“How about we just get you guys (SSPX) your stuff done by other (non-Traditional) bishops? Maybe there’s some compromise there...I think it would be a good thing...I think there's a value in that."
Saying, "We don't need faculties because we have supplied jurisdiction" is a stupid argument, because supplied jurisdiction exists precisely to fix a situation in which one does not have habitual jurisdiction. The very existence of supplied jurisdiction presupposes that "official" approval (habitual jurisdiction) is necessary in the first place.
The last time I checked, the SSPX isn't sedevacantist, so I don't understand why so many people on the Internet are angry about the SSPX being glad that Rome gave them "official" permissions such as faculties for confessions. The hierarchical nature of the Church does not cease to exist simply because there are bad leaders. As members of a society of apostolic life, SSPX priests are supposed to receive faculties from the local ordinaries within whose territories they operate. This fact would remain true regardless of whether the local ordinary is a good person or not, and regardless of whether the Church is in crisis or not.
Now I did make an argument in favor of supplied jurisdiction in the cases that SSPX priests usually deal with (see here: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/i/153586353/a-case-for-regularization), and this argument could be made without any reference whatsoever to the SSPX's theological views on Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae, or anything else. Nevertheless, the defenders of the SSPX who default to arguing that "there is a crisis in the Church, therefore they have supplied jurisdiction" are making a canonically fallacious argument because supplied jurisdiction, by definition, works on a case-by-case basis, not on a general basis.
This argument that such "official" approval is harmful most likely stems from an excessively emotional consideration of the canonical facts, leading one to have a visceral reaction to the idea of "receiving jurisdiction from modernists" and thereby losing reason in the process. While I understand that people are upset and suspicious about wolves in sheeps' clothing, we still have to distinguish between the office and the person who occupies the office. Not making that distinction can lead to (dare I say?) a bit of a schismatic mentality.
I've given up on 'Traditional Catholic' you tubers. Without exception these R&R influencers seek to influence towards error. Archbishop Lefebvre had concerns about Novus Ordo episcopal consecrations. If the SSPX get any closer to Rome they will dissolve into the modernist stew. The likes of Romano Guardini are being forced on the faithful, and the pulpit is all too often used to preach SSPX policy rather than the faith.
Bishop Huonder, architect of the holy oils scandal. Is Kennedy Hall just a dad with a video cam in too deep, needing to feed the family? Probably. Is that a problem? Definitely! Why does Former Canadian district superior Fr Sherry, now DS Great Britain keep bringing Hall to London for gigs? Don't we have home grown Chesterton expertise? Or is Hall deeply embroiled in some Menzingen / conciliar church skullduggery? I wish I didn't feel compelled to suspect it. It now seems to be an iron Law of the Universe that every influncer with a subscriber base larger than 10k is controlled.
I quit my subscriptions to KH’s YouTube and podcast last year. Not because I disagreed with his SSPX positions or his conservative political leanings. I stopped following him because of his icy cold stare and his seemingly joyless delivery when he speaks. He’s certainly not helping the SSPX cause with that persona.
You can laugh, but my perspective isn't coming out of nowhere as someone who grew up in the SSPX and has seen some of what goes on behind the scenes. And what I will say as far as payment is concerned is that there is a tendency to be extremely arbitrary and inconsistent with regard to who gets paid, how much they get paid, and how the Society suddenly has the funds for something ridiculous and unnecessary despite claiming not to have money five minutes ago.
My one indirect experience was with an SSPX community that stocked its pantry and set its dinner table via handouts of dumpster destined food from local grocers. They staff their school with overworked unpaid seminary prospects. IMHO pastoral finances are shady and way too discretionary everywhere, not only at SSPX.
I would like to see a very specifically worded definition of what it means to be a supposedly 'Traditional' bishop as this author seems to think it is the end all be all of human existence and yet gives no criteria as to how one is supposed to judge this matter and I have never seen this term in canon law or heard it out off the pen of any theologian.
You’re gonna have to be way more specific than that. I know what the Apostles’ Creed says I have to believe, I know what the Nicene Creed says I have to believe, I know what the Athanasian Creed says I have to believe, but I don’t know what this Creed of Tradition is.
This is precisely why I am so tired of this rhetoric. The lack of objectivity within the so-called traditionalist movement is a huge problem. If a bishop can give valid sacraments, then he can give valid sacraments, and if one of these "non-traditional" (whatever that means) bishops eventually agrees to help out the SSPX, so what? What's valid or invalid has absolutely nothing to do with the beliefs or character of the minister. I do not automatically subscribe to a priest's personal theological opinions simply by receiving sacraments from him.
Saying, "We don't need faculties because we have supplied jurisdiction" is a stupid argument, because supplied jurisdiction exists precisely to fix a situation in which one does not have habitual jurisdiction. The very existence of supplied jurisdiction presupposes that "official" approval (habitual jurisdiction) is necessary in the first place.
The last time I checked, the SSPX isn't sedevacantist, so I don't understand why so many people on the Internet are angry about the SSPX being glad that Rome gave them "official" permissions such as faculties for confessions. The hierarchical nature of the Church does not cease to exist simply because there are bad leaders. As members of a society of apostolic life, SSPX priests are supposed to receive faculties from the local ordinaries within whose territories they operate. This fact would remain true regardless of whether the local ordinary is a good person or not, and regardless of whether the Church is in crisis or not.
Now I did make an argument in favor of supplied jurisdiction in the cases that SSPX priests usually deal with (see here: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/i/153586353/a-case-for-regularization), and this argument could be made without any reference whatsoever to the SSPX's theological views on Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae, or anything else. Nevertheless, the defenders of the SSPX who default to arguing that "there is a crisis in the Church, therefore they have supplied jurisdiction" are making a canonically fallacious argument because supplied jurisdiction, by definition, works on a case-by-case basis, not on a general basis.
This argument that such "official" approval is harmful most likely stems from an excessively emotional consideration of the canonical facts, leading one to have a visceral reaction to the idea of "receiving jurisdiction from modernists" and thereby losing reason in the process. While I understand that people are upset and suspicious about wolves in sheeps' clothing, we still have to distinguish between the office and the person who occupies the office. Not making that distinction can lead to (dare I say?) a bit of a schismatic mentality.
I've given up on 'Traditional Catholic' you tubers. Without exception these R&R influencers seek to influence towards error. Archbishop Lefebvre had concerns about Novus Ordo episcopal consecrations. If the SSPX get any closer to Rome they will dissolve into the modernist stew. The likes of Romano Guardini are being forced on the faithful, and the pulpit is all too often used to preach SSPX policy rather than the faith.
Bishop Huonder, architect of the holy oils scandal. Is Kennedy Hall just a dad with a video cam in too deep, needing to feed the family? Probably. Is that a problem? Definitely! Why does Former Canadian district superior Fr Sherry, now DS Great Britain keep bringing Hall to London for gigs? Don't we have home grown Chesterton expertise? Or is Hall deeply embroiled in some Menzingen / conciliar church skullduggery? I wish I didn't feel compelled to suspect it. It now seems to be an iron Law of the Universe that every influncer with a subscriber base larger than 10k is controlled.
I quit my subscriptions to KH’s YouTube and podcast last year. Not because I disagreed with his SSPX positions or his conservative political leanings. I stopped following him because of his icy cold stare and his seemingly joyless delivery when he speaks. He’s certainly not helping the SSPX cause with that persona.
I don't have any evidence that Kennedy Hall is paid to promote the SSPX or speak on its behalf, but I would be very surprised if he were not.
LOL! If you’ve ever been around the Society, you’d know getting them to pay anyone for anything becomes a matter of faith in miracles.
You can laugh, but my perspective isn't coming out of nowhere as someone who grew up in the SSPX and has seen some of what goes on behind the scenes. And what I will say as far as payment is concerned is that there is a tendency to be extremely arbitrary and inconsistent with regard to who gets paid, how much they get paid, and how the Society suddenly has the funds for something ridiculous and unnecessary despite claiming not to have money five minutes ago.
My one indirect experience was with an SSPX community that stocked its pantry and set its dinner table via handouts of dumpster destined food from local grocers. They staff their school with overworked unpaid seminary prospects. IMHO pastoral finances are shady and way too discretionary everywhere, not only at SSPX.
I would like to see a very specifically worded definition of what it means to be a supposedly 'Traditional' bishop as this author seems to think it is the end all be all of human existence and yet gives no criteria as to how one is supposed to judge this matter and I have never seen this term in canon law or heard it out off the pen of any theologian.
Very simply - Bishops who accept Tradition and who reject modernism, including the errors of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae.
You’re gonna have to be way more specific than that. I know what the Apostles’ Creed says I have to believe, I know what the Nicene Creed says I have to believe, I know what the Athanasian Creed says I have to believe, but I don’t know what this Creed of Tradition is.
This is precisely why I am so tired of this rhetoric. The lack of objectivity within the so-called traditionalist movement is a huge problem. If a bishop can give valid sacraments, then he can give valid sacraments, and if one of these "non-traditional" (whatever that means) bishops eventually agrees to help out the SSPX, so what? What's valid or invalid has absolutely nothing to do with the beliefs or character of the minister. I do not automatically subscribe to a priest's personal theological opinions simply by receiving sacraments from him.
Have you read Bp. Lefebvre’s “Letter to Confused Catholics?” Your question “What is a Traditionalist?” would suggest that you have not.