A reader on Substack sent me a link to an interesting article from Integrity Magazine.
Sad thought, but in view of the pope's refusal to meet with Fr. Pagliarani or even reply to his letters.... Draw your own conclusions. Does Pope Leo act like a father to a flock he loves with a father's heart? Did Francis?
When I was young and naive I believed every man in a Roman collar and nun in a habit was a saint who would always tell you the truth. I believed every doctor was Albert Schweitzer who would never do anything to hurt a patient.
Fortunately I grew up, smelled (and drank) the coffee, and became active in the pro-life movement. What an eye opening experience! There are people in the world who do evil, and even demonic, things. We're all sinners, but some actually delight in doing the devil's work and take every opportunity to advance it. Some have evil agendas that infect everything they touch. Think of feminism, communism, freemasonry, etc. and that doesn't even consider satanic activity by cardinals. Malachi Martin was only writing partial fiction in Windswept House. The satanic sacrifice in the book was based on real events. If you have the stomach for it, see the facts about Cardinal Joseph Bernardin here and here.
Obviously abortionists are a far cry from Albert Schweitzer. And Cardinal Bernardin, Cardinal McCarrick, Fr. James Martin, the nuns on the bus, etc. are no saints as they advance intrinsic evil and attribute it to the faith of the Church. As Scripture says, the devil can appear as an angel of light. Pharisees and other hypocrites can wear long tassles, miters, clerical garb, and carry a shepherd's staff while they lie and undermine the faith.
These days I'm more realistic, hopefully not cynical, but committed to discernment. Is that angelic looking person really doing the work of a demon appearing as an angel of light? Is the latest document from Rome telling the truth or advancing an error?
At any rate, here's a bit from the article that proposes that Leo wanted to bring the mailed fist down on the Society and hence wrote the threatening letter raising the offense to the level of schism:
If every episcopal consecration sine mandato automatically constituted schism, there would have been little reason for the legislator [of canon law] to create a separate offense under canon 1387. The existence of two distinct canons suggests that they address different kinds of wrongdoing. One concerns an unlawful episcopal consecration, while the other concerns the rejection of papal authority itself.
The real reason for Leo’s warning?
This is where Leo’s letter assumes such importance. According to the InfoVaticana report, after receiving Leo’s appeal, the Society was no longer simply preparing to consecrate bishops sine mandato, or without a pontifical mandate. Once Leo personally ordered them not to proceed, the act became one committed contra mandatum, or against an explicit papal command. That distinction is what allowed the consecrations to be presented not merely as an illicit episcopal act but as evidence of a schismatic intention.
Remember when Francis said he wasn't afraid of schism? Is Leo walking in his footsteps? It seems to me that the Vatican actually welcomes schism. [Of course, this presumes that the Society is actually in schism, which I seriously doubt.] It all reminds me of the battle between St. Thomas Becket and Henry II. Did Leo ask himself, "Who will rid me of this troublesome Society?" and then decide to do it himself? Is he really concerned with the unity of the Church as he coddles the German synodal heretics and the Communist Chinese? How do those actions advance unity?
Not only that, but the actions of Rome undermine the faithful's trust in the papacy. I will never leave the Church of Eternal Rome. Neither will I accept things that I know to be untrue and that conflict with the faith no matter how many cardinals, bishops, and even popes proclaim them. Keep the faith, friends and stay with the battered Bride of Christ. She needs all the defenders she can get.
That was certainly one thought I had when I saw that letter. It was such an obviously-useless attempt at trying to keep the SSPX from going through with the consecrations that I quickly suspected some ulterior motive. Just another aspect of the way Leo and the Vatican have handled this that puts a sour taste in my mouth.
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX was first warned on May 13 that the consecrations would be illicit and the SSPX would be committing a schismatic act if they proceeded with the consecrations, May 13 is long before Pope Leo's June 29 letter. So the claim that it only became a schismatic act with Pope Leo's letter is just not true. I am very glad to hear you will not leave the 'Church of Eternal Rome". But I remind you, Pope Leo is part of that church. If you don't believe that, then you are sedevacantist, and I don't believe that is the case. I know that at this point in time the SSPX is not sedevacantist. I hope that will not change.
ReplyDeleteHere is the timeline:
May 13, 2026 – First official Vatican warning
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, through Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, issued a formal statement after the SSPX announced its intention to consecrate four bishops on July 1.
The statement explicitly said that proceeding without a papal mandate would constitute "a schismatic act" and that those participating would incur automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication under canon law.
June 16–17 – Pope Leo's public warning
Pope Leo XIV personally addressed the issue publicly.
He stated that the planned consecrations risked creating a formal schism, said the Holy See was preparing a final appeal, and emphasized that if the SSPX proceeded, responsibility for the rupture would rest with them.
June 29 (published June 30) – Pope Leo's personal letter
Pope Leo sent a personal letter to Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the SSPX.
In it he pleaded, "Please turn back," warning that the consecrations would produce a formal schism, deprive the faithful of legitimate sacramental ministry, and wound the unity of the Church.
This was presented as the Pope's final personal appeal, not the first warning.
Canon law does not define disobedience to a pope as a schismatic act. The Society has not rejected the authority of the pope and obey him in all things that conform to Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Should every Catholic have imitated Francis' act of honoring the Pachamama idol? Did we all have the obligation to get the COVID shot because Francis told us to? This is getting rather tiresome. The Vatican is good at playing politics. When Lefebvre was given permission to ordain a bishop, Rome kept delaying the date of consecration until the archbishop realized, "You're waiting for me to die." Nothing has changed since then except the crisis has become worse and increasingly obvious to us pewsitters. Obedience is not an absolute in canon law. The Society makes a good and reasonable argument that they are neither schismatic nor disobedient. https://mukwonago.wi.sspx.org/en/news/neither-schismatic-nor-disobedient-60036
DeleteUltimately the lay faithful have to make a conscience decision based on reason, prayer, and discernment. At that point, one has an obligation to follow a well-formed conscience. I read the arguments on both side. I will not follow the pope off a cliff. He is only infallible on issues of faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra. If he ever declares the same sex relationships, abortion, and contraception are morally permissable or changes the words of Consecration in the Mass, then I will become a sedevacantist. Until then I follow the pope in all things that Eternal Rome has taught, but I will not follow and obey him when he proclaims a new synodal gospel like that being promoted by the German schismatics. Yes, they are the ones in schism; not the SSPX.
So you do not deny that, contrary to the article you cited to, the Vatican did gave fair warning to the Society that if they proceeded, it would be an act of schism. And you also say that you will follow your conscience if your conscience disagrees with the Pope. Does that mean you do not believe Jesus Christ when he said he gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter and told him whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven? Does that mean you do not believe Christ when he said the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church? If you do believe those things, then you know the Pope, no matter how sinful he might personally be, can never mislead you spiritually and therefore you are bound to obey him. No, you certainly did not have to get a Covid shot just because the Pope said so - that is definitely not faith and morals. But you must agree that consecrating bishops is definitely about faith and morals.
DeleteCurious what you would have done if you were Abraham and God said, sacrifice your son to me. Would you have said, no, I will not. It is sinful to murder. Would you have reminded God that you would receive the promises through Isaac and therefore you must disobey Him? That' is basically what Lefebvre and the current bishops of the SSPX have done. Or would you trust God as Abraham did and put Isacc on that altar?
You seem to be putting obedience to Canon law, as you interpret it, above obedience to the Pope. So is Canon law the highest authority in the Church or is the Pope? I think these are all questions you need to ask yourself. You are in a very difficult position. I pray you make the right decision.
"....you know the Pope, no matter how sinful he might personally be, can never mislead you spiritually and therefore you are bound to obey him."
DeleteThis is so obviously ridiculous that I can't take anything you say seriously. The faith is collapsing and much of that is because of the popes and hierarchy who do, in fact, "mislead" the flock. And I note that you don't quote Scripture about "woe to the false sherpherds" and wolves in sheep's clothing." And it's also interesting that, you put your own authority right next to the pope's telling me to make the "right decision," one that agrees with yours. Sorry, that would require me to erase my reason and violate my conscience.
Oh look, an anon who didn’t read the article. How original.
DeleteAnd just a few days ago I commented about ROBERT BELLARMINE saying one can resist a pope who makes war on the Church or on souls. “ the Pope, no matter how sinful he might personally be, can never mislead you spiritually” indeed.
Thank you Mary Ann. I'm so happy to have found your blog, even though I found it in such sad circumstances. Your writings are very well thought out and helpful. I also appreciate how you remain charitable at all times! ~Laura
ReplyDeleteThank you, Laura , for your !kind words. May God give us all wisdom and love for the truth in the person of Jesus Christ.
ReplyDelete