[Mershon]

Vatican I and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta are propaganda? That's funny. I thought they were official documents of the Roman Catholic Church? OK, Ultima, if these documents are not authoritative, and the authority does NOT reside in Rome, where is it?

Extra SSPX, there is no salvation? Seriously, where is it?

[ultima ratio]

The word "authoritative" covers a multitude of sins. How authoritative are the declarations of a pastoral council which deliberately declined to define any doctrine as binding on the faithful? How authoritative is a motu proprio letter when it contradicts Canon Law? How authoritative are either when they contradict previous popes and councils? There are levels and levels. On top of all is Divine Law--to do good and avoid evil, especially evils which might harm the faith--something Lefebvre understood better than JPII.

As for "Rome"--it is another term used to designate the Vatican institution we call the "Holy See." This is a human institution comprised of a collection of men who run a vast bureaucracy, some of whom are true Catholics, some of whom are not--men like Cardinal Kasper who doubts the historicity of the Resurrection, for instance. So it can be truly said that Rome--or the Holy See--is no longer fully Catholic, strange as this sounds to most Catholics. But it reflects the true situation.

This had not always been the case. Before Vatican II, the Holy See and the Catholic Church were so intimately identified that their union seemed absolute. This is no longer the case. The Holy See is now a very doubtful source of authority. Far more reliable are the teachings of tradition--the doctrines proclaimed tirelessly for centuries by preconciliar popes and councils. These have far more authoritative heft than declarations by today's "Rome" which seem to vary with the weather.