To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.
 |
| Cardinal Vincent Fernández (r) Father Davide Pagliarani (l) |
 |
The Vatican's threats of excommunication against the SSPX are unjust, not canonical, and not consistent with Catholic doctrine.
I fully support what the SSPX is doing. I do not represent them. I’m not paid by them. I’m not their spokesman. I simply am someone who attends the SSPX for Mass every Sunday. I know the priests, many of them in the Society. I know other people that attend it. And it’s all about preserving the faith in the Catholic tradition.
This is the Society is up against: ultimately, it comes down to the preservation of the Catholic faith; this has become a huge issue. Normally, it really wouldn’t have been that big of a deal, but the Vatican has chosen to make it a big deal by threatening the Society with excommunication.
I have noticed that many do not understand the issues involved. I don’t blame them; this sort of thing is not necessarily easy if you don’t know where to look. Well, I’m going to dispel all of that for you and help guide you through that process so you can see exactly what’s going on and understand the issues properly.
 |
| Leo has time to meet a robot but not the SSPX |
I’m confident that you’ll see why the SSPX is right, and I’m sure you will support the consecrations coming up in July 2026 if you look at this with a fair mind.
We will begin at the beginning with the most recent statement from Cardinal Fernandez about the threat of excommunication if the Society goes forward with the consecrations in July. Then we will go through the canonical arguments and some theology to show you why the Vatican would be completely unjust in excommunicating anybody.
The Excommunication Threat
Let’s begin with Cardinal Fernandez’s statement dated May 13th of 2026. He says with all his citations included,
“With regard to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, we reiterate what has already been communicated. The episcopal ordinations announced by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X do not have the requisite papal mandate. This act will constitute “a schismatic act” (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, no. 3) and “formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offence against God and entails the excommunication established under Church law” (ibid., 5c; cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, 24 August 1996).
“The Holy Father continues in his prayers to ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten those responsible for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X so that they may reconsider the extremely grave decision they have taken.”
This is the threat. This threat consists of basically two parts: Fernandez is saying the episcopal ordinations do not have the requisite Papal mandate, which is part one, and that this act will constitute a schismatic act, which is part two of the threat. We’re going to look at both of those allegations and show you it’s completely wrong, completely unjust, and not Catholic.
The 1996 Explanatory Note and Ecclesia Dei
Dated August 24, 1996, the title is “Excommunication for Schism Incurred by the Adherence of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Movement.” Now, keep in mind this was the document just referred to by Fernandez, so he’s relying on this in support of the Vatican’s position.
And what it basically says, responding to a council letter from the Bishop of Sion in Switzerland, is that this prelate received information from the press asking for an authoritative interpretation of the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, and of the subsequent decree of the congregation concerning the excommunication imposed on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the four bishops ordained by him, and bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer. The 1996 text goes on to state:
“I have the honor to tell you that the problem raised by the ordinary of Sion does not seem to require an authentic interpretation either of the moto proprio Ecclesia Dei or the decree of the congregation of bishops of the relative canons of canon law 1364 and 1382.” (web browser translation of Italian to English).
This is very interesting because this dicastery [on legislative texts] could provide a formal interpretation of what John Paul II put in the Ecclesia Dei document. What they’re saying is that they were not going to do a formal interpretation. Nor were they going to interpret anything about the canon laws that are being used to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. They were not going to give an official interpretation on that. They just did not feel the need to do it.
Further down, [the 1996 legislative text] does say in fact that paragraph four of Ecclesia Dei explains what the doctrinal root was of the “schismatic act.” Then it references canon law 1364 which has to do with schism. The decree of the congregation of bishops also makes explicit reference to schismatic nature. And so, what this dicastery is saying is that they did not need to explain any of this because it just speaks for itself. Just go read those documents. We are not going to get any more detail on that!
Now, what they do is go into more detail on is this issue of those “who formally adhere to the schismatic movement.” That’s a reference to something John Paul II put in Ecclesia Dei. But that has to do with those who were not directly involved in the consecration of bishops without Papal mandate. So, other priests in the Society, for example. It gives some direction on whether bishops should consider those persons part of the excommunication. I’m not going to get into that specifically, not because it’s not important, but because it’s not really relevant to the key issue.
What I am interested in is the basis for the Vatican’s claim that the Society in general, or the bishops themselves, should be excommunicated. And whether it’s schismatic at all. Those two issues are what matter. Because if it’s not schismatic and there’s no punishment under canon law, then what’s happening here is radical persecution of the Society.
I am claiming that this legislative note from 1996 really didn’t give you any information whatsoever. All it says is that the SSPX’s actions were schismatic because it says so in Ecclesia Dei. And this is the document that Cardinal Fernandez relies on in addition to Ecclesia Dei. Everything is seemingly pointing back to the Ecclesia Dei document.
What is Ecclesia Dei? This is an apostolic letter given by John Paul II back in 1988, specifically on July 2nd, 1988. This is the document in which John Paul II rebukes Archbishop Lefebvre for consecrating bishops without Papal permission. In this letter, he states that this act was schismatic.
This is where everyone is getting the idea that consecrating a bishop without Papal mandate is schismatic. It all comes back to Ecclesia Dei, primarily because John Paul II asserted it. It has nothing to do with what schism is or what’s outlined in canon law regarding schism.
This is extremely important, and we will revisit Ecclesia Dei. What I’m going to show you may shock and disturb you because it exposes the root of not only the dispute between Rome and the Society but also the entire basis of the persecution of the Society, which is rooted in heresy condemned by previous Popes and the First Vatican Council (Vatican I). All of this is arbitrary, capricious, and unjust.
 |
| Arbitrary, capricious and unjust? |
The root of it lies in the Ecclesia Dei document, which Cardinal Fernandez referred to and cited for authority, along with a 1996 document that merely points back to John Paul II’s assertion that Archbishop Lefebvre’s decision to consecrate bishops without Papal mandate was schismatic. We will come back to this document because it is the key to understanding all of this.
The 1988 Decree of Excommunication1
The 1988 Decree of Excommunication itself further supports and explains the canon laws they are referencing. On July 1, 1988, the supposed excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre stated that despite formal warnings and repeated appeals to desist from his intention, he performed a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff.
Thus, he incurred the penalties outlined in canon 1364 paragraph 1 and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.
In this Decree, the authority the Vatican uses in canon law is made clear. Therefore, we must examine this to determine if any of it makes sense. What you will see is that the basis for the excommunication of Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 is fundamentally faulty and incorrect under the terms of canon law itself. And we are going through this exercise because this is exactly the same codes of canon law they are going to be relying on to excommunicate members of the SSPX if they move forward with the consecration of bishops in July of 2026.
If it was wrong then, it’s wrong now. But let’s go ahead and take a look at the code first.
The Codes of Canon Law
Now, under canon 1387, and I say 1387 and not 1382 as was contained in the 1988 Decree of Excommunication because they changed the numbers since then. So it’s a little confusing in that way but the current code is now 1387. It’s exactly the same as the 1382 reference from the Decree in 1988. So don’t get thrown off by that.
Canon 1387 (formerly 1382) says that both the bishop who without a pontifical mandate consecrates a person a bishop and the one who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. What that means is that it’s an automatic excommunication. An automatic excommunication as opposed to a ferendae sententiae excommunication.
Now this does have some importance when we are talking about truth, justice and charity because if it’s an automatic excommunication then the terms of the code of canon law itself are the ones that serve to justify the excommunication and it’s not based on any type of trial or opportunity to present your defense.
There is no opportunity under this to make a case before an independent judge as to whether you should be excommunicated or not for doing something canon law says you should not do. It’s an automatic excommunication.
I’m not saying there should never be automatic excommunications. There are reasons to have that. My point is simply that if you’re going to have a latae sententiae excommunication, you might want to follow what’s in the canon law to make sure it’s just!
Canon 1387 does condemn the act. What is the act issue? The act is the consecration of another bishop by a bishop without pontifical mandate or permission. That’s it. That’s the act.
So, if you do that, according to Canon 1387, you will be automatically excommunicated. And if you just stop at 1387, and many people really like to do that, it really leaves no question. The problem is you cannot just stop at 1387 because there are other provisions in canon law that apply to the problem at hand.
If you go to canon 1323, these are general provisions that apply to any penal sanctions under canon law and excommunication for consecrating a bishop without papal permission is a penal sanction. So, 1323 applies. It says,
“no one is liable to a penalty who when violating a law or precept acted under the compulsion of grave fear even if only relative, or by reason of necessity, or grave inconvenience, unless however the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls.” (emphasis added).
Well, no one argues that consecrating bishops is intrinsically evil. So, we don’t have to worry about that. What’s relevant here, and what the Society refers to correctly in my opinion, is that there was a “reason of necessity” to consecrate bishops without papal permission.
 |
The necessity being, in short, the need to preserve tradition and the truths of the Catholic faith that are jeopardized, quite frankly, by those who occupy the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and the thousands of bishops around the world who are not preserving the tradition and depriving Catholics of that right to practise and understand the truths of the faith.
What constitutes necessity is not required, as we will see. We’re focusing on the canon law aspect here. And what I’m telling you is that canon law provides that you shall not be excommunicated for consecrating bishops without papal mandate if there is a reason of necessity to do so.
Again, this is where people say, “Aha, there’s no reason or good reason or necessity to do that.” Well, scroll down a little more in canon 1323. And it also says,
“No one is liable to a penalty who when violating a law or precept thought through no personal fault that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in note 4 or 5 above.”
Well, by reason of necessity, as I just discussed, is in note 4. In other words, if you think that reason and necessity exist, you’re still excused even if perhaps you are objectively wrong. It’s a subjective standard, not an objective standard. This is a point a lot of people conveniently like to miss.
Did Archbishop Lefebvre truly believe there was a reason to consecrate bishops in order to preserve the traditions of the Catholic faith? Yes, he truly did believe that. And quite frankly, in my opinion, I think he’s right. And I think there is an objective necessity.
We’ll see proven in itself, this necessity, when we go back to look at the Ecclesia Dei document again. It’s just unbelievable how it just points back to itself. John Paul II’s condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre is proof in itself that there is a reason of necessity.
But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter because it’s a subjective standard and not an objective one. But let’s just say, well, maybe he still was at fault. Maybe he’s still at fault somehow. Let’s look at canon 1324 of canon law. It says,
“the perpetrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished or a penance substituted in its place if the offense was committed by one who erroneously culpably thought that someone of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in canon 1323 note 4 and note 5.”
So again, canon law says, look, even if there was some sort of personal fault with Archbishop Lefebvre or the bishops consecrating new bishops in July 2026, the penalty of excommunication should be mitigated and not applied.
And in substitute, perhaps penance or at least some other form of punishment, but not excommunication if they thought one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned, and in this case, everybody in the Society is arguing that a state of necessity exists and that is contained in canon 1323 note 4. There’s really no way around this, my friends.
In canon law, excommunications in the situation that existed back in 1988, as well as potentially in July 2026, do not apply under the code of canon law. And by the way, just for interest, some of you may be wondering: what did the 1917 code of canon law say about all this? If it’s so terrible and schismatic to consecrate a bishop without papal permission, what did they do back in 1917? It must have been harsher, right? Wrong.
According to the code of canon law from 1917, canon 2370, a bishop consecrating another bishop without an apostolic mandate are by law suspended until the apostolic see dispenses them. So, you weren’t excommunicated even under the code in 1917 if you consecrated a bishop without papal mandate.
And that just tends to show you that these allegations of schism attached to consecrating bishops without papal mandate are bogus. They are made up. There’s no basis in canon law for them. Certainly, if it's schismatic now, it would have been schismatic in 1917 too.
Let's talk about this issue of schism. The code of canon law does say in 1364 - again we’re back now to the 1983 code - an apostate from the faith or heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. He or she may also be punished with penalties mentioned in canon 1336 sections 2 and 4.
So again, if you are schismatic, that incurs an automatic excommunication. Here is the second basis for the argument the Vatican is making for excommunications. The first one was the simple act of consecrating a bishop without permission. We just dispensed with that under the code of canon law. But this is the second basis under 1364 section 1 for being a schismatic.
Now it does not say here what it means to be a schismatic. You just need to know what a schismatic is. The code provides sort of a definition that is in canon 751. It says “schism is the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the church subject to him.”
Well, that helps us a little bit. But we still have the question of what is “refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff” or of communion with the members of the church subject to him? Is consecrating a bishop contrary to the desire of the supreme pontiff a refusal of submission?
Here is the amazing part about all of this: Pope John Paul II doesn’t even directly mention canon 751 when he talks about Archbishop Lefebvre committing a schismatic act by consecrating those bishops. Nor does the Decree of Excommunication. There’s no reference whatsoever to canon 751.
John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei Modernist Idea of Schism
What does he say? John Paul II says in section 4 of the Ecclesia Dei document that the root of the schismatic act, the consecration of bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre, can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. Well, wait a second here.
He’s saying that Archbishop Lefebvre has an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition, and that is the root of the schismatic act. He says it is incomplete because
“it [Lefebvre’s understanding of tradition] does not take sufficiently into account the ‘living character of tradition’ which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, ‘comes from the apostles and progresses in the church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on.
"This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.’ (emphasis added).
“But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.”
So why is this important? It’s important for two reasons, my friends. The first reason is that John Paul II is saying that the reason why consecrating bishops is schismatic is, yes, in some way being disobedient to the pope. But he says the root of it is Archbishop Lefebvre’s and the Society’s incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. And then he goes on to explain what tradition is.
Now that’s very interesting, isn’t it? Because Pope St. Pius X, for whom the Society is named, who is a saint of the Catholic Church, in 1907 talked about this very definition and understanding of tradition.
One would think John Paul II would be consistent with his predecessor Pius X. Let’s look at Pascendi Domenici Gregis from 1907. This encyclical condemned the heresy of Modernism. And in here, the saintly pope talks about what modernism is and he explains what modernists do, their attitudes, and what they teach.
Beginning in paragraph 14 of Pascendi:
“it is an established and certain fact that the divine reality does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the Believer rests, they answer: In the experience of the individual.”
Pius X discusses how far off we are from Catholic teaching. He references the decree of Vatican I, highlighting the divergence from traditional teachings. In paragraph 15 of Pascendi:
“But this doctrine of experience is also under another aspect entirely contrary to Catholic truth. It is extended and applied to tradition, as hitherto understood by the Church, and destroys it. By the Modernists, tradition is understood as a communication to others, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula, of an original experience.” (emphasis in the original).
Do you see what’s happening here? Pope Pius X almost word for word, prophetically condemns what Pope John Paul II would claim 80 years later in Ecclesia Dei. He contends the modernists’ understanding of dogma and tradition is based on the experience of the individual and must be condemned. Yet, Ecclesia Dei specifically mentions that the living character of tradition accounts for the spiritual realities that the faithful and believers experience, as well as the preaching of that experience. This is shocking.
What does Vatican I teach? In short, it emphasizes that the meaning of sacred dogmas must always be maintained as declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext of a more profound understanding. While understanding, knowledge, and wisdom may grow over time, it must be within the same doctrine, sense, and understanding.
What did Ecclesia Dei say? John Paul II mentions the living character of tradition, stating that Vatican II teaches that tradition comes from the apostles and progresses with the help of the Spirit, allowing for growth in insight into the realities and words being passed on.
Is this not contrary to what Vatican I taught? The answer is yes; it is. All of this is to say what is contained in Ecclesia Dei is heretical.The part of the document that is heretical is precisely the portion that condemns and rebukes Archbishop Lefebvre for consecrating bishops without papal permission.
The entire case against Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX is rooted in the modernist heresy because everything points back to this Ecclesia Dei document. There is no other basis provided by the Vatican for designating as “schismatic” the SSPX effort to consecrate bishops without Papal mandate beyond what John Paul II asserted in Ecclesia Dei.
I have searched for other Vatican documents or references that would suggest an independent basis for the claim of schismatic acts due to this alleged disobedience. In the end, they always revert to saying that since John Paul II labeled it schismatic, that is the end of the discussion. As the 1996 legislative note said, we’re not even going to interpret that. John Paul II just explained it all to you right there. Well, we are reading the explanation, and this explanation is not Catholic.
The Catholic Understanding of Schism
The question remains: if John Paul II reinvented schism using a modernist formula to rebuke Archbishop Lefebvre, and if canon law does not provide a detailed explanation, what exactly is schism according to Catholic Tradition, and does it apply?
If you look at the Catholic Encyclopedia from the early twentieth century, it tells you that schism comes from the Greek word “schisma,” which means division or a rent or a division and in the language of theology and canon law results in rupture of ecclesial union and unity. In other words,
“the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies, the ties which bind him to the social organization of the church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of disassociation or separation which is the result of that act.”
Now, first of all, my friends, how can you be torn from the person that claims to be the pope by defending the faith itself? That is part of what the crisis in the Church is in the first place. And that’s the point the SSPX is trying to make. We have a crisis in the Church because while some faithful Catholics are defending the Church’s faith and her traditions, it is at odds with what is coming out of the Vatican and the hierarchy. That’s a problem.
But how can you be in schism if your acts, and the point of what you’re doing, is an effort to defend the teachings of the Church? Also, in the same encyclopedia article, it talks about disobedience, and this is very relevant to the issue with the SSPX.
According to the Encyclopedia, not every disobedience is a schism. In order to possess this character, schism must include, besides the transgression of the commands of the superior, the “denial of their divine right to command.”
This is exactly what the SSPX is saying. They’re saying, “Look, at worst, what you’re accusing us of is a disobedience to a command by consecrating bishops without permission. But that is not schism!”
Disobeying a command is not enough to constitute schism. You also have to deny the rights of the Pope to command in general, the office itself essentially, like Luther did. That is necessary to complete a schism. Simple disobedience is not.
And I suspect that those in the hierarchy, including John Paul II, understood this. Which is why they completely abandoned trying to argue under what everybody understood schism to be and completely shifted the ground and said, “Well, it’s just schism because John Paul II said it is.”
And then John Paul II says it’s because the Archbishop doesn’t follow tradition the way Vatican II understood tradition. But the SPPX consecrations have nothing to do with the rejection of the Papal office itself. Quite the opposite, actually. The SSPX and all Catholics must defend the office of the papacy, which is under attack with this current synodal process.
One final point, because people often like to say, “Oh, well, how can you not be schismatic if you’re at odds with your local ordinary, your local bishop?” Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia article also addresses that:
“Long before St. Ignatius of Antioch laid down this principle: Where the bishop is, there is community. Even where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Now, through the centralizing evolution which emphasizes the preponderant role of the sovereign pontiff in the constitution of ecclesiastical unity, the mere fact of rebelling against the bishop of a diocese is often a step toward schism. It is not a schism in him who remains or claims to remain subject to the Holy See.” (emphasis added).
In other words, even if you’re operating without the permission of the local ordinary, that also does not make you a schismatic. As long as you are not denying the right of the Holy See, the Pope, to be the primary authority in the Church, you are not denying his divine right to command in general. The SSPX has never done that.
The Synodal Hypocrisy
I want to just point out a hypocrisy along those lines. A recent synodal study group document number seven says that each diocese periodically should activate processes of discernment regarding how bishops should be selected. This is a very interesting question and seems relevant to the SSPX issue. According to the Vatican’s Synodality Press Room,
“As an Episcopal succession approaches, the bishop is to convene a presbyterial council and the diocese and pastoral council whose members express in a collegial manner an opinion on the needs of the diocese and submit to the bishop in a sealed envelope the names of priests they consider suitable for the episcopate. Where possible, consultation is also to include the cathedral chapter, finance council, the lay council, and representatives of consecrated persons, young people, and the poor.”
In other words, we’re going to make this a community effort about who’s selecting the bishops. Isn’t this interesting? Because this is what synodality is: it deconstructs the authority of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
Is the SSPX doing that? Not even in the slightest. The SSPX is opposed to synodality. The SSPX is opposed to any reduction in the authority of the hierarchy and the Pope, and the ordinary bishops. They’ve always been of that opinion.
The only ones attacking the authority of the bishops and the Pope are those who support synodality. You see, this is a crisis. This is a problem. This is why tradition needs to be passed on. All it does is prove the SSPX correct.
And by the way, the bishops are going to consecrate bishops who will not have any ordinary jurisdictional authority. They’re not claiming it whatsoever. They’re simply doing it to continue the ability to ordain new priests and perform other sacraments. They’re not claiming any jurisdictional authority whatsoever.
So, you can’t possibly say they’re setting up some parallel Church. It’s absurd. The only ones setting up a parallel church are those who are pushing the synodal process, which was the agenda that Leo said would be adopted from Francis upon his election last year in 2025.
Do you see the confusion? Do you see the insanity? Certainly, you can see the craziness. Well, so does the Society. And that’s why there is a need to move forward with consecrating bishops and preserve tradition in the face of what is going on right now in the Church.
 |
| Insanity |
Summary and Conclusion
The first point is that the SSPX’s consecration of bishops without papal permission in July 2026 is not schismatic. The consecration of bishops without Papal permission, in itself, is not a schismatic act. There’s no basis in canon law or theology whatsoever even to suggest that.
The second point is that the threatened excommunications are not called for under canon law. I showed you that canon law specifically provides relief from the consequences of the act itself, and the act itself here is the consecration of bishops without Papal permission. Canon law addresses that and says excommunication is not proper under these circumstances.
The facts of this case with the SSPX, both in 1988 and also today, are the same issues, and canon law relieves the Society of any consequences. This is significant because the Vatican claims this is an automatic excommunication; however, automatic excommunications only apply if the terms of canon law are met.
There is no trial. There is no judgment after an opportunity to defend oneself before impartial judge. So, you have to follow canon law. Otherwise, it would just be a horrible, arbitrary, capricious, and unjust decision. And certainly, we would not accuse anyone in the Vatican of doing that! Okay, we will.
Point three: the schism allegation is based on the arbitrary decision of John Paul II. This is really big. As I showed you, you cannot justify schism under the code of canon law for this. The only thing they can argue is that John Paul II said it was a schism in 1988, therefore, it is now in 2026. Why? What’s the basis?
John Paul II said it was schismatic because Archbishop Lefebvre had an incorrect understanding of tradition. And then I showed you that, in fact, John Paul II had the incorrect understanding of tradition. As a matter of fact, John Paul II’s understanding of tradition and the Second Vatican Council, which he relied on, is nothing more than the heresy of modernism, as Pope St. Pius X and the First Vatican Council explained.
The entire basis of the schismatic claim against Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX is heresy. This should be shocking, but it points to the entire problem in the first place. This is why we have a state of necessity.
Do you see how it all circles back? This is the Society’s point in the first place. We have a situation where we have people in authority who are using heresy to govern the Church and to punish people, and they’re not passing on the faith for the salvation of souls. And this is why there’s a state of necessity in the church as used under canon law.
What we learned from John Paul II is contrary to the tradition of the Catholic Church and the Church’s understanding of what tradition itself is. As I showed you, the issue is doctrine, and the Society’s defense of tradition. That’s what we’re really talking about here.
And this is so important and you can understand why this is becoming such a big deal. Because what we’re really talking about is what do we believe as Catholics? It’s the doctrines. What is tradition? That’s the issue in this case. It’s not really what is schism.
Fourth point. I showed you what the Enyclopedia said about schism and that clearly doesn’t apply. Nor is John Paul II really claiming what in the encyclopedia applies. What matters is what we believe as Catholics. And how can you have unity if you don’t believe the same things? If Catholics today do not believe what Catholics in 1907 believed, there is a problem. And the Society is simply recognizing that. That’s all.
And finally, this persecution against the Society is arbitrary, capricious, and lacks any sense of due process. You’ll notice here that no one from the Society has been able to present their defense to an independent judge or even to Leo himself. He’s refused any type of audience. There’s no due process there. There’s no justice there, and there’s certainly no charity.
Please continue to pray for Holy Mother Church. Pray for the restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass throughout the world. Pray for Leo. Pray for Cardinal Fernandez (I know it’s hard.) And pray for the Society. Pray for those bishops who are doing the consecrations, those who receive the consecrations, and all those who attend the SSPX chapels. (Redacted.)
Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications against the four remaining bishops of the SSPX on January 21, 2009. However, it is the position of the Society, and of this author, that the purported excommunications were never valid or just to begin with for the reasons set forth in this article. https://catholicesquire.substack.com/p/a-complete-defense-of-the-sspx-consecrations
Mary, Co-Redemptrix, pray for the Church
The SSPX and the Catholic Esquire (whoever they may be) can state as much as they like that the SSPX are not undertaking a schismatic act, but the fact is the Church, which is the only arbiter in these matters says they are. On top of that the vast majority of canon lawyers, including Cardinal Burke (formerly the top canonist in the Church) says the SSPX is schismatic. So if they go ahead with the consecrations the SSPX will incur automatic excommunication under canon law. Imagine if every bishop in the world claimed the SSPX's necessity argument and ordained whomever they wanted to.
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX made another major mistake in 1988 when they consecrated Williamson and then excommunicated him. The majority of Catholics accept the magisterium of the Church. The SSPX plainly don't and haven't since way before 1988 when Leferbvre set up his own marriage tribunal. The SSPX do not recognise the canonisations of St John Paul II The Great and many other recent saints, even though canonisation is considered an infallible and definitive act of the Church. If those two things are not evidence of the SSPX creating a parallel church I don't know what is.
The SSPX has a choice to make. They can either submit to the magisterium of the Church or continue to go their own way, in which case they will be excommunicated. Then people like the Catholic Esquire and others have a choice to make as to whether they continue to attend the chapels of an excommunicated group who are outside the Church, similar to the orthodox who do not submit to the authority of the Pope.
Also, the way this blog is put together, I wonder why the SSPX want to remain inside the Church. My opinion is that it is merely to keep as many people attending their chapels as they can. That is the sole reason. Most people will not attend an excommunicated sect and they realise this. It also remains to be seen how many SSPX priests will again leave the SSPX as Bishop Fellay has stated will happen. Plus I have heard that there are SSPX priests who are not happy with the current superior, Pagliarani, and the way he is leading the SSPX.
ReplyDeleteWWJD. In this age of priest shortages, and the good, holy priests who are cancelled, I can’t believe this is an issue.
Elaine Williams It is sad.
Delete
ReplyDeleteNo conflict. you simply follow those who have upheld 2000 years of Church teaching and tradition..not those who have concocted this disastrous and destructive Nuevo Theologie of Vat 2.
DeletePaul Typo Thought you should know…Julia goes to the Novus Ordo. She was also so dumb, so completely ignorant, that she gave your comment, which completely condemns her, a thumbs up. The heretics certainly have not used their God-given brains.
ReplyDeleteI kneel with the SSPX priests/bishops!
DeleteCata Brow Is that on the side of the canons? Silly women.
ReplyDeleteYour depiction here is disgusting and bears no resemblance to the actual position of the sspx
DeleteRobert Barnes disgusting in what way please?
DeleteJulia du Fresne you have attempted to depict the SSPX against Rome. Which is utter garbage and total nonsense. It is the opposite of the SSPX position, which explicitly rejects your nonsense, and the presence of any sense of conflict. You are #fakenews
DeleteRobert Barnes there's a rather large difference between 'Rome' and the papacy. Did you click on the link and read Catholic Esquire, who explains that the SSPX supports and defends the papacy?
But if by 'Rome' you mean the post-conciliar Vatican,the SSPX does not support or defend its modernist heresies. That is precisely why they need to consecrate more bishops: to defend the Catholic religion.
DeleteWhy would I read your trash? I don't waste my time on fake news. You clearly tried to frame it as one versus the other. Which is absolute garbage and it doesn't deserve my time or anyone else's time.
Don't try telling me about the sspx. I know all about the sspx and their actual positions. Unlike you who has intentionally misrepresented their position to try and make it sound like there's some sort of conflict between the superior General and Rome. There is no such conflict. Your post is pure on adulterated incendiary fantasy. Shame on you for posting your disgusting nonsense.
DeleteJulia du Fresne All the ridiculous distinctions of the heretics. Your distinctions reek of the abortionist distinctions. They mirror the heretics “distinctions”. An ignorant woman teaching the faithful. Your husband needs to step up and be a man for once…get you off of Facebook…Good grief.
DeleteGreg Ryan you wouldn't be a misogynist by any chance?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete
DeleteRobert Barnes the conflict lies not in the personae of +Fernandez and +Pagliarani but in the difference between the two versions of the Catholic religion which they represent, the former's being a counterfeit of the latter's
DeleteJulia du Fresne Now the fake traditionalist throws off the true patriarchy of Jesus Christs Church…It’s not hard to out you modernists.
Tell me, Julia the feminist, what did St. Paul warn you about through the very words of God?
You fake feminists are so easy to out.
Do you bracket out Galatians like in the Novus Ordo ?
So….fake.
DeleteJulia du Fresne You should talk next about Pope Pius XI, “the misogynist”…
26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."[29]”
Do you even know anything about Jesus’ Church?
Have you ever even read this teaching?
Greg Ryan, I should point out (with great self-restraint, I might add) I'm not your wife.
Delete
DeleteJulia du Fresne Such a shocking “misogynist”…says the modernist fake-traditionalist woman…
“29. With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: "The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church."[30]”
This is why women don’t teach the faith. Learn from the greatest human being to ever live (Mary), and you may start to abandon your ridiculous, prideful ways. My wife is a thousand times the woman you are, and a hundred times the person I am, because of one gift and one gift alone…HUMILTY.
SHE DOESNT PUT HERSELF ABOVE THE ROMAN PONTIFF…She doesn’t even put herself above a fool like me. You would do well to learn from that.
DeleteJulia du Fresne that isn't what your post implies or says.
ReplyDeleteAND WHAT A TREMENDOUS AND GLORIOUS HONOR THAT WOULD BE! GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST!
ReplyDeleteTHE PLAIN AND SIMPLE TRUTH
It is official teaching of the Catholic Church that a good-faith judgment of necessity excuses a Catholic from canonical penalties for acting without ordinarily required ecclesiastical approval, including in sacramental ministry and episcopal consecrations.
Canon law does NOT grant anyone the right to attack, defame, or bully the SSPX for holding in good conscience that a state of necessity justifies episcopal consecrations without ordinary canonical approval.
To attack, defame or bully the SSPX undermines the Church’s unity these bullies claim to defend. Legitimate disagreement over the existence of a necessity should be addressed through reasoned canonical and theological argument, not unchristian attacks, defamation, or vilification.
Long live the Catholic Papacy and the SSPX!
DeleteMichelle Rios That’s not a teaching of the Church. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Stop presenting your womanly heresies as teachings of the Church and go read a bible woman.
DeleteGreg Ryan You are the straw "man," Greg. Although you behave like a toddler.
DeleteMichelle Rios I thought not, little girl. Liars never have the goods…just silly little girl games they play.
Usually, no one calls them out because they’re afraid of their little liberal “labeling” games, but, every once in a while, someone comes along who just doesn’t care about their feminist nonsense, and puts them in their place. I’ll let you figure out who is who. Kind of like what our blessed Lord did with a certain group of his time.
I’ll give you a hint…both groups served the same master.
DeleteGreg Ryan your the straw
Ferd Edukasyon the last straw.
Delete
ReplyDelete"There are no grounds for Tucho's threats of schism and excommunication, and there were no grounds for the excommunication of the Society's holy founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988. "
Seems you're just mad that women can't be Pope and make this decision for themselves as you seem to think you can. There are grounds. Rome has spoken. Rome is always the decider. Be quiet little girl.
ReplyDeleteTo stand with what the Catholic Church has always taught was considered by Popes ; Cardinals , Bishops and Priests etc to be “” Infallible “” : completely right and pleasing to God as it came from God and the apostolic succession
Anything less is an insult to God !!!!
It should be a no brainer .
Obey God , stay with Gods church and all that it teaches / taught for centuries
Not a man made to please man church .
God is our healing Physician and the modern church is bending to reach the broken man
But the point of the Mass from the beginnings is to be thankful to God
To worship God - not man
If you give your life to God and humble oneself ; God is your ultimate physicisn
Confession is the restorer and Mass ; ( rosary , prayers ) etc
But to take the Sacred out of our lives is detrimental
Why the modern church doesn’t get that is beyond me .
God knew and knows what He is doing and knows what’s best for our souls .
The modern church forgets this and appears to have lost the faith !
They forgot to speak the Truths of God
Not man truths
DeleteStacey Biondolillo There’s no “modern Church” . There is only the true Church, which you will only find with the perpetual, visible Roman Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter.
All those claiming otherwise are ignorant schismatics who know nothing of sacred scripture and tradition.
ReplyDeleteI stand with what's left of the Authentic Roman Catholic Church pre Vatican ll, the very Holy honorable SSPX!!!
ReplyDeleteThe poster of this is obviously some Vatican 2 cult member most likely a fake catholic.
DeleteJamison Harrison, que?
DeleteJulia du Fresne Hahahahah…I tried to tell you Julia. Your insanity is immediately uncovered once your false Church is challenged by another false Church. If only you had the Roman Pontiff and not some silly ignorant woman leading you.
Cardinal Muller: No one has a right to episcopal consecration, which belongs to the Church and not to individual groups, in order to guarantee the continued existence of its organisation according to purely human rights. Otherwise, the Church would disintegrate into interest groups.
ReplyDeleteEven if the consecration by a schismatic bishop – even in open contradiction to the Pope – is valid, it cannot be dogmatically and morally justified by appealing to the salvation of one’s own congregation. Only in a state of extreme persecution, when contact with the universal Church and with Rome is completely excluded, would the consecration of a bishop be morally justified in conscience before God and in unity with the Pope presupposed by faith.
The appropriate solution would be for the Society of St Pius X not to presume to dictate to the Pope the conditions for its full reintegration into the Catholic Church, but rather for it to recognise, in accordance with the First Vatican Council, to which it so readily appeals, that one cannot be fully Catholic without full communion with Pope Leo XIV. And the Pope’s supreme teaching authority does not derive from the sociological truth that in every community someone must have the last word, but from the Pope’s appointment as the successor of Peter and from the Holy Spirit, who assists him in the exercise of his teaching office and his service to the unity of the Church.
https://thecatholicherald.com/article/the-church-and-the-sspx-cardinal-muller-on-a-tragic-conflic
Cardinal Muller: One cannot be a good Catholic if one subjects binding pronouncements of the Church’s Magisterium to one’s own subjective standard. The Monophysites claimed to be faithful to the Council of Ephesus (431) and the teachings of the Church Father Cyril of Alexandria, and then rejected the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon (451), which taught the unity of the divine and human natures of Christ in the divine person of the Son in the Trinity. The legitimate differences between theological schools – Thomists, Scotists – and the intellectual originality of individual theologians, such as Romano Guardini or Hans Urs von Balthasar, are not to be confused with the necessary unity in the teaching of the Apostles and the Church, as it was formulated above all at the councils.
ReplyDeleteThe Society of St Pius X would have to explain the difference between their position and Luther’s statement during the Leipzig Disputation of 1519, which shattered the unity of the Church and undermined its authority, when he said: “Even councils can err!” He thereby called into question the ultimate authority of the Pope and placed condemned heretics, who were rehabilitated as better interpreters of revelation, above the Magisterium.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a serious canonical argument but an exercise in emotional blackmail: either support the SSPX consecrations or choose apostasy and damnation. Canon law plainly states that bishops consecrated without a papal mandate incur excommunication. The real debate is whether a genuine state of necessity can excuse the act, not whether the law exists.
One may criticize Rome, Fernández, liturgical abuses and the post-conciliar crisis without pretending that the SSPX may simply appoint itself judge in its own case. Defending the papacy while ignoring an explicit papal prohibition on episcopal consecrations remains a contradiction that slogans cannot solve.
DeleteSam Freson Are you so desperate to score a point that you must distort arguments and deny plainly evident facts?
Can you not see that your case rests upon false premises, unsupported assumptions, and erroneous conclusions? That they attempt to create the appearance of defending Catholic orthodoxy, yet, in reality, serving as a rationalization for apostasy, betrayal of the faith, heresy, and schism?
What masquerades as fidelity to the Pope is, in fact, an attempt to justify deviations from Catholic doctrine cloaked as obedience.
Faithful Catholics recognize such reasoning for what it is: internally contradictory, logically unsound, and intellectually dishonest. No amount of sophistry can transform a prudential disagreement into a denial of Catholic doctrine. Nor can blind, uncritical submission be turned into authentic fidelity to the Papacy. The two are fundamentally different and always will be.
The Catholic virtue of obedience is ordered to truth, not divorced from it. It is neither blind, absolute, nor unlimited. Yet you have embraced a counterfeit notion of obedience—one that irrationally demands submission even when truth itself is obscured or undermined. In doing so, you have adopted Modernist errors under the pretense of defending the Church.
Such obedience is not Catholic because it is not at the service of truth. Rather, it is at the service of the Modernists who, regrettably, currently in control of the Vatican. Wake up and return to the true Catholic faith.
DeleteMichelle Rios You have not answered the actual question. Nobody claimed that obedience is blind, absolute or unlimited. The question is whether this specific prohibition obliges anyone to commit sin or deny the Catholic faith. It plainly does not.
A prohibition on consecrating bishops without a papal mandate is not Modernism. It is a legitimate exercise of papal governance in a matter directly affecting the hierarchical unity of the Church.
The SSPX may sincerely believe that a state of necessity exists. But it cannot simply appoint itself judge in its own case, declare Rome’s judgment irrelevant, and then accuse every Catholic who questions that conclusion of apostasy. That is circular reasoning, not a canonical argument.
DeleteMichelle Rios That screenshot [which the software can't post here - ed] answers a loaded question, not the issue under discussion.
Nobody claimed that merely believing in good conscience that a state of necessity exists is automatically heresy, apostasy or schism. The question is whether a private judgment of necessity gives the SSPX the right to consecrate bishops against an explicit papal prohibition.
Canon law clearly states that both the consecrating bishop and the bishop-elect incur excommunication when an episcopal consecration takes place without a papal mandate. Possible exceptions concerning necessity may affect culpability or the penalty incurred, but they do not mean that any group may simply declare itself exempt from papal authority.
The real question remains unanswered: who decides that the alleged state of necessity objectively exists; the Church, or the SSPX acting as judge in its own case?
DeleteSam Freson YES! The answer to your question is YES.
It is official teaching of the Catholic Church that a good-faith judgment of necessity excuses a Catholic from canonical penalties for acting without ordinarily required ecclesiastical approval, including in sacramental ministry and episcopal consecrations.
Canon law does NOT grant anyone the right to attack, defame, or bully the SSPX for holding in good conscience that a state of necessity justifies episcopal consecrations without ordinary canonical approval.
To attack, defame or bully the SSPX undermines the Church’s unity these bullies claim to defend. Legitimate disagreement over the existence of a necessity should be addressed through reasoned canonical and theological argument, not unchristian attacks, defamation, or vilification.
Long live the Catholic Papacy and the SSPX!
DeleteMichelle Rios You are correct on one point: canon law does recognize that a person who, without personal fault, erroneously believes that a state of necessity exists may be excused from canonical penalties. Even a culpable error may prevent the incurring of a latae sententiae penalty.
But that does not settle the dispute. A claim of good faith is not self-validating, nor does it automatically make the act lawful. Canon law still explicitly forbids episcopal consecrations without a papal mandate and attaches a grave penalty to them. The question remains whether the alleged necessity is objectively credible and whether the error, if any, is genuinely without personal fault.
Reasoned disagreement with the SSPX is not bullying or defamation. It is precisely the canonical and theological discussion you say should take place.
DeleteSam Freson 'they do not mean that any group may simply declare itself exempt from papal authority'.
You got that exactly wrong. As the post states the position of the SSPX is, and always has been, the defence of papal authority,
DeleteSam Freson I recommend you click on the link and read the post.
Sam Freson and look up the meaning of 'blackmail'.
DeleteYou can’t claim the SSPX's position is ‘the defence of papal authority’ while they are simultaneously rejecting the Pope’s authority in the one area the Church has always treated as non‑negotiable: episcopal consecrations. That’s not defending the papacy. That is redefining it.
DeleteSam Freson is absolutely correct. The SSPX cannot appoint itself judge of its own case and declare Rome's judgment irrelevant etc. The SSPX wants a bob each way. They want to be attached to the Church while making their own rules and deciding which teachings of the Catholic Church they will submit to.
ReplyDeleteJanet Curran sadly, Cardinal Burke personally distributes Holy Communion in the hand. He's Novus Ordo.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteJulia du Fresne So what, Julia. He's still the highest canonist in the Church. From what I've heard you have received Communion in the hand yourself. I have found that those who attend the SSPX have been lay ministers of the Eucharist, been part of the Charismatic movement so I think that people who attend the SSPX are those who are easily swayed - unlike the rest of us who have never had communion in the hand, been lay ministers of the Eucharist or received Communion from lay people. Plus, they are not properly catechised. One told me she thought it was great that Our Lord had seen the pyramids - totally forgetting that He is God and knows all things. She also thought Our Lady gave birth like every other woman - totally forgetting that Our Lady was a virgin before and after the birth of Our Lord. For goodness sake - it seems attending the TLM is all they care about. They have no clue about the Faith whatsoever.
Janet Curran +Burke is no longer the highest canonist in the Church. He was Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura until 2014, and of the DDF until he was replaced by +'Tucho' Fernandez (which doesn't say much for the theology required of a Prefect of the DDF in the post-conciliar counterfeit of the Church.
ReplyDeleteI'll remind you of the perils of parish pump gossip: I don't know who the gossipers are who say I have received Communion in the hand, but they must have known me for a very long time. It's probably 30 years since I last received Communion in the hand.
And I don't know how you can make such sweeping assertions as 'it seems attending the TLM is all they care about. They have no clue about the Faith whatsoever.'
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX and the Catholic Esquire (the man in the hat) can state as much as they like that the SSPX are not undertaking a schismatic act, but the fact is the Church, which is the only arbiter in these matters says they are. On top of that the vast majority of canon lawyers, including Cardinal Burke (formerly the top canonist in the Church) says the SSPX is schismatic. So if they go ahead with the consecrations the SSPX will incur automatic excommunication under canon law. Imagine if every bishop in the world claimed the SSPX's necessity argument and ordained whomever they wanted to.
The SSPX made another major mistake in 1988 when they consecrated Williamson and then excommunicated him. The majority of Catholics accept the magisterium of the Church. The SSPX plainly don't and haven't since way before 1988 when Leferbvre set up his own marriage tribunal. The SSPX do not recognise the canonisations of St John Paul II The Great and many other recent saints, even though canonisation is considered an infallible and definitive act of the Church. If those two things are not evidence of the SSPX creating a parallel church I don't know what is.
The SSPX has a choice to make. They can either submit to the magisterium of the Church or continue to go their own way, in which case they will be excommunicated. Then people like the Catholic Esquire and others have a choice to make as to whether they continue to attend the chapels of an excommunicated group who are outside the Church, similar to the orthodox who do not submit to the authority of the Pope.
Also, the way this blog is put together, I wonder why the SSPX want to remain inside the Church. My opinion is that it is merely to keep as many people attending their chapels as they can. That is the sole reason. Most people will not attend an excommunicated sect and they realise this. It also remains to be seen how many SSPX priests will again leave the SSPX as Bishop Fellay has stated will happen. Plus I have heard that there are SSPX priests who are not happy with the current superior, Pagliarani, and the way he is leading the SSPX.
DeleteJanet Curran
1) the Church does not say the SSPX is schismatic. The post-conciliar counterfeit Ape of the Church says they are, through its mouthpiece +'Tucho' Fernandez - whose succession to Cardinal Burke's position at the DDF puts that office and its representatives in a very poor light.
2) the SSPX did not excommunicate +Williamson.
3) the majority of Catholics in the post-conciliar Ape of the Church are in a state of mass apostasy.
4) 'canonisation is considered an infallible and definitive act of the Church.' Yes, an act of the Church, not of the post-conciliar synodal counterfeit Ape of the Church.
5) 'I have heard that there are SSPX priests who are not happy with the current superior, Pagliarani'(sic). It's unwise to give credence to parish pump gossip.
DeleteTo consecrate bishops without papal mandate is schismatic. If you knew your Faith, Julia, you would know that is the case. Canonisations aren’t split between ‘old Church’ and ‘new Church.’ There is only one Church, or there is no Church at all.
The SSPX expelled Williamson for - get this - disobedience to their authority. You can't make these things up. They expect obedience to their authority while disobeying the Pope.
"In August 2012, Williamson administered the sacrament of confirmation to about 100 laypeople at the Benedictine Monastery of the Holy Cross in Nova Friburgo, Brazil. The society’s South American district superior, Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, protested against his action on the SSPX website, saying that it was “a serious act against the virtue of obedience.”
In early October 2012, the leadership of the SSPX gave Williamson a deadline to declare his submission, instead of which he published an “open letter” asking for the resignation of the Superior General. On October 4, 2012, the Society expelled Williamson in a “painful decision” citing the failures “to show respect and obedience deserved by his legitimate superiors.”
So the Anglican who became a Catholic, who joined the SSPX (one of the more traditional Catholic groups) only to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church for agreeing to be consecrated a bishop against the Pope’s will, but who had been re-integrated into the Church again by Pope Benedict in 2009, only to be placed under severe restrictions when his Holocaust views became known, was now expelled from the SSPX for “disobedience.” (A complicated sentence to summarize a complicated life journey.)" https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/bishop-richard-williamson-the-twice-excommunicated-catholic-bishop/
Janet Curran I recommend you read the post.
Delete
DeleteJulia du Fresne I've read bits of it and the fellow with the hat is just another SSPX attendee. He is just someone spouting the old SSPX mantra - same old, same old. They have no authority whatsoever to make a claim of necessity. It is the pope who is the sole arbiter. Not the SSPX and that is why they are schismatic as Cardinal Burke specifically stated. He said that Francis's decision to give the SSPX permission to hear confessions and to officiate at marriages was an anomaly as they hadn't reconciled with the Church. Cardinal Burke is correct.
DeleteJanet Curran if you can't or won't see the necessity - which exists in itself, independently of 'authority' and glaringly obvious, in the post-conciliar Ape of the Church, for anyone with eyes to see - then there's nothing more to be said.
Janet Curran sadly, Cardinal Burke personally distributes Holy Communion in the hand. He's Novus Ordo.
Delete
DeleteJulia du Fresne So what, Julia. He's still the highest canonist in the Church. From what I've heard you have received Communion in the hand yourself. I have found that those who attend the SSPX have been lay ministers of the Eucharist, been part of the Charismatic movement so I think that people who attend the SSPX are those who are easily swayed - unlike the rest of us who have never had communion in the hand, been lay ministers of the Eucharist or received Communion from lay people. Plus, they are not properly catechised. One told me she thought it was great that Our Lord had seen the pyramids - totally forgetting that He is God and knows all things. She also thought Our Lady gave birth like every other woman - totally forgetting that Our Lady was a virgin before and after the birth of Our Lord. For goodness sake - it seems attending the TLM is all they care about. They have no clue about the Faith whatsoever.
DeleteJanet Curran Burke is no longer the highest canonist in the Church. He was Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura until 2014, and of the DDF until he was replaced by +'Tucho' Fernandez (which doesn't say much for the theology required of a Prefect of the DDF in the post-conciliar counterfeit of the Church.
I'll remind you of the perils of parish pump gossip: I don't know who the gossipers are who say I have received Communion in the hand, but they must have known me for a very long time. It's probably 30 years since I last received Communion in the hand.
And I don't know how you can make such sweeping assertions as 'it seems attending the TLM is all they care about. They have no clue about the Faith whatsoever.'
DeleteJulia du Fresne The statement I make is based on what SSPX attendees have stated and they obviously have no clue about the Faith. And you call out people like myself who have stuck always to what they were brought up with - and that was not to touch the Blessed Sacrament or the sacred vessels, and yet you have. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And that is the case of the majority of people I know who attend the Novus Ordo Mass who have never had communion in the hand, been lay ministers or attended the charismatic renewal or renew or any of those modernist things. We have stuck to the Faith we were brought up with - heroically I might add, being called out from the pulpit at St Mary of the Angels as being singular because we knelt for Communion and received on the tongue - unlike many of these professed SSPX attendees who slunk off rather than stand their ground like the rest of us did. In fact many of them will wander off to other churches in the end because they are easily swayed and no doubt having been part of the Charismatic renewal has left them open to that because nobody knows what spirit they are invoking. AB LF should have stayed with the Church and fought from within, like the rest of us. He should have show a bit of gumption. It's much easier to slink off and set up your own church rather than do the hard yards like Cardinal Burke. As it is ABLF has achieved nothing.
DeleteJanet Curran if the SSPXers you talk to 'have no clue about the faith', why do you take their word for anything?
I suggest you compare what Cardinal Burke has achieved with what Archbishop Lefebvre achieved -
SSPX Members
Total: 1,482
• Bishops: 2
• Priests (excluding bishops): 733
• Seminarians (including postulants): 264
• Brothers: 145
• Oblates: 88
• Sisters: 250
Average age of members: 47 years
Deceased members: 99
Number of nationalities: 50
https://fsspx.news/en/news/sspx-statistics-2025-56151
Janet Curran
DeleteWell, I assume when one of those SSPXers says that Our Lady gave birth like a normal woman then any Catholic would know something is awry. Also, AB LF died excommunicated so you need to be praying for his soul. All he has achieved is a group of illicitly ordained priests - a number of those have left over the years. He managed to get himself and four bishops excommunicated. He has handed that legacy on so that the new bishops and existing bishops will all end up excommunicatd, so not much of an achievement. An achievement not much different from Martin Luther, allthough I suppose Luther can claim the whole of protestantism as his legacy. I feel sorry for Bishop Fellay who will be excommunicated for a second time when he has tried unsuccessfully to reconcile with the Church but faced opposition from hardliners.. If I were Bishop Fellay I would leave and reconcile with the Church while I had the time to do so.
DeleteJanet Curran 'when one of those SSPXers says that Our Lady gave birth like a normal woman then any Catholic would know something is awry.'
Yes, one knows that her intelligence is awry. That affliction is not exclusive to SSPX Massgoers!
What Archbishop Lefebvre achieved above all, by his courage and love of the Catholic religion in consecrating his bishops, was to preserve that religion and the Traditional Latin Mass which you, Janet, are so privileged to attend.
Quite the opposite of the achievement of Martin Luther.
ReplyDeleteYou are 100% CORRECT.
THE CONSECRATIONS
IN A NUTSHELL
The dispute surrounding the announced episcopal consecrations by the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is NOT based on contempt for canon law, but rather a disagreement over prudential judgment — specifically, whether a “state of necessity” exists in the Church exempting the consecrations from ordinary canonical approval.
IT'S A PRUDENTIAL DISAGREEMENT, NOT A DOCTRINAL DISOBEDIENCE!
Who but Lucifer would exploit a disagreement over the mere administration of a sacrament to sow animosity, discord, and war among brothers?
DeleteMichelle Rios Why the SSPX cannot claim necessity in 2026
A. There is no shortage of bishops
The Church has thousands of bishops worldwide.
B. The old rite is widely available
• FSSP
• ICKSP
• diocesan TLMs
• personal parishes
• Summorum Pontificum communities
• Eastern Catholic rites
Even with restrictions, access exists.
C. The SSPX has faculties from the Pope
Pope Francis granted:
• valid confessions
• valid marriages
• permission for ordinations (with local bishop’s consent)
A group with papal faculties cannot claim “necessity”.
D. The SSPX’s isolation is self created
Canon law is clear:
self created necessity does not excuse an illicit act.
E. The SSPX has two living bishops
They are not in danger of dying imminently.
There is no emergency.
________________________________________
4. The canonical bottom line
To justify illicit consecrations, the SSPX would need to show:
• the Church has defected
• the Pope is unavailable
• no bishops remain
• no sacraments are accessible
• no lawful ordinations are possible
None of these conditions exist.
Therefore:
The SSPX cannot claim a state of necessity under canon law.
Their consecrations would be illicit and schismatic.
This is not an opinion, it is the consistent judgment of the Holy See.
DeleteJanet Curran
'A. There is no shortage of bishops
The Church has thousands of bishops worldwide.'
Thousands of bishops, that is, whom studies reliably show are about 80% homosexual (i.e. heretics).
'B. The old rite is widely available.'
Tell that to the Marines. Tell that to anyone who has to drive 3 hours to the old rite, and that only on Sundays. It's an insult to Our Eucharistic Lord that the old rite is not freely available worldwide. Its restriction by the post-conciliar synodal counterfeit Ape of the Church is in itself enough to condemn it as a cult.
'D. self created necessity does not excuse an illicit act.'
Please see my response to A. The necessity is created by the counterfeit Ape of the Church which produces wolves in sheep's clothing to guide the flock of Christ.
C. What 'Pope Francis' granted was crumbs from a rich man's table.
'E. The SSPX has two living bishops
They are not in danger of dying imminently.
There is no emergency.'
2 bishops for 600,000 faithful? I'm sorry Janet, but that statement is simply risible.
4.'To justify illicit consecrations ... This is not an opinion, it is the consistent judgment of the Holy See.'
How can 'illicit consecrations' be justified? That oxymoron in itself reveals the quality of 'the consistent judgment' of the 'Holy See' of the conciliar counterfeit Ape of the Church.
DeleteJulia du Fresne Don’t you attend the Novus Ordo?
DeleteGreg Ryan I do attend the NO. My husband is NO. I attend with him on Sundays to support him in his beliefs and on every weekday without him, in order to receive Our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist.
I take my Latin Mass missal and ignore the NO proceedings except for the Consecration and the priest's blessing. I highly recommend this course of action to any Latin Massgoer who like me is unjustly, wickedly, deprived of the Mass of Ages.
ReplyDeleteLeave SSPX in peace ---they teach what has been taught for hundreds of years --- I suggest it's time to focus on the real part of Church abuses that the Germans continue to do without threat of excommunication
ReplyDeleteCome Jesus come
ReplyDeleteNot a joke anymore God will rain down His Judgement someday
ReplyDeleteThe smoke of Satan not only enter the church but it burns the church
ReplyDeleteMany bishops including Martin Luther were cast into hell for their works of division. Pray hard for this no a joke
ReplyDeleteRepent
ReplyDeletePraying without Ceasing for God to guide the Leaders of His Church!!
ReplyDeleteI want my Latin Mass back.
ReplyDeleteJulia du Fresne you got it right
A screenshot from Google stating the synodal Vatican does not encourage excommunication of Protestants and Muslims, only those Catholics preserving the Latin Mass like the SSPX.
ReplyDelete
DeleteFerd Edukasyon The Church excommunicates schismatics. Sorry if you don’t like that…but neither did the heretics and apostates.
Rome decides…NOT YOU.
Julia du Fresne
DeleteGreg Ryan 'The Church excommunicates schismatics.'
Correct. The Church, not its counterfeit.
DeleteGreg Ryan who said I decide?
I just have may stand,
while you may side also to satan.
Poor comprhension sometimes is due to the lack of the gift of Understanding of the Holy Spirit.
The 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit abundant to those embrace the Truth, similar to St.Padre Pio giving his high respect to Archbishop Lefebvre.
No pope nor Bishops in history has the same docomented event the can describe their life.
DeleteFerd Edukasyon Dude, I only understand English. Your posts sound like the unabomber ordering breakfast.
You don’t even know where you got the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit. You’re just like a protestant. using something you stole from the real Church to try to convince people to leave Her. Again, you don’t know anything.
WHERES YOUR VISIBLE ROMAN PONTIFF??? That’s a dogma of the faith you claim to know.
DeleteGreg Ryan poor man. In this digital age ur English seems outdated. You claim you have a dogma, yes you have modernist dogma far from being Catholic. Maybe your a syncretist 🙂
DeleteGreg Ryan Your comments reveal that you are an angry, bitter, mean person. You need help.
DeleteCathy Moddejonge Your comments reveal that you are a giant hypocrite. Julia (the poster), and many others constantly and viciously attack the Roman Pontiff (and the rest of the heirarchy) - lying about him, calling him a pagan, an idolater, a blasphemer, a pervert, and anything else they can slander him with - but I'm "angry", and "mean" for defending the Pope and calling out all you liars.
Get help lady. You sound exactly like the liberal "Catholics" who, as soon as you call out their evil, call you "mean", "bitter" and "angry". I'll wear it like a medal from people like you. I would call out all of you the exact same way I've been doing in this group if our Lord was standing right beside me (maybe a slightly 'nicer' tone). Would you all slander the Holy Father and call him an idolater and a sex pervert with our Lord next to you?
Fred, the Protestants and Moslems are not Catholic so naturally they cannot be excommunicated from the Church they do not belong to. The SSPX are saying they have the right to do what they like. Canon law says no they don't and so the SSPX has a choice to cancel the consecration and remain in the Church or go ahead with the consecration and be automatically excommunicated. The choice is theirs. Many will leave the SSPX of course if they choose to leave the Church.
Delete'The SSPX are saying they have the right to do what they like.'
DeleteYou're making it up. The SSPX make a valid claim to a state of necessity in the Church for the consecration of bishops who will celebrate the sacraments for the salvation of souls, as supported by canon law.
It is Leo and his homoheretical hierarchy who have left the Church.
ReplyDeleteFerd Edukasyon I didn't know Vatican I was "modernist". Who decides what's 'modernist'? You? Maybe you should read a little more Pius X, instead of Julia du Fresne.
ReplyDeleteGreg Ryan Blah blah blah. Almost no one is even reading your tiresome comments. You take yourself way too seriously. No one really cares what you have to say. You, are a joke!! 😆
DeleteCathy Moddejonge Just as I suspected - a giant hypocrite.
You don't read them because you don't want to hear what the Church has to say. You modernists are literally bashing me for giving you dogma and quoting encyclicals and dogmatic constitutions. I'm guessing that's because you don't know what those things are and got your catechesis from Facebook schismatics.
And don't steal 'blah blah blah'...that's my line.
Correct, Greg, they are modernists disguised as traditionals.
DeleteGreg Ryan in charity I must say how rude you are to Ferd Edukasyon, whose first language is probably not English.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteGreg Ryan I don’t read them because it’s a waste of time. And so is exchanging comments with you. So, I’ll give you time to read this, if you respond I will not read that, and then I shall block you. I’ve got more important things to do than spend time with a pathetic, delusional loser. Goodbye.
People like you Cathy are a joke. All supposed to be so traditional and yet you don't have a clue what the Church teaches. I find people like you travel from novelty to novelty and usually have been lay ministers etc. The SSPX is usually your first step to leaving the Church. You don't read encyclicals because you can't understand them and, anyway, you're your own pope making up the rules as you go.
Delete'I find people like you' need to support assertions with evidence, especially such a sweeping assertion as yours.
Delete
ReplyDeleteComments on the Pillar sums up the argument in a nutshell: "Are you certain that the SSPX are wrong? I am certain because Christ gave Peter the power to bind and loose. He neglected to mention Lefebvre when conferring these powers."
All I can say is, it's a shame you read The Pillar.
Delete