SSPX: To be, or not to be, “regularized”

Comments (97)

1. You raise really and valid issues here, Louie.

   Archbishop Lefebvre absolutely believed toward the end of his life, after the consecrations, that Rome was in Apostasy, and that they (the hierarchy in Rome) had in fact left the Church. He was not a Sedevacanist, however. He always said that it’s a mystery as to how this be the case. The Archbishop also said that they (SSPX) could not collaborate with Rome, because Rome was for the deChristianization of society in general, and the SSPX works for the Christianization of society. And this was when JPll was Pope. The situation is far worse now.

   For Archbishop Lefebvre, he wasn’t so concerned with proving the Apostasy of Rome (though he believed it), but rather he felt it his duty to work to maintain the Traditional sacraments, Mass, Catholic teaching, until Rome came to its senses and came back to the Catholic Faith. He did not give up hope that this would one day happen.

   You are absolutely correct to say that the SSPX has “lacked Apostolic zeal that one might have expected given the offensiveness of the heresies and blasphemies in question.” Bishop Fellay has not issued any sort of official commentary on Amoris Laetitia. The SSPX website DICI has issued an official statement, but Bishop Fellay didn’t write it; it was written by two priests of the SSPX.

   There is a petition going around a few trad blogs and forums which is going to be sent to Bishop Fellay, and the petition asks Bishop Fellay to confront Francis about Amoris Laetitia, and make known the problems with it. Bishop Fellay has access to the Pope, but we trads don’t. It would be a great service to the Truth if Bishop Fellay would do this. However, I’m fairly certain that he won’t do anything to confront Francis with the Truth. He hardly ever even speaks out against the Council, either. Perhaps he’s tired of the battle.

2. Louie: I want to make a donation to you but I refuse to use Paypal after it refused to do business in North Carolina after the repeal of the law on transgender bathroom use.

   Can you provide an address or some other method to send you a donation?

3. Yes, and the Cardinals and Bishops are just remaining silent because they are concerned about what will happen to their flocks if they speak out and are replaced.
   Sure. That’s it.
   Crickets, that’s all we are going to hear. Crickets. No response to this pope or AL has yet been heard that is sufficiently clear and to the point, using words all of us would understand. I appreciate the responses from a very few Cardinals and Bishops thus far, but all of them are falling far short of an appropriate response.
   I don’t know why the SSPX would choose now, hopefully they have some good reason. It’s hard to imagine there wouldn’t be something he could do to them, and if he can, I believe he will.

4. I think some of the lay Catholics who are older and were supporters of Archbishop Lefebvre when he was alive, still believe what’s stated in this letter:

   “Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin
   Prefect of the Congregation
   for Bishops
   July 6, 1988

   Ecône, July 6, 1988

   Eminence,

   Gathered around our Superior General, the Superiors of the Districts, Seminaries and autonomous houses of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X think it good to respectfully express to you the following reflections.

   You thought it good, by your letter of July 1st, to inform Their Excellencies Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, and the four Bishops whom they consecrated on June 30, at Ecône, of the excommunication latæ sententiæ. We let you judge for yourself the value of such a declaration, coming from an authority who, in its exercise, breaks with all its predecessors down to Pope Pius XII, in worship, teaching and government of the Church.

   As for us, we are in full communion with all the Popes and Bishops before the Second Vatican Council, celebrating precisely the Mass which they codified and celebrated, teaching the Catechism which they drew up, standing up against the errors which they have many times condemned in their encyclicals and pastoral letters. We let you judge on which side the rupture is to be found. We are extremely saddened by the blindness of spirit and the hardening of heart of the Roman authorities.

   On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.

   To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism. In union with these faithful, we make ours the words of the Prophet: “Præparate corda vestra Domino et servite Illi soli: et liberabit vos de manibus inimicorum vestrorum. Convertimini ad Eum in toto corde vestro, et auferte deos alienos de medio vestri–Open your hearts to the Lord and serve Him only: and He will free you from the hands of your enemies. With all your heart return to Him, and take away from your midst any strange gods” (I Kings 7:3).#

   Confident in the protection of Her who has crushed all the heresies in the world, we assure Your Eminence of our dedication to Him Who is the only Way of salvation.

   Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior General
   Fr. Paul Aulagnier, District Superior, France
   Fr. Franz-Josef Maessen, District Superior, Germany
   Fr. Edward Black, District Superior, Great Britain
   Fr. Anthony Esposito, District Superior of Italy
   Fr. François Laisney, District Superior, United States
   Fr. Jacques Emily, District Superior of Canada
   Fr. Jean Michel Faure, District Superior of Mexico
   Fr. Gerard Hogan, District Superior of Australasia
   Fr. Alain Lorans, Superior, Seminary of Ecône
   Fr. Jean Paul André, Superior, Seminary of France
   Fr. Paul Natterer, Superior, Seminary of Germany
   Fr. Andrès Morello, Superior, Seminary of Argentina
   Fr. William Welsh, Superior, Seminary of Australia
   Fr. Michel Simoulin, Rector, St. Pius X University
   Fr. Patrice Laroche, Vice-Rector, Seminary of Ecône
   Fr. Philippe François, Superior, Belgium
   Fr. Roland de Mérode, Superior, Netherlands
   Fr. Georg Pflüger, Superior, Austria
   Fr. Guillaume Devillers, Superior, Spain
   Fr. Philippe Pazat, Superior, Portugal
   Fr. Daniel Couture, Superior, Ireland
   Fr. Patrick Groche, Superior, Gabon
   Fr. Frank Peek, Superior, Southern Africa”

5. 1)”If Rome changes course and decides to formally recognize that the SSPX has the Faith; granting them regular jurisdiction, doing so will be nothing more than a matter of justice”
   Yes it would… provided it is made clear that the previous denial of their recognition was UNJUST. otherwise it would appear to be an ‘act of mercy’ and in accepting it, it could imply that the SSPX accepts they were somehow at fault.

   2)”That said, once the Personal Prelature either happens… there can be no reason for Bishop Fellay to refrain any longer from plainly condemning Amoris Laetitia in its entirety in no uncertain terms”
   WHY ISN”T HE DOING SO NOW (apart form the odd weak comment to do with crying)??? By making a comments like this Louie, you are condoning silence in the face of evil in order to achieve one’s own personal benefit. If the price of ‘recognition’ is silence then shame of +Fellay for seeking it.

6. From what I am hearing, many who attend SSPX Churches/Chapels are expressing disappointment in the SSPX leadership who seem very comfortable with their role in providing the TLM and the Traditional sacraments, but hesitate to go out on a limb to fight like true warriors against the enemy within. This, of course, does not apply to every one of their priests, who, in my opinion, need and deserve more encouragement from their superiors. Apostolic zeal is not a luxury—it is a necessity in this time of great crisis. I am sorry to say that the SSPX is looking very weak.

7. And now for some cold water. Bishop Fellay will not sell the SSPX out to the Modernist enemies of the Church. That shoud be the headline.

   There is a lot of tactical spin coming from Rome, to alarm and divide the Faithful. Believe it to your own detriment.

   It is as deliberate and calculated as their creation of the Novus Ordo and Vatican II. It’s the same people, don’t forget; they like using apparent power (they would call it “authority”) to call the shots, in an attempt to force their opponents, aka Catholics, into a chosen corner.

   They are ruthless, and know how to push buttons. It’s a game of chess to them. They try to place the SSPX and Bishop Fellay into awkward positons by these press releases, so that whether they respond or not, the SSPX end up looking bad – either as sell-outs on one hand, or schismatics on the other – and the faithful end up dividing over it.

   The Novus Ordo plays to win every time.

   http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-fellay-clarity-needed-to-move-forward

   This is the last official position of the Society from June 2016, and it hasn’t changed.

8. It is not Rome who is providing the “spin,” but rather Bishop Fellay himself who is providing it.

9. Hello Katherine.
   Look on the “CONTACT” heading at the top of this page. (last heading/ far right)
   Click into that, and there is an address for you to send a check.

10. Here is an extract from a recent interview given by Bishop Fellay regarding his discussions with Pope Francis. The website is in Spanish, so the American flag icon near the top of the page will need to be clicked to translate it into English.

    http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/01/mons-fellay-listo-para-el-acuerdo.html

    Here are two paragraphs from the interview. Bishop Fellay said:

    “[This is] precisely this set of issues on which we discuss. This is the first part. The second part is that there is a rick of schism, of establishing a parallel Church. I have evoked the problem with the same pope, Pope Francis, and we both agree.”

    “There are a number of practical dispositions that make schism practically impossible, that is to say in practice, in the acts of every day, we express to Rome, we show our submission, we recognize these authorities. And not only in the Mass [we] are saying the name of the Pope and the bishops of the place in the canon of the Mass, we also have the beautiful example of the Pope who give us the power to confess and also to [legal] acts.”
    ——
    So, IMO, from reading the above, it seems that Bishop Fellay is worried that the SSPX will fall into schism and he has brought this concern to the Pope, and the Pope agrees (well, of course he does!). I suppose that Bishop Fellay’s ultimate remedy for not falling into schism is to reconcile with the Modernists (who are themselves actually schismatics). So bizarre.

    And lastly, bishop Fellay is citing the “beautiful” example of the pope who gives them the power to confess. But the SSPX has always relied on supplied jurisdiction to hear confessions. Bishop Fellay seems to have forgotten this in his lofty submission to the Modernist Pope.

11. You took the words out of my mouth on this one. Thanks.

12. Archbishop Lefebvre interview:

    Fideliter: Some people say, “Yes, but His Grace should have accepted a settlement with Rome, because once the Society was recognised and the suspensions were lifted he would have been able to act more effectively within the Church, whereas now he has put himself outside it.”
    Lefebvre: These things are easy to say. What is meant by “acting within the Church?” In the first place, what Church are we talking about? If it’s the Conciliar Church, then it means those of us who have fought against it for the past twenty years because we want to remain Catholic, now joining it, supposedly in order to catholicize it. This is a total illusion. Superiors are not molded by their subjects, but subjects by their superiors. In the present Roman Curia, and among all the progressive bishops in the world, I should have disappeared from sight and my voice would have been drowned. I shouldn’t have been able to accomplish anything, nor to protect the faithful and seminarians. Rome would have said to us, “Right, you can have Bishop So-and-So to perform your ordinations, and your seminarians will have to accept professors from Such-and-Such a diocese.” Impossible! The Society of St. Peter has professors from the diocese of Augsburg. What sort of professors are they? What do they teach?

    Fideliter: Are you not afraid that in the long run, after you have gone to your reward, the split will slowly widen to give the impression of an “alternative Church” running parallel to what some call the “visible Church”?
    Lefebvre: Dom Gerard’s and Monsieur Madiran’s talk of the “visible Church” is childish. It is incredible that anyone can speak of the Conciliar Church as the “visible Church” in opposition to the Catholic Church, which we are trying to embody and continue. I do not say that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said that. Nobody can accuse me of ever having imagined I was a pope. We are, however, faithful representatives of the Catholic Church as she used to be, because we are still doing what she has always done. It is we who have the marks of the visible Church unity, catholicity, apostolicity, and holiness. They are what distinguishes the visible Church.

13. “At the very least, one cannot help but wonder if in fact he is a legitimate pope.”
    –
    If one doesn’t really understand the theology involved, one cannot help but wonder about a lot of things. But the mind should not wander forever: It must find truth and then close on it, to paraphrase Chesterton. Those who are familiar with what every Catholic theologian has taught on the matter (and are guided by intellect ahead of will) know that there is no possible way that a pope can be deposed (by Christ, who is always the efficient cause of such a deposition) before, at the very least, he has been condemned as pertinacious in heresy *by the Church* after ignoring formal warnings. But, Pope Francis has not even been formally warned.
    –
    “The Society of St. Pius X has never been anything other than in ‘full communion’ with the Church; their relationship with Eternal Rome unquestioned.”
    –
    As an SSPX Mass-goer for nearly four years now, I must report that this is not entirely accurate (though the phrase “full communion” is an undefined novelty). The Society does not have regular canonical status: That is a fact. However, it’s completely correct that this is due only to the fact that the modernist churchmen who currently occupy the places of authority have deemed it so, unjustly. Yet the fact remains.
    –
    “I think it’s fair to say that the Society’s public response to date has lacked, shall we say, the kind of Apostolic zeal that one might have expected given the offensiveness of the heresies and blasphemies in question.”
    –
    I guess Louie means he’s disappointed that Bishop Fellay has not denounced Francis as an anti-pope, based on – by definition – private judgement, and in contradiction to every theologian who ever uttered a single word regarding how a heretical pope may be deposed from office.
    –
    Let’s take a look at what Bishop Fellay has said regarding Amoris Laetitia and see if it lacks “apostolic zeal”:
    –
    “Because of its search for a pastoral practice based on mercy, the document is in some places ***marred by subjectivism and moral relativism***. Objective rules are replaced, ***in Protestant fashion***, by the individual’s conscience. This poison is in part attributable to personalism, which, in the matter of pastoral care of families, no longer places the gift of life and the good of the family first and foremost, but rather the personal fulfillment and spiritual development of the spouses. On this subject we can only deplore once again the inversion of the ends of marriage sketched out in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes of the Second Vatican Council, an inversion that is found again in Amoris Laetitia. The so-called ‘law of gradualness’ ***turns Catholic morality upside down***.”
    –
    And this “lacks apostolic zeal” – how? Does any Catholic in their right mind not understand that attributing to a papal document “moral relativism,” accusing it of operating “in Protestant fashion,” and of “turning Catholic morality upside-down” is about as damning a condemnation as could be imagined?
    –
    Oh, but Bishop Fellay has not gone about raving that Pope Francis is an antipope. Ok; all is clear now.

14. Nice 2 cents. I agree. And I am sorry to say it as well.

15. Yes, there is a very good reason. SSPX is already The Church and has been all along. But if those who attend illicit, if not invalid, NO Masses in real estate owned by what used to be the Church perceived a “regularized” SSPX being the real church, it means that 10, or 100 or 1,000 or a million souls that would otherwise be lost might just go to an SSPX parish or chapel and truly become Catholics whose souls are saved. Do you really think attending the typical NO parish today under the direction of apostate bishops and an anti-pope will lead souls to heaven? If there was any doubt before, there no longer should be that SSPX is, indeed, the remnant and that Archbishop Lefebvre was a modern day Athanasius…and saint in waiting.

16. Can you cite where Bishop Fellay states the above quote? Is it an official statement? Because if it isn’t, then it may have been missed by a lot of people.

17. Thanks for posting this historic letter! Pax Christi

18. Good day LV,
    “… there can be no reason for Bishop Fellay to refrain any longer from plainly condemning Amoris Laetitia in its entirety in no uncertain terms; denouncing in particular the specific heresies and blasphemies that it contains.”

    Roger that! And what of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI? How can he remain silent; how can his silence be rationalized and what are we to make of it?
    Pax Christi

19. “However, it’s completely correct that this is due only to the fact that the modernist churchmen who currently occupy the places of authority have deemed it so, unjustly.”

    Cath Thinker would have us believe that heretics (modernist churchmen) occupy places of authority in a church in which they are not a member of. This is basically the RR position and it makes no logical sense whatsoever.

20. Thank you Servant of Our Lady. Don’t know why I didn’t think to check the Contact link. 🙂

21. It’s amazing isn’t it? Then they expect heretics and apostates to teach, preach, and act as if they are faithful sons of the Church, wringing their hands with disbelief while continually criticizing everything the “authorities” of the Church do!

22. top8305: You mean that Benedict who handed a communion wafer to the leader of the Taize community at JPII’s funeral? A non-Catholic receiving communion from the hands of a “pope”?????

    Or that Benedict who never abrogated his predecessor’s, JPII, Code of Canon Law #844, paragraphs #3 and #4 that allowed the partaking of Communion to NON-CATHOLICS and SCHISMATICS?

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

    Then, JPII reaffirmed this impious and sacrilegious law in his encyclical “Ecclesia De Eucharistia” (N. 45):

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

23. A Catholic Thinker: Did Fellay ever make a statement on JPII’s Code of Canon Law, #845, paragraphs #3 and #4, that allows NON-CATHOLICS to partake in Communion? The ridiculous claim for this sacrilege is “to meet a grave spiritual need for their eternal salvation”. (JPII’s encyclical “Ecclesia de Eucharistia”, No. 45) –

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

    In other words, Christ must approve of the rejection of His true teachings by heretics and schismatics while Sacred Scripture warning of the unworthy participation in this most Holy Sacrifice has absolutely NO MEANING, at least to JPII.

24. Archbishop Lefebvre:
    “You know that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion to a protestant. It is what they call eucharistic hospitality. These are protestants who remain protestant and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To give Communion to a protestant is to rupture the Faith and its unity.”

25. This post is completely sane and logical.

    The thoughts that come to my kind are as follows:

    If Bp Fellay cannot speak the Truth to the people regarding AL or any other subject of such gravity, then that should give him his answer right there.

    I shudder at what priests will have to answer for before Our Lord when it comes to having remained silent for fear of reprisals of any sort whatsoever. Easy for me to say, but still.

26. Archbishop Lefebvre:
    “There will be possibly other manifestations of putting the brakes on by the Vatican; and it is very, very dangerous for us to “rally” ourselves now. No rallying, no rallying to the liberals; no rallying to the ecclesiastics who are governing in the Church now and who are liberals; there is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us on the Mass of St. Pius V – certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually.
    A bishop could say to you, “I will incardinate you into my diocese. I will give you the Mass of St. Pius V; you will say it, but obviously, in your new parish, the New Mass will be said also. Well, you will also have to be willing to give Communion in the hand; what you need now is just a little practice. You will have to say the Mass facing the people because the people are used to that. You understand, you cannot do otherwise. And then, lastly, and above all, you have to accept the Council, do you not, with all the consequences that that represents, with its ideas.”
    That is not possible! One cannot come to terms like that! That they give us back everything. That they give up their liberalism, that they come back to the real truth of the Church, to the faith of the Church, to the basic principles of the Church, of this total dependence of society, of families, of individuals on Our Lord Jesus Christ! At that moment when they give us the Mass of all times, very well, then, we are completely in agreement. Then there will be a perfect understanding, we will be able to be recognized, and we will have no more scruples.
    But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas. So, from my point of view, it is not a question of doing whatever one can. Those who would have a tendency to want to accept that will end up being recycled.”

27. “One wonders why Louie even ponders the question of SSPX “regularization” in the first place. If Francis is not the Pope, then he does not have the authority to grant the Society any “recognition” whatsoever. Moreover, seeing how you cannot give what you do not possess, how can a Pope utterly devoid of justice perform an act of justice? How can a Pope who, according to Verrechio, is not Catholic recognize a group of priests as Catholic and in possession of the Faith? It seems to us that Mr. Verrechio’s own logic undercuts his arguments.” https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/akaconfused/

28. “it must be noted that if Rome “formally recognizes” the SSPX as “entirely Catholic” then Rome ipso facto declares that she herself does not have the Faith, thus ushering in a situation whereby a non-Catholic organization has somehow recognized a group of priests as “entirely Catholic.” Indeed, the Conciliar Church, represented by Modernist Rome, and the Catholic Church, which, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, is what the SSPX represents, are two diametrically opposed institutions holding diametrically opposed doctrines, sacraments, liturgies and, well, Faiths. Any Conciliar Church “recognition” of the Catholicity of the SSPX that does not involve a rejection of the principles of the Conciliar Church is no act of justice.” https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/akaconfused/

29. Archbishop Lefebvre:
    “This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic. In the measure in which the Pope, the bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church of today is the true Church only in the measure in which it continues and is one with the Church of yesterday and of always. The norm for the Catholic faith is Tradition.”

30. By the way, they’re talking about you over at Suscipe Domine. I think a whole thread has been started about you.

    http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16848.msg370891#msg370891

31. Of late, I have tried to honestly follow A Catholic Thinker’s enormous posts to see things how he sees things. I want to understand the postion. Yet, when the tens upon tens of thousands of words he has written here are all boiled down, his position comes to this:

    The Catholic Church is an unreliable and dangerous institution which can either teach truth or error; can give good and give evil; can lead souls to Heaven or to hell.

    The Papacy and the hierarchy are less than useless; an utter danger to the Faith. It is up to the layman in the pew to sift and weigh everything that comes from the Magisterium. Keep what is Catholic, toss out what is not.

    The key to knowing whether something is infallible or not, is not based upon the office of the one giving it. No, the correct method is to check to see if it lines up with a previous infallible teaching, which is in its own turn tested for infallibility based upon whether that teaching itself lines up with an even earlier teaching.

    Since this is the way it is now, then it is the way the Church must have always operated since the Apostles. If A Catholic Thinker was around in earlier times, he would have to sift and weigh St Peter or St Pius X.

    It comes down to the individual to decide which teachings from the dangerous and unreliable Magisterium are Catholic, and therefore infallible, and those which are not, and therefore to be rejected.

    I don’t know if you saw my other post, but they started a thread about you at Suscipe Domine, and I thought you might be interested in it: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16848.0

32. Do you support idea of the SSPX reconciling with Rome?

33. Paragraph 52.

    “No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality.”

    What irony.

    The Novus Ordo was “entrusted” to our hands. By whom? Bugnini and his 1960’s cronies, who were far superior to everyone else, and knew much, so, so much, more about everything than anyone.

34. Not hard to find. Here’s one source:
    –
    http://www.onepeterfive.com/bishop-fellay-makes-statement-amoris-laetitia/

35. You are SUCH an amusing guy, Tom. You’ll hold on to your bumper sticker theology until the day you die, won’t you? In truth, you don’t understand – and appear to not want to understand – what the Catholic Church really teaches on membership and every other topic you comment on with respect to sedevacantism.
    –
    Who Is A Member Of The Visible Church?
    –
    Sedevacantists love to tell us that tell us that heretics aren’t Catholic, then tell us that any person can determine who is a heretic (without providing a definition of the term, generally), then tell us that if they (Mario Derkson or Fr. Cekaka or any of their followers) determine that a prelate is a heretic due to some statement, he is therefore not a Catholic at all, and thus can’t hold any office in the Catholic Church (especially that of Vicar of Christ). But is this based on real Catholic teaching?
    –
    The Catholic Church has both internal and external elements, that is, what have been termed the Soul and the Body (by St. Augustine, St. Bellarmine, Pope St. Pius Xth, and others). It is possible to be joined with one or the other but not both; a Catholic in good standing who is also in the state of grace is joined perfectly to both the Body and the Soul of the Church. What joins a person to the Soul of the Church are the internal bonds of faith, hope, charity, and sanctifying grace; what joins him to the Body, since this is the external and *visible* aspect of the Church, is also external and visible – and being joined to the Body IS what is meant by “membership in the Catholic Church.”
    –
    St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, is a theologian sedevacantists quote regularly (because they don’t understand or misrepresent some of his statements to fit their theology). What did he say regarding membership in the Church? Did he echo their ubiquitous teaching that anyone who commits the sin of heresy (or even less) ceases to be a member of the Catholic Church (and that anybody else can infallibly determine when another Catholic has committed that sin or fault)? No.
    –
    “This one and true Church is the assembly of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith and the communion of the same sacraments, **under the rule of the legitimate pastors, and especially that of the Roman Pontiff, the one Vicar of Christ on earth** [sedes, note this]. From this definition, it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which do not belong to it. There are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and the subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, “De Ecclesia Militante”, ch.2.)
    –
    In the same work, he explains the distinction of Soul & Body: “Augustine says… the Church is a living body, in which there is a Soul and a Body. The internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, charity, and the rest are the Soul. The external profession of the faith and the communication of the sacraments are the Body.”
    –
    Fr. Sylvester Berry, another renowned theologian sedes like to quote (selectively, as always), says essentially the same thing as St. Bellarmine in enumerating three conditions for membership in the Body, the visible Church: “…three conditions are absolutely necessary and of themselves sufficient for membership; viz.:
    (a) Initiation by baptism;
    (b) External profession of the true Faith ***which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church.***
    (c) Submission to the ruling authority of the Church.” (“The Church Of Christ,” 126)
    –
    Note how Fr. Berry defines external profession of the Faith: it is, per se, **submission to the Church as teacher and Mother.** This is very important, as sedes constantly insist that the mere uttering of a statement in conflict with a de fide teaching (or, frequently, even less than that) makes one a “heretic” and not a Catholic. This is, to be frank, nonsense.
    –
    As Fr. Berry notes above (and this was *not in contention, by any theologian*), the very nature of heresy is the rejection of the Church as the rule of faith: that the literal meaning of the word is “choosing” makes that clear. He says, further, in the same work: “A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to a revealed truth; **but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful**. A doctrine contrary to a revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, **but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation**. **A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings, is not a heretic**, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.”
    –
    Note that Fr. Berry is talking about *Catholics* above. This is important regarding the terminology, as we’ll see shortly.
    –
    Things are looking very bad for the sedes already: They insist that any baptized Catholic who merely speaks someone contrary to the faith (and this by their judgement) is a “heretic,” and, further, that this sin of heresy separates one from the Body of the Church. They say it over and over: “A heretic cannot be a member of the Church, much less its head; Pope X is/was a heretic.” Such thinking is absolutely contrary to the mind of the Church on these two major points: 1) That a “heretic” is any person who (judged by any person) merely says something contrary to the faith; 2) That the sin of heresy (sometimes even less than that, they say – even ignorant material heresy or lesser error) makes one a non-Catholic.
    –
    (Fr. Berry notes further that perfect observance of the three bonds of external unity (that which unites to the Body) is not necessary: “These conditions may be briefly summarized in one phrase: The reception of Baptism, and the preservation of the unities – unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government; or in other words, reception of Baptism and submission to the teaching and ruling authority of the Church. ***It should be noted, however, that perfect observance of the unities is not required for mere membership in the Church***; a person need not make an explicit profession of faith at all times; nor conform all his actions to it. He need not make a diligent use of the Sacraments at all times, neither must he be free from all infractions of Church laws and precepts.”)
    –
    (We can say that the material aspect of unity with the Body is profession of true doctrine, while the formal aspect is the adherence to the Church in principle as absolute rule of faith. Material errors or faults do not by any means necessarily destroy the formal aspect of unity, which is what is essential.)
    –
    To neuter of the silly, facile objection of, “these are only theologians,” we can quote the catechism of *The Council of Trent*: “A person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; ***but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church***, maintains an impious opinion with pertinacity.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 96) We’ve already had, in these spaces, “Cyprian” spitting upon this very definition of heresy, when it was referenced before. Now here it is straight out of Trent.
    –
    More references from esteemed theologians are available (from Cardinal Billot, for example) to demonstrate that merely uttering a heretical statement does not make one a *Catholic* a heretic – and that the sin of heresy does not severe one from the visible Body either (as noted above).
    –
    And now on to what seems to be a VERY common (and critical) misunderstanding among sedevacantists: The fact that “material heretic” is not, according to the language of the Church, a term that applies to Catholics *at all.* Rather, this phrase is used mean non-Catholics Christians: Protestants. (Above, “Cyprian” offered an entire treatise from Van Noort regarding the fact that material heretics are outside the Body of Christ, not understanding that he is speaking explicitly of Protestants, though it’s not really possible to miss that if you actually have the book in question and read it. That’s why proper understanding of this terminology is very important.)
    –
    A Protestant can have the theological virtue of Faith (and be bound to the Soul of the Church by desire, possibly), but he does not, by definition, have the external habit of Catholic faith, by definition. Nor can Catholics ever be called “material heretics” – that phrase applies to those outside the Body entirely (meaning Protestants, not Catholic). Cardinal Billot explains:
    –
    “Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently own; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule. So the heresy of material heretics is not imputable as sin, and indeed it is not necessarily incompatible with that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification… if you understand by the expression material heretic those alone, who, while professing subjection to the Church’s Magisterium in matters of faith, nevertheless still deny something defined by the Church because he did not know it was defined, or, by the same token, hold an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine because he falsely thinks that the Church teaches it, it would be quite absurd to place material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but on this understanding the legitimate use of the expression would be entirely perverted.” (“De Ecclesia Christi,” as quoted in “True Or False Pope,” p102-103.
    –
    Note what Cardinal Billot is saying here: 1) Material heretics, by definition, are in *invincible ignorance* about the true Church – thus it is beyond dispute that they are NOT (and never were) baptized Catholics; 2) Material heresy, by definition, *is not sin*; 3) If the phrase “material heretic” could apply to Catholics, it would be “absurd” to consider them outside the Church (did you hear that, Cyprian?); 4) The legitimate use of the term “material heretic” is thus restricted to non-Catholic Christians – Protestants.
    –
    Things get worse for sedevacantist novelty when we learn that Bellarmine taught that the interior virtue of faith is not necessary for Church membership, and that this is the common opinion of the Church (according to the esteemed theologian Msgr. Joseph Fenton for one). In fact, it seems that for any theologian who considered the effect on the Church’s visibility, the answer was clear: Faith cannot be a necessary attribute for membership because then *members of the Church are not visible.* We don’t want a Protestant definition of the Church, do we?
    –
    So, we see that sedevacantist insistence that the sin of heresy (or even less – what they mistakenly call “material heresy” of a Catholic) makes one a non-member of the Catholic Church is pure bunk. And this is far from the end of their problems: Note that every theologian describing the criteria for membership in the Church specifies submission to the supreme pontiff as necessary (at least formally; material resistance to non-binding error is another subject). The sedes, of course, deny that there IS a supreme pontiff, OR valid bishops with jurisdiction, or any visible Church at all now. The fact that this is regarded universally as a necessary criteria of membership in the Body is a large hint that sedevacantist ecclesiology is seriously broken: In fact, they have adopted a Protestant-style, heretical definition of the Church as an invisible body of scattered true believers (this is the subject of another essay).
    –
    The notion that stating a material error would instantly make one a non-Catholic is, in fact, preposterous, both based on reason and doctrine and the fact that it has been entirely obvious for 2,000 years that the Church does not operate that way. Many Catholics make statements, at one time or another, contrary to some de fide teaching, unintentionally; there is no pertinacity in error, no rejection of the Church as the rule of faith. The Church in no time has indicated such people are no longer Catholics, just as those temporarily failing one of the other three bonds of external unity (such as reception of the sacraments) are not suddenly excommunicated.
    –
    We could cite many historical examples, but a particularly good one has to do with St. Bellarmine himself, Doctor of the Church, who always considered a fellow theologian who had been teaching heresy for years, and been rebuked by the Holy See for it multiple times, as a Catholic in good standing, because he had not been condemned by the Church as a formal heretic and excommunicated. Another is the case of Pope St. Pius Xth declaring, in a specific case, that even family’s long-term attendance at Protestant services, instead of Mass, and public denial of Catholic dogma on the Eucharist, did not separate them from the Church; even that was not even to conclude they had left the Catholic faith because they continued to publicly profess that they were Catholics. Most certainly, today’s sedevacantists, with their entirely novel definitions of heresy and Church membership, would have a quite a difficult time getting their heads around how the sainted popes and doctors of the Church *really* treated towards even those Catholics openly professing heresy (but not indicating overtly they rejected the Church as the rule of faith). (If Steven Speray hears of the latter case he will likely declare Pope St. Pius Xth an antipope; he’s done the same with others for less than that.)
    –
    In short, sedevacantists generally make no distinction whatever between the Body and the Soul of the Church and simply have no idea what the Church teaches about membership in the Church. They take quotes regarding the sin of heresy causing the absence of Faith and the loss of sanctifying grace to mean lack of membership in the visible Body, which IS what the term “member of the Church” refers to.

36. What is the implicit logic behind your post here? If Bishop Fellay has not specifically condemned every single, specific novelty in existence since the council, he’s not – what – Catholic? Do you understand that this makes no sense, actually? And do you know ANYTHING about the SSPX, really?
    –
    (Hint: Yes, of course, the Society has spoken out regarding this travesty and all the aspects of false ecumenism.)

37. I’m only going to touch one part of this, for now.
    –
    “The key to knowing whether something is infallible or not, is not based upon the office of the one giving it. No, the correct method is to check to see if it lines up with a previous infallible teaching, which is in its own turn tested for infallibility based upon whether that teaching itself lines up with an even earlier teaching.”
    –
    How can you possibly such a ridiculous notion of how papal infallibly works? Honestly, this is absolutely amazing to me. In reality, de fide teachings of the Catholic Church are infallible, along with dogmatic facts (points of fact connected so closely to dogma they must be true) – nothing else is.
    –
    Surely you’re aware that Vatican II bound the faithful to no new doctrines? Even according to the promulgating pope? And that that’s not even *possible*, since, among other things, there are no documents with the precise, formal language of dogmatic definitions?
    –
    Here’s a bit of what the Church teaches about levels of assent owed to various types of teaching:
    –
    As quoted in Michael Davies’ Pope John’s Council, Dom Paul Nau. O.S.B., “cites a number of authors regarding the attitude Catholics should have towards statements of the Ordinary Magisterium: ‘…that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, ***unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty of involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught.***'”
    –
    No less an authority than Dr. Ludwig Ott (author of the seminal work Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) notes that, “The ordinary and usual form of papal teaching activitiy is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless, normally they are to be accepted with an inner assert which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called silentium obsequiosum, that is ‘reverent silence’, does not generally suffice. ***By way of exception the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives with a positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.***”
    –
    According to your logic all the Arian bishops were false bishops too, etc., even though no one in the history of the Church has ever hinted at such things.
    –
    Papal Subject, you show good faith. You don’t strike me as one of those sedes or borderline sedes just twisted with spite over these prelates that offend us. Please, give this some more effort.
    –
    You’re SSPX, and the SSPX are not sedevacantist. I’ve asked you this many times: Why don’t you talk to your priest?

38. Archbishop Lefebvre was speaking materially rather than formally in that well-known quote. Of course he understood that, formally, the Church was exactly what it always had been, since there’s no way things can be any different. That is why he always recognized the pope, met with him or his representatives in good faith, and never claimed jurisdiction for his Society. To contradict any of these would have been to become schismatic.
    –
    Also that opening quote is idiotic.

39. The SSPX that article the ridiculous One Peter Five blog links to has a problem or two. For one thing, it’s a sermon to the faithful that Bishop Fellay is giving. Bishop Fellay says at the end of the sermon…”We humbly but firmly implore the Holy Father to revise the exhortation Amoris Laetitia, most especially chapter 8.”

    That’s as detailed that Bishop Fellay gets about the document. Nowhere in the sermon does he mention any specific problematic parts of Amoris Laetitia. It’s an overly sweet and charitable attempt at correction which is unbefitting a spiritual son of Archbishop Lefebvre. Did Bishop Fellay even send it to the Pope?

40. “Because of its search for a pastoral practice based on mercy, the document is in some places ***marred by subjectivism and moral relativism***. Objective rules are replaced, ***in Protestant fashion***, by the individual’s conscience. This poison is in part attributable to personalism, which, in the matter of pastoral care of families, no longer places the gift of life and the good of the family first and foremost, but rather the personal fulfillment and spiritual development of the spouses. On this subject we can only deplore once again the inversion of the ends of marriage sketched out in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes of the Second Vatican Council, an inversion that is found again in Amoris Laetitia. The so-called ‘law of gradualness’ ***turns Catholic morality upside down***.”
    –
    To repeat: Does any Catholic in their right mind not understand that attributing to a papal document “moral relativism,” accusing it of operating “in Protestant fashion,” and of “turning Catholic morality upside-down” is about as damning a condemnation as could be imagined? What do you want? Who are you to criticize Bishop Fellay?

41. Correction: “The SSPX article that the ridiculous One Peter Five blog links to has a problem or two.”

42. A WHOLE THREAD? On one of the Internets? I’ve made the big-time.

43. That’s a very good quote from the Archbishop. When was the last time Bishop Fellay referred to the “conciliar church?” It seem he rarely mentions it anymore.

44. “Because of its search for a pastoral practice based on mercy, the document is in some places ***marred by subjectivism and moral relativism***. Objective rules are replaced, ***in Protestant fashion***, by the individual’s conscience. This poison is in part attributable to personalism, which, in the matter of pastoral care of families, no longer places the gift of life and the good of the family first and foremost, but rather the personal fulfillment and spiritual development of the spouses. On this subject we can only deplore once again the inversion of the ends of marriage sketched out in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes of the Second Vatican Council, an inversion that is found again in Amoris Laetitia. The so-called ‘law of gradualness’ ***turns Catholic morality upside down***.”
    –
    Really, only Catholics simply out for blood and fed by emotion call this “lacking zeal.”

45. What you’re hearing? From whom? Are you an SSPX Mass-goer?
    –
    This is the farthest thing from true in our chapel. We get the Catholic Faith there, in full, all the time, as well as completely accurate and satisfactory explanations and denunciations of the modernist errors of the post-conciliar period.
    –
    We’re not out for blood, though. We just want to raise our children in the true, full faith and be the best Catholics we can do. As for the vocal minority of malcontents, what they seem to want is to whine and condemn rather than to think and pray.

46. Addendum: The whiny, aggressive malcontents tend to spend LOTS of time on the internet.
    –
    (NOW AIN’T THAT THE POT CALLIN’ THE KETTLE BLACK, “CATHOLIC THINKER”?!)

47. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of the SSPX:
    “* The Catholic Church is the society of the baptised who want to save their souls in professing the Catholic faith, in practising the same Catholic worship and in following the same pastors, successors of the Apostles.

    * The conciliar church is the society of the baptised who follow the directives of the current Popes and bishops, in espousing more or less consciously the intention to bring about the unity of the human race, and in practise accepting the decisions of the Council, following the new liturgy and submitting to the new Code of Canon law.
    If this be so, we have two churches who have the same heads and most of the same members, but who have different forms and ends diametrically incongruous: on the one hand eternal salvation seconded by the social reign of Christ, King of Nations, on the other hand the unity of the human race by liberal ecumenism, that is to say broadened to all religions, the heir of the conciliar decisions of Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Ætate, and Dignitatis Humanae, and which is the spirit of Assisi and the antithesis of the social reign of Christ the King (…)”

48. Actually, Lefebvre believed there to be a clear distinction between the Conciliar and Catholic Church, and said so on many occasions. The SSPX used to talk make the distinction as well. See here https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/what-conciliar-church/

    Also, Bishop Tissier quoted Lefebvre on the difference on multiple occasions in a 2013 he wrote on the matter. See here http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

    Lefebvre: “How could it be more clear?! From now on it is the conciliar church one must obey and be faithful to , and not to the Catholic Church. This is precisely our problem. We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church, of which we do not want to be a part. This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time. It has it’s new dogmas, it’s new priesthood, it’s new institutions, it’s new liturgy, already condemned by the Church in many official and definitive documents. This is why the founders of the conciliar church insist on obedience to the church of today, making abstraction of the Church of yesterday, as if it didn’t exist anymore. […] The church which affirms such errors is at one and the same time heretical and schismatic. This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic. In the measure in which the Pope, the bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church of today is the true Church only in the measure in which it continues and is one with the Church of yesterday and of always. The norm for the Catholic faith is Tradition.”
    —
    The quote is “idiotic”? How so? Louie does not believe the Pope to be Catholic. How can a non-Catholic Pope “recognize” a group of priests “as Catholic”? The SSPX is the antithesis of Vatican II Catholicism. An imposter conciliar Church following ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality recognizing the SSPX “as Catholic” makes no sense.

49. Archbishop Lefebvre:
    “(…) But with regard to infallibility one needs to remember what Fr. Dulac expressed so perceptively when speaking of Paul VI: “When, in the history of the Church, there were several popes at once, one could choose one’s pope, but now we have two popes in one.” We do not have a choice. It is a fact that nowadays we have ‘double-headed’ popes. To the extent that he represents the tradition of the papacy, the tradition of infallibility, we are at one with the pope. We remain attached to him as continuing the succession of Peter, and on account of the promise of infallibility made to him. It is we who still uphold his infallibility. He, on the other hand, even if from certain aspects, ontologically speaking he can be said to embody infallibility, is formally opposed to it because he just doesn’t want to know about it anymore. He doesn’t believe in it, and none of his official pronouncements or documents bears the marks of infallibility. That’s why they insisted that Vatican II be a pastoral and not a dogmatic council; because they don’t believe in infallibility. They don’t want any defined truths. Truth has to be ‘living’ and ‘evolving;’ possibly it will change to keep in step with history, science, etc. Infallibility, however, permanently establishes a formula and a truth which can never change, and that they cannot believe. We are the ones who believe in infallibility, not the Conciliar Church. It is absolutely certain that the Conciliar Church is opposed to it.
    Cardinal Ratzinger is against infallibility, and so, due to his philosophical grounding, is the Pope.
    Let us be quite clear: we are not opposed to the Pope as standing for all the unchanging values of the Apostolic See, the See of Peter, but to the modernist Pope who does not believe in his own infallibility and who practises ecumenism. Obviously we are against the Conciliar Church, which for all practical purposes is schismatic, even if it refuses to recognise the fact. In reality it is virtually excommunicated because it is a modernist church. And those are the people who excommunicate us for wishing to remain Catholic. We want to stay united to the Catholic Pope and the Catholic Church. That is the difference. Monsieur Madiran is well aware of the situation, yet he claims we are not the visible Church, that in fact we are diverging from the visible Church, which has the gift of infallibility. Such a claim is in variance with the facts.”

50. When was the last time the Vatican used the phrase? That’s where it come from, and that’s why Archbishop Lefebvre used it. Again, this is a material, not formal, distinction.

51. How do you know what he’s said or sent to the pope? Is he supposed to tell you? The Society has been entirely clear regarding the novelties in the post-conciliar Church since day one. Who the heck are you to tell Bishop Fellay how he should interact with the pope and what he should make public?
    –
    What, pray tell, is “ridiculous” about 1P5?
    –
    What’s your affiliation? Sede? “Resistance”? SSPX Mass-goer who makes subjective judgements about bishops on the internet?
    –
    (This is another bad aspect to the crisis: Many layman now know NO bounds of what they will say about a bishop – even one of the bishops who’s devoted his life to fighting Vatican II’s novelties – publicly.)

52. +Lefebvre:
    “Cardinal Ratzinger told me during our discussions with him in Rome that if, with a view to a settlement, permission was given for the old liturgy to be used at Saint Nicholas, there would have to be New Rite Masses there also. That shows perfectly clearly how they are thinking. There is no question for them of giving up the New Mass, but obviously quite the opposite. That is why what may appear to be a concession is in fact nothing but a maneuver to enable them to separate as many faithful as possible from us. It is with this end in view that they seem always to be giving a little more, and going a long way towards meeting us. It is vital for us to convince the faithful that it really is a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself in the hands of the conciliar bishops and modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger which threatens them. We have not fought for 20 years to avoid the errors of the Council only to deliver ourselves now into the hands of those who profess them.”

53. We use it because the Archbishop, Bishop Tissier, Fr Scott, Bishop Fellay, Fr Siimoulin, Fr. Schimdberger, etc. etc. all have used it over the past thirty years and have defined it for us https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/what-conciliar-church/

54. It’s important to be aware that post-Vatican II churchmen in “full communion” coined the term – not that it is not fitting, in the material sense.

55. You completely ignored the material vs. formal distinction, which is critical. Again, obviously, Archbishop Lefebvre was quite aware that the pope was still the pope and the hierarchy he led still the Catholic Church (which +Lefebvre and the Society were and are a part of). That is why he treated the pope like the pope, called him the pope, never claimed jurisdiction, and more. I’m not implying you necessarily contest these things (I don’t know).
    –
    I’m well aware of what Louie believes regarding the pope – though he still actually couches everything in some film of ambiguity. If your point was that, from Louie’s point of view, it should make no difference if the Society is given recognition, you’re right, and that’s quite a good point. Apologies for the “idiotic” comments; I might have unpacked that wrong.

56. A Catholic Thinker,
    Doesn’t Our Lord predict a reduction in numbers in the Great Apostasy, which aligns with the sedevacantist’s saying the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church?

    “However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” -Jesus Christ, Luke 18:8

    Also, how can you believe Benedict XVI was a true pope when you see two minutes of the following (watch 8:40 – 10:21)?

    https://youtu.be/rkPiaS1z6Vs?t=8m40s

    Finally, what about St. Bernardino of Siena?

    <> (source: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/E-Exchanges.php)

57. Sorry, it took out the quote:
    “St.Bernardino of Siena would have 100% agreed with Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum (#9)

    St.Bernardino was arguably the most famous preacher of the 15th century. Here is a quote that refutes the modernist heretics who claim one needs a trial or declaratory sentence from the Church for someone to be officially a heretic.

    “I tell you whenever you depart from this faith, you are a heretic.” – St.Bernardino [The Preacher’s Demons, p.82]

    Also: “… Bernardino did not hesitate to publicly denounce specific individuals whose views he judged heretical. This he would do even before an official ecclesiastical investigation could begin…” [ibid, 82]

    Louie” (source: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/E-Exchanges.php)

58. Amen.

59. I stand inspired by the Society of Pope Saint Pius X. As everyone has tried to rationalize and interpret the catastrophe of Vatican (which was needed at the exact time to eradicate the Modernist influence and infiltration of the Church), it rather opened the doors and welcomed them. While aggiornamento distracted us to the windows to “let in the fresh air”, we neglected to notice what was happening at the doors of Saint Peter’s. One was so convinced of the error of the Council, that he alone stood up and corrected its errors. 60 years later, the Church has obviously been ravished by its directions. A canon lawyer once noted that so many nuns were leaving their communities because those societies were no longer what they had originally joined. For those of us old enough to remember, this is certainly not the Church that we well knew before the Council. The accidents are familiar, but the essence has changed in the transition. Even up to this morning and every morning, something else is noted that just continues to add to our certainty and ongoing disappointment in the evident misdirection of our beloved Church.
    As the Vatican continues to run after every pastoral misconception and ecumenical fantasy, they continue to run farther away. With each day it only gets more unfaithful to our Tradition. I can’t see how becoming a Prelature is going to in any way resolve anything. Its erection would only be political and not truly doctrinal. What was rejected 60 years ago, has only intensified with time. The reason to return has become 100 times more skeptical. Back in the dark ages, monasteries saved that which was faithful to the Church. It reminds me of “Shangri-la” which reflects the modernist trend even back then. All that was needed was “moderation” for the masses. So with each day, I ask myself, why I have not made the move to this Society. It is not a question of what is liturgical, though that is certainly a part, but doctrinal. Pope Francis spoke this morning about the commandments and freedom. Once again we have misunderstanding coming from his sermon. Since the truth shall set us free, there is but one place that we can be certain to find it. May the Society hold to its principles and its faith.

60. In paragraph #52, he is speaking of the abuses in the liturgy. He states: “I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject.”
    This was promulgated in April, 2003. Notice how the bishops have ignored both this encyclical and whatever the instructions were in the document prepared by the Roman Curia he claimed to have asked to have been prepared to end these abuses, as the abuses have not only continued, but are worse than in 2003.
    But really, why would the bishops heed anything he said about stopping the liturgical abuses when he, himself, was a party to and promoter of the most evil, sacrilegious and demonic liturgical “celebrations” publicly recorded for the world to see?

61. This is simply ignored or forgotten by everyone it seems when it is clearly the most evil and blasphemous law that could ever have been promulgated.

62. He clearly understood that compromising with the Devil ends up rejecting the true faith. And he clearly understood how the machinations of the Modernists were asking for this compromise.

63. A voice of common sense. Thank you Petrus Romanus. You have pointed out the facts clearly. A false pope has no authority.

64. Good one ACT! And congratulations on a post that is less than five thousand words! 😉

    I saw you over at the SD forums. I reckon you should frequent there, and not go away. There is a poster there called Nazianzen who tears up TOFP, and who is across everything you post here. He/she (probably a he though) seems to have read very widely and is a staunch and able defender of the sede position.

    It would be a great thing for you to test your thoughts against his. He will give you a good run for your money. I would be very interested to see how it goes. I know you’re busy, and so is everyone else, but the putting forth of both sides in public in a civilised and charitable manner is a worthy use of time.

65. Yes, a whole thread. That’s more than anyone has ever written about me, and I ma glad for it.

    I knew you could not resist having a look!

    I said somewhere else that I think you should stick around SD and check out Nazianzen’s posts.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    By the way, I think this is you?

    http://www.acatholicthinker.net/

66. Since, as you say, the Council and everything that follows it is non-binding, then this would include the new rites of Holy Orders invented in 1968.

    No could be bound to accept the radical changes as being valid sacramental forms, since they were not binding and therefore have no guarantee of validity or safety.

    So, like the heresies in Vatican II and the danger of the Novus Ordo, if one rejects them, one is not rejecting the Church as the rule of faith, because the Church has not made them law and bound us to accept them.

67. At least Louie is questioning the “regularization of the SSPX.” I call that that progress. A year ago he was in support an SSPX reconciliation. So lighten up a little, huh?

    Petrus Romanus, have you also posted on the other trad blogs, such as One Peter Five, to show why an SSPX regularization is wrong? I ask this because the One Peter Five Blog is very outspoken in their support of an SSPX regularization, and they don’t allow much disagreement with them on the matter. I know because I’ve had a lot of my posts removed there by the moderator. It’s like they are an official spokesman for the SSPX now. Louie, on the other hand, at least allows the subject to be discussed.

    I see that you’ve provided a link to a blog, and that link has also been posted on the ablf3 forum.

68. A Catholic Thinker,

    The SSPX doesn’t speak out so much anymore against the errors of the conciliar church. Bishop Fellay just doesn’t have his heart in it anymore to fight the good fight. He seems to want to throw in the towel.

    And yes, Bishop Fellay should confront the Pope directly about the heresies that the Pope has espoused. That’s the least he could do, but of course he will do no such thing.

    Bishop Fellay isn’t God, btw. He can make mistakes just like the rest of us. If you attend an SSPX chapel, then you are an example of how the SSPX is moving toward a Modernist understanding of the Church.

    IP5 is nothing more than fake news for fake trads. That sounds harsh, but it’s true.

69. if Bishop Fellay is so keen to regularize under the most extreme modernist anti-tradition Pope to ever occupied the seat of Peter, then really, there was no reason for Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate the four bishops, and therefore incur excommunication, right?

70. “So what’s the worst that can happen?”

    To say I’m shocked that YOU, Louie, would express such a sentiment, would be a gross understatement. In fact I thought you were joking, as in, ” what could possibly go wrong!, lol”
    Since you may not understand, consider this: the PROPERTY OF THE SOCIETY IS VALUED IN THE MILLIONS, mostly acquired by dint of great exertions by the traditional faithful for the purpose of sustaining the Faith. Upon an agreement with the heretics, ALL OF IT becomes subject to the thuggish whims of Bergoglio. You certainly don’t labor under the delusion that he will hesitate to turn any “uncooperative ” priests out, as he did with the FFI?!

71. No one addresses the fact that SSPX property will be subsumed into NO coffers and any priests who might refuse to bow to heresy would be turned out (as many who have been opposed to the great capitulation have already been). There is a resistance group of trads who saw the handwriting on the wall in 2012 . For respectfully expressing their concerns, they were ejected from their parishes. The thug like tactics of the NO are in use to silence defenders of the Faith already in the SSPX.

72. You are 100% correct. The SSPX leadership has bared its teeth towards all those who have been skeptical of this surrender to Conciliar authority. And no one addresses the fact that SSPX property will be subsumed into NO coffers and any priests who might refuse to bow to heresy would be turned out (as many who were opposed to the great capitulation have already been). There is a resistance group of trads who saw the handwriting on the wall in 2012 . For respectfully expressing their concerns, they were ejected from their parishes. The thug like tactics of the NO are in use to silence defenders of the Faith already in the SSPX.

73. Mr. “Catholic ” thinker, I cannot help but note your unconcealed contempt for opinions at variance with your own, and also those who espouse them. Your pompous manner of expression is also unmistakably arrogant. If you could deign to allow for the possibility that you don’t know EVERYTHING, perhaps a fruitful discussion could take place. But your assumption of the mantle of omniscience is hardly conducive to respectful discourse.

74. @Mary I love her
    Thank you for putting that before the public once more. It reminds us what a truly faithful defense of the truth and Holy Mother the Church looks like. Seems to me, Bp Fellay could benefit from a reminder.

75. @maryiloveher
    Thank you again. Your comments cut through all the disparaging remarks of the Vichy- conservative contingent.

76. @”Catholic” thinker
    Dishonesty is unbecoming a professed God-fearing Christian. The article you cite does not state what you claim.

77. @Petrus Romanus
    What a very important point you make!

78. “Archbishop Lefebvre was speaking materially rather than formally…”
    So, that being the case, +Fellay should only enter a material agreement with Rome, not a formal one.

79. Well this is the corner the society has painted itself into since keeping of the opinion that modernist rome is somehow the Catholic Church.

80. Are you some kind of complete idiot? I copied the quotes directly from the piece.
    –
    Calumny isn’t becoming of a “Christian.” What are you talking about?

81. The subject was doctrine, not discipline.
    –
    I think you know very little to nothing regarding sacramental rites other than what you’ve read on sede websites.
    –
    Please post specific reasons (and, if you can, don’t copy them directly from sede websites) you find one or more rites to be “invalid,” and I’ll respond.

82. Where did you come from? You called me a liar above for quoting directly from an article I referenced.
    –
    Your opinion regarding my personality is noted & filed. I’ve been dealing with the same people here, generally, for some time, and it is my humble opinion that intellectual dishonesty is, to some extent, rather endemic to dogmatic sedevacantism.
    –
    (Just FYI, I get quite a bit of private support regarding my comments here. I’ve even been informed that family members of a prominent sedevacantist leader have been swayed by things I’ve posted here. Now, I deserve no credit myself: The heavy lifting on the topic has been done by others.)
    –
    Question for you: WHAT’S YOUR AFFILIATION? Sede-vacantist? I think it would make sense for you to state that before commenting further for the sake of your credibility.

83. I just noticed you put “Catholic” in quotes, as if to imply that I am not, in fact, Catholic – LOL. Who do you think you think you’re fooling?

84. “Also, how can you believe Benedict XVI was a true pope when you see two minutes of the following” – thanks for laying bare the nature of sedevacantism. How can any Catholic who knows the first thing about the faith and has a brain think that THEY can determine which pope (elected by the Catholic Church and accepted by the Catholic Church – the very same visible, hierarchical Body that Christ founded on Peter) is really a pope, and which is not – by watching him?
    –
    Where did you get the idea that all popes are personally impeccable, free from sin, or even free from doctrinal impurity?
    –
    It wasn’t from studying the history of the Church or reading her theologians.
    –
    (Ok – there has been the minority opinion that a pope could not fall in to formal heresy. But, that hasn’t occurred yet anyway – in the case of a bishop it is the Church that judges pertinacity.)

85. You know what I’d love to see? You and Bishop Fellay standing before the Throne together, each giving his full account.

86. So you’ve seen the agreement, in writing? You’re fully aware of what legal arrangements might be in place? How did you glean such information, and why are you keeping it to yourself?

87. Why is it so many people in this world think they are qualified to speak on matters they know nothing about? Are you aware of the virtue of prudence?
    –
    Look, if you think that Bishop Fellay is going to sign an agreement that will give the Vatican the power to gut the Society, take control of its property, or anything of the sort, I don’t know what to say. Not all of this is public by a longshot, but Bp. Fellay HAS made it clear, publicly, that a non-negotiable condition is that they remain autonomous.
    –
    Another is that they not be required to accept that assertion that the Vatican II documents are pristine on the whole.
    –
    As to your rhetorical question: If Archbishop Lefebvre had not performed the consecrations, the Society would not now exist. Can’t you understand that canonical recognition is a *victory*? It is exactly what he wanted and all he ever wanted.
    –
    God works in mysterious ways (yet He doesn’t “surprise” us with new doctrine 🙂 ). Pope Francis being the quintissential Vatican II pontiff, and yet the one to regularize the Society, could well be in the cards, and if the terms are appropriate, a victory in every sense.

88. The staunchler and abler a defender of the sede position, the worse the confusion, or the more skilled the sophistry, or both.
    –
    I can’t really cover all the Internets all by myself.

89. I see you’ve copied the same post multiple times. I’ll start by copying mine:
    –
    “So you’ve seen the agreement, in writing? You’re fully aware of what legal arrangements might be in place? How did you glean such information, and why are you keeping it to yourself?”
    –
    For the audience, anyone who refers to any element of the SSPX as “thugs” knows nothing about it or is something akin to the stereotypical bitter, angry “trad” (AKA Catholic). What me & my family get at our Society chapel, for nearly four years now, is the Catholic faith whole & inviolate in every sense, as in the kind of Catholic praxis & spirit I can readily recognize in the writings of the saints. Believe you me that modernist errors are explained in no uncertain terms, at times, when necessary, but by no means is this ALL our priest harps on (that’s basically what the “Resistance” wants).
    –
    A couple weeks ago, our priest, in his sermon, recommended that we do not watch football on TV, in part due to the scantily-clad cheerleaders. How’s that for a real moral challenge in today’s world? (This was a win/win for me since I already hate professional sports.)
    –
    The “Resistance” is basically a cult-of-personality around Bp. Williamson. Its adherents live by red herrings, ad hominems, and calumny – a little bit like the sede vacantist enterprise, come to think of it. It began when Bp. Williamson was expelled (a tragedy in a sense – he’s definitely a brilliant man and has contributed much).
    –
    It’s those who want “no dialog” that betray the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre, who never failed to engage in dialog. That’s because he wasn’t a schismatic: He was always painfully aware that *formal* separation from the supreme pontiff IS SCHISM and that no irregular canonical situation can last forever.

90. “Bishop Fellay just doesn’t have his heart in it anymore to fight the good fight. He seems to want to throw in the towel.” Again, your comments fly in the face of reality. He’s called out AL in the harshest (for Catholics!) terms.
    –
    You seem to want him to jump up & down and hyperventilate.
    –
    “Bishop Fellay isn’t God, btw. He can make mistakes just like the rest of us.”
    –
    Of course he can. And good Catholics know they don’t call out bishops publicly unless they’re teaching error or sinning publicly – they don’t judge the internal forum, as you are quite plainly doing.
    –
    “If you attend an SSPX chapel, then you are an example of how the SSPX is moving toward a Modernist understanding of the Church.”
    –
    LOL! Now I’m a MODERNIST? Here’s your homework: Provide the definition of modernism and your proof that I subscribe to its errors, publicly, which is what would be necessary for you to avoid the sin of calumny in this public statement.
    –
    “IP5 is nothing more than fake news for fake trads. That sounds harsh, but it’s true.”
    –
    This may also sound harsh but is true: You’re behaving like a fool. 1P5 quotes Bp. Fellay directly and you discount it? I could say many things here, but I’ll refrain.

91. Dear Papal Subject

    What is the link to the SD forum?

92. Yeah, as a sede Im SO CONFUSED (please). Keep defending the legitimacy of the current heretic/usurper in office. If souls werent going to hell based on his universal teachings (which are infallible if he were a real pope, and which Catholics would then have to abide by), your defense of him and his joke church would be comical.

93. Hi PL,
    –
    The identity of the person you refer to is known to all (on this side of the fence). He is a notorious sedevacantist who operates a website (using his real name).
    –
    There are a number of blatant falsehoods in what he writes, filled with the usual sede sophism. One of the falsehoods is a lie he’s been repeating for some time in one form or another that the SSPX’s endorsement of the book has changed or was never present. Anyone familiar with the fact would know that is absolutely false, and preposterous. (For starters, he implies that Bishop Fellay gave a hearty endorsement to the book without having read it or even knowing anything about it – nice.)
    –
    I am tempted to give the identity of this person here, now, but will refrain for the moment. I can tell you this, though: One of the authors of True Or False Pope has been having a private debate with him, with SSPX priests on the sidelines, which will soon be made public. At that point, his subterfuge and quite deliberate intellectual dishonestly will be laid bare for all to see.
    –
    (I consider this person to be possibly the most dangerous sede persona, as he is articulate, consistent, and extremely confident. The best sophism is the most evil sophism.)

94. Rich, as usual, you’re angry enough for a bumper sticker.

95. Honestly, Rich, you haven’t figured out Google yet?
    –
    http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15544.0

96. @Catholic thinker
    Do you believe that my sins somehow would diminish the sins of others? Bp Fellay will answer for his actions just as I, and you, will. I hope he can prove more charity than what I have observed.

97. We have seen the others who travelled down this road with no return. We shall see.

Comments are closed.