Does Francis Want to Strengthen the Society of Saint Pius X?

If Francis were to restrict the Roman Mass, this would be an “abuse of power,” Bishop Schneider told @CatholicHack in a July 9 video interview.

Forcing priests to preside the New Rite would be for Schneider a "violation of spirituality." He doesn’t believe Benedict XVI's claim that the Roman Mass [which is of apostolic origin] and the 1970 New Rite are “two forms” of the same rite [otherwise the New Rite would not have been called "new"]. Schneider calls them “two different rites" because there are "big differences."

He explains that concelebration was never considered as a requirement to show "unity." Thus, Oriental Churches were never asked to concelebrate for such a purpose. An obligation to concelebrate would “contradict the entire history of the Church and the law of the liturgy,” Schneider says.

According to him, forcing the Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP) to co-preside in the New Rite would lead some of its members to join the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) which was founded by “a holy man, a man of God.”

Because Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the PiusX bishops, and Francis granted PiusX priests the faculty to hear confession, it is "difficult" for Schneider to say that these priests are "outside of the Church or schismatics" since they possess ordinary faculties to hear confessions "given by the Pope himself."

#newsFfgjfdfddy

4LikeShare

HerzMariae

Jul 11, 2021

Maybe Francis tries to consolidate all trads into one umbrella group so he can control them that way.

Ultraviolet

Jul 15, 2021

That's the sort of truly devious thinking we, the laity, could expect from The Church's first Jesuit Pope. The good news (and there is good news) is he could never, ever accomplish that. Various trad groups are as separate (and if we're being honest, antithetical) to each other as they are to the Novus Ordo and modernists in general.

Just look at the various "big Catholic blogs" and the unbelievably vicious fights they have among themselves. That's just the laity. Traditionalist priests have a "siege" mentality that far surpasses that. Most priests would, out of a very self-conscious effort to show Catholic charity, refrain that sort of abusive mud-slinging (at least publicly) but they would be blunt in stating that other trad groups (whichever they may be) don't share their ideology and thus they want nothing to do with them.

In general, the SSPX looks at the FSSP as traitors. Unofficially, from what I've seen, the FSSP disdainfully looks at their SSPX "ancestors" in very much the same manner charitable Catholics look at Jews...close to the truth but stubborn in their ignorance and, in practicing ideology, outside The Church with all that entails.

Pope Francis would have an easier time herding an animal shelter's worth of cats stoned on LSD than he would consolidating traditionalists. About the only single thing they agree upon is that the current pontiff is a horrible, horrible person.

stjoseph2

Jul 10, 2021

Jul 12, 2021

1. The situation under Pope Francis is not the same as it was under Pope John Paul II. The excommunications against four of the bishops have been lifted, and the priests of the SSPX have faculties to absolve, which are not needed by schismatics.

2. "Actually it's a false assumption for you and other SSPX apologists to invent a new distiction between 'schism' and 'imperfect communion.'"

A new distinction? Who told you that there is no distinction?

If there is no distinction between "imperfect communion" and "schism," then please point out the Church's teaching that states that.

Give us the Church's definition of "imperfect communion" and show us how Pope Francis is applying that definition to what he has stated regarding giving faculties to the SSPX priests.

Under Pope Francis, what is the status of the SSPX as regards to the term "schism"? Has Pope Francis delcared that the SSPX priests are in "schism"?

Where did you get the idea that "imperfect communion" equals "schism"?

I know in your opinion that those two terms are synonymous, but your opinion on the matter carries as much weight as mine, which isn't very much. What matters is what the Church's teaching on these things is.

Has Pope Francis ruled that the SSPX priests are currently in "schism"? When did he do this?

And if he has not done so, by what authority do you do so?

DJRESQ

Jul 12, 2021

DJRESQ

Jul 13, 2021

Excuse the length.

"If you and the SSPX wish to claim that "imperfect communion" and its variants does NOT indicate schism (even after JP II specifically described Abp. Lefebvre's "movement" as "the schism"), then you must present direct quotes where these Popes and The Church also use this terminology to refer to non-schismatic groups, specifically other societies and fraternities to be exact.”

I have already provided two instances from prominent prelates (not Pope Francis but, rather, his close collaborators) where SSPX priests were referred to, by both, as “Catholics,” so I won’t repeat them here.

To quote you from upthread: "Imperfect communion is, by definition, NOT full communion. Catholics are in full communion with The Church. Schismatics are not."

Although your definitional standard contradicts Cardinal Pozzo’s, there can be no question that the two aforementioned prelates believe SSPX priests to be “Catholics.” They both blatantly state so.

So, in addition to Bishop Schneider, who was sent to the SSPX seminary for a visitation, your understanding is at odds with at least two other prominent prelates.

____

I have also quoted from JPII’s apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei and demonstrated your point that the people who have formally adhered to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre are excommunicated, as you contend.

Your position is that, as a result of their excommunication, such persons are in “imperfect communion,” are “schismatic” (thus, not Catholic) and, as a consequence, are not part of “the faithful.”

Here is Ecclesia Dei again:

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to 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 is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.”

_____

Now let’s get to Pope Francis because he is the reigning pope. It is his teaching on these matters that counts the most because he is the present pope. (An aside: Popes contradict past popes all the time, even on very serious issues, the Formosus episode being one of the most blatant, so if Pope Francis does not agree with JPII on these issues, it's no surprise.)

1. We’ll start with the Letter of His Holiness Pope Francis According to which an Indulgence is granted to THE FAITHFUL on the occasion of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, dated September 1, 2015.

In that letter, Pope Francis uses the term “faithful” or “the faithful” no less than 6 times, including the title.

In each and every instance, without exception, Pope Francis is referring to “Catholics” when he uses the term “the faithful.” Using that term, he isn’t referring to Baptists, Lutherans, or the Orthodox; the letter is written to Catholics.

Keeping in mind that by “faithful,” Pope Francis means “Catholics,” we find this statement:

“A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.”

2. Then we proceed again to what has already been quoted, taken from the Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera of the Holy Father Francis, dated November 20, 2016:

“For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.

3. Referring back to the initial Bull of Indiction of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, Misericordiae Vultus, dated April 11, 2015, Pope Francis stated, in paragraph 3:

"On the following Sunday, the Third Sunday of Advent, the Holy Door of the Cathedral of Rome – that is, the Basilica of Saint John Lateran – will be opened. In the following weeks, the Holy Doors of the other Papal Basilicas will be opened. On the same Sunday, I will announce that in every local church, at the cathedral – the mother church of the faithful in any particular area…”

In those instances, the pope is referring to “Catholics.”

More examples:

4. Crux Magazine, April 1, 2021

ROME – An estimated 100,000 Argentines sent messages to Pope Francis March 13, sharing their opinions regarding the first eight years of his pontificate, and he responded with a video made public Thursday, arguing that the Church is “never wrong” when listening to the “holy faithful people of God.”

“In theological terms, they call it synodality,” Francis said. “It might have many names, but it’s the holy faithful people of God that carries the faith forward and in its own dialect.”

So, in that interview, we have Pope Francis equating “the Church” with “the holy faithful.”

When he uses the word “church,” which church is he speaking about? Isn’t it the Catholic Church?

____

5. Interview with Pope Francis’ close collaborator and fellow Jesuit Anthony Spadaro, America Magazine, September 30, 2013.

A Big Heart Open to God: An interview with Pope Francis | America Magazine

Thinking With the Church

“I keep my questions focused on the theme of the church and I ask Pope Francis what it means exactly for him to “think with the church,” a notion St. Ignatius writes about in the Spiritual Exercises. He replies without hesitation and by using an image.

“The image of the church I like is that of the holy, faithful people of God. This is the definition I often use, and then there is that image from the Second Vatican Council’s ‘Dogmatic Constitution on the Church’ (No. 12). Belonging to a people has a strong theological value. In the history of salvation, God has saved a people. There is no full identity without belonging to a people. No one is saved alone, as an isolated individual, but God attracts us looking at the complex web of relationships that take place in the human community. God enters into this dynamic, this participation in the web of human relationships.

“The people itself constitutes a subject. And the church is the people of God on the journey through history, with joys and sorrows. Thinking with the church, therefore, is my way of being a part of this people. And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this infallibilitas in credendo, this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together. This is what I understand today as the ‘thinking with the church’ of which St. Ignatius speaks. When the dialogue among the people and the bishops and the pope goes down this road and is genuine, then it is assisted by the Holy Spirit. So this thinking with the church does not concern theologians only.”

Accordingly, Pope Francis is crystal clear. When he uses the term “the faithful,” he is talking about “Catholics.” He states that “all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief…”

In that statement, he can be talking only of Catholics as a whole because no other group of people, as a whole, is infallible in matters of belief.

More quote from the same article:

“After a brief pause, Pope Francis emphasizes in a very direct manner the following point, in order to avoid misunderstandings: “And, of course, we must be very careful not to think that this infallibilitas of all the faithful I am talking about in the light of Vatican II is a form of populism. No; it is the experience of ‘holy mother the hierarchical church,’ as St. Ignatius called it, the church as the people of God, pastors and people together. The church is the totality of God’s people.”

____

6. From the official Vatican website:

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS TO THE FAITHFUL FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2020

The pope then exhorts the faithful to pray the Rosary for the month of May. Question: Who are “the faithful” in that letter? Heretics? Schismatics?

Letter of the Holy Father to the faithful for the month of May (25 April 2020) | Francis (vatican.va)

___

7. Pope to grant Plenary Indulgences on World Day of Grandparents and the Elderly - Vatican News

From the official Vatican News agency:

By Vatican News staff writer

In a note released on Tuesday, The Apostolic Penitentiary explains that “in order to increase the devotion of the faithful and for the salvation of souls,” grandparents, the elderly and the faithful will be able to obtain a Plenary Indulgence on the First World Day of Grandparents and the Elderly to be celebrated on 25 July 2021.

Pope has granted an indulgence to “the faithful.” Who are “the faithful.” Heretics? Schismatics?

____

8. Letter signed by the Holy Father to the major archbishop and bishops of the Synod of the Syro-Malabar Church (3 July 2021) | Francis (vatican.va)

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY, RELIGIOUS AND LAITY OF THE SYRO-MALABAR CHURCH

July 3, 2021

"I willingly take the occasion of the recognition of the new Raza Qurbana Taksa to exhort all the clergy, religious and lay faithful to proceed to a prompt implementation of the uniform mode of celebrating the Holy Qurbana…"

The Syro-Malabar Church is an Eastern Rite Catholic Church. Who is the pope referring to when he uses the term “lay faithful”?

Heretics? Schismatics?
___

Within the eight sections, I have given about two dozen, or so, quotes that clearly demonstrate that, when Pope Francis uses the term “faithful” or “the faithful” he is referring to “Catholics,” that is, members of the Catholic Church.

To the reigning Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Francis, the terms “the faithful” and “Catholics” are synonyms. They refer to the same reality.

“The faithful” = “Catholics.”

I would venture a guess that most people would consider such a thing a “no-brainer.” When a pope uses the term “the faithful,” he’s referring to his own flock, i.e., members of the Catholic Church.

So, we have established that, in Pope Francis’ parlance, the term “faithful” or “the faithful” is equivalent to the term “Catholics.” I have presented numerous examples of it, and there is no doubt in my mind that many more could be shown, as Pope Francis likes to speak and issue statements.

Now, keeping in mind that, to Pope Francis, the term “faithful” is synonymous with the term “Catholics,” let’s revisit some of his official communications and plug that in.

Letter on the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, dated September 1, 2015.

“A final consideration concerns those faithful (i.e., those “CATHOLICS”) who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful (i.e., these “CATHOLICS”) through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.”

Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera of the Holy Father Francis, dated November 20, 2016:

“For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful (i.e., those “CATHOLICS”) who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, (i.e., these “CATHOLICS”) and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”

Consequently, Pope Francis was referring to “Catholics” in those two letters when he was referring to the faithful who frequent the SSPX chapels.

To deny that, is to deny reality. What other religion, other than the Catholic one, could he have possibly been referencing there? Methodists? Presbyterians? Coptics?

When Pope Francis discusses “the faithful,” he’s referencing “Catholics.”

But… that poses problems for your views because you don’t believe that such people actually are “Catholics.” You believe they are excommunicated per Ecclesia Dei, have “imperfect communion,” are “schismatic,” and are thus not Catholic.

Compare the following:

1. A. JPII: “…to 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 is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.”

2. B. Your statement: "Imperfect communion is, by definition, NOT full communion. Catholics are in full communion with The Church. Schismatics are not."

3. C. Pope Francis: “A final consideration concerns those faithful (i.e., those “CATHOLICS”) who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful (i.e., these “CATHOLICS”)…”

4. D. Again Pope Francis: “For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful (i.e., those “CATHOLICS”) who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, (i.e., these “CATHOLICS”)…”

Hopefully I have given enough quotes on this particular matter to satisfy.

Now a summary of the issues.

1 1. Your position, as quoted by you: "’Imperfect communion’ is, by definition, NOT full communion. Catholics are in full communion with The Church. Schismatics are not.”

2. 2. Also your position: Those people who have adhered to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre are excommunicated per Ecclesia Dei, have “imperfect communion,” are “schismatic,” and are not “Catholic” because they are not in full communion with the Church.

3. 3. Pope Francis refers to the people who frequent the chapels of the SSPX, that is, “those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre”(ED), as “the faithful.”

4. 4. Pope Francis uses the term “the faithful” as a synonym for the term “Catholics," and has done so numerous times during his pontificate.

5. 5. Ergo, Pope Francis believes that “those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X” are “Catholic,” as he has equated those terms numerous, numerous times over the course of his pontificate.

Accordingly, your position is in direct contradiction to the position of the Sovereign Pontiff Pope Francis on these matters.

Do you not see the problems with your position when compared with the teaching of Pope Francis?

DJRESQ

Jul 13, 2021

Correction to one thing: Pozzo is not a cardinal; he is an archbishop.

Ultraviolet

Jul 14, 2021

Whoo boy...Looks like I've riled up the ultimate SSPX fan-boy. Here's part one. I'll ask that you defer from another dissertation-length rejoinder until I've replied to both parts of this first one.

Here's Part One.

"I don't use "rhetorical tactics";

Yes you do. Putting words in my mouth is a Strawman Fallacy.

" I merely take, to its logical conclusion, what you yourself have stated."

"...and that's throwing your Strawman Fallacy down a Slippery Slope Fallacy". Especially since your "logical conclusion" isn't anything of the sort because I keep needing to correct it.

"If you say, "I believe A = B and B = C," it is not a "rhetorical tactic" to say, "Well, Ultraviolet believes A = C"; it's merely the logical conclusion that can be drawn from your statement."

But that's what you're not saying. When you derive a "logical conclusion" you then say, "therefore your answer to the question is "J" and it isn't.

"Quoting the popes is meaningless if you don't understand what is meant by what they said. And you don't understand."

I understand what the word "schism" means when Pope John Paul describes Abp. Lefebvre's movement, thanks. :P

"When referencing Catholics, no pope has ever stated that "imperfect communion" equals "schism," and the Church has no such teaching because it has no precise definition of "imperfect communion" as that applies to Catholics."

Little wonder why no pope has ever suggested such a thing "when referencing Catholics". Why should the pope state such a thing when addressing those already in full communion with the Church and subordinate to him? :P

"According to you, a person who is in "imperfect communion" is a schismatic and is therefore not a Catholic."

According to me? That isn't a quote. That's the first of what we will soon see is an endless series of YOUR "logical conclusions" which are anything but logicl.

Actually, my position is the SSPX is "imperfect communion" and are schismatics. That is my position. "A person" is might not even be a Catholic. "A person" might be an Orhtodox, not of the SSPX, and still in "imperfect communion".

So I'm going nip this "According to you" garbage right here and now.

"That's an understandable point of view"

Your point of view... and attributed to me.

" but what you need to understand is that the hierarchy is not using those terms in the same manner as you understand them when it comes to the SSPX. Same terminology, different meanings."

The Pope is not "the hierarchy". Also... Oh wow... :P

The same words with different meanings. So when John Paul II uses the word "schism" it now carries a "different meaning". No. What you're demonstrating is pure cognitive dissconect, that's bordering on something akin to autism.

You and perhaps others like you are literally speaking a different language than the rest of us. Words like "imperfect communion" and "schism" now have the "Same terminology, different meanings."

No. That isn't how Catholic terminology works.. Or at least it doesn't for Catholics who aren't schismatics who pretend they aren't to the point where they need to re-define the language itself.

"You're conflating what each of the popes have said and done as if there were no differences among them. That's where your misunderstanding lies."

When a pope says "not in full communion" and another pope says "imperfect communion", yes, the terminology is different but the meaning is the same.

"Unitatis Redintegratio," which is where the novel phrase "imperfect communion" crops up for the first time (I'm assuming you weren't born yet), addressed the circumstances of those who were already outside the Church. It had no application to Catholics. Archbishop Lefebvre was a Catholic.

"So, the "imperfect communion" of UR has no application here."

Wrong. A term applies when the conditions are met. A term used for schismatics applies when a Catholic places themself in that state.

If anything your claim supports my position.

...because when each and every Pope descibes the SSPX with some variation of "imperfect/ not full communion" they are, by your own claim, describing the SSPX in the same way as "those outside the Church".

That's the same terminology, with the same meaning applied to the same condition.

Well done. :D

"The "imperfect communion" as used by Popes Benedict and Francis has a different meaning from UR because it addresses a different situation, as is evident from what they've stated about it and as I'll demonstrate below."

Nonsense. Schismatics refuse to recognize the authority of the Pope and do whatever they please in defiance of him. Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX does the same. Hence, these Popes use the same kind of terminology "Unitatis Redintegratio," uses to describe schismatics for the SSPX.

"I understand why you don't wish to discuss Church history; in no way does it support your understanding of "imperfect communion" and "schism.""

Wrong. You wish to discuss it because it allows you the opportunity to fabricate complicated analogies that don't apply to this situation. That's the difference between us.

Simply put, you want to talk about different circumstances, derive conclusions from them and then apply them incorrectly.

"I have stated your position accurately concerning your understanding of the concepts of "full communion," "imperfect communion," and "schism" because you have made it clear."

Fallacy of Circular Reasoning. "I'm right because I'm saying you made it clear to me therefore I'm right." :P

This is the first of many, many instances where you claim you've stated my position "accurately" when you have done no such flippin' thing. :D

"However, your stance requires the belief that millions of Catholics during the western schism (and at other times) were not actually Catholic, including numerous (later canonized) saints and even several popes."

My stance addresses the SSPX and how The Popes have described the SSPX now, using the terminology derived from "Unitatis Redintegratio" to address schismatics.

I will not allow you to conflate my stance on the SSPX and Lefebvre with people who lived hundreds of years earlier under radically different circumstances. Pope John Paul II was not addressing them. Benedict XVI was not addressing them. Francis is not addressing them. I am not addressing them.

Got it?

Since you are unable to contradict these Popes or "Unitatis Redintegratio," when they address the SSPX your solution is to focus on a different set of circumstances, different groups, different popes, centuries before the SSPX even existed or "Unitatis Redintegratio," was even penned.

Talk about moving the proverbial goal-posts. :D If anything, the fact you're forced to do this shows you can't defend your position in the current situation under the current circumstances.

Your argument is then, UV is wrong about the SSPX because what UV says about the SSPX doesn't apply to every schismatic group in history'.

No kidding.

That's a Fallacy of Composition.

My stance on the Archbishop Lefebvre in 1984 doesn't need to address Constantinople Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054 to remain valid.

"The history of the Church amply demonstrates that the way you understand the terms "imperfect communion" vis-a-vis "schism," when applied to Catholics, is false because your understanding requires the belief that several popes were schismatics and not Catholic."

...by your own admission, the term "imperfect communion" appeared in "Unitatis Redintegratio,". Therefore the history of the Church in no way shows it ever was used in connection with the great schism.

My understanding of the term addresses the current situation, not the fallacious conclusion you're reaching by misapplying it elsewhere.

"Pope John Paul II died in AD 2005. The situation has changed since his death. The excommunications were lifted years ago. That's number 1."

Fallacy of Repetition. You've already made this argument and I've already countered it. The terminology these popes use is consistent, regardless and -in spite of- the excommunications being lifted. If anything, the fact all these popes continue to use the same terminology shows the status of the SSPX has NOT changed.

"Number 2, in reference to Pope Francis' apostolic letter, by stating this, "His generosity is 'for the pastoral benefit' of the laity, not the SSPX," you're apparently forgetting the other portion of what John Paul II stated in Ecclesia Dei:

"In 1988, the number of people who "formally adhered" to "the schism" numbered close to a million, spread out over several continents, and it has done nothing but grow since then."

Bandwagon Fallacy. Just because a lot of people adopt an error doesn't change the fact they ARE in error.

How many otherwise loyal Catholics today support abortion?

Islam has continued to grow over time as well. That doesn't prove that Mohammed was a prophet of God.

"Thus, your position is that, not only the priests of the SSPX, but also the hundreds of thousands of laity involved are also in schism. In other words, you don't believe the laity involved are Catholic either."

...and once again, you reort to fabricating my position and beliefs. :D When I quote, say, Pope Francis describing the priesthood of the SSPX. I don't need you "concluding" my quote also applies to the laity.

"That is your position here, and I'm relating it accurately."

WRONG. ..that is not my position. The laity are not the priesthood.

Strawman Fallacy. This particular one you repeat over and over with variations throughout the remainder of your nigh-interminable rebuttal.

"JPII definitively stated that the laity who formally adhere to the schism also incur the penalty of excommunication."

That's you putting words in JP II's mouth the way you do mine. JP II didn't even use the word "laity".

Let's quote JP II.

"all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill 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..."

Where is the word "laity"? Further, you're conflating "support" with "linked" with "formal adherence" a distinction JP II drew which you are erasing.

This also forms a major "Strawman Fallacy" sub-theme in your examples.

"But by taking that position, you're directly contradicting the reigning pontiff."

Fortunately, I'm NOT taking that position, it's one you're deriving on my behalf, as usual.

"See Misericordia Et Misera, no. 12, in pertinent part: "For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the pastoral benefit of these faithful..."

...attending a church does not automatically presuppose "formal adherence" or even "support".

A traditionalist can, and if no other options are available, SHOULD attend a Novus Ordo Mass to fulfill their Sunday obligation. It doesn't mean the traditionalist supports the Novus Ordo ideology, or is "linked" to it, or adheres to it, formally, informally, or otherwise.

"In order to remain true to, and consistent with, what you have been advocating, the only logical answer you can have is, "No, Pope Francis was not addressing Catholics there because they have been excommunicated as a result of formally adhering to the schism of the SSPX, and nothing has changed since JPII. They are in 'imperfect communion' and, thus, in 'schism.'"

Wrong,and that is NOT what I have been "advocating". or the reasons I just gave. I repeat... ...attending a church does not automatically presuppose "formal adherence" or even "support" for the ideology of its clergy.

If there were no other options and the only alternative was falling into mortal sin, I would attend a Mass celebrated by Fr. James Martin, SJ

That doesn't mean I support his error-riddled ideology.

"In light of your views enunciated in this thread, how can you come to any other conclusion?"

Don't use the word "enunciated" when every time you reference my views, they're conclusions of your own.

You aren't quoting me, so don't you dare use the word "enunciate" when addressing my views, muchacho.

It's easy to come to any other conclusion when "My" views are...

a.) conclusions you derived with "logic" to suit your position

b.) hen re-applied to examples you've chosen under entirely different historical circumstances

c.) the nonsense produced with a.) and b.) are ascribed to me as "my views" thus "enunciated"

"Again, that's your position, and I'm stating it accurately, using common sense and mere logic:"

Again, that's wrong for the reason I just gave

Likewise your points 1. - 5.) That's YOUR description of my position, and inaccurate at that, not my position.

Simply put, you've done the same thing to me that you've done to the popes. You can't quote me, or them, because our words don't support your twaddle. Instead, you "derive" positions and "stances" we didn't take on issues and situations we didn't address.

1. "Excommunication" equals "imperfect communion" equals "schismatic" equals "not Catholic."

Perfect example. Excommunication does NOT "equal" "imperfect communion". Apostates are excommunicated and they have NO communion whatsoever. See? This is why I'm tired of you "accurately stating" my "stance" for me.

...because you don't.

"3. "SSPX priests" and "SSPX laity" (for lack of a better term) are guilty of "formal adherence to schism" and are thus excommunicated."

That's another winner. :P, which I just corrected regarding the differences between "support" "linked" "attending" and "formal adherence'.

Pope Francis stated the SSPX priests need to recover full communion. He . He granted them limited faculiy for "these faithful" , namely the laity who may attend their churchs.

Again, the laity are not the priests.

But then you come along and "accurately state" my position derived with what you believe it to be "using logic". :D

...and, again, you don't.

The same applies to points, 4. and 5.) for similar reasons. The laity are not the SSPX preisthood. When Pope Francis addresses the priesthood, you then "logically" conclude I take that to mean Pope Francis also means he's referring to the laity as well.

...and that isn't necessarily the case.

In essence, your laughable logic is nothing more than one fallacy piled on top of another... in this case a fallacy of composition attributed to me as a strawman fallacy.

"because JPII addressed them in the very same document he addressed the SSPX priests."

Quote JP II verbatim where he used the term "laity". You can't, you haven't, and you won't because once again, you're putting words in JP II's mouth.

"According to you, the "faithful" the pope was speaking about are neither faithful nor Catholic."

"According to you..."

No, that's according to YOU, and then attributed to me as derived from your "logic", which by now I have shown isn't even remotely worthy of being called such.

Borrowing your phrase, 'Same terminology, different meanings".

...because like so many people who throw the term "logic" around, you don't have the slightest conception of what that term means or how to avoid one logical fallacy after another.

By now, you've used up all the hay produced in Texas stuffing your Strawmen Fallacies inevitably prefaced by "according to you" or "I'mma statin' yer position accurately" or some other self-justifying manure.

"You referred to them as "the laity" up above. But "the laity" of... what? A schismatic church?"

...and that's YOU answering your own question.

No, the laity Pope Francis referred to, not you.

Let's quote the man himself since you won't.

"For the pastoral benefit of these faithful..." namely those who, for one reason or another, attend churches with SSPX priests."

They may be faithful, even if, heh.... "for one reason or another" their shepherds are not.

"How can someone be "schismatic" and "faithful" at the same time?"

See my last point.

"So, to distill your position, what you believe with regard to Pope Francis' act here is..."

Do NOT "distill" my posiition for me with another "what you believe.... is".

You can't "distill" my position without warping it into something utterly different any more than you ever directly quote John Paul or Francis without "distilling" what they say into something else entirely.

You don't "distill" any more than you "quote"..

When Francis addresses SSPX priesthood needing to recover full communion, he's talking about the priesthood. You then "distill" it into "the laity".

When John Paul II exhorts against giving "support" you then "distill" that into being identical to "formal adherence" even though he made a clear distinction between the two.

That isn't "distilaltion", that's alteration.

"In other words, you believe that Pope Francis was legislating something in that letter for priests and laity of a different church, not Catholics."

No. As I've already pointed out, repeatedly now, that's a false conclusion YOU have derived because YOU are conflating his reference to the priesthood with the laity. They are NOT the same

You are choosing to conflate them, for obivous reasons. I don't believe they are the same and I refuse to have you claim otherwise.

"In your view, priests and laity alike are excommunicated, as both groups have formally adhered to "schism."

Wrong. Again. For the same reasons stated above.m MY view is inot the same as "in your view".

"Any backpedaling on your part as to whether the "faithful" mentioned by Pope Francis in that letter are actually Catholics will cause the edifice of your assertions regarding "full communion," "imperfect communion," and "schism" to crumble."

How lucky for me, then. :D Because Pope Francis wrote, "trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church,"

Pope Francis is talking about "their priests" needing God's help "for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church".

Did he say "of these faithful" need God's help? No.

He's granting faculties For the pastoral benefit of these faitthful" but they're not the ones' who need God's help. "their priests" do.

See the difference? No "back-pedalling" on my part, just more of your endless fabrications, derivations, conflations, and "distillations" all muddled up and then attributed to me.

"The only position you can possibly hold on the matter is..."

Here we go again. :D

"the "faithful" referenced by the pope are not Catholic faithful but the faithful of some other church because they are excommunicated and, thus, in "imperfect communion" as a result of formal adherence to schism."

LOL... no. That's YOU inventing a position based on YOUR conclusions, YOUR premises, which I've taken no small amount of effort to repeatedly correct here.

Again, Pope Francis was addressing "their priests" needing the recovery of full communion and not "these faithful" who may or may not even "formally adhere" to the view of their shepherds.

After all, even Pope Francis acknowledged they may only be attending their churches "for one reason or another".

...none of those reason may include support or even knowledge of every belief the priest or holds.

"Question for you: Do you honestly believe that Pope Francis thought he was not referring to Catholics when he used the term "faithful" in that letter?"

Question for you.: Do you honestly believe that Pope Francis thought "these faithful" are the same as "their priests" in that letter?

"Do you see the corner you've painted yourself into?"

We're not even standing in the same building. :D

"Further, by asserting that the priests of the SSPX are not Catholic, which you did above, you directly contradict what Catholic prelates have stated in their regard.""

Did I now? Above? :D

You couldn't cut 'n paste a quote with some italics the way I've been doing?

Fancy that. No, you've derived that "assertion", as usual.

...then having woven your strawman pinata, you go after it with your stick. :D

...but even that you can't do right. Swing and a miss.

Protip: Cardinal Poli is not Pope Francis.

What Cardinal Poli wrote to the government of Beunos Aires is not what Pope Francis wrote about the SSPX ..

"Do you see how this contradicts your view?"

"My" view? The one you're not quoting verbatim?

"My" view that you've concluded on my behalf? Is that "my" view? No. It's your view.

"Do you see how Cardinal Pozzo used terminology in a manner that differs from your understanding?"

Fallacious Appeal To Authority. Archbishop Pozzo could be wrong. He isn't automatically right simply because he's clergy . Witness Cardinal Marx and Fr. Martin with their support of homosexuality.

Also Fallacy of Compostion. Archbishop Pozzo is not Pope Francis.

My view of the SSPX is based on what Pope Francis wrote, what Benedict XVI wrote, what John Paul II wrote about the SSPX

...not what Archbishop Pozzo wrote to the government of Buenos Aires. :P

"But you're not correct, because you don't understand how the hierarchy is using those terms with reference to the SSPX and how the hierarchy makes distinctions as it applies them to different people."

Unfortunately for you, I'm not quoting "the hierarchy" I'm quoting the Popes, not Cardinals. :

"Pope Francis has never stated that the SSPX is "schismatic," and he has called the people who frequent their chapels "faithful," in other words, Catholics."

Again, people who frequent their chapels are not their priests.

Every stinking, drunken bum who walks into an SSPX chapel to get out of the cold isn't automatically a Catholic, much less one of "these faithful". Moar fallacies of composition.

"Have I supplied enough quotes? This is too long, but if you need more, let me know."

I believe I asked you to quote the Popes as I have.

Archbishop Pozzo is not the Pope. Cardinal Poli is not the Pope. Just as "these faithful" are not "their priests". Different terminology with very different meanings.

"And if you want me to further explain the western schism and how the facts of history do not support your understanding, let me know that as well."

The facts of history? Buddy, you can't even quote the Popes or even me without "distilling" it into something else entirely. Stay the heck away from history. :D

"the logical conclusions that must be drawn from the positions they take and the assertions they make."

There's your problem, amigo. You've spent an enormous amount of time refuting YOUR "logical conclusions" .not THEIR positions, or MY positions, and certainly not THEIR words or mine.

....and nobody "must draw" or ever should draw the same asinine fallacies you have.

Ultraviolet

Jul 14, 2021

Lovely... "Argentina formally recognizes".

Is Argentina Rome? No.

"I will provide the quotes after this post; however, I can't speak for the SSPX."

It's a comment, not a post. ...and why can't you speak for the SSPX. You clearly have no problem putting words in my mouth, JP II's mouth, Benedict XVI's mouth, Francis' mouth.

You present our "stances" and "positions" for us, why do you suddenly become so squeamish in doing the same for those you're so enthusiastically defending? Why the sudden reluctance in fabricating THEIR position for them?

Why not toot out a few more flatulent "conclusions that must be drawn based on the positions they take"? Don't stop now, amigo. The comments thread stinks enough from your previous efforts, don't stop now.

"One thing though: The medieval history cannot be disputed, as the historical record speaks for itself and cannot be changed."

:D . Neither can my comments, or JP II's or Benedict XVI's or Francis'. But all it takes is one joker "distilling" them into something else or deciding which "conclusions must be drawn" and medieval history can be disputed into anything he chooses to present.

It's called "historical revisionism" and it's invariably done with people who have an axe to grind and a bogus agenda to push.

...which is why I refuse to get drawn into your medieval history game. If I want to spend the entire evening diddling around with some idiot's fantasy version of medieval history, I'll go watch "Game Of Thrones." I've got all eight seasons on Blu-Ray.

"There is no "fatuous reasoning"; there is, however, proof positive that your assertions are not correct."

My assertions about the SSPX are direct quotes from the Popes who have been forced to address them, not your medieval history which doesn't address the SSPX at all.

"You pasted a quote from me, but that has been altered and omits the relevant portion:"

Thers' nothing "relevant" about it. Likewise, that omission in no way alters the fact you're not quoting me. You're answering on my behalf even after I have repeatedly told you not to do so.

...and answering an ambiguous question with two different alternatives, no less.

Your unedited version doesn't change that. I repeat.

You are not quoting me, so "your answer" as you call it is NOT my answer.

Speaking bluntly, if I "truncated" a quote from you, it's still a step up because it IS stilla quote from you. You haven't been quoting me. You haven't been quoting the Popes. Archbishop Pozzo, sure. :D Everybody else gets a bit truncated, distilled and concludted into something that pleases you.

Well, well, well.. what a fine thought! So you -do- understand the concept of a direct quote.

How nice... :D

What an exquisite double standard you display.

You're -so- ever-lovin' touchy when your quote gets "truncated" but you have no problem at all fabricating my answers for me outright. "Your answer is no" even when I never answered your ambiguous question in the first place.

By "truncating" I, ah... how DID you phrase it? Ah yes, "I merely take, to its logical conclusion, what you yourself have stated." :D

After all, if you say, "I believe A = B and B = C," it is not a "rhetorical tactic" to say, "Well, DJRESQ believes A = B"

Even if I didn't include "B =C". it's truncated but if I'm addressing A and B your "relevant portion" about "C" doesn't have any bearing on it.

...and that is, after all, "According you". It may be a bit re-worded but when has THAT ever stopped you, eh? :D

The same felllow who's been spouting off endless nonsense like "your postion is" all night is SO quick to call it out the instant is own quote gets a bit "truncated".

Funny how that works.

"I understand why you did not answer it directly and don’t want to refer to “medieval” precedents, as they disprove what you assert, but the unalterable point is this:"

They're irrelevant to what the current Popes have written in current era about a current group, namely the SSPX.

There's another reason and I'll quote it verbatim...

"(An aside: Popes contradict past popes all the time, even on very serious issues..."

You can't even get your arguments straight. You're quick to justify citing ancient history centuries before the SSPX even existed as relevant today and then just as quick to discount the writing of one pope in direct response to their founders' disobedience less than fifty years ago.

No surprises there. I understand why you would much rather re-focus the entire discussion on your conclusions drawn from your examples from medieval history where you (as so many biased historians do) selectively re-write and then re-interpret to support whatever conclusion you wish to reach.

...and I'm not going to allow that. If you want to jump into your wonky way-back machine, go watch some Doctor Who. :D

"A person can be mistaken as to who is actually the pope (e.g. Pope Francis versus Pope Benedict XVI, as some assert) and yet still be a Catholic."

Fallacy Of Repetition.

You pulled this one before. Must I requote myself? I'll answer my own question. I'd better because you won't. Quotes haven't been your style, not in this kind of a debate.

So here's the relevant Copy Pasta Al Fredo...

---
Pope Paul VI's papal legitimacy wasn't questioned when he promulgated "Unitatis redintegratio" describing chismatics as "separated from full communion with the Catholic Church" and " this communion is imperfect."

Pope John Paul II's papal legitimacy wasn't questioned and he expressly called Abp. Lefebvre's movmement "the schism" while affirming the validity of the latae sententiae excommunication.

Pope Benedict XVI's papal legitimacy wasn't questioned and he invited "the Bishops and the 'Society of St Pius X' to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church."

As one of the architects of Vatican Council II, his terminology stems directly from "Unitatis redintegratio". He invite them to "rediscover the path to full communion with the Church" because like any other schismatics they are as the decree states, "separated from full communion with the Catholic Church"

Pope Francis's papal legitimacy is questioned, but only by Benedict XVI's "buddies," even though Benedict himself has repeatedly acknowledged the legitimacy of his successor. Francis also continues using the same Church terminology used for schismatics when referring to the SSPX, hoping "for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church".

These are all legitmate Popes and their terminology is consistent when referring to schismatics, including the SSPX.

---

"That’s a fact that cannot be argued against because the historical record proves it to be true. "

I'm quoting you because ironically enough, your words apply to mine perfectly. :D

Oh wait... I didn't fully quote the next nine paragraphs. I truncated you! Still... the "relevant portion" applies. ;-)

"yet those people were still Catholic, despite the fact that they were mistaken."

Irrelevant to the issue here. Even with Francis we don't have "entire nations" and saints disputing his papacy. This is why I'm not going to humor irrelvancies from a two-bit medievalist.

"Historical precedent demonstrates your understanding..."

The direct quotes from the Popes who are addressing the situation of the SSPX demonstrate I know exactly what their current status is.

What historical precedence shows about 1054 doesn't change what Pope John Paul II wrote within living memory about the Archbishop and his cronies.

In short, you've made a Non Sequitur Fallacy. "It does not follow".

"I realize that my statements above may make some feel people uncomfortable; nevertheless, they're true."

I can't speak for "some people's" comfort but I can speak for my own. Given your willingness to speak FOR me, I'd better do so before YOU fill that in as well.

Otherwise, your next reply will be telling me how I feel as readily as you''ve already claimed to know what I think and how easily you fabricate what "my answer" is what "my position" is, and so on,

Your statements are neither true, nor logical, nor uncomfortable. At this point, they're little different than the sort of talking points one gets from any autist whose cherished yet factually-indefensible beliefs have been shaken to their core..

Because of this, your statements deserve nothing better than to be played as a literary straight-man for my own academic amusement illuminated by whatever technical corrections I see fit to supply.

"Do you deny the historal fact that there were people in the past (saints and entire nations) who did not recognize the true pope but were still in "full communion" with the Catholic Church? Are you denying that?"

Do you deny that Pope John Paul II referred to Archbishop Lefebvre's movement as "the schism" Are you denying that? Are you denying he was referring to he SSPX? Or has Archbishop Lefebvre created several movoements? Are you including his bowel movements as movements? :D

Are you trying to draw another analogy from medieval history because modern Popes are entirely too explicity for your liking? Borrowing your line of Strawman Fallacies you fob off as "conclusions that must be dranw" then "your answer is yes."

Oh dear... I suppose your next reply will point out not only did I deliberately truncate your several of your quotations, I even quoted them out of context. Consider it a "distillation". :D

Such is the difference between satire of your position and a Strawman Fallacy seriously presented as "your position".

One more comment from Ultraviolet

Ultraviolet

Jul 14, 2021

"Excuse the length."

No need. :) I've waded through longer manure on GTV. You're nothing compared to the autistic anti-Semites who defend E. Michael Jones with the same fervor you do the SSPX.

Some of those guys... now they were impressive. There was this one...

I burned through two six-packs of RedBull in two days fact-checking him. I say this before God, I haven't cracked a RedBull all night. Seriously, you're that bush-league.

Only after the fact did I realize I wasn't really arguing with him. He was actually plagiarizing Jones himself while defending him. That, I'll admit, cracked me up. Go right ahead, you can prattle on as much as you like.

In a way, it's a compliment since I've obviously struck very, very close to home for you to get THIS riled up. Not a problem for me, I may not like Francis, but I'm a Catholic who, like it or not, submits to him.

Heck, I've defended the legitimacy of his Papacy to the point where those who were getting beaten as badly as you are now started calling me the "Bergoglian". :D

Sounds like something straight out of Lord of The Rings.doesn't it?

"SSPX Sauron Battles The Bergoglian."

Given your fixation with medieval irrelevancy instead of the oh-so-uncomfortable words of modern Popes, you should be pumping out wanna-be "Tolkien" the way R.A. Salvatore does. Guy's made a fortune with his maudlin emo-elf character.

"I have already provided two instances from prominent prelates (not Pope Francis but..."

But... I asked for quotes from the Popes didn't I?

And this is how you answer... "but..." with some "close collaborator" excuse to legitimize putting their words in Francis' mouth the way you shove your own in there.

"so I won’t repeat them here."

God forbid. It might lengthen your comment by another thousand words or so and it's obvious you're a writer who favors brevity. ;-)

"To quote you from upthread:"

...and you actually did! Without actually scanning the last fifty or sixty thousand words, I do believe this is the FIRST time you've done so. We're making some progress here!

I'm glad I haven't been hitting the RedBull. A can or two of that stuff and a shock like this might be the death of me.

"Although your definitional standard contradicts Cardinal Pozzo’s,"

Actually, it doesn't because you're fabricating his position. That didn't take long.

Il Pozzo didn't use the word "schismatic" once.

So MY "definitional standard" (ugh... that is so verbose) of "schismatic" isn't contradicted by Signore Pozzo. Nowhere did he say Catholics are NOT in full communion with The Church either. Double negative, but still accurate since Catholics ARE in full communion with The Church.

So my quote "Imperfect communion is, by definition, NOT full communion. Catholics are in full communion with The Church. Schismatics are not." wasn't contracting or contradicted by the Archbishop.

..and an Archbishop is not a Pope. Let's not forget I asked for quotes from the Popes who've had to deal with the SSPX.

So your "definitional standard" of Pope shouldn't include non-Popes when supplying the requested quotations. :D.

"I have also quoted from JPII’s apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei and demonstrated your point that the people who have formally adhered to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre are excommunicated, as you contend."

Do you want a pat on the head for agreeing with me? Belly rub? A couple nice crunchy Milk-Bones? :D

"Your position is that, as a result of their excommunication, such persons are in "imperfect communion," are "schismatic"

Not this "your position is that"... garbage again.

Enough is enough.

My position is that the SSPX, particularly the current priesthood is in a state of imperfect/ less than full (and so on) communion with The Church.

Even discounting Benedict XVI, and JP II. that's as "a result" of quoting Pope Francis where he says they need to recover that state.

Sure, Benedict XVI said as much as well, but hey... he's retired and you're the dude throwing John Paul II out the window just because he's dead.

Gotta LOVE that kind of reasoning. The irony of the SSPX always blowing their own horns how they're such traditionalists who follow the wise counsel of previous popes.

How quickly that evaporates when it becomes theologically inconvenient.

----

Before addressing the near-endless nonsense that follows, I wanted to ensure to correct the (again fraudulent) provenance of "yerr position is dat..."

Now let's have us a look see "yerr position", eh? ;-)

...and it is your position. ;-)

"such persons are in "imperfect communion," are "schismatic" (thus, not Catholic) and, as a consequence, are not part of "the faithful."

Here is Ecclesia Dei again:"

...with a hugt text-block passage in bold and underlined. SSPX Sauron is an indiscriminate bolder and underliner. Most of my opponenets resort to this when they're losing badly and you're no different.

Whatta mess. Isn't this ever so much nicer? Thin italcis are elegant, too.

"to 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 is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

Nowhere in that passage does JP II even reference the words "imperfect communion" or even the word "schismatic"

So that once-again imaginary "your position" you've created for me isn't even being addressed.

:D :D :D

You can't even beat yourself when you're writing both sides of the argument. :D Now that takes a special kind of incompetence I'm grateful I don't possess.

Seems SSPX Sauron can't tell the difference between the phrase "the schism" and "schismatics" i.e. those who subscribe to -a- schism, regardless of whether we're discussing Abp. Lefebvre's or anyone else's.

Schismatics are those who follow "the schism" but they are not THE schism itself.

...and this my dear DJRESQ is why I categorically refuse to allow you to EVER state my position for me. ;-)

"Now let’s get to Pope Francis because he is the reigning pope..."

Yes, let's do that. About time too.

You've wasted enough time already playing literary musical chairs, aka Game Of Papal Thrones where "close collaborator" Archbishop Pozzo steals the Seat of St. Peter because you can't find anything good enough from El Francesco.

"(An aside: Popes contradict past popes all the time, even on very serious issues, the Formosus episode being one of the most blatant, so if Pope Francis does not agree with JPII on these issues, it's no surprise.)"

Another aside. When you can quote Pope Francis saying "the schism" of Archbishop Lefebvre's movement has been resolved, then you can introduce that aside to contradict JP II.

Until then your Formosus reference is just as irrelevant as your aside.

Given that, I'm sooo tempted to double "s" in that last word. :D

Pope Francis isn't contradicting John Paul II and he doesn't need you implying otherwise with an irrelevant "aside."

"In that letter, Pope Francis uses the term “faithful” or “the faithful” no less than 6 times, including the title."

...and you're going to bold and underline every last one, ain'tcha?

Yeesh... you're one of those people.

As an aside, this is what I call the "Heavy Headline" tactic. Doing so won't change the content. All it shows is how desperate you've gotten.

Will you get all whiney if I don't follow your bad example when quoting you? Tough luck if you do. Your quotes won't be any less "relevant" missing your visual histrionics

"In each and every instance, without exception, Pope Francis is referring to 'Catholics' when he uses the term 'the faithful.' Using that term, he isn’t referring to Baptists, Lutherans, or the Orthodox; the letter is written to Catholics."

Hey, Highlight Happy DJRESQ, why didn't this little number get your Big Bad Bold and Underline treatment?

"I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity.:

"...to recover full communion with..."

One must recover what one does not have... and he's talking about the priest and superiors, not the laity, giving the lie to that huge-ola stinking pile of horse-pucky you were shovelling in your last comment.

Notice also in your point "1." Pope Francis draws a distinction between the faithful and the priests. I quote...

"A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity "

His consideration concerns those faithful who choose to attend churches officiated by priest of the Fraternity. He did not say the priests were those faithful. He's talking about which churches those faithful go to.

See? I don't need to throw the whole Vatican website at you, I can go for the vitals with one thrust. The Bergoglian's rapier beats SSPX Sauron's dull broadsword every time. :D

Point number 2.

"trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church"

Wow! Why didn't this get your bolding underlines either? Maybe it's because it reminds you they don't have full communion in the Catholic Church. They need to recover it. Maybe also because Pope Francis makes a distinction between "these faithful" and "their priests".

See? I don't need to bold and underline an entire a paragraph, I can take out your position or "my position" as you would have it bolding just two words.

...and then after umpteen moar examples equating Catholics with faithful... you finally get down to business.

"Consequently, Pope Francis was referring to "Catholics" in those two letters when he was referring to the faithful who frequent the SSPX chapels."

...to which, again, I point out the Catholic faithful are not the issue. it's the SSPX priests who are the problem.

These faithful, their priests...and a world of difference between them.

Oh dear. :D

All those reams and reams of quotes showing that Catholics are faithful and the faithful are Catholics and you still struck out.

Where is the big quote wherein our Supreme Pontiff says the SSPX are faithful?

You don't have one because he didn't say that.. All you've done with this endless, epic obessive re-postingt is prove my previous points ad nauseam...

The laity are not the priesthood
annnnnnnd....
his leniency to the SSPX was done for the pastoral benefit of the catholic faithful not the SSPX. I said that before and it just didn't sink it.

The SSPX, however, have like a pack of ingrates seized upon Benedict's mercy and Francis' Latin American leniency to paint a false picture of legitimacy far beyond anything actually granted.

Maybe that's why, in the future, you should quote me directly instead of demonstrating how infatuated you are with the sound of your own keyboard.

"Now a summary of the issues."

"1 1. Your position, as quoted by you: "’Imperfect communion’ is, by definition, NOT full communion. Catholics are in full communion with The Church. Schismatics are not."

Your position, as quoted by you... Remember you said that. It's important.

"2. 2. Also your position:Those people who have adhered to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre are excommunicated per Ecclesia Dei, have "imperfect communion," are "schismatic," and are not "Catholic" because they are not in full communion with the Church.

Error #1. That's YOUR position. Clearly you DO understand the difference betweeen "1 1. Your position, as quoted by you: and "2. 2. Also your position which is NOT "as quoted by you"

So we can just stop RIGHT there in your "summary of the issues".

Once again, as you've done God knows how many times already, you're not quoting me and you can quote me and you know the difference between the two. You're choosing not to on purpose.

...and that makes not doing so while presenting "Also your position" a deliberate lie.

Error #2.

In Eccleia Dei, JP II states the following3. (3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.

JP II formally affirmed excommunication for those named. His secondary reference to excommunication is here: "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.(8)"

Do you see him excommunicating the laity? I hope not because . In the second passage JP II is issuing a warning and only to those who have "formal adherence" to "the schism".

That isn't "my" position, that's the position of Pope John Paul II's and that of the Catholic Church. Worth noting Benedict XVI never rescinded that point about disobedience and "formal adherence", did he? ;-)

Lifting the excommunication against the clergy named isn't quite the same thing.

Now for the fun part...

Error #3.

You have cited an "imperfect communion" in 1.1 and 2.2.

Worth noting -John Paul II did not- but most importantly "imperfect communion" does not appear in your conclusion, "5.5 Ergo..."

Thus, you have created a lovely formal fallacy in a categorical syllogism where the middle term, the term that does not appear in the conclusion, is not distributed to the other two terms.

"Ergo" as you so pretentiously phrased it, you have made a Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle and (wait for it... oh boy oh boy, here it comes...)

Your argument is invalid. :D

Seriously. go look it up.

...and this is why I have have so little patience with your misuse of the word "logic".

You couldn't use "logic" to argue your way out of a paper bag much less the hole you just dug for yourself.

Gotcha. ;-)

Tesa

6Jul 10, 2021

Here is the holy man.

John A Cassani

Jul 10, 2021

To Archbishop Lefebvre’s comment, any good priest will tell you that the promise of obedience requires the greatest struggle.