• Our Blogger

    Fr. Joseph Jenkins

  • The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Josh's avatarJosh on Mixed Signals about Homosexual…
    gjmc90249's avatargjmc90249 on Marian Titles & the Mantle…
    Jeremy Kok's avatarJeremy Kok on Ask a Priest
    Anonymous's avatarAnonymous on Ask a Priest
    forsamuraimarket's avatarforsamuraimarket on Ask a Priest

The SSPX is Racing Away from the True Church

Posted on March 6, 2026 by Father Joe

Father Etienne Ginoux’s rebuttal to Cardinal Sarah is more of the same disheartening SSPX apologetics, not only for the illicit episcopal consecrations but also for the Society’s widening departure from Catholic unity.  But it is nonsensical to imagine that the SSPX can preserve doctrinal integrity when it pits itself against the living Magisterium of the one true Church instituted by Christ and protected by his grace and the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit.  The Pope and other churchmen are not impeccable and certainly there is no guarantee that every loose opinion or practical judgment will be infallible. However, despite the presence of weak men, and even the intrusion of ambiguity, the charism of truth remains with the Catholic Church.  Sacred Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian revelation that are handed down to us through the teaching authority appointed by our Lord— through the ordinary and extraordinary teaching authority of the successors of Peter (the Popes) and the bishops in union with him. Our doctrines are preserved and develop through their transmission by the Holy Father and through the many ecumenical councils where bishops gathered to formulate truth and to establish discipline for the Holy Church.  Vatican II was one of these councils. While it may sound cynical, I suspect that SSPX intransigence is largely due to its origins of rebellion and over a half century of stubborn juridical autonomy from the Holy See. The Lefebvrites are reluctant to hand over what they have built, especially to a larger Church in which they no longer have supernatural faith and to a leadership they mistrust. Despite what the SSPX would have us believe, the Church today may face many afflictions, but she is not ready for hospice and is certainly not dead. Indeed, the emergency crisis of faith does not require the poison of illicit consecrations but rather the medicine of obedience and fidelity.

Schismatic groups represent a lesser share of the overall Latin Mass community than they would make out. The SSPX has 103 chapels in the U.S., compared to the some 500 non-SSPX parishes that offer the TLM. Before the 2021 restrictions took effect, more than 800 parishes offered the TLM. The crisis in the Church does not demand what the SSPX plans to do. We must not catch the disease of atheistic or secular humanism from the left nor an inflexible legal dogmatism on the right. Both the schismatic anachronists and the heretical progressives suffer from a profound wariness, a deficiency of trust and faith in the Pope and the living magisterium. They are opposite sides of the same coin and that coin is the price of departure from Catholic unity.

Of course, as with the “churches” of the Eastern schism and the “ecclesial communities” of the Protestant reformation, once union is broken, time only cements the separation. An individual here or there or a few lesser groups might return to Catholic unity, but generally the fracture persists and there is a continuing divergence in teaching or beliefs.  Reconciliation may yet be possible, but it is unlikely. While the SSPX level the charge of doctrinal “rupture” upon the leadership of the Catholic Church, the real estrangement or even schism rests upon them.          

Cardinal Sarah writes: “How many souls are at risk of being lost because of this new division?” Father Etienne Ginoux of the SSPX returns, “One might rightly ask whether it is truly the souls of the faithful who attend the chapels of the Society that are in danger, or whether we should fear more for the salvation of those who follow the ‘prelates who renounce teaching the deposit of faith’ or the ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ — denunciations that come from the cardinal himself.” This is his rationale for the excommunications and disobedience to the Pope should the pending consecrations take place. While currently lacking juridical standing, what is left unspoken is that should the SSPX sever its ties with the Vatican, the bishops involved will be excommunicated and schism will be threatened. You cannot save the Church by leaving the Church. Fundamental to all the other amassing errors of the SSPX is their divergent ecclesiology.  

I am reminded of the Protestants, particularly those that followed Martin Luther. The errant Augustinian friar never intended to establish a new church, but like the SSPX, sought to reform the Catholic Church. He also did not trust the Pope.  It is ironic that the SSPX which so thoroughly spurns the “heretics” should mimic their disobedience and rebellion. The fealty that SSPX past generations gave the Pope will likely dissolve altogether in the next. There can be little to nothing of allegiance with the loss of respect.     

Seeking to rationalize disobedience and rebellion, Father Ginoux offers a litany of complaints against the Holy See. His argument is that a Church that has compromised itself cannot demand compliance. No reconciliation on these matters will make any difference because they are “excuses” for an autonomy that has become habitual.  Nevertheless, what are some of these matters?

He first mentions the opening of Eucharistic communion to remarried divorcees and yet what has changed in general practice? While we do not interrogate communicants or violate the seal of confession, there is no encouragement for those in mortal sin to receive the Eucharist (this includes adulterers, fornicators, and active homosexuals).  Despite talk and speculation, nothing has changed. All are still urged to be in a state of grace to receive the sacrament. Those who are not Catholic or spiritually prepared are asked to make a good act of contrition and pray for spiritual communion. Divorced Catholics desiring to regularize their situations may explore the possibility of an annulment and con-validation. We do not interrogate believers or risk breaking the seal of confession for would-be communicants. We do not lock out those in bad marriages from attending Mass. We do not refuse to baptize children from questionable or compromised unions. Despite speculation and questionable statements from certain churchmen, where is the codification of change on this matter? It is nowhere to be found. 

While there is a certain ambiguity over the possibility of blessing same-sex couples, these irregular unions are not directly blessed or affirmed, rather individuals are blessed and we prayerfully ask that they might know contrition, repentance and healing. The Church does not bless sin. The Holy See has directed that the so-called blessings cannot be directed toward any validation or solemnization of unions. Fr. James Martin, SJ, might be given a certain deference for his work as a priest to an alienated population, but he is not the Pope.  Indeed, Pope Leo XIV recently met with and praised those who continue the COURAGE ministry that urges celibate love, charitable service and prayer from those with the same-sex disorientation. This is where we find the mind of the Church.    

God does not directly will religious pluralism as such would constitute the sin of indifferentism.  Our Lord instituted the Catholic Church as the true faith, and we should work and pray for the day that all might be one. While other churches or faiths might have elements of the truth mixed with error, we have an obligation as missionary disciples to bring others to the truth and Catholic unity.

The titles of Mary are not so much questioned as there is a concern about misunderstanding. The sole Mediator of Christianity is Jesus Christ.  But Mary as the Mediatrix of All Graces always directs her children to Jesus. As some of the fathers have speculated, she functions as the neck of the Mystical Body with Christ as the head and the rest of us as the body.  All graces pass through the neck to the body!  Mary is also called Co-Redemptrix. But this must be properly defined. She cooperates with the saving work of her Son.  Jesus is the redeemer who buys us back from the devil at the price of his bruised flesh and saving blood.  As the first disciple of her Son, Mary cooperates with his saving work.  She is there at the nativity and at the cross and after the resurrection. Jesus gives himself to the Father. At the nativity God comes down from heaven and she holds him in her arms. At Calvary, the dead body of her Son is placed in her arms and taking a priestly stance, she offers him back to the Father. She joins her suffering to the Lord’s passion. The terms may or may not be employed, but nothing changes in terms of Marian agency. 

The so-called emergency in the Church is real, but if the SSPX goes ahead with illicit episcopal consecrations, it will prove itself as not part of the solution but of the problem. I suspect the future will find them as a breakaway church and one that disavows ecumenical dialogue and collaboration. They will become a spiritual ghetto outside the Catholic Church.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

The SSPX Waves Goodbye to Rome!

Posted on March 3, 2026 by Father Joe

What are we to make of the (February 18, 2026) response from Father Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X to Cardinal Victor Fernandez, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Rooted in pessimism, the SSPX is demonstrably negative by questioning Rome’s intentions and yet urging continuing discussions that are deemed futile. The SSPX has lost sight of the fact that the current standoff is untenable for them and detrimental to the universal Church. One cannot simultaneously claim fidelity and then further treacherous nonconformity.  The Pope is the visible head of the Church. He is the Vicar of Christ.  Repudiation of that authority ultimately leads to one of two scenarios: either one will defect from the true Church or else, ecclesial authority has been assumed by an anti-pope and the chair of Peter is vacant.    

Father Pagliarani spills the beans for rejecting the Vatican’s goals for dialogue by saying he “cannot accept the perspective and objectives” offered by the Dicastery. He writes: “We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” He contends that this stems from “a rupture with the Tradition of the Church,” positing the culpability with the Pope and most of the Church’s bishops or Magisterium. Blame would also be assigned the majority of the Church’s laity who went along with the changes. It is unclear how he would reconcile his dissent with the solidarity of the Pope, episcopacy and the sense of the faithful as such functions providentially under divine grace as verification to Christian doctrine.    

He stamps as abhorrent the Vatican insistence that “the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged.” Consequently, he is blunt in spurning any dialogue that will foster a sincere reunion, present or future tense. However, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about the cross-pollination of the liturgies, furthering a more organic reform upon the old and new. Apparently the SSPX does not buy the distinction between the questionable “spirit” of Vatican II and the actual orthodox texts or teachings. The Church is not going to permit any overt renunciation of an ecumenical council, but that does not mean that Vatican II is the last word. Indeed, the council’s directives about social communication are now largely obsolete. He is saying that Rome treats Vatican II with the same intransigence with which he does Trent.  This simply is not the case.

While many of us would argue for correctives in Pope Francis’ “Evangelii Gaudium” (November 2013), “Amoris Laetitia” (March 2016) and “Traditionis Custodes” (July 2021), it is worth noting that Father Pagliarani also dissents and regards as problematic, Pope John Paul II’s “Redemptor Hominis” (March 1979) and “Ut Unum Sint” (May 1995). The SSPX wrongly critiques “Redemptor Hominis” as revoking the Church’s teaching about original sin and the plight of fallen man. The late Pope merely advances the implications of incarnation and redemption regarding all humanity. Arguing the sanctity of life and dignity of “persons” from the mystery of the God-Man and his saving work speaks to both the natural man as made in “the image of God” and the even greater high calling of the new “spiritual” man remade in “the likeness of Christ” by supernatural grace.  Christ’s redemptive work is his gift to us but “fallen men” who would be saved must accept the gift by faith in Christ and membership in his Church.   The SSPX is similarly over-reaching in its caricature of “Ut Unum Sint” as entitling Protestants to all the spiritual benefits that come with membership in the Catholic Church.  The rigid voices of condemnation would insist that we cannot pray with heretics and that whatever faith they have is of no value or merit. The SSPX makes no acknowledgment of shared elements of faith or a common love for Jesus.  They are infuriated that any might speak of “an invisible church” where certain Protestants and Catholics are together closer to the truth than many within their respective confessions.  But while not denying that the Mystical Body is most appropriately identified with the Catholic Church, we should not underestimate the ties of genuine baptism and the evidence that an appreciable number of non-Catholics are intellectually closer to the truth than many fellow Catholics who dissent from Church teachings. Further many deeply believe and practice their faith, as with the Coptic martyrs who in witness to Christ had their throats cut by the ISIS Islamic terrorists. A third of the Catholic clergy in England began as Anglican prelates.  What Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged draws believers to Catholic unity.        

The prospect of schism and/or excommunication is posited as threats by Rome and yet it is the Society that has forced Rome’s hand. Father Pagliarani dictates to the Magisterium what is magisterial.  This is an absurdity. The Society is still smarting from previous dialogue. He mentions this in his letter: “Yet, everything ultimately ended in a drastic manner, with the unilateral decision of Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who, in June 2017, solemnly established, in his own way, ‘the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church,’ explicitly including the entire Council and the post-Conciliar period.”

A shared recognition that we cannot concur about doctrine but only about “charity toward souls” is akin to our relationship with Orthodox or maybe even the Protestant sects— but it falls far short of the ecclesial union demanded under the Pope. While the Society cites against schism its traditional theology and constancy in Church teaching, such is not the Holy See’s assessment. Charity alone will not keep them in good standing. The divergence is clear, the Lefebvrites view themselves as Catholics opposed to a Protestant Rome.  Any affiliation with the Holy See is simply an anachronistic nostalgia for a Rome that was. Does this attitude from the SSPX not convey schismatic intent? I believe so. The Society deems regularization as “impracticable due to doctrinal divergences.” Closing the letter, as a final twist of the knife, he signs off—”His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.” I suspect that the mystery of Mary’s cooperation with her Son’s saving work is a new item added to the Society’s list of objections.  

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Bp. Schneider Urges the Pope to Capitulate to the SSPX

Posted on March 2, 2026 by Father Joe

While I think the Pope in the image is Francis and not Leo, the question raised is even more pressing today.

While Cardinals Robert Sarah and Gerhard Ludwig Müller have made strong moral appeals to the SSPX to acquiesce to the rightful authority of the Holy See, Bishop Athanasius Schneider is urging Pope Leo XIV to approve the upcoming consecrations, without further dialogue and concessions. This should not surprise us as he has shown himself in his recent catechism and interviews, to side with the Society of Saint Pius X. Indeed, he claimed delegation by the Holy See to visit the SSPX seminaries in 2015 and gave a ringing assessment that they were a “sound theological, spiritual, and human reality” for which there should be granted full reconciliation and canonical recognition. This alleged deputation was never verified by the Vatican. He also denied they were in schism. But he is on the wrong side of this debate, and it would be demeaning to the authority of the Holy See to grovel to spiritual blackmail.  Efforts to manipulate the Pope are a sinful offense to the office and to the Lord who empowers him as his vicar on earth. As an aside, one must wonder how many days a year Bishop Athanasius Schneider stays to manage his diocesan duties as the Auxiliary Bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan. It seems that he is always traveling for speaking engagements around the globe instead of assisting Archbishop Tomasz Peta with the care of his 53,000 Catholics.

His determination for or against schism is not merely with other church monitors like himself but with the Holy See. He questions the verdict of popes going back to John Paul II. The Pope is the chief legal head of the Church, and his assessment cannot be nonchalantly dismissed. He references the patristic period and yet the laws of the Church that govern her have been formulated over time. Church laws, particularly about sacraments and leadership, often reflect dogmatic teachings but many of the practical elements are mutable. In other words, the Church is not obliged to retain past laxity or rigorism. Just as bishops determine what men to ordain as priests, the Pope approves worthy candidates for the episcopacy. Note that at this writing the names of the men the SSPX intends to ordain have not been revealed. It is acting more as a secret society that distrusts the Holy See than as a group seeking full ecclesial unity.  Further, the factors leading to episcopal consecrations are necessarily weighted toward unity and obedience over any prospect of rebellion or schism. The desperation of churchmen who consecrated bishops under the communists behind the Iron Curtain cannot be compared to the status of the SSPX. The traditional Latin Mass and the deposit of faith revealed by Christ will survive even should the SSPX disappear from the face of the earth.  The true good of souls would not benefit by feigning a unity with the Holy See that does not in fact exist.   

The 1917 Code of Canon Law strictly forbade as an illicit grave act, the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate. Superseded by the 1983 code, unauthorized acts of this sort could trigger excommunication and lead to charges of schism.  The Holy See has warned the SSPX that it will face such penalties if it goes forward. This “warning” is itself an element that must be considered.  There can be no ambiguity or counter-rationalization as to what is at stake. We are not dealing with quasi-new dogmas, but with the God-given power that belongs to the Pope and certainly not to a non-juridical lay society of seminarians and a self-appointed congregation of priests.   

The reference he makes to St. Athanasius in 357 AD is inexact as he did not disobey Pope Liberius but rather resisted pressure to associate with Arian bishops. What is missing from Bishop Schneider’s assessment is that the Pope, himself, was being coerced or manipulated by the emperor, Constantius II, who sided with the heretics. That is where we find the real analogy, as today efforts are underway by the SSPX to manipulate Pope Leo XIV.   

The good bishop would seek to remain in good standing by arguing, as he did in his catechism, that everything he regards as heretical in Vatican II and post-conciliar popes is “ambiguous.” However, the failure of past dialogue and clarification to bring about reconciliation is demonstrative that the problem is deeper. Bishop Schneider and the SSPX detect doctrinal rupture, not just from the nebulous “spirit” of Vatican II but more importantly from the conciliar texts themselves. He even claims that the Holy See should thank the SSPX for rejecting Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass.  He says the bishops and priests of the SSPX love the Church, and this may hold some truth, at least for a few; however, is this a love for the Church instituted by Christ and today governed by Pope Leo XIV, or for the house that Archbishop Lefebvre built?   

No matter what they say, a true schismatic is one who still separates himself and disobeys after he has been forewarned.  Protestations of fidelity or a desire for union ring hollow. He writes that “True schismatics would never humbly implore the Pope to recognize their bishops.” This is not strictly true. There is likely the fear that many good and informed Catholics will forsake the SSPX should the Holy See judge them outside the saving Church of Christ. If they can feign orthodoxy, they can keep what they have and grow. He writes: “The Holy See has shown remarkable generosity toward the Communist Party of China, allowing them to select candidates for bishops—yet her own children, the thousands upon thousands of faithful of the SSPX, are treated as second-class citizens.” The practice of allowing monarchs and governments “a say” in episcopal consecrations has a long history. The current praxis with China is questionable and a desperate measure to preserve the faith in a difficult situation. Does he really want to make an analogy where the SSPX are likened to the godless Maoists? I pray not, as no such emergency can be claimed with the SSPX because the traditional Latin Mass is otherwise available and the Novus Ordo properly celebrated is salutary for souls and is genuine worship of God. The move to consecrate its own bishops without papal permission would not make members of the SSPX into second-class citizens but threaten to make them a new nation with attributes that harken to the past.  They might continue alone or join a communion with the Orthodox, but their Catholic unity would be severed.  The demand that the Profession of Faith be accepted is no word game. While Cardinal Victor Fernández may have a somewhat checkered reputation, he is right in saying that this is among the minimum requirements for reconciliation.

Pope Leo XIV has shared his desire for full juridical union with the Orthodox churches, a move that the SSPX would resist. Has the SSPX not been given a greater concession with the papal extension of faculties?  While their current standing with the Church of Rome is superior to the orthodox oriental churches, like them, neither has yet been regularized with the Holy See.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

The SSPX Makes It Itself Out More Than It Is

Posted on March 1, 2026 by Father Joe

Disassociation with the Church’s Living Magisterium

Father Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X has rejected the offer of dialogue toward possible canonical status from Cardinal Victor Fernandez, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Many of us are deeply saddened by this as most of those who attend SSPX chapels simply love the old Mass and would prefer to stay within the Catholic Church. The SSPX projects itself as a stalwart of truth for certain doctrines against error but it does so with an adversarial spirit opposing the living Magisterium, itself. As creatures of habit, we must ask, has the SSPX become comfortable with its autonomy and lack of confidence in the promise of Christ to Peter? If so, then maybe we were fooling ourselves from the start in thinking there was any real chance for reunion?     

The rejection of the Profession of Faith a few years ago, as formulated under Pope John Paul II, was immediate evidence for the “unapologetic defection” of the SSPX from Catholic unity.  Still used today, this revised statement includes an Oath of Fidelity for those assuming Church offices. Doctrinal adherence always comes together with obedience. Definitively proposed teachings on faith and morals require firm acceptance by all given a mission from the Church. In addition to the Nicene Creed, the hold up for the SSPX is the “religious submission of will and intellect” to teachings by the Holy Father and bishops in union with him, the Magisterium, even when the teachings are not proclaimed by a definitive act. This religious respect cannot be reconciled with their argument for disobedience. God is not fooled and the SSPX cannot give lip service to the Roman Pontiff while reserving true governing authority to itself.  All this might seem peculiar given that the Society seems prepared to swear upon the Catechism of Trent on behalf of timeless or changeless truths. But all is not as it seems.

While feigning loyalty to the past, their dissent from long accepted ecclesiology is certain. There is no way that men rejecting a host of Church teachings, tempting schism and racing towards excommunication, could readily affirm a statement expressly designed to ensure that those in authority positions, i.e. bishops, pastors, and religion teachers—should be one with the Roman Pontiff in holding fast to the deposit of faith and avoiding contrary doctrines. The SSPX prefers dead popes to living ones, not simply because they prefer anachronism and older formulations, but because dead popes cannot correct or discipline them.

While it might seem unbelievable, the SSPX could very well be a player in the prophesied Great Apostasy and subsequent Chastisement. Many are supposing that the defection from faith will be centered on Rome and yet we are assured by Christ that the faith of Peter will be sustained until he comes again. Despite allegations of hiding abusers in their ranks and intimidating witnesses, there is the naïve presumption that SSPX priests are holy and safe while the Novus Ordo men are largely secret sinners and evil pedophiles.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Reflecting Upon SSPX Dissent & Disobedience

Posted on February 28, 2026 by Father Joe

My old classmate Dr. Larry Chapp summarizes in the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER (Feb. 24, 2026) the crisis with the SSPX in an article entitled, “The SSPX Rupture with Tradition.”

https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/chapp-sspx-rupture

He spells out the situation. Father Davide Pagliarani has rejected dialogue as hopeless and has listed five reasons as to why. Dr. Chapp argues that these five reasons are “theologically deficient and ultimately expressive of a deep ecclesiological rupture with tradition.” Indeed, even the basic ground rules for any discussion among Catholics are rebuffed.  Such a stance repositions this from internal Catholic discussion to a debate with defectors who reject ecumenical niceties. Dr. Chapp is correct, this sets up the SSPX as a parallel magisterium. He does not mince words, they might say they accept the Pope but are acting in a manner that subscribes to “sedevacantism.”  Not trusting Rome, they treat the Pope as if he were not the Pope, stripped of any authority to compel their obedience.

I reflected at some length upon how Dr. Chapp shredded Fr. Pagliarani’s five reasons for disobedience. (1) Despite the world’s bishops, priests and laity overwhelmingly accepting Vatican II, they interpret the council as “rupture” and reject it. (2) Since the modern magisterium’s stance cannot be reconciled with the SSPX, they play the part of Martin Luther in repudiating lawful authority. (3) They question the Vatican’s motives and seek to coerce the Holy See with the threatened episcopal consecrations. (4) The SSPX inadvertently becomes a victim of modernism in setting itself up as the sole arbiter of what constitutes true and false doctrine and tradition. (5) They continue to malign Cardinal Müller’s essential 2017 ground rules: acceptance of the Holy Father’s authority and preserving a respectful presumption in favor of an ecumenical council of the Church.

Masquerading as the true Church instituted by Christ, the SSPX was founded out of rebellion, not fidelity, by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. They have ever since feigned orthodoxy and tradition regarding many tenets, all the while embracing a heretical ecclesiology that is akin to the modernism of Alfred Loisy.  Dr. Chapp concludes: “So it looks as if the SSPX will once again defy Rome and incur an excommunication. . . And let us attend carefully to the recent remarks from Cardinal Müller, who contends that a true reform of the Church can only take place from within the Church.”

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

The SSPX & the Devil Stealing St. Peter’s Keys

Posted on February 27, 2026 by Father Joe

A Possible Return to Schism and Excommunication

The CDF in 2017 gave three conditions for the SSPX to receive canonical status: (1) Adhere to Pope John Paul II’s 1988 Profession of Faith, (2) Accept the teachings of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Church, and (3) Recognize the reformed Mass and other sacraments and rituals as licit and valid. Speaking out of both sides of their mouths, they technically acknowledge the validity of sacraments in the postconciliar Church; however, the SSPX still rejects the Novus Ordo as intrinsically evil, discourages Mass participation by calling it dangerous and stamps Vatican II as heretical. Does this not deny the indefectibility of the Church? This alone is at variance with ecclesial doctrine. Will not the consecrations of new bishops against papal directives impose a new excommunication upon them as specified in canon 1397?

SSPX clergy have stated, even on their official website, that the Novus Ordo Mass is evil and dangerous to attend. This slur demands proper mental consideration.  First, this assertion undermines the indefectibility of the Church under the Holy Father.  It insinuates that Jesus is a liar or even impotent in keeping his words to Peter that he would be with him and sustain the Church until he comes again. It maligns Christ and undermines papal authority. Second, since the Eucharist is the very font and life-spring for the Church, the negative charge implies that the post-Vatican II Church is dried up and lifeless.  There can be no fruit. But, if one rejects the true Church, then one rejects Jesus Christ. The SSPX leaders are risking their very souls. This is a grievous defamation of Christ’s Church. Third, the Mass, old and new, is the re-presentation of Calvary and makes present the body and blood of Christ as our spiritual food and drink.  Any rendering of the divine mystery as evil is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a dire mortal sin. Lacking repentance and contrition, one cannot escape the unforgivable sin.  One cannot be saved by a divine power that one rejects. The SSPX cannot take to itself the authority and power that belongs to the Church shepherded by the Pope, Christ’s visible vicar on earth.  And yet, that is precisely what it is attempting to do.        

I am afraid, there you have it.  The SSPX response is more telling than they would readily admit, given that their subterfuge hides nothing.  While the last pontificate sowed ambiguities that complicated matters, the SSPX would have had issues with any of the popes going back to John XXIII and Paul VI. Ironically, the response accuses the Holy See of a disingenuous attitude toward efforts at regularizing Marcel Lefebvre’s syndicate of discontents. As one poor priest who believes in extending freedom regarding the celebration of approved liturgies, I had hoped and prayed for full juridical reunion, not only to help preserve the Mass of the Ages, but to lend greater nuance and consistency to the Church’s tenets of faith. As it is, Pope Benedict XVI’s efforts at reunion have been thwarted, not only by the questionable antics and obscurity of the last pontificate, but by the Lefebvrites themselves in preferring a compass heading away from Rome and swinging ever closer to the sedevacantist sects. Bishop Athanasius Schneider wrote a catechism that essentially defended the Society in its repudiation of certain Vatican II tenets and accused the post-conciliar popes of false teaching, which he coined as “ambiguity.”  If given a choice to mind his own business and return to his home archdiocese or to join the SSPX, what would he do? The danger exists that those sympathetic to the SSPX may join the increasingly erratic Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in excommunication and schism after the illicit consecrations. While Bishop Schneider is transparent in his public dialogue about doctrinal concerns, the SSPX has likely duped him that such is their core reservation. I suspect it is more about jurisdiction and power. It is unlikely they will hand over what they have to the Vatican in exchange for canonical status as a personal prelature or special ordinariate.  

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Marian Titles & the Mantle of Mercy

Posted on February 7, 2026 by Father Joe

I knew a Mariologist back in 1978 who argued with us on retreat, saying that the notion of Mary holding back the wrath of Christ was heretical. However, I suspect that he needed a more nuanced appreciation of matters.  The wrath of God is not divine anger but rather divine justice.  Mary intercedes for her spiritual children, that they will NOT be punished as they deserve but rather saved by God’s mercy. Mary, as a special intercessor and conduit for sanctifying grace, helps to bring the forgiveness of Calvary to those for whom Jesus died. I would argue that the very substance or fabric of Mary’s protective mantle of mercy is her Son, the Divine Mercy. There is no clash between wills. The immaculate heart and the sacred heart both beat as one in love for us.

Father Maurizio Gronchi in his Vatican document, Mater Populi Fidelis, is right about doctrine, but I suspect he is too fearful about superstition in Mary’s regard.  Indeed, the challenge today is not any organized heresy about the Blessed Mother, but rather an ignorance (both in and out of the Church) about what we believe regarding Christ.  The recent promulgation against the Marian titles “co-redemptrix” and “mediatrix” was unnecessary. The Vatican has even walked back the document, admitting that the prohibition in using the terms was not absolute.

Father Gronchi states that Mary is not a goddess. Yes, she is a blessed creature.  Jesus is our one Mediator and Redeemer. Again, the answer is yes— this is at the core of the Christian faith. The problem with the titles, which is a hurdle mostly for our Protestant friends, is that they are misunderstood or poorly defined. Mediatrix has to do with Mary’s role as the one hailed by an angel as “full of grace.” The graces of God pass from the head to the body of the mystical body through Mary.  Co-redemptrix refers to Mary’s cooperative role with her Son in his saving work.  As the Immaculate Conception, she says YES to God for all humanity at her annunciation. Indeed, this YES is threaded through her entire life, climaxing at the Cross on Calvary where she surrenders her Son to our heavenly Father. The final proof of her cooperation with Christ is when Jesus commends her to our emissary John, “Behold your mother!”

Most Mariologists I have read feel that the prohibition of the two titles is itself precarious given that the titles are found in tradition and in the writings of popes, including recent ones.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Reviewing CREATED EQUAL: Forcing Women’s Ordination

Posted on February 5, 2026 by Father Joe

The film seems oblivious to the fact that the conflict is one-and-the-same as that of the Roman empire against the early Church.  It is the question as to whether we follow Caesar or the Lord.  The courts and the world of politics have no jurisdiction over the faith of the Church.  That is where the story should have ended. However, the premise of the film is that the Catholic Church might be compelled to open the priesthood to women by intimidation of the civil legal system.  This is not the case. Whatever the state might decide, the Church would refuse to comply, even if it meant persecution and martyrdom. One is reminded of the Church of England that sought to manipulate the Church when a king demanded a divorce.  But the Church was willing to allow an entire country to evade its grasp to preserve the meaning of marital fidelity.  Like holy orders, marriage is a sacrament of the Church. The Church has the right to administer her sacraments as she feels fit. The jury in the film judges a male-only priesthood as discrimination; but this is not true because priesthood is not a job or an entitlement.  Yes, as a vocation it is a calling, but just like the nature of our saving faith, it is both personal and corporate.  Any calling from the candidate must be affirmed by the Church, notably the bishop and those placed in charge of formation.  Priesthood is a gratuity and no one can demand that gift.

The film would intimate that our religious liberty comes entirely from the state, but our founding documents merely acknowledge that such freedom comes from God, himself.  No judge and jury, particularly made up of non-Catholics and/or those unsympathetic to Catholicism have any say about the Church.  Indeed, even the laity that constitute the “sensus fidelium” must live and share the tenets of our holy religion. Pope John Paul II definitively answered the question about women’s ordination, explaining that the Church has no power to change the practice of ordaining only males.  Short of any new miraculous revelation, the Church is bound to keep the tradition.  Responding to the challenge of stereotypes, the pagan world had many priestesses and yet the new dispensation of Christ that fulfilled the promises of Judaism maintained male leadership among the apostles.  Our Lord was shown to break convention as when he spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well.  She would become a prophetess to her people, but not a priest. The Blessed Virgin Mary was the holiest woman to ever walk the earth and yet while she takes a priestly stance at the foot of the Cross, she is entrusted to the apostle John who was a sharer in Christ’s ministerial priesthood.  While all of us participate in a baptismal priesthood (given that sacrifice defines our faith and charity), the ordained priesthood is reserved to men, and not all men, but a select few.  If the state were to assume authority over our ministers, then it could just as likely demand married and divorced men and women or even overt homosexuals. But our sacraments are not subject to the fads of changing times or the capricious desires of men and women. Indeed, even if we should want to ordain women, we cannot do so.

The reasoning of the Church is clear and sound.  While the Church can mitigate disciplines like celibacy in specific cases, the matter of gender is no accidental that can be brushed aside.  The theology of the body focuses upon gender as being constitutive of our deepest identity and personhood.  Just as only a man can be a father and only a woman can be a mother, only a man can be a priest. If we should attempt to ordain females and it should prove against the will of Christ, then we would forfeit both the sacrament of holy orders and the Mass.  There would be no more Eucharistic real presence of the risen Christ. There would be no more unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary.  The oblation and banquet that renews our covenant with Christ would disappear with the loss of apostolic succession.   

A male-only priesthood is no injustice and not chauvinism. The house of the Church is that of a family with a given structure.  Would you allow strangers to come into your house and tell you how to run your home?  Children obey parents, not the other way around. The objective of this film would introduce dysfunction into the home of faith, the Church.  Where there was a faint promise of teaching on this subject, the film gives a simplistic and one-sided view. Even the churchmen are so terribly caricatured that they are hard for knowing believers to watch. The nun in the movie might believe but she is also a rebellious daughter.  Her journey will likely take her into Anglicanism where they have priestesses that go through the motions but a faith that compromises to secular modernity at every turn.        

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

A Female Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury?

Posted on February 2, 2026 by Father Joe

https://www.cathstan.org/voices/do-catholics-have-a-theological-problem-with-a-woman-being-the-archbishop-of-canterbury?

The Anglican communion has proven itself more a daughter to secular modernity than a son of ecclesial tradition. It goes through the motions but behind the show it is hollow of substance.  Only the bare bone of the Gospel remains.  When Pope Paul VI reminded them of the perennial and constant reservation of holy orders to men, a practice that both Catholicism and the schismatic Eastern churches maintain, he was immediately rebuffed.  The demands of feminists and gays took precedence over the reservation of Jesus and the constant practice of the Church. The late Pope John Paul II would add that any effort to ordain women would threaten the validity of holy orders. Of course, Anglican orders had long since already been compromised when their prayer book denied the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.  The definition of a priest is intimately tied up with our appreciation of the Mass. When the text was corrected, apostolic succession among the Anglicans had already been lost.

  • 1534 King Henry VIII breaks with Rome.
  • 1552 and 1662 Thomas Cranmer removes references to the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice in the BOOKS OF COMMON PRAYER.
  • 1896 Pope Leo XIII in APOSTOLICAE CURAE declares Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void.”
  • 1994 Saint John Paul II in ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS solemnly professes priestly ordination as reserved to men alone.

Even if there should be a few valid clergy due to Catholic defections and the presence of Old Catholics and Orthodox bishops at ordinations, the intrusion of women would be the proverbial nail in the coffin to any such sacramental lineage. Pope John Paul II professed infallibly that women cannot be ordained.  If they cannot be priests, then they most certainly cannot be bishops. Thus, they cannot ordain men to holy orders, either to the presbyterate or to the diaconate.  

Politeness will only summon further confusion. We must be blunt with the truth.  Sarah Mullally is not really the bishop of either London or Canterbury.  She may be the first woman to hold the title of “Archbishop of Canterbury” in 1,400 years, but she is only the latest of a long line of pretenders to the throne. Ordained in 2002 as a part time cleric, her background is in nursing.  She later got a degree in pastoral theology. She is a self-professed pro-choice feminist and favors the blessing and full inclusion of LGBT+ people. Of course, she is not alone as there are increasing numbers of wannabee women priests and bishops in the Anglican communion.  Indeed, the new archbishop of Wales is Bishop Cherry Vann who is openly living in a lesbian same-sex civil union.   

A female archbishop of Canterbury is problematic because of the ecumenical aspirations of the Church.  Many had long sought and prayed for reunion of the churches.  Now, except for those who have joined the ordinariate, it looks as if that will never happen. This also complicates matters of gathering because these women who dress up like priests and bishops give scandal to the Catholic faithful.  It also fuels wrongful aspirations among women with radical agendas that include women’s ordination.  Of course, with neither a valid priesthood nor Eucharist, the Anglican communion forfeits the canonical and realistic right to term itself a “church.”  Error leads to error and now this faith confession tolerates divorce, adultery, fornication, abortion, and homosexuality— even among its ministers. It is sad but true that with every step forward in ecumenical dialogue, the Anglicans have taken two steps backward. Short of a revolution among the Anglican and Episcopal faith communities, it must be proclaimed that their “church” is essentially dead. Any effort to proclaim the Good News or to expand holiness is short-circuited by the advocacy of mortal sin. 

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Homily Notes for the Fourth Sunday of the Year

Posted on February 1, 2026 by Father Joe

The Gospel this evening is the presentation of the Beatitudes by our Lord. It is essentially a guide toward holiness or sainthood. As Catholics we ordinarily ponder the men and women canonized by the Church. Here at Holy Family, we even celebrate a monthly saint, requesting intercession and seeking our own emulation.  But in truth, there are far more saints than those few on any list that we might keep.  The saints of God are listed in heaven.  While we struggle with our sinfulness, how many living saints have we encountered over the years? I think of all the good Catholics that helped their fellow man and were faithful to the sacraments.  There are likely some in this Church as I speak who are very close to God.  Sainthood is not an unreachable goal.  By God’s grace, we can all know sanctification and holiness of life.  It is the one goal we have in life. Nothing else matters other than becoming holy and eventually finding ourselves with the Lord in his heavenly kingdom. Years ago, I had the opportunity to visit the mount upon which Jesus preached the Beatitudes.  There was a small but beautiful chapel there. Just as our Lord instructed his apostles, today there is a seminary on that hill where men are prepared for the priesthood. What do these benedictions teach us? 

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

The word for poor here is (’anāwîm), taken from the Old Testament it refers to the destitute who have nothing but God.  It came to infer the qualities of lowliness or a profound humility.  The addition of the words “in spirit” are added by Matthew to clarify that being materially poor would not necessarily save anyone.  We know that in our own society, poverty is often a catalyst for jealousy and crime.  Hearts can be poisoned by resentment toward the rich or because of struggle. Disappointment can twist or corrupt the soul. Poor people often suffer from the rich man’s dreams.  By contrast, poverty in spirit might be voluntary, as with religious who embrace poverty for the kingdom.  Christian poverty also implies acceptance in whatever comes.  We see ourselves as unworthy and all that we have as a gift.  It also implies generosity.  We would not want to be well off at the cost of a neighbor who is homeless, hungry, naked and afraid. Poverty in spirit means that we might have things, but we would not allow the things to have us.  True richness is not found in material things but in standing in right relationship with God.  We are all the poor man or woman, dependent upon God.

“Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.”

Many question God because of the problem of pain or suffering. This blessing would turn that around. We should not get angry or run away from God because of loss or a hard life.  Rather, we should trust that God will make all things right. This implies not only that God will give comfort, but that as his stewards we should try to bring a healing presence to the pain of others. The ultimate response of God to pain is solidarity with Christ in his passion and death.  God is present with us, and we must be present to one another.  We are together in this.  We are not alone or abandoned.  

“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.”

Just as in the story of salvation, the Jewish promise of Jerusalem and a land of their own was only made possible by the power of God.  Human strength of arms would always fall short.  However, if we keep the covenant, God will keep us.  As Christians, this land refers to the kingdom of Christ, realized in the Church and in the promise of heaven. We must acknowledge our profound dependence upon God.  

“Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.”

This benediction gives root to the Church’s teachings on social justice. We yearn for a world where the right prevails and evil is thwarted. Unfortunately, then and now, there is so much injustice and prejudice.  Good people suffer and the bad seem to flourish.  Ordinarily we understand righteousness as moral conduct that conforms to divine law or God’s will. Here it means something more. Righteousness is literally the saving power of God.  We cannot make ourselves good, only God can do that.  Only the Lord can save us.  We cannot save ourselves.  We are sinners who need a Savior.  We must submit to God’s plan of salvation.  Jesus is faithful to this mission from the Father, unto the Cross. 

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.”

It is as in the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”  It is only by forgiving others that we open ourselves to divine mercy.

“Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God.”

Just as one had to be ritually pure to worship God in the temple, our Lord takes it one further and teaches that we must be clean of heart or pure to see God in heaven.  We must become perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.  This appreciation is behind our understanding of penance, absolution and prayer for the poor souls.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”

Ultimately this peace is about more than avoiding hostility or violence. It means a radical imitation of Christ. Our Lord would have us joined or united with him in how we confront earthly power and injustice.  The peace of Christ demands trust and sublime courage in facing the mystery of evil. This unity is in terms of adoption into the family of God.  

“Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

We will know that we are on God’s side because the world will target us as signs of contradiction.  If there is no tension with the world and no opposition, it means one of two things: either we have converted the world (which is unlikely) or that the world has compromised us. 

“Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you falsely because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.”

I suspect this last beatitude is where our Lord lost some of his disciples.  Who wants to be insulted or persecuted or even murdered.  We naturally turn away from such prospects.  And yet, as a parable people, we are to find joy in such adversity. It is not because we love suffering or pain, that would be sadistic. No, the overriding reality in this scenario is that we walk with the Lord. Whatever the world takes away. God can give back many times over.  The natural man must give way to the supernatural man. There is a crown in heaven waiting for the saints who have followed the Lamb.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Next Page »