The SSPX were told not to consecrate all 4 bishops, and I don’t think Rome approved of the candidates, but they were going to get one. That was already approved. MJO, even though the twentieth century saw a major reaction, at least in England, to Apostolicae curae and that the Roman church then messed with its rites in a way apparently contradicting the same document, the bottom line is that form, matter, and intention are unclear historically for Anglicans and that when they convert, it generally doesn’t matter if the priests are bishops or not. (I do think that valid priestly ordinations should be respected, but Graham Leonard really seems to be an exception.) On the other hand, those three things were clear in the case of the Écône consecrations, and since the sacraments are ex opere operato, the presumption is for validity. We aren’t Cyprianic in our sacramental theology and ecclesiology, unlike some Orthodox.

I don't have a problem about this ordination question. The church can change her mind, and has many times in history why should that be a problem?

Indeed. The position, insofar as I understand it, appears to be incorrect. On the other hand, no condemnations were issued, and no legitimate punishments were given, as the CDF vaguely referred to any and all punishments. Fr. Feeney recited only the Credo of his choice; he chose the Athanasian. The whole case from Cardinal Cushing and then the Holy Office was fraught with legal error. (One might say the same about parts of the case against Archbishop Lefebvre.)

The MICM are close to my heart: Fr. Feeney’s mother took in my great–grandmother, who was married from their house so to speak, and his brother (the diocesan priest, Fr. John, not the fellow SJ Fr. Thomas) said my grandparents’ nuptial Mass. Of course, my nana thought he was condemned, leading her and her age cohort in New England to believe in something less than extra ecclesiam nulla salus as the church has believed it, let alone the Feeneyite view. Today the Slaves are thriving in Still River.

The reason for bringing in the SSPX as a self supported structure seems obvious to me. It is a unit, breaking it up and placing the local chapels under local bishops is essentially a dissolving of the SSPX. Let's not be ignorant, there are swaths of bishops who hate historical/traditional Catholicism and would gleefully do everything in their power to destroy SSPXers under their 'care'. The society would be foolish to not ensure their 'safety'.

As to Anglicans, yes (most Catholics are ignorant of the 'Dutch touch') some of their clergy are likely true priests, but sorting out who is who would be a rather difficult nightmare, as it's a mixed up bag. My understanding is that ordination of ordinate priests is done conditionally (I may be wrong). Rome has no problem saying that E. Orthodox, Polish National Church and Dutch Old Catholic bishops are bishops.

I've been scanning through the numerous commentaries on the SSPX reconciliation question, and one commenter, Jim Paton, on Hillary White's blog, expressed my thoughts:

"As one who assists at Society Masses, I can assure you that if this is a trap then no one I know of (priest or layman) is actually that bothered about it. Why? Well, if it is a trap and they try to force something on the Society, say, acceptance of the New Mass etc., Then it’s back to what they’ve always done…resist! (They’re actually quite good at it.)

Of course, they’ll be labeled schismatics, maybe even excommunicated, but it’s water off a duck's back."

I understand the hesitation and suspicion on the part of many observers, but it seems to me that what this fellow is saying is correct.

It seems to me that if you look at what the SSPX may lose by accepting the deal (which seems to be far better than anything they were offered by previous popes and may be the best deal they'll ever get) as opposed to what they may gain, the benefits far outweigh the possible negatives.

Speaking for myself, having known personally a number of wonderful SSPX priests, I look forward to the day when they can receive more recognition and respect. Perhaps their time of trial and separation from the official Church has been beneficial in some respects since I suspect it must be rather humbling and challenging to be always treated like second class citizens and having to stay on the outside looking in, and perhaps they have learned valuable lessons in their (self-imposed?) exile.

At any rate, I pray for the day when the SSPX is officially intra Ecclesiam. I think their return will be a great sign and source of unity and strength for traditional Catholics.

Very elucidating, BGP. I have a relative who was just ordained an COE priest, and he described to me the various factions in the COE who were represented on the board examining him for candidacy. He told me how he had designed his responses to correspond to each examiner, among whom the Evangelicals figured largely. It made my head spin.

Here's one more thought re: the negotiations between SSPX and Rome since I'm seeing more and more how observers are warning Bp. Fellay that it's all a nefarious trap. It seems to me that Bp. Fellay is in a very tough spot. If he doesn't take the deal, what's to say that there could be a breakaway group that will? (There's already a breakaway group if he does, the SSPX of the Strict Observance, or some such name.)

We have to remember that the SSPX has been discussing possible deals with Rome for almost 45 years now, so I'm sure they know the issues thoroughly and are trying to provide for every exigency they can imagine. No doubt Bp. Fellay is conducting the negotiations in the same cautious, wary but cordial style as the nuclear arms accord between Reagan and Gorbachev. "Trust, but verify," ---something to that effect. I have every confidence Bp. Fellay and his negotiating team are assiduously nailing down all the details and taking every possible advantage, but it might not hurt if they read this book:

.

Methought, on second thought, it better than the plenum of rantissimum that it replaced.

Julie - I was just making a comment I now know is a mistranslation. "Thou shalt not alter one jot or tittle", not dot.

Keep to those jots and tittles you people!

JulieCol

I admire your optimism. I wish I could be moreso, but I have lived through the reality of the VII disaster for too many decades, and after watching what has happened to other traditional orders, I am wincing at the thought of the SSPX stepping off the cliff. JMHO.

...susceptible to factions and schism...

Ahhh. Doesn't this sound familiar? Hmm. Sort of like the Protestant experience? Schism is schism. Schism begets more schism. The SSPX is schismatic and is so by purposefully divised choice. Their willful and calculated disobedience to both pope and council, putting themselves above the acts and will of the Catholic Church hardly wins them accolades as 'traditional Catholics', 'true Catholics', or any other kind of Catholic. Why, they even thought it nothing to bring excommunication upon themselves by stubbornly doing what they were told not to do. Now, the Church and the holy father bends over backwards in a gracious act of charitable mercy to extend a hand to them and, still, they quibble amongst themselves whether they will deign to accept it. As with all those who have separated themselves from communion with Rome, their tidy little 'true church' will divide again and again with more and more 'true churches'. As someone noted above, we already have the appearance of the SSPX of the Strict Observance... which means, inevitably, strict of observance of what I wish to observe.

Schism, schism, and more schism. It's what happens to the apprentice when the sorcerer is away.

And as for

their magnificent new seminary will be busy turning out new traditional Catholic priests..

Schismatics and those who place not so much value on unity with Peter are hardly to be thought of as 'traditional Catholic priests', or traditional Catholic people. They're not!

(No . )

Francis, here's another thought: I certainly understand the concern that the SSPX will begin to adopt a similar public posture towards the New Mass and Council as we've seen happen to some.

On the other hand, the essential breakthrough that Bp. Fellay was talking about in the video carried by Rorate Caeli lies in the fact that our Holy Father appears to be saying (cf. Arbp. Guido Pozzo) that the heretofore controversial parts in religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality are not part of dogma, but rather new pastoral orientations that can be freely disagreed with.

That's a breakthrough and something totally new as far as I can see. I think Bp. Fellay is very prudent to state that the articulation of that belief is going to be controversial in the Church, and there will most certainly be some who will react against it and challenge it.

I believe Bp. Fellay is being quite wise to wait and see whether Rome will publicly support this new position when it becomes challenged. If Rome does not back down from the position articulated by Arbp. Pozzo regarding the Council, then it would seem that the reconciliation will proceed as planned.

Bp. Fellay appears to be saying publicly that the Pope is really not interested in those types of matters and seems to be more interested in the fact that the Society clearly loves Jesus and the people and is close to them, pastorally speaking.

That being said, it is certainly reasonable to fear that the realities of the post-Conciliar Church will cause them to, in one manner or another, to temper their message. Bp. Alphonso de Galarreta has said publicly that he is concerned that will be a temptation. On the other hand, we do know in faith that the unity of the Church pertains to the essence of the dogma of the Faith, and we can say that Pope Francis has offered the SSPX far more than any other traditional order has ever been offered, and so, in this sense, accepting the Holy Father's generous offer could be seizing an opportunity that may not come again for a long time.

Also, there are a lot of bishops and priests in the Church who are looking at the SSPX with renewed perspective. This may the very moment to bring not only the traditional Mass, but also their very useful insight, if not charism, of the public Kingship of Jesus Christ, to the wider Church--- a dogma which has appeared very little since the Council and is certainly one that needs to be reasserted since the traditional Mass is its liturgical expression.

Finally, were the unthinkable to happen, and were the SSPX to come under heavy pressure and threats of renewed sanctions and censures to renounce its liturgical and doctrinal praxis, I think it's quite reasonable to assume that at least one of its bishops would utter their "Non possumus!" and return to the default position we have seen since circa 1975.

I think their attitude can be best summed up by the expression coined by former President Reagan concerning important negotiations in the pursuit of peace when he said, "Trust, but verify."

Well, MJO, I certainly understand where you're coming from, and you are to be commended for your loyalty and love of the Church.

That being said, I think you could say that while there have been times where certain acts, elements and attitudes of some associated with the Society have appeared to be schismatic, that is a term the Church has never embraced in regards to the Society.

In fact, our present pope has made clear that, while he wants to see their canonical situation regularized, he does in fact consider them Catholic, and now with the happy news that a formula has been finally reached, after all these years regarding the Novus Ordo Missae and the Council, the SSPX appears to be cleared by Rome for final approach to regularization and, in fact, full canonical status and approbation.

To put it another way, while I fully understand the attitude you are adopting towards the Society, I would suggest, quite respectfully, and in fact with much admiration for your steadfastness, that your position towards them is one which would have been reflected by many in the Church in the late 70's, 80's and 90's, but really does not reflect the ecclesial reality of today.

Still, schism is still a very evil thing, and something which, of course, we're all against, but now we're in a new era regarding the SSPX, and I think it might be time to join our Holy Father in celebrating the diversity which he has apparently given them to bring to the Church which is going to, in a certain sense, to use the term coined by the Holy Father, "make a mess of things", a mess which nonetheless some of us have been looking forward to for a very long time.

By that I mean it will no longer be taboo to have an honest and forthright appraisal of both the positive and negative aspects of the New Mass and the Council. We will be able to discuss these things freely because our Holy Father seems to have no desire to impose a rigid uniformity in matters that do not pertain to the dogma of the Faith.

P.S. If we can have parrhesia about the 6th and 9th commandments, we can certainly have parrhesia about the liturgical reform and certain pastoral orientations of the Council which are of a provisional nature.

CGZ...

Yea, it gets deep around here alright!

Fellay replaced