Monday, January 30, 2012


Holy Father take this and wear it! It is time to bring it back!
Two cardinals unafraid to wear these despite being criticized for doing so, just as the Holy Father would be severely criticized by secular Catholics for wearing the tiara, would make nonetheless excellent candidates for the next pope. I suspect they would bring the tiara back and wear it--the Church needs to claim it is above worldly powers and dominions, above the Obama administration and all worldly rulers and dictators and kings and queens, all presidents, prime ministers and governors.
I'm beginning to think that Pope Paul VI and subsequent popes who have relinquished the papal tiara to history have made a grave mistake and have misinterpreted the role of the Church in the world as Vatican II envisioned. It may be time to bring it back. Guess who will scream the loudest? Catholics who are most likely to support the Obama administration and his assault of the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of practicing, believing and orthodox Catholics. Interesting, no?

My vote if I could vote is for Raymond Cardinal Burke to be the next pope. We need a more monarchical approach to Church leadership that is less conciliatory toward politicians and the world; we need to circle the wagons and protect the Faith from the world. We need to assert the authority of Christ the King! We have no king but Christ the King as Catholics. Guess which Catholics would oppose what I just wrote? Liberal, wishy washy Catholics, Catholics who are more post-Christian than they are Catholic and see traditional Catholicism as standing in the way of the dictatorship of secularism. They hate the "monarchy" of Catholic orthodoxy with its traditional trappings but love the dictatorship of secularism and the direction of secularization in Europe and in the USA as the Obama administration sees it.

One of the most outspoken bishops of the USA who named a spade a spade and called for faithfulness to the orthodox teachings of the Church, Raymond Cardinal Burke, was marginalized by the liberal press both secular and Catholic! I don't think his brother bishops liked his style or personality. And even worse for him in the eyes of his brother bishops is that he frequently promoted and actually celebrated the EF Mass! HE ALSO CALLED FOR THE DENIAL OF HOLY COMMUNION TO PRO-CHOICE CATHOLIC POLITICIANS AND HE WAS UNHEEDED BY THE BISHOPS OF THESE POLITICIANS. I WONDER WHY!

As I mentioned earlier, I do not like nor do I condone the disobedience of the SSXP. However what I do admire is that they are very clear about their position concerning the liberal and unorthodox trends amongst mainline Catholics and in doing so have only become "more Catholic than the pope" which means ultra-orthodoxy bordering on fundamentalism and fanaticism. While some of their political stances are questionable, they respect what every Catholic should respect and uphold but sadly no longer do today--respect for natural law, reverence for God especially as it was experienced prior the Vatican II, strict adherence to liturgical norms and no acquiescence to world thought (Vatican II asked the Church to dialogue with the world not to submit to the world. We were to bring Catholicism to the world, but what really happened is the world was brought into the Church.)

However when it comes to liberal Catholics as symbolized by what you read in the National Catholic Reporter, there is an interpretation of Vatican II that leads the Church into the direction of the secularized and post-Christian ideologies of the Anglican Communion in all areas once deemed sacred in Christianity. This liberal Catholics are subversive and work from within to destroy orthodox Catholicism and they have been very successful.

The liturgy is the first place to dismantle traditional Catholicism. Dissent from the Church's legitimate authority and the obedience that Catholic owe to the Magisterium not only in infallible declaration but all areas of faith and morals is marginalized and ridiculed. The elevation of personal conscience (formed or unformed) to the status of a god is promoted in an infallible way.

But worse yet, bishops are fearful to impose their authority on their priests and parishes. They don't want to alienate those liberal Catholics who have loss their Catholic faith but want the social veneer of the Church and the friendships established there, the promotion of community or the horizontal to a god-like status!

And now we have President Obama's direct attack on what the Church holds sacred as it concerns natural law, thus divine law and we have Catholics and perhaps a majority of Catholics supporting him and electing him to office.

Does this remind you of the infidelity of Israel and her leaders and the Babylonian exile they experienced because they deserved it having abandoned the Covenant God made with them?


Bill Meyer said...

Oh, Father, to have the Holy Father and all the bishops take the strong roles in daily life they should always have held would indeed be wonderful. Of course, as I say that, I assume that they would not be championing endlessly the social justice speech which has been so long used to rationalize actions contrary to doctrine.

I pray we will see a very explicit statement from the USCCB this year, making plain that a vote for a "pro-choice" politician is an act contrary to the Faith. A sin, even a grave sin.

Continuing to separate "personal" judgments from matters of right and wrong is death to the Church, and to our society.

This morning, I saw a comment from a friend on Facebook, regarding the court decision on an "honor killing" in Ontario. She was pleased that justice was finally done, but asked "how can we keep such people from coming here?" I suggested that a starting point would be to stop pretending all cultures are equally valid.

We have the Truth in our Faith. It cannot be acceptable any longer to be timid about that reality. The Church may survive, but it is not at all clear that our Republic will.

Anonymous said...

Bravo, Fr. McDonald. When the Pope dons the papal tiara again, and celebrates the TLM again, it will signify not that past is being restored, but that the Church is again on the march for Christ in the contemporary world.

Marc said...

I couldn't agree more with this post! Raymond Cardinal Burke is the perfect example of someone who is Traditional yet in perfect communion with the Holy Father... he did excellent things for the Archdiocese of St. Louis, which are continiuing even though he has moved on and up. In fact, he just celebrated a Pontifical High Mass there yesterday! The Institute of Christ the King in that Archdiocese is thriving and is really something every diocese needs.

Moreover, as far as I could tell, the proximity and prevalence of the Institute's oratory has all but dismantled the attendance at the SSPX chapel, which is a mere mile or so away from the oratory - why would you go to the SSPX when there is a beautiful oratory so close by!

I was just thinking the other day the type of signal it would send to American politicians if the Holy Father made an "emergency" trip to the US and called together the American Bishops and followed that up with a speech targeted at American politicians wherein he pointed out that their authority comes from God! That used to be the relation between the world and the Church and I hope one day it will be again!

Great post, Father! I'm glad that we can agree on how great Cardinal Burke is - he is really a model for the clergy in these times regarding tradition and faithfulness to the Holy Father. I hope more bishops follow his lead!

Templar said...

Bravo for you Father. Righteous indignation is good for the soul.

I hope it makes you as mad as it makes me that not all of your brother Priests in the Diocese opted to be obedient to their Bishop's direction regarding the reading of the letter to their Parishoners.

Marc said...

By the way, I was just thinking about this when commenting on the prior post: I firmly believe that, if the local bishops were to celebrate a Pontifical High Mass at their Cathedrals in which they issued a public statement about abortion/contraception/other it would have a greater impact. When the bishop sits on his Chair and makes a public statement in the context of such a regal ceremony, people are going to listen.

The outward signs have a huge impact.

Anonymous said...

The cappa magna was made so big to cover a horse's ass. It seems to be working.

Jenny said...

Father, I wanted to say this in yesterday's post, but that post was worded as primarily a question for your parishioners. Our lives as Catholics and ultimately our souls are at great peril here, so I plead:
They and I MUST CHOOSE who to follow; non-choice IS a choice, as Germany discovered under Hitler's rise.
Our Catholic hierarchy (from Deacon to Priest to Bishop) MUST CHOOSE; non-choice IS a choice to be "white-washed tombs", and you know what Jesus said of these church leaders!
Each and EVERY Catholic must ask: At the moment of death, where do I choose to be? God allows us to choose...

Jenny said...

German pastor Martin Niemoeller, referring to the horrors of Nazi Germany:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me —
and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Anonymous said...

Fr. McD,

Interesting comment from you re the pope making a "grave mistake". Have we trads recently convinced you that an orthodox Catholic loyal to the pope and the Magisterium can criticize him thus even while accepting his authority, or do you see the sort of mistake you discuss here as somehow different from our criticisms of the adoption of the NO Mass? (This is a genuine question offered in the spirit of furthering dialogue, and not intended to be snarky.)

Roman Presbyter said...

It it is refreshing to read such clarity from a cleric!

Unknown said...

Wow. Simply wow.
If I weren't so shackled, uh, wedded to my duties here, I'd be at St. Joseph's yesterday to be in y'all's quire!
You know you're going to reap the whirlwind for this over at PTB, yes? I'm guessing that is of no concern to you, Fr., so you give Mr. Grady and Mr. Flynn the what-fer in any manner you see fit.

schmenz said...


I would urge you to take a broader view of the "traditional Order" issue and recognize that, alas, ALL traditional religious orders have their problems. You seem to gloat over the fact that the Masses said by the ICKSP are diminishing attendance at the SSPX chapels. I don't believe you should find any joy in this.

I am not an ardent supporter of any religious order, least of all the SSPX which has a sort of "petite Eglise" mentality. But then so does the ICKSP. Both of these orders have some serious issues with arrogance that need to be addressed. This attitude turns off not a few people, Marc.

I could be wrong but I believe the main reason the Institute is being given these "plum" parishes is because of their willingness not to "rock the boat" in any way and by avoiding any controversial issues with regard to Rome. The SSPX on the other hand sometimes goes too far in the opposite direction.

Both of these orders seem to be musically illiterate when it comes to their choirs. I recall one amusing remark from a Catholic who had to sit through a particularly dreadful sung mass at the SSPX saying, "That's the plainest chant I ever heard." And the Institute is even worse, in that it seems to be their policy not only to have rather dicey choirs but to insist that the organ is played virtually non-stop throughout every Mass, High or Low, so that quiet contemplation is therefore rendered impossible.

So, both orders have their issues and it would be well for us to be patient, and to be kind to both orders, gently recommending to them ways they could improve while trying to keep peace in the family.

I believe that is much better than gloating.

Marc said...

schmenz, I wasn't gloating at all about the interplay between the ICR and the SSPX. I don't have a vested stake in either.

I was attempting to point out that the way for those in the Church who do not like the SSPX or the faithful's attendance at their chapels to decrease Traditionalists' support for the SSPX is to install a diocesan-supported group like the ICR or FSSP in the diocese.

In my opinion, if one were to be in the same proximity to an SSPX Chapel or an ICR oratory or an FSSP parish and one then chose the SSPX over the "approved" options, one is getting close to a line of disobedience (all other things being equal). This is the case in Georgia - the SSPX is 10 miles futher than the FSSP for me. If I went to the SSPX instead of the FSSP, my reason would be a disagreement with the "Novus Ordo Church" (as the SSPX calls it). That is on the line of a schismatic action depending on the mindframe of the person making that decision. For me personally, it is a line I would not cross. Now, if there were no FSSP here, I would go to the SSPX for Sunday Mass (not for Confession).

I hope the SSPX grows. I wish there were a chapel here in the Diocese of Savannah as I would go to that chapel as well (since it would be so much closer than the FSSP). My point is this: every diocese needs at least one Traditional Parish and it is a shame not every diocese has this option.

Finally, given Fr. McDonald's posts yesterday that were negative about the SSPX, based on the problems he pointed out (which are true problems), I was attempting to point out to him that having a "Church-approved" Traditional Parish in a diocese is the only way to keep people away from the SSPX for those clerics who feel the people should stay away from the SSPX. I hope that makes sense!

Good points there about the differences between the Masses of the Traditional orders - I've only been to a couple ICR Masses and they were quite beautiful, but I will defer to you on that since you seem much better informed through personal experience!

Bill Meyer said...


Interesting assessment of choices. In my case, the FSSP church (the only Latin Mass in the Atlanta Archdiocese) is 42 miles from my home. The SSPX is about 18, and I have never gone. My home parish, that is, the parish I have attended even subsequent to our moving out of its geographical area is 15 miles away.

Were the SSPX to be in full communion, I would go there in a heartbeat. I would love to go to the FSSP, but an 84 mile round trip is more than I am prepared to commit to.

Marc said...

Bill, I think in your case, given the proximity, I wouldn't feel badly going to the SSPX for Mass if I were you (although not for Confession). But, I think that decision really depends on one's attitudes and, as the CDF has said, one must be careful not to develop a schismatic attitude in attending their Masses. I'm guessing that would depened heavily on the priest at the chapel - if he always preaches about the evils of Vatican II, for example, it might be best to stay away!

As an aside, I drove 198 miles for Sunday Mass yesterday to go from Macon to the FSSP parish in the Archdiocese of Atlanta. I live only 0.7 miles away from St. Joseph Church in Macon. I didn't drive all that way because I dislike St. Joseph's or the priests or even the Novus Ordo. We have very "high" Novus Ordo Masses at St. Joseph and very good homilies by the priests (not the deacons). I drove all that way because I firmly believe the Tridentine Mass is objectively superior.

I do not do that every Sunday, though, as it is prohibitively expensive with gas prices the way they are. On the other hand, if I didn't have St. Joseph and the orthodoxy always found there, I would be more tempted to drive to the FSSP every Sunday.

Thanks to Fr. McDonald, this upcoming Sunday we have a Latin High Mass at St. Joseph!

Bill Meyer said...

Marc, It's a possibility I had not considered. I long for a time when the SSPX will be in full communion, but clearly, that is not now. Also, I am mindful of the problem of confession, though I am also in need of finding a good confessor -- hearing in the confessional that "a more nuanced view" is needed, suggests that I am in the wrong place. I am not there to bargain, but to confess, be absolved, and repent.

I know nothing of the priest at the SSPX chapel, nor of what he preaches.

I have not been to the FSSP here because it is too far to go every week -- and I am quite sure that, having gone once, I would wish to be there every week -- but also because the Latin means nothing to my wife, who will not be enthusiastic about arising early enough and traveling so far. I mentioned to my pastor a few years ago that the FSSP parish appeard to be a quarantine zone, as I had not found Latin at any of the other 99 parishes in the Archdiocese. His reply was to cinfirm that it is "absolutely a quarantine zone."

Interesting response. I understand that that parish has been responsible for training priests from some considerable distance. I take that as a good indicator.

One of these days, I will find myself unable to resist the trip to Macon. St. Joseph's is a beautiful church, and I would be delighted to experience a very "high" Novus Ordo Mass, rather than the very low ones I have found here.

Militia Immaculata said...

Marc and Bill:

I know for a fact that the priest at the SSPX chapel in the Atlanta area preaches on the "evils of Vatican II." So y'all would be better off staying away from it.

Gene said...

So, what is wrong with the phrase, "the evils of Vatican II?" It does not mean that Vatican II was inherently evil or that it was evil by intent. It merely indicates that there were evil results brought about by spiritually decadent Priests and Bishops who believe the way to get to God is by turning (literally) to man.

Marc said...

pin, Generally speaking, I don't think there is a problem with a priest pointing out the "evils" that have come about as a result of the misuse of the Council. Heck, Fr. McDonald has done so on this very blog repeatedly.

I was attempting to get at a deeper probelm that I see with some of the things the SSPX says. For example, on their website they advise their adherents to never attend the Novus Ordo because although they believe it to be valid, they see it as potentially faith corrupting (as it includes some Protestantized aspects).

The best argument I've heard against the SSPX is actually from a sedevacantist who points out that the SSPX are practical sedevacantists. The SSPX acts as a filter for everything from Rome. They comment on the things from the Holy Father, picking and choosing which is acceptable and which is not. Of course, this sedevacantist was suggesting that they go ahead and make what he saw as the logical step into sedevacantism.

The combination of those two things in the SSPX could be a problem for those of us who tend to overthink things. By that I mean that, while you may have the theological wherewithal to withstand and parce a discussion of this aspect of the Council being wrong and this aspect being right - for myself, continued exposure to that would likely result in my decreasing faith in the Holy Church or at the very least becoming somewhat despairing of her Divine Nature.

So, I think whether one could attend the SSPX for an extended amount of time is subjective - based on both the attendee and the priest at the particular Chapel.

Thankfully, we have the FSSP here in Georgia. They are very faithful to the Holy Father, but I've never heard them mention Vatican II and they always seem to reference the Catechism of Trent or Baltimore Catechism when making reference to such things. No danger of losing faith in the Church there. Oh, and the FSSP have jurisdiction to hear Confessions, which is great because the new priest there is a wonderful confessor as far as I can tell!

Anonymous said...

The parish I have been attending recently is FSSP. IMO they are both successful and appealing because they do the basics first: loving reverence of the Lord Jesus Christ. The adoration is so joyful and loving. They explain how to approach Christ incarnate. Everything else seems to fall into place after that.


Templar said...

For those who keep score of such things, the FSSP Parish in Mableton was "invited" into the Archdiocese in direct response to the SSPX being in Roswell. In other words, the Archdiocese of Atlanta is not supporting Tradition it is defending it's turf fom the bad ol'SSPX.

As much as I hate to say it, a VERY good argumnet can be made to support the SSPX contention that regular attendence of NO Masses can be damaging to your Faith. Stand outside any NO Parish after Mass and do a quick survey on key tenets of the Faith and see what kind of results you get. St Jo's is probably about as rock solid a Parish as you will find in our Diocese and I would wager the results would still be shocking.

If you go and actually read the letter that removed the Excommunications in January 2009 you will find that the wording clearly states that "any and all juridical effects of the excommunications are hereby null and void". Which means you can attend an SSPX Chapel for any reason, even the Sacraments. Furthermore the same document goes on to clarify that while the SSPX may not be in full communion, that status is based upon Doctrinal reasons and not any disciplinary reasons. Doctrine, as we all know, can be debated/discussed. Dogma can not, but no one in the SSPX questions any Dogma that I have ever seen.

As a siclaimer, I am not, and never have been, a member of an SSPX Chapel.

Anonymous said...

Marc: re your comment, viz. "The SSPX acts as a filter for everything from Rome. They comment on the things from the Holy Father, picking and choosing which is acceptable and which is not." By this standard, much of the church in America is also sedevacantist in light of episcopal slighting and misrepresenting of papal authority. The most blatant case I remember happened in 2004, I think, when the USCCB deliberately changed the wording of the pope's statement that pro-abort politicians may not receive communion, but there are many other examples to be found.

Militia Immaculata said...

If you go and actually read the letter that removed the Excommunications in January 2009 you will find that the wording clearly states that "any and all juridical effects of the excommunications are hereby null and void". Which means you can attend an SSPX Chapel for any reason, even the Sacraments.

Not so fast! SSPX priests are still suspended, and so their Masses are considered valid but illicit. And knowingly receiving sacraments from a suspended priest, I'm told, is to commit sacrilege (objectively speaking -- at least if there's no danger of death or similar emergency). So it doesn't seem to me that one could really justify going to the SSPX whenever or however often they want.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Militia, I would agree, it is gravely wrong to receive sacraments from a suspended priest! Only in the case of real need, i.e. emergency or no other Mass, including OF, could a Catholic avail themselves to a suspended priest who illicitly celebrates the sacraments. In fact, I believe the first preference would be an Orthodox priest since I do not think suspension applies to their actual schism. But of course, they have rules against our receiving from them even in the case of need I believe.

Marc said...

From a response by Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, written in 2003 (before the lifting of the excommunications):

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.


'Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass' and our response was: '1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.'

'Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass' and we responded stating: '2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.'"

This is pretty much what I was getting at when expressing my personal hesitations in my earlier posts. There could be a tendancy over time, if you are constantly hearing things that might be negative about the Holy Father, to manifest your desire to separate from him and the Church.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Marc, this really isn't theology, but what you describe is co-dependency and enabling illicit behavior because you get something from it, like a parent who enables the drug habit of an adult child by pampering them over the feelings of guilt that maybe they had something to do with their bad behavior. Thus they feel good about a good relationship with an errant adult child who does nothing to rectify the situation nor are any demands placed upon them to do so.

Marc said...

I agree with you, Father, insofar as you are arguing that it is sinful to enable someone in their sin, i.e. providing a person for a suspended priest to distribute Sacraments to, I think you have a VERY good point.

In cases where there are both, why would one choose the SSPX over the FSSP other than to manifest their displeasure with the Church? Perhaps someone can think of a good reason (maybe Bill's proximity as pointed out earlier), but it is going to be a very limited circumstance and then it is still a decision requiring much thought and care.

For the record, Father, as I have said before, I partly share your skepticism of the SSPX and I stay away from them. I also recognize that you are exercising your position as a pastor by warning us away from them.

Sunday before last at St. Francis de Sales, the priest delivered a homily that basically said: "Do NOT go to the SSPX for Confession!" They have also recently had bulletin inserts warning that they cannot validly absolve and cannot witness marriages due to lack of jurisdiction. I support the FSSP and I trust their priests. I also trust you, Father, and I personally will not go to the SSPX.

Templar said...

1) Why would you expect the FSSP to say anything different about the SSPX? The FSSP was formed from the SSPX when Priests of the Order didn't want to follow Archbishop Lefebrve after the Episcopal Ordinations.

2) The SSPX provide the Sacraments under supplied jurisdiction which is supported by Canon law if the requester (Laity) believe approaching an NO Parish for them would not provide them validly. Not that the onus is on what the Lay person believes, and not what the Church says. Given what I have personally witnessed in several Churches in the Diocese, I have no problem with someone really questioning the validity of the Sacraments being provided to them.

3) Leaving aside the argument of supplied jurisdiction, how does one square the "suspension" argument with the fact that one of the 4 Bishops in the SSPX has never been excommunicated, or suspended, and as a result none of his Priestly ordinations was ever invalid? Some portion of Priests within the Order have never been suspended. To try and police that would be a mess.

4) It is impossible for the SSPX (or any organization) in today's world to filter information. The SSPX can no better pick and choose what it's rank and file members are exposed to than Main Stream Media can control elections anymore. Too many sources of data now.

And again, I am not now, and never have been, a member of any SSPX Chapel. But I can read and judge.

Marc said...

Templar, I agree with a lot of what you've said, as I always do. We are of very similar minds on these things.

However, at this point, I just don't buy the SSPX argument for supplied jurisdiction. I've read it, considered it, and I'm just not sure about it. I might change my mind about it in the future if I read something a bit more convincing or really study the matter.

Right now, what I do know is that Christ handed Peter two keys to the kingdon. Those keys are power and jurisdiction - priests need both and they come from the bishop, whether he is a good bishop or a bad bishop. The FSSP understands this and they are working within the Barque of Peter for a cause that I support.

Was Abp. Lefebvre justified in ordaining those bishops without approval? Maybe in hindsight. Without the SSPX, we certainly wouldn't be having a High Mass at St Joseph's this Sunday. We can all thank Abp. Lefebvre for the gift of preserving Tradition. Does that justify his ordination of those bishops and temper the schismatic nature of the act? Again, I just don't know...

Templar said...

Marc: Well, admittedly you don't see me racing off to the SSPX either do you? LOL

However, the basis of supplied jurisdiction depends largely on the disposition of the lay person who is receiving the sacrament. Canon and Ecclesiastical Law support the notion that if the adherent REALLY believes the only option for valid sacraments is (fill in the blank) then the "Church Provides" and you are receiving validly.

It's a very complicated topic, one that doesn't lend well to a comment box on a Blog, but I have read much about it from Canon Lawyers, and there is room for doubt.

Even the EWTN site, in their answer to a question on this specific subject, dodges the question by saying "the SSPX are a special situation" and don't fit neatly into a clear ruling, although they obvioulsy stop well short of saying it's alright.

The sum total of all my posts about the SSPX is this: They have what was taken from us. They have not changed, we have. Proportinately they have grown and we have shrunk. Their communities are catholic through and through, ours are secular and fihting for our lives. Where there is smoke there is fire. We should be embracing them and not fiddling about minor doctrinal differences while Rome burns.

Marc said...

Templar, good post! Your last paragraph also sums up my points about the SSPX and my continued hope for them once they do become "regular" with the Church. Very well said.

As you rightly point out, eventually the Church will have to revert to Tradition because the number of Traditional priests is going to quickly outnumber "regular" priests as the SSPX/FSSP vocations skyrocket and the "regular" Church struggles to get men into the seminary.

Anonymous said...

By the way, yesterday the CDF allowed Bp. Fellay, SSPX to bring into the Church a formerly Orthodox Bishop. Presumably, the CDF does not believe that it is sinful to participate and enable the SSPX given their approval of this situation. It's not a direct affirmation that the faithful do not commit sin by receiving SSPX sacraments, but it seems to point in that direction.