A Reprise: Mr. Michael Creighton's List of the Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X

Mr. Michael Creighton has catalogued the principle errors of the Society of Saint Pius X and the ways in which those who assist at Society chapels justify these errors by way of responding to an article that appeared last year on the Tradition in Action website:

To briefly enumerate some of the problems in the SSPX, they are:

1  A rejection of the of the ordinary magisterium (Vatican I; Session III - Dz1792) which must be divinely revealed. For instance Paul VI claimed that the new mass and Vatican II were his “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” and John Paul II promulgated his catechism which contains heresies and errors in Fide Depositum by his “apostolic authority” as “the sure norm of faith and doctrine” and bound everyone by saying who believes what was contained therein is in “ecclesial communion”, that is in the Church.

2  A rejection of the divinely revealed teaching expressed in Vatican I , Session IV, that the faith of Peter [the Pope] cannot fail. Three ancient councils are quoted to support this claim. (2nd Lyons, 4th Constantinople & Florence). Pope Paul IV’s bull cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio teaches the same in the negative sense of this definition.

3  A distortion of canon law opposed to virtually all the canonists of the Church prior to Vatican II which tell us a heretical pope ipso facto loses his office by the operation of the law itself and without any declaration. This is expressed in Canon 188.4 which deals with the divine law and footnotes Pope Paul IV’s bull, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio. The SSPX pretends that sections of the code on penalties somehow apply to the pope which flatly contradicted by the law itself. The SSPX pretends that jurisdiction remains in force when the code clearly says jurisdiction is lost and only ‘acts’ of jurisdiction are declared valid until the person is found out (canons 2264-2265). This is simply to protect the faithful from invalid sacraments, not to help heretics retain office and destroy the Church. Charisms of the office, unlike indelible sacraments, require real jurisdiction. The SSPX pretends that penalties of the censure of ipso facto excommunication cannot apply to cardinals since it reserved to Holy See (canon 2227). This is another fabrication since the law does not refer to automatic (latae sententiae) penalties but only to penalties in which a competent judge is needed to inflict or declare penalties on offenders. Therefore it only refers to condemnatory and declaratory sentences but not automatic sentences. To say that ipso facto does not mean what it says is also condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei.

4  The SSPX holds a form of the Gallican heresy that falsely proposes a council can depose a true pope. This was already tried by the Council of Basle and just as history condemned those schismatics, so it will condemn your Lordship. This belief also denies canon 1556 “The First See is Judged by no one.” This of course means in a juridical sense of judgment, not remaining blind to apostasy, heresy and crime which automatically takes effect.

5  The SSPX denies the visible Church must manifest the Catholic faith. They claim that somehow these men who teach heresy can’t know truth. This is notion has been condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2. It is also condemned by canon 16 of the 1917 code of canon law. Clearly LaSalette has been fulfilled. Rome is the seat of anti-Christ & the Church is eclipsed. Clearly, our Lords words to Sr. Lucy at Rianjo in 1931 have come to pass. His “Ministers [Popes] have followed the kings of France into misfortune”.

6  The SSPX reject every doctor of the Church and every Church father who are unanimous in stating a heretic ipso facto is outside the Church and therefore cannot possess jurisdiction & pretends that is only their opinion when St. Robert states “... it is proven, with arguments from authority and from reason, that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed.” The authority he refers to is the magisterium of the Church, not his own opinion.

7  Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is misinterpreted by the SSPX to validly elect a heretic to office against the divine law. A public heretic cannot be a cardinal because he automatically loses his office. This decree only refers to cardinals and hence it does not apply to ex-cardinals who automatically lost their offices because they had publicly defected from the Catholic faith. The cardinals mentioned in this decree who have been excommunicated are still Catholic and still cardinals; hence their excommunication does not cause them to become non-Catholics and lose their offices, as does excommunication for heresy and public defection from the Catholic faith. This is what the Church used to call a minor excommunication. All post 1945 canonists concur that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not remove ipso facto excommunication: Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956), Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950), Serapius Iragui (1959), A. Vermeersch - I. Creusen (1949), Udalricus Beste (1946) teach that a pope or cardinal or bishop who becomes a public heretic automatically loses his office and a public heretic cannot legally or validly obtain an office. Even supposing this papal statement could apply to non-Catholics (heretics), Pope Pius XII goes on to say “at other times they [the censures] are to remain in vigor” Does this mean the Pope intends that a notorious heretic will take office and then immediately lose his office? It is an absurd conclusion, hence we must respect the interpretation of the Church in her canonists.

Errors/Heresies typical of an SSPX chapel attendees & priests:

1)  We are free to reject rites promulgated by the Church. [Condemned by Trent Session VII, Canon XIII/Vatican I, Session II]

2)  The Pope can’t be trusted to make judgments on faith and morals. We have to sift what is Catholic. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter III.]

3) We are free to reject or accept ordinary magisterial teachings from a pope since they can be in error. This rejection may include either the conciliar ‘popes’ when teach heresy or the pre-conciliar popes in order to justify the validity of the conciliar popes jurisdiction, sacraments, etc [Condemned by Vatican I (Dz1792)/Satis Cognitum #15 of Leo XIII]

4)  The Kantian doctrine of unknowability of reality. We can’t know what is heresy, therefore we can’t judge. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2: On Revelation, Jn7:24].

5)  The faith of the Pope can fail. Frequently this is expressed as “we work for” or “we pray for the Popes conversion to the Catholic faith”. [condemned by Vatican I and at least 3 earlier councils mentioned above].

6)  Universal salvation, ecuмenism, religious liberty, validity of the Old Covenant, etc. can be interpreted in a Catholic sense. [Condemned by every saint, every doctor of the Church and every Pope who comments on such issues; for instance Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino – Council of Florence)]

7)  Contraries can be true. [Hegelian doctrine against Thomistic Philosophy]. If these positions appear to be contradictory, they are.

When I point out these positions are against the Faith, frequently the Hegelian doctrine is employed by those in attendance at the SSPX chapel.

LoT, you do realize your article slamming SSPX and their "errors", presumbly placingthem in heretical circle-you do realize that thsi IS a site maintined and run by Matthew, who goes to and supports the SSPX? He ha a blip on bottom of screen in support of Bishop Williamson, of the SSPX?

hey Eth, perhaps, some one else that does not think twice. or, does not care to promote the all importatn Doctrine of The Vacant Seat.......that takes precedence

Looks like the last interview with Muller has made a disciple out of Mr. Michael Creighton. I don't know who he is but he is already preaching Muller's nonsense. Perhaps he would like to follow Muller to Hell for "fellowship sake"?

By the way. Muller will be made cardinal in February 2013. It gets better!

Mr. Creighton is arguing from the sede position and asking if Pope Benedict XVI is a real pope, all the while espousing questionable positions, adhering strictly to the "spirit of Vatican II" because the principle offenses to the Mass are now considered ordinary, and, to top it all off, promoting people like Mueller to Cardinal.    

At what point is the pope a heretic (yeah, I know a future pope is supposed to decide this but the last few popes have named themselves after the "founders" of Vatican II so as time marches on, the vatican II church is becoming more and more entrenched, then there's the whole validity question about post-1968 consecrations so, as the CMRI priest asked, are the post-1968 priests actually priests?), or at what point should the pope be deposed; or if he isn't a heretic and a valid pope then what is the justification for ignoring him?  At what point is the entire vatican II apparatus no longer "catholic"?    

Pope St. Pius V gave permission "in perpetuity" for the Tridentine Mass so is Quo Primas enough?  

question, more is why does LoT feel need to quote this fellow as some authority and attack the SSPX on THIS forum?

Since no one sems to be able to understand this idiot posting, non-thinking-twice fellow..to clarify, could care a rats ass who Creighton, Muller is at this point, lets get some questions asked.

-LoT, why create this thread and post it when
-this site is Pro-SSPx and
-this is clearly stated on site, by Matthew and all over threads...........

Your content of post is clear, SSPX is in error, which could be construed to mean error-heresy....

So, an answer in 1000 words or less and directly to questions would be nice and all......





(hope that is clear even for some subhuman retard garbage like me)

A Reprise: Mr. Michael Creighton's List of the Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X

Mr. Michael Creighton has catalogued the principle errors of the Society of Saint Pius X and the ways in which those who assist at Society chapels justify these errors by way of responding to an article that appeared last year on the Tradition in Action website:

To briefly enumerate some of the problems in the SSPX, they are:

1  A rejection of the of the ordinary magisterium (Vatican I; Session III - Dz1792) which must be divinely revealed. For instance Paul VI claimed that the new mass and Vatican II were his “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” and John Paul II promulgated his catechism which contains heresies and errors in Fide Depositum by his “apostolic authority” as “the sure norm of faith and doctrine” and bound everyone by saying who believes what was contained therein is in “ecclesial communion”, that is in the Church.

There is no disagreement among traditionalists on whether to reject the errors of the Vatican II regime. However, MC asserts that a Catholic is not allowed to resist "the ordinary magisterium" merely because it contains errors. Instead he demands that Catholics invoke a two-step approach of first unseating the Vatican II popes and then invalidating everything that comes from such popes.

MC says a Catholic is obligated to accept any error that comes from a pope, unless he possesses the research capability and confidence to declare the seat empty. If the Catholic has gone ahead to unseat a pope, he is then supposedly justified in condemning as heretics all other Catholics who merely resist the errors and go no further.

MC puts the horse before the cart. Errors are errors. Even a child can see that. Taken to the logical extreme, this would mean that somebody who is led into error by a man he believes to be the pope is better off than a man who resisted the error but failed to unseat the pope.

Was Athanasius wrong for resisting Liberius? What about those scandalized by the heresy that Honorius I appeared to approve and the Dominicans who disputed the heresy of John XXII? And then there is the Great Schism. Yes, from hindsight it has been determined that the genuine popes where not promulgating error from the chair. Yet it appears contrary to Natural Law to demand that a person knowingly follow error if they are unable to first jump through obscure and legalistic hoops.

So have all those Catholics of the past been condemned who resisted erroneous popes without following the equivalent of MC's footnoted arguments? No. There is no historical precedent condemning those who do not follow MC's proposal.

question, more is why does LoT feel need to quote this fellow as some authority and attack the SSPX on THIS forum?

I thought it was posted as an example of the idiocy of Mr. Creighton and to demonstrate what foolish ideas are out "there" about the Society and her members, as opposed to being posted because LoT agreed w/Mr. C.

Marsha

A Reprise: Mr. Michael Creighton's List of the Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X

Mr. Michael Creighton has catalogued the principle errors of the Society of Saint Pius X and the ways in which those who assist at Society chapels justify these errors by way of responding to an article that appeared last year on the Tradition in Action website:

To briefly enumerate some of the problems in the SSPX, they are:

I like how someone tries to put Michael Creighton on a pedestal by prefixing "Mr." to his name, making him sound a bit more important.

Guess what? I'm a Mr. too.  And I say his arguments are hogwash.

I know a bit about this guy, by the way. He was one of the charter board members of the "Catholic Institute of Arts and Letters" founded by Joseph Charles McKenzie. Yes, you've never heard of it because it's defunct now.

Joseph McKenzie -- who I was friends with at the seminary -- is now hobnobbing with the likes of Bishop Dolan and Fr. Cekada, to the best of my knowledge. He was on CathInfo for a while during the whole "SGG" fiasco, and he was banned at that time.

Anyhow, the last thing I'd read from Creighton was a 4 page "open letter" PDF castigating all 4 SSPX Bishops, among other things stating to their faces that they were of bad will, and in a state of mortal sin.

Real humble guy.

I guess Bishop Williamson and the other brilliant priests in the SSPX need to go to college/school where Creighton did, because they don't seem to see things as clearly as Creighton does.  :rolleyes: