FRENCH BISHOPS: 'TLM MUST GO', CHURCH LIKELY TO AGREE

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. Except trolls. Specially trolls with ghostwriters.

The Catholic Church post-Vatican II

 

You have been warned. And forewarned, they say, is forearmed. Conservative Catholics of all colours - diocesan, FSSP, ICKSP, FSSR, et al- look like being coerced by Rome into swearing allegiance to the Second Vatican Council. That's the hoop held up for the 'excommunicated' of the Society of St Pius (SSPX) to jump through, if they bother their busy bishop with a request to be allowed back into Rome's new synodal religion. 

SSPX members who wish to return to communion with Rome are now required to sign a formal formula of adherence acknowledging obedience to the pope and to the Catholic hierarchy as well as acceptance of all Vatican II.  It's only a matter of time before the Vatican comes after all traditionalist Catholics to do likewise.

Are you willing to sign up to a regime which worships the demon goddess Pachamama, pushes sodomy and promotes the heresies of freedom of religion (Dignitatis Humanae), false ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) and rapprochement with the Jews who crucified Christ (Nostra Aetate)? While bearing in mind that such a religion cannot possibly be that of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, nor led by Christ's Vicar on earth?  

Fr Robert Prevost (Leo XIV) kneeling before the Pachamama in Brazil, 1995

A big conciliar wheel, Italian church historian Prof Massimo Faggioli, has road-coned the Catholic motorway interchange just ahead (and predicted on this page) - the intersection which lies before us between truth and falsehood, good and evil, the Church and her Ape. Faggioli says that having already outlawed the SSPX,  Rome now has the FSSP in its sights. The FSSP, already corralled, is now 'a problem'. If the FSSP is 'a problem', how long before Rome draws a bead on the other Ecclesia Dei communities?

The target of course is the Latin Mass, which Rome has formally declared "does not fit the ecclesiology of the church post-Vatican 2." There you go. They're saying it's a new church now, and the ecclesiology of centuries past doesn't fit. But the reason why the TLM has to go is not the Mass itself, it's the truth it stands for. It's the way people new to the Latin Mass soon start to notice there's a state of necessity in the Church, and why. And they flee the Novus Ordo. And Rome won't stand for that for much longer.

The world's bishops know that in this crisis it's the Mass that defines and divides Catholics. They know the Ecclesia Dei-type priests think like the SSPX; they notice that they won't concelebrate the Novus Ordo with them. The newspaper La Croix reports a general consensus among the French bishops, at their spring plenary assembly in Lourdes, on liturgical and ecclesial unity and alignment with Vatican II. To put it bluntly, French bishops say the new Mass is the one and the old Mass has got to go.

And they propose conditions that would require traditional communities to move closer to the reformed liturgy and make real concessions in exchange for any continued accommodation. La Croix reports, specifically: communities attached to the old mass would be expected to adopt the readings and calendar of the reformed missal. Meaning the 1962 liturgical calendar goes away and the new Mass calendar is adopted by the traditional Latin Mass, which would require a whole new missal. They'd have to redo the liturgy. That is the consequence. 

Baptism, marriage and confirmation would be celebrated in the new rite, though Latin could still be used. Latin is only part of the problem. Diocesan bishops would resume direct oversight, meaning the FSSP (who, incidentally, deny to media who ask, that they're traditionalist)  would stop being independent, and priests would no longer be permitted to refuse outright to celebrate the reformed liturgy. Priests right now of the FSSP and those groups can, if they want, refuse to celebrate the new mass. That would be taken from them. 

This is the French bishop's proposal, to be given to the entire church. And it's a good bet that they will take it.   

With grateful thanks to Anthony Stine at Return to Tradition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe0CHgo4RHY and acknowledging https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/faggioli-sspx-traditionalism-vatican-ii-leo-catholic-massimo

Professor Faggioli opines that Vatican II falling over would be a disaster for the Church - for her political standing with the world. In other words Vatican II is good for business. Global business, globalist business. Faggioli  speaks of post-Vatican II 'inculturation'. What he means is secularisation. Worldliness. This is the undertow hidden beneath the Holy See which is carrying the Synodal Ape of the Church to its eventual destruction on the Rock that is Christ.  

 "Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God." (Jas 4:4)

'Adulterers' is here taken in a figurative sense for those who love creatures more than God, the true spouse of their souls; who reflect not that the love and friendship of this world is an enemy to God, and the true manner of serving him.  

From Ann Barnhardt:

The FSSP “welcome package” to SSPX’ers. Utterly vomitous.

See? This is the diabolical disorientation and hellish chaos the comes directly from not acknowledging and correcting the invalidity of Pope Benedict’s attempted partial resignation, which then yielded the Bergoglian and now PERVostian Antipapacies.

LOOK at this bilge:

Review:

—Vatican II was a validly convoked ecumenical council, which ultimately FAILED. In the second day of the Second Vatican Council, the proceedings were hijacked by German and American followers of the Modernist “Nouvelle Theologie” group, the original schemae were scrapped, and instead a dog’s breakfast of intentionally unclear documents were foisted upon the bishops there present.

 

The immediate subsequent catastrophic collapse of the Latin Church and western civilization with it proves that Vatican II, like Lateran V and Lyons II, was a failed council, albeit far more catastrophically so.

 

—Bergoglio and PERVost were/are observably, obviously Antipopes.

 

—The Petrine See has been vacant since the death of Pope Benedict XVI, with zero indication of any desire by any legitimate authority to remedy and resolve the situation. This is the textbook definition of a state of emergency exception.

 

—No one was excommunicated from the Holy Catholic Church as a result of the episcopal consecrations in Econe, Switzerland on July 1st. The notion that either the public satan-worshipper and arch-heretic apostate PERVost, or the open pedo groomer and arch-heretic apostate Touchme Fagnandez, have even the slightest shred of genuine authority is completely laughable.

 

Sadly, the FSSP, obsessed with the goal of being eaten last by the crocodile, don’t realize that they are driving people away, towards the SSPX, by pure revulsion.

As always, I hope this helps.The FSSP “welcome package” to SSPX’ers. Utterly vomitous. | Barnhardt

 

 

It sure seems like a time for cleaving. What kind of document are you willing to sign?

 

A time to love, and a time to hate. A time for war, and a time for peace. -Eccl 3:8

 

Are you ready to sign up for the PachaPrevost sodochurch? Because Max Beans [translates as Massimo Faggioli - ed] and assorted demons are licking their chops to swallow you up.

 

Are you willing to sign a document giving your moral assent to all the errors of Vatican II? Because that is their demand in order for you to be “in communion” with demonchurch. You best get to it.

But hey, you could just declare your union with the arch laywoman witch Velma of Canterbury, or even the arch Imam Sultan of Swing, and you’re be all good!https://nonvenipacem.org/2026/07/23/it-sure-seems-like-a-time-for-cleaving-what-kind-of-document-are

Blessed Maria of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, pray for the Church

CATHOLICS NOT BOUND TO OBEY A DOUBTFUL POPE

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. Not if you're a troll. Not even a troll with a ghostwriter.

 

Study after Velázquez’s Portrait of Pope Innocent X by Francis Bacon (1953)

If anything gets a Catholic hot under the collar these days, it's the Society of St Pius X and its 'disobedience to the Pope'. To suggest it's not 'disobedience' is 'pure gaslighting!'

A reader typifies SSPX Derangement Syndrome by claiming that "every great saint who merrited (sic) extreme graces for the Church during  times of trial refused to disobey the Church.' Like many of the Catholic commentariat she puts the episcopal consecrations  down to pride and neo-Lutheranism. The SSPX, she says, think that they, 'other than the ones given the authority to guide the Church by Jesus Himself, know what's best for the Church.' 

She quotes Scripture. 'Jesus told us to do and practice whatsoever the scribes and pharisees tell us because they sit on the seat of Moses. He tells us how terrible the scribes and pharisees are. But we still MUST OBEY THEM.' 

'So after you die, you can try to justify to Jesus your disobedience to His Church. In over 2000 years, the Church has never failed, but you think that now YOU are right and the Church is wrong!? Dang, that takes some nerve. Or complete stupidity.'

Ah, well. The Church herself is indefectible and can never be wrong, because Christ promised her the guidance of the Holy Spirit for ever and always. But our Lord made no such promise as to her office holders, legitimate or otherwise. Jorge Bergoglio, for example, was illicitly elected while Benedict XIV (having failed in his attempt to 'resign' the papacy) was still living). So in other words, Bergoglio was an antipope. 

Robert Prevost, his protege, was elected in a conclave inflated by 'Pope Francis' with 108 of the 133 cardinal electors being his choice, and like him, Modernists, i.o.w. heretics, as defined by successive pre-Vatican II popes. Prevost has and is publicly committed to Bergoglio's Modernist agenda. So as a heretic himself cannot possibly possess the authority invested by Christ in the leader of His Church.

The thing is, our reader's analogy of the Scribes and Pharisees (today's Leo, Tucho, etc) as being those invested by Christ with 'authority to guide the Church' falls over when one considers that the Scribes and Pharisees - in spite of being 'terrible' actually taught the law of Moses. As the website Radical Fidelity states in the essay below: 

The scribes and Pharisees did teach the Jewish law to the letter but did not follow it themselves. Therefore Jesus instructs His listeners to observe what they say (the legitimate Jewish law) but not to do what they do (namely, not following the law they teach).

 

This is not the case with the Synodal religion and its alleged popes. They do not teach and advance authentic Catholicism while merely failing to obey it themselves. No, they are teaching a whole new religion that is not Catholicism.

 

The Society of St Pius X doesn't disobey the Church. It is the Modernists in the Vatican who disobey the Church in her Tradition, her Magisterium and her liturgy.  

"All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not."(Mt 23, 2)

Christ warned his disciples not to imitate the Scribes and Pharisees in their ambition. He denounced their hypocrisy and blindness. He told us to follow their GOOD DOCTRINE (the Jewish law) but not their bad example.

If the Scribes and Pharisees gave a bad example while teaching the Mosaic law, then the Vatican and especially 'Pope Leo' give a very much worse example in pushing the Vatican II envelope of heresy ever further and further. They  give Catholics every reason to doubt the validity of this papacy. As Radical Fidelity puts it:

A Catholic owes obedience to a true and certain pope. If the Catholic is genuinely uncertain, though, as many rightly are here in the first quarter of the twenty-first century, he is not bound to obey and recognize him as pope.

If he does obey and recognise a pope who gives scandal, the Catholic is liable to incur the punishment enunciated by Christ as "a millstone tied around his neck" and being "drowned in the depth of the sea". (Mt 18:6–7) If the Catholic recognises the scandal, then by not calling 'Pope Leo' out, he/she is damaging the dignity of the papacy.  If a Catholic says  Bergoglio and Prevost were/are legitimate popes, he/she is saying that Christ is, vicariously through them, leading the faithful astray. 


That goes a long way towards explaining why Bergoglio publicly rejected the title "Vicar of Christ". How bad does Prevost have to get before he repeats Bergoglio's repudiation?

Note also that, after excoriating the wicked Scribes and Pharisees of His day, Jesus went on to say: 

"Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city"- as in, excommunicate. 

As in, the Society of St Pius X.

 

self-explanatory

   

From Radical Fidelity:

 

The Serious Implications of Legitimizing a False Pope

 

Recognizing a false pope as legitimate therefore denies that the pope is the visible principle of unity, the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, and the supreme teacher of the universal Church.

 

One of the positions I hold that I receive the most criticism for, as well as the most related questions about, is my, shall we say for the sake of sensitive souls, skepticism about the validity or legitimacy of the postconciliar papal claimants.

 

Recently I once again received a message from a reader saying that he can clearly see that at least the last two “popes” are advancing heterodoxy and heresy and leading souls astray, but that he was still concerned about doubting their legitimacy or not recognizing them as valid popes.

 

I gave the person a short basic answer, and although I have addressed the issue on various occasions, I will do so once again here. This is both for the sake of the person who contacted me and because I realize that, as the Synodal Church’s flagrant attempts to destroy Catholicism intensify, more decent, normal Catholic folk are facing the unavoidable conclusion that this cannot be the Catholic Church, and these cannot be Catholic popes.

 

This time around, rather than only giving reasons as to why you can at least doubt their validity (I am not here to push any specific position), I would also like to look at the very serious consequences and implications of the alternative, namely recognizing an imposter, usurper, or false pope as a legitimate Vicar of Christ.

 

For the sake of this essay, I am going to assume that the reader, or “sede-curious” person, agrees that at the very least Jorge Bergoglio and Robert Prevost are doing extreme damage to the reputation of the Catholic Church, are promulgating heresies explicitly and implicitly, and are therefore leading souls to hell.

 

If you haven’t reached this conclusion yet, you are either very naïve or willfully choosing to put your head in the sand, and I am seriously imploring you to research the subject.

 

But assuming you do agree, let’s continue in as logical a fashion as possible.

 

The beautiful and important Catholic doctrine of the papacy is based on two Scriptural foundations: firstly, Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, and secondly, Luke 22:32, which guarantees that St. Peter’s faith will not fail. The latter also implies the same of the successors of St. Peter.

 

Using these two promises, theologians have repeatedly argued that a Roman Pontiff cannot impose heresy on the universal Church nor advance a religion (in our case, Modernism and Synodality) that is destructive of the faithful’s salvation.

 

Italian Novus Ordo bishop Derio Olivero at the "Mass in the Valley" on July 19, 2026

This does not refer to a pope falling into private heresy, but is seen as a guarantee that the papal office itself is protected by God Himself from becoming an instrument of doctrinal corruption.

 

St. Robert Bellarmine, to whom we will return shortly, famously wrote that “the Pontiff not only cannot err as Pope, he cannot even be a heretic by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith” (De Romano Pontifice), which he based on Luke 22:32.

 

According to St. Bellarmine, a pope who became a manifest heretic would automatically cease to be pope, since he would no longer be a member of the Catholic Church.

 

Based on this, the reader should then conclude that, if Modernism is indeed the synthesis of all heresies and Synodality is merely its latest manifestation, then all the postconciliar popes who have actively been advancing these heresies to the detriment of the Church and the souls of the faithful are, at the very least, doubtful claimants.

 

A second great theologian, St. Francis de Sales, argued in a similar vein to St. Bellarmine. According to him, a pope could sin personally and even govern poorly, but what a pope can never do is teach heresy to the faithful.

 

Need I remind the reader of Francis’s claims that all religions are paths to God? Or the countless examples of Prevost subtly and implicitly advancing similar heretical ideas?

 

In his work The Catholic Controversy, St. Francis de Sales wrote that “when he is explicitly a pastor and teacher of all Christians... then God so assists him that it is impossible for him to err.”

 

 

 

There were other theologians who did entertain the theoretical possibility that a pope might be a heretic but still insisted that he could not formally bind the Church to heresy. (Keep in mind that the faithful are obligated to obey both the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, and therefore saying he didn’t teach ex cathedra is not a get-out-of-jail card.)

 

One such theologian was Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, who said that a heretical pope should be denounced as such by the Church and thereby lose his office. What Cardinal Cajetan obviously did not foresee was that a time would come when almost the whole institution claiming to be the Catholic Church would have descended into heresy, heterodoxy, and, in many cases, full-blown apostasy.

 

Another theologian who argued a similar case was John of St. Thomas. In his work Cursus Theologicus, he argued that the Church could depose a heretical pope by declaring that, through his manifest heresy, he had ceased to be pope.

These conclusions finally developed into dogma at the First Vatican Council, which declared in the document Pastor Aeternus that the Holy Ghost was promised to popes “not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith handed down through the Apostles.”

 

KINDLY DONATE HERE IF YOU VALUE MY WORK

 

At this stage of the essay, we can hopefully agree that, according to Catholicism, a pope cannot be a manifest heretic, teach heresy, or advance a religion that leads the faithful astray.

 

Once you have come to the conclusion that something is rotten in Rome and suspect that the postconciliar “popes” might be illegitimate or invalid, you may now wonder whether a Catholic is even allowed to doubt them.

 

Let’s take a look at what St. Robert Bellarmine had to say on the matter.

 

According to this great Doctor of the Church, a Catholic owes obedience to a true and certain pope. If the Catholic is genuinely uncertain, though, as many rightly are here in the first quarter of the twenty-first century, he is not bound to obey and recognize him as pope.

 

St. Bellarmine did argue, however, that if at some future point in time the legitimacy of the pope in question is established, then a skeptical person is bound to obey and recognize him as such.

 

John of St. Thomas refined St. Bellarmine’s hypothesis by saying that until the Church acts as the authoritative witness who removes the uncertainty for the faithful, Catholics may prudently suspend judgment while the matter remains unresolved, provided that such suspension is based upon genuine and objective doubt rather than personal preference or dissent.

 

Here, of course, one has to decide whether the Synodal Church is the actual Catholic Church that has the authority to make such a call.

 

If, at this stage of the essay, you are still doubtful, let us take a look at the implications of the alternative: recognizing a usurper, false pope, or antipope.

 

Firstly, you are causing scandal. Scandal is the sin of being the occasion, through one’s words, deeds, or silence, of another’s fall. Nowadays it seems that Catholics are hardly aware of this sin, misunderstand it, or do not realize how serious it is. This is what Jesus Christ Himself says about the sin of scandal:

 

“But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.” (Matthew 18:6–7)

 

If you therefore recognize a “pope” who teaches heresy and leads souls astray as if he were a legitimate pope, you are participating in confirming those he leads astray in their sin.

 

 

Let us take homosexuality as an example. The Synodal Church is pushing this agenda onto the faithful and onto the world. A gay person will join the Synodal Church and therefore argue that the “Catholic Church and its Pope condone homosexuality.”

 

If you then agree that he is indeed the pope and that the Synodal Church is the actual Catholic Church, then you are enabling the usurper who is leading the sinner astray. According to our Saviour, that is a sin deserving of having a millstone tied around your neck and being thrown into the depths of the sea.

 

The second very serious implication regards the principle of the pope being the Vicar of Christ. If, say, Bergoglio and Prevost are legitimate popes, it means that Christ is, vicariously through them, leading the faithful astray.

 

I do not even think I need to explain this further. Ask yourself whether the rightful Vicar of Christ can, for example, deny that Christ is the only Way of Salvation or claim that a certain people have their own covenant and are saved through this covenant rather than through Christ.

 

Thirdly, by not speaking up, you are actually harming the dignity of the papal office. Saying that you are, at the very least, skeptical of the legitimacy of a demonstrably doubtful papal claimant does not mean you have a low view of the papacy, but rather the opposite.

 

To reject a usurper’s claims shows that you hold the papacy in the highest esteem, whereas legitimizing a false pope destroys the Catholic Church’s teaching that the papacy is Christ’s divinely established office, instituted to preserve the Church in unity and truth.

 

Recognizing a false pope as legitimate therefore denies that the pope is the visible principle of unity, the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, and the supreme teacher of the universal Church.

 

You are then effectively saying that Christ’s promises to St. Peter have failed because the postconciliar popes have indeed become the source of a new religion and have corrupted the apostolic faith. To claim or imply this is a heresy and makes you a heretic.

 

Personally, I, for one, do not want to be guilty of heresy and I am not willing to say that an actual pope can lead the faithful into doctrines harmful to salvation. To acknowledge as pope a man who publicly teaches doctrines contrary to the Catholic faith and who promotes religious practices previously condemned by the Church is the ultimate injury to the dignity of the papacy.

 

I want to address one last argument that the reader is bound to encounter when expressing doubt as to whether the person in the Seat of Peter might be a usurper or no pope at all. Often defenders of the Synodal religion and its “popes” will bring up Matthew 23:2–3.

 

In this passage Our Lord tells the disciples and the multitudes that, “The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”

 

They will then argue that, just as “the chair of Moses” should be obeyed despite the Pharisees and scribes, so Catholics have to submit to the “Seat of Peter” despite a questionable pope. This is an erroneous argument and a dishonest strategy.

 

The scribes and Pharisees did teach the Jewish law to the letter but did not follow it themselves. Therefore Jesus instructs His listeners to observe what they say (the legitimate Jewish law) but not to do what they do (namely, not following the law they teach).

 

This is not the case with the Synodal religion and its alleged popes. They do not teach and advance authentic Catholicism while merely failing to obey it themselves. No, they are teaching a whole new religion that is not Catholicism.

 

Jesus did not tell the audience to follow some false religion the Pharisees were promoting, but to follow the actual Jewish law. He was merely warning against their hypocrisy in not practising what they preached.

 

The Synodal heretics both “preach” a new religion and do not follow true Catholicism. This argument therefore does not apply.

 

 

 

Finally, I want to leave you with a Scriptural warning that is much used, but only because it is so true and applicable to our time. In Galatians 1, St. Paul expresses the following warning, which is as valid now as it was then and remains the ultimate and simplest litmus test:

“...There are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema...”

 

I strongly doubt you have to recognize an anathematized usurper as a legitimate pope.

 

I hope this essay has brought you closer to playing your part in defending the rights of Christ and His Church and in the restoration of the dignity of the Seat of Peter.

KINDLY DONATE HERE IF YOU VALUE MY WORK

 

Our Lady, Co-redemptrix, pray for us…

Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces, pray for us…

Viva Christo Rey!

https://radicalfidelity.substack.com/p/the-serious-implications-of-legitimizing

 

 

St James the Greater (El Greco)

St James, Apostle, please pray for the Church

YOU GOTTA LAUGH AT PERVERTS, HERESY AS MEANS TO SALVATION

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. Unless of course, you're a troll, or even a troll with ghostwriters.

 

"Schismatic Self-Assessment Test." father celatus

 What's hysterically funny about the excommunication of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) by the highly esteemed Cardinal Tucho Manuel Fernandez, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Faith but better known for his book "Heal Me With Your Mouth - the Art of Kissing" was the DDF's demand that the Society accept Vatican II's diktat of "Freedom of Religion". 

And because the Society wouldn't accept it, they were denied their "Freedom of Religion". They were excommunicated for practising the faith of their fathers. The anti-SSPX crowd - who might perhaps be accused by some (but not, heaven forfend) this writer - as being bitter and twisted, will be upset by that. They're not noted for a sense of humour. They will cry, "No! They were excommunicated because they wouldn't OBEY THE POPE!"  And that's amusing too, seeing as how the POPE has to be: a) adult b) male and c) Catholic.

What's funny also is that a certain Bishop Paprocki has accused the SSPX of being "basically another Protestant sect." It's funny to see this post-Vatican II American bishop calling the kettle black. And given the fact that Rome has excommunicated the SSPX for disavowing Vatican II (or whatever) isn't your video on X, your Excellency, very demeaning to the largest Christian denomination in the world (after the used-to-be Catholic Church)? 

What about us all being ONE, as he who is called Pope Leo has said? What's happened to that idea? Won't Dame Sarah Mullaly, Archbishopress of Canterbury - who surely would have thought, after her right royal reception at St Peter's Basilica, that Protestants must be held in the very highest regard by Rome - that coming from a fellow bishop, yours was a very hurty remark? Aren't you being a teeny bit schismatic, your Excellency? 

15 June 2026: the Holy Father appointed Rev Giuseppe Chang Yanfeng Bishop of Chifeng in Inner Mongolia, China - congratulated here by Cardinal Pietro Parolin

Now, we know how 'whataboutism' arguments are feared and detested by the anti-SSPX-ers, so in the interests of tact and unity and in the beautiful spirit of Vatican II we won't mention the way Latin Massgoers who now flat-out despise the Society flocked to their chapels during COVID, because NO churches and other Latin Mass churches were closed and locked. 

And then there's the way that @Pontifex has had to approve, post-facto, the consecration of a bishop in a church even faker than his own, by the Communist Party of China. Without a papal mandate, and in defiance of an agreed-upon protocol. But it's the Society of St Pius X that gets excommunicated.

Rome is a charade (pause for cries of 'schism!' and 'off with her head!'). The way obedience to perverts and heresy has become the means to salvation. The whole SSPX business is a farce and it helps to laugh at it. So please enjoy Father Celatus, courtesy of the Remnant Newspaper.

 

What happens when a diocesan priest takes Rome's SSPX excommunications at face value? He creates a tongue-in-cheek "Schismatic Self-Assessment Test" that places traditional Catholic answers side-by-side with today's ecclesiastical absurdities—and concludes that if loving Tradition is now grounds for excommunication, then the Vatican should add his name to the list.

 

One Old Testament story that children learn early and love much is Jonah and the Whale. The ancient city of Nineveh was religiously and morally corrupt and it was condemned to utter destruction with this ominous forewarning: “I shall not spare Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons that know not how to distinguish between their right hand and their left.”

 

What was said of ancient Nineveh can now be said of modernist Rome: they do not know their right hand from their left.

 

The moral and religious corruption of modernist Rome has been evident for decades and their canonical incompetence has been most recently revealed in their dubious SSPX excommunications.

 

Countless canonists who are not traditional Catholics have criticized and called into question the validity of the excommunications leveled against SSPX, especially regarding the laity who may adhere to SSPX.

 

In the face of canonical confusion, we offer the lay faithful this SSAT (Schismatic Self-Assessment Test):

 

How often do you attend an SSPX liturgy?

 

0 -What’s SSPX? What’s liturgy?
0 -I don’t go to Mass anymore
3 -Christmas and Easter only
4 -Occasionally, for sake of family
5 -Every Sunday and every Holy day

 

Were you married in an SSPX chapel?

 

0 -No. We chose cohabitation
0 -No. They don’t do same sex
0 -Cannot remember. Was drunk
4 -My fiancé made me go to SSPX
5 -Happily married in SSPX chapel

 

Have you ever confessed to an SSPX priest?

 

0 -No. Jesus is my only Lord and Savior
0 -1st confession was my last confession
0 -Never. Not even on my death bed
4 -For mortal sins and Easter duty

5 -Frequently or on a regular basis

 

Which of these catechisms do you use?

 

0 -Heal Me with Your Mouth (Fernandez)
0 -Hope: The Autobiography (Francis)
0 -Origin of the Species (Darwin)
5 -Catechism of Trent or Pope Pius X
5 -The Baltimore Catechism

 

What are your music preferences for Mass?

 

0 -The Saint Louis Jesuits
0 -Abba and The Beatles
0 -Piano and Guitar
5 -Organ and Scola
5 -Gregorian Chant

 

Which of these do you honor or venerate?

 

0 -Saint John XXIII
0 -Saint Paul VI
5 -Saint Pius V
5 -Saint Pius X
5 -Archbishop Lefebvre

 

What do you do at the end of Mass?

 

0 -Make a beeline for the parking lot
0 -Remain in pew and chat with friends
0 -Participate in small synod groups
5 -Leonine prayers and Thanksgiving
5 -Pray the Rosary or go to Confession

 

TEST COMPLETE.  Now add up your total schism points and record your SSAT score here _____ [Tell us your score in the comments!]

 

If you scored 0, you are schism free and no further action is required. If you scored up to 10, you may have schismatic behaviors which should be curtailed.

 

If you scored above 10, you are an adherent to schism and you must contact your local bishop for additional assessment and remedial action. You will be required to renounce Catholicism, profess faith in the conciliar church and burn incense to synodality.

 

Folks, this canonical action of Rome against the Society of Saint Pius X is an absolute farce and fiasco. Rome has overplayed its hand, not knowing one hand from the other, and exposed its own incompetence.

 

The Last Word: Hey Rome, we support SSPX and adhere to their profession of faith and assessment of Vatican II errors! Please send us an official decree of our excommunication, care of Remnant Newspaper.https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/diocesan-priest-mocks-sspx-excommunications/

St Christina of Bolsena. Martyr
Carlo Dolci


St Christina, please pray for the Church