Catholic | Blogger Priest

Prayers to the LORD or to ARES, the God of War?

Posted on April 5, 2026 by Father Joe

People kneeling and praying before a bronze statue of Donald Trump in Spartan armor. — *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 19^thand early 20^thcenturies, 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.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, christianity, Faith, gaza, God, iran, Jesus, killing, peace, pope-leo-xiv, Prayer, protestant, Trump, war | Leave a comment »

Do the SSPX & Vatican Hear & Understand Each Other?

Posted on March 18, 2026 by Father Joe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholic, Jesus, Bible, christianity, Faith, vatican-ii, sspx, latin-mass, doctrine | Leave a comment »

The Society of St. Pius X Does Not Play Fair

Posted on March 17, 2026 by Father Joe

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

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

Fidelity to the Pope is Essential

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

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

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

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

An Ecclesial Hermeneutic of Continuity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need for Mutual Goodwill & Respect

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

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

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

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

Is there an Emergency Situation from Necessity?

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

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholic, christianity, excommunication, Faith, Jesus, latin-mass, Religion, schism, sspx, traditionalists | Leave a comment »

The SSPX is Racing Away from the True Church

Posted on March 6, 2026 by Father Joe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Bishops, Catholic, christianity, Church, Faith, Jesus, sspx, traditional-latin-mass | Leave a comment »

Reflecting Upon SSPX Dissent & Disobedience

Posted on February 28, 2026 by Father Joe

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, christianity, Faith, Jesus, latin-mass, Magisterium, Pope, sspx, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

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

Posted on February 27, 2026 by Father Joe

A Possible Return to Schism and Excommunication

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

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

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

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, christianity, Faith, Jesus, latin-mass, Magisterium, Mass, papal-authority, Pope, sspx, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

Marian Titles & the Mantle of Mercy

Posted on February 7, 2026 by Father Joe

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

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

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

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

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, co-redemptrix, Faith, Jesus, Mary, mediatrix | 1 Comment »

Considering Cardinal Roche’s Consistory Document

Posted on January 18, 2026 by Father Joe

Is This a Genuine Application Newman’s Organic Development?

(CLICK the image to go to document.) The first paragraph of his document to the cardinals at the extraordinary consistory speaks about past historic changes in the Mass and about the process of liturgical reform as one of “organic development.” It is true that the Mass has always been subject to “a process of organic development.” However, this fact does not mitigate the tension over post-Vatican II reforms. Reforms were historically not accomplished over a period of months or a few years but extending decades and even centuries. Further, they were the product of priests and the lay faithful alike, not a small group of so-called experts or a single liturgist. Changes in the liturgy would consist of an addition here or a small deletion there, but not a wholesale rebranding and substitution of the Roman Canon. How can anyone with a straight face argue that the changes effected during the last half-century were truly “organic” in scope? There is no getting around it, the changes were revolutionary. The practical proof of this claim was the reaction among those in the trenches. While many youths embraced folk and rock Masses as part of their natural rebellion, older Catholics were upset but complied because of a strong affinity toward obedience of just authority. Catholics often did as they were told because they loved the Pope and trusted their bishops and priests. I can still recall whole parish and religious school libraries being emptied into dumpsters because the “new Church” would no longer need the old liturgical books or morality manuals. Despite debates to the contrary, this negative treatment against treasures from the past spoke volumes about a hermeneutic of rupture. The psychology here was not rooted in continuity but in a break or a new start. Everything old was deemed bad and everything new was judged good. Ironically, this mentality, in reverse, is what we hear from certain traditionalists— that the “old” is better and holier and that the “new” is bad and heretical. Increasing numbers of learned critics contend that the liturgical changes went far beyond the mandate of the council. Nevertheless, the reforms received ecclesial approbation. This truth cannot be sidestepped. It must be said that the reforms were imposed based upon various contemporary presuppositions (of questionable credulity): that the Latin liturgy was unintelligible to modern men and women, that it lacked logical internal organization, that it wrongly rebranded the preparation of the gifts into an offertory functioning as a secondary natural oblation, that it overly anticipated the transformation of the sacred species, that it lacked a coherent and clear epiclesis, that the liturgy of the Word was eclipsed or minimized by the Eucharist, and that it deified the person and power of the priest over any active participation by the laity.

Does One Faith Demand Absolute Uniformity?

The second paragraph of his missive to participants of the extraordinary consistory is just as nonsensical as the first. As a defense for the abrogation of the traditional Latin Mass, it is ironic that Cardinal Roche should cite Saint Pius V’s assertion that since “there is only one way of reciting the psalms, so there ought to be only one rite for celebrating the Mass.” Today there are many ways that the psalms are recited given the many translations, chant and modern musical renditions. The psalms may be recited straight through, antiphonally or with intruding responses. The Roman rite was translated into the vernacular from Latin, and one translation often disagrees substantially with another. Where we had one canon in the West, we now have four ordinary ones, as well as special Eucharistic prayers for children and reconciliation. Further, the Anglican returnees have their traditional liturgy and Catholicism permits many lesser rites around the world. Given all this diversity, why cannot room be carved out for those spiritually attached to the old Roman Canon? That which is not from God will pass. That which belongs to the Lord will blossom and grow under the movement of the Holy Spirit. Can we not trust God about this? How can the good cardinal both impugn Pope Pius V’s logic and then claim it as a support for the intransigence of Traditionis Custodes?

Constant Reform or Long-Term Stability?

The third paragraph of Cardinal Roche’s consistory document would seem to argue for perpetual reform without end. This ignores several important concerns. The reformed liturgy was neither something entirely old nor simply the product of “cultural elements that change in time and place.” It was largely the result of one time and place. There was an almost “Pollyanna” optimism during and after Vatican II. The signs of the times were a tradeoff of antiquity and the ageless for the contemporary and fickle. Note that many modern liturgies and the accompanying music still resemble something from the 1969 Woodstock festival. First, not all cultures and times are the same. The Church is the mother of Western civilization. It is not that she is just the product of her times but that often her faith and rituals were the catalyst and source for the ideas and cultural values around her. Second, while the relationship of the Church to the surrounding culture communicates in two directions, sometimes the situation is mutually supportive and at other times, clashing and combative. No authentic liturgical reform can embrace elements that are contrary to authentic Christian beliefs. Third, the nature of the paschal mystery itself mandates that certain elements of faith and ritual should be judged as immutable. Just as Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow— a liturgy should be historically grounded as a permanent anchor in a world of incessant change. Do words and ceremony communicate what they should— making present the mediation of Christ in his passion, death, resurrection and ascension? Is it not precisely the argument of the advocates for the traditional Latin Mass, that the sacred language, silence, ordered movement, and heightened reverence, all better convey a sense of the paschal mystery of Christ?

Pope Benedict versus Pope Benedict?

Is there no shame? Cardinal Roche in paragraph four of his consistory document would quote Pope Benedict XVI (out of context) to support the suppression of the traditional Latin Mass and the reversal of Summorum Pontificum. Really? Has he not read what the late Pope wrote about liturgy? Pope Benedict XVI did indeed speak about sacred tradition as a “living river,” but the streams of that river extend both to the Vatican II reforms and to what came previously. Indeed, one might ask, are the waters freely flowing to the tried-and-true of centuries past as to the novelties not yet a hundred years old? Indeed, to keep the analogy going, might Traditionis Custodes be interpreted as a dam to those waters.

A Bias for One Liturgy Over Another?

Paragraph five of Cardinal Roche’s consistory document seems to envision a “dynamic vision” as belonging exclusively to the Novus Ordo. Is this not the same kind of negative bias of which the other side in this debate is accused? Legitimate progress must not be interpreted as change for change’s sake. It is true that a living tradition would forestall a “collection of dead things.” But it was never Pope Benedict XVI’s intent to resuscitate a zombie rite. Both rituals are alive and make Christ present in his person and in his saving activity. He hoped that the old and reformed liturgy, side-by-side, might cross-pollinate and enrich one another. Might the old liturgy be pruned in part? Might it benefit from an enriched lectionary and an extended responsorial for the gradual? Might it be offered in Latin and the vernacular? Could a form of concelebration be returned to the old liturgy? Might a sense of reverence and order be given the reformed rites? Might there be a reconsideration of the reduction of the offertory in the Novus Ordo? Could we see a restoration of some Latin and Gregorian chant? Might the liturgical calendar be reconciled between the old and new? Unfortunately, all this is short-circuited by the current suppression. How is this healthy? How does this promote the life of souls? If we are all about giving the people a voice, then why do churchmen make demands against kneeling and communion on the tongue? What became of freedom about such things? Why should we care if reverence and care are taken?

Might Something Be Gained & Lost By Reform?

Paragraph six of the consistory document simply says that there is no reform of the Church without liturgical reform. This is true given the intimate inter-connectiveness of constitutive elements of the Church. Paragraph seven is an expression of confidence in the scholarship (theological, historical and pastoral) behind the liturgical reform. Left unspoken is the possibility that reformers, no matter how well intentioned, can lose their way. Reformed Judaism had gone through its own reform earlier and with unanticipated negative results. The rabbis warned churchmen that a more streamlined and ordered liturgy might not have the same compelling power of a somewhat messy conglomeration. A ritual that arises over time from the genuine prayer of a priest and congregation around an altar often proves itself better than one composed by a professor more familiar with academic than the pastoral setting. Ritual touches the human being, not only on the rational level, but upon the emotive and spiritual as well. For instance, repetition and striking the breast might change little in terms of meaning but have a tremendous impact upon the human psyche. Similarly, the “artistic” and “beautiful” cannot be reduced to cold mathematical formula. As for paragraph eight, while formation is invaluable for deeper understanding, we must not forget that the language of sign and symbol should also immediately convey a sense of the sacred and a meaning imbued with mystery. Those attached to the traditional Latin Mass may not have degrees in liturgy, but we should not devalue or undermine as inconsequential any attestation of a powerful experience of the transcendent. If the reformed liturgy places a premium on words and translation, the older ordo placed greater weight upon the sacred spectacle of smells, bells, gesture and chant. While the reformed liturgy emphasizes external participation, the older ritual emphasized an internal movement of just being present and many personal prayers. Who is to say which is better? Maybe different people vary in the type of liturgy that serves them best?

Does an Old & Reformed Liturgy Signify a Defunct and a New Church?

The danger of paragraph nine and the extended quote from Pope Francis should be self-evident. It is a direct appeal to a rupture in the tradition. It asserts that one cannot be faithful to the Vatican II Church and desire a strict association of the prior liturgy. However, in truth it is the same Church. Further, who is not to say that certain conciliar principles will not have an impact on the Tridentine liturgy over time? The argument that the Mass change is a fait accompli to which everyone must slavishly comply seems nonsensical if brute authority must be exacted against otherwise good and faithful Catholics? If the new liturgy were perfect, then it is doubtful that a problem would have arisen. Why would Pope Leo XIV beseech Eastern churches to maintain their tradition of liturgy while we have largely thrown ours away. Allowing both the old and the new to exist side-by-side may be the perfect way toward integration, not by ecclesial force but by a natural spiritual attraction. Maybe we have been too stringent in restricting and defining the movement of the Holy Spirit to the work of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and his team? The groundswell of support for the old Mass and the demand for an end to abuses in the new might be the true work of the Spirit of God. While there is much in the way of cultural adaptation and freedom given Catholics in regard to all sort of parallel traditions and experimental liturgies, then why not carve out a space for those who acknowledge papal authority but should be shown sensitivity and compassion about a liturgy that bred many of the saints and still resonates with the Catholic soul?

Paragraph ten simply gave some of the recent history about the liturgy and the popes, conveniently omitting the name of Pope Benedict XVI. Paragraph eleven returns us to Pope Francis’ view in paragraph nine. He writes: “I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council . . . and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium . . .” Both Cardinal Roche and the late Pope Francis view it as an ecclesial matter. This mentality pretty much insures an eventual full schism with the SSPX and makes any future for groups like the Fraternity of St. Peter more than precarious. It is ironic that an attachment with the old liturgy should call their Catholicity into question. Contestations to the contrary, much of Vatican II can easily be reconciled with tradition.

A Few Broader Vatican II Questions Beyond Liturgy

As for the harder Vatican II questions like freedom of conscience and the extent of religious freedom and ecumenism, should they not be argued and hammered out by believers. Given a world where Catholic states have all but disappeared, it makes sense for Catholic social teachings to honestly reflect the current lived reality. While we have every right to insist upon the truth of our beliefs, we can still work with others for a peaceful and just society. Is it really too much to concede that believers should not use torture or violent intimidation? Indeed, is this not the high ground of the Church against Islamic extremism? Further, an emphasis upon the incommensurate value of human life and the high dignity of “persons” is no threat to the divinization of believers by grace. None of us should be so attached to the anachronistic that we would further fracture the Church and society when there is a desperate need to build bridges and heal old wounds.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholic, christianity, Faith, Jesus, latin, Liturgy, Mass, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

Honey, You’re Not a Catholic Priest!

Posted on December 31, 2025 by Father Joe

The December 29 headline in the KANSAS REFLECTOR read, “Kansan returns to the Catholic Church as the state’s first woman priest,” by Anna Kaminski. The story was published under the sectioned off heading of CIVIL RIGHTS. All I can say is No, and No. Tina Thompson is not a Catholic priest and vocations in the faith are not entitlements in justice but gifts for service. Further, I suspect Episcopal female clergy might be offended because while Catholicism judges Anglicans orders as null-and-void, they also consider themselves priests. Arguably the more appropriate term here is “priestess,” although there are unavoidable pagan connotations.

Thompson attempted ordination not in the Catholic Church but in a dissenting, meaning “protestant” sect called Roman Catholic Womanpriests (RCWP). More than lacking formal recognition, this group is spurned by the Catholic Church. Those involved with such efforts to circumvent sacramental laws are regarded as excommunicated from true faith. She says the matter is “so much bigger” than her, but it is really all about her. Along with other like-minded women, the issue is rebellion from clearly articulated teachings that stem from long-standing tradition and from Pope John Paul II’s solemn definition. She may be one of hundreds around the world but none of these ladies is a licit or valid priest of the Roman Catholic Church. Even if a legitimate bishop (possessing apostolic succession) had sought to ordain her, she would still not be a priest as it is not the will of Christ and his Church.

She says, “We are still the church, but we are different in that we open the tent. We want everyone to feel like they are welcome.” This is a deception. The theological definition of “church” requires both a valid priesthood and Eucharist. She and her girlfriends have neither. They can dress up but all they are doing is playing priest. They are fooling themselves and would seek to do the same to others. It is terribly sinful because it would cost the gullible both absolution from sin and the saving Eucharist. A priest is a man configured to the incarnate Christ as our high priest. He is an icon of our Lord. Some orders and Eastern rite congregations would even have the priest grow the accidental of a beard to help convey his ministerial unity with Jesus. A woman cannot sacramentally signify Christ at the altar.

Estrangement from the Church for twenty years is hardly proper formation for ministry. Tina Thompson talks about her work as an artist but says next to nothing about the sacrament of Penance and the Eucharist. She is a fake, not a priest and only tenuously a juridical Catholic because of baptism. The church in which Tina Thompson attempted ordination was not Catholic. Unity Church in Lawrence, Kansas must have rented their facility because, while led by women, it does not even claim bishops. We read on the website for Unity Church in Lawrence, Kansas: “Unity is an open-minded, accepting spiritual community that honors all paths to God and helps people discover and live their spiritual potential and purpose. A positive alternative to negative religion, Unity seeks to apply the teachings of Jesus as well as other spiritual masters. Unity affirms the power of prayer and helps people experience a stronger connection with God every day.” They also reject the notion of heaven with the saints, asserting, “Heaven is not a place, but a state of consciousness.” Nonsense! Ordination in such a setting further compromises any claims of Catholicity. It is literally a NEW AGE movement that is arguably not even Christian. It might be a welcoming tent, but it is not the house that Jesus built. The ordinations are not valid despite her protestations. They have not abided by apostolic succession because while they might have satisfied form, they have substituted invalid matter. The line back to Christ is broken.

The KANSAS CITY REFLECTOR steps away from its headline and Tina Thompson’s claims by stating: “Women priests do not perform their duties in Catholic churches, and they cannot be officially ordained in one either. They are not recognized and are often excommunicated from the Catholic Church if they are heavily involved before their ordination as Roman Catholic women priests.”

Thompson might claim to be Catholic, but she has turned away from basic truths transmitted by the faith. She does not believe in the indissolubility of marriage and accepts divorce. She also dissents in her approbation for homosexuality. The aging women of Roman Catholic Womanpriests would redefine, not just Holy Orders, the Church and her values. None of these imposters in the presbyterate would demand a celibate priesthood. Most would also redefine marriage. No matter what Thompson calls herself, she is a Protestant minister, pure and simple. She says that she was ordained a deacon on August 22, 2024, and a Roman Catholic Women Priest on Nov. 1, 2025. But notice that the article is silent as to who attempted to ordain her.

After doing research online, it appears that Bishop Paula Hoeffer attempted to ordain her as a priest. Hoeffer is a former religious sister (Sister of Notre Dame de Namur) who left the convent half a century ago for marriage. She only became a supposed bishop, herself, in 2025. Her initiation into this fraudulent sacerdotalism was through Joan Houk, still another fake woman bishop. Houk’s elevation into this feigned episcopacy was the work of Patricia Fresen (Germany), Ida Raming (Germany) and Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger (Austria). They were three from the infamous Danube Seven ordained on a river boat in 2002 by Rómulo Antonio Braschi (a priest who defected to found the Catholic Apostolic Charismatic Church of Jesus the King) and Ferdinand Regelsberger (a former Benedictine monk that Brashi consecrated as bishop). It is not a pedigree to be proud about.

Thompson admits herself, “We’re just a schism, as they say,” and are not in unity with Rome. The fact remains that Rome decides who is or is not a “Roman” Catholic priest. Like so many aging militant feminists, she errantly equates a “male-guided” Church with a “misguided” institution. The article observes, “Her ministry as a priest isn’t yet clear.” That is an understatement if ever there was one. We are told that her time gravitates toward art. Does this not reduce priesthood to a side-line hobby instead of as a sacrificial vocation?

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, christianity, dissent, Faith, Jesus, priest, priestess, vocations, Women Priests | 1 Comment »

Article 12 of the Declaration on Human Dignity

Posted on April 7, 2024 by Father Joe

Article 12 of the declaration speaks of the dignity to be found in Christ’s solidarity with humanity by being “born and raised in humble conditions.” Next, we are told that his public ministry “affirms the value and dignity of all who bear the image of God, regardless of their social status and external circumstances.” It should be clear that the Cardinal Fernández is not referring to the elevated supernatural dignity given by grace to persons regenerated through faith and baptism. Several religious pundits have attacked the him and the Holy Father on this front without conceding a dignity that is inherent firstly, as a rational creation of almighty God, and secondly, as one who shares a kinship with Christ due to the incarnation. The whole point about the change of economy regarding images in the Decalogue is that God has now revealed himself through a human face. While there is a discrepancy in how the terms are used, one might argue that we are all created in the image of God but that through the sacraments we are reborn into the likeness of Christ. This natural dignity is very much a part of Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body. Note that when it comes to the Gospel of Life, the unborn child (although lacking baptism) possesses a right to life and dignity that should not be assailed.

Jesus also defended a moral dignity of persons, especially toward the oppressed and marginalized. The Church must similarly be the voice for the voiceless. Citing Scripture, the document takes note of his outreach to the tax collectors, women, children, lepers, the sick, strangers, and widows. The Cardinal writes that Jesus “heals, feeds, defends, liberates, and saves.” The love of neighbor flows from our love of God and must be dynamic in the life of charity.

The one problematical element of this article is the following:

For Jesus, the good done to every human being, regardless of the ties of blood or religion, is the single criterion of judgment. The apostle Paul affirms that every Christian must live according to the requirements of dignity and respect for the rights of all people (cf. Rom. 13:8-10) according to the new commandment of love (cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-13).

Critics contend that the Cardinal Fernández and the Pope undermine religion as a basic factor in our judgment and salvation. However, we should remember that the document is written for believers, and it is taken for granted that the good being done is by Catholics in right standing with God. I doubt the Holy Father would undermine basic soteriology. There is no salvation apart from Christ and his holy Church. Further, any merit for good acts also requires that the agent be in a state of grace. A person in mortal sin remains under God’s negative judgment until the remission of sin through heartfelt contrition and the sacrament of penance. However, for the justified believer, grace builds upon grace. Our good work is not limited to our own. A disciple of Christ is compelled by love and truth to preserve human dignity and in justice to defend human rights.

As a Christian I am required to be compassionate and just to all, even those who are not of my family or ethnicity or religion. I can know the catechism backwards and forwards, but without charity I have nothing. Again, on the level of creation, there is a duty to preserve basic human rights and dignity. I believe this is what the document is saying. It connects to the teaching about the corporal works of mercy in Matthew 25:41-45:

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’”

I suspect that what Cardinal Fernández and Pope Francis are wanting to say is made clearer in 1 Corinthians 13:1-8:

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, love is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, christianity, Jesus, Religion | Leave a comment »