Our Statement on the Society of St. Pius X
Many have
asked why we have changed our position on the SSPX, since we frequented their
chapels for many years, and particularly since the Society publicly endorsed
our book True or False Pope?. To be clear, we have no
personal hostility toward the SSPX and the many good men in their ranks. We
also continue to attend the Traditional Mass exclusively and hold the Recognize
& Resist position, properly understood.
However, our extensive study of ecclesiology and Sedevacantism led
us to the inescapable conclusion that the SSPX is in the same canonical and
ecclesiastical position as the Sedevacantist and other independent clergy
(outside of its delegated faculties), who are not part of the Roman
Catholic Church, have no juridical mission from the Church, and hence cannot lawfully exercise
their priestly powers. In fact, we were forced to recognize that the
Society advances the same erroneous arguments as the Sedevacantists
do, to justify their operation without mission, which is contrary to the divine
law.
In the course of our study, we also realized that the SSPX embraces
other critical theological errors (on the Profession of Faith, juridical
mission, supplied jurisdiction, Collegiality, sacramental intention, the
nature of the Church, etc.) which we are addressing in our series of articles.
Because many of these errors are rooted in an erroneous understanding
of the Church itself (errors in ecclesiology), they are actually graver than
the Liberal errors on the Left, and that is because they lead Catholics out
of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
It is our firm hope and prayer that the Society renounce its doctrinal
errors and accepts the Church’s Profession of Faith, so that it can
be reconciled with the Roman Catholic Church, and given a canonical
mission to carry out its ministry lawfully. It is for this purpose that we make
our position public, so that the Society’s leadership (and those who support
the SSPX) will see the truth, and take the necessary steps toward achieving the
long-awaited reconciliation.
John Salza & Robert Siscoe
26 comments:
Do agree with and accept the Vatican 2 teaching on religious liberty?
Robert Siscoe will be releasing an article in Dignitatis Humanae's teaching on religious liberty in the coming weeks.
After reading other pre-conciliar writings on the subject of liberty the situation of Dignitatis Humanae becomes more nuanced. Aside from Popes Leo XIII and Pius X writing that States who have split from the Church must at least grant the Church the "common liberty and rights which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of peoples", the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia writes that it's a necessary evil that in mixed religion States to have a "governmental abstention from any specific denominational worship or profession of belief, and a general protection and encouragement of the individual in the practice of religion according to his own religious principles within the limits of the Natural Law, or of a general acceptance of Christianity". James Cardinal Gibbons, whom Leo XIII personally praised in two letters for the growth of the Church in the US, wrote in his book Faith of our Fathers that "the Church has not only respected the conscience of the people in embracing the religion of their choice, but she has also defended their civil rights and liberties against the encroachments of temporal sovereigns" in regards to a State that has already entered "into a compact in order to secure to his subjects this freedom in religious matters". We have to ask what these pre-conciliar sources mean when they talk about "common liberty and rights" and situations that call for general protection/encouragement of religion.
Fr. Richard Ginder, a former columnist for The Wanderer. In his short book, 1968, Thou Art the Rock, when referring to the separation of the "wheat and the tares" that took place between Luther igniting the revolt and the Treaty of Westphalia (1517-1648), Fr. Ginder noted the following:
It is the old story of the tares among the wheat. It took 131 years to make a separation once before but with the advance in communications media, we shall not have to wait so long this time. But we shall see it. It will come - very likely in the shape of a heretical sect attributing primacy of honour but refusing jurisdiction to the Holy Father, at the same time proclaiming themselves the only True Believers.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
No Jurisdiction, No Ministry.
AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS
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."
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.
In 1996, The Pontifical Commission For the Interpretation of Legislative Texts dismissed as fanciful the schism's claim of a state of necessity:
However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei] and the Decree [of excommunication against Lefebvre]. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances (cf CIC, can 1323-1324). As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of 'serving' the Church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity."
Since 1991, from the lifetime of Mgr Lefebvre, the Society of Saint Pius X has arrogated over its members (and potentially over all Catholics) the “power to bind and to unbind”, usurping the exclusive powers of the Holy See. A tribunal which sits in the General House of the Society in Switzerland grants dispensations from marriage impediments (which would render the union invalid), annuls marriages, grants exemptions from religious vows, lifts ecclesiastical censures, including excommunications (...). It does so in a wholly invalid manner, thereby placing men’s souls in an inextricable situation: the vows it unbinds are not unbound, the marriages it annuls are not annulled, and those which are celebrated after its “declaration” of nullity are invalid, as are those that have been celebrated with its non-existent “dispensation”.
http://tinyurl.com/6tbbg32
Mons lefebvre established a petit ecclesia.
The Society also requires the petitioner who approaches them for an annulment to swear on the Gospels that they will accept their ruling and will not seek a legitimate ruling from a "post Conciliar ecclesiastical tribunal." The following is taken from their website:
“I, ..........., desirous of obtaining a decision in conformity with traditional Catholic principles, freely submit my marriage with ........... to the tribunals of the Society of St. Pius X, and I promise:
1) That I will not attempt to enter any marriage, religious or civil, until such time as the tribunals of the Society have rendered a final judgment concerning my freedom to marry.
2) That I will accept the tribunals’ decision, whatever it is, and that, if it decides against the nullity of my marriage, I will not marry again or, if already remarried, I will no longer consider my second partner as a spouse.
3) That I will not request a judgment or reexamination of my case by a post-Conciliar ecclesiastical tribunal.
All this I promise and I swear on the Holy Gospels, which I now touch with my hand.”
https://sspx.org/en/approach-declarations-nullity
https://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine/catholic-counter-reformation/for-the-church/9-schism-archbishop-lefebvre.html
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)
'Isn't this Liturgy of John XXIII the one in which you priests were trained and ordained at Ecône?'
The answer is no. We received no appreciable liturgical training whatever at Ecône, and until the September of 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI. (Indeed, concelebration was permitted in our first statutes.) The celebrant sat on the side and listened to readings, or himself performed them at lecterns facing the people. The only reason the readings were done in Latin and not in French, we were told, is that the seminary is an international one! (Interestingly enough, the Ordinances of the Society, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently in force, allow for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular - without reading them first in Latin.)
"It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Ecône, because the rubrics were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.
"The best I can say is that over the years a certain eclectic blend of rubrics developed based on the double principle of
what the Archbishop liked, and what one did in France.
"These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. It is simply the 'Rite of Ecône,' a law unto itself...
"As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way in which they celebrate Mass today ...
"At one time we were taught to reject the Vatican Council II entirely..."
The Roman Catholic, by Fr Daniel L. Dolan, June 1983.
Marcel Lefebvre, in his Aug. 29, 1987. letter to the four bishops-to-be,
"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."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
It is rather strange to blame Rome/Pope for not coming to an accommodation with the SSPX when its creator says the Pope is an Antichrist.
I could continue to post these sorts of things for quite a long time but I should prolly stop now.
Some of the children raised by the parents of the earliest SSPX Schism are now grandparents. Those grandchildren were taught since they can remember that Rome is schismatic/masonic/mpdrnist and malign; who would expect them to come home?
Nobody.
The SSPX is a permanent schism
I was looking through some of my old files from back in the day when at Free Republic I used to have contentious exchanges with those sho succored the SSPX.
I ran across these two articles which might prove useful to those considering the SPPX as the path to salvation;
https://culturewars.com/news/in-the-line-of-fire-fr-john-rizzo-ex-sspx?rq=sspx
https://culturewars.com/news/the-society-of-st-pius-x-gets-sick?rq=sspx
Yeah, I did write that I thought I;d posted enough about the SSPX but I keep finding relevant material in some of my old files:
Trent:
On the Sacrament of Order
Canon VI.—If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.
Canon VII.—If any one saith, that bishops are not superior to priests; or, that they have not the power of confirming and ordaining; or, that the power which they possess is common to them and to priests; or, that orders, conferred by them, without the consent, or vocation of the people, or of the secular power, are invalid; or, that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.
...It was not only the good Pope Leo XIII who said these things, but Our Lady prophesied them as well. Just recently, the priest who takes care of the Society's priory in Bogota, Colombia, brought me a book concerning the apparition of Our Lady of Buen Suceso,—of "Good Fortune," to whom a large church in Quito, Ecuador, was dedicated. They were received by a nun shortly after the Council of Trent, so you see, quite a few centuries ago. This apparition is thoroughly recognized by Rome and the ecclesiastical authorities; a magnificent church was built for the Blessed Virgin Mary wherein the faithful of Ecuador venerate with great devotion a picture of Our Lady, whose face was made miraculously. The artist was in the process of painting it when he found the face of the Holy Virgin miraculously formed. And Our Lady prophesied for the 20th century, saying explicitly that during the 19th century and most of the 20th century, errors would become more and more widespread in Holy Church, placing the Church in a catastrophic situation. Morals would become corrupt and the Faith would disappear. It seems impossible not to see it happening today.
I excuse myself for continuing this account of the apparition, but she speaks of a prelate who will absolutely oppose this wave of apostasy and impiety—saving the priesthood by forming good priests. I do not say t https://sspx.org/en/1988-episcopal-consecrations-sermon-of-archbishop-lefebvre hat prophecy refers to me. You may draw your own conclusions. I was stupefied when reading these lines but I cannot deny them...
https://sspx.org/en/1988-episcopal-consecrations-sermon-of-archbishop-lefebvre
Yeah, you just did say it was you who was the object of that prophecy and all in attendance well understood you to have meant what you passively refused to assert aggressively.; that without your illegal consecrating these Bishops the priesthood was kaput.
That sermon was a master class in passive aggressiveness by a cleric.
This gives me no joy but I think it is necessary to let younger Catholics know who he was and what he did
. One who creates as schism - for which there is never a reason accrd. to St Augustine - is not a Saint but rather a conflicted + complicated cleric who serves as a warning to all of us that anyone can fall and a reminder to us all of our duty to maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine and Authority (the sine qua non of Catholicism).
Four questions for the SSPX that thinks Lefevbre is a saint
IF Mons. Lefevbre was all that his devotees say he is - another Saint Athanasius - then why did he not stand for the truth?
IF Mons Lefevbre was as courageous as his devotees says he was, then why did he not threaten to leave the Council he later described as being in error?
IF Mons Lefevbre was the champion of Tradition, then why did he vote to accept every single Vatican Two Document.
IF Mons. Lefevbre was as reliable a champion of truth that his devotees say he was, then why did he spend decades after the end of the Council telling anyone who would listen that he did not vote to accept the very documents he signed?
There an be no doubt that Mons Lefevbre said and did many things that are defensible, admirable. and praise-worthy, but he is not the hero his devotees make him out to be.
You know who are heroes? The four Archbishops who threatened to walk out of Vatican I when it took decisions they opposed;
It was in the second month of the council, January 1870, that the "infallibilist" bishops began to move, various groups sending in petitions to the pope that the question be added to the agenda. In all, nearly five hundred bishops signed one or another of these petitions. There were five petitions in the contrary sense, signed by 136 more. The pope sent the petitions to the deputation For Requests, and after some debate the deputation, by a vote of 25 to 1, advised the pope on February 9 to add a statement about the infallibility to the draft On the Church already given out to the bishops on January 21.
On March 1 Pius IX accepted their advice, and five days later the new addition was in the hands of the bishops. It was not a satisfactory text at all. Drawn up months before the council met, in case some such draft would be needed, it was inevitably not suited, from its extreme tone and indefinite terminology, to the hour in which it now appeared. And almost simultaneously rumours began to spread among the bishops that the extremists were working for a decision "by acclamation," and without any debate. Four bishops, thereupon, sent in a protest to the presidents, saying that if this were to be allowed they would immediately leave the council "and make public the reason of our departure." To whom the presidents replied that the "acclamation" scheme none but madmen (insensati) would even think of, while the text now sent out was but a draft for the bishops to shape as they chose. But it is a fact that some of the madmen had actually sent in petitions to this effect.
The four were the archbishops of Cincinnati, Purcell and St. Louis , Kenrick, the bishops of Little Rock, Fitzgerald, and Kerry , Moriarty
Marcel Lefevbre is another Saint Athanasius
Um, no. He was not. Mons Lefebvre was not unjustly excommunicated by a Pope who was being held captive and tortured by an Emperor and whose excommunication of Saint Athanasius was, by Saint Athanasius his own self, credited to the Arians, and not to Pope Liberius.
Saint Athanasius considered Pope Liberius a man of Faith whereas Mons. Lefebvre thought Pope John Paul II was not.
And in no way can Pope Blessed John Paul II be thought of as a heretic - although Mons Lefebvre called him an AntiChrist *- and in no way can Mons Lefebvre be thought of as a champion of orthodoxy because he rejected an ecumenical council, the normative mass, and refused communion with his local Bishop and the Pope and he started his own petit ecclesia.
It is owing to the historical ignorance of those who succor it that the SSPX can get away with their malign and disingenuous propaganda in defense of their indefensible schism.
On the other hand, as the SSPX is an ideological movement, and as it is the case that an ideology is, like a delusion, not correctable by facts and reason, maybe the SSPX does think the modern Popes are the captives of Masons and are being tortured by them.
Who knows what their real motives really are?
Archbishop Lefebvre's 1988 Episcopal Consecrations sermon
June 30, 1988
Your Excellency, dear Bishop de Castro Mayer, my most dear friends, my dear brethren,
Behold, here we are gathered for a ceremony, which is certainly historic. Let me, first of all, give you some information.
The first might surprise you a little, as it did me. Yesterday evening, a visitor came, sent from the nunciature in Berne, with an envelope containing an appeal from our Holy Father the Pope, who was putting at my disposal a car which was supposed to take me to Rome yesterday evening, so that I would not be able to perform these consecrations today. I was told neither for what reason, nor where I had to go! I leave you to judge for yourselves the timeliness and wisdom of such a request.
I went to Rome for many, many days during the past year, even for weeks; the Holy Father did not invite me to come and see him. I would certainly have been glad to see him if some agreement would have been finalized. So here you have the information. I give it to you simply, as I myself came to know it, through the letter from the nunciature.
You did make an agreement with Rome but then you reneged
Now, some indications concerning the ceremony and some relevant documents regarding its significance.
The future bishops have already sworn in my hands the oath which you find in the little booklet on the ceremony of consecration which some of you have. Thus, this oath has already been pronounced, plus the Anti-Modernist Oath, as it was formerly prescribed for the consecration of bishops, plus the Profession of Faith. They have already taken these oaths and this profession in my hands after the retreat which took place at Sierre during these last days. Do not, therefore, be surprised if the ceremony begins with the interrogations on the Faith, the Faith which the Church asks from those to be consecrated.
SSPX Priests can not in good conscience take the oath because it describes the Catholic Church as one that does not teach error
I also want to let you know that, after the ceremony, you will be able to ask the blessing of the bishops and kiss their rings. It is not the custom in the Church to kiss the hands of a bishop, as one kisses the hands of a newly-ordained priest, as you did yesterday. But the faithful may ask for their blessing and kiss their ring.
Lastly, you have at your disposal at the bookstall some books and flyers which contain all the elements necessary to help you better understand why this ceremony, which is apparently done against the will of Rome, is in no way a schism. Sorry, th ePope said if you went through with these illegal consecration you would be excommunicated because schism We are not schismatics! If an excommunication was pronounced against the bishops of China, who separated themselves from Rome and put themselves under the Chinese government, one very easily understands why Pope Pius XII excommunicated them.[1] There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, nor of putting ourselves under a foreign government, nor of establishing a sort of parallel church as the Bishops of Palmar de Troya have done in Spain. They have even elected a pope, formed a college of cardinals… It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought of separating ourselves from Rome! Huh, you separate yourselves from Rome but declare it is not a separation
On the contrary, it is in order to manifest our attachment to Rome that we are performing this ceremony. It is in order to manifest our attachment to the Eternal Rome, to the pope, and to all those who have preceded these last popes who, unfortunately since the Second Vatican Council, have thought it their duty to adhere to grievous errors which are demolishing the Church and the Catholic priesthood.
There has never been an ideological notion of eternal Rome in Catholic Tradition. There is a real rome, not a fictional one
It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I am hearing the voices of all these popes—since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII—telling us:
Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our preaching, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from this earth? Please, please, continue to keep this treasure which we have given you. Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the Church! Continue the Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Modernism, Sillonism.[3] All the errors which we have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the Church. Is it possible? Unless you do something to continue this Tradition of the Church which we have given to you, all of it shall disappear. Souls shall be lost."
Thus, we find ourselves in a case of necessity. We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times. This ecumenism and all these errors, this collegiality—all this is contrary to the Faith of the Church, and is in the process of destroying the Church.
This is why we are convinced that, by the act of these consecrations today, we are obeying the call of these popes and as a consequence the call of God, since they represent Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Church.
"And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?" Well, precisely because, at the same time that I gave my signature to the Protocol, the envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger gave me a note in which I was asked to beg pardon for my errors. But if I am in error, if I teach error, it is clear that I must be brought back to the truth in the minds of those who sent me this note to sign. "That I might recognize my errors" means that, "if you recognize your errors we will help you to return to the truth." What is this truth for them, if not the truth of Vatican II, the truth of the Conciliar Church? Consequently, it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world!
Ah, who needs the Church?
That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.
We can only have liberty if we separate ourselves form the Church
This is why I sent a letter to the pope, saying to him very clearly:
We simply cannot (accept this spirit and proposals), despite all the desires which we have to be in full union with you. Given this new spirit which now rules in Rome and which you wish to communicate to us, we prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to re-assume its place in the Roman authorities, in their minds."
This will last for as long as the Good Lord has foreseen.
It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call "Operation Survival," operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is "Operation Survival". If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed "Operation Suicide." There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.
You well know, my dear brethren, that there can be no priests without bishops. When God calls me—this will certainly not be long—from whom would these seminarians receive the sacrament of [holy] orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments? This is not possible. Who are the bishops who have truly kept Tradition and the sacraments such as the Church has conferred them for 20 centuries until Vatican II? They are Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself. I cannot change that. That is how it is. Hence, many seminarians have entrusted themselves to us, they sensed that here was the continuity of the Church, the continuity of Tradition. And they came to our seminaries, despite all the difficulties that they have encountered, in order to receive a true ordination to the priesthood, to say the true Sacrifice of Calvary, the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and to give you the true Sacraments, true doctrine, the true catechism. This is the goal of these seminaries.
So, only two Catholic Bishops in the entire world, That's not pretty good. O, and you are not a bishop, are you. You are a Bishop emeritus. You have no jurisdiction and,, thus, no ministry.
We turn to the Blessed Virgin Mary. You well know, my dear brethren, you must have been told of Leo XIII's prophetic vision revealing that one day "the See of Peter would become the seat of iniquity." He said it in one of his exorcisms, called "The Exorcism of Leo XIII." Has it come about today? Is it tomorrow? I do not know. But in any case it has been foretold. Iniquity may quite simply be error. Error is iniquity: to no longer profess the Faith of all time, the Catholic Faith, is a grave error. If there ever was an iniquity, it is this. And I really believe that there has never been a greater iniquity in the Church than Assisi, which is contrary to the First Commandment of God and the First Article of the Creed. It is incredible that something like that could have ever taken place in the Church, in the eyes of the whole Church—how humiliating! We have never undergone such a humiliation! You will be able to find all of this in Fr. LeRoux's booklet [Peter, Lovest Thou Me? This book is now out of print—Ed] which has been especially published in order to give you information on the present situation in Rome.
It was not only the good Pope Leo XIII who said these things, but Our Lady prophesied them as well. Just recently, the priest who takes care of the Society's priory in Bogota, Colombia, brought me a book concerning the apparition of Our Lady of Buen Suceso,—of "Good Fortune," to whom a large church in Quito, Ecuador, was dedicated. They were received by a nun shortly after the Council of Trent, so you see, quite a few centuries ago. This apparition is thoroughly recognized by Rome and the ecclesiastical authorities; a magnificent church was built for the Blessed Virgin Mary wherein the faithful of Ecuador venerate with great devotion a picture of Our Lady, whose face was made miraculously. The artist was in the process of painting it when he found the face of the Holy Virgin miraculously formed. And Our Lady prophesied for the 20th century, saying explicitly that during the 19th century and most of the 20th century, errors would become more and more widespread in Holy Church, placing the Church in a catastrophic situation. Morals would become corrupt and the Faith would disappear. It seems impossible not to see it happening today.
I excuse myself for continuing this account of the apparition, but she speaks of a prelate who will absolutely oppose this wave of apostasy and impiety—saving the priesthood by forming good priests. I do not say that prophecy refers to me. You may draw your own conclusions. I was stupefied when reading these lines but I cannot deny them, since they are recorded and deposited in the archives of this apparition.
Justy day it; Today this prophesy is fulfilled in me
The four new bishops, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais (born 1945, France), Richard Williamson (born 1940, England), Alfonso de Galarreta (born 1957, Spain), and Bernard Fellay (born 1958, Switzerland), were chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre among the members of the Society of St. Pius X because “they seemed to us the most apt,
...
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Archbishop Lefebvre told us: "You are bishops for the Church, for the Society; you will give the sacrament of Confirmation and confer Holy Orders; you will preach the faith." That is all. He did not say, "I confer these powers to you"; he simply indicated to us what our role would be. The jurisdiction that he did not give us-which he could not give us-and which the pope refused to give us, has been supplied by the Church, who gives it to us because of the state of necessity of the faithful. It is a suppletory jurisdiction, of the same nature as that which is accorded to priests by Canon Law in other cases of necessity. An example would be the jurisdiction to administer the sacrament of confession validly in the case of common error or positive and probable doubt, of right or of fact, about the jurisdiction of a priest (canon 209). In such a case, the Church has the habit of supplying the jurisdiction that might be lacking to the minister: "Ecclesia supplet."
Fideliter: So, by receiving the episcopal consecration in such circumstances and by exercising its power, you were able to be sure that you were not usurping any jurisdiction.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, no ordinary jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works.
Fideliter: Your consecration, then, Your Excellency, did not create a schism.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, not in any way. But a touchier question was talked about as far back as 1983, when Archbishop Lefebvre, confronted with the 1983 Code of Canon Law published by John Paul II, began to seriously consider consecrating one or more bishops: would these bishops, not recognized by the pope, be legitimate? Would they enjoy the "formal apostolic succession"? In a word, would they be Catholic bishops?
Fideliter: And that is a more difficult question to resolve than the one about jurisdiction, you say?
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, because it has to do with the divine constitution of the Church, as all Tradition teaches: there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope, by divine right head of the episcopal body… The answer is less evident; in fact, it is not at all evident...unless you were to suppose...
Bishop Williamson, who opposed the Society of St. Pius X holding reconciliation talks with the Vatican, was ousted from the society in 2012.
The SSPX stillbanging on about the Hawaii Six. I picked up a pamphlet from them this year...
https://nesceinet.blogspot.com/2022/11/sspx-still-lying-about-hawaii-six-after.html
As early as 1991 Lefevbre was usurping the authority and universal jurisdiction of the Pope. I think The Angelus failed to tell its supporters...
https://nesceinet.blogspot.com/2022/12/stay-out-of-sspx-sedevacantist-schism.html
There have been three cases of religious priests who have asked the Congregation of Religious for an indult to enter the Society. Father Bottazzo obtained in 1973 an indult of exclaustration non ultra ad triennium, but without mention of the Society (except in his written request to the Congregation); Father Snijder had thus obtained by rescript, in 1972, the faculty transeundi ad Institutum a Fraternitate sacerdotali S. Pii X praevio experimento trium annorum; and finally there was Father de La Presle who received in 1973 the faculty ingrediendi ad triennium Institutum Fraternitatis Sacerdotalis.
See https://1drv.ms/w/s!AuZ0glaRTLPIg7JGxc-BrME3B53Chw?e=odPMs6 for a translation of Fr. Urban Snyder's rescript on incardination by Rome directly into the SSPX, and here for the original in Latin: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuZ0glaRTLPIg7JHwd9-Cfw8yJYPAQ?e=ATW8o3
Post a Comment