"Formally adhered" to the "Schism" Yet?: Well, What are we Waiting for!

This cartoon was sent by a faithful reader and friend.
Click picture to read fully.
The quotation attributed to Archbishop Lefebvre above was ACTUALLY signed by ALL OF THE SSPX superiors lead by Father Schmidberger after the Consecrations of 1988. There is no doubt, of course, that Archbishop Lefebvre "approved the message."
'Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer and assembled in the deserts, — a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven'.
– St. Basil the Great; Epistulae 242, 376 AD.
"Ecclesia Dei Adflicta" this is at the foundation of the Fraternity of St. Peter. "the Church of God" is "afflicted." Why is "the Church of God" afflicted? Because [Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre] "frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X." During these efforts, "the Apostolic See" "has shown comprehension" to the "limits of the possible." ---- In other words, the Vatican has no clue, from a Catholic perspective, about the destruction of Catholic doctrine and of the Catholic faith of hundreds of millions.
This "affliction" is not too traumatic since "the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few" --- minimizing the opposition to the Modernist take over of the institutional organization of the Church. These fated few who have broken with the "unity" of the Church have not been faithful to Christ and his Church.
This act of "disobedience" "implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy and constitutes a SCHISMATIC ACT." In other words, the Fraternity of St. Peter is based upon the agreed proposition that Archbishop Lefebvre was a schismatic whose defense of Tradition [but in the "wrong way" of course] put him OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
How would a prelate who was out to defend Tradition end up "outside" the Catholic Church? Well, because he did not have the correct notion of Tradition. He thought it had something to do with its root in the Latin word tradere which means "to transmit, to hand over, to give for safekeeping" --- originally, the term was used in Roman Law to refer to the concept of legal transfers and inheritance. But, he was very very wrong. As the founding document of the "traditionalist" Order of St. Peter's says, "The root [emphasis theirs --- meaning the Vatican website] of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition [I was under the impression that it had to do with the handing down of the Deposit of Faith sealed up some 1,900 years ago, but --- wrong again!], which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught [at least he admits that it all stems from Vatican II], 'comes from the Apostles and PROGRESSES in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is GROWTH in INSIGHT [notice purely human "insight" here] into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they EXPERIENCE. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate [right to do what, we may ask], the sure charism of truth." ---- in other words, if you object to our new magisterium --- based on the "developing ideas" of the faithful and the bishops and popes, you do not have the truth.
Friends, the above is a TOTALLY MODERNIST RENDITION OF REVELATION AND TRADITION. It is in fact such a classically modernist rendition of revelation and tradition that it seems hard to believe that someone like Fr. Bisig would agree to base his new order "in the Church" on it.
When has the Fraternity of St. Peter EVER renounced the explicitly modernist language of this motu proprio? When have they indicated their regret that their religious order was BASED DIRECTLY ON THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE --- WHICH HAS STILL NOT BEEN LIFTED!
The modernist nature of this document is emphasized further by John Paul II when he writes ---- and let us not forget that he wrote it or at least authorized its wording --- "Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition [So this is --- legally speaking --- the "tradition" that the FSSP is standing up for and propagating, a "tradition" that is in accord with Vatican II heresies. In other words, a "tradition" which is not traditional or even orthodox.], especially in points of doctrine [So ---- FSSP adherent Chris Ferrara, Vatican II DOES INVOLVE DOCTRINE WHICH THE "MAGISTERIUM" DEMANDS CATHOLICS ADHERE TO] which, PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY ARE NEW [So they admit it!], have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church [probably some Idaho gun-toting missal thumper!].
So what does John Paul II --- oh, I am sorry Michael Matt --- St. John Paul II [still have to find the video of when he calls John Paul II and Mother Teresa "saints" -- let me know if you know which one it is so that I can put it up] say should happen with and what is the status of those deplorables who continue to follow Archbishop Lefebvre ? Here we go, "all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church AND OF CEASING THEIR SUPPORT IN ANY WAY FOR THAT MOVEMENT. EVERYONE SHOULD BE AWARE THAT FORMAL ADHERENCE TO THE SCHISM [I think that going to an SSPX church for 24 years should do it!] is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."
To my knowledge the "excommunication" of the faithful and priests and, perhaps, readers of the Angelus magazine, has never been lifted.
According to the man who allowed for the placing of a statue of Buddha on the tabernacle of St. Peter's Church in Assisi in 1986--- which I visited last year to, in fear and trembling, see the scene of this act of apostasy and unprecedented scandal, he wants to accommodate those "who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition," who deserve "respect" for their "rightful aspirations," "feelings," and "attachments" to "Latin liturgical tradition" --- in other words, for the FSSP, Michael Matt, Chris Ferrara, and perhaps even the bishop of Kazakhstan.

If the FSSP is founded on a completely modernist understanding of Tradition, why should we not call them....well, Modernists?



Wonder what Cardinal Burke and the Vatican would say about Michael Matt's equation of the SSPX with the Fraternity of St. Peter. I wonder what Archbishop Lefebvre would say? Can we just stop getting along please? Because, "getting along" is going to destroy our faith in the purity and the unchangeableness of the Catholic Faith.





And now, from the horse's mouth, what the Fraternity of St. Peter is all about. "To have the extraordinary form" "the love of my life" "within the Church."

Also, from the "With friends like this who needs enemies " file, Cardinal Burke shows his true allegiances. Hint, he will bow low before the Modernist Revolution (as he and his kind have done since the 1960s). Why do these kind of men get a "get out of heresy free" card when they come out against adultery? As my son says, "Ok, Mr. Dah!" Louie Verrecchio should be congratulated for opening the closet door on this Modernist, by getting hold of the following video. Notice Cardinal Burke says that the SSPX "is in schism" and to confirm this statement --- said that Fr. Saguto, District Superior of the Fraternity of St. Peter in North America, would confirm this -- the District Superior must obviously be in the room listing to the lecture.
Click the Link entitled "Cardinal Burke on FSSPX 7-15-2017 to listen to the SoundCloud --- We told you so!


Comments

  1. In a catholic high school of 500 i defended the OLD MASS in 1969. Every single student thought i had gone MAD! Now tell me who would have the courage to do as i did?????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank God my kids went to a school that they wouldn't have to do that. But at University, they ALL have done just that, now. Any child worth his salt and raised under the auspices of the SSPX would do the same.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Breaking News: Dr. Robert Hickson's full account of Perfidy and Betrayal at Christendom College in the critical years of 1985-1992.

It Begins: Sister Lucy Truth Incorporated is established to discover in a scientific and objective manner --- no matter the results of the investigation --- the Truth about the Life of Sister Lucy

The Sister Lucy Trust: We are going to do this in a scientific way.

What did he mean? Fr. Luigi Villa said that Pope Pius XII spoke of himself as "the last pope".

Update: Fr. Kramer's Argument: Francis HAS Defected; Here's What Follows.

John Salza, Call Your Office: Fr. Kramer Releases His Text Showing that Heresy Automatically Separates one from the Catholic Church WITHOUT declaration.

Heretic Pope? Heretic Catholic? Let's Depose a Pope? Fr. Kramer Further Responds to Salza/Siscoe

Amazing Disgrace: "Catholics" and Lutherans Pray Together to Honor Luther in St. Louis. Are we in the same church as these heretics?

Cornelia Comes to the Defense of St. Philomena: Just as Warren H. Carroll relied on the "Canonization" of Josemaria Escriva by JPII to justify his endorsement of Opus Dei, he justified his Denial of St. Philomena' s existence on the basis of one Citation in the Catholic Encyclopedia

St. Nicholas Slapped the Face of the Greatest Heretic of His Time and the "No Need to be Extreme" Bishops Sack Him: Guess Whose Side Our Lord and Our Lady were on?