Tradicat

 + JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas.  After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP.  Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...

 + 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 Introduction There's a lot of noise about the SSPX and the impending Episcopal Consecrations of four auxiliary bishops. Actually, most of the noise is from the media and neither principal parties (Rome / SSPX). At this point is is important to reduce the noise in order to see the signal. The Heart of the Matter From my point of view there are four key issues: Consecration without Papal Mandate It is abundantly clear, that while the SSPX has asked from a mandate, one has not been and is unlikely to be given.  Thus we have a repeat of 1988, which Rome asking for 'talks' and delaying any real action - as well as trying to delay the consecrations. This action has been covered in Canon Law since 1950 (now Canons 1013, 1387), at least that's when the penalty was increase from suspension to excommunication by Pope Pius XII.  This was done when the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association  started to consecration bishops for its parallel Church.  This is a real sch...

 + JMJ  My current thoughts on the eventual consecration of new bishops by the SSPX. It is not a matter of if but when. The SSPX will ask for permission from Rome. #2 is what faithful non-schismatic / non-sedevacantist Catholics will do. It is ludicrous to say that one can't accept a bishop that Pope Francis gives permission to be consecrated.   What if Pope St. John Paul II had given permission for the four consecrated in 1988? Rome may or may not give permission ... but ... This may be taken as an opportunity to restart discussions Pope Francis is just the type of person to do it. So what?  We need to pray because as long as the SSPX is not given a no-compromise regularization, the Church is not on a path to recover from the current crisis. End Stop. P^3     Courtesy of RORATE CÆLI: “SSPX Episcopal Consecrations – Ignoring the Past” – Guest article by Joseph Bevan “SSPX Episcopal Consecrations – Ignoring the Past” – Guest article by Joseph Bevan...