36 thoughts on “The FSSP is in for a very rough time… if you know, you know.”
It appears time for the Obedience Fraternity to change its strategy and DISOBEY the evil bastards.
“Oh, no, but they will take our faculties.”
That’s impossible. Antichurch villains cannot revoke anything from legitimate sacred pastors. Therefore, all you must do is resist . . . don’t recognize, just resist.
Shout out and prayers for Fr. Philip Wolfe, FSSP to convert to the true position of sede vacante…whether it be ’22 or ’58. He’s appears to be a very holy man who needs to separate from all things NO.
Has Fr Wolfe done any talks lately that I could access? The last I heard was the Our Lady of Revelation series many years ago. I believe he was silenced for those talks…he called out Bergoglio as the False Prophet Forerunner. Amazing talks still youtube.
There is a legal case to be made why Bergoglio is an antipope and why, therefore when the actual pope died in 2022 the chair is vacant. Canon 188, Canon 332.2 among others. That Bergoglio is a heretic is without question, but the reason why he’s in that position is because he’s an antipope.
The ’58 nutters believe that none of the Popes since Pius XII are actual popes because of many different “heresies” all under the umbrella of Vatican 2. Vatican 2 is a disaster precisely because it was devised by Modernists, and modernists like to play fast and loose with definitions. So while Vatican 2 was not a dogmatic council legally, the Church allowed its dioceses to all but eschew Orthodox Teaching.
But since legally and dogmatically the Church HAS NOT changed, but only been allowed illusory change, or, to use a more appropriate term, encouraged backsliding and immorality, its popes have not been illicitly elected and the institution is NOT irreparable. The Devil wants you to think that it is, which is why the ’58 nutters got upset, took their ball from the Church and now are a sad little club divorced from it.
My grandmother, bless her, was born in 1917. She worked her whole life raising 2 children after her husband died of a heart attack in 1949. She finally bought herself a new car in 1987. A Buick Skylark. She said it was a lemon, though, because it didn’t run well. When she took it to a mechanic, he said the car was fine, she thought it was not running well but he said he simply didn’t drive it enough.
She was mad because she had a misapprehension about her car. She kept the car.
Don’t be a ’58 nutter. There’s a just reason for believing Bergoglio is not the pope. But the ’58 nutters have been throwing a 60 year tantrum over something they’ve had the power to do the whole time: Keep their Church.
The irony is that if things went back to the way they say they wanted it, or think it was, they still wouldn’t be happy. Fight the Church from within, not from the outside.
The VII faith officially teaches there’s salvation outside the Church…so even if we nutters are wrong, we’re good. You yourself admit you’re some high level OCD ‘victim’….might want to lay off the name calling of good Catholics Mike….at worst we can be called misguided…IF we’re wrong.
The Church teaches that if someone is ignorant of the gospel through no fault of their own there is a chance they can be saved. If that is wrong, the thief on the cross is in hell. The point is that while the Church is necessary for salvation, God is stil God.
God created His Church. The Church did not Create God.
I think my word is accurate. Since I’ve been accused of being a blasphemer and have been a subject of gossip behind the scenes, I’ve actually been restrained.
To leave the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church because you feel that they’re on the wrong path is absolutely the wrong way to achieve the change you seek.
If you note, being a “Sede” is a badge of honor now, a multi-generational rite of passage.
All it does is add to division, confusion. And it comes from a place of arrogance.
I recall Our Lord saying He didn’t come to bring peace, but to divide. We sedes hold to the Catholic faith best we can considering the blasphemies and heresies coming out of Rome these past six decades.
As to your accusations of being “the subject of gossip behind the scenes” I’m assuming you’re referencing a comment you sent that Mark decided not to publish, but shared with me privately. The only thing we ‘gossiped’ about was your need for our prayers. Your resorting to name calling of Catholics who you disagree is tiresome.
Mike, you are absolutely right: you have set forth the most reasonable view; all others simply make no sense. A sede vacante since ’58 is nonsensical likewise Protestant ecclesial deism: “From the death of the Apostles the faith was corrupted until 1517” becomes “From the death of Pius XII the faith was corrupted” without an expiration date.
A Council cannot teach error, but Vatican II was born as a “Pastoral Council”, and at that time many people asked the Pope what a “Pastoral Council” was, but no one has figured it out yet. As for Paul VI, he lived in the midst of a revolution in customs – I wouldn’t have wished anyone to be a priest in the 1960s and 1970s – and with entire episcopal conferences openly rejecting Humanae Vitae, so much so that it brought him to the brink of a nervous breakdown. John Paul II did some stupid things on a pastoral and image level (kissing the Koran and that Assisi stuff), but no one is preserved from doing mediatic absurdities.
In the past I have criticized you where I thought you were wrong, this time I praise you because you are right about this: what is right is right!
What do we make of ordinary, universal magisterium–which is infallible–which consists of the popes teaching ordinarily in union with the bishops. If Vatican II was heretical, they couldn’t have been popes. And if they were popes, they wouldn’t give tacit consent to heresy infallibly. These things–such as how Benedict XVI could be pope–makes me reconsider what trad priests say about heresy in Vatican II.
I am not as excusing on Paul VI as you are. I think he was an evil man. And I’ll say Benedict XVI was a typical German. He was all about Vatican 2 , as a modernist, and then made a pivot to traditionalism (his prideful way of saying oops, he screwed up) and then, at the end, became a coward and fake-resigned the papacy (thinking , back to his modernist roots, that he could expand it).
Vatican 2 was completely unnecessary and gave Satan the foot in the door. However, it was all an illusion. We can take the Church back from within, not by getting angry and stomping away.
Also, I’m right about everything. It just takes a while for people to admit/see it.
“Also, I’m right about everything.”….lol. And therein lies the problem. Guess it’s better than being proud of your humility…😉
Kono,
What we have here is the difference between men and women writ large.
I was being facetious. But when a strong woman trad blogger brags about herself all over her blog, she’s brave and takes no sass. When a guy brags about himself, even when being sarcastic, he’s immediately judged as lacking humility.
I can’t think of anything less humble than abandoning the Catholic Church because you think the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against it. It also shows a lack of faith and may be prideful.
But I can’t say these things. I’m not a chick.
I don’t see how this passage contradicts anything I wrote.
Now’s the time to fight and I’ll be praying that the FSSP does just that. Come on guys: If Katherine of Siena could call out an antipope, you can too.
I have been feeling prepared lately to suffer betrayal and to be ready to unite it with Our Lord’s. Our Lady, St. John, and St. Mary Magdalene were with Him at the end and they won’t leave me either!
I love my FSSP priest… I really do. He’s a good man, a wonderful pastor, and he’s been very good to my family. But man, it’s disheartening to hear him likening both ’58 and ’22 sedes to protestants from the pulpit (and in private) every time this matter comes up.
The Argentinian cannot be the pope. It’s an ontological impossibility. I understand the difficulty involved in taking a public stand against the anti-church, I really do. But for the love of Pete, speak to us in code, let us know you see it and you get it. Do something. But don’t get up there and call us anti-papists, when the reality is literally the exact opposite: We love the papacy. We need the papacy. And we desperately want it back to guide us through this hellscape. For the love of all that is holy, stop making excuses for this monstrous, anti-Catholic usurper.
Speaking for myself, I only came to the logical – and obvious – conclusion that Our Lady’s warnings at Good Success (Purification of the Temple) and La Sallette had been realised, viz. that the Church has been eclipsed and that the Seat has been vacant since Ven. PXII, once I appreciated the most pivotal premise that a Catholic can not be a schismatic if his guiding intention is to be a faithful son of Holy Mother Church; it’s mutually exclusive – the very one thing he cannot be.
ABp. Vigano, in the two (2) statements he made regarding his ‘excommunication’, explains better than anyone this mysterious relationship between the Church and her ape, faux Church which has presently eclipsed Her.
Unlike other member of the “Class of ’58”, I firmly hold that the Sacraments (and thus ordinations) remain valid and evidence if this abounds, chiefly in the Eucharistic Miracles of recent decades; however one can reason it alone: for though God has punished His unfaithful children with bad priests – the worst of all punishments – He has not withheld the Sacraments which are necessary for grace and salvation.
There is a lot more that can be said regarding all of this, obviously, though it used to be taught and indeed held that any Vicar of Christ would be struck either dumb or dead before he was permitted to manifest heresy on the flock and, though I am not across the particulars, understand the example of Sixtus V is a text-book example if this. He was struck dead by mysterious illness before planning to do something heretical it is said.
Such has not been the experience with the ‘popes’ of the Conciliar Church.
Not unrelatedly, indeed possibly the tool via which this faux church was instigated, is the 1958 conclave. Most would be familiar with the Cdl. Siri (Red Pope) theory and give it little credence. There exists a 4 hour interview with a Mr. Gary Geffrai (spelling?) of a few years ago where this is considered in detail and there is more to it than most would acknowledge and, in any event, the premise, even if unproven, is arresting: the Masons specifically wanted Siri elected. Their wicked scheme was to ensure his valid election, valid acceptance and INVALID rescinding (via threat of malice) so that while Siri would be the valid pope, an interloper anti-pope would instead take control of the Church.
Why? Because they witnessed the effect of the graces of the office on Pius IX (who went from liberal Modernist to tower of orthodoxy) under the guidance of the Holy Ghost and thus realised that it was pointless trying to put one of their own on the Throne, but rather required invalid usurpers, who would be ‘unburdened’ with the graces if the office.
Siri died in ’89; perhaps the seat has been truly vacant only since then.
Crazy? Perhaps, though the interview cited is invaluable for other details and contemporaneous information on this era and it’s players. A lot of very good information (e.g. PXII made provisional arrangements to have the Holy See moved to Canada, in exile, given threats of A Bomb attack on Rome).
I think Bergoglio received insufficient credit for removing ‘Vicar of Christ’ from his CV: he was only being honest.
Let them fall. It gets tiresome every year (every few months now) we wait with baited breath on if the FSSP is going to be disbanded or cave. It almost seems like they’re a dog on a leash and can get their chain yanked back by the owner (Bergoglio) anytime they get to “uppity”. This yo-yoing back and forth of being great defenders of tradition but not addressing the elephant in the room is tiring. Maybe what the old SSPXERS said about the FSSP is right 🙂 Kinda like a controlled op. And I love the FSSP *sigh*
I take it far more likely the SSPX are controlled opposition for their many theological blunders, such as the idea that the rock of indefectability, the pope, can continue on poping if he loses the faith (were that even possible). Or the way they ignore the pre-concilar theological distinction between the body of the Church and the soul of the Church so they can call “subsists in” a heresy.
No clue what FSSP is. Maybe they are just confused.
Both groups seem to think think that matters of fact don’t matter, but only matters of law, as though canon law (which is still human, and not divine, law–insofar as it touches on things not higher than itself) can contravene higher law. Hence it is possible to be an ontological heretic without actually being a heretic, simply because people are too scared to declare anything.
The Frat has always been controlled opposition. They were forced to accept certain things: 1) they cannot bad mouth V2, and 2) they cannot badmouth the NO.
Since the death of +Lefebvre, the SSPX has become unwitting controlled opposition. As they attempt to be more and more conciliatory towards Apostate Rome, they are seen as more “legitimate”. Eventually, the Apostates at Rome will force everyone into the SSPX and then excommunicate them.
“Subsists in” IS a heresy. Pope Pius XII did make a distinction between the Body of the Church and the Soul of the Church, but he specifically says both are the Catholic Church. To be a Catholic in the full sense, one must a) be validly baptized, b) hold the entirety (or as close as possible) of the True Faith, and c) obey the legitimate ecclesial authorities. The entire PURPOSE of Mystici Corporis is dispelled the heresy that the Church is bigger than the Catholic Church.
If you are in the soul of the Church, you are somehow in the Church, even if you are not in the body of the Church—that is, a Catholic. “Subsist in” somehow makes sense. If this is not true, I don’t see how Pope Pius XI was not a manifest hereitic for his encyclical on invincible ignorance. That opens a huge can of worms.
There is ONLY the Catholic Church. That is the definition of Pius XII and the Council of Florence. All salvation comes from the Catholic Church, all Grace’s flow through it.
If one adheres to the Natural Law, is of good will, and cannot possibly learn the True Faith, it is assumed that their intention suffices to join them to the Church. Thus they are IN the Church in the internal forum. That is what Pius IX said, and what Pius XII confirmed.
There is nothing outside the Church, except spiritual death. That is the consistent teaching of the Church. After Mystici Corporis, “susbsists in” “reeks of heresy”.
It should be noted that three Benedictines suggested that the phrase be altered to “the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church”, but the Modernists argued against it, as it was too specific. In Unitatis Redintegratio, those same Modernists define that heretics and schismatics are somehow united to the Church. The council defines “subsists in” for you…in a heretical sense.
Um, that’s kind of the point. The soul of the Church is not identical to the the body of the Church, the soul including non-Catholics in a state of grace. Similarly not everyone in the body of the Church is in the soul of the Church, because not all Catholics are in a state of grace. Or is being in grace optional for some men and not others?
It’s simple logic:
If you being outside the Church means that you cannot be saved; then being able to be saved means you are not outside the Church. Now invincibly ignorant non-Catholics are able to be saved, hence these individuals are not outside the Church even if they are, well, not Catholic. The Church would then be bigger than just its body.
You say heresy but I say development of dogma. You might disagree, but you can trace the seeds of this development from even before the council (and this is what makes the SSPX claim so suspicious, as though there is no antecedent to this teaching). Remove the Catholic Church (the body) and there is no ordinary means of grace. Hence it the Church subsists in the Catholic Church (the body).
It appears time for the Obedience Fraternity to change its strategy and DISOBEY the evil bastards.
“Oh, no, but they will take our faculties.”
That’s impossible. Antichurch villains cannot revoke anything from legitimate sacred pastors. Therefore, all you must do is resist . . . don’t recognize, just resist.
May God bless the FSSP.
“If you know, you know” – and, what of us who don’t know? any help?
is this a “FSSP has child scandal” thing? or more of a, “FSSP is now about to be victimized by some bad Bergoglio guys” thing?
The latter.
Both. The Argentinian will use Fr. Jackson’s case against them.
Shout out and prayers for Fr. Philip Wolfe, FSSP to convert to the true position of sede vacante…whether it be ’22 or ’58. He’s appears to be a very holy man who needs to separate from all things NO.
“58.
👍
10/9/1958
66 years, 9 days
Has Fr Wolfe done any talks lately that I could access? The last I heard was the Our Lady of Revelation series many years ago. I believe he was silenced for those talks…he called out Bergoglio as the False Prophet Forerunner. Amazing talks still youtube.
I’ve not seen anything publicly from him since the ‘Revelation’ series and that was 2017. I often wonder what he’s doing/thinking these days.
Thank you. Me too! No doubt earning his crown(s) 🙏
There is a legal case to be made why Bergoglio is an antipope and why, therefore when the actual pope died in 2022 the chair is vacant. Canon 188, Canon 332.2 among others. That Bergoglio is a heretic is without question, but the reason why he’s in that position is because he’s an antipope.
The ’58 nutters believe that none of the Popes since Pius XII are actual popes because of many different “heresies” all under the umbrella of Vatican 2. Vatican 2 is a disaster precisely because it was devised by Modernists, and modernists like to play fast and loose with definitions. So while Vatican 2 was not a dogmatic council legally, the Church allowed its dioceses to all but eschew Orthodox Teaching.
But since legally and dogmatically the Church HAS NOT changed, but only been allowed illusory change, or, to use a more appropriate term, encouraged backsliding and immorality, its popes have not been illicitly elected and the institution is NOT irreparable. The Devil wants you to think that it is, which is why the ’58 nutters got upset, took their ball from the Church and now are a sad little club divorced from it.
My grandmother, bless her, was born in 1917. She worked her whole life raising 2 children after her husband died of a heart attack in 1949. She finally bought herself a new car in 1987. A Buick Skylark. She said it was a lemon, though, because it didn’t run well. When she took it to a mechanic, he said the car was fine, she thought it was not running well but he said he simply didn’t drive it enough.
She was mad because she had a misapprehension about her car. She kept the car.
Don’t be a ’58 nutter. There’s a just reason for believing Bergoglio is not the pope. But the ’58 nutters have been throwing a 60 year tantrum over something they’ve had the power to do the whole time: Keep their Church.
The irony is that if things went back to the way they say they wanted it, or think it was, they still wouldn’t be happy. Fight the Church from within, not from the outside.
The VII faith officially teaches there’s salvation outside the Church…so even if we nutters are wrong, we’re good. You yourself admit you’re some high level OCD ‘victim’….might want to lay off the name calling of good Catholics Mike….at worst we can be called misguided…IF we’re wrong.
The Church teaches that if someone is ignorant of the gospel through no fault of their own there is a chance they can be saved. If that is wrong, the thief on the cross is in hell. The point is that while the Church is necessary for salvation, God is stil God.
God created His Church. The Church did not Create God.
Using cheap, vacuous insults like “nutters” has the exact opposite effect to the one you presumably intend.
Might as well call them “conspiracy theorists”.
I think my word is accurate. Since I’ve been accused of being a blasphemer and have been a subject of gossip behind the scenes, I’ve actually been restrained.
To leave the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church because you feel that they’re on the wrong path is absolutely the wrong way to achieve the change you seek.
If you note, being a “Sede” is a badge of honor now, a multi-generational rite of passage.
All it does is add to division, confusion. And it comes from a place of arrogance.
I recall Our Lord saying He didn’t come to bring peace, but to divide. We sedes hold to the Catholic faith best we can considering the blasphemies and heresies coming out of Rome these past six decades.
As to your accusations of being “the subject of gossip behind the scenes” I’m assuming you’re referencing a comment you sent that Mark decided not to publish, but shared with me privately. The only thing we ‘gossiped’ about was your need for our prayers. Your resorting to name calling of Catholics who you disagree is tiresome.
👍👍👍💕 TERRIFIC!!!! 👍
Mike, you are absolutely right: you have set forth the most reasonable view; all others simply make no sense. A sede vacante since ’58 is nonsensical likewise Protestant ecclesial deism: “From the death of the Apostles the faith was corrupted until 1517” becomes “From the death of Pius XII the faith was corrupted” without an expiration date.
A Council cannot teach error, but Vatican II was born as a “Pastoral Council”, and at that time many people asked the Pope what a “Pastoral Council” was, but no one has figured it out yet. As for Paul VI, he lived in the midst of a revolution in customs – I wouldn’t have wished anyone to be a priest in the 1960s and 1970s – and with entire episcopal conferences openly rejecting Humanae Vitae, so much so that it brought him to the brink of a nervous breakdown. John Paul II did some stupid things on a pastoral and image level (kissing the Koran and that Assisi stuff), but no one is preserved from doing mediatic absurdities.
In the past I have criticized you where I thought you were wrong, this time I praise you because you are right about this: what is right is right!
What do we make of ordinary, universal magisterium–which is infallible–which consists of the popes teaching ordinarily in union with the bishops. If Vatican II was heretical, they couldn’t have been popes. And if they were popes, they wouldn’t give tacit consent to heresy infallibly. These things–such as how Benedict XVI could be pope–makes me reconsider what trad priests say about heresy in Vatican II.
I am not as excusing on Paul VI as you are. I think he was an evil man. And I’ll say Benedict XVI was a typical German. He was all about Vatican 2 , as a modernist, and then made a pivot to traditionalism (his prideful way of saying oops, he screwed up) and then, at the end, became a coward and fake-resigned the papacy (thinking , back to his modernist roots, that he could expand it).
Vatican 2 was completely unnecessary and gave Satan the foot in the door. However, it was all an illusion. We can take the Church back from within, not by getting angry and stomping away.
Also, I’m right about everything. It just takes a while for people to admit/see it.
“Also, I’m right about everything.”….lol. And therein lies the problem. Guess it’s better than being proud of your humility…😉
Kono,
What we have here is the difference between men and women writ large.
I was being facetious. But when a strong woman trad blogger brags about herself all over her blog, she’s brave and takes no sass. When a guy brags about himself, even when being sarcastic, he’s immediately judged as lacking humility.
I can’t think of anything less humble than abandoning the Catholic Church because you think the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against it. It also shows a lack of faith and may be prideful.
But I can’t say these things. I’m not a chick.
I don’t see how this passage contradicts anything I wrote.
Now’s the time to fight and I’ll be praying that the FSSP does just that. Come on guys: If Katherine of Siena could call out an antipope, you can too.
I have been feeling prepared lately to suffer betrayal and to be ready to unite it with Our Lord’s. Our Lady, St. John, and St. Mary Magdalene were with Him at the end and they won’t leave me either!
I love my FSSP priest… I really do. He’s a good man, a wonderful pastor, and he’s been very good to my family. But man, it’s disheartening to hear him likening both ’58 and ’22 sedes to protestants from the pulpit (and in private) every time this matter comes up.
The Argentinian cannot be the pope. It’s an ontological impossibility. I understand the difficulty involved in taking a public stand against the anti-church, I really do. But for the love of Pete, speak to us in code, let us know you see it and you get it. Do something. But don’t get up there and call us anti-papists, when the reality is literally the exact opposite: We love the papacy. We need the papacy. And we desperately want it back to guide us through this hellscape. For the love of all that is holy, stop making excuses for this monstrous, anti-Catholic usurper.
👍👍👍
‘Ontological’, the perfect word for it.
Speaking for myself, I only came to the logical – and obvious – conclusion that Our Lady’s warnings at Good Success (Purification of the Temple) and La Sallette had been realised, viz. that the Church has been eclipsed and that the Seat has been vacant since Ven. PXII, once I appreciated the most pivotal premise that a Catholic can not be a schismatic if his guiding intention is to be a faithful son of Holy Mother Church; it’s mutually exclusive – the very one thing he cannot be.
ABp. Vigano, in the two (2) statements he made regarding his ‘excommunication’, explains better than anyone this mysterious relationship between the Church and her ape, faux Church which has presently eclipsed Her.
Unlike other member of the “Class of ’58”, I firmly hold that the Sacraments (and thus ordinations) remain valid and evidence if this abounds, chiefly in the Eucharistic Miracles of recent decades; however one can reason it alone: for though God has punished His unfaithful children with bad priests – the worst of all punishments – He has not withheld the Sacraments which are necessary for grace and salvation.
There is a lot more that can be said regarding all of this, obviously, though it used to be taught and indeed held that any Vicar of Christ would be struck either dumb or dead before he was permitted to manifest heresy on the flock and, though I am not across the particulars, understand the example of Sixtus V is a text-book example if this. He was struck dead by mysterious illness before planning to do something heretical it is said.
Such has not been the experience with the ‘popes’ of the Conciliar Church.
Not unrelatedly, indeed possibly the tool via which this faux church was instigated, is the 1958 conclave. Most would be familiar with the Cdl. Siri (Red Pope) theory and give it little credence. There exists a 4 hour interview with a Mr. Gary Geffrai (spelling?) of a few years ago where this is considered in detail and there is more to it than most would acknowledge and, in any event, the premise, even if unproven, is arresting: the Masons specifically wanted Siri elected. Their wicked scheme was to ensure his valid election, valid acceptance and INVALID rescinding (via threat of malice) so that while Siri would be the valid pope, an interloper anti-pope would instead take control of the Church.
Why? Because they witnessed the effect of the graces of the office on Pius IX (who went from liberal Modernist to tower of orthodoxy) under the guidance of the Holy Ghost and thus realised that it was pointless trying to put one of their own on the Throne, but rather required invalid usurpers, who would be ‘unburdened’ with the graces if the office.
Siri died in ’89; perhaps the seat has been truly vacant only since then.
Crazy? Perhaps, though the interview cited is invaluable for other details and contemporaneous information on this era and it’s players. A lot of very good information (e.g. PXII made provisional arrangements to have the Holy See moved to Canada, in exile, given threats of A Bomb attack on Rome).
I think Bergoglio received insufficient credit for removing ‘Vicar of Christ’ from his CV: he was only being honest.
Hot Take
Let them fall. It gets tiresome every year (every few months now) we wait with baited breath on if the FSSP is going to be disbanded or cave. It almost seems like they’re a dog on a leash and can get their chain yanked back by the owner (Bergoglio) anytime they get to “uppity”. This yo-yoing back and forth of being great defenders of tradition but not addressing the elephant in the room is tiring. Maybe what the old SSPXERS said about the FSSP is right 🙂 Kinda like a controlled op. And I love the FSSP *sigh*
I take it far more likely the SSPX are controlled opposition for their many theological blunders, such as the idea that the rock of indefectability, the pope, can continue on poping if he loses the faith (were that even possible). Or the way they ignore the pre-concilar theological distinction between the body of the Church and the soul of the Church so they can call “subsists in” a heresy.
No clue what FSSP is. Maybe they are just confused.
Both groups seem to think think that matters of fact don’t matter, but only matters of law, as though canon law (which is still human, and not divine, law–insofar as it touches on things not higher than itself) can contravene higher law. Hence it is possible to be an ontological heretic without actually being a heretic, simply because people are too scared to declare anything.
The Frat has always been controlled opposition. They were forced to accept certain things: 1) they cannot bad mouth V2, and 2) they cannot badmouth the NO.
Since the death of +Lefebvre, the SSPX has become unwitting controlled opposition. As they attempt to be more and more conciliatory towards Apostate Rome, they are seen as more “legitimate”. Eventually, the Apostates at Rome will force everyone into the SSPX and then excommunicate them.
“Subsists in” IS a heresy. Pope Pius XII did make a distinction between the Body of the Church and the Soul of the Church, but he specifically says both are the Catholic Church. To be a Catholic in the full sense, one must a) be validly baptized, b) hold the entirety (or as close as possible) of the True Faith, and c) obey the legitimate ecclesial authorities. The entire PURPOSE of Mystici Corporis is dispelled the heresy that the Church is bigger than the Catholic Church.
If you are in the soul of the Church, you are somehow in the Church, even if you are not in the body of the Church—that is, a Catholic. “Subsist in” somehow makes sense. If this is not true, I don’t see how Pope Pius XI was not a manifest hereitic for his encyclical on invincible ignorance. That opens a huge can of worms.
There is ONLY the Catholic Church. That is the definition of Pius XII and the Council of Florence. All salvation comes from the Catholic Church, all Grace’s flow through it.
If one adheres to the Natural Law, is of good will, and cannot possibly learn the True Faith, it is assumed that their intention suffices to join them to the Church. Thus they are IN the Church in the internal forum. That is what Pius IX said, and what Pius XII confirmed.
There is nothing outside the Church, except spiritual death. That is the consistent teaching of the Church. After Mystici Corporis, “susbsists in” “reeks of heresy”.
It should be noted that three Benedictines suggested that the phrase be altered to “the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church”, but the Modernists argued against it, as it was too specific. In Unitatis Redintegratio, those same Modernists define that heretics and schismatics are somehow united to the Church. The council defines “subsists in” for you…in a heretical sense.
Um, that’s kind of the point. The soul of the Church is not identical to the the body of the Church, the soul including non-Catholics in a state of grace. Similarly not everyone in the body of the Church is in the soul of the Church, because not all Catholics are in a state of grace. Or is being in grace optional for some men and not others?
It’s simple logic:
If you being outside the Church means that you cannot be saved; then being able to be saved means you are not outside the Church. Now invincibly ignorant non-Catholics are able to be saved, hence these individuals are not outside the Church even if they are, well, not Catholic. The Church would then be bigger than just its body.
You say heresy but I say development of dogma. You might disagree, but you can trace the seeds of this development from even before the council (and this is what makes the SSPX claim so suspicious, as though there is no antecedent to this teaching). Remove the Catholic Church (the body) and there is no ordinary means of grace. Hence it the Church subsists in the Catholic Church (the body).