SSPX Schism

For those who do not know, the Transalpine Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay were formerly associated with the SSPX, but did reconcile and joined the Catholic Church as of 1 July 2008, see here:  https://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/07/canonical-good-standing.html  Source:   https://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/01/business-of-enemies.html  Source:  https://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2010/02/nb.html

"It is clear that with all those who leave us or who have left us for Sedevacantism or with those who want to be subject to the current hierarchy of the Church while hoping to keep the Tradition, we can no longer have relations with them. It is not possible. We say that one cannot be subject to ecclesiastical authority and keep Tradition. They claim the opposite. This is to deceive the faithful. (…) we want to be absolutely free from compromise both with regard to Sedevacantists and with regard to those who want to be subject to ecclesiastical authority." -Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre  Conference in Flavigny, December 1988, Fideliter n° 68, p. 16. Konstantin: So basically the Church no longer exists because being in union with the ecclesisastical hierarchy and holding on to Tradition is no longer possible. So many of these quotes not only reek of schism but of heresy. ... Question: 17) Can we go to the Masses of the “ralliés” [the ED communities]? No, you can't

Notice how some "traditionalists" talk to other Catholics. "Novus Ordites"? Anyone who has spent any amount of time in SSPX communities, as I have, knows, this is not a one off kind of speak. It's rather common. They speak of those who go to the Novus Ordo as if they are some other kind of Catholic. Well they may be right, ironically, since the SSPX is "not part of the one Catholic Church throughout the world", as Cardinal Burke says.  Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Don't forget it, as you are tempted to remain, or join the SSPX communities. "...schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." Canon 751, Code of Canon Law

Bookmarked here at timestamp 9:21:  https://youtu.be/0TyjRoKUi2w?t=561

This letter lands differently 15 years after I first read the book it's in, now that I am not sympathetic to the SSPX. Honestly I wasn't back then either, since I'd debate with some of their folks after Mass when they found out I was connected to the local diocese. I should have smelled the cult stew a brewing circa 2005. Look at these words from Lefebvre... The Vatican is run by the "disciples of Satan", and keep in mind this is Ratzinger and JPII era. Not even Francis. - Laurence G.

Fr. Z: The priests of the SSPX are Catholic priests and not some other kind of priests. Regardless of their unique and somewhat thorny canonical status, they are priests of the Catholic Church and not some other Church. They are even able to receive faculties from competent authority. They validly absolve sins even when there is no danger of death. They witness marriages and say the nuptial Masses. John Salza: Even though the SSPX clergy are not juridically part of the Roman Catholic Church, nor have they been canonically sent by the Roman Catholic Church, Fr. Zuhlsdorf calls them “Catholic priests of the Catholic Church.” Thus, either Fr. Zuhlsdorf does not understand the SSPX’s canonical status in the Catholic Church, or believes that clergy do not have to be part of, or sent by, the Catholic Church to be lawful Catholic ministers. This is why Mr. Salza has asked Fr. Zuhlsdorft to explain how he defines a “legitimate Catholic minister.” Fr. Zuhlsdorf has a grave obligation to publi

John Salza Responds to Peter Kwasniewski on the SSPX January A.D. 2023 Following is my response to Peter Kwasniewski’s hit-and-run post about my January 9, 2023 interview with Matt Fradd on the SSPX. Before addressing his points, notice that Peter admits he only “listened to about an hour” of my three hour and fifteen-minute interview, but then provides a laundry list of points he claims I did not cover or failed to distinguish, again, even though he did not listen to over 2/3rds of the interview, and which actually did include discussion on many of the points he claims I missed (i.e, the Magisterium’s levels of authority, obedience, the problems with Pope Francis, etc). Evidently Peter thinks so highly of himself that he believes he can publicly refute his opponents’ arguments without listening to their entire arguments. This says a lot about his approach to the issue. Now, to Peter’s points. 1 – Peter claims I don’t distinguish between Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Novus O

  Stay tuned for a response from John Salza. :-)

Schismatics, the SSPX, and Sedes w/ John Salza   Didn’t Francis give the SSPX faculties for confession? SSPX priests name Francis in the Mass State of Necessity Canon 1323 and Archb. Lefebvre Lifting of the Excommunications Fulton Sheen and the SSPX Novus Ordo Priest discouraging going to FSSP in schism? Isn’t the Novus Ordo an offense to God? No TLM without SSPX and Lefebvre Wasn’t Rome toying with Lefebvre and so his actions were necessary Are you saying not to go to TLM and go to a clown Mass? The marriage issue in the SSPX and the schismatic tribunal erected by the SSPX Canon law, in brief Is Francis the true pope? Universal and peaceful acceptance Formal, Material, Occult Heresy and Schism The Benevacantist arguments Great Western Schism, confusion in good faith Francis, a bad pope Covid and Trads leaving to join schismatic and heretical groups, sedevacantists Mainstream Trads calling people “enemies of the Church” Heretical post-conciliar popes St. Robert Bellarmine JP II Kiss

The ERRORS of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX w/ John Salza  

John Salza - "Is the Society of St. Pius X in Schism?"