Church | Blogger Priest

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 »

A Female Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury?

Posted on February 2, 2026 by Father Joe

https://www.cathstan.org/voices/do-catholics-have-a-theological-problem-with-a-woman-being-the-archbishop-of-canterbury?

The Anglican communion has proven itself more a daughter to secular modernity than a son of ecclesial tradition. It goes through the motions but behind the show it is hollow of substance. Only the bare bone of the Gospel remains. When Pope Paul VI reminded them of the perennial and constant reservation of holy orders to men, a practice that both Catholicism and the schismatic Eastern churches maintain, he was immediately rebuffed. The demands of feminists and gays took precedence over the reservation of Jesus and the constant practice of the Church. The late Pope John Paul II would add that any effort to ordain women would threaten the validity of holy orders. Of course, Anglican orders had long since already been compromised when their prayer book denied the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. The definition of a priest is intimately tied up with our appreciation of the Mass. When the text was corrected, apostolic succession among the Anglicans had already been lost.

1534 King Henry VIII breaks with Rome.

1552 and 1662 Thomas Cranmer removes references to the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice in the BOOKS OF COMMON PRAYER.

1896 Pope Leo XIII in APOSTOLICAE CURAE declares Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void.”

1994 Saint John Paul II in ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS solemnly professes priestly ordination as reserved to men alone.

Even if there should be a few valid clergy due to Catholic defections and the presence of Old Catholics and Orthodox bishops at ordinations, the intrusion of women would be the proverbial nail in the coffin to any such sacramental lineage. Pope John Paul II professed infallibly that women cannot be ordained. If they cannot be priests, then they most certainly cannot be bishops. Thus, they cannot ordain men to holy orders, either to the presbyterate or to the diaconate.

Politeness will only summon further confusion. We must be blunt with the truth. Sarah Mullally is not really the bishop of either London or Canterbury. She may be the first woman to hold the title of “Archbishop of Canterbury” in 1,400 years, but she is only the latest of a long line of pretenders to the throne. Ordained in 2002 as a part time cleric, her background is in nursing. She later got a degree in pastoral theology. She is a self-professed pro-choice feminist and favors the blessing and full inclusion of LGBT+ people. Of course, she is not alone as there are increasing numbers of wannabee women priests and bishops in the Anglican communion. Indeed, the new archbishop of Wales is Bishop Cherry Vann who is openly living in a lesbian same-sex civil union.

A female archbishop of Canterbury is problematic because of the ecumenical aspirations of the Church. Many had long sought and prayed for reunion of the churches. Now, except for those who have joined the ordinariate, it looks as if that will never happen. This also complicates matters of gathering because these women who dress up like priests and bishops give scandal to the Catholic faithful. It also fuels wrongful aspirations among women with radical agendas that include women’s ordination. Of course, with neither a valid priesthood nor Eucharist, the Anglican communion forfeits the canonical and realistic right to term itself a “church.” Error leads to error and now this faith confession tolerates divorce, adultery, fornication, abortion, and homosexuality— even among its ministers. It is sad but true that with every step forward in ecumenical dialogue, the Anglicans have taken two steps backward. Short of a revolution among the Anglican and Episcopal faith communities, it must be proclaimed that their “church” is essentially dead. Any effort to proclaim the Good News or to expand holiness is short-circuited by the advocacy of mortal sin.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: anglicanism, Bible, christianity, Church, Ecumenism, episcopalianism, Faith, Jesus, Women Priests | Leave a comment »

Where is the Justice?

Posted on December 4, 2025 by Father Joe

Maybe I am handicapped by chronic cynicism? But I am often wary of those who criticize others about how they understand justice when their own appreciation would likely not muster close inspection. The word “justice” like “love” and “rights” has been hackneyed in every possible way, as well as assumed into the ranting politics of left, right and all stances in-between. The Black Lives movement clamors for justice against racism and power. Radical feminists define justice as liberation, not only from males but from their own biology and fertility. Militant Zionists demand a justice for past Jewish martyrs with a retributive justice hard to distinguish from revenge. Marxists demand a one-sided variation of justice reminiscent of Robin Hood, where the people “rise up” to steal from the rich (the bourgeoisie) and give to the poor workers (the proletariat). [In practice a party dictator takes power and all bets about justice are off the table.] While American citizens can rightly demand border security, what becomes of justice without sufficient compassion or mercy, particularly when the poor and the persecuted are lumped with criminals and the gangs from drug cartels? Can a society justly take the lives of the guilty in capital punishment when it wrongly strips the innocent unborn of any right to life? [The late Pope John Paul II said “no,” that any jurisdiction to deprive another of life under the banner of justice is forfeited in a culture of death.]

It is hard for a civilization to appreciate the cardinal virtue of justice when it is saturated with a parade of vices. While quick to judge, many people literally do not know what it means to be good or what constitutes the “right thing.” I suspect that is why we see the vast multiplication of surveillance cameras. Increasing numbers of people feel it is okay to steal, so long as they are not caught. Intimidation has replaced the virtues.

What do we as human beings have coming to us and what is “due” or owed to others? This varies from person to person. Business and general exchange of services relates to commutative justice. The employer should pay his employee an adequate wage. The employee needs to be diligent in providing serves or goods for which he or she is remunerated. Distributive justice is directed toward our relationship with a community. We all have equal rights to the same freedoms and general opportunities. But we do not all have the same resources, talents or obligations. This form of justice respects proportionality. Each person in a society does his or her part for the whole. Finally, there is what we call social justice. Here we often find a conflict between legal definitions and what we regard as just according to both divine positive law and natural law.

Turning to the Church, we need to cease mimicking the polarity that we find in partisan civil politics. Otherwise, we violate the peace of Christ that we celebrate at the Eucharist. This peace is focused upon our unity in Jesus Christ. How can we possibly appeal to those outside the Church for either evangelization or for social justice while our own believers are at each other’s throats in divergence from one another. We should not compromise the Gospel of Life by making too little of abortion or making too much of capital punishment. There need be no conflict about preserving secure borders and in proportional justice to illegals, distinguishing between desperate families who love the promise of America and the criminal invaders who should be expelled or punished. Neither side should use the justice system to attack political enemies. All should demonstrate a religious respect for the Holy Father, instead of a nasty knee-jerk criticism about the role of women, gays, environmental stewardship or various liturgical concerns. I really hate the current politicization of faith. We should not be quick to judge or condemn the Catholic character of men and women who voted either for Harris or Trump or someone else in the last election. Neither candidate articulates nor manifests the full kerygma as we understand it. No Catholic should allow his or her party platform or agenda to supplant the demands of the Gospel. The moral values of the Gospel are what they are. We should all seek to be good Catholics, keeping the commandments and loving God and our neighbor. We should exhibit a modicum of human respect, even when differences of opinion are severe. This must be the stance from both authority and from the rank-and-file. We need to be contrite about past ridicule and careful not to mock others or to use incendiary language. It is far better to build bridges than to burn them down.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, christianity, Church, conservatism, dissent, Faith, God, Jesus, justice, left-wing, liberalism, right-wing, virtues | Leave a comment »

The Buck Stops with the Pope!

Posted on April 17, 2024 by Father Joe

While there has long been an invisible schism in the Church caused by the many loud liberal or progressive voices in the years since Vatican II, today matters have intensified with resistance from a growing arrogant traditionalism. Critics observe that the catalyst for the reaction on the right has been a papacy that represses the historical Latin Mass, sometimes pampers the Church’s enemies, glosses over what seem to be serious errors, and opts for diplomatic ambiguity when there is a pressing need for clarity and truth from the teaching office. Admittedly, the pastoral accommodation that belongs to the pastors on the ground cannot be appropriated by the highest shepherds or by the one who sits in the chair of Peter without doing insufferable harm to the transmission and interpretation of the deposit of faith.

Like the proverbial snowball rolling down a hill, many religious pundits who have made accurate assessments about what falls short of complete fidelity are now lashing out against anything and everything that comes down from Rome or the bishops in union with him. They make themselves into mini popes who presume to tell the Holy Father what he is doing and saying wrong. They are hesitant to admit agreeing with the pope when he says or does anything wholly Catholic.

The First Vatican Council of 1870 expounded upon its definition of papal infallibility:

“Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church.”

If schism is a failure to submit to the Holy See or to be in full communion with the Church he leads, then we are indeed entering such dark days. However, the current situation is so chaotic that many pay lip service even as they dissent in practice. The mockery in social media, inclusive of those who flaunt their orthodoxy, is a clear denial of the Pope’s command authority. The left’s liturgical abuse and the right’s impugning of the Novus Ordo signifies both a refusal to embrace the Church’s current understanding of herself and her divine worship. Left unsaid is when the line might be crossed into excommunication.

When teaching upon faith and morals for the whole Church and doing so from the chair and in union with the world’s bishops, St. Peter and his successors are guaranteed the grace of infallibility from the Holy Spirit. Of course, they can interpret and explain but cannot invent anything entirely new or contrary to revealed truths. Popes are not always accurate in private opinions and the fact that they go to confession is proof that they are not impeccable. Just as St. Paul corrected and changed the mind of St. Peter at the council of Jerusalem, they can be admonished, particularly by other apostles or bishops. But ultimately, much like the cat dropped from a height, the papacy lands on its feet. Those who would deliberately trip a pope up and then expose and laugh at his tumble, are not faithful sons of the Church. Instead of a true dialogue and shared creativity leading to a satisfactory consensus regarding matters like liturgy and morality; there is instead, a combative “us and them” attitude that is tearing the Church apart. Traditionalists fight for anachronisms and progressives enshrine the trite and untried.

Those who propose a rigid interpretation of “No Salvation Outside the Church” would often cite the 1302 papal bull of Boniface VIII: “. . . we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Catholicism takes seriously its divine institution by Christ and how its foundation is inseparable from the Petrine office:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19).

We pray that we will have saintly popes, but the charism is given to the good and the bad alike, not for their own sake but for the overriding good of the Church. Historically they rule as absolute monarchs and for all practical purposes the popes constitute the Roman rite, with an emphasis upon living men over the dead. The latter point is essential to the so-called liturgical wars.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: catholic-church, christianity, Church, Pope Francis, Religion | 1 Comment »

What if God Were One of Us?

Posted on April 3, 2024 by Father Joe

Many years ago, when I was a seminarian, I recall a class discussion over Luke 2:51-52:

“He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart. And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and favor before God and man.”

The context was the tension between the theological school of Antioch that emphasized the humanity of Christ with the school of Alexandria that focused upon his divinity. The latter school stressed John 1:1-3:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.”

The biblical verse from Luke substantiated the claims of Antioch. However, it seemed to fly in the face of the Church’s discernment that Jesus Christ was a divine person, albeit with two natures. While Jesus could certainly grow in age regarding his humanity, how could he really advance in wisdom and grace or holiness? While we should be careful about presumptions toward the mind or psychology of Christ, it must be held that as God he assuredly knew all things. It would be absurd to imagine him as an amnesiac deity. He knew from the womb who he was and his mission. The best we can figure, so as not to destroy his human “experiential” knowledge, he must have pocketed or set aside the fullness of divine knowledge or awareness. It was always there, but like a book that needed to be taken off a shelf.

An analogy can be made as to how we all know things. While we can call upon our many memories and knowledge, it is an element of human psychology that we do not focus upon everything at once. We concentrate on a few things or what we need at any given moment. I suspect it was the same for the incarnate Christ. However, when there was a need, he could call upon his infinite divine knowledge, as he does in prophesying his passion and reading souls that he would heal and forgive. Thus, Jesus could have learned carpentry from his foster father Joseph, even though in his divine knowing, he could have built wooden television consoles. But Jesus is careful not to do anything that violates the parameters of his humanity that is situated in a particular culture within space and time. Further, the pocketing of his divine knowledge means that his experiential learning is real and that he is not a God pretending to be a human being. Both elements of his being are sustained although the tension would precipitate much confusion and debate in the Church.

More problematical is the fact that Jesus Christ is the source for all holiness. How can he possibly grow in grace? Again, looking at the rest of us, something of the solution emerges. When an infant is baptized it can be said that the holiest person in that family household is that child. Like Jesus, we get older, are instructed in the ways of our faith and we mature. We begin to manifest the fruits of faith and realize the graces received in the sacrament. Similarly, our Lord is the living sacrament and uncreated grace starting in the womb of Mary. Unlike us he will never forfeit or blemish his holiness through sin. His trajectory or life in holiness is perfect while ours will know detours with needed repentance and God’s mercy along the way.

Jesus always sees the heavenly Father (the beatific vision). As a child in the womb, as a baby in the manger, indeed, throughout his whole life there was never any confusion in his mind between his foster father Joseph and God the Father. It was in this sense that there was no ignorance or confusion in Christ.

Our Lord will realize before men who he is and why he has come into the world. His learning will amaze listeners and they will wonder where he received it. His presence will exude a welcoming and enriching grace that will attract many to him. The transition is from his hidden life as the son of Joseph and Mary to his public life as the Son of God come to save us. His ministry begins when he is thirty years old, not when he immediately emerges from the womb. It is fitting that he is like us in all things except sin. He knows what it is to grow up in a human family. He is one of us although he is also the second person of the Trinity, the one true God.

The Church teaches that the human and divine natures of Christ are perfectly joined in a hypostatic union (in one divine personhood). Jesus is both God and man, but he is a divine and NOT a human person. This is still the case— the incarnate Christ in heaven is forever God and man. What Christ is by way of identity, we can share by the indwelling of grace by which we as human persons are remade into the likeness of Christ by the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, christianity, Church, God, Jesus | Leave a comment »