Thursday, 25 June 2026

SSPX PROFESSES THE FAITH, ROME SAYS IT'S SCHISM

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger .or X.







fsspx.news/en/news/profes






If 'Pope Leo XIV' and his enforcer, 'Cardinal' Tucho Fernandez excommunicate the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) next week, how will they explain themselves? Because the SSPX has sent them their Profession of Faith and it actually sounds 'more Catholic than the Pope'. As people used to say when describing some uber-radical traditionalist - but no one uses that expression any more. For obvious reasons.


The SSPX Profession of Faith would surely would make any Catholic proud of their religion, privileged by God to be chosen for membership of His Mystical Body, and eager to persuade others less fortunate to come in from the cold of our dechristianised culture. 


Leo, Tucho and their conciliar company cannot possibly deny any of the truths so precisely intoned within its 28 pages. They cannot possibly excommunicate the Society for teaching and preaching the deposit of Catholic faith. The SSPX has written a new syllabus of errors for this postconciliar age in the Church.


Leo, Tucho and Co have painted themselves into a corner. Because even the world they so assiduously woo (except for Donald Trump) will laugh them to scorn for hypocrisy in turning a blind eye to what even that world knows is evil, especially clerical sex abuse. If the SSPX is to be excluded from the Vatican's freakish, postconciliar, synodal substitution for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church it will be - as Leo himself has spelled out - for their wholesale rejection of the Second Vatican Council, its errors and ambiguities. 


Today, for the third time in less than a week, Leo met with Tucho yet again. They're poised on the horns of a dilemma and it seems the leader of the Catholic Church is leaning on a man who writes soft porn to solve the crisis. 


For the hyperpapalists who are having a field day there's no solution but excommunication. The SSPX, they cry, are disobedient! For them - mostly Trad Inc types - what 'the Pope' says, goes. It seemingly matters little to them that if Vatican II and the Novus Ordo are honoured rather than Tradition and the Traditional Latin Mass, millions of souls will be lost by disobedience to the suprema lex of the Church. Strange to say, they do not call for excommunication of the bishops illegally appointed by the Chinese Communist Party. It's the SSPX and their chapels that have them tossing and turning on their pillows. 


St. Robert Bellarmine: “Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or, above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.”


St. Thomas Aquinas: “It is written (Acts 5:29): ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things."


And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." (Lk 22, 31.)



The wheat is now being sifted from the chaff. Pray for Leo. Pray for Tucho. For the extraordinary consistory of cardinals convened in Rome tomorrow, from which the prominent, conservative Cardinals Joseph Zen, Péter Erdő, and Willem Eijk will be missing, "due to health concerns".


[T]he proximity of the [SSPX] consecrations appears to have prompted the Holy See to revise its original agenda. The initial intention was reportedly to return to the two topics that received the least support at the previous meeting, among them the liturgical question.

Since the latter remains one of the obstacles—though not the principal one—in dialogue with the Lefebvrists, the Apostolic Palace preferred to steer clear of it.https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/cardinals-zen-erdo-and-eijk-to-miss

 



 

 



The Society of Saint Pius X sent Leo XIV and the cardinals a profession of Catholic faith on the eve of the consistory and days before the July 1 episcopal consecrations at Écône.

 

The document is devastating because it does not sound like a factional manifesto. It sounds like the Catholic Church.

 

It begins with divine revelation, the supernatural order, the Trinity, original sin, the Incarnation, Redemption, Mary, the Church, the papacy, moral law, the Social Kingship of Christ, the sacraments, the Mass, the last things, and the modern crisis.

 

That is precisely why Rome finds it intolerable.

 

The SSPX does not ask for a liturgical boutique. It does not say, “Please let us have our preferred spirituality.” It says the crisis is doctrinal.

 

It says modernism, indifferentism, liberalism, ecumenism, laicism, situation ethics, false religious liberty, synodalism, and liturgical anthropocentrism have invaded the life of the Church. It says the Faith must be professed whole, not trimmed into phrases suitable for United Nations speeches and interreligious photo ops.

 

That is the offense.

 

The SSPX profession names what Leo XIV and Francis endlessly blur. Christ is the sole Redeemer. Grace is necessary. False religions do not save as false religions. The Church is the one ark of salvation.

 

The Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. Moral disorder cannot be blessed. Pastoral practice cannot contradict doctrine. The Church is hierarchical, not parliamentary. The Magisterium guards the deposit; it does not invent a new religion by calling it development.

 

Rome hears this and reaches for excommunication.

 

That tells Catholics everything.

 

The Catholic Faith Versus the Religion of Dignity


 

The profession’s most powerful section may be its rejection of modern religious humanism.

 

It says human dignity cannot be invoked against the law of God, against conversion, or against submission to revealed truth. That single line cuts through almost every speech Leo XIV has given since his election. Human dignity has become the master key of the postconciliar religion. It opens every door except the door to repentance.

 

Leo speaks of dignity before migrants, dignity before global agencies, dignity before interreligious delegations, dignity before modern political assemblies. Francis did the same with fraternity, accompaniment, mercy, and encounter. The pattern is familiar. Man’s natural worth becomes the center. Sin recedes. Conversion becomes impolite. The Cross becomes a symbol of solidarity more than the altar of propitiation.

 

The SSPX profession restores the order.

 

Man has dignity because God created him and calls him to a supernatural end. Sin wounds that dignity. Grace restores and elevates it. No human being is honored by being left in error, vice, false worship, or rebellion against God. A Church that refuses to call men out of darkness is not respecting their dignity. It is abandoning them.

 

That one contrast exposes the whole Francis-Leo system. They speak as though the Church’s mission is to accompany human dignity wherever it already stands. The SSPX speaks as though the Church’s mission is to bring fallen man to Christ, the sacraments, penance, truth, and eternal life.

 

One is Catholic.

 

The other is the chaplaincy of global liberalism.

 

The SSPX Profession Says What Fiducia Supplicans Tried to Evade

 




 

The SSPX profession says moral acts are good or evil according to their conformity with divine law. It rejects situation ethics and the idea that circumstances can make intrinsically evil acts good.

 

It rejects contraception, abortion, euthanasia, adulterous unions, unions contrary to nature, and every attempt to present public states contrary to divine law as imperfect goods or realities to be blessed.

 

That is Catholic doctrine spoken without the greasy layer of pastoral doubletalk.

 

Now compare that with Francis and Fernández.

 

Fiducia Supplicans told the world that couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples could receive blessings, while insisting that doctrine had not changed. That is the postconciliar trick in its purest form.

 

Keep the official sentence. Change the public sign. Say the union is not being blessed while everyone in the real world sees the couple presented for blessing. Call it pastoral, spontaneous, and non-liturgical. Call it mercy.

 

The SSPX document refuses the game. It says true mercy calls the sinner to conversion. It says pastoral practice that contradicts doctrine is not pastoral. It says charity names evil because the goal is salvation.

 

No wonder Rome wants this document off the table.

 

If the SSPX is right, then the entire Francis-Fernández moral project stands exposed as sacramentalized evasion. If the SSPX is right, the new pastoral paradigm is not mercy, but cowardice.

 

Fernández as Rome’s Messenger Is an Insult

 



 

Leo XIV sent Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández to deal with the SSPX.

That choice alone is almost a parody.

 

The Society presents a profession of faith grounded in Trent, Vatican I, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, the anti-modernist tradition, the Roman Mass, Catholic moral absolutes, and the Kingship of Christ.

 

Rome sends the man associated with Fiducia Supplicans, the great blessing-confusion document of the Francis era. Rome sends the man whose old erotic theological writings became a global embarrassment.

 

Rome sends the prelate whose public reputation among serious Catholics is tied less to doctrinal clarity than to the collapse of moral seriousness at the very office once charged with defending the faith.

 

This is the new Holy Office speaking to tradition.

 

Fernández.

 

That was a message.

 

Rome does not intend to be converted by Tradition. Rome intends to process Tradition through the department that made blessing moral disorder sound pastoral.

 

The SSPX could hardly have received a clearer sign that the problem is not misunderstanding. The problem is identity. The men running the doctrinal apparatus of the postconciliar Church do not want the old Catholic doctrine to judge them. They want their offices to judge the old doctrine.

 

Leo XIV Has Time for Everyone Except Tradition

 


 

Leo XIV’s Rome can meet almost anybody.

Leo met Sarah Mullally, the first female “Archbishop” of Canterbury, and prayed with her. The symbolism was grotesque. A woman occupying a pseudo-episcopal office in a communion born from schism and royal lust receives a Vatican welcome, a private meeting, and ecumenical dignity.

 

Her “archbishopric” is impossible by Catholic doctrine, Anglican orders are null, and female ordination is a theological absurdity. Yet Rome treats the event as an ecumenical milestone.

 

Leo also met Bad Bunny in Madrid. A reggaeton celebrity whose public world is light years from Catholic moral discipline can get a private encounter during a papal trip, because celebrity culture apparently belongs among the “peripheries” to be charmed.

 

The SSPX Superior General gets Fernández, warnings, conditions, and a Vatican II loyalty test.

 

This is the rotten comedy of the age.

Everyone gets dialogue until the old Catholic faith enters the room. Anglicans get prayers. Pop stars get warmth. Interreligious delegations get praise. Migrants get bowed before. Global agencies get speeches on dignity. Progressive Catholic figures get infinite patience. Sexual revolutionaries get “discernment.” The Germans get years of conversation.

 

The SSPX gets told: accept Vatican II, suspend the consecrations, or face consequences.

 

Leo’s “todos, todos, todos” has fine print. Everyone is welcome except the Catholics who remember what Rome taught before the council.

 

Vatican II Is the Real Dogma Now



 

Leo’s remarks about the SSPX named the actual issue. The SSPX refuse certain fundamental elements of the Church, beginning with several points of the Second Vatican Council.

 

There it is.

 

The four new SSPX bishops are not being threatened because they deny the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence, the Mass as sacrifice, the necessity of grace, original sin, hell, purgatory, Marian doctrine, the papacy, or the moral law.

 

The SSPX is being threatened because it refuses Vatican II.

 

That council has become the real creed of the postconciliar institution. It is the gate. It is the oath. It is the identity marker. You may say almost anything in the new church if you wrap it in accompaniment, synodality, dignity, dialogue, and pastoral concern.

 

You may undermine the old moral law slowly. You may turn ecumenism into religious theater. You may praise false worship with trembling reverence. You may reduce mission to humanitarian cooperation.

 

You may not say Vatican II is the problem.

 

The SSPX profession says exactly that. It identifies the modern errors penetrating the Church under the influence of Vatican II and the postconciliar reforms. It says the crisis cannot be reduced to sensibilities, liturgical preferences, or pastoral options. It says the crisis touches the foundations.

 

That is why Rome is angry. The SSPX refuses to play the conservative game of pretending that Vatican II must mean the opposite of what its children keep doing with it.

 

The Society points to the tree and judges it by its fruit.

 

Rome responds by threatening to cut down the men who still know what fruit is.

 

The Excommunication Threat Reveals the Inversion

 




 

The Vatican has warned that the July 1 consecrations would incur excommunication. Reports have also circulated that Rome may go further, branding the entire SSPX structure and possibly its priests and faithful as schismatic.

 

Consider the inversion.

 

A bishop can praise a mosque as sacred.

A cardinal can welcome an LGBT conference and invoke the Holy Spirit over its proceedings.

 

A pope can honor a fake female Anglican “archbishop.”

 

A Vatican doctrine chief can approve blessings that make moral disorder look pastorally ratified.

 

A celebrity culture figure can receive papal attention.

 

German synodal revolutionaries can spend years attacking Catholic doctrine while remaining conversation partners.

 

The SSPX consecrates bishops to preserve the old Mass, Confirmation, priestly ordination, traditional formation, Catholic doctrine, and sacramental life, and Rome prepares the excommunication hammer.

 

This is not discipline in defense of the faith. It is discipline in defense of the revolution.

 

The old Catholic understanding of excommunication was medicinal. It protected the flock from error and called the sinner back to truth. The postconciliar use of excommunication increasingly functions as border enforcement for Vatican II. It's used to tell traditional Catholics that survival outside the conciliar cage will not be tolerated.

 

Rome has no moral credibility for this performance. The men who watched the sanctuary burn, then punished the people carrying water, should not lecture anyone about ecclesial arson.

 

The SSPX Profession Is Stronger Than the Men Judging It


 


 

The most humiliating fact for Leo’s Rome is that the SSPX document is stronger, clearer, more Catholic, and more coherent than the ordinary public teaching coming out of the Vatican.

 

Read the profession on the Mass. It says the traditional Roman Mass expresses with incomparable clarity the doctrine of sacrifice, priesthood, and the Real Presence. It says the new reforms obscured the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass, fostered a democratic conception of worship, and brought Catholic liturgical expression closer to Protestant conceptions.

 

Every honest Catholic knows this is true.

 

Read the SSPX profession on synodality. It rejects turning the hierarchical Church into a consultative, parliamentary, or democratic structure subject to world pressure. Every Catholic watching the synodal machine knows this is exactly what has happened.

 

Read the profession on moral law. It rejects the dissociation between doctrine and pastoral practice. Every Catholic watching Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans knows this is the fracture point.

 

Read the profession on false ecumenism. It rejects endless dialogue with false religions and unbelievers as a replacement for magisterial teaching. Every Catholic watching the interreligious circus knows this is the new religion’s public face.

 

The document is not embarrassing. The Vatican response is embarrassing.

 

A Catholic profession of faith has been placed before Rome, and Rome’s answer is essentially: suspend your bishops and accept the council that created the crisis.

 

That is not Peter confirming the brethren.

 

It is a bureaucracy protecting its founding myth.

 

The Real Question

 


 

The SSPX says Tradition contains the remedies for the Church’s deepest ills.

 

Leo XIV says Vatican II is non-negotiable.

 

Those two claims cannot be reconciled by another study group.

 

If Tradition is the rule, Vatican II must be judged by what came before it. If Vatican II is the rule, Tradition must be reinterpreted, trimmed, apologized for, and managed until it fits the new order.

 

That is the whole war.

 

The SSPX profession has forced the issue with unusual clarity. It does not ask Leo to be nicer or for a better liturgical compromise. It does not ask to be one approved flavor inside a pluralistic conciliar menu.

 

It says the faith is one, the Church is one, the truth is immutable, the Mass is sacrificial, Christ is King, false religions do not save, moral disorder cannot be blessed, and the Holy Ghost does not inspire today what He condemned yesterday.

 

Leo’s Rome can either accept that as Catholic or condemn it as schismatic.

 

If it condemns it, Catholics should pay attention. The condemnation would say less about the SSPX than about the men issuing it.

 

Apostate systems always reveal themselves by what they cannot tolerate.

 

This one can tolerate almost anything except the old Catholic faith spoken without apology.https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/the-sspx-professes-the-catholic-faith


 

St John the Baptist
Leonardo da Vinci





St John the Baptist, pray for the Church  

80 comments:


  1. All is predicted in our Holy Bible and the message from Fatima the down fall of the faith starts at the top in the Vatican.

    ReplyDelete

  2. In the light of points 73, 74 and 75 of their profession of faith, the only possible course of action for the SSPX is to cancel the illicit episcopal consecrations. If they don’t, they have some explaining to do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jerry DeMelo Jr25 June 2026 at 22:43


    SSPX is no different than the Orthodox eastern churches except worse. At least the Orthodox churches made a clean break and do not claim to be united with Rome. The falsity of SSPX is that they want to remain united to Rome, but apart from what Rome has decided over the last 70 years. So they are in Schism and persistently, so excommunication is the warning that their souls are in jeopardy for violating how Christ established His church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Jerry DeMelo Jr did you read the quotes from St Robert Bellarmine and St Thomas Aquinas?
      "[A]s it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or, above all, tries to destroy the Church" (St Robert Bellarmine).
      Do you really believe Christ established His Church to be managed by heretics like Leo and Tucho?

      Delete
  4. Quinciano Ataviado25 June 2026 at 22:43


    But they should obey the Pope..... A sergeant may be very brainy and may know a lot more than the general...... But he should obey the general.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Quinciano Ataviado in the Church Militant, in the war for the faith and the salvation of souls, it is Jesus Christ our King Who is the General to be obeyed.

      Delete
  5. Craig Campbell25 June 2026 at 22:56


    The reason no one uses the phrase "more Catholic than the Pope" is because many Protestants, some Muslims and even some Buddhists are more Catholic than the last 5 or 6 Popes. This is what happens when you let Jews and Freemasons infiltrate and take over your seminaries and hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gladys H. Mariani25 June 2026 at 22:57

    Gladys H. Mariani
    Craig Campbell, anyone who thinks that Muslims and Buddhists are in ANYWAY, “more Catholic than the pope” is OBVIOUSLY, NOT CATHOLIC.
    By your comment, I see you are a Jew hater, which further proves your NON CATHOLIC status.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Craig Campbell25 June 2026 at 22:58


      Gladys H. Mariani while my comment was a bit hyperbolic, I was making a valid point about the state of the Church. The comments regarding Muslims and Buddhists was not an endorsement of their religions, it was an observation that individuals within those religions understand and practice God's laws better than do many in the Catholic heirarchy. The anathema's against Modernism issued by Pius X and reinforced by Leo XIII have all been disobeyed and ignored. The infiltration of the seminaries by Communists and Freemasons has been repeatedly documented. And anyone who studies Communism or Freemasonry knows that they were created by Jews. The Freemasons used kabbalism in their Demonic rituals and the Jewish involvement in and leadership of Marxist movements is very well documented (within Jewish sources).

      Delete
    2. Gladys H. Mariani25 June 2026 at 22:59


      Craig Campbell, what in the world do you mean by “individuals within those religions understand and practice God’s laws better than do many in the Catholic hierarchy”? That is an absurd statement for any Catholic to make.
      Buddhists do not even believe in a god! Muslims do not believe in the true God, which is a TRIUNE God. For Muslims Jesus is just a “prophet”, which is a judgment only a low IQ person would make as Jesus stated He was the Son of God and if one knew Him, one knew The Father. Therefore, there are only TWO options: Jesus is Who He claimed to be or He was an impostor.
      In short, it is factually impossible for ANYONE who rejects the Triune God “to understand and practice God’s laws better than” anyone else. Either God is the true God we profess to have three Persons, One of Whom FOUNDED The Universal Church OR HE IS NOT. And if He is, people who choose to believe in other gods CANNOT be understanding and practicing His laws!
      The ANCIENT heresy of Modernism (which is a synthesis of all ancient heresies) has been with us forever and a day. The Universal Church has been fighting all the heresies contained within the Modernism one practically from Her inception. So, the SSPX should stop their adolescent acting out as if they have uniquely discovered America! SSPX has not discovered heresy within The Church! That is old news, buddy!
      As for the Jews, you generalize your hatred of them based on the extremely weak argument that Jews invented communism. It is very ignorant, not to mention unjust, to blame ALL JEWS because one or some invented something bad.
      IT SO HAPPENS that Jews also gave us Catholicism!
      GOD CHOSE TO BE BORN AS A JEW. Our first SAINTS were Jews: Our Blessed Mother Mary and Father Joseph; our Blessed Mother’s parents, St Joachim and Saint Ann, were Jews; John the Baptist and all the Apostles were Jews. Although it is true that once a number of Jews rejected God by rejecting Christ, very many Jews accepted Christ as the Second Person of The Most Holy Trinity. In fact, SO MANY JEWS ACCEPTED THE TRUE GOD, that the FIRST CHRISTIAN CATHOLICS WERE JEWS.
      So STOP with that immature, ignorant, disgusting take on ALL JEWS.
      Jews are like everyone else! There are good Jews and bad Jews as there are bad Americans and good ones….

      Delete
    3. Craig Campbell25 June 2026 at 23:02


      Gladys H. Mariani Ok, so you are clearly either a retard and a bad faith actor. I never said ALL jews were Communists. Also, using the Jesus was a Jew argument is stupid. I was not making a biological argumant but a religious and cultural one. No, Jesus was not a Jew in the modern sense. The Religion that Jesus was born into was destroyed in 70 AD. That religion and culture do not and cannot exist anymore. I am not making a biological argument as that is anti-Catholic (it is the technical definition of antisemitism traditionally used by the Church).
      But, yes, Talmudic Jews are responsible for Communism and Freemasonry (also Capitalism), they freely admit this in multiple places and over many years. And again, my comment about Muslims or Buddhists are NOT referring to their particular religious beliefs, I am referring to the law of God written on the hearts of every man. My claim is that some of them behave more morally and in accordance with the created order than many of our Modernist clergy (who embrace homosexuality, divorce, remarriage, feminism, and other perversions).
      Also, Buddhists are not necessarily Athiests. Buddhism is fundamentally a philosophy, similar to Confucianism or Stoicism. Many Buddhists belive in one God, some believe in multiple gods and some are pantheists (it depends on which culture they were influenced by). There is even a Japanese version of Buddhism that somewhat resembles certain forms of Protestantism.

      Delete

  7. This is also what every so-called Reformer said as well. You’re in good company!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin Weaver do you mean that every Reformer professed the faith of the Society of St Pius X?

      Delete
  8. Marek Kuczyński25 June 2026 at 23:30


    I think we ought to speak of the Pope with more respect, even if we don't agree with him on some issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marek Kuczyński I quite agree; one should speak of the Pope with the utmost respect, as the Vicar of Christ on earth. But Leo, I believe, is manifestly not the Pope. He can't be - the Pope must be Catholic.

      Delete
  9. Gladys H. Mariani25 June 2026 at 23:32




    The SSPX can send all it wants.
    Yet, the elephant in the closet is still very much alive and kicking!
    Lefebvre DISOBEYED. HE DID EXACTLY WHAT LUTHER DID!
    Luther also believed that The Church was compromised by the judases in Her. Therefore, despite given chances, HE CHOSE TO SPLIT; in his arrogance; in his belief that he could DO BETTER than Jesus, he thought he could SPLIT LICITLY. He forgot that Jesus is ESPOUSED to His Bride, not to a little group of splitters who think they know better.
    BOTH Lefebvre and Luther FORGOT a BASIC Christian teaching: The Church Christ founded ON THE ROCK OF PETER, is NOT sustained by men, but by HER INVISIBLE HEAD: GOD HIMSELF.
    The judases in Her cause great harm, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE LAST WORD!
    The difference between the Levebvres and the Luthers of this world and the very many SAINTS that fought the judases in The Church throughot millennia is that the splitters believe they can “FIX THE CHURCH” ON THEIR OWN and outside of HER.
    The SAINTS show us differently. They fight within Her by prayer, by penance, by reparation, by many means BUT WITHIN HER because GOD IS IN HER…not in any splinter group!!!
    The SSPX does not fool me for a second! Its splitting action speaks louder than its words.
    And, by the way, I am not a VAT2 daughter…. As far as I can see, that “pastoral” Council was as pastoral as the ayatollahs are.
    Pope Paulus VI was actually circumspect when he stated that smoke from hell had entered The Church via it. My description would be more along the lines that a million tons of sulphur were blasted on us through it.
    May God help us and lift this awful chastisement that we so deserve, but hope will be lifted soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Gladys H. Mariani Well said. I agree with 90% of what you said, which on this page is much more than I normally agree with 😂

      Delete
    2. Gladys H. Mariani but +Lefebvre did not choose 'to split' He chose to remain in the Church to defend her and preserve her dogma and priesthood, within the Church. The SSPX are and always were "in communion" with the Church, albeit "irregular".' the principal issue with Martin Luther, as with all heretics, is the substitution of private judgment for the Magisterium on mysteries of faith. Luther denied the papacy, many of the sacraments, the need for good works, etc. All of these truths of faith are matters of infallible Magisterial teaching.
      The principal issue with the SSPX is fundamentally different. With the Society, the issue is obedience and the allegation of schism, not heresy. They do not deny any infallibly-defined truth of faith. They don’t, like Luther and other heretics, substitute their private judgment for Magisterial teaching.
      Their bishops do materially disobey the pope when consecrating new bishops Whether that amounts to formal (and culpable) disobedience is a matter of genuine good-faith debate.
      So one of the essential questions to resolve, theologically and canonically, is whether or not that material disobedience is permissible (something all law - divine, natural, and human - has always recognized): for example, speeding in a 25 mph zone to get someone to the hospital before they bleed to death.
      Honest and good theologians and canonists on all sides of this issue recognize that this is not a simple matter. It really isn’t like Lutheranism or Protestantism at all. And unlike in matters of defined dogmas, the Church is not infallible in her juridical decisions (see, e.g., St. Joan of Arc).
      You might also ask yourself what we did to deserve 'this awful chastisement'. The hierarchy promulgated heresy and the laity, on the whole, passively accepted it.

      Delete
    3. Gladys H. Mariani26 June 2026 at 01:53


      Julia du Fresne, NO, he did not. Cardinal Ottaviani, a true faithful shepherd, suffered much during VAT2. The humiliations he went thru are disgusting. Yet, unlike Lefebvre, he remained in obedience and fought heresy, apostasy, corruption and all kinds of diabolical things within The Church FIERCELY without doing ordinations on his own. Cardinal Ottaviani CHOSE to fight against corruption in The Church God founded like many of our Saints did.
      Do not try to separate Luther and Lefebvre. When Luther began his new career as an apostate, he ALSO DEFENDED practically all those truths you mention, dear.
      However, when you become disobedient and excuse your disobedience as an act of faithfulness to God and His teachings, things go south on the way to the forum. And things for Luther started to go down south not too long after creating his splinter group.
      He ended up rejecting those truths he faked to defend at the beginning and, like all who DO CHOOSE to do their will, ended up by creating a new religion he called the reformed Christianity. And that is going to be the exact end of all groups that separate from The Church. They will end up creating what they claimed to be fighting against: a false church.
      You may hoodwink not well catechized Catholics with your devious, but actually flimsy arguments….but not Catholics who know their Faith well. Vade Retro, Satanas!

      Delete
    4. Gladys H. Mariani I suggest you compare the fruits of +Ottaviani (who was everything you say) with the fruits of +Lefebvre.
      +Lefebvre did not separate from the Church and neither do I.

      Delete
  10. Cheryl Hoerig Schalk26 June 2026 at 00:52

    100%.

    ReplyDelete

  11. SSPX seeks schism and division on the sin of pride. I pray they will see the light and follow Jesus the Lord of all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Martin Blythe I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. The SSPX seeks to preserve the Catholic faith and the priesthood. Please re-read the post's quotes from St Robert Bellarmine and St Thomas Aquinas.

      Delete

  12. Well-said. The SSPX is not interested in today, tomorrow or next week. They are thinking way ahead into the next century and millennia. Fast forward, students of Our Faith will ask, “In July of 2026, when the heresy of Modernism poisons the Church, what did you do?” We will be dead by then, but we can still answer that question NOW—what did YOU do? Pray for the SSPX.

    ReplyDelete

  13. The gates of hell shall never prevail against the Holy Mother Church 🙏

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pelukis Potret Portrait Painting26 June 2026 at 00:58


    Uche Onwuka
    Yes.
    That is why any schismatic will come and go, but The Church with Peter's successor will always prevail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Pelukis Potret Portrait Painting you're denying the existence of some 13 or so antipopes in the history of the Church.

      Delete
  15. Anna Lemberger26 June 2026 at 01:01


    Remove Leo and Tucho

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pelukis Potret Portrait Painting26 June 2026 at 01:02


      Anna Lemberger
      With this words, you can consider yourself excommunicated by rejecting the Valid Pope.

      Delete

    2. Pelukis Potret Portrait Painting did all the faithful Catholics who rejected previous antipopes consider themselves excommunicated?

      Delete
  16. Marie Theresa MacDonald26 June 2026 at 01:04


    BRAVO 👏 Your Excellency 🙏

    ReplyDelete

  17. It does not matter what the SsPX accept. It is what theybdo not accept which is the ptoblem

    ReplyDelete

  18. Claire Riche you can say that again. The problem is Vatican II, which the SSPX does not accept.

    ReplyDelete
  19. David L Alexander26 June 2026 at 01:07


    The Vatican will not excommunicate the SSPX. They excommunicate themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. David L Alexander it would be more rational to say the Vatican cannot excommunicate the SSPX because it has already surely excommunicated itself.

      Delete
  20. Connie David-Quesea26 June 2026 at 01:13


    The Pope is the successor of St.Peter whether we like it or not

    ReplyDelete
  21. Connie David-Quesea you do realise that there have been many antipopes before now? Were they 'successors of St Peter'?

    ReplyDelete

  22. I think you're conflating legitimate resistance with rejecting the practical authority of the Roman Pontiff. Catholics have always recognized that a pope can make poor prudential decisions, and saints like St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Thomas Aquinas acknowledge that obedience is not absolute when something contrary to God's law is commanded. But neither saint teaches that Catholics become the final judge of the Pope's authority whenever they believe he is wrong.
    Your post begins by asking whether the SSPX could be excommunicated, but it ends by describing the Church under Pope Leo as a "substitution" for the true Church. That is a much stronger claim than simply resisting a prudential decision. If we only submit to the Pope when we agree with his judgments, then our own private judgment—not the office of Peter—has become the highest authority.
    As Catholics, we should preserve Sacred Tradition while remaining in communion with the successor of St. Peter. Those principles are meant to be held together, not set against one another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Adam Warnecke I entirely agree with your last paragraph.
      I am not the final judge of the Pope's authority. I believe Leo is wrong. I would always submit to the Pope but I don't believe Leo is the Pope.

      Delete
  23. Marilyn Snedden26 June 2026 at 01:25


    Amen . So true.

    ReplyDelete

  24. We are at the crossroads of the Church's passion. As Our Lady of Fatima warned that we should hold fast to tradition and not cave into the ecumenism of the freemasons. Christ has taken His throne, and in 2030 it will be 2000 years since Pilate asked, "What is truth?" As the Zionist prepare their ground to reconstruct the Third Temple, the truth will seek each of us out.

    ReplyDelete

  25. Fernandez and Leo are truly followers of satan not Christ
    GOD BLESS SSPX THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pelukis Potret Portrait Painting26 June 2026 at 01:34


      Joe Morici
      I pity your weak soul that can be deceived so easy by the devil.

      Delete
    2. Tracy Froehlich Patrowicz26 June 2026 at 01:35


      Pelukis Potret Portrait Painting you are a troll. You do not belong here, in this group. If you’re not an actual bot, you are being paid to be obtuse and ignorant. You are here to plant seeds of evil.
      Get lost. 😡

      Delete
  26. Amanda DeLassus26 June 2026 at 01:35


    St. Thomas More, pray for us.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Amanda DeLassus26 June 2026 at 01:35


    St. Thomas More, pray for us.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Paul Josef
    So misguided…this Bishop’s only interest is to be a loud noisy gong clanging in the wind. He is at best lying to himself about his faithfulness to Catholicism…his claim to have maintained his promises as a Bishop is at the core of his hypocrisy. He serves only a divisive spirit in my opinion…not the Savior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies


    1. Paul Josef this saintly, quietly spoken, courageous bishop 'a loud noisy gong clanging in the wind'???
      I wonder how and why you can describe him thus.

      Delete

  29. IMPEACH COMRADE LEO AND FERNANDEZ A D ALL THOSE GAYS. AND MASONS

    ReplyDelete

  30. 🙏🙏🙏

    ReplyDelete
  31. Joseph Incorvaja26 June 2026 at 16:03


    “Rome (the Vatican and the Pope) will lose the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist!” Our Lady of La Salette, 19th September 1846.

    ReplyDelete

  32. Keep the TLM Can't see any problems why not

    ReplyDelete

  33. I just don't get what the problem is having the choice of a Latin mass or English and I will always take holy communion on my tongue who am I harming

    ReplyDelete

  34. Understand in the church today, there are those in the seats of power who minimize the sin of homosexuality and rally behind/support the flag of Sodomites. The AbomiNation. While they denounce and threaten those who stand for the Kingship of Christ. Interesting times. They have given a name to the Ape of the church: The New Synodal church. It is no longer Roman Catholic. "The apostasy will begin at the top".
    "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the AntiChrist". Though some would argue personal revelation, it makes perfect sense to me and I'll take the repeated advice of the Mother of Christ any day over the hypocrites here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Ed Smith Source that quote. Then let us know if the deposit of faith comes through private revelation. Church teaching only please. No one needs your personal erroneous opinion.

      Delete
    2. Greg Ryan, approved by the Church, this apparition warned:
      “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist... The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.”
      — Our Lady of La Salette (1846)
      This prophecy distinguishes between the physical city of Rome and the true Church, indicating that the visible structures could be overtaken by false shepherds, while the true Church would be eclipsed — still present, but hidden.
      St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226)
      Before his death, he reportedly said:
      “There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause great confusion... There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people... At that time, the true faithful will find themselves reduced to a small number and tried by great tribulations.”
      — St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226)
      This precisely describes our time, where an antipope (a false claimant to the papacy) leads the Church into error and confusion, while a faithful remnant clings to tradition.
      Cardinal Henry Edward Manning (1808–1892)
      In a series of lectures, he taught:
      “The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ, and its destruction by the Antichrist, may be thought very near.”
      — Cardinal Henry Edward Manning (1808–1892)
      Manning believed that a false church could rise within the external structures of the Catholic Church, as foretold by many saints.
      Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser (17th century)
      He predicted:
      “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members... will become perverted.”
      — Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser (17th century)
      He spoke of a future age of apostasy followed by a great renewal. We appear to be in that dark pre-renewal phase.
      .https://www.truecatholicfaith.com/.../are-there...

      Delete
    3. Greg Ryan, more quotes for you:
      Freemasonry, the Alta Vendita, and Subversion from Within
      The document known as the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita — a Masonic plan from the 19th century — outlined a long-term strategy to infiltrate the Church:
      “What we must ask for, what we should look for and wait for, as the Jews wait for the Messiah, is a Pope according to our needs... With that, we shall march faster towards the conquest of the world.”
      — Alta Vendita
      Pope Pius IX ordered this document to be published, warning the faithful of the Masonic threat. Many believe this plan was fulfilled with John XXIII and Paul VI, who began the aggiornamento ("opening to the world") that defined Vatican II.
      Modern investigations (e.g., by Fr. Luigi Villa and Bishop Rudolf Graber) have shown that many post-conciliar figures had Masonic ties or sympathy with Modernist ideologies. This has lent credence to claims that the Church was infiltrated, not destroyed — and that the visible institution has been overtaken, not replaced.
      4. CIA, Siri Thesis, and the 1958 Conclave
      There is growing historical and anecdotal evidence that Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was elected pope in the 1958 conclave, taking the name Gregory XVII, but was pressured (possibly by external threats) into refusing the office. Though this remains speculative, FBI and CIA declassified documents confirm surveillance of Vatican politics and foreign involvement.
      Whether or not the Siri Thesis is accurate, it underscores the serious suspicion that the Church’s leadership may have been compromised or manipulated at the highest levels.
      Symbolism: Novus Ordo Missae and Novus Ordo Seclorum
      The term Novus Ordo Missae ("New Order of the Mass"), instituted in 1969, shares linguistic similarity with the Masonic motto Novus Ordo Seclorum ("New Order of the Ages") found on the US dollar bill. This is no accident. The new liturgy reflected a shift from God-centered worship to man-centered celebration, aligning with the secular humanism of the New World Order — a system rejecting Christ’s kingship.
      The aim of this liturgical revolution was to create a religion more acceptable to modern man — ecumenical, indifferentist, and tolerant of all beliefs. It was not a continuation of Catholicism, but a rupture.
      Conclusion: A Counterfeit Church Foretold
      Yes — the current ecclesiastical crisis was foretold. Scripture, tradition, saints, and even the enemies of the Church predicted a time when the Church would be eclipsed by a counterfeit version.
      But as Our Lord promised:
      “The gates of hell shall not prevail.”
      — Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:18
      The true Church remains — in the faithful remnant who keep the traditional Catholic faith, attend valid Masses, and reject the imposters and their false religion..https://www.truecatholicfaith.com/.../are-there...

      Delete
    4. Ed Smith
      Greg Ryan You accuse people of lying a lot. The Popesplainers have a knack for it. Common sense says remove your head from the sand and be aware of what is going on around you. The situation is not black and white as you wish to believe. Lol. You are led by a man being advised by a soft porn and blasphemous Fernandez. Good luck.

      Delete
  35. Francesco Lorenzo26 June 2026 at 16:40


    1983 (CIC) Code of Canon Law 1323 completely exempts individuals from penalties if they are forced by a necessity or circumstance they could not avoid, provided the act is not intrinsically evil or directly harmful to souls. Moreover if a person MISTAKENLY but sincerely believes a true emergency exists—exempts them from automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, provided the action itself isn't intrinsically evil.
    "According to canonical jurisprudence, if a person violates an ecclesiastical law out of necessity—even if it is later proven that no true objective necessity existed—they are generally not subject to penalties."
    The last Canon in 1983 CIC is 1752: Salus animarum suprema lex. (The salvation of souls is the supreme law.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Francesco Lorenzo One could justify anything with that nonsensical approach. No one would ever need the Roman Pontiff.

      Delete

  36. Nope the responsibility lies with the “catholic” society who will consecrate bishops without papal mandate despite warnings. Quit gaslighting yourselves

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. We are all part of a Catholic society. If you are catholic when you wake up in the morning, you dress yourself you dress yourself in a manner that you feel comfortable, but most of all you dress yourself and a tradition of dignity and respect for those who love you but most as Jesus says you see yourself in the mirror but soon as you turn from it, you forget who you are we are not here to save the world. We’re here to save souls first our own souls the soul of our loved ones for in our process of saving souls. It’s like a cluster of grapes before the Lord it takes more than one grape 🍇 to make a glass of wine.🍷

      Delete
  37. Stacey Biondolillo26 June 2026 at 16:49


    Exactly . There is such a thing as abuse of power !
    And there are consequences to that

    ReplyDelete
  38. Gil Illigan, "In the midst of a mid-century Church held in the grip of an unquestioned ultramontanism, Cardinal Karol Wojtyła (John Paul II) defied the papal interdict on such ordinations [of priests in Poland] and proceeded nonetheless. ....he did not raise the matter with “the authorities” because he believed they were in the wrong. ...what he did in Kraków was entirely justified.
    Cardinal Josyf Slipyj (1892–1984), whose cause for canonization has been introduced in Rome, ... one-upped Wojtyła by performing forbidden clandestine episcopal ordinations because of his inner conviction that the good of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) in the Soviet Union required it. ...
    The consecration of bishops without a papal mandate is a very grave canonical crime, for which the penalty is excommunication. Blessed Paul VI—who likely knew, unofficially, what Slipyj had done—did not administer any penalties. A situation existed in which the canon simply did not take effect. This ought to give us pause about the limits of legal positivism.
    When the Church is under attack and her survival is at stake, or when her common good is gravely threatened, flagrant “disobedience” to papal commands or laws can be justified—indeed, not only justified, but right, meritorious, the stuff of sanctity. No one has ever questioned that rules concerning episcopal consecrations are the pope’s right to establish, and that Wojtyła and Slipyj unquestionably and knowingly violated ecclesiastical law. ... we recognize a more fundamental law than that of canonical dictates: salus animarum suprema lex, the salvation of souls is the supreme law. It is for the salvation of souls that the entire structure of ecclesiastical law exists; it has no other purpose than ultimately to protect and advance the sharing of the life of Christ with mankind.
    I can no longer accept the opinion that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was guilty of “wrongful disobedience.” ... When a building is burning down, one tries to put out the fire and rescue victims with any means to hand, rather than waiting until the fire brigade arrives—especially if one knows from bitter experience that the fire chief is absent from his post, or sleeping, or intoxicated, or convinced that fires are beneficial, and most of the firemen are bumbling idiots whose https://onepeterfive.com/clandestine-ordinations-against-church-law-lessons-from-cardinal-wojtyla-and-cardinal-slipyj/methods don’t work, or, worse, are paid by saboteurs to spray gasoline on the fire."
    Beware of the error of ultramontanism (hyperpapalism) which is still rife now in the counterfeit, Vat II Ape of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Herman M. Dias26 June 2026 at 19:14


    ·
    This post conflates legitimate ecclesiastical tensions with speculative grievances and theological claims that require careful parsing.
    **What Is Actually True**
    The SSPX remains in an irregular canonical status. Pope Francis (before his death in April 2025) granted them certain sacramental permissions but never fully restored them to communion. The relationship between Rome and the Society has always centered on their rejection of Vatican II's hermeneutical framework—not on whether they affirm Catholic doctrine in abstract.
    Pope Leo XIV and the current Roman Curia do face a genuine pastoral and theological problem: how to relate to a community that professes Catholic faith but refuses obedience to a legitimate ecumenical council and its implementation. This is not a "corner they've painted themselves into." It is a real disagreement about the nature of Church authority and doctrinal development.
    ---
    **Where the Argument Breaks Down**
    **On Vatican II itself:** The post assumes Vatican II is erroneous without argument. Vatican II was a legitimate ecumenical council convened by a legitimate Pope (John XXIII) and promulgated by a legitimate Pope (Paul VI). The Church's teaching authority does not rest on whether every document satisfies every critic. The council's ambiguities are real and have been exploited—but ambiguity is not error, and critique is not refutation.
    **On obedience and resistance:** The Bellarmine and Aquinas citations are real, but they are being misapplied. Both saints taught that a Catholic may *resist* an unjust command by *not obeying it*—not by claiming the Pope is illegitimate or that a council was null. The SSPX does more than resist; it pronounces Vatican II itself defective and refuses its authority. That crosses from lawful resistance into schismatic rejection.
    **On the "suprema lex":** The phrase *salus animarum suprema lex esto* ("the salvation of souls shall be the supreme law") is real. But determining what actually *saves* souls is precisely the disputed question. The SSPX claims the Traditional Latin Mass is necessary for salvation; Rome claims the Novus Ordo is valid and licit. This is a disagreement about prudential judgment, not an obvious case where Rome is objectively harming souls.
    **On Chinese bishops:** The complaint about bishops appointed by the Chinese Communist Party is fair critique—Rome's China diplomacy has been pastorally catastrophic. But this does not vindicate SSPX's position on Vatican II. Two wrongs do not make a right, and pointing to one failure does not resolve another dispute.
    ---
    **The Real Issue**
    The SSPX's Profession of Faith may be doctrinally sound in what it *affirms*—but the problem is what it *rejects*. It refuses to accept Vatican II's authority. It refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the post-conciliar papacy. It operates its own seminaries, ordains its own priests, and conducts sacramental ministry without papal permission. These are not matters of doctrinal disagreement; they are matters of ecclesiastical *obedience*.
    The Church can tolerate theological dissent (the Dominicans and Jesuits argue fiercely on grace and free will). The Church cannot tolerate organized refusal to accept her own governing authority, which is what the SSPX practices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Herman M Dias (cont)
      , **On Excommunication**
      If excommunication comes, it will come because the SSPX has placed itself outside the communion of the Church through *schismatic* act—not because it professes Catholic doctrine. One can affirm every truth of the Creed and still be in schism by rejecting ecclesiastical unity and papal jurisdiction.
      That is the precise situation the SSPX occupies. Their error is not heresy (false doctrine); it is *contumacy* (obstinate refusal of lawful authority).
      ---
      **The Deeper Problem**
      The post's tone reveals a deeper issue: it treats Pope Leo XIV and Cardinal Fernández as enemies of the faith rather than as successors of the apostles bound by their own obligation to guard the deposit. Whether one agrees with their decisions or not, the move from "I disagree with Rome" to "Rome is destroying the Church" is a move away from Catholic thinking into prophetic self-appointment.
      St. Paul wrote to Timothy: "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they keep watch over your souls as those who must give an account" (Hebrews 13:17). The SSPX's refusal to be ruled by legitimate authority—however justified it feels—places it outside the structure Christ established.
      The wheat and chaff will indeed be sorted. But not by traditionalist correctness. By fidelity to the Church Christ founded.

      Delete

    2. Herman M. Dias 'The Church cannot tolerate organized refusal to accept her own governing authority, which is what the SSPX practices.'
      That's the nub of it. In point of fact it is the postconciliar counterfeit Ape of the Church which cannot tolerate refusal to accept the 'authority' of Vatican II. What 'authority' can be possessed by the successors of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, illegally elected to the papacy while the actual pope, Benedict XIV, was still living?
      What 'authority' can be possessed by Prevost who, simply by declaring the death penalty Inadmissable, is an heretic?
      "We must obey God, not men."

      Delete
    3. Sherry L Ricketson26 June 2026 at 19:19


      Herman M. Dias vatican 2 is heretical.

      Delete
    4. Herman M. Dias26 June 2026 at 19:20


      ·
      Sherry L Ricketson What’s your proof and evidence?
      I guess you haven’t even read it to make that ass-um-ption!

      Delete

  40. Thank you 100% correct the Vatican is acting as a evil 😈 dictator

    ReplyDelete

  41. If the Vatican excommunicates the SSPX but not the German bishops, who “VOTED” for women’s ordination and “homosexual union” blessings, then it will lose all credibility 😳

    ReplyDelete

  42. To my traditional Catholic friends who are troubled by everything happening with the SSPX: perhaps this is a moment to look further back—not only before Vatican II, but before the division between East and West.
    And do not believe everything you have heard about Orthodoxy. Traditional Catholics know better than most how easily a faith can be misunderstood or misrepresented. Research it for yourself. Read the Fathers, attend a Divine Liturgy, and speak with an Orthodox priest.
    Perhaps the answer is not another movement within Rome, but the ancient Catholic faith preserved in the Orthodox Church.
    Come and see. ☦️

    ReplyDelete
  43. Emilio S. De Alban26 June 2026 at 19:25


    LET US BE AS MEEK AS A LAMB. AND LET US NOT PROJECT AS IF A CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN SHOULD BE A “SEASONED TRIUMPHAL NEGOTIATOR”.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Remigius Obinna Njoku26 June 2026 at 19:26


    Thank you for this truth.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Reginald W. Smith26 June 2026 at 19:27


    A couple of comments.
    Firstly (from the O.P.), St. Robert Bellarmine: “Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or, above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.”
    St. Thomas Aquinas: “It is written (Acts 5:29): ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things."
    Secondly, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass developed organically over the ages, beginning with Jesus in the Upper Room. Gradually the Mass became codified and finally Pope Pius V established what we now call the TLM as the only form of Mass that is licit for all time, excepting other rites that had been around for at least 200 years. That was broken by Pope Paul VI when he introduced a "manufactured" Mass. As Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) stated: "the novus ordo Mass is “a banal product of the moment.”"

    ReplyDelete
  46. Czarnodolska Dorota26 June 2026 at 19:28


    Restricting Latin mass is brutal.

    ReplyDelete

  47. If it comes to it... I'm leaving Rome...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Theresa Ellen jist so long as you don't leave the Church.

      Delete