A diocese in Australia has warned the faithful of that diocese about the upcoming consecration of a priest of the FSSPX as a bishop, valid but illict.
The warning also indicates that the one of the bishops ordaining the new illicit bishop is a member of a Sedevacantist group—you read the correctly!
George Weigel has a very good article on why the FSSPX are not to be trusted. Like Lutherans during the time of Martin Luther—they aren’t Catholic—they don’t accept Scripture and Tradition—that indicates a loss of Catholicity!
In my most humble opinion, Pope Leo is correct from the moral and canonical points of view to excommunicate the FSSPX just as Martin Luther and his followers were excommunicated. The Church needs more anathemas in this day, even more so, than in the days of the Council of Trent and the Counter Reformation.
Kudos to Pope Leo for recovering just anathemas!
But with that said, I do pray that like St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Leo will find a way to embrace those priests, religious and laity of the FSSPX into the fullness of the Catholic Church, east and west, by recovering Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum and perhaps giving the FSSP and other communities of priests who celebrate the Vetus Ordo an Ordinariate with their own bishops. I think that is the way to go and a blossoming of Ecclesiia Dei and Summorum Pontificum!
Press the title for George Weigel’s very fine commentary on the FSSPX:
The SSPX Leadership Against Scripture and Tradition
COMMENTARY: Even if the Society of St. Pius X hits the brakes at the last moment and doesn’t commit formally schismatic acts, the grave problem posed by the SSPX will continue.
5 comments:
Michael Haynes:
"Pope Leo XIV met Cardinal Fernández this morn -- who has been his point man for SSPX dialogue
Also amid rumors from @tribuchretienne that Vatican penalties against SSPX could be far wider than just bishops"
=======
Tribune Chrétienne
@tribuchretienne
·
12h
Translated from French
🚨[Revelation] Rome is considering declaring all faithful of the Saint Pius X Brotherhood schismatic… and perhaps beyond
🔴 🔴A few days before the ordinations announced by the Saint Pius X Brotherhood, signals from Rome are multiplying. The statements of Leo XIV and several pieces of information gathered in Roman circles suggest an unprecedented hardening of relations between the Vatican and a part of the traditionalist world
[Revelation] Rome is considering declaring all members of the Society of Saint Pius X schismatics… and perhaps beyond
Full story in English:
https://tribunechretienne.com/revelation-rome-envisage-de-declarer-schismatiques-tous-les-fideles-de-la-fraternite-saint-pie-x-et-peut-etre-au-dela/
Excerpt:
"Just days before the ordinations announced by the Society of Saint Pius X, recent statements by Leo XIV and several reports circulating in Roman circles suggest an unprecedented hardening of relations between Rome and a segment of the traditionalist world.
The priestly ordinations planned by the Society of Saint Pius X for early July are causing serious concern in many Church circles.
While Pope Leo XIV recently issued what appears to be a final appeal for communion, several sources in Rome are now mentioning the preparation of a document intended to officially clarify the canonical consequences of another break with the Holy See.
According to several observers of the matter, the document currently being prepared at the Vatican could go much further than some imagine.
It would not simply acknowledge a rift affecting the bishops or superiors of the Society of Saint Pius X. The repercussions could extend to the entire structure, its approximately 700 priests, its seminaries, its works, and the faithful who regularly attend its chapels around the world.
The faithful who regularly attend its chapels could also be affected by this new canonical designation. For many, who have always considered themselves full members of the Catholic Church, the shock would be immense."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The Weigel false comparison of Feeney and the SSPX is totally misleading, Feeney denied the possibility of baptism of desire, the SSPX does not deny that teaching at all, The SSPX is merely reaffirming the teachings of Lumen Gentium 14, Florence and Trent, and Weigel is once (again) barely even Catholic himself in his take on hell and salvation. In short, a poor article to cite as supporting condemnation of the SSPX.
Speaking humanly, there is little reason to hope that Pope Leo XIV will persuade the SSPX to embrace him in full communion.
Pope Leo XIV's Tuesday's telling comment to journalists focused attention upon the "deal-breaker," from the SSPX's view — in regard to the issue of full-communion with His Holiness.
That is — and not surprisingly — the "problem" concerns Vatican II. Pope Leo XIV in regard to the SSPX:
"But they refuse to accept certain fundamental elements of the Church, starting with several points from the Second Vatican Council.”
"...starting with several points from the Second Vatican Council."
Second Vatican Council. Second Vatican Council. Second Vatican Council.
Pope Leo XIV, in line with his Vatican II Era predecessors, will not tolerate dissension/rejection where it concerns the Council.
Included within the "Council" issue is the liturgical reform.
Pope Leo XIV last year identified the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI as the "Vatican II rite," "the Vatican II Mass."
In line with Church teaching beginning with Pope Saint Paul VI, we have been guaranteed that the reformed Mass has flowed from the Council.
In turn, Holy Mother Church has assured us that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI is in beautiful continuity with the Roman liturgical tradition. That is why Pope Leo XIV presented the renewed Mass as the way to experience the Roman liturgical tradition.
Good luck attempting to impart that to the SSPX.
Anyway, Father Pagliarani, SSPX Superior General, has made clear the following:
"How often have we asked ourselves the question: when will the Council be corrected? After all, the Council does not only contain errors… But here, we have to be realistic.
"It is true that the Council does not only contain errors...But let us be honest and realistic. What really made the Council, what was the backbone of the Council - the real Second Vatican Council - was the New Mass, ecumenism, the dignity of man and religious freedom.
"They were the essential elements and the errors that changed the Church. They are the centerpiece of the real Council that changed the Catholic Church!"
The above from Father Pagliarani is light years from where Pope Leo XIV stands.
To avoid schism, the SSPX must reject its abandonment of "certain fundamental elements of the Church, starting with several points from the Second Vatican Council.”
Otherwise, Pope Leo XVI has made it clear that Holy Mother Church will remain attached in unrelenting, unbreakable fashion to that which the SSPX has identified as the supposed error-filled, Church-destroying, Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
As for Weigel's article so far off base, to criticize the SSPX for daring to profess the Councils (forgot to mention the Lateran councils), and misrepresenting what they believe as non-Catholic as for hell and salvation, this quote is directly from Lefebvre’s 1988 book...pure orthodoxy...
"Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins”, and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed their faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.”
The real questions are what elements of Vatican II are "essential"? And in what manner? As a "pastoral council" did it really make any new definitive teachings? if so, what are they and how are they essential. No one seems to have an answer to that question. If it is accepting the liturgy; does that mean the liturgy as described in SC or as put forth by the Concilium or how it is celebrated today (3 different forms). Does accepting the Mass of Paul VI mean no other rites are valid? (never a valid claim) No Anglican use, no religious order specific rites?
Post a Comment