The Vatican itself has said that the SSPX has an "irregular" canonical status. The consecrations that were in 1988 were a schismatic act.
That SSPX adherents are excommunicated? (Ecclesia Dei)
What do you mean by "adherent?" The bishops are excommunicated. The priests of the SSPX truly receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but have suspended faculties.
That excommunicated schismatics are NOT "fellow Catholics"?
Agan, who do you mean by this? The clergy? The laity who attend their chapels?
That John Paul the Great never lifted the excommunications or declaration of before his death?
True.
That Benedict XVI has not lifted the excommunications or the declaration of schism during his papacy to date?
True.
That you are rising to the defense of SSPX?
Where have I done so? I asked you in #194, and you still haven't answered it.
That Catholics ought not defend John Paul the Great from the tons of vituperation heaped upon him by those whom he justly declared schismatic and excommunicated?
When these people spread calumnies, we should defend the reputation of the Pope. However, when the actions of Pope John Paul II are legitimately examined, for example, in an article that I posted months ago, there's a knee-jerk reaction in response.
2. Excommunicated schismatics who nonetheless have thieved the privilege of apostolic succession to illicitly consecrate as bishops the embarrassing likes of Fellay, de Mallerais, Williamson, et al., are ummmm, irregular as to their canonical status. The recipients of the stolen goods are bishops because dead excommunicated Marcel was legitimately consecrated as a bishop, had apostolic succession and was willing to abuse those gifts for massive sin.
3. The SSPX priests DO receive Holy Orders. That is precisely the problem. If Emmett Kelly purported to ordain Bozo the Clown, we would very likely ignore the false pretense. These excommunicated bishops actually have the power but not the legitimate authority to ordain priests which is a much more serious matter. You might want in on the profits of selling McDonald's hamburgers but you cannot do it without the franchisor's permission. Marcel was not the franchisor. If a rogue franchisee of McDonald's gave you the trade secrets and logos and advice and approval and even declared that you had as much right as he to sell McDonald's, that would not make it so. No bishop with territorial jurisdiction (a diocesan ordinary) has given these priests faculties to hear confessions as one little deficiency among so many of the schism. I suppose they would claim "emergency" because the Novus Ordo priests are disqualified as whatever.... And, besides, who is some or any pope to imagine that he has authority to disagree with, much less excommunicate the great Marcel. As usual, SSPX is wrong and has not even a colorable argument.
4. Since the Vatican recognizes the VALIDITY but NOT the LAWFULNESS of the consecrations of SSPX bishops and of the ordinations of the schismatic excommunicates, it DOES (I think I have conceded this point about a thousand times here) mean that the Masses of the schism, like the Masses of the Eastern Orthodox (although the Orthodox are better people and usually born into Orthodoxy rather than apostasizing into it by free will) are quite valid. Hence minor Vatican functionaries and even Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos, have reminded the Faithful of the validity of the schismatic Masses. Actual Catholics are not and never have been Donatist heretics who imagine that the Masses and consecrations are somehow rendered invalid by the sins of the priests presiding. Even Padre Pio was a sinner. So are our parish priests who are loyal to the Church. Likewise the SSPX clergy, to say the least. The excommunicated SSPX priests (how CAN one accept Holy Orders from the schism without adhering to it, to say nothing of continuing to act for the schism?) receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ at Mass but, excommunicated as they are, St. Paul warned them long in advance of the consequences of unworthy receipt. As Catholics, we are entitled to rely on the Eucharist and other sacraments without fretting over the subjective state of the soul of ANY priest, however scandalously sinful, in or out of the Church who has been validly ordained even if illicitly. The actual Catholic Faithful are additionally allowed to contribute their individual shares of the costs of the schismatics' Masses they attend and no more (no one is calculating precisely so this is not a precise amount but is a general admonition to be modest in contributing).
5. Unless you have something PAPAL that says otherwise, the unrepentant bishops are certainly excommunicated. One cannot very well persist as an unrepentant SSPX priest without adhering to the schism. As to the laity, God knows and JP the Great knew along with Benedict XVI, but does it not seem likely to be those who side with the schism against the Church itself and who are subjectively unable to make a legitimate claim of invincible ignorance and who refuse to repent their sins of schism and scandal? God's decision and God's plan has got to be better than yours or mine but until we get to ask Him and receive His answer, it seems prudent to reflexively obey His Vicar on Earth, day by day, month, by month, year by year, trusting in the promises of Jesus Christ.
6. If you claim the right to sit in judgment upon the pope on matters of who is and who is not schismatic, you necessarily defend the schism because that is of the essence of the schism. Furthermore, defense of the popes from your (or anyone's) claimed right to sit in judgment on the pope is not best described as a knee-jerk reaction but rather as a Roman Catholic response in defense of the Faith and of the leadership given us by God.
7. As usual, I am now bored with the SSPX subject in which the SSPX seeks to advertise its iniquitous attacks on the Church and to scandalize the Faithful because the SSPX misery loves the attempt to seduce the Catholic Faithful into keeping company with the excommunicated schismatics. This Catholic says: absolutely not! Not in my lifetime! Not in God's lifetime! The schismatics can confess and do penance or not. God gave them free will to use or abuse as much as he gave free will to the rest of us. If any pope reverses Ecclesia Dei, so be it. If not, not! The babblings of minor bureaucrats, amended by the usual suspects in the anti-Catholic Lamestream Media or not, do not overcome specific disciplines applied by papal authority.
8. Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia.
9. Roma Locuta, Causa Finita.
10. If you disagree with 8 or 9, we belong to different churches and ought not to be wasting time on this conversation.
11. In less than three weeks, our nation is at stake in polling places all over America. Benedict XVI is firmly in charge of the Roman Catholic Church which is not in jeopardy in any event thanks to the promises of Jesus Christ. I have no desire to encourage Catholic FReepers and schismatic FReepers claiming Catholicism despite Ecclesia Dei to be arguing past one another when we all have necessary work to do on what looms as a potentially disastrous secular election.
12. I suspect that ownership here established this site at least partially to facilitate cooperation among conservatives of whatever religious persuasions or none in such crises as the present one in politics. If one were George Soros, one would be delighted to see us distracting ourselves publicly squabbling over Marcel vs. the papacy for the entertainment of our mutual enemies.