Monday, 27 July 2026

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

 

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



The Catholic Church post-Vatican II



 

















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


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


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



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



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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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





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


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







From Ann Barnhardt:



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

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

LOOK at this bilge:




Review:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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


 


 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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






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

Posted by at

43 comments:

  1. Anonymous27 July 2026 at 11:35

    Coerced into voluntarily signing an oath to Vatican II is no different than being coerced into wearing a mass and having proof of vaccination with a bioweapon. Is attachment to the lesser good of inclusion really worth foregoing the greater good of eternity with God? Coercion against one’s well-formed conscience is a sure sign that such demands are not from God, but rather His adversary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Daria Demkovich27 July 2026 at 15:38


    ·
    Coerced into voluntarily signing an oath to Vatican II is no different than being coerced into wearing a mass and having proof of vaccination with a bioweapon. Is attachment to the lesser good of inclusion really worth foregoing the greater good of eternity with God? Coercion against one’s well-formed conscience is a sure sign that such demands are not from God, but rather His adversary

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cata Brow27 July 2026 at 15:39

    Can I get an Amen in here???

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kevin Petersen ·27 July 2026 at 15:40


    "They have the churches but we have the Faith." Saint Athanasius

    ReplyDelete
  5. Teresina27 July 2026 at 16:14

    You have no worries. Being excommunicated you are operating outside the Church anyway. Throwing your toys out of the cot and regurgitating Ann Barnhardt's bilge won't make the slightest difference to the majority of people who attend the Traditional Latin Mass in unity with the Pope.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Teresina27 July 2026 at 16:39

    The following bitter comment from someone who is slowly waking up to what separation from the Church really means: "—No one was excommunicated from the Holy Catholic Church as a result of the episcopal consecrations in Econe, Switzerland on July 1st. The notion that either the public satan-worshipper and arch-heretic apostate PERVost, or the open pedo groomer and arch-heretic apostate Touchme Fagnandez, have even the slightest shred of genuine authority is completely laughable." No one is laughing. It's sad. However repeating Ann Barnhardt's bilge will not make the slightest bit of difference to those wishing to attend the Traditional Mass in union with the Pope.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Teresina27 July 2026 at 16:44

    Donate to Ann Barnhardt, Lifesite News, Anthony Stine. That's what all this is about. Scoff!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Elizabeth Lane27 July 2026 at 22:32


    Canons 752 and 753 are not new laws. I ask all who consider themselves traditional Catholics to examine what the Church says one’s duty is

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony Lucki27 July 2026 at 22:33


      Elizabeth Lane Our first Obedience is to God.

      Delete
    2. Elizabeth Lane ·27 July 2026 at 22:34


      Jesus told the disciples He who hears you hears me. Jesus established a Church. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and Peter gave it to his successors. What are you being asked to conform to that is sinful?

      Delete
    3. Paula Mari Ramm27 July 2026 at 22:35


      Elizabeth Lane If a Pope (whether validly elected or not) i.e. "Pope" Francis in whose footsteps Pope Leo is following (without correcting the errors of the former) preaches heresy or allows it to be spread, we cannot follow him.
      The 1st Commandment is: "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no false gods before Me!" ... So, what about Pachamama and the pagan rituals that are being allowed in our holy churches and cathedrals? "Pope" Francis said that "All religions are a pathway to God." We know this is not true, and is heresy!
      We must follow the true Deposit of the Faith, Christ's true teachings.
      "If anyone, even an angel from Heaven preaches a different gospel to that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."

      Delete
    4. Elizabeth Lane ·27 July 2026 at 22:37


      So this is the argument of every Protestant Christian.

      Delete
    5. Anthony Lucki27 July 2026 at 22:38


      Elizabeth Lane You would know, being a Modernist Heretic yourself.

      Delete
    6. Elizabeth Lane ·27 July 2026 at 22:38


      Did I attack you? Your lack of charity is evident of your spiritual state.

      Delete
    7. Anthony Lucki27 July 2026 at 22:39


      Elizabeth Lane The Catholic Church teaches that True Charity toward your neighbor is to desire the ultimate good for them, which would be the Salvation of their Immortal Soul. Therefore, to allow them to remain in Error ( Modernist Heresy), without warning them, would be a Sin against Charity. There is nothing Uncharitable about telling someone the Truth, to help them save their Soul, rather than telling them what they want to hear, and losing their Soul.

      Delete
    8. Paula Mari Ramm27 July 2026 at 22:40


      Elizabeth Lane I was baptized into the Catholic Church as a baby in 1955. The Mass was said in Latin here in Australia up until the changes of Vatican II which I went along with until more recent years. As an Irish-descent Catholic, one could hardly call me a Protestant! My ancestors suffered terrible persecution under their rule.

      Delete
    9. James Kimball27 July 2026 at 22:41


      Elizabeth Lane But the Church never stated that Roman Catholics follow a future demonic take down of God's Church into a unrecognizable ape church promoting the new religion of democrat socialist idealolgies is the focus and no longer God!

      Delete
    10. Kevin Petersen ·27 July 2026 at 22:42


      "They have the churches but we have the Faith." Saint Athanasius

      Delete
    11. Janet Curran28 July 2026 at 00:06

      I agree with Elizabeth Lane that Anthony Lucki's comment shows his spiritual state, along with his Facebook profile where he displays rifles with the comment "In God we trust. Guns are just back up". Therefore, if God doesn't do what he wants then I guess he'll use the back up ... typical of these ultra trads who have lost the Faith along with their minds.

      Delete
  9. Elaine Williams27 July 2026 at 22:42


    ·
    Ever since my 60s, I have learned we live in an upside down world: the church, the medical world, the food pyramid, banking system, elections, paying taxes two and three times on the same income, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ree Du27 July 2026 at 22:43


    If we are swearing allegiances to Councils, I choose Trent!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. James Kimball27 July 2026 at 22:46


    I will tell to shove it back to hell! Zero alliegence to the Satanic disordo of Vatiscum ll...!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Janet Curran27 July 2026 at 22:46


    More piffle.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Robert Beaurivage27 July 2026 at 22:48


    I’m quite sure that the eventual plan is to eliminate the Mass of All Time. It may not be overnight, but it’s coming fast. There will be no fence sitting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick Kennedye27 July 2026 at 22:51


      Robert Beaurivage “And the manna ceased after they ate of the corn of the land, neither did the children of Israel use that food any more, but they ate of the corn of the present year of the land of Chanaan.” [Josue (Joshua) 5:12] AVISE LA FIN 🐬⚜️

      Delete
    2. Robert Beaurivage27 July 2026 at 22:52


      Patrick Kennedye very interesting comment. 👏 Could you elaborate?

      Delete
    3. Patrick Kennedye27 July 2026 at 22:53


      Robert Beaurivage I’m pleased you found it edifying; only the Holy Spirit could give you understanding.
      The Eucharist in its current form is but a temporary insult.
      “Forty years in the Desert of Sin” and lacking for water is both literally true but also prophetic of a time when Man lives by the Word of Jesus in between communion with the Eucharist.
      But even the Eucharist is a symbol of a greater reality: if God can Create Himself, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity into a piece of bread and into a chalice of wine, then He can also do it in a Person. And if He does that, is it not also the same as what God did with Adam?
      The Seven Days of the Week Mark Seven Millenia of History before the full reign of the Kingdom of God. Jesus was born in the Year of the World (A.M.) 3997, according to writings by Blessèd Anne Catherine Emmerich.
      It is longstanding (Essene) Jewish Tradition that all of time is 7000 years, and St. Peter tells us: “But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” [2 Peter 3:8]
      Modernists tend to hand-wave this away as mere flowery analogy rather than core precept; but if we take it literally, we see that it matches Jewish Tradition.
      God the Father worked as primary actor for the first two millennia, from Adam to Abraham; God the Son worked as primary actor for the next two millennia, culminating in the Birth of Jesus on the 25th Day of the Ninth Month, just *before* the Winter Solstice, in the late Autumn. 🍂

      Delete
    4. Patrick Kennedye27 July 2026 at 22:54


      Robert Beaurivage I’m pleased you found it edifying; only the Holy Spirit could give you understanding.
      The Eucharist in its current form is but a temporary insult.
      “Forty years in the Desert of Sin” and lacking for water is both literally true but also prophetic of a time when Man lives by the Word of Jesus in between communion with the Eucharist.
      But even the Eucharist is a symbol of a greater reality: if God can Create Himself, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity into a piece of bread and into a chalice of wine, then He can also do it in a Person. And if He does that, is it not also the same as what God did with Adam?
      The Seven Days of the Week Mark Seven Millenia of History before the full reign of the Kingdom of God. Jesus was born in the Year of the World (A.M.) 3997, according to writings by Blessèd Anne Catherine Emmerich.
      It is longstanding (Essene) Jewish Tradition that all of time is 7000 years, and St. Peter tells us: “But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” [2 Peter 3:8]
      Modernists tend to hand-wave this away as mere flowery analogy rather than core precept; but if we take it literally, we see that it matches Jewish Tradition.
      God the Father worked as primary actor for the first two millennia, from Adam to Abraham; God the Son worked as primary actor for the next two millennia, culminating in the Birth of Jesus on the 25th Day of the Ninth Month, just *before* the Winter Solstice, in the late Autumn. 🍂
      The modern anti-Christians, the self-titled “Jews,” use the Hillel Calendar (optional native calendar on an iPhone), which corresponds to the Gregorian. Today, the Gregorian Calendar Date is Monday July 27, A.D. 2026; while the anti-Christian Jewish calendar lists today as Av 13, Anno Mundi (A.M.) 5786.
      This is based on a lunar calendar with corrections roughly 7 times every 19 years according to the Lunar Metonic Cycle.
      The Freemasons simply add 4000 years to the Gregorian A.D. date to get Anno Lucis (A.L.) 6026 as the date of the Creation of the Devil by God.
      In other words, the Devil was Created by God on the First Day of Creation, and the fall of the angels occurred instantly.
      Genesis refers to the Creation of the Angels as “And God said: Let there be Light.” 💡 In Latin: “Fiat Lux.” This is prominently displayed in Freemason Temples as it marks the Creation of the Devil before He fell from grace after the First Instance (of Three First Instances of the Angels).
      “Evening” refers to the fall of the angels, and “morning” refers to the Resurrection of the as-yet Ongoing Battle between God and the fallen-angel formerly known as Lucifer.
      The First Resurrection was on the Second Day. At this point in time, Man only exists in the Mind of God. There are already billions of angels, a third of which had fallen. Angels cannot reproduce, but rather they are living spirit, like an eternally burning fire. They can move matter with their wills, and they have command of the Word of God and have memory.
      They are pure spirit of Will, Intellect, and Memory, reflective of The Most Holy Trinity, Who is Eternal and Uncreated. But because the angels are like God, they are His “Body of Angels” who either carry out God’s Will or they do not.
      After multiple cycles of battles, on the Sixth Day, God called all the angels in council to witness God do “A New Thing.” God sent four Archangels named St. Michael, and St. Gabriel, and St. Raphael, and St. Uriel to the four corners of the globe 🌎 to gather clay for the Creation of Man. God breathed that same Fire and Spirit into the mixture of dust and water known as “clay” to make Man, whom God called “Adam,” for he was made of “Adama,” the clay.
      God said: “Come all to bow down to My Image!” But the devil said, “I will not bow to dirt.” And for this crime, he was cast down; because he had rejected the Will of God.

      Delete
    5. Patrick Kennedye27 July 2026 at 22:55


      ·
      Robert Beaurivage [continued] Hence the devil existed for 3997 years at the time of the Birth of Jesus. Heaven revealed to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich that the period of three years and a portion of a year was later forgotten.
      Tracing backwards in time, we see the first date of the Gregorian Calendar Created on Friday, October 15, (A.D.-G) 1582, which is equivalent to Friday, October 5, (A.D.-J) 1582 on the previously longstanding “Julian Calendar,” which is still in use by some today.
      And the origins of the popes using the Roman Calendar? It goes back to the time even before the Birth of Jesus.
      The Council of Nicæa adopted the Julian Calendar in what is now known as “(A.D.-J) 325” when the Council codified Easter as “The First Sunday after the First Full Moon after the Spring Equinox.” But when is the Spring Equinox? Anyone who pays attention recognizes that the equinox shifts days of the week from year-to-year. “When is the Spring Equinox?” is much harder to calculate than at first glance. The Council agreed to forego direct moon sightings on short notice, instead choosing a fixed-date of “March 21st” as an “Ecclesiastical Spring Equinox,” which may-or-may-not match the “Observed Spring Equinox.”
      They used the Julian Calendar for determining the Spring Equinox because it was already in use, and their goal was to determine what day to celebrate Easter, rather than full-scale calendar reform. In fact, the two ideas are intrinsically linked and cannot be separated, but suffice it to say that they lacked all the tools needed to make a meaningful change.
      But even back then, the exact year was not tracked the way we do now; Rome would list records with dates of the lunar calendar Cross-referenced with Roman Consular titles and again cross-referenced with common cultural memory, which is often lost across generations.

      Delete
    6. Patrick Kennedye27 July 2026 at 22:56


      Robert Beaurivage [continued] Hence the devil existed for 3997 years at the time of the Birth of Jesus. Heaven revealed to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich that the period of three years and a portion of a year was later forgotten.
      Tracing backwards in time, we see the first date of the Gregorian Calendar Created on Friday, October 15, (A.D.-G) 1582, which is equivalent to Friday, October 5, (A.D.-J) 1582 on the previously longstanding “Julian Calendar,” which is still in use by some today.
      And the origins of the popes using the Roman Calendar? It goes back to the time even before the Birth of Jesus.
      The Council of Nicæa adopted the Julian Calendar in what is now known as “(A.D.-J) 325” when the Council codified Easter as “The First Sunday after the First Full Moon after the Spring Equinox.” But when is the Spring Equinox? Anyone who pays attention recognizes that the equinox shifts days of the week from year-to-year. “When is the Spring Equinox?” is much harder to calculate than at first glance. The Council agreed to forego direct moon sightings on short notice, instead choosing a fixed-date of “March 21st” as an “Ecclesiastical Spring Equinox,” which may-or-may-not match the “Observed Spring Equinox.”
      They used the Julian Calendar for determining the Spring Equinox because it was already in use, and their goal was to determine what day to celebrate Easter, rather than full-scale calendar reform. In fact, the two ideas are intrinsically linked and cannot be separated, but suffice it to say that they lacked all the tools needed to make a meaningful change.
      But even back then, the exact year was not tracked the way we do now; Rome would list records with dates of the lunar calendar Cross-referenced with Roman Consular titles and again cross-referenced with common cultural memory, which is often lost across generations.
      Christians had cultural memory of the Persecutions that occurred during the Reign of Diocletian. Christians remembered the “Year of the Reign of Terror,” and the “Second Year of the Reign of Terror,” and so on. “The “n-th” Year of the Martyrs” is marked in many texts.
      When Dionysius Exiguus worked on new Easter tables for the Roman Church at the behest of the Bishop of Rome, he made an editorial decision to readjust the focus of the calendar away from the Red Martyrdoms of Christians and instead towards the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
      Therefore, this sixth-century monk was tasked with calculating the number of years since the Incarnation. Given that he lacked the private revelations of Blessèd Anne Catherine Emmerich, he made his best calculation based on his available texts. Anne Catherine Emmerich records A.M. 3997, meaning the Date of Creation would be B.C. 3996.
      The popular Christian “Ussher Timeline” is a mere eight years on difference, with a Year of Creation as B.C. 4004. This matches exactly the discrepancies of “seven years and a portion of a year” between the two calculations.
      Hence, based on all available evidence, one must conclude that the Private Revelation is correct and credible and trustworthy.
      Hence, if we make the appropriate calculations, then we see that (A.D.-G) 2026 becomes A.D. 2034 on a true calendar, and then we add 3996 to account for the entirety of the B.C. Period, we get a modern Year of the World as being 6030 in Truth.
      Back to the original topic: Manna in the Desert. 🐪
      Forty years in the desert is forty Jubilees eating Eucharist. In the end, we are supposed to live in the Divine Will, so the manna will cease. The Vatican will make the abomination of desolation, and God Will allow St. Peter’s Basilica to be destroyed.
      This is the Great Apostasy; we must thank God for letting us live in this time. God saves His best saints for last.
      “For I say to you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them; and to hear the things that you hear, and have not heard them.” [Luke 10:24] AVISE LA FIN 🐬⚜️❤️‍🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸⚕️

      Delete
    7. Patrick Kennedye27 July 2026 at 22:57


      “…We have no occasion to answer thee concerning this matter 17 For behold our God, whom we worship, is able to save us from the furnace of burning fire, and to deliver us out of thy hands, O king 18 But if he will not, be it known to thee, O king, that we will not worship thy gods, nor adore the golden statue which thou hast set up.” [Daniel 3:16-18] AVISE LA FIN

      Delete
  14. Louis G Joy27 July 2026 at 22:59


    Your post is nothing but garbage, full of distortions and mischaracterization.
    Your diatribe contradicts Trent and Vatican I.
    Go back to the garbage heap you crawled out from

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Laudie-Anne Sneddon ·27 July 2026 at 22:59


      Louis G Joy Bit rough! Have seen printed the the Smoke of Satan entered the Church at Vat 2. NO mass is a nothing compared to the Latin Mass. Are we not all Catholics?

      Delete
  15. Janet Curran1 August 2026 at 22:57


    I would like to see SSPX apologists try to explain the following away. The article is devastating for the SSPX and shatters every argument they make. I put the summary first. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/07/the-canonical-status-of-society-of.html#more "Summary
    (1) Archbishop Lefebvre broke with the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in multiple ways before the 1988 episcopal consecrations.
    (2) He broke divine and ecclesial law in consecrating bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff. The Church teaches that this is necessarily a schismatic act.
    (3) The SSPX breaks divine and ecclesial law in operating without a mission from the Church. The Council of Trent and all subsequent theologians state that sacraments offered without ecclesial mission are criminal and sacrilegious.
    (4) Any appeal to extraordinary circumstances cannot justify these violations of divine law.
    (5) "Supplied jurisdiction" cannot be claimed as justification because this requires the minister first to have a canonical mission from the Church, which the SSPX, by their own admission, does not have.
    (6) All this proves them to be schismatics, and therefore their sacraments to be illicit, apart from whatever has been delegated to them by the Holy See.
    (7) The Church has officially declared them to be schismatic and that any who "formally adhere" to their group are excommunicated latae sententiae.
    (8 Their Masses do not follow the requirements of Canon 1248 for fulfillment of the ecclesiastical precept of the Sunday Obligation.
    (9) Archbishop Lefebvre taught the heresy that the Catholic Church had defected and that its marks had "transferred" to the Society of Saint Pius X. There is never a necessity that would justify consecrating bishops against the will of the Holy Father, because he alone, by divine right, can choose who is received into the college of bishops. One simply does not become a member of the episcopal college without being accepted by its head. This is the teaching of the Church.
    Pope Pius VI, in Charitas, stated:
    "For the right of ordaining bishops belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions."
    Pope Pius VI also taught in Super Soliditate:
    "He who would wish to take from the Roman Pontiff the sovereign authority which he has to make these assignments of Bishops would find himself under the necessity of impugning the legitimacy of succession of the multitude of bishops who, all over the world, govern individual churches, and for the government of which these prelates have received their mission from the Sovereign Pontiff. Therefore, it is impossible, without causing very great disturbance in the Church, and without exposing episcopal authority itself to imminent danger, it is impossible to attack this great and marvelous assemblage of power which God has deigned to grant to the Chair of Peter."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Janet Curran (cont)1 August 2026 at 22:58

    The Council of Trent corroborates this:
    "…those who, of their own rashness, assume them to themselves are not ministers of the church, but are to be looked upon as thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door." (Session 23, Chapter 4)
    "If any one shall say, that the bishops, who are assumed by authority of the Roman Pontiff, are not legitimate and true bishops, but a human figment; let him be anathema." (Session 23, Canon 8.)
    Pope Pius IX, in Quartus Supra, further declared:
    "The writings of the ancients testify that the election of Patriarchs had never been considered definite and valid without the agreement and confirmation of the Roman Pontiff… Everyone knows that the eternal and at times the temporal happiness of people depends on the proper election of bishops… But even if We had remained silent, this right and duty of the See of blessed Peter would have remained unimpaired. For the rights and privileges given to the See by Christ Himself, while they may be attacked, cannot be destroyed; no man has the power to renounce a divine right which he might at some time be compelled to exercise by the will of God Himself."
    Pope Pius XII stated in Ad Apostolorum Principis:
    "From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all rights and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established, which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred."
    Theologian Monsignor Van Noort, in Christ's Church, adds:
    "It would be ridiculous to think that someone could be constituted a member of that body in such a fashion as not to need to be acknowledged or adopted in any way by the head of that body, i.e., the Roman pontiff… it would be nonsensical to think someone could take charge of part of the sheepfold without the agreement of the one who rules the universal sheepfold with complete authority."
    Theologian Father Sylvester Berry, in The Church of Christ, confirms:
    "The Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter, has sole authority to accept new members into the Apostolic body; he alone has authority to constitute bishops, since authority to teach and govern the faithful was conferred upon the Apostles as a body and can be obtained only by incorporation into that body."
    Thus, the right to select, consecrate, and send bishops is a right of the Roman Primacy alone — a divine right given to Saint Peter by Christ Himself. No one can usurp it. Nevertheless, Archbishop Lefebvre did usurp this right from Pope John Paul II in 1988. No case of "necessity" or an appeal to the virtue of epikeia can justify his actions. This is why he and his society are necessarily schismatic. Sadly, this is not the only instance in which the Society breaks divine law."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julia du Fresne1 August 2026 at 23:05


      Janet Curran Rorate publishes different views and perspectives, in order to promote healthy debate. Publishing a guest piece does not mean editorial agreement, or disagreement, with it.]
      "The Canonical Status of the Society of Saint Pius X: A Theological and Canonical Assessment
      by Brother Linus Pio (pen name of a Religious Brother)"
      Who is Brother Linus Pio?

      Delete
    2. Janet Curran ·1 August 2026 at 23:05

      Julia du Fresne Likewise, who are the sedes you quote? If Rorate has published this opinion piece then they must accept the credentials of the writer. This is a devastating article and refutes every position that the SSPX takes. Bishop Athanasius Schneider would do well to read this opinion as it is the most convincing argument against Lefebvre and the SSPX I have ever read.

      Delete
    3. Piripi Thomas1 August 2026 at 23:09

      Well, Janet, I have to say that the SSPX priests, and bishops are doing a fine job. Churches full, lots of children attending, prayerful silence in the Presence of Our Lord (they still believe in the Real Presence), no yabbering in the pews. I have had need to attend the church of my childhood recently. A pleasant Sri Lankan priest, nearly empty church on a Sunday (spot the attendee who does not hold a Gold Card), etc. "By their fruits you shall know them". Sts Pius V and Pius X knew what they were talking about. I know who, of the modern clerics, should be canonised. "It won't happen overnight -- but it will happen".

      Delete
    4. Janet Curran1 August 2026 at 23:13


      ·
      Piripi Thomas It's a clever trap of the devil: "Archbishop Lefebvre, some claim, was "a saint for the twentieth century." There is no possible justification for this claim. Archbishop Lefebvre took it upon himself to "save the Church," disregarding the lawful suspension of his priestly faculties. A true saint of the twentieth century, Padre Pio, obeyed the decrees of his local ordinary and refrained from hearing confessions or communicating with his spiritual children for ten years, while unjustly punished. Archbishop Lefebvre called Holy Mother Church a "counterfeit Church." Saint Pio said, "Blessed be the Church, even when it strikes us, for it is the hand of a Mother." Saint Louis de Montfort was often stripped of his faculties when he traveled to a new diocese, yet he obeyed the bishop with perfect submission.
      Saint Athanasius also lived through an extraordinary crisis in the Church. Some SSPX apologists claim — erroneously — that his actions are akin to those of Archbishop Lefebvre. They could not be more wrong. Saint Athanasius neither had nor claimed an extraordinary mission, since he had a canonical mission. He submitted to his excommunication, despite its injustice, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre. Saint Athanasius did not usurp the authority of other bishops and remained in communion with the Pope.
      Saint Francis de Sales, in The Catholic Controversies, condemns the early errors of the Calvinists and, in so doing, condemns also the views of the SSPX:
      "The most solid of your party has taken ground elsewhere than in the ordinary mission and has said that they were sent extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission had been ruined and abolished, with the true Church itself, under the tyranny of antichrist."
      This is precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre claimed. De Sales concludes:
      "For to leave the Church and disregard her commands is evermore to become a heathen and a publican, be it at the persuasion of an angel or a seraph… this is a fault which cannot be covered save by a great repentance and penitence, to which I invite you on the part of the living God."
      It is a clever trap of the devil: he creates a crisis within the Church's liturgy and then establishes a schismatic body without apparent liturgical abuse. It is this deceptive facade that makes the SSPX such a danger to souls. As Pope Leo XIII wrote in Satis Cognitum, quoting Saint Augustine:
      "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition."

      Delete
    5. Ed Smith1 August 2026 at 23:14


      Janet Curran
      And all this was not contemplated by a man who served the church so well that everything he did turned to vocations? The man who fully understood what the church had stood for now to see it hijacked by Masons, Protestant appeasing Prelates and Jewish Rabbis? Under the authority of a Socialist, among other things, Pope Paul VI? The church being destroyed?
      In good conscience AB Lefevbre could not let it happen.
      Personally, I have the utmost respect for a holy man who is not a limpwristed wimp that smiles at you with the cunning of a modernist gay priest and wants to know why you're "upset" when he is questioned concerning rubrics being ignored/ violated etc. You are always the one with the issue, not them. Lol. Why? Because they are in good with the Rainbow Bishop they feel comfortable in their polite attack? Spare me the talk of obedience to churchmen who are out to appease, not convert, the world. In the world not of the world, isn't that the saying of what should be?
      Men who are going the way of the world and the fruits of which became so blatantly obvious soon thereafter Vat II? By holy men who would save the church and in good conscience saw where this was going to go? And here we are! Queers and kooks and heretics galore have infiltrated the Vatican. No, they were elevated by who? JP II. At the proposal of a Prelate named Sebastiano Baggio who for 11 years worked and that the Vatican claimed too late was discovered to be affiliated with Masonry, whose responsibility it was to propose worldwide episcopal appointments (bishops). "By their fruits you shall know them". Was his goal to achieve the Masonic touchdown of infiltration for the destruction of the church? Sure looks that way. Now enter Leo and his retention of a scandalous Bergoglio picked Fernandez and his recent appointments. Leo is from Chicago but also from liberation theology laden South America. And it shows.
      Now why would any prelate "excommunicate" a priestly Society for doing what the church has done for 400+ years unless it be due to his own pride/ego of himself so as to take the entire church (this is so Jim Jones it's not funny), over the cliff with his insistence that SSPX get on the Vat II bus or else?
      Leo proclaimed to the schismatic Anglicans as well as other Protestant faiths in January of 2026 that: “We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, experience it and make it visible!”, as reported by Vatican News. But not the SSPX! He touts "religious liberty" yet there is no "liberty" for the SSPX. They must accept the destructive Vat II Pastoral Council first and submit to heretical prelates who would do what? Dissolve them, that's what. Why? Because the Sacred Tradition of the church is the enemy of the New Synodal Sodomite Church. In a sane church of true integrity the SSPX would be given rein to satisfy the needs of those faithful who wish to attend the TLM Mass without restriction if the true intention were to unite the faithful of all the churches, schismatic and otherwise. Based on his recent appointments and speech, my guess is Leo will continue to show you until you yourself cannot deny that the Masonic goals of chaos and destruction and the prophetic words of Our Lady are coming to pass in real time. Interesting times we live in. Pray for the Pope. Maybe we can turn the tide. Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum.

      Delete
    6. Ed Smith1 August 2026 at 23:15


      Janet Curran
      And was not Christ cast out/crucified at the behest of the Sanhedrin for violating the "Law" of the Jewish faith? More often than not, he reprimanded them for their hypocrisy. Obedience to God comes before man.
      Let's say hypothetically that Lefevbre never did a thing and because of not acting, there would be no TLM today. Pretty obvious the Vatican sees it as a threat. Why? Perhaps it is due to keeping Christ as King, as the Novus Ordo Priests, brought through Rainbow Seminaries, continue the rotting of the church. God may very well use the Society to expose the Vat II crowd for what it really is, apostasy. We shall soon see. The deadline for the New Synodal Sodomite church is 2028. The globalist goal is 2030.

      Delete
    7. Janet Curran2 August 2026 at 15:04


      ·
      Ed Smith Sorry, but the SSPX did not save the TLM: 1965 Foundation: The Latin Mass Society was established in England to preserve the traditional liturgy. The International Federation Una Voce was established in 1965 in Rome and Zurich to support the Traditional Latin Mass. In 1971 English Indult: Pope Paul VI granted formal permission for the old rite to continue in England and Wales following a petition signed by cultural figures. 1984 & 1988 Extensions: Pope John Paul II broadened permissions globally via the indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos and the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. SSPX wasn't established until 1970 so it was the lay people who kept the Traditional Latin Mass going with their petitions.
      Reply
      Hide

      Delete
    8. Ed Smith2 August 2026 at 15:04


      Janet Curran If there were no SSPX, you kid yourself thinking there would be a TLM today.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)