No, it is not erroneous. It is correct. No-one (except you) has suggested that the Sacraments "belong to SSPX". The Pope has authority (if rightly exercised) to say that the Sacraments of certain clergy are illicit and even invalid. The Pope has said (by word and/or deed) that all the Sacraments of the SSPX clergy are usually, and within certain stated bounds, licit and valid.

You next make an egregious error when you claim the Sacraments are not valid if there are doctrinal differences and you claim what no-one claims i.e. that doctrinal divergences invalid Sacraments.

That is clearly false since the Catholic Church recognises the validity (not the liceity) of the Sacraments of numerous heretical and schismatic sects e.g. of many of the Orthodox churches and even of the so-called "Liberal Catholic Church" (originally called "the Old Catholic Church") even though there are very serious doctrinal differences with them.

Finally, there are NO doctrinal differences between the teachings of SSPX and the teachings of the Catholic Church. SSPX merely teaches what the Catholic Church has always taught throughout history.

There are doctrinal differences between the teachings of SSPX (which are those of the Church throughout history) and certain sections of the modern Church but that is because those certain sections are in error, and in some cases in outright heresy e.g. those within the Church who believe priestesses can be validly ordained or that the irregularly re-married can, without regularisation, repentance and absolution, receive Holy Communion.

It is they who are in doctrinal error - not SSPX.

I should now add that I need to amend my answer to whether Pope Francis would abolish Summorum Pontificum because he has, in fact, just abolished it. I said, no, I did not think he would do so and that he was tolerant toward the traditional Roman rite. It is now clear that he is not tolerant toward the traditional Roman rite any more (save when celebrated by the SSPX). That is a seriously retrograde and illiberal step. However, it is also "ultra vires" i.e. beyond the power of the Pope whose job it is to "confirm the brethren" in the traditions of the Faith. No pope can abolish the traditional Roman rite or, indeed, any ancient tradition that has stood the test of time, and has been approved by successive popes and councils, because that is the sign that such traditions have been established and approved by the Holy Ghost. No pope may gainsay the Holy Ghost. The Pope is the spiritual Vicar of Christ, not Christ Himself. In fact, so I learn, the Pope's new motu proprio is having the opposite effect to that which he intended. It is making the traditional Roman rite MORE not less popular and for a variety of reasons (not least curiosity). Many now feel that the Pope is behaving in an extreme and illiberal manner and they are not happy with it. Many, indeed, are even starting to hear the the traditional Roman rite of mass precisely because they think the Pope grossly illiberal in trying to restrict it.

Dear Nobodyimportant, you are missing the point. It matters not what title or position Pope Francis has given to Bishop Fellay - who cares? - but the fact that he has given him the right to determine SSPX matrimonial cases which, in turn, means he does not consider marriages witnessed by an SSPX priest or deacon as intrinsically invalid. THAT is the point. And that is a huge step because there are plenty of bishops and matrimonial tribunals who still think ALL marriages witnessed only by SSPX clergy are automatically invalid. But they are wrong.

No need to be sorry - it is a complex subject often unnecessarily obfuscated by prelates with secondary motives. The documents issued by Pope Francis recognising SSPX confessions, and appointing Bishop Fellay a judge legally imply regularization when added to the still valid document formally establishing the Society in 1970. So - there are documents but one does not legally require a document to state - baldly - "you are regularised" for that nevertheless to be the case. The other pontifical documents already imply it.

No. He has been appointed by Pope Francis a first instance tribunal judge to handle SSPX cases. The very great significance of this is that it means the Pope recognises SSPX marriages since, if he did not, he could not appoint Bishop Fellay (or anyone) to preside, as a judge, over SSPX matrimonial cases. If the marriages were never valid in the first place then there would be nothing to judge or annul.

You again try to put words in mouth and thus tend to prove my suggestion that if anything was not publicised by the authors it was because of trouble-makers.

What I said was this: "I have not said that SSPX do not want this information in the public domain. I don't know if they do or if they don't. I don't know if "the Vatican" (I presume you mean the Holy See?) does, either, although I surmise that they don't else they would have publicised it."

This is not at variance with what I earlier said which was a surmise, as must be obvious, and does, indeed, refer to "the Vatican" which is NOT co-terminous with "the Holy See" as I expressly said and you now pretend otherwise. This was in the context of not finding anything about the matter on the web site. It is clear that "the Vatican" did not want to publicise it themselves but not clear if they do or do not want others to do so, still less is it clear what the Holy See wants given that the Holy See is the source of the de facto "regularisation".

Doubtless the "counterfeit church" (as you term it), within the human bureaucracy, wanted the matter "kept quiet" because, I suspect, they disagree with what the Holy See has done. But what the Holy See itself wants is not clear. That the two seem to be at variance merely shows your error in seeking to elide them together.

Likewise the fact that SSPX themselves have not chosen to publicise the matter does not mean that they object to someone else putting the matter in the public domain. So, once again, there is no contradiction. I did not say - as you falsely claim - that SSPX wants the matter "kept quiet". I said they "have not chosen to publicise it" i.e. themselves. You again falsely elide the two.

You could have worked this out for yourself but you chose to interpret maliciously which again proves my point.

You seem less interested in the truth than in peddling your own agenda of historic Sedevacantism.

That also proves my point.

You press your agenda further when you say "surely your statement that other novus ordo bishops should 'take leaf out of his (Francis') book' and not be illiberal and intolerant towards the SSPX implies strongly that 'regularisation' is beneficial?"

Not so. It is a call for those bishops not to be illiberal or intolerant and that means regardless of "regularisation". One does not need "regularisation" in order to stop being illiberal or intolerant, particularly when one is claiming, simultaneously, to be liberal and tolerant.

You thus, again, unthinkingly try to put words in my mouth. But this, alas, is all too typical of the facile and sloppy thinking that characterises much historic Sedevacantism (i.e. denying the validity of earlier popes like Paul VI and John Paul II).

For the record, I do consider this de facto "regularisation" to be a good thing. It has obviated the need for what might have been difficult and unhelpful horse trading aimed at some likely unsatisfactory "joint statement" of the sort that proliferate these days but do little good and often serve only to confuse.

You seem to agree and yet, perversely, also seem to want to disagree. How helpful is that?

The rest of your reply is tendentious nonsense and I have already rebutted it.

It is well known that SSPX have been the principal opponent of historic Sedevacantism (i.e. denying the validity of earlier popes like Paul VI and John Paul II) whatever off the cuff remarks may have been made by Msgr de Castro Mayer or even Archbishop Lefebvre and which you attempt to wrest out of context.

You are whistling in the dark if you pretend otherwise.

When the Archbishop spoke of "Rome" he clearly meant the human bureaucracy, not the Church itself.

Indeed, you yourself, admit that the "counterfeit church" and the Catholic Church cannot be the same.

Of course it is perfectly possible for the same person to be truly Vicar of Christ and yet preside over a Church which has, within its bosom, the asp of a "counterfeit church". Our Lord Himself warned of this [Matt 24.4-30].

Your very question betrays your confusion: "Naturally the 'counterfeit church' and the Catholic Church are not the same. But how can one man be leader of both?"

This very question implies that the Church over which the Vicar of Christ is spiritual head is also the "counterfeit church" and thus you self-demolish your own case.

If the courtiers of a king are conspiring to overthrow his kingdom, does that mean that the king is head of this "counterfeit kingdom"? Of course not. On the contrary, despite the fact that those same conspirators are his subjects, the king, qua king, is not the head of their conspiracy to instal a "counterfeit kingdom", even if he foolishly tolerates their treachery.

So much is obvious to anyone with common sense. So what is your problem that you cannot see something so obvious?

The issue here is not that "too many 'traditionalists' abandon Catholic teaching on the Papacy in their desperation to have a 'pope'" but rather that those who think there has been no pope since Pius XII (or even earlier) are thus confessing that Apostolic succession has disappeared and the Church has failed, contrary to the words of Christ. If anyone is abandoning Catholic teaching on the Papacy, it is they.

Historic Sedevacantism is a counsel of despair. I urge you to abandon it. I have every sympathy with, and warmly share, your concerns about the current state of things in the Church but to say that Apostolic succession has been lost is not the solution.

If you intend replying, please do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth. If you wish me to clarify any view then simply ask, don't falsely try to put words in my mouth.

Dear Sedelondon,

You attribute to me views that I have not expressed and so attack a straw man. How is that rational or helpful?

Please do me the courtesy of not trying to put words in my mouth and, instead, listen to what I said and read what I wrote.

I have not said that SSPX do not want this information in the public domain. I don't know if they do or if they don't. I don't know if "the Vatican" (I presume you mean the Holy See?) does, either, although I surmise that they don't else they would have publicised it. Obviously, it makes sense to tell people the truth and that is what I have attempted to do. Have you something against the truth that you wish it suppressed?

Neither have I said that I think it "beneficial" to be "regularised". I am simply observing that this is what has, in effect, happened. Don't put words in my mouth.

Having read sermons and books by Archbishop Lefebvre, it is quite clear that he does not share what seems to be your view that the the whole divine institution of the Church is "counterfeit" but only "the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies", by which he means the human bureaucracy, not the divine institution.

Archbishop Lefebvre deliberately did not disparage the Holy See and always regarded the occupant of that See as validly elected to it, not least Pope John Paul II. The fact that one is validly pope does not mean one is above criticism. Without challenging his authority, St Paul rebuked St Peter to his face over his dissimulation regarding customary traditions and because he thereby "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel" [Gal 2.11-14].

The "counterfeit church" of which the District Superiors speak is not, and cannot be, the divine institution of the Church since to call it thus would be to utter a blasphemous heresy. They are clearly speaking of a "counterfeit church" within the true Church that has seized control of certain major organs within the Church so as to spread error. One does not need to be an adherent of SSPX to see that such has, indeed, happened to a greater or lesser extent.

Given your post name of "Sedelondon", it may be that you are one of those who call themselves "sedevacantists" and who think the Holy See is currently vacant and has been for a long time, perhaps even since the reign of Pope Pius XII.

As you know, or ought to know, Archbishop Lefebvre firmly set his face against such a position, as do his followers to this day - and rightly so.

The Sedevacantist position is clearly self-defeating since all bishops today have been chosen and consecrated by popes whom most, if not all, Sedevacantists consider not to be popes, in which case, if this were true, the Church would have failed, there being no successors of the Apostles and no Apostolic succession, and the words of Christ Himself defeated, which it would be gross heresy to claim.

Therefore, I say to you: "cast out first the beam in thine own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye" [Matt 7.5].