Even with an FSSP nearby, that doesn't at all mean attending the SSPX is less tenable. For the SSPX will never abandon them. The FSSP must, by their own logic, abandon the faithful once a wicked pope or bishop demands it.
How many TLM communities must be destroyed before people realize the SSPX is correct. You have a right to trad sacraments and trad doctrine, we will not abandon you. the modernist hierarchy has proven over and over that they will abandon you. If not today, then tomorrow. If not this bishop, the next one.
I don't agree. Yes, the situation is perilous, to be sure; but the longer the SSPX remains by itself in isolation, the more it will develop the characteristics of a separate church, such as that of the Eastern Orthodox. This is practically a sociological and political necessity. There MUST be people working for tradition within the visible structures rather than abandoning them to the worst.
That is a mere assertion. The EO were in error. You must name an error of the sspx. They haven't moved in inch in practice or belief. They're dying to join the "mainstream" as soon as they stop demanding the n.o. and V2 novelties
The foundational error is exercising public ministry without a demonstrable apostolic mission. Remaining unchanged in doctrine or practice does not create authority. The SSPX offers public Masses, hears confessions, governs chapels, and consecrates bishops—but who lawfully sent them?
Fidelity to Tradition cannot supply the mission that Tradition itself requires.
You do know that the SSPX was started with all the necessary permissions of the local bishop, in line with canon law? It even received an official letter of praise.
The point under contention is was its approval legimately revoked by the next local bishop, with the backing of Rome, or was it unjustly suppressed to crush the fight for the traditional liturgy and formation of priests.
So, I’m unclear regarding the case against the SSPX in general. How are they canonically irregular, exactly? The case has not been made. The only difference between the SSPX and the other groups are the consecrations. China is a much worse problem but those clowns aren’t excommunicated and the Chinese money spends just fine. Actually, the situation of much of the current hierarchy is canonically worse. Many of them are not even Catholic, because they are manifest heretics. How is Prevost the pope? The SSPX case for canonical regularity is absolutely sound even if Prevost says otherwise. Why would one listen to him? His “election” was invalid because the number of electors was exceeded. Also, he is a manifest heretic. You mentioned a generational change in the hierarchy being needed for real change. It won’t matter. I understand the point, the disaster of the boomer generation and all, but there is a much more fundamental problem: homosexuality in the hierarchy. The Vatican has become one big satanic bath house. This will never end without ripping it out at the roots. As no one seems to be interested in facing the FULL truth of the problem, the crisis will last until the end. There are remedies that pass legal muster to deal with this (the election of Hilderbrand based on the bull of Nicholas II) but that is going nowhere fast. It’s tuff to run a church without Chinese money you know. Sorry for being long winded. I just truly believe that the SSPX is canonically regular, with the condition that a state of emergency exists for more reasons than can or should be listed here.
I too find it hard to believe, especially based on Leo’s recent appointments, that this hierarchy will ever voluntarily reverse course and replace itself with true believers. I agree that the secret CCP deal negotiated by McCarrick would not have omitted massive bags of cash to betray true believers in China.
So divine worship is "man’s highest moral obligation", but it's a conscientious option not to participate in worship approved by the Church of God when only the NO is available? I see no way to make that work. The choice is yours, of course, but on the other hand we're not liberals regarding conscience.
I would also object to the suggestion that "living, active, visible communion with the local Ordinary" is only "a real and basic good" that is the "fuller and more perfect" option when combined with "the fullness of traditional liturgy". Hierarchichal communion is not only "a good", but a good necessary for salvation by necessity of precept. So what should we do when "the fullness of traditional liturgy" is at odds with "living, active, visible communion"? I.e. if there's no TLM celebrated in hierarchichal communion with the Ordinary, that is inside the constitution of the Church established by Christ.
Dr. K, I appreciate the honesty here and your defense of the old rite. But I think the central mistake is making the liturgy the starting point. The traditional Mass can preserve the faith, but it cannot create office, confer mission, or supply jurisdiction. Our need for Mass cannot authorize men to provide it.
Before the old rite can restabilize the Church, we must know who has authority to offer it in her name. The question remains: Who sent them?
I recognize the parallels with the Arian crisis, but this does not automatically endorse all that the SSPX is or says or does. There is certainly room for disagreement here.
Moreover, Lefebvre did not dispute the validity of the new rites of the sacraments, although he feared they would be invalidated by the lack of due intention on the part of badly formed priests.
Even with an FSSP nearby, that doesn't at all mean attending the SSPX is less tenable. For the SSPX will never abandon them. The FSSP must, by their own logic, abandon the faithful once a wicked pope or bishop demands it.
How many TLM communities must be destroyed before people realize the SSPX is correct. You have a right to trad sacraments and trad doctrine, we will not abandon you. the modernist hierarchy has proven over and over that they will abandon you. If not today, then tomorrow. If not this bishop, the next one.
I don't agree. Yes, the situation is perilous, to be sure; but the longer the SSPX remains by itself in isolation, the more it will develop the characteristics of a separate church, such as that of the Eastern Orthodox. This is practically a sociological and political necessity. There MUST be people working for tradition within the visible structures rather than abandoning them to the worst.
That is a mere assertion. The EO were in error. You must name an error of the sspx. They haven't moved in inch in practice or belief. They're dying to join the "mainstream" as soon as they stop demanding the n.o. and V2 novelties
The foundational error is exercising public ministry without a demonstrable apostolic mission. Remaining unchanged in doctrine or practice does not create authority. The SSPX offers public Masses, hears confessions, governs chapels, and consecrates bishops—but who lawfully sent them?
Fidelity to Tradition cannot supply the mission that Tradition itself requires.
You do know that the SSPX was started with all the necessary permissions of the local bishop, in line with canon law? It even received an official letter of praise.
The point under contention is was its approval legimately revoked by the next local bishop, with the backing of Rome, or was it unjustly suppressed to crush the fight for the traditional liturgy and formation of priests.
We appreciate by the grace of God we have found the Traditional Latin Mass. Yes, I am praying for those who are still in the NO.
So, I’m unclear regarding the case against the SSPX in general. How are they canonically irregular, exactly? The case has not been made. The only difference between the SSPX and the other groups are the consecrations. China is a much worse problem but those clowns aren’t excommunicated and the Chinese money spends just fine. Actually, the situation of much of the current hierarchy is canonically worse. Many of them are not even Catholic, because they are manifest heretics. How is Prevost the pope? The SSPX case for canonical regularity is absolutely sound even if Prevost says otherwise. Why would one listen to him? His “election” was invalid because the number of electors was exceeded. Also, he is a manifest heretic. You mentioned a generational change in the hierarchy being needed for real change. It won’t matter. I understand the point, the disaster of the boomer generation and all, but there is a much more fundamental problem: homosexuality in the hierarchy. The Vatican has become one big satanic bath house. This will never end without ripping it out at the roots. As no one seems to be interested in facing the FULL truth of the problem, the crisis will last until the end. There are remedies that pass legal muster to deal with this (the election of Hilderbrand based on the bull of Nicholas II) but that is going nowhere fast. It’s tuff to run a church without Chinese money you know. Sorry for being long winded. I just truly believe that the SSPX is canonically regular, with the condition that a state of emergency exists for more reasons than can or should be listed here.
I too find it hard to believe, especially based on Leo’s recent appointments, that this hierarchy will ever voluntarily reverse course and replace itself with true believers. I agree that the secret CCP deal negotiated by McCarrick would not have omitted massive bags of cash to betray true believers in China.
So divine worship is "man’s highest moral obligation", but it's a conscientious option not to participate in worship approved by the Church of God when only the NO is available? I see no way to make that work. The choice is yours, of course, but on the other hand we're not liberals regarding conscience.
I would also object to the suggestion that "living, active, visible communion with the local Ordinary" is only "a real and basic good" that is the "fuller and more perfect" option when combined with "the fullness of traditional liturgy". Hierarchichal communion is not only "a good", but a good necessary for salvation by necessity of precept. So what should we do when "the fullness of traditional liturgy" is at odds with "living, active, visible communion"? I.e. if there's no TLM celebrated in hierarchichal communion with the Ordinary, that is inside the constitution of the Church established by Christ.
The points you raise are, of course, known to me. I have written a full response to this in "Bound by Truth":
https://www.amazon.com/Bound-Truth-Authority-Obedience-Tradition/dp/1621389626/
For a shorter version:
https://www.amazon.com/True-Obedience-Church-Discernment-Challenging/dp/1644136740/
Dr. K, I appreciate the honesty here and your defense of the old rite. But I think the central mistake is making the liturgy the starting point. The traditional Mass can preserve the faith, but it cannot create office, confer mission, or supply jurisdiction. Our need for Mass cannot authorize men to provide it.
Before the old rite can restabilize the Church, we must know who has authority to offer it in her name. The question remains: Who sent them?
This is inaccurate. No group was asked to sign something as vague as "the Novus Ordo is good." Rather, they agreed that it was valid.
Moreover, you are speaking to me as if I do not understand what Modernism is, when I practically "wrote the book" on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAkh6KPbYMM
I recognize the parallels with the Arian crisis, but this does not automatically endorse all that the SSPX is or says or does. There is certainly room for disagreement here.
I disagree that validity always carries the notion of licitness and legitimacy, for the reasons given here:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2020/11/the-four-qualities-of-liturgy-validity.html
Moreover, Lefebvre did not dispute the validity of the new rites of the sacraments, although he feared they would be invalidated by the lack of due intention on the part of badly formed priests.
Thanks for reading my books!
Christina — just jumping in to say that Hildebrand's book can be found on archive.org (https://archive.org/details/devastatedvineya0000vonh) and on audio on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgOvucF4YjI).
Thank you for this interview.