There is an informative piece at Infovaticana, wherein Bishop Athanasius Schneider remarks on some burning issues.
Highlights…
- The Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith says the texts of the Second Vatican Council “cannot be modified”. Schneider maintains that only the Word of God is immutable in the strict sense. Fernández’s formulation would be “completely erroneous” if applied without distinction to the conciliar texts.
- John XXIII, when convening the Second Vatican Council, made it clear that it was not about defining new dogmas or resolving doctrinal issues definitively. It had a purpose adapted to the language of the time.
- Paul VI reiterated that the council was “primarily pastoral.” Therefore, pastoral formulations—since they do not constitute dogmatic definitions—could be improved or corrected.
- Dogmas cited by Vatican II cannot be modified.
- The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) imposed at that time on Jews to wear distinctive signs in Christian cities, describing that provision as a form of discrimination. If revising pastoral formulations from previous councils is admitted, the same applies to Vatican II.
- The bishop then emphasizes the need to honestly examine what he considers “evident and undeniable ambiguities” in some conciliar texts, and maintains that other ecumenical councils have undergone adjustments in their pastoral declarations.
- Schneider referred to the situation of the FSSPX by proposing that they first be granted canonical regularization and that doctrinal dialogue continue afterward. The SSPX could help clarify debated aspects and benefit the entire Church.
- The Holy See has shown “harsh” and “imprudent” behavior toward the SSPX.
I entirely agree with B. Schneider about canonically regularizing the SSPX and then including them in a discussion about V2 formulations. It would also resolve the issue of bishops.
If Fr. Leonard Feeney could be reconciled after excommunication without having to completely abjure his position about a really hard issue to understand, why cannot the SSPX be reconciled without having to completely abjure their positions on really hard to understand passages of Vatican II? Does that make sense?
Meanwhile…
SSPX Update 18.0: The SSPX Rejects to postpone the 1st of July Consecrations and does not agree to resume dialogue with the DDF
It is co-signed by the General Council (including bishops Alfonso de Galarreta and Bernard Fellay, among others). It responds to a February 12, 2026,… https://t.co/iVXAjVpQvq pic.twitter.com/qPr9kBAMv6
— Niwa Limbu (@NiwaLimbu1988) February 19, 2026
So… now what?
Loading ...
From an outsider’s perspective, the SSPX does not appear to be acting unreasonably. If anything, given how lax and relaxed the Vatican has been with all manners of heretics, liturgical abusers, Muslims, abortionists, and flat-out perverts and deviants of every stripe, often bending over backwards so as not to offend them or to keep opening up “dialogues” with absolutely no pre-conditions, it comes across as uncharacteristically and unjustifiably rigid in demanding the SSPX swear to not even plan to consecrate any more bishops before agreeing to “continue dialoguing” with them.
The only justification I’ve heard from those supporting Cardinal Tucho in this exchange is the same line of argument that defended every objectively horrible thing Pope Francis ever did or said: “Who you gonna believe? The Pope and the Vatican or your own lying eyes?”
I believe Tucho (and many others) believe what he said about the V2 documents, though. Not one jot, not one tittle, not one iota of V2 shall pass away until the last of these wretched revolutionaries has left leadership positions in the Catholic Church. They truly and sincerely hold their Spirit of Vatican II well above Scripture itself, let alone anything like previous Magisterial teachings or Sacred Tradition. This is a “Sola V2” mindset, and it is an immovable object so far as they are concerned.
Yes, councils’ acts can later be changed. For example, Chalcedon fallibly rehabilitated three theologians, who were later infallibly condemned as heretics by Constantinople II (the famous “Three Chapters” controversy).
This situation is once again being navigated in the most irrational way one can imagine. I reveals a sort of disorientation in Rome that undermines the credence of the Church. Even I, a theological midget, knew that Cardinal Fernández had overstated the authoritative parameters of the council’s documents. In such a sensitive circumstance why would he do so? Is he trying to provoke? He paints himself yet again unable to clearly discern. Does he enjoy the role of provocateur? For what reason? Where is the humility? I perceive only hubris.
What an irony. The council described as pastoral employed as a sledge hammer.
The SSPX should approach President Trump for his approval and protection.
Now what?
What the SSPX always turns to with a big need: a prayer crusade!
https://sspx.org/en/news/us-district-superior-announces-prayer-crusade-preceding-episcopal-consecrations-57303?utm_source=SSPX+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=1975bb3fca-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_02_03_03_48_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-fdc5b5a4cb-100013721&mc_cid=1975bb3fca&mc_eid=7da10f297e
It is very interesting to watch and read all of this. It isn’t 1988, and the Vatican can’t control the information put out, nor can the newspapers. It seems many are seeing injustice in the way SSPX is being treated, as opposed to, you know, real heretics and schismatics in and out of the Church.
Let us pray for prudence and all that is good for the salvation of souls!
In 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre announced the episcopal consecrations for the following year, thus allowing a full year for discussions with Rome. This tactic bore fruit, and Rome granted one bishop to the SSPX with a consecration date of August 15th, 1988. Lefebvre turned that down for other reasons, as we know.
I find it surprising that Fr Pagliarani only allowed about 5 months between the announcement and the planned date of consecrations in 2026. That does not seem like enough time to allow a discussion to work things out. Was there truly a desire for discussions in the first place?
If discussions are desired, I cannot see a reason to rush into more consecrations. Bishop Fellay is the same age in 2026 as Archbishop Lefebvre was in 1972. The SSPX did not urgently insist on getting another bishop in 1972. They waited 15 more years. Why the hurry in 2026?
Because Leo appointed Fernandez, we would be inclined to think one of 2 things likely: either (i) Leo didn’t put much hopes in talks and (consistent with Tucho’s general reputation and behavior) didn’t expect Fernandez to be soft and squishy with the Society, or (ii) Leo gave strict instructions to Fernandez to change his approach so as to really respect the Society and deal with them honestly and with compassion. I was open to either possibility, a week ago. Now, the results seem to suggest it was (i) all along.
Fernandez’s pre-conditions were idiotic for what should have been a mutually fair dialogue. Effectively, “you give up 3 of your main goals right out of the starting gate, while we don’t budge an inch” isn’t negotiation or dialogue, it’s bullying.
Frankly, the last 5 popes granted more compassion to Muslims, Buddhists, and Communists than Leo is giving the Society. Also, there is no special reason Leo needed to hand this off to a flunky: it’s important enough to warrant his direct action, not delegate it. The very act of deciding NOT to meet with the Society himself, and then to hand it off to Tucho, appeared to present a deliberate slap in the face, not just to the Society, but to all who love tradition. Where oh where oh where is the “listening” and “accompaniment” and “dialogue”? Just talk, it seems. All love for heretics and anti-Catholics, no love for traditionalists.
Since Rome has dealt roughly with the Society through 5 popes now, it is hard to imagine a model by which their motivations will permit them to NOT go through with the consecrations by trusting to the Vatican to move an inch toward setting things right. Of course, grace can change their minds, but surely Rome doesn’t rest on that alone, do they, without doing their part?
Thank you for all this!
Having now read the English versions of the ‘Communiqué from the General House: the Society’s response to Rome’, the ‘Letter from Father Pagliarani to Cardinal Fernández’ and (following the links) its three Annexus on the FSSPXNews website (with no indication of the original language(s) – might it have been Latin?), I wonder how canonically regularizing the SSPX might work.
Meanwhile, having encountered the suggestion that Cardinal Eijk’s first Traditional Latin Mass was in connection with Confirmatio, I read there with interest ‘Netherlands: Church Sees Strong Influx of Adults’ (dated 17 February, sadly with no clear indication whether the statistics clearly included sacraments administered by the FSSPX in the Netherlands or not).
I would like propositions on both sides. What propositions does the SSPX want removed from Vatican 2? What propositions does the Vatican want the SSPX to accept? Without specifics the conversation becomes impossible; SSPX calls Rome modernist, Rome calls them disobedient, and nothing changes.
Whatever you think of him personally, Tucho’s stance on this isn’t unreasonable.
It’d set a disastrous precedent to allow negotiations to start under the threat of schismatic acts, which consecration of bishops without a papal mandate objectively is.
I’ll use the paraphrase Gorsuch’s question to DOJ on the recent tariff case: do you really want a precedent like this the other side could appeal to.
There are plenty of Old Catholic bishops with valid orders who would have no problem ordaining and then consecrating a left-leaning lay German synodal way participant a bishop if they determined the German hierarchy wasn’t sufficiently synodal and wanted to threaten the Holy See into approving their statutes.
“…why cannot the SSPX be reconciled…” The excommunication was lifted without any change or regret to their position and action. I understand there is more that could take place.
While the parallel with Fr. Feeney’s situation is easy to see, he didn’t consecrate bishops. Was the excommunication primarily about the decision to consecrate, or about doctrine? Also of note, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart are currently dealing with some sort of canonical issue.
I will offer my simple man’s approach. The SSPX is continuing to do what the Church has always done. They are not saying the Pope is not the Pope. Throughout the history of the Church we have experienced more bad Popes than good.
The Pope will never make an Ex cathedra declaration against the SSPX. The Holy Ghost won’t allow it.
The Church has a lot of heretical practices going on and there is silence from the Pope.
@R2D you kind of miss the point where the SSPX has been asking to “begin negotiations” since 2019, long before the current “threat.” Those previous requests were completely ignored, just like their two requests to meet with Pope Leo (who has had time to meet with quite a lot of folks since he’s become Pope, but not the SSPX). It seems that the Vatican can’t be bothered to give the SSPX the time of day unless there’s the “threat” of a consecration. Isn’t that setting a “disastrous precedent” in and of itself?
And surely you don’t actually think the left-leaning German bishops are all meek and humble of heart, but once the SSPX to establishes a precedent they will suddenly turn wild and run amok? That’s silly talk.
Has anyone else read the Vatican news story on this? It is the most incoherent piece of rubbish you’ll encounter on a not-very-good website: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-02/society-of-st-pius-x-rejects-dialogue-proposed-by-holy-see.html The journalist was apparently trained in the modern-day “cut and paste from a news release” school of journalism. The end result is a story which uses words from those statements but to arrive at a completely counter-factual conclusion. He concludes that it is the SSPX saying the texts of Vatican II are irreformable, rather than Fr. Pagliarani lamenting that there is no point in dialogue because in the eyes of Cdl. Tucho and the Vatican the texts cannot be reformed. The logical next question: Is the editor of the website not paying attention, or is this deliberate in order to obfuscate. And answer me this: Pope Leo just met with the Legionaries of Christ. What is their “charism”? And yet JP II excommunicated Lefebvre and embraced Macial.
“ Effectively, “you give up 3 of your main goals right out of the starting gate, while we don’t budge an inch” isn’t negotiation or dialogue, it’s bullying.”
The obligation isn’t on the See of Peter to negotiate. The obligation is on those in irregular communion to return to regular canonical status.
The SSPX are the clerical equivalent of a Catholic couple in a natural marriage that married civilly but never had the marriage witnessed by the Church.
It would be that couple’s responsibility to seek out convalidation of their marriage by the Church in accordance with the norms of the Church. Similarly the burden is on the SSPX to seek to regularize their status in accordance with the norms of the Church.
Threatening to consecrate bishops without papal mandate is the exact opposite of that, and the DDF should refuse to even talk to them until they withdraw the threat. And yes, I’d say the same for any of the left-wing groups if they threatened to commit a delict that incurs excommunication laetiae sententiae. That is simply not a Catholic approach to the situation.
@Fr Jackson:
I think the urgency comes from the current Bishops not being able to adequately deal with the pastoral needs of those who worship at FSSPX chapels. For example, there are, I think, are only 3 Bishops, all elderly, who fly long distances to perform confirmations. I occasionally listen to the sermons of the FSSPX priests who offer Mass in Singapore. I think, but do not know for sure, that these same priests also offer Masses in India, the Philippines and possibly Japan. (A few months ago out of curiosity I tried to figure this out.)
Unfortunately the whole situation reminds me of so many passages from Exodus, but maybe most pertinently Isaiah 6:10 (on both sides).
For what it’s worth, my reading of the situation is that the current FSSPX leadership has no interest in deals or agreements (I can say from personal experience that +Fellay’s “coziness” with Rome around 2012 was set to cause a split among attendees – one which was only slightly blunted by the departure of the “Resistance”.)
It seems that the 2019 letter was a set of “dubia” (remember the context- Abu Dhabi).
Fr Pagliarani has been consistent: he wants a meeting with the Pope. Of course you could argue that the FSSPX have no “right” to a meeting with the Pope given they don’t have a canonical status, and historically they have been dealt with by CDF / Ecclesia Dei. It appears that’s the current policy of the Vatican; no Papal audience, go through the relevant authority.
Something it occurs to me which I have not pondered is the whole (so to say) framing of the announcement of the intention to consecrate Bishops as a ‘threat’, as ‘threatening’ to do something. Is there a category of ‘sacramental threatening’? ‘If you don’t watch your step, I’m going to bless you with Holy Water!’
I was interested to read the updated re-post by Dr. Kwasniewski, ‘Clandestine Ordinations Against Church Law: Lessons from Cardinal Wojty?a and Cardinal Slipyj’, of 10 February at One Peter Five. Apparently, Cardinal Josyf Slipyj (1892–1984), having been “lured to Rome under the pretext of ‘having a meeting’ and […] then told he could not leave Rome to return to the Soviet Union to live among and suffer with his people”, did not announce anything but in 1976, after some 13 years in this situation, decided to consecrate four bishops – and did so, clandestinely. (I see his English Wikipedia article puts it in these terms: “These consecrations caused much annoyance to the Roman Curia as episcopal consecrations without papal permission were considered illicit in the Canon Law in force at the time.”)
A couple of observations – perhaps clarifications – re: “Rome has dealt roughly with the Society through 5 popes now”.
Maybe better to say that the “rough” treatment during the reign of Paul VI – no objective observer can deny that Lefebvre was denied his canonical rights – greatly contributed to the mistrust and irregularity which have endured over five papacies.
JPII was amenable to a resolution in principle, but the issue was certainly not cut-and-dried – recall the state of the church when he was elected! It is an open question as to whether Rome would eventually have granted bishops, but – as Lefebvre noted – they conceded the question in principle; the mistrust was regarding execution. Also note that the creation of a structure for Campos came out of the 2000 proposal for regularization of SSPX; and many other groups were regularized or established e.g. IBP.
As for the excommunications, they were not a direct act by JPII but a pronouncement that Lefebvre et al had excommunicated themselves by their actions.
Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications and freed the TLM – specifically what SSPX had requested… hard to imagine more magnanimous gestures of goodwill! And -ironically – it would seem as though the greatest moves toward “legitimizing” SSPX occurred under Francis, not only by means of his grant of faculties for Confession and Marriage, but by his egregious Traditionis
CustodesPerditores which sent thousands of the traditionally-oriented faithful to their chapels. As for Leo XIV – we shall see. He has barely been pope for nine months and now this issue has really come to the fore… let’s pray for the Will of God to be done!A further comment whilst I am nitpicking; re: “the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart are currently dealing with some sort of canonical issue.” This is a bit misleading. The original group split – over governance, not doctrine – into three groups which are all situated in Still River, MA: St. Benedict’s Abbey (men’s – Benedictine), St. Ann’s House (women religious), and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary – the largest group – consisting of brothers and sisters; all are in full communion with their bishop and Rome. After Fr. Feeney’s death another faction broke away from the Slaves of the IHM – again, over governance rather than doctrine – and founded a house in New Hampshire; it is this group alone which is unfortunately dealing with a “canonical issue” at present. Meanwhile, the three groups in the Diocese of Worcester remain fully regular and enjoy the warm support of their bishop.
@Archlaic, thanks for the good clarification on the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart. I grew up in a household that could be labeled as “Feeneyite” … I stoped really following their status in the early 2000s.
I myself had use Fr Feeney’s situation as a parallel to the SSPX in conversation, but I think there are some strained comparison beyond the lifting of the excommunication.
Also of unrelated note, the SSPX typically don’t agree with the approach Fr. Feeney took. https://sspxpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Feeneyism.pdf
There is another issue: Pope Francis has given them the jurisdiction to hear confessions. Did he realise that they consider assisting to the present Latin liturgy as a mortal sin? This point has also be treated in a dialogue. We can criticize what has been done in the liturgical reform, but can we accept a group of Catholics to consider the liturgy used by other Catholics as illegitimate? The Society of St. Pius X consider the sacraments according to the new liturgical books as valid, but not as Catholic.
Abouna: SSPX…consider assisting to the present Latin liturgy as a mortal sin”
No, the SSPX does not hold that simply attending the Novus Ordo Mass is a mortal sin in every case. Some individual SSPX priests might, but that is not the position of the SSPX.
SSPX holds that the Novus Ordo is valid, but doctrinally deficient and potentially spiritually harmful. They strongly discourage attendance. Some SSPX priests argue that habitual attendance without serious reason could be sinful because it may endanger the faith. However, the SSPX does not claim that every instance of attendance is mortally sinful. Moral responsibility, in their view, would also depend on circumstances.
Some SSPX priests read the blog. I’m sure someone will contact me if I got this wrong. Meanwhile, let’s keep the less-than-well-informed speculations out of the mix.
Hi Father. I saw your comment about what the SSPX teaches regarding assistance at the Novus Ordo. I thought I might offer some insight. I attended the SSPX motherhouse seminary in Ecône, Switzerland from 2000 to 2005. Our theology professor was Abbé Philippe Toulza. In his class we were taught that a celebration of the Novus Ordo is always a grave material sin. Whether it becomes a grave formal sin depends mainly on the subjective knowledge / understanding of the individual involved. I’m not saying I subscribe to this thesis; just letting you know what was taught to a generation of SSPX priests at Ecône. It is true there can be a range of opinions among SSPX priests, but in my experience, offering an opinion “softer” than this thesis would receive pushback. This thesis of Abbé Toulza is perhaps a slightly more refined version of the thesis that Bishop Williamson and Father Peter Scott taught in the US SSPX district in the 90’s. They preferred to label the Novus Ordo as “intrinsically evil” – an even more problematic wording that I have written about elsewhere.
Fr Jackson: As you know, celebration of Mass is not the same as attendance… unless one is a horizontalizing modernist.
Hi Father. Very true, celebrating Mass is not the same as attending Mass. Following on the material sin thesis, when it came to the question of attendance and positive cooperation, it was taught as a rule of thumb to apply the rules of “communicatio in sacris”. That applies both to active participation in a Novus Ordo Mass and a fortiori to concelebration. This was / is taught at both Ecône and Winona / Dillwyn seminaries. Briefly put, that means strictly passive attendance and only in cases where a proportionate reason exists. No communion. This rule also applies to sharing tabernacles and ciboria. The yearly chrismal mass is off limits. Etc.
Again, this is not my view. But I’m in a position to share what their view is. As you can imagine, this has wider ramifications for the types of cooperation conceivable in the context of any agreement.
Not to mention knowledge and the obligation by state in life to have that knowledge.
We have to tread carefully when saying others sin.
One might suggest that, because of the consciences of the Econe 6 in ’88, they didn’t sin and, therefore, they didn’t incur an excommunication. Because…. as we know… if it isn’t not a mortal sin, you don’t incur the excom. There was no process allowed afterward… pointedly.
Just sayin’.
Yes, Father. I believe what you are saying here was the thesis of Father Gerald E. Murray, defended at the Pontifical Gregorian University in 1995. It works as a thesis and so we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt. The intention was not schismatic, and that counts.
On the other hand, I think the canonical aspect of the question of schism gets too much attention compared to the real effects. I worked in SSPX parishes in various countries for 12 years. I saw the long-term effects of the 1988 consecrations in the mindset of the faithful and among my fellow priests. The primary definition of schism concerns the refusal of communion with the pope. Murray’s thesis argues convincingly that this does not apply. But the secondary definition of schism is the refusal to be in communion with those who are in communion. This secondary definition bothered me a lot as an SSPX priest because it was common to see that attitude among the SSPX grassroots on a day-to-day basis. I think this has been long-term effect of the 1988 consecrations. Simply put, glorifying that act tends to shape how one sees the Church.
As I’m sure you are aware, the biggest news in the SSPX during the period 2010-2016 was the reaction against Bishop Fellay’s talks with Rome. The “Resistance” was formed. We lost a lot of people. Things were rough on the ground. I had to close a high school because it became financially unviable after the main benefactors shifted their money to the nearby Resistance chapel they’d formed. The disagreement extended to all ranks of the SSPX world. The other three SSPX bishops wrote a letter to Bishop Fellay criticizing his efforts to work things out with Rome. Then someone leaked the letter (May 2012). Bishop Williamson got expelled. Bishop Fellay had to admit to Pope Francis during their talks in 2015-2016 that if he signed an agreement, some notable minority of the SSPX world simply break away and form another group (or groups) centered around the several bishops consecrated by Bishop Williamson. So the pope decided against that route and granted the unilateral marriage and confession concessions instead. The election of Pagliarani in 2018 represented a choice to move away from all this internal turbulence by appointing a Superior General less inclined to pursue talks with Rome.
All that turbulence was, in my opinion, the long-term result of the mindset created by the 1988 consecrations. It’s all well and good to argue that the 1988 consecrations were not canonically schismatic. But the law exists because such actions tend by their nature to engender a schismatic mindset. I want to believe this affects only a minority within the SSPX, but it was enough of a minority to shape real policy and to make uniate-minded SSPX priests like myself feel uncomfortable.
Dear Fr. Z,
In your above comment you suggest that the excom in ’88 depends on the act being a mortal sin. I thought the common opinion was that, since Can. 1387 outlines the particular delict as a documentary case (i.e., a merely factual question) and is latae sententiae, it does not matter whether it was sinful. I thought this was why no appeal was permitted. Is this not the case?
Fr. Jackson – I really appreciate your comments and perspective. Thank you for posting them here.
I feel, more and more everyday, that to be a good Catholic today is to be sailing between Scylla and Charybdis. The unjust and truly evil restrictions against the Traditional Latin Mass within the diocesan Church has made it exponentially more difficult.
@ Fr. Jackson
“But the secondary definition of schism is the refusal to be in communion with those who are in communion. This secondary definition bothered me a lot as an SSPX priest because it was common to see that attitude among the SSPX grassroots on a day-to-day basis. I think this has been long-term effect of the 1988 consecrations. Simply put, glorifying that act tends to shape how one sees the Church.”
.
I’m assuming by SSPX grassroots you mean the laity attending SSPX chapels and not the members/priests themselves? I was not around then. However as an alternate thesis, could this pulling back of the grassroots be at least partly in how they were treated by other Catholics, especially after the consecrations? Being called names and told by others what you really think, despite your explanations, tends to put one off.
.
My more recent experience is that there is much more back and forth between the SSPX attending laity and Ecclesia Dei attending laity (and even Novus Ordo attending laity) now, then there was then. This especially has been the case after Covid. While there is certainly an avoidance of attending a Novus Ordo mass- with the usual family funeral and marriage exceptions- most SSPX attending laity seem to look upon those attending the Novus Ordo masses more with a kind of pity than hostility. That the majority of Catholics don’t know what they have lost, and that they are being misled by people who should be protecting them. When there was an influx of people during the Covid shutdowns we were instructed from the pulpit that newcomers were to be treated with kindness and charity, not disdain or smugness. They were. Many stayed.
.
It is certainly possible that if there is a new round of excommunication pronouncements and if there is an increase in name-calling that the SSPX attending laity could withdraw themselves again. Hopefully not. I believe 40 years of cold shoulders have created thicker skins.
.
Of course the shunning could come from the other side. I had a pleasant conversation with a diocesan priest about a nearby FSSP parish named St. Damien’s. He asked me why they chose that name. I told him I had no clue. He replied he figured it was because everyone treated them like lepers. I had the feeling he had waited a while to find someone for that joke!
.
Regardless, the Society priests I have interacted with explained that the potential sin in attending a Novus Ordo mass is being involved with something that you believe will endanger your faith or those under your care- not the material act of going to the Novus Ordo mass in and of itself. This seems logically consistent, otherwise they would not make exceptions for family funerals and weddings- where (in their view) the family obligation outweighs the miniscule to nothing risk of attending a rare Novus Ordo mass.
Leaving a quick comment about the SSPX position of “endanger your faith for attending a NO Mass.”
As someone who goes to a NO Mass, the SSPX position makes complete sense. A strident NO position of “no attendance of a NO Mass could ever endanger your faith because it is the sacrifice of Christ, thus always perfect and safe” is extremely reductionist and smacks of “essentialism”. Granted, this is not modern, but just an extension of tendencies in Neo-Thomism to want to parse down mechanically the sacraments. (Not that there isn’t something wrong with Thomism, just pointing out that some of its conclusions have been drawn out so as to arrive at our present).
Can a Mass be done so poorly, so ad hoc, so contrary to the nature of the Sacrifice that it remains valid but endangers one’s soul? A great many NO Mass attenders don’t go to their geographic parish but to the one that suits their preference, so there is already a tacit admission that this NO Mass is better for my soul than that NO Mass even if strictly on the level of sentiment.
Can illictness pile up to such an extent that it endangers one’s soul? Of course. First, the devil will have a field day attacking those attending who understand the illicitness with all sorts of temptations (remember the “being annoyed” is the attack). Secondly, you really don’t want to stand next to someone who is mocking God by messing with the sacraments. Might get hit by lightning.
No, I don’t know any NO (liberal or traditional) who, when you talk to them, won’t advise you “don’t go to that parish because spiritual reasons,” independent of whether or not those reasons are actual spiritual reasons.
So I don’t know why people on the NO side (my side) get upset when the SSPX says the same. I think it is the same issue that you get when Roman Catholics hear the Orthodox say “don’t go there, their liturgy isn’t orthodox (by which they mean validity isn’t enough, (which is the same as the SSPX position).” The human response is to take umbrage. The spiritual response is to see if there isn’t a point.
@rmichaelj
When I use the term “grassroots” SSPX I’m primarily talking in the context of what makes the group tick as a movement. In that sense, “grassroots” are simply those who are not in leadership, which can include rank-and-file priests. The real decision-making power in the SSPX lies with major superiors. Major superiors include district superiors, superiors of autonomous houses, and rectors of seminaries. Major superiors function like mini-bishops over the priests in their respective zones. Major superiors also get a vote in the General Chapter, choosing a Superior General every 12 years and passing binding resolutions every 6 years. Unlike in the FSSP system, the General Chapter of the SSPX does not include any delegates elected by the rank and file. Thus the General Chapter is entirely composed of superiors who were made superiors by the Superior General.
A second aspect to keep in mind is the strong linguistic division within the SSPX world: French, English, Spanish, and German in order of decreasing size. The composition of the SSPX General Chapter has been and is largely dominated by French members. Members from the English-speaking world have always been a disproportionately small minority relative to the size of the English-speaking districts. There was (and to some extent still is) a memory of bad blood between the French and American districts dating back to the betrayal of the “nine” who left to form the Society of Saint Pius V in 1983 and stole many SSPX properties in doing so. (We may have forgotten about that in the US, but believe me, the French have not forgotten). For us in the English-speaking world and in the US SSPX district in particular, this creates the impression of a General Chapter that is composed mostly of unknown faces – a dynamic that is very different from the dynamic in the SSPX district of France where the majority of voting members are familiar faces. For the most part the English-speaking SSPX world does not participate in the intellectual debates of the French-speaking SSPX world which in turn drive the decisions of the General Chapter. Here’s a concrete example: in the early summer of 2012 Econe professor Jean-Michel Gleize privately distributed to his French-speaking colleagues a “petite étude” he had done of the proposal for SSPX regularization under consideration between the Vatican and Bishop Fellay. This “petite étude” was widely read and discussed among the French SSPX priests, particularly at ordinations. (How do I know? I was there. I requested and received a copy.) This had a major impact on the perceptions of Bishop Fellay’s negotiations. During the General Chapter the following month, the General Chapter imposed a restriction on the Superior General, requiring him to consult with them before making any agreement with Rome. The English-speaking SSPX world had practically no awareness of this debate until much later when a few hard-to-read translations of a different text came out. The English-speaking priests and faithful do not exhibit the same level of interest in these kinds of esoteric discussions. The French national temperament plays a role in this picture.
So there’s a long answer plus a relevant anecdote to illustrate one possible meaning of “grassroots” in the SSPX English-speaking world by talking about what it is not. Grassroots in the US SSPX district are the numbers who fill the pews and collection baskets, send their children to SSPX schools and their boys to SSPX seminaries. The grassroots are also those who vote with their feet to leave to fill the pews and collection baskets of the Resistance when Resistance-minded SSPX priests tell them that Bishop Fellay is “selling out”. The SSPX leadership and the Vatican are both very sensitive to this problem of further breakaway groups.
Regarding the SSPX position on the Novus Ordo, I think its difficult for Novus Ordo attendees to understand it, unless they have experienced the TLM too.
I take my kids to an SSPX Chapel. We used to also attend a Diocesan TLM – as I thought it important for the kids to be in contact with the formal structures of the Church – but sadly Pope Francis and our Archbishop didn’t share that view and so cancelled that Mass.
My mum and one of my siblings still attend the Novus Ordo. And so, rarely, we end up at a Novus Ordo Mass, e.g. for my niece’s Holy Communion and other special events.
These events put my teeth on edge at what the kids might be exposed to, exactly like when my wife’s lesbian cousin and her ‘wife’ are in town (they are lovely people, but their lives are obviously far removed from Catholicism).
And so I came up with the idea of challenging the kids with a sort of game. After the Mass I ask them what they noticed that was (for us) unusual. Their observations are always interesting:
– everyone was talking
– the Priest was making jokes
– people were wearing jeans
– no one genuflects
– people were in the Priests area (they mean the lack of distinction between the sanctuary and knave)
– the altar boys were girls
– there was no barrier (they mean the altar rail)
-everyone went to Communion (including their long lapsed aunt)
– no one sang the hymns
etc etc
Even in the minds of small children, how far removed the Novus Ordo environment is from traditional Catholic worship is stark.
This is the kind of environment the SSPX warn people about going into. There is no question the Mass is valid, but there are other considerations too.
I don’t want to say its a different religion, but when you consider the practices involved and the mindset of many people there, it is a tempting conclusion…..
I was a sponsor at a family Novus Ordo confirmation ceremony and while I was honoured to be asked, I stated (discretely, with no fuss) that I would not take Communion as I do not want to handle the Eucharist.
My family members were extremely uncomfortable with this and actually pressured me to take Communion – even though I tried to explain its not obligatory. They looked at me, non-comprehending – you could read their thoughts in their faces: but that’s why we go isn’t it? To get the white thing? That’s how we welcome guests and show that everyone is nice?
I said no-one would even notice what I did or didn’t do, to no avail – everyone MUST join in or it isn’t nice. In the event I agreed to go up for a blessing – as if I was a protestant or something – and later used that to explain to the kids (again) as to why we should not handle the Eucharist.
The collapse in Eucharist faith since the advent of Communion in the hand is the single best vindication of the SSPX argument about modern liturgy.
@Gabriel Syme
Your post reminded me of a remark a friend made to me once. Her son served at a lot of masses when very young, both NO and VO. After serving at a
NO Mass, noticing the priest’s failure to keep thumb and forefinger together after the consecration, he remarked, “This priest is not very careful with his fingers.”
The son is married with half a dozen children and they happily assist at a SSPX chapel.
@Gabriel Syme
Your experience with your kids at a Novus Ordo resonates with my own. We do much the same thing – take time to point out all the things that are completely different from the Traditional Mass. After the first time my youngest, probably only 6 or 7 at the time, attended a Novus Ordo Mass (It was supposed to be a TLM but the visiting priest filling in for our Pastor on vacation decided at the last second that he was more comfortable offering the NO instead of the agreed upon and expected TLM), on our way back to the car she said, unprompted, “That was the weirdest Mass I’ve ever seen.”
@Fr. Jackson
That makes sense. Thank you for the insight of the French view of things and the associated history. My understanding is that French Traditional Catholics also tend to have a more monarchist view, whereas we Americans have to overcome a strong cultural distrust of monarchal/hierarchical structures. Could explain some of the history and differences.
.