Skip to main content

SSPX Marriages and Sundry

+
JMJ


As the 'distance' between Rome and the SSPX lessens, peoples assumptions are going to be tested.

Why?  Because, in this conflict (read: Fog of War), the guiding principles have become obscured or lost.

 If decisions are made upon unvalidated assumptions, independent of principles, then mistakes will be made.

An example of a mistake is the letter written in La Chardonnet and signed by 7 priests. In this letter they took it upon themselves to put forth their opinions (it was also read from the pulpit), that could be interpreted as being at odds with that of their superiors.

So, here we hit disobedience again.

Here's the key points from the  final paragraph that gives us a hint of the underlying issues.
  1.  Personal Prelature ... was supposed to recognize us as we are, and to maintain our independence vis-à-vis the local Ordinaries.
  2. First decisions taken consist in unjustly submitting our marriages to these very Ordinaries
  3. Tomorrow the opening of any new Houses will have to meet their approval
Looking at the first and third point we have the 'independence' from the local ordinaries assumption. What we want it to mean and what it can mean are two different things.  I prefer to look at what it can mean.

The geographic delegation of authority is Apostolic.  This means you need to be very careful when dealing with it, otherwise we could become little modernists in altering the constitution of the Church.



Changing Church doctrine because of our sentiments or distrust of the persons in places of authority is not a good principle, let alone a Catholic one.

Now to address point 2 and a specific aspect of point 3.

It may be an element of FUD, but it seems that they are hinting at a couple of things, but not being specific.

The core element can be summed up as decisions taken to (in their opinion) unjustly submit SSPX marriages and the opening of new priories to the Ordinaries.

In the both cases they are touching upon submission to an authority that is based in Apostolic tradition.

That is strike one.

In the case of marriages, it is necessary that the local ordinaries are made aware of marriages (and perhaps baptisms, deaths) within their dioceses.  This is not submission, this is common Church practice.

That is strike two.

Then there is the underlying issue, the implication that the Superiors are doing something wrong. This would their opinion, however they did not provide any evidence in this case - only inuendo.  Invoking the FUD principle is a sure sign that they are dealing out opinions that are based on conjecture.

That is strike three.


So what should we do?


  1. Understand the principles - obedience is good place to start
  2. Study the Faith and seek to understand it in context. Don't proof-text.
  3. Pray.  A solid Spiritual Life is essential to attaining and maintaining a Godly perspective on this crisis.

P^3







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

 + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...

News Roundup: April 30, 2026

 + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

 + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...