The Vatican, Disciples of Satan (Lefebvre)

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.

"At this time, they (SSPX) are not part of the one Roman Catholic Church throughout the world" - Cardinal Raymond Burke

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

Lefebvrist: "The SSPX is not in schism!"

Lefebvrist: "The SSPX is not in schism!" CIC: "....schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (Canon 751) - - - - - - Marcel Lefebvre: “We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.” (Declaration, November 21, 1974) “We believe that we can affirm, taking into consideration the internal and external critique on Vatican II, that is, in analysing the texts and in studying its circumstances and its consequences, that the Council, turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, is a schismatic council. The tree is known by its fruits. Since the Council, all the larger newspapers throughout the world, American and European, recognise that it is destroying t

John Salza Responds to Peter Kwasniewski on the SSPX

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

SSPX Schism

Search This Blog