In second-century Phrygia, a group of spiritual Catholics—the Montanists—claimed a greater authority than the institutional Church. Montanus and his two prophetesses said they had new and direct revelations from God: The end was nigh, and the faithful were to prepare with more stringent spiritual and moral disciplines. They fell into conflict with the bishops and were eventually excommunicated.
Twelve hundred years later, in Italy, another spiritual group—the Fraticelli—began proclaiming that there were actually two churches. The first, they said, was a false church: the carnal church of Rome corrupted by the world. The second was the true church: a remnant of purified Franciscans still faithful to God. The Fraticelli denied the validity of the pope and the sacraments, electing their own bishops from among their number—leading to the pope’s condemnation of the movement.
There is nothing new under the sun, said Qoheleth, and another seven hundred years later, history seems to be repeating itself.
The Society of Saint Pius X (or the SSPX), a splinter group of traditionalists, recently consecrated four of its own bishops in Écône, Switzerland—despite a last-minute plea from Pope Leo XIV for the group to change course. The next day, the Vatican issued a decree declaring the bishops excommunicated and the group in schism—a decree the SSPX has since appealed. With this doubling down on episcopal consecrations (a similar situation happened in 1988), earlier efforts to draw the group back into the fold—the SSPX’s status had been “irregular,” not schismatic, and their Masses valid, if illicit—have broken down, possibly for good.
Of course, the SSPX’s particular resistance to the Catholic Church is, in some ways, unique to its own period of history. Central to the group’s formation and identity is a rejection of the Second Vatican Council—particularly its declarations on religious liberty and non-Christian religions—and of the new Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, commonly called the Novus Ordo. But beneath the group’s fixed adherence to preconciliar doctrines and the Traditional Latin Mass, we find, at bottom, the same pretension of spiritual purity that gripped both the Montanists and the Fraticelli—a turn “heavenward” at the expense of the Church’s life of earth.
Indeed, shortly after the SSPX’s unauthorized consecration, I stumbled on a Vespers sermon from Michael Goldade, one of the four men consecrated as bishop by the Society. And his message of two churches is one that the Fraticelli would have recognized and applauded:
If the Catholic Church in her tradition brings forth life, the modernist Church is a desert. It kills. It kills everything that it touches. It kills the supernatural life. It kills the sources of grace. It dries up everything—because it has placed man in the place of God, and therefore turned away from the sources of life. So this is a reminder today to be faithful.
When I saw the video, I recognized Goldade almost immediately: I had heard this same man preach fifteen years ago at an SSPX Mass—my first and only experience with the Society. At the time, I didn’t realize what the SSPX was; I was simply drawn in, as many still are to this day, by the promise of a more tradition-minded community. Instead, what I experienced there was an unsettling, self-conscious coldness—the sense that this church was a time machine to a preconciliar past and was supposed to feel that way. It felt set apart from the real life of the Church, with all its problems—but set apart not so much by holiness as by haughtiness.
We see in the SSPX’s sharp resistance to the modern and to change the particular character of their heavenward schism. The Society, like the Montanists and the Fraticelli before them, dream of a smaller, more spiritual, more purified Catholic community. But whereas the Montanists and Fraticelli fell into an apocalypticism looking ahead to the future, the Society falls into antiquarianism that looks back to the past—a fixation on what came before at the expense of the Church’s mission to evangelize the world as it is, here and now. It’s a reduction of tradition to a kind of static, untouchable objet d’art—a divine article sealed off from the messiness of historical development.
One Canadian layman in Écône was asked about the accusation that the SSPX is “stubborn,” and he responded, “We’re not the stubborn ones. . . . It seems almost paradoxical to say, ‘Well everyone else is stubborn except me.’ But that’s what’s going on.” He was then asked what he would say to Pope Leo if he could send him a message, and he responded: “The faith doesn’t change.” We see in this exchange how a good and healthy instinct rooted in Scripture—that the faith “was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3)—becomes dangerous when taken as a one-sided absolute.
Without the counter-truth of the Church “being transformed” in good and healthy ways (2 Cor. 3:18), stability not only becomes ossified but also isolated and confused about itself. The insight of Saint John Henry Newman remains apposite as ever: “In a higher world it is otherwise; but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.” The Church’s doctrines develop, and its expressions evolve—not because the faith is open-ended but because it’s incarnational, and not because we don’t deal with heavenly mysteries but because we do so on earth.
Will the SSPX—assuming they refuse to join the stubborn souls holding on to the barque of Peter—fade away? It seems unlikely as long as the equal and opposite tendency remains alive and well: the “earthward” error of endlessly adapting the Church to the world. Many Catholics do embrace innovation at the expense of Catholicism’s perennial teachings and stabilizing continuities.
We’ve seen this liturgically: In the period immediately following Vatican II, an informal and often experimental mindset became the norm. This led, at the extreme, to what Larry Chapp has called the “silly season” in the 1970s—from “clown Masses” to priests entering the church on a motorcycle (a real-life anecdote recalled by Bishop Barron). We’ve also seen it doctrinally: The Church, progressives have insisted, has to “get with the times,” especially on sexual matters—even if it means a reversal of Sacred Scripture and Tradition. The SSPX and radical traditionalism are best understood as a counterreaction to these subversive trends.
There are indications, however, that this “worldly” Catholicism (in the negative sense of the term) is already fading away. A 2025 study found that whereas 70 percent of priests ordained before 1975 describe themselves as theologically progressive, the number flips completely for younger priests: 70 percent identify as conservative/orthodox or very conservative/orthodox. The inflection point between these generations isn’t on the horizon; it’s already here. And as the average parish becomes more theologically conservative and liturgically traditional—including through a new influx of SSPX expats—the seemingly endless dialectic between the two that has defined so much of our lives as Catholics might just fade away.
The Catholic Church, it seems, is gradually finding a postconciliar balance—a privileging of God, heaven, and tradition that nevertheless embraces man, the world, and authentic development. The Church thinks in centuries, and such rebalancing efforts take time. It will entail, as Pope Leo seems to intuit with his ongoing catechesis, a reclaiming of the documents of Vatican II over against any progressive “spirit of Vatican II” or its traditionalist anti-spirit. It will entail the worship of the eternal God without losing sight of the magnificence of man in history.
And it will entail a return to the center of gravity for all things Catholic: Christ and his one, true Church.
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.
The next-to-the last line of this essay is the problem. History is NOT told of man’s magnificence but we may not have had ears to hear. Man has dignity solely through, because, and with GOD’s IMAGE in which God made man. In case we haven’t had eyes to see, man has consistently, persistently, continually chosen to distort, corrupt, reject and otherwise mar that image. That is why God became man. Not because man was so magnificent, but because God is so great and IS love. Man is ‘magnificent’ only to the extent that he humbles himself to face up to the truth.
I was thinking along the same line. It’s more like the significance of man; We, and anything we have, originated from above, not from man. Pat Him on the back for greatness, not man.
From Luke 1:46-55) we have Mary’s song, or the Magnificat prayer. There, Mary’s soul and spirit (the Image of God) magnify and glorify the Lord because He has done great things for her as a humble person.
I read “magnificence of man” as a credit to God. As His creation, man is magnificcant, throughout history. Can someone else correct me if I’m wrong.
I don’t believe you’re wrong; religious ed taught us to only adore God, so maybe I’m cautious because of that. that term is overused these days in obits, for instance
To say some of us are overconfident in these days of hyper wealth creation is likely not an overstatement.
The Church proclaims either the full truth or it does not. This is why ALL bishops need to teach and proclaim the fullness of the Magisterium univocally with the Bishop of Rome. There are too many equivocators and outlyers among the ranks of episcopoi.
“The Catholic Church, it seems, is gradually finding a postconciliar balance.”
That sounds to me like Aristotle’s erroneous notion that Virtue is a means between two extremes whereas Catholics affirm that only God Is Virtuous, Perfect Truth And Love. One cannot have an excess of Truth And Love, only a deficit. Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love does not divide, it multiplies, as in The Miracle Of The Loaves And Fishes.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
Christ Has Not proclaimed the reordering of our beloved sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, according to sexual desire/ inclination/orientation, sexually objectifying the human person in direct violation of God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery in order to justify the engaging in or affirmation of sexual acts that no person, including a man and woman, united in Marriage as husband and wife, should be engaging in because such acts deny the inherent Sanctity and Dignity of the human person and are thus devoid of Love.
This lie, that the reordering of persons according to sexual desire/inclination/orientation serves out of respect for the inherent Dignity of the human person as a beloved son or daughter is a man created lie that denies Divine Law and thus Divine Love and is, in essence, anti Christ, and an act of apostasy.
“For 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.”
Jorge Bergoglio’s “refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff (Pope Benedict) 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, 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, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which affirms God’s Divine Will and thus God’s Divine Law that we respect The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life from the moment of conception and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage. Furthermore, Jorge Bergoglio denied sin done in private is sin, and claimed that we are not Called To Be Temples Of The Holy Ghost in private and in public, in all our relationships and all our experiences, and according to Jorge Bergoglio , we can thus simply dismiss our Call to Holiness in relationships that are of a private nature, which every Faithful Catholic affirms is a lie from the start, for it denies the very essence of Divine Love, which serves for The Good of all persons, and thus for Human Flourishing.
“It is a sin to accommodate an occasion of sin and cooperate with that which is evil”, and thus devoid of Love.
” Furthermore, “only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (Mystici Coporis 22)” Code of Canon Law(Latin Church)
To hold fast to The Deposit of Faith is to hold fast to Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And The Teaching of Christ’s Magisterium, grounded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Those who deny that Christ’s Church Is One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, must believe that by denying Sacred Tradition, they can change The Spirit Of Divine Law and thus the essence of Divine Love so that The Catholic Church will embrace sexual immorality.
By affirming Tradition, The SSPX affirms The Papacy. It is the counterfeit magisterium that denies The Church’s Tradition , and thus The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, while attempting to subsist within The Body of Christ, which is impossible.
“The Catholic Church, it seems, is gradually finding a postconciliar balance.”
Positively Hegelian: Thesis, Anthesis, Synthesis.
This is a good article, and on paper it all makes sense (like much of Catholicism), but it doesn’t seem to take into account the lived reality on the ground. I know it is a “tu quoque” argument, but the Church’s tolerance, and at times promotion, of bishops and clergy who openly dissent from, or contradict, Catholic doctrine has made the current crisis immeasurably worse.
I do not agree with the SSPX. But the institutional Church strips itself of credibility when it refuses to uphold its own doctrine and discipline consistently. It is little wonder that so many Catholics question whether ecclesiastical discipline is applied according to principle or ideology. That also makes it vastly more difficult to reach those in the SSPX.
As I sat through Mass at my local Novus Ordo parish, listening to the priest’s stream of dad jokes during the liturgy, I found myself thinking, how could I possibly persuade a traditionalist to come to this?
The Holy See must apply discipline with the same resolve to liberal dissent as it does to traditionalist disobedience. If bishops and priests can publicly undermine Catholic teaching with impunity, while others are swiftly sanctioned, the inevitable result is confusion, cynicism, and ecclesial chaos. The Church cannot credibly demand fidelity while appearing indifferent to public dissent within its own ranks.
For those out there giving aermons, include the challenge to their flock to Stop Sinning!
I suggest next time you are listening to a homily that isn’t up to your scrupulous standard you consider praying for the good and holy priest doing his best.
Stand up comedy is no priest’s best.
touche’ but I do believe most priests prepare their homily; so injecting references to sin shouldn’t be an issue?
we had a visiting priest scream at us, back in the 70s, as part of his homily’s message about serious sin “…SINS OF THE FLESH!!!” I think he even pounded the pulpit but no one got up and left that packed Sunday morning mass.
also, no one should call the diocese on Monday because the priest strongly challenged his flock – let him do his job even if it makes you squirm in the pew a bit!
He must have taken the adage “a lion on altar, a lamb in the confessional” very seriously-at least the first part.
The priest on Relevant, on Sunday from St.Francis Xavier where they telecast from, reminded everyone there is a hell, regardless of what some in the church may claim, and that Mary told the children at Fatima the two biggest sins contributing/causing that were “sins of the flesh” and “murder.” (If anyone else heard or delivered this sermon please note any errors)
Years ago our dear priest, RIP, brought up the sin of contraception in his Sunday homily and one lady stood up and walked out.
But the rest of us stayed and listened.
I guess her ignorance extended to not understanding that one’s sins are only to be disclosed in a confessional, not publicly.
At one minor detail, does Becklo mess things up just a bit by joining others who misquote Newman on the “development” of doctrine…? Newman is often misquoted out of context with this:
“In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.” But, deleted is the context supplied in the preceding remark: “[‘a philosophy or belief’] enters upon a strange territory; points of controversy alter their bearing; parties rise and fall around its dangers and hopes appear in new relations; and old principles reappear under new forms. It changes [!] with them IN ORDER TO REMAIN THE SAME [caps added !!]” (“Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” Ch. II, Secs I-II).
Newman: “I venture to set down seven notes of varying cogency, independence, and applicability to discriminate healthy developments of an idea from its state of corruption and decay, as follows: There is no corruption IF IT RETAINS:
(1) One and the same TYPE [doctrine/natural law v. a disconnected degree of pastoral “accompaniment”],
(2) The same PRINCIPLES [sound philosophy v. neo-Hegelianism],
(3) The same ORGANIZATION [the Barque of Peter v. all religions equivalently “the will of God”];
(4) If its beginnings ANTICIPATE its subsequent phases [Catechism/Veritatis Splendor v. normalization of homosexual activity, etc.], and
(5) Its later phenomena PROTECT and subserve its earlier [Veritatis Splendor/Familiarus Consortio v. the bogus social-science “arc of history”];
(6) If it has a power of assimilation and REVIVAL [New Evangelization v. Amazonia/ Germania], and
(7) A vigorous ACTION from first to last…[steadfastness v. photo-ops, signaling, double-speak, or tactical silence].”
But, with Becklo, continuous change is the deepest rut of all.
I agree with some observations but I think the article, while pointing out great nuance from history, misses some critical nuance about the present era and therefore underestimates the SSPX itself (I should say upfront I’ve never personally attended SSPX masses and would hesitate to do so). In below, I’ll (1) briefly give my thoughts on why young practicing Catholics are more “traditional” or “conservative”, (2) argue what I think is a critical point- the supermajority of them care way more about Catholic “identity” than the glories or evils of Vatican II, (3) argue why the SSPX positions themselves perfectly for this growing yearning for Catholic identity, (4) argue how SSPX has already positioned themselves this way for years to great success and why that’s only going to continue in the current context, and (5) how I imagine this ending
1) The younger generations in the west who actually are involved in the church look to it specifically for the serious, challenging, and, yes – traditional – things it has to offer. The rest of secular society is there to affirm them, to comfort them, to entertain them (and does these things much better than the church does). The life experience of someone born in the late 80s through the 2010s is one where the church is very Counter-cultural, and the natural thing for most teenagers raised in it is to check out of catholicism by 18. To remain Catholic is a deliberate choice, usually done for deep, serious reasons, and only after wrestling internally with the church’s teaching on things like homosexuality, contraception, divorce – which are most inconvenient beliefs to hold for a Generation Z person. If someone of this generation still continues to practice the faith and hold as best they can to its teachings, they already have an innate understanding that Tradition is important, which Gen X and boomer Catholics don’t consistently hold . By Tradition I don’t mean to say they all love the TLM (most haven’t even experienced it), but their natural inclination is still going to be very sympathetic to it and to the spirituality commonly associated with it.
2) Most of the young folk in the pews just want to live the faith as they know best and have no interest in re-litigating Vatican 2 – but what people need to understand is that cuts BOTH ways. Sure, you won’t see many 20 something’s debating the conciliar documents – but you won’t see any taking interest or inspiration from them either. The elements that attract them are the basics – reverent liturgy, Eucharistic devotion, the rosary to name a few. And in this era today when people (especially Americans) are obsessed with the concept of “identity,” young Catholics also like these things because they are distinctly Catholic and become part of their identity when consistently practiced
3) This concept of identity brings us to the topic of the SSPX itself, which has solidified an “identity” for itself in the strongest possible way. That identity is broader than the SSPX itself, because it most radically positions itself as the antithesis of the beige suburban Catholicism of the boomers, of the laxity towards heretics, of the homosexual lobby / corruption that enabled the sex abuse crisis and subsequent cover ups. Many Catholics identify with this sentiment even if not the SSPX itself, which is why the SSPX occupies so much attention and fascination among outsiders. Only the SSPX loudly declares “enough!” when so many so called “conservative” prelates keep their heads down for the sake of their careers. Only the SSPX refuses to close churches during COVID. Only the SSPX presents a coherent, believable story about what went wrong during / after the council. Only the SSPX can promise a young family the continuity of the TLM in their town without a tyrannical diocesan bishop being able to strip it away from them and their children at any moment. The SSPX boldly says “yes, the church is in crisis, and we will take radical measures to ensure the continuity of the faith even if that means not playing nice with Rome, because your soul is at stake”. And this bold identity, without a counterpart endorsed by Rome who is visible enough or credible enough, is why I think the writer is naive to seemingly think the SSPX will just go away (or that there will be some sort of influx of SSPX laity into diocesan parishes now).
4) Remember it’s always been “taboo” even among “trads” to attend their chapels, even prior to the recent consecrations. Despite that, it’s grown tremendously since 1988 despite the concurrent growth of Ecclesia Dei communities and even after Summorum Pontificum liberated diocesan Tridentine masses. Those who continue to attend SSPX chapels have often done so despite other TLM options available, and today constitute a group of laity that are likely unphased by the recent decree / explanatory note. While some of them may question the prudence of the consecrations themselves, the informed ones will still pretty consistently tell you they find the SSPX arguments about Vatican 2 convincing (along with many non SSPX attending Catholics). Today this is more true than ever – 5 years into the persecution of the traditional mass (Traditiones Custodes), many lay observers, who just want a secure liturgical life that adequately inspires their children with the faith, see the hardline crackdown on the SSPX as hypocritical to the highest extent, to the point of being impossible to accept in good conscience (in the midst of explicit heresy from clergy going unpunished and even promoted, deference to the Chinese government on bishop appointments, and Vatican preoccupation with “synodality” rather than stemming the widespread apostasy among the baptized). That naked hypocrisy, combined with the canonical imprecision of the explanatory note, and widespread online arguments in favor of the SSPX’s continued validity (which usually approach things with a level of sophistication / rigor the bishops or even the online counter arguments lack) – will continue to lead more faithful Catholics, re-verts and converts to SSPX chapels.
5) Unless SSPX becomes mired in internal scandal or loses credibility by going Sedevacantist, Rome isn’t done dealing with them as a group. More certainly, they are not done with trying to reconcile the SSPX arguments about Vatican II / its aftermath, because regardless of what the current hierarchy wishes, the rising crop of new seminarians and recently ordained priests will make the turn the overall makeup of clergy more traditional in coming decades. And in the meantime the SSPX will only grow in numbers and influence and get harder to ignore.
Let us pray the worst of this saga is now behind us.
M Knight: well argued. Thanks!
One of the interesting observations about life that one acquires with age is the principle that people tend to give up a journey just before they reach the end; if only they had persevered just a little bit more, they would have “finished the race,” as St. Paul says. The Church has been changing for the better, despite some considerable backsliding during the previous pontificate, which in the end will prove powerless to stop the tilt towards orthodoxy. Those orthodox young priests are eventually going to become bishops; it’s simply a matter of time. If the SSPX had simply persevered, it might not have attained everything it wanted, but it might have made it to a point where reconciliation was possible. But it quit the race instead, took its ball, and went home, and now the Church is left to clean up the mess.
“Those orthodox young priests are eventually going to become bishops; it’s simply a matter of time. ”
I hope that’s true, but I have a feeling they will be buried.
“…the number flips completely for younger priests: 70 percent identify as conservative/orthodox or very conservative/orthodox.”
I’m sure that efforts will be made to bury them, and that is going on even now. But numbers such as the above eventually become hard to resist– and it will probably only tilt even further ten or twenty years from now. The more orthodox ones will eventually make it to the top, even if they have to do it by stealth.
I’m sure the Islamist feel the same
The SSPX does not claim any new revelation, but this author compares them to the Montanists who did.
The SSPX acknowledges Papal authority and the current Pope, and the validity of the NO rituals (Pope Leo was ordained and consecrated in the NO), but this author compares them to the Fraticelli who did not.
Was there a shortage of historical schismatics and heretics who acknowledged the Pope and accepted all the defined dogmas of the Church to compare the SSPX to? We do not argue well for a reconciliation with the SSPX by making them out to be so much worse than they are.
I imagine a lot of these authors imagine they’ll get a job with the press office of the USCCB.
TPR: Or to be made head of one of the vatican’s dicasteries
Ananda: well said…and succinctly!
I meant “AMANDA”
Amanda, if the SSPX truly acknowledge Leo to be zipped snd his papal authority, why didn’t they listen to him and obey?
Not “zipped” but Pope.😜
There are a lot of laws in the Church. There are a lot of people breaking those laws. Chinese bishops are still consecrating others without papal permission, heterodoxy is still being preached, women are still being fake ordained, abortions are still committed, and children are still being sexually abused. Do these things happen only because the perpetrators think the Pope is OK with it, contrary to established law?
None of them are considered automatically guilty of schism, because the Church has never equated disobedience with schism. Similarly, very few parents think every time a child disobeys them, the child is disowning them. There are tons of possible reasons for disobedience while acknowledging rightful authority. If you cannot think of any, I suggest making a thorough examination of conscience and then asking yourself why you disobeyed God.
Awesome and succinct!
“Acknowledging” papal authority or “recognizing” that Leo is the current pope is not the same as obeying him in a visible way. This is doublespeak from the Lefebvrists and it has fooled many of their followers for years by allowing them to be complacent in thinking they are united to Rome. “We pray for the pope at all our Masses.” “He’s the legitimate pope.” The SSPX for a long time has argued on the one hand against sedevacantism, but they have not submitted nor visibly obeyed Rome on the other. It creates an abiguous position that stymies critical thinking.
“The SSPX does not claim any new revelation, but this author compares them to the Montanists who did.”
How to untangle a tangled web? The SSPX does not claim any new revelation but Jorge Bergoglio, and Robert Prevost claim the sin of Sodom is no longer a sin and that “if there is a union of a private nature there is neither a third party nor is society affected”, denying God’s Universal Call to Holiness is a Call to be chaste in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds, and thus be Temples of The Holy Ghost in all our relationships and experiences. Therein lies the crux of the matter.
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. ”
Those who deny The Word of God, cannot subsist within The One Body of Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
Christ’s Church Is One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ.
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesiastical Communion.”
There are always the cultists and the fundamental crazies in every religious tradition.
Oh, yet another piece from neo-cons piling on the sspx. This is starting to appear like virtue signaling and certainly an effort by people so show the establishment they’re on board with the program against tradition and ready to promote some standard narratives that deny reality. It also reveals they’re still very much afraid of the sspx and particularly their assessment of the current state of the Church and her continual downward trajectory since VII, or on some of the problems with VII. So, the author claims the Church is doing fine and incredibly says “the average parish becomes more theologically conservative and liturgically traditional.” Where does he live?! The opposite is the case, of course, but to admit such would be to concede some unpleasant realities.
In fact, to put it one way, there are probably a fair amount of average diocesan bishops and priests, not to mention cardinals and perhaps even popes, that have incurred latae sententiae excommunications due to heresy, possibly schism too; and there are even more who have certainly removed themselves from full communion, by doubting the next category of teaching down from heresy. This would also engulf probably a majority of the laity in any given diocese and parish. (Consider those who willfully doubt or deny teaching on women’s ordination, contraception, on same sex attraction and behavior, papal authority, etc.) But, of course, the folks piling on the sspx don’t want to go there. But, if you question things in the documents of Vatican II, now we have a problem! That is literally the de facto position that Rome and even american “conservatives” under Leo are now taking: Heretical positions and all kinds of other nonsense and corruption can be tolerated or least the same fuss won’t be made, but the people that need cracking down on and foolishly compared to past heretical groups, are those who supposedly “misinterpret” VII! My bishop pushing lgbt stuff? Okay. A bishop being too “traditional” and “misinterpreting” VII- according to what standard is not even clear- that’s bad! Furthermore, if one uses the same abuses of law against the heretical clerics as are being tried against the sspx, some of the sacraments of whatever number of bishops and priests would be invalid. Let’s stop beating the horse of the sspx and get to the real problems.
Jesus dined with sinners and condemned the prayers of the religious elites as useless. His Church does the same.
Just not the sinners of the SSPX.
John – well put. These uncomfortable truths are undeniable but go unconsidered by most of the hierarchy today. There are many pastors and prelates who have likely separated themselves from the church, our ark of salvation, without anyone calling attention to it. The silence on this matter makes today an extreme moment in the church’s history (whether or not you believe this justifies the unauthorized consecrations). The biggest offenders against the faith today go unpunished and even un-admonished, but we must remember God will judge our actions and intentions even if Cdl Fernandez declines to. Surely God will not judge those who, in good conscience, do their honest best effort to hold to church perennial teaching. I’d be much more afraid for my soul if I made my life efforts to “adapt” the church to the attitudes of the modern world.
Hold strong, keep the faith, and pray for our delivery from this crisis
I do remember Francis calling out some church authorities for leading double lives.
Unfortunately, the post-conciliar Church is not finding a balance. The crisis in practice of the faith, vocations and above all, in faith (ever fewer believe basic truths among those who tick the Catholic box on census forms) continues. Faced with a German hierarchy that largely denies Catholicism on important points, the Pope has just given a promotion to a major diocese of a bishop who is on record as supporting special blessings for homosexual couples, entertaining would-be women priests, and other unacceptable positions. Looks to me like the SSPX, with its consecrations, did the most charitable thing possible by not allowing the Pope to “cruise” for the next decade or so with the kind of Church we have become used to.
Like so many other articles, this post wastes 90% of its space on ad hominem stuff and subjective impressions. Never does it going into the substance of what traditionalists say is problematic about Conciliar texts and post-conciliar Popes.
Unlike all those heretical movements listed in the post, the Vatican today says nothing about what is doctrinally wrong with the SSPX.
Fernandez said he was willing to discuss “degrees” of adherence to Vatican II texts, leaving open the possibility of disagreement with some of them, or legitimately asking for official clarification in the light of tradition. Yet he refuses to spell out which apparent contradictions with past magisterium must be accepted, or if such contradictions exist or, if they are not contradictions, why the SSPX is wrong to adhere to the long-standing magisterium of the Church. Spot the difference with past Church condemnations of heresies that claimed to be purer or more “heavenly” than the Church? The Church never, ever, condemned such errors on the basis of adherence to a group of texts on which the Church itself did not have a unified position as to meaning.
It looks as if someone has been reading Msgr. Knox’s “Enthusiasm” . . . or sneaking a peak at some of my unpublished manuscripts.
Thank you – the article helps to make pertinent the events of far back in a magnificent manner including -esp. today’s Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel . Readings lately taking us back to the unforgettable incidents in life of Elijah, Ahab, Jezebel, Naboth … to marvel even more in our Mother – of Mount Carmel – who in supernatural graces would have kept all prophesies, including the one given by Prophet Samuel-
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208:11-18&version=RSVCE
She also carried the sorrows of the bloody saga that follows in Naboth forgetting that prophesy and for all forms of idolatry, its infidelities & effects in all her children, Adam on down – who was created magnificent in glory of Divine Will .
https://benedictinesofdivinewill.org/uploads/3/4/3/2/34324596/mary_in_dw.pdf
Above – Bl. Mother, as a child leaves her parents for the temple with joy and peace honoring the Divine Will ,the same temple to which she would return on another occasion with anguish searching for The Son .
Her joy in the goodness and mercy of God, who was going to gift the Church again even in a mystical manner the Reign of the Divine Will as renewal for The Church and the world – anticipated by St. Pious X too in his motto ‘to restore all things in Christ.’
Pope Francis – ever much devoted to The Mother – the criticism he faced on many occasions from being misunderstood , yet with the heart of much charity as of The Mother towards all – the article helped to shed bit more light on one such occasion – the ‘rabbit ‘ comment . 🙂
The sacrifice of NFP in families being made possible in ‘loving God with His own Love ‘- in His holy Divine Will , thus likely to be no less heroic and holy compared to those who willingly accept many children as advocated in SSPX .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmrjfFZNSwY
The trials of all these divisions brought to our Lord, that He grant us His Divine Will to reign in us ever wider & deeper -to brings its beauty & order as of Carmel into families and nations ! FIAT !
Might there be a similar reactive tendency today of faithful Catholics at odds with a slovenly moral majority? The difference from schismaticism is their acknowledgment of authority within a hierarchal structure and determination to remain in the Church.
This was envisioned by Benedict XVI. As Amanda notes the SSPX sought to remain in the Church and continue to make that appeal. Their difficulty is in their unwillingness to comply with the papal protocol for ordination of bishops. Although there’s sharp disagreement whether the SSPX, or Rome would agree to a compromise. That may, and should be resolved.
“unwillingness to comply with the papal protocol for ordination of bishops”
A couple of observations.
1.) This is a novelty of the 1950’s designed to stop Communist infiltration. Francis then essentially nullified it for the same state. I rely on this observation to distinguish the de jure and de facto.
Fr Peter Morello, PhD
November 12, 2019 at 1:02 am
To clarify Vatican approval or disapproval is meaningless because if the State makes the selections for the Vatican to choose from the State in effect has already made the final choice.
Posted on the CWR article “Understanding the 2018 China-Vatican agreement a year later” by Anthony E. Clarke, PhD November 10, 2019.
2. The SSPX did not reject a Papal candidate. None were offered, either by Leo or Francis. I’ve been a bureaucrat a long time and I know when the CEO is letting a project die on the vine, rather than affirmatively terminating it. It’s the worst sort of passive aggression. As was meeting with Cosplay Sarah while sending out Tucho to do the dirty work. They were backed into a corner and told “die quietly”.
So sorry if some of us find this to be a minor delict. When I see Martins and McElroy’s clearly preaching a false gospel without any sanction, you’ll have to understand I find the way the SSPX was treated shameful.
Didn’t Pope St John Paul II offer to ordain the SSPX a bishop back in 1988? They signed an agreement to do that, only Lefebvre ended up backing out and withdrawing his name from the agreement.
The SSPX had 17 years to make an effort to reunite with Rome after Benedict lifted the excommunications in 2009. They had free will to do either. They chose to stay where they were. That doesn’t sound like a CEO letting a project die on the vine. That sounds more like a rebellious group of illicit priests and bishops who never desired reconciliation with Rome from the very beginning. If they want to play prodigal son, they need to remember that their father isn’t going to chase after them.
To DTS: I read that Lefebvre backed out because the Vatican would not allow him to select the SSPX priest that he wanted to be bishop.
Well, the Pope probably wanted a completely different SSPX priest elevated to the episcopate because he didn’t want to deal with Lefebvre 2.0.
Either way, the Pope has final say over proposed bishops, and JPII made the effort. The Society chose schism.
@ Pitchfork Rebel
I had earlier stated my agreement with you that the Vatican’s motive might well have been as you say in article titled : Why does the Vatican recognize Orthodox marriages but not those of the SSPX?
Why does the Vatican recognize Orthodox marriages but not those of the SSPX?
Personally, my opinion is if Pope Leo had agreed to meet with SSPX Superior General Fr Davide, a compromise might have been arranged. For example, recognizing Pope Leo’s authority for appointing bishops, and permitting him to select candidates for ordination as bishops from among SSPX clergy.
Otherwise, without bishops they would eventually cease to exist. Which may have been the intent.
I don’t think we disagree on this, but sometimes it’s impossible for me to not document the reasons for my conclusions. After a while, you don’t just comply with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, you live them.
Standards of fieldwork (4 through 6)
6. Sufficient appropriate audit evidence. The auditor must collect enough reliable evidence to support the conclusions in the audit report. “Sufficient” refers to quantity. “Appropriate” refers to quality and relevance. Both matter. An audit opinion built on weak or incomplete evidence won’t hold up under scrutiny.
Father, it can only be resolved by recognizing The Papacy is protected from error by Christ The King, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost. Man is Created In Imago Dei, God was not created in the image of man. The sin of Sodom is sin because it denies Divine Law. No true Vicar of Christ would accommodate this sin,while claiming, “if there is a union of a private nature , there is neither a third party nor is society affected”, thus denying the essence of sin.
CCC “1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121 1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125“.
51 “It pleased God, in His goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of His will. His Will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature.”2
I watched some of the East Coast Eucharistic procession on television and YouTube. Following the SSPX’s logic, these people are not getting complete spiritual nourishment because they belong to a “modernist” Church. I find that hard to believe.
A person who accepts everything in the Catholic Faith except one article of it, and rejects that one knowing that it is Church teaching, freely and with deliberation, is a heretic and not in union with the Church.
While I love the processions and think we should do more, I’m also aware that the majority of Mass-attending Catholics do not believe Church teaching. They are either receiving terribly insufficient teaching, which will harm them, or they are heretics. The Eucharist does not save those who receive It in mortal sin.
“rejects that one knowing that it is Church teaching, freely and with deliberation, is a heretic and not in union with the Church.”
So, on the matter of the death penalty.
The Church always taught it was permissible. John Paul II taught it was “practically unnecessary” given modern penal systems (“modern” systems only work if they are allowed to work, and not circumvented by a male fide judge or jury, but they offer no novel protection to other inmates or staff). Francis added the spin of “inadmissible” (which I guess to a Jesuit, means something) and Leo parroted that phrase as Francis 2.0.
In 1964, one James Paul Forte raped and murdered an eight year old girl on her way to school. He evaded apprehension, until he died suddenly at the age of 38, 46 years ago.
This has consequences. Had he been prosecuted contemporaneously (he died in 1980, the case was solved by a college student in 2022) no Catholic in the world would have objected to the death penalty. Today we are told removing that animal (who sexually assaulted an adult women years later, the episode was interrupted, the victim testified she thought he was going to kill her) is some sort of offense against justice.
Based upon the historical position of the Church and my own experience as “contact” staff in a correctional organization, if I were on a jury that had to affirm a for Forte or any monster like him, I would do so. Some crimes are so awful that society has a right to prevent a recurrence.
I guess I’m a heretic in “The Church of What’s Happening Now”. The “hermeneutic of rupture” apparently prevails.
I definitely will not buy any of this guy Matthew Becklo his book. In regarding of SSPX their ordinations, the Vatcain Holy Father can be handle in a better way with them, but Pope Leo XIV is not. Becklo started from the beginning in this article, he has already to label them the apostate without telling the cause and effect. Since late Pope Francis, the Vatican has already done so many ricidulous things, and now recently worse than that to degrade Our Most Blessed Mother, her redemption role play. In regarding Mary, mother of Jesus and all believers, is not co-redeemer, the Vatican says. With the approval of Pope Leo XIV, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith published a long document on the titles of love and respect Catholics have for Mary and her motherly assistance to believers, but it also explained the problems with referring to Mary as “co-redemptrix” with Christ. I am so disappointed. How can we deny the role of Our Most Blessed Mother as “co-redemptrix” with Christ and Mediatrix of All Graces? Please watch the enclosed video in English – How Mater Populi Fidelis DENIES the Miraculous Medal! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvgZwK6brjk). The crisis inside the Vatcian has been rising up.
The SSPX is basically concerned with two Vatican II documents: on ecumenism and religious liberty. These two declarations were never taught and are innovations. They reduce the Church to just another of the world religions. Pope Francis said as much. The new mass has been a disaster and is obviously a manufactured performance. Plus the new church has become homosexualized, including the new 8th sacrament. The SSPX wants to inject sanity – and it does.
The SSPX are not Catholics but Protestant. You call it “sanity” I call it heresy.
Who are you to judge?
A well catechized Catholic with discernment.
I told you you have bobble-head issues.
Assuming Campolo’s is a genuine assertion not merely an offering for quibbling, you haven’t addressed that content. Protestant has a specific meaning in the Church, besides. How the SSPX could eventually be held to be heretical, along what lines and if there is a new heretical chapter, we have to wait and see. Protestants strove to define themselves beyond the Church. What’s happening here is quite different. SSPX boast “authentic Catholic ecclesial reality based on Tradition and Sacrament and faithfulness to Holy See” as their winning formula.
Out of a sense of pity and compassion, Pope Francis tried to save them (and everybody) from being “mani-Pelagian indietrist gattorpardos” and then he threw them for a loop when he did the change up to Jansenism at the same time elevating Pascal who is sort of like them and a Jansenist. Go for it!
Categories that might have some analogical merit but don’t quite fit and can bring in more confusion. Although I wouldn’t have compared SSPX with Pelagianism.
So not you.
Yet should the current tolerance of sin in authority be unchecked?
It’s simpler than all of that.
SSPX may do something the Germanist weg is not allowed to do (or anyone else) and have it as a path to reconciling -or, not needing reconciling- on account of they’re not like the Germanist weg.
They’re in a very bad place and are a misleading example to all as well as the Germanist weg -according to how they’ve done this; and they put themselves there.
Edit to 2nd para: SSPX may NOT do something the Germanist …..
“They’re in a very bad place and are a misleading example to all as well as the Germanist weg -according to how they’ve done this; and they put themselves there.”
Perhaps according to Aristotle who erred when he claimed that Virtue is “a means between two extremes, one of excess and one of deficiency”, as Virtue requires The Truth Of Love, thus Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium grounded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, The Deposit Of Faith Christ Has Entrusted to His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost cannot be, in essence, extreme, as the fullness of God’s Truth And God’s Love Is Necessary For The Salvation of Souls, including God’s Divine Will And Divine Law regarding lust and the sin of adultery, if denied, can only result in a deficit of Truth and Love due to a lack of Virtue.
These attempts to frame the sspx like heretical groups or persons of the past are silly and factually inaccurate. What heresies do the sspx adhere to? Your average bishop in the post-conciliar Church is more likely to hold errors akin to past groups than the sspx. The “heresy” of the sspx is that they don’t deify VII. Neo-cons and progressives alike have VII as a golden calf. Rome has now admitted that is the issue, not disciplinary nor even papal authority. One proof of the latter tendency to deify VII is that we are also told that it was only a pastoral council and defined no new doctrines, perhaps save one. The council itself admitted the documents the sspx takes issues with are pastoral and practical guidelines. In this case it is quite non-sensical to demand anyone to accept it as though it were binding doctrine, yet they do. For example, that you must accept dubious ideas such as that muslims believe in the same God, or you’re not fully Catholic! (And if someone starts to concede that it may not include such claims, we can proceed one by one with so many other statements so that little to no binding content is found in some given document.) So, for not accepting practical guidelines, which are arguably even out of date 65 years later, the sspx, or anyone who questions them is no longer fully Catholic. Who is acting like a cult here: you must “accept” the contents of various VII documents- but not because of doctrinal content- as a litmus test to reside in the post-conciliar Church.
Finally, shame on the author for using the piece to sell “word on fire” products. It’s also ironic the author doesn’t realize that if people need to write entire books telling us what VII supposedly “really” meant, it’s an unwitting admission the documents are ambiguous and problematic. There are umpteen other such books too, each claiming to tell us what the “real” content is. Neither would Leo have to now tell us- 65 years later- what the “real ” interpretation is, some of which also differs from statements made by JPII and BXVI. That would include that Leo, following Francis, has given interpretations that are supposedly the erroneous ones, e.g., using N. Aetate to promote indifferentism and syncretism. This is also historical revisionism, as the controversy over certain documents was present at the council itself, and not created later by the likes of the sspx or done outside of the council through the media, which is the standard neo-con narrative. This helps to reveal who are the people truly interested in getting to the truth of the matter regarding VII versus maintaining narratives to preserve their golden calf.
Catholics affirm that through God’s Divine Revelation, we can know through both Faith and Reason that God Exists, in essence, In A Communion Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost.
Man writes doctrine, canons, holds councils, vatican’s I&II and every now and again a Synod on Synodality. Is this where our efforts have taken us after 2,000 years. Millions of words defining laws? We were given only 10 and have not been successful with that.The SSPX calmly continues a course that does not look for separation from the Catholic Church. At every mass they pray for the pope, the mass itself never deviates from the 1962 Catholic Missal. This hatred is strictly one sided.
You state that “The SSPX calmly continues a course that does not look for separation from the Catholic Church”.
Just over two weeks ago, they separated themselves from the Catholic Church by rejecting Pope Leo’s legitimate authority by consecrating four priests to the episcopate without papal approval.
Who cares whether they mention the Pope’s name at their illicit masses? That doesn’t mean they accept his authority, especially since they just rejected it back on July 1. That sure doesn’t sound like calmly continuing a course that doesn’t look for separation from the Catholic Church. They might be able to pull the wool over your eyes, but not mine.
If Leo or Francis had appointed Bishops and they refused them, then they would being defying him. He offered nothing.
When I was young, my father had a rule. When my mother (or on occasion, he) prepared the supper, we were obligated to eat what was prepared for us, no matter how much we preferred pizza or fried chicken. Never once was I served an empty plate until hunger forced me to crack open a can of chili only to be told “you’re defying my right to feed you as I see fit”.
That’s what Leo did. (Through Tucho)
My mother used to make a huge pot of chili from scratch – all with spices per her measure. Good stuff and lasted several days.
And how often were you served nothing and told eating anything else you might scratch up was disobedience?
to Mr. Pitchfork, below.
Never, although one time I went to my neighbor’s farm and cleaned out his dairy manger. My dad had told me before I left that summer day, “Do not eat while you’re there.” (He was from the depression & WW II era, and knew of sparse food supplies) they hadn’t hired me or anything but I noticed it needed cleaning, and they were grade A, so I thought I’d lend a hand. I was a thin boy, and really worked up an appetite throwing the leftover packed hay from the manger, past the stanchions and into the gutter area, where the farmer could move it out easily with the gutter cleaner chain. His wife asked me a couple times to come in and get something to eat, but I politely refused per the earlier instructions. She did finally bring me out one of those $100,000 candy bars, which I was glad to get. That was the only time I can remember being told not to eat. Spoiled I guess, but being 8th of 9 kids I missed out on lots of punishment I heard my older siblings used to get. (my folks were worn out by my time I guess). at our Catholic school we had to clean up our hot lunch plate, and we also got a milk carton.
One Hundred Grands! I love those candy bars!
Pope St John Paul II offered them a bishop in 1988, but Lefebvre backed out. He defied Rome.
I would say that Francis or Leo didn’t offer them a bishop because it would have been a temporary solution to a permanent problem: The SSPX’s longstanding refusal to accept parts of Vatican II, and their viewpoint on the vernacular Mass. That is a deal breaker right there. The 2009 excommunication lifting was a great opportunity for them to re-enter union with Rome, but they chose to remain in an irregular canonical position. Why bother to offer them something when they don’t truly desire full communion?
Some of this just seems to be a “checkmate” scenario
SSPX glorying in their own melodrama, contrivances, even boredom, very hokey, can also be compared to the sickly self-importance of the Germanist weg. Where I would disagree with Beklo is, I wouldn’t try to offer solution to either of them, by reference to societal improvement or ersatz. And yes the Germanist weg too is melodrama and hokey.
Would you say the same about St. Padre Pio, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Pius X or St. Pius V? Would you say that about the many martyrs of the French Revolution? Would you say that about the English, Catholic men of the Western Uprising? If not, why would you say something that revolting about the SSPX – who, by the way, have much more in common with the Saints above mentioned than anything that would pass off as “catholicism” in the post-concessional mainstream church today. I find that Catholics who would criticize the SSPX are not unlike the protestants who revolted against the Catholicism as it had been practiced for, up to that time, 1,500 years. Please, don’t be so protestant, eh?
Those saints weren’t jockeying Church law and integrity to arrive at what would suit them. Catherine in particular gave the witness of having to constantly encourage a weak Pope. She didn’t take to defiance. The martyrs had violence coming at them on account of faith, they weren’t getting impaled on their own notions of being rejected.
The two Pius Popes are Popes not on the same level with propositional Church grouping with no finalized ecclesial identity or mission. Worse than that the SSPX have not prioritized getting their founder restored, they’re acting in their own cause under the name of Pius X that they took from the putative founder. Bad stuff.
I have my faults it’s true, may God save me by the Unity of faith. I had already suggested/argued in CWR that given that it is a Church affair, SSPX should labour for the restoring of Lefebvre even to their own extinction if necessary. And trust in the Papacy with all the defects of the poor fathers elected to it.
In doing that, should they discover themselves that it makes no sense humility would then lead their way in the unity they’re already seeking.
May I lend a personal anecdotal. When something very peculiarly strange occurs like a precious item “vanishes”, in praying on it I am asking for a NEW grace in the Beatitudes or some other treasure from the Lord. One has to enter by the Omnipotent.
I still don’t get why non-SSPX Catholics are getting their panties all in a knot over these excommunications. It’s not as if THEY were the ones being excommunicated.
If non-SSPX Catholics were assured that “Christ would never leave the Church orphaned”, they wouldn’t be reacting with such hysterics. They would be living their Catholic faith in peace, resting in Christ who is Head of the Church.
Nail on head. What was that latest Pew poll? The majority DO NOT believe Christ is with us where He said He Is.
Or they are like the child who revels in dissecting the butterflies, frogs, or cats he’s caught so he can witness captivity and glory in demise.
God have mercy.
I do have a question regarding the status of the SSPX. I acknowledge that they disobeyed a directive from the Pope about ordaining bishops and were excommunicated as a result. My question: Before those ordinations, were they Catholics in good standing/ in full communion with the Church? What was their status BEFORE the ordinations?
Before the ordinations, there was that 1940 TV big-money game show of long ago: “The $64,000 question!” It turned out to be a big-rig game of corruption. The feds investigated and indicted several people, for perjury, but those sentences were later pardoned.
The status of the SSPX prior to the consecrations this time? LeFebvre die excommunicate, but Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication sentences of the bishops LeFebvre consecrated. The Canonical LEGAL status of SSPX priests and the entire religious society was/is questionable, but their sacrament of Eucharist was always said to be VALID BUT ILLICIT–against the law–(?schismatic?) (I recommend we go brain-scratch on that.) Laity were recommended to not attend SSPX Mass but Rome conceded that no harm accrued to their doing so. Francis granted the SSPX priests ‘privileges,’ which clearly made their sacraments of Reconciliation and Marriage valid (and thus licit, because the Pope said so, I think!)
What is different now? Possibilities: Lip-lashing and document-spewing to hold SSPX up as a deterrent example (like capital punishment)? Keep the Society under the microscope or a thumb depending upon whether the powers decide the TLM must totally go? Maybe to keep the fade from an incandescent afterglow? Nothing else to do? Convey the impressive message that they understand and are capable of responding quickly and well to a crisis? I don’t know. Can you tell me!?
Thank you so much, meiron, for illustrating that the governance of the Church is a confusing mess. I guess the SSPX has learned the lesson of “proceed on course” until the next Pope un-excommunicates them!
Irregular canonical status and not in full communion with Rome because they reject parts of Vatican II, and sow doubt on the vernacular Mass’s validity.
Comparing the SSPX to the Montanists is utter nonsense. The Montanists were claiming new revelations from the Holy Spirit. The SSPX claims to be safeguarding the common historical Catholic tradition. Any day now the stupider sort of Catholics will be calling them “heretics”. I’ve had it up to my eyeballs with stupid Catholics who think every question boils down to who has the most authority, and that the one in authority is necessarily in the right. Grow a brain, Catholics, and learn how to use it. I’m fed up.
Most Catholics are equally fed up with those that idolize a medieval form of the Mass and believe they alone are truly holy much like the Pharisees.
And you speak for “most Catholics”, how exactly?
More than a decade ago, I attended a Mass conducted at the annual Mid-Atlantic Air Museum event, which is held on the weekend closest to the anniversary of D-Day and the sponsors obtain Catholic and Protestant clergy for the attendees. About 100 people attended.
Prior to beginning Mass, the priest announced that in keeping with the presentation of history, the Mass would be the one offered in 1944. Nobody walked away. Many were impressed. Some thanked the priest for making the experience available. That’s a bigger and more independent sample than the one in your head.
The very fact that YOU refer to it as “medieval” and offer one of your fallacious arguments is an endorsement of that Liturgy. I wonder what you’d tell Byzantine Rite Catholics about their liturgy, or the Anglican Ordinariate about their liturgy. (both of which are wonderful and inspiring).
On the other hand, you may have an insurmountable lead in the race for CWR VI.
Medieval? There is absolutely nothing wrong with a ‘medieval’ form of the MASS. Jesus lived, died, and rose during the time period men call “Ancient History.” Would you do away with that form too?
Also, do you really believe that people idolize the Mass, or do they do rather love the Presence of the Lord’s Passion which the Mass re-presents? Get used to it. Get catechized. Catch some knowledge and merit a pat on the back instead of smelling bad.
Quite apart from the many other flaws in your post, the Council of Trent did not take place in the Middle Ages, but in the Early Modern period.
The “non-sspx Catholics,” hereby referred to as “Catholics,” aren’t upset. In fact, it’s a relief to finally see the clarity as the Lefebvrans no longer part of the Catholic Church. Now they can’t leverage control by pretending they want to reconcile.
That’s the way. Fix Vatican II’s equivocations by killing off those who demand clarification. I wonder if we can find a way of transferring this brilliant technique to solving mathematical problems. Never did like them.
Ok, this made me laugh. Poor mathematicians!
It is a variant of cancel culture: shut down dissent and don’t explain why dissenters are wrong. Just say “I represent Science.”
In this case I think the lack of explanation might have to do with fearing that any sound, public clarification of the questioned lines in Vatican 2 will result in tens of millions of Catholics rejecting the teaching, as was and is done with Humanae Vitae. There’s a strategy among some to try to keep people in the Church by keeping them in blissful ignorance. This is contrary to Christ’s teaching that we live by His every word, and that it is truth that sets us free.
What is truth?
Oh. So now the church has purified herself? Rome has rid itself of control-freak, pride-filled ‘pretenders’ so ‘Catholics’ can now experience relief. Like a Final Solution.
I wonder if ‘Catholics’, Rome, or SSPX know what you do.
Annie: sorry to disappoint you but any who are excommunicated are still members of the Church. Tell me: how do you “unbaptize” a person? Awaiting your answer.
I’m unsure what you mean. For example, if you directly or indirectly promote an abortion (like “here’s a coat hanger, or “let me give you a ride to an abortion clinic”) then you’re automatically excommunicated. How does original sin cleansing enter into it?
From Catholic Answers: Excommunication in the Catholic Church
“… excommunication is one of the most frequently misinterpreted disciplinary penalties. To many people, including many Catholics, the word excommunicated means the Church has abolished a person’s membership in the Church, perhaps even permanently and thus with irreversible afterlife consequences. In fact, while an excommunication is only given for certain grave wrongdoing, the censure does not abrogate a person’s membership in the Church,…:”
Baptism makes you a child of God and leaves an indelible mark on your soul. When baptized, you are Christ’s.
She wrote that four hours and 32 minutes after G. Poulin wrote this:
“Grow a brain, Catholics, and learn how to use it. I’m fed up.”
Ironic.
Huh? Do you speak for everyone that you disagree with? More precisely, do you put in their mouth and minds the motivations that you find objectionable? That’s not actually engaging in conversation, i.e. “dialog”, that’s eliminating it (not too unlike what Pope Leo has done). In the end, you end up living in your own little construct. Grandma always told me to make sure I loved others because the alternative is to love yourself and that, she said, was too tight a package and too small a package to matter.
Just noticing Becklo writing this: “traditionalist anti-spirit.”
With that, he’s beckoning and blowing too low.
Excellent article. You got it exactly right.
VATICAN II does not purport to be exhaustive of the Church interacting with the present era. What it does -and which it does very well,- is indicate the impetus coming in the Church to meet and condition the present era in witness to Jesus Christ. “Arguing against” and “trying to understand” how the Council “got things wrong” leads to handicapping in faith; and it’s not the fault in the Council. Prudential things in the Council were already the practice of faith before the Council and still stand today, weathering very ably. Some things are addressed in the Council purely pragmatically and for sake of convenience, like the consolidation of ageing diminishing communities. If a particular community is experiencing a resurgence of life the Council is not saying that it must be broken down in order not to succeed that way so that there can be “consolidation” instead. VATICAN II opens the way to embrace authentic impetus offered alike for this time by God’s Spirit and lends guidance for initiatives to endure.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/02/06/a-catholic-debate-of-real-consequence/
History is “repeating itself”? Ah, not so much. Rather, the truths which have been entrusted to the Papacy have been abandoned and are being replaced. As Chesterton noted following the Protestant Revolt, the truths have become “unsettled”. The same has taken place post Vatican II. All the truths have become unsettled and are now exemplified by strange acts of virtue: Climate Change is the new Truth, ergo, blessing ice blocks is a “virtue”; Love is Love is the new truth; ergo, blessing homosexual couples is a virtuous act; All Roads Lead to God is the new truth; ergo, fawning over the first female AB of Canterbury is virtuous. No, my friend, the SSPX consecrations are repeating history only in that they are doing what the Catholic Church as ALWAYS done. Catholic Bishops consecrate and elevate – that’s what they do. It is Roam that has lost the plot, ensconced new (cringey) “truths” and are exposing those new “truths” by wildly odd behaviors and questionable “virtues”. Turn your perspective 180 degree and you’ll have eyes to see and ears to hear. Pax tecum Christi Semper!
None of those are new truths. God commanded us in the beginning to care for His creation. If a priest can bless water he can surely bless ice. God has always been love see Pope Benedict’s first encyclical by the same name. And because of the Spirit’s omnipresence and Preventing/Prevenient Grace, God can draw anyone anywhere to Himself before they even realize they need His Grace. Pax Christi.
Sure, he can bless ice – so long as he does NOT do it in the name of Climate Change. What you seem to be describing is a neo-pantheism. I’d have “druthers” about my assessment if it had not been for actual evidence that Leo had NOT bent the knee to Pachamama. I’m a bit leery of anyone who pretends to cancel Catholic Tradition especially when Tradition carries with it the force of Faith and the embodiment of our Catholic dogma and doctrine. Pax Christi Tecum Semper! 🙂
I don’t think you understand a blessing by a priest. The “tradition “ that you idolize is he has the power to bless any thing and any one in the person of Christ. What I’m describing is actual Catholicism. Sorry if it sounds foreign to your ears.
Hey, who am I to judge? Gerald seems to Pope of his own church. Intention (and motivation), my dear friend, matter. Have you forgotten the difference between intention anent the act of consecration over the bread and wine and the blessing of homosexual couples? Are you saying “anything” can be “blessed”? Do you really mean that? Wow. Your iteration of Catholicism would have us blessing disordered relations clearly sinful and outside the scope of even what the Natural Law allows. You might be Pope, but, I’m glad your iteration of the church has only 1 member: Gerald.
If you want a little laugh, see
http://www.thewashingtonwick.com/post/06oct25a
“God commanded us in the beginning to care for His creation.”
Matter can neither be created or destroyed. Water or ice when it in it’s solid phase is matter. Than part of creation is immune to our concern.
I should say they are neglected, and the issues themselves are often ignored.
Climate change is not heretical, it is not a matter of faith and morals at all.
Homosexual acts have not been declared moral, homosexual “marriages” have not been declared valid. The blessings of couples are being snuck in as blessings for people, with the scandal attributed to peoples’ supposedly simplistic understanding rather than to it being naturally scandalous, as it is.
The teaching of bishops must be in accord with Scripture and Tradition to have binding force. Even the bishop of Rome does not teach authoritatively if he says that all religions are good, all lead to God, or that all are equal. And none have said so with Extraordinary Magisterium.
You might say that the Apostles have fled the garden, you cannot say they are not the Apostles, or that Peter is no longer Peter, or that the Church no longer has the Faith.
Francis did say you cannot bless sin.
“Francis did say you cannot bless sin.”
In the Presentation:
“It is precisely in this context that one can understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples without officially validating their status or changing in any way the Church’s perennial teaching on marriage.”
And this in the same document:
“For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.”
Somehow, he paid lip service to the need to avoid confusion, but that doesn’t strike me as the sort of sort of indisputable clarity demanded by Matthew 5:37
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
37 But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.
Right, yes, wishy-washy is not acceptable – and very confusing to those who need the message the most.
Oh, I would not want to claim that his behavior followed the Gospel. Merely that it did not overturn the protection that the Holy Ghost has for the Church. Our trust is not in the hierarchy, it is in God’s Providence to keep the Church from losing the Faith in spite of the men in the hierarchy. Indefectability, not impeccability or a smooth ride through the storms.
Amanda, when the “faith” includes blessing homosexual couples, extolling the presence of a female Anglican AB of Canterbury, hanging the Rainbow Flag above the Cranmer Table, bending the knee to Pachamama, advancing homosexualist prelates, engaging in smudging ceremonies . . . all while condemning what has been the 2,000 years identity and traditional sacramental system of the Catholic Church; YOU.GOT.A.NEW.FAITH. You can pretend otherwise; but, de facto, you have a new faith. FYI: I think those that call themselves “catholic” while condemning Catholicism as expressed by the 2,000 years Tradition of the faith have become protestants. Period. Don’t be so protestant, eh?
Protestants are not in communion with Rome. Like the SSPX. I agree, don’t be a Protestant.
The protestants aren’t praying for the Pope in every Mass, they aren’t regarding well his authority, haven’t been asking to confer with the Pope since 2019 like the SSPX have. In fact, the protestants don’t need to bother with the Pope. He’s more than happy to bend the knee to them, anent Sarah Mullaly larping as the AB of Canterbury. You do have eyes, perhaps you should use them to “see”. You do have ears, perhaps you should use them to “hear”. Pax Tecum Semper Christi!
Protestants belong to the Church. You’re terribly uninformed.
that is disturbing; I thought things were rough here when that Chicago area priest had that male couple give the homily on Father’s day, I believe.
If the Church authoritatively declared such behavior to be right and good, required it, or specifically condemned good behavior as evil in a binding way for everyone, I would agree with you.
We do not have impeccable bishops or an impeccable Pope, and we never have. Catholic books on Church history are not shy about calling out the horribly sinful behaviors of certain Popes, nor do they attempt to cover up the times when Popes were silent when they should have taught the truth, or taught falsehoods non-authoritatively but publicly. It isn’t new, and it doesn’t change what the Church is when she has sinners in high places and traitors inside the walls. She is the Bride of Christ, and He will not cast her off.
Listening to the good gentle talks of Fr.Robert Young, on Radio Maria volume 13 –
week 6 came to the part about Herod mocking Jesus, dressing Him as a madman during The Passion .
Lord explains to Luisa how that mocking goes on very much in our times too – such as when one confesses sins with no intent to change the behavior, the media mockery of faith , the inner disposition that does not want to reciprocate the good of the Sacraments.
https://divinewilllife.org/series/willofgod/volume_13/
Above good talks – as essential for most who are spiritually ‘little’ and who desire to know and cherish the truths in the 36 volumes and related books .
Those in authority who get mocked for taking some prudent, serious steps and get called by mocking names – would not be surprised if they all are very much in touch with all above truths – Pope Pious X on down even and Pope Benedict XV1 who has the statue of St.Hanibale, confessor of Luisa at the Vatican , Pope Francis who knew well to have the tender compassion for the broken and the poor along with need for the bitter medicine of truth for the ‘seven times demons’ of ‘spiritual worldliness.’
Happened to hear again today about the Brother Leo , the close friend of St. Francis – https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/brother-leo
The inner strength & holiness in the reign of the Divine Will – of the Lion of Judah, given as grace to Mama to be shared with the children even drop by drop -thank God that our times are blessed much with our Father figures knowing well the times and needs, making humble, painful, gentle patient steps in accord with the varying needs of the flock ! Glory be !
‘ Central to the group’s formation and identity is a rejection of the Second Vatican Council—particularly its declarations on religious liberty and non-Christian religions—and of the new Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, commonly called the Novus Ordo. But beneath the group’s fixed adherence to preconciliar doctrines and the Traditional Latin Mass, we find, at bottom, the same pretension of spiritual purity that gripped both the Montanists and the Fraticelli—a turn “heavenward” at the expense of the Church’s life of earth. ‘
– Matthew Becklo
Elias, were you to consider the context of those new “pastoral” principles, i.e. “Religious Liberty” and “Ecumenism”, you’d actually (I hope) come to see them as they are: Masonic values, NOT Catholic ones. The Psalmist writes, “As the twig is bent, so grows the tree”. How have those Masonic values expressed themselves in the church? Religious Liberty = “All roads lead to God”. Is that what Christ indicated? “Ecumenism = Ecclesial Communism or a “One World Religion”. Is that what Christ entrusted to the Apostles? Did He say, “Go and affirm the pagans, the demon worshippers, the sorcerers, the most carnal and earthly among you, that they are on the correct path to paradise”? Is that what Our Lord died to accomplish? Obviously, Not. My friend, extract the Masonic values from the “pastoral” Council and you necessarily embrace what the Catholic Church has always been and through God’s grace and our persistence, will always remain. The “Pastoral Council” was neither pastoral nor of good council. Period. Pax tecum Christi Semper!
Perspective? What’s that, said the cyclops.
O, the omnipresent and omniscient Peter just can’t help himself. He must wade into waters where his unmistakable contribution hasn’t been properly appreciated yet. God bless your little heart! So glad you could take the time to level the ad hominem assaults.
Not you too, Peter, who sees a threat of Islam near everywhere! What is the meaning of univision in a person with advanced macular degeneration?
Wet or dry type?
Neither religious liberty (aka free will) nor ecumenism (aka be ready to give an answer) are new. You feel threatened by them, study and prove yourself worthy of the Great Commission.
“You feel threatened”
Projection.
Since you obviously haven’t taken the time to do the study yourself, please note that Fr. Wiltgen’s book describing in detail the dialog in the Aula when the notion of Religious Liberty was raised wrought complete confusion in the church fathers. Three separate definitions were raised, each quite different from the others. No clarity was offered either. If I appear to be unworthy of the “Great Commission” surely all of the 2,400 assembled church fathers fail the test, too. Pax Chistti Tecum Semper! (That’s “Catholic” for “Peace of Christ be with you always!”)
Well, thank God the concept of religious liberty has been clarified in the years since the Church Fathers’ confusion!
Mark Tabish, I appreciate the give back on my comments.
One has the impression that some Traditionalists (my using the going vocabulary), as they are in the US, have come to be inextricably bound up with Trumpism which contains many of the elements you pinpoint and other bad things besides. With Trump positioning himself as some kind of fiery anointed on behalf of Christians and Catholics demonstrating abilities to leap tall buildings in a single bound to all their advantage.
If what I am saying has factual basis then what has to be considered is how far Trumpism and those who associate with it, expect to go with that, worldwide. Looks unhealthy to me.
Is Trump a secret convert? Either way, does Excellency Vigano need to find detachment from that circle of people and things?
‘With Trump positioning himself as some kind of fiery anointed on behalf of Christians and Catholics demonstrating abilities to leap tall buildings in a single bound to all their advantage.”
Every once in a while, you show the perils being a foreigner commenting on our politics. This is a caricature that exists in your mind.
Unlike his opponents, Trump was not openly hostile to Christianity. in spite of his numerous faults, he never called them “bitter clingers”, never had his FBI attack Mark Houck in front of his children or propose to infiltrate Latin Mass groups as “terrorists”.
or suggested as did Harris as a Senator that a candidate for the federal judiciary was disqualified because of his membership in the Knights of Columbus.
Perhaps you will be so revealing as to tell us your national affiliation so we can caricature your nation. Otherwise, mind your own business.
President Trump makes all kinds of claims beyond the US, it doesn’t work out to say “mind your own business”, the world has surpassed all that.
Trump has his positives but he sets in play whether incidentally or deliberately a lot of risque openings everywhere, prejudicing more people than he benefits or can benefit; who’s going to cap them, won’t be him.
You don’t seem to catch that one can comment in a way that’s well-meaning.
In no fantasy realm but yours will anyone see these words as anything but weird and far from meaning ‘well’.
One has the impression that some Traditionalists (my using the going vocabulary), as they are in the US, have come to be inextricably bound up with Trumpism which contains many of the elements you pinpoint [anti-Masonic values and one-world global marxist religion] and other bad things besides. With Trump positioning himself as some kind of fiery anointed on behalf of Christians and Catholics demonstrating abilities to leap tall buildings in a single bound to all their advantage.
Where Mark Tabish mentions “one world religion” he refers, as I read it, to religious relativism, paganism, Freemasonry, pastoral deception.
Is President Trump a Catholic convert or not?
https://www.facebook.com/CBSNews/videos/president-trump-says-he-posted-the-ai-image-that-appeared-to-depict-the-presiden/1621783005735942/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBf0aLIfUG4
My point to Mark Tabish has to do with alliances and affiliations affecting faith among Catholic groupings one way or another (depending on group and context), when they become dependent/defined on the alliance or affiliation.
Well-meaning indicates, whoever might have gotten caught up in it, do take another more careful look at it.
My guess is Trinidad. Once long ago he may have said so.
Elias, I voted for the Trump that was “America First”. He’s far from that and I’m far from him. I don’t let politicians speak for my faith. Had I that tendency, I would have become an atheist many a moon ago. Pax tecum semper!
Tabish, would you vote for Trump in the general election again if he were allowed to run in 2028? I voted for him twice.
History sometimes repeats itself, and sometimes it is like nothing we have seen before; while it’s true that The Arian Heresy was addressed with a council that affirmed The Divinity Of Christ, The Denial Of The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and thus the fact that one cannot have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesiastical Communion, is being promoted in The Papacy as we speak, deny The Divinity Of The Most Holy Blessed Trinity and thus The Essence Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love.
God Save The Papacy!
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+same+pretension+of+spiritual+purity+that+gripped+both+the+Montanists+and+the+Fraticelli&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&sei=VhRdat60E9KQruEPlefpuQU
Matthew, it certainly appears that they were part of a group who denied Sacred Tradition whereas The SSPX affirm Sacred Tradition, a difference that makes all the difference when defending The Deposit Of Faith.
a turn “heavenward” at the expense of the Church’s life of earth?”
How exactly does one turn Heavenward at the expense of The Church’s Life on Earth, unless one denies The Creator of Heaven And Earth, all that is seen and unseen. I am going to take an educated guess here, Matthew, that you know full well that when you deny Sacred Tradition, and thus Divine Revelation, you cannot possibly be able to answer the question, “Who do you say that IAm, and that by illuminating the errors of both the Montanists and the Fraticelli, you have, in fact, illuminated the fact that they differ from The SSPX precisely because they deny Sacred Tradition whereas The SSPX affirm Sacred Tradition, which is necessary if you desire to affirm The Deposit of Faith, God’s Divine Revelation, Christ Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, (Filioque ) for The Salvation Of Souls.
“…ttps://biblehub.com/drb/john/17.htm
“…but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; 21That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: 23I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. 24Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world.”
In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost. Amen
These are very trying times indeed for everyone and it has to do with both unmooring from the dock and pulling out the pier and its footings as if they had no further use, throwing forth everything to the grand yonder.
‘ Peter D. Beaulieu
July 19, 2026 at 10:42 am
What Francis of Paola had to say in A.D. 1486 about the past is that resentful memories of evil, at least, are unnecessary baggage:
“Memory of an injury is itself wrong. It adds to our anger, nurtures our sin and hates what is good. It is a rusty arrow and poison for the soul. It puts all virtue to flight. It is like a worm in the mind: it confuses our speech and tears to shreds our petitions to God. It is foreign to charity: it remains planted in the soul like a nail. It is indeed a daily death” (Letter by Saint Francis of Paolo, in “Liturgy of the Hours,” for April 2 in Vol. II).
Reply
John Grondelski
July 20, 2026 at 6:04 am
Thank you for the reference. I will use it.
Reply ‘
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/07/18/odysseus-and-the-passage-of-time/#comment-558270
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/07/18/odysseus-and-the-passage-of-time/
Articles like this one often fail to appreciate sufficiently that two things can be true. In this case:
(1) the SSPX did what it should not have done by consecrating bishops illicitly; their arguments about disobedience being justified in certain cases is right in principle, but the problem is that can only apply to disobeying positive human law (which, even when justified, is still dangerous, which danger the SSPX does not even seem to acknowledge). The matter on which they disobeyed almost certainly is a matter not of positive ecclesiastical law but of divine law, since it touches on the divine constitution of the Church herself (by divine will, the pope is the head of the college of bishops and it usurps his jurisdiction to impose new members of that college against his express will). It is somewhat coy to offer justification for and historical examples of consecrating bishops “without papal mandate” whereas the actual object of the act in question is consecrating a bishop “against the explicit order of the pope,” a circumstance which certainly enters into the adequate evaluation of the act (and which is not merely forbidden by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, but also by the explicit and clear TEACHING of Pius IX and Pius XII, for example).
(2) the Holy See is not fully acting in good faith in claiming to want unity, especially as long as Fernandez is still in charge of the doctrinal office and Traditionis custodes is still on the books. Rome is only offering punishments and not providing any real lifelines. In 1988, John Paul II allowed former SSPX priests and SSPX-affiliated religious to form new communities, and he also explicitly encouraged bishops to make sure the traditional liturgy was widely available for the faithful. Leo/Fernandez, by contrast, are simply ordering SSPX priests to recant and join a diocese or some other community. Worse still, the official policy of the Holy See is still — because this is explicitly stated in T.C., which is still on the books — that the TLM should eventually be totally phased out. It is not hard to see why not only many SSPX people but even many “obedient” trads (and non-trads, for that matter) are very distrustful.
Two wrongs do not make a right, of course, but, as Pope Benedict stated, “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.” Cardinal Fernandez and even Pope Leo bear some of the responsibility for this new rift. Even though people are responsible for their own actions (including the superiors of the SSPX), we cannot forget that scandal, in the full theological sense of the word, can also be partly to blame — an act that, intended or not, can lead another person to make a sinful course of action. An act, morally speaking, can also include an omission. The Holy See has failed to reign in rampant heresy (under Francis, sadly, more than winked at heresy), and thus has contributed to the “crisis” which the SSPX claims necessitated their action.
Thank you. So very true.
“The Catholic Church, it seems, is gradually finding a postconciliar balance—a privileging of God, heaven, and tradition that nevertheless embraces man, the world, and authentic development.” Oh, really? And just how does James Martin, gay blessings, Pachamama, the German Church, and all the other aberrations tolerated or even endorsed by Leo figure into this?
We in the midst of wars and news about natural disasters and so forth adding to the (needed ) sorrow for this sad news in The Church.
Feast of St. Magdalene today – whom Lord dealt with much patience, tenderness compassion – narrations of her earlier seductive arrogance in book by Cora Evans – Refugee from Heaven. The Pharisee whom our Lord called on the spot to reveal his smugness and pride – not because of His wounded ego, instead to warn him as to what he was loosing in his lack of reciprocating love .
Interesting how it is many former SSPX persons who are trying to vocalize concerns through this site –
https://wherepeteris.com/
The extent of the glory and graces that can be even through seemingly small gestures in The Lord, in His Holy Divine Will – Pope Leo reminding us same in his recent Angelus address .
https://en.luisapiccarretaofficial.org/news/acts-in-the-divine-will/402
The painful decisions on these matters by our Father figures , the seeming excess in patience as tolerance towards the errant- very likely in God given wisdom and fidelity to His Divine Will . FIAT !
If I were to reveal to you the whole misery that you are, you would die of terror” (diary 718)
“For your sake I will withhold the hand which punishes; for your sake I will bless the earth” (431)
Jesus talking to Saint Faustina. We are not to condemn, not to slander, not to leave the Church because we feel holier. Yet, we are all sinners, and yet He is in us and we are in Him. SSPX rejects the Church, the Pope, the people of God. Defiance of Pope Leo XIV as Vicar of Christ, and the Church which is Christ His mystical body. No obedience, no love, no Holy Spirit! I think they have put the nail into the coffin. May the Lord have mercy on them.
“I desired to rest in your hands, not only in your heart” Jesus about the host in Saint Faustina’s hand. 160)
IN ILLO UNO UNUM – in that one Christ we are one! Where are you going SSPX ?
I am a nobody – I am responsible for my own home and nothing else. Regardless, it appears to me that the SSPX were in an untenable position. They needed new bishops and the pope refused to meet with them. The result being the choice to go without bishops was not a choice at all. They did what they thought was best for their flock and they ordained bishops.
There are some popes I love because they set an example for me, they inspire me, guide me in ways of holiness, and lift up the Body of Christ. There are other popes that have been voices of confusion, they are divisive and seemingly run wild tangents while the Church suffers through them. I pray for all of those who follow after Jesus Christ without drawing lines between those that I think are “real” followers of Jesus Christ and those who are not. I have never attended an SSPX mass and I don’t intend to, but I only think of them in the most charitable of ways. God bless and keep them close to his heart.