Search This Blog

Friday, June 23, 2023

Part V: A Pinch of Incense to Modernism -- How Accepting Ecclesia Dei, etc. Poisoned Principles

See all the previous posts in this series on Ecclesia Dei and its aftermath on our Modernism page.

I started out this series bringing up principles. If someone calls you a person of principle, what do they mean? The American Heritage Dictionary defines principle as: 
  • A basic truth, law, or assumption.
  • A rule or standard, especially of good behavior.
  • The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments.
The adjective principled means "characterized by principle." So a person of principle or a principled person is one who holds to basic truths and rules and standards of good behavior, a person of upright moral character. We expect his actions collectively to illustrate moral and ethical standards and judgments. The connotation here is that a person of principle is an ethical truth teller. You wouldn't expect a person of principle to lie to you or attempt to manipulate you. We think of principled people as virtuous: kind, generous, honest, etc. 

But principled people can be corrupted and corruption often begins with little things. He steals something small and justifies it. Someone else is blamed for his mistake and he's silent and lets the false accusation stand.  A colleague asks for a little lie to keep him out of trouble and he tells it. Sadly, that's how many people of principle end up as people of the lie. They compromise their principles. Then they justify their compromises. And finally, they abandon principle altogether. 

Now you may disagree with a person of principle, but, admit it, he commands respect. Those who want to corrupt him, like the friends of Eleazar in the 2nd Book of Maccabees, often end up hating him when he refuses their demand for compromise. Why? Because his actions shine the light on their own lack of principles. Keep in mind that Eleazar was one of the leading teachers of the law in Israel. Getting him to go along with the emperor by eating meat offered to idols would help get all those other pesky refuseniks into line. If he would do it, hey, soon all of them would follow suit. And then the emperor would leave them alone.

Ah...but a problem: Eleazar would not compromise his religious principles. He preferred torture and death to abandoning the faith he had received and defended throughout his whole life.

And that, friends, is the case with Archbishop Lefebvre. He would not betray his principles. He would not eat the meat of idols by saying the Novus Ordo "just once" even though it would have solved all his problems with Rome.

And now a brief discussion of the founding of the FSSP which was approved in lightening order (July 22nd) following the consecration of the bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre. The Act of Foundation carried this paragraph;
The Constitutions, which will specify the goals and the spirituality of this society, are inspired by the approved statutes of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, the society reserving to itself the right to make any changes which it judges necessary by reason of present circumstances. 

So the FSSP piggybacked on the wisdom and holiness of Archbishop Lefebvre while emphasizing their right to compromise his principles. What exactly were the "changes" necessitated by "present circumstances?" Obviously, it was to acknowledge they would go along with the Holy See's requirements, one of which was to accept the flawed principles in Ecclesia Dei. And, in fact, the Vatican decree erecting the FSSP stated that:

This same Fraternity of St. Peter proposes the sanctification of priests through the exercise of the pastoral ministry, particularly in conforming its life to the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and by observing the liturgical and disciplinary traditions invoked by the Roman Pontiff in the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, given “Motu Proprio“.

The Constitution of the FSSP also affirms Ecclesia Dei and adopts its errors:

Founded in the spirit of the apostolic letter Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of Pope John Paul II (2 July 1988), the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter professes its fidelity to the Roman Pontiff, who, according to the words of the First Vatican Council (Pastor æternus), is the “successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, the Father and Doctor of all Christians” (see Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, n. 22). “Each one of its members is held to obey the Supreme Pontiff as his highest superior” (Can. 590, §2)....The particular aim of the Fraternity of Saint Peter is to achieve this objective through the faithful observance of the “liturgical and disciplinary traditions” according to the dispositions of the Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988, which is at the origin of its foundation.

Yes, we are called "to obey the Supreme Pontiff," but not in all things. He is not a dictator with unlimited power. He is the "servant of the servants of God." He has the duty to "preach Christ and Him crucified." He does not have the authority, or even the competence, to make rules about environmentalism or immigration or many other things. But I'm unaware of the FSSP explaining the limits of obedience to the pope. That's a dangerous omission which puts the flock at risk! Peter Kwasniewski has written an excellent book on the subject, True Obedience in the Church: A Guide to Discernment in Challenging Times. It belongs on the bookshelf of every serious Catholic. Many saints discussed the nature of true obedience including St. Robert Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church:

 I won't repeat the problems with Ecclesia Dei described in Part 2 in the series: ED is infected with Modernism. It's available on the Modernism page. It's clear, however, that by incorporating and embracing ED in their founding documents, the FSSP incorporated all its errors which passing time has confirmed and additional Vatican documents have made worse.

Despite his talk of collegiality and the rights of bishops, the pope has severely limited the discretion of bishops to oversee the TLM in their own dioceses. New priests must have papal permission to say the Latin Mass which Pope Benedict insisted was never, and never could be, abrogated. Priests cannot legitimately be forbidden to say the TLM, but that hasn't stopped Francis. He has made himself the sole arbiter of the liturgy used for over 1500 years, a liturgy he obviously detests and wants ended permanently. That, however, he doesn't have the power to accomplish if the Holy Spirit wants it continued. His arm's too short to box with God! 

While the FSSP was not included in the restrictions of TC, we find ambiguity in Pope Francis' decree of February 2022 permitting the use of the 1962 liturgy which was aimed at traditional congregations. He included this statement:

The Holy Father suggests that, as far as possible, the provisions of the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes (TC) be taken into account as well.


What exactly does that mean?  TC came down like a ton of bricks on the TLM. How are those traditional communities that only celebrate the TLM supposed to "take TC into account?" Can you turn black white? Can you unite two mutually exclusive things? It's a Catch-22 inflicted on the FSSP and other traditional communities.  When they compromised their principles by adopting ED and its modernist "eggs," the scrambling was inevitable. And now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Last year, LifeSiteNews reported that during a meeting with the French bishops, Pope Francis said he required TLM priests to concelebrate the annual diocesan NO chrism Mass. Just one Mass a year, one pinch of incense to Modernism:

According to bishops at the meeting, the Pope began by recalling “emphatically” that the decree of February 11, according to which priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) are not affected by the restrictions of the motu proprio and may continue to celebrate Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962, came from him.

Immediately afterward, however, Pope Francis emphasized the second paragraph of this decree, which states that FSSP priests “may use this faculty in their own churches or oratories” only, and that, otherwise, the 1962 missal “may only be used with the consent of the Ordinary of the place, except for the celebration of private Masses.”

According to Monsignor de Moulins-Beaufort, the Archbishop of Reims and head of the French Bishops’ Conference, Francis also insisted that all priests, regardless of their affiliation, must concelebrate at the annual Chrism Mass.

“He was very insistent that priests concelebrate at least the Chrism Mass,” De Moulins-Beaufort said.

Are we surprised? 

Did TLM priests concelebrate the chrism Mass in 2023, at least in France? I don't know. There doesn't appear to be a document requiring it...yet. And if there is one it will violate Canon Law, but Modernists have no problem violating Canon Law. (They violate Canon 915 forbidding Communion for serious public sinners regularly.) But for the pope to make a statement like that to a bishops' conference certainly is a warning shot across the bow. Only the naive can believe that the end game will allow the traditional congregations approved by the Vatican to continue unmolested. 

At this point there are effectively two churches: the Church of the ages rooted in the faith of our fathers passing on Dogma and Sacred Tradition unchanged and unchangeable versus the church of the modernists that is getting ready to use the Synod on Synodality to sodomize and erode the faith in even more demonic ways.

Archbishop Lefebvre held to the principle that he would faithfully pass on what he had received. He remained firm in that principle and never abandoned it. Those who left the SSPX to form the FSSP, and I don't question their motives, made a tragic compromise that reminds me of the Lambeth Conference of 1930. 

The Anglican Church approved contraception for married couples in very limited and serious situations. Their compromise on a principle of the faith opened the floodgates and led to today's unrestricted culture of death with abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. To be sure, as material heretics, they did not have the protection of the Holy Spirit, so the situation is different from ours. In fact, what's happening in the Catholic Church is even worse, since we have the fullness of the truth. And yet our spiritual fathers often treat truth like playdough. Should we really be willing to compromise it?

Today, the faithful are being held captive by the many Judases in roman collars. We need to respond by doubling down in prayer and sacrifice for Holy Mother Church and her leaders. How many of our present day Judases will end up with their skulls "littering the floor of hell?" Let us pray for their conversion before that sad and terrifying day!


  1. I just finished reading Vatican Encounter, an interview of Arbp LeFebvre by author José Hanu (1977). It gives the Archbishop the opportunity to explain the context of his thinking and the orientation of his Catholic faith within the Church’s heretical choices that led to the controversies and ongoing divergences between Tradition and Modernist innovation.

    Why did he do what he did. Fascinating reading. He is endowed with a sense of consistency, confidence, honesty and serenity.

    His newly founded Seminary in Ecône was visited and condemned by the Vatican for being misaligned with Vatican II and its “spirit” - which visitors questioned fundamental Catholic doctrines such as the divinity of Christ and the celibacy of Priests (among others). This scandal so angered Arbp LeFebvre that he wrote an open letter to Catholics, a “Declaration”, dated Nov 21, 1974. Arbp LeFebvre states that his entire belief system in regards to the current controversy is contained in the opening paragraph of this letter … which I quote here:

    “ We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

    We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.”

    - end quote” -

    The rest of the letter builds on this premise and explains the true Catholic position of any Catholic in any age … not a clan - Catholic.


    This letter is a perfect summary of what I also believe in the midst of the present storm - it is a faithful subset of Catholic Truth within the Sacred Deposit of Faith relevant to this current crisis.

    1. He has several great books, but another one I enjoyed was “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”. The great thing is, many are free eBooks that anyone can hear online.

  2. Has it occurred to anyone that in the synodal process we are observing an enterprise coming to terms that the Church has been wrong about major moral issues, and by inference much else, for two thousand years? If indeed it has been wrong for two thousand years why would anyone provide it credence as it turns a corner into a another understanding of the moral order, indeed of reality?
    In the beginning was the Word – the Logos – Jesus Christ. The Greeks understood the term Logos to be that which undergirds all reality. Have we misunderstood Jesus Christ for two thousand years?
    The Gospel is understood in itself, it is articulated in the perennial Magisterium, it is demonstrated in the lives of the Saints. I will follow Christ by means of these transmissions of His teaching. All revelation ceased with the death of St. John the Evangelist. What follows merely demonstrates Divine Revelation or rebukes it. The hubris of men and women who elevate their concupiscence as reveled truth has no bearing on my assent to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Almighty God, save your sacrament of the Church from the hands of proud disoriented men.
    Is there an element of the Creed that is not undermined by these collared mendacious faithless operators? It is no accident that accurate catechesis was eliminated in the late sixties. It was the effort make Roman Catholics ignorant of the faith, to make them vulnerable to what can now be termed Bergoglianism. I belong to the Roman Catholic Church -- not the Jesuit cult.
    Praised be Jesus Christ!

  3. We have the unidentified schism. The church supposedly abhors the idea of schism, but we have had one, undeclared officially, for about 10 years now, more or less. For myself, a nobody, a mere layman, the schism is obvious, here on the ground. We do absolutely have two churches now. They are as neatly cleaved as is possible without openly declaring sides. Modernist vs Catholic. Too bad for the Catholic branch, the Modernist branch owns pretty much everything and is in power, which they wield like a club.
    The Modernist branch has made itself clear, as have the Catholics. There is no middle ground, and we are likely to see few defectors, in my opinion. Choose ye Whom ye shall serve.
    The Modernists can do what they like with their church and their religion. It has no effect on me and mine, as is probably the case for many Catholics. What remains to be seen, is where will the authentic Catholic rite be held. Bergoglio intends to ban it. It's coming. Then there will be a shake-up. But the sides will not change.

  4. "At this point there are effectively two churches: the Church of the ages rooted in the faith of our fathers passing on Dogma and Sacred Tradition unchanged and unchangeable versus the church of the modernists that is getting ready to use the Synod on Synodality to sodomize and erode the faith in even more demonic ways."

    Yes......and which Church has Bergoglio as Pope? Surely he cannot be pope of both.

  5. The actual Catholic Church is ONE, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. There are NOT two churches. This is basic ecclesiology.

    There is the actual Catholic Church, and there’s everything else, including the Novus Ordo Antichurch spawned during Vatican II and now led by its latest antipope, the rabid manifest heretic and obvious sodomite Antipope Francis.

    We’re divinely assured (Mt. 16:18) that the actual Catholic Church shall not be overcome by hell. Yet the Novus Ordo Antichurch has manifestly been overcome the hell. Therefore, this entity—now led by Antipope Francis—cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church. Every time one calls this entity the actual Catholic Church, one calls Jesus Christ a liar.

    And every time one calls Francis—manifest heretic and manifest sodomite—an actual pope, one rejects actual Catholic teaching on the papacy. Francis manifestly hates actual Catholicism. Thus Francis can’t possibly be an actual pope, since he’s outside the church. One cannot be the head of a body of which one is not a member.

    It takes absolutely no ecclesiastical legal authority to recognize this manifest reality, any more than one must be a coroner to recognize a stinking dead body.

    Nor is Francis “just a bad father.“ Rather, he isn’t a father at all. And it’s his heresies, blasphemies, and idolatry that excludes him from the papacy, not his moral failings. For example, even if Francis weren’t a stinking sodomite, he still wouldn’t be an actual pope, since actual popes must be actually Catholic.

    Instead of letting the idea that Jorge Bergoglio is the Pope determine your theology of the papacy, why not let the Catholic theology of the papacy determine your view of whether Bergoglio is an actual pope?

    Start reading the superb Novus Ordo Watch site regularly.

  6. There have been plenty of corrupt popes.

  7. Dear Marianne. I only come here when there is a link provided by Cann 212 because while I disagree with you i think you have a huge heart and have the best of intentions an arguing over the status of the SSPX is a drag.

    I have been an opponent of The SSPX since WAY back in the day when I used to post regularly at Free Republic when Lefebvre was practicing and perfecting his disobedience.

    Sadly, Msgr Lefebvre established a petit ecclesia and they are never - as in never ever ever- reuniting with Rome which means they are a permanent schism not unlike the Orthodox Church.

    There are many links I could provide countering the claims made on behalf of the SSPX posted at True or False Pope.

    Here is one:

    I will note I went to their church in West Palm Beach where they still have stacks of their arguments that they are not in schism and part of it is them STIILL claiming they are jake cos of the Hawaii Six.

    I'll address their lies about The Hawaii Six in a separate post

  8. Dear Marianne About the Hawaii Six propaganda:

    The Hawaii Six Case claims are a serious propagandistic mistake. Are the claims accidental (a misunderstanding) or intentional (propaganda meant to deceive)?

    Frankly, I have known for more than a score of years that the claim is absurd and indefensible and I have written to the SSPX about the claims and they have never responded.

    The Lawyer, Mr Charles Wilson, who argued successfully against the excommunications is a board member of Catholics United for The Faith and I met him when he came to advise our Trad Study Group in Portland, Maine about a few legal matters.

    He did not argue anything having to do with The SSPX:

    The SSPX cite the 1991 “Hawaii Six” case as evidence that those adhering to the Society are not really excommunicated. This case regarded six individuals who were excommunicated by Bishop Joseph Ferrario of Honolulu for participating in unauthorized Tridentine Masses. The Masses were not held in a chapel administered by the SSPX, although priests of the Society sometimes celebrated Mass there. The excommunications were not upheld by Rome because participating in an unauthorized Mass, while a grave matter, is not in itself a schismatic act according to canon law. (Archbishop LeFebvre himself was suspended from priestly functions in July 1976 after he disobediently ordained priests against a direct papal order. Yet the Holy See did not excommunicate him for celebrating unauthorized Masses thereafter. It was only after Archbishop LeFebvre’s unauthorized ordination of bishops that Rome excommunicated him.) The six individuals in the “Hawaii Six” case were represented canonically by CUF Advisory Board Member Chuck Wilson of the St. Joseph Foundation based in San Antonio, TX. Mr. Wilson affirms that this case does not support the SSPX’s position because the chapel where the Masses were held was not administered by the Society and the persons involved did not belong to the SSPX.

    This lying propaganda seriously undermines the putative truthfulness of The SSPX and its claim it stands for Tradition.

  9. Just as I was about to post this, I remembered a source about The SSPX which looked at their claims dispassionately and The SSPX came out looking like the problematic and protestant-tinged private judgment group they still remain after all of these years:

    III - Analyzing the Hawaii 6 Incident and Cardinal Ratzinger's Decision:

    This was recently shown to be the case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate, on May 1, 1991, some followers of the Society of Saint Pius X, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision "lacks foundation and hence validity." Bishop Ferrario's attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. "From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offence of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of 1 May 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity." (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington D.C.)

    Cardinal Ratzinger's decision in no way lends credence to the SSPX's assertions. (Nor did it have any bearing whatsoever on their canonical status.)

    The excommunication of "the Hawaii 6" was over a radio program that the attendees had set up which was anti Vatican II, and anti — Revised Missal (Pauline or Novus Ordo Mass), critical of the local ordinary, and other aspects. The exact parameters were not precisely known to this author when he originally wrote his treatise. In revising the work in December of 2000, the information was still somewhat fuzzy so it was again passed over. However, this writer has come across additional material that shines light on this subject - including an interesting statement from the St. Joseph's Foundation where they noted that they "assisted in defending the 'Hawaii Six'". Their spokesman stated that "I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism".

    That the SSPX uses this in the pamphlet without giving the details behind the reason for Bishop Ferrario's excommunications and the rationale behind Cardinal Ratzinger's overturning of the excommunications is something very unsettling right off the bat. It seems to indicate that the SSPX is not interested in displaying the facts as they really are but is interested in anything that might remotely support their position. So right off the bat we have them bearing false witness against Cardinal Ratzinger.

    Sadly, tragically, stupidly, The SSPX is STILL using this long-discredited lying propaganda as a way to deceive its devotees and keep the filthy lucre rolling in.

  10. Dear Jeremiah. Tradition teaches the Catholic Church is visible.

    When a stranger comes to your town and asks you "Where is the Catholic Church?" what do you tell him?

    O, and speaking of the NOW Gang, I asked Mario Derksen that same question years ago and he banned me ...

    1. Mick Jagger, knowing Mr. Derksen as I do, I find it very difficult to believe he banned you simply for asking a good question. Seeing as you say this happened years ago, perhaps he was less tolerant then as he is now....idk. Regarding the visibility of the Church, you may want to read this. St. Augustine and others have written about the visibility of the Church during the great apostasy and it sounds much like what we're going through today.

  11. Haven't heard the SSPX say one word about the Hawaii situation. Have been watching the Crisis in the Church series and haven't seen one word there either. Sounds like a straw man argument.

  12. The Church is in the catacombs once again. But wherever the Church is, here’s where it can’t possibly be: in the entity now led by Francis. The entity now led by Francis—the Novus Ordo Antichurch spawned during Vatican II—has manifestly been overcome by hell. Every time one calls this entity the actual Catholic Church, one simultaneously calls Jesus Christ a liar, since He promised (Mt. 16:18) that hell would NOT overcome the actual Catholic Church. Yet hell HAS manifestly overcome the heretical and sodomitical entity now led by Antipope Francis. Thus this entity CANNOT POSSIBLY BE the actual Catholic Church.

    It’s time to get real; really real. Embrace truth, not comfort.

  13. To all the NOWers -

    Mark 4: 35-41
    35 That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, “Let us go over to the other side.” 36 Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. 37 A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. 38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

    39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

    40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

    41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”

    There is a storm.
    We are in the boat and it is exceedingly dangerous.
    Jesus is in the boat with us.
    Jesus is serene.
    We are not serene
    We lack necessary faith.
    We are being tested.
    Stay in the boat, do not swim for shore.

    - quote -

    “ We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.“

    Men may fail. The Church will not fail (sink). The Church is Apostolic, no other. The waves of controversy and heresy and sin swamping the boat bother me not - I am in the Apostolic boat with Christ, its Captain, and “I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me” (Ps 23:4).

    1. Arbp LeFebvre’s conclusion to his letter, linked above:

      - quote /

      “ This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.

      By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen.”

      - end quote -

      He recognize, in this letter, the ship we are in is being tossed about and damaged severely. He would not ever leave the boat at the cost of his life and the severest of all threats and penalties. He stayed to the end. And as he said … “the true light of Tradition *will* dissipate the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.” THAT (faith) is the source of serenity.

      Faith, Hope, Charity.

  14. Francis’ non-papacy has nothing to do with him being a bad guy, not even with him being an obvious sodomite.

    Francis isn’t an actual pope because Francis isn’t an actual Catholic. As the Francis page under the False Popes tab on the Novus Ordo Watch site proves beyond any shadow of a doubt, Francis hates actual Catholicism. Francis is a rabid heretic, blasphemer, and idolater. Thus Francis CANNOT POSSIBLY BE an actual pope, since ACTUAL popes MUST be actually Catholic.

    As for the “he’s just a bad father” nonsense, search for this at Novus Ordo Watch:

    The “But we’ve had Bad Popes before” Objection

    On authority, see:

    “Who are YOU to say who is a Heretic?” – Answering a Liberal Tactic

    Also see:

    Playing it Safe? Kennedy Hall and the Sedevacantist Wager — Who’s really on the safe side theologically?

    Be not afraid to get real; really real.

  15. There have been evil popes before. It doesn't seem to me that having an evil pope means he is not the pope. God allows great evil that he might bring good out of it. If he let the betrayer Judas be one of the apostles, why would he not let the betrayer Francis be a pope?

  16. Aqua, the entity now led by Francis HAS manifestly been overcome by hell. It teaches heresy, blasphemy, and idolatry. Moreover, it’s infested by sodomites from top to bottom. But since we’re divinely assured that hell SHALL NOT overcome the actual Catholic Church, the entity now led by Francis CANNOT POSSIBLY BE the actual Catholic Church, since the entity now led by Francis HAS been overcome by hell.

    Read that paragraph another ten times, and very slowly.

    This is the REALITY upon us. Love truth, not comfort.

  17. Since he doesn't believe in proselytism, why on earth would a true pope want an audience with such a monster?

  18. Why should anyone trust Novus Ordo Watch? I can't even fine any names on the site. Who does it? You criticize Kennedy Hall. well why is he or Anthony Stine any less trustworthy than NOW? You all who depose the pope seem to think you have the authority to be pope and magisterium all wrapped up in one. I don't claim that kind of authority.

    1. The Pope is not mentioned in the Apostle’s Creed. Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity and the Body of Christ - this is the Faith.

      The Creed must be assented to with our heart, body and soul. The Sacred Deposit of Faith also requires our full and total assent. The Constant Magisterium rules our Faith and consequent behavior. And we are, perhaps most importantly, to love God, love our neighbor.

      The identity of the Pope can be debated, and has been. The Pope is not the Faith. The Papacy is De Fide. The name of the occupant is not De Fide.

      The devil loves fights about The Rock.

      Jesus. So often, we forget … Jesus - our Lord and God, Redeemer and friend.

    2. It is actually the SSPX who have made themselves pope and magisterium. THEY determine what is or is not Catholic coming out of Rome from those they claim are true popes. It is the 50 year existence of the "canonically irregular" status which made it easier for me to see the truth of the sedevacantist position. Recognizing yet resisting a true pope is not a Catholic option. And it destroys what the papacy IS.

      I posted a link in one of the other blogs in this series of an SSPX priest who during his sermon on June 18 said the NO ordinations were invalid, the sermon was removed in 48 hours. Ask yourself, why does the SSPX have sede clergy in their ranks, yet are forbidden to say so publicly. Maybe ask Kennedy Hall.

  19. Novus Ordo Watch should be trusted simply because they speak the unvarnished truth, and they do it brilliantly.

    Be not afraid. Be not afraid to get real; really real.

    Related, search there for the following post:

    Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a Curious Phenomenon

  20. Dear Mary Ann. No, it is not a straw man argument. The SSPX chapel in West Palm Beach Fl has as stack of the brochures pictured on the bottom right

  21. @Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque
    Look, we all know you accepted Novus Ordo and have been attending forever...and perhaps believing it was anything but perfect would make you realize you chose the wrong way. Reminds me if the adamant vaxxers after they vaxxed. They'd rather die than admit they were wrong.

  22. Can we all just agree to disagree? I really prefer not to shut off the comments and I don't want to block anyone, but frankly I'm tired of it. If you think you're right great. Pray for the enlightenment of those who disagree with you. It took me a long time and it was God's Providence that brought me back to the TLM, not people arguing with me. COVID and the fairground Masses were what God used. If all you sedevacantists are right then pray for everyone to see the light, but please stop the browbeating. It's tiresome and doesn't change minds.

    1. The comment box has been overrun by NOW Sede. Lots of scandal, complaint and controversy. No reference to Jesus or Mary (that I could find, I checked). Never-ending scandal. “Tired of it” … yup.

      I prefer the calm serenity and certainty, reflected in the quote, at the opening of part V of your fantastic series (thank you for this *positive* contribution btw … I hope there’s more).

      “Let us keep the Faith above all else it is for this that our Lord died, because He affirmed His divinity It is for this that all the martyrs died. It is by this that all the elect are sanctified. Let us flee
      from those who make us lose the
      Faith or diminish it.”

      Catholics can expect suffering. Those who view Christ in all accept their suffering with patience, serenity, perhaps joy. Christ is the object of our Faith. We should never forget that!

    2. I do pray for you Mary Ann. If sedevacantism is true, and of course I believe it is, then like the gospel, how is one to know it's truth if one doesn't hear it? I prayerfully ask that you listen to this brilliant 18 minute sermon from Fr. Duterte and answer the question he poses at the last 3 minutes of the sermon.

  23. I second Aqua's comment. I've been with the SSPX for many years, decades even, & pray that I will be buried by them. I have no regrets or uncertainty, only appreciation for what the Archbishop handed on for us.

  24. I've read the arguments, Debbie, and don't find them convincing. I also don't think one SSPX priest expressing his opinion that NO ordinations aren't valid is much of an argument for anything. Lots of people, including saints, have had mistaken opinions. I think it was imprudent of him to express his opinion on that.

    As I said, browbeating seldom changes anyone's mind. Maybe never.

    1. Curiouser and curiouser, I just went to the above referenced Novus Ordo watch website and read the article debated and find it very confusing, as the author, whosever that might be, is in agreement with the priest who stated that the new rite of ordination is invalid. So what is the question? The author is using this statement to advance his belief. I have known SSPX priests who questioned the validity of the new rite, but only God knows if it is or isn’t. All this blathering is nothing but that. I am of the opinion that we shall all know soon enough what the truth is, so instead of arguing and taking sides, those of us who adhere to tradition should rather unite in it and thank God we have been shown the truth and wait on Him. To paraphrase: all that was spoken in chambers and in darkness will be revealed in the light.

  25. A NOW Sede made this comment above: “Start reading the superb Novus Ordo Watch site regularly.”

    They love that web site, that’s for sure.

    But they’re never content to stay there, and comment there among themselves. Why not make these self-congratulatory comments among themselves? Because they are microscopically small and there is no apostolic Catholic life there. They always need to attend other blogs, piggyback on the ideas and readership of others, *unwilling participants btw*, and use them to extend their own beliefs.


  26. Point of information. I will not publish comments that treat the Eucharist with disrespect. I also will not publish comments that attack Our Lady in any way.

  27. Natsuki said...
    @Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque
    Look, we all know you accepted Novus Ordo and have been attending forever...and perhaps believing it was anything but perfect would make you realize you chose the wrong way. Reminds me if the adamant vaxxers after they vaxxed. They'd rather die than admit they were wrong.

    Dear Natsui. You know nothing about me.

    When the N.O. was imposed upon us I was living in Cape Elizabeth Maine and I began assisting at the Indus Mass officiated at by Fr. Calvin Goodwin, who was then a Jebbie Latin Teacher at Cheverus High School, but who was grated permission to quit and throw-in with the FSSP.

    I later moved to Florida where I drove 90 minutes one way to assist at the Trad Mass at St Robert Bellarmine in Miami.

    I now assist at Mary Mother of The Light Maronite Catholic Church in Tequila Fl

  28. @Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque

    It's Natsuki, 夏姫. FSSP are fine and good, but they sold their positions when they signed everything away to reconcile with the Novus Ordo. I'm a Roman Rite Catholic. I'll take my Mass in the Traditional Latin rite from the Catholic Fraternity, the Apostles of Jesus and Mary, AKA the FSSPX, started by Archbishop Lefebvre, not merely Monsignor. I'm not as much a fan of the Judas FSSP group. They spout a lot of nonsense when we should be uniting the clans.

  29. Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque...There's no city or town in Florida called Tequila. I know the name of the place where you live though! "Tequila" is close, but no cigar.

  30. Dear Susan. Sorry, typo.

    Mary Mother of the Light Marine Church in Tequesta.

    I ive in Wellington, Florida.

  31. Dear Netsuke. When he started his schism, Lefebvre was not an Archbishop. When he started his schism he was not a Bishop.

    Date Age Event Title
    29 Nov 1905 Born
    25 May 1929 23.4 Ordained Deacon Deacon of Lille, France
    21 Sep 1929 23.8 Ordained Priest Priest of Lille, France
    1 Sep 1931 25.7 Entered Priest of Congregation of the Holy Spirit
    8 Sep 1931 25.7 Professed Priest of Congregation of the Holy Spirit
    12 Jun 1947 41.5 Appointed Vicar Apostolic of Dakar, Senegal
    12 Jun 1947 41.5 Appointed Titular Bishop of Anthedon
    18 Sep 1947 41.8 Ordained Bishop Titular Bishop of Anthedon
    9 Jan 1948 42.1 Appointed Apostolic Administrator of Saint-Louis du Sénégal
    22 Sep 1948 42.8 Appointed Titular Archbishop of Arcadiopolis in Europa
    22 Sep 1948 42.8 Appointed Apostolic Delegate to Dakar
    28 Jan 1955 49.1 Ceased Apostolic Administrator of Saint-Louis du Sénégal
    14 Sep 1955 49.7 Appointed Archbishop of Dakar, Senegal
    19 Feb 1956 50.2 Installed Archbishop of Dakar, Senegal
    9 Jul 1959 53.6 Resigned Apostolic Delegate to Dakar
    23 Jan 1962 56.1 Appointed Archbishop (Personal Title) of Tulle, France
    15 Apr 1962 56.3 Installed Bishop of Tulle, France
    27 Jul 1962 56.6 Appointed Superior General of Congregation of the Holy Spirit
    7 Aug 1962 56.6 Resigned Bishop of Tulle, France
    7 Aug 1962 56.6 Appointed Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia
    29 Oct 1968 62.9 Resigned Superior General of Congregation of the Holy Spirit
    10 Dec 1970 65.0 Resigned Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia
    25 Mar 1991 85.3 Died Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, France

    Even if Lefebvre had been an Abp, he had no authority or excuse to create his permanent schism

    Lefebvre died outside of the Catholic Church but his followers claim he is a saint which is right in keeping with something Francis might say - that those outside of the church are saints in it.

    One can never judge the soul of another but I think there is good reason to hope that because he was so confused and emotionally labile that he was not judged harshly; I.e. he didn't really know what he was doing

    In any event the SSPX has perfected, by arts entirely new, a perverted propaganda that has convinced those who should know betterr (adult catholics) those who succor it that it is the Catholic Church and the sole hope of Catholics.

    So pathetic

    OK, Imm outta here...

    1. Archbishop LeFebvre was Consecrated Bishop by Pope Pius XII in 1947. He was appointed Archbishop in 1948, responsible for spreading the Gospel of Christ to an area of 46 Diocese representing 50,000 Catholics within a population of 3,500,000. He was more responsible than any other single man for converting a Continent of pagans to the Catholic Faith - first as missionary Priest directly, then as Archbishop responsible for institutions and structure.

      Then he was elected Superior of the missionary Society of the Holy Ghost Fathers.

      He was a missionary throughout his life. His passion was saving souls for Christ.

      Neither was he in schism, since his entire life was dedicated to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, such that when it was obviously under attack from within he naturally rose to its defense. His crimes were nothing more than standing firmly in defense of the Constant Magisterial Authority of Holy Mother Church. To wit:

      - quote -

      “ We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.” (Letter, dated 1974)

      - end quote -

      So … he was an Archbishop; he was never in schism; he was a faithful heroic Catholic devoted throughout his life to saving souls, defending and propagating the faith.

      Your comments about Arbp LeFebvre remind me of countless comments I heard from Protestants toward Catholics: they didn’t know the first thing about what they were condemning, but they condemned anyway because, in hindsight I now know, their consciences were pricked by Truth.

      LeFebvre is not who you portray. He would never claim to be anything more than a simple Bishop, nor is he in the grand scheme of things, but one thing is for sure - he is a defender of the one, true, Roman Catholic Faith.

      The difference between NOW website Sede Catholics and traditional Catholics, such as SSPX:

      1). Catholics see sickness within the Church derived from prolonged diabolical attacks and work for healing and reconciliation of the sick to spiritual health.

      2). NOW website Sede Catholics proclaim death of the Catholic faith, pending future restoration.

  32. Sigh...the SSPX is not in schism and what a tirade against a holy man. Since you're "outta here" I suggest you go argue with Bishop Schneider, Archbishop Vigano, Bishop Strickland, Bishop Vitus Huonder, Cardinal Castrillon (RIP), even Pope Francis according to Bishop Huonder.

    I could go on. The SSPX is not and never has been in schism. If you want to talk about schism, look at the German Church.

    You seem to be claiming that AB Lefebvre was in schism from the day of his ordination -- or maybe the day of his birth. If anyone is "emotionally confused" I don't think it's the archbishop.

    As for your link, what makes John Salza more believable than the bishops listed above?

  33. Objectively, it’s impossible for the SSPX to be schismatic, since Francis can’t possibly be an actual pope (since he manifestly isn’t an actual Catholic). But subjectively, the SSPX is indeed schismatic, as they offer selective (at best) submission to one whom they (falsely) believe to be an actual pope. If Francis were indeed an actual pope, then the SSPX would indeed be fully schismatic.

  34. John Salza is a theological joke. He’s been thoroughly exposed as such on the superb Novus Ordo Watch site. Search there for him.

  35. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

    Benedict XVI when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPXers.

    I think you have some difficulty with reading comprehension if you think I wrote that Lefebvre was in schism from the day of his ordination.

    Good grief.

    I just came back to see what the response to my link to the Salza piece was and you reduced the entire two part piece to personal opinion when he sources Catholic Dogma and Doctrine to show how the sspx is in schism.

    If you do not know that the Pope must approve the ordination of a Bishop for him to be legit then you simply have no business continuing to claim the SSPX is not a schism.


    And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity."

    Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.

    Mary Ann . You are leading your readers into error and you will have to answer for that because you have been informed about the truth of the matter.

    Stop and repent while you still have time

    1. Mick,

      You remind me of all the Proddies I was raised in before conversion: *certainty without authority* - and the bony finger of accusation always poking in someone else’s face. The more they poked, the more I realized they had serious personal issues, and not the Truth. My conversion to the RCC was partially driven by a finger-poker of oh-such-righteous-certainty.

      Meanwhile: Arbp LeFebvre spent his prime of life and Priestly ministry quietly converting the continent of Africa (literally) to the Catholic Faith. And then, he spent the waning years of his life defending the Sacred Deposit of Faith in tangible ways … such as the little Parish Chapel I assisted at in Mass today. Thank you Archbishop!

      The Roman Catholic Church is Apostolic - there is no other.


  36. Mick said quoting AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS:

    "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff...."

    Archbishop Lefebvre did NOT give the bishops the "power of jurisdiction" which would have involved assigning them a diocese. He had no intention of breaking from Rome or usurping the authority of the pope. He only gave them power to confer sacraments reserved to BISHOPS, i.e., ordination of priests for the traditional Latin Mass.

    You may think you have the right to judge my soul, but I'm happy and at peace to be in the company of the good bishops who say the SSPX is NOT in schism.

  37. By the way, Mick, if you reread your comment about the timeline you said when AB Lefebvre "started his schism" he was not an archbishop or a bishop. Since he was an archbishop when he consecrated the bishops, and had been a bishop since 1947, what is one supposed to think about your comment? I re-read it and find it incomprehensible.


  38. The Orthodox Church has valid Apostolic Succession.

  39. Dear Mary Ann.. What part of resigned do you not understand?

    7 Aug 1962 56.6 Resigned Bishop of Tulle, France
    7 Aug 1962 56.6 Appointed Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia
    29 Oct 1968 62.9 Resigned Superior General of Congregation of the Holy Spirit
    10 Dec 1970 65.0 Resigned Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia
    25 Mar 1991 85.3 Died Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, France

    When a cleric resigns from office he no longer holds it.

    Do you see the time line where Lefebvre resigned?

    If you can't get this right - what is right before your eyes -after two or three attempts, maybe you should be a little bit humbler when it comes to telling all and sundry the sspx has never been a schism

  40. Resigning an office doesn't make you less a bishop. Pope Benedict was still called "Pope." I'm not reading your other five (or was it six) long comments. Your done here. I've given you more than enough space. I'm not posting any more of your comments on this post.

  41. Susan, the “Orthodox” “Church” is a false church, just like the Novus Ordo Antichurch spawned during Vatican II and now led by Antipope Francis. See this post on the superb Novus Ordo Watch site:

    Why Eastern Orthodoxy is Not the True Religion: A Brief Overview

  42. Who writes Novus Ordo Watch? Catholic Answers says that the Eastern Church has Apostolic Succession. Who are we to believe? At this point, with everyone contradicting everyone else I'll just believe what I want to believe, that is, what sounds more normal and less weird to my what I think. How about that? Is that OK with you? I go to the SSPX, so since people think I'm already in schism I might as well REALLY be a bad girl and believe that the Eastern Church also has valid Apostolic Succession. If I'm going to be schismatic, I might as well do it big.

  43. No, Susan, that isn’t OK with me. You’re to believe not whatever you want to believe; rather, you’re to believe the actual teaching of the actual Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo Watch site lays out this teaching in the post I cited above. The writers of the material there is irrelevant. What’s important is the material and its accuracy.

    As for Catholic Answers, they’re in bed with Antipope Francis and the Novus Ordo Antichurch he leads. No serious Catholic relies on Catholic Answers.

    In any event, even if “the Orthodox” have valid apostolic succession, this doesn’t mean theirs is a legitimate church. See the Novus Ordo Watch post cited above.

    Note: you’ve now shifted from saying “Orthodox Church” to “Eastern Church”. The latter is indeed part of the one true church, the actual Catholic Church, while the former is not.

    You’re very loose, imprecise, sloppy, emotional. It's time to tighten up your act.

  44. I'm a little tired of being directed to Novus Ordo Watch as if they are the magisterium of the Church. If you want to use them as your guide, Jeremiah, that's up to you. The rest of us are not required to follow you and NOW as authorities.

    I think this thread has become too acrimonious. The lack of charity and judgment of others is unacceptable. We live in confusing times. I presume that everyone on this thread are doing the best they can to find the truth and adhere to it. Unfortunately, it appears that some commenting here do not share that belief and choose to browbeat others into submission. I suggest some of you with so much to say start your own blogs instead of piggybacking on this one.

    1. From their ‘About’ page - “Novus Ordo Watch is a lay-led internet apostolate … ”.

      All their articles are anonymous.

      All they have is a web site.

      The devotion of the web site’s viewers to its content is … unusual.