He clearly established his own church and secretly established his own commissions that he admitted supplanted the juridical decisions of the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church Jesus established and his secret commissions replaced the authoritative judgements of the Roman Rota and yet I am supposed to ignore all of that?
Lionel : He was faced with magisterial heresy. There was widespread change in doctrine.Rome had left the Faith and still has.
You demand blind obedience of a schismatic and you call that traditionalism.
Lionel: There cannot be blind obedience to a magisterium which interprets Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition and ignores a rational and traditional alternative.
It was the Abbe de Nantes who broke the story of Lefebvre's petit ecclesia to the trad world:
Both Pope Saint John Paul II (Ecclesia Dei) and then Cardinal Ratzinger (Address to the Bishops of Chile) publicy declared Lefevere was in schism.
Lionel: They had approved the new theology.The new theology was irrational. It changed Catholic doctrine. In a sense this was schism, except, that they were the magisterium.
Those succoring the schism never accept the legitimacy of that decision or the authority of the Pope to do what the did and in that they y'all are like all other schismatics.
You were wise to try and change the subject from facts to emotion because Lefevbre had been caught out as a schismatic who had created his own church as the documentation at the link showed.
Lionel: He was not obliged to accept Vatican Council II Cushingite instead of Feeneyite.
He was not obliged to accept EENS Cushingite instead of Feeneyite. He was not obliged to accept the Nicene Creed Cushingite instead of Feeneyite and yet this was what was expected of him by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger.
They still expect this of the SSPX today. After so many years there is no clarification or correction from the Vatican.
The funny things now is that y'all are excited about reconciliation with a Pope and a Church y'all have routinely called heretical.
Lionel: The heresy can be eliminated. Theologically and doctrinally we can return to rationality and orthodoxy. The choice is still there.
Y'all have your own church and in the future y'all be just the western version of the Orthodox schismatics.
Notice that it claims that God has the last word which is a mealy-mouthed way to reject the infallible judgement exorcise by the Catholic Church when it comes to Canonistaions.
Lionel: The magisterium rejected the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra when it eliminated the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called 'an infallible teaching' ( Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
Since the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite) was changed into the 'the dogma EENS (Cushingite) the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra was eliminated.
Fr.Hans Kung S.J considered this a virtue of Vatican Council II and praised Fr.John Courtney Murray S.J. Since with explicit -for us -LG 16 the dogma EENS was eliminated. Since there was alleged salvation outside the Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre knew all this was wrong.He could also see the praxis of the new doctrinal position of the Church.Ecclesiastical Masonry was in schism.
The onus for clarifying the doctrinal issues lies with the Vatican/CDF/ Ecclesia Dei.
They have clarified it.
They have confirmed it.They accept an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. With this interpretation there is a rupture with the traditional teachings on exclusive salvation, religious liberty, an ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed, the dogma EENS and doctrines based on EENS.
This is heresy.The doctrinal position of the contemporary magisterium is a rupture with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium.
Comment from the blog 1Peter5 :Abp. Pozzo on SSPX: Disputed Vatican II Documents Are Non-Doctrinal
...Finally, you curiously omit the beginning and end of that paragraph from which you quoted: "The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope.
Lionel: True. However in this case the popes want the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II using an irrational principle to produce a non traditional and heretical conclusion. So they have a right to object.
Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity.
Lionel: It is the magisterium which is in obvious heresy and they do not deny it.It reminds me of the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney. He was not saying anything new.He was faithful to the teachings of the Church. It was the magisterium which was in heresy with its irrational and non traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It was the cardinals in Rome and the Archbishop of Boston who were technically in heresy and should have been excommunicated for suggesting there were known exceptions to the dogma EENS.How could hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc refer to personally known people when these cases are invisible for us? And if there were no personally known people how could there be exceptions to EENS?
Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. |||...In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
Lionel: The onus for clarifying the doctrinal issues lies with the Vatican/CDF/ Ecclesia Dei and they have clarified it. They have confirmed that they accept an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. With this irrational, Cushingite interpretation of Vatican Council II there is a rupture with the traditional teachings on exclusive salvation in the Church, religious liberty, an ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed and the dogma EENS and other doctrines based on the dogma EENS.
This is heresy.This is the doctrinal position of the contemporary magisterium. It is a rupture with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium of the Church.
There is talk of return, a rarely used word in neo-Church speech, correct? Now, I'm sure we also agree that this is unfairly applied since the patent heretics running rampant in Germany have been excused from a similar application of these principles. Alas, that is authority's great omission in carrying out the Great Commission. Still, that doesn't excuse the SSPX...
Lionel: For the CDF/Ecclesia Dei the heretics in Germany are not heretics.Since like the two popes they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with traditional Catholic doctrine.
For the majority of Catholics the Nicene Creed and the EENS has been changed, the Syllabus of Errors rejected, the old ecclesiology based on EENS eliminated so there is no ecumenism of return,there is no more traditional mission since outside the Church there is known salvation
Comment from the blog 1Peter5 : Abp. Pozzo on SSPX: Disputed Vatican II Documents Are Non-DoctrinalChris Ferrara jpaYMCA•18 hours ago
"Finally, Benedict XVI never stated that the issue was solely
On the contrary, that is exactly what he said: "This disciplinary
level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level.
The fact that the
Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical
status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary
but on doctrinal reasons...." Letter to Bishops
on Remission of Excommunications (2009).
Finally, to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia re you claim
about communio: "However, not every disobedience is a
schism; in order to possess this character it must
include besides the transgression
of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right
SSPX has never denied the divine right of the Pope to
However they will not accept Vatican Council II( Cushingite) as do the popes.So doctrinally they disobey the popes.They also criticize the pastoral results of the popes doctrinal position.
So there is doctrinal disobedience and disobedience over the praxis of the magisterium's doctrinal position.
They also will not interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism nor accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feneyite). So there is doctrinal issue here too.
If they did accept Vatican Council II and EENS without the false premise and conclusion again there would be a doctrinal problem with the Vatican. Since the Vatican's interpretation is heretical and irrational. We have magisterial heresy today.
On the contrary, they acknowledge it explicitly. Their
disobedience respecting the survival of their Society,
so they argue, was motivated by a state of emergency
in the Church. Nor are they under any command today to
disband the Society. Its right to exist is recognized. And
now they have been offered a plan for its canonical
Lionel: The plan includes accepting a heretical and irrational version of Vatican Council II when a traditional version is there.
If they accept the magisterium's version of Vatican Council II they would be affirming heresy.
Moreover, the Vatican actually designated Bishop Fellay
as the tribunal of first instance in an administrative recourse
involving a priest, and the local bishop, obviously on orders
from the Vatican, has declared that the recent ordinations in
Germany incur no penalty.
Lionel: Since they want the SSPX to accept their heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II.They will then be in line with the Left as are the two popes.
As SSPX is not in schism, they can hardly have "broken
communion" with Rome. There is no special category of
"broken communion" short of schism that applies only to
SSPX while the vast majority of Catholics today, who defy
the most basic and infallible teaching on faith and morals,
are considered to be "in communion" with Rome.
Lionel: They 'defy the most basic and infallible teaching on faith and morals, are considered to be "in communion" with Rome'since Rome has eliminated the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in doctrine and praxis. They did this by intterpreting Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents with the new theology.The theology is based on the principle of hypothetical cases being explicit and non hypothetical in the present times. That is imaginary cases are objectively seen and known.So the conclusion is irrational.
So for the vast majority of Catholics the Nicene Creed has been changed, the dogma EENS rejected, the Syllabus of Errors rejected, the old ecclesiology based on EENS has been eliminated and so there is no more an ecumenism of return, is obsolete,there is no more traditional mission since outside the Church there is known salvation....
You quote Benedict as follows: "Consequently the
Church must react by employing her most
severe punishment – excommunication – with the
aim of calling those thus punished to repent and
to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations
, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. |||...In
order to make this clear once again: until the
DOCTRINAL questions are clarified, the Society
has no canonical status in the Church, and its
ministers – even though they have been freed
of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately
exercise any ministry in the Church."
Lionel:Yes. There is doctrinal disagreement between the SSPX and the Vatican.
1.The SSPX does not accept Vatican Council II.
2.The SSPX does not accept ecumenism, inter religious dialogue and religious liberty as does the Vatican.
3.The SSPX's position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus is ambivalent while the Vatican rejects the dogma.
So these are doctrinal differencs.
The quotation merely proves my case: Once
again Benedict pins "unity" on doctrinal
questions, not disciplinary ones. But there
are really no doctrinal questions preventing
regularization, as we now know from Pozzo/
Lionel: They have said that the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II and they mean a Vatican Council II which is a break with Tradition.
Therefore, doctrine not being an issue, the
only thing now necessary for SSPX's
"return to unity" is simply to give their
seminaries, churches and schools
formal canonical approval---a mere
technicality Francis could implement
with a stroke of his pen.
Lionel : Doctrine not being an issue?
Meanwhile, no one has any right to say
that the adherents of the Society are no
t in union with Rome when they are not
excommunicated and can receive the
Sacraments in any Catholic church
whatsoever, like any other Catholic
(including hundreds of millions
of pew-sitters who reject basic
teachings on faith and morals).
Lionel: They are in union with Rome which interprets Vatican Council II with an innovation and expects the SSPX to accept the non traditional conclusion? It is the SSPX and Ferrara who have to remove the confusion. Archbishop Lefebvre made a doctrinal mistake, I have pointed out many times.The SSPX needs to admit this. Instead they do not contradict me and nor do they admit that SSPX made a doctrinal error.
You cannot simply invent, just for the
Society, what you call a "third state"
that is neither schism nor full
membership in the Church in order
to make sense of Benedict's claim
that Catholics who are under no
sentence of excommunication
have not "returned" to unity.
Lionel:They are not in unity since they will not accept Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is heretical.It is a rupture with the past.
It is absurd, moreover, that the "return
to unity" has been abandoned as to
Protestants whose decadent sects are
highways to Hell but maintained only
as to the Society, which is fully Catholic.
Lionel: The Society is not fully Catholic since it does not accept magisterial documents interpreted rationally.It assumes hypothetical cases are explicit in the present times and then concludes there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the ecumenism of return, the Syllabus of Errors etc. -Lionel Andrades
Some of us have argued, on the contrary, that communion means what it meant to the Fathers and Medievals - obedience to the Faith AND to those who "sit on the seat" - and thus Benedict was the arch-theologian of a certain nouvelle theologie when he claimed that the problem [was] merely doctrinal.
Otherwise, many of our favorite canonist Cardinals (e.g. Ottaviani, Stickler, et al.) would have been in error. Let's not forget what our Lord said precisely about obedience to those who sit on the seat of Moses...Pharisees and doctors of the law after all.
One obeys those who sit in the seat not merely because they sit in the seat. That would be nominalism, which simply equates the exercise of authority with truth.
What is said from the seat must actually bind one to an assent of faith because it is true. "Ecumenism," for example, is neither true nor false because it is not a doctrine of the faith. Likewise with "dialogue."
Our Lord was not counseling blind obedience to everything the Pharisees said from their seats of authority. Quite the contrary!
Some of us have argued, on the contrary, that communion
means what it meant to the Fathers and Medievals - obedience
to the Faith AND to those who "sit on the seat" - and
thus Benedict was the arch-theologian of a certain
nouvelle theologie when he claimed that the problem
[was] merely doctrinal.
Lionel: Pope Benedict's new theology was a rupture with the Faith.If we avoid his new theology in the interpretation of magisterial documents there is a continuity with Tradition. There is then no doctrinal problem.
Otherwise, many of our favorite canonist Cardinals (e.g.
Ottaviani, Stickler, et al.) would have been in error.
Lionel. Cardinal Ottaviani was in error since he accepted the new theology in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
Let's not forget what our Lord said precisely about obedience
to those who sit on the seat of Moses...Pharisees and doctors
of the law after all.
Lionel: The contemporary magisterium with the new theology is supporting an innovation in doctrine. They have discarded the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in doctrine and praxis and are interpreting Vatican Council II assuming it is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The SSPX is doing the same.
One obeys those who sit in the seat not merely because
they sit in the seat. That would be nominalism, which
simply equates the exercise of authority with truth.
Lionel: Would it be nominalism to assume hypothetical cases are explicit in the present times simply the popes since Pius XII supported this error?
What is said from the seat must actually bind one
to an assent of faith because it is true.
Lionel: Exactly but this is not so now.
"Ecumenism," for example, is neither true nor false
because it is not a doctrine of the faith. Likewise with "dialogue."
Lionel: Yes but when UR 3 is assumed to refer to an explicit case in the present times then it would mean there are known cases of Christians, who are saved outside the Church, they are saved without being formal members of the Church. So there is no more an excumenism of return.With the new theology based upon this irrationality, ecumenism in particular and the faith in general has been changed.
Our Lord was not counseling blind obedience
to everything the Pharisees said from their seats
of authority. Quite the contrary!
Lionel: So we can question those who interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality and then expect the SSPX to do the same for canonical acceptance.We can also question Archbishop Lefebvre's mistake in assuming LG 16, UR 3 etc referred to explicit cases and so Vatican Council II was break with Tradition.
There needs to be an agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican, simply saying hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be exceptions to Tradition
If the Vatican regularises the SSPX and they could do so, it will not have cleared up the doctrinal issue.It will be also be assumed that the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II with the doctrinal error, with heresy