+LEO WANTS TO STOP 600,000 CATHOLICS RECEIVING CHRIST

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

 

But anyway, Tucho flubbed the excommunications. They're invalid. 

It's nothing short of astounding - and a testament to the power of Satan - that so many grown men and women, intelligent Catholics, so consistently miss the point of the consecration of four new bishops by the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), and their 'excommunication'.



"He who does not obey the Pope does not obey God!" they cry, invoking St Bernard of Clairvaux or their own versions. Correct. But Robert Prevost is not the Pope. The evidence for that must be abundantly clear to anyone calling himself Catholic. How do these hyperpapalists imagine Our Eucharistic Lord feels about Leo and Tucho denying His children His company in Holy Communion?  

And the forgiveness of their sins? And the validity of SSPX marriages, the envy of the postconciliar Ape of the Church for their fruit in large families? The priest, of course, doesn't perform a marriage, but only witnesses it. Are Leo and Tucho saying that SSPX priests don't witness the marriages they now declare null and void? 



What Pope could 'excommunicate' 600,000 (a conservative estimate) of lay people worldwide who in the eyes of God are not only His children, but children of His Vicar, the Roman Pontiff? Prevost has tried (illegally, as Tucho not surprisingly made a hash of it) to deprive his children of the sacraments, most seriously the Most Holy Eucharist, because they have disobeyed his fraudulent 'authority'. 

His every action confirms the suspicion that he was handpicked by the Lavender Mafia to finish the job begun by Jorge Mario Bergoglio; that is, the demolition of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and her replacement by his new synodal religion with the intention of legalising sodomy. 

Only two reasons exist, basically, for their gravely unjust, incompetent and invalid excommunications:
a) the destruction of the pre-Vatican II Church and/or
b) the SSPX's refusal to obey the men overseeing that destruction. 

 Antipope Leo and his mouthpiece +Fernandez are tyrants. Wicked tyrants. They are charmed by their fellow heretics and by the public sinners Leo fawns over at the Vatican, and have reserved exercise of what they fondly imagine to be the height of their powers to excommunicate the most potent force in the Church for the Catholic faith - and in the world, for good. 

Remember how during the evil Covid scam Society chapels were the only ones open to anyone seeking to fulfill their Sunday obligation and to receive Christ in the Eucharist? When the Novus Ordo and the FSSP followed their leader Bergoglio who said the Jab was an 'act of love' and shut up shop?  That's how much they care for Christ. The Covid scam was all we needed to identify those who possess the Catholic faith - and to recognise the Judases who betray it. 

The Vatican's process for  the Society's 'reconciliation' with the postconciliar religion vividly demonstrates the effects of sin. Sin is  defined by the Catechism as an offence against reason, truth and right conscience, especially the sins against the Holy Spirit manifest in the postconciliar religion, and especially of presuming on being saved without merit, and opposing known truth. 

Departing from dogma, Rome has abandoned reason. The demands the Lavender Mafia makes of SSPXers whom they hope will defect are, frankly, insane. Leo and Tucho demand surrender: a 'declaration of faith' in the Second Vatican Council, even those many aspects which contradict the 2000 years of Church doctrine pre-Vatican II. They prescribe a ridiculous rigmarole which no bishop whose priority is saving souls has time for.

As Anthony Stine says on Return to Tradition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NwEZyssu3M
canon lawyers will have a field day with +Tucho's formula for the pathetic few of SSPX members who may write to their bishop asking to be 'reconciled' with Rome. Because the Fernandez formula is illegal. It doesn't have penal efficacy. It doesn't follow canon law. But what else did anyone expect, of a man better schooled in sex than theology? 

For instance, his assertion that SSPX marriages and confessions are now invalid. He's aberrational: unless and until 'the Pope' expressly withdraws these faculties, they remain in force; the assertion of invalidity lacks a clear legal basis.

These draconian attempts at quelling all opposition to the delicts of Vatican II should cause concern for the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP). Any false sense of security its adherents may have enjoyed since defecting from the SSPX, after the Lefebvre consecrations in 1988, is threatened by the likelihood of the FSSP being next up on the Vatican's schedule for abolishing the true faith and for its sodomitic substitution. According to Stine, at their next Apostolic Visitation (inflicted regularly by Rome) they will not fare well.

 

 Antipope Leo, through his mouthpiece +Fernandez, is attempting the harshest measure in the history of the Church since 1054. Not even the Eastern Orthodox invited excommunication. Not the German Synodal bishops. Not the Chinese bishops. But Prevost did, and incurred it automatically when he said the Catholic Church was 'One' with all other religions (including Islam whose followers urge extermination of non-Muslims, and Judaism whose followers crucified Christ). And so did Fernandez incur it when he stated in 1995 that he agrees with the universalist view of salvation. He believes that all men are saved.

Latae sententiae excommunication is incurred for anyone who denies a single article of the Catholic Faith. And the state of necessity, of Canon 1324.5, exempts the SSPX from the otherwise applicable auto-excommunications of Canon 1382. And the hyperpapalists fret about disobedience to 'the Pope' when their 'Pope' disobeys God.

From Chris Jackson at Hiraeth in Exile:

On July 1, 2026, Écône did what Rome spent months warning it not to do.

 

Four new bishops were consecrated for the Society of Saint Pius X. Thousands came [one estimate was 20,000 - ed]. Priests and religious filled the place. The ceremony was long, solemn, public, and unapologetic.

 

The Society’s post-consecration communiqué used exactly the tone one would expect from men who know the act is extraordinary, grave, and necessary: regret over the lack of authorization, regret that the Superior General never had the chance to meet personally with Leo XIV, and profound joy over the consecrations themselves. 

 

That combination is what the Society’s enemies cannot process.

 

They want rebellion and sneering defiance. They want a clean story: arrogant traditionalists reject the pope and rupture unity. Instead, the communiqué gives them something more difficult. It expresses sorrow over the abnormality and joy over the necessity.

That is the true Écône mood. The bitter joy of men who believe the normal channels have failed so badly that survival now requires extraordinary means.

The critics immediately reached for the usual vocabulary: schism, wound, defiance, rupture, disobedience. Cardinal Parolin was reportedly “deeply pained.” Cardinal Fernández says dialogue may be possible in the future. The media says the SSPX has defied Leo. Conservative Catholics warn that the Society has gone too far. The approved traditionalists clutch their pearls and hope they will not be next.

 

But the real question is not whether episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate are grave. They are.

 

The real question is whether the postconciliar crisis is grave enough to explain why Catholic men would do such a thing.

 

That question is precisely what Rome refuses to answer.

 

The Society’s Regret Is More Serious Than Rome’s Sorrow

 

 

The SSPX statement says it regrets that exceptional circumstances required consecrations without authorization. That sentence is more theologically serious than most of the Vatican commentary against it.

 

Why?

 

Because it admits the act is not normal.

 

The Society is not saying Rome’s authorization is meaningless in ordinary circumstances. It is saying the circumstances are not ordinary.

 

That is the point.

 

Rome speaks as though the Church is basically healthy and Écône has introduced a wound. The Society speaks as though the Church has been in a state of prolonged doctrinal and liturgical emergency and these consecrations are an emergency act to preserve Catholic life.

 

The two sides do not merely disagree over one ceremony.

 

They disagree over reality.

 

If the Church after Vatican II is essentially healthy, then Écône looks like reckless disobedience. If the postconciliar order has produced a sixty-year devastation of doctrine, liturgy, morals, priestly formation, ecclesiastical discipline, and Catholic identity, then Écône looks like a lifeboat launched without permission from officers who keep insisting the ship is not sinking.

 

That is why the Society’s regret rings true. It is regret that the men who should have authorized the preservation of Tradition instead made unauthorized action appear necessary.

 

Rome created the emergency and now denounces the ambulance for driving on the grass.

 

Goldade Said the Forbidden Sentence

 

 

The newly consecrated Bishop Michael Goldade said during Vespers that the Catholic Church in her tradition brings forth life, while the modernist church is a desert. It kills everything it touches. It kills supernatural life. It kills the sources of grace. It dries up everything because it has placed man in the place of God.

 

That is the sentence Rome cannot tolerate.

 

Because too many Catholics know it is recognizably true.

 

Look around.

 

The modernist church killed seminaries, vocations, schools, catechesis, confession lines, and sacred music. It killed Eucharistic awe, the altar, modesty, and the Catholic family in practice. It killed missionary confidence, the old moral clarity, and the instinct that false religion endangers souls. It killed the sense that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. It killed the fear of Hell. It killed the Catholic imagination.

 

Then, after all that death, it looks at Écône and says: you are the danger.

 

Goldade’s line is powerful because it refuses the polite lie. The polite lie says there are tensions, imbalances, wounded memories, and unresolved questions. The truth is harsher. There is a religion of Tradition that gives life because it receives from God. There is a religion of modernism that kills because it enthrones man.

 

The SSPX consecrations are a sign of life in the middle of institutional decay.

 

That is why the reaction is so fierce.

 

Dead systems hate living witnesses.

The Crowd at Écône Was a Statement

 

 

The reported crowd is important.

Thousands of laypeople. Priests. Religious. Families. Men and women who did not fly to Switzerland because they hate the Church. They came because the Society has become, for many souls, one of the few remaining places where Catholic life still feels whole.

 

The opponents of Écône speak endlessly about authority, but they rarely ask why so many Catholics have ended up there.

 

Why would families endure irregularity, suspicion, stigma, travel, social cost, and constant warnings if diocesan Catholic life were basically trustworthy?

 

Why would parents bring children into a movement called schismatic by respectable Catholics unless they had seen something worse in the approved structures?

 

Why would young men enter SSPX seminaries if the ordinary seminaries were clearly forming priests in the spirit of Trent, Pius X, and the old Roman rite?

 

The crowd at Écône was not merely an audience.

 

It was evidence.

 

It was evidence that Tradition still generates loyalty, that the old Mass still forms a people, and that doctrinal clarity still attracts souls. It was evidence that the SSPX’s work is not an internet abstraction. It is a real ecclesial fact on the ground.

 

Rome can call that fact a problem.

 

Rome cannot make it disappear.

 

Canon Law Is Not a Magic Wand

 

The anti-SSPX argument often begins and ends with canon law. No pontifical mandate. Automatic excommunication. Case closed.

 

That argument is too easy.

 

Canon law is not a magic wand that makes the entire crisis disappear.

 

The law itself recognizes imputability. It recognizes fear, necessity, grave inconvenience, and circumstances that may excuse or reduce penalty. This does not mean anyone can simply declare an emergency and do whatever he wants. It does mean that the canonical question cannot be treated as though the last sixty years never happened.

 

The SSPX does not claim a normal exception. It claims a state of necessity.

 

The Vatican says there can be no such necessity.

 

Fine. Then Rome must answer the facts.

 

Was there no necessity when the old Mass was replaced, marginalized, and later restricted?

 

Was there no necessity when postconciliar catechesis collapsed?

 

Was there no necessity when religious liberty, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, and synodality remade the Church’s public face?

 

Was there no necessity when Traditionis Custodes told traditional Catholics that their liturgical inheritance existed only by shrinking permission?

 

Was there no necessity when Rome tolerated public doctrinal ambiguity on marriage, sacraments, sexuality, and salvation while finding its severity against the SSPX?

 

The Society’s opponents want to argue law in a vacuum.

 

The vacuum is fictional.

 

The law exists inside the Church. When the official structures become instruments against Tradition, Catholics cannot be told to stop noticing the difference between legal form and Catholic substance.

 

Parolin’s Pain and Rome’s Selective Pain

 

 

Cardinal Parolin said he was deeply pained and called the consecrations a schismatic act. He also said he did not know when or how the excommunications would take place and hoped ways could be found to resolve the problem.

 

One almost admires the script.

 

Pain first. Penalty later. Dialogue possibly in the future.

 

Where has this pain been?

 

Was Rome deeply pained when Traditionis Custodes punished the old Mass faithful across the world?

 

Was Rome deeply pained when faithful families lost stable access to the rite that formed centuries of saints?

 

Was Rome deeply pained when synodal language normalized doctrinal ambiguity?

 

Was Rome deeply pained when Fiducia Supplicans taught every progressive activist how to turn “nothing has changed” into a practical permission structure?

 

Was Rome deeply pained when Catholics watched bishops promote interreligious ceremonies, rainbow liturgies, and Eucharistic confusion?

 

Rome’s pain becomes audible only when Tradition acts without permission.

 

That selective pain is part of the scandal. The hierarchy has endless patience for the revolution and immediate grief over the resistance. It can tolerate abuses for decades. It can study, dialogue, accompany, discern, and commission reports. But when Écône consecrates bishops to preserve its work, suddenly the seamless garment must be protected.

 

The garment has been torn for sixty years.

 

Rome is angry at the men stitching.

 

Fernández Discovers Future Dialogue After the Future Arrives

 

 

Cardinal Fernández said the SSPX did not consider useful the dialogue proposed, but perhaps dialogue will be possible in the future through the action of the Holy Spirit.

This is rich.

 

Fernández is the prefect of the doctrinal office under whose watch the Vatican became globally associated with Fiducia Supplicans, one of the most damaging exercises in doctrinal ambiguity of the modern period. He is also the perfect symbol of the postconciliar doctrinal style: never deny the old words directly, but create pastoral permissions that make them functionally useless.

 

Now he speaks of future dialogue.

 

But future dialogue is exactly what Rome used to avoid present action.

 

The Society announced the consecrations long before July 1. Pagliarani wanted to meet Leo. The opportunity did not come. Rome had months to engage the real issue. Instead it warned, pleaded late, and now says dialogue may be possible later.

 

With the world, Rome dialogues now.

 

With secular institutions, now.

 

With other religions, now.

 

With separated Christians, now.

 

With progressive activists, now.

 

With China, now.

 

With Tradition, dialogue is always possible in the future after obedience has already been demanded in the present.

 

That is not dialogue, but managed surrender.

 

Müller’s Half-Truth

 

 

Cardinal Müller reportedly said the consecrations should lead the Church to reconsider restrictions on the ancient Roman rite. He is right that Traditionis Custodes strengthened the SSPX.

 

He is right that an authoritarian demand for blind obedience is not the Catholic way. He is right that one cannot simply prohibit the ancient form of the Roman rite as if the Mass of saints were suddenly dangerous.

 

But then comes the typical Müller weakness.

 

He reportedly says the old Mass and the Novus Ordo are the same rite with very slight differences.

 

That is the kind of sentence that keeps conservative Catholicism permanently trapped.

 

If the differences are so slight, why did the liturgical revolution transform the Catholic world? Why did Rome spend decades managing, restricting, and policing the old form?

 

Why does the old Mass produce one religious psychology and the new rite so often produce another? Why does the old rite attract the very Catholics most resistant to Vatican II?

 

The old Mass is not merely a set of ceremonial preferences. It is an entire theological world. Sacrifice. Priesthood. Propitiation. Hierarchy. Silence. Sacred language. Theocentrism. Fear of the Lord. Continuity with the dead. The new rite was designed inside the postconciliar atmosphere and bears its marks.

 

Müller sees enough to know Traditionis Custodes failed. He does not see enough, or will not say enough, to name why it failed.

 

It failed because the ancient Roman rite is not a museum object. It is the visible rebuke of the liturgical revolution.

 

The Asian Cardinal Understood the Practical Reality

 

Cardinal William Goh

 

Cardinal William Goh’s point was simple: if Rome lifted the restrictions on the ancient Roman rite, it would be easier to attract faithful away from the SSPX.

That is practically true.

 

It is also a confession.

 

For years, Rome has said the SSPX problem is disobedience. Yet even some cardinals know that Rome’s own restriction of Tradition feeds the SSPX. When the approved old Mass is precarious, the Society becomes stable. When diocesan traditionalists live under the sword of Damocles, Écône looks less like rebellion and more like shelter.

 

Traditionis Custodes was supposed to isolate the old rite. It strengthened the people who never needed Rome’s local permission to offer it.

 

Francis made the Society’s argument for them. Leo now inherits the consequences.

 

A father does not beat one son and then complain when the son moves in with the uncle who feeds him.

 

“We Belong to the Same Church Because We Have the Same Faith”

 

+Fernandez and +Pagliarani: whose side are YOU on?

 

Some consider Pagliarani’s argument strange: “we belong to the same Church because we have the same faith,” since the controversy concerns ecclesiastical authority rather than the content of the faith.

 

But this objection reveals the modern disease.

 

Authority is not floating above the Faith. Authority exists to serve, guard, transmit, and defend the Faith. If the authority appears to command against the Faith, or against the concrete conditions necessary to preserve the Faith, the crisis is not “authority versus private judgment” in a simple Protestant sense. It is authority in contradiction to its own purpose.

 

Pagliarani’s sentence goes to the root.

 

The Church is not a bureaucracy first. It is the Mystical Body united in the true Faith, true sacraments, and legitimate pastors. Faith is not incidental to membership. It is not one category among many. It is the very soul of ecclesial unity.

 

The SSPX’s claim is not that authority does not matter. Its claim is that the postconciliar authorities have acted against the Faith and Tradition they were bound to defend.

 

 

That is exactly why the question cannot be avoided. If the men claiming authority repeatedly act as enemies of the Catholic Faith as previously received, what exactly is their authority? How far can recognition be stretched while resistance becomes normal? How long can Catholics say “same pope, different religion” before admitting the formula is unstable?

  

SSPX does not solve that question completely.

 

It forces everyone else to face it.

 

The Apostolic Mandate Was Replaced by the Mandate of Tradition

 

 

The declaration read in place of the apostolic mandate is the heart of the whole matter: in exceptional circumstances, the Catholic and Roman Church faithful to apostolic traditions demands that these traditions and the Deposit of Faith be upheld and transmitted for the salvation of souls; since Vatican II, church authorities have acted contrary to the faith and against holy Tradition; they will no longer tolerate sound doctrine.

 

That is a staggering claim.

 

It is also the claim Rome refuses to refute directly.

 

Rome says: you lack mandate.

 

The SSPX says: the mandate comes from the emergency created by your betrayal of Tradition.

 

Rome says: you disobeyed authority.

 

The SSPX says: authority has been turned against sound doctrine.

 

Rome says: you wound unity.

 

The SSPX says: unity without the Catholic Faith is counterfeit.

 

That is why the ceremony goes beyond canon law. It publicly asserts that Tradition itself can demand action when the men holding office oppose what they are bound to transmit.

 

This is intolerable to the postconciliar system because it reverses the new hierarchy. Vatican II no longer judges Tradition. Tradition judges Vatican II. The old Roman Faith no longer stands in the dock. The postconciliar settlement does.

That is the trial Rome fears.

 

The Opponents of the SSPX Are Afraid of the Evidence

 

 

The loudest opponents of these consecrations are not always liberals. Some are conservative Catholics and approved traditionalists who know the crisis is real but cannot bear the consequences.

 

They will say the SSPX is disobedient.

 

They will say the consecrations are imprudent.

 

They will say this gives Rome ammunition.

 

They will say it makes life harder for diocesan traditionalists.

 

They will say the Society should have waited.

 

Waited for what?

 

For Leo to reverse Traditionis Custodes?

 

For Fernández to become a defender of Pius X?

 

For synodality to fade away?

For bishops who hate the old Mass to develop paternal love for it?

 

For Rome to admit Vatican II created a doctrinal rupture?

 

For another decade of “dialogue”?

 

Waiting can be prudent when the danger is temporary. Waiting becomes cowardice when delay means slow death.

 

The Society judged that its work needed bishops. It judged that souls needed the continuation of its apostolate. It judged that Rome would not give what necessity required.

 

The critics can dispute that judgment.

 

They should stop pretending the judgment is irrational.

 

Écône Revealed the New Loyalty Oath

 

 

The postconciliar establishment no longer asks simply whether you believe in God, Christ, the Trinity, the Eucharist, the sacraments, the papacy, or the old dogmas.

 

It asks whether you accept the postconciliar settlement.

 

That is the new loyalty oath.

 

Will you accept Vatican II as interpreted by the living postconciliar institution?

 

Will you accept the new liturgy as the normal form of Roman Catholic worship?

 

Will you accept ecumenism, religious liberty, interreligious dialogue, synodality, and the new Church-world relation as irreversible?

 

Will you accept that the old rite exists only by permission?

 

Will you accept that Rome may punish Tradition while accompanying revolution?

 

The SSPX answer remains no.

 

That is why it must be punished.

 

Not because it lacks Catholicity.

 

Because it preserves too much of it.

 

Conclusion: The Consecrations Were a Sign of Contradiction

 

 

 

Écône did not create the crisis on July 1.

Écône made it visible.

 

The consecrations forced Catholics to see the entire postconciliar contradiction in one image:

 

Rome will call it schism. The media will call it rebellion. Conservative Catholics will call it imprudence. Approved traditionalists will nervously distance themselves. Fernández will speak of future dialogue. Parolin will speak of pain. Müller will speak partly true words and stop short of the root.

 

Meanwhile, the new bishops will confirm, ordain, preach, and preserve the old sacramental life.

 

The modernist church kills everything it touches because it places man where God belongs. Bishop Goldade’s reported sentence will outlast the Vatican press lines because it names what ordinary Catholics have seen with their own eyes.

 

The SSPX may not solve every theological problem created by Vatican II. It may not fully resolve the authority question. It may carry tensions that sedevacantists and recognize-and-resist Catholics will continue to debate.

 

But on July 1, Écône gave the world a sign of life.

 

Not the life of novelty, permission, committees, synods, and managed decline.

 

The life of Tradition continuing when the men in charge prefer it dead.

 

That is why the day mattered.

 

That is why Rome is angry.

 

And that is why, beneath the canonical thunder and media contempt, so many Catholics felt not despair, but joy. https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/econe-did-not-create-the-crisis-it

St Iraneus of Lyon, please pray for the Church