Mon 21st Jul 2014 | Last updated: Mon 21st Jul 2014 at 14:47pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Vatican talks are almost over, says head of SSPX

By on Tuesday, 22 February 2011

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the SSPX, ordains a priest in Econe, Switzerland (Photo: CNS/Denis Balibouse, Reuters)

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the SSPX, ordains a priest in Econe, Switzerland (Photo: CNS/Denis Balibouse, Reuters)

The superior general of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) has said that reconciliation talks with the Vatican will soon be coming to an end, with little change in the views of either side.

Bishop Bernard Fellay said in an interview published yesterday on the society’s American website that extra problems had been created by plans for the beatification of Pope John Paul II and for an interreligious prayer meeting in Assisi, Italy. These were in addition to disagreements over the changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council.

The talks were launched in late 2009 in an effort by Pope Benedict XVI to repair a 21-year break with the society. The Pope said that full communion for the group’s members would depend on “true recognition of the magisterium and the authority of the pope and of the Second Vatican Council”.

But Bishop Fellay said his society went into the talks with a different purpose: to show the contradictions between the Church’s traditional teachings and its practices since Vatican II. That is “the only goal that we are pursuing”, he said, and the dialogue with the Vatican is not a search for compromise but “a question of faith”.

“Is Vatican II really a stumbling block? For us, no doubt whatsoever, yes!” he said. “Until now Vatican II was always considered as a taboo, which makes the cure of this sickness, which is the crisis in the Church, almost impossible.”

Bishop Fellay said the society has presented its doctrinal arguments in writing to the Vatican, followed up by theological discussion. “It is really a matter of making the Catholic faith understood in Rome,” he said.

Asked whether the Vatican participants in the talks have changed their thinking in light of the talks, Bishop Fellay answered: “I don’t think that you can say that.”

He added that recent events at the Vatican have, in fact, dispelled any “illusions” of progress.

“I am thinking about the announcement of the beatification of John Paul II or the announcement of a new Assisi event along the lines of the interreligious gatherings in 1986 and 2002,” he said.

Bishop Fellay said the scheduled beatification of Pope John Paul II on May 1 poses “a serious problem, the problem of a pontificate that caused things to proceed by leaps and bounds in the wrong direction, along ‘progressive’ lines, toward everything that they call ‘the spirit of Vatican II’.”

He said it was a “mystery” to him how Pope Benedict could convene another interreligious gathering next October in Assisi. The society was highly critical of the first such encounter 25 years ago.

“To ask people to perform religious acts during that gathering is absurd, because there is a radical lack of understanding among the various religions,” Bishop Fellay said.

He said Pope Benedict seems to understand that it is “impossible” for followers of diverse religions to pray together, but he added: “I find that he splits hairs. He tries to justify Assisi.” Bishop Fellay said the pope may be acting under pressure, or because he is alarmed at recent anti-Christian violence.

Asked what Catholics should do regarding the Pope’s announcement of the Assisi meeting, he said: “Pray that the good Lord intervenes in one way or another so that it doesn’t take place, and in any case start making reparation now!”

Bishop Fellay praised Pope Benedict for his 2007 document that eased restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, the so-called Tridentine rite, which governed the liturgy before 1970. But Bishop Fellay said that so far the move has had practically no effect on the Church’s liturgical life because of “massive opposition by the bishops”.

Pope Benedict cleared the way for reconciliation talks with the SSPX in early 2009 when he lifted the excommunications of four bishops ordained against papal orders in 1988. The Vatican said the dialogue was designed to restore “full communion” with members of the society, which was founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The Vatican said the talks were to focus on the concept of tradition, liturgical reform, interpretation of the Second Vatican Council II in continuity with Catholic doctrinal tradition, Church unity, ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and non-Christian religions, and religious freedom.

  • Anonymous

    Kazach23

    You have some very serious difficulties with your position! St. Robert Bellarmine said that while we should refuse to follow a Pope in his heresy, we must never judge him or refuse to obey in legitimate matters.

    This wise advice ties in with the two types of heresy into which a person can fall, the one formal (i.e., malicious), the other material (i.e., well-intentioned error). Luther and the Protestant Reformers are a typical example of the first. These clearly acted with the intention of destroying the true Faith and were justly excommunicated for it. I do not believe this to be the case with the Conciliar Popes, however, who are simply sarturated in Modernism and who believe they act in the best interests of the Church while in reality they inflict great wounds on the Mystical Body.

    At any rate, material heresy does not automatically deprive a Pope of his office just as personal mortal sin on the soul of a priest does not hinder the validity of his Masses or his administration of the Sacraments to the faithful. One sees from the case of Pope Honorious that only future Popes and Councils have the authority to judge a previous Pontificate. It is not given to the faithful to make such judgments on Peter.

    Now, to judge Peter by his fruits in accordance with the traditional Magisterial teaching of the Church, as having departed from that teaching, is perfectly legitimate. Indeed, it is incumbent upon all Catholics if they wish to save their souls. The children of the Church are free in this matter, not bound by BLIND OBEDIENCE to man – in the name of some mythical papal impeccability – while God (the highest authority) is insulted and offended against.

    To judge Peter’s soul, however, is another matter altogether, and a very dangerous and forbidden action on the part of any inferior. Indeed, we are forbidden to judge any soul, never mind that of Christ’s Vicar on earth. We simply cannot know what is in the soul of the Pope. God alone knows this. All we can do as Catholics is assume that he acts with good intentions while refusing his error and praying for him. This is true charity. Sedevacantists have lost sight of this in their anger and pride.

    If the Sedevacantist error is carried to its logical conclusion, then we would have to admit that there has been no Pope since Pius XII, which means that the present College of Cardinals, raised by the Conciliar Popes, is bogus, which means that the means for electing a pope is now absent, which means that Satan has triumphed over the Church. Such a view is every bit as destructive of the true Faith as Modernism.

    Our Lady of Fatima asked for prayers for the Holy Father, who, she said, would suffer much. Our Lady at no time indicated that the Pope would become a dethronable heretic. Nor indeed did Sister Lucy write or act in a condemning way regarding the Conciliar Popes. I urge you, therefore, to re-think your position. Please do not believe that you or I, or even a Cardinal, has the slightest right, duty or office from God to decree His Vicar on earth to be malicious, dethroned and excommunicated. I can assure you that Hell awaits all who die believing that devilish doctrine.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think it is appropriate for you to link your association with the FSSPX with that of your Sedevacantism. Archbishop Lefebvre would not tolerate Sedevacntism in the SSPX, he expelled nine priests for it, and it is not a position that the SSPX tolerates today. Sedevacantism is as great an error as Modernism, and as deadly to the souls of Catholics who adopt it.

  • AJ

    The authority of the Church HAS passed judgment on the SSPX. John Paul II excommunicated Lefevre and five others for participating in an unsanctioned episcopal ordination in direct contradiciton to Church law. All priests associated with the SSPX were then denied faculties to exercise their ministries, a command they chose to disobey. By this they were schismatic.

    Our current Holy Father has removed the sentence of excommunication from the four bishops still living (he did not retroactively declare null all of the excommunications, he said that he is showing clemency), with the hope that they will return to full communion. The “schism” has been healed partially on the part of the Holy See out of their clemency, however the lack of full communion still exists as SSPX priests still deny obedience to the Holy Father and bishops in communion with them, and hence their actions are scandalous to the faithful, who deserve clergy who practice what they preach. longinus okorie

    The organization in itself has never been declared heretical, but just because something is not heretical does not mean it is good. The SSPX remains Catholic — as does a pro-choice Catholic politican. That does not mean we should endorse pro-choice Catholic politicians. In fact, we should not. Even though no pro-choice politican has been formally declared a heretic, by their actions they disobey the Church. Likewise, the SSPX disobeys the Church.

    We should be clear here, I said, the SSPX and pro-choice politician IS NOT formally declared heretical .

  • AJ

    You said, ” I left my parish o go to the SSPX…”

    2 Questions for you:

    Did you hear about traditionalist who consider you guys too liberal and thus split from SSPX? TOO LIBERAL! Here they are:

    Society of St. Pius V — In 1983, nine U.S. SSPX priests broke with or were forced to leave the SSPX’s Northeast USA District partly because they were opposed to Lefebvre’s instructions that Mass be celebrated according to the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal issued by Pope John XXIII. Other issues occasioning the split were: Lefebvre’s order that Society priests must accept the decrees of nullity handed down by diocesan marriage tribunals; the acceptance of new members into the group who had been ordained to the priesthood according to the revised sacramental rites of Pope Paul VI.[34] The nine priests went on to form the Society of Society of St. Pius V.

    Istituto Mater Boni Consilii (Italian for “Institute of the Mother of Good Counsel”) is a traditionalist congregation of priests that follows the Sedeprivationist school of thought. The founders of the institute seceded in 1985 from the Society of St. Pius X under the leadership of Fr. Francesco Ricossa, onetime faculty member of the seminary at Econe. In contrast to the North American-based SSPV, this Institute is based in Europe
    .
    2. Did you hear about traditionalists who have broken with the SSPX and reconciled with Rome?

    Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter — The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was established in 1988 after the Ecône consecrations. Responding to the Holy See’s declaration that these constituted a schismatic act and that those involved were thereby automatically excommunicated, twelve priests left the Society and established the Fraternity, in full communion with the Holy See.

    Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney

    Institute of the Good Shepherd — The Institute of the Good Shepherd (Institut du Bon-Pasteur, IBP) was established as a papally recognised society of apostolic life on 8 September 2006 for a group of SSPX members who maintained it was time for the Society to accept reconciliation with Pope Benedict XVI.
    The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer joined the Holy See in June 2008. recalcitrant
    You see every abiding Catholic can be a true Traditionalist without the SSPX. We don’t need the SSPX to be a Traditionalists. What I can see clearly is SSPX is undergoing what the protestant sects are undergoing during 500 years after the Reformation…..split from split from split.

  • AJ

    Thogh i somewhat agre with you however in regards to Vatican II, the FULL AUTHORITY of the Church has ratified it already. Rome has spoken, the case is closed!

    EITHER YOU ACCEPT ALL THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS FROM THE VERY FIRST ONE- COUNCILS OF JERUSALEM , TO NICEA, CONSTANTINOPLE, CHALCEDON, TO THE PRESENT VATICAN II THAT’S GUARANTEED FREE FROM ERROR BY THE SAME HOLY SPIRIT or NONE AT ALL!… there is no room to pick the council of your choice as being Orthodox and True according to one’s own liking and theology, either you trust the Great Promise of Jesus to His Church in ALL TRUTH OR NOT, very simple. Please don’t be like the protestants where they have a cut-off period like only the first 300 years of Ecumenical Councils of Christianity were considered Orthodox. They don’t accept Councils of Nicea, Chalcedon etc.

    Do you want to be in their position as judges? Your Choice perhaps.

    What does it stop someone to believe that the first Council in Jerusalem is false or true? Does it make sense?

  • AJ

    If there were abuses in the implementation and interpretation of the documents of Vatican II they are the result of sins and fallen nature of man to push their own selfish agenda . If you read the entire Vatican II documents it is very beautiful and very CATHOLIC that is rightful response of the Church to the radically changing world. It didn’t say to abrogate TLM. It didn’t say you can have rock concerts in the Altar, none of that. If you just read them same with the Catechism of the Catholic Church…very Catholic!

    Let’s not blame the Second Vatican II which was a VALID 21st Ecumenical Council of the whole Catholic Church. We can’t pick and choose which Council is right or “orthodox” enought accordoing to our liking/interpretation – it’s the same trap which prortestantism fell hard…”Cherry-picking! The FULL Authority of the Church has been pronounce on Vatican II and the matter is closed. Blaming Vatican II because it gave rise to “bad fruits” is like blaming the Councils of Florence and Trent for the doctrine of purgatory and indulgences because it also “bear bad fruits” by the rising of Martin Luther and started the greatest schism of the christian world.

    Vatican II is a very beautiful and very Catholic to the core, it didn’t say abolish the wonderful Tridentine Mass or one could have a rock concert in the Altar but more so due to the abusive “intention” of some of the clergy to put their agenda forward similar with some clergy abusing the doctrine of Indulgences during Luther’s time that gave rise to a “bad fruit” of Protestantism.

    “Where Peter is there is the Church”, St Ambrose 250 A.D.

    I’m a Traditionalist myself BUT I also love the Novus Ordo Mass. If there is a DISPUTE between two (2) loyal Catholics, who would you turn to for a settlement? (like the Supreme Court passing a judgment) Then, if you believe they (Lefebvre, SSPX or any traditionalist group who still undermined the authority of the Pope) are not the rightful “Rock” to guide the Church and to settle disputes, then why do you listen to them instead of the Pope and the Church? Do you get my point, brother?

    At the end of the day, who will be the acting judge and “Rock” to guide the Church? You? the SSPX? Ultra traditionalists? OR – the rightful Authority, the See of Peter and the Magisterium?

    Martin Luther had chosen the former. Your choice.

  • AJ

    The last time I checked Academic and Historical records whether Encyclopedia Britannicca, Oxford Dictionary, World Atlas, World History etc aside from Church documents… The Catholic Church started the Vatican II, it was the twenty-first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. It was opened under Pope John XXIII on 11 October 1962 and closed on 8 December 1965 by Pope Paul VI. Of those that took part in the council’s opening session, four men have become pontiffs, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini who took the name of Paul VI, who on succeeding Pope John XXIII; Bishop Albino Luciani, the future Pope John Paul I; Bishop Karol Wojtyła, who became Pope John Paul II; and Father Joseph Ratzinger, present as a theological consultant, who became Pope Benedict XVI.

    Of those that took part in the council’s opening session, four have become pontiffs to date and 2, 540 ArchBishops, Bishops, eastern Catholic Patriarchs from all parts of the world participated in the meeting. The U.S. delegation alone of 241 members was second in size only to that of Italy. Asian and African bishops played a prominent role in the council’s deliberations. Vatican II also has produced 987 constituting sessions, including Lumen Gentium.. making it the largest gathering in any council in church history.

    Now according to the “opinions” (mere opinions of men) leadership of SSPX that Vatican II is in error? And not Supreme Council? Now they are acting as an Authority to decide and pass judgment on who got it right or wrong?

    The last time I check Matthew 16:19, Jesus Christ gave the “KEYS of the Kingdom” to Bind and Loose to Peter ALONE, I didn’t see the names of Marcel Lefebvre, nor Fellay nor me nor any .

    My word of advise, don’t be too Catholic than the Pope.

    Peace.

  • AJ

    Hello EdotorCT, it’s nice to see again here.

    The authority of the Church HAS passed judgment on the SSPX. John Paul II excommunicated Lefevre and five others for participating in an unsanctioned episcopal ordination in direct contradiciton to Church law. All priests associated with the SSPX were then denied faculties to exercise their ministries, a command they chose to disobey. By this they were schismatic.

    Our current Holy Father has removed the sentence of excommunication from the four bishops still living (he did not retroactively declare null all of the excommunications, he said that he is showing clemency), with the hope that they will return to full communion. The “schism” has been healed partially on the part of the Holy See out of their clemency, however the lack of full communion still exists as SSPX priests still deny obedience to the Holy Father and bishops in communion with them, and hence their actions are scandalous to the faithful, who deserve clergy who practice what they preach. longinus okorie

    The organization in itself has never been declared heretical, but just because something is not heretical does not mean it is good. The SSPX remains Catholic — as does a pro-choice Catholic politican. That does not mean we should endorse pro-choice Catholic politicians. In fact, we should not. Even though no pro-choice politican has been formally declared a heretic, by their actions they disobey the Church. Likewise, the SSPX disobeys the Church.

    Your objection in other threads which I will rebutt again in here, I said the pro-choice politician same with SSPX has NOT BEEN FORMALLY declared heretic (not ex-communicated).

    Bp Lefebvre was declared ex-communicated as Martin Luther was. And as Luther was obstinately against the Authority of the Church and Magisterium same with Bp Lefebvre and SSPX. And as Luther and his protestantism experiencing fragmentations same as with SSPX has been experiencing split from split from split.

    Did you hear about other traditionalist groups who split from SSPX and consider it too liberal ? Same birds flock together, indeed!

  • AJ

    You said, “One True Faith and the facts about the SSPX”. Wow you now consider yourself and SSPX leadership as the only preserver and holder of the One True Faith, bravo!

    Jesus Christ, God Himself said, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art PETER and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

    I re-read the passage again and again, I didn’t really see Jesus said the names of Marcel Lefebvre, SSPX , EditorCt nor anybody except PETER ALONE.

    “Where Peter is there is the Church”..St. Ambrose (circa A.D. 250)

  • AJ

    Spot ON!

    The authority of the Church HAS passed judgment on the SSPX. John Paul II excommunicated Lefevre and five others for participating in an unsanctioned episcopal ordination in direct contradiciton to Church law. All priests associated with the SSPX were then denied faculties to exercise their ministries, a command they chose to disobey. By this they were schismatic.

    Our current Holy Father has removed the sentence of excommunication from the four bishops still living (he did not retroactively declare null all of the excommunications, he said that he is showing clemency), with the hope that they will return to full communion. The “schism” has been healed partially on the part of the Holy See out of their clemency, however the lack of full communion still exists as SSPX priests still deny obedience to the Holy Father and bishops in communion with them, and hence their actions are scandalous to the faithful, who deserve clergy who practice what they preach.

    The organization in itself has never been declared heretical, but just because something is not heretical does not mean it is good. The SSPX remains Catholic — as does a pro-choice Catholic politican. That does not mean we should endorse pro-choice Catholic politicians. In fact, we should not. Even though no pro-choice politican has been formally declared a heretic, by their actions they disobey the Church. Likewise, the SSPX disobeys the Church.

  • Anonymous

    Be careful of what you read in Wikipedia. It is not of Divine origin.

    Have you read Our Lady’s message delivered at Fatima? Especially the warnings about a diabolical disorientation overtaking the Church unless Russia be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (still not done).

    Towards the end of your post you attempt to pit the SSPX against the Supreme Council in terms of who decides what is right and what is wrong: Allow me to point out that the SSPX are simply re-iterating what the Apostles said in the beginning, whereas the supporters of Vatican II are being steered by the successors of the Rhine Fathers – that group of Modernists who set out to take command of the Church that Christ founded. Now how does your question read? Apostles or Modernists – which will you choose to help you decide what is right and what is wrong? In my humble opinion, there is no contest. The Apostles win ever time, and it is with the Apostles that I choose to side.

    St. Peter, for the time being, has been compromised by those in power in the Vatican at the present moment – but he will be back when the time is right, and all these disloyal manipulators will be dismissed. He will resume ownership of the keys you mention, and your jibe about Archbishop Lefebvre is uncharitable in the extreme.

    As for your warning to me not to be more Catholic than the Pope, try visiting the thread about the “Funny Farm” where you will find the concensus is that any properly instructed Catholic has a duty to point out error – even to a Pope.

  • Anonymous

    You are right to observe that many malpractices current today were not called for by Vatican II. Reformatting of altars, communion in the hand whilst standing, girl altar servers, extraordinary ministers, the de facto suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass are just a few examples that spring to mind.

    But then you come completely off the rails.

    “Cherry-picking” has nothing to do with discerning Truth from Error. We must always choose Truth. Rejecting Error whist embracing Truth is not cherry-picking.

    Vatican II and the abuses it spawned has not been declared infallible and Catholics are not required to abide by its demands. Vatican II and the abuses it spawned has not been declared infallible and Catholics are not required to abide by its demands. I have said it twice in the hope that it might penetrate your blindness.

    How can you claim to be a Traditionalist and yet love the Novus Ordo Mass? The TLM is a Sacrificial rite whereas the protestant Novus Ordo rite is merely a commemoration of a banquet that took place 2,000 years ago and it only contains the merest hint of sacrifice because the dissidents who confected it could not get away with leaving out any mention of it altogether.

    You conclude by asking who will be the acting judge at the end of the day. You instance myself, the SSPX and ultra Traditionalists on the one hand, and the See of Peter and the Magisterium on the other.

    Jesus will be the judge and in any case, you have got your hands mixed up.

    The SSPX are upholding the Magisterium, as the Church has done all down the ages. The present Pope and his immediate predecessors are trying to bring in changes which conflict with the contents of the Magisterium – for instance, Gallicanism (the idea that the Bishops co-rule the Church with equal authority to the Pope), or “Collegiality” as they have renamed it, and False Ecumenism (the idea that all religions are of equal value), to quote just two examples – so again, ask yourself who you will take your guidance from. Will it be Tradition, or will it be Modernism?

    As for your final line about Luther choosing the former – well that is ludicrous. Luther did not choose Tradition – he joined league with Satan to attack Holy Mother Church. My choice? I shall stay with the Church that Christ founded, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail. What about you?

  • Anonymous

    Odd.
    Catholics – the Vatican has publicly said – are permitted to attend SSPX Masses, receive ALL the Sacraments from SSPX priests and even donate money at collection time. That is not true of ANY of the schismatic ecclesial communities (insert list here… all those involved in ecumenical “dialogue”). Kind of strange “schism” don’t you think? I’ve just seen a parish bulletin where the priest has listed his Holy Week Services – most of them take place in a variety of Protestant churches. Why’s HE not excommunicated? Oops, forgot. It’s OK to attend PROTESTANT services, just not SSPX Masses. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

    Odd.
    Bishops guilty of abusing children (in a recent case, a bishop who abused his two nephews) have not been excommunicated or suspended. Indeed, the nephew-abuser has been “advised” to seek counselling – that’s all. Not even mandatory!

    Odd.
    Canon Law # 915 states: “(those) who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” – it follows, therefore, that since procured abortion is murder, and those who procure abortion are automatically excommunicated, these pro-abortion Catholics whom you think remain Catholics, do no such thing. There is a huge question mark over their alleged Catholicity. To equate the SSPX clergy and faithful with pro-abortion politicians, merely serves to show that you are one truly mixed up beggar, I mean, blogger.

    Odd
    I note that you name Luther as being excommunicated to highlight, in your uninformed view, the position of the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre. But there was another great saint who was excommunicated in a time of crisis in the Church, St Athanasius, now a Doctor of the Church. And he was excommunicated, not once, but twice!

    Odd
    After all the factual information you’ve been given about the SSPX, with top Cardinals (including the liberal Cardinal Cassidy) stating clearly that they are not and never have been in schism, odd that you insist on saying that they are.

    May I ask you a personal question, AJ? Thanks. Are you an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion?

  • Anonymous

    AJ,

    You are SO right! Don’t you wonder at the sheer ignorance of the likes of St Catherine of Siena? Wouldn’t you think she’d have remembered those Scripture quotes you give about the Petrine Office when she wrote to, not one, but TWO popes and told them off? Here’s what she said, cheeky thing, to Pope Gregory IX:

    “Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation” (Letter, Gregory IX)

    And then, as if that wasn’t cheeky enough, she wrote to Pope Gregory XI:

    “Most Holy Father… because Christ has given you authority and because you have accepted it, you ought to use your virtue and power. If you do not wish to use it, it might be better for you to resign…If you do not do this, you will be censured by God. If I were you, I would fear that Divine Judgment might descend on me (Letter to Pope Gregory XI)

    I mean, who does she think she is? Or, rather, who did she think she was?

    Honestly, AJ. These people. As you say, nowhere in that passage of Scripture does it say Marcel Lefebvre, SSPX , EditorCt nor anybody except PETER ALONE. Including Catherine of Siena. What a nerve.

  • AJ

    EditorCT,

    Even:

    Catholics – the Vatican has publicly said – are permitted to attend SSPX Masses, receive ALL the Sacraments from SSPX priests and even donate money at collection time., however the LACK OF FULL communion still exists as SSPX priests still deny obedience to the Holy Father and bishops in communion with them, and hence their actions are scandalous to the faithful, besides the FACT they were denied faculties to exercise their ministries who nevertheless thier Mass is valid yet illicit (unlawful).

    The question is, why would anyone risk their soul by dabbling in a society that is in an irregular state with Rome to begin with?

    Splitting hairs over one’s personal opinion as to whether the excommunications were valid is a topic that has been beaten to death. Rome is the final authority on the matter. Attempting to defend the SSPX accomplishes no useful purpose. They are separated from Rome at this time.

    Even:

    True, priests and few Bishops were guilty of abusing children have not been ex-communicated. WHY? well because there exist a HUGE difference between personal sins of human beings (this case and pope included) e.g. being disobedient against a previously declared true doctrine (abortion, lust for kids, contraception etc) AS compared to being disobedient to the Authority of the Pope and Church’s Magisterium e.g. validity of Vatican II Council.
    Even:

    Yes, we totally agree on the Canon Law # 915. The point I’m making is , there exist a similarity between pro-abortion Catholics and SSPX (even the former incurred automatic ex-comm) in which both HAVE NOT BEEN DECLARED heretical groups by the Catholic Church. The former disobeys the Teaching of the Church and the latter disobeys the Authority of the Church which sums up…they both still disobey the Church. So in reality I’m not mixed up blogger but rather you are still in denial of being in the state of disobedience.

    Are you also aware of canon Law Canon 1013 states, “No Bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone as Bishop, unless it is first established that a pontifical mandate has been issued.” The meaning of this canon is self-evident, in that a bishop needs permission from the Holy See before consecrating another to the episcopate. The penalty for one who violates this canon is also clearly stated in the Code of Canon Law as follows: Canon 1383 “Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” As one can see, the penalty of excommunication for one who violates the aforementioned canon is automatic, and can only be removed by the Apostolic See (can. 1355).

    Even:

    Yes aside from the REAL FACTS that Martin Luther and Bp Marcel Lefebvre were both ex-communicated by the FULL AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church as stated by the Magisterial Canon Laws above and claiming Lefebvre as “saintly” in the likes of St. Athanasius is so far-off and ex-communications of both does not in any way necessarily follows that Bp Lefebvre is on same case as of St. Athanasius.

    Even:

    Our current Holy Father has removed the sentence of excommunication from the four bishops still living however, he did not retroactively declare null all of the excommunications, he said that he is showing clemency ( A FACT) , with the hope that they will return to full communion. The “schism” has been healed partially on the part of the Holy See out of their clemency, however the lack of full communion still exists as SSPX priests still deny obedience to the Holy Father and bishops in communion with them.
    Schism has many forms being “active” and “passive” but basically it is the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity with the Church’s Authority. And one of its many heads is the denial and disobedience to the Authority of the pope with the Bishops in Communion with him. (Magisterium of the Church). Even Bishop Bernard Fellay admitted there won’t be any agreement between him and the Church. He won’t budge in his demands and won’t submit to the recognized Magisterial Authority of the Church. So even the Church didn’t declared him a schismatic (out of clemency) by definition of the term, he is in fact in the state of schism from the Church in his heart. odd that you insist on saying that they are not.

    May I also ask you a question, EditorCt, do you consider yourself being part of the Magisterium of the Church?

  • AJ

    “Cherry-picking” has nothing to do with discerning Truth from Error. We must always choose Truth. Rejecting Error whist embracing Truth is not cherry-picking.”

    Yes I concur that cherry picking has nothing to do with discerning Truth from Error. What I’m driving at is when you said, “WE” must choose truth, to which I asked, WHOSE version of truth are you talking about? Your version that you seemed to think is right and true? Truth that the Magisterial Authority of the Catholic Church is wrong. Well, even the Mormons, pentacostals and a few thousands more really think they chose the truth and rejected errors- exactly the same position you espoused. Now tell me what differentiate your assertion from them?

    Do you get my point, bro? Put it bluntly:

    Who should we believed with certainty speaks the Truth for Christ? Pick one:

    1. WE – as you said, SSPX/Sede/other Radtrad
    2. Protestant churches
    3. Magisterium of the Church (composed of the Pope and Bishops in communion with him)

    Please don’t say again that I, ME, WE, US could see and chose the Truth and the Pope and Bishops with him don’t. Let me us you, do you have to happen to have more charism of the hioly Spirit, or somehow you have been inspired or been revealed of a prophesy to say you rightly chose and saw the Truth and not the Church? Fill me.

  • Anonymous

    You do seem to be obsessed with categorizing people according to your own classification.

    I said in the post to which you are replying:

    The SSPX are upholding the Magisterium, as the Church has done all down the ages. The present Pope and his immediate predecessors are trying to bring in changes which conflict with the contents of the Magisterium – for instance, Gallicanism (the idea that the Bishops co-rule the Church with equal authority to the Pope), or “Collegiality” as they have renamed it, and False Ecumenism (the idea that all religions are of equal value), to quote just two examples – so again, ask yourself who you will take your guidance from. Will it be Tradition, or will it be Modernism?

    Which part of that did you not understand?

    In there are two examples of where the living magisterium is trying to introduce ideas which are in conflict with the sacred magisterium as upheld for the life of the Church prior to Vatican II. These ideas DO NOT have to be adopted or obeyed by the faithful, no matter how many times you say that they emanate from the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him. They are WRONG. The Pope is not impeccable.

    It is not just me, or the SSPX who are saying they are wrong – it has been said all down the ages and we are merely upholding that assertion.

    You have to choose whether you will go with the magisterium that has been upheld down the ages, underwritten as infallible by the Holy Ghost, or whether you will go with today’s misguided living magisterium which is subject to the diabolical disorientation which Our Lady predicted at Fatima.

    I cannot put it any more plainly and I respectfully ask you to stop coming back at me with your modernist doubts about the veracity of what I have put before you and the duty that I have as a fellow Catholic to show you the error you are making.

  • Tom Canning

    The FSSPX did not reject the Scholastic Philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas – and replace it with the Atheistic thoughts of Kant – Hegel – Husserl – Heidigger and a few more – nor did they compose a new mass – as Paul I wanted a service close to the Calvinistic one – then had to change the Priesthood to accomodate the non sacrifice to a supper on a dining table with the President entertaining his guests – nor did they compose a new Catechism – nor a new list of Canon Laws – the modernists did all that and to go along with this NEW Church they had to canonise more new saints than the church did in centuries – or am I missing something here …?

  • Tom Canning

    The SSPX were invited by Rome to a Doctrinal Dialogue- turned out to be – according the Bp Galaretta to be parallel monologues…..

  • Tomcan

    Editor – well he certainly doesn’t come across as being a Catholic – he might though – have started out as one …. who knows ?