The Society of Saint Pius X, unfortunately, finally carried out its long-threatened illicit episcopal consecrations at Écône on July 1. The entire fraternity has incurred excommunication latae sententiae (by virtue of the deed). The DDF formally declared that a day after the obstinate illicit “consecrations.”
For many faithful Catholics, this news has produced sadness and confusion because a grievous public wound has been inflicted upon the visible unity of the Church. The Church has endured far greater crises across two thousand years, and Christ has remained faithful to His promise that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). Consequently, we must be aware that each act against ecclesial communion ultimately harms souls disproportionately more than it harms the institution.
Attempts to frame this episode as a failure of Pope Leo XIV are disingenuous. They ignore the plain sequence of events where Rome repeatedly reached toward the Society with extraordinary patience across several pontificates. Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the surviving bishops in 2009, in order to encourage reconciliation. Pope Francis granted faculties for confession and marriage in generous pastoral charity despite the Society’s irregular status. Pope Leo XIV personally pleaded with the Society until the day before these consecrations and described the act as a sin of extreme gravity. Every father eventually reaches the point where an adult son freely chooses his own direction. At that point, responsibility belongs to the son rather than the father.
Any suggestion that Rome somehow forced this rupture doesn’t stand to historical scrutiny. Pope Leo exercised remarkable restraint throughout the entire controversy. He neither mocked nor humiliated the Society. He could have threatened vengeance or sought public embarrassment. Instead, he appealed with paternal affection until the final hour. His conduct, I believe, reflects the heart of a shepherd who desired reconciliation with his sons. Saint Augustine once observed that “with love for mankind and hatred of sins” (Letter 211). That describes the entire posture of our Roman Pontiff throughout this painful affair.
The Society justified its action through another appeal to a so-called state of necessity. Yet this argument has already received repeated responses from the Holy See across the decades because the Church has consistently judged that such extraordinary necessity does not exist in this case. Canon law reserves episcopal consecration without papal mandate for the gravest ecclesial offenses precisely because episcopal succession belongs to the visible unity of the Church rather than private judgment. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff” (CCC 883). Any claimed episcopal ministry divorced from communion with Peter wounds the very structure Christ Himself established.
Moreover, this entire controversy has never centered primarily upon the Latin Mass despite endless internet debates suggesting otherwise. Pope Benedict XVI generously expanded access through Summorum Pontificum. Pope Leo himself repeatedly expressed appreciation for legitimate liturgical tradition. The central dispute concerns authority. Saint Cyprian expressed the principle with remarkable clarity when he wrote that “he can no longer have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother” (On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 6). Every Christian eventually discovers that fidelity to rightful authority is a central necessity of the Christian faith.
Likewise, the irony within the Society’s public rhetoric has become increasingly difficult to ignore. The Society insisted that it defended Catholic unity while performing an action that visibly fractures Catholic unity. They claim fidelity to Holy Mother Church while refusing filial obedience toward the visible head whom Christ entrusted with strengthening his brethren according to Luke 22:32. They proclaim unshaking appeal to sacramental formulas and alter the mandate language of episcopal “consecrations” as it suits their current cause. They speak constantly about preserving tradition while disregarding one of the oldest traditions within Christian history, which requires episcopal communion with the successor of Peter.
Their reasoning is self-defeating, and the irony is both obvious and sad.
History repeatedly demonstrates this painful lesson. The Donatists sincerely believed they defended ecclesial purity. The Old Catholics sincerely believed they defended authentic Catholic doctrine. Each major schism sincerely believed that separation preserved something precious. Yet each separation eventually produced deeper isolation and fracture because communion always deteriorates whenever private authority is given supremacy over central ecclesial authority. Saint Irenaeus thus directed Christians toward Rome because of “its superior origin” and declared that every Church should agree with her (Against Heresies 3.3.2). Such testimony emerged during the second century, long before contemporary controversies ever existed.
Meanwhile, faithful Catholics should resist the temptation of responding with anger toward members of the Society. Many within the Society sincerely love Christ and desire reverent worship. Many priests have also sacrificed greatly for souls entrusted to their pastoral care. Their sincere intentions deserve acknowledgment. But sincere intentions cannot transform objectively and publicly disobedient actions into virtuous actions because love cannot be divorced from obedience. Christ Himself declared that “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (Jn 14:15).
Accordingly, this entire episode should deepen our gratitude for the gift of the papacy rather than weaken it. Catholics possess a visible principle of unity precisely because Christ knew human beings would eventually divide themselves through competing interpretations of fidelity. Pope Benedict XVI, in a June 7, 2006, General Audience, remarked:
Peter must be the custodian of communion with Christ for all time. He must guide people to communion with Christ; he must ensure that the net does not break, and consequently that universal communion endures. Only together can we be with Christ, who is Lord of all. Thus, Peter is responsible for guaranteeing communion with Christ with the love of Christ.
Communion with Peter protects the Church from fragmentation into countless rival claimants who each insist they alone represent the authentic Church Catholic.
Instead of becoming alarmed, every faithful Catholic should embrace prayer. Fast for those who have separated themselves further from visible communion. Offer reparation for the scandal inflicted upon countless believers who now struggle with confusion. Pray especially for the priests and seminarians whose futures have become increasingly uncertain through decisions beyond their authority. Ask the Holy Spirit to soften hardened hearts through grace because divine mercy has restored far more desperate situations throughout Christian history.
Finally, Catholics should mourn this rupture while not surrendering hope. Every family grieves whenever beloved children reject the loving embrace of their father and mother. Rome repeatedly opened her arms with patience and generosity until all reasonable avenues toward reconciliation had been exhausted. Pope Leo extended immense compassion, and the Holy See exercised remarkable forbearance.
Nevertheless, the Society chose this path through its own deliberate decision. The moral responsibility for this rupture belongs squarely with those who rejected communion rather than those who tirelessly sought reconciliation.
Pray for Pope Leo XIV. Pray for the bishops of the Church. Also, pray for the priests and laity within the Society of Saint Pius X. Pray that humility may triumph over this saddening pride and that obedience may permeate the society again. Pray also that unity may heal this division through Christ, who prayed “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). Catholics should mourn this wound within the Body of Christ while confidently trusting that the Divine Physician still heals every injury according to His perfect wisdom and His enduring mercy.
(Editor’s note: The quote from Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger has been updated and corrected.)
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.
“Any suggestion that Rome somehow forced this rupture doesn’t stand to historical scrutiny.”
Modernist Rome most certainly created the rupture by denying Christ’s Teaching on God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery in order to justify the engaging in of demeaning sexual acts that that no person should be engaging in or condoning because such demeaning sexual acts deny the inherent Sanctity and Dignity of the Human Person and are devoid of Love.
“Any suggestion that Rome somehow forced this rupture doesn’t stand to historical scrutiny.”
Lacking specifics, a thinly veiled ipso factor.
A regular feature of MP’s essays.
Bingo
“The Society justified its action through another appeal to a so-called state of necessity. Yet this argument has already received repeated responses from the Holy See across the decades because the Church has consistently judged that such extraordinary necessity does not exist in this case.”
So the Holy See says it isn’t true, therefore it can’t be true, even if it is true.
What head in the sand posturing is necessary to deny a crisis in the Church where Pope Leo contends that doctrine can change once Catholics are conditioned to accept the changes, and his predecessor expressed agreement with the process theology school that insists that an imperfect God can change His mind and He must accompany His creatures who might know better.
As to respect for immutable truths expressed in tradition, Leo displayed himself to be so dishonorably out of touch with criticisms of the state of the Church that he believes a preference for the TLM is based purely on an idiosyncratic fondness for the Latin language, which could simply be resolved by saying the N.O. in Latin. One can go on and on regarding a tone deaf Holy See and the necessity to take emergency action.
And I’m not even talking about the Church now downplaying its moral witness for life directly leading to increased mountains of corpses of the unborn.
https://spectator.com/article/the-brutal-excommunication-of-the-society-of-saint-pius-x/
What exactly do you mean by Rome caused the “rupture”? Grave disobedience can hardly be limited to merely a rupture.
So we owe “obedience” to that which we justly regard as heretical? And obedience to Rome somehow supersedes obedience to Christ?
J.M.J.
“Any suggestion that Rome somehow forced this rupture doesn’t stand to historical scrutiny.”
Modernist Rome most certainly created the rupture by denying Christ’s Teaching on God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery in order to justify the engaging in of demeaning sexual acts that that no person should be engaging in or condoning because such demeaning sexual acts deny the inherent Sanctity and Dignity of the Human Person and are devoid of Love.
Do you think if you posted this a third time it would become true like a magical incantation?
It is the sarcastic trivializations targeting defenses of the SSPX that are a part of the problem. There is a common difficulty in posting comments here with the server not giving a clear indication of receiveing posts creating resubmissions.
A lot of anguish about nothing much. The Church doesn’t cry about recognising Chinese episcopal consecrations (and appointments to ordinary jurisdiction) after the fact. So it’s extremely easy for the Vatican to do the same in the case of the SSPX. What’s the problem then? Those “several points” of Vatican II texts, of course.
The problem is really Father Pagliarani’s profession of faith. But nobody should hold their breath waiting for Cardinal Fernandez to spell out where it’s wrong!
The sanctions are officially all because of a “doctrinal problem”. But where’s the doctrinal problem?
The Church has never, ever, worked like this before. Throwing canon law into this effort to square the circle only makes it sillier, and all to no effect as far as I can see – “The Church asks us to remove our hats, not our heads, when we enter the church”, as Chesterton said. The Donatists,the Lutherans, the Old Catholics and the Modernists were told exactly where they were wrong, not to look “positively” on what they regarded as “Roman novelties” and be part of a big Roman ecumenical tent.
How can anyone avoid “sharing” the schism of the SSPX if the Vatican cannot agree with itself what these “several points” in Vatican II texts mean? Fernandez tells people like me (I go to an SSPX chapel, and very occasionally to an Ecclesia Dei chapel) that to avoid “schism” we have to put a “positive” spin on the meaning those texts – that is, wish to read them in the light of traditional papal teaching prior to Vatican II. It’s nice that Cardinal Fernandez affirms this is possible, perhaps desirable, but will he and the Pope spell out what that traditional meaning is that can so easily be read into the contentious passages of Vatican II? This is the missing ingredient that makes the shut-up-and-commune attitude so cruel. It is also so un-Roman. Throughout its history, the papacy has always spelt out exactly what is required doctrinally and it has always relied on traditional precedent for its definitions. Those precedents were quoted chapter and verse. Not a shadow of that here. If we are in error, it’s hard to think of anything less charitable that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith could do.
Without faith, there is no communion. The Vatican must agree with itself before it can agree with anyone else. The Barque cannot sink of course, but the usual leaks are egregiously big and easy to stop at the moment.
If the SSPX really had doctrinal problems, one would think it would behoove the Vatican to publicly clarify those points, to save souls from their public preaching of error. At least if the doctrinal issues were important enough to separate them from the Church. And if they aren’t that important, why not regularize the SSPX?
“The Society of Saint Pius X is excommunicated—now what?”
Now, nothing! Simply because in the post-Vatican II world-view, excommunication is meaningless. The post-Vatican II Church with its homosexual clergy, worship of gods like Pachamama, syncretistic views about Catholicism vs other religions, blessings of homosexual “marriages”, and annulment-driven Catholic divorce has made excommunication meaningless. These post-Vatican II developments and many related Church matters is, in fact, the very cause of why SSPX even exists. These days, the most underused Sacrament is that of Penance and the most widely used one is the Eucharist. So, why should excommunication matter at all?
Well said Diogenes.
The ‘excommunications’ are a nothing-burger.
Fatima: I agree. Rome turns a blind eye to the Catholics in the US who openly approve of abortion on demand. And they don’t try to hide it. Their votes in Congress prove that fact. I agree the excommunication of this group is a nothing-burger. That is also how I see it.
Are Catholics called to do more than attend Sunday Mass? I have some friends who go to Mass on Sundays and they think this makes them good Catholics. I try to tell them they should be doing much more than this.Am I Right?
Q&A with Father John Flader: Catholic Weekly 03/07/2026 July 3 2026
What is your biggest criticism of Catholicism? Reddit
Can Attending Mass Lead to Good Catholics OR Excommunication?
What are schism and excommunication in the Catholic Church?
Walter Sánchez Silva, EWTN, 02.07.26
Defying pope and facing excommunication, Society of St. Pius X consecrates bishops at huge outdoor Mass. Justin McLellan National Catholic Reporter
01/07/2026
Fears of Catholic schism as defiant sect ordains ultra-conservative bishops
Consecrations by Society of Saint Pius X bring automatic excommunication for bishops – and crisis for Pope Leo Guardian Australia, Angela Giuffrida,02/07/2026
The purpose of excommunication is to exclude from the church those members who have behaviors or teachings contrary to the beliefs of a Christian community (heresy).[10] It aims to protect members of the church from abuses and allow the offender to recognize their error and repent.Wikipedia
Why Do People Leave the Catholic Church? Catholic Answers
Rejection of Catholic doctrine.
Moral disagreement
Scandal and clerical failings
Poor catechesis and formation
Attraction to Protestant denominations
Cultural pressures and secularization
Personal grievances with clergy or parish life
Conscience-based departures
Confusion about Church authority and Sacred Tradition
Emotional or convenience reasons
WATCH ON YOU TUBE
“To love anyone (or anything) more than Christ is to commit adultery.” St. Augustine
As such, the SSPX are spiritually adulterous. They are abandoning the Mystical Body of Christ, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, to adulterate with their own will.
Pray and stay Catholic.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2026/07/02/sspx-schism-and-excommunication/print
That’s silly. Not even Fernandez says the SSPX is “outside the mystical body”. One ought not idolise an SSPX-less Mystical Body!
At this point, the SSPX was just asking to survive. To do so it needed younger bishops. Rome responded by saying, “No, we want you to die. But let’s give each other a hug in the meantime.” This is not just tyrannical, it is sick.
I will take an educated guess and say this is because The SSPX hold fast to The Deposit of Faith and thus affirm God’s Divine Law regarding The Sanctity and Dignity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and thus God’s Divine Will that we respect The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life from the moment of conception, whereas the modernists claim these are “conservative “ political issues.
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechamanforallseasons.html
SSPX claim that the original excommunications of Lefebvre and the bishops he had consecrated, was/is “illegal”. They have misled themselves. The consecrations were illegal and the excommunications are LEGAL and SPIRITUALLY DEBILITATING -BOTH.
The new bishops of July 1 2026 can not now consecrate anybody.
My contention, however, goes further than that. Their consecrations are void and they are not bishops. The original penalties, legal and spiritual, that lay upon their consecrators, have reinstated as from the initiated earlier time, vitiating ex ante the actions on July 1 2026.
The Society is now in tailspin where actually their charism and ecclesial footings were never determined and finalized by the Church.
Sorry for them.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/07/02/2-sspx-bishops-hold-dubious-distinction-of-being-excommunicated-twice/
Don’t be silly! You don’t understand sacramental theology, stop now before you show even further ignorance.
You/re telling me to stop but not retract?
SSPX must continue in their error ….. because “they understand and just like you”?
(Don’t mean to be rude. This situation is precisely what has to be faced.)
If what I relate is true it IS the sacramental theology. And they are in a supremely bad place -no other way to say it. They have made themselves invidious and proclaim it the Holy Spirit.
They have joined ranks with the invidious!? You really expect to leave it to leay people to work it out for themselves!?
You/re telling me to stop but not retract?
SSPX must continue in their error ….. because “they understand it just like you”?
(Don’t mean to be rude. This situation is precisely what has to be faced.)
If what I relate is true it IS the sacramental theology. And they are in a supremely bad place -no other way to say it. They have made themselves invidious and proclaim it to be the Holy Spirit.
They have joined ranks with the invidious!? You really expect to leave it to lay people to work it out for themselves!?
The Catholic Church has acknowledged the validity of Orthodox Christian consecrations of bishops, who are in schism, since they schismed centuries ago (for some, nearly a millennium). Along with all their other Sacraments. Canon law addresses illicit consecrations of bishops and does not make them invalid.
To call their consecrations invalid runs directly contrary to the authority of the Church, which acknowledges their validity.
As of July 2026 it is a very changed situation, old speculations no longer have their context. You should read this article by Fr. de Souza, in full, not rely only on my excerpt. Very irresponsible and a self-harm to be adding surmisings/predictions/notions with the wrong side of things. A hammer has fallen.
‘ The DDF explanatory note of July 2026 removes all ambiguity:
– The sacred ministers belonging to the Society of St. Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics, being subject to the excommunication foreseen by law (can. 1364 § 1). –
Furthermore, it stated that SSPX clergy “illicitly administer the sacraments and that the sacrament of penance administered by them and marriages witnessed by them are invalid.”
It follows that no Catholic should frequent the sacraments administered by schismatic priests who are forbidden from administering the sacraments.
…..
The towering betrayal of Benedict’s benevolence is breathtaking.
…..
Pope Leo XIV has chosen, with discretion, to end the failed outreach of Benedict to the SSPX. He has returned to what John Paul clearly saw and wrote in 1988. For those who still refuse to listen, the DDF has made clear that John Paul was correct in his diagnosis then and now.
Indeed, the DDF procedures for admitting SSPX priests to full communion require a “formula of adhesion” that is taken verbatim from the “protocol” that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre signed in 1988, before the latter reneged on it. The path to reconciliation in 2026 runs now through the protocol of 1988, not the clemency of 2009.
There remain some canonical steps to be taken now that the DDF has clarified the key principles. The extraordinary and generous provisions made by Pope Francis in relation to granting absolution and witnessing marriages will have to be formally revoked. Legally, a DDF decree cannot reverse a papal provision without itself having specific papal approval.
Additionally, it may be helpful to formally declare that all SSPX priests have incurred the penalty of excommunication; the DDF decree only declares that they are in schism, for which the penalty is excommunication. Perhaps a distinction without much of a difference, but the law needs to be precise, and the SSPX has proved itself masterful at creating confusion even when matters are clear. ‘
https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/john-paul-ii-on-sspx-explicit
The author writes:
“Nevertheless, the Society chose this path through its own deliberate decision. The moral responsibility for this rupture belongs squarely WITH THOSE WHO REJECTED COMMUNION rather than those who tirelessly sought reconciliation.”
Quite the statement! Which the author interprets in a completely one-sided fashion!
Here’s how Jesus handled a similar situation – from Mark 9:
37 John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils IN THY NAME, WHO FOLLOWETH NOT US, and we forbade him. 38 BUT JESUS SAID: DO NOT FORBID HIM. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me. 39 For he that is not against you, is for you. 40 For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ: amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.
So, Jesus not only did NOT judge BUT INSTEAD affirmed a reward awaiting them in the afterlife!!! Our 2026 Pharisaic “Spirit Of Vat II” leaders in Rome DID judge and thereby sentenced these 6 to Hell.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm………….
The SSPX are not “for” Christ as they reject the authority of His shepherd.
When the Sheperd rejects the authority of the Deposit of Faith, disobedience is always an obligation for those occasions.
When a Shepherd rejects the authority of the Deposit of Faith, Christ Has Entrusted to His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, for The Salvation of Souls, he ipso facto has excommunicated himself and has no authority in Christ’s Church.
Canon 750 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines. 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.[new]” “Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law states that schism is “the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Canon 1364 stipulates that the penalty for this crime is excommunication “latae sententiae,” i.e., automatically upon the commission of the offense.” Furthermore, “Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith” (” A fide catholica publice defecerit“).
That canon 188 #4 was in the 1917 code but was removed from the 1983 code, and is therefore no longer in effect. This returns the law to the way it was in St. Thomas Aquinas’ time, when a formal declaration was required to remove a cleric from office. This might have something to do with the chaotic state of catechesis and understanding of Church authority.
The Church also has a rather strict definition of formally defecting, which requires more than a single act of heresy, schism, or apostasy. Partly due to the fiasco in the German Church, where people looking for a tax decrease wrote themselves up as not Catholic.
“The Church also has a rather strict definition of formally defecting, which requires more than a single act of heresy, schism, or apostasy.”
You must be referring to the counterfeit magisterium that defected from The Catholic Church due to its modernist heresy that is guilty of creating this so called “strict definition of formally defecting”,and are now using it to justify the election of Jorge Bergoglio, who supported same sex sexual unions and thus condoned the engaging in an affirmation of consensual sexual acts despite the fact that regardless of the actors or the actors desires, these acts demean the Sanctity and Dignity of the human person, and are thus devoid of Love.
Catholic Canon
Jorge Bergoglio’s “refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him“, was evident, prior to his election to the Papacy, when his heresy was manifested and made public ,in his book, On Heaven And Earth, on page 117, when he stated, in regards to same sex sexual relationships and thus same sex sexual acts, “If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party ( No Holy Ghost) nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”
Jorge Bergoglio defected from The Catholic Church , prior to his election to The Papacy, by denying sin done in “private” consensual relationship is sin, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and denying that we, who are Baptized Catholic, are Called to be, “Temples of The Holy Ghost”, (God’s Universal Call To Holiness), in all our relationships and experiences, and this lie, by making it appear as if it is Loving and Merciful to desire that we or our Beloved remain in our sin, and not desire to overcome our sinful inclinations and become transformed by accepting Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy, was, in fact a denial of God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy.
If it were True that it is Loving and Merciful that we desire that we or our beloved remain in our sin and not desire to overcome our disordered inclination , and become transformed through Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy, we would have no need for our only Savior, Jesus The Christ.
751 of the Code of Canon Law states that schism is “the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Canon 1364 stipulates that the penalty for this crime is excommunication “latae sententiae,” i.e., automatically upon the commission of the offense.” Furthermore, “Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith” (” A fide catholica publice defecerit“).
Are you suggesting clerics get a pass and are not subject to Catholic Canon 751 and Catholic Canon 1364, Amanda, or that Catholic Canon Law was specifically changed to deceive the Faithful?
Either way, Tradition is a part of The Deposit of Faith, and to claim that The SSPX exists in a state of schism for affirming God’s Divine Will and Divine Law from before Vatican II, would be evidence enough that Vatican II, which claimed to change no Dogma of The Catholic Church, had to have changed a Dogma of The Catholic Church and/or Vatican II became schismatic, from Vatican I, if it did, in fact, abrogate The Mass Of All Ages, which it did not, as Vatican II must be interpreted according to Tradition, and not the heresy of Modernism, which denies the form and substance of The Catholic Mass, for example:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-radcliffe-concelebrates-mass-honoring-50th-anniversary-of-homosexual-friendship/
“The Shift to Canon 194: In the current 1983 Code of Canon Law, the concept of a cleric or officeholder publicly abandoning the faith is governed under Canon 194. This canon states that anyone who publicly defects from the Catholic faith is removed from an ecclesiastical office ipso jure (by the law itself), though competent authority usually must formally declare this removal. [1]
Oh, Thank you, Amanda! I see there is a change but the problem is that the modernist seem to think if they do not officially call out heresy and apostasy through Christ’s Charitable Anathema, than perhaps people will be unaware and thus ignorant of the fact that the act itself “ipso jure” is what causes them to abandon the Faith, although any competent authority who does not believe they have a responsibility to formally declare this removal is “ipso jute”, and thus inform the laity of matters they may not be aware of, could not, in essence be a “competent “ authority.
Unity.
Unity is built on our confession of faith in Christ.
Unity is in confessing Christ conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, testifying that He is the Way of Truth and Life, commanding us how we must live, crucified to ransom us for our sinfulness, and resurrected to prove He has all authority over heaven and earth, and build His Church to teach and baptize in the Name of The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit.
“Thy will be done.”
Now what? The Vatican will relocate to Beijing where they know how to appoint Bishops, of course.
China appoints its own bishops, and that’s really at the heart of the problem. Why is the same issue judged so differently in China compared to how Rome treats the SSPX? The SSPX should indeed be judged by the Chair of Peter, but the judgment ought to be consistent for the same offense, no matter who commits it.
True.
China appoints no bishops. They have agreed with the Holy See to only consider candidates for appointment from a government approved list. Whatever you think of the agreement, it was made with Papal authority. This is NOT what SSPX did.
Papal authority does not have the privlige of heretical concessions.
Opinions are free for all to possess; however, facts are not.
The Reality: Despite the 2018 “agreement”, Beijing has consistently tested the boundaries of the accord, if not outright ignored it. The government has presented the Vatican with a fait accompli by unilaterally moving or ordaining a bishop and leaving Rome to deal with the fallout. Notable examples highlight this pattern: The Shanghai Transfer (2023): Without consulting Rome, Beijing unilaterally transferred Bishop Joseph Shen Bin to head the high-profile Diocese of Shanghai. The Vatican explicitly stated they learned about the appointment “from the media”. Another would be the Conclave Provocation of 2025. In a stark display of political gamesmanship, during the sede vacante period after the death of Pope Francis, China pushed forward with the unilateral “elections” of Father Wu Jianlin as Auxiliary Bishop of Shanghai and Father Li Jianlin in Xinxiang.
Interestingly, the Vatican approved the bishops installations months afterward, but that was hardly the intent of the Accord. It is not factual to state China does not choose their own bishops; they have and they do.
Both Francis and Leo have confirmed bishops after they were appointed by the CCP and consecrated, contrary to the agreement, without Papal approval.
The Pope had the option to do that with the SSPX as well. It was a prudential decision to do so, or not.
Really? There’s no excuse for your profound ignorance, except that you enjoy it. I do have to congratulate you, in a few short weeks you have distinguished yourself as the VI, and that took some doing given the intense competition.
“As the Catholic Church continues through a period of interregnum between the reign of popes, Chinese authorities have made moves to assert the Church in China’s autonomy from Rome by unilaterally “electing” two bishops — including in a diocese already led by a Vatican-appointed bishop.
On April 28, Father Wu Jianlin, vicar general of Shanghai, was chosen to be the city’s new auxiliary bishop by an assembly of local priests. The following day, Father Li Jianlin was “elected” bishop of the Diocese of Xinxiang.”
EWTN NEWS
By Courtney Mares
May 1, 2025 at 1:00 PM ET · Updated September 26, 2025 at 1:28 PM ET
The speculation regarding the Vatican’s treatment of China ranges from traitors in the Vatican, to stupid people in the Vatican, to the CCP blackmailing the Vatican, to the CCP threatening far worse persecution of Catholics in China.
The SSPX does not benefit from the first two, and is almost certainly unwilling to do the latter two.
Well said.
I do not have a devotion to the Latin Mass but I have sympathy for those in the SSPX. One point that is left out here that should have been clearly stated is this:
https://ewtn.co.uk/article-breaking-pope-francis-issues-restrictions-on-extraordinary-form-masses-in-new-motu-proprio/
This issue could surely have been resolved long ago if the sin of pride had not been at the core of it. Begging is not a strategy. Nor is excommunication. Since Vatican II seems to be a thorn for the SSPX let us note that only one pope has ever humbly reassessed his work during Vatican II: Benedict XVI. I believe that if Francis had commissioned him to work with the SSPX on a liturgy that would benefit all Catholics, a novus Novus Ordo, we would see a joyous return of many lost Catholics and not this stagnant mess we presently have.
It will take a brave pope in the future who will gather the lost sheep into the Church with a liturgy that recalls our Greek and Latin origins, while also respecting the vernacular. Let us pray to the Holy Spirit to find and inspire that priest, who is now among us, and who will someday sit upon the rock, the chair of St. Peter.
A share your views here.
Thank you Marcus: as usual well thought out and clearly presented. Yes we must support our Pope and be very thankful for Holy Mother Church. We must also pray for all our Separated Brethren. As Marcus pointed out many are very sincere; but they are sincerely wrong, and should be held accountable. At the same time we should recognize the necessity of retaining the availability of the Latin mass for those who want and need it. MayGod bless all his people during these trying times.
What we did not see from either of the last two popes was any effort to seek unity or compromise. Specifically, along the same line that Pope Benedict XVI effected unity by creating an Anglican Rite, similarly, others have been calling for a Latin Rite.
By continuing to crush and eliminate nearly 2000 years of what was Sacred, Holy and Eternal Liturgy, there remain few options for healing and reunification at this point.
“My way or the highway” is not an effective healing strategy.
Take heart, SSPX! Paragraph 816 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
“…elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
Church officials dissented from Humanae Vitae (e.g., Fr. Chas. Curran) and from Vatican I teaching on papal infallibility (e.g., Fr. Hans Kung) were not excommunicated.
Latae sententiae? Read 816 accordingly?
It seems to me that if you have a bishop publicly dissenting from Church teaching, that the failure to take any sort of action to clarify the heterodoxy for his diocese and other Catholics, including excommunication if he refuses to clarify or recant, then those with the authority to discipline him have contributed to his scandal, automatic (and silent) excommunication notwithstanding.
Why else were the automatic excommunications declared on the SSPX? Laetae sententiae excommunications make some level of sense for private, unknown actions, but not for public ones.
“Yes we must support our Pope”
What does that even mean? That’s such a nebulous statement. Should I write a check to the Vatican bank? Cheer in the streets?
Quite frankly, he should support us-and all I see is support for unlimited illegal invasion and the end of the death penalty. That’s it.
Leo met with a female masquerading as a Bishop in in a group that is not only schismatic but heretical. He apparently wrote her a letter upon installation that was quite frankly scandalous. In April, Bishop Joseph Vincent Brennan, Catholic Bishop of Fresno, was present at the consecration and seating of Gregory Kimura as the sixth bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, part of the Episcopal Church within the worldwide Anglican Communion. The service took place at St James Episcopal Cathedral in Fresno. The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin had announced that the ordination and consecration would be held at 10am on April 18, with the event livestreamed.
You can’t square this circle.
The first step to submission to Christ is putting aside your own ideas and pride. Humility is crucial.
Good grief. Who cares? If anybody is more upset over “unity” than the other serious problems in the Church, he hasn’t been living in my country (the U.S.) lately or hasn’t been paying attention to what has been going on in the Western world for the past 60+ years.
Relax, Dr. Peter, the “gates of Hell” won’t overcome us — they are gates and don’t move. They are designed to protect what’s inside (Hell) from us. Unfortunately, we won’t overcome them, either, because the people who consider themselves “the hierarchy” are far more worried about clerical power struggles than promoting the Gospel, teaching young Catholics the Faith, and standing up for morality in the Church and larger society.
But maybe I’ve missed all the excommunications of the Catholic politicians who promote abortion, homosexuality, Communism and every other evil thing?
I don’t have a list of those excommunicated in front of me but I know segregationists were among them in the past.
Not every error results in excommunication.
You’re referring to New Orleans Archbishop Rummell’s excommunication of three segregationists in the ’50s. Their fault was not advocating racial segregation but in using Holy Scripture to justify their bigotry. It’s probably the last time a formal excommunicating was enforced. One of the excommunicated was a powerful local politician named Leander Perez who could not set foot in the church when his daughter married. The Archbishop, a frail old man going blind, took a lot of abuse for his brave act.
Canon law prescribes a decree of excommunication for only a few narrowly described offenses such as profaning the Blessed Sacrament, absolving one’s partner in crime, murdering a cleric, and some others. Obtaining or performing an abortion is an automatic excommunication whether anyone in the Church knows about the act. But simply committing a mortal sin like sodomy or even something so horrible as incest doesn’t trigger excommunication. Don’t confuse the situations.
Teaching directly contrary to the doctrine / mission of the Church, by a bishop, unrelenting, resisting peer correction – excommunicate.
It’s actually not meant to be complicated and it isn’t, it is just that is it very serious and so turns to the implacable when it occurs.
It is a violence visited upon the Mystical Body.
Thank you so much for sharing that Miss Sandra.
Catholic segregationists weren’t unique in claiming scripture to back them up. Different times, different world views.
I occasionally hear similar things from older Catholics today but it’s become a generational issue, thankfully.
Why did the Pope not meet with the representatives of the SSPX? It would seem to me that he should have met with them, not one of his underlings. Something this unimportant should have been handled by Leo XIV!
Exactly. Especially since Leo made the time to meet with homosexualist priest James Martin, SCH at the beginning of his pontificate. It’s a matter of priorities.
Thank you Marcus for writing your article filled with Faith, Hope, Love, and Truth.
Unfortunately Pope Leo did what he had to do and I commend him for his prudence and fortitude.
Let us all pray for Pope Leo and all the members of Society of Saint Pius X.
Amen
…come back… His mercy is infinite and endures forever…
The priests would have to find a bishop willing to incardinate them, which seems highly unlikely. Most have thus far been unwilling to stick their necks out far enough to request a diocesan TLM, with a priest already in full communion.
Rome’s mercy is not so good as Christ’s. The trick is to discern what concrete actions come out of trusting Christ when you cannot trust the hierarchy.
“come back… His mercy is infinite and endures forever…”
If Leo can’t tell Sarah Mullaly that her soul is in danger, why should you assume the SSPX is in need of infinite mercy for failing to obtain a warrant that didn’t exist until 1951 due to Chinese communist interference and is known to be inoperative there now because the Chinese communists don’t seem to feel a need to follow the secret concordat Francis made with them.
Come back to what? A Pope who appoints a goofy leftist nun as a Prefect, a title that should be reserved to the ordained, one who views the hierarchy as something to be attacked through goofy useless bureaucratic positions like hers. A Pope who has time for “Bad Bunny” and ice blessings? A Pope who as a priest gave the appearance of worshipping an idol?
So think about this. The Pope, who acting through his pornographer Cardinal demands that he gets his authority, but doesn’t care about it as long as that prerogative is under direct assault from a nuclear state power. Why haven’t any of the Chinese been excommunicated?
This Pope appears to me as a refined Francine revolutionary. Where Francis was a mad cow in a China shop, prone to fits of believing his Jesuitical casuistry was so clever as to be insuperable, Leo is more polished and measured.
“I think it’s very important that the unity or division of the church should not revolve around sexual matters”.
So what should it revolve around? Sex is a gift from God that is regularly abused through “hooking up”. What the actual hell is he talking about? Or is this simply to comfort the Paglias and McElroys.
Christ said I know my sheep and my sheep know me. All I smell is the an acrid lupine smell. I’m tired of the sex and abuse scandals, the church closures, the tolerance and insidious promotion of the alphabet agenda. I’m tired of invasion agenda. I’m tired of prudential political decisions being portrayed as moral imperatives and moral imperatives being portrayed as prudential decisions.
I suppose I will die a Catholic, but it won’t be because of the Bishops, Cardinals or the Popes of my lifetime. It will be in spite of their imperiousness, pomposity and viciousness. I will have to make sure however, given my weaknesses, never to be in the company of a Cupich or McElroy.
These SSPX excommunications raise thorny questions:
Why should the SSPX bishops be called guilty of schism, when Chinese bishops ordained without Vatican permission (and are gouging liturgical texts, the Bible, and church worship space to promote communism and not God) recognized by the Vatican?
Why are some objections that the SSPX express about certain Vatican II documents treated more drastically than the direct assaults on doctrine and morals coming from Synod Report #9 and the German bishops/laity synodal manipulations?
Why are numerous prelates accused of credible gross sexual offenses not brought to trial like Rupnik and his ilk, but are allowed to continue in ministry–many times in high positions?
Some of these questions may or may not be able to be directly compared to the offense committed by the SSPX, but they are questions a lot of Catholics have because they perceive a skewed, prejudicial standard of justice being applied.
Totally agree. We laity need clarity, consistency and courage from the magisterium (imho).
Yes, it’s almost like fornication related acts are no longer a serious sin.
At this point, I think the SSPX should cease to be casually referred to as “Traditional Catholics.” It’s a misnoner. Words mean things. They aren’t “Catholic” in the traditional sense. According to them, the Church has lost its way, the Pope and Magesterium are corrupt, Vatican II taught error, and they’re disregarding their own excommunication and turning it inside out as a badge of honor. So why do they want to belong to such a terrible Church? Rome will not change. Rome holds all the power. Christ designed it this way. They can now be known as Lefebvrists. They followed their conscience. Let them own it. Lefebvrists.
The SSPX is well aware of the distinction between abuse of power, heresy, and neglect of the duties of office on the part of ecclesiastical officials, and those things which make the Church, THE Church, which Christ loved and gave Himself up for. You don’t leave Jesus because of Judas.
According to them, the Church has lost its way
Exhibit 1: Theodore McCarrick
Exhibit 2: Rembert Weakland
Exhibit 3: Jimmy Martin
Exhibit 4: Musical Parishes & hush money NDA’s.
Exhibit 5: Higher divorce rate than weekly mass attendance rates
I begin to understand the Catholic position on Anglican “orders”.
(Slow learner).
All these anti sspx articles fail to answer the main question: what should the sspx do instead? Just not have bishops? If the Pope won’t allow a million Catholics to have a bishop for political reasons that seems to be a sufficient emergency for them to consecrate their own.
Submit to Papal authority. That is what Catholics do. Because Jesus told us to follow Peter.
Papal authority?
We are reminded incessantly that we are a Church in dialogue with the world, certainly in the recent Magnifica Humanitas.
Dialogue involves co-constructing knowledge as equals through conversation, Teaching typically involves an expert transmitting information to a student
It is through Jesus Christ that the Church and the Pope receive definitive authority to ‘teach them to obey everything I have commanded you’ Matt 28:20.
This papal authority is hugely diminished in replacing authoritative teaching to with mere dialogue with a sceptical world.
Try initiating a dialogue with SSPX instead and perhaps be re acquainted with everything Christ has commanded and is contained within the Deposit of Faith
Ironically, the SSPX has requested an authoritative interpretation of the Vatican 2 statement they dispute. They are willing to dialogue, but a public, authoritative declaration on the dogma would probably be more effective.
I expect the Vatican doesn’t want to wind up in the position of publicly confirming that the SSPX beliefs are within Church teaching and the views of many bishops in full communion are wrong.
Jesus told us to follow Him, not Peter. Who’s the Head of your Church?
I hadn’t realized that the sacraments of penance and matrimony administered by the SSPX priests are invalid. I feel quite sure that those involved in these sacraments not only don’t realize this but that they are acting from a state of invincible ignorance. That must be their saving grace. However unlike unbelievers who have never known Christ these are all people who have been baptized and who have been infused with faith, hope and charity as well as the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Only God knows at what point they went astray. May they “come to themselves “ like the prodigal son and return to their Father’s house.
Don’t worry Sister. They are valid, and also confirmed by Pope Francis’ decrees, which Fernandez’ dicastery cannot abbrogate.
“They are valid, and also confirmed by Pope Francis’ decrees, which Fernandez’ dicastery cannot abbrogate.” Please provide the references for your statement.You are writing under the assumption that the document from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith does not have papal authority. I will believe that when Pope Leo states that the Dicastery acted without his permission. Until then, your view is wishful thinking. (I posted this earlier, but the site got stuck and I had to close it, so I may be posting it twice.)
It is not that the dicastery does not have the authority, but that an explanatory note does not have the authority to supercede a papal act. Explanatory notes may moderate the application of law, but they are not laws themselves. And because strict interpretation of the law, in the defendent’s favor, is part of canon law, I don’t believe explanatory notes can make an application more harsh than the actual law either.
In any case, there is no argument that the Society had faculties before July 1.
Thank you. Could you give me the link to the document that you are quoting, please?
Ray,the Pope is neither stupid or careless, so I doubt if we know the whole story.We must respect him and give him the benefit of doubt,
We pray that every pope is under the influence of the Holy Spirit but we also know they still have free will. They also have “advisors.”
Wasn’t there a time in the “unified” Catholic Church when almost ALL bishops, including the Pope, were apostate?
During the Arian controvery most bishops were either solidly Arian, or were more or less assenting for the purposes of peace and survival. I’ve heard estimates ranging from half to nearly all, depending on the level of assent.
The Pope was not Arian. The worst that can be said of him was that he was not as clear as it is possible to imagine, and that he either signed under duress, or had his signature forged, on a document excommunicating St. Athanasius and another that could be interpreted as either Arian or orthodox.
Cardinal preaches at 50th anniversary Mass of same-sex couple; bishops concelebrate
Editor’s Note: Cardinal Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., preached the homily at a recent “Mass of Thanksgiving for 50 Years of Friendship, Partnership, and Commitment in the Pursuit of Justice” of two men, Julian Filochowski and Martin Pendergast, according to New Ways Ministry.
“I believe, Julian and Martin, that your faithful friendship is grounded in a shared passion for peace and for the triumph of justice,” Cardinal Radcliffe preached. “Friendship is a way in which God works creatively in each of us, forming us for love.”
Two retired bishops—Bishops John Crowley and John Rawsthorne—were among the concelebrants at the June 13 Mass, which took place at Holy Apostles Church in London.
A similar 25th anniversary Mass for Filochowski and Pendergast sparked controversy in 2001, as CWN reported at the time.
We know this has nothing to do with supporting homosexual acts, due to the frequency that we hear about bishops attending or offering Masses celebrating 25 or 50 years of friendship between non-homosexual friends.
Sorry, there’s stubbornness on BOTH sides. There are too many higher ups in the Vatican who want to crush the SSPX and the TLM. No doubt. And there is stubbornness at the SSPX headquarters to demonstrate that they are purer Catholics. This is a very solvable issue if there would be a desire to solve it.
Very reasonable statement
An “LBGTQ etc Catholic Ministry” Reports Leo Dowplaying the importance of secual morality.
Responding to a question about Cardinal Reinhard Marx, the archbishop of Munich and Freising, who has allowed his priests to “formalize” same-sex blessings, Leo said that “the unity or division of the church should not revolve around sexual matters.” He also noted that questions of sexual morality are not the sole nor paramount ethical concerns for the church.
“We tend to think that when the church is talking about morality, that the only issue of morality is sexual,” said the pope during the in-flight press conference. “And in reality, I believe THERE ARE MUCH GREATER, MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES, SUCH AS JUSTICE, EQUALITY, FREEDOM OF MEN AND WOMEN, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, THAT WOULD ALL TAKE PRIORITY BEFORE THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.”
https://OUTREACH.FAITH/2026/04/REMARKS-ON-SEXUAL-ETHICS-HIGHLIGHT-POPE-LEOS-PASTORAL-PRIORITIES/
Is this Pope leading the Church against Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition? Let us see what Holy Scripture and Holy Trasition say:
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
The excellent site Catholic Answers has posted numerous examples of the early Christian thinkers on the subject of homosexual relations, in answer to the modern Catholic Church claim that “loving” homosexual relations, and not just “lustful” relations are OK and can be blessed by priests. Here are a few, which today’s popes and cardinals and bishops and priests act against and probably would label as “hate speech”: https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-teachings-on-homosexuality
SAINT EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA
“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
SAINT CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
“All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians” (Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190]).
SAINT BASI THE GREAT
“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).
SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
“[Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment” (Homilies on Matthew 3:3 [A.D. 391]).
“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26–27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases” (Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).
“[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men” (ibid.).
SAINT AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
TERTULLIAN
“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).
SAINT JUSTIN MARTYR (the first recognized philosopher of the Christian era)
“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. . . . And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).
THE DIDACHE
“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born” (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]
Papal authority does not have the privilege of heretical concessions.
“A man of your stature can no more acknowledge being wrong than can the Pope. The theme of your Op-Ed is a view from one side of the mountain on how the other side is living wrongly. On your side, the church is bogged down in worrying about the meaning of Catholic Social Justice and what are those Germans doing now. The SSPX on the other side of the mountain is busy erecting churches in places like St Mary Kansas, and monasteries in Silver City New Mexico. You claim, “The moral responsibility for this rupture belongs squarely with those who rejected communion rather than those who tirelessly sought reconciliation.” The only true effort was made by Pope Benedict. Long before he was Pope, he developed a working relationship with Bishop Lefebvre over the first SSPX ordination. Perhaps it’s for the best that the two remain separated by this philosophical mountain. When Vatican II chopped down the tree that is the Roman Church they grafted their view of what the new church should be to the roots, the SSPX was the offshoot from those 2,000-year-old roots. As the Church of Pope Leo wallows in theological rhetoric and ages out, the SSPX has no difficulties about what their place in the world is, they continue to grow, expanding their youthful bases and build churches and monasteries for their religious men and women.
Saving souls is important work, and should be the priority. Jesus reminded Martha of this when she was complaining about domestic chores.
I prefer the novus ordo. I have only attended a Latin mass a handful of times and feel no affinity to it though I am not uncomfortable with latin. At 58, having followed this issue for years, I squarely feel this schism is the fault of the Vatican despite its theological correctness and should never have existed. This is not theological problem it is at its core a leadership problem. This does not mean sspx has no blame nor that they have not complicated the issue.
The Vatican has been duplicit in its dealings with sspx and i must say Benedict was on the right path. I think we are in the age of stupidity or maybe doubling down in our stupidity. Sad state of affairs these days both in the Church and in the public square.
Seriously, few people care and the “excommunications” are meaningless. The SSPX will continue to thrive, and their chapels will continue to grow as more and more diocese adopt the homosexualist and socialist orientations of apostate Rome.
We all need to follow the China church and all will be well
One expected american popesplaining but this piece is especially disgraceful as it fails to perform the most basic critical analysis to see that what many people are claiming happened, did not, beginning with the headline that the sspx is excommunicated, which is patently duplicitous and misleading at the least. Other sites, such infovaticana have done a good canonical analysis to show the illegal maneuvers, contradictions, and other slights of hand. I’m a canonist myself and concur with their points. The people directly affected by this are the six bishops, who are the only ones who actually performed an action subject to a penalty: consecrating without mandate. They are excommunicate and possibly schismatic, though the latter can easily be challenged as it requires a separate process that examines the subjective intention of each individual, which does not seem to have occurred. The other clergy aren’t necessarily schismatic nor excommunicate, certainly at this time, as for one, they performed no actions tied to such penalties. The laity most certainly are not, for the same reason, and others: the explanatory note itself goes on to indirectly admit such when it refers to a contingent, future possibility, and that it requires going individual by individual, establishing personal, subjective culpability for each and every possible offense. The 1996 note that is referred to doesn’t state that all sspx clergy have committed the crime of schism, which is the way they make it sound, and it actually warns against such blanket declarations. It also distinguishes between the sin of schism- which it opines they have committed- versus the canonical crime, which Fernandez’ note seems to be co-mingling. Also, the penal decree- which is the only document with binding, legal force- precisely warns the clergy not to adhere to the sspx, in a future, conditional way- Si ammoniscono- lest they receive the penalties; but the explanatory note uses the present tense to say that the clergy are- essere considerati- in schism. Again, “formal adherence” for laity would precisely have to be proven on a case by case basis. This is why only the 6 bishops are mentioned by name in the actual penal decree, which is the document that has binding legal force. An explanatory note does not and simply cannot declare penalties. These people are either incredibly incompetent and/or malicious: if they know it’s illegal to declare such blanket penalties, so they don’t put that in the penal decree, and also talk of future penalties in that decree, but they put those things in a document/note they know has no such force, but which gives the appearance that it does to the average joe.
Sspx marriages and confessions are not/cannot be declared invalid by an explanatory note- which lacks force of law- and also because the faculties were given expressly by papal direction and thus requires the same to be rescinded, but there is no indication that happened. That is, a lower authority can’t revoke what was given by a superior one. A further confirmation of the latter is that, very interestingly, none of the documents were approved by Leo, and thus are not papal acts/documents. A dicastery- the DDF- cannot repeal acts of the Roman Pontiff except with pontifical approval in a specific form. Canon law also states that if revocation is in doubt it can’t be presumed.
All this confirms that this is not about following canon law, disobedience, or even papal authority, as these same people turn around to abuse the law and authority, as well as selectively apply it. The other contents confirm the real motive: the golden calf of vatican II and hatred of things “traditional” that pre-date the council. These motives will be confirmed even more if the problems with the documents are simply ignored and no appeals are entertained by Rome. The same goes too for bishops, catholic media outlets and commentators who would ignore the problems in order to go allow with the establishment narratives. On a final note, speaking of canonical processes, where is the Rupnik case? It’s been more than another year and still nothing; but they can draw up penalties within days if it’s something “traditional.”
As I understand the canonical crime of schism, it requires bad intent, the actual intention of separating from the Holy Father (or those in union with him). So the crime requires the sin. Since the DDF has seen fit to punish the crime, they can hardly act as though they do not know if there was a sin. Even against contrary evidence the SSPX has provided in continuing to acknowledge the Pope.
Thanks for the infovaticana tip.
The SSPX made a big mistake: they broke off because they wanted to consecrate their own Bishops. Instead, they should have followed the custom of the ancient Church and declare anathema name by name: Fernandez, PL, Cupich, Rupnik, and the rest, for Christ’s sake. Each of those individuals committed a crime against faith, perverting it and corrupting many – and they still continue. I think Archbishop Vigano challenged the Vatican calling it heretic – he did his duty, unlike SSPX.
The situation: currently on one side we have the Vatican covertly promoting heresies, such as blessings of homosexual couples (see ‘FS’) and the recognition of such unions in the Church (see ‘The final report of Group 9’); pushing God aside and swapping Him with “humanity” (see ‘The Implementation of the synodal process’) creating a human-centred cult instead Christ-cantered (see ‘MH’); teaching the equality of all faiths with no exclusive salvation in Christ, etc. Christianity as a faith in Christ is melting like ice before our eyes. As if it is not enough, we now have Fernandez with his “Heal Me with Your Mouth” pseudo-mystical tract who has just now, as the Head of Dicastery of Faith, excommunicated the hardcore “trads”, SSPX. This farcical event says it all.
In a word, we have the postmodern absurdity which occasionally aids itself with some quotes from the Scriptures while doing the exact opposite, the result of the course towards a recreating Christianity into the image of the world via playing down/sinking in for/watering down everything that “upsets” that world. Predictably, the result is something unrecognizable, something that does not match what the Church of Christ is supposed to be. In this parody of Christianity, those who sin against God (liturgical abuse like “LGBTQ+-Masses” or priests like Rupnik who not just raped but also used consecrated liturgical vessels and even hosts for his sexual activities) are not excommunicated. Only those who go against the new course = against the will of PL are excommunicated. This is very important to keep in mind because it is rotten human psychology not submitted to Christ that is the reason for what is going on, not theology. Sins against God and other persons (abuse) are not even sins. The sin is only saying “no” to the new course = to those who push it.
Thus, here is the answer to those who ask “Why German bishops are not excommunicated while Archbishop Vigano is? Why are Chinese bishops OK and SSXP’s ones not?” Because “liturgical experimentations” in Germany and all over the world are the part of the pathological family with its “synodal” scheme and because that pathological = narcissistic family needs to deal with China (and whoever else) – hence its selective tolerance. It tolerates those who benefit it/compatible with it. Paradoxically, the state controlled Chinese Church does not clash with the covertly controlled “synodal church” (NB: psychological control over “synodal sessions” is unprecedented, somewhat akin to the Chinese system of “social rewards ” ). There is no God and His honour in this scheme because it is all about human control. This is why those who engage in liturgical abuse/sexual abuse are not the candidates for excommunication.
This current situation is impossible to understand without referring to human psychology. The unspoken rule of a narcissistic family is: you can do anything – anything – as long as you recognize ME, me at the top and follow my course. You can be cheeky, you can do sacrilege (like Germans, but now other churches are catching up) but as long as you are “my boy” or useful in my game I will not throw you out, I will always find a time to meet with you, to cover you up etc.
Why is SSPX excommunicated? – Because they 1) refused to play a game called “the Synodal Church” plays and to support the PL’s agenda – German Church supports it thus “forgiven” for its liturgical experiments 3) worse even, they brought the objective criteria into a discussion, of a faith/tradition into the situation which is ruled only by subjective, the whims of its head (human psychology unrestrained by theology) the ruling based on the arbitrary “I will”. A member of the narcissistic family who openly challenges its head is always spat out, publicly.
Quote: “Any suggestion that Rome somehow forced this rupture doesn’t stand to historical scrutiny. Pope Leo exercised remarkable restraint throughout the entire controversy.”
The reality check: It PL who refused to see the Head of the SSPX, giving them Fernandez the Pornographer to talk to instead. This is also a typical narcissistic move, to give the most unsuitable agent to settle the matter, solely for the sake of failing the discussion but being able to say later “You see? – I tried; I am good, I am good – they are bad”. This is a deception which the author of this article seems to buy into, assuming a role of “an explainer”, one who “explains” the behaviour of the head of the narcissistic family, creating a good image for the public.
In this particular case, they are called “popsplainer”, a phenomenon two last papacies employed routinely, for the purpose of blame shifting or in a situation when they could engage in open discussion without losing their image.
Interpretation and opinions aside, the facts remain: PL refused to meet with SSPX. PL did not excommunicate those who offend God and violate the faith. He excommunicated those who offend him and violate the (“synodal”) Course of the New Deification, towards the Magnificent Humanity. Those who engage in liturgical abuse and pervert faith do not violate that course.
True, Anna.
On the other hand, in the secular world Fernandez now would be removed as having failed his assignment, and replaced. A turning point toward the needed and incremental housecleaning? How to surgically extract the lavender mafia without killing the patient?
But also this question….on a complex chessboard has der Synodal Weg’s Cardinal Marx gotten the message? The July 1 date for the formal and liturgical blessing of irregular “couples,” as couples, seems to have come and gone. And, there’s the entangled issue of the Provisional Agreement with China which in 2026 is also up for renewal, or not.
A glimmer of hope, possibly, in the restoration of the Consistory of Cardinals—including non-insiders (Francis closed it down in 2014). And whether it actually exists distinctly, or whether it’s just another seat at the roundtable of synodality? And, ingested by Cardinal Grech’s relabeled (or actually corralled?) “ecclesial assembly” of 2028.
The issue is not about SSPX, Fernandez, Max or “lavender mafia”. They are just a manifestation of the universal disorder of a human soul, of each one. It is about a refusal to surrender our own self and to follow Our Lord.
Imagine that the creation has two “extreme gravitation points”, one is Jesus Christ Who holds all creation in His hand; another is a prince of this world, the Grand Narcissist, Satan. The first is, let’s say, a beautiful galaxy, the second is the black hole. The first is life, the second is death. Moving towards the galaxy, Christ, are those who, out of seeing themselves as they are (with sick tendencies which would bring them straight to the Grand Narcissist), surrender to Christ and follow Him. They still have an ongoing battle with their own selves – not with true selves created in the image of God but with false selves created by abuse, neglect, grave sins etc. (a very useful concept of developmental psychology). Humanity is between those two opposites. Here clinical psychology is in line with the words of Christ “reject oneself and follow Me” and also mystical theology; this is quite incredible. Moving to the black hole of death, are those who have only one God – themselves. Those people are determined narcissists etc. Those priests, for example, who made nuns drink their “bodily fluids” from the liturgical vessels are heading there but it does not be so dramatic. “A nice synodal dude” who is pushing Christ aside and helps to cover up abuse is journeying towards that pole. One who blamed the victim of abuse to preserve his own piece of mind is heading there unless repents. The only difference between those who travel to those opposites is the consistent choice “me or Christ = my fake self or Christ”. It is fair to say that those who chose Christ chose a relationship; those who chose themselves chose zero.
This is the bare bones of human psychology and human destiny, confirmed by both faith (mystical theology) and science. Here they come together. The science explains bluntly what narcissism is (and how it is formed): lack of empathy, entitlement, total disregard of other, manipulation and lied as the tools to achieve one’s purpose – in a word, a total disregard of the other person including the Person of God and also necrophiliac tendencies meaning not love for corpses but the anti-life vector, a deadening effect of a narcissist on others. “Lavander mafia”, a sexual orientation, is added to narcissism/psychopathy and dressed in clerical clothes. Clerical clothes provide a narcissist priest with status of “persona Christi” which he interprets not as “service to others” but to “I am a god”. Being such, he is exempt from that teaching which is for “plebes”. Absolutely everything that is happening now has its roots in a narcissistic/psychopathic psyche unchecked by a fear of God. Why so many clergy have this disorder is another subject. By now though we have a classic example of a pathological/narcissistic family, with its top abusing and those below trying to survive, engaging in various actions. Some, “scapegoats”, call the top on heresy (like Vigano). Others, “golden children”, spit on God and the flock and get what they can from the top. The majority are either paralysed or do not wish to see anything. However, one who chose Christ and rejected himself is compelled to speak up, to resist, to call a heresy “heresy”. This is the only authentic way to endure what is going on.
All the above was written to answer your question “How to surgically extract the lavender mafia without killing the patient?” This is the wrong way to formulate because the patient is not innocent here. An abuser cannot exist without an enabler. In my research and also my personal dealings, I discovered that the majority of the flock enables the abusers in the Church via condemning the victim. They turn against the victims because the revealed abuse upsets their emotional equilibrium/faith. This is a selfish action via which one chooses himself over Christ.
To make a total: no one is exempt and the way out is to reject oneself NOW and to follow Christ no matter what – and to act accordingly. What will happen then is up to Him.
The SSPX does not have the authority to excommunicate anyone, and does not claim it, and in fact would probably be quite insistant that they don’t.
You have to have jurisdiction to judge. The SSPX argument that they are not in schism requires that their bishops being the equivalent of auxiliary bishops, with no jurisdiction.
This is also why the SSPX is calling on the Vatican to settle the questions of the interpretation of certain Vatican 2 statements. They are not the superiors of the bishops who have publicly spoken and acted according to a wromg interpretation. They can correct them, they can state their own beliefs, but they cannot settle the question, because they are not superior to those bishops.
The abuse of authority does not automatically remove the authority, and neither does the corrupt refusal to exercise the authority where it is required. But there is One authority higher than all, and these stewards will answer to that.
Quite apart from the SSPX situation, Rome, and every bishop, have a positive obligation to make doctrine clear, and not merely to refrain from teaching heresy. Rome specifically has a positive obligation to handle disciplinary problems with bishops and cardinals, including statements which seem heretical and acts which promote immorality. The continued failure to confirm the brethren is seen in the SSPX situation, but would exist without it.
If the statement provided by the Vatican is considered sufficient for SSPX priests to return to the Church (along with the requirement that they find a bishop willing to take them on, which is quite unlikely given Pope Francis’ removal of a liberal-leaning bishop who welcomed traditionalists, and Pope Leo’s neglect to make clear that such things are in the past) it ought to be sufficient for the whole Society to return in a body, with their bishops. Yet this does not seem to be the terms set for that.
Because it was Fernandez who signed the excommunication, and not Pope Leo, an avenue of appeal is left to the SSPX, should they choose to make use of it. whether it is likely to succeed or not, it should be tried.
I would attend Mass if it was celebrated on a concrete block. I don’t care which way it faced. I only know one language, English, and that poorly so I don’t understand Latin. I know carpenters pop a chalk line and somebody has to define where or chaos ensures. I trust carpenters, particularly One.
This blow up is simply about pride: I will do it my way. H*** is full of these kind.
If you attend the Mass of the Anglican Ordinariate, you will also experience a Mass in English, just not the English you are used, but archaic words from past centuries such as “vouchsafe”. There are other differences of course, such as the reception of the Most Precious Blood through intinction. At the AO church I attended, they had an accompanying sheet to explain the Mass. There’s no reason that couldn’t be done with Latin.
Benedict didn’t demand the Ordinariate abandon the prayers they like, he simply made sure they conformed to the Faith.
Likewise other rites have ancient liturgies. I live near a Byzantine Church and I might attend there.
I think what it comes down to is that whether intentional or not, the Novus Ordo has not met the promise of “greater participation”, mostly because so many no longer show up at all. It was an imposed novelty, and was clearly disruptive to much of the laity-precisely at a time (60’s) when they needed the comfort of constancy. As such, given its failure to produce fruit, it should be tested against what it replaced, organically. If the Old Mass produces greater zeal, and it overtakes the Novus Ordo, then it overtakes it.
There’s a level of idolatry surrounding Vatican II that is disturbing. I worship the Triune God, not documents. If I wanted that, I’d be a Protestant bibliolater.
The members of the SSPX have family and friends on the other side of the divide and so far have had a peaceful coexistence. But now with this excommunication what happens next
It has been a challenge for some faithful Catholics to remain within the only true Church. Some have felt tested during the papacy of Leo XIV’s predecessor. Faith, as of old with the allegory of Job, is steeled by testing, at times even to our limits.
SSPX failed the test. Although, it did appear there was hope for reconciliation before the ordinations when superior general Fr Davide requested a meeting with Leo and was denied. He was told to consult with the DDF prefect.
From this writer’s perspective, it appeared a moment when Pope Leo might assume the role of good shepherd and the lost sheep. There are other views that would disagree. Could there have been a working compromise?
Nonetheless, the SSPX denied papal authority, in this instance not simply some contested doctrine and its interpretation. Whatever issues, disagreements we may have, we know from the words of Christ where the Mystical Body is.
Let me rephrase:
It has been torment for most faithful Catholics to remain within the only true Church. Some were (not felt) abused during the papacy of Leo XIV’s predecessor. Faith, as of old with the allegory of Job, is steeled by testing, at times even to our limits.
By the way, how is it Leo has a predecessor if only Peter has successors?
You know I’ve seen this up close and personal, one of my friends had a son that was deeply interested in history and saw such a rupture between the clear and consistent teaching of the past-even when it had to be fought over-and whatever Francis was promoting that he was gradually immersed in Orthodoxy, converted and drives a long distance to attend their liturgies. The son, an adult man was rebaptized, in what he described as a rather bizarre ceremony, being disrobed to only what was absolutely necessary for modestly and having multiple women pour water on him. I have no odea if this is Orthodox orthopraxy or if this is some fringe group. I know my friend is anguished as his grandchildren won’t be Catholic.
And herein lies the problem with treating Cosplay Sarah as a peer and allowing clearly heterodox ordinaries and priests to remain in good standing while pushing the alphabet agenda. If nothing matters except unauthorized episcopal consecrations, then nothing matters. Watch sportsball on Sunday, shack up, NOTHING matters.
What’s really amusing about Leo is he’s said to be interested in technology. That interest clearly hasn’t translated to understanding that pewsitters have access to every public pronouncement and action, and the ability to discuss among ourselves. We’ve gone from Rome is judged by no one to Rome is judged by every one. In centuries past, only history books noticed papal infidelities.
We see Popes from John Paul II (one I’m increasing thinking was responsible for this mess, he appointed a lot of the most radical types) on changing doctrine on the death penalty. I worked in a corrections system and John Paul’s faith in modern penal systems is misplaced. You might effectively isolate the worst from society, but other inmates and staff have rights as well. Some people are just animalistic predators.
We can see how obnoxiously McElroy treated Father Rosetti and we ask ourselves what possible article of faith was abraded by private speculations about UFOs. Who seriously would think Washington DC needs one less exorcist? If I was in DC and I could find enough concerned people, I get a group together to make sure if McElroy’s excursions are motivated by personal moral turpitude, I get a PI to obtain the evidence.
Apart from his station as Pope, I wouldn’t give you two cents for the musings of Bob Prevost. I’ve seen and heard enough. He seems to be the product of what economists call “capture”.
At some point, I might say fine-excommunicate me from your unordained female “prefects”. Luther was excommunicated, the Vatican issued a stamp honoring him.
An example that is relevant today, when there’s disagreement within the Church, is what we’re virtually all aware of, the Arian heresy. That heresy was believed by most, including hierarchy. Roman pontiffs assumed its veracity, though never formally pronounced it.
One man, who we all admire, Saint Athanasius of Alexandria sharply disagreed. Although he remained within the Church a stalwart for the divine nature of the person of the Christ. Jesus of Nazareth.
That was reestablished at Nicaea. Theologically explained later by the doctrine of two complete natures in Christ – by Saint Cyril of Alexandria.
You mention Athanasius…
The existential threat to the Church in his time had to do with the (Triune) nature of God, while today it has to do with the truth about the nature or Man.
About the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, Athanasia’s earlier book, “The Incarnation,” came in 318 A.D. It was not new, but faithfully recapitulated what the Church had always lived and believed from the beginning. Arius (beginning in A.D. 319 A.D.) was rejected by the Council as an incompatible disintegration (and even as opening the door to pagan polytheism within the Church). A recollection and fidelity rather than simply a synodal consensus.
Providentially, today, we have Veritatis Splendor also coming before now the disintegration of Man–in der Synodal Weg’s pending formal/liturgical blessing of irregular “couples,” and in the scribbling of post-synodal “expert” Study Group #9. And, even disintegration of the “hierarchical communion” of the Eucharistic and perennial Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium) by substituting a layering of one-sided synodal roundtables.
What does it take to keep from just rolling along?