Francis Without Mask: Will Admission to Old Rite Institutes Be Suspended?

Ultraviolet is ALL about false analogies and so-called victory dances that make use of pop culture concepts. It's a way to keep the blind from opening their eyes and looking at the facts as they are.

What Ultra fails to see is his/her own 'split' with reality in adopting the falsehood that the pope creates the truth. But maybe that fantasy makes him/her feel safe at night when homework is left undone. <shrug>

That wasn't a "victory dance" and calling it such is just more of your usual verbal flatulence, @pgmgn

"It's a way to keep the blind from opening their eyes and looking at the facts as they are."

Let's rack up all the mistakes you just made... Non Sequitur Fallacy, also, Unsupported Premises, and Fallacy Of Circular Reasoning..The "blind" aren't blind because you say they are. You didn't reference any "facts" either so that criticism falls on its face like the first one did. Lastly the meme I posted won't prevent anyone from making up their own minds, regardless of whatever passes for your half-witted notion of "facts".. You fail on all three points, chum.

"What Ultra fails to see is his/her own 'split' with reality in adopting the falsehood that the pope creates the truth."

Strawman Fallacy. Your claim fails because I routinely criticize Pope Francis for his errors. You should leave reasoned argument to Philosopher, you're no good at this.

"But maybe that fantasy makes him/her feel safe at night when homework is left undone."

Sewage always seeks its own level. :P This is your standard of "intellectual" discussion, that's for certain. Durr hurr "homework is left undone" Your Fallacy Is: Ad Hominem. Imagine if you were right, eh?. It would mean a grown-up just lost another debate to a child. ;-)

No surprise your comment got a "like" from @Steve D who buzzed right over and is now happily crawling on it, laying eggs.

@Ultraviolet Sorry but you are incorrect on this issue. If the SSPX were in the same category as the Orthodox they would be treated differently by the Vatican. They would fall under the jurisdiction of the Pontifical Institute for Interreligious Diologue and would be included in many ecumenical activities throughout the Church. If they were outside the sheepfold, and they are not, they would be treated much better than the rancor and scorn that they receive in many liberal quarters of Catholicism. In Houston Texas, Archbishop Dinardo allows for Methodist concecrations of female Methodist bishops in the Diocean cathedral. They would never extend the ecumeniacal (intentional spelling here) hand of peace and justice that our separated brethren recieve and be offered the honor of using the Houston Diocesan Cathedral for any reason. The SSPX are not included or invited to ecumenical events because they are not viewed in the same way as the Orthodox, Old Catholic Church, or Anglicans or placed in the same category. The analogy is false!

@philosopher On the contrary... observe.

"If the SSPX were in the same category as the Orthodox they would be treated differently by the Vatican."

That's a fallacy known as "Denying the Antecedent" aka an Inverse Fallacy.

It's also a secondary Fallacy of Composition. You assume all schismatics must be treated alike in order to prove they're schismatics.

Secular Counter-Example: all felons are not treated alike under the law, even when the law acknowledges they are all felons.

"If they were outside the sheepfold, and they are not,..."

Every Pope who's been forced to address the SSPX has stated, in one form or another that they are not, at present, in full communion with The Catholic Church. That is, by definition, "outside the sheepfold" as you so eloquently phrased it. Continuing your metaphor, they are sheep who refuse to submit to their temporal shepherd.

(then) "they would be treated much better than the rancor and scorn that they receive in many liberal quarters of Catholicism."

"Rancor and scorn" are neither proof nor disproof of communion with The Church.

Counter-Example: The rancor and scorn traditionalist Latin Mass Catholics in full communion with The Church receive in many liberal quarters of Catholicism. After all, we live in a world where fully Catholic Archbishops expel fully Catholic traditionalist priestly fraternities.

However, the FSSP remains submissive to The Pope and in full communion with The Church, regardless of what rancor and scorn they recieve in some quarters.

Two questions:

Both SSPX and The Orthodox are considered, by The Church, to be not in full communion with The Church? Yes or no?

Both groups do not submit to The Pope's temporal authority? Yes or no?

If the answer is "yes" for either, and especially the latter, then I am correct in my description of what their present status and what both groups are.. My second question references, as I'm sure you know, how The Church defines schism. in Canon Law ...which is not based on cordiality or disinterest, or rancor or scorn.

"In Houston Texas, Archbishop Dinardo allows for Methodist concecrations of female Methodist bishops in the Diocean cathedral."

Thank God I don't live in Texas. The illegal immigrant infestation alone would be intolerable and, unlike so many crawling pests, a can of Raid just doesn't work on them

I'll very gently note that using Houson, Texas to represent the attitude of the entire Catholic Church world-wide is a Fallacy of Composition and, since your claims are both unsupported and (very likely) unverifiable, also counts as a Fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence.

You began with a fallacy and you ended with one. My analogy remains true on the basis of the criteria used to define schism, which is The Church's criteria.

What you forget is an analogy does not need to cover every other possible comparison in order to remain valid .

@Ultraviolet "That's known as denying the Anticedent" -A fallacy fallacy as a premise can be fallacious but the conclusion is still true. My point was not that all schismatics are treated the same, only if they were a separate church like the Orthodox they would be dealt with by the Pontifical Institute for Ecumenism, which deals with separated non-Catholic Christian churches. You're right though, schismatics like Fr. James Martin do recieve different treatment albeit a privileged one. I'll respond to your questions with 2 of my own. First, does the SSPX come under the jurisdiction of the Pontifical Institute for Ecumenism that deals with separated Christian churches i.e. Orthodox. And second, can you show me any specific evidence in a writing or primary source document of the SSPX that explicitly denies the Pope and his proper use of authority-and please papal positivism or ultramontanism will not do.

Yes, count your blessings you are not in the diocese of "traditionalists drive me crazy"-Archbishop Di Nardo- sorry for not providing the link to the quote but it's getting late. Pax

"-A fallacy fallacy as a premise can be fallacious but the conclusion is still true."

In this case it isn't, though I do appreciate the tacit concession by resorting to this line of defense. I -could- turn that fallacy right around on you, but then the same would apply to me.

I'm not basing my argument on the errors in your reasoning, I just like pointing them out for our shared amusement. Your argument isn't just badly reasoned, it's factually wrong. Witness the factual support from every Pope who's ever addressed the status of the SSPX.

"My point was not that all schismatics are treated the same, only if they were a separate church like the Orthodox.... "

My point was that they remain schismatics outside The Church. I don't especially care if The Church considers them a separate church or not,

They can be outside The Church and still not be a separate church of their own.

Their movement was explicitly described as "the schism" by The Pope while raising an especially relevant point:

"Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

So even if Benedict XVI rescinded the excommunication against. Abp. Lefebvre and his merry men, that doesn't change what he remained a schismatic. It also doesn't change JP II's decree that excommunication also applies to those who follow the schism.

Benedict XVI never ah... "countermanded" that last point, either. Oh noes. :P

"You're right though, schismatics like Fr. James Martin do recieve different treatment albeit a privileged one."

I gave no such example and I'll thank you not to Strawman one for me, got that? ;-) The Church hasn't declared Fr. James Martin to be a schismatic like Abp. Lefebvre.

Regardless of his many other teachings contrary to Scripture and The Church Herself, Fr. Martin remains submissive to The Pope... Fr. Jimmy got himself a nice gushy letter from El Francesco as well.

As for your first question, it's better posed to a bona-fide representative of The Church with the authority to asnwer it. Relevant here is the fact a schismatic outside the Church and already identified as such remains one regardless of which office within The Church is assigned to address it.

Real world example. A felon convicted of breaking Federal law and a felon who broke State law are both felons even when they serve their sentences in different facilities and end up with different parole officers.

For your second, it's in bad faith. and isn't worthy of anything short of expose of the under-handed tactics that went into its construction.. Raising "papal positivism" is you laying the ground-work for a Fallacy of Composition, since that allows you to label any quotation in support of the Pope's position as "postivism", including even those written by others. ...

Everything the Pope says isn't always true. But that doesn't prove what the Pope says about the SSPX is false just because he's Pope.

Trust someone defending the SSPX to immediately discredit the Pope as valid source, ironically enough while trying to argue the SSPX aren't schismatics who refuse to submit to the Pope. ;-)

Actually, ultramontanism will do very nicely since Catholics do believe in the concept of Papal infallibility, particularly on matters of faith and morals which certainly covers schism and disobedience.

Likewise, your second question is built around a fallacy of incomplete evidence.

I love all those carefully stacked qualifications. ;-)

"Explicitly denying the Pope" and "a proper use of his authority..." Oh yes... Subjective criteria like that ensures you'll always be able to claim, "that isn't explicit" or "that isn't a proper use..."

Just one problem. You haven't been appointed judge of what "explicitly" denies the Pope or the "proper" use of his authority, what constitutes "papal positivism" or "ultramonatism" or even "schism". I don't accept you as judge for any of those.

You're obviously biased and cherry picking your criteria very, very carefully all to guarrantee a negative answer.

The fact you did so is, in itself, a tacit admission you fully recognize ample evidence does exist to support a positive answer, one don't want to accept. -hence all the stacked and subjective criteria designed exclude all evidence supporting it.

Bad faith answers don't get good-faith answers. They get debunked for what they are.

Good point, Steve D this was not a shining example of a true dialectic where pride is set aside in the pursuit of the truth of a thing in and of itself, but simply a game of fallacy bombardment and saturation in order to establish rhetorical one-upmanship- a good example of sophistry! This is not what we see explicated with Socrates in the Platonic dialogues, nor with St. Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. Not even the scholastics with a heavy emphasis on logic - actually argue in this way. And, the "bad faith" accusation is an ad hominem par excellance. Ultraviolet X-ray radiation may alleviate certain skin conditions, but it doesn't have the power to read a man's mind or soul.

I could care less about winning an argument, but, I do want to know the truth about something in this case what is the exact nature of schism and do the SSPX fall into that category or not. The statement, "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law," is a true statement, but the case of "The Hawaii Six" who were excomunicated by their local bishop for attending an SSPX mass, and the six laymen appealed to Rome, in which case it was overturned and dismissed see- sspx.org/en/hawaii-six-case shows that this does not apply to those attending SSPX masses.

Actually, even through all the sophistic logic chopping, from Ultraviolet, we may have some clarity on the issue. The SSPX does not have a seperate church structure- due to a dissagreement in Catholic doctrine- like the Orthodox, which is why they do not fall under the Pontifical Institute for Ecumenical Dialogue. This (seperate church structure) is a formal structural schism, which does not apply in the case of the SSPX. However, while canon law does include a refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of Church subject to him as a type of material or personal schism, the term submission only pertains to lawful or rightful submission and not submission to any arbitrary rant, rule, or whim of the Pope, or a directive that is harmful to the faith. There is nothing in the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre that denies the office of the pope (something the Orthodox do deny in their doctrines), nor his rightful authority- which is why the SSPX always include the pope in the prayers at mass. If the pope were to send a letter to the Russian Orthodox Patriarch commanding him to say an extra Hail Mary prayer after each mass, they would not feel compelled to comply, as they do not recognize his authority. However, if the pope were to order the SSPX to do so, they would comply. But, a command to stop celebrating the TLM and begin praying the Novus Ordo is an illegitimate order that is an abuse of authority. Pope Benedict XVI, noted many times in his pontificate that the TLM was never abrogated and every priest had the right to offer it without permission. Nor does the SSPX teach or state in any document that a Catholic cannot associate with any other Catholic in the universal Church. SSPX priests are regulars at Fatima and Lourdes along with other Catholic priests and faithful from around the world. So, it simply is not the case that they-the SSPX order- are in schism.

"You are dealing with our resident narcissist, whose arguments rely on sophistry and ad-hominem attacks." @Steve D

...which IS an ad hominem attack right from "our resident Jew-hater". And in your case, "sophistry" gets defined as, calling out your Jew-hating as anti-Catholic, exposing your failed reasoning, and factually disproving your falsehoods. Go cry "to the police" some more.

Funny how you care nothing about this discussion except to criticize me, eh? And then you whine about "cyber-bullying" and "harrassment". Typical hypocrisy from a hypocrite. Keep playing the victim while victiminzing others, at least to the best of your ineffecitve ability.

"If we manage to show and live the totality of Catholicism in these respects, we may well hope that the schism of Mgr. Lefebvre will not last long." J. CARDINAL RATZINGER, Speech to the Bishops of Chile, 13 July 1988, trans. in Canonical Proposal of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, Scranton, Privately Published, 1993, p. 64.

That is what Pope Benedict XVI noted before he was Pope Benedict @philosopher

I"Pope Benedict XVI, noted many times in his pontificate that the TLM was never abrogated..."

Irrelevant to consecrating bishops without a Papal mandate, something Cardinal Ratzinger "noted many times" in letters directly to Abp. Lefebvre.

Again, you're trying to tap-dance between a non-issue and the actual disobedience.

By the way, When you type out a wall of text, you forfeit the right to complain about "saturation".

Likewise, your tailor-made questions are in themselves a dishonest dialectic designed to control the narrative.

You don't want the truth. That last question shows you know what it is already, you just don't like it. Don't shoot the messenger for pointing it out.
s

"And, the "bad faith" accusation is an ad hominem par excellance."

Wrong. I attacked your question on logical grounds. Calling you out on your motive wasn't a substitute for doing so. Your accusation fails.

D for Doggie Steve D might not understand the difference or care care, he'll lick anyone's hand because for him it's "the enemy of my enemy" and nothing else.

"I could care less about winning an argument, but, I do want to know the truth about something in this case what is the exact nature of schism and do the SSPX fall into that category or not."

Really? I saw your quest for the truth with Christopher Columbus allowing his men to rape the natives.

When you didn't like the truth, you went all the way down to questioning the translations of the primary source documents and when I could show a consensus, you demanded photo-scans of the originals.

You know how to hide behind self-serving academia while fatuously advancing how you "could care less about winning an argument"

You fraud. :P Narcissist or not, I'm honest about my motives. I like winning, especially when I'm right.

But... just as a show of good faith, I'll take your self-serving mendacity at face value.

Here: This is why the SSPX is in schism.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1392

When you can refute every single historical point raised and every canonical legal argument presented, get back to me.

"The SSPX does not have a seperate church structure- due to a dissagreement in Catholic doctrine- like the Orthodox, which is why they do not fall under the Pontifical Institute for Ecumenical Dialogue."

It isn't "logic chopping" to note you're repeating your same argument which is a fallacy of repetition. It isn't logic-chopping to point out I've already noted the point you just raised again, has no bearing on them being schismatics or not.

"the term submission only pertains to lawful or rightful submission and not submission to any arbitrary rant, rule, or whim of the Pope, or a directive that is harmful to the faith."

Can 751 makes no such distinction. This is you piling on more of your entirely fabricated extra-legal and purely subjective qualifications to excuse the SSPX from their schism. What you're displaying is more of your Lefebvrist sympathies and its inherently dishonest world-view as you did in your final second question.

"not submission to any arbitrary rant, rule, or whim of the Pope, or a directive that is harmful to the faith."

Abp. Lefebvre was in direct violation of Canon Law. It wasn't an "arbitrary rnat, rule, or whim of the Pope". That's you re-writing history the way the SSPX fans usually do.

"There is nothing in the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre that denies the office of the pope (something the Orthodox do deny in their doctrines), nor his rightful authority- which is why the SSPX always include the pope in the prayers at mass."

Lip-service in the literal sense of the pun. :D

Denying the "office" of the pope and denying the pope's legal authority are two different things. Apb. Lefebvre didn't have the authority to judge if it was "rightful" or not, either.

Pope Paul VI didn't like those "writings" either and noted in his meeting with the man.

--"You said it and wrote it. (That) I would be a modernist pope. By applying an ecumenical council, I would betray the church. Do you understand that if this were so, I would have to resign and invite you to take my place and lead the church?... You told the whole world that the pope lacks the faith, does not believe, that he is a modernist and so on,"--

...and then Abp. Lefebvre started excusing his excoriating rhetoric with kind of soft-focus dance you're pulling here.

--Lefebvre insisted it was never his intention to attack the pope, and he admitted "perhaps there was something inappropriate in my words, my writings."--

Get that. He attacks the pope with a list of accusations and then justifies doing so because attacking the pope wasn't his "intention".

Poor Paul VI. He can't read men's minds or souls any more than UV can but we both can recognize when a man's words and his actions brand him a liar.

"If the pope were to send a letter to the Russian Orthodox Patriarch commanding him to say an extra Hail Mary prayer after each mass, they would not feel compelled to comply, as they do not recognize his authority..."

If the Pope were to send a letter to Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX telling them not to consecrate bishops without authority. Quoting you, "they would not feel compelled to comply, as they do not recognize his authority."

...and that's your quote directly applied to historical fact.The SSPX are schismatics on just this point.

"...However, if the pope were to order the SSPX to do so, they would comply."

Outright speculation on your part.

"But, a command to stop celebrating the TLM and begin praying the Novus Ordo is an illegitimate order that is an abuse of authority..."

NONE of those points were why Abp. Lefebvre was excommunicated. NONE of those points factored into his movement being labelled a schism..

"SSPX priests are regulars at Fatima and Lourdes along with other Catholic priests and faithful from around the world."

Tourism does not prove communion with the Catholic Church.

Now that's just being D for Dumb and the sort of thing Steve D for Doggie would yelp when he's gets swatted with a rolled up newpaper..

You're picking up some bad habits from your new pet, Philosopher.

...proving when you lay down with dogs you wake up with fleas. ;-)

@Ultraviolet Lol! I have been accused of many things, but a fraud, and being of ill-intended motives, and approval of sexual abuse of the natives are three more I'll add to the list. Tisk, tisk, I think you are better than that my friend. Still, Interesting that you think Fatima and Lourdes pilgrimages are just "tourism." O.k. everything depends on how one interprets it.

So, it would seem that your the reason why the SSPX is, in your opinion, in schism comes down to the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre concecrated the 4 bishops without the Pope's approval and to your mind, this shows that he does not recognize the Pope's authority. We have already, covered this ad nausium, but the Archbishop did give the subjective response to the Crisis in the Church based on objective measures..i.e. all of the various indicators of decline in Faith, Morals, and Liturgy that were also noted by many scholars at the time, from Dietrich von Hildbrand see "The Devestated Vineyard" and the "Trojan Horse in the City of God", and Romano Amerio's magnum opus "Iota Unum." Yes, one can say, that he didn't have that right, that it is a subjective response to hang a nail on the Canon Law that allows a bishop in a crisis to ordain without permission of Rome, that only the Pope can say whether there is a crisis in the Church or not. Others, that of course a pope can err in judgment on accurately recognizing a crisis, due to certain presuppositional prejudices. You would more than likely reply that what ever the pope says goes, and if he says there is not a crisis, then there isn't one, so the Canon law Lefebvre claimed does not hold. But, canon law does not say, the pope must approve and publicly state there is a crisis in order for their to be a crisis. Its like as if the Sistine Chapel were on fire, and some bishop nearby says, its on fire, but others tell him, its not a fire until the pope comes out on the balcony and says, its a fire- (O.k,. insert fallacy here______________ fallacy of composition?) And, around and round we go!

I always found it interesting that the Canon Law in which Archbishop Lefebvre was ecommunicated on was Canon 1382- concecration without permission- as you have rightly pointed out many times was explicitly stated in a letter of warning sent by Pope Paul VI. Yet, if Lefebvre and his seminary priests were in schism, why was that not mentioned in the letter? Its amazing that if these acts of concecration were going to be a schismatic act, that there was no mention of schism in the letter. Schism falls under Canon 1364 -offenses against the unity of the Church- that deal with apostacy, schism and herecy. The canonical violation, ( Canon 1382) which the Archbishop was warned, comes under a completely different section of Canon law- usurpation of an eclessiastical function. It was the only Canon cited in the warning letter. However, the general rule and custom in the Church that establishes a canonical penalty- are subject to the rule of strict interpretation, meaning when there is any doubt about the subjective condition of the accussed- it must be interpreted in favor of the accused- or another way of saying it, when their is doubt that a penalty has been inccurred- due to an individuals subjective state- it has not been incurred. The Archbishop believed that there were objective reasons threatening the continuity of the Church was in danger- and relied on the Canon law of a state of necessity. There were objective reason's, at the time, for a crisis and there are 1000x more reasons today. I would guess, that of course none of this matters to you. And, we all know the rest of the story.

"Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law," is a true statement, but the case of "The Hawaii Six" who were excomunicated by their local bishop for attending an SSPX mass, and subsequently, the six laymen appealed to Rome, in which case it was overturned and dismissed see- sspx.org/en/hawaii-six-case shows that this does not apply to those attending SSPX masses.

You have accused me of being dishonest, but I can assure you that if it were the case that one day the pope declared that any Catholic who attends SSPX masses are ipso facto schismatic and bishops are to prosecute excommunication. I would no longer occasionally assist at any of their masses. (Being a parish member of a diocean parish that offers the TLM I do not fail in communing with other Catholics albeit the failure to commune is more than often, I find, among Novus Ordo Catholics).

You can put SSPX Schismatic Apologist at the top of that list, amigo. :)

Unpleasant truth doesn't change because it's unpleasant.

"Still, Interesting that you think Fatima and Lourdes pilgrimages are just "tourism."

Add bogus mind-reader to that list. :P

I don't think Fatima and Lourds are just "tourism" That's a strawman and a another good example of your ill-intentioned motives. However, visiting those sites does not prove communion with the Catholic Church.

"O.k. everything depends on how one interprets it."

No it doesn't. That's Lefebvrist logic and it's shared by the radical Left today, especially left-wing Catholics,when it comes to homosexuality, gender-issues, and abortion. Reality doesn't change based on interpretaton.

"So, it would seem that your the reason why the SSPX is,...

Seem? (I'm being charitable and not picking at the wonky grammar, since I can tell you're writing stream of consciousness and being comparatively civil as well)

No. That's the Church's formal stance, and that of Pope John Paul II. For me, that's the reason why. I'm not basing this on my interpretation of the chain of events or even my interpretation of Canon Law. I'm following that of The Church.

"We have already, covered this ad nausium,..."

That won't stop you from repeating your claims though, will it? ;-)

"...based on objective measures... all of the various indicators of decline in Faith, Morals, and Liturgy that were also noted by many scholars at the time"

There wasn't anything "objective" about it, except Abp. Lefebvre cherry-picking which scholars he wanted to cite. Then he garnished his Cherry Picking with a Fallacious Appeal To Authority (since they're published scholars) and Band-Wagon Fallacy (since he could find a number of them). -or maybe it's just you. ;-)

Further, Abp. Lefebvre didn't mind over 25 years of "crisis" after Vatican II, that became an issue only when the Vatican refused to approve his consecration choices.

THEN there was a "crisis" because he was dying, he knew it, and he didn't have faith that God would preserve the SSPX without his own self-administered "intervention".

"Yes, one can say, that he didn't have that right,"

Thank you for conceding the point. What follows from that concession, based on Canon Law? You're the guy who chose the handle "Philosopher", eh? :)

"the Canon Law that allows a bishop in a crisis to ordain without permission of Rome, that only the Pope can say whether there is a crisis in the Church or not."

...except it wasn't ONLY the Pope. I supplied that link in my last reply for a reason. Many key figures in the Vatican were all telling Abp. Lefebvre he was wrong, he was breaking the law, what would happen as a result of it.

"You would more than likely reply that what ever the pope says goes,"

Strawman Fallacy again. Coupled with a Fallacy of Composition. You can gripe all you want about "logic-hacking" but this is Steve D-grade reasoning from you, albeit with a better vocabulary.

As somone told me once, "Tisk, tisk, I think you are better than that my friend." ;-)

"But, canon law does not say, the pope must approve and publicly state there is a crisis in order for their to be a crisis."

Canon Law does say, "Clerics have a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and to their own Ordinary." -Can. 237

So when the Pope says, "Don't do this..." your contrived argument doesn't give him legal justification to disobey the Pope.

"Yet, if Lefebvre and his seminary priests were in schism, why was that not mentioned in the letter?"

...because the schism didn't formally occur, by the Vatican's interpretation, until the consecrations themselves. That was the "schismatic act" as JP II called it.

Until then, The Church, in Her incomparable charity was still holding out a hand in reconcilliation, in the hopes Abp. Lefebvre was bluffing.

Your argument of, --since it wasn't mentioned beforehand therefore it doesn't apply-- is silly. Especially in light of the lengthy, lengthy paper-trail of warnings, exhortations, cautions, etc sent beforehand by numerous Vatican officials, the Pope included.

"The canonical violation, ( Canon 1382) which the Archbishop was warned, comes under a completely different section of Canon law- usurpation of an eclessiastical function."

...and the subsequent penalty ;-)

"It was the only Canon cited in the warning letter."

Implying there was only one warning letter sent, that it was only sent by the Pope, and that only point of Canon Law ever raised. This is how the SSPX re-writes history. Shame on you. Instant example, one of the most relevant to the claims you made, and by no means unique.

--"on behalf of the Congregation for Bishops Cardinal Gantin issued the following monition on June 17, 1988:

Since on June 15th, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382."-- CONGREGATIONIS PRO EPISCOPIS, Monitum d.no Marcello Lefebvre, p. 2.

"meaning when there is any doubt about the subjective condition of the accussed- it must be interpreted in favor of the accused-"

There wasn't any "doubt" nor was it a "subjective condition" as "Ecclesia Dei" made abundantly clear. Abp. Lefebvre's consecreations were a "schismatic act" his movement called a "schism" and he incurred the penalty of excommunication for it.

This is the same kind of "doubt" Benedict Buddies have over his resignation.

"The Archbishop believed that there were objective reasons threatening the continuity of the Church was in danger-"

What have I told you about being a bogus mind-reader? You don't know what Abp. Lefebvre -believed-. The best you can offer is what he claimed. His claims, however are contradicted by the fact he sat through 25 years of Post-Vatican II craziness without perceiving any "crisis".

No, his claims of "crisis" appeared only as a justification when he didn't get what he want. THAT was the "crisis in The Church". Papa Johannes said "No, don't do that" and then Little Marcel started screaming it's a "crisis".

It's an ugly clerical echo of children who publicly accuse their parents of "abuse" for simply being strict.

"There were objective reason's, at the time, for a crisis and there are 1000x more reasons today."

Speaking of Ad Nauseam... :P Those 1000x rhetorical reasons today did not apply, indeed many did not exist. SSPX apologist love citing the future to retroactively justify the past, hoping everyone will forget the future hadn't happened yet.

"I would guess, that of course none of this matters to you."

...as evidenced by the lengthy, citation-filled replies you receive, yes? :)

"shows that this does not apply to those attending SSPX masses."

Fallacy of Composition. All it shows is it did not apply to the Hawaii Six. Precedent can be derived, but only up to a point.

There could just as readily be other circumstances surrounding attendance where the penalty would apply... specifically since His Holiness wrote "formal adherence to the schism" and not "attending Mass."

I won't presume in my capacity as GTV's Self-Appointed Official Seer to try reading your mind and discern whether you have "formal adherence to the schism".

I will say however, I would gladly wager a year in Hell on the truth of it, with God as our judge. I'd up that wager to a full century for Ave Crux.

"I would no longer occasionally assist at any of their masses."

...ah. So there's the kernel of all this. Fair enough.

"I can assure you that if it were the case that one day the pope declared that any Catholic who attends SSPX masses are ipso facto schismatic and bishops are to prosecute excommunication. I would..."

No you wouldn't. :D

What you would do is exactly what you've been doing here and what Abp. Lefebvre did back then.

You'd "re-interpret" whatever the Pope wrote as a.) not directly applicable b.) not "officially" official for some specious reason c.) circumstantially invalid even if you couldn't manage to avoid a.) and b.).

Again, shades of Abp. Lefebvre's convenient claims of "crisis"

That's what you would do. The SSPX is like Benedict Buddies refusing to accept his resignation.

Under those circumstances, the only statement you and the rest of the SSPX would ever accept from the Pope is the one he didn't give.

Everything else will get picked at and re-interpeted so you can go right on believing what you please, regardless of the everything pointing to the opposite.

This is simply the practical, every-day reality of how SSPX culture works and evidenced by the tactics you're using to defend it.

"The Greek and Russian Orthodox weren't the base of anything when they split back in 1054 AD and they didn't become the base of anything after Vatican II, In a word, I say, and history already says."
---

1. "Russian Orthodox" did not split in 1054. Rus was since the baptism under the influence of the church from Constantinople but did not share with Greeks one liturgical language. Moreover, it had dynastic connections with the "Latin" neighbour - Poland and its rulers did not want to be politically dependent on Byzantium. Therefore, schismatic factors in Rus were weaker than in the Greek empire territory.
The schism started to enter Rus with the growing influence of Greeks in the local clergy - in the 12th century the schismatic bishop of Kiev Greek Nicefor engaged in the anti-Latin polemics presenting Polish Latin neighbors of Rus as apostates. However, the process was gradual. About 1150 Greek monk Theodosius felt compelled to write the anti-Catholic treatise On Christian and Latin faith addressed to the Kievan duke warning him that the Kievan Rus was full of bad people of Latin faith. Catholic missionaries (e.g. St. Hyacinth) were going to Rus even in the 13th century (in 1233 were threw out from Kiev after the pressure of the local "Greek" clergy but delegates from Rus went to ecumenical councils in Lyon convoked by popes). Then... the Mongols came and subdued Russian duchies. The largest political and religious centre - Kiev practically ceased to exist.

2. Even the 1054 act of excommunication of the bishop of Constantinople - Caerularius by papal legates (based on the Filioque question) is a symbolic caesura of the split between the Catholicism and Greek Christianity or rather - Byzantinism (i.e. imperialism of Eastern emperors). On the one side, there were many problems earlier (including the martyrdom by Pope Martin by the Greek Emperor Constans in the 7th century, the 8th century imperial heresy of iconoclasm, the so-called Photius schism, the Byzantine struggle to regain control over Rome and Italy). After 1054 the Byzantine influence gradually made other Eastern bishops fall away from the unity with Rome (in the name of the unity of the liturgical language and rite). In 1453, just after the union of Florence, Constantinople fell to Mehmed and the schism transformed into a political tool of Ottoman imperialism. In the far north-east rulers of Muscovy learnt the lesson and in 1589 established the patriarchate in Moscow as their religious arm of the local imperialism. Very late - in the 19th century the eastern schism evolved into heresy due to the solemn proclamation of dogmas on the Immaculate Conception and the Petrine Primacy.

3. SSPX is neither heretical nor schismatic.

1. "Russian Orthodox" did not split in 1054... @V.R.S.

History contradicts you. "East-West Schism, also called Schism of 1054,"
britannica.com/event/East-West-Schism-1054

Britannica beats your say-so for credibility, VRS.

3. SSPX is neither heretical nor schismatic.

I haven't accused them of the former and Pope John Paul II has already confirmed the latter in "Ecclesia" Dei". I'm sure you can find a Polish translation of the document somewhere.

The Pope, writing as the head of the Catholic Church on a subject of faith and morals, beats your say-so for credibility, VRS.

Go look for another "history fight" someplace where it's relevant.

As a member of the flock, I WELCOME this visitation that is long overdue. Pretending to go with Rome only to speak on the sly to the sheep is deception. (The FSSP has been used long enough. Her priests abused by those who would gag them, fool them into believing they don't 'need' their own bishop, and provide all manner of side-show-shuffling to use these souls as mouthpieces to undermine the truth via controlled opposition.)

Better the truth is outed and individuals come to the realization that a 'full communion' card is the equivalent of a placebo.

Explain why the FSSP "'need' their own bishop" when they find sympathetic traditionalist bishops all over the country (and the world) for ordinations -and have been for over thirty years.

The Vatican can't apply any pressure on "the" bishop for the FSSP because there isn't one. If anything, this is a strength, not a weakness and you're simply too stupid to recognize it as such..

"Pretending to go with Rome only to speak on the sly to the sheep is deception."

Strange how you never castigate Archbishop Vigano for this. As with every issue-drive hypocrite, it isn't "speaking on the sly" that bothers you, it's who does it. --and the FSSP's leadership don't fulminate like Vigano.

I can understand your unhappiness. The FSSP provides a legitimate alternative to the schismatic SSPX. Can't have that... completely undermines the false dilemma of following either "Novus Ordo Francis" or "Saint Lefebvre". :P