It is being reported that the Society of St. Pius X is on the verge of receiving regular jurisdiction; presumably via a personal prelature.
According to Rorate Caeli:
This Monday evening in Rome, religious correspondent Marco Tosatti (with Sandro Magister, the best reader of the current Pontificate) confirms that just one set of signatures separates the Society from full integration within the Church… It really is a matter more of when than of if.
Given my most recent observations concerning the Society, some seem to assume that I am no longer in favor of Rome’s recognition.
This is understandable, but not exactly the case.
Let’s set aside for the moment Fr. Gleize’s shockingly soft (and oddly selective) treatment of Amoris Laetitia, and his erroneous contention that “anathema” and “notorious heresy” are not incompatible with the papacy.
Regular jurisdiction in this case simply means that Rome is officially recognizing the Society as Catholic, and extending to it that which it is therefore due.
It is not, properly speaking, a pact between Francis and the SSPX; much less is it an endorsement of the former’s assorted heresies and blasphemies.
The Society has always been Catholic; it is Rome that departed from the Faith. In other words, it’s a matter of justice and a step in the right direction.
Furthermore, anytime objective truth is affirmed, Christ is proclaimed, and it is a cause to rejoice.
All of this having been said, the converse is true as well:
Anytime objective truth is denied, Christ is denied, and it is a cause to lament.
Prior to recent events, it was my heartfelt conviction that much good would come from Rome’s official recognition of the SSPX, if only for the fact that it would open the way for confused Catholics (to borrow Archbishop Lefebvre’s words) to approach the Society for Holy Mass, the Sacraments and formation.
As for the “risk” that may, or may not, be associated with regular jurisdiction, one can only speculate.
One thing that will always remain unchanged, however, is the obligation that every Catholic individual and organization (the SSPX included) has to openly profess the truth and to condemn error, both in season and out of season.
So, has anything recently changed?
You bet it has.
About six weeks ago, I noted what appeared to me to be the Society’s lack of Apostolic zeal in confronting the grave dangers posed by Francis in Amoris Laetitia.
Since then, the Society (via Fr. Gleize) has confirmed my observations; making it eminently clear (to me, at any rate) that one cannot expect the SSPX to provide Catholic clarity and conviction in all cases.
Sure, I think there is good reason to believe that the SSPX, once “regularized,” will continue its criticism of the Novus Ordo and Vatican Council II (religious liberty, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, collegiality and the like), and likewise to continue preaching the traditional doctrine on the Kingship of Christ and the unique rights of the Holy Catholic Church.
And yet, as important as this is, and for all of the good it might do, let’s be perfectly clear:
One of the greatest dangers facing the Church at this very moment is Jorge Mario Bergoglio; a threat eminently evident in the text of Amoris Laetitia.
Rome’s recognition or not, if the Society of St. Pius X remains unwilling to plainly engage the Bergoglian crisis, including by necessity a vigorous condemnation of the aforementioned “Apostolic Exhortation” in its entirety, one can expect that, in time, the majority of Catholic faithful will lose any and all sense for the reality of mortal sin; not just as it pertains to adultery, but in general.
In other words, the Society will be complicit in ushering souls along the road to Hell.
This being so, while I still find no reason to rail against regular canonical status for the SSPX, at least insofar as things stand today, all indications are that it will make far less of a difference than it should.
When you mix ice cream with a pile of dog s@&$, you ruin the ice cream and the dog s@&$ still tastes like dog s@&$. There is nothing good to come of this.
Yesterday I assisted at the Pontifical Mass of Mgr. Bernard Fellay for the Feast of Saint Joseph in Brussels. In his homily he’s repeated several times that a “deal” will only come about if it is the Will of God. In the meantime, he will not accept anything nor sign any deal that would have them compromise on either the Mass or the Faith. He’s also commented on the rumours that a “reconciliation” might be “imminent” saying he doesn’t have a timeliness and that in the coming “many months and even years” one shouldn’t expect a sudden breakthrough (except for a miracle by Divine Intervention).
Timeless = timeline * (sorry for the autocorrect)
There are a lot of people that would go to the SSPX, but are afraid to because they have heard that they are not in communion with the Church. That is the real benefit of regularization and that’s why the SSPX keeps trying to get it. It’s all about reaching more souls, not selling out to the Novus Ordo.
And it perpetuates the lie that the conciliar church is Catholic. I was one of those indult Catholics afraid to go to the SSPX for a long time until I actually investigated the issue. I was tired of being treated like a pariah in the NO church. But after a few months I realized that the SSPX position is contradictory. Modernist Rome is not Catholic.
The visible HQ of the Catholic Church is still centered in Rome. The moral teaching authority and jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, called Canon Law, is still in force. Archbishop Lefebvre used Canon Law to ordain Catholic bishops and avoid schism.
Sedevacantists throw the baby out with the bath water. They are no different from their Protestant brethren in that regard. The devil works both sides of the train tracks. Sedevacantists and Protestants reject the Church for different reasons. The end result is the same, there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
Tom, you rely too much on your own ‘wisdom’. Trust God!
Everything that happens, it happens in accordance with God’s Wisdom. What wisdom is there, since we are all nothing, but sinners?
There’s only one Church, and the gates of hell have NOT prevailed. The weeds must grow together with the good wheat…..until ‘harvest.’
….why, should we not expect scandals in His Body, the Church? This is why He prayed that His followers would not be scandalized. Are we all to leave and flee, His Church, because the enemy ‘within’ is legions? God forbid! Satan always tempts the pure, the consecrated, the religious…..we are bound to love our enemy, and pray for their conversion. Satan stations more devils on the walls of the Vatican, and every Catholic Church, than in dens of iniquity, for the latter are already his, and they offer no resistance.
As good Bp. Fulton Sheen used to say……”Satan possesses only willing victims. The Church is not a continuous phenomenon through history. Rather, it is something that has been through a thousand resurrections after a thousand crucifixions. The bell is always sound for its execution which, by some great power of God, is everlastingly postponed.”
May those who have eyes See, and those who have ears ‘Hear!’
If someone could explain how someone who is not Catholic can be the head of the Catholic Church, I’d be the first to kiss his ring. Yes the state of the Church is currently a mystery, we have to trust Christ. We have no more shepards. Why did God take them from us? For the same reason we have always suffered. We do not repent and we reject His Kingship.
Why did God take them from us? For the same reason we have always suffered….
Tom, God did NOT take them from us. The Church is alive, in spite of the enemy. You must remember, that Our Lord chose only 12 Apostles, and He did not convert the whole world, the remnant will always follow the Royal Way of The Cross…….God will never take ‘our free will.’ At all times, and in every age each Christian must fight the temptations from the prince of the world. The battle between good and evil will continue to the end of the world. Choose…GOD, or SATAN!
Our suffering is nothing but a shadow, to compare of how Jesus Christ+ GOD, the SINLESS, suffered for us sinners, carried His Cross laden with our sins, to Calvary.
Our holy Faith teaches us, that even to the worst of sinners God will grant His grace, to repent, but not without the sinners cooperation with the grace. Accordingly, true repentance must come from the heart, true sorrow for his sins, and not because of the fear of hell, but rather for the love of God, above all else…
“…In those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a Destroyer…take courage and trust in the Lord..” Prophecy of St Francis of Assisi
When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, “Return, 0 ye revolting children . . . and I will give you pastors according to my own heart” (Jer. 3, 14-15).
There is a huge difference between saying, God has sent us bad shepherds and saying, we have no more shepherds. The one who says bad shepherds, still believes. The one who says no shepherds, has given up trusting in the Lord.
The main objective in this “regularization” is to set the acceptance of Vat2 and the new (false) “mass” in stone. Not necessarily to make the R&R trads go to the new mass per se, but to acknowledge it. To accept the “fact” that it is a valid and licit option to fulfill Sunday’s obligation. The newly regularized R&R trads will keep their “Extraordinary” form but accepting the “ordinary” form. Giving credibility and belief to it. The “trad” laity will subconsciously “know” there is an option (not ideal in their eyes) for an alternative mass if need be. Hence they must recognize the invalid hierarchy, EM’s, altar girls, etc
For this regularization is all that is necessary for this false Church to continue its “evolution” of the “false” mass and hand out more tickets to Hell.
On the SSPX French district website by Fr De La Rocque http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3103-eh-francis-a-further-consideration-on-the-question-of-sspx-regularization. They don’t appear to support +Fellay in France:
On the 4th February last, the area around the Vatican woke up to find itself covered with posters calling out to the Pope: “Eh, Francis! You have commissioned Congregations, dismissed priests, decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, you have ignored Cardinals… But where is your mercy?”
A wind of revolt is therefore rising against Pope Francis; the reason being that his almost dictatorial ultra-progressivism has had more than one victim. Of the once flourishing young order of the Franciscans of the Immaculate nothing remains, by the personal will of the Pope. At stake: the questioning of Vatican II by these same Franciscans. What happened when a Philippine bishop received some of them into his diocese? He was immediately dismissed by Pope Francis.
Another example is Cardinal Burke. Having been dismissed from the Apostolic Signature and relegated to the position of Chaplain to the Order of Malta, he has once again been de facto dismissed from the latter post, the reason being his opposition as a Cardinal to Amoris Laetitia, which opens access to Eucharistic Communion for the divorced and remarried. As for the Order of Malta, it also having been judged too conservative, the Pope has named the very progressive Msgr Becciu to ensure its “spiritual renewal”.
While he annihilates all opposition in his disciplinary decisions, Pope Francis continues his doctrinal revolution. After communion for the divorced and remarried, the subversive Jesuit magazine Civilta Cattolica is now advancing the ordination of women, with the applause of the Pope.
This same Pope, it is said, apparently has good intentions towards Tradition (i.e. the SSPX and those communities friendly to it). His love for the peripheries allegedly disposes him to grant a personal prelature. Some, in search of recognition, rejoice at this Godsend, while others are concerned for the very reason that this Pope can be little trusted. But, what if this is the wrong question to be asking?
As Aristotle reminds us, if men come together, they do so in order to unite their efforts so as to reach a common end or goal. From a supernatural point of view, the first question is therefore to establish whether or not we pursue the same goal as today’s Rome, whether we have the same Faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ sole Redeemer, and whether we have the same Faith in the Catholic Church, outside of which there can be no salvation. Alas, it is to be feared that this is not the case.
As a result, without venturing into satire, it would be indispensable to question Pope Francis on the content of his Faith, before even considering if a canonical recognition were opportune or prudent. Because the Divine Will cannot require us to place our eternal salvation in the hands of someone who does not profess the Catholic Faith. To establish legal unity without real unity would, incidentally, be contradictory. This is undoubtedly what Archbishop Lefebvre had in mind when he said in Fideliter magazine after the 1988 episcopal consecrations: “If I live a little longer and, supposing that in some time from now Rome calls me, [..] I would raise the question to the doctrinal level: ‘Are you in agreement with the great encyclicals of all the Popes who have preceded you? Are you in agreement with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and with their affirmations?’ […] The positions would thus be clearer”.
“To accept the “fact” that it is a valid and licit option to fulfill Sunday’s obligation” That is exactly what the SSPX Marian Corp said, any proof that is true that SSPX thinks the New Mass is licit?
Once the regularization takes place they will have de facto say as much.
Currently the SSPX officially states the Novus ordo is valid. That speaks volumes.
>>>The main objective in this “regularization” is to set the acceptance of Vat2 and the new (false) “mass” in stone.<<<
Baloney! The Novus Ordo Mass is already set in stone. The vast majority of New Mass goers don't know and don't care what happens with the SSPX. Only those that feel drawn to tradition and have a doubt about SSPX legitimacy, will benefit when this last hurdle for them is taken away.
If you don’t mind, would you please say what have you read on this issue?
It sounds like sound-bites, but I don’t want to presume anything.
>>>any proof that is true that SSPX thinks the New Mass is licit?<<<
Is the Mew Mass legit? The SSPX says no, it is not!
It may be a good way to provide valid Sacraments and Masses for more of the faithful who otherwise will continue to be robbed blind since the time of Paul VI and his reckless, unnecessary and dangerous overhauling of the rite of Holy Orders.
I think that may be the greatest good that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais would see in any regularisation.
An email to me, from a soldier of Christ….
“Here’s the main point about sedevacantists. The thing that most appeals to so many good people that are too easily led astray is that the sedes speak 85-95% truth. It lures unsuspecting souls right into the devil’s trap of sedevacantism. Antichrist, when he finally arrives, will probably speak 95-98% truth, so as to deceive even much of the elect!!!
Sedes are truthful when informing their unwary listeners how bad the modern popes are, how bad the crisis in the papacy. How can we deny what stares us in the face? We have to constantly hold back in denouncing, criticizing and all but condemning these popes that are destroying the Church.
When it comes to their conclusion, however, they are 100% UNCATHOLIC. None of them – none of us – have been given the authority, or the grace, or the discernment to make such a weighty judgment that these bad popes are FORMAL HERETICS and
therefore CANNOT POSSIBLY BE VALID VICARS OF CHRIST. The whole argument is settled right here: God has given NONE OF US the competence or authority to make such a judgment. ONLY A FUTURE POPE, OR COUNCIL OF CARDINALS, OR
SYNOD OF CHURCHMEN can possibly declare any of these popes to have been false popes. Until such time WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO HONOR THEM AS POPES, TO OBEY THEM WHEN THEY COMMAND SOMETHING THAT IS NOT CONTRARY TO
CATHOLIC TRADITION, AND BATTLE THEM WITH ALL DUE REVERENCE FOR THEIR EXALTED RANK WHENEVER THEY GO AGAINST THE FAITH OR CAUSE INJURIES TO SOULS OR GIVE PUBLIC SCANDAL BY COLLABORATING WITH THE ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION.
Only the devil wins whenever a good Catholic succumbs to the error of sedevacantism. It would be OK to hold the sede viewpoint as a PRIVATE OPINION. But once it is put forth IN PUBLIC AS A VIRTUAL DOGMA OF FAITH WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY (as most sedes today IN EFFECT certainly do) SEDEVACANTISM IS A DANGEROUS STEP TOWARDS SCHISM AND BECOMES, IN
ITSELF, A TERRIBLE PUBLIC SCANDAL THAT GOD IS SURE TO PUNISH WITH ALL DUE SEVERITY.
It’s for us to pray for the pope, just as we would pray for a bad human father, no matter how bad a person he may be. The worse they are the more they are in NEED of our prayers. When sedes refuse to pray for the pope, they are sinning against faith, hope and charity. It is doubtless the reason why people holding to the sede position always grow more and more radical in their error, and gradually lose charity, even giving up the fight for the Faith. Their only crusade soon becomes nothing more than to convince all other trads that they are right.
In other words, eventually, THEIR PRIDE DESTROYS THEM.”
This is very sound. I find it curious that SSPX would not at least request the Dubia be answered w/straight Yes or No answers prior to any of the discussion presently ongoing. The Dubia seem almost like something the SSPX would have reasonably presented prior to any discussions of a Personal Prelature.
Could a sedevacantist pls explain to me how a exorcist priest in some cases will have to approach the local bishop to get the faculties to carry out the rite of exorcism when the demon of the possessed person says to the priest you have no authority over me. Then the exorcist priest “Fr chad ripperger ” goes to his local Bishop to get the faculties , returns to the person and is able to carry on the rite of exorcism ??.
I ask this question not because I think sedevacantists are crazy or anything like that. I believe they make good theological arguments for their position. The point iv never agreed with or understood is on invalidity of episcopal consecrations and priestly ordinations. (I’m aware of pope Pius xii decree in sacramentum ordinis) Thus invalidity of the NO mass. (I believe when the words of consecration are spoken by the priest and bread & wine are used then Our Lord is present though the mass be illicit) I say this because as far as I’m aware most if not all sedevacantists believe that the new rite priests & bishops are only lay people dressed up and the NO church and hierarchy isn’t catholic carrying no authority or jurisdiction over the worlds Catholics. My point as you may guess by now is this , if that were true than the local bishop of the said diocese would not be able to give the faculties to the exorcist priest that enable him to carry out his duty that before he could not do. ??
You know valid and licit are two different things…
“The current state of the papacy renders insignificant the difficulties over jurisdiction, disobedience and apostolicity, because these notions suppose the reign of a pope Catholic in his faith and government. Without entering into consideration of the consequences of an heretical, schismatic or non-existent pope, which would lead to interminable theoretical discussions, in conscience could we not and ought we not, after the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law which clearly affirms the new
Church, and after his scandalous declarations concerning Luther, now affirm that Pope John Paul II is not Catholic? We say no more, but we say no less. We had
waited for the measure to become full, and it is so henceforth.”
Just hop on the bus, Gus.
Archbishop Lefebvre left it to future theologians to decide whether or not the modern Popes were heretics. However he did consider it:
“The reason for this prohibition is that any participation in non-Catholic worship implies profession of a false religion and hence denial of the Catholic Faith.
By such participation Catholics are presumed to be adhering to the beliefs of the non-
Catholics, and that is why Canon 2316 declares them “suspect of heresy, and if they
persevere, they are to be treated as being in reality heretics.”
Now these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with Protestants, animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-Catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258-1? In which case, I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic.
That is the teaching of the Church.
Now I don’t know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don’t know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying “there is no more Pope,” but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious.
I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it
to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don’t think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man
seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods.
What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these
repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don’t know. I wonder. But I think the
Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we
know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So
perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a
heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems
at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our
Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith – how
can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatize? So it is possible
we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.
For twenty years, Msgr. de Castro-Mayer and I preferred to wait; we said it was more
prudent and more in conformity with Providence to wait because it is so important, so tragic, when it is not just a bishop, archbishop or cardinal, but the man in the chair of Peter. It is so important, so grave, so sad, that we prefer to wait until Providence
gives us such evidence, that it is no longer possible to refuse to say that the Pope is a heretic.”
Later he reminded everyone that we pray for the Pope in the Litany of the Saints:
“That thou wouldst vouchsafe to preserve our apostolic prelate and all ecclesiastical orders in holy religion.”
Thats called old-school reasoning. Cut to the chase.
Total lie. Protestants reject the Catholic Faith, Sede’s reject the NO faith. That may seem simplistic but that is really all there is. We sede’s KNOW that the Catholic Church cannot contradict itself. And yes….for the billionth the ordinary magisterium, AL for example, is totally binding.
Francis is supposedly your pope….ask him if he thinks that AL is binding on the Catholic world. We both already know that his answer will be yes. But you will go on rejecting the teachings of your pope. And you call sede’s protestants???
What are the 15% lies that sede’s speak?
That is a question I have had on my mind also.
There however was a sedevacantist Bishop of the Thuc line, Bishop McKenna, who successfully did exorcisms, and he did not have a Diocese.
I hope someone can answer it.
One doesn’t make judgements or decisions by some sort of gnostic magic. We learn the Faith from the Church as She teaches it.
The Church is not a mystical gnostic sect; she teaches the Faith of Christ in sensible words and actions.
You worked out that the Church was the Church using your God-given common sense, didn’t you?
It is when it comes to deciding doctrine and determining dogma that we refrain from using private judgement.
Some sedevacantists are dogmatic and absolutely believe that NO orders are invalid while others hold it as an opinion or consider NO orders as doubtful. In any case, the result is the same since we cannot approach doubtful sacraments. For your other question of exorcists, I would not rely on the word of a demon. He is the father of lies. Maybe the only reason that NO exorcism “worked” was because Satan wanted to continue the lie about the NO church being the Catholic Church. I know the sedevacantist community seems fractured, but thats the result of having no true shepard. The R&R community and indult catholics are just as confused. We all see the same great problem and find different ways to explain it. Because we have been lacking Popes who clarify issues instead of confuse us more, the entire trad community (indult, RR, and sede) is left scratching its collective heads wondering what went wrong and why. We all try to hold the True Faith, we just differ on how to deal with this new thing called the NO and V2. RR and indult call it Catholic, sedes say its not. You decide. Is it Catholic or is it not?
Now who is being dogmatic here? The confused Catholic trying to make sense of this whole mess? Or the “humble” resistor who advocates defying his Pope?
…….read slowly, you might want to consider saying a prayer to the Holy Ghost first, it always works for me.
Start reading from here: ‘When it comes to their conclusion, however, they are 100% UNCATHOLIC…..’ (and continue to the end, it is all crystal clear).
May the love for Jesus Christ, His Church…..unite us, for His enemies are legions!
For the greater Glory of God! For the triumph of the holy Church!
For the triumph of the Immaculata!
For the good of saving souls, especially our own!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Very good points Rushintuit.
If the SSPX had “Apostolic zeal” and was very outspoken against the errors of AL and the post-conciliar church in general, would they be offered a “regularization deal”? Personally, I can’t see any reason why Fellay would consider any deal that would attach the SSPX to Modernist Rome. This is a “wait and see” situation or, more accurately, and “pray and see” situation. This very important decision should be based on TRUST. Can Bergoglio and his cohorts be TRUSTED????
I have always been disappointed towards the SSPX because of their support and lukewarm stance on NFP. They, however lately, seem to be coming around somewhat on this debate and appear to be questioning ever so slowly that just maybe Tradition and Church Fathers , the magisterium and Saints were right when they all knew then and still know now and teach that planning to have exclusive recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children while benefiting from all the other effects of conjugal intercourse is a MORTAL SIN. This lukewarmness and uncertainty on their part demonstrates a serious weakness and this is why they, IMO, can do this song and dance with AL. They are not perfect. Yes they have been good about examining and standing up against the doubtful annulment processes of the NO tribunals. I give them credit for that but when it comes to truly getting worked up about NFP and even the so called Catholic Eastern Rite incontinent married clergy and NO married deacons and married priests they have been known to be somewhat lukewarm and weak on defending continence for all married clergy and the errors of NFP. They have been known to support this in the past and perhaps still do amongst many of them although maybe, I hope, they are coming around on this one too as some of their recent articles point to. They appeared to have, in the past, viewed continence and NFP as having no big effect on the doctrines pertaining to the sacrament of marriage. Archbishop Levebre wasn’t always spot on with zealously protecting marriage. He at one point did not think, at that time, that the annulments being granted were a top priority to him. You are right Louie when you say they had been very zealous against religious liberty at the expense at of putting AL on the back burner as no big deal so to speak. The creeping annulment crisis and NFP appeared to be a very secondary problem if not only unimportant in the beginning for them. It does not surprise me one bit that they are not all hot under the collar over this scandalous AL. However I still am rooting for them and wish to give them time in the hopes that they will see clearly in this overwhelming battle we are all confronted with. In the meantime, although I keep them at arms length, I still will keep them in my prayers and only wish that we may have them to fall back on during these most troubling times.
IT IS Bishop Fellay (not Fellay), he’s not your average Joe……you get that!
IT IS Pope Francis, who’s office all Catholics (that is, if you are still Catholic), are bound by God, to honor and respect, regardless……..Miserere!
All you do is speculate…… Your wisdom is from below, God’s Wisdom is from above!
Not our will, but God Will Be Done!!!
Charity is Love and Truth, it unites, not divides, it enables us to love our enemy, and our neighbour.
Our Lady of Fatima pray for us Catholics, especially!
Please read God’s wisdom on NFP and the Sacrament of Holy orders and Marriage. God does not support the lukewarm.
Louie did a six part series on the subject with extensive sources and footnotes. My point is much more basic. You either trust in the Lord, knowing that bad pastors are His Just chastisement, or you don’t.
Our Lady said, the time has come for the Consecration of Russia, back in 1929. Pope Pius XI had time to do the Consecration as requested. Pope Pius XII again, had every opportunity to do the Consecration as requested. Pope Pius XII wouldn’t even read the Third Secret because he said he didn’t want to be influenced. What the heck does that even mean?
Your grievance should be with those two Popes. They dropped the ball. Now God’s Justice demands that we be given bad pastors to lead us. That is not a green light for you to jump up and down shouting there is no Pope!
No one can say with 100% certitude that the New Mass is not valid. That makes it a doubtful Sacrament which Catholics are duty bound to avoid. According to Quo Primum and the Council of Trent, a Catholic can definitely say that the New Mass is illicit and again, we are duty bound to avoid it.
You are 150% correct.
FromPoland–OK, you make your point. Now could I safely assume that you agreed with everything else I have stated?
You only hear, and see what is pleasing to your pride….this is what ‘sede’ do.
The best thing I can offer for all of you, is three Ave’s in honor of the Most Blessed Trinity. May the scales fall off!
I disagree, I’m sorry to say. There has been a conspicuous disorientation in the SSPX since the almost-signed preamble and a turning from truth by Bp Fellay in 2012. As one who’s as been associated with the Society for nearly 30 years, I must tell you that it is no longer focused on Christ as
You are right. I have looked at this from all sides and I hear the boos and hisses from NO as well as SSPX Catholics whenever Sedevacantism is named. However, I am beginning to question what is so dispicable about acknowledging reality if, indeed, the papal throne is vacant. Under the current circumstances, isn’t it worse to confide our Church to an agent of evil?
GMU I believe you’re right. Thanks for the insight.
There was a time when I was a great fan of Louie’s writings and videos. In fact, I used to contribute “to the cause”. It’s unfortunate, as least from what I read here, that Louie has given himself over to the Sedevacantist position.
I hope I’m wrong in this, but I doubt it.
Just for the record–I’m not a “sede”. I am just trying to be the very best Catholic I could be while we have a Pope who is barely Catholic.
May I sincerely ask on what basis do you reject the opinion that the See of Peter may be vacant. I am interested because I rejected the opinion of sedevacantism too until recently. When I look back I realize I rejected it soley on the basis of what I heard from others and not from examining all the arguements.
Maryiloveher, I think Abp Lefebvre would recognize Jorge Bergoglio as a heretic and no pope. How could he not? But seeing this truth and deciding how to respond to it are two different things. As one very holy SSPXMO priest said to me, if there is no pope, how can Our Lady’s consecration of Russia ever be done?
You sure sound like one…..I do not say that in sarcasm, but in sadness. It only proves, how opinions, and judgments of others can quickly poison the heart of another…..especially, when one is in ‘doubt.’
We must focus on the great, eternal truths: God, Christ, Church, eternity. That we are either saved or damned that there is no third option.
….excerpts from “Cross and Crown” by Fr. Mader….(highly recommended for Lent).
“ The pope is the proper mark of Christianity, even if he is pronouncing error, for only God will judge him. With the pope stands or falls Christianity, just as the body stands or falls with the head. IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO DESTROY THE PAPACY, CATHOLICISM WOULD IMMEDIATELY CEASE TO EXIST, even if it still numbered five hundred million members. We are there fore either papal or we are nothing. The liberal differentiation between Catholics and ‘papists’ is nonsense. Catholics who are not papists are traitors. Their place is outside the bounds of canon law.”
“The deepest explanation of the Church was given by St. Paul, when he calls Christ the Head of the Church and the Church the body of Christ. Christ is the King of the Church. It means the permanent, all-embracing dependence of the Church on Christ the King. The dependence of the Church on Christ much more an uninterrupted bond, so that the Church would immediately cease to exist, were Christ to withdraw from her for even one moment.”
“Therefore the authority of the magisterium and the infallibility of the pope rest in the final analysis on the presence of Jesus Christ; ‘Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.’ The pope is only infallible under the condition of his complete dependence upon Jesus, the teacher, and only as vicar, as representative of the infallible Christ the King….the same applies to the bishops, and the priests. “Only practicing Catholicism saves: faith, love, deeds, union with Christ the King and His Church, the Queen, union with the pope, the King’s visible image and likeness…….
“CHRIST, CHURCH, ST. PETER, ALL BELONG TOGETHER. WHOEVER TRIES TO SEPARATE THEM, DOES NOT KNOW THEM. WHAT GOD HAS BOUND TOGETHER, MAN SHALL NOT TEAR ASUNDER.’’
‘LONG LIVE THE KING! LONG LIVE THE QUEEN! LONG LIVE THE POPE!
From Poland, all you do on this site is spout your accusations and condemnation of sedevacantists. Ironically, you accuse others of pride, when pride screams from your own comments. (As they say, one accuses others of the sin he himself is most guilty of.)
As far as I can judge from your comments, you have not studied the theological issues (as many of us have, over many years and in depth) and have no reasonable counter-argument; your emotional response/reflex is not an argument.
Before you accuse others, whom you don’t even know, of pride or some other sin, look into the mirror.
Bishop Fellay has some interesting ideas.
Cardinal Burke has some interesting ideas.
Bishop Schneider has some interesting ideas.
What I don’t understand is why everybody else is telling these folks (and others) how, when and where to do their business? These guys don’t have the luxury of “pontificating”. They gotta get stuff done by scrapping along like the rest of us against what at times seems like overwhelming odds. Chill out and pray.
Obviously, your studies have not led you to the knowledge of the truth, but rather to an error (sedevacantism), to fortify your own egotism. We forget that ignorance is better than error.
The Pharisees were educated and prepared by the prophets too…..pride was the cause of their blindness.
“CHRIST + CHURCH + ST. PETER + ALL BELONG TOGETHER.
WHOEVER TRIES TO SEPARATE THEM, DOES NOT KNOW THEM. WHAT GOD HAS BOUND TOGETHER, MAN SHALL NOT TEAR ASUNDER.’’
‘LONG LIVE THE KING! LONG LIVE THE QUEEN! LONG LIVE THE POPE!
Our Lord also tells Sr. Lucia that the Pope repents and consecrates Russia:
“Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.”
“They did not wish to heed My request! … Like the King of France they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors in the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer.”
The Pope is the VISIBLE HEAD of the Church which was established by Christ, Who is the INVISIBLE HEAD. The VISIBLE HEAD is not greater than the INVISIBLE HEAD. When the VISIBLE HEAD (the Pope) is not in conformity with Christ, the INVISIBLE HEAD, he loses his authority and can no longer be the Vicar of Christ. That does not necessarily mean he is not the Pope. It means he does not have to be obeyed when he is in error and contrary to the Deposit of the Faith.
Pearl87, if there is no Pope, its because the traditional Bishops refuse to hold a council and declare the See Vacant and elect a new Pope. Until the SSPX bishops stop recognizing modernists as Catholics, we are stuck. The SSPX apologists like Siscoe and Salza have been telling us that the Church has to make some sort of declaration, well SSPX? You are Catholic Bishops. Declare him and the whole rotten NO V2 sect anathema already. And dont fall back on that silly canard about lacking jurisdiction. These are desperate times. The church supplies the jurisdiction. Isnt that what youve been telling the lay folk for decades about your authority to absolve sins?
Does R&R stand for recognise and Resist, or Rest and Recreation?
“And I will try them as gold is tried.”
Ok, recognising a man as the Pope automatically and simultaneously means submitting to his teaching.
But you can’t do that with Francis, can you? You will lose the Faith and lose your soul, but hey, at least you’ll be in that coveted status
: “Full Communion!”.
So, what do you do?
I’m SSPX and I looked into it.
LOL….I am fairly astute so I dont need to read too slowly. I really take offense to the fact that you call me 100% uncatholic. My father told me decades ago that everyone has opinions but opinions are still subject to being false. I say that your opinion of me is dead wrong.
I say that you renouncing the universal teaching of a man you claim as your pope is mortally sinful. That is what the Church teaches.
With respect…..define what you mean by “when he is in error”. This is the crux of the discussion.
Ive been a fan of Louie since late 2012…..Im a much bigger fan in the spring of 2017.
rich–“when he is in error”–whenever the Pope goes against the unchangeable tenets of the Holy, Roman Catholic Church as founded by Christ and passed down by Peter and the Apostles…when he is contrary to the Deposit of Faith. I appreciate your input if you wish to further qualify this statement.
Which is pretty much everytime he opens his mouth.
Tom A-Thanks for adding ” pretty much everytime he opens his mouth”. I thought of it after I hit Post Comment.
I wish the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, etc… in other words all the hierarchy of the church could understand that they will not be able to solve this crisis with their own innovations and inventions. If they could then the request from the Mother of God 100 years ago at Fatima would be irrelevant and obviously, that’s not the case and therefore; “no Reconiliation”, “canonical recognition” or “trip to Neverland” what ever you want to call it, will fix the crisis in the church and bring about peace.
The post conciliar Pope’s and Bishop’s human innovations and interventions over last 50 years intentionally good or bad, to save the Faith and the Church from destruction, have proven to be useless, as it was known since Fatima that any human innovation or intervention would only be useless and lethal to the church and the faith with the exception of the one intervention requested by the Mother of God- the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart Of Mary. Otherwise, what was the point of Her warning and request? Even the post conciliar Pope’s Motu Proprio’s- meaning on his “own” impulse, although may have allowed some good, has proven to be more divisive then good. Summorum Pontificum in theory, although a step in the correct direction, has given way to the acceptance that the NO mass actually has an equal place on the playing field with the Mass of all Ages. It has become the fundamental document that has once again split the SSPX who have preserved the faith for the last 50 years. Unintentionally or intentionally Summorum Pontificum has proven to work better at dividing then uniting, just like the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” John Paul II’s “out reached hand” to SSPX priests at the time on July 2, 1988. http://www.fssp.org/en/eccldei.htm There was good reason why nearly a month earlier Archbishop Lefebvre ultimately went against “the extended hand”: Protocol of 5 May 1988 between the Holy See and the Priestly Society of St. Pius X http://www.fssp.org/en/protoc5mai.htm Why? Because he was given the divine insight to see the destruction and division this would be to his society and the church. Unfortunately destruction and division is now coming to fruition. Congratulations Post conciliar popes on helping destroy the SSPX and dividing the church further. You may have one yet another battle but you will lose the war. It’s like King Edward (Longshanks) in Braveheart. He offers Robert de Bruce-ie Bishop Fellay a deal that betrays William Wallace’s-ie Archbishop Lefebvre’s position and cause, which was the only temporary way of preserving the True Liturgy and Doctrine of the Faith in its purest form. Whether Pope Benedict’s XVI offer or Francis’s offer was/is genuine or causes an unintended consequence is irrelevant because both lead to a path of more division and destruction that will ultimately lead to their beheading. King Louis IV, V and VI tried to save France by their own efforts and all proved to be a failure because of their disobedience to the ultimate Authority- God and his Blessed Mother. If a “reconciliation”, “canonical recognition” or “trip to Never-land” happens be assured of changes to the liturgy like reading the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular language from the Altar. Changes like this to the extraordinary form are already taking place outside the SSPX in diocesan Churches. MARK MY WORDS- WE WILL GET A HYBRID LITURGY.
Benedict “abdicating” himself from the chair of Peter causing the Petrine office to be split into an “active” and “passive” ministry has also failed. It created more confusion. It will and already has created division and split the church further into two parties just like the Freemasons have done to the United States and the world through their diabolical ideologies. I’ll say it again; human innovations and interventions are useless against Satan until the hierarchy with the Pope leading the charge stands up and Consecrates Russia! It is the only way Satan’s head will be crushed. It is the only way to true peace in the world and the Church.
maryiloveher, I love her too! I love reading your posts! I am new to the SSPX and was wondering if you could please tell me where I can find these quotes/sayings of Archbishop Lefebvre. Is there a book/books that I can buy so I can learn more or is there a web site that I can read? Thanks!
I think there’s a library section on SSPX.org and also on the SSPXasia site that have many of the Archbishop’s sermons. The Angelus Press website should have most of his books.
Also, if you’re interested Fr. Karl Stehlin, the SSPX district superior of Asia is head of their Militia Immaculatae and has a website:
Thank you very much! God Bless!