore:

    – SSPX will be regularized imminently
    – The Pope will do something extraordinary around the 500th anniversary of the Reformation (ahem, deformation).

    And the whopper:

    – Communion will be opened next year for all Christians across the globe who desire it in “good conscience” (or something along those lines)

    I’m not saying anything that hasn’t already happened (Pope with Lutheran woman a few months back). The working model is AL, where it’s not necessary to change the doctrine, it’s only important that the party involved in communion really wants to take it. This will open the final door to “bless” all manner of other kinds of “irregular unions” since anyone who wants to come forward will not be hindered by “artificial divisions” between kinds of unions.

    The “Catholic Church” becomes an ideal, and now deals with the world “as it is”. The former “legalistic church” is now defunct, as the new spirit of this new age has emerged from it like a butterfly.

    There is no distinction between a one world religion and a Catholicism that normalizes adultery. As far as what constitutes them in the heavenlies, they are one in the same.

    Everyone is welcome, all will come in (at least, that is the ultimate plan of VII), the Lord’s words on marriage will be set aside so that some new kind of adulterous wedding feast can be celebrated, for the sake of mercy. Sin will be set aside for mercy.

    And so AL is not about marriage. It’s about the Church, and secondarily about marriage.

    Just read everything you’ve read about AL as applying to non-Catholic Christians while keeping in mind the “behold, I speak of a great mystery” of St. Paul.

    Theorem over…

    Call me crazy but I have a point, I’m sure of it, at least in part. And now we have Fatima and Lourdes looming on the horizon: “Rome will lose the faith” and “the final battle will about the family”.

    If anyone else knows of a resource where this idea (or something like it in it’s essence) is more fully developed, please post it.

  5. Magdalene P says:

    I would welcome the canonical standing and would then consider attending the SSPX chapel that is local. How desperately we need clergy and faithful who adhere to the TRUTHS of the faith! They are the reason we have it left at all.

  6. Do not trust this Heretical pope!

  7. Robert says:

    Great Saints have wished to live in these times of the General Apostacy.
    Its simply really we must put God First then Our neighbour.
    St Peter was asked by Our Lord.
    Lovest Thou Me more than these? Feed my lambs.

    For centuries Catholics and especial Bishops REFUSED TO WORSHIP pagan gods etc..
    The Holy Martyrs gave there lives on this one point NO OTHER GOD!
    Understand that the Catholic God is the Trinity as revealed in the New Testament.

    The New Covenant which fulfilled and replaced the Old Covenant (which is now no more),

    We cannot put false Gods before Our Lord and to do so is a very very grave offence to God. In the early Church idolatry and worshiping of False Gods (was to be automatically condemned as a Reprobate).
    No visits to mosques, synagogues and never worshiping pagan Gods.
    The Catholics from the time of the Apostles to 1960 followed this dictum.
    Understand that the Gospels are public Revelation the Man-God’s words. That’s is Gods own Words. Peter must put Our Lord first, without respect for persons etc..

    Since 1960 it seems that the Holy See has placed the opinion of the world before God. This is not sound doctrine and consequently the lambs are starving for the manna of Heaven. Its pretty obvious that Peter’s Authority is conditional on placing Christ first not Peter. The servant cannot be greater than His master. If the Curia will not put Christ first then of what use is the Curia? To be a Catholic is to be a Traditionalist (Apostolic Tradition) else you are not a Catholic!

  8. kathleen says:

    mmvc @ 14:29

    After reading that article from 1Peter5 my heart sank too!

    The author puts forward a very strong argument why we should not immediately jump up and down in delight at this possible pulling down of the barriers separating the SSPX from the rest of the Church without looking a bit deeper into the possible underlying motives of Pope Francis. Many have thought they were primarily because his experience of the good work of the SSPX in his native Argentina was nothing but positive, despite his own total disinterest in the holy ‘Mass of the Ages’ and Liturgy, that the SSPX rightly place as of extreme importance. So is there more to this story than we are aware of?

    The SSPX are true Traditionalists, and surely no-one would deny that Francis is completely at the other end of the spectrum! So that the most modernist Pope probably ever to have sat on the Chair of Peter to be the catalyst of this possible reconciliation is quite extraordinary, to say the least. That is, unless there are far more sinister things at play here, such as those mentioned in the 1P5 piece.

    In an insightful article by Monica Miller on LifesiteNews, she looks into the real twisted way Pope Francis understands “mercy” – the overriding virtue at the heart of his recent Exhortation. I think Monica’s article sheds a few lights on how we may read the Pope’s motives in the case of the SSPX.

    “Rather than mercy and the demands of the Gospel existing in a Christian paradox, for Francis they exist in conflict. Mercy is such a value for him that Francis states “the name of God is mercy.” I would argue that God’s name is not “mercy.” God’s name is “love.” It is love, and not mercy that is the essence of God out of which he exercises mercy toward sinners. […]

    “Mercy is not simply important to Francis. The key to his pontificate is his insistence that mercy is the spiritual imperative of the Gospel that compels him to see as less imperative to the Christian life an insistence on the objective practice of the Gospel—a dynamic that certainly deserves deeper analysis. Let me conclude by saying that mercy is not the fullness of justice—as if to say that justice is subordinated to it. Rather, the fullness of justice is the new man recreated in the image of Christ through the grace he won for all on the Cross, a justice God wills all to possess.”

  9. JabbaPapa says:

    Archbishop Pozzo addressed this issue in his discussion with La Croix, saying that he considers Nostra aetate as “directives for pastoral action, directions, and suggestions or exhortations of a practical pastoral nature,” adding that “the acceptance of the texts on relations with other religions is not a prerequisite for the canonical recognition” of the SSPX.

    I’ve been saying the same thing for years …

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    mmvc : If the cardinals can remove the “offensive language” of “adulterers”, it can remove the “offensive language” around “no salvation outside the church”. It’s the exact same concern for the exact same pragmatic reasons.

    … except that the “strict” so-called “traditionalist” interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is itself contrary to the proper meaning of the dogma, as explained since Antiquity, and it is an interpretation that was devised by the French monastic/conservative faction, defeated doctrinally at Trent, who wanted the entire reorganisation of human society and the Church in particular around rigid monastic ideals, to form a theocracy instead of the Church.

    Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a doctrine about Salvation, not about the earthly Church. That no Salvation exists outside the Church means that there is nobody among the saved not belonging to the Church of our Christ in Heaven, not that Salvation is impossible to God except for the benefit of Catholics. In fact in suggesting the latter, certain traditionalists are actually proclaiming a formally heretical interpretation of the dogma, possibly even a blasphemy against the Sovereignty of God.

    It’s Vatican III, having used the playbook of Vatican II

    Rot.

    Communion will be opened next year for all Christians across the globe who desire it in “good conscience” (or something along those lines)

    You’re just inventing this nonsense out of your own head.

    There is no distinction between a one world religion and a Catholicism that normalizes adultery.

    That’s just a reductio ab absurdum

    1) nowhere is it claimed by “the Church” that adulterers may receive Holy Communion

    2) nowhere is adultery described as being “normalised” or “normal”

    3) nobody has any authority to claim that authorisation exists to provide adulterers (or any others in states of unrepentant mortal sin) with any Sacraments other than Baptism, or Last Rites after Confession of sins, because error has no rights, and those who claim such absurdities (whether in support of these notions or by accusing the Pope of having preached them) are fomenting schism.

    If anyone else knows of a resource where this idea (or something like it in it’s essence) is more fully developed, please post it.

    Now, I’m not saying that your ideas are totally lacking in merit, generally ; but that your particulars are quite exaggerated, erroneous, and even misleading.

    It is true that there are those among our clergy, even Bishops, even officials at the Holy See, who are actively promoting exactly such formally heretical and blasphemous interpretations.

    It is however very dangerous indeed to promote publicly such private interpretations of particular revelations given to seers, whether to Lucia, St Bernadette, or Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich — and it is imperative to follow the advice of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in these matters, as they are found in his explanatory note attached to the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima.

    This is not to say that private meditations on such matters in the Light of the Holy Spirit and the Revelation are to be shunned, but except in such cases as where such contents may have been officially adopted and published by the Magisterium of the Church, to focus on private revelations to the detriment of one’s obligation of adherence to the Deposit of Faith, the Magisterium, and in general the sensus fidei is a clear risk towards a schismatic tendency and the Errors of Modernism.

  11. mmvc says:

    “Now, I’m not saying that your ideas are totally lacking in merit, generally ; but that your particulars are quite exaggerated, erroneous, and even misleading.”

    Thanks for your helpful and reassuring explanations, JabbaPapa.
    I must point out though that these are not my ideas but those of a commenter on a post over at the 1Peter5 blog. I should have made that clearer…

  12. JabbaPapa says:

    I must point out though that these are not my ideas but those of a commenter on a post over at the 1Peter5 blog. I should have made that clearer…

    ah — I see, thank you. Replace “you” with “he” then, as appropriate🙂

  13. toadspittle says:

    You tell ’em, Jabbt.
    “I should have made that clearer.”
    The story of all our lives, really. Wish I’d had a quid for every time I’ve said that.
    (But then, I probably have had.)

  14. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 7:04 yesterday (in reply to the 1P5 comment left by mmvc)

    1) nowhere is it claimed by “the Church” that adulterers may receive Holy Communion

    Really? Then why are reports pouring in from different parts of the world of this already taking place (or being in the process of doing so)? And why the exasperated appeal for a proper reaffirmation of the Doctrine from many orthodox priests who are already having problems with the demands of adulterers, all thanks to the ambiguous language of certain texts of AL?

    Besides, Pope Francis’ own words in answer to the journalist’s query aboard his recent in-flight interview asking whether AL has “changed the Church’s teaching” on this subject says it all. He admitted it does, right there in front of the cameras!!!

    So how does all this affect the normalisation of the status of the SSPX?

    It has always been a fervent desire of many of ours that the SSPX should have their “canonical irregularity” lifted to enable them to return, so that this orthodox Catholic group, with their faithful adherence to all the Church’s doctrines, dogmas and traditions, beautiful liturgy and flourishing vocations, should flood back into the main body of the Church. We would be enormously enriched if this were to come about…..

    However, witnessing the heretical betrayals being bandied about with no correction in the Church in these times, where traitors (among both the laity and hierarchy) are given prominent places of authority in the Church, while many of those who challenge them are demoted, should surely make the SSPX understandably extremely wary of re-entering the ‘fold’ – where ‘wolves’ run amok among the ‘sheep’. The last thing they want after all their painful years of exile is to find themselves defenceless against tackling heresies and abuses in the Church, by having to submit to bishops in the mould of Cupich, Maloney, Kasper, Marx, (and a very long etcetera)!

  15. JabbaPapa says:

    Really? Then why are reports pouring in from different parts of the world of this already taking place (or being in the process of doing so)?

    Because the Catholic Church is in crisis, and has been since before WW2, so that some Bishops and priests see nothing wrong with blaspheming against the Sacraments and disobeying the discipline and the doctrine of the Faith in such a manner.

    Besides, Pope Francis’ own words in answer to the journalist’s query aboard his recent in-flight interview asking whether AL has “changed the Church’s teaching” on this subject says it all. He admitted it does, right there in front of the cameras!!!

    Last time I followed that story, it led to yet another deliberate mistranslation and/or misrepresentation of the Pope’s words.

  16. kathleen says:

    Jabba, I agree that the crisis in the Church began a long time ago – leading many to believe that these are the times of the great Apostasy numerous prophesies and revelations have talked about – and that it has greatly accelerated and worsened in the last approximately 45 years. Therefore, all the more reason to stand firmly to Church teaching, instead of trying to water it down. Because that is exactly what has been happening with this ‘messing around’ (for want of a better expression) with established Church Doctrines. Pope Francis is smoothing the path for those heretical Bishops, priests and numerous lay people in high positions (e.g. Tina Beattie) to divulge their blasphemies. He was chosen to be the guardian of the sacred Deposit of Faith. To many it looks as though he is feeding it to its enemies!

    In the video linked to in this article which you can scroll down to see (sorry, it’s not a YouTube video so I don’t know how to ‘lift’ it) at first Pope Francis makes a strong unambiguous affirmation that AL has opened the door to changes… before he then carries on with his usual confusing spin that invariably follow all his pronouncements.

    Question: “Are there new concrete possibilities that did not exist before the publication of the Exhortation, or not?”

    Answer: “I can say, ‘yes’. Period.”

    No “deliberate mistranslation and/or misrepresentation of the Pope’s words” there at all!

    Nor does he help matters (IMHO) by referring to Cardinal Schönborn’s presentation to back up his position.

  17. johnhenrycn says:

    Subject to what MMVC brings to everyone’s attention (^), I welcome the possible full return of SSPX; but then I run across things like this “Letter To The Editor” by an SSPXer named Matthew Paradise (sic) in the current issue of New Oxford Review, a solidly orthodox Catholic monthly:

    “And you are taking sides with Rome, the Mystical Body of Satan! Check the facts! Pope John XXIII was a Freemason, the enemy of Fatima; Pope Paul VI was a Freemason, the enemy of Fatima; Pope John Paul II was a Freemason, the enemy of Fatima; Pope Benedict XVI is a Freemason, the enemy of Fatima; and Pope Francis is a Freemason, a 33rd Degree Grand Sovereign Inspector General (Lucifer in the flesh)…You, Mr. Editor, need to CHECK THE FACTS before you condemn innocent priests and bishops who are trying to save souls, save the true Mass, and keep the faith in this Age of Diabolical Disorientation…May God bless you.”

    With people like Mr Paradise (and the above commenter, Philip Johnson, who talks of “this Heretical pope”) on the loose, is it any wonder that lots of serious Catholics still won’t touch SSPX with a ten foot pole, let alone embrace it?

  18. JabbaPapa says:

    Question: “Are there new concrete possibilities that did not exist before the publication of the Exhortation, or not?”

    Answer: “I can say, ‘yes’. Period.”

    No “deliberate mistranslation and/or misrepresentation of the Pope’s words” there at all!

    Thought it was this one — dear kathleen, I’m sorry, but either you are mistaken or you have been misled in your reading of this.

    First, the question itself is extremely vague — not “can the divorced-remarried take the Eucharist” but “are there concrete possibilities” …

    Second though, it was made clear (by the Pope himself possibly, sorry can’t remember) very quickly after that interview that he was referring to new pastoral possibilities, and a new approach to the accompaniment of such persons, both suggested in some detail in the Encyclical.

    I’dd add, though the Holy See didn’t, the very recent changes in the discipline of requests for annulments.

    These are all new “concrete possibilities” established after the Synod or requested of Bishops and pastors in the Encyclical — none of them change anything of the Doctrine.

    But to say on the basis of this interview that the Pope has somehow authorised “communion for adulterers”, or that the Encyclical itself does so, would be to deliberately encourage a “hermeneutic of ambiguity”, and to engage in it oneself, instead of keeping to a more reasonable position of “if he didn’t say it then it’s not what he meant”.

    This game of “second-guessing what the Pope ‘really’ meant after some people on the internet started twisting his words around” started under the Pontificate of Benedict XVI, furthermore, so it’s not helpful to accuse Pope Francis of being its instigator.

    I’m not too keen on the reference to Cardinal Schönborn’s presentation either, except that he made several such presentations in a short period of time, most of them being non-problematic (except for his obvious liberalism throughout), and one only of them had some contents that were deliberately ambiguous regarding “communion for adulterers”.

    Perhaps the Pope was aware of only one of these presentations, but he was in any case mistaken to refer to Schönborn’s explanations as giving an impression that they could be found in only one location and that he agreed with them.

    Cardinal Schönborn’s French-language interview on the Encyclical was, as a contrary example, quite good, and much clearer that Communion for such people in the absence of a clear penitential path or an annulment of the previous union is as impossible as it always has been.

  19. JabbaPapa says:

    johnhenrycn but then I run across things like this “Letter To The Editor” by an SSPXer named Matthew Paradise (sic)

    As a layman, Mr Paradise is not a member of the SSPX (unless he is a seminarian), given that it is a priestly Fraternity. Of non-clergy, only seminarians and a few religious in communities attached to the SSPX can also be considered as its members.

    Therefore, even such ghastly obnoxious views as those have no real bearing on the question of regularisation — except insofar as it is not unlikely that some SSPX priests will split from the Society in the event of such a (much hoped-for) regularisation. From that perspective, even some commentary from priests of the SSPX expressing actual hostility towards Rome and the Pontiff should be viewed with proper circumspection, as they do not necessarily represent the majority views of most of their priests.

  20. JabbaPapa says:

    Sorry — “exhortation” not encyclical ; for some reason I keep on repeating that mistake.

  21. JabbaPapa says:

    Posting a longer reply elsewhere, as it’s starting to get WAY off-topic.

  22. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 15:08

    Thank you for your detailed reply that I sincerely appreciate (though I was unable to get back to you sooner.) However, I really think you are stretching it too far in trying to defend Pope Francis’ meaning in his response to the in-flight journalist. He listened carefully to the question first – that everyone else understood was asking for a clear answer as to whether those who had divorced and remarried without an annulment to their former marriage could receive the Holy Eucharist, something his Exhortation had not clarified – and his reply was adamant!

    Of course none of us can get inside the Pope’s head and know for certain that he was not referring only “to pastoral possibilities et al”, not the doctrine. But quite honestly, Jabba, if you take all his speeches, practices, gestures together with everything else we know of him, like his close friendliness with the progressive Cardinals and active homosexuals, compared to his harsh words aimed at traditional clergy and laity and coldness towards them, and not just basing things “on this one interview”… well, I think (and so do very many others) that it can be reasonably assumed he was talking about “communion for adulterers”.

    Believe me, I do not enjoy criticising the Pope, liberal bishops, etc.; it goes very much against the grain with me. These last three years have been very hard for all of us who deeply love the Church (and I won’t elaborate on this point at this late hour) but even though I know I am very small fry compared to so many erudite Catholics, I still feel compelled to defend the Church when faced with attacks on her integrity.

    The Code of Canon Law 212 §3 states that the Catholic faithful “have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful…”

    P.S. Thank you for your informative reply to JH about the SSPX. I completely agree with your views expressed in your last paragraph.

  23. Robert says:

    Actually I do not agree with JH personal view expressed in his last paragraph. “.., is it any wonder that lots of SERIOUS CATHOLICSS still won’t touch SSPX with a ten foot pole, let alone embrace it? ..”
    Who or what is a serious Catholic and what dogmatically do they believe?

    Archbishop Lefebvre simply continued the traditional seminary training and the Tridentine Rites of Pius V which existed prior to the Pastoral Vatican II. On Doctrinal matters where are SSPX at fault?

    Are the SSPX sacraments valid? Well are those of the Orthodox valid? The Coptic’s valid? The Anglicans aren’t (Leo XIII encyclical). Is the Eucharist Presence found on SSPX altars?

    I for one am most curious to discover what this Sect called Serious Catholic Dogmatically Believes. Because it seems to be different from 2000 years of Tradition?

  24. johnhenrycn says:

    Kathleen says: “Thank you [Jabba] for your informative reply to JH about the SSPX. I completely agree with your views expressed in your last paragraph.”

    Teacher’s pet. That groundskeeper for some billionaire in Provence (maybe I misremember where JP is raking leaves exactly) said nothing to contradict me, even though he and Kathleen may think that he did. Fact is, I like the SSPX. The vast majority of their habitués are nice people – Religion of Peace types – but they’ve got a problem with a lunatic fringe. That’s all I said.

    As for Rogbert™. He takes me to task and suggests in his demisemiquaver of intelligibility that he does not know what a serious Catholic is. Nuff said, as GF, our hillbilly correspondent from North (or South) Carolina might say when she’s trying to speak English.

  25. johnhenrycn says:

    Sorry. I can become a bit much. Sometimes. To make up for it, I offer this online version of an essay by Archbishop Lefebvre that occupies a special place on my bookshelf:
    http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=358
    Funny, I was an SSPX sympathizer before I was a Catholic

  26. JabbaPapa says:

    his close friendliness with the … active homosexuals

    ???

    Francis :In the Curia there are holy people, truly, there are holy people. But there’s also a current of corruption – there’s that, too, it’s true…. The ‘gay lobby’ is spoken of, and it’s true, that’s there… we need to see what we can do.

    Using the phrase “current of corruption” in direct association with the phrase “gay lobby” hardly constitutes an attitude of “close friendliness”, does it …

    He listened carefully to the question first – that everyone else understood was asking for a clear answer as to whether those who had divorced and remarried without an annulment to their former marriage could receive the Holy Eucharist

    erm actually, no, kathleen — Italian rhetoric is quite simply not that straightforward. The journalist instead deliberately asked a more general and vague question than that, set into a context that the whole “communion for adulterers” thing had been talked about so much (in the Press) during the Synod, and in an implication that she (IIRC) had a friend in that situation.

  27. toadspittle says:

    “– but they’ve got a problem with a lunatic fringe. That’s all I said.”
    Who hasn’t? CP&S has Toad for a start. (I shall go no further.)

  28. Robert says:

    Thank you for the link JH but your are again expressly distinguishing between Tridentine rites and being a Catholic?
    I remind you that Leo XIII placed the St Michael prayer after the Tridentine Pius V Mass after his vision of Satan request to destroy the Church.
    What expressly distinguishes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from the Lutheran Supper is that the Flesh/Body of Our Lord is without SIN. Offering Adams Body doesn’t satisfy God. The Perpetual Sacrifice is to continue to offer Christ Sinless Flesh until the End of Time.
    Satan’s express target is to destroy the mystical body of Christ by removing the sacraments and thus leave Man in Adam’s state then the Church becomes symbolic and not actual.
    The Holy martyrs blood is only acceptable because it is united to Christs.

    You still haven’t explained what a SERIOUS Catholic is?
    Elsewhere reference is made to Leo XIII and Satan’s 100 years Since 1968 the Tridentine Mass with St Michaels prayer has been sidelined by a rite that is indistinguishable from the Anglican series three rite, a Supper and without St Michael’s pray?
    Seems to me this is killing two birds with one stone. St Michael thwarted the rebellion of Lucifer (who was His superior!) .and removing the perpetual Sacrifice which until 1960 was expressly the Tridentine Rite.
    Novelties such as communion in the Hand (I expressly remember the reference to, St Cyrian, to justify what hadn’t been asked for!) were the Pastoral fruits of Vatican II.

    So the question again is what SERIOUS Catholics believe in? The word Serious doesn’t appear in the Creed , neither the Lord’s prayer I can’t find it in the Catechism. It seems that for 2000 years Catholics weren’t serious. Are SERIOUS Catholics post 1968? I think an explaination is in order.

  29. JabbaPapa says:

    a rite that is indistinguishable from the Anglican series three rite

    erm, no.

    The ghastly English-language version of the 2nd Edition Missal perhaps attempted such a thing, without BTW succeeding, but to claim that the 3rd Editio Typica of the Missal might be “indistinguishable” from that Protestant liturgy is close to being sacrilegious against the Holy Mass.

  30. Robert says:

    JabbaPapa thank you for confirming that we have now three Editia . Which begs the question what was wrong with the previous versions? Because you have simply confirmed that ambiguities of interpretation enjoyed by serious Catholics. Yes the Anglican series three. Your argument over sacrilegious can only be based upon the INTENT of the celebrant and as to whether they are validly ordained!
    The Tridentine Rite of Pius V there is no ambiguity.

  31. Robert says:

    The point I am making is before 1960 there was certainity over the Rites and after that year a schism appeared in the Church between those intent on changing and modernising. To argue that the Tridentine Rite isn’t Catholic is absurb.
    The problem is the Intent of the celebrant (this was highlighted by the late Father Malachy Martin).

  32. JabbaPapa says:

    The point I am making is before 1960 there was certainity over the Rites

    False — and in fact the liturgical innovations of the Council Fathers at Trent had the specific goal of stamping out the widespread abuses of the liturgy that were occurring at that time.

    And the contemporary attempts at liturgical innovations started at least as early as the 1920s.

  33. toadspittle says:

    “To argue that the Tridentine Rite isn’t Catholic is absurb.”
    Nobody's suggesting that, Robet. But there's more than one way to skin a cat. (every time I write this, it gets killed. Heretical, I suppose.)

    “So the question again is what SERIOUS Catholics believe in? The word Serious doesn’t appear in the Creed , neither the Lord’s prayer I can’t find it in the Catechism. It seems that for 2000 years Catholics weren’t serious. Are SERIOUS Catholics post 1968? I think an explaination is in order.”
    I suggest the obvious explanation might be, Robber, that what you are implying, (at very least,) is that Catholics who don’t share your beliefs (such as that the world is fewer than 8,000 years old) are not serious.
    Well, for all I know, that might be true. But I doubt it, myself.
    “The point I am making is before 1960 there was certainity over the Rites.”
    Not so… General agreement, at best. Rites are always subject to interpretation by their very nature. We can argue about altar rails, and altar girls.
    So what? Changes nothing.

  34. Robert says:

    There were multiply and valid liturgy’s hence my mentioning the Orthodox and Coptics etc..
    Glad to see that the SSPX clothes peg has been dropped. The real issue is not SSPX but Tradition and Traditionalists .
    The question is more than just the Tridentine Rites its the seminary training, Latin etc.. which is where Leferbrve entered with Ecole, The formation and training of priests.
    Other rites were also changed weren’t they? including the Consecration of Bishops and Ordination of priests.

    The Popes including Leo XIII were prisoner’s of the Vatican following the Masonic rebellion and seizure of the papal States (reminiscent of the loss of the Holy Land) this was the backdrop to Leo XIII vision and Satan’s 100 years to destroy the Church. Leo XIII ordered that the St Michael exorcism prayer be said after the Mass that is the Latin Tridentine Rite Mass.

    The Bishop of Rome has become a titular title has it not? The Vatican a State in a similar mode to City of London and Washington DC. This was the 1960’s background to Fatima’s request for disclosure of the third secret and Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart.

    It was Pope John XXIII ‘opening of the doors’ etc.. breath of fresh air and the perception of pressure to change the Role of the Church actually modernisation and relevancy of doctrine to pusedo science and comparative religions. Is this is the SERIOUS Catholic Church?

    But then came the still to be approved Garabandal and the appearance of St Michael! A direct link I suggest to Leo XIII. Guess what St Michael has been dropped so has the Tridentine Rite.

    We also had a list of Masonic members of the Curia published and that P2 Lodge and Curia membership Oh and with its links into Argentina.

    As I say the issue isn’t SSPX its an acceptable version of Christianity in a secular world and isn’t this what SERIOUS Catholic means? The Traditionalists are outdated and outmoded are they Not?

  35. Robert says:

    The Rose window at Chartes has the History from Adam and Eve (Genesis) to the second coming of Christ to restore all things (Apoc).
    At Fatima I draw your attention to something glossed over.
    Lucifer was Created a Angel of Light and Beauty just as Adam was Created in human beauty and strength. The Fallen Angels became demons and notice their shape in the childrens account of Hell, grotesque animal shapes.
    Our Lady has been described many times in her beauty and of course Our Lord (True God and True Man – that is Man Created by God Adam).
    So explain why the fallen angels have become grotesque animals? Isn’t this the opposite of Evolution? Cain was perfectly possessed (sic as was Judas) he and his descendants descending into beastility and depravity. Cain was mistaken and killed as a wild beast by the way.
    The lineage of Our Lord back to Adam is in the Gospels (Public Revelation) and of course the martyrology supplies the ages, births etc..
    If you deny one dogma and public revelation you are apostate the Church, this has always been the Tradition from the time of the Apostles.

  36. kathleen says:

    JH @ 3:37

    Hey old pal, what’s got into you? In no way whatsoever was I inferring that Jabba had contradicted you! He didn’t, and nor did I. Where did you get that from? In that one simple sentence, all I was doing was thanking Jabba for explaining that the SSPX was a “priestly Fraternity”, something I think many are unaware of (but not necessarily that you were unaware of this), and that his (Jabba’s) last paragraph @ 15:16 yesterday – Robert please note – about the “obnoxious views” expressed in that letter from a follower of the Fraternity that you’d quoted, having no real bearing on the regularisation of the SSPX (and what he followed on to say), was something I completely agreed with. That’s all!

    And who on earth is the “teacher’s pet” for Heaven’s sake? Jabba? Me?

    Yes, I know you like the SSPX and are a “sympathiser” of theirs – I’m glad – and I am too, as I’m sure you already know. You’re dead right though (IMO) that there is a “lunatic fringe” attached to the SSPX – albeit a small one I think. Unfortunately I have come across this myself, although in all honesty I can also say that all the SSPX priests I have ever met have been kind, dignified, holy men. “True Catholics”, as Pope Francis said to them when they met for discussions about their situation.

  37. Robert says:

    Kathleen I remember a certain Franciscan consecrating a mothers pride loaf under the auspices of modern rites! I know that with these Tridentine Rites the Eucharist is deeply revered and so clearly Offered on the altar to the Father and we and the celebrant are facing towards God. I am grateful for “True Catholics”

  38. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 7:05

    Sorry if my reply to you yesterday was a bit messy. I’d had a very busy afternoon/evening and it was terribly late when I wrote it.

    Yes, Pope Francis has (on more than one occasion) met and publicly embraced, whilst smiling all over his face, both active homosexuals and unabashed Catholic (!!!) supporters of the homosexual lifestyle and even gay ‘marriage’. One of them was a Catholic priest, a notorious sodomite! (Sorry, I can’t for the life of me remember his name.) It’s a fact, and certain outspoken blogs (1Peter5, Vox Cantor and The Remnant come to mind) have reported on these scandalous actions that so damages the Church’s image. Not on any of these occasions (as far as we know) did Francis call them to account for their direct flaunting of God’s Divine Law… yet I am sure, as you have pointed out, that he does not condone the evil of sodomy at all.
    Is it not a duty of the Vicar of Christ above all Pastors to “admonish the sinner” among the members of his flock? (Both St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI did so, with both tact and care.)

    I think it all boils down to Pope Francis’ strange way of understanding the virtue of ‘mercy’. To him it appears to supersede both God’s Divine Justice and (more importantly) His Love, properly understood.

    Perhaps he sees his approach towards the SSPX as a supreme act of mercy (and ‘merciful’ it is in many ways of course), and so will not allow any difficulty, no matter how great and contrary to his liberal mindset, to get in the way of regularising their situation. We shall see.

    (The other subject we were discussing – Communion for the remarried – I’ll reply to later on the Spaemann thread where it belongs.)

  39. johnhenrycn says:

    Kathleen (17:27) – I was never a teacher’s pet, so I get a bit envious when I see one on this board. I remember once getting into a schoolyard scrap with a bully who was a teacher’s pet. Teacher took a vote after recess, asking everyone in the class who they thought started the fight. Like children are going to vote against the school bully? Anyway, I thought it was obvious who I meant. Since it was not, apparently, I shall keep my counsel; but I did mean it in a jocular way🙂
    ___
    What’s happened to the WordPress smiley face? This one seems a bit weird.

  40. toadspittle says:

    “Sorry. I can become a bit much.”
    That is by far the best thing about you, JH.
    So, don’t stop. For God’s sake.

  41. toadspittle says:

    “We also had a list of Masonic members of the Curia published and that P2 Lodge and Curia membership Oh and with its links into Argentina.”
    If Masonry is as catholic ( small “C”!) as people say, why be surprised it has links in Argentina? Bound to have, really.
    I think the Masons are a lot of mindless, clownish, twits, myself.
    …Probably much the same as they would think of me. If they bothered at all.

  42. kathleen says:

    mmvc @ 11:38

    Indeed I was, dear Maryla, thank you! There is also a Spanish priest (name ?), another sodomy-defender (yuck, yuck, yuck) given the limelight on an occasion when Pope Francis presented some sort of gift to him in the same effusive and welcoming way! And as you say, one could go on…

    What is all this saying to the world?

    Well, I’d better leave that for everyone to figure out for themselves!😉

  43. Robert says:

    There is a false mercy and a false compassion. It is not mercy it is not compassion to send someone to the fires of Hell. If you choose the path of Sin then you choose Hell.
    This is the Faith, always has been the Faith.

  44. Louise Ingebrethsen says:

    Kathleen……………………Kudo’s to everything you have been saying, I couldn’t agree with you more on EVERYTHING you’ve said. You and the others are so good at articulating what’s on your mind, I wish I could do that………and you guys all seem to be very knowledgeable about
    things concerning the church. Keep up the good work of putting your clear and concise thoughts out there.

  45. kathleen says:

    That is really very kind of you, Louise.
    However, I must in all honestly admit that I am daily learning from many of our wise and scholarly commenters also. From you too! Those comments of yours about Fatima on the “Something’s Coming…” thread were very enlightening, thank you.🙂
    That is the way it should be; growing spiritually as we learn from each other. Sort of a little foretaste of the Communion of Saints (whilst we are still sinners, haha) here on Earth. God Bless you.

  46. JabbaPapa says:

    Some frankly extraordinary news about the SSPX seems to have slipped under the radar of the entire internet.

    In the following video :

    Bishop Fellay explains that the Holy See has granted that the Bishops of the Fraternity may freely ordain men into the priesthood without needing the permission of any local Ordinary.

    This is a stunning development, for several reasons, that are perhaps less important internally to the SSPX as they are externally for the rest of the Church and for the Faithful.

    First, it would seem to me that this is a revocation de facto of the penalty of suspension a divinis of SSPX priests ordained in the absence of such permission, given that Ordinary Authority to ordain men into the Priesthood is provided to the Bishops of the Fraternity.

    Second, given that the illicity of attending Masses given by SSPX Priests is based on the most part on that suspension a divinis (although there remain some more obscure and terribly abstract doctrinal reasons that can constitute an impediment), its de facto revocation removes a massive barrier against the attendance of such Masses by the ordinary Faithful, so that for the most part and in my opinion, de facto the limitations against such attendance pretty much no longer exist, as they were strictly associated, apart from the more obscure doctrinal matters, with the suspension a divinis of SSPX Priests ordained after the original excommunications unless they were personally authorised by a Diocesan Ordinary.

    The gap between the status of the SSPX and the notion of “full Communion with Rome” has never been narrower, though the SSPX Priests still do not licitly provide all of the Sacraments — though I frankly would not be surprised if the current temporary faculties to provide the Sacrament of Reconciliation were made permanent by the Pope.

    It may “even well be that Pope Francis has decided that the best strategy to adopt for the reconciliation of the SSPX is to just slowly chip away, one piece at a time, every current impediment that currently prevents it.

  47. JabbaPapa says:

    This news about the SSPX cannot be found on the French internet either.

    The person who first spotted it is a contributor to Father Z’s blog, HERE : http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/09/sspx-bp-fellay-talks-about-relations-with-the-holy-see/#comment-541196

  48. JabbaPapa says:

    The news about the ordinations is at about 14’30”

  49. kathleen says:

    Actually, it was Rorate Caeli on September 3rd where (AFAIK) this “extraordinary news” was first broadcast on the Catholic blogosphere. At least, that’s where I first heard it, although the talk by Bishop Fellay was on August 24th, ten days earlier! See here:
    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/09/for-record-bishop-fellay-explains-what.html

    The original sound quality of the six videos was not very good, so many thanks to Father Z for improving it somewhat.

    Amongst so much bad news in the Church today – mostly due to that reigning “chaos” and “enormous confusion” that Bishop Fellay refers to frequently in his talk – this likely permanent lifting of the penalty of suspension of the SSPX is certainly very good news. (I think so anyway, although there are voices raised in warning the SSPX of caution!)
    In fact Bishop Fellay touches on many current and very delicate issues in the Church today in this talk, but he is forthright and honest in bringing them out in the open. The SSPX, who have travelled a Via Crucis of exclusion for so long, do not cower in the face of obstacles or adversity.

    Like many other friends or admirers of the SSPX, I have prayed longingly for this de facto revocation of the prohibitions of attending the sacraments at their chapels. They celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (TLM) in such a reverent and beautiful way; their homilies are full of true Catholic teaching that inspire and edify, and where relativism is anathema and the ‘nice’ word is never mentioned.

    Yes, the SSPX are fully Catholic, as Pope Francis affirms, and as Bishop Fellay reminds us, so their irregular situation since the break with Rome has been a very great tragedy. If we live to see their full return to the heart of the Church, we shall surely also witness an enormous boost of traditional Catholic practice once again, and a decline of heterodoxy.

  50. JabbaPapa says:

    kathleen, I don’t think that anyone until today has really understood the full significance of this regularisation of the SSPX Bishops’ faculties of Ordination.

    I mean, the SSPX Clergy validly and licitly confer the Sacraments of Baptism, Last Rites, Confirmation (with some conditions), and temporarily at least Reconciliation — this change adds Eucharist and Holy Orders to their ordinary faculties.

    And the non-recognition of Marriage in SSPX chapels has always been an absurdity, and given the de facto revocation of the penalty of suspension a divinis from Canon 1383, it is very arguable that this also has just been revoked.

    The SSPX and their supporters have developed a (perfectly understandable) tendency to think of things only internally, and I think the full significance of this enormous change for the Faithful outside the SSPX circles may have been overlooked by them.

  51. JabbaPapa says:

    It seems Pope Francis has indeed decided to normalise the faculties of SSPX Priests to hear Confession, or so apparently he told Bishop Fellay in April.

    Looking at SSPX-friendly/anti-Vatican-II sites, it does however seem that the full significance of this latest news has NOT been understood by them. Possiblt some of them can’t get their heads ’round the notion of the SSPX in full Communion with the Pope ?

  52. kathleen says:

    That’s right, Jabba. It is an absolute bombshell for many, and totally incomprehensible. Especially under this Pope, who paradoxically has always had a very positive attitude towards the SSPX, despite his own generally liberal-leaning ways! If any Pope could have managed to arrange a reconciliation, one would have thought that would have been Benedict XVI, but sadly the talks fell through because the SSPX refused (understandably, IMO) to accept many of the changes made at Vatican II. Are they now no longer being forced to accept it, do you know? It seems to be that way.

    Another big issue will be the Liturgical calendar, surely? Not only do the Mass readings differ to the new N.O. rite ones, but all the others too, i.e., for funerals, marriage, etc. Many of the saints’ feast days have changed too, and I’m not even sure if they recognise some of the newer saints yet. They shun the new ‘mysteries of light’ of the rosary (something, actually, that many non-SSPX members also dislike) and I believe they do not pray the Divine Mercy chaplet either.

    So much still needs to be resolved. How will all these issues be worked out? Surely they can’t just be ignored?

    “The SSPX and their supporters have developed a (perfectly understandable) tendency to think of things only internally, and I think the full significance of this enormous change for the Faithful outside the SSPX circles may have been overlooked by them.”

    Good point.

  53. johnhenrycn says:

    Can’t remember where I recently read this (here perhaps?) but there are some perceptive people – outside of SSPX – who see in the Pope’s openness an ulterior plan aimed towards the permanent disappearance of its founding charism. A Trojan Horse in reverse.

  54. johnhenrycn says:

    Considering the fallout from the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate fiasco, to be fearful of wheels-within-wheels is not a paranoid fear.

  55. mmvc says:

    “…an ulterior plan aimed towards the permanent disappearance of its founding charism.”

    And/or some ‘rapprochement’ with the Lutherans, JH…

  56. JabbaPapa says:

    Another big issue will be the Liturgical calendar, surely?

    No.

    The Liturgical Calendar of the Traditional Latin Mass is in force whenever it is given.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s