I quote directly from the SSPX main website:
"…[this is the principle]conservatives use against the position of accepting everything Catholic which the pope legislates and refusing that which is not entirely Catholic. This position is but common sense.
It is certainly true that, before Vatican II, pious theologians proposed that the pope’s infallibility should extend to his legislative acts. We know, however, that if such a thesis be accepted, that it does not and cannot include all his legislative acts, any more than his infallibility can include all his teaching acts.
It is only indirectly that legislative acts teach dogma. It is certainly reasonable that a legislative act of the pope would in this way participate in the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. It could not, however, participate in the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium, for there is not in a legislative act a formal definition of a dogma. It can, therefore, only participate in the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.
The conditions for the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium are that that which is taught, has been taught ubique, semper et ab omnibus; that is, always, everywhere and by all. I refer you to the essays on the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium in Angelus Press’s book, Pope or Church? [available from Angelus Press]
It could easily be considered that the promulgation of Quo Primum does just that, inasmuch as it is a formal codification of a rite of Mass which perfectly expresses the Catholic doctrine taught by the Council of Trent. However, there is no way that new or revolutionary legislation could participate in this infallibility, any more than could the dogmatic decrees of Vatican II participate in this infallibility, for they are not even a part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church when they teach novelties.
Consequently, it comes down to examining the laws (such as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church) and seeing what is perfectly in conformity to what has always and everywhere been taught by all Catholics. Such laws express the infallibility of the Church, inasmuch as they express Catholic doctrine, even though they do not make a direct definition. Other laws either do not express Catholic doctrine, or express something contrary to it (e.g., ecumenism), which means that for serious reasons of Faith we may and should question and refuse them. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
Should a traditional religious sister who is unable to live her religious life in a post-Vatican II community request to be dispensed from her vows?
No. If a religious sees the crisis in the Church, she will only ask to be dispensed from her vows if she is paralyzed by legalism, and by the false notion of obedience that this legalism engenders.
The real solution of a traditional sister in a modernist congregation is not to request a dispensation from her vows. It is precisely the contrary that a traditional sister is obliged before God to do —to live faithful for life the vows that she made before God. It is precisely to keep her vows that she must leave the modernist community. It is precisely because she is determined to keep to her religious vows that she is obliged to adhere to Tradition. Consequently it makes no sense at all for her to abandon those vows, or ask to be released from them. These vows are not an impediment to her sanctification, but the means for it.
It is certainly true that in normal times one does not have the right to leave one’s religious community to join another without dispensation or permission from both superiors. However, the proof that we are not living in normal times is the fact that the rule has changed radically and in its entirety since the religious made profession. Her profession is of a rule that the modernist community no longer keeps. Consequently, she is obliged in virtue of her profession, and the virtue of religion, to leave her modernist community and to establish herself in a traditional community in which the spiritual life is compatible with her vowed constitutions. By not keeping the rule, and not watching that others keep it also, the modernist superiors lose their authority to govern. The religious is no longer bound to them in obedience, and can transfer her obedience to another authority.
A sister who has left a modernist community to join a traditional community is consequently not disobedient at all. She has the true virtue of obedience, which is a part of justice, and directly related to the virtue of religion, by which we submit ourselves to God. She is obedient to her rule, and to the superior that God gives her to live that rule. She is obedient. The decision as to just how bad it must be before a religious is forced to leave her community is not in itself an easy one. A simple moral disorder or laxity is not enough. It must be the despising or abandoning of the traditional rule that the religious professed, and of the religious life altogether. This is an easy decision to make in the vast majority of communities at this time in history. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]"
www.SSPX.org
There it is laid out for you, a very good explanation and I challenge anyone for a legitimate response to it. Oh yes, ordaining priests that’s so protestant, oh wait, most Catholics receive Holy Communion in their hands, NO!, THAT my friend is Protestant behavior. The Popes said do not ordain because they go against Vatican II there never was any formal excommunication and SSPX has no intentions of a Church Schism like the heretic Martin Luther.
This church is by far the most protestant looking so called “Catholic Church” I have ever seen in my life. It is an abomination, perhaps Benedict and the gang need to be harder on people who let those “churches” get built. STOP PROTESTANTISING Catholicism folks, it’s not hard. The Church shouldn’t change to be more open and accepting to the world, the world should change for Jesus and his bride, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.