Pope Francis likes the SSPX. He intervened upon their request when Argentina was revoking Visa's of priests who were not aligned with a Bishop. It was not resolved when he became Pope. However, he met with the SSPX legal counsel in Rome and continued advocating for the SSPX with the Argentinian authorities. He likes them since they are willing to go to the "periphery" of society. His granting them faculties in the local ordinances happened when Fellay was still General Superior. This has nothing to do with any Liturgical or Doctrinal issues. Pope Francis just likes them. Nothing more than that.

That recognition can only have the purpose of bring about a division between the traditional Catholics and the NOM Catholics. There will be great, indeed tremendous, opposition from most Bishops, especially those who are extremely liberal AND absolutely opposed to the Old Mass, who will themselves attempt to suppress the SSPX. Just remember that Francis wishes to place more power in the hands of local Bishops. And you can bet that Francis will not overrule the efforts of his liberal friends to "get rid" of tradition! One could even expect serious clashes, to say the least. In fact, Bishop Fellay had better be careful he doesn't end up another Cardinal Pell

Dear Fr. Belland-
What you say was true 20 years ago, when the SSPX was still traditional, but no longer. The best thing Rome can do to crush what tradition remains in it is to regularize the Society ("Regularization carries within itself its own internal dynamism..what is important is that there no longer be resistance." -Fr. Cottier upon the conquest of Campos). The greatest enemies of Tradition therefore support the regularization, regardless of there lip service to the contrary. This is all smoke and mirrors to pretend that the SSPX is still traditional, so the liberals must resist them. When one looks at the level of collaboration between the SSPX and the various dioceses (delegation for marriage, for example), there is no conciliar resistance to a neutered SSPX. You might want to have a look at this:
www.cathinfo.com/…/catalog-of-comp…

It is true that now it cannot be argued that SSPX administers invalid absolutions and marriages. In fact, an SSPX friend tells me that SSPX priests now hear Confessions in diocesan churches in Germany.

On the other hand, the SSPX does not yet have canonical standing

Since you asked:

1. I first met Msgr Lefebvre in 1972-3 when I, along with 3 friends from the Univ of Kansas, was staying at Fontgombault. We were told about the abbey by Fr Urban Snyder OSCO, then head of the spiritual year of formation at Econe. A civil lawyer, he began as a monk of Gethsemane. Later, he changed to Genesee but was ex claustrated. In the late 80s I visited him in the hills of Kentucky, where he had a chapel. He died A few years ago.

2. For the most part, it wasn't necessary to attend an SSPX chapel because the daily mass of a priest in my hometown was always done using the Pius V Missal.

3. In 1975 I was admitted to study for the priesthood with the SSPX but for various reasons decided not to go.

4. The SSPX N American headquarters are in Farley, Mo, a few miles from my apartment in KC. I was just there a few weeks ago. A few days after that I was at the SSPX parish in KC. Spent some time with the priests and gave them about 5 boxes of Theology books.

5. A good friend from my Roman years publishes the mag Kirchliche Umschau and lives in an SSPX community in Ruppichteroth, Germany. During the negotiations he kept me informed of what was happening.

Btw, my doctorate from my Roman years is in Thhomistic Studies.

6. I used to teach at the FSSP seminary in Nebraska. Fr Bisig, ex SSPX, was on the faculty and is now the rector.

7. FSSP has a parish in KC. It's too much much of a drive to go there do for daily mass, even though I know the pastor and the asst pastor was one of my students.

8. A few years ago I was at St Mary's for the first time. One of my students was in a chapel in nearby Maple Hill. I also had the chance to visit the grave of John Senior, KU prof and my godfather. He and his wife are buried in the St Mary's cemetery.

Hope this helps.

Also: I see you are in Minnesota. At the moment I am in Cloquet and will be leaving soon for Park Rapids.

Response to Dr. Bobus:

1) The same Fontgambault which was a spin-off of the betrayer of Archbishop Lefebvre, Dom Gerard of La Barroux? If you met Archbishop Lefebvre, but still ended up at Fontgambault, it is pretty obvious the Archbishop (who said Dom Gerard and the indult communities were "doing the devil's work") didn't rub off on you;

2) This response erroneously pretends the Mass is the only issue. But as Archbishop Lefebvre said, one does not merely frequent a Mass, but an entire millieu: There is the sermon; the confessional advice; the conversations before and after Mass (all among those who have accepted the errors of V2 in trade for the Mass);

3) I think your previous responses explain the reason;

4) Yes, there is now open tradcumenism between the SSPX and the former PCED communities whom the Archbishop said were doing the devil's work. Disgraceful conferences like the Catholic Identity Conference and this year's Angelus Press Conference could never have occurred in Archbishop Lefebvre's time, but today they are commonplace. So much for the SSPX remaining "as we are." Lefebvre used to write and preach often about why there could be no collaboration with the betrayers of Tradition in the Ecclesia Dei communities, whereas today it is commonplace;

5) Most of the modernists at Vatican II had doctorates in Thomistic studies. It is very obviously (in both their cases, and your own) no guarantee of doctrinal orthodoxy;

6) So you taught at a seminary for a community which officially espouses the hermeneutic of continuity which archbishop Lefebvre rejected (which would corroborate by response above): Religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality are all compatible with the pre-Vatican II magisterium, allegedly. Yet Archbishop Lefebvre spent the greater part of his post-conciliar life opposing these and other errors (which the Ecclesia Dei communities have accepted);

7) That you speak as though you would consider attending an FSSP Mass venue, if only it were closer, speaks against your orthodoxy, not in favor of it;

8) So you made a sentimental visit to the formerly traditional St. Mary's. This gets you nowhere;

Pax tecum,
Athanasius

Response to Phroggal-

Yes indeed, but it wasn't me (see my previous comment).

1. No, this is the Fontgombault that was founded in 1948 by Solesmes, then became an abbey in 1954. Le Barroux was founded in 1970.

I said I met Msgr Lefebvre at Fontgombault--he was visiting.

2. I am grateful to Msgr Lefebvre for standing fast and defending the Roman Rite, but I've never been interested in being loyal to him (whatever that means). I would be interested,
however, in knowing why he signed Sacrosanctum Concilium.

3 The celebration of the Eucharist is the Center of the Church. Every good done by the Church flows into or out of the Eucharist. Theology, however, is not merely Theology of the Eucharist.

In fact, the other six Sacraments exist only to serve the Eucharist.

4. I know of no official orientation of the FSSP to the hermeneutic of continuity, which generally applies to the criticism of the liturgical changes. I do know that the FSSP officially exists to promote the Roman Rite, the Missal of Pius V.

Ecumenism is fine unless the liturgy or doctrine is distorted, which is what unfortunately hashappened.

The text on religious liberty is ambiguous. Collegiality is another matter and is not the same as Conciliarism

NB: I'm traveling, using a tablet and phone. This.is part of the reply.

As I wrote above in a different comment, I have listened to multiple public talks by Bp. Fellay, going back several years at least, where he mentioned being give permission/appointed by Rome to judge internal cases of the Society. The way it was spoken of was more in the terms of what Dr. Bobus's second source said. There was no mention of being on the rota. As I said, these were in public talks to the laity, and the information has not been "kept secret" as has been inferred. One just has to actually listen to what people are saying....

. lthough Vat II strengthened the the diocesan bishop, it also in creased the authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium by making it infallible in secondary objects. Who has the authority to decide formally if a secondary object of the OUM is infallible? The pope.

As I said, I appreciate Msgr Lefebvre's preservation of the Pius V Missal. Beyond that, I am not much interesed in his opinions on other matters. I'm more interested in what St Thomas' teaches.

The only opportunity for daily mass is the Novus Ordo, during which I read without translation all the propers and commons from the 1962 Missal (Divinum Officium).

I'm sorry but Orthodoxy and your constipated spirituality are not the same.

My visit to st Mary's was to pray at the grave of my professor, who also was my godfather when I converted. Praying for the dead is a moral good and general obligation. Only a non believer in purgatory would consider it an exercise in sentimentalism.

Theological Modernism is incompatible with theTheology of St Thomas.

There were few Thomists at VatII. Neither of the two great Thomists of the 20th cent--Garrigou LaGrange and Ramirez--were there. Garrigou had spent years defending Catholic life againstw opponents whose Theology is behind most of the present chaos.

Michael Browne was VATII as Master of the OPs and a very good man , but he was mostly a moralist.

Most clerics at VAT II we're neo scholastics, which means they were closer to Scotus than St Thomas.

Karl Rahner was a very powerful factor behind the problems that emerged atat vatii. He was no Thomist but was steeped in German Existentialism (cf Heidegger).

Theological Modernism is incompatible with St Thomas' Theology.

Dear Nobodyimportant, you are missing the point. It matters not what title or position Pope Francis has given to Bishop Fellay - who cares? - but the fact that he has given him the right to determine SSPX matrimonial cases which, in turn, means he does not consider marriages witnessed by an SSPX priest or deacon as intrinsically invalid. THAT is the point. And that is a huge step because there are plenty of bishops and matrimonial tribunals who still think ALL marriages witnessed only by SSPX clergy are automatically invalid. But they are wrong.