Dr Bobus
As far as I know, It is true that Msgr Lefebvre signed the documents of Vat II. In 1970, however, he opened the seminary in Switzerland, at the request of In French seminarians. In 1971 it was moved to Econe. By the time of my first visit to France and Fontgombault in 1972, Econe was chugging along.

French bishops made it clear they would not incardinate any Econe seminarians. (In so far as …More
As far as I know, It is true that Msgr Lefebvre signed the documents of Vat II. In 1970, however, he opened the seminary in Switzerland, at the request of In French seminarians. In 1971 it was moved to Econe. By the time of my first visit to France and Fontgombault in 1972, Econe was chugging along.

French bishops made it clear they would not incardinate any Econe seminarians. (In so far as they had no seminarians themselves that meant that there were almost no diocesan ordinations) They complained to Rome, where the Sec of State was French (Villot). Visitations followed and L was told to shut down the seminary. He refused. The suspensus a divinis followed.

So the problems between L and Rome didn't just start in 1988, with the episcopal consecrations
shorts
so good, thanks
shorts
I rather go to the Greek Orthodox then the new mass which is doomed.
Orthocat
"the young Roche when in 1972 he lost in the semi-finals as a figure skater" - all you need to know about this character! 😉
Fr Dan
Its very sad because all this will do is send people over to sspx and other groups
pgmgn
It's sad, too, that the SSPX is maligned by those who reject analyzing the context of the real situation with Rome instead of casting shade. "Other groups" is where it's at when the group you're supposed to be with betrays is own mission and subsequently abuses the sheep.

This abuse both psychological and spiritual has been going on for a very, very long time. TC is a godsend if only because …More
It's sad, too, that the SSPX is maligned by those who reject analyzing the context of the real situation with Rome instead of casting shade. "Other groups" is where it's at when the group you're supposed to be with betrays is own mission and subsequently abuses the sheep.

This abuse both psychological and spiritual has been going on for a very, very long time. TC is a godsend if only because Rome is finally speaking more clearly about their opposition to the Deposit of the Faith.
Ultraviolet
@pgmgn Minor correction: The SSPX is maligned by those who reject schismatic imposters misrepresenting themselves as traditionalist Catholics.
pgmgn
Says Ultraviolet, a token bully, who will say that the sun is the moon and the earth is really mars so long as mommy won't call him names like schismatic. LoL.

You're a sell out groveling for smells & bells & the need to be the prima dona.
Ultraviolet
I didn't insult you @pgmgn Gotta love the hypocrisy of you whining about "a token bully" when you're one being an obnoxious jerk running his dumb mouth.

You can't defend your schismatic fan-club and bleating at me is a poor substitute for that.

No, I'm not saying anything about the sun and the moon. I'm saying Pope John Paul II, speaking as the head of The Catholic Church, ruled that Abp.…More
I didn't insult you @pgmgn Gotta love the hypocrisy of you whining about "a token bully" when you're one being an obnoxious jerk running his dumb mouth.

You can't defend your schismatic fan-club and bleating at me is a poor substitute for that.

No, I'm not saying anything about the sun and the moon. I'm saying Pope John Paul II, speaking as the head of The Catholic Church, ruled that Abp. Lefebvre's movement was a schism. I'm saying no pope since then has ever decreed otherwise. You SSPX fan-boys are so easily triggered when reminded of what you truly are.

I'm not a sell-out. I'm a Catholic and you schismatics who followed the SSPX out of The Church are not. You're frauds and imposters, simple as that.

Protip: It's "prima donna," How fitting you began your reply with a display of stupidity and ended it with a display of ignorance. :D
pgmgn
Whatever makes you feel better, Ultra. You're still a sellout, exchanging your intellect for a bowl of lentils.
Ultraviolet
The real sell-out was Abp. Lefebvre who signed off on Vatican Council II and abided by it for twenty five years. He didn't care about "tradition" until he didn't get what he wanted. That's my intellect using history to correct your fail. ;-)
pgmgn
You're incapable of knowing what constitutes a fail, Ultra. A pot of lentils is not a functioning brain and the oversized ego will never cover that up. Nor will your glass jaw. Those qualities are what highlight the vacuous nature of your posts. There'd be no FSSP without +Lefebvre and maybe that's what chaps your hide. <shrug>
Ultraviolet
If I had any uncertainty, you provide a daily example of fail every time you reply. @pgmgn My ego is oversized and it comes from decades of keeping false Catholics like you from misleading others. Your trash-talk at me won't change the fact The Church formally decreed the SSPX is in schism, using that exact term. You are what you are.
Ultraviolet
"There'd be no FSSP without +Lefebvre and maybe that's what chaps your hide."

Thanks for the fresh example of fail; I knew I could count on you. :D No, that doesn't bug me in the slightest because it's irrelevant. Schismatics convert to Catholicism all the time. They join The Church while you remain outside of it.
pgmgn
Your ego is oversized and you seem to believe you can overthrow reality by having regular tantrums directed at your chosen straw man. Whatever. Calling someone a schismatic doesn't make them one. Even the pope cannot declare that the moon is now the sun or that 5 is now 4. He can grin like a banshee and tell Muslims what they believe but he has zero authority to define what Muslims actually …More
Your ego is oversized and you seem to believe you can overthrow reality by having regular tantrums directed at your chosen straw man. Whatever. Calling someone a schismatic doesn't make them one. Even the pope cannot declare that the moon is now the sun or that 5 is now 4. He can grin like a banshee and tell Muslims what they believe but he has zero authority to define what Muslims actually believe.

In your glee to label others as outsiders, for all your protestations for the TLM, you've successfully locked yourself into a refrigerator that is now devoid of food and is sitting in the hot sun at the junk yard awaiting the crush while you attempt to convince others that choking CO2 is a Big Mac.

What precisely are you arguing for? A name devoid of any meaning. Are you so unwilling to critically analyze the actual situation that you'll eat whatever is offered to you and call it honey cakes? Okay. But that doesn't make you Catholic and/or faithful....it makes you a hapless tool.

You remind me of the Democratic Party that positioned themselves as not being the Orange Man. Sounds good to the woefully ignorant and those hopped up on emotion, but you're rushing toward self-annihilation. Maybe that's why you're still believing that Francis will leave the FSSP untouched...if only they compromise enough. (You trash talk others but have no understanding that the Church did not formally decree that the SSPX was in schism. That said, one cannot declare that which is not. Joan of Arc was declared a heretic and burned and, well, it wasn't true now was it?)
Ultraviolet
Ironic how you keep accusing me of things Abp. Lefebvre already did, i.e. believing he could overthrow reality by having regular tantrums directed at a chosen straw man... in his case, the Pope.

"Calling someone a schismatic doesn't make them one."

Refusing to submit to Papal authority does that. When the Pope calls someone a schismatic after they do so , he's just formally confirming it so …More
Ironic how you keep accusing me of things Abp. Lefebvre already did, i.e. believing he could overthrow reality by having regular tantrums directed at a chosen straw man... in his case, the Pope.

"Calling someone a schismatic doesn't make them one."

Refusing to submit to Papal authority does that. When the Pope calls someone a schismatic after they do so , he's just formally confirming it so the faithful won't be misled by their errors.

"Even the pope cannot declare that the moon is now the sun..."

But he can declare someone a heretic or a schismatic and confirm their excommunication. That's exactly what he did for Abp. Lefebvre. No surprise those who disregard the Pope's authority continue to do so when reminded of their disobedience.

"but he has zero authority to define what Muslims actually believe."

The Pope doesn't need to define their errors "what they actually believe". As the head of The Church, the Pope has the authority, the right -even the obligation- to denounce errors for what they are.

A judge doesn't have define theft, the law does that. But he does have the authority to rule theft has occurred and pass sentence accordingly.

"for all your protestations for the TLM, you've successfully locked yourself into a refrigerator... blah, blah, blah"

Those long weird metaphors simply make you look silly. They don't even work -as- metaphors. All they do is brand you as just the sort of crackpot who buys into SSPX fantasies.

Thematically you're not even consistent. One day I'm eating lentils, the next I'm in a fridge without food. Pick one style of stupid and stick with it. :P

So far the only consistency you do have is in constantly sneering at "smells and bells" and "protestations for the TLM.". That's supposedly the big selling point of the SSPX, eh? ;-) It's what Abp. Lefebvre claimed he was fighting to preserve.

"What precisely are you arguing for? A name devoid of any meaning."

If The Catholic Church is "a name devoid of any meaning" then why does the SSPX keep pretending they're still part of it? You people should just make a clean break and do your own thing as your own church. The Orthodox did but your kind don't and won't.. You crave the legitimacy of The Catholic Church while disobeying its leaders and remaining entirely outside of it.

"Are you so unwilling to critically analyze the actual situation that you'll eat whatever is offered to you and call it honey cakes?"

The "actual situation" is clear. Abp. Lefebvre was part of Vatican Council II. He signed off on Vatican Council II's documents. He abided by Vatican Council II for decades. When the Pope Paul VI and Pope JP II told Little Marcel, "No, you don't get to do whatever you want" then he suddenly began inventing reasons to justify his disobedeince. That's actual situation.

"Okay. But that doesn't make you Catholic and/or faithful...."

The irony of that accusation from the schismatic whose SSPX constantly pretends they're still Catholic and/or faithful...

You can't have it both ways. If the SSPX doesn't want to submit to the Pope and be part of The Church structure, fine. Then you're not Catholics, regardless of your doctrine. You're something else. If you want the legitimacy of being part of The One True Church, the one Christ founded, then you submit to His earthly successor.

"You remind me of the Democratic Party that positioned themselves as not being the Orange Man..."

I'm not surprised at that. You're stupid and obviously incapable of defending "the actual situation" of the SSPX on factual grounds. The best you can do is associate me with some political group you dislike. The rest of your tortured contrived comparison fails as badly as your quasi-Biblical food metaphors.

"Sounds good to the woefully ignorant and those hopped up on emotion,..."

...said the guy who long ago abandoned a fact-based discussion for trash talk and badly crafted rhetoric.

"Maybe that's why you're still believing that Francis will leave the FSSP untouched..."

Oh goody, we have another GTV Bogus Mind-Reader! :D Since I haven't shared my beliefs, don't try to invent them for me. Go polish your crystal ball. :P To think you started your reply whining about "your chosen strawman", Hoo boy, that's as "strawman argument" as it gets. :

"the Church did not formally decree that the SSPX was in schism."

...because "Ecclesia Dei" was never written, yes? :D JP II, writing as the Head of The Church, formally called Abp. Lefebvre's movement "the schism" (ta-ta-ta-tum!) using that exact word. The SSPX is as delusional as the Benedict Buddies. The only resignation they'll ever accept is the one he didn't write. The SSPX does the same with "formal decrees."

"That said, one cannot declare that which is not."

The bulk of "Ecclesia Dei" goes on at length explaining why Abp. Lefebvre was a.) wrong b.) disobedient c.) violating Canon Law d.) O-U-T as a result of a.) through c.).

Maybe you can lie to Catholics who haven't studied the subject and claim otherwise. You certainly have every reason to do so. But that isn't going to work here and you can't unwrite an Apostolic Letter or the Canon Law it cites, or the history necessitating that Letter.

No, all you can do is pretend it doesn't count because that's what schismatics do.
pgmgn
Not sure where you're going with Benedict Buddies but throw in the kitchen sink while you're at it. You certainly have every reason to in light of the truth that is being consistently revealed. Enjoy your schism from reality. (You should be jumping for joy at TC. And doing exactly what PF commands. Or else.)

Are you a failed seminarian?
shorts
SSPX is soon to be all that is left Catholic of the Catholic Church the rest is just slop bucket protestant.
Ultraviolet
"Not sure where you're going with Benedict Buddies.." @pgmgn

That's understandable. I made a direct comparison instead of writing a long contrived metaphor involving lentil soup and honey cakes like an idiot. Benedict Buddies pretend Benedict didn't truly resign. The SSPX pretends The Church didn't formally decree they're in schism. Gee... that was ever so difficult.

" but throw in the kitc…More
"Not sure where you're going with Benedict Buddies.." @pgmgn

That's understandable. I made a direct comparison instead of writing a long contrived metaphor involving lentil soup and honey cakes like an idiot. Benedict Buddies pretend Benedict didn't truly resign. The SSPX pretends The Church didn't formally decree they're in schism. Gee... that was ever so difficult.

" but throw in the kitchen sink while you're at it."

..said the guy who already threw in the sun, the moon, enough food references to serve a hearty lunch, a refrigerator to store the left-overs and choking on CO2 just for one last bit of unhinged macabre weirdness.

"You certainly have every reason to in light of the truth that is being consistently revealed."

The truth of Lefebre's schism has been well documented for over thirty years now. There's nothing "constantly revealed" about it.

"Enjoy your schism from reality. "

...said the SSPX fan-boy who pretends "Ecclesia Dei" isn't an officially binding and valid Church document.

"You should be jumping for joy at TC. And doing exactly what PF commands. Or else."

That's a perfect example of what you called a "schism from reality" :D Pope Francis isn't commanding either clergy or the laity in TC.

"Are you a failed seminarian?"

...asked the failed ex-Catholic.
pgmgn
+Lefebvre's necessary actions are well documented, yes, and the ongoing doctrinal crisis that the FSSP chose to deny, the same acknowledged by Rome via TC and associated context, is now confirmed.

The truth always outs eventually.

Sorry if that upsets you so.

But thanks for letting us know you were cut from the seminar roster. That's something the hierarchy got right. Thank God!
Ultraviolet
The only thing"necessary" about Abp. Lefebre's actions was that he claimed they were. Typical SSPX historical revisionism. You people never quit. All the bishops who supported the Latin Mass outside of Lefebvre's schism simply don't exist. They didn't exist in his fantasy world-view and they don't exist in yours.

The FSSP doesn't involve themselves with the SSPX's "ongoing doctrinal crisis" …More
The only thing"necessary" about Abp. Lefebre's actions was that he claimed they were. Typical SSPX historical revisionism. You people never quit. All the bishops who supported the Latin Mass outside of Lefebvre's schism simply don't exist. They didn't exist in his fantasy world-view and they don't exist in yours.

The FSSP doesn't involve themselves with the SSPX's "ongoing doctrinal crisis" with good reason. The FSSP isn't in schism and doesn't need to manufacture a "crisis" to justify their break from the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo Mass is a failed experiment, even the Pope recognizes that, hence the pressure he's applying with TC. It isn't working.

"But thanks for letting us know you were cut from the seminar roster."

There's another great example of what you called a "schism from reality" t I'm not suprised you've invented a new "label" for me. You're simply doing what every other agenda-peddling nitwit does when their fantasies get discredited. Poor boy. ;-)
pgmgn
Oh do tell me about "all" those Latin Mass supporting bishops who have done--hmmm--nothing. Absolutely nothing beyond talk and ongoing navel gazing... no wonder you're so confused.

Too bad the FSSP did not involve themselves with the foundational arguments surrounding the upholding of Tradition. They may have gotten the bishop they were promised. But they did not involve themselves, subsequently…More
Oh do tell me about "all" those Latin Mass supporting bishops who have done--hmmm--nothing. Absolutely nothing beyond talk and ongoing navel gazing... no wonder you're so confused.

Too bad the FSSP did not involve themselves with the foundational arguments surrounding the upholding of Tradition. They may have gotten the bishop they were promised. But they did not involve themselves, subsequently have no bishop, and now find themselves in the pickle they created by pretending that disobedience equates to schism.

Sorry, not sorry, Charlie :^)
Ultraviolet
I'm not confused about your errors; they're quite clear. Many bishops do the most important thing of all. They allow the Latin Mass in their diocese and that, is a great deal more than "absolutely nothing" you silly schismatic.

"They may have gotten the bishop they were promised."

Or not, and it hasn't stopped them one bit. Glad you brought it up though. Guess who travels hundreds of miles …More
I'm not confused about your errors; they're quite clear. Many bishops do the most important thing of all. They allow the Latin Mass in their diocese and that, is a great deal more than "absolutely nothing" you silly schismatic.

"They may have gotten the bishop they were promised."

Or not, and it hasn't stopped them one bit. Glad you brought it up though. Guess who travels hundreds of miles cross-country on their own dime to ordain FSSP priests? That's right, all those bishop you claim do "absolutely nothing", ;-)

"by pretending that disobedience equates to schism."

You better take a refresher in Canon Law, hon...

...because in Little Marcel's case it equated to schism and excommunication.
pgmgn
No, you're not confused about my supposed errors, you're simply confused and scrabbling for a foundation that doesn't exist. Why? Maybe because the FSSP failed to give you one beyond, 'We follow the Pope.' (Kind of like 'We're not Orange Man.' Gotcha :^)

Those non-FSSP bishops travel miles to ordain a pseudo-traditional FSSP to act as a counter to anyone with the &^%$ enough to call out the …More
No, you're not confused about my supposed errors, you're simply confused and scrabbling for a foundation that doesn't exist. Why? Maybe because the FSSP failed to give you one beyond, 'We follow the Pope.' (Kind of like 'We're not Orange Man.' Gotcha :^)

Those non-FSSP bishops travel miles to ordain a pseudo-traditional FSSP to act as a counter to anyone with the &^%$ enough to call out the truth of their shaky foundation. Those non-FSSP bishops are owned, Ultra. Doing zip outside saying how they're not in schism while endorsing ineffectual ad highly effeminate nothing burgers.

One doesn't need a refresher in canon law. Why? Because the fissures in your so-called position are so obvious that even a child could see them. Do what I say not as I do doesn't fly. And neither do empty promises from Rome that have left the FSSP flapping in the wind without a bishop of their own and/or a foundation upon which to stand.

Good luck with that.
Ultraviolet
For once I agree with you. I'm not confused about your supposed errors, because they aren't "suppposed" at all, they're glaringly evident and I'm having a blast rubbing your nose in them. :D

My foundation is the Catholic Church. Your foundation is the personality cult you've built around Abp. Lefebvre. As you said, "good luck with that". ;-)

"Maybe because the FSSP failed to give you one …More
For once I agree with you. I'm not confused about your supposed errors, because they aren't "suppposed" at all, they're glaringly evident and I'm having a blast rubbing your nose in them. :D

My foundation is the Catholic Church. Your foundation is the personality cult you've built around Abp. Lefebvre. As you said, "good luck with that". ;-)

"Maybe because the FSSP failed to give you one beyond, 'We follow the Pope.' "

...except that's wrong. We submit to the Pope, as the FSSP does. Following him is a different matter and that's the kind of technical distinction that's lost on you as it is with other schismatics.

"(Kind of like 'We're not Orange Man.' Gotcha :^)"

Still trying to force that failed comparison? :D The funny part is it applies you. It's the SSPX who's built an negative-identity around "We're not White Man" (JPII, BXVI, Francis, et.al.).

"Those non-FSSP bishops travel miles to ordain a pseudo-traditional FSSP to act as a counter to anyone with the &^%$ enough to call out the truth of their shaky foundation."

The FSSP are Catholics in full communion with the Catholic Church. You SSPX are not. Weigh that against the phrase, "pseudo-traditional". :D

Those bishops serve as an irrefutable counter example "to anyone with the &^%$ enough..."

In your case "the &^%$ enough..." means "the stupidity enough..." Heavens knows why you needed profanity symbols for that. ;-)

None the less, those bishops are obviously doing something, contrary to your claim. The FSSP hasn't suffered from a lack of bishops, contrary to your wishful thinking. In short, those bishops prove you're full of it and don't know what you're talking about. What else is new?

"endorsing ineffectual ad highly effeminate nothing burgers."

Get back to me when you can explain all the child molestors the SSPX has. ;-)

theamericanconservative.com/dreher/sspx-abuse-scandal-mainstream-media/

That's not counting the SSPX laity who were also abusing children while covering up the clerical abuse of their clergy. So try not to sprain your finger wagging it about "highly effeminate nothing burgers".

"One doesn't need a refresher in canon law."

You do.

"Why? Because the fissures in your so-called position are so obvious that..."

What's obvious you can't back your claim with facts. You don't mind running your mouth but you aren't going to step up for a debate on Canon Law. You know how badly you'll lose. ;-)

"Do what I say not as I do doesn't fly."

Zero relevancy to Canon Law. But what's one moar mistake for you now, eh? :P

"that have left the FSSP flapping in the wind without a bishop of their own and/or a foundation upon which to stand."

You really need a better rhetorical talking point than "foundation". Good heavens, you've misused that one enough for one reply.

The FSSP's foundation is The Catholic Church, not the SSPX's deliberate misrepresentation of still being part of it.

Looks like the best you can do is repeat talking points you've been forced to already concede.

The FSSP isn't "flapping in the wind" nor do they have a shortage of bishops because there are plenty doing a whole lot more than "absolutely nothing". So both your claims fail. Again. Care to repeat your failed point for a third time? Maybe I'll just post an FSSP ordination photo for lulz. :P

Keep that "schism from reality" going, Pgmgm. It makes a matching pair with your schism from The Church.

...and as you said, "Good luck with that." :P