The U.S.A. never ever have had any respect for the rights of Christ the King. Why would Mr. Verrecchio get upset about it now? Why doesn't and didn't he fight to have the U.S.A. repress false "Christian" sects, satanists, and other false religions, and foster the one true religion?

Possibly, Mr. Verrecchio is Trad. Inc. controlled Trad. Inc. opposition.

Or maybe Mr. Verrecchio is in the process of conversion.  (Keep in mind he also defended Vatican II in the past and now is completely against it).

...or maybe Struthio's question is stupid, because it was not until two months ago that the state intervened in the spiritual sphere of the Church and effectively controlled the access of Catholics to the sacraments?

Struthio is a Sedevacantist, if I understand him correctly. This makes him at least consistent with his position.

On the other hand, those who believe Francis is Pope yet pretty much reject everything he says have made themselves Pope and just do whatever they please. Of course they maintain so called "fidelity" to tradition, but so claims the Novus Ordite, the SSPXer, the Resister, and the Sedevacantist. But who among these is at least consistent with his or her position is the real question.

The Church has told us to stop Mass for the time being and it has authority to do so for those who believe that Francis is Pope.

Spoken like a perfect NEO-SSPXer (or sedevacantist)! If he is pope, we must obey!

PS: The Church did not tell us to stop Mass for the time being.  The NWO conciliarists who occupy the hierarchy did, and the SSPX followed suit or tries to work within the limits set by the state (betrayal).  You cant serve two masters.  Either you will love the one and hate the other...  

"It is true that [the Mass] will cease on earth at the time of the Antichrist: the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be suspended...according to the prophecy of Daniel 12:11."
- St. Alphonsus Ligouri Taken from His book the Holy Eucharist

Spoken like a perfect NEO-SSPXer (or sedevacantist)! If he is pope, we must obey!

That's spoken like a Catholic. It is heresy to say that the Church can order bad discipline.

Spoken like a perfect NEO-SSPXer (or sedevacantist)! If he is pope, we must obey!

PS: The Church did not tell us to stop Mass for the time being.  The NWO conciliarists who occupy the hierarchy did, and the SSPX followed suit or tries to work within the limits set by the state (betrayal).  You cant serve two masters.  Either you will love the one and hate the other...  

"It is true that [the Mass] will cease on earth at the time of the Antichrist: the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be suspended...according to the prophecy of Daniel 12:11."
- St. Alphonsus Ligouri Taken from His book the Holy Eucharist

Assuming you are not a Sedevacantist/Sedeprivationist, the "NWO conciliarists" as you have dubbed them are the Church's authority who must be obeyed, not you and I nor His Excellency Bishop Williamson nor the Neo- SSPX as you call it nor anyone else. 

This is something that the Church has authority to do (temporarily halt Mass). Disobeying authority is a grave matter. 


I follow the SSPX because though they are averse to certain novelties that the Church's authority has put in place because of V2 and its ambiguous nature in certain matters,  they still recognize this authority and obey it as a Catholic ought to do in clear cut matters.

Nope.

Here's your first homework assignment.

Let me know when you are finished, and I will administer the test:

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/

PS: The SSPX would have endorsed this study by Bishop Tissier for the first 30 years of its existence.  You only need to read the first two paragraphs to see yourself contradicted by the old SSPX.

I finished skimming over the article and reading all of the relevant parts to our discussion. I agree, not based simply on this article, that the SSPX has changed quite a bit and has evolved from the principles of its founder His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, may God bless his soul.


But these changes are not all necessarily bad. Without Archbishop Lefebvre, there would probably be no traditional movement, but His Excellency was not infallible. Bishop Tissier's article and his interpretation of Msgr. Lefebvre is reminiscent of Sedeprivationism or the Cassiciacuм theory. How can there be two Churches, one real and one conciliar?! Like Sedeprivationism's formal/material distinction, this theory of a conciliar and real church is sophistry and semi-scholastic novelty with no real precedence. In fact it is an innovation borne from a desire to bring about a reconciliation of contradictory and opposing ideas into a mutated hybrid.


I am thankful the SSPX has changed for the better. While Msgr. Lefebvre's ideas were the launchpad from which the Traditional movement started, we must move on and try to find real solutions to a problem that many have finally realized is not going to be solved by ideas like that in the article. Vatican II happened and it is not going anywhere anytime soon and we must move forward and attempt to create a traditional interpretation of our current situation or otherwise we risk becoming a Church of our own in schism like the Old Catholics, Jansenists, and the so called Orthodox.

You may be the first honest neo-SSPXER to have posted on this forum.

Until your arrival, all your predecessors have attempted to camouflage the change, whereas you rejoice in the changes openly and unapologetically.

Your honesty is refreshing, even if your conclusions are erroneous.

As regards Bishop Tissier’s position (ie., the old SSPX position) being reminiscent of sedeprivationism, you are confused by him using a material/formal distinction, but miss tgat where the sedes apply that distinction to papal authority, Tissier is applying it to Church membership.

That is a fundamental difference, and the proof of your misunderstanding is that the article was published by Avrille, who are tenacious opponents of all forms of sedevacantism.

Indeed, I see no point in attempting to create a false illusion of continuity in regards to how the SSPX operates today compared to its foundational principles decades ago. The differences are there to see for all as can be said about the discontinuity created by Vatican II or rather ita interpretatiom compared to how the Church was prior to it. It is best to view these issues realistically and attempt to solve their problems with a spirit of intellectual honesty.


I agree His Excellency Bishop Tissier applies the material/formal concept to Church membership and not to post Vatican II Papal claimants, but the underlying methodology used to do so is nonetheless strikingly similar to that used by the Sedeprivationists. It is an attempt to synthesize what is fundamentally at odds when interpreted in the light of our current situation. There is simply no precedent for it and is thus necessarily an innovation.


There is no reason to view the Church as divided in the way as does Bishop Tissier, for that ends up creating a sort of schismatic Church. While I agree that Vatican II, when viewed in the fashion of a superficial externality, can be seen as a robber council promulgated by heretics, infidels, and apostates; it is also true that it won't be going anywhere any time soon and we must therefore deal with it as it presents itself if we are to remain in the Church. It presents itself as a pastoral, non-dogmatic council that seeks to engage with the modern world in its own language. That being the case, as the council itself states, gives it an infallible interpretation that springs from its own authority being a council of the Pope and Bishops. That self infallible interpretation being that the Council did not seek doctrinal change, but a restructuring of old doctrine in new language.


While there is undoubtedly an issue in this sort of interpretation when post conciliar events are seen as contradicting the so called spirit of the council; it remains nonetheless the best way foreward at time being. It does not risk schism, does not reject authority, and does not seek a heretical and modernistic reorientation of old dogmas.


The Catholic system is based on authority and thus I humble myself and resign my spirit to the God given authority of the Holy Church and its pastors, the head being the Holy Father.