Trad Answers

@EdieSki123 But the SSPX Profession of Faith denies that the episcopal college is a permanent reality. They hold the error that the college is something the pope "brings into existence" during a council. Why do you believe that error?

I just returned home from confession at my Novus Ordo Church. My confession consisted of saying that I believe 100% in the SSPX Profession of Faith. I was told I am not in communion with the Catholic Church and cannot receive Communion. Reiterated four times. Broken-hearted!

@DrKwasniewski Or you can read the following from a lengthy email exchange with an SSPX priest: trueorfalsepope.com/p/collegiality…

The theological topic of whether ordination to the episcopate confers jurisdiction or not has been much discussed in recent months. The Society claims that the "traditional" view is that it does not, and that Vatican II innovated by teaching that it does. The weeds are very deep here, but those who are interested in reading a grand disputation on it should check out this anthology, which focuses on the question of papal power to depose bishops as the lens through which larger issues are viewed. One of the chief contributors to this book, Dr. John Lamont, argues strenuously for the idea that a power of jurisdiction is conferred together with consecration. osjustipress.com/products/unres…

@Anthony73030057 @RealJoeGaydosh @EricRSammons Fr. Krohn was still with the SSPX when he attempted to assassinate John Paul II. Here's the real story from an insider: fathercekada.com/2008/10/19/jua…

@RealJoeGaydosh @TradAnswers @EricRSammons Yup. Happened at Fatima. He left the SSPX before the attempt, but where you think he got indoctrinated? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Mar%…

This may seriously be the worst Catholic X account (and that’s saying something). No matter what you think about the SSPX, they don’t “hate” the pope, and they literally pray for him in every single Mass, which only a few minutes of exposure to the Society reveals. Be better.

@EricRSammons Here's the story: fathercekada.com/2008/10/19/jua…

@AelfricEynsham The fact that theologians disagree over the note, proves that it has not been taught infallibly. Affirming that the death penalty is not "permissible" is in no way heretical, especially since circumstances can change what is and is not permissible. Usury is a perfect example.

@TradAnswers He states that theologians generally do not doubt to call it heretical, so it seems that he lists the others as in the minority. Note though that something of any note can be taught by the OUM infallibly, in which case this example is still a great problem for your position.

Please quote one heresy of Pope Leo; explain why you believe it is heresy, as opposed to a lesser error; and quote the definitive teaching of the Church that the alleged heresy *directly* contradicts (i.e., without requiring additional steps of reasoning).

@chesterbelloc3 @DrKwasniewski But the head of the DDF didn't intend to excommunicate anyone. And he only intended to formally declare that the bishops involved incurred the censure by their own act. No one else. So far, both your critiques were againts strawmen. Where is the ambiguity in either document?

@TradAnswers @DrKwasniewski In other words, I would prefer a head of the DDF who isn't too incompetent to actually excommunicate someone correctly. He's had since February and this is what he comes up with?

@TradAnswers @DrKwasniewski I'm sorry, but it is Fernandez' ineptitude which is causing the confusion. He had months to produce proper canonical documents, and instead gives an ambiguous document that requires you to evaluate thousands of faithful on a case by case basis to determine their status.

@chesterbelloc3 @DrKwasniewski Why would you assume the Holy Father's mind was to excommuncate all the faithful who attend Mass at the SSPX? That clearly wasn't the intent. With that said, how could the section of the note that you find ambiguous be improved? How would you have prefered that it be worded?

@TradAnswers @DrKwasniewski If the Holy Father's mind was to excommunicate every member of the faithful who attend the society, maybe we could have a document which lays down an excommunication ferendo sententiae, instead of some ambiguous look and see that we have.

@AelfricEynsham Did you see the next sentence? It lists the theologians who hold it with a note less than heresy. That shows that it was not considered infallible by the force of the OUM.

@TradAnswers Apologies. It’s on page 49: google.com.br/books/edition/…

Exposing the Cult I Grew Up In: The CMRI and Sedevacantism Refuted — Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=Oi5HP8…

@AelfricEynsham I just checked page 47 of Tractatus Theologici de Virtutibus Cardinalibus (Tracus II, Vol. 1), and don't see the quote. Can you send me a link to the book, or at least the quote in Latin?

@TradAnswers “For this reason, theologians do not hesitate to consider heretical the proposition that universally denies to the prince the power to punish with death.” - Gustave Joseph Waffelaert, Tractatus Theologici de Virtutibus Cardinalibus (pg. 47)

Hasn't Fr. Murray caused enough confusion? All the SSPX clergy, as well as the laity who formally adhere to the SSPX, are notorious schismatics, and therefore presumed guilty (i.e., considered to be excommunicated schismatics) in the external forum. That's what the Note is essentially saying.

Canon lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray briefly summarizes why the Explanatory Note of Card. Fernandez does not effect what 95% of the commentariat (including bishops) seem to think it does. (Remember: Fr. Murray was the one who argued AGAINST the SSPX in the long podcast with Conor Gallagher. He is NOT an apologist for the Society. He is simply a respected canon lawyer who knows the law of the Church backwards and forwards.) signofthecrossmedia.com/news/this-is-a…

Archbishop Pozzo, former head of Ecclesia Dei and Chief Negotiator: In 2018, It Was the Society That Refused the Agreement rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/07/archbi…

@BenedictSwiss @oublinkerbro @PopeLeoXIIIStan You’re invited on Trad Answers podcast to explain what theological concepts Salza allegedly doesn’t grasp.

@oublinkerbro @PopeLeoXIIIStan @TradAnswers Fear? Salza can't even grasp the simplest theological concepts.

If you’re not following @TradAnswers, please do so. Tradition without schism.

@FatherHagood St. Athanasius remained inside the Church.

@FatherHagood N. 2 is why you're in heresy, and the first sentence of n. 8 isn't true because of n. 2.

"The Pope is infallible in actu, not in habitu--in his particular pronouncements ex Cathedra, not in his state of illumination, as an Apostle might be, which would be inspiration. I am told some wicked men, not content with their hitherto cruel conduct, are trying to bring in this doctrine of inherent infallibility, of which there is not a hint in [Pastor Aeternus]. Perhaps they would like to go on and call him a Vice-God, as some actually did, or sole God to us." St. John Henry Newman (Aug. 1870).

@FatherHagood Since you're an Old Catholic Bishop (a heretic and schismatic), I'm not surprised we disagree, but my answer was exactly correct. In canon law, only certain acts incur a latae sententiae exommunication, and women holding a communion servive isn't one of them.

@TradAnswers That’s quite possibly the worst answer and I mean no offense by that. Unfortunately, this why me and the ECC are at odds with Rome.

Explain how this is not a latæ sententia excommunication but consecrating Bishops is… You can’t. There is no justification.

Clearly, this Old Catholic Bishop who supports his brethren in the SSPX, doesn't know the meaning of schism.