Here's a reformated version that eventually I hope to transcribe.
Courtesy of SSPX.org
The Most Authentically Catholic Analysis of the Synod……comes to us from Bishop Fellay of the SSPX. You know, those guys. The ones who sit aloof in the corner while the cool kids at the dance dish fantastic gossip about.I wonder if CMTV will comment on the SSPX comment on the Synod. Perhaps the SSPX is only saying what they'd like to say ...
“Did you hear that they’re, like, in schism? Whatever that means!”
“They had a really bad breakup with the pope in the 1970s. Totes not even Catholic anymore!”
“My friend’s cousin’s girlfriend’s virtual spiritual director told her that, like, every Mass they say is more offensive to God than, like, a SATANIC MASS!!!”
Chitter away ladies. While you’re busy tearing down others to make yourselves look good, this is what a Catholic bishop (and dare we hope a future pope?) should sound like:
... sspx declaration ...
The funny thing is that there’s an almost universal rule of human experience: the most enthusiastic dirt-dealers at the dance very rarely stay popular after graduation, whereas their victims, for whatever real faults they may have, often go on to be the most successful people in the class.
I, for one, am looking forward to the watching that realization set in when we all get back together for our reunion in a few years.
(1) Pope John-Paul II is so far from being Catholic that one may seriously doubt whether he is Pope at all.... and perhaps this ...
(2) The official Church and its leaders have gone so far in their false “renewal” that they may be ignored by Catholics.... and of course this ...
(3) Present Church superiors have so betrayed the Faith that they can in no way be considered the real churchmen.I admit that the 'resistance', while it has some core common beliefs, also has a flair for diversity and sedevacantism.
Update: The author of the response has indicated that he is not sedevacantist.
Following the same level of doctrinal authority[Concerning Canonizations]:
We can be confident that Pope Francis is validly elected as Pope due to the universal acceptance by the Bishops.
Concerning the canonizations, only the aspect that the person canonized is enjoying the beatific vision is covered by infallibility.
The synod is simply a meeting of invited bishops to provide their thoughts and opinions to the pope Unlike the Second Vatican Council, it has no magisterial authority. Period. (SSPX: How much authority does a Synod have?)
All these synods do is provide a venue for prelates to proclaim their orthodoxy or lack thereof. It simply is an opportunity for the chasm between the good and the bad to be clearer. For the fence sitters like the neo cats ,including cmtv et all, they will be inexorably confronted with any inconsistencies in their principles.
As will we all.
Is a Catholic practicing virtue when they avoid the Sacraments when there is no immediate or proximate danger to the Faith, particularly Sunday Mass - a precept of the Church?
John 13:27. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly. (Source)
... The SSPX even claims the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil and no one should ever go to a Mass unless it's in the Old Latin Rite — and only then if it's offered by an SSPX priest. This recent video on the Society's website clearly states their long-held position in this regard. It's necessary for them to view the Church crisis this way because only then do they feel justified in going rogue. But what they're describing is actually heretical as it denies the dogma of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church. Truth and grace cannot fail universally from the Pope on down. Christ said of Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."For someone with an academic background, I had expected better. In fact, I had expected them to research what the SSPX means when it claims that the Novus Oro Missae is evil.
In March 2009, Pope Benedict XVI wrote a letter explaining the SSPX separation is doctrinal in nature and not merely canonical or legal, as the SSPX would have the public believe... ( CMTV Claims SSPX Heretical)
Well, the Society is definitely against the New Mass. We even say that it is 'intrinsically evil.; That’s a delicate label that needs a little explanation. By this we mean that the New Mass in itself –the New Mass as the New Mass, as it is written –is evil, because as such you find in it the definition of evil. The definition of evil is 'the privation of a due good.' Something that should be in the New Mass is not there and that’s evil. What is really Catholic has been taken out of the New Mass. The Catholic specification of the Mass has been taken away. That’s enough to say that it is evil. And look at the terrible fruits." (Bishop Fellay )I also expected them to have a better understanding of what is meant by Indefectibility of the Church. Namely, that the Infallibility of the Church extends to the laws and disciplines that she promulgates because Indefectibility means that:
"The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world. (Sent. certa.) (Ott, 1954)" (Tradicat)
It is the more probable opinion among approved authors that refusal of obedience of a Catholic to the Pope which is not predicated upon a rejection of the principle of his authority as Roman Pontiff as Caput Romanae Ecclesiae constitutes material, not formal schism. However, if those lay faithful receiving the Sacraments from them at any one point in time also severed themselves entirely from, or refused submission in principle to, the Roman Pontiff and per can. 1330 of the Code of Canon Law manifested in word or in deed externally such actions, then they are presumed to have descended into formal schism. (CMTV Interviews a Canon Lawyer)First of all, this is a 'probably opinion' and therefore is simply an agreement in general from those currently within the sphere of influence in the circles of Canon law. I'm sorry, but if the Pope issues an illegitimate command (outside of his scope of authority or proximately or immediately sinful) it is not materially schismatic to disobey. However, it is interesting that no matter how many times it has been tried before, "they' always want to find a way to make the SSPX either schismatic or heretical to support their belief that the SSPX can't possibly be right. Where are they going with this? I believe it is an attempt to make the consecrations without papal mandate a schismatic act. Good luck with that one, that ship has sailed and we know that it is not a schismatic act - it was simply an disobedient act and the censure of schism was not included in the canonical warning.
The Tribunal of the Roman Rota has issued, per my count, five judgments declaring the nullity of marriage of those faithful who exchange vows before an SSPX priest. The legal rationale for such judgments has been the ground of Defect of Canonical Form (cf. can. 1108). ... Whenever these norms have been applied to cases where an SSPX priest witnessed the exchange of vows of two Catholic faithful appearing before him, the Judges of the Roman Rota, the Catholic Church's universal court of appeal, have, to my knowledge, without exception, always declared such marriages to be utterly null and void.Ok, so there are only 5 cases in 40+ years that have reached the Roman Rota? Really? Now I do find something of interest, in that the Canon Lawyer quotes an abstract of the judgement:
An affirmative sentence has recognized the nullity of marriage by reason of defect of delegation in the celebrating priest belonging to the "Society of Saint Pius X" (the so-called Lefebvrians). According to the panel of judges [Turnus], on the part of the faithful who follow schismatic pastors — as an aside, the Lefebvrian community is qualified as dissident but not separated from the Church — one cannot automatically presume the will to defect from the Catholic Church (from the moment that their choice could have been influenced more by liturgical preference than by the refusal of papal authority) and therefore these [individuals] remain bound by canonical form (can. 1117 in the text preceding the reform introduced by the Motu Proprio Omnium in mentem of 26 October 2009; A. 95/09).So what I am wondering is if ever in the last 40 years the Roman Rota has presumed that the marriages were valid. I also find of interest that this contradicts the American Nuncio who wrote:
This has been confirmed by a reply of Cardinal Mayer to a letter written by a troubled Catholic from California asking about the validity of our Sacraments: The principle of "common error” , whether on the part of only one faithful or on the part of the community, can be applied in this case, and such acts are thereby valid (cf. canons 144, 976, 1331, 1333, 1335) (Apostolic Nunciature in U.S.A., letter 1885/89/4, dated May lst,1989).
Fr. Eric Jacqmin is on the verge of being expelled from the Society of St. Pius X. Yesterday he gave a good catechetical conference in Kent, England on the theological virtues, the supernatural life, and the simple love of God exhibited by St. Therese of the Child Jesus. After the conference, he provided constructive criticism on the positions currently held by His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson on seminarian formation, the loose association structure, authority, liberty, and attendance at the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass, amongst other things. As a result of these positions, Fr. Jacqmin advises the faithful not to attend Masses celebrated by His Excellency.So now Bishop Williamson begins to reap what he has sowed.