Crisis Series #48: The 4 Questions You Need to Ask About the Crisis - Do You Agree with the SSPX?

[@BujangMelaka90]

Thank God for the SSPX

[@seandelaney5957]

Thank you all at SSPX News for your hard work! God bless the SSPX!

[@makethisgowhoosh]

Every Catholic needs to watch this whole series.

[@sunnyday7843]

You’re right !

[@michelegeissler7944]

He just j

[@sisterpacifica]

Thank you for this!!!! 🩷

[@jimsember3528]

Please consider distilling this episode into a booklet or pamphlet. It's SO good!

[@luissantiago8446]

A compilation of these videos as a set would prove highly practical, informative and invaluable to concerned Catholics.

[@regbathan1499]

So thankful for these brilliant, faithful priests God gives us to help us through these times.

[@livingpurgatory2485]

"Jesus, Mary, I love you save souls!" Reparation prayer that saves a soul & repairs 1000 blasphemies. Consider praying in your spare moments. Our world needs it. GOD bless!

[@augustinenwahiri1474]

l love how fr. Wiseman always explain. You are a very good teacher father. Pls continue with the summa. God bless the SSPX.

[@chatosoriano8644]

It's only been 16 months since I became a Traditional Catholic and have been so grateful and feeling blessed to be one under the umbrella of SSPX. Thank you so much for this very informative and enlightening podcast about the crisis in the church. It helped me so much to understand what's been going on in the Catholic world. Congratulations on a very well done podcast. 👏👏👏 God bless SSPX and praying for more priestly vocation for this society.🙏 🙏🙏

[@dymphna17]

I've been with the SSPX since 1979. I'm not stopping now!

[@chatosoriano8644]

Congratulations Tanya. You are truly blessed to be with the SSPX family. 🙏🙏🙏

[@thetraditionalthomist]

PLEASE DO A SERIES ON ST. THOMAS SUMMA!!! You have no idea how many people a dying for such a series!!!

[@ralfschurs]

God bless the SSPX.

[@devonmoreau]

This was extremely helpful for me in working through these issues, I had to conclude yes to each of these questions. I visited my local SSPX parish for the first time last weekend, and it was an extremely positive experience. Thank you for your work!

[@AnimaChristisalvame]

Such an excellent series and so thorough it is like taking a university course. I am so encouraged and lifted up by these amazing priests...

[@paulmassey4261]

The aptly named Fr Wiseman. Fantastic! Thank you!

[@FMDad-dm5qo]

This episode is a tour de force. Such a clear and useful framing of the issues. I agree with an earlier comment suggesting that this episode be distilled into a booklet or pamphlet.

[@AlanSextonVT]

There is no question about the holiness and legitimacy of the SSPX. The question is: can we compromise with modernists? The answer is, of course, a resounding "NO." May God bless the SSPX, and may Rome come to her senses.

[@luissantiago8446]

No compromising with heretics!

[@anthonyrebock5351]

The third secret of Fatima states that the Church authority would reside in Fatima.... Rome had lost the authority of the Church due to it's corruption. The secret they didn't want to reveal in 1960 or ever make known

[@bobtosi9346]

Modernism is liberalism is Masonic influence. John Salza is full of himself. My guess is he’s a closet mason sent to disrupt the church.

[@ransomcoates546]

These videos are such a great means to overcome the negative view some have of the Society. Something that I find interesting is the several young diocesan priests I know who have basically the same view of the crisis in the Church as the SSPX. They see the defects in the NO and try to make up for them in their preaching, the only time they mention Francis is in the Canon, and they never talk about Vatican II except by indirection, in speaking against the errors that followed it. They stay ‘in the system’ - at great danger of persecution by their bishops - because they feel the majority of Catholics today could not understand Tradition in its fullness and would be completely left to the wolves if they did not stay behind to care for the salvation of these souls.

[@guillermomarciano1390]

I like the tone in this video. Good job.

[@horizon-one]

Grateful to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. Thank you for this series. Highly educational and clarifying. The ''flock' has truly been scattered!

[@donaldmorgan9149]

Excellent Episode! thank you for your work in educating and comforting the faithful. God Bless!

[@alfredvent9049]

Priestley, erudite flowing exposition. a work of grace… Thank you

[@catquilt74]

This is a wonderfully produced series. Thank you so much.

[@suzannemattie3493]

Such a helpful and clear precise episode. Thank you so much!

[@tracycameron5099]

Fantastic communicator. thank you!

[@melodyjennings7782]

Yes, please! Continue the series by focusing on the Summa!!!

[@yumuripol6236]

This needs to be a pamphlet. Thank you

[@bjqt]

I like this man a lot. God, please bless this man.

[@horizon-one]

He is a Catholic Priest which means he belongs to Christ forever and remains a Priest forever.

[@TS-ex4ql]

Brilliant, as usual, and much appreciated. I will be sad when this series is over. Thank you.

[@jy7383]

I have been forced to agree to go to hospital later today - Please pray for me.

[@SSPX]

Will do! In Christ, Fr. Franks

[@jy7383]

@@SSPX Thank you for your prayers. I am still at home. There is still a long way to go health-wise but many things are beginning to go in the right direction. God willing, I hope to share my Catholic library with the Parish. Having to live 24/7 in a chair would make it easy for me to run it - provided we are not all locked down again. I have strong views that agree with all your views.

[@jy7383]

+ A.M.D.G. Your prayers are resolving a problem of medical neglect which I have had since 1981 - DEO GRATIAS

[@roccoyapello8120]

Praying for you Jennifer!! God be with you always!!

[@alisatourek9176]

Thanks & God Bless

[@TheRealTomLauda]

Please YES ! Do a podcast on Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Summa Theological !

[@AnimaChristisalvame]

It seems incredible, after all that has happened in the last 60 years, that anyone would deny the crisis in the Church.

[@blueyedmule]

St. Thomas by some of the most Thomistic priests there are. YES.

[@apisDei]

1:20:55 To be honest, a series with PRACTICAL tips on how to perform mental prayer in detail would be much more appreciated then a series on the Summa. There is lots of great content out there regarding Thomism and I think the average Traditional Catholic is doing quite alright when it comes to theory, what we need are PRACTICAL tips for mental prayer.

[@SSPX]

That basic introduction could be given the a retreat too, if people have access to an SSPX retreat. Thanks for the suggestion.

[@juliankonkani]

@@SSPX Thanks for publishing the interview with Fr. Thomas Onoda. I'm Indian. I would appreciate it if you would take an interview of Fr. Therasian Xavier and inquire about SSPX India for our Indian Catholic viewers. We all would greatly appreciate it and it would also promote traditional Catholicism and SSPX to our youth. Thanks.

[@andysoshalski9761]

@@SSPX I think it'll be a great idea to make the whole series on Summa. Of course, it won't be able to cover all Summa, but to give an introduction into Tomistic thinking and a brief summary of the teaching of the Angelic Doctor will be very helpful for all traditional Catholics. Thanks a lot for the today's episode and for the whole series! It's so enlightening and profound. God bless you, dear Fathers and, of course, Andrew!

[@brandywineblue]

Why not both?

[@SightseerNW]

Yes PLEASE do a series on St Thomas’ summa…I have read two ‘introductory’ book and am ready for something more in depth yet not ready for thomas himself…

[@ryanEstandarte]

YES PLEASE ON THE SUMMA!!! I'm one of those Catholics who stopped after a few pages.

[@TheGringoSalado]

I first heard about St Thomas Aquinas from Taylor Marshall's "Aquinas in 50 Pages." I was in my mid 30's. And after watching 48 of these episodes, I understand why.

[@ryanscottlogan8459]

This series has been great but what would really be a help to the SSPX and would bring great joy to the faithful would be a series where you visit SSPX chapels and religious communities in the USA and around the world.Then at the end of each episode you could ask the faithful to help each apostolate you visit whether it be the SSPX Nuns or the SSPX in South America or the Benedictines in New Mexico.The vast majority of the faithful would love to see tours of the SSPX chapels and ST.Mary’s and the beautiful churches in Belgium,Holland and Vienna.Please consider it!☺️ A good name would be The SSPX Today

[@gabrielcostasilva7487]

I believe while aswering question number 4 it should have been mentioned the so called "resistance" and spoken about their errors as well, it is an important subject.

[@alisatourek9176]

Very well explained!!

[@apisDei]

2:42 If the crisis is "the institutionalised triumph of Modernism", then that Society which took St. Pius X, Modernism's archenemy, as her patron is the institutionalised combat against said heresy. 👏🏼

[@stthomasmore4811]

This is why, while I love many FSSP priests and their parishes, I cannot support their position of "private" opposition to the problematic parts of the alleged Super-Council and its fabricated Rite. If we want to be Catholic, if we love the Church and Her Lord, it MUST be public opposition. Souls are at stake and the only way out is not around, but through. Marcel Lefebvre, ora pro nobis!

[@debbiedouglas5516]

Wonderful podcast, information as usual. Thank you father. I would like to say though that I firmly believe Benedict is Pope. I understand your reasoning that he is actually far worse, but that doesn't change the facts in the matter. It seems to me that by using VII Bergoglio is trying to destroy the Church, whereas Benedict was trying to make VII fit. Two very different things. You spoke of the Church's visibility and I believe this can also be applied to the Pope.....Benedict's "visibility" is hard to ignore. Pope Emeritus....indeed. But regardless, I do thank you and the Society for these excellent videos. May God bless and the Virgin protect you and all the faithful.

[@christophercormier8834]

Excellent video and series. Please do a series on St. Thomas!

[@williammcenaney1331]

I agree with the SSPX on each point Fr. Wiseman makes. But I wish he would tell us what His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre meant when he said that a pope could lead the Church to her ruin.

[@annkonzal6724]

Do The Summa!!!

[@twright7299]

Wow, you'd really empower us laity out here if you're able to do a series on the Summa. You may see out on the streets preaching! Christ blessed the Church with St. Thomas Aquinas!

[@sandragaleotti5496]

Questions 1, 2, and 3: YES! Question 4:NO!

[@emmanueldeveragareza5655]

Can you please do a point by point refutation of the casisiacum thesis. This might greatly clarify some of the questions that separates the true Catholics. I love the sspx, the priests and the Mass, but I cannot reconcile in my mind.

[@mdavis201]

Long before I was received fully into the Church, I knew things weren't right. I was permitted to marry in the Church even though I was never catechized and was, at that time, an atheist. How does that happen unless there's something deeply wrong within the institution?

[@stampdealer]

Does Father Wiseman have his own blog? I was watching Father Dave Nix on with Taylor Marshall the other day, and Fr. Nix shared a quote from St. Vincent of Lerins that he said he got, "from Fr. Wiseman's blog". So I wondered if it was our Fr. Wiseman here. The quote, btw, was, "In times of great confusion, cling to antiquity." -St. Vincent of Lerins (5th century)

[@avecrux333]

N.B. I believe the point on religious liberty needs clarification for the sake of not losing a wider audience and less knowledgeable Catholics. The less-informed may believe that it's quite unreasonable and unjust to deny religious liberty to people of other faiths, and to prohibit their public profession of those false religions. It needs to be explained that there is a distinction between a natural RIGHT or a God-given RIGHT vs. the Catholic position that these errors and false religions must often be tolerated in plural societies even though no one has a RIGHT (natural or God-given) to profess error, just as no one has a RIGHT to sin, but God permits the exercise of our free will, awaiting our conversion.

[@anng.4542]

How does it please God to throw people in jail, or deny them civil rights, if they believe religious errors or fail to profess a given religious faith... even the true faith that Jesus Himself taught us? These errors are moral failings, but to classify them as civil crimes seems unjust.

[@Araedya]

They do cover this distinction (religious liberty vs religious tolerance) in the prior episode on religious liberty

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

Please consider doing a direct (or perhaps indirect) reply to the channels Logos Project snd Reason & Theology. Also, the sedevacantists like Vatican Catholic

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

Maybe also Eastern Orthodox like Jay Liar

[@mynthamara5994]

Go with the Summa please

[@patriciagoodson3684]

I zgree with Father on Benedict

[@jy7383]

I studied apologetics for s year in an SHCJ school in 1950 so i understand the definition of infallibility in Vatican 1 to be that POPES ARE ONLY INFALLIBLE WHEN SPEAKING EX CATHEDRA . This has-only been used TWICE SINCE THEN - the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of our Lady. Am I right ? Benedict XVI was brought up on the Rhine. He did a U-turn after Vatican 2. He was forced to resign under extreme pressure. I think he is still the pope - perhaps Bergoglio is the "bishop in white" ?

[@mariahendrickson1443]

Well, according to some popes, if someone sitting on the chair of St. Peter, teaches heresy, cannot be the true pope, he loses his position before God..

[@brandywineblue]

That's a good question, what happens when a pope teaches heresy, and then ignores correction? Well I guess we're watching that right now. Nothing.

[@polemeros]

#1 Is there a crisis in the Church? #2 Is the root of the crisis to be found in Vatican II & the Novus Ordo Mass? #3 Should we publicly reject Vat 2 & the Novus Ordo even if it puts us in conflict with Rome? #4 Should we recognize as Catholic the Roman authorities responsible for Vat 2 & Novus Ordo and should we negotiate with them, name the Pope in the Canon, etc?

[@paulawarnes9951]

I just read this quote this morning, and find it to be very concerning. I would love to get feedback on it. "[T]he stage is set for a future in which the traditional Mass will be celebrated only by the Society of Pius X and its satellites. The pope’s strategy seems to be to push the resistance toward the Society of St. Pius X so that the whole traditional world concentrates there, where they will be isolated and controlled on their little reservation, cut off from Rome and the dioceses, maintaining just enough connection to avoid formal schism. This explains why the pope is not seeking full reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, but has shown great generosity toward them by recognizing the full validity of their marriages and confessions… " Christophe Geffroy (Crisis Magazine)

[@1951kvk]

Father, do you consider sedevacantes true Catholics?

[@JamesWilliams-eu5mn]

Why do you call me Lord and do not do what I say? Lk cpt 7. I can't help but think of this passage while listening to this discussion

[@Donnybrook10]

Fr mentions comments made by Paul VI and JPII expressing concern and openly acknowledging that something is very wrong... yet they are the ones who were running the show when these changes happened. What are we to conclude here?

[@bruno-bnvm]

The confusion has super natural qualities

[@sandragaleotti5496]

Why should I recognize the authority of people who equate Pacha Mama to the Virgin Mary?

[@stephanottawa7890]

I think that the Dominicans of Washington are doing a KZbin series on Thomism, but it might not be as good a job was what the society PPSX could do.....Stephan

[@lawrenceganem4081]

We must always trust in Jesus Christ and know that He allows these things to go on in His Church For His purpose. We do not understand why and we don’t have to understand why. We must trust in Jesus Christ the true head of His Church and hold strong to our faith in the traditions and the true unchanging catechism of His Church. Truth is truth which does not change over any amount of time. Modernism can not void or change the truth of 2,000 years of history. By the grace of Jesus Christ we must trust His plan which can strengthen our faith

[@jimsember3528]

It seems that the cause of the crisis is perhaps better described as the 'official institutionalization of modernism' and modernists within the Church and the incompatibility of modernist theology with the traditional faith, and that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae are the expressions of this. Hence the ambiguities and incompatible statements within V II and practices/prayers within the NOM. Like oil and water, they only stay mixed with a lot of agitation, and left to themselves, they will ultimately separate.

[@luissantiago8446]

You've definitively and squarely hammered the nail on its head with your post. The full dress rehearsal of Modernism ended with its premiere and debut at the Second Vatican Council, which then proceeded to take the show on the road in order to mandate a wider acceptance and mainstream appeal. Modernism was forcefully and firmly condemned as a heresy, prior to the Council and no amount of bells, whistles, smoke and mirrors, makes it less so.

[@childrenragift]

I really appreciate all those Catholics who are looking for the truth, they all talk about the loss of faith in our church but rarely does anyone mention God's rights as far as faith. Read Romans 1:18 - 32, when Father God sees unrepentant sin in a people like contraception, He removes their faith. Remember faith is a grace or gift from God and it is He's right to remove it. To gain back your faith stop sinning especially with contraception and see what Father God does. " If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves, and pray, and seek My Face, and turn from their wicked ways; THEN will I hear from heaven , and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14

[@fr.theolange9304]

Thank you for making these videos. Keep studying and you will be able to fight all errors within communion with local bishops. Priests who are not in communion with their local bishops break a 2000 year old tradition. So fighting all errors in full communion would be a healthier and more catholic approach.

[@bruno-bnvm]

Full communion doesn't exist has a term

[@williamofdallas]

16:27 The celibacy of priests is not a basic point of the Church's doctrine, nor has it always been held

[@johnwallace7580]

SSPX ARAUMD THE WORLD WILL BE THE BIGAS CHURCH DEO GRATIAS AMEN

[@paulmassey4261]

Perhaps Dr Taylor Marshall could assist in a series on the Summa?

[@damianikpeazu4681]

I want to ask some questions,which may form the question and answer segment towards the end of this series.1. The evolution and the history of Antipopes in the church,the Eastern Schism, Western Schism,the Protestant reformation,the collapse of the papal states and catholic monarch,the relationship between these and today's crisis, and the difference,how the church was able to overcome,the lessons and impact.2.The papal phenomenon,why the denial,rejection and opposition to papal authority has been prominent.

[@dinovalente2947]

Did Vatican II change Catholic belief and the church's awareness of itself? A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Our knowledge is always more generic than the thing itself existing in reality which is very specific. If someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing. The truer our knowledge is, in the sense of having more truth - adeguatio res et intellectus. This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Where when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. Now the Councils, pronouncements and doctrines through the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically: a man. Instead our knowledge specifies as we gain acquantaince and experience of a thing. This should.not be confused with the knowledge particular persons had of the Church. Ofcourse the apostles and early Christians had a very specific knowledge of the Church. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was neccesary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand is more open to heresy and error. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowlwdge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowlwdge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget what once knew? Especially if what one once knew one used to think was valuable and true, a treasure to be safeguarded. How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic.

[@SSPX]

In fact, the whole pattern of favoring a less specific non-scholastic presentation to a more specific scholastic presentation is found already in La Nouvelle Théologie and the "Ressourcement" movement. Those critical of this movement commonly have pointed to this "return to the sources" as an attempt to side-step the precisions of the 19th Century and early 20th Century Magisterium, in favor of a vaguer frame, which enables a reinterpretation of Catholic doctrine in line with modern thought and philosophy. Thus they escape Tradition, while always claiming (not entirely without a seeming foundation) to be in touch with tradition, to be traditional, and sometimes even to be more traditional than the "old guard", since the Fathers and Scripture remain important sources for this project. In Christ, Fr. P. Franks

[@MCfshhnt15]

The SSPX is flawed by answering "yes" to the proposed second question. This "crisis", according to your definition (fragmentally proposed) preceded VII, which was merely a symptom, not the cause.

[@SSPX]

We would trace the "roots" of a crisis in the Church to earlier historical influences, which had affected even churchmen and Catholics. But the generalized state of the whole Church being affected by the errors of (say) ecumenism and liberalism flows from their official acceptance at Vatican II. As you know we can speak of more or less proximate or remote causes in different lines of causality. Here the question is whether the Council's texts are at fault, in such a way that they really influenced the being / becoming of the current state (which we call a crisis). Causa = omne quod influit esse rei - Cause - all that influences the being of a thing. There is no contradiction in saying, for example, that Vatican II was the effect of the Modernist crisis, or the "crisis of Modernity" in culture in general on the one hand, and saying on the other that it caused a general state of crisis in the Church through which we live today. It is not a contradiction to be caused (to be an effect) and then to cause something else. My dad was caused (by his mom and dad). And he still caused me. It is not false to say that my grandad caused me to be here today. If he hadn't met my grandmother I wouldn't be here. That is perfectly compatible with my dad causing me too.

[@traditionalcatholic1500]

As much as appreciate the sspx for the good they do, I must say…the inability to call out heresy by its name is disheartening. Something in direct contradiction to tradition is, by definition, heresy. "The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium." -Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896. Vatican II taught many, and the popes post Vatican II obstinately preach said heresies. The sspx, tho willing to admit that changes in liturgy make it Protestant, they will not condemn as Protestant, or in other words heretics, those who practice, participate, and teach these things to be valid and true! The belief in something contrary to catholic teaching is heresy, and those who believe such things are, and always been condemned. To the objections concerning the sedevacantist position in regards to the loss of authority, the authoritative offices in the church are not of themselves THE church, but rather are part of it. Just as an man who hold to the true faith. So long as one man exists on earth who holds to the true faith, the church lives on. All the faithful make up the visible body of the church! Not just those who hold office in it. This is the traditional teaching of our faith. Remain steadfast in it, and learn your faith. There is a remarkable amount of information available today. The heresies of our time have never been so easy to distinguish as they are now. The logical conclusion, when fallowing the one true faith of Jesus Christ, is the rejection of Vatican II and anyone who holds to its teachings. Including it’s “popes”. "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith...' -Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943

[@livingpurgatory2485]

Do you have a Spanish channel?

[@SSPX]

kzbin.info%C3%ADoXEspa%C3%B1a kzbin.info/door/BGAWaNRFeH7l0WlWjMqTJw

[@livingpurgatory2485]

@@SSPX thank you!

[@MadMax31577]

What about sedeprivation? The Vatican II Popes are in the Petrine office legitimately but because of their heterodoxy and heresy they have been deprived of their moral authority?

[@SSPX]

The following is from this book: angeluspress.org/products/sedevacantism THE CASSICIACUM THESIS Therefore the fundamental problem remains open: how is it possible to deny the authority of Paul VI and his successors? If it is possible, where then is the Church? Whence should the Catholic Church appear again? To these questions, to which conclavism has its own characteristic responses (which cannot, however, be taken seriously in practice), a mitigated form of sedevacantism has developed a seemingly more adequate response: the Cassiciacum thesis. The advocates of this thesis, published by the Dominican Father Guérard des Lauriers in 1979, maintain that, while John Paul II lacks the authority and charisms of a true pope, he is nevertheless the legitimately elected subject designated to receive those prerogatives the day that he, or one of his successors, manifests the objective intention3 of promoting the good of the Church. Only then will we have a true pope who is “formally” pope. In fact John Paul II is “materially” pope, a “pope” without authority or any pontifical charism. By consequence no obedience is owed to him in practice and he ought not to be named in the Canon of the Mass. This position is substantially equivalent to sedevacantism plain and simple so far as the refusal to recognize the authority of John Paul II goes. It departs from that position in its manner of explaining the indefectibility of the Church over time. The Cassiciacum thesis designates the current ecclesiastical hierarchy, compared to a comatose body bereft of any authority, as the subject on the basis of which the Church will be regenerated. This will happen either when a future material pope will remove the obstacle (obex) which currently prevents the holder of that office from receiving the charisms and authority of the papacy, or when he will finally manifest the objective intention to act for the good of the Church. The succession of “material popes,” albeit lacking authority, jurisdiction, and assistance, is sufficient, from the perspective of the Cassiciacum thesis, to guarantee the necessary continuity between St. Peter and the last pope at the end of time. We will use the term “sedevacantism” in the generic sense to signify the rejection of the authority of John Paul II. To distinguish the two sedevacantist positions we have discussed, we shall call the former “rigorist sedevacantism” and the latter “Guérardism,” by reference to Fr. Guérard des Lauriers.... UNDERSTANDING THE CASSICIACUM THESIS A. INITIAL REFLECTIONS What the Cassiciacum thesis styles the “observation” of the formal vacancy of the Holy See-we underline at the outset- actually implies the judgment on the person of John Paul II that it avoids making directly. Since the canonical approach seems impractical, a metaphysical-theological judgment takes its place which likewise arrives at a rejection of the authority of John Paul II. This process seems unacceptable for a very precise reason. Canon law is nothing but the juridical and codified expression of laws and principles, with their roots in Revelation, inscribed in the very being of the Church, just as the Ten Commandments are not the result of God’s arbitrary choices but necessary consequences of God’s being who He is. Now the fundamental principle that makes the canonical path impractical is that no one can judge the First See (Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur). The Guérardians justly apply this principle in arguing for the necessity of canonical warnings, but then they trample on it by expressing a judgment on the Holy See, albeit formulated in non-juridical terms: every law has its loophole! It makes one think, if the comparison is permissible, of one of those rabbinical stratagems which made it possible to elude the suffocating pharisaical legislation on the Sabbath rest. For example, since it is prohibited to take medicine on the Sabbath, someone with a toothache could rinse out his mouth with a little vinegar on the condition that he immediately swallow it and not expel it. In this manner the vinegar could be assimilated to a food and thus its use-albeit per se clearly medicinal and not alimentary-could be legitimate. It is true that the Cassiciacum thesis says nothing about the personal faith of John Paul II, and in this sense does not judge him. But with regard to his persona as pope, it paradoxically arrives at an even more articulated distinction than rigorist sedevacantism, and in practice arrives at the same conclusions concerning the rejection of his authority and the Mass una cum.11 The simple “observation,” from the moment it arrives at this conclusion, necessarily includes a real and true “judgment,” albeit one made outside of any strictly canonical setting. In other words, the Cassiciacum thesis manifests the inadmissible use of procedures that, in their foundations, are equivalent to those of other sedevacantists which the thesis itself claims to refute. If this were not true, then the same simple “observation” would spontaneously and simultaneously take place in every Catholic who rejects the Council, in noticing (as he actually does) the irreconcilability between the traditional magisterium and the current teachings. The fact that this does not happen is a first indication that the “observation” of the formal vacancy of the Apostolic See is in fact a real judgment on the person of John Paul II, the result of a precise and articulated theological odyssey. It took some fifteen years for Fr. Guérard himself, a distinguished theologian who had rejected the Council and the Novus Ordo with a praiseworthy lucidity, to “notice” the formal vacancy of the Apostolic See and to understand that this fact should be publicly declared as a fundamental element of the profession of faith. B. THE ATTITUDE UNDERLYING THE CASSICIACUM THESIS The outlook underlying this approach is a form of legalism (or juridical positivism), which amounts to the dissociation of law from reality. It often happens that the application of juridical norms ends up having a metaphysical effect, determining and conditioning reality (at least in the mind of the subject) instead of operating objectively. In other words, what we see here is the inversion of metaphysical priority: the priority of being over law. This inversion makes it possible to put one’s conscience at ease by evading determinate juridical norms (or rather interpreting them in accordance with one’s own needs), since the law is no longer conceived of as having a direct connection with reality. By consequence, from the point of view of the Cassiciacum thesis, the reality of the Church is always becoming less knowable in itself. It is imprisoned by and depends directly on the application of juridical norms. In attentively examining the Cassiciacum Thesis one has the impression that the Church continues to exist simply by virtue of the fact that total vacancy cannot be declared. John Paul II’s papacy is saved in its materiality, and thus the fact that he remains materially the pope assures the indefectibility of the Church-by contrast with rigorist sedevacantism-because of a juridical circumstance that prevents Guérardians or others from proceeding to such a declaration: According to all the “complete sedevacantists” a private person would have the right to declare, also before the Church, that such a person is not the pope. Also this is not possible. If Francesco Ricossa declares that John Paul II is not the pope, he affirms something that is absolutely certain and proven, but this statement has no juridical value in the Church, because the speaker is a random individual. It is for this reason that John Paul II remains materially “pope.”

[@SSPX]

Here the inversion of the juridical and metaphysical orders is manifest. In fact, starting from this principle, if John Paul II were not even materially pope (rigorist sedevacantism), it would be necessary to continue to maintain-against objective reality- that he is materially the pope. For whoever would declare this truth would remain a random individual lacking the authority to make this affirmation publicly before the Church. We should not forget that the existence of a material hierarchy-the result of this impossibility of making a declaration on the part of whoever would reject the authority of John Paul II-is indispensable, from the Guérardian perspective, not only to maintain canon law, but also in order to assure and guarantee the indefectibility of the Church over time. The very being of the Church, or rather of that which the Church ought to be, thus appears imprisoned and strictly dependent on the application of juridical norms. It is a paradox that this juridical mentality is evident amongst the Guérardians, who avoid the canonical argument for rejecting the authority of John Paul II. In our opinion this is owing to the fact that, in spite of this perfectly credible premise, these same men who reject the authority of John Paul II by another argument, pretend to demonstrate a priori that a future true pope will necessarily be canonically elected by legitimate (albeit only material) “cardinals.” This eventuality would seem forced and indicative of some juridical scruple to anyone who rejects the authority of John Paul II. God would then permit that the Church be without a true pope for forty years, but could not give one to the Church except by a “canonical” procedure, that is by means of material “cardinals” (or, in their terminology, “residential bishops”) named by a material “pope” himself elected by material “cardinals,” and so on. By such presuppositions Providence itself seems conditioned and bound by a norm of purely ecclesiastical administration, namely the election of the Roman Pontiff by the College of Cardinals. This forced argument, redolent both of legalism and of the inability to grasp the relationship between law and reality, is opportunely pointed out by the other faction of sedevacantists, albeit in a language somewhat different from our own: This whole apparatus has the sole purpose of conserving possible electors (of the normal kind) of a legitimate pope. As we explained in the preceding paragraph, these electors can be changed because of contingent facts, times, or places. Would one say that a new Church was created when, in the place of the clergy and people of Rome, the emperors of the Eastern Empire or of the Holy Roman Empire chose or directly imposed a supreme pontiff? Finally, it is important to point out that when the Church encounters difficult situations she does not confine herself to theological and juridical formalisms, but proceeds through quicker paths to their solution. If the Fathers gathered in the Council of Constance had disputed overmuch on the legitimacy of the three obediences, we would still have three popes. C. THE PRIVATE CHARACTER OF THE JUDGMENT FORMULATED BY THE GUÉRARDIANS: CONTRADICTORY ELEMENTS It should be noted all the same that the Guérardians, by contrast with the other sedevacantists, claim that their own judgment on John Paul II is strictly “private.” This stipulation is sufficient, from the perspective of the Thesis, to demonstrate that in expressing their views about John Paul II they are not substituting themselves for the Church. This accusation they would themselves direct at the other sedevacantists in so far as they, by utilizing the juridical argument, recognize formal heresy on the part of the pope and so substitute themselves for those who should make canonical warnings. This distinction is of no little importance, since a private judgment has no juridical value before the Church. This is the reason why rigorist sedevacantism at times leads to conclavism (when it takes upon itself completely the role of the Church), while Guérardism never does. All the same, as already observed, their conclusions are altogether equivalent as far as the rejection of the authority of John Paul II and of the Mass’s una cum are concerned. One can thus legitimately ask, in view of these shared conclusions, whether the “private” quality of the Guérardian judgment be real or fictitious. This ambiguity is always clearly apparent whenever the Guérardians are called on to demonstrate that their judgment has validity for the Church (we will also show the reason this subject arises). This validity is expressed in terms of “ecclesial certainty”: We call ecclesial certainty a certainty that has force in the Church, on the basis of which one can act in her presence (“in faciem Ecclesiae”). This certainty is of the same order as our belonging to the Church, and can therefore be taken into consideration in an analysis of the state of the Church and the situation of its authority: whether because it derives from an act of ecclesiastical authority (whether it be magisterial, legislative, or jurisdictional); or because it has its foundation in the faith, as exercised on occasions of public and well-known events. It is remarkable how the value of an act of ecclesiastical authority- which has an intrinsic juridical and normative value-is thus assimilated to the simple exercise of the faith on the part of the faithful. It is true that profession of the faith also has a public value before the Church; from the point of view of the Cassiciacum thesis, however, this profession includes the rejection of the authority of John Paul II. Thus the judgment that this approach aims to avoid comes in the back door, so to speak. All the same, the fact that the Guérardians present their own judgment as, at least theoretically, private means that they cannot be canonically assimilated to the other sedevacantists (although they can be associated on the basis of their shared conclusions, as outlined above), and they are not at risk of electing a new pope on heir own. Nevertheless this clarification, however necessary and dear to its exponents, binds them in a trap from which they cannot escape. Simply put, they will never know with absolute certainty (that is to say, certainty that is not founded on a simple private judgment) when we will have a true pope. We shall return to this very important point in the course of our reflections. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND FIRST CONCLUSIONS Our outline discussion has sought to be as honest and clear as possible. We have sought to bring into evidence just a few of the difficulties intrinsic to sedevacantism. Nonetheless these elements seem sufficient to allow us to formulate some reflections and draw some preliminary conclusions. To begin with, although we have simplified our presentation to the greatest possible degree, without any pretension of being exhaustive, we have nonetheless touched on difficulties that cannot be the direct concern of every baptized person. Neither a normal catechetical training, however complete, nor the most attentive and supernatural sensus fidei of the faithful can be sufficient preparation to argue about the application of canon law, papal bulls that may have been abrogated, theological opinions or concepts such as canonical warnings, formal and material heresy, legitimate material succession and illegitimate material succession, subjective and objective intention, etc. But these concepts are unavoidable if one wishes to understand something of the problems that sedevacantism poses and then to orient one’s own choices on this basis. Therefore a certain amount of theological baggage is necessary if one wishes to address these subjects. Without such training, all good will notwithstanding, it is very easy to fall into errors such as conclavism, or perhaps even to lose faith in the necessity of the Teaching Church and the indefectibility of the Church. In this respect, the sedevacantists’ frequent accusations that others fail to understand their arguments is symptomatic. This claim is in fact most often made by the Guérardians in their conflicts with rigorist sedevacantists, who are sometimes portrayed as rather primitive sedevacantists. In the second place it seems necessary to underline that the fundamental difficulty resides in the possibility of declaring the vacancy of the Apostolic See, or in the possibility of declaring be fore the Church that John Paul II is not the pope. We have already addressed this point in the preceding section and shall return to it in the course of our discussion. For the moment let us merely note that the Cassiciacum thesis (de facto and apart from its intentions) embodies and expresses the anxiety of this position, attempting a solution that is at the same time equivalent to the strict sedevacantist position and different from it, as already indicated.

[@SSPX]

Particularly significant in this regard would seem to be the clamorous odyssey of a man whom we do not hesitate to call the great apostle of rigorist sedevacantism, Fr. Noel Barbara, from that position to the Cassiciacum thesis. This historical event, while it brings grist to the mill of the Cassiciacum thesis, is further evidence that the difference between the two positions, which in the last analysis revolves around the above-mentioned difficulty, is of no little importance. After some fifteen years Fr. Barbara finally recognized that there is a substantial difference between formal and material heresy, and that the former stipulates that a higher authority admonish the pope in advance. The two theses do not present themselves as simple opinions or attempts to explain the crisis of the papacy. They each represent positions that admit of no alternative point of view, and, at least in the current state of affairs, they present themselves as binding on the conscience as a condition for preserving the faith itself. In practice this principle is translated into the categorical and coherent refusal to participate in Masses una cum (but at times also at other sedevacantist Masses, as observed above). These Masses are defined as sacrilegious and schismatic, since they represent communion with the errors of John Paul II, all declarations to the contrary notwithstanding. Furthermore, the unprecedented character of the current crisis and, by consequence, the absence of historical precedents and of relevant magisterial and theological pronouncements demand a certain degree of prudence. Such prudence would seem to be lacking in those who would present a thesis, intended to resolve the current problem, as definitive and binding on the conscience. In this light a further reflection may be worthwhile: any kind of difficulty appears infinitely more grave and dangerous within the context of a system that pretends to be apodictic and to resolve the problem of authority in radice, rather than within a set of guidelines of a prudential character. If in fact a believer follows a certain thesis, under the (sometimes induced) illusion that this definitively resolves the question at hand, and one day becomes aware of the presence of grave difficulties, there is the danger that he might abandon both the thesis and the faith itself. At least for the Cassiciacum thesis, this danger probably stems from the difficulty of the thesis itself with its many links, which are perhaps not always immediately accessible and comprehensible to those who nevertheless choose to embrace it.

[@MadMax31577]

@@SSPX Brevity is the soul of wit

[@SSPX]

THE “PRIVATE JUDGMENT” OF THE GUÉRARDIANS: FINAL CONSEQUENCES By presenting its own judgment on John Paul II as “private” the Cassiciacum thesis manages to dodge the accusation of schism, which its own judgment on the rigorist brand of sedevacantism seems to intimate (whether because rigorist sedevacantism seems to lead inevitably to conclavism, or because it substitutes itself for the Church by pretending to judge the formal heresy of the pope-which, as we have underlined, is per se impossible). A private judgment, on the other hand, leaves to the Church (e.g. in the person of a future pontiff ) the task of rendering an effective judgment before the Church herself. This is illustrated by the Guérardians with a celebrated example: the comparison of the situation of John Paul II with that of an invalid marriage that the Church has not yet declared to be null. Although it has never existed, it is juridically and officially valid in the eyes of the Church (that is, so far as its social effects are concerned) as long as the competent authority in the Church does not pronounce on it. Thus their private judgment on John Paul II, although true and binding on the conscience and even assimilated to a public profession of faith, does not pretend to have any juridical value before the Church. It remains merely the judgment of average Catholics so long as the Church herself does not officially pronounce the same judgment. This idea, at first sight brilliant, in reality has very grave consequences. To begin with, whoever follows the Cassiciacum thesis is implicitly obliged to systematically examine whatever John Paul II does or says in order to deduce when he may have lifted the obex and thus become a true pope. Those who follow this thesis are in a situation of permanent quasi-conclave, since John Paul II-or one of his successors-will be their pope when they themselves will have perceived it. Furthermore, even supposing that all the faithful who follow this thesis have understood all of its intricacies, these same faithful must have the means to perform this discernment on their own and with certainty, since the faith of baptism must be sufficient. They indeed claim that it is by dint of simple and naked faith that they do not recognize the authority of John Paul II. But in reality such discernment is a difficult thing. Lacking the necessary tools for such discernment, they are obliged to entrust themselves to the judgment of a trusted person (perhaps a layman, since no one has jurisdiction), who is necessarily chosen on the basis of subjective criteria. We are not far from charismaticism. Up to this point the Cassiciacum thesis is at least open to discussion, but it becomes absurd if we follow through to its final consequences. If the judgment by which the Guérardians reject the authority of John Paul II is in fact a private judgment, of necessity the judgment by which they will one day recognize John Paul II or one of his successors as formally pope will also be private. But in this manner they will only be able to submit to him whom they consider to be pope on the basis of a private judgment, and not on the basis of the certainty of the Church which as such recognizes a pope to be the pope. Such a pope will in no way be a certain gauge (regula) of the faith, since he will in fact be the fruit of a choice which, although it certifies itself as illuminated by the faith, remains essentially private. To choose one’s own regula of faith on the basis of the faith is an obvious petitio principii. Let us illustrate the matter with an example. Let’s suppose that on March 23, 2019, the second successor of John Paul II, John Paul IV (fifth pope in the material line) begins to put the Council into question. The Guérardians will naturally have to ask themselves if he has lifted the obex. Let us further admit that they are all in agreement to recognize him as the true pope (such assumptions are perhaps difficult to countenance given the complexity of their analyses, the lack of an authority, and the chronic tendency to meiosis characteristic of “traditionalist” milieux). Such a judgment could only be private. Whoever would act on this basis to recognize John Paul IV as the standard of their faith will be able to do so only on the basis of a private judgment by which he will choose “his” regula on the basis of a private judgment. In this way the Guérardians condemn themselves to never having a certain pope. In fact, from the moment they want to make their own private judgment a judgment with standing within and before the Church they will have to make a leap, attributing to their new private “observation” an official standing before the Church. Thus they will be substituting themselves for the Church herself, which alone gives and recognizes a pope. Thus they will be operating like that same abusive judge they accuse the other sedevacantists of being. The muddle consists in the fact that a regula by definition cannot be chosen, because it is the criterion by which other choices are made. In this light a private judgment on the authority of the pope appears as such to be nonsense, from the moment that it wishes to express something more than a hypothesis without practical consequences. Whatever the historical contingencies of our time, it is not possible to choose on the basis of the faith him who is called to be the supreme regula of the faith. Once again we are faced with the fundamental principle that prima sedes a nemine judicatur. The sedevacantists are right to recognize that the hub of the current crisis revolves around the problem of authority. But for just this reason any solution that seeks to definitively resolve the problem of authority can only end by substituting itself for that authority and falling victim to a vicious circle. For this reason there is the danger, both theological and psychological, that the sedevacantist solution, rather than putting the conscience definitively at ease as promised, may render those who embrace it prisoners of an impasse. If we place ourselves in the perspective of the Cassiciacum thesis, the comparison of the situation of contemporary popes with that of an objectively null marriage that the ecclesiastical authorities have not so declared before the Church seems utterly out of place. Rather, this comparison has the paradoxical value of illustrating and putting into evidence the difficulty that we are considering. In the case of a marriage that is de facto null one awaits the judgment of the competent authority, and, if and when a judgment is passed, such a marriage can also be null de jure. In the case of Paul VI and his successors, on the contrary, the thesis counsels that one should await a judgment, but only after having oneself authorized the competent authority. That is to say, the private judgment, of Mr. X (which in itself lacks all standing), rather than that of Father Y or Bishop Z, becomes the source of legitimacy for the competent authority. But in this case the competent authority called on to clarify the status of the person of a future pontiff is the papacy itself; its authority is thus here and now destroyed and forever disqualified. The rejection of other doctrinal elements (such as ecumenism, religious liberty, the Novus Ordo…) on the part of every “traditionalist” is an altogether different case from the rejection of the authority of contemporary popes. With respect to these innovations the faithful can actually observe the incompatibility between a conciliar teaching and its contrary as expressed in the perennial dogmatic magisterium of the Church, and thus recognize the impossibility of adhering to the new teachings. The situation of the authority of contemporary popes, on the other hand, has to do with an historical and contingent fact regarding which the Church has not yet expressed herself. Therefore any judgment, even a private one, lacks foundation from the moment that it aims to express something more than a purely private hypothesis lacking normative consequences. (The Church has in fact already expressed herself, at least in the case of Paul VI, albeit not through her own supreme authority. Cf. the section entitled “The Election of Paul VI.”) ...it appears that only the prudential position of Archbishop Lefebvre permits the faithful to resist current errors without falling into the vicious circle of petitio principii (i.e. the logical fallacy of "begging the question")

[@bedrosnersesyan6975]

At minute 45, someone please answer me this,: then why did Lebrevre and the others vote yes on it?! If it was so obvious and "people were telling us what they were going to do", "...they put their cards on the table" ??? Sincerely,

[@SSPX]

The statements "telling us very very clearly what they are doing" and "...they put their cards on the table" was with regard to the statements of Msgr. Bugnini with regards to the new rite of Mass, which was imposed on the Catholic world in 1969. And Archbishop Lefebvre did not sign any document approving or "promulgating" the new rite of Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre did not vote "yes" to Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae, he voted finally "non placet" (it is not pleasing). As regards "signing" the Vatican II documents, this is from Bishop Tissier's life of the Archbishop: That day, each Council Father had signed his attendance slip as usual. Then, the Holy Father made his solemn entry. Next, the Secretary General read the four texts that the Fathers would vote on. The final vote on religious liberty was followed by three other final votes concerning the decree on the missionary activity of the Church (Ad Gentes), the priesthood in the Church’s mission (Presbyterorum Ordinis), and the pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world (Gaudium et Spes). This last document was opposed by seventy-five votes, Archbishop Lefebvre’s among them. For each conciliar document, the Fathers filled out and signed an individual voting slip using a special magnetic pencil that could be read by machine. The voting was secret and was required to be done in person. Even if a Council Father was representing an absent Father, he could not vote for him. This was required by Canon Law, as Archbishop Felici reminded them, although a Father’s representative could sign an act once it was promulgated. At the end of Mass, Archbishop Pericle Felici came to the Pope and announced the results of the four votes. The Pope then approved the four documents and promulgated them orally to the sound of a loud applause. Then, four large sheets were passed around the Fathers, each one bearing the titles of the four promulgated documents. The Fathers were asked to sign their names with the word “Ego” preceding their Christian name. The word meaning “I” was added to signify the union of each Father in the act of promulgation by the Pope, head of the Conciliar College. A Father’s representative could show the Father’s approval by writing: “Ego procurator…- I, procurator of…” Thus, on one of these large sheets,131 the following signatures appear in the same hand: “Ego + Marcellus Lefebvre arch. Tit. Synnada in Phrygie,” “Ego procurator pro Epis. Augustinus Grimault, epis. tit.” And on another: “Ego Antonius de Castro Mayer, ep. Camposinus, Brasilia.” What these indisputable facts show is that, having voted against religious liberty to the bitter end, Archbishop Lefebvre, like Bishop de Castro Mayer, finally signed the promulgation of the declaration Dignitatis Humanae. What could seem like a volte-face should not be surprising in the least. Once a schema was promulgated by the Pope, it was no longer a schema but changed in nature to become an act of the Magisterium. Archbishop Lefebvre himself underlined the weight of papal approval in his talk on September 15, 1976, when he admitted having signed lots of Council texts “under moral pressure from the Holy Father,” because, as he said, “I cannot separate myself from the Holy Father: if the Holy Father signs, morally I am obliged to sign.”132 According to Wiltgen: Basically, this was the attitude of all Council Fathers…; each was convinced that his own position on a given topic was the correct one.…But these men, trained in Church law, also realized that both sides could not be right. And ultimately they went along with the majority view, when this finally became clear and was promulgated by the Pope as the common doctrine taught by the Second Vatican Council.133 There was neither dishonor nor inconsistency in this submission. After all, the clauses included in Dignitatis Humanae on “the true religion” or on the “just limits” of religious liberty made it just about possible to interpret the eleven lines that strictly speaking were the declaration (no. 2) in a Catholic manner, even if that was not the obvious meaning of the text, as the rest of the document makes clear. In any case, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer’s support was officially registered in the Council’s Acta.134 If later Archbishop Lefebvre stated several times that he did not put his signature on the declaration of religious liberty-as with Gaudium et Spes-it was a claim in line with his opposition before and after the promulgation, and the result of an error or a memory slip.135 He seems to have confused his final votes against Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae with refusing to sign. Such a mix-up appears from the denials that the Archbishop made in 1976 and 1990.136 This would seem to imply that while on the one hand he gave his final placet to all the conciliar schemas except two, he did not think of the signatures as a promulgation of the Council documents with the Pope, even though he signed them all (as appears in the Acta Synodalia). Putting that to one side, if we compare the number of voters on religious liberty (2,386) and the number of Fathers present who signed the promulgation, we find that at least twenty-two Fathers who voted for or against did not sign the documents. Archbishop Lefebvre was not one of them. Nonetheless, if certain facts prove to have escaped us, or if another interpretation is found to be more plausible, we would be quite open to accepting it. In our opinion, the Archbishop’s signing Dignitatis Humanae takes nothing away from the value of his fight against religious liberty. It now remains for us to study more closely his participation in this fight against religious liberty and against two other major themes of the Council: collegiality, of which we have spoken, and ecumenism. 129 According to the records conserved in the Council archives, Archbishop Lefebvre would claim to have voted non placet on the subject of religious liberty and the Church in the modern world. 130 Code of Canon Law (1917), can. 224, §2; A. Syn., III, VIII, 184. 131 Kept in the Council archives and summarized in A. Syn., IV, VII, 804-859. 132 Itinéraires, special edition, April 1977, pp. 224, 231. 133 Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, 252. 134 A. Syn., IV, VII, 809, 10th line and 823, 8th line. 135 Ms. II, 32, 33-34. 136 Le Chardonnet, no. 57 (June 1990); no. 59 (Sept. 1990); no. 61 (Dec. 1990); Tradi Presse, no. 8 (June 15, 1990); Fideliter, no. 79 (Jan.-Feb. 1991): 7.

[@SSPX]

Perhaps the signature should be seen as no more than an acknowledgment that this document was “legitimately” promulgated-a legal attestation, not a guarantee of personal agreement with all the content. If Archbishop Lefebvre really meant his act of signing as an attestation to the truth of the document’s content (which is not proven), then it would seem to be an act placed under duress against his better judgment. Perhaps in the moment he thought, “I am not infallible, perhaps this document can be read in an orthodox light (i.e., perhaps there can be a hermeneutic of continuity).” (as Msgr. Gherardini said, maybe it could be rhetorically seen in continuity, but forcing the text). But afterward, as the consequences of the document played out in the suppression of the remaining Catholic states, etc., history confirmed the spirit of rupture, reaffirming the archbishop in his original judgment that the document was inherently opposed to traditional doctrine. Hence, there would be a certain backtracking: hindsight is twenty-twenty. We should not see Archbishop Lefebvre as always acting under a kind of divine inspiration; he was human and had to correct course (albeit slightly) as things played out. But his ultimate assessment of Religious liberty and the rupture with Tradition in the conciliar documents is no way undermined, just because it took him a little while to judge it clearly. The reasons for thinking there is rupture is the actual contradictions between the documents of Vatican II and the pre-conciliar Magisterium. e.g. Praying with non-Catholics Pope Benedict XV It is illicit for Catholics in any way to assist actively or take part in sacred worship of non-Catholics (c. u58, §r). Passive or merely material presence, for the sake of civil courtesy, duty, or respect, for a grave reason which in case of doubt should have the approval of the Bishop may be tolerated, at the funerals, weddings, and other such celebrations of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion or of scandal. (Pope Benedict XV, Codex Juris Canonici (1917) canon 1258, §1) Pope Benedict XV Whoever ... communicates in things divine with heretics against the pre­scription of Canon 12.58, is suspected of heresy. (Pope Benedict XV, Codex Juris Canonici 1917, Canon 2.316) Vs. Vatican II Council During ecumenical gatherings, it is al­lowable, indeed desirable chat Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. (Vatican II Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, (# 8) November 2.1, 1964) and the clear contradiction between Dignitatis Humanae and Quanta Cura. This contradiction is present whether or not it was seen clearly right at the beginning. In Christ, Fr. P. Franks

[@Гриб-к1я]

Does this channel see themselves in union with Bishop Williamson?

[@1TheLove1ofWisdom1]

No, he was expelled from the SSPX some time ago.

[@mjl.9-19]

"who?" ... the usual suspects of course, like every other institution in the world. Follow the money and more importantly the agenda.

[@adamleevernon5276]

Sirach 39 Sapientiam omnium antiquorum exquiret sapiens, et in prophetis vacabit. 2 Narrationem virorum nominatorum conservabit, et in versutias parabolarum simul introibit. 3 Occulta proverbiorum exquiret, et in absconditis parabolarum conversabitur. 4 In medio magnatorum ministrabit, et in conspectu præsidis apparebit. 5 In terram alienigenarum gentium pertransiet: bona enim et mala in hominibus tentabit. 6 Cor suum tradet ad vigilandum diluculo ad Dominum, qui fecit illum, et in conspectu Altissimi deprecabitur. 7 Aperiet os suum in oratione, et pro delictis suis deprecabitur. 8 Si enim Dominus magnus voluerit, spiritu intelligentiæ replebit illum: 9 et ipse tamquam imbres mittet eloquia sapientiæ suæ, et in oratione confitebitur Domino: 10 et ipse diriget consilium ejus, et disciplinam, et in absconditis suis consiliabitur. 11 Ipse palam faciet disciplinam doctrinæ suæ, et in lege testamenti Domini gloriabitur. 12 Collaudabunt multi sapientiam ejus, et usque in sæculum non delebitur. 13 Non recedet memoria ejus, et nomen ejus requiretur a generatione in generationem. 14 Sapientiam ejus enarrabunt gentes, et laudem ejus enuntiabit ecclesia. 15 Si permanserit, nomen derelinquet plus quam mille: et si requieverit, proderit illi. Adhuc consiliabor ut enarrem: ut furore enim repletus sum. 17 In voce dicit: Obaudite me, divini fructus, et quasi rosa plantata super rivos aquarum fructificate. 18 Quasi Libanus odorem suavitatis habete. 19 Florete flores quasi lilium: et date odorem, et frondete in gratiam: et collaudate canticum, et benedicite Dominum in operibus suis. 20 Date nomini ejus magnificentiam, et confitemini illi in voce labiorum vestrorum, et in canticis labiorum, et citharis: et sic dicetis in confessione: 21 Opera Domini universa bona valde. 22 In verbo ejus stetit aqua sicut congeries: et in sermone oris illius sicut exceptoria aquarum: 23 quoniam in præcepto ipsius placor fit, et non est minoratio in salute ipsius. 24 Opera omnis carnis coram illo, et non est quidquam absconditum ab oculis ejus. 25 A sæculo usque in sæculum respicit, et nihil est mirabile in conspectu ejus. 26 Non est dicere: Quid est hoc, aut quid est istud? omnia enim in tempore suo quærentur. 27 Benedictio illius quasi fluvius inundavit. 28 Quomodo cataclysmus aridam inebriavit, sic ira ipsius gentes quæ non exquisierunt eum hæreditabit. 29 Quomodo convertit aquas in siccitatem, et siccata est terra, et viæ illius viis illorum directæ sunt, sic peccatoribus offensiones in ira ejus. 30 Bona bonis creata sunt ab initio: sic nequissimis bona et mala. 31 Initium necessariæ rei vitæ hominum, aqua, ignis, et ferrum, sal, lac, et panis similagineus, et mel, et botrus uvæ, et oleum, et vestimentum. 32 Hæc omnia sanctis in bona, sic et impiis et peccatoribus in mala convertentur. 33 Sunt spiritus qui ad vindictam creati sunt, et in furore suo confirmaverunt tormenta sua. 34 In tempore consummationis effundent virtutem, et furorem ejus qui fecit illos placabunt. 35 Ignis, grando, fames, et mors, omnia hæc ad vindictam creata sunt: 36 bestiarum dentes, et scorpii, et serpentes, et rhomphæa vindicans in exterminium impios. 37 In mandatis ejus epulabuntur: et super terram in necessitatem præparabuntur, et in temporibus suis non præterient verbum. 38 Propterea ab initio confirmatus sum, et consiliatus sum, et cogitavi, et scripta dimisi. 39 Omnia opera Domini bona, et omne opus hora sua subministrabit. 40 Non est dicere: Hoc illo nequius est: omnia enim in tempore suo comprobabuntur. 41 Et nunc in omni corde et ore collaudate, et benedicite nomen Domini. newadvent.org/bible/ holywounds.net/head/

[@sjp4u338]

Looks like this guy has all the answers. 🙄

[@avarmadillo]

Just for the record, I am not a member of the SSPX. I note as I write this episode 48 only has 4,424 views. WHY? Every Catholic worthy of the name should hear this. I've been following this series closely, and this summary is the best yet--I think it stands alone and doesn't need the buttressing of the previous videos to be understood. The argument the SSPX presents is very cogent, but the sedevacantists also provide very cogent arguments. So, how to you break the tie? I thought about it, and here's what I came up with. Listen to Jesus...what He said and what He didn't say. "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in the Seat of Moses. But they don't keep the law and do terrible sinful things. Therefore, you all need to start your own church. And whatever you do don't pay another second's attention to these frauds." THAT is what Jesus didn't say. What Jesus did say was, "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in the Seat of Moses. Therefore, you must do what they say. [As long as they are not telling you to sin.] But don't do the things you see them do...." I think we're in the self-same sort of situation today. Jesus wasn't a sedevacantist...because He knew "Salvation is of the Jews." As horrific as the hierarchy is (and it IS Horrific), Salvation is in the Church--and no where else. There is no other Church. Sadly, I note the bishops of the FSSP seem to have folded before the "monsters in Miters" like so many wet napkins. What ever I might do, I don't think I could ever return to the Novus Disordo knowing what I know, and learning what I have learned (This years marks my third in the FSSP.) I converted in 1982. I didn't become Catholic to have heresiarchs infesting the Church force me back to some grotesquery that is neither fish nor fowl, neither Catholic nor "Protestant"---but something that is altogether foul in its arbitrariness and its top/down iron fistedness. But I digress... Congratulations on the specifics in parts 3 and 4---it effectively removes the argument from the subjective. Very helpful. Finally, I personally would LOVE a series on Thomism---my patron Saint. I can't speak for all, but my guess is large numbers of those of us who faithfully follow your Vlog would love such a series---and would enthusiastically share the episodes far and wide. Mortimer Adler wrote a book many years ago called "Aristotle for Everybody." Isn't it time someone did a series based on "St. Thomas for Everybody?" Thank you so much!

[@bemasamoje]

The FSSP does not have even a single Bishop.

[@avarmadillo]

@@bemasamoje bingo.