Another point about the SSPX. They are not a small, fringe group.

I’m still quite confused about SSPX. We know people around the globe who identify as SSPX who are also sedevacantists. [The SSPX is a Society or Fraternity of PRIESTS. Lay people re not SSPX. If the lay people who go to SSPX chapels are sedevacantists, they are out of step with the SSPX.] They do not recognise NO in any way as valid. [Which is a little crazy.] Is it in communion to believe there hasn’t been a valid pope for some time? [“in communion” is not really the right category here, however… there is little of use to say about sedevacantism, and it is a rabbit hope for the purposes of my post.]

Thank you for your recent posts on this subject, Father. While I don’t think I agree with all of your conclusions, it has been informative to read. Especially helpful is your call to charity in our dealings with and discussion about the Society. We must remember that whatever the status of the society, these are by and large good men doing their best to serve the Church. Now that you have waded in on this issue, one thing that might be helpful is if you would address Cardinal Burke’s contention that the faculties granted by Pope Francis to priests of the SSPX are irrelevant to their canonical status because they are “an anomaly” (his words) and were given outside the context of canon law. It does seem a bit odd to lay too much emphasis on them, given the strange way these faculties were granted by Francis and his open contempt for Church law.

This is something that I wondered about myself. The only real evidence that I can come up with against the SSPX is Cardinal Burke saying that Pope Francis’ giving the SSPX official faculties is an anomaly. I’m not sure how that can be so. The Holy Father can extend faculties to whomever he wants. I also have to say that I think Timothy Flanders’ citation of Ludwig Ott as saying that we should hold to decisions of Vatican Congregations as binding under a religious assent. So Cardinal Burke’s opinion is just an opinion and the Vatican’s ruling is binding

I think that if we follow a traditional Catholic thinking, in line with a canonical and legal standpoint, it is very difficult to reconcile Pope Francis’ actions, that are in favor of the SSPX.

Cardinal Burke said as much when, knowing the Pope’s pastoral approach to the SSPX, still insisted that the Society “is in schism since the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff” (July 15, 2017, Conference in Medford, Oregon).

This is an irony for us–if traditional Catholics truly wish to canonically justify the ministry of the SSPX, we have no choice except to take on the thinking of Pope Francis.

That thinking in so many words is that the letter of the law cannot obstruct pastoral and merciful accompaniment to the SSPX. Thus, we have the papal mandate that the SSPX priests absolve and witness marriage without a lifting of their suspension.

On the other hand, if we see this from a traditional Catholic viewpoint, we have to side with Cardinal Burke. Namely, the Pope can do what he wants canonically, but it makes no sense to grant faculties to suspended priests without first ordering them to repent and reconcile.

Again, Cardinal Burke stated clearly at the same Conference in Medford, “And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X.” From a traditional reading of canon law, why would we doubt Cardinal Burke?

What makes his eminence a good critic of the Pope in other matters, but out of bounds if he speaks plainly of the SSPX? I am sympathetic to some beliefs of the Society, but I am also convinced that Burke knows what he is talking about. And regarding the SSPX, Burke has not walked back or revised his stance.

Personally, I think that to be consistent and intellectually honest, we have to concede that the Pope’s pastoral methods, albeit the cause of things being “messy” in the case of the SSPX are also important to keep open hearts and communication with the Society and other elements of the Church which are irregular.

Fr. Sotelo speaks to the deeper issues beneath the surface. It’s easy to be obedient, when it’s what we want to hear… I’ve read various theories on what happened with the traditional rites and liturgies… conspiracy theories that Masons and who knows what infiltrated the Church at long last…. to those that naively insist the post Concilar “Spirit of Vatican II” was a good thing despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I’m reminded that the intrusion of SSPX into hundreds of diocese without permission isn’t an issue of Vatican II as much as it’s one the Council of Trent legislated to stop WRT the Clerici Vagantes. I’ve also read De Defectibus that those priests who celebrate Mass while under Ecclesiastical censure confect a valid Sacrament, yet commit a grievous sin in the process…

It really seems the test of Job and there is more than one to fail at it. God allowed men both wicked and foolish to take away the greatest treasure the Church had, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass but allowed it to preserved nevertheless. I’ve met both priests and faithful who frequent SSPX chapels and they seem devout and pious and I’m sure it’s better in every measurable way than the banality of the diocesan novus ordo. I’m sure they’re just trying to work out their salvation in fear and trembling as I am. As it is, I’m thankful that the FSSP was invited into the diocese the proper way, even if I can’t help but wonder what might have been if Abp. Lefebvre had kept his protocol of May 5, 1988. Would JP2 have issued something much like Summorum Pontificum in 1988 or 1989? Would natural allies not have been alienated? Or would the SSPX have split apart at the seems and the infamous Germans and Jesuits have defeated it?

The only TLM where I live/work is a Society chapel and we have been attending for a year. ABP Lefebvre wouldn’t allow Society priests to be sedevacantists, and several have been kicked out over the years if they adopted this position (those priests become itinerant priests, join the SSPV, or start their own chapels in someone’s garage). Most lay sedevacantists attend the SSPV, CMRI, or even diocesan TLM’s. They usually don’t go to the SSPX because of its strong stand against sedevacantism. It is surprising that more sedevacantists attend diocesan TLM’s, but this is because diocesan Latin Mass communities are generally larger and folks can be relatively anonymous there. The vast majority of SSPX chapels are “mission” chapels and quite small.

Most of the laity that I have encountered at our SSPX chapel have been accused for years of being schismatics in mortal sin and are quite thick skinned. It seems that the bitterness died out decades ago and the priests and laity just concentrate on St Francis de Sales rather than Francis of Rome.

Being accused of mortal sin/schism/leading one’s family to hell is very disconcerting and upsetting—and very effective on the part of the accuser. So thank you Fr Z for setting the record straight! Those who search out Society chapels will be ostracized and accused, but the goal is to put our families of the safest path to Heaven. We must accept this suffering, pray for our accusers, and and offer it up.

“Safest path to Heaven…” That about sums it up for me. After the McCarrick scandal hit the fan a couple years ago I was at the end of my rope as an SSA revert trying to get back on the right track. Couldn’t live with the thought of throwing any more money into the collection basket of a more or less openly queer racket. But assuming I didn’t want to just give up (still not sure why I didn’t) where was I supposed to go? I could’ve gone to the Orthodox, but I looked into that and it didn’t add up. And the sedes always have some dark conspiracy baggage around their necks. So the SSPX was my last resort.

I found that the SSPX recognizes where we are as a Church (struggling) and what got us here (basically Vatican II, what made it and what came after it). Even more I found that their priests actually cared more about the salvation of my soul than politics in or out of the Church. If there was an easy way to Heaven we’d all be there, but for now SSPX is the safest path for me.

Fr Sotelo,

We both know that anyone who has ever received Holy Orders can absolve anyone in an emergency, i.e., danger of death. That is true no matter whether it’s an ex priest and and atheist–only minimal intention is required. And it’s not a matter of him repenting and being reconciled with the Church.

Basically their paperwork isn’t in order in Rome. As a layperson, that’s way above my pay grade. So am I going to begrudge my second cousin and his eleven children for going to the SSPX back home, when the diocese is a wasteland and almost all of our family has fallen away? No I won’t for a second. God bless the SSPX for being there for my cousin and his kids when their bishop wasn’t.

It seems to me a church that has room for the Jesuits has room for the SSPX.