From a reader on this 2nd Sunday of Lent. (Note: because of the blog migration Early Tuesday 2 March, comments posted after 0600 EST 11 UTC) will not migrate. That’ll give you time to “think before posting”.)
Wanted to pass this along, but it’s probably par for the course.
Our homily today at our TLM in ___ was Cardinal Sarah’s letter about the SSPX announcement. It felt like being gut punched listening to it.
We are having Mass in an old gymnasium, kneeling on a hard wood floor, folding chairs, etc. Every Mass a low Mass now. No sacraments available in traditional rite except Eucharist. Hearing Cardinal Sarah’s letter felt like being sucker punched. How much more do we need to endure just to attend Mass in the way my grandparents did?
I don’t know how much more I can personally endure being at a diocese TLM. It really feels like we are hated and unwanted. If anything Cardinal Sarah’s letter makes me want to attend at the SSPX. They only have chapels, but at least they WANT us. They preach about the day’s gospel and how to better ourselves. Not “obedience uber alles”.
I feel bishop Schneider’s letter is much more representative and comforting. Rome’s answer is to hope we all die off or go away. They say they don’t want a “split”, yet they do everything possible to bring that forth.
I pray for the SSPX every day. They, and the ICRSS and FSSP seem to be the only prelates in the church who actually care about people attached to tradition.
Sorry to complain, but I feel Cardinal Sarah’s letter does nothing but push people attached to tradition away from the church. It reads as mean spirited and “obedience above all”.
I hurt for all of you. It is hard to watch people suffer so needlessly.
It’s all so senseless.
Let us all pray to the Guardian Angels of the key figures in this dreadful stand off as well as to Mary, Queen of the Clergy, to intercede with her Divine Son, the High Priest, to open hearts and minds.
Holy Angels, defend us.
Mary, Queen of the Clergy, put your mantle over us and help your children.
Totally agree with Cri de Coeur. There is no subsitute for that old time religion. We must polititely express ourselves to Pope Leo. Ask him to lift all restrictions on the TLM, fire Cdl. Fernandez, laicize him and put him out on the street. Fernandez just shut down a traditional Argentinian order, (not even TLM!) the Miles Christi. We are mad about this!! Also, Pope Leo needs to initiate an inquisition among the Roman curia looking for Freemasons and sodomites. Those men who are revealed need to be laicized and put out on the street. Millions should come to the Vatican and demand the ouster of Fernandez, and if Pope Leo does not, then we take action, and extract Fernandez, and throw him in the Tiber. Let that be a warning to Pope Leo! We are sick of the McCarrick Cabal ruling the Church. No money for Peter’s Pence either!
It is the enemy of souls that wants to suppress a valid Mass.
With the rather stark difference between +Bp. Schneider’s letter and +Card. Sarah’s letter, a few observations.
Let us first leave aside the Chinese question. The two situations are not similar. Let us also leave the Ukrainian consecrations of the 1980’s? alone. As they are dis-similar to the current situation.
For those who see Bishop Schneider’s letter as the solution, I caution that it is not. It opens the door to those who do not share the same love of tradition, to engage in the same tactic. I suspect those who are cheering on the SSPX would not be cheering on the Jesuits if they were engaging in the same.
Cardinal Sarah’s letter points to something that is unfortunate, but fundamentally important. Fidelity is sometimes painful. Remaining within means that sometimes we don’t get what we want. Sometimes, we’re reminded that we must trust in God’s Providence and pray for those in positions of authority.
It’s easy to self-segregate, to be around like-minded individuals, to avoid that which we don’t like. It is much harder to have to step outside of our comfort zone (spiritually and liturgically). It is also much harder when we are forced to, for no real reason at all.
Perhaps, this is a period of trial for the Church and her faithful.
It should be rightly difficult to imagine a Cardinal, a collaborator of the Pope, encouraging an action which breaks an ecclesial bond. (I’m not including the current Chinese or the Ukrainian situations of the 1980’s in this, as those are two very different situations with external political forces at work.)
I think Bishop Schnieder and Cardinal Sarah are coming from very different places by virtue of age, lived priesthood and place within the hierarchy.
@Chicagiensis_Indianapolitana
“sometimes we don’t get what we want”
And here’s the fundamental problem. This is not a mere matter of preference. It’s not “what we want.” It’s the entire validity of Sacred Tradition that’s riding on this question. It’s the entire essence of the Catholic Church that is being disputed. It is, truly and without hyperbole, a question of whether the Church exists as it has always done or if Vatican II truly did usher in a new age of “Sola Papem” wherein the entirety of the Catholic Faith rests solely upon the whims, words, and wishes of the current Pope.
This is not a small thing, and all the “just trust in Jesus” language ignores EVERY historical example where saints risked all, fought hard, and strove with all their might to defeat threats, internal and external, to the health, welfare, and good of the Church.
Because the end state of this whole “fidelity” argument is that when Pope Francis tells you to bless homosexual unions the only “catholic” response is “yes sir.” And this is absurd.
If the Sacred Liturgical Tradition of the Latin Rite can be cast aside by the Pope, then ANY Tradition can be cast aside by the Pope. Then, in essence, Tradition holds no authority whatsoever. This is not a fight over ice cream flavors, it’s a fight to preserve the Catholic Church.
@ Chicagiensis_Indianapolitana:
1. Re. your “Let us first leave aside the Chinese question. The two situations are not similar. Let us also leave the Ukrainian consecrations of the 1980’s? alone. As they are dis-similar to the current situation.”
You seem to concede that someone’s “situation” can justify their consecration of bishops without papal approval. So the question is really one of whether or not the SSPX is in one of those justifying “situations”. Agreed, not identical to the Chinese “situation” or the “Ukrainian” situation. But why exclude outright the possibility of a third “situation” in the case of the SSPX. Rather, let’s evaluate it on its merits.
2. Re your “I suspect those who are cheering on the SSPX would not be cheering on the Jesuits if they were engaging in the same”
Prominent church people (no names, no pack drill for now) have already (for the last 60 years or so) been “engaging” in some pretty horrific stuff with apparent impunity. It’s not hard to conclude that the SSPX is the target of special (adverse) treatment. Or am I being hasty … could it be that anyone who loves the TLM and/or questions the logical nightmare of Vatican II is an actual or potential target, while just about everyone else gets a free pass?
As for the rest of your message, to those of us who have found adherence to Tradition by no means “easy”, it may very well be received as sanctimonious victim-blaming. What would you have had Athanasius do?
My respectful recommendation is that you make more of an effort to understand the other side in this dispute.
“Sucker punched” – really?
“Cardinal Sarah’s letter does nothing but push people attached to tradition away from the church. It reads as mean spirited and “obedience above all”. — really?
I would suggest that everyone who “feels” remotely similar to “Cri de Coeu” read Cardinal Sarah’s letter again and again. Do so with less feeling and more thought. If we must use the analogy his argument is not a sucker punch but an utter KO of the SSPX position. What’s particularly striking is how kind he is in the process.
“How much more do we need to endure just to attend Mass in the way my grandparents did” – whatever happened to take up your cross daily? In other words we are all called to carry our crosses for as long as God asks us to. Further more we are not asked to endure our crosses but to embrace them. Catholics see suffering as a gift. As my mom used to say – “offer it up”.
It should be rightly difficult to imagine a Cardinal, a collaborator of the Pope, encouraging an action which breaks an ecclesial bond.
@Chicagiensis:
One aspect of the question is whether what the SSPX is doing, or proposes to do this summer, really does “break an ecclesial bond”. Their position is that it does not. Apparently you don’t agree, from your words which simply assume the break.
But consider as an hypothesis: what if they are right, no bond is broken by such an action? If consecrating the priests as bishops does not break the ecclesial bond, then what they are doing takes on a whole different cast, doesn’t it? They would be preserving tradition in the face of Church machinery that (a) opposes tradition, but (b) hasn’t managed to cobble together the moxie and forthrightness to simply BAN the tradition, even though that clearly is what they want.
The latter point demands we ask a question: if the pope and his cohort are right to be so insistent that we all give up the traditional mass in toto, WHY haven’t they issued a papal bull or even higher decree stating in black and white that said mass is hereby abrogated? Perhaps (probably?) because of what Benedict said in his Motu Proprio: the old mass never was abrogated, and the old mass “cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful”.
If the old mass cannot be forbidden nor considered harmful, but at least one pope (possibly two) considered it harmful, what does that say about efforts to resist such popes’ efforts to sideline it and smother it? Does it suggest that efforts to resist may be upright and praiseworthy?
And finally, given the state of disarray and rebellion in the Church to sound papal teaching and decrees since Vatican II , including within the Novus Ordo (communion in the hand in disobedience to explicit law, girl altar boys in disobedience to implicit law, nearly complete loss of gregorian chant in express defiance of Vatican II itself, complete disregard for JPII’s Ex Corde Ecclesiae, and 100,000 more abuses) with nary a wave of the hand from the Vatican to repair any this, not even to merely decline to promote to the bishopric and cardinal’s hats the people who promote these, is it not the case that one more disobedience to an ill-founded papal decree not to consecrate a bishop might NOT inherently constitute a break in ecclesial communion?
I don’t go to SSPX chapels, and I almost certainly would not face down a pope threatening excommunication if I consecrated a bishop. But I don’t take lightly the claims of SSPX on this issue either. I suggest making an effort to consider the complexities and nuances that color the problem with shades and difficulties. It’s not easy, not simple, not straightforward.
I think “Cri de Coeur”’s cry illustrates two things:
1. There are a lot of Bishops who outright hate the preconciliar church and anyone who wants to worship in the same manner as the Church worshipped before the 1964-69 liturgical changes.
2. As long as these Bishops are in control, things will just get worse and I am sure they will not care how much suffering they cause. So what we really have is a pastoral problem, shepherds who only want a particular type of sheep in their flock and will not shepherd any others.
In addition it is important to recognize that we need all sorts of people involved in any struggle for justice. 1. Those who work within the system and resist however they are able within the system. This would be the FSSP, ICKSP and diocesan priests who offer traditional sacraments. Think of Black attorneys that used lawsuits to protest Jim Crow laws in the USA.
2. Those who protest the injustice from the outside or not within the laws of the system in order to eliminate the hypocrisy in the system. This would mainly be the FSSPX. (Here the hypocrisy in the system is not punishing open heretics who push for mortal sins to be made legitimate, such as clergy who advocate for homosexual marriages and support legalization of abortion while openly humiliating Bishoos who openly support Church teaching.) Think of sit-in’s and technically illegal protests by civil rights groups during 1945-1969 and afterwards whose purpose was to extend rights held by Whites to Blacks.
3. Those who do nothing but silently pray for justice. Here I am thinking about what two unknown White women told Black college students who were protesting not being able to eat at the snack bar in a drug store. They told the students “sit down for your rights. We are praying for you.” One of the protesters told an NPR reporter years later that that was when he knew they would eventually win. I would take those who hold Cardinal Sarah’s position more seriously if they said they were praying that traditional Catholics have their rights and rites restored, rites that Pipe Benedict XVI said cannot be legitimately taken away.
(I think that the book “The Banushed Heart” reports that Cardinal Sarah tried to persuade Benedict XVI to require 100 people to ask for a VO Mass before a priest could offer it. Maybe it was someone else but I am too lazy to reread that excellent book.
No button to proofread the post?
~Chicagiensis_Indianapolitana
“I suspect those who are cheering on the SSPX would not be cheering on the Jesuits if they were engaging in the same.”
They already effectively are. The foxes in the hen house are appointing foxes to the episcopate rather than chickens. They are only getting approved because there are foxes in charge in high places that convince the chickens that foxes mean no harm. But if there were not foxes in charge, they would do it anyway — see China and their different type, but nonetheless still, foxes.
Besides the “Rome chooses everything” is only a juridical model. It wasn’t always that way, doesn’t always have to be this way. If we returned to an earlier model, local churches that repeatedly elevated foxes would die off, as they historically did. There isn’t a worry there! Right now, the current model creates a “too big to fail” and “too big to turn the ship around” dynamic. Quite toxic.
~ML
This is not said in offence, but both Card. Mueler and Card. Sarah are “company men”. Very obvious if you have read their writings, especially Card. Sarah’s books. One has to read what they write, understanding that they have that as part of their worldview. It is also obvious from Card. Sarah, he believes that things should be different, but will not support anything that is against “the company”, which gives an interesting push-pull dynamic to his writing.
Further, there is a mistaken notion out there regarding one’s cross, offering things up, and suffering when it comes to the Liturgy. Certain bishops act as if the liturgy is THEIRS rather than Christ’s. Certain laity go along with this attitude and either say that we must support bishops who act in their name rather than His Name, or that we must simply suffer it because “obedience” and “crosses”.
In all things suffer insults, ignomies, and hardships as an offering to make up what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings — this is true and the perennial teaching of the Church. What is forgotten about is the exceptions — except where this leads to harm, especially spiritual harm, to your charges, and above all, especially when this would cause one to deny and blaspheme against Christ.
Aside: The book Silence by Endo is a dreadful book.
HERE IS THE RUB: Can the Mass lead to spiritual harm and blasphemy? No? Ok then, one should have no problem with letting the SSPX have bishops and TLM because the Mass cannot lead to spiritual harm. Yes? Then one must allow the SSPX to have bishops because TLM is the known quantity that doesn’t cause harm (proven by history and its congruence to the deposit of faith) — the NO is the “unknown quantity” here, not TLM.
” I would take those who hold Cardinal Sarah’s position more seriously if they said they were praying that traditional Catholics have their rights and rites restored, rites that Pipe Benedict XVI said cannot be legitimately taken away.”
That seems sensible to me. I just read the article at EWTN summarizing Cardinal Müller and Cardinal Sarah. To me it seems that Cardinal Sarah fears schism as the greater evil. I’m not equipped to gainsay that…
…but I am torn. I don’t want schism either, but I absolutely don’t get the apparent antipathy toward the TLM the same way I find myself frustrated by the apparent reluctance to draw/mention/acknowledge the distinction between the sojourner and the thief, the plunderer, and the invader, other than the occasional faint “countries are allowed to have borders” lip service. I recognize the obligation conferred by Leviticus 19:34, but at the same time I’m going to advance Ruth as the exemplar and ideal of the sojourner: “…your people will be my people, and your G_d will be my G_d” (Ruth 1:16).
@Lurker — I agree, there are many mistaken notions not just about suffering but about many things—indeed, about almost everything. I wonder, though, where exactly you and others disagree with Cardinal Sarah. There seems to be a dismissiveness about his tour de force takedown of the SSPX’s proposed course of action that makes me think some of the readers here did not bother to ponder his argument.
I have to agree that CS is a “company man” insofar as he is a Cardinal and a Bishop. Like the bishops of the SSPX, he is a member of the hierarchy. I know you said, “This is not said in offense,” but one could be excused for thinking that you were actually implying he had disordered loyalties. Frankly, I think it’s better simply to state which part of his argument you disagree with than to dismiss the whole thing with a slight.
“Indeed, the Church is, fundamentally… ‘Peter and those who are with him.'” Do the bishops of the SSPX agree with this?
The thing about all this, is that we are so entrenched in our own mindset that we can’t step outside it for long enough to view the other side, or even to gauge how far our own position is from the center of the argument.
Civil discourse historically sought to engage the adversary by first discerning in good faith the opposing argument, instead of simply hammering harder on one’s own talking points. Let’s try that for a moment…
One who is already traditionally minded can easily read Father Pagliarani’s most recent letter of refusal to +Fernandez and find it entirely reasonable.
But the devil is in the details, as they say. If we try to step outside our own preferences in this matter, what stands out prominently in that “reasonable” set of reasons why the SSPX is thumbing its nose at the Vatican, is the sense of autonomy to which they have become accustomed by their longstanding irregularity. They are quite comfortable with their current ability to operate without having to kowtow to the Vatican. And really, most of us in love with capital-T Tradition are thankful that the SSPX has carried that torch all this time.
But it’s this comfort that blinds them to the fundamental unreasonableness of their stance. What is their long-term end goal? Is it perpetual autonomy, or is it eventually to be in full communion with the Church, and thereby to be able to effect real change from within? Ultimately, if they eschew assiduously pursuing the latter in the name of short-term gain, the former will do them little good.
It’s this pesky Apostolic Succession thing that always gets in the way. Say whatever you like about the train wreck that is the Catholic Church right now…tell me how we can recognize any other to be the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If you have a real answer to that, I’d genuinely like to hear it. I’ve beheld with my own eyes the fictions that schismatics desperately cling to in order to convince themselves that their lifeboat really is the Barque of Peter. It’s true, our Barque closely resembles the Titanic right now. But until we have a reliable way of determining where the True Church may be hiding, we have little choice but to figure out how to work with the mess.
Back when Traditionis Custodes first hit, and each of the Ecclesia Dei Communities had to decide how to react, it was so easy to lionize the SSPX for being able to safely ignore it, and then demonize all those who chose to walk through the valley of the shadow of death, and obey despite the intense moral injury suffered.
Which has done more good in God’s eyes? And which has harmed more souls? That is impossible for us to judge. But we cannot easily dismiss the cry coming up before God from those whose teeth are being ground into dust. There is plenty of Biblical precedent for that. And while I certainly am glad that we can still seek refuge in the Novus Ordo wasteland by fleeing to the SSPX, I cannot help being fearful of the insidious streak of pride that undergirds their thinking on so many issues …which seems to have surfaced in this latest scandal.
And there is the keyword: scandal. We might say that such scandal is unavoidable; after all, it is a scandal to begin with that the Church has mocked Her own Tradition to the lengths She has. But to stare down that barrel and give scandal for scandal…is that not worth mourning over, as Cardinal Sarah does? If there is no merit to obedience, even in the face of rank injustice, then Christ might have spared Himself the Cross.
The fact that the laity are writing letters like this to begin with, points toward the inherent danger lurking behind the leadership of the SSPX and the many “Catholic” media outlets among us, who loudly voice an opinion more geared toward pedantry, sensationalism and grievance than a dispassionate discernment of the subtle workings of the enemy in fostering division. Everyone today seems to think himself another Catherine of Siena. But we see only our side, not God’s side. How many generations passed before He heard the cry of His people in bondage, and sent Moses to deliver them? God’s ways are not our ways, and His timing tends to be inconvenient to us. We would take matters into our own hands, and claim that God helps those who help themselves.
The pain of the Francis pontificate was boundless and affected more than just lovers of Tradition. Pretty much the entire Church has heaved a sigh of relief to have a new occupant of the Chair of Peter. But Leo has become Father to the most dysfunctional family on earth, and as much as we would all love to see him pull a Savonarola on our enemies, that’s not the way enormous institutions like the Church work. Patience is called for. What is gained, in such circumstances, by coming out with both barrels blasting, citing past injuries to preemptively refuse to seek a path toward healing?
Go ahead and say that healing of division is a naïve hope, but that is what we should all be praying for, instead of cheering on a group that is willing to threaten schism in order to achieve its desired end…instead of calling the words of a prince of the Church (who has suffered exile himself due to his orthodoxy) a “gut punch,” simply because they require embracing the cross…
@roma247
Yes, we are all entrenched in our own mindset. The “submissiveness is the only moral path” is not free from this criticism, either.
Where you see pride, I see justified moral outrage. Collectively speaking, it is these bishops and cardinals of the post Vatican II Church who have made it the consistent and public desire to destroy every meaningful link to Tradition (with a capital T), to water down or at the very least confuse Church teaching on moral matters (and in some cases, simply changing it completely under the guise of “development”) , while at the same time either allowing or at times even embracing and encouraging every kind of immoral perversity. They have heaped financial scandal upon financial scandal, and they have even protected those who sexually abused our own children. They have brutally cancelled and punished those who defended the Faith and the Church and promoted and protected those who bring nothing but scandal upon scandal.
Sometimes, I believe the “passive submission alone” crowd misrepresents how enormous is the rot in the current episcopal ranks. Francis was not a cause of the problem – he was a symptom of the problem in its advanced stages.
It’s all well and nice to say that “we should all line up to get our teeth ground out lest we cause scandal – don’t worry, God will somehow magically fix everything for us” – but for those of us with young children, what are we to do? Water their faith away and then send them into a wicked and vile world unrestrainedly peddling every perversity under the sun? You see the primary good the abstract unity of the SSPX submitting to papal authority, no matter what injustices may be heaped upon them or no matter what damage (likely irreparable) will be done to the Church. On our side of the argument, we see the primary good being the feeding and care for our children and grandchildren and the preservation of vital elements of Tradition so that the Deposit of Faith can continue to be carried forward through time. While the episcopal college is an important and visual aspect of the unity of the Church, it is not the only thing that matters. Unity in Faith matters, including the Faith as it always was.
What is being done to the Church is not “a suffering to be endured” but an immoral attack that should be opposed. St. Peter Damian probably hurt plenty of episcopal feelings when he wrote “Gomorrah.” St. Athanasius refused to submit to unjust trials and abuse. Historically speaking, God has always inspired men and women to fight against heresy and threats to the Church, both from outside and from within. To pretend that our age has no option but to idly sit by and watch the Church be dismantled by those who hate her simply because they had the cunning to infiltrate the ranks of the Church leadership seems a self destructive philosophy at best.
Healing of division absolutely and without doubt IS naïve if one is submitting to those who even now are actively trying to destroy the Church. Christ also talks about bringing division. The warnings of Jeremiah 8 seem apt.
There would not have been an FSSP if there had not been a stand made by the SSPX. There would not have been a Summorum Pontificum if there had not been a stand made by the SSPX. SP is already gone, done away with the sweep of a hand. The FSSP has already been cast out of at least one diocese, and the ICKSP has been banned from using their own building. Religious orders have been persecuted and, in some cases, their land or property stolen by the Vatican. Diocesan TLMs are still restricted and persecuted, in some cases even more so since Francis died. There is no relief in sight. To believe that the Church would somehow be better if the SSPX simply laid down their disagreements and embraced “Heal You With My Mouth” Tucho in the name of submissive obedience to the pope is to be optimistic in a way that I cannot fathom.
One often hears the excuse that “Pope Leo hasn’t done [fill in the blank with an obvious good for the whole of the Church] yet because he has to move slowly and cautiously.” Okay, that’s making an excuse for the pope based on politics. And politics is important. It’s an intrinsic part of every interaction of large numbers of humans. But then why are the SSPX condemned for also being politically astute and doing the things that would best serve their cause? While the Church should not only be a realm of politics (especially as it was under Francis), it cannot be a realm of pious platitudes and wishful thinking sans politics. Everyone, including Cardinal Sarah, should realize having a powerful organization with its own resources and infrastructure free from the destructive hands of the current Vatican Curia is a politically valuable thing. It should not be cavalierly given up unless the cause for which it exists has been secured.
I, along with just about everyone, wishes the current situation was other. I wish the Vatican had opened talks with the SSPX back in 2019 when they were asking about talks. (I also wish the dubia of the Cardinals had been answered) I wish Pope Leo would meet with the SSPX. I wish he’d just grant them permission to consecrate more bishops realizing it cost him nothing and gains him much. I wish someone (practically anyone) other than Tucho was in charge of negotiations with the SSPX. I wish the SSPX could find a way to be in regular communion with the Church, but not at the cost of their destruction. Heck, I wish I could find a bishop who would confirm my daughter that wasn’t SSPX, not because I have any animosity towards the SSPX but because it’s an outrage and embarrassment how the other bishops are standing as an obstacle between my child and the sacrament.
I wish a lot of things. But if wishes were horses and all that.
And please don’t tell folks they’re not embracing the cross. Many of us have plenty of crosses we have to carry through life. But we don’t see cooperating in the destruction of the Church as a cross to be born but rather an obvious evil to be opposed, not for simply for our own sake, but for the Glory of God.
The bottom line is the Diocese should be providing the necessary sacraments and a proper church for the Cri de Coeur.
Catholics shouldn’t have to flee in search of anything related to the Traditional form of the Mass and the Sacraments. The Catholic Church should want to keep these well-meaning parishioners in their pews.
The standoff between the SSPX and the Vatican has been a long one and who knows how much it has hurt the chances of having proper Masses in the old form within their proper place: the diocese. How much have their conflicts since the early 70’s(?) hurt the image in the hierarchy’s mind of good, well-meaning Catholics who like the old Mass form now? Only God knows that.
The SSPX has reached out to the Vatican, yes, but the Vatican has also tried numerous times to build a bridge with them and get them on board so there’s no more questions regarding their sacraments and other important things like the fact that they don’t report to anyone currently under the Vicar of Christ. The Bishops don’t have them on their “roll call” list, so how can anyone expects them to feel comfortable with things related to “Tradition”? Probably the most they know about the SSPX is that they have been excommunicated at least once and a bunch of other complicated things that they have no time or interest to get involved with. It’s like Tradition somehow got a bad reputation after so many years of conflict with those who have been claiming to “save” it. I commend the Vatican for their efforts (even though I think they’ve been too generous at times), and I get confused when the SSPX never budges. Thats why I wonder if they really want full union as an end goal. It’s a good question because saving souls requires it.
The glaring issue, as a previous comment brought up, is indeed the “pesky little Apostolic Succession thing”. If one is outside of the Church, they lack one of the marks of the True Church, thus they are, in essence, a break away church. Christ gave us the formula on how to recognize His True Church. It will be One, Holy, Catholic (or Universal) and Apostolic. The Church is for the sinner and the saint, so I’m quite tired of hearing about all the sins that the hierarchy has committed, and I blame the internet for that. If none of us were sinners, we wouldn’t need a Church to save us. We’d be back in the Garden, enjoying life.
Can the Messy Catholic Church still save. I refuse to believe that God made some glaring mistake when he established His Catholic Church on Earth. Is it really true that now, in 2026, things are just so completely different with the nature of humanity as a whole, with God, and with the problem of evil, that suddenly, “uh-oh, looks like the Catholic Church isn’t good for souls anymore! It’s been saving people for 2000+ years, but WE are here to tell you that it has officially failed that grand mission.” Nope, nope, and nope. God didn’t forget something upon His Heavenly throne. There wasn’t an “error in code” regarding His All-Knowing attribute. He saw the conflicts after certain councils and the problems it would cause among the faithful. He saw it all and told us to stay in the Church He founded upon Peter. Until the end. Period.
The Catholic Church is like an orchestra, with the different rites being like the various instrumental sections, all having the Pope for a conductor. We may not like the off notes that come forth from the orchestra, and we may be frustrated with our fellow musician’s seeming lack of talent and on and on and on and on. But we stay in the orchestra simply because we love God and we love His symphony music. We should be careful not to get too upset and go off and start our own quartet, with like minded musicians. We should be careful not to become too confused and start seeking His music outside the orchestra. Everyone knows a quartet is not able to play a full symphony. God wants us to stay in His orchestra, pick up our humble instrument, know His music by heart and reclaim the seat He gave us for as long as we live. Sometimes it may get loud, but we have to tune out the off notes and steadily play our part, all the while giving glory and thanksgiving to God for all He has done for us. We have the Catholic Church on Earth to work out our salvation: aren’t you thankful to be alive in 2026?
~roma247
You start here: “The thing about all this, is that we are so entrenched in our own mindset that we can’t step outside ….”
and end here:
“instead of cheering on a group that is willing to threaten schism in order to achieve its desired end…”
I don’t think you succeeded in stepping outside of your own mindset. From the SSPX viewpoint (reminder, I am not affiliated with the SSPX in any way), they in no way, shape, or form view their upcoming action as schismatic. They view themselves as willing to endure what Rome does so that they not be separated from Christ. They view themselves as running to Christ and that Rome isn’t even holding to Rome’s own judicial standards.
In my view, Rome’s only strength is the argument of the sovereign stemming from Vatican I and post-Enlightenment models of the autocratic sovereign. Nothing to sneeze at, but very much in the human aspect of the papacy.
If Rome excommunicates the SSPX, they will become very large and very powerful because they are way more of a magnetic draw to those who are seeking shelter from the storms of this world. Right now, they are hobbled by trying to play by rules that don’t benefit their expansion. Take those away; they are just going to expand.
What is harmful to souls is exactly what Card Ratzinger said in the Spirit of the Liturgy, to wit, liturgy that is non-christocentric and a useless “self-enclosed circle” that is detached from the word of God and tradition.
~ML
I am not sure if you have read Card. Sarah’s books, they are filled with examples of him lamenting this or that, but then turning around and full force supporting the opposite position. A great example is the debacle surrounding the “Kiss of Peace” during COVID. Same with Card. Muller and “I’ll leave the altar during the consecration because the Pope demands it.” The Pope doesn’t have the authority to tell people to wear purple hats on Tuesday. Some Cardinals think that he does. Both Cards. Mueller and Sarah, when pushed, will fall in line with the wear purple hats on Tuesday. They are both good men, but they are ultimately not tall poppies.
Pondering — I mostly ponder the Eastern views on this.
I truly don’t know how to describe what I describe other than “company men” — it is not said in offence. If you have a better term, please let me know.
—>“Indeed, the Church is, fundamentally… ‘Peter and those who are with him.’” Do the bishops of the SSPX agree with this?
Yes. I think the problem is that Peter = Current Pope when that is not a fully correct theological statement. The Current Pope is Peter insofar as he is the successor of Peter and exercises Peter’s Office/Chair IN CONFORMITY to sacred scripture and sacred tradition and seeks to confirm the brethren (bishops) in their configuration and conformation to Christ. The “peter-ness” resides in the office or the chair, not the occupant. The occupant is beholden to conform himself to the office and sit in the chair and is not himself in his will, the manifestation of that office.
Card. Sarah wrote “God or Nothing.” I think the SSPX would fully agree with this and that their action, according to them, is “God or nothing.” The Peter question is secondary — like it was for many, many Catholic Saints. The Catholic East has MANY saints who ran afoul of the then-current pope.
The way the current top-down (Pope picks rather than confirms ecclesial appointments) does two things 1.) prevents sick diocese from dying off 2.) spreads institutional rot throughout the system. Top down micromanagement of personnel never leads to long-term institutional health.
(BTW, if the SSPX were in charge, I think that they would have the same tendency to autocratic papacy – it is sort of baked into neo-Thomism. I don’t think autocratic papacy is a useful model, and insofar as I support the SSPX on the ordination question, it’s because I support a model of papal confirmation, not papal selection of bishops. With what is going on now, everyone wants the pope to be THEIR cudgel. )
WVC, I have often followed your comments here and I find that you are quick to condemn anyone who is not “Rad Trad” enough for you, as though they were an enemy. This is a most unfortunate issue that we lovers of Tradition have: the circular firing squad. We are so busy squabbling with each other like Baptists that we can’t manage to have a civil discourse and advance our cause. Please, take a deep breath and let’s talk through this calmly.
I have been in the trenches of the Trad movement for over two decades now. I’ve raised six children to adulthood in the meantime despite the fierce headwinds, and every one of them has remained staunchly Catholic. I’m on your side. And I said again and again in my comments that I am indeed grateful for what the SSPX has done for Tradition. They were the Ark when the rain first hit. And for what it’s worth, some of my children have attended SSPX schools.
But you are also guilty of employing the classic straw man argument to defend your positions. Because I think it is regrettably short-sighted for the SSPX to give the Vatican the middle finger in this case, you make it sound as though I think they should just lay their collective heads in the cradle of the guillotine. There is a middle ground between the path they have chosen and the path of being steamrolled, and it is worth discovering. That is the entire point of my argument.
Because I have had extensive contact with the SSPX over the last 20 years, I have a nuanced opinion of them. I think they are very good at some things, but I think they have enormous blind spots. I think they tend to attract the sort of people who are black-and-white thinkers. But somewhere the black-and-white has to come into contact with the muddy grey world of original sin. There is always turbulence there, and some SSPX priests cope well with it, but an awful lot of them…not so much. And that rubs off on the congregations they lead.
Life is a messy business. Absolutely, we have justified moral outrage at what has happened in the Church over the past hundred years or more, but anger can be a dangerous thing, even and especially when it is justified; that is why Paul says in Ephesians “do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil.” The enemy will always twist our sense of justification toward his purposes. After all, he was the inventor of rebellion…
For example, you have in your characteristic way twisted my words somehow to make it sound like my position is that “submissiveness is the only moral path.” This manipulation comes from the extreme myopia that I pointed out in my very first sentence. We are talking about a group of priests, not a lay initiative. The laity are in many ways free to do as they please in promoting a cause within or without the Church. But when it comes to the SSPX, we get into messy, inconvenient truths: the priest is not his own. By virtue of his vows and the Sacrament of Holy Orders, he is alter Christus: he serves the Church at the cost of his life, his worldly goods and yes, his total obedience, just like Christ on the cross. We can argue all day about the nuances of that vow of obedience, and when it is both prudent and justified to disobey…but there is very grave danger in setting aside part of one’s priestly identity, just because one decides he is “justified” in doing so. Where do the boundaries of that justification lie, especially when the enemy is the Church Herself? It’s a crushing dilemma of conscience, but what is dependent upon being right in this case is not one individual soul, but all the souls who depend on that priest. His example blazes a path, one that is unsafe to travel, even for the wisest of men.
This is why it is prudent to subject each and every matter of conscience of this sort to the most rigorous possible scrutiny. There may be some matters where it’s a no brainer. But in any matter where there may be a way besides disobedience, the man of God pursues those alternate means to the greatest possible lengths, even when it is extremely inconvenient and loathsome to do so…because souls depend on it, and because the example Christ set of humble obedience is key to the Christian identity. Sometimes what seems right from the point of view of a lawyer, or a businessman, or anyone involved in worldly justice does not match what is right in God’s eyes. His ways are not our ways. So even in the situation in which we find ourselves, where the Church Herself has strayed from the path, we err on the side of remaining with Her in any way that does not prove impossible.
If the SSPX indeed decides to formally disobey and unlawfully consecrate bishops in order to achieve their ends, they may win this battle, but they should tremble at what they stand to lose. The cavalier attitude with which they flirt with schism is terrifying. And that is regrettable indeed.
There was nothing whatsoever mean-spirited about Cardinal Sarah’s letter. It was written exactly as a Prince of the Church ought to be expected to write. He is defending his Bride, and pleading for souls. It saddens me that people in the pews, as wounded as they are (I am wounded too!!!) should turn their invective against someone who has done them no harm. If we must be angry, let it at least be toward those who deserve it. (I’m looking at people like Cardinal Blase Cupich and Bishop Michael Martin.) But better yet, why not heap coals of fire on their heads by loving them instead?
This is not a black and white, either/or situation. Wanting the SSPX to be less hot-headed and willful is not the same thing as “cooperating in the destruction of the Church,” or engaging in “pious platitudes and wishful thinking” that “God will somehow magically fix everything for us.” We can BOTH deplore the state of things in Rome AND deplore what the SSPX is doing in retaliation. Let us both pray that the outcome will not be shipwreck, shall we?
@roma247
It’s funny. You take umbrage at me participating in “the Traditional Catholic circular firing squad” while lacing your comment with personal insults to me, apparently someone who condemns anyone not “RadTrad” enough. Well, in my “characteristic” way, I’ll give a response.
You’ve said much, but you’ve said nothing. You claim there’s a “middle path” but give no hints as to what that might be, while still claiming it’s “dangerous” and “terrifying” if the SSPX dare to, once again, consecrate bishops to support the faithful and the priests for which they have responsibility. You are able to discern that they are acting cavalierly and recklessly, but apparently Pope Leo, who can’t even be bothered to talk with them, is not? Or is it because he sits in the Chair of Peter he’s automatically free from any responsibility in the affair?
But what is this mysterious middle path for which you advocate that is not simply submissiveness but does not include consecrating more bishops? The SSPX has already lost 2 out of 4, with the remaining 2 having to fly all around the world on a regular basis in order to provide sacraments and supports to the laity. Do they have to wait until they’re down to just 1, and then it’s okay to consecrate more? Are they morally justified to risk the existence of the hundreds of thousands who rely on them to “wait it out” until the Vatican recovers its Catholic identity and turns away from the Modernism and perversion so clearly on public display in almost every single visible iota of the Church today? Isn’t that like a father, with many young children, betting his house and all his possessions in Vegas hoping for a favorable outcome? Why is “consecrating bishops now” an immoral and reckless option when you can applaud Lefebvre “consecrating bishops then” because his actions resulted in so much positive good for the Church (from which you yourself benefited). Why is it so different and so inexcusable and unforgivable now, when the crisis in the Church is, if anything, just as bad as it was then if not worse.
Meanwhile, I have not pretended that the SSPX is imprudent or that the members (both priests and laity) of the SSPX are without blemish. However, just as I don’t claim that all Novus Ordo Catholics should be judged by the behavior of the James Martins or the Nancy Pelosi’s or the parish with the priest dancing around on the altar while the laity cheered him on which Fr. Z posted to the blog recently, I would think it unjust and uncharitable to judge the majority of the SSPX on the behaviors of those priests and laity that are too “black and white” in thinking for your preferences. Certainly they have among them jerks, for the jerks we shall always have with us. And I’ve met a few. On both sides. I had a Novus Ordo Catholic tell me my wife’s soul was in hell because she had supported the Latin Mass. So let’s stop with the “oh the SSPX guys are so uncharitable” nonsense.
I fail to see how you’ve risen beyond mere “pious platitudes.” You’ve laced your comments with direct references to how terrible I am and how awful the SSPX will become, but you haven’t actually offered a reasonable idea on what they ought to do other than “obey.” You accuse them of disregarding obedience as unimportant, and I would say the fact that they asked permission instead of just doing it shows this is false. There are many things they could do to show they didn’t care about obedience – stop asking to talk with the Vatican, set up their own actual jurisdiction, stop praying for the pope . . . etc., and they don’t do this. If you want to accuse them of such, you need to bring something of more substance than what you have to date.
Praise God for you and your adult children. It’s no small thing to raise one’s children in the world of today, in these conditions, so that they are strong in the faith. You sound a bit older than me. I have seven, some of whom are still quite young. I have three that will need Confirmation, one in the very near future. Did you have to deal with a bishop that told you, “You are forbidden from receiving Confirmation in the Traditional Form, and I won’t even write a letter to support you receiving Confirmation in the Traditional Form from any other diocesan bishop.”? Please take a moment to ponder what your honest reaction would have been to something like that. I have no idea what your current situation is now, but I assume you still go to the TLM. Is it one that was impacted by TC? Have you had to drive an extra hour and a half to take your kids to a TLM because the diocesan bishop just cavalierly canceled the TLM at your parish? Especially when at least one of those kids is prone to getting carsick? There are real, practical struggles going on right now, and the SSPX is serving to support Catholics in my situation while the diocesan bishops are doing their best to do active harm to me and to my family and many others who are only guilty of being attached to the Sacred Liturgical Traditions of the Church. It doesn’t take me long to figure out which one I believe is serving the best interest of the Church.
I deplore the situation. I certainly deplore how Rome has handled things, and I can’t think of any valid excuse for Pope Leo refusing to meet with the SSPX. But I can understand the SSPX’s position and why they are doing what they’re doing. And I cannot say I would do any different if I were in their position. And I say all this with no affiliation with the SSPX. Although that may change in the near future due to my need for Confirmation.
Clearly I’m not going to convince you of anything, nor you I. Please feel free to have the final word in this exchange. I’ll go off and look for some other not-RadTrad-enough people I can spit on.
Ah, WVC…
You’re not a terrible person, you are my brother in Christ. Or maybe I should say, of course you are a terrible person, so am I, that’s why we both need Christ…
I will not hesitate to decry your method of discourse because it is worth defending logic and civility, which go hand in hand. If I have skewered you, it has not been on a personal level, but because your participation in the combox here seems to consistently lean toward hostility and classic logical fallacies. These are worth exposing, because this is no way to advance any cause whatsoever. People will tune you out.
You can try using this argument to defend the SSPX, that of course there will always be jerks in any group, but it honestly does a disservice to them instead of exonerating them. Would you really compare the well-ordered, coherent organization of this priestly fraternity that seems to be the last bulwark of capital-T Tradition, to the random behavior and deplorable ignorance of the mainstream Novus Ordo camp, which by definition represents the vast majority, most of whom couldn’t answer basic questions on the catechism? Tsk, tsk.
Nor am I accusing them of institutional rot, but nevertheless my entire point was that their self-image of being an elite military squad actively attracts the sort of people who view the Faith and their role in it through this lens. So it’s not random when you get severe authoritarians in the ranks, and historically these have been promoted rather than reined in. I know firsthand what they teach the boys in their schools, and it isn’t consistent with their official company line. They live in a world of careful nuance, nurturing a style of thinking that fosters schism in attitude, even while loudly defending themselves from any accusations of schism in name.
I do not gladly point to this truth, because despite all, they remain the greatest hope and refuge for those of us attached to Tradition. So far the only way they have been able to continue in this heroic role is to remain independent of the Church hierarchy. But even they know deep down (though perhaps they have collective amnesia…) that to remain in that state of independence is an anomaly which must at some point resolve one way or another…either they must be reconciled, or the split must become complete. It’s a messy and downright frightening business. Yes, frightening. It ought to give us pause on a daily basis. Every day that passes in which they remain in this irregularity is another day in which people like you and I become confused and misled as to what it means. Independence becomes normalized, even preferable. One need only look at sedevacantist churches that claim to have “independent priests” to see where this can lead. There is no such thing as an “independent” Catholic priest. Our revered host on this blog can tell you all about that, to his most profound sorrow.
So when the SSPX hierarchy begins veering in that direction, those of us who are continually praying for paix liturgique tremble. Some say they are using their truculence as a way of forcing the issue. I might do the same, if only the consequences of a potential backfire are greater than I could conscion. And already those consequences are being felt in the debate that is raging: more and more division, hatred and infighting.
Thus I return to my original argument, which you have missed because you are so busy being angry and wanting me to outline a specific solution, as though I have a window into God’s will. That original argument is that the SSPX has become so accustomed to the convenience of independence, so comfortable in being masters of their own fate, that the thought of returning to the truly Catholic picture of surrendering independence to the yoke of Christ has become unthinkable. And that is the seed of doom.
I can’t give you a solution, and neither can anyone else. The only way of finding a solution is for the two main players in this drama to quit being truculent and together map it out. I can’t speak to why Leo won’t sit down with them, except to point out that a) as supreme head of the institutional Church, his position is immensely more complicated than most people think (and I don’t say that as an apologist; I say that from conversations with people who know firsthand); and b) you are a parent; when one of your children is being belligerent and trying to manipulate you into giving him his way, do you let your other children see you giving place to him? Even when the belligerent child has a very good point, a strong father cannot afford to let his son bully him, or he will soon have chaos on his hands. He has to find an alternate means of correctly dealing with the situation, and that usually means waiting for the dust to settle before acting with prudence.
As much as we all long for a true and benevolent Holy Father, we also need him to be strong enough to lead the whole Church…how he responds to this ultimatum will have bearing on how he must then respond to similar ultimata from the German Synod or the James Martins, should they arise. So let’s give Leo at least that much credit, shall we? He is not a hasty man.
I have no need to have the final word on anything, but you have asked me several personal questions because you seem to think my authority (or lack thereof) in saying these things is dependent on your illusion that I have had an easier time with these things than you currently have. There is no such thing as an easy time raising children in our culture. I have had to deal with things you have not, and vice versa. We have almost always had to drive a solid hour to Mass. More than one of my children were prone to severe carsickness. These other dioceses now being crushed are only catching up to what we have endured under Cupich and his cronies in Illinois from the get-go. Yes, that affected my youngest children’s confirmations in more ways than one, and just because they are (young) adults now doesn’t mean that what is happening affects them less; it affects them more, as they have to summon the courage to raise their own families in the midst of this mess.
The effects of TC have been unbearable for huge swathes of the faithful who are wailing and gnashing their teeth. I am among them. No one wants to be the grapes when it comes time to make the wine, that is for certain. But as Gandalf counseled Frodo when he said “I wish it need not have happened in my time…”
“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
Believe it or not, deep down I’m as irascible as they come. But after all I have been through in my life, and having seen the fruit of the angry “rad trad” movement, I choose to err on the side of patience and civility, because those are the qualities of the culture I would rather be part of. It takes work to achieve them, but it’s worth it.