The Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Fr. Davide Pagliarani, has recently given a lengthy interview in which he lays out his case for why the Society is justified in defying Rome by ordaining new bishops this July without a papal mandate.
The interview is revealing insofar as Fr. Pagliarani reaffirms all the major arguments that have already been made with no indication of nuancing his views on any of the salient points.
Disregard for Pope Leo
Why revisit this tired and sad situation yet again? With the focus of late on the war with Iran and the alleged feud between Pope Leo and President Trump, the looming schism of the SSPX has faded from the news. But the SSPX issue is not going to go away, and it is clear in light of this interview that the Society has deliberately steered itself into a clear and direct collision course with Rome.
This latter point is the quiet part that the Society refuses to say out loud; to wit, that this is a confrontation of choice, of their own making, and that there was still time to avoid the conflict with the new pope. Instead, they have deliberately chosen the path of confrontation. After all, the Vatican under Leo had made no new aggressive moves toward the Society or made any negative public comments. Furthermore, Pope Leo had only been in office about ten months when the Society made its announcement about ordaining new bishops. Therefore, it is more than suspicious that the Society apparently decided it was pointless to wait and see what the new pope thought of the Society.
But why did they think it was pointless? Perhaps it is better to say that the Society decided that the views of the new pope were not pointless, but irrelevant. The Society discerned that Leo, no matter his views on the Society, was not going to be the strong-armed papal ruler they deem so necessary in order to restore “true Catholicism” and so decided to pull the Band-Aid off the scab and to make their full intentions clear. Pagliarani, in his interview, makes it clear that what is needed is another pope cut out of the mold of Pius X. Apparently, even Pius XII is a bit too squishy for him, which gives you some indication of the thoroughgoing dissociative mental state the Society is in.
Pagliarani is saying in effect that the Society does not care what the new pope thinks of it because Leo, in the Society’s estimation, is just one more iteration of the error-laced, heretical “Vatican II, Novus Ordo Church”. Thus, there is now no need to wait around for Rome to toss the SSPX some crumbs of tolerance since the Society views itself as more than an “alternative subculture” within the Church. Rather, it views itself as the true “Holy Remnant” of “true Catholicism” whose task has been given by “Providence” to save the Church from itself.
Pagliarani repeatedly refers to this “Providence” as a justification for the fractious ecclesial stance he is taking. There is not the slightest hint in the interview of ecclesial humility or, perhaps more importantly, of charity. The interview drips with victim status posturing, never hints at the possibility that they might be wrong, never squares the circle of how it is in any way a part of Catholic “tradition” to accuse an ecumenical council and several popes of teaching serious doctrinal error, and never addresses the sedevacantist elephant in the living room, which all of that implies.
A crisis too great for the Church?
Pagliarani justifies all of this by appealing to the same tired narrative that the Church of today—ever since Vatican II—is in a crisis so deep that average souls are in real danger of going to Hell because the Church has fallen into error. But he never provides a coherent set of criteria for determining when an ecclesial crisis is so deep that it requires the creation of a parallel episcopacy in defiance of Rome and devoted to a restorationist agenda, the contours of which are defined by the Society itself.
What we see is that the Society, based on its own private theological opinions about what constitutes true Catholicism—in order to imbue those opinions with the patina of Providence and to justify its rupture with the tradition’s affirmation of papal authority—has invented the scenario of a Church in the crisis of an apostasy so deep that there can be no fixing it short of rebellion. No mention is made of why God has apparently and rather suddenly abandoned the pope and the episcopacy. And no mention is made either of why, exactly, we are to assume that the mantle of Providence has now fallen on the shoulders of the SSPX rather than on some other disgruntled faction of hyper restorationist land of super Catholics.
Yes, the Church does indeed have major problems today. I have written much about those problems and can in no way be accused of soft-pedaling the crisis at hand, which is, in my view, a crisis of a de facto atheism in the Church’s culture. Nevertheless, true Catholics understand that charity demands the realization that the answer is not to run away from the mainstream Church as a lost cause and into a Qumran-like compound of defiant apocalypticism, thus abandoning the very souls they claim so ardently to want to save.
Pagliarani repeats ad nauseam that the concerns of the SSPX are purely and simply for the salvation of souls. But it is not hard to see the purely rhetorical nature of such claims when the SSPX is advocating that those same souls accompany them into schism. The Society claims, of course, that it is not going into schism but that it is Rome that has already gone into schism, echoing the polemic of the most anti-Roman Orthodox firebrands one can imagine; “We did not break away!! Rome did first, and we are just where we always were!”
The fact remains that the Society’s claim to be concerned about saving souls rings hollow when, instead of staying within the canonical and doctrinal boundaries of the Church, it abandons that Church and the souls within it in the name of some kind of “purity”—a purity that would be tainted and diluted should they stay. That is not charity. It is rather an ideologically driven elimination of cognitive dissonance, as in the dissonance between their view of the tradition and the modern Church’s view of the same. This is done by dissolving one pole of the dissonance and creating an alternative society that, instead of active evangelization in ordinary parishes, will act as a flame that will, allegedly, attract those lost sheep stranded out in the cold pastures of Novus Ordo land.
The Society further asserts that its interpretation of the Tradition is the only correct one, in a manner all too reminiscent of every schismatic and heretical group in the history of the Church. By whose authority does the Society do this? By God’s authority? That is their claim. But that means God has apparently radically shifted directions, and the Holy Spirit, apparently absent from the Church since at least 1962, has instead landed like a dove on the heads of the SSPX. For reasons known only to God, the “rock” that is Peter is now instead a sponge that soaks up only what is in its cultural environment. The SSPX now claims, in a tacit manner that is logically within its theological assertions, that it is now the rock.
Insincerity and misplaced confidence
They say otherwise in their official pronouncements, of course, and even in Pagliarani’s interview, there are all kinds of unctuous formalisms at the beginning wherein he expresses his love and admiration for Rome. However, everything that follows these words of praise betrays the insincerity of such affirmations. Pagliarani comes across instead as a kind of Eddie Haskell with a cassock on, hiding his true feelings and motives underneath faux words of praise.
The truth is that the SSPX does indeed view itself as being on a “mission from God” as they seek to put the Baroque Catholic band back together again. And the further truth is that in claiming, repeatedly, the “Providential” nature of this mission, the Society is claiming it is now the rock upon which the salvation of the Church depends.
Pagliarani, of course, never mentions that there are former SSPX priests and bishops who have splintered off the Society because they view it as still too compromised by its putative desire for reconciliation with Rome. He dares not mention this because, being an intelligent man, he understands that this is the standard path taken by all schismatic movements, which are devoid of grounding beyond their own solipsistic claims to superior insights. Inevitably, others will arise who believe that the muse who imparts such privileged divine secrets has inspired them with even better divine secrets, and that the mother ship of the schism has floundered and needs to be abandoned for purer and safer waters.
Nevertheless, this does not trouble Fr. Pagliarani, who remains supremely confident that the SSPX movement is a genuine movement of the Holy Spirit and that it is therefore blessed by Providence with manifest success. As corroboration for this view, he alludes to statements made by Archbishop Lefebvre:
On another occasion, Archbishop Lefebvre declared, serenely and in a profoundly supernatural manner, that if the Society of Saint Pius X were not the work of God, it would not continue and would not survive him. It is not for us to provide an answer to this question. But history has already begun to pronounce itself.
But this “success as a sign of divine approval” argument is completely incoherent and is little more than a rhetorical fig leaf used to cover over the raw theological nakedness of the Society’s inflated claims for itself. It is an incoherent argument because its sole criterion of divine approval is perdurance over time with a requisite number of followers to sustain it.
But that proves too much because it could also be applied to the Old Catholics, Protestants, every Catholic schismatic movement in history that still exists today, and (irony of ironies!) to the “Vatican II Novus Ordo Church” whose death spiral has been greatly exaggerated. Indeed, the latest statistics say that there are 1.4 billion Catholics in the world, and that the number of SSPX adherents worldwide is around 800,000. It would seem that even by the logic of the SSPX, the greater Providential blessing still resides with the mainstream Church.
The fact is that many evil movements have arisen within the Church over 2000 years and have survived and even thrived for a time. There are many deceivers who have ravaged the flock of Christ (1 Jn 4:1-3), which is why every saint, every true mystic, every Doctor of the Church, every Church father, and every medieval scholastic theologian has warned against false teachers and the allure of schism. They have all warned us to stay close to Peter. They have stated that legitimate and respectful criticism of a pope is sometimes needed. But they all agree that the schismatic impulse is of Satan.
And there is no schismatic impulse more dangerous than among those who appeal to the need to “preserve tradition” by breaking away from the ecclesial leaders of the day. It is a seduction that appeals to the most devoted Catholics. As such, it is a deception of the devout.
Manipulation and confusion
And, as such, it represents a horrible manipulation of the confusion of many truly devout Catholics whose long-suffering perdurance through the malaise of milquetoast Catholicism is real and understandable. These are the rank-and-file Catholics who still believe, go to Mass, volunteer at their parish as needed, put money in the envelopes, and instill the faith in their children. Ecclesial sexual scandals, financial mismanagement, and LGBTQ+everything have eroded the peace of these good Catholics, who therefore are easily swayed by claims of an apostasy so great that one needs to go into schism to save the Church.
Should the Pope excommunicate the leadership of the SSPX, it should not be viewed as the persecution of the poor little “victim” that is the Society, but instead viewed as the imparting of the proper clarity needed to safeguard the little ones of the flock. It is not punitive but remedial.
And we have not even touched upon the horrible denigration of the many thousands of priests who are active in ministry today who are doing the Lord’s work in the vineyard, who are not heretics or apostates, but who work hard to administer the sacraments with due devotion, who are in hospital rooms at 2:00 a.m. administering the sacrament of the sick to dying Catholicd, who teach and preach with vigor, and who have given their whole lives to the Kingdom of God. And the number of such priests is not negligible.
But according to the SSPX, these priests are unwitting participants in the spiritually toxic ethos of the entire modern Church. They might be sincere, but they are dupes of the system and, at the end of the day, part of the problem. That is why the Society claims the need for new bishops of its own, not appointed by Rome. This is to maintain the independence necessary from Rome, in order to be able to ordain priests who are not tainted by Novus Ordo, the Vatican II heresy. Therefore, this denigration of the mainstream priesthood is part of the broader narrative of apostasy and crisis that requires the grave necessity of disobedience.
Pope Leo has remained thus far silent on the matter, content to allow Cardinal Fernandez to do all the heavy lifting. And this silence has been noticed by Fr. Pagliarani, who laments the fact that Pope Leo has shown no inclination to meet personally with the leaders of the Society to “dialogue” with them.
If I were Pope Leo, I would not “dialogue” with them either. And I don’t think he will. Therefore, the SSPX is going to get the confrontation they have manufactured and desired. That will be a sad day, as all schisms are sad. But, as Pagliarani has himself noted in the Society’s defense, their actions represent a “cruel necessity”.
Perhaps it is now time for Pope Leo to have recourse, however reluctantly, to the “cruel necessity” of excommunication in July. At this point, it seems inevitable.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
There is a schismatic/sedevacantist church just south of town, not sure which splinter group. A few weeks ago my wife (who is Protestant) and I happened to drive by and she asked me about it. I explained the nature of the schism and her reply was spot on: “They sound like Protestants”.
But it is not protestantism, the SSPX is entirely committed to the entire perennial Magisterium of the Church. The SSPX is not schismatic — that according to Joseph Ratzinger, a theological advisor at the mid-century council, who was to become Pope Benedict XVI. There was a man of unquestionable theological credentials.
The same cannot be said of Cardinal Tucho Fernandez, author of “Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing” who promotes Marian minimalism, allows Marko Rupnik, serial rapist, to retain his clerical rank, and has no stomach to reproach and correct the German episcopate about any of their aberrant notions including those regarding sodomy.
The synodal enterprise has only ears to hear those who affirm its erroneous character.
We observe an institution on life support spending what is left of its credence like a protracted adolescent.
Personnel is policy, and as long as Cardinal Fernandez holds his post it reflects as poorly as can be imagined upon our Holy Father. Those who are giving the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt [and it is doubt] appear to be idealizing the man and the office he holds. The papacy is not a magical enterprise. Bishop Melchior Cano, O.P., at the Council of Trent stated: “Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See – they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.”
The entire Catholic Church is on a collision course with Rome. Rome is doing everything they can to alienate the Faithful. Pious talk about “unity” is no longer believable.
Good points, and this is certainly not a recent issue or concern. This was par for the course with Francis, and the bad dream seems to be continuing with Leo. Maybe it’s time for believers to start standing up and holding the hierarchy accountable for its behavior and misplaced priorities. We should do that vocally and financially. Why respect “leaders” who treat the flock with contempt?
Athanasius,
Why indeed… You point out the gulf betwixt the free-masonic sympathethetic Bishops and the Catholic laity who discover themselves members of a Church in 100% contradiction with Herself.
Uh huh. But the bar for being part of “the Faithful” is pretty low, huh? At least if we recognize your right to set that bar. It’s part of the Magisterium of the Internet, a core concept of most commenters on this site.
Including your make believe magisterium that remains oblivious to the blatant attacks to the faith by today’s episcopate?
Not relevant to note whether you would dialogue with them or not.
The SSPX did not “manufacture” the issues in the Church. Neither do they desire any confrontation. They do desire the salvation of souls but according to your claims, the desire is not genuine or misplaced.
The judgement here relies mainly on the SSPX’s desires to be insincere. I’m not sure by what authority or evidence you make that claim.
Well said
The Church has continuously attempted to dialogue with the Society throughout the past two pontificates (and even JPII attempted that very dialogue, which, ultimately, Lefebvre rejected). The problem is, ultimately, the path to communion is not for the Church to overrule her Magisterial teachings, but for the Society to abandon its claims that the Church’s Magisterial teachings are heretical – especially those from Vatican II – and to submit to the authority of the Chair of Peter.
In any case, from my tracking the history of the dispute between the Society and the Church, it does seem that they intentionally and imprudently forced a confrontation with Pope Leo without any real attempt to understand his papacy first. Given that no Pope has yet to have done more to extend faculties and to move the Society closer to regular status than, ironically, Pope Francis and that Pope Leo has said he intends to stylize his pontificate on the Franciscan Papacy while highlighting unity, the diplomatic move by the Society is reckless and seems as though it will prove a grave miscalculation.
The Society cannot simultaneously assert that they are the “remnant” of the “True Church,” while denying the very ecclesiastic structures and powers Christ gave the Church through Peter. That sort of insistence on the primacy of ‘tradition’ over Magisterium becomes traditionalism and ultimately an idol. That’s the insincerity.
“even JPII attempted that very dialogue, which, ultimately, Lefebvre rejected”.
Lefevbre was dying of cancer.
He could see that Rome was playing for time.
He chose to save what could be salvaged and left the rest in God’s hands.
Everyone, including Chapp, glosses over the obvious fact that the SSPX founder ordained four bishops, only two remain in their late 60s of unknown health prognosis, the Vatican playing a long game waiting for all the society’s bishops to die off and the order collapse. Meanwhile, the society has grown and grown, worldwide, and their need for new bishops is critical. And not as if they have not tried to have bishops ordained with permission of Rome. I can certainly see them no longer able to wait, Leo does not appear to be sympathetic, leaving the matter to Tucho of famous theological and doctrinal ignorance, while the surviving bishops may not outlast Leo and the society is running out of time, a society which has guarded the ancient teachings far better than Rome.
You’re doing it again here, argumentation that skips the crux of the matter.
Per my same comments on this page, this is not how the matter is justified either, the matter has no justification.
Traditionalists are getting carried away in self-righteousness, contrary to the Gospel and the preaching of Paul. Ultra-intellectual Gallican style theology and selfish party spirit /esprit de corps, amounting to ….. sin. More holier then holier than the Pope.
Overly-assertive holding-out dishonesty having already denied the Council, too.
Surprised at you Bob. If we make the Papacy our free lunch we have lost all sense.
Elias Galy: So there is no self-righteousness among popes whe seek to recreate the Catholic religion into their own moral relativist, secularist, and, syncretist image?
”That’s the insincerity.”
Where is your ability to question your own sincerity given your mendacious slanders towards those whom you apparently know very little, who have coherently argued over the course of decades, producing shelves of books, detailing thousands of heretical events in the post VII Church, not only undisciplined but promoted by many prelates.
The Church’s magisterial teachings are never heretical, but popes and prelates who slander Catholic magisterial teaching are heretical. Consider developing more knowledge of the Catholic faith. No one is required to be obedient to any prelate, including popes, who are disobedient to Christ. Our Lord is the head of the Church, not the one sitting in the Chair of Peter. Popes who, themselves, might be denying the very ecclesiastic structures and powers Christ gave the Church through Peter, of which you accuse the SSPX.
There isn’t room to catalog all the particular heresies of Francis, although a recent very lengthy book, “The Disastrous Pontificate”, published by scholar Peter Kwasniewski attempts this. And Leo has had nothing but praise for Francis. Not surprising, since Leo contends that doctrine can change but people need to first be educated to accept this.
You might begin considering the meaning of Francis’ embrace of process theology, of which he expressed agreement and had great praise for one of its post VII founders, Walter Kasper. This is the theological view that God is incomplete and in the process of learning how to be God and needs to discover insights just like his creatures.
It gets worse, but you owe it to God to set your loyalties straight.
It weakens the essay to open with the completely preposterous suggestion that the feud between the Pontiff Leo and President Trump is “alleged.” Everyone can see and hear the fact of that feud. It is stone cold reality.
And it is stone cold reality. Just as real as the Pontiff Leo’s nakedly political act of his private audience with David Axelrod, and the resultant nakedly political stunt of the “3-Stooges-of-McCARRICK” doing the bidding of the Pontiff Leo and Axelrod in their “60 Minutes” stagecraft.
I reject the claim that “there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.”
I also reject the behavior of the Pontiff Francis, especially his orchestration of the Pachamama stunt in 2019, which was his blasphemous attack on the 1st Commandment, which I understand him to have done in order to further undermine the 6th Commandment by daring to show contempt for the 1st Commandment.
I likewise reject the nakedly political behavior of the Pontiff Leo, aa well as his free will act as a priest to kneel with in worship of Pachamama in a Pachamama ritual. And I reject the Pontiff Leo for continuing the program of the Bergoglian demoralization and deconstruction of the faith, and his airplane speech that makes him sound like a contestant for Miss Congeniality, instead if a serious shepherd like Pope Benedict or Pope John Paull II.
And I also reject the fraudulent Cardinals of the cult if McCARRICK, which includes the “homosophisticate” Cardinals McElroy, Cupich, Tobin, Hollerich and all of their like-minded conclave voters, and the Cardinal Heretic Emeritus Walter Kasper, who denies the Gospels, The Creed, and The Resurrection.
There are bad Popes, and as we all know, there are evil men that have been Pope, including men “alleged” to have murdered Popes to become Pope.
Popes are not to be cavalierly equated with St. Peter, who, unlike the Pontiff Leo, shared the conviction of the other apostles that sexual immorality is a mortal sin, far beyond the beauty pageant category of “world peace” and the Marxist ideology of “social justice.”
I also reject
I appreciate your comments and can relate to them. I don’t believe the SSPX is at fault, but it’s clear they’ve drawn a firm line. They’ve observed the actions and heard both Francis and Leo state their beliefs and doctrines, and they know further talks with Leo or similar popes will lead nowhere. They choose to follow where they believe Jesus is. I’ve never attended an SSPX congregation; for now, that’s a step too far for me. Still, I won’t reject them or deny their deep Christian faith. In short, I believe they are doing their best to follow Jesus Christ and remain Catholic. I pray the popes and the Church return fully to the Way, abandoning modernism and its influences, and cease flirting with heresy. Rome has created division in the Church and continues to fan the flames. Stop denying Tradition and true doctrine.
Michael – I want to affirm you on not joining an SSPX congregation. It’s a fine thing to appreciate and it’s a good thing to participate in the forms of the mass that are sanctioned by Rome – including the Extraordinary Rite. The Society runs afoul where, as men who have taken vows to wed themselves to the Church, they are not ultimately living that vow – regardless of how messed up everything may be. Either the Holy Spirit works through the Church, or He does not. Tradition and true doctrine hinge on the former, and the SSPX, certainly implicitly – if not explicitly on occasion, teaches the latter. Have hope: while things are bad, they are not nearly so bad as the SSPX needs to convince the world to substantiate their disobedience.
“The Society runs afoul where, as men who have taken vows to wed themselves to the Church, they are not ultimately living that vow.”
And they would be less afoul then the failure to living vows taken by McCarrick or Marx? I’m not part of FSSP, but if I had to trade my own eternal judgement for that of a sincere FSSP member or one of the M&M’s, I’d take that of the sincere FSSP member.
Imagine a military, where incompetence, dereliction of duty, sedition, treason, drunkenness and sodomy ruled the officer corps, but the only requirement of honorable attachment was saluting those of a higher rank and the enlisted were expected to die in futile and stupidly executed engagements such as Vietnam, where deskbound imbeciles spoke of “limited engagement” while exposing their own troops to toxic defoliants.
This past weekend the Gospel was about the Good Shepherd. My pastor’s sermon was focused on how sheep would know their Shepherd. I don’t hear the call of “Men” like Cupich, McElroy, McCarrick and Marx because they sicken me as they are enveloped in an acrid lupine miasma. I couldn’t even shake their hands if I had the misfortune to meet them, because I detest the soft and weak, and the temptation to crush their effeminate hands would overwhelm me.
“The Society runs afoul where, as men who have taken vows to wed themselves to the Church, they are not ultimately living that vow”
How is aquiescing to an ape of the Catholic Church magisterially promoting the blessing of sodomy ultimately wedding oneself to eternal Rome?
Do explain when the Holy Spirit changes his mind. I know Pope Bergoglio was fond of appealing to the God of Surprises, but I’ve only been surprized by an episcopate gone amuck in relation to the perennial Magisterium.
Today we read at another site: “In Flanders, Bishop Johann Bonny included these words on the implementation of the synodal process (published exactly one month ago) in the diocese of Antwerp wherein he explicitly states that he intends to ordain married men: For these reasons, I will make every effort to ordain married men as priests for our diocese by 2028. I will approach them personally and ensure that by then they have the necessary theological training and pastoral experience, comparable to that of other priest candidates. This preparation will be transparent but discreet, away from the media spotlight. The next two years will also serve to ensure the necessary communication and arrangements, both with the Belgian Bishops’ Conference and with the Vatican, as we can learn from each other’s experiences and insights.”
So how will the Leonine pontificate respond to this? The good Bishop Bonny has an erroneous attempt to “ordain” females as well.
Will he meet the same fate intended for the SSPX?
“….imprudently forced a confrontation with Pope Leo without any real attempt to understand his papacy first.”
Understand his papacy?? What exactly is “prudent” about a pope saying doctrine cannot be changed right now but will change when the laity is taught and made to accept these changes.
I understand his papacy. Do you?
Did you understand the meaning of Francis’s papacy when he was denying the divinity of Christ while on earth, denying the sinlessnes of Mary, or denying immutable truth in itself, or denying the perfection of God, claiming God is still in a process of learning how to be God?
Thank you Chris in Maryland. You articulated my opinion much more succinctly than I could have done.
Mr Chapp
Thank you sir.
The SSPX is jumping ship without life jackets. No one should ever willingly leave the umbrella of Rome, and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Formal schism is not a Traditional Catholic thing to do, so how can the SSPX look at themselves in their cracked mirror and call themselves Traditionalists?
They are now nothing more than Latin-Rite Orthodox. (Or Protestants at this rate)
The door is open to the SSPX to return, but they are the ones who need to knock.
“They are the ones who need to knock”(Didn’t Think So). 👀 The Society has been requesting an audience with Pope Leo, but he’s been too busy meeting with David Axelrod and “Archbishop” Sarah Mullally to meet with Fr. Davide Pagliarani. When you publicly misrepresent someone and accuse them of a canonical crime, it’s important as a matter of charity to be honest. The SSPX has not stopped knocking at the door. This is according to the Vatican itself, which tells us that Pope Leo has refused to meet with them.
The SSPX are the ones who rejected a Vatican offer for further dialogue back in February of this year. That doesn’t sound like knocking to me. But the door remains open nonetheless. But it is the SSPX that are at fault, as they are the ones who are deliberately choosing to reject Rome and enter into schism.
A perfect Orwellian reversal of actual events.
They are now nothing more than Latin-Rite Orthodox. (Or Protestants at this rate)
Well if that’s the case let’s role out the red carpet of dialogue! I look forward to chocolate statue of Marcel Lefebvre!
“They are now nothing more than Latin-Rite Orthodox. (Or Protestants at this rate)”
You mean like the woman with the equine denticia engaged in ecclesial cosplay?
I’m sorry, but all this talk of “unity” rings hollow when the Pope has time to meet with frauds from the CofE as a peer or to meet with non-Christians such as Axlerod, but not with this group, who is being offered the Catch 22 of death or apostasy or non submission.
The objective is clear. No shepherd and the flock scatters.
So you accept blessing sodomite couples as a “Catholic Didn’t think” so?
Mr C.N.
I absolutely do not accept the blessing of same sex couples. Choosing to remain in union with Rome than with a rogue group of priests only makes sense.
The SSPX are Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, but since they aren’t in full communion with Rome, they are missing the first section of the four pinnacles of the Catholic Church.
Do what you like, but I’m sticking with Rome. Being a schismatic isn’t part of Tradition.
Are you AI?!
The SSPX is not doing anything in ordaining bishops that they did do the last time they ordained bishops. These bishops are either already in schism, or these ordinations won’t put them there either.
The 1917 code of canon law punished episcopal ordinations without permission with a 2-year suspension. The idea that this is automatically schismatic isn’t exactly something the Church has always held.
“The interview drips with victim status posturing, never hints at the possibility that they might be wrong, never squares the circle of how it is in any way a part of Catholic “tradition” to accuse an ecumenical council and several popes of teaching serious doctrinal error”
Not since Larry Chapp insulted traditionalists by calling their claims of Masonry within the Vatican ridiculous, has he composed such preposterous nonsense as this article.
(Annibale Bugnini’s name is on the Italian registry of freemasonry. His serial no. 1365-75. His initiation date was April 23, 1963. He is only one of many. A member of the P2 lodge called Carmine Pecorelli, presented documents regarding names of Masons in the church and got murdered for his troubles.) Even if one refuses to believe this, it is absurd to deny widespread syncretism in the Church. No less than Fr. Charles Murr, assistant to Archbishop Edouard Gagnon, commissioned by Pope Paul to investigate the Masonic corruption, which he found and recorded in a massive dossier, has testified to this extensively.
And it is most certainly a part of Catholic tradition to identify material heresy when they see fit. It has only been done copious times over the course of centuries.
And it is the Vatican that sabotaged opportunities for SSPX meeting with and reconciliation with Leo, not the other way around.
When has Larry Chapp ever given public indications he might be wrong?
When has Larry Chapp ever given public indications he might be wrong?
Never. The nouvelle theologie didn’t fail, we failed it.
Perhaps he’d also like to challenge Father Ripperger, the exorcist that claims in his rites, he’s been told that diabolical reaches into the Vatican (as it no doubt does everywhere else).
Watch the Youtube video: “Exorcist Fr. Ripperger REVEALS Demonic Infiltration in Vatican”.
“Father Ripperger, the exorcist that claims in his rites, he’s been told that diabolical reaches into the Vatican.” Fr. Ripperger is believing the devil? I thought that exorcists were taught never to believe the devil.
I said he was told it. I don’t if he believes it (without some other corroboration).
Listen to the entire interview on Shawn Ryan’s podcast. It’s several hours long.
Thank you, that’s a good point. On the other hand, it sounds like something Pope Leo the 13th said. Perhaps satan recycles old material to try to impress. Better to believe Pope Leo XIII I think.
I wrote that he was told that. I don’t know whether he accepts it, absent corroborating evidence. If true, we know the implications of that. However, if false, it’s still bad, because it means the forces of darkness think their claim is credible.
He appeared on a multi-hour podcast where he explained what he encounters and deals with this.
If he doesn’t believe it, then why is it posted here? If Fr. Ripperger rejects the devil’s statement, then it should be clearly mentioned. Otherwise it risks slandering Fr. Ripperger by implying that he does something NO exorcist would do: believing the devil’s statement.
Satan tempted Our Lord. Why would anyone believe today’s church hierarchy immune to Satan’s efforts? Of course the diabolic is active in the Vatican. It is active within all men and women in the world. Jesus warned Peter that Satan wanted to sift him. No human is immune.
In 1972, Pope Paul VI declared: “From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the Church.” No one believes Satan. Nor should you.
One does not need to “consult a devil” to see, in plain sight, that the diabolical reaches into the Vatican. In fact, you have to have your head buried deep in the sand NOT to see it. And by the way, Paul VI acknowledged it himself!
I thought I’d read somewhere that the devil was the father of lies. Guess the author must have been mistaken.
Your argument isn’t helped by reference to a rogue priest with a you tube channel.
At least I have an argument.
Detract much?
Well Pitchfork pseudonym you really won that one.
@Elias Galy
I Can’t win one when my late night posting confuses calumny and detraction.
Since Father Ripperger is a validly incardinated priest not promoting heterodoxy, calling him “rogue” is calumny not detraction.
(Former) wrestlers know how to take an “L” and move on.
@Elias Galy
Since my late night post confused detraction (disclosing true but private faults or failings) with calumny (making false charges. Fr. Ripperger is a validly incardinated priest in good standing, so he is not “rogue”), I can claim no victory.
(Former) Wrestlers know how to take an “L”, move on and learn from it.
Pitchfork pseudonym, I think you mean that when your prongs get bent out of shape it doesn’t help the rebel side or anything else. I don’t want to “L” you it’s hard -easy- enough just talking to you. You have some gems in what you write – to let you know; that I think could be couched in more compelling terms and make for smarter reading which is important not merely incidental.
Exorcism as “public apostolate” has many a danger not only to Ripperger bt to others besides and it is possible it will land Ripperger into a bad place as well, via over-confidence & etc. all the rest of it. We pray for him in a positive way and I believe those commenting here about “rogue” and so forth, have good intentions too on his part. Sometimes good to step back and look.
To deny the self-evident reality that the diabolical reaches into the Vatican is like standing at the bottom of the ocean and denying the existence of moisture.
And you should learn more about those you slander. The Eighth Commandment requires it.
I know the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right,” but it’s difficult to see Rome take a hard line with the SSPX while appearing to do little about bishops “in full communion” who openly preach error or promote policies at total odds with Church teaching. It’s an odd juxtaposition for Rome to be extremely strict with the SSPX while, at the same time, the Pope is exchanging jars of honey and other gifts with the head of the Anglican Communion, who is not only in schism but also actively teaches things that oppose Christian orthodoxy.
If “full communion” is reduced to something merely institutional or juridical, it risks losing any real meaning. For the term to carry any meaningful weight, it has to reflect a deeper unity, one that includes not just formal structures, but also fidelity in belief, teaching, and practice.
As we’ve been constantly reminded by promoters of ecumenism, schism is a failure on the part of both parties. I would be surprised if Rome took responsibility for its part in creating this situation.
The fact that PL does not meet with SSPX Society but meets with a fake Anglican Archbishop (“fake” primarily because of her sex – a woman cannot be an icon of Christ = to represent Him during the Eucharist) and other fakes/blurs/etc. is entirely logical. Whatever faults SSPX have, they so far are sticking to what the Church has taught for twenty centuries, I mean the doctrine. (I have a problem with their “remnant” ideation because such an ideation tends to bring a person or a group of people down but it is another matter.)
According to human psychology, a narcissistic/toxic family always relies on “blurred boundaries” for smooth operating. The rules are unspoken and subject to an abrupt change, by those who rule the family. There are no objective ethics and morals because if they were, they would constrain those who possess that kind of toxic power. Thus, when a member of a family suddenly “sees the light”, draws a boundary and appeals to objective morals, he automatically becomes an outsider. He dared to say “you are wrong and this is why”. His behaviour thus makes the problems within a family very visible and this is the reason why he is typically ostracized, thrown out as a result. He becomes “a traitor”; the head of the family and his “capos” then engage in a projection and slander, attributing their own sins to him (blame shifting).
And so, “the Archbishopess” does not threaten PL and his system because she matches that system perfectly: no objective rules – in fact, “the Archbishopess” owns her rank in the Church by twisting that very Church’s teaching and Scriptures. Most importantly, she makes PL look “nice and kind and non-rigid”. “Look at PL, he accepted a female head of the Church!” – the world applauds, including the majority (?) of Christians.
On the other hand, SSPX makes PL look semi-heretical i.e. they expose him via their adherence to what PL is desperate to blur and do away with. Most importantly, SSPX introduces blur the objective rules. PL knows this (consciously or not I have no idea) thus he avoids them.
From here follows that PL does not encourage those who stick to the doctrine but those who twists it for one reason only: it is beneficial for him – not for God and the Church of Christ – because it makes him likable in the eyes of those who don’t mind the blur, basically the majority of population of the globe.
To make a conclusion: all rigid (clear Church’s teaching, Scriptures, Church fathers, saints, mystics, tradition and Christ of course) must go “away from the family” because they expose what is going on. The problem is that PL and his system need those who must go away to excuse PL’s and his system’s existence. The Pope cannot exist without a reference (even extremely blurred) to Christ. This is why the current heresy does not have a solid and clear theological component which would openly change things. This is why PL is engaging in almost impossible: holding on to Church twenty centuries doctrine and blurring and twisting it at the same time. He found a genius solution: the past doctrine must be turned into a point of reference in a hypertext which is activated via periodic acting out “the tradition” but the true life is elsewhere, in the realm of human psychology dressed in ecclesial clothes. What is going on is the antithesis of Christ, much more “likable” than Christ, trying to hold it all in his hand.
Anna:
I agree completely with your summary here.
My sense, since the abdication of Pope Benedict, is that the outlaws who lived inside the Church over the last 50 years, took it over in 2013, via the Pontiff Francis, and have simply extended the reign of the outlaw, via the Pontiff Leo.
These men have great regard for persons, with the sole exception of the person Jesus Christ, who is someone they have labored to redefine, and put on a shelf or in a frame, like an exhibit in their own personal museum.
Makes sense , except they do not have “great regard for persons”, or Jesus The Christ, since these outlaws reject Christ’s Divine Teaching, on sexual morality grounded in respect for The Sanctity and Dignity of all Human Life from the moment of conception .
Hadn’t thought of it that way, but yeah, makes sense.
Laughable. The SSPX is staying Catholic. Rome is not. It is as simple as that. Maybe the Archbishopess of Canterbury can explain it to Dr. Chapp. An “excommunication” at this point will merely point out Rome’s further apostasy. At any rate, the SSPX will continue to flourish, and Rome will continue to burn.
SSPX = LARP
SSPX is speaking to a real crisis. This author downplaying that seems arrogant and delusional.
The article simply identifies the combatants in the endless conflict between those intent on conforming the world to God (tradition) or conforming god to the World (modernism). Granted we each shall have a choice to go one direction or the other so as for my choice is to adhere to the Catholicism of the Moderate Scholastic of St Thomas who enjoy the Beautific Vision, thus as a recusant Traditionalist I shall reject modernism as my means to aspire to the Faithful Remnant. When asked the proverbial question “Where do we go from here?” we have the traditional response “Only to God, only to god”. Within the Created Order, there has been and is the desecrating chaos, the loss of moral authority with and since V2.
What about the FSSP? Why not build up this group as a fully recognized part of the Chirch and invite the SSPX to become part of it? They could have a status simulator to the Anglican prelature
The FSSP was promised a bishop 30 years ago, and entry into every diocese where Catholics requested the TLM. Both promises were fake. The FSSP will never have any real place in the Church because they were created only to draw people away from the SSPX. If the SSPX were gone tomorrow, the FSSP would be suppressed the day after tomorrow.
Honestly the FSSP seems almost in the same “irregular” position they just don’t openly challenge Rome like the SSPX. Some liberals seem to want to change this by requiring them to say the New Rite, to concelebrate etc. My understanding is that the FSSP seminary utilizes more or less the classic formation in traditional Thomism though of course with some updates (current Catechism and Code of Canon of Law). But this it seems to me would need to revised in the name of unity. The FSSP seminarians should have their dose of De Chardin, Barth, DeLubac and Balthasar as well. To exclude the new theologians is essentially tantamount to rejecting Vatican II.
Was this promise made public?
We don’t warn the Orthodox that they are on the brink of schism, because the Orthodox already are in schism. Either the SSPX is or might later be in schism. The Vatican wouldn’t warn them of a future schismatic act if they’re already in schism. Dr. Chapp writes here: “the looming schism of the SSPX has faded from the news,” yet we see priests pastors and canon lawyers preach in Arlington that the SSPX is already in schism. Which is it? The schism is looming, ie approaching, or already fact?
Many Traditionalists will never accept the new stripped-down post-1962 pseudo-Mass, nor will they accept the Popes Pro-LGBTQ doctrine and the heresy which these apostates have steered the modern Roman Catholic Church, which resembles Lutheranism more than the SSPX. We’ve been excommunicated before and it didn’t stop us. If we have to go back to having Mass in the basements of people’s home we will because it is the one true approved Mass which most of you fake Catholics can live without all the way to Hell.
Dear Joseph,
I never attend novos ordo post-Catholic masses, but attending TLM with a priestly confraternity in full communion with the apostates has become difficult.
It means aquiescing to Vatican II in theory and thus rubber-stamping gay-couple blessings in practice. As a Catholic this is simply untenable.
So if Rome declares Lefevbre’s men unacceptable to “gay-couple blessing post-Catholic conciliared Church,” I will in conscience have to join Lefevbre’s men in order to simply remain a Catholic defender of the faith of our fathers?
Thank you for commenting, Joseph.
I welcome intelligent responses to my crisis of traditionalist conscience.
MCN, it’s not possible to be in “communion” with apostates. To be guilty of apostacy is, de facto, to be in mortal sin. The very Body and Blood of Christ cannot be not granted to or received by one who is in mortal sin (physically, sure; but spiritually, no). That is to say, I believe your underlying premise is flawed.
For the record, FS – as confusing as it may be – explicitly prohibits blessing couples as “gay couples.” An act of “rubber stamping” a “gay couple” as that, is mortal sin. Vatican II has nothing to do with this practice. I’m hopeful that in the not-too-distant future, Pope Leo will more directly address these situations in a more head-on fashion, too. Have hope, brother.
Pope Francis, who ensured Leo’s election, did not choose to clarify any such points JK but on the contrary encouraged them. Having signed the NWO Agenda 2030 – the pro Lgbt and reduce the conceived world Agenda – Francis signed the V2 Church onto its current anti-Catholic synodal pathway longterm – hand-in-hand with the Prince of this World. Leo’s hands are consequently tied? He couldn’t even if he suddenly wanted to suddenly Reject the NWO Agenda 2030 Pact?
Paragraph 25 from FS: “The Church, moreover, must shy away from resting its pastoral praxis on the fixed nature of certain doctrinal or disciplinary schemes.”
Doesn’t sound like a recipe for avoiding motal sin.
Joseph is wrong in attitude. I am a traditionalist of the Catholic Church, with qualifications, myself. For me it means attending the TLM as often as I can and holding true to the liberating immutable truths of Her precepts. And this includes the right of every Catholic to be concerned and call out material heresy, no matter the source of heresy. A fundamental principle of natural law is that right is right even if no one is right, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong.
But we do not serve our traditional cause by publicly condemning “fake Catholics” to hell. One of the gravest of mortal sins involves usurping God’s judgment for ourselves. It will not go well at anyone’s final accounting if we have this sin to which we must give an account.
In recent weeks the ugly specter of anti-Semitism has appeared among a few “traditionalist” pundits. Vanity always seeks affirmations of moral and spiritual superiority even when it requires hatred to accomplish it. Catholicism does not accept the false interpretation of Scripture singularly condemning Jews for the crucifixion for all time. And Catholicism does not exempt anyone from heaven for not having an outward Catholic identity, which happens to coincide with a position held by no less than Archbishop Lefebvre.
Thanks EJB. Much in agreement, although the final point leaves me perplexed… Lefevbre did not place himself above God to my knowledge on the subject of whom God might save. He was rather opposed to false ecumenism and religious relativism?
MCN: My sentence structure can be awkward when I compose thoughts while half asleep. Nonetheless, what I meant is that Lefebvre, a so-called extremist (was nonetheless one of my influences on my conversion to the faith) was not of the school of thought that heaven is only open to self-aware baptized Catholics. I believe there is better phrasing, but he did at least once use the common phrase of “baptism by desire.” As an orthodox theologian, he knew that every man is the guardian of his own soul and cannot be led to hell except through conscious consent. Bad liturgy will not in itself damn a soul, but if it goes far enough, it will compromise in myriad ways, to the point of rottenness’ the entire edifice of Catholic witness.
I shudder to think of what is upcoming in a “new” translation of the bible, currently being composed. There have been leaks about its new “pastoral” considerations, which includes downplaying sexual sin, especially sodomy. Never be shocked at the stupidities of the conceited.
I can imagine a rewriting of Our Lord’s sermon no longer reading “Any man who looks upon a woman with lust…” being changed to “Any man who compliments a woman for her dress, when she is not in the mood to be complimented, harasses her and commits adultery. Sins against “justice and equity” I suppose.
It is not surprising that Dr. Chapp locates the “problem” in the Church to be the SSPX. Dr. Chapp taught for 20 years at DeSales University, which has co-ed dorms and all the usual dissenting groups, such as a student LGBTQ affirmation club. The same problems exist everywhere in the Church today, but of course, the perpetuation of the Traditional Latin Mass is the only “real” problem…
Sigh. Anyone who has read Dr. Chapp’s pieces here or elsewhere knows that your remark is deeply misleading. He has written pieces (for example) criticizing Cardinal’s Cupich, McElroy, and company, on issues such as homosexuality, conscience, etc. He has written pieces criticizing Pope Francis, the German bishops, etc. Also, I think it’s fairly well know that Dr. Chapp left DeSales, in part, because he no longer wanted to deal with the insanity there. Further, the LGBT group/club at that school was founded 5 or 6 years ago; Dr. Chapp left in 2013. Sure, criticize this essay, but please stop lying.
I think you are missing my point entirely. Despite Dr. Chapp’s knowledge of the state of the Church today, he zeros in on the SSPX as the “disobedient Catholics,” the ones who are “schismatic,” the problematic Catholics who need to suffer the ultimate penalty of the Church. That position is quite common among “conservative” Catholics, and it is cowardly. I cannot even imagine the cognitive dissonance of those who force themselves to think in this manner. They are not helping defend the Church. They are going right along with its auto-destruction, just lemmings leaping off the cliff…
Mr Olson:
Sometimes I feel alone here. So many people are trashing Rome and the papacy, and are in full support of the SSPX’s actions. I only urge everyone to remain with the True Church and not accept schismatic sect.
DTS, I agree that it’s alarming to see so many commentators taken in by the SSPX, but remember that a comment thread is always skewed toward those who have a beef with the author: most of us are more likely to get up the energy to comment when we’re feeling critical.
Thank you for the reminder to speak up for unity with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Obedience is highly undervalued!
Dr. Chapp’s article is a good one; another can be found at pillarcatholic.com.
Lucy:
Thank you for your kind words. God bless.
Would this include “obedience” to heretical positions from Rome and from recent popes in defiance of the patrimony of received immutable Catholic witness? The SSPX is not a perfect witness to the faith nor do they comprise the entirety of those who identify as traditional, but they do not have a commitment to destroying the faith, unlike numerous pseudo-Catholic sects of secularity that have been ignored by Rome for half a century.
Obedience to Our Lord comes first.
What does one do in the face of a clergy that refuses to condem errors or worse,promote them? Do we sit back and allow millions of Catholics to be taught errors in our schools and parishes? If anything, it’s Rome that is sounding more Protestant by the day.
I’m am sick and tired of the watered down compromised version of our faith being shoved down our throat and being told obey or else.
I think Dr. Chapp’s current article is one sided and glosses over Rome’s part in helping create this situation BUT I think he is an excellent writer and an orthodox brother in Christ. I’m always glad to read his articles!
PS: there’s lots to critique the SSPX about (including their handling of grotesque abuse cases). The SSPX is far from perfect and has its own serious problems and difficulties…don’t be fooled.
I have a relative that attended De Sales. Married there because the parish priest wanted corrective action about the couple’s cohabitation, so the ceremony was conducted at De Sales after over a decade or so of an apparently unhappy, childless “union”, divorced and now with a new “significant other”.
I’m not expecting or suggesting every Catholic college graduate is a perfect Catholic, but I would be curious as to why the Salesian order would have agreed to override the parish priest and witness a union that quite frankly due to reasons I will not disclose (apart from the cohabitation isn’t terribly limiting any more) should have been a giant red flags of incompatibility and perhaps insincerity in pre-marital counseling. That seems like an anecdotal indication of a permissive environment to me. Is DeSales just another completely off the rails CINO place? Is is as bad as the place that chased Anthony Esolen away from its faculty?
Funny thing about Harvey’s Lake. It was better when the Lehigh Valley Railroad ran trains under the now defunct Hanson’s amusement park roller coaster. Oh well at least the park train survives as an attraction on the farm of the parents of wrestler Zain Retherford’s parents in not too far away Benton, PA. And if you go to HL, The Grotto was a good pizza place-haven’t been there in years. There used to be a wing shack called Rich and Charlotte’s, where the hottest version produced a curious reaction of sweating from the eyebrows.
I cannot speak to what DeSales is like now. I left in 2013. I was there from 1994-2013 and during those years DeSales was one of those “recommended but with caveats” Newman guide schools. Its Catholic identity was a mixed bag. The Oblate Presidents and faculty were very orthodox. We NEVER invited pro abortion and/or socially liberal types as speakers on campus. We did not have a LBGTQ club of any kind. Our theology and philosophy faculty were all very orthodox Catholics. We had very many theology majors for a small school. The rest of the faculty at large were a mixed bag in terms of Catholic identity. But DeSales overall was a conservative Catholic school. Tony Esolen would have been welcome there. In fact, his niece attended DeSales and I taught her.
But the real reason I am responding to you is to say that Rich & Charlottes still exists in Harveys Lake! Great wings!
Rich and Charlotte’s still exists! And they still have great wings.
As for DeSales … funny you should mention Tony Esolen. His niece went to DeSales and I taught her. At the time I was there DeSales was very orthodox. We were actually in the Newman Guide. We had solidly orthodox university Presidents for many years. There as no LGBTQ club back then. But there is now. I think the place has moved to the liberal wing of late…
I hear that when you meet as a church there are divisions among you, and to a degree I believe it; there have to be factions among you in order that [also] those who are approved among you may become known. 1 Cor 11:18-19
Jesus promised to be with Peter, not those who disagree with him.
I do not see, whether the SSPX is right or wrong, that they desire confrontation. Their existing bishops are aging. Unless they want to die out they need new bishops. That seems to me to be their motivation.
But that also brings up the question of why the German Church is not accused of confrontation, and action taken. When Pope Leo was questioned on his airplane return about the latest German bishops defiance his response was that he had let them know that he disagreed. Wow! What a strong leadership statement.
This latter point is the quiet part that the Society refuses to say out loud; to wit, that this is a confrontation of choice, of their own making, and that there was still time to avoid the conflict with the new pope.
They claim the decision is of necessity to ensure the provision of sacraments to society members. Would it have killed Mr. Chapp to address that in his rather long diatribe against the SSPX?
In government and major organizations, the are COOPs (Continuity of Operations Plans) that anticipate the vacancy of key positions or the incapacity of the incumbents. I was involved in an organization where a key position was staffed by nobody less than 60 years old, save two. In less than ten years, all of the 60+ were dead, physically unable or “retired”.
Forcing an organization to careen toward the risk of “mass superannuation” or “mass mortality” of it’s episcopacy might be a “choice”, but it’s the sort of choice one is offered with a firearm muzzle firmly indenting their temple.
Dear SSPX,
As you might already know, my view is that the original excommunication would simultaneously revive and the new ordinations would be void putting the group in a tailspin going into a disarray inevitably. Well, the proposed ordinations are also, in the unique circumstances in which they occur, extra-ecclesial process that the Church can’t uphold or reconcile by extraordinary means, it’s a chaos.
Maybe, during this time when SSPX is in communion still, it can have bishops ordained outside the Society who can then be inducted into SSPX while the situation continues to resolve stably and serenely over the course of time -and without all kind of big fanfare. Opus Dei has an annex by incardination. Vincentians have a Priests of the Mission membership.
If I am making a meaningful contribution here, they -you, SSPX- will have to attribute it to the Lord Jesus Christ. Lest they overlook.
Sincerely,
ELIAS
The Vatican disagrees with Germany about same sex blessings, but the German Church is in good standing with the Vatican. Not sure why the Vatican and the SSPX can just agree to disagree.
*Not sure why the Vatican and SSPX CAN’T just agree to disagree
MrsHess: Like differences don’t make a difference? Religion isn’t a collection of hobbies. There are life and death consequences when a pontificate refuses to recognize that moral precepts origninate entirely with God and are unchangable. Popes should not have to be reminded of this by those the invincibly softminded decides to call schismatic simply for defending the faith.
Has the Pope excommunicated anyone over formalized same-sex blessings? Is he going to put an end to Cardinal Marx’s plans to bless couples in irregular circumstances?
.
No. He has appeared to agree to disagree (at least to me) and move on to things like social justice and religious freedom and such.
.
So why not just let the SSPX do what they think best, start applying the parish “tax” to them (assuming they don’t already), and move on. Where the people are, there’s the money. And the Vatican could use some, I hear.
There is a difference between how Germany is handling same-sex and other “irregular unions” and the way Rome would have it, but it seems that Pope Leo isn’t too much concerned about it, as he has not put a stop to what Germany/Cardinal Marx is doing. It would appear differences really aren’t that big a deal–at least as far as Rome is concerned.
Given that, let the SSPX have their bishops and their parishes and the TLM, and “tax” them the same as any other diocesan parish. Then Rome will have the additional funds they (say they) need.
Win win for everyone.
“There is a difference between how Germany is handling same-sex and other “irregular unions” and the way Rome would have it, but it seems that Pope Leo isn’t too much concerned about it…”
And not being concerned about it, whether by Pope or layperson, is a crime against humanity.
Anti-Catholic bigots, who comprise a large part of the global population, including most Catholics who tend towards bigotry towards Catholicism, live to identify evidentiary signs that Catholicism is a system of human and cultural contrivances. Tolerance of evil and the rewarding of bad behavior expands evil and bad behavior exponentially.
Among these is the mass slaughter of babies. Do you seriously not realize that whenever the Church embraces scandal it tells the whole world, see you were right to hate us and reject what we witness. We just arbitrarily make things up as we go along. So go ahead. Get rid of inconvenient life. It doesn’t matter.
Francis frequently grandstanded about his concern for the downtrodden while he simultaneously addressed the concept of sin as though the only problem with sin are guilt feelings. Victims are inevitably ignored when a mind can only conceive of real sins as something to be rationalized and ignored. It matters not the effect on an abandoned family when a man finds later happiness with his mistress. The unacknowledged reality of Amoris Laetitia.
Instead, we substitute moral displacement and display idolization of social concerns, often fictional, but none of which can be cured with social engineering. History always reveals that attempts to reform the world only leads to mass murder, inevitable frustrations of grand scale vanity.
There is no such thing as social justice. Justice is always only personal and can never be collective. The rhetorical fiction of social justice is a contrivance that enables failures to either cultivate or ignore personal virtues by substituting fantasies that virtue is conferred simply by identifying with promises of benevolent outcomes by reengineering the human condition, a utopian goal that even God cannot accomplish without withdrawing His covenant of the free will He conferred on every individual soul.
Why care about our sins when we’re busy saving the world? But in reality “idealistic” movements, independent of definable sacrifice of individuals, most often tend to lead to tyrannies and group think apostasy.
MrsHess:
“There is a difference between how Germany is handling same-sex and other “irregular unions” and the way Rome would have it, but it seems that Pope Leo isn’t too much concerned about it…”
And not being concerned about it, whether by a Pope or layperson, is a crime against humanity.
Anti-Catholic bigots, who comprise a large part of the global population, including most Catholics sharing this tendency, are fond of identifying evidentiary signs that Catholicism is a system of human and cultural contrivances, and not the reflection of the unchanging mind of God. Tolerance of evil and the rewarding of bad behavior expands evil and bad behavior exponentially. Like the mass slaughter of babies.
Do you seriously not realize that whenever the Church ignores moral scandal in word or deed, it tells the whole world, see you were right to hate us and reject what we witness. We just arbitrarily make things up as we go along. So go ahead. Get rid of inconvenient life. It doesn’t matter.
Francis frequently grandstanded about his concern for the downtrodden while he simultaneously addressed the concept of sin as though the only problem with sin are guilt feelings. Victims are inevitably ignored when a mind decides to conceive of personal sins as something to be rationalized and ignored. It does not matter if the effect on an abandoned family when a man finds later happiness with his mistress is devistating. A simple reality that Amoris Laetitia ignored.
Political movements substitute moral displacement to idolize social concerns, most often fictional, but none of which can be cured with social engineering. History always reveals that attempts to reform the world only leads to mass murder, the inevitable frustrations of grand scale vanity.
There is no such thing as social justice. Justice is always only personal and can never be collective. The rhetorical fiction of social justice is a contrivance that enables failures to either cultivate or ignore personal virtues by substituting fantasies that virtue is conferred simply by identifying with promises of benevolent outcomes through reengineering the human condition, a utopian goal that even God cannot accomplish without withdrawing His covenant of free will He conferred on every individual soul. Why care about our sins when we’re busy saving the world?
But in reality “idealistic” movements, independent of definable sacrifice unique to individuals acting as individuals, most often tend produce tyrannies and group think apostasy, even among the episcopate.
The bottom line Mr Chapp is Agenda 2030 or the Faith of our Fathers?
We read: “Why revisit this tired and sad situation yet again? With the focus of late on the war with Iran and the alleged feud between Pope Leo and President Trump, the looming schism of the SSPX has faded from the news.”
Three points and a Question:
FIRST, can’t help but notice the parallel with Luther, where both the emperor and the pope were distracted from the monk’s early ripple in the carpet because both were preoccupied with the intrusion of Islam farther to the east. And then there’s the possibly instructive parallel between an SSPX second episcopacy to that of the Donatists in St. Augustine’s 4th- and 5th-century North Africa. Lingering aftereffects might have continued until the entire region was overrun by Islam in the 7th Century….
SECOND, Le Febvre’s claim to be vindicated by history— the same claim used by Muhammed II in the 15th Century, summarily justifying Islamic truth by the direct intervention into history of Allah—by finally delivering fortress and gateway Constantinople into Muslim hands in A.D. 1453. What could be more obvious!
THIRD, and possibly as an irrelevant aside….more about ping-pong “dialogue” within reasonophobic Islam— Al-Ghazali (1058-1111), the greatest theologian of Islam, wrote against any openings toward natural philosophy, in a work entitled the “Destruction of Philosophy.” And then in the back-and-forth sequence came the “Destruction of the Destruction” by Ibn Rushd (also known as Averroes), who was a direct influence on the Christian thought of the thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris. Ibn Rushd’s work was followed by the “Destruction of the Destruction of the Destruction” by Hodia Zada (d. 1487), who at the command of Mohammed II (second point, above) again wrote against philosophical inquiry, following the successful siege of Constantinople in 1453 (W.H. McNeill, the “Rise of the West,” Mentor, 1963, p. 555).
QUESTION: about some form of “dialogue” with SSPX, still….Somewhere on the recent pages of CWR the idea was floated that rather than “excommunication,” another option exercised in the past has been “suspension” (of some sort). What might this look like, and is this an option today?
When Rome publishes magisterial documents promoting soddomite-couple blessings in accordance with free masonic Agenda 2030, is it eternal Rome or Apostate Rome? Which Rome is Rome?
So, are the Sacraments offered by SSPX valid (I already know they’re not licit, so don’t bother reminding me)? If their Sacraments are valid, Catholics are free to participate in the Sacramental Graces afforded by their rites.
What’s odd is that Pope Prevost won’t meet with the SSSPX whose Sacraments are valid but does meet with the Halloween Queen from Canterbury whose sacraments are NOT valid.
I fear that the Catholic Church is devolving into a Lewis Carroll story. (Let’s ask Alice)
I read a funny satire site covering this as running news….one entry claimed that the SSPX would have the bishops ordained in China to dodge censure, and a later update said they were going to ordain the bishops while disguised as Anglicans….I think China was the best option.
The situation SSPX is in, what they are proposing to do amounts to a technique anyone could copy, whereby the Church will not be able to -choose your own word- ratify, redeem, rectify, recover anything from them; and this holds regardless who is involved. As I said in another place, some excommunicate bishops take years to wear out their valid subsequent ordinations; but SSPX will do it in flash on account of their peculiar already-played-out circumstances. All this girl-school jibber-jabber ‘Oh look how Rome is entertaining the “Archbishop of Canterbury!”‘ is not how the issue is addressed and is very unbecoming.
Today, the memorial of Saint Catherine of Siena, that intimate of Jesus Christ, that fearless woman sent to admonish the papacy, has this antiphon for the BENEDICTUS during Lauds: “The holy virgin Catherine steadfastly begged the Lord to restore peace to his holy Church, alleluia.”
May our present pontiff have an ear of the heart to perceive the nature of this moment.
It’s not about the person in the Chair of Peter or how anyone feels about him; it’s about the Office and authority. Either you believe Matthew 16:18, or you don’t. The Magisterium is what it is. And as I mentioned in reply to your comment below, there is no Magisterial teaching of the Church that “promotes the blessing of sodomy.”
You apparently don’t. Because flippant, dumb, and heretical remarks by popes are not in any way “magisterial.”
Being near death seems to me more of a reason to work with the Church than to risk the excommunication he was setting himself up to receive per canon law. JPII said he was going to give him a bishop and the two had agreed to terms before Lefebvre reneged on the agreement. Had Lefebvre died trusting in the Church, even if you think it was dubious, the Church might have had grounds to one day canonize him.
This seems to be more of another occasion for Chapp to attack “traditionalists,” while ignoring the elephants in the room- such as that there have been post VII popes- Francis and Leo- guilty of error and heresy. (The likes of Gerhard Muller has said Francis committed multiple material heresies, some of which Leo had now adopted). A more honest, thorough analysis would have seen that many of the SSPX’s criticisms are valid, by Rome’s unwitting admission: Rome has made a rather unreasonable demand for reconciliation, one that is a clear double standard- the requirement of a sort of profession of faith in VII and all the documents and their contents. Actual heretics and schismatics, and indeed no one else, is required to do such a thing to enter/reconcile with the Church. Indeed, all that is required for full communion is the basic profession of faith, the same sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance. This demand of the sspx necessarily infers there is some new doctrinal content or something at odds with prior teaching, so that the usual profession of faith is not enough. And if VII was only pastoral, it’s non-sensical to require such a thing. This also gives evidence of treating VII as a ideological super-dogma: some people must be forced to give a special affirmation of it, even of pastoral and practical guidelines, that are already outdated too. Such a demand also confirms that a general rupture has occurred with VII, so that a special, separate adherence to it is necessary. (Who can honestly deny that at the least a pre and post VII mentality is now everywhere, however subtlely, even in otherwise orthodox circles.) The fact that the sspx has specifically questioned parts of VII also does not negate the oddity of the demand. This is not to mention that questions about VII content are complex and even Rome has not clarified some basic questions, including from non-traditionalists, e.g. how to reconcile pre-conciliar teaching on religious liberty with Dignitatis humanae. And never mind that Francis and Leo have now given interpretations of such documents that have always been labeled by conservatives as erroneous claims by the SSPX about such documents.
It also confirms there is something else at work- perhaps an effort to maintain the lie of how great VII and its “springtime” has been, and how bad pre-VII times and things traditional supposedly were; and thus a group which serves as a reality check about these myths can’t be allowed to hold any contrary views. This is even more evident from a clear double standard: heretical, even schismatic groups who ordain their own bishops without rome’s approval(china/the CCP Patrotic church), bishop’s conferences(Germany), individual bishops, are tolerated and no requirements or discipline are made upon them. But only the SSPX and anyone deemed “traditional”- including average attendees at diocesan TLM masses- is asked for separate affirmation of VII. That should have perhaps been Chapp’s real story- why the double standard and the non-sensical requirement by rome of a separate pledge of acceptance of VII from certain people and what the latter even meands. Leaving other things aside, the sspx is quite right to object to such a requirement and to smell something rotten here.
Pornographic author Cardinal Fernandez and his old friend Pope Francis drove Christ’s Church to the very brink of schism with their evil “blessing” of sodomite unions. As such, Fernandez has abandoned his Apostolic authority. As he has no integrity or credibility he is in no position to adjudicate on Catholic matters.
Well said Fr JMD, you are a beacon of clarity!
Due to a flat tire I ended up at a NO “Mass” this weekend. Was more a “Celebration of life” than a “Sacrifice of the Mass.” Half or more of the people were seemingly unaware of, nor cared about, the Real Presence, either in their dress or their manner. Say what you want about SSPX, but those people KNOW why they’re there.
The Vatican ought to clean its NO house of 1.4 billion before worrying about 800,000 SSPXers. If the NO was being celebrated as the Vatican II documents were written maybe they’d be willing to work toward full communion. But it’s not. And hasn’t been.
Just like in the Diocese of Charlotte, it looks like the Vatican operates under a spirit of whimsy and capriciousness in deciding where it focuses its ire.
When you go to Mass your focus is properly on God. Not on your fellow man. Maybe clean your own house before worrying about others. The SSPX explicitly reject the Barque of Peter. It is sad, but the rest of the remaining Catholic Church respects them enough to let them go their own protestant way.
Susanne:
Well said. And to J. Davenport above, part of the 1.4 billion Catholics attend various Eastern Rite Churches, which have reverent liturgies and traditions dating much further back in history than the Tridentine Mass. Don’t assume that all Novus Ordo Masses are banal. The one I go to is great with no nonsense.
” before worrying about others.”
An odd injunction coming from somebody who relentless complains others are obsessed with sex. Eye. Speck. Log.
Fr. Pagliarani made it clear why the SSPX would not wait any longer: the Pope didn’t reply to their requests for discussion, and he has also provided statements and actions that would seem to rule out any revision of the “spirit” of Vatican II, which is what the SSPX was established to achieve.
The SSPX’s main claim to the having Providence on its side is not numerical success, but conformity with Magisterium of all time, certain aspects of which were contradicted of fudged at Vatican II and in the papacies since.
It is to be regretted how some of those who are loudest in declaring “stone them!” are themselves excitable promoters of pretty bad heterodoxies themselves.
The Vatican in practice and theory refused to treat the last “schism” of the SSPX as such (case of the “Hawaiian five” Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos “not a real schism” etc., etc.
The Church has seen long periods of weak papacy before. Pope Leo needs to take things in hand by revisiting Vatican II. Seems to me that the SSPX has chosen exactly the right time to act. Providential.
“The SSPX is now on a clear and direct collision course with Rome”, because Rome is in schism from Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And The Teaching Of The Magisterium, and thus The Deposit Of Faith, that Christ Himself Entrusted to His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church For The Salvation Of Souls due to Rome’s desire to reject Christ’s Teaching on sexual morality by rejecting Divine Revelation on The Sanctity and Dignity of the marital act within The Sacrament Of Holy Matrimony, and thus God’s Desire that we respect The Sanctity and Dignity Of Human Life, from the moment of conception.
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesiastical Communion.”
The Church Of Rome no longer desires to Abide In The Word Of God regarding sexual morality. How exactly then can The SSPX, who Abide In Christ regarding sexual morality, be in schism .
Thank you, Dr. Chapp, for your clear perspective on this group. I spent many years attached to them and their skewed thinking towards Rome.
They don’t want to be recognized by Rome. They enjoy their status. Rejection of Rome is the essence of their structure. They treat is as a charism. If they submitted to Rome’s authority (SSPX translation: “compromised with modernism”) they would not have the power they so desperately hunger for. They would become “absorbed by the New Church” and would have to accept all the things they made a lifetime of rejecting. The would become like the FSSP, a group they have ridiculed and disdained since 1988. The unity they claim to desire is on their terms: It is only if Rome erases Vatican II, discards the Novus Ordo Mass, and recognizes the SSPX as the sole custodians of the one true Church. Their cognitive dissonance is astounding and is fueled in part by their profound lack of charity, which stems from their lack of unity. As others here have said they are protestants. It’s how they operate, by lashing out at they very foundation of the Catholic Church. So really, why would they want to discuss anything? They know where Rome stands, and vice-versa. Rome holds the cards, they know that, and don’t care. They want what they want, and are content to have it separated from the Church.
After almost twenty years of assisting at Society Masses, and thirteen years as a “coordinator”, I decided to go to the diocesan parish in town. I doubt if many of you, if any, have read the volumes of pages that I have read in defense the Society. I have made scores of trips carrying many SSPX priors, priests and sisters back and forth to the airport. I have sat at table or been in the same small gathering with all of the bishops who speak English and one seminary rector. We have had many priests spend the night at our house before flying out the next day. It is easy for me to love them. I have affection and fond memories for all of them.
My conclusion in 2026 is that they have misread the Council, as well as the intentions of Pope John Paul II. None of the tares, the liberals and heretics that are in the Church, today or yesterday, should make any of us feel free to disobey Rome. This morning, I made a one mile walk around the grounds of the Immaculata, the largest SSPX Church in the world, saying the Memorare over and over. I believe and I pray that a beginning of desire among SSPX priests and their faithful to question their propositions, on which their emergency stands, learning that John Paul II’s teachings reflected the desires of the Council Fathers, and of the Holy Ghost.
NOTE: I said “a beginning of a desire”. A desire to hope that things were not so bleak in 1988, as they and I once supposed.
St. Pius X, pray for us
How have they misread the Council? Unfortunately or not, doctrine is one of those things which does not change with emotions or wherever one feels comfortable at the moment.
I don’t think the Society misunderstood JPII’s actions. Agree or disagree the Society’s argument that many of JPII’s ecumenical gestures were unprecedented and would have been until the 1960s condemned as a violation of the First Commandment seems to me undisputable. I don’t think Chapp even denies this, he and others of his camp just see it has healthy organic development and JPII was just recognizing the elements of truth in other religions. And that’s what it comes down to, the nature of Truth. The most important thing in the universe.
We can see elements of truth and even baptize and integrate it, but it would not have been proper to kiss Artistole’s metaphysics like Holy Scripture or to place a statue of Plato on an altar, despite the great truths that those philosophers had that helped to augment elements of our theology. In this age of COEXIST bumper stickers we really need a holy fear of syncretism, which leads to indifferentism and a break down in morality.
A very hard subject. Schism is nothing to waive off as nothing. Of course, neither is having a doctrinal chief who writes books with titles like “Kiss Me with Your Mouth.” Strange, strange times.
Perhaps Leo ought to equate the SSPX ordaining new bishops to serve their society as the equivalent of their possessing a nuclear weapon. Then, he would necessarily engage in a dialogue with SSPX so that peace and unity will reign in the Church.
I’m certain, given that Leo is now an expert in geopolitical matters, he would never resort to retaliatory or punitive measures if the SSPX goes against his will. I’m sure that he’ll do everything possible to make peace reign in the Catholic Church. (Isn’t that what he told President Trump to do?)
He should just consider that SSPX is in possession of a nuclear weapon – a spiritual nuclear weapon. We’ll just have to wait and see whether he practices what he preaches. (Maybe he should ring up David Axelrod and ask advice of what he should do about SSPX if they go ahead and ordain bishops.)
Or maybe Fernandez was handed the hot potato and has bungled the assignment–the “kiss” of death, so to speak. If SSPX goes, maybe Fernadez also goes? Or, maybe SSPX might stick around just a little longer if the Lavender Mafia beachhead Fernandez goes? Cut the head off the snake, so to speak.
Just a “couple” of fantasies…
This is the most un-charitable article I’ve probably ever read.
I only heard of this issue earlier today and came here for some context, and while I don’t agree with the SSPX clashing with Rome – this article is offensive in every way at addressing the issues.
Go to confession and humble yourself, for I hear you screaming about a log in someone’s eye, when you have a cabin built out of yours.
Clarity is something most of us in the orthodox camp crave; perhaps the time has come for some sad but necessary clarity on the SSPX. Its status in the Church has been muddled for some time now. The SSPX feeds on ambiguity, just like its partners on the far left. If they ordain new bishops, the time has come to excommunicate all its members, remove all faculties from their priests except perhaps for the ability to grant absolution in danger of death, make it perfectly clear that the SSPX and any other sedevacantists are outside the one Catholic Church, and move on because it looks to me like a lost cause. Then we need to start going after the unorthodox on the left with equal fervor, starting with unorthodox cardinals, archbishops, and bishops– but I fear that it will take a whole different regime in Rome for that to happen. That may take another generation or even two as the aging hippies age out of conclaves and influential positions. The pontificate of Pope Francis will unfortunately be a gift that keeps on giving– although no less than St. John Paul II made any number of poor episcopal choices in his time as well. At least his choices were more accidental or sloppy than deliberate.
SSPX are sedevacantists? Why keep repeating a lie? Why should the Church wait another two papacies before dealing with overt heretics among the German hierarchy? How will such nastiness and silliness help the Church? Are there any serious defenders around here of Tucho and Pope Leo’s actions on the SSPX file? Will anyone bother to explain where the SSPX reading of Vatican II is wrong? Is throwing rocks really so much more effortless than doing these things?
There is no need to cut these good people off in July. What’s the rush? B16 would have worked with them. Get someone other than Fernandez involved in this.
The SSPX are cutting themselves off when they consecrate new bishops in July without Rome’s approval.
Benedict XVI did work with them almost 20 years ago, but here they are again, doing the very thing that placed them in this situation to begin with.
In the 1983 Code,the penalty is automatic excommunication. The 1917 Code is not in force anymore.