It was against the position of Fr. Gleize that Bishop Tissier wrote the article I posted on P.1 of this thread.

As for Bishop Fellay, he believes the "official" (i.e., conciliar) church = the Catholic Church.

This is because, as a means to achieving his ralliement, he must do away with distinguishing in any substantive manner between the conciliar and Catholic Church: How could he explain joining the former when Archbishop Lefebvre so famously stressed the duty to remain separate from it?

In this regard, Bishop Fellay utterly rejects Archbishop Lefebvre, and multiple priests could testify that in the retreats Bishop Fellay preaches to priests, in the reading of Spiritual Journey, Bishop Fellay skips right over the famous command of Lefebvre that “It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13).

Bishop Fellay is a traitor, and he knows it.

That's why he skips that passage in the retreats he preaches to priests:

He doesn't want them to perceive the contradiction between Lefebvre and himself.

And they, for the most part, don't read Lefebvre anyway (at least not his polemical works: They are semi-conscious that it is a thought-crime, and steer clear of him), so the "oversight" passes without a glitch; perhaps a momentary discomfort, until CRIMETHINK smothers any remaining tremors of cognitve dissonance.

XS is giving you neo-SSPX doctrine (contradicted by 40 years testimony to the contrary).

It was against the position of Fr. Gleize that Bishop Tissier wrote the article I posted on P.1 of this thread.

As for Bishop Fellay, he believes the "official" (i.e., conciliar) church = the Catholic Church.

This is because, as a means to achieving his ralliement, he must do away with distinguishing in any substantive manner between the conciliar and Catholic Church: How could he explain joining the former when Archbishop Lefebvre so famously stressed the duty to remain separate from it?

In this regard, Bishop Fellay utterly rejects Archbishop Lefebvre, and multiple priests could testify that in the retreats Bishop Fellay preaches to priests, in the reading of Spiritual Journey, Bishop Fellay skips right over the famous command of Lefebvre that “It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13).

Bishop Fellay is a traitor, and he knows it.

That's why he skips that passage in the retreats he preaches to priests:

He doesn't want them to perceive the contradiction between Lefebvre and himself.

And they, for the most part, don't read Lefebvre anyway (at least not his polemical works: They are semi-conscious that it is a thought-crime, and steer clear of him), so the "oversight" passes without a glitch; perhaps a momentary discomfort, until CRIMETHINK smothers any remaining tremors of cognitve dissonance.

XS is giving you neo-SSPX doctrine (contradicted by 40 years testimony to the contrary).

It was against the position of Fr. Gleize that Bishop Tissier wrote the article I posted on P.1 of this thread.

As for Bishop Fellay, he believes the "official" (i.e., conciliar) church = the Catholic Church.

This is because, as a means to achieving his ralliement, he must do away with distinguishing in any substantive manner between the conciliar and Catholic Church: How could he explain joining the former when Archbishop Lefebvre so famously stressed the duty to remain separate from it?

In this regard, Bishop Fellay utterly rejects Archbishop Lefebvre, and multiple priests could testify that in the retreats Bishop Fellay preaches to priests, in the reading of Spiritual Journey, Bishop Fellay skips right over the famous command of Lefebvre that “It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13).

Bishop Fellay is a traitor, and he knows it.

That's why he skips that passage in the retreats he preaches to priests:

He doesn't want them to perceive the contradiction between Lefebvre and himself.

And they, for the most part, don't read Lefebvre anyway (at least not his polemical works: They are semi-conscious that it is a thought-crime, and steer clear of him), so the "oversight" passes without a glitch; perhaps a momentary discomfort, until CRIMETHINK smothers any remaining tremors of cognitve dissonance.

XS is giving you neo-SSPX doctrine (contradicted by 40 years testimony to the contrary).

Bishop Tissier's argument is erroneous and injurious to the Archbishop. Bishop Fellay is much more faithful to the Archbishop. Just look what Bishop Tissier says: "the Archbishop responded:
QuoteWe judge that the strategic backing off by the prelate of Econe is perfectly justified by the circuмstances: the Holy office was entering into a process which could lead to his condemnation. In addition to this, the explanations which would have been needed for the support of his idea of the existence of a parallel and organised society called the conciliar church would have required too many docuмents and facts to cite and organise in a dialectic manner within the limits of a short response to a such a questioning. We cannot argue from his evasive response that Archbishop Lefebvre had really reduced the conciliar church to a “spirit”. Evasive response? Really?

In fact, it is correct to say that the new orientations are very often on the level of spirit or tendencies, to use +ABL's own phraseology. Therefore, they do not create a new Church. It is only those who fully adhere to a heretical tendency - e.g. by denying that the Mass is a Sacrifice, or that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist, etc who are severed from the Church. This is the doctrine of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi. Some people, even within the SSPX, count on your never having read such Encyclicals or not believing in them.

No serious person who holds to and believe Catholic Ecclesiology believes wicked idiocies like separation from the Catholic Church being necessary for salvation. If indeed the SSPX wanted to be schismatic, I would not belong to it for a minute. I belong to it because I am convinced it does not, and because it has even made heroic efforts in fighting the real schismatics to remain faithful to the Magisterium.

That the Church still remains intact is shown in the fact that the doctrine of the Holy Mass as Sacrifice, Transubstantiation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are all completely intact, even in the docuмents of the Second Vatican Council, in the Encyclical Mysterium Fidei of Pope Paul VI, and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There were liberal and modernizing tendencies of denying those doctrines from some bad theologians, but the Magisterium rejected their false and wicked opinions and held to Tradition. One cannot really hold to Tradition without the Magisterium, for Tradition itself teaches us that there will always be a living Magisterium to explain the deposit of Tradition. That is the absurdity of so-called Cekada-coined R&R, which is really crypto-sedeism designed for those like you, Sean, who are unable or unwilling to see it.

No, Clemens Maria, it is you who are in schism, and even heresy. At least Ladislaus only defends Ecclesia-Vacantism as a speculative possibility, but doesn't claim it has actually taken place. You, on the other hand believe all episcopal sees are vacant, and that is heresy that denies Apostolicity. You've also claimed even a 100 year interregnum where all Papally appointed Bishops die is possible, which is heresy that denies the dogma on Perpetual Petrine Succession, and its connection to Apostolic Mission. When you claim something is heresy, you should name the dogma or canon that it denies. If I was in schism, I would be in heresy also. So what dogma do I deny?

As for schism, if there is no Pope, it is impossible to be in schism from him. You are in schism because you do not recognize the Pope recognized by the Episcopal Body. Next, am I in schism from the Cardinals? No, I am not for I recognize them. I've even defended them here and am attacked by you for it. The SSPX welcomes Cardinals in our seminaries, including those who have some misunderstandings, and also heroic Bishops like Bp. Athanasius, who has repeatedly championed the Society's Cause in Rome and defended the SSPX from all its modernist and sedevacantist enemies from left and right. You, however, are in schism from the Cardinals appointed by the Popes. You do not recognize the Roman Church in any way as being the Mother Church of all the Churches, as it is defined in the Council of Trent, deny Her indefectibility and are in schism from Her. I am falsely accused by you for the very fact that you want to remain in schism and I do not. So tell me the authorities I am supposedly in schism from, and show me the facts by which they prove their Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Authority - you cannot do this but Rome can and has.

How silly. I don't smoke, btw. Never have, never will. But you must be smoking something, because as I already explained, Kasper et al belong to the Conciliar Church - Conciliar Church is an amorphous term that is only properly used to describe those who hold to a completely heretical tendency. But Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Sarah, Bp. Athanasius etc certainly do not hold to any heretical tendency - they are more orthodox than some so-called traditional prelates, who teach salvation without Christ, which Burke and Schneider rejected in their Declaration of Truth - and therefore they represent the Catholic Church and are Her legitimate authorities. If you claim they do not, prove they teach some heresy.

How silly. I don't smoke, btw. Never have, never will. But you must be smoking something, because as I already explained, Kasper et al belong to the Conciliar Church - Conciliar Church is an amorphous term that is only properly used to describe those who hold to a completely heretical tendency. But Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Sarah, Bp. Athanasius etc certainly do not hold to any heretical tendency - they are more orthodox than some so-called traditional prelates, who teach salvation without Christ, which Burke and Schneider rejected in their Declaration of Truth - and therefore they represent the Catholic Church and are Her legitimate authorities. If you claim they do not, prove they teach some heresy.

Bp. Fellay has already given you an irrefutable argument which you cannot answer: His Excellency said, from memory "the doctrine of Jurisdiction shows us that the Church of today is indeed the Catholic Church". Do you believe the Bishops appointed by the Pope to the offices of the Catholic Church are the legitimate authorities of the Catholic Church or not? Yes or no.

Syllogism: Bishops appointed by the Popes are the legitimate authorities of the Catholic Church. The legitimate authorities of the Catholic Church cannot be outside the Catholic Church, belong to some supposed separate "Conciliar Church". Therefore, the Bishops appointed by the Popes do not all necessarily belong to the "Conciliar Church" (only those with heterodox thinking do).

When we say some Prelates can be influenced by Conciliar thinking, that doesn't mean all of them are heretics - but they have to be heretics for them to fall outside the Church. Have you read Mystici Corporis Christi? Do you agree with it? You fell for the trap I mentioned of thinking that the Conciliar Church is a separate Church in the same sense as is the Orthodox Church. It is not. It is a tendency or spirit within the Church. And only those who fully adhere to it, in the sense of accepting a full-fledged heresy, against the Mass, Transubstantion, etc only those Prelates fall outside the Church. This is the meaning of those expressions which you are confused by, "to the extent that one gets influenced by Conciliar thinking, one is separated from the Church" etc. If only you would read what Popes like St. Pius X and Pope Ven. Pius XII have written on the Church, you would not be so confused on ecclesiological matters. I tell you again, the opinion that you have unwittingly adopted is implicit SVism.

You don't know it. But the sedes know it. And also those who are non-sedes and see things rightly know it.