I have to post these.
I know you can find them on your own.
But I must post them.
I pray to God and the angels and any human agents out there that they be made known to Pope Leo especially before 1 July or any juridical action is taken.
Please God, grant me this favor for which I ask all the readers here to redouble.
There are moments in each one which have brought tears to my eyes and closed up my throat. Over all, it is simply moving to see what they do, which would leave most priests panting in the dust, if they tried at all.
In the second of these, the mission work is especially moving.
in the third, there is a section which shows the home they have for old priests who can not longer say Mass, plus a Requiem for a priest who was described at a “friend” of the fraternity. I, who have no one, where will I go? In the present context, I doubt there is a “regular” entity who would treat me any better he would than a cigarette butt or a bottle cap. I know, however, from experience what the fraternity has done for diocesan priests unjustly kicked and beaten by their bishops, burned out, in crisis. Enough of that.
The SSPX is a “priestly fraternity” which most people, especially critics, don’t understand. They are not about “lace”.
Here are the videos, starting with the trailer.
It’s beautiful, but without obedience it turns to ash in my mouth. All I see is ego, superbia and pride. SSPX, get close to Mother Church, not further away!
@haydn seeker Wow.
Glad to know charity is no longer the highest of the virtues. Actually, it seems to no longer even be a consideration within the church of “obedience uber alles.”
Really? That’s all you see? I have no particular brief for the SSPX, but I can not understand why so many find it impossible to treat them with come compassion, charity, and a bit of flexibility. With all the problems in the contemporary Church, I fail to see them as such a serious problem that a compromise over the consecrations could not be considered. The SSPX need for new bishops is critical to their continued existence and not having them will eventually destroy them. The consecrations would essentially continue the status quo. Is it really necessary to force them into a no-win situation of either signing a death warrant for the SSPX of engaging in an act of schism? Why would approving their consecrations be so terrible? Can someone explain what I’m missing.
@hayden
I have the feeling that you are fine demanding obedience when it’s to something you either prefer or don’t care about. Would you be just as obedient if suddenly the Church said to remove the altar tables, set aside the new calendar, and return to the 1962 Missal? And do it by the start of Advent?
I have not watched #2, but 1 and 3 are quite good and inspiring.
@hayden: You failed to point out what St Paul wrote, “Now three things abide, faith hope and charity, but the greatest of these is obedience!
@haydn seeker: I watched the trailer. You are 100% correct. All their good works mean nothing if done outside the bosom of Holy Mother Church.
When the late Pope Francis promulgated “Traditiones Custodes”, Cardinal Burke himself warned the faithful against fleeing to the SSPX, instead instructing us to stay in the Church and fight.
I pray that the upcoming second round of illicit consecrations will have the same effect that the first consecrations had; that just as St John Paul the Great promulgated “Ecclesia Dei” and established the FSSP, etc., so will Pope Leo XIV promulgate a “Summorum Pontificum 2.0”.
Oremus.
Hello George, I would be absolutely delighted if the Church decided to do all those things. My preference is very much for the beauty of the old rite, but I believe in one Catholic and apostolic Church and I really mean it. There is no excuse for creating your own bishops, none whatsoever. Christ never prayed that they should have the old calendar, but he did pray that they should be one and that means obedience to Peter in this matter.
I’m very grateful, and thank God, for these men of the SSPX.
Will they be treated charitably by Rome? Not likely, especially if the likes of @haydn seeker have anything to do with it.
Are we missing the stories of faithful people who think like haydn seeker Geoffrey and have learned Chinese and gone to China to plead with those in authority in Church and State there never again to create bishops of their own thereby placing all those in the Church there who do so outside the bosom of Holy Mother Church in the presumptuous hope that whoever is or soon will be occupying the Throne of St. Peter will legitimize them afterwards – or privately between announcement and consecration as Pope Leo did with respect to Joseph Wu Jianlin and Li Jianlin? Are there such heroic charitable folk? How have they fared, if so?
Much of this could have been avoided had the Superior of the SSPX at the outset submitted a request to Pope Leo that Bishops be ordained for the Society along with the names of the candidates for Episcopal Ordination. The Society professes allegiance to the See of Peter and that course of action would have demonstrated fealty.
@Geoffrey – so, you’re more than happy to praise the results of the actions of the SSPX while simultaneously condemning them? This seems like a truly reprehensible position to me.
haydn seeker is very quick to enforce his interpretation of what Christ instructed us regarding obedience and unity as he calls for condemnation upon all those who disagree with him. It’s funny that so many folks accuse the SSPX for being “radical” and “judgmental” – the zealotry I’ve found on the anti-SSPX side has been overwhelming. They take positions that are as extreme as the most fierce of Jacobins, but they make excuses for their uncharitable behavior because “it’s in the service of obedience.”
I sometimes hear that the SSPX is unnecessary since we have the FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, etc., but I suspect that the existence of the SSPX keeps some bishops from further restricting the availability of the TLM in their dioceses. I doubt that our Bishop would have been so willing to shut down our parish TLM if there had been a SSPX Mass anywhere in our region.
@haydn seeker
You believe in “one Catholic and Apostolic Church”?
What is “one”? Define it.
“One” means one with the Church of the millenia, with what the Church has always believed and done. Who merits the name of “one” better : the SSPX or the Synodal Thing?
Your mindset is legal positivism which seems to hold sway just now in certain pockets of the Church. “Obey, obey, obey!” it chants, just like you do. But obey what exactly? “Obey the extirpation of what the Church has always taught, has always believed!”
How can any Catholic obey such a command?
How awful you are, and yet how dominant is the croaking of your foul “obey, obey, obey!”
“All their good works mean nothing if done outside the bosom of Holy Mother Church?”
Should that not read all their good works mean nothing unless done because one loves God.
Furthermore you must mean that good works done outside the Church mean nothing, which contradicts the view of our current Pope.
I am glad that we have the FSSP and ICKSP here in the US, but they are far from where I live. However, I don’t think either of those orders have been allowed to have a bishop consecrated, either. They have been in existence for 40 years, but no bishops of their own (that I know of).
That would make one wonder what the plan of those in and around the Vatican really is. TC and personnel policy have been crushing diocesan TLMs, forcing people to longer drives to FSSP or ICKSP (or SSPX in some cases). But perhaps that is just letting the clock run out and not allowing them any bishops and eventually no new priests?
I would rather not be so cynical, but the tyranny I’ve seen come down from the magisterium against “traditionalists,” in contrast with the coddling we’ve seen towards sodomites and their supporters, as well as pagans (re: pachamama) can sure give one pause to consider if we are the children of an abusive father or if we are in the home under an usurper who is demanding compliance…
@WVC: “Reprehensible”? Hardly. God often brings great good from regrettable circumstances. Recognizing those blessings does not justify the actions that occasioned them.
One could likewise thank God for the good that came from many crises in Church history without suggesting the crises themselves were necessary or praiseworthy. Those are two very different things.
Needless to say, the SSPX doesn’t make videos about the priests like myself whom they’ve mistreated. It’s an organization that values ideological conformity over their human resources and loyalty. No rights of incardination; no recognition of any Church court of appeal. Close to one in three American SSPX priests ordained since 1975 have left. Worldwide that figure sits close to one in four. The real heros are the FSSP who are willing to welcome such former SSPX priests.
@Geoffrey – Perhaps you don’t realize that you’re basically placing yourself in God’s judgment seat and proclaiming your judgment to be God’s will.
It sounds an awful lot like trying to justify a reprehensible position similar to loudly wishing an arsonist receives a severe punishment while simultaneously bragging about what a great deal you got on buying up a recently torched real estate lot.
@WVC: Respectfully, I must say that you have misunderstood my position.
I have not placed myself in “God’s judgment seat,” nor have I presumed to know His will. I have expressed a judgment about objectively public acts and their canonical consequences—something the Church herself does. The 1988 episcopal consecrations were publicly declared illicit by the Holy See. Likewise, any future unauthorized episcopal consecrations would raise the same canonical issues.
That is very different from judging the souls, motives, or eternal destiny of those involved.
Nor do I see any contradiction in thanking God for the good He brings from regrettable events. Christians have always recognized that God, in His providence, can draw great good from human failings without thereby approving those failings.
To use your own analogy, I am not “bragging” about buying a burned property. Rather, I am thanking God that, after a painful event in the Church’s life, St. John Paul II responded by establishing the FSSP and promulgating *Ecclesia Dei*. Those were genuine blessings for many Catholics who wished to remain fully united to the Holy See while preserving the older liturgical tradition.
Had the illicit consecrations never occurred, I would have been just as happy if the FSSP had come into existence by some other means. My gratitude is directed toward God’s providence and the Church’s pastoral response, not toward the act of disobedience itself.
Those are important distinctions.
@WVC: I can recognize the good that Anglicans, Presbyterians, and the Orthodox do. That doesn’t make them Catholic.
I’m truly grateful for the good that is done through the SSPX, but if they refuse obedience to the Holy Father in a matter that is his exclusive jurisdiction, they are not Catholic as they reject the divinely revealed Truth of Petrine Primacy and of the Roman Pontiff’s universal jurisdiction in matters of governance.
I know plenty of good Eastern Orthodox Christians. They’re still schismatics. The SSPX will likely be no different in a few days. Obedience is not the most important of the virtues, but lack of obedience usually indicates lack of one or more of the three theological virtues.
To weigh into the discussion between @Geoffrey and @WVC and to make more explicit the point being made by @venerator Sti Lot, How sure are we that, if the SSPX goes through with consecrating bishops without a pontifical mandate having been issued, Canon 1382 will apply to the Bishops involved?
It did apply to the 6 bishops at Econe in 1988 but it did not apply to the bishops of the Chinese Patriotic Church in 2023 or 2025. (Cf. https://www.ewtnnews.com/vatican/2-priests-elected-as-catholic-bishops-in-china-after-death-of-pope-francis)
A law specifying _latae sententiae_ excommunication cannot be applied arbitrarily.
@Geoffrey
“My gratitude is directed toward God’s providence and the Church’s pastoral response . . .”
What an odd way to put it. So, Jorge Bergoglio tries his best to stamp out the TLM within the diocesan Church, punishes diocesan priests who say the TLM, casts the faithful out of church buildings or has their TLM cancelled entirely, threatens and outright punishes bishops who do not comply, installs and promotes bishops who are as ruthless as he is in attacking the faithful who love the TLM and the TLM itself, backs the efforts of anti-TLM cardinals whom he places in high positions (including the Dicastery for Divine Worship), and Pope Leo, after having been pope for more than a year, has refused on his own to change any of this whatsoever or to even discuss the topic (he’s even held two consistories of cardinals in that time, declining to address the topic of liturgy. Meanwhile, bishops under him CONTINUE to suppress the TLM and punish the faithful.
Here come the SSPX who, by their actions, put external pressure on the Church leadership who finally might ease up on their war against the TLM in an attempt to counter the SSPX’s growing influence . . . . and you praise that as “pastoral care.”
This is an absurd position to take. That God can bring good from bad is not in question. But in this situation you’ve somehow presumed that the Bergoglian war against the TLM is somehow the good and the SSPX opposing it is somehow the bad, and you justify this by wild hypotheticals as if the FSSP could have come into existence on its own. It was, quite literally, a part of the SSPX.
An actually “pastoral” response from the Church Leaders right now would be to give permission for the consecration of new bishops to the SSPX and then turn around and undo every single, solitary restriction against the TLM instigated by TC. And there’s really nothing preventing this from happening other than the obstinacy and hard-heartedness so prevalent in Rome.
@R2D – I really don’t have anything else left to say to you. You’ve made it clear that your position is that “obedience” is the only thing that matters. I’ve yet to see anything you’ve posted that is not simply a variation on this theme.
This series has been very impactful and I’ve thought about it daily since watching it last week. It was very well done and beautiful to see how serious the Society takes their faith, tradition, and the formation of priests. The second video of the missionaries was incredible, along with showing more faraway chapels in the third. I also loved seeing the world wide disruption of the holy oils–wow! God bless their efforts.
@Fr Kelly — we haven’t seen the concordat/agreement with the PRC. The Holy See has historically made exceptions for this type of things via concordat, and if I had to guess this is likely addressed there. In that case, the CIC would be subordinate to the agreement with a sovereign state on that particular matter. The SSPX aren’t a sovereign state with a concordat, so the CIC unquestionably applies.
@WVC: I don’t make any apologies for maintaining the teaching of the Catholic Church on the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his universal jurisdiction of governance: it was true under Pius XII, Paul VI, and John Paul II, and it remains true under Leo XIV. A cleric who intentionally disobeys a warning from the Holy See on delict that under the CIC incurs excommunication separates himself from the Catholic Church. The proclamation of an excommunication only confirms the choice the cleric has made for himself.
This group ought to request to be formally regularized within the structure of the Church as it seems they currently lack the necessary positions in the Church for anything to be freely given to them. They are effectively on their own and have been for decades. Their status, termed as “irregular“, is foreign to me, and I believe it has been left unchecked for too long. What is it like some morphing gender identity thing? It’s crazy. The term “irregular” is certainly showing its strangeness now. Who didn’t know that their bishops would eventually become too old and need replacement? That happens all the time. The root problem for them is that they don’t hold any positions in the hierarchy to continue functioning without …joining the hierarchy! That’s part of why being in the structure of the Church matters! What can Pope Leo actually do for them if they are not themselves first members within the hierarchical structure of the Church? He can pray for them, which he has said he is doing. He tried entering discussions with them about the minimum necessary requirements for union with the Church and they never returned. Past Pope’s have reached out, and almost 50 years have gone by and they aren’t any closer to being regularized in the Catholic Church, in fact, it seems with each new outreach and gift, their group has grown and gotten even more self-reliant.
Imagine some worker approaching the CEO of a large enterprise and asking for manpower or supplies. Ok…what department does he work for? Who is his manager? How can the CEO approve this request after he has determined that he actually has no real connection to this worker? The CEO determines the worker has no manager in the enterprise, they have no department that they report to, they have nothing except for everything they have set up on their own for themselves. The worker is and has been doing things on his own, but what can be done for him, even at his earnest request, is a different question entirely and seems to depend not on the goodwill of the Pope, but rather on their connection to the hierarchy. If they were in the hierarchy they would not have to worry about getting bishops for themselves, they would be freely given. Perhaps the reason there is no papal mandate is because the Pope has no oversight of their functionings. Canon Law kicks in when he has not given permission, I see that law as a way the Church protects Herself. It would be helpful if the group did not leave the discussion table a couple months ago. He wasn’t asking them to sin, he was asking them to not do something that would be sinful, to not do an act that has a grave consequence. So they should respect him for that and listen to him when he implores them to not consecrate their own bishops. It is a grave wrong and their consciences should be repelled by that.
I haven’t watched the videos and have only quickly scanned the 154 point declaration. It’s way too wordy in my opinion and besides, hasn’t the Catholic Church already done this type of work with answers on what we necessarily believe as Catholics? I need to be prudent in everything I do. In what I watch, in what I read, listen to, everything. I cannot risk losing my faith in the Church Christ founded: the only Church that has the four marks of being the true Church: One, Holy, Catholic/Universal, and Apostolic and the three attributes: Indefectibility, Infallibility, and Authority. There is but one Church that Christ promised would never err in matters of faith and morals and will last until the end of time: that is the Church I belong to and Pope Leo is it’s visible head on earth.
Our Church is Holy, not because its members are necessarily holy, but because it was founded by a God-man who is Holiness itself and it was established with His promise that it will always be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Pope didn’t give those promises, God did. God Almighty, the Creator of all, gave us these promises regarding His Church because He knew that we would need the Apostolic Church throughout time in order to grow in holiness.
This group can’t claim those 4 marks and 3 attributes in their enterprise ever since they situated themselves on the sidelines without a link to the Pope, the visible head of the visible Church. Those marks and attributes that describe and show what the true Church is, are necessarily connected to each other and cannot exist in any other set up, or apart from the others on their own. To belong in the visible Church they need to function as governed by a bishop that is in turn governed by the Holy Father. I’ve read there is such a thing as being in “the soul” of the Church but I believe that requires one to not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and baptism is also required among other things. It seems this group is well aware that the Catholic Church is the true Church, I think I saw that as one of their points in the declaration. Therefore, they definitely ought to formally request to be brought back as ministers within the visible Church on earth, complete with being governed by a bishop who is governed by and reports to the Pope. No more orbiting around the Catholic Church in some vague irregularity!
I understand that there are many things that are perhaps praiseworthy that their members do. And I don’t doubt that there are some very good people in this group. Perhaps we can learn some things from them. But to go further and approve bishops without requiring an actual commitment and standard and functioning role in the hierarchy of the Church does everyone a major disservice. It’s not fair, it is confusing, sloppy, and dangerous. The sacraments are meant to be both valid and licit. The hierarchy exists because the spiritual realm is real. Christ said: “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church.” He did not say: “I built my Church on that rock, but then I will transfer it to a new rock…I hope everyone gets the memo.” No!
Everyone was given a free will by God. No one can force anyone to sin.
When will each individual of that society make the move back into the visible structure of Holy Mother Church? There will be space for you!
@WVC,
Respectfully, you’re arguing against a position I have not taken.
For the record, I believe “Traditionis Custodes” was a grave pastoral mistake. I greatly preferred Pope Benedict XVI’s approach in “Summorum Pontificum”, and I sincerely hope Pope Leo XIV restores that freedom.
Where we differ is that you seem to argue that, because the SSPX’s actions may produce a desirable outcome, those actions are therefore justified. That is essentially an “ends justify the means” argument, a principle the Church has always rejected.
God often brings great good from regrettable events. Christians have always believed that. But recognizing God’s providence is not the same as justifying the acts that occasioned it.
I can therefore lament illicit episcopal consecrations while simultaneously thank God that St. John Paul II responded with “Ecclesia Dei” and the establishment of the FSSP, etc. Had those same pastoral provisions been granted without the crisis, I would have rejoiced just as much.
There is no contradiction. I am grateful for the good God brought from the situation, not for the situation itself.
@Geoffrey
“ends justifies the means” implies there’s something intrinsically immoral about consecrating bishops. Which there isn’t.
And the fact of the matter, your hypothetical situations holding no weight whatsoever, is that the good of the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei institutions only came in existence due to the work of the SSPX – not just the consecrations which put pressure on the Vatican but the very widespread preservation of the TLM itself. That the FSSP continues to enjoy any support from the Vatican today continues to be due in part to the SSPX’s continued presence putting pressure on the Vatican (my own diocese just saw an FSSP chaplaincy established in the same region where an SSPX chapel has been steadily growing ever since COVID). To throw away the one is to put at risk if to not actually doom the other. To denigrate the one is to show gross ingratitude for the benefit of the other.
I can understand folks who disagree with the prudence of the consecrations. People who might argue that the timing is poor or that the way it was gone about was wrong. I can understand people who might pray that the consecrations would be delayed so that negotiations might be renewed in some meaningful way (although I continue to believe the Vatican holds the bulk of responsibility when it comes to their failure to date). What I can’t fathom is your position of praying that God will bring about some more “pastoral care” that we can enjoy inside the diocesan Church while the SSPX gets punished for doing the very thing by which we get to enjoy “pastoral care.” Especially when that “pastoral care” would just amount to an easing up of the severe beatings that were needlessly instigated on us by the wroth of Francis (and continued by the inaction of Leo).
That continues to be an absurd position so far as I can see.
But we’re clearly at loggerheads. Good luck to you and yours.
@WVC,
I think this is where we have reached the heart of our disagreement. “The ends justify the means” does not require the means to be intrinsically evil in every circumstance. The question is whether consecrating bishops without papal authorization, contrary to canon law, becomes justified because it produces desirable consequences. I do not believe it does.
I have already explained that I oppose both the SSPX’s illicit consecrations and “Traditionis Custodes”. Those positions are entirely consistent.