SSPX update?

I read that some are suggesting SSPX is currently keeping very close mouthed as negotiations continue. This is an interesting priestly blog, however. Does anyone know more?

I will pray daily for reconciliation, and for SSPX to become the second personal Prelature in the Roman Catholic Church.:signofcross::highprayer:

No one know exactly what is happening regards the Rome/SSPX discussions. Patience on our part is required. Things do not look well for an immediate Reconciliation with the new CDF Cardinal. But time will tell.

I also pray that the SSPX will reconcile with the Church. The only place in my area where they offer the EF is in the SSPX chapel. I really want to go but I’ll just have to wait and be patient!

The matter will be resolved as soon as SSPX leaders learn to practice the holy virtues of humility and obedience…

Here! Here!! Agreed

I do agree that the obstacles seem to be more on the SSPX side, as Pope Benedict has expressed his fervent desire to accomplish the reconciliation. But of course we aren’t privy to the inner sanctum negotiations, as others here have pointed out. I pray that it does happen soon, as the Church can benefit from the infusion of orthodoxy right now. :highprayer::signofcross:

Their leaders do seem to imbue the worst of clericalism when Bsp. Williamson’s biggest public pet peeves are women who exercise their human right to be educated, and women who wear trousers.

We all see Christ as the center of the Mass, and as much as we revere and honor our holy priests, it is wrong when they want to parade their vocations and conferred powers, lording it over the faithful. “It is I who confect the gifts. It is I, in persona Christi, who forgives sins. It is I alone who am worthy to touch the Holy Sacrament.” We all can use a little less of I and a lot more of Thee.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:Bravo! You echo my thoughts exactly on this matter!

Recall though that people also have a right to a liturgy; even those people who prefer the way things were either generally or ideally before the '60s:

“The main issue in the foreground of the struggle for liberation prior to Israel’s Exodus from Egypt is the right to freedom of worship, the people’s right to their own liturgy.”

  • Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 82.

While you are correct that there is an over-emphasis in the SSPX in the priest’s role that runs the danger of forgetting that the people are also co-offerers with him and themselves offered in the sacrament (as well as the priest), notwithstanding certain cultural preferences such as, for example, women not wearing trousers, cannot be grounds for exclusion from the Church, anymore than the contrary opinion can or could. The question is: do these people constitute “a people”? And the answer, in my opinion, is yes. As “a people”, do they have “a right to their own liturgy”? The answer is also yes. So they certainly have an absolute [human] right to freedom of worship within due limits, and they also have a [Catholic] right to their own liturgy that is in harmony with their culture or cultural beliefs and traditions, so long as these do not contradict or otherwise conflict with Church teaching.

ADDED: They, of course, must acknowledge a woman’s right to education and her own choice of clothing; however, we must also acknowledge their right to prefer other things in harmony with their customs, traditions and beliefs.

The most important issue - in regards to the salvation of their own souls - is for them to be fully reconcilled to the Church. I certainly hope the fact that some women wear trousers is not going to hold them back from reconcilliation! :eek:

I also pray for full reconciliation as soon as possible!

I cannot figure out which is more outdated. The view that women should not wear pants or people that actually use the word “trousers”. :slight_smile:

either way, if you think the SSPX and Rome are quarreling over pants, you are mistaken. There are bigger issues here to be certain not the least of which are the issues of obedience and the loss of tradition.

Ah yes. Nothing more refreshing than the waves of self righteous indignation that flow whenever the SSPX is mentioned. It is absolutely amazing to me that so many people live such perfect lives that they can afford to cast stones every single time the SSPX is mentioned.:thumbsup:

I feel positively invigorated to know that we have so many Catholics of such great standing and moral resolve that they have never done anything contrary to Church teaching and doctrine and thus are able to pass judgement as they do.

Keep up the good work…

Still waiting.

Certainly Rome has no quarrel regarding Bshp. Williamson’s personal problems and flakey opinions, but his personal problems and flakey opinions are probably a big part of the reason there has not been reconciliation yet. A man who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, that the holocaust had no gas chambers, and that the Jews are the “enemy of Christ” is clearly delusional, and how can a deluded person be reasoned with?

Oh, I am well aware that they are not discussing pants! :smiley: I think the idea that one of the reasons for the original backlash against the TLM/EF was precisely because of the SSPX’s “extremists” ways has merit though. Didn’t that article come out in Catholic Answers mag?

Latest from Rorate Caeli: An interview with Germany’s current District Superior and former Superior General of the Society Fr. Franz Schmidberger.

This may be more “rallying the base” but doesn’t strike me as very positive news.

The second question deals with the situation between Rome and the SSPX. Around Pentecost (of this year) people thought that a visible union was close, but, as Father remarks, the meeting of Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay changed this. The proposal that was presented by the Cardinal contained not only the proposal [translator’s note: for a doctrinal preamble] that Bishop Fellay had sent to Rome earlier, but it added to that proposal new requirements to be fulfilled by the SSPX, but which the Bishop deemed unacceptable for the Fraternity.

These additional requirements consist, according to Father, of the recognition of the “licitness” [in German: Lizeität - translator’s note: see also the foreword to the SSPX’s German District’s Mitteilungsblatt nr. 404 of September 2012, in which the same word is used, strengthening the belief that this words stems directly from the proposal of Cardinal Levada] of the new liturgy [translator’s note: Father firstly presents the term Lizeität as “permissiveness”, but he then immediately interprets it as meaning “rightfulness”]; and also of the recognition of the uninterrupted continuity between Vatican II and all former councils and doctrinal statements of the Church. And that is impossible, according to Father, as there undeniably are ruptures with Vatican II and “we therefore cannot accept the hermeutic of continuity as such” [emphasis added by translator].

Following on that meeting, Bishop Fellay sent a letter to the Pope, asking him whether these additional requirements were wished for by His Holiness, or that they were his co-workers’s demands. The Pope assured Bishop Fellay that he really wishes these requirements to be fulfilled.

Well, nothing much would have happened over the summer, anyway.

If there are significant disagreements over the interpretation of Vatican II, they can’t just be papered over with a pleasing form of words. We Catholics should never be afraid of being forthright when it comes to the Truth.

There’s the small issue here though where the Truth is readily available; Peter has spoken, and has declared what the Truth is. There’s no Pilate moment to be had in this case, so I must admit sometimes I wonder what the hold up is.

One must be very very careful with these self-proclaimed Catholic traditional groups, as they lead many astray. And don’t be fooled by the beautiful vestments and statues they use and traditional devotions that many of them practice, as they appeal to those who are seeking to find a more sacredly-presented liturgy.

The problem with SSPX is that it was schismatic (disobedient) from the start, and the group has helped spark many of the wickedly deceptive traditional movements around the world, such as the Palmarian Church in Spain whose founder proclaimed himself pope Gregory XVIII, and elsewhere, “Pope Michael” and “Pope Pius XIII” also claim the papal throne, all of whom use the traditional garb, supposedly say the Latin Mass, etc.

These movements begin by ushering people into a hyper criticism of Vatican II which often develops into a repudiation of Vatican II altogether, and in worst cases, morphs into a Sede Vacante position that claims our current Roman Pontiffs are invalid popes. Extreme fanatical groups have led “Traditional Catholics” to elect their own popes.

Below is an extreme example of the Luciferian deceptionand the fruits of disobedience in full bloom. In the video, “Pope Gregory XVIII” has a vision before his flock, a hoax perpetrated by the leader of this Satanic deception. Fast-fowrard the video to 4:55 and see the gloriously beautiful altar, etc. etc. etc.

Note: the Palmarian Catholic Church was founded by Clemente Domínguez, who claimed that the Virgin Mary had given him instructions to rid the Roman Catholic Church of “heresy and progressivism”.

So can we lump SSPX with all these groups? In JPII’s own words, Archbishop Lefebvre’s act “was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter.” In Pope John Paul II’s Motu Propio ECCLESIA DEI, the pope pleaded, urged and warned Catholics not to support SSPX in any way:

…In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law…*

“With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.”

[  Here is his statement in context]("")

I’m not a prophet, but if I were a betting man, I’d bet that God is going to make each one of them come back on their own. There will be no exodus as a group.

The Chair of Peter will ask each one individually, “Who do you say that I am?” and each will have to examine himself. Each individual will have to search himself and either pick up his Cross and follow Christ unreservedly or “Return to their former ways” as in John 6.

I pray that each will recognize grace and cooperate with it, but I truly think God wants each man to decide on his own in the depths of his heart. Maybe I’m guilty of speculation, but at the end of the day I think it is going to be an intensely personal decision for each and every member of the SSPX.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit