Clicks2.5K
en.news
28

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

HerzMariae
Maybe Francis tries to consolidate all trads into one umbrella group so he can control them that way.
Ultraviolet
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 unbelie…More
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
Apparently ultraviolet is a modernist that likes hanging out in traditional circles. 😂
Ultraviolet
Apparently you're as ignorant as you are crass. I'm more of a traditionalist than the SSPX and their whiney fan-boys.
stjoseph2
I would say that you are more of an oxymoron more than anything else. You are using a V2 document to discredit a traditional order that does not subscribe V2. Please provide a pre-V2 example of condemning traditional priests for holding to traditional Catholic teachings and not going with the freemasonic changes of V2.
Ultraviolet
You would indeed say that because you're a moron, probably one who didn't get enough "oxy" during a difficult birth. :P

Gotta love that functional schismatic attitude you have, too. A "V2" document is an official document of The Catholic Church. A pity you, the SSPX and other collections of nitwits fail to recognize that. There's nothing "freemasonic" about an Archbishop being excommunicated …More
You would indeed say that because you're a moron, probably one who didn't get enough "oxy" during a difficult birth. :P

Gotta love that functional schismatic attitude you have, too. A "V2" document is an official document of The Catholic Church. A pity you, the SSPX and other collections of nitwits fail to recognize that. There's nothing "freemasonic" about an Archbishop being excommunicated because he broke Church law, either.

Look... it's clear you don't know what you're talking about and don't have anything intelligent to say on this subject, If anything you're a text-book example of a "traditionalist" idiot, as opposed to the modernist variety.

So quit embarrassing yourself, shaddap, go make some popcorn and at least enjoy the spectacle provided by myself and DJRESQ.
Ultraviolet
"it is "difficult" for Schneider to say that these priests are "outside of the Church or schismatics. Yet it's easy to say by quoting The Catholic Church verbatim.

The Vatican decree "Unitatis Redintegratio" stated, "large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church. ...Men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholi…More
"it is "difficult" for Schneider to say that these priests are "outside of the Church or schismatics. Yet it's easy to say by quoting The Catholic Church verbatim.

The Vatican decree "Unitatis Redintegratio" stated, "large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church. ...Men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect."

...an imperfect communion is, by definition, not full. :D

Saint John Paul II stated in his Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei" that Abp. Lefebvre "frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church."

Obviously, The Pope who excommunicated Lefebvre understood the disctintion between "full communion with the Church" and the inverse.;-)

So did Pope Benedict XVI. ;-) in his motu proprio "Ecclesiae Unitate" he invited "the Bishops and the 'Society of St Pius X' to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church." Notice: he invited them to rediscover the path to full commuion. Meaning they are NOT in full communion with the Church.

His successor has confirmed this. Pope Francis, in his Apostolic Letter, "Misericordia Et Misera" wrote (while extending the faculty to absolve sin), "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."

When the current pontiff hopes SSPX priests will strive for "the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church" then he acknowledges they do NOT have full communion in the Catholic Church" right now.

since they possess ordinary faculties to hear confessions "given by the Pope himself."

Sacraments administered by the schismatic orthodox are valid, but that doesn't change the fact they're still schismatics.
DJRESQ
"Sacraments administered by the schismatic orthodox are valid, but that doesn't change the fact they're still schismatics."

You are attempting to hold two contrary positions at the same time.

Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

Speaking of the …More
"Sacraments administered by the schismatic orthodox are valid, but that doesn't change the fact they're still schismatics."

You are attempting to hold two contrary positions at the same time.

Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

Speaking of the eastern churches separated from the Catholic Church, Unitatis Redintegratio #15 states, in pertinent part: "These churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy."

By insinuating that priests of the SSPX are schismatic, you are implictly stating that the marriages they witness are valid and the absolutions they give are valid. If that is so, then they don't need faculties from a bishop or the pope. Therefore, according to you, Pope Francis' granting of faculties was a useless act, as their sacraments are already valid.

However, if they are not schismatic, they require faculties for the valid absolution of sins, as canon 966 attests, which is why the pope extended faculties to them.

From Misericordia et Misera, #12, of Pope Francis: "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."

Either the SSPX is schismatic and they don't need faculties because, like the Orthodox, their absolutions are valid, or they are not schismatic and they need faculties to give absolution validly.

It's either one or the other. Can't have it both ways.
DJRESQ
Correction to above: "implicitly."
Ultraviolet
"You are attempting to hold two contrary positions at the same time."

No I'm not. ;-)

Your quote from Canon Law doesn't contradict my statement.

I'm not "insinuating" the SSPX priests are schismatics, either. The words of three Popes on the subject are explicit on this subject. All three have stated in one form or another that the SSPX is not in full communion with The Church.

That's what …More
"You are attempting to hold two contrary positions at the same time."

No I'm not. ;-)

Your quote from Canon Law doesn't contradict my statement.

I'm not "insinuating" the SSPX priests are schismatics, either. The words of three Popes on the subject are explicit on this subject. All three have stated in one form or another that the SSPX is not in full communion with The Church.

That's what schism is.

"you are implictly stating that the marriages they witness are valid and the absolutions they give are valid."

No, you are making a strawman argument and attempting to legitimize it with "implictly stating".

I said no such thing. If Pope Francis wishes to expand or abrogate what faculties the SSPX priests are allowed within The Church, that is his right as Pope.

But I will not allow you to derive a fallacious line of argument from that and then falsely atribute it to me.

"Either the SSPX is schismatic and they don't need faculties because, like the Orthodox, their absolutions are valid, or they are not schismatic and they need faculties to give absolution validly."

Or, your conclusion is, ultimatedly a fallacy of a false dilemma, which in point of fact it is.

Borrowing a phrase from Pontius Pilate, three Popes have written what they have written. It's worth noting that all three Popes are in agreement with each other on this point, showing what can be called a "Papal precedent".

Your logical tap-dancing isn't going to change the fact all three of these men represent the highest temporal authority within the Catholic Church and their position on the SSPX is self-explanatory.

Then again, schismatics traditionally do have a problem with recognizing, much less obeying, Papal authority.

If the SSPX is still part of the Catholic Church, then they must obey and operate within The Church's chain of command.

Since they don't, and in both ideology and practice this is clearly the case, they should quit misrepresenting themselves as genuine Catholics. At least the orthodox had the moral courage to openly declare their separation from Rome and go their own way.

Simply put, it's the SSPX and their fan-boys who can't have it both ways.
DJRESQ
"No I'm not."

Yes, you are. Your view directly contradicts what the pope has done.

Pope Francis granted faculties to SSPX priests because, without faculties, their confessions would be invalid... unless they are schismatic.

Schismatics don't need faculties because their sacraments are valid, as you yourself attest.

The way to know whether your view is correct is to answer the question: Is …More
"No I'm not."

Yes, you are. Your view directly contradicts what the pope has done.

Pope Francis granted faculties to SSPX priests because, without faculties, their confessions would be invalid... unless they are schismatic.

Schismatics don't need faculties because their sacraments are valid, as you yourself attest.

The way to know whether your view is correct is to answer the question: Is the SSPX schismatic? Yes or no?

If you say yes, then they don't need faculties, which makes Pope Francis' act a nullity.

If you say no, then they need faculties to validly absolve. Canon law says so, and it most certainly applies here.

It's that simple.

So, what's your answer to the question as to whether they are schismatic?
Ultraviolet
"Yes, you are. Your view directly contradicts what the pope has done."

My view is directly supported by what all three popes have said. Your move. :D

"Pope Francis granted faculties to SSPX priests because, without faculties, their confessions would be invalid... unless they are schismatic."

...a fact which Pope Francis has already made clear.

"For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, …More
"Yes, you are. Your view directly contradicts what the pope has done."

My view is directly supported by what all three popes have said. Your move. :D

"Pope Francis granted faculties to SSPX priests because, without faculties, their confessions would be invalid... unless they are schismatic."

...a fact which Pope Francis has already made clear.

"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."

When the current pontiff hopes SSPX priests will strive for "the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church" then he acknowledges they do NOT have full communion in the Catholic Church" right now.

"Schismatics don't need faculties because their sacraments are valid, as you yourself attest."

Pope Francis simply wishes to underscore that point, nullity or not. Either way, my view is directly supported by his statement.

"The way to know whether your view is correct is to answer the question: Is the SSPX schismatic? Yes or no?"

Repeating your fallacious argument is a fallacy of repetition.

What part of The Pope's statement (pick one of three!) are you having trouble with? Probably none whatsoever.

Instead, you're simply choosing to ignore what the Popes have said in favor of your own interpretation and contrived false dilemma. That's typical of schismatics. ;-)
DJRESQ
The problem with your viewpoint is that you conflate your ideas with those of the pope.

Nowhere does Pope Francis make the claim that "imperfect communion IN the Catholic Church" (a nebulous term to begin with) is equivalent to "schism."

So, it's a false assertion on your part to equate the two.

Secondly, neither "the Church" nor any of the popes, have ever specifically defined what "imperfect…More
The problem with your viewpoint is that you conflate your ideas with those of the pope.

Nowhere does Pope Francis make the claim that "imperfect communion IN the Catholic Church" (a nebulous term to begin with) is equivalent to "schism."

So, it's a false assertion on your part to equate the two.

Secondly, neither "the Church" nor any of the popes, have ever specifically defined what "imperfect communion" actually means. The term is of recent vintage to begin with.

What is the definition of "imperfect communion," and where does the Church define that term?

Another error in your thinking: "Obviously, The Pope who excommunicated Lefebvre understood the disctintion between "full communion with the Church" and the inverse."

The problem with the above statement is two-fold. First, no pope excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre. The excommunication was held by Pope John Paul II to be “latae sententiae,” which is basically ipso facto and needs no further pronouncement. That means that, if JPII had never issued any statement in that regard, the archbishop would still be excommunicated.

The second error in the above statement, and those that precede it, is the insinuation that “imperfect communion” is somehow “the inverse” of “full communion.” That’s false. A synonym for “inverse” is “opposite.”

“Imperfect communion” cannot be the opposite of “full communion” because that leaves no definitional room for the unbaptized, i.e., those who have no communion at all with the Catholic Church.

If “imperfect communion” were the opposite of “full communion,” that would mean there are only two groups of people in the world: those in “full communion” with the Catholic Church and those in “imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church. That would also mean that a Buddhist would have the same relationship with the Church as does a Greek Orthodox.

But neither of those things is true.

The “inverse” of “full communion” is “no communion whatsoever,” which is the position that a large portion of the human race falls into. Shintoists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, et cetera, are not in “full communion” with the Catholic Church, but neither are they in “imperfect communion.” They are in “no communion” with the Catholic Church at all.

Unitatis Redintegratio deals with baptized people only, and only the baptized can have “imperfect communion,” albeit that’s a problematic concept to begin with.

Borrowing a phrase from Pontius Pilate, three Popes have written what they have written. It's worth noting that all three Popes are in agreement with each other on this point, showing what can be called a "Papal precedent."

There have been all kinds of "papal precedents" that hold no water, and all kinds of papal contradictions, so this isn't a very compelling point.

Several popes have promulgated the concept that the Blessed Virgin is "co-redemptrix." Pope Francis has publicly stated that She is not.

After Pope Formosus' reign (AD 891-896), two subsequent popes ruled that he was an antipope and annulled all his ordinations and episcopal consecrations. Three subsequent popes ruled just the opposite.

Which "papal precedent" does one follow on that point? The Church has never clarified, one way or the other.

"If the SSPX is still part of the Catholic Church, then they must obey and operate within The Church's chain of command."

This was also true in the reign of Stephen VI (VII), yet many clergy disobeyed him when he ordered them to get reordained. Were they right, or was he?

There are numerous such anomalies in the history of the Church.

Although the issues surrounding the SSPX don't affect me, as the eparchy couldn't care less, it still remains that the historical oddities that happened in the Church don't merit the obsession with the SSPX that seems to draw out of the woodwork people who are so quick to accuse others of the mortal sin of schism.

The historical facts surrounding the Great Western Schism has never been definitely clarified by the Church.

Entire nations were at odds with each other as to who the true popes were for several decades, and it included people who were later canonized who contradicted others who were later canonized.

Can you tell us who at that time had "full communion" and who had "imperfect communion" with the Church during those four decades?

How can you do that, when the Church herself has not done so?
Ultraviolet
"The problem with your viewpoint is that you conflate your ideas with those of the pope."

Wrong. I quote The Pope verbatim. All three of them and their collective view on the SSPX is clear.

The problem with your viewpoint is you prefer your own line of argument to the Pope's (pick one) explicit statements .

"Nowhere does Pope Francis make the claim that "imperfect communion IN the Catholic …More
"The problem with your viewpoint is that you conflate your ideas with those of the pope."

Wrong. I quote The Pope verbatim. All three of them and their collective view on the SSPX is clear.

The problem with your viewpoint is you prefer your own line of argument to the Pope's (pick one) explicit statements .

"Nowhere does Pope Francis make the claim that "imperfect communion IN the Catholic Church" (a nebulous term to begin with) is equivalent to "schism."

...he doesn't have to. He's building on an already-established precedent. Popes don't have to re-affirm the definition of "sin" every time they use the term, either.

"So, it's a false assertion on your part to equate the two."

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

"Secondly, neither "the Church" nor any of the popes, have ever specifically defined what "imperfect communion" actually means."

"Actually"? What part of "imperfect" don't you understand? Its meaning is clear. Except, of course, for those who wish it didn't apply to them. ;-)

"The term is of recent vintage to begin with."

So too is the SSPX. ;-)

"What is the definition of "imperfect communion," and where does the Church define that term?"

No doubt homosexuals will demand the same for "intrinsically disordered". :P

wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_communion

"First, no pope excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre. The excommunication was held by Pope John Paul II to be “latae sententiae,” which is basically ipso facto and needs no further pronouncement. That means that, if JPII had never issued any statement in that regard, the archbishop would still be excommunicated."

Unfortunately for the SSPX, JP II DID issue a statement where he formally affirmed the excommunication and defined Lefebvre's movement as "the schism"

--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.--

Direct quote from JP II. ;-)

vatican.va/…s/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html

"The second error in the above statement, and those that precede it, is the insinuation that 'imperfect communion' is somehow 'the inverse' of 'full communion.' That’s false.

"Insinuation"... i.e. another strawman argument on your part.

Imperfect communion is, by definition, NOT full communion. Catholics are in full communion with The Church. Schismatics are not.

No amount of temporizing by SSPX apologists is going to change that fact. Three Popes have drawn a distiction between full communion and the state of the SSPX, which is something else... Something NOT in "full communion".

Your lengthy argument surrounding the nature of "imperfect communion" is, unfortunately, directly contradicted by Pope JP II who called Lefebvre's movement "the schism" explicitly.

"Unitatis Redintegratio deals with baptized people only, and only the baptized can have “imperfect communion,” albeit that’s a problematic concept to begin with."

There's nothing "problematic" about the concept, except for those who realize the concept directly applies to them and clearly wish it didn't.

Anyway, this particular quote comes from "Ecclesia Dei". Ah well... :D

"There have been all kinds of "papal precedents" that hold no water, and all kinds of papal contradictions, so this isn't a very compelling point."

Your opinion only and hardly supported by the circumstances here as they apply to the SSPX.

"Several popes have promulgated the concept that the Blessed Virgin is "co-redemptrix." Pope Francis has publicly stated that She is not."

Red Herring Fallacy. Irrelevant to the fact that all three Popes who've dealt with the SSPX define it as not being in full communion with The Church. and JP II did go a bit further. ;-)

"Which "papal precedent" does one follow on that point? The Church has never clarified, one way or the other."

Non Sequitur Fallacy. The Church is quite clear on the status of the SSPX however much the SSPX's apologists try to claim otherwise..

"This was also true in the reign of Stephen VI (VII), yet many clergy disobeyed him when he ordered them to get reordained. Were they right, or was he?

Irrelevant to the subject here.

"There are numerous such anomalies in the history of the Church."

This "anomaly" is not in full communion, that much is clear as is JP II's definition of that "anomaly". Try again.

"the historical oddities that happened in the Church don't merit the obsession with the SSPX that seems to draw out of the woodwork people who are so quick to accuse others of the mortal sin of schism."

...with good reason. Those "historical oddities" are not the subject of this post. The SSPX however, is.

It is not an "obsession" to discuss the status of the SSPX in light of that. Further those most obsessed with status of the SSPS are its apologists. :D

Entirely understandable since they're endlessly forced to make excuses and try "explaing away" direct and markedly uncomplimentary quotes from every Pope who's been forced to deal with the "anomaly" they present.

Let's remember the first person who came "out of the woodwork" and was was "so quick" to accuse the SSPX "of the motal sin of schism" was the Pope himself.

It's a pity the SSPX and their apologists don't put half as much effort into reconciling themselves to full communion The Chruch as they do making excuses for why they still remain short of that.

Likewise, they shouldn't shoot the messenger for reminding them and more importantly, everyone else, that they are NOT in full communion with The Church however much they may wish to pretend otherwise when it suits them.

"The historical facts surrounding the Great Western Schism has never been definitely clarified by the Church."

Irrelevant to the fact it was a schism.

"Entire nations were at odds with each other as to who the true popes were for several decades, and it included people who were later canonized who contradicted others who were later canonized."

Maaan...
you could open a fish market with all these Red Herrings. JP II's Papacy was not the subject of world-wide dispute over its legitimacy. Neither was Benedict XVI's.

"Entire nations" are NOT at odds with each other, even over Francis' papacy.

Every Pope who's needed to discuss the SSPX has, in one way or another, reaffirmed the SSPX is not in full communion and The Church. has already established that as schism.

Pope John Paul II even called Lefebvre's movment "the schism" using that exact term.

How much more clear does that need to be for you?
DJRESQ
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 …More
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
Correction: "declared."
One more comment from DJRESQ
DJRESQ
"Imperfect communion is, by definition, NOT full communion. Catholics are in full communion with The Church. Schismatics are not."

Whether the term "imperfect communion" is "by definition, not full communion" is not the issue.

The issue is whether "imperfect communion," as Pope Francis has used the term in treating with the SSPX and the granting of faculties, equals "schism."

Is it your conten…More
"Imperfect communion is, by definition, NOT full communion. Catholics are in full communion with The Church. Schismatics are not."

Whether the term "imperfect communion" is "by definition, not full communion" is not the issue.

The issue is whether "imperfect communion," as Pope Francis has used the term in treating with the SSPX and the granting of faculties, equals "schism."

Is it your contention that SSPX priests are not Catholic? That contradicts Pope Francis.

My references to Pope Formosus and the western schism were not meant to be "red herrings." The reason for referencing those things was to try to get you to think of the possibility that your understanding of the situation with regards to the SSPX may not be correct, regardless of how many quotes from popes you can garner.

Your understanding of what constitutes "imperfect communion" and "schism" is belied by the history of the Catholic Church, particularly as it relates to the Western Schism, which lasted four decades.

You apparently missed the point in that regard. I will try to make it more concise.

At the time of the western schism, there were people, entire nations, who did not recognize the legitimacy of the reigning pontiff, whichever one you want to pick (this included people on all sides who were later canonized), and yet those people, millions of them, were... Catholics in full communion with the Church.

But in your understanding of the terms "full communion," "imperfect communion," and "schism," that's not possible.

That was my point.

A facile answer such as "Irrelevant to the fact it was a schism" begs the question: Which people were in schism at that time, and from whom?

Were the people who were allegedly "in schism" still considered Catholics? Your answer is no. But that defies the history of the Church.

In other words, you think you understand the terms "imperfect communion" and "schism" and how they currently apply to the SSPX, but when a person takes your understanding of those terms and applies it to a real world example, that is, a precedent, your understanding is not workable. Therefore, there's no indication that your understanding is workable re the SSPX either.

As you know, there are people who don't recognize Pope Francis as pope (I don't share their opinion). They don't give religious submission of mind and will, et cetera, to Pope Francis.

Are those people in schism or merely mistaken?

In other words, the point is: Can a Catholic be wrong as to who is the pope and still be in "full communion" with the Catholic Church?

Your answer to that question is no. You believe that people who refuse to recognize Pope Francis as pope are in schism.

However, the Church's answer to that question is unequivocally yes.

How do I know this? It's an historical fact.
Ultraviolet
"1. The situation under Pope Francis is not the same as it was under Pope John Paul II."

That's self-evident given the fact three different Popes with three noticeably different temperments have had to deal with this situation.

Yet the terminology all three Popes used to describe the SSPX remains functionally the same. ;-)

The first of them, JP II, left no room for doubt. He expressly called …More
"1. The situation under Pope Francis is not the same as it was under Pope John Paul II."

That's self-evident given the fact three different Popes with three noticeably different temperments have had to deal with this situation.

Yet the terminology all three Popes used to describe the SSPX remains functionally the same. ;-)

The first of them, JP II, left no room for doubt. He expressly called the movement "the schism".

What part of that don't you understand?

If you wish to argue that has changed under Pope Francis and "is not the same as it was under Pope John Paul II" then you need to quote Francis saying so.

His hopes the SSPX priests will achieve "recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church" remains consistent with all his predecessors going back to John Paul II who was explicit on their status.

"The excommunications against four of the bishops have been lifted,..."

...and in spite of that Benedict XVI continued to use the same terminology established in "Unitatis Redintegratio" for describing schismatics after his predecessor specifically labelled the SSPX movment as such. Funny how that works.

"and the priests of the SSPX have faculties to absolve, which are not needed by schismatics."

While these Popes may have shown more or less generosity in dealing with a group of schismatics, in every instance they remain consistent in describing them using variations of the same terminology the Church used to describe schismatic groups. .

In a word, the leniency a Pope grants a schismatic group, be it the Eastern Orthodox or the SSPX doesn't change how they and The Church perceive and describe them. That description remains a constant you have shown no evidence to the contrary.

Your interpretation of "the situation under Pope Francis" is directly contradicted by the Pope's own words. He hopes for, and I quote, "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,"

...meaning they are not in full communion in the Catholic Church right now. His generosity is "for the pastoral benefit" of the laity, not the SSPX.

2. "A new distinction? Who told you that there is no distinction?"

You and the SSPX are desperately attempting to create a new one: one where not being in full communion with The Church and refusing to submit to the pope is somehow not being in schism either.

That foolishness isn't supported by how any of these three popes (or the Church) uses the phrase "not in full communion".

It's used when referring to schismatics and that's why you can't show any examples where The Church refers to loyal, obedient non-schismatic groups as "not in full communion" or having "imperfect communion" etc.

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

The Church's usage of the terminology and that of the Popes,in every instance referring specifically to schismatics is proof enough.

"Unitatis Redintegratio" described schismatics as being "separated from full communion with the Catholic Church." JPII, Benedict XVI and Francis have used near identical references to the SSPX being having an equally incomplete, imperfect and less than full communion with The Church.

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.

That means direct quotes, not more of your fatuous "reasoning," or analogies based on medieval history. All of that is your words,not the words of the Pope or The Church.

"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."

It's time for you to "give us" and "show us" the same direct quotes from The Church and The Popes supporting your line of argument the way I already have.

You haven't, you can't and you won't. :D

Where are your citations from Vatican decrees? Where are your quotes from John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis? Where are they, DJRESQ? You don't have 'em and I think we both know why. ;-)

I have already shown The Church uses variations of "not in full communion" specifically to describe schismatics and all three Popes have used variants of it to describe the current status of the SSPX.

You, by contrast have NO examples where any of these Popes describe non-schismatic clerical groups as having some form of "imperfect communion".

It's time for you to start backing up your claims with word-for-word examples instead of more demands.

"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"?"

He's used the same terminology as his predecessors have. Where are your quotes showing otherwise, hmmm? ;-)

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

"Unitatis Redintegratio" was clear enough. So was JP II's description of Lefebvre's movement as "the schism"

Where are your counter-examples?

If you wish to argue Popes and The Church uses phrases like "imperfect communion" when referring to non-schismatic clerical movements like this "society". then provide quotes where they do so.

"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."

Unlike your opinion, mine is backed by direct quotes from three popes and a Vatican Decree. Yours is backed by nothing save your own contrived arguments.

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

Pope Francis has described the SSPX priests as needing to strive for "the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church."

One must recover what one does not have.

Both of his predecessors used near identical terminology to describe the SSPX. JP II called the movmenent a "schism" and "Unitatis Redintegratio" first used the phrase "separated from full communion with the Catholic Church." to describe schismatics.

In short, there is a consistent pattern of usage within The Church that...

a.) describes schismatics as not having or otherwise lacking perfect communion with The Church starting with "Unitatis Redintegratio".

b.) describes the SSPX using several variations of the same phrase used specifically for schismatics.

c.) JP II was the first to directly address the SSPX movement as Pope and he called it "the schism" which underscores the direct correlation between a.) and b.)

d.)
Every pope who has subsequently described the SSPX has done so using variations of the same terminology which remains consisentent with a.) through c.)

In terms of any comparable counter-examples, you have supplied nothing.Quotes? Zero. Citation from Church documents?? Zero..

You have provided not one example where The Church uses variation of the phrase "imperfect communion" or "not in full communion" etc. to refer to a clerical group except schismatics, such as and including the SSPX.

You need to change that.

Start supplying direct quotes from The Church and these Popes supporting your argument the way I have or concede that you simply can't deliver the goods.

Untill you do, your attempts at arguing what The Church and these Popes supposedly mean wil always fail against what The Church and these Popes have already said.
Ultraviolet
"The issue is whether "imperfect communion," as Pope Francis has used the term in treating with the SSPX and the granting of faculties, equals "schism."

Pope Francis' usage of the term remains consistent with his predecessors and "Unitatis Redintegratio" for describing schismatics. You have supplied zero examples from Francis or any of his predecessors where the phrase is used differently.

"Is …More
"The issue is whether "imperfect communion," as Pope Francis has used the term in treating with the SSPX and the granting of faculties, equals "schism."

Pope Francis' usage of the term remains consistent with his predecessors and "Unitatis Redintegratio" for describing schismatics. You have supplied zero examples from Francis or any of his predecessors where the phrase is used differently.

"Is it your contention that SSPX priests are not Catholic? That contradicts Pope Francis."

Is it your conention that Abp. Lefebvre's and his movement are not in schism? That contradicts John Paul II. ;-)

"My references to Pope Formosus and the western schism were not meant to be "red herrings."

That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact they were and remain so.

"the possibility that your understanding of the situation with regards to the SSPX may not be correct, regardless of how many quotes from popes you can garner."

Two more likely posibility presents themselves. First, my understanding of the situation is correct precisely because I can supply direct quotes supporting it from every pope who's had to deal with the SSPX....and, those quotes are consistent and use functionally the same terminology as a Vatican Decree describing schismatics.

Second, your understanding of the situation is incorrect for just the opposite reason. You can't supply any quotes from these popes or The Church supporting your line of argument.

What you think they mean is contradicted by what they say, starting with John Paul II who literally used the word "schism" while describing Lefebvre's movement.

"Your understanding of what constitutes "imperfect communion" and "schism" is belied by the history of the Catholic Church, particularly as it relates to the Western Schism"

The history of the Catholic Church shows that the first pope who had to address the SSPX movment described it as "the schism".

The history of the Catholic Church shows that every pope, with no exceptions, who refers to the SSPX has remained conistent in describing it as having less than perfect communion, not in full communion, and so on.

The history of the Catholic Chursh shows that same terminology was established in "Unitatis Redintegratio" for describing schismatics which shows an unbroken pattern of usage further supported by John Paul II's own express usage of the term "the schism".

That is what the history of the Catholic Church shows when it covers the SSPX.

"At the time of the western schism, there were people, entire nations, who did not recognize the legitimacy of the reigning pontiff, whichever one you want to pick"

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 is my point. ;-)

"A facile answer such as "Irrelevant to the fact it was a schism" begs the question: Which people were in schism at that time, and from whom?"

Since you're trying to argue the SSPX is not in schism or that the Popes who must address it do not perceive them as schismatics, "which people were in schism at that time, and from whom" is indeed irrelevant.

What matters is which people placed themselves in schism at this time and from whom. In this time, the first Pope forced to address the SSPX was explicit in calling Abp. Lefebvre's movenent "the schism".

John Paul II was the Pope and head of the Catholic Church, not Archbishop Lefebvre. That makes it self-evident "which people were in schism... and from whom"

All of John Paul II's successors have repeatedly used the same terminology referencing imperfect communion when discussing the SSPX first established by "Unitatis redintegratio" when addressing the state of schismatics.

"Were the people who were allegedly "in schism" still considered Catholics? Your answer is no. But that defies the history of the Church."

Correction. My answer is to quote Pope John Paul II verbatim. That is my answer, not the one you choose to supply for me.

If you wish to argue "that defies the history of the Church", then you contradict the Pope.

"In other words, you think you understand the terms "imperfect communion" and "schism" and how they currently apply to the SSPX, but when a person takes your understanding of those terms and applies it to a real world example, that is, a precedent, your understanding is not workable."

Oh lovely, another psychic who claims to know what I think. :D

Let's talk about real-world examples. A direct quote from Pope John Paul II describing the Lefebvre's movement as "the schism" is a "real world example" you don't have. h

My "real world examples" are direct quotes from every pope who's addressed the SSPX and every one of them is consistent with how "Unitatis redintegratio" referred to schismatics.

You, by contrast, don't have those kinds of "real world examples" What you have are your own contrived and ever-more elaborate arguments.

Simply put, my understanding is supported by real world examples, the kind you don't have. You're not matching me quote for quote. You're not matching me decree for decree.

Your understanding of the situation is supported by your own reasoning based on whatever premises you've cherry-picked to support your position. Everything else gets discarded. I have noticed.

Case in point... In your understanding, the SSPX is (and I quote) an 'anomaly.'

That is NOT the word Pope John Paul II used to describe it. ;-)

"As you know, there are people who don't recognize Pope Francis as pope (I don't share their opinion). They don't give religious submission of mind and will, et cetera, to Pope Francis. Are those people in schism or merely mistaken? "Your answer to that question is no."

Since you're not quoting me, do NOT tell me what my answer to that question is. You have nasty, nasty habit of doing so and this is a good time to address why you should drop this tiresome rhetorical tactic.

So.... you claim "Your answer to that question is no."

Which is it? Is the "no" you're shoving in my mouth "no, they're merely mistaken" or is it "no, they're in schism?"

That's the problem with these rhetorical strawmen you keep putting up They're NOT my answer.

My answer is this: Go read Canon Law 751 because that is where The Church answers the question. That my answer. The same problem occurs with your claim "However, the Church's answer to that question is unequivocally yes."

"Unequivocally yes" to what? In this case, it doesn't matter because for a simple reason.

The one thing you haven't supplied is "the Church's answer" verbatim, despite my repeated challenges that you do so.

The elaborate conclusions you're forced to present as "the Church's answer" keep running into that one insurmountable problem.

You're not quoting The Church or the Popes at all. I am. ;-)
DJRESQ
Sorry for the length of this. Please bear with me and read it slowly.

I don't use "rhetorical tactics"; I merely take, to its logical conclusion, what you yourself have stated.

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.

Quoting the popes is meaning…More
Sorry for the length of this. Please bear with me and read it slowly.

I don't use "rhetorical tactics"; I merely take, to its logical conclusion, what you yourself have stated.

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.

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

I will accede to your request for quotes.

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.

The problem is that you don't believe a person can have what you understand as "imperfect communion" and actually still be a Catholic. According to you, a person who is in "imperfect communion" is a schismatic and is therefore not a Catholic.

Isn't that your position?

That's an understandable point of view, 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.

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.

Distinctions are required to be made, and you're missing them.

"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. 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I can demonstrate that later if you'd like.

Quote: "Is it your conention that Abp. Lefebvre's and his movement are not in schism? That contradicts John Paul II."

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.

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:

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 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. 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."

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.

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.

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

You claim that nothing has changed since Pope John Paul promulgated Ecclesia Dei, and JPII definitively stated that the laity who formally adhere to the schism also incur the penalty of excommunication.

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

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..."

What is your answer to the following question: When Pope Francis referred to "faithful" in that letter, was he referencing Catholics in that section?

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.'"

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

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

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

2. "Formal adherence to schism" equals "excommunication."

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

4. Because "excommunication" equals "not Catholic," and because "SSPX laity" are excommunicated as a result of formal adherence to schism, they are "not Catholic."

5. Thus, the "faithful" addressed by Pope Francis in no. 12 are "not Catholic."

You have asserted that the SSPX priests are not Catholic. But your position also entails that the laity who formally adhere to the SSPX schism are not Catholic either, because JPII addressed them in the very same document he addressed the SSPX priests.

If your assertions were correct, which they're not, Pope Francis couldn't possibly be addressing Catholics in that portion of his apostolic letter.

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

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

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

So, to distill your position, what you believe with regard to Pope Francis' act here is that he gave faculties to non-Catholic, schismatic priests so that they can minister to non-Catholic, schismatic laity so that the non-Catholic, schismatic laity can have valid confessions, which is an unnecessary act because non-Catholic schismatics like the Orthodox don't need faculties. Their sacraments are valid, as you yourself admit.

In other words, you believe that Pope Francis was legislating something in that letter for priests and laity of a different church, not Catholics. In your view, priests and laity alike are excommunicated, as both groups have formally adhered to "schism."

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.

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

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?

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

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.

In 2015, Cardinal Poli, Pope Francis' handpicked successor in Buenos Aires, asked that the SSPX be recognized by the government of Argentina as "a public juridical person within the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church according to the norms of the Code of Canon Law." See link below.

With reference to the SSPX, the decree granting the request uses the phrase "it finds its definitive juridical framing within the church universal as an association of diocesan right...," et cetera.

About that decree, Cardinal Pozzo, who was then secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, stated in an interview with Vatican Insider at the time: "With his decision, the ordinary of Buenos Aires recognized that the members of the Society are Catholics, even if not yet in full communion with Rome. We continue working so that full communion and juridical framing of the Society within the Catholic Church may be achieved."

Do you see how this contradicts your view?

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

The cardinal states, point blank, that a) the SSPX are Catholics, but at the same time he says b) they are "not yet in full communion with Rome."

That is not possible in your view.

Your position is that someone who falls under that terminology, "not yet in full communion with Rome," cannot possibly be Catholic because they have "imperfect communion" and are therefore schismatic. You have asserted that numerous times.

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.

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.

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

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.

My apologies for the length of this, but it takes a long time to systematically demonstrate to people the logical conclusions that must be drawn from the positions they take and the assertions they make.

RORATE CÆLI: Argentina formally recognizes SSPX as part of the Catholic Church - at the request of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires (and Pope Francis?) (rorate-caeli.blogspot.com)
DJRESQ
"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.

"That means direct …
More
"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.

"That means direct quotes, not more of your fatuous "reasoning," or analogies based on medieval history. All of that is your words,not the words of the Pope or The Church."


I will provide the quotes after this post; however, I can't speak for the SSPX. One thing though: The medieval history cannot be disputed, as the historical record speaks for itself and cannot be changed. There is no "fatuous reasoning"; there is, however, proof positive that your assertions are not correct.

To clear up something, the quoted material in the passage right below this is inaccurate and has been altered. I’m not sure why it was altered, but it changes the meaning of what I stated, and the response doesn't follow properly.

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

"As you know, there are people who don't recognize Pope Francis as pope (I don't share their opinion). They don't give religious submission of mind and will, et cetera, to Pope Francis. Are those people in schism or merely mistaken? "Your answer to that question is no."

Then you continued:

Since you're not quoting me, do NOT tell me what my answer to that question is. You have nasty, nasty habit of doing so and this is a good time to address why you should drop this tiresome rhetorical tactic.

So.... you claim "Your answer to that question is no."

Which is it? Is the "no" you're shoving in my mouth "no, they're merely mistaken" or is it "no, they're in schism?"

That's the problem with these rhetorical strawmen you keep putting up They're NOT my answer.

My answer is this: Go read Canon Law 751 because that is where The Church answers the question. That my answer. The same problem occurs with your claim "However, the Church's answer to that question is unequivocally yes."

"Unequivocally yes" to what? In this case, it doesn't matter because for a simple reason..."


---

However, the accurate quote is:

“As you know, there are people who don't recognize Pope Francis as pope (I don't share their opinion). They don't give religious submission of mind and will, et cetera, to Pope Francis.

“Are those people in schism or merely mistaken?

“In other words, the point is: Can a Catholic be wrong as to who is the pope and still be in "full communion" with the Catholic Church? (underlining added)

“Your answer to that question is no. You believe that people who refuse to recognize Pope Francis as pope are in schism.

“However, the Church's answer to that question is unequivocally yes.”

____

That's what was stated, not the truncated version above.

Of course, the question “In other words, the point is: Can a Catholic be wrong as to who is the pope and still be in "full communion" with the Catholic Church,” lends itself to either a yes or no answer.

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:

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.

That’s a fact that cannot be argued against because the historical record proves it to be true. There were entire nations, including many saints, who refused allegiance to valid reigning pontiffs in the 14th and 15th centuries, and yet those people were still Catholic, despite the fact that they were mistaken.

If a Catholic in the 14th century can be mistaken about who is the true pope, fail to give the true pope proper allegiance, and yet still be "in full communion" with the Catholic Church, then a Catholic in the 21st century can do the exact same thing.

Historical precedent demonstrates that your understanding of what constitutes “full communion,” “imperfect communion,” and “schism” therefore is not correct.

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

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?
2 more comments from DJRESQ
DJRESQ
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.”…More
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
Correction to one thing: Pozzo is not a cardinal; he is an archbishop.
Ultraviolet
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."

"...…More
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
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 …More
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
"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 …More
"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
Here is the holy man.
John A Cassani
To Archbishop Lefebvre’s comment, any good priest will tell you that the promise of obedience requires the greatest struggle.