@Chat Chartreux-How is the SSPX not in “full communion” with the Catholic Church?John-Paul the Second was a genuine Supreme Pontiff and Marcel Lefebvre provoked the schism of 1988. He was indubitably excommunicated along with the five others because he performed episcopal consecrations after he received an official warning from the reigning Supreme Pontiff formally commanding the Archbishop to refrain from proceeding.
Having many good points about how things should be done in the Church, being treated unfairly to some degree, and saying in public that you don’t care about being excommunicated; all those elements do not give anybody a special right to split from the One Catholic Church.
Then came the schism. Subsequently the Successor of the Apostle Peter had no authority over the new parallel ‘church’ given that Fr. Schmidberger was the administrator and Archbishop Lefebvre the patriarch without ecclesiastical Communion with the Supreme Pontiff to whom obedience and submission are due.
Since then, Pope Benedict XVI removed the excommunication and granted to the clergy of the SSPX only ‘’
Partial Communion’’ and said:
‘’In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.’’-How is “faithful Cardinals and Bishops” abandoning Francis any different from what Archbishop Lefebvre did? Aren’t they just late to the very same circumstances?The two situations are rather opposite.
Francis Bergoglio is not canonically elected since he was not a member of the Church.
Images 1-2-3.
Vision of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich 1820-1821:
“I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it, nor even aware of it. Yet, they are (ipso facto) excommunicated whenever they cooperated to [sic] enterprises, enter into associations, and embrace opinions on which an anathema has been cast[i.e. become Freemasons]
. It can be seen thereby that God ratifies the decrees, orders, and interdictions issued by the Head of the Church, and that He keeps them in force even though men show no concern for them, reject them, or laugh them to scorn.”
----------------------------------Francis has nothing more than his white disguise! He is a notorious homosexualist (promoter) and he teaches that sacramentally unmarried couples can receive the Holy Sacrement!
In the face of the Cardinals and Bishops, Francis got away with his deception (being a fake pope), but the accumulation of his heresies and deeds already have stronger consequences. For instance the last declaration of Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
