Rorate Caeli has the scoop on what is, if you think about it, a not-entirely-surprising story:
It was only a matter of time. Ever since Bishop Richard Williamson eventually caused the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) to force his own expulsion from that Society in 2012, the watch has been on for him to consecrate one or more bishops. This became even more inevitable as he has failed to recruit any significant number of clergy or faithful away from the SSPX in a so-called “Resistance” attempt.
Rorate can now report at least one consecration will occur on March 19 (Feast of St. Joseph).
[Monastery of the Holy Cross/Santa Cruz, in Nova Friburgo, Brazil] According to our sources, Bishop Williamson plans to consecrate Fr. Jean-Michel Faure at the monastery of Santa Cruz (that also broke with the SSPX in 2012) in Nova Friburgo, a city in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
[Site of the city of Nova Friburgo in Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil] Fr. Faure, who is 73, entered the SSPX seminary of Ecône in 1972 and was ordained a priest by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1977.He had previously been Superior of the SSPX District of South America and Rector of the Seminary of La Reja in Argentina. He openly manifested his disagreement with Bishop Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX, and left the Society in 2013.We have also heard, but cannot confirm, that Bishop Williamson may also consecrate Fr. Innocent Marie.
Anyone familiar with Bishop Williamson’s peculiarities knows that keeping him in the fold until 2012 is one of the most damaging lapses in judgment on the part of SSPX leadership. The man’s opinions on world events are radioactive. He is a capable and compelling speaker, but his outspokenness on controversial topics over the years is, I believe, one of the main reasons that a huge number of Catholics think the SSPX is a crazy schismatic cult and mainstream trads are little better.
You’ll note that I said the news of these episcopal consecrations is “not-entirely-surprising.” Not entirely because I admit I didn’t see it coming: the man just turned 75. I’d think that by now he would have retired from his life of ecclesiastical crime in favor of a few quiet years free of scandal and conflict.
Alas, it wasn’t meant to be.
I do hope this helps draw a more clear contrast between the truly schismatic mindset of a man like Williamson and the more down-to-earth difficulties that the SSPX find themselves faced with. Despite their long association, they are not the same.
There are no schismatics… there are only separated brethren
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS A MODERNIST FOR INTERPRETING VATICAN CONCIL II WITH THE EXPLICIT,VISIBLE TO US BAPTISM OF DESIRE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-was.html
BISHOP WILLIAMSON ASSUMES THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS EXPLICIT FOR US-SO VATICAN COUNCIL II IS MODERNIST. ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE COULD HAVE MADE THE SAME ERROR
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/bishop-williamson-assumes-baptism-of.html
YOUTUBE BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON MAKES A DOCTRINAL ERROR
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/youtube-bishop-richard-williamson-makes.html
THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY WE DON’T KNOW ANYONE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/theoretically-and-practically-we-dont.html
DID POPE BENEDICT SAY THE SYLLABUS OF ERROR IS NO MORE RELEVANT BECAUSE OF THE VISIBLE DEAD THEORY OF VATICAN COUNCIL II?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/did-pope-benedict-say-syllabus-of-error.html
SSPX should expose the secret of the visible dead theory in the Vatican-SSPX talks
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/sspx-should-expose-secret-of-visible.html
THEOLOGIANS IN THE VATICAN-SSPX TALKS WERE USING THE VISIBLE TO US BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND BOTH SIDES DID NOT KNOW IT: NEITHER DOES BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON RECOGNIZE IT NOW
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/theologians-in-vatican-sspx-talks-were.html
Feeneyite presense: This site Promotes Feeneyites: a TRUE Schizmatic Worthless for your faith, Worthless for your soul. Ignore!
Lack of proper Thomistic theology is the root of the error of the Feeneyites
To remedy the errors of Modernism, St. Pius X ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy and theology. A book like Desire and Deception,[10] authored and published by Feeneyites, is very dangerous for its opposition to St. Thomas. Let us hear St. Pius X:
We will and strictly ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. And let it be clearly understood above all things that when We prescribe scholastic philosophy We understand chiefly that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us. They cannot set aside St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage.[11]
In obedience, we must consider the sacramental theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. He distinguishes three elements in each sacrament:
the exterior sign, called sacramentum tantum – sacrament itself, signifying and producing the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament.
An intermediate reality, called sacramentum et re – sacrament and reality, which, in the case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate reality is both signified and produced by the exterior sign and further signifies and produces the third element.
The ultimate reality, res sacramenti – the (ultimate) reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental grace, i.e., sanctifying grace, as source of further actual graces to live as a child of God, as soldier of Christ, etc.
Feeneyite presense: This site Promotes Feeneyites: a TRUE Schizmatic Worthless for your faith, Worthless for your soul. Ignore!
Lack of proper Thomistic theology is the root of the error of the Feeneyites
Lionel:
St.Thomas Aquinas was a Feeneyite. He held the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It was Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and Cardinal Richard Cushing who were not Feeneyites. They inferred that there was known salvation outside the Church and these cases were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For the first time in Church history they postulated that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were exceptions to the dogma.
1.They did not personally know of any person saved outside the Church.
2.No magisterial document before 1949 made this claim.
Mystici Corporis. Council of Trent etc only mention the possibility of a person being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire. That’s all!. They do not postulate that these cases are known to us personally, or can be known to us, for them to be exceptions.Neither do they state that these cases are exceptions.
Marchetti and Cushing took the liberty of making ‘the leap’. They inferred that people in Heaven are visble and known on earth to be exceptions to the dogma! The visible-dead theory of Marchetti!
Cushing also placed this irrationality in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14 etc) to cause confusion.
They were supported by the secular media.So Catholics do not realize that Cushingism is heresy and Feeneyism is de fide.
Cushingism rejects the dogma defined by three Church Councils, it changes the Nicene Creed’s ‘I beleive in one baptism for the forgivess of sins’ to ‘I believe in three or more baptisms, all without the baptism of water’ and it interprets Vatican Council II with an irrational premise. So Vatican Council II contradicts itself and the dogma on exclusive salvation. The contradiction is there only because of the irrational Cushingite premise.Without the premise, Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.
The contemporary Magisterium is using Cushingism with a false premise,inference and conclusion.
It is to be hoped that the vagus Bishop Williamson (like all of the SSPX + SSPV Bishops, he has orders but not Jurisdiction and, thus, no ministry) will create the SSP2.5 as the next logical protestant progression; SSPX, SSPV, SSP2.5
O, and shunning him owing to his personal opinions about the Nazi war crimes directed at the Jews is an absurdity but it does have the benefit of reminding us that fear of the Jews is alive and well.
Who cares what he thinks about history? If men are fit for ordination and jurisdiction only if they publicly confess a secular creed created by a political pressure group, of what use then is Holy Orders?
O, and the only holocaust a Catholic ought to speak about is the Holocaust of Christ on Calvary for it is a thing certain that the evil war crimes directed at the Jews and Christians and Pagans and others was in no way a holocaust if that word is still to have any meaning at all.
It is a lamentable reality that our Catholic Hierarchy is so quick to denounce the personal political/historical opinions of others (is history more important than salvation?) but that same Hierarchy is silent about the Messias-Deniers and do not preach Christ and Conversion to the Jews as did our First Pope and Prelates (see Acts)
What could be more hateful to the Jews? Deny part , not all, of an historical event and abuse is rained down upon you; deny the Messias and nobody bats an eye but not surrendering to the zeitgeist about history earns one only the political opprobrium of those who hold power in this execrable epoch whereas Messias-Denial has eschatological consequences; Hell.
Voltaire was right in observing that is one desires to know who rules over him, all he has to do is figure-out who he may not criticise.
Yes obediant one. But to whom are you obedient?
I wonder if just the introduction to the “Athanasian Creed” were read from every pulpit on Easter Sunday ( or “anticipated Easter” Saturday vigils ) including the Pope reading it to all of the world, if the “ecclesiastical crimes” and ‘radioactivity” of Bp. Wiliamson would be overshadowed by an offense given that would have no parallel in the world today. The reaction, I guarantee you even if such a thing happened would indicate a level of the crisis only exceeded by the fact that no one, not even the Pope would be able to get the cooperation of those within the Church to accomplish such a deed. The most devout Pope would not be able to accomplish it in today’s Church.
The spin concerning Bishop Wiliamson always amazes me. The “ecclesiastical crimes” of Wiliamson simply don’t exist. And nothing compares to the damage done by Popes, Cardinals, bishops priests nuns and lay folk on a daily basis throughout the world. Williamson’s very justifiable actions are simply a small resistance to that. A candle in the darkness.
Williamson of course didn’t “cause the society to expel” him. Bp. Fellay applied pressure and strong arm tactics interfered with his legal defense of an appalling law applied to him in Germany. Bp. Fellay simply enacted what Pope Benedict wished for regarding Williamson in “Light of the World” a book loaded with factual errors and flat out lies against Williamson and the suggestion that Wiliamson would have been better to deal with separately.
“Radioactive” of course is the term Bp. Fellay used to describe Williamson in his “Salt and Light” interview with the now infamous Fr. Rosica who threatens legal actions against orthodox Catholics. Better watch out, the needle on ‘radioactive” will get more and more sensitive as time goes by.
A huge number of Catholics believe the SSPX is a crazy schismatic cult is more due to the ignorance of a huge number of Catholics who don’t have intellectual integrity as well being ignorant to the actual meaning of words like “schismatic.”
Honestly, it’s hard to take stock in the quality of the opinions of most “Novus Ordo” adherents anyway when it comes to their theology or the quality of their understanding of tradition or their common sense. I would love to hear one of these Catholics call traditionalists crazy as they walk into their “charismatic renewal” abominations and engage in “holy barking” or “holy laughter.”
It’s good that there’s one bishop in the world who doesn’t quake in his boots when authority is abused, when Jesus Christ is sidelined. (ever notice how Pope Francis doesn’t genuflect? ever see the beach ball on the altar at St. Peter’s that he placed there? He genuflected that time)
JPII was such a bad pope that LeFebvre was completely justified in his consecration of the bishops. Pope Francis is so much worse that Wiliamson should be stepping up since the SSPX has been seduced into comparative placidity by the promises of potential recognition.
Saint Augustine teaches us that there is never any justification for schism.
Period.
From Schism being condemned in the New Testament, to schism always being denounced by the Early Church Fathers, to schism always being denounced in Ecumenical Councils etc etc etc one just knew that those claiming to represent Tradition would not even see the irony of them being the persons to first justify that which has always been condemned.
Novelty is embraced by self-servants
Could the Magisteriium for you be in public heresy ?
By the constant Magisterium the SSPX really means the Magisterium before 1949 which did not use the false premise
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/by-constant-magisterium-sspx-really.html
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict also used the false premise and conclusion from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/pope-john-paul-ii-and-pope-benedict.html
What was Fr. Hardons error that Cardinal Burke approved?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/what-was-fr-hardons-error-that-cardinal.html
The Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis no where says that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Rome made a mistake in 1949
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-council-of-trent-mystici-corporis.html
Marchetti’s false premise has been accepted by the Magisterium
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/marchettis-false-premise-has-been.html
The Magisterium promotes heresy for political reasons ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/the-magisterium-promotes-heresy-for.html
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/vatican-council-ii-says.html
Schism and resistance are two different things. St. Paul was not schismatic because he resisted Peter to his face. “Who am I to Judge?” is implicitly more akin to schism than any resistance offered by traditionalist priests who have been persecuted for not embracing novelty, confusion and oppression. “Who am I to Judge?” has an implicit rejection of the authority of the Pope to precisely judge matters of morality in light of the deposit of faith. The unspoken other half of a statement like that is, “If someone is not…..is the Pope one to judge in that case?” He never says and simply leaves the faithful confused and the papacy undermined. The Orthodox, the Old Catholics and the Protestants have been echoing the words of Francis for centuries now.
Gerard. You do not even grasp the basics of the Baltimore Catechism yet you presume to judge the pope.
169A. What conditions are necessary in order that a person be a member of
the Mystical Body in the full sense?
Inorder that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full
sense, it is necessary that he be baptized, that he profess the
Catholic faith, and that he neither separate himself from the
Mystical Body nor be excluded by lawful authority.And
if he refuses to hear them, appeal to the Church, but if he refuses
to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the
publican. (Matthew 18:17)
169B. How does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation
in the Mystical Body?
A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the
Mystical Body by open and deliberate heresy, apostasy or
schism.
169E.When does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation
in the Mystical Body by schism?
A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the
Mystical Body by schism when he openly refuses obedience to the
lawful authorities of the Church, particularly to the Pope.
Everyone who compliments the Pope or agrees with what he does is “judging the Pope.” So let’s not be silly with what is going on. Divine Revelation does not flow from the lips of the Pontiffs. All Popes are judged by virtually everyone who is aware of a Pope.
And, you can look up “excommunication” in the Catholic Encyclopedia and you’ll notice where it does indicate that in circumstances corresponding to the SSPX excommunications that they can be ignored with impunity.
MYSTICI
CORPORIS CHRISTI
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so
unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or
been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
Gerard. Your subjective schismatic ideology of what constitutes membership in the Catholic Church is , in its effect, not much difference than the protestant idea of a Church without the four marks.
OK, IANS is done here.
That’s a shame you are done. It was like a trip down memory lane reading those warmed over and outdated attacks. Sorry there was nothing new to actually present a fresh challenge. If myself or Williamson or the SSPX were truly schismatic, there would be no requests or desires or need for a Pope to anything to restore sanity in the Church. The very fact of the efforts to sway the Pope implicitly denies any schismatic intention, which denies his right to his authority. St. Thomas, St. Robt. Bellarmine Dietrich von Hildebrand and a host of others as well as Vatican I itself knows that Popes are not irresistible in all things.
The SSPX is not schismatic. NO one, including Rome — with the exception of Michael Voris and a few of his blind followers — thinks the SSPX is schismatic. Please, stop spreading misinformation.
You’ve obviously replied to the wrong person. I’m the one defending the SSPX from the accusation of being Schismatic.
The interesting thing about the Lefevbrite schism is that it was predicted long before it happened:
Fr. Richard Ginder, a former columnist for The Wanderer. In his short book, 1968, Thou Art the Rock, when referring to the separation of the “wheat and the tares” that took place between Luther igniting the revolt and the Treaty of Westphalia (1517-1648), Fr. Ginder noted the following:
It is the old story of the tares among the wheat. It took 131 years to make a separation once before but with the advance in communications media, we shall not have to wait so long this time. But we shall see it. It will come – very likely in the shape of a heretical sect attributing primacy of honour but refusing jurisdiction to the Holy Father, at the same time proclaiming themselves the only True Believers.
Anyone with any experience with LeFebvre, Williamson or the SSPX knows that you are attacking a straw man. What you are describing is playing out among the German bishops like Marx and others “in full communion” Bp. Williamson for years has been on tape stating that there is a range of orthodoxy and human error in both the traditionalist enclaves and the larger Novus Ordo structure. He’s stated that not everyone in the Novus Ordo is a devil and not everyone in the traditionalist camps are angels. His willingness to take the SSPX leadership to task for their concrete and documented shift in position and necessary abandoning of principles to do that is a demonstration of Bp. Williamson negating your citation.
It is obvious that “I am not Spartacus” does not know what a straw man consist of.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
The “ecclesiastical crimes” of Wiliamson simply don’t exist.
AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS
And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: “The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity.”
Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.
The laws against trespassing are not designed to prevent a person from bringing a fire hose across the lawn in order to extinguish the fie. Also, neither LeFebvre, the SSPX nor Bp. Williamson claim jurisdiction for themselves. They explicitly deny it and affirm the legitimacy of the authority of the bishops and Popes who foment the crisis in the faith currently.
Orders absent Jurisdiction means no ministry. Period.
No Jurisdiction, no ministry.
O, and IANS is sure you know that is precisely what mons lefevbre argued in favor of during the council
IANS will not even bother to note how you reflexively gainsay Tradition in order to defend a schism. You used to do that all the time at Free Republic
You attempted analogy is not even healthy enough to limp; it is in a motorized wheelchair.
They are not fireman who leave the building when a blaze starts
Again supplied jurisdiction. No more need be said on that. Funny how you keep dodging it in favor of a rigorist legalism that denies what is plainly in front of anyone with the sense of being a Catholic. You can also deny the rights of Immemorial Tradition, that’s also your denial of a reality in the Church. You can also pretend to know what a schism is while you consistently abuse the term.
The analogy was quite apt.
The SSPX were not the official firemen who set the blaze. The SSPX are the volunteer firemen who jump in and do the job that needs to be done. You want to defend the arsonists because they where a fireman’s hat? No problem. There are plenty of pyromaniacs and fires relative to your position and the crisis in the Church. If that’s where you want to make your stand, so be it. But don’t pretend that you have any high ground of any sort. You’re just being a cheerleader for ecclesial arson.
Gerard I am not Spartacus • a day ago
Also, neither LeFebvre, the SSPX nor Bp. Williamson claim jurisdiction for themselves. They explicitly deny it…
++++++++++++++++++++++
Gerard I am not Spartacus • 14 hours ago
Then it seems you don’t understand jurisdiction and probably deny the reality of Ecclesia Supplet.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gerard I am not Spartacus • 13 hours ago
Again supplied jurisdiction.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gerard. A schism neither saves nor sanctifies, it makes men abandon all reason and they end-up arguing both sides of a point; Thus, your schism both has and doesn’t have jurisdiction.
Good luck with all of that
Orange raindrops neither save nor sanctify is equally applicable. If you understood “supplied jurisdiction” heck, just the “modes” of religious life, you wouldn’t be incorrectly using the word “schism.” You simply don’t demonstrate a grasp of the meaning of the word. The more you throw it around, the less convincing you are. Good luck with that strategy.
Ever notice how legalist resemble those who gave thirty pieces of silver to one called Judas. Even Judas wanted the legality of authority, and denied the truth about Jesus. Amazing how such legalist today use every rigorous twist and turn to prevent the Truth so as to control the mob. Sad, words piled upon words all used to crucify Christ once again.
Gerard. Mons Lefebvre, far fro rejecting jurisdiction, supplanted the Pope’s Universal Jurisdiction when he created his petit ecclesia
http://southernvermontcrank.blogspot.com/2014/01/mons-lefebvres-petit-ecclesia-exposed_24.html
Then it seems you don’t understand jurisdiction and probably deny the reality of Ecclesia Supplet. The SSPX went where the sheep were being fed stones by Shepherds that were actually wolves.
IANS was going to ignore your reflexive gainsaying as re the schism but your latest claim is simple laughable.
The Church supplies what?
A schism to try illegally and immorally operate within the Jurisdiction of legitimate Bishops in union with their Pope?
You do not even begun to grasp that your vagus Bishops – specifically condemned during Trent – have no Jurisdiction and, thus, they have no ministry.
Anyways, IANS thanks you for the morning smile.
I”m sure you can look up “Supplied Jurisdiction” for yourself. Listen, I’m sincerely unimpressed. The phony condescension and the “schizo” speaking about yourself in the third person schtick is just that, schtick. Since you don’t demonstrate any competence in your argumentation but instead rely on unsupported assertions, I would recommend that you actually keep your original intent and consider yourself “done.” I’m not above discussing the crisis in the church and the arguments that people make to understand why people take exceptional measures to preserve their souls, but dealing with someone not serious who is interested in “schtick” is just silly. Post something worthwhile, if you are able and engage in the “dialogue” Otherwise you are just boring.
JPII was such a bad pope that LeFebvre was completely justified in his consecration of the bishops
Even if Pope Saint john Paul II had been in league with the devil he still had authority over you and the schism you succor.
Please….learn what schism actually is before you throw it around willy nilly. If John Paul II had been in league with the devil as anyone who is in mortal sin is, the power and authority of the papacy does not require Catholics to be absolutely obedient in all things. Popes are not irresistible, especially when they are promoted the “auto-demolition” of the Church. That’s not their job.
You know, psychologically speaking, the SSPX is constrained to heap scorn
upon the Pope and Church as a way to try and dissipate the mental pressure created by its its cognitive dissonance owing to its attempt to claim a right to their schism while at the same time telling others they are Traditionalists.
O, and it is noted that you switched topics after your claim about the vagus Bishop not doing anything criminal. It was expected you would do that -refuse to acknowledge you are wrong
I didn’t switch topics at all. Someone accuses someone of schism who isn’t schismatic is not switching topics. If someone wants to list Bp. W’s “ecclesial crimes” I’ll debate them with them.
Your fiction about the SSPX and scorn for the Church is simply rubbish. But again, constructing a straw man is the only option outside of the truth. What is the psychological motivation for that I wonder?
Speaking true and precise seems always what is lacking in NO opponents these days. Their courage to create noise would appear to be their strength in sound bite reasons, but resounds in trumpets of ignorance about the Catholic Faith at large. Well done brother, keep the torch lit.
…the power and authority of the papacy does not require Catholics to be absolutely obedient in all things
Well, Gerard, You walked right into this one 🙂
Here is Pope Saint Pius X anticipating this Schismatic Lie:
“If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the
precise limits to which this duty of obedience
extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain
within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one
does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others,
however learned they may be, who differ from him. For
however great their learning, they must be lacking in
holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension
from the Pope. Yet there are priests – a considerable
number of them – who submit the word of the Pope to
their private judgement and who, with unheard-of
audacity, make their obedience to the Roman Pontiff
conditional upon such personal judgement.”
Said otherwise. The SSPX are protestants in Fiddlebacks.
The quote of St. Pius X is old hat. His admonitions against modernism hold true, but simply being servile in obedience to a modernist or humanist or progressive Pope makes it impossible to follow his advice about following the Pope “in truth” which you would know if you read the whole quote. St. Pius X also suspected that the Anti-Christ was possibly walking about in his day and that he was living in the end times. Catholics know that the Pope’s infallibility is limited and he is not impeccable. The confusion bred by Neo-Ultramontanism and Evangelical Protestant influence within the Novus Ordo structure of the Church increases the confusion among ignorant Catholics. 🙂
Well done IANS.
Thanks Mr. Patrick. This who succor the sspx schism make no sense at all. They claim a supplied jurisdiction in opposition to the real jurisdiction of bishops in union with the Pope; that is, they claim the Catholic Church supplies them jurisdiction to oppose the authority of the Catholic Church.
Said otherwise, a schism makes you insane.
Here is a priest responding to an sspx cleric who doesn’t even know if he is a Bishop.
The Candid Admissions of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
by Father Francesco Ricossa
IN AN “INTERVIEW” given by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (one of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre and by Bishop de Castro Mayer) in the French magazine of the Society of Saint Pius X, Fideliter, (n. 123, pp. 25-29), candid and baffling admissions were made. Bishop de Mallerais confronts one of the first difficulties, which is that of jurisdiction. Bishop de Mallerais admits that his consecration was “accomplished against the will of the Pope” and that he has not received jurisdiction either from Archbishop Lefebvre (“he was not able to give it to us”) neither from the Pope (“the Pope refused to give it to US”). He claims to have jurisdiction from the Church. “It is the Church which gives it to US” as if there could be opposition between the Church ( which concedes the jurisdiction) and the Pope (who denies it), or as if the hierarchical Church were not, in the ultimate analysis, the Pope.
Nevertheless, for Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, there is a problem yet more serious than that of jurisdiction. Let us hear Bishop de Mallerais speak: “Are these bishops who are not recognized by the Pope legitimate? Do they enjoy formal apostolic succession? Are they, in a word, Catholic bishops?” This problem, Bishop de Mallerais explains, “concerns the very constitution of the Church, as all tradition teaches: there cannot be a legitimate bishop without the pope, the head by divine right of the episcopal body. Therefore the answer is less clear, and in fact it is not absolutely clear…” Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, therefore, ten years after his consecration, does not know whether his consecration or his being a bishop is a legitimate act!
For a moment, he seems to evoke the sede vacantist “solution.” “…unless one were to suppose…it is necessary to recognize that if we were able to affirm that owing to heresy, schism, or some secret problem in the election, the pope would not be truly the pope, if we were able to pronounce such a judgement, then the response to the delicate question of our legitimacy would be clear…” If, according to Bishop de Mallerais, ”sede vacantism” is the only clear explanation to justify his own consecration, we would expect a public adherence to sede vacantism, or a reasoned refutation. But such is not the case. Sede vacantism is refuted only because Archbishop Lefebvre refused it: “The problem, so to speak, is that neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor my confreres, nor I myself, have been or are sede vacantists….Archbishop Lefebvre was not of this opinion, nor did he have the sufficient principles in order to make such a judgement. It is very important to take this into account.”
At this point, even the interviewer is a little baffled: if we cannot make bishops against the will of the Pope, and if John Paul II is the Pope, and if John Paul II was against the consecrations done by Archbishop Lefebvre, and if there are no other “clear” solutions,… “Then how did Archbishop Lefebvre solve the dilemma…?” Bishop de Mallerais, who has no theological or doctrinal responses, baffles once again the reader with a response which we could term ”charismatic”: “…Our founder confronted the problem from above and resolved it at the same time in a manner more concrete than it is here. It is the sign of supernatural intuition which was proper to him and of an action in him of the gift of wisdom, the gift of the Holy Ghost…Only Archbishop Lefebvre was able to make such a judgement [that is, Pope John Paul II is no longer Catholic]! He was also the only one who had the moral authority to decide ‘I will do the consecrations.’ There were no others. Thus it was not according to my own lights that I accepted the consecration, my consecration, understand! Only Archbishop Lefebvre was able to decide this consecration, he alone received grace to decide. We had the grace to follow him. And it is with these very simple and very beautiful words, which belong to one of my confreres in the Society of Saint Pius X, that I must conclude: they represent my most intimate conviction, my most firm security of being on the right path.”
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, in his sincere and moving affection for Archbishop Lefebvre, does not realize how erroneous his thinking is. He substitutes a bishop for the pope as a criterion of catholicity. He condemns those who are blindly submissive to the Pope, who has the charism of infallibility, and then follows a bishop in a decision contrary to the Pope, without finding any other motive for the decision than the charismatic infallibility of this bishop. In this way, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais overturns completely the divine constitution of the Church, by opposing the charism of a (presumed) sanctity to that of papal authority.
Misplaced devotion. Is it not like finding the perfect wife? Perfect in every way, shape and form. Only not the girl you married. She’s a coquette, but she’ll take you to heaven.
touche
“What makes an act schismatic?” If the answer to that were, “The Pope’s mere say-so,” then you’d have a point. But that is not the right answer. In order for an act to be schismatic, the perpetrator has to intend to deny the divine right of the superior (and this case, the Pope) to command – i.e. the authority of the superior. Mere disobedience of a command by itself is not schismatic-there must be the intention of denying your superior’s legitimate right to command.
There is really no question that Archbishop Lefebvre did not deny the Pope’s authority or his divine right to command. The question for Lefebvre was not one of the Pope’s authority, but whether he could in good conscience obey the Pope’s command in this instance, namely, the command not to ordain orthodox Catholic bishops when the entire world desperately needed them and the flock was starving.
The second point we need to look at is the fact that the 1917 Code of Canon Law, up until 1951, decreed that the punishment for illicit consecration of bishops was mere suspension, not excommunication (as in the 1983 Code and the Old Code from 1951 onwards). But this shows that the illicit consecration of bishops cannot be an intrinsically schismatic offense, as the Code would then have had to call for excommunication, because the same 1917 Code teaches, as the 1983 Code does, that schismatics incur latae sententiae excommunication (Canon 2314 in the 1917 Code; Canon 1382 in the 1983 Code). Therefore, the mere act of consecrating bishops cannot be schismatic in and of itself. This means that the Pope was wrong when he said that the illicit consecrations of Lefebvre were schismatic.
Thirdly, as to the charge that “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” When Pope Pius XII solemnly proclaimed on November 1, 1950, that Mary’s body was assumed into Heaven at the end of her earthly life, he engaged in a pronouncement that closed the book on the issue because the pronouncement was infallible. But to suggest that “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” refers to disciplinary decisions of the Pope or to the Pope’s ability to recognize a schismatic act when he sees it, that is simply wrong. Anyone who thinks otherwise would do well to comb the Church’s history, and he will see rather quickly that not everything the Pope does and says, even in his official capacity as Pope, closes the book on an issue.
If anyone disagrees, let him try to apply the principle “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” to what Popes Stephen VI, Theodore II, and Sergius III said about their predecessor Pope Formosus! What is and is not schismatic is not up for each individual to decide. That is quite true, of course, and no one on Archbishop Lefebvre’s side disagrees with that. But no one is saying that the 1988 consecrations were not schismatic simply because the SSPX side wanted them not to be schismatic. Rather, we are saying that whether or not something is schismatic is determined by the facts, and these facts include what the Church has taught about schism, what St. Thomas Aquinas has said about schism, what Canon Law says about schism, and what reason says about schism.
No Pope can simply “wish” or “pronounce” a schism into existence in any morally binding manner. He cannot simply say, “This act is schismatic” and that’s the truth.” Let me illustrate this. Imagine that an evil Pope said that going to confession is now a schismatic act – just like that. Would you say then, “OK, well, the Pope said it’s schismatic and therefore it is”? I sure hope not! It would be totally absurd for him to say something as nonsensical as that. Now, you may reply that this will never happen, but that’s not the point. The point is that the Pope’s mere statement that something is schismatic does not make it so.
The Pope has said that the “state of necessity” that Archbishop Lefebvre claimed to rest his case on does not exist. Now, the Pope is the Supreme Legislator, and thus if he says there is no state of necessity, then there is no state of necessity. Therefore, Lefebvre can’t appeal to a state of necessity.
Answer: Several things here. First, precisely what constitutes a state of necessity is not defined in the Code of Canon Law. The relevant canon in fact says: “No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls” (Canon 1324, 4°). When we speak of the “state of necessity” (sometimes called “state of emergency”), we mean that Lefebvre acted “by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience.” Now, it is clear that the Pope and other prelates in the Vatican believe that there was no necessity to ordain those bishops, nor would it have been gravely inconvenient for anyone if these bishops had not been ordained, so they think.
However, the very fact that these prelates in the Vatican, incl. the Pope, did not recognize the state of necessity is a great part of the state of necessity and makes the state even worse, i.e. more necessary, and made it even more urgent that these bishops be ordained. Why? Because since at least 1969, to my knowledge, not a single real (=traditional) Catholic was granted permission to be ordained a bishop. Every candidate who was granted permission to become a bishop was a modernist to some extent. They all had to accept Vatican II in total, they all had to accept the New Mass, and they all had to accept the New Religion. But this means that since 1969, not a single Catholic was ordained a bishop. So that means that the only bishops between 1969 and 1988 (when Lefebvre consecrated against the will of the Pope) were modernists, the greatest enemies of the Church. That’s almost 20 years. Now, does this not constitute a state of necessity as far as ordaining Catholic bishops is concerned? If the Pope only allows modernists as bishops and no more Catholics, and there are no signs of this changing any time soon after almost 20 years, is it not entirely urgent for the salvation of souls and the tranquility of ecclesiastical order that real Catholics be ordained bishops?
The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts said: “As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of ‘serving’ the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.”
The statement that a state of emergency must be “verified objectively” runs against the very Code of Canon Law that the PCILT claims to be interpreting. Here’s the relevant canon again: “The perpetrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by: one who erroneously, but culpably, thought that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in Can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5” (Can. 1324 §1°8; emphases added). As a reminder, Can. 1323, nn. 4 and 5 say: “No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls; [or] acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor.” So there you have it. Even if we give Archbishop Lefebvre no benefit of the doubt, these quoted canons show that the state of necessity does not have to be verified objectively.
In 1996, The Pontifical Commission For the Interpretation of Legislative Texts dismissed as fanciful the schism’s claim of a state of necessity:
However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei] and the Decree [of excommunication against Lefebvre]. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances (cf CIC, can 1323-1324). As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of ‘serving’ the Church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.”
Regarding Ecclesia Dei and the SSPX on doctrine
Two standards on doctrine
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/two-standards-on-doctrine.html
Doctrinal difficulties exist within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s position on Vatican Council II and Tradition
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/doctrinal-difficulties-exist-within.html
+Fellay has walked right into satan’s open arms and made a deal with Rome, at a time when Rome has never been more explosively apostate no less. The SSPX will inevitably go the route of the nine or so traditional organizations who previously submitted themselves to the conciliar church and were promised everything they wanted, only to be backstabbed and strong-armed into the New Religion. Why else would the marxist Pope go to such lengths to welcome the one group he so clearly despises? They are compromising with the enemies of Christ so they can “open their doors to the world” so to speak, which is exactly what they weren’t supposed to do. +Williamson predicted this regularization years ago, he has been and will continue to be vindicated.