I think humility is needed from all of us—from the pope, from the SSPX, from bishops, priests, and every one of us in the pews. None of us sees everything perfectly. But at the same time, I also believe Christ desires unity. Throughout history the Church has weathered many storms, and disagreements. I guess its even survived failures. But Christ has promised to never abandoned His Church. And this is what i keep coming back to in contemplating your question... stay in the boat. There are times when we don't understand every decision or even agree on every prudential judgment, but I believe we're called to remain in the Barque of Peter, trusting that Christ is still at the helm. And i think of Our Lady at this time... always humble and always pointing to Her Son saying, listen to Him. I hope all of us can pray, seek the truth, speak with charity, but stay in the boat.
I suspect he believes that resolving the issues of communion and authority has to come before creating new bishops? But not sure.
The SSPX is not following Canon Law. They are excommunicating themselves. Canon 1013 The Pope determines a need for a bishop and can appoint one. No bishop may consecrate another bishop Without a mandate from the Pope.
Why not invite them to the Vatican and sit down for a cup of coffee and work things out face to face as brothers in Christ? What could it hurt? Abortionists get invited, sodomites get invited, all kind of nasty pieces of work get invited and lionised, why not the SSPX? What could it hurt? "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful." Pope Benedict
Post on the Totus Tuus page today asks much the same question. "A Father Must Speak Face to Face! The recent exchange of letters between Pope Leo XIV and the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X has once again brought into sharp relief one of the most painful and long-standing divisions in the Church. On the eve of the SSPX’s planned consecrations, the Holy Father wrote a public letter pleading with them to “turn back.” The SSPX replied with respect but also with clarity, pointing out the painful irony that they are being warned against a schism that, in their view, has been treated as already existing since 1988. While the Pope’s letter was undeniably paternal in tone, many Catholics are left wondering: Why was there no personal meeting? For months, the SSPX had repeatedly requested an audience with Pope Leo XIV. These requests went unanswered. When dialogue was offered through the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, it came with a clear precondition: the consecrations must first be suspended. In effect, the door to direct conversation was closed unless one side first surrendered its position. This approach, however well-intentioned, runs contrary to the very heart of the Gospel. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not send letters to the lost sheep. He left the ninety-nine and went in search of the one that had strayed (Luke 15:4). The Good Shepherd does not negotiate conditions from a distance. He draws near. He speaks directly. He looks into the eyes of the one who is wounded or confused. The Pope is not merely the Supreme Pontiff. He is also called Holy Father. And a father, especially when his children are in danger of making a grave mistake, does not primarily write public letters. He calls them to himself. He sits with them. He listens. He speaks from the heart, face to face. A personal meeting between Pope Leo XIV and Fr. Davide Pagliarani could have changed everything. In private, without the pressure of public statements and media scrutiny, both sides could have spoken with greater freedom and charity. Misunderstandings could have been clarified. The real concerns on both sides — fidelity to Tradition on one hand, and the unity of the Church on the other — could have been addressed directly rather than through carefully worded public documents. Instead, the situation escalated into another public exchange on the very eve of the consecrations. It is true that the SSPX carries its own responsibilities in this long conflict. But it is equally true that the Successor of Peter has been given a unique grace and responsibility to seek the lost sheep, even when doing so is difficult or inconvenient. The history of the Church shows that some of the most important reconciliations and clarifications happened not through letters, but through direct, personal encounters. Pope Leo XIV has shown himself to be a man of deep faith and pastoral sensitivity. The affection expressed in his letter was genuine. But affection expressed only in writing, while the other party is asking for a personal audience, can feel to many like a father who prefers to address his son from behind a desk rather than looking him in the eye. It is still not too late. Even now, after the consecrations have taken place, a personal meeting between the Holy Father and the leadership of the SSPX would send a powerful message to the entire Church: that no one is beyond dialogue, and that the Pope is willing to leave the ninety-nine — at least for a time — to go after the one. The unity of the Church is not built only through documents and declarations. It is built through relationship, through the courage to sit together as father and sons, and through the willingness to listen before speaking. May the Good Shepherd, who knows His sheep and calls them by name, inspire His Vicar on earth to do the same."
I would have liked to see that happen. And I think that is where lots of Catholics are confused and hurt. There is so much dialogue directed for/ towards migrants, LGBT, heck, this synod and yet for the SSPX? Instead they are hidden away, not spoken of. Also, this back and forth public letter thing just feels embarrassing. We live in a time of transparency but this, in my opinion, should have taken place behind closed doors. Yes, they are breaking Canon law however many are asking why can communist China propose who will be the bishops and the Vatican bends over backwards to bless it? Money? A strategy to remain present in a communist state? I don't know. Again, it looks like dialogue for wayward children but not those backward traditionalists. Now I have issues with the SSPX, I personally know a priest of the society who has said not to attend the NO. This is very dangerous. I have also heard that many in the SSPX parish not far from where I live, are leaving to join the sedevacantists. Well, it's very logical! If the NO is not valid then I guess those sedevacantists are right! I haven't seen anyone address this issue on the internet. This is a fruit of the society that cannot be ignored, they are pushing people outside the church. I personally am deeply saddened by this rupture, I prayed it wouldn't happen but maybe it was time.
David L Gray posted a comment and pictures on his youtube channel showing an SSPX Confession Handbook. The Hanbook details an examination of conscience in which various sins are listed against the 10 Commandments. Attendance at the "New Mass" is listed as a sin against the 3rd Commandment (Remember Thou Keep Holy the Lord's Day). I think this highlights the extent of the distance between the SSPX and the Vatican. I don't know if this book has the imprimatur of the governing body of the SSPX? I do have a lot of sympathy with the SSPX. However, David L. Gray comments that "these people have to go! They are not of God." From what I have seen of the reactions of many SSPX laiety, the reaction of Pope Leo to these consecrations does not appear to overly concern them, in fact it seems like water off a duck's back.
It is very very sad. I agree. Tearing a deeper rip in the Body of Christ. But to say attending the NO is a sin???? That causes untold anguish to devout Catholics who dont have a Latin Mass available. Years ago I asked an FSSP priest about this. He was very clear. The NO properly said is valid. The FSSP were part of Atchbishop Lefevre's original group but they wanted to stay with Rome when the first controversy began. You are right about the drift to sedevacantists. I have a friend (not seen in years) who moved that way. She too believes it is wrong to attend the NO. There is a sedevacantist church 5 miles from me. Traditional Latin Mass on Sunday and 3 times during the week. ( they bought a Catholic Church up for sale in the consolidation of parishes) I am so sad about it. But our bishop made it clear that to attend that Mass was a mortal sin.
Pope Francis:"The Church will have to initiate everyone – priests, religious and laity – into this 'art of accompaniment' which teaches us to remove our sandals before the sacred ground of the other... We need to practice the art of listening, which is more than simply hearing. Listening, in communication, is an openness of heart which makes possible that closeness without which genuine spiritual encounter cannot occur." (from Evangelii Gaudium) https://www.straitstimes.com/world/...use-visit-to-italian-abortion-rights-advocate VATICAN CITY - Pope Francis on Nov 5 stepped out of the Vatican and paid a rare home visit to Ms Emma Bonino, a veteran politician best known in Italy for her successful campaign in the 1970s to legalise abortion. Pope Francis, leader of the 1.4 billion-member Catholic Church, frequently expresses fierce opposition to abortion. He has said having an abortion is “murder” and tantamount to “hiring a hit man”. But the pope has also struck up relationships with several anti-clerical Italian figures. Ms Bonino, 76, was released from hospital last month after suffering from respiratory and heart problems. Last year, she said she had recovered from an eight-year battle with lung cancer. Pope Francis, 87, and himself dealing with occasional health issues, was seen stopping in at her apartment in central Rome after a visit that morning to the nearby Pontifical Gregorian University. The Vatican press office confirmed the pope’s visit, but said it would not provide further details. Ms Bonino said she had no comment about the visit. She was originally elected to the Italian Parliament in 1976 as a member of the anti-establishment Radical Party, which pushed passage of a law to legalise abortion in 1978, later confirmed by a national referendum in 1981.
I seriously hope that people don't believe that inviting the SSPX for a cup of coffee will change this situation.
I have to say that everything happening right now reminds me of this passage from the Bible: "When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took His garments and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier. They also took His tunic. Now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. So they said to one another, 'Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.'" Instead of becoming more united and putting into practice the spirit of compromise and dialogue that it continually proclaims, the Church keeps tearing itself apart and diminishing itself. People are difficult. Sometimes we are difficult even for ourselves, with our desires, ideas, enthusiasms, and disappointments. Other people get on our nerves, and often we get on theirs. Yet we do not live only for the present moment. We know that the choices we make today can shape events far into the future—not only when we choose a spouse or a profession, but even through a single careless word that may spark a conflict whose consequences will be felt not only by our children and grandchildren, but by generations yet to come. The Church is not ours; it is God's, and it has been entrusted to all of us. Each of us has a role within it. We safeguard the Church first and foremost by faithfully following the teachings of the Catholic Church and by keeping God's commandments. We preserve it by raising our children in the faith. We honor it by entering the church dressed with dignity, recognizing that it is a sacred place where Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. We preserve it by receiving the Eucharist with reverence and devotion. But we also preserve the Church when we choose silence instead of unnecessary conflict, when we are willing to enter into dialogue even when we know we are right, when we set aside our own ego, meet one another halfway, and help Christ carry His Cross. Personally, I do not believe that where there is genuine goodwill, agreement is impossible. There is always a solution. In a world where Sodom and Gomorrah have returned as an accepted standard of behavior, the Church, instead of standing united in its mission to seek the salvation of souls, is tearing itself apart over the tensions between tradition and the present. And Christ watches once again as His garments are torn while He bleeds.
I did a bit of research about face to face meetings between Vatican and SSPX. Both Benedict and Francis met face to face while JPII and Leo used other Vatican officials.
The Church like the world has been infected by the sin of liberalism. There are bishops & cardinals who believe the word of God is outdated and who have shaped a God in their own image and likeness. They love the church of nice.
Why would you excomunicate and persecute people for saying the Latin Mass. That's the bottom line. And not excomunicate people for being sexual deviants? Again the bottom line.
This leaves faithful Catholics in a predicament as some parishes have apostacised. Is it now a case of parish hopping?
As far as I can tell from the outside looking in pretty well all the Cardinals and many of the Bishops Pope Francis and Leo appointed are sexual deviants. I am very concerned about whatever their own sexuality, as Popes, may be or have been.. I would be far more concerned about that than people who say the Latin Mass. Before you clutch your pearls about this. I don't think any real man would be comfortable with homosexuality. We now have two Popes who enthusiastically support homosexuality. I think it is perfectly reasonable to suppose they are and were homosexuals themselves.
