Replies

The Society does not deny the perpetual succession of the papacy nor does it deny the Pope's primacy over the Church.

For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership.

Agreement over matters of what? Oh, wait, don't answer that - it might make it conditional and ruin your whole argument.

It denies it in practice and the gentleman who began the sspx indicated the Pope was heretical and an antichrist etc..

I asked if you have an example of an instance where you refuted the heresy of the sppx re. the Dogmatic Teachings of Vatican I. Are you searching for one?

In a move which indicates an ongoing hardening of attitude against the Roman Catholic Church, the U.S. District Superior of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Peter Scott, has forbidden persons who attend SSPX chapels to attend any traditional Latin Mass which is in communion with Pope John Paul II. Writing in the May issue of Regina Coeli, Scott, who is known even with the Society for his distempered reactions to anyone who questions his authority, and for overburdening the consciences of the people who attend his chapels, said it was "crucial" for the "sanctification" of families that they not attend the Indult Mass. He writes:

"Remember that if you cannot get to a true (sic) Catholic Mass celebrated by a good (sic) traditional priest, you should not attend the New Mass or the Indult Mass, and this even if it is the only traditional Mass available".

For example, the Society, presumes to set itself up as what many consider a virtual counter-church & magisterium: in addition to employing private judgment to determine what is and what is not Catholic, the Society presumes the competence to annull marriages without the permission of the Pope and bishops, it confirms Catholic young people without permission, and alleges that the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church are invalid or dangerously dubious. It also reportedly brings in much revenue by exploiting every real or imagined problem in the Church to its own advantage. The Society has also reportedly unilaterally imposed censures on lay persons and attempted to defame those priests who have left their ranks.

"The Society does not deny the perpetual succession of the papacy nor does it deny the Pope's primacy over the Church."

It's founder appears to have done just that:

"I entered these negotiations because Rome's reactions in the second half of last year had raised in me a faint hope that these churchmen had changed. They have not changed, except for the worse. Look at Casaroli in Moscow! They have spiritual AIDS, they have no grace, their immunity defense system is gone. I do not think one can say that Rome has not lost the Faith. As for an eventual excommunication, its disagreeableness diminishes with time." (Private talks quoted in Williamson's Letter from Winona, Aug. 1, 1988).

*I'm sure you'll agree with me that Lefebvre was voicing a heresy and declaring Rome had lost the Faith in contradiction to the Dogmatic Teaching of Vatican I.