An interesting SSPX thought

From a priest friend:

I had an interesting thought – for the year of mercy, the Pope is allowing the faithful to be validly absolved by priests of the SSPX.

[QUAERITUR:] But what do they think of our absolution?

If a member of the faithful were to go to an average SSPX priest and ask,

I was baptized and confirmed with the new books, I regularly attend a parish in the diocese and am in full communion with the bishop and Pope Francis. I fully support the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I regularly confess to a priest who was ordained using the new ritual – can I approach for Holy Communion, or would I have to confess to an SSPX priest first?

Heh.

I suspect that results would vary.

UPDATE:

I’ve already received a bunch of email in response to this.

Keep in mind: I didn’t write what’s above.  A priest friend wrote it.  That said, I chose to post it, so I get to handle the flak.  That’s fine.  When I get his email I wrote back “Trouble maker!”, and then posted it.

This poke I gave initiated some interesting feedback, especially in the form of the following email from an SSPX priest whose name I will keep to myself.

From the SSPX priest:

I hope this finds you well. Having been a daily reader of your blog since the early days, I have intended to reach out to you for some time, but no subject has piqued my interest as much as this quaeritur and your answer from today. [Already it bears fruit!]
You are obviously a good man and a devoted priest. I wish that there were thousands more like you, especially with the far-reaching public access you enjoy. I know that the slings and arrows must fly at you alarmingly at times because of that public access and your good use of it. Perhaps one day we can sit down to share war stories over a jointly-cooked Sunday Supper, with moderate helpings of alcohol and tobacco. [You’re on!]
But, having captured the benevolentia (so to speak), [In classical rhetoric a speaker usually began with a bid to acquire the good will of his audience.  That’s called a “captatio benevolentiae“.] I have to tell you that your answer to the quaeritur today came off as pretty snide. It’s quite beneath you, Father. [Oh no, dear Father, I can sink much lower.  I usually don’t, thanks be to God.]
This is neither the time nor the medium to delve into the whole complex mess of our place in the Church and our relationship both with Rome and Catholics at large, but, on this point of our acceptance of “NON-SSPX” Catholics, I am astonished that you are so ill informed. [Am I?  C’mon.  Non-SSPX Catholics have always been the prime source of followers of the SSPX, and from the very beginning.] Perhaps you have us mixed up with the sedevacantists, many of whom not only insist that newcomers confess to their priests first but refuse absolution if the penitent attends your Mass or mine. Such has never been our position!  [Even more fruit is born from this post.  For those who are not in the know… there really are differences between the SSPX and sedevacantists, at least officially.  There may be some SSPXers who lean to sedevacantism (the proposal that the See of Peter is empty, that right now there is no legitimate Pope in Rome).  But that is NOT the position of the SSPX nor, I’m sure, the vast majority of their priests.  Remember: lay people are not members of the SSPX which is a priestly society!]
I am not going to be so bold as to deny that one or the other of our priests might have responded in such a way in the bad old days  despite our policy, but such a move, even then, would have resulted in a great deal of hell from the superiors if it became known, and such priests generally left us or were expelled eventually. As of now, I can state confidently that responses would not vary, at least in this country and in Canada.
[NB] We treat every Catholic as a Catholic without asking any questions. (Although, if Ms Pelosi were to show up at my rail, I would not hesitate to refuse her, just as one must refuse anyone who is giving grave public scandal.) [An even better captatio!]
For the avoidance of doubt, and to reiterate what has been our policy since day 1: [NB] We accept the validity of all of the Sacraments conferred according to the new rites. We even defend this validity against the denials of the sedevacantists and those of our faithful who would be happier with the sedevacantists. We do NOT consider ourselves a separate “church” or deny that those who follow the new rites exuberantly are Catholics. We DO think their souls are in serious danger because of the direction they are being led, both by their pastors and by the new rites themselves (not by the rites as such buy by the serious problems  introduced with the “newness”). Because we think they are in serious danger, we do all we can to help them find or rediscover the right direction. We can argue (which I suspect could be quite enjoyable!) about that direction and our manner of doing all we can to help souls find it and persevere in it, but those arguments, to be just, must start from recognizing each other’s basic Catholicity and good will.
I certainly recognize yours, Father! Sometimes I want to shake you by the shoulders [You might not like the results.] — not to attack or punish you but to wake you up to the logical conclusions of what you’re saying. I am convinced that we (and not just you and I) are on the same side in this momentous war. I hope we can gradually but deliberately begin to act like it at all times.
In that spirit, I will be passing though Madison …  [DETAILS REMOVED] . Perhaps we could try to meet up at that time for a visit. [I’m open – if I am in town.] We might even find it in ourselves to have a drink and possibly hear one other’s confessions! [HA!  I see what you did there.] (I detest emojis, but imagine one here to indicate that I’m not trying to be provocative.)   o{]:¬)  
I hope you can reply, but I’ll understand if not. Be assured of my prayers for a fruitful season of  Advent and a holy and blessed Christmas.  [And mine as well.  Invicem.]

There you have some grist for the mill dear readers.   I am delighted that this post elicited this response.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SSPX and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to An interesting SSPX thought

  1. AGA says:

    In my limitted experience with the SSPX they are VERY accomodating. My children attended one of the major SSPX schools in St. Marys Kansas and everyone from the head priest on down knew they attended Sunday Mass with the FSSP and would not be confessing their sins with the SSPX during the week.

    Never once was there a problem. I think they were just happy to have us there.

  2. Geoffrey says:

    I have a prayer book published by the SSPX called “Christian Warfare”. It’s a nice little book, but it does have some rather disturbing elements, mainly listing attending the “Novus Ordo” and receiving Communion in the hand in their examination of conscience for Confession. Regardless of ones opinions on these matters, these are not sins that need confessing. I’ve never had much respect for the SSPX after reading that.

  3. Gerard Plourde says:

    The question posed underscores the complexity of the issues surrounding reconciliation between the Society and the Universal Church. Because of the irregular structure of the Society, the possibility of heterodox teaching (admittedly a situation also present within the Church itself) taking root and flourishing is both possible and extremely dificult to weed out. If, as Geoffrey reports above, an authorized publication of the Society actually considers attendence at Mass in the Ordinary Form (a form promulgated by a Beatified Pope, celebrated exclusively once promulgated by a canonized Pope, and assented to and celebrated as the regular form by both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis) to be a matter requiring the Sacrament of Penance then their claim to submission to the Holy See and authentic Catholic teaching is truly suspect and the chances of reunion with the One True Church are indeed remote. (I’ll leave aside the controversial issue of receiving the Eucharist by hand and self-communicating.)

  4. norancor says:

    The question for the New Evangelization applies here:   Evangelize to what?

    This question must come first, because what a traditional Catholic evangelizes too — the traditional Catholic Faith and immemorial practices — isn’t the same thing as what a Catholic baptized and confirmed with the new books, who regularly attends a parish in the diocese and is in full communion with the bishop and Pope Francis, who fully support the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and regularly confesses to a priest who was ordained using the new ritual would evangelize too.

    This also applies to the Second Vatican Council. It proposes alternative views / teachings / perspectives / [insert your preferred noun here] compared to previous teachings. What am I supposed to believe? The latest and greatest? The previous teaching before the proposed changes? There has never been a clarification on what a Catholic is supposed to believe. There was only de facto implementation of the new ways of thinking, with no explanation as to how to marry the two, or the declaration we must ignore one or the other.

    Saints fought and died for the Truth.
    Tradition is democracy for the dead.
    The Vincentian Canon would seem to apply.

  5. norancor says:

    As for their calling the Ordinary Form evil, that’s more schismatic than heretical, and was a tremendously stupid decision on the part of the SSPX. “Eternal Rome” is another quasi-schismatic term that has been used since the 70’s by Abp. Lefebvre himself. One might ask, if you believe in “Eternal Rome” and not “Modernist Rome,” who decides at what point when “Rome” is once again “Rome?” The Society? It sounds like back-handed sedevacantism, or at least a strong case of semiprivationism, where the occupants of the Papacy and Cardinalate are materially popes and cardinals, but not formally, and exercise no power due to their “Modernism.”

  6. Sixupman says:

    Geoffrey: I was perforce to hear Mass at a church in the Clifton Diocese [in S.W England]. The parish priest preached against the Magisterium, as did his supply priest from an adjacent parish [an ex CofE minister], the parish was also wedded to having a plethora of Permanent Deacons. Mass resembled and copied CofE services which could be heard on the BBC.

    I was so disturbed at that which I had to endure, I consulted a confessor in an adjacent but distant parish – available on weekdays. His advice to treat the experience as a penance.

    A priest friend had his bishop preach at the anniversary Mass of his ordination. The said bishop promoted, thereat and with gusto, a lay led church. His diocese now a ‘devastated vineyard’ indeed.
    My local bishop now engaged on a policy of ‘managed’ de facto demise of parishes – his answer, lay led and the Permanent Diaconate.

    I have now to be most careful where I hear Mass. The SSPX problem, where it existed, was largely of American/+Williamson creation, manifested in such areas as Post Falls, ID.

    Taking into account that which is currently emanating from Rome, Germany and the Low Countries, sniping at SSPX appears, to me, to be a puerile exercise. But, if you wish to ‘fiddle whilst Rome burns’ [appropriate?] so be it!

  7. Gerard Plourde says:

    Dear norancor,

    It appears that you begin from the premise that the Deposit of Faith taught by the Church has changed and that what is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope St. John Paul is not the true Catholic faith as handed down from the Apostles. To believe that you must also believe that Our Lord’s promise to preserve the Church and the Vicar of Christ against the Gates of Hell (Mt 16: 17-19) was a false one. Further, you would also have to believe that His grant of “full, supreme, and universal power” to His Vicar to bind and loose regarding matters of discipline was false as well. The question then becomes: By what authority, with what competence and using what standard are you entitled to judge?

  8. Gerard Plourde says:

    Dear norancor,

    I just saw your second post and realize that the position taken does not appear to. Be your personal view. I apologize for the erroneous conclusion and retarder my reply to the hypothetical self-identified “traditional Catholic opposed to ‘Modernist Rome'”,

  9. Liam says:

    I plan to pay a friendly visit to the rector of my local SSPX chapel sometime soon to open up precisely this kind of amicable dialogue. This is what is needed during the Jubilee of Mercy! We ARE on the same side in the cosmic struggle for salvation.

  10. hilltop says:

    Dear Father Z,
    This is a great post; and my sense of what’s unwritten on your part is that you and I agree on that point.
    Both you and your brother Priest work wondrous deeds in your intercommunication. Thank you for sharing it with us, for in doing so, you work wondrous deeds for the Catholic Faithful.
    I am not among the SSPX Faithful but have enjoyed extensive communications with them. Your brother Priest’s representations are fully consistent with the warm, genuine, Catholic welcome available to all from the SSPX from His Excellency, Bishop Fellay, to the many Priests I have met, to their seminarians, to the numerous, robustly faithful Faithful SSPX adherents.
    I hope you do host Father for dinner when he is next in Madison. Please send me the bill for the dinner’s ingredients.
    Yours,
    hilltop

  11. iPadre says:

    I’d like to throw out my thoughts on the issue of the SSPX being given faculties for the Year of Mercy.

    This was a very generous act on behalf of the Pope. I think it is another of his “make a mess” situation. Because when the Year of Mercy is over, how is it going to be recanted? Of course, Canon Law and such, but the average Catholic doesn’t know Canon Law, and probably doesn’t care much about it any way. I think this is a situation that once the door has been opened, and it has, you would be able to close it. Could that be the plan!?!?

  12. zama202 says:

    Wonderful post. I have never met a priest of the SSPX, but this response is both well-balanced and sensitive as the Society tries to guide souls from dangerous ideas within and without the Church.

    I certainly have a much better impression of SSPX priests after this post.

    Charles

  13. Auggie says:

    Please televise your meeting as the first episode of “What Does The Recipe Really Say?”

  14. xsosdid says:

    Father Z, a “what do the SSPX say?” regular feature would be great, featuring just this sort of dialogue. THAT wold be a wonderful new “brick” to lay.

  15. Rachel K says:

    This is a useful discussion and I appreciate the conciliatory tone of the SSPX Father.
    My own experience with lay followers of the SSPX was not so friendly. One mother stated that she would no longer take her child to confession with a regular Catholic priest because she didn’t trust what they might say in the confessional. She also said, after I asked her directly, that she and her family would no longer attend any indult Masses ( this was some years ago, before the universal indult) even if they were on offer in the Diocese, which they were at the time. She seemed to be convinced that the Novus Ordo was both invalid and evil.
    If the stance given by Fr is the “official” line of the SSPX then it is not being understood by the laity attached, or else different priest are teaching different things. This is the problem I suspect, once you step off the narrow path, fragmentation occurs at different levels and there is no way to hold things together coherently.

    My slight concern with the good Fr’s answer is his statement;
    “We DO think their souls are in serious danger because of the direction they are being led, both by their pastors and by the new rites themselves (not by the rites as such buy by the serious problems introduced with the “newness”). ”
    Therein lies the root of the problem.
    Is it true that the Church is not leading the faithful in the right direction? Is she in error?
    Are the Rites themselves wrong? Or, as he then says, it is not the Rites as such? Just their “newness”.
    Logic tells me that the Church cannot put people in soiritual danger by Her Rites. There may be a lack of power due to what has been removed (thinking here of the exorcisms of baptism) bu they are still sacraments.
    Another SSPX friend spoke of his own new Rite infant baptism in such derogatory terms that I wondered if it were blasphemy.
    I wonder if Fr SSPX may be happy to clarify regarding the Rites?

  16. roma247 says:

    I’m very glad to hear what your SSPX correspondent has to say, but in your defense, Father, I can attest to having personally experienced the very conundrum proposed in the original Qaeritur…and was explicitly told that attending the Novus Ordo was a mortal sin, and that indeed I would need to be confessed in that SSPX parish if I wished to receive Communion.

    Yes, this was about 11-12 years ago, so if things have changed, I’m immensely glad to hear it. I was driven away from that parish because it felt like it was always a contest to see who could be the most Catholic…which was nothing but a race to the bottom. By their fruit you shall know them…and that has left a sour taste in my mouth for a long time, as you can see.

  17. cstei says:

    We accept the validity of all of the Sacraments conferred according to the new rites.

    This begs the question with me. If they accept the validity of all the Sacraments then why do they conditionally confirm those people who join their Chapels and were confirmed according to the new Rite? You can’t tell me they don’t do these because I have watched more then a few videos of SSPX Confirmations online and I have witnessed quite a few Conditional Confirmations on these videos.

  18. taffymycat says:

    thanks for that post. i was interested in his comments re. SSPX and sedevacantists —they are not the same, though for lay people not in the know, lke myself, it can be confusing. i dislike the NO more than i can say, with those female altar girls who just annoy me no end, but it is the mass, and even tho the liturgy is changed a bit, the bloodless sacrifice of our Lord occurs and we still have the Eucharist / communion. i long for the old mass which i grew up in following the Latin silently and praying. so much more reverent, so NOT protestant.

  19. Chiara says:

    Father – This is all very interesting. I think it is most generous of Pope Francis to permit Confession with SSPX priests, in view of the past difficulties and disrespect shown toward the papacy and those of us who belong to diocesan parishes. It is a very loving gesture toward those who are parishioners of SSPX chapels and their priests in this Jubilee Year of Mercy. I hope with all my heart, and I expect Pope Francis does also, that this leads to reconciliation and forgiveness.

    With that in mind, and with respect, I cannot help but remember the admonition given to me and my husband by our pastor of many years. A couple of SSPX chapels in our vicinity were advertising in our local newspaper, and we were curious. Our good pastor told us not, under any circumstances, attend Mass at these chapels. He said we should attend Mass at our own parish or another diocesan parish.

    He pointed out these chapels are a great source of confusion for Catholics. For instance, they always seem to name their chapels with the same name as a local parish. This is a fact in our town. One SSPX chapel is named “Sacred Heart of Jesus”, with a diocesan parish less than 3 miles across town bearing the same name. Another is named “Immaculate Heart of Mary”, with a thriving diocesan parish 5 miles away. With the thousands of names in the Communion of Saints, it seems a conscious act on the part of the SSPX to confuse and draw diocesan parishioners away from their homes. If they legitimately believed in the truth of what they profess, this would be unnecessary.

    Our pastor also advised us if we want to experience a traditional Latin Mass, there is a diocesan parish in town which celebrates the TLM weekly.

    I must admit I do not plan on going to Confession with an SSPX priest, when there are so many opportunities in my area to go to a diocesan priest. It is all I can do to shove myself through a confessional door as it is, but I do it monthly out of love of God and sorrow for my sins.

    Father, I wish you and all your readers a happy Advent. Pax et Bonum!

  20. The Masked Chicken says:

    It, sometimes, pays to study mathematics. This paragraph is inconsistent:

    “We DO think their souls are in serious danger because of the direction they are being led, both by their pastors and by the new rites themselves (not by the rites as such buy by the serious problems introduced with the “newness”). Because we think they are in serious danger, we do all we can to help them find or rediscover the right direction. We can argue (which I suspect could be quite enjoyable!) about that direction and our manner of doing all we can to help souls find it and persevere in it, but those arguments, to be just, must start from recognizing each other’s basic Catholicity and good will.”

    It is impossible, topologically speaking, for something to be going in two different directions and be united in direction (implied in Catholicity). Either they diverge in an open set, however slightly, (such as with the Eastern Orthodox) such that they never have to re-converge (although they could), or they, essentially, diverge in a closed set and must, eventually, reunite, somewhere along the set of points (as in the veins of the heart). Thus, if the SSPX claims that the NO Church is headed in the wrong direction and that they must be brought back, this implies an open set divergence, because, otherwise, even without the application of correction, it will eventually re-converge with the SSPX.

    In other words, there is an essential difference between saying, “You are wrong, but you have authority and we will obey because God, in His Providence and in His Time will set things right,” vs. “You are wrong and even though you have authority, we will not obey, because God will not set things right without us leading you back.” It is only when the truth is lost, leading to a loss of authority (because one is only, properly speaking, authorized in the truth), that one may disobey, or rather, speak out for the truth. One cannot, simultaneously, claim that Rome has the truth and does not have the truth. This is what the paragraph seems to assert, from my reading of it. Thus, it is inconsistent.

    The Chicken

  21. cath4ever says:

    @roma247:

    I have to say respectfully, by their fruits you shall know them indeed. This year the SSPX’s Seminary in Winona ordained 4 Priests and accepted 30 new seminarians (see for reference http://www.stas.org/en/news-events/news/thirty-five-new-vocations-11466 ) and ordained 7 in June of 2014.

    In contrast, the Diocese of Madison, WI has 22 seminarians total (see for reference http://madisondiocese.org/Vocations/OurSeminarians.aspx ) and ordained 6 this year and 2 in June 2014.

  22. James says:

    “[In classical rhetoric a speaker usually began with a bid to acquire the good will of his audience. That’s called a “captatio benevolentiae“.]”

    ## One of them can be found in Acts 23, where the orator Tertullus opens his speech against St Paul with a *captatio benevolentiae* addressed to Felix. (C. S. Lewis mentions this in one of his books, so, credit to him.)

    I don’t know what to make of the issues between the Society and Rome. However, if one obeys the Successor of Peter, one cannot go wrong – the Church is where Peter is, by definition. If he leads people astray in any way, that is his fault and not the fault of his subjects; which is one reason, among others, to pray for him – regardless of his personal qualities. Francis is as truly Pope as Blessed Pius IX was, and exercises the Authority which is exercised in the gospels by Christ. Things could be, and arguably have been, far worse than they are now – that things are bad, is precisely why we should hope all the more strongly in His Faithfulness to His Church.

    What is clear in practice, is that there cannot ever be a reason to leave the Church – for lack of faith in the Church boils down to lack of faith in Christ. The Church’s troubles are not going to be amended if Catholics leave her. Something is wrong with a love for the Church that is conditional upon her prosperity, and does not stand by her in her woes. Christ’s Love for her was, is, very different from that.

    In case someone mentions the puzzles caused by examples of Papal weakness in the past – those do not affect the duty of those living now. Liberius is not Pope in 2015, neither is John XXII, nor is [insert name] – Francis, OTOH, is. We have to love God and neighbour, in the Church as she presently is, in the present. 1 Corinthians 10.13 seems extremely relevant: “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.”

  23. Ann Malley says:

    @ xsosdid says:

    “…Father Z, a “what do the SSPX say?” regular feature would be great, featuring just this sort of dialogue. THAT wold be a wonderful new “brick” to lay.”

    I cannot agree more! For if, in charity, the Church is called to ecumenical dialogue with non-Christians, if only to dialogue and understand – in truth – their position and wherein there exists shared understandings – how much more obligation does there exist between fellow Catholics. Catholics not separated by schism either, but rather protracted misunderstanding? (Misunderstanding that is too often used as a wedge to prevent healing.)

    Much of what we lay at the feet of others is based in genuine concern for the upholding of the Faith and the duty to tend our souls and those of our children, not the SSPX vs the Church encounter that we too often perceive as ‘fighting words’.

    Example:

    @RachelK

    “…My own experience with lay followers of the SSPX was not so friendly. One mother stated that she would no longer take her child to confession with a regular Catholic priest because she didn’t trust what they might say in the confessional.”

    While Rachel is referring to her own experience to judge the so called followers of SSPX (In truth, we are all struggling to follow Christ), she has assessed the concern of dutiful parents as an attack on the ‘regular’ Catholic priest instead of allowing for the requisite experience (…and some could be horribly bad and compel a parent to heightened vigilance or, at the very least, hesitation to trust) as the basis for these parents to judge what is good and wholesome for their children.

    Having been exposed to much that is anti-Catholic in the confines of the confessional myself, both as a child and as an adult, I am exceedingly cautious about who I allow my children to confess to. I must be as that is my duty before God. That is no attack against the Catholic Church or an extolling of the SSPX. Rather it is just a reality of parental duty in these all-too-confusing times wherein we can visibly see Bishop against Bishop, Cardinal against Cardinal.

    Please, Fr. Z, if you would be willing to take this venture into true dialogue – that is dialogue with the intent to dispel rumor and fear – that would be incredibly beneficial. And do much to support the call of Bishop Athanasius Schneider that we cease the shooting at those who could and should be our closest allies in combating the real enemy.

  24. marytoo says:

    RachelK wrote: “One mother stated that she would no longer take her child to confession with a regular Catholic priest because she didn’t trust what they might say in the confessional. She also said, after I asked her directly, that she and her family would no longer attend any indult Masses…”

    When you hear enough things like “Jesus is awesome” and “that’s not a sin” you get choosy. SSPX/FSSP etc. priests get a lot of on-the-ground training because confession is offered before every Mass (and sometimes during) so they hear hours of confessions every week. And their formation is impeccable.

    “She seemed to be convinced that the Novus Ordo was both invalid and evil.”

    I don’t believe the NO is invalid but I will say it has become a trial for me, never knowing what to expect, having to sort of brace myself. I don’t blame anyone for swearing it off. After getting used to the seamlessness and formality of the Tridentine Mass it’s not unusual for someone to lose their tolerance for the NO. And it’s not wrong, either. You really need to know the old Mass to step away and see the NO Mass objectively.

    csdei wrote: “…why do they conditionally confirm those people who join their Chapels and were confirmed according to the new Rite?”

    I don’t believe it’s required but available to those who desire it, which is charitable, considering many people look back at the banality of their Confirmations with a bit of sorrow.

  25. Gerard Plourde says:

    Dear Chiara, Masked Chicken and James,

    Your comments truly reach the nub of the problem I have concerning the SSPX which also is manifest in the communication that Fr. Z received. The problem is a lack of clarity as to what the SSPX truly believes.

    Pope Benedict provided the Society with a clear path to reconciliation and the Society chose not to take it. It has never been explicity stated by the Society what the objection is. One can infer (and inferring always carries with it the danger of error) from the event that led to the the break, i.e. the possibility of the consecration of bishops using the Ordinary rather than the Extraordinary Form, that Archbishop Lefebvre had doubts concerning the validity of the Ordianary Form.

    According to the Society-affiliated priest-correspondent who wrote to Fr. Z, the Society accepts that the Ordinary Form is valid, but if there were not confusion and doubt within the Society on this point the position of the Society, then Archbishop Lefebvre’s act of disobedience would not have occurred and there would not be instances of individual priests of the Society and publications from Angelus Press holding that attendance at Masses in the Ordinary Form are either a Mortal Sin or possibly a Venial Sin, but nevertheless a matter to be confessed, as reported above by Geoffrey and Rachel K.

    This confusion is a natural consequence of the Society’s choice to stand apart from the authority of the Pope and the clear teaching of the Universal Church as set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was promulgated by Poope St. John Paul by his authority as Supreme Teacher, which bring this examination to its next point – the question of the Society’s acceptance of Papal authority.

    The Society states that it accepts the authority of the Holy See and points to the fact that at Masses it includes the name of the Pontiff when praying the Canon of the Mass (less clear is whether the name of the local Ordinary, to whose authority their chapels should be subject, is less clear). Their behavior recalls that of the second son in the parable recounted at Mt. 21: 28-32, who says immediately to his father that he will go to work in the vineyard but did not go. Praying for the Pope, while right, just and laudible, falls short if one does not show submission to his authority granted directly and unambiguously by Our Lord while here on Earth. Consequently, there is little question that this causes confusion in the minds of the faithful who regularly attend Mass and the celebration of other Sacraments (invalid Sacraments in the case of the Sacrament of Matrimony and, outside this current Jubilee Year of Mercy, the Sacrament of Penance). Does the presence of this confusion rise to the level of an occasion of sin? The arguments for and against will be the final point of this examination.

    The Chuch has traditionally taught that an occasion of sin is an external circumstance, which leads one to commit the sin. It has further traditionally taught that any person, place, or thing that generally leads us to commit sin becomes a proximate occasion, that we are bound to avoid. When this long standing guide is applied to the matter of attendance at activities at Society chapels, the complexity of the question becomes clear. The lack of clear, unambiguous statements concerning the Society’s position regarding Papal Authority, the validity of the Litugical Books promulgated by the Universaly Church by the authority of three separate popes (Bl. Paul VI, St. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI), and the Teachings of the Universal Church as officially enunciated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by St. John Paul II lead to confusion in the minds and the souls of the faithful who regularly attend. This confusion can rise to the level of a near occasion of sin if it allows a person to entertain ideas and make judgements on those ideas that are beyond their competence, judgements that may also as a consequence lead them to sin by declaring that the celebration of Rites and Sacraments according to the Ordinary Form is invalid and potentially heretical or that the ruling Pontiff’s legitimacy is suspect (a matter not helped by Bishop Fellay’s statement that Pope Francis is a “Modernist”, calling to mind the heresy condemned by St. Pius X).

    Therefore, much thought and care must be exercised in deciding whether to attend services conducted by the Society of St. Pius X or whether such attendance could represent a near occasion of sin.

  26. I would enjoy seeing a WDTSSPXRS feature as well!

    While I appreciate what Father SSPX has to say, my own admittedly limited experience with SSPX followers has been somewhat different. Which begs the question: what is it about the SSPX that much of their hierarchy seems to be the sort of orthodox, common-sense priest who my husband and I would love to invite to dinner, but those who attend their chapels seem to be…well, “considerably more extreme” is as charitably as I can describe it.

    I once lived with a couple of roommates who were attached to the SSPX in that they only attended SSPX chapels, to the point of refusing to attend the (several) local indult Masses offered by diocesan priests, order priests, and the FSSP. Another roommate wasn’t Catholic, but was happy to abide by house rules (no wild parties/boyfriends overnight/etc). They once took it upon themselves to lock her out of the house after a certain time because she was engaged in “scandalous behavior,” with the implication being that if they didn’t lock her out of the house, they’d be encouraging her in impure actions. The impure action in question was hanging out at–gasp!–a boy’s apartment until fairly late in the evening. Which sounds a touch scandalous until I mention that the boy in question a) was her biological brother and b) lived alone, making it rather unlikely that anything untoward was occurring. However, they seemed to believe that the facts mattered rather less than the appearance.

    On another occasion, I hosted a Thanksgiving dinner for a group of “orphans” in the area–people, many of them students, who couldn’t afford to travel home for the holiday. We were all Christians of sundry stripes, so I proposed we all join in the “Our Father” before eating. This made them intensely uncomfortable–something about praying with heretics.

    I am intrigued, however, by a mention above that the average Post Falls and Bishop Williamsons’ sort of SSPX-attendee is different from the average SSPX-attendee, period. The girls in question were raised in Post Falls, and had a particular affection for Bishop Williamson. I would be quite delighted if they weren’t a standard example, as the SSPX priests in general seem to have quite a lot to offer to the Church, and I would like their flocks to come in with them, should that happy day ever occur.

    I should add in justice that the indult Masses can have their own kooks. I once brought a friend, born well after Vatican II, to her first Tridentine Mass. She loved the beauty and reverence, and couldn’t stop raving about it once we left the interior of the church. We stepped downstairs for coffee and donuts afterwards. No sooner had we walked into the hall when a self-appointed busybody pounced upon the newcomer in order to give her a pamphlet on why the See of Peter is actually empty and the “antiPope John Paul II” (the pope at the time) wasn’t actually Catholic. My friend decided, not unreasonably, that while the Mass was stunning, she didn’t want to have her kids attend a church where that sort of thing was the norm. Le sigh.

  27. rmichaelj says:

    The hiearchy of the Church is protected from destruction and heresy, not from making bad decisions. I believe, but could be wrong, that the SSPX position would be that they have not moved in any direction and are in a holding pattern as a refuge for some of the faithful, until the Holy Spirit guides the hierarchy into making a correction.

  28. S.Armaticus says:

    Your new SSPX priest friend wrote:

    “I am convinced that we (and not just you and I) are on the same side in this momentous war. I hope we can gradually but deliberately begin to act like it at all times.”

    No truer words could have been written.

    At the end of the day, it is His Church. How the Holy Spirit has deployed His forces for the fightback is His decision and His decision alone. What we are called to do is to discern through “natural light of human reason” who our allies are and who are our adversaries. No “I in team”, one could say.

    The reason that I am mentioning the above is that I visit the St. Gertrude the Great website (SV’s up in Cinncinnati) from time to time. During one of my visits, I read that when their “friends” from the FSSP come through town, the priests would go out for a beer or two. Old mates from their Econe days I suspect. When I first spotted this, I was a bit confused since I assumed that these divisions were hard and fast. However, once one thinks about it, it would appear that the divisions are mostly for “mass consumption” (i.e. anti-sheep stealing measures) while the reality on the ground is a bit different. I am hoping and praying that this is the case, i.e. that all these Fathers recognize that we are all on the same team.

    This must be why the above quote resonated with your truely.

    And I would also like to second the “dialogue” venture motion. Too much misunderstanding all around as far as I’m concerned.

  29. LeeF says:

    Ann Malley said:
    “Please, Fr. Z, if you would be willing to take this venture into true dialogue . . .”

    If such a dialogue were to include the FSSP it might be particularly valuable. I would think that any solution/regularization to the situation must include FSSP not being treated like a poor step-child. And if the SSPX will not accept a personal prelature but instead is holding out for an ordinariate so as not to be subject to the changing whims of local territorial ordinaries, then I would think the SSPX and the FSSP must find enough in common so that both could be part of such an ordinariate.

    Bishop Fellay has said that any solution must not lead to “suicide” for the society, but a solution that does not include the FSSP might doom it to effective euthanasia. A solution that provides for all stakeholders in the TLM community necessarily avoids this. If the SSPX accepts the FSSP then they accept that which the FSSP has accepted, i.e. the validity of NO sacraments.

  30. Sword40 says:

    Having been on “both sides of the fence” over the years; I would say that Fr. Z’s statement that the answers would vary is 100% correct. I was involved with the beginnings of the Post Falls SSPX birth.
    Since the 1970’s when Post Falls began as an independent chapel to its now more than 600 families, its school and financial success, people used to drive from 4 different states just for a Mass once a week.
    Currently we have affiliated with the FSSP and have been so since 2008. Our FSSP parish now has its own church and we just celebrated a Solemn High Rorate Mass, the first in many decades at this church.
    There were times when Post Falls SSPX priests were pretty far out in their criticism of the establishment church.
    I have nothing against the SSPX and I will pray for them every day, but will stay with the FSSP.

  31. roma247 says:

    @cath4ever:

    It’s not clear what point you are trying to make by quoting these statistics…?

    1) If you are trying to make the point that the numbers are higher for the SSPX, the spread there is not significantly large. Probably better to compare against the Archdiocese of say, Cincinnati, where there are 8 new seminarians, 3 ordained priests this past year.

    2) You also do really need to make sure you’re comparing apples with apples: The Diocese of Madison covers 11 counties in Southwest Wisconsin. According to Wikipedia, this is about 8,070 square miles and includes roughly 270,000 souls. Winona, on the other hand, from what I can tell, is the only SSPX seminary in the entire US.

    Now, it appears impossible to estimate the number of followers of the SSPX in the US, but I think we can see that it simply won’t do to try to compare these numbers as though they can really tell us anything.

    When I mentioned my concern about bitter fruit, I was chagrined that the priests were teaching their parishioners things that created a real division between themselves and the Church as a whole–forcing them into an either/or decision–and internalizing this separation had naturally led to the members always trying to outdo each other in their Puritanism. It was a protestant spirit of division and separatism, not one of Catholic charity and evangelism. We were made to feel distinctly unwelcome, and given the above, we were not sad to leave.

    I say this not in rancor but for two reasons:
    1) Apparently there was something of a firestorm that erupted upon Fr. Z posting this question. If the SSPX truly has “cleaned house” since my encounter (or if I was dealing with a renegade priest–which would be odd, since he apparently was rather high up in the ranks), then I can understand that they would vigorously object to being painted thus. Nevertheless, I felt the original Quaeritur encapsulated a frustration many have had with the SSPX in the past, and therefore if it stirred things up, that is good, and I am very glad Fr. Z bravely weathered the storm. God bless you, Father.

    2) I would be only too glad to hear that the SSPX is no longer teaching the vituperative things the priest I spoke to was teaching. I only hope the parishioners are not still separatists…

  32. Maltese says:

    If Vatican II hadn’t happened we would have to contend with and contest with SSPX. As it is, they are on the right side of history (their disfranchisement from the Mafioso-like characters following VII is a history unto its own.) If the Church had been left unmolested by liberals (culminating in VII), the Church might have retained its rich liturgical patrimony (as the Orthodox has more-or-less done.) As it is, in the West, we are left largely with a reason without faith, and science without mystery. We can never conform the Church to reason and science, as it is based on mystery and faith.

  33. Geoffrey says:

    Here is the exact text:

    “Have you attended and actively participated in the ‘New Mass’? Have you received Holy Communion in the hand?” (Christian Warfare (2006), p. 289).

    This falls under the third commandment under the examination of conscience in the “Devotions for Confession” section.

  34. Jim Dorchak says:

    My what a wonderful discussion.

    Over the past 20 years i have found the SSPX Priests to be all this man has revealed himself to be, intelligent, understanding helpful and kind as well as sound in Catholic reasoning.

    I really do admire you father Z for posting this and for the SSPX Priest for writing.

  35. Pingback: The SSPX, The Confessional And The New Mass | Mundabor's Blog

  36. robtbrown says:

    Gerard Plourde says,

    Further, you would also have to believe that His grant of “full, supreme, and universal power” to His Vicar to bind and loose regarding matters of discipline was false as well. The question then becomes: By what authority, with what competence and using what standard are you entitled to judge?

    The catechism joins authority over disciplinary matters to the authority to teach faith and morals. Although this is generally true, nevertheless, the latter authority includes infallibility, the former does not (as has been made obvious in the past 45 years).

  37. cath4ever says:

    @roma247:

    My apologies for not being clear. My point in quoting those statistics, is that St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary accepted more candidates in one year than the Diocese of Madison has for seminarians in total. This despite the ordinary of Madison being touted as “extraordinary.” A good tree bears good fruit.

    I am comparing apples to apples. The Diocese of Madison, per its website, has 114 parishes. The SSPX’s US district has 115 chapels, assuming I counted correctly and their website is up-to-date. While STAS also accept seminarians from other English-speaking countries, I don’t believe their number is significant enough to make a difference. The Diocese of Madison, per its website, has a Catholic population 283,442. While I don’t know the statistics for the SSPX, I don’t think the # of people who attend their chapels would come anywhere near that. If you say Post Falls has 600 families, and assume 4 people per family, there would be 2400 people in that 1 chapel, and they only have a handful of chapels that could come anywhere close to that (possibly Phoenix, AZ, Watkins, CO, Saint Marys, KS, and Walton, KY).

    The Diocese of Madison has 22 seminarians total (or 32 if you look at a different page). The SSPX US District, with 1/2 as large (or even smaller) a Catholic population as Madison, has between 80-100 seminarians. You tell me which is the better tree.

    As far as the SSPX’s “separatism” goes, that’s with good reason. In the comments to this story alone, you have people who have said these things in regards to the post-Vatican II Church and its practices (look them up above for reference and context):

    1) heterodox teaching in the Church (Gerard Plourde )
    2) new ways of thinking (Nonrancor)
    3) Parish Priest preached against the Magisterium (Sixupman)
    4) Mass resembled and copied CofE services (Sixupman)
    5) Bishop promoted with gusto a lay-led church (Sixupman)
    6) The new rites having a lack of power due to what has been removed (Rachel K)
    7) Protestant (Taffymycat)
    8) Anti-catholicity in the Confessional (Ann Malley)
    9) Hearing “Jesus is awesome” and “that’s not a sin” (Marytoo)

    Nobody should want to be a party to anything I just listed. It’s because of those things, and many more, including prudent doubts concerning the validity of some of the new rites, that causes the SSPX, with reason, to want to hunker down and preserve the Faith and the sacramental rites of Holy Church.

    I do agree that all of us Traditional Catholics are on the same side of the war. We have honest and serious disagreements as to the proper course of action to follow in the war. But we are on the same side.

    God bless you.

  38. Ann Malley says:

    @Gerard:

    “…It has never been explicitly stated by the Society what the objection is.”

    The objection was to an 11th hour modification of the preamble wherein discussions of VII would be limited to difficulties with implementation and not the ambiguities (compromise formulas) within the documents themselves.

    These are the same ambiguities which even +Kasper admits are present to appease the supposed right vs left. These are the same ambiguities which +Schneider has stated should be clarified – in writing – for the benefit of all.

    This is my understanding of the rejection of said offer. Quite a muddle. And not precisely as clear cut as many would have us believe.

    God bless

  39. Cradle Catholic says:

    “xsosdid says: Father Z, a “what do the SSPX say?” regular feature would be great, featuring just this sort of dialogue. THAT wold be a wonderful new “brick” to lay.”

    Fr. Z, I second xsosdid’s suggestion – in spades! Oh please, please, do consider having this SSPX priest as a regular feature. I grew up -formative years -in post Vatican II – reading John Powell S. J -bland stuff, but so accepted by so many – and then I came across a book written pre-Vatican II, “The Spirit of Catholicism” by Karl Adam, and my spirit soared! My Catholic DNA revived! I would so very much like to learn more about our Catholic Traditions, which I think the SSPX have preserved. Please, let’s find out more about the SSPX through this dialogue. …maybe readers can submit questions.

  40. robtbrown says:

    cath4ver,

    The FSSP and Clear Creek Monastery, both of whose lives are centered on mass according to the 1962 Missal, are also doing very well with vocations.

  41. robtbrown says:

    LeeF says:

    If such a dialogue were to include the FSSP it might be particularly valuable. I would think that any solution/regularization to the situation must include FSSP not being treated like a poor step-child. And if the SSPX will not accept a personal prelature but instead is holding out for an ordinariate so as not to be subject to the changing whims of local territorial ordinaries, then I would think the SSPX and the FSSP must find enough in common so that both could be part of such an ordinariate.

    Any possible solution of the SSPX situation has nothing to do with the FSSP. They will be two juridically distinct groups, just as the FSSP and ICKSP are.

    Both Personal Ordinates and Personal Prelatures are subject to the pope. My understanding is that the difference between the two is that the former is established within the geographical confines of a Conference of Bishops (cf military ordinariate). The latter is not.

    I was told that the SSPX will be a Personal Prelature.

  42. Gabriel Syme says:

    Gerard Plourde,

    Pope Benedict provided the Society with a clear path to reconciliation and the Society chose not to take it. It has never been explicity stated by the Society what the objection is.

    On October 12th, 2013, at the Angelus Press conference in Kansas City, Bishop Fellay stated:

    (Please bear in mind these comments are now over two years old, and it was recently reported that a new Vatican proposal is now being considered by the SSPX).

    “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.

    This is the crux of the matter, although I agree with Ann Malley above because it was indeed reported that conditions regarding V2 were slipped into the agreement text at the last minute, to the surprise of +Fellay and the SSPX delegation when they arrived to sign the documents.

    Pope Benedict, a Pope I had (indeed have) a great respect and love for, always promoted a hermeneutic of continuity regarding V2 and the previous ~1,96o years of Church Tradition. However there was little mileage in this, as confirmed by men like Water Kasper , who later openly bragged that the V2 documents were deliberately ambiguous to allow varying interpretations. (In L’Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013).

    +Fellay does not agree with Benedict that V2 is fully in line with Church Tradition. He accepts about 95% of the Council, but there are a few sticking points which he will not accept (relating to religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality). In my view, +Fellay has the better argument.

    I think it is difficult for men of Pope Benedict’s generation – who themselves were the Young Turks at Vatican II – to accept it has been a failure and that mistakes were made (not least because many at the Council, caught up in the spirit of the age, were genuinely well intentioned).

    I think Conservatives like Benedict see the damage which has been caused but prefer to gloss over it and just let it fade away, rather than confront it head-on. (I do not mean they are proud, but rather they think the Council has just “gone wrong”; rather, it is “intrinsically flawed”.) On the other hand, liberals like Kasper now boldly attack our Lord’s own teachings, using the same methodology used at V2.

  43. Gabriel Syme says:

    I agree with others that more Fr Z features/ discussion regarding the SSPX, (though not to eclipse other topics), would be interesting. But if anyone is interested in “what they say” – check out their websites, or make a visit to one of their Churches.

    Part of the sermon at our SSPX Church today was about how God achieves magnificent and wonderous things, in quiet and often little-known circumstances. The priest gave the annunciation as one example – only the Angel Gabriel and Our Lady were present. The death of Our Lord was another, only known of by the population of Jerusalem at the time.

    And Father spoke of how we do not need to be special, in order to be Holy. We can be simple and yet Holy. We can be ordinary and yet Holy. Small, yet Holy. He pointed to St Therese of Lisieux. Just one of several children in a large family, who entered a convent very young and who was dead at 24. She was not widely know or famous in her own day, yet now she is a Saint and Doctor of the Church thanks to her legacy and her writings – her “flowers from Heaven”.

    He also spoke of how difficult it can seem, to try to be Holy living in modern western societies. But he gave us the example of Our Lady and St Joseph, who had to flee to Pagan Egypt, where they lived for a while. He drew parallels between the Holy Family living in the Egypt of that era, and we Christians today living in our modern societies. We can learn from the Holy Family and be inspired by them.

    It was, as usual, a great way to start Sunday!

  44. marytoo says:

    Geoffrey: I think the key lies in not “attended” but in “actively participated”, meaning has the person taken part in the novelties of the NO rather than focusing on Christ and on the Mass as it is put forth in the missal. There are a lot of distractions in the NO and a large variety of ways of celebration of the Mass. One could go to six different Churches and find six very different Mass “styles” (that’s one of the beautiful things about the Tridentine liturgy; there isn’t room for a lot of variety so it “protects” the Mass so to speak).

    You must understand Communion in the hand is unheard of in SSPX/FSSP etc. Masses. It is a grave offense against God and is simply never done. The fact that it enjoys widespread acceptance in the NO and that many don’t understand that it’s a grave offense doesn’t change this fact.

    I’m guessing the book you have is for the SSPX faithful – not the average Mass goer – who would understand these issues thoroughly and therefore be held to the standard put forth in the book. Hope this helps.

  45. LeeF says:

    @Cradle Catholic,

    Father seems to generally recommend against regular attendance at SSPX masses or reception of other sacraments there, and maintains that they do in fact lack jurisdiction meaning their sacraments are generally invalid not just illicit (excepting of course the special grant of Pope Francis for confession for the Year of Mercy). So I would be surprised if he went as far as lending his hard-won platform to a SSPX priest who will doubtless wish to use it to promote attendance at SSPX chapels. An ongoing indirect dialogue like the one above seems more likely.

    Father tries very hard not to have things here run off the rails into rabbit holes. A delicate balance that can easily become unbalanced. There is a reason that Rorate got rid of comments from their site.

  46. Gerard Plourde says:

    Dear Ann Malley,

    I will apologize in advance if my tone seems harsh, I don’t intend it as such. I am, however concerned that devotion to the traditional rites of the church by the Society may mask a great danger.

    Since you are using a statement of mine to justify the continued separation of the Society from full communion with the Holy See, which you apparently hold to be in error, I would point out that heterodox teaching by clergy within the Church is not a phenomenon that began with the Second Vatican Council, but has existed since Apolstolic times. Only the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Pronouncements of the College of Bishops in Council are only infallible when ratified by the Pope as formally recognized during the Council of Constance (1415-18). There is likewise no guarantee of error-free teaching by any individual priest, bishop or Cardinal or group of priests,bishops and Cardinals as they do not possess infallibility apart from the Church. Consequently, the presence of erroneous teaching by them cannot justifiably be used to indict the teaching of the Church as contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the liturgical rites of the Ordinary Form as promulgated by Bl. Paul VI and assented to by St. John Paul and Pope Benedict, or the Documents issued by the Second Vatican Council (I distinguish the documents themselves from any interpretation).

    A troubling aspect of Archbishop Lefebvre’s disobedience and the continuing separation of the Society is that it appears to deny the ancient tradition that the Church Herself is inherently infallible. This implied denial runs as a subtext throughout all statements of the Society, even that of Fr. Z’s priest-correspondent and your report that the Society judged (by what competence, I would ask, since by definition neither the Archbishop nor any member of the Society can claim infallibility) certain passages of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council to be “ambiguities (compromise formulas)”, to use your description. This denial of the Church’s inherent infallibility lies explicity in the heresies of the Reformation. The sad fruits of those separations are readily on display.

    I pray earnestly for the Society to be reconciled, but if it truly believes that the Universal Church is in error, then I pray that it may repent of its heterodoxy first. It is a sad irony that in seeking to preserve the Mass of St. Pius V that the Society would, like the Reformers he struggled against, claim its individual, non-infallible views to be more correct than that of the Universal Church.

  47. KateD says:

    Could the priest be referring to the difference between what the documents of VII called for and how they were implemented? Namely, that while the new rituals themselves do not cause divergence from right worship, they lend themselves more easily to be interpreted by individual misled or mischievous priests in a way which can then lead the faithful into peril. Then the issue is not with the authority of Holy Mother Church, but rather with individual priests committing liturgical abuses. Kind of like a family squable, where the older brother takes issue with the mischievousness of the younger and looks to the Papa to straighten it out.

    I read the second part of what he said to be addressing how the innovations have weakened the effectiveness of sacraments and sacramentals, which leaves the faithful (and the Church herself) more vulnerable to the constant assaults of the enemy even when utilized by very reverent priests. ie., the Mass, baptism, the effectiveness of the new rite of exorcism. There is, for instance, a huge difference between how a priest blesses a house via OF and the way an EF priest does it. The difference having the effect of a temporary vanquishment of spiritual nasties vs. their full on eviction and the establishment of a holy place where a family can confidently live, grow and pray in peace.

  48. Imrahil says:

    Dear cath4ever,

    including prudent doubts concerning the validity of some of the new rites

    which ones?

    The only one I think one can have prudent doubt about is the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, because it lacks the consecration words (according to an explanation I heard – from an SSPX priest by the way – is that these were considered too holy to write down, but pronounced from heart).

    Otherwise, there’s nothing in the rites that could make them invalid – which is also what you hear from the SSPX if you ask them. Some, especially laymen followers, may insist on the “intention” thing (and lay too little stress on the fact that “do what the Church does” suffices), but invalidity of the rite itself? No.

  49. Thorfinn says:

    RachelK: “One mother..would no longer take her child to confession with a regular Catholic priest because she didn’t trust what they might say in the confessional.”

    This touches on a larger source of frustration for many parents. When we were single and carefree, we could take and good and leave the bad, and perhaps were less guarded about the state of our souls than we should have been. But with a spouse & children — ceaseless vigilance! If Fr. Fancydance says some odd things in his homilies, Lord knows what he’s saying in the confessional. Everywhere you look the world is contradicting Christ (ads, music, newspapers, comics, neighbors, friends, family, school), and I sympathize with the parent taking extreme care that their children don’t experience that contradiction from the Church as well.

  50. kbf says:

    @sixupman: “My local bishop now engaged on a policy of ‘managed’ de facto demise of parishes – his answer, lay led and the Permanent Diaconate.”

    Would this be Northampton? The home of parishes with nun “Administrators” who are being branded as “Parish Priests” who are exercising “pastoral and administrative authority” over ordained priests?

    http://www.lmschairman.org/2015/01/more-on-female-pastoral-administrator.html

    Sadly I too live in this wasteland and each Sunday is just an exercise in heartbreaking indifference. Everyone in the congregation coming up to the sanctuary to do something at some point during the mass. Homilies that follow the formula ” today’s gospel story is nice. It’s nice that you are all here. It’s nice that it’s nice. You are all nice and doing very nicely. “. Bad 1970’s folksie hymns because “that’s what people want to sing”, yet nobody sings. Lots of women of that generation now in their 60’s and 70’s living the “spirit of Vatican 2” according to the Magisterium of Parish Based Middle Aged Women.

    But… there’s a little known parish in Hethe just outside Bicester that says a TLM every Sunday:

    http://www.birminghamdiocese.org.uk/parish-directory/holy-trinity-parish-hethe/

    I live just on the border of Northampton and Birmingham diocese, and the difference between the two is as stark as it is depresseing. One diocese dying on its feet with no vocations, the other thriving.

  51. LeeF says:

    @rotbrown who said:
    “Any possible solution of the SSPX situation has nothing to do with the FSSP. They will be two juridically distinct groups, just as the FSSP and ICKSP are.

    Both Personal Ordinates and Personal Prelatures are subject to the pope. My understanding is that the difference between the two is that the former is established within the geographical confines of a Conference of Bishops (cf military ordinariate). The latter is not.

    I was told that the SSPX will be a Personal Prelature.”

    We can debate what we believe should be, but don’t know for sure what will be. While it may be true that personal prelatures are subject to the pope as an organization, they are subject to local territorial ordinaries if they wish to operate parishes or other activities that are open to non-members of the prelature. Thus a bishop must invite them to run a parish, as with the FSSP, and can also remove them from a parish later. Ordinariates however seem to have an overlapping existence like eastern rites, which is not subject to the local latin-rite ordinary, while being a member of the bishop’s conference.

    Do you think the SSPX will go for a prelature, especially if it means they could be expelled from locations where they currently operate chapels? According to reports 2 or 3 years ago, they have already been offered a prelature, so unless a doctrinal agreement is still the cause of delay, then perhaps they are not really keen on the idea of a prelature. Or if the SSPX is holding out for an ordinariate, then perhaps the bishop’s conferences are opposing that and are causing a delay.

    The benefit to including the FSSP and the ICKSP in any settlement with the SSPX, would be for those organizations to also be able to operate more freely and thus be able to spread the TLM more widely. Summorum Pontificum would not have been necessary if the majority of bishops were not hostile to the TLM. So why have a situation where any of the TLM orders/organizations are subject to their goodwill or lack of same?

  52. Ann Malley says:

    @Gerard,

    Thank you for your reply. Please, you must cease to believe that your argumentation is being used in any way for my views regarding the SSPX. While it is important that one should be cognizant of the example they give, and avoid the embracing of heresy, it is necessary to maintain perspective. You may entertain the fears that you do, but that is not the premise of others making the decisions which God calls them to make. (…although I do applaud your heartfelt concern. Truly.)

    That said, you are correct in that heresies abounded prior to VII. The difference, Gerard, is that such heresies were vigorously condemned in previous times. That is why I view VII not as the heresy itself, but rather the train upon which heresy is delivered throughout the Church. Much like railway lines are not, in themselves, evil, but when they are used to freely distribute that which is heterodox, they need to be viewed with due caution. (Much like the offer of vaccinations in foreign countries that, very conveniently, piggy back infertility drugs.)

    As Fr. Z pointed out in another article wherein the writer states that VII was misinterpreted, it was precisely ‘misinterpreted’ by those who wrote it. That is the language and emphasis was such that clear teaching was obfuscated in order to compromise with those pushing novelty. The result is what we have today. Cardinal against Cardinal. bishop against bishop. You may also want to correlate this to the suppression of the Oath Against Modernism by Paul VI which strictly prohibited the reinterpretation of that which was written to lend it a ‘new’ meaning, not a fuller understanding.

    I’m sorry, but there is no denying that the introduction of ambiguity via VII together with the suppression of the Oath Against Modernism and our current situation of rotted fruits is telling a clear story. This is why Our Lord told us to judge by the fruits and to be aware of those preaching a different gospel – even if they are garbed as an Angel of Light.

    This is not to say that I hold that the Church has been eclipsed by evil. Absolutely not. What it does say is that I don’t hold our times to be so special that bad things, truly evil and challenging things, cannot happen to us, but are only relegated to historical tales of the Arian crisis etc. Too often, living through a crisis situation makes on believe falsely that it is normal. Like being raised in a dysfunctional household – the poor children are often left to believe that confusion and blatant misuse of authority and mental manipulation are normal.

  53. Ann Malley says:

    @Imrahil

    While I understand what you are saying with regard to the stress of personal intention, there is also the reality that some pointedly do not intend to do as the Church has always done. Their intention, explicitly stated, is sometimes heretical, Imrahil. They enjoy their position as one wherein they can foment change to what they believe and not what the Church holds to be true.

    That is not said to fear monger. But what would you say about a parish priest and principal of a Catholic school who makes a point of preaching to a soon-to-be graduating class of eighth grade students that if they believe that Christ becomes truly present – Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity – during Mass, that they are engaging in mythology and that it is only bread.

    You may not have been subject to such scandal, but others have. And how to respond? That is the issue at play here. Not one group fear mongering or sheep stealing or acting in direct disobedience. No. The issues at play here are very real and deeply concerning as they deal with Our Blessed Lord, and not only how He should be treated, but how we, His people are to treat him – in Love.

    These are the kind of issues that many I’ve met at the Society are contending with. Quite the conundrum. So when these objections are raised with regard to diocesan masses, etc, it is this perspective that can help. Nobody is saying that you are doing less than you should (…or at least they shouldn’t be.) Rather, those who seek out Catholic tradition are doing so, in large part, because they want very much to honor Our Lord and do their duty by their children in His sight.

  54. Ann Malley says:

    @LeeF

    “…and maintains that they do in fact lack jurisdiction meaning their sacraments are generally invalid not just illicit.”

    Fr. Z does not hold that the mass offered by the Society is invalid. The why is because Society masses are valid, Lee. As for the rest, portraying a Society priest as little more than an illicit poacher is unfair. Attributing such a sentiment in any way to Fr. Z is not a compliment either, but to inadvertently paint him as an idealogue. A similarly false notion.

    The Catholic Faith in all its fullness is something that we should be well and able to defend and discuss without resorting to false stereotypes. If we cannot, then I’d imagine Fr. Z, especially during this year of mercy, to be among the first to exercise the requisite necessity to begin instruction. In charity, Lee, and in truth.

    God bless

  55. tufty says:

    Although I attended SSPX chapels on and off for several years, I overall agree with the comments of
    Gerard Plourde. At the end of the day, the attitude and behavior of the SSPX is not any different from any other schismatic group. The SSPX is essentially Protestant in their thinking. They have now come to believe wholeheartedly that it is up to them to decide what they believe and what they should do about almost every issue. It is difficult to discern this fact, that they are Protestant in their attitude and motivation, because they appear to be so strictly Catholic in their practice and theology.
    The fact is that obedience to authority, as all authority comes from God, is arguably the most important traditionally Catholic attitude and virtue. I’m not talking about obeying a direct command to sin, but that isn’t what we’re talking about here. Christ demonstrated obedience unto death on the cross. He is our model. And the history of the Church is replete with examples of saints who maintained obedience to their superiors in the Church despite great persecution. This was their road to sanctity. It is not as if God could not instantaneously change all of the evils present in the Church if that is His will. It obviously is not His will. We have to assume that what is going on is at least in accord with his permissive will and act accordingly. I do not believe this is what the SSPX is doing. There is a complete arrogance there. Despite the fact that they claim they are the true Catholics, it is obvious that what they are really saying and doing is just another version of “I will not serve.”

  56. Ann Malley says:

    @tufty:

    ….and if we’re being obedient to the lawful authority, should we not refrain from leveling the charge of schism and not only Protestant thinking but Protestant motives to the Society when Rome Herself does no such thing. That could be construed as complete arrogance if not presumption.

    Perhaps we should wait on Rome to make a definitive ruling on the situation instead of preempting judgment where we have no authority. For Rome’s delay in doing as much may well indicate that matters are not as obvious as you propose.

    God bless

  57. joshua.n says:

    I see a lot of interesting comments on this thread, that take the general form of “The Sacraments of the SSPX should be avoided, because [anecdote about one SSPX priest or attendee who did something I dislike / disagree with]”.

    I’d be grateful for the commentariat’s input on the validity of this syllogism, and its logical corollary: “The Sacraments of the New Order should be avoided, because [anecdote about one New Order sacrament that was sacrilegious / blasphemous / potentially invalid for matter/form/intent].”

  58. joshua.n says:

    Gerard Plourde has constructed a marvelously-well expressed thought, that I’d like to repurpose with some elisions and additions:

    The Chuch has traditionally taught that an occasion of sin is an external circumstance, which leads one to commit the sin. It has further traditionally taught that any person, place, or thing that generally leads us to commit sin becomes a proximate occasion, that we are bound to avoid. When this long standing guide is applied to the matter of attendance at activities at Novus Ordo Masses, the complexity of the question becomes clear. The presence of numerous uncorrected liturgical abuses, sacrileges, heterodox preaching, and defiance of clear Vatican instructions (e.g., primacy of Gregorian Chant, the use of Latin to be preserved, communion in the hand to be avoided where there is a risk of profanation) lead to confusion in the minds and the souls of the faithful who regularly attend. This confusion can rise to the level of a near occasion of sin if it allows a person to entertain ideas and make judgments on those ideas that are beyond their competence, judgments that may also as a consequence lead them to sin by embracing the heterodoxies proclaimed, committing sacrilege, or falling away from the faith altogether (which, as a matter of public record, appears to be the most likely outcome from adherence to the rite, at least in the Americas).

  59. tufty says:

    @Ann Malley

    There is no lawful authority which has determined that no one is permitted to comment on the status or behavior of the SSPX. They may not be in formal schism but THEIR refusal to obey lawful authority puts them in material schism. They have aptly demonstrated this for all to see. I am only stating the facts. If you refuse to obey the Pope and break with Rome then you are demonstrating your schismatic attitude. I witnessed this attitude in the SSPX chapel I attended.

    Refusal to obey the Pope is by it’s nature Protestant. Breaking from the Church after disobedience to the Pope is Protestant. Deciding that your group’s beliefs supersede those of the Pope is Protestant.

    I believe that Rome has stated that the SSPX has no canonical status in the Church repeatedly.
    Seems pretty definitive to me.

    When you say ” delay,” are you talking about the fact that On 29 June 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre went ahead with planned priestly ordinations without the approval of the local Bishop and despite receiving letters from Rome forbidding them? This resulted in his suspension. He was forbidden to administer any of the sacraments. The first order which he refused to obey. This continued until his excommunication in 1988 for direct disobedience to the Pope.
    Are calling 40 years of disobedience a “delay?”

    I realized that I also was being arrogant when I began attending SSPX chapels. I have since, through the grace of God, seen the error of my ways and repented. Commenting on the arrogance of all who arrogate the power of the Pope to themselves is not only permitted, it’s encouraged.

    And God Bless you Ann.

  60. Netmilsmom says:

    Well I took the plunge and went to an SSPX chapel this weekend.
    I’m not a regular TLM attendee, in fact have only been to three in my whole life. I brought a missal I bought from Ebay.
    I expected to see all the horrors I’ve been told about those evil Trads. I expected stares and dirty looks. I expected a homily about the evil NO church. I expected to feel like a pariah.
    What I found was a parish full of very holy people, women with plain veils (not a single Veil by Lily), and kids, oh my goodness the amount of children there! (One little girl looked over at me and said in a stage whisper, “Daddy! Who is THAT?” lol)
    The Homily was solid and given by the head of the SSPX in America because this parish had just moved to a larger building. They were blessing the Stations of the Cross before they were installed. I wish I would have stayed for that.
    There was a “Cookie Walk” afterward but I didn’t stick around.
    Pope Francis has opened this group up for us. I think that it might be a good idea to visit and let them know that we are not enemies. We are all Catholic afterall.

  61. robtbrown says:

    1. While the talks were going on, I was told by an old friend from Rome who now works for the SSPX that it had been agreed that it would juridically be a Personal Prelature that would for all intents and purposes be independent from the diocesan bishop.

    2. The only difference between an Ordinariate and a Personal Prelature is that the latter is international and headquartered in Rome (cf Opus Dei). Thus, there are three different Ordinariates established under Anglicanorum Coetibus–GB, North America, and Australia/Japan.

    3. The SSPX owns all–or almost all–of their property. That will continue to be the case once they’re regularized. The FSSP owns their seminary, and that’s about it.

    4. The consent of the diocesan bishops for a PP is prescribed in canon law. That notwithstanding, the pope’s universal jurisdiction is never mitigated.

    5. NB: A Personal Prelature is established to carry out special pastoral ministries to specific groups. The erection of a PP is the Pontifical recognition that such groups must be taken care of (rather than rejected by) the hierarchy.

  62. robtbrown says:

    Gerard Plourde says,

    This implied denial runs as a subtext throughout all statements of the Society, even that of Fr. Z’s priest-correspondent and your report that the Society judged (by what competence, I would ask, since by definition neither the Archbishop nor any member of the Society can claim infallibility) certain passages of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council to be “ambiguities (compromise formulas)”, to use your description. This denial of the Church’s inherent infallibility lies explicity in the heresies of the Reformation. The sad fruits of those separations are readily on display.

    Saying that certain texts are ambiguities is not a denial of Infallibility. Infallibility is a preservation heresy.

    The Offertory of Novus Ordo contains the text: “It will become our spiritual drink.” Taken by itself “spiritual drink” is neither an affirmation nor a denial that the wine will become the Blood of Christ, which makes it ambiguous.

  63. Imrahil says:

    Dear tufty,

    a couple of points, in brief:

    1. There is such a thing as material heresy (rejecting a statement of faith without knowing it is of faith, or else one wouldn’t reject it). (And even that is, by the way, nowhere near as horrible as real, i. e. formal, heresy is.) There is no such thing as material schism. Either one is in schism or one isn’t.

    2. Refusal to obey the Pope is by it’s nature Protestant.
    Sorry… are the Eastern Orthodox people Protestants?

    3. Breaking from the Church after disobedience to the Pope is Protestant.
    First, again no; although the Eastern Orthodox may be somewhat off our sight in the west, they did break from the Church and they cannot sensibly be described Protestant. In addition, while the SSPX does disobey the Pope, breaking away from the Church is precisely what they didn’t do.

    4. Deciding that your group’s beliefs supersede those of the Pope is Protestant. No, it isn’t. Catholicism is not about “agreeing with the Pope” – unless you add “on matters he dogmatizes”. Were the Franciscans Protestants, when they decided their beliefs regarding beatific vision superseded the view of Pope John XXII? No.

  64. LeeF says:

    @rotbrown

    Unless I misunderstand canon law in the matter, personal prelatures, while they cannot be denied the ability to minister to their members in some fashion, can only run parishes at the invitation and with the consent of the local ordinary, i.e they cannot erect the equivalent of a parish on their own. Opus Dei does not actually operate many parishes, but rather has many centers that are not equivalent to a parish (I’ve been to more than one and they have very small chapels not suitable for a large Sunday crowd).

    But the SSPX chapels seem to me to be similar to personal parishes. So I fail to see how they could operate same, i.e. a parish or oratory, as a prelature rather than as an ordinariate except with the consent of the local territorial ordinary.

    Since there is currently only one personal prelature, we don’t have much to go on as to how they operate, since it may be dependent on how OD chooses to operate. But it seems clear as well, despite the shorter history for the Anglican ordinariate, that ordinariates can erect their own parishes without the consent of the local ordinary.

    I would bet that most bishops in the U.S. would yawn at the prospect of an Anglican ordinariate parish in their territory, but would be at least semi-hostile to the SSPX erecting a new chapel or parish.

    And while it can be argued that via using Summorum Pontificum, a local group could demand a certain parish allow a Sunday TLM, for it to be staffed by the SSPX even as a personal prelature, those priests would require the consent of the ordinary to have faculties in such a diocese.

  65. robtbrown says:

    Should be: Protection against heresy

  66. Ann Malley says:

    @Tufty

    “…There is no lawful authority which has determined that no one is permitted to comment on the status or behavior of the SSPX.”

    There is the law against calumny, Tufty. That is why purporting that a group is, in fact, Protestant and that their motivations are Protestant is a misstatement that should be withheld. To imply that others must submit to lawful authority and judgement while not doing the same – asserting judgement without jurisdiction – is to unfairly smear the reputation of another. In this case, a group of believing Catholics. (…that is too often encouraged on other websites wherein the crisis in the Church is discussed, but at the expense of truth. That is truth is withheld in its fullness to support – IT SEEMS – a particular bias. But I cannot say what, in truth, the motives of others are. I can only say that open discussion is not invited on other venues.)

    Something you may want to keep in mind, however, is that by implying others are Protestant you smear Pope Francis. To call the Society Protestant is to indicate that Pope Francis just gave faculties to hear confession to non-Catholics. Or that Cardinal Poli in Argentina recognized Protestants as being Catholics for convenience. Or that the Society was asked by the Roman hierarchy to help out a parish in Italy (I forget which one.). What a contradiction is that? And yet the questions arise. Did Cardinal Poli lie in stating the Society is Catholic? Is Pope Francis gong to give faculties to hear confession to Protestant groups? Did Rome just ask Protestants to help meet the needs of an Italian parish?

    If we desire others to submit to lawful judgments, then we should do the same. When speaking of the Society or Rome, one should try to be clear, despite personal bias either way, to understand that the current situation is doctrinal. That is it correlates to issues of existing Church doctrine, not someone’s personal interpretation.

    Unfortunately, many of us on the ground, at both diocesan and Society parishes can delve into the my team vs your team mentality that is not an accurate depiction at all. Rather it makes for continued rivalry that is not only off topic, but counter productive.

    God bless you, too ;^)

  67. tufty says:

    Ann:
    This is my original comment.
    “At the end of the day, the attitude and behavior of the SSPX is not any different from any other schismatic group. The SSPX is essentially Protestant in their thinking. They have now come to believe wholeheartedly that it is up to them to decide what they believe and what they should do about almost every issue. It is difficult to discern this fact, that they are Protestant in their attitude and motivation, because they appear to be so strictly Catholic in their practice and theology.”

    Sorry if you believe I need “jurisdiction,” in order to make this remark. And that I need to “submit to lawful authority” in order to state this. I think that’s all I need to say.

    God bless us everyone.

  68. Ann Malley says:

    @Tufty

    …again, not a matter of what you or I ‘think’. Calumny is the making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone’s reputation. The Society is not Protestant. The Society is not a schism.

    It may be difficult for you to discern this ‘fact’, Tufty, which is the issue I take with your statement. You assert opinion, your own, as fact. That’s why you stating that others must yield to proper authority while you don’t is not setting the example of meekness you seem to believe is lacking.

    Enjoy the rest of your week.

  69. robtbrown says:

    LeeF,

    1. It’s not merely a matter of parishes. In any diocese there will also be religious houses where people regularly attend mass that are not parishes.

    2. I already acknowledged that a PP must have the consent of the diocesan bishop to establish a house in a diocese (the same is true for a religious house). In the preceding paragraph, however, I also noted that the jurisdiction of the Pope is Universal (add: Supreme and Full). That means that Papal Jurisdiction is not only preseent in every diocese, it also trumps it. Thus, when a PP or religious institute needs to have the consent of the diocesan bishop, the consent of the pope suffices.

    3. That is one reason why Rome’s strategy has changed with the SSPX. Instead of a top down agreement, they now want to encourage individual diocesan bishops who have no objection to the SSPX to accept them and grant faculties. And the pope has given the bishops a nudge with the universal granting of faculties for Confession.

  70. Oremus333 says:

    Reading all of these differing responses (“opinions”) actually made me cry last night. O Lord – your Body the Church has been torn asunder. Have mercy on us!

    One simple response was overlooked: Protection from heresy.

    Councils were always called for the purpose of 1) defining Dogma or Doctrine and / or 2) correcting error. Vatican II was an obvious departure from that and it was admitted to be so. ALL of the Sacraments were changed. The Rite of Exorcism was removed from Baptism. Do we no longer believe in the devil – is that suddenly no longer necessary? God only knows what impact that has had on the faithful. The Mass was never supposed to be changed like it was, nor the Tridentine Mass suppressed. The fruits tell the story – we can all look up the depressing statistics. Better yet, we can take note of the dismal Confession lines at the local N.O. parish. This alone tells the story of sacrilege en masse occuring at these masses. Also take note of the lack of dignity or modesty in dress. Communion in the hand? That was not supposed to happen but was started in Germany and it took root everywhere else. That has made things all the easier for satanists practicing black masses, not to mention particles are ALL over the floor and people are walking on HIM. At a N.O. Mass there is hardly any time to pray or be silent. We don’t have enough noisy distractions in this world? Beautiful old churches had their marble altars tone our and placed in dumpsters, along with statues of Saints and other precious items. Hello? This is all pleasing to God? Pleasing to someone maybe, but certainly not MY Father and Savior!

    And oh the heresy – yes the heresies. It is taught by THE Catholic Church that if we fail to believe ANY point of Dogma or Doctrine as handed down by the Church then we cease to be Catholic. Yet even many “traditional” Catholics still believe these heresies. They are devastating heresies:

    1) Fakse ecumenism
    2) Religious Indifferentism
    3) Religious liberty

    These very heresies of Vatican II are what has led us to where we are today. This is also why we no longer have missions/missionaries. As a Truth-seeker I am not interested in opinions – much less my own – but only the Truth. I look at the teachings, doctrine and Dogmas of the Church prior to Vat II and you don’t need a special degree to see that it just doesn’t add up. These are modernist heresies plain and simple which are and have been DEADLY to souls for 50 years now.

    I believe that many if not most may be very surprised when they see how this all shakes out. The warnings have already been given – in the entire (real) 3rd Secret of Fatima (which warned of that upcoming council), and approved apparitions such as Our Lady of LaSalette, Our Lady of Good Success (she stated the #1 reason for the sanctuary light going out was HERESY), Akita Japan, Bl Anne Catherine Emmerich, Marie-Julie Jahenny.

    Now we have a papacy promoting “Global Warming” and other political agendas, profaning St Peter’s with a very un-Christian light show on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of all days, telling a Lutheran she can receive Communion if her conscience tells her to, feeling us not to convert anyone, and looking forward to the sacrilegious Communions of the divorced and remarried, for just a very few examples. Where did all of this begin? When the Church opened its doors to the world, and “the smoke of Satan…entered the Sanctuary”.

    We wouldn’t even HAVE the Latin Mass right now at all if it weren’t for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. They possess what’s called Supplied Jurisdiction, because it was and still is a State of Emergency. And I do also consider it as such because I once believed these heresies myself, and it caused me to feel no sense of urgency nor real need to pray for the dying souls of relatives and friends. ! and so I didn’t. Worse yet, I find many Latin Mass goers still hold this mistaken attitude as well.

    I don’t attend SSPX but I do attend FSSP. If there were no FSSP around you bet your bottom dollar I’d have NO problem whatsoever attending SSPX, and would with no scruples of conscience either. I do believe they’re standing up for the Truth and for God’s rights more than anyone else on the face of this earth.

    We are at a pivotal point in history. It’s time to choose sides and it’s time that trads stop bickering and join together (which WILL have to happen anyway here likely sooner than later). This is a chastisement – which functions also to separate the wheat from the tares. All Catholics of good will need to wake up and seek the Truth of this matter and the TRUE FAITH, whole and entire as handed down. It’s not difficult to do as we do have the Internet. Then focus on the spiritual life and work on becoming a saint, because at this point only God can straighten this (us) out and He will.

    Veni Créator Spiritus!

  71. kat says:

    Netmilsmom, next time have coffee and donuts after! You will be welcomed warmly.