Monasteries are not penal institutions. To place him in such an environment would be to pollute a sacred place and an impediment to contemplative life.
Send him back to Argentina, preferably Tierra del Fuego, considered the "end of the world."
History says otherwise. We have plenty of examples of rogue clergy being sentenced to monastic penance, not least of which being Annibale Bugnini, the author of the New Mass
Annibale Bugnini was never sent to a monastery for his duplicitousness. He was sent to Iran in 1975 as Apostolic Pro-Nuncio where he remained until 1982. He died in Rome that same year.
Previous practice has little to do with the reality. Having had the grace of monastic life at one point in my life, and the added grace of sharing some of that time with a bishop living with us under discipline, though many years into his personal repentance. I can say with all assurance monastic existence is a support for repentance, spiritual growth and personal transformation only for those who are willing to abandon their error and are receptive to Grace. Our penitent was himself a work of Grace. He was well respected and deserved all of it.
Let us pray Tucho is of that character, but I do remain adamant that Tierra del Fuego is the preferred site for his wake-up call.
That is a shame, he should have been in a Monastery.
Laicization is too nice of punishment for these scoundrels. They should eat bitter herbs and wear hairshirts in a cold hard cell. I never said Tucho is beyond repentance, but he needs punishment to get to that point.
Obviously you have no familiarity with monastic life. Such practices were abandoned centuries ago...and even then, rarely, rarely availed. Such notions are largely a black legend promoted by protestants.
The same reason why antipope Bergoglio enthroned the pachamama demon in the Vatican back in 2019, and presided over a satanic ceremony worshipping that evil thing. Destruction of the Catholic Faith is what's happening and has been happening since Pope Benedict foolishly partially resigned the papacy and thus enabled the Bergoglio and now the Prevost antipapacies.
The Vatican is playing games again. The faith is not some bargaining chip.
If Cardinal Fernandez et al were really interested in keeping the SSPX "In Full Communion" they would simply answer the Society's concerns now. The answer should be so sufficient as to no longer necessitate the Society consecrating bishops, but of course this will not happen. The Vatican will do what they did with LeFebrve: promise, not deliver, obfuscate, delay, and then ultimately force the hand, and later claim "SCHISM!"
The Vatican cannot merely respond to disobedience by conceding to those who seek to undermine ecclesial unity. This is preposterous. Would you recommend the same approach with the German Synodal Way? Merely giving in to their demands for autonomy? I see many flaws in this line of reasoning. See my articles on this: https://liturgicalpensees.substack.com/p/refuting-a-defence-of-the-sspx
To equate the two situations is profound madness. One seeks to do away with Church teaching, the other seeks to defend it.
I bet you would have attacked Athanasius after he was "excommunicated" by Pope Liberius had you lived then as well. Was Athansius wrong to defend orthodox teaching?
You Neocons are not as smart as you think you are, and you are in many ways more dangerous to the Church than the modernists.
Calling the comparison madness avoids the actual issue, because the question here is not whether the German Synodal Way and the SSPX want the same things. They don’t. The question is whether disobedience to Rome becomes justified whenever one believes Rome is 'failing.'
If you grant that principle to the SSPX, you grant it to everyone. You don’t get to say, “My disobedience defends truth; theirs attacks it.” Every dissenter in Church history has claimed the same.
Athanasius did not consecrate bishops against an explicit papal prohibition, nor did he establish a parallel ecclesial structure in defiance of Rome. This a false analogy of yours presented as a heroic appeal, nothing else...
And the 'neocon' insult proves the weakness of the case. When the argument runs out, the labels and ad-hominem attacks have to begin. The Church is not held together by private judgments about when obedience is optional. If submission to Peter becomes conditional on personal approval, unity collapses. Regardless of whether rebels wear lace or rainbow stoles.
You act as if obedience is the highest law. It is not. Per the canonists own admissions, the salvation of souls is the highest law. If the Pope commands me to sin, or to put myself in a circumstance that would endanger my faith, or to abandon what the Church has always said, taught, and done, then my disobedience is not only allowed but required.
You are trying to place the actions of one group, who holds to the faith, preaches the faith, and holds to the traditions of the Church, and who have been presecuted by the Church itself for doing so, on the same grounds as a truly schismatic group that affirms all manner of moral degeneracy and who has abandoned Church teaching. You think that blind obedience without any consideration of the object, intention, or subsequent results of an order is what the Church requires. That has never been the case. Also, what is never spoken of is the Pope's own disobedience to his predecessors who laid the foundation he stands on and is called to preserve and protect.
Athanasius went into dioceses that did not belong to him and ordained priests under the nose of the bishop. Why? Because the bishops were Arian heretics. Athanasius was acting to preserve the faith, because he knew that Orthodoxy and The Salvation of Souls is the highest law.
The label is fitting. It describes a schizophrenic, hegalian state of mind that tries to synthesize the Catholic Faith with modern secular notions and ideas. It picks and chooses what it likes from each camps and tries to merge contradictories together.
The Church is held together by charity. The Vatican and the modernists who run it have displayed none toward the Society.
The appeal to salus animarum suprema lex to justify disobedience entirely misunderstands its meaning. Yes, the salvation of souls is the supreme law, but it is safeguarded through the divinely established authority of the Pope and bishops in communion with him, not by private interpretation or fidelity at one's whims.
Obedience is not blind, but neither is it optional just because of your personal judgment about prudential or disciplinary decisions. The example of Athanasius collapses here: he opposed bishops denying defined dogma while remaining in communion with Rome, because he never established a parallel hierarchy or quasi-parallel-church based on his views.
Your accusations that the Pope “disobeys his predecessors” or 'merges the Church with secular ideas' misrepresent theology. Development, prudential change, and disciplinary reform are not heresy, nor do they automatically threaten souls.
You reject legitimate papal authority because you disagree with tone, method, or prudential judgment. This is not the preservation of the deposit of faith but the creation of schism under the guise of fidelity. True defense of salus animarum does not mean defying the Church in the name of tradition; it means upholding tradition through the authority Christ gave to Peter and his successors, not in opposition to it.
Those who claim otherwise, such as yourself, risk substituting personal conscience for the divinely willed structure of the Church itself. It is an effective Protestantisation. One that I see very much prevalent among the current sedevacantist groups. It is an awful disease corrupting the mind...
Finally, the ad hominem attacks in the argument--name-calling “schizophrenic” or morally compromised--have no bearing on the truth of the matter. They lend no credence to your argument.
I pray for a charitable conversation, not one with unnecessary polemics stirred out of a bad-faith approach.
The Pope and the bishops are using their authority to injure and deprive souls. There is absolutely no rationale for their suppressing the old mass, the old sacraments, the old calendar, the old breviary, the old lectionary, or any of the ancient customs they suppressed during the council. The reasonings given for doing these things are specious and have been previously condemnded by their predecessors. Again, you do not understand what "authority" is. It is not power to do whatever you wish because you hold an office, it has to correspond to the purpose of the office. I would grant you that in uncertain matters, we should always lean towards obedience, but the current situation in the Church is so obviously grave as to make that moot at this point.
Both Pope Francis and Pope Leo have said that the Church now currently embodies a "new ecclesiology." That is rank error and heresey, and it is not merely a prudential development. This is the same argument that has been occuring since the council. The issue for you is that we have had 60 years to see the fruits of these so called reforms, and they all are rotten. I could perhaps give a pass to the well meaning prelates of the time who thought that the reforms were going to be done in a much more subdued way and who didnt have hindsight to their benefit, but there is zero excuse anymore.
I do not reject papal authority, nor does the society. For the thrid time, you have no concept of what true authority is or what it entails. Let us give an example: would you say the Pope has the authority to deny the faithful the right to say the rosary? Anyone with half a sensus Catholicus would say that would be absurd, yet the Pope's power is supreme, isn't it? The answer is that it is supreme WITHIN ITS BOUNDS, and YES, PAPAL POWER HAS BOUNDS. The Pope cannot rewrite the faith, nor deny longstanding traditions of the faith. He has not only the right but the duty to uphold, defend, and pass on those traditions. And for further consideration, how much older and more sacred is the usus antiquor than the rosary?!
How can you uphold tradition when the Vatican says you are not allowed??? They literally wrote a document pushing tradition into the ghettos. Do you get it yet?
It has nothing to do with personal conscience. Everything I uphold has been not only upheld by the Church before 1965, but celebrated and loved. The old mass is defended by Quo Primum in opposition to Traditionis Custodes. The antiquarian ideas that led to the New Mass were condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei. If there has been any disruption of unity in the Church, it is because the men in charge have ignored the authority of their predecessors and their duties as pastors, and THIS is why the society exists.
Oh the Protestantization argument is rich. Who did they invite to be Periti at Vatican 2? Protestants. Who did they admit that they wanted to make the mass more amenable to by stripping it of Catholic elements? Protestants. Who Did Pope Francis erect a stature to in the Vatican and whose image did he put on a stamp? Martin Luther. Who signed a joint declaration on the doctrine of justification with the protestants claiming that somehow Catholics and Protestants believed the same thing regarding justification now despite no apparent change in the Protestant position? Pope Francis. So WHO precisely is the protestant here? Are these things not scandalous beyond words and extremely damaging to the faith? How could anyone possibly say that there is no crisis in the Church today?
I am not a sedevecantist.
It is schizophrenic. That is simply how it operates. It sees two opposities and tries to merge them to create a new reality. Dont like the name, abandon the action.
Anything that defends the traditionalist argument is "polemics" in the mind of its enemies, and this is precisely why they used that word in the document that LeFebrve renigged on in bullet number 3. If we must be polemical to find the truth, so be it.
This obsession with unity is an absurdity. It has no foundation in Church History from our nascent days in Jerusalem through the protestant revolt unto the present day. There is no unity with error. Were unity th primary goal of the Church we would never have gone to the Gentiles, we would have made a pact with Arius, made Luther a bishop.
In today's ecumania all of these would be possible.
The sole function of the Church is the salvation of souls. Its a messy business and perhaps that is why catechesis was deliberately abandoned or metamorphosized into a collage course [remember collage?]. Perhaps you are too young.
1966 was quite a year. Essentially nothing has changed since that magic moment.
But nothing is wrong. The council, the council, the council. The drug of the 1960's which has never received its rightful status as fraudulent. No more efficacious than Lateran V, or any number of other councils. But still we promote its total failure. Good intentions, no fruit, but rottenness.
What did the Master counsel regarding such a tree?
The Vatican seems to do just that - concede to those who seek to undermine ecclesial unity - when they permit gay blessings, gay priests, gay liturgies, feminist ideologies...Communion in the hand was a concession to disobedient priests & laity. They do it all the time, to the Church's detriment. But for the salvation of souls? No.
Maybe not understanding but what promises have been made that were not followed through if not because of their disobedience? If St JP2 said he would do the consecrations, who are they (and certainly us) to say the holy father had no intentions of carrying out what he promised? I do agree though, our faith is not a bargaining chip. The sspx should stop assuming it can ask the church to comply with its needs for full communion and submit. Think of Padre Pio who lived out a holy obedience even when the very church he loved shunned and restricted him. SSPX has to recognize the authority of the seat of Saint Peter and submit themselves to it.
LeFebrve was promised by Cardinal Ratzinger, then the head of the CDF, that he would receive permission to consecrate at least one bishop. LeFebrve followed up with him several times, and each time there was some excuse and some reassurance of a later date. LeFebrve was getting very old, and I believe had been diagnosed with cancer. It became obvious that the Vatican was waiting for him to die, and never had any intention of actually letting him consecrate a succesor. This, coupled with the scandalous Assisi meetings, was the primary driver of LeFebrve's decision.
What the SSPX is asking is that the Vatican believe and practice the Catholic Faith. If it did that, there would be no need for the SSPX to begin with, but given the absolutely wretched state of the Liturgy, the Seminaries, and the public teaching arm of the Church, the Society feels they need to do what they need to do to continue to offer souls the True Faith and True Worship.
The case with Padre Pio is very different. Padre had the stigmata and was claiming supernatural alocutions. The Church always handles that stuff very carefully, and the bishop has a right to try the suppossed visionary and messages. That was a perfectly legitimate exercise of authority, and Padre rightly complied. What LeFebrve was asked to do was to abandon the millenia established liturgy, traditions, and sacraments of the Church in favor of masonically authored, deficient rites and ceremonies of an "ecumenical" church, which he could not do in good conscience.
The SSPX does recognize the authority of the Pope. What people fail to realize is that that authority was granted for the salvation of souls, not for the Pope's personal agenda. The Vatican has been objectively acting against the best interests of the faithful for decades now, and the results are absolutely clear. The Catholic Faith is at an all time low in terms of adherence, belief, and attendance, and it is all driven by the false Spirit of both modernism and Vatican II, which was inspired by it.
Yep, we know. He renigged because they wanted him to wear a muzzle regarding the errors in Vatican 2 (and yes, there are REAL ERRORS in Vatican 2, not just ambiguities.) See Point 3 of the agreement.
Lumen Gentium claims that elements of sanctification lay outside the visible structure of the Church. That is absurd. We are sanctified by baptism and by the sacraments, which only avail to Catholics within the visible body of the Church. It also claims the true Church “subsists in” the Catholic Church, whereas before the language was The True Church IS The Catholic Church. “Subsists in” opens the possibility for it to also subsist in other churches. Lumen Gentium also claims that it is possible for people to have not yet come to the knowledge of God through no fault of their own. This contradicts scripture, where Saint Paul says that the atheist has no excuse, being able to know God exists through creation. Vatican 1 also lays blame upon them.
Unitatis Redintegratio claims that non-Catholic Christians who have been baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church, albeit an imperfect one. This in stark contrast to many previous papal statements that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. See Mystici Corporis Christi. Unitatis Redintegratio also claims that schismatic eastern churches, as well as Protestant churches, have been used as a means of salvation by Christ, this in extremely stark contrast to innumerable statements before Vatican II that salvation is possible in the Catholic Church alone. This shameful document further exhorts the faithful to take an active role in ecumenism, which contradicts prior statements from Pius XI that Catholics are forbidden to participate in the assemblies of non Catholics.
Nostra Aetate likewise encourages the faithful to collaborate with those of other religions, which again was condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. And let us say less of that shameful, scandalous statement that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God!
No Brenda, Padre Pio's suspension, while unjust, was not a matter affecting the universal Church and the present crisis. So not comparable. The SSPX have a duty to act to ensure there are validly Bishops totally committed to preserving the Traditional Church teaching and sacraments. Not to say that the existing rites of ordination and consecration are invalid but they have unnecessarily been tampered with representing a new ecclesiology. To say that there is no crisis in the Church because we have a Pope and hierarchy in place completely misses the point, it is what the present Pope and his predecessors since Vatican II have been doing that is creating the state of emergency. Quite clearly the SSPX are only consecrating Bishops and not setting up a parallel hierarchy unlike the Palmarian sect in Spain from 1968. Let the Pope excommunicate the SSPX, it will be unjust and invalid in God's eyes. Just as St Athanasius was unjustly excommunicated at the time of the Aryan heresy.
The Society has been trying since LeFebrve. The Vatican continually stonewalls, and refuses to answer the Society's doctrinal objections to errors in the Vatican II documents.
I saw someone say, (firmly tongue in cheek), that they should hold the consecrations in China, have the government approve them and then see if the DDF would be OK with it.
Where is the substantive warning for the German episcopate? New Ways Ministry? James Martin SJ? Notre Dame University? Ever so cognizant of these omissions while the SSPX is essentially threatened with excommunication and the Pontifical International Marian Academy is being recharacterized to include protestants and even non-Christian representatives and Pope Leo affirms Tucho's "discouragement" of traditional Marian piety.
Personnel is policy.
Who would take the instruction of the current leadership on how to exit a paper bag?
Is the ever so sacred "dialogue" even possible with such duplicity?
Do we shoulder Francis II, more sober, but no less lethal?
That assumes that the Church is not indefectible. The Catholic Church, that visible society, will last until the end of time. Regardless of a few bad actors, or officials with a coloured past. Remember the awful pontificates of Benedict IX and Alexander VI.
The Church does persist, and as a visible society in the remnant of bishops who retain and believe the faith, and the souls under their care. At present, they are all persecuted by apostate Rome.
I shall not engage further in this argument, due to time constraints, except to point to Fr. Thomas Crean's article on this issue of indefectibility found in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, steered by Peter's successors, cum Petro et sub Petro.: https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/a-city-set-on-a-hill-cannot-be-hidden
The article is specific to the meeting with Tucho, disgusting prelate. Everyone should be calling them out. Their actions speak for themselves. Our Lord called them out 2000 years ago. Sadly, they have many defenders.
Please everyone. Get on your knees and pray with all of your might that the SSPX leadership will show fortitude and drop all communication with the Prevost antichurch (yes, that's exactly what it is). They met with Fernandez today. Fine, that's done. If they were afraid of being labeled as sedes for not acknowledging Rome, that excuse is now kaput. Traditional Catholicism without the SSPX will die out. It's only a matter of time before the antichurch eliminates all diocesan TLMs and dissolves the Ecclesiae Dei Communities (FSSP, ICK, Good Shepherd). That's already happening as we see every day here on Substack. We HAVE to have SSPX bishops to ordain new priests and confirm the catechumens. I can't stress enough how serious this is.
Right. Dom Pagliarani must go ahead with the consecration as he had said on the 2nd Feb. - with or without the approval of Rome. The die is casted. Just go ahead. Ant take the consequences. We the faithfuls will support them to the end. Let the "Conciliar Church" excommunicate us as much as the want, we are NOT in this anti-church anyway.
No. If after the pachamama, the degradation of Our Blessed Mother, the “synodality” with false religions and the unapologetic favoritism of sodomy over the natural law, etc., etc., you’re still convinced the conciliar church is still Catholic, I don’t know what to say other than rest assured of my prayers.
I pray for the conversion of those who have fallen down this sedevacantist rabbit hole. As for the rest, let's engage in fruitful and constructive discussion instead of giving one-liners that bear no meaning.
It is not sedevacantist to note that Francis was a heretic. He certainly was. It is not sedevacantist to note that Leo's favorite advisor is a pornographer. He certainly is. No negotiations are possible with such people. Obedience to evil is not an option for a Catholic.
Considering he is going out soon enough, there's actually a lot of incentive for him to try and salvage something, his one chance to be remembered for something.
Don't think he does it or he won't screw it up, but the idea this is all some conspiracy assumes facts and a style of him absolutely not in evidence.
Tucho will be 64 this year. His current term at the DDF is up in September 2028. His age would allow him to be appointed for another five year term. The current pontificate appears to have the utmost confidence in the individual. If not, let it be demonstrated with the utmost haste.
Two and a half years doesn't pass as quickly as it appears when you are shouldering such as this fellow.
There is no allusion to "conspiracy." He has his track record in practice and in his personal disposition. It is simply scandalous. There is no reason to believe the critter will change his spots.
WOULD allow. But very few think that is what is going to happen.
And that's hardly an original or trad/conservative orientated thought, as even Charles Collins from Crux has said this, other Vatican reporters are talking about everyone just waiting for a prominent diocese to open up where he can get sent to so it isn't a "demotion" etc.
But the idea on this "he calls the shots" is not in fact how it works. He may indeed be calling point and certain snap decisions he would have a degree of authority over, but the one above him "calls the shots"
There is no impediment to Pope Leo removing him today. That he remains, unfettered and uncorrected is the one above him "calls the shots". Why such a concern about demotion?
It is boldly written on the wall, there is no vice presently unrewarded but the virtues consigned to irrelevancy. Humility being the first to be consigned to the gutter.
What's up with Rupnik?
Does that not say everything?
And should our hope for at least his departing at the end of his term come to pass, exactly who will replace him? And why not now if only then? The candidates are all present.
Cardinal Fernandez wants to play fast pitch hardball with the SSPX by saying suspending new bishops is a precondition. I’ve always thought of him as a softball player. Particularly in that CCP ‘bishops’ who aren’t even Catholic get retroactive approval from the Vatican. Different games for different people. But can cardinal Fernandez play both games well enough?
It was already quite evident that the Vatican did not place a high value on answering the the two letters already submitted to them by the SSPX. Therefore, based on their past behavior and today's insistence that dialogue cannot proceed without canceling July's ordination, it appears the Vatican is in no rush to offer a solution or the respect due to the society. The vague replies we've come to expect from the Holy See are once again in play. This will no doubt add further complications to this important issue.
The consecrations will proceed regardless. SSPX does not need permission from an antipope to consecrate bishops. It should be noted also that dialoging with the devil is never a good idea. The fact that “Touch-You” Fernandez has not been excommunicated but rather is leading the negotiations is more proof this “church” run by Leo is a counterfeit.
So the Vatican sent its official pornographer to "negotiate" with the SSPX. That says everything that needs to be said. NO NEGOTIATIONS! I look forward to attending the Consecrations in Écône
You cannot make a deal with the devil. SSPX! Consecrate bishops ! You’ll never make the cullatone Vatican pleased unless you disappear. We answer to God not clergy who objectively aren’t Catholic. They aren’t even Christian. The. Vatican is in schism from the Church.
Really! I can go through the NT page by page and read the words of Jesus in the Gospels and then go through the epistles and read what they say. It doesn’t take a genius. The words are clear. No Vatican weasel words.
Why would any Catholic believe one word coming from Leo or those cardinals!? Heretics.
Read the words of Christ. Read the words of the apostles.
The Vatican’s perpetual “dialoging” with its perceived enemies evokes American humorist Will Rogers’ definition of diplomacy… “The art of saying ‘Nice doggy’ until you can find a rock.”
What's Fernandez still doing in that office?
He should be publicly flogged, defrocked, repudiated as a heretic, and made to do penance in a monastery the rest of his life.
Monasteries are not penal institutions. To place him in such an environment would be to pollute a sacred place and an impediment to contemplative life.
Send him back to Argentina, preferably Tierra del Fuego, considered the "end of the world."
History says otherwise. We have plenty of examples of rogue clergy being sentenced to monastic penance, not least of which being Annibale Bugnini, the author of the New Mass
Annibale Bugnini was never sent to a monastery for his duplicitousness. He was sent to Iran in 1975 as Apostolic Pro-Nuncio where he remained until 1982. He died in Rome that same year.
Previous practice has little to do with the reality. Having had the grace of monastic life at one point in my life, and the added grace of sharing some of that time with a bishop living with us under discipline, though many years into his personal repentance. I can say with all assurance monastic existence is a support for repentance, spiritual growth and personal transformation only for those who are willing to abandon their error and are receptive to Grace. Our penitent was himself a work of Grace. He was well respected and deserved all of it.
Let us pray Tucho is of that character, but I do remain adamant that Tierra del Fuego is the preferred site for his wake-up call.
That is a shame, he should have been in a Monastery.
Laicization is too nice of punishment for these scoundrels. They should eat bitter herbs and wear hairshirts in a cold hard cell. I never said Tucho is beyond repentance, but he needs punishment to get to that point.
Obviously you have no familiarity with monastic life. Such practices were abandoned centuries ago...and even then, rarely, rarely availed. Such notions are largely a black legend promoted by protestants.
Also, look up "Ecclesiastical Prisons." They existed and should again.
Why the expense of feeding them. Sent them on their way. Uber requires drivers...and then theology departments are always in need of aberrant faculty.
The same reason why antipope Bergoglio enthroned the pachamama demon in the Vatican back in 2019, and presided over a satanic ceremony worshipping that evil thing. Destruction of the Catholic Faith is what's happening and has been happening since Pope Benedict foolishly partially resigned the papacy and thus enabled the Bergoglio and now the Prevost antipapacies.
Probably blackmailing others.
The Vatican is playing games again. The faith is not some bargaining chip.
If Cardinal Fernandez et al were really interested in keeping the SSPX "In Full Communion" they would simply answer the Society's concerns now. The answer should be so sufficient as to no longer necessitate the Society consecrating bishops, but of course this will not happen. The Vatican will do what they did with LeFebrve: promise, not deliver, obfuscate, delay, and then ultimately force the hand, and later claim "SCHISM!"
I agree with you. We are in the moment foretold by Our Blessed Mother, ever Virgin at Fatima. Pray for the intervention of the Holy Spirit. 🙏
The Vatican cannot merely respond to disobedience by conceding to those who seek to undermine ecclesial unity. This is preposterous. Would you recommend the same approach with the German Synodal Way? Merely giving in to their demands for autonomy? I see many flaws in this line of reasoning. See my articles on this: https://liturgicalpensees.substack.com/p/refuting-a-defence-of-the-sspx
To equate the two situations is profound madness. One seeks to do away with Church teaching, the other seeks to defend it.
I bet you would have attacked Athanasius after he was "excommunicated" by Pope Liberius had you lived then as well. Was Athansius wrong to defend orthodox teaching?
You Neocons are not as smart as you think you are, and you are in many ways more dangerous to the Church than the modernists.
Calling the comparison madness avoids the actual issue, because the question here is not whether the German Synodal Way and the SSPX want the same things. They don’t. The question is whether disobedience to Rome becomes justified whenever one believes Rome is 'failing.'
If you grant that principle to the SSPX, you grant it to everyone. You don’t get to say, “My disobedience defends truth; theirs attacks it.” Every dissenter in Church history has claimed the same.
Athanasius did not consecrate bishops against an explicit papal prohibition, nor did he establish a parallel ecclesial structure in defiance of Rome. This a false analogy of yours presented as a heroic appeal, nothing else...
And the 'neocon' insult proves the weakness of the case. When the argument runs out, the labels and ad-hominem attacks have to begin. The Church is not held together by private judgments about when obedience is optional. If submission to Peter becomes conditional on personal approval, unity collapses. Regardless of whether rebels wear lace or rainbow stoles.
You act as if obedience is the highest law. It is not. Per the canonists own admissions, the salvation of souls is the highest law. If the Pope commands me to sin, or to put myself in a circumstance that would endanger my faith, or to abandon what the Church has always said, taught, and done, then my disobedience is not only allowed but required.
You are trying to place the actions of one group, who holds to the faith, preaches the faith, and holds to the traditions of the Church, and who have been presecuted by the Church itself for doing so, on the same grounds as a truly schismatic group that affirms all manner of moral degeneracy and who has abandoned Church teaching. You think that blind obedience without any consideration of the object, intention, or subsequent results of an order is what the Church requires. That has never been the case. Also, what is never spoken of is the Pope's own disobedience to his predecessors who laid the foundation he stands on and is called to preserve and protect.
Athanasius went into dioceses that did not belong to him and ordained priests under the nose of the bishop. Why? Because the bishops were Arian heretics. Athanasius was acting to preserve the faith, because he knew that Orthodoxy and The Salvation of Souls is the highest law.
The label is fitting. It describes a schizophrenic, hegalian state of mind that tries to synthesize the Catholic Faith with modern secular notions and ideas. It picks and chooses what it likes from each camps and tries to merge contradictories together.
The Church is held together by charity. The Vatican and the modernists who run it have displayed none toward the Society.
The appeal to salus animarum suprema lex to justify disobedience entirely misunderstands its meaning. Yes, the salvation of souls is the supreme law, but it is safeguarded through the divinely established authority of the Pope and bishops in communion with him, not by private interpretation or fidelity at one's whims.
Obedience is not blind, but neither is it optional just because of your personal judgment about prudential or disciplinary decisions. The example of Athanasius collapses here: he opposed bishops denying defined dogma while remaining in communion with Rome, because he never established a parallel hierarchy or quasi-parallel-church based on his views.
Your accusations that the Pope “disobeys his predecessors” or 'merges the Church with secular ideas' misrepresent theology. Development, prudential change, and disciplinary reform are not heresy, nor do they automatically threaten souls.
You reject legitimate papal authority because you disagree with tone, method, or prudential judgment. This is not the preservation of the deposit of faith but the creation of schism under the guise of fidelity. True defense of salus animarum does not mean defying the Church in the name of tradition; it means upholding tradition through the authority Christ gave to Peter and his successors, not in opposition to it.
Those who claim otherwise, such as yourself, risk substituting personal conscience for the divinely willed structure of the Church itself. It is an effective Protestantisation. One that I see very much prevalent among the current sedevacantist groups. It is an awful disease corrupting the mind...
Finally, the ad hominem attacks in the argument--name-calling “schizophrenic” or morally compromised--have no bearing on the truth of the matter. They lend no credence to your argument.
I pray for a charitable conversation, not one with unnecessary polemics stirred out of a bad-faith approach.
The Pope and the bishops are using their authority to injure and deprive souls. There is absolutely no rationale for their suppressing the old mass, the old sacraments, the old calendar, the old breviary, the old lectionary, or any of the ancient customs they suppressed during the council. The reasonings given for doing these things are specious and have been previously condemnded by their predecessors. Again, you do not understand what "authority" is. It is not power to do whatever you wish because you hold an office, it has to correspond to the purpose of the office. I would grant you that in uncertain matters, we should always lean towards obedience, but the current situation in the Church is so obviously grave as to make that moot at this point.
Both Pope Francis and Pope Leo have said that the Church now currently embodies a "new ecclesiology." That is rank error and heresey, and it is not merely a prudential development. This is the same argument that has been occuring since the council. The issue for you is that we have had 60 years to see the fruits of these so called reforms, and they all are rotten. I could perhaps give a pass to the well meaning prelates of the time who thought that the reforms were going to be done in a much more subdued way and who didnt have hindsight to their benefit, but there is zero excuse anymore.
I do not reject papal authority, nor does the society. For the thrid time, you have no concept of what true authority is or what it entails. Let us give an example: would you say the Pope has the authority to deny the faithful the right to say the rosary? Anyone with half a sensus Catholicus would say that would be absurd, yet the Pope's power is supreme, isn't it? The answer is that it is supreme WITHIN ITS BOUNDS, and YES, PAPAL POWER HAS BOUNDS. The Pope cannot rewrite the faith, nor deny longstanding traditions of the faith. He has not only the right but the duty to uphold, defend, and pass on those traditions. And for further consideration, how much older and more sacred is the usus antiquor than the rosary?!
How can you uphold tradition when the Vatican says you are not allowed??? They literally wrote a document pushing tradition into the ghettos. Do you get it yet?
It has nothing to do with personal conscience. Everything I uphold has been not only upheld by the Church before 1965, but celebrated and loved. The old mass is defended by Quo Primum in opposition to Traditionis Custodes. The antiquarian ideas that led to the New Mass were condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei. If there has been any disruption of unity in the Church, it is because the men in charge have ignored the authority of their predecessors and their duties as pastors, and THIS is why the society exists.
Oh the Protestantization argument is rich. Who did they invite to be Periti at Vatican 2? Protestants. Who did they admit that they wanted to make the mass more amenable to by stripping it of Catholic elements? Protestants. Who Did Pope Francis erect a stature to in the Vatican and whose image did he put on a stamp? Martin Luther. Who signed a joint declaration on the doctrine of justification with the protestants claiming that somehow Catholics and Protestants believed the same thing regarding justification now despite no apparent change in the Protestant position? Pope Francis. So WHO precisely is the protestant here? Are these things not scandalous beyond words and extremely damaging to the faith? How could anyone possibly say that there is no crisis in the Church today?
I am not a sedevecantist.
It is schizophrenic. That is simply how it operates. It sees two opposities and tries to merge them to create a new reality. Dont like the name, abandon the action.
Anything that defends the traditionalist argument is "polemics" in the mind of its enemies, and this is precisely why they used that word in the document that LeFebrve renigged on in bullet number 3. If we must be polemical to find the truth, so be it.
In the case of antipopes, as we currently have, disobedience is the
ONLY option.
Amen. Most are Conversos
God Bless them, but they should have some humility. Saint Pual was right to caution them not to speak for at least five years after baptism.
This obsession with unity is an absurdity. It has no foundation in Church History from our nascent days in Jerusalem through the protestant revolt unto the present day. There is no unity with error. Were unity th primary goal of the Church we would never have gone to the Gentiles, we would have made a pact with Arius, made Luther a bishop.
In today's ecumania all of these would be possible.
The sole function of the Church is the salvation of souls. Its a messy business and perhaps that is why catechesis was deliberately abandoned or metamorphosized into a collage course [remember collage?]. Perhaps you are too young.
1966 was quite a year. Essentially nothing has changed since that magic moment.
But nothing is wrong. The council, the council, the council. The drug of the 1960's which has never received its rightful status as fraudulent. No more efficacious than Lateran V, or any number of other councils. But still we promote its total failure. Good intentions, no fruit, but rottenness.
What did the Master counsel regarding such a tree?
The Vatican conceded to disobedience on many occasions after Vatican 2. Just two examples: Communion in the hand; girl altar servers.
Read Quo Primum by St. Pius V, takes like 10 minutes to read.
The Vatican seems to do just that - concede to those who seek to undermine ecclesial unity - when they permit gay blessings, gay priests, gay liturgies, feminist ideologies...Communion in the hand was a concession to disobedient priests & laity. They do it all the time, to the Church's detriment. But for the salvation of souls? No.
Maybe not understanding but what promises have been made that were not followed through if not because of their disobedience? If St JP2 said he would do the consecrations, who are they (and certainly us) to say the holy father had no intentions of carrying out what he promised? I do agree though, our faith is not a bargaining chip. The sspx should stop assuming it can ask the church to comply with its needs for full communion and submit. Think of Padre Pio who lived out a holy obedience even when the very church he loved shunned and restricted him. SSPX has to recognize the authority of the seat of Saint Peter and submit themselves to it.
LeFebrve was promised by Cardinal Ratzinger, then the head of the CDF, that he would receive permission to consecrate at least one bishop. LeFebrve followed up with him several times, and each time there was some excuse and some reassurance of a later date. LeFebrve was getting very old, and I believe had been diagnosed with cancer. It became obvious that the Vatican was waiting for him to die, and never had any intention of actually letting him consecrate a succesor. This, coupled with the scandalous Assisi meetings, was the primary driver of LeFebrve's decision.
What the SSPX is asking is that the Vatican believe and practice the Catholic Faith. If it did that, there would be no need for the SSPX to begin with, but given the absolutely wretched state of the Liturgy, the Seminaries, and the public teaching arm of the Church, the Society feels they need to do what they need to do to continue to offer souls the True Faith and True Worship.
The case with Padre Pio is very different. Padre had the stigmata and was claiming supernatural alocutions. The Church always handles that stuff very carefully, and the bishop has a right to try the suppossed visionary and messages. That was a perfectly legitimate exercise of authority, and Padre rightly complied. What LeFebrve was asked to do was to abandon the millenia established liturgy, traditions, and sacraments of the Church in favor of masonically authored, deficient rites and ceremonies of an "ecumenical" church, which he could not do in good conscience.
The SSPX does recognize the authority of the Pope. What people fail to realize is that that authority was granted for the salvation of souls, not for the Pope's personal agenda. The Vatican has been objectively acting against the best interests of the faithful for decades now, and the results are absolutely clear. The Catholic Faith is at an all time low in terms of adherence, belief, and attendance, and it is all driven by the false Spirit of both modernism and Vatican II, which was inspired by it.
Amen
I'm sorry, but this narrative of Lefebvre's actions is wholly wrong. As I mention in my article (https://open.substack.com/pub/liturgicalpensees/p/refuting-a-defence-of-the-sspx?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web), Lefebvre signed a protocol agreement with Ratzinger, with the consecration set 13 weeks in the future, in August 1988, the intermediate time being for the Vatican to verify the credentials of the candidates for episcopacy proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre. However, the latter reneged on the agreement just a day after signing it, on May 6th. See: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/protocol-agreement-of-the-vatican-and-archbishop-lefebvre-2096
Yep, we know. He renigged because they wanted him to wear a muzzle regarding the errors in Vatican 2 (and yes, there are REAL ERRORS in Vatican 2, not just ambiguities.) See Point 3 of the agreement.
Could you point to those errors, specifically?
Yes, I would be happy to.
Lumen Gentium claims that elements of sanctification lay outside the visible structure of the Church. That is absurd. We are sanctified by baptism and by the sacraments, which only avail to Catholics within the visible body of the Church. It also claims the true Church “subsists in” the Catholic Church, whereas before the language was The True Church IS The Catholic Church. “Subsists in” opens the possibility for it to also subsist in other churches. Lumen Gentium also claims that it is possible for people to have not yet come to the knowledge of God through no fault of their own. This contradicts scripture, where Saint Paul says that the atheist has no excuse, being able to know God exists through creation. Vatican 1 also lays blame upon them.
Unitatis Redintegratio claims that non-Catholic Christians who have been baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church, albeit an imperfect one. This in stark contrast to many previous papal statements that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church. See Mystici Corporis Christi. Unitatis Redintegratio also claims that schismatic eastern churches, as well as Protestant churches, have been used as a means of salvation by Christ, this in extremely stark contrast to innumerable statements before Vatican II that salvation is possible in the Catholic Church alone. This shameful document further exhorts the faithful to take an active role in ecumenism, which contradicts prior statements from Pius XI that Catholics are forbidden to participate in the assemblies of non Catholics.
Nostra Aetate likewise encourages the faithful to collaborate with those of other religions, which again was condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. And let us say less of that shameful, scandalous statement that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God!
The list goes on and on. Vatican II is evil.
No Brenda, Padre Pio's suspension, while unjust, was not a matter affecting the universal Church and the present crisis. So not comparable. The SSPX have a duty to act to ensure there are validly Bishops totally committed to preserving the Traditional Church teaching and sacraments. Not to say that the existing rites of ordination and consecration are invalid but they have unnecessarily been tampered with representing a new ecclesiology. To say that there is no crisis in the Church because we have a Pope and hierarchy in place completely misses the point, it is what the present Pope and his predecessors since Vatican II have been doing that is creating the state of emergency. Quite clearly the SSPX are only consecrating Bishops and not setting up a parallel hierarchy unlike the Palmarian sect in Spain from 1968. Let the Pope excommunicate the SSPX, it will be unjust and invalid in God's eyes. Just as St Athanasius was unjustly excommunicated at the time of the Aryan heresy.
Still, in order to show adherence to the Seat of Peter, should we not make every effort to resolve our impasse without breaking with Rome?
The Society has been trying since LeFebrve. The Vatican continually stonewalls, and refuses to answer the Society's doctrinal objections to errors in the Vatican II documents.
I saw someone say, (firmly tongue in cheek), that they should hold the consecrations in China, have the government approve them and then see if the DDF would be OK with it.
Brilliant! Or maybe consecrate more gay bishops.
Where is the substantive warning for the German episcopate? New Ways Ministry? James Martin SJ? Notre Dame University? Ever so cognizant of these omissions while the SSPX is essentially threatened with excommunication and the Pontifical International Marian Academy is being recharacterized to include protestants and even non-Christian representatives and Pope Leo affirms Tucho's "discouragement" of traditional Marian piety.
Personnel is policy.
Who would take the instruction of the current leadership on how to exit a paper bag?
Is the ever so sacred "dialogue" even possible with such duplicity?
Do we shoulder Francis II, more sober, but no less lethal?
Mercy for my friends, justice for my enemies.
My first thought is, this is just a delay tactic.
They've already delayed, sent a response that was no response. Now he gets the meeting, and the answer is, "hold off, let's talk."
Delay, obfuscate.
Why do we dialogue with the schismatic Rome hierarchy?? It’s like taking the Bible for a sit down with the devil.
I pray for people to repent of this awful notion assuming Rome has apostasised. Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia. https://liturgicalpensees.substack.com/p/refuting-a-defence-of-the-sspx
Rome has apostasied.
That assumes that the Church is not indefectible. The Catholic Church, that visible society, will last until the end of time. Regardless of a few bad actors, or officials with a coloured past. Remember the awful pontificates of Benedict IX and Alexander VI.
The Church does persist, and as a visible society in the remnant of bishops who retain and believe the faith, and the souls under their care. At present, they are all persecuted by apostate Rome.
I shall not engage further in this argument, due to time constraints, except to point to Fr. Thomas Crean's article on this issue of indefectibility found in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, steered by Peter's successors, cum Petro et sub Petro.: https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/a-city-set-on-a-hill-cannot-be-hidden
The article is specific to the meeting with Tucho, disgusting prelate. Everyone should be calling them out. Their actions speak for themselves. Our Lord called them out 2000 years ago. Sadly, they have many defenders.
Please everyone. Get on your knees and pray with all of your might that the SSPX leadership will show fortitude and drop all communication with the Prevost antichurch (yes, that's exactly what it is). They met with Fernandez today. Fine, that's done. If they were afraid of being labeled as sedes for not acknowledging Rome, that excuse is now kaput. Traditional Catholicism without the SSPX will die out. It's only a matter of time before the antichurch eliminates all diocesan TLMs and dissolves the Ecclesiae Dei Communities (FSSP, ICK, Good Shepherd). That's already happening as we see every day here on Substack. We HAVE to have SSPX bishops to ordain new priests and confirm the catechumens. I can't stress enough how serious this is.
Right. Dom Pagliarani must go ahead with the consecration as he had said on the 2nd Feb. - with or without the approval of Rome. The die is casted. Just go ahead. Ant take the consequences. We the faithfuls will support them to the end. Let the "Conciliar Church" excommunicate us as much as the want, we are NOT in this anti-church anyway.
Absolute balderdash. Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia. The majority of Trad Catholics remain in full communion with the Holy See and filial devotion to the Holy Father. See my refutation of the SSPX arguments. https://liturgicalpensees.substack.com/p/refuting-a-defence-of-the-sspx
No. If after the pachamama, the degradation of Our Blessed Mother, the “synodality” with false religions and the unapologetic favoritism of sodomy over the natural law, etc., etc., you’re still convinced the conciliar church is still Catholic, I don’t know what to say other than rest assured of my prayers.
I pray for the conversion of those who have fallen down this sedevacantist rabbit hole. As for the rest, let's engage in fruitful and constructive discussion instead of giving one-liners that bear no meaning.
It is not sedevacantist to note that Francis was a heretic. He certainly was. It is not sedevacantist to note that Leo's favorite advisor is a pornographer. He certainly is. No negotiations are possible with such people. Obedience to evil is not an option for a Catholic.
Your "refutation" is garbage.
Thank you, Dr. Williams, for such kind words of appreciation. It is a hallmark of a learned man! Non-charitable rhetoric leads to no end.
Secondly, would you care to engage with my points, instead of directing an ad-hominem attack?
I did not expect an announcement this quickly! Thanks Diane for your excellent journalism 👌🏻
You won't have long to wait to see how quickly the axe falls... Tucho calls the shots.
Considering he is going out soon enough, there's actually a lot of incentive for him to try and salvage something, his one chance to be remembered for something.
Don't think he does it or he won't screw it up, but the idea this is all some conspiracy assumes facts and a style of him absolutely not in evidence.
Tucho will be 64 this year. His current term at the DDF is up in September 2028. His age would allow him to be appointed for another five year term. The current pontificate appears to have the utmost confidence in the individual. If not, let it be demonstrated with the utmost haste.
Two and a half years doesn't pass as quickly as it appears when you are shouldering such as this fellow.
There is no allusion to "conspiracy." He has his track record in practice and in his personal disposition. It is simply scandalous. There is no reason to believe the critter will change his spots.
WOULD allow. But very few think that is what is going to happen.
And that's hardly an original or trad/conservative orientated thought, as even Charles Collins from Crux has said this, other Vatican reporters are talking about everyone just waiting for a prominent diocese to open up where he can get sent to so it isn't a "demotion" etc.
But the idea on this "he calls the shots" is not in fact how it works. He may indeed be calling point and certain snap decisions he would have a degree of authority over, but the one above him "calls the shots"
There is no impediment to Pope Leo removing him today. That he remains, unfettered and uncorrected is the one above him "calls the shots". Why such a concern about demotion?
It is boldly written on the wall, there is no vice presently unrewarded but the virtues consigned to irrelevancy. Humility being the first to be consigned to the gutter.
What's up with Rupnik?
Does that not say everything?
And should our hope for at least his departing at the end of his term come to pass, exactly who will replace him? And why not now if only then? The candidates are all present.
Cardinal Fernandez wants to play fast pitch hardball with the SSPX by saying suspending new bishops is a precondition. I’ve always thought of him as a softball player. Particularly in that CCP ‘bishops’ who aren’t even Catholic get retroactive approval from the Vatican. Different games for different people. But can cardinal Fernandez play both games well enough?
The devil plays for keeps. This is why the Good Lord says, “Be vigilant lest you be tempted “.
It was already quite evident that the Vatican did not place a high value on answering the the two letters already submitted to them by the SSPX. Therefore, based on their past behavior and today's insistence that dialogue cannot proceed without canceling July's ordination, it appears the Vatican is in no rush to offer a solution or the respect due to the society. The vague replies we've come to expect from the Holy See are once again in play. This will no doubt add further complications to this important issue.
Prayers for the SSPX. I had hoped their Superior might convert Cardinal Fernadez 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
The consecrations will proceed regardless. SSPX does not need permission from an antipope to consecrate bishops. It should be noted also that dialoging with the devil is never a good idea. The fact that “Touch-You” Fernandez has not been excommunicated but rather is leading the negotiations is more proof this “church” run by Leo is a counterfeit.
The “leaders” of our earthly Church have little credibility when someone lie Tucho is in “charge” of a disastery🤮
Pope Leo should have sacked him!
So the Vatican sent its official pornographer to "negotiate" with the SSPX. That says everything that needs to be said. NO NEGOTIATIONS! I look forward to attending the Consecrations in Écône
You cannot make a deal with the devil. SSPX! Consecrate bishops ! You’ll never make the cullatone Vatican pleased unless you disappear. We answer to God not clergy who objectively aren’t Catholic. They aren’t even Christian. The. Vatican is in schism from the Church.
Really! I can go through the NT page by page and read the words of Jesus in the Gospels and then go through the epistles and read what they say. It doesn’t take a genius. The words are clear. No Vatican weasel words.
Why would any Catholic believe one word coming from Leo or those cardinals!? Heretics.
Read the words of Christ. Read the words of the apostles.
The Vatican’s perpetual “dialoging” with its perceived enemies evokes American humorist Will Rogers’ definition of diplomacy… “The art of saying ‘Nice doggy’ until you can find a rock.”