Tradicat

 + JMJ Update: Dr. Lamont, in a Rorate article (link) , pointed out that : It is notable that the profession does not reject any text of the Second Vatican Council, but only states that the influence of the Council promoted deviations from the faith. Catholics may hold that the influence of an ecumenical council was noxious in some respects. It is only the authoritative teachings of a council that demand their assent; they do not have to approve of all the historical results that it led to. One may, for example, reasonably hold that the definitions of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the First Vatican Council led to an exaggerated and harmful conception of papal power, while accepting the definitions themselves. Further what the SSPX actually wrote (link) : I acknowledge in particular that modern errors represent a dreadful threat to the whole of the Catholic order, and that their penetration into the life of the Church, under the influence of the Second Vatican ...

 + JMJ There remains people ... even today ... who believe that the SSPX is in schism. The Evidence So ... let's go through some of the arguments put forward to support that assertion. 3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. (Note 3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre ... have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(Note 4)  Vatican: Ecclesia Dei Adflicta So ... Pope St. John Paul II wrote that the disobedience implies a rejection of the Roman primacy and therefore constitutes a schi...

 + JMJ  It has now been over 35 years since the consecrations of the SSPX bishops. That event is definitely a lightning rod that repeatedly draws criticism. Whether or not Archbishop Lefebvre was right in making the consecrations is, at this point in time, no longer the relevant question.  The deed was done and, aside from the notable issues with ex-SSPX Bishop Williamson, it has borne the foreseen fruit.  The SSPX still exists. Who would have foreseen a Pope Francis within a generation of the consecrations?  But there we are, as Pope Francis continues to widen the gap between the Traditionalist and Liberal Catholics, we have to wonder what will come next.  The answer is simple: Only God knows! What is really important is whether or not the act of consecrating a bishop in 1988 without Pontifical Mandate is a schismatic act? Here are some points to consider ... The canonical warning to Archbishop Lefebvre did not cite the canon's related to schism (link). ht...

 + JMJ  I know Bishop Huonder's residency at an SSPX school has freaked out more than one 'resistor'. This has happened before and I don't doubt it will happen again as Pope Francis takes the time bombs of the Second Vatican Council to their logical end. P^3     Related Links Archbishop Huonder’s Priestly Jubilee    Diocese of Chur (Switzerland): Bishop Huonder Replaced by an Administrator Joint communiqué of Bishop Huonder and Father Pagliarani   Switzerland: Bishop Huonder Recalls the Doctrine of the Church on “Assisted Suicide”   Bishop Huonder Denounces the “Culture of Death” at Work in Birth Control Switzerland: Bishop Huonder’s Term Renewed by the Pope   Switzerland: Bishop Huonder receives members of “Enough!” antiestablishment group Switzerland: Bishop Huonder Denounces Gender Theory   Switzerland: Bishop Huonder suspends a priest who blessed an unnatural union Switzerland: Bishop Vitus Huo...