Consecrating bishops without Papal mandate is not a schismatic act. But the SSPX will need to make this case before the consecrations on July 1 to keep their leverage over Rome.
As an SSPXer myself, thank you for this balanced commentary. Both the Modernist-Synodalists and the Sede-extremists have come unglued over the principled yet difficult position the Society seeks to maintain.
It's actually not insane. For an organization to formally declare the Chair of Peter Vacant for 70 years is not a small thing to do nor do they believe they have competence to do such a thing on an organizational level. Their purpose is to maintain Tradition during this crisis in the Church that everyone agrees exists and that's what they are trying to do by consecrating bishops out of necessity. We all should be supporting them.
They already dissent against the Vatican II teachings that are heretical and used to speak about them. Even though they don't believe they have competence to formally declare the Chair of Peter vacant, they could simply say that is what they believe which is no different than their public dissent against the Vatican II teachings and thus be honest instead of beating around the bush.
The SSPX consecrations may not be schismatic but these actions hardly work towards unity in the Church. In fact I suggest this is part of the US Doctrinal Warfare program founded in 1953 on the feast if St Peter and St Paul and indirectly targetting theCatholic Church. It was specifically designed to create schism and division in "Totalitarian thought patterns". Thr Coetus Patrum, all of whom had masonic epsicopal lineages did not block the liberal heresies being pushed at VII but allowed the documents to be written in such a way as to allow for a liberal AND a conservative interpretation leaving the post VII Church more divided. Then the Rockefellar Organisation funded Los Tecos who were a Mexican Catholic Right Wing secret organisation whose spiritual director Father Sáenz y Arriaga published the first Sedevacantist Thesis. From then Lefebvre dencounced the Council and Thuc after visiting Econe recast himself as a Traditionalist and began consecrating Bishops without jurisdiction. Lefebvre imitated this in 1988.
Neither Arriaga, Lefebvre nor Thuc acted in a Catholic manner which would have been to suffer meekly trustint in God' providence.
Not correct. We are not to pray to any angels by name besides Gabriel, Raphael, Michael. That's not even condemned, it's 'discouraged'.
The name Uriel is recorded, among other places, in the Book of Enoch, which is quoted by Our Lord in the Gospels. It is the most consistent name - besides the three canonical names - attributed as being one of the seven holy archangels.
Uriel is also used by Milton in Paradise Lost. The name itself means either "Fire of God" or "God is my light".
As I do not pray to the angel of that name or invoke his intercession I am perfectly within my rights to use that name as a handle.
In the future please address arguments rather than persons. God bless.
As an SSPXer myself, thank you for this balanced commentary. Both the Modernist-Synodalists and the Sede-extremists have come unglued over the principled yet difficult position the Society seeks to maintain.
I believe everyone knows they are going ahead with the consecrations with or without the approval of those who aren't even Catholic.
Why they insist that the leaders in Rome are valid and have authority when they are clearly apostates is the most insane thing imaginable.
It's actually not insane. For an organization to formally declare the Chair of Peter Vacant for 70 years is not a small thing to do nor do they believe they have competence to do such a thing on an organizational level. Their purpose is to maintain Tradition during this crisis in the Church that everyone agrees exists and that's what they are trying to do by consecrating bishops out of necessity. We all should be supporting them.
They already dissent against the Vatican II teachings that are heretical and used to speak about them. Even though they don't believe they have competence to formally declare the Chair of Peter vacant, they could simply say that is what they believe which is no different than their public dissent against the Vatican II teachings and thus be honest instead of beating around the bush.
The SSPX consecrations may not be schismatic but these actions hardly work towards unity in the Church. In fact I suggest this is part of the US Doctrinal Warfare program founded in 1953 on the feast if St Peter and St Paul and indirectly targetting theCatholic Church. It was specifically designed to create schism and division in "Totalitarian thought patterns". Thr Coetus Patrum, all of whom had masonic epsicopal lineages did not block the liberal heresies being pushed at VII but allowed the documents to be written in such a way as to allow for a liberal AND a conservative interpretation leaving the post VII Church more divided. Then the Rockefellar Organisation funded Los Tecos who were a Mexican Catholic Right Wing secret organisation whose spiritual director Father Sáenz y Arriaga published the first Sedevacantist Thesis. From then Lefebvre dencounced the Council and Thuc after visiting Econe recast himself as a Traditionalist and began consecrating Bishops without jurisdiction. Lefebvre imitated this in 1988.
Neither Arriaga, Lefebvre nor Thuc acted in a Catholic manner which would have been to suffer meekly trustint in God' providence.
https://open.substack.com/pub/archbishoplefebvrewasafreemason/p/the-us-doctrinal-warefare-program
I am unable to locate the link to your Substack, please repost it here if possible?
Not to worry ….its sorted.
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
Show us the receipts. I have not heard anyone who accepts the validity of sedevacante claim the SSPX is in schism.
You need to get out more …
So you haven't heard any sede claim that ANY version of Recognize & Resist is heretical and schismatic?
I can name one off the top of my head. Kurgan.
Not correct. We are not to pray to any angels by name besides Gabriel, Raphael, Michael. That's not even condemned, it's 'discouraged'.
The name Uriel is recorded, among other places, in the Book of Enoch, which is quoted by Our Lord in the Gospels. It is the most consistent name - besides the three canonical names - attributed as being one of the seven holy archangels.
Uriel is also used by Milton in Paradise Lost. The name itself means either "Fire of God" or "God is my light".
As I do not pray to the angel of that name or invoke his intercession I am perfectly within my rights to use that name as a handle.
In the future please address arguments rather than persons. God bless.