Funny thing, but when the same Church later said, "No", it didn't count.
Yes, such is the nature of this crisis, by the time the enemy tried to stop what they initially started, it was too late - almost like the whole conciliar wreck, only in reverse.
The reason they are telling us this is because most people have been led to believe that the SSPX started in schism and without the blessing of the Church like some of the other sects out there.
That is a contradiction. If one already considers the enemy's approval to be official approval, one must also recognize when the enemy withdraws the approval.
No. I may have been able to word it better but the whole point is that no matter what "society" or sect or trad group is out there, the SSPX is one that actually followed the mandatory ecclesiastical procedures which have always been a necessity in order to remain within the Church. I understand that is not the way you and many others look at things, but regardless, that is the way it actually works.
In plain English, the fact is that the Church was not so infiltrated at that time, there were still, at that time, authoritative members of the hierarchy here and there that still had the faith, that were still worthy representatives of the Church and of the offices they held - and who actually did what the Church has always done according to the faith, this included giving the blessings of the Church that were asked for by +ABL. Seems like this should need no explanation.
Do you mean the only one? If that's what you mean, it's a mistake.
No, I said what I meant. As I said, I know it goes contrary to your whole "epikea" position from the other thread because the SSPX is one that actually did what they were supposed to do. I do not know if there are others or not, which is why I said the SSPX is one that actually followed the mandatory ecclesiastical procedures.
The importance of that act eludes you because you cling to the idea that the crisis negates those procedures. Yet +ABL knew of the importance of that act, that it is necessary because it is directly through that act that the SSPX trace their lineage directly to the Church. As such, those who proceeded without that act either cannot trace their lineage back to the Church or it is doubtful. That's just how it is.
Within about 3 years the SSPX were running around the world setting up Mass centers without even attempting to discern what the status was for each diocesan bishop's territory they encroached upon.
Your statement about, "authoritative members of the hierarchy here and there that still had the faith" is just your own supposition. The record only shows they assumed that was the case, but they didn't have in mind to discern whether each they were directly dealing with was "still worthy", or not.
No, it is not my own supposition, that is how it was. The truth is that it is your supposition that the entire hierarchy lost their offices one day during or after the Council and became heretical laymen outside the Church.
I repeat something I just said in my previous post in this thread; while "necessity" knows no law, nobody can claim necessity to break the letter of the law who has access to a man they believe to be the true pope.
Yes, you've been stuck on this false opinion since you started posting as a nado here on CI, and certainly, in the days since V2 the axiom "necessity knows no law" has been invoked - but it has also been misused and abused as though it were a ticket to do whatever anyone wants willy nilly, even to the point of a layman getting ordained by a prot bishop, starting a Church and calling it Catholic mean while +ABL is getting the blessings of the Church from Bishops and Cardinals.
By your saying:
"nobody can claim necessity to break the letter of the law who has access to a man they believe to be the true pope", I assume you mean no one can claim there is a necessity if a pope is in the Chair, but of course this is just your typical nonsense that confuses all three; Divine Law, Ecclesiastical Law and necessity.
Topic: What is the SSPX? (Read 8772 times)