His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay

[HopeforCatholics]

Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven (context of religous leaders!).

See youtube videos by BEREANBEACON and excatholicsforchrist. Don't be afraid.

[Oblationem]

Hope for Catholics? Did anyone ever tell you were full of yourself?

Your ridge interpretation would forbid you calling an earthly parent father. Yet God Himself, in the commandments, terms one of your parents father, and tells you to honor him as such. Your text means simply, “call no one your father as if you had no other father with rights over you.” That is, you must realize that all paternity is of God, and you owe your being, and all that you have, including your earthly father, to Him.

[Oblationem]

No one can be excommunicated for merely not accepting the heterodox teachings that the Vatican II Council refused to set forth with a definitive act. Vatican II did not define any point of doctrine, and therefore its teachings do not require an assent of faith (can. 752), since they do not pertain to the formal object of faith (St. Thomas, Summa Theol. Vatican II documents clearly oppose the authoritative magisterial pronouncements of previous popes.

[Oblationem]

The Gullible Novus Ordo Mind Disorder & Matt: 16-19. The enemies of the Catholic Church wanting to destroy everything that is Catholic have gone against Catholic teachings & Matt: 16-19 with:

1. Decree on Ecumenism.

2. Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches.

3. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.

4. Declaration on Religious Liberty.

5. Decree on Missionary Activity.

6. Decree on Non-Christian Religions.

7. Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.

8. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

[Oblationem]

What I think you suffer from is: “Novus Ordo Gullible Mind Set”. You proclaim to defend the faith but what you are really doing is defending the Roman Protestantism status quo; how much proof do you need? Yes I know that Christ gave the authority to the Peter, and that is why you should defend the Papacy and the (unchanging) True Catholic Faith, rather than any one pope. As long as Rome is modern, and as long as the SSPX defends the true faith, I’ll stick with them. Rome fails Matt: 16-18.

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem Matthew 18 and 16 are very clear . Your church did not follow the ROman CAtholic church(the one Christ built ) when you broke from the rules of the Pope. Simple as that . Your community are protestants for breaking the rule of Gods church . ROme does not fail Matt 16 or 18 , your group however does "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Jesus Christ )

[Oblationem]

Because your mind is unable to name even one instance where the SSPX is guilty of not believing in Matt: 16-18, you just keep repeating the same thing over and over. Tell me please, who defends Matt: 16-18 more than the SSPX? Tell me please how the Vatican II popes have defended the Papacy? It is your Novus Ordo mass that most resembles a Protestant worship service; it is Roman Protestantism. No longer Catholic.

Our Lady prophesied that Rome would become the Seat of the Antichrist.

[Oblationem]

Pope Paul VI a homosexual, & appointed homosexuals who are still with us, was picked-up by Roman police dressed in civilian clothes at male brothels, gave his Tiara away. According to Franco Bellegrandi member of the Vatican Noble Guard See the book “Rite of Sodomy” by Randy Engel 2006.

Pope JP2 was never crowned with a Tiara as pope.

Pope BXVI was Never Crowned a pope, and was not consecrated in the traditional manner as a Bishop. And you want us to obey these men because of Matt:16-19? WWJD?

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem " Humanae Vitae "written by Pope Paul VI is really prophecy . Now think about it , would a man who wrote this be able to do the things your biased source claims (key word claims )? Think about it and while your at it read Matthew 16 and 18 . Later .

[Oblationem]

Humanae Vitae was a debacle or a lesson on how to under-mine Church doctrine and morals without changing Church doctrine and morals. Because of VII, by the time Humanae Vitae was issued it was a dead letter. The adage “lex dubia non obligat” (a doubtful law does not bind), and Paul VI would not enforce it. Today 53 percent of N.O. Catholics believe they can have abortions. Only 10 percent of N.O. Lay religious teachers accept Church teaching on artificial birth control. Rome fails Matt: 16-19.

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem Paul VI prophesized what was to come in Humanae Vitae are you denying that what was in it actually is happening? I want a yes or not , No tit toeing here . They know that the Church does not condone abortion they want abortion and believe they can justify it somehow .SSPX fails Matthew 16 and 18 ans so do you if you continue to go against the church that Christ gave authority to so many years ago

[Oblationem]

Akin to Vatican II you are being too ambiguous. Be more specific, what exactly do you want me to actually to deny or accept? Please use facts. Like you once said, by their fruits you shall know them. Results of Vatican II and the New church are: Loss of priests & religious, parishes, seminarians, brothers, sisters, Catholic education, Catholic practice and belief, converts. Again, Vatican II & Rome fails Matt:16-19. What you are trying to defend is not Catholic; it is indefensible.

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem THe facts are that PaulVI predicted that certain things would happen in this world that have happened and are happening today in Humanae Vitae .Are you denying this? Or did you not study him enoughj to know he even came out with this encyclical ?SSPX will always fail Matt 16 and 18 as long as they keep worshiping God their way and not GOds way . Remember that Matt 16 and 18 cleared the church for the go ahead with Vatican II ,making you not cleared to follow SSPX

[Oblationem]

@CAtholic29 No I haven’t studied him enough, what did he predict exactly?

How about the Arian Heresy and St. Athanasius, did he also fail Matt: 16-18?

You may try to defend Rome with Matt: 16-18, but when is the last time you’ve heard of Rome defending the Papacy? Your idea and Rome’s idea of what the Catholic faith is, is not the same. Rome has lost the faith. Trying to defend Paul VI & Vatican II by trying to cast the SSPX in bad light is unsustainable. Rome is in apostasy. Wake up!

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem Your homework is to read the 15 page article I stated here . You have certainly researched enough propaganda . Now look at a real article the Pope wrote .Rome has the Pope and defends him you as the SSPX do not as long as you remain in schism with the Church and Matt 16 and 18 .Wake up to scripture you need to continue to read .

[Oblationem]

@CAtholic29 I asked you to please be specific. My homework? Pull your head out of the sand and do your homework and prove to me and to all that the SSPX is in schism. Either someone is pregant or not, likewise there is no such thing as half excommunicated or half un-excommunicated. Moreover only priests are members of the SSPX. I am a Catholic layman in good standing. A hint to get you jumped-started - only SSPX bishops were (unvalidly) excommunicated, that was later lifted.

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem SSPX has been in schism since Arch Bishop Levebra consecrated 4 Bishops without the approval of Pope John Paul II. You know that . HE did not follow Matthew 16 . Pope John Paul II gave approval to consecrate 4 bishops he however did not give approval to consecrate those 4 .DO your homework ! SSPX and its leader have been in schism since 1989 when this occurred . Your not in good standing with the RCC .

[Oblationem]

@CAtholic29 1.You must be related to the Rich family, as in ostrich. Pull your head out of the sand.

You and I both know the excommunication has been lifted for the bishops. Unfortunately (my opinion) the SSPX bishops accepted it. SSPX priests and laymen were never excommunicated. Unless you excommunicate me, I’m not excommunicated and a Catholic in good standing.

[Oblationem]

2.

Archbishop Lefebvre really believed that he was acting out of necessity. If he was indeed correct in his belief that it was really necessary to consecrate the bishops, then he would not be subject to any penalty whatever (can. 1324.4). If he was in error and even if he was culpably in error in believing that it was necessary to consecrate bishops without a mandate from the Pope, then he still would not incur any automatic (latae sententice) penalty (can. 1324.3).

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem The excommunication for the Bishops would have never been so had Arch Bishop Levevbra followed Mathew 16 You are all in schism because you refuse to recognize Pope Benedict as your Pope .You are not a Catholic in good standing if you do not accept our Pope . That is the way it is . Scripture does not lie . If you do not accept Matthew 16 then you dont accept God's word

[Oblationem]

Wrong again, you put a false meaning on Matthew: 16-18.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem You are a protestant (because you protest Roman Catholic church) not following Matthew 16 . Your opinion is that I am wrong because like any other protestant you want to do things your way rather then Gods way . So it is you as a protestant that is wrong . You broke with tradition when you protested Vatican II simple as that .

[Oblationem]

Wrong again. Quoting from scripture and then putting your own interpretation on it is Protestant, as is much of Vatican II. Moreover the Novus Ordo mass (small m) deleted prayers from the (Mass of All Time) as those deleted by the Protestants, and those prayers retained are what the Protestants retained. Vatican II broke with Catholic Tradition. It’s as simple as that.

St. Robert Bellarmine is a Sainted Doctor of the Church, who should we believe, a Sainted Doctor of the Church or you?

[CAtholic29]

Oblationem Vatican II is backed by Matthew 16 and 18.Your groups foundation is against Matt 16 no matter how you slice it.You would have considered the church before Vatican II to be the church God Started would you not?This church that formed Vatican II was that church get it?WE were the church before Vatican II we are the church now .You supported it Pre Vatican II you reject it now therefore you reject Matthew 16 we will just have to agree to disagree since neither of us will budge

[Oblationem]

Dear Catholic29,

I want you to defend the Catholic faith, all of the faith, not just since Vatican II. The book, “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators” tells of the results of Vatican II, its ambiguous attitude diminishes Matt: 16-18 and much more.

Everything does not revolve around VII. It was not some kind of Super Council that does away with the history and traditions of the Church. It is the Novus Ordo that rejects Matt: 16:18. Do you want proof; are you afraid I can prove it?

[Oblationem]

First Vatican Council 1870 encapsulated the dogma of papal primacy and the infallibility of the pope only when he speaks ex cathedra, but states that he has no power to innovate upon the Faith and Tradition.

For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not in order that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation, or Deposit of Faith, transmitted by the Apostles.

[Oblationem]

John Paul II essentially rejected this Catholic dogma when, in his 1995 Encyclical Letter, Ut unum sint, subtitled "On the Commitment to Ecumenism," proclaimed that he was ready to change the papacy the better to promote "ecumenism."

The new Papacy has no "authority." It has become so watered down by "inculturation," "collegiality," and false "ecumenism," that it can no longer command anything. You tell me, does this work against Matt: 16:18 or not?

[Oblationem]

When the cardinalatial commission of 1986 determined that the Traditional Latin Mass had not been abrogated, nor could it ever be, and that any priest could say it at any time at any place without "episcopal approval," the German bishops told JP2 in no uncertain terms that if he promulgated the commission's findings, Germany and surrounding countries would go into open schism. The pope never promulgated the findings. Does this support Matt: 16:18? Want to learn about B16?

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem Let me see your proof or your investigation /research

[Oblationem]

A.

Catholic teaching:

Pope Pius IX, Encyclical, April 8, 1862: “…whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.” (The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p.364.

John Paul II taught that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion and other sacraments. See: (Canon 844.3 of (his) 1983 Code of Canon Law).

[Oblationem]

B.

…By reason of the very close sacramental bonds between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church… The Catholic Church has often adopted and now adopts a milder policy, offering to all the means of salvation and an example of charity among Christians through participation in the sacraments and in other sacred functions and objects…

(John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (#58), May 25, 1995):

[Oblationem]

C.

There must never be a loss of appreciation for the ecclesiological implication of sharing in the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist.”

(John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (#58), May 25, 1995):

D.

Moreover because of John Paul’s Ut Unum Sint reflections of a new Papacy, the

In Orthodoxy proposes a new model of the Roman Papacy. Google Ut Unum Sint,

New Papacy - sharing the Papacy etc. Now’s that supporting Matt: 16:18 eh?

Read: Ut Unum Sint on the Vatican web site.

[Oblationem]

E.

Catholics cannot partake in Non-Catholic worship.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of Non-Catholics…”

[Oblationem]

F. “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he makes a false declaration, he sins mortally.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4.

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem Remember Matthew 16 and 18 still cleared him to do that

[Oblationem]

Wrong again.

I resist you to your face, after the example of St. Paul, who resisted St. Peter to the face. “But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:11). Matt: 16:18 doesn’t mean the pope can do as he pleases, especially when he goes against Catholic doctrine. Remember Peter denied Christ three times.

[Oblationem]

From the Internet:

“The Resurrection: Not the resuscitation of a corpse? An "evolutionary" leap? Not a historical event like Our Lord's birth or crucifixion? St. Luke "contradicts" himself? How Benedict XVI's new book Jesus of Nazareth resurrects modernist teachings condemned by St. Pius X — and in the process destroys Christ's principal miracle, His Resurrection. (MHT Newsletter, April 2011)”

[IMPERIUMMEX]

He is a bishop Of the church. He has all my respect.

[tumbleweedjoe]

In any event, Vatican II was an ecumenical council whose doctrinal conclusions were accepted by the Pope, which makes them binding on the on all the faithful. Certainly there is much corruption in the Church today which springs directly from the foolish decision to take away the historic liturgy of the Church, strip the altars and "open up the windows of the church" to every spiritual virus in the air. Yet, we must endure this until the ship it righted. Authority rests in Rome not with Lefebvre

[Oblationem]

Vatican II Council was a Pastoral Council, the first the history of the Church. By admission of the VII documents itself, does not carry the theological weight of Dogmatic Council. However these modern churchmen of today treat it as though it were some kind of Super Council. It wont stand and will one day be abolished

[paraisoat]

Vatican II was a lowly pastoral council with bad fruit for over 40 years! The council of Trent was a DOCTRINAL council and VII went directly against it. The postconcilliar church is an "abomination of desolation". Archbishop Lefebvre preserved all that Rome taught. Learn your history so you can start helping God's Holy Roman Catholic church.

[WeepingStellaMaris]

@tumbleweedjoe The Popes, Saints, Fathers, Doctors and approved theologians of the Roman Catholic Church have told us through the ages that a pope can be a heretic against the Roman Catholic faith and attempt to destroy the Church through inappropriate policies. Such a pope is to be disobeyed and resisted as a matter of duty.

[CAtholic29]

The words of Jesus should have stopped you all Matt16"..You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven an whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."Now , this means that as much as one may disagree with the churches teachings they must ultimately support the church .Vatican II came out now read Matt 16 think about it

[Oblationem]

Okay, I’ve thought about it and I reject it because it’s as plain as the nose on your face, provable beyond a doubt that Vatican II teachings goes against the previous 2,000 years of Catholic teachings. Are we suppose to accept that previous to Vatican II the Church was all wrong, and since Vatican II the Church has finally got it right? Fat chance. This has happen before, and as Jesus said, the Church will survive, but popes come and go. Now it’s your turn to think about it…

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem Your first sentence in itself is your opinion .Matt 16 clears the church to go ahead with Vatican II .Let me ask you this one: Many of you shout that Pope John Paul II was not a true Pope . DO you feel the same way about Pope Alexander IV?

[Oblationem]

@CAtholic29

Yes it’s just my opinion which counts for little. As for JP2 and Pope Alexander IV one has to ask the question – Were they holy moral men, did they promote and protect Jesus Christ, His Holy Roman Catholic Church, the teachings & Traditions of the Church? Did they promote false-ecumenism, liberalism and pacifism? You tell me…

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem Do you con consider Pope Alexander VI a true Pope ? You obviously consider Pope John Paul II an anti pope ? This Pope helped end the cold war , He promoted peace and Christian unity . He believed in the Universal Church (Catholic church ). And Your Arch Bishop Levebra broke tradition when he did not obey the Pope (consecrating those 4 bishops ) Now dont get me wrong he did approve consecration of 4 bishops but not those 4 . Society of St. Pius X breaks tradtion in foundation

[Oblationem]

@CAtholic29

I think You make too many (you) statements and try to put words into my mouth.

If the Church was not in a state of emergency then the good Archbishop would have been at fault.

However statistics (facts) and the fruit of VII, which includes JP2 proves that the Church was and still is in a state of emergency. It is the Traditionalists that hold to (First Principles). It is the New Church that breaks with those First Principles. Those are simply the facts...

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem I am not putting words in your mouth but sating what has come out of mouths representing your argument for the society of St. Pius X . All he had to do was consecrate four Bishops that the Pope approved of . It is your opinion that the church is in state of emergency . It is the church that follows tradition in Matt 116 and 18 while Society of St. Pius X breaks with tradition by not following Matt 16 and 18 in its very foundation .

[Oblationem]

@CAtholic29

What do statistics tell you. The Church IS in a state of emergency. Matt 16 & 18 does not mean that a pope can go against Faith and Morals. Matt 16 & 18 doesn't mean anything goes, they can't change the faith or very foundation just because they say so. These past few popes will one day (I think) be counted among the 40+ anti popes. God will judge them. - I'm not following them when they go against what the Church has always taught.

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem It means that what decisions the Pope and the church feel best to do (such as Vatican II ) it is to be followed . Just as When the church was putting the Bible together in the numerous councils in the 300's St. Jerome did not necessarily want those 7 deuterocanonical books in the Bible yet at the end he complied because of Matt 16 and 18 . Just as if is fitting for your group to comply.By going against the Roman catholic church you are going against what the Bible has taught .

[Oblationem]

@CAtholic29

Okay maybe, but just because the pope is in charge Matt: 16 & 18 he and others that help him may not go against what the Bible and the Church has always taught, which is what happen with Vatican II. Vatican II popes have gone against 2,000 yrs of Churhc history and teachings. One can read about these abuses all over the Internet. The question is: why are YOU not fighting to correct these abuses? Do I need to make you a list?

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem I would like to see a list of these problems that you say need correction .In any case the church itself and the Popes since Vatican II have followed Matthew 16 and 18 for 2000 years . And officially of course in the 300's when the Bible was fully formed by a series of councils (including the Council of hippo 393 AD ).

[Oblationem]

The Pope is responsible for the word, 'subsists', among other heresies. For 2,000 yrs the Church of Christ 'was' the Catholic Church. Now with the VII document Lumen Gentium, the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. For 2,000 yrs there was no Salvation outside the Catholic Church, but now, salvation can be found in other religions? Saint Athanasius didn't listen to the Pope either. Simply, the Vatican today has lost credibility. A high percentage of the bishops are homosexuals.



[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem THese homosexuals are not aloud to be open . The church does not let woman or homosexuals in as priests and you know that . Too your whole comment here it tells me that you will refuse to read scripture that is arguing your churches foundation . Matthew 16 and 18 clearly say that you and your splinter church are in immense error . Church has not lost credibility .Arch Bishop Levebra lost his credibility when he consecrated 4 Bishops not approved by the Pope .

[Oblationem]

Say what? These homosexuals are not allowed to be open? You are wrong, the New Church does let homosexuals become priests (if they promise to not do it again) and they are despicable. 37 percent of those priests treated admitted to having sex with other men, then later became pediphiles. Matt: 16-18 does not mean a pope or priest can do anything he wants; like this present pope who does not believe in the resurrection of Christ.

[Oblationem]

@CAtholic29

Here is a small list (I can make it bigger) for JP2.

1. Interreligious meetings in Assisi.

2. The kissing of the Quran.

3. The invocation, "may St. John the Baptist protect Islam."

4. Participating in pagan worship in a "sacred forest" in Togo.

5. Bestowing the pectoral cross on two Anglican "bishops."

[CAtholic29]

@Oblationem THe Popes job is to promote the universal church as Christ intended . Christ built one church not 48000 . He is trying to bring all to Christ . And you know that The Catholic church was built by Christ and for 2000 years the gates of hell have not prevailed against it . (matt 16) Christ is watching you and your protest . You protest him you protest his church.

[Oblationem]

@CAtholic29

The gates of Hell have not prevailed as you say, but not because of people that go against what Christ intended. Try to get it into your head that Traditionalists are defending the truth that the Church has always taught, and that the New church (small c) is not. Traditionalists teach nothing new. Facts are facts. By their fruits you shall know them eh? Pull your head out of the sand and look around.

[CAtholic29]

I have looked around . I have read many of your ST.Pius 10th books (including Letter to confused CAtholics ) and a few of year back believe it or not , I was on the fence about this . I then got deep into scripture which threw a big stop sign at me Mathew 16 and 18 Christ is very clear that the leader (Peter ) on earth had authority and Christ in chapter 18 also gave the leaders under Peter of course authority . "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven " I then did not cross over

[tumbleweedjoe]

This man has been excommunicated from the Catholic Church. He does not represent the faith and he has no standing or authority.

[Oblationem]

Not true. You don't know what you're talking about. Prove it!

[tumbleweedjoe]

I have to correct myself. I see that this is one of the bishops whose excommunication has been lifted. However, at the time this speech was given he was excommunicated. I'll send you a link.

[ixtoc999]

@tumbleweedjoe I trust him more than Cardinals Law, O´Malley, or Mahonny. And read the papers, he is no longer excommunicated. His Holiness lifted all the excommunications.

[kommissarw]

How is your Latin, mine is crap, Wikipedia has a sourced statement (Purportedly a Vatican Document) that the Excommunication has been reversed. Hell Im baptised catholic, (im pro-choice, Euthanasia, Communist, Atheist, Gay Marriage, have denied the holy spirit, systematically and comprehensively destroyed christians "faith". Yet presumably, my opinions count more than this guy cause I'm still on the books as a Catholic.

[Oblationem]

I pray that you continue to turn your life around to the good.

The fact that you are on this web site is a good thing; youre searching.

I have prayed for you.

Your formation is a result of Vatican II.

[ixtoc999]

@tumbleweedjoe He is a bishop and he is recognized. Much better than the whitewashed tombs that the novusordo establishment fields.

[TheRaoul76]

And if the Popes KNOW what they're doing, then they are heretics, and automatically not Popes. Now, how do I judge formal heresy, that is, the internal state of these Popes? BY THEIR OWN DEFINITION in Lumen Gentium, in chapter 3, paragraph 25 where it says that the Pope must be obeyed always, not only when speaking ex cathedra, and that he is known through his documents. We are to be, and I quote, "conformably with his mind and intention."

[Oblationem]

(1 of 2)

There is a well-established principle in Catholic theology that goes back to the classical Greeks, particularly Aristotle. This principle, known in Greek as epieikeia and later Latinized to epikeia, holds that a law cannot be perverted from the intent of its legislator. This principle was taken into Catholic theology by such great Doctors of the Church as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. It is enshrined in the Decretals, the Codex of 1917, and even the modernist Codex of 1983.

[Oblationem]

(2 of 2)

"The letter killeth: but the spirit quickeneth" (2 Corinthians 3:6/DRV). Traditional Catholics have used this principle, among many other well-established Catholic principles, to repulse prelates who would try to use the Roman Catholic Faith against itself, to use "obedience to the letter of the [Novus Ordo] law" to strip Catholics of the true Mass, Sacraments, doctrine, and morality. They can't do that folks. Catholic theology makes such actions null and void.

[TheRaoul76]

I am becoming more wary of making blanket statements in my old age... But "lauberd" is most likely correct.

The SSPX keeps people in a perpetual "Waiting for Godot" situation.  Their flock is supposed to wait and wait -- and then wait some more -- for the Popes to "come around." Yet as Lefebvre knew very well, and said on many occasions, this is about a planned Freemasonic conspiracy. It is not about some Popes who are soft and misguided. These Popes are fully aware what they are doing.

[kingstowngalway]

It is truly ironic that the Secular Media attempts to tar all Traditional Catholics with the dreaded brush of ignorance. On the contrary, His Grace clearly reveals himself in this video as a man of very great intelligence, culture, and refinement. Thank you for posting it!

[11000001100000]

Quite true.

[SummaTheologica]

Without the SSPX and the battle for tradition which she fought right from the beginning, FSSP or ICK can forget about coming into existence.

[LausDeoSemper]

I thank God every day for the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. The traditional Catholic faith is keeping sanity in this world gone crazy.

[AlphaCatholic]

The SSPX is headed the way of the Old Catholics. It is funny the SSPX opposes the Documents of Vatican Two. ALL of them were signed by Abp. Lefevbre who started the SSPXC Schism.

And they say the Church is confused?

The SSPX has no option. It MUST attack legitimate authority. It can not defend schism. That is never part of Tradition

[Oblationem]

Have you looked around lately; the novus ordo is on the decline, (not to mention bankrupt, or in jail). Tradition is growing. Today, one in every five priests ordained in France, is ordained for tradition. It was VII that started the apostasy, that continues.

Yes, Archbishop signed (some) of the papers of VII, but when the heresy was too great, he held onto the Catholic Faith as taught for 2,000 yrs. He did not want to become a Roman Protestant. The SSPX fights the good fight.

[Oblationem]

Correction.

Indeed the good bishop did sign all the documents of VII. I for one am thankful that he changed his mind. Had he not, where would the Church be today? There would be no Motu Proprio -- not that it was needed. But it is a start of restoring the Mass of All Time, the Mass of all the canonized Saints and Popes. Hopefully, the Vatican will quit trying to use buttered words to defend the Protestant mass of Vatican II. The Mass's are not of the same rite, a ridiculous heretical idea.

[starchyp92]

Yes but this is not an excuse for schism. The FSSPX denied an offer to be in union with the Supreme Pontiff. No matter how you view it, schism is a very protestant thing. Unity was explicitly denied. The Five conditions did not say anything about accepting the new mass or anything related to Vatican II. All the Supreme Pontiff asks for is respect, yet the "Defenders of Tradition" refuse to respect the Pope. It is not that bad right now. Hundreds of years ago, there were 3 men claiming to be Pope

[Oblationem]

The SSPX has been fighting for the True Faith, Mass and Sacraments. What good is it to get a pat on the head to be in union with Rome if the SSPX cannot fight for those things that are Catholic? When Jesus said He would be with the Church until the end of time, He didn't mean a Church that would depart from His teachings. The battle continues until we drive a wooden stake through the black heart of the Protestant Novus Ordo mass, small (m). It is the modern popes who do not respect the Papacy.

[starchyp92]

So, I guess our Lord gave Oblationem the power to decide what is Catolicism, So, are the new mass and sacraments real. Is Benedict a modernist to you. I truly hope not all of those in your group have such a negative outlook. Don't you think Christ wills unity over "fighting for the True Faith, Mass and Sacraments." There is no way to justify maintaining schism. This gets one into a protestant mind set. Me and you share the same faith. I pray for the day when you will be in full unity.

[Oblationem]

Not in schism.

Archbishop Lefebvre really believed that he was acting out of necessity. If he was indeed correct in his belief that it was really necessary to consecrate the bishops, then he would not be subject to any penalty whatever (can. 1324.4). If he was in error and even if he was culpably in error in believing that it was necessary to consecrate bishops without a mandate from the Pope, then he still would not incur any automatic (latae sententice) penalty (can. 1324.3).

[Oblationem]

Yes, absolutely pope Benedict XVI is a flaming modernist exceedingly so, based on what canonized Saints, Popes and Doctrine of the Church have said. Do you want me to prove it with facts, not just opinions? See for yourself what kind of Mass he celebrated today Sunday October 5, 2008. I fear for his soul, we need to pray for him.

[Oblationem]

(A)& (B) from (CFN).

(A) St. Maximilian Kolbe rightly decried ecumenism as the enemy of the Blessed Mother. Saint Maximilian said, There is no greater enemy of the Immaculata and her Knighthood than todays ecumenism, which every Knight must not only fight against, but also neutralize through diametrically opposed action and ultimately destroy.

[Oblationem]

(B)Jesus gave His Apostles the duty to go forth and teach all nations to bring all Our Lord peoples into the one and only true Church that Christ established. Ecumenism does the opposite. As the eminent theologian Father Edward Hanahoe lamented, todays ecumenism has the effect of perpetuating the state of separation, serving rather to keep people out of Church than to bring them into it.

[Oblationem]

UPDATE:

40 years and counting. The word "all" has still not been changed back to Jesus's word "Many", In the consecration of the wine.

[Safari148]

Keep this going Oblationem, These informational videos are the top. Remember, as promised by Our Lord there will always be those to dispise you for them. So no worries.

[Oblationem]

Maybe you are right, but would the Society be allowed to do its work if it were regularized? It took the Church over 40 years to change one word, from 'all' to 'many'(Consecration of the wine). Would this have happened if not for the SSPX beating them over the head for 40 years?

They have a new modern religion and new truth that they want to push. However, truth won't tolerate anything but itself, so we will see how this all plays out...

[iamlondon]

Now see...on much of *this* video I can relate entirely with the SSPX - I have no time for relativism, and do not believe the future of the Catholic Church lies in diluting its stance on ownership of Truth. But this work would have had a billion times more use *within* the Church and not outside of it.