Nelson Sarmento

[Where Peter Is @Where_Peter_is]

“It wasn’t just a Mass. It was a whole life.” Former SSPX insiders describe beauty, fear, belonging, and separation as the Society prepares new bishops without Rome’s approval. A WPI translation of @GLeudesdorf's in-depth report for @elespanolcom.

https://t.co/CvQ5mYF3gi

[CTrefugees @CTrefugees]

This is an interesting question about jurisdiction.

Basically, with respect to confession, we have had two historical positions:

1. Their jurisdiction is immediately and tacitly supplied by the Roman Pontiff; or
2. Their jurisdiction is genuinely retained and transmitted within the Orthodox episcopal hierarchy.

The second was held as a minority position historically—Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, for example, held it—and seems to be the present position of the Church. The first was traditionally the majority position on this question. It is a standing question because Rome has never required their converts to repeat all their confessions upon conversion.

For marriages, this is convoluted. As baptized non-Catholics, Orthodox are not bound by Catholic canonical form, and their marriages are presumed valid when celebrated according to the applicable Eastern form. Their ancestors’ schism does not make later generations juridical subjects of the Catholic Church: they are born and baptized into stable, separated particular Churches rather than enrolled in the Catholic Church.

The SSPX, by contrast, is not recognized as a distinct non-Catholic Church. Its members are ordinarily baptized or received as Catholics, and the Society itself professes to be Catholic. They therefore remain Catholic subjects bound by Catholic matrimonial law.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

Hasn't Fr. Murray caused enough confusion? All the SSPX clergy, as well as the laity who formally adhere to the SSPX, are notorious schismatics, and therefore presumed guilty (i.e., considered to be excommunicated schismatics) in the external forum. That's what the Note is essentially saying.

[Nelson Sarmento @nelsonbk23]

https://t.co/aFav6FT6xR

[Fr. Paolo D'Angona @RomanoSace57080]

"There is no such thing as an 'emergency Church' that can withdraw from the visible unity of the Church in order to establish an ecclesial order not in full communion with the Successor of Peter."

[Nelson Sarmento @nelsonbk23]

@mfjlewis Very good!

[Mike Lewis @mfjlewis]

Did Cardinal Koch really contradict Rome on the SSPX excommunications? The claim spread fast. But the timeline points elsewhere: he likely hadn’t read the decree he was accused of contradicting.

https://t.co/yNCGSJHpQS

[Haz @HazThomist]

His eminence conflates two distinct powers: the power of absolution conferred in ordination and the power of jurisdiction necessary to exercise that power validly.

In ordination, the priest receives the power of absolution as a radical aptitude. However, to exercise the power of absolution in actu, he must possess the power of jurisdiction, since the Church's power of forgiving sins is a judicial power. Of course, priests deprived of ordinary jurisdiction can absolve in cases of necessity.

[Nelson Sarmento @nelsonbk23]

@Valtricae @VenetianGaucho2 O cara acha q por usar fake é imune a pecar.

[Christian B. Wagner 🔫🐒 @WalmartThomist]

Unfortunately, this statement right here is erroneous and against the teaching of Trent, the Popes, and the universal consensus of Theologians: "The authority to forgive sins is conferred by Christ Himself in the sacrament of Holy Orders, not by the Pope through his primacy of jurisdiction..."

It is an error taught by the Jansenists. I wrote an article on this below.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

Not sure if the quote below is legit, but what it says is certainly false. The authority to forgive or retain sins is not conferred through Holy Orders. It is given by a superior. If Muller said the potential "power" (similar to the munera of teaching and governing that a bishops receives through consecration) is conferred through consecration, that would be right; but the authority (faculty or jurisdiction) to absolve is definitely not conferred through holy orders.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@PapalOrthodixie All schismatics say they're not in schism. And to fall into schism only requires the intention *to commit an act* that puts you in schism; it doesn't requires the intention *to be in* schism.

[Polemista Católico @JoaoAdvogado]

O pessoal da Fraternidade FSSPX e do Centro Dom Bosco olhando para nós, simples católicos de uma paróquia qualquer

[Fr Matthew P. Schneider, LC🇻🇦 @FrMatthewLC]

@AdVoluntasTua This is not Mass. This is a word and Communion service where already consecrated hosts are distributed after doing the readings of the day if a priest cannot get to a parish that day.

It's the top of page 6 in this book (but in Portuguese). https://t.co/TBW3iLMjn2

[La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana @lanuovaBQ]

Mons. Pozzo: nel 2018 fu la Fraternità a rifiutare l’accordo

Lo strappo di Écône è «una grave ferita alla Chiesa che si sarebbe potuta evitare» otto anni fa: non fu la Sede Apostolica a chiudere ma la Fraternità a esigere che Roma correggesse i...

»🗞https://t.co/dDf9M9e8xT

[Eric Sammons @EricRSammons]

The 2009 edition of the SSPX Christian Warfare prayer book has an examination of conscience and one of the questions before confession is “Have you attended and actively participated in the New Mass?”

The question was removed in later editions.

H/t: @meaningofcath

[Nelson Sarmento @nelsonbk23]

@RorateCaeli It is strange that the SSPX has not published the letters from August and November, nor Rome’s response.

[Nelson Sarmento @nelsonbk23]

@RorateCaeli @Childermass1 November 21, 2025 *

[Nelson Sarmento @nelsonbk23]

@RorateCaeli @Childermass1 1) Letter to the Pope, August 2025: a request for an audience with the Pope was made. 2) Letter to the Pope, November 2025: addresses the need for a new bishop.

[Nelson Sarmento @nelsonbk23]

@RorateCaeli @Childermass1 8) On February 18, 2026, the General Council of the FSSPX rejected the postponement of the consecrations. 9) On May 13, 2026, Cardinal Fernández warned, on behalf of the DDF, that the consecrations would be “a schismatic act.”

[Nelson Sarmento @nelsonbk23]

@RorateCaeli @Childermass1 7) On February 5, the DDF stated that Pagliarani had been invited to Rome. At the meeting on February 12, 2026, it was said that the Rome-SSPX dialogue would only resume if the SSPX abandoned the consecrations.