https://akacatholic.com/sspx-where-is-thy-conviction/

Louie Vericchio causing trouble with the SSPX again. I doubt he will ever be invited to speak at the Angelus Press conference again. But it is interesting that a little more people are starting to realize that the SSPX is ambiguous if not outright deceitful.

Readers may recall that an appeal to correct the errors found in Amoris Laetitia, signed by 45 theologians, was sent to Rome back in June of 2016.

The contents of their evaluation of Francis’ love letter to Satan (aka Amoris Laetitia) was supposed to be kept confidential, but the docuмent was leaked shortly thereafter and made available on various websites. (LifeSite News was one of them, but they subsequently, presumably at the request of its authors, took it down.)
Well, the full text of the theologians’ critique is once again available on the internet; including on the website of the Society of St. Pius X – oh, and without commentary.

I, for one, find this rather telling.

Recall that in the spring of this year, Fr. Jean Michel Gleize, SSPX, offered a detailed critique of his own wherein he concluded that Amoris Laetitia contains nothing properly heretical.

It was only after seeking clarification from the U.S. District House that I was able to report to readers that this is the Society’s official position.
The 45 theologians, however, have a different take.

I will have more to say on their evaluation in a later post, but for now let it be known that they have concluded that no less than eleven of the propositions set forth in Amoris Laetitia should be “censured as haeretica.”

The definition of haeretica provided by the 45 theologians is essentially the same that Fr. Gleize used in the process of making the Society’s case.
The theologians write:

Heretical propositions, censured as ‘haeretica’, are ones that contradict propositions that are contained in divine revelation and are defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

I invite you to read the full text of the 45 theologians’ evaluation for yourself. It has some flaws that we will discuss later, indeed, but they are to be applauded for not shying away from calling heresy by its true name.

With respect to the SSPX, their publication of the 45 theologians’ critique, offered without any commentary much less a rebuttal, raises some serious questions:
For one, does the Society now wish to modify its previous position; i.e., does it wish to endorse the conclusion of the 45 theologians that Amoris Laetitia is deserving of no less than eleven censures for heresy?

My sense is that they do not, which is a pity for more than one reason.

The question that remains, therefore, is why would the SSPX publish any text on its official website – without any qualification whatsoever – unless it is willing to place its own stamp of approval on its contents?

Before we attempt to answer that question, let it be known that the Society’s publication of a paper that departs from their own position, in this case that of the 45 theologians, is not an isolated occurrence.

In May, I called readers’ attention to the fact that the SSPX had published an article under the title, Why is the pope silent on the dubia, that consisted of excerpts from a presentation given by Claudio Pierantoni at the laity-led conference on Amoris Laetitia held in Rome on April 22, 2017.
In it, one will find such ridiculous assertions as “[Francis] is the victim of a general historical alienation that affects large sectors of theological teaching” (a victim!), and Amoris Laetitia doesn’t even contain anything that is “directly heterodox.”

Does the SSPX really wish to make these positions their own?
Personally, I don’t believe that it does.

I also recently pointed out that the SSPX published (again, without any commentary of its own) the LifeSite News article raving about Cardinal Burke’s Roman Life Forum speech wherein he held up John Paul the Great Ecuмenist, Vatican Council II and the New Evangelization as examples of faithfulness to the message of Fatima.

Does the SSPX really wish to make these positions their own?
Personally, I don’t believe that it does.

Now, back to the question at hand:
Why does the Society publish any content on its official website that clearly does not represent its own position?
The only answer that I can come up with is that the SSPX of today is severely lacking in conviction; i.e., it is pleased to play, or at least to give the appearance of playing, on both sides of the fence.

At this, let’s recap just some of the disparate positions found on the SSPX official website as mentioned in this post:
– Amoris Laetitia does not contain anything deserving of the censure of heresy.
– Amoris Laetitia contains statements that simply “favor heresy.”
– Amoris Laetitia does not contain anything that can even be considered “heterodox.”
– Amoris Laetitia contains no less than eleven propositions that deserve the censure of heresy.
– Francis, the author of Amoris Laetitia is a victim of the age.

– Our Lady’s appeal as given at Fatima, including for the consecration of Russia, “is not for just once … [but] must be taken up by generation after generation, in accordance with the ever new ‘signs of the times.’”

Could an innocent soul browsing the website of the SSPX be blamed for coming away wondering exactly what the Society actually believes? More importantly, could such a person be expected to come away knowing the truth?

How tragic it is that the Priestly Society that once published the journal Si, si, No no – a name taken from Matthew 5:37, “But let your speech be, ‘Yes, yes,’ ‘No,no’; and whatever is beyond these comes from the Evil One.” – now finds itself in such a pitiable state.
Let us pray that the SSPX recovers the zeal that it once possessed, and soon.

NOTE: I am still awaiting a response to the inquiry that I sent to the U.S. District House asking if any of the money collected from their faithful is sent by the SSPX to Rome; either directly to Peter’s Pence or otherwise. If you who are reading this belong to a Society chapel, given the kinds of activities in which the “Holy” See in our day is engaged, you may consider pressing the matter in whatever way you can in the hope that the answer received will be, “No, not one nickel.”

 
A Recent publication of the Angelus Press claims to demonstrate that Sedevacantism is a false solution to the crisis in the Church, and that the only truly Catholic position is that of the Society of Pius X. They do this by falsifying the Sedevacantist position and by refusing to recognize the theological errors and cultic practices of their own organization.
 
1. Throughout the text the author repeatedly and persistently claims to base his position on prudence, the assumption being that Sedevacantists lack this moral virtue. Let us be clear about the definition of Prudence. According to Prummer, “St Thomas and Aristotle define prudence as correct knowledge concerning things to be done… or the intellectual virtue whereby man recognizes in any matter to hand what is good and what is evil… the acts of prudence are three in  number: to take counsel carefully, to judge correctly, and to direct.” One can certainly question to what degree Fr. Simoulin has fulfilled these criteria.
 
2. The author categorizes sedevacantists as either “Rigerous,  “Conclavist” or followers of the Cassiciacuм thesis. Let us first of all consider the latter, which can be superficially characterized as holding that we have a pope who has no authority, but whose authority would return if he returned to the faith. Now while this latter position is advocated by some highly intelligent individuals – Guerard des Lauriers, Bishop McKenna, Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Racossa, to name those who write in its defence, the fact remains that the average Catholic sedevacantist neither understands this thesis nor believes in it. If one were to go to a sedevacantist parish and ask those attending what the Cassiciacuм thesis was, they would not know what you were talking about. Les than 1% of traditional Catholics would fall within this category.[1]
 
2. While it is true that there are a moderate number of  “conclavists” and a plethora of  “popes,” either self elected or followed by relatively small groups of people, the fact remains that the sedevacantist position is in no way tied to such groups. Let it be clear that there is nothing going on in the Churches today that prevents anyone from being truly Catholic. While it is regrettable that we do not have a true pope able to direct the activities of the Church, it should be clear that there is nothing that prevents any Catholic from being Catholic. Such has always been the case during periods characterized as being “inter-regnum.” As Catherine Emerick said, if there is only one Catholic in whom the faith exists, the Church resides in him.
 
3. To characterize sedevacantists as “Rigerous” is inappropriate as it implicitly suggests that they are fanatical. Such is far from the case for Sedevacantism is simply a logical response to the situation one finds in the post-Conciliar Church today. One can no more speak of a rigorous sedevacantist than one can speak of a lax or liberal sedevacantist.
 
4. Two issues which the author raises require clear cut responses. A) the author holds that the sedevacantist denies the indefectibility of the Church. This is to put it mildly, nonsense. Anyone who is not as blind as the proverbial bat can see that “the Pope and the Bishops in union with him” have defected from the true Church. It follows that both the “pope” and those that follow him risk the anathemas of Peter and Paul such as were applied to those who forbade the so-called Tridentine Mass. (St Catherine of Sienna in regard to a somewhat similar situation bluntly stated the pope involved and those who followed him would go to hell.) It should be clear – indeed obvious - that it is not the Church which has defected for such is impossible. It is the new and post-Conciliar organization which has defected from the true Church which still continues to exist and against which the Gates of  Hell cannot not prevail. That the true Church is in a certain sense “underground,” but by no means “invisible” is a fact of our days. A somewhat parallel situation existed in England during the early Reformation years where priests continued to function in a manner seemingly independent of any hierarchy. (Incidentally, the author in one place confuses the indefectibility of the Church with the indefectibility of the teaching hierarchy.)
 
5. The author claims that the “Rigorist” sedevacantist position holds that “the teaching Church no longer exists.” Now in so far as the sedevacantist holds that the Church continues to exist, it clearly follows that he holds its teaching function continues to exist. The Magisterium is not a dead organ once a pope dies – rather it is a live organ to which the sedevacantist adheres with all his heart. The sedevacantist does not believe the ordinary Magisterium can contain error as Michael Davies holds; nor does he believe that the various statements of the post-Conciliar hierarchy are part of this Magisterium except by accident when they hold views that are consistent with what the Church has always taught. I would remind the members of the Society that Paul VI characterized the docuмents of Vatican II as “the supreme form of the ordinary Magisterium” which John PauL II reiterated by calling it the “highest form of the ordinary Magisterium.” Vatican I made it quite clear that the ordinary Magisterium was infallible. Moreover Paul VI told Ardchbishop Lefebvre that he had to give his “intellectual consent” to everything in the Docuмents of Vatican II. To give one’s intellectual assent is to accept them as true –quod absit.
 
6. The Society holds that the post-Conciliar “popes” are true popes. If such is the case, according to Catholic teaching, they should be obeyed. A pope is “one hierarchical person with our Lord” and when he speaks or acts within his function, he is to be obeyed. Now quite apart from the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre et all were excommunicated, the Society does in fact accept all the new sacraments, the new Code of Canon Law and what it chooses to accept of John Paul II’s teachings promulgated through the organs of the ordinary Magisterium. This puts the Society and its members in the position of “picking and choosing” just what they will and will not accept – a truly Protestant principle. As such they lead the faithful who turn to them into a fundamental Protestant faith.
 
7. The author casts doubts on the validity of the Thuc consecrations on the grounds that he consecrated some individuals who were in one way or another unqualified. Now it is a matter of common sense that Bishops who use their consecratory powers will occasionally consecrate individuals who are unworthy. To imply that they knowingly did so is a calumny. For example, I know that Archbishop Lefebvfre ordained a priest who was ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Is this grounds for casting doubt on all his ordinations? I hardly think so, for the good Archbishop had no way of knowing that the individual involved was ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Indeed this criticism might well apply to the innumerable priests who have left the Society to marry, enter the new church, or become sedevacantists. Many of us have gone through a long history of trying to accommodate to the new Church only in the end to find it is impossible. To criticize those who are at various stages in the process of clarifying their thinking (bringing it into line with the thinking of the Church) is to say the least, unjust if not a calumny.
 
8. The Society persistently claims that no one can judge the Pope. Now clearly no one can judge another soul, but one can certainly judge the popes actions. Moreover, one has to be blind and deaf not to recognize that the post-Conciliar “popes” have defected from the faith on innumerable occasions – that is to say, embraced and taught heresy. Listen to the words of St. Robert Belarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.” Similarly, St. Francis de Sales teaches that “when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso fact from his dignity and out of the Church…” If the Pope is not a heretic, than why does the Society of Pius X exist? And if they do not think he is a heretic – both material and formal – then I suggest that the members of the Society read a basic text on theology or even the Catechism of the Council of Trent. If however if these “popes” have fulfilled the criteria of St. Belarmine, what other possibility is there than that we are in an inter-regnem and sedevacantism is the only truly Catholic position.
If the Society holds that we cannot judge what is heretical and what is not, what is true and what is false, then the Society holds that we have no responsibility to be Catholic as opposed to any other pseudo-religion.
 
9. The author makes a plea in favour of Un cuм, that is to say, the appropriateness of listing John Paul II in the Canon of the Mass as a true and Catholic believer. To do so once again confirms our need to obey and follow him without picking and choosing. Traditional priests replace this with the phrase that we are in union with the Apostolic See – with all the true popes going back to Peter, but hardly with self proclaimed heretics.
This does not mean that sedevacantists do not pray for the miserable man who currently sits on the Chair of Peter.
 
10. Returning to the need for prudential action, let us once again consider the words from Prummer’s text on Moral Theology. “St Thomas and Aristotle define prudence as correct knowledge concerning things to be done… or the intellectual virtue whereby man recognizes in any matter to hand what is good and what is evil… the acts of prudence are three in  number: to take counsel carefully, to judge correctly, and to direct.” Given the fact that there have been innumerable periods in the Church when there was no pope reigning, and given the fact that the Church continued to exist under such circuмstances, and given the fact that there is no way that the post-Conciliar “popes” can claim to be “one hierarchical person with our Lord,” and given the fact that obedience to false popes endangers our salvation, what is the prudential thing for a Catholic to do? If he is a true pope obey him, if not his commands have no authority and he is not a true pope.


11. One last comment. One will find an excellent discussion by Father Stepanich, O.F.M., a former professor of theology and a traditional sedevacantist priest on my web page (Coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com). Those who wish for greater clarification are urged to turn to this source.
 
12. In conclusion, let us face the reality that to follow the post-Conciliar “popes” requires that we apostasize as they have. The choice is clear. Either we obey the post-Conciliar hierarchy and give up our faith, or we declare that the current pseudo-pope and the bishops in union with him are themselves not in the true Church. To join one of the various groups that do declare him to be a true pope whom one need not obey and to accept highly dubious if not false sacraments is not to remain in the Catholic Church, but to join a cult the number of which seems to be legion.

ã R Coomaraswamy, 2004
 

---

[1]The use of the word “traditional” is without any great accuracy as almost all Catholics claim to be such – indeed, how could one be other than traditional. It is hoped the context will make it clear that we are referring to those who find the new church in some ways unsatisfactory.