An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing My Service on I.C.E.L.

<> LOL You know I enjoy strolling past the schismatic hornet nest and giving it a whack with the stick of authority.

It is fun, sometimes, and it gives the lurkers the truth. Dogmatic Teaching, Vatica 1 cited above, proves their heresy. It just makes sense as schism is proximate to heresy. The little Luthers can't handle the truth<>

It would have been nice if we could have discussed this very important article.

Yes, it would have been, because when it comes to the language of the NO, all sides agree it's bad.

At least you appear willing to listen to the other side.

I'm not going to scream SCHISM! That's not my style. You guys have some things to say which do coincide with the more conservative of the Catholics who do not follow SSPX leaders. Arguing with Rome that SSPX is or isn't in schism is useless, IMO. So, bypass that and at least discuss what we can at least agree on.

I have to go shortly, so I'm outta here at least until this evening.

If ya don't mind, what is the size of the SSPX, compaired to the rest of the Catholic church?

I would dispute the phrase "compared to the rest of the Catholic Church". The Society is schismatic, it isn't part of the Church.

That said, Ultima answered in terms of faithful, but I doubt the number is accurate. Perhaps he could provide a citation. Regardless, it is a misunderstanding of what the SSPX is to refer to it in terms of the numbers in the pews, as he did. Technically it is a priestly fraternity, and there are no lay members. Thus, the Society’s web page currently indicates it has

Of it's more than 370 priests, nearly 50 are active in the United States, where the SSPX operates one seminary, 3 retreat houses, 24 schools, and 103 churches (chapels and missions).

Thus, worldwide it has 370 priests, 50 or so in the United States. In contrast, in 1990 the Catholic Church had approximately 401,000 priests worldwide, and in 2000 the Church had 405,000 priests worldwide. The Church in the United States had 46,000 priests in 2001.

patent +AMDG

You actually want others on this site to believe I'm a heretic because I said Lefebvre was not validly excommunicated? That's whacko logic.

You presume to judge the sentence of the Holy See. To claim that power is heresy.

patent +AMDG

I would dispute the phrase "compared to the rest of the Catholic Church". The Society is schismatic, it isn't part of the Church.

Not according to Rome, which officially considers it "an internal matter of the Catholic Church." Seems we are closer to Rome than you on this...

Your post #271? You live in fantasy land. It all sounds wonderful and nice and wholesome (kind of like "Father knows best" or "Leave it to Beaver") but you don't live in the real world.

The Church is a hospital for sinners, of course it was never perfect. If 80% of Catholics went to weekly Mass before Vatican II, then I'll bet the numbers are similar for Protestants and Jews. Converts probably mirrored Mass attendance. Vocations through the roof? We probably let a lot of guys in who shouldn't have gotten in. Mostly straight? Huh! Most of the homosexual priests were ordained PRE-VATICAN II. It was the "Catholic" moment... easy to be Catholic. Today, it takes more to be a practicing Catholic who lives the faith or a man who is called to the priesthood. Bishop Sheen... I love the guy, but let's face it... there were probably 4 stations available in those days -- and we weren't choosy, we watched what was on because TV was still a novelty.

The problem is US, each one. We let ourselves forget our heritage and become secularized.

Instead of picking and choosing the Pope of your liking, you could stay IN and be of great influence to other souls... fighting the good fight - but you choose to live in a vacuum and handwring and cause confusion.

You presume to judge the sentence of the Holy See. To claim that power is heresy.

Of course it is not. Canon Law makes specific provisions regarding crime and punishment (for lack of better term). To objectively assess how well the current Roman authorities have carried out these legal requirements is an exercise in critical thinking, not heresy by any stretch. To argue otherwise is to argue that the pope is a god and no one can question any of his actions (a position most Catholics understand is heretical). You really love to throw these scare words around, don't you?

You are right, of course, about "Catholic"guy. Most of his posts are in the silly category. I find it hard to take him seriously. It's schism, schism, schism 24/7.

Instead of picking and choosing the Pope of your liking, you could stay IN and be of great influence to other souls

Stay in? We have never left. You are the ones with the new Mass and the new catechism and the new rubrics and the new etc. We have gone nowhere, but are right where we and all those who came before us have always been. Surely you can understand this?

"I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he's [Lefebvre's]not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. He's guilty of an act of disobedience to the Pope, but he did it in such a way that he could avail himself of a provision of the law that would prevent him from being automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae) for this act." (Latin Mass Magazine, Fall, 1995)

Now, that's something to be proud of!

I would dispute the phrase "compared to the rest of the Catholic Church". The Society is schismatic, it isn't part of the Church.
Not according to Rome, which officially considers it "an internal matter of the Catholic Church." Seems we are closer to Rome than you on this...

Hardly. The Pope called it a schism, the congregations call it a schism, etc. Or do you contend that the Pope isn’t Rome? I’ll stick with him, when he calls it a schism:

ECCLESIA DEI
Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II
Given on July 2, 1988.
1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on June 30 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X founded by the same Archbishop Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.[1]
2. This affliction was particularly felt by the successor of Peter, to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church,[2] even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few, since every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the cross for the salvation of all.
The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective, in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church.
3. In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.[3] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[4]
4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers, who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth."[5]
But especially contradictory is a notion of tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the bishop of Rome and the body of bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.[6]
5. Faced with the situation that has arisen, I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.
a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Archbishop Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the ecumenical councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.
To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.[7]
However, it is necessary that all the pastors and other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.
b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.
c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.[8]
To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.
6. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my apostolic authority I decree the following:
a) A commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre who may wish to remain united to the successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions in the light of the protocol signed on last May 5 by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre.
b) This commission is composed of a cardinal-president and other members of the Roman Curia, in a number that will be deemed opportune according to circumstances.
c) Moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.[9]
7. As this year specially dedicated to the Blessed Virgin is now drawing to a close, I wish to exhort all to join in unceasing prayer, which the vicar of Christ, through the intercession of the mother of the Church, addresses to the
Father in the very words of the Son: "That they all may be one!"
Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, July 2, 1988, the 10th year of the pontificate.
John Paul II

JPII called the Consecrations a schismatic act. He warned the faithful against formal adherence to that schism, and he excommunicated the Society’s leaders. That means, of course, they are not in communion with him. Thus, pursuant to Canon law, they are in schism. Now, do you question the validity of the excommunication? Given that it was a Papal decree, the following from Vatican I applies:

Session IV, Ch. 3
1. And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] , which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

The Pope has exercised his ecclesiastical jurisdictional authority. Neither of us has the right to question it. After Vatican I it would be heretical to so presume. It does not matter whether the Pope should have, or had valid grounds for excommunicating them. He did so. It is fact, and it is unreformable by anyone other than a Pope. Thus, the four Bishops are not in Communion with the Pope. Anyone who is in communion with them, would then be by definition not in communion with the Pope. That is a schism. The Pope called it that, in fact.

As to the rest of the Society, it is my understanding that canonically the Society is a Ecclesiastically recognized organization for those with vocations, and thus the laity who go the Masses, while commonly referred to as being in the Society, are technically not. Whether the laity are formally in schism or not, I think is up in the air, or at least judged case by case. See the Hawaii decision. As the Vatican has made clear, the excommunication is still in force, it does not automatically extend to the laity, but the Society itself is truly in schism. From the Pontifical Commission, Ecclesia Dei:

Dear Mr Loughnan
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your document, Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St. Pius X, which you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger for evaluation. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.

First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church. We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility.

You will have noted that we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter to you of 21 January 1995 as made up of "liberals, modernists who have infiltrated the positions of authority in the Church and who are using their authority to do away with Tradition..." We trust that you will now understand that this is not a fair description of us or of our often difficult and delicate work.

We will now attempt to address ourselves to your questions in the order in which you have raised them.

Some questions arise:

Q1 Was the declaration of Pope John Paul in Ecclesia Dei as to who was NOT in communion with him then legislatively Authoritative, binding and now still in effect? That is: are Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Malleais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta current excommunicates?

A. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).
Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.

Q2 What is the status of all the priests, seminarians and "those who adhere" to the SSPX?

A. While the priests of the Society of St Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and to the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.
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 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.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St Pius X.

Q3 What does "adherence" constitute?

A. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as 'the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St Pius X corroborate that definition.
Q4 Does the SSPX constitute a group "whose beliefs and practices are perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic Faith"?

A. It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witness to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone else who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.
Q5 Do the unilateral assertions by the SSPX as to "union with Rome" make it so, or is it the Pope who decides who is in communion with him?

A. 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).
Q6 How close to "Feeneyism" is the SSPX?

A. The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.
Q7 How authoritative is your response?

A. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the various dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.
Q8 Would a response to the above fall within the competence of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts? If so, would that response be infallible?

A. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that the Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.
Q9 May your response (or any other response) be made public knowledge - particularly to adherents of the SSPX?

A. Our response to your questions may be made public.

and:

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DEI
N. 117/95
Rome
29 September 1995

Dear ...

Thank you for your letter of 4 September 1995 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters related to our particular competence.

We are aware of the lack of authorized celebrations of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal in [dioceses] and we can appreciate your desire to assist at the traditional Mass. We also recognize your earnest desire to remain in full communion with the Successor of Peter and the members of the Church subject to him, a desire which obviously prompted you to write this letter. In order to answer your questions we must explain the Church's present evaluation of the situation of the Society of St. Pius X.

1. There is no doubt about the validity of the ordination of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. They are, however, suspended a divinis, that is prohibited by the Church from exercising their orders because of their illicit ordination.

2. The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

3. While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments 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 mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior of the Society in the United States, has publicaly stated that he deplores the "liberalism" of "those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the postconcilliar church." With such an attitude the society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. According to canon 751 such "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him" constitute schism. Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

4. The situation of at least one of the "independent" priests . . . to whom you allude is somewhat different. He and the community which he serves have declared their desire to regularize their situation and have taken some initial steps to do so. Let us pray that this may soon be accomplished.

5. Finally, we may say that "the Hawaiian case" resulted in a judgment that the former Bishop of Honolulu did not have grounds to excommunicate the persons involved, but this judgment does not confer the Church's approbation upon the Society of St. Pius X or those who frequent their chapels.

With prayerful best wishes, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,

Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary

The Bishops are in schism. Anyone in communion with them is in schism.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent

Surely you can understand this?

What I understand:

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.

I have very important news for you: what your consistently wrong-headed opinion is on this matter doesn't matter to anybody but yourself. As for the numbers--how about reading the Open Letter which began this thread? The numbers are cited therein.

How many times are you going to post this? It adds nothing to the argument. The process of excommunication was not followed, and further even according to 1983 Canon law the naming of bishops without papal authority is not an excommunicable act. You may enjoy the death penalty for a traffic violation, but the law does not provide for it. Just because the above letter was issued does not mean what was discussed therein is infallible. Rome was wrong. And Rome has realized it, which is why the very first thing on the table when Rome initiated talks with the SSPX was a lifting of the excommunications. That itself is an admission that the original "excommunications" were in error. After all, isn't excommunication forever? Or do you argue that Rome is simply schizophrenic?

I have very important news for you: what your consistently wrong-headed opinion is on this matter doesn't matter to anybody but yourself.

That’s fine, you don’t have to respond. You should assume, however, that I will continue to respond to you.

As for the numbers--how about reading the Open Letter which began this thread? The numbers are cited therein.

LOL. Where? You claimed:

I don't mind. It numbers around one million souls--and growing.

In response I said:

That said, Ultima answered in terms of faithful, but I doubt the number is accurate. Perhaps he could provide a citation.

You now say:

As for the numbers--how about reading the Open Letter which began this thread? The numbers are cited therein.

Which is hilarious, as I don’t see any such numbers in the article. Where did he discuss the number of faithful in the SSPX? As always, you don’t like having to prove your wild claims.

patent +AMDG

How does this constant arguing amongst ourselves make us any different than the Protestants?

How does this constant arguing amongst ourselves make us any different than the Protestants?

Because right and wrong matter. All the more so in matters of life and death (as in eternal life and eternal death). The stakes are incredibly high. The modernizers on one side have acted like a bull in a china shop for the last 40 years and traditionalists are finally finding their voice and shouting "enough already!" Enough pervert bishops and priests, enough clown "Masses", enough phony ecumenism, enough apologies, enough watered-down liturgy, enough dumbed-down laity, enough protestantized music and liturgy, enough enough enough! Look around you. Do you think the great 1960s experiement in souping-up the Catholic Church has been a success?

How many times are you going to post this?

Every time you claim the Society is not in schism.

It adds nothing to the argument. The process of excommunication was not followed, and further even according to 1983 Canon law the naming of bishops without papal authority is not an excommunicable act.

I didn’t see the Pope rely on that Canon. He has the power to excommunicate if he wishes, even without relying on some specific canon. If you contend otherwise, or claim that the canon law is above the Pope, you are a heretic like ultima, per Vatican I.

You may enjoy the death penalty for a traffic violation, but the law does not provide for it.

Well, if you received the death penalty, you are just as dead, whether the law provides for it or not.

Just because the above letter was issued does not mean what was discussed therein is infallible.

Didn’t say it was.

Rome was wrong. And Rome has realized it, which is why the very first thing on the table when Rome initiated talks with the SSPX was a lifting of the excommunications.

BS. Rome has the power to issue an excommunication, and the power to lift it. Anyone knows that the Church lifts the excommunication when you return to the Church. That’s basic.

That itself is an admission that the original "excommunications" were in error. After all, isn't excommunication forever?

LOL. Do you really believe an excommunication is forever? Have you no sense of history? Much less what an excommunication is supposed to be, as with any penalty by the Church, a call to return to faithfulness? Good grief:

Excommunication (Lat. ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion -- exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society.
. . .
It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

patent +AMDG

You need to be better informed before you start lecturing others about living in a fantasy. Everything I posted was true. It was post-Vatican II which gave the gays their chance--and the few that then existed came out of the closet, to be joined by the many actively recruited by newly-lavenderized seminaries. More than half of all priests--over 250,000--left the priesthood after the institution of the Novus Ordo. Vatican II has been a debacle, a catastrophe, a disaster. What it hasn't been is a springtime for anything but depravity and corruption. As for Bishop Sheen--he forced Milton Berle onto another time slot. Why is it so hard to accept even this minor fact? He was popular. The Catholic faith was popular. Hard as it may be to believe, the CHURCH WAS POPULAR. Only the modernists were disgruntled--and when they struck it was at the peak of the Church's prestige and influence. You're living in the protestantizing mess that followed.

You like to stir up hornets? Then why do you whine when you're stung?