St. John the Baptist points to Him and says, “Behold the Lamb of God.” Holy John the Baptist, voice crying in the wilderness and precursor of the Lord, pray for us!
God bless the holy Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre+ and the SSPX for their fidelity to Holy Mother the Church!
If I cannot know what fidelity is, then how can you know what fidelity is not? Fidelity must be objective. On matters of faith and morals, the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church remain objective and will always trump popular opinion.
Fidelity to the Church is the steadfast commitment to believe what the Church definitively teaches, to participate in her sacramental life, to remain in communion with her lawful pastors, and to work for her good, while recognizing that her ministers are capable of personal error, imprudence, and even sin in matters that are not protected by the charism of infallibility.
This definition preserves several important distinctions:
• Fidelity is first to Christ, who is the Head of the Church. One cannot be faithful to Christ while rejecting the Church He established.
• Fidelity includes assent to the deposit of faith, not to every theological opinion or pastoral initiative proposed by churchmen.
• Fidelity includes communion with the Pope and the bishops in union with him, because visible unity is an essential mark of the Church.
• Fidelity allows respectful criticism of non-definitive decisions, disciplinary measures, prudential judgments, or ambiguous statements, provided such criticism remains within the bounds of ecclesial communion and does not deny the Church's divinely established authority.
This distinction is important because two opposite errors exist.
One error is ultramontanism (or hyperpapalism), which effectively treats every papal utterance or policy as beyond criticism. That has never been Catholic doctrine.
The opposite error is to make one's own interpretation of Scripture and Tradition the final norm against which every act of the Magisterium is judged. In that case, one remains in communion only so long as the Church agrees with one's own conclusions. The final authority has subtly shifted from the Church to oneself.
True fidelity avoids both extremes. It recognizes that the Church's pastors can err in non-definitive matters. Still, it also recognizes that Christ entrusted the authentic interpretation of the deposit of faith to the Church's living Magisterium, not to individual believers or independent groups.
In short, fidelity to the Church is not unquestioning obedience to every ecclesiastical act, nor is it selective obedience conditioned on one's own theological judgments. It is enduring communion with the Church Christ founded, expressed through faith, worship, charity, and respectful submission to her legitimate teaching authority, while maintaining the right to evaluate non-definitive acts in light of the Church's perennial doctrine.
Thank you for your post, however, it was Andrew and Jaymie Wolf who said the SSPX is wrong about fidelity so am waiting to hear what they believe fidelity is.
The term ‘fidelity’ means to be faithful to a person or institution, to offer that person or institution loyalty, to be trustworthy in its sight. It is not, and cannot be, an entirely objective concept because there are degrees of loyalty, faithfulness and trustworthiness.
So in what way is the SSPX unfaithful or disloyal to the Church or the Catholic faith? You cannot say that the SSPX and its supporters are wrong without clearly explaining why.
Reading the letter, it is clear to me that the SSPX sees the Catholic Church as unchanging and unchangeable, bound by tradition, and it is to this concept that it pledges faithfulness.
If Lucifer's Vicar came bearing a message and it had the Vatican letterhead, would you just bow and submit? Just because he seemed to be duly appointed by letters, by process, and by the approval by the N.O. Church? A Church whose chain of authority and right to rule was clearly broken at Vatican II?
Of course you would.
This is one of many reasons why I left this Imposterchurch. It is WRONG to be faithful to a GOLEM that has most of the superficial trappings but, none of the Holy Spirit or the Traditions.
If Popes Pius V or Innocent III or Gregory III or Urban II were in charge of the current SSPX, they would've sent a thundering rebuke! Not a meek request to be recognized as a minority partner. Deus Vult.
It’s Jesus who said he the gates of hades will not hold against the Church. And here you are saying that it has happened already. I’d rather believe Jesus, unless you can show me exactly why your position is right.
Are you ready? "The Gates" don't just imply but, declare, that the Church He spoke of is on the offense. Gates don't attack anyone. They keep the unwanted out. But, that is not the picture today. Let alone in modern and post-modern times.
Hell has gone out from its Gates and successfully invaded the Church! Vatican II bears witness that even the most staunch cradle Catholics cannot credibly deny. Let us not forget the last verse in the New Testament John 21:25
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did. Which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written."
In other words, Jesus said and did many things that were NOT RECORDED. Let alone survive the Council of Nicea which compiled the Bible. But, Satan's attacks and increasing victories against Christendom ARE recorded. History bears witness that I AM RIGHT.
Am I anti-Catholic? NO! I am demanding that Catholics take off the Kosher blinders they have been forced to wear and see things as they really are.
Deo gratias pour la FSSPX. Espérons que le pape Léon XIV et les cardinaux les plus éclairés sauront ouvrir leur entendement pour bien accueillir cette démarche sincère de la FSSPX.
I pray that the Holy Father and cardinals will appreciate the sincerity of this appeal, and defer the threatened excommunication, and permit the SSPX to present their position and enter into a frank and open discussion with them
The SSPX in its arrogance excommunicated itself from the time of LeFebvre. The Holy Father should stop pretending otherwise. The SSPX won't even attend Mass with us!
Benedict XVI took a more generous view - somewhat different from yours. I excerpt from his letter which accompanied his lifting of the excommunications.
"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint."
They have the right to speak their piece, especially when so many in secular media and even within the Vatican machinery want to misrepresent the Society’s stances. They also clearly don’t trust the tool in charge of the DDF, and I can’t say I blame them; he’s been trying to put his finger on the scale this entire time, and Pope Leo needs to realize that some things cannot be delegated.
A good father knows that sometimes he has to put down the thousand other things clamoring for his attention because a specific offspring needs it.
Former Protestant here. Actually, the current hierarchy has much more in common with Martin Luther than the SSPX. Like Luther, they reject the doctrines of the Church and are in living rebellion against it. (This is probably why Francis gave audiences in the presence of a life-size statue of Luther and ordered the issuance of Luther postage stamps.)
Oh my goodness before I read on to see your posting, I was thinking the exact same thing. I grew up Lutheran and upon seeking clarity within the faith I became Catholic, and when I became Catholic, I surely felt that I was in a familiar place within the liturgy in a Catholic Church. Our current Catholic Church is not far from being Protestant. I fear as time goes by we become closer.
I share your background @Cynth Marie, and see exactly what you are seeing. I must admit that, as a convert, I side with tradition and the SSPX. The "New Synodal Church" is NOT what I signed up for. Our Lord has His reasons for allowing this nonsense to continue, so we must remain steadfast in prayer until we are delivered from this "Ape of the Church". St. Michael defend us in battle!🙏🏼
Help me out here! Doesn't it say in Canon law that penalties don't apply if the action was taken in good faith? Maybe another way of asking this is, doesn't being guilty of schism require the intention of schism? If that's the case then they will only be guilty of disobedience. Please tell me what you think.
I am glad that you ask that. I would say yes, “Only be! (guilty of disobedience - not schism - to supply context)”. Allow me to explain.
Obedience is for the sake of things higher than itself.
Obedience to the Holy Father is for the sake of many things, communion, unity, faith, hope, love - and ultimately the salvation of souls which is the supreme law of the church.
These higher things are not for the sake of obedience - which while a good is a lower thing.
Therefore if it were necessary for SSPX to be disobedient for the sake of these higher things, we would understand them to “only be” guilty of disobedience.
I agree! But then we must acknowledge the disobedience to the explicit command of the pope. So the consecrations are obedient in one way and disobedient in another. Since the Holy Office identified a striking departure from catholic understanding in the new mass (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci - the Critical Study), and there are some dubious things in the council documents, and there are some heterodox things coming from Rome (or at least allowed by Rome), we would argue that the sting of disobedience to the pope is softened or even dissolved by the obedience to the higher things - the ultimate of these being the salvation of souls. I don't speak for the SSPX, but I can well imagine -and I think they do too- a future Pope will be grateful to them.
Abd yet many schismatics took the same stance that they must obey God and not man. Even this letter shows their personal discernment they know better and believe the church is wrong and ib error.
In conscience one must understand the law and be sure that it corresponds to the Gospel "the law of love" before obeying. Galatians 1:8. Do you agree with this?
Truth and its content come first! Unity and obedience are permitted by God only with reservation and within the framework of the eternal content of truth.
Here we see from the leaders of the SSPX a sincere, honest assent to the Truths of the Faith and to the authority of the Holy See and the episcopate.
Contrast it to the behavior and verbiage contributed by the German episcopate the likes of the German episcopate, Cardinals Hollerich and Grech, James Martin and his constituents, a whole rabid school of the global episcopate, and others of heterodox bent.
There is no greater responsibility before the Holy Father than to immediately intervene exercising the greatest pastoral acumen with the SSPX. Not to do so will besmirch his pontificate in history and eternity. Sins of omission are no less serious than acts. Omission bespeaks a hard heart, a closed mind and worse, personal cowardliness.
The Holy See is the agent of unity. We appear to seek unity with any entity but with our faithful brothers and sisters in the SSPX.
Clear and without ambiguity! To be saved, every Catholic must assent to these truths, even at the risk of losing their life. This is the same profession of the Catholic faith that we adhered to at our Baptism! All Catholics should sincerely study this profession, point by point.
Thank you, Lord Jesus Christ, for raising up this faithful society of bishops and priests, who refuse to bend to the lies of modernism and the culture of our day - and instead cling to the riches you Yourself have given us - these riches are the only path to peace in this world and to life everlasting in heaven. Please sustain them in their faithful witness in the days ahead - Mother, please keep them under your Sacred Mantle of protection - and above all, Lord Jesus, do not allow them to back down, not one dot or one iota! Amen!
When Josyf Slipyj, the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, secretly consecrated Lubomyr Husar (along with two other bishops, Ivan Choma and Stefan Czmil) on April 2, 1977, without papal mandate, as an act to ensure the survival of the persecuted UGCC under Soviet suppression, this violated canon law at the time. Was the excommunication automatic, because I don’t recall the future Cardinal and now “Servant of God” ever being readmitted to the Church? While his schismatic act was later recognized and regularized by John Paul II in the 1990s, where is the consistency in treatment with the SSPX?
It wasn’t condemned at the time because it was secret. Duh? You must reject Pope Benedict’s statement that Popes are not dictators. But for some Catholics, the teachings of dead Popes are dead, too.
A false equivalence. Major Archbishop Slipyj had a tacit approval and mandate. Not to mention he rulled a independent Eastern Catholic Church. Archbishop Lefebvre was explicitly told multiple times he did not have permission. Might I add by a Pope who had likely done the very same thing as Slipyj.
Historically incorrect. Slipyi and no such tacit approval and it was against the policy of Paul VI and his Secretary of State. Did you just make this up?
Given that it was not condemned and later accepted it is simply assumed to have had an implicit mandate. That is the historical position since for most of history most consecrations lacked a expressed papal mandate due to the means of communication at the time.
Wrong assumption. A later Pope, John Paul II, accepted the bishops and raised Slipyi to the red hat. The means of communication were just during the tenure of Paul VI, a post-Conciliar pontiff. Face it: Canon Law only applies when they want it to (sort of like Apostolic Constitutions and Conclaves).
In what way is the means only limited to the current living Pope? Nevertheless, we can again assume by the lack of formal condemnation to be a tacit acceptance.
We also have a problem in that you are condemning the SSPX. Even if Cannon Law is applied unequally that does not stop it from applying. And the SSPX were explicitly told not to consecrate. Slipj's situation is distinct enough not to form a precedent for the SSPX, and the decider of said precedent decided against them anyways.
Or does the part were the Pope is the arbiter of Cannon Law suddenly not apply?
Ahh yes a wonderful intention for tradition and purity of faith to be the foundation Church's life. I pray for that too.
A beautiful letter, may God bless them with abundant vocations to the priesthood and many more parishes - even one in my area - Please God!
Please come to East Tennessee. We have been orphaned by the Synodal Church of Francis and Leo.
St. John the Baptist points to Him and says, “Behold the Lamb of God.” Holy John the Baptist, voice crying in the wilderness and precursor of the Lord, pray for us!
God bless the holy Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre+ and the SSPX for their fidelity to Holy Mother the Church!
Nobody appointed Lefebvre or you the judge of fidelity to the Church, and you and all the SSPX are wrong about what that fidelity is.
If I cannot know what fidelity is, then how can you know what fidelity is not? Fidelity must be objective. On matters of faith and morals, the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church remain objective and will always trump popular opinion.
So.if the SSPX is wrong about what fidelity is, please educate us.
Fidelity to the Church is the steadfast commitment to believe what the Church definitively teaches, to participate in her sacramental life, to remain in communion with her lawful pastors, and to work for her good, while recognizing that her ministers are capable of personal error, imprudence, and even sin in matters that are not protected by the charism of infallibility.
This definition preserves several important distinctions:
• Fidelity is first to Christ, who is the Head of the Church. One cannot be faithful to Christ while rejecting the Church He established.
• Fidelity includes assent to the deposit of faith, not to every theological opinion or pastoral initiative proposed by churchmen.
• Fidelity includes communion with the Pope and the bishops in union with him, because visible unity is an essential mark of the Church.
• Fidelity allows respectful criticism of non-definitive decisions, disciplinary measures, prudential judgments, or ambiguous statements, provided such criticism remains within the bounds of ecclesial communion and does not deny the Church's divinely established authority.
This distinction is important because two opposite errors exist.
One error is ultramontanism (or hyperpapalism), which effectively treats every papal utterance or policy as beyond criticism. That has never been Catholic doctrine.
The opposite error is to make one's own interpretation of Scripture and Tradition the final norm against which every act of the Magisterium is judged. In that case, one remains in communion only so long as the Church agrees with one's own conclusions. The final authority has subtly shifted from the Church to oneself.
True fidelity avoids both extremes. It recognizes that the Church's pastors can err in non-definitive matters. Still, it also recognizes that Christ entrusted the authentic interpretation of the deposit of faith to the Church's living Magisterium, not to individual believers or independent groups.
In short, fidelity to the Church is not unquestioning obedience to every ecclesiastical act, nor is it selective obedience conditioned on one's own theological judgments. It is enduring communion with the Church Christ founded, expressed through faith, worship, charity, and respectful submission to her legitimate teaching authority, while maintaining the right to evaluate non-definitive acts in light of the Church's perennial doctrine.
Thank you for your post, however, it was Andrew and Jaymie Wolf who said the SSPX is wrong about fidelity so am waiting to hear what they believe fidelity is.
And if they are right?
Of course they are right. I just want to hear what Andrew and Jaymie Wolfe believe fidelity means.
Well first Andrew needs to consult with Jaymie…
Jamie is waiting the synodal church to give him some answers
The term ‘fidelity’ means to be faithful to a person or institution, to offer that person or institution loyalty, to be trustworthy in its sight. It is not, and cannot be, an entirely objective concept because there are degrees of loyalty, faithfulness and trustworthiness.
So in what way is the SSPX unfaithful or disloyal to the Church or the Catholic faith? You cannot say that the SSPX and its supporters are wrong without clearly explaining why.
Reading the letter, it is clear to me that the SSPX sees the Catholic Church as unchanging and unchangeable, bound by tradition, and it is to this concept that it pledges faithfulness.
Well said! Thank you.
Nobody said he/it/we are a "judge" of anything, but in all humility I am sure we are interested in what it is you think they have got wrong.
It's been three days and still waiting for you to tell us how we and all the SSPX are wrong about what fidelity is.
If Lucifer's Vicar came bearing a message and it had the Vatican letterhead, would you just bow and submit? Just because he seemed to be duly appointed by letters, by process, and by the approval by the N.O. Church? A Church whose chain of authority and right to rule was clearly broken at Vatican II?
Of course you would.
This is one of many reasons why I left this Imposterchurch. It is WRONG to be faithful to a GOLEM that has most of the superficial trappings but, none of the Holy Spirit or the Traditions.
If Popes Pius V or Innocent III or Gregory III or Urban II were in charge of the current SSPX, they would've sent a thundering rebuke! Not a meek request to be recognized as a minority partner. Deus Vult.
It’s Jesus who said he the gates of hades will not hold against the Church. And here you are saying that it has happened already. I’d rather believe Jesus, unless you can show me exactly why your position is right.
Are you ready? "The Gates" don't just imply but, declare, that the Church He spoke of is on the offense. Gates don't attack anyone. They keep the unwanted out. But, that is not the picture today. Let alone in modern and post-modern times.
Hell has gone out from its Gates and successfully invaded the Church! Vatican II bears witness that even the most staunch cradle Catholics cannot credibly deny. Let us not forget the last verse in the New Testament John 21:25
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did. Which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written."
In other words, Jesus said and did many things that were NOT RECORDED. Let alone survive the Council of Nicea which compiled the Bible. But, Satan's attacks and increasing victories against Christendom ARE recorded. History bears witness that I AM RIGHT.
Am I anti-Catholic? NO! I am demanding that Catholics take off the Kosher blinders they have been forced to wear and see things as they really are.
Deo gratias pour la FSSPX. Espérons que le pape Léon XIV et les cardinaux les plus éclairés sauront ouvrir leur entendement pour bien accueillir cette démarche sincère de la FSSPX.
I pray that the Holy Father and cardinals will appreciate the sincerity of this appeal, and defer the threatened excommunication, and permit the SSPX to present their position and enter into a frank and open discussion with them
The SSPX in its arrogance excommunicated itself from the time of LeFebvre. The Holy Father should stop pretending otherwise. The SSPX won't even attend Mass with us!
Benedict XVI took a more generous view - somewhat different from yours. I excerpt from his letter which accompanied his lifting of the excommunications.
"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint."
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
... and would you attend Mass with them? 🤔
You sound angry and irrational - what are your concerns?
Truth will prevail.
So now you two are acting as consul to the Holy Father? Nice gig.
… and as for you? You've assigned yourself to the peanut gallery?
It’s cozy in here and probably where most of us belong.
Pray for the conversion of Leo XIV and the bishops of Rome.
They have the right to speak their piece, especially when so many in secular media and even within the Vatican machinery want to misrepresent the Society’s stances. They also clearly don’t trust the tool in charge of the DDF, and I can’t say I blame them; he’s been trying to put his finger on the scale this entire time, and Pope Leo needs to realize that some things cannot be delegated.
A good father knows that sometimes he has to put down the thousand other things clamoring for his attention because a specific offspring needs it.
This is all just a flowery way of the same Protestant rejection of Church authority since Martin Luther.
And we see the SSPX trolls are out, too.
Former Protestant here. Actually, the current hierarchy has much more in common with Martin Luther than the SSPX. Like Luther, they reject the doctrines of the Church and are in living rebellion against it. (This is probably why Francis gave audiences in the presence of a life-size statue of Luther and ordered the issuance of Luther postage stamps.)
Oh my goodness before I read on to see your posting, I was thinking the exact same thing. I grew up Lutheran and upon seeking clarity within the faith I became Catholic, and when I became Catholic, I surely felt that I was in a familiar place within the liturgy in a Catholic Church. Our current Catholic Church is not far from being Protestant. I fear as time goes by we become closer.
I share your background @Cynth Marie, and see exactly what you are seeing. I must admit that, as a convert, I side with tradition and the SSPX. The "New Synodal Church" is NOT what I signed up for. Our Lord has His reasons for allowing this nonsense to continue, so we must remain steadfast in prayer until we are delivered from this "Ape of the Church". St. Michael defend us in battle!🙏🏼
Yawn, was wondering when you two would get to the Luther smear.
Where is the schismatic intention?
It's in the intention to ordain bishops without the sanction of the Holy Father.
It's also in insisting on their interpretation of canon law to justify it.
Help me out here! Doesn't it say in Canon law that penalties don't apply if the action was taken in good faith? Maybe another way of asking this is, doesn't being guilty of schism require the intention of schism? If that's the case then they will only be guilty of disobedience. Please tell me what you think.
No.
"... only be?"
I am glad that you ask that. I would say yes, “Only be! (guilty of disobedience - not schism - to supply context)”. Allow me to explain.
Obedience is for the sake of things higher than itself.
Obedience to the Holy Father is for the sake of many things, communion, unity, faith, hope, love - and ultimately the salvation of souls which is the supreme law of the church.
These higher things are not for the sake of obedience - which while a good is a lower thing.
Therefore if it were necessary for SSPX to be disobedient for the sake of these higher things, we would understand them to “only be” guilty of disobedience.
Does this make sense?
How is it disobedient to wish to adhere to traditions that are true and cannot be changed
I agree! But then we must acknowledge the disobedience to the explicit command of the pope. So the consecrations are obedient in one way and disobedient in another. Since the Holy Office identified a striking departure from catholic understanding in the new mass (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci - the Critical Study), and there are some dubious things in the council documents, and there are some heterodox things coming from Rome (or at least allowed by Rome), we would argue that the sting of disobedience to the pope is softened or even dissolved by the obedience to the higher things - the ultimate of these being the salvation of souls. I don't speak for the SSPX, but I can well imagine -and I think they do too- a future Pope will be grateful to them.
Abd yet many schismatics took the same stance that they must obey God and not man. Even this letter shows their personal discernment they know better and believe the church is wrong and ib error.
That is one point of view for consideration. Here is another.
https://spiritualwarfarer.substack.com/p/to-obey-or-not-to-obey-that-is-the?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=6zsguf
Oh…. Now we can interpret the law also 😂😂😂😂😂
In conscience one must understand the law and be sure that it corresponds to the Gospel "the law of love" before obeying. Galatians 1:8. Do you agree with this?
Truth and its content come first! Unity and obedience are permitted by God only with reservation and within the framework of the eternal content of truth.
Here we see from the leaders of the SSPX a sincere, honest assent to the Truths of the Faith and to the authority of the Holy See and the episcopate.
Contrast it to the behavior and verbiage contributed by the German episcopate the likes of the German episcopate, Cardinals Hollerich and Grech, James Martin and his constituents, a whole rabid school of the global episcopate, and others of heterodox bent.
There is no greater responsibility before the Holy Father than to immediately intervene exercising the greatest pastoral acumen with the SSPX. Not to do so will besmirch his pontificate in history and eternity. Sins of omission are no less serious than acts. Omission bespeaks a hard heart, a closed mind and worse, personal cowardliness.
The Holy See is the agent of unity. We appear to seek unity with any entity but with our faithful brothers and sisters in the SSPX.
It is scandalous in the theological sense.
Here it is!
https://fsspx.news/sites/default/files/documents/profession_of_catholic_faith_en.pdf
Clear and without ambiguity! To be saved, every Catholic must assent to these truths, even at the risk of losing their life. This is the same profession of the Catholic faith that we adhered to at our Baptism! All Catholics should sincerely study this profession, point by point.
But that isn't the Catholic Profession of faith. The very same Pope they claim to obey has a different one.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
Bravo! 👏
Wonderfull!
Thank you, Lord Jesus Christ, for raising up this faithful society of bishops and priests, who refuse to bend to the lies of modernism and the culture of our day - and instead cling to the riches you Yourself have given us - these riches are the only path to peace in this world and to life everlasting in heaven. Please sustain them in their faithful witness in the days ahead - Mother, please keep them under your Sacred Mantle of protection - and above all, Lord Jesus, do not allow them to back down, not one dot or one iota! Amen!
I pray that SSPX can be fully integrated within the Church.
They rather desintegrate SSPX , we are a problem for the one world church
When Josyf Slipyj, the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, secretly consecrated Lubomyr Husar (along with two other bishops, Ivan Choma and Stefan Czmil) on April 2, 1977, without papal mandate, as an act to ensure the survival of the persecuted UGCC under Soviet suppression, this violated canon law at the time. Was the excommunication automatic, because I don’t recall the future Cardinal and now “Servant of God” ever being readmitted to the Church? While his schismatic act was later recognized and regularized by John Paul II in the 1990s, where is the consistency in treatment with the SSPX?
It wasn’t condemned at the time because it was secret. Duh? You must reject Pope Benedict’s statement that Popes are not dictators. But for some Catholics, the teachings of dead Popes are dead, too.
A false equivalence. Major Archbishop Slipyj had a tacit approval and mandate. Not to mention he rulled a independent Eastern Catholic Church. Archbishop Lefebvre was explicitly told multiple times he did not have permission. Might I add by a Pope who had likely done the very same thing as Slipyj.
Historically incorrect. Slipyi and no such tacit approval and it was against the policy of Paul VI and his Secretary of State. Did you just make this up?
Given that it was not condemned and later accepted it is simply assumed to have had an implicit mandate. That is the historical position since for most of history most consecrations lacked a expressed papal mandate due to the means of communication at the time.
Wrong assumption. A later Pope, John Paul II, accepted the bishops and raised Slipyi to the red hat. The means of communication were just during the tenure of Paul VI, a post-Conciliar pontiff. Face it: Canon Law only applies when they want it to (sort of like Apostolic Constitutions and Conclaves).
In what way is the means only limited to the current living Pope? Nevertheless, we can again assume by the lack of formal condemnation to be a tacit acceptance.
We also have a problem in that you are condemning the SSPX. Even if Cannon Law is applied unequally that does not stop it from applying. And the SSPX were explicitly told not to consecrate. Slipj's situation is distinct enough not to form a precedent for the SSPX, and the decider of said precedent decided against them anyways.
Or does the part were the Pope is the arbiter of Cannon Law suddenly not apply?
My prayers are with the SSPX.