Pope Lifts Excommunications of SSPX Bishops

[pnewton]

But surely you do not suggest that the Catholic Liturgy, in it’s entirety, is not core to (Catholicism at the very least)?

No. I am stating that a particular liturgy (the TLM) is not exclusively to it’s core Catholic. One can have other liturgy, or change this liturgy and it still remain Catholic to the core. One the other hand, a Christ that is less than divine and not pre-existing, does leave one in departure from Christianity. These two problems are not even of the same magnitude. This is the second reason I do not see a parallel.

 

[Coleski]

Bishop Williamson didn’t deny the Nazi persecution and killing of Jews, he disputed the numbers and ways of death. He was foolish and callous to do so. Jewish political organizations intentions are to change by propaganda the traditional Catholic position which revokes the Mosaic covenant as seen as applying only to Jews, where the Abrahamic covenant remains in place but is now through Christ valid for all humanity. All this is straight from the New Testament. This is why traditionalist such as Williamson are anathema to Jewish organizations. Holding the Mosaic Covenant as eternally valid has grave repercussions in the Middle East as it gives the Jews an eternal dominion over a vast portion of that region, something the Arab and other Muslims are well aware of. If the Mosaic Covenant remains valid then rejecting the Son of God to death of the Cross and to this very day really isn’t such a big deal after all is it? Such is lost on liberals like Roger Mahoney who along with a few local Rabbis has declared Williamson Persona Non Grata in the Los Angeles Archdiocese. We must remain true to scripture on these matters on not get lost with powerful emotional appeals, even ones as valid as the Jewish suffering under the Nazi’s.

 

[JReducation]

I thought that an ecumenical Council could overrule a Pope. For example, when there were three Popes at one time, the Council overuled them.

In this kind of situation the Council is not overruling the pope. The Council is the only legitimate governing body, because of the confusion. You move ot the next level of authority, which is the bishops united.

The tradition of the Church is that the reigning pope is not subject to canon law. He is the giver of the law. The giver of the law is not subject to the law. Canon law makes a provision for this when it states that there is not appeal or recourse once the pope has given the final ruling on a matter of law.

It is true that Archbishop Lefebvre asked for a hearing and was denied by Pope John Paul. The Holy Father has the right to determine whether such a hearing is necessary or not. The Church is not a democratic system. The secular system of appeals does not apply as rigidly as it does in our American system of law. It only applies when the ecclesial authority allows it. This happens at all levels, not only at this level. I’ll give you an example at a different level and in a different context.

Religious have different levels of superiors: local, provincial, and general. However, a religioius can only appeal the decision or orders to a higher superior if the higher superior wants to hear the appeal. It is up to him/her to decide whether there is a valid reason for an appeal. If the person at the next level decides that the reason for the appeal is not valid, the request is ignored. You don’t even get a response.

Canons regarding the pope only apply if the reigning pope says that they do. He has the authority to say when it applies or not.

Benedict XVI has made several references to what he calls the Lefebvrist Movement. He does not impugne the SSPX. He impugnes Msgr. Lefebvre and the four bishops personally, not the Society. He has come out in defence of the priests, religious and laity in the Society.

Hope this helps clarify the pope’s understanding.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

This is not clear, sicn there were bishop who were consecrated without papal appproval in case of an emergency, and they were not excommunicated, because there was an emergency situation.

If the Pontiff agrees that a state of emergency exists, the consecrations are legitimized by his approval after the fact. But the key is that he must agree.

No one can take that authority from him.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

here’s one area where I think the SSPX was required to do something questionable.
Effectively the SSPX was required to go along with the changes in Catholic doctrine put into effect in the New Mass. For example, according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent it was with good reason that the prayer says that the Blood was shed for many. The SSPX was required to change the teaching which was in effect for two thousand years and say in the New Mass that the Blood was shed for all.

The wording is not a matter of dogma, but of translation. Dogma actually tells us that Christ did die for all. The translation of the Scripture is what is incorrect.

However, the Holy Father has said that the actual words are not always essential, for example in certain Eastern Churches the words of consecration are not used the way that we use them in the Western Church, but the Holy Father has accepted the consecration as valid, because they are present in a different form.

On another note, there is a mandate to correct the translation to match the words of the Gospel for the Latin Rite. But this is not a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of exegesis.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

How is the existence of the Holocaust a matter of “faith and morals”? It’s a matter of history.

Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI have all subscribed to the belief that faith and reason must work together. History gives us the facts regarding the Shoah. Based on those facts, the Church acts and teaches. In this case, she speaks out on a moral issue.

Any Catholic that who distorts the fact that support the Church’s moral position is in conflict with the Church.

If the person brings facts to the table that are reliable, then the situation changes. The Church has an obligation to teach morality based on truth. The veracity of the information upon which Bishop Williamson based his position is unreliable. Therefore, his statement is unreliable and out of sync with that of the popes from Bl. John XXIII to Benedict XVI.

As a Catholic, no one can do this. One has to present facts that are reliable, because these facts are being used by the Church to teach morals. Morality is in the pope’s domain.

Case in point, the use of condoms in Africa. Pope Benedict XVI’s statement that condoms aid in the spread of the HIV virus is based on reliable facts. Therefore, we cannot disagree with this statement, unless we can produce facts that are more credible than the ones that he has.

Finally, in his letter of apology to the world’s bishops, Pope Benedict has said had he known of the Bishop’s position, his actions would have been different. Bishop Williamson’s position risked the progress that the Holy Father had made in Catholic Jewish relations for more than 30 years. He has been working on this as a theologian and as pope. No Catholic has the right to throw a wrench into the work of the Church. That is a matter of morality, especially into a mission of the pope himself. That kind of mistake can cause great harm to the Church. It is from this point of view that the Holy Father is coming from.

He sees this as a lack of good reason. We all know how strongly he feels that faith and reason go hand in hand. Obviously, heis going to come down very hard on anyone who is not in sync with this thinking.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[pnewton]

It is true that Archbishop Lefebvre asked for a hearing and was denied by Pope John Paul. The Holy Father has the right to determine whether such a hearing is necessary or not. The Church is not a democratic system. The secular system of appeals does not apply as rigidly as it does in our American system of law. It only applies when the ecclesial authority allows it. This happens at all levels, not only at this level. I’ll give you an example at a different level and in a different context.

I see a great irony in this. Perhaps now, as at no other time can such issues exist. As much as the SSPX rails against the need for the Second Vatican Council, it is modern society that makes their existence possible. As much as we must reject modernism with it’s view of Man, it is this exaltation of many that gave rise to democracy as we have today, and therefore, treating Church authority as of lesser importance than one’s own exalted opinions. It is the things that the SSPX hates the most and fights the most that allow them to exist.

 

[JReducation]

I see a great irony in this. Perhaps now, as at no other time can such issues exist. As much as the SSPX rails against the need for the Second Vatican Council, it is modern society that makes their existence possible. As much as we must reject modernism with it’s view of Man, it is this exaltation of many that gave rise to democracy as we have today, and therefore, treating Church authority as of lesser importance than one’s own exalted opinions. It is the things that the SSPX hates the most and fights the most that allow them to exist.

In a sense, if we argue for a return to all traditions, then we must also accept the papacy as an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional one where citizens have rights accorded them by human law.

In this case, if we say that anyone has a right to a hearing, because the law of the Church allows that, then we also have to accept that the law of the Church allows the Pontiff to deny or ignore the request.

If we follow the ancient tradition, the Pontiff has never been subject to canon law. He is the giver of the law. There has never been a decree that says that the Pontiff is subject to canon law. Pontiffs have applied law and used it to govern, but they have also dispensed from it.

There are several cases that come to mind.

1. The canonization of our Holy Father Francis. Pope Gregory IX dispensed with the requirements of miracles and a study of his life. He canonized Francis based on his belief that Francis was a saint through a Motu Proprio.
2. The age of ordination or the profession of religious vows has been dispensed with a number of times, the most famous one being that of St. Terese of Liseux.
3. The waiting period for postulating a cause for canonization, such as the cases of John Paul II and Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta have been dispensed with.
4. The use of the words of consecration by certain Eastern Churches. The Pope declared that they are present in a Eucological Form.
5. LIfting the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops, but not giving them episcopal authority or an episcopal see. The law says that every bishop must have a see.

In Church history these are actions of a pontiff who is also an absolute monarch with absolute authority over his people. What we have here is a blend of tradition and contemporary pontifical practices blending into one and applied as the Holy Father believes to be appropriate.

The only way to deny him this power would be to deny his authority to exercise such power. That can only be done by a council where the bishops are united in the belief that the See of Peter has become vacant because the person who occupies the Chair is not competent to exercise such authority.

As long as we accept that the See of Peter is occuppied, then we must also accept that the occupant has supreme rights that cannot be denied him.

I am reminded of a passage in the rule of our order where St. Francis tells the brothers and sisters to obey the pope in all things, regardless of how sinful he may be, for he alone is the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Peter, he alone has the power to bind and unbind, and though he can sin, he cannot teach sin, because the “gates of hell will not prevail against him”

It was good advice. This month the Franciscan family has celebrated its 800th birthday with more than 1.7 million brothers and sisters in 114 countries around the world. We have certainly had our problems and problem children, some very serious, but we have survived them and continue to grow in communion with the Church.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[chosen_people]

How is the existence of the Holocaust a matter of “faith and morals”? It’s a matter of history.

I’m not defending Williamson’s views per se, but I’m questioning what exactly belief in the Holocaust has to do with Catholic dogma. Just because the pope holds a personal opinion on something does not make it dogma. The Holocaust was never declared ex cathedra or in an ecumenical council, so aren’t faithful Catholics free to disagree? If you’re Catholic you can even believe the Bulls beat the Celtics last night if you want, without fear of excommunication.

I suggest reading this article

takimag.com/site/article/history_the_holocaust_and_the_doctrines_of_the_church/

Indeed why should it matter if a bishop of the Catholic church is a bigot or a racist or an anti-Semite or even a criminal? Is hatred and prejudice against Jews not something the Catholic Church has taken a moral stand on? Did the formation of religious anti-Semitism have nothing to do with the Catholic Church?

It’s not like a priest holding the position of bishop actually represents or reflects on the Catholic church. It’s not like an adherent of the Catholic church would actually turn to a priest, much less a bishop, for moral guidance. It’s not like you compared the unspeakable horrible human tragedy of the Shoah to the score of a basketball game. It’s not like you claimed that an event which was witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people still alive today, whose camps with their gas chambers stand as a
eternal reminder, whose thousands of pictures and meters of film are an indelible witness, isn’t merely something about which “faithful Catholics (are) free to disagree”.

 

[bobzills]

In a sense, if we argue for a return to all traditions, then we must also accept the papacy as an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional one where citizens have rights accorded them by human law.

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the papacy as an absolute monarchy overy their territory, so you had better forget about any reunification with the Eastern Orthodox Church under those conditions.

 

[chosen_people]

Bishop Williamson didn’t deny the Nazi persecution and killing of Jews, he disputed the numbers and ways of death. He was foolish and callous to do so. Jewish political organizations intentions are to change by propaganda the traditional Catholic position which revokes the Mosaic covenant as seen as applying only to Jews, where the Abrahamic covenant remains in place but is now through Christ valid for all humanity. All this is straight from the New Testament. This is why traditionalist such as Williamson are anathema to Jewish organizations. Holding the Mosaic Covenant as eternally valid has grave repercussions in the Middle East as it gives the Jews an eternal dominion over a vast portion of that region, something the Arab and other Muslims are well aware of. If the Mosaic Covenant remains valid then rejecting the Son of God to death of the Cross and to this very day really isn’t such a big deal after all is it? Such is lost on liberals like Roger Mahoney who along with a few local Rabbis has declared Williamson Persona Non Grata in the Los Angeles Archdiocese. We must remain true to scripture on these matters on not get lost with powerful emotional appeals, even ones as valid as the Jewish suffering under the Nazi’s.

The state of Israel encompasses only one per cent of the lands of the Middle East - it is roughly the size of New Jersey.

Now don’t take this the wrong way, but it is totally irrelevant to us what you believe regarding the covenant between the Jewish people and God. From a Jewish perspective your religion has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism and is no different to us then Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism. Incidentally, according to Judaism it is easier for the Gentile to get into the world to come then the Jew.

However, we do care about rabid anti-Semitic holocaust deniers. You should too, especially if its someone who is associated with your Church.

 

[numealinesimpet]

But surely you do not suggest that the Catholic Liturgy, in it’s entirety, is not core to (Catholicism at the very least)? For that is what the Church lost (and replaced) after Vatican II. I was going to say that it had been changed or reformed but in truth it was lost and replaced with something that bore only faint similarities and with it has been lost far more. Our Pope himself has said: “It is incontrovertible that this period (post Vatican II) has definitely been unfavourable for the Catholic Church.” -Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger L’Osservatore Romano 1984
The statistics prove the point just as incontrovertibly. Baptisms, Mass attendence and, worst perhaps of all, vocations have dived by massive percentages since the Council while apostatization has risen shockingly.
I would go so far as to claim that with the Liturgy many (of those who remained with the Church) have lost true Faith in and reverence for Our Lord and respect for the Church itself.

Just to mention that, in Ireland at least, the vocations rate per capita of trads versus mainstream is more than 400 times higher. Simple statistics. Approx. 10 trads out of a total number of maybe 600 (maybe less) and I doubt if there have been 100 new vocations in the same time out of 3.5 million who register as Catholic on the census. Mass attendance in the whole country is at least 50%, so if you care to count only practising Catholics, that’s still 100 max (& I think it’s lower) out of 1,750,000 (0.006%) as against 15 out of 600 (2.5%).

 

[TMC]

Bishop Williamson didn’t deny the Nazi persecution and killing of Jews, he disputed the numbers and ways of death. He was foolish and callous to do so. Jewish political organizations intentions are to change by propaganda the traditional Catholic position which revokes the Mosaic covenant as seen as applying only to Jews, where the Abrahamic covenant remains in place but is now through Christ valid for all humanity. All this is straight from the New Testament. This is why traditionalist such as Williamson are anathema to Jewish organizations. Holding the Mosaic Covenant as eternally valid has grave repercussions in the Middle East as it gives the Jews an eternal dominion over a vast portion of that region, something the Arab and other Muslims are well aware of. If the Mosaic Covenant remains valid then rejecting the Son of God to death of the Cross and to this very day really isn’t such a big deal after all is it? Such is lost on liberals like Roger Mahoney who along with a few local Rabbis has declared Williamson Persona Non Grata in the Los Angeles Archdiocese. We must remain true to scripture on these matters on not get lost with powerful emotional appeals, even ones as valid as the Jewish suffering under the Nazi’s.

If the only thing Williamson did was question the accuracy of the numbers of the dead, that would be another matter. He has done a lot more than that. Bishop Williamson claimed that the Holocaust was a fraud made up by Jews to support their claim on the Holy Land.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The wording is not a matter of dogma, but of translation. Dogma actually tells us that Christ did die for all. The translation of the Scripture is what is incorrect.

Not so. It cannot (with respect) be brushed aside as a mis-translation. Any schoolboy with elementary Greek knows the difference between the words for ‘all’ and ‘many’. This was done with an agenda, which was doctrinal. Dogma tells us that Christ died potentially for the Salvation of all, but efficaciously for many. In the 20th Century there has been a persistent attempt to propagate the heresy of universal salvation. The mistranslation of ‘pro multis’ (an accurate translation of the words of Christ) was no arbitrary act. At the Last Supper Christ said a particular thing. The impertinence of changing this in the official translation of the Church’s Liturgy, at the very Consecration itself, is perhaps unprecedented in the history of the Church.

However, the Holy Father has said that the actual words are not always essential, for example in certain Eastern Churches the words of consecration are not used the way that we use them in the Western Church, but the Holy Father has accepted the consecration as valid, because they are present in a different form.

It is a different question whether this change affects the validity of the consecration. For what it is worth, I have followed the majority opinion of theologians that it remains valid (because the words ‘This is My Body’ have already been said). Yet the very fact that this has had to be thrashed out is a terrible indictment of the experimentation of the past 50 years. C.S.Lewis said to a lecture-hall full of Anglican candidates for ordination, "The words of Christ to Peter were, ‘Feed My sheep’, not ‘experiment on my rats’.

On another note, there is a mandate to correct the translation to match the words of the Gospel for the Latin Rite. But this is not a matter of doctrine, it is a matter of exegesis.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR

Yes, I’m very glad to see the Holy Father move to correct this.
By the way, JRed, I’m certain you know this, but for the forum] the passage in the Traditional Roman rite, very interestingly, does not follow the exact words of Scripture, whereas the other Rites, e.g. Byzantine, do so. The TLM records that Our Lord ‘lifting up His Eyes to Heaven’, pronounced the words of consecration. This is excellent presumptive evidence that the TLM preserves traditions of equal antiquity to the Scriptures themselves, if it does not pre-date their writing down. Also, the Roman Rite alone has ‘taking THIS chalice’ whereas the other traditional rites have ‘taking THE chalice’. That is because the Pope used the actual chalice of the Last supper - the Holy Grail - at his Mass until the 4th century, when it was taken to Spain for safe-keeping, due to the troubles of the time. Pope John Paul II offered Mass with this chalice when he was in Spain.

 

[numealinesimpet]

In this kind of situation the Council is not overruling the pope. The Council is the only legitimate governing body, because of the confusion. You move ot the next level of authority, which is the bishops united.

Yes, the resolution of the Great Schism was a truly exceptional case. Remember, there were not really three popes. But it was only when the dust had settled that the true line of Apostolic Succession was fully clarified. Then all true Catholics accepted the decision. At that point is had never been actually ‘tested in court’ whether a council can ever over-ride a pope. The council, in despar, after both ostensive popes had promised to resign and then did not do so, elected a third pope. Naturally this only deepened the mess. In the end, two died and the survivor did agree to resign. Then a new pope was elected by the council and accepted by acclamation. But none of this proves that a Council can over-rule a pope.

The tradition of the Church is that the reigning pope is not subject to canon law. He is the giver of the law. The giver of the law is not subject to the law. Canon law makes a provision for this when it states that there is not appeal or recourse once the pope has given the final ruling on a matter of law.

That is an opinion which is not universal or unanimous amoing prelates, canonists and theologians… It may well be that the present crisis will be the catalyst that engenders a definitive and infallible definition. At Vatican i the main party opposing the definition of infallibility based their objection on this precise point: that it would be misunderstood and hence believed that each and every promulgation of the pope was beyond question or redress.

It is true that Archbishop Lefebvre asked for a hearing and was denied by Pope John Paul. The Holy Father has the right to determine whether such a hearing is necessary or not. The Church is not a democratic system. The secular system of appeals does not apply as rigidly as it does in our American system of law. It only applies when the ecclesial authority allows it. This happens at all levels, not only at this level. I’ll give you an example at a different level and in a different context.

Religious have different levels of superiors: local, provincial, and general. However, a religioius can only appeal the decision or orders to a higher superior if the higher superior wants to hear the appeal. It is up to him/her to decide whether there is a valid reason for an appeal. If the person at the next level decides that the reason for the appeal is not valid, the request is ignored. You don’t even get a response.

It must be pointed out that this is a different case: the religious has, as a penance, taken a Vow of Obedience to his superior. Even then, it is presupposed that the Superior has not ordered something against a Higher Law. this is indeed the crux of the SSPX debate.

Canons regarding the pope only apply if the reigning pope says that they do. He has the authority to say when it applies or not.

Where is that stated?

Under the above system, is it not clear that S. Athanasius ad all his followers were at fault, and ought not to have been canonised?

Benedict XVI has made several references to what he calls the Lefebvrist Movement. He does not impugne the SSPX. He impugnes Msgr. Lefebvre and the four bishops personally, not the Society. He has come out in defence of the priests, religious and laity in the Society.

One can’t maintain that. The SSPX would not exist but for the actions of Mgr Lefebvre & the 4 bishops. The real point is that only the above were issued with the [invalid] decree of excommunication. It is true, of course, that when the followers of the SSPX have been accused of being excommunicated, never once was a voice in authority heard to state that this was not so.

Hope this helps clarify the pope’s understanding.

Fraternally,

JR

tnx. I hope my comments will contribute to a constructive debate.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I see a great irony in this. Perhaps now, as at no other time can such issues exist. As much as the SSPX rails against the need for the Second Vatican Council, it is modern society that makes their existence possible. As much as we must reject modernism with it’s view of Man, it is this exaltation of many that gave rise to democracy as we have today, and therefore, treating Church authority as of lesser importance than one’s own exalted opinions. It is the things that the SSPX hates the most and fights the most that allow them to exist.

It is not a question of democracy, but of the legitimate bounds of authority. In the 16th century there was serious debate over whether a reigning pope could be excommunicated or deposed. S. Robert Bellarmine gave several cases which would justify this action: Excommunicating everyone in the Church. Abolishing the Liturgy. In both these cases, which are humanly possible, the pope would be acting beyond the purpose for wwhich his office exists. Another theologian put is another way: the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, of which the pope is the Vicar on Earth. The Church is not the Mystical Body of the pope.

It is definitely true that the Church’s Canon law is not identical to an Secular Law. We could discuss this further.

The SSPX have no special dogma or slant on the Church, except a determination to resist the novelties that are illegitimate. They have refused to be intimidated by sanctions that are in themselves invalid.

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX have no special dogma or slant on the Church, except a determination to resist the novelties that are illegitimate. They have refused to be intimidated by sanctions that are in themselves invalid.

Your post does nothing but beg the question and it shows the very point and attitude I was referring to. “They refused to be indimitaded…” Pride. Self-appointed authority. “I will not serve.”

In the 16th century there was serious debate over whether a reigning pope could be excommunicated or deposed. S. Robert Bellarmine gave several cases which would justify this action: Excommunicating everyone in the Church. Abolishing the Liturgy.

Neither of these things happened. Even if they had, it would show that sedevacantism makes more sense than the actions the SSPX has taken. All are crazy in my opinion, but I have always thought that conclavists have the most consistent internal logic.

These arguments have all been rehashed. It is not so much that either side here is stubborn as we are familiar with these comparisons and analogies.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Thanks for this posting, JRed

In a sense, if we argue for a return to all traditions, then we must also accept the papacy as an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional one where citizens have rights accorded them by human law.

 

[numealinesimpet]

(continued…)

In Church history these are actions of a pontiff who is also an absolute monarch with absolute authority over his people. What we have here is a blend of tradition and contemporary pontifical practices blending into one and applied as the Holy Father believes to be appropriate.

The only way to deny him this power would be to deny his authority to exercise such power. That can only be done by a council where the bishops are united in the belief that the See of Peter has become vacant because the person who occupies the Chair is not competent to exercise such authority.

This was one of three opinions. another opinion is that one must simply wait for him to die, then start again. I do not believe this has been definitively decided.

As long as we accept that the See of Peter is occupied, then we must also accept that the occupant has supreme rights that cannot be denied him.

Indeed. But he is the custodian. His authority is to build up, not to destroy.

I am reminded of a passage in the rule of our order where St. Francis tells the brothers and sisters to obey the pope in all things, regardless of how sinful he may be, for he alone is the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Peter, he alone has the power to bind and unbind, and though he can sin, he cannot teach sin, because the “gates of hell will not prevail against him”

It was good advice.

If you were taken back to the 4th century and S. Athanasius asked you what he should do, what would you answer?

This month the Franciscan family has celebrated its 800th birthday with more than 1.7 million brothers and sisters in 114 countries around the world. We have certainly had our problems and problem children, some very serious, but we have survived them and continue to grow in communion with the Church.

Fraternally,

JR

Yes, brother, and congratulations on the re-publication of the hitherto inaccessible History of the Frinciscan order, currently being undertaken by the Transalpine Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay.

I will share with you my conviction that your Order will return to the traditions that built up the Franciscans, including the traditional liturgical life, and that, on the human level, this will have been facilitated by the courageous actions of the traditionalists, obtaining their sacramental nourishment through the SSPX. On the Divine Level? We must await our Judgment for full enlightenment on that. I see no reason why the SSPX were not part of God’s Plan of Providence in the present crisis.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Your post does nothing but beg the question and it shows the very point and attitude I was referring to. “They refused to be indimitaded…” Pride. Self-appointed authority. “I will not serve.”

I didn’t want to go over these points in detail, but I refer you to Michael Davies’ book ‘apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre’.
Some of the novelties are direct contradictions of what has always been taught. That is not opinion; it is all there in black and white.
Assuming Davies’ accounts are factual - and I have never heard them refuted - then ‘intimidation’ is the only word I can apply to them.

Neither of these things happened. Even if they had, it would show that sedevacantism makes more sense than the actions the SSPX has taken. All are crazy in my opinion, but I have always thought that conclavists have the most consistent internal logic.

I’m not sure about that. I omitted from the list Bellarmine’s third example 'Officially promulgating heresy". Remember, he wrote before Vatican I. The 3rd example, we now know, would be prevented by the Holy Spirit, as He will safeguard Peter as regards Faith and Morals. But the other two are disciplinary actions that he could conceivaby take. In fact, “Abolishing the traditional Liturgy” is precisely what we were told (not officially by the pope, but by others) had happened - until Pope Benedict clarified it with his Motu Proprio. Come clean, now: were you told that the Old Latin Mass had been abolished? If so, did you believe it?