Radically Catholic @ultramontes - Tumblr Blog

I was curious, because I kept seeing people who are defending the SSPX say that they 'repeatedly asked for dialogue' with Pope Leo. I know that several months ago they announced they would be doing this, ghat the Vatican told them they better not, and then lo-and-behold they did it anyways. The conflicting information comes from faithful Catholics and non-Catholic news sources that say that Pope Leo had tried to continue the dialogue between the Holy See and the SSPX, and that the SSPX denied that dialogue, because they wanted to ordain bishops without the approval of the Pope.

So a few points to put out for people on the SSPX side of things:

The Holy See warned the SSPX back in February that this would happen if they continued on with their plans. There was no "Pope Leo refused to talk to us or say anything" like I've been seeing SSPX sympathizers saying. They were warned that they actions would cause schism months before Pope Leo sent the personal letter. Don't be fooled.

As well, it has been against Catholic teaching since at LEAST 1983. It appears to also have been part of the 1917 code, lest anyone say that the SSPX don't follow the current Code of Canon law, as promulgated by the Catholic Church. It reads: Can. 1387— Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

(Taken directly from the Vatican website which has the Code on it.)

There is more I could say on the matter but I wanted to be clear in this. Unless you deny the authority of the current Magisterium, the authority of Pope Leo, the argument cannot be made that the SSPX are in any way in the right on this. They are in direct disobedience to the Church, even if Pope Leo had NEVER sent that personal letter, because they never intended to get approval before "consecrating" bishops. This is an act of selfishness and pride on the part of the SSPX clerics, and they are actively deluding lay adherents and lay sympathizers, acting like they are a sick dog that's been kicked. It is NOT traditional to disobey the Holy See or the Code of Canon Law. The Vatican did nothing out of the ordinary to warrant a dissent in will, as would be appropriate if the Vatican or the Pope had done something evil or against Church teaching.

ultramontes

I agree with you that it’s not catholic to consecrate bishops without an apostolic mandate. That granted, the SSPX position would say what you’ve written here begs the question. That is, you assert their disobedience is unjustified because the pope has done nothing wrong. The SSPX argument is that their disobedience is lawful precisely because the pope, in fact all the popes since Vatican II, have done something evil and against church teaching - to wipe out the traditional mass and sacraments. I’m really curious what your response is to that.

#I have no love of the SSPX and know them to be wrong on multiple fronts #but it isn’t an argument to beg the question

•18+ Adults Only

Watch Anya Live on Cam

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.

✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions

Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming

If you really want to fully realize the horror of a canonically schismatic act, consider: the new SSPX bishops, as part of their consecration, swore on the Gospels to obey the pope. In the very act of formally disobeying him. They called God down to witness their oath of obedience while breaking that oath.

#what does that mean for their souls? they are inviting damnation!

I still think Leo should have offered to consecrate the SSPX bishops himself, in the old rite. It would have been a real catch-22 for the society. They would have had to commit fully to either affirming or denying the validity of the 1968 episcopal consecration rite. They would have had to accept regularity in the conciliar church or separated themselves properly.

Instead the society gets to continue undermining real catholic belief in the papacy while professing that the emperor is indeed wearing clothes.

#Hate on sedes all you want but at least they’re logically consistent #the SSPX would destroy the papacy to preserve it in name #sedes just say nah that guy in white can’t be a real pope so we owe him nothing

2 Thessalonians 2:7: For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only he that now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

10-11: Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

14: Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions which you have learned, by word or by our epistle.

#strike the shepherd and the sheep shall scatter #we are watching 2 Thessalonians 2:10 unfold in real time

Every single person that I see around the internet making a sweeping claim about the current issue is contradicting every other person. “the battle lines are clear” “the SSPX is irrelevant” “the faithful will quit going to the SSPX now” “the faithful are more loyal to the SSPX than ever” “this proves tradition is irrelevant” “this proves tradition is going to win in the end” and on and on. Nobody can agree on what they’re arguing about let alone what any of it means. The SSPX thinks they’re arguing about legitimate authority, Rome is making it about obedience, pew sitting trads of various stripes think it’s about the 1962 mass.

Meanwhile the sedevacantists are just watching with popcorn, waiting for somebody else to realize that this level of blindness can only mean one thing.

•18+ Adults Only

Watch Anya Live on Cam

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.

✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions

Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming

Obedience isn’t the issue here. The SSPX consecrations aren’t a question of obedience but of legitimate authority and whether Leo has it or not. All the arguments are nonstarters until that is addressed.

In short, what the SSPX consecrations ought to do is force people to consider the elephant in the room, to whit, the question: “Can the pope destroy the Church?”

If he can - if a legitimate pope can promulgate faulty and or outright defective sacraments, liturgies, catechisms, raise questionable saints to the altar, preach heresy, promote heretics, persecute the faithful for being faithful, and encourage sin - then the SSPX is right to consecrate bishops without such a man’s approval. But if all that is true then Catholicism is just as false as any other religion and it’s game over for everyone.

If he cannot, then Prevost and his novus ordo predecessors are not true popes and the SSPX needs to declare sede vacante and stop rewriting catholic theology on the papacy and obedience.

#SSPX #sedevacante #catholic #obedience #Tldr the SSPX is wrong but not for the reasons you think

apenitentialprayer

Yes, it's a natural instinct to say, "We few insiders, we're the ones in the country club, and everybody else is excluded. In fact, that makes me feel more special, if I see that the mass of people is excluded." But maybe it doesn't work that way. Maybe God's generosity and God's mercy extend way beyond our little cramped sense of what's possible. I can't help but think, everybody (and look at this online if you doubt me, read a lot these reactions) that those who are calling for only a tiny handful who are saved —and, you know, to be fair, that was the view of Saint Augustine, that there's a massa damnata, there's a "damned mass," the vast majority of the human race is damned and only a tiny handful are saved— but I can't help but think that those who are clinging to that view are in the same spiritual space as this man who is interrogating Jesus. And the Lord is saying, "Don't play that game. Rather, let your hope expand to be as great as the mercy of God." Maybe all sorts of people that you consider just hopeless outsiders —they're just beyond the pale, there's no way, there's no way, they could ever be saved— maybe be surprised at how generous God is in His mercy. And perhaps our hope should correspond to the capaciousness of that mercy. I think, everybody, at the end of the day, perhaps that's the spiritual place into which the Lord is inviting us.

Bishop Robert Barron (How Many are Saved?)

Who would we be hesitant to see along those who are called the chosen of God? Who would it be difficult to believe it’s a recipient of God’s mercy and fidelity?

Rev. Jude Winkler, O.F.M. Conv.

ultramontes

Inasmuch as much this is a call to recognize the God who has established the Catholic Church and her sacraments as the normative means of salvation is not himself bound by those means, and can save when and where he wills; inasmuch as it is a reminder to Catholics that the great commission is our duty and we are admonished to be unlike the publican; then perhaps this sentiment is fine.

But Barron’s remarks skirt extremely close to heresy where they deliberately conflate personal humility and awareness of the infinite mercy of God with the condemned proposition that we can hope all or most people will be saved. It is equally condemned to turn “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” into a meaningless formula without bite. The Church is either necessary or it is not.

Scripture is eloquent on how broad and easy the road to hell is, and how narrow and difficult is the road to salvation. The Fathers of the Church and likewise the constant teaching of the ordinary magisterium down the centuries have emphasized that if a soul is not safely within the ark of salvation (the Church), then that soul is at grave and immediate risk of perishing. If being non-Catholic but having “some elements of truth” is “good enough” for a reasonable hope of salvation, then the legs have just been cut out from under all missionary activities. And for what, then, did the martyrs die? Barron is dismissive to the extreme when he brushes away that constant tradition of teaching as an Augustinian quirk.

The tension between the Catholic insistence on a) we fundamentally cannot claim to know in the here and now the exact fate of any soul and b) God’s justice is as strict and infinite as his mercy is the necessary product of free will - man’s and God’s. We do not know definitively the fate of any given soul currently alive, but we are called to make judgments based on facts, and we know both where salvation lies and what mortal sin is.

At any rate, the “dare we hope” attitude popularized by Balthazar et al and now promoted by Barron was condemned definitively in the Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX:

“16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846. 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.”

sedesapostolica

After looking around tumblr, I genuinely think there’s all of maybe two people on this website who understand what sedevacantism is.

The SSPX, as an organization, is not sedevacantist. That’s kind of their whole deal, actually. They’ve staked their entire identity on not being sede. What defines the Society is recognizing the current man in white in Rome as the pope, while continuing to disobey him.

Sedes, by and large, do not recognize any papal claimant after Pius XII as a valid pope, not on the thin grounds of personal heresy, but because they promulgated invalid new rites and sacraments and liturgies (and, yes, the documents of Vatican II) with which they replaced the Catholic rites and sacraments and liturgies. Because in order to hold the catholic belief in the papal office complete and uncompromised, you have to reject any papal claimant who does what a true pope by definition cannot do. For most, the logical argument for “how do you know he’s not a real pope” begins not with “I don’t like him” or “he’s a heretic” but with the objective principles of sacramental theology.

#SSPX #catholic #sedevacantism

What the SSPX consecrations are bringing home to me most forcefully is the generational divide between the og trads and traditional-leaning younger people. The old rite and all that went with it were banished, for decades. Those who clung to it did so precisely because they saw the new order as false and invalid. The Catholic faith and sacramental order was supplanted by the new order and the two could not exist side by side. Now, some people think tradition is just fine - as long as you appreciate it the way you appreciate an old painting in a contemporary house. A lovely decoration. It is shocking and unthinkable that the new order would be considered lesser, or impermissible. Modernist Rome has played its cards well.

If all tradition is, is a mere form to which one has sentimental attachment, or one pretty dance among other equally good options, - and this is the default presumption - then refusing to attend the novus ordo mass or sacrament shopping to get one’s children traditional confirmation or disobeying Leo’s prohibition on consecrating traditional bishops from an episcopal line untouched by the modern form - are truly preference hounding at the least and crimes and sins worst.

But that is not what tradition is. Tradition is the integral apostolic Catholic faith, uncompromised and undiluted, with valid uncontested sacramental forms.

•18+ Adults Only

Watch Anya Live on Cam

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.

✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions

Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming

justjudethoughts

"Catholic guilt" no babe, I'm pretty sure that's Calvinism

eternal-echoes

If SSPX goes ahead with the consecration of the new bishops on July, will they be in the same level as the sedevacantists?

I had a hunch that Pope Leo XIV will be much stricter with the SSPX than Pope Francis was even though he likes Latin but I wasn't really expecting another full-blown excommunication.

catholicapothecary

Depends on what you mean by “same level”

There is a sense in which one can say there are only two real “positions” wrt to the Church: inside or outside. There is another sense in which we can talk about culpability and all of that which varies heavily from person to person. What I would say is this:

No because sedevacantism is not a unified body and to the extent that they are a unified body they are infinitely smaller than the SSPX. Sedes exist, in as far as they even have legitimate orders, as a scattering of rogue prelates. The SSPX situation, if they are excommunicated after the consecrations, will be more similar to the Palmarians or the Old Catholics or even the various eastern bodies (though more the first two than the last). They would still be an actual group with a hierarchy and leadership that could facilitate direct communication with Rome and the Curia. It also gets muddy because of the laity that are part of the SSPX congregations and their level of status if they are attending masses of excommunicated clerics. That sort of nuance doesn’t really exist within the sede sphere.

ultramontes

That nuance doesn’t exist in the sede sphere not because sede groups are smaller (though they are much smaller) but because by definition sedes aren’t seeking the approval of a man they believe to be pope while disobeying his orders.

The SSPX can’t be on the same level as sedes as long as they refuse to declare sede vacante. They want to have their cake and eat it too; to disobey the pope while acknowledging his authority.

The SSPX has been here before, excommunications and all. The difference between 1988 and 2026 is their capitulation to the validity of the new sacraments. All traditionalists - sedes and the SSPX - were formerly defined by their rejection of the new sacraments. The SSPX capitulated that the new (1968) rite of episcopal consecration could be valid when they accepted Joseph Ratzinger as pope - the first post-Vatican II pope to be consecrated a bishop in the new rite. Now the SSPX occupy a weird no man’s land between sedevacantism, which is at least logically consistent with its own premises, and mainstream Catholicism, where they have to make “tradition” the principal of catholic unity instead of the pope… in defiance of catholic tradition.

The first problem with the SSPX consecrations is they are against the express law of the pope. The pope is an absolute monarch; his word is law. The correct and Catholic attitude is, obey the pope.

The SSPX thinks they get a pass for this disobedience because they can see - anyone with eyes can see - that “is the pope catholic?” is no longer a rhetorical question. They believe that the pope can teach contrary to the faith and actively try to suppress Catholic sacraments and actually be a pope. Rather than declare sede vacante, which would be logically consistent with their starting premise that the new mass and new sacraments are bad and false, instead they gut papal theology, claiming that “the pope must teach what is safe even if it is not infallible” is merely a suggestion rather than the entire point of the office, guaranteed by Christ.

They cut the branch they stood on when they accepted Benedict XVI as a valid pope. He was the first pope-elect to be consecrated a bishop in the new rite. The rite they had spent the previous decades declaring to be doubtful at best, and null and void at worst. They had to capitulate to the possible validity of the new sacraments… or declare sede vacante.

What’s ironic is the mainstream Catholics who appreciate the TLM wouldn’t have their diocesan or former-ecclesia dei-group TLM without the SSPX. Without the initial round of episcopal consecrations in 1988 we wouldn’t have the FSSP, and the other alphabet soup orgs (ICKSP, etc) followed from there. Mainstream tradition (such as it is) owes its existence to Lefebvre’s confused courage in ‘88 and the society’s capitulation to Ratzinger as a valid bishop of Rome.

The second problem with the SSPX consecrations is they’re still asking for permission.

#catholic #SSPX

catholicapothecary

Nietzsche could hardly be blamed for the observations he made of Christianity, which have only been proven more and more correct in the following century+

had the Christianity he encountered been that of merely a few centuries prior, he would not have made the same observations

ultramontes

Can you elaborate on this?

#And by Christians do you mean Protestants or Catholics?

cheerfullycatholic

So what are we doing for the SSPX July 1st consecrations? Rosary? Divine Mercy chaplet? Something else? I feel like we have to do something, I'm leaning towards Divine Mercy chaplet, that seems fitting

ultramontes

Help me understand your post. You want to do something… as an act of reparation? Why is the divine mercy chaplet fitting?

cheerfullycatholic

Yeah reparation is a good word for it I guess. I think it's fitting because it's asking God to have mercy on us for our wrongs and the consecrations are a wrong that the Church has said will lead to excommunications

ultramontes

I see your point. Do you think the consecrations are wrong simply because Leo said so? Or that it’s wrong to perpetuate the old form of episcopal consecration?

Not to say this is your position, I don’t know if you’re a TLM person or not, but I find it ironic that TLM supporters are willing to condemn the SSPX when the original forbidden consecrations in 1988 are arguably the reason the mainstream catholic world has access to the TLM at all.

(Fwiw, I am not an SSPX goer, I think they’re a deeply troubled organization with glaring doctrinal issues, but I don’t think having more traditionally ordained catholic bishops in the world is bad thing.)

•18+ Adults Only

Watch Anya Live on Cam

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.

✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions

Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming

cheerfullycatholic

ultramontes

Help me understand your post. You want to do something… as an act of reparation? Why is the divine mercy chaplet fitting?

#I promise I am asking in good faith

Going into the catholic tag really is just realizing Romans 3:10 all over again.

#As it is written : There is not any man just.

Trending Blogs

Last Seen Blogs

Radically Catholic