Vatican City, Jul 4, 2018 / 08:24 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Since 2014 international charity organization Aid to the Church in Need has spent some 40 million euros [$46.6 million] funding relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, with the majority of support going toward basic needs such as housing.
However, according to Thomas Heine-Geldem, executive president of Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), now that the international community chipping in to rebuild Christian villages destroyed when ISIS took over the Nineveh Plains in 2014, the organization’s primary focus will shift from funding basic reconstruction to restoring religious structures such as churches and monasteries, many of which were desecrated and burned under ISIS rule.
With nations such as Hungary, which has long supported for reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and the United States offering financial help, ACN can take a step back and focus on their “pastoral vocation,” Heine-Geldem said, noting how ACN was founded as a means of providing both spiritual and material help to Christians who are persecuted or living in poverty.
The next stage in the rebuilding process in Iraq, then, will center “on the renovation of destroyed churches, there are many, destroyed seminaries and destroyed monasteries. That’s back to our original vocation,” Heine-Geldem said.
In June the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) pledged to give some $10 million to two aid organizations working in Iraq, one of which is Catholic Relief Services, and an additional $25 million will be given later to support “persecuted communities” in Iraq, specifically Christians returning to the Nineveh Plains and Yazidis in Sinjar.
So far, structures being built or restored as part of this “pastoral vocation” include a pastoral center in the village of Kirkuk; a church in each of the villages of Teleskuf, Qaraqosh and Bartella; three convents for Dominican sisters serving in Bartella and Qaraqosh; and the Holy Family orphanage in Qaraqosh.
Representatives from ACN will be making visits to both Iraq and Syria within the next few months to determine what the needs are and to discuss with local ecclesial leaders which structures should be taken up next.
Heine-Geldem was present alongside other ACN representatives, including Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, major penitentiary of the Vatican’s Apostolic Penitentiary and president of ACN international, at the July 4 presentation of the organization’s annual activity report for 2017.
According to the numbers in the report, last year ACN spent the majority of funds on projects in mission territories, supporting some 5,357 projects in 149 countries. The rest went toward administrative costs, advertising and fundraising.
The organization, which has offices in 23 countries around the world, had around 368,000 benefactors in 2017, with a large portion of funding also coming from Catholics who donated in exchange for a Mass intention for themselves or a loved one.
In total, ACN gave around 84.6 million euro [$98.5 million] in 2017 to support their mission projects, most of which are in Africa, followed by Asia, Latin America, Eastern and Central Europe, and the Middle East.
In terms of where most of the money is spent, Africa again took the lead, followed by the Middle East, which Heine-Geldem said was the result of a concrete decision by ACN to provide “exceptional” support to the region to help Christians stay.
“If Christians are not helped to stay there, they will be forced to leave,” he said, adding that “if we don’t have Christians in the Middle East, there is no need to help the pastoral work.”
Most of ACN’s funding in Iraq is going toward their Nineveh Plains Reconstruction Project, and providing spiritual support through Masses, formation and catechesis, as well as food and transport.
The reconstruction project, Heine-Geldem said, has also helped bring different Christian rites in Iraq together and has allowed them to interact in a way that was not typical in the past.
“We have created a platform,” he said, noting that the committee for the project is composed of leaders from the Syriac Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church.
“This is very, very important, because in addition to all these struggles, these tragedies, all this ethnic and religious persecution, we have still found a lack of experience in cooperation among Christians in the Middle East,” he said, noting that the committee as a body evaluates the needs and decides which villages or churches to focus on next.
In Syria, which is second on the list of Middle Eastern aid recipients for ACN, most of the funding still comes in the form of basic humanitarian aid since the country is still at war.
“We still have war, we still have uncertainty, and people still need emergency help in order enable Christians there to remain or to entice them to return,” Heine-Geldem said, reiterating that the organization’s main priority is to help Christians stay in their home country.
“This is not a political statement about immigration, but it is our vocation to do that,” he said, explaining that from even from a geopolitical view, they don’t want the area to become “totally Christian free.”
“Christians are a good backbone of society,” he said, noting that many Muslims have told him Christians are needed in the Middle East, because they form the majority of the middle class, and are educated.
In terms of 2018, Heine-Geldem said Syria and Iraq will continue to be a priority, as will the religious freedom report ACN publishes annually, which will be released in November.
Additionally, India will also be a key focus, with particular attention for Catholics who are members of the “Dalit” class, which is the lowest in the caste and whose members are considered “untouchable” and less than human.
These people are “oppressed and neglected by the system,” and they also face increasing religious persecution from the amplified presence of Hindu extremists, Heine-Geldem said, noting that ACN recently launched a campaign to “open the eyes” of the world to what is happening on the ground.
“From what I’ve seen, they really deserve our help. It is a very serious situation.”
[…]
By 
“A schismatic is a fool.” St. Catherine of Siena
Pray and stay Catholic. The sin of another is no excuse for my sin. I am disappointed with the heteropraxy of the Francis Pontificate because Francis was my Pope.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2026/07/02/sspx-schism-and-excommunication/print
I usually attend an SSPX chapel but very occasionally Ecclesia Dei churches as well, so Fernandez’ warning about falling out of the Church concerns what he calls sharing the SSPX view on Vatican II. But what’s that supposed to mean? Vatican II on religious liberty, for example, declared it had not changed prior teaching, in a document with various passages that appear to do do just that. The SSPX wants the Church to authoritatively interpret these texts in a way that doesn’t contradict long-standing teaching. Instead, we are either told nothing has changed (but without any authoritative interpretation of the texts in the light of tradition), or that teachings have changed and end of story. But the Church has never acted in this way. It’s impossible to take Fernandez’ dicastery seriously when most Catholics who make the effort to read Vatican II texts cannot agree on what they mean generations after the event, or to what degree they change Church teaching prior to the 1960s. Since the whole reason for trying to deny the SSPX the means to continue is its belief, the Vatican ought to explain where Father Pagliarani’s profession of faith wrong. That looks to be the very last thing it will do.
Fernandez’ sanctions have not even been formulated properly apart from the case of the new bishops and consecrating bishops – https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/07/02/the-formula-used-by-tucho-to-excommunicate-priests-and-laypeople-lacks-penal-effectiveness/
As a layman, it is impossible to understand what Fernandez means by warning me not to share the SSPX view on the meaning of Vatican II texts – or else – when neither he nor most Catholics can reach consensus on that or the relation of those texts to traditional teaching. If he means we should just shut up and accept whatever inanity he feels like promoting as the measure of “communion”, he is most mistaken. I won’t take much notice. As Chesterton wrote, “The Church asks us to remove our hats, not our heads, when we enter the Church”.
Nonetheless, when the Roman Pontiff declares an organization to be schismatic and its adherents excommunicated, it is not for you or I to act as armchair theologians and canon lawyers and vacate the decrees ourselves. We do not have that authority. Until such time (if any) as the cardinals of the church declare otherwise, we must presume that Leo XIV is the true pope and his decrees valid as long as they fall within his authority, and these certainly do. If I were you, I would have nothing more to do with anything SSPX, because otherwise you would be gambling your eternity on the proposition that you are right and the pope is wrong. It is not an acceptable risk, no matter how correct you think you are.
You are taking a gamble yourself when you issue anathemas that the Pope and Fernandez have not. In fairness to you, you are led by the appalling example of several US bishops who have already done the same thing. Perhaps it’s escaped your notice, but I am not one of the four new bishops, nor am I Bishop de Galarreta or Bishop Fellay. Fernandez attached a note saying that individual laymen would need to be addressed on an individual basis. I need a bishop foolish enough to mess with me, Miguel Cervantes, accusing me of some error of faith, before you need to start worrying. When these “cases” start, the fun will begin. How will bishops, even those who loathe traditionalists, be able to impute doctrinal error to them if these laymen share Fr. Pagliarani’s profession of faith, for example?
Fernandez’s nota has no effect on Pope Francis’ confirmation of the SSPX marirages or confessions, either, because he is only he head of a dicastery and can’t abrogate papal decrees. The excommunications also have no effect because they are designed to strangle full expression of Catholic tradition.
I was at Mass today as an SSPX chapel. There were more people than usual and they were not in the least affected.
If Fernandez thinks we believe in errors, he needs to say what they are. He ought not pretend that the SSPX bishops are beyond the pale because of schismatic disobedience through the consecrations, because pope Leo has said the issue is all about “several points” in Vatican II texts. Yet the Vatican refuses to illuminate Catholics as to where the traditional Catholic critique of Vatican II is wrong.
There will be no end to this until the Church revisits Vatican II.
I take no gambles because I issue no “anathemas.” I merely urge caution and prudence. “Fernandez attached a note saying that individual laymen would need to be addressed on an individual basis.” He didn’t say that they could attend SSPX masses without difficulty, did he? “I need a bishop foolish enough to mess with me, Miguel Cervantes, accusing me of some error of faith, before you need to start worrying.” Brother, that sounds like some case of egotism, if you’ll pardon my observation. A bishop would have to be “foolish” to “mess with” you? Okay. I just wrote to warn you that I think you MAY be making the worst kind of mistake–one which COULD result in eternal perdition, but the decision is yours.
But you do. It’s a bit late to sanitise your answer now. You asserted that the Pope has excommunicated the “followers” of the SSPX, and therefore these lay followers were gambling with eternal perdition. But the Pope hasn’t excommunicated these followers (that’s me, if you mean regular attendance at their chapels). Therefore, you have “gambled” by anathematising me. Fernandez, in his capacity of head of a dicastery, has not excommuncated laymen either. His defectively-worded note merely warns them because of an action (“sharing” views) that he cannot narrow down effectively to any false doctrine, and won’t try. That it why any bishop who attempted to “mess” with me or other laymen on that basis would be “foolish”. They haven’t got a leg to stand on. That’s why it will be hilarious if and when they try.
I ask you again (perhaps you can see the heresy where Fernandez won’t), where is the doctrinal error in the SSPX profession of faith that they have put forward as the basis of their critique of those “several points” in conciliar texts which aren’t clear?
It’s not egotism to say that I think Father Pagliarani’s profession of faith is great, and that because Fernandez will not dare argue on that profession, yet dares to threaten laymen with excommunication for sharing this profession, he is completely inconsistent and inneffective.
As far as attendance goes, Fernandez relies on a Nota from 1996, section 7, which states that attendance is not a sufficient basis on which to impute the faithful, there needs to be “doctrinal disunion” which, as I’ve said above, he refuses to specify. Perhaps you could do it for him – others have – but there you would bravely gamble on entering the territory of anathemising people all by yourself.
Larry,
Miguel is absolutely correct.
1) Laity have an absolute right to express their concerns in private to each other (as here at CWR) and in public to leaders of the Church. Canon 212 §3 from the 1983 Code:
“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they [laity] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church.”
Perhaps you feel unqualified or not lawfully allowed to comment on your ‘armchair theology’ views. But that is not what the Church herself says.
2) Contrary to sedevacantist views, the SSPX does not assert that Leo is not the pope.
Your arguments suffer from attention to fact.
It is your arguments that suffer. I never said that he or anyone doesn’t have the right to state his opinion. I said he doesn’t have the right to disobey legitimate orders from the Holy See. He doesn’t have the right to patronize SSPX when the pope has said, “don’t patronize SSPX.” He doesn’t have the right to nullify orders from the pope that fall within the pope’s legitimate authority. He can say what he thinks of them. But they are binding. There is a huge difference between protesting and disobeying. I also never said that SSPX is sedevacantist, at least not in its WORDS (although it IS the case that some voices attacking the decrees claim that Leo cannot take these measures because he isn’t really the pope.) So, I point out that we lack the authority to either pronounce on the validity of the sanctions against SSPX or of Leo’s standing to issue those sanctions. We cannot act as our own popes, which actually is what SSPX is doing by its actions, despite its claims that it recognizes Leo as the true pope and is loyal to him. With their lips they say one thing. With their actions, another.
So let me get this straight:
“You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven” – Pope Francis, 2015
But I’m am bound to believe in Vatican II?
Father Murray, not a fan of the SSPX, but a canon lawyer says Fernandez’ decretal is so defective as to be ineffective (other than as it applies to the excommunication of the Bishops).
But Tucho isn’t there because he’s a theological luminary, but because he was a FoF. Friend of Francis.
Fernandez did invite Pagliarani to sit down and together analyze the points in Vatican II documents that SSPX finds controversial, to see if they allow “degrees of assent” and find the minimal requirement for reconciliation. However, such negotiations would only go through if SSPX halted its threatened consecrations of bishops. Pagliarani turned his nose up and proceeded with the consecrations. It was SSPX choice to go into schism.
It’s not complicated for me. I don’t take directives from the most evil pornographer in human history seriously. I am prepared to explain my excommunication to God at my final accounting.
They have in teaching and spirit been in schism since the beginning and are basically neo-Donatists. One look at any publication or x.com commentary from an SSPXer is enough to have any Catholic bishop close down TLM in their diocese, it’s really that bad. Pride and a lack of charity are very visible among their members, and a suspicion of everything post Vatican 2 is their modus operandi.
“Pride and a lack of charity are very visible among their members”
More so than the rest of the hairless bipeds?
Let me rephrase:
They have in teaching and spirit been in schism since the beginning and are basically neo-nominalists. One look at any publication or x.com commentary from a Jesuit is enough to have any Catholic bishop close down their activities in their diocese, it’s really that bad. Pride and a lack of chastity are very visible among their members, and a suspicion of not labelled Vatican 2 is their modus operandi.
FIFY, you’re welcome.
Every time I think about Jimmy Martin, I am reminded of the 80’s band Dire Straights and their big hit “Money for Nothing”, especially the line about who had his own jet airplane. I guess it took a Wharton Graduate and GE washout to make heresy a cottage industry.
Do you ever apply your criteria of fidelity to yourself? This would include fidelity to the Eighth Commandment. Name the “heresies” they allegedly promoted from the “beginning.” Start with Archbishop Lefebvre. And don’t take refuge in generalities.
Tim Vail: when the Catholic Church and the VII Popes are suddenly teaching previously condemned Freemasonic principles of religious freedom/tolerance/ecumenism it would actually be pretty abnormal NOT to become “suspicious of everything”, IMHO, especially since the Gospel itself tells us to beware of the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” and to “test everything.”
Mr. Vail, with respect we can’t diagnose pride or lack of charity in other’s hearts. That’s their Creator’s job.
I think it’s enough to say the SSPX made a wrong move. And then tend to the troubles in our own hearts.
I must agree 100% with Mr. Vail. As in secular law, one’s intent can be inferred from one’s actions. It is not a question of attempting to read anyone’s mind or soul. When Benedict first began his outreach to SSPX, I never expected it to produce anything good because of the society’s long history of haughtily dismissing any and all of the Holy See’s concerns about the society’s attitudes as manifested by their statements. It was abundantly clear even by Benedict’s time that SSPX and the Holy See were at an insuperable impasse: SSPX would NEVER stop impugning Vatican II’s validity, and the Holy See could NEVER concede that an ecumenical council of bishops, called by a pope, with its official output then ratified by the pope, could be capable of proclaiming error, and consequently could NEVER tolerate an organization within the church constantly propagandizing its adherents to reject that council. I think anyone with his eyes wide open could see that at the end of the day, that impasse could never and would never be overcome. SSPX had staked its position too deeply. The “outreach” was doomed from the getgo. Mr. Vail is right on-target.
Paul VI said that Vatican II, unlike other ecumenical councils, did not proclaim any dogmas.
Vatican II was the completion of Vatican I, which was interrupted by WWI. If you’re looking for dogmas, look into Vatican I.
You are distorting the meaning of St. Paul VI’s speech before a general audience on January 12, 1966, during which he said, “…Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.” But he did NOT say that the Council also avoided teaching in the manner of the “ordinary magisterium,” whose teachings are also to be accepted by the faithful. Commentator Jeff Mirus writes, “When the teaching is given in a less formal and more generally instructive way, it is considered an act of the ordinary magisterium, and its freedom from error is guaranteed by the fact that every Catholic is bound to accept such teachings, and must do so to remain fully Catholic. Indeed, the entire reason for such protection by the Holy Spirit is that the Magisterium cannot be permitted to bind the whole Church to error, which would render void Christ’s promise to be with the Church…When we add that most of the ‘controversial’ statements in Vatican II had already been taught by Pope Pius XII, and that all of them have since been repeatedly reaffirmed by both the magisterium and the programs of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, and that all popes since the conciliar documents were promulgated have consistently regarded acceptance of the authority of Vatican II as a pre-requisite to full communion with the Church—it becomes even more clear that it is time to lay another old canard to rest.” That being, that we are free to reject the Council because, not being infallible, it’s perfectly possible that it foisted a pack of errors on the rest of us, from which some white knight must save us. Oh, and by the way–the pope’s 1966 audience speech is NOT an infallible act of the magisterium, so it cannot be taken as invalidating the Council or any of its teachings, even were that the pope’s intended meaning of his speech.
“Vatican II was the completion of Vatican I, which was interrupted by WWI. If you’re looking for dogmas, look into Vatican I.”
???
Vatican I began in 1869. WWI began in 1914. WWI did not interrupt Vatican I.
The schema of Vatican I that did not get passed because it was interrupted (but not by WWI) are still available, and anyone can peruse them. They read almost as if they were put out by a totally different religious organization from what is presented in the documents of Vatican II.
Perhaps you can do what no one else slandering the SSPX has bothered to do. Name the heresy or heresies, in unambiguous precise terms, that SSPX have promoted.
It is utterly nonsensical to fall in line with the secular statutory law mythology that intent can ever be “inferred” from actions. Presumption is a sin and is always a sin. You would know this if you understood the doctrine affirming positions of the SSPX that too many voices at today’s Vatican deny.
The inferring of intent from actions is not only a sound legal doctrine, but plain common sense as well.
I believe the church has also admitted to a few planks in her eye.
Ordinary magisterium can be infallible or infallible. It’s infallible when it contiunes longstanding or infallible ordinary magisterium (i.e. Humanae vitae, and Pope John Paul II’s decree concerning women’s ordination). Where those “several points” of Vatican II appear to contradict longstanding ordinary papal magisterium, it is far from something that has to be accepted; it needs further and better particulars, in the light of traditional magisterium. Ain’t been done. Not enough to shout down at us, “shut up or get called schismatics”.
“…When the ordinary and universal magisterium is exercised—meaning the worldwide body of bishops, in communion with the pope, consistently teaches a doctrine as definitively to be held—it can also be infallible.” That’s from “Copilot Search” on the Internet. You keep citing these “several points” of Vatican II which “appear to contradict longstanding ordinary papal magisterium…” Except they don’t, and at least three popes have said they don’t. That’s good enough for me, and it should be for you also.
Larry (your reply to this below), the universal infallible magisterium of bishops in union with the Pope is not the same thing as ordinary infallible papal magisterium, which is the continuity of ordinary papal magisterium with all past papal ordinary magisterium. This has to be in continuity in order to enjoy infallibility. Some post-conciliar outbursts from various Popes obviously don’t fall into that category.
Of course several Popes have asserted that those “points” in Vatican II don’t contradict long-standing teaching – Vatican II asserted the same thing, and in the next breath produced those appallingly equivocal passages that have been exploited to death by all who wish for discontinuity with universal teaching. It’s not enough to assert that black is white, or grey is white, or white that only seems to be black is white; the Church must explain how, chapter and verse, these points do not contradict past teaching, also citing chapter and verse. Because Catholics have been doing this barrister act to each other since the Council because of its confusion. If the Vatican was truly charitable, it would clarify these issues, not for the sake of the traditionalists, but for the rest of the Church. Frankly, if being called names for a long time (thereby allowing the Vatican to say “but we’re not like those people”) is something traditionalists have to put up with in order for the Vatican do clean up this mess for the universal Church, it will be well worth it.
No, the SSPX do not deny we are all sinners; they, in fact, affirm sin is sin, unlike the modernists, who in denying The Unity of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Complementary Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From Both The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, In The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love, The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, the modernists deny not just The Divinity of Christ, but deny The Divinity Of The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, in order to deny Divine Law, and thus sexual morality, and thus, in essence, deny The Essence Of The True God, The Communion of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love, The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, thud exist in a state of apostasy.
In essence, The SSPX affirm The Office of The MUNUS and thus The Papacy while the modernist undermine Divine Law.
That should read:
and thus, in essence, deny The Essence Of The True God, The Communion of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love, The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, in The Unity of The Holy Ghost and thus the modernist exist in a state of apostasy.
Furthermore,
Any Catholic who affirms The Deposit of Faith has the ability to determine the validity of a Papacy, otherwise we would have been left orphans without The Deposit of Faith , In The Unity of The Holy Ghost, to guide our lives, and a valid Papacy to affirm and defend The Deposit of Faith that Christ Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic,And Apostolic Church, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, for The Salvation of Souls.
Are you suggesting that a Faithful Catholic does not have the ability to determine if the authority in Christ’s Church is attempting to undermine The Deposit of Faith by dismissing the sinful nature of same sex sexual unions and thus same-sex sexual acts by claiming, “If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected”, in order to make it appear that consensual sin done in private is not sin, even though, every Faithful Catholic knows that is not true, as God’s Universal Call to Holiness Is our Call to be chaste in our thoughts , in our words, and in our deeds, in all our relationships and experiences ,as we are Called to be Temples of The Holy Ghost in all our relationships and experiences, and our Call to Holiness is certainly not a Call to reject The Word of God in order to justify sinful behavior that is devoid of Love.
“The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. ”
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Neither does inconsistency, especially within the College of Cardinals. Having just returned from confession, I share with the hope of encouraging all of us to pray for unity and purity of heart in the Church. Cardinals blessing same sex marriage anniversaries should be higher on the list of excommunicable offenses than ordaining priests to the episcopate. Maybe that’s just me.
https://www.newwaysministry.org/2026/07/01/gay-mens-50-years-of-partnership-celebrated-with-catholic-mass/
“free-for-all”
Our wounded times – to bring the needed sorrow as well as hope & trust in our Lord , who wants to renew all things in Him as the motto of Pope Pius X in whose time , our Lord was preparing The Church for that renewal through an uneducated lay person – Luisa – who embodied the precious poverty of spirit as did the Pope .
https://queenofthedivinewill.org/st-pius-x/
Good to know the reverence the dissident group desires to have for St.Padre Pio,
yet finding it difficult to have the heroic good of certain needed attitudes ; many of us too can thus join such in asking for what we too lack through the intercession of the above powerful Sts that The Light of Divine Will be granted ! FIAT !
Cardinals McElroy, Cupich, Tobin, Zupi, Hollerich, Chow, and Marx all actively support the LGBTLMNOP lifestyle and lobby, but they remain in ministry. Are we not supposed to see the rank hypocrisy of the church hierarchy here? The ridiculously obvious double standard?
Athanasius: couldn’t agree more. Is it any wonder that no one takes excommunication seriously? No one these days takes seriously receiving the Eucharist in a state of grevious sin. No one even believes in mortal sin. So many Catholics even believe that sodomy is a virtue. The state of ecclesial life is risable.
Ah, the ironies….
The head of the Discastery issuing this statement is no less than infamous Argentine Cardinal Fernandez, who as a priest in his thirties authored a book of sexual poetry, likely homosexual poetry to boot.
He was promoted to Cardinal by fellow Argentinian Francis I, and named head of the Discastery “to prioritize promoting theological knowledge and evangelization over pursuing doctrinal errors.”
I reproduce this acute comment by fellow CWR commentator Anna in a related post:
“when I read “the threats” which are coming from the mouth of Fernandez, I laughed… coming from the Cardinal whose most known work is titled ‘Heal Me with Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing’ sounds so farcical that I burst into wild laughter. (Thank you, Cardinal Fernandez because usually the news from the Vatican makes me depressed).”
Francis will be remembered as one of the greatest ideological nepotists of all time.
He promoted people that shared his socialism and theological indifferentism. It was notable he made Cupich and McElroy Cardinals, but withheld the elevation from from Archbishops Gomez or Chaput.
From Pope Leo XIV’s letter we read: “The Church is open to a path of dialogue and understanding that the Holy Spirit can make possible and fruitful.”
But how to DIALOGUE across the table with those who are subjectively convinced that they are the Church (the remnant) while the Church in Rome is the one in schism?
In the secular world, “mediation” involves leaving guns at the door and—because the permanent outcome is equally repugnant to all parties!—to accurately isolate and untangle the core issue. WHAT IF the issue is not the language of all of the interrelated Documents of the Council read together, but rather, the abuses at all levels that have been imposed, ignored, and allowed to happen—after the Council?
THAT IS, is Dignitatis Humanae NOT to be read in isolation? Does the Church anywhere really affirm an EQUIVALENCY of religions? Within Christianity, is there room for ecumenism since all Christians are validly BAPTIZED into a “universal call to holiness”?
Very apologetically and from the back bleachers, now to repeat parts of this uncredentialed layman’s post from July 1. Especially the LINK to Cardinal Avery Dulles’ 2006 candid and conversational (!) assessment of Pope Benedict XVI’s involvements—as one who was actually at the Council!
FIRST, some tradition (lower case) on “conscience” from St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, already a century before the Second Vatican Council:
“…I have already quoted the words which Cardinal Gousset has adduced from the Fourth Lateran; that ‘He who acts against his conscience loses his soul.’ This ‘dictim’ is brought out with singular fulness and force in the moral treatises of theologians. The celebrated school, known as the Salmanticeases, or Carmelites of Salamanca lays down the broad proposition that conscience is ever to be obeyed, whether it tells truly or erroneously [citing St. Thomas and two dozen others] [….]” (Newman, from a “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk,” in Vincent Ferrer Blehl [ed.], “The Essential Newman,” Mentor Omega, 1963, pp. 270-271).
SECOND, “Dignitatis Humanae” affirms “freedom from coercion;” it does NOT affirm subjective decisions in place of moral judgments by conscience, nor excuse failure to seek the truth. This sampling from two of the other interrelated Documents:
[….] “Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said of a man who cares but little for truth and goodness […] (Gaudium et Spes, n. 16). “Therefore, if methodical investigation within every branch of learning is carried out in a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms […]” (ibid., n. 36). “For we are tempted to think that our personal rights are fully ensured only when we are exempt from every requirement of divine law. But this way lies not the maintenance of the dignity of the human person, but its annihilation” (ibid., n. 41). “…the Council wishes to recall first of all the permanent binding force [!] of universal natural law and its all-embracing principles […]” (ibid., n. 79).
For an INSIDE VIEW of the Second Vatican Council—and demonstrating space for collegial attention to strengths and weaknesses of the Documents—here’s the LINK to a 2006 assessment of Pope Benedict’s involvement and thoughts… https://firstthings.com/from-ratzinger-to-benedict/ Benedict affirms “continuity” (rather than discontinuity), but in some writings after 2006 coined the still similar term “discontinuity within continuity.”
SUMMARY: The purpose of the Council—ressourcement and aggiornamento—was for the perennial Catholic Church, in the world, to be not so easily sidelined as a kind of Amish remnant writ large.
Like Tradition, institutional memory and precision are also vastly underrated…
“But how to DIALOGUE across the table with those who are subjectively convinced that they are the Church (the remnant) while the Church in Rome is the one in schism?”
The answer: The same way you dialogue with the Orthodox and some of the Protestant confessions, which fit the exact scenario presented by the question.
Particularly, the Orthodox believe that they are the true church, while Rome is the one in schism. If you don’t believe that, just ask an Orthodox cleric. Yet the Vatican has been dialoguing with such groups for decades.
If the Vatican can dialogue with the schismatic, pro-abortion, communist controlled Patriotic Association of China, what could possibly… repeat, possibly… be the rationale for the lack of ability to dialogue with members of the SSPX?
Are people unaware that the U.S. bishops, back in the 1980s, had communist priests ministering in their parishes, particularly in the New York area? This fact was exposed by The Wanderer and the Kung Foundation decades ago.
Those priests were illicitly ordained and belonged to a communist controlled, proabortion, schismatic organization. It’s an historical, demonstrable fact. Perhaps people are just ill-informed or maybe too young to know these things?
“… the rationale for the lack of ability to dialogue with members of the SSPX?”
That dialogue has been going on for decades. Seriously.
Carl, can you have dialogue with people you refuse to meet personally? We have Popes going into protestant cathedrals and mosques. Is it too much for Leo to go to Econe and meet with the head of SSPX?
“That dialogue has been going on for decades. Seriously.”
I was talking about the current situation. If Pope Leo can personally sit down with James Martin SJ, why can he not personally meet with the leaders of the SSPX?
Popes have met with the leaders of the Anglican communion, the various Orthodox churches, et cetera. They have committees and meetings with them, and have had many for years.
The SSPX constitutes a larger group than some of the sui iuris churches that comprise the Catholic Church. Can anyone imagine the pope excommunicating an entire church without even meeting personally with its leading prelates?
Your critique my question: “But how to DIALOGUE across the table with those who are subjectively convinced that they are the Church (the remnant) while the Church in Rome is the one in schism?”
My simple point is, when dealing with two different worldviews (whether valid or not) is to choose your words very carefully. Thank you for sharing.
We might be reminded of that great line in “The Sum of All Fears” (2002) where CIA Director Morgan Freeman instructs a mere technical writer (Ben Afleck) when entering a Senate Hearing in a subterranean chamber: “Choose your words carefully, words have a way of becoming policy.”
“But how to DIALOGUE across the table with those who are subjectively convinced that they are the Church (the remnant) while the Church in Rome is the one in schism?”
There is a principle of pharmacology that oral medicines should be slightly unpleasant, so as not to induce consumption for any reason other than prescribed reasons, so maybe the “medicine” here should have an unpleasant taste.
However, it seems a little more bitter than necessary given the other actions. If Leo could extend himself and extraordinary courtesies to Mullaly, whose obstinate heresy and invalidity is indisputable, then why not these folks? His reward for meeting with this woman? She complained about not ordaining women.
And let’s park part of the blame where it belongs. Whereas Benedict accommodated the “TLM” in Summorum Pontificum (aa well as will the Anglican Liturgy for the Ordinariate) was building bridges, rather than walls (who said you shouldn’t build walls?).
But rather than be content, Francis decided to “make a mess” with TC. With the distinct possibility that Francis ‘built a case in his head” -and the language certainly it makes seems that way since he seems to haves speculated on attendees dispositions and motives, it’s reasonable might have contributed to this.
Errata:
“as well the Anglican Liturgy”
There was a time in the Catholic Church that the act of excommunication meant something. No more.
Those who rail against SSPX accuse them of wanting to live in pre-Vatican II times. The fact is that nothing is more pre-Vatican II than threatening to excommunicate members of the Church.
You’re a protestant with incense if you believe that.
Do you even comprehend what I’ve written? Doubtful.
If the act of excommunication means nothing to SSPX members, then what are they seeking to restore?
If the act of excommunication means something to SSPX members, then what are they seeking to restore?
Having disobeyed decades of Popes, they have essentially made themselves a church of popes. [For what it is worth, I tried being my own pope. Pope Fool was a disaster.]
Why not repent and accept the authority of Pope Leo? How could obedience hurt SSPX members? Was not Our Lord obedient unto death on a Cross? (Philippians 2:8)
The real story here is all the liars who said the SSPX were schismatics before a few days ago. Those are public sins of calumny that haven’t been publicly repented of. No journalists, Vaticanistas, so-called pastors of souls, etc are issuing mea culpas for calling the only recently excommunicated bishops schismatic over the past weeks, months, and years. No, the DDF just now excommunicated them and declared schism. So by logic, they were not schismatics a few days ago. This is not minor. We are talking about people who claim the authority to speak on behalf of the Church, people who want us to listen to them and trust them. No, if you can’t even speak plainly about whether a whole society of priests is schismatic, don’t peddle your garbage analysis. I’d rather ask an eight year old about his favorite cartoon than subscribe and possible purchase your writing.
Actually, if you were more interested in sober analysis than wildly accusing your fellow Catholics, you would understand that JPII already implicitly declared them in schism.
But if they were in schism, then their sacraments of marriage and confession are valid. The Orthodox are in schism, but their marriages and confessions are valid. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the people affiliated with the SSPX are in schism, which means their marriages and absolutions are VALID, or their marriages and confessions are INVALID because they are still Catholic and NOT in schism.
Canon law applies only to Catholics. A person who is not Catholic is not bound by canon law; therefore, their sacraments would be valid in the same way that the Orthodox sacraments of marriage and confession are valid.
“These churches (note: speaking of the eastern schismatic churches), although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 15)
If the SSPX has been its own church due to its “schism,” then their sacraments, all of them, are valid. Ironically, that is the teaching of Vatican II.
If the Orthodox, who deny Catholic dogma, are “linked with us in closest intimacy,” then the SSPX, who don’t deny Catholic dogma, are even more closely linked with us.
OR perhaps the SSPX is not schismatic at all.
In any event, Vatican II teaches that they are “linked with us in closest intimacy.”
If you were sane, you wouldn’t invent states such as “implicitly declared”.
Dear “If IDF…”: You are 100% correct.
If the Vatican declared SSPX schismatic after the point when they consecrated four bishops, then they could not logically have been schismatic BEFORE the consecrations. Only if this is true can excommunication of them have any meaning.
If the SSPX WERE schismatic BEFORE the consecrations, the Vatican’s declaration is redundant, unnecessary, vindictive and simply political theatre.
But then again we’ve come to expect no more than this from a morally bankrupt hierarchy.
“If the Vatican declared SSPX schismatic after the point when they consecrated four bishops, then they could not logically have been schismatic BEFORE the consecrations.” That’s not correct. The declaration could merely be making explicit and precisely-defined what was only implicit and vaguely understood before. “If the SSPX WERE schismatic BEFORE the consecrations, the Vatican’s declaration is redundant, unnecessary, vindictive and simply political theatre.” Specious reasoning. If the SSPX were NOT in schism BEFORE the consecrations, they would have asked the pope’s permission to consecrate the bishops and would have accepted his denial instead of defying it. They would never have issued what amounted to an ultimatum announcing that they were going to consecrate new bishops whether he liked it or not and daring him to oppose them. If the SSPX were NOT in schism before the consecrations, how is it that Traditionis Custodes never applied to the SSPX? How is it that Pope Francis never issued to them any direct orders about how and for whom SSPX was allowed to offer the older mass?
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos said it was “not a real schism”. The fact that the SSPX dossier was handled by the Ecclesia Dei Commission along with other Catholic congregations is proof of that
Perhaps not technically, but they were in an impaired state of communion. Moreover, you can’t deny their schismatic intent when they were literally planning 4 episcopal consecrations without apostolic mandate months (maybe years) before July 1st (they were even selling commemorative wine to “celebrate” the event in the lead up to the consecrations). Not only did they intend to do this but they were revelling in it. If that ain’t schism, I don’t know what is!
“literally planning 4 episcopal consecrations without apostolic mandate months”
You do understand that this (may be) a relative novelty, correct?
I haven’t corroborated this from an independent source, but on a podcast I watched, it was asserted that the papal mandate only became “de rigeur” during the 1950’s after the Chinese Communists started directing consecrations to infiltrators.
So now, the Vatican conceded this point to Beijing and the principle is being used against people who are not communist infiltrators. Worse it was a secret concordat the Vatican signed with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2018, giving Beijing a say in the appointment of Catholic bishops in China—a concordat regularly violated by Beijing in its continuing persecution of Catholics and its unilateral appointments of some Catholic bishops. in 2024, the Hudson Institute published an article about ten persecuted Catholic Bishops.
Is the SSPX worse than the Chinese Communist Party?
To plan evil is as wrong as doing it.
Proverbs 24:8
Major Archbishops (aka Patriarchs) of the 23 Eastern Rite Catholic Churches also consecrate their bishops without the approval of the Roman Rite Catholic Pope. The Major Archbishops also disagree and probably dismiss with (most likely disdaining) the declaration of the Roman Catholic Church’s Fiducia Supplicans by Pope Francis I. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church’s authority has become too political and too worldly. It has become very pharisaical.
Excommunicating the priests who belong to SSIX, excommunicating their sacraments and laity is evil to the souls who belong in Christ’s Church.
EMP: The comparison is misleading. While an Eastern Catholic patriarch does not ordinarily require a papal mandate to consecrate a bishop within his patriarchal territory, the candidates are not chosen independently of Rome.
Under the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches a candidate must either be on a list of candidates previously approved by the Pope or, if not on that list, the patriarch must first obtain the Pope’s assent before the synod can validly proceed.
So it is simply inaccurate to suggest that Eastern patriarchs can freely appoint bishops without papal involvement.
I’m going to be honest…the more I interact with SSPX defenders on-line the more I see how weak and half-baked their arguments are. Whataboutism writ large! Oh sorry, I should use the Latin…look up tu quoque fallacy.
EMP, your statement is completely misleading. The 23 Eastern Churches will select their priests for episcopal appointments for their sui iuris Church’s eparchies, but they still formally ask Rome for permission before consecration. To do so otherwise is an act of schism, and would separate them from the Catholic Church, which isn’t just “Roman”. It’s Greek, Coptic, Alexandrian and Eritrean.
Also, unlike the 23 Eastern Churches, the SSPX isn’t a sui iuris particular Church with its own liturgical laws and heritage. They are nothing but a mere speck of rogue group of schismatic bishops and priests who lack communion and canonical standing. Few but loud.
Eastern Churches are governed by a separate code of Canon Law, which means that Fiducia doesn’t necessarily apply to them if they so wish.
Ok, I retract a portion of what I wrote earlier. Some Eastern Churches don’t need the papal mandate. But it applies to all bishops in the Roman Church. You can’t equate what the SSPX did (which was schismatic) to some of the Eastern Churches who are merely doing what Rome allows them to do.
An stupid choice of words by me in my comment above. I should have used the word “troubling”, not “evil”. Mea culpa.
I don’t agree with the SSPX (even though I’m deeply troubled by the double standard whereby Catholic officialdom often tolerates, and even promotes, dissent from the left while responding much more harshly to dissent from the right). Nevertheless, I think we need to retire the juvenile habit of calling the SSPX “Protestant” because of its complex dispute with the Holy See.
Protestantism is a distinct theological tradition, generally characterized by principles such as the Five Solas. The SSPX professes the Catholic faith and accepts Catholic doctrine. Calling them “Protestant” is no more accurate than calling the Eastern Orthodox “Protestant” simply because they are not in communion with the Pope. It is inaccurate, uncharitable, and ultimately unhelpful.
I would also add that referring to the SSPX as “Lefebvrists,” as the Vatican News Service has done, is similarly petty and needlessly polemical.
If we are serious about addressing the Church’s present crisis, we should begin by recommitting ourselves to personal holiness, charity, and intellectual honesty. Precision in our language and charity toward those with whom we disagree is how we treat brothers and sisters in Christ.
Hear, hear!
If you want to find out how much charity you really have, look at the group you personally treat the worst, not the ones you think are typically treated badly by the rest of society.
Of course, your last paragraph needs to start at the top, and at the seminaries
Edward: Schism and heresy are two different things. Both are serious, but they are distinct. In the same way, murder and adultery are different sins—both are grave, but one is not the other.
Is the SSPX heretical? Probably not.
Is it schismatic? That is the relevant question, and yes they are because Peter says so.
So pointing out that the SSPX does not teach heresy is not, by itself, a defence against the charge of schism. It’s like responding to an accusation of adultery by saying, “I’m not a murderer.” That may be true, but it doesn’t address the actual issue under discussion.
That said, I do think the SSPX’s position comes very close to undermining a core Catholic doctrine: the indefectibility of the Church. My reasoning, in a nutshell, is this:
– The SSPX acknowledges every Pope since Vatican II as the legitimate Successor of St. Peter.
– At the same time, it argues that these Popes have consistently taught doctrines harmful to the faith and have promulgated a liturgy that is not merely deficient, but positively dangerous to Catholic belief.
– It also maintains that the overwhelming majority of the world’s bishops have followed these Popes into grave error.
*- If that were true, it would mean that the Church, under her legitimate pastors, had effectively failed in her mission of faithfully preserving and handing on the deposit of faith.
– But Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and that He would remain with her always. – – The Catholic doctrine of indefectibility means that the Church cannot universally defect from the faith or officially bind the faithful to something intrinsically harmful to the salvation of souls.
That is why I believe the SSPX’s position is internally inconsistent. If the Popes since Vatican II are truly legitimate, then the conclusion that the universal Church has officially embraced doctrinal error and an evil liturgy is incompatible with the Church’s indefectibility. If one accepts Christ’s promises to His Church, those two propositions cannot both be true.
This is reflected in the advice often given within the SSPX to avoid the Novus Ordo. But they go further than that! Many of its clergy discourage attendance at approved diocesan TLM’s, FSSP Masses, Eastern Catholic liturgies. They even advise the faithful to stay home rather than attend these liturgies. Why? Because they believe that virtually the entire Church has been corrupted and that the faith is preserved only within their own chapels.
But if that were true, then Christ would have abandoned His Church for decades, leaving the faithful without trustworthy pastors, sacraments, or public worship throughout almost the entire Catholic world. That is fundamentally incompatible with the Catholic doctrine of the Church’s indefectibility. In my view, that is where the SSPX comes perilously close to denying a truth that Catholics are bound to believe.
In one respect, the sedevacantist position is at least more internally consistent (in this instance only). If one truly believes that the post-conciliar Popes have universally taught error and imposed an evil liturgy, then concluding that they were never true Popes follows more logically than claiming they were legitimate Popes who nevertheless led the entire Church into error.
But sedevacantism ultimately collapses under its own weight. The Church has established no mechanism by which private individuals can declare the Apostolic See vacant. Such a judgment belongs to the Church’s competent authority, not to self-appointed clerics or laymen—particularly those whose priestly/episcopal claims often rest on highly dubious lines of succession. More fundamentally, sedevacantism offers no credible path forward. If there is no Pope and no universally recognized College of Cardinals capable of electing one, how is the vacancy ever resolved? Who possesses the authority to restore the hierarchy? The position becomes a theological cul-de-sac, offering no coherent means for the Church to continue her visible and apostolic mission. In the end, it is a recipe for perpetual division, despair, and ecclesiological ruin.
Don’t worry about what the libs or the trads teach. Pursue personal holiness and stick with the Catholic faith taught by the Holy Father. It’s all there in the Catechism!
The Pope excommunicated St. Athanasius. St. Joan of Arc was excommunicated by a bishop. Padre Pio was barred from public Mass and hearing Confessions.
The prudential, disciplinary, and legal acts of Popes are not infallible, and at no point has the Church claimed that they are. Nor are the acts of Cardinals employed in the Curia infallible.
If the Church’s discipline can err in regard to Saints, it’s not that big a stretch to say it can err in regard to the SSPX. Failure to admit this point really doesn’t help the case against the SSPX, it just indicates a lack of understanding of the messiness of Church history.
The defense against the accusation of schism is that the SSPX acknowledges Pope Leo as Pope both in their public statements and in the Mass, does not claim any territorial jurisdiction, has not attempted to excommunicate the Pope or anyine else, and have not denied the Sacraments to Catholics who have not received initiation Rites from them. All things other schismatics have done and continue to do. Their arguments are primarily pastoral.
If a family has 10 children, and 8 of them leave their family and ruin their lives, 3 of them disowning their family, with 1 of the remaining children embracing falsehood without leaving, would you believe the parents saying they provided everything necessary for healthy adult life? Would you believe thousands of such families?
So far as I am aware, the SSPX holds that the NO is in itself valid and free of heresy, but that it, and the teaching provided to the faithful and priests at these parishes, are so deficient as to cause substantial harm and often invalid Sacraments. I think they are overly rigorous and should be corrected specifically and formally. I think that is somewhat less of a problem than the problems that have resulted in the loss of the overwhelming majority of cradle Catholics from Mass attendance and self-identifying as Catholic. The indefectability of the Church does not promise the preservation of every parish and diocese, or even most.
That said, the Church’s fallible acts are still binding, so I will not be assisting at or receiving any of the Sacraments from the 6 excommunicated bishops.
Amanda: A question…
If you were in a state of grevious sin and in imminent danger of death, would you seek absolution from an SSPX priest if no Catholic priest were available?
Under those circumstances, absolutely. That also holds for the excommunicated bishops, and also Orthodox Christian bishops and priests. Canon law explicitly allows for this.
Even without the imminent danger of death, I would seek absolution from an SSPX priest if there was no one else available for a significant time and I was in mortal sin, because the priests have not been declared excommunicate, and I am not responsible for judging them where the Vatican has not.
I don’t feel the SSPX are part of the gates of hell trying to prevail against the church; they are actually serious about the Catholic faith though.
Dreadful anti-intellectual article.
The rights of conscience and natural justice invalidate the so-called ‘excommunications’.
Unjust papal law from prevost means his command is not required by God.
This is because unjust law is no law at all.
“Dreadful anti-intellectual article.”
Huh? It’s a new report.
Hi Carl, we met years ago in Portland OR at Holy Rosary CC, you were promoting your first book. I’ve come a long, long way.
The central problem is Nostra Aetate. Last month, the bishops are collaborating with Jewish power to criminalize what they deem to be “antisemitism.” I claim that Jews secretly spy on everyone who “criticizes” Zionism and more.
“News Blackout: Organizers Lobby to Codify Jewish Definitions of Antisemitic Hate Speech
Important Historic Warnings from E. Michael Jones, Carrie Prejean Boller. Thirty-six States Codify Jewish Definition of Antisemitism. Plus, Catholic testifies against Ohio’s SB-87.”
https://ahiddenhistory.substack.com/p/new-blackout-organizers-lobby-to
Schisms rarely begin with bad intentions. More often, they begin with sincere convictions that gradually harden into positions from which reconciliation becomes increasingly difficult. Having followed the development of the SSPX since 2008, I believe several genuine opportunities for reconciliation—especially during the pontificates of Benedict XVI and Francis—were ultimately missed.
There is also an important distinction that deserves to be preserved: one can be profoundly attached to the Church’s Tradition without embracing a traditionalist ideology. Authentic Tradition is a living transmission within the Church; ideology, by contrast, tends to absolutize one historical expression until it becomes the criterion by which the Church herself is judged.
Perhaps one lesson from this painful history is that the Holy See could eventually offer something more than disciplinary measures or general appeals. The Italian Dominican theologian Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli, OP, has suggested that what is really needed is a comprehensive doctrinal examination of the SSPX’s principal positions, carefully distinguishing legitimate theological concerns from objective doctrinal errors, proposition by proposition, in the great tradition of the Church.
Such a document would not merely settle canonical questions; it would illuminate consciences. The Church has always overcome doctrinal crises not primarily through slogans or mutual accusations, but through the patient work of theological clarification. Truth and charity are never rivals. Indeed, only truth makes authentic reconciliation possible.
Let us continue to pray that this painful wound may one day be healed in full communion.
Perhaps the Vatican and SSPX can refrain, in future, from putting off the assignment until the night before it is due.
Fair point! It certainly feels like chronic procrastination from the outside.
But the reason this “assignment” takes decades is that it isn’t a isolated bureaucratic issue; it is tangled up with the massive crisis shaking the Church. For decades, especially in Europe, we have witnessed a steady decline in practice, countless defections, and an uncontrolled spread of various heresies. We see a deepening conflict between “rigid traditionalists” and “modernists,” alongside the rise of secularist and politicized misinterpretations of Vatican II. Some have even used the “spirit of the Council” as a pretext for rebellion against legitimate Pastors, leading to a modern return of modernism—phenomena the Holy See has already repeatedly warned against.
With all this, we must still recognize that Vatican II has borne good fruit. Our duty as Catholics who love the Church is to embrace those positive fruits while living our faith coherently. In this fragile situation, our part is to maintain communion with the Pope, who receives from Christ the supreme responsibility to hold the Church together and pacify conflicts.
When the stakes are this high, what looks like “putting off the assignment” is actually the agonizingly slow work of theological discernment. Rushing into a superficial canonical fix without healing these deep, structural doctrinal wounds would be catastrophic.
“In this spirit, and filled with Christian affection, I plead with you and ask you with all my heart: Please turn back,”
Nothing like this in his letter to Sarah Mullaly.
Help me out. The Chinese Communist Party selected their bishops and the Vatican rubber stamped these with a smile. Was is the SSPX excommunicated for picking bishops? Seems like standard operating procedure. Surely the modernists don’t operate with two sets of rules;? When the Holy Father and the Curia address the evil in the house then I will take them seriously. Been many years of anti-traditional emphasis. Germany does what ever they feel and crickets.
As Dave Hester used to proclaim at those storage war auctions, “yupppppppp!!”
For the love of Christ come back to the one catholic apostolic Church. All this bickering and excuses are wasted. One Christ, one Body of Christ, ONE CHURCH for all eternity. Pride, arrogance and refusal, I will and I want, The Church has all the truth and faith, and the Vicar of Christ Jesus. When we hear about China choosing bishops by the communist power regime and here they demand they can deviate from the Churches teaching and constantly slander and condemn the Church and the Holy Pope Leo IV. OBEDIENCE and HUMILITY is unknown to them. It’s my will and what I want, not God’s holy will. I checked it out years ago and found arrogance and contempt, no truth, no love. The Holy Spirit is painfully missing among them.
AN ACT OF CONSECRATION TO THE HOLY SPIRIT:
Holy Spirit, divine Spirit of light and love, I consecrate to You my understanding, my heart and my will, my whole being for time and for eternity.
May my understanding be always submissive to Your heavenly inspirations and to the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, of which You are the infallible Guide.
May my heart be ever inflamed with love of God and of my neighbor; may my will be ever conformed to the divine will, and may my whole life be a faithful imitation of the life and virtues of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and You, Holy Spirit, be honor and glory forever Amen (St. Pius X)
“Even though incorporated into the Church, one. who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church but ‘in body’ not in ‘heart’. (CCC837) GOD IS LOVE, without love, you cannot enter his kingdom.
Christ Jesus gave himself up in obedience and love and He says: FOLLOW ME.
I don’t believe it will be for all eternity, since both heaven and earth will pass away, but His Word will not?
Regardless of what one things of the SSPX or the justifications they have proffered for these illicit consecrations, one can regret that Pope Leo seems not to have acted with the same paternal instinct that Pope Benedict had, when he wrote in 2007, “Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.” It is very striking that, unlike in 1988, this time around Rome has reacted only with very harsh penalties and has not offered any real lifeboat. In 1988, even if “Ecclesia Dei” was not perfect, we at least had the establishment of TLM-only communities approved by Rome and the Holy Father encouraging bishops to make “wide and generous” provision of the traditional liturgy. Now, however, SSPX priests are simply being told to join a diocese, rather than being offered the possibility of establishing a new community; the pope has not appealed to bishops to make the TLM widely available; “Traditionis custodes” and even the subsequent Roche rescripts remain on the books in all their antogonistic horror, and TLMs continue to be cancelled since Leo has not indicated a change in policy, so bishops are just letting the extensions from 2 years ago expire, without asking to extend them. The result is that people are being told in no uncertain terms to leave the SSPX but are not really being given anywhere to go. Two things can be true at the same time: we can disagree with the SSPX consecrations but also think the Holy See has mismanaged the whole affair and bears a very grave moral responsibility for the rift. Tucho sure ain’t no Ratzinger. The of course there is the hypocrisy of canonical lawfare: nuclear option for the SSPX but Cardinal Radcliffe and James Martin and the German bishops keep undermining the doctrinal unity of the Church, and the bishop of Fresno receives no sanction at all for participating actively in the ordination of an Episcopalian “bishop.” Even those not sympathetic to the SSPX or traditionalism more generally have noted and deplored this hypocrisy.
We can certainly hope and pray that Rome will figure out how to restore Summorum Pontificum and the Ecclesia Dei commission sooner rather than later. It doesn’t exactly require a lot of ingenuity.
Otherwise, perhaps the Eastern Catholic Churches can increase their numbers.
I can understand excommunication of the new Bishops and clergy, but I wonder if excommunication of the laity, especially the young people is wise? We might want to make it easier for them to return.
Anyone who formally adheres to the SSPX (now the Lefebvrians) is to be considered schismatic and excommunicated, from what I heard. That means the bishops, priests, and anyone who continues to attend Lefevbrian masses and support their parallel church despite everything that has just happened over the past 48 hours.
I suggest that the laity and especially the young people had better get the hell out of there.
Overreaction; do we really want to boot more people out of Catholicism?
Canon lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray explains that the excommunication of laity (made by DDF Prefect’s Explanatory Note) has no legal effect. There is no specificity given. The mind cannot be judged. Acts can be. The DDF Prefect Explanatory Note does not specify what acts prove formal schism, so no legal schism can be declared against the laity.
He says this early in the video but repeats it later too.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Posse%20Raymond%20Arroyo&mid=2D32CF2D29BC5B5456622D32CF2D29BC5B545662&ajaxhist=0
Laity can incur latae sententiae for abortion with many legal effects.
I haven’t seen the video you’ve posted. Fr. Murray is very good as a rule in these kinds of matters, I believe; but if DDF is saying something, it is indicating what follows through and so laity should really be advised in that strain.
Imagine a bishop has incurred latae sententiae: should laity adhere to the teaching or activity that brought the result, they imperil themselves too and quench the Spirit, which are the very things from which “legal effect” is meant to spare them.
They are automatically excommunicated if they have committed schism – not if they merely attend SSPX Masses because they are the only available TLM, or the only available Mass that doesn’t involve heretical homilies.
The right way to approach this is, it is a wrong thing and a gaping wound beyond the competence of the ordinary laity, their piety and penance.
SSPX are declaring they have paved a way for the wayward Germans and the Mullallys. What SSPX is doing is open and available to anyone to do.
Most pieces on this subject lack a basic critical analysis to see that what many people are claiming happened, did not. 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.”
We read: “All this confirms that this is not about following canon law, disobedience, or even papal authority…” The following comment is a genuine question and not a retort…
Is the excommunication less a rejection of what’s traditional than it is a response to SSPX’s own (alleged/real?) rejection of the cobbled-together but not fatally flawed Documents of the Second Vatican Council: SSPX’s full rejection of ambiguous but isolated lines on ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, and Dignitatis Humanae? What yours truly (a non-credentialed observer from the back bleachers) proposes is a tragic misreading of the interrelated (!) Documents taken as a whole?
Is the explicit action of consecration an inseparable and unambiguous expression of a red-line rejection of the Council itself? The last straw on the camel’s back?
I have been unable to figure out why a disobedient consecration of bishops is considered to be schismatic in this case, when it is not considered so in most other recent cases. Consecrating bishops is not de facto schismatic, even when done in disobedience, and the SSPX has repeatedly affirmed their acknowledgement of Papal authority, which I have never heard in connection with other schisms. The Eastern Orthodox bishops attempted to excommunicate the Pope. The Old Catholics were appointing their own bishops for over a century before they formally rejected the *ex cathedra dogmatic definitions* of papal authority in Vatican 1, left the Church, adhered in part to the Anglican church, and were considered separated. The SSPX also do not reject any dogmatic definition, and object to statements of Vatican 2 which are widely interpreted contrary to Scripture and Tradition, and for which the level of authority has never been made clear.
Rome could mend an awful lot of this problem by publicly clarifying allowable and unallowable interpretations of Vatican 2. What should we think of a father who prefers to disown his son then to explain his commands?
I should add, both the Orthodox Christians and the Old Catholics claimed jurisdiction for their bishops, that is, they had territorial dioceses, they could delegate their authority to administer Sacraments, etc. The SSPX does not do this, does not claim this, and never has.
“”What should we think of a father who prefers to disown his son then to explain his commands?””
But treats an illegitimate harlot with the utmost courtesy?
Just to be clear, I mean the buck-toothed Sarah, not the Pachamama.
I wonder if Father Prevost every confessed his (appearance of) idolatry?
Since 2013 “Is the Pope Catholic” is no longer the rejoinder of the obvious, but question begging for a serious inquiry.
As I understand it, the SSPX’s rejection of those few lines in Vatican 2 stems from the interpretation of those lines by the Popes and bishops of the Church since the Council, in word and deed and discipline. It is not merely their own misreading causing the problem.
Given the Church has never seen fit to publicly clarify which interpretations are allowed and which are not, it is somewhat difficult to say what, exactly, the SSPX refuses to agree with for reconciliation’s sake. Rome elected to make their eventual clarification of the minimum required to be considered to accept Vatican 2, at some indefinite future date, dependent on the SSPX indefinitely postponing their consecrations. The SSPX had an expiration date on its bishops, and Rome would have benefited from delaying as long as possible.
The SSPX rejected the delay. But I know of no reason for the Pope to avoid clarifying, when clarifying doctrine is an central aspect of his job, given him for the good of the souls under his care. For their good, and not for the purpose of constraining them in negotiations.
We read: “Given the Church has never seen fit to publicly clarify which interpretations are allowed and which are not….”
After twenty years of fermentation, the Church convened the very clarifying “1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops” expressly to “avoid divergent interpretations” of the Council. This was three years before Lefebvre was excommunicated (1988). One of the several synod (a real synod!) suggestions was “a new diffusion of the Documents themselves”–a polite appeal for at least a minimum of functional literacy. And, one “fruit of the Council” was the synod request for a Catechism (oh, yeh, forgot about that thing!) which, after years of enormous circulation and collaboration and resistance against the termites, was completed and published in 1992 (in English 1994).
And, even prior to 1985, as part of the Council’s voted “Lumen Gentium” in 1965 (!), Pope Paul VI and the International Theological Commission clarified Chapter 3 on collegiality with the three-page “Prefatory Note”, addressing subtle ambiguities which–it was spilled in a theological journal by a termite–were to be exploited later after the Council adjourned.
The rest is history. The SSPX schism has been simmering for 38 years.
Why does your lofty, unsolicited and uninformed puffery, now tutoring Pope Leo XIV (in your final paragraph)–after the above and other clarifications (e.g., Veritatis Splendor, 1993) and after Popes Paul VI, John Paul I and II, and Benedict XVI–sound so ludicrous?
Yes, there’s a problem of dissent within the Church, and now it wears two shoes, left and right.
You would think, if the left wing interpretation of Vatican 2 is so clearly and authoritatively condemned in the documents mentioned, that there would have been excommunications of bishops for heresy by now – or at least public recantations. The Church teaches interpretation by Ordinary Magisterium of the bishops. Continued neglect of declaring their statements to not be in union with the Pope seems to fall into the “silence gives assent” category. The CCC is also Ordinary Magisterium, not Extraordinary, and it does not condemn alternative interpretations.
The Synod report by Group #9 remains published and uncorrected. An archbishop was in the group, and signed it. One example of many. If we are to listen to what is said at the level of Ordinary Magisterium, it would seem that anything goes.
Requiring SSPX priests to find a bishop who is willing to take them on trial and then incardinate them within 3 years, in order to be reconciled to the Church, is a recipe for none being able to do it.
Bishops have been removed for being overly sympathetic to trads. No alteration in the law or practice in Rome thus far will be sufficient to overcome that.
Cardinal Mueller suggested a restoration of Ecclesia Dei. Others have suggested revoking TC. Nothing has been done, and the topic has been repeatedly removed from bishops’ consistories. Quietly suggesting laxity in the application of TC is certainly not going to change hearts and minds sufficiently to get bishops to welcome SSPX priests into their diocese.
The Church has bigger fish to fry than traditionalists. If you could get my kids and nieces and nephews to come back via that SSPX that would be a relief to me – at least they’d be back in the church!
We should have done this or that for them; does not matter, because the hard core leadership trains people in parishes like warriors, to recruit people out of the parishes, fully indoctrinated; I am living this every day. They declare the Church for dead even decapitated of the Head, and other those things. Sometimes we are visited to check us out and the whole family skipped communion because, oh horror, we have Eucharistic ministers. The Church can detain or free. The SSPX declares the Church invalid and dead. It is about JESUS CHRIST who says Love one another as I have loved you. SSPX will never compromise, they declare themselves the only holy remnants. May the Lord Jesus have mercy on them all.
The Protestant Revolution occurred in large part due to the corrupt clergy who were selling indulgences, among other things. Rome had very helpfully banned that more than a century before, but it wasn’t enforced. Scandal was widespread.
In America, before Vatican 2, many, if not most, Eastern Churches became Eastern Orthodox. This was because Rome would not let them have married priests in Latin territories, and there weren’t enough unmarried priests to go around. By and large their response to being effectively denied the Sacraments in their Rite by the Latin Church, was *not* to join the local Latin Church.
The question is less who should compromise, and more what we should compromise on. The authority of the Pope, in infallible extraordinary Magisterium, in Ordinary Magisterium as he follows Scripture and Tradition, and in his fallible acts of governance, cannot be denied. His prudential exercise of power can be adjusted to be more palatable. And I expect so can extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, given they are only supposed to be used when necessary anyway, by exception. The full symbolism is to receive Christ, at the altar on which Christ was offered (altar rails) from a priest standing in the person of Christ.
My suggestions were not for what the Pope should have done, but for what he should do in order to reconcile as many people as possible. I assume most people, yourself included, want to have those attached to the SSPX reconciled, more than to be free of the irritations of being around people who are very different from you.
If you truly believe they are indoctrinated, I suggest asking them why they believe various things – kindly and patiently. That is the typical method of getting people out from the influence of a cult, and the SSPX is not so bad as that.
If they are visiting to check you out, they don’t think your Mass is invalid. The Sunday obligation doesn’t bind if no valid Catholic Mass is available, and traditionally, Catholics don’t go to invalid Masses or non-Catholic services except for necessary things like weddings and funerals.
I’ve been to a couple non Christian weddings and funerals and am not impressed.
with all this chat about schism and excommunication the Catholic Church has ingested a protestant bacterium.
the Universal church is becoming a curtain twitching old maid looking for the mote in the eye of others.
expected better of this papacy, plainly the pearl clutching «old guard» is still active.
Vatican II was the completion of Vatican I, which was interrupted by WWI. If you’re looking for dogmas, look into Vatican I.
Vatican I (1868-1870) was interrupted in 1870 by the Italian Army overtaking of the Papal states. The Franco-Prussian War was also in effect, and both these events delayed the reconvening of the council. WWI occurred in 1914-18.
Hypocrisy and irony…
Chinese choosing their own bishops,
Jimmy Martin’s ministry,
The out of control Synodaler Weg,
Other examples previously cited…
In the early 1960’s Saint Padre Pio warned that Satan had entered the bosom of the church. Fast forward to 2026, with all of the hypocrisy and irony clearly evident, Satan and his demons within the Body of Christ are not even trying to hide their actions any longer. The observable to all hypocrisy and irony go unaddressed by Rome. This is deliberate.
IMHO, Rome could declare that SSPX did in fact have an emergency and by Canon Law, addressed it as such. But as I understand it, Rome has refused to meet with SSPX to discuss the issue(s). One could argue that by refusing to meet with SSPX, Rome has created this crisis or certainly exacerbated it. Amanda’s elegant arguement is poignant. To wit: “What should we think of a father who prefers to disown a son then to explain his commands?”
Shame on Rome for cowardice and maliciousness. What disappoints me much is the absence of wisdom, charity and collegiality on the part of Rome. But no, Rome goes straight for the nuclear option regarding the SSPX. I expect more from Rome than this.
There remains the possibility that Rome has explained itself clearly to the SSPX leadership in private. One would think, if they want the priests and laity to leave the SSPX, that they would also explain clearly to them.
A public explanation would also be heard by the rest of the Church, and there’s an awful lot of religious indifferentism there, and people who take offense at being told that the Catholic Church alone possesses the ordinary means of salvation, and those outside have only an unsure hope of salvation, and that unsure hope is only through the Church.
Benedict XVI
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2013/09/20/which-pope-said-we-should-not-allow-our-faith-to-be-drained-by-too-many-discussions-of-multiple-minor-details/
How it went for Benedict – 2011-2012:
‘ The Vatican’s statement also expressed “concern to avoid an ecclesial rupture of painful and incalculable consequences,” and said that Bishop Fellay “was invited to clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI.”
As of yet there has been no official statement from the SSPX on the Vatican’s response to their response. ‘
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2012/03/16/vatican-sspx-position-is-not-sufficient-to-overcome-doctrinal-problems-updated/
May the Almighty have Mercy on His poor suffering Church. I do not believe that the Beloved One of God will condemn anyone who Loves Him with their whole heart, their whole mind and their whole soul as best they are sincerely able given our fallen natures. A Teilhard infected Modernism has overtaken Rome – the evolution fantasy, the sympathy for Marxism. the unbelief in Hell, the indifferentism (a denial of Christ essentially), the affinity for homosexuality, the Globalism and climate change earth worship…. I don’t think the Mass of the Ages and Saints will be rejected by our Father God.
A good summary.