Skip to main content

Rome, SSPX and Pope Francis

+
JMJ

I apply Catholic principles in my evaluation of any regularization of the SSPX.  This is simple and clear.

A Future Canonical Regularization of the SSPX


If there is only a remote occasion of sin, then the SSPX would be obliged to obey and submit to a canonical regularization of their situation within the Church.


Here's a refresher on Proximate and Remote occasions of sin:
Proximate occasion (De poenit. disp. 14, n. 149) as one in which men of like caliber for the most part fall into mortal sin, or one in which experience points to the same result from the special weakness of a particular person.
Remote occasion lacks these elements. Tradicat Article
In the case of a regularization what constitutes a 'proximate' occasion of sin?



If one compromises doctrine - ie accepting V2 and the New Mass without reservation / distinctions - probably a mortal sin against the Faith. This is just my opinion and not one that I've researched in great depth.

This is where all the Ecclesia Dei communities differ from the SSPX.  They compromised in one way or another on these two principles.

With regards to the SSPX, I fail to understand how a "no-compromise / continue exactly as you are but with ordinary jurisdiction  regularization" constitutes an immediate or proximate mortal sin.

I am not blind to the risks in accepting such a regularization, but I am equally not blind to the risks of remaining in the current situation.  The doctrinal aberrations of the Sedevacantists and "Resistance" make that clear.

So, I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas.  If after examining the details the leader of the SSPX cannot detect a compromise (immediate or proximate) in the points mentioned - I believe that they would be obliged to obey and accept a canonical regularization.

However, I likewise have noted that the "no-compromise / continue exactly as you are but with ordinary jurisdiction  regularization" has not materialized.

As recently as two weeks ago, Bishop Fellay sat down with both Cardinal Mueller and Archbishop Pozzo.  He pointed out the contradiction between their two public statements.  The contradiction remains.  In addition, the requirement of having the local ordinaries permission for new foundations has been reintroduced.

So we have:
  1. Lack of clarity concerning acceptance of the New Mass and V2
  2. Submission to local ordinaries for new foundations
These two elements alone are what I would call 'deal breakers' as they represent compromises in Church Doctrine (ie Faith) and being unable to respond to the needs of the Faithful when under attack by wicked prelates.

So don't look for the SSPX to accept any agreement with that kind of compromise.  

Fundamentally, I've been told, this is about doctrine.  The barrier is about accepting the Second Vatican Council and the Liturgy that embodies the documents of the Council.  

Until Rome accepts unequivocally that the SSPX does not have to accept without reservations that Second Vatican Council, New Mass and various post-council shenanigans  (which I would posit is a doctrinal agreement), there will be no deal.

The Pope - A Source of Confusion

With regards to the Pope, to quote Jane Austen "I hear such different accounts of you as puzzle me exceedingly".

Why offer the SSPX such an agreement that appears to contradict his intentions / beliefs? 

For example we have this ditty:
Pope, in interview, laments ‘rigidity’ of youth who prefer Latin Mass
...
He also discussed the sacred liturgy. Crux reported:
Asked about the liturgy, Pope Francis insisted the Mass reformed after the Second Vatican Council is here to stay and “to speak of a ‘reform of the reform’ is an error.”
In authorizing regular use of the older Mass, now referred to as the “extraordinary form,” now-retired Pope Benedict XVI was “magnanimous” toward those attached to the old liturgy, he said. “But it is an exception.”
Pope Francis told Father Spadaro he wonders why some young people, who were not raised with the old Latin Mass, nevertheless prefer it.
“And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”

Source: Catholic Culture / Catholic World News

Perhaps the Pope is just as confused about the SSPX as they are about him?

Possible.

More likely is that there are people within the SSPX that are trying to fix this situation with the SSPX because "they only believe what the Church has taught authoritatively".

Somehow they are working to convince the Pope to be merciful to the SSPX.

I've heard other theories - but don't have time to delve into them now ... as I am retired!

Use I'm a Re-Trad (humour)!

Conclusion

We have a long way to go ... all we have to do is work to save our souls by following the teaching of the Church.

P^3



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is Tradition?

 + 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...

SSPX.ca: What is the position of the SSPX on Vatican II???

 + 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...

Thoughts on: Finding Common Ground Between Rome and the SSPX

 + 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 ...

The News is an Addiction ...

 + JMJ People seem to be mesmerised by train wrecks.   They just can't turn away as the disaster creeps forward along train tracks towards the crossing where a car, truck, bus, trailer awaits its destruction. Trads have been watching the train wreck that is this crisis of the Catholic Church for decades. The trade war between the Canada and the US has reminded me that the news is addictive.   The first time I was addicted what from 2009 to  2014 when I was closely following the Rome / SSPX discussions.  I was at work watching a live-stream as Bishop Fellay disappeared into the Vatican. The lead-up to this moment had been intense as the 'resistance' got freaked out and the cultural cracks between doctrine and conspiracy theory widened. In the decade since then other things have emerged, wars, rumours of wars, conspiracies, celebrity Catholics etc. Now we have a new addiction and its name is Trump. Lately, no matter how much I try, I find myself wonderin...

Thoughts on the Thoughts of a former SSPX priest

 + 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...