Peter de Osma and the SSPX

[HMiS]

I don't share the opinion that the Holy See has abandoned the flock.  Consider what we have seen only recently:

I appreciate your outlook and evaluation of newer documents, but I disagree.

Of course the Holy and Apostolic See of Saint Peter, the Holy Roman Church, cannot defect or "abandon" the flock. It will never. But that does not mean that the theoretical possibility of imposters, illegitimate pseudo-shepherds and thus a mere organization (and not the Church of Rome) speaking as "the Vatican" and "the Pope" and "the Holy See" and thus leading the confused faithful to apostatize to a "new religion". (As sedevacantists claim.)

I do agree with you however, that such a situation would seem highly detrimental and in my personal view a very harsh manner from God to punish the lukewarm faithful on earth with such a chastisement of insiduous lies, plays, perversions and misleading.

But it is not outruled by Catholic theology. Even Cardinal Manning stated that the "city of Rome" would drive away the Vicar of Christ, temporarily revert to its old paganism (secularism and modernism are in fact similar to paganism in results in society's behaviour), in future. And Rome was held captive by Arian heretics (under a valid pope Liberius I) previously, and there were numerous illegitimate (although not one heretical in terms of doctrine) antipopes. The "flight" of an end times' Pope from Rome is often mentioned by mystics. It is not dogma or binding the Catholic Church as such of course, but it is interesting.

[newschoolman]

Decree for Lifting of Excommunications of SSPX Bishops Ready?

by Gregor Kollmorgen

Francisco José Fernández de la Cigoña, author of the most widely read Spanish Catholic blog "La Cigüeña de la Torre" claims that on the desk of the Pope there is a decree revoking the excommunications of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, based on lacking/reduced culpability pursuant to can. 1323, para. 4 and 7, and can. 1324, para 1, 3 and 8 of the Code of Canon Law. The only thing that would be necessary according to Mr Fernández de la Cigoña would be a humble petition by the bishops concerned alleging that they in good faith presumed a state of necessity, an argument which the Society of St. Pius X has advanced for a long time.

While this clearly is but a rumour, and should be taken as such, and as surprising as it may seem, I will note that Mr Fernández de la Cigoña has remarkably often been correct when making such statements.

Posted by Gregor Kollmorgen on 2.11.08 - Comments (5)
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/#2172214109838522980

[newschoolman]

I don't share the opinion that the Holy See has abandoned the flock.  Consider what we have seen only recently:

I appreciate your outlook and evaluation of newer documents, but I disagree.

Of course the Holy and Apostolic See of Saint Peter, the Holy Roman Church, cannot defect or "abandon" the flock. It will never. But that does not mean that the theoretical possibility of imposters, illegitimate pseudo-shepherds and thus a mere organization (and not the Church of Rome) speaking as "the Vatican" and "the Pope" and "the Holy See" and thus leading the confused faithful to apostatize to a "new religion". (As sedevacantists claim.)

I do agree with you however, that such a situation would seem highly detrimental and in my personal view a very harsh manner from God to punish the lukewarm faithful on earth with such a chastisement of insiduous lies, plays, perversions and misleading.

But it is not outruled by Catholic theology. Even Cardinal Manning stated that the "city of Rome" would drive away the Vicar of Christ, temporarily revert to its old paganism (secularism and modernism are in fact similar to paganism in results in society's behaviour), in future. And Rome was held captive by Arian heretics (under a valid pope Liberius I) previously, and there were numerous illegitimate (although not one heretical in terms of doctrine) antipopes. The "flight" of an end times' Pope from Rome is often mentioned by mystics. It is not dogma or binding the Catholic Church as such of course, but it is interesting.

That theory still does violence to the indefectibility of the Church -- by effectively denying her essential mark of VISIBLILITY -- effectively placing the "true Church" in a hidden state.  The SSPX, on the other hand, preserve the note of visibility, however, deny that the Apostolic See remains ever free from error.  I don't know which is better off. 

[SemperFidelis]

I do believe that the SSPX argues that Vatican II was an exercising of the merely Authentic Magisterium (non-infallible), not the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, thus the texts can be open to not only criticism, but can be labeled as containing "grave error."

I'm not saying I agree with this in totality, but am pointing out their arguments.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm

(This article doesn't directly state the above but is related to the point in question.  I can't find the SSPX article I read that does state what I said above, but I will look further)

[newschoolman]

I do believe that the SSPX argues that Vatican II was an exercising of the merely Authentic Magisterium (non-infallible), not the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, thus the texts can be open to not only criticism, but can be labeled as containing "grave error."

I understand the point, however, it makes no difference.  The Magisterium, as such, can't defect from Faith and morals, per se.  Again, the Authentic Magisterium is subject to error, however, not in the order of Faith and morals.  The Authentic Magisterium is subject to error -- only in the practical prudential order.  Such a possibility of error (in the practical prudential order) is necessarily removed when the Magisterium "defines".     

[HMiS]

That theory still does violence to the indefectibility of the Church -- by effectively denying her essential mark of VISIBLILITY -- effectively placing the "true Church" in a hidden state.  The SSPX, on the other hand, preserve the note of visibility, however, deny that the Apostolic See remains ever free from error.  I don't know which is better off. 

It would, by now, after 50 years (since 1958) of alleged sede vacante on the Apostolic Throne of Saint Peter in Rome. With no legitimate popes.

But it is not impossible. But very implausible, I fear, as there would be little orthodox non-Vatican-II-accepting Catholic bishops of Latin or Eastern Rites left, who were appointed by Pope Pius XII and invested with ordinary jurisdiction by the same ("last legitimate and valid") Pope.

There would be only a handful, and most who are left are fully supportive of the 2nd Vatican Council, as far as I know.

The SSPX does not claim the Apostolic See is not "free of error", but that the current claimants or occupants are in error as a private person. If they claim the magisterium has taught heresy or error on Faith and morals, it would be heresy. But the 2nd Vatican Council has a lot from the authentic magisterium and nothing from the extraordinary magisterium and quite some parts from the ordinary and universal magisterium. The statements that the celebration of the Eucharist by schismatic and excommunicated clergy of the Eastern heretical dissident churches "builds up the Church of God" is incorrect. But is it a heresy? An error in the practical realm perhaps, but error and heresy?

Anyway, the SSPX does not deny that the Apostolic See remains perpetually free of error. It rather introduces a distinction between the person of the popes and their private allocutions etc., their mental state (allegedly not "capable" to grasp contradiction with "former" Roman Catholic defined teachings and holy Catholic dogma), and their official magisterium.

It is very complicated.

But it was not the SSPX who started the Crisis or the contradictions, or who now refuse to discuss and openly clarify all contentious points and alleged contradictions of dogma. It is the neo-modernist-influenced Vatican which refuses to do so. It were John Paul II and Benedict XVI who have continued to refuse to even discuss or clarify all contentious points, who veiled themselves in ambiguity and public acts contrary to the Faith (e.g. receiving a Messianic horn and kissing the Quran and inviting pagans to worship their idols for 'world peace'). Not the SSPX. Not Archbishop Lefebvre. There would have been no problems in 1957 under saintly Pope Pius XII. Or in 592 under Pope Saint Gregory the Great. No problems.

It is the Conciliar Church of Vatican II and its seeming contradictions, denials and ambiguity towards Catholic dogma and "previous" defined teachings of the Popes, which are the problem. The SSPX is merely an emergency ship.

[angelofmercy]

unity publshing website says that ''rome will lose faith'' is a forgery because Jesus prayed for Peter that his faith may not waver

[confiteor1]

The SSPX is merely an emergency ship.

If recent rumors prove true, the SSPX might be compelled in conscience to scuttle the emergency ship and climb aboard the floundering Flagship.

All hands on deck!!!

[confiteor1]

HMiS,

I fail to see how any formal act of the Authentic Magisterium can contain error against the Faith.  Do you have a statement from the Magisterium to support your argument?

[newschoolman]

The SSPX does not claim the Apostolic See is not "free of error", but that the current claimants or occupants are in error as a private person

I have heard that, yes.  But it is absurd.  That means that the 16 documents of Vatican II were in effect merely the "private opinions" of the Pope and the Council Fathers -- rather than acts of the magisterium.  Once published in the AAS you can be confident that the Holy See intends it to be accepted by the Church as an Act of the Magisterium.