Realizing that my previous post on this topic is perhaps too time-consuming a read for some, here I offer a far briefer overview with citations not found in part one.
In answer to the question, Is Pope Francis heretical, Fr. Gleize concluded:
Not heretical but promoting heresy … it is not the scandal of a heresy formulated doctrinally; it is the scandal of a praxis that clears the way for a challenge to Catholic truth on the indissolubility of marriage.
First, let it be said that Amoris Laetitia does far more than just cast doubt on the indissolubility of marriage; it upends the very notion of mortal sin and intrinsic evil – the far reaching deleterious effects of which cannot be overestimated.
Some readers appear content to focus on the accusation of “promoting heresy;” as if it is enough to say that Amoris Laetitia suffers only from ambiguity.
As the editor’s note following Fr. Gelize’s article insists:
None of the ambiguous statements in Amoris laetitia constitute “a rejection or contradiction of a truth that is not only revealed but also proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium” [the definition of “heretical” provided by Fr. Gleize].
Is that conclusion the reality?
Consider the following, presented in plain language, and then you tell me:
Revealed truth proposed by the infallible Magisterium of the Church: It is to be maintained, that sanctifying grace is lost by any mortal sin including adultery. (see Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter XV)
Exhortation disseminated throughout the Universal Church by Francis: It can no longer be said that those in adultery are living in a state of mortal sin and deprived of sanctifying grace. (see Amoris Laetitia 301)
Revealed truth proposed by the infallible Magisterium of the Church: If any one says that the commandments of God are impossible to keep; let him be anathema. (see Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon XVIII)
Exhortation disseminated throughout the Universal Church by Francis: An individual can be in a situation that makes it impossible to refrain from adultery. At times, adultery is the most generous response that one can give to God. (see Amoris Laetitia 301, 303)
Revealed truth proposed by the infallible Magisterium of the Church: If any one says that God not only permits works that are evil, but that He works them properly and of Himself; let him be anathema.” (see Council of Trent, Session VI, Session VI, Canon VI) Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and he tempteth no man. (James 13:1)
Exhortation disseminated throughout the Universal Church by Francis: Situations exist wherein an individual can discern with certain moral security that persisting in adultery is what God himself is asking. (see Amoris Laetitia 303)
So, does Amoris Laetitia, or does it not, manifest “a rejection or contradiction of a truth that is not only revealed but also proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium”?
Not only is the answer entirely obvious to those of us with a sincere love of Catholic tradition, but also to certain men-of-the-Council (including the three “full communion bishops cited in part one):
“I am still convinced that some of the statements in AL are wrong and even (in some cases) objectively heretical.” – Professor Josef Seifert, philosopher and close personal friend of John Paul II
Fr. Gleize clearly disagrees. He does suggest, however, that Francis is proceeding in the manner of the modernists who “take advantage of unwary minds [and] promote heresy while giving the appearance of remaining Catholic.”
Who among us is so unwary of mind as to believe that the above mentioned citations of Amoris Laetitia have even the remote appearance of Catholicity?
To me, the overwhelming appearance is plainly diabolical.
Is Francis a modernist?
Indeed he is!
I was present at Holy Mass in October of 2013 when Bishop Fellay declared of Francis: “What we have before us is a genuine modernist!”
Has something changed?
It would appear so.
Fr. Gleize (let’s not kid ourselves, on behalf of the Society) is suggesting that while Francis behaves like a modernist, somehow he is “not heretical.”
Given that “modernism” as defined by the saintly namesake of the Society is the “synthesis of all heresies” (Pascendi), this amounts to splitting hairs to the point of absurdity; especially in light of the blatant contradictions of infallible truth outlined above.
Over the years, I have been a staunch defender of the SSPX and its Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay. I’ve enjoyed sincere friendships with certain of their priests, other staff, and faithful. (Hopefully, I still do.)
At times, I’ve even been accused of being a paid mouthpiece for the Society.
Since launching akaCatholic, new supporters have come and others have gone; the latter, at times (like right now), for having taken offense at certain of the positions articulated here.
I won’t lie. Staying afloat hasn’t been easy, and as I write times are definitely tough.
And yet, through it all, one thing remains unchanged; the pursuit of truth regardless of cost.
If that effort should one day render me friendless and this blog utterly devoid of supporters, so be it.
Roughly one year ago today, in a post wherein I came to the defense of the SSPX and Bishop Fellay, I wrote:
So, what is my dog in this fight?
To be very clear, it’s not that I’m on “team SSPX” or “team Fellay.” I’m on “team Catholic.”
Most importantly, I concluded:
It just so happens that the Society of St. Pius X, under the leadership of Bishop Bernard Fellay, is on the same team.
Short of a correction and a retraction of Fr. Gleize’s stunning assessment of Francis and Amoris Laetitia (which I have invited my contacts within the Society to offer) it is with a heavy heart that I now have reason to wonder if, and to what extent, that’s still true.
Let me repeat one more time. Any Catholic “married” invalidly by an SSPX priest without faculties is OBJECTIVELY “living in sin” by having relations with someone not his or her spouse.
The SSPX knows this as does Louie. If Louie were to be consistent, he would be calling on all Catholic pastors to deny communion to such people. If he were consistent, he would say that such people should not profane the Sacrament by receiving communion in such a state.
But Louie is not consistent, so he won’t.
Maybe that’s a hill, in particular, he won’t die on. Prudence, man, prudence. State of emergency may be a play?
According to who, the Vatican II Modernists leading the majority of “Catholics” to hell? Definitely not according to St. Paul. You better go back to your research and seek the Truth if you’re truly of good will. State of Emergency absolutely applies and given the present state of the (official) Church this should have become obvious to you by now. Beware false obedience and the great deception.
The SSPX have always been walking a tight rope. While they have been faithful to the Old Rite it has been at a great cost – the cost of losing full communion with the CC despite the many grave difficulties presented after VII that led to the decision of Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate bishops.
It has always been of the utmost importance for faithful Catholics to fulfill their Sunday obligation, attending Holy Mass at a SSPX church does not satisfy this requirement. Up until last year their Confessions weren’t valid nor was Holy Matrimony carried out by their priests. Because of their lacking full communion they have been banned from running parishes in European Dioceses by NO Bishops who would not now be very happy with the prospect of a Personal Prelature which by-passed their own authority. With this possibility in sight it would appear that the Society is now required to show fidelity to the Pope for that gesture to become permanent.
AL is what it is – a ‘binding document’ written by a questionable Archbishop & signed by a very questionable Pope which tries to overturn the Ten Commandments (given by God for all time) by means of appearing merciful & pastoral, putting a grave responsibility on priests & maybe even requiring them to commit sacrilege in offering Holy Communion to the unrepentant sinner. It also, in time, might subject priests who are unwilling to comply being taken to court by said unrepentant sinners if they are turned away & suspension by the Vatican. IMO it would have more to the point if the SSPX had thrown its weight behind the four Cardinals’ Dubia & insisted that it be properly answered by PF himself rather than opting out of the discussion. Their lack of courage in the final test of their adherence to the Faith of our Fathers is a serious blow to the breakthrough that was supposed to have been offered without strings attached. It would be interesting to have Bishop Schneider’s opinion of this article’s stance!
Did you consider persons civilly married to be living in a state of sin, Ganganelli.?
You might wonder if in terms of AL that sacramental marriage is the question any longer since, as you say “living in sin” has no future bearing given PF’s recent exhortation.?
Keep your head up Louie , if you find yourself skint with not as many friends as once before pretty sure that’s a good sign. Thanks for the honest words regarding Bishop Fellay and SSPX
Keep up the good work on an empty stomach hahaha
You’re smearing with your accusations and causing some to doubt their very marriages!
Here are the FACTS:
The extraordinary form for marriages is foreseen in canon 1116, §1. If the couple cannot approach their parish priest “without serious inconvenience”—and they may consider as such his insistence on having the Novus Ordo Missae for the wedding, or their apprehensions concerning his moral teaching in marriage instructions—and if they foresee these circumstances to last for at least a month, then they can marry before witnesses alone, and another priest (e.g., of the SSPX) if possible (canon 1116, §2).
If you don’t see the state of emergency as grounds for opting for SSPX marriages, (and Masses and Confessions) then you’re not paying attention. But don’t cast shadows and doubts onto those of us who do and have VALID SSPX sacramental marriages!
The SSPX Confessions weren’t valid up until last year? Really?
The SSPX Masses are not valid? Really?
Please educate yourself:
Ana Milan i only read your comment up to “up until last year their confessions weren’t valid ” at that I stopped reading you may mean well but that isn’t true.
12mins – 16mins
It’s worth listening from beginning to the end
Ganganelli is an irrelevance in search of a mouthpiece. If you look at the whole history in the SSPX then one will see this great battle of Liberalism v Catholicism has been fought out ever since the death of its great founder. It’s priests are Catholic; its bishops are too. But liberalism is now the dominant charism leading this great society of priests. Fellay is tainted with it. It is a crying shame. Please God may the God-fearing good priests resist their superior and stay truthful to their founder.
“There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” Encyclical on Unity of the Church by Pope Leo XIII, 1896
a drop of poison, Amoris Laetitia, burn it, shred it
For years, this picture of this handshake has made me wonder.
A Protestant married couple I know converted to Catholicism. I asked if they had to renew their vows in a Catholic Church since they were “married” by a Protestant minister. Their response was no because Protestant marriages are recognized by the Catholic Church. A Catholic priest later told me that this is correct. Yet, marriages performed by an SSPX priest are NOT recognized? Doesn’t sound right to me. Can anyone shed some light–thanks!
“Ganganelli is an irrelevance in search of a mouthpiece”…..in that regard, he/she is always consistent.
The only advantage of the SSPX/Rome merger is that those who attend the Societies chapels and are vilified by family and friends will have some sort of defense to their choice. The Society will blend in and become an alternative to the FSSP. Not sure how the FSSP are reacting to all this as it’s been pretty quiet in their neck of the woods. What about those priests of the SSPX who left to join various diocese? Will they go back to Bp. Fellay and say “hey, remember me, do you mind if I hang out with you guys again”? In the end the one word to sum this up is “absurd”!
Ana, the CDF (of the phony conciliar church) said it did satisfy the Sunday obligation. Back in the 90s I think.
The FSSP are too busy to react. They are still waiting for that Bishop that JP2 promised them in ’88.
On “full communion,” see:
Gnostic Twaddle: “Full Communion” and Other Cosmic Connections
Its amazing how the vatican 2 faith has relegated its “flock” into fighting among themselves: NO vs fssp vs sspx. Good grief. Im so happy I turned my back on everything that is Rome and turned to the Catholic Church about four years ago now. God bless everyone on this site who seeks the Truth.
Like Fr. Gruner said all truth has their source from Christ and falsehood the Father of Lies. Being a Catholic is to hold truth above everything. It is definitely very said to see this happened to SSPX. But isn’t it common sense that what Bishop Fellay considers an advantage to SSPX should in fact be a non starter? More than one time he credited the “fruitful” negotiation with Francis to Francis’ total disregard the issue of Church doctrines, unlike JP 2 and Benedict XVI. Doctrines are truth revealed by the Spirit, confirmed by the Church, binding on the faithful. Imagine sitting down with someone in the negotiation table who assures you that he is an Apostate or Communist who has zero interest in Christ and any truth, either natural or supernatural, wouldn’t running as fast and as far away as you can is the only option?
This has been another episode of ‘Look Ma! I don’t know what I’m talking about!’ with Ganeshgagelli.
I recommend everyone purchase some of his other previous greatest hits such as:
– Usury is acceptable now!
– Everyone who disagrees with me is a sedevacantist!
– Louie! I read that on X’s blog 10 years ago, why you again talkin’ about this now?
– Give me Religious Liberty, or give me death; for I unlike you, obey Vatican II!
Yes, my m2cents, you’ve hit on exactly the ridiculous situation that explains why AL is so necessary.
In fact, it is true that according to current discipline that predates Pope Francis, if two nominal Catholics marry in a protestant ceremony or SSPX ceremony, the “marriage” is invalid for “lack of canonical form” and either party is free to re-marry later.
On the other hand, if two protestants marry in a protestant ceremony, that marriage is considered valid and if one or both of the parties decides to divorce and say years later converts to Catholicism and wants to marry a Catholic in the Church, he or she will be unable to according to the law.
Luckily, Pope Francis agrees with Our Lord Himself who famously said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
What utter rubbish. What part of supplied canonical jurisdiction do you not understand. If it were not for the SSPX the Tridentine Mass would of become dead and buried long ago. And if you would care to inform yourself the Pope has openly recognised the Catholicity of the Society and granted them the faculty to hear confession. The refusal of Rome to accept the Society as “full members” of the Church is a travesty of justice, which hopefully will soon be remedied. Oh and by the way, the Society accepts all of the perennial dogma contained within the 16 documents of Vatican II. They do not accept the novelties pertaining to, Ecumenism, Religious Liberty or Collegiality. But then again, we do have to accept them either as they are not dogmas of the faith that we are bound accept in order to be in good standing with the Church. Your firing from the hip at married couple who have received the Sacrament from an SSPX priest is unconscionable.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX:
“I spoke this morning to the children about Saint Hermenegild. He was a young martyr,
seventeen years old, who lived in the sixth century. He was Catholic, but his father was a
heretic, an Arian. He was supposed to inherit the throne of Spain, but his father, furious that
his son was a Catholic, forbade him the throne and sentenced him to prison. Hermenegild –
whom we celebrate on April 13th (a month ago) was in prison for several months as Easter approached. He wanted to receive Communion, Holy Communion for Easter. His father was thinking the same thing and sent him a bishop carrying Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament! What a joy for Hermenegild to be able to make his Easter communion! Except that when the bishop entered the prison cell, he presented himself thus: “I am the Bishop of Huesca, I am an Arian and I bring you Holy Communion!” “I am Arian,” that is to say “I am a heretic, I’m not Catholic.”
It was a bishop who was not Catholic, dear faithful, who brought Holy Communion to
Hermenegild. What did Hermenegild do? What would you have done in his place? Would you still have accepted to receive Holy Communion? In order to receive Jesus in the
Eucharist, is it not worth making some compromises, receiving even from unworthy hands the Lord Jesus? This bishop celebrated Mass validly though he did not believe that Jesus is God, because that was the Arian religion. He did not even believe that Jesus was God! But we do think he could validly celebrate Mass and he was bringing Jesus in the Eucharist!
Well, in the twinkling of an eye, inspired by one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost – whom we
are celebrating today − the gift of Counsel, he said: “No. I will not receive communion from
your sacrilegious hands! As for me, I am in chains but I am free to work my salvation. You, my lord, are free but you are a slave of the devil because you have a false faith, you’re not Catholic! And I will not receive Holy Communion from sacrilegious hands!”
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:
“The real question we must ask ourselves is: “How should we witness to the Catholic faith today, in the present situation of the Church which is suffering a terrible crisis?” What witness should we bear, today? And the answer is the testimony of all the witnesses of the Faith and the Martyrs! All these saints of the Church, these confessors of the Faith, all the martyrs of the Church are an example for us!
So here is the answer to that question, dear faithful! This is the best way to bear witness
before the whole Church: to be on a pinnacle and publicly condemned to exile. Well, this is to our advantage because our testimony is all the more striking for being considered a stumbling block by the Modernists – just as Our Lord was by Herod at the time. Is it not an advantage for the Church to see where Tradition is? This is the stumbling block for the Modernists, for what is called the Conciliar Church, that is to say, the sect that occupies the Catholic Church. This is an advantage for us, to be regarded as excluded and in exile, dear faithful; to be looked upon as the “stone rejected by the builders” which will become, and already is, the cornerstone, the stone that supports the building. “
Ahh there’s nothing like that old freemasonic handshake ….wonder about that one myself Servent of Our Lady….could have been just a coincidence ?
“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 – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” Pope Benedict XVI
That’s what matters. Not your situational ethics in order to justify mortal sin.
“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 – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” Pope Benedict XVI
The Society have not only been faithful to the celebration of the Tridentine Rite of Mass, they have been faithful to the entire teaching of the Church as handed down by Christ and His apostles. They have never denied the legitimacy of Vatican II or its documents, They never denied the legitimacy of the Pope, and in fact pray for him and the local ordinary, at every Mass; demonstrating their fidelity. They have never denied the validity of the New Mass; they have questioned its licity. Study may reveal to all, in time, that the Tridentine Mass still retains the force of law. This is due to the order of hierarchical mandate. A lower legislator cannot overturn the Apostolic promulgation held in perpetuity by a pope; in this case Pope Pius V’s Quo Primum. (a higher legislator). Pope Paul VI did not mandate a new rite. He simply published a new missal 1969. The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship promulgated the new missal in 1970, without specifying its use. That came later from the said same Congregation.(a lower legislator). This is a basic rule of law, a lower legislator cannot overturn the rule of a higher legislator.
The offence of the SSPX was to refuse the novelties of Vatican II. And a refusal to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass; which they viewed as being infused with a Protestant spirit. So where is their true crime that deserves the outrageous decision to force them out into the margins of the Church; under a accusation that they are in schism.
Did they lose communion with the Church? The order is valid. Only a pope can invalidate it once it has been given life. That has not occurred. The excommunications are legally doubtful because the Archbishop and his priests believed that their actions were for the survival of the Church; especially after Assisi. They have recourse to Canon Law: Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: A person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
Are they reprobates? It would appear not. Instead they have been unjustly treated, because they would not accept changes that do not demand adherence. As recently confirmed: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/06/07/sspx-leader-we-do-not-have-to-accept-the-whole-of-vatican-ii/
You say that attending SSPX Masses doe not fulfil the Holiday obligation. I beg to differ and so did Cardinal Hoyas and Pope Benedict in reality.
There are so many misconceptions and personal opinions regarding the legitimacy of the Society and the deep love that the bishops, priests, religious and faithful supporters have for Holy Mother Church. For goodness sake, the faith that the Society hold on to is the faith of Our Fathers and the Mass is the Mass that martyrs of England and Wales died for. We owe them a deep sense of gratitude in this dizzy world of liberal Catholicism for being militantly faithful to Tradition
I hope that the pope grants the Society a Personal Prelature providing they can choose their own bishops from names they submit to the pope and that they can retain complete control of their many properties. In fact, as long, they are accepted as they are.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais interview with Mr. Heiner in 2006:
(Bishop Tissier): It was when he (Pope Benedict VI) was a priest. When he was a theologian, he professed heresies, he published a book full of heresies.
SH: My Lord, I need you to be more specific, so we can examine the matter.
HL: (Bishop Tissier): Yes, sure. He has a book called Introduction to Christianity, it was in 1968. It is a book full of heresies. Especially the negation of the dogma of the Redemption.
SH: In what sense, My Lord?
HL: He says that Christ did not satisfy for our sins, did not – atone – He, Jesus Christ, on the Cross, did not make satisfaction for our sins. This book denies Christ’s atonement of sins.
SH: Ah, I’m not sure I understand…
HL: He denies the necessity of satisfaction.
SH: This sounds like Luther.
HL: No, it goes much further than Luther. Luther admits the sacrifice…the satisfaction of Christ. It is worse than Luther, much worse.
SH: My Lord, I must return to the beginning of this line of questioning: are you saying he is a heretic?
HL: No. But he has never retracted these statements.
SH: Well, then, what would you say, My Lord, that it was “suspicious,” “questionable,” “favoring heresy”?
HL: No, it is clear. I can quote him. He rejects “an extremely rudimentary presentation of the theology of satisfaction (seen as) a mechanism of an injured and reestablished right. It would be the manner with which the justice of God, infinitely offended, would have been reconciled anew by an infinite satisfaction…some texts of devotion seem to suggest that the Christian faith in the Cross understands God as a God whose inexorable justice required a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his own Son. And we flee with horror from a justice, the dark anger of which removes any credibility from the message of love” (translated from the German version, pages 232-233).
SH: What other heresies, My Lord?
HL: Many others. Many others. He has put up doubts regarding the divinity of Christ, regarding the dogma of the Incarnation…
SH: This cannot be true…
HL: It is very true. He re-reads, re-interprets all the dogmas of the Church. This is it. This is what he calls the “hermeneutic” in his discourse of 22 December 2005.
SH: This hermeneutic is also known as the “living tradition…” It would interpret existing doctrines in new lights…
HL: Yes, exactly. According to the new philosophy, the idealist philosophy of Kant.
SH: These are very strong words, My Lord, but yet, the Society is not sedevacantist…
HL: No, no, no, no. He is the Pope…
SH: But these are strong words…
HL: Ecclesia supplet. The Church supplies. It is even in the code of canon law: “in case of doubt, the Church supplies the executive power.” He is the Pope. Ecclesia Supplet. But we must know he has professed heresies.
SH: My Lord…has there been such a dark time in Church history?
HL: That is difficult to say. I would not say such a thing. It is sufficient to say that he has professed heresies.
U hmm! Yes and Pope Benedict clearly got everything right didn’t he? This was his personal opinion. Don’t forget that young Joseph Ratzinger had to redo his doctoral dissertation because it was deemed too progressive and modernist.
The Society are now being told that they do not have to accept everything from Vatican II to be given a canonical recognition. Why did Benedict not tell them that? This was the very thing that accused the Society of not being in a canonical jurisdiction in the first place. If Rome had said this to the Archbishop then there would not of been a problem. The problem is that liberal modernist progressives, like Edward Schillebeeckx took control of the Council and their spirit rules right up until today as anyone with good will can clearly see.
I bet he’s a good little obedient subject who accepts AL, too.
Be warned: your acceptance of AL is a mortal sin. You’re casting your stones in the wrong direction, and your mere opinions are irrelevant.
Thank you so much for that story.
I did just that – I no longer mix with the modernists or even compromisers and won’t set foot in those places, let’s just put it that way, following a long period of study and discernment. All are called to seek and find the True Church, the True Faith, especially now. I do not speak of sedevacantism, although I can empathize with their position.
St Paul said in so many words and very clearly so, that we are not to mix with anyone who does not hold to Tradition and the Faith in its entirety. That struck me especially in light of all that’s happening today.
I am comforted by your acknowledgement of this handshake, Theresa.
I also looked at the links you recommended (ex- CIA Robert David Steele) and am in agreement with you that these are interesting (?) times. :-/
Another interesting link that has to do with Fatima (because of its having to do with Putin/Russia) is this one:
The way the Church goes, so goes the world. There is no separation.
What is going on in the political world is all because of the planned take-over of our beloved Holy Catholic Church.
Also, all of this pedophilia in the political world must be linked with what Randy Engel has discovered in her years of investigation in the Church, don’t you agree? It is one big satanic mess. Scary!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us!
Ratzinger was the ultra-conservative, hardline, take-no-prisoners, traditionalist, watchdog of orthodoxy, right? That’s why you keep quoting him.
The “doctrinal questions” related to, and disputed by, the SSPX are novelties, errors and heresies.
You turn up here every two weeks and throw that invalid firebrand, and then run to the hills to watch and see if you’ve ignited any controversy. When nothing happens, you come back and try it again.
There is an unprecedented crisis in the Church, pal. Have you noticed it, and who’s behind it?
What’s the matter with you?
Here’s another quote from Our Lord: “By their fruits, you will know them.”
I actually know of a family this happened to. They started going to a Latin Mass community after 35+ years of marriage and a slew of kids. Then out of the blue a priest told them they needed to get their marriage “regularized,” since they had been married by the SSPX. I personally thought they were married since they were a very good family, which I believe is only possible with the graces from the sacrament. The priest never denied them Communion however, because even as scrupulous as he was, he didn’t believe the excommunication ever applied to the SSPX faithful, only those directly implicated in the ordinations.
Wow. Do you have a link please?
Did you know that the Bishop also holds the new rites of Holy Orders in grave doubt, especially Episcopal Consecration? In practice, he treats them as invalid. There’s documented evidence online.
I wonder what he is thinking now.
I agree with Ganganelli. The SSPX has no canonical jurisdiction in the NO V2 false church. They do however have supplied jurisdiction in the Catholic Church.
I don’t have a link right now but it was a 2006 interview published by The Remnant.
I think that because he is a Bishop he speaks to us, to the faithful, and he’s understandable. The priests are missionaries so sometimes their writings seem directed towards the Novus Ordo and the confused.
Gangnelli is right again R&R folks. If Benedict is the Pope of the Catholic Church, then by golly he has supreme authority to do what he wants with the SSPX. Now if he is just a modernist heretic pretending to be a retired pope, then what he said when he was pretending to be pope is meaningless claptrap. You decide.
Here is a link to many more of Ratzinger’s heresies:
“All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning accept and adhere to this new “Conciliar Church”, as His Excellency Mgr. Benelli called it in the letter that he sent me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25, and they enter into the schism. The adoption of the liberal theses by a council could only have taken place in a pastoral council that was not infallible and cannot be explained except through a secret and meticulous preparation, that the historians will end up discovering to the great astonishment of the Catholics who confuse the eternal Roman Catholic Church with human Rome, susceptible of being invaded by enemies covered in scarlet.”
Thank you Katherine for that link on Ratzinger. It was the strategy of the Late Rev Fr Villa of the Chiesa Viva periodical to flush out the heretic pope, who as you can see denied the Divinity of Christ in his writings. The pope was challenged to defend his most recent publication on that particular heresy, and could not, then resigned. It is believed by some that he holds a senior position in the Bavarian Illuminati and it alleges his participation in the diabolical sacrifice of a child, in company with other adherents, in a chateau in France. It is alleged he his being investigated, as other current demon worshipers are by some commission or other, in such crimes. When I read these accounts in statements by one of the survivors of such abuse, of the Black Mass offered in St Peters and also in Charlotte USA. I was stunned. Yet it all leads back to masonry and so clearly if Ratzinger’s longevity was for erstwhile health reasons, not going to bring about the Church of Surprises, then I guess he had to go. Look who replaced him. Padre Pio ora pro nobis
The article from the link you posted is written by a Sandborn, a sedevacantist. The article is not accurate. Pope Benedict eventually distanced himself from Rahner, and he gave a detailed description of this in his book, ‘Milestones.”
Dear Servant of Our Lady, I absolutely do agree with you and I have listened to the SGT Report as well. I have also have used that very phrase( “as the Church goes, so goes the world”) many times myself, most particularly when speaking with my two daughters concerning the Catholic Church and world events…..that particular statement seems to come quite naturally to those who are true devotees to Our Lady. The greatest joy I have in all this demonic rubble is True Devotion to Mary our Queen, She is our Protectress. The paramount importance of consecrating your children,husband, extended family as well as yourself to Her Immaculate Heart Daily can not be understated. We are watching in real time as the lies and deceptions are being revealed, but take heart because the Victory has been won and choosing to remain stalwart in the True Faith assures us of partaking in that Victory and you will be provided for because Our Immaculate Mother never deceives.
The “Holocaust” is a gigantic fraud perpetrated by the Jew media and swallowed whole by the brain-dead lemmings who fall for this nonsense. The “final solution” was the removal of all Jews from countries under the control of the Third Reich, that’s all. There is no extant documentation from the war years that even remotely alludes to the mass extermination of Jews. Those who did die in the camps did so at the end of the war as a result of allied bombing of civilian targets, destroying rail lines thus cutting off food supplies to the camps. People died from starvation and a severe outbreak of typhus. Recall, the Germans built these huge camps with barracks, soccer fields, swimming pools and even issued camp money so inmates could purchase cigarettes and candy from the camp canteen. Now, why waste all that time and effort if the Germans were planning to exterminate all the Jews? Another point of history. When the war ended Eisenhower [of Rhine Death camp fame], Churchill and De Gaulle each wrote their autobiographies about their war experiences. In over 7,000 pages there is not one word mentioned about homicidal gas chambers. There were small gas chambers but they were used for the disinfestation of clothes. Yes, women and men had their heads shaved not in preparation for gas chambers but for hygiene since hair is a breading ground for lice. When the Russians invaded Germany and the camps were broken up the inmates had a choice to either go with the Russians or head west with the allies. They choses to follow their German “captors” and go west. People have been so brain-washed by these Khazar clowns that there’s not much hope for them. All of this information can be found on the web if one only takes the time to read and study. But alas, most people are too lazy; they’d rather watch football and drink beer. Finally, two points worthy of consideration. 1) There were never six million Jews in all the areas controlled Germany during the war; 2) After the war statistics demonstrate that there were nearly as many Jews in Europe as before the war. Finally, most of these camps were work camps to help the Germans for the war effort, several were only transit camps. And the King Hoaxer, Ellie Wiesel never had a tattoo.
SORRY! This comment should have been posted under “Fake Jews, Francis, and Holocaust, Inc.”
Here is part of a recent communication written by Bishop Faure, regarding the Crisis, and the SSPX negotiations with Rome. Even though the Bishop uses strong clear language, it would be a mistake to think that Bishop Faure supports sedevacantism. He absolutely does not. The following is a google translation, so it’s not perfect by any means.
“Dear friends and Benefactors,
The heresy, long extended and infiltrated n the Church by the enemies of Truth, has seized the spirit of the highest authorities of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It pursues the defenders of the Faith: it becomes all-powerful and tyrannical. Heresy reigns everywhere and especially in Rome and this is the moment chosen by the superior of the SSPX to seek submission to Pope Francis.
“Before the Church completely collapses, four cardinals and some others, bishops and priests, dare to publically oppose Pope Francis. Faced with the apparent obstinacy of the Church to destroy itself, Paul Vl confessed, for his part his “self-destruction,” not “after the Council,” but in reality, because of the Council, but on the other hand, he did not admit that he had, as Pope, the greatest responsibility in this self-destruction.
“St. Basil wrote: the Church has a strong tendency to be destroyed. Has the Lord then abandoned the Church? The last hour has come, and the last destruction comes to an end, while the man of sin, the son of perdition (the antichrist), the Adversary rises against all that is God and sacred.” These words were written 1600 years ago! St. Basil did not fall for this reason in millennialism…(?)
“He wrote that to St. Athanasius “The immortal,” – that is the meaning of his name – the bishop excommunicated under pressure of heretics by Pope Liberius, because of his fidelity to Tradition, but later canonized.”
Click on the link for the rest of the article. I think that what Bishop Faure is trying to say is that the Church has not been destroyed, even though it seems that it has. We still must remain true to Tradition.
What doctrinal questions? The Society are faithful to the dogma and the perennial doctrines of the Church. It is the modernist movement and their spirit of the Council who have problems with doctrine. The talks between the Society and Rome have born some fruit. The Society are no longer required to accept the novel doctrines of Ecumenism, Religious Liberty and Collegiality in order to be recognised as Catholic. So maybe they are slowly converting Rome with authentic theology and their obvious faithfulness to the Church’ tradition.
Again and again and again. canon law supplies in a time of crisis the extraordinary faculties necessary for the dispensation of the Sacraments. Thankfully more enlightened souls than you are aware of this fact; ask Bishop Schneider.
For a true Catholic perspective of the Liberius accusation you made. Please read the Catholic Encyclopedia.
“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 – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” Pope Benedict XVI” Thanks for your quote? So what is your point? Isn’t that clear as bell that Benedict made it clear unless SSPX promotes or at least does not condemn the heresies and blasphemies of the Vatican II documents Vatican is not going to give them missions to spread the Gospels? So Vatican is clear unless you preach another Gospels that is different from the one handed down from Christ and the Apostles we are not ok with you. If you support Vatican II’s documents, why are you reading this blog?
Please Louie I beg you to ban anyone who openly, clearly support Vatican II. It just takes up space for meaningful discussion. That should be the “Redline” for this blog space.
Dear Ana, you seem to have one foot in each of the two camps: one, Catholicism; the other, Vatican II Novusordoism.
You are trying to make sense out of this crisis by using terminology and principles from two mutually contradictory positions.
The talk of the SSPX and “full communion” is my main example.
You seem to think that “communion” which is the visible bond of Social Charity can exist without the visible bond of Faith preceding and underlying it. This is an error/novelty/heresy of Vatican II.
No, the first visible bond of the Church is the outward profession of Faith; the edifice built upon it is the visible bond of Social Charity. You can have the first without the second – that’s schism, but you can’t have the second without the first in any instance.
You can’t really use rubbery, modernist rubbish terminology like “full communion” to assess and understand the way things are in the Church today. Someone is either a Catholic, or not. There aren’t degrees of being in communion, (whether “full” or “not-in-full”) at least in Cathlolic theology.
Thinking about Louie’s article in relation to Fr. Gleizes’ conclusion regarding the “heresy” of Pope Francis it appears to me that historically the Society have been reluctant to accuse a pope of being a heretic; despite actions and teachings that appear to promote heresy. For instance did they accuse Pope John Paul II of being a modernist heretic? It is perceived that he did a lot of damage to the Church. Assisi was particularly disturbing and gave the impression that all religions are noteworthy. Kissing the Koran, thereby giving the idea that Islam is an acceptable religion, made us weep. The SSPX recognised in John Paul II everything of the Council. That he was preaching a new religion, a humanist gospel of human goodness. Pope John Paul II also preached in a Lutheran Church, giving scandal to many Traditional or even conservative Catholics. All of these actions were viewed by the Societies theologians as promoting heresy; but as far as I am aware they did not accuse him of being a heretic. Neither did they accuse Pope Benedict XVI and he displayed similar liberal tendencies as his predecessor.
Today we see in Pope Francis very much the same type of pontificate. Francis, of course, can be said to be going further, taking the “Spirit of the Council” to its conclusion; even contradicting the “orthodoxy” of Pope John Paul II and Benedict. The question of how to judge a pope, in short, is given, that we must be careful. The SSPX agree that we cannot judge his culpability because only God can judge him so. We cannot judge him Juridically because the Pope has no superior on earth. We can judge his word and his actions, when they threaten the salvation of souls. We should not cooperate blindly by tolerating anything that contributes to the destruction of the Church. So what are we to think about recent events?
Many of us who support the Society worry that their position with regards to Pope Francis may be generated by the offer of a personal prelature. Could it be that they have toned down their rhetoric in order not to rock the boat? Have they reduced their militancy for personal gain? Have they failed in their condemnation of Amoris Laetitia? Well! If one reads Fr Matthias Gaudron’s article: Amoris Laetitia: A Triumph of Subjectivism, it can be argued, in this case, that the Society is fulfilling their mission to teach Catholic orthodoxy. They appear objective, pointing out the good and the evil contained in A.L. I, like Louie, hope and pray that the SSPX have not changed. That they do not sacrifice their mission in order to gain favour with the Holy See and that they continue to defend the Catholic faith in its entirety. I also hope and pray that they will receive a personal prelature as long as they are accepted as there are, providing that means, as they always have been. I hope Fr. Gleize is not being theologically artful in his understanding of A.L. There’s a lot of hope here!
You’re right. The SSPX (and Archbishop Lefebvre) have not claimed that the post-conciliar popes were heretics, though he did use clear and unambiguous language to describe the travesty of such things as the horrible false ecumenism of Assisi. And he also said that Rome was in Apostasy, and that they had left the Faith. Here’s an SSPX article which shows what ABL thought of Assisi:
You’ll see from the above link that Archbishop Lefebvre clearly condemned the Assisi meetings. He was absolutely appalled. How much more, then, would he have condemned Amoris Laetitia? He would not have found anything good in that horrible document, I’m sure of that, because even a small amount of poison is enough to make ruin of anything it’s put into. The SSPX doesn’t think like the Archbishop anymore.
As someone who is more familiar with counter-Protestant apologetics, I must observe – somewhat wryly – that the factions among the Traditional movement are uncannily similar to them.
After Luther’s heresy and schism, the next major split produced the Calvinists, and then we had the Arminians break off from them, as well as the heterogeneous phenomenon of Anglicanism and fringe phenomena (Shakers, Quakers, Mennonites, and so on.)
Similarly, after the definitive break between the Society of St. Pius X and the Church in 1988, we now have a major split (the Sedevacantist movement) as well as various splinter groups – SSPX-MC, “Recognize and Resist” and fringe phenomena (Conclavists and Home-Aloners).
Perhaps we should all heed E. Michael Jones’ words: schism is a sin against charity, and because of this inherent fact, it begets more schism. SSPX, SSPV, SSPX-MC, “Ex-SSPX” Sedevacantism…..God Almighty, where will it end?
Most sedevacantists differ only in approach matters that have not been settled by competent authority (since they believe there is one at the moment). They agree on the pre vatican 2 magesterium and have no differences on authoritatively defined dogmas and doctrines. In fact, its the R&R camp that seems more protestant in many ways since they have to sift and ponder every “papal” pronouncement for errrors . Some they accept, some they reject. Sounds like Luther to me.
E Michael Jones is a heretic because he supports the documents of Vatican II.
On the contrary, it seems to me that he has a much clearer perspective on the Church’s current woes than most self-appointed “heresy hunters”. Unfortunately, it is an all too common facet of our fallen human nature that we do not wish to have our preconceived notions disturbed. Jones is not omniscient (only God is!), but his views deserve respectful study rather than a brusque dismissal.
The SSPX does not legitimately exercise any ministry in the conciliar church. True. However, the conciliar church is not the true Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is occupied by a modernist sect. Of course you don’t believe that Ganganelli, but it’s true nonetheless.
What did the SSPX do to you to cause you to have such a great animosity towards them?
Very smart answer! You are 100% correct! The false NO V2 Conciliar Church has nothing to do with true Catholicism. Thank you for your defense of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre of sainted memory. He is the Athanasius and the S. Francis of our age.