Tradicat

 + JMJ With all the mis-information about the SSPX rejecting the Second Vatican Council, I thought it would be useful to publish an article that focuses on the real issues that the SSPX has identified. Update: Why Did the SSPX Consecrate Bishops? ( Neither Schismatic, Nor Disobedient link ) In the linked document the SSPX outlined the key motivation and core issues with Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium (see above link for full document): 4. The Society Acted Precisely Because of the State of Necessity in Which the Faith Finds Itself  In the present situation of the Church, if the Society of Saint Pius X had not carried out the consecrations of July 1st, it would have found itself facing an inevitable alternative: either to disappear gradually, or to accept, at least in fact, the new liturgy as well as the false doctrines of Vatican II and the post-council. Without the consecrations of July 1st, the Fraternity would have found itself, in a few years, without bishop...

 + JMJ Rorate published an article by I.Media ( Rorate link , Original Source ) that annoyed me.   Here's the passages in question with my questions / thoughts:  The Mandate In the Catholic Church, every episcopal consecration must obtain a mandate from the Pope. The selection of a new bishop follows a rigorous procedure carried out by the nuncio — the Pope's ambassador — and the Dicastery for Bishops. They present three candidates to the pontiff, who then makes the final choice and may also choose a bishop not included on this list of three. To proceed with consecrations without a properly issued pontifical mandate constitutes an offense under the rules of currently applicable ecclesiastical law (canon 1013 [of the Code of Canon Law]) . I find it hard to reconcile the lack of response to Chinese consecrations and all the fuss over that of the SSPX (link ). Even Pope Francis gave a blanket reconciliation of the Chinese bishops in 2018 (link) . Then we have more r ec...

 + JMJ What Is Tradition? The basic premise, from my perspective, is that what was taught before cannot be contradicted by the 'present' magisterium, only deepened and expanded upon. I recall the Roman theologians called the SSPX protestants while the SSPX called them modernists.  I believe this was all surrounding the concept of Traditon. SSPX's Understanding of Tradition One accusation made against the SSPX is that they don't have a correct understanding of 'Tradition'.  This is how the SSPX understands Tradition: I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense t...

 + JMJ Well Gary Campbell, former SSPX Priest and now laicised has posted a new article on WherePeterIs. https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-of-a-former-sspx-priest-on-the-july-1-consecrations/ These words stuck out: Heck, they have built a five-star hotel, wine bar, and Walmart on the opposite bank of the Rubicon! They are not in danger of entering a state of schism, for they are  already  in a state of schism. I believe he doth protest too much. All the actual facts indicate that the SSPX was not in a state of schism before July 1st and an examination of the decree of excommunication highlights the either ineptitude of those in charge or a desire to leave the barn door open. The chasm between an act of disobedience and act of schism remains just what is has always been - an inconvenient barrier that person(s) in Rome seek to bridge but appear incapable of succeeding. The SSPX re-stated that they recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and feel obliged by conscience...

 + JMJ Ok, when I first saw this article I picked out a number of flaws that made me a little giddy.  This caused me to consider pulling together some times for a more detailed review. So ... here's my critical review of "The SSPX Leadership Against Scripture and Tradition. For reference, Weigel is commenting on a shorter "Declaration of Catholic Faith Addressed to Pope Leo XIV" (link)  and not the extensive one that followed "Profession of Catholic Faith of the Society of Saint Pius X to Enlighten Souls in the Face of Modern Errors" (link). It would be interesting to see his response to the latter, but this one will suffice. Source: National Catholic Register: The SSPX Leadership Against Scripture and Tradition COMMENTARY: Even if the Society of St. Pius X hits the brakes at the last moment and doesn’t commit formally schismatic acts, the grave problem posed by the SSPX will continue. The Holy See has declared that, if the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) proc...

 + JMJ In the ramp up to the consecrations the noise floor in the intergnat grew to a constant din.  This was one of the few the peeped its signal over the noise. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/finding-common-ground-between-rome-and-the-sspx The key issue is contained in this paragraph: In the lead-up to the planned July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations,  the SSPX rejected Rome’s offer  of doctrinal dialogue on the grounds that “we both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” Fr. Pagliarani also said that his previous attempt at dialogue in 2019 was shut down by Rome because of an assumed irreconcilability. It seems that, from the Society’s perspective, and perhaps from Rome’s too, their positions are incompatible. If memory serves, Rome killed any opportunity for an open discussion by stating that Vatican II was not up for debate. So it was a still-birth and ...