"More Catholic Than the Pope" — New Book Responds to Arguments Raised by Extreme Traditionalists

It is a waste of time to egg on schismatic traditionalists or to get caught up in these name-calling games that some of their adversaries do on FR.

The problem I see is that in the confusion, people mistake them for actual Catholics. There are some nice people I know, who went to SSPX Masses, without being told they were illicit by anyone at all. Until I said the SSPX was in schism, did they realize the problem.

I agree the indult should be offered as a alternative to those wishing for that Mass. Once you cross the SSPX line for Mass, cooperating in the rest of the schismatic mentality comes easier.

My point is saying SSPX folk are schismatic isn't meant as name calling, because it is the position of the Church. I am careful to tell a person a position they hold may be a problem, but I strive to treat the person with dignity. Sometimes the striving takes a lot of effort....

Bishop Bruskewitz is a mixed bag like most in the Novus Ordo system. He does his best but tradition unadulterated is not very popular amongst the Bishops and they make compromises. It is unfortunate but a reality.

I have not had time to read even half of the posts on this. I would never get anything done if I read all of them. They will not succeed in the end BUT the church will go underground- that is a fact. It is happening now. Catholics can not deny the facts -Catholics who are good conservatives in the Novus Ordo are being persecuted in their parishes that is why they flee to the Byzantine Rites or the SSPX or independent Chapels and it is only going to get worse with things like the Fatima Shrine and the bad stuff that went on in Scotland with the Hindus coming to the Catholic Church while good Catholics protested- they were ignored. The Vatican policy is to share churches with Protestants and now they are even sharing Catholic Churches with pagans who worship their false gods there.

If you and I do not oppose these false practices then you and I are part of the problem. We must tell the parties involved in these false practices. That is a fact.

Pope St. Felix III said "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, AND INDEED TO NEGLECT TO CONFOUND EVIL MEN WHEN WE CAN DO IT, IS NOT LESS A SIN THAN TO ENCOURAGE THEM."

Pope Leo I: "He that sees another in error and endeavors not to correct it, testifies himself to be in error."

Pope St. Pius V:"All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics."

St. Augustine: "Medicinal rebuke must be applied to all who sin, lest they should either themselves perish, or be the ruin of others ... Let no one, therefore, say that a man must not be rebuked when he deviates from the right way, or that his return and perseverance must only be asked from the Lord for him." A Treatise on rebuke and grace,by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo; In One Book,addressed to valentine, and with him to the monks of adrumetum.a.d. 426 or 427.

"Once you cross the SSPX line for Mass, cooperating in the rest of the schismatic mentality comes easier."

Dominick, you can't even say what this schismatic mentality consists of. If you can't really say what it is, maybe it isn't there. This is completely frustrating. Why can't people see this.

It is NOT the possition of the Church. You are over simplifing a tragic situation. Even if Lefebvre excommunication and the other 4 Bishops he ordained hold up in history (which I don't believe it will).

On June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops
without a papal mandate - an offence that, under Canon 1382, carries the
penalty of excommunication, subject to various excuses from culpability
under Canons 1321-23. One of these excuses is that the offender acted out
of necessity or to avoid grave inconvenience. Another is that the
offender sincerely believed, however mistakenly, that his action was
justified, and he was thus not subjectively culpable of the offence.
Given the current chaotic state of the Church, Levebvre argued that his
action was necessary to preserve some semblance of Catholic tradition. I
do not take up that defence here, but merely note that the defense of
necessity was raised by the Archbishop, and that, right or wrong, His
Eminence no doubt acted with a good intention, as envisioned by Canons
1321 and 1323.

This is but the logical consequence of Canon 844, §2 (1983
Code), which declares that Catholics can ask non-Catholic ministers
(whose sacraments are valid) to hear their confessions whenever "genuine
spiritual advantage suggests it". Consequently, if the Society’s priests
are schismatic and non-Catholics, then any Catholic can licitly and
validly (!) request the sacrament of Penance from the SSPX if they find a
spiritual advantage in doing so. There is only one "problem": The Society
claims that it still recognizes the supremacy of this Pope. They attack
and expel from their ranks any sedevacantists. They pray for the Pope in
the Canon of the Mass, and his picture is always to be seen gracing their
houses. The Society refuses to act as a separate Church.

I am not an SSPX attender and I have never stepped into an SSPX chapel but I say it is time for people to stop bashing them. Did you know the ST. John Mary Vienney society of Campose did not have to retract any of there former possitions to regularize themselves with Rome. And has been pointed out by Cardinal Hoyas they did set up a permanent Bishop in their diocese with a counter jurisdiction counter to the Novus Ordo system that was their before they became regularized. Hoyas said that he thought the Campose group was schismatic but that the SSPX group was "irregular".
Ask yourself this why have the Counciliar authorities lifted the excommunication on the schismatic Orthodox

( Paul VI and Athenagoras I, "Joint Declaration Penetres de Reconnaissance" (Dec. 7, 1965), 3: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966), 20. The excommunications were mutually lifted in 1965: "Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I in his synod ... declare by mutual agreement ... to regret and to remove from memory and from the midst of the church the sentences of excommunication" (ibid., 4); cf. also Paul VI apostolic letter Ambulate in Dilectione (Dec. 12, 1965): AAS 58 (1966), 40-41; Athenagoras I, Patriarchal Tomos (Dec. 7, 1965): Tomos Agapes Vatican-Phanar (1958-1970), 129 (Vatican Polyglot Press: Rome-Istanbul, 1971), 290-294.)
see http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3135

who don't believe in papal infallibility but will not lift the excommunication on the traditional Bishops who do?

Here is the reason I say that some folk in the SSPX are in Schism:
From EWTN Library
While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

So we have a schismatic mentality that comes from attachment to the SSPX, not just admiration. You can attend Mass at a SSPX chapel, but over time you become attached. I never claimed a single person was excommunicated, but those attached to the SSPX, who attack the Novus ordo (not just critique it), and hold that Vatican II was invalid or not authoritative would meet this definition.

Farther down we read:
may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.

d. We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the Supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).

I can think of one poster that I have said that holing those positions puts him in schism. This supports the notion that the lack of Communion by the SSPX is binding, and that is determined by the See, not by the accused schismatic.

Let me concede one point, not every person defending the SSPX is automatically schismatic. I have said before, I would have attended SSPX Mass and gone to a chapel had it not been for the irregular status of the organization and one other problem. What turned me off is the attitude they have that Catholics who attend Novus Ordo Mass can't be Traditionalists, and since they attend Novus Ordo, they are second class Catholics. Not all people attending Novus Ordo Mass are raging reformers.

I don't think that LeFebvre displayed a sense of emergency, as evidenced by his refusal to take a ride to Rome to have a Face to Face with the Pope the night before. What better time to gain permission from the Pope for the installation. You can't have an emergency when you have not exhausted all the licit means, and the ride to Rome would not be a major inconvenience. I think at that point the pride of the Archbishop prevented him from going. There are many viewpoints, but, the Pope has ruled for that act, and other subsequent acts, the SSPX is not in communion with him.

Positive actions of the Church related to others is not a defense for a organizations position, and the Orthodox problems are not pertinent to Latin Rite discipline. Specifically, Hoyas has not stated the schism is over, some parts of the SSPX are in schism, and some are not, therefore that sounds like an irregular organization. Saying there is no schism is also over simplifying.

How do you feel about pro-choice Catholics who attend Novus Ordo Masses or who teach at Cathoic colleges and universities?

Lefebvre asked Ratzinger to give him a date for the ordination of a Bishop and he couldn't give him one. So he thought he couldn't trust him. I don't blame him. Do you trust all of the stuff coming out of Vatican prelates now or there legets? Well here is one for you.

"Pope's envoy offers support to gays" see http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/05/1083635202645.html?from=storyrhs.
By Ben Sills
Madrid
May 6, 2004

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
The Pope's ambassador to one of Europe's leading Catholic countries has hinted that the church should "acknowledge" gay partnerships.

The suggestion by Spain's Monsignor Manuel Monteiro de Castro represents a significant crack in the Vatican's resolute opposition to "evil and deviant" gay relationships.

The monsignor told a conference of Spanish bishops at the weekend: "The new political situation in which we are living in Spain sets new challenges in the spreading of the gospel and we must meet those challenges in an appropriate manner."

Departing from his prepared speech, the papal nuncio added that although the law in Spain, and many other countries, defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, "there are other forms of cohabitation and it is good that they be recognised".

Although he insisted that same-sex unions could not be regarded as marriages, he implied that they were at least worthy of compassion.

"They are not the same as marriage," he said. "We will leave the term marriage for that which it has always referred to, and other arrangements should be given other names."

You know as well as I do that gay civil unions lead to gay marraige unions it is a slippery slope.

And can you trust Ratzinger on the what the third secret of Fatima is all about? Even mother angelica of EWTN said they are not telling us the full story on that because its "scary".

Now if the Novus Ordo is so orthodox in how it is practiced then why are things so bad everywhere in Catholic parishes all over the world and why is there so much heresy and heteropraxis everywhere? One of the reasons is because the prayers where drastically changed to please the protestants.
"the intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy... there was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass....*(Jean Guitton (Dec. 19, 1993) Apropos (17) p. 8f [Christian Order, Oct 1994] Jean Guitton was an intimate friend of Pope Paul VI. Paul VI had 116 of his books and had made marginal study notes in 17 of these. Michael Davies said, " When I began work on this trilogy I was concerned at the extent to which the Catholic liturgy was being Protestantized. The more detailed my study of the Revolution, the more evident it has become that it has by-passed Protestantism and its final goal is humanism (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 137 (cf., p. 149), [ APPENDIX II ])

When they started to take the old Latin Mass away over a 5 year period from 1965-70 (they didn't do it overnight) then bad things started to happen bad catechesis and Catholics started to contracept because Pope Paul VI was too silent on the birth control pill for several years until Humanae Vitae finally came out. The pill essentially did the same thing in principle that a condom would do ie. you could have the sex without most likely getting pregnant. It really matters not the form of the technology the principle is the same that life is thwarted while the intercource occurs and it is a purposeful thing for the couple involved.

Where have you been - the whole church is in a state of schism- Cardinal Gagnon said the US is in a state of defecto schism- authority is questioned every where novus ordo priests laugh at the popes statements on no artificial birth control and yes even homosexual marriage and I could go on ad infinitem. Yes I can take that same EWTN statement which I am sick of hearing and say that if you stay in the Novus Ordo system you will take up the liberal Catholic possition and deny basic Catholic doctrine. I 'll give you an example. I am in the Cleveland diocese. My son's friend who goes to a Catholic elementary school and is in the 8th grade went to the movie "Dogma" he thought it was great. I had to pull my kids out of that school 4 years ago and I homeschool them because the rotten liberal uncatholic and also sex ed doctrines they were getting there. That kid did not have a clue and after my son told him why the movie was wrong (I guess it implied Mary was a lesbian) this kid said ya that makes sence. He had been through 8 years of that school. And Oh yah they do Life Teen Masses there also.

So really the whole Church is in the throws of the worse heresy ever the modernist heresy and the greatest law is the salvation of souls. The schismatic problem was not caused by the SSPX it was there way before they even entered the picture. Here is another quote for you from Count Nero Capponi on the EWTN web site. and just ask yourself why EWTN isn't saying more about the apostacy going on at the Fatima Shrine. If you don't think it is apostacy then look at this first then Capponi's statement

398 A.D. Council of Carthage "No one must either pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: Let him be excommunicated. Council of Carthage (Regional)
No one shall pray in common with heretics or schismatics. Council of Laodicea (Regional)
The accursed perversity of heretics has so increased that now they exercise their wickedness not in secret but manifest their error publicly, and win over the simple and weak to their opinion. For this reason, We resolve to cast them, their defenders, and their receivers under anathema, and We forbid under anathema that anyone presume to help heretics or to do business with them. III Lateran Council

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10):
“So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…”
Old Code of Canon Law said about Communicatio in Sacris
Canon 1258: The faithful are not allowed to assist actively in any way or to take active part in the religious services of non-Catholics. (communicatio in sacris)

Canon 2316: One who cooperates communicatio in sacris contrary to the provision of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.

New code says
[16]Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 702 – Catholic priests are forbidden to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy with non-Catholic priests or ministers.

[17]Code of Canon Law, can. 1365 – A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.

[18]Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 1440 – A person who violates the norms of law concerning participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) can be punished with an appropriate penalty.

And here is Count Capponi's statement who represented the Hawaii 5 who were exhonerated oddly enough by Cardinal RAtzinger from being schismatic just because the had the SSPX bsihop Williamson conferm their kids.

TIMES OF CRISIS, TIMES FOR FAITH Prof. Neri Capponi www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/CRIFAITH.HTM - 30k
I believe is one of the worst crises of
Church history, in a certain sense even worse than the Arian crisis.
When asked why I believe the crisis we now face is worse than Arianism, I
give these reasons: (a) The principle vehicle of the faith, the liturgy,
was untouched by the Arian crisis; (b) whereas the Arian crisis was
precipitated and sustained by the intervention of secular power, the post
Vatican II crisis comes from within the Church and is therefore more
difficult to fight; (c) in the fourth century, Pope Liberius finally
signed the excommunication of St. Athanasius under duress—in the
twentieth century Pope Paul VI was admittedly taken in and hoodwinked by
his misguided optimism, but there was no duress; (d) the present crisis
is not only one of faith but of morals as well. In addition, today not
only one dogma, albeit a very important one, is denied as with Arianism,
but all dogmas, be it even the existence of a personal God!

When count Capponi was asked a question at the Roman Forum in the US New Jersy I think why is it that the Orthodox are treated so good while the SSPX and the SSPV are not even given a hearing. He said the answere was that those outside of the household are treated better than those inside! You may not agree with his statements but I think our problems are more complex than you are the EWTN people would admit to. We should stop calling good CAtholics schismatic and forge our efforts towards fighting the liberals in the Church who undermine it from within.We need to get back to tradition if we are going to remain Catholic and that means the orthopraxis that comes with the old Latin Mass or a good Byzantine rite Mass that hasn't gone modernist. See this article:

www.christianorder.com/features/ features_2001/features_bonus_1_nov01.html
WAS DOM GUERANGER RIGHT? FATHER HUGH THWAITES, SJ. There are still a few good Jesuits left. REad this Guerenager said all you have to do to change a peoples religion is to change their liturgical books. This is what Cranmer and Luther did and this is one of the many reasons why the Novus Ordo is critisized and some people think it is dubious because the changes where so drastic and it was called by Pope Paul VI a "New Rite" which Trent said you could not do see Trent Session 7 Canon 13.

My feelings are Pro-Choice and Catholicism are incompatible. The Catechism says so in black and white.

You can't kill people for personal gain, and thats is the nature of abortion. Is this a litmus test?

What is the point? Like I said, it is unfair to assume that a Novus Ordo Mass attendee has heterodox opinions. A traditional Catholic doesn't have to attend Latin Mass, and going to Latin Mass doesn't make one a traditionalist.

I have been to and have attended the Tridentine Mass, and I liked it. I enjoy the Divine Liturgy at the Byzantine Parish. I like it when the Father from the VA has Mass. I have a friend who comes up from Miami once in a while and says Mass here. He offers Communion by ticture. (Dipping the host) and I prefer that, on my knees.

Are they all valid Mass, do they not all confect the Body of Christ? Is there no more bread, and it is all transubstatiated to the Body and Blood of our Lord? Are they all licit Masses? Do we do what the Church intends us to do as Catholics? (Hint: The answer is yes.)

My problem is authenticity, the SSPX should not parade around like it is a licit organization. They are committing the same fraud as Call to Action.

Pardon me I hate double posting.

Well here is one for you.

This is off topic. Am I supposed to agree or not? One guy who has noting but an opinion in conflict with the Holy Father is authoritative? Do you realize you using something from the Masonic Manual? This proved noting about my comments.

You go way off topic with this post. My point is that on it's face, the decision of the See is against the SSPX. Using a screwball comment from a Spanish Monsignor Ambassador to say a group of Schismatics is Catholic strains credibility.

I have no problem with good, healthy, spirited, and lively debate. That can help in the search for truth for many people.

At any rate, with the official institutional church under the shadow of Vatican II splintered and divided into liberal and conservative factions, with many Catholics in the U.S. voting for candidates like John Kerry, it's unlikely that the social Kingship of Christ will see the light of day in any practical applications in North America for some time. The conservative groups which have accepted Vatican II do not help by feeding fantasies or impossible goals as well. It is not just the schismatics causing difficulties for Catholicism.

Why can't people see this.

I've seen it ever since he signed on to this forum.

“It becomes VERY tiresome to refute the same lies and neatly-sliced-and-diced quotations, hundreds of times a month.”

I haven’t seen these lies, nor have I seen anyone successfully refute the major assertions of the SSPX. They claim that a state of necessity existed that justified disobedience; the other side claims that it didn’t. The SSPX might be mistaken about the state of necessity, but I don’t think one can say they are lying about it. If they are mistaken, they are honestly mistaken.

I have no intention of rejecting the authority of the Holy Father or of the Church; at the same time, relying on Aquinas and right reason, I think that it is possible for a state of necessity to exist.

“IOW, some liars SEEM to have cogent arguments. It's very easy for the Father of Lies to keep lying. It's part of his nature. And usually, the Father of Lies lies very convincingly.”

I’m not easy, but I can be had. We all like to think we’re too clever to be flim-flammed, but we’re not. That said, the arguments of the SSPX are far more compelling than those of their opponents.

When I stumbled on this controversy, I didn’t really have a dog in the fight. I was free, intellectually and emotionally, to consider the arguments of both sides on an equal footing. IMO, nobody here has managed to rebut any of the core arguments of the SSPX.

“In a way, I didn't learn about lying by omission, or lying by careful construction, until Clinton was in office.”

I used to be a liberal. I became familiar with it in college in the early 70s.

“But I find it disgusting that SSPX uses the same techniques. Don't you?”

I would, if I saw them doing it.

Regarding your posts 648 and 649.

Who has put all the screw balls in their position? The popes advisors with his approval. There are all kinds of screwball comments coming from people in high places. Cardinal Chiappi the popes personal secretary said,“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” That was not a screw ball comment but the truthas the facts demonstrate in the heterodox practice which goes on in the Novus Ordo system.
... Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, Pope John Paul II's personal papal theologian, quoted in the journal Catholic, March 2002

So you are the judge of who is schismatic and who is not regarding people who adhere to traditional Catholic practices and worship which ALL Catholics had before 1962?

What was the crack in the fissure that Pope Paul VI prophetically spoke of given that his changes in the Mass helped bring it about?

“Through some crack/fissure the smoke of satan has entered into the Church of God.” Paul VI

“It [the Third Secret] has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church.” ... Cardinal Oddi, quoted March 17, 1990, in the journal Il Sabato

DON'T YOU THINK THE APOSTACY HAS TO DO MORE WITH WHAT IS GOING ON IN PLACES LIKE the FATIMA SHRINE AND THE CHURCH IN MICHIGAN AND THE CHURCH IN SCOTLAND THAT ALLOWED HINDUS TO COME AND WORSHIP THEIR FALSE GODS? Are we the Church of the care bears or the Church of Christ?

DO YOU REALLY THINK IT IS THE SSPX Who ARE THE ONES AT THE TOP???????????? Really when are people going to wake up ???

The apostasy is here and with apostasy comes persecution of good Catholics- and I mean the good conservatives in the Novus Ordo who don't really understand THE WOOL BEING PULLED OVER THERE EYES BY THE WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING but I also mean the trads who are attacked by Madrid. What is really going is the conspiracy of those at the top to undermine the Church- some are well meaning and some are malicious but it is here and we better wake up or we'll will get caught up in the current. Jesus will eventually calm the storm but the storm will kill millions of souls in the mean time. Only those who are in the boat with him will be saved. That is the sad reality of it for those who are outside the ark but God is giving us all a choice now.- Go along with the apostate stream or climb in the boat with him and reject the false Christs being presented.

You may intend to do what is supposed to be done but does the priest see below for Ratzinger's statements on the Eucharist- so many of the conciliar authorities were influenced by the trasignification heresy of Karl Rahner.

Regarding your statements that the SSPX is committing the same fraud as Call to Action- that is absurd I have heard these argument (Steven Hand) hundreds of times and it is an insult and you know it is. I am not SSPX but I say to you that I have never met a traditionalist Catholic that is pro abortion as is call to action nor have I ever met a traditionalist that is against any of the doctrines of the Church including papal infallibility!! The liberals are the frauds not traditional Catholics! AS Pope ST. Pius X said they are the true friends of the people. You sound a lot like Mr. Madrid when you say slanderous things like that. The Call to action want women priests, abortion, homosexuality, a democratic church, pick and choose doctrines and the SSPX don’t- they simply resist when the authority goes against good customs as Sueraz and Bellarmaine and Aquinas said we could.

Do you want women priests- if the Conciliar authorities allow an experiment of women priests will you go along with it?? Cardinal Marini S.J. (I think) wants this.

I will give you the two quotes from Ratzinger on the Eucharist then I will give you two quotes about why the Novus Ordo words of consecration are wrong when it says shed for you and for all instead of for the many which implies universal salvation which is just what so many of the Conciliar Authorities believe in.

In his book Being Christian (Franciscan Herald Press, 1970), Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:
“The concept of substance, with which the idea of change seems to be closely linked, appears to be completely unobjective since the bread, considered from a physical and chemical point of view, is seen as a mixture of heterogeneous materials, made up of an infinite multitude of atoms which, in turn, are composed of an enormous number of elemental particles to which we can ultimately apply no certain concept of substance since we do not even know if their existence is corpuscular or undulatory. What, then, does ‘change [the “change of the bread and wine”] mean? How and where can the Body and Blood of Christ be present here? And what does eating his Body and drinking his Blood mean?” (p.. 59).

Cardinal's discussion of the Real Presence in his book "Being Christian" Franciscan Herals Press, 1970 in German DIE SACRAMENTALE BEGRUNDUNG CHRISTLIKER EXISTEND ):
“Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament or the silent visit to a church cannot be, in its full sense, a simple conversation with God conceived as locally circumscribed. Expressions such as ‘God lives here and the idea of holding a conversation with a God who is localized are an expression of the Christological mystery and the mystery of God, that inevitably shocks the thinking man who knows that God is omnipresent. When one tries to justify “going to church” by the notion that one has to visit God and lie dwells only in that place, one?s justification is meaningless and is rightly rejected by modern man. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is connected with our Lord who, by his historic life and passion, has become our ‘bread?; that is to say, who, by his incarnation and death, has become the one whose arms are open to receive us. Such adoration is directed, then, to the historic mystery of Jesus Christ, to the history of God with man, a history which approaches us in the Blessed Sacrament. And it is related to the mystery of the Church: being related to the history of God with man, it is related also to the whole body of Christ, to the community of the faithful, through whom and in whom God comes to us” (p.80)

“Looking to the efficacy of the Passion, we believe that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all men; but looking to the advantages which mankind derive from its efficacy, we find, at once, that they are not extended to the whole, but to a large proportion of the human race... With great propriety, therefore, were the words, ‘for all,’NOT used, because here (in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist) the fruit of the Passion is alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”(The Catechism of the Council of Trent, TAN Books, 1982, p. 227.)

"FOR MANY"
15)"Truly problematic, in fact truly SCANDALOUS is the translation of the phrase pro multis as "for all," a translation inspired by modern theological thinking but not to be found in any historical liturgical text." (footnote: "In the exegesis of Heb. 9:28, St. John Chrysostom explains quite succinctly: 'He was offered but once to bear the sins of many. Why does he [St. Paul] say, 'of many,' and not 'for all'? Because not all had faith. Although He died for all, as far as He is concerned, to save all, His death voiding the downfall of all mankind, yet He did not take away the sins of all, because they themselves did not want Him to do this." (pp. 55-56 Klause Gaumber the Reform of the Roman Liturgy).

Dominick, you can't even say what this schismatic mentality consists of.

I think it starts with people guessing what Papal mandates are to be followed and which are not. I think it starts with people acting like children, and not being AS children (as our Lord taught us).

It comes from a mistrust of the motives of the Holy See. This doesn't mean we blindly follow any Bishop with a Mitre on. It also doesn't mean we think the See has magical powers, but, we all have to say in a Mystical way Christ still owns the Church, and still works through the Papacy. At least that what I think of when we say we are in Communion with Rome.

Yes I agree, there is a lot to be suspicious of, keep in mind, the USCCB is NOT the See of Rome, they are not even the See of America. Did altar girls come from Rome? Did Communion in the Hard come from Rome? Nope, they came from the US. Did the Pope have the Hindus in Fatima? Nope it was an errant Bishop, and it was condemned by Rome. We can all agree to one thing, and I think Vasa said it best, "I answer to the Holy See, I don’t answer to the USCCB". Bishop Vasa acts like a Bishop, and too many others lack his courage and faith.

So the schismatic metality is the poisoning of a mind, and a soul against the lawful actions of Rome, condemning them wholesale. A person tainted in this manner will scoff at any action of the See. It that the working definition that you requested?

There are many viewpoints, but, the Pope has ruled for that act, and other subsequent acts, the SSPX is not in communion with him.

What's you point? The Pope has also ruled that the Muslims, who deny the Holy Trinity, worship the same "God" as Catholics. He has even kissed their Koran.

I guess the Muslims are in communion with him, but not the traditional SSPX priests.

Did altar girls come from Rome? Did Communion in the Hard come from Rome?

Were they approved by Rome? Yes

Did the Pope have the Hindus in Fatima?

Has the Pope condemned the sacrilege at Fatima? No

Yes you really do point out the hypocracy. Read my post 649. I agree with you.

Read my post 649.

Post 647, rather? It was excellent.

What about these past papal mandates regarding Assisi I and II and all of the other little mini Assisi's going on all over the world????

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10):
“So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…”

398 A.D. Council of Carthage "No one must either pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: Let him be excommunicated. Council of Carthage (Regional)
No one shall pray in common with heretics or schismatics. Council of Laodicea (Regional)
The accursed perversity of heretics has so increased that now they exercise their wickedness not in secret but manifest their error publicly, and win over the simple and weak to their opinion. For this reason, We resolve to cast them, their defenders, and their receivers under anathema, and We forbid under anathema that anyone presume to help heretics or to do business with them. III Lateran Council (Ecumenical)

And what about this comment See see Robert Blair Kaiser Rome Diary 20/20 March 2000 http://justgoodcompany.org/RomeDiary/RomeDiary20.pdf.
Tthe biggest misunderstanding of all was reflected in an Op Ed piece in TheNew York Times which claimed that John Paul II couldn’t have criticized past popes "on basic doctrinal matters" because that would have put him in the position of questioning the doctrine of papal infallibility. "This the pope was not prepared to do." Curiously enough, it seemed that, with his mea culpa, JohnPaul II had -- wittingly or unwittingly -- done something very close to that. He
hadn’t questioned what past popes had TAUGHT but he had put into play a whole new attitude about the Church’s fallibility by turning the focus on what some past popes had DONE. And done wrong, or, at least, done in ways that"departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel." I know this sounds like I am putting my own spin on the story...... Most of the media didn't notice the little moves on March 12, and they thought Ratzinger was speaking for the pope. This time, I don't think he was.Vittorio Messori, a veteran Italian journalist who is close to Cardinal Ratzinger,was one journalist who saw what I saw. I liked it. He didn't, and he expressed his reservations in his Corriere della Sera about the future of the Church. "If we can say that past popes have erred," he wrote, "how can be certain that this pope isn’t erring, too? Who can assure me that his successor will not beg pardon forJohn Paul’s begging pardon? And what will the Church be like tomorrow if today we honor as prophets those who are opposed to the teachings of even saintlypopes? Are human rights and pluralism and dialogue the unique overriding criteria for the faith?" Messori said these were sad questions, but he wouldn’task them if he didn’t have a painful duty to seek clear answers. I am told Messori was speaking for a number of timid souls inside the Curia who were too afraid to speak openly themselves against what the pope had done. They were worried, according to one of my inside sources, because"Paradoxically, this pope has just destroyed the kind of super-papacy that he had labored for 21 years to build up."Why had he done it? God knows. It was out of character, for him. But begging pardon for the Church’s sins ? from God, but with the whole world watching ?may have raised the Church’s believability quotient. Maybe this was KarolWojtyla’s last stab at greatness -- to tell the world that only knew him as a man who was too sure of himself and of his Church’s claims that, at last and in the end, he was not so sure. And that he could admit it.”

The Pope approaved of altar girls communion in the hand and the whole list and he has appointed official female theologians and reversed the statements that a women should be submissive to her husband. What next will he allow the Americans to have women deacons??? They are having those conferences in Rome don't you know all the time- discussions of women becoming deacons- yet they ban a good traditional priest Fr. Gruner from holding a traditional Conference on Fatima. Fatima is about them and they don't want you to know. Yet they send Fr. Dupuis over their to FAtima to trash CAtholic doctrine and preach a universal Christ that will please everyone- he is a friend of Archbishop Fitchgerald who was appointed by the Pope because of his "interreligious dialogue" wishy washy liberal stands. Stop calling the little guy schismatic and look at what is really going on. Can't you see the irony in all this??

If they are mistaken, they are honestly mistaken

Well, if they were HONESTLY mistaken, the excommunication would have HONESTLY brought them around. That's the precise purpose of excom's: they are a warning.

They can't claim to be "mistaken" and ignore the excommunication. Logically impossible.

And you know EXACTLY who sits on these threads all day long and posts balefuls of documentation--which neatly avoids certain paragraphs, or sentences, or context.

The irony of all this is that the SSPX and I are in general and very close agreement about the NO Mass (thus, about the Old Rite Mass.)

They've talked themselves into a corner and are not about to capitulate, unlike the Campos group.

Too bad. Goes to show that the Church has enemies to the left AND the right, which makes sense.