The bishop of my diocese clears up all misconceptions about the SSPX. This further reinforces the comments I made earlier regard Cardinal Dinardo's similar comments.

Those of you who frequent these parishes do so at your and your family's risk.

https://fwdioc.org/bishop-olson-pastoral-letter-to-faithful-of-diocese-fort-worth-10-31-24-en.pdf

Quote:

---

DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH
THE BISHOP'S OFFICE
THE CATHOLIC CENTER

October 31, 2024

Dear Friends in Christ,

In the last several weeks I have received several inquiries regarding the ecclesial status of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) and the advisability of receiving sacraments in SSPX churches, chapels, and from SSPX clerics. The recent frequency and sincerity of inquiries have prompted me to issue this message with succinct and clear answers to commonly asked questions about this complicated matter.

1. Are the bishops and priests of the SSPX in full communion with the Catholic Church?

No. While the SSPX is not in formal schism with the Catholic Church, they are also not in full communion or good standing with the Catholic Church. For example, the SSPX does not accept the authentic teaching of Vatican II including the authentic reforms of the Liturgy, the teaching on religious liberty for Catholics and our separated brethren in the Protestant tradition, and also the repudiation of blame assessed against the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ, as all taught by Vatican II and subsequent teachings of the Holy See since Vatican II.

2. Do the bishops and priests exercise legitimate ministry within the Catholic Church?

No. While bishops and priests of the SSPX administer valid sacraments, they do so illicitly. To align with the SSPX knowingly and formally is to align with an illicit and irregular relationship with the Catholic Church, her hierarchy and her teaching. To celebrate a sacrament validly but illicitly foments discord and does not foster communion within the Church. Pope Benedict XVI summed this up beautifully in 2009,

"As long as the Society of Saint Pius X does not have canonical status within the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church…In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers---even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication do not legitimately exercise any ministry in
the Church."

3. Since the sacraments celebrated by SSPX bishops and priests are valid, why can't a Catholic receive them?

For the reasons listed above, if a Catholic is able to receive the sacraments at a Catholic church from clerics in good standing, then there is no reason to attend and receive sacraments at an SSPX church or chapel illicitly from a priest without faculties and not in full communion with the Catholic Church. One notable exception would be to receive the Sacraments of Penance, Anointing of the Sick, and Viaticum in danger of death if no other priest in good standing is readily available. There is no acceptable reason in the Diocese of Fort Worth, for a Catholic to seek out an SSPX Mass or sacraments because of the proximity and availability of so many churches within the Diocese of Fort Worth.

Even if a Catholic were to express a perceived spiritual advantage for the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass and other sacraments administered in accord with the 1962 Missal, a Catholic is able to do so through the ministry of the priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) at Saint Benedict Catholic Church in Fort Worth. There is no need, especially curiosity, to attend an SSPX Mass at a chapel or church within the territory of the Fort Worth Diocese.

In conclusion, I ask you to renew with me through fervent prayer the authentic communion enjoyed by us together with our Holy Father and the members of all those local churches and their bishops who enjoy full communion with him in his office as the Vicar of Christ and the Bishop of Rome. Let us call to mind the words of Saint Luke recorded in the Acts of the Apostles which describe the full communion enjoyed by the Church, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."

Let us pray that all of us in the Diocese of Fort Worth might align ourselves with this authentic and sound teaching as we pray for the reunion of all Christians. With prayers and every good wish for you, I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,

+Michael F. Olson, STD, MA
Bishop of Fort Worth

---

I appreciated his confirmation we are not schismatics

Quote:

---

I found his first point most interesting, as it details some of the "authentic teachings of Vatican II" that the SSPX supposedly rejects, such as "the authentic reforms of the Liturgy". What exactly from Sacrosanctum Concilium the actual Vatican II document on the liturgy does the SSPX reject?

I acknowledge that the SSPX is in an irregular and frankly confusing standing in the Church. And I understand a bishop trying to clarify that standing for his faithful. I even think Bishop Olson's advice to go to a TLM in good standing with the Church is generally good advice.

My problem is the vague argument that the SSPX rejects Vatican II (an argument often applied to non-SSPX traditionalists). The confusion of what actually is the "authentic teaching" of Vatican II and what is simply the "spirit of Vatican II" or a prudential (and potentially fallible) implementation of Vatican II is a primary reason many flock to the SSPX in the first place. Continuing to vaguely call for acceptance of Vatican II without clarity of exactly what that entails doesn't help the situation.

---

-- Eric Sammons (who attends FSSP parish)

The bishop of Fort Worth, TX issues a letter on the status of the SSPX.

I found his first point most interesting, as it details some of the "authentic teachings of Vatican II" that the SSPX supposedly rejects, such as "the authentic reforms of the Liturgy". What exactly from… pic.twitter.com/EvND3ktckZ

— Eric Sammons (@EricRSammons) November 1, 2024

fc2112 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

I appreciated his confirmation we are not schismatics

---

I will agree SSPX is not schismatic as long as you agree with everything else he wrote.

But you won't. You won't admit your priests and "bishops" are illicit.

Regardless - this problem will take care of itself. Y'all are down to two fake "bishops". It takes three bishops to ordain another bishop, so you're already in the hole. As soon as another one so much as catches a cold, SSPX will ordain more bishops, thus triggering full schism.

It's only a matter of time.

---

I do not need you to agree that we are not schismatics my friend, we are not schismatics regardless.

Not to draw attention away from the good Bishop, who I actually like; but I cannot make heads or tails of the Vatican or most of the episcopate.

Pope Francis tells us it is a sin to try and convert Jews, the many religions are a path to God, and is pining away for the reunion of Catholicism and Orthodoxy…..what are we chopped liver?

I see the current spirit of the church as bending over backwards to show mercy and understanding to everything that is *not* us; and unyielding and immovable opposition to anything that smacks of the pre-60's church.

I find Bishop Olson's comments the same. I do not believe there is any difference between the FSSP and the SSPX, except for honesty. The fact that the good Bishop says "go to an approved TLM and not an SSPX Mass makes no sense.

Neither we nor the FSSP accept SOME of what came out of Vatican II, the only difference is we're honest about it.

Vatican - "do you accept Vatican II"
SSPX - "no, we're going to continue to do things the way we always have"
FSSP - "……..if we say yes can we completely ignore everything we don't like and do things like we always have?"
Vatican- "of course"
FSSP *shrugs* -" okay we accept it"

PabloSerna said:

---

"Even if a Catholic were to express a perceived spiritual advantage for the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass"

+++

I thought that part of his statement was a shot across the bow for some Catholics.

---

Go ahead and change out TLM for "Amazonian rite" or Life Teen and watch how you pretzel your way into praising its ability to connect people to God.

PabloSerna said:

---

Except there is no Rite. You just made that up.

---

Yeah, I totally made it up, except for the fact that the Amazonian Ecclesial Conference has been asked to develop "An Amazonian rite".

fc2112 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

I do not believe there is any difference between the FSSP and the SSPX, except for honesty.

---

One is in full communion with Rome and one is illicit. But you don't want to see that part.

---

Again, I don't believe such a thing as "partial communion" exists; and if it does wish someone would tell me what the identifying traits of partial communion are; how to tell the difference between 1/4; 2/5 and 99% communion.

Also again, I get that for now the FSSP has regular canonical status. I say for now because if you're reading tea leaves, that may not always be the case. My statement was that the FSSP clearly reject the "liturgical reforms" of Vatican II; how do I know this? Because they don't use them. I attend mass at an FSSP Parrish frequently, but it has always bothered me how I felt they gave the Vatican a "pinch of incense" by paying lip service to the council for expediency.

It seems that some still don't recognize that there's a crisis in the Church today. And Salus Animarum Suprema Lex. And SSPX is stubborn but Rome isn't? C'mon.

PabloSerna said:

---

So you admit there is no Amazon Rite, yet. It's in development, I see. There is a list of all the Rites in case folks want to verify. No Life Teen rite either... well none yet.

---

You notice how I put "Amazonian rite" in quotation marks and didn't call Life Teen a Rite? You might try and address the substance of a post every now and again instead of trying to find some sort of loophole to avoid showing your hypocrisy.

fc2112 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Again, I don't believe such a thing as "partial communion" exists; and if it does wish someone would tell me what the identifying traits of partial communion are; how to tell the difference between 1/4; 2/5 and 99% communion.

---

How does partial communion exist? The Church, in her gracious generosity, has allowed some SSPX sacraments to be licit for the benefit of all parties, but most especially the Faithful. The Church wants the saving graces of the sacraments available to all the Faithful, even if he minister is irregular.

You should be thankful for this graciousness. the alternative would be most unpleasant.

You comment how easy it is for FSSP to be in good standing. Indeed, it would be just as easy for the SSPX to be in good standing. But the SSPX obstinacy is what separates them.

Regardless, as I said above, the SSPX will eventually try to ordain bishops again - they have to, And that's when they'll cut off their own head. I's inevitable.

---

Going along to get along is not something the SSPX is interested in doing. That smacks of the false ecumenism that is all the rage inside the Vatican right now. Everyone holding hands and singing Marty Haugen so we don't have to think about the heresies raging in every wing of the church at present.

The Vatican is bending over backwards to welcome EVERYONE but traditionalist back into the fold. New Ways Ministries has been condemned by two separate Popes, a score of bishops, the head of the CDF, the USCCB and many others; yet is now a front row guest at the Vatican, after being publicly commended by Pope Francis. But yes, we're the bad guy.

If you don't think there aren't at least a dozen bishops who would LEAP at the chance to consecrate a new SSPX bishop, you don't know your episcopate very well; off the top of my head Bishops Athanasius Schneider and Rifan being the two most likely.

fc2112 said:

---

fake "bishops"

---

Still flabbergasted by this. These auxiliary bishops are very much real. Valid orders. Liceity and validity are different things. The Sanborn line of sedevacantists... valid orders, yet illicit orders.

And the three bishops present at episcopal consecrations is a safeguard towards perpetuating apostolic succession. It's not the magic number for the essence of the consecration to take hold... just need one bishop.

Rome approval of episcopal consecrations hasn't always been the law. It's merely the current thing. It isn't of the essence for episcopal consecrations to take place. And who's to say Rome won't approve of consecrating additional bishops to the Society, especially in light of Francis' other missives regarding the Society?

Lastly, I find it interesting at how much venom is spewed when the SSPX is the topic of conversation.

PabloSerna said:

---

"The Vatican is bending over backwards to welcome EVERYONE but traditionalist back into the fold."

+++

I know this won't go over well with you, but I want to remind you that there is no traditionalist or progressive- just Catholic. That is why the Bishop wrote what he wrote. You seem to want to draw the line in the sand. Why, I can't figure out?

---

All are welcome
All are welcome
But don't pray that way

fc2112 said:

---

You're welcome to pray that way. At the FSSP parish.

---

Welp, that's not the end game of Traditiones Custodes... see its accompanying letter.

And, 3-hr drives (or more) for an FSSP parish is a non-starter for me. My diocese has a couple of diocesan Masses (TLM), and I attend the one that is 20 minutes from home. The other is 80 miles away, near an SSPX priory. The pastor (my old pastor) of this farther diocesan Mass is also frequently in contact with the priests at that priory. Good folks he says. Solid priests he says. Good relationship with our bishop. But I digress...

We can sit here all day and cite bishops of the Church and their positions on the SSPX. You've cited +Olson and +Seitz (incidentally, he was the pastor of my elementary/middle school back in the day... after I'd moved on to high school). +Schneider (who was was a Vatican delegate to SSPX seminaries) and the late Bishop Vitus Huonder (who retired with the society) draw different conclusions.

Like Quo Vadis said in another thread on the SSPX, the competency for settling this ultimately lies with Rome, not various bishops speaking their opinions. Fr. Z, who used to work Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), has the most sane take on the interwebs. He brings to bear how PCED approached this thorny issue, and how things have evolved over the years. Both articles below are worth your time.

https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/ask-father-whats-the-truth-about-the-sspx/

https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/114052/

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

So you admit there is no Amazon Rite, yet. It's in development, I see. There is a list of all the Rites in case folks want to verify. No Life Teen rite either... well none yet.

---

You notice how I put "Amazonian rite" in quotation marks and didn't call Life Teen a Rite? You might try and address the substance of a post every now and again instead of trying to find some sort of loophole to avoid showing your hypocrisy.

---

I noticed and called you out on it- accuracy is not for everyone, I guess.

---

Looks like we got the "Mayan Rite" before the "Amazonian Rite"

Ooga booga dancing and lay homilies are ok

Speaking in Latin and facing east are not.

Lord Jesus Christ, only son of God, have mercy on me a sinner, and please make it make sense Lord.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/vatican-approves-mayan-rite/

---

Kyrie Eleison

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

So you admit there is no Amazon Rite, yet. It's in development, I see. There is a list of all the Rites in case folks want to verify. No Life Teen rite either... well none yet.

---

You notice how I put "Amazonian rite" in quotation marks and didn't call Life Teen a Rite? You might try and address the substance of a post every now and again instead of trying to find some sort of loophole to avoid showing your hypocrisy.

---

I noticed and called you out on it- accuracy is not for everyone, I guess.

---

Looks like we got the "Mayan Rite" before the "Amazonian Rite"

Ooga booga dancing and lay homilies are ok

Speaking in Latin and facing east are not.

Lord Jesus Christ, only son of God, have mercy on me a sinner, and please make it make sense Lord.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/vatican-approves-mayan-rite/

---

I don't understand the theological resistance to the Latin Mass while allowing these other regions to do basically whatever they want.

powerbelly said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

So you admit there is no Amazon Rite, yet. It's in development, I see. There is a list of all the Rites in case folks want to verify. No Life Teen rite either... well none yet.

---

You notice how I put "Amazonian rite" in quotation marks and didn't call Life Teen a Rite? You might try and address the substance of a post every now and again instead of trying to find some sort of loophole to avoid showing your hypocrisy.

---

I noticed and called you out on it- accuracy is not for everyone, I guess.

---

Looks like we got the "Mayan Rite" before the "Amazonian Rite"

Ooga booga dancing and lay homilies are ok

Speaking in Latin and facing east are not.

Lord Jesus Christ, only son of God, have mercy on me a sinner, and please make it make sense Lord.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/vatican-approves-mayan-rite/

---

I don't understand the theological resistance to the Latin Mass while allowing these other regions to do basically whatever they want.

---

That's because it is nonsensical. As Captain Pablo pointed out in the post above you, they are bending over backwards to make the church more interesting and appealing to all sorts of disparate groups.

Gay people? - don't worry we have a "legally married" couple giving a homily, we will also give you a blessing together, but totally not your "marriage" *wink wink*

Amerindians- why should you have to go to the mass of the oppressor class? We'll give you your own rite with feathers and jungle and cavorting and strange smells, and we'll even throw in a pachamama.

People who have been going to the TLM- we will ruthless shut down the Mass as has been celebrated in the church for hundreds upon hundreds of years, and we do not give one **** if you like it or not, or if it causes you spiritual harm. Deal with it snowflake

That's the issue I have with people like Pablo Serna and other progressives (and yes even though he has an issue with the nomenclature there are conservatives and progressives). They speak out of both sides of their mouth. People who have been hurt by the church's stance on gay marriage, trans issues, inter communion, etc etc are all valid and need to be heard from and accompanied. People who have felt targeted by TC and by the Holy Father personally for their adherence to Catholic doctrine need to go along or get going. "Todos, Todos, Todos…….except for you tithing, daily mass attending, observant ones"