Do you have the list of transfers for SSPX US for this year? I don't know how true it is but I hear that Fr Pieroni, currently stationed in Ridgefield CT, will be transferred to Sanford FL and will become pastor in Ft Myers. I hear Father Jacobs and Fr Fábula are being transferred out of Sanford. Can anyone confirm? 

Here in Walton, I heard we will be getting a priest from Sanford FL. Not sure which one, but it will be clarified pretty soon. 

I heard fr. Fabula is going to Miami, but I didn't think Miami had a priory.  Also heard he will be servicing the outposts in texas.  Whats the scoop on him?

The never-ending transfers within the SSPX is truly an Achilles Heel for the Society. Priests move about because "the superior" has so ordered. They truly do fancy themselves to be a congregation of common life when their only canonical recoginition does make the Society on par with the Sacred Heart Auto League as [cue ominous music] the Nine rightly pointed out 40 years ago.

Besides practical reasons, I believe the transfers are helpful to prevent undue natural attachments. Ideas of "independent priests" being subject to no superiors, or lay boards overruling the clergy are heretical.

I believe the transfers are helpful to prevent undue natural attachments.

As for "natural" attachments, these priests need to be taught to function in such a way as to prevent the creation of "natural" attachments, but there's nothing wrong with a priest staying pastor of the same parish for 30-40 years, as was common before Vatican II.  Also, it's only a relatively modern practice for the Pope to transfer bishops around from one diocese to another.  That was frowned upon in the early Church, since the bishop was thought to have a spiritual relationship with their flock, and a pastor of an actual parish is no different.

I don't know which is worse, this comment or the fact that it got 3 thumbs up.  Firstly, nobody's saying that this is a normal situation, but - newsflash! - we're in a Church crisis that is unprecedent in all of Church history.  Secondly, the SSPX "superiors" are as much superiors of these priests as if they had none.  Being able to function as a superior derives from the jurisdiction of the Church, period.  So there's not a lick of real difference between an independent SSPX priest, a Resistance priest like Father Chazal, or any SSPX who pretends he has a superior.

I don’t know Lad.  Maybe, but for those who dispute the legitimacy/suppression of the SSPX, and the subsequent refusal of the Bishop of Freiburg to renew the initial provisional 6-year charter, there’s an argument that an hierarchical relationship persists.  Personally, I’m not persuaded by the argument, but the Society has made it for decades (at least as regards the invalidity of the suppression, with the rest seeming to follow therefrom).

That aside, there is a quiet debate in Tradition regarding the extent of supplied jurisdiction, which has not arisen overtly in years:

According to Bishop Tissier’s 1990/1991 (?) study, supplied jurisdiction extends beyond the realm of sacramental jurisdiction, and pertains to all aspects necessary to the functioning of the priesthood.

https://fsspx.org/en/supplied-jurisdiction-traditional-priests 

That opinion was implicitly shared by Bishop Faure, when in 2015 he “canonically erected” the SAJM.  The same might also be backed by Fr. Chazal, who was elected “Superior General” of the MCSPX (but whether this was based on simply common consent, or based on canonical foundation, I do not know; I’m the nature whether there are any statutes or constitutions for the MCSPX).

Against this view is Bishop Williamson, who’s “loose confederation of independents” was formed precisely because he does not believe supplied jurisdiction extended to the foundation of congregations (see his June/2015 Post Falls conference).

Not sure what Lefebvre’s position was on the subject.  I know that in the mid-1970’s he received the vows of some Dominicans at Avrille, despite having no authority to do so (this being reserved to the Master General), and said in the sermon that perhaps people will say, therefore, that these are merely private vows, and left the door open that perhaps they were correct.  Conversely, the SSPX (before or after Lefebvre, I can’t remember) has a 3rd order, despite the fact that 3rd orders properly only belong to exempt congregations (eg., Dominicans; Franciscans; etc).

So I’m not sure who’s correct, but as regards the transfer of priests, there’s at least an argument to be made tgat such authority does exist.

I don’t know Lad.  Maybe, but for those who dispute the legitimacy/suppression of the SSPX, and the subsequent refusal of the Bishop of Freiburg to renew the initial provisional 6-year charter, there’s an argument that an hierarchical relationship persists.  Personally, I’m not persuaded by the argument, but the Society has made it for decades (at least as regards the invalidity of the suppression, with the rest seeming to follow therefrom).

That aside, there is a quiet debate in Tradition regarding the extent of supplied jurisdiction, which has not arisen overtly in years:

According to Bishop Tissier’s 1990/1991 (?) study, supplied jurisdiction extends beyond the realm of sacramental jurisdiction, and pertains to all aspects necessary to the functioning of the priesthood.

https://fsspx.org/en/supplied-jurisdiction-traditional-priests

That opinion was implicitly shared by Bishop Faure, when in 2015 he “canonically erected” the SAJM.  The same might also be backed by Fr. Chazal, who was elected “Superior General” of the MCSPX (but whether this was based on simply common consent, or based on canonical foundation, I do not know; I’m the nature whether there are any statutes or constitutions for the MCSPX).

Against this view is Bishop Williamson, who’s “loose confederation of independents” was formed precisely because he does not believe supplied jurisdiction extended to the foundation of congregations (see his June/2015 Post Falls conference).

Not sure what Lefebvre’s position was on the subject.  I know that in the mid-1970’s he received the vows of some Dominicans at Avrille, despite having no authority to do so (this being reserved to the Master General), and said in the sermon that perhaps people will say, therefore, that these are merely private vows, and left the door open that perhaps they were correct.  Conversely, the SSPX (before or after Lefebvre, I can’t remember) has a 3rd order, despite the fact that 3rd orders properly only belong to exempt congregations (eg., Dominicans; Franciscans; etc).

So I’m not sure who’s correct, but as regards the transfer of priests, there’s at least an argument to be made tgat such authority does exist.

An excerpt from +Tissier’s conference (which he extrapolates upon) cited above:

“The general extent of supplied jurisdiction

It is not only present for confessions, but also for the entire priestly ministry. There is no reason to limit it to confessions alone.”

Again, I don’t know if he’s right, but there’s a certain logic to it.

Is it bad to hope that the current SSPX priest in my area gets transferred OUT?