1P5 Podcast – Episode 18: Bishop Schneider and the SSPX

212 thoughts on “1P5 Podcast – Episode 18: Bishop Schneider and the SSPX”

1. Great article!

   Reply

2. When I suggested that the apostolate in question was doing some “ideological editing” by originally leaving out some of the bishops comments, and later by not including the questions that they asked him in the “clarification” when they printed only his answers, they banned me.

   That escalated quickly.

   Not more than a month ago, I was a monthly supporter. And now I’m banned. For asking a journalist a question! How does that happen?

   Reply

   • Their first post on the topic intentionally buried the lede. No question. And then characterized it in a way that I believe was inaccurate when it was mentioned.

     Reply

     • How is this not obvious to everyone who has read the “clarification”? I’m not sure what is more weird – why they are doing this or why they are doing this so ham-fistedly ?

       Reply

       • Total conviction that one is in the right covers a multitude of odd behaviors.

         Reply

         • Believing the best about other people and not being totally sure of yourself are two sides of the same coin.

         • I’ve made it a point to remove people from our comment boxes who are abusive, blasphemous, or make productive conversation impossible through their insistence on certain points (and everyone’s acceptance thereof).

           But I want this to be a place where people can hash things out. Look for the truth. Haggle over it. Figure stuff out. If you’re acting in good faith, you’re welcome, even if your opinions are unpopular.

           They’ve created an echo chamber over there several levels deep, and it’s really unfortunate. The work they’re doing needs to be done, but no apostolate is an island.

         • ….I want to thank you, Steve, for your openness here. Also for your pointed dialogue with Christine Niles at CMTV. I am elated that you didn’t get banned.

           I only hope that your comments do not get removed. Perhaps if enough of those with clear heads present their case, Ms. Niles will give over covering for CMTV’s decline. They used to be a solid resource.

         • Douglas, I want to thank you, too, for your comments at CMTV. I’ve been banned multiple times. Just called out Ms. Niles in a private email for branding you a liar. No good.

           Thanks for your efforts.

         • Christine Niles seems good hearted but at the same time passionately misinformed. Someone mentioned somewhere in the tangled comments that she has a law degree. She of all people should know then the technical meaning of terms is not a trifle. She has got to see at some point she got out of bed on the wrong side if this issue. For some reason though, there is this inexplicable and inconsistent emotional aspect to all this from everyone I’ve encountered at CMTV. It’s irrational, that’s all I can say for sure. There is a serious “hermeneutic of rupture” going on over there. Banning subscribers with essentially zero warning?

           Case in point, an amazing case in point. Look at this Vortex episode about SSPX from 2011. It’s MIND BLOWING. This is NOT THE SAME PERSON today. There is no correlation between the aura, the inner attitude, the posture, the tone of Voris here and the Voris that dumped these couple articles in question the last few days. This is astonishing:

           http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/sspx-09-15

           Even the first 30 seconds is mind blowing. What on earth changed?

           Now, the only reason they left this up is so that they can say “see, we haven’t changed our position”, but listen closely: there is no mention of schism or the faintest whiff of the SSPX fetish that has appeared in the last few months. The hermeneutic of rupture at it’s finest!

           If someone sees that video differently than I do, please inform me. I wish I was simply overlooking something.

         • Douglas, I’ve seen this dramatic change, too. You are not alone.

           I have also been subject to rather heated, declarative exchanges with Ms. Niles wherein she thinks nothing of labeling others as liars and rumor mongers in an almost idyllic worship of Michael Voris. A law degree would explain her facility in parsing truth only to end with the challenge of prove it. More like closing arguments in a courtroom drama.

           There is a manifest legalism in her tone that completely negates the spirit of the law or even common sense. That’s okay. Bishop Schneider’s double down, to include CMTV’s double down on misleading preambles and convenient edits makes matters all to clear. CMTV is acting on its own authority. And even if it is out of a perceived ‘necessity’ they are doing precisely what they accuse the Society of doing.

           My challenge last week to Ms. Niles was that Voris, as she is favored of calling him, publicly denounce Bishop Schneider for misleading the faithful and aiding schism. (Certainly something CMTV should do on principle if in fact the Bishop was misleading the faithful about the SSPX.) The clarification was the only response forthcoming.

           I was rather heartened that you and Steve and others were able to maintain a legitimate dialogue for even the short time you did. There has to be some change over there. Too many well intended Catholics are being misinformed there and going out on the web to set the most shallow understanding of the Catholic Faith. And in the name of Tradition. THAT is my main issue with CMTV.

           We need fully formed, adult Catholics in the Church who can handle the nuances of life during the times of ongoing crisis. At the very least, CMTV cannot pretend there is no crisis anymore, one that negates a sense of necessity. Not unless they decide to ban and/or delete Bishop Schneider. Whatever they do, I pray they disconnect any /all association with Fr. Paul Nicholson.

           Thanks for the note. And THANK YOU for your logical and measured Catholic responses to all the nonsense.

         • “For some reason though, there is this inexplicable and inconsistent
           emotional aspect to all this from everyone I’ve encountered at CMTV.
           It’s irrational, that’s all I can say for sure.”

           There are a lot of people who are badly hurt out there. People who’s kids left the faith, spouses who left them, people who have lost friends, been abused by bad clergy, who without any kind of solid Catholic fellowship. This is the observation I heard from a priest, though not necessarily talking about Voris specifically.

           Voris’s videos play on that hurt by giving them someone to blame. “If only the Church was there for me, if only this Bishop would speak out, if only Father would speak out on such and such issue.” Voris is a comforting voice giving people an enemy to place the blame on for their past wounds.

         • …but that’s precisely why I find their sowing division, and unjustly so, even more confusing. Many Catholic families find themselves split on the FSSP/SSPX/Diocesan divide. (These words of Bishop Schneider should be a welcome balm. Even Bishop Morlino’s stating that schismis not the proper term.)

           I’ve indicated as much on CMTV before only to be labeled as no better than promoting gay marriage before getting banned.

           This seems to be an organization that is turning toward wounding others equally bruised and marginalized in retaliation.

         • PRIDE rears it’s ugly, ugly head.

       • Huge financial supporter of them, a Mr. Carroll, is very anti-SSPX, and subsequently so has CM become so.

         Reply

         • Christine Niles will call you out as a liar in a hot minute over that statement, David. And that is precisely what leads me to believe it’s absolutely true.

   • Hey, the same happened to me. I had a very cordial conversation with a moderator, completely unrelated to the SSPX, and the moderator somehow managed to turn it into a discussion about them. A few days later, all my responses were deleted and I was banned.
     Telling.

     Reply

     • And you are a catholicguy!

       I’m going to have to make a webpage about this 🙂

       Reply

3. If the Society desires full communion with Rome, it would be quite easy to fulfill that desire

   Reply

   • Quite easy for Rome to accept them as they are.

     Reply

     • Maybe, maybe not. Obedience and humility are virtues. I think the SSPX should be obedient to the Church.

       Reply

       • So you are saying they shouldn’t be recognized because they are sinners? Who are you not to accept them as they are?

         Reply

         • No. I’m saying they should be obedient to Rome.

         • No you’re saying they have to be perfect before being recognized. There are many inside the Church who are disobedient yet still have ordinary jurisdiction. Bishop Schneider is saying Rome needs to take them seriously and accept them as they are, a possibility which is entirely possible and within the authority of Rome.

         • No, you’re putting words in my mouth. I would be happy if Rome accepts them as they are. If Rome continues to not accept them as they are, then they should obey Church authorities. I am aware that many inside the Church are disobedient and sadly are not ex communicated. That fact however, doesn’t justify the SSPX’s disobedience.

         • You’re words are full of contradiction. If they are Catholic as Bishop Schneider observed, then there is no reason for them not to be recognized and accepted as they are, and it is up to Rome to act.

         • As Padre Pio said “the will of the authorities is the will of God.” Defer to Rome.

         • Defer to them on what, exactly?

         • On what the Society needs to do to come back in full communion

         • Hans – Which is what exactly? Clear answers please!

         • My understanding was that there are some theological “pre-conditions” that must be met. I think the big sticking point is adhering to Vatican II as part of the universal ordinary magisterium.

         • Padre Pio was speaking as a religious.

           It’s not possible to “defer to Rome” in all instances. If Catholics were required to do that, the Faith would become ridiculous.

           The history of the papacy proves this point, and the pontificate of Pope Formosus is the proof.

           One of Pope Formosus’ successors, Stephen VI, had the body of Pope Formosus dug up, put it on trial, and then annulled all Formosus’ ordinations and declared him an antipope. Then several of Stephen’s successors contradicted Stephen and ruled that Pope Formosus was a true pope and all his ordinations were valid. Subsequently, Pope Sergius III contradicted those popes and agreed with Stephen.

           Pope Sergius III convoked a synod which annulled all the ordinations of Formosus and required all bishops ordained by Formosus to be re-ordained. Those who refused were subsequently excommunicated. It was alleged that Sergius managed to get the consent of the Roman clergy at the synod by threatening them with exile, violence, or through the use of bribery.

           Was Pope Formosus a true pope, and were his ordinations valid, as several popes have ruled, or was he an antipope and all his ordinations invalid, as several popes have ruled?

           Defer to Rome? Always? How?

           Are Catholics supposed to change their views with each successive pope?

           What is the answer to the question of whether Pope Formosus was a valid pope who validly ordained priests and bishops? If you say he was, you contradict Popes Stephen VI and Sergius III.

           If you say he was not, you contradict Popes Theodore II, John IX, and Benedict IV.

           How is it possible to “defer to Rome” on this issue? Which Rome?

         • Padre Pio is a Saint, we would be wise to follow his example.

         • Okay. So, concretely, how would that be applied in the Pope Formosus episode?

           We had several popes who contradicted one another regarding Pope Formosus’ legitimacy and the validity of his ordinations.

           What is the answer to the question of whether Pope Formosus was a valid pope who validly ordained priests and bishops?

           If you say he was a valid pope, you contradict Popes Stephen VI and Sergius III.

           If you say he was not, you contradict Popes Theodore II, John IX, and Benedict IV.

         • Well, popes have the authority to declare popes as anti-popes or otherwise. On that question, you defer to the current Pontiff. Again, Padre Pio submitted to his authorities, SSPX should do the same.

         • So, when Pope John XXII began openly preaching the heresy that the souls of the just do not experience the beatific vision until the general judgment, Catholics should have deferred to him?

           That is not the least bit Catholic. When a pope errs, you don’t defer to him.

           You must be young. In the old days, no Catholics thought like that.

           Padre Pio most certainly would not have deferred to Pope John XXII. He would have deferred to The Truth, and Pope John XXII was certainly not preaching the truth. It’s an historical fact.

         • I said that Popes have the authority to declare their predecessors as anti-popes, which is true. Catholics defer to the Holy See when it exercises its legitimate authority. Would you argue that Pope Benedict was without authority to lift excommunication on the SSPX?

         • No, that’s not what you said. What you said was that popes have the authority to declare popes as antipopes.

           Quote: “Well, popes have the authority to declare popes as anti-popes or otherwise.”

           And that’s absolutely not true. A true pope can never be an antipope, no matter who says so later.

           Pope Benedict XVI did not lift excommunication on “the SSPX.” There are hundreds of members of the SSPX. There were only six people involved in the excommunications, and one of the six was not even a member of the SSPX.

           But, no, I would not argue that Pope Benedict was without authority to lift said excommunications.

           Pope Benedict XVI would not agree with your assessment of the papacy and deferring to the pope when he errs. He’s on record in that regard.

           Catholics admit that Pope John XXII was preaching heresy. When that happened, no deference should have been given to him. Indeed, Catholics at the time fought against his heresy, and he ended up recanting.

           Likewise, Catholics rightfully resisted the errors of Stephen VI and Sergius III.

           Due to your obvious youth, you have an exaggerated understanding of the papacy which does not square with our sacred history.

           The papacy has been bought by legitimate popes, it has been taken uncanonically by several popes, at least one pope took the office by use of force, and several popes were “cast out” of the Church by subsequent popes even though those popes who were “cast out” were legitimate popes.

           To say that Catholics should defer to those situations is absurd.
           We accede to popes when they are correct; we resist them when they’re wrong. And there have been plenty of popes who were wrong on several major points.

         • When did I say a “true pope” could be an anti-pope? In any regard, I have no idea what your overall point is. You seem to be fine with SSPX disobedience and I don’t know why.

         • Is it necessary to use the word “true” in front of “pope” when speaking about whether someone is actually a “pope”?

           Your statement was: “Well, popes have the authority to declare popes as anti-popes or otherwise.”

           You said “popes” have the authority to declare “popes” to be antipopes.

           That is not correct at all.

           A man is either a pope or he is not. There is no such thing as true popes and false popes; there are only “popes” and “nonpopes.”

           A “pope” cannot declare another “pope” to be an antipope. If a “pope” declares a man to be an antipope, then he is not declaring a “pope” to be an antipope; he is declaring an antipope to be an antipope.

           If it were possible for future popes to declare previous popes to be antipopes, then no one would know with any certainty whether the present occupant of the papacy is a true pope because no one would know whether a future pope would declare him to be an antipope.

           Whether the SSPX is wrong will be tested by time. What I was pointing out to you is that the exaggerated deference to the person or will of any particular pope is not a Catholic viewpoint.

           The history of the papacy is extremely checkered. Pope Formosus himself, who was a valid pope (contrary to the rulings of Pope John VI and Sergius III, which should be ignored) was at one time excommunicated. Several popes have been. Formosus was rehabilitated by one of his predecessors prior to taking the throne himself.

           Padre Pio was a model religious, but there’s no evidence that he would “obey” the teachings of, say, John XXII, who openly promoted heresy. On the contrary, one would expect Padre Pio to have defended the truth.

           There is no reason to doubt that he would have.

         • “You seem to be fine with SSPX disobedience and I don’t know why.”

           Nobody is okay with disobedience, Hans. But there are times when one must not acquiesce and stand on the side of what is right, even when dealing with a lawful superior.

           This is also why the Church supplies in times of necessity. The objective is to save souls, not lead souls on a merry chase of Simon Says that obscures doctrine and contradicts itself just to hammer home the obedience to a successor of Peter.

           That successor is to be obeyed only in so much as he follows Peter and in so doing, Christ. What you propose is a false idea. And as wonderful as it may seem that doing exactly what the Pope says is all we need do, such is not the case.

         • Padre Pio submitted to his authorities when they were in the wrong. Just because we had bad popes who said incorrect things doesn’t mean he should have done otherwise

         • Padre Pio was a religious in a monastery. The wrong things that were committed against him were personal in nature and did not involve doctrine, nor did they involve anyone else but Padre Pio.

           It’s apples and oranges.

           If Padre Pio lived in the time of Pope John XXII and was required to take a stand for or against the heresy that John XXII was teaching, he would have opposed the pope.

         • I think we’re in agreement on the pope/anti-pope issue. Part of the misunderstanding was my lack of clarity, and for that I apologize. However, the Pope is the supreme legislator and as such should be obeyed with regards to matters of ecclesiastical law. This seems to me to be the problem with the SSPX. With regard to a Pope in error, I agree that if a Pope is an error he should be corrected, as Pope John XII was and retracted his views. Padre Pio probably would have opposed Pope John XXII erroneous teaching, however, I don’t think he would have broken communion with Rome in doing so. Disobedience is always sinful and the ends never justifies the means.

         • Disobedience to an unjust request is not sinful, but a duty.

         • Who decides whether or not it’s unjust?

         • …the deposit of the Faith, Hans.

           One must keep the Faith, not be obedient to obscure it and/or put one’s Faith in jeopardy.

         • Breaking from Rome is putting one’s faith in jeopardy

         • Breaking from the Faith even when one believes themselves in union with Rome is to lose the Catholic Faith, Hans.

         • I agree with that as well.

         • NO! Breaking with the deposit of FAITH puts one’s soul in jeopardy.

           There have been 30 some antipopes. Are you seriously suggesting Catholics must follow obediently the error of a pope?

           A number of saints have spoken on this, and they disagree with you.

         • No. I’m saying you don’t break from Christ’s Church

         • “Disobedience is always sinful.”

           But that’s another untrue statement. The Catholic Church has no such teaching.

           Like PGMGN states, disobedience to an unjust request is not sinful but a duty. Sometimes disobedience is a requirement of Catholics.

           A future pope can completely exonerate Archbishop Lefebvre. Whether that will occur, I have no idea, but there should be no doubt as to whether it’s possible. We have historical precedents for it. The events surrounding Pope Formosus demonstrate that.

         • I thought the 4th Commandment entails obedience to Church authorities. Padre Pio was given an unjust request and obeyed, I think it’s best to follow his example.

         • ….one must endure injustice out of obedience. That is the Society cannot create their own Church in response to this current crisis. But one must never willfully engage in or approve of that which goes against the Deposit of the Faith and attribute it to obedience.

           To intimate that God requires us to be obedient to that which goes against the Faith is to say that God opposes Himself. This can never be, Hans. And this is why the Society is submitting to the castigation of being considered out of communion with the Church.

           But to compromise the actual Faith to effect the appearance of obedience? Never.

         • “the Society cannot create their own Church in response to this current crisis.” Isn’t that exactly what the Society did with it’s illicit ordination of Bishops?

         • No, Hans. That might be where your confusion stems.

           Many Catholics unwittingly make that assumption, however, while others are intentionally misled into believing that is the case because those who purport to stop all the lies and falsehoods erroneously spread a false narrative.

           That is, they choose to lie, obfuscating the whole truth about the SSPX and it’s current standing within the Church. This is precisely why His Excellency Bishop Schneider’s statements, especially as a Vatican representative sent to evaluate the Society, should be heeded in all particulars.

           This is not to say that Rome must do as Bishop Schneider advises, but those who are sheep and not shepherds, to include all the talking heads and moderators at CMTV, must surely not oppose him. Unless, of course, they can demonstrate with facts and not spin, precisely why they do so. Thus far, they have not been able to do so.

           So to continue on with a false narrative while pretending to be the source of truth is unprincipled in the extreme. It is also sinful. I hope you understand that, Hans.

           The consecration of bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre, at its heart, is a straightforward matter of being faced with the necessity to provide bishops prepared to ordain, confirm, and transmit the whole of the Catholic Faith and tradition prior to the Archbishop dying.

           All talk of the motive to establish a parallel Church should be put aside as the ‘fruits’ are no such thing.

         • So, St. Pope John Paul II was incorrect in calling the illicit consecration of bishops a schismatic act?

         • Saying something is inherently a schismatic ‘act’ does not subsequently mean that the person and/or organization is in schism. Archbishop Lefebvre acted out of necessity for the reasons I outlined to you. Don’t forget that St. Pope John Paul II was at perfect liberty to declare a state of formal schism, but did not. That was not mere oversight.

           Christ has told us to judge by the fruits and to judge with right judgement. This is the basis for Bishop Schneider’s words regarding the Society. Do not fall prey to the spin doctoring of other organizations that promote their own opinion, even going so far as to use Bishop Athanasius as an example to follow in one instance only to craftily attempt to reshape his words and meaning to meet their own false narrative. That is highly unprincipled and should be called out. Not imitated.

           There has never been and never will be an attempt by the Society to establish a parallel Church. If such were the case, Archbishop Lefebvre wouldn’t have bothered coming whenever the Pope requested his presence etc. All of the fear mongering and false reporting needs to stop.

           There is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and only one Deposit of the Faith. It is well past time for all believing Catholics to work in supporting both.

         • I don’t know. That seems to be a distinction without a difference. You say Archbishop Lefebvre acted out of necessity. Why was it necessary? Do you believe Christ would have allowed the the traditions of the Church to not be passed on? To me, it seems an act of despair and lack of hope. Again, the ends never justify the means.

         • …God expects us to act, Hans, not just do nothing, expecting Him to provide while we sit idly not using what He has already given.

           That said, Canon law does provide for doing that which one perceives as necessary to preserve the Faith and aid souls. If there was a fire next door would you wait to get permission from your neighbor to enter the premises and rescue his children? I don’t think so.

           The above is precisely why there is no schism. Because while Archbishop Lefebvre committed what, taken out of context, could be thought of as a schismatic act, (just as you above could be said to have been guilty of breaking and entering) there is no schism because he acted out of genuine necessity.

           Don’t forget that the ailing and very old Archbishop was in the process of receiving the requisite permissions, but it was the perpetual protraction of the bureaucracy and then the rejection of candidates and the review of x, y, and z that led him to the point of proceeding.

           Your idea that the ends never justify the means is more apt for those in the Church that seek to obfuscate the truth and pretend sin doesn’t matter in the hopes of getting the unrepentant into Church. That is lying and obfuscating in the so called hopes of bringing folks to Christ.

           That, friend, is what we cannot allow. Christ doesn’t lie to win followers. And the lies at other news organization to gain followers (i.e. market share) is similarly indefensible.

         • You didn’t answer my question. God expects us to act, but in acting, the ends never justify the means. This is apt for everyone, including Archbishop Lefebvre.

         • Yes, Hans, I did answer your question. God expects us to act. He expects us to act correctly, not ineptly. So when a state of emergency arises, God expects us to have enough Faith in Him to take the actions appropriate to navigate the state of emergency in such a way as to preserve said Faith.

           One doesn’t let a houseful of people burn for want of permission to enter the house. (That is neither Faith nor obedience, but a fool’s excuse for burying one’s talent.)

           You would do better to direct your objections to those in the position of authority who use their authority to scandalize the faithful (putting souls at risk) in order to obtain the desired end of getting those who do not want to hear or follow the Faith into the Catholic Church. That methodology of the ends justifying the obfuscating means has come to fruit. And the fruit is rotten, Hans. The other fruit just isn’t there for it left the Church thanks to the bright idea of suppressing the fullness of Faith.

         • My questions was whether or not you believe that Christ would allow the sacred traditions of his Church to fail to be transmitted to subsequent generations. Yes, Our Lord expects us to act correctly. Acting immorally in order to bring about a good end is not acting correctly. It is utilitarian and an affront to the Church’s moral theology.

         • …my answer to you is that Archbishop Lefebvre acted out of necessity and by doing so preserved the sacred traditions of the Church. And when one acts out of necessity it is not immoral.

           If what you say is true, there would never have had to be a canon addressing what to do and what is proper to do when faced with a state of necessity, Hans.

           Times of crisis, call for heroic action.

         • There’s good reason to believe it wasn’t necessary. The FSSP didn’t think Archbishop Lefebvre was acting out of necessity.

         • This, in my opinion, was +Lefebvre’s one glaring mistake. While I believe it is quite likely that the politicos who surrounded JPII were hoping to wait out Lefebvre until he died, it seems to me that in the consecration of the bishops, obedience was necessary. The case made for canonical necessity is not without its compelling points, but I leave it to those competent to make the decision about it. I’m not them.

           ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, Pope Benedict took this issue off the table when he lifted the excommunications. With that act out of the way, what was the problem? Simply put: the forced acceptance of the novelties and innovations in faith and liturgy introduced during and after the council.

           I don’t blame the SSPX for not accepting them as authentically Catholic or able to be fully reconciled with prior Church teaching. I don’t either. But since I didn’t disobey Rome, I don’t find myself not accepting them from a position of “no canonical status.”

         • I guess you’d have to ask Pope Emeritus and other Vatican insiders what the problem was. I don’t think the Society would be forced to accept any of the novelties and innovations to the liturgy that were not warranted by V2. The FSSP had no problem coming into full communion. I don’t see why SSPX won’t do the same.

         • This shouldn’t be a secret. If Catholics are not to participate in Masses held at SSPX chapels, we should know with clarity what the cause of division is, and what spiritual and theological dangers are present that we must avoid.

           Not a single novelty or innovation of the liturgy was mandated by V2. The old Mass was never abrogated.

           With the excommunications lifted, and the doctrinal and liturgical disputes clear, what’s left?

         • I would love clarity on the issue but as you pointed out, such clarity is not forthcoming. Bishop Schneider in his “clarification” e-mail to CMTV said that while there are no “weighty” reasons, there still are reasons. I’m guessing the reasons are the Society’s refusal to adhere to the documents of V2 as part of the ordinary magisterium. But that’s just a guess.

         • Are the doctrinal and liturgical disputes really clear?

           Here’s a link to Pope Benedict’s letter regarding the lifting of excommunication of SSPX bishops:

           http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2015/02/pope-benedict-xvi-and-sspx.html

           “This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.
           “As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved.
           In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
           “

         • Looking to Connecticut Catholic Corner for deeper understanding of this issue is not the way to go, Mara.

           Not because Julie isn’t well intended, but because much of what she, a convert, relates on the situation of the SSPX is directly sourced back to CMTV which is now throwing Bishop Schneider under the bus. And only because his Excellencies honest, unembellished assessment does not match the position of overreaching authority to proclaim and/or to imply schism out of turn.

           Primary sourcing and in depth understanding in context is critical to avoid calumniating others. That is why Bishop Schneider and even Bishop Morlino have chosen not to use the term schism – for it doesn’t apply.

         • PGMGN,

           Okay, if Julie is not kosher with you, here’s from the official Vatican site:
           http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

           from Pope Benedict XVI’s 10 March 2009 Letter on the lifting of excommunication of SSPX bishops

           “That the Fraternity of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical position in the Church is not based ultimately on disciplinary grounds but on doctrinal ones.

           “As long as the Fraternity does not possess a canonical position in the Church, its officials do not exercise legitimate offices in the Church. One has therefore to distinguish between disciplinary level affecting the persons as persons, and the level of doctrine, at which office and institution are concerned.

           “To say it once again: As long as the doctrinal issues are not resolved, the Fraternity has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers, even if they are free from ecclesiastical censure, do not exercise in a legitimate way any ministry in the Church.

           “Given this situation, I intend to connect the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, which since 1988 is responsible for those communities and individuals who, coming from the Fraternity of Pius X or similar groups, want to return into full communion with the Pope, in the future with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

           “This shall make it clear that the problems now being treated are essentially doctrinal in nature, especially those concerning the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the postconciliar Magisterium of the Popes…

           “…One cannot freeze the magisterial authority of the Church in 1962 and – this must be quite clear to the Fraternity.
           “But to some of those who show off as great defenders of the Council it must also be recalled to memory that Vatican II contains within itself the whole doctrinal history of the Church. Who wants to be obedient to it [sc. the Council] must accept the faith of the centuries and must not cut the roots of which the tree lives.”
           ****
           Clear as Papa Bene has always been: As long as the doctrinal issues are not resolved, the SSPX has “no canonical status.”

         • It isn’t that I’m not at odds with Julie, but have come to understand her unwillingness to explore the fullness of the issue outside the party line repeated at CMTV. That itself limits understanding of the truth of the situation.

         • The 4th commandment does entail obedience to Church authorities, but not in all situations. The problem develops when a person approaches the point that he cannot obey and at the same time maintain his Faith.

           You’re calling for blind obedience, but that’s not Catholic.

           When Pope Stephen VI ordered his followers to dig up Pope Formosus’ body, put it on trial, cut his fingers off, and throw his body into the river (THIS HAPPENED!), would you have obeyed him and done that to the former pope?

           Do you realize that Stephen, and later Sergius, declared all of Pope Formosus’ acts null and void?

           Stephen ruled with papal authority. If he were correct, that meant that all the bishops and priests Formosus had ordained were not valid. And then all the priests and bishops those priests and bishops had ordained were not valid. And then all the marriages those men performed were not valid. Confirmations, confessions, et cetera.

           The Pope Formosus episode threw the entire sacramental system of the Church into chaos at that time, and it lasted several years.

           No one was obliged to obey Stephen and Sergius (who historians believe to be the father of a subsequent pope) in such matters. Indeed, many did not. Their punishment: excommunication.

           Were those popes right? Most assuredly not.

           Were they owed obedience in matters relating to Pope Formosus? Most assuredly not.

         • I’m not advocating for blind obedience. What I’m saying is, that no matter how bad things get in the Church, you don’t leave Her.

         • I agree, but being disobedient and leaving the Church are two separate things. If they were not, then a great number of clergy would be outside the Church.

         • Thats true. I don’t think obedience to error constitutes obedience. I think obedience is obeying authority when it acts within its proper scope.

         • The case of Pope Formosus, Stephen IV, and Segious III was not about doctrine but about politics. It was about the warring royal houses of Europe and who they favored as pope.

           Whereas SSPX’s issue with the church seems to be about doctrine. Not sure – I haven’t looked lately at the preamble that Pope Benedict XVI bent over backwards to offer them – but they refused to sign.

           So before he renounced, Pope Benedict said until the matter is ironed out, SSPX can’t be fully reconciled.

         • When a pope declares a previous pope to be an antipope, that touches on doctrine. It’s a pope using the full authority of his office to make a pronouncement on the validity of another occupant of that office.

           If Pope Francis, using his office as pope, were to declare that, say, Cardinal Burke was not a valid priest and therefore not a valid bishop, that’s a matter of doctrine.

           That’s exactly what happened in the Pope Formosus episode.

           And John XXII’s error was absolutely about doctrine, as was Honorius’ issue.

           All popes.

         • DJR, you said, “When a pope declares a previous pope to be an antipope, that touches on doctrine.”

           First of all, learn the definition of the word “antipope.” Pope Formosus was not an “antipope.’ Formosus was a real pope in late 9th century, elected unanimously, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

           Upon his death, one of his successors, Pope Stephen VI tried to erase Formosus’s memory from history by way of a posthumous trial called the “Cadaver Synod.” “Damnatio memoriae,” the erasure of memory, was an ancient Roman practice. Later the validity of Formosus’ work was re-reinstated, since condemnation of Formosus had little to do with faith and morals and more to do with politics.

           Was Formosus ever excommunicated? Yes, by Pope John VIII, who convened a synod which Formosus failed to attend. Formosus was NOT YET A POPE when the excommunication happened. The main charge? That he had aspired to the Bulgarian Archbishopric; had opposed the emperor and had deserted his diocese without papal permission. All seemingly political reasons rather than a question of faith or morals. His excommunication was lifted after five years.

           Remember, too, although a universal belief at that time, the doctrine of papal infallibility was not to be defined until the mid-1800’s, during Vatican I council under Pope Pius IX. Thus, Popes Stephen and Sergious, political enemies of Formosus, might not have yet realize the power of papal infallibility in their time. At least not realizing that such power might be applied only on matters of faith and morals – not politics.

           The Magisterium of the Church apparently remained intact despite the turbulence during and after the reign of Pope Formosus. Apparently, Formosus did not violate nor teach anything against the Deposit of the Faith.

           Thus your contention that Pope Stephen or Pope Sergius had declared Formosus an antipope is the wrong example to bolster your point.

           You said, “It’s a pope using the full authority of his office to make a pronouncement on the validity of another occupant of that office.”
           Not necessarily. And not in the case of Pope Formosus, sorry.

         • I’m aware that Pope Formosus was a real pope.

           The problem is that Pope Stephen and Pope Sergius were not aware of that fact, as both of them declared him to be an antipope.

           They used the authority of their office to so declare, and that most certainly involved doctrine, contrary to your assertion.

           They were both popes. They both used their authorities as pope to make those declarations.

           They were both wrong.

           That’s the point being made here.

           Popes can be wrong, even when they assert the authority proper to their position. That’s a fact, and we have historical precedents for it.

           Many post Vatican II Catholics who try to live their faith but have been ill-formed due to the lack of knowledge, and being too young to have lived in an era when things were more “stable,” shall we say, become very disconcerted by the above facts, and so they latch on to whatever they can in order to hold on to the faith.

           What do they latch on to? Every action of a reigning pope… even when that reigning pope contradicts past popes.

           It was evident in one of the other posts made here by Hans. When speaking of the Formosus episode and the ensuing chaos that that engendered, Hans said that we have to follow the reigning pope.

           Using that reasoning, Pope Formosus was a true pope, but only during his papacy. Then when Stephen gets in office, we learn that Pope Formosus was an antipope. Why? Well, the pope says so.

           Okay.

           Then the successor to Stephen contradicts Stephen and says, no, Formosus was a true pope. Now we, the laity, have to change our minds again.

           Okay.

           Then later we are taken down the same path by Sergius. Pope Formosus is now an antipope again.

           Then after Sergius dies, well, Pope Formosus becomes a true pope again.

           Sorry, wrong.

           Many Catholics today would take that position and would change their opinions to match whatever the current pope said about the matter.

           That’s absurd. It’s not Catholic. That’s not well grounded in the Faith.

           Pope Benedict XVI had all the normal powers that any pope has. He can make an official pronouncement on how the SSPX can be “reconciled” with the Church (although no one with authority has stated that they need to be “reconciled”).

           And a future pope can undo Pope Benedict’s actions on this matter and “reconcile” the SSPX in the manner he sees fit.

           That’s also the point.

           Will that happen? I don’t know.

           But it can. That much I do know.

         • Then the will of God, friend, is that the Society should continue to be unjustly persecuted. Not that that the Society should capitulate to that which obfuscates the Deposit of the Faith.

         • No, you persist in getting it wrong. The issue effectively blocking their reintegration is the demand that they are 100% obedient to the Vatican II documents, when NOBODY – especially progressive prelates – is 100% obedient, or else the Mass would still be in Latin and the music would be primarily Gregorian chant.

         • The FSSP is 100% obedient to the Vatican II documents.

         • The sins of the many in the Church do not justify the sins within the Society by refusing the Pope’s demands. Rome is not obligated to accept the intentions of an Order which has made clear that Rome must bend to accept the Order’s views. That is precisely what SSPX has done.

           I can’t imagine that Pope Francis will tolerate such terms. No leader in his right mind ever accepts practical insubordination any more than he positively must.

         • Our leaders have an obligation not to put on their flock a greater burden than is required (acts 15:28). And if the SSPX are Catholic then they should be accepted as they are. If they are not, history will condemn the Pope and Rome ESPECIALLY if it does turn into a real schism.

         • SSPX does not have the ability to define what a reasonable burden might be, nor do they define Catholic faith. They cannot legitimately declare themselves Catholic, nor blame others if a declared schism develops.

         • Where did I say the SSPX was defining anything? My above comment was pretty much a direct quotation of bishop Schneider, who said “they are Catholic.”

         • And yet you conveniently ignore reasonable points that do not support your position and continue to hammer home the idea that the Pope is infallible in all things.

         • No, indeed. The SSPX does not have the ability to define the Catholic Faith. That is why the Society holds to what the Church has always taught, rejecting all that opposes or creates ambiguity around what the Church has always proclaimed as true.

           They can legitimately declare themselves to be Catholic, John. Because they are. Even Pope Francis has spoken on the matter. The SSPX is wholly Catholic.

           Attempting to blame those who act out of necessity during crisis is neither Catholic, nor principled.

         • “I can’t imagine that Pope Francis will tolerate such terms. No leader in his right mind ever accepts practical insubordination any more than he positively must.”

           The hierarchy of Canada openly rejected Humanae Vitae in the 1960s. Altar girls, Communion in the hand, the list could be multiplied many times over.

           Now we have priests who are openly proclaiming their homosexuality, and that is completely tolerated.

           The last five popes have tolerated so much insubordination that it makes one’s head swim. It’s difficult to understand why any insubordination by the SSPX should stand out.

         • ….the Pope cannot demand that which legitimately goes against the Faith, John. Much like a parent cannot exact obedience from a child to do that which is morally wrong.

           The Orders views as you term it is to uphold the Faith. That seems to be where your understanding becomes clouded.

           Obedience for the sake of obedience is no virtue, John. It is blind. And Our Lord requires us to judge with right judgement. Thankfully, the Church provides in case of necessity.

           ….just because you don’t see it, friend, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Although the rotten fruit and swarming of flies should give one a clue.

       • But if they are seeking God with good will, then who are you to judge?

         Reply

         • I’m not judging their interior, I’m judging their outward acts

         • …the outward act of shunning novelties that obscure and/or put the Faith in danger is an act of heroism, Hans. Obedience to authority for the sake of appearance is a sham.

           That is why repeatedly reiterating that, “They should submit to Rome!” without any context as to the whys behind it is being intellectually narrow and misleading.

           We all would like to submit to Rome. But when what issues from Rome comes in conflict with the perennial teachings of the Church, what then? The talk from Rome now is coming into conflict with Christ’s own teaching on what constitutes adultery. Are we to keep the Faith? Or are we expected to obey and therefore deny, in word and action, Our Lord Jesus Christ?

           This conflict of objectives is precisely what constitutes the crisis. That is why leveling judgement on actions is muddy water. And precisely why Bishop Schneider and Bishop Merlino advocates charity, not precipitous judgments.

         • I was actually just joking. Although I do believe that the SSPX is obedient to the one true Faith and holds the Church in very high esteem. These are individuals who have gone through a great deal to continue a form of worship and spirituality that many corrupt individuals tried to abrogate. I’m very impressed that they have not cast reason aside and were able to see the coming crisis fifty years ago. I only wish my very large family had done the same.

4. Please forgive my question as I am not dumb, but not as smart as most on this subject and, thus, require clarification. Since, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication from the SSPX priests, are we now free to attend their Mass? Thank you.

   Reply

5. “I’ll tell you what’s left. Nothing. Nothing except that Rome wants to make them bow and scrape to the new paradigm.”

   Yes. They must, like Winston Smith, finally agree that 2 +2 makes 5. Until then, like Winston Smith, the Party will torture them.

   Reply

   • ❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖my roomate’s close relative makes 72/hr on the PC….last tuesday I bought another Alfa Romeo since I been bringin in 9211$ this past 5 weeks besides, ten thousand last munth . without a request it is the best-work I’ve had . I truly started nine months/back and rapidly was making more than 69$, consistently . you could check here..…..

     —————►►►► tinyurl.com/Work9jReportOnlinehk1 __________________________________________________________________________ ➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽GOOTO THIS SITE AND CLICK NEXT LINK IN IT FOR WORK

     Reply

6. Thanks Steve. Excellent. SSPX sounds like the place for me. But not yet. Funny how the tables have turned since Vatican II: Our Catholic Church is de jure Catholic and de facto Protestant.while the opposite is true of SSPX. Frankly, the only way I see out of this mess is for the Catholic Church to return to being Catholic in practice. If that happened SSPX should be invited to return. In the meantime I’m glad SSPX is out there doing what it does. It gives us a place to go in a worse case scenario and perhaps reminds some of the Catholic clergy of how successful being true to Christ’s teaching can be.

   Reply

7. “We need allies, and the SSPX, for all their obstinacy, have at
   least been fighting to preserve the things Catholics have always
   believed in.”

   Unfortunately, Steve, that’s not entirely true. Whatever the merits may be regardng SSPX concerns about Vatican II, the real sticking point remains that SSPX does not recognize the authority of the Pope over the whole Church. In all the debate, the Society ultimately demands that the faith and practice of the Church reflect what they, the SSPX, recognize as valid from before 1962.

   Yet in the entirety of the Tradition that the SSPX insists they wish to uphold, never has there been an occasion in which a single Order of the Church had the authority to over-rule a pope or a recognized Council of the Church.

   You can’t demand to recognize the fullness of a Tradition, all the while acting in direct contradiction to the fullest of the teaching of that same Tradition. Not if you expect someone to take your claim seriously.
   Whatever the repugnance to Rome’s approach may be, the Society still must be subordinate to the Pope, not the other way around.

   Reply

   • They certainly recognize the authority of the Pope over the whole Church. But even the Pope doesn’t have the authority to tamper with the depostium fidei.

     So I’ll ask again: what position do they hold that is irreconcilable with the Catholic Faith? What must they do in order to be fully accepted?

     Bishop Schneider, who was sent by the Vatican, says there is no condition that needs to be met. They should be accepted “as they are”.

     Are you a more competent judge of the situation than he?

     Reply

     • Again, the sticking point has always been whether the SSPX has an obligation to accept the faith as the Pope declares it or whether they may redefine it to suit themselves. Thus far, the SSPX has insisted that the Pope has changed something, therefore the SSPX may reject his authority on those matters.

       Again though, this is not consistent with the Tradition of the faith.

       If Bishop Schneider has said there is no condition that the SSPX must meet, then I anticipate the day when SSPX might receive regular faculties. Until that time though, I have little choice but to assume that the Society acts schismatically and must be opposed as such. Doing otherwise makes no sense at all.

       Reply

       • There are apparent contradictions. They need to be reconciled. Perhaps the SSPX is simply being obedient to the previous 260 popes, instead of the last 6. The pope does not have the power to innovate, so this appears to be a reasonable position.

         “Until that time though, I have little choice but to assume that the Society acts schismatically”

         To be a faithful son of the Church is not to lack the ability to reason. Try assessing this with a critical mind, and reserve docility to those things which are certain. Rome has made some very bad choices in the past half century. This is not the least of them.

         Reply

         • If the Pope does not have the power to innovate, neither do we. Nor does SSPX have the authority to declare themselves in communion with 260 previouis popes, thus defying the current group.
           Until the Pope agrees to grant faculties to the Society which would allow them to act as a normal Order, or until he decides to direct that his bishops should do so on his behalf, I cannot in good conscience treat the SSPX effort as Catholic in good standing.

         • There’s a big difference, John, from saying you cannot teat the SSPX effort as a Catholic in good standing than calumniating them with the charge of being schismatic.

           Good on ya for making the distinction.

           That said, you may want to also further investigate the difference between innovation and contradicting. For even Cardinal Burke says he would be prepared to resist any innovations that would undermine Catholic doctrine in the area of the Sacrament of Marriage. That means he would resist, John.

           We all may have to do that. I hope not.

         • Hold on there, PGM, I did not say I do not consider them to be schismatic. This whole discussion arose because Michael Voris stated in a Vortex episode that SSPX remains in a practical state of schism until Rome declares otherwise. I cannot disagree with this assertion.

           I can agree with most of the objections that SSPX raises, especially in terms of angst about the ambiguities stated by Vatican II. I can agree that SSPX tends to present a very worthy understanding of Catholic faith

           Even so, until Rome declares that SSPX holds a regular status within the Church, I cannot realistically say that they are not in schism. “Irregular canonical status” essentially amounts to diplomat speak for “well, they aren’t in communion with us, but we don’t have the nerve to state things more definitely.”
           Even if they would be within hairs of reconciling or being regularized, they still remain schismatic until Rome declares otherwise.

         • The bald fact is that they are not in schism, John. The Society will remain an irregular status until such time as proper jurisdiction is given, no more, no less. And Michael Voris makes no simple statement. He bends over backwards as do you to justify a Pharisaical attitude that does you and CMTV a severe disservice. (The funding isn’t worth it, John.)

           It is also a disservice to Catholics as broadcasting a smear campaign of unjustified, and I might add childish, rigor is not what Catholic Tradition is about. Sadly, due to lack of oversight and no legitimate authority yourselves, you are spoiling the good work you could do. (CMTV really had it’s chance with Bishop Schneider. I hope the mistake of plaguing him with an unnecessary clarification didn’t burn a bridge for you. It doesn’t suit to harass one’s leadership. And I’m talking the leadership with the credentials, not the deep pockets.)

           So you can hold on a minute, John, or forever to that pride of being within the law. You’ll win no educated Catholics with that tactic, however, nor educate any. And no military man worth his salt either – unless of course it is the military man with no battlefield experience. For it’s really easy to quote the letter when it goes untried behind the wire.

           But Voris will live and learn and so will those young cadets he puts forward as so many green troops.

           That’s as badly honest as I can be with you, friend.

         • The bald fact is that while SSPX holds “irregular canonical status”, PGMGN, they continue to act as though they had faculties to act as regular priests and bishops. Such an act is schismatic, even if Rome doesn’t wish to declare it such.
           I understand you consider that to be a grave disservice, but I think you do an equally grave disservice by insisting that they can’t be considered schismatic at all, even while they act outside of the jurisdiction of Rome

           I would contend too that I think regular canonical status likely will be withheld, needfully so, until this attitude should be corrected. Whether you or I like it or not, SSPX remains in a schismatic state in no small part because, as you have been demonstrating to me with these last few posts, SSPX has a determined will to declare themselves Catholic in good standing, whether Rome approves of such an approach or not.

           You can’t claim to be Catholic while refusing to be accountable to the Pope.

         • John, stop projecting the fault for your error in preempting Rome in declaring a state of schism. Nobody is forcing you to speak out of turn.

           Follow the guidance of Bishop Schneider. He was/is the lawful representative sent from Rome to make an assessment of the situation. Not you. Not CMTV.

           As for attitude, try to submit. Set the example you want to see from others, John. All I’m asking is that you be truthful. If Rome has withheld from declaring schism, so should you.

           Your assumptions, too, regarding what has been demonstrated, John, negate your own adversarial and out of line, presumptive behavior. That is precisely why you should give over your personal bias and that of the unqualified and listen to Bishop Schneider.

           ….or will an overlong withholding of jurisdiction satisfy you somehow? The Pope himself has said the Society is wholly Catholic and yet you say, “You can’t claim to be Catholic while refusing to be accountable to the Pope.” That sounds like a personal beef, John, not submitting to Rome.

         • Don’t try holding me to account for an error I haven’t committed.

           We began this whole argument because Michael Voris stated in a Vortex that Rome has not spoken to regularize, thus the SSPX carries on in a state of schism as a practical matter, whether the SSPX or Rome admits to the state of being that way formally or not.
           In the last several days, I have seen various sources throwing the equivalent of a screaming fit on the internet about how galling it is that he would say that, even though the fact of life in real life reflects just such a statement.

           Bishop Schneider may consider SSPX to be as Catholic as anyone will get. Pope Francis may well have said something more or less along the same line.
           Neither of these assertions, nor reference to sacred Tradition, change the situation that people live out on the ground.

           While SSPX lacks faculties to offer sacraments, even if they look, sound, and think like Catholics, I have little choice except to assume them schismatic and avoid them accordingly. I don’t do so because of personal grievance, but because I do not believe that any of us may declare ourselves Catholic, even while refusing to publicly subordinate ourselves to the Pope.
           I have made arguments to these effects for days now.

           If you insist that acting such is calumny, I ask you to demonstrate where I have misrepresented anything or taken anyone to task without cause.

           If the Pope ultimately deems SSPX to be legitimate, in spite of objections, I will be quite happy to attend Mass or do other things in concert with SSPX–assuming I ever come in contact with them, which has not happened. As it stands now though, I must treat them the same way I did CMRI 14 years ago: Don’t go there.

           I don’t like the idea of people not being in communion with Rome or declaring them to be so. Unfortunately, declaring them otherwise is not my right.
           Until Rome speaks and declares them as regular, I have no real-world choice besides considering SSPX to be schismatic, at least in terms of what I where I would attend Mass or from whom I might receive sacraments.

           (By the way, this is the shorter response to several posts. I don’t know the internet is just being slow, but I haven’t been able to type anything at all on this site for a good two hours.)

         • John, writing this insufferable mega-thread only further digs your mind into it’s circular sluice. There is one, and only one way out of it. I’m going to explain the truth to you, so get a notebook:

           When you start with the premise that SSPX is schismatic, you end up with incurable verbal diarrhea as a result. There is no word, no talismanic phrase you can utter once you’ve gone down that path that can stop the flow, because the premise is false, and the mind becomes insatiably agitated and fixated on changing the truth. This is how you know you are on the losing side of an argument, when you can’t stop the voluminous columns of words. However, when you start with premise that SSPX is not in schism, which it is not, and which is the truth, then you easily, quickly, lightly, and immediately find your way to charity, and the verbal runs just dry out. You immediately have your mind set to rest. Praise God – it’s really that simple!

           You are on an unforgiving rigorist path that goes round and round and round the same bend, trying different formulations of same spoiled ingredients. What you have just experienced form Steve and PGMGN is an attempt to break through the unrelenting paradigm that you know intimately but which perpetuates your imprisonment.

           Your thinking is sound. Your logic pure. But your foundational premise is incorrect and thus your map and directions are useless. That is why you keep typing, and not getting anywhere. That is why you are going to throw up a monster gaggle of words in response to this, more than likely. But there is always hope in the land of the living! There is always another lap at the ice rink until the door comes around again.

           With the law, you go around and around, but only end up able to level an accusation. It becomes a fevered fetish. The CMTV moderators demonstrated this in a textbook manner, tossing out the word “hate” in many cases, calling people liars (me, specifically). This is the roll of the lawyer. There is a heavenly court going on about all this, wouldn’t you say? A battle in the heavenlies, no doubt. And the lawyer for the side that accuses is ha-Satan, the accuser. His roll is to do nothing but accuse. And he has the facts! Oh boy does he ever. That is why he is a powerful adversary. Oh what a wretched man I am, who will save me from this body of death?

           Not a lawyer. Not an accuser. Not someone that blindly sees things in legal terms.

           No matter how you add up the columns and rows of words about this and that about SSPX, and no matter how accurate and detailed and convincing of a picture they paint in your mind, the SSPX is still not in schism. This is a fact, a matter of record. That is why it is such an annoying facet of this whole conundrum. The simple fact that Rome has not declared the SSPX to be formally in schism is the bane of your position. It’s frustrating to no end! That much is observable on your part! And yet, there it is. That stubborn, immovable, untarnished, unblemished fact. It is truth! You are kicking against the pricks! The goads will not yield to your foot! All you are doing is using up the internet, wasting perfectly good 1’s and 0’s, flooding it with useless echoes that nudge absolutely nothing about the reality of the SSPX in any direction you want it. You scream, it remains. You pound your fist on it, it rejects your blows. That SSPX is schismatic is a false reality, an idol, that no matter how you scream at, will not respond or move.

           SSPX is not schismatic.

           I love saying that, each and every time. Look at the reaction it gets from all the quasi-lawyers!

           But, I would caution anyone from attending for my conscience sake and theirs. But it would not be in a legalistic manner. I would propose but not impose.

           If you are good hearted, you will eventually drop the lawyer ha-satan bit, and open your arms in expectation. You will choose to hear the tiny violins just over your shoulder playing some sweet, good-willed tunes. You’ll then open a good bottle of red, red, wine. You’ll drink two or three glasses, and then you’ll go back and read the CMTV hit pieces and cry out, lifting your glass on high, “My brothers! How you have been wronged by these petulant muckrakers and pseudo-journalists! Aggh!”. And then you’ll stagger around drunk on your newfound love for your non-canonical brothers. And you still won’t attend their chapels, but one sad, silver-blue tear will drop from your eye, as your mind drifts to the imagined coverage of the first joint FSSP / SSPX Mass on EWTN because CMTV will be too busy trolling their own member base again in their forums.

           If Rome declares SSPX schismatic, the plate of crow will be mine to eat. But for now, it’s the dish you’ve ordered and must suffer to eat. You are eating it right now!

           I hope I got your attention. That was fun to write.

         • Douglas, as I read all this, I find that I’m truly alarmed for the future of hte Church. Steve mentioned earlier that he thought we were on the verge of a major schism, which I admit is possible. When I read something like this, I begin to think that serious schism is all but inevitable.

           You accuse me of being a rigorist, holding SSPX to account to a standard that the Vatican has not explicitly declared. At least, I think that’s what you’re stating. Well, I’m stumped as to what else to call it. The Vatican calls is “irregular canonical status” and declines to give faculties to priests. SSPX proceeds to behave as though they have carte blanche to interpret the Church’s teaching as they wish, even to the point of rejecting a whole Council, or at least those portions of the same Council that SSPX disapproves.

           At the same time, I see the more liberal or progressive factions of the Church insistent about carrying out their ideas.

           …And the two groups of factions insist on going in almost exactly opposite directions, each claiming to be the “true Catholic” voice.

           We can’t carry on like this. I don’t believe the SSPX to be in full communion with the Church and commentary like what you’ve offered makes plain that SSPX and you have no intent to change a jot unless required, almost by force.
           Even if the Vatican doesn’t wish to refer to it as such, schism is the only word that seems to adequately describe the situation.

           Who knows, maybe the major breach will happen when the Vatican finally tries to clear up the madness, publicly excommunicates bishops from both sides, and sets up a free-for-all in which bishops all over the world hurl charges and counter-charges of heresy at each other.

           Judging by the howls that SSPX advocates seem to make against allegedly heretical bishops who’re still technically in communion with Rome, I think that a likely path.

           So, congratulations if ultimately you can claim that SSPX is not technically schismatic for now because Rome hasn’t declared it so. How bad do things need to get before you’ll admit you could be in error?

         • “…Well, I’m stumped as to what else to call it.”

           You are stumped precisely because you refuse to accept logic and reason while insisting one group must wait upon Rome during a time of necessity while you profess the inability to wait yourself.

           As to the assertion of not changing a jot, that’s the point, John. But the ‘jot’ in question is not changing in accepting the compromise formulas etc in VII that even Cardinal Kasper admitted are there.

           That is why not changing a ‘jot’ when it comes to maintaining the integrity of the Deposit of the Faith is paramount. Your mentioning of ‘howls’ seems predicated on the believe that it is only a matter of pride and personal bias at work here.

           It is the Faith that is at stake here, John. And I would hope that you are not willing to change one jot. We need good men, good fathers, solid leaders. Thinkers, John, who are unafraid to look at the realities of what is occurring and make the hard decisions.

           That said, I am thankful in the extreme that Bishop Schneider is showing himself to be one of those men.

         • “So, congratulations if ultimately you can claim that SSPX is not technically schismatic for now”

           John, I had no other mission.

           Now, be charitable.

           “Judging by the howls that SSPX advocates seem to make against allegedly heretical bishops who’re still technically in communion with Rome, I think that a likely path.”

           Be fair: you need to include the howls of CMTV and other neo-catholics.

           I’ve stated how many times that if Rome declares SSPX in schism by revealing some new fact or whatever, I’ll change my tune 100%. I’ve done it before when handed facts. I’ll do it again. It’s the only way to go.

           “You accuse me of being a rigorist”

           At what point is stating a fact an accusation? If you are not a rigorist, then just demonstrate it! Although, I must say in all honestly, there is clearly a ray of light or two in your attitude as I am able to perceive it. In other words, you could never work for CMTV.

           “At the same time, I see the more liberal or progressive factions of the Church insistent about carrying out their ideas.”

           There is no parallel between the SSPX and progressives. There is very much a false equivalency going on. People who reject the faith but play by the rules are not the same in an opposite direction of people who hold the faith but are stuck in a weird twilight zone of being asked to deny Tradition in the name of Tradition. It’s way to convenient to say the are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Because it’s not true. How is Cardinal Marx like the Bishop Fellay? When you say Bishop Fellay is just like Sr. Joan Chittister, all I can say is, go back and do that math again because it came out wrong.

           Comparing a canonical, legal snafu to an entirely different worldview is not something you can get away with and be taken seriously.

           Seriously. List out some parallels between Chittister and Fellay in a simple bullet point list. But title it “How Bishop Fellay is exactly like Sr. Chittister”. That title alone should make it a difficult exercise.

         • John, there is obviously no discussing facts with you.

           You do have a choice as to whether or not you present the situation out of context. You do exercise a choice about mentioning a preamble that you have no understanding of, but assert in blindness should have been signed. You do have a choice whether or not to wait on Rome for official pronouncement or to act out of necessity (…something which, if considered in the light of intellectual honesty, should render you less rigid with regard to life on the ground. For ‘life on the ground’ is precisely what is at issue here and what Bishop Schneider is addressing.)

           In truth, John, you do have a choice. Instead of acting in charity toward those who are having to make decisions on the ground every day – faithful Catholics – you choose to throw the stone of schism without permission. That is YOUR choice. Every time you parrot out of context name calling, the very same that Rome does not declare, you do so by way of choice.

           And whereas you must make decisions for you and yours in the context of what Providence has provided, you choose to exercise no charity – and no maturity – toward those in situations where sold Catholic practice is not readily available. There but for the grace of God go I, John. Ponder that and take it’s meaning.

           YOU do have a choice.

         • “The Pope himself has said the Society is wholly Catholic ”

           I was not aware of this. “Wholly?”

           Could you please, PGMGN, tell me which Pope said this and when he said it? Thanks.

         • Pope Francis, Mara. You can google it yourself.

           As to your last question, that is precisely what Bishop Schneider is laying before the feet of those like CMTV who would fear monger and falsely accuse.

         • Thanks, PGMGN. I really did not know.
           I don’t know CMTV. Do you think I should go to that site?

         • I’d stay away from CMTV. I used to recommend them as a good source, but this latest nonsense they’ve entered into – attempting to twist words to declare schism and disregard Bishop Schneider and Bishop Morlino – is gravely concerning.

           The reason I did emphasize CMTV’s position with you is because I know that Julie and ConnecticutCatholicCorner considers Michael Voris and Christine Niles (both of CMTV) to be the authority. That’s rather the crux of the problem.

         • PGMGN,

           I googled and couldn’t find it. I’ll search again when I have the time. [I’m currently preparing for a trip to the Philippines to be with my sister who is dying of pancreatic cancer – please pray for us.]

           But I did find this bit from Rorate Caeli:

           “The Society was officially recognized as Catholic by the State of Argentina, with the help of Cardinal Bergoglio, who has since become Pope Francis.”
           Well. Card. Bergoglio was not yet Pope Francis at that time. And the “State of Argentina” does not exactly equal “the Vatican.”
           Thanks, again, PGMGN, but I have to go and pack. I hope to rejoin when I’m ready. You’ve been of much help. God bless you.

         • God bless you, too. You and your dear sister have my prayers.

           As to the rest, I am glad to have helped somewhat. Ask me anytime and I’ll tell you what I know.

         • You said “The Society will remain in an irregular canonical status, with jurisdiction being needlessly withheld…”

           Correction: The fact is the Society has “no canonical status in the Church and its ministers, even if they are free from ecclesiastical censure, do not exercise in a legitimate way any ministry in the Church.”

         • Thank you, Mara319, for the clarification. It is appreciated. But what you write above doesn’t qualify as schism. Otherwise, the situation would be officially declared. CMTV cannot speak on behalf of Rome and neither can John. To do so is to circumvent authority which is precisely the issue at hand.

           The idea here is to stick with what is the truth, not to embellish or imply one way or the other. To be charitable.

           I wish more folks would stop embellishing one way or the other.

         • Thanks PGMN, but I did not write that SSPX is in schism.

           I said “no canonical status” and those words are in quotes because they’re not mine. They’re Pope Benedict XVI’s.

         • Rome DOES NOT make that claim, John, so neither you or Voris has authority to assert it on your own.

         • Right. What Rome claims is that SSPX has no canonical status.

         • …then stick to the what Rome pronounces, Mara. Otherwise you’re preempting the lawful authority. Trying to redefine one expression to mean another is not submitting to Rome, it is pretending an authority that one doesn’t possess. That in itself is to spread falsehood and confusion.

         • Yes, PGMGN. [I’m sorry that all of a sudden I’m typing in Itals, and I don’t know how this happened.]
           Rome says SSPX has “no canonical status.” It’s not “irregular canonical status” but merely, “no canonical status.”
           Rome has not said SSPX is in schism. It merely says it has “no canonical status.”
           And I’d want to know the difference.

         • Schism, to my understanding, is when a group breaks off for the intent purpose of not acknowledging Papal authority in order to teach what it wills. (i.e. It seeks to establish a parallel Church.)

           The Orthodox, for example, do not accept that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and also do not teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. (This is a simplistic overview, one that you can research.) That is schism and one officially declared.
           The act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate (explicit permission) is seen to be schismatic in nature because bishops are what is required to perpetuate apostolic succession, that is, to ordain priests.

           That is why the act of consecrating bishops without permission, could, be initially viewed as a schismatic in nature. Unlike the Orthodox, however, Archbishop Lefebvre was in process of receiving permissions to consecrate bishops. He was old and infirm, seeking to make Bishops for the purpose of maintaining the society he had been asked to found – legitimately. (One intent on schism would have never initiated the process of seeking permission.)

           The continued protraction of the process, however, led the Archbishop to believe that this method of delaying was really a method of waiting until he died. (The FSSP was promised their own bishop back in the ’80’s for the same reasons, but they are still waiting.) Then the Society, founded to uphold Catholic tradition, would have been lost. The Archbishop proceeded without the written permission. (You can read as much online, to include the speech given at the time.)

           So, in the nutshell, the SSPX is not a schism or in schism. There was a state of necessity in the Church at the time, and there still very much is as evidenced, not by what the Vatican says, but judging by the fruits. Record low mass attendance. Catholics who believe in abortion/birth control. Catholics who do not believe in the Real Presence. Catholics for ‘gay’ marriage. These October Synods are the fruit of bad policy.

           Also, thanks to Pope Benedict’s issuing of Summorum Pontificum, it has come to light that the Latin mass was never abrogated. (Forbidden/replaced). The Novus Ordo, much as folks don’t want to admit it, was formed to attract Protestants by downplaying the Catholic aspects of worship. The result – the fruit – is the downplaying and negation of the Catholic Faith, Mara.

           That is why Bishop Schneider’s letter reads as it does. That is also why there is no schism in the SSPX. Those few priests who left the Society at the time of the consecration – for fear of going into schism – are who began the FSSP. They were promised a bishop and still haven’t gotten one. There is heartburn between the two groups due to the insistance that the FSSP had to leave to avoid schism. But there is no schism. There never was.

           That is why CMTV, who formerly had a clear and objective view, now adopting the disgruntled ‘we’ll keep saying there is a schism’ attitude after getting a fat donation (to include a building) is so incredibly suspect. CMTV is going against even Bishop Schneider now who they feature regularly. They insist on calling schism where there is none. It is a personal beef that is clear for everyone with reasoning skills can see.

           That is NOT to downplay the need for cononical reguarity or to be flippant about the importance of obedience. But is to simply carry forth with what was a justified act of necessity. There would be NO FSSP if the Archbishop hadn’t done what he did. God works where He wills and I am glad of it.

           CMTV, however, is losing credibility and creating undo rancor by twisting the news to suit the one with the deep pockets. But that is precisely what will ruin their apostolate.

           So all anyone is asking for here is the truth, all of it. Not the spin of animus that would spread lies and falsehoods to the detriment of a unified front against the assault ravaging the Deposit of the Faith.

         • And what is the difference, if I may ask, between being “schismatic” and having “no canonical status?”

           Neither position “exercise in a legitimate way any ministry in the Church.”

         • Mara319, you should direct your question to Bishop Schneider and Bishop Morlino. The latter stated quite plainly that the label of schism is not accurate.

           This reluctance of some to look to a certain leadership for orthodoxy, that is Bishop Schneider, only to denounce the whole of his message as somehow lacking is a sad state of affairs.

           Considering the current attacks against the perennial teachings of the Church, methinks time is better spent reading Bishop Schneider’s statements for their full meaning. Not looking to shoot and sink others to demonstrate superiority.

         • Dear PGMN,

           Thank you for this response. Yes, I know – the label of schism is inaccurate for SSPX. And I agree. I have not used the term to describe SSPX.

           But please tell me, in your own words, what is the DIFFERENCE between schism and “no canonical status.” I already know the similarity between the words. All I want to know is the difference.

           I’ve read Bishop Schneider’s interview and what struck me were the “not weighty reasons” or conditions he thinks both SSPX and the Vatican should meet.

           I also found this from Bishop Morlino:

           “It would be inaccurate to call it a schismatic group in a strict sense, and we should all pray that it may someday be fully reconciled with the Church.

           “Having said that, all is not well with the SSPX, and my advice, my plea to the traditionally-minded faithful of the diocese is to have nothing to do with them. As Pope Benedict XVI made clear, the SSPX “does not possess a canonical status in the Church” and its ministers “do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church” (March 10, 2009, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church).

           “The priests of the SSPX are validly ordained priests, but because for the most part they were ordained illicitly (i.e., by a bishop who had no jurisdiction over them and no permission to ordain), they are suspended ipso facto from the moment of their ordination (c. 1383); that is to say, even though they are ordained, they have no permission from the Church, which is necessary, to exercise priestly ministry.

           “Their Masses are valid but are illegitimately celebrated. The same is true, in most cases, with their baptisms, their conferral of the anointing of the sick, and provided it is administered by a bishop, their confirmations. Thus, Catholics should not frequent SSPX chapels or seek sacraments from the priests of the SSPX.

           “But there are two other, serious, sacramental problems that must be understood by everyone who may wish to attend SSPX chapels. If you take nothing else away from this letter, at least hear this — the SSPX’s marriages and absolutions are invalid because their priests lack the necessary faculties.

           “The SSPX argues for the validity of their marriages and absolutions based on the canonical principle that the Church supplies the faculty in cases of doubt or common error. In certain rare and exceptional cases that might apply to their situation, especially with regard to confession, but for the most part their arguments are not persuasive.”

           http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopscolumns/5803-society-of-st-pius-x.html

           It seems to me, while Bishop Schneider thinks the conditions SSPX and the Vatican should meet are “not weighty,” the issues Bishop Morlino explained are serious and quite heavy.

         • ….and to conclude. No cononical status is precisely that.

           There is the ‘what can we do now?’ aspect of dealing w/the Society because a formal rendering of jurisdiction would be to acknowledge the licit rejection of novelties proposed in VII. Novelties that have been given the weight of doctrine when, precisely speaking, VII was a pastoral council that set out to define nothing.

           This is why the former reunification of the Society w/Rome back in ’12 was met by the bishops with a quick insertion of a ‘necessary’ preamble that would attempt to get the Society to sign off on saying that “ALL” of VII is part of Catholic teaching and tradition when clearly it is not.

           A catch-22, rock and a hard place scenario. But not schism. And not what CMTV promotes or ConnecticutCatholicCorner which insists that Voris is right on the money. For even the document you noted from Bishop Morlino clearly states there is no schism. And yet CMTV repeats that it is and blackballs even those donors who kept them afloat before Mr. Deep Pockets came along. Their current spinning of Bishop Schneider’s words is even more repellent and sad.

           That’s why you’re experiencing heartburn here. But read posts like Johns. He states he doesn’t know particulars and then proceeds to say schism like a machine gun on auto pilot. Rather difficult if one is seeking the truth, nothing more or less.

         • …and as for Bishop Morlino. He is a bishop who is attempting to establish the FSSP in his diocese. That is why he speaks the way he does. He doesn’t want to imply that he is endorsing the views of the SSPX regarding the upholding of tradition and the negation of the ambiguity of VII while at the same time wanting to appease traditional Catholics who have a legitimate right to wholly Catholic masses, sacraments, traditions, catechism etc.

           As for Bishop Morlino’s comments on the validity of sacraments, too, he can say that there is no perceived need because he is attempting to provide traditional Catholic sacraments. But you will note, that His Excellency says there are exceptions – he calls them rare.

           That is because the Church does indeed supply. And whether folks want to admit it or not, in practice, the Church does recognize the sacraments given via the SSPX. I know of one case of marriage and then there are confessions, etc. But +Morlino is again, between a rock and a hard place.

           You will have to discern for yourself. But going to the horse’s mouth is often best if one wants to get the skinny. Asking a disaffected spouse what their husband or wife is really like is not the best way to get to the truth.

         • If find it almost impossible to believe this is a real question:

           ‘And what is the difference, if I may ask, between being “schismatic” and having “no canonical status?”‘

           Answer that yourself! The google search bar is like 3 inches away.

           It’s chuckle-inducing because the question takes itself so seriously, yet it’s absurd.

           It’s exactly like saying “And what, pray tell, is the difference between this so called ‘poem’ thing to which you refer, and this page of letters and numbers I have torn out of the phone directory?”

           The comparison itself betrays blinders so absolute that not the faintest ray of irony is able to crack through. Really, can you see not even, for argument sake to show you understand the “other side”, how silly the question sounds? It would be interesting if you could verbalize for us that you do understand how your question sounds absurd to many of us, but in fact is not, from your perspective. You know what you think, but are you able to verbalize how you think we think? There is a paradigm issue here, one that translates every word you hear into it’s necessary equivalent in your own inner world. The question reveals that what you think we are saying is not in fact what we are saying. You have an interpreter on your shoulder whispering sweet nothings about what we “really mean”, instead of just reading our words at their plain, first, primary and simple meaning.

           SSPX is not in schism. I said it again. Now, again, we work from there, and we don’t let the devils on our shoulder’s adulterate that sublime, simple, primal reality. Once the integrity of this fact becomes clear to you, it’s like the crack of dawn of the first day of a new reality. It’s called truth!

         • “…It’s exactly like saying “And what, pray tell, is the difference between this so called ‘poem’ thing to which you refer, and this page of letters and numbers I have torn out of the phone directory?”

           And this is precisely why I stated that, in my view, CMTV is bordering on the dangerous. The ‘education’ they provide is forming idealogues who do not understand the Faith but are consistently being reassured that they are the authority.

           Bad juju.

         • You know what. That is exactly right. Voris is the dispensary. He is a middle man, the magisterium, of CMTV and it’s staff regarding the party line on what truth is. So what you have flowing from his hard work to learn the faith is the functional cliff-note version the other presenters and moderators must mimic, without the benefit of having done the work themselves. Their lack of depth, combined with emotion, translates into hyperventilation. That is what ideology looks like when it spreads. It’s like this kind of thing is in his game plan or something. CMTV = MSNBC. CMTV = Catholicism “Plus”, where the “plus” is the cliff-notes version on what is “really” going on. Parrot back the cliff-notes, and you too can be a commentator!

         • I hope they haven’t permanently burned a bridge with Bishop Schneider. Considering his words and the personal risk he took in saying as much without regard for human respect, I cannot imagine he is pleased with CMTV…. although I’ve no doubt whatsoever that he understands what is going on behind the scenes completely. Such an unnecessary mess.

           God give His Excellency strength and Michael, too.

           Doing the right thing is often easy only after it’s done.

         • Well, we’ll see if they are any more CMTV interviews. That strategy won’t work with a Cdl. Burke. We could see them cut off from the kind of interviews they in the past were able to get. As the “new kids”, I’m sure they got a pass. That card can only be played so many times. Then you become a known quantity.

         • Like I said, sad.

           But even kids grow up. Being burned in a blatantly unprincipled dog-and-pony-show may be just the medicine to get Michael back on track.

           I hope so.

         • Dear Mr. Bonneville,
           You didn’t have to insult me. All you had to do is explain. I wanted sincerely to know the difference between schism and “no canonical status.”
           All I know is the similarity: meaning these status may have validity in the eyes of the Church, but no legitimacy. That’s the similarity. Now, can you tell me the difference, since you claim you know?
           I never said SSPX is in schism. Check all my posts – I never said that, yet you seem to think I did? Why is that? Is it because your default mentality is that anybody who asks the difference between “schism” and “no canonical status” is simply thinking “SSPX=schism?” You’re prejudging me. Or perhaps you don’t know the answer yourself.

         • Hi Mara. You’ve already made your position clear, so don’t feign offense. You disagree with Bs. Schneider, quite boldy. Your question is feigned also. You are looking for an answer for a question you are not really asking.

           But I will put one toe in the water. If you are willing, your question can be easily dispatched.

           First, ask yourself: is SSPX in schism? If you answer “no”, then the question about the difference between “no canonical status” and “schism” becomes moot. The answer to whether or not SSPX is in schism encapsulates your question.

           If you answer “yes”, then an actual answer to the difference between “no canonical status” and “schism” makes no difference. At that point, you have reiterated CMTV, and set aside the implicit answer of Pope Benedict in his motu proprio.

           A great question to ponder is why Pope Benedict did what he did the way he did it.

           If you can honestly answer to yourself why Pope Benedict refrained from talk of schism, you would understand why your question, for you, has no answer. It is because it is not a question. It is an accusation.

           There. Your question has been dispatched.

           “I never said SSPX is in schism”. You are not far from the Kingdom, then! Stay that way!

         • Okay Douglas. I get it.

           I asked a question you couldn’t answer – “What is the difference between schism and ‘no canonical status’? And instead of honestly saying you don’t know, you go on your default ad hominem attack.

           Be honest. You don’t know the answer.

           Thank you for not insulting me again.

         • You realize your reply is the stock answer of trolls who ask questions they don’t want answers too? I’m not saying you are a troll. But I’m saying clearly that you do what all internet trolls do. You are on the merry-go-round all by yourself, though.

           But I do know that SSPX is not in schism, and that they have no canonical status. I’m 100% OK with that.

         • The kids from the warehouse have a lot of learning to do….

         • …the kids from the warehouse are being used.

         • “Perhaps the SSPX is simply being obedient to the previous 260 popes, instead of the last 6.”

           What an absurd position to be in.

           “The pope does not have the power to innovate,”

           And what, if I may ask, has the pope innovated?

       • “…I have little choice but to assume that the Society acts schismatically and must be opposed as such. Doing otherwise makes no sense at all.”

         You have every choice, John.

         Doing what you are doing makes no sense as it expresses an unrealistic rigor that precludes any engagement of logic. You cite the necessity for fidelity to the Pope and yet you boldly proclaim in your statements that which goes against what Francis has said and his lawful representative in this assessment of the Society.

         Reply

         • Whatever Francis has said, he has not decided to grant faculties to SSPX, nor has he apparently directed any bishops to offer the same. I cannot agree to act as though the Society lives in communion with the rest of the Church when such matters make plain that they are not. Lay people do not, to my knowledge, have the authority to decide that they may seek sacraments and guidance from an Order when Rome has not agreed that said Order may act.

           I do not believe we can act as though proper faculties and formal reconciliation with Rome are mere trivialities. We have rules and laws for a reason. We can’t merely overrule them when convenient to us merely because someone else–technically in communion with Rome–sees fit to ignore the same rules.
           I do not believe we help ourselves by going off the narrow path either to the left OR to the right. Either way, we’re not acting as we should.

         • Nobody is saying one should act as if proper faculties and formal reconciliation with Rome are mere trivialities. You pose a false dichotomy, John.

           The idea that cleaving to the Deposit of the Faith is somehow going off the narrow path to the right is also more of a political mindset. Yes, the middle road is that of virtue. But to reroute doctrine or to obfuscate is to pull a Pilate. That is to look Christ straight in the face and say, “What is Truth?”

           We all are called to answer this question, John. In faithful times, the clergy and hierarchy lead the way in answer. In times of crisis, no. At least not all.

           That is why Bishop Schneider likens our current situation to the Arian crisis. This is also why he rightfully advises those who love and desire to keep the Faith not to shoot one another with false arrows of pride masked as zeal. You’re only shooting your friends and making the triumph longer in coming.

           Be faithful, be obedient, but stick to what you know to be true and charitable about your neighbor. Anything more, like continuing to calumniate another with the grave sin of schism, is to call down judgement upon yourself.

         • “Nobody is saying one should act as if proper faculties and formal reconciliation with Rome are mere trivialities.”

           From where I sit, that is precisely what you and SSPX have argued and are arguing. You can’t have it both ways. You warn me that you consider my arguments to be calumny, yet the only reason you can raise is that you dispute whether SSPX poses a schismatic situation.
           As I’ve said elsewhere, until Rome declares them to be in full communion, I have little choice but to understand them to be in a schismatic frame of mind, even if Rome won’t say it directly.

         • …John, you are not getting anything from the SSPX. What you are getting is CMTV spin of the SSPX. You are getting spin from an organization that has, for all intents and purposes, tossed Bishop Schneider under the bus by ignoring his assessment and misrepresenting him – not once, but twice now.

           From where you sit, fully indoctrinated, and not even aware of what was included in the preamble, you have no basis for your statements. You cannot have it both ways. Expecting the Society to wait on Rome, while you openly admit in your closing statement that you can’t wait until Rome speaks directly. Can you not see your own hypocrisy?

           Good grief, man. Now you backtrack to schismatic ‘frame of mind’. There is no schism save in your mind and that of CMTV and it’s financial backer. That’s why those who used to fund CMTV are being blackballed for even they understand all is not right in Wonderland.

           The reason I say you are calumniating, John, is because you are. Try taking responsibility for the actions that you choose to do.

         • “But to reroute doctrine or to obfuscate is to pull a Pilate.”

           I don’t understand. Who do you charge with having “rerouted doctrine or obfuscated and pulled a Pilate?”

           The Popes before Francis? Pope JPII? Pope Benedict XVI? If not them, who?

         • I’m speaking of the obfuscating of the Faith to include now the notion that Church practice can somehow ignore Church teaching, Mara. I’m speaking about the Kasper work arounds to doctrine – specifically as pertains to marriage and homosexual ‘unions’. I’m speaking of the notion that Christians can now be more charitable than Christ.

           The spew of the October Synod’s didn’t happen in a vacuum, Mara, but has been building like pus in a wound.

           That is why you should venture to sites like OnePeterFive to get a broader understanding of what is happening within the Church, Mara.

       • ‘…the SSPX has an obligation to accept the faith as the Pope declares it…”

         That is about as naked a statement of papal positivism as I have read anywhere. The Pope does not “declare” the faith. He safeguards and transmits the Faith that he inherited. Or is that concept no longer valid?

         When the SSPX is “regularized” as they are, I will first thank God, and next will wait anxiously for the Flaherty’s, Voris’s, and Morlino’s of the world to chime in.

         Reply

         • “He safeguards and transmits the Faith that he inherited.”

           Trouble is that from the argument began in general because the SSPX has insisted that the Holy Father had changed something. From the time of Vatican II, the SSPX has been insistent that modern popes had abandoned the faith and begun teaching or practicing heresy. Yet from the same era, the rest of the world’s bishops have not agreed.

         • The world’s bishops are not a very good measure. Pre and post-conciliar papal documents are.

         • Last I knew, we believe the ruling Magisterium, the pope and the bishops in communion with him, to be one of the three sources of the Church’s teaching. Papal documents do not supercede the office of the people who wrote them.

         • Perennial, established Church teaching, John. That’s the sure guide. There are segments of Nostra Aetate, Lumen Gentium, and Dominus Iesus that are borderline contradictions of what came before, long-held and always believed.

           The introduction of the Novus Ordo, conceived in malice, has coincided with the most significant decline of faith in Church history.

           Pope St. Celestine said it well: “Let novelty cease to attack antiquity.”

           Vatican II was *not* a dogmatic council. It asserted novelties, but not ones to which Catholics, when faced from contradictions in the deposit of faith, owe their assent.

           I respect your docility to Church authority, but the democracy of the dead applies here. Our forefathers in faith would not recognize our Church. Burying our heads and wishing really hard for trustworthy apostolic leadership is insufficient in this crisis. The Church writes everything down. It’s our job to understand it, so we know when we’re faced with something off.

         • “The introduction of the Novus Ordo, conceived in malice, has coincided

           with the most significant decline of faith in Church history.”

           Neither of us, as lay men, have the ability to characterize the Novus Ordo as the sole cause of decline, Steve. Nor may we condemn Vatican II for the same reasons.

           “Our forefathers in faith would not recognize our Church.”

           I suspect our forefathers in faith would be appalled by the abuses inflicted on the Church since Vatican II of a “progressive” bent. I suspect that many would be equally appalled by the stance that SSPX has taken.

         • “Neither of us, as lay men, have the ability to characterize the Novus Ordo as the sole cause of decline…”

           True. I’d pair it with the internal undermining of Church teaching on contraception. It’s the one-two punch of the revolution.

           “Nor may we condemn Vatican II for the same reasons.”

           Don’t put words in my mouth. Saying that it got certain non-dogmatic assertions wrong is not the same as a condemnation.

           “I suspect our forefathers in faith would be appalled by the abuses inflicted on the Church since Vatican II of a “progressive” bent. I suspect that many would be equally appalled by the stance that SSPX has taken.”

           And this will remain only a suspicion. I have never advised my readers to attend SSPX chapels for the same reason you have outlined – I believe in obedience. That the treatment of the SSPX is manifestly unjust and motivated by politics and bad theology is also something I believe in.

           I pray that God will bless us with a solution, and soon.

         • “That the treatment of the SSPX is manifestly unjust and motivated by politics and bad theology is also something I believe in.”

           Weeeeellll, here’s where we have a real problem I’m afraid. If we might agree that SSPX has legitimate concerns to raise against Vatican II ambiguity, we cannot agree that SSPX has necessarily been treated in a manner needlessly unbecoming of the Church. In the eight years that I have known of the SSPX, in the 15 years years since I came across CMRI, in the 25 years since I began to learn of internal politics in the Church, I have seen appalling attitudes both from the left AND from the right. I first grew irritated with those from the left because I heard them so much during my high school and college years. In the time since though, I’ve been equally disgusted by traditionalist attitudes which proclaim that Rome has erred somehow. When I examine the situation, I mostly find that most (die-hard) traditionalists won’t give an inch willingly, but must be forced to concede any ponit by fierce argument. To be honest, that’s precisely the kind of attitude that I would say I’ve encountered these past several days, since this argument began.

           If it’s horrid for the Left to be insistent about the “Spirit of Vatican II”, I think it equally horrid for the Right to be adamant about how Vatican II must be renounced.
           I’m basically saying, in a nutshell, that I believe the SSPX has been treated as it has in no small part because the SSPX has dished out the same kind of treatment themselves.
           When someone insists that I’m wrong because SSPX is fully Catholic, but I know that SSPX is not in communion with the Pope, I must realize that such a point of view doesn’t make logical sense.
           Either Rome DOES have the authority, however poorly it may be wielded, or Rome DOESN’T. So far as I’m aware, Rome does, so I must behave accordingly.

           Most of the argument these past several days has seemed to me insistent that SSPX be recognized as fully Catholic because they, the SSPX, say so, even though Rome has not been willing to offer that distinction.

         • “I’m basically saying, in a nutshell, that I believe the SSPX has been treated as it has in no small part because the SSPX has dished out the same kind of treatment themselves.”

           It certainly didn’t start out that way. As I’ve argued, isolation is what has done damage, not their doctrinal positions.

           “When someone insists that I’m wrong because SSPX is fully Catholic, but I know that SSPX is not in communion with the Pope, I must realize that such a point of view doesn’t make logical sense.”

           Welcome to the club. This is exactly what I’m objecting to. Their actions and beliefs are fully Catholic, but Rome won’t reconcile them without concessions, in writing, to things none of the rest of us have to sign. They were ready to reconcile under Levada’s CDF. They made agreements. The deal was changed (pray we don’t alter it further!) at the last moment when they came to the table.

           There are evil men at every level of the Church hierarchy. Men whose agenda is to alter and even to subvert the faith. This touches on more issues than just the SSPX. It’s why the Legionaries of Christ still exist, and why it took so long to shed light on their malfeasance. The right friends of the right causes go a long way towards making what should happen a near impossibility. Fr. Gabriel Amorth recounts how Vatican politicos kept telling John Paul II he couldn’t consecrate Russia in 1984, even as the ceremony began. Pope Benedict made clear that he came under attack for lifting the SSPX excommunications and wondered out loud what so many people have against an order that is producing vocations and bearing fruit.

           It may seem odd in an age of Papal Positivism to believe that the pope is not some monarch with unilateral power, but the red-tape in the Vatican runs thick. It’s probably why Benedict resigned. His health is still fine. He was just surrounded by ravening wolves.

         • “Their actions and beliefs are fully Catholic, but Rome won’t reconcile
           them without concessions, in writing, to things none of the rest of us
           have to sign.”

           For what I have read of the history, Steve, SSPX cannot claim that Rome needs to reconcile with them, the SSPX. Even if SSPX began with an acceptable view, they did not remain so. If you argue that isolation caused problems, not doctrinal splits, I contend that disputes over doctrine led to SSPX isolation; I also believe that because SSPX refused Rome’s authority earlier on, the passion that SSPX faithful could’ve brought to the Church to combat progressive madness had to be laid aside, giving the progressive factions all the room they wanted.

           If you want to say that Rome won’t reconcile with Econe, I remind you that Rome, being the See of Peter, has the obligation to defend the faith against error, a charism that Econe does not possess. The Bishop of Rome has the right to demand that a Society should concede in writing those points that the Bishop of Rome feels pose the most serious difficulties. If that’s not correct, then I would say that most of our belief in the Supreme Pontiff…doesn’t amount to anything.

           Even if Cdl Levada would’ve been willing to reconcile, Cdl Levada was not the Pope and did not have the same responsibilities or authorities.

           So, evil men exist at every level of the Church hierarchy.
           OK. What’s new?
           I can’t think of any era in the Church’s history when we DIDN’T have evil men lurking somewhere. Declaring this strikes me as mostly repeating something from the Catechism, then howling that we’re in unprecedented waters. From all that I’ve seen, heard, and learned, our situation now is comparatively normal for a major shift of understanding.
           Note, I didn’t say it was easy, but that it was normal.

         • I really never liked Merry-go-rounds. Always make me sick.

           My last response for a while follows:

           “Even if SSPX began with an acceptable view, they did not remain so.”

           Please substantiate.

           “If you argue that isolation caused problems, not doctrinal splits, I contend that disputes over doctrine led to SSPX isolation;”

           Doctrinal splits created the isolation. But it was Rome that embraced a doctrine so nuanced that it no longer resembled the original. The SSPX was right to object. More prelates and priests should have.

           Isolation is the condition under which the superiority complex that some have witnessed (and the rudeness that sometimes accompanies it) festered. Just because you’re right doesn’t mean you’re not a jerk about it. And that’s essentially what Bp. Schneider was saying when he said:

           “One has to have enough intellectual honesty and objectivity as to admit that the SSPX makes some theological criticism of some not strictly dogmatic affirmations in the texts of Vatican II and of some postconciliar documents, which have to be taken seriously. Unfortunately their criticism lacks sometimes the due respectful form. Nevertheless, some theological objections of the SSPX can be a constructive contribution for a more mature theological explication of certain themes, as for example the collegiality, religious liberty, the liturgical reform”

           Back to your comments:

           “I also believe that because SSPX refused Rome’s authority earlier on, the passion that SSPX faithful could’ve brought to the Church to combat progressive madness had to be laid aside, giving the progressive factions all the room they wanted.”

           I agree with this. Specifically on the point of the consecrations. They turned out to be right about the Mass: never abrogated.

           “If you want to say that Rome won’t reconcile with Econe, I remind you that Rome, being the See of Peter, has the obligation to defend the faith against error, a charism that Econe does not possess.”

           And yet I say with complete certitude that Rome has, with certain notable exceptions, abandoned this duty almost completely for half a century, and the results are made manifest.

           ” The Bishop of Rome has the right to demand that a Society should concede in writing those points that the Bishop of Rome feels pose the most serious difficulties.”

           Like what? That they should use their left hands to pick up their forks? That they should drive blue cars? No, the pope does not have the right to arbitrarily dictate whatever he wants from a society; there must be substantial reason to do so from within the authority of his office. Returning to less absurd examples, what about saying that a society has to accept Lumen Gentium 16 as Catholic doctrine? Nonsense. It’s a deeply problematic passage that flies in the face of prior teaching.

           The Council was a pastoral council, which means it didn’t define any new doctrine or dogma, and so the only binding aspects of it were those which re-asserted existing doctrine or dogma.

           A society absolutely has a right to take issue with it, then.

           “If that’s not correct, then I would say that most of our belief in the Supreme Pontiff…doesn’t amount to anything.”

           I despise papal positivism. It takes “fides et ratio” and turns it on its head, making Catholics into unthinking fools.

           The pope has limits on his authority. He must. He is a guardian and guarantor of doctrine, not an innovator. If he strays from that, problems — really rather serious ones — are introduced.

           “Even if Cdl Levada would’ve been willing to reconcile, Cdl Levada was not the Pope and did not have the same responsibilities or authorities.”

           And yet he and those in his office are, I’ve been told, the ones who altered the agreement. So go figure.

           “I can’t think of any era in the Church’s history when we DIDN’T have evil men lurking somewhere. Declaring this strikes me as mostly repeating something from the Catechism, then howling that we’re in unprecedented waters.”

           That’s not a rebuttal. These men are making decisions. They are papal advisors (and papal constrainers). They go all the way to the top. Remember this well-reported incident:

           “During an audience with the Pope, Bishop Fellay found himself alone with the Pope for a moment. His Excellency seized the opportunity to remind the Pope that he is the Vicar of Christ, possessed of the authority to take immediate measures to end the crisis in the Church on all fronts. The Pope replied thus: “My authority ends at that door.” (Castel Gondolfo August, 2005)”

           Back to you:

           “From all that I’ve seen, heard, and learned, our situation now is comparatively normal for a major shift of understanding.Note, I didn’t say it was easy, but that it was normal.”

           This is simply an erroneous understanding of the situation. We are in the worst crisis the Church has ever faced. I’m not going to expound here, I don’t have time. I’ve done it in countless other articles and posts. Bp. Schneider calls it the “fourth great crisis” in the Church, and that’s probably understatement. He foresees a major schism, and so do I. It’s no better than it was under Arianism, but it’s almost invisible to the average Catholic how bad it is, because they have become so inured to error and bad leadership.

           It’ll become clearer just how bad it is. Soon, soon.

         • “But it was Rome that embraced a doctrine so nuanced that it no longer resembled the original.”

           Steve, if we believe that our Holy Father has been charged with defending the doctrine of the Church, then we also believe that we must make sense of what he has said. Our Holy Father is not required to state things in exactly the way we wish to hear them. If he so chooses, the Holy Father may state things in a way that challenges us very deeply about what we believe. I have long understood this to be precisely what Vatican II set about doing.

           “And yet I say with complete certitude that Rome has, with certain
           notable exceptions, abandoned this duty almost completely for half a
           century, and the results are made manifest.”

           A good point to be made about the discipline of the Church, sure, but not one which justifies the Society’s insistence that the Pope has taught error. Whether we like the Holy Father’s approach or not, we’re still required to, at least not defy him.

         • “Bp. Schneider calls it the “fourth great crisis” in the Church, and
           that’s probably understatement. He foresees a major schism, and so do I.”

           Unfortunately, I must agree that another schism is likely. Trouble is, there’s that comment about the FOURTH great crisis in the Church. If we’re moving into major crisis number four, then we must say that the Church has suffered three already. If we examined each, or any of the more minor struggles, we would almost certainly find evil men near the top.

           Until such things have been declared though, I cannot agree that we can ignore the Pope’s decisions or declare an Order to be Catholic by our own choice. LIke I told someone else earlier tonight, I could’ve done that 14 years ago with CMRI.
           I’m forced to rest on the idea that, until the SSPX has been granted faculties by the Pope, or until a major Council of bishops validly declares the SSPX position to be valid, I cannot act as if SSPX has regular rights as Catholics

           So far as I’m aware, the SSPX does not.

         • “…I mostly find that most (die-hard) traditionalists won’t give an inch willingly, but must be forced to concede any ponit by fierce argument.”

           But you fail to bring a legitimate argument, John. That is the problem. You cast yourself as being forced and having no choice but to speak on behalf of a Rome that will not in pronouncing schism. That is precisely what you condemn others for doing.

         • “Last I knew, we believe the ruling Magisterium, the pope and the bishops in communion with him, to be one of the three sources of the Church’s teaching. Papal documents do not supercede the office of the people who wrote them.”

           Dear Mr. Flaherty,
           Real sheep seem to understand life in much simpler terms: they recognize a Good Shepherd when they see one; and they watch closely for wolves & hirelings (to include sophists in ivory towers). The former will bleed with you AND FOR YOU; the latter will BLEED YOU, ignore you, or speak lies of not needing to bleed at all [to suffer].

           Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a Good Shepherd.

           May God bless you,
           Curtis Bartel

         • For what I have learned of the Archbishop, I get the distinct impression that he had a temperament quite similar to mine. I can well understand then his aggravation with the…attitudes…expressed by many of his contemporaries. For all that this is true though, I cannot ignore the fact that his approach, however well intentioned he may have been, has been equally serious in consequence for the Church as have been the approach of his adversaries.
           I have read before about how people believe he saved the Traditional Mass. I find I don’t agree. If anything, I’m inclined to be disgusted with his attitude because, when he refused to change even a little, he separated his Society from the wider Church. By doing so, he gave the progressive factions ample room to run amok with the Novus Ordo. Had he been less intransigent, I think he could’ve been a fierce advocate for why the madness of the Novus Ordo should be rejected. As things wound out, he wasn’t available to be an advocate for worthy change.

           I have heard some insist that he’ll be declared a saint. I don’t honestly know. I think it tough to reconcile being a saint with someone who violated a legitimately seated pope’s wishes. I guess we’ll know in a few thousand years….

         • I totally agree, John Flaherty.

         • “…I’m inclined to be disgusted with his attitude…” [Archbishop Lefebvre]

           I’m deeply grateful for his manly, warrior-like attitude. He was unwilling to yield one inch of “True Ground” to the enemies of The Faith.

           “…he separated his Society from the wider Church.”

           As a Good Shepherd, the Archbishop separated his beloved
           flock from the “scurvy of modernism” running rampant in Rome. He, in Truth, protected souls from entering the “mystical body of antichrist” created by the false council of Vatican II.

           May God’s will be done.
           Respectfully,
           Curtis

         • And the Holy Ghost does not work against Himself, John. That is why novelty introduced via lawful authority is no law.

       • Well, more and more I am moving headlong into not accepting the errors of Vatican II.

         But then , I am no more disobedient than prelates who refuse to enforce Vatican II documents requiring the Mass be prayed in Latin or that Gregorian chant is the primary musical form of the Mass. In fact, given their office, they are far more culpable than me. Yet YOU say the issue is that the SSPX refuses 100% obedience when neither this pope or his immediate predecessors demand the same of hypocritical progressive bishops.

         Reply

         • So, we’ve reached the point wherein we may be insubordinate to a pope and reject particular teachings of a Council because, well, at least we’re not as horrid as those d*mn progressive bishops who refuse to enforce the parts of Vatican II that THEY don’t like.
           We’re back to declaring that the other sides sins mean that I may sin too.

           What happened to Christ’s demand that we all repent of our sins?
           If the progressives err severely by refusing to admit that they sin, I see the traditionalists erring equally severely by refusing to admit that they have obligations to the Church to follow Council dictates and a pope’s wishes.

           In my eyes, BOTH sides have acted with malice and insist on being hypocritical.

         • …a Pope’s wishes do not the Faith make, John, when they obscure and or refute that which has come before.

     • You ask the $64,000 question(s):

       “So I’ll ask again: what position do they hold that is irreconcilable with the Catholic Faith? What must they do in order to be fully accepted?”

       I have yet to see the “schismaniacs” provide an answer. CMTV appears to have a real issue with integrity.

       Reply

       • Okay now, here’s one answer [there may be others]:

         “…The problems now being treated are essentially doctrinal in nature, especially those concerning the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the postconciliar Magisterium of the Popes.”

         Reply

         • Vatican II was a pastoral council….what dogmas did it declare? Of those, to which does the SSPX refuse assent? The answer in both cases is: “none.” As a pastoral council, Vatican II declared no dogma; it is only binding insofar as it repeats teachings of previous dogmatic councils. There are issues to be worked through with the SSPX but they do not render the Society “schismatic.”
           From whom did you borrow your quote?

     • “So I’ll ask again: what position do they hold that is irreconcilable with the Catholic Faith? What must they do in order to be fully accepted?”
       Should not this question be directed to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI? Or… didn’t he answer it before he resigned? I thought he did.

       Reply

   • “Yet in the entirety of the Tradition that the SSPX insists they wish to
     uphold, never has there been an occasion in which a single Order of the
     Church had the authority to over-rule a pope or a recognized Council of
     the Church.”

     Nobody, not even the zealous SSPX retractors, has ever asserted that the Society has the “authority ro over-rule a Pope…”. Where you get that from is anyone’s guess.

     There are numerous instances in Church history, however, where faithful clerics/religious/laity staked out positions contrary to prevailing ecclesial positions and even the Pope himself because they were in error. That’s going back to St. Peter himself.

     Reply

     • “Nobody, not even the zealous SSPX retractors, has ever asserted that the Society has the “authority ro over-rule a Pope…” ”

       Before Benedict XVI resigned, Vatican officials–Benedict’s representatives–met with leadership from SSPX and developed a doctrinal preamble. Ultimately, SSPX refused to sing the document, citing doctrinal difficulties. Whether we agree with the choice of verbiage or not, the Society essentially declined communion with Rome because they could not agree to stated doctrinal ideas.
       I do not know of any other way to assess that aside from considering that SSPX wished to over-rule the Pope. Perhaps not directly, but you cannot disagree with a Pope’s representatives regarding doctrine at the same time as you admit the same Pope’s authority in such matters.

       Reply

       • John, do you have any idea what was in the doctrinal preamble?

         Good grief. Wake up. Whether we agree with the verbiage or not? Are you serious?

         I’ll tell you, friend, if Bishop Schneider signed that verbiage, he would be precluded from commenting on the necessity of clarifying VII ambiguities and novelties.

         The problem at hand is precisely what you state: You do not know of any other way to assess that aside from considering that the SSPX wished to over-rule the Pope. That is to say, John, you are unqualified to make the statements you make.

         Reply

       • “…but you cannot disagree with a Pope’s representatives regarding doctrine.”

         And yet you, John, disregard a Pope’s representative who was sent to assess the Society and CHOOSE to promote CMTV’s rash insistence of schism. And with no more authority than an lame interpretation of irregular canonical status is diplomatic speak for not in full communion. That and your own inability to await Rome’s proclamation.

         Sorry, John, but that’s not logical.

         Reply

       • I will read your remarks after the SSPX is “regularized,” whatever that means, just as they are. When that day occurs, and it will, please try to be brief and remember the words of Ben Franklin, “never ruin an apology with an excuse.”

         Reply

         • I have offered arguments for why I believe that SSPX continues in a state of practical schism–material schism if you wish. I do not believe I have said anything that warrants an apology, nor have I given any excuses for anything.

           I find the Holy Father’s typical approach to be aggravating; I find statements like yours to be straight out insulting.

           This is precisely the attitude that leads me to think the Holy Father should make life “easier” for all of us and declare the SSPX to be in schism. Statements like this demonstrate a determined lack of charity towards others’ views.
           If I were the Holy Father, there’s no way I would consider such an intention.

         • …you exhibit the stubborn position you ascribe to others.

           Saying, “I do not believe I have said anything that warrants an apology, nor have I given any excuses for anything,” is to not look at your own shortcomings, John.

       • “…but you cannot disagree with a Pope’s representatives regarding doctrine at the same time as you admit the same Pope’s authority in such matters.”

         Where did you get that idea?

         We have historical proof that that is an incorrect statement.

         Pope John XXII openly expressed heresy regarding the beatific vision and was opposed by the majority of theologians in his day.

         They certainly recognized his authority; they rejected his errors regarding doctrine.

         Reply

         • I have learned many things of Catholic “civil wars” in the past 15 years, DJR. I may hear that one pope or another did or said this or that which ultimately was rejected. …And in each case, the situation cited bears no relation to the dilemma at hand.
           Instead, I really find that the person who objects is simply thoroughly ticked off that our current pope has not acted as the person would wish. I keep hearing that the Holy Spirit has been abandoned; I find I’m concluding that the complainer does not wish to admit to the Holy Spirit’s possibly choosing a different way.

           Historical proofs have been offered dozens of times. I’m growing weary of rejecting them on grounds of being misapplied.

         • ….others are growing wearied of your insistence that lessons learned cannot be applied rationally to the situations of our times. As to your reading, it seems rather to be devoid of logic, John.

         • Your response doesn’t change the fact that what you stated above is not Catholic teaching.

           “…but you cannot disagree with a Pope’s representatives regarding doctrine at the same time as you admit the same Pope’s authority in such matters.”

           That is not Catholic teaching. Full stop.

           There are historical precedents that Catholics, good Catholics, rejected what a pope asserted as being true while admitting that the pope had papal authority.

           It’s an historical fact. John XXII is one proof of that fact.

           If you’re growing weary of rejecting something (okay, so you have an opinion), then perhaps you should take a step back from the “Catholic ‘civil wars.'”

           Some of us have been at this a good bit longer. And because, unfortunately, we’re older than a good portion of Catholics with opinions, we understand better what the Church teaches.

           People born after Vatican II, for the most part, are not well formed in the faith. That’s why they make claims about what the Holy Spirit does, or does not do, that Catholics born prior to Vatican II find absurd.

           In fact, the popes themselves would disagree with many of those ideas.

         • Gentlemen, ladies, I regret that I must now bow out of the conversation. I must say I find the views expressed from the SSPX side to be…worrisome. For all that I can agree that SSPX technically has not been declared to be in schism, the attitudes expressed these past few days make clear that SSPX advocates most definitely are NOT in communion with anyone else, never mind Rome. I really am seeing an insistence that we’re not truly Catholic unless SSPX agrees.
           That would seem to me to fit the definition of schism that PGMGN provided to Mara earlier.

           In summary, though Rome has not declared a schism, I’m seeing attitudes expressed that make plain otherwise.

         • The fixation on the SSPX among certain Catholics is indeed strange.

           With all the blasphemies, outrages, sacrileges, heresy, homosexuality, abortion-loving Catholics, and everything else, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera (in the words of Yul Brynner), going on daily in the Church, certain Catholics find the views expressed by the SSPX side… worrisome?

           How much time have they spent worrying about, and FIGHTING AGAINST, the overwhelming majority of things going on, even amongst the highest prelates in the Church, as stated above, as opposed to perseverating over a handful of Catholic priests (they’re not an Order, by the way) and a small minority of Catholics who go to their Masses?

           Some U.S. bishops granted faculties to priests of the proabortion, communist Patriotic Association, and those priests ministered in Catholic parishes here. That’s an historical fact documented by major Catholic organizations and admitted by the ordinaries involved.

           Where was the outrage among those Catholics who get so up in arms over the SSPX?

           The idea that SSPX advocates are not in communion with anyone else, “never mind Rome,” is ridiculous. There are advocates of the SSPX among the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei Groups and those Catholics who attend their Masses. Of course, there are detractors as well.

           My goodness, there are even SSPX advocates among Byzantine Catholics.

           I can’t speak for any others on here, but, last time I looked, the Byzantine Catholic parish, and eparchy, of which I am a member were both in communion with Pope Francis.

         • What is truly worrisome is the fear, John, the fear of ‘bald’ truth.

           Stop the spin. Stop pretending that being in union with Rome has anything whatsoever to do with personal feelings or attitudes. That is where you’re leaving yourself wide open.

           The teachings of the Church are not dictated by feelings, especially those of a perceived snub.

           In future, never refer to my posts and/or definitions for a contribution to your fear mongering. Your penchant for, “…. seems to me,” is a sink hole of fearing that YOU are somehow being castigated as being less than Catholic just because the truth of Catholic teaching is being upheld.

           You state, “I really am seeing an insistence that we’re not truly Catholic unless SSPX agrees.”

           This has nothing to do with YOU as a person, John. Not even the SSPX. Not really. This has to do with holding onto the fullness of Church teaching and maintaining the integrity thereof. If you were corrected on a Tax error or on a Calculus test, would you be huffy and focused on the attitude of the one upholding the realities of accounting principles or math facts? Or would you thank the person, whoever they may be, for pointing out the disconnect so that your calculations could proceed in such a way as to not inadvertently bring disaster? For yourself and others?

           Stop it with judging intentions, John, and the whole us vs them distraction. You may have to withdraw from the ladies and gentlemen, but I pray you withdraw from taking things personally.

           We are only human and only know what we hear. If we never hear that the train has taken a detour, we don’t find out until we reach a destination that is not what we believed it would be. And many souls fall off the rails if the ride is too bumpy or takes too many hairpin turns.

           We’re all on the same team here, but need to look at the playbook as it is actually written – not interpreted by those laymen and others who want to play Quarterback.

8. The beatings will continue until …you convert to the cult of man.

   Reply

9. Exodus in the 60s and 70s certainly, but nothing has slowed since then. Too often we act like the worst of it is over. The “oh that was all just back in the 70s and 80s” mentality is just whistling past the graveyard. And the few positive signs of life is no vocation boom or wave of converts as the NeoCats would have you believe. The number of annual converts is still dramatically dwarfed by those who leave the Church.

   Reply

   • I cannot shake Pope Benedict XVI’s comment about the “mustard seed” Church.

     Reply

10. This just in: Bs. Schneider tried to leave a comment on CMTV clarifying his position and was immediately banned.

    🙂

    Reply

11. 1. ‘..when the SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of the Pope

    2. “and the diocesan bishops and prays for them publicly

    3. “and recognizes also the validity of the sacraments according to the editio typica of the new liturgical books,

    ” this should suffice for a canonical recognition of the SSPX on behalf of the Holy See.”

    There may not be reasons to continue denying SSPX the official canonical recognition, but the above are far from being “not weighty.”

    Take condition #3, for example – Does anybody really believe SSPX will be willing to recognize the validity of, say, the editio typica tertia of the Roman Missal, released in 2002? In other words, the new and improve Novus Ordo?

    Reply

12. Nice follow-up from Rorate. Note: SSPX is not in schism 🙂

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/08/schism-or-no-schism-that-is-not.html

    “…We are at a loss of words here!”

    Reply

    • ….If you do start a discussion page about this, Douglas, please let us know.

      The knives are long since out – as per Fr Paul Nicholson’s particular brand of seed sowing. Pray, God, Bishop Schneider will continue unabated in speaking the truth – no more, no less.

      Reply

13. I’ve been banned from trying to share this petition that many viewers of Church Militant started; along with myself. If you like it, please sign and share and help find more Faithful Catholics. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/concerns-of-laity-and-clergy-to-the-holy-father

    Reply

14. Michael Voris (and his group of immatures) is becoming so radical and arrogant.

    You can tell by the way he handles his critics or the Church’s. I think he is mentally disturbed and should seek a psychologist. The arrogance of power and authority is blinding him.

    We have seen in history people like him. Hitler comes to mind.

    His excuses of banning any voice that speaks against the Church or this Pope are lame and are just what they are…excuses. No substance in them.

    It is amazing his hypocrisy….He always stops short of criticizing the Pope by name, yet he criticizes on a daily basis everything that comes from this Pope, from the Vatican, through his (the Pope’s) Cardinals, Bishops and Priests!!

    Hypocrisy and arrogance are the two sins that Jesus spoke about describing the Pharisees…or should I say….Michael Voris.

    Reply

    • Some individuals got banned just yesterday for nothing more than openly defending His Excellency Bishop Schneider’s twice repeated position on the SSPX.

      CM would in one admonishment state that His excellency is a holy and learned man and that it would be FOOLISH to disregard his prudential statements and then, in the same paragraph, it would be said that the desire to submit to papal authority must be proved by more than a couple of pictures of the Holy Father in the sacristy and simply praying for him.

      It seems the moderators were unprepared to deal with the reality that readers have a right to know that Bishop Schneider and the Vatican already understand the Societies views about the Novus Ordo Missae. The idea now is to convince the crowd that the Society is pulling new rabbits out of the proverbial hat and bamboozling everyone. Such a dog and pony show.

      But hey, the blood lust of against the simple truth, even the truth of a consistent position, is making it ever clearer that the doctrinal issues are THAT bad and need to be called out.

      Reply

      • There are forces at work behind the scenes of Church Militant who believe they have clarity on issues that they simply can’t pronounce judgment on. It’s an unfortunate state of affairs. I hope those individuals come to their senses, or are expelled from their positions of influence.

        Reply

15. Good balanced approach. After the great schism occurs resulting from the 2015 Synod or actions somewhat after, the choices will be clearer.

    Reply

16. Has Bishop Schnieder watched the SSPX teaching video (on their own web site) which states that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is sinful, or that it is better to miss Mass than attend an OF Mass?
    Or was he merely spoon fed the things that the SSPX wanted him to hear by those he interviewed?

    http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexdo-not-go-to-mass
    SSPX teaching video embedded [watch video here].
    Also on SSPX web site.

    Reply

    • ” In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified,
      the Society has no canonical status in the Church,
      and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” – Pope Benedict, March 10, 2009.

      http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

      Reply
17. Pingback: Confessions of an SSPX Sympathizer Living in “Novus Ordo Land” – Via Nova Media
18. Pingback: From the Confessions of an SSPX Sympathizer | the five minute Catholic

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.