With respect to Cardinal Burke's remarks, I think I would just make one distinction: If the Pope said that he wanted to give jurisdiction to the priests of the SSPX during The Year of Mercy so people could feel free to go to confession to them, then I don't understand on what basis Cardinal Burke (whom I greatly respect and admire) could limit that to "absolute necessity."

I'm not a member of the SSPX, nor do I attend Mass at their chapels. However, I had occasion to go to confession to an SSPX priest after the Year of Mercy began (12-8-15) specifically because our Holy Father gave them jurisdiction and said that I could take advantage of this situation.

On what basis can the Cardinal limit a permission the Pope has given by adding the condition of "absolute necessity"? I don't understand how a lower authority can limit and place conditions on a general permission granted by a higher authority.

In other words, the Pope said I could go to confession this year to an SSPX priest. How can Cardinal Burke say that I can't unless it's "an absolute necessity" (which it wasn't, by the way. Do I have to confess that now, too?) ?

On what basis can Cardinal Burke limit and place conditions on the gift the Pope gave to the SSPX during the Year of Mercy? The Pope can limit the gift, but only the Pope can do this, but, to the best of my knowledge, he has not done so.

So, with all due respect to the eminent Cardinal, at least with respect to confession, I simply don't understand on what basis he has chosen to make this statement.

The problem with this as a data point is that it seems like Pope Francis implicitly approves of everything.

(I'm Stimson in Rehab - and I suck at memes. :/ )

First I want to state that others usually see me as an optimistic, joyful person who focuses on positive thinking. I do not consider myself a "traditional catholic" but a normal catholic. Though I typically attend the Latin Mass , English is in fact my preferred language at mass in the form of an anglo-catholic missal. Because the ordinariate liturgies three year lectionary is not traditional, I attend the Latin Mass instead and am content with it.

Despite misgivings of many of my friends, who tell me all the bad things about the SSPX, and though I acknowledge particular SSPX chapels might have problems, I can not help but like them. It is a gut instinct. I am a native Virginian and to have their main North American seminary in my home state is quite an honour. I had a picture of myself taken with Bishop Fellay at this years March for Life. My dear friend who had had bad experiences with them did not want her picture taken. I respect her position but have to think they do far more good than bad. (She had various good reasons).



Most lay Catholics do not know who the SSPX is, so much so that if you invite them to one of their chapels or missions , they will often attend because they do not recognize any immediate differences from other catholic churches other than it being more traditional - or the fact that it is inside a funeral home ;-)

I find that in each region the SSPX varies. In some they are the main option, in others they compete with the diocesan TLM and or have hostility to them, in others they are respectful, in others just oblvious. It all depends on the particular society priest and socio-cultural scenario in the life of the local church. My own experience with the SSPX in Philly and DC has been solely positive. Many of the people attend diocesan masses from time to time. There is not a clear division. There is a a recognization of the diocese as being the same church as them, its simply an issue with lack of trust of orthodoxy within the diocesan latin mass.

I would have to say that what I see at diocesan Latin Masses is a sort of "propaganda department environment" as in a "police state", dictatorship or communist country in the 1980s. As at a time when the communist ideology was clearly crumbling but the state resisted acknowleding it and propped up communist heroes more than ever. So today we have a similar phenemenon. The police state of modernists within the hierarchy of the church demand that all priests salute Pope Francis "message of the week" in the mass, including a traditional latin mass. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if my message was edited to ommit this paragraph. Hopefully it won't be. I would permanantly leave the forum if it was because I have standards of decent honest conversation. I say this with love in my heart.

Thus orthodox, devout Catholic lay people are force fed the ideology of all the positive things His Holiness Lord Pope Francis does and none of the negative. It is clearly intentional and the SSPX is often the only option for othodoxy and truth. They are the only ones who will criticise the Lord Pope constructively, honestly, with the love and balance of a child to their father. Thank God they exist, it would be depressing without them. His holiness Pope Francis does many good things, I acknowlege that, but he deserves criticism for the degree of things he does that appear to legitimately warrant it. We need balance.

Sometimes the SSPX has done a poor job competing and purchasing churches. Back in Norfolk, VA they had an offer for a protestant church but wouldnt buy it because there was a stipulation that the protestants had to continue to use it for their own service for a 6 month transition period until they built anew one. The local SSPX priest or whoever bungled that attempt and to this day they meet in a hotel. So it is not an organization without flaws, we are all a work in progress. I think the SSPX is a more moderate entity today than it was 20 years ago, such speculation, rings true to me. Moderate, to the point that it can be more positive and grow, but remain orthodox.

They might have bought the church, waited six months, and then moved in. But perhaps financial considerations wouldn't allow for that.

Thanks so much for your very balanced perspective, Chris, and I agree with you that the SSPX in America does seem to have local variations. I have become good friends with a few Society priests and have great admiration for their dedication and zeal. They are accessible, kind, very knowledgeable, generous and willing to dialogue with anyone. We frequently invite them for dinner and conversation at our house with some friends, and they are wonderful examples for our family, and I just love them.

I'm not sure if the same can be said of all the lay people of the SSPX, though, which is one of the main reasons we keep our distance from their Mass centers, in addition to their irregular canonical status. I would venture to say that there is something of a disconnect between the mindset of many of the Society priests and their American congregations, and that may be due to the fact that the priests are itinerant in many cases and are not able to be with the people as much as is needed. It would seem that in recent years an effort has been made to move the Society in America in a more "liberal" European direction and away from the influence of Bishop Williamson who unfortunately seemed to have made deep ideological inroads into the American district since he was for many years the Rector of their seminary in Winona.