Replies

"Extreme trads, such as SSPXers and sedes, occupy the same role vis-a-vis the Church as the Libertarian and Constitution Party members occupy relative to the Republican Party."

Of course you won't recognize or acknowledge it, but at least in my opinion, it is the majority of Bishops that have abandoned the Church, much as the Democrats have abandoned the "Grand Old Party" and America in favor of their own philosophy. And like the democrats, the Bishops have retained the name, in their case, Catholic.

The SSPX are not schismatic, they have remained on the narrow path, while the mainstream Church, unquestionably, has taken another path. They don't deny the Chair of Peter, as say, the Eastern and Russian Orthodox. (whom the Church is courting vigorously) They rather deny the teaching of several Popes who have wandered from the straight and narrow.

While the Libertarian and Constitution parties may be small and opposed to certain practices of the larger, mainstream parties, no one calls them unamerican, because they are American. The same with the SSPX. They are Catholic, and, at least in theory,dedicated to pure Catholicism.

Just because the majority of people think the Church is teaching what it always taught, doesn't make it so. St. Athanasius was clearly in the minority also, but prevailed against the majority perceptions, because the majority was wrong.

Just because the majority of people think the Church is teaching what it always taught, doesn't make it so.

Well, we have to choose between following Pope John Paul II and following a dead French archbishop who has been formally excommunicated from the Church.

The SSPX has the same attitude that Luther had: we're right, you're wrong.

Sounds like Madrid's book was made exactly for folks like you.

The SSPX are not schismatic, they have remained on the narrow path, while the mainstream Church, unquestionably, has taken another path. They don't deny the Chair of Peter, as say, the Eastern and Russian Orthodox.

If the SSPX had not fled the Church, and had remained in dialog with the Pope, they would not have left the Church, but since then, instead of striving for Union, they fight it. Among the requirements is a unequivocal statement the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass, and the celebration of that 1970 Mass. That is, put your money where your mouth is. People here have said the SSPX does say the Novus Ordo is flawed yet valid, but when asked to celebrate it they balk. They can continue to celebrate the 1962 Missal Mass freely, but they have to be Ready for a 1970 Missal Mass if the need arises. I think that this rift between the SSPX is being perpetuated by people on both sides.

As in ages past, the Bishops are sifted. We get good ones and bad ones. I refuse to say a majority are bad intentioned. I agree many are misled. I know the University System fail many Catholics in providing a Catholic Education.

The same with the SSPX. They are Catholic, and, at least in theory,dedicated to pure Catholicism.

Bad analogy, the Constitution Party never led a rebellion. For the installation of Bishops, and further clear Schismatic acts, the SSPX Bishops are excommunicated, and those attached to the SSPX are in Schism. The Church makes it clear that one or two visits to an SSPX Mass is not Schismatic, but the Masses are illicit. The Church has also said, in black and white, Marriages and Confessions (Absolution) by SSPX Priests are invalidly performed. The political Parties in question can act fully within their rights as Americans, because they have not been in rebellion.

The SSPX are not schismatic.

This is not true. Google it Arguss. Carefully take a look at your hits; wade through propaganda, schismatic apologetics, and read the CATHOLIC PRONOUNCEMENTS from the VATICAN. Keep in mind:

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 3, 9)

note to pinged:  I did not receive a correction otherwise, so I'm going on the assumption that my mental anathema roster isn't sinful.

They rather deny the teaching of several Popes who have wandered from the straight and narrow.

Sedevacantist wannabe much?

The same with the SSPX. They are ~~Catholic, and, at least~~ in theory, dedicated to pure Catholicism.

Reflect on that:  is the Catholic Faith mere theory for you?
  reality check:  The Vicar of Christ declared the excommunication!
      reminder:

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." [269] The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism [270] - do not occur without human sin...
Catechism