To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.
 |
| Neo-Lutherans need more SSPX Bishops even more than angry Trads |
“If I were the Pope," says renowned exorcist Fr Chad Ripperger, "the first thing I would do is I would call the head of the SSPX and say, ‘You’re to be in my office at 8:00 in the morning. And when he showed up I would write it out myself: ‘You’re canonically regularized. Here, go home and we’ll figure out the rest later.’
Sadly, Fr Ripperger isn't the Pope. If he were we wouldn't be reading every day on the internet the disastrous 'I was brought up Catholic but now I'm Christian' haemorrhaging from the one true Church which can be sheeted home directly to the Second Vatican Council and an apostate Rome.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre recognised Vat II's insidious evil at once and founded the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) to counter it. He was excommunicated. Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano recognised it and he also is excommunicated. He still opposes and exposes the Ape of the Church, but the SSPX does not. Superior in training to Novus Ordo priests and arguably also in holiness, they've been tamed. Seems the Vatican has the Society where it wants it: corralled, tolerated, indulged with tacky parchment blessings to hang in their church foyers. Or the garages or funeral parlours to which the conciliar cult has banished them.
The SSPX lament the urgent need of more bishops for their burgeoning congregations. Then why not appoint them? +Lefebvre always recognized the authority of the pope but why wait for permission from that LGBTQ activist, Leo the LARP?
Divine law requires only the valid ordination of the consecrating prelate and respect for the substance of the rite. As the conciliar popes have imposed on us the serious errors of neo-Modernism condemned by their predecessors, a state of necessity now exists which justifies resistance - episcopal consecrations, even against the explicit will of the pope (which in the absence of a pope are more necessary that ever.)
The first and supreme principle of "the common good" requires such consecrations for transmission of the Faith, for the preaching of true doctrine. Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has declared the SSPX is not in formal schism; any bishop may consecrate another, communicating the power of order but not the power of jurisdiction (which only the Pope can grant, due to a properly divine right).
Do we care if the fake Vatican hands out more of its tinny 'excommunications'? No. Indeed more of its persecution can only be a blessing for the Church.
 |
| Leo the LARP |
From the indomitable, unstoppable Chris Jackson at Hireaeth in Exile:
If you want to know how the post-conciliar Church really works, stop reading pious slogans and look at the map.
On one side you have the official conciliar Church: territorial dioceses, episcopal conferences, synods, dicasteries, the whole bureaucratic edifice humming along on synodality, religious liberty, ecumenism, and anthropocentric liturgy.
If you want to know how the post-conciliar Church really works, stop reading pious slogans and look at the map.
On one side you have the official conciliar Church: territorial dioceses, episcopal conferences, synods, dicasteries, the whole bureaucratic edifice humming along on synodality, religious liberty, ecumenism, and anthropocentric liturgy.
The Reservations
Start with the map.
In diocese after diocese, the pattern is the same. Parish Latin Masses are strangled, moved to inconvenient times, or shut down entirely. Traditional communities are pushed off parish property into “non-parochial” status. Young priests are warned away from learning the old rite. Catechesis, marriage prep, sacramental life in the typical territorial parish remain thoroughly Novus Ordo and thoroughly conciliar.
At the very same time, the regime bends over backward not to appear “anti-trad.”There are indulgences for pilgrimages. There are sympathetic words about “the wealth of the Latin tradition.” There are carefully staged images of big outdoor Masses with solemn-looking youth and banners. And now, even an official papal blessing for a Society chapel in a diocese that is busy strangling diocesan TLMs.
If you wanted to build a system where Tradition continues to exist but never again exercises decisive influence over parish life, seminaries, or episcopal appointments, this is exactly the map you would draw.
You create reservations.
You allow the old Mass to be celebrated in clearly delimited spaces – chapels, oratories, personal parishes, “missions” – and you make sure everyone understands that these are exceptions. They are not normative for the Catholic life of the territory. They are not to shape diocesan policy, school curricula, or the formation of priests.
You tell the natives they should be grateful for these enclaves. You call them “a gift to the Church.” You send a parchment now and then. You might even show up at Chartres for five minutes to smile and wave.
But you never, ever allow the old religion back into the beating heart of Catholic ordinary life.
That is the first part of the game.
Licensed Opposition
Where does the SSPX fit into Rome’s strategy?
For decades Rome treated them as radioactive. Now, slowly, they are treated as a tolerated, even useful, anomaly.
Confession faculties granted “for the Year of Mercy,” then made permanent.
Marriages quietly regularized through diocesan delegations.
Pilgrimages to Rome during Jubilee years, public recitations of the Creed, a cordial nod here and there from curial officials.
And now, for at least one chapel, a lovely parchment blessing from the papal almoner, all calligraphy and Marian language, ready to frame and hang in the vestibule.
Meanwhile, the official line still calls their status “irregular.” The ambiguity is never resolved. The doctrinal questions about Vatican II, religious liberty, ecumenism, and the new ecclesiology are never honestly faced.
What you get instead is a very modern Roman solution: licensed opposition.
The Society is allowed to operate, to grow, to administer sacraments, to build schools. They are even allowed to criticize the crisis in strong terms – within limits. But they are kept outside the ordinary structures, forever slightly off-center, forever canonically abnormal, forever one step away from being painted as “divisive” if they overstep.
From Rome’s point of view this is ideal.
The SSPX absorbs a huge percentage of serious, angry traditionalists: the men and women who might otherwise stay in diocesan parishes and cause real trouble. They provide sacramental cover for consciences battered by the Novus Ordo. They keep large families busy building parallel parish life instead of mounting open revolt against synodal nonsense.
Most importantly, they anchor Tradition in a place that can be both respected and dismissed.
When the regime wants to look generous, it points to pilgrimages and blessings and faculties. When it wants to discipline, it points to “irregular status” and “problems with full communion.”
Licensed opposition: loud enough to vent steam, weak enough to never threaten the boiler.
The Business Of Hope
All of this would be much harder to pull off without a compliant commentary class.
The post-conciliar Church needs a certain type of “traditional” spokesman: someone who knows enough of the old faith to speak your language, but is ultimately committed to preserving the papalist, conciliar story at all costs.
Enter Trad Inc.
The timelines inside Trad Inc are not identical.
Some of the old-guard papers have been attacking Vatican II, religious liberty, and the post-conciliar popes since the seventies. They opposed Paul VI and John Paul II and Benedict from the right long before Francis ever waved at Pachamama.
Others only discovered their spine under Francis. Late-Francis books, podcasts, and YouTube channels were built almost entirely on the premise that this pontificate had finally made the crisis undeniable. ‘I fought Francis’ became an identity and a business plan.
Then there are the respectable conservative projects that drifted into traditional territory because Francis made their old talking points impossible. They tip-toed from ‘The Council is great’ to ‘The Council is misunderstood’ to ‘Something has gone deeply wrong in Rome,’ and occasionally let the mask slip further than they ever intended.
The strange thing is not that these streams exist. The strange thing is that all three have converged on the same posture once Leo took the chair.
The old critics of Vatican II have gone oddly quiet. The Francis-era firebrands who told you to name the problem at the top now urge patience, strategy, and ‘not rushing to judgment.’ The conservative converts to trad resistance are already talking themselves back into the warm bath of papalist optimism.
Why?
Because if they describe Leo with the same clarity they once applied to Francis, the logic of their own position will drag them somewhere they have sworn never to go. If Leo calmly continues the same Bergoglian project they spent a decade calling suicidal, then the problem is not a single personality but the entire new direction of the synodal Church.
At that point you are one step away from conclusions they have spent their careers anathematizing.
So the story must change. Leo becomes the exception, the reset, the ‘unknown quantity’ who must be handled gently for the sake of unity and strategy. The murder weapon is left in the room. You are just not allowed to say whose fingerprints are on it anymore.
The “Strategist” Reflex
Inside Trad Inc there is a very common reflex you can hear almost word for word across different platforms.
When the topic is bishops, dicasteries, nuns with rainbow flags, media hoaxes, or globalist regimes, the tone is blunt and even mocking. The gloves come off. Names are named. Quotes are read aloud. The audience is told to wake up, to question everything, to remember that the modern order is a war on Christ and that we must never trust regime narratives again.
When the topic shifts to Leo, the rhetoric suddenly becomes cloudy.
Now it is all about prudence, balance, strategy, not being “predictable,” avoiding “extremes on both sides,” and “keeping hope alive.” Viewers are told that it would be foolish to rush to judgment, that we do not know how much is really him, that the Vatican apparatus is doing insane things and “we will see in the coming months” what Leo himself really thinks. Concrete criticism of appointments, documents, or homilies is replaced with abstractions about “Rome,” “the apparatus,” “the revolution,” and nameless “bad actors around the pope.”
To justify this double standard, a whole narrative of “smart resistance” has grown up.
Some commentators present themselves as operating behind enemy lines, with contacts in Rome, private conversations with sympathetic clergy, secret plans and delicate negotiations. They talk about saints in disguise, secret missions, and long games. The implication is that they cannot speak as plainly as the rest of us, because they are playing a more sophisticated game: building pilgrimages, staying in the room with power, maneuvering in ways the simple laity cannot understand.
On top of that, a moral framework is supplied. Aristotle and Aquinas are drafted to explain that virtue lives in the middle between cowardice and recklessness. Applied to the crisis, this “middle” always seems to mean exactly this: you may flay bishops, dicasteries, politicians, and media elites in the harshest possible terms, but you must not say plainly that the man whose name sits on every decree bears personal responsibility for what is happening. Sound familiar?
Once you accept that framing, every concrete refusal to lay responsibility at Leo’s feet turns into tactical genius and moral virtue.
You can blast Fernández or Roche as if they somehow floated into their jobs from nowhere. You can rage against diocesan bishops who strangle the TLM as if Leo did not choose to retain the document they are using. You can deplore synodal nonsense as if it were a rogue committee. You can expose supposed controlled opposition in secular politics while never recognizing the controlled opposition dynamic inside the Church itself.
But say out loud that the man who appoints, promotes, signs, and confirms all of this is morally responsible, and suddenly you are told you are being a reckless, divisive, naïve, “internet radical,” lacking in strategy and virtue.
The net effect is simple. At the very moment when the post-conciliar papacy most needs frank examination, it is wrapped in a cloud of “prudential silence” and “virtuous caution,” and the faithful are told that anything more direct would be a failure of both prudence and charity.
Soft Gatekeeping
“Sorry Trads, criticizing Leo is banned. The Cardinal out front shoulda told ya.”
The same media world is also very good at policing its own borders.
On the surface, the message is unity. We are warned against tribalism, circular firing squads, and “shooting right.” Emotional stories about counterrevolutionary heroes in France or Mexico are held up as examples of Catholics who suffered together, not sniped at each other online. Viewers are told that charity comes first, that fellow believers are brothers in arms, and that the real enemy is out there.
Behind all that, the range of permitted speech quietly contracts.
Trad Inc will happily feature critiques that stay within the post–Vatican II frame. You can denounce abortion laws, gender ideology, media lies, the political establishment, episcopal cowardice, and even certain dicasteries. You can buy the books, go on the pilgrimages, share the documentaries, and feel very much part of a besieged remnant.
Start asking whether Leo has taught novelties that collide with prior magisterium and the tone shifts. Start saying aloud that Leo’s own homilies, appointments, and signatures form a continuous line with Francis and you are suddenly accused of “attacking allies,” lacking prudence, harming unity, or “doing the revolution’s work.”
Writers who question Leo’s new post-Bergoglian Church are rarely engaged on the level of argument. Their theses are flattened into a few loaded phrases: “no hope,” “fake church,” “internet radicalism,” “sede stuff.” Once the label is attached, their claims can be safely ignored. Their existence becomes a morality tale about how not to be “reckless.”
No one has to say “do not cross this line” for everyone to grasp that certain lines are dangerous to cross.
Criticize “Rome” and “the Vatican” in vague terms and you will be applauded. Question media narratives, political hoaxes, and secular controlled opposition and you will be cheered. Point out that the same dynamic is at work in the way Leo’s pontificate is sold to traditionalists, and suddenly you are told to stop tearing down “brothers in arms” and making war on your own side.
This is not open censorship in the classic sense; it is a managed culture of critique, in which the acceptable range of outrage is curated by people whose livelihoods and access depend on never quite connecting the dots. The louder the slogans about unity and charity become, the narrower the space for frank speech grows. The more the faithful are urged to avoid “online drama,” the more they are nudged back into trusting the very narratives that keep them anesthetized about what is happening under Leo. The result is a managed remnant, agitated enough to stay engaged, hopeful enough to keep donating, and carefully discouraged from drawing the conclusions that would force a break with the post-Bergoglian script.
What Needs Saying
The point of naming this pattern is to make explicit what the regime and its favored commentators would much prefer to leave implicit.
Rome’s current strategy is not to exterminate Tradition. It is to confine it.
The SSPX is being courted not because the revolution has softened, but because the revolution has learned how to use its opposition.
The professional trad commentary class has largely accepted its role as colonial officer: soothing, channeling, and defanging the very outrage that once gave it a reason to exist.
If any of that is true, then the first act of resistance is very simple.
Stop letting other people tell you which truths are “prudent” to say out loud.
Stop outsourcing your conscience to men whose careers depend on never quite connecting the dots.
Stop mistaking romantic talk about Cristeros and Campion for real confrontation with the crisis in front of us.
At a minimum, refuse to participate in the fiction that “the Vatican” and “Rome” and “the apparatus” are doing one thing while the man whose name sits on every decree is doing another.
There is no strategy in pretending that Leo’s pen is guided by someone else. There is only delay.
The reservations are real. The colonial officers are real. The licensed opposition is real.
But so is the faith.
The old Mass does not exist to give us aesthetic refuge under occupation. It exists to renew the sacrifice of Calvary and to form men and women who will, in whatever state of life they occupy, speak the truth plainly, whatever it costs.
The revolution has had half a century of men skilled at keeping their cards close to the vest. What it fears now are Catholics who have decided that, finally, someone has to put the cards face up on the table.
https://youtu.be/v5YIBSWbgas
https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/leos-neutralization-strategy-for?img=https%
 |
| Cologne Cathedral, 1945 |
No comments:
Post a Comment