Horrible – gpmtrad goes of the deep end ?

Gmptrad; is it another case of I told you so, or a case, I have always wanted to be the one who told you, I told you so? – Either way, I hate to disappoint you again.

I think we have been through this several times here. Same old, “SSPX is going to sell out” – Please give us a break. If the SSPX wanted to sell out it would have done so long ago. If it wanted to sell out, what is it waiting for? Permission from Gmptrad and co?

Gmptrad – Once more, you seem make a mountain out of nothing. – It is clear that what Bp. Fellay has said needs to be understood in the context. What context, the context of the entire history of the SSPX and it’s struggle with the conciliar novelties.

The words of Bp. Fellay, once more are nothing more than what the SSPX has always said, the obstacle has never been on the side of the SSPX. The obstacle is on the side of the unjust Conciliar authorities. The Archbishop never welcome or accepted the unjust penalties imposed upon him and the Society. To say that the unjust penalties imposed upon the SSPX are a good thing is to call evil good. That is absurd. The penalties of the Church are to be used against the wicked not against the just ! The reinstatement of the SSPX is simply a question of justice, just as it was simply a question of basic just for Pope Benedict to give a reinstatement for the the tridentine rite of the Liturgy.

The Gmptrad view some how erroneously tries to presume that the SSPX is not already subject to the Roman Pontiff (in all things lawful); and that the crisis in the Church gives everyone or anyone a right to do as they please. This position is not Catholic. Hence all the home aloners, Self Pontificating (self appoint Popes – i.e Sedevacantists), independant vagabonds etc. While I don’t cast judgment on their intentions, all these self appointed, I will do it my way Catholics are not helping the situation in the Church.

While no one is trying to say that the Conciliar authorities have a right to impose error, etc, no by all means Catholics clearly have both a right and duty (given them by God and His Church) to resist, denounce and out rightly reject error in any form and regardless from whom it may come (this includes the Roman Pontiff), for all Catholics, are subject to the same truths regardless of their official position.

Yet, one can not claim to be a Catholic without his subjection to the Roman Pontiff, this is a Catholic doctrine not up for negotiation.

“To be Christian, one must be Roman, governed by Christ’s Vicar on earth. The Church does not rest on Christ alone, but also on Peter. That Christ and His Vicar constitute only one single Head is solemn teaching. Therefore, those who think they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church without adhering faithfully to His Vicar on earth are in dangerous error.” – Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XI Papal Teachings – The Church, St Paul Editions,

The SSPX simply continues to await it’s approval on solid grounds that will grant it not be expect to accept the erroneous conciliar doctrines or liturgy and that it would have protection from the conciliar bishop who would see to hinder it in its work for souls; as this is not simply a question of the SSPX getting its way, but simply a clear case of a necessity for the faith, the faith which the great number of the (apostate) conciliar bishops have abandoned. –

No one can in any stage in the history of the Church simply say that good Catholics could not work within the official frame work of the Church until things were complete back on track or good in that structure before they would accept subjection to the lawful authorities of the Church. That position itself is totally erroneous. Just read the life of St. Augustine, St. Athanasius etc.

St. Augustine expressed this point so well himself : “The wicked in the Church – either unknown or tolerated by the good for the sake of the unity of peace – cannot harm the goods who do not consent to them unto evil.” – Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistas, I:10

Get AQ Email Updates

29 comments on “Horrible – gpmtrad goes of the deep end ?

  1. V.J. Stated: ‘Yet, one can not claim to be a Catholic without his subjection to the Roman Pontiff, this is a Catholic doctrine not up for negotiation. ‘

    In that case, the SSPX must accept the teachings (and errors) of Vatican II, approved by the Pope in union with the bishops; promulgated, applied, and insisted upon by four Popes after Paul VI; the N.O.M. The New Code of Canon Law; the Balamand Agreement, which states that Catholics are not to seek to convert the Orthodox to the One True Faith, so that they can save their souls. The “Ecumenical Directory” which insists that Catholics and members of other false religions are united (#18) albeit imperfectly and etc. etc.

    V.J. Stated: “No one can in any stage in the history of the Church simply say that good Catholics could not work within the official frame work of the Church until things were complete back on track or good in that structure before they would accept subjection to the lawful authorities of the Church. That position itself is totally erroneous”
    The traditionalist movement sprung up, precisely because faithful Catholics “could not work withing the official framework of the Church”; doesn’t anybody here remember the attempted unjust suppression of the SSPX in 1974? Does anybody here remember how faithful Catholics who attempted to have the errors and heresies being taught in our Catholic Schools removed, being instead sanctioned, ignored or even being ridiculed? They had two choices, 1. Work withing the structure and see the faith of their children destroyed or 2. Pull their children out of the schools and home school them or some other solution “outside the structure”.
    The same for all of the Mass centers, seminaries, religious orders, retreat houses etc. Set up independently “of the Official structures of the Church”. What other choice did we have in order to keep and preserve our faith? Even the so called Ecclessia Dei groups were only approved grudgingly by the Pope in response to the growing traditionalist movement operating “outside the normal structures”; if there was no independent trad movement, there would never have been a parallel official movement; that is history.

    V.J. Stated: ‘the faith which the great number of the (apostate) conciliar bishops have abandoned. – ”
    If the Concilar bishops are “apostates”, because they hold and teach the errors of Vatican II, then what are the Conciliar Popes who hold, teach and enforce such errors?
    Finally, Pope Francis has been challenged publicly by four Cardinals to confess that he holds to the teaching of the Church on the unity, permanence and indissolubility of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony; he has refused to do so; why so? Does he hold to another doctrine than that which Our Holy Faith as established by the Son of God Himself? If so, why would the SSPX seek to work with a man who no longer professes the Catholic Faith?

    • V.J. Stated: ‘Yet, one can not claim to be a Catholic without his subjection to the Roman Pontiff, this is a Catholic doctrine not up for negotiation. ‘

      In that case, the SSPX must accept the teachings (and errors) of Vatican II, approved by the Pope in union with the bishops; promulgated, applied, and insisted upon by four Popes after Paul VI; the N.O.M. …

      That’s an old canard. Subject does not mean “yes man.” In any case, you can take it up with Bishop Fellay, angelqueen.org/2017/01/30/bishop-fellay-on-sspx-regularization-there-is-one-condition/

      This apparently new attitude of Rome implies that some disputed questions concerning the Second Vatican Council are not strictly related to the binding “criteria of Catholicity.” Fellay explains: “That means that one has the right not to be in agreement [with some aspects of the Second Vatican Council] but still be considered to be Catholic.”

      Moreover, Fellay says that the SSPX has shown in the recent past and in daily acts “our submission to Rome,” that “we are recognizing Rome’s authority,” and not only by praying for the Holy Father in the Canon of the Mass. In a practical way, says the Superior General, “we have normal relationships” with Rome, inasmuch as the SSPX was told last summer that the Superior General “may licitly ordain priests of the Society without first receiving any explicit approval from the local bishop.”

  2. Note to moderator: you may delete my posts as you see fit, but Father Vernoy nixed the Leonine prayers in S Fl around the same time as Jorge “gave” the Society faculties to hear confessions. I was there, it happened. And the prayers still aren’t said.

    Michael Wilson, Cyprian calls it canard. I call it, ‘simple question.’ I wonder why when it’s asked, no one answers.

    • quomodo i.e. “canard”; yes, t;he Pope issues a reform of the sacraments and the SSPX decides whether to accept it or not (“not” in the case of the N.O.M) ; a new Code of Canon Law and the SSPX decides which canons to accept and which it wont etc. etc. The Pope orders Msgr. Lefebvre to suppress the SSPX and Msgr. Refuses (thank goodness); etc. etc. The fact is that the SSPX has acted outside of obedience to the Popes since Vatican II, in order to safeguard the Catholic faith; nothing has changed which would indicate that this isn’t still the prudent and necessary course of action.

      • All for which to be thankful, yes. And a middle ground. I’m still trying to understand the wisdom of it all. There was an article written on NOWatch, whose articles Tom posts on AQ from time to time, about an article Fr Aulanier (sp?) wrote more than a decade ago defending the Campos decision to ‘reintegrate.’ His reasoning led to his, Fr A’s, it is claimed in the NOWatch article, expulsion. As Rome grows worse in their errors, I’m still, like I said, trying to understand why the Society’s leadership is falling back on Fr A’s reasoning for reintegrating with Rome. These are honest questions in unquestionably confusing and, let’s face it, dangerous times. Men of good will may very well deserve honest answers to them.

    • If the pope orders everyone to stop saying the Mass of Ages and say the Protestant liturgy, and you disobey, i.e., “disobey,” are you no longer his subject?

      I say “canard” because I had this out with a *bleep* some 20+ years ago. He was highly schooled and could give a pristine definition of what obedience required, etc., then turned around and said being subject meant accepting the New Mass and all the modern changes and errors, etc. It was a mind-split I couldn’t get past with him.

      The unfortunate side of this incorrect usage of “subject” is to provide a ticket for whatever disobedience the claimant feels is warranted. We are bound by the discipline of the pope. The correct answer is that one may do what is necessary, e.g., provide sacraments according to Tradition. But “running a parallel Church” is not warranted. And BTW Bp. Fellay disavows the concept of “running a parallel Church,” and does not look at the SSPX as doing so.

      Even Our Lord had to deal with this very question of the religious authorities who “sit in the chair of Moses” when he told his disciples, “All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”

      • Cyprian, I just want to clarify that I wasn’t making a judgment when I quoted you. I was simply quoting you. I harbor no ill-will. These times are horrible and Jorge is certainly causing chaos. There is no reason that reasonable men can’t disagree reasonably. Reasonably is the key term there. If you or anyone else dislikes my point of view, you’re welcome to dislike it. But it’s my point of view. I don’t insist not expect anyone to share it.

        • No problem. I didn’t mean to pick on you. This is a serious subject for us trads and has raised a lot of misunderstanding and division. Especially for neocats, who–up until Jorge–thought that anyone who disagrees with anything from the pope is out of the Church. I don’t get uppity about the subject anymore because it doesn’t help anyone. I’ll admit I jumped on Michael’s initial comment, because I think this is worth a healthy discussion.

      • The Pope orders everyone to say the Protestant liturgy, and you disobey, i.e., “disobey,” are you no longer his subject?

        Response: The Pope is infallible in his discipline, which includes the regulation of the liturgy.
        I agree that the N.O,M. Is a Protestantized liturgy, but it is whithin the competency of the Papal office to regulate the liturgy of the Church.
        re. The question of the religious authorities; notice how Our Lord tells them to “observe whatsoever they shall say to you”
        But those do you “observe whatsoever they (the Conciliar authorities) say to you? Do you accept the doctrines of Religious Liberty, Ecumenism, and the other errors of Vatican II? Do you accept the order from the Pope and the world’s bishops to assist at the N.O.M.?

        Re. “Parallel Church”? Well from whom does the SSPX have their permission to carry on their activities?

        • Trads have sufficiently answered this for more than 40 years, but you continue the obfuscation — why? The pope cannot order anyone to give up the Traditional Mass. Period. If someone chooses not to ever go to the NO, is he thereby not a subject of the pope? That is what you seem to be saying. (And what “order” is there to assist at the N.O.? It was Paul VI’s “wish.”) As for doctrine, same answer. Being subject to this pope implies being subject to all his predecessors from whom he receives his authority.

          You are advancing the NeoCat argument that the current pope can redefine the Church and everyone must go along or leave the Church. E.g., according to your logic, Cardinal Burke is now out of the Church, no longer a subject of the pope.

          Your argument, again, fails to define “subject.”

          • Cyprian stated:
            As for doctrine, same answer. Being subject to this pope implies being subject to all his predecessors from whom he receives his authority.
            But the Pope receives his authority directly from Our Lord, not from his predecessors; if what you stated would be true, then the Pope could appoint his predecessor, and he would be able to restrict his authority, which he cannot.
            Define “to be subject to” from online dictionary, def. #2: Being under the dominion or authority, as of a sovereign, authority, or government, as in subject to the boss’s whims.
            But Catholics are under the authority of the Pope and the bishops united to the Pope.
            Re. Not attending the N.O. Catholics are supposed to fulfill their Sunday precept at their local parish. We trads do not assist at this service; we have in this respect withdrawn our obedience from the Pope and our local bishop. We also assist at a Mass center that has been established (at least in the case of the SSPX and independent chapels) without the permission of the local bishop. This means that we are also not subject to the Pope or bishop in this matter.

            • This does not make any sense to me:
              “if what you stated would be true, then the Pope could appoint his predecessor, and he would be able to restrict his authority, which he cannot.”
              Did you mean ‘successor’, or…?

  3. Yep. Obviously, that “observe whatsoever they shall say to you” assumes that what they say is not against the law of God. Otherwise, how could Peter and John, when commanded to stop preaching Christ, have said “We must obey God rather than men”?
    That bit about the pope being infallible in regulating discipline is false. It’s another sedevac, Universal Infallibilist lie.
    The dogmatic definition of Vatican I (Dz 1839) includes only *doctrines* (of Faith and morals).
    It’s the common opinion of theologians that disciplines are indirectly included. But there are restrictions:
    1) The discipline has to be one that certainly implies doctrine. E.g., a Creed recited during the liturgy — it can’t be heretical.
    2) The discipline has to be a law for the universal Church. (N.B.: The Novus Ordo disciplines are not universal; the Eastern Rites are excepted).
    It could be added that the infallibility of a discipline does not come from the promulgation itself of the discipline — because no pope has ever promulgated a disciplinary law while invoking his infallibility; he has never promulgated it with an “anathema sit”, or a “we pronounce, declare and define that it is to be held by all the faithful…” That is impossible, for a law is directly the object of obedience, not Faith.
    That logically means that even disciplines that imply a statement of Faith become infallible only through the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and that means Tradition; that which is taught universally both in space (i.e. throughout the world) and in time (e.g. at least for a couple of hundred years or more).
    See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 297 and following.
    www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm says:
    “(d) As to moral precepts or laws as distinct from moral doctrine, infallibility goes no farther than to protect the Church against passing *universal* laws which in principle would be immoral. It would be out of place to speak of infallibility in connection with the opportuneness or the administration of necessarily changing disciplinary laws although, of course, Catholics believe that the Church receives appropriate Divine guidance in this and in similar matters where practical spiritual wisdom is required.
    As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching.”
    Now note that even the common opinion of theologians, that only *universal* disciplinary laws are infallible, is not De Fide. No one is required under pain of heresy to believe that disciplinary laws come under infallibility at all, whether by the Extraordinary or the Ordinary Magisterium.

    • Right. I wasn’t making some absolute rule out of Our Lord’s words that wasn’t intended.

      The point is, Our Lord recognized legitimate authority and was subject to it, even unto death. That’s the example. Obviously, Our Lord didn’t have to submit to His death sentence from Caiaphas, but He knew it was His Father’s will. But the example is for us, that we always attempt to observe the authorities Our Lord puts over us. I’ve seen enough over the years to know that many folks do not try.

      • P.S. I’m not making veiled comments about the SSPX. I’ve been quite pleased at the fortitude and wisdom of Bishop Fellay in keeping the SSPX on track to be recognized by the Church and have the cloud over them removed so more faithful can benefit from the good they do.

        • I gotcha.
          Of course, Our Lord had a right to submit to an unjust sentence of death, because
          1) He is God
          2) His doing so would not harm his own *soul*, nor that of others, but only His body.
          As you’ve made clear, we don’t have the luxury to practice obedience that will harm our own souls or those of others. Not even a pope can command that, and disobeying orders to do so is not to remove ourselves from his *legitimate* authority.

  4. BTW. In the interest of “fair play” I’m an empty chair guy; just so you know where I’m coming from.
    Re. “Obfuscation” & “lies” on disciplinary laws; Its is sufficient to consult any pre-VII Theological Manual on the veracity or falsity of my claim. Or better yet take for example Pius VI in prop. 78 of
    Auctorem Fidei:
    “..as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
    But disciplinary laws cannot be harmful to souls, even “useless” or “burdensome”.
    But trads (at least the SSPX) claims that the N.O,M. Is indeed harmful to souls as it leads to a loss of faith.
    Re. Universal Disciplinary laws; those promulgated for the Latin Rite are considered “universal”
    “Not de fide”; the proposition that Catholics are only bound to believe those teachings of the Church that have been solemnly defined, has been condemned many times. See for ex. Pius XI letter to the Archbishop of Munich condemning various errors (dz-1683-84); Catholics must also submit to “….the decisions pertaining to doctrine issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also those…..held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions….”
    Re. No Pope has promulgated disciplinary laws with “anthema sit” or similar wording; It is not necessary for the Pope to use a specific formula; see, Msgr. Gasser explanation to the Council Fathers at Vatican I in “Gift of Infallibility” pg. 120.
    Re. Paul VI & N.O.M. He promulgated it and suppressed the Trad Mass; indeed all those priests who celebrated the TLM (except for a few exceptions) were struck with penalties; this is history. Why do you think that people founded Mass centers independent of their parishes post 1969? Why do you think priests were expelled from their parishes, suspended etc. For refusing to celebrate the N.O.M.? A simultaneous worldwide mistake and coincidental misinterpretation of the Pope’s intentions for almost 50yrs now?
    Re. Ott. On the Infallibility of Church discipline see pg. 299: “..the veneration of saints is, as St. Thomas teaches, “to a certain extent a confession of the faith, in which we believe in the glory of the saints” (Quodl. 9. 16); but if the Church could err in her opinion, consequences would arise which would be incompatible with the sanctity of the Church.”
    Comment: But the veneration is set by the Church in her liturgy, by the office and the Mass of the particular saint.
    Here is Van Noort “Dogmatic Theology” v-II pg. 114: “The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain….The Church..can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls….”

    • Empty-chair guy. Well, Tom, what’s the policy here? I guess I wasn’t off the mark.

    • “Its is sufficient to consult any pre-VII Theological Manual on the veracity or falsity of my claim.”
      I’m afraid I must disagree, and in fact it should be self-evident that that is not sufficient. One may as well say that anyone can read the Bible and reliably interpret it.
      As for Auctorem Fidei, the particular statement you quote is not found in Denzinger. What *is* found there is Pius condemning the opinion that the *Traditional* disciplines could be in error (not just any disciplines). See Dz 1531-1533. Auctorem Fidei was against the false Synod of Pistoia, which was particularly characterized by a contempt for Tradition.
      ” Universal Disciplinary laws; those promulgated for the Latin Rite are considered “universal”
      Can you give any citation? And even if a discipline qualifies as universal in place, that is not enough. It has to go back at least 200 years to qualify for Tradition. Moreover, that universal disciplinary laws are part of the object of infallibility has been disputed by theologians, and although it is the common opinion, it has never itself been defined as an article of Faith. So Ott, Van Noort and others can say that, and did say it in a time when it did not seem problematical, so we owed that doctrine religious submission of mind and will. Now, however, there are very strong facts, the New Liturgy and the New “Saints”, that give us strong and legitimate reason to doubt. And given those strong reasons, we are *allowed* to do so.
      In this time of confusion, we have to stick as much as possible to the truly indubitable: De Fide declarations of the Church.

      • re. The statement that you quote is not found in Denzinger.
        Yes, I copied and pasted it right out of Denzinger (DZ-1578)
        On the infallibility of Church discipline per manualists = Prot. Sola Scriptura parcing. No, the manuals are there to instruct the unlearned as to the meaning of the doctrines. The Bible is not a manual of doctrine. The comparison is therefore not valid.
        Re. 1531-1534; Actually confirms what I have quoted from Van Noort and from 1578; the heretics appeal to antiquity vs. “the present order of the liturgy” (1533); And we are speaking of the liturgy of the Latin Rite which is being criticized by the pseudo-Council

        • Yes, you are right that your quote is in Denzinger. I could not find it because it was under a heading that seemed to have nothing to do with disciplines. Thank you for the correction.
          However, it is false that this (Dz 1578) or the quotes I adduced (Dz 1531-1533) support that disciplines of the Church *recently* established are included in infallibility, for two reasons:
          1) None of these declarations are given the theological note of infallibility; none of them attach a condemnation of anathema, but confine themselves to classifications like “rash”, “offensive to pious ears”, “injurious to the Church”, etc. This means they can be used as arguments, indeed, but do not definitively settle anything.
          2) The context clearly shows that Traditional disciplines only are being approved. Pius VI is, as you say, condemning antiquarianism (as did Pius XII in Mediator Dei, BTW). He is *not* condemning Tradition; these two terms are not synonymous. I mean Pius VI is not saying that disciplines become infallible immediately upon promulgation. In fact, he is not saying they are infallible at all. For instance, you have quoted 1533 out of context. A fuller quote is “…the synod…[recalls the liturgy] to a greater simplicity of rites… as if the present order of the liturgy, *received* and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated.” It is perfectly clear that “received” means handed down by Tradition; the “present order” he is talking about is not one sprung up from nowhere, but is the Tradition.
          As you say, we are speaking of the liturgy of the Latin Rite which is being criticized by the pseudo-Council…and that liturgy was not established arbitrarily in one go as was the Novus Ordo, but by Tradition.
          As to parsing manuals, it is false to say “the manuals are there to instruct the unlearned as to the meaning of the doctrines”. The manuals were designed as textbooks to be used in seminary courses, where students either already had, or were simultaneously being given, familiarity with the theological and philosophical background necessary to understand the manuals. It’s not that Joe Sixpack can just pick up a manual and start proclaiming to the world what it means. My analogy to the Bible is, admittedly, not one to one similar, but it still holds. The only difference is that interpreting Scripture requires even more theological and philosophical background.

  5. I’ve been a member here since 2007, and I don’t publish empty chair theories on this forum; what I posted above is from the Pope and from Catholic manuals.

    • Re. Niceisnasty’s remark on St. Peter’s response to the High Priest: The High priest was no longer the head of the true Church; since the death of Our Lord on the Cross, the Old Law and religion were abolished, as symbolized by the parting of the veil in the Holy of Holies. St. Peter was now the true High Priest and supreme Pontiff; the Jewish High Priest was an Apostate, and therefore he was no longer the legitimate religious authority.

    • One reason I joined AQ is that I wouldn’t get trolled by *bleeps*. Now I’m getting trolled by a *bleep*.

      Serv, it was fun while it lasted.

      Over and out.

      • Since you like definitions, here is the one for “troll”
        1. n. a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.
        1.v. make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them:
        Nothing that I have posted on this thread or this forum in my time here can be characterized as “trolling”.
        However, if you find my personal opinion so very offensive that you cannot even stand me interacting with your post, I will cease to do so, in order that you will not feel compelled to depart from this forum.

      • Cyprian et al.,
        Over many years of dealing with “bleeps”, I still conclude just like Arb. Lefebvre did: Bleepism is a false solution to a real problem, but it is perfectly understandable that one can hold that position in good faith, at least generally speaking, given the unprecedented betrayal of modern popes.
        Of course I don’t set policy here, but it seems to me that if someone wants to engage in a *reasonable* debate on the matter, that could actually be useful. In the end, since authority in the Church is in total disarray, all we have are facts and reason.
        I don’t think it can be said that Michael is inventing his own facts, or being unreasonable — even if I disagree on his reasoning at times.

  6. Reading this exchange has led me to some conclusions. I’m the first to tally I’m not the brightest. But, from jxxiii right up to the apostate Jorge, these popes have not been Catholic, each contributing to a different degree the destruction of the Church. What’s the use of even discussing legitimate authority? If they’re Popes, and only a Catholic Pope of the future will have the authority to judge them either way, they aren’t Catholic. Why have anything to do with them? Why mingle the healthy with the insane? Better to keep the distance, better to preach the truth, better to call a devil a devil and carry on Catholic until a Catholic is once again in charge of the Church. I can see no way out of the sedevantist position– however mystery is compatible with Catholicism, while lies are not. The SSPX position as stated above, ‘we can defect’ seems to be hubris. Both positions, sspx and sedevacantist are too dangerous for the soul. But then again, only time and a Catholic Pope can tell. I don’t mean to step on toes, or violate any AUP with my 1/2 cent here, but neither of the arguments as presented are convincing. Or cause for hope.

    • Quomodo,
      the reason that there is such a divergence of opinion on how to deal with the present crisis in the Church, is because it is totally unprecedented. The cause for hope is that Our Lord Himself stated that “The gates of Hell shall not prevail”; therefore we know that sooner or latter, God will set things right again, even if it means that He has to come back personally and do it.

Leave a Reply