Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Archbishop Lefebvre’s Eyewitness Testimony to the Church Revolution

At the recommendation of my husband, I have just read a 1982 conference given in Montreal, Canada by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre – the founder of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) – as it had been translated into English in 1992 by the Fideliter Magazine and as it has just recently been re-published and commented upon by Dr. Peter Chojnowski, a former student of my husband and a friend of our family, on his own blog, RadTradThomist. (Since Dr. Chojnowski has made his own emphases and comments in the text, I have decided to make use of the original text as it has been published by the SSPX itself. I would highly recommend to our readers to read the full 20 pages of this 1982 conference.)

In this 1982 conference, Archbishop Lefebvre tries to describe and explain some of the developments – before, during, and after the Second Vatican Council – which clearly show the growing power and influence of Liberalism and Modernism within the Catholic Church, even up to the pope. What may well be striking for readers of today are two things. First: there are to be seen some strong parallels between that period of time and our own, especially with regard to the personnel decisions made by some popes and the very effective strategies used by the Modernists. Second: one may grow in a deeper understanding of the purposes of Archbishop Lefebvre as of 1982, early in the reign of Pope John Paul II and before the ecumenical event in Assisi in 1986.

At the same time, this presentation of events – as Archbishop Lefebvre recounts them based on his own experiences and conversations – gives us, as I believe, a deeper understanding of some of the surrounding historical events. They might help us to understand why our beloved Church is right now in such a weakened condition and why it would not be sufficient for us just to wish to return to the optimistically imagined state of the Church before the papacy of Pope Francis. This Lefebvre conference might also be of interest in the context of the debate which has been recently started by Professor de Mattei’s strong words about the Second Vatican Council. He said:

On the historical level, however, Vatican II constitutes a non-decomposable block: It has its own unity, its essence, its nature. Considered in its origins, its implementation and consequences, it can be described as a Revolution in mentality and language, which has profoundly changed the life of the Church, initiating a moral and religious crisis without precedent. If the theological judgment may be vague and comprehensive, the judgment of history is merciless and without appeal. The Second Vatican Council was not only unsuccessful or a failure: it was a catastrophe for the Church. [my emphasis]

In addition to de Mattei’s clear and strong assessment of the Second Vatican Council, Eric Sammons, a contributor to OnePeterFive, has raised the question of self-censorship with regard to the Vatican II discussion and thus invites an honest and courageous debate about the matter. Phil Lawler has already himself responded to that invitation. For all of us, Roberto de Mattei’s own 2012 book on the Second Vatican Council, entitled The Second Vatican Council (an unwritten story), would be a very helpful source of solid and well-researched information.

In the following, I shall present mainly two parts of the longer (20-page) conference of Archbishop Lefebvre which I – together with my husband – consider to be of abiding importance.

The first part we would like to highlight here is his description of Cardinal Bea’s own struggle with, and against, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (the Secretary of the Holy Office) with regard to the matter of religious liberty. As Lefebvre states, the clashes between the two prelates had already begun during the preparation for the Second Vatican Council. As he says:

I describe the following incident in one of my books A Bishop Speaks. I often mention it because it truly characterizes the end of the Central Commission and the beginning of the Council. It was during the last meeting, and we had received beforehand ten documents on the same subject. Cardinal [Augustin] Bea had prepared a text “De Libertate Religiosa,” “Concerning Religious Liberty.” Cardinal [Alfredo] Ottaviani had prepared another, “De Tolerantia Religiosa,” “Concerning Religious Tolerance.”

The simple fact [of] the two different titles on the same subject was significant of two different conceptions. Cardinal Bea spoke of freedom for all religions and Cardinal Ottaviani of freedom for the Catholic religion along with tolerance of error and false religions. How could such a disagreement have been resolved by the Commission?

From the beginning Cardinal Ottaviani pointed the finger at Cardinal Bea and said, “Your Eminence, you do not have the right to present this document.”

Cardinal Bea replied, “Excuse me but I have perfectly the right to put together a document as President of the Commission for Unity. Consequently, I have knowingly put together this document. Moreover, I am totally opposed to your opinion.”

Thus two of the most eminent Cardinals, Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, and Cardinal Bea, former Confessor of Pope Pius XII, a Jesuit having a great deal of influence on all the Cardinals, who was well known in the Biblical Institute and responsible for advanced biblical studies, were opposed on a fundamental thesis in the Church. Unity for all religions is one thing, that is to say that liberty and error are placed on the same footing; but liberty of the Catholic religion along with tolerance of error is something quite different. Traditionally the Church has always been for the opinion of Cardinal Ottaviani and not for that of Cardinal Bea, which is totally liberal.

Then Cardinal [Ernesto] Ruffini, from Palermo, stood up and said; “We are now in the presence of two confreres who are opposed to one another on a question which is very important in the Church. We are consequently obliged to refer to a higher authority.”

Quite often the Pope [John XXIII] came to preside over our meetings. But he was not there for this last meeting. Consequently the Cardinals requested to vote: “We cannot wait to go and see the Holy Father. We are going to vote” We voted. Just about one half of the Cardinals voted for the opinion of Cardinal Bea and the other half for that of Cardinal Ottaviani. All those who voted for Cardinal Bea’s opinion were the Dutch, German, French and Austrian Cardinals, and all those in general from Europe and North America. The traditional Cardinals were those of the Roman Curia, from South America and in general those of Spanish Language.

It was a true rupture in the Church. From this moment I asked myself how the Council could proceed with such opposition on such important points. Who would win? Would it be Cardinal Ottaviani with the Cardinals of Spanish or [other] romance languages or would it be the European Cardinals and those of North America? [my emphasis]

After describing the initial conflict between Ottaviani and Bea which took place during the reign of Pope John XXIII, Archbishop Lefebvre also touches upon the measures later taken by Pope Paul VI as soon as he became pope:

Pope Paul VI came along. It is obvious that he gave his support to the liberal wing. Why was that? From the very beginning of his pontificate, during the second Session of the Council, he immediately named four Moderators [three of whom were progressivists, one was a moderate conservative].  […] Clearly the traditional Cardinals and Bishops were from this very moment put aside and despised.

When poor Cardinal Ottaviani, who was blind, started to speak, boos could be heard amongst the young Bishops when he did not finish at the end of the ten minutes allocated to him. Thus did they make him understand that they had had enough of listening to him. He had to stop; it was frightful. This venerable Cardinal, who was honored throughout Rome and who had had an enormous influence on the Holy Church, who was Prefect of the Holy Office, which is not a small function, was obliged to stop. It was scandalous to see how the traditionalists were treated.

Monseigneur Staffa (he has since been named Cardinal), who is very energetic, was silenced by the Council Moderators. These were unbelievable things. [emphasis added]

Archbishop Lefebvre concludes, after these few examples, by saying:

This is what happened at the Council. It is obvious that all the Council documents and texts were influenced by the liberal Cardinals and Commissions. It is hardly astonishing that we have such ambiguous texts, which favor so many changes and even a true revolution in the Church. [emphasis added]

Let us now go over to the period after the Second Vatican Council and one of its most disruptive subsequent developments: namely, the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre gives us much historical information when he says:

The most serious of the consequences was the liturgical reform. It was accomplished, as everybody knows, by a well-known priest, [Annibale] Bugnini, who had prepared it long in advance. Already in 1955 Fr. Bugnini had asked Msgr. [Arrigo] Pintonello, general Chaplain of the Italian army, who had spent much time in Germany during the occupation, to translate Protestant liturgical texts. For Fr. Bugnini did not know German.

It was Msgr. Pintonello himself who told me that he had translated the Protestant liturgical books for Fr. Bugnini, who at that time was but an insignificant member of a liturgical commission. He was nothing. Afterwards he became professor of liturgy at the Lateran. Pope John XXIII made him leave on account of his modernism and his progressivism. Hence surprise, surprise, and he is found again as President of the Commission for Liturgical Reform. This is all the same, unbelievable.

I had the occasion to see for myself what influence Fr. Bugnini had. One wonders how such a thing as this could have happened at Rome. At that time immediately after the Council, I was Superior General of the Congregation of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and we had a meeting of the Superiors General at Rome. We had asked Fr. Bugnini [to] explain to us what his New Mass was, for this was not at all a small event. Immediately after the Council was heard of the Normative Mass, the New Mass, the Novus Ordo. What did all this mean?

It had not been spoken of at the Council. What had happened? And so we asked Fr. Bugnini to come and explain himself to the 84 Superiors General who were united together, amongst whom I consequently was.

Fr. Bugnini, with much confidence, explained what the Normative Mass would be; this will be changed, that will be changed and we will put in place another Offertory. We will be able to reduce the communion prayers. We will be able to have several different formats for the beginning of Mass. We will be able to say the Mass in the vernacular tongue. We looked at one another saying to ourselves: “But it’s not possible!”

He spoke absolutely, as if there had never been a Mass in the Church before him. He spoke of his Normative Mass as of a new invention.

Personally I was myself so stunned that I remained mute, although I generally speak freely when it is a question of opposing those with whom I am not in agreement. I could not utter a word. How could it be possible for this man before me to be entrusted with the entire reform of the Catholic Liturgy, the entire reform of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the sacraments, of the Breviary, and of all our prayers? Where are we going? Where is the Church going?

Two Superiors General had the courage to speak out. One of them asked Fr. Bugnini: “Is this an active participation, that is a bodily participation, that is to say with vocal prayers, or is it a spiritual participation? In any case you have so much spoken of the participation of the faithful that it seems you can no longer justify Mass celebrated without the faithful. Your entire Mass has been fabricated around the participation of the faithful. We Benedictines celebrate our Masses without the assistance of the faithful. Does this mean that we must discontinue our private Masses, since we do not have faithful to participate in them?”

I repeat to you exactly that which Fr. Bugnini said. I have it still in my ears, so much did it strike me: “To speak truthfully we didn’t think of that,” he said!

Afterwards another arose and said: “Reverend Father, you have said that we will suppress this and we will suppress that, that we will replace this thing by that and always by shorter prayers. I have the impression that your new Mass could be said in ten or twelve minutes or at the most a quarter of an hour. This is not reasonable. This is not respectful towards such an act of the Church.” Well, this is what he replied: “We can always add something.” Is this for real? I heard it myself. If somebody had told me the story I would perhaps have doubted it, now I heard it myself.

Afterwards, at the time at which this Normative Mass began to be put into practice, I was so disgusted that we met with some priests and theologians in a small meeting. From it came the “Brief Critical Study,” which was taken to Cardinal Ottaviani. I presided [at] that small meeting. We said to ourselves: “We must go and find the Cardinals. We cannot allow this to happen without reacting.”

So I myself went to find the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, and I said to him: Your Eminence, you are not going to allow this to get through, are you? It’s not possible. What is this New Mass? It is a revolution in the Church, a revolution in the Liturgy.”

Cardinal Cicognani, who was the Secretary of State of Pope Paul VI, placed his head between his hands and said to me: “Oh Monseigneur, I know well. I am in full agreement with you; but what can I do? Fr. Bugnini goes in to the office of the Holy Father and makes him sign what he wants.” It was the Cardinal Secretary of State who told me this! Therefore the Secretary of State, the number two person in the Church after the Pope himself, was placed in a position of inferiority with respect to Fr. Bugnini. He could enter into the Pope’s office when he wanted and make him sign what he wanted.  [my emphasis]

Does not such a professed sense of powerlessness (and paralysis) – as described here with reference to Cardinal Cicognani – remind us of our own current situation, where we are told my high-ranking prelates and even prefects of congregations that they cannot do anything about the revolutionary things that are happening in the Vatican? Here it might be worthwhile to add another example given by Archbishop Lefebvre:

A third fact, of which I was myself the witness, with respect to Fr. Bugnini is also astonishing. When permission was about to be given for Communion in the hand (what a horrible thing!), I said to myself that I could not sit by without saying anything. I must go and see Cardinal [Benno Walter] Gut – a Swiss – who was Prefect of the Congregation for Worship. I therefore went to Rome, where Cardinal Gut received me in a very friendly way and immediately said to me: “I’m going to make my second-in- charge, Archbishop Antonini, come that he also might hear what you have to say.”

As we spoke I said: “Listen, you who are responsible for the Congregation for Worship, are you going to approve this decree which authorizes Communion in the hand? Just think of all the sacrileges, which it is going to cause. Just think of the lack of respect for the Holy Eucharist, which is going to spread throughout the entire Church. You cannot possibly allow such a thing to happen. Already priests are beginning to give Communion in this manner. It must be stopped immediately. And with this New Mass they always take the shortest canon, that is the second one, which is very brief”

At this, Cardinal Gut said to Archbishop Antonini, “See, I told you this would happen and that priests would take the shortest canon so as to go more quickly and finish the Mass more quickly.”

Afterwards Cardinal Gut said to me: Monseigneur, if one were to ask my opinion (when he said “one” he was speaking of the Pope, since nobody was over him except the Pope), but I’m not certain it is asked of me (don’t forget that he was Prefect for the Congregation for Worship and was responsible for everything which was related to Worship and to the Liturgy!), but if the Pope were to ask for it, I would place myself on my knees, Monseigneur, before the Pope and I would say to him: ‘Holy Father, do not do this; do not sign this decree.’ I would cast myself on my knees, Monseigneur. But I do not know that I will be asked. For it is not I who command here.”

This I heard with my own ears. He was making allusion to Bugnini, who was the third in the Congregation for Worship. There was first of all Cardinal Gut, then Archbishop Antonini and then Fr. Bugnini, President of the Liturgical Commission. You ought to have heard that! Alas, you can now understand my attitude when I am told: you are a dissident and [a] disobedient rebel. [my emphasis]

This example might make us think of the current Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship – Cardinal Robert Sarah – and of how much his own authority has been increasingly limited. Additionally, I myself felt very much reminded of some currently powerful influences in the Church in 2017 – such as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn and Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández (who are both not holding a significant office in the Vatican but who seem to have an excellent access to the pope) – when I read the following comment of Archbishop Lefebvre made here with regard to the unusual influence of Annibale Bugnini (who is rumored to have been a Freemason):

How can a priest who is not a Cardinal, who is not even a Bishop, who was still very young at the time and who was elevated against the will of Pope John XXIII (who had chased him from the Lateran University), how can such a priest go to the very top without taking any account of the Cardinal Secretary of State, nor of the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Worship? How can he go directly to the Holy Father and make him sign what he wants? Such a thing has never before been seen in the Holy Church. Everything should go through the authorities. That is why there are Commissions. Files are studied. But this man was all powerful! [my emphasis]

Was not Cardinal Gerhard Müller – who was supposed to study and comment on Amoris Laetitia before its publication – himself sidelined and bypassed by people like Archbishop Fernández, whom Sandro Magister calls a “theologian universally considered less than mediocre”?

The impression that Archbishop Lefebvre’s description of events has left upon me is that the professedly conservative prelates at that time also had regrettably felt bound to adhere to, and to defend, a Council and its novel teaching and the related liturgical developments that contain revolutionary elements; and that they did so seemingly in a false understanding of holy obedience. As Archbishop Lefebvre so clearly said: the Faith comes first, and then obedience. No Catholic faithful is obliged to obey a Catholic superior if he is teaching or inflicting a false or an ambiguous doctrine.

One last incident and personal experience as presented by Archbishop Lefebvre himself will also make us consider some currently equivocal developments about the decentralization of authority in the Church, such as the purportedly autonomous authority of the national bishops’ conferences. It will also make us more aware of the grave duty to teach our children the Catholic Faith whole and entire. This presented incident occurred during the reign of Pope Paul VI:

One day I went to see Cardinal Wright [i.e., the American Cardinal John Wright] with respect to the Canadian Catechism. I said to him: “Look at this catechism. Are you aware of those little books, which are entitled ‘Purture’? It’s abominable that children are taught to break away. They must break with their family, with society, with tradition. ..this is the catechism, which is taught to the children of Canada with the Imprimatur of Monseigneur Couderc. It’s you who are responsible for catechism in the entire world. Are you in agreement with this catechism?“No, no,” he said to me: “This catechism is not Catholic” – “It is not Catholic! Then immediately tell the Canadian Bishops’ Conference. Tell them to stop and to throw this catechism in the fire and to take up the true catechism.” His answer was: “How can I oppose myself to a Bishops’ Conference?”

I then said: “It’s over and done with. There is no more authority in the Church. It’s over and done with. If Rome can no longer say anything to a Bishops’ Conference, even if it is in the process of destroying [our] children’s Faith [as in the revolutionary Scholas Occurrentes children’s books], then it’s the end of the Church.” [emphasis added]

“Let the Little Ones come to Me,” said Our Lord. And our love for the Little Ones and our desire to protect them and to help lead them to Our Lord for eternity should give all of us – prelates included – the courage to fight where it is fitting and urgently necessary – and even if it means to resist a national bishops’ conference.

179 thoughts on “Archbishop Lefebvre’s Eyewitness Testimony to the Church Revolution”

  1. Why are the changes of Vatican ll are not to be undone according to Pope Francis?
    This pope justifies removing high altars, moving the tabernacle away from the center of the sanctuary, re-structuring the liturgy and rewriting liturgical prayers, having the priest face the people, using the vernacular language throughout the entire liturgy, removing the Communion rail, giving Holy Communion in the hand, employing lay Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, allowing female altar servers and readers, allowing ‘liturgical’ dancing?
    This is the first pope who hasn’t said the Latin Mass. The words of the consecration have been changed four times in the past 50 years (Latin….for you and for all men, for all, for many.)
    Let us pray that Pope Francis doesn’t introduce further changes. for this…We pray to the Lord

    • Bergoglio is just shooting his mouth off again. Anything and everything he has done and that Vatican II has done can be undone in a day.

  2. I have never heard the answer to these questions. WHY did the pope call for the Vatican I and II councils in the first place? What was so “wrong” in his mind about the Church and Her liturgy? Why did he feel the need to fix that which was not broken? It’s amazing how the actions of just ONE person can change the world. Remember that the next time you are deciding on an important matter. Funny how what the Pope likes is “irreversible”, but what he doesn’t like, well, out the window it goes because, as he has said, “I am the Pope and I say so”.

    • Protestant inroads and the feeling that the Catholic Church wasn’t cool enough anymore.

      Problem is, the three-legged mule they hooked their wagon to {mainline liberal Protestantism} broke down in the traces on the first crack of the whip and has now been relegated to the glue factory of religious history.

      I’m a convert from that set of traditions, and I am sick of the current culture of the Catholic Church.

      A whole bunch of prelates need to get off their pasty asses and start fighting for the Lord.

    • Even if there was some change needed in the church, some form of catholic culture, attitudes, anything that one would think would be hindrance to living more fully as a christian I do not see why the liturgy would have to be changed. It does beg the question you asked as to why.

    • As the story goes, Pope John XXIII woke up one morning and was sure he heard a voice in his ear say, “Ecumenical Council.” He thought it was the Holy Spirit. It was Satan. That’s the whole story right there.

  3. “If Rome can no longer say anything to a Bishops’ Conference, even if it is in the process of destroying [our] children’s Faith [as in the revolutionary Scholas Occurrentes children’s books], then it’s the end of the Church.”

    Indeed, as it was then, and now? It is Rome that is destroying the children’s faith!

    How low we have fallen.

    The Catholic Church is, at this time in history, almost totally indistinguishable from the Episcopalians and the ELCA and the United Methodists.

    I will press further for a new apostolate, a new “military order” who will investigate, expose and condemn the MEN who are destroying the Church. Rather than simply referring cases of perversion and heresy to Church chains of command, we must have all perverts and abusers turned over to the various national law enforcement authorites and heretics condemned.

    We need at least one prelate to lead us.

    • “Rather than simply referring cases of perversion and heresy to Church
      chains of command, we must have all perverts and abusers turned over to
      the various national law enforcement authorities and heretics condemned.”

      If this were to be done, what (if anything) would be left of the hierarchy? And who, pray tell, would do it? When the secular authorities care more about protecting children and prosecuting pedophiles than the clergy of the Catholic Church, what (if any) moral authority remains for the clergy and for the Church?

      I have a theory: nearly every one of these men, as in cardinals and bishops, can be blackmailed. They stay in line because of Dirty.Hands. Either they knew or they should have known or they have their own dead bodies in the closet. Am I too jaded and too cynical? What else explains what we are seeing?

      A cardinal gets too close to Vatican banking, and we have criminal sex abuse charges in Australia. A pope emeritus says something that could be construed innocently (or not) and that man’s brother is days later engulfed in a scandal. Yes, I know that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation.

      How then, do we explain a cocaine fueled homosexual orgy in the Vatican apartments and nary a word. Francis loves to talk, but now he can’t find his tongue? Who exactly would condemn the heretics? Is there a Chief Heretic? Do Francis’ hand-picked cardinals and bishops worry about heresy? No.No.No.

          • The Cross taken by prelates would not be a ‘mundane solution’.
            Graces seem to be withheld for lack of such an occurrence right now in our Church and in our world.

            Yes, the laity must remain faithful and pray often. Loudly too.

            Yet, sacrifice is needed to be given to our Lord by those who have been entrusted to guard the faith. Better now than later, for the more time that passes, the more mischief, the more chastisement increases, as our Lord will use necessary force to do what He must do to bring about a change.

          • I’m not sure what you mean.

            St Peter Damian was charged with destroying the sodomite clique in the Church a thousand years ago. Granted, the Pope charged him to do it unlike what we see in this Pope.

            But nevertheless, we need a new Inquisition, an Inquisition aimed specifically at exposing perversion and heresy in the clergy.

            We have the history and tradition of doing that very thing. We simply need to do it again.

          • I know Rod. U know. You’re right about that great and urgent necessity of doing something. And when you say ‘we’ I know you mean rightly the faithful ones of the Church.
            I am just sooo tired my friend. This burden which we carry now is too heavy…

          • It is a burden Christ gives us, part of the cross we are to carry, yet not alone but shared aming every faithful member of His mystical body. That mystical body has been invaded by a cancer that has spread through the body in part because this is the third generation of those who have been fed and drank the kool aid. We, the mystical body, must rise up and demand that our priests, our bishops and the entire hierarchy return to orthodoxy or be excised from that very body. We should have been doing it from the very beginning. Then we were not outnumbered, now we are. And so the battle will be difficult and even deadly. But what can man or even satan do against me, if I have made the Lord Most High my refuge. The Church has long taught that those who oppose God are not to be obeyed. Our comments here and elsewhere may be useful as mutual support and encouragement, but we are, for the most part, preaching to the already converted. Yet, it has no effect on the enemy. We, the true, authentic, orthodox mystical body of Christ need to take the battle to them, to the real enemy of God and His Church and we need to do so, need to win her back, before there is no one left who even remembers the real Catholic Church.

      • Heretics and those in opposition to the authentic, orthodox doctrines and teachings of Holy Scripture and the Church are to be declared anathema if they refuse to repent and until they do. Those popes who fail to do this are instrumental in the loss of faith, the embracing of sin and the loss of souls. This is satan’s work and goal. Since he is already defeated, he will take as many with him as posdible into the lake of fire.

  4. Don’t say you weren’t warned years ago by Pope Francis. See Para 32 of Evangelii Gaudium:

    “Yet this desire has not been fully realized, since a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.[37] Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.”

    Cardinal Muller pointed out in 2013 that devolving doctrinal authority to Bishops’ Conferences would mean the instant disintegration of he Church. Hardly anyone took any notice of him, so the disintegration plan rolled on.
    Bishops’ Conferences should exist merely as administrative conveniences, e.g. to present a united front in negotiations with a government. The responsibility for preaching true doctrine in union with the Pope rests with individual bishops.

    • Yes, Pope Saladin has been crystal clear.

      That is, if you try as Catholics have tried so hard to do, to make him out to be an orthodox Christian and Catholic, he is very confusing.

      When you divest yourself of those limitations, he is very clear indeed.

        • Bergoglio is a jihadist. He hates the West, the Church, God, Jesus, the Eucharist, Mary, and every human being. He wants to see them all destroyed.

          • You have climbed onto the Throne of Judgement, where Jesus sits. Francis’ motives and intentions are a sealed book to you. Speak of his actions, and the actions of those on his watch, but please don’t bring in intentions and an invented motive for him. The distinction has been completely lost in most com-boxes. We MUST not do this. As we judge so will we be judged.

            Let Our Lord do HIS job, when He sees fit.

          • Words and actions have consequences and conclusions attached. What we are reading in Arthur’s comments are CONCLUSIONS drawn from a plethora of evidence. What we are reading is a summary. It would take pages to fully describe Francis’ words and actions.

            Francis did this + Francis said that and that and that + Francis did this other thing = conclusion Francis (fill in the blank: Hates the West, Hates the Church, etc.)

            This isn’t judgment. This is logic and critical thinking that point to a reasonable conclusion. This is seeing the bad fruit of a poisonous tree. Judgment would be: “So and so is going to hell ….. ” Would we take “political correctness” to the point of insanity? I hope not.

          • It seems to me that we may be conflating to different conceptions of what “judging” means, which often leads to some confusion in this matter.

            On the one hand it is a logical necessity of our discursive reasoning to judge, i.e. to form a judgement on things, based on our first principles. In this way, we may rightly or wrongly conclude “Bergolio is a Jihadist” or “Bergoglio is not a Jihadist” and we’d have entire sciences dedicated to making this more accurate to help us, such as psychology, psychiatry, behavioral psychology, logic, etc. The Bible not only tells us to jude in this way but to judge justly and righteously.

            On the other hand it is a metaphysical impossibility for us to “pass judgement” which is the kind of religious and judicial “judging” which involves the condemnation or the absolution of people in the way that say the criminal justice system, or more to the point in the same way the Sanhedrin or even the Pope himself would, and it would also be immoral to attempt to do it. This involves the power to condemn and absolve and it would amount to saying “Bergoglio is a Jihadist and IS going to hell for it.” which is why Our Lord is the only Judge of humanity.

          • I, too, at times fall into this trap, judging Francis’ intentions and I agree, we must be careful not to do this. I am no saint here, for i am not as concerned with the ‘man’ Francis, but I do honor the Chair of Peter, for Peter’s sake and our Lord’s.

            It can be a difficult thing to do, as much provocation from PF continues to abound, and in seemingly full force. Yet, it is not about Francis anymore. He does what he does and will most likely continue to do. It is about the papacy, which is not the same as papal idolatry.
            I am learning……

            Unfortunately, Pope Francis has provoked to a point, where anger is justified and
            one’s common sense would certainly not want him to teach catechism to her children.
            How does one navigate through righteous anger at the man who sits in Peter’s Chair and
            yet, casts very possible intentions aside for the good of the Church?

            Mary, our Mother.

          • Stating the obvious is stating the truth, Barbara and it’s not an ‘invented motive, for anyone who’s been paying attention.

            If it’s your demand that we suppress the truth you’ll find that a hard sell for faithful Catholics. Not that you’re not a faithful Catholic. Let’s just say faithful Catholics can disagree about important matters.

            It’s not a matter of judgment, it’s about defending Holy Mother Church from the dogs who surround her. Quite a different approach from your strident demands and we insist on our right and our duty to defend the Church.

          • Did not our Lord say, “By their fruits you will know them.” ? We have witnessed the fruits of the council, of the popes and now THIS “pope.” And it should be clear to all authentic Catholics what he is doing. By his fruits we can identify the man and declare his fruits reveal a concerted effort to destroy the Church, belief in God and to encourage and support every imaginable and unimaginable offense against the Most High. Saying this is not judgment, it is knowing them by their fruits and expressing that knowledge. By God’s grace he will turn round, as Christ Himself has called him to do.

      • If Bergoglio was ever a Catholic, that affiliation was over and done with long before he arrived at the summit of the Church.

    • The original meaning of “episcopal conference” was, actually, literally a CONFERENCE, envisioned as occurring periodically. Not a bureaucracy with a magnificent building, a plethora of public policy positions, etc. Certainly not a pipeline for importing aliens and jihadists.

  5. Cardinal Bea was no more than an infiltrator with the mandate to undermine and destroy Church Teaching on the treatment of the Jews, contradicting 1000 years of Church precedent. Holocaust sentiments drove Vatican II’s change in “tone”. Metaphysically speaking, the fix was in after John XXIII refused to consecrate Russia and read the Third Secret in 1960, unleashing the evil forces upon the Church and the world. God withdrew his grace from the Church from that point on and the modernists/freemasons/protestants prevailed.

    • The beginning of the revolution was the refusal of EVERY pope from 1917 onward to obey the express will of their Superior by consecrating Russia to our Mother’s Immaculate Heart. In their failure to obey they set the stage for the council. The last pope untainted by modernism was Pius XI, but he too was unknowingly complicit. Had the consecration bern made in 1917, Russia lacked the power to retaliate and may not have even noticed, embroiled as they were in their own civil war. But now… who knows.

      • Mike,
        Your assessment is wholly unfair: expecting them to consecrate Russia in 1917? As the apparitions were ongoing? Really?

        Look, I agree that this should have happened in 1960 but to have expected it to happen immediately, when the Pope couldn’t have known that it was ongoing nor have had any legwork completed to certify the veracity? Come on….that would be like raging against Pope Francis for not consecrating China in the event that somebody claimed to have a vision about it tomorrow.

        Extreme prudence must be applied to visions. Just look at Medjugorje where the “seers” summon Mary at will: that’s not a vision or an apparition: that’s a seance.

        • I did not say the consecration should have happened in 1917. I said the popes from that point onward. You are using the human perspective. The will of God is to be obeyed as soon as it is known. Even 1960 or 1940 or 1920 is late, as Mary said it would be. At the very latest the day Fatima was approved the consecration of Russia should have been made, as you may learn.

          • Here’s your comment, Mike:

            The beginning of the revolution was the refusal of EVERY pope from 1917
            onward to obey the express will of their Superior by consecrating Russia
            to our Mother’s Immaculate Heart.

            From 1960 onward? Yes, I would agree. But from 1917 onward? No, I do not agree.

          • What I was trying to say is that once Fatima was recognized and approved the consecration of Russia should have been made immediately. Every day that has passed since then has made the consecration late and later still.

            1960 was Mary’s condition for the disclosure of the third secret and has no bearing on the consecration of Russia. Mary appeared to suggest that the longer the consecration of Russia was delayed the more damage the godlessness would do.

  6. “How can a priest who is not a Cardinal, who is not even a Bishop, who was still very young at the time and who was elevated against the will of Pope John XXIII”

    Against the will of John XXIII? Cardinal Roncalli was sidelined to Venice by Pope Pius XII for teaching heresy. Look up white smoke in 1958. He was the first pick in the conclave the same way Francis was. That year my friends coup d’état happened in the Catholic Church. Third part of the Fatima secret that we were never given was to be clearer by 1960 !

    God’s Providence raised bishop Marcel Lefebvre to preserve TLM and true doctrine. Santo subito!

    Let’s hope bishop Fellay does not cave in to the modernist proposals. Bishop Williamson might be 100% right.

    • The whole notion of giving a heretic a “small” or “unimportant” diocese to govern, rather than laicizing him, is part of the problem. Reportedly, Paul VI thought Weakland was destroying the Benedictines, so he put him in charge of Milwaukee.


    Weary, weary,
    On this earth
    Shielding souls
    Beyond their worth.

    Few are grateful
    Some regress
    Others proud
    They won’t confess

    When the waves
    Break on the shore
    Warning them
    What is before.

    You stand on this rock
    ‘Gainst the gales
    Fore those who mock

    Facing squalls
    They cannot see
    But all behold
    Your bended knee.

    Few will follow
    Some deny
    They won’t comply.

    Then a blue moon
    Saffron sun
    Come together
    Almost one.

    Fingers blessed
    With Holy Oil
    You lift the Light…
    Sun moon recoil.

    Blinding many
    Opening eyes
    Most despise.

    But on this rock
    You stand your ground
    Opposing strife.

    Between the storms
    And sheep you block
    The tempest winds
    That hurt the flock.

    With outstretched arms
    The daily crux
    You nail the Truth
    So not in flux

    Never will lie
    Only can free
    Upon this rock

  8. Did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre mention the homosexual blackmail and the desire for many of the prelates to
    eventually normalize homosexuality, which would account for the desecration of the Mass and the sexual abuse of priests cover up?

    Homosexuality is the root of the evil. The homosexuals in the Church wanted to deemphasize the supernatural of the Mass. And those prelates who looked the other way and STILL do, were are very compromised – blackmail.

    connect the dots………..freemasonry was a smokescreen……it was Communism/homosexuality.
    Many times, the most simple explanation is the explanation.
    “They” want to destroy the sense of man/woman/family as it counters the acceptance of homosexuality.

    And now, we see the end game…..A.L…….personal conscience overrides ” well formed conscious”, the sense of sin will be soon forgotten:
    homosexual blessings, homosexual unions to be accepted
    James Martin, the priest, runs free and wild…..Villanova University is his next stop I see.
    Where is Archbishop Chaput? where?

    • “It is the duty of the pope to smack away heretics and homosexuals!”

      If the current pope did what you suggest he would be working at cross purposes. He has elevated so many homosexuals to positions of authority in the Church, it forces us to recall the axiom that homosexuals advance the careers of homosexuals — in business, in government, in the arts and in the Church.

      Pope Bergoglio is a suspect in the drama. It has been known for some time his goal is to destroy the Church. By the time the Dubia Cardinals get around to their heralded formal correction there will be no point to it.

    • I’m a fan of Archbishop Chaput. Perhaps he’s “squishy” on somethings but he’s a ferocious defender of Truth on most points.

      So, it’s with a bit of regret that I have to say that I doubt highly that Archbishop Chaput is not aware of Martin’s appearance within his bishopric–he’s a hard character to miss.

      • i do hope you are wrong, for there is not such thing as ‘ squishy’ and being a ferocious defender of the Truth. One is either ‘in’ all the way or ‘out’.

        Until Father Martin is put on STOP – I will not pin any hope on any prelate.

        I am tired of begging and quite honestly……I am wore to the bone of it.

        • He doesn’t deny truths. I guess by squishy I mean on some issues–music comes to mind–he’s not as traditional as I’d prefer. And the article regarding speakers at the family gathering during the papal visit were troubling. But when it comes to truth, yes, he is on the right side.

          • I am wore down by earthly measures.

            There are no princes on the earth. Only one in Heaven and I shall wait upon Him, my Lord.

    • Homosexuals do seek to “deemphaize the supernatural” nature of the mass – for they profess homosexuality as an executive, overarching, spirituality. For them, homosexuality would infuse the liturgy of the Church with a “super” understanding of nature – and, therefore, of what is cpable of participating in God’s life. The homosexual is more graced for that participation than those stuck (fallen) into the great divisions and separations – such as that between male and female (to them the first and fundamental fall of the human race). Homosexual males can better image the oneness of God than non-homosexual men. In that, they are positioned to reflect God more fully.

      Homosexuals give much thought to the implications of the homosexual act.

      At bottom, homosexuality is a denial of the Trinity.

    • You’ve hit the nail right in the head, CS. The mistakes of our fathers (be they our shepherds or the laypeople who came before us) have, in more ways than one, come home to roost and now weigh heavy on our shoulders. Which of course makes me wonder about the future state of affairs that the next generation will inherit from us, and how will our actions (or lack thereof) affect the future of the Church.

      That being said, if I may, I would like to add my 2 cents. As a descendant of freemasons and having experienced first-hand not only their philosophy and mentality but also the highly insidious and far-reaching consequences these can have on people in the long run, I truly feel like it would be a grave mistake to underestimate them.

      Masons like to present themselves as aristocratic but well meaning and harmless men of letters with a quaint attachment to secrecy and rituals. However, deep down they live, breath and labor for the realization of a future age of enlightenment and spiritual evolution of man where knowledge and wisdom create an unbreakable brotherhood of man.

      In order to achieve such brotherhood, it is necessary to leave behind obscurantism and to share “the craft” with the common man whether through induction into the ranks or through cultural re-education at large. In other words, “we know what’s best for you and your kids and it’d be sinful for us not to pull you religious fanatics out of your medieval world”.

      Of course, since the way you look at it really does depend on who your Master is and where your allegiance lies, you’ll never hear this from them. I know I may be oversimplifying things but when you really get down to it, masons are nothing more than Communists with a spiritual bent and insatiable thirst for the occult.

      Ultimately though, freemasonry is just one of many but effective tools of the so called “Light bringer”.

      • I don’t think there are going to be future generations flowing directly from this one. There will either be a chastisement and renewal rendering future people very much unlike us, or there will be total technological enslavement of the human race and it will be ultimately extinguished, leading either to the end of the world or a recognition that our faith was never founded on truth to begin with.

    • Americanism is the root of the evil. Vatican II is the americanization of the Church. Sure faggots come along with that, but they are not the “root of the problem”

  9. If we only had the visible world I would concur with the lamentation going on here – but we all know this has been prophesied and Our Holy Mother gets the victory – break out those Rosaries – it’s all the power we need.

  10. Though i know the truth of that so called ‘”pope pius vi” we must listen again to Our Blessed Mother and remember Her when at Fatima she spoke of all of this. Because we did not listen, Satan moved in quietly and still he moves around the Vatican as a shadow. I will not step into a “church” that is not of tradition where Christ is placed in the back of the church, Mary and Joseph no longer on either side of the tabernacle, and the stations of the cross are no longer visible, where kneeling to receive the body of Christ is unheard of and frowned upon. Any priest that serves the novus ordo, does not serve Christ and I will not be part of that lie. God forgive us all.

  11. How was Bugnini able to get Paul VI to sign anything he wanted? Homosexuality. This is the common denominator that explains the Vatican II train wreck in the 1960s and the Francis-heresy of today. Bugnini and his fellow travelers “had something” on Paul VI which they used to good effect in order to get him to sign off on the new, protestantized Mass. Blackmail, in effect. Likewise, Benedict XVI’s sudden and unexplained departure was due to similar circumstances. Both of these bizarre, seemingly inexplicable occurrences can be put down to the work of a lavender mafia.

    In the ’60s, the homosexuals were much more circumspect and discreet. Today, they’re coming out of the woodwork and won’t shut up. Marx, Kasper, Daneels, Lehman, Fernandez, most of the German episcopate…….they’re all shirtlifters! Today, they have one of their own in the Chair of Peter and are rejoicing in their apparent victory, hence the brazen, outspoken acclaim for all things homosexual and the attack on the “rigid” defenders of tradition. Their confidence is sky-high.

    Faggotry is the bane of Catholicism.

    • “Fr. Bugnini goes into the office of the Holy Father and makes him sign what he wants.” (Cardinal Cicognani, Secretary of State). It doesn’t require the best efforts of a super-sleuth to determine how this was possible. The Milanese police had a file on Montini and his nocturnal escapades, dressed in civvies and seeking out the ‘company’ of ‘young men’. And then there was the matter of his young (French or Swiss), actor friend who had unrestricted access to the papal apartment at any time of night. In a pontificate characterised by sheer cynicism, one of Bergoglio’s most cynical acts was the fast-tracked beatification of Giovanni Batista Montini. maybe it will be Blessed Annibale Bugnini next?

    • In the early part of this current century, when the abuse crisis was first unfolding in the US, there was a clique of homosexual clergy online (their site was called St Sebastian’s Angels, I believe) which included the South African bishop Reginald Cawcutt. They were furious when Ratzinger started taking a harder line against momosexuals in the clergy and they insisted among themselves that Ratzinger was one of them and one day they would get revenge by “outing” him. Cawcutt was asked by the Vatican to resign once his involvement with this group was revealed.

      I did wonder whether the “smoking dossier” and BXVI’s resignation had something to do with this group among others. Of course it might not have been him that they had something on – it could have been one of his predecessors – but the potential release of the information might have been used as leverage to get him out.

    • Paul VI’s Homosexuality was known around the Vatican. As the archbishop of Milan, he was picked up by police in the middle of the night walking the gay light district in plain clothes. As Pope, his boyfriend was said to be a red haired Italian actor who was seen around the papal apartments. I once knew the actor’s name years ago, but have forgotten it now. This is all public knowledge and information that can be googled.

      • I’ve heard somewhere that the alleged lover’s name was Paul. The implications of that name are best not thought of, lest one shudders

  12. Read Randy Engle’s book, “The Rite of Sodomy,” for a list of prelates who held high offices in the Church for most of the last century. Then it will be easy to understand why the Church is in eclipse today.

      • Maike, that’s a question I was about to ask. I assume you attend the TLM (I also assume the questioner’s “assisting” also refers to “attending”). Alas, the majority of Catholics only have the NO Mass as an option. The Church requires attendance at Mass every day of the Lord’s resurrection and on holy days of obligation. I wonder how that would be applied were the NO no longer accepted by heaven?

  13. Based on all of the above–the Catholic Church placed in the hands of the devil at Vatican II– what reason do we have for not joining SSPX immediately?

    • They are outside the Catholic Church and are considered in schism. I could fulfill my Sunday obligation at an SSPX parish, I’d be there in a heartbeat.

      • And this is what concerns me so much. I will not go to a church outside of communion with the Catholic Church and the pope–until we see definitive (see Divine) evidence that the Church of the curia is no longer the Church of Christ. I would like to attend an FSSP parish but the nearest one is six hours from me and I can neither afford a hotel every Saturday night nor drag my six-months pregnant wife, four year-old daughter and two-year old son 500 miles every weekend.

        So I’m stuck with novus ordo but now I’m scared: is the Eucharist being validly consecrated? Is my priest a good and holy man (he’s been disrespectful of the Eucharist in terms of dispensing it at time times)….

        • Mgr. Lefebvre: When someone says to me, “You are going to cause a schism,” I answer that it is not I who am causing a schism; I am remaining in a completely traditional line. So I remain united to the Church of two thousand years, and I am doing nothing other than what has been done for two thousand years, than what I was congratulated for doing, for the same thing, I am condemned! It is as if I am expelled, I am almost excommunicated; finally I am suspended, whereas I am doing exactly the same thing as I did for thirty years of my life, during which time I was given every possible and imaginable honor.

          No one will take from me my conviction that something has happened in the Church. A new direction was taken at the Council, under the direction of Liberal Cardinals who had contacts with Freemasonry, and who desired that openness to the world that is so pleasing to the Freemasons; an openness to the world that resulted in the Declaration on Religious Liberty which is practically, in fact, the equality of all religions. So no more Catholic State, no more affirmation that the Church alone possesses the truth, and so many other things that obviously oppose us to the Council. The whole problem is there, the whole “drama of Econe,” if it can be called that, is there. Personally, therefore, I think that it is not I who am
          causing a schism. Let me be shown in what I am causing a schism, let me be tried. I asked to be tried before the Congregation of the Faith, if I am truly opposed to the Catholic faith, if I am truly against the discipline of the Church.

          I claim that now, since the Council, the authority in the Church – I do not say the Pope, for I do not know what the influence of the Pope is on the orders that are given. But those who hold power, at least the Roman Congregations, are in the process of leading the Church into schism.

          What is schism? It is a break, a break with the Church. But a break with the Church can also be a break with the Church of the past. If someone breaks with the Church of two thousand years, he is in schism. There has already been a council which was declared schismatic.
          Well, it is possible that one day, in twenty years, in thirty, in fifty years – I don’t know- the Second Vatican Council could be declared schismatic, because it professed things which are opposed to the Tradition of the Church, and which have caused a break with the Church.
          Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Vol 1, Chpt 12.

          • My sentiments may mirror those of Bishop Lefebvre but I am not to be ruled by emotions. I have to think, to use the cognitive abilities given to me by God and those abilities must be used within the strict application of His Revealed Truth.

            I cannot take it on any man’s authority that I should separate from the Church. The other thing that occurs to me, too, is that there have been several apparitions since Fatima and VII: Akita, Garabandal (though unapproved yet….) and not once has the Blessed Mother advised the faithful to peel off from Rome. And that’s a fairly important point because she comes to save souls from the eternal torment of separation from God in hell. If the Catholic Church as currently understood by most to be those dioceses in communion with Rome was not valid (I’m not talking about individual priests, either, because they can say any silly thing they’d like as long as the consecrate the Eucharist and convey all the sacraments validly than I can just stick to my Baltimore Catechism and ignore their nonsense) than I would like to believe she would have mentioned at some point that the faithful should walk away. As it were, I’ve taken her messages to be commands to stay within the Church but to know the truths of the Church and the Bible for oneself so that we can reject in our hearts and, if need be, publicly, any false teachings or doctrines put forth.

          • Is the Catholic Church all about sodomy, pedophilia, abortion, contraception, same sex marriage, adultery — marriage/remarriage with no annulment, transgenderism, cocaine fueled sex orgies, population control, climate change, liberation theology, open borders and unrestricted immigration, worship with the Buddhists and Hindus, Muslims and Jews, universalism, destruction of the soul (no hell), no devil and a whole host heretical beliefs and doctrines?

            Because that is what I see Francis and Friends embracing and welcoming — and Francis is not shy in telling faithful and devout Catholics (the traditionalists) that they are hateful, rigid, bigoted Pharisees. Good is evil; evil is good.

          • I’m not going to defend the pope, his cadre nor those possibly traditional prelates who sit by silently. But here’s the problem, the sole item on the list that you mentioned which he has actually made canonical efforts to change is the reception of the Eucharist by those divorced and “remarried” who have not been granted an annulment by the Church. Is this development problematic? Yes, very.

            The rest of the list, while undoubtedly true and EXTREMELY scandalous to the faithful, does not change teaching or doctrine. He hasn’t advocated for SSM within the Church, we aren’t tearing down crucifixes, denying the real presence, con-celebrating with other Christian denominations or other faiths.

            Ultimately, I have no choice but to believe that the Church remains the Church instituted by Christ. Again, there’s just no where for to turn in these matters except Christ’s own words and those words were that whatever is bound by the apostles on earth (which we take to mean their successors) is bound in Heaven and that the Church will not be surrendered to the gates of hell. Never, even in the protestants wildest dreams (and wouldn’t they love it) did Christ ever cite a time when we could/should form our own churches or reject the authority of the pope.

          • Francis is sly like a fox. Doctrine isn’t changed on paper — it is changed through practice and example. So while it all looks great on paper, that isn’t what is done anymore. The “i”s are dotted and the “t”s are crossed. I call it “plausible deniability.” Francis “normalizes” things that are evil and demonic. It isn’t just AL and communion for the divorced/ remarried with no annulment. It’s things like:

            having a private audience with the transgender couple (Vatican paid)
            praising the woman doctor who is a notorious abortionist in Italy
            accepting a crucifix on a communist emblem from Marado
            appointing a pro-abortion professor to a pro-life Vatican council
            inviting the UN population control expert for a private audience
            using words like coprophagia and coprophlia in news interviews
            appointing Fr Martin to the Communications Department (a Bridge Too Far)
            allowing the creepy sacrilegious light display on St. Peter’s Basilica
            equating Catholic evangelism, outreach, missions to ISIS jihad
            welcoming Luther’s statute and the 95 theses at the Vatican
            refusing to answer the Dubia questions regarding AL
            scandalous homily after scandalous homily ….. where to begin …..
            (it would be a very long post if I listed them all)

            Archbishop Lefebvres and SSPX did not start their own church and they accept the office/ title of pope. As I see it, SSPX remained Catholic when the leadership of the Church decided to veer off into ecumenism and heresy. It isn’t the people (the laity) who left — it is the hierarchy (the leadership).

          • SSPX has left the Church. They have ordained their own priests and bishops without papal approval. Communion is not valid in the eyes of Rome. No matter what else I think, that means they are out of communion with Christ’s Church.

          • We may need to agree to disagree, Brian. I view Lefebvre and SSPX as having remained faithful to Catholicism and to the Church. You see it differently. I view the Vatican II modernists as having betrayed Christ and the Church.

            I am thankful: Archbishop Lefebvre maintained a remnant of validly ordained priests and bishops per the pre-1969 rite of ordination for the episcopate level. SSPX has passed on sound doctrine along with a valid mass and sacraments.

          • You may view it that way, Susan, but ultimately the pope, the successor to St. Peter considers SSPX out of communion. And there is no other valid authority. Frankly, the fact that SSPX priests can hear confession when accompanied by a diocesan priest does not validate them to me and the priest and bishops ordained are not recognized by the pope. Is that all true?

            If it is true–and it is–then the onus is on SSPX to provide a source for their authority to leave communion with the RCC–and they have by the very fact that we RCC members cannot receive communion in your chapels. Your authority is going to have to be better than Bishop Lefebvre or your own feelings about the RCC or else, truly, you’re in the same company as Luther and Calvin in so far as you claim private revelation as the basis for your split with the RCC

          • Brian, yes absolutely, there is a Martin Luther here. Only this time he did not physically leave the Church. He was elected to its highest office. What authority does a Protestant have over a Catholic? It is no longer rhetorical to ask whether the pope is Catholic. Authority is not unconditional. I follow the pope as the pope follows Christ. Can you honestly claim that Francis follows Christ? Can you honestly claim that Francis is even Christian? By their fruits you will know them. What you are telling me is that I must embrace heresy to remain in communion with the Catholic Church. I am telling you absolutely not.

          • This isn’t really complicated. What has the Church always and everywhere believed and taught? Is that what Francis and Friends teach? It is not private revelation to compare what the Magisterium taught before and what the Magisterium teaches now and to say these two things are entirely different. It is direct observation or statement of fact. If it were true then, it should be true now (unless God’s timeless, ageless, absolute truth is now a matter of whimsy and it is not!).

            If one office/ body always and everywhere taught a, b, and c and now that same office/ body now teaches x, y and z (something entirely different — the exact opposite), it is a matter of both faith and reason to ask how this situation can be and which one is wrong. It isn’t about my feelings. It is about violating the law of non-contradiction. This law is being violated in spades. One of these offices/ bodies is worthy of belief/ faith and one is not. I cannot follow both because they contradict each other.

          • The Popes, the statements of many Cardinals and Vatican Dicasteries and plain common sense say that you are wrong Brian. If a Pope gives them jurisdiction to marry and forgive sins, how can the SSPX POSSIBLY be “out of communion” or “has left the Church”.


          • As a Catholic in communion with Rome, I cannot validly receive communion at an SSPX chapel. They are therefore out of communion.

          • Summa Theologiae Third Part
            Question 82. The minister of this sacrament
            Article 7. Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?

            I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), “it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly”; and in like fashion, “it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly.” Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ’s true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.

          • I, for one, am not and have never proposed anyone break from communion with the Church and the pope. What I propose is to fight for her, to protect and defend the bride of Christ,, to speak and stand up on her behalf, including publically calling to task errant popes and his subordinates.

        • That’s what our friends don’t understand. And they forget Archbishop Lefebvre was declared excommunicated when he ordained four bishops without papal approval. That’s the only thing he did that was wrong and he knew it, but he had no choice and I defend him.

          I understand your problem, Brian and share it with you. That said, I’m sure Our Lord knows we are waiting for him to make a move. I hope he appreciates our patience, though mine is running
          out. 🙂

      • Who is in schism with whom? Have you considered: maybe it is Archbishop Lefebvres and the SSPX folks who are faithful to God and Vatican II and the Modernists who are not? Folks are calling the upper echelon of the Catholic Church, including Francis, every derogatory name imaginable. (No need to repeat.) And YOU (not just you personally, but many people) are concerned about schism and being in communion with him?

        As I see it, communion, unity, and fellowship have become illusory. If the head of the Buddhists or if the head of the Southern Baptists were appointed as Vicar of Christ for the Catholic Church, would you still say that you MUST attend Catholic mass lest you not fulfill your Sunday obligation? What is the difference really? Francis is a liberal Lutheran (maybe atheist), Marxist, Modernist, anti-Catholic …..

        • Susan,
          The problem is that we cannot take on the authority of Susan Shelko that we are justified in separating ourselves from the Pope and the Church. Christ said he will not surrender the Church to the Gates of Hell. Yes, things are bleak, may become even bleaker but as long as the Church maintains that the Eucharist is the real presence and continues valid celebration of the sacraments then there’s no way that we, the laity, can justify walking away.

          • The problem here is that the Church, indirectly, is not affirming the real presence snd catechists either deny it or avoid teaching it. At last count, 72% of those who say they are Catholic no longer believe in the real presence. And the continued validity of the other sacraments is becoming increasingly doubtful.

          • It doesn’t matter what those who say they are Catholic believe–that’s irrelevant with regard to the validity of the consecration of the Eucharist.

          • Mike: how else would I have interpreted what you said? Perhaps the one comment I left out was I have not seen one bit of evidence that the Church is denying the real presence nor instructing priests to deny it.

          • Brian, if you don’t know the difference between responding to what a person actually says or writes and what you imagine or assume that person is saying, then I’m afraid I can’t help you.

            I never said anything about the validity of the consecration of the. Eucharist. I never even suggested people leave the Church. AND I never said priests deny the real presence. Don’t put words into my mouth!

          • Mike: You’re kidding, right?!

            Your comment: The problem here is that the Church, indirectly, is not affirming the real presence snd catechists either deny it or avoid teaching it. At last count, 72% of those who say they are Catholic no longer believe in the real presence. And the continued validity of the other sacraments is becoming increasingly doubtful.

            My Reply:

            doesn’t matter what those who say they are Catholic believe–that’s
            irrelevant with regard to the validity of the consecration of the

            I would be very, very careful about trying to pull people away from communion with Christ’s Church on earth.

            SO, yes, Mike, my comment was entirely appropriate: it doesn’t matter if people believe in the real presence as it’s real as long as the mass and the consecration are valid! You said the continued validity of the sacraments are becoming doubtful. You said that, Mike…that’s what you typed. You said the Church and cathechists don’t teach the real presence. That’s not me putting words in your mouth, Mike, READ WHAT YOU TYPED!

          • Read my words again. I did NOT say the Church was not TEACHING the real presence. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS!!! I specifically and intentionally used AFFIRM. Or don’t you know the difference between thr verbs “to teach” and “to affirm”? If you thought I was ssying sonething other than what I actually wrote. It would have been appropriate and courteous to ask for clarification. But it appears that an overblown and inordinate level of pride has prevented you from extending me that courtesy.

            I seem to recall, from your responses to posts by others as well as this series of exchanges, that you appear to have a strong desire to engage in arguments and, if posdible, to generate animosity. Since you persist in putting words into my mouth and twisting what I’ve said to suit your own purposes, this discussion is now closed.

          • Summa Theologiae Third Part
            Question 82. The minister of this sacrament
            Article 7. Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?

            I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), “it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly”; and in like fashion, “it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly.” Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ’s true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.

            So the next question is: Is an SSPX priest “ordained rightly”?

          • Yes, it is between them and God. BUT, if their lack of belief in the real presence, and a host of other things as well, is because the Church no longer teaches it or even because the Church encourages the philosophy of the prince of this world, then it is or should also be a concern to us as well. We have a responsibility for the salvation of souls. One of the spiritual works of mercy is to “admonish the sinner.” And, if we love our brothers and sisters, we should do everything we can to get them on the right path. It is one of the duties we accepted when we were confirmed.

          • Not at all Brian. I hold the Catholic faith. What I am suggesting is that Francis and Friends do not hold the Catholic faith. Who has separated from whom? Don’t take any of this on MY authority. Take it on the authority of St. Paul:

            Galatians 1:8-9 Friends, though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we preached to you, a curse upon him! I repeat now the warning we gave you before it happened, if anyone preaches to you what is contrary to the tradition you received, a curse upon him.

            2 Corinthians 6:14-16 You must not consent to be yokefellows with unbelievers. What has innocence to do with lawlessness? What is there in common between light and darkness? What harmony between Christ and Belial? How can a believer throw in his lot with an infidel? How can the temple of God have any commerce with idols? Msgr. Knox Translation of the Holy Bible

        • Susan, on this point the reader may benefit from the judgment of St. Augustine:

          “Often, too, divine providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the sake of the peace of the Church they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy or schism, they will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form no separate conventicles of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their testimony the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church. These the Father who seeth in secret crowns secretly. It appears that this is a rare kind of Christian, but examples are not lacking. Indeed, there are more than can be believed. So divine providence uses all kinds of men as examples for the oversight of souls and for the building up of his spiritual people.”
          (De vera religione, in Augustine: Earlier Writings, translated by John H. S. Burleigh [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953], 231.)

        • “Have you considered: maybe it is Archbishop Lefebvres and the SSPX folks who are faithful to God and Vatican II and the Modernists who are not?”

          Not only have I considered it, I wrote it in a book I’m still working on. In my opinion it is Archbishop Lefebvre who is the faithful Catholic and the VII crowd, including the sainted JPII who are outside of the Church.

          That said, I am a Catholic layman and don’t have the authority to say I can attend an SSPX Mass on Sunday and fulfill my canonical obligation and I will not be driven out of Our Lord’s Church by a gang of clerical thugs.

          “Folks are calling the upper echelon of the Catholic Church, including Francis, every derogatory name imaginable.”

          I’m one of them. My concern is not so much schism as it is my immortal soul I’m concerned about. Can you guarantee me that by attending an SSPX parish on Sunday I’m okay with ‘keeping holy the Sabbath? I don’t think so.

          Your Buddhist/Baptist analogy is inapposite. They are not Catholic priests. I agree with you that Bergoglio is not a Catholic but that’s an abstract. Officially he IS a Catholic priest as are the stooges he relies on to front for him. It’s the scandal of all time, but we need some courageous bishops to boot them out. Their problem is, Bergoglio has no smoking gun in his hand.

          • I wish there were an icon button because I’d give you two thumbs up. Can I guarantee you that by attending an SSPX parish on Sunday that you are okay with keeping holy the Sabbath? Of course I can’t.

            That really is the heart of the problem isn’t it: the “officials” with “authority” who tell you that you must attend Catholic mass are the same ones who have lost the Catholic faith and who are heretics themselves. They are not to be trusted.

            Is there truly a difference between a clergy who is “officially Catholic” but who is a heretic AND a Protestant clergy who is a heretic AND a Buddhist priest who is a heretic? The point is that I should not listen to OR follow ANY of them.

            Should I care that Francis is a Catholic priest? My soul is as much at risk if I listen to/ follow Francis AS IF I listen to and follow the Southern Baptist pastor or the Buddhist priest. Heresy is heresy no matter what clerical garb is worn.

          • “My concern is not so much schism as it is my immortal soul I’m concerned about. Can you guarantee me that by attending an SSPX parish on Sunday I’m okay with ‘keeping holy the Sabbath? I don’t think so.”

            Then why did you say above that they were in schism?

            Vatican Admits Society of Saint Pius X Masses
            Fulfill Sunday Obligation
            by John Vennari

            On January 8, 2003, the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei Commission, in response to someone who asked about attending chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, wrote in a letter that:
            1) Attending the Society of Saint Pius X chapels fulfills the Catholic’s Sunday obligation,
            2) That Catholics are permitted to make financial contributions to the Society of Saint Pius X.
            In the letter (reproduced as a footnote [1] the Vatican office makes the proviso that they do not recommend Catholics to attend these chapels, but that there is no sin providing that the individual attending does not intend to separate himself from the Roman Pontiff.
            It must be noted that this last point addresses a problem that does not really exist. I have been attending the Traditional Mass in independent and SSPX chapels for more than 23 years, and I never once met anyone in these chapels, priest or layman, who “intends to separate himself from the Roman Pontiff”. The prime motivation for myself, my family, and others who attend these chapels is to adhere to the Latin Tridentine Mass, and to adhere to the traditional teaching and practice of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries — at a time when our Church leaders are giving us stones instead of bread..
            The Vatican also now admits, here and there, that the Society of Saint Pius X is not separated from the Catholic Church. Someone asked Cardinal Cassidy, who was Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Christian Unity, if his office should deal with the Society of Saint Pius X as a separate “church”. Cardinal Cassidy commented in a letter of March 25, 1994, that the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity “is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory.” Thus the Vatican considers the Society of Saint Pius X to be an internal Church matter and not a group that is “outside of the Church”.

          • “What Catholics once were, we are. If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong.
            We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed.
            We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now”.

            Robert DePiante

            Taking a pragmatic approach…you might call it a variation on Pascal’s wager…..if SSPX are right the mainstream *traitors” are in a lot of trouble. If SSPX are wrong it doesn’t really matter because oh well, whatever.

      • ‘These words of the Pope are absolutely devastating to any Neo-Catholic claims of any type of schism, either formal or material. First, there has not been any official Vatican document declaring the SSPX to be in schism, thus no formal schism. Second, after this letter from Pope Benedict, one is no longer allowed to even hold the opinion that there is a “material schism.” For the Supreme
        Pontiff just applied the definition of schism to the Society right before our eyes and found the charge wanting. As the Society has been saying all along, in conjunction with previous Saints and canonists, in order to be schismatic, one must reject the authority of the pope in principle. Mere disobedience, even for a protracted period of time, does not make one schismatic. “Reservations in the area of obedience” do not equal schism.’
        ‘The SSPX Is Not In Schism,’ Chris Jackson, The Remnant, October 1, 2015.

        Rev. Fr. Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap. wrote in his Moral Theology, no. 432.1 (The Newman Bookshop, Westminster, MD, 1945): A schismatic is someone who, as a matter of principle, does not want to be subject to the pope…, but someone who simply refuses to obey the pope is not schismatic, even if it is for a long time.

      • winslow said,
        “They are outside the Catholic Church and are considered in schism”

        “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
        ― Adolf Hitler


        Article published in 2011.
        Schism what Schism! From New Mess Novus Ordo to SSPX and Vatican approves!
        The plentiful fruit of the SSPX cannot be denied–and it seems even the Vatican is coming to recognize their indispensability to the restoration of the Church!

        From The Dominican Sisters of Wanganui: On 28 May 2011 Father Couture, the District Superior, came to visit our Convent. He had been delegated by Bishop Fellay to receive the vows of Mother Mary Micaela as she transferred from the Congregation of the Dominican Sisters of New Zealand to the Dominican Sisters of Wanganui.
        She had special permission from the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes in Rome to do this. As far as we know this is a world first, that a Sister would be allowed to transfer from a Novus Ordo congregation to a congregation set up by Bishop Fellay. The whole procedure implies a recognition of our Congregation, and of the religious of Tradition, by Rome.

        The “excommunications” decreed in 88 have been lifted (I don’t accept that they were valid, but that is a completely moot point at the moment), which means the source of the alleged schism would also be removed likewise. Schism is a canonical penalty which resulted from the imposition of a canonical punishment (the so-called excommunications), and with those being lifted, the effects are also lifted. So assuming the excommunications were valid, they were lifted which means as a consequence the Society could not today be in schism, if at some time they were. If you don’t agree with the society, the correct description would be they “disobey” the Pope, not that they are in schism.
        You also have to look at instances where the Vatican and some local bishops have allowed clergy and religious to transfer into the SSPX or an order affiliated with the Society. How could the Vatican support a nun entering a “schismatic” society?

        “The knock-out blow of Satan
        has been to cause disobedience
        in the name of obedience.”

        (Fr. Cyprian, OSB, Prior of Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery)

      • Right. Yes, a political schism mostly, e.g., Pope Francis allows them to hear confessions. If the Church gets much worse–for example another substantial change to the Mass–I will go to a FSSP parish. And if Francis closes them down I will go to SSPX.

          • One has a duty to one’s family and to one’s own soul. Also, as the SSPX grows that is part of the fight- and it is noticed by other Bishops.

          • That’s inaccurate. Our duty is first for the salvation of one’s own soul, second for our family and those close to us (friends) and then, third, it goes out from there to our parish community, our geographical community and so on until it includes the entire world. Jesus makes it clear that we are to love everyone, even our enemies. As the proximity of those we are called to love is more distant, the less we can do directly. Nevertheless, the very least we are called to do is to pray for thseir salvation. For those in closer proximity we are called to do more than prsy; ee are to actively help them achieve salvation — instruct, correct, admonish, encourage, support, etc. In word and, when and where feasible, in deed.

          • Not at all. One must look out for one’s soul and the souls for which he is responsible. I have assumed at this point that the Mass is now both illicit and invalid.

          • That’s a big assumption. On what do you base it?

            My specialty is moral not liturgical theology. Yet, as a Catholic theologian I do know this.

            1. Regardless of Francis and company and even Vatican II, the Catholic Church remains the one, true church of Jesus Christ. Thus far no pope and no magisterial council has directly and magisteriallu repudiated, denied, contradicted, nullified the magisterial doctrines and teachings of the Church. True, the enemies have close and have said things that have seriously undermined the doctrines and teaching, but those still stand. Until those are changed officially, the Church remains the Bride of Christ, disheveled, covered with mud, injured, but we must look beyond these to the bride herself in all her “naked” beauty. That beauty is her true, suthentic, orthodox doctrines, teachings, sacraments and so forth.

            2. While the TLM is the only True Mass, the Novus Ordo is still both licit and valid. Why? Because the heart of the Mass, the only part that must not be changed or, worse, removed are the words of Jesus repeated and quoted in the consecration of the bread and the wine. Everything that comes before and after those words can be altered and ceven deleted without invalidating the Mass. Those prayers are, quite properly and excellently, to express our love, reverence, dependence on God and to give Him the praise and glory He so rightly deserves. BUTthey are not absolutely necessary for the Mass to be valid and licit. Thus, even the NO Mass does suffice when the TLM is unavailable.

            In conclusion, the Church is still THE church in spite of Satan snd his minions and the Novus Ordo is still a valid Mass. To go to another group that is not in full communion with the Catholic Church would amount to apostasy.

          • I agree with what you said. As I noted above Pope Francis would have to make changes in the Novus Ordo Mass rendering invalid along with prohibiting TLM. I think his attitude is to do both but hasn’t yet figured out how to pull it off. Mine is a contingency plan only.

          • To make those changes all Francis has to do is to say something like, “I, Francis, as the suprene pontiff of the Catholic Church and the successor of Peter, by virtue of my office, hereby declare any and every celebration of the traditional latin Mass forbidden and I hereby remove from the normative Mass the consecration of bread and wine and any allusion to it.” That would constitute a definitive break with the Church. I think, were he to do that, even many of his closest allies would balk — unless they really are that far gone.

            When the Mass is no longer the Mass and the Church is no longer the Church then I, too, will act. But I believe the Lord will not let either of those things happen. Remember His promise, ‘On this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.’ I have total faith in the promises of our Lord and God.

          • Well, maybe the Lord should give us some help if he wants to protect his legacy. I do think He will in His own good time. But I do think it’s going to take divine intervention to make it happen as the devil now seems fully in control of the ruling clergy.

          • I agree with you there,. All of this frequently reminds me of the vidion Leo XIII had which prompted him to write and incorporate into the TLM the prayer to St. Michael. Are you familiar with this? I do believe, and with some corraboration, that the council belonged to Satan and his henchmen and that everything that has happened to the Church since, including Bergiglio is part of that all-,out, last ditch effort by Satan to destroy the Church and, thereby, “prove” he is superior to God. It won’t happen, of course, but Satan is the epitamy of derangement and many of his disciples are almist as unhinged. We will have to be patient and wait for the Lord. He knows what He’s doing and we are sooo lacking inthe ability and the wisdom to even begin to comprehend either His motives or His methods. Hust pray and be thankful that we have the promises abd tgatcGid bever fsils to keep His promises. It nay serm like “forever”, but He is always faithful and trustworthy.

          • Thanks. Yes, I am familiar with the practice of saying the St Michael prayer at the end of Mass. As this was what we did at Mass until it was dropped. However, it is now being re-introduced by younger priests. Two of our priests in our parish say it after every daily Mass. And I agree we must have the patience to “wait on the Lord” in will take action at exactly the right time, no sooner, no later.

          • Have you heard or read about Leo XIII vision? In case you haven’t, briefly it is this: I forget the date, but at the end of Mass one day Leo became immobile, staring into space, oblivious to his surroundings. After several minutes he returned to himself. Later he revealed what had happened, claiming he had overheard a conversation between Jesus and Satan. Satan says, “If I had enough time I could destroy your Church.” “How much time do you need?” Jesus replied. After a pause of considerable length, Satsn answered, “A hundred years.” There are a couple of versions of what Jesus said next, but all are basically the same. Jesus said in a firm voice, “I give you the 20th century, but this is your last challenge.” And we have and are seeing Satan’s last desparate efforts. True, the 20th century is over, but a few years on either side is totally meaningless from the perspective of eternity. Our Lord may have let things play out in part to see how far we, the faithful, would let things go before acting. Of course He knew that already, but we didn’t. I think, however, He has had about enough of these shinanigans.

          • Yes, I am familiar with Pope Leo’s vision and believe it. The 20th century was truly a disaster for the Church especially Vatican II which made Modernism the official position. The Church now seems bankrupt of spirituality and has become not much more than a tool of government and a method of improving self esteem. And I agree with your statement: “He has had about enough of these shenanigans.” But we must hope and pray and do all we can to act as Christ would have us act by keeping and passing along the faith.

          • Right on!! I am thinking of trying to start a movenent that would focus on two things; 1, Teaching the TRUE Faith and 2, actively and publically in numbers loudly demand priests, bishops and the rest of the hierarchy return to orthodoxy or be removed from positions of authority. It is time we stopped sitting around bemoaning the state of the Church and shaking our heads. Prayer, of course, is the foundation, but I think Jesus wants us to stand up and be counted, to go on the offensive, following the footsteps of John the Bsptist.

          • I agree. But need to come at it from a positive point of view, e.g., ask for Latin Mass in the parish, Holy Hour Once a week, more times for confession.

          • Well, you’re doing the same thing but on a more limited, local level. So, is your method really more “positive” than mine or just “safer”? 🙂

          • I think my approach would be more effective as it makes it difficult to object to. What Bishop is going to be publicly against putting more emphasis on Confession for example?

          • You may be right. My only issue is that individually it is easy to dismiss those who want complete orthodoxy in the terms Francis has used multiple times. I think it is only in numbers joined in unity and solidarity that our voices will be listened to and our insistsnce understood. Examples are the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war protests and the solidarity movement in Soviet-era Poland.

      • Who says they are in schism? The Catholic Church has never declared them in schism. The Popes have never declared them in schism. It is only your opinion that says they are in schism. You have no authority and Church authority has not agreed with you.

      • Church law in canon law says you can fulfill your Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel. According to canon law 1248, your Sunday obligation is fulfilled by attending Mass in a Catholic rite. The SSPX celebrate Mass in a Catholic rite, therefore your Sunday obligation is met.

        • As a Cathlic in communion with the pope, you are to exhaust all reasonable efforts to attend a valid mass before attending other services which would include SSPX, some Orthdox churches, too.

          • The SSPX is a valid Catholic rite Mass. The Orthodox church has a valid Mass too, but the Orthodox are in schism. Yet even though the Orthodox are in schism, canon law, incredibly, allows Catholics to receive Holy Eucharist according to canon 844.

          • Pope Benedict XVI:
            As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

          • And since that time, Pope Francis regularized their confessions and marriages. They now do serve legitimate ministries in the Church with the sacraments of Penance and marriage being licit with ordinary jurisdiction. Some of their sacraments are ordinary jurisdiction and some of them are supplied jurisdiction, in the case of Mass and ordinations. Yet the SSPX are claiming that Rome gives them private approval for ordinations at certain dates.

    • Exactly. Why follow corrupt homosexual leadership that’s in error on so much, right over the edge? Are we “good Catholics” just following orders? Seems to me there’s a time to stand strong and Archbishop Lefebrve as well as others have shown the way.

      • You are absolutely correct. Archbishop Lefebrve is a model and saint for our time. The Catholic Church now has a diabolical orientation and we all need to be aware of this spiritual disease and beware of everything that comes from it.

  14. Dr. Hickson:
    Your final paragraph touched on the salient point regarding today: we need to be courageous as do any of the remaining prelates who wish to see the Church maintained. Period. Full stop. There’s no mystery about why so many didn’t speak up: they didn’t want to lose their stations. In charity, perhaps they also felt that may be able to resist more effectively from the inside. But they didn’t.

    Without regard to anything Malachi Martin claimed in written or oral formats, his final book was titled, I believe, “Windswept House” and that seems appropriate: it was if a gale force wind suddenly annihilated everything and nobody save those who sowed the wind were prepared or able to withstand the force.

  15. The Church is going through her passion. Like Christ, his bride is being put to death by her own. But unlike the Apostles, we do not have the “luxury” to deny the Church the way St. Peter denied Christ or to go hide. We have to stand and fight for her, we cannot deny her for when her passion is over, it’s all over. Game is up, no time to repent.

    That may be something to consider before jumping ship.

      • Susan,
        The authority to guide the Church was given to the popes, not bishops or the laity.

        That being said, I am in communion with Rome, you and the SSPX are not. We both sleep at night. Let us pray that the faithful in communion with Rome be viewed as Saint John of the Cross and let those of you in SSPX be viewed as St. Peter. Guess that should be our fervent prayers.

          • Interesting how you point out that the first Pope – St. Peter – denied Our Lord three times.

            Ought we to have followed his example and disobedience just because of his primacy?

            We are in apocalyptic times….it is the Faith we cling to when the Pope abandons It.

            “By their fruits you shall know them…”
            “Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing…”
            “Even if an Angel of Light should teach thee another Gospel than that which I have taught thee, let him be anathema….”

          • I’ve said this over and over: Christ said he will not surrender the Church at the Gates of Hell and that what the apostles, which we also take to mean their successors, bind on earth is bound in heaven.

            So here’s the question for you: How do I know that Bishop Lefebvre wasn’t a wolf in sheep’s clothing? How do I know if the fruits of SSPX are good or bad? Nobody, NOBODY, gave me the right to discern what’s good or bad.

            People don’t seem to get this: if SSPX were in communion with Rome effective tonight at midnight, at 12:00:01 AM I would be on the phone, emailing, doing everything to get an SSPX chapel open in my town or at least my dioceses. I would be planning a family vacation to the nearest chapel. But until that time, I cannot turn my back on the Church that still has apostolic succession, is still the Church founded by Christ. Otherwise, I’m no different than a Calvinist or a Lutheran….

        • What does “communion with Rome” even mean? What does “Communion” mean? How are the SSPX not part of the Catholic Church?

          • Can I as an RCC attend a service at an SSPX chapel, receive communion and have it considered valid by the Pope? No, I cannot.

          • Yes you can. The SSPX celebrate a valid Mass. Rome has always affirmed the validity of an SSPX Mass. The Holy Eucharist is valid. Rome has said the Mass is illicit. It is valid but not licit.

          • While you remain out of communion it is considered an act of disobedience to attend your services and receive communion as is implied by the term illicit.

          • No. Church law and canon law does not say you have to attend a licit Mass. Only a valid Mass in a Catholic rite. Canon 1248 says Sunday obligation is fulfilled by a Mass in a Catholic rite. The SSPX celebrate Mass in a Catholic rite. Canon law for Sunday obligation is pretty liberal and generous.

          • I’m assuming you mean have it considered licit mass in the above comment. The Vatican and all Popes have always considered the SSPX masses as valid.

            According to the latest instructions/permissions given by the Vatican, in case of a marriage the SSPX priest is to say the wedding mass after witnessing of the sacrament by a diocesan priest, or to be both witness and provide the mass if a diocesan priest is not available.

            So an SSPX priest gives a licit mass in case of a wedding, but in all other cases does not? I can understand why you may hold the opinion you do- there is a lot of bad information out there. And even a year ago I would say your argument had merit even though I would disagree with it.

            But now, especially with the new permissions from the Vatican? At some point we have to recognize that the situation has changed. Otherwise we are just holding to a servile fear. (Note- I speak of myself and in general not of you, for I don’t pretend to judge or guess your reasons for holding on to this opinion).


    I have said it countless times…the whole “new” Catholic world will be astonished and implicated one day when they see that Archbishop Lefebvre will be canonized as a modern day Saint Athanasius.

    It is the way of the world to condemn the prophets and those who stand in contradiction to their waywardness. Such was a lot of venerable Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. In God’s eyes he was a giant while the world and the Church despised him and silenced him.

    But he will be vindicated thousandfold when God cleanses His Church and restores Her former Beauty. His labors and fidelity alone have given birth to the fruitful vineyards of Traditionalism which still remain in the Church.

    As a bishop, he faithfully preserved for future generations what had been handed down to him, while other “shepherds” were destroying and ravaging the treasures of the Faith which it was their mandate to preserve.

    I met him personally on more than one occasion. The man was luminous and venerable; his face radiated sanctity and his manner and virtues were that of a saint.

    Even when he was speaking against treachery in the Church, he did so with a heart clearly on fire with love, not bitter zeal; sorrow and fervor, not rancor.

    I count myself blessed and privileged indeed to have met him.

    • Marie: I am quite surprised that you would use the term “In God’s eyes he was a giant”….it seems like a very bad idea to try to speak for God.

      • JESUS: “By their fruits you will know them…..”

        SSPX and the Traditional orders which sprang from the work of Lefebvre are growing rapidly while the Novus Ordo is sterile and self-destructing. Our Lord Himself taught us how to discern HIS work vs. the work of His enemies. We have Christ’s word for it.

      • JESUS: “By their fruits you shall know them…..”

        SSPX and the Traditional orders which sprang from the work of Lefebvre are growing rapidly while the Novus Ordo is sterile and self-destructing. Our Lord Himself taught us how to discern HIS work vs. the work of His enemies. We have Christ’s word for it.

        Furthermore, they are faithful to the Faith of the Ages, to the teachings of Christ, at much cost to themselves….large, fruitful families; abundant vocations; reverence for the Sacraments; assiduous catechesis.

        I have been on several SSPX retreats, and they changed me for life. I have been on several “Novus Ordo” retreats, and I can’t remember a single thing about them.

        I repeat the proof test given to us by Christ — 2nd Person of the Most Holy Trinity — “By their fruits you shall know them….”

        In times such as these of total confusion and apostasy within the hierarchy and within the visible “institutional” Church (condoning homosexuality, facilitating and cooperating in adultery and sacrilegious Holy Communion and Confessions, and the list goes on) …..”follow the fruit…..”

        I stand by my comments in their entirety…..

  17. “Your Eminence, you are not going to allow this to get through, are you? It’s not possible. What is this New Mass? It is a revolution in the Church, a revolution in the Liturgy.”

    Abp Lefebvre said fundamental dogmas of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not clearly represented and are even contradicted:
    – that the priest is the essential minister of the Rite;
    – that in the Mass there is a true sacrifice, a sacrificial action;
    – that the Victim or Host is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, present under the species of bread and wine, with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity;
    – that this Sacrifice is a propitiatory one;
    – that the Sacrifice and the Sacrament are effected by the words of the Consecration alone, and not also by those which either precede or follow them

    He explained that fundamental dogmas of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not clearly represented and are even contradicted. An inexplicable rapprochement with the theology and liturgy of the Protestants is evidenced by novelties in the New Mass:
    – the altar replaced by a table without an altar stone;
    – Mass celebrated facing the people, concelebrated, in a loud voice, and in the vernacular;
    – the Mass divided into two distinct parts: Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist;
    – the cheapening of the sacred vessels, the use of leavened bread, distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, and by the laity, and even by women;
    – the Blessed Sacrament hidden in corners;
    – the Epistle read by women;
    – Holy Communion brought to the sick by laity.

    The Archbishop pointed out that although these innovations are authorized that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character. Asked could one conclude that all these Masses are invalid? No, as long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest).

    However, he made clear that fewer and fewer Masses are valid these days, as the faith of priests is destroyed and
    they possess no longer the intention to do what the Church does. The current formation of seminarians today does not prepare them to celebrate Mass validly. The propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is no longer considered the essential work of the priest. Nothing is sadder or more disappointing than to read the sermons or teachings of the Conciliar bishops on the subject of vocations, or on the occasion of a priestly ordination. They no longer know what a priest is.

    The Ottaviani Intervention; “It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent.” Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote; “Truly, if one of the devils in C.S.Lewis’ ‘The Screwtape Letters’ had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.”

    In an astounding statement, echoing the Ottaviani Intervention, Cardinal Ratzinger admitted that the drastic manner in which Pope Paul V1 reformed the Mass in 1969 provoked “extremely serious damage.” He said that the suppression of the old Mass marked a “break in the history of the liturgy, the consequences of which could only be tragic … I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today (1997!!) depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy … I was dismayed by the ban on the old missal, since such a development had never been seen in the history of liturgy … Action should be taken to repair the damage … For the life of the Church, it is dramatically urgent to have a renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation, which goes back to recognising the unity in the history of the liturgy …”

    There was a time when hundreds of thousands of priests offered the Continual Sacrifice each day across the globe. Four times each second was the Sacred Host elevated by the hands of a priest to atone by this Divine Sacrifice for man’s sins. As the prophet Malachias said 400 years before Christ: ‘For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.’ (Mal 1,11)

    St Alphonsus Liguori, explained; “the devil has always managed to get rid of the Mass by means of the heretics,
    making them precursors of the Antichrist who, above all else, will manage to abolish, and in fact will succeed in abolishing, as a punishment for the sins of men, the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, precisely as Daniel predicted. (The
    Antichrist, Rev V Miceli, p 276.) “They shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination of desolation.” (Dan 11:31).

    The loss of efficacy and widespread collapse of the Continual Sacrifice is yet another prerequisite for the arrival of the Antichrist at the height of the apostasy.

  18. I find it very interesting that some folks view SSPX masses as valid but illicit — and as off-limits for “faithful” Catholics — and yet seem to have no problem whatsoever resisting and rejecting Francis’ Amoris Laetatia. If one is to be intellectually honest and consistent, then acceptance and obedience should apply across the board.

    In other words, one should reject SSPX and SSPX masses unreservedly because they are not in communion with Francis (allegedly) and accept AL unreservedly because it is in communion with Francis (published by him). Whatever does this say about “authority” and “private judgment”? Has each Catholic now become his/her own magisterium?

  19. As expected, many commenters that are opposing the SSPX are using the terminology of “communion with” or “communion with Francis or Rome.” “Communion with” and the terms of “full communion” and “partial communion” are all Modernist theology. They are Modernist terms and definitions. It is the Modernist theology of Karl Rahner. Unknowingly, conservative Catholics are using heretical Modernist theology. That is because neo-Catholicism has accepted the revolution and Modernism of Vatican II thought. In bashing Tradition, JPII conservatives have been using the language of Liberalism. Conservatism is soft Liberalism. There are only two sides. Tradition and Modernism.

    • Can one risk sharing Holy Communion with a group that knows they are deliberate, unrepentant mortal sinners? Such as those who stubbornly cling to adultery despite knowing its sinfulness??
      By “communion” would that also mean that you also have become in union with their sins also…by approval , and silently accepting their sacrilege?? Perhaps this is one reason why the pre-Vatican II Church taught the imporatance of Confession before Communion…Why would anyone risk their soul?

      • What are you talking about?
        The definition of communion I am speaking of, is of association or union, not the communion of the Holy Eucharist. You are talking about a different communion, that of the bread that is consecrated for the sacrament of Holy Communion.

        What sinners? Who are the mortal sinners you speak of?

  20. “The right to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience is necessarily one of the fundamental principles of human liberty.”
    – Imperial Wizard H.W. Evans, “ The Attitude of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Toward the Roman Catholic Hierarchy,” The Imperial Night-Hawk, 1:1 (March 28, 1923), 2.

  21. Extremely insightful article, thank you very much for the research and time spent, Maike. For a newcomer to Tradition, this is incredibly eye-opening and unbelievable that such a revolution took place almost in a nearly unchecked manner.

  22. They might help us to understand why our beloved Church is right now in such a weakened condition and why it would not be sufficient for us just to wish to return to the optimistically imagined state of the Church before the papacy of Pope Francis.”

    THis is bizarre to me. What is this woman thinking? She quotes what happened in the council and then complains that the period after the council was optimistic for tradition? Nothing after the council was optimistic, speaking as a Catholic. For the world it was optimistic, but not for the faithful.

    I don’t get people like this. Is she thinking that the current situation was like the council in order to draw parallels to today? As if we can learn about today from 1963? 1969? They are the same thing. Its all the Council!

  23. Wonderful article regarding the statements of saint-in-waiting Archbishop Lefebvre. But the Church he’s talking about is still there. He never left it, but a large proportion of what were and are seen as Catholics did for a new post-conciliar sect. Does anyone really believe that those who just happen to occupy traditionally Catholic real estate today are the True Church of Christ? I don’t see how you can go wrong choosing to follow Archbishop Lefebvre and Tradition. I don’t see how it can turn out well to follow Jorge Bergoglio and almost all of the supposed hierarchy today.

    • The Church is NOT Bergoglio. The True Church is the approximately 2000 year old faith founded by Jesus Christ and guided through the centuries in its magisterial doctrines and teachings and with all of traditionally faithful members through those centuries and including today which means all those who are canonized saints, blesseds, and venerables as well as orthodox/authentic cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, nuns, brothers and male and female laity of all ages. THAT is the True, One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church and not Bergoglio and his clowns and the dupes that follow them. Going with SSPX, which — as I understand it — is still not in full communion with the Church, but “in process” — is very close to if not full apostastly. Until Francis declares ex cathedra a contradiction of magisterially established perennial doctrine or teaching, I will not leave the Church. When I must I will disobey him and his underlings for I am not obliged to obey commands that fly in the face of sound doctrine and teachings or are extrinsically or intrinsically evil/sinful and I will fight in every way possible to rid her of the evil cancer with which she is now infected.

  24. It is all very disturbing and saddening to read all these exposes. I for one feel ill saying (typing) this, but I do not trust this very bad pope. I pray that Our Lord, in His mercy, would grant Pope Francis a Pauline Conversion.
    The internet, I believe, is a gift from Almighty God – in that we, the laity, can see for ourselves what “prelates” have only allowed us to know a little at a time. In their arrogance, they are taking us to a cliff top pasture, but not telling us where they are leading us. We are only the laity, they know best.
    Clericalism gone mad!

  25. The Novus Ordo Anti-Church is a sect. Its members aren’t interested in anyone else because the Church is for them and for them alone – its wealth, patrimony, any power it retains.

    When you understand this, you understand its nature. It is a gnostic sect composed of self-appointed Adepts and their lay followers.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...