Apostate Church July 2, 2014
Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, disaster, error.trackback
I am totally out of time. See you on Monday.
For your consideration, another Vortex. This is our Church, circa 2014 in the United States:
On the issue of how Catholics should handle the 4th of July, this post is worthy of consideration. I cannot fully recommend this site (I assume most of you know why), but this post is very good:
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 
Why do you not fully recommend this site if I may ask?
They are the not yet reconciled with the Church Feeneyites.
Wow, TB, leave town for a few days and look what happens : )
Very good…..it is amazing how many “Catholics” fail to see this. However, Michael, since these weak and evil men who ignore the Holy Ghost and are leading souls to Hell are considered in “good standing” and “full communion”, how does one with THOMISTIC LOGIC explain that and that a group like these SSPX is “not in good standing” and only enjoys “partial communion” when they and in large part the ICK and FFSP are trying to convey the TRUE FAITH. Please explain this to me. You are getting there Michael….keep climbing. If these evil men are dead wrong on Dogma and Doctrine they certainly can be wrong on discipline and petty Church politics. These men you describe are the purveyors of “spiritual pornography”, not Michael Matt, John Venarri or the SSPX.
The SSPX are not Catholics. Other than that, they have much to recommend them. Obviously it doesn’t take much to be in communion with the Church. They should be able to do at least that much. Then they can be a force for good instead of the cancer that they are.
It can never be a truly Catholic response to not be in communion with the Chair of Peter, even when that chair is occupied by any number of the unworthies that have graced it over the centuries. Here’s a quote from an email I received with which I thoroughly agree:
“I told [my daughter] that I would still love my son if he was gay, but if he turned SSPX, I would throw him out on the street before he turns the rest of my children. [My daughter] had SSPX materials given to her by a friend and I had her burn it. It is sheer poison. And the fact that it comes in a bottle of 99% Catholicism makes it demonic.
“Calling down Christ in persona Christi in defiance of Peter at an illicit mass is a worse abuse than communion in the hand. And presiding over false marriages and pretending to grant absolution is a heinous act of deception far worse than anything a liberal priest can spout off on the pulpit. The SSPX must be stopped.”
Yes, the Church is in a grave crisis. The posture of the SSPX as a “safe haven” for disaffected Catholics is a demonic attack on the unity of the Church (a sin against charity). Those who aid and abet such enemies of the Church will have to answer for much. As said above, the SSPX is Catholic poison. If you support them, you are not Catholic. Period. If you support those who support them, you are an enemy of the Church.
The Thomistic answer is that the SSPX are anathema due to their violation of the 6th canon of the 22nd session of the council of Trent. By attacking the Missal of Paul VI, not the abuses, but the missal itself, they are implicitly denying the indefectibility of the Church, which is dogmatically gauranteed. The Church cannot promote impiety in her liturgy. Period.
Martin Luther privately interpeted scripture, the SSPX privately interpet tradition. I’ll let you extrapolate the results.
Poor canonists, poor historians, and some of the must ludicrous ecclesiology I’ve ever seen.
The SSPX need to go sede or go home.
As a young Catholic who attends the SSPX, I find this very disturbing.
You’re all trying to say that we, who are trying to keep the True Faith, are “poison”? Well, what about the Modernists, the Freemasons and the other enemies of God and His Church? Anyone and everyone is allowed to run rampant in the Counciliar Church, spreading their poison of heresy, their Modernism which is the synthesis of all heresies, and nobody does anything about it. Nobody even bats an eye. Yet, the iron rod is hoisted upon those in the Counciliar Church, trying to keep the True Faith, especially those “attached” to the True Catholic Mass. God forbid there should be real Catholics today! No way! And the SSPX… heck, they’re worse than sodomites, when all they do is follow the Faith as it was believed and practiced for 1,950 years.
All we want to do is fight for the Rights of God and His Church, and to fight for the restoration of the Church. We’re the Church Militant, not the Church Mushy. We have to prove our love for God and it certainly isn’t by compromising with his enemies.
As for the Novus Ordo, I suggest going to a Lutheran “mass.” Anyone care to explain to me why a Mass that was concocted by protestants and Modernists, to please the Protestants by taking the sacrificial aspect of the Mass out of it, is Catholic?Anyone care to explain the persecution imposed upon those who love the Holy Mass? Anyone care to explain to me why True Catholics are in the catacombs, in a way, whether in their chapels or in the Indult in the worse part of town where crazed homeless men can shoot the Priests of Jesus Christ? God is testing us.
I won’t go on and on and disturb the comment section,as I’m sure I will, but I must defend the truth. I just love Holy Mother Church so much and the Society which the Archbishop founded to save the Church, to defend the Church, to save souls. I will defend the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre and those who keep the Faith. It deeply hurts my heart to see this, all this hatred against a man, a saintly man who loved God and His Church more than anything, who fought to the death for the RIghts of God against those imposing the Rights of Man.
As my Priest says, if you’re called “schismatics” then say DEO GRATIAS. Dea Gratias that we are not in communion with Modernism and the falsehood perpetrated today.
Ad majorem Dei gloriam!
God bless!
Dear Hannah,
You’re not upsetting anyone. Most of us have already studied the claims of the SSPX in depth and made our decisions.
When I was a young woman trying to decide to enter the Church, one of the “tells” of who was less orthodox, for me at any rate, was “who’s protesting too much?”.
In researching the SSPX, this occurred again and again. “State of emergency” is one of those terms that can mean anything. “Supplied jurisdiction” is not exactly the same, but very similar. When others call the SSPX protestant in nature, it is this kind of private judgment they are referring to.
There are a lot of good resources here in the comments, which you might want to consider. It is very difficult for all of us to understand why things in the Church play out the way they do- when we know exactly how the should be.
But our priest had a very good sermon- so wish it was online- about how there is only ONE Church. Not the fantasy Church that some want it to be, or the fantasy Church that never was. But the Church alone, warts and all,
which is our only home.
The sspx is a schism and, thus, according to the Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X, it is outside of the Catholic Churc; it is not Catholic.
During V2, Mons Lefebvre his own self argued in favor of No Jurisdiction, No Ministr;
Well, that is the situation of the SSPX; they have vagus clerics, vagus Bishop, all in direct opposition to Trent; that is, they have no Jurisdiction, and, thus no ministry.
An don;t bothering echoing their pernicious propaganda that he church supplies Jurisdiction for only the dumb would accept that lie for there were already existing Jurisdictions for Bishop approved by the Pope – you soi disant trads do know that is a sine qua non of Catholicism, no?
The suspended a divinis clerics in the sspx schim celebrate sacraments that are illegal and sacreligious – yes, including Holy Mass.
Satan is not an idiot and one must give him his due for having used the Holiest act on earth – the Mass – to cleave men from Holy Mother Church and cleave them to him.
Satan: Hey, you want the Mass you prefer? Easy, peasy, just give me your soul and live outside the Catholic Church – EENS. It’s all good
Mons Lefevbre started a petit ecclesia and he even established Tribunals (secretly, unit he was exposed by some SSPX members) that supplanted the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope.
Mons Lefebvre signed every single document of V2 so was he a lying modernist when he did that?
He negotiated a protocol with Rome, signed his name to the protocol, and the reneged; so much for the value of his name.
What’s that objection I hear? He couldn’t trust Rome. Then why was he negotiating a protocol with them and giving his name to secure the protocol?
What’s that, you say he is another Athanasius? You have no clue. St Athanasius PRAISED the steadfast orthodoxy of the Pope and blamed his actions on those who had captured and tortured him?
Remind me, when was Mons Lefebvre taken prisoner and tortured?
Don’t be such spiritual sloths lapping-up the pernicious propaganda of the sspx schism; they specialise in lies.
Go to new advent, go to the Catholic Encyclopedia, click on the Church Fathers, click on Saint Athanasius and read what he wrote about Pope Liberius for EVERYTHING the sspx has claimed about Mons lefevbre being another Athanasius is a sick twisted evil lie.
Saint Augustine taught that there was never a reason for a schism but those who succor the sspx schism do just the opposite.
The SSPX are aught but Protestants in Fiddlebacks
That is your opinion. No more, no less.
The following is NOT just an opinion:
In the motu proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem, issued July 2, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI said “the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.” Note: the canonical status of the SSPX is not “irregular” but “none.”
The SSPX bishops were excommunicated and their illicit consecrations defined as schismatic in the motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei” issued July 2, 1988. The excommunications were lifted (see above motu proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem) but the canonical status of the SSPX remains unchanged.
I have heard the “irregular canonical status” position argued many times, but the source of this term can only be traced to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos BEFORE the motu proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem above. The Pope has now spoken. Earlier statements made, perhaps, with an eye towards reconciliation, should be judged as nothing more than “early thoughts” on this matter. The case is pretty much closed. The SSPX are not, as of this moment, Catholic except, perhaps, “in name only,” which I find ironic.
A certain Saint by the name of Francis of Assisi once said this, not only about his order, but about those who professed the True Faith. I suggest pondering this for a long time:
“Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as *rebels and schismatics*; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will *say they are rendering a great service to God* by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head, these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to *obey God rather than man*, they will fear nothing, and they will *prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.* Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and *others will trample it under foot and deny it.* Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.”
You’re entitled to your opinion, however erroneous it may be.
God bless!
Beware the swift and severe pontifications of canonical positivism. In less time than it took to fire and banish Fr. Justin Wylie, excommunications and anathemas are pronounced — with greater zeal and less authority.
Most sweet Jesus, be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinion, or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbor of truth and the unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.
The “sacrificial aspect” has not been removed from the Novus Ordo Mass.
Pax.
For your education:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/new-mass-weakens-notion-sacrifice-2882
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm
“The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” -From the Ottaviani Intervention
So, there you go. The sooner we get back to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that sanctified Saints and sinners alike for generations, the better!
God bless!
Let’s see, then. “Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who takes away the sins of the world. HAPPY ARE THOSE CALLED TO THE SUPPER OF THE LAMB.” The last was added to the NO just last year, wasn’t it? Don’t you think that last line is meant to at least down play the sacrificial aspect of the Mass? If not, why was it put there? The NO was meant to change the the Mass from sacrifice to meal. Otherwise, why change the TLM at all?
The Mass was “replaced” with this Novus Ordo because the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the terror of the devil. He knows if he can attempt to destroy that, he can attempt to destroy the Church. He sure has tried. Anybody with eyes can see that. But, you know what? Satan and his minions will never succeed in destroying the Church because the Church and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will triumph in the end.
You know, with the Novus Ordo, by the very act alone that the Priest turns his back on God to face us should make anyone suspicious. Why? Because the Mass is not about us. It’s about Our Lord Jesus Christ. Always has been and the Holy Latin Mass always will be that very Mass that demonstrates that. No question about it. The Novus Ordo makes the pleasure of the people it’s liturgy. As for that TLM… well, we can’t have any of that. We’re past that. God forbid we should worship God as our forefathers did, that we should worship God as he desires to be worshiped. Anybody ever read Leviticus, by the way?
To ponder:
“To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division – a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith – is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error.” (Cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci)
People GAVE THEIR LIVES for this Mass and look at us. Mind-boggling, truly:
“This was the only form of Mass which countless millions of Catholics throughout the nations and the centuries had known, and from which, together with a catalogue of saints too long even to begin listing, they drew the spiritual nourishment that gave meaning and purpose, consolation and inspiration to their existence. This was the form of Mass which the martyr-priests of England and Wales celebrated at the cost of their lives.” (Michael Davies)
“And since it is fitting that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and this sacrifice is of all things the most holy, the Catholic Church, that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, instituted the sacred canon many centuries ago, so free from all error, that it contains nothing in it which does not especially diffuse a certain sanctity and piety and raise up to God the minds of those who offer it. For this consists both of the words of God, and of the traditions of the apostles, and also of pious instructions of the holy Pontiffs.” (Council of Trent, 1562 A.D.)
God bless all!
The Novus Ordo Mass was designed to do exactly that. While the actual sacrifice still exists, the prayers were written to downplay (indeed, nearly eliminate) all references to the sacrificial nature of the Mass and sacerdotal nature of the priest.
Yes, I think you are correct.
There is no “Traditional Latin Mass” or “Novus Ordo Mass.” There is only “The Mass.” What you people are talking about is liturgy.
Can you translate “Novus Ordo Missae” for me, then.
New Order of “the Mass.”
How there is a galactic difference twixt Saint Athanasius and Mons Lefebvre.
Athanasius defended the orthodoxy of his Pope whereas Mons Lefebvre called his Pope an antichrist.
Liberius was a captive and he was tortured whereas Popes bent over backwards trying to keep Mons Lefebvre from creating a schism
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28155.htm
Mortalium animos slays the schism
Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors
AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS
40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: “The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity.”
41. Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious
OOPS, Mons Lefebvre caught red-handed
http://thetraditionalcatholicfaith.blogspot.com/2010/12/canonical-tribunals-of-sspx.html
The SSPX tries to find some kind of legitimacy by reaching back into the History of the Church in order to find a precedent for their “unique situation.” They claim to find it in the life of St. Athanasius, a figure that plays a huge role in their mythology.
St. Athanasius was a 4th century bishop of Alexandria, famous for his stand against Arianism. The chaos that swept the world during the Arian crisis is unparalleled in Church history. St. Jerome writes: “The world groaned to find itself Arian.” St. Athanasius refused to bow to Arianism and was exiled five times by his enemies, who were entrenched in the Church. Athanasius’s steadfast holding onto the faith earned him the names such as “The Father of Orthodoxy” and “The Hammer of the Heretics.”
The SSPX narrative alleges that the Arian Emperor Contansius seizing pope Liberius and had him tortured into condemning Athanasius.
St. Athanasius reportedly rejected the excommunication of Pope Liberius based on the fact that Liberius was being tortured by the Arians and was under duress.
The SSPX draw a parallel between the Arianism of centuries past and the Modernism of today. That claim that the post-councilor popes were like pope Liberius, and that Lefebrve was like Athanasius. And so Lefebvre’s excommunication, just like the excommunication of Athanasius
However, there are some problems that immediately arise when you try to make that comparison.
First of all, it’s not even certain Liberius actually excommunicated Athanasius. Pope Liberius was lauded by Pope St Anatasius I as a man “who would die rather than blaspheme Christ.”
History records a defiant pope Liberius, dragged in front of Emperor Constantius, and told to condemn Athanasius. Liberius refused. The enraged emperor shouted: “Who are you to stand up for Athanasius against the world?” To that, Liberius compared the Emperor to Nebuchadnezzar, and was banished to Dalmatia for his trouble.
The SSPX version has Liberius signing bogus documents under pressure and torture from the Arianism. The guilt of Liberius depends on several hotly contested letters which many claim were Arian forgeries. After Liberius came out of exile, no recantations were asked for and the people of rome embraced him as if nothing had happened. In fact the edition of Denzinger the SSPX itself uses lists Pope Liberius as a saint.
But this is merely a side note. Lefebrve’s case bears little resemblance to Athanasius’s
John Paul II was not under duress, and in any case Lefebvre wasn’t excommunicated by the pope, but was excommunicated automatically, or latae sententiae. This is the same kind of excommunication that is incurred if someone has an abortion. John Paul II merely upheld the validity of the excommunication that Lefebvre incurred on himself.
There is also no evidence that Athanasius continued to publically administer sacraments after he was excommunicated…if he ever truly was. It’s every bit as likely that Athanasius would have withdrawn from public ministry in obedience to the pope.
Most importantly, Athanasius never set up a parallel church. He fought the Arians were the lived: in the dioceses and parishes where they spread their filth.
St Irenaeus Against Heresies
He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it — men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.
Cooperatio materialis immediata illicita est
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. [Mystici Corporis Christi §22 (c. 1943)]
You’ll remember this from Pascendi.
With all this in mind, one understands how it is that the Modernists (traditionalists) express astonishment when they are reprimanded or punished. What is imputed to them as a fault they regard as a sacred duty. Being in intimate contact with consciences (Lefevbre,sspx) they know better than anybody else, and certainly better than the ecclesiastical authority, what needs exist – nay, they embody them, so to speak, in themselves. Having a voice and a pen they use both publicly, for this is their duty. Let authority rebuke them as much as it pleases – they have their own conscience (tradition) on their side and an intimate experience which tells them with certainty that what they deserve is not blame but praise…
Council of Trent
‘No bishop is permitted under any pretext or privilege whatsoever to exercise episcopal functions in the diocese of another bishop, without the permission of the Ordinary of the place and with regard to persons subordinate to the same Ordinary. If any bishop does otherwise, he will be lawfully suspended from his episcopal functions . . .’
(Sess. VII, cp. 5)
169A. What conditions are necessary in order that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full sense?
In order that a person be a member of the Mystical Body in the full sense, it is necessary that he be baptized, that he profess the Catholic faith, and that he neither separate himself from the Mystical Body nor be excluded by lawful authority.And if he refuses to hear them, appeal to the Church, but if he refuses to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. (Matthew 18:17)
169B. How does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body?
A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by open and deliberate heresy, apostasy or schism.
169E. When does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by schism?
A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by schism when he openly refuses obedience to the lawful authorities of the Church, particularly to the Pope.
ABS could post scores of such quotes for he has done just that in the past at Free Republic under the S/N bornacatholic but as it is the case that those who succor the Lefevbrite Schism are ideologues the plain and smile truth is that facts and reason are no more capable of reorienting an ideologue than can facts and reason defeat the delusion of the psychotic.
A psychotic requires anti psychotic medicine and the Ideologue in the Cult of lefevbre requires prayer.
Pray for those who have been seduced away from H.M. Church by the Cult.
And the Oath against Modernism? Please. The first sentence of it condemns Fellay and GruVenMatt
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910. To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church…
*Obviously they don’t. They reeject the recent Ecuemnical Council and cliams it teaches heresy
Worse, they sound and act just like Luther (although, frankly, he had more cojones) Here are the errors condemend by Pope Leo in 1520, the self-same errors resurrected by the SSPX and its supporters and passed off as “Tradition” today.
If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.
A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever
* Protestants in Fiddlebacks
Let’s hear from Pope Pius X himself and what he had to teach in anticipation of Protestants in Fiddlebacks
Pope St. Pius X: Allocution of May 10, 1909
“Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her…But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone
St. Pius X Iucunda Sane:
Never throughout the course of ages has supernatural power been lacking in the Church; never have the promises of Christ failed. They remain as powerful today as they were when they filled the heart of Gregory with consolation. Rather, having withstood the test of time and the change of circumstances and events, they possess even greater assurance…
*But the Protestants in Fiddlebacks reject the eternal truth of Christ promises referred to by Pope Pius X. The SSPX and its supporters, by their actions, prove they do not trust Jesus
Quanta Cura also applies to Protestants in Fiddlebacks.
“We cannot pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that ‘without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.’ But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.”
Council of Constance
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, which is a general council, for the eradication of the present schism and for bringing unity and reform to God’s church in head and members, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit to the praise of almighty God, ordains, defines, decrees, discerns and declares as follows, in order that this union and reform of God’s church may be obtained the more easily, securely, fruitfully and freely.
First it declares that, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.
Next, it declares that anyone of whatever condition, state or dignity, even papal, who contumaciously refuses to obey the past or future mandates, statutes, ordinances or precepts of this sacred council or of any other legitimately assembled general council, regarding the aforesaid things or matters pertaining to them, shall be subjected to well-deserved penance, unless he repents, and shall be duly punished, even by having recourse, if necessary, to other supports of the law.
OK, we get it: y’all think that the modern Popes are modernists, freemasons, commies, or sodomies or something else – but, that is immaterial for you STILL have to obey him and you would have to obey him even if he was Satan.
Here is the Council of Constance condemning Wycliffe
If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor
Those who succor the SSPX are forever trying to justify their pernicious perfidy by citing real and imagined flaws of this, that, or the other, Pope.
So what? According to Catholic Tradition, y’all STILL have to obey him.
According to Catholic Tradition, The SSPX Serves Satan
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
CHAPTER IX.–HONOUR THE BISHOP.
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil.
Martin Luther, “These [church laws] hold good only so long as they are not injurious to Christianity and the laws of God. Therefore, if the Pope deserves punishment, these laws cease to bind us, since Christendom would suffer.”
Marcel Lefebvre, “In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith…. If they are forced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey.”
Martin Luther, “The Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become . . . the very kingdom of sin, death and hell; so that not even the Antichrist, if he were to come, could desire any addition to its wickedness.”
Marcel Lefebvre, “The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by Antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below.”
At least Luther wrote some spiffy hymns…
The comments got a bit hot and heavy while I was out of town. I’m closing them because I think all points on the various sides have been made sufficiently and we are heading into areas that will not be edifying and pose risk of going to excess.