Traditionalist Sit in No Man’s Land with the Papacy.


Corrected with my commentary in red.  Joseph

Neil Obstat said:  From a friend:
It is the rejecting of New-Rome or modernist
Rome or New-church Rome that’s the problem.

I am being careful, and Catholic.  
Traditionalists sit in no man’s land, accepting the pope and rejecting his authority at the same time.  It is a simple lie.  Not at all Catholic.  It is schism, period.  A mortal sin.  
They spend half their life watching every word the pope says, and screeching at it.  Not very productive.  Either accept the pope; sincerely accept every word, and shut up, or reject the pope; and don’t bother keeping track of the words of someone you have rejected. 

Trads are a mish mash of all sorts of things, a collection of non-specific types, with no clear doctrinal adherence.  More than one “tradition” is in opposition to some other “tradition”.  If one tries really hard to find anything common in that seething mass, other than that it produces nothing, it is probably adherence to the  Latin Mass.  But even there they differ: 
• include or exclude the prayers in union with the pope 
• use the pre-1955 or the 1962 Missal 
• include the pontifical prayer (recognition) but rail against him from the pulpit (schism, hypocrisy, schismatic mass) or recognise him totally (correct, per Novus Ordo). 

The other common thing about trads is they love to argue subjectively, they deny they are sinning.  Even truth (which is objective for Catholics) is subjective for trads.  
All of which is the embodiment of Modernism, the tool of the enemies of the church. 
For a Catholic, who takes pain to ensure he does not sin, there are only two theologically supported choices.  It does not matter if he came on the scene recently (as I have) , or he has been arguing-without-resolution for forty years; at some point of realisation that something is wrong (which he will not get from the SSPX and its variants); he finally steps back; and looks at the situation objectively: 

1.  Catholic (now Sede Vacantist) 
Reject the popes from John XXIII onwards, and all their magisterium.  Unchanged Traditional Masses using a pre-1955 Missal.  Unchanged Magisterium up to 1962.  No arguments with what the non-pope is doing or saying. 
The turning point is not “Vatican II”, it is John XXIII, because he introduced it and set the context for it, and changed the Missal.  More specifically, he broke with the body of Catholic doctrine up to that time. (John XXIII was the precursor of the first true AntiChrist Paul VI)

2.  Novus Ordo 
Accept the popes; the concilair changes; the conciliar magisterium.  New mass or Indult mass (bastardised Tridentine).  No arguments with what the pope is doing or saying. 
Those two options eliminate the entire forty years of argument; the time spent wringing hands and posting on the internet about it.  More time for prayers and the children. 
Fr Cekada says, All traditionalists are Sede Vacantists, its just that they haven’t realised it yet.  I say, All Catholics are Sede Vacantists, the rest are Modernists. 

All the groups who had been splintered and confused in the past, have terminated that ongoing argument, and resolved there status, simply by accepting one or the other option: SSPV and CMRI plus independents; FSSP plus independents.  Again proving that the two options are solid; resolution brings peace; what will eventually happen to the in-betweeners; etc.  The remainder remain seething, sinning, unresolved. 
Any other option is not Catholic; not supported doctrinally; a sin.  There are an awful lot of people (priests, bishops, and one archbishop, plus sundry lay popes) who hold some insane middle ground.  They are sinning and causing trads to sin.  That middle ground is classic Liberal, Modernist: it appears to reconcile the irreconcilable; it syncretises the two poles which cannot be true at any one time.  It is a fantasy or manufactured reality, schizophrenic.  Quite attractive if one is already programmed by the Modernist propaganda, but definitely not Catholic.  

Further, it is a state of schism.  Recognizing the pope, and at the same time rejecting his absolute authority (or magisterium), or disobeying him, is schism, the gravest of sins.  The Abp and the society have been in a permanent state of schism (ie, since his famous 1974 declarations, and the pope’s response).  Don’t take my word for it, take the pope’s, that pope that they recognise.  Therefore any masses that they offer are schismatic masses, a grave offense to God. (At one time sspx took the position that the V-2 Church was in schism.)
I don’t get involved in their sinning, that would be sinning myself.  Any discussions with them simply validate their insanity, and there is no validation for it. 

Now, call it what you will, Rome is Rome, and that is where the pope is.  Now, if you (or Fr Pfluger or the people he is referring to) are going to reject Rome, the only way they can do that, without sinning, and continue to be Catholic, it to reject the pope.  That is Sede Vacantist. 
Note also, the masses offered by the above two churches are valid, and licit.  Masses offered by anyone else are illicit, and mostly invalid (excepting priests who were ordained correctly, ie. according to whichever church they were with at the time of the ordination). 

Separately, they (ably supported by Abp Lefebvre and Bp Williamson), have made the Sede Vacantist out to be something that it is not, and then they pick faults with that (ie. what Sede Vacantist is not).  That is simple dishonesty.  The famous jewish Straw Man technique (one can’t blow a brick house down, but faced with a brick house, the jew builds a straw house, and blows that down, then trumpets his “success”).  If you watch the jew propaganda box in the living room, you have already been trained to accept this “success”. 
It is the duty of every Catholic to find out for themselves, from Catholic doctrine (which is how I arrived here), what a Sede Vacantist is (because I smelled a few rats in the SSPX), and to resolve this insanity.  God is a God of order, not of insanity; insanity, dis-order, chaos, argument-without-resolution, is the realm of the devil. (There are rats everywhere)

Neil Obstat said:
If Rome would convert to her longstanding Tradition, then there would be a reason for the SSPX to no longer reject her.
You must have missed the last fifty two years of reality (real events that happened on the physical plane).  Anything else is fantasy, and sorry, but I won’t join you there, I am a bit attached to reality.  I like to deal with facts, not could-bes and would-bes and if-onlys. 

Rome, the pope, the popes since 1962, have created a new church (I believe you stated that).  Deal with that.  Decide which church you are with. You can’t be with two churches.  If you are with the Catholic church, stop concerning yourself about what the Novus Ordo church is doing, watching their every move, their every step further into hell. 

A point that probably doesn’t need stating: SSPX have not rejected Rome, they accept Rome and the pope.  But they pick and choose what parts of the new magisterium they will accept/reject, and they disobey the pope.  The crime there is schism, and that is why they never mention it, and harp on about the justification for disobedience.  According to Catholic doctrine, the magisterium cannot be split up.  It is a protestant spirit. 
If the SSPX (or anyone) rejects Rome, or the pope in Rome, or the new church of the pope in Rome, they are rejecting the pope.  The only way to do that and remain Catholic, is Sede Vacantist. 

Neil Obstat said:
Their characterization of Sede Vacantism only has merit inasmuch as sedes would reject the TRUE Rome of Tradition — and hopefully, they DO NOT.  If sedes ONLY reject the FALSE Newrome, that is not schismatic.
Who cares what their characterisation of  Sede Vacantism (or anything else in their agenda) is.  In order to hold their UN-Catholic middle position, they make each of the churches look horrible, and make sure that you don’t accept either of them, that you stay in the middle.  Abp Lefebvre; Bps Willaimson; Fellay; Frs Pluger; Pfeiffer; Chazal; SSPX; Old SSPX; New SSPX; SSPX Resistance … they are all the same.  Sure, trillions of words have been written about the differences, but they are trivial, and irrelevant to Catholics, because all of them are un-Catholic, they justify and cause sin.  They are training the remainder hold-outs (the trads) in Modernism, by tricking them into practicing it themselves, for future placement in the Novus Ordo church.  First train the puppy, then place it in the kennel, not the other way around. 

Rome is a place, not a time; it is confusing to speak of Rome of Tradition; Eternal Rome; New Rome; windswept Rome; flooded Rome.  Rome is not the Seat of Peter, it is a place that has staggeringly beautiful buildings.  The term Eternal Rome is especially dangerous, created to cause permanent confusion and to keep trads trapped in it.  The only eternal thing in the concept is the Church that Jesus Christ created.  He did not build marble arches.  That church exists in the minds and hearts of those who practice it, not in a place.  All the beautiful structures of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome are now occupied by masons and heretics, working for the jewish masters. Therefore the term Eternal Rome is especially insidious, because it attributes the eternal nature of His Church to that which is specifically does not have the qualities of His Church, that does not have the Four Marks. 
Rome is not live, it cannot change.  Rome is dead, as in: skull and bones; whitened sepulchers; jews having their ceremonies in churches and graveyards (yeah, sure, judaism is “monotheistic”, except for Baal, Moloch, dead bodies, and a host of spirits).  God is life, aliveness, the devil is death, deadness. 

It is the Catholic Church we care about, there is an unchanged Catholic Magisterium up to 1958 (added to over the ages, in terms of clarifications and determinations, but not changed; explained by doctors and theologians); plus a new conciliar church (their term) that started in 1962, which has a “magisterium” that contradicts and opposes the Catholic Magisterium.  (Finalized in 1969)

• Catholics (Sede Vacantists) lovingly hold fast to the former, and reject the latter.  It can be said, they never left the Catholic Church. 
• Novus Ordo (nominal Catholics) don’t really know the former, they accept the latter, and they ignore the contradictions. 
If anyone wants to understand Sede Vacant-ism, they will not be able to obtain that understanding from the people who distort it.  Go to any Sede Vacantist sites, and get it directly from the source.  Notice which position is theologically supported, and which is not.  Study Catholic doctrine interpreted by qualified theologians, not by someone who is clueless, but who pontificates about it anyway.  Run like hell, from anyone using double-speak; false negatives; straw men; apples for oranges. 

Schism  That is the most important point, or highest level issue.  All other issues derive from that.  It is no wonder therefore, that the SSPX (including the same list of variants above) either avoid the issue, or provide a private definition of schism, which has no theological basis. They are, and always have been, in schism.  Schismatics tend to believe they are right (and the pope is wrong), which means they are placing themselves above the pope.  No one (in God’s Church) has that power, so they are really in massive schism, rebellion.  Even if the pope had not declared it, according to established Catholic doctrine (the one they avoid), their actions are schismatic, and they are immediately excommunicated, there is no need for a declaration.
(I would say that this applies to the Fathers who take this position.)

For Sede Vacantists, we declare (as at 1958, regarding John XXIII), as every Catholic has a theologically supported right to: (Not all sede vacantists start at 1958. It was Paul VI who became a FORMAL, PUBLIC, HERETIC.)
• the pope is [was] teaching doctrine and implementing [implemented] magisterium that contradicts [contradicted] the Catholic Church of ages 
• that cannot happen in the Catholic church because the Church does not teach error, it is is Infallible, In-defectible, it will not cause the loss of souls 
• therefore it is the pope that is in error, he is fallible (the Infallibility of the Church is higher than that of the pope) 
• in teaching such doctrine that is contradictory to the Catholic Church, the pope is a heretic, schismatic. (Again, it has to be formal public heresy, to the whole church, decreed. by V-2 Council & Paul VI) 
• a heretic or schismatic is (by definition) not a Catholic 
• therefore he has lost his office as the pope 
• therefore the chair or See of Peter is vacant sede vacante 
• all the magisterium, and all the events that follow from that pope’s dictum (Cardinals, etc) are invalid 

The Sede Vacantist position is supported by Archbishops, Bishops, and priests, and most importantly (because the SSPX does not have it) by theologians who make all the determinations and interpretations for us. (Technically all who reject the new church teachings are sede vacantists.)

So we openly and validly declare that the pope is in schism with the Catholic CHurch.  There is no argument to be had; no forty years of vacillating and agonised mental gyrations re the state of the church. 
Only complete morons (ala the SSPX list) make the suggestion that Sede Vacantists are in schism.  They cannot be, “it’s impossible!”  If you go to a court of law, with a bunch of attacks and retaliations, regardless of the order of filing of the claims, the court will hear them all, and hear them in the chronological order that they happened, that maintains sanity.  The pope went into schism first; there is no point in the then non-pope accusing the Catholic Church of schism against him.  It is one of those hilarious concepts that only Bp Williamson can present as “sound”, and make it appear to be “theology”. 

On the other hand, if the SSPX and variants recognize the pope, then they have been in schism: 
a. from their inception [no canonical status] 
b. since the famous 1974 declaration, which was an explicit act of schism, and which the pope declared. 
c. and that schism is made more stubborn and pertinacious with every act of disobedience or rejection of conciliar magisterium.  Of which there are thousands, and they continue today. 
d. the consecration of bishops without papal mandate and a papal warning not to do so, was the supreme act of schism. (John Paul II gave permission but would not give a date to do it in)

The other thing that the SSPX-ers (all variants, including Bp Williamson) harp on about is visibility (that is required for the One Church); that that visibility exists in the pope; that the Mystical Body cannot be without a Head.  That is obviously nonsense, and it clear evidence that the person making the statement is clueless about Catholic theology.  The theology specifically allows for the Body to be without a Head, and states the conditions under which that may happen, such as between the death of a pope and the election of a new one, or that the manifest herectical nature of the pope results in it.  It does not need a declaration.  Second, the visibility regarded is the visibility of the Catholic Church, not the visibility of the pope. (Vatican Council I does teach no pope no church accept for death and resignation but failed to factor in the ANTICHRIST during the end times. It may have done so if the council was completed but because of WAR it wasn’t. V-2 closed V-1.Remember also, it dogma-tized Papal Infallibility which Paul VI broke.)

Second last, the question of whether Abp was a Sede Vacantist. From his sermons and conferences, we all know that he played to (a) the audience and (b) the weather in Rome at the time.  Others have said that this is evidence that he contradicted himself.  I am not saying that at all, that is too simplistic.  The project, at least the public one, went on over 40 years (21 years of his lifetime), and reconciliation was seriously possible at times.  And again the fact of the schism is the governing point, which SSPX-ers try to deny.  In any case, that morass of sermons and conferences does contradict itself, so we can’t really use it.  It can’t be used to prove anything, except that which the Abp thought about himself, at some particular time (that is the kind of argument-without-resolution everyone here has been having for 40 years, and why I avoid such idiocy).  (Archbishop Lefebvre publicly labeled these V-2 Popes as AntiChrists “Catholic, June 1988)

By their works ye shall know them.  Therefore let us consider if the archbishop was a Sede Vacantist by virtue of his actions, only 

1.  The act of schism, and remaining in schism for 40 years (21 in his lifetime).  In order to be in such schism, one is rejecting the authority of the papal seat.  That is a clear sede vacante act. 

2.  The 1988 consecrations. In the face of 
2.a an agreement with Rome, complete and awaiting choice of one bishop, 
2.b a specific papal warning against such a public and schismatic act, and 
2.c without papal mandate.  
That shows a determined position, and one that required years of preparation.  That act is, by its nature, is Sede Vacantist.  I can’t imagine one that is more so. 

3.  Avoiding the potential contradictions, these two public written statements are irrefutable, and cannot be spun into something else. 
– Letter to Itineraires 29 Jan 86.  
After railing on about the council and the curia being completely controlled by masons and the mafia, and which Pius IX and Leo XII condemned, he also reminds Ratzinger that he put that in place. Basically he is calling the pope a mason to his face, not an act of diplomacy or subtlety expected in those communications.  Therefore, beyond schism, it is sede vacantist. 

 Letter to the three future bishops 29 Aug 87.  
Here he calls the pope the Anti-Christ, twice.  Anti-Christ means someone other than the Vicar of Christ is sitting in the seat.  That means the seat is vacant. it is not “intrinsically’, it is manifestly Sede Vacantist. (Printed in the “Catholic newspaper in June 1988)
(If you read that letter with my understanding, you may notice that is carefully constructed to build a separate church without admitting schism; to declare the conciliar church Catholic and at once heretical.  It is full of confusion that a Sede Vacantist does not have.  And of course the results speak for itself.) 

Therefore, the archbishop was Sede Vacantist by act, although he did not declare himself to be, which would have eliminated the confusion and the forty years of insanity.  Therefore he had some other agenda. 
Last. Of course the fantasy model of “Sede Vacantist” that SSPX (and all variants) have cultivated in order to ensure trads are afraid of it, and to keep them enslaved in Modernism, may well be “in schism” but that is in the fantasy, not in reality. 

The ultimate irony, another classic jew trick, when committing fraud, is to use a name that is opposite to its meaning.  The modernist society that trains hold-out trads to be modernists, uses the great name of St Pius X, famous for fighting modernism.  I think that is sacrilege (he is a saint, and their action takes Catholics away from His Church). 

A couple of links if you are interested: 
Traditional Mass Org Articles 
CMRI Articles