Quote from: Francisco

It seems that almost all the SSPX clergy believe that we have a Pope in Rome. On one side we have those like Bp Fellay who feel that the current incuмbent is traditional enough to make a deal with, while on the other we have those like Bp Williamson who think otherwise. It doesn't seem that there are any real sedevacantist clergy in the Society.

What this means is that sooner or later, the SSPX will head towards Rome.

Other Traditional Catholic clergy have in the past commented on the question of a split within the SSPX. They believe that even if this Society does split, all it would mean that one segment would be fully incorporated into Rome, while the other would carry on as before, namely, recognizing but resisting the Pope, praying for him and the local ordinary in the Canon of the Mass, and using the 1962 liturgical books.

If SSPX is sedevacantist, then it should be called SSPV, no?

No, SSPV stands for the Society of Saint Pius V  :dancing:

Quote from: Francisco

It seems that almost all the SSPX clergy believe that we have a Pope in Rome. On one side we have those like Bp Fellay who feel that the current incuмbent is traditional enough to make a deal with, while on the other we have those like Bp Williamson who think otherwise. It doesn't seem that there are any real sedevacantist clergy in the Society.

What this means is that sooner or later, the SSPX will head towards Rome.

Other Traditional Catholic clergy have in the past commented on the question of a split within the SSPX. They believe that even if this Society does split, all it would mean that one segment would be fully incorporated into Rome, while the other would carry on as before, namely, recognizing but resisting the Pope, praying for him and the local ordinary in the Canon of the Mass, and using the 1962 liturgical books.

If SSPX is sedevacantist, then it should be called SSPV, no?

Our Traditional Chapel is not SSPX but we still pray for the Pope.  We do Not use the John XXIII 1962Missal which were originally written to leave out the Leotine prayers. The 1962 missal was a phase to prepare for the novus ordo.

We use 1945 St andrew, marian St. joseph missals.  Some are being newly reproduced.


The Maronites don't do vatican II and they are not under lcoal novus ordo bishops and yet they are under the Pope.    

Fr Morgan is one of the better Society priests for certain.

I found an English translation of the retraction here at this link:http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2012/07/sspx-general-chapter-and-its.html I'm not familiar with this website but I saw the Spanish announcement.

Monday, July 16, 2012
SSPX demands retraction from Spanish journalist

In the meantime, the District Superior of Spain and Portugal, Father de Montagut denies Vidal's report and demands a correction. One more example of obviously harassing fire, constantly targeted, which inflame matters. This includes the media mood music in the German speaking area around Bishop Richard Williamson is one with which the SSPX indirectly to be moved into the area of ​​anti-Semitism and h0Ɩ0cαųst denial. It is not difficult to recognize behind this intention the desire that the talks between Rome and to Econe should collapse . But it is still not gone that far. The General House itself has n now announced that each member of the General Chapter, was bound by an oath on the Bible to secrecy about the content and course of the Chapter Assembly. Any published information from journalists and on the internet regarding the General Chapter will therefore [be] flatly denied, combined with a call not to place any self-created rumors into the wider world. This is a translation of the emboldened part of the article. The whole article translated here.

The link you provide doesn't have any retraction in it. The only mention of Vidal is
this:

 In this regard the Spanish progressive religious journalist, José Manuel Vidal wrote, referring to the Spanish superiors, that a reconciliation "definitely failed", since on the preamble sent from Rome on 13th of June to the SSPX was "unacceptable".

Also, the DICI link you provided above does not open. Could be the server is
overloaded. But who knows?

www.dici.org/en/news/sspx-press-communique-of-july-14-2012/


Anyway, .........

First Fellay works out a schedule with Rome for freeing up the Canonized Latin Mass,
and lifting the "excoms," then asks for millions of Rosaries to pray for the Collegial
Consecration of Russia to the IHM. But when the Mass is freed and the "excoms"
are lifted, +Fellay claims those are answers to the Rosary crusade, even though
he knew all along it was part of the plan.

Now he's demanding sworn secrecy of the Chapter capitulants over the content of
the Chapter discussions.

It sure looks like he's got a lot to hide from the world.

Also from IA:
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=10225

QUOTE
"In a couple of days the General House of FSSPX will issue a communiqué"

Source: Bractwa Kaplañskiego Œw. Piusa X

Dispatch on General Chapter of the Society

It is claimed on the Internet that on Sunday, July 15th, I purportedly said that there „would be no agreement with Rome”. In fact, I informed the faithful about the General Chapter, which concluded its meeting in the spirit of the utter unanimousness, and that I find this fact to be another miraculous act of Blessed Virgin Mary, who has lent a sympathetic ear to prayers of Her children, asking Her to protect Catholic Tradition. As for the contacts between the Holy See and our Society, I asked the fold to pray even more fervently for the Holy Father and that the number of prelates, who would wish for canonical recognition of the Society, which would not require any kind of trade-off on her part, would grow up. I also said that the current state of relations between FSSPX and Rome had been described by our Superior General in his sermon on June 29th, i.e. that we were back at status quo of September 14th, 2011, when the doctrinal preamble was set forth, which for the Society was absolutely impossible to accept. I also added that our Superior General was preparing reply to the proposition submitted by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June, 13th; in his reply he would also inform Roman authorities about conclusion reached during General Chapter’s meeting. In a couple of days the General House of FSSPX will issue a communiqué on this matter.

Fr. Karl Stehlin FSSPX

It seems that almost all the SSPX clergy believe that we have a Pope in Rome. On one side we have those like Bp Fellay who feel that the current incuмbent is traditional enough to make a deal with, while on the other we have those like Bp Williamson who think otherwise. It doesn't seem that there are any real sedevacantist clergy in the Society.

What this means is that sooner or later, the SSPX will head towards Rome.

Other Traditional Catholic clergy have in the past commented on the question of a split within the SSPX. They believe that even if this Society does split, all it would mean that one segment would be fully incorporated into Rome, while the other would carry on as before, namely, recognizing but resisting the Pope, praying for him and the local ordinary in the Canon of the Mass, and using the 1962 liturgical books.

The SSPX is not sedevacantist. It follows the principles of its heroic founder, who I quote:

"Why do I maintain relations with Rome? Why do I keep going to Rome? Because I think that Rome is the center of Catholicism, because I think that there cannot be any Catholic Church without Rome. Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight. It is not one single bishop like myself who can set the whole situation straight in the Catholic Church. That is why I strive to keep on going to Rome and to plead the cause of Tradition. Because I am persuaded that it is by Tradition that the Catholic Church will recover its position as it was before the Second Vatican Council, and the means of its true progress. In the first place, I must tell you that I am under no illusions —the situation in Rome is very grave, very grave. …. Why does Rome still go on receiving me? Why do they still consider me with a certain respect?

Because they know that I have seminaries, that I have now ordained nearly 200 priests since 1970 and that I have 250 seminarians in my seminaries. They know that very well and that's what counts at Rome. They no longer have any seminaries. Their seminaries are empty or they are Modernist seminaries. Now they know that at Econe, at Ridgefield, at Zaitzkofen, and at Buenos Aires, we are forming true priests. They know that very well and they admire our young priests. So, that is what makes even more of an impression on them than my words, writings or meetings.

They are well aware that this year I ordained thirty priests. So that's what I think it is. And they are perfectly well aware that our priests are spread throughout the world. They know of the existence of our traditional groups throughout the world, and a little everywhere in the world. We are striving to extend. They know we have many priories in Europe, in all the European countries. They know, moreover, that there are other traditional priests, that we are not alone, that we support other traditional priests in their work. So all of that scares them a little. They are forced to reckon with us.

And that is how I think we will succeed one day in convincing Rome that they must return to Tradition."

- Archbishop Lefebvre, Long Island Conference, 1983.