Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

The Most Authentically Catholic Analysis of the Synod…


…comes to us from Bishop Fellay of the SSPX. You know, those guys. The ones who sit aloof in the corner while the cool kids at the dance dish fantastic gossip about.

“Did you hear that they’re, like, in schism? Whatever that means!”

“They had a really bad breakup with the pope in the 1970s. Totes not even Catholic anymore!”

“My friend’s cousin’s girlfriend’s virtual spiritual director told her that, like, every Mass they say is more offensive to God than, like, a SATANIC MASS!!!”

Chitter away ladies. While you’re busy tearing down others to make yourselves look good, this is what a Catholic bishop (and dare we hope a future pope?) should sound like:

As for marriage, God provided for the increase of the human race by instituting marriage, which is the stable and perpetual union of a man and a woman.[4] The marriage of baptized persons is a sacrament, since Christ elevated it to that dignity; marriage and the family are therefore institutions that are both divine and natural.

The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, which no human intention should prevent by performing acts contrary to it. The secondary end of marriage is the mutual assistance that the spouses offer to each other as well as the remedy to concupiscence.

Christ established that the unity of marriage would be definitive, both for Christians and for all mankind. This unity possesses an indissoluble character, such that the conjugal bond can never be broken, neither by the will of the two parties nor by any human authority: “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”[5] In the case of the sacramental marriage of baptized persons, this unity and indissolubility are further explained by the fact that it is the sign of Christ’s union with His Bride.

Anything that human beings may decree or do against the unity or indissolubility of marriage is not in keeping with the requirements of nature or with the good of human society. Moreover, faithful Catholics have the serious duty not to join together solely by the bond of a civil marriage, without taking into account the religious marriage prescribed by the Church.

The reception of the Eucharist (or sacramental Communion) requires the state of sanctifying grace and union with Christ through charity; it increases this charity and at the same time signifies Christ’s love for the Church, which is united with Him as His only Spouse. Consequently, those who deliberately cohabit or even live together in an adulterous union, contrary to the laws God and of the Church, cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion because they are giving the bad example of a serious lack of justice and charity, and they are considered public sinners: “He that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery.”[6]

In order to receive absolution for one’s sins within the framework of the Sacrament of Penance, it is necessary to have the firm resolution to sin no more, and consequently those who refuse to put an end to their irregular situation cannot receive valid absolution.[7]

In keeping with the natural law, man has a right to exercise his sexuality only within lawful marriage, while respecting the limits set by morality. This is why homosexuality contradicts natural and divine law. Unions entered into apart from marriage (cohabitation, adulterous, or even homosexual unions) are a disorder contrary to the requirements of the natural divine law and are therefore a sin; it is impossible to acknowledge therein any moral good whatsoever, even diminished.

Given current errors and civil legislation against the sanctity of marriage and the purity of morals, the natural law allows no exceptions, because God in His infinite wisdom, when He gave His law, foresaw all cases and all circumstances, unlike human legislators. Therefore so-called situation ethics, whereby some propose to adapt the rules of conduct dictated by the natural law to the variable circumstances of different cultures, is inadmissible. The solution to problems of a moral order must not be decided solely by the consciences of the spouses of or their pastors, and the natural law is imposed on conscience as a rule of action.

The Good Samaritan’s care for the sinner is manifested by a kind of mercy that does not compromise with his sin, just as the physician who wants to help a sick person recover his health effectively does not compromise with his sickness but helps him to get rid of it. One cannot emancipate oneself from Gospel teaching in the name of a subjectivist pastoral approach which, while recalling it in general, would abolish in on a case-by-case basis. One cannot grant to the bishops the faculty of suspending the law of the indissolubility of marriage ad casum, without running the risk of weakening the teaching of the Gospel and of fragmenting the authority of the Church. For, in this erroneous view, what is affirmed doctrinally could be denied pastorally, and what is forbidden de jure could be authorized de facto.

In this utter confusion it is now up to the pope—in keeping with his responsibility, and within the limits set on him by Christ—to restate clearly and firmly the Catholic truth quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,[8] and to keep this universal truth from being contradicted in practice locally.

Following Christ’s counsel: vigilate et orate, we pray for the pope: oremus pro pontifice nostro Francisco, and we remain vigilant: non tradat eum in manus inimicorum ejus, so that God may not deliver him over to the power of his enemies. We implore Mary, Mother of the Church, to obtain for him the graces that will enable him to be the faithful steward of the treasures of her Divine Son.

The funny thing is that there’s an almost universal rule of human experience: the most enthusiastic dirt-dealers at the dance very rarely stay popular after graduation, whereas their victims, for whatever real faults they may have, often go on to be the most successful people in the class.

I, for one, am looking forward to the watching that realization set in when we all get back together for our reunion in a few years.

147 thoughts on “The Most Authentically Catholic Analysis of the Synod…”

  1. I wonder what herr doktor Voris’ take on the “schismatic”, “reactionary” SSPX is now that he has recently chosen to throw Ratzinger and JPII under the bus for the sorry state of the Vatican? Because maybe he didn’t notice, but SSPX got there way before he did. (But Voris is still not blaming Francis, I guess bc consistency is not a hobgoblin of his gigantic cavernous mind.)

    • Notwithstanding that welcome level of clarity by Bishop Fellay, there is more nuance to it than simply:

      “Consequently, those who deliberately cohabit or even live together in an adulterous union, contrary to the laws God and of the Church, cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion because they are giving the bad example of a serious lack of justice and charity, and they are considered public sinners…”

      On 14 September 1994 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF issued a letter to all of the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried members of the Faithful within which letter Cardinal Ratzinger stated:

      “The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.”

      Pope St. John Paul II wrote:

      “Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.” (Familiaris Consortio, 84)

      “The June 24, 2000 Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts “Concerning The Admission To Holy Communion Of Faithful Who Are Divorced And Remarried”

      The Pontifical Council stated:

      “c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.

      Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives – such as, for example, the upbringing of the children – “to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses” (Familiaris consortio, n. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo.”

      The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

      “If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.”

      • It is ludicrous to believe that the “reformers”, i.e., Modernists/heretics/apostates who are the majority of the hierarchy since the Second Vatican Council, and who, within that Council, ignored or adopted within its documents (and certainly in their practices at every level within the Church) the many condemnations by previous councils and popes, of the two most insidious attacks on the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church in history-Freemasonry and Modernism-cannot do anything but ignore those of their own, those within their ranks, (Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict) whose writings which have become a hindrance to the fulfillment of their final goal-destroying the Catholic faith (and all faith in God) and the Catholic Church.

        Never in the history of the Church were these councils and prior popes relegated to the dustbin by successive popes until the Second Vatican Council, and their admonitions, rebukes, pleas, and commands to guard against the enemies of Christ mocked, unheeded, and in actuality, those things admonished, rebuked and identified as heresies, embraced. Never in the history of the Church were identified heretics, commanded into silence by Holy popes, later brought into the forefront, honored, given positions of power and influence, and elevated against the Saints and actual Holy Popes!

        Until Catholics realize the Freemasons/Modernists – really the same – rule the Church and work in every possible way they can to educate the apathetic sheep who are being led to perdition by them, they simply gain more adherents, more power, and will send us back to the catacombs or eliminate us.

        This is what we are dealing with. The infiltration of Masonry/Modernism within the heart of the Church and with it, the faith destroyed, lives destroyed, families destroyed, and souls destroyed.

        Speech by Monseigneur Jouin, December 8, 1930:

        “Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) wrote in his Encyclical “Ecclesiam a Jesu-Cristo” dated Sept., 1821 the following about Judeo-Freemasonry which is exactly what the prelates in the institutional church since Vatican II have adopted:

        “They come under the guise of sheep although they are, in truth, none but ravening wolves.” Thus, the Pope reiterated against the Freemasons the condemnations pronounced earlier by Pope Clement XII (1758-1769) and Benedict XIV (1740-1758) because they propagandize “religious indifference which is, of all, the most pernicious. They also grant to everyone full liberty to inaugurate for himself his own religion according to his ideas and inclinations; to also profane and sully Our Savior’s Passion in some of their odious ceremones; to hold in contempt the Sacraments of the Church to which in a horrible sacrilegious manner they substitute sacraments of their own invention and they treat with derision the Mysteries of the Catholic religion. Lastly, urged by a particular hatred toward the Apostolic See, because of its supremacy, Freemasons form conspiracies of the darkest and most sinister kind, in order to overthrow it.”

        Ever since 1738 all the Sovereign Pontiffs – UNTIL JOHN XXIII through the current pope – have denounced, stigmatized and condemned the great harlot of the 20th century, that ‘Well of Perdition,” “Bottomless Abyss of Misery” which was dug by those conspiring Societies in which the heresies and sects have, it may be said, vomited as in a privy, everything they held in their insides of Sacrilege and Blasphemy.” (Pope Leo XIII.)

        • There is another element not much taken into account.

          According to the fathers of the Church, what precisely is it that keeps the Antichrist from appearing? What is it?

          St. Paul says there is “one who restrains” who must be “taken out of the way” before the “man of Sin”, the Antichrist, appears.

          Now the fathers of the Church teach that it is the ROMAN EMPIRE that restrains the appearance of the Antichrist. This is because the Roman Empire, which was becoming Christian, was a political force the Antichrist just couldn’t reckon with.

          St. John Chrysostom says:

          “One may naturally enquire, what is that which withholds, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholds, that is, hinders him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. ”

          And St. Augustine says:

          St. Augustine of Hippo (345 – 430) Doctor of the Church
          City of God, Book XX, Chapter 19

          “For what does he [Paul] mean by “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way: and then shall the wicked be revealed?” [2 Thess 2] I frankly confess I do not know what he means. … However, it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, “Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way,” refer to the Roman empire, as if it were said, “Only he who now reigneth, let him reign until he be taken out of the way.” “And then shall the wicked be revealed:” no one doubts that this means Antichrist.”

          So we see that the secular government, and particularly the Roman Empire, Appear to be established by God for preventing the rise of the Antichrist.

          This is all the more so in the Holy Roman Empire, with the advent of Christendom, Where Christian kingdoms reign.

          But now look. Ever since world war I, traditional Christian monarchies, those elements which collectively could restrain the appearance of the Antichrist, they have all been shattered. Consider also the Title of Archbishop Lefebvre’s book, “They Have Uncrowned Him!” What goal do you suppose this is working toward? What do you suppose Satan’s agenda is? The reign of Antichrist. That is the totality of his agenda, that is what he is working for in this world. Many times he has come very close, especially in the 15th century during the time of St. Vicnent Ferrer. Nuns were receiving revelations that the Antichrist had been born, but there was a reprieve because the people repented.

          Now, Vatican II has uncrowned Christ as King. By proclaiming that man has the right to worship in accord with his conscience, Vatican II contradicts the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, and teaches that the state cannot compel its subjects to render homage to Christ the King. It has obliterated the Social Teaching of the Church that Christ is to reign as king in society. Just read Dignitatis Humanae, of Vatican II, and then read Mirari Vos by Pope Gregory XVI, and then the Syllabus of errors.

          here is a nice example:

          Dignitatis Humanae, Section 2:

          “…all men should be immune from coercion on the part of …every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his convictions…” (§2),

          And here is the exact opposite in the form of a CONDEMNED proposition by Pope Pius IX,

          “…the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining… offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands”


          (Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

          Notice that both of these phrases are substantially identical, but a Blessed Pope Condemns it and Vatican II affirms it!

          another similar example from the same sources:

          “This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right” (§2), -Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II.

          Contrary condemned statement:
          “Liberty of conscience and of worship … should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society…”
          (Pius IX, Quanta Cura)
          SO what is happening here?!
          It is apparent. They have uncrowned Him. Why? TO prepare the way for “he who is to come.”
          SO it is my opinion, insomuch as the fathers agree the secular authority was given to prevent the reign of Antichrist, and insomuch as secular society was largely converted to Christian society in order to prevent the same; it is manifestly evident, that the forces of Antichrist, the smoke of Satan, have found their way into the Church and have weaseled their way into the Church’s magisterial teaching (The fallible Authentic Ordinary magisterium) in such a way as to dethrone Christ in society. This is with the goal of bringing about the coming of Antichrist.
          I am NOT saying the Church has been defeated, I am saying what the legitimate apparitions have said, and the seers of our faith: “The Church will be eclipsed.”
          Or as blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich said, “Pray that the Church of darkness will leave Rome.”
          Let me be clear, the counterfeit shadow Church of the Eclipse is not an organization with an apparent outward structure. Just as Christ said, “The kingdom of Heaven is within you,” Well, within his servants, the servants of Satan, the kingdom of darkness is within. So those who occupy official positions in the official church, insofar as they collaborate, conspire and agree, they are the counterfeit.
          That is why, in the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, “I accuse the council!”

          • I have always wondered what could the world possibly be like for the Antichrist to reign and until 50 years ago, never imagined that Satan could influence the minds and hearts of the only true defenders of Christ the King-the successor’s of the Apostles-as we are seeing happening without any kind of doubt.

            The false prophets and wolve’s in sheep’s clothing within the hierarchy have never been the majority since the Arian heresy but there they are again but they are much worse today because they have destroyed the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments which now give no grace and no protection against the wiles of Satan, and many of the True teachings of Christ which hindered their agenda and plan of destruction.

          • Not to mention, but unlike in times past they have instant access to the world with the click of a button. Evil is spread globally in just a moment.

      • Bishop Fellay is well aware of these provisions and agrees with them. In fact, any informed Catholic is aware of the fact that for centuries the Church has permitted recourse to continence in such situations as long as there is no danger of sin.

        • Thank you for the reply, Marie. I’ve no doubt Bishop Fellay is aware of the exception permitted for certain specific irregular situations. I agree too that any ‘informed’ Catholic ought be aware as well.

          The conundrum is that (in my opinion) the number of ‘informed’ Catholics is very few and that therefore these exceptions need be publicly restated every time the prohibitions are restated.

          • Yes, you are absolutely right; sadly, the Catechesis provided by the Church in the last 50 years is non-existent, and often heterodox. The vast majority of Catholics have no understanding of their Faith. In that context, it was good you shared it.

          • The ‘no Catechesis’ or even ‘bad Catechesis’ for the last 50 years, I believe has all been part of the plan. They needed to dumb down Catholics enough that they could ease through their evil agenda, whithout ruffling too many feathers.

          • It’s basic moral theology…

            If any individual in an irregular union repents of having left their former spouse and resolves to abstain from relations ordinarily reserved to marriage with their subsequent partner, and does not find in this an occasion to sin, then they do not sin. It’s actually quite simple.

            Separation from bed and board from their first spouse has always permissible in cases of infidelity such as this. If one should repent after such an infidelity and lives a chaste life, they abstain from those relations which are sinful. There is then no longer any sin if they remain chaste.

            It’s not that complicated.

          • How many people in “irregular situations” who stay together for the sake of their children are not going to be tempted into sin by remaining together? Really, such couples ought to separate. Plus, there is the question of scandal.

          • Yes, that is the difficulty. Attaining Heaven always involves some degree of generosity, an oblation, and a “Yes” to God.

            Think of it….what price can we possibly put on an eternity of beatitude — isn’t it worth every sacrifice we can possibly offer?

            That’s precisely why God put us on earth BEFORE giving us an eternity with Him: HE WANTS US TO CHOOSE HIM AND HIS LAWS FREELY AND OUT OF LOVE….THIS LIFE IS OUR PROVING GROUND, THE PLACE WHERE WE SHOW HIM THAT WE WILL OBEY THE LAWS HE MADE FOR THE COMMON GOOD, LOVING FAITHFULLY AND SACRIFICIALLY AS HE LOVES US: only those who do that, who obey Him and His plan for humanity are worthy to spend eternity with Him.

            So which is it: God or creatures…..?

          • You’re correct, I misunderstood the context of your statement. I mistook it for a statement supporting NFP.

          • Oh! I see! No…..not at all! I meant complete abstention FOREVER (as long as their first spouse is still alive) from any relations if they cannot simply walk away from the 2nd civil marriage for compelling reasons that are not outweighed by dangers to their salvation and/or the possibility of scandal to other faithful, and only with sound advice from a truly Catholic Priest.

      • Wrong. A Catholic Bishop. Just about all of the N.O. Bishops are irregular. They are either fully poisoned, or even just partially, with false notions of Truth, thanks to poor VII formation. A good deal of what they teach is contrary to doctrine of the Catholic Faith. The Bishops of SSPX have not compromised their teaching of Truth, therefore, they are labeled outsiders.

      • In Modern parlance, an “irregular” bishop is one who believes, professes, and teaches the whole and entire Deposit of Faith and that of Tradition, handed down from Jesus Christ to the Apostles and their true successors, with a proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture, has taught as to be believed by all Catholics.

  2. Is OnePeterFive a pro-SSPX site now? Wait, I’m not condemning. I’m just asking. I like the SSPX myself. But I had thought that OnePeterFive was leery of the SSPX.

    • We’re a pro-truth, pro-Catholic website, Gus. This is clear Catholic teaching. Our editorial position is that while it is undeniable that they lack canonical status, they have a great deal to offer, and we hope — as Bishop Schneider said after his official visit — that they’ll be reconciled quickly, since there are “no weighty reasons” for them not to be.

      If you want more details, put “SSPX” into the search bar at the top of the site. There are a number of articles here clearly explaining our reasoning.

      • Meanwhile, Steve, nobody seems terribly troubled by a Synod of Bishops that, with diabolical absurdity, portrays adultery and concubinage as points on a continuum leading to “the fullness of the sacrament” of marriage, while stating that the Synod “appreciates and encourages” those who actually obey God’s law respecting Holy Matrimony.

        So long as our blatantly compromised hierarchy does not hail Satan apertis verbis, the conservatives will continue to claim that all is well. For fifty years now they have been assuring the frogs in the pot that the water is not heating up.

      • I know this is way too obvious…..but since PF has granted SSPX priests to give absolution….doesn’t this smack of God’s approval? A lot can happen in a year.

        • They HAVE supplied jurisdiction from canon law, that is a whole other discussion. I buy it though, pretty solid. Key word: “Legal Common Error.” Good stuff.

      • I have met ONE family — four generations worth — who have stayed faithful to the true teachings of the Church. The parents (now the great-grandparents) stopped going to Mass after the Novus Ordo began. They continued practicing their Catholic faith at home with their rosary for over a decade. Finally they discovered the SSPX who used to come to their home and say Mass for them and any neighbors who wanted to join them.

        They now travel once a month to an SSPX Mass which is held in a hotel lobby several hours away. The entire family (parents, their six children, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren) all practice the true Traditional faith after all these years, despite the fact that they have never had a “Traditional Catholic parish life” like some who live near a Traditional parish.

        They have been a huge inspiration to me as I try to raise Catholic children in a Novus Ordo world. (We did recently stop going to the N.O. Mass. And I would go to a SSPX Mass in a heartbeat if I had one to go to.) I used to think they were “schismatic” too thanks to all the anti-SSPX Trads out there who convinced me that they were evil. But seeing this beautiful family retain its faith throughout the crisis has convinced me otherwise. Thank God for the SSPX.

    • OnePeterFive gives you the truth. They point out the errors of sham “Catholicism” we are taught by most if the current hierarchy. Be thankful for their service.

  3. Why lean on schismatics for a good analysis? I think those who have been faithful to Holy Mother Church and not abandoned her like SSPX has have the mental capacity, intelligence, wisdom, and holiness sufficient to do so. And why support a protesting sect whose “priests” can’t give absolution? Oh yeah, that’s right, Pope Francis has ALLOWED them to (for a year).

    • What the SSPX is protesting is exactly what we are protesting. Also, legally, they aren’t in schism. They are in an irregular situation, but not strictly in schism.

      Finally, why can’t the church at least grant the SSPX the leniency it’s granting all of the dissenting liberal priest, bishops, theologians, etc. That’s what Benedict appeared to try to do. Love the old mass? Treat them as if they’re outside the church. Rally for women priests, gay “marriage”, abortion, and contraception? You can still keep doing what you’re doing completely unhindered.

      • The answer to your question: They are not granted leniency precisely because they are orthodox Catholics. Such is the crisis in the Church today. We face the same situation in our time as Saint Athanasius faced in his: “It is a fact that they have the premises — but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle — the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?”

        The real estate theory of ecclesial communion is the one that prevails today, along with the cult of the Pope as Il Supremo, whose will is law.

          • Get the 1983 code of canon law and a commentary as well. Canon 752. Compare the type of assent owed particularly with canons 749-751

      • Because they want to reserve the right to criticize the wellspring of these errors: Vatican II. But Vatican II is the Vatican Sacred cow. It is merely an act of the Authentic Magisterium (non-infallible and able to be dissented from, if you read the commentaries on canon 752 of the 1983 code of canon law).

        • Whew! Nice work!
          Thanks for putting the effort into this. As a fellow Catholic Dad of 4, I know your time is limited, so again, thank you. This helps me a lot personally.

        • No, the position of the SSPX is absurd. Vatican II, if Paul VI was a true pope, was certainly binding and cannot be “resisted” by faithful Catholics. One of the main problems with your analysis is that you do not adequately rely the most weighty, INFALLIBLE teachings of the Church and, instead, look to post-Vatican II sources for guidance. This seems to be a backwards approach.

          Here is what the Church infallibly taught about the matter.

          Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4: “… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, [1] WHEN CARRYING OUT THE DUTY OF THE PASTOR AND TEACHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS [2] IN ACCORD WITH HIS SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY [3] HE EXPLAINS A DOCTRINE OF FAITH OR MORALS TO BE HELD BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that INFALLIBILITY with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.”

          Each criteria is met by Vatican II.



          These are the SAME words used by previous Pontiffs in what we consider binding councils. For example, Pope Julius at the Council of Florence, Pope Eugene at the 5th Lateran Council, and Pius XI at Vatican I.


          Each of the VII documents ends with (these or something substantially similar):



          Paul VI emphasized that VII documents were to be “religiously observed.”

          Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965: “At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes,WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

          There we have it. Each criteria of infallibility is easily and clearly met by VII. No canon–especially canons issued in 1983–can alter or amend the clear teach of the Church.

          • The problem is this: Everything that exists is a substance. Councils, authority, popes, rocks, trees, etc.
            All things in existence are made up of form and matter. The matter is what physically constitutes something, the form is the ESSENCE of that thing.
            So, the substantial makeup of a person is The body and the soul. The body being the matter, the soul being the form, the essence.
            When these two things are separated, the substance of a thing is altered. So when the soul leaves the body, There is no longer a living human being, but a corpse.
            Now, in an Ecumenical council, there is form and matter.
            1. The matter is the Pope and the bishops. This is what is necessary for the council to exist MATERIALLY.
            2. The FORM of the Council is the intention to do what all 20 previous ecumenical councils have done- to condemn error, to define truth, and to go from ambiguity to clarity.
            Vatican II Condemned NO error, Defined NO truth, and on the contrary imposed ambiguity willfully in OPPOSITION to clarity!
            “But how could that happen?” Because Pope John XXIII in his opening address and Pope Paul VI in his closing address both caused the council to commit legal suicide. They defined it as a pastoral council, they specifically said it did NOT invoke infallibility (Which means it CANNOT be an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium, which is infallible, or of the Universal ordinary Magisterium, which is also infallible), and they did NOT require the faithful to grant the assent of Divine and Catholic faith, Pope Paul VI obliged the RELIGIOUS SUBMISSION of the intellect and will. This is reserved for teachings of the Authentic, non-infallible, ordinary magisterium.
            So, to sum up:
            1. Vatican II is merely a Pastoral Council, because it was formally altered by two popes to make it such, consequently, given it does not have the FORM of an ecumenical council, it cannot BE an ecumenical council. Given that this is a fact on the level of substance, of reality, the pope cannot change that. Vatican II can never “become” infallible or “become” ecumenical. It never was from the beginning and never shall be, although materially it had the POTENTIAL to be ecumenical, but the potential was robbed when Pope John XXIII formally altered it, and Pope Paul VI confirmed it in its altered state.
            2. Pope Paul VI indicated the KIND of teaching authority when he declared the level of assent owed to it by the faithful, which is the level of assent owed to Papal Encyclicals: “Religious Adherence/Observance/Submission.” He also stated it was an act of the authentic magisterium which is not infallible and plainly called the council not infallible.
            Therefore: Vatican II can contain errors, as it plainly does. All of Dignitatis Humanae is a contradiction to Mirari Vos, Quanta Cura, the Syllabus of errors and Pascendi. And when I say contradiction, I mean direct, diametric, black and white disregard for previous magisterial teaching.
            So, I accuse the council. It was not what others claim it to be because it in itself did not claim to be what others claim it to be! on the contrary!

          • Catholic Dad, I believe you are mistaken. First, you appear to be ascribing the elements of a Sacrament (matter, form, intention) to determine whether a council promulgates INFALLIBLE teaching. The two are entirely distinct. Explain how they are related if that’s your measuring stick for infallibility.

            I already gave you the criteria for determining infallibility.

            Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4 specifically explained how the Faithful know whether a teaching of the Pope is to be taken a infallible: (1) A Pope must act as Pastor and teacher of all Christians; (2) A Pope must teach in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; and (3) A Pope must explain a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church. Those are the relevant criteria–not matter, form, intention.

            Paul VI (the only claimant to the papacy who matters on this issue) easily met these criteria. Read the way the documents of Vatican II began and end. They are solemn. They use identical language as infallible councils. Paul VI emphasizes that the teachings are to be “religiously observed” by all the faithful.

            Now, on to your objection: John XXIII said it was a “pastoral” council. No, he didn’t. As mentioned, it doesn’t matter what John XXIII said or didn’t say as it was Paul VI who affixed his name to the final documents. However, your claim about John XXIII actually exposes the truth. Here is what John XXIII said:

            “John XXIII, Opening Speech at Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “The substance of the ancient deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions OF A MAGISTERIUM WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY PASTORAL IN CHARACTER.”

            It is clear to see that John XXIII was actually saying that Vatican II would reflect the (infallible) Magisterium–a Magisterium which he describes as primarily pastoral. He is not saying the Council is purely pastoral. Even more clearly, assuming your position were true (that Vatican II was pastoral) does nothing to refute that it’s teachings would be infallible: even John XXIII says the Magisterium itself is primarily pastoral and we all agree that the Magisterium is infallible.

            In short, Vatican II was certainly a binding council if Paul VI was a true Pope.

            Regarding your other point that there is nothing defined–I’m sorry but that’s false also. Here is one clear example: compare VII’s teaching on the Jews to the the teaching of the Church at the Council of Florence. Literally, complete opposites. They even use the same word for “rejected”–Florence says Jews are rejected, VII says Jews are not to be considered rejected.

          • NO, these claims you make are false.

            1. It is a fact that the opening of an ecumenical council is a liturgical act. The Bishops, in Cope and Miter Process into St. Peter’s and formally recite the Veni Creator Spiritus within a context similar to Vespers. This means, that as a solemn LITURGICAL function, an ecumenical council has at LEAST the character of a sacramental.

            2. Your confusion is the result of an abandonment of Thomistic Metaphysics, a staple of all Catholic Theology prior to Vatican II.

            Now, as I stated, in accord with Thomistic Metaphysics, which is the science of the Study of BEING, ALL THINGS, which are substances, are composed of prime Matter and Substantial form. Everything, EVERY created thing is a substance.

            This includes Ecumenical Councils. They have Matter and Form in order to exist as THINGS, to be an object which you can point to and say, “That is an ecumenical council!” It MUST be composed of matter and form to exist in reality.

            An analogy, (a la Fr Hesse): Consider a wine glass. It has matter and form. The matter is the glass, the form is the shape it is given in accordance with its ESSENCE. A Wine glass is formed like a wine glass to distinguish it from every other type of object composed of the same matter. SO a wine glass and a water glass are two different things with their own substance, their own essence.

            Therefore, if you were to take the FORM of a wine glass and separate it from its matter, it would no longer exist, it would have no substance. So, let’s shatter a wine glass on the floor:

            What are we left with? We have all the matter, that hasn’t changed, but the form, being shattered, means the substance has passed out of existence. We now have a pile of glass shards.

            Now, a subjectivist would say: “This is in fact a wine glass, because you see, all these pieces of glass have come together with the intention of being a wine glass, so it’s a wine glass.”

            This is false because it does not accord with reality. All these pieces of glass may technically occupy the same space, but because there is no substantial form, they do not actually exist as a wine glass. They have the POTENTIAL to be a wine glass if you were to melt the glass down and refashion it, but even then it would be a DIFFERENT wine glass, because it is a different ISNTANCE of a wine glass.

            It is the same with Vatican II. Vatican II is NOT an Ecumenical council. It cannot be, it is a Metaphysical impossibility, because it did not do what Ecumenical Councils do. The intention to DO what Ecumenical Councils do was objectively never present.

            I see you have not done any serious research on this topic, so allow me to enlighten you:

            THESE are the actually quoted words of Pope Paul VI:

            “Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. […] But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though

            not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements,

            has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding

            but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.”

            (Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58)

            And again, Pope Paul VI later said:

            “And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family. […]

            We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men.

            […] Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.” (In Spiritu Sancto, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)

            No, you absolutely HAVE to realize what is being said here:

            There are two types of assent we owe to three categories of Magisterial Teaching

            1. To De Fide, Ex Cathedra statements, we owe the Assent of Divine and Catholic Faith. These Acts of the Infallible Extraordinary Magisterium are owed this assent because they are protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

            2. To Acts of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, we also owe the Assent of Divine Faith, because, although it is not a DEFINING power, it is still transmitting the ordinary and Universal, and therefore infallible traditional teaching of the Church.

            3. To acts of the merely Authentic non-infallible Magisterium, we owe the assent of Religious Submission. That means we are to assent out of Obedience, not out of the Necessity of Divine and catholic faith.

            Now, notice the wording of Pope Paul Vi. He tells the faithful that they owe the council “Religious Observance,: This is huge, because in classifying the council in this way, he has ADMITTED, in addition to it non defining any dogma OR invoking infallibility, that it is an act of the merely Authentic Magisterium, a FALLIBLE act!

            IN other words, here is how the Holy Spirit protected the Church from the errors of the council: By ensuring none of it would be binding to Catholic FAITH!

            The COuncil fathers assembled, not in order to BE an ecumenical council, but in order to give pastoral advice. IN other words, to call the assembled council fathers ecumenical is the exact same thing as to say that all the shards of glass in a Pile are a wine glass: It is formally impossible, because the council never had the FORM of an ecumenical council! In fact, it was the opposite, it couched the truth of the faith in ambiguous phrases and let it remain open to liberal interpretation. But this was positively condemned by Pope Pius VI in his Papal Bull “Auctorem Fidei” Which taught that a council is assembled to GET RID of Ambiguity, not introduce it!

            “They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the
            ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers
            by the use of seemingly innocuous words7 such as would allow them to insinuate error
            into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could,
            by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith
            that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal
            damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the
            circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a
            synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and
            excluding all danger of error.”

            Vatican II was the EXACT OPPOSITE OF THIS. NO Synod can exist with these methods.

            Oh, but we haven’t even ARRIVED at Dignitatis HUmanae yet! THis is an excat contradiction of Blessed Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors. It takes the Judgments of the Holy See and basically reverses them. A council cannot do this.


            This was no council. And insofar that it accomplished the OPPOSITE ends of an Ecumenical Council, embraced falsehood, scandalized the faithful, dared to touch the sacred liturgy (Forbidden by Trent, Sesion 7 canon 13:
            “CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches WHOMSOEVER {quecumque, is ALL inclusive, Pope included}, into other new ones; let him be anathema.” )
            Therefore, it is not an act of the Church. It is NOT an act of the Magisterium, it is an erroneous act which will eventually be condemned by a future council. THe Church cannot contradict herself and enter into such grave error. I positively reject Vatican II as an act of the Church. It is an act of the Anti-Church which the Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich foresaw, in her words: “The new Heterodox Church of Rome.”
            This is simply the reality. The Pope is not given authority to MAKE tradition, but to guard it. If he abuses this authority, his acts are not real acts. Unjust laws are not laws.

          • Catholic Dad, in many ways we see eye to eye–but some critical distinctions exist, as explained below. First, we both agree that Vatican II cannot be a binding council. However, the methodology we employ to reach this conclusion is different and is critical to resolve. So, thank you for the discussion.

            My method is based on the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church as set forth in Vatican I. Your methodology appears to be based primarily on Thomistic Metaphysics. However, we would agree that Thomistic Meta physics is subordinate to the infallible Magisterium. I think it will be useful to brief recap your argument, and then I will share the areas you must address if your analysis is reliable. Your argument proceeds as follows:

            1. Thomistic Metaphysics emphasizes that all things have substance and form–even Ecumenical Councils.
            2. If a thing loses its form, then it ceases to be that thing.
            3. The form of an Ecumenical Council is the intention to do what Ecumenical Councils do.
            3. Vatican II lacked the proper “form” because of statements by John XXIII and Paul VII showed it was a pastoral council and only part of the “authentic (fallible) Magisterium.
            4. Authentic Magisterium is fallible and non-binding.
            5. Thus Vatican II is fallible, non-binding, erroneous and should be rejected.

            I think that’s a fair summation. Let me know if I missed something. Now, let’s turn to the critical distinctions that currently separate us. These distinctions matter because they cause you to believe that we had true popes in Paul VI and subsequently. Here are the major points you must respond to or else my analysis is more inline with Catholic teaching and thus should be adopted.

            #1. You have completely walked away from John XXIII as an element of your argument. I presented John XXIII’s actual statement at the opening of VII which unequivocally does NOT say that VII was to be pastoral. Rather, John XXIII emphasized that the INFALLIBLE Magisterium (not the Council!) is simply pastoral in character. Specifically cite any of John XXIII’s words which say the COUNCIL is only pastoral in character.

            #2. You provide absolutely no reason to elevate Thomistic Metaphysics above the INFALLIBLE teaching of Vatican I which DEFINED how faithful know when the teaching of a Pope is infallible and binding. Not a word in that documents references Thomistic Metaphysics so it’s inexplicable why you think that must be the proper methodology for evaluating whether a teaching is infallible and binding. No, the factors that matter are the three I set forth above–each of which is CLEARLY met by the solemnly promulgated documents of Vatican II.

            #3. You are mistaken about your assertions regarding the “authentic magisterium.” As you recall, you stated:

            “To acts of the merely Authentic non-infallible Magisterium, we owe the assent of Religious Submission. That means we are to assent out of Obedience, not out of the Necessity of Divine and catholic faith.”

            That assertion is false and directly contradicted by the true, infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. Specifically:

            “Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM.”

            Here is the latin of the text:

            “Idem semper Ecclesiae mos, idque sanctorum patrum consentiente iudicio: qui scilicet communionis catholicae expertem et ab Ecclesia extorrem habere consueverunt, quicumque a doctrina AUTHENTICO MAGISTERIO proposita vel minimum discessisset.”

            #4. Given that the Authentic Magisterium MUST be held by the faith (given it’s infallibility), you must assert WHY the documents of VII are not part of the Magisterium. Granted, I do not believe they are BUT FOR A VERY DIFFERENT REASON THAN YOU. It’s not because of Thomistic Metaphysics. It’s because Paul VII is not and was not an actual Pope. We know this because VII teaches heresy which is impossible.
            However, the infallibility factors I set forth are clearly met as I have explained in great detail to you earlier in these comments. In summary, the documents all begin by invoking the teaching authority of the pope and end solemnly with reference to his apostolic authority. Paul VI then emphasizes that the teachings ARE to be religiously observed.

      • So how do we interpret all of the doctrinal dialogue that has transpired for the last several years between the SSPX and Rome? Just friendly discussions? If, during the synod last week, the Pope was ‘smoking out’ those bishops who were not on his bandwagon, how has Rome been ‘smoking out’ the SSPX? Is Rome only ‘coy’ in its “Relatio” language?

        • The Society is Catholic. You can go and hear mass to fulfill your Sunday obligation AND you can safely say confessions and be wed. As long as the local bishops are modernists and DANGEROUS to the faithful, a state of necessity is in effect. And believe me, I have SEEN what our bishop does to faithful priests who turn in their Homo fellow priests. It’s called Exile! Diocesan expulsion, persona non grata, no parish assignment. THOSE priests are confessors, and mine’s one of them!

          • I’m asking why Bsp Fellay is in ‘dialogue’ with a hierarchy that does all the things you are describing in your comment.

          • Because he recognizes that Rome is Rome, and to be canonically recognized would be good, even if the popes are evil. But that dialog is over, they couldn’t come to an agreement. Watch this video from 30:00 on and you will see exactly why: The Curia is contradictory and two faced.


          • And the SSPX didn’t know the ‘popes are evil’ before beginning the dialogue with the ‘contradictory and two-faced curia’? Is it a ‘canonical good’ to be recognized by an evil?

            “Rome is Rome”, you say. Rome is a city within the ‘European Union’. The Vatican is a ‘sacerdotal monarchy’ within the EU. Is a Pope only a sacerdotal monarch if he is in the confines of the Vatican? And what are we to make of Benedict XVI current physical locale? I’m just throwing some questions out there for thought, since confusion and ‘to make a mess’ is the order of the day.

            In the meanwhile, the SSPX has lost many priests. What an awful, and unnecessary, and PERFECTLY PREDICTABLE outcome. It’s funny how the only practical outcome is that the SSPX has been weakened and thrown into tumult— you know — the old divide and conquer technique. Therefore, ‘QUI BONO’?

          • Because they are the heirarchy, and Bishop Fellay knows who built the Church as an heirarchy. Regardless of the fact that most of them are horrible heretics, to continue outside of the structure that Our Lord designed and built is suicide in the long run. I don’t *like* them one bit either, and I wish they would clear out and shut the door quietly behind themselves, but the visible Church is the visible Church….as far as I know…

      • It doesn’t have to be a Bishop. There are Faithful Catholic non-irregular clergy to look to. There are many good Priests–if you want TLM, they’re called FSSP, and you know that.

        • That’s pretty telling though – “it doesn’t have to be a bishop” – that’s the point isn’t it? We can’t find a bishop, certainly not one from the Synod to say anything truly Catholic. Pell? Sarah? Napier? Please!

          The Vatican itself is all over the map on this issue. Can’t you trust Bishop Schneider? He thinks, upon his visitation, that the SSPX are a pretty good bunch, with very little separating them from ‘full communion’.

          The whole situation is laughable. How are we going to take back all the nasty things said about the SSPX when they are ‘back?’

          • “The whole situation is laughable. How are we going to take back all the nasty things said about the SSPX when they are ‘back?'”

            That’s what constantly leaves me shaking my head in disbelief at the Raylan’s of the world. Anybody with eyes can see that the SSPX is thoroughly Catholic (or perhaps it’s been so long that people no longer know what that looks like). After the whole situation is finally sorted, and it will be, what do the SSPX bashers do or say? I guess asking for forgiveness as publicly as they incessantly skewered the society would probably be a good place to start.

        • You seem bent on a fidelity contest, Raylan. Pushing the term schismatic is a dead give away. Just because the FSSP feared a schism that never materialized doesn’t take anything away from their position. Similarly, the position taken by Archbishop Lefebvre appears now, by its fruits, to have been well founded.

          …as to your poo pooing looking to Bishops, your position could be founded in that the FSSP is still waiting the bishop they were promised. There’s a reason for that, friend.

          • …and the bishops they work with, at least in one case I know, won’t allow them to have a school. Don’t want the kiddies raised with traditional Catholic practice. The work around is home-school groups and charter schools. I would imagine the FSSP is not happy with that at all. But these persecutions only fuel the animus between those who should, in truth, be allies at this time.

        • And all their tongues are tied. Which of them are condemning Dignitatis Humanae? Which of them are condemning Religious Liberty, Collegiality and Ecumenism? That is NOT Faithfulness, that is complicity through silence, one of the 9 ways of being involved in another’s sin.

        • The FSSP are not a patch on the SSPX. Their position is compromised and they do not do much to support the faithful materially (ie schools etc…).

      • I can think of a few, though not quite as lengthy or detailed at the one from Menzingen – but that’s out of, what? 5,000 bishops?

        That said, there were obviously quite a fair number of bishops at the Synod who seem to grasp the teaching on marriage and the family in broad strokes – many, however, would very likely incorporate a fair bit of post-conciliar jargon, including the obligatory against-discrimination qualifiers.

    • Thank God Pope Francis has given us this gift! I pray that everyone will support the SSPX though the Year of Mercy. Go to where they are. Aren’t we being called to do that by Pope Francis?

      • The SSPX & other traditional orders will have to start spreading themselves around this coming year and trust in God’s blessing of their ministry. The people will support them if they do. As it is, none of these orders are fully functioning in Andalucia, Spain, where a huge evangelisation programme must be initiated before IS arrives in strength – they are only across the water from us. The NO Church has wiped out the Catholic faith as we knew it prior to Vatican II and has shown contempt for its liturgy & sacraments many of which have not been administered for two decades.

    • a) SSPX are not “schismatic”, they are said to be in an “irregular” canonical situation with regard to the Church. “Schismatics” don’t have “irregular” canonical situations because they are not subject to the Church’s canon law at all.

      b) If the Pope lets me get absolution from them for any length of time, they are de facto not schismatic.

      c) If I can fulfill my Sunday obligation by going to an SSPX mass, and I can according to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, (, they are not schismatic.

      d) They are providing the best analysis out there, including analysis provided by “non-schismatic”, “regular” Catholic prelates.

    • You mean the “schismatics” who will be validly absolving sins of the Catholic faithful throughout the Year of Mercy according to the decision of Pope Francis? The Pope has no jurisdiction to adjust the faculties of schismatics, such as the Orthodox. That he has adjusted the faculties of the SSPX clergy is ipso facto conclusive on the non-existence of any schism here. Enough with the charge of schism, already.

      • But, Chris, you are not factoring in the fact that Francis is a loose canon. I think God is protecting us from a Francis who could do and say ANYTHING. It’s almost a game now, waiting for the next Francis Moment.

      • Kiss a Quran or pray at the Western Wall, and you are not a “schismatic.” Condemn rosary counters and destroy thriving religious orders because they embrace Tradition, and you are doing so in the name of being “merciful,” promoting “unity.” That’s “VII Catholicism” in all its “glory.”

      • The SSPX are in a hopelessly illogical position. Anyone who defends their position only embrace absurdity as well. For, on the one hand, the SSPX claim Francis to be a true Pope. But, on the other hand, openly resist Francis. Truly absurd.

        There are only two possible options: (1) Francis is a true Pope and all Catholics must submit to his authority on all things relating to faith and morals; or (2) Francis is an anti-pope given his manifest, obstinate heresy and apostasy.

        The latter conclusion is pretty obvious at this juncture.

        • Your moniker belies your post, OM. Unfortunately, none of your 2 options included what to do when your dad is your dad, but he’s asking you to do something that isn’t right.

          That’s why we’re obliged to obey in all matters but sin. If you think that’s an absurd position, I suggest you get out more and speak with the folks. Not all papas are good ones.

          • You’re incorrect. We are obligated to follow a true Pope on issues of faith and morals. Show me the basis upon which you reject that notion. It’s absolutely certain that a manifest heretic is not to be considered a pope at all. Specifically, a heretic cuts himself off from the Church, and, consequently immediately loses any office (or, as in the case of Bergoglio, never could assume the papal office).

          • Obedience in all but sin, OM. Don’t let papal positivism get the best of you. That is the Holy Father is either an angel or a devil. Sorry. There have been bad popes in the past and there will likely be more in future. Just as there are good and bad parents and yet the 4th commandment still applies.

        • Here’s your one warning about promulgating sedevacantism in our comment boxes. I understand it’s been a rough few weeks. It has been for me, too. Which is why I have zero patience left for armchair popes casting out anathemas.

        • Actually, that’s not correct.

          SSPX recognizes the Popes which have been duly elected (it remains to be seen whether Pope Francis excommunicates himself through formal heresy), but they are also not bound by ANY SUPERIOR — NOT EVEN THE POPE HIMSELF — to violate their consciences in those matters they believe are destructive of the Faith.

          It’s very simple — no law, no Superior, no command can constrain anyone to violate their conscience, or to do what appears to be destructive of the common good, or the Faith in any regard, or our responsibility to safeguard it.

          One simple example. In a religious order, a Superior can never bind a subordinate to violate the Rule. Same principle.

          You have a way of complicating things, OpenMinded; are you sure you don’t want to change your screen name?…. 😉

          • Actually, it is correct. First, “remains to be seen whether Pope Francis excommunicates himself through formal heresy” shows that you are either ignorant of Bergoglio’s conduct thus far or blind–hopefully the former. What more do you want?

            It’s important for you to clarify what you believe is defined as “formal heresy” as I suspect this is the root of your misconception. The truth is that open, manifest, obstinate adherence to a belief in contradiction to the Faith automatically cuts one off from the Church. Bergoglio has done this MANY, MANY times before and after his claim to the papacy.

            Second, a person’s conscience is not the ultimate arbiter of what is true and what is false, what can be believed and what cannot be believed. That’s the whole point of having a Church with an infallible teaching authority. The Church permits human beings to know FOR CERTAIN what must be believed.

            Third, the SSPX are, in fact, in a hopelessly contradictory position. They cannot recognize the authority of a “true” Pope and then openly resist his infallible teachings on faith and morals, canonizations, etc. That’s called schism.

            Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiffor refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

            Fourth, just as bad–if not worse–the SSPX adhere to truly heretical positions. For example:

            “Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”

            This is a blatantly heretical position when compared to authentic Catholic teaching:

            Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
            “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

            St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: “Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

            In sum, my screen name is not in need of change, it is the minds and hearts of all those who believe the SSPX is some sort of God-send. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

          • I know this website is like catnip to sedevacantists looking to poach new recruits. Such is the peril of the times in which we live.

            But I grow tired of fending off these advances from the comment boxes, and in general of the aggressively negative tone of some of our guests. With that in mind, we’re going to turn off your microphone for a while.

          • Your reply is so incorrect, and so off-balanced and is easily refuted; however, I have neither the time, and you obviously lack the required objectivity. I still think you should change your screen name.

          • ^says the person with 200+ comments in 2015 alone. Marie, if you have no response, that’s fine. But please don’t (a) imply superior knowledge, (b) take the time to allude to your superior knowledge twice, and then (c) claim you don’t have time to share such knowledge. At this point, the only conclusion is you have no substantive response.

          • OpenMinded: your reply is so lacking in the ability to make proper distinctions – and I have so little time to do so – that I will say only that I am in complete disagreement with everything you have tried to say, and that you show your grasp of the facts and related concepts is only rudimentary.

          • This is going to be the sum total of my reply. It is clear you do not know how to make necessary distinctions as a Catholic, and that you are unreasonable in your exchanges, making categorical statements without proper insight. This is not an attack on you personally; it is simply an objective observation about your statements.

            I do not wish to take time to refute your lengthy statements, all of which are based on erroneous understanding, so I will just direct you to Saint Thomas Aquinas on the primacy of conscience and how no one can be bound to do what one considers evil. This is the basis for the SSPX position, regardless of who the Pope is who seems to be asking it of them:


    • Those with authentic authority in the Church applicable to the SSPX situation have openly declared them NOT to be in schism OR to have abandoned the Church. Neither your opinion nor that of M. Voris matters one whit in this regard.

      You have zero authority and even less credibility when you openly display your hateful bigotry against a group of Catholic priests more faithful the Magisterium, Scripture, and Tradition than most bishops.

      • Harsh words to a brother. We are all on the same side and will need each other in the very near future. We have the luxury of being able to argue these points with other Catholics now but the time is coming when all that will have to go so we can fight our common enemy.

    • SSPX is not schismatic. Their Jurisdiction exists regardless of what Pope Francis says or does for two reasons:
      1. The Code of Canon Law grants it for their particular situation.
      2. The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. IN times of emergency, (Like the counterfeit Church occupying Rome as a type of “Shadow church”), all that matters is doing your best to not sellout and keep the faith. We are in those times.

      • I agree with most of your statement. However, it’s now clear that Francis is not a true Pope. The sedevacantist position is the only sensible position for faithful Catholics.

        • Sorry, OM, but I cannot hold to a viewpoint that would have made Our Lady of Fatima ask for the impossible. Namely that the Pope would open the Third Secret in 1960.

          There can be manifestly bad popes, OM. And there have been.

          • Help me understand how you are trying to connect Fatima to this situation. Doesn’t Fatima support exactly what I’m saying as Lucia was on record saying the Third Secret must be disclosed in 1960? The fact that John XXIII unilaterally decided against disclosing the Secret would tend to cause questions about who these men claiming to be pope really were starting with John XXIII. What am I missing?

          • No trying to connect, SOM.

            The Sedevecantist position would have you believe that Our Lady asked that the third secret of Fatima be revealed/read/opened by the Pope in 1960 while at the same time saying the seat was vacant in 1960. In other words, if there was no Pope in 1960, then Our Lady asked the impossible be done.

          • PGMGN, what if I were to tell you that there is not a single reputable source that says the Pope was the person who was to open the Third Secret?

            Here are all the sources I could find: Canon Galamba; John Haffert; Cardinal Cerejeira; Canon Barthas; The Armstrongs; Cardinal Ottaviani; Father Joaquin Alonso, official archivist of Fatima; Father Fuentes; F. Stein; and Father Dias Coelho. Not one of these people report that Lucia said the Pope must reveal/read/open the Secret in 1960. What Lucia repeatedly said was simply that the Secret had to be revealed at Lucia’s death or in 1960. At most, there are reports that the Bishop of Leiria could have been charged with opening the Secret.

            Can you provide any source which says that Our Lady commanded that the Pope should open the secret in 1960?

          • No, SOP, I cannot provide the source. Sorry. But I also cannot entertain the idea that there was no Pope in 1960 and yet the secret, entrusted to the Holy Father, had to be revealed at that time.

            It is, however, and please correct me if I am in error, said that the consecration would be done, but that it would be done late. The Immaculate Heart would ultimately triumph, no matter. Not to say that there wouldn’t be a heap of suffering as a result.

            Who, if the seat is legitimately vacant, and not just being manipulated and/or misused, would carry out Our Lady’s directives? Where will this Pope and all the bishops come from, SOM? If it is a matter of waiting until matters are revealed, in the case of Sedevecantists waiting for a real Pope, then it is still a waiting game. A time of humble prayer, obedience in all but sin, etc.

        • I would say it is sufficient to demonstrate Vatican II is not a true council as opposed to there being no pope.
          Form and Matter makeup substance right?
          What does Vatican II have?
          1. Proper matter: The presence of the Pope and all the bishops.
          2. Invalid form: The Pope formally altered the council by making it a pastoral council, by declaring no definitions of dogma would take place, and contradicts the very raison d’etre of an ecumenical council: The Extraordinary condemnation of errors, definition of truth, and elimination of ambiguity.
          conclusion: Vatican II cannot be a true council because it is formally deficient as to what CONSTITUTES an ecumenical council.
          The problem with sedevacantism is that simply because a pope makes heretical statements, it cannot be demonstrated they are formal heretics BECAUSE they do not INTEND to rupture continuity with tradition. We know this because they make appeals to tradition and the fathers to justify material heresy.
          Every heretic says, “I know the Church says A, I say B anyway.” None of the popes have done this. They have said, “The Church of Christ can teach B because some of the fathers have said B in the past” and totally disregard A. There is NO attempt by them to actively RUPTURE the church. On the contrary, everything is “The hermeneutic of continuity!” This just demonstrates they are the ultimate modernists.

    • They never abandoned the Church, the Communist-Freemason hierarchy which invaded and took over and hi-jacked VII and preached a new religion kicked them aside. What the majority of the hierarchy and clergy have preached the past 50 plus years is laced with poison. Read the encyclicals of Pope St. Pius X, other past Popes, they are contrary to what passes as Catholicism in post VII era.

  4. Pope Francis was right – we do have to go to the “peripheries” to find the full unadulterated Gospel. Thank God for the SSPX. May they continue to be a peripheral bastion of the faith so long as Rome continues to be a hotbed of modernism.

  5. This unimpeachable Catholic text should have served as the baseline from which a true and meaningful synod could have proceeded to deal with the multitude of difficulties facing the family today.

  6. I believe Our Lord is keeping the SSPX in their current limbo position so as to remain inoculated from the madness sweeping through the Church for the past 50 years. I also believe they will be the central key to the restoration of the Church in God’s good time.

    • I mean if you think about it, their jurisdiction comes from an emergency situation that exists in the Church herself. If this episcopal conference thing happens or when really, they won’t be needing to maintain jurisdiction within the diocesan model supplied through the Bishop. This could be a saving grace that even FSSP or ICKSP or Indults might not receive.

      • The FSSP and the others, who are no doubt good men, will have nowhere else to go if the local diocesan structure they are under collapses under the weight of heretics, schismatics and perverted apostates. It can barely stay up as it is. Will they join the modernists? Will they run for cover to the SSPX? Will they just be wandering Priests? It won’t matter about jurisdiction then. The question is: what happens next? 50 years of vomit and filth. It can’t continue as it is. Something has to give, and soon.

        • Well, I agree with you, but really, as soon as they were simply modernists, they had already collapsed…and 97% in this country are. Even the bishops we call “good” are merely conservative and not traditional. But most of those are at least friendly to tradition. They just don’t know their liberal.

          • It’s an important distinction. i still don’t get how they can be OK with all the ambiguities of the Council (and the rotten, horrible fruit it has spewed out) and the Novus Ordo, as if it’s all OK. Can anyone tell me how they hold it all together?

          • Simple: They believe the Pope and bishops can make tradition. NOPE.
            The Pope and bishops GUARD tradition. Big difference.

          • But…why is it that we can know that with little effort in finding it out and accepting it as true, but the hierarchy cannot?

          • Precisely because the Hierarchy are modernists. Read Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi. In it he describes the methods of Modernists. They assume an evolution of doctrine in this fashion:
            1. The Conservatices give their opinion.
            2. The liberals give their opinion.
            3. Out of the clash of dialogue a new consensus arises in conformity with the “conscience of the people.”
            You see, the entire method of arriving at truth has been totally compromised. This is similar to Marxist sociological/ideological theories where one position, The Thesis, comes up against its opposite, the Antithesis. The Clash results in the Synthesis. The Synthesis then becomes the new thesis. Repeat ad nauseam. This is how modernists arrive at the truth.

          • Gotta hand it to them. The question is – when does God act? He seems to be letting it run its course with little intervention, but in the end, He will not be mocked. That makes me tremble. How much longer until something gives?

          • A commenter I saw somewhere expressed it as follows. The modernist bishops seem to see things this way:
            2+2=4. “Too strict”
            2+2=6. “Too lax”
            2+2=5. “Pastoral”

    • Actually they ARE part of the Church. The faithful are allowed to receive communion at their chapels. That makes them Catholic. Shared communion is one of the ways in which unity in the body of Christ is built up so, although canonically they are shakey, they are CATHOLIC, nothing they teach is uncatholic and all their masses pray for the Pope AND the local bishop.

    • After the great schism, once Francis declares his “genuine doctrinal authority” devolved to episcopal conferences, then the faithful Catholics today, prelates included, will not argue about the schism of the SSPX. They will finally realize the SSPX is on God’s side.

    • They are not outside of the Church. The Principle of the excluded middle says that a thing either is, or is not. Since they are not outside the Church, they are in it. Technicalities aside, I concur with the spirit of your wish!

    • Maggie, with all due respect, it is the position that the Society is holding that keeps them in this irregular situation. So in effect, if they rush to fully rejoin, it is at the expense of that which represents the Gospel.

      Would you prefer a compromise on doctrinal clarity?

    • They never left. They just didn’t change what doctrinal Truth the Church taught consistently up until it was hi-jacked by the Freemasons during VII. The heretics and those vaguely Catholic hierarchy kicked them aside because they wouldn’t compromise the souls of the faithful. See what St. Paul says about those who claim to be apostles and teach a false gospel.

    • I dont have 40 mins to watch a video right now, but you must be being rhetorical, right? Or did Bergoglio really say that? IT’s so hard to tell truth and fiction apart these days.

      • just skip ahead to the 40 minute mark. Yes, bishop Fellay said one of the priests in Argentina said Bergoglio at the time told him so. Pope Francis is responsible for the Argentinian government recognizing SSPX schools as CATHOLIC schools! Explain that one!

        • Without disputing that Bp. Bergoglio was capable of saying something like this — he has said many bizarre things these last two years or so — the evidence here is pure hearsay, inadmissible even in debased US courts. “X told Y who then told me….” would be disallowed in any court in the land faster than a fist fight between opposing lawyers before the bench.

          • Perhaps, but we are not establishing a legal fact. We are simply assuming bishop Fellay is telling the truth in good faith.

          • OK, I’m not a court of law, but I make a point of taking with a grain of salt things like, “Marge said that Merriam told her that Julie was a Communist!” I think that is a wise course of action.

          • I think that the Superior General is aware of what is happening within the confines of his own fraternity. I am sure the district superiors tell him of what is happening in their districts. It’s not like he is a remotely involved party. It’s just not reasonable skepticism.

          • Every act of skepticism ought to serve the Truth. If skepticism is invoked unnecessarily, that is essentially just being facetious.

          • Couldn’t have said it better myself. Precisely why I’m skeptical of this kind of third-hand gossip trafficked by Fellay, des simples potins ecclésiastiques.

  7. The authentic Catholic response to the synod is this: It is a tool of Satan. It is the extension of the infiltration of Masonic/Modernist ideology into the heart of the Church with one goal-destroy the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church.

    Speech by Monseigneur Jouin, December 8, 1930:

    “Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) wrote in his Encyclical “Ecclesiam a Jesu-Cristo” dated Sept., 1821 the following about Judeo-Freemasonry which is exactly what the prelates in the institutional church since Vatican II have adopted:

    “They come under the guise of sheep although they are, in truth, none but ravening wolves.” Thus, the Pope reiterated against the Freemasons the condemnations pronounced earlier by Pope Clement XII (1758-1769) and Benedict XIV (1740-1758) because they propagandize “religious indifference which is, of all, the most pernicious. They also grant to everyone full liberty to inaugurate for himself his own religion according to his ideas and inclinations; to also profane and sully Our Savior’s Passion in some of their odious ceremones; to hold in contempt the Sacraments of the Church to which in a horrible sacrilegious manner they substitute sacraments of their own invention and they treat with derision the Mysteries of the Catholic religion. Lastly, urged by a particular hatred toward the Apostolic See, because of its supremacy, Freemasons form conspiracies of the darkest and most sinister kind, in order to overthrow it.”

    Ever since 1738 all the Sovereign Pontiffs – UNTIL JOHN XXIII through the current pope – have denounced, stigmatized and condemned the great harlot of the 20th century, that ‘Well of Perdition,” “Bottomless Abyss of Misery” which was dug by those conspiring Societies in which the heresies and sects have, it may be said, vomited as in a privy, everything they held in their insides of Sacrilege and Blasphemy.” (Pope Leo XIII.)


    I don’t understand why orthodox bishops like Burke and Schneider don’t hold a joint press conference and throw the the gauntlet by saying that IF Francis does X or teaches Y, THEN all Catholics are duty bound to refuse to obey X and refuse to believe Y.

    That’s the sort of CLARITY that Catholics need.

    And with all due respect to the SSPX bishops, they cannot provide such clarity for most Catholics, due to fact that most Catholics believe that Rome’s refusal to regularize their status is due to some fault of the SSPX.

  9. Thank God for SSPX which has become an oasis of clarity in the desert of ambivalence which is the Catholic Church since Vatican II. The recent synod is another fraud and deception where more of the faithful will be misled and misguided by the false mercy and so called pastoral care. With such care the devils work is being accomplished.

  10. Fantastic article… are absolutely right. I have felt all along that one day SSPX would be vindicated and that Archbishop Lefebvre will be canonized.

  11. The SSPX is Roman Catholic. Bishop Fellay’s statement is clear, concise, eloquent, and thoughtful. (Pope Leo the Great was known for his eloquence and his clarity — a duty of a Pope is to be clear, so thank you Bishop Fellay) I challenge other Bishops to do the same. If they cannot, they need to do some soul searching and decide if they are willing to follow Christ. Jesus says: “Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.” Dear Bishops, the Catholic Church is exclusive and if you wish to accept unrepentant sinners, then you have put yourself on the outside of the Church. You may have the buildings, but you do not have the faith. All are welcome so long as they hold the ALL Truths handed down by Christ from the beginning of His Church. The SSPX has remained steadfast in upholding all the truths. Thank God for Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre.

  12. John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. 12″He who is a hireling, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.…(I am struck by these words when considering the recent abdication) And, I ask, what leader in the Church is providing clarity regarding the Truths of the Catholic faith? There is but one.

  13. All right, mister! Come up here and move your name from ‘Behaving’ to the ‘Self-absorbed promethean neopelagianist’ and there’ll be a note sent home to your parents!!

  14. The one thing I think the SSPX and Pope Francis can agree on is a decentralized exercise of Church authority. They just come at the answer from totally different directions. I foresee a happy barbecue in the papal gardens real soon for Bp. Fellay and the Pope.

    Ironically, if imposed, the new decentralized model would be very favorable to the SSPX. I think the Holy Father could be a closet Lefebvrist.

  15. I read this from 1P5`s link but….no comprendo. Is there a Vaticanista in the audience who can enlighten me?

    VATICAN CITY – Just days after closing a contentious meeting of bishops from around the world, Pope Francis is turning his attention to more domestic but equally contentious affairs.

    Francis issued a stern warning Tuesday to Vatican bureaucrats to obey Vatican rules and laws as he goes about overhauling the Vatican bureaucracy — a sign that those charged with enacting the reforms perhaps need some reform themselves.

    Francis penned an unusual letter to the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, asking him to remind Curia leaders that they must observe Vatican law about the structure and powers of the existing administration and follow existing rules on new hires, transfers and salary caps.

    The target of Francis’ letter appeared to be the new Secretariat for the Economy.

  16. To consider the SSPX as in any way outside the Church, whatever they might in the past have said may have said, when the heresy of Kasperism and the beliefs and implications of the various Marx factions are still tolerated is just crass.
    Sorry but I can’t think of a more appropriate word.


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...