Lefebvrists say no to Rome

Catholic Church Conservation ^ | 14 July 2012 | Cathcon

[Gillibrand]

Announcement due tomorrow. There is no return to Rome. The superior of the Lefebvrists of Spain and Portugal, Juan Maria Montagut, will communicate to the faithful, after the mass of 11, that the hierarchy of the FSSPX, gathered in Ecône, have decided to say "no" to the Vatican.

The followers of Lefebvre will not return to the Roman fold. Primarily, because they are not willing to accept the Second Vatican Council in all its extremes.

[ebb tide]

Why a dispensation for something that was never abrogated, as we now know?

[ebb tide]

[Campion]

drop the nonsense about sin

Speaking of nonsense, your comment fits the bill exactly.

Do you deny that the traditional Catholic doctrine is that your superiors should be obeyed to the best of your ability unless they command you to sin?

If so, may I suggest that you read the breviary reading (in the new breviary) for the feast of St. Maximilian Kolbe. (Whether you recognize his canonization or not is irrelevant; he was an honored Franciscan religious superior who was martyred well before Vatican II and never said the new Mass. If he's not a Catholic, then neither is anyone in SSPX.)

If not, then how is what I wrote "nonsense"?

because it is also a sin to bare false witness by signing a pledge you cannot honor as a Catholic.

And the only valid reason(s) you could give for "not being able to honor" a pledge demanded by your superiors is (a) I am not reasonably able to do so; or (b) the pledge is outside the superior's area of competence; or (c) the pledge commands me to sin.

If the "doctrinal preamble" demanded adherence to particular doctrines, then cases (a) and (b) do not apply. That leaves only case (c).

We're exactly back where we started. Do you seriously want to claim that the Roman Pontiff is commanding SSPX to commit sins by agreeing with him?

[Campion]

[narses]

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07/op-ed-english-francais-basis-for-future.html

Op-Ed (English - français)
The basis for the future relations of the SSPX with Rome
La base des prochaines relations de la FSSPX avec Rome

a guest-post by Côme de Prévigny

The Spanish observers should be careful. This is not the first time they are mistaken on the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) by way of ready-made titles and misunderstood information. A few months ago, a colleague of José Manuel Vidal had affirmed that the discussions between Rome and Écône had ultimately failed. He was forced to turn around due to his rashness.

It is true that, on June 13, Cardinal William Levada had delivered to Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior of the Society, a text to be ratified. Against every expectation, considering that the predictions had been optimistic, new and surprising demands had een added to the text and created an impasse following nine months of negotiations. Even before the General Chapter had assembled, the Secretary General of the SSPX had been driven to state, in a letter dated June 25, that the Roman proposal was “unacceptable”. Less than 48 hours later, the man responsible for the dossier, Mgr. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, had been placed under a Vice-President who took charge of the matter from then on. One week later, it was Cardinal Levada who took the path to retirement.

That the SSPX would state that the proposal of the predecessor did not suit it is clear. To affirm it is to force an open door. And the Pope already took it into consideration several weeks ago because he changed the interlocutors of the SSPX, admitting that the previous ones had failed on that famous June 13. By submitting the affair to an Archbishop Vice-President with whom he has direct communication, and not anymore to a Monsignor secretary, he reshapes relations with the Society on different bases.

The latest SSPX communiqué stated that it will address a declaration to Rome. This text will undoubtedly serve as grounds for the upcoming relations. Those who think that this is the endpoint, that those in charge of the Fraternity have definitively given up on the idea of putting an end to the injustices that burden them, and of fulling restoring the Tradition of the Church to Rome, risk being disappointed in the days and weeks ahead. Abp. Lefebvre said that the solution would come from Rome. It is precisely for this reason that he never stopped going there.

______________________________________________________

un post par notre invité Côme de Prévigny

Les observateurs espagnols devraient prendre garde. Ce n’est pas la première fois qu’ils font erreur sur la Fraternité sacerdotale Saint-Pie X (FSSPX) au moyen de titres à l’emporte pièce et de renseignements mal compris. Il y a quelques mois, dans des conditions similaires, un confrère de José Manuel Vidal avait signifié que les pourparlers entre Rome et Écône avaient fini par échouer. Il a dû rebrousser chemin pour convenir de sa précipitation.

Il est vrai que le 13 juin dernier, le cardinal William Levada avait remis à Mgr Bernard Fellay supérieur de la FSSPX, un texte à ratifier. Contre toute attente, alors que les pronostics étaient optimistes, des exigences nouvelles et surprenantes étaient ajoutées au texte et faisaient l’impasse sur neuf mois de pourparlers. Avant même que le chapitre général ne se réunisse, le secrétaire général de la FSSPX était conduit à indiquer, dans une lettre datée du 25 juin, que la proposition romaine était «inacceptable». Moins de quarante-huit heures après, le responsable du dossier, Mgr Guido Pozzo, secrétaire de la Commission Ecclesia Dei, était «coiffé» d’un vice-président qui prenait désormais les rênes du dossier. Une semaine plus tard, le cardinal Levada prenait quant à lui le chemin de la retraite.

Que la FSSPX allait indiquer que la proposition du prédécesseur ne convenait pas relève de l’évidence. L’affirmer, c’est enfoncer une porte ouverte. Et le pape l’a déjà pris en compte il y a plusieurs semaines puisqu’il a changé les interlocuteurs de la FSSPX en convenant que les anciens avaient échoué ce fameux 13 juin. En remettant l’affaire à un archevêque vice-président avec lequel il communique directement, et non plus seulement à un simple monsignore comme secrétaire, il reconfigure les relations avec la Fraternité sur d’autres bases.

Le dernier communiqué de la FSSPX indique qu’elle va transmettre une déclaration à Rome. Ce texte va sans doute servir de fondement aux prochaines relations. Ceux qui pensent qu’il en est le point final, que les responsables de la Fraternité ont définitivement abandonné l’idée de mettre fin aux injustices qui les accablent et celle de restaurer pleinement la Tradition de l’Église à Rome, risquent d’en être pour leurs frais dans les jours et semaines qui viennent. Mgr Lefebvre affirmait que la solution viendrait de Rome. C’est pour cette raison qu’il n’a jamais cessé d’y aller.

[stonehouse01]

“Rome is the one that needs to return to untarnished (by modernism and ecumenism) Catholicism.”

I so agree with your statement!! Yet I do recognize the pope as valid as I am not a sedevacantist - yet it IS Rome that went off course - not SSPX. This very issue troubles me very much because I HATE the Novus Ordo and its failed New Agey weakened doctrine/dreadful liturgies - etc.!! This state of confusion in the Church troubles me deeply - I have no doubt whatsoever that the smoke of Satan did enter with Vatican II.

Thoughts? I am in no man’s land and I don’t like it and I actually think we are all there although many don’t notice it.

[annalex]

We shouldn’t be praising schism but we should welcome a deeper examination of Vatican II and especially the interpretation of it that currently prevails and is a true obstacle to reunification. That interpretation has claimed another victim, it seems.

I want the reunification in truth but if it happens on the grounds of obedience to Rome alone, without doctrinal reconciliation, then none of us should want it. In fact, it is for the good of the Church that the split, painful as it is, remains till Vatican II is clarified in a way consistent with the Tradition.

There is a simple test. A priest who turns away a Buddhist lesbian is removed from public service. And so is a priest who wants to worship God and explain the Catholic doctrine in a way every Catholic did prior to 1968. This cannot be, and till it is, the schism will continue to loom over our heads.

We’’l just have to wait longer.

[NYer]

Catholic ping!

[ebb tide]

“Do you deny that the traditional Catholic doctrine is that your superiors should be obeyed to the best of your ability unless they command you to sin?”

I don’t deny it all. But, for any good Catholic to sign off on a magisterial document that states he worships the same god as the Muslims worship is a sin against the First Commandment. Muslims deny the Holy Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, etc.

Now as far as the pledge; unless you know what exactly that pledge is, you’re still talking nonsense. Why do you think the Vatican has insisted that both parties keep the preamble a secret until a deal is done, if ever?

[ebb tide]

Would you kiss a Koran if a priest, bishop or even the Pope commanded you?

Would you take off your shoes in a mosque and bow towards Mecca?

[nickcarraway]

This report has already been discredited. Stop posting false stories.

[daniel1212]

I am an evangelical Christian, former Catholic, who often debates here, and concur, as evidenced, that RCs are overall quite liberal, but are treated as members by Rome in life and in death, even though they are declared excommunicated by conservative Catholics based upon "latae sententiae." (which was recently debated hereabouts .)

On the other hand some of the traditional Catholics (TCs) seem to long for the days of the Inquisitions with its unScriptural papal sanction for torture and death in order to deal with theological dissent (not that this was the only means).

In any case, it is well evidenced here that V2, esp. Lumen Gentium, illustrates the degree of interpretation Catholics can engage in.

Regarding the subject of this thread and the SSPX (with about 500 priests present in 31 countries), i have a couple of Catholic clips i came across that you may also find interesting (one certainly has a gift of poetry)

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

SL SL = SSPX soft-liner. HL = SSPX hard-liner.

SL Outside the Church is not where we should be!
HL Who left the Church? Vatican II! Not we!
SL Once in the Church, we could do so much more!
HL If we detested error, as before.
SL Why should we stop detesting error, pray?
HL Because we would be joining in their fray.
SL We need to live within the Church’s law.
HL Not if it is not serving God any more.
SL The Catholic Church is visible. We’re not there.
HL The Church is holy. Do we see that? Where?
SL But things have changed since the Archbishop’s day.
HL The modernists still hold exclusive sway.
SL What Rome now offers, he would have approved.
HL Never, once Benedict to Assisi moved!
SL The SSPX stands strong, need fear no fall.
HL Let all who stand fear falling, says St. Paul.
SL But our Superiors have grace of state.
HL Did leading churchmen never prevaricate?
SL Our leaders to the SSPX belong!
HL And does that mean they never can do wrong?
SL But, Pre-condition One, Rome freed the Mass.
HL And left in place the “bastard rite”, so crass.
SL Rome also lifted the ban on bishops four.
HL But did that make them more free than before?
SL Yet Benedict is calling for our aid.
HL To make Truth prosper, or to help it fade?
SL Of harming Truth, how can the Pope be accused?
HL His modernist mind is hopelessly confused.
SL Yet truly, Benedict wants us all back in.
HL As a modernist, yes, but modernism is a sin.
SL Then do you still believe that he is Pope?
HL Yes, but we must for his conversion hope.
SL What can you mean by, “As a modernist, yes”?
HL Our true Faith he can only harm, not bless.
SL Our welfare is his genuine concern.
HL Not our true welfare, if our true Faith he spurn.
SL A lack of supernatural spirit you show!
HL If woe I say there is, where there is woe?
SL Not everything in the Church is gloomy, dark!
HL Where do you see of true revival a spark?
SL A movement towards Tradition is under way!
HL While fully in control the modernists stay?
SL Then is the official Church still God’s own Church?
HL Yes, it’s the churchmen left us in the lurch.
SL But surely Pope and Rome have both meant well.
HL So? – “Good intentions pave the way to Hell.”
SL But evils worse that Vatican Two can be.
HL The Archbishop – remember? – called it World War III.
SL You’re harsh. Your attitude to schism will lead.
HL Better than undermine the entire creed!
SL Not all the Church authorities are bad.
HL The good ones have no power. It’s very sad.
SL Priests should not say, authority is untrue.
HL But bishops were the cause of Vatican II!
SL Still, Catholic instincts seek their Catholic home.
HL Today, for Catholics, that’s no longer Rome.
SL Then where is the Church? Just in Tradition? Where?
HL “One, holy, catholic, apostolic” – there.
SL You want to solve this problem overnight!
HL No, just that a start be made to set it right.
SL We trust in God. We trust in his Sacred Heart.
HL Bravo! But humans too must play their part.
SL That part is not for us just to complain.
HL Tradcats work hard, Tradition to maintain.
SL If we went in with Rome, we could turn back.
HL No. More and more we’d follow in Rome’s track.
SL Why stop the Romans making restitution?
HL Because they’re set upon our destitution.
SL Back in the mainstream Church we’d set to work!
HL Rather we’d lose our way in all their murk.
SL But we are strong, with bishops one and three.
HL Alas, the three with the one do not agree.
SL We’re firm in the Faith. Modernists are no threat!
HL We’d easily slide. You want to take a bet?
SL Strong in the Faith, we can afford to agree!
HL But that Faith says, from heretics to flee.
SL But Gott mit uns! We are the SSPX!
HL Not if we choose to ignore all prudent checks.
SL Were we approved, Romans would learn from us!
HL O Heavens, no! They’d throw us under the bus.
SL Were we approved, the earth of Rome could quake.
HL But not before to pieces we would shake.
SL Our leader has graces of state. We must obey.
HL Was Paul the Sixth given graces to betray?
SL Rome is now weak, meaning, we could stay strong.
HL For right, Rome’s feeble. Mighty it is for wrong.
SL So what’s the answer, if you’re always right?
How can the Church be rescued from its plight?
HL The Church belongs to God. In his good time
We’ll see his answer, stunning and sublime.
Till then we grieve, and thirst for right, and trust.
That which we cannot cure, endure we must.
From error and the erring stay away,
Even while for their immortal souls we pray.
And tell God’s truth, however few will hear –
As close as the nearest door, his help is near. http://www.boacp.com/tag/sspx/

[daniel1212]

I never heard of the latter, and never saw the former invalidated, while according to a leading Roman Catholic apologist (Robert Sungenis), 1. Invited pagans to pray to their false gods. 2. Looked the other way while his clerics raped his children, and ordained faggots to say his Masses 3. Shuffled pedophiles and homosexuals from parish to parish, even giving them safe haven at the Vatican. 4. Subjected those Catholic who dare protest to droning quotes from Vatican I and Lumen Gentium about “submission” 5. Watched scantily clad women dance while Mass was being said. 6. Suggested that hell might not exist. 7. Suggested that the Jews still have their Old Covenant 8. Kissed the Koran 9. Made it appear as if God has given man universal salvation by using ambiguous language in official writings 10. Accepted the tenets of evolution. 11. Wrote a catechism that contained theological errors and ambiguities. 12. Changed the canonization laws: marriage laws, capital punishment laws, laws about women’s roles. 13. Went against the tradition by putting women in leadership positions and dispensing with head coverings. 14. Failed to excommunicate heretical bishops and priests who were spouting heresies. 15. Protected Bishop Marcinkus and his entourage of financial hoodlums in the Vatican. 16. Ignored the pleas of a bishop who was merely trying to preserve the tradition (Archbishop Levebre) 17. Exonerated Luther 18. Allowed the Luther‐Catholic Joint Declaration, signed by a high‐ranking Cardinal, to explicitly state that “man is justified by faith alone.” 19. Disobeyed the Fatima request to consecrate Russia. — http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Response%20to%20John%20Dejak%20of%20The%20Wanderer.pdf http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/sungenis-alone.html And i do understand the difference btwn the claimed papal infallibility versus impeccability, and thus t it is taught, If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. — Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, #20 http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm But that you also have the contentious issue of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, in which 6. ...if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;... (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain; “(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.” This is the basis for the sedevacantist rejection of recent popes, while other Catholics argue that the Pope has no judge, and would reign even as a formal heretic, and is the sole judge of whether the judgment of the Cardinals that one is a formal heretic is correct.

[daniel1212]

Sorry for the formatting. Seems every time i presume there is no html in there and skip the preview that happens.
Lets try that again:

I never heard of the latter, and never saw the former invalidated, while according to a leading Roman Catholic apologist (Robert Sungenis)

1. Invited pagans to pray to their false gods.
2. Looked the other way while his clerics raped his children, and ordained faggots to say his Masses
3. Shuffled pedophiles and homosexuals from parish to parish, even giving them safe haven at the Vatican.
4. Subjected those Catholic who dare protest to droning quotes from Vatican I and Lumen Gentium about “submission”
5. Watched scantily clad women dance while Mass was being said.
6. Suggested that hell might not exist.
7. Suggested that the Jews still have their Old Covenant
8. Kissed the Koran
9. Made it appear as if God has given man universal salvation by using ambiguous language in official writings
10. Accepted the tenets of evolution.
11. Wrote a catechism that contained theological errors and ambiguities.
12. Changed the canonization laws: marriage laws, capital punishment laws, laws about women’s roles.
13. Went against the tradition by putting women in leadership positions and dispensing with head coverings.
14. Failed to excommunicate heretical bishops and priests who were spouting heresies.
15. Protected Bishop Marcinkus and his entourage of financial hoodlums in the Vatican.
16. Ignored the pleas of a bishop who was merely trying to preserve the tradition (Archbishop Levebre)
17. Exonerated Luther
18. Allowed the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration, signed by a high ranking Cardinal, to explicitly state that “man is justified by faith alone.”
19. Disobeyed the Fatima request to consecrate Russia. — http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Response%20to%20John%20Dejak%20of%20The%20Wanderer.pdf http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/sungenis-alone.html

And i do understand the difference btwn the claimed papal infallibility versus impeccability, and thus it is taught,

Condemned articles of J. Hus:

20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. — Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

But,

if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;...

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

“(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

(Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, http://sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cumex.html)

This is the basis for the sedevacantist rejection of recent popes, while other Catholics argue that the Pope has no judge, and is the sole judge of whether the judgment of the Cardinal that one is a formal heretic is correct.

[Campion]

But, for any good Catholic to sign off on a magisterial document that states he worships the same god as the Muslims worship is a sin against the First Commandment.

I've posted extensively on this elsewhere. The passage you're referencing does not use the words "the same god". You can argue that that's what it means, but that's your opinion and nothing more.

The actual language says, "[Muslims] profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day".

So, let's stipulate as to some facts:

1. Muslims certainly profess to hold the faith of Abraham. (They are mistaken in that, but that they profess it is not disputable.)
2. Muslims also profess to "adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day". This is also not in dispute.
3. Catholics make the same *profession* as described above. (I didn't say anything about "the same god," only that the content of the two *professions* are the same as far as I've specified them.) This is also not in dispute.

I don't think you can seriously disagree with anything I've written above.

Even if Nostra Aetate were infallible (and I don't think it is), the above is all that it could claim. Why? The Catholic magisterium's charism of infallibility extends to the teaching of Catholicism, not to the teaching of any other religion. Claiming anything like "Muslims and Catholics worship the same god" is making claims about Muslim teaching which are far beyond merely stipulating commonly known facts, and which are far beyond the magisterium's competence to make with any authority.

Which is why I don't think that Nostra Aetate 4 played any role in the DP at all.

My objection to the SSPX, aside from their disobedience, quasi-schismatic behavior (on display in this thread !!), and wrong ecclesiology is very simple:

A substantial percentage of their adherents reject the new Mass, even when celebrated according to the rubrics, as invalid. There's even, IIRC, an SSPX examination of conscience I've seen which identifies attending the new Mass as a sin to be confessed!

The proposition that the new Mass is intrinsically invalid (I'm speaking of Masses celebrated according to the rubrics, not ones full of invalidating liturgical abuses which are recognized as such by Rome) is a heresy against the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church. That SSPX & friends tap-dance around this heresy on a regular basis means that they are both quasi-schismatic and quasi-heretical.

Come back to the Catholic Church. If there isn't a parish near you that offers the EF Mass, see if you can get one started.

[Campion]

a leading Roman Catholic apologist (Robert Sungenis)

Robert Sungenis wrote a very fine book totally destroying the Protestant "position" on soteriology. (Part of that demolition job was demonstrating that there is no Protestant position on soteriology, there are 10 or 15 of them.) Would you like me to send you a copy? :-)

He also got removed from EWTN because of his antisemitism. He also quoted on his website (without attribution) Nazi "labor leader" Robert Ley. He also conducted a rather nasty campaign condemning and generally treating with great uncharity anyone who questioned his highly random theory that Christians had to believe that the sun revolved around the earth.

For a Protestant to quote Bob Sungenis as "a leading Roman Catholic apologist" ... let's just say you damage your own credibility more than I ever could.

[ArrogantBustard]

Muslims deny the Holy Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, etc.

Jews deny the Holy Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, etc.

What are your thoughts on that matter?

Specifically, do Christians and Jews worship the same God?

[Campion]

One more thing on Nostra Aetate 4. As you know, or as I hope you know, all Magisterial teachings must be understood in the light of the whole tradition of the church. We don't pull one passage out and understand it in a vacuum.

So, having said that: the Tome of Damasus anathematizes all of those who reject the Trinity. The Council of Ephesus condemns all of those who reject the Nicene Creed.

Muslims reject the Nicene Creed and the Trinity. (They consider it blasphemous, in fact.)

Therefore, for the Vatican Council to assert that "Muslims worship the same god as Catholics," meaning "the same god in all his attributes and in every respect," not merely "they got some of the basics right" -- then they would be anathematizing themselves.

That is impossible (and of course there was no change in Catholic belief regarding the godhead at Vatican II), hence the premise -- that VC II asserted that Muslims worship the same god as Catholics in all his attributes and in every respect -- must be false.

[ArrogantBustard]

The proposition that the new Mass is intrinsically invalid

Folks interested in knowing what "Traditionalists" really think of the Ordinary Form of the Mass need only web search the term "novus ordo cookie" (use of quotes will help keep the search relevant). The results will be highly revealing.

[Campion]

I went to Benediction with an SSPX adherent once. (This was at a chapel at a local Catholic college, not anything affiliated with SSPX, and the Hosts there were certainly consecrated using the new rite).

Over dinner afterwards, he was trying to persuade me of the glories of SSPX. I asked him point-blank, "The white, round object we were adoring earlier in the evening: is that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ?"

His answer? "I hope so."