scotty19855 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Bishop Fellay for Pope!

Oblationem (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Im just a layman, but yeah I think so, even though the Novus Ordo tries to destroy the Papacy. My personal theory is: by doing so the SSPX prevents the Novus Ordo thieves from stealing the Church/Papacy out-right. The SSPX is in their face about it like St. Paul was to St. Peter. They dont sneak around about it. If the SSPX didnt take the position that they take, who would fight for the Papacy? My worry is that some may give up the fight too soon, like accepting the Novus Order Calendar.

Oblationem (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

(B)Ill say it again:Archbishop Lefebvre really believed that he was acting out of necessity. If he was indeed correct in his belief that it was really necessary to consecrate the bishops, then he would not be subject to any penalty whatever (can. 1324.4). If he was in error and even if he was culpably in error in believing that it was necessary to consecrate bishops without a mandate from the Pope, then he still would not incur any automatic (latae sententice) penalty (can. 1324.3).

Oblationem (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

(A)How?Well heres the way it works. Traditionalists follow canon laws and Tradition all the time, but the New Church Novus Ordo follows canon law and Traditions when it pleases them. For Instance, Pope Leo XIII said that Anglican Orders were invalid, and even JP2 said the same thing. But on September 14, 2008 B16 let Homo Heretic Anglican Bishop Rowan Williams deliver a Papal Homily A violation of New Church law. - And yes, Pope Pius XII was a great Pope.

dcamp456 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

And here what I found,PJPII quoted:"there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff". Consecrating a bishop without papal approval was also condemned by Pope Pius XII... Pius XII stated that the sacramental activity of illicitly consecrated bishops was "gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious".." How?

Oblationem (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Archbishop Lefebvre really believed that he was acting out of necessity. If he was indeed correct in his belief that it was really necessary to consecrate the bishops, then he would not be subject to any penalty whatever (can. 1324.4). If he was in error and even if he was culpably in error in believing that it was necessary to consecrate bishops without a mandate from the Pope, then he still would not incur any automatic (latae sententice) penalty (can. 1324.3).

dcamp456 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

is sspx trully excommunicated despite episcopal consecrations of 4 bishops without papal mandate? PJPII excommunicated Lefebvre for being disobedient but Cardinal Hoyos said the whole society is not excommunicated. Which one is true?I don't know whether to believe this because I found it's twisting. I'm a newbie.

Oblationem (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You say that, you absolutely adore our Church, but how many letters of complaint have you written to your priest, bishop or to Rome? What actions have you taken to prove your love for the Church?The SSPX didnt divorce the Church even though they disagree with the way that Church was and is whoring around with the enemies of the Church. The SSPX stays true to Church teaching even though Rome does not. The SSPX fights the good fight, and waits for the return of Tradition.

rguerrah (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I am a cradle Catholic and I absolutely adore our Church. I was blessed to attend a Jesuit high school and university in California. I do prefer a more solem mass. Some Catholic priests today try to make the mass too similar to Protestant services with the lively music, theatrics, etc and I don't like it but I would never break away from the one true Church. It's like a marriage, you are not going to seek a divorce just because you have a disagreement with your spouse.

rguerrah (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

According to Wikipedia, "The SSPX considers itself faithful to the Catholic Church and all its infallible teachings, while rejecting what it sees as novelties in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. It has officially recognised Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI as Popes." Is this true ?