• Our Blogger

    Fr. Joseph Jenkins

  • When I began this blog, my header image was the New Testament scene where Jesus flogged the money-changers out of the temple. I imaged myself and all priests 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

    GA210286's avatarGA210286 on Impotence & Marriage
    Anonymous's avatarAnonymous on Ask a Priest
    jbg's avatarjbg on An Appeal to Reconciliation fo…
    Inveilis's avatarInveilis on Ask a Priest
    Mihaela Ghenea's avatarMihaela Ghenea on Ask a Priest

The Mass & the Age of Absurdity

While we should always show due deference to our bishops and their authority, sometimes they say and do things that make us scratch our heads. A recent example of this confusion is from Bishop James Beckman in the Diocese of Knoxville. The good bishop sent out a letter to his diocese ordering the laity to cease praying the Prayer to St. Michael after Masses. Given the pressing presence of the demonic in the world, many have returned to the use of this prayer. It originated with Pope Leo XIII in 1886 when the Holy Father ordered its recitation at the end of all Low Masses. The Pope had a terrifying vision of the devil assaulting the Church. He composed the prayer, along with three Hail Mary prayers, a Hail Holy Queen and a prayer for the Church. These orations were suppressed in 1964 with the Vatican II reforms. St. Pope John Paul II on April 24, 1994, urged the recitation of the Prayer to St. Michael, particularly before or after gatherings for worship. The Holy Father was discussing St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians and the Book of Revelation. He said, “I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world.” Faithful Catholics responded by voluntarily resuming its recitation at the end of Masses and in private devotions.

Bishop Beckman does not seem to worry about such spiritual warfare. Indeed, he has directed his priests to initiate RE-EDUCATION catechesis to persuade lay men and women to cease the practice of saying the Prayer to St. Michael and other common prayers after Mass. This goes against the grain for clergy in the trenches who have urged prayers of preparation before Mass and prayers of supplication and thanksgiving after services. Clergy, even here in Washington, have for some time been urged not to initiate private devotions or extra prayers following the dismissal and blessing. However, there was no rule about the laity pursuing such prayers after Masses, a common practice after weekday liturgies. Sodalities and other prayer groups frequently say the Prayer to St. Michael and the Rosary either before or after Masses.

While the suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass surprised and hurt many believers attached to the older form, more startling is how it has acted as a catalyst for the micro-managing of the Novus Ordo and devotions associated with Mass. Bishop Michael Martin of the Diocese of Charlotte sought to prohibit priests from privately saying vesting prayers and banned the “ad orientem” posture of the priest, the general use of Latin, the use of fiddleback vestments and birettas, the ringing of an entry bell, and the use of Mass veils by women reading, singing or serving at liturgies.  The practice of kneeling for Holy Communion, in contradiction to the GIRM, was also forbidden. He decreed the removal of altar rails designating sacred space around altars in all churches by January 2026.

Returning to the recent news about Bishop Beckman, he is within his rights to insist upon where the universal Church delineates the conclusion of Mass. But is he consistent? Even the closing or recessional hymn is not properly part of the Mass. There is no mention of it in the directives. But I suspect he will make no move to forbid the final hymn. In any case, if the additional prayers added by the laity are not officially part of the liturgy, how can he tell believers they cannot pray them after Mass in their own churches? Must they pray privately in silence as if they be ashamed to join voices after Mass?  This is utter nonsense. His authority is not absolute. The prayers said before or after Mass are in sync with Catholic belief. If they were heretical then he would have a case, but that is not where things stand. The most any bishop can demand is that post-liturgical prayers not be instigated or immediately orchestrated by the priest or deacon. Indeed, other than expecting good decorum, the priest himself can make no further demand upon the congregation after the formal dismissal. Regarding this matter, the bishop himself, may need some corrective catechesis. The bishop is not forbidding additional prayers to the liturgy but seeking to ban prayers outside the Mass. That comes across as a bit crazy for a Catholic shepherd.

The bishop’s concern seems to be about any prayers after Mass as he adds the Prayer of St. Francis to that of St. Michael and any invocation of the Holy Spirit. I guess many had better watch their step— traditionalists, charismatics and those who associate our worship and faith with social outreach to the poor. This situation really makes no sense. The bishop is discouraging prayer in his churches. This sounds more like something happening in Communist China, not the United States. While too many come late for Mass and rush out at the end, should we not be encouraging people to stick around and pray in our churches? That is what makes this matter into a kind of unbelievable madness.

It may be that no one cared when it was two or three elderly women saying their prayers. However, the pedophile scandals and especially the fall of the criminal Cardinal McCarrick brought many more of the faithful to their knees. As St. Pope Paul VI said, “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church,” and believers can no longer look away. The faithful are astonished and even fearful. They want their priests and bishops to be saints, not devils. The Prayer of St. Michael seems more valuable than ever before. It signifies a Church invoking heavenly aid for healing and mercy. It arose spontaneously as an act of the spirit. Many priests were asked by their congregations if they might say it and faithful clergy were happy to see the initiative taken by their flocks. But now Bishop Beckman would shut it down. Given the scandals, payouts and resignation of Bishop Stika, one would think that Bishop Beckman would invite and not deter additional prayerful support. But no, St. Michael is given the door instead— so much for reparation.

If the celebrant kisses the altar and, along with the other ministers, recesses out, then how can there be any blurring of the lines as to where the Mass ends. The diocese says that “these prayers remain vital parts of the Catholic ‘treasury of prayer’ and are highly encouraged for private, individual devotion.” But the bishop cannot have it both ways. He has no authority to restrict prayers to individual or dare we say it, secret recitation. Indeed, our Lord urged, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

The SSPX is Racing Away from the True Church

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.