[songbird]

Was he ordained before 1968?  After, there is no ordination, just installed.

[Ladislaus]

An Indult TLM is still the TLM. To say otherwise is a stretch.

As I have said before, you are not a Traditional Catholic.  Otherwise, you would know that Traditional Catholicism isn't merely (or even primarily) about the Mass.  It's about the FAITH.  Certainly TLM is TLM, taken in isolation (and assuming a valid priest).  But, then you have Orthodox Liturgies that are also perfectly Traditional, taken in isolation.  But the context is incredibly important.  Unfortunately, a TLM celebrated under the auspices of and within the doctrinal/ecclesiastical framework of the Conciliar Church serves to "legitimize" the Vatican II revolution by hiding the doctrinal problems with the Conciliar establishment from the lay people who attend it.  God in fact allowed the liturgical abberations of the Novus Ordo to wake people up to the bad doctrine behind the Conciliar Church.  I know that I myself would have remained blind to all this were it not for the Novus Ordo liturgical innovations I experienced as a child and which inspired me to dig deeper into what was going on.  And allowing the TLM to be placed alongside the NOM as an "extraordinary" form is to tacitly grant legitimacy to the NOM.  It's like having a statue of Christ put up in a pagan pantheon.  Nothing wrong with a statue of Christ, taken in isolation.  But, in context, you're tacitly admitting that Christ is just our preference among the various other deities that one might be free to choose from.  And the symbolism of this is even more striking when you attend a TLM in a church that still has the Luther Table set out in front of the main altar.

[Kazimierz]

But an indult catholic is not a Traditional Catholic....Because an indult catholic's FAITH is not 100% Traditional.  The Faith > the Mass.

Indeed indeed!
Better the have the Faith without the Mass, then the Mass without the Faith. Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine!
Acceptance of Vatican II, and all that flows from that Stygian cesspit; dubious episcopal ordinations....Maybe FSSP and other indultery clerics are not priests at all?......
Isnt that enough to stay away? Why play Polish roulette with your salvation? (Polish roulette has all chambers filled save one, and that cartridge is only slightly less damaging than the other five. Ok, I just made this up  ;D but the analogy is sound.)
The neoSSPX is already seriously infected. It too will be quarantined permanently. 
 for discernment

[Pax Vobis]

(Polish roulette has all chambers filled save one, and that cartridge is only slightly less damaging than the other five. Ok, I just made this up   but the analogy is sound.)

I approve!

[X]

If St. Peter's Fraternity, and the Institute of Christ the King, will defend Catholic Faith and Tradition, and not be anti-SSPX, the SSPX will work with them. Put together, the three Fraternities have around 1000 Priests. In France, over 20% of newly ordained Priests are from traditional Orders: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/over-20-of-newly-ordained-priests-in-france-belong-to-traditional-orthodox

If the FSSP is anti SSPX, and is against Tradition's spread in new areas, the SSPX won't work with it. But otherwise if not, then it can. Recently, a parish was saved from closure through the good work of St. Peter's Fraternity, and through the Traditional Latin Mass: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/traditional-latin-mass-saves-u.s.-parish-from-closure

“They are doing the devil’s work.”
-Archbishop Lefebvre 

[Kazimierz]

“They are doing the devil’s work.”
-Archbishop Lefebvre

Clear, concise, correct. 

[Nishant Xavier]

As I have said before ...

Oh, ok, then. Since you have cited the Infallible Authority of Pope Ladislaus the First, Causa Finita Est, I guess. I never said the Faith is not important, but it is Holy Mass that also forms us in the Faith and gives us the Grace to persevere in Catholic Faith and Unity until the end.  Pope St. Pius X gave us an Infallible Oath against Modernism to help us preserve the Faith inviolate. I advise you to make it and believe it if you are worried of falling into Modernism. The Superior General of the SSPX took it again upon being elected, and we firmly believe every word in it. Can you prove that the SSPX denies or doubts even one article of Faith?

If you believe a 61 year interregnum is possible, then it's you who may deny or "doubt" the Catholic Faith. The Papacy is not an optional afterthought that God gave His Church, but something absolutely foundational to the divine constitution of the Church; because, among other things, only the Power of the Papacy can appoint Bishops to Office, and these appointments are necessary for the Church to be continued. The Society understands all these things very well, and much better than the resistance does, because it has a much stronger Faith. Faith is not the only bond in the Church, and we are not saved by Faith alone. Charity is the second bond, the Bond of Unity and of Communion with the Shepherds of the Church, which must be preserved also, for Faith to be sustained and to be increased.

You mention the Orthodox, but you fail to mention Orthodox Masses are illicit because they are schismatic and not in communion with the Church. Eastern Catholic Masses, which are the same Masses as those of the Orthodox, except in Catholic communion, are licit.

Fr. Jean Michel Gleize, Seminary Professor of Ecclesiology: "that the Church should be habitually deprived of her head is an absurdity and contrary to the promises of indefectibility. One of the reasons the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X could rely on to reject the sedevacantist hypothesis was that “the matter of the visibility of the Church is too essential to its existence for God to be able to do without it for decades; the reasoning of those who assert the non-existence of the pope places the Church in an insoluble situation.” ... it is an old error that was already condemned by the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X. Pardon me if I disappoint you, but I will not run the risk of trying to be wiser than Solomon! The 40 years of Archbishop Lefebvre’s episcopate matter, if not in the sight of men, at least in the sight of God. Archbishop Lefebvre was a great man, a great bishop, because he was a man of the Church." http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501

All I can say to you is, Staying away from the Sacraments will make it very difficult to grow spiritually. Do you know the effects of staying away from Holy Communion for a long time? Read what Doctors of the Church like St. Alphonsus and Popes like St. Pius X taught about the importance and the salutary effects of daily and frequent Communion. I never said the Indult situation is ideal. Here's the thing - if parishes become Indult today, they may become TLM only tomorrow. A TLM parish becoming Novus Ordo is not good. A Novus Ordo parish on the path to becoming Traditional is very good.

Also, many Priests still say the Novus Ordo only because they believe, wrongly, that the Roman Catholic Church wants them to say it - that intention means they are in good faith. The SSPX tries to help that good faith become True Faith by instructing them on the True Mass. If tomorrow the Church explicitly said they should offer the True Mass only, then they would do that. The SSPX is working for that to happen.

What of TLM only parishes? Do you condemn that also? You can't correctly condemn those who swear by the Oath against Modernism as allegedly denying the Faith. That great Oath teaches us many immutable dogmatic Truths, including that "Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in Sacred Tradition ... I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way."  Who denies this? Not us. Please see: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm

X, Archbishop Lefebvre was on good terms with Michael Davies throughout his life, and Davies was head of an Indult Latin Mass Society. What do you make of that? The situation has changed after Summorum Pontificuм and Universae Ecclesiae have been promulgated. Tradition can now make inroads into many dioceses and to the extent St. Peter's Fraternity or the Institute of Christ the King can help in that, the SSPX feels no need to condemn them totally. The SSPX's end goal remains that parishes and dioceses should become TLM-only, swear the Oath against Modernism, and believe the whole Catholic Faith, preserving Catholic Communion.

[richard]

As I have said before, you are not a Traditional Catholic.  Otherwise, you would know that Traditional Catholicism isn't merely (or even primarily) about the Mass.  It's about the FAITH.  Certainly TLM is TLM, taken in isolation (and assuming a valid priest).  But, then you have Orthodox Liturgies that are also perfectly Traditional, taken in isolation.  But the context is incredibly important.  Unfortunately, a TLM celebrated under the auspices of and within the doctrinal/ecclesiastical framework of the Conciliar Church serves to "legitimize" the Vatican II revolution by hiding the doctrinal problems with the Conciliar establishment from the lay people who attend it.  God in fact allowed the liturgical abberations of the Novus Ordo to wake people up to the bad doctrine behind the Conciliar Church.  I know that I myself would have remained blind to all this were it not for the Novus Ordo liturgical innovations I experienced as a child and which inspired me to dig deeper into what was going on.  And allowing the TLM to be placed alongside the NOM as an "extraordinary" form is to tacitly grant legitimacy to the NOM.  It's like having a statue of Christ put up in a pagan pantheon.  Nothing wrong with a statue of Christ, taken in isolation.  But, in context, you're tacitly admitting that Christ is just our preference among the various other deities that one might be free to choose from.  And the symbolism of this is even more striking when you attend a TLM in a church that still has the Luther Table set out in front of the main altar.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[X]

X, Archbishop Lefebvre was on good terms with Michael Davies throughout his life, and Davies was head of an Indult Latin Mass Society. What do you make of that? The situation has changed after Summorum Pontificuм and Universae Ecclesiae have been promulgated. Tradition can now make inroads into many dioceses and to the extent St. Peter's Fraternity or the Institute of Christ the King can help in that, the SSPX feels no need to condemn them totally. The SSPX's end goal remains that parishes and dioceses should become TLM-only, swear the Oath against Modernism, and believe the whole Catholic Faith, preserving Catholic Communion.

Young man, you are delusional:

Not only did Michael Davies abandon Archbishop Lefebvre at the 1988 consecrations -ending any collaboration between the two- but +Lefebvre condemned the indult movement roundly.

Here is Archbishop Lefebvre two years after the consecrations, telling you what he thinks of the indult.  It is almost as if the Archbishop is addressing you personally, Xavier:

"And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says"—but they are betraying us—betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.

Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.

Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that's the right kind of ecuмenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?

This is what causes us a problem with certain layfolk, who are very nice, very good people, all for the Society, who accepted the Consecrations, but who have a kind of deep-down regret that they are no longer with the people they used to be with, people who did not accept the Consecrations and who are now against us. "It's a pity we are divided", they say, "why not meet up with them? Let's go and have a drink together, reach out a hand to them"—that's a betrayal! Those saying this give the impression that at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us. They must make up their minds."
http://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations

I understand it is embarrassing for you to see the neo-SSPX's so flagrantly contradict their founder, but perhaps you are one of those indulters diluting tradition and traditional resistance who only came to the SSPX precisely because of the recent contradictions?

[Nishant Xavier]

Neither I nor the SSPX agrees with Davies on everything. Neither did Archbishop Lefebvre. But Davies wrote Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/ SSPX District of Asia has had that book up for decades.

The two situations are not comparable at all. Some original FSSPers were anti-SSPXers trying to draw faithful away from the Society. That's why +ABL said that.

And also, you are ignoring the difference between:

Scenario I: Tradition established already - FSSP trying to lead faithful away from SSPX (as in 1988, and sometimes even after that) - everyone going back to the Novus Ordo and Tradition closing down. That is bad and the SSPX has always deplored it and still does.

Scenario II: Tradition not established in the diocese - FSSP enters this diocese and leads some Catholics to Tradition - some parishes later become TLM only, and some are even sold to the SSPX. That is something good and this scenario is entirely different from the first.

I showed you an article from the SSPX Site clearly defending the saintliness of Archbishop of Lefebvre and explaining the rationale for the episcopal consecrations; and also proving, from Rome's own canonists and theologians themselves, that there is no schism at all in creating an Auxiliary Bishop. Archbishop Lefebvre understood the theology here perfectly, and H.G said clearly it was not conferring jurisdiction. Some in Rome thought this is schism, but when their own canonists said differently, they had to correct themselves. There was no schism, no denial of Papal authority, no attempt to confer habitual jurisdiction. Only the Consecration of 4 Auxiliaries.

If a Bishop tries to confer Ordinary Jurisdiction on another Bishop, he is trying to do something only the Pope can do. Saintly Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly said H.G. was not doing that, and could not do that - since only the Pope could do it, only the Pope can confer Ordinary Jurisdiction - and said a Pope would confirm the Auxiliary Bishops he consecrated in future, and they would become Ordinaries. That prophetic statement came true in 2015, as Bishop Fellay has explained. https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/

You claimed earlier the SSPX has "A belief Lefebvre died an excommunicate". Do you stand by that claim in the light of this article? ""The Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris, Fr. Patrick Valdrini, confirmed that “it is not the consecration of a bishop that creates a schism; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission [i.e. ordinary jurisdiction] ...Finally, on January 21, 2009, a decree of the Congregation for Bishops, signed by its Prefect, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, based on the faculties expressly granted by Pope Benedict XVI, declared the decree of July 1, 1988, to be deprived of any juridical effect." https://fsspx.org/en/sspx%E2%80%99s-bishops

The situation has changed after Summorum Pontificuм and Universae Ecclesiae. After 2011, there are many more instance of Scenario II than of I.

So the Society's approach is justified. This is a prudential matter, not a question of Faith, and it's up to the Superior General and General Chapter to decide what is the best course of action that prudence demands in any concrete situation. They have judged Indult need not be condemned in every case, but only in Scenario I above.

[X]

Neither I nor the SSPX agrees with Davies on everything. Neither did Archbishop Lefebvre. But Davies wrote Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/ SSPX District of Asia has had that book up for decades.

The two situations are not comparable at all. Some original FSSPers were anti-SSPXers trying to draw faithful away from the Society. That's why +ABL said that.

And also, you are ignoring the difference between:

Scenario I: Tradition established already - FSSP trying to lead faithful away from SSPX (as in 1988, and sometimes even after that) - everyone going back to the Novus Ordo and Tradition closing down. That is bad and the SSPX has always deplored it and still does.

Scenario II: Tradition not established in the diocese - FSSP enters this diocese and leads some Catholics to Tradition - some parishes later become TLM only, and some are even sold to the SSPX. That is something good and this scenario is entirely different from the first.

I showed you an article from the SSPX Site clearly defending the saintliness of Archbishop of Lefebvre and explaining the rationale for the episcopal consecrations; and also proving, from Rome's own canonists and theologians themselves, that there is no schism at all in creating an Auxiliary Bishop. Archbishop Lefebvre understood the theology here perfectly, and H.G said clearly it was not conferring jurisdiction. Some in Rome thought this is schism, but when their own canonists said differently, they had to correct themselves. There was no schism, no denial of Papal authority, no attempt to confer habitual jurisdiction. Only the Consecration of 4 Auxiliaries.

If a Bishop tries to confer Ordinary Jurisdiction on another Bishop, he is trying to do something only the Pope can do. Saintly Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly said H.G. was not doing that, and could not do that - since only the Pope could do it, only the Pope can confer Ordinary Jurisdiction - and said a Pope would confirm the Auxiliary Bishops he consecrated in future, and they would become Ordinaries. That prophetic statement came true in 2015, as Bishop Fellay has explained. https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/

You claimed earlier the SSPX has "A belief Lefebvre died an excommunicate". Do you stand by that claim in the light of this article? ""The Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris, Fr. Patrick Valdrini, confirmed that “it is not the consecration of a bishop that creates a schism; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission [i.e. ordinary jurisdiction] ...Finally, on January 21, 2009, a decree of the Congregation for Bishops, signed by its Prefect, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, based on the faculties expressly granted by Pope Benedict XVI, declared the decree of July 1, 1988, to be deprived of any juridical effect." https://fsspx.org/en/sspx%E2%80%99s-bishops

The situation has changed after Summorum Pontificuм and Universae Ecclesiae. After 2011, there are many more instance of Scenario II than of I.

So the Society's approach is justified. This is a prudential matter, not a question of Faith, and it's up to the Superior General and General Chapter to decide what is the best course of action that prudence demands in any concrete situation. They have judged Indult need not be condemned in every case, but only in Scenario I above.

Son,

Will you be offended if I observe that between your meandering mind, historical ignorance, and ralliement indoctrination, that you are not in my class, and do yourself a better service by remaining quiet?

1) Apologia was written in the 1970s, and has no bearing on ABLF’s condemnation of the indult groups which arise 15 years later;

2) ABLF condemned the indult groups because they accepted and promoted conciliar doctrine, and because they abandoned the fight for the restoration of Tradition by seeking their own (misperceived) particular good over the general good of the Church.  You might want to read your former superior general’s Letter #63 before you continue embarrassing yourself;

3) Your paragraphs 5-7 are non-sequiturs, and I have no idea why you supplied them, though I would encourage you to reflect upon them;

4) As regards par. 8, again, why are you quoting this to me?  You should be quoting this to Menzingen, since it is they who seem to fear for their canonical status and being perceived as schismatic.

The only situation which has changed is the rejection of Archbishop Lefebvre’s posture towards apostate Rome.

Quite honestly, I am offended someone as inept as yourself would dare to engage me in these matters.

You are an enthusiastic but blinded child, and evince incredible incomprehension.

You are the perfect SSPX candidate for priesthood.

Please don’t bother me again.

[Pax Vobis]

Scenario II: Tradition not established in the diocese - FSSP enters this diocese and leads some Catholics to the Traditional Mass but not the True Faith - some parishes later become TLM only, and some are even sold to the SSPX. That is something good and this scenario is entirely different from the first.

Fixed this scenario for you.  The problem that you fail to recognize is that both the FSSP and SSPX accept V2's errors, therefore they are NOT traditional in their Faith, but only in their liturgy.  Much like the early Anglicans under King Henry VIII who had the same liturgy as true catholics but yet were heretics by rejecting the pope, the FSSP and the SSPX appear traditional in their liturgy, but are heretics for accepting the heresies of V2 and the new mass.  The Liturgy /=/ The Faith.  The Faith > Liturgy.

[Stanley N]

The problem that you fail to recognize is that both the FSSP and SSPX accept V2's errors, therefore they are NOT traditional in their Faith, but only in their liturgy.  

The SSPX was compromised more than 20 years ago, but nevertheless, I' wasn't aware it is now teaching religious liberty, ecuмenism, indifferentism, or collegiality. When did they start doing that?

The FFSP has even more problems, but even in their weak position, I'm not sure that even they teach those things.

[Pax Vobis]

St Thomas More said:  "Silence gives consent."  Silence is one of the 9 ways you are an accessory to a sin.  Both the SSPX and FSSP silently accept V2 because they do not preach against it.

[hollingsworth]

PV:

St Thomas More said:  "Silence gives consent."  Silence is one of the 9 ways you are an accessory to a sin.  Both the SSPX and FSSP silently accept V2 because they do not preach against it.

Exactly!