Editor’s note: the original video was truncated in error. This post corrects that. Meaning of Catholic is “reclaiming this right of Christian noblemen which has always been approved of and valued by the hierarchy of the Church.” -Our Lady of Victory Press Constitution 37 Theses on the SSPX 1. “He whose will and desire in conversation is to establish his own opinion, even though what he says is true, should recognize that he is sick with the devil’s disease. ” (St. John of the Ladder, step 4). Therefore, I offer my worthless Layman’s opinion and it is worth only how much you paid for it, which is nothing. 2. It is beyond the competence or authority of the lay nobility to judge the nuances of theology, that is, disputatae quaestiones. Nevertheless, since we are the “first preachers of the faith to our children” (Lumen Gentium, 11) we do have a duty before God to pass down the depositum fidei, that is dogmas of the faith. This means that we must form our children to recognise and judge what are the dogmas of the faith (NOT adjudicate quaestiones disputatae), in order to participate in the infallible sensus fidelium. 3. Moreover, the international theological commission has confirmed that the faithful, participating in the sensus fidelium, can perceive heresy against the dogmas of the faith, showing that they are not judging and adjudicating disputatae, but rather manifesting their rational faith in the dogmas. 4. Thus, the faithful have been able to see that many bishops are hirelings who have left the faithful to the heretical and iconoclastic wolves, who poison our little children with heresy. But these evil wolves in clerical clothing also destroy the faith of the little ones by desecrating the Blessed Sacrament and tearing down the monuments of our forefathers, both in liturgy, art, architecture and more. In these iconoclastic acts, these wicked clerics imitate the evil men who scourged Our Lord’s own Body, for these wicked clerics are handling the Most Sacred Body of Jesus Christ and His Precious Blood unworthily. 5. Shortly after Vatican II, the head of the Holy Office called on all bishops to defend the faithful from these wolves, and Archbishop Lefebvre zealously agreed. He did his best to do this, even though he had his own strengths and weaknesses. Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict did their best to do this as well, but nevertheless, these wolves still prowl around the world, seeking the ruin of souls. (“St. John Paul II and Lefebvre- Mythbusting Two Great Men of the 20th century”) 6. The SSPX confesses many dogmas of the faith fearlessly that many bishops today seem to be afraid to confess publicly, or they are heretics themselves. 7. Moreover, the SSPX defends the rights of our children to have the ancient Roman liturgy, a right that has been vindicated in principle by Pope Benedict: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.” 8. On the other hand, the SSPX claims to defend Tradition, yet it seems to me that their treatment of Tradition is superficial and fails to account for the Patristic revival of the 19th century as well as the eastern Catholic traditions. This seems to be why their treatment of Vatican II lacks a theological depth beyond the modern neo-scholastic mindset (which is itself an imperfect imitation of true scholasticism). (“The Pre-Vatican II Decline of Theology”) 9. In particular, the SSPX maintains a Modern, clericalist mindset, and thus their account of the post-Tridentine period (and thus, their proposed solution) is incomplete and risks making serious errors against the depositum fidei, like “Neo-Jansenism” (“The Dubia of Vatican One”) 10. For example, the SSPX claims that the term “Paschal Mystery” is problematic, because the heretics have used and abused this term, and even claims that the term is only a minor Patristic concept (see their book the Problem of the Liturgy Reform, pp. 39-51). But the pre-55 rite of Holy Saturday proclaims that the “Paschal Mystery” (Paschale sacramentum) is the summation of the Old and New Testaments. This shows the SSPX’s lack of depth in the Tradition. (“The Paschal Mystery: the Traditional Aspects of Vatican II & the Novus Ordo Missae”) 11. Further, there is a lack of depth by the SSPX in the Tradition when treating on the post-Tridentine period. We spend so much time worrying about Vatican II, and it is not unreasonable to consider issues with this Council. But the SSPX fails to face the false spirit of Vatican I, nor the critical dubium from Trent: the Two Swords Dogma. But it seems to me that in terms of this period, the real failed council is not Vatican II, but Lateran V. Because everyone agrees that that council was an utter failure - and all of our problems resulted therefrom, including the Protestant revolt, Modernism, etc. 12. Moreover, this council shows the critical importance of the cooperation between the two swords of Christendom, the temporal power (the lay nobility) and the clerical spiritual power. This is because at Lateran V a lay nobleman, Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola, as a traditional lay participant in an ecumenical council, rebuked the clergy and exhorted the Pope to solve the corruption in the Church. This exhortation from the lay nobility was refused, and therefore God punished the Church by means of the Protestant revolt. 13. The Counter-Reformation was a great success in the Spanish Empire and elsewhere, and created Baroque Civilisation. Nevertheless, in France and elsewhere, the poison of Jansenism and political, economic, & sexual tyranny infected the Church, deepening the existing wounds which obtained at the time of the Protestant revolt, and spreading these around the world. In France as elsewhere, the lay nobility went beyond their authority and attempted to control the clergy as their bureaucrats. The Kings of France refused to repent and consecrate their Nation to the Sacred Heart, and so God punished France (and the world) with the French Revolution. (“The Tyranny that Led to Liberalism”) 14. In response, the Papacy, already corrupted by Freemasonry since 1773 (with the unjust suppression of the Jesuits), fell into the opposite extreme against the lay-led Liberalism: they created a clericalist Church. Blessed Pope Pius IX broke with centuries of Tradition and refused to invite the lay nobility to Vatican I. As a result, the Freemasons were able to invade Rome and stop that council. (“Clericalism & the False Spirit of Vatican One”) 15. This was when the prophecy of La Salette was fulfilled: the city of Rome lost the faith and became the seat of the Antichrist, that is, the Freemasons. (“The Real Alta Vendita: When the Gates of Hell ‘Prevailed’ in 1870”) 16. But then, Pius X broke with Tradition even further by revoking the right of the Roman emperor to veto papal elections. As a result of all this, the appointment of Bishops is nowadays extremely clericalist for the first time in centuries. This is a result of the break in Tradition which happened. And this all goes back to the dubium of Trent about that dogma non definitum, the Two Swords Dogma. 17. If we were looking at the appointment of bishops in a truly traditional way, there would be a cooperation between the lay nobility and the clerical power in the appointment of bishops. The lay investiture controversy hammered out a compromise wherein the pope or other clerical powers would appoint bishops and the nobility had certain rights of veto or certain cooperations thereof. (City of God vs. City of Man”: the Battles of the Church from Antiquity to the Present) 18. However, nowadays, the pope and the clerical power has the complete and absolute right over the appointment of bishops. This situation is clericalist and is not traditional. But it did not start with Vatican II. 19. Another issue that did not start with Vatican II is liturgical revolution. The SSPX spends a lot of energy criticising the liturgical revolution of Paul VI. They are right to do so. However, they fail to face the liturgical revolution of Pius X, which broke with centuries of Tradition regarding a much more significant and spiritually grave issue: the frequency of Holy Communion. 20. Liturgical revolution was made possible, not by Vatican II, but by 19th century clericalism. This is why the lay nobility did not defend their children from the heretical and iconoclastic clerics who destroyed the liturgy and the Faith in the 1960s and 1970s. But this is why so many lay people flocked to the SSPX. These priests defended the liturgy and the dogmas. 21. Now it is manifestly clear that even in our own clericalist epoch, the clerical power needs the lay nobility to help GOVERN even bishops themselves. We know this because in many diocese throughout the world there is an official policy to hand over criminal priests to the police. This is an admission by the clerical power that the lay nobility needs to help govern clerics in certain extreme cases. 22. Therefore, it is within the competence of the lay nobility, if they are properly formed and are in places of authority (such as political governance) to have an opinion about the Episcopal consecrations of the SSPX – as long as they maintain strict reverence for their spiritual fathers (especially the Holy Father) and say or do nothing that would harden the hearts of the faithful against their spiritual fathers. It is not an intrinsically schismatic act for the lay nobility to disagree with the opinion of the Pope regarding the appointments of bishops, but again, only with fear & trembling. But this act of the lay nobility disputing with the clerical power over the appointment of bishops is entirely traditional and was accepted by the Papacy for centuries (albeit sometimes reluctantly, like the Holy Roman Emperor vetoing the papal el
