Just to supply a context, two news items.
First, From EWTN: China’s Catholic bishops back worship limits, prompting call for Vatican action
The state-sanctioned Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China (BCCC) backed the government’s ban on unregistered clergy engaging in pastoral work and using unapproved sites for worship.
The BCCC said in a Feb. 4 statement that “religious groups must comply with relevant laws and regulations when conducting religious activities,” describing compliance as a matter of “national and public interest.” The statement aligned with the Chinese Communist Party’s controls over the region.
We still don’t know what is in the “agreement” between the PRC and the Holy See. I throw two names into the context: Card. Zen and Jimmy Lai.
Next, at the Catholic Herald UK we read: Bishop ordains priest using pre-Vatican II rite, despite Traditionis custodes
A French bishop has ordained a priest using the pre-Vatican II Pontificale Romanum in a ceremony that has renewed unresolved tensions surrounding the implementation of Pope Francis’s restrictions on the traditional liturgy.
On Saturday January 17, Bishop Alain Castet, the 75-year-old emeritus bishop of Luçon, ordained Brother Thomas-Marie Warmuz to the priesthood at Chémeré-le-Roi in western France. The ordination took place within the Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer, a Dominican-inspired clerical fraternity known for its exclusive use of traditional liturgical rites. During the same ceremony, Brother André-Marie Mwanza was ordained as a subdeacon.
My understanding is that the very fine group, the Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer, does not automatically have the permission to use the older Pontificale Romanum as does the FSSP and the ICK.
Now to the main point.
The leadership of the SSPX met today with the head of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith. After the meeting the Prefect issued a letter stating the position of the … dicastery, I guess, which means the Holy See. In other words, this is what he was told to offer to the SSPX.
In short, the SSPX is asked to postpone episcopal consecrations and engage in more dialogue. How could a they not offer dialogue in this springtime of “walking together”? Also included: threat threat threat… already known… move on.
A couple of interesting points.
The letter mentioned:
…a path of dialogue specifically theological, with a precise methodology, regarding issues that have not yet been sufficiently clarified, such as: the difference between an act of faith and “religious assent of the mind and will,” or the different degrees of adherence required by the various texts of the Second Vatican Council and their interpretation.
How that path might be laid out and who will determine the methodology was not revealed. However, the point of “degrees of adhere” is, in my opinion, pretty important. I guess that the concrete points for them to discuss would be “a series of issues listed by the FSSPX in a letter dated 17 January 2019”.
Then… why bother with this?
The purpose of this path would be to highlight, in the issues debated, the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church and, consequently, to outline a canonical statute for the Fraternity, together with other aspects to be further explored.
I will interject here that I don’t know what “partial” or “imperfect” communion would be. There’s either communion or not, right? Still, it is good that this is framed in terms of “minimum requirements”.
In other words it does NOT demand full surrender by the SSPX and full adherence of mind and will to ever tittle and jot of every document of Vatican II.
THAT is important.
Some will brush this off, saying, yeah, we’ve seen this before.
No. We have not seen this before.
Also, I must add that we see a great deal of jackassy stuff going on in the Church around the world and hear from various prelates truly dopey and shocking things. But the SSPX, which clearly strives to be faithfully Catholic in their presentation of doctrine and morals are on the outs? Does that make any sense?
Finally, in vain, I ask people inclined to comment in the tweetosphere or comboxes everywhere to a) not pretend you know what is going on b) not to pretend to know what is going to happen and c) not to violate the charity you are obliged to exercise in all things.
Here is the letter.
“COMMUNIQUÉ
Regarding the meeting between the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Superior General of the FSSPX
On 12 February 2026, a cordial and sincere meeting took place at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith between the Prefect, His Eminence Cardinal Víctor Manuel FERNÁNDEZ, and the Superior General of the FSSPX, Rev. Don Davide PAGLIARANI, with the approval of the Holy Father Leo XIV.
After clarifying some points presented by the FSSPX in various letters, sent particularly in the years 2017–2019 – among others, the question of divine will regarding the plurality of religions was discussed – the Prefect proposed a path of dialogue specifically theological, with a precise methodology, regarding issues that have not yet been sufficiently clarified, such as: the difference between an act of faith and “religious assent of the mind and will,” or the different degrees of adherence required by the various texts of the Second Vatican Council and their interpretation. At the same time, he proposed to address a series of issues listed by the FSSPX in a letter dated 17 January 2019.
The purpose of this path would be to highlight, in the issues debated, the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church and, consequently, to outline a canonical statute for the Fraternity, together with other aspects to be further explored.
It was reiterated by the Holy See that the ordination of bishops without the mandate of the Holy Father, who holds supreme ordinary power, which is full, universal, immediate and direct (cf. CDC, can. 331; Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, chaps. I and III), would imply a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism) with grave consequences for the Fraternity as a whole (JOHN PAUL I, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, 2 July 1988, nos. 3 and 5c; PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS, Explanatory Note, 24 August 1996, no. 1).
Therefore, the possibility of carrying out this dialogue presupposes that the Fraternity suspend the decision of the announced episcopal ordinations.
The Superior General of the FSSPX will present the proposal to his Council and give his response to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In the event of a positive response, the steps, stages and procedures to be followed will be established by mutual agreement.
The whole Church is asked to accompany this journey, especially in the coming times, with prayer to the Holy Spirit. He is the principal architect of the true ecclesial communion willed by Christ.
+Victor Fernandez (hand signature)”
(AI translation from the Italian)
I recently rediscovered a slim volume entitled The Osterley Selection from the Latin Fathers, published in 1950. The preface praises the great classical authors—Caesar, Cicero, Livy, Virgil—yet insists that Christian also worthy. The collection includes brief selections from Fathers of the Church. It occurred to me that I might offer a podcast of the readings with an English translation, comments and the Latin original.
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf on “In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.” The SSPX and the Holy See.: “I deleted a couple comments from the queue. I didn’t like the direction. Frankly, right now I don’t need the…”
Loading ...
