In a recent interview with the German newspaper, Die Zeit, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, indicated that the SSPX has been offered a personal prelature on the following conditions:
[NOTE: Translation of the German text provided by Dr. Maike Hickson at OnePeterFive.]
The Church’s tradition is developing, but never in the sense of a novelty – which stands in contrast to the previous teaching – but which is a deeper understanding of the Depositum fidei, the authentic deposit of the Faith. In this [same] sense, all [the] Church’s documents have to be understood, also those of the Council.
These preconditions, together with the obligation to affirm the Creed, the recognition of the Sacraments and of the papal primacy are the basis for the magisterial declaration which the Fraternity has been given to sign. These are the preconditions for a Catholic, in order to be in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Based on this, it’s anyone’s guess as to how close we are to a “done deal.”
First of all, the idea that “tradition is developing” is nonsense. Archbishop Pozzo attempts to clarify this to mean “a deeper understanding of the Depositum fidei,” but if this be so, then it is our understanding that is developing; not tradition.
The biggest unknown concerns the actual contents of this “magisterial declaration” the Society is being asked to sign. (One should note that what is mentioned is only the “basis” for said declaration.)
If by Creed, Archbishop Pozzo means the Nicene or the Apostles Creed; clearly this represents no obstacle, but if he is referring to the 1989 Profession of Faith produced by the CDF, it could be problematic.
Much of the aforementioned Profession is unobjectionable, but it concludes thus:
“I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”
This invites questions as to what exactly entails an exercise of the authentic Magisterium; e.g., does Amoris Laetitia qualify as that which one supposedly owes religious submission of will and intellect? It is to laugh!
The concept of “religious submission” comes from Lumen Gentium – 25 and it is, in this writer’s opinion, A most dangerous proposition.
At this, let’s look at some of Archbishop Pozzo’s other comments of note.
On the somewhat positive side of the leger, he says of the notoriously poisonous documents Nostra Aetate, Unitatis Redintegratio and Dignitatis Humanae:
They are not about doctrines or definitive statements, but, rather, about instructions and orienting guides for pastoral practice. One can [thus legitimately] continue to discuss these pastoral aspects after the [proposed] canonical approval [of the SSPX], in order to lead us to further [and acceptable] clarifications.
Note the implied separation of “doctrine” and “pastoral practice.” Where have we seen this before???
He went on to say of Nostra Aetate in particular:
The secretary for the Unity of Christians said on 18 November 1964 in the Council Hall about Nostra Aetate: “As to the character of the declaration, the secretariat does not want to write a dogmatic declaration on non-Christian religions, but, rather, practical and pastoral norms.” Nostrae Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority, and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognize this declaration as being dogmatic.
Do you hear that rumbling in the distance? It’s Bergoglio’s rabbinical cabinet rushing to convene an emergency meeting…
Archbishop Pozzo continued:
This declaration [Nostrae Aetate] can only be understood in the light of tradition and of the continuous Magisterium. For example, there exists today, unfortunately, the view – contrary to the Catholic Faith – that there is a salvific path independent of Christ and His Church. That has also been officially confirmed last of all by the Congregation for the Faith itself in its declaration, Dominus Jesus. Therefore, any interpretation of Nostrae Aetate which goes into this [unfortunate and erroneous] direction is fully unfounded and has to be rejected.
This is a rather sharp condemnation (as far as such things go in the medicine-of-mercy era) of the document that emerged from the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews in December 2015.
While this is welcome, one notices the terminally flawed “hermeneutic of continuity” mindset on display here as Nostra Aetate itself is being held blameless; as if it has nothing whatsoever to do with the havoc that followed in its wake.
In truth, the conciliar texts as a whole must be rejected; not just particular interpretations.
That’s not to say that the conciliar text is utterly devoid of truth; it contains many reiterations of authentic doctrine as previously taught, but as Sacred Scripture plainly warns – a little leaven leaventh the entire lump.
That said, I do not believe that it’s necessary for Rome to come to this same conclusion before the SSPX can accept the offer of a regular juridical structure.
The only thing that will be necessary moving forward is for the Society to remain steadfast in proclaiming the true faith, and that necessarily means condemning the conciliar text and not limiting itself to criticizing supposedly false interpretations (which very often are truly nothing other than applications of what the documents themselves plainly state.)
When asked if the notion that the Council documents have varying degrees of doctrinal weight constitutes a development in Rome’s understanding, Archbishop Pozzo said:
This is certainly not a [later] conclusion on our part, but it was already clear at the time of the Council. The General Secretary of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici, declared on 16 November 1964: “This holy synod defines only that as being binding for the Church what it declares explicitly to be such with regard to Faith and Morals.” Only those texts assessed by the Council Fathers as being binding are to be accepted as such. That has not been [later] invented by “the Vatican,” but it is written in the official files themselves.
Pay close attention to what the archbishop said here and one will detect a glaring and yet subtle contradiction:
The quote of Cardinal Felici that is given is very plain; the only conciliar propositions that are binding are those that the Council “explicitly declares” as such. So far so good, but then Archbishop Pozzo immediately follows by saying that texts “assessed by the Council Fathers as being binding are to be accepted as such.”
The difference is considerable.
The former concerns an objective reading of the text itself; e.g., either the Council explicitly declares that such-and-such is binding or it doesn’t. Simple.
The latter, by contrast, invites one to make a subjective judgment as to the Council Fathers’ intent wherein even in the absence of any such explicit declaration, one may conclude that certain texts are indeed binding.
Where did Archbishop Pozzo get that idea?
From the very declaration of Cardinal Pericle Felici, which states in its fullness:
Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.
My friends, this is perfect example of the kinds of flaws one finds throughout the conciliar texts; a clear statement followed by one that opens the way for contrary opinions to flourish, which is precisely why the documents themselves must be rejected.
Archbishop Pozzo demonstrates the danger at hand well when he offers the following as examples of conciliar propositions that are supposedly binding:
…the teaching on the sacramentality of the Episcopal office and its consecrations as the fullness of Holy Orders; or the teaching on the primacy of the pope and of the college of bishops in union with its head [sic], as presented in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and as interpreted by the Nota explicativa praevia which had been requested by the highest authority.
A thorough review of the teachings cited reveals that there is no open declaration of bindingness.
To be clear, in the case of episcopal consecration being understood as the fullness of Holy Orders, this may well be an expression of the authentic Magisterium that binds the faithful, but let’s be clear – if so, this is not due to the teaching of Vatican Council II, as if the conciliar text itself binds.
All in all, my takeaways from Archbishop Pozzo’s interview are as follows:
– The process of regularization of the Society is far from complete.
– The movement on the side of Rome, while far from satisfactory, is noteworthy.
– In spite of this, the Council continues to be Rome’s Golden Calf and until it is buried confusion and disorientation will reign.
Ecclesia Dei = Wolf in sheep’s clothing. I don’t think the SSPX has come this far to give in now.
I think that the SSPX will give in. I don’t think that they’re waiting for Rome to make a more favorable offer. Rather, they (SSPX leadership) need to find a way to convince the SSPX clergy and faithful that joining up with Rome is a good thing. The SSPX leadership has this idea that the SSPX is predestined to save the Church. And as such, God will make it alright and protect them. No need to worry. They have the latest Rosary Crusade to help convince the faithful.
Which is why, IMO, BP, Fellay refuses to address the obvious contradiction (and elephant in the room): the idea of regularizing at a time when we have the most notorious modernist anti-tradition Pope ever.
When (and IF) it happens, I’ll believe it and not one second sooner.
Im not an SSPX adherent because I fully reject that the vatican 2 faith is the Catholic Faith, and therefore reject that any vatican 2 pope is a Catholic pope. I do hold a hope that the SSPX, in general, is dominated by both clergy and attendees who are of good Catholic will and have simply not reached the same conclusion that I have.
With all of the above laid forth, I believe (just my opinion) that Bp Fellay, for whatever reason, is desperately trying to reach an accord with this deviant (v2) religion. Why? I have no clue…..but the fact remains that he continues, and continues, and continues to talk to these people. If it were me, I would cast them aside for the dirt that they are….but this is not what he is doing. I believe that if any sort of agreement is reached than the SSPX will lose priests…because many SSPX priests are not going to abide by this.
The SSPX, which is in full schism as far as Im concerned due to their rejection of the authority of one who they proclaim is pope (which you cannot do as a Catholic), is only going to weaken itself if they do this. The SSPX has been riding both sides of the fence since day 1 and now they are on the verge of destroying their order and making it nothing more than an fssp clone. Either stand fully in opposition to the false faith once and for all or fully sell out like the ridiculous fssp did (from its beginning)….but make a decision already…..Im guessing ABP Lefebvre would have seen this 20 years ago if he had still been alive.
It would be great. It would mean growth and harvest. A great sign to appear.
Here’s Bishop Fellay in October, 2012 (CFN):
“When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.”
He continued, ‘To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.'”
And here is Bishop Fellay at the same conference talking about Pope Francis:
“What Gospel does he have? Which Bible does he have to say such things. It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith? That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethren. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist.”
“How much time will be needed for people in the Church to stand up ‘by no means!’ [will we accept this new teaching]. I hope and pray this will happen. But that means an enormous division in the Church.”
He speaks of the Pope making a mess, and reminds us that this is what the Pope urged at world Youth Day: he urged the young people to “make a mess”. Bishop Fellay responds, ”Incredible. We have never heard of this [a Pope speaking like this]. But that’s what he wants.”
What do you mean by growth and harvest?
Isnt this (bergoglio) the same guy who he is in talks with now? I heard that this was going on (that an agreement is already in place) about 2 weeks ago and Louie alludes to what I heard back then here today. Does it not seem, from what we are hearing, that Bp Fellay IS in talks with a heretic who wants to make a mess of the Catholic Faith? It seems to me that Bp Fellay is becoming neither hot nor cold. Bergoglio has become a much worse public heretic since Bp Fellay said what he did about him….so how would Bp Fellay now want to talk to this person when he rightly denounced him as a modernist back then?
Here’s Bishop Fellay in 2016 (NCR):
“I think, if you don’t have the whole picture, you’d think they were crazy to make an agreement now. So it will be quite a work and it will take time to be able to bring the faithful to realize this new face in the history of the Church, this new reality. We are in a reality, we have to grasp it as precisely, as accurately possible, in order to handle it correctly. To say we don’t move because things are bad is by no way what God, Our Lord, is requesting from his apostles.”
And this quote from the same interview:
“….It’s said that an aspect of the Third Secret not yet revealed is that apostasy will begin “from the top.”. [Alice von Hilderbrand has given testimony affirming such a statement, originally made by Cardinal Luigi Ciappi]. What do you say to this?”
“I don’t recall such a quote being officially included in the message of Fatima or the secret. You have a lot of reconstructions, theories. One point which is obvious is that not everything was given [revealed]. Sister Lucia, in her third report, gave words of the Blessed Virgin Mary with an “et cetera” and in what has been produced by Rome, there are no words, there is only a vision. So obviously there is something failing [missing]. So what is it? You have a whole effort to try to build or reconstruct this part by quotes from those who have read it. And of course, it’s very interesting. We can certainly say that it deals with the faith. Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, said it touches on the dangers to the faith in the Church, not just about the vision and so… You have a report of Father Fuentes, having talked with Sister Lucy, in which he gives a dramatic conference [saying it] might be really not necessarily all the message, or the secret, but the perception Sister Lucia has of this. And there she speaks of a diabolical disorientation, and of course that comes from the top. And I think we have that. It’s in front of us.”
Interesting interview. Bishop Fellay is actually mistaken when he says Sr. Lucia said to Father Fuentes that there was diabolical disorientation. In fact in that interview she says the devil wants to possess consecrated souls. The only times Sr. Lucia used the phrase “diabolical disorientation” were in some letters she wrote in the 1970’s.
Bishop Fellay quote, 1998, Letter #54:
“Even today, ten years later, although the situation has become markedly worse, how many people are still letting themselves be deceived by what remains of the appearance and structure of the Church? And certain societies that Rome raised up at that time to deceive people, societies enjoying the privilege of celebrating the Traditional Mass at the price of keeping a guilty silence on the reality of the drama being played out before our eyes, prove that our vision of things is correct.
Church’s apparent unity
Beneath a show of apparent unity, the Church is being torn apart; a special effort is being made to tear out its soul, its spiritual treasure, that which distinguishes it from all other religions and all other societies: its supernatural truth, its deposit, the deposit of Revelation of which it is the one and only guardian, its charity, its grace, its sacrifice, its priesthood.”
Rich, you keep making the same point over and over. Everyone knows your position, untenable as it is. The fact remains that without the SSPX, the Latin Rite Mass would not be available anywhere in the world. If the SSPX had never been born, you would be going to a Novus Ordo Parish without a care in the world.
The SSPX is run by adults who know that the souls of millions depends on how they conduct themselves. It’s easy for you to say cast them aside, but Bishop Fellay feels a great responsibility towards them as he should.
I know that i do…and I have to stick to it. I do know that 3 years ago the idea of a false pope would have been a fantasy….and yet in 2016 many non-sede’s are entertaining the thought. Of course they dont entertain that thought for the same reason that I do but the fact of the matter is that it is still now being entertained by a lot of non-sede’s.
The latin-rite mass would have been available with or without the SSPX.
I dont know how in the world you presume to know what Bp Fellay feels. He is, from all accounts, dealing with the devil right now.
It’s possible that regularization will occur gradually. Here’s an article on a Spanish Resistance site that quotes Bp. Fellay as discussing how Rome is giving them (SSPX) more and more recognition. The American flag under the banner on the website will need to be clicked in order to translate the article into English.
Archbishop Lefebvre quotes:
“The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity, through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.”
(Spiritual Journey, p.9)
“To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church – what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.”
Why would healthy cells want to be united with cancerous cells?
“The latin-rite mass would have been available with or without the SSPX.” Rich, if you had a clue about what happened in 1988, you’d have a better chance of making your point with some credibility. The fantasy world of Sedevacantism is a perfect fit for you.
If your point is simply to verbally abuse me then there is no point in a discussion. You know as well as I do that the latin mass simply wouldnt have “disappeared off of the face of the earth” if the SSPX had never been formed (that’s honestly a ridiculous thing to say….ABP Lefebvre wasnt the only guy in the world with a clue after vatican 2). What do the ex-communications have to do with anything?
Eponymous Flower blog caught my attention a few days ago with it’s article on the American Jewish Committee which linked up with the Muslims in giving a “warning” to Pope Francis of their grave concerns about any talk of reconciliation with the SSPX. The arrogance of such interference in Church affairs would be astounding, were it not for the past 50 years of precedence already in place.
This line struck me as particularly telling:
Concessions to the SSPX “could easily” lead to a “return of the old prejudices” against other confessions and to “transform to the militant conviction of possessing the only true way to God”.
“What do the ex-communications have to do with anything?” This question proves that you don’t know what happened in 1988. I will do my best to explain it in a nutshell.
Bishop Lefebvre was promised a newly ordained Bishop by Cardinal Ratzinger to keep the Latin Mass going as a sort of exceptional thing. Lefebvre kept asking Ratzinger when are you going to give me this Bishop. Ratzinger kept stalling and stalling. Finally Lefebvre could see that he was never going to get the Bishop. Getting old himself and in hindsight he only had 3 years to live, Lefebvre Consecrated 4 Bishops.
There were no other Bishops in the world who were going to Consecrate Bishops to say the Latin Rite Mass. So you are wrong in saying that the Latin Mass would have continued anyway. It’s obvious that the Holy Ghost chose the SSPX to preserve the link with Tradition. The SSPX is God’s gift to the Church. Give them the credit that they are due.
God is working through the SSPX to save the Church. God chose Bishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, not a rabble of Sedevacantists. Sedes are quick to judge and give credit for real grace and the real work of salvation of souls to no one except themselves. As Sedes pass rash judgement on everything and everyone, so shall they be judged.
+Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey:
Chapter VIII – The Church
“St. Thomas did not write a treatise on the Church “ex professo,”(i.e directly and in depth), but wrote on it on the occasion of the “gratia capitis—capital grace,” i.e., the grace of Christ as Head of the Church, which grace is the source of all sanctifying grace, and from which the Mystical Body of the Church benefits. He asks who are the members of this Mystical Body, of which Our Lord is the Head. His response is very instructive: he distinguishes between those who are members in potency only, from those who are actually members, be it definitively — this is the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant, including the angels —be it those who are actually members, but “in via — on the way,” by faith and charity in this world — or the sinners who have the faith, but are dried up members, not having charity.
The Church considered as Mystical Body is a spiritual reality comprising all the souls and angels who live of the divine life communicated by Our Lord. They are as living branches attached to the vine. During this earthly life, alas, many can detach themselves from the vine and perish. Others, to the contrary, are grafted onto the vine by a valid and fruitful baptism, and then live by it. At the same time this Body, which is mystical and invisible for us, presents itself here below as a visible, hierarchical society founded by Our Lord for the purpose of augmenting the Mystical Body according the command given to the apostles by Our Lord: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Mt 28:19). “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk 16:16).
The final goal of salvation is linked to the Faith. The whole hierarchy was instituted by Our Lord in service of the Faith, which Faith then permits the faithful to drink from the sources of charity, of the Holy Ghost and of His grace. The entire history of the primitive Church is an illustration, instructing us of the importance of the commands given by Our Lord.
The Church is born in its vitality with the effusion of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. She can then, instructed by Our Lord, institute a sacramental liturgy for its baptized members, comprising prayers, preaching, the divine Office, the celebration of the mysteries of the Cross and of the Eucharist. She multiplied rapidly bishops, priests and others in Holy Orders, for the multiplication and sanctification of those who have the Faith.
From the Israel of the Old Testament is born the New Israel of the New Testament, of which the Incarnate Work is the Head, directing and instructing His people across the desert of this life to lead them to the Promised Land, which is none other than the Holy Trinity itself.
Just as the Israel of the Old Testament had a troubled history because of continuous infidelities towards God, which were often the works of its leaders and its Levites, so does the Church Militant in this world know without end periods of trial on account of the infidelity of its clerics and their compromises with world.
The higher they come from, the more scandals provoke disasters. Certainly, the Church itself guards its sanctity and its sources of sanctification, but the control of its institutions by unfaithful popes and apostate bishops ruins the faith of the faithful and the clergy, sterilizes the instruments of grace, and favors the assault of all the powers of Hell which seem to triumph.
This apostasy makes its members adulterers, schismatics opposed to all Tradition, separated from the past of the Church, and separated from the Church of today, in the measure that it remains faithful to the Church of Our Lord. Everyone who remains faithful to the true Church is the object of savage and continuous persecution.
But we are not the first to be persecuted by false brothers for having kept the Faith and Tradition. The Martyrology teaches us this every day. The more Holy Church is insulted, the more we must cling to Her, body and soul, the more we must force ourselves to defend Her and to assure Her continuity by drawing from Her treasures of sanctity to reconstruct Christianity.”
What happened to the Thuc line of Bishops? Do they not exist?
The SSPX was canonically formed, that is, officially inside of the Church, in 1970. SSPX Bishops received proper priestly formation with regards to authentic Catholic Tradition. The so called Thuc line of Bishops has no cohesive structure to fight for and defend Church teaching.
Unlike Sedevacantists who meet in garages and basements, the battle to save the Church has to be waged through an organized strategy capable of persuading souls world wide. Satan wages war on the Church from all sides. The Catholic who wishes to save his soul will do well to keep this in mind and refrain from making personal judgements reserved to God alone.
We are not debating our personal opinions as to whether or not the Thuc Line has any cohesiveness….we are simply debating whether or not the Latin Mass would exist in 2016 if the SSPX had not been formed.
I agree. I think all these closing N.O. parishes could be bought up and replaced by SSPX parishes because people want the Latin Rite Mass back and they are not getting the authentic Faith in N.O. parishes. The authentic Faith will grow and thrive while the N.O. parishes continue to empty out because they are so sadly protestant-ized at this point no one (who knows and loves the Faith) wants to attend N.O. parishes, but right now many have little choice because it is all that is available to them.
I do hope things get settle with the SSPX, and I do believe they will group and out number the N.O. parishes in no time at all!
Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX, quote concerning “full-communion”:
“…and a Catholic is either fully in communion or not in communion. There can be no degrees.
Not so in the modern church, that officially admits varying degrees of communion, or partial communion, which exists in those “separated churches” that “have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation”, that are “means of salvation” and whose members are “in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, §2). The consequence of this is that the Catholic Church is considered as an inner circle in the wider concept of “church” in which it subsists. The further one goes from the center of unity, via a series of widening concentric circles, the less is the “communion”, but nevertheless all these religious groupings are in some way “related” to the Catholic Church, in some way a part of the whole idea of church. Such a perspective is certainly a practical denial of the doctrine ‘Outside the Church, no salvation’. “
No SSPX = No Latin Rite Mass. The fact that the Sedevacantists are pushing the validity of Thuc Bishop validity argues heavily against it being valid.
I have never really understood what being in full communion with Rome means. Does it mean that the SSPX and Rome will share and exchange priests?,do we send them money and receive nothing in return?, will we accept female deacons then later on female priests?, how many times will we have to say the novus ordo mass?,and finally will we be involved in the financial litigations and burdens caused by the many sodomite priests within the Roman church who have destroyed the lives and faiths of countless Catholics?.What atrocities have been committed by these priests and post Conciliar popes!.Their only answer was to shell out millions of dollars to their victims. If Bishop Fellay thinks that he is going to change Rome he is a fool of the first magnitude. It is not the smoke of Satan that has entered the Roman Church but Satan himself. Wake up my fellow Catholics ,its just about over, the left has won and Rome will never change. Just like the United States the church is a mere shell of what it was once. I for one could care less if Bergolio is a true pope or not. He is a manifest heretic and is no longer a Catholic. Remember Pope JP2 kissing the koran in Italy on May 14 1999? What real pope would do that? We are living in end times and we had better heed the words of Our Blessed Mother at Fatima. When I attend mass all I care about is that it is a valid Traditional mass,codified by Pope Pius the fifth in the 15 hundreds and that the priest is not winking at the altar server. Been at that picnic many years ago I pray that the cancer,the filth and the rot that has infected the church of Rome does not attach itself to the SSPX I also pray that Fellay listens to the words of Bishop Williamson when he told him ” Stay away from Rome , they are not our friends they don’t like us ” With Bergolio he was proven correct.
Did Father Scott not receive a copy of the Baltimore Catechism?
169b. How does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body?
A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by open and deliberate heresy, apostasy or schism.
169c. How does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by heresy?
A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by heresy when he openly rejects or doubts some doctrine proposed by the Catholic Church as a truth of divine-Catholic faith, though still professing himself a Christian.
169d. When does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by apostasy?
A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by apostasy when he openly rejects the entire Christian faith.
169e. When does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by schism?
A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by schism when he openly refuses obedience to the lawful authorities of the Church, particularly to the Pope.
169f. When is a baptized person separated from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by lawful authority?
A baptized person is separated from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by lawful authority when he incurs one of the more severe forms of excommunication.
If anyone wants to read Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX, search for this title:
How should Catholics respond to the present crisis in the Church? By Fr. Peter Scott
Here is the full section I quoted from above:
“The Church is proposed as a Communion
A Communion is a sharing between two who are bound together. John Paul II points out that this sharing is to take place between the particular and the universal church, and between collegiality and primacy. Communion is between equals, and it is, consequently, manifestly obvious that this idea of Communion is a denial of authority.
Completely different is the Catholic concept of the Communion of the Saints, for all are joined through sanctifying grace in their common submission to the Head of the Mystical Body, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Different also is the traditional necessity of being in communion with the Catholic Church, that is, of sharing the same Faith, sacraments, Mass and submission to the Sovereign Pontiff. For, traditionally, the refusal of any one of these results in the break of communion or excommunication, and a Catholic is either fully in communion or not in communion. There can be no degrees.
Not so in the modern Church, that officially admits varying degrees of communion, or partial communion, which exists in those “separated churches” that “have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation,” that are “means of salvation” and whose members are “in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, §2). The consequence of this is that the Catholic Church is considered as an inner circle in the wider concept of “church” in which it subsists. The further one goes from the center of unity, via a series of widening concentric circles, the less is the “communion,” but nevertheless all these religious groupings are in some way “related” to the Catholic Church, in some way a part of the whole idea of church. Such a perspective is certainly a practical denial of the doctrine ‘Outside the Church, no salvation.'”
If you claim that the Thuc line is invalid, which of course it isnt (even though some knuckleheads wound up becoming bishops), then YOU are the one who loses all credibility. I am not an SSPX supporter because I believe that they are schismatics….BUT I also know without question that the SSPX bishops are TRUE bishops.
Rich you’re wrong to presume they are schismatics, for if the Pope was in fact invalid as you believe, then they would no way be culpable for disobedience to an invalid pontiff. How could one be charged with schism if one were in schism with an invalid nonexistent authority? If you believe they have simply the intent to engage in schism (as schism with an invalid authority is meaningless) they still would not be culpable, particularly in a charge like schism which would require a formal, manifest pertinacity. If someone chose to miss Mass only to discover that Mass was canceled, would they be in grave sin? No, and neither can a sedevacantist therefore argue that the SSPX are in schism.
In this letter, (available in full on the SSPX.org website) Bishop Fellay requests that the faithful join together in a global effort to offer the Blessed Virgin Mary a crown of Rosaries and sacrifices, STARTING AUGUST 15, 2016.
“In order to correspond as closely as possible to the divine intentions, and given Our Lady’s insistence on the need to make reparation for sins, we will set our hearts on combining our rosaries with many sacrifices. We do hope to be able to offer a crown of twelve million rosaries and fifty million sacrifices. With all our heart we want to work to spread devotion to the Immaculate Heart, particularly during this time of prayer and penance. This is the primary intention of our crusade, to which we join also the filial request for the triumph of Her Immaculate Heart and for the consecration of Russia according to the directions of Our Lady. And finally, in the troubled times that we are going through, both in the world and in the Church, we ask our heavenly Mother for special protection for the Society of Saint Pius X, all its works, and all its affiliated religious communities.”
We NEED divine intervention like Lepanto. This IS the way Our Lady wants us to go. I know it in my gut. The only thing more powerful on earth, is the Holy Eucharist, and Our Lady has His full attention at all times.
The SSPX cannot be in schism. Bishop Lefebvre received jurisdiction to Consecrate Bishops directly from the Church through Canon Law, due to the emergency situation in the Church. The very group that saved the Church cannot be said to be in schism with the Church. That is a totally illogical position.
+Fellay is blinded by his own pride. He believes that HIS Society is going to convert Rome. The man is lost in a fog. Does he really believe that the Romanistias are going to hold up their end of the log? Evidently. +Fellay thinks that this is a give and take arrangement. The reality is that on the Vatican side it’s Quid Pro Nothing.
If you believe a pope to be valid and you disobey him then of course you are guilty of schism. Whether or not the pope is valid or not really has no bearing on anything, assuming again that YOU believe him to be true. If you believe him to be true you obey him….if you believe him to be false then you denounce him for who he is. What you dont do is call him holy father while you denounce him. Thats certainly a mortal sin.
Im not going to beat the same dead horse….I like this site and I dont want to be banned.