SSPX Fr. Schmidberger interviewed

Over at Rorate our friends have posted the summary of an interview with SSPX German District Superior Fr. Schmidberger on the status quaestionis of their relations with Rome.  Here are two salient bits:

These additional requirements consist, according to Father, of the recognition of the “licitness” [in German: Lizeität - translator's note: see also the foreword to the SSPX’s German District’s Mitteilungsblatt nr. 404 of September 2012, in which the same word is used, strengthening the belief that this words stems directly from the proposal of Cardinal Levada] of the new liturgy [translator's note: Father firstly presents the term Lizeität as “permissiveness”, but he then immediately interprets it as meaning “rightfulness”]; and also of the recognition of the uninterrupted continuity between Vatican II and all former councils and doctrinal statements of the Church. And that is impossible, according to Father, as there undeniably are ruptures with Vatican II and “we therefore cannot accept the hermeutic of continuity as such” [emphasis added by translator].

Following on that meeting, Bishop Fellay sent a letter to the Pope, asking him whether these additional requirements were wished for by His Holiness, or that they were his co-workers’s demands. The Pope assured Bishop Fellay that he really wishes these requirements to be fulfilled.

This is going to be a problem.  However, the Holy Father was probably not going to throw his staff to the dogs.  It may be that, in the future, these points can be polished into another shape.

Here is another excerpt:

And thirdly, the talks have led to a process of clarification within the Society. The Society does not agree with those that, out of principle, reject talks with Rome. Father ends the interview by saying: “The Fraternity has never worked for itself; it has never regarded itself as an end in itself, but it has always striven to serve the Church; to serve the Popes. Archbishop Lefebvre has always said this: we want to be at the disposal of the Bishops, of the Popes; we want to serve them, we want to help them lead the Church out of this crisis, to restore the Church in all her beauty, in all her holiness; but this can, of course, only happen outside of any compromise, of any false compromise. That is of great importance to us and we have in truth tried to resettle this treasure in the Church, to give it right of residence again. ["right of return"?] And maybe one or another has worked out in a certain way. The Fraternity has also, through these doctrinal discussions which I have mentioned, certainly made people think about the Second Vatican Council and about certain statements of this Council.”

Indeed it has.  However, note that willingness to serve for the sake of restoration, etc., noble in itself, but… so long as it can be done on their terms alone.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Benedict XVI, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, SSPX, The future and our choices and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to SSPX Fr. Schmidberger interviewed

  1. Legisperitus says:

    The noted “emphasis added by the translator” was on the words “as such” (after “hermeneutic of continuity”). The boldface shown on Rorate didn’t carry over to here, but it’s important to know that “as such” was emphasized, because it seems crucial that Fr. Schmidberger is NOT saying they simply can’t accept a hermeneutic of continuity in any way.

    The key point for the SSPX seems to be that a hermeneutic which a priori rules out of order any possibility of a dissonance with prior teachings would negate all substantive criticism of the Vatican II documents, which would be more restrictive than what the IBP agreed to.

  2. anilwang says:

    The VII document really can’t be read without the footnotes, since they clarify most ambiguities in the council. Then again, not everything in VII is De fide or Fides ecclesiastica and some might validly contradict long standing and wide spread sententia communis (i.e. small ‘t’ tradition). It is valid to oppose a change of small ‘t’ tradition by the council so long as one does not say the council proposed heresy. Statements on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty are a prime example. When what the council proposed is within Catholic tradition, it is stated in far too optimistic and has lead to an indifferentism. It is valid to oppose these changes as suicidal. (Its sobering to read some of the visions of the saints which state that in one year, 2 went to heaven, 1 went to purgatory and 30,000 went to hell…I pray this vision reflects more the desperate need for conversion rather then reality….).

    I think statements like “accept VII” are just to vague. The time for dancing around the issue is over. We need to get to specifics. More and more I think the way out of this is for the SSPX to go line by line through VII and annotate it. They would bring footnotes into lines that are often misinterpreted and state lines of concern, stating what level of doctrine they see the line expressing and what their opposition is. Bishop Fellay has stated that he agrees with 95% of VII so the list of annotations couldn’t be so long. One the annotations have been prepared, the Pope can review them and can either accept them all, reject them, reject an annotation outright, or provide his own annotation within the Catholic Tradition as a counter proposal. If this approach is taken, we can move on from VII being a stumbling block.

  3. ronconte says:

    The Church is indefectible. So it cannot be true that an Ecumenical Council, and all the Popes since its inception, and all the Bishops in communion with those Popes and that Council, have all gone astray.

    Since Vatican II, some of the Council’s teachings have continued to be taught by the Popes and by the body of Bishops dispersed through the world, as one position on matters of faith and morals, definitively to be held. So these teachings of Vatican II (few, or perhaps many) are now infallible under the ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

    The bishops of the SSPX, in breaking communion with the Popes and the body of Bishops, are unable to exercise the Magisterium. Therefore, they are not so different from many liberal priests and laypersons who insist that the Church must change Her doctrines and disciplines to accord with their understanding of the Faith.

  4. robtbrown says:

    ronconte says:

    The bishops of the SSPX, in breaking communion with the Popes and the body of Bishops, are unable to exercise the Magisterium.

    ?????

  5. Pingback: The Pope versus the SSPX | improperium Christi

  6. norancor says:

    This is why Father Z i s sooo good: “…polished into another shape.”

    That, Father, is as elegant as the English language gets.

  7. anilwang says:

    ronconte,

    True, but the council does not only express doctrine, it also expresses policy. You can disagree with policies, not doctrines. There was a time when canon law stated that priest could not attend wedding receptions, and the penalty for apostates that wished to return was decades of penance without holy communion. There was also a time when Ecumenism was more confrontational. I remember a story about a group of Anglicans visiting Pope Leo XIII (?) and at the end of the meeting they asked him to give a blessing. The Pope’s blessing was “May God save a cold spot in hell for you”. VII sought to be less confrontational under the assumption that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. There was a similar softening in policies in a few other areas in VII.

    It is most definitely valid to object to the policy changes in VII, as long as you don’t hold they are heretical.

    Legisperitus pointed out an important nuance, namely “as such”. The SSPX does not want to accept the policy changes even if they accept all the binding doctrines of VII. This is a fair statement since any approved apostulate within the Catholic Church, they could hold themselves to stricter standards (i.e. even returning to Nicene decades long penances for apostasy, barring priests from going to wedding receptions, etc).

  8. Mary Jane says:

    Sorry to be so blunt, but the SSPX are crazy if they don’t accept this…crazy. Don’t they believe that the OF is a valid form of the Mass? Don’t they believe that VII (as much as I dislike it myself) was a valid council and that it could not have taught heresy? If the answers are yes and yes then they should have no trouble. If the answers are no, then my next question to them would be “Have the gates of hell prevailed?”.

  9. norancor says:

    ronconte:

    I am not sure your language is sufficiently precise. I’m not trying to make dogmatic theology gnostic or elitist, but dogmatic theology and the Magisterium are subjects that have to be very well understood, and your comments seem to be indicative of the conciliar “gloss” that some tend to use. Anilwang’s comment is much more accurate, because we must speak about any subject based on its continuity of teaching, length of teaching, insights from Holy Scripture and the existing Deposit of Faith, and the doctrinal character given it by the Pope or a Council with the Pope.

    Infallibility and dogma are not an on/off switch, nor do they develop in a short period or spontaneously in and of themselves. There are grades of certitude, and each topic you speak of has to been seen in the context of development of the doctrine, its place in regards to morality, the opinions brought to bear on the subject, Papal statements and those of the curia or synods of bishops. We don’t hold to the belief in One God in Three Persons with the same certitude that we do Limbo.

    From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott

    The Theological Grades of Certainty

    1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita.”

    2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.

    3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.

    4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

    5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

    6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opimo tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.

    With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum.” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.

    With Vatican II, you need to know the doctrinal weight ascribed each given document, and the character given the Council as a whole by the Popes that oversaw it. The Popes made official speeches about the Council itself and before and after individual document votes. The Doctrinal Commission issued notes/announcements/letters (can’t remember the precise term) accompanying each document as to its doctrinal character, and which doctrinal certitude applied to which section.

    I know there is a “creeping infallibility” argument that the Left tries to use to invalidate dogma altogether, but there is also a “creeping infallibility” amongst conservatives that impute a dogmatic character, or amplify and increase doctrinal certitude to teachings of Vatican II that they simply do not have, and more importantly can not have.

    On matters like religious liberty, collegiality and the role of the Church in the modern world (LG and GS), whether the Church subsists in the Body of Christ, how the Church relates to non-Catholic religions, and ecumenism, these teachings are truly novel, because they are in some manner at variance with previous teachings from the popes of the last two centuries. They directly attempt to alter (I’m not going to say contradict) the previous teachings on the subject, and so therefore they CAN NOT be considered infallible, no matter how much the teaching is espoused by the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The Church cannot have that sort of inconsistency. The Church moves from lesser to greater precision; from lesser to greater perfection. It is not a matter of changing with times. What we believe never changes. How certain we are of it can grow, and how we express unchanging Truth can change. Truth is reality unto itself. We do not make or determine Truth, but only identify and conform to Truth.

    Dogma, and infallible character, come from teachings believed ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE, and BY ALL. It is born of consistency. Dogma is not a will-to-power dependent on who is in charge of the Church at a particular time, cannot change or be mitigated, and cannot be altered to suit a new set of temporal circumstances. That kind of belief is at the heart of Saint Pius X’s condemnation of Modernism in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabile Sane.

    I know you aren’t trying to say that dogma changes, or doctrine changes, but use your own logic. If we employ your sort of “auto-pilot” logic about dogma expressed as, “Since Vatican II, some of the Council’s teachings have continued to be taught by the Popes and by the body of Bishops dispersed through the world…” certain propositions of Vatican II are heretical, because bishops and popes for the last 200 years or so have taught teachings clearly opposed to the alterations made by certain documents of Vatican II: religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, and the nature of the Church. Teachings or prevailing trends on a subject do not create dogma or infallibility by auto-pilot.

    For anyone inclined to know, I would ask you to please read:

    Mirari Vos
    Immortale Dei
    Quanta Cura
    Quas Primas
    Pastor Aeternus
    Mystici Corporis Christi
    Humani Generis
    Mortalium Animos
    Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX
    Satis Cognitum

    Then read:

    Lumen Gentium
    Gaudium et Spes
    Dignitatis Humanae
    Nostra Aetate
    Unitatis Redintegratio

    Any reasonably educated Catholic can read these documents and discern the subtle, or not so subtle, shifts in teaching. It is reasonable for Catholics of good faith to disagree about these things, and to ask the Holy Father for clarification. We have not simply the duty, but the right to ask these things.

    There is a reason the Church has large numbers of theologians. They are trained and licensed to be able to know and understand doctrine, history, and the development of a doctrine and its background and implications, and help the Church understand the Truth, and the degree to which we should adhere to and give assent to the Truth as has been revealed to us by the Holy Ghost through His Church.

    Lastly, I have NOTHING to do with the SSPX. I do not attend their Masses, nor agree with many aspects of their attitudes and modes of operation.

  10. mamajen says:

    @Mary Jane

    No and no.

    Take a gander at their FAQs on the US SSPX website (sspx.org). They consider Novus Ordo “objectively sacrilegious” (though not automatically invalid) and have nothing good to say about Vatican II or the other traditional groups that accept it: “These are the sedevacantists and the communities (e.g., St. Peter’s, St. John’s, Institute of Christ the King, etc.) which accept the orthodoxy of the New Mass and Vatican II and which celebrate the Indult. Such are outside the moral unity of the traditional movement.”

    Whatever sympathy/admiration/curiosity I may have had for them before was done in by the disturbing things I found on their website telling “Catholics” what they ought to think about various topics. I would love to hear less about SSPX and much more about FSSP and other traditionalists who respect the Pope and our Church.

  11. moon1234 says:

    @ mamajen
    I think what you find disturbing is the prospect that the SSPX may be correct in some of their assertions and that the Current prelates refuse to directly answer these assertions with clear answers.

    My wife and I were married at an ICRSS oratory. I can tell you with 100% certainty that they are MUCH closer to the SSPX positions than they are Rome’s. Until summorum pontificum many were still using the 54 missal. Many refer to the Novus Ordo as the Nervous Disorder.

    Please don’t fool yourself into thinking groups like ICRSS, FSSP (Former SSPX) and other traditional groups are ok with 100% of VII. Most have simply chosen to get along and ignore the glaring doctrinal issues. They have permission for the older forms and so they use them and would rather not entertain the novelties that came along with much of VII.

    Does SSPX deny VII happened? Nope. It happened. Do they deny 100% of VII? Nope. They have serious issues with some of the documents and later developments that CAME from VII, how it was run (with protestant’s involved. Most people will act differently when they are not free to speak their mind due to the presence of others who, while not part of the group, find practices of the group distasteful).

    NO Catholic should ascribe to error just because someone tells you to. If a Priest or Bishop came to you and provided a justification for a situation that you knew was wrong, would you blindly follow or would you attempt to present truth to error?

  12. Mary Jane says:

    @moon1234 – would you be so good as to tell me what error (heresy) VII taught? I have an issue with the council (most folks commenting here probably do, I imagine) but I have yet to see where heresy was taught. Ambiguity, yes. Heresy, no.

    The SSPX needs to realize the Church does not need to be saved.

  13. Jack Orlando says:

    Am I wrong to think that nothing essential has changed in the position 40 years?: That the SSPX says what it has always said: “It isn’t post V2; it’s V2. We’re right; Rome is wrong. For Rome it’s either our way or the highway.” That Church says: “Accept V2 first, and then we’ll see about its clarification.”

    Am I wrong to foresee these developments?:
    1. The SSPX says “our way or the highway”.
    2. Rome takes the highway.
    3. The SSPX is declared not only in de facto but in formal schism.
    4. Because of this schism, the SSPX — its bishops, its clergy, anyone who attends its Masses — is excommunicated.
    5. The chance of regularization now so remote as to be ruled out, the Church begins to revise both Forms, the OF to become more like the EF, the EF to adopt the new lectionary and the Prayers of the Faithful.
    6. The Church begins clarifying V2.

  14. Random Friar says:

    I’m afraid I do see many in the SSPX as seeing itself as an end in itself, a faithful remnant, with varying degrees of acceptance of the present Latin Church. It will take much work and true dialogue to bring everyone home. And, of course, generosity and graciousness.

  15. mamajen says:

    @moon1234

    I don’t need you to tell me why I am disturbed by SSPX, thank you, nor are you even in the right ballpark.

  16. Sissy says:

    moon1234 said: “NO Catholic should ascribe to error just because someone tells you to. ”

    I was protestant for along time because of this kind of thinking. Your basic premise is faulty – who says there is error?

  17. Dismas says:

    @Jack Orlando, I tend to agree with your thought especially in light of Fr. Schmidberger’s other comments:

    The following thoughts were attributed to Fr. Schmidberger, “he also believes that the SSPX is in a certain way the backbone of all those who want to keep the Tradition of the Church alive. For all those, the SSPX is in a certain way a point of reference. If this point of reference would be discredited in such a way, this would mean a huge “demoralisation” of the traditional and conservative forces in the Church. It would therefore be a tremendous catastrophe, not so much for the Fraternity, but for the Church itself.”

    “The current abnormal situation is, however, not the fault of the Fraternity; it is a necessity in the current crisis if one wants to keep the ancient liturgy, the ancient doctrine, the ancient discipline integrally and if one wants to live homogeneously as a Catholic on this fullness.”

    If the SSPX prays the Confiteor at every Mass (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa) and the Credo (Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam) how can they possibly portend the current ‘abnormal situation’ is not their own fault? How does this thought actually reflect on the morals of traditional and conservative forces outside the Church, ancient liturgy, and lex orandi, lex credendi in general?

    Documents such as SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM , Vicesimus quintus annus, Ecclesia Dei and SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM are the backbone and point of reference for traditional and conservative forces within our Church. It is the Magisterium and it’s adherents that keep the Tradition of our Church alive, not Fr. Schmidberger and the SSPX.

  18. robtbrown says:

    Jack Orlando says:
    Am I wrong to think that nothing essential has changed in the position 40 years?: That the SSPX says what it has always said: “It isn’t post V2; it’s V2. We’re right; Rome is wrong. For Rome it’s either our way or the highway.” That Church says: “Accept V2 first, and then we’ll see about its clarification.”

    My understanding is that in the negotiations the reps of the Holy See already said that there are certain texts in Vat II that can be interpreted in various ways.

  19. GregH says:

    I have to say I tuned this out a long time ago. Spend more time praying for priests.

  20. Dismas says:

    @robtbrown – You must have missed recent comments made by Archbishop Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

    Vatican’s doctrine chief: Pius X Society must accept Vatican II teachings
    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vaticans-doctrine-chief-pius-x-society-must-accept-vatican-ii-teachings/

    “It is important for the future of the Church to overcome ideological clashes no matter where they come from. There is only one revelation of God in Jesus Christ which was entrusted to the whole Church. This is why there are no negotiations on the Word of God and one cannot believe and not believe at the same time. One cannot pronounce the three religious vows and then not take them seriously. I cannot make reference to the tradition of the Church and then accept it only in some of its parts. The path of the Church leads ahead and all are invited not to enclose themselves in a self-referential way of thinking, but rather to accept the full life and the full faith of the Church. ”

    In light of St. Pope Pius X identifying modernism years prior to VCII and the Novus Order Mass, do you believe that VCII and the Novus Ordo Mass is responsible for a loss of faith in our Church or do you believe that VCII and the Novus Order Mass served only to reveal the lack of faith that already existed in the hearts of many?

  21. dspecht says:

    ronconte: “…as one position on matters of faith and morals, definitively to be held.”

    No, it is not clear that all the bishops teach and taught the novelties of Vat. II to be matters of faith or morals nor that they teach them to be held definitively.

    So your first premise is right (that a teaching of the ordinray and universal mag. is infallible) – but your second not – so your argument fails. The teachings of Vat.II and the subsequent mag. are NOT infallible.

    Also norancor (and anilwang) answered you and they did explain it well.

    Let me only stress: if a teaching is not infallible, there is not onyl the possibility that it contradicts common opinions, but also dogmas; so not-infallible teachings can be also heretical, not only temerarious.

    So re Vat. II your argument is valid if turned around 180 degrees:

    Yes, the Chruch is indefectible. So what the Church taught for many centuries re rel. liberty and ecumenism is infallible.
    As Vat. II contradicts it (or at least is more than ambiguos re them and therefore “captiosus” or worse) and is not infallible, the problem is solved in sticking to infallible tradition.
    If Vat. II were right re rel. liberty then the Church would not be indefectible, because centuries and centuries She taught the opposite of what Vat. II taught!

  22. Imrahil says:

    Dear @dspecht, that 1. the teachings of the O&U M are infallible, 2. Vat II is not infallible, you should not give the O&U-criterium to all Magisterium just because it is pre-Conciliar.

    If Vat II is right on religious liberty (as I believe*, and as does the Church, however fallibly), then the Church has not defected; it has merely uttered some error in fallible matters.

    [*The really interesting questions are not parts of the dispute; it is ancient tradition that a man is not to be forced to true religion. What Vat II did add to this is that to ban a citizen to total privacy and uncommunication in this most essential matter is itself a means of force. - Vat II changed not a yota as to social kingship of Christ **- only it made clear that the Kingdom is to tolerate, with official distancing, a republican party.]

  23. Imrahil says:

    I left out an “however much you are right [that]” in my first sentence.

  24. AnnAsher says:

    I don’t take Father’s comments to suggest “on their terms alone” exactly. I hear him saying that the terms are without compromise of the fullness of the faith. I think from his perspective, he is truly serving the Church. It struck me here, in these quotes, that he spoke specifically and clearly of a belief that there was a “rupture” with Vatican II. Can he/they be convinced that no rupture occurred with regard to the Dogma and Doctrine of the faith with Vatican II’s doctrinal statements? It is rather frustrating. I think the last we heard from the Vatican and Cardinal Levada made it clear that the Vatican is open to, and it is a valid practice of the faithful, to question the implications and implementations of certain V2 documents/ statements which are not doctrinal in nature. I would have thought – I hoped – this would satisfy SSPX. I am of the mind that V2 declared no new Doctrine, but changes in discipline only, which can be questioned by our Bishops and rightly revised. Indeed I would hope SSPX would come to Rome and set some things aright.

  25. Horatius says:

    SSPX is enough to drive one bonkers. Not only have they broken with the Church, which is very, very wrong and very, very bad, they seem to make it safe for the laity to pronounce upon Her, to advance programs of reading between V II and other Councils or Papal Encyclicals, to weigh in on degrees of assent, to imagine, quite fondly, SSPX wields some grand theological instrument as sharp as a knife… Well, the list is as endless as the SSPX is disgusting in its intransigence and faithlessness.

    There once was a Bishop Fellay
    Who cried out “Novelty!” all day.
    He threw many a punch
    For his traditional bunch
    But their pride got them carried away.

  26. jacobianflaherty says:

    With great respect intended, Father and all dear readers of this blog, I find this whole topic quite tiresome, though I know I’m free to ignore it. It just seems as if it does no one any good except discourage. Sure, the SSPX leadership vs. the Vatican, dueling-it-out-thing is interesting and all, but let’s take the average lay Catholic. If they are interested in the Faith, they simply want a place where they can worship God faithfully, where they can have a funeral Mass that is about the soul of the deceased and his/her need for mercy, not simply the comfort and good feelings of his/her family, where they can have a wedding that is centered around a union with Christ and a homily not filled with inappropriate jokes. They want a Sunday homily that challenges them, (not simply entertains them) a music that lifts them and gives them a sense of the transcendence of God, (not just something that the people can “relate to”) and a Blessed Sacrament that is treated as if it IS what we claim it IS. They want a parish where the Faith is seen as an essential element in life, not just “one path among many”. They want a priest who can know the difference between being Saintly (strong in the Faith with charity) and just being a fuzzy jello-like character.

    I have a family member who became a member of the SSPX after his experiences going off to get his Masters Degree left him in a town where he could not find a parish church of any recognizable faithfulness. It wasn’t all at once, and, while he wasn’t the most learned one, he knew that what he was seeing and hearing in those other experiences betrayed what he knew was right. (Coincidentally, this regular-going yet pretty weak Catholic family member became much more knowledgeable about the Faith, proud of the Faith, and a better father and husband.) Correct me if I’m off, but while our life might hold many crosses for us, our vocation shouldn’t be one. To know, love and serve Christ should not be a battle we have to fight while IN a regularized parish.

    I am not an SSPX member and I will not be one. But I guess I choose to let God sort this out. Remember, if the terrible situations we all know about DIDN’T exist, this wouldn’t be an issue. So I’m with Greg H: let’s spend way, way, way more time in prayer over this. Writing long comments (like I admittedly have) trying to sort out the politics seems fruitless. Let us pray for all laity, priests, bishops and the Pope to grow in holiness, faithfulness, courage, and humility. May God take those increases in all of these virtues and put them to work in the way HE sees fit, for the redemption of souls and His glorification.

  27. StWinefride says:

    @Mary Jane,

    Spot on.

    If Jesus said that the gates of hell shall not prevail… then they won’t. I BELIEVE HIM.

    I have recently come to realise that this unresolved situation comes down to a lack of TRUST IN GOD on behalf of the SSPX.

    So, my humble message to the SSPX: “Get back in, you are needed in the Church, for the sake of your own souls and those of others, and leave the rest to GOD”.

    St Michael the Archangel, pray for us
    St Padre Pio, pray for us.

  28. dan daly says:

    There was a very interesting article in the most recent issue of The Remnant that is relevant. Apparently, a question was submitted to Rome seeking to clarify what exactly “legitimate” means with regards to the Ordinary Form. The reply basically said that “legitimate” means that it is allowed by the law, but noes not necessarily mean that it is pleasing to God.

    Pax Christi