₿enedict Schweizer

@Coworkeroftruth Is being blocked by a .va account equivalent to a church excommunication or just a ban on speaking?

I will not go to hell for denying the Synod on Synodality. The Church is acting according to Marxist ideology to suppress the truth, and this is itself against the Word of God. I reject it.

How does the sacrifice of a Catholic Mass differ from that of a schismatic Orthodox Mass? Similarly, the sacrifice of the Novus Ordo lies in a schismatic rite that is separated from tradition. The schism consists, on the one hand, of the separation from the current Pope, or also in the separation from previous Popes and their beliefs and prayers.

TLM is not superior to NO. Period! It is the same sacrifice that is offered on the altar in TLM and NO. None is superior to the other or less to the other.

Insult? Who defines that, and where are the boundaries? First, he was the one who condemned us as schismatics, preempting Rome's judgment and violating love. After several moderate attempts to reason with him and point out the grave obligation to retract his accusations, I appropriately and symmetrically sharpened my tone because he was dishonestly evasive. He is a priest and a Dominican, which doubly binds him to wisdom and truth. Don't we have the right to remind him of the professionalism that obligates him to represent sound theology? Since he argued imprecisely and un-Tomistically and violated love, I admonished him, reminded him of the right principles, and accused him of weakness in light of his duties. Who can blame or deny me for that, given his opposite judgment of us, which amounts to condemnation? If he has arguments, he can respond and not block because he's offended as a cleric – this clericalism, among other things, led to this crisis. If only they were so clerical towards the liberals… …and oh yes, he also lacks a tonsure.

@BenedictSwiss @CullumSmith @JeffCassman Reading through at least one of your responses you decided insulting him a couple times was a good idea. Who wants to engage with someone like that?

Here's a textbook case of the malice of these anons. He's been corrected, but persists. He knows the SSPX works regularly with the Dicastery of Clergy and accepts their decisions, he knows Bp Fellay was given a Canonical Ministry, he knows how the society has worked with the Vatican on a regular basis for decades, but he persists in advancing a lie. Why?

@CullumSmith @JeffCassman No, he wasn't fair! I put in the effort, but he didn't really address my arguments. I argued with Thomas and asked him to argue with Thomas, as a Dominican... and in response, he blocked me.

@JeffCassman I wouldn't call him an anon. That's Fr. James Dominic Rooney, OP. He has spent a lot of time arguing the contra-SSPX position lately. In fairness, I must say that his arguments are quite good (not just "muh schism" like you usually see).

And if he no longer wants to hear the truth, he will block you. It's astonishing how much energy these people expend daily attacking the supposedly schismatic and supposedly small and, in their own words, unimportant SSPX. This is how you recognize the children of God: they, like Him, are a stumbling block. The daily vitriol of these enemies strengthens one's resolve to believe that the SSPX, through Providence, is the right instrument in this crisis. Let us continue to pray.

Orthodox Masses also? NO ist schismatic in the time like orthodox Masses are schismatic in juristiction… Cain's offering was also valid, but rejected by God because the best was not sacrificed. The question is not about the fruitfulness of the Novus Ordo regarding its offering (if valid, the son sacrifices himself to the father), but whether the fruits benefit those around him or the Church, given the many flaws and serious sacrileges inherent in every Novus Ordo due to its lack of protection for the particles, and other issues.

NO is valid. TLM is valid. TLM is not superior to NO. NO is not less than TLM. Attending TLM does not make you a better Catholic over someone who attends NO. Both are sacrifices offered up, and both are valid.

@pontificatormax and very conservativ ad orientem, WE ARE SO BACK

Full, regular, communion

An excommunication is not infallible, but why do they all treat it as if it were? If an excommunication can err, why do you say that the FSSPX will act outside the Church? Fear, dread, and the power of authority blind you all to reason and faith. Study history; there were Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and saints who were excommunicated by popes and continued to teach and act, even within foreign jurisdictions. There were popes who were exhumed after their deaths and excommunicated for heresies. Just because you repeat the error every day doesn't suddenly make it true. Retract your statement, because the claim that a potentially erroneous excommunication is nevertheless synonymous with being outside the church is factually incorrect, since a theologian distinguishes between the internal and external forum. There's a reason why the catechism of the Church Fathers doesn't include statements like "where Peter is, there is the Church." Not because the statements are wrong, but because, without the necessary distinction, they lead to heresy. Indeed, through this false hyperpapalism, the modernist revolution was played out under the guise of obedience, which was played off against reason and faith, and instead of serving these two, was perverted and presented as a goal. There's a reason why hundreds of questions have been omitted from the catechism, but for neoconservatives and neo-Protestants (Sola Papa), a single sentence would suffice: follow the Pope and you'll go to heaven (the only question is why there are popes in hell?). If Paul hadn't resisted Peter, the Church would be split, or if everyone had followed Liberius, we wouldn't believe in the divinity of Christ now.

Tenderness divorced from truth has characterized the Vatican's dealing with the SSPX for almost 40 years, allowing Trads like Michael Matt to blur the distinction between who's in the Church and who's not, thereby endangering the eternal salvation of the poor souls in the SSPX. Unlike Michael Matt, Bishop Fellay had the decency to warn his followers that they are going to be excommunicated. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus needs to be invoked as an act of merciful warning to those who think they are more Catholic than the pope.

What does the validity of a sacrament have to do with its legitimacy? Why don't we receive the sacraments from the Orthodox, as they are also valid? Or do you think that because the sacraments are valid, one can also receive them from the SSPX? You have to decide! The SSPX is part of the Catholic Church, and so God keeps his word that the whole truth can still be found somewhere. God never said where or how, only somewhere in the Catholic Church. In the time of Pope Liberius, faith was neither in Rome nor among the majority of bishops. The dogma of indefectibility guarantees only a single orthodox bishop, not an orthodox pope or an orthodox majority in the current time, but across time. Either we are in a schism, in which case you could concern yourself with others first, but somehow the SSPX is a stumbling block for all neoconservatives. And yes, although I have belonged to the SSPX parishes since birth, I visit local parishes and churches throughout Europe for apostolic reasons and can only reiterate what Father Palagrani says regarding the emergency. There is not a single parish or Novus Ordo where particle protection or safe Holy Communion is provided. The priest doesn't hold his fingers together after consecration, nor are there any other safety precautions, and the Lord falling to the ground happens every Sunday in every Novus Ordo parish; otherwise, you are only lying to yourself if you refuse to see this. In general, your daily rant against the SSPX is dishonest, because if it is outside the Catholic Church, then it shouldn't be concerned about this, except for visiting individual souls. If the SSPX is still within the Church, then they won't separate the upcoming ordinations from the Church either, because the external circumstances haven't changed. Here in Switzerland, they even feed communion wafers to dogs without any excommunication. But as I said, everyone can see that you're waging a personal battle against something that once hurt you. That doesn't help anyone; it only hurts you further.

@FulfillVatican2 And how many "ordinary" parishes has Father Pagliani visited?  I would say none because of fear of contamination. One of my grandchildren received his first communion in a parish that is booming. Is the sacrament he received there invalid?

Are Jews calling the shots at the SSPX? According to the SSPX, the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church Christ founded: according to SSPX spokesman Father Pagliarani “in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation.” Extra SSPX nulla salus. “The problem with this framing — indeed with the SSPX’s conception of dialogue,” writes The Pillar’s Ed Condon, 'is that it tries to pitch the society as both a true expression and member of the Catholic communion under the authority of the pope and, at the same time, when necessary, autonomous, and a kind of legitimate interpreter of doctrine apart from the Holy See." Father Pagliarani is correct though when he says: "In the shared recognition that we cannot find agreement on doctrine, it seems to me that the only point on which we can agree is that of charity toward souls and toward the Church." Charity toward souls demands that the Church draw a clear line between those in the Church and those outside her, because there is no salvation outside of the Church. That means the faithful should leave the SSPX immediately lest they be damned. The Pillar continues: “In that situation, Leo’s refusal to meet with Pagliarani has come under repeated fire. Surely — the argument has been made by supporters of the society — if the pope had a real concern for avoiding a canonical act of schism by the SSPX leadership, he would want to press his plea for restraint in person? “But a different assessment of the situation might conclude that, in fact, Leo’s refusal to meet with Pagliarani is an act of mercy — and an ultimate expression of the pope’s hope that reconciliation might still be possible. … “According to John Paul, ‘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.’ “As to the idea of a meeting between Pope Leo and Pagliarani, the priest has already made it clear, in writing to Cardinal Fernandez, the SSPX cannot and will not accept that the Vatican’s position that ‘the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged,’ and thus ‘we cannot find agreement on doctrine.’ “In fact, the division is so acute that Pagliarani has affirmed in a recent interview that he believes it is a ‘fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation.’ … “It is because, according to Pagliarani, the means of salvation are not available in normal parishes that the SSPX must continue. And the SSPX cannot continue its self-ascribed ministry unless it has priests, which it cannot continue to ordain unless it has bishops to ordain them. “QED, because the Church’s ordinary ministry is salvifically ineffective, the society is justified in whatever means it chooses to continue its work. To concede ground on any of the points would be to undermine the entire rationale of the SSPX’s current self-articulation.” pillarcatholic.com/p/why-leo-wont…

@graficoleonides @paige_cuz x.com/benedictswiss/…

@BenedictSwiss @paige_cuz The TLM is the bureaucratized version of the Mass, with excessive rituals and language that the faithful neither understand nor participate in. That's over. The NO is a return to the truly traditional rite.

Vernacular, Pray of the Faithful, Lay participation, Call and response structure to the Mass, the multi-year scripture cycle, full audible proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer, and the Offertory procession.

Then you can participate in the FSPX's Holy Mass... What you're overlooking is what defines Catholicism. Catholicism isn't just what's sold as such today, but what also corresponds to the times, and that's where the Novus Ordo is missing. They've taken the valid Catholic sacrament and placed it in a schismatic rite. Then you can participate in the FSPX Mass... What you're overlooking is what defines Catholicism. Catholicism isn't just what's sold as such today, but what also corresponds to the times, and that's where the Novus Ordo is missing. They've taken the valid Catholic sacrament and placed it in a schismatic rite. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit can work where he wills and supplement the Church (ecclesia supplet). But the Holy Spirit only supplements where someone doesn't know any better and lacks insight through no fault of their own, not when someone, out of fear or dread, simply obeys the obvious to avoid causing offense.

I think this might actually be heretical because the sacraments are, of course, ex opere operato, and as such the participation in the Eucharist even at the clowniest polka Mass still has the capability to be spiritually enriching

You forget Paul, Athanasius, Hilarius etc…No one remained silent but resisted publicly, and the last two even continued their work under papal excommunication, extending into foreign jurisdictions; that is the way of history, and revisionism is of no use here, as Thomas Aquinas and Belarmin interpreted these matters in favor of the SSPX.

Henri de Lubac and Lefebvre were put in similar situations. Both had tensions with and were being restricted by Church authorities. One remained silent. The other openly defied Church authorities and disobeyed the Holy Father. Resistance is not the problem. Disobedience is.

@NovusOrdoWatch Was she perhaps even more extraordinary than the Virgin Mary?

That's further evidence against her.

Aquinas says this in relation to public order within the Church, stating that in this case, one should adhere to it in the external forum. However, Aquinas also says that if excommunication does not only affect someone personally, and if it is not merely a personal injustice but serves as a means of suppressing the greater rights of the baptized, and thus the excommunication itself is a scandal, then public resistance is necessary, as Paul did and would have continued to do even if Peter had threatened him with excommunication. In this sense, today's popes should take Peter as an example and admit their own errors instead of continuing to insist on the abuse of their authority, which is harmful not only within the Church but also with regard to legitimate ecumenism with the Orthodox.

Rom säte mit Fiducia suplicans bewusst den Wind dessen Sturm sie jetzt ernten…jeder Aufschrei seitens Rom ist Heuchelei! Das läuft seit 60 Jahren so, zweideutige Dokumente die als Zeitbomben die Revolution in sich bergen. Kann einmal passieren aber wenn es so System und Programm hat kann niemand von Unfall sprechen so dumm ist Rom nicht! Das ist bewusste ideologische Subversion um mit Salamitaktik und evolutionär über die Zeit die Dämme zu brechen…und die Taktik ist immer gleich, Rom schlägt beim veröffentlichen des „kritischen“ Dokumentes jede Warnung in den Wind und schiebt später mündlich beim Skandal was entgegen um die Weste rein zu waschen und die Neokons fallen drauf rein… Das mit den Segnungen Homosexueller lässt bei den Neokons einen Schrei der Entrüstung zu, aber die Kommunionschändungen jeden Sonntag in jeder einzelnen Pfarrei durch die Fussnote in Amoris letitia die viel schlimmer ist weil es das Sakrament und Gott direkt betrifft ignoriert man gekonnt mit Stillschweigen.

OBWOHL fiducia supplicans solche Rituale ausdrücklich ausschließt, sprechen Bätzing & Co sprechen von einem "verantwortbaren Rahmen" ... Sie wollen mit dem Kopf durch die Wand, dürfen sich aber nicht wundern, wenn sie stecken bleiben...

Bullshit, learn history. First, Paul resisted Peter when the latter erred in a discipline that caused a scandal for the faith. Then, holy Church Fathers like St. Athanasius and Hilary resisted the pope who excommunicated them and continued to operate within foreign jurisdictions. And later, one pope exhumed another after his death and excommunicated him. Finally, stop your historical relativism and the heresy of hyperpapalism, which was forbidden at the First Vatican Council and which, unfortunately, today places obedience above reason and faith, even though it should serve as a virtue for both and is precisely what makes the modernist revolution possible under the guise of obedience. Archbishop Lefebvre learned from those holy Church Fathers who, in times of crisis, supported Peter through rebuke and thus preserved and guaranteed the indefectibility of the Church through the decentralization of the episcopal office.

I understand that Marcel Lefebvre was in a tough situation at the time. But in tough situations, we should learn from the saints. They're our examples. There's two things the saints would have done for sure: 1) Surrender to God and not take things into their own hands 2) Obey the Holy Father. Unfortunately, Marcel Lefebvre's example is NOT the one to follow. We should never stop praying for his soul.

Can't you read? The Church strictly forbids it in canon law! Don't you accept the Pope's authority? Don't you know that the Pope has the power to bind and loose? Why does the Church forbid it? Because you think you know better? I won't address the rest... you lack the Catholic sense of what is proper and what is not. St. Paul also says that not everything that is permitted is proper. But this particular thing is even forbidden according to canon law...

@BenedictSwiss @jarldietrich You are falling into the same protestant mistake. It's not because it's not written in the bible that it is wrong. And the bishop is not in a liturgical moment. The clothes he uses only have their meaning during liturgy. Those kids now love the catholic church.

Sedevacantists go one day without being miserable challenge. Imagine getting angry over children playing and being happy. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

The infallibility of the Church does not protect the dignity of the rite, but rather the validity of the sacrament and the infallibility of the Pope do not refer to discipline (of which the liturgy is a part), and the authority of the Pope is not absolute, but bound to the tradition and doctrine of the Church. So what exactly are you accusing us of? There have been popes who were exhumed and excommunicated by their successors after their deaths because of their beliefs. Others were condemned and cursed by Church Fathers during their lifetimes. Then there were times when there were three popes, or even years without any. Where was your narrow understanding of infallibility or the authority of the Pope in all of this? Paul was the first to publicly oppose Peter because of the discipline, which was a scandal to the faith, even though he acknowledged Peter's authority. The latest heresy is truly this blind hyperpapalism that enabled the entire modernist revolution under the guise of obedience.

@FreeIrishman7 Your post implies the NO is not mass, so the Church's indefectibility and Papal authority over liturgy

The novus ordo is mass I’m really not sure how you can be Roman Catholic and disagree with that

The Orthodox also have a valid Mass, and it is pleasing to God! There are various criteria for what constitutes pleasing to God. Even Cain's sacrifice was valid, but it was not pleasing to God because Cain withheld the best from God. In the Novus Ordo, the priest turns to the person instead of God and honors the sacrament with a rite that is not pleasing to God because he omits something crucial and does not deserve God's honor.