Video Link

I was not planning to do a second episode on the SSPX, but here we are. First off, I have seen an episode by a SSPX or FSSPX priest, and there was order by the superior of the society that this should be the matter of the preaching of all priests of the FSSPX. I will leave a link to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbJIhlo2Yrk) in the description, if you would like to listen to his homily. There is also a video done by Bishop Felay, preaching at the SSPX seminary, that I have not watched. I will say, the preaching of the FSSPX priest, in the video I watched, was very good. Additionally, the SSPX or FSSPX is not overseen by bishops, as the priest in the video said, the Superior General is a priest. So therefore SSPX bishops are bishops who do not serve an territory or like.

The point I am going to make, or at least partially, is that the decision that this is an extraordinary circumstance is only because of the supposed crisis in the church. The question is, who decides when there is a crisis in the church. Who can decide when there is extraordinary means.

The priest invites us to not be so legalistic. He gives this metaphor, if you see a car crash, and you take someone from this crash who is bleeding out and dying, and you take them into your car, and you are passing a red light, if it is safe should you stop? The law is here to keep people alive, from dying, but to follow the law now, put’s someone at even greater risk of dying. And I wish to give one of my own metaphors, you can tell your wife you love her, but if you fail to be loyal to her, and cheat on her, commit adultery against her, do you truly love her?

Or if I say I love God and I am a Catholic, and I commit many grave sins, am I truly a Catholic? Do I truly love God? Or if I say I am Catholic, yet do not live out the faith, do not live out it’s teachings, am I truly Catholic? The answer, is no. To all these no.

To deny there is a crisis in the church would be to be blind. To deny that there certainly are problems within our church, of priests, bishops, and laity, who could care less about the faith, and the salvation of souls, is truly a mistake. Yes, I agree with this priest and many other SSPX priests that there exists a crisis in the church.

Take, for example, as I have previously discussed Father James Martin, his views on homosexuality that he preaches. Are we to take this as right? No, and as others have called for, Fr. Martin should face consequences for what he has said, by the proper authority, that is, his bishop. And it is not as if Fr. Martin is the only one who advocates. It’s not as if he is a single voice. He is one cleric, but one among many, who advocate, however, it is Fr. Martin who has the platform and followers.

How about the lack of respect and reverence for the Eucharist. This itself is not a product of the Second Vatican Council, but rather of the rampant, “Spirit of Vatican Two”, of priests and bishops and others who took the council to it’s extremes. Open a window, it sought to do, but in the end, the bishops and priests of the sixties saw at as open door to any possible thing. A carte blanche if you will for theological liberalism, and liturgical craziness. From the likes of Catholic Music composers and publishers, to your day to day parish experience and mass.

To deny, that such exists, is to be blind. And to see that there is not 100% continuity between the pre and post conciliar church, a church in which reverence, and good teaching of the faith were taught, to a missal that many saw as a carte blanche, to a simple lack of care of proper teaching of the faith.

And I know this, because I can see it. When I was in Religion Education, or CCD, when I was in first to sixth grade, I could care less, I dreaded, going to these classes. I could not wait to get out, and I viewed eighth grade and Confirmation as the escape out of this program. An escape I wanted and needed, and escape that could not come fast enough.

I don’t think that breed an apathy in me for the faith. I did love the faith, it was simply that I could not stand the religious education classes. I enjoyed going to mass, and I had a sort of wonder at the liturgy. When I played with certain toys when I was younger, I would arrange it so that they could celebrate mass. I knew the arrangement of the altar, and the parts of the mass. Even if I had an apathy for learning of the faith.

It was not until I went to Catholic School, where there was a dedication to the faith, that I actually then liked learning about the faith. The problem for me, was I was not immersed in the church. Church became only something of a chore, learning the faith was only a once a week thing that became something that I despised. When it became a part of my routine, a part of my everyday life, when prayer was something that marked the day, praying at the opening of each school day, and at the end of the day, and before lunch, and often before other classes. And when learning the faith, became a daily task, when going to mass, even just at school, became a weekly occurrence. Then things changed.

The crisis of the church exists not truly in the pulpits, or the hierarchy, but in the pews. If we want good and faithful Catholics, yes, it should start from the pulpit. But it mostly truly begin in the pews. It must begin with families, with children. A love of the faith must be driven into children by their parents. The faith must become apart of life, not a chore, like it was for me.

Praying must not be something done when we need a favor of God, or when a love one has died. A faith like that, is only viewing God as an ATM, where we go when we need him, otherwise, he just sits in the corner of a room. When we view God like a Father, as someone who wants us to be with him, and then we view the faith as something to be incorporated into our daily lives, praying in the morning, and evening or night, praying before bed. When we treat the faith as a part of life, like eating or drinking, rather than a chore, like cleaning, then it becomes something to embrace, as it should be.

And when we view the church, as it truly is, as an ark sent by Christ to bring us to heaven. Then the faith, and the church, become the center of who we are. God becomes the center of our lives. Going to mass is not a chore, it is something we should do, something that allows life to be breathed into our lives, that becomes, that the Eucharist truly becomes, the source and summit of our lives.

Of the popes, all of the last few, were raised in good Catholic families, who treated the faith in such a way. Pope Leo grew up playing priest, he grew up in a family that loved the church. The church was the center of his childhood. For many Catholics, even after Vatican II, like my mother and her family, the church was still central, it was the community for them. And granted, my mom went to Catholic school, meaning that even more the faith was central to her education, her childhood, her growing up.

My grandfather grew up before Vatican II, and my mother, after. But was there story of faith so separate? In some ways, yes. But still, core and central to every day or weekly Catholic life, was the mass.

Is there a crisis in the church. Yes. And it is the job of anyone who calls themselves Catholic to educate themselves better. When I look upon many of the families at my parish, I see those who are truly devoted to the faith, who love the faith, who go weekly to mass. Truly, in most places, the faith is alive. But not in all. Go to Catholic Schools and you will see many who have fallen out of the faith, who could care less about it. While there are good Catholic families who love the faith, turn your head, and you will see the opposite.

It is the job of every Catholic to examine their own lives. And then when they see it fit, they too are called to be missionaries for the church, called to bring the gospel forth. To fellow Catholics and to non-Catholics. To be a light in the darkness. Our priest this Sunday talked about this light, in context of the readings, where Christ calls us to be the light of the world. We are called to bring the light of Christ to all the world.

He gave a very interesting look at it. There are two types of lights, indicators, like exit signs or turn signals, and, light that spreads, like headlights or a flashlight. We are in many ways called to be both kinds of lights. A light that indicates something, that tells something. It does not spread, but it’s purpose is very practical. And, light that spreads, a light that illuminates everything else.

I have often used the phrase, be the change, and I still stand by that. But also, be the light. Be the shinging light of faith, be willing to share that faith, and by it, change the world. Or, as I believe I have said before, be on fire for the faith, and let your fire spread before all.

If we look back at the SSPX, my answer to them, is, salvation of souls is a job for all Catholics to have, and they would agree. But the answers to the crisis of the church cannot be answered from outside the church from outside her structures. That is why the FSSP and ICKSP, and others are important. They help to provide that traditional and good balance, that even many diocesan priests attempt to bring, and are bringing, alongside families and others. However, these operate in the structures of the church. Which is why the SSPX like to say, as the priest in the homily I shared says, “are compromised”.

If we wish to fix what we see as a crisis in the church we must solve it from the inside. We must operate even with people we disagree with. We must be willing to shine forth like a bright light, inspiring others to do so. To save souls, you do not have to only attend the TLM, to save your soul or others. If you prefer it, that’s fine. But the SSPX cannot believe themselves to be the only place salvation is found. As if they are the only bright light.

That is the attitude I believe many have. This is an unfortunate attitude to have. The reason the FSSP and ICKSP do not have bishops, is because, even if they do not like everything their bishop’s do, they are willing to work with him, for salvation of souls. We cannot separate ourselves from the broader church, simply because of a few bad apples in the pews and the clergy.

A bishop is someone who generally is in charge of a diocese or other similar structure, which the SSPX is not the same. The FSSP and ICKSP work in the diocese, under the bishop. And this is how it should be. While the SSPX claim to work with the bishops and pope, do they seek the permission of the bishop to celebrate the mass in their diocese, as required?

Ultimately, the SSPX choosing to consecrate their own bishops, without papal approval, is an act of schism. The SSPX cannot decide that this is simply necessary. They do not have the authority to declare a definitive solution to the crisis, and say it justifies extraordinary means, or declare such a crisis requiring extraordinary means.

I find it no different then what Martin Luther and other protestant revolters did, decide that there was an emergency in the church, and that they were the solution. This will only lead to more schism and divorce in the church.

Now, again, this is only an intention to do this act. Nothing has happened. In fact, no man or men had or have been named to be bishops. Instead, a letter was just sent that there will be bishops made. Which, again, these bishops are simply bishop in name, they don’t have anything they are in charge of, which rather goes against the definition of a bishop. As the video puts it, there job is simply to confirm, bless the oils, and make priests. However, all these acts can be done by diocesan bishops, or, in the case of confirmation, delegated to priests. If a diocesan bishop is unwilling to celebrate the extraordinary form, let it be done by the priest. In the case of ordination, there are plenty of bishops who are willing to celebrate the extraordinary form. And the oils are blessed by the diocesan bishop or ordinary, rather than anyone who is willing to do it. Even if not done in the extraordinary form, one should except the authority of their bishop to do such a thing, if they are truly in communion with the church.

Ultimately, the SSPX and it’s priests and members, should reconsider this view of the church, and of their society. Yes, the SSPX should consider themselves a beacon of light in the church, as any priest should. Every religious society that has been established in the church, has seen itself as the light to lead many souls to salvation. I am sure every priest views his ministry in such a way, every lay person who has led their apostolate sees their mission in such a way.

However, I don’t see Pope Leo allowing the SSPX to have bishops. Because, in truth, unless the bishop were to oversee the SSPX, they have no need of any bishops. A bishop is one in charge of a diocese, even be it titular, or an ordinate, but not just simply someone whose job is to do certain sacramental aspects. Again, we are getting legalistic, but in truth, the bishop’s job is more administrative than sacramental. Yes, the bishop ordains priests and blesses oils, but these are a part of his duties of being in charge of a diocese. His job is to ordain priests to serve in his place at parishes. He blesses the oils for his use and the use of his priests. A priest when ordained swears obedience to the bishop and to his successors, which is why generally a priest is ordained by the bishop of his diocese.

Additionally, we cannot ask the pope to fulfill our every personal request. Even if we are superior of a religious order. The pope’s job is to be the administrator of the church, serving in place or succession of Peter, who served in place of Christ. He serves as the visible head of the church. Therefore, our job is to follow what he says. This is not some blind submission, as in official acts he is guided by the Holy Ghost. The pope will never bind the church to heresy, because he cannot. This extends even to Ecumenical Councils, even if the general reception of the faithful, does not keep to it.

If we take guitar masses and Father James Martin as the only effect of the Second Vatican Council, we choose to look at it in tunnel vision. Yes, these are an effect, but not a direct effect of the Second Vatican Council. Rather guitar masses are the results of clergy who saw the new missal as a carte-blanche for anything. And the liberal theology of many is a result of clergy who saw the documents of Vatican II as a carte-blanche for any view of theology.

The SSPX in my view, have no need of bishops for the ministry they are doing, if they fit in the same category of the FSSP or ICKSP. Arguably, if they merely designated to serve a certain form of the mass, this is their job. Priests who administer the sacraments, who serve as pastors. Their job is not serve as bishops who govern dioceses.

Now, if the SSPX were to achieve, say ordinate status, then there would be need for a bishop, and maybe even auxiliaries, who could serve the faithful. The ordinate was the brain child of Pope Benedict to serve Anglican Converts, allowing them to keep their Anglican patrimony. They have their own distinctive liturgy, and their own governance structure.

Such a compromise is one way of looking at the SSPX, allowing them to become the OSPX, the Ordinariate of St. Pius the Tenth. Or even then, splitting them into several regions, as they have missions that serve a great number of places around the globe.

Ultimately, we must pray for the parties involved. Pray for Pope Leo, for the Cardinal whom members of the SSPX are to meet with, for the priests, seminarians, and faithful of the SSPX, for the bishops who are a part of the SSPX. The priest whose homily I listened to and shared, said this, and I agree completely.

Arguably, the missions of the SSPX would be a great asset to the church, and are a testament of what faithful Catholics, with a true love of the faith, can achieve, can do. We need Catholic faithful like those of the SSPX in the pews of every church. And they do exist in the FSSP, ICKSP, other Latin Mass Society, and many such families even in dioceses around the world.

As well, I plan this to be the last episode on the SSPX. Brian Holdsworth made a good video on the issue of the SSPX, by which he simply said that it really is not worth our time discussing on the internet.

Let me make my points clear: the SSPX is right in saying that there is a crisis of faith. However, their belief that the solution is to ordain bishops, seems to me a denial of the authority of bishops of the church, as there are plenty of bishops who support the FSSP and ICKSP. That is my mind about it.

Additionally, I see no reason for the SSPX has to have bishops, since they are not a diocese, and have no need. Yes, there are titular bishops, but generally they serve as auxiliaries in dioceses. That is my view. There could be the creation of the SSPX as an ordinate, or several, which would permit them bishops. But, this is up to the pope.

Ultimately, the state of the SSPX has not been addressed officially by any bishops, or higher up in Rome. Therefore, there is little need to discuss this. It’s all speculation, really. And, the SSPX have not done anything, they have only said they plan on ordaining bishops, they have not said who, or anything besides a date.

I don’t see Rome having this as a top priority, even if they allow the SSPX bishop. There are plenty of empty sees. Even then, I don’t see them picking a couple of men by July. Unlike most sees, it’s not as if the Nuncio or Pope have a list of candidates. So there would have to be time for the Nuncio and Superior of the Congregation of Bishops to actually get into motion, plans of naming a bishop or bishops. You can go to Catholic Hierarchy and see the vacant sees, many of which are vacant still from last year.

Regardless, I hope this episode helped you. If you have not seen the original SSPX episode, you can check it out. I put a link in the cards on YouTube at the beginning of this episode. But I will say this, I myself have never attended an SSPX mass. I generally attend the FSSP. As of now, the church holds that you can fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX mass, you can also go to confession there, and marriages held by SSPX priests are valid. I would not discourage or encourage you to go. If you want to go to the TLM, and the SSPX is near you, or you are traveling, you are welcome to go. But if there is an ICKSP or FSSP or Diocesan TLM near you, I would advise you go there before the SSPX. Ultimately, ask your priest or bishop if you have questions. I don’t know of what bishops and priests have said of the SSPX.

Regardless, there are divisions in the church, not only among Christians, and all of these divisions should and must be healed, as our Lord prayed, that all may be one. Therefore, we should encourage unity amongst the SSPX and the church. We should pray for the parties involved, especially as the SSPX meets with people in Rome.

Ultimately, I warn against the extreme attitudes of some members of the SSPX. To be Catholic is to accept the Pope, and the Councils of the Church. One can attend and prefer the TLM, but still must recognize the validity of the new mass. And some do not, and that seems to be the attitude given by the homily I saw. One cannot be just in communion with the pope, but also with those who also believe themselves to be in communion with the pope.

Regardless, that’s it for today, God Bless!