Bishop Athanasius Schneider Defends The SSPX

The narration that you will hear in this clip is the text of a letter by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.  These are his first remarks on the situation with the SSPX and how they relate to the crisis of the Church in general.  He too acknowledges that the SSPX is performing a vital service to Holy Mother Church despite attempts by Vatican officials and even the pope to derail them.

Pope Leo Et Al - Working For Deconstruction Of The Faith

Okie-dokie!  Let's see what we got here!

About three years ago, dissident Jesuit Father Thomas Reese disavowed belief in Transubstantiation.  Thanks to Novus Ordo Watch who reported this.  We can add this to his already-impressive list of heretical beliefs and behaviors.

This past April, the pope conferred with an Anglican bishop-wannabee woman.  The Vatican News outlet called her "Right Honourable Dame Sarah Mullally".  Again, this is a Vatican news outlet calling her that, and they did not put that in quotes.  She was in full costume.  I won't go into the topics of their gabfest.  Suffice it to say that the pope called her "bishop" but had a fit over the SSPX ordaining bishops.  I didn't hear the pope renewing any excommunication proclamation for her!

LifeSiteNews reminded us that Bishop Michael Sis, who warned Catholics not to attend SSPX masses and who falsely stated that SSPX weddings and confessions are invalid, attended in "interfaith" Hanukkah ceremony in 2023.  That is a sin against the First Commandment.  I believe he still retains his see.  Odd how that works!

The abuses pile on.  In Austria, two priests decided to commemorate their 30 years in the priesthood by attempting to consecrate flatbread on the floor.in a school.  The rubrics are quite clear that the host must be unleavened and made entirely of wheat.  Because the matter was invalid, the bread was not consecrated and thus Our Lord did not become sacramentally present.  We can be grateful that there was no Blessed Sacrament and thus no insult, although blasphemy abounded.  We don't know if the priests have received any discipline that is more substantial than a rap on the knuckles, and don't know if they received even that.  This same link tells of a Muslim funeral rite in a Catholic Church, in addition to a Buddhist birthday celebration in another.  Were those parish priests disciplined?  Should we even bother to ask?

On June 27, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles allowed an Aztec war dance to take place during a Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels.  This LifeSiteNews link has video that depicts this idolatrous sacrilege.

I could go on and on, as the insults to the Faith are increasing exponentially.  I will mention one last one.  Pope Leo appointed a bishop to the Diocese of Chifeng in Mongolia in accordance with the agreement between the Vatican and Red China.  In plain English, the dictators of Red China put forth their chosen candidate, and Pope Leo rubber-stamped him to the see.

Do you appreciate the hypocrisy displayed by that Chinese matter?  The SSPX, seeking to preserve their order and the Tradition of the Church, petitioned the Vatican for months to address their concerns and allow them a mandate to ordain those men.  Pope Leo et al not only stiff-armed them, but pronounced them excommunicated (canonical laws were violated, but that is another discussion).  On the other hand, Red China, overt haters of the Faith, put forth their candidate and he is immediately approved by the pope..

On the surface, that doesn't appear to make sense.  It does, though, if the reader finally accepts some very unpleasant but also very obvious truths.  All these aberrations have the same end - the destruction of the Faith and absolute disdain for Our Lord.

Are we going to let this happen?

Open Letter To Bishop Burbidge

This letter was authored by my blogging colleague at Les Femmes.  It is well-written and her points are well-taken.   I want to expound on the analysis put forth by Father Murray.  He refers to the decree and explanatory notes as a "canonical mess".  I will take it a step further.  Unless those who inhabit the Vatican are a bunch of bungling boobs, they know what they put forth isn't worth the paper on which it was written.  I believe they are bluffing.  Regrettably many good Catholics are swallowing the swill  - hook. line and sinker.

BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

July 13, 2026

Your Excellency,

How grateful I am for your vocation to the priesthood and the privilege of calling you my spiritual Father. We met only once several years ago after Fr. Clarence Trinkle’s funeral at St. John the Baptist. I left by the front door thinking to slip away quietly, but you were standing alone next to the hearse only a few feet away. I stopped, genuflected and kissed your ring, introduced myself, and thanked you. I considered our brief exchange providential and was delighted to receive a personal blessing. I recall that meeting today as I write in grief over the recent decree of excommunication of the SSPX bishops. Since my purpose is not to defend the Society consecrations, I will not address that topic.

What I want to address today is the decree and explanatory note with regard to the laity which imposed canonically invalid punishments on those of us who continue to attend SSPX services. Locally, a priest announced at Mass that those who stop going to the SSPX immediately need take no further action. Those of us who continue to attend are excommunicated and have two levels of action required to be readmitted to the Church depending on our status. His statements and instructions were erroneous and conflict with canon law which illustrates how a problem grows when it begins from error.

Fr. Gerald Murray, a highly respected canon lawyer, called the decree and explanatory note a “canonical mess.” The Dicastery failed to follow the requirements of canon law:

“In the decree, there’s a warning. We call that a canonical warning not to adhere to the schism. That’s (just) a warning.”...“Now, the next question is, what specifically are you supposed to do so that you don’t adhere to a schism? That level of specificity is not given. It has to be an act. It can’t be a mental attitude because you don’t judge the mind of people unless it’s been expressed in words.”...

In other words, the decree did not excommunicate anyone except the six bishops involved. You can’t declare an entire class of people excommunicated and schismatic in an explanatory note. You must without judge their personal actions, not try to read their minds. Fr. Murray continues:

“The confessions of the priests of St. Pius X during the reign of Francis, they got faculties to hear confessions given by Pope Francis, and it was formalized in a decree or a document from the Pope. An act of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in an explanatory note cannot undo what Pope Francis did.”...

So the confessions and marriages conducted by the SSPX continue to be valid. Pope Francis’ permissions must be expressly revoked and they have not been. Again, Fr. Murray continues:

“The document about the laity, it basically assumes that lay people who attend Mass at the St. Pius X society on a regular basis or belong to one of their organizations are out of full communion with the Church and need to be reconciled and brought back into full communion with the Church. But wait a minute. They haven’t been excommunicated. Therefore, they’re not under a canonical penalty that affects their full communion, and the idea that you lose full communion because you agree with some of the things that the society says, that’s not good enough.”

Fr. Murray is not the only canonist pointing out the errors and inconsistencies in the documents promulgated by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF). An anonymous canonist explained it clearly on the Rorate Caeli website which Fr. John Zuhlsdorf summarized on his popular blog read by many Catholic laity. Most of those attending SSPX chapels are well catechized and informed Catholics aware that the documents created a “canonical mess.” The actions also seem in bad faith intended to expel all those associated with the SSPX as too troublesome to care about. I hope that’s untrue.

In 1991, Bishop Joseph Anthony Ferrario of Honolulu excommunicated and declared schismatic six lay persons who arranged for the SSPX to celebrate the sacrament of confirmation for their children. They appealed to Rome and the bishop’s abuse of his authority was overturned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith whose head was Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI. The letter to the bishop stated:

“From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity.”

How can the laity possibly be excommunicated today for essentially doing the same thing the Hawaii six did in 1991? Attending the Masses and receiving the sacraments from the SSPX is not a schismatic act justifying a class action excommunication of the lay faithful.

What is happening at present in the Diocese of Arlington (and other places in the country) with respect to faithful sons and daughters of the Church is unjust, and uncharitable. Announcing that we are excommunicated and in schism is also untrue according to canon law. The decree and explanatory note remind me of Roe v. Wade, one of the most unjust court decisions in history. The justices found the right to murder the unborn in the “penumbra” of the Constitution. Apparently, Pope Leo and Cardinal Fernandez have found the right to abort the lay faithful in the penumbra of canon law.

Your Excellency, I beg you to reconsider the sledgehammer approach to the faithful. I have seen no reduction of the laity attending the chapel in the weeks since the release of the decree. The only result of promulgating this error-filled abuse of canon law can be further mistrust of our shepherds. Most of those who attend the Traditional Latin Mass are already evicted from churches we’ve supported with our time, talent, and treasure. Now, not only are we evicted physically, but we are spiritual outcasts whose canon law rights are ignored. And to whom can we appeal since the DDF is the perpetrator of the injustice?

We turn to you, Your Excellency, hoping and praying that you will be a voice of truth loving your sons and daughters enough to defend us against this unjust and cruel treatment. I pray for you every day when I say the rosary and when I go to the chapel holy hour for priests on Fridays. Our chapel prays for you and Pope Leo at every Mass. To whom else shall we turn for justice and mercy if not to our spiritual fathers? Please correct the errors and instruct all the priests of the diocese not to mislead the flock about the current situation. The laity have the right to be told the truth. We are neither excommunicated nor in schism and we may still receive the sacraments of Confession and Matrimony from SSPX priests. The situation is tragic enough without spreading error. Please correct the situation for the good of the souls for whom you are responsible.

Sincerely in Christ Jesus,

Mary Ann Kreitzer

copy to:

Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Gabriele Giordano Caccia
Selected priests in the Diocese of Arlington

LETTER TO THE APOSTOLIC NUNCIO OF THE UNITED STATES

Most Reverend Gabriele Giordano Caccia
Apostolic Nuncio of the United States
3339 Massachusetts Avenue N.W,
Washington, D.C, U.S.

Your Excellency:

Please find enclosed a letter I wrote to my ordinary, Most Rev. Michael Burbidge, Bishop of Arlington, VA and published as an Open Letter. At present some of the priests of the diocese, with the approbation of the bishop, are telling their congregations that those who attend SSPX chapels are excommunicated unless they immediately stop attending. We are also being described as schismatic. In addition, the diocese is saying we must meet certain conditions to return to the Church.

The accusation is false. My husband and I attend the SSPX chapel in Linden, VA, but we have not left the Church. We simply want to practice the faith as it was taught by the apostles, martyrs, saints, and doctors of the Church without novelties and errors. We accept all the teachings of Holy Mother Church taught through Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We honor the Holy Father and accept all those papal pronouncements that accord with the faith as taught through the millennia.

We request that we and thousands of other lay persons attending Society chapels be assured that we are neither excommunicated nor in schism. We also request that Bishop Burbidge be instructed to stop his priests from upsetting the faithful by spreading the canonically false statements that we are outside the Church as excommunicated schismatics. That accusation is neither true nor charitable.

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Sincerely in Christ,

Mary Ann Kreitzer

Copy to: Most Reverend Michael Burbidge

Are You Excommunicated?

It is held that a heretic cannot excommunicate anyone.  Does heresy reside in the Vatican to such a degree that very few prelates there are incapable o pronouncing excommunication?  The previous post stated that Tucho's attempt at excommunication would at least required a papal mandate in order for it to be effective.  So the question is whether or not the pope pronounced heresy so as to render any excommunication attempt null and void.

One thing that came immediately to mind is the pope's reckless declarations that the death penalty is intrinsically evil.  Actually, Pope Francis is the first to utter that nonsense, but Leo stands by it.  A good treatment of this subject, along with a list of the heresies being espoused by this pope, is here.

There is much confusion about who is excommunicated and who isn't, it seems.  Therefore I was glad to see this handy little chart during my travels through the internet.  Yes, it's tongue in cheek, as it were.  However, it is really quite accurate.

I hope this helps!

SSPX Excommunicated - Or Are They?

The text of the Decree of Excommunication and the Explanatory Note issued on July 2, 2026 by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is published on Rorate Caeli's site (and doubtless elsewhere as well). 

Today Rorate published a canonical analysis of this decree by the Canon of Shaftsbury, who concluded that this decree, at canon law, accomplished no excommunications.  He points out that a dicastery, by itself, has no authority to pronounce excommunication.  A papal grant to do so must be issued, and no such grant was cited in the decree.  He also states that the excommunication pronounced upon the SSPX clergy in general did not follow proper due process.  Excommunication is not a saber that prelates may rattle in their sabers at will.  Proper procedures exist to ensure that excommunications cannot be tossed hither and yon in some willy-nilly manner.

Relevant canons are canon 1387, canon 1364, canon 751, canon 1720, canon 1341. 

On the July 3rd episode of the Prayerful Posse, Father Gerald Muray, a canon lawyer, offered his thoughts on the two documents.  It is clear that the six bishops are excommunicated.  Causing confusion is the phrase "adhering to the schism".  What does that portend for the 700+ priests of the SSPX and the laity who attend the SSPX?  

The decree itself stated that the bishops were excommunicated, but said nothing of the priests or laity.  It is the explanatory note that broached that topic.  However, explanatory notes cannot add to decrees.  Moreover, only acts can be actionable, not attitudes or mindsets. It would seem, therefore, that the phrase "adhering to schism" is quite irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to the incurring of excommunication. 

As for the declaration that confessions and marriages officiated by SSPX priests now being illicit, recall that it was Pope Francis who declared that SSPX priests could hear confessions and witness marriages.  Since that permission was granted by a pope, a dicastery hasn't the authority to revoke that permission.  Such revocation would have to come from Pope Leo.

The Prayerful Posse video is below.  After the discussion about the SSPX situation, they broached a true scandal that occurred last month in England, where a "Mass of thanksgiving" was celebrated for two sodomites and their sinful relationship. Some bishops were in attendance and the main celebrant was Father Timothy Radcliffe,.  Now where did that name before?  I won't elaborate on that too much.  Suffice it to say that I don't expect to hear any scuttlebutt about them, or the priest, suffering any kind of canonical penalties for that sacrilege.

Father Murray called this "a very deficient canonical proceeding".  He is not the only one to make that observation.  But wait a minute!  Isn't Pope Leo XIV himself a canonical lawyer?  Yes, he is!  So how could he let these gaffes slip by?  Or..did the Vatican deliberately let a flawed proceeding be issued?  Could it be that they knew they had no real grounds to excommunicate the entire SSPX, and were simply trying to pull a bluff?  

The Vatican Celebrates Gay-Enablers While Threatening SSPX With Excommunication

On July 1, the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) will ordain four bishops, to take their place among the current bishops who are aging.  Pope Leo, a few days ago, warned them against the ordination, stating that they risk being in schism.  Last month I wrote about excommunication and declarations of schism, and still wonder to whom those penalties would actually apply.

One who was unjustly and most likely improperly declared excommunicated is Archbishop Vigano.  He recently made public a letter that he wore to the pope.  One impetus behind this release is that he had made an appointment to discuss serious matters with the pope.  The pope canceled the meeting.  Thus he wrote the letter denouncing his excommunication as improperly done and thus null and voice, and declared that he was not in schism.  Read for yourselves.  

In my neck of the woods, word has it that Cardinal McElroy has banned the construction of new communion rails and the restoration of those communion rails that had been removed.  He also is reportedly discouraging the use of temporary kneelers.  Does that mean the prie-dieu as well?

More troubling, however, is that McElroy is supporting the perversion-promoting cleric Father James Martin's Outreach Conference that is happening now at Georgetown University.  Not only did he write a glowing letter (see for yourselves), he also spoke at the pervert gab-fest.  I would be pleasantly shocked if he took the opportunity to call the attendees to repentance for promoting and/or committing homosexual perversions, but I realistically harbor no such hope.  Dare I say that after that slop that he sent them, that he should require such penance himself?

By the way - the faithful and intrepid young men of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property were on hand at Georgetown to perform various Works of Mercy in the face of the blasphemy and sacrilege that this Outreach conference foisted on Georgetown.  A video will appear below the jump break.

Now let's get back to the situation at hand with the SSPX.  I am also posting a video from Anthony Stine of Return to Tradition who is dealing with this topic.  Note from the video a few things:

• There seems to be some scuttlebutt that not only will the pope excommunicate the bishops of the SSPX, but also the priests, deacons, sub-deacons and seminarians, as well as other religious (such as sisters) who are affiliated in any way with the SSPX.  Will he next put the laity who attend SSPX Masses into his cross-hairs?
• Stine cites canon law that stipulates that excommunication cannot occur for the ordination of the SSPX bishops.  They have no desire to separate from Rome and sincerely believe that the Church is in a state of emergency.  With prelates seeking to obliterate piety from Holy Mass and actively aiding and abetting the mortal sin of homosexual conduct, who can honestly doubt the emergency that truly does exist?
• Some traditional Catholics state that the SSPX is wrong to decline Cardinal Fernandez's offer for "dialog".  Perhaps they aren't aware of the strings that Fernandez attached: no consecration, and the doctrinal issues are off the table.  Oh, by the say, this Fernandez is Kissy-Face.

Now below this jump break are the videos

The Weaponization Of Excommunication - Who Should Be Excommunicated?

In the Diocese of Chur (?) in Switzerland, the local bishop will not discipline three parishioners gave Consecrated Hosts, that is, Our Lord Himself, to their dogs.  The bishop's name is Joseph Vonamane, and has instructed his priests not to condemn LGBTQ behavior.  The 1983 code of canon law attaches automatic excommunication to certain offenses, among them being desecration of the Holy Eucharist.

In the LifeSite News clip, Westin quotes the bishop as excusing those parishioners for they "did not act with sacrilegious intent".  So everything is just hunky-dorry over in Switzerland, right?  Well, hold that thought as we consider another situation where the excommunication sword is most definitely being rattled in iss scabbard.

As most of us know by now, the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) will consecrate new bishops to relieve their aging bishops.  They do not have an official papal mandate to do so, despite their attempts to obtain one.  The Vatican has thus far remained obdurate.  Many are puzzled by this strong-arming from the Vatican.  I am not.  Ladies and gentlemen, the SSPX, owing to their fidelity to traditional liturgy and Sacred Tradition, remind the current pope and his aficionados of the sinfulness of their own disregard for the Deposit of Faith.  The SSPX, by their very existence, rightly rebukes the progressives who are attempting to destroy the Church from within.  They want the destruction of the SSPX.  That is why they won't approves of the ordination of SSPX bishops.  

Faithful Catholics have been pointing out the utter folly of denying permission to the SSPX for the ordination of those bishops.  I will not rehash what they say here, but recommend them to your reading.  My blogging colleague at Les Femmes makes the point that supplied jurisdiction can and often does override strict adherence to official jurisdiction.  She cited examples such as English priests ministering to the faithful under the reign of Elizabeth I.  Maike Hickson points out that it is the Vatican's tinkering with Tradition that is the true cause of disunity, not the SSPX's attempts to preserve Tradition.

Rorate Caeli published a piece authored by the Canon of Shaftesbury that explained why the proposed excommunication of the SSPX simply doesn't pass canonical muster.  I will quote one key passage: "Furthermore, for a canonical act to constitute schism, there must be a positive will to separate from the Roman Pontiff or to refuse submission to his authority (cf. Canon 751). This is an essential element of the offense, not merely an aggravating circumstance. Bishop Athanasius Schneider and other reputable canonists have argued persuasively that the SSPX lacks this intent entirely. The Society professes full submission to the Roman Pontiff, accepts his doctrinal primacy, and explicitly does not seek to establish a parallel hierarchical jurisdiction."

Pope Leo!  Listen up!

The SSPX has repeatedly stated that they have no positive will to separate from Rome.  Even Rome itself does not dispute that.  Now let's go back to the situation broached in my first two paragraphs, where parishioners literally tossed Our Lord to their dogs.  The Code of 1983 (linked in my first paragraph) lists as one of the acts that can incur automatic excommunication the desecration of the Eucharist.  That did happen, yet the local bishop refuses to act because they "lacked sacrilegious intent".  So if the errant parishioners are being cut some slack because of their lack of malicious intent, why is such courtesy being denied to the SSPX?  Boys and girls, can we say "hypocrisy" and "double standards"?

Let's look at Pope Leo himself and his visit to the Mosque of Algiers last month.  Upon entering, he removed his shoes and expressed "gratitude for being in a place that represents the space proper to God".  It should be noted that others inside that room kept their shoes on.  Recall also that last October, the pope gave a "prayer room" to Muslins inside the Vatican.  He facilitated prayer to an idol at best, and perhaps a demon itself.

Now go back to that list of excommunicable offenses.  I see "apostates, heretics and schismatics" listed therein.  Is the pope himself excommunicated?

It's Been And Still Is Open Season On Christians

We see from here and here how the FBI set its sites on SSPX chapels in Virginia.  They wanted to plant informants in the congregations to snitch on "radical traditionalist Catholics" who might be hob-nobbing with "white supremist groups".  What?  They think only whites can be supremists?  How racist of them!  But I digress.

When the covid lockdowns were at their most draconian, and our bishops going beyond governmental dictates in completely shutting their doors, it was the SSPX that at least allowed us to attend Mass in their parking lots and receive actual Holy Communion.  The FBI order came out of Richmond, where I attended "parking lot Masses" at least eight times.  If any FBI boogeymen were in attendance, they got our license plate numbers.  I hope those poor dears don't die of boredom as they peer into our admittedly uneventful lives.  All joking aside, the FBI is behaving like the quintessential Communist gestapo; doing Hitler, Mao and Stalin proud.

Michael Matt below goes into some of the recent attacks on Christians, including that deluded woman in Nashville who thought she was a male.  Did she think she proved her point by committing murder against six people?  Yet some Catholics still insist on wearing rose-colored glasses, in denial of the horror unfolding in front of their eyes.  They need to wake up and start exercising their First Amendment rights to pray and speak out boldly against  these evils.  I've used a phrase before, but held back because some had a visceral reaction against the stark truth it stated.  I will use it again, with some deliberate misspelling to elude the bots and algorithms that censor "trigger words".  We Christians, Catholics in particular, are now the "niqq@rs of the new age".  It's open season on us.  We can fight back and prevail, but only if we get serious about prayer, reform of our own lives in true repentance before God, and standing before the world with some steel in our spine and declare "NO MORE!"

The SSPX - Preservers Of The Holy Mass

Bishop Athanasius Schneider was recently in the country.  I had the opportunity to hear him in person a few weeks ago, and I might elaborate on that in another post.  For now, I'll post a LifeSiteNews summary of things that he stated regarding the SSPX.  First I'll post my own comments about the SSPX.

In the early days of the pandemic shutdown (spring of 2020), all the Catholic churches in the area were locked.  No one could go to Mass in person and no one could receive actual Holy Communion.  This was by order of the bishops, an order that actually exceeded the already-draconian measures demanded by the governments.  Only the SSPX offered in-person Mass, with the opportunity to physically receive Holy Communion.  Mind you, these were the "parking lot" Masses where we had to remain in our cars, but at least we were present for Mass and could receive Our Lord.  I had to drive 2-3 hours each way, but it was well worth the time and effort.  Without the SSPX I and others would have been starved of the Eucharist.  If things ever get nutty again, I will attend SSPX masses in a heartbeat.

Now for the LifeSite piece, and I especially recommend this to those who insist on claiming that the SSPX is schismatic and that I and others are guilty of schism or other such nonsense. 

Archbishop Vigano Calls For An Investigation Of Pope Benedict's Resignation

LifeSiteNews acquired a copy of an interview in which Archbishop Vigano and Aldo Maria Valli engaged.  Among other things, Vigano opines that there are reasons to doubt both the legitimacy of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation and the election of Cardinal Bergoglio as pope.  For the record, I too believe that there is cause for such concern.

For your consideration I will post two videos that Taylor Marshall recently created regarding the Archbishop.  One is a commentary on the Valli interview.  The next is on another interview in which the Archbishop engaged with Dr. Armando Mannochia.  I haven't watched that one yet, but understand that he has kind words to say regarding Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX.  On a personal note, I was able to attend Holy Mass and receive Holy Communion during the early days of the pandemic only because local priests of the SSPX conducted "drive-in" Masses that were allowed by local authorities.  They didn't shutter their doors altogether as did our diocesan bishops.   Now the videos.

BREAKING - Pope Francis Officially Insults The Mass Of The Ages

The "rumors" that have been circulating about the pope's intention to strangle the Usus Antqior have all been confirmed.  Here is the official decree.  Please scroll down for the English version.  At the very bottom is a link to an accompanying letter; again, scroll down for that English translation. 

Note the frequent references to "Saint Paul VI" and "Saint John Paul II".  I think we now see why those canonizations were hurried along - to give credibility to the claim that the Novus Ordo can actually supplant the Tridentine Mass.  But if we need to invoke canonized pontiffs to establish legitimacy of rites, let's examine Quo Primum, authored by Pope Saint Pius V just a few years after the Council of Trent ended.  From the third paragraph: "Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever,.." (Emphasis mine)  Please read the entire thing, which happens to be an Apostolic Constitution, as opposed to a Motu Propitio.  Pope Francis cannot overrule that.

Two weeks ago, I posted a video from Taylor Marshall about the situation with my own commentary.  Again I reiterate my claim that this supposed invocation of "unity" as a reason to strangle the Traditional Latin Mass was merely smoke and mirrors.  That too has been confirmed.  This is nothing more than sheer hatred of Tradition - and part of the scheme to make the church more suitable as a vehicle to legitimize the New World Order/One World Government.  I think that is the end game.

Meanwhile, we must resist this diabolical attack with everything that we have.  That may mean walking away from our parishes (with our donations) to find where a Latin Mass is being celebrated.  During the lockdown, no entity beholden to the bishops - including the FSSP - had their doors open for Mass; indeed, in most cases the restrictions imposed by the bishops were more draconian than those of civil authorities.  The SSPX did offer Mass to the public, albeit in conformity with local restrictions.  I attended those SSPX Masses; driving 6 hours round trip.  It was worth every minute to actually receive Our Lord physically in Holy Communion and attend a Mass in person, even if in my car.  I remind one and all that the SSPX is not in schism with Rome and was, for at least two months, the only Catholic organization looking out for the sacramental needs of the Catholic faithful.  If necessary, I will attend SSPX mases once again.

Again, we are presented with the need to resist evil in the Church, even if that evil emanates from the Holy See.  We either prepare ourselves to do that, or we risk the eternal loss of our souls and those of our loved ones.

The SSPX Kerfuffle

In most areas of the country, and even the world, Catholics are deprived of the Mass.  Please spare me the drivel about "spiritual communion being just as good as receiving physically".  It isn't, for the very simple reason that we are both spirit and body, and we need to receive PHYSICALLY.  Read John 6.  Of course I salute the priests who are live-streaming Mass, etc.  Being under obedidence, they have no choice.

SSPX priests on the other hand are in obedience to their own bishops and many of them are offering Holy Mass while observing "social distance" regulations.  For the past several weeks, I myself have been attending such Masses AND receiving Holy Communion.  For the time being, I will not broadcast the location of the Mass. Suffice it to say that I drive a considerable distance - but receiving Our Lord, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is well worth it.  I would not be doing so if I wasn't certain that such a Mass is being offered in conformity with the Magesterium.  The SSPX is NOT in schism, although their canonical status isn't regular.

That is why I look askance upon some attacks upon the SSPX that have arisen over these past few weeks.  With the Church in such disaray, thanks in no small part to the way that our bishops are bungling the response to this pandemic, I would think that the attackers might have more pressing matters to address. 

My friend and colleague at Les Femmes addresses this in a recent blog post.  I think it's worth studying.  I hope I needn't write anymore on this, but I will respond to any more nonsense if it arises.  I'm not sure why this arises at this moment, but I hope money is not an impetus.

Also study the text below.

THE PREFECT OF CLERGY CARDINAL CASTRILLÓN HOYOS HAS STATED THE FOLLOWING:

"It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking – as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay – a fuller communion, because communion does exist."

MANY ARE CONFUSED AS TO THE STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X. IS THE SOCIETY "SCHISMATIC" ? EXCOMMUNICATED ? THE VATICAN, IN SEVERAL IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS HAS DECLARED NO.

A recent letter stated that ecumenical dialogue with the SSPX will not be held because they are not considered schismatic.

"The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. "

-- Letter from the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President (3 May,1994)

Letter of The Sacred Congregation For The Clergy Under signature of Silvio Cardinal Oddi, President (17 March, 1984):

[In answer to a family attending Mass at an SSPX chapel as to whether such attendance fulfilled her obligation for Sunday Mass,]

"According to the New Code of Canon Law, 'The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite.... I hope that settles your doubts."

DECREE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH (HOLY OFFICE) Under signature of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect Known as the "Honolulu Decision" (Protocol No. 14428, 4 June,1993):

In response to an appeal by one of the Honolulu Six against the decree of the Bishop of Honolulu, the Congregation decreed:

"This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner ... are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism. Since [the Petitioner] did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the 'latae sententiae' penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which it is founded. This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu."

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994):

"The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. "

COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.CN.L. - LATERAN (DOCTOR OF CANON LAW) LL.D. - FLORENCE (DOCTOR OF LAWS), Professor Emeritus of Canon Law at the University of Florence, Accredited as an Advocate of the Holy Roman Rota, Accredited as an Advocate of the Apostolic Signatura, (the Holy See's highest appeals tribunal):

"The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: 'I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.' Therefore, this act was not, per se, schismatic."

"Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority, legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present day?

The answer given by eight of the cardinals in 1986 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this; I was one of the cardinals."

"There was another question, very interesting. Can any bishop forbid a priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again? The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have not official publication, and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition ... because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever." -- Cardinal Alfons Stickler, Prefect of the Vatican Archives

Further, the Pope explains why the Society is not in schism by applying the very definition of schism to the Society’s case and recognizing they do not meet it:

"This gesture [remitting of excommunication] was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council."

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 (as even Voris admits), 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.

SSPX And Austrilian Bishops - Two Different Errors

A few days ago, while writing about some curmudgeonly "rad-trads", I forgot to mention one of the most egregious - and sinful - things that have spewed out of the mouths of some of them.  As a rule, they attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form, often making great sacrifices to do so.  I too will attend those Masses, but not exclusively.  I understand the impetus, for often at the NO masses, there are attitudes that are way too casual; sometimes it gets worse than that.

However, some take it to sinful extremes.  I was in another facebook discussion with some of them.  They stated that because the NO mass was so bastardized by Vatican II, it cannot be considered a valid Mass.  Therefore, according to them, if one cannot attend an EF mass, one no longer has the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.  For their "authority", they cite this from the SSPX website.  I've often wondered how SSPX could be considered at variance from the Magisterium.  My question has been answered.

Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable.

The word "excuse" brings me to another point.  Excuse, or defense of evil done, is one of the nine ways of cooperating with mortal sin.  So is "counsel", such as that evidenced in the SSPX screed.  On the face of things, it seems that this SSPX priest needs to recant and get to confession asap.

Now let's look at what some Austrilian bishops are doing.  They have in fact advocated sin against the First Commandment by falsely stating that Catholics can also be Freemasons.  Besides the fact that Freemasonry is a major player in the desconstruction of our Church, they advocate false beliefs that are antithetical to Christianity.  In that last link is a video going into more detail about Freemasonry.  These bishops are also cooperating with mortal sin, thus incurring guilt attached to that sin.

So what might be the difference between the SSPX and these Austrilian bishops?  Probably not that much.  One the one hand, mortal sin against the Third Commandment is being touted; on the other hand, it's mortal sin against the First Commandment.  Both have the potential of damning a soul to hell.  Both agencies are being duped by the devil into doing his work.  Satan wants Catholics to leave the Church, and he doesn't care whether they exit "stage left" or "stage right".  Let's be wary of either tendency.

SSPX Priests Lead The Public Witness Against Yesterday's Black Mass

I congratulate the SSPX (Society of St Pius X) and the hundreds of Catholics who traveled from all areas of the country to offer reparation for the horrible blasphemy of the black mass in Oklahoma City.  I hope we all offered extra prayer yesterday, from wherever we happened to be at that hour.  By the way - from "church of nice" parishes, did you hear one exhortation to pray a Rosary in reparation for this blasphemy?  In my church I heard - crickets.  The "church of nice" is in deep denial about the true nature of the spiritual warfare.  Pray for them and challenge them.