• Our Blogger

    Fr. Joseph Jenkins

  • An important theme for this blog is the scene in the New Testament where Jesus can be found FLOGGING the money-changers out of the temple. My header above depicts a priest FLOGGING the devils that distort the faith and assault believers. The faith that gives us consolation can and should 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

    Father Joe's avatarFather Joe on The Prayer to Saint Michael at…
    Inveilis's avatarInveilis on Ask a Priest
    Joanne M Rowan's avatarJoanne M Rowan on Reflecting Upon SSPX Dissent…
    Joanne M Rowan's avatarJoanne M Rowan on The SSPX Makes It Itself Out M…
    Jeremy's avatarJeremy on Ask a Priest

SSPX Traditionalist Claims About the Novus Ordo

Posted on June 30, 2026 by Father Joe
People holding hands and praying around a table with food and open Bibles

The SSPX argues that the contemporary liturgical forms have done the following: (1) Obscured the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass, (2) Fostered a democratic conception of worship, and (3) Protestantized liturgical expression.

A Mass with an Obscured Sacrificial & Propitiatory Character

The claim that the Novus Ordo Missae obscured the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass is refuted by the text of the liturgy itself and official Church teaching. There is no refutation of Trent, rather, the reformed Mass retains, amplifies, and explicitly declares these realities throughout its revised structure.

The sacrificial nature of the Mass is proclaimed multiple times in every Novus Ordo liturgy. Most notably, in the Orate Fratres, the priest explicitly invites the faithful to pray: “Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.”

Further, the exact words of consecration restore an explicit expression of Christ’s sacrificial purpose. Take note of the phrase, “This is my body, which will be given up for you.” It directly emphasizes Christ’s redemptive offering.

The Roman Canon and the Eucharistic Prayers composed after Vatican II, all definitively state that the Church is offering Christ the holy Victim to God the Father.

Vatican II’s “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” affirms the teachings of Trent. So as there can be no confusion, it teaches that Christ is present offering Himself in the person of the priest, just as He did on the Cross.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church ensures that there can be no confusion on this matter. The Mass is identical with the oblation of Christ on Calvary. This sacrifice is “truly propitiatory” and is offered for the living and the dead.

A Democratic Conception of Worship

People kneeling and praying around a priest at a church altar with a cross

While the people are not mere spectators to the liturgy, they participate through a unity with the celebrant and thus with Christ whom he signifies. Proof of the hierarchical nature of the Church and the necessity of a priest at the altar is proven by the Church’s own official texts and the directives for pastoral implementation. The argument that the Novus Ordo introduced by Pope Paul VI in 1969 fostered an overly “democratic” conception of worship is a frequent point of critique among liturgical traditionalists. However, it is false in that the missal preserves the hierarchical nature of Catholic liturgy while furthering an ancient ideal of “active participation.” There is no majority rule. The role of the ordained priest is still essential— no priest, no Mass. The priest is sacramentally configured to act “in persona Christi” at the altar. Only the priest can confect or consecrate the Eucharist. He is more than a master of ceremonies. He is celebrant of Mass. Only a priest can offer Mass. Indeed, only a man in holy orders is permitted to proclaim and to preach the Gospel. Liturgical actions, prayers and rubrics are established by the universal Church, not through the popular vote of a congregation and not through the intimidation of a breakaway group like the SSPX. The liturgical reforms did not simply create something new but sought to recover something ancient to better confront modernity.

Participation of the laity at Mass is both external (responses and prayers) and internal (the right disposition). The notion of the faithful offering themselves with Christ was championed by Pope St. Pius X. It was not a notion new with Vatican II. There is a profound collaboration between the ordained priest and the laity who share a baptismal priesthood. Note that at baptism, children are anointed, “priest, prophet, and king.” This participation makes full discernment of the various presences of Christ: in the Word proclaimed, in the priest at the altar, in the Mystical Body of the Church, and in the sacrament. The orchestration of liturgy involves many playing their roles. But the ordering is not democratic but hierarchical. Christian worship is structured as a prayer to God the Father, through the sacrifice of Christ and made effective by the power of the Holy Spirit. Despite many cosmetic changes, the core structure of the Novus Ordo is the same as in the traditional Latin Mass. There is, in truth, no new or old Mass. The Mass is the Mass. The Second Eucharistic Prayer is rooted in the ancient liturgy of Hippolytus. Ancient texts went into the composition of the Third Eucharist Prayer as well. We do not celebrate ourselves in the Novus Ordo liturgy. Rather, we worship almighty God. We acknowledge his sovereignty over mankind. We invoke the Lord’s mercy upon us.

Protestantized Liturgical Expression

Medieval preacher holding Bible, speaking to attentive congregation from decorated pulpit

The argument that the Novus Ordo (promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969) “Protestantized” the Mass is a frequent criticism from traditionalists. However, our liturgical history and magisterial documents refute this stance. Indeed, the Vatican II rites sought to restore ancient Catholic traditions, not to succumb to Protestantism.  The Protestants of the reformation rejected the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. This hallmark of the Catholic Mass remains essential. While the number of Eucharistic Prayers were expanded, all of them explicitly state that the Mass is a sacrifice. Note Eucharistic Prayer III: “Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself. . .” By comparison, Protestant reformers like Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer obliterated all mention of sacrifice from their liturgies. Simplification of the rites was not to make them Protestant. Rather, it was an effort to return to the primary sources and to the ancient Church fathers.  There was a heavier emphasis upon Scripture in the reformed Mass. The full expression of the Sign of Peace and the option for Communion in the Hand were recovered, practices that disappeared in the Middle Ages (see St. Augustine and St. Cyril of Jerusalem). Transubstantiation was reaffirmed, something rejected by the Protestants. Liturgically, we can look to the genuflections after the consecrations and the significance of the “Amen” as a response to “The Body of Christ,” at communion time. Indeed, Eucharistic Adoration was raised from a faith devotion to an official liturgy of the Church. Even the purification of the vessels affirms the real presence of the Eucharist. The use of the vernacular made the prayers more accessible to the congregation and the priest was often turned around toward the people; however, this was to further participation, not to reduce the sacrifice to a mere community meal. The Mass is still wholly Catholic!      

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

Be Cautious of Liturgical Caricatures

Posted on June 29, 2026 by Father Joe
Side-by-side scenes of a lively Clown and Puppets Mass and a solemn Traditional Latin Mass inside a church

This statement is taken from the SSPX Profession of Faith . . .

Yes, I can affirm much about the opinions expressed in the statement. But, we must be careful of false caricatures. This is a serious problem. No liturgy is absolutely “perfect.” Every Mass has its supporters and detractors.  When properly offered the Novus Ordo can have an order and solemnity that is every bit as meaningful as the traditional Latin Mass. Unfortunately, comparisons frequently resort to stereotypical problems or abuses. I have said it before, and I will say it again, the classical High Latin Mass is a beauty to behold.  But except for the sacred silence, the Low Mass is not much to write home about. The spiritual effects are the same, but the execution is quite different. As for the Novus Ordo, there are fewer strict rubrics and over the years too many clergy took it upon themselves to improvise where they should not have done so. We must not judge a liturgy’s value based upon abuses in celebration! There should be no clown or puppet Masses. Priests should be properly attired. Sacred music should not be switched out for banal compositions with questionable theology. More needs to be done with plain chants.  The discussion should continue about the orientation of the priest with a freedom to either face the people or toward the East. I read recently that there are composers developing litany chants for the Prayers of the Faithful.  That is good. There is even speculation that some of the old offertory prayers might be restored for when the Roman Canon is said. The liturgy that came to us after Vatican II contains all the essential parts of the Roman Rite Mass. However, its configuration is comparatively new compared to the age of the Church. While its beginnings were abrupt, we can hope that over time it will mature and truly flourish.  But such matters take time. It was for this reason that Pope Benedict XVI wanted the old and the new rituals to continue side by side, perhaps to cross-pollinate one another. However, this is anathema to the radical left and right. The left would utterly abandon the tradition and the right might make it into a cage.        

The Second Vatican II shared many of these sentiments about the Eucharist and Holy Mass. It described the liturgy as the “summit” toward which the Church’s activity is directed, and the “fount” from which all her power flows. However, while the liturgy of the Church is permanent, this does not mean that all her elements or the structure of the Mass remains stagnant or immutable in its accidentals. The pious language of this professional statement sets up the SSPX argument that the Mass prior to Vatical II is essentially immutable. But all is not as it seems. This just is not the case. Further, the Mass is one element among many in the formation of believers.  The old Mass formed saints but it could not forestall the emergence of great heresies like modernism or sinners who sought to manipulate or even destroy their mother, the Church. While the Missal was edited and formalized at Trent, it could not halt the reformation and a mass defection. The French revolution was not forestalled by the traditional Latin Mass. World Wars all happened during its time of greatest prominence. Vatican II and the reformed Novus Ordo liturgy are often faulted for the many challenges of modernity, but the Church was already starting to feel its effects prior to the gathering of the world’s bishops.  The Second Vatican Council sought to revitalize the Mass and deepen the faithful’s connection to this divine source.  

It is true that liturgy is what it is. However, we must not underestimate what we bring to it. Those who currently attend the traditional Latin Mass are particularly attuned to its rituals and meaning. But many if not most Catholics in the past attended out of duty and were detached from the liturgical actions. The reformed liturgy was to counteract this situation.

The elaborate traditional Latin Masses are a far cry from what many experienced prior to Vatican II.  There were no microphones on altars. The altar servers gave the Mass responses to the priest. The boys frequently learned the required words and their pronunciation from 78 rpm records. Did they always understand the Latin. I hate to say how often the kids would garble the words and try to hide it by mumbling. The laity entered their pews and said the rosary or other personal prayers.  Low Masses, especially on weekdays had no music and the priest quickly rattled off the prayers. My old pastor could say the old Mass with the long Latin Roman Canon in 12 minutes.  It was far from beautiful, but men rushing to work wanted the graces. Many of the faithful attached to this liturgy were also fond of the Latin people’s missals.  However, these books with translations were long forbidden by the Church.  A late development, laypeople first saw the introduction of hand missals to follow along at Mass in the 1920s and 1930s. This was part of the broader liturgical movement leading up to Vatican II. Pope Pius XII explicitly promoted missals in the 1950’s.

Richness and beauty belonged to the old Mass, but it was often locked away behind the back of the priest and the silence of the altar. Clergy and professional theologians well appreciated its richness, but the liturgical movement itself was a recognition of a problem in translating this spiritual treasury to the People of God. While there were many changes in the Novus Ordo, the Roman canon was retained and new prayers were added. The short second anaphora was devised for the quick weekday liturgy so that the priest did not have to say the vernacular words of the Eucharistic prayer at machine gun speed.  Prayers that belonged exclusively to servers became those of the congregation.

The Novus Ordo Mass is not dull or lacking imagination.  The Scripture texts are far more representative of the Word of God, especially the Old Testament, than the old Mass. The prayers are rich and full of meaning. They are evocative, doing what they say. Few priests who regularly say Mass would say that it is hollow or empty. What the Mass is about is clear, not equivocal or vague. However, there are words and gestures that have a richness of meaning.  The notion that the reformed liturgy is profane is a negative spurning that is a affront to God and a derision to the Magisterium that has approved it. It is the movement of God that makes it real.  While there are elements that target the gathered community, the focus is always upon the worship of God. If the old liturgy emphasized the priest saying Mass for us; the new concentrates on how the celebrant makes possible our prayer with him.  If there is anything mistaken for anthropocentric, it stems from the mystery of the incarnation where God becomes a man. The Mass never speaks to us exclusively regarding human values and perspectives. Any and every Eucharistic liturgy, calls us out of ourselves. We become what we were always intended, a parable people who put on the mind and heart of Christ. Every Mass makes possible our continuing transformation into Christ. As a priest who regularly says the Novus Ordo, my faith is strengthened, not weakened. I suspect that most who go to Mass would say the same.

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

Conformity about Essentials, Freedom about Accidentals

Posted on June 28, 2026 by Father Joe
Priest holding communion wafer in front of a woman with hands clasped in prayer

This statement is taken from the SSPX Profession of Faith . . .

Here we begin to see a problem with the SSPX stance. What is said about the Eucharist as the substantial presence of the complete risen Christ is true. It is what we believe. But then there is a not-so-subtle opinion, more subjective than measured by immutable doctrine. The SSPX rejects the reformed liturgy as a “practice which weakens faith in the Real Presence, the respect due to the Eucharist,” and “trivializes Holy Communion.” The SSPX statement even makes liturgical architecture into a matter of faith, given what they define as the “sacred character of the sanctuary.” As a priest aware of the sacred beauty of the Tridentine Mass, I can attest disagreement to their negative assessment against the Missal of Paul VI. The reformed liturgy cannot be defined by abuses in its administration. No matter whether the priest faces away (East) or in the direction of the people, he is still facing and offering his ministrations at the altar. Certain cathedral churches with central altars, always had people behind and in front and on the sides or the celebrant. The priest raises his eyes to heaven and that is where we should set our sights. While communion on the tongue is normative, for the first thousand years the preferred manner was in the hand. Either option is permitted today. It is preferred that tabernacles be central to the worship space, but even if this is not so, the real presence of Christ is still honored.  Indeed, in such cases the gravity given the altar of sacrifice is highlighted in terms of worship. It is okay that SSPX members prefer the older forms. However, it is wrong that they would condemn and force the rest of the Church to abandon the reformed liturgy. I would argue fidelity about essentials and freedom about accidentals. They would interpret their 600,000 lay worshipers as the faithful remnant against the one-and-a-half billion Catholics in juridical union with the Holy See. They would insist that their rebellious two serving bishops should be able to dictate to the 5,600 faithful bishops of the Catholic Church who are one with the Pope. No way— it will never happen. No matter whether they appreciate it or not, they malign our legitimate pastors, the faith of our people and the presence and activity of Christ in our reformed sacraments. Their own profession of faith will come back to condemn them.

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

Same Priest, Same Victim, Same Sacrifice

Posted on June 28, 2026 by Father Joe
Triptych painting showing the Last Supper on the left, Jesus' crucifixion in the center, and a priest celebrating Mass on the right.

This statement is taken from the SSPX Profession of Faith . . .

Yes, the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of Calvary. Yes, it is truly a sacrifice.  However, I suspect that the SSPX is reading the word “memorial” in a secular fashion, for instance as a statue or monument or plaque might memorialize a person or a moment in history. This is not how the fathers of Vatican II would interpret the word.  The remembrance or memorial of the Mass is an “anamnesis” wherein that which is recalled is made truly present. It is not a nostalgic remembrance at all.  Jesus at Calvary is more than a historical event.  The Holy Mass makes the oblation of Calvary immediate and present.  Thus, we could clarify that the Mass is a command performance that Jesus tells us at the Last Supper to do in “remembrance” of him— the paschal meal of the new covenant and the real propitiatory sacrifice of his Passion. The Supper or Mass is entwined with Christ’s paschal mystery, the Cross. It is not simply a symbolic remembrance, but a liturgical ritual that realizes the one-time sacrificial action of Christ on Calvary.  Jesus is the priest and victim on Calvary, and he is the priest at the sacrifice of the Mass.  It is the same priest, the same victim and the same event.

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

Traditionalism & the Role of Women in the Church

Posted on June 27, 2026 by Father Joe
Four women in medieval clothing holding signs about women's silence, weakness, and dignity

Given the upcoming episcopal consecrations by the SSPX and their return to excommunication and full schism, the matter of misogyny among the Latin traditionalists has again raised its ugly head. (A popular Catholic woman commentator was essentially told to keep to her place and to stay off social media when she voiced her opinion against their intransigence and prospective act of rebellion.) While they might claim otherwise, many of their apologists regularly denigrate women by clearly designating them as inferior to men. This mindset frequently images women as either mothers or whores. Certain SSPX publications have criticized the entry of women into higher education and into the general workforce.  The patriarchal vision keeps the woman at home as a domestic— having babies, cooking, cleaning and always ready to please her husband.

The late Bishop Richard Williamson, who was expelled from the SSPX as an antisemitic holocaust denier, even denounced the Church’s honoring of women as doctors of the Church. He argued that females should never have authority over men. Despite his excesses, he well summarize the position of many Latin traditionalists that nothing should distract women from their primary purpose as mothers. It is argued that women are conditioned for submission.  They are told that they must acquiesce to the ideas and decisions of their fathers and later their husbands. Women are judged as too emotional in their deliberations for leadership, except for maybe over small children. Historically, even women religious were subjugated and sometimes looked upon with suspicion. While we may have a fond nostalgia based upon the movie, “The Bells of St. Mary’s” with Bing Crosby and Ingrid Bergman, in truth many parish schools employed the consecrated women religious teachers as slave labor. They wore men’s shoes because they were lasting and tough. Hours were long, convents were alternately cold or hot, and food was often gifted from generous families. Parochial schools were inexpensive because the nuns were not paid. No one heard complaints because the long-suffering women embraced it as spiritual mortification and sacrifice. I recall years ago a community of cloistered Dominican nuns that struggled to remain solvent and literally sustained themselves from the leftover scraps of food discarded from the local House of Studies where the religious priests resided. The archdiocese became aware of their dire straights and gave them the job microfilming confidential documents. The accompanying small income gave them back something of their dignity. Speaking for myself, one of the best spiritual directors I ever knew was a religious sister who was hired as a cook for my college seminary. She proved to be a wise and compassionate sage who quietly and unofficially saved the priestly vocations of boys growing into men. She also made the best bread pudding!

While I certainly believe in modesty, for men and women, I would leave the intricacies of dress to them. It is unseemly for men to orchestrate such matters, as if women are paper dolls to be attired as we wish. In practice, dress codes can be quite strict: chapel veils or head coverings in church, wearing skirts or dresses instead of pants, and covering bare shoulders. Clergy used to joke that Irish brides were covered from head to foot while the Italians had visible cleavage threatening to burst free.

While the late Pope John Paul II affirmed the male-only priesthood, all hell broke loose when girls were given formal approbation as altar servers. A number of critics still denounce women who function as readers at Mass and who assist as extraordinary ministers. While I would also lament the inclusion of female servers or acolytes, we should never demean these handmaids of the altar who give of themselves much as the Blessed Mother did as a child in the temple.  

Where do I stand in all this? I have long argued for a distinction between secular feminism and a Christian variation where women are prized for their feminine genius. Within their maternal love, they contribute a unique receptivity, sensitivity, and charity to human congress. There is no need for competition or war between the sexes. However, there should be a profound collaboration with respect for the gifts given them by God.

  • We should not confuse feminine empathy with being emotionally unstable. There is nothing weak or diminutive about gentleness and compassion. A failure to appreciate the difference likely speaks to the arrogance that saturates so many of the deliberations and stances of the SSPX and other traditionalists to the living Magisterium.
  • We should not confuse feminine physicality with being weak in body and mind. Indeed, given the potential for motherhood has given women a higher tolerance than men for pain. Women know a unique tenderness but even the Blessed Mother did not shy away from Calvary when most of Christ’s apostles were in hiding. The Christian woman is strong, enduring her own pain and facing the hurt of others.
  • We should not confuse feminine sensitivity and passion with a lack of mental sharpness. The list of women who have contributed to faith and western culture is impressive, names like Edith Stein, Elizabeth Anscombe, Sigrid Undset, Flannery O’Connor, Dorothy L. Sayers, Dorothy Day, etc. Indeed, even Alice von Hildebrand, who argued for traditional women’s roles, was herself groundbreaking as a professor of philosophy.
Four nuns in traditional medieval habits standing in a chapel, holding a book, rosary, crucifix, and lantern

The post-Vatican II Church has rightly been responsive to the contributions of women even as society parades a false freedom that coarsens relationships behind manipulation and vulgarity. One of the fruits of this new sensitivity is the acknowledgment of women as Doctors of the Church: Saint Teresa of Ávila, Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint Thérèse of Lisieux and Saint Hildegard of Bingen. The late Pope Benedict XVI had a special fondness and esteem for Saint Hildegard.

Advocates for women in holy orders often wrongly speak about it in terms of entitlement and social justice. But the gift of ordained ministry belongs entirely to Christ and his Church.  It can be given but can never be taken or merited. Granted that Jesus never appointed any women as his apostles, we are not at liberty to make a change that would jeopardize holy orders, the forgiveness of sins and the Eucharist. While men are called as pastors over faith communities, why cannot the laity, men and women alike, assist with administration, theological reflection and even in governance? The Vatican itself has moved in this direction with the leadership of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and the governance of the Vatican City State. Women today serve the Church as chancellors, business managers, canon lawyers, bookkeepers, secretaries, teachers, liturgical directors and musicians, extraordinary ministers, readers, servers, ushers, etc. Altar Guilds populated by women care for our churches and set up for Masses. Some continue to answer God’s as nuns and religious sisters.

Of course, how could any Catholic be anti-woman when the greatest “human person” who ever lived was the Virgin Mary? 

Filed under: Feminism, Misogyny, Uncategorized, Women, Women Priests | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

The Prayer to Saint Michael at the End of Mass

Posted on June 25, 2026 by Father Joe
Archangel Michael with sword and shield fighting a dragon on rocky terrain

Zac Davis, the associate editor at America Magazine writes:

(1) Does the Devil Exist & If So What or Who Is He?

How can a man of Zac Davis’s learning and standing write something so incredibly dismissive of what may be the greatest deliverance prayer of the Church? His progressive dissent on LGBTQ issues aside, does he not believe in the existence of spiritual beings, good and demonic? This question is not entirely rhetorical because certain theologians deny the existence of angels and devils, arguing instead that they are metaphors or vague forces but not personal powers and principalities. This is crucial because the devil would prefer us to believe that he does not exist. It makes it easier for him to hide. The devil is a spiritual roach, nesting in the dark cracks of the world, shunning the light.

A cockroach resting in a crack between rough, earthy surfaces

Davis would contend that the “concept” of a devil might have a helpful function in terms of regular “spiritual discernment,” but he would brush aside the notion of any literal “warfare.” Rather than speaking at length about a personal devil, he writes about temptation and the “spirit of the world.” Distancing himself from the artistic renditions of Satan as a horned devil, he would suggest imaging the devil as “a deceptive force” or compulsion not to be one’s true self.  

(2) Is Not the Church Militant Called to Spiritual Warfare?

Despite what he says about the prayer being acceptable for private devotion, it is not an oration you would ever hear from his lips. His comment here is utterly disingenuous. Let it be clear, his objection to the Prayer of St. Michael is not just when it is associated with Mass, but at any time or place. As in his quote, he views spiritual warfare as breeding a sense of “paranoia and cynicism.” He says that we should be looking for good in the world instead of seeking where to wage war. This seems incredibly naïve in my estimation. We do not have to go looking for evil, it quickly comes looking for us. He would have us go into spiritual battle unarmed and with eyes closed. Despite his analysis, the Prayer to St. Michael does not imply absolute antagonism between the Church and the world. Instead, like the surgeon who removes cancer to save a patient, the Church would seek to save the world by divulging the devil’s hiding places and purging him from his nests.  Spiritual warfare is not contradictory to John 3:17, where we are taught, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.” We may be Christ’s Pilgrim Church, but we also remain the earthly Church Militant. The Church is our spiritual oasis and our headquarters in a war with powers seen and unseen. We call upon St. Michael, a general in God’s forces, and yet, as in Jeremiah 20:10-13, the LORD is our Great Champion. If God is on our side then whom shall we fear?

Winged demons attacking a small wooden church with people defending using torches

(3) Is the Prayer to St. Michael a Liturgical Prayer or Not?

While the critic argues that the Prayer to St. Michael does not belong to the liturgy, those who know the history of the prayer could argue otherwise. After having a terrifying vision of demons swarming to attack the Church, Pope Leo XIII in 1886 mandated the Prayer to Saint Michael at the end of the Catholic Low Mass. It was composed precisely as a prayer to be said by congregants at the end of liturgy. It remained an element of the Mass until 1965 when it was discontinued as part of the Vatican II reforms. Its reintroduction today is not a capricious act by believers but came at the behest of the late Pope John Paul II.

Priest holding crucifix confronting winged demon in cathedral with frightened congregation.

(4) Does the Prayer Target the World or the Church?

Pope Leo XIII received a private revelation that the devil would be permitted a time of testing where he would numb consciences to the truths of faith and morality. Thus, it is, that today we have Catholics who make a mockery of faith and cannot distinguish between right and wrong. Many who supposedly share our faith, never go to Mass, celebrate the deadly sins, and jubilantly enable the infanticide or abortion of children nine months in the womb, ready to be born. They are spiritual victims of this infestation. Remember that even Pope Paul VI lamented, “from some fissure, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” Pope John Paul II knew that the deliverance prayer annoyed those in our midst who were under demonic oppression. We cannot proclaim the Gospel of Life if we succumb to a culture of death. The oration to St. Michael invokes both angelic and divine power to shield us and to work as a bulwark against demonic oppression. The devil would cloud minds from the truth and harden hearts to real love and compassion. This critic says it places us into an adversarial position against the world. This is not the true focus. The prayer targets the Church. We cannot be sent out on mission to bring Christ’s light if we are compromised by the darkness. 

Red demon with horns holding a globe and crumbling cathedral model at sunset

(5) Is the Recitation of the Prayer Outside Liturgical Norms?

Davis writes that the Prayer to St. Michael “does not belong in the liturgy.” If we were to restrict ourselves to the current liturgical rubrics, then what he says is correct. Indeed, he cites it as a violation when recited “after the final blessing but before the recessional hymn.” Believe it or not, many bishops agree with his stance and as priests we have been told that we are not to initiate the prayer at any time during the Mass. However, the animus that Davis has for the prayer carries him away into absurdity.  Let me explain. There is a loophole in that lay congregants can say the prayer just as they might say a rosary immediately following Mass. Many of us as pastors have coordinated the effort with our flocks prior to the service. We get parishioners to lead the prayer. Prayer cards are passed out. Our good people are not blind. Given the scandals with clergy and liturgical abuses, Mass-goers want to say this deliverance prayer. As for the closing or recessional hymn, the critic has spoken either from ignorance or prejudice.  It is entirely inconsequential because the Roman Rite (including the Novus Ordo) has no closing or recessional hymn. We add it on Sundays and omit it on weekdays as entirely a matter of custom. The Mass ends with the words of dismissal recited by the priest or deacon. And the liturgists are correct, at that point he shuts his mouth. But the congregation is entirely free to recite the Prayer to St. Michael, share the Rosary, or sing a closing hymn.

People praying with rosary beads inside a church

As for why anyone might oppose this prayer, I would continue with a reading from John’s Gospel:

“And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God” (John 3:19-21).

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

Abortions Under Obama & Trump

Posted on June 24, 2026 by Father Joe

The argument is made that abortions went down with President Obama and up with Trump. It is argued in online social media forums that: “Obama policies were far more helpful to women, pregnant women, mothers, poor women, infants and children than Trump policies.” This is the proposition that needs scrutinizing: “Poverty is the greatest and strongest driver for choosing abortion.” Is this true? Maybe, but I suspect the matter is more complex than one factor, especially among people of faith. The Guttmacher Institute statistics show that women living in poverty (below $31,200 for a family of 4 in 2026) account for 40-50% of all women who receive abortions. Almost three quarters of women seeking abortions are classified as low-income households. But poverty must also be evaluated by a lack of support and the status of one’s value system. While the distress of poverty and the anxiety of abandonment could certainly lead to the tragic choice of abortion, more so than not, as a pastor, my assessment is that the poor and struggling among churchgoers often prove quite courageous in claiming their children and safeguarding the sanctity of life.

While the seal of confession must never be compromised, it is my experience that the sin of abortion also heavily afflicts those who are affluent and formed by the dictates of a secular world. They tend to treat sexual activity as a form of recreation. When contraception fails, they quickly resort to termination. They come to Mass intermittently and are elitist in their world view. They like being counted among the prosperous and “beautiful” people. They are likely to abort an unwanted child to preserve a high standard of living and a certain extravagant lifestyle. I have known several in this camp that were guilty of serial abortions. There is no bond with a man who might step up as a father. Pregnancy would affect finances, reputation and have an impact upon their bodies— none of which they want. They want sex without consequences.

The assertion that there were more abortions under President Trump than Obama is an ambiguous claim depending upon the parameters considered. The statistics gathered by the Guttmacher Institute demonstrate that the claim is false. The total number of abortions each year under President Obama were significantly higher than any year under Trump.

Obama Administration – Abortions began at over 1.2 million in 2008 and declined to 862,320 by 2017.

Trump Administration – Abortions began at around 862,000 at the start of his term and rose to 930,160 by 2020.

It is true that under President Obama the official U.S. abortion rate saw a 25% drop, however, it was largely the result of available chemical termination and cheap longer-acting contraceptives. His administration judged the morning after pill as a contraceptive, not as an abortifacient. Under President Trump, progressive states expanded medical coverage for abortion and abortion pills were added to abortion totals. At the same time, the Trump administration restricted federal Title X funding for artificial contraception. It is suggested that the impact of this contributed to the rise of unintended pregnancies among the poor.

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

Leading Souls Astray with a False Necessity

Posted on June 16, 2026 by Father Joe
Bishop with religious robes holding a book and raising hand toward a fire-breathing dragon on a cathedral staircase

The upcoming episcopal consecrations by the SSPX are rushing upon us and will result in a return to schism and the formal excommunications of those involved. Many think the matter is merely about the old versus the reformed liturgy, but the flourishing of the Fraternity of St. Peter proves this is false. The real issue is ecclesiology and obedience. While anachronistic about our Catholic past, the SSPX are “Protestant” in their attitude towards Rome.  They have forfeited juridical standing in the Church, impugned the authority of the Pope, blasphemed the Holy Spirit about the Missal of Paul VI, and have cast the opinion of a few against the world’s many bishops in the Magisterium and have rejected a received ecumenical Council (Vatican II). The SSPX claims necessity for their July 1 consecrations of four new bishops due to an “unprecedented crisis in faith,” and yet, they fail to appreciate how they have contributed to this impasse. Fermenting rebellion, there has been a marked increase in belligerence to the living Church and to the Holy Father. Taking a page from their book, the discontent, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, has now both rejected Vatican II and the reformed liturgy. But he has gone even further, by denying the validity of Pope Francis’ papacy and thus meriting for himself excommunication. Posturing as an anti-pope with his letters against the Holy See, he says he intends to start his own seminary to make his own priests.  Traditionalism is fragmenting just as did Luther’s reformational Protestantism. Such is inevitable once there is a break with the see of unity or Peter.

This morning, I read one online poster (known as a faithful Catholic) who announced that having to choose between Pope Leo XIV and Archbishop Viganò, he would follow the excommunicated bishop “outside the gates of the so-called synodal church.” The statement deeply troubled me. I wrote the following in response:

“I will keep you in prayer. Be careful what you say. The scandals have sadly cost us many souls. Remember, even good men can forget themselves and become lost. But if we find Christ and his Eucharist in the Church (no matter the form of ritual) then our course is clear. When the murmuring Jews walked away, Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘Do you also want to leave?’ And Peter responded, ‘Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.’ (See John 6:67-68) There may be much we do not understand or even find offensive, but it is then most of all that we must remain faithful. So many foolishly sin these days against Christ’s pledge of ‘indefectibility’ toward the Church. Some with a grade school understanding of their catechism would even challenge the doctors of the faith. Many blaspheme the Spirit of God by disparaging the Eucharist that makes available both ‘the real presence’ of Christ and his ‘saving oblation’ on Calvary. Others latch on to learned men more filled with themselves than the Holy Spirit and a docility to just authority. If I should soon die, I would hope to pronounce two ancient cries from my lips. The first is ‘Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.’ And given the name of our current Pope, the second would echo the bishops at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, ‘Petrus per Leo locutus est.’”

Archbishop Viganò says in his recent letter to Pope Leo XVI that he hid his location for several years after his exposure about Cardinal McCarrick’s crimes, insinuating that he was afraid for his life and conjectured that his predecessor in Washington, Nuncio Pietro Sambi, might have been murdered. Are we to believe that Catholic churchmen hire hitmen? I think not.

Next, he begins his wholesale assault on Vatican II by attacking a host of theologians as in league with modernists, lumping together Küng, Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Rahner, Schillebeeckx, and Congar. [It should be said that even Pope Benedict XVI reluctantly censured his friend Fr. Kung. Fr. Rahner was criticized more as a philosopher than a theologian; and was still trusted to investigate Schillebeeckx for the Holy See. Fr. Schillebeeckx, despite many just criticisms of his Christology, wrote a profound book about the Church as the sacrament of salvation.]

Denouncing postconciliar popes and rejecting pope Francis entirely, he then states the following: “In the face of the excommunication unjustly imposed upon me, I declare that I am not a schismatic!” Sorry, it just does not wash. Much of his overt piety is charming. I would further affirm his attraction to tradition and our rich past.  But now is a time to build ties from modernity to antiquity, not to sever them. We need to find pathways to reconcile the last half century with the two millennium that came before.    

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

Pentagon’s Reduced Religious Designations

Posted on June 9, 2026 by Father Joe
Religious symbols including the cross, crescent moon and star, om, Star of David, Dharma wheel, pentagram, and torii gate in a forest ruin.

I cannot fault the Pentagon for the reduction in recognized religions as the numbers had become unmanageable. We also had the problem of sharing an altar used for Mass and Protestant communion services with witches who conducted a so-called Black Mass. However, they were told that it could not be conducted in the nude as that violated the military code of conduct.  The pentagram was the emblem for their chaplains. Both the Catholic and Protestant community subsequently had to rededicate the altar after its desecration. This sinister group were not regular worshipers but rather liked giving the finger to traditional believers.

The Department of Defense has significantly narrowed the number of religious affiliations it officially tracks for U.S. troops, cutting the list from more than 200 faiths down to just 31. It is unfortunate that it has caused backlash from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) or Mormons as they were no longer classified as Christian. Given the influence of evangelicals, I am surprised that Catholics were also not given a separate designation; however, there is a strong Catholic presence among officers, especially in the Navy.

The Catholic Church would be more restrictive than the federal government about this. While we do not regard the Mormons as true Christians, we also reject the Jehovah Witnesses, Quakers and Christian Scientists. We would generally accept Pentecostals if they were baptized with water in the name of the Trinity, and not merely in Christ’s name. Due to vast variations, we would be uncertain about so-called non-denominational Christians and non-specified faith communities.

The thirty-one faiths retained are as follows:

  • No Religion (NR)—around 29% of U.S. adults are religiously unaffiliated.
  • Agnostic (AN)—around 0.5% of Americans.  
  • Christian—Evangelical (EV)—almost 25% of U.S. adults.
  • Christian—Catholic (CA)—around 20% of Americans.
  • Christian—Non-Denominational (ND)—around 6% of Americans.
  • Christian—Methodist (ME)—approximately 3% of Americans.
  • Christian—Pentecostal (PE)—around 3% of Americans.
  • Christian—Lutheran (LU)—approximately 1% of Americans.
  • Christian—Baptist (BA)—approximately 1% of Americans.
  • Christian—Presbyterian (PR)—about 1% of Americans.
  • Christian—Episcopal/Anglican (EA)—around 1% of Americans.
  • Christian—Church of Christ (CC)—approximately 1% of Americans.
  • Christian—Church of God (CG)—around 1% of Americans.
  • Christian—Orthodox (OX)—around 1% of Americans.
  • Christian—Assemblies of God (AG)—around 1% of Americans.
  • Christian—Church of the Nazarene (CN)—around 0.6% of Americans.
  • Christian—Seventh Day Adventist (SA)—approximately 0.5% of Americans.
  • Christian—Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW)—less than 1% of Americans.
  • Christian—Reformed (RE)—over 0.03% of Americans.
  • Christian—Brethren (BR)—slightly more than 0.03% of Americans.
  • Christian—Quaker (QU)—over 0.03% of Americans.
  • Christian—Scientist (SC) No data.
  • Christian—Other (CO) No data.
  • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CJ)—around 1% of Americans.
  • Judaism (Jewish) (JU)—about 2% of Americans.
  • Islam (Muslim) (IS)—around 1% of Americans.
  • Hindu (HI)—about 1% of Americans.
  • Buddhism (BU)—approximately 1% of Americans.
  • Baha’i Faith (BH)—more than 0.05%.
  • Sikh (SI)—around 0.02% of Americans.
  • Other Religions (OR) No data.

The doctrines proposed by the Mormons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are radically distinct from the basic tenets of Christianity.  It is true that they have a high regard for Jesus, but their Christology is a strange variation of the early heresy of Adoptionism. While Catholicism defines the godhead as ONE divine nature (God) in three divine Persons, Mormons divide the Holy Trinity into three distinct deities. Catholicism teaches that God exists from all eternity outside of time and space as a perfect spirit and as the source for existence itself. He is the Creator of all. However, Mormonism teaches that God the Father was once a man who underwent an “exaltation” and that he still has a physical body. Jesus is defined as his glorified offspring. Teaching eternal progression, they believe that as offspring of God the Father and a Heavenly Mother, we can become gods, ourselves. This religion is polytheism. Genuine Christians are monotheists.

Two Utah lawmakers were angry about the non-Christian designation, even though it is theologically accurate. However, if other “churches” that were not Christian could be so designated by the military, then one must wonder about credibility or competence in making such official categorizations. Given the importance of the Mormons to the Republicans, it does not surprise me that today the broad CHRISTIAN designations have been quickly removed.      

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

The Christian Humanism of Catholicism

Posted on May 27, 2026 by Father Joe
Fresco of Jesus Christ seated with angels, saints, and cosmic elements on a domed ceiling

The Christian humanism of Catholicism is an acknowledgment of God’s handiwork and the beauty of creation. Although humanity is fallen, there remains beauty to men and women as made in the “image of God.” As the stewards of creation, human beings are a composite of flesh and spirit. While we share with animals a material body, we have infused souls that possess intellect and will.  We can know and love.  Beyond the sentiment or appetites of beasts, we are self-aware and know that we know. Further, God has wired us for himself, and we reach out toward the divine and to each other. What we know— we can love.  While it might sound ridiculous or dare I say blasphemous, even the man who is damned remains a masterpiece of intelligent design. As if this were not enough, the incarnation of Christ grants our human nature a far greater dignity.  Creatures of God properly become his children. Divine grace restores what was lost and adds a unity with the living Word as the center of creation— we abide in the “sure and certain” hope of our salvation as adopted sons and daughters of the Father, kin to Christ and children of Mary. We are remade into the “likeness of God” wherein the heavenly Father sees his Son in us.

Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical, MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS, is addressed as a caution, not simply to believers, but to a larger world that does not share our faith or understanding of Christ. While targeting the challenges posed by artificial intelligence, it is a warning for us all not to lose sight of the humanity we all share. The Holy Father has not authored a treatise into the many intricacies of Christian anthropology. No one should interpret the encyclical as a denial of the Christocentric focus of the Church’s teachings. Indeed, the Pope writes in the very first paragraph of his letter, the following: “Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is ‘only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.’ In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness.”

Certain dissenters on the left will not like the reference to the Tower of Babel since it insinuates a confrontation with modernity, which many of them make into an idol. Apologists for the hardliner traditionalists will reject it just as they did Vatican II, Pope Paul VI’s DIGNITATIS HUMANAE (religious liberty), Pope John Paul II’s EVANGELIUM VITAE and Pope Francis’ DIGNITAS INFINITA. One of the great failings of schismatic traditionalists is their resistance to granting human dignity an incommensurate value. The universal catechism offers us a wonderful corrective: “Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead” (CCC 357).  

Human dignity is rooted first in creation. This is a hallmark of the Gospel of Life. Made in the image of God, this standing comes with conception and cannot be stripped away from living persons. Second, the incarnation of Christ takes this dignity to the next step, elevating our common humanity.  The offer of his life is expressive of the value that the Lord places in us. Jesus desires that we might share in his divine love and life.

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

Next Page »

  • Calendar

    June 2026
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  

  • The Awalt Papers

    This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.

  • Meta