Status of the SSPX

[BulldogCath]

You say every Pope from St Pius V to Pope JPII when issuing a missal-it becomes the “Normative Mass” . The only problem with that line is that there was only One Mass with minor variations-until codified by St Pius V in all of church history-so there was only One Mass-that is until Pope Paul VI decided that the mass the saved mens souls and created Saints-not the 1000 that have been beautified under Pope JPII, more than all Popes added together for over 5 centuries-was not good enough no more and had to create his Own mass-and relied on a known Mason in Bugnini and 6 Protestants and countless liberal theologians. Is that something that we should be proud of? When you take a non-Catholic to the Tridentine Mass-it is like taking them to a Broadway show, there is a feeling of being a proud, pius Catholic, when you take them to the Novus Ordo Mass, it is like-well here it is, lets all hold hands and sing together and listen to that Priest who chances are 1 in 2 is homosexual. The church today believes that anything Old is bad and anything new is good. I read the reference that was linked by one of the posters earlier in the string from Latin Mass magazine written by a priest from FSSP, and it was pretty much dead on. To loose your traditions and 1960 years of history and replace it with all new doctrine and teachings that contradicts all past teachings-never with an explanation as to why the new teaching or encyclical is better that all the past by some very distinguished Saints and Popes is confusing and leaves the doors open to many questions.
Sean O L:

Defensor Fidei quoted:

It is important to note the correct terminology for the post Trent liturgy of the Mass as being the “so-called ‘Tridentine’ Mass”!

NO Roman Missal has been printed describing the Mass as being “The Tridentine Mass.”

Every Missal printed from Pope Pius V to John-Paul II is simply known as “The Roman Missal.” Each “Roman Missal” authorised by the respective popes for the saying of Mass IS the “normative” Missal.

Upon any alteration to a printed Roman Missal - the new Missal authorized by the pope of the day becomes the “normative” Missal for the saying of Mass.

The Roman Missal authorized by Pope Paul VI is now the “normative” Mass of the Roman Rite. The so-called “Tridentine” Mass is no longer the “normative” Mass of the Roman Rite. It is permitted as a result of the Indult granted by Pope John-Paul II.

It is licitly and validly celebrated by those who are in communion with Pope John-Paul II through their lawful bishops. The SSPX are NOT in full communion with the the Pope and the Catholic Church.

Archbishop Lefebvre and his SSPX priests were suspended a divinis in the late 1970’s from performing the sacraments, including the saying of Mass. They couldn;t care less about the suspensions - nor being in a state of schism and excommunication.

The SSPX Mass is valid but illicit. So too are the Masses of various vagrant validly ordained priests who operate in “Independent” Chapels. They may ONLY be attended in cases of genuine necessity - and that does NOT occur when a parish so-called “Novus Ordo” is readily available.

Facts are facts!

 

[Sean_O_L]

dumspirospero wrote:

WEll…it really doesn’t matter whether or not they were sanctioned as a PS or not…the fact remains, that once Lefebrve (sp??) is dead…no more priests will be able to be ordained…because he is the only Bishop…and it takes 3 Bishops to ordain another Bishop…and that is something they don’t have

1. Well, Archbishop Lefebvre IS dead.
2. SSPX priests are still being ordained - by the four bishops Lefebvre illicitly (but validly) consecrated (or as termed nowadays: “episcopally ordained” - which is precisely the same thing!)
3. Those four bishops were consecrated by only two bishops - Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil.
4. It only required ONE bishop to **validly ** consecrate a but, bishop three are qeruired (normally) for liciety (lawfulness).

So, 5. Yes, they do have more than three bishops - but, any bishops who may be consecrated by them in the future would be done do validly but illictly.

Hope this helps.

 

[Fogny]

Sean O L:

This is much stronger than the words of the English Consecration and should, to be consistent, be open to doubt to anyone who doubts the words of the (English) Consecration without due regard for papal authority and Church Tradition.

Christ not only shed His Blood *“for all” *(St. Paul, St. John): according to this Prayer over the Gifts, the renewal of His Sacrifice in every Mass is for the undoing (relaxari) of the sins of the whole world. In the old Tridentine Rite these words constituted the heart of Christ’s Sacrifice, both on Calvary and in every Mass as the re-enactment of this Sacrifice, and they were pronounced very close to the centre of every Mass: the Consecration. They never meant, or stated, that *all men *would be saved. Neither, therefore, should this exclusive meaning be attached to these words when they are in use in the New Rite. The old Tridentine Rite was not frightened to stress the universality of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass. Neither, therefore, should we.

c. More can be said about this very question, but this is as far as it can be taken from Tradition. In the next two sections, theology and Faith, we will come back to it for further development. Suffice to say here that there are words of the Consecration which do not include ‘pro multis’, ‘for many’, showing that these words are **not **part of the *form *of the Sacrament.

I offer this link so that you may know why followers of tradition take issue with the NO Mass

home.att.net/~wavetrader/validity_mass_omlor.txt

Fogny

 

[bear06]

replace it with all new doctrine and teachings that contradicts all past teachings

You are talking about something that cannot be done. I think everyone on both sides has said it before, there is no such thing as new doctrine. For this to have happened you’d have to be saying that the Church ceases to exist which cannot happen.

And Katolik:
T

he SSPX is not in schism.

According to who? Who do you think has the authority to say they are in schism? You? Even some of your traditional friends here disagree with you. This, of course, brings up another point which is that some of you are very protestant like in the fact that you have sooooooooo many different beliefs. It’s very similar to the varying degrees of denominations. Don’t you all see this?

 

[katolik]

bear06:

You are talking about something that cannot be done. I think everyone on both sides has said it before, there is no such thing as new doctrine. For this to have happened you’d have to be saying that the Church ceases to exist which cannot happen.

And Katolik:
T

According to who? Who do you think has the authority to say they are in schism? You? Even some of your traditional friends here disagree with you. This, of course, brings up another point which is that some of you are very protestant like in the fact that you have sooooooooo many different beliefs. It’s very similar to the varying degrees of denominations. Don’t you all see this?

I see how the Novus Ordo people have differing beliefs. There are the Charismatics, the Kerryites,the Cafeteria ones,the conservative ones, the “Traditional” ones, the “Orthodox in union with Rome” ones, the Latin NO Mass ones, et cetera.

I wonder why the SSPX is condemned when the Chinese Patriotic church has concelebrations with cardinals! The SSPX has only ordained 4 against the Pope’s wishes, while the CPA has ordained hundreds of bishops. The CPA doesn’t even commemorate the Pope in their liturgies.

 

[Sean_O_L]

G’day Fogney,

Is that the best you can do in answer? 'Fess up, now - you havent read all the data, have you! tsk., & sigh!

I offer this link so that you may know why followers of tradition take issue with the NO Mass

home.att.net/~wavetrader/validity_mass_omlor.txt

1. I know and read Patrick Henry Omlor when he started living in Western Australia c. 30 years ago.
2. I know well of Fr.(?) M.E.Morrisom of “Traditio” from (probably - but this does not matter) before you were born. He is not a Catholic.This is what Fr. Peter Scott, then District Superior of the SSPX in USA wrote of him:

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:02:42 EST
From: Jack95RR@aol.com
Subject: Father Scott’s Reply

J.M.J.
February 17, 2000

Dear Jack,

"Fr." Morrison, if that he really is, is an Old Catholic, that is a member is a schismatic non-Catholic church. I have the information on his ordination and the assurance he is not a Roman Catholic priest.

Consequently, he must neither be listened to, nor spoken nor communicated with. He is a fraud, for he presents himself as Roman Catholic, when he really is not.

       Yours faithfully in Christ Our Lord and Mary His Holy Mother,

        Father Peter R. Scott

You are mistaken! “Followers of tradition” do NOT have Patrick Henry Omlor’s or “Fr” (?) M.E. Morrison’s position on the insultingly called “NO”! The position that Omlor and Morrison take is that of heretical sedevacantism!

If you wish to be known as a “Traditionalist” - then you will take the part of those who are in Communion with the Pope and, if you prefer the Latin liturgy, of the FSSP, etc. Otherwise, you may very well be nothing more than a 'follower of tradition." There is a world of difference between Tradition and tradition, my friend.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Hey, Fogny,

Here is a link to this old former schismatic’s take on 23 years with the SSPX :

 

[Fogny]

Sean O L:

G’day Fogney,

Is that the best you can do in answer? 'Fess up, now - you havent read all the data, have you! tsk., & sigh!

1. I know and read Patrick Henry Omlor when he started living in Western Australia c. 30 years ago.
2. I know well of Fr.(?) M.E.Morrisom of “Traditio” from (probably - but this does not matter) before you were born. He is not a Catholic.This is what Fr. Peter Scott, then District Superior of the SSPX in USA wrote of him:

You are mistaken! “Followers of tradition” do NOT have Patrick Henry Omlor’s or “Fr” (?) M.E. Morrison’s position on the insultingly called “NO”! The position that Omlor and Morrison take is that of heretical sedevacantism!

If you wish to be known as a “Traditionalist” - then you will take the part of those who are in Communion with the Pope and, if you prefer the Latin liturgy, of the FSSP, etc. Otherwise, you may very well be nothing more than a 'follower of tradition." There is a world of difference between Tradition and tradition, my friend.

Hi Sean let’s cut to the chase. Here is Pope Paul VI Bull Missale Romanum In which Vatican II has there emphatic position on the Canon of the Mass.
The ICEL is responsible for the abuses of the NO Mass it is not Vatican II or Pope Paul’s Mass It is a COUNTERFEIT plane and simple.
Instead of dodging Henry Omlor’s treatise how about defending your so called truths, answer his ojections or better yet the objections of the Doctors of the Church.

It must be acknowledged that the chief innovation in the reform concerns the eucharistic prayer. Although the Roman Rite over the centuries allowed for a multiplicity of different texts in the first part of the prayer (the preface), the second part, called the Canon actionis, took on a fixed form during the period of the fourth and fifth centuries. The Eastern liturgies, on the other hand, allowed a degree of variety into the anaphoras themselves. On this point, first of all, the eucharistic prayer has been enriched with a great number of prefaces-drawn from the early tradition of the Roman Church or recently composed-in order that the different facets of the mystery of salvation will stand out more clearly and that there will be more and richer themes of thanksgiving. But besides this, we have decided to add three new canons to the eucharistic prayer. Both for pastoral reasons, however, and for the facilitation of concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon. Thus in each eucharistic prayer we wish those words to be as follows: over the bread: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; over the chalice: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. The words Mysterium fidei have been removed from the context of Christ’s own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful’s acclamation.

Fogny

 

[mgy100]

Can’t we all get along?
Please? Anyway.

 

[bear06]

I wonder why the SSPX is condemned when the Chinese Patriotic church has concelebrations with cardinals! The SSPX has only ordained 4 against the Pope’s wishes, while the CPA has ordained hundreds of bishops. The CPA doesn’t even commemorate the Pope in their liturgies

I ask again, can’t people come up with a better argument in support of the SSPX than “the liberals do it, how come the SSPX can’t”? Both are wrong.

 

[Kellam]

**INAESTIMABILE DONUM **
(Exerpts regarding the liturgy)

**James R. Cardinal Knox **
Prefect Virgilio Noe Assistant Secretary

Prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II April 17, 1980

This Sacred Congregation notes with great joy the many positive results of the liturgical reform: a more active and conscious participation by the faithful in the liturgical mysteries, doctrinal and catechetical enrichment through the use of the vernacular, and the wealth of readings from the Bible, a growth in the community sense of liturgical life, and successful efforts to close the gap between life and worship, between Liturgical piety and personal piety, and between Liturgy and popular piety.

But these encouraging and positive aspects cannot suppress concern at the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world: the confusion of roles, especially regarding the priestly ministry and the role of the laity (indiscriminate shared recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer, homilies given by lay people, lay people distributing Communion while the priests refrain from doing so); an increasing loss of the sense of the sacred (abandonment of liturgical vestments, the Eucharist celebrated outside church without real need, lack of reverence and respect for the Blessed Sacrament, etc.); misunderstanding of the ecclesial character of the Liturgy (the use of private texts, the proliferation of unapproved Eucharistic Prayers, the manipulation of the liturgical texts for social and political ends) . In these cases we are face to face with a real falsification of the Catholic Liturgy: "One who offers worship to God on the Church’s behalf in a way contrary to that which is laid down by the Church with God-given authority and which is customary in the Church is guilty of falsification."7]

None of these things can bring good results. The consequences are–and cannot fail to be–the impairing of the unity of Faith and worship in the Church, doctrinal uncertainty, scandal and bewilderment among the People of God, and the near inevitability of violent reactions.

The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy, which means the Liturgy desired and laid down by the Church, which has in fact indicated where adaptations may be made as called for by pastoral requirements in different places or by different groups of people. Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful. The use of unauthorized texts means a loss of the necessary connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi. The Second Vatican Council’s admonition in this regard must be remembered: **“No person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.”**8] And Paul VI of venerable memory stated that: **“Anyone who takes advantage of the reform to indulge in arbitrary experiments is wasting energy and offending the ecclesial sense.”**9]

The Liturgy in the Vernacular promulgated by the ICEL has in my estimation brought serious error to the faithful.The abuses have continued,though this was written in 1980 it is like yesterday.

I can only say as in the explanation given by St. Thomas Aquinas
in regards to the consecration:
“The words Pro vobis et pro multis (`For you
and for many’) are used to distinguish the
virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits;
for the blood of our Savior is of sufficient
value to save all men, but its fruits are
applicable only to a certain number and not
to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as
the theologians say, this precious blood is
(in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able
to save all men, but (on our part)
effectually (efficaciter) it does not save
all - it saves only those who co-operate
with grace. This is the explanation of St.
Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV.”

As in previous posts this has been pointed out and the evidence is overwhelming as to it’s validity.Only the reformers and modernists who want to crush the church by undermining Christ’s real presence subscribe to such foolishness.

The liturgcal reforms of Vatican II preserved the “Roman Liturgy”
The Modernist’s destroyed it with there (Correctness) .

Kellam

 

[Sean_O_L]

Fogny avoids my questions and file reading with:

Hi Sean let’s cut to the chase. Here is Pope Paul VI Bull Missale Romanum In which Vatican II has there emphatic position on the Canon of the Mass.
The ICEL is responsible for the abuses of the NO Mass it is not Vatican II or Pope Paul’s Mass It is a COUNTERFEIT plane and simple.
Instead of dodging Henry Omlor’s treatise how about defending your so called truths, answer his ojections or better yet the objections of the Doctors of the Church.

It must be acknowledged that the chief innovation in the reform concerns the eucharistic prayer. Although the Roman Rite over the centuries allowed for a multiplicity of different texts in the first part of the prayer (the preface), the second part, called the Canon actionis, took on a fixed form during the period of the fourth and fifth centuries. The Eastern liturgies, on the other hand, allowed a degree of variety into the anaphoras themselves. On this point, first of all, the eucharistic prayer has been enriched with a great number of prefaces-drawn from the early tradition of the Roman Church or recently composed-in order that the different facets of the mystery of salvation will stand out more clearly and that there will be more and richer themes of thanksgiving. But besides this, we have decided to add three new canons to the eucharistic prayer. Both for pastoral reasons, however, and for the facilitation of concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon. Thus in each eucharistic prayer we wish those words to be as follows: over the bread: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; over the chalice: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. The words Mysterium fidei have been removed from the context of Christ’s own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful’s acclamation.

So - let’s indeed cut to the chase, Fogny!

1. First of all, I again note the insulting reference to the “NO Mass!”
2. Every single pope in history possessed/possesses the fullness of the Power of the Keys; what part of “whatsoever” do you not understand?
3. Any currently reigning pope possesses the power to change the *form * of a Sacrament - so long as the *essence * remains.
4. Any currently reigning pope possesses a power which trumps the opinion of any layman AND any theolohian (even 1000 theologians!)
5. Under the Power of the Keys, Pope Paul VI DID lawfully promulgate the 1969 Missale Romanum.
6. Using the same Power of the Keys, Pope Paul VI DID authorize the vernacular translations.
7. Was prudence exercized by Pope Paul VI? Well, THAT is debatable, to say the least. Prudence is NOT one of the attributes granted to a pope - only infallibility in matters of faith and morals - and, the Sacraments are matters of faith and morals.
8. Anyone who has children will probably attest to the fact that their children have “minds of their own” and often act contrary to the “best practices” expected by their parents. So too with clerics; more so with badly formed clerics! Abuses have abounded.
9. Man, being sons of Adam, have always abused throughout the history of the Church on this Earth.
10. There is no good reason for schism.
11. Let us pray for liturgical best practice in the Liturgy of The Mass - the normative Mass, the Mass of Paul VI in it’s forthcoming translation.
12. In the meantime, faithful Catholics who have a genuine preference (as opposed to a spirit of disobedience!) are welcome to celebrate Mass in Latin as permitted by the pope and the local ordinary - should he be so charitable.

Note: Omlor’s opinions have led him outside of the Church into the heresy of sedevacantism.

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

Can we get back to the issue of the thread? No matter how bad ICEL or anyone else has screwed up, has no bearing on the Status of the SSPX.

The abuses in the NO, ordination rites, all vs. many and every other side track attempt anyone can think of still does not change the fact that the SSPX was never a Priestly Society and that their “pious union of the faithful” was not renewed after the initial 6 years.

-Ted

 

[Sean_O_L]

A Chronology of the SSPS’s “ad experimentum” as a
“Pia Unio” (Pious Union)

1969, April 3 Novus Ordo was promulgated (“Catholic,” Apr. 1983, p.3.}

1970, Oct. 7 Ecône was established. (“Catholic,” Jan. 1987, p.6.)

1970, Nov. 1 The decree of foundation was signed by Mgr. Charriere. Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide, by Fr. Noél Barbara. This issue is downloadable from Jim McNally’s fred.net/jmcnally/

The photocopy of the “Décret d’erection de la 'Fraternité Sacerdotale Internationale Saint Pie X” is plainly exhibited in the November 1980 issue of “The Angelus.”

Bishop François Charrière of the Diocese of Fribourg in Switzerland agreed to allow the Society of St. Pius X to come into his diocese and set up their seminary at Ecône. He did so on an ad experimentum basis of six years. In other words, they were on probation

Bishop Charrière is cautious in his approval of the SSPX, decreeing as follows:

1. The “International Priestly Society of St. Pius X” is erected in our diocese as a “Pia Unio” (Pious Union)… for a period of six years ad experimentum,

While the Society was canonically established, a “competent Roman Congregation” never established the Society as per the decree of Bishop Charriere. The tacit approval of Rome was **withdrawn during the first six years ** and the Society, it should be noted, had no authority to operate outside of Bishop Charriere’s diocese. It had, therefore, no authority to established itself in other countries wherever it pleased.

The Code of Canon Law states that "Confraternities or pious unions are not to be erected except in a church or a public or at least a semi-public oratory (c.712,§ 1).

Where was the “church or public or at least a semi-public oratory” ?

But, Lefebvre was not even authorized a Confraternity; he was authorized a Pious Union _ which is not the same thing.

The requirements for a seminary are quite different. The Canon Law states: "Every diocese should have, in a suitable place chosen by the Bishop, a seminary, that is, a college where, according to the resources and extent of the diocese, a certain

1975, Jan. 24 Bishop Mamie wrote to the Sacred Congregation for Religious insisting that “having made a careful study of Mgr. Lefebvre’s declaration, he considered it a sad but urgent necessity to withdraw the approval given by his predecessor to the Society of St. Pius X.”(34)

1975, April 26 Bishop Mamie received a reply dated this day in which Cardinal Tabera, acting as Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for Religious, urged Bishop Mamie to withdraw his canonical approval from the SSPX immediately.(35)

1975, May 5 In a letter addressed to Archbishop Lefebvre on this day Bishop Mamie would inform him “that after long months of prayer and reflection he had reached the sad but necessary decision that he must withdraw all the acts and concessions granted by his predecessor to the Society of St. Pius X.”(36)

 

[Sean_O_L]

1975, May 5 … on the same day that Bishop Mamie suppressed the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre received a decision from the Commission of Cardinals which had been convoked by Pope Paul VI to investigate both Lefebvre and the SSPX.

Within the text of their decision, the following conclusions were drawn and the subsequent course of action taken:

Now such a Declaration appears unacceptable to us on all points. It is impossible to reconcile most of the affirmations contained in the document with authentic fidelity to the Church, to the one who is responsible for Her, and to the Council in which the mind and will of the Church were expressed. It is inadmissible that every individual should be invited to submit papal directives to his own private judgment and decide for himself whether to accept or reject them…

It is with the entire approval of His Holiness [Paul VI] that we communicate the following decisions to you:

1. “A letter will be dispatched to Mgr. Mamie according him the right to withdraw the approval which his predecessor gave to the Fraternity and to its statutes.” This has been done in a letter from His Excellency Cardinal Tabera, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious.

1. Once it is suppressed, the Society “no longer having a juridical basis, its foundations, and notably the Seminary at Ecône, lose by the same act the right to existence.”

1. It is obvious – we are invited to notify it clearly – “that no support whatsoever can be given to Mgr. Lefebvre as long as the ideas contained in the Manifesto of 21 November continue to be the basis for his work.”(42)

1976, June 10 The Apostolic Signatura rejected Archbishop Lefebvre’s appeal on the grounds that the Holy Father had approved the decision of the Commission of Cardinals in forma specifica.(45) This would be confirmed by Pope Paul VI personally in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre in which the Holy Father stated: “Finally, the conclusions which [the Commission of Cardinals] proposed to Us, We made all and each of them Ours, and We personally ordered that they be immediately put into force.”(46) Hence, no further recourse was possible for Archbishop Lefebvre, for under c*. 1880, “there is no appeal: (1) from the sentence of the Supreme Pontiff himself or from the Signatura Apostolica…”(47) Consequently, the SSPX and their seminary were unquestionably suppressed as a juridical person within the Church.

 

[Sean_O_L]

1976, June Against Lefebvre’s intention, substituting on behalf of the Vatican Secretariat of State, Mgr. Benelli sent Mgr. Amborio Marchioni, the Papal Nuncio at Berne, the following instruction:

You should, at the same time, inform Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre that, de mandato speciali Summa Pontificis, in the present circumstances and according to the presciptions of [c*.] 2373, 1o, of the Code of Canon Law, he must strictly abstain from conferring orders from the moment he receives the present injunction.(51)

1976, June 30 In spite of all objections, Lefebvre proceeded with the ordinations on 30 June 1976.

1976, July 1 Paul VI replied on 1st July by striking the priests ordained with a suspensus a divinis.

1976, July 1 Cardinal Tabera authorized Mgr. Mamie (Bishop Charriere’s successor) to withdraw canonical approval from the SSPX, and Lefebvre was suspended on 1 July, 1976.

1976, July 11 The Apostolic Nuncio in Switzerland attests that Lefebvre received the formal monitum.

1976, July 29 The Pope suspended Lefebvre a divinis. According to canonist Peter Vere, this meant Lefebvre was “now forbidden by the Holy See from the exercise of holy orders, a prohibition reserved to the Holy Father personally. In other words, his suspension was now perpetual until its absolution, and applicable to more than simply the ordination of seminarians to major orders” (Vere and William Woestman, O.M.I., “A Canonical History of the Lefebvrite Schism”).

Lefebvre said, “This conciliar church is schismatic because it has taken as the basis for its updating principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church… The church that affirms errors like these is both schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is just not Catholic.”

Sources:
AN OPEN LETTER TO CONFUSED “traditionalists” by F. John Loughnan


A CANONICAL HISTORY OF THE LEFEBVRITE SCHISM, Master’s Seminar - DCA 6395, Prof. William Woestman, O.M.I., Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, Ontario, Canada, 1999 Copyright by Pete Vere, September, 1999

HOLIER THAN THOU - How Rejection of Vatican II Led Lefebvre into Schism, By Brian O’Neel


Bill Grossklas’ AGENDA website:

THE BISHOP SPEAKS, Louis Vezelis O.F.M.

 

[EddieArent]

"The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an internal matterof the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. "

– Letter from the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President (3 May,1994)

“The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: ‘I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.’ Therefore, this act was not, per se, schismatic.”

COUNT NERI CAPPONI (Director Cannon Law, University of Florance)

Unfortunitly, there is too much ambiguity in this situation. Let’s be honest on this. You have what some theologins say, then what other say. You have what the Holy Father says, but then you have gray in some areas. Msgr/Bishop Perl’s changing attitudes in his letters add to this confusion. If things were black and white, these discussions wouldn’t pop on message boards week after week.

 

[bear06]

"The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX]
is an internal matterof the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. "

– Letter from the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President (3 May,1994)

“The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: ‘I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.’ Therefore, this act was not, per se, schismatic.”

COUNT NERI CAPPONI (Director Cannon Law, University of Florance)

Unfortunitly, there is too much ambiguity in this situation. Let’s be honest on this. You have what some theologins say, then what other say. You have what the Holy Father says, but then you have gray in some areas. Msgr/Bishop Perl’s changing attitudes in his letters add to this confusion. If things were black and white, these discussions wouldn’t pop on message boards week after week.

I’d like to see the whole text of the first quote and as for the second, I don’t see how you think he is approving of SSPX. He’s simply telling you what Lefebvre said which was incorrect since that’s not the definition of schism.

As for Msgr. Perl…What changing attitude? Are we still on the letter to and from the unknown person asking an unknown question? Things are black and white. There is just a rejection of these colors!

 

[Sean_O_L]

More on the Status of the SSPX with reference to Count Capponi, Fr. Murray, etc. - those contained in the SSPX’s glossy brochure - in
One of the SSPX Lies Examined - Rome Speaks in re Murray

 

[Catholicguy]

Sean O L:

Fogny avoids my questions and file reading with:

So - let’s indeed cut to the chase, Fogny!

1. First of all, I again note the insulting reference to the “NO Mass!”
2. Every single pope in history possessed/possesses the fullness of the Power of the Keys; what part of “whatsoever” do you not understand?
3. Any currently reigning pope possesses the power to change the *form *of a Sacrament - so long as the *essence *remains.
4. Any currently reigning pope possesses a power which trumps the opinion of any layman AND any theolohian (even 1000 theologians!)
5. Under the Power of the Keys, Pope Paul VI DID lawfully promulgate the 1969 Missale Romanum.
6. Using the same Power of the Keys, Pope Paul VI DID authorize the vernacular translations.
7. Was prudence exercized by Pope Paul VI? Well, THAT is debatable, to say the least. Prudence is NOT one of the attributes granted to a pope - only infallibility in matters of faith and morals - and, the Sacraments are matters of faith and morals.
8. Anyone who has children will probably attest to the fact that their children have “minds of their own” and often act contrary to the “best practices” expected by their parents. So too with clerics; more so with badly formed clerics! Abuses have abounded.
9. Man, being sons of Adam, have always abused throughout the history of the Church on this Earth.
10. There is no good reason for schism.
11. Let us pray for liturgical best practice in the Liturgy of The Mass - the normative Mass, the Mass of Paul VI in it’s forthcoming translation.
12. In the meantime, faithful Catholics who have a genuine preference (as opposed to a spirit of disobedience!) are welcome to celebrate Mass in Latin as permitted by the pope and the local ordinary - should he be so charitable.

All great points charitably stated. Kudos. Of course, soi disant “trads” think of their own personal opinions as authoritative, but, you have pointed out the simple facts.

In addition, it ought be noted that to be Catholic, one must maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority and, sadly, many soi disant “trads” have severed two (at a minimum) of these bonds.