Pope Francis Has Fully Regularized the SSPX - James Bogle

[Matto]

Found this on gloria.tv through Canon 212
https://www.gloria.tv/article/UQSBkni1bnxe32f4NhJHwXocM
Is this true. What does this mean to us and the Church and the world?

[Therese]

This is just this mans opinion. There is no official regularization.

And he stated something that is incorrect/misleading. Bishop Fellay is not a judge on the Rota Romana. (I went and found a list of the judges on it just to be certain I was not speaking out of turn.) I believe he is referring to remarks that Bishop Fellay has made in the past about the Vatican "appointing"/telling/giving permission for him to judge internal cases in the Society. I have heard Bishop Fellay mention it in talks several times over the past several years - it is not new news.

[Geremia]

A canonist told me a few years ago that in all practicality the SSPX is fully regularized.

[Prayerful]

De-facto is not de-jure, but bould Francis is fairly indifferent to laws and rules, unless he can use themselves towards some scheme, so maybe the marriage, confession and other measures have less standing than the acts of someone more careful. The thread on Gloriatv also has someone under James Bogles name posting some harsh comments.

[Geremia]

De-facto is not de-jure

The canonist argued to me it's an unprecedented anomaly that canon law isn't able to handle (yet)...

[tradical]

De-facto is not de-jure

The canonist argued to me it's an unprecedented anomaly that canon law isn't able to handle (yet)...

Ultimately the highest canon is the salvation of souls. They will eventually (perhaps not in my lifetime) figure this out.

[ArthurNorthwode]

The SSPX should not be regularized until modernist Rome has fully capitulated to Tradition. Otherwise, the SSPX and Tradition become "tolerated" and thus weakened and eventually even further driven into obscurity.

[ermy_law]

The SSPX should not be regularized until modernist Rome has fully capitulated to Tradition. Otherwise, the SSPX and Tradition become "tolerated" and thus weakened and eventually even further driven into obscurity.

That is why this one-sided regularization from the Vatican is so brilliant. The Vatican has regularized the SSPX, and the SSPX can't really do anything about it without doing something overtly schismatic. The question is what will happen when a new bishop is needed...

[Santantonio]

The SSPX should not be regularized until modernist Rome has fully capitulated to Tradition. Otherwise, the SSPX and Tradition become "tolerated" and thus weakened and eventually even further driven into obscurity.

That is why this one-sided regularization from the Vatican is so brilliant. The Vatican has regularized the SSPX, and the SSPX can't really do anything about it without doing something overtly schismatic. The question is what will happen when a new bishop is needed...

SSPX is playing the waiting game just like hundreds of millions of "N.O." Catholics at this point.
There is nothing else worth doing.

[Lynne]

Sure, they've been "regularized", with no personal prelature (good) and yet Cardinal Burke says that they're in schism and they cannot openly buy a church property in several (most?) dioceses. And I believe that they will consecrate a new bishop or two when it becomes necessary.

[Lucy_Helene]

A canonist told me a few years ago that in all practicality the SSPX is fully regularized.

I wholeheartedly concur. The Vatican has implicitly recognised that the 1975 suppression was invalid, that the censures imposed on Abp. Lefebvre were invalid, that the 1988 episcopal consecrations did not result in excommunication, and that the SSPX has always operated according to supplied jurisdiction, with the grants in 2015 simply replacing the previous state of extraordinary jurisdiction. Any canonist who willfully remains blind to these canonical realities is still trying to live in the 1980s...

...yet Cardinal Burke says that they're in schism and they cannot openly buy a church property in several (most?) dioceses.

His Eminence is in error; through an acquaintance who is a canonist, I hope to correct this error of his soon.

[Kephapaulos]

I would be interested in your friend's canonical argument, Lucy Helene.