• 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

    Jeremy Kok's avatarJeremy Kok on Ask a Priest
    Barbara's avatarBarbara on Ask a Priest
    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

Do the SSPX & Vatican Hear & Understand Each Other?

Posted on March 18, 2026 by Father Joe

While I am only a dabbler when it comes to pondering significant questions in religion, I must wonder if the multitude of clergy in the SSPX are any better. Most priests who minister in the trenches, no matter whether juridically licit or not, are more comfortable with settled definitions and basic catechesis than with professional theological wrangling. Dialogue with divergent groups, even among the few learned on both sides, can be difficult for numerous reasons. The millennium long schism with the Eastern churches is a case in point where politics, language and basic philosophical concepts were at odds. The communities grew apart regarding preparation of the Eucharistic species, the inner life of the Trinity, the background to Mary’s sinlessness, the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church, etc. While we acknowledge the sacraments in Orthodoxy as valid, disagreements persist and reunion evades us. Similarly, behind mutual anathemas, the break with Protestantism was not only because of abuses and outright heresies but because of character clashing egos and a failure to understand each other. Mutual condemnations were often directed against straw-men arguments and not the actual ideas in contention. As evidence for this, I would point to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) wherein a consensus was achieved between Lutherans and Catholics. It is proof that dialogue can resolve doctrinal confusion between faith communities. While Lutherans emphasized justification by faith, it was conceded that we are saved by “grace alone” and not strictly by “faith alone.” “Good works” constitute a vital result of genuine faith (that takes precedence). Both sides had been arguing for centuries at cross-purposes. Scholarship, honesty and goodwill were able to heal old wounds. But can we find these elements in the current stalemate between the SSPX and the Vatican? Where there is arrogance, windows are closed to the Holy Spirit and doors are locked to men of goodwill.   

Bishop Robert Barron has observed that spokesmen for the SSPX not only reject Vatican II but do so while repeatedly mischaracterizing its genuine teachings. Further, their attacks upon the Novus Ordo liturgy focus upon aberrant abuses and fail to give a proper assessment of its potential to enrich believers even as it seeks to worship almighty God. Too much weight is given to innuendo and sensational gossip while little to no attention is given to what is “actually” taught by the Council and post-conciliar popes. I have argued that the Holy Father should continue a discussion about the liturgy and Vatican II, even if the SSPX should decide not to be a part of it. The Lefebvrites may have become too comfortable with their autonomy to want to surrender anything to Rome. Note that Pope Leo XIV, at this writing, is using weekly audiences to speak about Vatican II.  If he should resolve the doctrinal reservations held by the SSPX and others, then he would reveal their dissent as just empty posturing. But do not expect his critics to give him a fair hearing or to honestly assess his views.

Just as Protestant-Catholic dialogue often suffers from a confusion in terminology and language, the hermeneutical shift in Catholic theology likely has apologists for the old and the reformed at odds to understand each other. Of course, there are exceptions and Protestants frequently have their own problems in speaking to other non-Catholic Christians. Fundamentalist Bible Christians are literalists and treat the Bible as a science book and morality manual. There is a huge gulf between churches of the Word and those of the Table. Those with an intellectual bent had previously embraced the historical-critical method and as with Catholic modernism, struggled with atheism. Many of the Evangelicals focus upon the existential experience. Increasingly Protestants are gravitating from the objective to the subjective, moving from facts to how God’s revelation engages and transforms the believer. Considering all this, are we to treat the dialogue between traditionalists and post-Vatican II Catholics as in-house dialogue or as ecumenical debate?   

The Catholic hermeneutical shift in theology signifies a transition from static doctrinal propositions to an increasingly dynamic, contextual, and historical perspective. Certain teachings are infallible, but their formulations are not immutable. Other teachings are not understood as settled and we should avoid creeping infallibility. As an example, many authorities taught, even prior to Vatican II and the universal catechism, that the “limbo of the innocents” was a scholastic theory and not settled doctrine. A study of the fathers was always disconcerting in this regard because St. Augustine posited unbaptized infants who died as in hell and not in any abode where they might be ignorant of God but naturally happy. What is the truth? The most honest will admit that we are not sure, but we are optimistic given our Lord’s love for the innocent children. Pope Benedict XVI subscribed not to a hermeneutic of “rupture” but one of “continuity” or reform.

Faith is not ancient dictums locked away in dusty old texts but is a living tradition that engages modernity. We know both adaptation and development. There is movement from the theoretical or abstraction to the pastoral and realized. There is a renewed interest in Christian anthropology, inter-religious dialogue and cooperation, and appreciating our place within creation. However, not lost is the chief concern of soteriology as the Church is defined as the great sacrament or mystery of salvation through which we encounter Christ.   

The reformed Protestant Karl Barth labeled Catholicism as the Church “of the great AND.” What he meant was that where historic Protestantism argued for only the Bible, Catholicism would add, “and sacred tradition.” Protestants asserted that we were saved by Jesus alone, and Catholics would add, “and within his holy Church.” Mention the mediation of Christ and Catholics inserted, “and with the intercession of Mary and the saints.” Protestants would echo Luther in saying that we are saved by faith, and Catholics would insist, “and by works.” Catholicism insured that classical Christianity would never allow crucial elements of faith to be forgotten or eclipsed. The Word is vital, but so is sacrament. Knowing the truth is crucial, but no less was the gift of charity. The Church would seek to reconcile all the dualities and not repudiate or leave them hanging.  Similarly, today the SSPX must find a way to reconcile what they interpret as rupture or ambiguity between the historic faith and the Church in the modern world.  It is the same Church, not two. The face we show the world may have changed but “the faith” remains the ancient faith.      

While nothing is denied, there has been a hermeneutical shift away from reducing faith to a series of dogmatic, liturgical and moral propositions as found in the Catechism of Trent and in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The Catholic faith is, at its heart, not a philosophy text or a morality book, but a relationship of faith with Christ lived out in loving obedience. Many Protestants as Bible Christians make a similar mistake by reducing the new dispensation to a book religion. The saving faith or Gospel is not simply words written upon paper but a sacred encounter that penetrates minds and hearts. The law is still important, but the emphasis is how revealed truths bring us into a saving covenant with Jesus and his Church. Note that SSPX seminaries resort to reprinting centuries old religious manuals for the memorization of settled definitions. Many modern texts and even Vatican II documents are treated as Forbidden Books. By comparison, priests formed in schools sympathetic to Vatican II study the primary sources and seek to make fluid connections to the lived faith. Each does this according to his intelligence and gifts.

Revelation comes to us from both Scripture and Tradition, but we should be wary of any strict duality. An Analogy is sometimes made of God’s Word that is transmitted to us against the backdrop or parchment of Sacred Tradition. One always requires the other. The professional theologian, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught, is at the service of the Magisterium. It is not an adversarial relationship. When it comes to teachings, infallible or mutable, they are affirmed and passed down by the Pope and those bishops in union with him. Exacting dogmas wherein God reveals himself and the terms of salvation demand absolute assent as true. Teachings that belong to papal opinion or practical necessity are respected because of his office and require obedience. However, popes may disagree about the latter and change direction. For instance, instead of extending an amnesty that was typical, Pope Sixtus V ordered the execution of highway bandits in the Papal States. This is in an entirely different ballpark from Pope John Paul II who discouraged capital punishment and Pope Francis who rejected judicial homicide altogether. The authority of the Pope is respected throughout. There is a concurrence in faith. A distinction is made about those things that are always true and those that are maintained for practical expediency for the good governance of the Church. An example of this distinction is the doctrinal prohibition for women priests as compared to the discipline for celibate priests— the former is absolute— the latter is not. Reason, nature and experience constitute the prism for theological understanding and formulations about Christian doctrine. This horizontal movement must be complemented and affirmed by the teaching authority of the Church which is gifted by Christ with the protective guidance of the Holy Spirit. More than just the use of the Latin language is at stake. Indeed, while theologians are well-versed in Latin, Greek, French, German and other languages, the SSPX and the Vatican— are still at odds and seem to be speaking different theological languages.  The manner itself is problematic. Where there should be mutual respect and dialogue there is distrust and enmity. You cannot expect much good fruit from that. Traditionalists tend to expand what they feel should be infallible. That is why some resist any change to the liturgical calendar, expansion of the readings or even the revised Easter Vigil from Pope Pius XII.  Vatican II application of Catholic teachings or principles to intersect modernity are frowned upon or deemed as errors.  While religious liberty as practiced in the United States allowed the infant Catholic Church to grow and flourish, the principle is rejected as heretical. It makes no difference that had it been practiced in England— More, Fisher and generations of Jesuits would not have been martyred. The ideal state is still regarded as wholly Catholic and monarchial, with the practice of other denominations either outlawed or restricted to private homes. It makes no difference to them that historic Catholic states would do much to persecute the Church and that Western democracies, Asian Communist dictatorships and Islamic theocracies are all that is left. The traditionalists in the SSPX camp would thus necessarily dismiss notions about freedom of conscience and Pope John Paul II’s teaching about the inherent dignity of the human “person.” They are resolute in the assertion that error has no rights and that the unregenerated person lacks genuine dignity. The post-Vatican II apologist interprets this as a recipe for oppression. While not denying the heightened value given by sanctifying grace to the baptized man or woman, Pope John Paul II also championed natural human dignity and rights from conception to natural death. His theology of the body expanded our appreciation of universal human rights, contending that human dignity is derived from our Creator God. The SSPX do not accept this expansion of the Gospel of Life.
 

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

The Society of St. Pius X Does Not Play Fair

Posted on March 17, 2026 by Father Joe

The SSPX postures a “gravitas” and dignity, not against the best that the rest of the Catholic Church has to offer, but the worse. It defines itself through criticism of the aberrational, not the normative. The Masses it deplores are not well conducted Novus Ordo liturgies but clown Masses, liturgies with puppets, dancers and priests making fools of themselves.  Every fumble a bishop and even the Pope makes is paraded for all to scorn and laugh.

The liturgies advertised by the SSPX are high Masses, celebrated according to strict rubrics with Latin masterfully articulated from the altar for all to hear. Chant and schola choirs sing with solemn beauty and professionalism. However, this is not how I remembered the old Mass from when I was a boy. The Masses were largely inaudible for congregations as microphones were forbidden on the altar. Altar boys mumbled half-remembered words, and the music was either absent or poorly done. Pope Benedict XVI said that the Latin high Mass was one of the most beautiful forms of worship ever fashioned; but he also lamented that low Mass (which was what most people experienced) was stylistically as bad as it gets.  Yes, the supernatural reality was all present— sacrament and the risen Jesus— but artistically it was poor and not very moving. My old pastor had an early working man’s Latin Mass that was rattled off in about 13 minutes each workday morning. The words came out at machine gun speed.  Sunday Mass might be 40 minutes. But without the choir, it was not much better. We came to church, said the rosary, took communion at the rail, and went home. Those with missal books followed the Mass as best as they could, essentially reading the Mass while the priest performed his deep mystery. Many who exalt the old Mass and criticize the new, do not remember or were not born when it was the only liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. (By the way, in truth there is no new Mass, just a Mass with reformed elements.) 

Fidelity to the Pope is Essential

There seems to be no breaking of the deadlock between the SSPX and the Vatican over the pending illicit episcopal consecrations. The Society and its defenders are quick to shift blame from themselves to the Vatican. Indeed, faithful Catholics who urge practical fidelity to the Holy See are accused of ultramontane excesses. No one is saying that popes can do no wrong, only that we should not sever juridical ties with the Vicar of Christ. However, those who regularly charge the Pope and other bishops with the heresy of modernism will likely delight in severing any residual ties with Rome. The SSPX says that it acknowledges Pope Leo XIV as the visible head of the Church, but their dissent and autonomy speak of a gravitation toward the sedevacantist stance.

Just as under Pope John Paul II, it is likely that Pope Leo XIV would allow the consecration of a bishop during the time of dialogue. However, such would demand a proper profession of faith and an end to derision against Vatican II. Disobedience to the Holy See and the repudiation of an ecumenical council strips the groundwork to any such concession. The SSPX already acknowledges the validity of the reformed liturgy, although they must be wary of questioning its spiritual effects or labeling it as evil.

While the Pope functions as an absolute monarch regarding temporal matters in the Vatican and many practical elements of Church governance, he is always the servant of the Word and not its master.  He is the chief ecclesial lawgiver on earth. Regarding what constitutes the Roman rite, historically it was regarded as how the Pope celebrated the Mass and other sacraments. Lesser churchmen imitated him. It is in this sense that he is the Roman rite.

While foolishness and ambiguities in the Church, even from Rome, have been inflicted upon believers in recent years; we must not lose confidence in Christ’s Church. True reform must take place within and not outside the Church. It is not enough for a representative of the SSPX to talk with Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández. The two remaining bishops and the Superior General of the SSPX should request an audience with Pope Leo XIV. He is the one they need to trust if we are to move forward as a unified Church. 

An Ecclesial Hermeneutic of Continuity

Both sides protest too much about one form of liturgical worship over another instead of fostering a mutual respect that would grant freedom for rituals old and new. Technically there is no “new” Mass, only a Mass with various liturgical forms. Liturgy contains elements both essential and immutable as well as accidentals open to revision. When it comes to doctrinal issues, Vatican II must always be viewed through the prism of tradition. The dogmatic teachings derived from Trent remain true. The teachings of Vatican II are meant to advance and not to renounce what came before. There remains one Church throughout, not one with loyalties to Trent that is usurped by a post-Vatican II Church. I am at odds to understand why a consensus on this truth, despite dissenters, would not suffice to heal a schism with traditionalists.  

The charge given the Pope is both to preserve and transmit the deposit of faith as well as to sustain the legacy and identity of the Church from age to age. Development is necessary as faith is a living thing, but never at the cost of continuity.  It is this avoidance of doctrinal rupture that distinguishes Catholicism from confessions like Anglicanism where the fads and fashions of the times sever the lifelines to perennial truths.  The Pope points the way to the future while sustaining the Church in the present and always grounded upon a historical magisterium and the legacy of the saints.  

Popes generally speak the mind of the Church and are careful about their personal ideas or speculation. The former is infallible and while the latter is not, there is a measure of religious assent given that it arises from the Successor of Peter. The latter is open to review as was Peter’s stance at the Council of Jerusalem about the reception of Gentiles. However, after the apostle Paul made his challenge, Peter as the one with the “keys” from Jesus ultimately agreed and the matter was resolved. It should be noted that no shepherd, not even the Holy Father, can force compliance to error or to sin.  Fortunately, the Holy Spirit has largely protected the Church’s teaching office, ensuring the indefectibility of the Church promised by Christ.

Wayward traditionalists often make much about nothing. They are quick to enumerate on papal scandal or ambiguity and slow to acknowledge orthodox wisdom.  What are some of these malicious gossip points that take us afield?

The Kissing of the Koran – Critics harp about this event as if this made Pope John Paul II an Islamist. Nonsense! The gesture took place in 1999 when a delegation from Iraq visited the Vatican. It included the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch, the Shi’ite leader of the Khadum Mosque, and the Sunni president of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. Gifted with the ornate book, the Pope bowed and kissed it as a sign of respect to his guests. Given that war was looming, the act was a symbolic gesture for peace and a sign of respect for the suffering people of Iraq. The act signified human respect and in no sense was a profession of faith. Nevertheless, pope bashers labeled it as syncretism and a denial of Christ’s divinity. It was an effort to show respect to “a people,” not to a religion. Admittedly, it was a gesture that backfired and should have been avoided because of possible scandal. But it should remain obvious that the Holy Father placed no faith in the Islamic book.

Conferences in Assisi – Despite traditionalist accusations, the various gatherings in Assisi with world religious leaders signified no syncretistic compromise of the faith but rather constituted efforts at fostering peace. There was no merging or blending of religion but rather, a coming together for dialogue and petitions for peace and harmony. The rejection of ecumenism is manifested by rigid traditionalists on every front. They still speak the language of indictment and curse. Instead of dialogue, there is anathema. Protestants are labeled as heretics, non-Christians as pagans, the oriental believers as demonic idol worshipers, and Jews as the murderers of Christ.

Natural religions may point to the Creator God, much as did the philosophy of the ancients, but Catholic Christianity is the true faith and the supernatural religion that reveals and worships the Almighty. All religions are not paths to God, especially those that disavow a deity or that worship demons. But elements of truth can be found mingled with the errors of other religions. Past statements must always be properly understood and clarified. A failure to do so is symptomatic of deliberate bias and absurdity.   

The Pachamama at the Amazonian Synod – This was a definite misstep and debacle that came largely from ignorance of symbolism and a loss of control over events. But note that there was no effort to codify idolatry. Indeed, many voices within the Church rendered proper rebuke and commentary as it was happening.

Status of Those in Irregular Unions – While there has been much discussion about accompaniment and outreach to those in irregular unions, particularly the divorced and remarried, nothing about Catholic moral teaching has changed. Believers are still urged to receive Holy Communion in a state of grace and without mortal sin. Leadership should not be faulted for compassion regarding the alienated. This should especially be the case of the SSPX given their tenuous situation in the Church.  

The Death Penalty – Too much is made about capital punishment, almost as if traditionalists suffer a bloodlust for revenge if not for justice. Pope John Paul II argued that leaders within a culture of death forfeit any right to take human life, even for those that are guilty of high crimes. Given the effectiveness of penal reform, what stake do we have in this fight? Compared to the numbers of lives lost through abortion and wars, we are talking about a very small number. Why should it grieve Christians that a few might live to repent? Can it not become a witness to God’s sovereignty over life as the Creator? Would the SSPX really refuse to rejoin the ranks of juridically approved movements in the Church over this issue?

Blessing Those with Same-Sex Attraction – While there are efforts within Western culture to welcome and walk with those suffering from same-sex attraction, it is true that we cannot bless immorality; however, we can pray that God’s healing and mercy will embrace these brothers and sisters. The African bishops forced clarification about this from the Holy See.  Here again we find the power of correction within the Church as opposed to those who seek to do so from outside. 

Need for Mutual Goodwill & Respect

While the motives of the Society might demand scrutiny, no one should doubt that most SSPX priests are acting from conviction and good faith. They are intensely concerned about the care of souls. Hopefully they appreciate that priests on the other side of the liturgical divide are also dedicated to their flocks. This is often a cause of great pain when SSPX chapels are set up near parishes and Catholics are told that they should never attend a Novus Ordo Mass for fear of spiritual detriment. Not only is this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but the juridical alienation of flocks from their appointed shepherds. Where there should be collaboration, there is rivalry. Pastors should function as shepherds, not as wolves or thieves of the sheep. This was a problem in the past, even with priestly societies recognized by the Church, like the Legionaries of Christ. They would frequently offer home Masses and spiritual programs for groups like homeschoolers without the permission of dioceses or even the okay of local pastors.  While their enthusiasm was to be applauded, they overstepped their bounds by acting autonomously.   

The true issue here is a lack of trust in the Pope and the universal Church. Admittedly draconian efforts to eradicate the traditional Latin Mass and to supplant it with the reformed liturgy have understandably strained confidence. Further, while the SSPX has faced various censures, often the worst of liberal dissenters were not only tolerated but pampered. I suspect this situation reflects no apostasy from Rome but rather an appreciation that most traditionalists will obey and take sanctions seriously while liberal dissenters will not. Tactics with the right are different than those used with the left, to forestall further fracturing of the Church. However, it may be high time to acknowledge what has and has not worked.      

The minimal expectations of the SSPX by the Holy See, the continued ministry and expansion of the Fraternity of St. Peter (as a similar organization), and the availability of bishops in good standing to ordain priests according to the old form— all this undermines the argument of the SSPX that the episcopal consecrations reflect an emergency arising from pastoral necessity. Is there any reticence about apostolic succession and holy orders among the clergy outside the SSPX? They say, no, but one must wonder.

Arguably, the overture of the SSPX to the Holy See is less a “respectful request” for consent to the episcopal consecrations as it is an “arrogant demand” about their intent. The situation is one of intimidation or coercion, not benevolent or suppliant discretion. The SSPX wants the revocation of Vatican II and the comprehensive return of the traditional Latin Mass. The Society is angry that the universal Church with her Pope and 5,430 bishops in union with him will not acquiesce to the demands of the Society’s two remaining bishops, who were themselves, ordained illicitly.

Is there an Emergency Situation from Necessity?

The perpetuation of Latin Masses by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP), as well as by various monastic communities and diocesan priests, is evidence that the SSPX need not fear the extinction of the old liturgy. Indeed, there are several bishops authorized to ordain clergy who celebrate exclusively the traditional Latin Mass. Further, there is no danger that those affiliated with the SSPX would spiritually starve should the pending episcopal consecrations not take place. As a preference, the traditional Latin Mass will not disappear, and the Novus Ordo is available most everywhere to make present the oblation of Calvary and Christ’s precious body and blood. I suspect the issue is less of a concern about the flock, which has been largely purloined from other shepherds, as it is to retain what they have built.  There is a reluctance to trust the Holy See.  They desire to keep authority and power for themselves.  This places them on a course like that of the reformational Protestant churches.  No good will come from this mentality.  

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

SSPX & Vatican Dialogue: No Need for Talking Parrots

Posted on March 16, 2026 by Father Joe

The SSPX prefer unchanging liturgy and stagnant cut-and dry definitions. And yet, at this crucial time in history, we neither need nor want talking parrots without the basic tools for the give-and-take required in theological reflection and discourse with intellectual giants like Cardinals Robert Sarah and Gerhard Ludwig Müller.

We must be wary of those who speak out of both sides of their mouths. Certain progressives would supplant an oblation to the divine with a fellowship supper and prefer a revolutionary break with past teachings and values. Anachronistic traditionalists would embrace an unchanging liturgy and dogmas reduced to staid definitions that are either disconnected from modernity or attack it head on. Instead of ecumenical outreach the Society is often locked in attack mode and employs old and aggressive proof text apologetics. This will not get us very far. Both the SSPX and the Vatican must take care about who speaks for them in any dialogue. Many of their priests would do poorly with their ingrained resistance. This is not a debate that one must win at all costs. The starting point must be obedience to the Holy See, affirmation of the various liturgies approved, and the acceptance of Vatican II as a genuine ecumenical council. This does not mean that the door is closed to clarifying teachings and reconciling them with previous formulations. When it comes to the brightest minds in favor of the traditional Latin Mass, and who are aware of the other issues, we must turn to learned laymen like Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and Dr. Taylor Marshall. While we might sometimes disagree with them, they would legitimately seek to maintain communion with the living Magisterium. Resolution about the status of liturgy and reconciling Trent with Vatican II would be good for the Church overall, even if the SSPX and other groups should still go into formal schism or their bishops face excommunication.

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

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 »

Next Page »