|
Guest Article:
Some Reflections On The 2026 SSPX Episcopal Consecrations
By: 'Confused Catholic'
INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE / BACKGROUND
First, I would point out that I am specifically
dealing with the 2026 consecrations by the successors of Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre, not the 1988
consecrations done by Archbishop Lefebvre himself. For those unaware, Archbishop Lefebvre
was a participant at the
Second Vatican Council. In 1970, He founded the SSPX (the Society of Saint Pius X).
In 1988, he consecrated four bishops for the SSPX without papal approval and was
excommunicated as a result. He died in 1991.
Second, I will briefly indicate the purpose of
this article and some background information...
To begin with, I'd like to note that I'm not an
adherent of – or cheerleader for – the SSPX. In fact, I have
never once participated in an SSPX sacrament or even stepped foot into an SSPX
chapel. Not even once. With respect to
the SSPX, I am an outsider and only know what I've read or heard. I am also not a
Vatican insider and only know what I've read or heard. At the outset, I
had no strong bias in favor of or against the SSPX (except I have maintained a general discomfort with
their 'irregular' situation). I am a simple, tradition loving lay person
and try to attend only the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), as I have for decades. I'm not writing
as a theologian (I'm not one), just a Baptized, Confirmed, practicing cradle
Catholic, perhaps one a little more studied than average.
As a member of the laity who greatly loves the
Church, this matter concerning the SSPX consecrations has caused me a degree of
suffering and anxiety. However, I have
no direct personal stake in it. I'm just seeking understanding & truth.
I write this article anonymously, as a "confused Catholic", because it is what the subject matter is about, not the author, that
is important. Besides, I don't need any more persecution than I already suffer
for my beliefs and I appreciate that I can speak more freely in this manner.
I am only giving my
opinion on matters herein. I am not infallible. My thoughts could be in error.
I obviously can't know with certainty the motivations and thoughts of other
individuals. As I don't know the SSPX personally, I could be wrong about them. I just try to
use what I know (e.g. from publicly available information) and common sense.
Where applicable, I must presume certain things (hopefully justifiably). I
welcome reasoned discussion & honest, accurate correction by faithful,
tradition-loving Catholics if I am wrong on anything of importance. [Note: To
submit general comments about this article, you may use our News & Opinion Feedback form
here.]
Third, some cautionary statements and related
notes...
I recognize that some items herein may appear
shocking, but it is not I that created the situation in the Church today. If
something herein shocks you (especially about
Pope Francis' pontificate), you may
simply be unaware of what has happened over recent decades (it truly is
shocking!). As Catholics, we may dislike certain things, but we cannot deny
reality. Denying reality doesn't serve truth. In fact, the less you are aware of
PV2 (post-Vatican II) realities vs. the time prior to Vatican II, the more
this article may seem confusing or shocking. Perhaps it would be best to brush up
on recent Church news (e.g. post 1960's news) before reading this article. If
some information noted herein seems shocking or disturbing, one can confirm its
accuracy independently (assuming this won't present a danger to your faith!). I
am not trying to deceive anyone. In fact, I have purposely omitted some of the
worst items as they seem, frankly, blasphemous.
That being said, if you are a modernist or
progressive Catholic, or you want the Church to stray from Apostolic &
Scriptural teachings,
please move on. This article is not for you. If you think a
Protestantized Mass is a positive development, move on please (and kindly
educate yourself). Further, if you don't love the Church and her traditions,
understand the concept of the deposit of faith and the limits of infallibility,
I suggest you gain this understanding, appreciation, knowledge, and love before
reading this article.
I would also note that there may be no
significance to the order of various items below. I may have simply placed items
in the following order for convenience. Also, I might have combined paragraphs
when quoting.
Lastly, please don't be offended by (or read
things into) any word choices herein or punctuation marks/lack thereof. I am
not attempting to convey any covert or hidden messages. I am simply seeking
truth. I promise that I do NOT have any agenda other than truth. I want what God
wants (even if I do not know for certain what that is in any given matter).
HOW THIS ARTICLE CAME ABOUT / SOME NOTES
When I heard of the SSPX consecrations – first
that they were going to occur, then that they had happened – I needed to, as they say,
'have a think'. This article is the product, or fruit, of my reflection on this
matter over several weeks now. (Hopefully it is good fruit as I would not wish
to mislead!) I have decided to share my thoughts in case they may
be of assistance to others. I keep in mind Can. 212 §3 of the 1983 Code of Canon
Law which says...
"According to the knowledge, competence, and
prestige which they possess, they [the faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to
manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the
good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian
faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence
toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of
persons."
I therefore wish to share my reflections in
accordance with Church law. I want to remain charitable but speak the truth. I
acknowledge that some truths may not initially seem charitable, but truth is
truth. And we should care about truth because God Himself is truth (cf. Jn. 14:6
& 1 Jn. 5:6). In contrast, the devil is the 'father of lies' (Jn. 8:44).
Of course, there
is a lot more that could be said about this issue than what I write herein, but I've
already spent too much of my time on it and must curtail further efforts at
this point. I believe future events, not future thoughts on my part, will make
the situation more clear to Catholics in general.
The reader will of course be responsible for
his or her own opinions, thoughts and actions. I make no guarantees about mine. I
am sharing my reflections in good faith to possibly help the situation and for
authentic dialog purposes. I can't be responsible for what anyone does with them.
This is a very serious matter that could affect your soul & your judgment, not to
mention affect you temporally. Everyone is responsible for their own thoughts,
opinions and actions. A well-formed conscience is essential. Plus, future events
may prove whether my thoughts were accurate or not. In any event, think for
yourself. You will be alone at your judgment.
EXAMPLE DOCUMENTS / TERMINOLOGY /
ABBREVIATIONS
In this article, I will use various
abbreviations and make reference to a few example Church documents
issued after
Vatican II.
In particular, I will reference these four (4) post-Vatican II items by
the abbreviations noted below. For those not familiar with the
documents, a very short summary is provided along with some clarifying
statements.
ED - Ecumenical
Directory/'Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism'
(promulgated under
Pope John Paul II, in 1993) - a shocking/scandalous document promoting
ecumenism which may permit
heretics to use
Catholic churches
for their false worship. Note: Compare with the following statements which illustrate
traditional Catholic teaching...
"After a first and second warning, break off
contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and
stands self-condemned." (St. Paul, Ti. 3:10-11)
"The toleration of heretics is more injurious
than the devastation of the provinces by the barbarians." (Pope St. Gelasius I,
5th century A.D.)
"The First Commandment forbids idolatry,
superstition, sacrilege, heresy, and every other sin against religion."
(Catechism of St. Pius X, 1908 A.D.)
"Whoever in any manner willingly and
knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things
divine with heretics against the prescriptions of Canon 1258, is suspected of
heresy." (Can. 2316, 1917 Code of Canon Law)
AL -
Amoris
Laetitia
(promulgated under
Pope Francis in
2016) - another shocking/scandalous document, it essentially 'overturned 2,000 years of
tradition by allowing some persons in adulterous unions to receive sacramental
absolution and Holy Communion, thereby permitting sacrilege against
Confession,
the
Holy Eucharist and
matrimony, and harming the consciences of (rightly)
dissenting
priests', among other
things (examples
here). Note: Compare with the following statements which illustrate traditional
Catholic teaching...
"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the
cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the
Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27)
"He who receives Communion in mortal sin
receives the Body and Blood of Christ, but does not receive His grace, and he
commits a great sacrilege." (Baltimore Catechism)
"No one who has a mortal sin on his conscience
shall dare receive the Holy Eucharist before making a sacramental confession,
regardless of how contrite he may think he is. This holy council declares that
this custom is to be kept forever by all Christians." (Council of Trent)
"I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and
implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt
conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called 'communion', not even were
we to touch the Lord's body a thousand times over, but 'condemnation', 'torment'
and 'increase of punishment'." (St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church)
TC - Traditionis Custodes + related documents
[under
Pope Francis in 2021 (+
and later)] - an 'unjust declaration of war' against the
TLM (more
information here). The documents attempt to marginalize
TLM attending
Catholics [e.g. by instructing bishops to "designate one or more locations where
the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic
celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of
new personal parishes)", and "to take care not to authorize the
establishment of new groups"], unjustly place restrictions on priests and bishops,
and have the goal of eventually suppressing entirely the
TLM. The
documents are contrary to statements of Pope St. Pius
V, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and even
Vatican
II...
"[B]y this present Constitution, which will be
valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be
added to Our recently published Missal [the TLM], nothing omitted from it, nor
anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure...
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority,
We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass
in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely,
without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or
censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators,
canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title
designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We
likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter
this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but
remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous
constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special
constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding
the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and
immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years'
standing." (Pope St. Pius V)
"To all those Catholic faithful who feel
attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin
tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by
means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful
aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all
those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church...moreover, respect must
everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin
liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives
already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman
Missal according to the typical edition of 1962." (Pope John Paul II)
"What earlier generations held as sacred
remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely
forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the
riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them
their proper place." (Pope Benedict XVI)
"Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition,
the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully
recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve
them in the future and to foster them in every way." (Second Vatican Council)
+ Note that
the related documents include an accompanying letter, a Responsa ad dubia, and a
Rescript.
FS - Fiducia Supplicans
(promulgated under
Pope Francis in 2023) - yet another scandalous document, it
may permit blessings of
homosexual couples
and
fornicating
and adulterous couples. Note: Compare with the following statements which illustrate traditional Catholic teaching...
"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife
must give her a bill of divorce.' But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife
(unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever
marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Our Lord Jesus Christ, Mt. 5:31-32)
"Do you not know that the unjust will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor
idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor
thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the
kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10)
"For thus, according to the holy apostle, the
sin of fornication is perpetrated against the body, as involving also sin
against the temple of God." (St. Irenaeus of Lyons)
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;
such a thing is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22)
"[W]hoever cooperates with another in a mortal
sin, sins mortally" (Summa Theologica, Objection)
SD - May refer to the 'Final Document' for
a 'Synodal Church' (promulgated under
Pope Francis
in 2024), or may refer to other information from the apparently 'never ending
synodal journey'. Note that Pope Francis wanted this 'Final Document' accepted
–
and even claimed that it "participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the
Successor of Peter". It appears to 'downgrade' the papacy to please those
within and outside the Church.
Note that I don't personally recommend reading
documents such as ED, AL or FS, especially if not properly catechized, as they
may represent a danger to one's faith.
Various other abbreviations may be used in this
article, such as...
V2 (or VII) -
Vatican II (Second Vatican Council)
PV2 - Post-Vatican II
SSPX - Society of Saint Pius X
TLM -
Traditional Latin Mass ('Tridentine Mass')
NO -
Novus Ordo Mass [Note: In some instances, which should be clear from the
context, "NO" simply means an emphasized 'no'.]
FSSP
- Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
ICK (or ICKSP) - Institute of Christ the King
Trad, Trads -
Catholic tradition/traditions,
tradition-loving/tradition-minded Catholics, traditional Catholics
I may also use the
terms 'party' or 'side' loosely as convenient shorthand to refer either to the
SSPX and/or the PV2 Church (or elements thereof). Ideally all parties would be
on the same 'side' – the side of the Catholic Church. Yet, I think use
of these terms may nevertheless be useful for clarity when discussing the issues
at hand. I don't intend to use the terms to be divisive or offensive in any way.
Likewise, I reference 'Grigio' herein. This refers
to Dominic J. Grigio,
author of "The Disastrous Pontificate: Pope Francis' Rupture From the
Magisterium". [To support this site, purchase using
this link.] Dominic Grigio is said to be a "pen-name of a Catholic
clergyman in good standing with the Church who cannot reveal his identity for
fear of reprisals against himself and his diocese". The book documents many
issues during
Pope Francis'
scandalous pontificate and cites numerous references.
Finally, I may use the term "AI" to refer to
'artificial intelligence'. I am most definitely *not* a big fan of AI, but in a few instances I
have made some use of free online AI tools (e.g. to verify some points herein).
I believe my modest use of AI had an 'essentially negligible' effect on this
article overall (which was totally penned by a human, not AI), especially since
most of the points herein were mapped out well before I ever used AI
for this article.
WHAT THIS MATTER IS (AT LEAST OSTENSIBLY) ABOUT
In a nutshell, the matter concerns
disobedience to the Holy Father, the
Pope (currently
Pope Leo XIV) by the
SSPX. On 7/1/26, they consecrated four new bishops for the SSPX against
the Pope's will and without his permission, incurring automatic
excommunication.
WHAT THIS MATTER MAY (REALLY) BE ABOUT
If one looks deeper, the matter may arguably be
about far more than a recent act of disobedience on the part of the SSPX. For
example, consider these items...
* Preservation of traditional Catholic doctrine
and practices
"I praise you because you remember me in
everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."
(St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11:2)
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to
the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter
of ours." (St. Paul, 2 Thes. 2:15)
"We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our)
Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way
and not according to the tradition they received from us." (St. Paul, 2 Thes.
3:6)
"Let them innovate nothing, but keep the
traditions. ['Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est']" (Pope St. Steven I, 3rd
century A.D.)
"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten
tradition of the church, let him be anathema." (Second Council of Nicaea, 787
A.D.)
"It is unlawful to alter the established customs
of the Church... Remove not the ancient landmarks which the fathers have set."
(St. Peter Damian, Doctor of the Church)
"Indeed, the true friends of the people are
neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are promoters of tradition." (Pope
St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate, 1910 A.D.)
"It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we
should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the
fathers of old." (Decretals, as quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the
Church and "greatest theologian in the history of the Church")
* Unchangeable truths
"See to it that no one captivate you with an
empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the
elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ." (St. Paul, Col. 2:8)
"Let what you heard from
the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the
beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the
Son and in the Father." (St. John, 1 Jn. 2:24)
"Anyone who is so
'progressive' as not to remain in the teaching of the
Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the
teaching has the Father and the Son." (St. John, 2 Jn.
1:9)
"Remember your leaders
who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome
of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus
Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do
not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching."
(St. Paul, Heb. 13:7-9)
"But there are some who are disturbing you and
wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven
should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let
that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone
preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be
accursed! Am I now currying favor with human beings or God? Or am I seeking to
please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave
of Christ. Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is
not of human origin. For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I
taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (St. Paul, Gal.
1:7-12)
"If anyone says that it is possible that at some
time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas
propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has
understood and understands: let him be anathema." (First Vatican Council)
"I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation
that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one
which the Church held previously." (From the Oath Against Modernism, Prescribed
by Pope St. Pius X, 1910 A.D.)
"[It] is incumbent on all Catholics who are
anxious to approve themselves genuine sons of Mother Church, to adhere
henceforward to the holy faith of the holy Fathers, to be wedded to it, to die
in it; but as to the profane novelties of profane men - to detest them, abhor
them, oppose them, give them no quarter." (St. Vincent of Lerins)
*
Modernism
"Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly
by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first
step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by
Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism." (Pope St. Pius X)
"We have had to give this exposition a somewhat
didactic form and not to shrink from employing certain uncouth terms in use
among the Modernists. And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole
system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies?
Were one to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have
been broached against the faith and to concentrate the sap and substance of them
all into one, he could not better succeed than the Modernists have done." (Pope
St. Pius X)
"Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary description
of the apologetic method of the Modernists, in perfect harmony, as you may see,
with their doctrines - methods and doctrines brimming over with errors, made not
for edification but for destruction, not for the formation of Catholics but for
the plunging of Catholics into heresy; methods and doctrines that would be fatal
to any religion." (Pope St. Pius X)
So while it may seem on first glance to be about
disobedience on the part of the SSPX, I would argue that, at heart, it's a
theological issue. It concerns divine, not human truths. The issues are not
limited to the way liturgy is conducted or how sacraments are dispensed, but rather
it is also tied up with various ideological currents (e.g. progressive modern
currents that the SSPX necessarily rejects in faithfulness to Christ and to the
perennial magisterium).
In that context, I would first note the following
concerning the Church/Vatican/Pope...
* The Church
belongs to
Christ, it is NOT the property of men, even popes. Christ's Church
has been entrusted with the deposit of faith – NO one whatsoever has the right to change
it! If they try, they exceed their authority. Many in the Church today seem to
act as if doctrine is made by the Pope or Bishops instead of a deposit given to
the Church by Christ. This is an error. Doctrinal
deviations cannot be from
God.
"The
Holy Spirit was not promised to the successor
of Peter that by the revelation of the Holy Spirit they might disclose new
doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation
transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully
set it forth." (First Vatican Council)
* The hierarchy has an actual DUTY to protect the
deposit of faith.
"O Timothy, guard what
has been entrusted to you. Avoid profane babbling and
the absurdities of so-called knowledge. By professing
it, some people have deviated from the faith. Grace be
with all of you." (St. Paul, 1 Tm. 6:20-21)
"[Our] first safety is to guard the rule of the
right faith and to deviate in no wise from the ordinances of the Fathers" (Pope
St. Hormisdas, 517 A.D.)
* The Church can develop doctrine but has
no right or authority to create novel doctrine or overturn/reinterpret
Holy Scripture or tradition to a
new/contrary meaning [e.g. on the
death penalty
('supported by Scripture and the constant teaching of the Church prior to V2, it
is a teaching that cannot be reversed, even if some in the Church may try to do
so'), immemorial customs, etc.]. To do so would be acting outside one's
authority. Note that 'the truth of doctrine can only be proven by showing it
originates from
Christ & the
Apostles.' The Church has no power to change
such doctrines,
not even by a Pope. As stated in the
Oath Against Modernism...
"Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed
to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred
tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense,
with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact - one
to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history - the fact, namely, that a
group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through
subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then,
and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of
truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the
episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may
be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of
each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles
from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be
understood in any other way."
* It is nevertheless 'undeniable' that
modernists
may have control of many elements of the Church PV2, even though modernism was
condemned as the "synthesis of all heresies" and many of its principles were
condemned.
* There have been unprecedented
changes in the Church (arguably it's been a 'revolution' or a 'conquest') since
Vatican II that have
affected countless matters (orientation,
sacraments,
liturgy, teachings,
catechesis, formation, etc.).
"The [Second Vatican] Council is [the Revolution
of] 1789 in the Church" (Cardinal Suenens)
"The liturgical reform is a major conquest of the
Catholic Church" (Archbishop Bugnini, "chief architect of the New Mass")
* Many in the Church have insulted, persecuted and
marginalized faithful Catholics who oppose the revolutionary changes. Note that 'there is not
just opposition to the traditional faith and liturgy in the PV2 Church, but also
there is opposition to other sacraments in their traditional rites.' Trads are
arguably a 'persecuted minority' in the PV2 Church. In fact, it might be argued
that certain modern churchmen may want Trads gone in order to destroy any memory of
the old ways (to 'memory hole' the past).
Next I would note the following concerning the
SSPX...
* From the SSPX's
perspective, I believe they are primarily seeking the
preservation of Catholic traditions and doctrine. Note that I believe the SSPX
is *not* just concerned about preserving traditional rites, but doctrine itself (which is
most certainly a worthy goal, but obviously it must be done in an appropriate/lawful
manner)
* It might be argued that the SSPX is the only
real/formidable obstacle to the revolution and a hindrance to a 'one world religion'.
(I thank them for that.)
* Whether one agrees with the SSPX or not, I
believe they are taking a stand because they genuinely cannot go
along with obvious errors against the faith, or sacrilege. Comparing pre-V2
teachings and post-V2 teachings that are contradictory & mutually exclusive, it is clear that
there has to be some error (which, of course, does not affect
infallibility).
It's not
Protestant or 'private judgment' to realize there is an issue if someone,
for example, calls a glass of liquid 'pure water' and his successor says the very
same glass of liquid is 'pure olive oil'. They are mutually exclusive. One must
be true, one must be false. They cannot both be true at the same time. And just
because something is spoken later doesn't necessarily give it more credibility
than that which was said before (in Church matters it may, in fact, be more
likely to be the opposite). And as for sacrilege, one may have to enter
only a handful of PV2 churches in various areas to find examples.
* The SSPX didn't
cause the situation in the Church today, but rather are responding to it in the
way they think is right/justified.
In light of what I've read over the years, I think it's safe to say
that the Vatican would like
the influence of the SSPX extinguished. They want the Church to go in a
different direction from the past and the SSPX's continued existence is a
reproof of sorts. Yet the SSPX has continued to draw Catholics into tradition – a
situation which may greatly displease the innovators.
I also note the following...
* This is no small matter. It doesn't seem
exaggerated to say that the patrimony of the Church is at stake. There has been
an (IMHO, harmful & illicit) attempt to discard our Catholic birthright and
replace it with more recently adopted liturgical forms (e.g. the 1960's
Novus
Ordo, a controversial Protestantized liturgy) which promotes irreverence and sacrilege and makes silent participation more
difficult. The traditional Catholic liturgical forms used by the SSPX are in
sharp & glorious contrast to the
NO liturgy (I am merely speaking of external
appearances). Regarding the Novus Ordo Mass used in most parishes today (but NOT
by the SSPX), Cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci had warned...
"To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four
centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with
another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes,
cannot but be a sign of division - a liturgy which teems with insinuations or
manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith - is, we feel bound
in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error."
* The existence and
proliferation of the SSPX may be seen as a 'badly needed' rebuke of V2 and the
'modern Church' (even if one doesn't agree with actions of the SSPX).
* Traditional
Catholicism seems almost intolerable in the PV2 Church – and this disdain doesn't
even correspond with
the moderns' beloved
Second Vatican Council. The
Novus
Ordo itself, plus the
(illegitimate) attempt to suppress the TLM, are in contradiction to the Second
Vatican Council which stated...
"The use of the Latin language, with due respect
to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Second Vatican
Council)
"The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being
specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it
should be given pride of place in liturgical services." (Second Vatican Council)
"[T]here must be no innovations unless the good of
the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that
any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already
existing." (Second Vatican Council)
"Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition, the
sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized
rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the
future and to foster them in every way." (Second Vatican Council)
* The Church is long overdue for an honest
discussion of the revolutionary changes unleashed in the Church the wake of
V2 (and even some points in the V2
documents themselves, as this was a pastoral council and did not specifically
invoke
infallibility). The statistically verifiable catastrophic results of V2 cannot be denied (try here
for some examples).
"There are many accounts of it which give the
impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that
what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of
Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the
entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start
from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all,
and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a pastoral council; and
yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which
takes away the importance of all the rest." (Cardinal Ratzinger, council father
& future Pope Benedict XVI)
In the end, I think the Church's discarded
traditions & true Catholic doctrine are at the essence of the issue. The 'real crime' of
the SSPX is that they are trying
to be faithful to the fullness of traditional Catholic teaching & practices (which they felt
required them to engage in disobedience). But although the 'apparent reason' for
the present controversy is
disobedience, I would argue that at heart, the issue is not primarily over a disobedient act.
Could Pope Leo have
approved the men the SSPX named to be consecrated and a 'schism' averted
(or selected others from among their ranks)? Yes, of course, but the Pope chose not to do so. Perhaps I am
being cynical, but I can't help but suspect that the very same men that the SSPX
just consecrated without approval would have been acceptable if they had given up
their attachment to Catholic
tradition. Yet, isn't the Pope supposed
to do what he can to maintain unity (not to mention tradition)?
"The vigilance and pastoral solicitude of the
Roman Pontiff are principally and above all manifested in maintaining and
conserving the unity and integrity of the Catholic faith, without which it is
impossible to please God." (Pope Benedict XIV)
DUTIES OF POPE & BISHOPS / LAITY'S DUTIES &
RIGHTS
Before moving on, I think it's appropriate to
emphasize/reemphasize a few points concerning duties of respective parties. I
don't want to be repetitive, but it is very important that these items are kept
in mind.
* It is the Pope's duty to pass on, protect, and
defend the deposit of faith.
"The vigilance and pastoral solicitude of the
Roman Pontiff are principally and above all manifested in maintaining and
conserving the unity and integrity of the Catholic faith, without which it is
impossible to please God." (Pope Benedict XIV)
* The Successor of St. Peter is supposed to
strengthen his brethren and feed Christ's sheep. (see Lk. 22:32, Jn.
21:15-17). The Pope is NOT authorized to change doctrine or invent novelties, but to
preserve and pass on what he's received. He has no authority change Church
teachings! The papacy is to be an office of servant, not a 'power trip'. Peter has charge
over the faithful, not as his own, but as Christ's – feed MY lambs (Jn.
21:15-17). As
St. Augustine said...
"If you love me, think not of feeding yourself,
but feed my sheep as mine, and not as your own; seek my glory in them, and not
your own; my dominion, and not yours"
* A main job of the Church is to carry the deposit
of faith uncorrupted throughout the ages, without newly invented teachings. The deposit of
faith was entrusted to the Church for its use & safekeeping by God, it is not
for men to change. The fact that a doctrine traces from Apostolic times is a
'guarantee of authenticity'. Some modern churchmen think they have the right to
change it. They don't.
"Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you
concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to
beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints."
(Jude 1:3)
"For the teaching authority of the Church,
which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed
doctrines might remain intact forever, and that they might be brought with ease
and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the
Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office
of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever
this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or
more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the
articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this
extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is
anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly
contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only
those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that
which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith."
(Pope Pius XI)
* Bishops are
successors of the Apostles. Bishops are to rule the Church of God by the Holy
Spirit. They have a grave responsibility to pass down the faith as it was received
as well as to protect, defend, and teach
the true faith. On the day of their episcopal ordination, bishops may solemnly
swear to 'preserve the deposit of faith in purity and integrity, according to
the Tradition always and everywhere observed in the Church since the time of the
Apostles.' They are obligated to do so.
"If I preach the gospel, this is no reason for me
to boast, for an obligation has been imposed on me, and woe to me if I do not
preach it!" (1 Cor. 9:16)
"O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.
Avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge." (1 Tm. 6:20)
"Take as your norm the sound words that you heard
from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us."
(2 Tm. 1:13-14)
"Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole
flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend
the church of God that he acquired with his own blood. I know that after my
departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the
disciples away after them." (Acts 20:28-30)
* As noted, the Church is
Christ's, in which our shepherds are supposed to tend to Christ's flock with
Christ's doctrine. It is not the property or plaything of men to teach man's
doctrine. In addition to preserving doctrine, the Church has a duty to preserve
her ancient traditions...
"I praise you because you remember me in
everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."
(St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11:2)
"Therefore, brothers,
stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you
were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter
of ours." (St. Paul, 2 Thes. 2:15)
"We instruct you,
brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ, to
shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly
way and not according to the tradition they received
from us." (St. Paul, 2 Thes. 3:6)
* The hierarchy also has a duty to speak up at
times, even if the one causing the issue is the Pope himself.
"And when Kephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I
opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong." (St. Paul, Gal 2:11)
"...for a cardinal or a bishop, to remain
silent, since the scandal that has already occurred is serious and public, and
if it is not stopped, it is bound to be more and more amplified. The threat does
not become smaller but more serious, since the error comes from the Roman See,
and is destined to scandalize all the faithful, and above all the little ones,
the simple faithful who have no way of orienting and defending themselves in
this confusion" (Grigio)
*
The Church is also NOT a democracy, determined by
the will of people. Rather, the Church is Christ's body.
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and
in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on
behalf of his body, which is the church" (St. Paul, Col. 1:24)
* Fundamentals of
the faith cannot change and do not change, even a if a majority wants them to. We
each have a duty to resist strange doctrine and false teachers...
"Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange
teaching." (Heb. 13:9)
"After a first and second warning, break off
contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and
sinful and stands self-condemned." (Titus 3:10-11)
"There were also false prophets among the people,
just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive
heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction
on themselves." (2 Pt. 2:1)
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should
preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that
one be accursed!" (Gal. 1:8)
* The laity have an important
role to play in guarding and preserving the faith. We are also called by our
Baptism &
Confirmation to defend the faith
and preserve tradition. Scripture tells us
to both reject strange doctrine (see
above) and hold on to tradition
(see above).
"Therefore, brothers,
stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you
were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter
of ours." (2 Thes. 2:15)
* Laity also have
rights in the Church. For example, the 1983 Code of Canon Law states...
"The Christian faithful have the right to receive
assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church,
especially the word of God and the sacraments." (Can. 213)
"The Christian faithful have the right to worship
God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate
pastors of the Church and to follow their own form of spiritual life so long as
it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church." (Can. 214)
SCHISM / SCHISMATICS
Due to the charges of schism leveled against the
SSPX, I think it's also important to address some points concerning
schism/schismatics...
* What is schism/schismatic? Here are some
definitions...
"[S]chism is the refusal of submission to the
Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (1983 Code of Canon Law,
Can. 751)
"Schismatics [are
those] who have been baptized and believe all the articles of faith, but do not
submit to the authority of the Pope" (Baltimore Catechism)
* Is schism a serious matter? Yes, it is very
serious.
"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever
rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."
(Lk. 10:16)
"For not every
sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically
from the body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy." (Pope Pius
XII)
"Hold most firmly
and never doubt in the least that not only all pagans but also all Jews and
heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the Church are about
to go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the Devil and his angels."
(St. Fulgence of Ruspe, 6th century A.D.)
"Those, indeed,
who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who
repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will
be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: it anyone follow a
schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk with strange
doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, hearer
of St. John the Apostle, c. 110 A.D.)
"Hence there are but three classes of persons
excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and
excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never
belonged to, and never knew the church, and were never made partakers of any of
her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because
they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the
army from which they have deserted... Finally, excommunicated persons are not
members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the
member of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent."
(Catechism of the Council of Trent)
* Would schism ever be justified or not sinful?
No, a true schism would not be justified and would always be (objectively
speaking) sinful. That being
said, I'm not sure that everything that may at first appear to be a schism (e.g.
"an apparent schism") would be a true schism. It is not within my authority or
competence to decide what constitutes schism in any given case.
* Is the SSPX in schism?
They have been declared to be in schism by the Holy See (specifically by the
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith), but they do not agree.
* Why are they said
to be in schism? Due to disobedience of consecrating without papal permission,
which incurs a penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.
* Is it true that
members of the hierarchy may have 'provoked' the SSPX schism by their
repeated actions/lack of action? Regrettably I think the answer, arguably, may
be yes. IMHO, I think the SSPX
itself might agree that if the popes had been doing their jobs faithfully over
the last decades, there would be
no reason for the SSPX to even exist (at least not in an 'irregular' state).
* So is the SSPX
excommunicated and therefore
outside the Church? The SSPX does not consider that
they are outside the Church, even if the Vatican sees it this way. A
legitimate/warranted excommunication definitely would put someone outside the
Church.
* Is it a 'repeated
schism'? The first SSPX 'schism' (although I'm not sure it was
officially declared such) occurred in 1988 when 4 bishops were consecrated
by the SSPX without papal permission. They were
excommunicated at the time, but the excommunications were lifted in 2009, and
the SSPX was later given some faculties (for some confessions & marriages) under Pope Francis. It is
certainly possible that this second 'schism' may be treated in a similar manner,
especially as things unfold over time.
* Is it the Pope's
duty to try to prevent schism? According to the controversial Archbishop Viganò (himself declared
'schismatic')...
"It is his [the Pope's] own duty to prevent a
schism."
* Does the declared SSPX schism make their sacraments invalid?
If they are in schism, [some] sacraments may be valid but illicit [others may be invalid].
* If they are excommunicated schismatics, are they
part of the Catholic Church? If they are truly schismatics and truly/validly
excommunicated, they would be outside the Church. As the 1908 Catechism of Pope
St. Pius X states...
"Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews,
heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated."
* Are their souls at stake? If the SSPX is
truly in schism and truly/validly excommunicated, I believe they and their adherents have put their souls at
stake.
* Is this a 'normal schism'? It doesn't seem so to
me, although I admit I am not an expert. If it is a true
schism, it might be the strangest schism ever! For example, as the Handbook of
Moral Theology states, "Therefore schism, although not directly contrary to
faith, is nearly always conjoined to heresy, because schismatics not only refuse
obedience to the pope but also deny his primacy." To the best of my
knowledge, the SSPX does not promote
heresy nor do they deny the pope's primacy. I believe they consider it their
duty to be obedient to the Pope whenever they believe he is acting in accordance
with the perennial magisterium (e.g. when he acts as all the pre-V2 popes would
have acted). I believe they think they were disobedient in a matter they
considered to be a necessity (e.g. to disobey the Pope in a particular matter but still accept his
authority in general). In normal times, there probably wouldn't be such confusion, but the
age we are living is certainly not 'normal' (more on this to follow).
DISOBEDIENCE (IN GENERAL)
As the charge of 'schism' resulted from an act of
disobedience, it also seems relevant to consider some general facts concerning
obedience/disobedience...
* Is disobedience a serious matter? It can be.
Note that we are obliged to be subordinate to lawful commands of lawful
authorities...
"Let every person be subordinate to the higher
authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist
have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what
God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to
have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval
from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be
afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God
to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not
only because of the wrath but also because of conscience." (Rom. 3:1-5)
Recall also the gravity of Adam & Eve's
disobedience to God that has resulted in untold suffering throughout the earth.
* Disobedience is normally wrong, but is
disobedience ever allowed? Yes. Here's an illustrative example: If a father was
to command his son to kill an innocent person, it would be REQUIRED for the son to be
disobedient to the father as his order was clearly unlawful (it was against the 5th
commandment).
* In the example above, the answer was rather obvious because the order
was patently unlawful. But what if an order is lawful and the person is bound to
obedience? Ponder this example...
Consider the case of a husband and wife. The wife
knows she is bound to obey her husband's lawful commands (cf. Gen. 3:16, 1 Cor.
11:3, Eph. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18). The husband issues a lawful command to his wife
for the good of their children. The command is that the wife remain at home full-time and
homeschool
their children. This is an appropriate, good, lawful, worthy
command that is within the husband's authority to command and his wife's ability to obey.
But what if the husband grows lazy and refuses to work? The children (and
husband & wife) will soon have no food and no home. She prays much, but
there is no improvement. She seeks help, but it is not enough to feed her
children. She petitions her husband, but he won't budge. In this case, the wife would
not sin by going to work outside the home and pausing the homeschooling. Should
she do so, the wife would be 'guilty' of 'ongoing disobedience' that
was not only
warranted, but required/incumbent upon her as a mother. Being obedient would
literally have presented a danger to herself, her husband and her children. And
saving her children's lives is a higher duty than that of obedience. She would
not be acting disobediently in this matter because she wanted to, or because she
didn't recognize her husband's authority. Rather, she had to take this action
against her own inclinations and her husband's commands because her husband was
derelict in his duty and she had no other choice. Not only does she not
sin by being 'disobedient' to the lawful commands of her husband (which she
otherwise honors), but she does the right thing to disobey him in this case,
ultimately saving herself and her family. The husband's actions betrayed his
wife and family. The consequences of her obedience (if she had been obedient in
this case) would have been the death of herself, her husband, and her children.
I think it is safe to say this would have been a false obedience, a wrong
obedience. The dire consequences she faced for continued obedience would make her
disobedience warranted. Likewise at her judgment, I think it is obvious what
would have been the better choice – and what would have been more
defensible before the just Judge – saving the lives of herself and her family by her disobedience vs.
allowing herself and those under her charge to die if she was obedient.
Besides, who could endure watching their own children starve to death when it was in their
power to prevent it? And who would actually think it was God's will for the
innocent children to die of (preventable) starvation in the name of obedience
(to a mere man, especially a man who had a duty towards those same children)? We can see from this example that the consequences of
obedience may be rightly factored into a decision to be disobedient, and that
disobedience to lawful commands can be warranted under certain conditions. We
can also see that an undesired disobedience can be harmful for all parties (the
wife is taken away from her children and the children may be put at risk – e.g.
at a public school), but the disobedience may nevertheless be required to best honor
one's most important responsibilities. We can also see that the wife committed
an act of disobedience while still respecting the authority of her husband and
trusting in God (through prayer). In
this example, the husband still remains as head of the household – the wife doesn't
deny this by her disobedience or refuse her husband obedience in other matters.
Clearly the husband was
derelict in his duty and his own dereliction forced his wife to take up
what she could of his duty in order to protect her family, even against her husband's
commands, and out of necessity, not out of a desire to be disobedient. In this
example, it is clear that the husband has a duty to return to work so that his wife can be submissive
to his lawful and worthy commands and the wife should not be condemned (but
rather praised) for her disobedience while the husband was derelict in his duty.
And it also seems pretty clear that no theology degree was needed for the wife to determine
the proper course of action. Who could dispute these facts?
I'm not saying the above example is an exact
comparison to the SSPX situation, yet might it not still be helpful for drawing
various conclusions concerning obedience/disobedience?
* Obedience is not
for obedience's sake. It supposed to be in service to Christ, the Church, and to souls
* Are there any
cases in which someone is excused from obedience? Yes, there can be excuses from
obeying human (not divine) precepts. Divine precepts admit of no dispensation.
* Catholics are not forced to have blind
obedience. Especially note that we must obey God
rather than men (see Acts 5:19).
* Can circumstances/context diminish the evil or
culpability of an act of disobedience? I think the answer is a clear yes. For
instance, consider the husband/wife example above.
* Has disobedience
ever served the Church? The name St. Athanasius comes to mind.
* What is 'false obedience'?
"It would be a
false obedience to cooperate with something which is evidently damaging the
spiritual good of souls and of the entire church." (Bishop Athanasius Schneider)
* With respect to obedience, does some law take
precedence? Yes, higher law takes precedence over lower law (e.g. obedience to
God's eternal law is higher than obedience owed to laws of man). A person can be
excused from human law (e.g. in case of impossibility), but not divine law.
* Do some have a higher duty of obedience? Yes,
some are called to a higher level of obedience (e.g. those who take a religious
vow of obedience).
OBEDIENCE/DISOBEDIENCE IN THE CHURCH TODAY
A few Church-related obedience/disobedience points to consider...
* Obedience can be a VERY serious matter, but it is
supposed to be in service to the faith, not against it.
* Sometimes
disobedience might be required in conscience, even by those who have taken a
religious vow of obedience. For example what if a Pope or Bishop directed a
priest to place the
Holy Eucharist in laity's hands? The priest would not be
culpably 'disobedient' for refusing the sacrilege on the grounds of conscience.
* Disobedience in some quarters of the Church may
be tolerated today – even episcopal consecrations promoted by the atheistic
Chinese government (the Vatican has lately tended to 'rubber stamp' these
consecrations, in contrast to how the SSPX was treated).
* Pope Francis gave more leeway to adulterers (people who disobey God) than Pope
Leo has so far shown to the SSPX (who was disobedient to him but is fully
committed to Church teaching).
* It may be scary to say, but what if the SSPX
disobedience was necessary in order to faithfully live up to their
responsibilities to Christ and to souls in their charge? Like the wife in the
example above. Would that
excuse or at least mitigate it?
* In the case of the SSPX, they didn't commit an act of
disobedience out of contempt but rather – they believe – one that was necessary
to be obedient to God, their oaths, teachings of past popes, and even Scripture.
Should not there be some allowance for their 'good faith' arguments? Don't they
at least deserve to have their concerns addressed?
* Remember that we
have a higher duty of obedience and loyalty to Christ than to the Pope (although
ideally they would be so aligned as to be the same). But what if it is not the
same at any given time? What if in some cases it is vastly different?
* It is true that a person
can be excused from (human, not divine) law in case of impossibility. Doesn't it
seem rather impossible in the PV2 climate that the SSPX could get Vatican approval
for trad-friendly bishops? Had they any other realistic option available to them? Why shouldn't there
be more trad-friendly bishops in a Church that is supposed to be faithful to
tradition?
* Theoretically
it can be lawful to resist commands of a Pope. A commonly cited example is the case of
a Pope ordering someone to tear down
St. Peter's for no good reason. Worse yet if
he was tearing it down to give to
heretics. Who would deny that disobedience was
called for in such cases?
* In matters of truth vs. obedience, shouldn't truth win? Isn't truth a higher concept?
Shouldn't obedience be in service to truth?
* Various 'mainstream' PV2 practices themselves violate the provisions of the
Second Vatican Council
(or are 'disobedient' to its provisions – e.g.
about Latin, preserving rites,
Gregorian chant), but the SSPX is supposed to fully accept V2? Are they held to a
higher standard than the Vatican and everyone else?
* SSPX
disobedience seems to be directed towards a particular person (the reigning Pope)
not at the office of the papacy itself. They recognize the primacy of the Petrine office and the general duty to obey
the Pope, if I am not mistaken (and I'm pretty sure I'm not mistaken). Perhaps they
argue that they are obedient to all pre-V2 popes, while recent popes may be
disobedient to the pre-V2 popes? If true, has there ever been such a situation
in the Church prior to V2?
*
Heresy is 'at
least' as bad as schism, and formal heretics are traditionally excommunicated.
What about Pope Francis' undeniable (and even blasphemous) heresies? [Try
here for some examples.] He
effectively got a
pass despite is truly abhorrent & shocking teachings that opposed Church
doctrine, Holy Scripture, and tradition (yes, there were calls for him to step down
but he remained on the throne of St. Peter until his death). He acted contrary to
the faith in a blatant manner but faced no serious consequences. Many faithful Catholics probably would have assumed
divine intervention would've prevented a
Pope Francis type papacy, but it did
not happen. God allowed Pope Francis' pontificate to continue for more than a
decade – and
He has allowed changes in the wake of Vatican II to work their destruction, but
He has promised us that the gates of hell will not prevail. So clearly this
doctrinal confusion/corruption didn't reach the level of
infallibility.
However, it has disoriented the Church and confused the faithful. It is simply
wishful thinking (or perhaps ignorance/denial) to think otherwise. In fact, what
Pope Francis did on any given (relevant) day – with his spreading false &
offensive doctrine – seems far worse than the disobedient act of the SSPX, IMHO.
Even Pope Francis' silence at times (e.g. about the Cardinals' dubia) might be
taken as worse for the Church than 'good faith' consecrations done by the SSPX,
IMHO. Yet he remained Pope day after day, for 12 years. Two wrongs doesn't make
a right (assuming we have two wrongs here), of course, but the disparate
treatment serves to underscore an injustice.
* The SSPX disobeyed a merely human law...
"No bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone a
bishop unless it is first evident that there is a pontifical mandate." (1983
Code of Canon Law, Can. 1013)
This is not a divine law (which would admit of
NO
exceptions). Papal approval is NOT essential for validity of the consecrations.
And as noted above, the Vatican has treated other groups differently with
respect to this exact same law.
* In advance of the event, Pope Leo
could have approved of the men that were to be consecrated by the SSPX or dispensed with the
precept to get his approval if he chose to do so. It is only a human law (not
divine) that the Pope has to approve of consecrations. A law instituted by man.
A law that wouldn't have even been possible in ancient times (due to slow
communications & methods of travel). So it is a law that isn't inherently
essential. I'm sure
St. Peter trusted the other Apostles to do what needed to be
done and he didn't need to personally approve all new bishops in the early
Church. I'm quite sure the other Apostles didn't need to get Peter's permission
to act (and the bishops of today are the successors of the Apostles). Before modern
communications, wouldn't the Apostles have had the right to ordain bishops and
done so without advance permission of Peter? So this permission clearly isn't
necessary for validity. And as far as I know, the Vatican is not disputing the
validity of the consecrations. Yet, the Pope is the center of unity and should act as
such. Pope Leo could have dispensed with it or approved the consecrations if the
men weren't objectionable. Or, he could have
tried having open discussions to resolve issues. He seems to have chosen the
route of 'schism' instead. But of course, the full weight of the blame
has been heaped upon the SSPX. At the very least, Pope Leo should have detailed
his grounds of refusal relative to these four SSPX men, should he not? Why,
specifically, were they unsuitable?
* What is the purpose of the law requiring papal
approval? Good men? Are
not the new SSPX bishops good men? If they are good men, why refuse permission
to consecrate them? And again, if they were not 'fit' to be bishops, why not explain the
specific reasons for rejecting each of the candidates? Ironically,
the Final Synodal Document calls for lay people to
"have a greater voice in choosing Bishops."
* Is it true that all disobedience
is not the same? The purpose of obedience is order, unity, protecting the faith & souls,
etc. Typical 'disobedience' harms such goals (e.g. those who go against
Church doctrine). What harm did the recent SSPX action cause
the Church, especially if the SSPX was already considered
'schismatic'? Even if you don't agree with the SSPX
act, wasn't the SSPX disobedience theoretically done for opposite – even noble – reasons
(e.g. to protect the faith/souls and Catholic
tradition/doctrine)?
* Is it disobedient to attend the
TLM in general? There is nothing at all
wrong with attending the
TLM (quite the contrary!). Even an 'enemy of
the TLM'
admitted that...
"There is nothing wrong with attending the Mass celebrated with the 1962
missal." (Cardinal Roche)
And let's not forget the 'perpetual permission of
Pope St. Pius V (see above).
* With respect to obedience, what about
Scripture
which says that 'whatever the Pope binds on earth is bound in heaven' (cf.
Mt. 16:19)?
Clearly this general truth would not apply if what was 'bound' by the Pope was
actually wrong/unjust as that would be contrary to God's nature. Paul himself
withstood/opposed Peter 'to the face' (see Gal. 2:11), he didn't simply go along with Peter because he was the
Pope.
* In the case of the SSPX, were there 'legitimate proportionate reasons'
(or a 'just cause') to
disobey? They would undoubtedly argue that there were such reasons.
* Since they acted disobediently, did the SSPX
have the power to consecrate? Yes. Was it a wrong use of such power (even if
disobedient)? That is 'the million dollar question'. The SSPX would say no. Pope
Leo would say
yes.
* Was the SSPX's disobedience for the purpose of
being obedient to God's laws (e.g. fight for the faith, uphold traditions)? I
believe the SSPX would say yes.
* Was it reasonable for the SSPX to disobey? They obviously
thought so, although they are not infallible.
* Would obedience have been harmful? If the SSPX
had not disobediently consecrated the new bishops, it is extremely unlikely
(seemingly impossible) that they would
have been granted trad-friendly bishops to allow them to continue in the long
run. Without
trad-friendly bishops, the SSPX (almost certainly) would have eventually died out. So they faced
the danger of not being able to continue and no one else being able to take their
place in the same way (considering that other trad-friendly organizations are
more limited and must remain muted in
their criticism to maintain their 'regular' canonical status).
* The
consecrations were against Pope Leo's will, but were they against
His will?
Normally the answer would (presumably) be yes, but can we really be so sure in
the concrete realities of today? I realize this may be an offensive question,
but one must be honest about the current situation in the Church (more on this
below). The modern realities are not of my making, nor of the SSPX's making. We
are all, so to speak, its victims.
* Can it be said that the Vatican
made the SSPX disobedience a necessity? A main reason for the papacy is unity –
yet it is not the SSPX's fault that there is disunity in
the Church today. It is not the SSPX's fault there has been an absolute betrayal
of tradition in recent decades. It is not the SSPX's fault that many prelates
have failed to do their job of defending the faith over the years. It is not the
SSPX's fault that the
TLM has been unjustly suppressed by a Pope that taught serious
doctrinal error and promoted confusion, ambiguity, and even sacrilege (for
example, see AL, FS). Did Pope Leo propose any serious & trustworthy path forward that would
preserve the character of the SSPX as it faced the die-off of its remaining
bishops (and therefore its ability to continue)? If not, what other options did
they have?
* I think it is fair
to say that you can't separate the SSPX disobedience from the wider
circumstances in the PV2 Church today – and in context with the perennial truths which the
Church had always taught. I do believe the SSPX situation in the PV2 Church is
an extraordinary case in extraordinary circumstances, so I'm willing to consider
the possibility that 'normal rules may not apply', at least not in the customary
way, as it would have been impossible throughout most of
history to foresee such
tragic conditions afflicting Christ's beloved Church and make proper provisions
for them. When popes could be counted on to be faithful to true doctrine for so
many centuries, who could have imagined things ever reaching this state? I can
picture my grandmother washing my mouth out with soap if I had predicted to her
some recent events that have occurred. It was unimaginable before. We can only
believe it now because we have actually lived through it (again, see
AL, FS).
* So disobedience in the Church is normally bad,
but the
situation today is more complicated than that? If we were considering
disobedience to a command of
God, there is an easy answer: NO, NOT okay, end of
discussion. Not complicated. But when we are considering disobedience to a command of a man (even
the
Pope),
the situation might be more complex, depending on circumstances. First, "We must
obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) is a precept from
Holy Scripture. Second, I do not believe the SSPX would have dared to (or
even wanted to) disobey if times were normal (e.g. like things generally were
before V2). Third, I do not see what other realistic alternatives were available
to the SSPX nor do I know for certain whether their disobedience could ever be
justifiable and under what conditions. Yet, I do see how a wife might need to
disobey her husband's lawful command (like in the example
above) for the good of the
children. And I see that her disobedience in such a case would be proper and
necessary while still preserving the family structure. Obedience must have
proper limits, no?
SOME PRE, DURING, AND POST CONSECRATION NOTES
For what it's worth, below are various historical
items related to the 7/1/26 consecrations. They may not be in date order,
formatting may be omitted, and paragraphs may be combined... [I credit and
thank the popular blog 'Rorate Cæli' (link
here) for various translations used herein.]
* Two days before the consecrations (on 6/29/26),
Pope Leo praised the SSPX, "The Church recognizes the devotion to liturgical
life, commitment to priestly formation, apostolic zeal and desire for fidelity
to Tradition that characterize many people and communities connected to your
Fraternity", claimed that the "Church is open to a path of dialogue and
understanding that the Holy Spirit can make possible and fruitful", and pleaded with
them to, "please turn back! I urge you to consider carefully the spiritual good
of the faithful, because the schismatic act you are about to undertake would
deprive them of the licit and, in some cases, even valid reception of the
Sacraments, which they love and seek for their sanctification." Pope Leo also
said that, "to tear the seamless garment of Christ is a sin of extreme gravity"
and he asked them to desist from their intended act.
* Before the consecrations, the head of the SSPX
noted that he had wanted to meet with Pope Leo. On the day before the
consecrations (6/30/26), he said: "For a long time, I had hoped to have the
opportunity of meeting You in person, in order to express to You directly our
sincere desire to serve the Church. Unfortunately, that opportunity has not
presented itself." Sadly, headlines from a few weeks before the consecrations
indicated that Pope Leo had found the time to meet with "Bad Bunny", a rapper
with explicit themes who "often wears gender-bending fashion, including skirts,
dresses, and high heels, while also being an outspoken LGBTQIA+ ally" (AI). Might
one justly question papal priorities? Note that the (at that time future)
consecrations were first announced by the SSPX months previously (in February
2026). And let us recall the words of Holy Scripture: "A woman shall not wear an
article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's dress; for anyone who
does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God." (Deut. 22:5)
* The head of the SSPX
responded to Pope Leo's seamless garment remarks before the consecrations as
follows: "I ask only that You consider the sincerity of
this intention, which is in no way feigned. Paradoxically, in the present
circumstances, we believe it to be our very duty to do everything possible to
mend Christ's seamless garment, torn by forces and pressures incompatible with a
truly Catholic spirit."
* The head of the SSPX also said before the
consecrations that they do not intend to separate from the Church, "Far be it from us to separate ourselves from the Roman Church.
We desire, on the contrary, to serve her by means that are extraordinary, as one
would assist a mother in distress who requires particular help, even if such
help is not understood by everyone."
* Also before the consecrations, the head of
the SSPX said, "If my own words are not sufficient, I
would ask You to reflect upon two very simple facts. First, in 1988 the Society
was already declared schismatic, for reasons and in circumstances entirely
analogous to those of today. Yet, after so many years, we are speaking together
as a father and his son. Your Holiness is paternally urging me to avoid a schism
which, theoretically, has already taken place. Does not Your very attitude whose
paternal concern I deeply appreciate constitute proof that the Society is
neither schismatic nor hostile to the Church?"
* The head of the SSPX
claimed on day of consecrations, "today we are taking exceptional means,
proportionate to this necessity."
* From the sermon of the SSPX
Superior General at the consecrations: "We do not choose what to believe or not to
believe; we cannot modify, reinterpret, or reconsider — we cannot do so. We
simply have the duty to keep the faith that the Church has always taught; we
must love it, we must live by it, and we must transmit it."
* Also from the consecrations: "It is the Catholic
and Roman Church, ever faithful to the traditions received from the apostles,
which, in utterly exceptional circumstances, demands of us that we provide for
the safeguarding of these traditions— that is, of the deposit of faith—and that
we adopt the necessary means to transmit them faithfully to all men for the
salvation of their souls. From the Second Vatican Council until our own days,
the authorities of the Church have been animated by a spirit contrary to the
faith and have acted against the holy Tradition. They will no longer tolerate
sound doctrine." Can anyone knowledgeable about Church events over recent
decades dispute the last sentence? (Try
sections below for more on this matter.)
* The SSPX leader also
said, "We are also living these consecrations in hope. We are not living them in
polemics, nor in tension, nor in bitterness, nor in resentment. We are living
these consecrations in joy and in hope. Why? In 1988, those who condemned the
Society predicted its dissolution. Providence had another plan. Why did
Providence have another plan? Your presence here today makes it manifest. God
has not abandoned us and God will not abandon us. All these years have shown it,
and these consecrations show it once more."
* Also the same SSPX leader said, "But above all, these consecrations must be understood and lived in a
spirit of charity — charity toward souls, and charity above all toward the
Church. The more souls are adrift and disoriented, the more we must seek them
out and sustain them. The more the Church is trampled upon, the more the
radiance of her divinity is obscured, the more we must love her, serve her, and
be ready to pay any price to serve the Church. The greatest sacrifice that God
can ask of us is to be treated as rebels, when what we want is to serve and love
the Church as a mother. What a sacrifice God asks of us — to be treated as
rebels, regarded as rebels! We want to serve her as a mother. A mother in
difficulty, overwhelmed and suffering; a mother sometimes betrayed as well; a
mother who needs, and who deserves, to be helped, to have something done in the
name of all that she has given us."
* The day after the consecrations, the Dicastery
for the Doctrine of the Faith published a decree of excommunication which
states...
"Notwithstanding the warnings addressed to the Superior
General of the Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, having
committed an act of a schismatic nature by means of the episcopal consecration
of four priests, without a pontifical mandate and against the will of the
Supreme Pontiff, has incurred ipso facto the penalties provided for by can. 1387
and can. 1364 § 1 CIC 2021. I therefore declare for all juridical purposes that
both the aforementioned Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and Pascal Schreiber,
Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Marc Hanappier have incurred
ipso facto the latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
I further declare that Bishop Bernard Fellay, having directly participated in the
liturgical celebration as co-consecrator, and having thereby publicly adhered to
the schismatic act, has incurred the latae sententiae excommunication provided
for by can. 1364 § 1 CIC 2021. Clerics and lay faithful are warned not to adhere
to the schism of the Society of Saint Pius X, as they would thereby incur ipso
facto the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication."
* An explanatory note states that...
"The sacred ministers belonging to the Society of
Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics...and
are subject to the excommunication provided for by law"
and that lay faithful...
"who formally adhere to the Society of Saint Pius X
under the conditions established in the Explanatory Note of the Pontifical
Council for Legislative Texts of 1996 (cf. ibid., 7) — still in force, and
hereby adopted by this Dicastery — are to be considered schismatics and
excommunicated."
and that...
"The holy People of God is hereby informed that the
sacred ministers of the Society of Saint Pius X administer the sacraments
illicitly, and that the sacrament of penance administered by them and the
marriages they assist at are invalid."
The faithful are exhorted to...
"refrain from participating in the celebrations and
activities promoted by the aforementioned Society of Saint Pius X."
* In addition, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of
the Faith published 'procedures for reconciliation' for SSPX priests and laity. The 'formula of
adherence' states that... [Note: This topic is addressed again in more
detail below.]
"I, (name) promise fidelity to the
Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor of the Church, the
Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy, and the Head of
the College of Bishops, refraining from every public statement that would
oppose either his person or his Magisterium (cf. canons 1373 and 1365 of the
Code of Canon Law). I accept the doctrine taught in No. 25 of the Dogmatic
Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council concerning the
Magisterium of the Church and the adherence owed to it. With regard to
certain doctrines taught by the Second Vatican Council, or subsequent reforms in
either the Sacred Liturgy or Canon Law, which may appear to some to be difficult
to reconcile with previous declarations of the Magisterium, I undertake to
follow a positive approach to their interpretation under the guidance of the
Church's Magisterium, so that none of these teachings may be separated from
the remainder of the Church's sacred doctrinal patrimony"
* On the following day (7/3/26), the SSPX sent a
letter to Pope Leo regarding the excommunications. Some excerpts from the
letter are below...
"What the Society of Saint Pius X has done, and
will continue to do, is nothing other than an extraordinary initiative for the
salvation of souls, amidst the doctrinal and moral confusion into which the
Church is plunged. We in no way claim to substitute ourselves for the Church,
and we have no ambition other than to remain faithful to her."
"Indeed, the holy Tradition that we preserve
within souls belongs to the Church, our Mother—and not to the Society of Saint
Pius X— and we are certain that one day a Pope will wish to employ it for the
good of the universal Church"
"But above all, the Society of Saint Pius X
promises You today that it will not receive these new sanctions-objectively
unjust and invalid-with bitterness or revolt. These recent condemnations, like
those of the past, strike at what we hold most dear: our attachment to our
Mother, the Roman Church. Yet, even in this trial, all things must work together
for the good of souls and of the Church herself. Therefore, these condemnations
compel us to love Holy Church even more, and to provide for her needs with all
our strength, now more than ever. For this very reason, the Society of Saint
Pius X willingly offers up the suffering caused by these new sanctions for the
good of the universal Church and of Your Holiness."
* The SSPX argues that
"where there is no crime, there can be no punishment" and they have also
filed an appeal against the excommunication decree. From a statement
of the SSPX leader...
"Some might consider that we are faced with a
dilemma. We choose the integral faith, but we are separating ourselves from the
Church. We would be choosing between faith and the Church. In order to keep the
faith, are we breaking with the Church? That is a false dilemma. One belongs to
the Church first and foremost through faith - through the integral profession of
the faith, through the integral profession of the faith of the Church. Just as
one belongs to a nation because one speaks the same language, shares the same
identity and culture; just as one belongs to a family because one bears the same
name and lives in the same house; so too one belongs to the Church because one
professes the same faith. It is therefore a false dilemma into which we cannot
enter, because we cannot choose between faith and the Church — no one can. We
want the faith of the Church in order to remain in the Church. We want the
Church through faith, in faith."
* Regarding the charge of schism, a judical
vicar noted...
"[T]o characterize the act as schismatic
relies on a logical leap (from an act of disobedience to a wholesale rejection
of papal primacy, but it is not a true leap, since they have reaffirmed their
fidelity to the Holy Father) that the text of can. 751 does not support. Canon
751 defines schism as a withdrawal of submission: a total, willful repudiation
of authority, not a single act of disobedience. Disobedience and schism are
distinct offenses. One can say 'I cannot do this' while still acknowledging an
authority; that is not the same as saying 'You have no authority over me.'"
* As might be expected, the events received much
attention & caused great controversy in the press and on social media...
"Clerics and lay faithful are warned not to adhere
to the schism of the Society of Saint Pius X, as they would thereby incur ipso
facto the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication." [From Decree]
"Vatican declares SSPX bishops, priests
schismatic, says lay faithful risk excommunication" (Headline)
"The decision is a shockingly strong punishment
from the Vatican and the pope, who has made church unity a hallmark of his
pontificate, for a group which has long been a thorn in the side of Rome for
claiming to be Catholic while openly rejecting church authority. That ruling
renders invalid the sacraments offered by the society's 751 priests worldwide.
In total the SSPX claims 1,500 members — including seminarians, brothers,
oblates and religious sisters - dispersed over 77 countries." (Social media
post)
"Pope
Leo excommunicates 751 traditionalist Catholic priests, rolling back privileges
extended to them under Pope Francis. 'If the Catholic Church in her tradition
brings forth life, the modernist church is a desert... Today, I am
excommunicated'..." (Social media post)
"When's the
last time Rome excommunicated someone for being pro abortion, pro-LGBT, pro-mass
immigration, pro-communism, etc.?" (Social media post)
* Regarding the difference between the 1988
consecrations and the 2026 consecrations... (AI source for both quotes below)
"1988: Rome treated the issue primarily as an
illicit episcopal consecration without papal mandate. The four new bishops were
excommunicated, but the SSPX as a whole was not formally declared schismatic.
2026: The Vatican's action reportedly goes further by explicitly treating the
situation as involving schism, not merely disobedience or an illicit
consecration."
"The unprecedented aspect is not that Rome
condemned unauthorized consecrations—that happened in 1988—but that it
reportedly moved from condemning an act to formally characterizing the SSPX
itself as schismatic."
GETTING THE SSPX BACK INTO 'GOOD GRACES'
IN THE CHURCH
In light of the published decree of
excommunication, the Vatican indicated that, "The Church, as a devoted mother, will
receive with sincere affection and eager care all those who desire to return to
full communion."
As noted above, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of
the Faith published 'procedures for reconciliation' for SSPX priests and laity.
Once again, the 'formula of
adherence' states that...
"I, (name) promise fidelity to the
Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor of the Church, the
Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy, and the Head of
the College of Bishops, refraining from every public statement that would
oppose either his person or his Magisterium (cf. canons 1373 and 1365 of the
Code of Canon Law). I accept the doctrine taught in No. 25 of the Dogmatic
Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council concerning the
Magisterium of the Church and the adherence owed to it. With regard to
certain doctrines taught by the Second Vatican Council, or subsequent reforms in
either the Sacred Liturgy or Canon Law, which may appear to some to be difficult
to reconcile with previous declarations of the Magisterium, I undertake to
follow a positive approach to their interpretation under the guidance of the
Church's Magisterium, so that none of these teachings may be separated from
the remainder of the Church's sacred doctrinal patrimony"
With respect to priests, the procedure for
reconciliation of those coming from the Priestly Fraternity of
Saint Pius X issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith states
that...
"...a priest who has
decided to leave the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, who is willing to
accept the Second Vatican Council and the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae,
while remaining attached to the usus antiquior, must [follow the indicated
steps]"
I can't help but have a few comments. On the
positive side, it's of course good that Catholics can remain attached to the
TLM
(how could it be otherwise?). But on the other hand...
* How can the SSPX be
expected to sign something that says "Moreover, with religious submission of
will and intellect, I adhere to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or
the College of Bishops proclaim when exercising their authentic Magisterium,
even if they do not intend to proclaim them by a definitive act" with
ED, AL,
FS, SD, etc. still operative?
* Why must the conditions to 'return' to the
Catholic Church be so offensive (summed up sarcastically as "shut
up, obey, plus throw incense to V2 and we'll take you back")? I'm sorry if that
was too sarcastic. I am honestly just so very tired of hearing how about
V2 and
how wonderful it is when
statistics prove the very opposite. The Church, IMHO,
will not be healthy again until there is repentance with respect to V2.
* Note how the procedures don't require just obedience
with respect to consecrations, but basically to "shut up" –
including to stop disagreeing by quoting previous popes, councils, saints,
theologians, scripture, etc. Find the shut-off switch on your brain and activate
it. And the one for your mouth too. Yet, how can Catholics be denied their right to speak about
problems when Canon Law specifically says they have this right? As noted above,
Can. 212 §3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law says...
"According to the knowledge, competence, and
prestige which they possess, they [the faithful] have the right and even at
times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which
pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of
the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals,
with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the
dignity of persons."
* Why does the Vatican seem to have no respect for
consciences of tradition-minded Catholics? People may properly boycott the
Protestantized
Novus
Ordo because of conscience. Catholics can't rightly be forced to accept an
intentionally
Protestantized liturgy against their well-formed consciences, even if they
might find it technically 'valid' in order to be or remain Catholic.
* How
can they say that "certain doctrines taught by the
Second Vatican Council, or
subsequent reforms in either the Sacred Liturgy or Canon Law" may "appear to
some to be difficult to reconcile with previous declarations of the
Magisterium". They flat out ARE by anyone with a functioning, thinking brain.
There's no 'MAY appear' or 'DIFFICULT to reconcile', but
rather they ARE totally NOT reconcilable. It should be impossible for ANYONE
with a logical brain to reconcile things that are mutually exclusive – and what
right do they have to ask/demand that? Don't the laity have a right to have
things explained with coherent logic? Since when are conditions imposed on
Catholics to be Catholic that never would have been put on any Catholics before?
Things that are even contrary to logic?
*
As for following "a positive approach to their interpretation", would this count...? "With reference to
the very wonderful
V2 declarations that are difficult to reconcile, I think they
make
Satan very, very happy!" It's a very positive approach, no? Now, can I
be Catholic again?
* I ask, is fidelity to truth less important than
fidelity to a pastoral council?
To
centuries and centuries of pre-V2 papal and Church teachings? Why single out
this one council? Shouldn't we be more worried about fidelity to what the
Apostles handed down than what was imposed on the Church as a result of a
revolutionary 1960's
pastoral council? And why do some
who push the pastoral V2 council so hard down our throats seem to reject the dogmatic V1
Council that stated that...?
"The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successor
of Peter that by the revelation of the Holy Spirit they might disclose new
doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation
transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully
set it forth." (Vatican Council I)
Why don't they have to take some kind of an oath to Vatican I? How about the PV2
Vatican accepting other
ecumenical councils and papal
statements from before V2? For that matter, how about the modern Vatican
themselves actually accept Vatican 2 (e.g.
about Latin, preserving rites,
Gregorian chant)? Note the irony of the SSPX being
'beat over the head' by their 'lack of acceptance to V2' by those who do not
themselves fully follow V2.
* Speaking of V2, if the SSPX is supposed to give
the council a nod, what about the Vatican address the real and undeniable
V2 fruits: closure of seminaries,
churches, religious communities, destroyed families, fallen away Catholics,
diminished Mass attendance? How about their side recognize those fruits? Then
maybe we
can get somewhere.
* With respect to the revolutionary
Second Vatican
Council, I remind that V2 was a pastoral not doctrinal council (see
above). The so called 'deniers of the Second Vatican
Council' are the ones who can't see its poor fruits, even when they are
widespread & obvious. They are the ones who are actually in denial about V2.
And why do they act as if V2 was more important than other councils, which is false?
Recall what Cardinal Ratzinger stated...
"There are many accounts of it which give the
impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that
what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of
Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the
entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start
from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all,
and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a pastoral council; and
yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which
takes away the importance of all the rest." (Cardinal Ratzinger, council father
& future Pope Benedict XVI)
* Ultimately, where is the
goodwill and charity to the priests and laity of the SSPX? Charity and goodwill
that flow so abundantly in modern times towards heretics, the deviant, and
obstinate sinners? It's hard to imagine that they excommunicated laity, laity
that may have previously had permission to attend/support the SSPX. I am
actually embarrassed
as a Catholic by the Vatican's treatment of SSPX adherents/priests. It seems
to lack both charity and reason. I find it unworthy of the papal office.
* My sarcastic, yet entrepreneurial, mind
has thought up some humorous shirts to sell (just kidding, of course, but still
funny – sometimes we need humor in this craziness, no?)...
- Shirt 1: Front:
Vatican II: The best council ever... Back: For Protestants [I may have actually
seen this sentiment before somewhere, but not as a shirt]
- Shirt 2: Front: I
accept Vatican II... Back: As the council that brought Satan's smoke into the
Church [Please note: I'm referencing Pope Paul VI's famous quote,
see below]
- Shirt 3: Front: I
❤ (heart) Vatican II ~ Signed, Satan
- Shirt 4: Front: I
am positive about Vatican II! Back: Positive that it has ravaged the Church!
I hope my witticism here might not be out of place.
Again, I think we sometimes need humor.
Finally, I close this section with the thought
that it is the SSPX suffering through this today, but it could be you or me tomorrow if
we transgress in something, especially in light of disturbing new 'synodal realities'
that will be coming our way.
ITEMS THAT MAY/DO WEIGH AGAINST THE SSPX
I tried to approach this situation
methodologically, first noting things that I think may (or do) weigh against the
SSPX, and then things that may be in their favor. I will begin with the former.
* They did knowingly
transgress the law; they were intentionally disobedient to the Pope.
"As the body must obey the head, so the Universal
Church (which is the body of Christ) should obey him who has been appointed by
Christ the Lord, head of the whole Church." (As quoted by Pope
Leo XIII, 7/25/1888)
"True obedience to the Pope is
due from all who are considered Christians." (Pope Pius VI)
* The requirement for papal permission was a
lawful command imposed on bishops who had previously vowed obedience.
* The SSPX does not have a mandate from the Church
and they 'used sacred power without authority', which is (or at least would
normally be) sinful...
"Bishops, priests and other ministers of the
Church cannot exercise the power they have received in Holy Orders unless
authorized and sent to do so by their lawful superiors. The power can never be
taken from them, but the right to use it may be withdrawn for causes laid down
in the laws of the Church, or for reasons that seem good to those in authority
over them. Any use of sacred power without authority is sinful, and all who take
part in such ceremonies are guilty of sin." (Baltimore Catechism)
* They have been declared schismatic &
excommunicated, which is very serious.
"From what We have said, it follows that no
authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can
render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or
group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating
bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has
received the mandate of the Apostolic See. Consequently, if consecration of this
kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of
the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved
specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is
automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received
consecration irresponsibly conferred." (Pope Pius XII)
"A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop
without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from
him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
(1983 Code of Canon Law, Can. 1382)
"Has the truth so failed you that you have not
recognized yourself as a schismatic when you withdrew from the Apostolic See?
Have you not even read that the Church was founded by Christ Our Lord upon the
chief of the Apostles? If you had read this, where did you believe the Church to
be? Outside of him in whom alone are clearly all the Apostolic Sees? Why,
therefore, did you wander away? What hope did you have for your salvation?"
(Pope Pelagius I)
"Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews,
heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated." (Catechism of Pope
St. Pius X, 1908 A.D.)
* It's a very big deal to go against the Pope.
"To preserve forever in his Church the unity and
doctrine of this faith, Christ chose one of his apostles, Peter, whom he
appointed the Prince of his Apostles, his Vicar on earth, and impregnable
foundation and head of his Church. Surpassing all others with every dignity of
extraordinary authority, power and jurisdiction, he was to feed the Lord's
flock, strengthen his brothers, rule and govern the universal Church. Christ not
only desired that his Church remain as one and immaculate to the end of the
world, and that its unity in faith, doctrine and form of government remain
inviolate. He also willed that the fullness of dignity, power and jurisdiction,
integrity and stability of faith given to Peter be handed down in its entirety
to the Roman Pontiffs, the successors of this same Peter, who have been placed
on this Chair of Peter in Rome, and to whom has been divinely committed the
supreme care of the Lord's entire flock and the supreme rule of the Universal
Church." (Pope Pius IX)
* Their actions may provoke others
(including priests & laity) to disobedience.
* Their actions could harm souls. For example, if
their Masses did not fulfill the Sunday obligation or their sacraments were
invalid/illicit.
* Not only are they unable to receive
Holy
Communion if excommunicated, but I also wonder how SSPX adherents would ever be able
to receive validly the Sacrament of
Penance if they cannot legitimately receive
it from the SSPX. I personally know a diocesan (not SSPX) priest who wouldn't absolve
those who went to
Mass at 'irregular' locations. I think it's valid to ask: Can
there be any purpose of
amendment or sorrow for
sin if you are unwilling to repent of what you don't
even regard as a sin? The issue, of course, is more complicated for those
subjected to excommunication as they are technically 'outside the Church'.
* It is a well-known Catholic principle that you can't do evil so
that good may result (cf. Rom. 3:8). Of course this is a true statement, but I'm not exactly sure how
creating 4
new tradition-minded bishops is actually 'evil'. Whether or not the disobedience is
evil
seems dependent on the circumstances, such as with the
husband & wife
example earlier.
* I'm personally not comfortable the actual oath
the new SSPX bishops took. How do you vow obedience to the
Pope while you are
in the process of being disobedient to him? I don't know if it was understood within constraints
or there was a mental reservation or what, but I would like a clarification.
Jesus tells us to...
"Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes,' and your 'No' mean
'No.' Anything more is from the evil one." (Mt. 5:37)
* Some charge the SSPX with harming unity (which
would normally be true if someone consecrated bishops without permission), but I have at least some difficulty with this assertion
when things are considered in the full context of today's realities. IMHO, the real harm is done
in the PV2 Church by those who turn their backs on
tradition, not as much by those taking action to foster and protect tradition in response to
innovators.
*
There are concerns about a "parallel hierarchy". I think these would
be valid if the SSPX acted in certain
ways, but I haven't yet seen them do such things. For one thing, I do not
see where they have tried to claim jurisdiction. And the act of disobedience
aside, they still seem to recognize the Pope's authority. In fact, from what I have observed, they seem to limit themselves to the
sphere that they would have had if the Vatican would have approved their society to have
bishops (or made it something akin to a personal prelature – and as I understand
it, the SSPX might have actually been offered this option, but it was ultimately
rejected by Archbishop Lefebvre). If they exceeded such
limits, I could see a huge concern. I am not well
versed on the SSPX particulars, but I think it would be big news if the SSPX
acted in such a manner (for example, like certain sedevacantists who've elected
their own popes). I am confident that the SSPX has no intention to set up a separate Church
or "parallel hierarchy", but rather seeks to
preserve what they had received. They credibly seem to want continuity, not rupture.
The SSPX stated that the consecrations...
"[W]ill have no other purpose than to ensure the
continued administration of the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation,
together with those sacramentals reserved to bishops, according to the
traditional rite of the Holy Roman Church and the immemorial Faith." (SSPX
communiqué)
* It is important to preserve unity with the Bishops and
the Pope,
but the SSPX fails to be unified with them. I agree that one must preserve unity
with the bishops and Pope, but it
is also true that the bishops and Pope need to
preserve unity with the Church of all times, not just with a Church 'invented'
in the 1960's (and is sometimes even called the 'Conciliar Church', and more
recently a 'Synodal Church'). It should theoretically work both ways. If
it did in actuality, the SSPX probably wouldn't even exist at all (or at least
not in an 'irregular' state).
* There is a danger
of a 'slippery slope'. While I understand the concern, I don't know
how this would apply in the case of the SSPX. The SSPX's reason for
being is precisely to be faithful to tradition, so any 'slippage' would cause
them to lose credibility. Plus they have already been around for decades
apparently without this feared 'slippage'. However, I must note that it
has been claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre "increasingly separated himself from
the authority of the Catholic Church." If so, this would seem concerning, at
least at first glance (but I don't have all the particulars to make a better
judgment).
* They might be setting a bad example for other
groups to follow. While this may be true in a general sense, the SSPX seems to
have endured mostly 'attacks, persecution & penalties' as a consequence of their
actions. I am not sure the treatment they've received would entice others to
follow them in disobedience, so this doesn't seem likely to be a big concern.
Ultimately, the SSPX made a very serious move in a
situation where the stakes are
quite high. IMHO, the SSPX better have a defensible position for their actions or they
could be
endangering their souls and the souls of others.
ITEMS THAT MAY/DO WEIGH IN THE SSPX'S FAVOR
And now for some things that may/might (or perhaps
may, or likely may, or possibly may...) weigh in favor of the SSPX. Needless to
say, I write based on my limited understanding of things which, of course, is
not infallible.
* The SSPX consecrations were not done in
secret. They did it 'out in the open' and gave months of advance notice.
They reportedly also presented information on the individuals to be consecrated
bishops to Pope Leo and noted their intentions. A strange thing to do if truly
schismatic, no?
"In a spirit of respect toward the supreme
authority of the universal Church, the dossiers of these priests [to be
consecrated bishops] were presented to the Holy Father, together with certain
explanations necessary for a proper understanding of this step, within the very
particular and exceptional context of these episcopal consecrations." (5/26 SSPX
communiqué)
"The [SSPX] Superior General reaffirms that the
choice and consecration of these elects do not proceed from any desire to claim
a power of jurisdiction or to establish a parallel authority within the Church.
In no way do they constitute a denial of, refusal of, or challenge to the
supreme, full, and immediate power of jurisdiction of the Vicar of Christ over
the universal Church." (5/26 SSPX communiqué)
* They were not seeking
pleasure, worldly power, or looking towards their own temporal advantage (e.g. financial
benefits, prestige).
* The SSPX didn't rush into
the consecrations (the previous ones were done almost 40 years ago). Rather,
they might be considered measured/patient in holding off so long. They waited nearly four decades!
* I believe the SSPX acted with
serious motives for what they believe are important reasons.
* I believe the SSPX performed the consecrations with an intention to serve souls and even to serve
the common good. One might argue that they were intended to be done in charity
and in service to the Church, and in service to their duty to God. in other
words they performed the consecrations out of love of God and neighbor.
* From what I have
seen, the SSPX has seemed to keep a respectful tone even when treated harshly.
* I think the SSPX
wouldn't desire to disobey the Pope, but they felt the
actions of the PV2 Church have made it 'necessary' to do so. I believe that in normal
circumstances, the SSPX would find obedience to the Pope to be of grave importance.
* I believe they hold that the
consecrations were done in service to their duties to God and to the Church, in
service of truth and charity. Clearly, guarding and passing on Catholic
tradition is a work of charity for souls!
* Unlike some modern churchmen, the SSPX doesn't exempt themselves from
following
the 10 Commandments and they still hold it as their duty to follow the
scriptural mandate to
resist strange doctrine.
* I believe the SSPX simply wants to be
Catholic in the same manner as their ancestors were (including laity, saints,
popes, bishops, priests, religious...). Their intention is to remain Catholic in a
way that all the previous generations of Catholics prior to V2 would have
recognized. They only reject novelties, not true Catholic doctrine, as we are
all supposed to do.
* The SSPX insists on
tradition, whereas traditions are (wrongly, scandalously, disastrously) discarded
in the PV2
Church.
* The SSPX doesn't repudiate the Pope's authority
in general – they just feel compelled to disobey regarding the consecrations in
order to protect those under their charge (rather like the wife
in the example above?).
* The SSPX rejects no
truths of the faith (only novelties) nor do they dissent from any
infallible Church teachings.
* In general, I think the SSPX acts out of love for
the
Holy Eucharist, souls, the Church, and God.
* Contrary to how
they may be portrayed, I do not find adherents of the SSPX to be renegades.
* It seems to me that the SSPX is 'fervently
obedient' to the deposit of faith at a time when this
is (unjustly!) punished in the Church.
* I believe the SSPX
wishes to serve God in reverence and truth.
* From what I have
seen, the SSPX seems to speak with respect (unlike a recent Pope who regularly
insulted Trads – see some examples below).
IMHO, there has been a sharp contrast with the personal attacks/name calling by
some outside the SSPX vs. the respect shown by those in the SSPX.
* I don't think the SSPX consecrations were done in a spirit of rebellion, but rather
in consideration of what they perceive as a
necessity.
* I believe the
SSPX wants to remain faithful to Christ's Church, not a novel Church made by man.
* My understanding
is that the SSPX does not deny the Pope's primacy or deny that Pope Leo XIV is
the pope (e.g. sedevacantists).
As I understand it, the SSPX includes the Pope at
Mass, prays for him, and does
not otherwise reject his authority (even if they felt compelled to be disobedient in this matter).
* I think the SSPX recognizes the duty to protect against
heresy
&
modernism when few in the Church
seem to feel likewise obliged (even if they took the
oath against modernism).
Note that modernism – 'the synthesis of all
heresies' – is 'infectious' and being in an 'irregular' canonical
situation may actually serve to protect the SSPX from the Modernism that runs
rampant in the PV2 Church. I would probably go so far as to say that the SSPX is
about the only (if not the only?) serious/organized anti-modernist force in the
Church today. I wish I was wrong on this.
* Despite their disobedient act, I think the SSPX has the good of souls, humanity in general, and the Church in mind.
I also believe they accept the authority
of the Church, but felt they needed to disobey in this particular instance.
* The SSPX is in a unique position. No one else could be on
the same level
as them, historically speaking. They were originally founded by an Archbishop that took the
Oath Against Modernism and also participated in the
Second Vatican Council. They
are not a recent development (they have a history that dates back decades), they
have a lot of experience, and a lot of success (numerically speaking). In fact,
according to a social media post (emphasis added)...
"The SSPX is often considered a fringe group, but
they are actually the largest trad group by a huge margin"
* I believe the SSPX committed the act of
disobedience not for personal gain, and not with malice, but rather because they
genuinely seek the good of souls and sincerely believed it was necessary. They
may have felt it was impossible in conscience to be obedient in this matter, especially considering
what would become of them and others if they had obeyed (like the wife in the
example above).
* I believe the SSPX adherents long for a virtuous
life and that they contribute to the Church in various significant ways. According to online
sources, the SSPX forms priests, runs schools, has
homeschool support programs,
retreats, missions, supports pilgrimages, conferences, youth groups, and
publishes materials focused on traditional Catholic teachings. They also engage
in charitable works.
* I believe SSPX adherents follow our Lord by
suffering because of their fidelity to truth.
* I don't have direct personal knowledge, but I believe/assume the
SSPX follows a healthy
God-focused spirituality that
has been in use for centuries, in contrast to the hedonism so often fostered in
the PV2 Church.
* I do not believe the SSPX priests & bishops would be allowed to act according to their consciences if
they were in a canonically 'regular' situation in the Church. How can it be denied that the Vatican has become
rather hostile towards
tradition since V2 (see below
for some examples)?
* I think it is fair to say that the
consecrations were done, so to speak, in 'self-defense'. The SSPX is only
able to pass on Catholic traditions (specifically traditional
Sacraments) if they have a valid
priesthood,
and they can only
maintain a valid priesthood with trad-friendly bishops, and they are unlikely to get trad-friendly bishops from
the PV2 Church
which may be adversarial to them. Are they supposed to be at the mercy of those
who want to stomp them out? The Vatican may
be hostile or even abusive to trad Catholics, so was the SSPX realistically
supposed to try to
get approval for tradition-minded bishops to preserve its tradition honoring
society? How naive if anyone thinks so! Note that the
PV2 Vatican can/has used its powers to impose on / close down tradition friendly Catholic religious groups
who have done nothing wrong against their will (try
below for some examples). Also
note that none of the other trad-friendly ('canonically regular') societies have
had a member elevated to bishop over the decades, even though many had
reportedly expected this to occur.
* The SSPX has
continued to uphold true Catholic doctrine, while the PV2 Church has (at best)
often
been silent about truths of the faith or (at worst) has contradicted Catholic truths.
In the wake of V2, many prelates have
failed to do their duty to protect the flock. In light of modern world currents
and the persecution they've endured, it may seem almost miraculous that the SSPX
has already survived this long.
* It appears undeniable that if someone were to follow certain statements from modern
prelates (or even some popes), that person could be
eternally lost (for some
papal examples, consider AL &
FS). Presumably, the disobedience
issue aside, this would not be the case with standard teachings of the SSPX.
For many, the SSPX has been a welcome way for Catholics to protect their faith
in contrast to the PV2 Church which has promoted poor catechesis, doctrinal
confusion, sacrilege, scandal...
* The SSPX has reportedly helped 'thousands' to
rediscover their Catholic faith. As an SSPX leader told the Pope...
"[T]housands of souls who have rediscovered the Catholic faith and
the practice of religion through the apostolate of the Society. This is a fact
of which Your predecessors themselves took note. These souls have but one
desire: to attain salvation through this instrument which Divine Providence has
placed at their disposal."
* The SSPX reportedly went from "a few dozen
priests in the 1970s to one of the largest traditional Catholic priestly
networks in the world." They reportedly have hundreds of priests and 'mass
centers'/chapels and operate internationally and have maintained "a steady
stream of priestly vocations compared with many traditional Catholic
communities." The SSPX "priest numbers have generally grown steadily, unlike
many dioceses in Europe and North America, which have experienced major declines
in priest numbers." A notable feature of SSPX history "is that the SSPX has
remained relatively stable and institutionally durable for over 50 years, while
many other Catholic movements and institutions founded around the same period
have declined or changed substantially." (Source: AI)
* The SSPX may provide a shelter for seminarians
faithful to Catholic tradition, and possibly a home for those abused by the
Church for their traditional leanings. (Have you read 'Goodbye, Good Men'?)
[To support this site, purchase using
this link.]
* Many benefit from the
actions of the SSPX, even those who are not adherents
or supporters. "Some historians and commentators argue
that papal actions such as the 1984 indult, the 1988 motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, and later broader permissions for the 1962
Missal were influenced, at least in part, by the reality of the SSPX and the
faithful attached to the older liturgy." (AI) In fact, also according to AI, "It
would be reasonable to argue that the SSPX has been one
of the most influential organizations in preserving
certain aspects of Catholic tradition since the late
20th century" and that a 'historically defensible'
statement would be: "The SSPX has been one of the
principal forces – and arguably the single most
influential independent force – in preserving and
transmitting the traditional Latin liturgy and many
associated customs, spirituality, and priestly
traditions after Vatican II."
* The SSPX provides a welcome counterbalance
against false
ecumenism. As an SSPX leader stated...
"We are accused of not loving the Pope, of not
respecting him. But it is because we love the Pope sincerely, as Vicar of
Christ, as head of the Church, that we no longer wish to see the Pope humiliated
alongside false pastors, representatives of false religions. How many times have
we seen this over all these years? It is because we love the Vicar of Christ
that we no longer want this humiliation for the Pope — a humiliation that falls
upon the whole Church, which is treated on an equal footing with false
religions."
* Outside the SSPX
does there seem to be any serious, effective struggle to preserve
Catholic tradition? And
if there is, doesn't it owe its existence and/or growth to the SSPX (e.g. the
FSSP)?
Regarding the FSSP and like organizations, does anyone seriously believe they would be tolerated
or allowed
to continue very long if they regularly spoke out loudly against modernist errors?
* The SSPX had a good
end in mind, IMHO. It is true that a good intention can not make an
intrinsically evil act acceptable, but how can consecrating new traditional-friendly bishops be
considered an 'intrinsically evil' act? We can't do
evil so good may result, but
again how can it actually be 'evil' to consecrate new traditional-friendly
bishops? Isn't that precisely what the Church should be doing?
Likewise, a good object can never justify evil means (Rom 3:8), but how can a
valid consecration of new traditional-friendly bishops be considered 'evil
means', especially when there was no other plausible, obedient route to obtain trad-friendly bishops?
* If the SSPX truly does
not challenge the Pope's authority (even though they felt it necessary to disobey
him regarding the consecrations),
how can they be said to be truly schismatic? Aren't they merely disobedient?
Disobedience by itself is not the same as schism; disobedience does *not*
directly equal
schism. They are two distinct concepts! Otherwise, there would be countless other
'schismatic' Catholics around the world who feel free to disobey the Pope on
many matters. Yet, this is obviously not the case, nor have these 'merely
disobedient' souls ever been declared schismatics. As serious as disobedience is, it
does NOT by itself automatically equal schism.
* The SSPX is absolutely right to...
- reject novelties, especially those already condemned by
previous popes
- reject radical changes in the Church
- maintain traditional Catholic teaching,
spirituality,
sacraments,
liturgy, practices...
- remain faithful to the Church's constant
teaching
- preserve traditional priestly formation, without
either a synodal or
ecumenical character
- hold fast to their traditional Catholic identity
- pass on only what was given to them
- reject liturgical innovations, as the Church has
taught
- faithfully pass on the deposit of faith without
alteration (actually that is their DUTY!)
- keep up, protect, preserve, defend, safeguard the Church's
treasures
- preserve the Catholic faith and traditional way
of life in its entirety, without being forced to go against their [well-formed] consciences
- reject false teachings, even if they came from
the
Apostles or an
angel from
heaven (see Gal. 1:8)
* According to the SSPX, even bishops sent by the
Holy See testified to the "profoundly Catholic spirit" of the SSPX...
"[S]ome years ago, the Holy See entrusted two bishops of the
Church with the task of engaging in dialogue with the Society of Saint Pius X:
Bishop Vitus Huonder, then Bishop of Chur, now deceased, and Bishop Athanasius
Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Astana. Both, after taking the necessary time for
discernment, recognised the profoundly Catholic spirit of the Society [SSPX] and
bore public witness to it."
* The SSPX makes use of/holds dear squandered
treasures 'discarded' by the Church – even treasures tracing back from Apostolic
times and subsequently under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit for centuries
–
which were cast aside by the Church in order to please the world and
heretics.
What on earth is wrong with that? Should not the SSPX be praised for this?
*
For those who
have suffered through modern Church documents (including
ED, AL,
FS, etc.) and note the 'torrent of error,
ambiguity, and dissent from teachings of the perennial magisterium' in PV2
writings and statements, you might find the SSPX communications concerning the
Catholic faith to be in sharp contrast. Their orthodoxy (small 'o') can be a
'refreshing balm to the soul.'
* Another refreshing element is the SSPX's
strenuous adherence to the perennial Catholic faith, their (presumably) honest
communication, and forceful adherence to their principles. Consider these
excerpts from the 5/2026 SSPX Declaration of Catholic Faith addressed to Pope
Leo XIV... [Note: I have combined some paragraphs below.]
"For more than fifty
years, the Society of Saint Pius X has endeavoured to
set before the Holy See a matter of conscience in the
face of the errors that are destroying Catholic faith
and morals. Regrettably, all the discussions entered
into have remained without result, and none of the
concerns expressed have received any truly satisfactory
response. For more than fifty years, the only solution
truly considered by the Holy See has appeared to be
that of canonical sanctions. To our great regret, it
seems to us that canon law is thus being used, not to
confirm in the faith, but to lead away from it."
"In the text that
follows, the Society of Saint Pius X is glad to express
to You [Pope Leo XIV], filially and sincerely, its
devotion to the Catholic faith, concealing nothing,
either from Your Holiness or from the universal Church.
The Society places this simple Declaration of Faith in
Your hands. It seems to us to correspond to the minimum
indispensable to be in communion with the Church, and
to truly call ourselves Catholics and, consequently,
your sons. We have no other desire than that of living
and being confirmed in the Roman Catholic Faith."
"The denial of even a
single truth of faith destroys faith itself and renders
radically impossible all communion with the Catholic
Church."
"The Roman Pontiff, the
Vicar of Christ, is the sole possessor of supreme
authority over the whole Church. He alone directly
confers on the other members of the Catholic hierarchy
jurisdiction over souls."
"He who eats the Body of
Our Lord and drinks His Blood whilst in a state of sin
eats and drinks his own condemnation, and no authority
can alter this law contained in the teaching of Saint
Paul and in Tradition."
"Sins of impurity that
are against nature are of such gravity that they always
and in every circumstance cry to God for vengeance, and
are radically incompatible with every form of authentic
Christian love. Such a 'lifestyle' can therefore in no
way be recognized as a gift from God. A couple
practising this vice must be helped to free themselves
from it, and can in no way be blessed — formally or
informally — by ministers of the Church."
"Christendom is not a
mere historical phenomenon, but the only order willed
by God among men."
"It is not for the Church
to conform herself to the world, but for the world to
be transformed by the Church."
"It is in this Faith and
in these principles that we ask to be instructed and
confirmed by Him Who has received the charism to do so.
With the help of Our Lord, we would rather die than
renounce them. It is in this immutable Faith that we
desire to live and die, in the hope that it may give
way to the direct vision of the immutable eternal
Truth."
* The SSPX has demonstrated an 'unwavering
determination' to serve the Church. As stated by the SSPX...
"The episcopacy to be received by these priests
[which occurred on 7/1/2026] is therefore conceived solely as a service rendered
to souls and to the Church amid this unprecedented crisis of the Faith. Our
determination to serve the holy Catholic Church remains unwavering, in the
consciousness of the imperative duty faithfully and integrally to hand on what
we ourselves have received - namely, what the Church has always believed,
taught, and practiced."
* The SSPX is doing what is in
its power to protect tradition. They need to be free to teach true Catholic
doctrine (especially in the wake of
Pope Francis' many errors) and pass on
the deposit of faith uncorrupted as they are obligated to do in order to not fail
in their duties towards God and others. Sadly/tragically, this may require them
to be in an 'irregular' canonical situation in the current realities of the PV2 Church.
* In the wake of various (scandalous, previously
never-thought-possible) papal errors in recent decades, the SSPX's disobedience
at least seems to be a 'much better alternative' than the troubling sedevacantist position
which denies that erring popes are true popes. The sedevacantist movement reportedly "has seen a rise in interest...with estimates of its followers
ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands." (AI) This is clearly
not a great point in favor of the SSPX, but I think it is still worthy of
mention.
* A reasonable person could make the case that the Church has
wrongly turned its back on tradition and that the Vatican itself has been 'disobedient' to previous popes
and councils. Further, it could perhaps be alleged that the PV2 Church is in 'virtual schism'
(if that was possible) with the pre-V2
Church
and that the SSPX is in communion with the latter.
* I'm not sure that the SSPX had any other
realistic options if they were to continue in the long run. Their two surviving
bishops were apparently around 70 years old at the time of the 2026
consecrations and it seems practically 'impossible' that other trad-friendly
bishops would have been forthcoming for them from Rome in the near future.
Without trad-friendly bishops, the SSPX wouldn't have been able to grow, or even
to survive, in the long run (as they wouldn't be able to ordain new
priests).
Obviously the SSPX would continue to need new priests for their worldwide
apostolate.
In light of this, did they really have any other choice for their survival?
* Given the facts (e.g. no other plausible
options, current state of the Church, hostility to tradition in wake of V2,
unmet spiritual needs of souls, etc.), doesn't there at least seem to be a
reasonable argument for a state of emergency/state of necessity with respect to
the consecrations? If the SSPX acted out of necessity for the good of others (like
the wife in example above) during a 'time of crisis', might their 'emergency'
measures be justified? I'm not saying they are, but I don't deny the possibility
either.
IS THE SSPX REALLY NEEDED / NECESSARY? WHAT IF
THERE WAS NO SSPX?
I think the easiest
way to answer whether or not the SSPX is needed is to ask 'would
Satan like the SSPX gone?'
In my judgment, the answer is a resounding 'YES!' If I am correct, the SSPX
would seem to be VERY MUCH needed.
The SSPX offers reverent traditional sacraments &
priestly formation, orthodox catechesis, evangelization, preservation of Catholic
tradition, etc., which are all badly needed in the PV2 Church.
Without the influence of the SSPX...
- there likely would be little effective
resistance to
modernism,
therefore modernism may become even more pervasive
- there likely would be more persecution of
tradition-minded Catholics
- many more faithful would be deprived of their
birthright
- Catholic tradition would be in more danger
- the pace of novelty in the Church might increase
- some may not be able to hold onto their faith as
powerful modern currents overtake them. As Cardinal Müller said, some currents in the
Church are "diametrically opposed
to the Catholic faith"
- the
TLM could be absolutely prohibited by the
use of power in the Church (this appears to be the stated desire of
Pope Francis, which has already been done in practice in various areas), even though
the TLM is our birthright
- etc.
Do Catholics have a right to Catholic tradition?
Yes, most certainly. Scripture and tradition testify to this fact (e.g. see
quotes here &
here).
Do Catholics have a
right to protect themselves and their families from modernist influences? Again,
yes, most certainly. And not only a right, but a duty.
Shouldn't Catholics stay within canonically
regular structures in order to exercise their rights? I believe so, as long as
this is possible. But even Catholics in canonically regular structures may
benefit from the SSPX because the SSPX can speak out, whereas 'canonically
regular' organizations generally have to remain mute in their criticisms. There
likely may be no 'canonically regular' trad organizations to begin with if not
for the influence of the SSPX. I personally don't like this thought, but I
believe it's probably factual.
And like it or not, these are also facts...
* The Vatican has intentionally suppressed the
TLM at parishes and apparently wishes to continue doing so. Technically, the TLM is
'almost prohibited' now under TC – and this was reportedly inflicted on the
Church based on false premises (more
information here).
* The Vatican may 'pressure Trads until
they acquiesce'. It wouldn't be the first time. Ever heard of visitations?
* Many (most?) areas of the Church are at least a
little infected with
Modernism at present and this may be expected to increase
in the future as the Synodal process unfolds (see
below for more on this topic).
Faithful Catholics keep hoping (and praying) for God's intervention, but maybe
God is expecting us to act? Maybe
Pope Francis' scandalous pontificate was
supposed to be clarifying in this regard (e.g. in moving some Catholics away
from 'papolatry').
* Trads who have stayed 'regular' have
arguably had (wonderful but still somewhat) limited success – and, again, they may not
exist at all if not for the influence of the SSPX. Should a 'canonically
regular' Trad organization become too vocal/successful, they would probably be
squashed like other innocent parties have been (try
below for some examples).
* While it would be nice
to think that within the Church, the laity and orthodox (again, small 'o') prelates could resolve
the issues (and certainly it could be possible with God's help), but in the current
state of things, a petition here or there wouldn't have nearly the power that an
established & cohesive group might have.
* If you block
ordinations of those friendly to the
TLM (which has been done, for example,
to a group in
France), you force celebration of the TLM to
eventually die out. Having SSPX bishops
prevents this situation from occurring worldwide.
So even those of us
who have never adhered to or supported the SSPX directly may still benefit greatly from their presence.
STATE OF THINGS IN THE CHURCH TODAY / TODAY'S
REALITY / HISTORICAL CONTEXT
This brings me to a most unpleasant topic, namely:
the state of things in the Church today. We do seem to be in extraordinary
times. If you love Christ's Church but are somehow 'blissfully
unaware' of
internal events over the last decades, I'd say you are lucky. Spoiler alert:
It's really, really, really bad and it seems that things are going to get worse.
As Catholics, we can't be forced to – nor should
we – bury our heads in the sand. It is important to honestly look at what has
happened since
V2, even with respect to popes. We must not engage in
'papolatry', which is characterized by 'uncritical acceptance and lack of
critical thought' with respect to everything any
pope says or does, something
that
Protestants might accuse us of. Again, we are reminded that the great St.
Paul obviously didn't engage in papolatry, but rather 'opposed [St.
Peter, the
first pope] to his face because he clearly was wrong." (Gal. 2:11)
For expediency, I'll try to include various relevant
items in condensed/bullet point format below. They are not in any particular
order. Also, I could include countless additional examples other than what
appears below, but I'll limit myself to the following (you're welcome). Finally,
I apologize in advance if these points are distressing. They are for me as well.
Yet, I think this context is very important when assessing the situation with the
SSPX.
* Traditional
oriented/friendly persons (including prelates, priests, religious, laity) have
been persecuted for speaking the truth and may be removed from offices without
due process for doing so (see below
for some examples).
* Powerful forces in the Church are trying to push
a perverse
homosexual agenda on the Church, and instead of being condemned, they are
often rewarded. Likewise, there has been a
strong drive to be inclusive towards the sinful 'LGBTQIA+' agenda and even to
'normalize' sodomy,
contrary to Holy
Scripture. Some prelates participate in offensive events, while some go so
far as to try to re-interpret the clear words of Holy Scripture...
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;
such a thing is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22)
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit
the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor
adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the
greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1 Cor. 6:9-10)
Others stand by and let it happen. As the
controversial
Archbishop Viganó, stated: "It is now clear that Bergoglio [Pope
Francis] is one
of the main activists of the hellish LGBTQ+ agenda. There are no more words to
express the scandal and disgust, in the complicit and cowardly silence of the
Episcopate."
* In the wake of V2, prelates – not excluding popes
– have publicly praised
heretics.
A postage stamp of the heresiarch
Luther was even issued by the Vatican, and Luther's statue
was displayed at the Vatican's Paul VI hall.
* Popes have consecrated and promoted bishops who
publicly support
sin.
* While critics are attacked & punished, active
public sinners are given 'seats of honor'.
* "Demonic
sacrileges" have occurred (e.g. the Pachamama incident at the Vatican –
literally pagan idols were placed in the Vatican!). Something is obviously very wrong when you have a
Pope banning the
TLM on one hand while participating in pagan rituals on the
other!
* Doctrinal
confusion and corruption reigns in the PV2 Church today. Various PV2
documents are 'brimming with errors' and members of the hierarchy who preach
heresy go unpunished.
* Priests and
bishops may be prevented from speaking Scriptural truths.
* Various prelates
misrepresent Church teachings – and they are rewarded! (Compare this with the treatment
of the SSPX.)
*
Ecumenical scandals & sacrileges abound. For
example...
"German bishops
gave Holy Communion to a Muslim and Protestant during Masses to celebrate
'Catholics Day'." (Grigio)
"The Vatican released a new logo in advance of
Pope Francis's visit to Morocco in March, featuring the syncretic fusion of the crescent of Islam encompassing
the cross of Christ." (Grigio)
"For the first time in history, an Anglican
Liturgy was celebrated in St. Peter's Basilica, Rome. Merton College Choir,
Oxford University, sang the first ever Anglican Evensong to be celebrated at the
altar of the Chair of St. Peter." (Grigio)
"Pope Francis
bowed his head to receive a 'blessing' from 100 Protestant Pentecostal ministers
in front of the cameras." (Grigio)
* Men who support
various
sins (e.g.
indifferentism,
abortion,
homosexual acts) have been promoted
not just to the bishopric but also to the cardinalate.
* Corruption of doctrine has been praised & spread
at the highest levels of the Church.
* We are supposed
to hate what is evil (see Rom. 12:9), but
the PV2 Church tolerates and promotes it
(think AL, FS).
* The Church has been letting ridiculous, untrue,
or questionable
– and harmful – alleged apparitions flourish (e.g.
Medjugorje,
Faustina's alleged apparitions) instead of investigating, questioning or condemning them.
* Modernism has spread like a cancer in the PV2 Church.
* The Church mostly seems to
have lost all sense of sin (except with respect to Trads).
* The Vatican has
been arguably 'undermining Catholic dogma' (with an especially escalated level under
Pope Francis).
* At least one Pope has seemed to deny the reality
of
hell and other essential
doctrines.
* In the PV2 Church, pagan spiritualities within
the liturgy are acceptable, but the TLM is not. (Something is seriously wrong
here, no?)
* Obstinate public sinners have
received
Holy Communion during Mass at Saint Peter's Basilica (compare with
the treatment of SSPX adherents).
* Some prelates intentionally twist Scripture and tradition to suit their agenda.
* There has been "radical doctrinal corruption
since
Vatican II."
* Various members of the
hierarchy subvert doctrine backed by their authority/standing in the Church –
including by cunning & purposeful methods (often/usually not stopped or even
promoted).
* Prelates have
publicly given 'soul-killing' advice & promoted sacrilege.
* Programs in Catholic schools may include
materials 'promoting a radical LGBT propaganda'.
* The Vatican has
participated in/condoned incredible, almost unimaginable, scandals since V2.
Various Catholics today seem to be desensitized to the gravity of the situation.
* We just came off
a papacy about which Bishop Athanasius Schneider said, "[Pope
Francis was] abusing
his powers to undermine the Catholic Faith." As of this writing, such abuses
(which are many) have yet to be corrected.
* There has been poor catechesis for decades:
"Today we can't take anything for granted because we're dealing with six or
seven decades of poor catechesis." (Cardinal Burke)
* The PV2 Church tries
to ignore, change, or explain away teachings of the past, while calling those who
hold faithful to tradition mentally imbalanced, rigid, or 'schismatics',
yet there is a duty to uphold tradition and we
know that truths cannot change.
* The modern Vatican
seems 'desperate' to be free of the past. As the PV2 Church shows
no firm attachment to tradition in the modern age, one might argue that they
seem 'divorced' from tradition. As Cardinal Sarah said,
"Sacred traditions that have served the Church well for hundreds of years are
now portrayed as dangerous."
* The Vatican and various prelates have been
openly hostile to Trads. They are
treated as second class citizens – even 'ejected' from their parishes for the
'crime' of holding on to Catholic traditions (this
happened to me personally in the wake of TC).
* Someone could
'fairly easily' make the case that the PV2 religion is now more man-centered
than the traditional Catholic faith that has God for its focus.
* Shockingly,
Church leaders have scandalously considered even Jesus' entirely clear words
against
divorce as 'relative' (i.e. not applying to everyone). Which of
course is both untrue and offensive to Christ's teachings.
"But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife
(unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever
marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Our Lord Jesus Christ, Mt. 5:32)
"I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless
the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery." (Our Lord Jesus
Christ, Mt. 19:9)
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries
another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her
husband commits adultery." (Our Lord Jesus Christ, Lk. 16:18)
* In the wake of V2, numerous good men have been turned
away from the
priesthood precisely because they are good men.
* Catholics
everywhere may be prohibited from enjoying – and spiritually
profiting from – what should be their birthright. This is a grave injustice. It
is especially egregious in the case of the
TLM
considering that
the liturgy that
replaced it has been famously referred to as a
"liturgical destruction of startling proportions"...
"The liturgical reform, welcomed with so much
idealism and hope by many priests and lay people alike has turned out to be a
liturgical destruction of startling proportions - a debacle worsening with each
passing year. Instead of the hoped-for renewal of the Church and of Catholic
life, we are now witnessing a dismantling of the traditional values and piety on
which our faith rests." (Msgr. Gamber)
* We are at such an odd time that bishops who have
rejected
Pope Francis' teachings are rightly praised by a Cardinal...
"[B]y recalling Catholic doctrine on this matter [in
contrast to Pope Francis' document], you have greatly and deeply served the
unity of the Church! You have performed a work of pastoral charity by
proclaiming the truth." (Cardinal Robert Sarah)
* There are severe problems in the hierarchy. As Bishop
Strickland stated, "Too many of the bishops who share the mandate to guard the
deposit of faith act as if they do not believe basic teachings of the Church and
actively seek to change and undermine scripture and the Catechism." And, "The
litany of the gospel of wolves that has flowed out of the Vatican and gone
unchecked over these 5+ years, has left many souls to wander in darkness and
succumb to lies that destroy faith."
* There has been an attack against the traditional
priesthood
which results in fewer
vocations, and therefore fewer priests,
more priestless parishes, and fewer
sacraments. Contrary to a proper Catholic
spirit, some 'Catholics' see a priestless parish as desirable.
* One of
Pope Francis' many erroneous teachings included his opinion that: "Every religion is a way to arrive
at God", like "different languages", despite the fact that
non-Catholic
religions are opposed to the only true faith established by
Christ (God!) and
that Christ says that "No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn. 14:6).
* The confusion in
the Church today is perhaps the greatest of any time in
history. It has been highly
fostered by actions at the top. The disunity in the Church today is not caused by a group of people
who tenaciously adhere to tradition (that they are bound to uphold!).
* PV2 Popes may even engage in publicly scandalous
actions...
"Pope Francis conferred on Liliane Ploumen, a Dutch politician and
international abortion activist, a pontifical order, receiving her into the
Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory, usually bestowed for 'meritorious
service to the Church. In response to President Trump cutting US funding of
international abortions in January 2017, Liliane Ploumen set up the abortion
group, She Decides, that raised $200 million to make up the shortfall in funds
for the killing of babies. Three months later Pope Francis gave her one of the
Holy See's highest honours for laity." (Grigio)
* Various 'Catholic' parishes are celebrating a
sin
that 'cries
to heaven for vengeance' and see nothing wrong in doing so.
* At least one PV2 pope has been
accused of falsifying doctrine (I have never heard such a charge against the
SSPX).
* "Even though the
founder of a false religion,
Pope Francis recommended the Buddha as a spiritual
guide" (Grigio). He also reportedly asked for a blessing from a Buddhist! A
Pope praising a
Satan-pleasing religion and receiving their blessing? How can
the Church be in such a state? Through great confusion, error, and denying
traditional Church doctrine in the wake of V2.
* According to the controversial Archbishop Viganò...
"The tragic story of this failed pontificate [of
Pope Francis]
advances with a pressing succession of twists and turns. Not a day passes: from
the most exalted throne the Supreme Pontiff proceeds to dismantle the See of
Peter, using and abusing its supreme authority, not to confess but to deny; not
to confirm but to mislead; not to unite but to divide; not to build but to
demolish. Material heresies, formal heresies, idolatry, superficiality of every
kind."
Note that Archbishop Viganò, a
former papal nuncio to the U.S., was quite public & forceful about his
sincerely-held criticism of Pope Francis, and was ultimately subjected to canonical trial for
'schism'. He did not defend himself or attend the trial. He said he
regarded the accusations against himself "as an honor". He was eventually judged
guilty of schism and automatically excommunicated. I do not believe Viganò's
actual criticisms of the Holy Father were addressed.
* An Archbishop accused the Vatican of being "more
concerned with imposing the agenda of the New World Order than proclaiming the
Gospel." (Grigio)
* Conditions in
the Church have continued to deteriorate since
V2. In fact, they have worsened in
ways people could have never imagined (e.g. adulterous couples permitted to
receive
Holy Communion,
homosexual couples receiving blessings from priests, the
TLM
being mostly 'forbidden' under
Pope Francis, etc.).
* An "eminent
Catholic philosopher" who was a friend to
Pope John Paul II foresaw "a terrible
danger of a complete collapse of the Catholic Church in many countries, and
indeed of its total destruction in some areas of the world" as a result of a
"frightening silence of the majority of cardinals and bishops on this unique
crisis from the top of the Church down during a whole decade". These are clearly
extraordinary times.
Also, it should be noted that...
* There have been
countless breaks with tradition post
Vatican II (see
above for more on the duty to
preserve tradition).
* Reforms have
sought to please the world, not
Christ.
* Changes in the wake of V2 have done much to
detract from the Sacredness of the
Holy Sacrifice of the
Mass and have resulted in countless sacrileges.
* There has been an effort to destroy
traditional
Catholicism in the wake of
V2. Some in
the Church
are openly hostile to tradition. Those who hold
to Catholic tradition have been persecuted and ostracized. In fact, it seems the only
thing that can't be tolerated in the Church today is tradition.
* The Church is
weaker now than before Vatican II and much has been lost [try
here for some examples].
* The majority of
Catholics nowadays may be unable to separate truth from error.
* PV2 teachings (especially under
Pope Francis) can be spiritually dangerous.
* The Vatican has
NOT been doing its duty!
* When someone speaks
uncomfortable truths in the Church today, they are likely to be criticized,
ostracized, and shut down. In contrast, public sinners are welcomed, honored and
praised.
* It seems that
the hierarchy is generally more concerned with reforms than with unity or doctrinal clarity.
* Many Trads now don't feel at home in their own
Church. They may be insulted, persecuted, treated as second class citizens, and
even 'ejected' from their parishes.
The situation in the Church today may be partially
assessed by the following headlines... [Note that sources vary. I don't
recommend any particular source or article.]
"The Fundamental
Teachings of the Church Are Currently Under Threat"
"Cardinal Says Liturgical Abuses Turned the Mass
Into a 'Parody'"
"Terry Barber reveals US nuncio Cardinal
Pierre told Bishop Strickland 'there is no deposit of faith'" (Supposedly
this is a rumor, but it was reported on LifeSiteNews and elsewhere.)
"Modernist Synod
aims to make Church liberal democracy"
"Cardinal Hollerich:
The openness of the Synod on Synodality 'will change the Church' "
"Spanish cardinal
vows to 'fully apply' Fiducia Supplicans, cracks down on priestly opposition"
"Vatican official
says St. Peter's Basilica will bless homosexual 'couples"
"Cdl. Roche says
Latin Mass needs to be restricted because the 'theology of the Church has
changed'"
"Pope Francis
issues new document limiting the powers of bishops to allow the Latin Mass in
their diocese"
"Rome blocks
ordinations of seminarians in French community that offers Latin Mass, superior
says"
"Catholic churches in Minnesota ending Sunday
Mass, citing low attendance, priest shortage"
"Scottish bishop
cancels thriving Latin Mass community in Archdiocese of Glasgow"
"Traditional Latin
Mass annihilated in the Diocese of Knoxville, Tennessee"
"Catholic Church in Decline: Falling Attendance,
Priest Shortages, and Erosion of Trust"
In light of all these things, do you think it's an
exaggeration to say the Bride of Christ (the Church) is being
attacked by members of the
hierarchy? And do you imagine that this pleases
Christ, her head?
Furthermore, the catastrophic
consequences of
V2
continue to be ignored, as if they don't matter or haven't happened. The fallout
from this 'pastoral council' includes indisputable bad fruits (e.g. closure of
seminaries, churches, religious communities, destroyed families, fallen away
Catholics, diminished Mass attendance, etc.). The
statistics prove significant unfavorable
consequences resulted from V2's unprecedented and revolutionary 'opening to the
world' (try
here for some examples). The SSPX situation must be considered in this light.
Note that even Pope Paul VI, the pope who closed the Second Vatican Council, had
said...
"The Church is in a disturbed period of
self-criticism, or what would better be called self-demolition. It is an acute
and complicated upheaval which nobody would have expected after the council. It
is almost as if the Church were attacking herself."
"It was believed that after the council a sunny
day in the Church's history would dawn, but instead there came a day of clouds,
storms and darkness."
"[T]he opening to the world has become a veritable
invasion of the Church by worldly thinking. We have perhaps been too weak and
imprudent."
"[T]hrough some crack, the smoke of Satan has
penetrated the temple of God."
The last quote above was later echoed by Fr.
Gabriele Amorth, chief exorcist in Rome...
"The smoke of Satan has entered everywhere.
Everywhere!"
And as Fr. Louis Bouyer famously said...
"Unless we are blind, we
must even state bluntly that what we see looks less
like the hoped-for regeneration of the Catholicism than
its accelerated decomposition."
Decomposition indeed.
PERSECUTION AGAINST TRADITION: SOME EXAMPLES
The following are some
examples of heavy-handedness against tradition in the PV2
Church... [Note: I am indebted to the Grigio book
referenced above
for items below. Also note that I may have
combined paragraphs herein.]
"Pope Francis personally intervened to dissolve the recently-created Belgian
Fraternity of the Holy Apostles of Brussels, an order of faithful priests that
upheld the tradition of the Church." (Grigio)
"The Italian traditional website Messa in Latino reported that Bishop Mario
Grech of Gozo had threatened to suspend the faculties of priests who refused to
administer the sacraments to divorcees committing adultery" (Grigio)
"Pope Francis removed Cardinal Gerhard Müller from his position as prefect of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, breaking the precedent that
holders of this office held it until retirement at 75, if not longer. Cardinal
Müller opposed liberal interpretations of Amoris Laetitia favoured by Pope
Francis. Cardinal Müller complained that Pope Francis dismissed him in a
one-minute conversation, without giving a reason for his termination" (Grigio)
"The traditional community of nuns, Les Petites
Sœurs de Marie, Mère du
Rédempteur [Little Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Redeemer] issued a statement
following the Dicastery for Religious attempting to remove their superior
general and impose three commissioners. The majority of nuns, who serve the
elderly in French nursing homes, requested that they be released from their
vows" (Grigio)
"Following the Vatican's takeover of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta,
the Grand Master of the Order issued a letter banning the Extraordinary Form of
the Roman Rite of the Mass. Fra Dalla Torre stated: 'Henceforth, all the
liturgical ceremonies within our Order must be performed according to the
ordinary rite of the Church (rite of St. Paul VI) and not the extraordinary rite
(Tridentine rite)... This decision applies to all the official liturgical
celebrations such as investitures, Masses during our pilgrimages, memorial
masses, as well as the feasts and solemnities of the Order. He banned the
traditional Latin Mass in the name of 'cohesion and communion'.'"
(Grigio)
"Fr. Maximilian Mary Dean, chaplain to the
traditional Carmelite nuns in Fairfield, Pennsylvania, and their motherhouse in
Valparaiso, Nebraska, revealed details concerning the Apostolic Visitation
imposed on the nuns in September 2021. Fr. Dean reported that the aim of the
Visitation was the destruction of this traditional order: 'The Co-Visitators
actually sent spies; they discussed the need to stop me from bringing the
Sacraments and to switch the Nuns over to the Novus Ordo Mass; they discussed
strategies for turning the benefactors away from these traditional communities.
I am not permitted to write here what they actually did during the Visitation
itself, but let's just say that I was 100% correct in my assessment and that the
Nuns pulling from Philadelphia was used as a pretext by the Congregation to go
after these traditional Monasteries.'" (Grigio)
"João Cardinal Braz de Aviz,
Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life, informed the
Superior General of the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate (FSI) of the
appointment of Sister Fernanda Barbiero as 'Visitor' with powers to impose
changes to the FSI." (Grigio)
"Bishop Frank Dewane of Venice, Florida, issued a
directive to his priests banning them from celebrating the Mass ad orientem -
facing the East or facing the tabernacle or apse - without his permission." (Grigio)
"The Vicar of Opus Dei in Côte d'Ivoire sent a letter to Abbé Javier Gbénou
informing him that due to his public criticism of Pope Francis' advocacy of the
legalisation of homosexual pairings he was banned from celebrating public
Masses, hearing confessions, preaching, and was also told to leave the Opus Dei
residence." (Grigio)
"Father José Antonio Alvarez, spokesman for the Diocese of San Rafael,
Argentina, posted a video on Facebook announcing that the Vatican's Congregation
for Clergy supported Bishop Eduardo Maria Taussig's decision to close down his
seminary. The San Rafael seminary was one of the most successful in Argentina
and in all of Latin America, with a large number of vocations. Bishop Taussig
had ordered that communion could only be received in the hand at the seminary,
despite the seminary, and diocese, observing the practice of only receiving Holy
Communion on the tongue, kneeling down. When the rector and other clergy on the
staff of the seminary refused to obey his instruction, he sacked them and closed
the seminary." (Grigio)
"The Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life
and Societies of Apostolic Life issued a rescript signed by Pope Francis
restricting the powers of bishops to establish religious institutes or
societies. This move was seen as an attempt to prevent any new traditional
institutes or societies being formed. From this date, in order to establish
these communities bishops must seek the written permission of the Dicastery for
Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life." (Grigio)
"Bishop Stephen D. Parkes of Diocese of Savannah,
appointed by Pope Francis in 2020, announced the ruling by the Dicastery for
Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments that all regular celebrations of
the traditional Latin Mass must end by May 2023, and parishioners 'helped' to
transition to the Novus Ordo" (Grigio)
"Pope Francis demoted a Roman Curia appointee after learning that the priest
had occasionally offered the Traditional Latin Mass for pilgrims prior to his
promulgation of Traditionis Custodes. Monsignor Schroeder was due to take up the
post of office head of the Disciplinary Section of the Dicastery for the
Doctrine of the Faith until Pope Francis intervened and the priest promptly
resigned." (Grigio)
"Fr. Michael Rowe, the much loved Rector of St Anne's Church, was unable to
sign the declaration, for reasons of conscience, explaining 'I have serious
problems with some of the...propositions which simply contain factual errors or
attempt to assert things that I simply do not believe are true. I cannot in good
conscience sign such a document with the above propositions because I do not
believe they reflect the truth of Catholic doctrine and dogma as passed down in
the Church throughout history. Just because the Holy Father and the Archbishop
of Perth believe these statements to be true that does not necessarily of itself
make them true, such statements have to be carefully considered in the light of
continuity of Catholic tradition. Rather than reflecting the truth of Catholic
doctrine and dogma as passed down in the Church throughout history, my concern
with these statements is that they represent a rupturing from such truth and
tradition.' On the 11th December 2023 Archbishop Costello deposed Fr. Michael
Rowe as the rector of St. Anne's because he would not sign the declaration." (Grigio)
"Archbishop William Nolan of Glasgow, appointed by
Pope Francis in 2022, instructed Fr. Mark Morris that the traditional Latin Mass
at his parish of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Balornock, must end by Sunday
30th April. The Immaculate Heart of Mary parish had become the 'thriving hub of
traditional Catholic life in Scotland' with 200 people attending every weekend
for the traditional Mass." (Grigio)
"Bishop Fintan Gavin of the Diocese of Cork & Ross, appointed by Pope Francis
in 2019, ordered the Dominicans to cease celebrating Mass in the Dominican Rite
at St. Mary's Dominican Priory and Pope's Quay, almost 800 years after the Order
arrived in Cork city." (Grigio)
"Pro-homosexuality Cardinal Wilton Gregory of the Archdiocese of Washington,
elevated to the sacred College of Cardinals by Pope Francis in 2020, issued a
decree severely restricting the Latin Mass, and banning traditional sacraments.
Cardinal Gregory decreed that all clerics seeking to celebrate the traditional
Latin Mass, 'explicitly affirm in writing 'the validity and the legitimacy of
the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the
Supreme Pontiffs' and 'demonstrate an appreciation 'of the value of concelebration, particularly at the Chrism Mass'. He also banned the traditional
administration of the sacraments, '[a]ll other sacraments [that is, baptism,
confirmation, marriage, etc.]'" (Grigio)
"On the 9th November 2023, Pope Francis, via the papal nuncio Cardinal
Cristophe Pierre, requested that Bishop Strickland resign. His Lordship declined
this request. On the 11th November 2023, the Vatican announced that Pope Francis
had personally deposed Bishop Strickland from the Diocese of Tyler, Texas.
During his interview with LifeSiteNews Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen, Bishop
Strickland responded to the question why had he been removed from his position:
'The only answer I have to that is because forces in the Church right now don't
want the truth of the gospel. They want it changed. They want it ignored. They
want to be rid of the truth that is gloriously not going to go away.'"
(Grigio)
"Cardinal Cobo also criticised a group of 150 Spanish priests who had signed
a petition criticising Fiducia Supplicans (FS), some of whom had been forced to
remove their names by Cardinal Cobo and other ordinaries." (Grigio)
"Bishop Joe S. Vásquez of Austin, Texas, issued a letter announcing the
suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass at St. Mary's cathedral, which had
been celebrated there since 2007 and attracted over 200 parishioners. The
suppression had been mandated by the Vatican, as explained by Bishop Vásquez:
'As required by the rescript of the Holy Father issued in February of last year,
I submitted the case of the celebrations according to the 1962 missal at the
Cathedral parish to the Vatican Dicastery for Divine Worship to receive the
guidance and direction of the Holy See. Following the guidance of the Holy See,
the dispensation for celebrations according to the 1962 missal at the Cathedral
will come to an end on March 19, the feast of St. Joseph.'" (Grigio)
"Cardinal Nichols was steadfast in his support for the notorious Soho Masses
organised by LGBT militants. He told Catholics witnessing against these Masses
to 'hold their tongues'." (Grigio)
Archbishop Viganò (who was ultimately declared 'schismatic',
as noted above) said that:
"It is no coincidence that he accusation against me concerns the questioning of
the legitimacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio [Pope Francis] and the rejection of
Vatican II: the Council represents the ideological, theological, moral, and
liturgical cancer of which the Bergoglian 'synodal church' is the necessary
metastasis" and said that he, in the face of the Dicastery's accusations,
claimed, as Successor of the Apostles, "to be in full communion with the Roman
Catholic Apostolic Church, with the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs, and with
the uninterrupted doctrinal, moral, and liturgical Tradition which they have
faithfully preserved". He also said, I repudiate the neomodernist errors
inherent in the Second Vatican Council and in the so-called 'postconciliar
magisterium', in particular in matters of collegiality, ecumenism, religious
freedom, the secularity of the State, and the liturgy. I repudiate, reject, and
condemn the scandals, errors, and heresies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who
manifests an absolutely tyrannical management of power, exercised against the
purpose that legitimises Authority in the Church: an authority that is vicarious
of that of Christ, and as such must obey Him alone."
This is what happens when Catholics dare to be orthodox/traditional in the PV2
Church. Various people have been fired/removed from their positions (even losing
their livelihoods) for
questioning errors or supporting Catholic tradition. There is a clear pattern of
persecution against those who are trad-friendly. And those who behave in the opposite matter are often promoted. As
Bishop Strickland asked...
"Who has said no to the ongoing attack on the
liturgy? Who has protested when faithful priests, bold enough to speak the
truth, bold enough to care more about the salvation of souls than keeping their
position, have been cancelled or silenced?"
Do you really think the SSPX could survive such persecution if not in an
'irregular' state? I personally don't see how it would be possible over
the long run.
INSULTS / DISDAIN FOR TRADITION
It should already be
pretty obvious what some members of the PV2 hierarchy
think of tradition (despite
their duty to embrace it). Nevertheless, I think
it is useful to consider a few tradition-insulting
comments illustrating disdain for Catholic tradition in
the PV2 Church... [Note: I am once again indebted to the Grigio book
referenced above
for items below.]
* Cardinal Tobin referred to tradition as "towing two millennia of baggage after
you on the journey".
* Cardinal Wilton Gregory said, "Tradition dies a slow death, sometimes a
bloody death." Yet why speak of tradition dying when it's his/their job to preserve it?
* "Pro-homosexual Fr. Timothy Radcliffe OP, appointed by
Pope Francis a consultor for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in
2014, gave a speech in Brisbane, Australia, in which he criticised the 'tyranny
of Tradition'." (Grigio)
* In contrast with Scripture's praise for
tradition, Pope Francis said, "Traditionalism instead is the dead life of our
believers. Tradition is the life of those who have gone before us and who go on.
Traditionalism is their dead memory."
* "Pope Francis also criticised young priests for dressing in traditional style,
saying it indicated moral problems and imbalances: 'Have you never seen young
priests all stiff in black cassocks and hats in the shape of the planet Saturn
on their heads? Behind all the rigid clericalism there are serious problems. I
had to intervene recently in three dioceses with problems that expressed
themselves in these forms of rigidity that concealed moral problems and
imbalances.'" (Grigio)
* Pope Francis, who waged 'war' on tradition
actually said looking backwards is sinful: "And looking backward is a sin (!) because it does not
progress with the Church... for those people who are looking backward, who call
themselves traditionalists, it is the dead faith of the living." Contrast
his remarks with the above quotes concerning
the duty to preserve tradition.
* Furthermore, as Grigio noted,
"During his homily Pope Francis accused those who upheld the Tradition of the
Church as committing the 'sin of divination' and the 'sin of idolatry':
"Christians who are obstinate, saying this is how it's always been done, this is
the way, this is the path', are sinning: the sin of divination'. It is 'as if
they were to go to a palm reader'. In the end, 'what has been said and what
doesn't change - 'by me and my closed heart' becomes 'more important' than 'the
Word of the Lord'. This 'is also the sin of idolatry: stubbornness. The
Christian who insists, sins. The sin of idolatry." Compare his remarks with
what St. Paul says in Holy Scripture...
"I praise you because you remember me in
everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."
(St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11:2)
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to
the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter
of ours." (St. Paul, 2 Thes. 2:15)
"We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our)
Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way
and not according to the tradition they received from us." (St. Paul, 2 Thes.
3:6)
* And more of Pope Francis's insults: "During a homily
Pope Francis mocked priests who wore traditional clerical accoutrements:
'Actually, 'on the subject of rigidity and worldliness', Pope Francis shared an
anecdote, something that 'happened some time ago: an elderly monsignor came to
me', a member of the curia, who worked, a normal man, a good man, in love with
Jesus; and he told me that he had gone to Euroclero to buy a couple of shirts
and saw a young man in front of the mirror - he couldn't have been more than 25;
he was either a young priest or was about to become a priest - in front of the
mirror, with a large, ample, velvet cloak with a silver chain, and he was
looking at himself. Then he picked up a 'saturno' hat, put it on and looked at
himself: a worldly, rigid man'. And the 'very wise monsignor', Pope Francis
continued, 'managed to overcome his pain' with a dose of 'healthy humour and
added: 'and they say the Church doesn't allow women in the priesthood!'. Thus,
'when a priest becomes a functionary', in the end things become 'ridiculous,
always'.'" (Grigio)
* According to Pope Francis, tradition lovers are
not just sinners, but selfish, backwards-looking and displaying infidelity: "Yet let us be careful: both the 'progressivism' that lines up behind the world
and the 'traditionalism' - or 'looking backwards' - that longs for a bygone
world are not evidence of love, but of infidelity. They are forms of a Pelagian
selfishness that puts our own tastes and plans above the love that pleases God,
the simple, humble and faithful love that Jesus asked of Peter", and called for
us to "return to the Council, which rediscovered the living river of Tradition
without remaining mired in traditions". (Grigio) - First, I didn't know tradition had to be
'rediscovered' by V2 and, second, how is being faithful to tradition – as we are instructed
to do in Holy Scripture and by the constant teaching of the PV2 Church – the same as being 'mired' in tradition?
Lastly, I note the irony in his statement concerning 'putting our own tastes
above what pleases God' with respect to the traditional liturgy ('the most
beautiful thing this side of heaven' per Father Faber) as it compares with the
Novus Ordo Mass ('a banal, on-the-spot product' per Cardinal Ratzinger). It
reminds me that I was once berated on social media for saying something to the
effect that TLM adherents attend the TLM because they believe it best pleases
God, yet what knowledgeable Catholic chooses the
NO over the TLM to please God? I
still stand strongly by my statement.
*
Cardinal Roche referred to the TLM as an "overly elaborate
form of celebrating the Mass" and said that "The numbers devoted to the
Traditional Latin Mass are, in reality, quite small, but some of the groups are
quite clamorous." Yet, such Mass attendees are some of the most practicing Catholics anywhere
with higher than average Mass attendance figures, large families, and adherence to Church doctrine
– despite that fact that they are often marginalized and persecuted. At least they
attend an "overly elaborate" Mass (how can that be said given the reality of
the Holy Sacrifice?!) at all, in comparison with Novus Ordo Mass adherents (whose Mass attendance % is in single
digits in some areas). The 'elaborate' Mass lovers deserve praise, not marginalization!
* And loving Catholic tradition somehow makes a
person Protestant according to Cardinal Roche: "During an interview with the heterodox UK Catholic journal The Tablet, Cardinal
Arthur Roche, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the
Discipline of the Sacraments further criticized traditional Catholics: 'The
[Second Vatican] council is the highest legislation that exists in the Church[!].
If you disregard that, you are putting yourself sideways, to the edges of the
Church. You are becoming more Protestant than you are Catholic. [...] That
reform is taking place, but it's a slow process because there are those who are
dragging their feet with regard to this and not only dragging their feet but
stubbornly opposing what the Church has actually decreed. That's a very serious
matter. In the end, people have to ask themselves: am I really a Catholic, or am
I more of a Protestant?" (Grigio) So clinging to Catholic tradition makes you
Protestant?? Wasn't rejecting Catholic tradition precisely what made people
Protestant to begin with?
To close this section with some sanity, let me
quote the namesake of the SSPX...
"[Modernists] exercise all their ingenuity in
diminishing the force and falsifying the character of tradition, so as to rob it
of all its weight. But for Catholics the second Council of Nicea will always
have the force of law, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious
fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent
novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of
the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church" (Pope Pius X)
WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS: POPE LEO / SYNODALITY
Clearly
Pope Francis had an adversarial relationship with Catholic tradition, but he
is now dead. So what might the future hold for lovers of Catholic tradition?
Well in the first place, Pope Francis'
anti-tradition stance may be expected to impact the Church for some time due to
his scandalous appointments and erroneous documents. According to Grigio...
"Pope Francis
selected and elevated many men to the Sacred College of Cardinals, Sacred
College of Bishops and Vatican curia who shared his radical agenda, and in whom
he could rely on to repeat, amplify and implement his rupture from the Deposit
of Faith."
It should also be noted that Pope Francis was
reportedly "aiming at reform that [would be] irreversible".
Second, it may be noted that Pope Francis'
successor, Pope Leo XIV has been pope for over a year now and in that time
has not yet given Trads a lot of hope. I checked my thoughts about Pope Leo
continuing on or reversing his predecessor's path with
AI in late July 2026. It said Pope Leo...
"[H]as not undertaken a broad reversal of Pope
Francis' pontificate. Instead, he has largely presented himself as continuing
the Church's mission while governing with a different style." Although he has
supposedly "emphasized listening to Catholics attached to older liturgical
traditions and has taken a less confrontational tone than Francis. However, he
has not revoked Francis' restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass."
Certainly Pope Leo could have done more (he had
over a year as Pope before the SSPX consecrations). The matter was urgent and of
great importance.
Pope Francis unjustly tried to suppress the ancient Mass. Pope Leo
has left this grave injustice in place as of the time of this writing, so his
silence seems to mean acceptance or agreement.
Also, Pope Leo could have / should
have spent his time at least starting to correct Francis' errors! Yet, he
has not done so to the best of my knowledge.
What Pope Leo has done so far may be partially summed up by
recent headlines/posts, such as these...
- Leo's
canonizations have been said to "complete the demolition" of Catholicism (impossible,
of course, but illustrative)
- Leo appointed
Cardinal Cupich to the commission responsible for governing the Vatican, even
though the controversial Cardinal has supported pro-abortion politicians and
opposes the TLM, among other issues.
- Headline "Pope
Leo XIV downplays the Filioque in new apostolic letter"
- Headline: "Pope
Leo XIV appoints bishop who rejects Catholic teaching on sexuality"
- Headline: "Pope
Leo names pro-LGBT 'artist' who hosted obscene exhibits to lead Vatican's
Academy for Fine Arts"
- Social media:
"Pope Leo XIV names former illegal immigrant as new bishop...as the Vatican
installs Islam prayer rooms and feet washing stations"
-
Headline regarding 'climate change' conference: "Pope Leo XIV's priorities in
question after blessing block of ice"
- Headline: "Leo Laicizes Priest Who Dared to Call Francis a 'Heretic'"
So I am not encouraged so far by his papacy, even if
some things have been a bit of an improvement over Pope Francis. At the outset,
the well-known journalist Raymond Arroyo supposedly said, "If you liked Pope Francis you're going
to love Pope Leo XIV...that would be my bumper sticker on this". I have an old
screenshot of the remark by a third party, but I can't prove whether or not the
quote is accurate. The video it may be taken from has been pulled as of this
writing and I cannot find any concrete proof of the statement. Another source that actually
rejects Pope Leo (a sedevacantist source) said in their assessment of the first year of
his pontificate: "we find that there is no significant difference between Prevost
[Pope Leo] and Bergoglio [Pope Francis] in terms of doctrine and ideological
convictions." As they say, consider the source (sedevacantist), but they would
presumably be well-versed on events from both papacies. Furthermore, various
headlines they reference do seem to support that position, at least in various
matters that I noticed.
I speculate that if Pope Leo would
have begun his papacy condemning Pope Francis' many grave errors, maybe the SSPX
wouldn't have proceeded with the consecrations. Since Pope Leo has allowed
the errors and injustices to remain and to continue to inflict harm on the
Church, perhaps it could be argued that
Pope Leo seems somewhat derelict in his duties at present.
Ultimately, I am still not aware
of any clear condemnation to date by Pope Leo of Pope Francis' egregious errors,
Pope Francis being the 'humble' past pope who felt free to change the words of
The Lord's Prayer
on
his own initiative and who proceeded to deprive the faithful of their
birthright, contrary to Canon Law, and possibly in a fraudulent
manner (see
here for 'Was Traditionis Custodes Built On False Premises Or Lies?').
If this wasn't bad enough, there is another grave
danger on the horizon: 'The Synodal Church'.
THE SYNODAL CHURCH
I'd like to start out by
saying that if
Vatican II could have a baby, it might
be the 'Synodal Church'. The 'final' document
on the synod said that "the entire synodal journey took
place in the light of the conciliar Magisterium" and
that "the synodal journey constitutes a further act of
reception of the [Second Vatican] Council". It's still in its infancy at
present, but it is already VERY alarming. It might
prove to be, effectively, a 'stealthy Vatican III'.
Some example quotes that illustrate the concern...
"Bishop Overbeck enthusiastically predicted that the
synod would lead to a 'break' in the Church and that 'nothing will be the same
as it was. He expected and welcomed radical changes to the Church's doctrine on
sexual morality, the male priesthood, and priestly celibacy." (Grigio)
Cardinal Müller said that the agenda of the Synodal Path may be "diametrically
opposed to the Catholic faith in form and content". He called it a "hostile
takeover" and said: "They want to abuse this process for shifting the
Catholic Church and not only in another direction, but in the destruction of the
Catholic Church. [Synod leaders are] dreaming of another church [that] has
nothing to do with the Catholic faith and is absolutely against it, They want to
abuse this process for shifting the Catholic Church and not only in another
direction, but in the destruction of the Catholic Church." (Grigio)
Bishop Joseph Strickland, while acknowledging Christ's promise that His
Church will prevail
against the gates of hell until the end of the age, stated that: "There are
threats on the horizon. This Synod on Synodality, I reject, because it's not
Catholic. Many voices have already said this is not the Catholic Church. We're
in a time when Judas Iscariot is raising his ugly head. We're in dangerous
territory for this nation, but more importantly, and more critically, I believe,
for the Catholic faith."
Cardinal Burke
stated, "We are told that the Church we profess, in communion with our
ancestors in the faith since the time of the Apostles, to be one, holy, catholic
and apostolic, must now be defined by synodality, a term that has no history in
Church doctrine and for which there is no reasonable definition. It is obviously
an artificial construction, more like a human construction than the Church built
on the rock that is Christ. The Instrumentum laboris of the upcoming session of
the Synod of Bishops certainly contains statements that depart strikingly and
gravely from the perennial teaching of the Church."
The SSPX apparently concurs about the dangers of a
'Synodal Church', stating the following regarding the Synod on
Synodality...
"In concrete terms, it is a determined desire to
turn the Church upside-down. The teaching-Church no longer sees itself as the
custodian of a Revelation coming from God, and of which it is the guardian, but
as a group of bishops associated with the Pope, who listen to the faithful, and
in particular to all the peripheries, i.e. with particular attention paid to
anything that the most alienated souls might suggest. It is a Church where the
shepherds become the sheep and the sheep become the shepherds. The underlying
idea is that God does not reveal Himself through the traditional channels of
Holy Scripture and Tradition, which are safeguarded by the hierarchy, but
through the 'experience of the people of God'."
Participants in the synod are bound to
confidentiality about their deliberations (run rather like a secret committee,
no?).
Although the faithful
'people of God' may never have asked for synodality,
it has nevertheless proceeded and will take a lot of Church
resources (e.g. your donations) in the future.
A Final Document has
already been released. According to Pope Francis, "The
Final Document is part of the ordinary Magisterium of
the Successor of Peter". It is supposedly "a form of
exercise of the authentic teaching of the Bishop of
Rome that has some novel features" and "an
authoritative orientation for the Church's life and
mission."
Pope Francis said that
the Final Document 'is not strictly normative' and that
'its application will need various mediations', but
added that this "does not mean that it does not commit
the Churches from now on to make choices consistent
with what is stated in it."
It was said that "the
synodal journey constitutes a further act of reception
of the [Second Vatican] Council". (Just what we needed.)
They basically want to
have a "synodal perspective" on everything. The 'final
synod document speaks of ...
synodal journey
synodal path
synodal
methodology/methodologies
synodal perspective
synodal process
Synodal renewal
synodal spirituality
synodal character
synodal style
synodal structures
synodal practices
synodal way
synodal manner
synodal dynamic
synodal formation
Ecclesial synodality
the Church in Synod
the synodal Church (By
my count 'synodal church' was mentioned close to 40
times in the 67 page document)
synodal living
synodality
practice of synodality
... everything in the
Church is to be permeated with 'synod'.
As indicated above, they
frequently speak of "a synodal Church". I
don't know
about you, but I'd prefer to stick with the Catholic
Church that
Christ established, especially given some of
the particulars of the 'synodal Church'.
Even though a more recent
invention, synodality has suddenly become 'a
constitutive dimension of the Church'. Yet if it is
suddenly 'a constitutive dimension of the Church',
hasn't there already been a takeover of the Church?
Don't true Catholics want the Church as Christ
established it? Who wants a novel 'synodal Church'? (I mean besides
Satan). Especially since it must be
ecumenical...
"The journey of
synodality undertaken by the Catholic Church is and
must be ecumenical, just as the ecumenical journey is
synodal" (Pope Francis, Address to His Holiness Mar Awa
III, 19 November 2022).
"One of the most
significant fruits of the Synod 2021-2024 has been the
intensity of ecumenical zeal."
"Ecumenical dialogue is
fundamental to developing an understanding of
synodality and the unity of the Church."
"The synodal way of
formation implies that the ecumenical dimension is
present in all aspects of the paths towards ordained
ministries."
"A synodal Church commits
itself to walk this path alongside the believers of
other religions and people of other beliefs wherever it
lives. It freely shares the joy of the Gospel and
gratefully receives their respective gifts. Through
this collaboration, we aim to build together, as
sisters and brothers all, in a spirit of mutual
activity and aid (cf. GS 40), justice, solidarity,
peace and interreligious dialogue."
"The regular hosting of
ecclesial assemblies at all levels is also encouraged.
Without limiting consultation to members of the
Catholic Church, these gatherings should be open to
listening to the contributions from [heretics &
schismatics]. Attention should also be paid to other
religions in the territory."
ECUMENISM, ECUMENISM,
ECUMENISM.
Thank you very much, but I'll just stick
with the biblical admonitions...
"After a first and second
warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing
that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands
self-condemned." (St. Paul, Ti. 3:10-11)
"If anyone comes to you
and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in
your house or even greet him; for whoever greets him
shares in his evil works." (2 Jn. 1:10-11)
And be prepared for a
'demanding change of mentality' to accompany the 'synodal
Church'...
"Shared synodal
formation for all the Baptised constitutes the horizon
within which to understand and practise the specific
formation required for individual ministries and
vocations. For this to happen, it must be implemented
as an exchange of gifts between different vocations
(communion), in the perspective of a service to be
performed (mission) and in a style of involvement and
education in differentiated co-responsibility
(participation). This request, which emerged strongly
from the synodal process, often requires a demanding
change of mentality and a renewed approach to both
formation contexts and processes. Above all, it implies
an inner readiness to be enriched by the encounter with
brothers and sisters in the faith, overcoming
prejudices and partisan views. The ecumenical dimension
of formation cannot but facilitate this change in
mentality."
(Again, no thank you.)
The document talks about
"a particular step we need to take", namely "caring for
the formation of all, of the People of God, all as
synodal missionaries." (I don't want to be formed
into a synodal missionary, do you?)
We also now supposedly
require "proper formation" to "grow in the practice of synodality"...
"The holy People of God
require proper formation so that they can witness to
the joy of the Gospel and grow in the practice of
synodality"
(Again, no thanks.)
And supposedly the
internet offers "new opportunities to better live the
synodal dimension of the Church." (I never wanted to
give up the internet as much as I do at the present
moment.)
And they even want to
adopt "in the diversity of ...cultures and
traditions,...celebratory styles that make visible the
face of a synodal Church" and make "liturgical
celebrations more an expression of synodality." How
does that square with
Pope Francis' supposed desire for liturgical unity?
Although they want "unity in diversity", don't for a
moment think this will include the
TLM.
They also seek a
"tangible synodal conversion"...
"The local Churches are
asked to continue their daily journey with a synodal
methodology of consultation and discernment,
identifying concrete ways and formation pathways to
bring about a tangible synodal conversion in the
various ecclesial contexts (parishes, Institutes of
consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life,
movements of the faithful, dioceses, Episcopal
Conferences, groupings of Churches, etc.). Planning for
an evaluation of the progress made in terms of
synodality and the participation of all the Baptised in
the life of the Church should also occur."
And they even want to update
Canon
Law...
"It seems appropriate to carry out a revision of Canon Law from a synodal
perspective"
The document itself contains
various questionable statements...
It is claimed that "Jesus
never sent anyone away without stopping to listen and
to speak to them" - But consider Jn. 2:13-17...
"Since the Passover of
the Jews was near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. He found
in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and
doves, as well as the money-changers seated there. He
made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the
temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the
coins of the money-changers and overturned their
tables, and to those who sold doves he said, 'Take
these out of here, and stop making my Father's house a
marketplace.' His disciples recalled the words of
scripture, 'Zeal for your house will consume me.'"
"The renewed experience
of ecumenical momentum that marks the synod's journey
opens the way towards hope." - Hope for what, more
religious indifferentism?
"...the spaces where
we are Church" - Since when do Catholics use 'church' as
a
verb of being? Okay, I mean since when in the pre-V2
Church?
"Christian
digital communities and groups, particularly young
people...need to offer formation among their peers,
developing a synodal way of being Church." - Again with
the verb. I'll stick with church as a noun, thank you.
And I won't address the other (scary) issues with this
proposal.
The ending matter which
states, "Just as nobody is saved alone, the proclamation
of salvation requires everyone, and demands that
everyone be heard", is misleading at best. Jesus never
taught this. Rather He instructed those HE chose to
proclaim what HE had taught...
"The eleven disciples
went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had
ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but
they doubted. Then Jesus approached and said to them,
'All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe
all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with
you always, until the end of the age.'" (Mt. 28:16-20)
The Apostles were
supposed to speak, the laity were supposed to
listen (not be heard, listen)...
"Whoever will not receive
you or listen to your words–go outside that house or
town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to
you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom
and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that
town." (Mt. 10:14-15)
The document also contains some very disturbing items,
especially for those who love tradition...
"The example of the
saints and witnesses to the faith [!] from
[heretics/schismatics] is also a gift that we can
receive, including by inserting their memorial -
especially that of the martyrs [!] - into our liturgical
calendar." - Seriously? Supposed heretical & schismatic
'martyrs' in the Catholic liturgical calendar? That's a
hard NO.
"There is no reason or
impediment that should prevent women from carrying out
leadership roles in the Church: what comes from the
Holy Spirit cannot be stopped. Additionally, the
question of women's access to diaconal ministry remains
open. This discernment needs to continue. The Assembly
also asks that more attention be given to the language
and images used in preaching, teaching, catechesis, and
the drafting of official Church documents, giving more
space to the contributions of female saints,
theologians and mystics." - Of course there is a nod to
feminism in the document. I could have predicted that
before even reading it. And they offensively attempt to
attribute the feminist thrust to the Holy Spirit (even
though the Holy Spirit has spoken clearly in Scripture
regarding the proper roles of women [try
here for examples].
As for giving space, let's just go with merits
rather than sex/gender, ok? No Catholic DEI!
"Throughout the synodal
process, a widely expressed request was that the
discernment and formation of candidates for ordained
ministry be undertaken in a synodal way. There should
be a significant presence of women, an immersion in the
daily life of communities, and formation to enable
collaboration with everyone in the Church and in how to practise
ecclesial discernment." - Just what we need, "a
significant presence" of females to form male
priests. Yet somehow
Jesus
managed to form his (all
male) Apostles without such a 'significant presence
of
women'.
"[T]he Synodal Assembly
desires that the People of God have a greater voice in
choosing Bishops." - Democracy in action. How much
do you
want to bet Trad-friendly candidates won't have a
chance?
They
want to "launch bold initiatives for a common date for
Easter so that we can celebrate the Resurrection of the
Lord on the same day" as the so-called Orthodox (true
schismatics).
- Seriously, wasn't the
Easter date question settled
by the Catholic Church in the 4th
century? Can't we just leave it at that? Do they
really expect Catholics to change the date of Easter
(the holiest day of the year) to please schismatics?!
The document
also calls for increased participation by laity at
seminaries, theological institutes and faculties, and
even seeks that laity participate as judges "in all
canonical processes" - Yes, I can certainly see how
substituting laity for religious who have dedicated
their lives to God would improve everything. (Not!!)
What I don't recall
finding in the document are strong condemnations of
today's many types of grave unbridled
sin or calls for
repentance (except with respect to
ecumenism - of
course they desire that we repent of 'sins' against
those in
false religions). I recall my impression while
reading the document was that 'synod' seems to mean
to leave Christ out. Synod = leave Christ out. Yikes! The
laity are certainly supposed to have a say, but I'm not
sure
Christ the Lord gets much of a chance to do so. I
really hope I am wrong, but I have serious doubts.
They further want an
annual report that includes "progress made in promoting
the laity's access to positions of authority and to
decision-making processes, specifying the proportion of
men and women" and "periodic evaluations of all the
ministries and roles within the Church." - Sounds like a
lot of wasted time and resources (our donations) to
me. What about spending the time and energy on proper
catechesis?
More disturbing still,
they want to make use of mandatory participating bodies
to bring about changes 'speedily'...
"Implementing the
processes of decision-making correctly and resolutely,
and in a synodal style, will further the progress of
the People of God in a participatory way, especially by
utilising the institutional means provided for in Canon
Law, in particular participatory bodies. Without
concrete changes in the short term, the vision of a
synodal Church will not be credible, and this will
alienate those members of the People of God who have
drawn strength and hope from the synodal journey. Local
Churches need to find ways to implement these changes."
"Participatory bodies
represent one of the most promising areas in which to
act for rapid implementation of the synodal guidelines,
bringing about perceptible changes speedily."
"A synodal Church is based
upon the existence, efficiency and effective vitality
of these participatory bodies, not on the merely
nominal existence of them. This requires that they
function in accordance with canonical provisions or
legitimate customs and with respect to the statutes and
regulations that govern them. For this reason, we
insist that they be made mandatory, as was requested at
all stages of the synodal process, and that they can
fully play their role, and not just in a purely formal
way in a manner appropriate to their diverse local
contexts."
They also want to
councils to be 'convened
periodically' and their pastoral/disciplinary matters
to be given 'tacit consent'...
"The procedure for the
recognition of the conclusions of particular councils
by the Holy See (recognitio) should be
reformed to encourage their timely publication by
specifying precise deadlines or, in cases of purely
pastoral or disciplinary matters (not directly
concerning issues of faith, morals, or sacramental
discipline), by introducing a legal presumption
equivalent to tacit consent."
They also have the
audacity to ask the
Blessed Virgin Mary to help us be a
'synodal Church', drawing a comparison to Pentecost...
"We entrust the results of
this Synod to the Virgin Mary, who bears the splendid
title of Odigitria, she who shows and guides the way. May
she, Mother of the Church, who in the Upper Room helped
the newly formed community of disciples to open
themselves to the novelty of Pentecost, teach us to be
a People of disciples and missionaries
walking together, to be a synodal Church."
How about we just keep
the same Church as was 'born' (so to speak) at
Pentecost? You know, the very Church that the Blessed
Virgin's Son established.
Three final points. First,
the changes are apparently supposed to be from the
Holy Spirit, you know the Holy Spirit that does not change?
Ever.
"Surely I, the LORD, do
not change..." (Mal. 3:6)
"The Holy Spirit was not
promised to the successor of Peter that by the
revelation of the Holy Spirit they might disclose new
doctrine, but that by His help they might guard
sacredly the revelation transmitted through the
Apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully
set it forth." (First Vatican Council)
There seems to be no
concern that the new 'grass-roots' democracy type
'Synodal Church' might actually involve another spirit,
Satan. Also as Cardinal Müller stated...
"The direct communication between the Holy Spirit and Synod participants
is invoked to justify arbitrary doctrinal concessions...as the result of a higher
insight, which can overcome any objections from established Catholic doctrine.
But anyone who, by appealing to personal and collective inspiration from the
Holy Spirit, seeks to reconcile the teaching of the Church with an ideology
hostile to revelation and with the tyranny of relativism is guilty in various
ways of a 'sin against the Holy Spirit' (Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10)."
(Grigio)
Second, the synodal
process is supposed to continue on, even after the
'final' document was released. The document states,
"The conclusion of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of
the Synod of Bishops does not put an end to the synodal
process." So they are still not done with their
'synodal journey'. (Sad emoji.)
"The local Churches are
asked to continue their daily journey with a synodal
methodology of consultation and discernment,
identifying concrete ways and formation pathways to
bring about a tangible synodal conversion in the
various ecclesial contexts (parishes, Institutes of
consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life,
movements of the faithful, dioceses, Episcopal
Conferences, groupings of Churches, etc.). Planning for
an evaluation of the progress made in terms of
synodality and the participation of all the Baptised in
the life of the Church should also occur."
As noted previously,
everything in the Church is to be permeated with
'synod'. So, expect the catholicity (meaning
'universality') of the Catholic Church to become more
fragmented and less unified as the 'synodal journey'
progresses. (Just what we need.)
Third, the document is
supposedly "a gift to the whole faithful People of God,
in all its various forms."
I don't mean to be rude,
but can I pleeeeease return this unwelcome gift for a full
refund?
I regret that not only is
the answer 'no', but I am reminded that
Pope Francis dared to claim that this Synodal
document is part of the ordinary magisterium. How much
more of these novelties can the faithful take? How much
more will God tolerate?
Vatican II was bad
enough, but the prospects for a 'stealthy Synodal
VIII' (Vatican III) are far worse. Without divine
intervention, I'm not sure the Catholic Church will
even be
recognizable in the future. God help us, please.
WERE THE CONSECRATIONS OPPORTUNE?
Now that we've surveyed the
situation in the Church today and what is likely to be
expected in the future, can it be said that the 7/1/2026
consecrations were opportune?
Well, obviously, it would have been a 'safer'
(i.e. less risky) course to not consecrate. Things would have gone on as usual
for a while, without excommunication, without further charges of schism, and with some
faculties. But this would almost certainly mean that the SSPX would eventually die out and would
therefore no longer be able to continue serving souls, the Church, and Christ. Obviously
their critics would have liked this option best. Perhaps the Vatican even hoped
the SSPX would die a natural death.
Yet equally obviously, this would have been unacceptable to the SSPX. Practically
speaking, what were they to do, allow themselves to simply die out after
fighting this battle for decades? When they are needed more than ever?
If they were going to consecrate, how much longer
were their remaining bishops likely to live, given that they were approximately
70 years old at the time of the 2026 consecrations? That factor alone limits the
possible time frame for consecrations since if both the elderly bishops had died
or became physically unable to complete the task, it would have become
'impossible' to perform the consecrations. Plus, as is obvious, there is no way to
know for certain how long any given person has left to live. Two previous
(1988) SSPX bishops both died within the last few years (2024 & 2025). They were
older than the remaining two living (1988) SSPX bishops, but it's not
unreasonable to assume there might not be a lot of time left for men who
are already 70 years old. According to online sources, their life expectancies
may be another 15 years or so. However, there is no guarantee of that much time
(they could have both died before the 2026 consecrations, for example). Accidents can happen, and
life expectancy calculations are based on averages, so they do not necessarily
apply to any given person. But for argument's sake, let's start by saying 15 years
is the 'longest' they have left. If they were going to do consecrations, it probably
would not have been wise to wait that long, because death, illness or accident
could intervene. So realistically they had less than 15 years to act. According
to an online source, one of the two bishops is reportedly in poor health, so
"the SSPX is effectively down to just one bishop from the original four." Do you
sense the urgency level increasing?
So why did they not do the consecrations under
Pope Francis, who 'waged war' on tradition? Wouldn't it have seemed more
justifiable? I think that would be a reasonable assumption. Yet we cannot be
certain if or why the SSPX was not prepared to move forward before Pope Francis'
death in 4/25. Interestingly, the SSPX bishop 'in poor health' referenced above
reportedly had surgery less than three weeks before Pope Francis died in 2025.
Totally speculation here, but what if the SSPX
thought a new Pope might undo the unjust actions of his predecessor and be
willing to talk with the SSPX more productively? Or perhaps since the SSPX was
given faculties under Pope Francis, they thought waiting would be wise? Not able
to find a specific answer, I ran the question through AI
and it opined...
"The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) likely waited
to consecrate bishops until after Pope Francis' death to avoid direct
confrontation with his papacy and to assess the new leadership under Pope Leo
XIV. This timing may have been seen as a strategic move to assert their position
without the immediate repercussions that could have arisen during Francis'
tenure."
It does seem like waiting a year into the new
pontificate could have been a strategic choice. It would allow the SSPX time to
assess the new pontiff's stance towards tradition (as Pope) and it would allow enough time for
both parties to talk. Still, this is only speculation. I don't know what
prompted
the timing of the consecrations. Perhaps they wanted to closely tie the dates of
the original consecrations (6/30/1988 & 7/1/2026)?
Couldn't they have waited longer
and given Pope Leo more time? Of course they probably
could have given Pope Leo a little more time, but they
did give him 'sufficient' advance notice of the
consecrations. As for giving Pope Leo more time for the
purpose of seeing how his papacy would unfold, there
were already various signs (for example,
see
above). And before that, he had a history as
well that could be assessed. I do not imagine they
felt they really needed more time.
Should they have held out
for more dialog? Certainly this was an option, but does anyone really
think it would have been fruitful? If Leo had revoked
TC
shortly after becoming Pope, I might have a different opinion, but
that awful document is still in place to this day (but
hopefully not for long, and possibly its revocation
may be in response to the SSPX's 2026 actions).
Is honest reconciliation even possible at this time?
It's hard to be positive about it because we've seen so many examples of Trads
being persecuted (some examples above). It seems that everyone else is welcomed (no matter how evil),
but Trads are, at best, tolerated (as long as they keep relatively quiet). There
doesn't
currently seem to be any genuine desire to address concerns of the SSPX. I wish I was
wrong, but I don't think I am.
When the SSPX announced the consecrations and
respectfully provided the Pope with the future bishops' information, I believe the SSPX had
a 'right' to receive due consideration from the Vatican in return. If the answer was no, then
it's no, but in the interest of transparency, I think Pope Leo should have at least
provided the particular grounds for refusal (i.e. the reasons those 4 specific
men were not suitable). I think this courtesy was due them (remember that they had yet
to incur excommunication at that time). The Pope could have used the
opportunity to 'manifest is concern for unity' as the Superior General of
the SSPX
said to Pope Leo before the consecrations...
"A gesture of understanding on Your part, far from
harming unity, could only manifest before the world and before all Christians
Your concern for unity and Your goodness as a father. I leave all this to Your
consideration. I renew my prayers for Your Holiness."
And note how the above doesn't at all sound like
they are rejecting the Pope!
Also note that, for good reasons, it is normally
required to have a total of three (3) bishops to consecrate new bishops, one as
the principal consecrator and two others...
"Unless the Apostolic See
has granted a dispensation, the principal bishop
consecrator in an episcopal consecration is to be
joined by at least two consecrating bishops..." (1983
Code of Canon Law, Can. 1014)
Yet, it was only possible for the SSPX to have two
consecrating bishops as they were down to only two living bishops in mid-2026.
While this bishop shortfall doesn't affect validity of the consecrations that
occurred, it would have clearly been 'worse/riskier' if they had been down to
one bishop prior to performing the consecrations. Once again, recall that one of
the consecrating SSPX bishops (from 1988) was already said to be in 'poor
health'. So this also supports a relative 'urgency'.
In all honesty, would there have been any more
opportune or better time for the consecrations? If so, when and why? If not, we
can move on to the next matter: were the consecrations condemnable or possibly
justified?
WERE THE CONSECRATIONS CONDEMNABLE? POSSIBLY
JUSTIFIABLE?
Now that we've reviewed some reasons for the
relative 'urgency' of the consecrations (assuming they had needed to be done),
let us lay out some principles from which we may
try to draw some more conclusions concerning whether the consecrations are
actually condemnable or possibly justifiable. Where applicable, some points may
have already been highlighted above.
So were the consecrations condemnable? Consider...
* As addressed above,
disobedience &
schism are
serious matters that may/do involve
sin.
* The SSPX acted against the
Pope's will in a
serious matter, and contrary to
Canon Law (Church Law).
* Could souls be harmed? Yes, if the
excommunications are proper/justified, if
sacraments are illicit, etc.
* Does history condemn the act? The SSPX is not
the first to think the Church has been corrupted. History shows this doesn't
normally work out so well.
* Could this event spark concerns for the future?
Yes for example, it wouldn't be good to set a general precedent for consecrating
bishops without papal approval.
Did Archbishop Lefebvre reject a path that would
have made the consecrations unnecessary (e.g. a personal prelature)? It seems the
answer may be 'yes'. However, under that course the SSPX may eventually have
been at the mercy of / under the control of forces that were hostile or limiting
(e.g. concerning criticisms). However, since I am discussing the 2026
consecrations, this moot point from decades ago is a bit outside the scope.
So might the consecrations possibly be
justifiable? Consider...
* As addressed above, the SSPX would have no choice but to die out
had they not proceeded with the consecrations. Their future was at stake. With
the consecrations, they are now better prepared for the long fight ahead.
* Outside the SSPX,
faithful Catholics worldwide are unjustly being denied
their birthright, the
TLM (a Mass that dates back to at
least to St. Gregory the Great), and are being
subjected to harmful novelties in the name of
obedience. There has been a determined effort by the
Vatican to stomp out the TLM, and it's still 'on the
books' so to speak. There are also plans in the works
to change the Church into some kind of 'synodal
monster' (my term, but see above for more
information)
that previous ages would likely not have recognized as
Catholic. The SSPX consecrations therefore provide
their adherents some protection against these real
dangers.
* Priests/bishops under
direct Vatican control (e.g. NOT the SSPX priests/bishops) who speak against
sin
– like
Jesus did!
–
may get in trouble, get
apologized for, get disciplined, get moved, have faculties suspended, etc. The
SSPX couldn't continue to remain faithful to their oaths if they were muted by
Rome as others have been, or if their priests were 'regularized'. If
regularized, they would no doubt be prevented from being public with truths
necessary for salvation (e.g.
no salvation outside the
Church, condemnations of
various sins, etc.). To be obedient would essentially require them to accept errors
and abandon Catholic truths and traditions. The consecrations protect their
ability to continue in this 'irregular' situation.
* The SSPX might plausibly charge the PV2 Church
with dereliction of duty. If they were right, how would
it be condemnable for
the SSPX to continue to meet their obligations in the only way possible to them
(i.e. the consecrations)? Keep in mind the husband/wife
example
above.
* Criticisms of the innovators are regularly
dismissed, not addressed. How long must the SSPX propose legitimate, serious
criticisms that are not addressed much less resolved without doing something to
actively protect the flock (e.g. the consecrations)? Even Cardinals who
submitted dubia of grave importance never received answers (instead some members
of the Church hierarchy actually criticized the Cardinals!).
* When a man acts
unworthy of the Petrine office and harms the flock, wouldn't that be somewhat like the 'lazy husband'
example above? In such a case
wouldn't the wife be allowed to disobey? Is her disobedience comparable to SSPX
disobedience?
* How can SSPX priests be expected to stay in a
'regular' structure and act properly as
priests when we have already seem what
happens to faithful priests (e.g. those who condemn
sin, those who are friendly
towards tradition). Their priests
would probably be lacisized for faithfulness to tradition. Numerous recent
events prove that SSPX priests at
the mercy of the PV2 Church wouldn't fare well. If they were within the
'regular' Church structure, they couldn't speak out about truths essentially
concealed post V2 (e.g. condemnations of
religious liberty,
no salvation outside the
Church,
teachings
on heresy, etc.) and would
be shut down if they tried. Therefore, the SSPX consecrations offer them some
protection against these threats.
* If the SSPX had not performed the consecrations
and was regularized, would their consciences be honored? Would they have to
self-censor to avoid Vatican wrath/retaliation? What protections would they
have? Would the Vatican go back on them? We've seen enough at least to have some
concern. With the consecrations, however, they are obviously more protected.
* How can the SSPX trust the PV2 Church when
groups receive such different treatment (and prelates are often hostile to tradition). For
example, we have...
- silence in face of rebellion against Church
teaching vs. active persecution in cases of standing up for tradition/true
teachings
- on one hand, the Vatican blesses sinful
adulterous couples and even against-nature homosexual couples and another
hand casts faithful Trads out of their parishes (going so far as to prohibit TLM
celebrations from being listed in the parish bulletin!)
- members of the hierarchy praising/supporting
abortionists, heretics,
LBTQ, adulterers, etc. (even as keynote speakers!) but condemning groups that
want to be faithful to Catholic tradition
The situation is grossly unfair and wrong. The
consecrations don't change this inequity, but it speaks to trust (the trust in
the Vatican that would have been needed by the SSPX if the consecrations were
refrained from).
* Similarly, how might the SSPX be able to 'trust
Rome' in the future when a Pope was allowed to 'wage war' on tradition
unchecked? The Pope even (possibly
fraudulently) suddenly took away rights of the laity and priests (see
TC). Again, the SSPX would have needed to be
able to trust the Vatican if the consecrations were refrained from. This trust
would seem impossible in light of
TC, no?
* Likewise, how could the SSPX 'trust Rome' when
there have been a number of anti-tradition appointments in the Vatican (which
perpetuates the issue)? Even though the few trad-friendly Cardinals that exist can do a lot of good, they do not seem numerous enough or
powerful enough to effect much positive change in the short run. In other words,
the SSPX could not realistically expect much help.
* There is a serious problem when a
Pope (who is
bound to pass on what was handed down) says...
"The way to understand the faith today, after
Vatican II, is different from the way of understanding the faith before Vatican
II." (Pope
Francis)
In contrast to the Pope's duty
to protect and pass on the faith, Cardinal Kasper stated that Pope Francis felt
'called' by the
Holy Spirit (!) to change the Church...
"Francis is convinced that
the Holy Spirit has called on him to change or, in other words, renew the
Church. He is working on that."
Proper renewal, yes, but a powerful
spirit that wants
to change the Church, and has always wanted to change Christ's Church,
is NOT the Holy Spirit! Remember that
God
is the same yesterday, today, forever (cf.
Heb. 13:8). How is the SSPX to trust the Vatican and thereby forgo the
consecrations with a Pope (who has not been condemned by his successor) saying
such things, not to mention him acting on his words?
* How long is
the SSPX supposed to let their flock go undernourished/malnourished by those who
have care for them? In the example above, how long should a good mother
allow her children to be starved before she decided to disobey her husband?
* And we can see that some in authority in the
Church may feel free to use their power to 'crush' those faithful to traditional
Catholic doctrine...
"Nails are removed by applying pressure to the
top. Or, they are set aside to rest, when retirement age arrives.'" (Pope
Francis)
Once again, how is the SSPX to trust the Vatican
(and thereby forgo the consecrations) with a Pope saying such things?
* We are also told with 'magisterial authority'
that
revolutionary & disastrous liturgical changes from the 1960's and beyond
are 'permanent'...
"After this
magisterium, after this long journey, We can affirm with certainty and with
magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible." (Pope Francis)
And likewise regarding Pope Leo...
"Theology Must Move the Church Forward Not Back
Pope Leo XIV Says" (Headline)
Regarding the future (at that time) SSPX
consecrations, Pope Leo said, "Certainly, division among Christians is always a
painful matter, but they refuse to accept certain fundamental elements of the
church[!], beginning with various points of the Second Vatican Council. And if
they make those choices, I am sorry. But we must move forward."
And note how points of the 1960's pastoral V2
council are suddenly 'fundamental elements of the Church'! Yet, the Church
cannot change her fundamentals!
Does this inspire any hope that would prompt the
SSPX to trust the Vatican in favor of tradition (and thereby forgo the
consecrations) with Popes saying such things contrary to tradition?
* Pretending for a
moment that the SSPX had not performed the consecrations and would be 'welcomed into the PV2
Church' (made regular),
what informed Catholic could ever believe they'd be treated fairly in light of
how others favorable to tradition have been treated? Who thinks they would be
able to survive the persecution in the long run? Would it serve the Church to
mute the 'biggest, most organized' critics of
modernism? Again, the SSPX
consecrations may therefore provide adherents some protection against these
threats.
*
Speaking of
modernism, there is no
denying that the scale of modernism in the Church today is quite pervasive. Do
we not need organized resistance, even if one doesn't believe the SSPX's way is the
right
way to go about it? Might it be the only realistic/possible way in today's
particular realities? And if so, wouldn't the consecrations be required? If not,
what organized 'canonically regular' group has even a chance? And how long could
they continue to fight modernism as a 'canonically regular' group in the wake of
a Vatican crackdown?
* These are not normal times. In fact, it seems
rather like a war has been waged against tradition since V2 (NOT just by
Pope Francis), and the SSPX may have 'outmaneuvered' their 'opponents' by
protecting themselves with young new bishops. And do not those who wage war
against Catholic tradition really wage war against the Church and against
Christ? And yes, of course, there shouldn't be a war in the Church, and there
shouldn't be opponents or maneuvers. But, the SSPX did not create this
situation, they are only reacting to it.
* Does the SSPX not provide a "protected area for
tradition" precisely because of their 'irregular' situation? Without the
consecrations, how could they have ensured that the faith (in all its integrity)
and traditions would be passed on to subsequent generations? Where else in the
PV2 Church does this happen? Anywhere of much significance? How exactly could Trads
survive, if not organized and in the midst of great hostility towards them? And
how could the SSPX continue to survive without the consecrations?
* Are the 'regular' trad-friendly organizations
(e.g.
FSSP/ICK)
sufficient to protect Catholic tradition? Well to begin with, as wonderful as
they are, they are smaller and more limited than the SSPX. Second, they may have had to make
'compromises' or 'concessions' to obtain or maintain their 'canonically regular'
status (e.g. 'accepting V2', 'recognizing legitimacy of the
NO Mass', 'not
publicly presenting themselves as judging or correcting the pope or bishops on matters
of Church governance'). According to AI, "Supporters of the SSPX often argue
that the FSSP and ICKSP gained canonical security by accepting compromises that
limit their ability to criticize or resist changes in the Church." Plus,
they may not exist at all if not for the SSPX's influence. And of course the SSPX
needed the consecrations to continue to have such influence.
* Personally, I have always felt that it would
have been better to fight (spiritually) for Catholic tradition from within the
'regular' Church (not in an 'irregular' position). We might hope the example of
tradition-loving Catholics could benefit other individuals and the Church as a
whole. But the liberal currents seem so strong now, it seems quite possible to
me that some tradition-minded souls may be swept away themselves rather than
influencing others. I think its rather indisputable at this point that
tradition-minded Catholics are outnumbered by those powerfully willing & able to
destroy them (as events seem to prove). Also as the fight for tradition, IMHO,
would have been better fought from a position within the 'regular'
Church, many
persons who are able to effect change have been fairly mute (with some terrific exceptions).
However, even those persons may be 'crushed' without their concerns being
addressed if they criticized 'too much' or 'too forcefully'. So effecting
positive change from within the 'regular' Church may at this point not be very possible,
Divine intervention aside. I still hope it can occur, but I'm willing to concede
that it doesn't seem very likely. If so, what other realistic choice was there
for the SSPX besides the consecrations?
* Going back to the
husband & wife example from
earlier: We see that the wife and her family die if she remains obedient to
her husband. And is God pleased that she remained obedient to a man whom God
placed in charge in that particular situation? Did she do good by her obedience?
Will her obedience help her at her judgment or will she rather be condemned for
not living up to her greater responsibility to her family? Did she, in a sense,
make a 'god' out of obedience? Was she obedient for obedience's sake rather than
for the right end of obedience? Did she fail to consider the obvious & serious
consequences of her obedience – the death of herself and her family – and was
that beneficial or praiseworthy? Did she do good or did she act wrongly by being
obedient at the risk of her own and her children's lives? Maybe things are not
so clear as they might first appear with the SSPX consecration disobedience
situation, especially since we are talking about the possible eternal death of
souls.
* I ask again, frankly,
what other possible options were there for the SSPX in light of reality...?
- Trads are
outnumbered
- Trads have no
real voice if scattered
- Trads have no
power against the heavy hands of modernist prelates and the Vatican who seem to
have no qualms about attacking them
So what is left to do? Of course pray, which has
been done (and is being done). But in terms of human effort, was there any other
possible/realistic option available to them? If there was, I'd like to hear
it. Really, I would
like a reasoned/honest answer to this: What other realistic options did the
SSPX have?
And even if there was some feasible option, a
serious, trustworthy path forward, such as an agreement with the Vatican,
wouldn't there be valid concerns about the Vatican eventually reneging on the
deal? Can anyone deny that the PV2 Vatican would like to control the SSPX and
force changes? As observers claim, "Making rapprochement with the modern
Vatican would be a 'suicide pact'".
I'll include some other relevant observations below, but
let me first close this section with a few questions worthy of pondering...
* Doesn't it seem as though the consecrations were
the SSPX's only realistic means of survival/defense?
* Could the SSPX's disobedience possibly be
justified (e.g. due to hierarchy dereliction of duty, state of necessity)?
* If it is true that...
"...the salvation of souls, which must always be
the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one's eyes." (1983 Code of
Canon Law, Can. 1752)
...then do the SSPX consecrations serve that
purpose or run contrary to it? Does the ability of the SSPX to continue (now
that they have new bishops) promote the welfare of the Church and souls? When
answering, first note that the 'supreme' law means the highest, chief, or
foremost law, and second note that obedience, while important, is NOT the
highest law of the Church.
SOME ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS / THOUGHTS /
QUESTIONS
For whatever they are worth, the following are some
additional observations, thoughts, and questions (in no particular order)...
* Since the SSPX
was 'cast out of the Church', it would be helpful if the Vatican published a
list of SSPX errors – if there are any. Or is it just obedience? Obedience!
Obedience! Obedience! Have they only the argument of authority? Is
'because-I-said-so' really a proper way to deal with the situation in light of
today's grave realities?
* Note the irony: SSPX adherents are the
ones 'most Catholic' in belief & practice (the ones who generally act
& believe most obediently to the
faith/God) are labeled 'not Catholic' & disobedient/schismatic by the ones who
staunchly promote so many novelties (e.g.
religious indifferentism, relativization of
sin, scandalous activities,
Protestantized
liturgies).
* Of anyone, SSPX members must know and hold that the Church is
necessary for salvation
– why would they
intentionally leave
it? As they know that to go outside the Church is death, why would they do that?
Are they really still in the Church (like the Vatican seems to imply at times
that even atheists are)? St. Athanasius was excommunicated multiple times,
right? Was he ever really outside the Church (at least in God's eyes)? If the SSPX was not rebellious and
was truly acting in service of souls, truth, and the Church in general, would
they be following in the model
of St. Athanasius?
* Likewise it seems like the 'most obedient
Catholics in the world' find it necessary to disobey in order to keep the Catholic
faith intact. And while one may not agree with their position, it is at least a
rational stance, is it not?
* Why is it that critics of the
modernists/innovators are not dialoged with but
heretics and schismatics are?
Note that the so-called Orthodox were recently given relics
of
St. Peter
as a 'gift' to an Orthodox Patriarch by
Pope Francis. And
the Orthodox are true
schismatics. It is almost (sadly) comical how everyone
outside the Church is welcomed
– in contrast to the
treatment given to Trads.
* Why is it that those who go
against the faith never seem to be disciplined? Why do punishments seem to go only
one way (e.g. against Trads)? Why is there a double standard?
* If Church
laws/precepts are supposed to be towards the good of souls and the Church, how
does it benefit the SSPX and their adherents to declare them outside the Church
for attempting to live a traditional Catholic life in the only way they see
possible? Does it seem like the punishment in this case – being ejected from the Church!
– does not fit
the 'crime'? Note that the general SSPX
activities & way of life (excepting the consecrations, of course) should NOT be controversial. Rather, it should be normal!
* The PV2 Church
has become 'a place of welcome and mercy' to all but Trads. Is the 'sin' of
being traditional worse than all other sins? How so exactly? Why is the door
open wide to everyone except Trads? Compare the treatment of the SSPX with the treatment of
true schismatics (e.g. the so-called Orthodox).
* How is it that
promoters of doctrinal error, liturgical anarchy and horrific liturgical abuses
are allowed to continue in the Church, while the 'highly-reverent, doctrinally &
liturgically pure' SSPX is 'thrown out of the Church'?
* Would real
schismatics feel bound by other commands of the Pope as I believe the SSPX does?
Is this a sign
of not being in schism?
* Consider the
purpose of the law requiring papal approval for consecration. Presumably it's
to consecrate good men. In the case of the SSPX, is the law being used for the
opposite reason (namely to prevent good men from being consecrated)?
* If they were Chinese communists, 'transgender
friendly' doctrinal deniers, perhaps they might have been able to get
approval for these men to be consecrated. Some 'schismatics' are better than
others, it seems, even ones who deny Catholic truths (e.g. Orthodox, Chinese
Communist). In fact, the Vatican may encourage schism with respect to China. As
Cardinal Zen stated, "From my analysis of the document of the Holy See (June 28,
2019), 'Pastoral guidelines of the Holy See concerning the civil registration of
clergy in China,' it is quite clear that it encourages the faithful in China to
enter a schismatic church (independent of the pope and under the orders of the
Communist party)"
* There seems to be a great irony in
that the PV2 Church is pleased to dialog with those outside/against the Church,
but not with those who are "too Catholic" for their tastes.
* More irony: The Vatican downplays/excuses
certain mortal
sins (that involve disobedience to God's
commands) on one hand, while treating the SSPX harshly for 'disobedience' to them on
the other hand.
* Still more irony: On one hand,
Pope Francis'
spreading of heresy was tolerated for years, on the other hand a group committed
to defending against heresy is [declared] excommunicated within a day.
* The SSPX wouldn't be
relevant (and might not exist at all) if all bishops had been properly united
and honored their
Oath Against Modernism
– but
instead many are part of the problem and only a few speak up.
* It seems the
Church has taken onboard those who want to sink the ship (e.g.
modernists) while
simultaneously trying to throw over those who are trying to right the ship. How
can we expect that to work out?
* It would have been 'easier' for SSPX
adherents
to just go along with the changes. Okay, I don't really mean 'easier' (as it
should be impossible for right-thinking Catholics to accept certain things).
What I am getting at is that resisting does not bring
SSPX members any earthly glory or pleasure – unlike
Luther who
intentionally broke with the Church and continued his sinful pursuits.
* Speaking of
Luther, consider that on one
hand, the PV2 Church excommunicates, insults & punishes the SSPX (which is
following a pious, fully Catholic spirituality with intact Catholic doctrines &
tradition) for disobedience they felt compelled to do in service to the Catholic
faith & souls. On the other hand, the PV2 Church honors & praises a
sin-promoting arch-heretic (e.g. in approving words, with a postage stamp, and a statue) who
purposely broke his vows and left the Church to live a highly degenerate life.
Seriously, a postage stamp honoring the excommunicated Martin Luther, a major
heretic who broke away from the Church and presumably has led millions to
perdition! One supposedly Catholic Bishop offensively even claimed that the
soul-destroying 'reformation' carried out by Martin Luther 500 years ago "was an
event of the Holy Spirit." Sickening.
* If the Vatican
was thinking rightly, would they really want no one to care for the traditional
flock of Christ?
* Why can't a
pre-V2 spiritual life be tolerated if the Catholic Church of today is the same
as the Catholic Church of all times?
* How can it be
for the good of souls or for the Church to reject tradition?
* The PV2 Church
will bless serial adulterers and sodomites who are committed to continuing in
sin but not members of the SSPX? How can this be right?
* They make room
for everyone else in the Church – even highly scandalous public sinners – so why
can't there be room for the SSPX in the Church?
* People have been
declared schismatic even though they 'fully retained their Catholic identity'.
How can that be?
* It seems egregious that they declared people excommunicated
without them being able to defend themselves.
* One side thinks
they can re-write doctrine on their own authority, the other thinks their act of disobedience can be
justified in light of current realities. Who seems to be on safer ground?
* We have gone from a Church condemning errors to
a Church tolerating/promoting error and
condemning those who condemn error.
* Disobedience aside, isn't it true that the SSPX
activities/practices would be approved by all PV2 popes?
* The SSPX can
defend its teachings with true doctrine from
Scripture,
tradition,
popes,
councils,
saints, etc. in contrast with unprecedented PV2 Church novelties that are
often self-referential and may contradict Scripture, tradition, and previous popes.
Even so, the PV2 Church does not seem to give the SSPX much opportunity to defend itself.
Wonder why? Or did I just answer that?
* "You can't very
well reconcile 'the Church needs to change everything' with 'the Church needs to
remain faithful to the deposit of faith and preserve her traditions', they are
mutually exclusive. Yet many in power have been promoting such change – possibly
even going against oaths they have taken." (I regret that I do not have the
source of that refection available. It might have been an original thought or I
might have borrowed it from somewhere. I apologize that I cannot say for sure or
give credit. Please forgive me!)
* It's interesting
that Pope Leo asked the SSPX to desist from the upcoming (at that time)
consecrations, saying that "to tear the seamless garment of Christ is a sin of
extreme gravity". Was he saying the SSPX was part of the 'seamless garment of
Christ' before the second consecration but AFTER the first consecration? What is
the logic there?
* Most of the
Church is now deprived of what the SSPX offers. How is this just?
* If we are
'soldiers of Christ' by our
Confirmation,
how is it that most of the 'soldiers' (excluding the SSPX) are not fighting for
tradition, reverence, and Christ's doctrines?
* Is the work of the SSPX conducive to the salvation of souls? If so, why shouldn't the
Pope do everything
he can to foster their community?
* Why is it that,
in contrast to the SSPX, many/most of those who reject Catholic doctrine today
are free of canonical penalties? Again,
heresy is at least as bad as
schism.
* Let's be honest
about who is acting more in harmony with 19+ centuries of Catholicism, the SSPX
or the modern day Vatican.
* It is
interesting to compare the Vatican's hostile attitude towards the SSPX (who
committed an act of disobedience to their own rules for the sake of the faith)
with the Vatican's amicable attitude towards
those who are illegal (people who
are regularly disobedient to just laws of other countries and who unjustly take
resources from fellow taxpayers).
* The SSPX is not
teaching a non-Catholic religion.
* The SSPX is not
alone in seeing the harms inherent in the
modern rite
(consider, for example Ottaviani's concerns).
* If we apply
Christ's standard ("By their fruits you will know them", Mt. 7:16),
note that the
PV2 Church has continued to decay,
while the SSPX keeps hanging on to traditional doctrine & practice and has
reportedly experienced growth.
* If seeking concord among Catholics, does anyone
not see how the declaration of excommunication can negatively affect harmony?
What good Catholics want to be associated with excommunicated persons?
* Does anyone believe
the SSPX is trying to subvert true Church teaching in any way? Are they not
rather trying to preserve what they received and are obliged to hand on? Should
they not do their duty to
maintain fidelity to what was received?
*
Pope Francis (as Pope!) freely taught gravely contrary to Church teaching.
Compare that with the SSPX which teaches 'pure Catholic doctrine'
* Isn't it true that some in the Church since
V2 have gone beyond their authority by attempting to destroy
Catholic tradition – even popes?
* Let the Vatican
ignore disobedience for a moment and condemn the SSPX for their doctrinal
teachings if they can. If they can't find any to disagree with, why is it just
to regard the SSPX as being outside (not a part of) the Catholic Church? If they
can find teachings to disagree with, since the SSPX promotes tradition and
teaches what they received, which of their predecessors in the Vatican are they
condemning?
* If the Vatican is following
V2
and fostering 'in every way' valid liturgical rites, why reject the SSPX
consecrations which support the traditional liturgical rite?
* It seems offensive to ask, but for the sake of
truth, I must: Who better
serves the common good, a
modernist friendly Vatican promoting novel doctrines
or the SSPX dutifully clinging to Catholic tradition?
* The SSPX (and every other Catholic) has the
RIGHT to traditional Catholicism. Even modern Canon Law says we have a right to
follow our own rites...
"The Christian faithful have the right to worship
God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate
pastors of the Church and to follow their own form of spiritual life so long as
it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church." (1983 Code of Canon Law, Can.
214)
* Which side holds
most strongly to its Catholic character?
* Which side
courageously and unapologetically preaches all true Church doctrines?
* In our age, who
seems more Catholic at heart, the average SSPX parishioner or the average (likely
to be poorly educated, not practicing or fallen away) 'mainstream' Catholic?
* The SSPX seems
to see
salvation of souls as the highest duty
– what about the Vatican? The same
Vatican that excommunicates faithful Catholics ('kicks them out of the
Church') over their 'disobedience in
service to the faith'.
* How can it be disputed that the Vatican has
caused the real harm in the Church in recent years (some examples:
ED, AL,
FS, SD,
etc.), rather than a group of people attached to the Church's traditions?
* Why doesn't the
Vatican address confusion of laity? For example, we are supposed to not support
disobedience of the SSPX, but we are supposed to support the obviously bad
behavior of the sin-promoting, modernist-leaning PV2 Church that wants to lead
us on a 'synodal path' which will likely be guided by poorly catechized laity
and will involve
false religions?
* I will dare to say that it seems
obvious to me that various PV2 changes must be more pleasing to
Satan than
Christ
(e.g.
liturgical changes that lead to desecration of the
Holy Eucharist,
ED, AL,
FS, etc.). It is also true that there is so much error spreading through the
Church since V2 that people may need to keep away from certain things in the PV2 Church
to save their souls. These are serious times. As Scripture says about the last
days...
"But understand this: there will be terrifying
times in the last days. People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud,
haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious,
callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good,
traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as
they make a pretense of religion but deny its power. Reject them." (2 Tm. 3:1-5)
"For the time will come when people will not
tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable
curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and
will be diverted to myths." (2 Tm. 4:3-4)
* Whose faithful
are far more likely to live according to the Catholic faith? The obvious answer,
borne out by deplorable
Novus Ordo Mass attendance statistics, is those who adhere
to the SSPX. So definitely excommunicate the latter who still practice their
faith!
* Comparing the arguments on both sides, don't we
really have...
- Vatican:
Obedience, obedience, obedience
- SSPX: Doctrine,
truth, rights, duties...
Who makes a
stronger case?
* How can it be
right to punish/excommunicate a group that is striving so hard to preserve
Catholic faith & traditions?
* How can those in the PV2 Church advocate so hard for
religious liberty
to all outside the Church (contrary to prior Church positions), but fail to
honor the SSPX's right to CATHOLIC religious liberty?
* How is it that the Vatican can declare the SSPX
excommunicated on one hand, and on the other host such sinful/dissenting
events...?
"The Vatican officially hosted
the second annual Voices of Faith conference of feminists, whose speakers
included the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual writer, Dr. Tina Beattie, and
Deborah Rose-Milavec, head of an American organization promoting female
ordination." (Grigio)
* How is it that the PV2 Vatican can warn against
the SSPX (e.g.
actual Catholic worship) but not speak against participating in heretical/pagan activities
(for which the Vatican may participate)?
* Now that the SSPX has been [declared] excommunicated (and
is therefore 'outside the Church'), will they receive a warmer welcome than
before, like all the
heretics & actual schismatics that the Vatican has tried to
curry favor with over the years?
* A question from social media: "Why
does #Rome #consent to #ChineseCommunists #dictating who becomes a #BishopinChina
while #forbidding the #SocietyOfSaintPius (SSPX) from #consecrating its own
#bishops under threat of #excommunication?"
* What right does
the Vatican have to stifle & even stomp out traditional Catholicism? Especially
as they open the Church's doors to
heretics and obstinate public
sinners?
* Doesn't the SSPX 'schism'
protect them from what the Vatican has done to other Trads? In a sense, doesn't
it provide adherents with their own 'protective bubbles'?
* So the SSPX is
the one creating disunity, and the
TLM
needs to be banned on the grounds of unity, but the Synodal 'Final Document' says: "Deepening the link between liturgy and synodality
will help all Christian communities, in the diversity of their cultures and
traditions, to adopt celebratory styles that make visible the face of a synodal
Church." How can they say with a straight
face that they care about unity?
* When will the Church address the fact that a
Pope does NOT have unlimited authority? (I'm not saying the Pope didn't have
authority with respect to the SSPX consecrations, but rather with respect to the
wider issues – e.g. prohibiting the
TLM.)
Let me close this section with two honest, yet
uncomfortable questions...
1-Considering the importance of true doctrine for
salvation, would you rather have had your children formed by
Pope Francis' catechesis or the SSPX's catechesis?
2-Who will be more
likely to teach true Catholic doctrine, a
priest
formed by
Pope Francis' catechesis or a priest formed by the SSPX's catechesis?
In a world that was more sane, the theoretically
correct answer to both questions would be that there was essentially 'no
difference'. In reality, informed persons today would acknowledge that there was
a HUGE difference. The laity today are far more likely to be mislead by the
novel/scandalous teachings of
Pope Francis, rather than the traditional teachings promoted by the SSPX.
That says a lot, no?
SOME COMPARISONS
Since there are two 'sides' to this issue, so to
speak, I thought it relevant to do some quick comparisons. I tried to be
truthful, and I apologize if anything is found to be offensive. If you disagree
with any of the statements concerning the PV2 Vatican, please take the
initiative to 'fact check' me and see if I am wrong or not. Note that I am referring to
these aspects in general, or my impressions of them in general (or
occasionally), and not necessarily to any specific instance or continually.
The following are ordered as follows: SSPX // PV2
Church
- is disobedient in order to protect true Catholic
doctrine // not always upholding true Catholic doctrine (think:
AL, FS,
etc.)
- traditional/integral use of
Holy Scripture
// misquote/misinterpret/distort Scripture (even in papal documents under
Pope Francis)
- preserving
doctrine and traditions // fighting doctrine & tradition
- faith in Christ
// faith in men (I'm not saying the PV2 Church doesn't have faith in
Christ, but rather that there is often a focus on their faith in men rather
than on Christ.)
- encourages
repentance // encourages acceptance, doesn't emphasize repentance (note how
Jesus tells us repeatedly, "But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all
perish as they did!", Lk. 13:3, 13:5)
- clear worship of God // often
man-centered worship
- concern with
'safeguarding the authentic purity of the faith' // open to 'compromise with the
world'
- clearly condemns
sin // often
relativizes sin
- submits to Pre VII
Church // often submits to the world
- unwilling to
trample on Christ's teachings or
Christ himself in the
Holy Eucharist // shown
to be willing to trample on both
- teachings that are good for souls // teachings that can be dangerous for souls
- upholds Catholic traditions // criticizes and rejects
Catholic traditions
- stable doctrine
// evolution of doctrine
- opposes
modernism
// embraces elements of modernism
- opposes new world
order // favors new world order (relatively speaking)
- holds strong
against the world // often yields to pressures of the world
- we must obey just laws
// supports
illegal immigration
- faithful to
tradition // often not faithful to tradition
- faithful to true
Catholic doctrine // sometimes not faithful to true Catholic doctrine (e.g.
ED, AL,
FS)
- doctrinal
certainty // doctrinal confusion
- rejects
heresy //
panders to heresy
- teachings lead away from doctrinal & moral
corruption // some teachings lead to doctrinal & moral corruption (think:
AL, FS)
- desire to pass on
faith as they received it // desire to mold the faith to suit 'modern man'
- preservers //
innovators
- desires doctrinal
clarity // often sows doctrinal confusion
- operates within
the limits of orthodoxy // pushes the boundaries of orthodoxy (arguably
sometimes goes over those bounds)
-
necessity of being
Catholic //
religious indifferentism
- love/promote
tradition // discard/reject tradition
- reject irreverence
towards the
Holy Eucharist // promote irreverence towards the Holy Eucharist
(e.g.
lay 'ministers',
Communion in the hand, etc.)
- promote
truth / tradition // promote some
heresies /
modernism
- emphasizes
doctrinal fidelity // focus on tolerance
- conviction/truth
// 'endless dialog'
- safeguard doctrine
// change doctrine
- concerned with
salvation of souls // concerned with worldly matters
- fear of God // bold provocation
(e.g. by presuming
mercy, not encouraging repentance, condoning
sin, etc.)
Which side seems worse? How do you think the
Church should act if she is faithful to
Christ and the Catholic Church of all
times?
Please don't shoot the messenger. Again, if you
disagree with any of the above statements concerning the PV2 Vatican, please take
the time to 'fact check' me and see if I am wrong or not. I think I am on safe
ground.
Now I ask: Which side
has been guilty of...?
* Subverting
Catholic doctrine
* False
development of / corruption of doctrine
* Attempting to
change doctrine
* Lack of fidelity
to tradition
* Fostering a lack
of reverence
* Issuing statements that pose grave risk to souls
(e.g.
ED, AL,
FS)
* Engaging in
sacrilege (e.g. Pachamama in the Vatican)
*
Insulting the
Blessed Virgin Mary (e.g.
consider the following headline that appears to
reject appropriate Marian titles that have been long used: "Vatican Clarifies:
Titles 'Co-Redemptrix' and 'Mediatrix' inappropriate for Mary's role in
salvation")
*
Minimizing 'uncomfortable' truths of the faith
If you didn't
answer PV2 Church to all of the above, I would have to think you weren't
informed or were in denial. But, as stated above, denying reality doesn't serve
truth. Remember that God is truth (cf. Jn. 14:6). The facts are clearly evident to those wishing to
open their eyes.
In contrast, one might find in
a modern PV2 church things that would (presumably+) not be found at an SSPX
location...
* blessings of
homosexual couples
* public
adulterers receiving
Holy Communion
* altar girls
* women preaching/pretending to be priests (See:
Why Women Can't Be Priests,
Proper Roles For Women)
* 'lay ministers'
usurping priestly roles (See
Lay 'Eucharistic Ministers': Why Not?)
* pagan idols
* sacrilege
against the Holy Eucharist (See:
Lay 'Eucharistic Ministers': Why Not?,
Communion in the Hand: Why Not?)
*
Protestantized
worship
* desecrated
churches
+ I think I can safely presume these things
I also believe that
the SSPX...
* Still cares about true doctrine
* Still thinks
sin is sin
* Still wants to
preserve doctrine
* Desires to preserve reverence
* Still venerates the
Blessed Virgin
* Proclaims all
truth, even if 'uncomfortable'
* Fights against the evil of
Modernism
* Treasures
traditional Catholic spiritualities
* Wants to please
God
SOME FURTHER OBSERVATIONS / THOUGHTS /
QUESTIONS
Now that we've gotten
this far, I have a few more observations, thoughts
and questions before getting to the end of this article.
Again, they are in no particular order.
* In this matter, as in all matters, I think we
must do our best to follow the
Scripture instruction that follows. Something may
appear one way at first, but it may not be that way in reality. We need to look
at things honestly and without undue bias.
"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."
(Jn. 7:24)
* To someone who rejects
Catholic traditions, do you say the Church has been wrong all these many hundreds of
years?
* Don't tradition-minded
Catholics have a right to exist? Actually, shouldn't all Catholics be
tradition-minded?
How can one deny that the SSPX (and ALL the
faithful) have every right to tradition? Or is it that Trads must be
thrown overboard? If not, do they have a right to carve out a space for
themselves in a universal Church?
* Can't it be argued that the faithful
deserve better than what they're getting from this post conciliar
revolution?
* Can you imagine
St. Peter rejecting the new
SSPX bishops on the grounds that they are 'too
traditional'? Especially contrast this
with the report that
Pope Francis had committed to considering 'openness to
transgender people' as a criteria for appointing new bishops. So transgender
friendly, yes, trad friendly no. Is not something seriously wrong here?
* I would like to
ask the Vatican: If you no longer treasure the
TLM, why do you object that
others still do? Why refuse them what they find spiritually nourishing?
* I would also mention that they want lay
participation in everything,
so why not allow the
TLM equal footing with the
NO and
let laity decide for themselves what they want? (Of course equal footing means
wide availability
of the TLM, not prohibiting it from bulletins, not insulting Trads, etc.)
* The SSPX is not
the one creating a new religion, they are just passing on what they received.
Remember that the only way to be certain a doctrine is true is whether it's been
handed on from antiquity.
* The irony is
that the SSPX is following Peter – all the Peters before the 1960s, whereas the
PV2 Church is sometimes the one who rejects these pre V2 Peters – as if the
Church started with V2 (even though a Church that started in the 1960's could
NOT be Christ's true Church!).
* How can it be
that those who faithfully keep the apostolic faith and desire to be obedient to the
Pope be, in fact, true schismatics?
* The Vatican side is
the one who overthrew traditions, like they were rubbish.
* How can you be
certain that the
Holy Spirit is NOT acting within the SSPX?
* Does God truly
want the SSPX to be excommunicated – thrown out of His Church – for an action
they believe was necessary to do in conscience in order to honor their vows and
uphold Catholic tradition?
* Did the SSPX truly
offend God so much as to deserve to be kicked out of the Church?
* How is God
served by the SSPX excommunications?
* How are souls
served by the SSPX excommunications?
* How can it be
wrong for the SSPX to give their people what the Church has unjustly deprived
them of?'
* How can it be
wrong to cling to the Church's traditions, even if the Vatican casts them off? Remember that
the Church is Christ's, not the property of the hierarchy.
* Could it
honestly be said that the SSPX is more in communion with Pope St. Pius X (their
namesake) than the PV2 Church is? If not, why not? Where is the proof? Remember
that Pope St. Pius X was a champion against
modernism whereas the PV2
Church so often
promotes modernism.
* What
really harms the faith – doctrinal corruption & confusion in the PV2 Church or
disobedience done 'in service to the faith' by a 'small' group of Trads?
* Isn't it true
that Catholic
orthodoxy "was saved by the integrity of a single man resisting the whole
Church: Athanasius contra mundum. Without the moral effect of Athanasius's
steadfastness the cause of orthodoxy would have been lost." (Sire)
* If
things stay on the same trajectory, who will look/who will be more Catholic in
100 years, the
homosexual &
adultery-blessing Protestantized PV2
Church or the
tradition-holding SSPX? Who would your ancestors recognize as Catholic?
* How could it be that the SSPX is not on Christ's
side when they are the ones staunchly attempting to protect Catholic traditions
and doctrine, not to mention showing the greatest reverence for the
Holy Eucharist?
* How is
it that attempting to defend and promote sound Catholic doctrine results in
schism if the Church is the same Church today as she was 100 years ago and 1900 years
ago? Shouldn't the Church herself be defending and promoting sound Catholic
doctrine? If doctrine needs to be updated to be valid, how can it be said to be
the same doctrine that was always held? Remember that the Vatican
(including the Pope) does NOT have authority to change doctrine or reject tradition.
*
Priests
owe proper care to their flocks, do they not? How are they to stand by and watch
what is happening? Maybe we can reword/rephrase Cardinal Zen's comment about the
Church in China and make it our own towards the Church in general? "Can we
passively witness the attempted murder of the Church by those who should protect
and defend her from her enemies?" Isn't it their duty to do something? In the
example above, the husband's
actions betrayed his family and his wife did the right thing to disobey him,
ultimately saving herself and her family. In our times, prelates have clearly
failed to do their job, and some have greatly betrayed the Church. Perhaps being
disobedient to a man (the Pope) in this case might similarly not be as
blameworthy as it may first appear, especially if done in service to the greater
Church family?
* Isn't obedience
normally to protect the faith? In the case of the SSPX, doesn't their
disobedience actually attempt to protect the true faith? If their disobedience
was not justified, precisely what more would be needed to make it justified? The
PV2 Vatican already promotes
heresy, blesses sinful
homosexual couples, allows
profanation of the
Holy Eucharist, encourages sacrilege, suppresses tradition. What
more exactly would be needed to make disobedience tolerable? I don't mean to be
disrespectful, but really what specifically more could be needed? Or do you argue
that the Church has to tolerate absolutely everything (including disobedience to
God's laws) except the one thing that cannot be tolerated: disobedience to the
Pope. Really, what more is needed??
* Doesn't the real
disobedience (or at least the disobedience that matters most) lie with prelates
& laity outside the SSPX who try to change Church doctrine? Of course disobedience is
bad in general, but let's be honest: it's not like the SSPX did
something
horrible like killing someone. Contrast their 'disobedience in service to the faith' with recent
undermining of the Pontifical Academy for Life with appointments who may support
abortion & euthanasia, plus 'soul-killing' documents like AL
& FS. To me the 'worst' disobedience is clear.
One takes lives, the other attempts to preserve souls for eternal life. I'm not
saying either act is right (obviously the Vatican's was NOT), but I'm just
trying to make a point about the magnitude of the 'evils'. IMHO, the real harm
to the Church comes from PV2 novelties, not from holding fast to tradition.
* Who is more
concerned with doctrinal fidelity, the PV2 Church or the SSPX? If you admit it's the
SSPX (which you'd probably 'have to' if you were informed and honest), doesn't
that concern you?
* Isn't it true
that the 'real crime' of the SSPX is that they can't accept a rupture from
tradition, as the Church always taught, and that they are actually willing to do
something about it? Is their 'real
crime' so to speak loving tradition & the Catholic Church? How is that so
terrible as to warrant excommunication? Has the SSPX committed such a grave sin as to no longer be Catholic? For wanting to be very
Catholic?
* SSPX
excommunications mean affected persons are thrown out of the Church and are barred from
receiving Holy Communion and other sacraments. How is that
defensible, especially when the PV2 Church has (scandalously) given the
Holy Eucharist to
heretics?
* Based on some episcopal appointments and treatment
of others, could it not be fairly argued that the SSPX could get back in the
Church's good graces by...?
- Joining the
communist party in China
- Rejecting ancient
Church doctrine
- Becoming
a
heretic (e.g.
Protestant)
- Dropping
tradition
- Pushing the Church to accept
sin
Of
course the above are 'tongue in cheek' and clearly unacceptable 'solutions'.
But they are based on real events and illustrate the actual situation in the
Church today (enemies are friends, friends are enemies). To be welcomed in the
Catholic Church today, the SSPX would have a better chance if they were an
actual enemy of the Catholic faith. In fact, they would probably be promoted,
not just welcomed in the modern "inclusive" (but not to Trads) Church. This is
where we are today. And it's deplorable.
COULD IT BE? / WHAT IF?
And now for some 'what
if' questions to get us thinking... (Again, they
are in no
particular order.)
* Could it be that
there has been a bit of a 'hostile takeover' of elements of the Church by
modernists in the wake of
V2 and that the SSPX is doing their duty to guard the flock & pass on the
unadulterated faith? If you disagree,
it would help if you could kindly provide
some proof to the contrary. I know a lot of evidence supporting the statement and
very little supporting the contrary.
* Could it be that
the Church will one day agree that there was no other realistic means of
survival for the SSPX – just like the wife in the
above example who was forced
to disobey? She didn't overthrow her husband or deny his primacy, she just did
what she had to do to ensure her and her family's survival.
* Could it be that
the SSPX's disobedience is the very thing that protects the SSPX (i.e.
self-defense)?
* Could it be that
it's the other side who has their foot over the ship (the side that promotes
sacrilege, encourages sin, blesses sinning couples...)?
* What if the SSPX
is simply fighting for what's good, what's right?
* What if the
SSPX's disobedience was a direct result of the hierarchy's repeated failure to
do their duty? Who would be at fault in such a case?
* Could it be that
God is not pleased with the idea of modern churchmen that the Church effectively
started with
V2 and that all efforts to 'burn incense to the god of
Vatican II'
(so to speak) are an offense to the
Holy Ghost who has been guiding the Church
for 1900+ years before the revolutionary
Second Vatican Council which has been called a
revolution.
* What if the SSPX
is beneficial for the spiritual welfare of the faithful?
* Could it please
God that a group of Catholics (the SSPX) is rejecting/resisting
modernist ideals even if they have to be
disobedient to do so?
* What if the SSPX
was doing its best to protect true Catholic doctrine while the ones trying to
subvert Catholic doctrine were the ones most opposed to the SSPX?
* Could it be that
the SSPX actually brings people closer to God than the PV2 Church generally does?
* Could it be that
the SSPX is protected by God in its irregular situation from the gangrene/cancer
spreading throughout so much of the Church today? What if God is actually using
the SSPX to safeguard tradition?
* What if it was
necessary for the SSPX to consecrate in order to continue serving the faithful?
* What if God
inspired the SSPX to preserve tradition in the face of hostility towards it? To
act as a guardian & protector of it?
* What if the SSPX
was simply doing its duty to maintain fidelity to what was received in the face
of great pressure?
* What if (hold
your disbelief) there actually were teachings from the pastoral council
V2 and
subsequently that present a danger to the faith? If so, would the SSPX of today
be somewhat like the 'disobedient' St. Athanasius at the time of Arianism? Instead of getting upset that the question is asked of this most-bestest-in-the-whole-wide-world
council, why not prove the question is wrong?
* Could it be
that there is a battle between good & evil going on (as we are told in Holy
Scripture: "Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring
lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour", 1 Pt. 5:8)? Could
it be that some inside the PV2 Church (even unintentionally) may side with
Satan (think: AL, FS,
religious indifferentism, etc.)? Could it be that the SSPX threatens the
devil's grip on certain things?
* Can't it at
least be said in light of today's dreadful realities that the SSPX's response
might at least seem reasonable, even if one doesn't necessarily agree with it?
* Could it be that
the SSPX is among the rare group of people who have refused to surrender their
God-given
rights in the face of great pressure and are willing to fight and suffer for
those rights? Will they be seen as heroic in the future? Victims for all they
suffer? Will they be praised for their courage? Will future generations be
inspired by their resistance to revolutionary change and clinging to their (our)
Catholic heritage?
* Could it be that
the Catholic faithful benefit from a 'safe haven' that the SSPX may provide in
contrast to one's local parishes which may promote heresy, sacrilege and
indifferentism (of course this assumes licit Sacraments)?
* Who is to say that God won't use the SSPX's
'disobedience-to-be-obedient' to correct the disobedience of modern prelates?
God used the killing of His beloved Son Jesus to destroy death (see 2 Tm. 1:10).
* Could it be that
for the SSPX their 'schism' is necessary in the PV2 world to protect their faith
from the dangers of novelties and false teachings? Not to mention protecting the
Holy Eucharist. How many of us 'mainstream' (not SSPX) Catholics trample particles of
the Holy Eucharist in our parish every Mass due to 'communion in the hand' at a
previous Novus Ordo Mass without even thinking? (See
letter here) How can we
love the Holy Eucharist and continue to tolerate this sacrilegious practice?
* What if the SSPX
had a sufficient reason for their actions?
* Could it be that the SSPX is the only
'organized' force in the Church to put up strong resistance to the
revolutionary changes since the 1960's and planned
for the future? What if the SSPX is the only serious force fighting against
modernism today ('the
synthesis of all heresies'), like the group's namesake did (a canonized
pope, Pope St. Pius X, who was 'a fierce opponent of Modernism').
* What if the SSPX
is standing guard (so to speak) against men (and women) seeking to destroy
our inheritance?
* What if the SSPX
sometimes seems to stand almost alone in defending the true faith? Would it
benefit the Church to mute her voice?
* Could it be
possible that the SSPX may displease the visible head of the Church (Peter's
successor) but simultaneously please the invisible head of the Church (Christ)?
* What if the SSPX
is God's gift to His children because the Vatican has been unjustly limiting
rights of priests, laity, and parishes with respect to tradition?
* What if future
generations & future popes will greatly appreciate and immensely treasure the
'lost liturgical heritage' – our abandoned inheritance – that the SSPX is doing
its best to preserve for them? Should future generations be denied their
birthright?
* Could it be that the SSPX is not just protecting
liturgy – but also orthodox dogma – for the benefit of the Church in this
confused age?
* Could it be that
the SSPX is performing an important service to the Church while the true rebels (the
'progressives') are performing a grave disservice?
* Could it be that
the SSPX is a 'bastion of sanity' in a PV2 Church that has 'gone crazy'
(so to speak)? (If you
think the term 'crazy' is completely groundless, perhaps you don't follow Church news very
closely or are not orthodox to begin with?)
* What if some
things professing to be Catholic in the PV2 Church are not Catholic at all, but
rather are contrary to the Catholic faith?
* Could it be that
the SSPX is seen as "too Catholic" at present in light of Protestantizing
changes and
ecumenism? Could it be that in
the full context of history, they are simply seen as Catholic?
* Could it be that
the SSPX is part of God's plan to preserve unadulterated doctrine for now and
for the future?
* Could it be
that, considering the reality of the Church today, she actually NEEDS the SSPX
to be there to
protect doctrine & tradition? Keep in mind that once tradition is lost, it's lost
for good.
* Could it be that
the SSPX is the courageous one who has said and done what they can to 'say no to
the ongoing attack on the liturgy'?
* Could the effort
made to 'quarantine' the SSPX actually stop the malignant cancer in the PV2
Church from infecting it?
* Could it be that
God Himself is not pleased with the current 'law' of the Church that may permit
blessing sinful adulterous/fornicating couples & those engaged in homosexual
sins (that 'cry out to heaven') and
that may prohibit the very reverent
TLM? Unpleasant as it is, if we are
being honest, aren't those things more likely to please
Satan than
God?
* Could it be that
the SSPX is a place for bewildered Catholics to go and find true Catholic
doctrine? And, assuming licit Masses (at least in the future), could they also be a 'safe haven' for those
tired of liturgical abuse? And also in the future, 'synodal abuse'?
* What if God guided the SSPX to disobey its
misbehaving leaders for the purpose of providing adequate nourishment to His
children? Like the wife disobeying her husband to save her children in the
example above.
* What if the SSPX was somewhat comparable to a
'bomb shelter' in that it offered a protective space from fallout (e.g. from the
famously spoken of 'time bombs' in V2)?
* Could it be that
the SSPX needs to be in an 'irregular' situation in today's world in order to
safeguard the formation of its seminarians?
* Could it be that
by being 'irregular', the SSPX's teachings have been protected against
corruption stemming from the scandalous (even present day) PV2 innovations?
* Could it be that
in this time in history that being obedient to the deposit of faith and being
obedient to the hierarchy are not reconcilable/compatible?
* Could it be that
various churchmen who are attempting to oversee the destruction of the faith are
the ones rewarded and honored while those trying to preserve the true faith are
the ones punished and ostracized?
* Could it be that
the SSPX is among the strongest defenders of true Catholic doctrine in the wake
of PV2 confusion? In some ways, might they be the only ones (since they can
speak out when others can't)?
* Could it be that the Church amidst current realities NEEDS the support of the SSPX in order to
protect true Catholic doctrine and a traditional Catholic way of life?
* Could it be that
the disobedience of the SSPX was in furtherance of the supreme law of the
Church?
"...the salvation of souls, which must always be
the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one's eyes." (1983 Code of
Canon Law, Can. 1752)
* Could it be that
the SSPX is the future hope of the Church? Could God be using them for this? He will
never abandon His Church, but will He tolerate disobedience if it is for a just
cause? We see that He has tolerated the many errors, distortions, and scandals
of
Pope Francis (for example) that harm the faith, so why not tolerate
disobedience conducted in service of the faith? The former seems much more
egregious to me.
*
What if on the ark of St. Peter, the captain (the Pope) and crew (prelates/bishops)
on their own initiative (even while blaming the Holy Spirit) were to take highly
praised and valued Church treasures and throw them overboard as being
'outdated'. And what if to prevent their destruction, a group of Catholics (the
SSPX) were, on their own initiative, to catch these treasures and bring them
back into a secure cabin on the ship for the benefit of themselves and for
future generations. While it may be a poor metaphor, the figurative example may provide some clarity
and possibly might be helpful for thinking purposes. Could it be that God has carved out a
protected little cabin for the Catholic group (the SSPX) and the treasures inside the
ship, even if others tried to insult them and throw them & the treasures overboard?
* What if this
'outnumbered, insulted, discredited, hated persecuted & attacked' group of
'backwards, disobedient rebels' was actually morally right in what they did? And
that they stood practically alone? There is precedent in the Church for the Pope
denying Christ, an Apostle being a traitor to Christ, and nearly all of the
Apostles fleeing during Christ's Passion. Should we expect members of the body
of Christ (the Church – see Col 1:24) to be treated differently than its head?
* Could it be that
the SSPX is part of God's plan to restore the Church? Could it be that God has already
preserved the
SSPX for 40+ years for a
reason? Note that in their current 'irregular' situation, the SSPX is not
subject to direct Vatican control – and that is probably the only reason they
still exist to begin with.
* Could it be that
one day the SSPX will be thanked & vindicated by the Church for all the good
it has done for the Church and for souls?
* Since we know
that God will never abandon His Church, could it be that He is using the SSPX
for this very purpose?
SOME FINAL THOUGHTS: LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
Before I get to the conclusion of this article,
here are some 'final thoughts'...
* Your orthodox
(small 'o') parish or group may be only one visitation away from being dismantled (yours
probably wouldn't be the first). We shouldn't have to live this way!
* It's true that I
have misgivings about the potential for an 'independent spirit' within the SSPX,
but I have even graver concerns
about synodality (like an ongoing ecumenism-oriented council or committee 'secretly' running the
Church). The Church is founded on the Rock (St. Peter) not a secretive committee!
Remember that the 'progressive, revolutionary' Synod may eventually be regarded
as a stealthy 'Vatican III'.
* It is also true
that – as someone who may be more up to date on Church events than some others –
I can more easily imagine a dystopian future with no/almost no other place in
the Church for Catholics who want to be fully Catholic and live a fully traditional, Catholic
life. If you find that statement to be extreme, consider what is likely to
happen should the modernists' plan to inflict a 'synodal Church' on us
actually be
realized...
"Bishop Overbeck enthusiastically predicted that the
synod would lead to a 'break' in the Church and that 'nothing will be the same
as it was.' He expected and welcomed radical changes to the Church's doctrine on
sexual morality, the male priesthood, and priestly celibacy." (Grigio)
* In the
envisioned/planned modernist Church of the future – let's be honest – you (a
faithful Catholic) might be very glad to find the SSPX waiting there behind the
scenes (assuming licit sacraments are available from them), should you find no orthodox (small 'o') parish remaining anywhere near
you. Don't forget about the revolutionary, sin-friendly, aberrant synodal
blueprint that is likely to be affecting Catholics' lives soon. And compare
those disturbing novelties to the beautiful & incredibly Catholic blueprint
of the tradition-promoting SSPX (again, assuming licit sacraments).
* We have to
accept reality and not hide our heads in the sand. However, I believe the words of Archbishop Kaigama are also relevant concerning
the
situation in the Church today, and they give hope...
"The Church, in its history of over two thousand
years, has passed through very turbulent periods and survived them by the
ever-present power of the Holy Spirit, so too shall this controversy pass away
leaving the Church much stronger and cohesive."
Perhaps the Holy Spirit will use the SSPX to help
accomplish this?
* Despite the real hope for the future, the situation is
so entrenched in the Church today that it may take generations to overcome – even if
(let's hope!) traditional friendly Catholic men are seated in succession on the
throne of St. Peter. So much damage has been done that it's unlikely things will be resolved quickly, barring a miracle (or miracles).
* In the meantime, we need to hold firmly to
what the Church has 'always and everywhere taught and practiced'. We must not
get carried away by strange teaching.
"Remember your leaders
who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome
of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus
Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do
not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching."
(St. Paul, Heb. 13:7-9)
* We need to stand
up for our rights as do priests and bishops.
* We need to be
like St. Paul and rebuke even publicly those who go against Christ's Church
and the reverence due to the Lord.
* We need to
protect ourselves against
modernism (e.g. by attending the
traditional liturgy, by praying the
Holy Rosary, by traditional
devotions, especially devotion to the
Blessed Virgin Mary, through reading of
saints' writings and other holy books published before the 1960's, by
Scripture reading-especially
'harsh' passages that are often omitted or glossed over today, by knowing
our faith well, etc.).
* The Church needs to recognize and reverse the
harmful rupture with tradition. Without question, the Vatican needs to lay hold
of discarded Catholic traditions & return to pure doctrine. Realistically, how
does this happen without the influence of the SSPX? In a 'best case'
scenario, the SSPX might provide the Church in the future with a pure source of
uncorrupted doctrine & practice.
* The PV2 Church
that is so free with (perhaps unwarranted) apologies for her activities pre-V2
needs to be issuing corrections and well deserved apologies over PV2 activities.
The mea cuplas should extend to the faithful, the world, and to God.
* If you think the
treatment of the SSPX is unjust, why not let the Vatican know?
* And of course, we need to
engage in persevering prayer.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we know Christ loves his Church
more than anyone and will never leave her. If the SSPX is not willed by God, it
will likely fade into the dustbin of history. If, however, the SSPX is
willed by God, no one can stop it. As Scripture says...
"[I]f this endeavor or this activity is of human
origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able
to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God." (Acts
5:38-39)
Sometimes it is only possible to see a situation clearly when distanced from it by space or time.
Will history
prove that the SSPX took heroic actions that greatly benefited the Church or that they
made a serious mistake that endangered their souls? I don't know for sure.
However over the course
of the last few weeks of reflection, I've become much, much more appreciative that
the SSPX is out there (assuming it pleases God). But I pray that their actions are right or
I fear they are putting their souls in danger. And I fear that if they are
right, Satan will attempt to infiltrate them and attack them relentlessly. Is the SSPX a
gift of God to the Church? My mind is quite open to the possibility. Yet, I am not
willing to risk my soul on it.
Also Try...
Click Link Below To View:
*
Second Vatican Council (Topic Page)
*
Traditional Latin Mass (Topic Page)
*
Modernism
(Topic Page)
*
Current Issues (Topic Page)
*
Traditional Catholic (Topic Page)
*
Can Dogmas Change?
*
The Importance of Being Catholic: Combating Religious
Indifferentism
More Information /
Resources:
Click Here For Help => 10,000+ Topics!
Click Here For Thousands of Quotations From Popes,
Saints, Scripture, Etc. Categorized By Section
Click Here For 1000+ 'Quick Help' Pages
Click Here For Topic Pages
Looking For a Great Catholic Home Page? Try the MCS
Daily Digest™ (click here)
Didn't Find What
You Were Looking For?
Try Here
We make no guarantees regarding any item herein. Views of others do not
necessarily reflect our views. By using this site you
indicate agreement to all terms. For terms information, see "Important
Notice" above and
click here.
|
