Sadly this gets "better and better" all the time ...

I note that someone had their posts edited by the moderators - after raging on and on in a ridiculous gloating session about another person commenting on here having their posts edited as some type of personal triumph.

Will this really be the end? I have a feeling his passive-aggressive personality sadly won't let him leave well enough alone and if he feels he doesn't have the last word then he will just keep "tossing his toys out the pram" until everyone is gone and he has the last tantrum.

All fluff and no substance. Doesn't even bother to read posts nor understand a "difference" from a "disobedience" ...

And he calls others schizoid ... LMAO

@Dr. John Smythe - I noted you had asked a very specific question, exactly what the exact doctrines were that the SSPX were supposedly guilty of disobeying. Again, you did not get a response answering your questions but instead, a quote from Benedict XVI which does not directly address your question.

It stated, "Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society (of St Pius X) does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church."

This statement seems to disprove the poster's own argument in that it states, "is not, in the end, based on disciplinary ... reasons". So the Pope himself openly admits there is no disciplinary questions with the SSPX. It is, instead based on a a disagreement of "doctrinal" matters. It is not the SSPX that is accused of not following doctrine, but the SSPX accusing the modernists of not following proper Catholic doctrine.

As for Bp. Fellay not signing the document, that was answered previously. The Bishop was given an advance copy of what to sign and he agreed and when he went to sign it at the Vatican he was given a completely different paper to sign. Of course he could not sign it. No one in their right mind could - especially after being given something completely different.

Here you have a loyal group of Catholics, whom Pope Francis assures the world, "Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice". Yet, there are still some who do not want to acknowledge the unwavering faith of the SSPX.

We must keep in mind that shortly after this affair the Pope resigned. Coincidence?

A flaming troll on here, whom I shall refer to by his own admission and definition as a, "tiresome bore" continually denied to answer your simple question. Given the above proofs (yet this person even admitted he could not be bothered to actually read what was being written - but other good people will, so this is why it is being entered here. Anyway, here is some more proofs, from various Catholic outlets, that help defend the good will and integrity of the SSPX.

Le Figaro on September 1, Jean-Marie Guénois: “Francis loves paradoxes. The very day he receives Bishop Jacques Gaillot at the Vatican – an act that in itself reinstates this very social and progressivist bishop who had been deposed by Rome under John Paul II’s pontificate – the Argentinian pope offers an unexpected hand to the faithful of Archbishop Lefebvre, members of the Society of St. Pius X. (…) The priests and faithful of the Society of St. Pius X have never been excommunicated. Nor has the validity of the Mass according to the old Latin rite that they celebrate ever been questioned, but two sacraments, marriage and the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) involved certain jurisdictional legitimacy issues in the eyes of Canon Law. And Francis just removed this obstacle by recognizing the ‘good faith and sacramental practice’ of the Society of St. Pius X that remains nonetheless in a ‘uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint’.”

La Croix on September 2, Nicolas Senèze: “Although the sacraments of reconciliation and marriage can only be celebrated by priests in communion with their bishops, the Church can recognize a “supplied jurisdiction”, particularly in cases of distress and necessity. (…) For the SSPX, the ‘crisis’ they consider the Church is going through, the ‘apostasy’ professed since Vatican Council II and the doubts as to the validity of certain sacraments after the liturgical reform willed by the council, all place the faithful in just such a ‘state of necessity’, forcing them to turn to the Society’s priests.” Note the use of quotation marks and the “they consider”: the “crisis” they consider the Church is going through…the “apostasy”….place…in just such a “state of necessity”…as if the popes themselves had not spoken since the Council of “Satan’s smoke” in the Church, of a “boat taking in water on all sides”, or of a “silent apostasy”.

Famille chrétienne on September 2, Gérard Leclerc: “The pope has taken an initiative that shows that for him, the members of the Society of St. Pius X are part of the Church. I think he wishes to force matters by establishing this communion despite the disagreements: he is forcing us to go beyond legalism, and enter upon the path of true communion.”

Il Tempo on September 3, Don Pierpaolo Petrucci, SSPX District Superior of Italy: “But we have always validly and licitly administered the sacraments in the name of the general norms of the Code of Canon Law because of this crisis that is shaking the Church. (…) What is important is that there has been a legal recognition from the pope, without him demanding anything in return. In fact, in a way it is a recognition of the licitness of our ministry that has been questioned (before).”

Le Courrier on September 4, Astrid Kaptjin, professor of Canon Law at the University of Freiburg (Switzerland): “In my opinion, this single act cannot constitute an actual reintegration. There are too many points of doctrinal disagreement. Besides, up until now, the different pontiffs’ actions only concerned the liturgy and the sacraments. On the doctrinal level, they did not want to give in on certain aspects now fully accepted in the Catholic Church, such as ecumenism, religious freedom, an increased power granted to the bishops’ conferences: these are all things that the Society continues to refuse.”

(sources: FSSPX/MG – Figaro/Croix/Famille chrétienne/Tempo/Courrier – DICI no.320 Sept. 11, 2015)

So we see the doctrinal arguments are, in fact: (a false sense of true) ecumenism, religious freedom, an increased power granted to the bishops’ conferences.

There is not one iota of true disobedience. In fact, quite the opposite, seemingly.

Wow - a guy goes away from reading postings for a few days (it's called living in the real world) and the unbelievable "keyboard warrior" antics of Stu Reiss are almost laughable - if not rather scary. Looks like he's been sending abusive private messages to people he does not agree with (he sure didn't deny it and if you look at all the trash he's psychotically spilling, he would if he didn't!!!), threatens physical violence (through a computer, by the way - what a joke), tells people to "shut up", threatens to have others banned from this site(?!). Pretending to be able to judge when others are or are not Catholic?! Sadly, I could go on (and he has the belief he can get others banned?!) ...

Talk about delusions of grandeur! I can just see him sending message after message to the mods on here trying to butter them up and seeing if they can be manipulated.

It is sure "funny" (not in a good way) how emotional and unstable some people get.

As for any arguments he may have, I honestly can not remember one qualified statement he has made as I type this because of his abusive (there's just no other word to better describe it) childish behaviour.

Can't we all just get along and talk/type/communicate like adults?

I thought this was supposed to be a Catholic site? Someone sure is not behaving like any Catholic I've ever heard of.

Okay, let's up the intelligence quotient on this comment board - here's a question (not specifically for anyone) - when one actually takes the time to read the text that accompanies this video (I wonder how many actually did click on it above just below the video and take the time to not only read it, but contemplate it and then reflect on it - not merely be a mass reactionary (pun intended)) - one sees a lot of startling statistics (stats that Michael Voris always refers to) and the correlation between these stats and the Novus Ordo Missae.

It goes on to state, "when the Faith is endangered by the preaching or opinions of the priest, one is dispensed from attending Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day.

In such cases, the Church recommends the faithful to sanctify Sunday by dedicating a time for prayer, alone or in the family: one could read the Mass of the day, pray the rosary, and make a spiritual communion."

I think these are very good points (not just good, but also in line with the Catechism as well as the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as well as any Saints I have ever read).

Yet, there is obvious and outright reaction (not thoughtful action and responses, but as listed above, reactions, seemingly rather violent ones) against this. I believe the reaction against this is a lack of understanding of what is being related to in this video (the text even refers to several scholarly works in order to help understand what is being said and why - without taking the time to read and familiarize oneself with them, it hardly shows any interest in actual understanding).

Let's act like real Catholics and leave the petty tantrums where they belong.

@Gregory - you didn't answer any of his questions (again). You refer indirectly to them with vague references to not a thing specific.

"The questions you raise on the canonical status of the SSPX only ensure and prove the fact " - uhm, no a question does not prove anything. A question is a question.

@Gregory, do not forget the SSPX was established only through Vatican approval, so please do not pretend "these efforts go back to 1970". (Please see links below.)

As for efforts we must remember the Doctrinal Preamble that was to be signed by Bp. Fellay on behalf of the SSPX was approved - however, when Bp. Fellay went to the Vatican to sign it, the copy he was presented had been altered and changed from the document Benedict XVI had given to the Priestly Fraternity to approve.

Imagine that - being given a document to study to see if you can sign it (a document that had been finalized after literally years of discussions) and when you show up to sign it what you are actually presented with is something completely different!?

That, my friend, is what happened.

You will also note the CDF has given Bp. Fellay an official appointment (vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/…/lefebvriani-lef…) and if you take the time to read it, you will see this has been done in June of this year.

Here is a timeline with links:

2011

www.dici.org/…/an-initial-eval…

www.catholicherald.co.uk/…/sspx-leader-we-…

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/…/interview-with-…

www.dici.org/…/sermon-of-bisho…

2012

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/…/lefebvriani-lef…

www.dici.org/…/society-of-st-p…

www.dici.org/…/press-review-bi…

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/…/fellay-we-are-a…

2013

ncronline.org/…/sspx-head-says-…

Remember, these were theological discussions - it was nothing like you are trying to falsely present it as the Pope telling the SSPX they HAVE TO sign something and then the SSPX refusing any order and therefore being disobedient. Either you are misinformed as to what has been happening or you are misinforming. Either way, you are wrong and need to examine what has really being going on.

2014

www.dici.org/…/interview-with-…

www.dici.org/…/germany-informa…

www.dici.org/…/what-unity-is-b…

2015

www.dici.org/…/bishop-fellays-…

As for the false claim of a rejection of the SSPX by the Church, read this:

www.dici.org/…/argentina-the-s…

Oops, I meant to type "@Dr Reiss - it is clear you DO NOT understand what the Priest in the video is stating."

In the timeless phrase of Buddy Epson, "Whoa Doggies!" - this is getting good. I'm gonna get a bowl of popcorn and see how this turns out!

If I may quote a compadre of mine, "The phrase "duel of wits with an unarmed man" comes to mind."

@Gregory, the SSPV was only formed as a counter to the Tradition of the SSPX - you can thank the SSPX for them, as well.

You make the claim of the SSPX, "breaking the ecclesial bond with the Pope". Please provide the evidence of the claim.

You made the claim, you back it up. Previous people have asked you to do so and all you do is brush it off and never give any evidence.

@Dr Reiss - it is clear you understand what the Priest in the video is stating. Your previous posts stated you wouldn't even bother to watch Part I (ep. 14) let alone the introduction in Episode 13. So, by your own admission you are trying to talk about something you don't know about. That's a bit ridiculous, to say that least. That's like someone talking about a medical procedure who didn't even learn the 2/3 of it but just caught the tail end of it.

You know what the they say about assume and what that makes a person ...

The Priest is not telling people not to attend Mass - he is saying do not attend the modernist Mass with all it's errors. He did not say it was invalid, he repeated the reports of Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci coupled with decades of experience of what the novos ordo has done to (what is left) of the Church.

@Gregory - it seems to me your post smacks of the same.

If it was not for the SSPX there would be no Moto Proprio for the Tridentine Mass. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Where are the thank you's? Or would you rather people have to put up with clown "masses" and "liturgical dancing" and communion for homosexuals and remarried divorced and those living in sin? What about speaking out against artificial contraception? What about providing ALL the Sacraments that go along with the Mass? (i.e. Confession before Mass with solid orthodox advice and actions, First Communion only after First Confession which is only after a proper catechism and testing?)

You will never find those abuses and heretical acts with the SSPX, yet, you can go to any local diocese and pretty much guarantee the local diocesan Fr. "Nice" will be doing those abuses and giving Holy Communion to those living in a state of mortal sin and NOT advising the (few remaining) parishioners of the mortal sin artificial conception is and of living in sin being the same level of sin - for fear of offending.

This is all part and parcel of the Mass - it is not much use to provide a Mass in Latin but then tell the diocese that it's okay to live together (as long as you feel you love each other) and it's okay to use contraception and tell the diocese that a general absolution prior to Mass is just the same as Confession.

That is what the SSPX is warning people against - Priests and Bishops who do not act like Priests and Bishops and teach the fullness of the Faith.