SSPX seems poised to confirm a formal schism

I read at Rorate about a strong speech given by SSPX Bp. Bernard Fellay which is effectively a denunciation of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict and – yawn – you know the rest.

“The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”

[Bp. Bernard Fellay] said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City. ...

Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.” He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove [what] they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”

As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”

“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.

He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.

Imagine! Some people will dictate to the Supreme Pontiff the terms by which they will be Catholic.

...In my opinion, that is how we got Alexander.

The point was that we have RCs claiming the Holy Spirit inspires those who choose the popes, and thus who judge them as heretics is censured and (any dissent it seems) .

While God can allow influences that deceive men as part of His judgment, and make it work for good for those who love Him, yet as said, that does not validate men knowingly electing manifestly immoral impenitent men or heretics as succeeding Peter. And it works towards replacing them both and validating dissent from such. As seen in how the church began.

Regarding the casting of lots, while there may have been an OT precedent, like many OT precedents, it wasn’t binding. I know of no Christian body that picks a leader by lot.

Of course not, as that means was only used for the one and only apostolic successor, in distinction to the election of deacons (which corporate election model Rome once followed for popes). Had there been another apostolic successor, i believe it most likely would have been by the same means. But which Rome seems unthinkable for Rome, while instead papal elections have often involved much craftiness and intrigue (and a long term clear preference for Italians!).

However, I think the Inquisition can be reasoned to, meaning, educated people of the time considered the Inquisition and its methods appropriate (though wrongly)for the preservation of faith the protection of souls. Does that excuse them for killing people of conscience, no.

I understand the cultural context, yet neither Scripture nor Catholic tradition supported it, but it was later adopted from the State, being enabled to do so. Early Protestantism had to unlearn such from Rome, as reformation is progressive, while in Catholicism it is an example of what an autocratic authority can teach, whether it be that heretics are to be tortured or burned, or that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven above the choirs of angels to the throne of the Most Holy Trinity as the triple crowned Queen of the Universe.

Meanwhile, just as a inquisitor had to obey his church (lest he be a subject of the Inquisition) so RCs today are often told they must do the same, and that they have no place in of judging the pope as being in error.

While i certainly disagree with the Catholicism of the trsdional RC who was basically told this here, i uphold his right to dissent based upon sincere and objective examination of the evidence, with a teachable spirit, and which must precede judgment. And which manner of dissent Rome actually allows for, if not a negative conclusion resulting from it.

I can appreciate your thoughtful reply, though disagree with some of its points.

Alexander VI wasn’t an heretic, and had been trained in both law and theology. I don’t think that, at the time, anybody considered him the next Caligula, rather, I think he decided to live it up, feeling untouchable.

Regarding dissent, all Catholics can dissent on any matter not declared dogmatic. Should they dissent on dogmatic matters, they are free to walk out the door to another denomination.

Secondly, Peter was directly chosen by Jesus, and then Linus, and Anacletus after him. However, I don’t see any reference to it done by casting lots.

Regarding the Inquisition, let us not forget that Protestants took on many similar behaviors, though without trial, namely hanging, death by fire, as well as the confiscation of property and destruction of property. Please see (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html) for the appropriate quotations and references.

Slightly out of order, the site mentioned above also reference the ABSOLUTE intolerance of Luther, Zwingli, and other leading Reformation figures. The Reformation was more about freedom of conscience for me, but not for thee.

The Marian doctrines are all Scriptural, as well ancient. It would also require its own thread.

Finally, Popes have the NEGATIVE power of Infallibility. Specifically, the Holy Spirit prevents the Popes from proclaiming dogma that is untrue. This, however, does not mean that every word that comes out of the mouth of a Pope is infallible.

Regardless of every point I have made, how do we as Christians show our love for one another and to the rest of the world? How do we spread the Gospel message to the marginalized and suffering? How are we to display this unity of purpose?

May you receive God’s peace and continue to cleave to Him.

Alexander VI wasn’t an heretic, and had been trained in both law and theology.

I did not say he was a heretic, but included that as one of two things.

I don’t think that, at the time, anybody considered him the next Caligula, rather, I think he decided to live it up, feeling untouchable.

Actually most of affairs seems to have been done prior his election. Alexander fathered at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children

Regarding dissent, all Catholics can dissent on any matter not declared dogmatic.

Thank you for conforming that. But RCs also debate over how many dogmatic teaching there are and meanings to varying degrees.

Should they dissent on dogmatic matters, they are free to walk out the door to another denomination.

And RCS debate whether Lumun Gentium teaches these may be saved.

Secondly, Peter was directly chosen by Jesus, and then Linus, and Anacletus after him. However, I don’t see any reference to it done by casting lots.

That is how the story goes, but then there is modern research .

Regarding the Inquisition, let us not forget that Protestants took on many similar behaviors, though without trial,

As with Catholic dissent, i acknowledged that.

The Reformation was more about freedom of conscience for me, but not for thee.

As said, they had much to unlearn from Rome.

The Marian doctrines are all Scriptural, as well ancient. It would also require its own thread.

Absurd , even more so when including what is "unofficial." And been there.

I know that, and not only Popes as individuals, and if it is not untrue than it is true. Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

First by recognizing that true Christians are divided from false ones, doctrinally and experientially. Regarding the second, while we realized a spontaneous fellowship of the Spirit that transcends denominational lines, due to a shared conversion and personal relationship with the Lord Jesus, centered in Scripture, and His working in our lives, yet we find few among RCs who identify with this, but who instead preach their church, if anything, as out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

But Rome does not even consider our churches worthy to be called such anyway, and likely damns us who left. Not that we miss her, as most leave due to the spiritual lack they experienced in Rome.

Pointing out "Romish fantasies" is not ad hominem, for it is being critical of a set of beliefs, not persons or individuals directly.

Now if you wished for discussion, there was some included both in my initial comment to you, and the at the link under Eu tu Brute if you had bothered to follow that link, then went to the trouble to understand both sides of the conversation there, though I'll confess that in most any of my own reply/comments, it could be difficult to respond to the several items of discussion there raised all at once.

For starters, as to the initial reply addressed top you here -- one could have gone to the catechism at about the number I cited, then skip back 50 or so numbered statements to see how those may compare to 2010, then see how there was after 2010 that a "saint" cited in refusing to accept for themselves "merited grace".

The function of the complaint (that many have long had) there being, that if it is merited, than it can no longer be grace;
> And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

You may skip over any comment I make if you wish, but as to those of mine here to you, cannot tell me there was not any "discussion" available, or that it was some form of rhetorical (ad hominem) attack on your person directly. Regardless if the words personally offend you, or not.

Taking offense, or not, when it's not aimed at your own person, but instead is aimed at words used, sentences spoken, concepts expressed, etc., is all up to the individual, though yet not necessarily ad hominem.

I pointed out the conditions under which your statement would need some adjustment towards, in order to have the statement which I highlighted, be "true".

If that sort of discussion is too much -- then do as you will, but don't except me to sit idly by when I see distortion and "some pretty sweeping generalizations" which I dare reach out towards, to adjust.

Like even-- your seeming characterization of what I said here as being ad hominem. Or, if I'm missing something, perhaps you could point out where I was criticizing yourself, rather than what you said, while I also offered at the same time some propositions towards "fixing" it -- which is itself some of that discussion which you have indicated you have interest towards...

The hyper-Marianism of some portions of the RCC wasn't handed down from Christ and the Apostles, either. Was it ad hominem for me to make mention of that?

If so, explain why. Simply declaring or arguing by assertion may buffalo or bluff a few, but not that much with me. I can stand my ground, and rationally make my case (usually).

As you said to daniel1212, I will say to yourself also;

You make some pretty sweeping generalizations

It’s quite interesting to this former Protestant how protestant sedevacantism is.

Catholics, in the main, are unfamiliar with cults who grab a single scripture passage (or magisterial teaching) and use it to deconstruct a church.

In protestantism, this is an everyday occurrence, so common that we often don’t notice it while it’s happening.

Whatever Pius X said or didn’t say, or Innocent III, or the Council of Florence, or whatever, it still is the exercise of private interpretation and private judgement to use it against the Church.

And Catholics also do not recognize the enormous appeal, so familiar to protestant sects, of being part of THE REMNANT - those few, so few, who see the truth and remain loyal to it, even if they’re only a few. This wish to be part of the remnant is the major premise underlying all the protestant splitting, busier today than ever.

When you find the Truth OUTSIDE of the Church, you are denying Christ’s promises regarding the Holy Spirit. Joseph Smith, after all, was a sedevacantist.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.