You are right to point out that the stated intent and object of Traditionis Custodes is to eradicate the Latin mass. A goal that Cardinal Sarah (not a traditionalist) described in January of 2025 as a "diabolical project". It is not merely to restrict it.
Sacrosanctum Concilium did not call for changes to the Latin mass because it had any theological deficiencies - the call for changes was to make the Catholic mass more accessible to modern man. It is important to remember that point. That is why Pope Benedict XVI could say regarding both Missals of the Roman Rite that "the realm of the sacral is the same, the liturgy is the same."
Your analysis is sound, the theological differences between the Church and the SSPX regarding Vatican II will resolve themselves over time. Meanwhile, for the laity, it is access to Latin mass that is important.
For the SSPX the two Missals are seen as irreconcilable. With Traditionis Custodes, the Church appears to unwittingly agree with the SSPX. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Latin mass from a theological or dogmatic standpoint. That is why TC needs to be repealed.
I believe a useful first step might be for Leo to attack the abuses that crept into the Novus Ordo Missae after 1970. Truthfully alleging a defense of the authentic aims of Vatican II, he could mandate the return of altar rails, Missa ad orientem semper, males only in the sanctuary, reception of the Eucharist on the tongue, and the use of Latin at least for the canon of the Mass. Were he to do this at the same time as repealing Traditions C, it would go a long way toward dispelling the suspicion that he's a partisan of Francis' gravely serious errors, an impression afield after a year or so of his papacy. I've never attended SSPX chapels but I firmly believe that Bergoglio was the worst, most damaging Pope in Catholic history. I'm well aware of the crimes of previous Popes like John XII, but they simply never had the mediatic reach of the Argentinian. (As an aside, it puzzles me why the SSPX never reacted more strongly than it did to Francis' disastrous pontificate. He bordered on being a crypto Protestant!)
I very much enjoyed your first article yesterday, but sensed a slight bias against the SSPX here and there in this one.
You said "their intent to illegally consecrate four bishops". They have said there is a "grave necessity" which if true, would make it "not illegal". Leaving it out or choosing a better adverb would have been better.
You later said "If we want priests and lay faithful to stop defending the Society". Why would it be a goal for the faithful not to defend the SSPX and who is the "we" that wants this? The inference is that "we" wants them to disband and disappear or that they would be so weakened to be forced to return on the Vatican's terms. As unlikely as I think the latter is, I can't help but feel that Leo doesn't want the TLM as a part of the synodal Church going forward. TLM parishes are being battered in various places by their Bishops and Leo has allowed it.
You said, "whose mandate he felt was unneeded". I feel something like "would not be forthcoming" would have been more truthful as you couldn't know what he was feeling so comes of as a bit of an attack.
Finally you said "that tradition is worth fighting for while remaining in communion with Rome". I agree with you that this is the ideal. However, there are more and more signs that Leo is taking the church in a new direction. What kind of church may they be committing to being in communion with? It is a more than reasonable consideration considering things like the way the LGBT has been elevated to almost a new Rite of the Church.
But my bigger worry is that the smoke of satan really has entered the Vatican as JP II said. It is not hard to see it in the world around us. More abortions and later ones, pills sent to your door, euthanasia, the transing and other abuses of kids continue (some clergy are STILL at it), socialism and communism are more widespread, a one world government is on the horizon, digital money and digital ID's are just around the corner in many countries and AI has arrived to no doubt be only used for good. All this while our Church is in disorder and weak and just as Muslims get stronger, are in more places (encouraged to immigrate by the Pope) -- now over 160 mosques in Japan --, are protected by governments because of a made up word of Islamophobia, they are buying our empty churches and very likely burning others all over the world.
Jesus did say that the gates of hell would never prevail, but he did not give us a timeline on that. Imagine the suffering satan could inflict with total control over the world. What if he had his claws in a Pope as well. Should the worst imaginable happen, I don't mind having a strong and committed order of traditional priests with a strong network of traditional masses available. We certainly wouldn't want their knowledge or their sacraments to go missing.
The bible talks about this, visionaries have said it, Our Lady of Fatima has said that something bad is getting closer (and that was over 100 years ago). So communion with the Vatican is important, but perhaps the SSPX have a future purpose that will be revealed later. I don't think our Church has ever had so many big challenges at one time.
- "Grave Necessity" does not change its illegal status, it potentially mitigates it. It does not make it legal. Otherwise a mere assertion of grave necessity would nullify every act of the Church!
- From the perspective of the Catholic Church, through her hierarchy, they do not want the SSPX to be defended, because they violated Church law. You may think they are still worthy of defense, but that does not make it worthy of defense, much less in the eyes of the Church. I really am quite flabbergasted this needs to be explained.
- As far as "what kind of Church we will be in communion with", this treats communion as an optional. While I respect Eastern Orthodoxy for many things, I do not think "communion with the visible Church through its visible vicar" is optional here.
- In regards to everything else, as I said before, this is a question of faith. Its a discussion on in which way the Church is protected, even from herself. That's a question of having to take it on faith, and it does not seem you have that in an objective way. (I am distinguishing faith here as the concept of faith, not in a "you don't have the Catholic faith" which I see no reason to imply you do not.)
Thank you t649332 for speaking out exactly what I have been thinking of. There is always this slight bias against the FSSPX in Mr. Tierney's writing.
There are currently too many discussions and arguments on the juristic and legalistic level while the FSSPX is trying to preserve the authentic Catholic Faith. I see in the consecration the effort to transmit, through the authentic Catholic rite to preserve the apostolic succession because one is not sure what really happened from case to case in the Novus Ordo Church where innovation is the order of the day.
We Catholics are taught from the beginning to love, respect and obey the Pope. But our Popes since John XXIII and summiting in JB and now Prevost increasingly erode our ability to trust ... with the loss of trust is also the loss of respect, and these two aspects hurt tremendously.
But can one preserve the faith outside of that structure? Yes, the consecrations done outside the Church's auspices are an attempt to continue that transmission. I just don't think there's any objective standard under which that can be approved here!
Again the legalistic aspect: approval - from an authority.
The authority has to confirm and earn the respect and trust relating to his office and not just by acclamation to the office and then proceed to do whatever he personally is convinced of being right or wrong with no regard for what this office historically entails.
Being on the throne of the Pope is slightly different than on the chair of the Chairman of the Communist Party of China.
Yes, and I've written for years now about the importance of good governance, and how the Church undermines authority by the way she acts.
Yet the idea that hierarchy has "no regard for what this office historically entails" is absurd. Yes, explicit mandates have around 110 years of lineage. The understanding the pope had to approve in some form in the West is around 600 years old. The idea that the Pope always had some right over the Church outside of his immediate backyard is 2,000 years old. All these things can be true. The first two are not divine law, but you can still go into schism for sabotaging it.
If I were a "Schismatiker" as "used" by an organization which operates under the name of "the Catholic Church" but holds a set of beliefs whose keys points diametrically different than what I had learned about Catholic Teachings from almost 70 years ago, then be it, I am a Schismatiker in their eyes.
And an honest question to you as a Church Historian: does an Anti-Pope maintain the "Visibility" of the Catholic Church?
Well I appreciate you finally being transparent: you think there isn't a pope. All other questions are now subsumed by that. Ironically, the SSPX would be even harsher on you!
Question, where are you getting that the Vatican is ONLY requiring the SSPX to assent to Lumen Gentium 25?
You say: “While the abjuration formula used is mostly performative, within that formula there is a path forward. In it the Church requires very little about Vatican II to be accepted. She only requires that what is taught in Lumen Gentium 25 (on the nature of the magisterium and papal authority, even when not speaking ex cathedra) be believed.”
In the released procedure for SSPX priests, it says “accept the Second Vatican Council,” no further qualifier that they must merely assent to Lumen 25.
"I accept the doctrine set forth in No 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council regarding the Magisterium of the Church and the obligation to adhere to it.
“With regard to certain doctrines taught by the Second Vatican Council, or regarding subsequent reforms—whether of the Liturgy or of Canon Law—which some find difficult to reconcile with previous declarations of the Magisterium, I undertake the obligation to follow a positive approach to interpreting doctrine under the guidance of the Magisterium, so that no one may separate it from the rest of the Church’s sacred doctrinal heritage.”
I recall seeing a different version of that somewhere, iirc it was the vatican website. Idk if I am incorrect or this is some mandela effect or whatever it is called or what. Anyway, what of “Quo Primum”? When I read it the invocation of St Pius’s full Apostolic Authority multiple times and Paul VI never abrogating it, makes me *extremely* suspicious of all of the post-conciliar stuff, particularly Traditionis. Idk what to think of the sspx’s choices here, and there is a bunch that they have done and/or not done that makes me a bit queasy. The letter from Leo at the last second appears to me to have been basically pro forma. He couldve met with them any number of times prior, but his last second call for dialogue strikes me as just so that it could be written that he tried to call for dialogue, not to actually have it. I would love to see the pope explain how the sspx is actually wrong about stuff, clearly. The fact that as far as I know they havent really, for 50 years or more, strikes me as suspicious as literal actual Hell, and makes Williamson’s take on it all look a lot more sober-minded. I wish the sspx had paid for a papl audience in Spain when Leo was selling them a little while back. As un-classy as that wouldve been, (for an extremely unclassy practice), at least it wouldve been something. I am incredibly dismayed by every aspect of all of this.
Thanks for your reply. Just for the record, I didn't say their actions were legal, rather that they were "not illegal" if they could prove it was for reasons of grave necessity. I am not a theologian, but can only assume that if there is a legal term of "grave necessity" but no legal way of proving or disproving it, then someone has made a mistake. Various people have determined it is and it isn't, the latest being Cardinal Bourke. Surely there must be a better process for resolving this.
Using the Church's Canon Law as a club in the hands of a child (Tucho), has proven that they badly misjudged the SSPX. Leo had all the time in the world to meet with them in person and exhibit the same charity he has shown to all and sundry except SSPX. His handling of this made him look a little petty, mean and uncharitable. The execution left something to be desired. Many would agree that his choice of a man to do the job has not given the faithful or the public confidence in his judgement. Tucho has proved that he lacks the required skills for the office he holds and might be better off sticking to writing his soft porn books. What an embarrassment and humiliation for the office and the whole Church this has been. SSPX has come out of looking ... Catholic.
As Legris said and I agree with him there is an important element of trust between the Pope and his people. It takes time to build it. Many people think he is failing at building it. Many faithful worry that he is purposely deviating from what has been handed down to him, thereby taking the church in a new direction, or at worst creating something new to match the new universal society that the elites are hard at work building. Sister Smerilli, the newly appointed female head of a dicastery, explained synodality as "a way of being Church". These kinds of modernist nonsensical expressions are appearing more and more and is why people are seeing the SSPX's unchanging Catholic values as appealing, particularly if you have children. If you could explain what she means by "a way of being Church", please enlighten us. We are told that whatever it means, that it will be a fixture in the future.
Many would do whatever was required of them in order to protect what Christ handed down rather than it being be lost forever. I would be the fire engine driving the wrong way up a road to put out a fire, or the man racing his pregnant wife through red lights to get to the hospital in an emergency. SSPX would consecrate Bishops because in not doing so, their faithful would suffer needlessly. I don't know you Kevin, but perhaps you would be the man that stops at each light while you wife screamed from the backseat.
I don't want to go on too long, but Leo has simply made a bad problem much worse. Another Pope might have said, I'll give you four new Bishops because the faithful are the most important thing in this equation. But then we must get together and resolve this, no matter what it takes. What a wasted opportunity. Could he not have (guessing here) created a new Rite (there are 20+ already) and let them do their thing if he was being genuine. That is the problem in a nutshell. Does he really want to protect it? Many people (probably including the SSPX) probably think no.
So I'll end there. I think you may miss the forrest by staring at one tree. I recommend you read Archbishop's book (free online), 'Open Letter to Catholics". It informed me of many things that I had been completely unaware of about his patticipation in VII, how it progressed and how the outcome was directed by those within with their own ideas.
Let's wait and see if the future judges them well or not. I pray that it does, and that Leo will bring the ship around to the course the Holy Spirit wishes, rather than the spirit that those promoting the synodal process are claiming to hear.
Well… SSPX gonna SSPX. What else is there to be said? Leopard not changing spots anytime soon. There was a schism back in 1054, and after 911 years, the pope lifted the excommunication on the Eastern bishops. The Orthodox Church is looked on as a legit religion now. If we’re going shrug about some schisms, don’t be surprised that other people shrug about others.
You are right to point out that the stated intent and object of Traditionis Custodes is to eradicate the Latin mass. A goal that Cardinal Sarah (not a traditionalist) described in January of 2025 as a "diabolical project". It is not merely to restrict it.
Sacrosanctum Concilium did not call for changes to the Latin mass because it had any theological deficiencies - the call for changes was to make the Catholic mass more accessible to modern man. It is important to remember that point. That is why Pope Benedict XVI could say regarding both Missals of the Roman Rite that "the realm of the sacral is the same, the liturgy is the same."
Your analysis is sound, the theological differences between the Church and the SSPX regarding Vatican II will resolve themselves over time. Meanwhile, for the laity, it is access to Latin mass that is important.
For the SSPX the two Missals are seen as irreconcilable. With Traditionis Custodes, the Church appears to unwittingly agree with the SSPX. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Latin mass from a theological or dogmatic standpoint. That is why TC needs to be repealed.
I believe a useful first step might be for Leo to attack the abuses that crept into the Novus Ordo Missae after 1970. Truthfully alleging a defense of the authentic aims of Vatican II, he could mandate the return of altar rails, Missa ad orientem semper, males only in the sanctuary, reception of the Eucharist on the tongue, and the use of Latin at least for the canon of the Mass. Were he to do this at the same time as repealing Traditions C, it would go a long way toward dispelling the suspicion that he's a partisan of Francis' gravely serious errors, an impression afield after a year or so of his papacy. I've never attended SSPX chapels but I firmly believe that Bergoglio was the worst, most damaging Pope in Catholic history. I'm well aware of the crimes of previous Popes like John XII, but they simply never had the mediatic reach of the Argentinian. (As an aside, it puzzles me why the SSPX never reacted more strongly than it did to Francis' disastrous pontificate. He bordered on being a crypto Protestant!)
I very much enjoyed your first article yesterday, but sensed a slight bias against the SSPX here and there in this one.
You said "their intent to illegally consecrate four bishops". They have said there is a "grave necessity" which if true, would make it "not illegal". Leaving it out or choosing a better adverb would have been better.
You later said "If we want priests and lay faithful to stop defending the Society". Why would it be a goal for the faithful not to defend the SSPX and who is the "we" that wants this? The inference is that "we" wants them to disband and disappear or that they would be so weakened to be forced to return on the Vatican's terms. As unlikely as I think the latter is, I can't help but feel that Leo doesn't want the TLM as a part of the synodal Church going forward. TLM parishes are being battered in various places by their Bishops and Leo has allowed it.
You said, "whose mandate he felt was unneeded". I feel something like "would not be forthcoming" would have been more truthful as you couldn't know what he was feeling so comes of as a bit of an attack.
Finally you said "that tradition is worth fighting for while remaining in communion with Rome". I agree with you that this is the ideal. However, there are more and more signs that Leo is taking the church in a new direction. What kind of church may they be committing to being in communion with? It is a more than reasonable consideration considering things like the way the LGBT has been elevated to almost a new Rite of the Church.
But my bigger worry is that the smoke of satan really has entered the Vatican as JP II said. It is not hard to see it in the world around us. More abortions and later ones, pills sent to your door, euthanasia, the transing and other abuses of kids continue (some clergy are STILL at it), socialism and communism are more widespread, a one world government is on the horizon, digital money and digital ID's are just around the corner in many countries and AI has arrived to no doubt be only used for good. All this while our Church is in disorder and weak and just as Muslims get stronger, are in more places (encouraged to immigrate by the Pope) -- now over 160 mosques in Japan --, are protected by governments because of a made up word of Islamophobia, they are buying our empty churches and very likely burning others all over the world.
Jesus did say that the gates of hell would never prevail, but he did not give us a timeline on that. Imagine the suffering satan could inflict with total control over the world. What if he had his claws in a Pope as well. Should the worst imaginable happen, I don't mind having a strong and committed order of traditional priests with a strong network of traditional masses available. We certainly wouldn't want their knowledge or their sacraments to go missing.
The bible talks about this, visionaries have said it, Our Lady of Fatima has said that something bad is getting closer (and that was over 100 years ago). So communion with the Vatican is important, but perhaps the SSPX have a future purpose that will be revealed later. I don't think our Church has ever had so many big challenges at one time.
Responding to both:
- "Grave Necessity" does not change its illegal status, it potentially mitigates it. It does not make it legal. Otherwise a mere assertion of grave necessity would nullify every act of the Church!
- From the perspective of the Catholic Church, through her hierarchy, they do not want the SSPX to be defended, because they violated Church law. You may think they are still worthy of defense, but that does not make it worthy of defense, much less in the eyes of the Church. I really am quite flabbergasted this needs to be explained.
- As far as "what kind of Church we will be in communion with", this treats communion as an optional. While I respect Eastern Orthodoxy for many things, I do not think "communion with the visible Church through its visible vicar" is optional here.
- In regards to everything else, as I said before, this is a question of faith. Its a discussion on in which way the Church is protected, even from herself. That's a question of having to take it on faith, and it does not seem you have that in an objective way. (I am distinguishing faith here as the concept of faith, not in a "you don't have the Catholic faith" which I see no reason to imply you do not.)
Thank you t649332 for speaking out exactly what I have been thinking of. There is always this slight bias against the FSSPX in Mr. Tierney's writing.
There are currently too many discussions and arguments on the juristic and legalistic level while the FSSPX is trying to preserve the authentic Catholic Faith. I see in the consecration the effort to transmit, through the authentic Catholic rite to preserve the apostolic succession because one is not sure what really happened from case to case in the Novus Ordo Church where innovation is the order of the day.
We Catholics are taught from the beginning to love, respect and obey the Pope. But our Popes since John XXIII and summiting in JB and now Prevost increasingly erode our ability to trust ... with the loss of trust is also the loss of respect, and these two aspects hurt tremendously.
But can one preserve the faith outside of that structure? Yes, the consecrations done outside the Church's auspices are an attempt to continue that transmission. I just don't think there's any objective standard under which that can be approved here!
Again the legalistic aspect: approval - from an authority.
The authority has to confirm and earn the respect and trust relating to his office and not just by acclamation to the office and then proceed to do whatever he personally is convinced of being right or wrong with no regard for what this office historically entails.
Being on the throne of the Pope is slightly different than on the chair of the Chairman of the Communist Party of China.
Yes, and I've written for years now about the importance of good governance, and how the Church undermines authority by the way she acts.
Yet the idea that hierarchy has "no regard for what this office historically entails" is absurd. Yes, explicit mandates have around 110 years of lineage. The understanding the pope had to approve in some form in the West is around 600 years old. The idea that the Pope always had some right over the Church outside of his immediate backyard is 2,000 years old. All these things can be true. The first two are not divine law, but you can still go into schism for sabotaging it.
If I were a "Schismatiker" as "used" by an organization which operates under the name of "the Catholic Church" but holds a set of beliefs whose keys points diametrically different than what I had learned about Catholic Teachings from almost 70 years ago, then be it, I am a Schismatiker in their eyes.
And an honest question to you as a Church Historian: does an Anti-Pope maintain the "Visibility" of the Catholic Church?
Well I appreciate you finally being transparent: you think there isn't a pope. All other questions are now subsumed by that. Ironically, the SSPX would be even harsher on you!
Question, where are you getting that the Vatican is ONLY requiring the SSPX to assent to Lumen Gentium 25?
You say: “While the abjuration formula used is mostly performative, within that formula there is a path forward. In it the Church requires very little about Vatican II to be accepted. She only requires that what is taught in Lumen Gentium 25 (on the nature of the magisterium and papal authority, even when not speaking ex cathedra) be believed.”
In the released procedure for SSPX priests, it says “accept the Second Vatican Council,” no further qualifier that they must merely assent to Lumen 25.
Are you referring to something else?
From the actual formula:
"I accept the doctrine set forth in No 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council regarding the Magisterium of the Church and the obligation to adhere to it.
“With regard to certain doctrines taught by the Second Vatican Council, or regarding subsequent reforms—whether of the Liturgy or of Canon Law—which some find difficult to reconcile with previous declarations of the Magisterium, I undertake the obligation to follow a positive approach to interpreting doctrine under the guidance of the Magisterium, so that no one may separate it from the rest of the Church’s sacred doctrinal heritage.”
https://thecatholicherald.com/article/the-holy-see-sets-out-process-of-reconciliation-for-sspx-clergy-and-laity
I recall seeing a different version of that somewhere, iirc it was the vatican website. Idk if I am incorrect or this is some mandela effect or whatever it is called or what. Anyway, what of “Quo Primum”? When I read it the invocation of St Pius’s full Apostolic Authority multiple times and Paul VI never abrogating it, makes me *extremely* suspicious of all of the post-conciliar stuff, particularly Traditionis. Idk what to think of the sspx’s choices here, and there is a bunch that they have done and/or not done that makes me a bit queasy. The letter from Leo at the last second appears to me to have been basically pro forma. He couldve met with them any number of times prior, but his last second call for dialogue strikes me as just so that it could be written that he tried to call for dialogue, not to actually have it. I would love to see the pope explain how the sspx is actually wrong about stuff, clearly. The fact that as far as I know they havent really, for 50 years or more, strikes me as suspicious as literal actual Hell, and makes Williamson’s take on it all look a lot more sober-minded. I wish the sspx had paid for a papl audience in Spain when Leo was selling them a little while back. As un-classy as that wouldve been, (for an extremely unclassy practice), at least it wouldve been something. I am incredibly dismayed by every aspect of all of this.
Before reaching a conclusion, it's worth asking a prior constitutional question that often goes unexamined:
https://louismontfort.substack.com/p/the-sspx-and-the-novus-ordo-one-church?r=791jfn
Thanks for your reply. Just for the record, I didn't say their actions were legal, rather that they were "not illegal" if they could prove it was for reasons of grave necessity. I am not a theologian, but can only assume that if there is a legal term of "grave necessity" but no legal way of proving or disproving it, then someone has made a mistake. Various people have determined it is and it isn't, the latest being Cardinal Bourke. Surely there must be a better process for resolving this.
Using the Church's Canon Law as a club in the hands of a child (Tucho), has proven that they badly misjudged the SSPX. Leo had all the time in the world to meet with them in person and exhibit the same charity he has shown to all and sundry except SSPX. His handling of this made him look a little petty, mean and uncharitable. The execution left something to be desired. Many would agree that his choice of a man to do the job has not given the faithful or the public confidence in his judgement. Tucho has proved that he lacks the required skills for the office he holds and might be better off sticking to writing his soft porn books. What an embarrassment and humiliation for the office and the whole Church this has been. SSPX has come out of looking ... Catholic.
As Legris said and I agree with him there is an important element of trust between the Pope and his people. It takes time to build it. Many people think he is failing at building it. Many faithful worry that he is purposely deviating from what has been handed down to him, thereby taking the church in a new direction, or at worst creating something new to match the new universal society that the elites are hard at work building. Sister Smerilli, the newly appointed female head of a dicastery, explained synodality as "a way of being Church". These kinds of modernist nonsensical expressions are appearing more and more and is why people are seeing the SSPX's unchanging Catholic values as appealing, particularly if you have children. If you could explain what she means by "a way of being Church", please enlighten us. We are told that whatever it means, that it will be a fixture in the future.
Many would do whatever was required of them in order to protect what Christ handed down rather than it being be lost forever. I would be the fire engine driving the wrong way up a road to put out a fire, or the man racing his pregnant wife through red lights to get to the hospital in an emergency. SSPX would consecrate Bishops because in not doing so, their faithful would suffer needlessly. I don't know you Kevin, but perhaps you would be the man that stops at each light while you wife screamed from the backseat.
I don't want to go on too long, but Leo has simply made a bad problem much worse. Another Pope might have said, I'll give you four new Bishops because the faithful are the most important thing in this equation. But then we must get together and resolve this, no matter what it takes. What a wasted opportunity. Could he not have (guessing here) created a new Rite (there are 20+ already) and let them do their thing if he was being genuine. That is the problem in a nutshell. Does he really want to protect it? Many people (probably including the SSPX) probably think no.
So I'll end there. I think you may miss the forrest by staring at one tree. I recommend you read Archbishop's book (free online), 'Open Letter to Catholics". It informed me of many things that I had been completely unaware of about his patticipation in VII, how it progressed and how the outcome was directed by those within with their own ideas.
https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/index.htm
Let's wait and see if the future judges them well or not. I pray that it does, and that Leo will bring the ship around to the course the Holy Spirit wishes, rather than the spirit that those promoting the synodal process are claiming to hear.
Good day to you.
Everyone is arguing about the SSPX excommunications. Almost nobody is asking the prior constitutional question: Who sent these bishops? That's the issue I examine here:https://louismontfort.substack.com/p/the-sspx-excommunications-point-to?r=791jfn
I appreciate the even handedness
Thank you for weeding through the issues.
Well… SSPX gonna SSPX. What else is there to be said? Leopard not changing spots anytime soon. There was a schism back in 1054, and after 911 years, the pope lifted the excommunication on the Eastern bishops. The Orthodox Church is looked on as a legit religion now. If we’re going shrug about some schisms, don’t be surprised that other people shrug about others.