Didn't Bishop Fellay tell us we did not have to worry about the SSPX ever changing its Statutes as a result of its pursuit of a practical accord with modernist Rome?

Well, here is an excerpt from the SSPX Statutes (1976 version, augmented by the General Chapter of 1982) vs the new policy (which will necessarily result in....changing the Statutes):

"5. The entry into the Fraternity is realized for the clergy through the commitment, publicly expressed before the Superior General or his delegate and before the Blessed Sacrament, to remain faithful to the statutes. This commitment cannot take place before a year of preparation in a house of the Fraternity.

6. Clerics during their formative years up to the sub-diaconate will make annual commitments. From the sub-diaconate they can commit for three years and after a new re-engagement of three years they can make a permanent commitment. For priests who would commit themselves to the Fraternity they must make at least one commitment of three years before their final commitment. The brothers, according to their particular statutes, after six years of temporary vows, that is to say two times three years, make perpetual vows."

NB: The new policy was first announced publicly in December, 2018.  In all likelihood, therefore, it was agreed to change them at the 2018 General Chapter.  The change is certainly related to the pursuit of an accord with modernist Rome (i.e., coming into conformity with the 1983 CIC: With the SSPX now arguing "the state of necessity recedes," they no longer have any theological justification for deviating from the canon law of the conciliar church).

Fr. Girouard on changes to the SSPX Constitutions/Statutes upon the announcement of the creation of two new "Counselor" positions upon the closing of the 2018 General Chapter:

"In other words: Such a change to the Statutes of the Society is a clear indicator that the General Chapter “means business” with the issue of an agreement with non-converted Rome. The Major Superiors have learned the hard way that such a move had to be done with the best tools available, and not hapharzadly like before. They seem to have realized that the original Statutes defining the administrative mechanisms of the Society were not adapted to the requirements of achieving a deal with Rome. Indeed, the tumults experienced since 2012 showed them that such negotiations had to be done more “prudently”, in order to avoid an open resistance from the Society’s rank-and-file members. Therefore, they changed the Statutes, and chose Bp. Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger to fill the new positions.

This is nothing else than a deliberate blinding of the intellect and hardening of the heart. Instead of listening to the serious and compelling arguments of the Resistance against an agreement with non-converted Rome, the General Chapter has decided to change the Statutes so as to get such an official “recognition” from Rome. Let us hope that this imitation of Pharao’s obstinacy will not bring upon the Society the Plagues God had sent to Egypt!"

https://thebastion.faith/a-novelty-in-the-sspx-structure-the-general-councillors/

And so too in the present instance:

A conciliar SSPX needs to be brought into line with conciliar canon law.

That the 1917 CIC had similar legislation regarding engagements is entirely beside the point:

"Necessity is not subject to law."

It was necessity, and not canon law, which formed the basis for the Archbishop's now-abandoned practice.

Likewise, it is the neo-SSPX's denial of necessity which results in its newfound canonical compliance.

What a total joke!

Archbishop Lefebvre delayed the tonsure a year because so many seminarians were coming and going, and now Menz wants to make them take perpetual engagements before major orders?

1) Because Rome requires them to get on board with canon law?

2) To add pressure to keep them from going Resistance later?

Both probably.

And then you get some guy coming on here talking about the canon law as a reason for justifying a move away from the wisdom of ABL?  As though the SSPX had forgotten all about canon law for 45 years?

Pfft...

Do you know how much I care about the canon law, amidst worldwide apostasy, when it is held out as a club to crush resistance to that apostasy?

A thinly veiled legalism to justify another step into Rome (and of course, a bit of moral compulsion) to keep everyone lock-step.

This might be construed as a gross exaggeration, but when reading about how these new neoSSPX jugend, I mean seminarians, are required essentially to pledge their allegiance to Das Menzigen Kirchefuhrer, I mean the neo-SSPX, ::)I confess (mea maxima culpa), this is what first pops into my fevered mind.............



Or in the same vein......

Well, yeah.  If Matthew is right, (and I think he is), and the sspx has fallen, then it is no longer a viable traditional Catholic alternative.  It is lost to us, and we to it.  So to describe sspx as still the largest, remaining traditional Catholic priestly organization in the world is kind of a moot point.  It really doesn't matter.
It's like having a big luxury car sitting in the driveway.  It looks good.  It looks like it should run, but it doesn't, and it can't be fixed.  Better to call a tow truck and have it hauled off to the dump--unless, of course, you're the  good bishop, holding out some glimmer of hope that it might be repaired some day and put back on the road.  I have no such hope.

That's a poor analogy.

More like an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) weapon has been fired at the USA, and now in every driveway there's a car that USED to run but doesn't run anymore. Now there are just a small % of older cars from the 1970's and earlier that run -- so it's an order of magnitude harder to find a running vehicle now. Some people are lucky -- they happen to live next to an antique car lot, and those spoils were quickly divided up. Here and there, you have people with 3 and 4 cars to choose from.

But most people are on foot now. And horses are going to get a lot more popular. So looking back at "what we used to have" is not a moot point at all. By looking at what we had vs. what we have now, we can clearly define the challenges that face us now.  How is that a waste of time?

From "Mikael" of the French Resistance forum: http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t918-Nouvelle-politique-de-la-FSSPX-sur-les-engagements-perpetuel.htm#p3241


Indeed, Sean, there seems to be a noticeable change in commitments (which, let us remember, are not vows).

This is not at all innocent in the current context of the Society's rallying to the "conciliar" Church. It is even very problematic for young people who often have legitimate concerns about the future of the work.

Not to mention that this is not a normal practice within a pious union such as the FSSPX: to commit oneself definitively to a priestly work after only four years is certainly not enough.

There are several reasons for this:

1° the FSSPX is not a religious order (like blessings or Capuchins...), that is why Bishop Lefebvre gave a lot of time to the members to make a definitive commitment,
2° Even in religious orders with vows, final vows can be pronounced after major orders. The essential thing to receive orders is to be incardinated in a work by commitments (even temporary) or temporary vows,
3° Young people of the current generations do not have the maturity of their elders: Bishop Lefebvre had felt it well, and did not want to put a burden on souls that were not strong enough.

For its part, the neo-FSSPX gives the following reasons:

https://stas.org/en/news-events/news/first-and-final-engagements-sspx-new-p...

Quote:

"Entering one of these families places the soul in closer contact with the life force of the Mystical Body, realizing its dependence and directing it with the soul of the Church. It is for this reason that the Fraternity of Saint Pius X requires that each soul it gives to the priesthood be subjected to authority,[NB : they therefore admit that a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X was not subjected to authority before this policy, if so, then why expel a priest for having disapproved of a change in principles and policies about the new orientations of the year 2012], attached for life to his family and, in turn, linked to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church[NB: thus, any member not definitely committed was not until then in connection with the Church !!! ]. Stability and integrity will be the fruits of this commitment, if necessary today. Indeed, it is only through submission to authority in the order of God that we participate in his charity, which is the true bond of perfection."

Under "wise" theological and mystical motivations, this text actually manifests the intentions of the Superiors of the neo-FSSPX: to anchor the members in obedience to what they call "the Church", but what, in reality and in the long term, will prove to be an obedience to the "conciliar" Church.

This subtly "harmless" change, if confirmed, will lock up pious and good seminarians in cruel cases of conscience. Quite a few of them are currently perceiving (at least suspecting...) this general orientation of the FSSPX towards a "smooth rally", but there is the power of attraction of a traditionalist seminary which, on the surface, "holds its ground" against modernist Rome.

Once they have made a definitive commitment, it will be very difficult for them to go back and join other truly traditional priestly works.

Every day that passes, the General House reveals more clearly its unfaithful intentions to the Founder's line!"

[Once again, the attack and the praxis/process, is psychological. -SJ]

Fr. Trincado responds:

"The SSPX has made an adaptation of its statutes to CIC 1983, which in canon 1037 says: An unmarried candidate for the permanent diaconate and a candidate for the presbyterate are not to be admitted to the order of diaconate unless they have assumed the obligation of celibacy in the prescribed rite publicly before God and the Church or have made perpetual vows in a religious institute. CIC 1917 does not speak of a requirement regarding vows to receive the diaconate.
Most likely, the authorities of the SSPX have made this change thinking about the agreement with Rome."
God bless you.
Fr Trincado, SAJM

[“We will never change,” and “we must be accepted as we are!” -SJ]

There haven't been a lot of SSPX priests leaving to join the Resistance (or anything else for that matter) for years.

Why are they shortening the leash all the sudden? Do they anticipate problems in the near future as certain things takes place in the SSPX? Is the CCCC thread making the rounds, or do the SSPX authorities WORRY that such information will make the rounds eventually?  Are they just preparing for the inevitable and taking appropriate steps to protect the good of the organization?

They must be worried about something, or "know something we don't", to make this change and put additional moral pressure on their seminarians/priests like this.

Because the excuse about wanting to be part of the Church (all the psychobabble quoted above in the SSPX article), wanting to be in accordance with Canon Law, etc. rings COMPLETELY HOLLOW since the SSPX didn't operate this way from 1970 to 2018. You can't tell me the whole SSPX (bishops, hundreds of priests, etc.) was unaware of Canon Law requirements during that time. And you're telling me the SSPX didn't want their priests to be part of the Church, close to the lifeblood of the Mystical Body of Christ, etc.? Get outta here!

No, I think the real reason for this latest CHANGE is exactly what we suspect -- to throw a pre-emptive monkey wrench into the works. They want to tighten control over their seminarians/priests, since many of them already suspect that something is up.

Yeah, and they'll probably lie to the seminarians by making a big deal about this "solemn" promise and over-exaggerate how they owe fidelity and obedience to the society, for God's sake, for the Church's sake, etc.