Can one be traditional and not support the SSPX?

[eurocath]

The "SSPXers" use a not fully traditional calendar. The rubrics of their liturgy are not fully traditional: goes back only to 1962, with a little side trip to 1983 and the modernist canon law. The traditional laws of abstinence and fast are voluntary.. Not all of their clergy are fully traditional, since many were ordained in the new Vatican II modernist rite.

Ok, then what constitutes "full" traditionalism to you?

Holding to the Catholc Faith, full and entire, as it existed before the Second Vatican Council.

Isn't that the "traditional" definition?

But the SSPX adopted lots of innovations and changes from Vatican II.

I have no problem with that, by the way. What is irksome is the way they tend to appear much more traditional, in order to gain support (and money) from people who would have nothing to do with them if they had all the facts. Most people who go to the SSPX think that they're really traditional. Most of them have no idea that the SSPX calendar is from Vatican II, with all kinds of innovations and so on. Most can't tell the difference between the 1962 liturgy (adopted by the SSPX in 1983) and the pre-Vatican II TLM.

"Traditional" Catholic is a term that is widely interpreted to begin with, so you have no right to label one of the founding groups of "traditionalism" as "not fully traditional."

Why not? What rights do I have then? If the SSPX is not traditional but only neo-trad or pseudo-trad, no one is allowed to point that out simply because they've been around a long time?

As for the fast and abstinence, the traditional laws of fast and abstinence are voluntarily observed because the Church has the right to declare what is and is not mortally sinful.  Agree with it or not, it's not a mortal sin to observe the laws of fast and abstinence as they are currently on the books.

Did you not know that Friday abstinence is part of the Deposit of Faith, part of "divine positive law" and instituted by the Apostles?

Are you saying that a Pope is allowd to modify the Deposit of Faith?

The SSPX disagrees with the laws in favor of the more traditional ones, which is why they still recommend the old ways.  They can't require such fasting and abstaining under penalty of sin, therefore they do not.

Did you notice that the tune has changed recently? They used to be stricter about this. Even five years ago, most SSPX attendees would tell you that Friday abstinence was a mortal sin. Now even their new calendars have "optional" or "Traditional" abstinence (and pictures of altars with Novus Ordo supper tables).

[petrelton]

Fourth,for a comment that does not deserve to be dignified with an answer, you sure gave it quite an answer. Once again, I maintain that disobedience to the Holy Father is not intrinsically evil, but evil if certain qualifications are present (and probably in most cases such qualifications are present). You claim that I use hyperbole; well, in some circles, this is called using counter examples. Counter examples show us that unqualified, general statements are risky, to say the least. If one example can be given where a person would be justified in disobeying the Holy Father, then disobeying the Holy Father is not intrinsically evil. This being said, however, I am not advocating disobedience to the Holy Father--to make clear. Yet, to bring a possible counter example, would you have obeyed JPII if he had commanded you to kiss the Koran and pray with witch doctors from Africa? Let's be honest. And, if you did obey, on what basis would you be justified?

Why do people always bring up hypotheticals to justify their point? Clearly because the facts as they stand are inadequate to support their argument. You are going around in circles. Is the Pope to be obeyed or not. You rattle on about "certain qualifications are present" without explaining what those qualifications are. The Pope has not commanded me to kiss the Koran or pray with witch doctors, so your point is ludicrous. If the Pope came and told me I needed to leave my job and work for a different employer or sell my house and buy a different one I would tell him to clear off. Simply because he would be acting outside of his realm of authority. The Pope leads as supreme ruler of the church in matters of faith and morals and the administration of the church and the guarding of the faith. The appointment of bishops is clearly in his purview. If he need not be obeyed in that then he need not be obeyed at all. We can simply conclude in our own heads that "certain qualifications are present" and do as we please. If that is the case then there is no point even having a Pope.

Finally, and I am stopping here, you mention that a schismatic mentality leads to schism. Okay, I grant you this. But, I believe the point of the discussion is whether or not SSPX possesses a schismatic mentality-- and not assuming that they do. Just because a person has problems with Vatican II (a pastoral council and, therefore, nonbinding), does not make one schismatic. Difficult? Maybe. Pugnacious. Probably. Schismatic? I don't think so. Tell me, when did the acceptance of the spirit of Vatican II (side note: how does one accept a spirit without corresponding propositional content?) become the conditio sine qua non for being a faithful Catholic?

I'm not going to respond to every point, for I think that what I have said is sufficient for the day. By the way, I hope that you have a good one.

Pax,
Joshua (Amusing_Myself_to_Death)

These are not my words. This is the evaluation of the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei which judged that the SSPX had although it is not in formal schism that it nevertheless has a schismatic mentality and should be avoided by the faithful. But who cares what the PCED thinks? Who cares what the pope thinks? Everyone just does what seems right in his own eyes and if the higher authority objects then who cares? "certain qualifications are present" which enable me to do as I please. And I am sorry but if you diminish the authorities of the church in deference to authorities of fisheaters or the SSPX then you may not be a formal sedevacantist but you are exhibiting a sedevacantist mentality because the the Pope has become merely a figurehead in your eyes. He has no authority over you except that which suits you. The Pope has not asked anybody to sin, therefore you have no grounds to reject his judgements.

[devotedknuckles]

A prod bastard mass with its prod theology
No pope can tell a catholic to worship at a non catholic mass. Worshping at non catholic masses is sinfull.
We obey the pope in all things not sinfull! U well pissontrads u can worship at a prod banquet all u want. And by the sounds of u it fits

[Baskerville]

. Are you going to subject the Pope to your canon law validity ten point check before you obey him?

Thats actually a good Idea. That way you can be sure he isnt pushing heresy like the last 4 Popes have.

Your worship of the Pope borders on Idolatry.
No Pope no matter how COOL he is can tell us to do uncatholic things that has been laid down for centuries.

[Scipio_a]

I had a longish post to try to help you, PerelTron.

I distill it to this....read the books on my list you claim to have read


Read the books


Read the books


Really, really read those books....


Two things will strike anyone who really reads them....first is that ABL had an immense knowledge of the Church, and that he seemed to have several uncanny abilities that made him perfectly placed in time and space to be the man he became......despite his fighting against it the whole way.  These abilities where his ability to distill his vast store of info and apply it....and his amazing organizational skills


In this endeavor you will notice the second striking phenomenon....his desire NOT to have happen what happened....the lengths to which he went to avoid it...and above all his LOVE....palpable LOVE... for his detractors, adversaries, and counterparts

Then you will notice the distinct and disturbing lack of said qualities on the other side....very telling...and right in line with the way the Council was run and what it stood for...what it was designed to do...


If you really are as smart as you think you are...you will not miss these things...especially now that I have pointed them out....good luck

[Amusing_Myself_to_Death]

petrelton,

Obviously, we have a failure to communicate...I'll continue to rattle on and walk around in circles, world without end, amen.

Hypothetical arguments are a staple in thought experiments. Thought experiments are a staple in testing the soundness of a particular position. Testing the soundness of a particular position is the staple of discovering the truth. This doesn't imply a lack of facts. But, I'll let this go...

And, no, I do not defer to the authorities of fisheaters, although I usually get a chuckle out of devotedknuckles' posts. I only care to defer to the authority of the Church as it has manifested the Truth throughout the ages--not just since the 1960's.

As for having a sedevacantist mentality, well, I guess I should ring up Michael Dimond and see if he wants to go for a drink. I mean, what else does he do all day but make shoddy videos?

Dominus vobiscum,

Joshua

[petrelton]

petrelton,

Obviously, we have a failure to communicate...I'll continue to rattle on and walk around in circles, world without end, amen.

Hypothetical arguments are a staple in thought experiments. Thought experiments are a staple in testing the soundness of a particular position. Testing the soundness of a particular position is the staple of discovering the truth. This doesn't imply a lack of facts. But, I'll let this go...

And, no, I do not defer to the authorities of fisheaters, although I usually get a chuckle out of devotedknuckles' posts. I only care to defer to the authority of the Church as it has manifested the Truth throughout the ages--not just since the 1960's.

Which means that you defer to the authority of the church except when you judge that it is not representing or manifesting the truth throughout all the ages. In which case you do not defer to it. You therefore set yourself, fisheaters, sspx and whoever up as a judge of whether the church is preserving tradition or not. Err. Hang on bud. That is the churches job to guard and preserve tradition, not yours, not the SSPX, not fisheaters and certainly not Dimond brothers.

As for having a sedevacantist mentality, well, I guess I should ring up Michael Dimond and see if he wants to go for a drink. I mean, what else does he do all day but make shoddy videos?

Dominus vobiscum,

Joshua

The sedevacantist mentality to which I refer is this idea that we as layfolk can subject the magisterium of the church to our scrutiny and judgement to ensure that tradition is upheld, and that when we judge with our own brains (which are after all the size of a planet) that the church is departing from tradition that we shall therefore be justified to more or less depart from the church. Sedevacantists depart completely from the church. But all those who reject the authority of the Pope to one extent or another are saying that the Pope is only half or one quarter or one tenth in the chair. So we still have a pope but not a supreme Pope but rather a figurehead paper tiger pope. This is the sedevacantist mentality. The kind of mentality which is primed at the drop of a hat to cry out "we have no bishop".

People accuse me of being a papolater who would kiss the koran or murder my grandmother at the command of the Pope. This is truly absurd. Such ridiculous extremes of argument do not serve to dignify the debate but attempt to make the whole concept of obedience to the Pope into a joke. The Pope has not commanded us to sin. And it goes without saying that obedience to the Pope is illegitimate if it causes us to sin. It goes without saying that we obey God rather than man. But if this obvious point is taken to a ridiculous extreme then there is no authority in the world at all. I would not obey the police because there are corrupt police in the force. My children would not obey their teachers because there are child abusing teachers in the system. Children would not obey there parents because their parent cheats on his tax return. The fact is that a heart of obedience strives to subject its will to serve and follow the commands and directives of the superior. Christ gave this example humbling himself to be a servant to obey the will of the Father. You are just asserting your will here. So are the SSPX and the various groups with their sedevacantist mentalities. If we can obey an inferior authority then God is pleased and convinced that we can obey a perfect authority for all eternity.

We simply are not talking about sin or breaching conscience here. We are talking about doctrinal definitions of mysteries of the ages. We are talking about pastoral considerations of the church towards the members of the flock and the world. A charge of heresy against the church cannot be proven with any certainty. At most if we really stretch it we might suspect the church of heresy. There is certainly no formal heresy in the church. In fact most of the attacks on the Pope and the council verge on a denial of church teachings such as invincible ignorance.

Compared to the heresies that thrived in the church in past generations the so-called "heresies" of the modern church are just childs play. The church was the church then just as much as it is now. Catholics were condemned then for leaving the church and setting up alternative fellowships. They should be condemned now. And of course they are. The Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei pronounced the SSPX as having a schismatic mentality with invalid confessions and urged the faithful not to participate in their fellowships. So why do we not obey the church? Why are so many abandoning the church to play happy neo-50's style church down the road? Because just as there were individuals with a schismatic mentality in the early church, so too are there individuals with a schismatic mentality today. Come on lets be catholic and ignore and avoid individuals of a schismatic mentality shall we?

[Meg]

Petrolltron,
You mentioned in your latest encyclical condemning the SSPX that the charge of heresy against the Church cannot cannot be proven with any certainty. Well, this is true. But the charge of material heresy can be proven against individuals, such as Pope John Paul ll. however, the charge of formal heresy cannot be made toward him. There's a difference.

I think that there have been Popes in the past that have been declared formal heretics, have there not?

[IrishCowboy]

Which means that you defer to the authority of the church except when you judge that it is not representing or manifesting the truth throughout all the ages. In which case you do not defer to it. You therefore set yourself, fisheaters, sspx and whoever up as a judge of whether the church is preserving tradition or not. Err. Hang on bud. That is the churches job to guard and preserve tradition, not yours, not the SSPX, not fisheaters and certainly not Dimond brothers.

Yes, but the Church has failed to do so.  Someone had to safeguard the traditional Mass after V2 in much the same way St. Athanasius had to stick his neck out in his day.

The sedevacantist mentality to which I refer is this idea that we as layfolk can subject the magisterium of the church to our scrutiny and judgement to ensure that tradition is upheld, and that when we judge with our own brains (which are after all the size of a planet) that the church is departing from tradition that we shall therefore be justified to more or less depart from the church. Sedevacantists depart completely from the church. But all those who reject the authority of the Pope to one extent or another are saying that the Pope is only half or one quarter or one tenth in the chair. So we still have a pope but not a supreme Pope but rather a figurehead paper tiger pope. This is the sedevacantist mentality. The kind of mentality which is primed at the drop of a hat to cry out "we have no bishop".

As you're well aware, those who would take issue with your statements about sedevacantism cannot, by forum rules, do so.  So leave off talking about all that stuff.  It's irrelevant anyway.  The SSPX is not sedevacantist.  They have always acknowledge the Pope and his authority.  They say the prayers for the intention of the Holy Father after every Mass.  ABL did what he perceived was his only option.  We don't need to hear you call them of a sedevacantist mind because of it.

People accuse me of being a papolater who would kiss the koran or murder my grandmother at the command of the Pope. This is truly absurd. Such ridiculous extremes of argument do not serve to dignify the debate but attempt to make the whole concept of obedience to the Pope into a joke. The Pope has not commanded us to sin. And it goes without saying that obedience to the Pope is illegitimate if it causes us to sin. It goes without saying that we obey God rather than man. But if this obvious point is taken to a ridiculous extreme then there is no authority in the world at all. I would not obey the police because there are corrupt police in the force. My children would not obey their teachers because there are child abusing teachers in the system. Children would not obey there parents because their parent cheats on his tax return. The fact is that a heart of obedience strives to subject its will to serve and follow the commands and directives of the superior. Christ gave this example humbling himself to be a servant to obey the will of the Father. You are just asserting your will here. So are the SSPX and the various groups with their sedevacantist mentalities. If we can obey an inferior authority then God is pleased and convinced that we can obey a perfect authority for all eternity.

Hey, the Pope himself kissed the Koran, right?  So how is it truly absurd for him to ask you to do the same?  Yeah, I don't think he would either, but since he kissed it himself, we can't banish the thought to the realm of absurdity.  Of course you should still trust the police force and obey them even though there are rogue officers there -- just as you should continue to obey Church authority, when they're not asking for things that can jeopardize your soul.  Of course your children should still obey their teachers even though there are pedophile teachers out there.  But you would expect someone to stand up if there was a bad apple in the teaching force and ask that the offending party be removed from the classroom.  And if they weren't, you'd be morally obligated to withdraw your child from that school and find other ways for them to learn.  Similarly, if the Pope asked you to go to a Mass that was harmful for your soul, you would not be obliged to do it.  You have to be able to differentiate between obedience to the office and obedience to the command.  We should always evaluate commands and make sure they don't go against God's laws.  That's why the concept of disobeying unlawful commands even exists.  If there was no such thing as an illegitimate command, we wouldn't have to think much, would we?  We must always obey the Pope, as any authority figure, except when he asks for something we cannot in good conscience do.  Whether that is the case here, of course, is the point under consideration.  For you to be able to objectively say no, must be really comforting for you.  But for the rest of us, thank you for your opinion.

We simply are not talking about sin or breaching conscience here. We are talking about doctrinal definitions of mysteries of the ages. We are talking about pastoral considerations of the church towards the members of the flock and the world. A charge of heresy against the church cannot be proven with any certainty. At most if we really stretch it we might suspect the church of heresy. There is certainly no formal heresy in the church. In fact most of the attacks on the Pope and the council verge on a denial of church teachings such as invincible ignorance.

Compared to the heresies that thrived in the church in past generations the so-called "heresies" of the modern church are just childs play. The church was the church then just as much as it is now. Catholics were condemned then for leaving the church and setting up alternative fellowships. They should be condemned now. And of course they are. The Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei pronounced the SSPX as having a schismatic mentality with invalid confessions and urged the faithful not to participate in their fellowships. So why do we not obey the church? Why are so many abandoning the church to play happy neo-50's style church down the road? Because just as there were individuals with a schismatic mentality in the early church, so too are there individuals with a schismatic mentality today. Come on lets be catholic and ignore and avoid individuals of a schismatic mentality shall we?

How about we just be Catholic and continue to do what Catholics have always done for centuries instead of being led down the path toward "unity" and protestantization?

[petrelton]

Petrolltron,
You mentioned in your latest encyclical condemning the SSPX that the charge of heresy against the Church cannot cannot be proven with any certainty. Well, this is true. But the charge of material heresy can be proven against individuals, such as Pope John Paul ll. however, the charge of formal heresy cannot be made toward him. There's a difference.

I think that there have been Popes in the past that have been declared formal heretics, have there not?

So if the Pope is not proven formally heretic then he is a heretic anyway by virtue of the fact that he is materially heretic.
But if the SSPX is not proven formally schismatic then it is not schismatic even though it is materially schismatic.
Seems like a double standard going on here.

[Scipio_a]

SSPX is not materially schismatic...you are a calumniator, dare I say it...a scumbag NO hack who wants nothing more than to sow confusion in the minds of people...sorry to tell you...you won't find many takers for your lies and calumny against the SSPX and others here...we are immune.

[nsper7]

Petrolltron,
You mentioned in your latest encyclical condemning the SSPX that the charge of heresy against the Church cannot cannot be proven with any certainty. Well, this is true. But the charge of material heresy can be proven against individuals, such as Pope John Paul ll. however, the charge of formal heresy cannot be made toward him. There's a difference.

I think that there have been Popes in the past that have been declared formal heretics, have there not?

So if the Pope is not proven formally heretic then he is a heretic anyway by virtue of the fact that he is materially heretic.
But if the SSPX is not proven formally schismatic then it is not schismatic even though it is materially schismatic.
Seems like a double standard going on here.

My understanding is that the Church has stated that the SSPX is guilty of disobedience to the Pope/Church and they are not a Canonically recognized group, but they are not in a state of schism. The excommunications against the four Bishops were rescinded by the Holy See. Catholics are allowed to attend SSPX Masses in order to fulfill the Sunday obligation.

To continue to claim that the SSPX is schismatic when the Church has ruled that is not schismatic is to commit calumny and to be disobedient to the rulings of the Church. My understanding is that to be schismatic means to want to separate oneself from the Church. This has never been the intention of the SSPX (remember, +Lefebvre and the four men he ordained as Bishops were excommunicated for violating Church rules/disobeying an order of the Pope, not for the sin of schism) and, according to those who have attended SSPX Masses, they pray for the Holy Father.

[INPEFESS]

The sedevacantist mentality to which I refer is this idea that we as layfolk can subject the magisterium of the church to our scrutiny and judgement to ensure that tradition is upheld, and that when we judge with our own brains (which are after all the size of a planet) that the church is departing from tradition that we shall therefore be justified to more or less depart from the church. Sedevacantists depart completely from the church. But all those who reject the authority of the Pope to one extent or another are saying that the Pope is only half or one quarter or one tenth in the chair. So we still have a pope but not a supreme Pope but rather a figurehead paper tiger pope. This is the sedevacantist mentality. The kind of mentality which is primed at the drop of a hat to cry out "we have no bishop".

Whether or not sedevacantists are correct in their belief is irrelevant because it cannot be discussed on this forum. I apologize if I sound condescending, but regardless of the statements from those sedevacantists with whom you might have spoken, you understand very little to nothing of what sedevacantists actually believe...

[petrelton]

Which means that you defer to the authority of the church except when you judge that it is not representing or manifesting the truth throughout all the ages. In which case you do not defer to it. You therefore set yourself, fisheaters, sspx and whoever up as a judge of whether the church is preserving tradition or not. Err. Hang on bud. That is the churches job to guard and preserve tradition, not yours, not the SSPX, not fisheaters and certainly not Dimond brothers.

Yes, but the Church has failed to do so.  Someone had to safeguard the traditional Mass after V2 in much the same way St. Athanasius had to stick his neck out in his day.

Tradition can be safeguarded without rebelling. There is no need to consecrate bishops against the command of the Pope. There is no need to set up confessions and other sacraments outside the visible and ordinary structure of the church. There is no need to slander popes and teachers of the church with labels of "modernist" "heretic". There is no need to disparage or reject the catechism or the rites of the church.

It is quite alright to ask the question "The church used to say this, and now it says this. How can that not be modernist?" And then learn and be teachable to hear the answer. And if you still disagree you may write to the bishop. You might even have a petition to the Pope for him to address an issue, or a pilgrimidge to the cathedral. But if after all of that the Pope tells you to "zip it" and "stand down soldier" then unity, obedience and good common sense tells us that as men who are under authority we should and must obey that authority. You obey at work when your boss tells you to "shut up and go back into your box". You go quiet and obey because otherwise you will get the sack. And yet the same people who would obey their boss at work if push came to shove show no concern for their eternal souls and continue to clamour long after the Pope has said "enough!". Bishop Fellay's "We will not shut up" speech is a particular example of this disobedient attitude.

I found a web site from a monastery which obviously was opposing modernism, which was keeping catholic tradition, the TLM, exposing the faults of modernism which are in the church, but it levelled no blame at the dignitaries of the church. It did not accuse specific individuals. In fact the website exemplefied the catholic tradition of praying for the Pope, bishops and priests. Let us do the same. Do we really think our clamour, wingeing, disobedience, rebellion, calumny and accusation is more effective than personal avoidance of modernism, sober traditional catholic life, quiet obedience and prayer? If we do then we think like men of the world and are not being led by the Spirit. If we do then we exhibit a Protestant (protesting) mentality and not a docile obedient catholic mentality.

The sedevacantist mentality to which I refer is this idea that we as layfolk can subject the magisterium of the church to our scrutiny and judgement to ensure that tradition is upheld, and that when we judge with our own brains (which are after all the size of a planet) that the church is departing from tradition that we shall therefore be justified to more or less depart from the church. Sedevacantists depart completely from the church. But all those who reject the authority of the Pope to one extent or another are saying that the Pope is only half or one quarter or one tenth in the chair. So we still have a pope but not a supreme Pope but rather a figurehead paper tiger pope. This is the sedevacantist mentality. The kind of mentality which is primed at the drop of a hat to cry out "we have no bishop".

As you're well aware, those who would take issue with your statements about sedevacantism cannot, by forum rules, do so.  So leave off talking about all that stuff.  It's irrelevant anyway.  The SSPX is not sedevacantist.  They have always acknowledge the Pope and his authority.  They say the prayers for the intention of the Holy Father after every Mass.  ABL did what he perceived was his only option.  We don't need to hear you call them of a sedevacantist mind because of it.
[/quote]
Oh rubbish. You are sidestepping my point in that you are only partially recognising the authority of the Pope. You do not believe his full faculties of supreme pontiff. You believe that because you believe that he is a heretic or a modernist that therefore you are excused from obeying him, or that you will obey him on your terms. You then bring up ludicrous hypothetical examples which might justify disobedience of the Pope and trying to pretend that because he may be disobeyed in this ludicrous example that therefore you can disobey him simply because you believe that he is a modernist and a heretic. Its a shut case. ABL disobeyed the Pope. His act was schismatic. Its a nobrainer. And if the Bishop can rest on his own judgement and do what he felt that he had to in excuse to disobey the Pope, then all his followers believe that they can do likewise which is just what we see today and is the very schismatic mentality that the Ecclesia Dei commission warned of.

People accuse me of being a papolater who would kiss the koran or murder my grandmother at the command of the Pope. This is truly absurd. Such ridiculous extremes of argument do not serve to dignify the debate but attempt to make the whole concept of obedience to the Pope into a joke. The Pope has not commanded us to sin. And it goes without saying that obedience to the Pope is illegitimate if it causes us to sin. It goes without saying that we obey God rather than man. But if this obvious point is taken to a ridiculous extreme then there is no authority in the world at all. I would not obey the police because there are corrupt police in the force. My children would not obey their teachers because there are child abusing teachers in the system. Children would not obey there parents because their parent cheats on his tax return. The fact is that a heart of obedience strives to subject its will to serve and follow the commands and directives of the superior. Christ gave this example humbling himself to be a servant to obey the will of the Father. You are just asserting your will here. So are the SSPX and the various groups with their sedevacantist mentalities. If we can obey an inferior authority then God is pleased and convinced that we can obey a perfect authority for all eternity.

Hey, the Pope himself kissed the Koran, right?  So how is it truly absurd for him to ask you to do the same?  Yeah, I don't think he would either, but since he kissed it himself, we can't banish the thought to the realm of absurdity.  Of course you should still trust the police force and obey them even though there are rogue officers there -- just as you should continue to obey Church authority, when they're not asking for things that can jeopardize your soul.  Of course your children should still obey their teachers even though there are pedophile teachers out there.  But you would expect someone to stand up if there was a bad apple in the teaching force and ask that the offending party be removed from the classroom.  And if they weren't, you'd be morally obligated to withdraw your child from that school and find other ways for them to learn.

Yes of course and such provisions exist within the church today. You can speak up against bad apples in the priesthood and if nothing is done you can go to a different parish without censure. If your conscience prevents you to attend the NO mass then you must locate a Latin Mass of the FFSP which is in good standing with the Pope. But if the local police man is a bad apple and you blow the whistle and the leaders of the police force do nothing are you still obligated to obey the bad apple police. Yes you are because he is in authority over you. So in that case the best approach is to stay out of his way. Commit no crimes, don't go anywhere near him. In the same way we avoid modernist bishops and priests and modernist practices to the very best of our ability. Avoiding bad apple priests is an altogether different thing to rejecting the catechism, setting up a new church, howling accusations at bishops and the Pope and ridiculing the rites of the church.

  Similarly, if the Pope asked you to go to a Mass that was harmful for your soul, you would not be obliged to do it.  You have to be able to differentiate between obedience to the office and obedience to the command.  We should always evaluate commands and make sure they don't go against God's laws.  That's why the concept of disobeying unlawful commands even exists.  If there was no such thing as an illegitimate command, we wouldn't have to think much, would we?  We must always obey the Pope, as any authority figure, except when he asks for something we cannot in good conscience do.  Whether that is the case here, of course, is the point under consideration.  For you to be able to objectively say no, must be really comforting for you.  But for the rest of us, thank you for your opinion.

The Pope does ask you to go to mass every week and if there is no Latin Mass available then you must go to the NO mass. If you reject the NO mass by saying that it is heretical and invalid then this is a schismatic act of disobedience against the Pope. If you reject the NO mass for any reason and refuse to attend it under any circumstances then again this is a schismatic act of disobedience against the Pope. You can however avoid the NO  mass wherever possible on the grounds of your personal opinion that the local parish fosters a modernist approach to the mass. That would not be an act of disobedience and the Pope commends such individuals by striving to provide them with Latin masses when they request them.

[petrelton]

Petrolltron,
You mentioned in your latest encyclical condemning the SSPX that the charge of heresy against the Church cannot cannot be proven with any certainty. Well, this is true. But the charge of material heresy can be proven against individuals, such as Pope John Paul ll. however, the charge of formal heresy cannot be made toward him. There's a difference.

I think that there have been Popes in the past that have been declared formal heretics, have there not?

So if the Pope is not proven formally heretic then he is a heretic anyway by virtue of the fact that he is materially heretic.
But if the SSPX is not proven formally schismatic then it is not schismatic even though it is materially schismatic.
Seems like a double standard going on here.

My understanding is that the Church has stated that the SSPX is guilty of disobedience to the Pope/Church and they are not a Canonically recognized group, but they are not in a state of schism. The excommunications against the four Bishops were rescinded by the Holy See. Catholics are allowed to attend SSPX Masses in order to fulfill the Sunday obligation.

To continue to claim that the SSPX is schismatic when the Church has ruled that is not schismatic is to commit calumny and to be disobedient to the rulings of the Church. My understanding is that to be schismatic means to want to separate oneself from the Church. This has never been the intention of the SSPX (remember, +Lefebvre and the four men he ordained as Bishops were excommunicated for violating Church rules/disobeying an order of the Pope, not for the sin of schism) and, according to those who have attended SSPX Masses, they pray for the Holy Father.

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper. I have explained this very clearly. I have never said that the SSPX is formally in schism. I have repeatedly stated that they have a schismatic mentality. If I ever said that the SSPX was schismatic then that is what I meant, that they have a schismatic mentality. I have also highlighted their schismatic acts. Pointing out schismatic acts and schismatic mentalities is not the same thing as claiming that the SSPX is formally schismatic.
It is the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei which has stated that the SSPX has a schismatic mentality and should be avoided not me.
If I am exactly representing the words of Ecclesia Dei then how can I be committing calumny and disobedience?