The SSPX has issued an official response to Bishop Williamson’s consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure.
The Society of St. Pius X denounces this episcopal consecration of Father Faure, which, despite the assertions of both clerics concerned, is not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988. All the declarations of Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner.”
There is more to be read there by following the links.
According to the “magisterium” of Jorge Bergoglio, the Church is “[Jesus’] bride: beautiful, holy, a sinner, He loves her all the same.”
According to the magisterium of Pope Pius XII, by contrast, “the Church itself…is the Mystical Body of Christ without stain or wrinkle [Ephesians 5:27]” (Munificentissimus Deus, #36).
I assume the Society recognizes only the latter teaching as Catholic. With sincere respect, how is that consistent with their claim to “recognize the Roman authorities” in something other than a rhetorical manner?
May I offer the explanation, as I understand it? I attended SSPX’s conference on the papacy, and am using that as my point of reference, including the small book that was part of the conference and carried by Angelus Press, called The Papacy.
Here’s the explanation, I believe: the authority of any given pope depends upon his election by the cardinals. If it is done properly, the elected person is the legitimate pope. “Properly” does not include doctrinal vetting (as do the constitutions of a doctrinal council, for example). They are procedural, perhaps you read some of the posts on the net regarding Pope Francis’ election and have the flavor. His authority depends upon his having been elected according to the protocols. His authority ends should the cardinals un-elect him, which is the only way (save death or resignation) a pope leaves office–and gives up authority. His authority does not depend on his orthodoxy. There have been several popes whose teachings were heretical, a couple recanted before death, one not, but was unseated, as I recall (I forget the names, please get the little book, it’s fascinating).
But that does not contradict the holiness of the Mystical Body. In fact, it assures it. The cardinals can unelect Francis. Francis is not the Church.
I hope I have rendered it well.
So many of the prayers of the Church, in the collects of the dear, wonderful traditional mass, are for all the protective measures possible for God to take of His Church. I think we should honor the powerful practices of almsgiving, fasting, prayer, and the internet : ) to make sure our leaders know that we are aware of the teaching of the Church and that we will not accept that they we changed one letter, regardless of false distinctions between pastoral care and doctrine.
Anyway, I’m not fasting today, happy St. Joseph’s feast day!
Dear Mr. Verrecchio and Anyone who could answer the questions,
If the other three SSPX bishops (Bishops Fellay, Tissier de Mallerais and de Galarreta, excluding Bishop Williamson) would ever wish to consecrate bishops in the future, would this be possible without incurring further excommunications?
Has Bishop Williamson chosen the only course possible to the SSPX bishops?
And if so, where does that leave us?
Dear Janet,
Thank you for your explanation which I believe to be clear, concise and accurate. This could perhaps be compared to a CEO whose total mismanagement is driving a once thriving company into the ground. Until the stockholders throw him out, he will continue to remain in power. I don’t know if this is an accurate comparison. However, until the magisterium wakes up, the Catholic Church is at the mercy of Francis who has brought the word “mismanagement” to a new and frightening level.
Thank you again, Janet.
St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, please convert the Pope and all the hierarchy. Bring the Church back to Tradition!
Dear Servant of Our Lady, if consecrations were carried out without the consent of the Holy See, then presumably those consecrating and being consecrated would be declared excommunicate by the Holy See.
That’s a good question, to which I have no answer. It would be interesting though to see Poor Francis’ reaction if it was done. How could he possibly criticize them? They would be making a mess, just as he suggestes!
–
We had my famous butter tarts for dessert tonight in honour of the very powerful St. Joseph. It is nice to have a little sweet break in Lent!
Consecrations of schicmatics goes on without abait – in the Eastern Ordthodox, in the Protestant orders and the Novus Ordo – and the Novus concelebrates with these others as a sign of unanimity. The issue of a heretic ‘legitimately elected’ holds no water – as soon as he speaks or acts against the faith. His jurisdiction is taken from him – he is self convicted. The Novus Ordo is most certainly a schimatic sect. It has a mass, doctrine, a theology, a code of canon law, a catechsim, practice and leaders all at odds with the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
PS. “As we said earlier, I repeat once more: If anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, let him be accursed. …The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned. It was in the spirit of this text that Cyril of holy memory, in the books which he wrote against Theodore, declared as follows: ‘Whether or not they are alive, we ought to keep clear of those who are in the grip of such dreadful errors. It is necessary always to avoid what is harmful, and not to be worried about public opinion but rather to consider what is pleasing to God’.”
—Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople (553)
–
On 16 February 1559, Pope Paul IV issued the Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand “deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy,” his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be “null, legally invalid and void.”
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/quotes.htm
–
There are a wealth of Papal teachings on the null and voidness of the false papacy by its own conviction. The Novus Ordo code of canon law declare that a pope, even if he be a heretic, schismatic, apostate, cannot be deposed because no one can ‘judge’ a pope. Convenient. In which case how can, under the new code of canon law, Benedicts resignation be legal. This the days of Celestine when popes could indeed be judged by their words and actions…
–
the election of a prelate is not a free-ticket to ride off with the crown jewels and the skins of the flock and set up shop under the same name.
–
The Faith is the faith. What would Archbishop Lefbvre say. He suffered excommuniation from the Novus Ordo sect. God continued to bless his endeavours and increase the harvest he had sown.
–
Fact – Bergoglio not catholic, not Christ’s Vicar. Novus Ordo and new sect that established itself like a fungus on the real estate and ‘good will’ of the Roman Church.
PPS. I take it these ordinations used the old Rite as opposed to the Montini Rite? If so, God Speed Bishop Williamson and all who support authentic shepherding and shepherds to gather a scattered flock.
Thanks, Janet.
These matters are also currently being debated on The Remnant Web site and elsewhere. One point that has been raised during this debate has been the following comment from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“[A] heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience”.
(For the avoidance of confusion, the context of the above quote is the question, “Can a council depose the pope?”. It is clear, however, from the quote that a heretical pope’s loss of membership does not depend on the action of a council, rather it is his loss of membership in the Church by virtue of his heresy that legitimates the subsequent action of a council to depose him.)
Nor is the above quote the only one on this topic that may be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. For example, the following comment appears in the article on “Papal Elections”:
“Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void”.
Given that Bp. Fellay famously observed, within only a few months of his election, that in Bergoglio “We have in front of us a genuine Modernist!”, I would greatly appreciate it if the Society could directly address these comments from the Encyclopedia.
(I think my first attempt at a reply may be stuck in moderation because it contains more than one link. The following is the same reply but with only ine link.)
Thanks, Janet.
These matters are also currently being debated on The Remnant Web site and elsewhere. One point that has been raised during this debate has been the following comment from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“[A] heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience”.
(For the avoidance of confusion, the context of the above quote is the question, “Can a council depose the pope?”. It is clear, however, from the quote that a heretical pope’s loss of membership does not depend on the action of a council, rather it is his loss of membership in the Church by virtue of his heresy that legitimates the subsequent action of a council to depose him.)
Nor is the above quote the only one on this topic that may be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. For example, the following comment appears in the article on “Papal Elections”:
“Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void”.
Given that Bp. Fellay famously observed, within only a few months of his election, that in Bergoglio, “we have in front of us a genuine Modernist”, I would greatly appreciate it if the Society could directly address these comments from the Encyclopedia.
Succint. (yeah the comments fields won’t permit more than one or two links).
–
In support of the bulwark from the Popes of the Legitimate and Valid and Holy Chair of St Peter:
–
“…[I]t is not allowable for anyone to produce another faith, that is, to write or to compose or to consider or to teach others; those who dare to compose another faith, or to support or to teach or to hand on another creed to those who wish to turn to knowledge of the truth, whether from Hellenism or Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce novelty of speech, that is, invention of terms, so as to overturn what has now been defined by us, such persons, if they are bishops or clerics, are deprived of their episcopacy or clerical rank, and if they are monks or layfolk they are excommunicated.” Pope St. Leo II, Third Council of Constantinople (681)
–
“…diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death.” Pope Clement XIII, Encyclical In Dominico Agro (1761)
–
“Our Apostolic Mandate requires from Us…We protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are nonetheless nefarious.” Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique (1910)
–
“Even on the plea of promoting unity it is not allowed to dissemble one single dogma…The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ’s faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed.” Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Orientalis Ecclesiae (1944)
–
“Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.” Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis (1950)
–
http://www.novusordowatch.org/quotes.htm
Those quotes resonate clearly with the intellect, and the heart, which when properly formed, readily recognise the objective and integral truths of the Faith.
There is still a visible Church, still a Holy See, etc., which still possesses jurisdiction until such time as the proper authorities employ the proper procedures to declare otherwise.
Eventually they’ll have to if nothing changes.
As for the time being, I hope the three bishops don’t fly on any airplanes together. Hell, given the wicked forces they are up against, they might not all want to be in the same car or building at the same time…if you catch my drift.
Reading Menzingen’s apologia for denouncing +Faure’s consecration, I wonder how they would presently regard the episcopal consecration of +Licinio Rangel, confected in 1991 by SSPX bishops.
We are in times that are desperate and we cannot rely upon the Holy See at present to do anything Catholic. And as for the “visible Church” that is all of us who believe everything the Church taught before Vatican II.
St. Athanasius did not have papal authority to consecrate bishops but he did so, not only in his own diocese, but elsewhere. We are in similar times, if not worse.
Long live all of our traditional bishops, including Bishops Williamson and Faure! The condemnation by Menzingen was an embarrassment. Bishop Faure is well chosen and was chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre himself all those years ago. +Williamson did not go off half-cocked, he made an extremely careful and deliberate choice. God bless them all.