No. He has been appointed by Pope Francis a first instance tribunal judge to handle SSPX cases. The very great significance of this is that it means the Pope recognises SSPX marriages since, if he did not, he could not appoint Bishop Fellay (or anyone) to preside, as a judge, over SSPX matrimonial cases. If the marriages were never valid in the first place then there would be nothing to judge or annul.

No need to be sorry - it is a complex subject often unnecessarily obfuscated by prelates with secondary motives. The documents issued by Pope Francis recognising SSPX confessions, and appointing Bishop Fellay a judge legally imply regularization when added to the still valid document formally establishing the Society in 1970. So - there are documents but one does not legally require a document to state - baldly - "you are regularised" for that nevertheless to be the case. The other pontifical documents already imply it.

Dear Sedelondon,

You attribute to me views that I have not expressed and so attack a straw man. How is that rational or helpful?

Please do me the courtesy of not trying to put words in my mouth and, instead, listen to what I said and read what I wrote.

I have not said that SSPX do not want this information in the public domain. I don't know if they do or if they don't. I don't know if "the Vatican" (I presume you mean the Holy See?) does, either, although I surmise that they don't else they would have publicised it. Obviously, it makes sense to tell people the truth and that is what I have attempted to do. Have you something against the truth that you wish it suppressed?

Neither have I said that I think it "beneficial" to be "regularised". I am simply observing that this is what has, in effect, happened. Don't put words in my mouth.

Having read sermons and books by Archbishop Lefebvre, it is quite clear that he does not share what seems to be your view that the the whole divine institution of the Church is "counterfeit" but only "the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies", by which he means the human bureaucracy, not the divine institution.

Archbishop Lefebvre deliberately did not disparage the Holy See and always regarded the occupant of that See as validly elected to it, not least Pope John Paul II. The fact that one is validly pope does not mean one is above criticism. Without challenging his authority, St Paul rebuked St Peter to his face over his dissimulation regarding customary traditions and because he thereby "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel" [Gal 2.11-14].

The "counterfeit church" of which the District Superiors speak is not, and cannot be, the divine institution of the Church since to call it thus would be to utter a blasphemous heresy. They are clearly speaking of a "counterfeit church" within the true Church that has seized control of certain major organs within the Church so as to spread error. One does not need to be an adherent of SSPX to see that such has, indeed, happened to a greater or lesser extent.

Given your post name of "Sedelondon", it may be that you are one of those who call themselves "sedevacantists" and who think the Holy See is currently vacant and has been for a long time, perhaps even since the reign of Pope Pius XII.

As you know, or ought to know, Archbishop Lefebvre firmly set his face against such a position, as do his followers to this day - and rightly so.

The Sedevacantist position is clearly self-defeating since all bishops today have been chosen and consecrated by popes whom most, if not all, Sedevacantists consider not to be popes, in which case, if this were true, the Church would have failed, there being no successors of the Apostles and no Apostolic succession, and the words of Christ Himself defeated, which it would be gross heresy to claim.

Therefore, I say to you: "cast out first the beam in thine own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye" [Matt 7.5].

I'm sure we all have beams to remove from our eyes.

In your response to another poster you said: "It was kept quiet because the Vatican wanted it so". Anyone who engaged his brain could see that. Now you say you 'don't know' if they wanted it kept quiet. By the way - didn't you mean 'the Holy See'?

You also stated: "SSPX has not chosen to publicise it doubtless because of big mouth know-nothings like you two who are more interested in creating trouble than in the finding truth or seeking the good of the Church". The word 'doubtless' is somewhat at variance with your later statement that you 'don't know' whether the SSPX wants the matter kept quiet.

I actually agree with you that it is better that this de facto regularisation is out in the open. But surely your statement that other novus ordo bishops should 'take leaf out of his (Francis') book' and not be illiberal and intolerant towards the SSPX implies strongly that 'regularisation' is beneficial? Why would you want something to happen more widely if it were not beneficial?

It is true that Archbishop Lefebvre never definitively embraced the sedevacantist position and sometimes criticised it. On the other hand he also privately and publicly discussed the possibility of a false pope in relation to Paul VI and JPII:

“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)

He also spoke strongly against the conciliar entity in the time of JPII:

“Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)

Naturally the 'counterfeit church' and the Catholic Church are not the same. But how can one man be leader of both? Too many 'traditionalists' abandon Catholic teaching on the Papacy in their desperation to have a 'pope'.

You again try to put words in mouth and thus tend to prove my suggestion that if anything was not publicised by the authors it was because of trouble-makers.

What I said was this: "I have not said that SSPX do not want this information in the public domain. I don't know if they do or if they don't. I don't know if "the Vatican" (I presume you mean the Holy See?) does, either, although I surmise that they don't else they would have publicised it."

This is not at variance with what I earlier said which was a surmise, as must be obvious, and does, indeed, refer to "the Vatican" which is NOT co-terminous with "the Holy See" as I expressly said and you now pretend otherwise. This was in the context of not finding anything about the matter on the web site. It is clear that "the Vatican" did not want to publicise it themselves but not clear if they do or do not want others to do so, still less is it clear what the Holy See wants given that the Holy See is the source of the de facto "regularisation".

Doubtless the "counterfeit church" (as you term it), within the human bureaucracy, wanted the matter "kept quiet" because, I suspect, they disagree with what the Holy See has done. But what the Holy See itself wants is not clear. That the two seem to be at variance merely shows your error in seeking to elide them together.

Likewise the fact that SSPX themselves have not chosen to publicise the matter does not mean that they object to someone else putting the matter in the public domain. So, once again, there is no contradiction. I did not say - as you falsely claim - that SSPX wants the matter "kept quiet". I said they "have not chosen to publicise it" i.e. themselves. You again falsely elide the two.

You could have worked this out for yourself but you chose to interpret maliciously which again proves my point.

You seem less interested in the truth than in peddling your own agenda of historic Sedevacantism.

That also proves my point.

You press your agenda further when you say "surely your statement that other novus ordo bishops should 'take leaf out of his (Francis') book' and not be illiberal and intolerant towards the SSPX implies strongly that 'regularisation' is beneficial?"

Not so. It is a call for those bishops not to be illiberal or intolerant and that means regardless of "regularisation". One does not need "regularisation" in order to stop being illiberal or intolerant, particularly when one is claiming, simultaneously, to be liberal and tolerant.

You thus, again, unthinkingly try to put words in my mouth. But this, alas, is all too typical of the facile and sloppy thinking that characterises much historic Sedevacantism (i.e. denying the validity of earlier popes like Paul VI and John Paul II).

For the record, I do consider this de facto "regularisation" to be a good thing. It has obviated the need for what might have been difficult and unhelpful horse trading aimed at some likely unsatisfactory "joint statement" of the sort that proliferate these days but do little good and often serve only to confuse.

You seem to agree and yet, perversely, also seem to want to disagree. How helpful is that?

The rest of your reply is tendentious nonsense and I have already rebutted it.

It is well known that SSPX have been the principal opponent of historic Sedevacantism (i.e. denying the validity of earlier popes like Paul VI and John Paul II) whatever off the cuff remarks may have been made by Msgr de Castro Mayer or even Archbishop Lefebvre and which you attempt to wrest out of context.

You are whistling in the dark if you pretend otherwise.

When the Archbishop spoke of "Rome" he clearly meant the human bureaucracy, not the Church itself.

Indeed, you yourself, admit that the "counterfeit church" and the Catholic Church cannot be the same.

Of course it is perfectly possible for the same person to be truly Vicar of Christ and yet preside over a Church which has, within its bosom, the asp of a "counterfeit church". Our Lord Himself warned of this [Matt 24.4-30].

Your very question betrays your confusion: "Naturally the 'counterfeit church' and the Catholic Church are not the same. But how can one man be leader of both?"

This very question implies that the Church over which the Vicar of Christ is spiritual head is also the "counterfeit church" and thus you self-demolish your own case.

If the courtiers of a king are conspiring to overthrow his kingdom, does that mean that the king is head of this "counterfeit kingdom"? Of course not. On the contrary, despite the fact that those same conspirators are his subjects, the king, qua king, is not the head of their conspiracy to instal a "counterfeit kingdom", even if he foolishly tolerates their treachery.

So much is obvious to anyone with common sense. So what is your problem that you cannot see something so obvious?

The issue here is not that "too many 'traditionalists' abandon Catholic teaching on the Papacy in their desperation to have a 'pope'" but rather that those who think there has been no pope since Pius XII (or even earlier) are thus confessing that Apostolic succession has disappeared and the Church has failed, contrary to the words of Christ. If anyone is abandoning Catholic teaching on the Papacy, it is they.

Historic Sedevacantism is a counsel of despair. I urge you to abandon it. I have every sympathy with, and warmly share, your concerns about the current state of things in the Church but to say that Apostolic succession has been lost is not the solution.

If you intend replying, please do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth. If you wish me to clarify any view then simply ask, don't falsely try to put words in my mouth.

I never once called you a name. I merely said I couldn't find it on the Internet, including the Vatican site. Anyway, I know some people to ask.

I noticed that you didn't try to show that the SSPX has canonical standing.

I have heard Bishop Fellay say multiple times in public talks that he has given, going several years back, that he was "appointed"/given permission or some such word, to judge internal cases of the Society. This is no secret, and is public knowledge. One just has to actually pays attention to things, and what has been said. I would have to dig up the talks and re-listen to find the exact terminalogy used. I do know that he did not use the terms that Mr. Bogle used.

Pope Francis likes the SSPX. He intervened upon their request when Argentina was revoking Visa's of priests who were not aligned with a Bishop. It was not resolved when he became Pope. However, he met with the SSPX legal counsel in Rome and continued advocating for the SSPX with the Argentinian authorities. He likes them since they are willing to go to the "periphery" of society. His granting them faculties in the local ordinances happened when Fellay was still General Superior. This has nothing to do with any Liturgical or Doctrinal issues. Pope Francis just likes them. Nothing more than that.

That recognition can only have the purpose of bring about a division between the traditional Catholics and the NOM Catholics. There will be great, indeed tremendous, opposition from most Bishops, especially those who are extremely liberal AND absolutely opposed to the Old Mass, who will themselves attempt to suppress the SSPX. Just remember that Francis wishes to place more power in the hands of local Bishops. And you can bet that Francis will not overrule the efforts of his liberal friends to "get rid" of tradition! One could even expect serious clashes, to say the least. In fact, Bishop Fellay had better be careful he doesn't end up another Cardinal Pell

Dear Fr. Belland-
What you say was true 20 years ago, when the SSPX was still traditional, but no longer. The best thing Rome can do to crush what tradition remains in it is to regularize the Society ("Regularization carries within itself its own internal dynamism..what is important is that there no longer be resistance." -Fr. Cottier upon the conquest of Campos). The greatest enemies of Tradition therefore support the regularization, regardless of there lip service to the contrary. This is all smoke and mirrors to pretend that the SSPX is still traditional, so the liberals must resist them. When one looks at the level of collaboration between the SSPX and the various dioceses (delegation for marriage, for example), there is no conciliar resistance to a neutered SSPX. You might want to have a look at this:
www.cathinfo.com/…/catalog-of-comp…

It is true that now it cannot be argued that SSPX administers invalid absolutions and marriages. In fact, an SSPX friend tells me that SSPX priests now hear Confessions in diocesan churches in Germany.

On the other hand, the SSPX does not yet have canonical standing

Since you asked:

1. I first met Msgr Lefebvre in 1972-3 when I, along with 3 friends from the Univ of Kansas, was staying at Fontgombault. We were told about the abbey by Fr Urban Snyder OSCO, then head of the spiritual year of formation at Econe. A civil lawyer, he began as a monk of Gethsemane. Later, he changed to Genesee but was ex claustrated. In the late 80s I visited him in the hills of Kentucky, where he had a chapel. He died A few years ago.

2. For the most part, it wasn't necessary to attend an SSPX chapel because the daily mass of a priest in my hometown was always done using the Pius V Missal.

3. In 1975 I was admitted to study for the priesthood with the SSPX but for various reasons decided not to go.

4. The SSPX N American headquarters are in Farley, Mo, a few miles from my apartment in KC. I was just there a few weeks ago. A few days after that I was at the SSPX parish in KC. Spent some time with the priests and gave them about 5 boxes of Theology books.

5. A good friend from my Roman years publishes the mag Kirchliche Umschau and lives in an SSPX community in Ruppichteroth, Germany. During the negotiations he kept me informed of what was happening.

Btw, my doctorate from my Roman years is in Thhomistic Studies.

6. I used to teach at the FSSP seminary in Nebraska. Fr Bisig, ex SSPX, was on the faculty and is now the rector.

7. FSSP has a parish in KC. It's too much much of a drive to go there do for daily mass, even though I know the pastor and the asst pastor was one of my students.

8. A few years ago I was at St Mary's for the first time. One of my students was in a chapel in nearby Maple Hill. I also had the chance to visit the grave of John Senior, KU prof and my godfather. He and his wife are buried in the St Mary's cemetery.

Hope this helps.

Also: I see you are in Minnesota. At the moment I am in Cloquet and will be leaving soon for Park Rapids.

Response to Dr. Bobus:

1) The same Fontgambault which was a spin-off of the betrayer of Archbishop Lefebvre, Dom Gerard of La Barroux? If you met Archbishop Lefebvre, but still ended up at Fontgambault, it is pretty obvious the Archbishop (who said Dom Gerard and the indult communities were "doing the devil's work") didn't rub off on you;

2) This response erroneously pretends the Mass is the only issue. But as Archbishop Lefebvre said, one does not merely frequent a Mass, but an entire millieu: There is the sermon; the confessional advice; the conversations before and after Mass (all among those who have accepted the errors of V2 in trade for the Mass);

3) I think your previous responses explain the reason;

4) Yes, there is now open tradcumenism between the SSPX and the former PCED communities whom the Archbishop said were doing the devil's work. Disgraceful conferences like the Catholic Identity Conference and this year's Angelus Press Conference could never have occurred in Archbishop Lefebvre's time, but today they are commonplace. So much for the SSPX remaining "as we are." Lefebvre used to write and preach often about why there could be no collaboration with the betrayers of Tradition in the Ecclesia Dei communities, whereas today it is commonplace;

5) Most of the modernists at Vatican II had doctorates in Thomistic studies. It is very obviously (in both their cases, and your own) no guarantee of doctrinal orthodoxy;

6) So you taught at a seminary for a community which officially espouses the hermeneutic of continuity which archbishop Lefebvre rejected (which would corroborate by response above): Religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality are all compatible with the pre-Vatican II magisterium, allegedly. Yet Archbishop Lefebvre spent the greater part of his post-conciliar life opposing these and other errors (which the Ecclesia Dei communities have accepted);

7) That you speak as though you would consider attending an FSSP Mass venue, if only it were closer, speaks against your orthodoxy, not in favor of it;

8) So you made a sentimental visit to the formerly traditional St. Mary's. This gets you nowhere;

Pax tecum,
Athanasius

Response to Phroggal-

Yes indeed, but it wasn't me (see my previous comment).

1. No, this is the Fontgombault that was founded in 1948 by Solesmes, then became an abbey in 1954. Le Barroux was founded in 1970.

I said I met Msgr Lefebvre at Fontgombault--he was visiting.

2. I am grateful to Msgr Lefebvre for standing fast and defending the Roman Rite, but I've never been interested in being loyal to him (whatever that means). I would be interested,
however, in knowing why he signed Sacrosanctum Concilium.

3 The celebration of the Eucharist is the Center of the Church. Every good done by the Church flows into or out of the Eucharist. Theology, however, is not merely Theology of the Eucharist.

In fact, the other six Sacraments exist only to serve the Eucharist.

4. I know of no official orientation of the FSSP to the hermeneutic of continuity, which generally applies to the criticism of the liturgical changes. I do know that the FSSP officially exists to promote the Roman Rite, the Missal of Pius V.

Ecumenism is fine unless the liturgy or doctrine is distorted, which is what unfortunately hashappened.

The text on religious liberty is ambiguous. Collegiality is another matter and is not the same as Conciliarism

NB: I'm traveling, using a tablet and phone. This.is part of the reply.

As I wrote above in a different comment, I have listened to multiple public talks by Bp. Fellay, going back several years at least, where he mentioned being give permission/appointed by Rome to judge internal cases of the Society. The way it was spoken of was more in the terms of what Dr. Bobus's second source said. There was no mention of being on the rota. As I said, these were in public talks to the laity, and the information has not been "kept secret" as has been inferred. One just has to actually listen to what people are saying....

. lthough Vat II strengthened the the diocesan bishop, it also in creased the authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium by making it infallible in secondary objects. Who has the authority to decide formally if a secondary object of the OUM is infallible? The pope.

As I said, I appreciate Msgr Lefebvre's preservation of the Pius V Missal. Beyond that, I am not much interesed in his opinions on other matters. I'm more interested in what St Thomas' teaches.

The only opportunity for daily mass is the Novus Ordo, during which I read without translation all the propers and commons from the 1962 Missal (Divinum Officium).

I'm sorry but Orthodoxy and your constipated spirituality are not the same.

My visit to st Mary's was to pray at the grave of my professor, who also was my godfather when I converted. Praying for the dead is a moral good and general obligation. Only a non believer in purgatory would consider it an exercise in sentimentalism.

Theological Modernism is incompatible with theTheology of St Thomas.

There were few Thomists at VatII. Neither of the two great Thomists of the 20th cent--Garrigou LaGrange and Ramirez--were there. Garrigou had spent years defending Catholic life againstw opponents whose Theology is behind most of the present chaos.

Michael Browne was VATII as Master of the OPs and a very good man , but he was mostly a moralist.

Most clerics at VAT II we're neo scholastics, which means they were closer to Scotus than St Thomas.

Karl Rahner was a very powerful factor behind the problems that emerged atat vatii. He was no Thomist but was steeped in German Existentialism (cf Heidegger).

Theological Modernism is incompatible with St Thomas' Theology.

Dear Nobodyimportant, you are missing the point. It matters not what title or position Pope Francis has given to Bishop Fellay - who cares? - but the fact that he has given him the right to determine SSPX matrimonial cases which, in turn, means he does not consider marriages witnessed by an SSPX priest or deacon as intrinsically invalid. THAT is the point. And that is a huge step because there are plenty of bishops and matrimonial tribunals who still think ALL marriages witnessed only by SSPX clergy are automatically invalid. But they are wrong.