Catholic Leaders Hail 'Fruitful' Talks with Archbishop

Scotsman.com ^ | October 1, 2004 | Dave Higgens

[Land of the Irish]

Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church from across Europe said a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury today about bringing Christians closer together was “very fruitful”.

Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams was guest at a meeting in Leeds of the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences (CCEE).

Dr Williams addressed the gathering of Catholic leaders from 34 European countries, which included 10 cardinals, as they discussed issues including the relationship between the Church and the European Union as well as ecumenical matters.

At a press conference after this morning’s session, the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, said: “I was very happy that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was with us.

“The Archbishop was able to give us his view of the need for spiritual ecumenicalism which was endorsed by everyone present.”

The Cardinal added: “We also spoke in the session not only about the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church but also, later, about the Orthodox Church – the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church particularly in central and eastern Europe.

“It was a very fruitful morning.”

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor continued: “Ecumenicalism is like a road without exit.

“We’ve reached a certain stage where we have to decide how we are to go on in this search for the full unity that is Christ’s will.”

The CCEE, which is meeting in Britain for the first time at Hinsley Hall in Leeds, began yesterday and will continue until Sunday when the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and other delegates will celebrate Mass in Leeds Cathedral.

At today’s press conference, which Dr Williams did not attend, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor and other senior clergy from across Europe tackled a range of issues, including the relationship with the Orthodox Church, the role of the Church in the European Constitution and modern family life.

Asked about the European constitution, the Cardinal said: “I think that all the Catholic Church in Europe have made an effort to ensure that Christianity is mentioned in the preamble to the constitution, not with great success I have to say, and I think it’s a shame.

“It’s an historical fact that Europe has been shaped by Christian heritage, so I regret that.”

He went on: “I think that whatever we say about the constitution, I think that Christianity has an extremely important role in the Europe of the future.”

[Land of the Irish]

Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams was guest at a meeting in Leeds of the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences (CCEE).

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor continued: “Ecumenicalism is like a road without exit.

I wonder when the CCEE will open ecumenical talks with traditional Catholics, e.g., SSPX.

[Land of the Irish]

Ping

[NeoCaveman]

Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams was guest at a meeting in Leeds of the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences (CCEE).

Rowan the Fuzzy? The man's considered a joke by most Anglicans.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor continued: “Ecumenicalism is like a road without exit.

All of the sudden the song "Highway to Hell" by ACDC is stuck in my head

[ELS]

All of the sudden the song "Highway to Hell" by ACDC is stuck in my head

LOL! OK, now I will pray that they all convert to Christianity and repent.

[dangus]

Did someone have to mention "fruit"?

[dangus]

Seriously, "high" Anglicans are more traditionalist than the New Order mass. Although the poor wordings are easy to poke fun at, this may be more like welcomig in a uniate rite than watering down the faith through false ecumenism.

[xJones]

If you're talking to "Fuzzy" Rowan, the conversation would have to be fruit-filled.

[Mark in the Old South]

Do these Catholic Bishops have Vickie Gene envy?

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

YOU WROTE: All of the sudden the song "Highway to Hell" by ACDC is stuck in my head


Ditto for LOL. Maybe they could have that played at an interfaith liturgy.

What a colossal waste of time.

[Fifthmark]

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor continued: "Ecumenicalism is like a road without exit."

So thaaaat's why I couldn't find the map - we're on a road to nowhere. Speaking of nowhere, what was archlayman Rowan "I can see a case for acknowledging faithful same-sex relationships" Williams doing at a bishops' conference? Playing dress-up?

[CouncilofTrent]

yeah. I dont understand why the Protestants get treated better than the SSPX.

[SausageDog]

I dont understand why the Protestants get treated better than the SSPX.

Probably because, under Catholic terminology, a heretic is a Catholic who intentionally dissents from the faith. Protestants ceased being Catholics many generations ago and no longer have a Catholic faith from which to dissent. They do not even claim to be Catholic. OTOH, SSPX-ers usually are ex-Catholics who still claim to be Catholics, and only a few of them have been formally excommunicated. Since they claim to be Catholics, their potential for confusing the faithful is much greater than for Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. Accordingly, the Church needs to treat SSPX-ers in such a way as to make it clear the the faithful that these are heretics.

[dsc]

"the Church needs to treat SSPX-ers in such a way as to make it clear the the faithful that these are heretics."

Heretics for refusing to trade the Tridentine Mass for the NO? The Holy Father doesn't claim it; do you have authority to overrule him?

[Fifthmark]

Unfortunately, you can't quote a single source of authority to back your assertion that Catholics who attend Mass celebrated by the Society of St. Pius X are heretics, so I'd appreciate it if you ceased the unwarranted calumny.

[trad_anglican]

Seriously, "high" Anglicans are more traditionalist than the New Order mass. Although the poor wordings are easy to poke fun at, this may be more like welcomig in a uniate rite than watering down the faith through false ecumenism.

It appears that such a possibility is perhaps close. I don't think, however, that Archbishop Williams will be a part of it. The serious discussions are with the "continuing" Anglican churches, which are not officially recognized by Canterbury as part of the Anglican Communion.

[kidd]

SSPXers are considered schismatics, not heretics.

[JesseHousman]

...“very fruitful”. ...

Very insightful and prophetic, that.

[JesseHousman]

Since they claim to be Catholics, their potential for confusing the faithful is much greater...

The "faithful" couldn't be more confused about the Roman Catholic Church, which has degraded into something about as catholic as evangelical protestantism.

It is true that many Catholics are confused, especially when they travel about North America and Europe and find that the mass, even being said in the vernacular, is not uniform and not treated as anything sacred.

The ailing, frail Pope should have spent more time repairing the Catholic Church and restoring it to its once proud majesty as would befit the Church Jesus Christ left behind to nuture and instruct us until the Second Coming. Instead he has squandered his tenure on humanism and in ways unecclesiastical. There are many examples but a two that come to mind are embracing voodooism and sitting to observe bare-breasted polynesian lasses who danced for his entertainment.

Instead of working towards unraveling the web originating and consolidating after Vatican II and bringing sanity back to sanctuaries, he devoted much time to ecumenism by imitating and surpassing protestantism.

There was no sorting out by this Pope of the infestation of the priesthood by the communists and their homosexal allies. He deserves the snubbing by what some refer to as schisms.

When the time comes for this Pope and a few predecessors to account for what they have worked overtime to change on earth, their fate will not be a pleasant one.

[latae sententiae]

SSPXers are considered schismatics, not heretics.

You forgot: racists, Protestants, hate-mongers, anti-Semites, and devil worshipers.

Traditional Catholics are "considered" lots of things, most of which I consider hogwash, since for all the manure that's been flung in our direction, I've yet to be hit with a solitary shred of proof.

My heart is now and will always be with the Society of St. Pius X, its bishops and priests, and its saintly founder...

...and I'm CATHOLIC. Catholic. Catholic. Catholic. Catholic to the core. It's great to be Catholic. Thank God I'm Catholic.

[rogator]

"...their potential for confusing the faithful is much greater than for Methodists, Episcopalians, etc."

Hymns written by non-Catholics denying the real presence and reflecting Protestant theology are greatly confusing to the Catholic faithful, since they are published in the OCP songbook used in a majority of Catholic churches in this country.

If you really want to see "potential for confusing the faithful" look at the drivel taught by the "theology" departments at many so-called "Catholic" universities.

I have yet to see any heretical pronouncements from the SSPX. For that matter, I doubt that most Catholics have even heard of the SSPX.

[Convert from ECUSA]

LOL! Good one!

[Jim Noble]

I am very hopeful for a uniate solution in my lifetime, but I think it will not happen without Canterbury.

Without New York, yes, without Canterbury, no.

[Jim Noble]

Hymns written by non-Catholics denying the real presence and reflecting Protestant theology are greatly confusing to the Catholic faithful, since they are published in the OCP songbook used in a majority of Catholic churches in this country

But they give protestants who go to Catholic churches, like me, something to look forward to...

Seriously, though, it cannot have escaped your notice that V-II marked the conversion en masse of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to what is similar to a type of Protestantism.

I think Catholics who are in rebellion against this are brave and intellectually honest, but they must answer the following:

If the Pope and the bishops united with him teach something that is different from that which was taught by prior Popes, is it valid?

And if you say no, are you really Catholic?

[trad_anglican]

I am very hopeful for a uniate solution in my lifetime, but I think it will not happen without Canterbury.

I think the priestess issue has killed that. The "advantages" that the continuiners have is 1) no priestesses and 2) valid orders through the PNCC (Polish National Catholic Church). The ties between Forward in Faith, The Traditional Anglican Communion, The Province of Christ the King, and The Anglican Catholic Church (and other similarly situated groups) are strengthening daily. Ties between Forward in Faith and some traditional provinces within the Anglican Communion are firming up as well.

None of these bodies accept the innovation of priestesses. None are within the "official" Anglican Communion except Forward in Faith. These are the groups that are talking seriously with Rome about uniate status. Should that happen, Forward in Faith would come along which would sever ties with Canterbury. It's only going to happen without Canterbury, and it's not going to happen with a majority of the official Anglican Communion.

[marshmallow]

Actually, ecumenism has been going on for some time, very fruitfully, largely unnoticed and without the need for the direct involvement of these ninnies.

I'm referring to the large scale defections from Anglicanism to Catholicism due to issues such as women priests and homosexual unions. I say "direct involvement" because people like Williams have played a major though unintended role in this form of ecumenism in a way they never expected due to their doctrinal and disciplinary confusion.

The Holy Father (God bless him always) has warned repeatedly that these issues pose a serious obstacle to interfaith dialogue and are not negotiable. Once again, he shows how true ecumenical dialogue should proceed: with the highest regard for truth and with full cognizance of where real obstacles and problems lie.

The quotes given in the article are nothing more than platitudes.

[Pio]

"But they give protestants who go to Catholic churches, like me, something to look forward to..."

25% of these parishes in Boston will be closed within weeks. You better convert now and enjoy it while it lasts because the Novus Ordo is shrinking like a salt-sprayed slug.

As the homosexuality of the new OCP songbook artists gets exposed, the drive toward sacred polyphony will hasten.

[Jim Noble]

As the homosexuality of the new OCP songbook artists gets exposed, the drive toward sacred polyphony will hasten

Well, there are some very awful hymns in that paperback book, but there's some oldies but goodies, as well.

Protestant, to be sure, but goodies, nonetheless.

[Jim Noble]

You better convert now and enjoy it while it lasts because the Novus Ordo is shrinking like a salt-sprayed slug.

I prefer my protestantism authentic, but thanks for the suggestion.

[SausageDog]

Unfortunately, you can't quote a single source of authority to back your assertion that Catholics who attend Mass celebrated by the Society of St. Pius X are heretics, so I'd appreciate it if you ceased the unwarranted calumny.

I didn't say what you said I said. Catholics who attend SSPX masses are guilty of disobedience, but not necessarily heresy. I was referring to the SSPX penchant for accusing the most recent ecumenical council and the last four popes of heresy. The SSPX has gone the way not only of schism and disobience, but of heresy as well.

[latae sententiae]

SSPX has gone the way not only of schism and disobience, but of heresy as well.

How?

[dangus]

I want to market a new breed of peaches, called "Rowans." They'll turn color while they are still very unripe. So then people will pick them on comment on how they taste while they are unripe. And people can say, "Oh, that's a Rowan... It's fuzzy, it's fruity, but its hard and bitter on the inside."

[dangus]

Actually, there is already something of a "sub-rite:" Anglican-use Latin-rite mass. It's officially part of the Latin rite Catholic Church, but they use the Anglican missal and rubrics. (Or do Anglicans use the term, "rubric"? In case not: They are the ecclesial equivalent of stage directions, highlighted in red ("ruby") so the priest knows he doesn't need to speak them out loud.)

[dangus]

>> As the homosexuality of the new OCP songbook artists gets exposed, the drive toward sacred polyphony will hasten.<<

Wow! A homosexual songbook. And I thought those little appendages were appendices. The "homosexual" author in question, of course, is Dan Schutte. No, you may not nickname him poop-Schutte. Cause that would be wrong. ;^)

In all seriousness, the description of "Here I Am, Lord," as a gay anthem was just ridiculous. Although a few lines of it taken out of context are silly. ("I have heard you calling in the night.")

[dangus]

Not heresy, but schism.
And the claim that they are not in schism is sily, because SSPX claims that anyone who goes to (Roman) Catholic mass is committing a sin by doing so. So THEY have excommunicated ROME.

[trad_anglican]

Actually, there is already something of a "sub-rite:" Anglican-use Latin-rite mass.

Yes. But it involves individual conversions of all or most or some members of an Anglican parish. It also requires the priest to submit to ordination, not ordination sub conditione. This means he has to declare that he was never really ordained in the first place.

This is very different than a uniate arrangement. The talks in progress involve using the same Anglican-use, liturgy, which is the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer liturgy, with the exception of the canon, which I believe is NO, though I'm not sure, I just know it's different. And yes, we use the term rubric and the rubrics are very important as they often give a doctrinal background to the liturgy itself.

[dangus]

How? SSPX excommunicated Rome. They refuse to use that term because they cling to their claim that they are not schismatics to help them gain converts from loyal Papists, but they have proclaimed that receiving Eucharist from a Roman parish is a sin... even if the Eucharist is adminsitered from a traditionalist priest in a Tridentine Mass.

[latae sententiae]

They refuse to use that term because they cling to their claim that they are not schismatics to help them gain converts from loyal Papists

?!

but they have proclaimed that receiving Eucharist from a Roman parish is a sin... even if the Eucharist is adminsitered from a traditionalist priest in a Tridentine Mass.

1. Show me.
2. Set forth how these accusations, even if true, add up to heresy.

[CouncilofTrent]

Are you a protestant? Your use of the word "Papists" is edging on offensive.

[CouncilofTrent]

Are you a protestant? Your use of the word "Papists" is edging on offensive.

[dangus]

>>>>but they have proclaimed that receiving Eucharist from a Roman parish is a sin... even if the Eucharist is adminsitered from a traditionalist priest in a Tridentine Mass.<<<<

>>1. Show me. <<
It's all in SSPX's FAQs. For instance, here's where they declare reception of Novus Ordo communion illicit:

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm#post-conciliarchurchnewreligion:

"It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative. [sic]"

They also declare receiving other sacraments from NO illicit, and even receiving sacraments from FSSP illicit, since FSSP priests, while they use the Tridentine mass, are sinful priests since they accept the Pope's teaching regarding the validity of the NO mass!

Now, if you can't see how this constitutes schism, even if Rome had not recognized it as such, trying to convince you that anything the SSPX says constitutes heresy would seem pointless. The SSPX has been formally declared to be in schism, but they declare that the declaration is ultra vires simply on the basis that they are right and the Pope is wrong. But they ACT in schism, also, for they have declared the Pope's own sacraments illicit.

So when people ask why the Pope is so hard on the SSPX, the only answer can be that the SSPX is so hard in the Pope. Now, how can the Pope say that the SSPX is even communicant with Rome, when the SSPX itself states that it is not? And if it is not communicant, how can it not be in schism?

Which is sad, because there are a great many points on which SSPX makes a valid case. That it weds these points with schism not only discredits the messenger, the SSPX, but, since the tendency towards ad hominem is almost universal, they discredit the message.

[latae sententiae]

"It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative. [sic]"

Yup. Good, solid advice, that. However, you said that the SSPX had "proclaimed" that receiving at a N.O. mass is a "sin." Either there's more to the FAQ than you posted, or you're putting words in their mouth.

They also declare receiving other sacraments from NO illicit, and even receiving sacraments from FSSP illicit, since FSSP priests, while they use the Tridentine mass, are sinful priests since they accept the Pope's teaching regarding the validity of the NO mass!

Kindly post the url for the site containing the specific statement that calls FSSP priests "sinful."

Now, if you can't see how this constitutes schism, even if Rome had not recognized it as such, trying to convince you that anything the SSPX says constitutes heresy would seem pointless.

It would indeed be pointless to try to lure me back into the Novus Ordo. It shouldn't be impossible, however, to substantiate your claims of schism and heresy if, in fact, those are true. How difficult could it be to qualify a charge as serious as heresy? Seems to me it should be as easy as defining a specific, revealed Catholic dogma, and then pointing out where and how the accused heretic has taught something contrary to that Catholic dogma. Do you even know what heresy is?

The SSPX has been formally declared to be in schism

Oh?

but they declare that the declaration is ultra vires simply on the basis that they are right and the Pope is wrong. But they ACT in schism, also, for they have declared the Pope's own sacraments illicit.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for proof again. So far, what you've offered to substantiate your allegations is a rephrasing of your allegations, and a statement that proving them would be "pointless."

how can the Pope say that the SSPX is even communicant with Rome, when the SSPX itself states that it is not?

The SSPX has said this? Please post the url of the official SSPX source that contains this specific statement.

And if it is not communicant, how can it not be in schism?

Do you know what schism is?

[dangus]

>> Yup. Good, solid advice, that. However, you said that the SSPX had "proclaimed" that receiving at a N.O. mass is a "sin." Either there's more to the FAQ than you posted, or you're putting words in their mouth. <<

Does the SSPX not hold that it is sinful to fail to meet one's Sunday obligations?

>> Kindly post the url for the site containing the specific statement that calls FSSP priests "sinful." <<

I did.

>>I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for proof again.<<

Same site. SSPX itself does recognize that the Vatican issued such a statement. They present the entire timeline, including a silly little exhange where the Vatican did it first through a cabinet-level office, the SSPX said, "Doesn't count; only the Pope can do it." So the Pope did it, and SSPX said, "Well, it doesn't count anyway."

>> The SSPX has said this? Please post the url of the official SSPX source that contains this specific statement.<<

See, this is the pathetic little trick of the SSPX. They make all sorts of wild assertions, and when they get called on the implication of their assertions, they say, "We never said that!"

The SSPX declared that it was sinful to receive communion from priests allied with Rome. Being communicant means you recognize each others' communions. Hence, if they do not recognize Rome's communions (which they don't, check out the URL), then they are not in communion. If they are not in communion, then they are in schism.

[Fifthmark]

You said:

Accordingly, the Church needs to treat SSPX-ers in such a way as to make it clear the the faithful that these are heretics.

Then, once you realized that calling people who attend Mass offered by the Society "heretics" is an unsubstantiated calumny, you backed off and said:

Catholics who attend SSPX masses are guilty of disobedience, but not necessarily heresy.

Then midway through your posting you became confused again and said:

The SSPX has gone the way...of heresy as well.

So again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, would you like to substantiate your claim that the Society is guilty of heresy or would you like to retract your statement as it amounts to nothing more than further calumny?

[Land of the Irish]

From the link you provided:

The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in today’s parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question. Additives to the host sometimes invalidate the matter. The change in the translation from the words of Our Lord, "for many" to the ecumenically acceptable "for all" throws at least some doubt on the validity of the form.

In other words some Novus Ordo Masses may be invalid, but not necessarily all of them. Why take the risk?

[latae sententiae]

Does the SSPX not hold that it is sinful to fail to meet one's Sunday obligations?

The SSPX holds that one cannot knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. That's what the site said. It did not say, as you claim, that one commits a sin by going to the Novus Ordo.

Same site. SSPX itself does recognize that the Vatican issued such a statement. They present the entire timeline, including a silly little exhange where the Vatican did it first through a cabinet-level office, the SSPX said, "Doesn't count; only the Pope can do it." So the Pope did it, and SSPX said, "Well, it doesn't count anyway."

There's a rerason I'm asking you for urls & direct quotes. Your failure to provide them is speaking volumes about the credibility of your position. Kindly cite your source for the above.

See, this is the pathetic little trick of the SSPX. They make all sorts of wild assertions, and when they get called on the implication of their assertions, they say, "We never said that!"

Asking for proof is a "pathetic little trick?"

The SSPX declared that it was sinful to receive communion from priests allied with Rome.

This isn't the first time you've made this assertion, although you have yet to point out where the SSPX actually says this.

Being communicant means you recognize each others' communions.

Does it? This may be the source of your confusion. I don't think you have the first idea of what it means to be in communion with Rome. Maybe I'm wrong about you, but I don't think so. Take a stab at it and either me or someone else will let you know if you get the right answer.

If they are not in communion, then they are in schism.

Read the above, substituting "communion with Rome" with "schism."

[SausageDog]

So again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, would you like to substantiate your claim that the Society is guilty of heresy or would you like to retract your statement as it amounts to nothing more than further calumny?

The SSPX challenges the doctrine of an ecumenical council, and four popes as well, thereby making it guilty of heresy. If you yourself will acknowledge their doctrinal authority, then I shall be happy to defend you from any accusation of heresy.

[Fifthmark]

Heresy is the formal denial or doubt by a baptised person of any revealed truth of the Catholic faith. "Challenging" an ecumenical council that defined no doctrine or "challenging" the teachings of popes that pertain to that council but have not been proposed as binding on the conscience of the faithful falls well short of heresy. Your accusation remains unsubstantiated calumny, which is a sin against the Seventh Commandment.

I politely decline your offer to defend me against charges of heresy, as you seem to have enough trouble trying to defend your own arguments.

[torqemada]

Why in the world would traditional/orthodox Anglicans WANT to be re-united with the liberalized RC church? As near as I can tell, there isn't a nickels worth of difference between the '79 BCP and the Novus Ordo. In the year leading up to ECUSA's surrender to the pansexualist agenda, I attended our local RC church to see whether or not I was ready to swim the Tiber. Outside of the fact that the crosses had a corpus on them and there were a number of Deprato statues here and there, I could have easily believed I was sitting in an Episcopalian sanctuary witnessing the '79 BCP liturgy...Rite II, no less. They haven't ordained women...yet...but there were plenty of women and girls involved in the liturgy, the altar was not against the wall, and on at least one occasion, the choir sang that abysmal "Eagles Wings" tripe that passes for hymnody these days. That's why I joined a "continuing" Anglican church, instead.

Somebody has pooped in the Tiber and I refuse to swim in it.

[dangus]

It does more than say "why take the risk?" It goes on to declare that it is illicit to take that risk, and then leaps to the conclusion that since it is illicit to take that risk, it is illicit to attend New Order mass. But there are other ways to avoid taking the risk: Priests who confect invalid masses do so purposely rebelling against the Church. Such rebellion is easy to recognize if you educate yourself. The things which invalidate a mass have been posted here several time, due to the wonderful work of Freepers, but those are external signs; it is true that the priest must also have the proper disposition.

The following are irregularities that do not necessarily invalidate a mass, but which suggest that the mass is offered without proper disposition:

* Use of extraordinary ministers while there is an idle concelebrant.
* Use of sacred vessels which are not obviously noble. (Some glazed pottery, for instance, does not necessarily desecrate the Eucharist as unglazed pottery, but why would the priest tolerate the uncertainty?)
* Ad-libbing rites.
* Laity in the sanctuary.
* Disregard for the GIRM.

[SausageDog]

The SSPX challenges the doctrine of an ecumenical council, and four popes as well, thereby making it guilty of heresy. If you yourself will acknowledge their doctrinal authority, then I shall be happy to defend you from any accusation of heresy.

Heresy is the formal denial or doubt by a baptised person of any revealed truth of the Catholic faith. "Challenging" an ecumenical council that defined no doctrine or "challenging" the teachings of popes that pertain to that council but have not been proposed as binding on the conscience of the faithful falls well short of heresy.

The Council and the popes who have endorsed its doctrines made no formal formal definitions. Nonetheless, they darned sure taught a lot of doctrine. In rejecting their teachings as "not been proposed as binding," you merely demonstrate my point, that you are not only disobedient but a heretic as well.