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.
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.
The SSPX has from its beginnings been guilty of presumption in judging the Holy See and the heavy consensus of the many bishops who participated at Vatican II. Why they cannot see their terrible arrogance about this is a matter hard to understand. They suggest that there has been a break with the past when the best minds in the Church demonstrated organic development regarding essentials and needed changes to accidentals to respond to modernity. Had the issue only been the liturgy this impasse would have ended long ago. But it is so much more, particularly about ecclesiology and soteriology. They would reduce the magisterium to a political congress to which they alone would have an absolute veto. No, this cannot be permitted and their upcoming consecration of bishops will signify not merely the widening of a rift but the formal institution of a new offshoot or ecclesial reality like the Anglicans and the Greeks before them. They hide behind the abandoned artifacts of history, heralding tradition, while refusing to honestly engage with a changing world. They feign fidelity while dissenting from the authority of the living magisterium.
It is ironic that they appeal to “conscience” for their fractured communion when they formally reject the expansion of its definition at Vatican II. They accuse the Holy Father and the post-Vatican II Church of heresy, “destroying Catholic faith and morals.” If the reforms attest to the movement of the Holy Spirit, then they commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a sin regularly committed in their attack against the Novus Ordo Mass as evil and dangerous. They spurn canon law as being used to undermine the holy faith. The law of just authority applies to all except themselves.
Fidelity to the Catholic faith is more than “devotion,” it is measured by obedience to the Pope and the living magisterium. The declaration reverses reality and presumes that the SSPX is the true Church to which the Holy See must be in communion. This is utter nonsense! What are their “indispensable” faith capitulations for juridical reunion?
One Covenant That Does NOT Include the Jews, YES or NO?
It is true that the Catholic faith is the one true Church instituted by Christ. But the SSPX refuses to acknowledge contemporary Jews as children of Abraham. As far as they are concerned, the old covenant first established with them as God’s people was rendered “definitively null and void” some two thousand years ago. The implication of their faith profession is that they are guilty of deicide and that by extension the Moslems (along with them) are now children of Satan who reject Christ as the Messiah. It is no wonder that this negative assessment includes allegations of collective guilt as enemies of the Church for the death of Christ, antisemitic slander about clandestine Jewish influence for world dominion and even denial of the Holocaust atrocities. The SSPX thoroughly rejects the Nostra Aetate declaration and interfaith dialogue.
The Catholic Church neither believes that God has severed his covenant with the Jews nor that there are two covenants, one for Jews and the other for Christians. The relationship with the Jews remains because God keeps his promises. The old covenant is fulfilled by the new in Jesus Christ. The Church is the New Israel and as such we would reject Zionism. Just as many of the Jews accepted Christ in the ancient church of Jerusalem, we pray that many of our Jewish brothers and sisters will today come to know and love him. The Jews are our elder brethren in faith, the first called, and they are still beloved of God. We read in Romans 11:25-29:
“I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not become wise in your own estimation: a hardening has come upon Israel in part, until the full number of the Gentiles comes in, and thus all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The deliverer will come out of Zion, he will turn away godlessness from Jacob; and this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.’ In respect to the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but in respect to election, they are beloved because of the patriarchs. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”
While we can argue a movement from the natural religion of Judaism (belief in the one true God) to a supernatural religion in Catholicism (the revelation of the Trinity), we share a common faith patrimony. The Christian Savior will always be the Jewish Messiah. None of this detracts from “Jesus” as the saving name— that none are saved apart from him— that he is our one Mediator and Savior— that none come to the Father except through him. We are redeemed by the saving work of his Cross which is re-presented to us in an unbloody fashion by the Eucharist. The significance of Christ and the sacraments remain what it has always been, but the SSPX declaration would intimate a change where there has been none.
Devaluation of Mary’s Role in Salvation, YES or NO?
While there has been a warning about misunderstanding certain Marian titles, it is still acknowledged that Mary cooperates in a unique way with the redemptive work of her Son. Nothing has changed in our teachings.
No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church – YES or NO or Qualified?
The SSPX profession next makes a subtle nod to Fr. Feeney’s literal interpretation of “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” or no salvation outside the Church. Despite SSPX protestations to the contrary, this dogma of faith remains intact. Just as none are saved apart from Christ, the Church as his mystical body is also necessary for salvation. However, the SSPX would reject any nuances to this teaching. This would appreciably leave as damned, all non-Catholic “Christians” as well as all “Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists.” By contrast, we would resist making a verdict and leave ultimate judgment to God regarding those not in formal communion “through no fault of their own.” We would insist that the negative judgment is upon those who die knowing that the Catholic Church is the true Church and still refused to get baptized and join her. There is also ambiguity because of the reformation and Protestant faith communities. If their baptisms are judged as valid then are they not affiliated with the Catholic Church, even if tenuously? Will Jesus renounce those who have faith in him and love him? When the Protestant reformers broke away, they purloined many essential elements of the true Church. Would there not be salvific value to these elements, like baptism and the Bible, for those who were born into these sects? The SSPX says no, “Outside the Roman Catholic Church, and without the profession of Faith that she has always taught, there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.” Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium says yes, clarifying that those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, may yet achieve eternal salvation. Ignorance does matter. God is neither capricious nor monstrous in his providence. Any who are saved are saved through the Church. About this there is no debate— where the SSPX and the Vatican part ways is over whether all the saved must be a visible part of the Church during their mortal lives.
Who is the Real Threat to the True Church?
The declaration asserts, “The denial of even a single truth of the Faith destroys faith itself and renders radically impossible all communion with the Catholic Church.” Given the SSPX misinterpretations, made clear by the Vatican, I would concur that the SSPX is not spiritually prepared for full reunion with the Church established by Christ. When they consecrate their illicit bishops, they will enter formal schism and face excommunication. While they may consider themselves to be the true Church, in fact they will stand condemned by their own reasoning— placing themselves outside the Barque of Peter.
The Pope is the Guardian of the Deposit of Faith, YES or NO?
The great commission has never been renounced. Continuity with our traditions has been maintained. The SSPX “doth protest too much.” We give no quarter to false worship and the reformed liturgy is both licit and valid as are all the seven sacraments. The Pope continues his role in history as the guardian of the deposit of faith. Unfortunately, some would wrestle this role away from him.
The Mass is an Unbloody Sacrifice for the Forgiveness of Sins
The Mass remains essentially a sacrifice for atonement or propitiation and yet this does not make it any less a sacred meal where the Lamb of God must be eaten. We would also affirm the real presence of the Eucharist.
We May Not Bless Gays but Should We Hate Them?
Threaded among the many things we have in common are the matters of ambiguity and deliberate misrepresentation. Outreach to gays can mandate no violation of the moral law and it is true that their unions “can in no way be blessed by ministers of the Church. This was recently reaffirmed by Pope Leo XIV. But we have always regularly blessed groups and individuals without interrogations about their state of life and sins. Blessings may be affirmations as over Christian marriages, but they might also be appeals for repentance, conversion and healing. The declaration makes no mention of this.
Should We Rescind Religious Liberty?
The SSPX declaration also makes more of a variable social teaching than I suspect it was supposed to mean. We read: “The submission of institutions and nations, as such, to the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ flows directly from the Incarnation and the Redemption. Therefore, secularism of institutions and nations constitutes an implicit denial of the divinity and universal kingship of Our Lord.” What are we to make of this? The separation of church and state in the United States has allowed the Church to flourish. The right to religious liberty has protected the Church even as it has made space for others to freely exercise in conscience what they believe. Can we ignore a world that has changed around us? What sense would it make to speak of the divine right of kings when there are none? Should our teachings not reflect interaction with the current real world and not one that has disappeared? Many Americans might love the old Mass, but they would not be so happy to see their Protestant neighbors forcibly divested from their churches and forced to worship underground. Ecumenism does not mean we are all the same. It opens doors for Catholic reunion, yes; but it also allows separated brethren (not just heretics) to work together with us for a better world that reflects shared values about justice and charity.
Which Roman Catholicism is Truly Protestant?
The SSPX has long argued against what is seen as the Protestantism of Roman Catholicism. However, maybe they need to look at themselves? Davide Pagliarani’s declaration finishes with, “With the help of Our Lord, we would rather die than renounce them” (the listed articles of faith). I am reminded of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms. He said, “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.” He concluded, “Here I stand, I can do no other!”
Slaves kneel in prayer before an idol of the pagan war god in Spartan armor.
As a contract priest to the Coast Guard for thirteen years and as a chaplain to the Knights of Columbus for over thirty, I can attest that there is sometimes a confusion in the minds of believers between the virtue of patriotism and the sin of nationalism. True patriots support their country when she is right and correct her when she is wrong. But nationalism is always unhinged and argues instead, “My country, right or wrong!” The distinction often shows itself in language. We are “Catholics in America,” part of a worldwide family that crosses borders. This aids us in appreciating the brotherhood of man. A spirit of nationalism is intimated in the expression, “American Catholics,” as if there is a national church distinct from international believers and even separate from Rome. Given that the current Pope is also an American, there are critics, especially in politics, who are perturbed that he does not subscribe to “America First” in his thinking and preaching. Despite the jargon of the current populism, Americans may be blessed by God, but they are not morally superior to others. The United States had Catholics involved with its beginnings, but in large part was the product of English values and a Protestant mindset. The Bible was given place of honor, but the individual was placed over it, not the Church. Individualism was prized. A desire for separation from the home country and freedom resulted in a revolutionary war. The conflict over the rights of states versus the federal government, along with making people of dark skin into commodities and not full persons, resulted in still another conflict, the civil war. Catholics found themselves mixed up with all this as well, and yes, sometimes infected with a Protestant over a Catholic perspective about things. When she could, the universal Church looked the other way; but there were levels of dissent that could not be excused. We seem to have forgotten that many Catholics came to this country as unwanted and reviled immigrants. Catholic churchmen like Bishop Hughes of New York opposed the public schools because he saw them as efforts to proselytize Catholics. Public schools in the United States, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, frequently employed the King James Version (KJV) Bible as the primary text for reading instruction and moral education. Catholicism was distrusted. Bigots contended that so-called “papists” were conspiring to take over the nation for the Pope. It was a lie of course, but disinformation existed long before there was an internet.
It may be that some of our early worries were well founded because increasing numbers of Catholics sound like these Protestants of old in how they rebuke the Pope and dismiss the bishops of the Church. Indeed, I am shocked that some who currently tout themselves as solid Catholics have compromised their faith by embracing the fundamentalist mindset given place of honor in the Trump Administration. This sect views the state of Israel as the fruit of prophecy, thus negating any rights of Palestinians to their homeland. The Evangelical Protestant perspective in vogue here refashions Christianity into a BOOK religion. This is idolatry because we encounter Christ not in the dead words on a page but in the living Word proclaimed. There is nothing of the Church as “the great mystery” because the sacraments are rejected as sources for grace. They focus upon a rigid Old Testament morality as a model for today. The defense of Israel thus becomes paramount. They are quick to excuse atrocities in Gaza and the systematic destruction of Iran.
A wimpish Congress has largely surrendered its role in governance to executive orders, first in the Biden administration and now with Trump. Subordinates that disagree with the supreme leader or who prove ineffective in fulfilling autocratic demands are quickly dismissed or replaced. Here I am thinking of figures like Pam Bondi, General Randy George, and Carrie Prejean Boller. Boller was fired for stating, “I am a Catholic, and Catholics don’t embrace Zionism.” What she says about the faith is true as the New Israel or Kingdom is not the middle eastern political state, but the universal or world-wide Catholic Church. But as I said, the fundamentalist Protestant has no such notion for the Church as essential for salvation. Boller was roundly condemned as antisemitic and eliminated. Those who speak for our pretentious potentate must pander to incur his favor, either that or to fall upon their swords. Note that everything they say, from news briefings to prayer services, begin with heaping blame upon his predecessor and other enemies and next extolling praise and thanks upon him for his accomplishments. They even make up new awards to pamper his enlarged ego. Everything must be “bigger,” “greater,” and “like nothing before.” It is quite literally, too much.
Catholics should rightly be hesitant to embrace the archaic Protestant ethos which traditionally ruled this nation despite the constitutional separation of church and state. Make no mistake about it, these new Protestants like those of old distrust Catholics. (Note that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a Protestant-only Good Friday service at the Pentagon in-house chapel, specifying that there would be no Catholic services (like stations or veneration of the cross). While the constitution forbids the establishment of a national religion, this restraint is being severely strained, and I would not be surprised if it is challenged. What perplexes me is how these fundamentalists will carve a place for Jews in this proposed Christian state given their political mating with diehard Jewish defenders of Israel? A common hate or indifference for the Moslem or Palestinian (which includes Catholics and other Christians) might wear thin.
The Pope has been the target of “correction” from Karoline Leavitt (a Catholic), Pete Hegseth (a Christian nationalist), and Franklin Graham (a Baptist evangelist). Graham, true to form, cites David in the Old Testament, in defense of what the Pope rejects as prayers for blood. The Pope is concerned that anyone would adopt a diplomacy based upon the threat of military intervention. He is not of the mind that President Donald Trump is specially chosen or elected by God as a new David or even as a son of David, a title that belongs to Jesus Christ. The Holy Father’s position was the whole point of our opposition against Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Ironically, Trump gained office by opposing the military malfeasance of the Democrats. Catholics and others also found appealing his defense of religious liberty. Almost the entire pro-life movement applauded his stance against abortion. Many worried about rising crime rates and the danger of open borders. But throughout, the bishops warned us about the mistreatment of immigrants. Many of us wanted justice, but not devoid of compassion and charity. Despite promises that we would not police the planet, the president has ordered the invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of a head of state, collaborated over the destruction of Gaza, bombed Iran and killed its leadership, and now threatens Cuba with demands for regime change. Like the man or not, this administration is on the warpath. Islamic extremists pursue Jihad or holy war. Now evangelicals invoke God in favor of the president’s aggressive policies. Indeed, even worse, Paula White speaks of God and then praises Trump as if he is another Jesus Christ. Enough is enough!
The Pope may be an American, but he is also “Peter” and he governs a people for Christ the world over. The foot-washing on Thursday reminded us that he is “the servant of the servants of God.” He represents the Prince of Peace where “an eye for an eye” was replaced by the Lord who forgives his murderers. Why are we surprised that Pope Leo XIV preaches peace? Pope John Paul II did the same when we invaded Iraq.
Catholic morality views biblical laws through the prism of tradition, natural law, and the guidance of the Magisterium. We are not obliged to follow obsolete Levitical ceremonial or civil laws. We also speak about the theory of just war and proportional force. Military action might sometimes be required, but only in desperation and when diplomacy has failed. The American system is based upon checks and balances that seem to be currently bypassed for political expediency. This is dangerous. How long and far should such go on? Americans have been known, at least in our popular mythology, as on the side of “might for right,” not that of “might makes right.” There is an important difference. Gaza has suffered 169,000 injured (many requiring amputations) and 90,000+ dead (of which 20,000 were children). The current action in Iran has resulted in the deaths of 3,531 people, of which 1,607 were civilians and 244 were children. When politicians and aberrational Protestant clergy thank God for military victories and the death of enemies, why is the Pope such a lone voice in the wilderness shouting, no! Catholics who realize their faith with charity and who pray for the dead should cry out as well. Indeed, true believers among Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others need to speak with one voice for PEACE.
As one who regularly seeks to discern spirits, there was something intensely unsettling about a recent prayer service in Washington orchestrated by Paula White. Might there be something demonic taking place that threatens to spill over to the rest of the country and to infect our churches? Silence as much as wrongful praise might compromise us. I am no YES man, even to lawful authority. While I feel that obedience is the most crucial and most difficult promise a priest makes, my personality or character cringes against blind obedience. It is not in my makeup to join the lines of doting sycophants to any man, no matter how charismatic or popular. Over the years I have periodically gotten into trouble for speaking my mind and failing to toe the line. The most painful incident was when I argued with Cardinal McCarrick over his silence or even praising certain politicians opposed to the sanctity of life. He refused to change about this, saying that we might need them on other issues. I was later disciplined for being outspoken. It wounds me still because I love the Church. We belong to Christ, even when men in the Church fail and disappoint us. We belong to Christ and should not suffer bondage to any party or mere mortal. Too many fail to understand the lesson of the coin, as there can be no divided loyalty. Caesar may have his likeness on a coin, but Christ’s likeness alone must be inscribed upon human hearts. Yes, even Caesar belongs to God. There is no comparison. We must be careful of idolatry in all its devious forms.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth prayed at a recent Christian worship service for the military:
“Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”
This might make a good pagan prayer to the false god Ares or Mars, but it is no prayer to the true God revealed in Jesus Christ. The Holy Father is under attack for his corrective response:
“God rejects the prayers of warmongers. . . This is our God: Jesus, king of peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them. ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood’ (Isaiah 1:15).”
Tradition teaches that Pilate constantly washed his hands, particularly after the death of Christ. He lamented, will I ever get my hands clean? That should again be the question, today.
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.
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.
Every time Pope Leo XIV agrees with Pope Francis on something, the critics go crazy! Here there is opposition to the argument from Pope Francis in DIGNITAS INFINITA that human dignity is an “infinite” value. The concern is that it seems to deify the human creature when only almighty God is truly infinite. It is argued that this compromises Catholic teaching on original sin.
I think a grievous misreading has been made. I may be wrong but I discern shades of Pope John Paul II’s thinking in this, too. Yes, we are are finite creatures. We do not self-exist and we cannot save ourselves. However, there is an ancient notion that elements like the good, the true and the beautiful are perfections of God in which we participate or share in some small measure. Whatever we share can be traced back to God the Creator who has infinite value. Human dignity is viewed on two levels, first that of human creatures born of women into the human family, and second, as regenerated sons and daughters of the Father reborn at the womb of the baptismal font. The latter (spiritual dignity) builds upon the first (ontological dignity). Indeed, sanctifying grace divinizes the person with a share in Christ’s life. While all human life is incommensurate as God’s gift to us; the dignity of the human person is further enhanced by the sacraments. While we are finite, that which God shares of himself is not— basic existence and on top of that eternal life in Christ.
The late Pope Francis taught that the human person possessed an immeasurable or incommensurate worth. This was a major contention of the late Dr. Germain Grisez (1929–2018). He contended for the incommensurability of basic human goods.
Reflexive Goods: Self-integration, Practical Reasonableness, Justice and Friendship, and Religion.
Substantive Goods: Life and Health, Knowledge of Truth, Appreciation of Beauty, and Excellence in Work and Play.
(The basic goods delineated by John Finnis were similar.)
Grisez claimed they are equally good in themselves and cannot be rationally compared. He argued that the basic goods are equally ranked and thus there can be no proportionalism in their regard— you cannot act against one to promote another— there is no lesser evil for a greater good. This becomes foundational for his moral theology on behalf of the sanctity of life and the indissolubility of marriage. Contraception, abortion and euthanasia are entirely removed from the drawing board! Everyone is thus viewed as precious and irreplaceable. Every person has immeasurable worth, even the convict on death row.
Pope Francis broke down dignity in terms of anthropology: The first is “ontological.” Every moment God is keeping us in existence. If he were to forget us for an instant we would cease to exist and be annihilated. Such would be against the divine economy. This value is incommensurate. The second is “moral” and here dignity can be lost through evil acts and sin. This is where original sin and concupiscence come into the picture. The third is “social” and dignity can be violated by oppression and poverty. However, worth remains the same. The fourth is “existential” which refers to a person’s subjective experience of life.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
Blogger Priest 