On countless occasions I was told outside an SSPX chapel, it is ok to attend the Indult. Like any District you have SSPX laity who attend both SSPX and the Indult.

What  denniswhiting  raises is not a new topic. Naturally, you have a few SSPX laity attending the Indult 'on the sly'.

Well, if you understand that  the position of the Neo SSPX is

the New Novus Ordo rite is valid
The episcopal consecrations are valid

This is the official position of the SSPX now.  In the past, the SSPX did not believe the Novus Ordo services were valid and they did not believe their "priests" were valid.
That all changed several years ago.
They published an article in the Angelus   about the episcopal consecrations   of the Novus Ordo  being valid.  
This is a fact, but I do not have the docuмentation on hand to prove it.  Most of us know this.
The Neo SSPX laity are mostly uneducated about these changes and blindly follow along with Felllay's position.  This is EXACTLY what happened in the aftermath of Vatican 11

The "remnant"  of the SSPX  sees the errors.  I have heard talks by Fr Pfeiffer on this subject.  

Quote from: parentsfortruth

First, if a novus ordo is also celebrated at the church where the "indult" mess is being said, how do you really know if you're getting communion from the novus ordo, or the "indult" especially if there's only one tabernacle there? For all you know, the priest is only consecrating the host for himself, and you really don't know if the priest is taking hosts that were already consecrated from the tabernacle that were there for the prior novus ordo that was "offered" earlier.

Good point, PFT.

In a NO church in Sydney, a very elderly pre-vat 2 ordained, offered a TLM. The authorities forbid him to consecrate hosts for the congregation and he must take the hosts from the tabernacle. One Sunday he did as usual, but when he opened the tabernacle, guess what? No hosts! So he had to apologise to the congregation. "No communions today, folk"  But then, what did they miss? Sad story but true.

Yup, so his suspicions and warnings were very founded.

To be fair and to be accurate, the Recusant does address all the points in the latest edition. As I said earlier the practical steps mentioned make perfect sense to me and are the logical way forward.

Quote from: hollingsworth

The point being that all priest in the Society are, apparently, not on the same page when it comes to indult attendance.

No of course they're not.
Inconsistency on this question is one of the many signs of decay in the modern SSPX. In France there is a fashion for getting married with two priests: an indult priest who does the exchange of vows and a Society priest who says the Mass. It is iniquitous, because it is tantamount to approving the old lie that SSPX marriages are not valid. But it happens all the time now. Fr. Chazal's niece was married that way.

The priests of the Society are not "on the same page" on the question of the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo, whether Vatican II should be thrown out or merely 'reformed', or whether it can be simply 'read in the light of Tradition', and so many more things besides.  It has lost its unity after having first having seen a diminishing of its Apostolicity, its Catholicity and its holiness.

It might be useful to listen again to Fr. Pfeiffer explaining the crisis in the SSPX in relation to the Four Marks of the Church:
 

Very silly as the priest does not marry them, he is a witness.

I doubt that fr morgan would write anything of the sort now, he has been turned into a paper tiger.

.


Post

Neil Obstat:

Quote

It was earlier than '97.  I heard him give a conference in '96 wherein he openly promoted the concept, using the words "luscious plumb" as
the image of what 'normalization' would be for the Society.  He said it
is like a very attractive and delicious fruit that is there for the taking
if we would only reach out and pick it from the tree.

This is a fascinating remark!  You don't have the notes from that conference, do you?  Is it available online anyplace?  I take it that you mean by "promoted the concept" that Bp. Fellay spoke positively and encouragingly about possible normalization with Rome in the forseeable future.

I have no knowledge of any recording or notes or transcript of that
conference in 1996 that +Fellay gave in the basement hall of Our
Lady of the Angels SSPX parish in Arcadia, CA.  All I know is that
I was there, and I can remember what I saw and what I heard.  
That's all I have.  I know there were about 200 other people there
that day, some of whom I could recognize, but none of whom I
could name, unfortunately.  I don't go there very often, and now
with these problems in the Society, I go there even less often.  

The thing I would like to impress with this is, +Fellay has
made a veritable CAREER out of schmoozing his audience
with words custom tailored to them, "for their ears only,"
with the objective in mind of getting them interested in his
LONGSTANDING agenda of normalization, that is, with
apostate Rome, regardless of any REAL conversion.

In his Modernist mind, +Fellay's idea of 'conversion' could be
anything at all, and it might actually change from day to day, but
one thing is rather constant, and that is, that 'conversion' to him is
going to always be whatever he damn well thinks it ought to be!  

Quote from: John Grace

On countless occasions I was told outside an SSPX chapel, it is ok to attend the Indult. Like any District you have SSPX laity who attend both SSPX and the Indult.

What  denniswhiting  raises is not a new topic. Naturally, you have a few SSPX laity attending the Indult 'on the sly'.

Well, if you understand that  the position of the Neo SSPX is

the New Novus Ordo rite is valid
The episcopal consecrations are valid

This is the official position of the SSPX now.  In the past, the SSPX did not believe the Novus Ordo services were valid and they did not believe their "priests" were valid.
That all changed several years ago.
They published an article in the Angelus   about the episcopal consecrations   of the Novus Ordo  being valid.  
This is a fact, but I do not have the docuмentation on hand to prove it.  Most of us know this.
The Neo SSPX laity are mostly uneducated about these changes and blindly follow along with Felllay's position.  This is EXACTLY what happened in the aftermath of Vatican 11

The "remnant"  of the SSPX  sees the errors.  I have heard talks by Fr Pfeiffer on this subject.  

First, a disclaimer: Nobody is more anti-Newchurch and anti-novus ordo than me; and I'll never go to a novus ordo protestant mass again.  

Now, I still have not seen evidence that the novus ordo episcopal rite of consecration and their sacraments are invalid. The burden of proof is on all who purport they are "invalid". You need to show comparative analysis, dissection and evidence of both the modern rite and the pre-Vatican II rite, proving that the novus ordo rites are invalid. Simply saying they are "invalid" does not make that the case without proving it.

I read both the 1968 novus ordo episcopal rite and the rite of consecration for the Coptics and Maronites, which is ancient, in the Catholic Church. The 1968 rite is very similar in some parts and identical in other parts of the respective rites.

Now, there have been a few Saints from the Coptic and Maronite tradition that were beatified and canonized by the Church BEFORE Vatican II. If the 1968 Rite of Consecration is invalid, then the Coptic and Maronite Rites have been invalid, effectively making the few "saints" in their tradition not real Catholics, therefore, their beatifications and canonizations would be invalid, which were done by PRE-Vatican II Popes, who are supposed to be infallible in the area of Church law and morals.

I don't believe the PRE-VII Popes could error in beatifying or canonizing these saints from the Coptic and Maronite tradition, nor could they error in allowing a non-valid rite of episcopal consecration in their traditions. This is the main reason I believe the 1968 rite is valid.

Is it not possible that Frank is ONLY materially a bishop / pope, since he was consecrated and elected to those offices, respectfully, but in matters of the Faith, Church law and practice, and morality, he is a heretic and unfolding apostate, therefore, he has no moral authority over any true Catholic, nor does he have infallibility over declaring sainthood or other matters pertaining to dogma and living the Faith in the Church. He can only render Sacraments, albeit, done in a sacrilegious way, but they are still valid (which really makes it even more insulting to our Lord), and he can preside over matters of jurisdiction and organization of the Newchurch. Also, one does not have to believe the Newschurch's rites and Sacraments are invalid in order to be a Sede. A Sede can believe both the Seat of Peter is empty (in terms of infallibility of Faith, morality, etc) while still believing the novus ordo rites are still valid (at least up to this point), but they will become invalid in time, when the apostasy if full blown and the abomination of desolation is here.