I think I’ll wait till there’s a SSPX-OMSO. (Of the Most Strictest’est’ Observance). Then I might join.

Also,

R J,

you’re welcome to stick to UK journalism only.

“This is the destruction of authority. How authority can be exercised if it needs to ask all members to participate in the exercise of authority?”

I don’t disagree with either this statement or the decision to expel Bishop Williamson; but I don’t see how this statement does not apply to the SSPX as a whole. Either the Pope has authority over the Church or he does not.  Either the SSPX (as a whole) accepts the principle of apostolic succession or it (like Luther and Calvin) does not and if it does accept that principle then I think they have a duty to end their rebellion.

Just a minor stylistic criticism: could you say something like “draw in” rather than “hoover up”?  People unfamiliar with Hoover vacuum cleaners might not get the reference.

Joaco, I will stick to quality journalism wherever I find it but I thank you nonetheless for the kindness of your message, be it never so devoid of intellectual merit.

The FSSPX ha no lawful superiors. The SSPX has no canonical status with Rome. Bishop Fellay is suspended a divinis and has no authority to include or exclude anyone, according to the Rome whose feet he so shamelessly kisses. So why does he accuse Bishop Williamson of disobedience to his ‘lawful superiors’. Every act of Bishop Fellay is ‘unlawful’ so it is like the kettle calling the teapot ‘black arse’, is it not? Some hypocrisy. Bishop Williamson was ‘ordered’ by Bishop Fellay to be silent and to stay secluded. Now he says that in following those orders Bishop Williamson has ‘distanced himself from the government and management of the FSSPX’ - I tell you to jump into the river, you jump and then I tell you that getting wet is all your fault. More hypocrisy. The final slap in the face and the ultimate hypocrisy is Bernard Fellay quoting Archbishop Lefebvre, the man who consecrated him and the man whose work he has !@#$% and betrayed.

Can Bernie “the sell out” be expelled by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta,Most Reverend Tissier de Mallerais and Bishop Williamson? Why not?  I feel that Bishop Williamson was conveniently removed so that Bernie can deal with the remaining bishops with ease.  I pray that the rest of the Holy congregation will smell this before it’s too late.

Very sad. Meanwhile people like Bishop Malooly and Joe Biden are members in good standing of this new Vatican II church that has chased away many millions of people of good will and conscience.

  We have a serious crisis of confidence in both Church and State. In a the last American presidential debate, both candidates repeated the known Zionist propaganda deliberate misinterpretation of Iran wishing the annihilation of Israel. Liars do not deserve respect, be they popes, presidents or Zionist “historians”. So everybody in the world is now an expert in gas chambers ? Williamson had the courage to seek scientific investigation as opposed to the flat earthers who choose to be deceived.

I do not wish even for one moment to lead anyone into temptation but as a Bishop, it is for +Williamson to lead us on a righteous and (hopefully) safe path and ours to follow - but I hear that more than a few of the French FSSPX see him as more the true successor of the Archbishop than +Fellay.

I would give my life to preserve and to aid Archbishop Lefebvre’s work, which I believe really to be that of the Church. My life is as nothing but my soul is everything - where shall we go if the FSSPX goes further down the neo-Modernist path? Should we be grateful for that Truth that a pro-Vatican, Fellayite regime manages not to give away or suffer for the Faith, as did our fathers, before us?

I do not find Bishop Williamson at all ‘insolent’. Fr Smuts is right, however, when he says he is a stumbling block for so he is. He is a stumbling block to Bishop Fellay who continues his ‘Rake’s Progress’ down the attractive yellow brick road toward his fellow Modernist at the end of the via della Conciliazione.

Bishop Williamson is perfectly conformed to the traditional ecclesiology of Archbishop Lefebvre. If Lefebvre was right yesterday then Williamson is right today but in that case Fellay is wrong.

What has happened to Bishop Williamson is not, at all, the product of a long internal SSPX process. It is merely Bishop Fellay being the immature and imprudent man he has shown himself to be over the years. He is not the successor to Archbishop Lefebvre. He is a conniving ecclesial careerist whose taste for being ‘top dog’ exceeds his ability to rule.

Bishop Fellay is betraying his Consecrator and selling out the SSPX for a metre or two of modernist purple. He uses the doublespeak language and the tactics of your average Dictator, aided and abetted by the Dr Goebbles of the FSSPX, Fr Schmidberger. Bishop Fellay and his Assistants are knowingly a trio of liars and manipulators. Kyrie eleison, as Bishop Williamson would say.

Rome is in schism (and heresy) and the neo-SSPX seem to want to join them. Bishop Williamson is a defender and shepherd of the true Catholic Faith.

SSPX faithful should stop giving money during Sunday collections, and/or cancel your intermittent debit contributions, until Bishop Williamson’s expulsion is lifted and an apology is given to him, and SSPX requires Rome to reject its heresy and modernism. No deal with Rome until they come back to the true Faith they abandoned at Vatican II.

Throughout this whole affair Bishop Fellay has been petulant, vindictive, impatient,and spiteful towards Bishop Williamson’s efforts to point out the errors in the approach to the negotiations with Rome.
To negotiate with Rome under the present state of affairs has been total folly on the part of Bishop Fellay. 
I’m a “Traditional Catholic” who worships at an SSPX Church. And today: I’m divided in my mind.  I will perhaps retreat [closet myself] into my apartment and put everything into Our Blessed Mother’s Care for us while redirecting my thithe to Fr. Nicholas Gruner’s Fatima Crusader program.

If the SSPX does not reconcile with Rome, the same will continue to happen as with all those who break from the authority of the Pope. They will break into many splinter groups. It is sad that Bishop Williamson was expelled, but it was necessary as he would not comply. He was a danger to the reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX. I believe German Chancellor Angela Merkel and others of like mind should stay out of the Church’s internal affairs with the SSPX. The Holy Father should give a warning to Angela Merkel, what she wants for the SSPX should be given to her by Rome. How I hope that the reconciliation process be placed in the hands of Cardinal Burke of the Apostolic Signatura. Cardinal Burke is a very intelligent Ecclesiastic who knows how to reason with the mind of Christ’s Church in his own mind and heart.

All of this hubris about splinter groups….

Guys, what is the percentage of novus ordo catholics who attend mass every Sunday?  21%.  It was in the low 70’s before Vatican II.

Vatican II was a break with tradition and is now considered a “new Pentecost” and a new church.  The modernist innovators who brought about the changes of Vatican II are all a bunch of atheists who think believers will tow the line no matter what.  Well, in the gospels Jesus said that His sheep know his voice and will not follow.  However, no matter how much shrinkage the novus ordo goes through, these modernist atheists insist on staying the course.  They are true believers in the church created in their image.

I’m talking about Benedict XVI here and not the SSPX.  Vatican II is a disaster for the Catholic Church. 

Now let’s all go to some novus ordo church and clap about how all truth is truth and since “Gather us in” and feel that everything’s okay…

...well, everything is not okay.

You are right, Indy Pherrant. I find it sad, however, that someone who sees the kernel of the problem is not active in battling against it.

My fervent hope is that +Williamson will now raise his voice ever loudly and widely - the flock will hear his voice and recognise it as that of a true Shepherd, easily distinguishable from the hirelings at SSPX HQ AT Menzingen.

The time it takes to read this article…is enough time to actually watch the YouTube interview that has branded this man a cancer…Watch it…and if your Catholic…watch a few others of his about diverse topics and ideals within the modern church and society.  You may discover why certain voices need to be taken out.  The loudest and most traditional voices within all flavors of Catholicism and Fundamental Protestantism will need to be tramped down.  Wack-a-Mole for Modernism.  More to follow…. Mitch Pacwa watch your back.

Anyone see the irony of SSPX kicking out Bishop Williamson for not submitting to authority?

Dirk Wichgers, I believe everyone sees the similarity. Maybe Rome will wake up and start kicking out all the liberal dissidents along with their false reforms which have betrayed Vatican Council ll. Seems the SSPX has more guts than our weak spirit of vatican ll leaders.

Angelo,
The SSPX is not just rejecting the “liberal dissedents” and “their false reforms which have betrayed Vatican Council II”, they have rejected a legitimate Church Council. They have placed themselves outside the Church.
And you have been scammed.

Dirk Wichgers, Scammed I have not been! Confused but not scammed. The SSPX does not reject the whole of the Council. What it rejects are those parts that they believe are contrary to Tradition. The Church as you know goes by Scripture and Tradition, the two cannot be separated. There are many Church officials taking the SSPX seriously now. One example, “Nostra Aetaete” a Council Document clearly states that Jews must convert to Christianity, they must accept Jesus Christ. Now, since after the Council, many Church officials declare that according to Vatican ll, Jews need not convert or accept Jesus Christ. And they continue to hold this view. That Jews need not accept Jesus and they use as their defense Vatican Council ll. V2 never said this, it said the opposite as pointed out by the SSPX. What many Catholics are now looking at is that Vatican ll said Jews must convert, while others say that according to Vatican ll Jews need not convert. Dirk, who is right the SSPX pointing to what V2 actually said, or those who say Vatican said what it did not say? The liberals made a worse mess in the Church than we previously thought.

Dirk Wichgers, How could the SSPX be outside of the Church when Pope Benedict XVl lifted their excommunications and is working hard to grant the Society the status of “Papal Prelature”, so that no one can tell them what to do execpt the Pope himself. The Jews don’t want this reconciliation because they are among the few who have actually read the Council Documents. The SSPX and other Traditional Fraternities have read them very closely. Only the liberals have not read them. The Liberals were shocked when the Society pointed out what Vatican ll actually said. There are those in the Church that rent their garments. But the SSPX has pointed out the truth and they have been left dumbfounded. They want the reconciliation process to end immediatly. Why? Because they have been humiliated by the SSPX, and they cannot use V2 as their defense, as V2 proves these liberals wrong. So, tell me has the Society really scammed, us, or was it the false interpretations of V2 that scammed us for 50 years.

Angelo,
I have read the Vatican II documents. I accept them. Liberal have not read them and misuse them. Traqditionalists don’t understand them and distort them. And yes the false intepretations by the modernists have mislead alot of people. But, a number of good intentioneed Catholics have left the bosom of the Church to join Traditionalists cults who do not accept Vatican II. The SSPX will not accept the documents of VaticanII, so I do not forsee any avenue for reconciliation. What a tragedy. I will continue to pray that these misguided members will submit to the the authority of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Angelo, in reference to 9:27 post, where does the SSPX get the authority to decide where the Church has departed from scriptue or tradition? Martin Luther? Calvin? Bishop Fellay? Bishop Williamson? You need to go on the SSPX website to see that they are not just rejecting modernist interpretations of the documents, they reject some of the documents. Where do they get the authority to be the arbiters of what the Church teaches? Where do you get the authority to pick and choose what Church Councils you give authority to? Are you a Catholic or a protesting Protestant?

Dirk Wichgers, I myself at one time considered the SSPX deranged. Until I listened to what they had to say. I have concluded that the SSPX knows more about the Council than others, and has put it into practice. Misguided they are not, they have been showing today’s Church leaders how they are the misguided ones. Now the anger against the SSPX is the fact that the Society has humiliated those who demand that the Society accept V2, they have confronted those who claim to champion the Council, and their errors and false interpretaion of the Council is being brought to light. The SSPX has not departed from the Church, they are the ones who have remained faithful to it. This has been aknowledged by Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl. Which is why both Popes had as a priority their normalization. It is no secret that in Rome and throughout the world many have been working hard to throw a wrench into the normalization of the SSPX. You asked where the Society gets the authority to be arbiters of the Council, they claim the authority just the way liberals have claimed the same authority. Only difference is that the SSPX seeks the truth while others want to turn the Council into their own false ideoligies. As for the question as to whether I am “Catholic or a protesting protestant”, I am a Traditionalist in union with the Holy Father. Dirk, are you one of those practising anti-vatican ll Catholics who know more than the Council, as the SSPX points out?

Vatican II was not an ‘infallible’ Council. Very deliberately and with incredible foresight John XXIII explicitly declared it a ‘pastoral’ Council of the Universal Church. Anything in any of the Council’s documents that fails or appears to fail to correspond with the previously stated Doctrine of the authentic Magisterium can be ignored - indeed it MUST be ignored. What does not conform to the authentic Magisterium’s Teaching is, simply, heretical. Even Pope Benedict cannot deny this.

One cannot be excluded or excommunicated for refusing to tolerate heresy or for combating it or those who teach it. Bishop Williamson can no more be excluded from the FSSPX because he speaks against that which endangers the Faith than he can be excommunicated for that, same reason. Bishop Fellay’s petulant little notice attempting to exclude Bishop Williamson is without force of law, either in the ‘new’ code of canon law or in the ‘old’.  It is worth noting that Bishop Fellay attempts to assert that his Senior Bishop had excluded himself, as though opposing that which is detrimental both to the FSSPX and to the Catholic Faith can amount to an act of self-alienation or self excommunication. Bishop Fellay and his cronies are living in cloud cuckoo land. they lie, deceive, mislead and con the Faithful, demanding absolute ‘obedience’ the like of which the Pope does not have or they will refuse you the Sacraments, throw your kids out of school, ostracise you from the community of the Church and refuse you Christian burial when you die, Such is the love and the false charity of the man who claims to be the successor of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Dr R J Berry. True the Second Vatican Council was a Pastoral Council. But a Council nevertheless binding on all faithful Catholics. In the Council Documents one sees the Dogmas of the faith reaffirmed. The Council depended a great deal on Tradition. The Holy Father has confirmed that nothing in the Council Documents is a break from Tradition. Bl. John XXlll deplored trouble he seen ahead. Since Pope Paul Vl to Pope Benedict XVl, the false, or misinterpretation of the Council has been continuously condemned. What we have mainly seen thus far after the Council, is not what the Council called for. What we have is “the spirit of vatican ll” mentality, condemned by Bl. John Paul ll. In this Year of Faith called for by Benedict XVl, so far so good. High ranking Prelates are not hiding there disagreements on how the Council was implemented. The recent Synod of Bishops proves this. Many Prelates voiced their opposition to the false implementaion of the Council. As Ratzinger now Poepe Benedict XVl has said, “What was said at the Council and what was done after the Council are two totaly different things”. Something I find very interesting is that today when one speaks of what the Council actually said, there are many who reject it. They don’t want to hear the Council quoted, when they discover that it is they themselves, who reject what the Council actually said. We owe this in no small part to the SSPX, who have pointed out to liberals that it is they who reject V2 and not so much the SSPX.

Angelo, the Second Vatican Council was a Pastoral Council and aCouncil not binding on Catholics as though it were the Faith, especially one that has no infallible charism. I

n the Council Documents one sees the Faith placed in doubt by deliberately ambiguous language in almost all the alleged translations, if not in the typical Latin originals.

Vatican II was destructive of Tradition in its Modernist engineered aftermath. The present Pope was one of the most Modernist of all the Council periti and his ideas on Tradition are anything but in conformity with those of the Church.

Certainly, John XXlll deplored the disaster he foresaw which is probably why he wanted to close the Council! 

Paul Vl, John-Paul II and Benedict XVl have all sustained the errors of Vatican II and its aftermath which is why Rome is in a complete Modernist mess, today.

Fellay and Company are now leading the SSPX toward Rome, Mother and Mistress and new home of the Synthesis of Errors.

Were Archbishop Lefebvre still with us he would expel Bernie Fellay and his crew. They are neo-Modernist cuckoos who betray and destroy the Archbishop’s work and in whose soiled hands the Faith is not safe.

Dr R J Berry, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre signed an agreement with Rome. This aggreement was signed by Lefebvre, Cardinal Ratzinger and Bl. John Paul ll. The Holy Father was to allow the consecration to the Episcopate a priest from the Society itself. The Pope asked Lefebvre to submit 4 candidates. The Holy Father approved of none on that list, so he asked for another list for consideration. Lefebvre did not get his way, so he renegade on the signed aggreement. He then consecrated 4 Bishops against the express will of the Holy Father. By the Code of Canon Law, Lefebvre, Mayor and the 4 newly consecrated Bishops brought upon themselves excommunication “Latae Sententiae”, that is by their own doing. Rome at one point put on display at the Vatican for all to see, the original 16 Documents of Vatican ll, which all 16 Documents bore the signature of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Pope John Paul the First said that he could not understand why his friend Lefebvre would protest the Council. Saying “We were all there together” and that Lefebvre approved the final drafts of all 16 Documents. So then if The Popes have been modernist, then Lefebvre is right there along with them, as he did approve and signed all 16 Documents. By your judgment, if the Council can be rejected then the Council of Trent can also be rejected, just as the liberals have done. Are you sure it is Vatican ll you reject, or is it the deplorable modernistic way the modernist falsley interpreted it and put it into effect, there is a huge difference. The SSPX does not reject the Council, what they reject is its false interpretation, such as false Ecumenism. Ecumenism is the Tradition of the Church, it is to bring those who are not in union with the Church, back to union with Christ’s Church. Prelates have been saying that according to V2 the Jewish people need not accept Christ. Recently the SSPX pointed out to them the Council Documents that specificaly says that the Jews must convert and accept Jesus Christ. The SSPX rejects the errors of those who implemented the Council, not the Council itself. As for the so called “Ambiguous language” the Documents of Vatican ll were written in the same style as all previous Documents. Perhaps what we need is for the Council Document translations to be revised and made to better conform to the original Latin. As was done to the translation of the Novus Ordo Missae into the vernacular. The most soiled hands are those of Lefebvre for causing a major schism in the Church. Just as we could not trust the language of the Novus Ordo until it was ordered to be revised by Bl. John Paul ll, so I think we cannot trust the translation of the Council Documents until they are revised to better correspond to the Latin original.

Dear Angelo, I believe that Archbishop Lefebvre (it would be so good if you could bring yourself to using his correct title) explained the matter differently. You have the Newchurch version - modernistic, 2+2=4 0r 4.5 or 5, if you prefer. I am a simple Catholic. I do not believe in papolatry. I do not believe you are interested in my replying to your message because you want only to hear what does not detract from the idea you have of the post-Vatican II Popes. The Council must be good, you say, it is the translations that are bad. Well, if that is how you want it to be I shall not argue with you. Pope John-Paul II will always be a controversial figure - kissing Korans and placing Bhuddas on high altars sit very badly with me. The present Pope publicly prays with Jews and Mohammedans - seems like the act of one whose Christian credentials may be a little suspect. Nonetheless, you pray ‘una cum Papa’ as do I - but I do not refuse to see evil.  Pax et Bunum

Dr R J Berry, You say you would like me to be so good as to use correct titles. I ask the same from you. You have used “John XXlll” its Blessed John XXlll, “Fellay and Bernie Fellay” its His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay. You are wrong about my being only interested in what I myself have to say. I read your posts with interest and I responded, I guess I failed to say what you wanted to hear. So you are dissatisfied. You say something that stuck me, “I do not believe in papolatry” I take it then that your sedevacantist, or better put, a Protestant. God Bless! and goodbye.

Don’t be a silly billy, dear man…

Angelo,
After reading some of your recent posts I am now really confused as to what gave you the impression that I did not accept Vatican II. I’accept responsibility for any confusion. With all the word games and distortions of Catholic teachings that have been proliferated over this issue I am not surprised that people are confused. So I will again try to clarify what I feel are some of the main points of this discussion and where I, personally, am coming from:
I am Catholic who follows the Roman Rite.
I am NOT a modernist, NOT a progressive, NOT a liberal, NOT a conservative, NOT a Tradionalist, Catholic. I am a Catholic.
I have read and studied the documents of Vatican II and I ACCEPT them as valid teachings of the Catholic Church.
I believe Vatican II is a lawful Council with the same infallible status as prior Councils.
It is clear that SSPX, by their own statemnts reject some of the language of Vatican II—they do not just reject modernists interpretations—they reject some of the parts of the Councils statemets. This is why the have not reconciled with the Vatican. It is THEIR rejections that have prevented the efforts of the Vatican to bring them back into the fold.
And as far as I am concerned the excommnication staus has no bearing on the subject. If you willfully live in a state of disobedience to a lawful teaching of the Church, you are putting yourself outside the Church.

I am a Catholic of the Roman Rite. I am an anti-Modernist and fully subscribe to the Anti-Modernist Oath, sworn by all the Priests and Bishops who attended Vatican II. I am not a ‘liberal’ and I am not a ‘conservative’. I am simply a Catholic, as above stated, who wishes to hold and believe the Catholic Faith that comes to us from the Apostles. I accept Vatican II for what it said it was - nothing more and nothing less. I accept without cavil the proper authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops when, always united with the Sovereign Pontiff, they act in accordance with their apostolic mandate. I love God, believe in the traditional Catholic theology of the seven Sacraments of the Church and hope to die in the Faith I received at Baptism. Nothing less. I will not permit anyone to impede or alter, corrupt or dilute and adulterate the Faith I hold, be that person never so eminent. I will speak against all who try to do so and all this I believe establishes my Catholicity.

One of my favorite priests once commented that the Devil sends error into the world in pairs, so that when you flee from one error it makes it easier for you to get pulled into the other one.

Dirk Wichgers, You say you are neither liberal not traditionalists ect… Yet you have presumed to judge the intentions of Traditionalists, not only the SSPX but all Traditionalists. You stated things like “Traditionalists dont’ understand them and distort them”, “Traditionalist Cults”, “The SSPX…Martun Luther? Calvin? Bishops Fellay? Bishop Williamson?” “And you have been scammed”. For not accepting or using labels, you do a good job of doing it. You say you accept all of Vatican ll. What is Vatican ll? The Church has made it clear that Vatican ll has ben distorted. At the recent Synod of Bishops in Rome. Many Prelates pointed out the distortions and false interpretations of the Council. Pope Benedict XVl stated a few years ago that Vatican ll must be re-interpreted in light of Tradition. The Modernists caused vast confusion with their spirit of vatican ll mentality, a mentality that was condemned by Bl. John Paul ll. The Church today is obviously asking itself, What is the true interpretation of Vatican ll? Had it not been for the SSPX these questions would not have finally started to be seriously asked by many of the faithful. The Society has pointed out the break from Tradition from what some call the great Vatican ll. Vatican ll is very clear, but in practicing, what the Council said has been completley shamed, a toatal distortion, a total disgrace to the Church. There is more disobedience to the Church among those who champion the Council than from the SSPX. So tell me do you see any difference between the Church before V2, during V2 and after V2? This as the Popes have affirmed is the same Church, nothing has changed. So what exactly has happened in the Church after V2 that can be called V2, since you did read the Documents! The mass confusion my friend has not ended, it is only beggining to be addressed. We are living in an historical moment in history, the, What happened after Vatican ll and how and why?

Dirk Wichgers, You say a priest spoke of the devil sending error in pairs. I had never heard of this. But the safest path against error is to obey the Holy Father. We cannot obey him unless we know what he says. Today with the Internet we can know what the Pope said as short as a minute after he says it. The devil is the master of error but the Master of Truth Jesus Christ has defeated him. Lets put our trust in Jesus the Truth, the Way and the Life.

Dear Angelo

Your good intentions are clear but you are wrong when you say that to obey the Pope is the safest path against error - listen to Benedict XVI and hear him say that he, too, makes errors. The charism of infallibility only operates when he speaks ex cathedra as the Pastor of the Universal Church and this happens rarely - one look at Church history confirms this.  Obeying the Pope is no guarantee against error, Angelo. Obeying - following the Faith of Christ is the ONLY way - I, says Our Lord, am the Way, the Truth and the Life. Popes can err - Christ cannot.

Dr R J Berry, If the Pope attempts to predict the weather, he is not guided by the Holy Ghost as Supreme Pontiff. But the Church has always taught that when the Holy Father speaks on matters of faith and morals he cannot err. Christ the Invisible head of the Church is Truth and the Holy Ghost guides in a supernatural way the Visible head of the Church who is Chrit’s Vicar on earth the Pope. The problem is that the people in the Church have become secularized and they wish to impose it on the Church. People have forgotten what is meant in the Creed, “I believe in all that is visible and invisible”, Catholics have become doubting Thomas’es, “I will not believe unless I see”.

Angelo,
I don’t presume to judge anyone’s intention, that is God’s realm (this is the tired old defense mechanism, to accuse someone of being judgemental to avoid talking about some objective point. And I don’t know how many times I am going to have to say this, I am not talking about interpretations of Vatican II when I accuse Traditionalists of not accepting Vatican II. I am just stating a given fact, that in their own books, magazines, tapes, DVDs, newspapers, website, etc., the Traditionalst and the SSPX have a problem with some of the documents of Vatican II. For the last forty years I have been defending the Church against the numerous misreprsentations, from both ends of the spectrum, right and left. So again I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE NUMEROUS FALSE REPRESENTATIONS OF VATICAN II, WHICH I AM AGAINST. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE REFUSAL TO ACCEPT PARTS OF THE DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES. I know why you are falling back on this semantical word game; its because the incongruity of saying one accepts authority, while they are in the state of disobedience to that authority, is indefensible. And I want to reiterate, I am not judging you or anyone else, nor am I questioning the sincerity or motivations of anyone who takes the time to searth for the truth of our faith. What I am saying is I disagree with some of their positions. You bring up a number of other points (and there are many others) that I feel are just strawmen. And while they might be important matters in need of discussion, and while I would probably agree with much of what you have to say, I don’t believe they are pertinent to the allegations made againt the authority of the Church. God bless you in your search for the truth.

“The totality of the bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general Councilor scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.” (Dei fide) Ott page 299.

Is Vatican II some kind of exception?

Dear Angelo

Your Creed is a new one, to me. The Nicene Creed says that God is the Creator of all things, visible and invisible.
The Church has NOT always taught that when the Holy Father speaks on matters of faith and morals he cannot err. The Doctrine of the Pope’s Infallibility is in formal terms a relatively new one although it is true to say it has generally been believed. When the Pope speaks as Pope on matters of Faith and Morals he is infallible but he has no charism of infallibility if he speaks privately, uttering his individual opinion for example.

I agree with you that people have become secularised but this is the fruit of Vatican II that now returns to bite the Church and destroy it, not that it will finally succeed, of course. Vatican II promotes, through its adulterated liturgy, an anthropocentric religion that is not Catholicism. That religion is, in reality, apostasy from the Christian religion and in our time becomes ever more an imitation of the Anglican belief system where al most all becomes optional and no absolute certainty exists any more.

Of course, you and I agree that this is not Christianity, don’t we?

Pax et Bonum

Dirk Wichgers, Your comment of Nov. 21, 2012 5:38 PM. Was well written, and very fair. I see we are both on the same page. I defend the SSPX because I became an adherent of Archbishop Lefebvre after he signed the aggreement with Rome. When He consecrated 4 Bishops against the express wishes of the Holy Father Bl. John Paul ll, I broke away from the SSPX. I attended one of their Chapels frequently, I could not explain in words all the spiritual benefits I received there. I want so much for the SSPX to normalize their relations with Rome as I consider them people of my own faith. What is sad is that it is no secret that there are those in Rome who are hindering as much as possible the reconciliation process. It saddens me that many do not really know the SSPX, they are the same type of practicing Catholics as before Vatican ll. And the Holy Fathers have strongly stated that this is not a new church it is the same church before, during and after V2. There are some who blame the Council for the mess after V2, I have tried to argue with them that Vatican ll is in line with the ongoing Tradition of the Church. But they still blame V2, just as there are those who hail V2 for all the mess in the Church they call true progress. God Bless!

Dr R J BERRY, When I quoted from the Creed, I shortened what we proclaim indididualy in the Creed, I should not have left our that God is the Creator of all that is visible and invisible. I ask myself, where have I been lately? I see that you and I are on a very similar page. As for the New Liturgy of The Servant of God Pope Paul Vl, what we see today is not the Mass he intended. The Mass today has been overtaken with too many abuses. If Pope Paul Vl were here he would not recognize the Mass he promulgated. On you tube there is a Mass called “The Novus Ordo Missae in Latin” it is more in line with what Paul Vl intended. Benedict XVl has stated many times, that if the Novus Ordo were to be said as intended one would not be able to differentiate the Old Mass from the New Mass. One of the things that struck me is what Pope Benedict said about the Altar. He said Vatican ll never called for the Altar to be turned around, it was not supposed to be turned around, it started out as one of those Liturgical fads. He has stated that the Altar will be turned around gradualy to its rightful place. But he will not order them turned around immediatly as he said, “We must learn from our past mistake, when we first turned the Altar around we lost many Catholics, we cannot let that happen again.” In the meantime he has given his orders that no priest may be prohibited by his Bishops or Superiors to say Mass with both Priest and People facing the Altar. He has said Mass “Ad Orientem” is and remains the norm. The Holy Fathers have spoken out, or rather have been yelling out to stop the abuses. But we have Bishops, Priests, Religious and Laity who refuse to obey the Pope. They somehow believe they are the true interpretors of Vatican Council ll. What they claim the Council said, was never said. What they claim the Council never said, the Council actually did say.

I think Eddy Pentin is a combination of Leftist Socialist, Communist, Freemason, with a dab of Charismatic Renewal witchcraft. Pray for the SSPX, pray for the soul of his excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and Fr. Pfeiffer….I am the original Redford Altar boy soldier, Rocco prophet, and republican guard to the works of DJS.

Frank Balkus, I disagree with you on Edward Pentin. He is faithful to the Church and has some of the most interesting articles on this site. He has presented articles faithful to the Church and has been more than fair on allowing people to comment on his articles. I am a former adherent of the SSPX. I ceased to be one after Marcel consecrated 4 Bishops against the express will of Bl. John Paul ll. His Holiness was more than fair to Lefebvre, it was lefebvre who was the renegade. I live in the hope that the SSPX reconcile with Rome so that I can be an adherent of the Society again.

Sorry Angelo, Fred Balkus may be right. I am not sure about the ‘Leftist, socialist, communist Freemason stuff but I am very sure his heart is in the right place and I think you are quite wrong that Archbishop Lefebvre was ‘the renegade’ Pope JPII was anything but ‘reasonable’. If the FSSPX ‘reconcile with Rome’ it will be the end of the FSSPX and your renewed adherence will be to a neo-Modernist creature of a neo-Modernist Vatican that for the time being masquerades as the Catholic Church. I am sure Bishop Fellay will be heartened to read of your possible return to adherence to his Neo-FSSPX - the loss of adherents, now, becomes greater day by day precisely because Bishop Fellay has abandoned the orientations of the late Archbishop and has abandoned the fight for Catholicism in the hope of gaining a metre or two of Neo-Modernist scarlet. Bishop Fellay is in the process of apostasy from the Christian religion, in reality, and he will excommunicate/exclude all who oppose him. Archbishop Lefebvre would most certainly never consecrate Bishop Fellay now, if he had the chance and what true Catholic would disagree that Bishop Fellay is no true defender of the One True Church?

Dr. R J Berry, I beleive I have good reason to say that Lefebvre was the renegade. When Bl. John Paul ll was elevated to the Papacy, within a year he sent a letter to all the bishops of the world asking them to ask their people whether they still desired the Old Latin Mass. The Holy Father waited, then in October of 1984, the year of the consecration requested by Our Lady Of Fatima was made. The Holy Father gave a Papal Indult for the use of the Ancient Mass, calling on all Bishops to be “Generous” in its application. The liberal Bishops lashed out against the Pope, crying “Collegiality”. The Pope told them publicly so that it be know by all, “I sent a Letter to each Bishop… most did not answer and those who did said there was no desire for the Old Latin Mass, yet from those Dioceses I receive countless letters asking for its restoration”. I write this only to show that Bl. John Paul ll loved the Old Mass and had nothing against it. In Negotiations with Lefebvre by Lefebvre himself, Bl. John Paul ll and the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, an aggreement was made, and sighned by all three. The Holy Father was to allow a Priest from the Society itself to be Consecrated a Bishop, to succeed Lefebvre upon his retirement. The SSPX was to be under Papal Prelature and would have to answer to no one but the Pope himself. I remember the chagrin of the liberals and the joy of Traditionalists. Lefebvre then changed his mind ignoring the aggreement signed by himself and consecrated 4 Bishops against the Express will of the Holy Father. Even minutes before the Consecration Ceremony was to begin, Lebebvre was sent an urgent telegram from the Pope begging him not to go through with this. Lefebvre ignored the Pleas of the Pope and went ahead with the Consecrations. Bl. John Paul ll sadly confirmed that by the Code of Canon Law, Lefebvre, Mayor and the 4 newely consecrated Bishops incurred excommunication “Latae Sententiae”, that is they excommunicated themselves by their own doing. The Holy Father only confirmed the crime and the penalty they themselves incurred upon their very selves. Both Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl have been of the same mind, they desire the reconciliation of the Society for their own good and the great contribution they can give the Church during this time of the great Apostacy. The Church needs them and Bishop Fellay humbly knows this. Fellay has betrayed no one, he as a true Bishop is concerned about the Unity of the Church. His intentions are clear, to battle within the Church against modernism, but both within the Church and within the SSPX there are those inspired by satan to ruin all this. satan will not prevail!