[Zviadist]

In Campos, the schismatics submitted to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, the Supreme Pontiff lifted the excommunications, welcomed back the stray sheep into the fold, and all is well.

Wrong. We see in the Campos case that Vatican admits that traditional Catholics and traditional Catholic priests are not "schismatic." How do we know this? When the traditional priests and faithful of Campos, Brazil, were received into "full communion" in January, 2002, the Vatican did not make any move to absolve them from any censure for "schism," which would have been necessary had the Vatican legally held them "schismatic." The Vatican, in its handling of the priests and parishoners of Campos has admitted that there was no schism.

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

I have news for you.

If you are "received into full communion", then prior to your reception, you were not in "full communion". This is a matter of understanding English.

We "receive into full communion" non-Catholic Christians, whom we recognize as validly-baptized "separated brothers". Once they are so received, they become Catholics.

Our own parish "receives into full communion" some number of validly-baptized Christians each year. Prior to their reception, they are Baptists, or Methodists, or whatever. But they are not Catholics.

That you use this language is to acknowledge that the Catholics at Campos "received into full communion" in January 2002 were not Catholics prior to January 2002.

Which is the state of the SSPX.

Outside the Catholic Church.

Your own words say it.

Thanks for making my argument for me.


sitetest