"Bishops who agree with the basic critique of the Vatican (as Sarah does!) should get together and say, Holy Father, we call upon you to prevent this rupture by taking these steps to circumvent the felt necessity to ordain bishops without a mandate -- and then outline a way forward that allows sympathetic prelates to ordain for the SSPX (Sarah, Müller, et al can offer their services) and regularizes the Society; at least insert the language of +Schneider on the Abu Dhabi statement; soften or repeal TC; and establish a study group to correct AL.
Or something similar.
The way of stating things Sarah goes with just widens the gap. But presenting the matter as something the authority has the responsibility to fix changes the narrative, not least because if the Pope doesn't take the suggestion, once overtly made, he looks like he's admitting that the charges are correct -- that he really does want to lead the church into Anglicanism (a good line there in Müller's statement, much better than hiding behind synodality).
And sending "Tucho" Fernández to negotiate with Superior General Pagliaran is similar to Pres. Trump sending Ronald McDonald to speak with Vladimir Putin. Pope Leo was sending a message.
“FELT necessity” speaks volumes. In analyzing this issue, Cardinal Sarah addresses himself to our received ecclesiology which is part of the deposit of faith given to us by Our Lord Himself. There would seem to be a superabundance of self-appointed disposers and dispensers of self-validated truth involved in the discussion. If there is some error in the Cardinal’s analysis it is incumbent on those who disagree to address it. I, for one, would be most grateful.
So the Lord commanded His followers to accept Communist bishops in China? LGBT celebrations in St. Peter's? Gay marriages at St. Patrick's? German bishops who are openly schismatic? Please. There is no "felt" necessity here. There is obvious and urgent necessity. The "negotiations" - led by porno-bishop Fernandez - are an obvious ploy to stall for time. There is not now and never has been any intent to permit the SSPX to thrive.
Yes but as we know from the recent events, SSPX just did not like the letter response from Vatican. Fine, then they should persevere in that inadequate conversation and get adequate conclusions from them. It would seem they anticipated a negative conclusion and turned around to decide their own thing.
The vile responses here against the person of Pope Leo are clear, but they persist in ignoring the tradition of obedience due to the Chair of Peter. Guess not all “traditions” are equal? And many here most certainly reveal a complete lack of charity in their scorched earth anger.
Yes, but THEY - the SSPX - did not choose Fernandez. It was Pope Leo who chose this man to represent him, a calculated insult to the SSPX, since Fernandez is the author of a pornographic book.
My impression is that you are making the same conclusion as Muller and Sarah, that unity with Rome is first before the unity founded on the common faith. This is the reason for prefereing canonical attachment with Leo to doctrinal orthodoxy. And Sarah says, “Who can guarantee this orthodoxy except Rome?” But SSPX should ask Sarah: “Is Rome guaranteeing this orthodoxy?” If the answer is ‘Yes,’ then SSPX would be truly schismatic not to submit to Rome. But the unity of governance, as all Church historians agree, is ‘negotiable.’ Everyone can come to table, as it has happened in the past with the Orthodox, etc. My worry is that if the SSPX accusation is true (that Muller made a unilateral decision), then Rome itself is probably more interested in publicity theatrics than the unity vaunted by Cardinals Muller and Sarah.
How true, then, are the prophetic words of Pope John XXIII in 1959, when he announced the Second Vatican Council. The problems in our modern age are just the same as in the past and as always it must be resolved through an “affirmation of doctrine, and a wise provision of ecclesial discipline” by the Church, which, in an ‘epoch of renewal’ yielded the fruits of extraordinary efficaciously through “clarity of thought, the solidarity of religious unity, and the living flame of Christian fervor". Moreover, in his Opening Address, Gaudet Mater, Pope John XXIII describes this as a process of ‘organic growth’ in understanding of Revelation based on and nourished by the understanding of Revelation received from our Fathers, under the divine protection and guardianship of the Holy Spirit and confirmed by the Church’s Magisterium. Thus, by this process any crisis in the Church must be unambiguously refuted so that those, who are involved with it, can be convinced, by which they get the opportunity to repent and, through true penance, freely return to the Truth of the Gospel, to be with Him and His Church. Indeed, Pope John XXIII stated here explicitly and very clearly that this must be done in a well-defined continuity, persevering "in unity and in accordance with the teaching of the Fathers" and "never deviating from the sacred heritage of truth received from the Fathers". Thus, as supreme legislator of the Council, Pope John XXIII, did not permit any rejection of the clear understanding of Revelation received from our Fathers, nor introducing of any ambiguity or innovation that might contradict the revealed Truth. Moreover, in the same year of the Announcement of the Council, Pope John XXIII had issued the Encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram too, in which he condemned in general all those who deny the Reveal Truth of God or obstruct it by lies. This also applies to the Holy Mass, which is the living profession of Faith.
And what was the result, anything else then “clarity of thought, the solidarity of religious unity, and the living flame of Christian fervor"
1. A secretary of the preparatory Liturgical Commission calls for introducing ambiguities into the preparatory document to reinterpret it after the Council.
Isn't this a blatant deception of the Central Preparatory Commission, the Council, and the Pope, and moreover, an absolute sin against the Holy Spirit? How could this ever have borne good fruit? Then this man became secretary of the Consilium Commission to implement the ambiguous final document not hesitating to deceit the Pope.
2. A number of Cardinal, who disagree with the preparatory documents decided in a secret meeting to intervene in the Council against the rule set by the Pope on the first day of the general meeting in the week before the Opening of the Council. And they did do so under the applauding Council Fathers.
Isn't this a blatant deception by these Cardinals towards the Pope, and moreover, an absolute sin against the Holy Spirit? How could this ever have borne good fruit?
Astonishingly, these ‘good bishops’ also seem to give canonical attachment to Rome precedence above the unity of faith. It should be both, not one against the other! You cannot possibly accept unity with Rome at the price of doctrinal compromise, so yes: it is truly Rome’s job. Cdl. Muller seems to see things differently, just like Cdl. Sarah: unity with Rome comes first, then unity in the doctrine of faith comes second!
Why don't you offer to broker an agreement between SSPX and the Vatican?
The Holy Father permits several new bishops and generous sacramental permissions on one condition:
* Rome chooses the men from the conciliar clergy and consecrates them (if they're not already bishops) without co-consecration by +Fellay and De Galerreta.
It is sarcasm, but only because I know it won't happen. This would be a generous concession to SSPX.
What other religious orders demand their own bishops? The Dominicans? No. The Carmelites? No. Benedictines? No. Jesuits? No. FSSP? No. Franciscans? No. You get the point. When these orders need to ordain priests, the local ordinary does it for them.
Why should SSPX be any different if, as they say, they are in full communion with Rome? Why don't they merge with FSSP?
If the answer is an evasive "their situation is different...there's a crisis in the Church," then let's talk honestly about what that implies.
SSPX believes: The Church can hold an Ecumenical Council that's approved and promulgated by a legitimate Pope and this council can be completely polluted with error.
The Church can promulgate a "bastard" Rite of Mass which is harmful to faith and morals and which Catholics cannot attend in good conscience.
The Church can promulgate a Code of Canon Law which is full of errors and causes a complete breakdown in Church discipline.
The Church can solemnly canonize saints whom the Faithful don't believe are worthy of emulation.
The Church can produce 60 years of Encyclicals that have to be essentially disregarded by Catholics because they contradict previous magisterium.
Catholics must to refuse submission to an Vatican II and to the post-concilar papal magisterium in order to preserve their faith.
If that's the Church, then the Church has defected from her mission to save souls. If that's the Church, the Catholic Church is not only useless but it's positively harmful to the Faith.
SSPX must look with the eyes of Faith and acknowledge that they have grave doubts about the legitimacy of such a hierarchy. Where there is serious doubt, there is no censure.
“This unity is first that of the Catholic faith; it is also that of charity; and finally, it is that of obedience.”
Question for Cardinal Sarah: WHO is causing this “disunity “……Rome who is beatifying a known child predator or the SSPX who has always defended the a true Faith and held fast to the teachings of Christ?
WHO is causing this disunity, Cardinal, Rome who rewards heterodox prelates to positions of authority or the SSPX who adhere to the teachings of Christ?
As a priest has pointed out in his podcast WHO IS STANDING WITH THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH?
One more question Cardinal: when a child’s father tells him to commit sin, is that child obligated to obey? Even I know that answer!
I particularly pay attention to Card Sarah’s quote of Padre Pio on obedience. It is too easy and (dare I say it) prideful to think that challenging a possible abuse outweighs the need for obedience.
The scripture tells us that rebellion is like witchcraft ; and David never once acted in rebellion against the faithless king Saul
The Padre Pio example is frequently abused. He was a religious under a vow of obedience. The same is not true of non-religious. Moreover, he worked cleverly against his opponents:
When the Seat of Peter rejects the authority of Christ as King and Lord it no longer has any authority or standing in His Kingdom. Instead it is putty in the hands of the Evil One and must be opposed. Those shepherds who call for peace between the sheep and the wolves think only of a quiet life for themselves not of their flock.
My anger is just one righteous for it is not mine, it is the anger of the Most High of Heaven in whose name I speak with His full authority at my back. Ignore if it you will but you and Rome will fall to His righteous wrath together.
The anger is in you and you convict yourself. Look upon the accuser of the brethren masquerading as an angel of light and don’t you dare speak Our Lords name, it is ash in your mouth you evildoer and hypocrite - if we scanned your browser history what would we find? The truth of your uncleanliness
Look at the vile bile in this so called righteous man’s anger? What does this say about the state of their soul? Yet they have the audacity to project their Satanic rage onto me
See what I mean, I see you do not deny you are adulterer. God is my witness against your baseless charges and it would certainly be news to the child I sired 😂
Thus the entity now led by Leo cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church, which is "one, HOLY, Catholic, and apostolic." The heretical sodomite entity now led by Leo manifestly HAS been overcome by hell. But the actual Catholic Church CANNOT be overcome by hell. This is a divine promise (Mt. 16:18) and is therefore infallible. To call the hell-overcome entity now led by papal pretender Leo the actual Catholic Church is to implicitly call Jesus Christ a liar.
"The prophecies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of the Pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church."
-E. Sylvester Berry, STD (The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [1927; reprinted 1955])
Can’t help noticing that “the church”, rather than the Catholic Church, is used throughout this article. It will eventually be referred to as The New Synodal Church. You know, THE CHURCH.😢
The “see” is the Chair of Peter, not one person. Go back and look at all the bad Popes in our two thousand plus year history. It is actually inspiring.
Indeed. The superb Novus Ordo Watch isn't afraid to face reality. Sadly, since most seek comfort over truth, most today refuse to accept unvarnished reality. Actual popes must be actually Catholic. As a rabid apostate and supporter of sodomites, Leo isn't an actual Catholic. Therefore, Leo cannot possibly be an actual pope. One cannot be the visible head of a body of which one is not a member.
Moreover, since the apostate sodomite bordello spawned by the Judas Council of Vatican II and now led by Leo has manifestly been overcome by hell, this entity cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church. This is because we are divinely, and therefore infallibly, promised that hell shall NOT overcome the actual Catholic Church (Mt. 16:18). It follows that to call the hell-overcome entity now led by Leo the actual Catholic Church is to implicitly call Jesus Christ a liar.
It’s interesting that there are different views by different cardinals and bishops who are for and against the position of the SSPX.
It would seem to me that the most charitable thing to do would be to attend mass at one of the Pius X chapels and see all the families and souls they have brought into the Traditional Catholic faith.
Most important is to listen to the Mass. Does Rome want to cut off one of its own children for pride while embracing other religions.
We pray that the Holy Father shows charity to the Pius X society.
The heart of the crisis is not aesthetic, liturgical preference, or nostalgia. It is governance.
For decades, many bishops and Roman authorities have failed in their primary duty: to guard the Deposit of Faith intact and transmit it without ambiguity. The episcopacy is not an administrative class. It is a sacrificial office charged with preserving doctrine, safeguarding the sacraments, and defending souls from error.
When shepherds hesitate to correct confusion — or worse, permit it to spread — the faithful are left disoriented.
What happens when the fire chief forgets that his task is to extinguish flames and instead begins hosting conferences about “new springtimes” while the structure smolders?
You do not wait for the roof to collapse.
From the perspective of its supporters, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) has stepped into that vacuum — not to replace the hierarchy, not to found a parallel Church, but to preserve what it believes is endangered: the integrity of doctrine, the reverence of the liturgy, and the clarity of moral teaching.
Whether one agrees with every prudential decision or not, the underlying concern is serious: the Church cannot survive on slogans about renewal while doctrine erodes and sacramental discipline dissolves.
The Church has always renewed herself through fidelity, not innovation detached from tradition. True springtime in the Church has never been engineered by committees. It has come through saints — through repentance, clarity, sacrifice, and obedience rightly ordered to truth.
If there is a fire, it must be extinguished.
If there is confusion, it must be corrected.
If there is drift, it must be named.
Charity requires patience.
But fidelity requires courage.
The real question is not whether the crisis exists.
The real question is who will guard what was handed down — and at what cost.
SSPX heart has been hardened, looks like there's no humbleness left. Crazy how they will break apart from the one true Church willingly. I pray for them to come to their senses because there's a lot of valuable people there.
Answer: Schismatics are the baptized who obstinately refuse to submit to the legitimate pastors (the latest being Benedict XVI) and are therefore separated from the Church, even if they do not deny any truth of the faith.
E.R. Cardinal Robert Sarah,
do you not realize
that, if the Lefebvrists are guilty of schism because they do not recognize the Second Vatican Council and the infallible Magisterium of the conciliar popes, you too are guilty of schism when you persist in wanting to belong to the pro-LGBTQ Lutheran Masonic church of the antipopes JMB-Prevost?
Do you not realize, you Cardinals, that you are playing into the hands of ecclesiastical Freemasonry (the church of Satan) when you persist in refusing to recognize Benedict XVI as the legitimate last pope who never abdicated? (Note 1)
And why not declare the Apostolic See LEGITIMATELY VACANT three years after his death? How, instead, is your primary duty to fulfill Canons 37-9-33 of the UDG?
If Satan has ruled the Vatican for thirteen years, and for three years Christ's flock has been without a Pope and without the Eucharist validly celebrated in communion with him, the blame lies primarily with you CARDINALS, who lack the courage to emerge from the pro-LGBTQ Masonic Babylon of JMB-Prevost and to reconstitute the true Church of Christ, RESTORING THE DIGNITY STOLEN from the last legitimate Roman Pontiff, Benedict XVI, as reiterated by Pope Leo XIII in "SATIS COGNITUM":
... "Since the successor of Peter is only one...
🔥 First, THE NECESSITY OF THE UNION OF THE BISHOPS WITH THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER is certain and evident;
since, once this bond is dissolved, the multitude of Christians themselves are necessarily dissolved and dispersed, so that they can in no way form one body and one flock.
🔥 "THE HEALTH OF THE THE CHURCH DEPENDS ON THE DIGNITY OF THE HIGH PRIEST (last BXVI), and if he is not given a special power superior to all, there will be as many SCHISMS in the Church as there are priests.
Therefore, it is good to NOTICE that "NOTHING" was conferred on the Apostles separately from Peter [...]
Therefore, it is evident that bishops DECLINE the right and POWER to GOVERN WHEN THEY WILLFULLY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS. In fact, with the "SCHISM" they DETACH themselves from the "FOUNDATION" on which the entire edifice must be based; they are therefore EXCLUDED from that same edifice, and for the same reason SEPARATED FROM THE FOLD (whose guide is the Supreme Pastor) and BANDITIZED from the kingdom (whose keys were given BY DIVINE WILL to the Supreme Pastor).
Her Excellency, I beg you to hear this brief appeal of mine, and to give me your Kindly reply:
has been deprived of the Pope and of the Holy Eucharist validly celebrated with him for three years.
But be careful, Your Eminence, because
"When the Son of Man comes in His glory and separates the SHEEP from the GOATS,
You must not be found
among the GOATS on His left, to whom He will say:
'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink...'"
🔹 Note 1:
That Bergoglio was an antipope invalidly established as a living pope and not an abdicator is proven by Benedict XVI himself, when he officially DECLARES that he will remain the legitimate pope until his death, even if impeded (Can. 412).
on February 11, 2013 in Latin:
“Declare me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 Aprilis MMV "commissum' renuntiare".
officially declaring to renounce only the "EXERCISE" (ministerium),
but not to the Munus (“muneri suo renuntiet”), as instead mandatorily provided for by the Codex Iuris Canonici.
«Can. 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex "MUNERI" his renuntiet, ad validatatem requiritur ut renuntiatio liberi fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.»
Ergo: according to can. 126 (doctrine of substantial error), since the "renunciation" of Pope Benedict is "VOID" and the Apostolic See is LEGITIMATELY VACANT (art. 37 UDG), it follows that the CONCLAVES of 2013 and 2025 are INVALID:
Can. 126 - AN ACT PLACED OUT OF Ignorance OR ERROR, which concerns what constitutes its substance, or which falls within the sine qua non condition, IS VOID; otherwise, it is valid, unless the law provides otherwise, but the act performed out of ignorance or error CAN GIVE RISE TO AN ACTION FOR RESCISSION according to the law.
And according to art. 76_77 of the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION UDG the election of Bergoglio as pontiff is null and void and WITHOUT any DECLARATION being made in this regard.
The Church took 18 painstaking years to complete the Council of Trent to upright the Church from the damage that was done by the Protestants. Three main Popes (over a span of five pontificates) led the Council and after its ratification, Pope St. Pius V canonized the Mass of All Time and set it in stone for the whole world for all time.
Then along came Vatican II, the Modernists, and the intellectuals who began, with the hammers and chisels, breaking away that firm Foundation, which is Christ, to make room for their own flimsy foundation and to bring in "fresh air".
What Cardinal Sarah is defending with the scriptures is exactly what the SSPX is trying to preserve. What Cardinal Sarah is defending as the Church is not what is in Rome. Yes, that unity, that "Oneness" that originally came out of Jesus' Mouth in St. John 17 (DRV) was reenforced at the Council of Trent which speaks of the Unity of Jesus with God the Father and the Holy Ghost!
Respectfully, Cardinal Sarah, we have a paradigm shift from the Firm Foundation, who is Christ, to the Church of Man; what Paul VI called it at the close of Vatican II. With the severing of the Head which is Christ (God) from the hierarchy, the unity demanded is with a mortal man dressed in white.
Respectfully, Cardinal Sarah, if you would reread the letters from the SSPX you would recognize that the True Faith has been preserved by the SSPX for the good of the Church. Holy Mother Church has been evicted. Christ the King has been evicted. The "Church of Man" is set up on a precarious pedestal with no Divine Foundation, but sitting on sand and Man's ego.
"And the Woman fled into the wilderness, where She had a place prepared by God, that there they (now the SSPX) should feed Her a thousand two hundred sixty days." .... "...from the face of the serpent."
(Apoc 12 verses 6&14)
This is exactly what the SSPX is doing...almost all by itself!
As a wise friend wrote after reading this:
"Bishops who agree with the basic critique of the Vatican (as Sarah does!) should get together and say, Holy Father, we call upon you to prevent this rupture by taking these steps to circumvent the felt necessity to ordain bishops without a mandate -- and then outline a way forward that allows sympathetic prelates to ordain for the SSPX (Sarah, Müller, et al can offer their services) and regularizes the Society; at least insert the language of +Schneider on the Abu Dhabi statement; soften or repeal TC; and establish a study group to correct AL.
Or something similar.
The way of stating things Sarah goes with just widens the gap. But presenting the matter as something the authority has the responsibility to fix changes the narrative, not least because if the Pope doesn't take the suggestion, once overtly made, he looks like he's admitting that the charges are correct -- that he really does want to lead the church into Anglicanism (a good line there in Müller's statement, much better than hiding behind synodality).
It's really Rome's move."
And sending "Tucho" Fernández to negotiate with Superior General Pagliaran is similar to Pres. Trump sending Ronald McDonald to speak with Vladimir Putin. Pope Leo was sending a message.
“FELT necessity” speaks volumes. In analyzing this issue, Cardinal Sarah addresses himself to our received ecclesiology which is part of the deposit of faith given to us by Our Lord Himself. There would seem to be a superabundance of self-appointed disposers and dispensers of self-validated truth involved in the discussion. If there is some error in the Cardinal’s analysis it is incumbent on those who disagree to address it. I, for one, would be most grateful.
So the Lord commanded His followers to accept Communist bishops in China? LGBT celebrations in St. Peter's? Gay marriages at St. Patrick's? German bishops who are openly schismatic? Please. There is no "felt" necessity here. There is obvious and urgent necessity. The "negotiations" - led by porno-bishop Fernandez - are an obvious ploy to stall for time. There is not now and never has been any intent to permit the SSPX to thrive.
As far as I could, I tried to reach the same conclusion.
https://thelatinistswhahili.substack.com/p/you-cannot-convert-the-enemy-by-aping?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=43lt3j
Muller doesn't believe in bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why are you throwing your support to these heretics?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L_RjuqPzsZk
Yes but as we know from the recent events, SSPX just did not like the letter response from Vatican. Fine, then they should persevere in that inadequate conversation and get adequate conclusions from them. It would seem they anticipated a negative conclusion and turned around to decide their own thing.
The vile responses here against the person of Pope Leo are clear, but they persist in ignoring the tradition of obedience due to the Chair of Peter. Guess not all “traditions” are equal? And many here most certainly reveal a complete lack of charity in their scorched earth anger.
You will search in vain for scorched-earth anger in my words or my work, especially as I have consistently spoken in defense of Leo on most points.
Regarding traditions, of course there is a hierarchy of truths, and obedience is no different:
https://www.amazon.com/True-Obedience-Church-Discernment-Challenging/dp/1644136740/
Hawking your own book as proof is pretty rich...well that's the point.
Umm... I'm a scholar and I write books on these topics. Nobody needs to read it if they don't want to. Sounds like you have a beam in your eye.
Sorry, I did not mean to imply you had that anger, just many surrounding the article. It speaks volumes.
As Fr Romero pointed out here, the Chair of Peter should be their anchor. They chose to enter into dialogue with a known pervert head of DDF.
What? The Society chose Fernandez? You cannot be serious...
They entered into dialogue with him/met with him as head of CDF.
Yes, but THEY - the SSPX - did not choose Fernandez. It was Pope Leo who chose this man to represent him, a calculated insult to the SSPX, since Fernandez is the author of a pornographic book.
My impression is that you are making the same conclusion as Muller and Sarah, that unity with Rome is first before the unity founded on the common faith. This is the reason for prefereing canonical attachment with Leo to doctrinal orthodoxy. And Sarah says, “Who can guarantee this orthodoxy except Rome?” But SSPX should ask Sarah: “Is Rome guaranteeing this orthodoxy?” If the answer is ‘Yes,’ then SSPX would be truly schismatic not to submit to Rome. But the unity of governance, as all Church historians agree, is ‘negotiable.’ Everyone can come to table, as it has happened in the past with the Orthodox, etc. My worry is that if the SSPX accusation is true (that Muller made a unilateral decision), then Rome itself is probably more interested in publicity theatrics than the unity vaunted by Cardinals Muller and Sarah.
Well you can follow the heretics in Rome then. Don’t be surprised when that leads you to Hell.
Peter K - Interesting comment and suggestions.
How true, then, are the prophetic words of Pope John XXIII in 1959, when he announced the Second Vatican Council. The problems in our modern age are just the same as in the past and as always it must be resolved through an “affirmation of doctrine, and a wise provision of ecclesial discipline” by the Church, which, in an ‘epoch of renewal’ yielded the fruits of extraordinary efficaciously through “clarity of thought, the solidarity of religious unity, and the living flame of Christian fervor". Moreover, in his Opening Address, Gaudet Mater, Pope John XXIII describes this as a process of ‘organic growth’ in understanding of Revelation based on and nourished by the understanding of Revelation received from our Fathers, under the divine protection and guardianship of the Holy Spirit and confirmed by the Church’s Magisterium. Thus, by this process any crisis in the Church must be unambiguously refuted so that those, who are involved with it, can be convinced, by which they get the opportunity to repent and, through true penance, freely return to the Truth of the Gospel, to be with Him and His Church. Indeed, Pope John XXIII stated here explicitly and very clearly that this must be done in a well-defined continuity, persevering "in unity and in accordance with the teaching of the Fathers" and "never deviating from the sacred heritage of truth received from the Fathers". Thus, as supreme legislator of the Council, Pope John XXIII, did not permit any rejection of the clear understanding of Revelation received from our Fathers, nor introducing of any ambiguity or innovation that might contradict the revealed Truth. Moreover, in the same year of the Announcement of the Council, Pope John XXIII had issued the Encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram too, in which he condemned in general all those who deny the Reveal Truth of God or obstruct it by lies. This also applies to the Holy Mass, which is the living profession of Faith.
And what was the result, anything else then “clarity of thought, the solidarity of religious unity, and the living flame of Christian fervor"
1. A secretary of the preparatory Liturgical Commission calls for introducing ambiguities into the preparatory document to reinterpret it after the Council.
Isn't this a blatant deception of the Central Preparatory Commission, the Council, and the Pope, and moreover, an absolute sin against the Holy Spirit? How could this ever have borne good fruit? Then this man became secretary of the Consilium Commission to implement the ambiguous final document not hesitating to deceit the Pope.
2. A number of Cardinal, who disagree with the preparatory documents decided in a secret meeting to intervene in the Council against the rule set by the Pope on the first day of the general meeting in the week before the Opening of the Council. And they did do so under the applauding Council Fathers.
Isn't this a blatant deception by these Cardinals towards the Pope, and moreover, an absolute sin against the Holy Spirit? How could this ever have borne good fruit?
Without a true restoration This will continue.
Astonishingly, these ‘good bishops’ also seem to give canonical attachment to Rome precedence above the unity of faith. It should be both, not one against the other! You cannot possibly accept unity with Rome at the price of doctrinal compromise, so yes: it is truly Rome’s job. Cdl. Muller seems to see things differently, just like Cdl. Sarah: unity with Rome comes first, then unity in the doctrine of faith comes second!
Why don't you offer to broker an agreement between SSPX and the Vatican?
The Holy Father permits several new bishops and generous sacramental permissions on one condition:
* Rome chooses the men from the conciliar clergy and consecrates them (if they're not already bishops) without co-consecration by +Fellay and De Galerreta.
Why should anyone object to this proposal?
Surely this is sarcasm?
It is sarcasm, but only because I know it won't happen. This would be a generous concession to SSPX.
What other religious orders demand their own bishops? The Dominicans? No. The Carmelites? No. Benedictines? No. Jesuits? No. FSSP? No. Franciscans? No. You get the point. When these orders need to ordain priests, the local ordinary does it for them.
Why should SSPX be any different if, as they say, they are in full communion with Rome? Why don't they merge with FSSP?
If the answer is an evasive "their situation is different...there's a crisis in the Church," then let's talk honestly about what that implies.
SSPX believes: The Church can hold an Ecumenical Council that's approved and promulgated by a legitimate Pope and this council can be completely polluted with error.
The Church can promulgate a "bastard" Rite of Mass which is harmful to faith and morals and which Catholics cannot attend in good conscience.
The Church can promulgate a Code of Canon Law which is full of errors and causes a complete breakdown in Church discipline.
The Church can solemnly canonize saints whom the Faithful don't believe are worthy of emulation.
The Church can produce 60 years of Encyclicals that have to be essentially disregarded by Catholics because they contradict previous magisterium.
Catholics must to refuse submission to an Vatican II and to the post-concilar papal magisterium in order to preserve their faith.
If that's the Church, then the Church has defected from her mission to save souls. If that's the Church, the Catholic Church is not only useless but it's positively harmful to the Faith.
SSPX must look with the eyes of Faith and acknowledge that they have grave doubts about the legitimacy of such a hierarchy. Where there is serious doubt, there is no censure.
I did not say they chose him for the position.
“This unity is first that of the Catholic faith; it is also that of charity; and finally, it is that of obedience.”
Question for Cardinal Sarah: WHO is causing this “disunity “……Rome who is beatifying a known child predator or the SSPX who has always defended the a true Faith and held fast to the teachings of Christ?
WHO is causing this disunity, Cardinal, Rome who rewards heterodox prelates to positions of authority or the SSPX who adhere to the teachings of Christ?
As a priest has pointed out in his podcast WHO IS STANDING WITH THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH?
One more question Cardinal: when a child’s father tells him to commit sin, is that child obligated to obey? Even I know that answer!
Agreed.
https://thelatinistswhahili.substack.com/p/you-cannot-convert-the-enemy-by-aping?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=43lt3j
Thank you Diane for sharing this
I particularly pay attention to Card Sarah’s quote of Padre Pio on obedience. It is too easy and (dare I say it) prideful to think that challenging a possible abuse outweighs the need for obedience.
The scripture tells us that rebellion is like witchcraft ; and David never once acted in rebellion against the faithless king Saul
The Padre Pio example is frequently abused. He was a religious under a vow of obedience. The same is not true of non-religious. Moreover, he worked cleverly against his opponents:
https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-obedience-of-st-padre-pio.html
You have issues. I’m glad most of your comments are being deleted.
You are sanitizing your comments so as not to appear so stupid, Too late. We're on to you.
Possible abuse? Ice cube pope?
Stephen, nice comment. It should be possible to question/challenge obvious or possible abuse yet still remain in obedience.
Thank you for these words from Cardinal Sarah!!!!!!
When the Seat of Peter rejects the authority of Christ as King and Lord it no longer has any authority or standing in His Kingdom. Instead it is putty in the hands of the Evil One and must be opposed. Those shepherds who call for peace between the sheep and the wolves think only of a quiet life for themselves not of their flock.
My anger is just one righteous for it is not mine, it is the anger of the Most High of Heaven in whose name I speak with His full authority at my back. Ignore if it you will but you and Rome will fall to His righteous wrath together.
Satans pride I see in your foul mouth. Begone and repent of the evil in your heart
What are you? Cucked Ahab? Conniving Jezebel? Begone snake in His name.
The last person who ignored my anger was Justin Welby. Google his name, see how that worked out for him
The anger is in you and you convict yourself. Look upon the accuser of the brethren masquerading as an angel of light and don’t you dare speak Our Lords name, it is ash in your mouth you evildoer and hypocrite - if we scanned your browser history what would we find? The truth of your uncleanliness
Look at the vile bile in this so called righteous man’s anger? What does this say about the state of their soul? Yet they have the audacity to project their Satanic rage onto me
See what I mean, I see you do not deny you are adulterer. God is my witness against your baseless charges and it would certainly be news to the child I sired 😂
You will leave me alone you foul thing evil and wickedness is in your heart, if you have a wife does she know you cheat?
The Father is surely a great Christian and Cardinal. But this See is not Holy. There is no doubt about it.
Thus the entity now led by Leo cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church, which is "one, HOLY, Catholic, and apostolic." The heretical sodomite entity now led by Leo manifestly HAS been overcome by hell. But the actual Catholic Church CANNOT be overcome by hell. This is a divine promise (Mt. 16:18) and is therefore infallible. To call the hell-overcome entity now led by papal pretender Leo the actual Catholic Church is to implicitly call Jesus Christ a liar.
"The prophecies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of the Pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church."
-E. Sylvester Berry, STD (The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [1927; reprinted 1955])
Yup, it can't be the Catholic Church. Those that say it is are faithless
Can’t help noticing that “the church”, rather than the Catholic Church, is used throughout this article. It will eventually be referred to as The New Synodal Church. You know, THE CHURCH.😢
So you are more holy than Cardinal Sarah?
The “see” is the Chair of Peter, not one person. Go back and look at all the bad Popes in our two thousand plus year history. It is actually inspiring.
Now see this: The “But we’ve had Bad Popes before” Objection https://novusordowatch.org/2019/10/bad-popes-objection/
NovusOrdoWatch is sedevacantist. You should be really careful even reading them.
Indeed. The superb Novus Ordo Watch isn't afraid to face reality. Sadly, since most seek comfort over truth, most today refuse to accept unvarnished reality. Actual popes must be actually Catholic. As a rabid apostate and supporter of sodomites, Leo isn't an actual Catholic. Therefore, Leo cannot possibly be an actual pope. One cannot be the visible head of a body of which one is not a member.
Moreover, since the apostate sodomite bordello spawned by the Judas Council of Vatican II and now led by Leo has manifestly been overcome by hell, this entity cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church. This is because we are divinely, and therefore infallibly, promised that hell shall NOT overcome the actual Catholic Church (Mt. 16:18). It follows that to call the hell-overcome entity now led by Leo the actual Catholic Church is to implicitly call Jesus Christ a liar.
But none of the “bad popes” in the two thousand year history of the Church ever promoted abject heresy as did Prevost and Bergolio.
Check it out. Not one ever dared.
Cardinal Sarah is in a Time Warp. This is not 1988 anymore.
Rome is in apostacy. It has no authority to excommunicate the SSPX or anyone else from the One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church
An African Catholic layman responds: https://open.substack.com/pub/gumagumisiriza/p/an-african-laymans-response-to-cdl?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=43lt3j
Thank you, African Sentry!
It’s interesting that there are different views by different cardinals and bishops who are for and against the position of the SSPX.
It would seem to me that the most charitable thing to do would be to attend mass at one of the Pius X chapels and see all the families and souls they have brought into the Traditional Catholic faith.
Most important is to listen to the Mass. Does Rome want to cut off one of its own children for pride while embracing other religions.
We pray that the Holy Father shows charity to the Pius X society.
I don't think there are any cardinals.
The heart of the crisis is not aesthetic, liturgical preference, or nostalgia. It is governance.
For decades, many bishops and Roman authorities have failed in their primary duty: to guard the Deposit of Faith intact and transmit it without ambiguity. The episcopacy is not an administrative class. It is a sacrificial office charged with preserving doctrine, safeguarding the sacraments, and defending souls from error.
When shepherds hesitate to correct confusion — or worse, permit it to spread — the faithful are left disoriented.
What happens when the fire chief forgets that his task is to extinguish flames and instead begins hosting conferences about “new springtimes” while the structure smolders?
You do not wait for the roof to collapse.
From the perspective of its supporters, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) has stepped into that vacuum — not to replace the hierarchy, not to found a parallel Church, but to preserve what it believes is endangered: the integrity of doctrine, the reverence of the liturgy, and the clarity of moral teaching.
Whether one agrees with every prudential decision or not, the underlying concern is serious: the Church cannot survive on slogans about renewal while doctrine erodes and sacramental discipline dissolves.
The Church has always renewed herself through fidelity, not innovation detached from tradition. True springtime in the Church has never been engineered by committees. It has come through saints — through repentance, clarity, sacrifice, and obedience rightly ordered to truth.
If there is a fire, it must be extinguished.
If there is confusion, it must be corrected.
If there is drift, it must be named.
Charity requires patience.
But fidelity requires courage.
The real question is not whether the crisis exists.
The real question is who will guard what was handed down — and at what cost.
SSPX heart has been hardened, looks like there's no humbleness left. Crazy how they will break apart from the one true Church willingly. I pray for them to come to their senses because there's a lot of valuable people there.
I do not think this argument is accurate.
https://thelatinistswhahili.substack.com/p/you-cannot-convert-the-enemy-by-aping?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=43lt3j
Subject: Catechism of St. Pius X, No. 129
Question: Who are schismatics?
Answer: Schismatics are the baptized who obstinately refuse to submit to the legitimate pastors (the latest being Benedict XVI) and are therefore separated from the Church, even if they do not deny any truth of the faith.
E.R. Cardinal Robert Sarah,
do you not realize
that, if the Lefebvrists are guilty of schism because they do not recognize the Second Vatican Council and the infallible Magisterium of the conciliar popes, you too are guilty of schism when you persist in wanting to belong to the pro-LGBTQ Lutheran Masonic church of the antipopes JMB-Prevost?
Do you not realize, you Cardinals, that you are playing into the hands of ecclesiastical Freemasonry (the church of Satan) when you persist in refusing to recognize Benedict XVI as the legitimate last pope who never abdicated? (Note 1)
And why not declare the Apostolic See LEGITIMATELY VACANT three years after his death? How, instead, is your primary duty to fulfill Canons 37-9-33 of the UDG?
If Satan has ruled the Vatican for thirteen years, and for three years Christ's flock has been without a Pope and without the Eucharist validly celebrated in communion with him, the blame lies primarily with you CARDINALS, who lack the courage to emerge from the pro-LGBTQ Masonic Babylon of JMB-Prevost and to reconstitute the true Church of Christ, RESTORING THE DIGNITY STOLEN from the last legitimate Roman Pontiff, Benedict XVI, as reiterated by Pope Leo XIII in "SATIS COGNITUM":
... "Since the successor of Peter is only one...
🔥 First, THE NECESSITY OF THE UNION OF THE BISHOPS WITH THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER is certain and evident;
since, once this bond is dissolved, the multitude of Christians themselves are necessarily dissolved and dispersed, so that they can in no way form one body and one flock.
🔥 "THE HEALTH OF THE THE CHURCH DEPENDS ON THE DIGNITY OF THE HIGH PRIEST (last BXVI), and if he is not given a special power superior to all, there will be as many SCHISMS in the Church as there are priests.
Therefore, it is good to NOTICE that "NOTHING" was conferred on the Apostles separately from Peter [...]
Therefore, it is evident that bishops DECLINE the right and POWER to GOVERN WHEN THEY WILLFULLY SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS. In fact, with the "SCHISM" they DETACH themselves from the "FOUNDATION" on which the entire edifice must be based; they are therefore EXCLUDED from that same edifice, and for the same reason SEPARATED FROM THE FOLD (whose guide is the Supreme Pastor) and BANDITIZED from the kingdom (whose keys were given BY DIVINE WILL to the Supreme Pastor).
Her Excellency, I beg you to hear this brief appeal of mine, and to give me your Kindly reply:
https://youtu.be/W2OroxyP3Qo?si=1tCcmTZsakzHOSeP
Gabriela Danieli
has been deprived of the Pope and of the Holy Eucharist validly celebrated with him for three years.
But be careful, Your Eminence, because
"When the Son of Man comes in His glory and separates the SHEEP from the GOATS,
You must not be found
among the GOATS on His left, to whom He will say:
'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink...'"
🔹 Note 1:
That Bergoglio was an antipope invalidly established as a living pope and not an abdicator is proven by Benedict XVI himself, when he officially DECLARES that he will remain the legitimate pope until his death, even if impeded (Can. 412).
on February 11, 2013 in Latin:
“Declare me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 Aprilis MMV "commissum' renuntiare".
https://youtu.be/EZoid8B6cMA?si=xwimR068fNKcytuf
and February 27 in Italian:
https://youtu.be/tqrEqx8bfL4?si=Zg4gq469WuWK4J5R
officially declaring to renounce only the "EXERCISE" (ministerium),
but not to the Munus (“muneri suo renuntiet”), as instead mandatorily provided for by the Codex Iuris Canonici.
«Can. 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex "MUNERI" his renuntiet, ad validatatem requiritur ut renuntiatio liberi fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.»
Ergo: according to can. 126 (doctrine of substantial error), since the "renunciation" of Pope Benedict is "VOID" and the Apostolic See is LEGITIMATELY VACANT (art. 37 UDG), it follows that the CONCLAVES of 2013 and 2025 are INVALID:
Can. 126 - AN ACT PLACED OUT OF Ignorance OR ERROR, which concerns what constitutes its substance, or which falls within the sine qua non condition, IS VOID; otherwise, it is valid, unless the law provides otherwise, but the act performed out of ignorance or error CAN GIVE RISE TO AN ACTION FOR RESCISSION according to the law.
And according to art. 76_77 of the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION UDG the election of Bergoglio as pontiff is null and void and WITHOUT any DECLARATION being made in this regard.
The Church took 18 painstaking years to complete the Council of Trent to upright the Church from the damage that was done by the Protestants. Three main Popes (over a span of five pontificates) led the Council and after its ratification, Pope St. Pius V canonized the Mass of All Time and set it in stone for the whole world for all time.
Then along came Vatican II, the Modernists, and the intellectuals who began, with the hammers and chisels, breaking away that firm Foundation, which is Christ, to make room for their own flimsy foundation and to bring in "fresh air".
What Cardinal Sarah is defending with the scriptures is exactly what the SSPX is trying to preserve. What Cardinal Sarah is defending as the Church is not what is in Rome. Yes, that unity, that "Oneness" that originally came out of Jesus' Mouth in St. John 17 (DRV) was reenforced at the Council of Trent which speaks of the Unity of Jesus with God the Father and the Holy Ghost!
Respectfully, Cardinal Sarah, we have a paradigm shift from the Firm Foundation, who is Christ, to the Church of Man; what Paul VI called it at the close of Vatican II. With the severing of the Head which is Christ (God) from the hierarchy, the unity demanded is with a mortal man dressed in white.
Respectfully, Cardinal Sarah, if you would reread the letters from the SSPX you would recognize that the True Faith has been preserved by the SSPX for the good of the Church. Holy Mother Church has been evicted. Christ the King has been evicted. The "Church of Man" is set up on a precarious pedestal with no Divine Foundation, but sitting on sand and Man's ego.
"And the Woman fled into the wilderness, where She had a place prepared by God, that there they (now the SSPX) should feed Her a thousand two hundred sixty days." .... "...from the face of the serpent."
(Apoc 12 verses 6&14)
This is exactly what the SSPX is doing...almost all by itself!
EXCERPT:
“ Thus, we too can affirm that the best way to defend the faith, Tradition, and the authentic liturgy will always be to follow the obedient Christ.
Christ will never command us to break the unity of the Church.
As Saint John Chrysostom says: “The unity of the Church, preserved by the Holy Spirit, is more precious than all the riches of this world.”
Thank you Cardinal Sarah for persevering in the Faith and leading us to Heaven by your example.
This one deserves a read! https://gumagumisiriza.substack.com/p/an-african-laymans-response-to-cdl?r=4zpjiw&utm_medium=ios