https://akacatholic.com/fssp-rector-abp-lefebvre-and-sspx-schismatic/

From Louie

On November 30, The Catholic Register – Canada’s oldest (allegedly) Catholic newspaper – published an article on the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), hailing the group for its “unity with Pope Francis.”

Interviewed for the article was Fr. Joseph Bisig, “a co-founder of the FSSP who gave a lecture in Ottawa Nov. 24.”

According to background provided by writer Deborah gαyapong:

The FSSP had its origins in the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) … In the mid-1970s, the SSPX had its seminary in Econe, Switzerland, suppressed by the Archbishop of Fribourg. In 1976, Pope Paul VI suspended Lefebvre a divinis, meaning the archbishop was forbidden to celebrate any sacraments, including the Eucharist. But Lefebvre defied Rome and expanded his order to other nations.

gαyapong, whose online bio reads, “She currently covers religion and politics primarily for Catholic and Evangelical newspapers,” is apparently better qualified to write on topics concerning the latter.

As the SSPX points out on its website:

The pope has never suppressed the SSPX: only the pope, not a local bishop, has the authority to suppress a religious order (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 493 and 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 616).

In any event, gαyapong went on to report:

Bisig said the unjust suppression of the flourishing seminary, which had 120 seminarians by 1977, and Pope Paul VI’s subsequent suspension led to a change in Lefebvre’s attitude towards Rome, and his language became increasingly “polemical.”

“Until then it was forbidden for us to be critical of the Holy Father or Rome,” Bisig said.

Other than characterizing the suppression (that never actually happened) as “unjust,” Fr. Bisig seemed rather pleased to take the opportunity to malign both Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X. First, one notes his deliberate choice of the word “polemical;” connoting as it does an attack, or criticism that is unjust or undue.

Perhaps Fr. Bisig needs to be reminded that St. Paul “opposed St. Peter to his face” (cf Galatians 2:11), or maybe he simply does not know what St. Thomas Aquinas taught:

It must be observed that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. (ST II-II.33.4)

In any case, as Fr. Bisig continued to speak, it became increasingly obvious that the real problem is likely due to a nasty infection; one that is especially prevalent among those who place a higher priority on so-called “full communion” with the conciliar church than union with Christ and the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The Register story continues:

The founding members of the FSSP only split with Lefebvre after Lefebvre ordained four bishops in 1988 against the will of Pope St. John Paul II, leading to Lefebvre’s excommunication. The SSPX, then numbering some 60,000 followers, was deemed schismatic.

“It was clear we had to leave the Society because of this rupture with Rome,” said Bisig, one of 12 priests, one deacon and 20 seminarians who left. “We did not want to leave the SSPX,” he said. “We were forced to do so. Our superior became schismatic. We felt like orphans abandoned by our father.”

You want clear? It is patently obvious that Fr. Bisig and the other 31 men that jumped ship never truly understood why they were with the Society in the first place.

Our superior became schismatic. Though he doesn’t say so directly, Fr. Bisig is joining his voice to that of neo-con paper tiger Cardinal Leo the Cowardly Lion Burke in labeling the Society of St. Pius X “schismatic.” Whether he speaks only for himself or for the FSSP as a whole on this point, I cannot say.

As for a “rupture with Rome,” there was a rupture alright. As Archbishop Lefebvre said of the Second Vatican Council, “It was a true rupture in the Church.”

Every so-called “traditional Catholic” (if you’ll pardon the redundancy) worthy of the name agrees. Not Fr. Bisig, however.

If there was any question in the reader’s mind about whether or not Fr. Bisig is infected with modernism, he went on to leave little room for doubt:

“I pray very much for my old, good friends (in the SSPX) to join the Church” and to “come in without any conditions,” but to “accept the authority of the living magisterium,” Bisig said.

Oh yes, the living magisterium. Make no mistake, in this Fr. Bisig is not referring to the voice of Holy Mother Church speaking throughout the ages; rather, he is referring to the men-of-the-Council who are presently running the show in modern day Rome – the same who constantly insist upon dialogue, ecuмenism, and religious liberty, but cannot manage to utter a peep about the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King. This is the “Church” [sic] of which Fr. Bisig is speaking.

In other words, he is praying that those in the SSPX will one day abandon authentic Catholic tradition and join him in embracing the conciliar church-of-man, its false doctrines, and its fake saints.

Fr. Bisig was the first Superior General of the FSSP; today, he is the rector of Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska. I suppose this explains why newly ordained FSSP priests who were formed under his direction are crediting their vocation to “a saint, John Paul II.”

As I’ve written in the past, there are no truly militant religious orders or groups left in the Church; whether they be of the “full communion” variety or otherwise. None can be trusted entirely. Rather, we must measure every last word, nuance, and suggestion that comes to us against authentic Catholic tradition, regardless of source.

This is why I have never fancied myself a member of Team SSPX, or Team FSSP, or any such thing. My only desire is to never be misled in matters of faith, nor (God forbid!) to so mislead anyone else, and to live and die a member of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Who cares what some guy from the FSSP says?  What are his credentials?  What authority does his opinion carry?

It may very well be that the only real priests in the FFSP are the ones ordained by Abp. Lefebvre that left the SSPX. ALL the others were ordained by Novus Ordo new consecration rite "bishops". It may be no coincidence that with all of the old consecration formula bishops, not a one was ever used to ordain the FSSP priests. The counterfeit Vatican II church of Satan, does not want valid priests.

“Christians will search for the red lamp where Jesus awaits them, like the sinful woman crying out before the empty tomb: ‘Where have they taken Him?” 
https://onepeterfive.com/pius-xiis-prophetic-warnings-fatima-ѕυιcιdє-altering-faith-liturgy/

Is this verifiable?  I wouldn't be surprised but never heard this.

Totally verified by me, long ago. The only FSSP ordaining bishop that I thought was old formula consecrated was Cardinal Alfons Stickler because he lived to 96 years of age (he died in 2007), but I later found out he was consecrated in 1983 by JPII. So, there is not a one old formula bishop that was used to ordain the FSSP seminarians.

This us the third FSSP priest who has made news by insulting Trads and declaring his loyalty to Francis. I guess they are afraid .

The priests of FSSP probably feel guilty for comprising their Faith to get along with heretical-Rome.  At least it shows they still have a conscience.  Let’s pray they convert.  Until then, their baseless, tired arguments of “schism!” are just an attempt to distract themselves from the discontent their souls experience over their bad choices and lack of principles.  

Ratzo lifted the "excommunications" of SSPX, +Lefebvre, et al.

And didn't Frank "regularize"* the faculties of SSPX several years ago?

* SSPX faculties were already licit and valid in the Eyes of God due to the Crisis in the Church. So there was no real need for the Montinian Sect to regularize SSPX.

Apparently, this FSSP muppet doesn't know what's going on and what really applies...

Ratzo lifted the "excommunications" of SSPX, +Lefebvre, et al. 

He never lifted the excommunication of Abp. Lefebvre or Bishop de Castro Mayer. If the SSPX bishops were real men devoted to Abp. Lefebvre, they would not have accepted the lifting of their excommunication without it including Abp. Lefebvre or Bishop de Castro Mayer. 

Interesting.  The bolded does not include the need for a pope.  The Catholic Faith teaches that the pope's stamp of approval is what makes an ecuмenical council infallible.  

The thing is, like so many other Catholics, this FSSP priest has the whole schism mindset due in large part to this false teaching as taught in LG 25. By confusing/replacing Pentecost with the the "New Pentecost" as JXXIII and JP2 called it, (which, as Fr. Hesse says, calling V2 the New Pentecost is blasphemous to even say) if anything, he is actually the one in schism with the true Church.

After Pentecost is when St. Peter and all the Apostles were individually infallible. God did this in order to establish and facilitate the beginnings of the Church throughout the entire world. Whatever each of the Apostles, individually dispersed as they were  throughout the world, taught regarding faith or morals, by virtue of the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, were most certainly 1) each individually infallible, and on that account 2) whatever they taught regarding the faith, they would have all taught the exact same thing in unison, as such 3) no matter what they taught regarding the faith, they would have all been in agreement with each other and St. Peter - not to mention with all the future popes whenever they speak ex cathedra till the end of time. That's infallibility, that's how infallibility worked when the Church on earth was in it's infancy.

There was nothing added nor can there ever be anything added to the Deposit of Faith since the death of the last Apostle - so what need is there to have all the bishops infallible? The whole idea is actually preposterous when you stop to think about it.  

Enter V2, the "New Pentecost". LG 25, like all things NO, changed the true doctrine of the Church into a false doctrine of the new church by taking the birth of the Church at Pentecost, and from that, spinning a new doctrine to fit the new birth of the new church. In this new Pentecost, the false doctrine of infallibility is not based on the teaching revealed truth, rather, it is based on the collegiality, i.e. the unison of the hierarchy all teaching the same (wrong) thing, re: LG 25. It's truly diabolical, albeit an integral ingredient for the NO to get the people to go NO.  

People believe and accept(ed) this false NO doctrine to be a de fide teaching of the True Church, which explains why so many abandoned the true faith for the new faith of the Novus Ordo. Most people still believe this, which explains why 60 years later and in spite of all the devastation, so many people, like Fr. Bisig, still argue against the true faith in favor of the Novus Ordo.