J
jmj603
Guest
So can radical sanation apply to the dead?
- Status
C
Cat
Guest
I just want to say that this discussion has gone way over my head. You’re using some terms that I don’t know the meaning of.
I appreciate the answers, and I did read the Wikapedia article, which was interesting.
I tend to be a little distrustful of Wikapedia (they reported that my favorite actor has three kids when he only has two, and a few weeks later, they changed that!). But I think the article seemed fairly factual.
I’ve also checked out other links that people have posted, but many of them are extremely long.
Thanks for trying to clear up my questions, although I must admit, I’m hornswaggled. I guess I need the book Catholic Denominations for Dummies.
I appreciate the answers, and I did read the Wikapedia article, which was interesting.
I tend to be a little distrustful of Wikapedia (they reported that my favorite actor has three kids when he only has two, and a few weeks later, they changed that!). But I think the article seemed fairly factual.
I’ve also checked out other links that people have posted, but many of them are extremely long.
Thanks for trying to clear up my questions, although I must admit, I’m hornswaggled. I guess I need the book Catholic Denominations for Dummies.
I
Icarus210
Guest
Wow, we are called a lot of things here. (Rad Trads, Protestants even!!!) When it comes down to it, WE ARE ROMAN CATHOLICS LIKE YOU!!! I have been an SSPX member since I had my first communion 2 years ago. I dont consider our parish, arrogant, unloving, and we certainly dont look down on any other parishoners in any other catholic church. Yes we have issues with the modern liturgy, and issues with Vat 2.
Paul had issues with Peter about how he only sat with his own kind: at least Peter admitted he was wrong. He didnt kick Paul out of his church because he knew his criticism was said in Love. If the SSPX split from Rome, 99% of its parishoners would leave the next day.
PS> If I want to hear about our local sporting team, i will go to the local club, NOT church and especially during the homily.
Iccy
Paul had issues with Peter about how he only sat with his own kind: at least Peter admitted he was wrong. He didnt kick Paul out of his church because he knew his criticism was said in Love. If the SSPX split from Rome, 99% of its parishoners would leave the next day.
PS> If I want to hear about our local sporting team, i will go to the local club, NOT church and especially during the homily.
Iccy
M
mdstanzel
Guest
Well, I had SSPX mixed up with Sedevacantists. I see both of you as heretics . Joking aside, it is still wrong to disobey the Church’s teaching and it’s authority. That is a sin and a grave one at that.
My view comes from my own father who said if you not Catholic your going to hell. The that you can be saved only through the Church. He said and meant the first. I knew that’s not what the Church taught and so I avoided him most of my life. Now that said, because of the lack of clarity in that I after many years of struggle ended up defecting to a campbellite movement church that really believe they are the only ones saved. I had issues with it. But the simplicity and matter of factness of their dogma was very attractive to me - not to mention the beutiful brunette that I fell head over hills for that would never have converted to Catholicism before death.
A long story cut short, my objections is decent. In my former church you would have been told to leave and never return. And on the way out you would have been told that you were going to hell.
And that would have been the elders. Though that is not my view, I do see the SSPX as deliberately gravely sinning.
. Joking aside, it is still wrong to disobey the Church’s teaching and it’s authority. That is a sin and a grave one at that.My view comes from my own father who said if you not Catholic your going to hell. The that you can be saved only through the Church. He said and meant the first. I knew that’s not what the Church taught and so I avoided him most of my life. Now that said, because of the lack of clarity in that I after many years of struggle ended up defecting to a campbellite movement church that really believe they are the only ones saved. I had issues with it. But the simplicity and matter of factness of their dogma was very attractive to me - not to mention the beutiful brunette that I fell head over hills for that would never have converted to Catholicism before death.
A long story cut short, my objections is decent. In my former church you would have been told to leave and never return. And on the way out you would have been told that you were going to hell.
And that would have been the elders. Though that is not my view, I do see the SSPX as deliberately gravely sinning.
B
BobP123
Guest
And even then Lefebrve used Canon Law in his defense, as everyone who wants to remain in communion with Rome is entitled to do.
B
BobP123
Guest
Also because Paul didn’t have French and German bishops around to nail him.
B
BobP123
Guest
Again, that is an internal matter for the Church. Let’s just say “boys will be boys” and let God judge them on that.Well, I had SSPX mixed up with Sedevacantists. I see both of you as heretics
It is NOT sinful to attend the SSPX Masses so long as you don’t create a schismatic mindset. And the SSPX bashers, who are mostly uninformed, should not make schismatics of anyone either.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
I have a question for you: What would you sau y if high ranking churchmen (even the Pope) began to teach things that were explicitly condemned repeatedly by previous Popes?Well, I had SSPX mixed up with Sedevacantists. I see both of you as heretics
Would you a) say that we should accept that new teaching which had always been condemned as an error; or b) resist that erroneous teaching, even if it is coming from the Pope Himself?
That is the situation with the SSPX. They are holding fast to what the Church has always taught, and resisting the errors that have been repeatedly condemned for the past 200 years. If the Pope gives mixes signals, which confuses the faithful, the SSPX simply holds to what the Church has always taught and resists the modern errors.
A few of these errors are: religious liberty, which was condemned repeatedly, yet has been promoted by the past few Popes; false ecumenism, which does not seek to convert heretics and schismatics into the Catholic Church, but rather seeks to “unite” with them without their converting.
Those are the two primary errors that the SSPX resists. Both of these errors were condemned before Vatican II, and both are now taught and promoted by all levels of the hierarchy.
The Pope is not garanteed to be free from all error unless he is defining a dogma. Thus, when the Pope promotes the two above mentioned errors, Papal Infallibility does not enter in.
If you would like to read previous encyclicals where the two above mentioned errors are condemned, here is a link:
Condemning false ecumenism: papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM (the entire encyclical is dedicated to false ecumenism.
Religious liberty. This error is condemned in many encyclicals, The following is just one of them (see paragraphs 19 and 20):papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm
A
AlexV
Guest
The question of marriages and confessions with respect to the SSPX is a vexed one, and the jury is quite out.
I, for one, know more than a handful of couples married in the SSPX who now attend FSSP Masses. None of them were required to have their marriages sanated.
And yes, they did ask.
As for Confirmations, ByzCath remains wrong in his assertion that SSPX Confirmations are invalid.
NO SSPX Confirmation has EVER been “redone”, conditionally or otherwise. No SSPX priest, on entering the FSSP or another Institute, has ever been reconfirmed, conditionally or not.
Now there’s a case of logic for you. If the SSPX Confirmations WERE invalid, a grave assertion that our resident Eastern Catholic expert has made, chances are SSPX clergy, for starters, would all need to be reconfirmed. And that hasn’t happened.
Oh wait…it happened in secret and we just don’t know.
Nope. SSPX Confirmations are valid. As valid as valid can be.
I myself was confirmed in the SSPX. Am I validly confirmed? You bet.
I, for one, know more than a handful of couples married in the SSPX who now attend FSSP Masses. None of them were required to have their marriages sanated.
And yes, they did ask.
As for Confirmations, ByzCath remains wrong in his assertion that SSPX Confirmations are invalid.
NO SSPX Confirmation has EVER been “redone”, conditionally or otherwise. No SSPX priest, on entering the FSSP or another Institute, has ever been reconfirmed, conditionally or not.
Now there’s a case of logic for you. If the SSPX Confirmations WERE invalid, a grave assertion that our resident Eastern Catholic expert has made, chances are SSPX clergy, for starters, would all need to be reconfirmed. And that hasn’t happened.
Oh wait…it happened in secret and we just don’t know.
Nope. SSPX Confirmations are valid. As valid as valid can be.
I myself was confirmed in the SSPX. Am I validly confirmed? You bet.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
I have a question for you: What would you say if high ranking churchmen (even the Pope) began to teach things that were explicitly condemned as errors by previous Popes?
Would you a) say that we should accept that teaching which had always been condemned as an error; or b) resist that erroneous teaching by holding to what the Church has always taught, even if the said error is coming from the Pope Himself?
The SSPX has choseon option “B”. They are holding fast to what the Church has always taught, and resisting the errors that have been repeatedly condemned for the past 200 years.
When the Pope gives mixes signals, or explicitly teach what has been condemned, the SSPX simply holds to what the Church has always taught and resists the modern errors.
A few of these errors are: religious liberty, which was condemned repeatedly yet has been promoted by the past few Popes; and false ecumenism, which does not seek to convert heretics and schismatics into the Catholic Church, but rather seeks to “unite” with them without their converting.
Those are the two primary errors that the SSPX resists. Both of these errors were condemned before Vatican II, and both are now taught and promoted by all levels of the hierarchy.
The SSPX also reject the liturgy of the New Mas because it is has a Protestant flavour. Actually, it has more than just a Protestant flavor. It has incorporated most of the “reforms” that the heretics of the 16th century incorporated into their “mass” with the purpose of destroying the Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass is virtually identical to the service at the Episcopal church which I grew up attending.
The Pope is not garanteed to be free from all error unless he is defining a dogma. Thus, when the Pope promotes the two above mentioned errors (religious liberty and false ecumenism), Papal Infallibility does not enter in.
If you would like to read previous encyclicals where the two above mentioned errors are condemned, here are a few links:
Condemning false ecumenism: papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM (the entire encyclical is dedicated to false ecumenism.
Religious liberty. This error is condemned in many encyclicals, The following is just one of them (see paragraphs 19 and 20):papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm
Would you a) say that we should accept that teaching which had always been condemned as an error; or b) resist that erroneous teaching by holding to what the Church has always taught, even if the said error is coming from the Pope Himself?
The SSPX has choseon option “B”. They are holding fast to what the Church has always taught, and resisting the errors that have been repeatedly condemned for the past 200 years.
When the Pope gives mixes signals, or explicitly teach what has been condemned, the SSPX simply holds to what the Church has always taught and resists the modern errors.
A few of these errors are: religious liberty, which was condemned repeatedly yet has been promoted by the past few Popes; and false ecumenism, which does not seek to convert heretics and schismatics into the Catholic Church, but rather seeks to “unite” with them without their converting.
Those are the two primary errors that the SSPX resists. Both of these errors were condemned before Vatican II, and both are now taught and promoted by all levels of the hierarchy.
The SSPX also reject the liturgy of the New Mas because it is has a Protestant flavour. Actually, it has more than just a Protestant flavor. It has incorporated most of the “reforms” that the heretics of the 16th century incorporated into their “mass” with the purpose of destroying the Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass is virtually identical to the service at the Episcopal church which I grew up attending.
The Pope is not garanteed to be free from all error unless he is defining a dogma. Thus, when the Pope promotes the two above mentioned errors (religious liberty and false ecumenism), Papal Infallibility does not enter in.
If you would like to read previous encyclicals where the two above mentioned errors are condemned, here are a few links:
Condemning false ecumenism: papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM (the entire encyclical is dedicated to false ecumenism.
Religious liberty. This error is condemned in many encyclicals, The following is just one of them (see paragraphs 19 and 20):papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm
S
Seminarian_Matt
Guest
Wow, we are called a lot of things here. (Rad Trads, Protestants even!!!) When it comes down to it, WE ARE ROMAN CATHOLICS LIKE YOU!!! I have been an SSPX member since I had my first communion 2 years ago. I dont consider our parish, arrogant, unloving, and we certainly dont look down on any other parishoners in any other catholic church. Yes we have issues with the modern liturgy, and issues with Vat 2.
Paul had issues with Peter about how he only sat with his own kind: at least Peter admitted he was wrong. He didnt kick Paul out of his church because he knew his criticism was said in Love. If the SSPX split from Rome, 99% of its parishoners would leave the next day.
PS> If I want to hear about our local sporting team, i will go to the local club, NOT church and especially during the homily.
Iccy
AMEN. I repeat: SSPX is not in schism and is NOT deliberately sinning. They are preserving Catholic Traditions. They are faithful to the Pope’s authority too.
U
Unitas
Guest
I don’t know if anyone brought this up already, but the CCC seems to address this situation in paragraph #1128:
I think it is uder pain of sin that a sacrament be performed when under suspension, but I don’t think that in itself would make that sacrament invalid. It would be unfair to punish the laity for the sins of the celebrant.
Even if the priest is in disobedience or not, it seems here that the sacraments themselves are valid if the formula is followed and the dispositions of those who recieve them are appropriate.
I think it is uder pain of sin that a sacrament be performed when under suspension, but I don’t think that in itself would make that sacrament invalid. It would be unfair to punish the laity for the sins of the celebrant.
M
mdstanzel
Guest
Pax et Caritas
So the solution to the problem is to (pardon the crudeness) flip the bird at the Pope and scream as loud as you can “HERETIC”!
That’s what you’re justifying in your clouded judgement.
The solution is to leave the Catholic Church like I did 18 years ago. Because of all of this turmoil in the Church I believed that all of you were going to hell for not obeying Christ.
Example: Annulment is a man made rule not condoned by Christ. Historical context. But now to the point. My wife and I both believe that if you were married and then divorced you will be okay as long as you remain chaste in your situation. However, if you try to get remarried through the annulment process, your condemning yourself to hell. That’s our feelings and our beliefs. My point in telling you this is that we just converted to Catholicism from a group that calls themselves the true Church, the churches of Christ - a term that is used in the scriptures. They reject all names that so called denominations, like Catholics.
I’m not trying to offend, but oh well, if the shoe fits, wear it. I appreciate the concepts and beliefs of the SSPX. But I would like to see them come back to the fold. Who was it (an early church father) that said schism is worst than heresy? If the SSPX are in schism, then they need to come back to the fold. He they are not then they need to show respect to the ordinary Bishop. But to justify going to the SSPX mass when in fact there are other NO masses to attend, then you are wrong.
Let me stretch this further, if you get away with this argument in its present form, then I would argue that we not only need to do away with infallability but with all current practices, including the TLM (licit or illicit). I believe we should go back to the last eccumenical councel before the Great Schism so that we can rebuild the bridges that the leaders back then burned. I think we should go back to St. John Chrysotom’s Divine Liturgy. I am a Catholic with Orthodox tendencies. But if I can be obedient to the Pope, then why can’t SSPX? Because they are stubborn and their conciences are darkened with pride.
My wife just sang one of our favorite songs from the churches of Christ. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Fortuneately, for us we saw the error in the churches of Christ and swam the Tiber on April 7, 2007 after an orthodox Catholic RCIA. Our instructor was hand picked by Bishop Vann to lead the new Adult Faith Formation for the entire Diocese. He went to Franciscan University and Ave Maria University for his Masters. He is a very orthodox Catholic.
I am praying for unity. But I have to get over my own problems. I still feel funny praying to Saints for their intercession. I am devoted to the Blessed Mother and pray that my anti-Catholic feelings will finally end. I mean anti-Catholic in the hidden feelings of all the abuses that I personally survived in the 70’ & 80’s. I was working towards becoming an evangelist in the churches of Christ. Fortuneatly my wife resisted, because the transition would have been so much more difficult.
I will read up on what you are saying, but if I told my son to do something and it was not quite right. He would have to obey me to be right with God. He must honor his father and mother. Even if I told him to attend the church of Christ again. When he reached the age of independence, then he could step out on his own and do as he pleases. Thsi is more important than you give credit. I see the SSPX as being disobedient. What they are doing and if I’ve interpreted your words correctly, the SSPX is in fact DIVIDED from Rome. They are by definition, whether the words are spoken or written, in schism. That is sad.
So the solution to the problem is to (pardon the crudeness) flip the bird at the Pope and scream as loud as you can “HERETIC”!
That’s what you’re justifying in your clouded judgement.
The solution is to leave the Catholic Church like I did 18 years ago. Because of all of this turmoil in the Church I believed that all of you were going to hell for not obeying Christ.
Example: Annulment is a man made rule not condoned by Christ. Historical context. But now to the point. My wife and I both believe that if you were married and then divorced you will be okay as long as you remain chaste in your situation. However, if you try to get remarried through the annulment process, your condemning yourself to hell. That’s our feelings and our beliefs. My point in telling you this is that we just converted to Catholicism from a group that calls themselves the true Church, the churches of Christ - a term that is used in the scriptures. They reject all names that so called denominations, like Catholics.
I’m not trying to offend, but oh well, if the shoe fits, wear it. I appreciate the concepts and beliefs of the SSPX. But I would like to see them come back to the fold. Who was it (an early church father) that said schism is worst than heresy? If the SSPX are in schism, then they need to come back to the fold. He they are not then they need to show respect to the ordinary Bishop. But to justify going to the SSPX mass when in fact there are other NO masses to attend, then you are wrong.
Let me stretch this further, if you get away with this argument in its present form, then I would argue that we not only need to do away with infallability but with all current practices, including the TLM (licit or illicit). I believe we should go back to the last eccumenical councel before the Great Schism so that we can rebuild the bridges that the leaders back then burned. I think we should go back to St. John Chrysotom’s Divine Liturgy. I am a Catholic with Orthodox tendencies. But if I can be obedient to the Pope, then why can’t SSPX? Because they are stubborn and their conciences are darkened with pride.
My wife just sang one of our favorite songs from the churches of Christ. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Fortuneately, for us we saw the error in the churches of Christ and swam the Tiber on April 7, 2007 after an orthodox Catholic RCIA. Our instructor was hand picked by Bishop Vann to lead the new Adult Faith Formation for the entire Diocese. He went to Franciscan University and Ave Maria University for his Masters. He is a very orthodox Catholic.
I am praying for unity. But I have to get over my own problems. I still feel funny praying to Saints for their intercession. I am devoted to the Blessed Mother and pray that my anti-Catholic feelings will finally end. I mean anti-Catholic in the hidden feelings of all the abuses that I personally survived in the 70’ & 80’s. I was working towards becoming an evangelist in the churches of Christ. Fortuneatly my wife resisted, because the transition would have been so much more difficult.
I will read up on what you are saying, but if I told my son to do something and it was not quite right. He would have to obey me to be right with God. He must honor his father and mother. Even if I told him to attend the church of Christ again. When he reached the age of independence, then he could step out on his own and do as he pleases. Thsi is more important than you give credit. I see the SSPX as being disobedient. What they are doing and if I’ve interpreted your words correctly, the SSPX is in fact DIVIDED from Rome. They are by definition, whether the words are spoken or written, in schism. That is sad.
M
mdstanzel
Guest
My point exactly.
M
mdstanzel
Guest
I’m sorry for all the grammatical errors and incongruent thoughts mixed in. But between the technical problems and the 2 year old crawling over me it’s difficult to put my thought clearly out there. Feel free to question if I’m not being clear or it looks like I’m being judgemental. I’m not condemning anyone. However, I am judging whether an action is good, bad, correct or incorrect, etc. Nothing wrong with that.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Ok let me get an understanding of where you are coming from.
You and your wife believe --anyone who remarries after an annulment is going to hell (that is your feelings and your beliefs).
Now you have converted to the Catholic Church—who allows remarriage after annulment—therefore (by your belief) --allows and condons people going to hell.
Before you point a finger at who may be in “schism” — I would say—you have a bigger problem of your own to contend with.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
That is not what I said. The solution is not to do what you said above (what would that solve?). The solution is to hold fast to what the Church has always taught, regardless of who teaches the contrary.
Anyone who leaves the Church will, without a doubt, go to hell. Obviously, I would never suggest that to anyone do that.
Christ established a Church to deal with these matters and commanded that we hear the Church or be as a heathen (Mt 18:17)
That is what the Church teaches as well.
But Jesus did not say “hear your feelings and your [personal] belief”, he said “hear the Church”.
Your feelings and beliefs are not correct. Jesus said he who divoices his wife and marry’s another commits adultery… but what if the two were not truly married in God’s eyes? What if these two, who thought they were married but in reality weren’t, separated and validly married another person. Would they be guilty of adultery with their spouse if they were not actually married to the first person? Of course not. Just because the State says a person is married, does not mean that God has joined them together.
An annulment is simply a decree that a “marriage” was not a true marriage in God’s eyes. Are there abuses in this area? Are people being granted annulments who were truly married to the person? My guess is that there are many such abuses, but that does not mean that an annulment cannot be granted by the Church.
I must have misunderstood you. I thought you said you left the Church 18 years ago.
Maybe you meant that you left it 18 years ago, and then just returned?It looks like you are a Catholic, so I must have misunderstood you earlier. Rome has repeatedly stated that the SSPX is not in schism. They are in exactly the situation that St. Athanasius was in during the 4th century. They are holding fast to what the Church has always taught, and, to quote St. Basil who lived during the Arian crisis, they will have “no part of the wicked Arian (today liberal) leaven”. They appear to be outside of the Church, but in reality they are in the heart of the Church while the liberal modernist Bishops who reject what the Church teaches (yet for some reason remain in their position) are the ones who are seperated.
see next post
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Why reject the councils after the Great Schism? You really think we should “undo” the dogmas of the faith defined at these councils just because a bunch of schismatic heretics don’t like them? No way. If the Father Ambroses of the world don’t like the truths that God has revealed, that is there problem. Jesus warned us that many are called, but only few chosen. It is an mistake to deny the truth, or seek to water it down, for the sake of “unity”.
If we took your thought to its logical conclusion, should we not reject all of the councils? After all, if we do away with the first councils of the Church, then we can “unite” with the Jehovah’s Witness who deny the Divinity of Jesus. That may seem absurd to you, but it is no different than what you suggested.
There’s no need to go back to that because we still have it. That is the liturgy of many Eastern Rites who are in union with Rome. But why deny the Traditional Mass, which goes back to the time of John Chrysostom, and earlier? The Church allows many Rites to exist simulatneously. The problem with the Novus Ordo is not that it is something other than the Traditional Mass.
It is more complex than that. Firstly, Rome no longer punishes disobedience, so that’s not the problem. Take a look at all of the disobedient Bishops who do as they please in spit of what Rome says. The problem with the SSPX is that they are holding to the faith as it was handed down to us. That is the problem.
Modernism and liberalism can live with all errors, but they cannot tolerate the true undiluted faith. Notice how the modernist have great affection for their “seperated brethren”, for the unbelieving Jews, for the Muslims, Hindu’s, Bhuddists, worshiper of "The Great Thumb, snake worshippers, etc. (all of which were invited to Assisi), while they bitterly HATE the SSPX. Why? Because the SSPX is holding fast to the true faith, and refuses to compromise.
Indeed it is…
Unity will only come about when those outside the Church reject their errors and convert to the Roman Catholic Church. Any other kind of “unity” is not true unity but merely a false “unity-of- compromise” - a merely human unity that is contrary to the unity will by Christ, which is a unity within the true faith.
Hang in there. Stay close to our Lord and pray your Rosary every day. I’m sure your feelings will gradually fade away, as you are strengthened in you faith.
see next post
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Now we are getting somewhere. If you told your son to rob a bank, and he did so, both of you would be guilty of a sin. He would not be excused simply because he was obeying you. It would be the duty of your son to say: “No Father, I respect you but I cannot do what you command for it is contrary to the law of God. I obey you faith, but God first”.
You should read up on obedience. Just like all moral virtues, obedience is a balance point between two extremes - excess and defect.
The person who does not obey when he ought sins by defect; the one who obeys when he ought not, since by excees. All moral virtues can be violated in either extreem. Only the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity are absolutes.
That would be a sin of excess. If you told your son to worship a statue of a false God, he would sin by doing so. We are to obey those in authority over us, but when they command something contrary to the law of God “we are to obey God rather than man”.
If you read up on the virtue of obedience, you will see that your understanding of obedience as an absolute (rather than a balance between two extremes) is not right. We are to obey unless what we are told to do would be a sin. In that case we must refuse obedience.
I can see that you are sincere in what you are saying, but there is a reason that Rome has come out repeatedly within the past year and stated that the SSPX is not in schism. They are in an unusualy situation, but so is the Church. During a time of crisis, extraordinary circumstances are justified.
Let me leave you with the following quote from St. Athanasius who was in virtually the exact same situation as the SSPX, and for the same reason. During his day the Church was infected with the Arian heresy (today it is the modernist/liberal heresy), and Athanasius would have no part of it. He knew that the Church would get past the crisis, but remained on the “outside” until it passed. Athanaisius was excommunicated, condemned by a council of 300 + Bishops, and spent 17 years in exile. The following is the letter he wrote to his followers:
St. Athanasius: *"May God console you! … What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …
"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
“Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”*
- Status