Religion | Blogger Priest

THE DISSENT OF THE SSPX: An Unlikely Reconciliation

Posted on July 8, 2026 by Father Joe

Protesters holding signs opposing church reform in front of a church building

When mention is made of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), what comes to the mind of most is their insistence upon celebrating the Tridentine Mass. However, their divide with the Vatican is far more serious and complicated. If the problem were simply an attachment to the older ritual, there would be no excommunications and schism. The proof of this is the regularized status of the Fraternity of St. Peter. They offer the pre-Vatican II Mass exclusively and without hindrance. The crisis with the SSPX is over the direction and teachings of Vatican II.

Portrait of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, no frame

A growing number of living Catholics were not around or were small children prior to Vatican II (1962-1965). At the request of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X was established and canonically erected as a “pious union” on an experimental basis for six years by Bishop François Charrière of the Diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg in Switzerland on November 1, 1970. His successor, Bishop Pierre Mamie, petitioned Rome and formally suppressed the SSPX’s canonical status on May 6, 1975. Archbishop Lefebvre refused to shut down the operation for the formation of seminarians and restructured the SSPX as a clerical or priestly organization. While Archbishop Lefebvre signed 14 of the 16 conciliar documents from Vatican II, he later renounced the Council and accused the post-Vatican II Church of modernism, liberalism, and adopting the “spirit of the modern world.”

The point of contention continues to be an interpretation of centuries old tradition and the extent of ongoing development. There are five areas of friction:

(1) HUMAN DIGNITY – As the root premise from which flow as corollaries the other areas of objection from the SSPX, we must begin with the most foundational principle of Catholic social doctrine. At the core of our belief in what Pope John Paul II called the Gospel of Life, is the conviction that every person is created in the image of God and as such, possesses an inherent, inalienable and incommensurate value that defeats every effort at quantification. Everyone has worth, even prior to the indwelling of divine grace. Even in the womb, human life is precious and irreplaceable. This valuation stems from humanity’s place as the steward of creation. This dignity is damaged by the primordial fall and sin but not destroyed. Human worth is not a measure that society can assign or reward to those it most favors. It is given immediately by God at the moment of conception. Most recently, this teaching emerges in Dignitas Infinita (2024) wherein Pope Francis speaks of “infinite dignity” grounded in the created order as a facet of our very being. He lists the violations against this dignity as including poverty, war, human trafficking, abortion, euthanasia, and gender theory. Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes (1965) makes human dignity a central component to Catholic teaching and outreach. This conviction places us at odds with any discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, color, social status, or religion. Such bigotry contradicts the will of God. Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae (1965) connected this dignity to freedom of conscience and religious freedom. Evangelium Vitae (1995) written by Pope St. John Paul II, focused on the value and inviolability of every human life, objecting to abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Pacem in Terris (1963) written by Pope St. John XXIII associated dignity and human rights with the pursuit of peace while respecting truth, justice, charity, and liberty.

Elderly woman sitting on a moss-covered rock holding a book with mountains and river in background at sunset

The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) contends that human nature alone does not inherently possess any dignity that grants inalienable rights. Let that sink in, especially the consequences. They argue that true dignity belongs to the Christian, achieved exclusively through divine grace, rather than merely by being a human created in the image of God. It is no wonder that traditionalists constitute hawks in terms of military intervention around the world and are often rabid defenders of the death penalty. They refuse to acknowledge any doctrinal development about capital punishment. Indeed, some will even advocate for the Church’s past passivity for slavery, echoing ancient arguments— punishment for conquered peoples, a means to pay back debts, a manner to civilize savages with the faith and Western civilization. Indigenous culture is devalued. The traditionalist fraternity finds itself in conflict, not just with liberalism but with the Catholic mainstream.

The conciliar popes see human dignity as inherently rooted in creation itself, in nature (see CCC 1700). Human rights are first based upon natural dignity. By contrast, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre stated, “There is not a dignity of man; there is only the dignity of the Christian.” The SSPX argument is that Original Sin damages or corrupts human nature. The mainstream would also agree that it has been wounded, but not that it has become devalued. The SSPX repudiates the notion that unbaptized human beings (unregenerated and still in sin) possess any inherent incommensurate natural dignity. Where does the truth stand? There is no rift with tradition. But this is the great conflict that makes the regularization of the SSPX impossible. Our tradition is that human dignity is damaged but not destroyed. The “supernatural” or divine grace builds upon the “natural.” Baptism and saving faith transform creatures of God into adopted sons and daughters of the Father. Made in the “image of God,” divine grace makes possible our rebirth into the “likeness of Christ.” The implications of this even speak to the Church’s new interest in ecology. Why? It is because any abuse or neglect of our environment works to impoverish human persons. Our Christian anthropology looks to a creation where man stands at the center. The consequences of this understanding impact upon our understanding of the incarnation. Jesus comes into the world to save us and yet he also comes to resolve a metaphysical conflict. Christ as the Word is also the saving plan and the center of creation. You cannot have two centers. Thus, the Word becomes man. The consequence for fallen man is decisive; grace builds upon nature. While we would not reject the wonder that is man, a notion that comes down to us from the Enlightenment, it is that good seed from the natural order that grows by God’s intervention into something even more marvelous. Potency is actualized. Wired for God, that immeasurable dignity is used by God as a building block for his incarnation and the new man in baptism. That which is beyond evaluation is granted something of the infinite goodness that belongs to God.

(2) RELIGIOUS LIBERTY – The Council established religious freedom as a basic human right (see Dignitatis Humanae). No one should be compelled to violate his or her conscience about faith. But the response of the SSPX is an explicit objection. In its estimation, all must be subject to the Kingship of Christ and error has no rights. These traditionalists would reject religious liberty as an American imposition upon the universal Church.

Prior to the revolutionary War, Maryland as a colony had issued the Edict of Toleration (1649). This decree grated religious freedom for Trinitarian Christians. Maryland Catholics invited the Puritans persecuted in Virginia to join us in our colony. However, in 1654, Puritan rebels seized control of Maryland and revoked the colony’s groundbreaking Act of Religious Toleration. They quickly enacted sweeping penal laws that banned Catholic worship, prohibited Catholics from voting or holding public office, and severely restricted the religious freedoms of Jews, Quakers, and other dissenters.

As citizens, we know that freedom of religion is protected under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It also established the separation of church and state. While we had to suffer the bigotries of the political Know Nothings and the prejudice of various early hate groups. The enactment of religious liberty would give us an even playing field wherein the Church in the United States could flourished.

American enthusiasts for the liturgies and spirituality of the SSPX might be less than pleased with this mentality toward our non-believing and Protestant neighbors. Our forefathers, Catholic and Protestant alike, came to this country to escape the oppression of state religions where institutionalized favoritism to one church came at the cost of persecuting all others. More than once the tables turned in Europe, and the Catholic Church suffered much in what were regarded as states favorable to Rome. But princes rose and fell and along with this movement also went the fortunes of the Church. One can certainly argue as a philosophical notion that the ideal state is one where there is harmony with the Church and concurrence with the truth. This is an ancient tradition. However, in practice, the subjective assessments of men lead to division. This particularly became the case after the reformation. The old mind about such matters allowed a king to steal the Church away in England where he made himself the head over the Pope. Even agreements of the Church to preserve peace in Europe often tolerated believers following the local prince, either into Catholicism or into the Protestant sects. The American notion of religious liberty severed this ability of the state to violate conscience and to compel a certain form of worship. Vatican II gives an emphasis to the nation of the new Israel or Christ’s reign over earthly kingdoms. Catholicism unlike the churches of the East is no national church. There is no American Catholicism or French Catholicism but rather as Roman it is, like the empire of old, international in scope. One can speak of the Catholic Church in America but never of an American Catholic Church. This distinction is often lost. Again, while in principle it would make sense that the Catholic political heads should have the moral duty to favor Catholicism and restrict error; the capriciousness of men and the changing state of the world made such imposition difficult or impossible to maintain. What was given by one monarch could just as easily be stripped away by the next. Did we really want to continue in a society where Catholics and Protestants conspired against one another and where both suspected the Jews of dark machinations? Certain Catholic traditionalists have argued, not only for the suppression of Jews to ghettos, but that Protestants should be restricted to home churches and forfeit their worship sites and schools. This is the mindset of the SSPX. But the world has moved on from such anachronism, or has it? It is precisely the mindset of militant Islam that forbids conversion to Christianity and in places like Saudi Arabia has outlawed the Church, altogether. The trouble with the shoe on the other foot is when it comes down to being kicked around. The Church’s teachings upon such matters must reflect the realities of the modern world. It makes no sense to speak of the divine rights of kings when such despots have disappeared. Toleration of false religions is not to posit faith or confidence in those creeds; no, it is rather a common respect for persons and a desire to live together in peace as brothers and sisters of a common homeland. This liberty allows us to persuade and to seek conversion through charity and dialogue, not through intimidation as through edict or decree.

(3) ECUMENISM – The Vatican Council urged dialogue over anathema. Pope John XXIII saw ecumenism as a manner to draw fallen away children back to the fold of Mother Church, not with scolding and threat of punishment but with affirmation of shared beliefs and the compelling power of the truth (see Unitatis Redintegratio, 1964). While we could never engage in non-Christian prayer, we might sometimes pray side-by-side and work together to improve the society in which we must live as neighbors. The SSPX wrongly condemns such efforts as the sin of indifferentism. But there is no pollution of true faith. Further, no one questions the ancient teaching from the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” The dogma of “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is straightforward, since there is no salvation apart from Christ, and given that the Church is his mystical body, then the Church is the necessary vessel or great sacrament of salvation in Christ. It is for this reason that we seek to attract all to the safe harbor of salvation— the Catholic Church. However, teaching must be applied in a way that respects changing circumstances around us. While the great schism between the East and West had occurred in 1054 AD, the reformation rebellion did not occur until 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. This signified a great fracturing of the Church in the West. The reformers absconded with many Catholic beliefs and most importantly, with the sacrament of baptism. Unfortunately, they forfeited the crown treasures of Priesthood, Eucharist and Penance. Many through no fault of their own have been born into the Protestant confessions. They are baptized, read the Bible, love Jesus and know him as the Second Person of the Trinity and the Word incarnate, and seek to keep the commandments. The SSPX would contend that these saving elements are for nought. But our hearts will not let us believe that a good God would spurn their cry. The post-Vatican II Church would argue that these elements cry out for Catholic unity. Our Lord will not abandon those who love him and place their faith in his saving Cross. While our unity is not what it should be, it is not utterly severed. The Catholic Church reaches out to them and intercedes for them to almighty God. We need to trust that the Church’s collective trust in Jesus and cry to heaven will grant hope and might be efficacious. The mystery of the keys may be impenetrable, but it is real and the authority is given to Peter. Unfortunately, the SSPX gives lip service to Rome but nothing of true respect and subservience.

The SSPX is frequently tagged for being antisemitic. Whether they are or not, it is a question I would leave to others. However, they are on the record for questioning whether the Jews today are one and the same with the Jews of old. They would insist that their covenant ended with the coming of Christ and that those Jews who failed to convert to Christianity are no longer the People of God. This is not the view of the living Magisterium (see Nostra Aetate, 1965 on relations with non-Christian religions). Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church does not subscribe to Zionism, as the prophesied new Israel or new Jerusalem is not the political state of Israel but is rather the Church, herself. We believe that Jesus Christ is the consummation of the old covenant, but that God keeps his promises, and the Jews remain God’s own and our elder brothers and sisters in faith. There are not two separate covenants but one. The old becomes something new in Jesus Christ. The natural religion of the Jews with its belief in one true God is given a further revelation in the new dispensation of God as a Trinity. This belief of one God in three divine Persons raises Christian faith to a supernatural religion. No matter whether all Jews know it or not, Jesus is the Messiah and our Savior. We believe that Jesus is the ultimate term of salvation. None are saved apart from him. But we also appreciate that God’s grace cannot be utterly contained. God will save whomever he wills. We leave judgment to God. The SSPX would outrightly condemn much of the planet to perdition. By contrast we do not teach universalism (that all will be saved). Indeed, even Catholics with a soured faith and in mortal sin might forfeit heaven. However, if we walk with the Lord, people of faith live in the sure and certain hope of their salvation in Christ. We pray and intercede for others. Again, we do not usurp a prerogative that belongs to the Almighty— we leave judgment to almighty God.

(4) LITURGICAL REFORM & THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE –

Vatican II called for a renewal of the liturgy. After much consultation and work, the reformed Mass of Paul VI was promulgated in 1969. While Latin was to have a preferred place, the vernacular quickly displaced it. Many lamented the loss of the many chants and our legacy of hymnody. While Society of Saint Pius X has objected to the changes, it has become abundantly clear that they would resist even the most modest alterations. They contend that the Novus Ordo obscures the sacramental aspect of the liturgy and waters down Catholic elements to appease Protestants. They will go so far as to castigate the reformed Mass as dangerous. It is my argument that they trespass in their critique into the moral area of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. If they believed that holy orders were truly conferred to priests of the living Church, why do they insist upon re-ordination when received into the SSPX? If they really believe the Novus Ordo Mass is valid then how can they urge against attendance, especially since the fruits prevail over any subjective aesthetic? No, they speak out of both sides of their mouths. Their arrogance destroys the humility necessary for a theologian and the posture of a Catholic who is one with Peter.

The changes in the liturgy were the result of a liturgical reform that in theory and small steps went back many decades prior to Vatican II— dialogue Masses, experiments with the orientation of the priest, the use of the vernacular, expansion of the Scriptures, the introduction of microphones, the permission for missal translations for the people, the reduction of duplication (as with the double Confiteor), etc. What surprised many people was the wholesale rewrite of the offertory and the addition of Eucharistic prayers. The latter is why some have suggested that the new liturgy signified a new rite and the loss of the Roman rite. However, the Roman Canon is still retained, and the liturgical pattern of the Roman rite remains the guide for our worship. What is this pattern?

THE STRUCTURE & ELEMENTS OF THE NOVUS ORDO (ROMAN RITE)

First, there are the Introductory Rites: 1. Introit (Antiphon /Hymn) & Kissing Altar, 2. Sign of the Cross & Greeting, 3. Confiteor & Kyrie Eleison & Absolution, 4. Gloria (Glory to God), and 5. Collect (Opening Prayer).

Second, is the Liturgy of the Word: 1. Reading(s), 2. Responsorial Psalm, 3. Alleluia or Gospel Verse, 4. Gospel, 5. Homily, 6. Creed (Profession of Faith), and 7. Prayer of the Faithful.

Third is the Preparation of the Gifts (Offertory): 1. Bringing Up the Offertory Gifts, 2. Blessing of the Bread, 3. Mixing Water into the Wine, 4. Blessing of the Chalice, 5. The Lavabo (The Washing), 6. The Orate Fratres (Pray Brethren), and 7. Prayer over the Gifts.

Fourth is the Liturgy of the Eucharist: 1. Introductory Dialogue & Preface, 2. Sanctus & Benedictus, 3. Eucharistic Prayer (Canon), and 4. Closing Doxology & Amen.

Elements of the Eucharistic Prayer or Anaphora: 1. Appeal to the Father or Plea for Acceptance, 2. Epiclesis (Invocation of the Holy Spirit), 3. Consecration (Words of Institution), 4. Memorial Acclamation, 5. Anamnesis (Memorial Prayer), and 6. Oblation to the Father.

Intercessions in Variable Order: 1. Intercession of the Saints, 2. Intercession for the Church, 3. Intercession & Memento for the Living, and 4. Intercession & Memento for the Dead.

Fifth is the Rite of Holy Communion: 1. Our Father, Deliver Us Prayer & Doxology, 2. Sign of Peace, 3. Fraction & Commingling, 4. Agnus Dei (Lamb of God), 5. Secret Prayer for Priestly Worthiness, 6. Ecce Agnus Dei (Behold the Lamb of God), 7. Communion & Antiphon (Hymn), and 8. Prayer after Communion.

Sixth, there are the cursory Concluding Rites: 1. Final Blessing and 2. Dismissal.

Finally, there is a truth that many seem to have historical amnesia about. Ultimately what makes the Roman rite, the Roman rite? There are many other liturgies that go back into antiquity. What gives singular value to this one ritual? The answer is simple and straightforward. The priests of the West wanted to do as the Romans do. In other words, they desired to imitate Peter or the Pope in Rome. The Holy Father is the living embodiment of the Roman rite!

The Holy Father is obligated to maintain the Church’s inheritance, but he can also rescue eclipsed traditions from the Church’s past treasure and build upon new insights that will add to the richness of faith for future generations. The Novus Ordo (the Vatican II Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) restored several ancient liturgical elements that had been lost, obscured, or marginalized over time. These included expanded readings from Scripture (especially the Old Testament), the Prayer of the Faithful Bidding Prayers, multiple Eucharistic prayers, and concelebration. While many complain about the editing, the short Second Eucharistic Prayer borrowed from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. Communion in the hand was restored as an option that was normative for the first eight hundred years of the Church’s history.

Repeatedly, the hardliner traditionalists struggle with transition or development. One often feels more comfortable and secure with a staid tradition and dead popes than with a living tradition and breathing popes! Pope Francis was the symbol for everything a lover of tradition fears— novelty and uncertainty. I suppose that is why so many are hoping and praying that when the new cat, Pope Leo XIV, makes his final leap from the altar, that he will land on his feet and put all things right again— please, pretty, please!

(5) COLLEGIALITY & CHURCH AUTHORITY – Ultimately the fight between the SSPX and the Vatican is over ecclesiology or authority. The SSPX abhor Lumen Gentium (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964. The document fundamentally reshapes the Church’s self-understanding in the modern world. Who speaks for the Church? Is it one dead archbishop and a few illicitly manufactured bishops against the thousands of bishops at Vatican II who remain in full union with Rome? Did our Lord promise Peter and his Church the gift of indefectibility or not? The SSPX has gotten so used to having its own way that it no longer knows how to concede to the papacy. It is an organization born from rebellion and its identity is tied up with its position as the opposition to reforms of any sort. It sees itself as the bastion of orthodoxy against a larger and universal Church which it has condemned as in the grips of the heresy of modernism. If it would not concede to Pope Benedict XVI, then it was highly unlikely that it would acquiesce either to Francis or now to Leo XIV. I suspect that is why the current Pope has said that it is time to let them go their way. We might get a few stragglers to return but like the Anglicans, they are set on their own path. Sadly, they will do so without Peter, which means that they have left the boat established by Christ on the sea of salvation history. Their stance over the last half century is becoming increasingly untenable. Do not be surprised when the day comes that one of their prelates will arise and be declared the great antipope of their confession.

While there is legitimate confusion about what constitutes the current synodal way, especially with the inclusion of select laity, the SSPX were not entirely happy with the college of bishops helping the Pope to govern the global Church, either. But the Church has grown too big for the small structures of the past to suffice. He needs people of varying expertise and learning. Mistakes will be made but the Church will be richer for the talents and wisdom of its saints, and yes even sinners who might become saints. While the SSPX might object that collegiality diminishes the supreme and monarchical authority of the Pontiff; it makes an exception for itself and has become querulous or whiny about being rebuffed by Rome. The SSPX tends to view sacred tradition as immutable and as a product from heaven against the dictates of shifting cultural opinions. However, just like Sacred Scripture, that is both the work of men and that of divine inspiration; tradition is a mixture of providence within the framework of human history. There is always both an immutable and a mutable component. The Church tolerated slavery but the egalitarian component of baptism and an extended reflection upon the dignity of the human person made such a concession or passivity to evil into something that could no longer be sustained or tolerated. The Church granted the state the right to execute the most dangerous criminals but here too, with the development of a more corrective penal system, the necessity of such an extreme measure was increasingly questioned. Pope John Paul II, who had known men to lose their lives under both the Nazis and later under Communist rule, distrusted the judgment of those who held the reins of power to make just decisions. Indeed, given the rise of abortion where innocent children were sentenced to death, he felt that a Western world in the grips of a culture of death had sacrificed the authority to condemn the guilty. Instead of concurrence with the world, we have witnessed the Church’s continuing moral ascendance as a sign of contradiction that challenges contemporary secular culture. The Church finds herself targeted as the enemy by the left and right. She is daily combating challenges to religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and crimes against human dignity. She is a Church in conflict, not only with the modern world, but with the world of old and the hardened traditions paraded by the SSPX. Today we are seeing this same clash or friction regarding warfare. The Church looks at weapons of mass destruction and the thousands of non-combatants in harm’s way and pleads for peace. This earns praise from the weak and recrimination from the strong. The weak look to the Pope and the Church as the voice for the oppressed and the marginalized. The strong tell Catholic leaders to stay out of politics and to mind their own business, or else.

The values of the Church are what they have always been. Homosexuality is still a disorientation, but we tell these people that we love them and desire to walk with them in the hopes that together we might “together” travel the path to conversion and holiness. We recognize a messiness and brokenness that touches many marriages and families these days. Instead of condemnation, we seek to bring healing and a path to regularization. We reach out to those who live for the flesh and remind them that there is a life in the spirit where one can find true happiness and something lasting. We plead that human beings should not be reduced to commodities— not in abortion, not in sweat shops, not in human trafficking— but persons who must be valued and loved. We are condemned for taking the cause of the immigrant. We are ridiculed for seeking to advance the poor. The same voices that might praise us for speaking up for the unborn child demand our silence about the prisoners on death row. The SSPX defenders add their voices to this worldwide ridicule. Notice how incensed they became when the Vatican library offered a small room for a few Moslems to pray privately in peace. It was no temple or public worship space, but still Vatican authorities were chastised for making a concession to the “Church of Satan”!

A man who would become a special prophet for Vatican II should be mentioned. Beloved by Traditionalists because of his orthodox television programs and a classic photo book on the Mass, Archbishop Fulton Sheen became a strong supporter for the Second Vatican Council. He praised the document Gaudium et Spes as “brilliant” in his book, Treasure in Clay. He advanced with zeal the Council’s directives. He delivered a strong and supportive speech to the Council fathers in November 1964 on our missionary outreach. He adopted the reforms of the council, including the Novus Ordo. At the beginning of the Council he remarked that Pope John XXIII was calling the Church to stop hiding behind closed doors and go out into the world because it was “waiting for salvation.” As Bishop of Rochester, Sheen fully implemented the ecumenical and pastoral directives of Vatican II. In September 1968, he became one of the first U.S. prelates to invite a Protestant leader to speak from his cathedral pulpit, aiming to make his diocese a catalyst for post-conciliar renewal and ecumenism. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen preached at televangelist Rev. Robert Schuller’s Arboretum in 1972. Traditionalists were infuriated; how dare he speak for a Dutch Reformed minister and treat his congregation as real Christians! Archbishop Sheen also frequently used the story of Lutheran Pastor Richard Wurmbrand—who endured 14 years of brutal torture and solitary confinement in Romanian Communist prisons for his Christian faith—to illustrate the reality of modern Christian martyrdom and the redemptive power of suffering. Making the case for religious liberty and ecumenism in the same breath earned contempt from the likes of the SSPX.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholic, christianity, Conscience, Ecumenism, Faith, fulton-sheen, human-dignity, image-of-god, interfaith-dialogue, Jesus, latin-mass, novus-ordo, Religion, Religious Liberty, sspx, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

Leading Souls Astray with a False Necessity

Posted on June 16, 2026 by Father Joe

Bishop with religious robes holding a book and raising hand toward a fire-breathing dragon on a cathedral staircase

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholic, christianity, Church, council, excommunication, Faith, fssp, Jesus, latin-mass, Magisterium, Pope, Religion, Salvation, schism, ssp, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

Pentagon’s Reduced Religious Designations

Posted on June 9, 2026 by Father Joe

Religious symbols including the cross, crescent moon and star, om, Star of David, Dharma wheel, pentagram, and torii gate in a forest ruin.

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

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

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

The thirty-one faiths retained are as follows:

No Religion (NR)—around 29% of U.S. adults are religiously unaffiliated.
Agnostic (AN)—around 0.5% of Americans.

Christian—Evangelical (EV)—almost 25% of U.S. adults.
Christian—Catholic (CA)—around 20% of Americans.
Christian—Non-Denominational (ND)—around 6% of Americans.
Christian—Methodist (ME)—approximately 3% of Americans.
Christian—Pentecostal (PE)—around 3% of Americans.
Christian—Lutheran (LU)—approximately 1% of Americans.
Christian—Baptist (BA)—approximately 1% of Americans.
Christian—Presbyterian (PR)—about 1% of Americans.
Christian—Episcopal/Anglican (EA)—around 1% of Americans.
Christian—Church of Christ (CC)—approximately 1% of Americans.
Christian—Church of God (CG)—around 1% of Americans.
Christian—Orthodox (OX)—around 1% of Americans.
Christian—Assemblies of God (AG)—around 1% of Americans.
Christian—Church of the Nazarene (CN)—around 0.6% of Americans.
Christian—Seventh Day Adventist (SA)—approximately 0.5% of Americans.
Christian—Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW)—less than 1% of Americans.
Christian—Reformed (RE)—over 0.03% of Americans.
Christian—Brethren (BR)—slightly more than 0.03% of Americans.
Christian—Quaker (QU)—over 0.03% of Americans.
Christian—Scientist (SC) No data.
Christian—Other (CO) No data.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CJ)—around 1% of Americans.

Judaism (Jewish) (JU)—about 2% of Americans.
Islam (Muslim) (IS)—around 1% of Americans.
Hindu (HI)—about 1% of Americans.
Buddhism (BU)—approximately 1% of Americans.
Baha’i Faith (BH)—more than 0.05%.
Sikh (SI)—around 0.02% of Americans.
Other Religions (OR) No data.

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

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

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, christianity, churches, cults, Ecumenism, Faith, Jesus, military, protestant, Religion, trinity | Leave a comment »

Carlo Maria Viganò – It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad World

Posted on April 22, 2026 by Father Joe

Cardinal holding a staff on cracked ground surrounded by swirling figures, broken columns, flying papers with words like Schism and Vatican II, a distorted clock, and a stormy sky.

I had thought the man would remain a faithful son of the Church. I was wrong. Many still give him credit for exposing Cardinal McCarrick. But what happened after that? It is anyone’s guess. I have listed a few items taken from online. It hurts too much for me to add any personal reflections. It surprises me that the Vatican would elevate a man responsible for unauthorized leaks. Truth is important, but so is discretion. Many allegations were made against bishops and popes and others— so much of it a false narrative. He cut his ties to the living Church founded by Christ. Foolish Catholics clamor for his dissent against the Holy See and in placing right-wing politics over the Gospel. I find it all hurtful to my soul. I lament the damage that such men have brought to the Church, especially since I saw much hope for healing in his early intervention. But there was much going on behind the scenes that was terminal. There was a lack of respect— a lack of obedience— and a lack of charity. God save us!

Viganò spread numerous COVID-19 conspiracy theories in 2020, saying that populists and other conspiracy theorists wanted containment of the pandemic to establish a hate-filled technocratic tyranny and wipe out Christian civilization.

In June 2020 he wrote a letter to President Donald Trump, wherein he made “apocalyptic claims about a looming spiritual battle and a globalist conspiracy pursuing a one-world government.”

In a July 2020 interview, Viganò accused Pope Francis of following the “homosexual agenda of the New World Order.”

He has rejected the Second Vatican Council and the Mass of Paul VI. In June 2020, Viganò said that the Second Vatican Council ushered in a schism where a false church exists within the Catholic Church alongside what he considers to be the true Church. According to Viganò, the Council aimed to create the doctrinal premises to revolutionize the Catholic Church, making the Catholic Mass much more like Protestantism and trying to secularize Catholicism.

Viganò criticized the inter-religious activities of Pope John Paul II and especially of Pope Francis, seeking to link actions undertaken during their pontificates to what he perceived to be errors or ambiguities in the council.

He repudiated Dignitatis humanae (Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom).

He repudiated Nostra aetate (Vatican II’s Declaration on Non-Christian Religions).

In November 2020, he denounced the Mass of Paul VI as a “liturgical rite that seems to have been invented by Cranmer’s perverse mind.” By January 2022 he announced that he was exclusively celebrating the Tridentine Latin Mass.

Viganò described Pope Francis as a “false prophet” and a “servant of Satan.”

Viganò has been a vocal supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In early March 2022, Viganò released a 10,000-word manifesto in which he pushed Russian disinformation. He adopted Putin’s justifications for attacking Ukraine, blamed neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine for the conflict, and asserted that the United States and Europe should “form an alliance” with Russia.

He announced plans in December 2023 to establish a “traditionalist” seminary outside of the Church’s jurisdiction.

In 2024, he was charged with schism and, after refusing to appear at a trial, was declared guilty and excommunicated. In April 26 it was announced that he had joined Trump in slamming Pope Leo XIV.

SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholic, christianity, excommunication, Faith, Homosexuality, lat-mass, Pope Francis, Religion, schism, traditionalism, vigano | 1 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, Jesus, christianity, Faith, Religion, sspx, latin-mass, excommunication, schism, traditionalists | Leave a comment »

What Did the Pope Say about Interfaith Dialogue?

Posted on September 14, 2024 by Father Joe

Pope Francis left his scripted remarks and spoke “spontaneously” to the youth of Singapore on Friday, September 13, 2024. The Holy Father made a distinction between a courageous person who seeks the truth as a “critical” thinker and the critic with “endless words” who offers “destructive criticism.” He asked them this question, “Do you have the courage to criticize but also the courage to let others criticize you?”

Impressed with the capacity of youth for interfaith dialogue, he stated: “This is very important because if you start arguing, ‘My religion is more important than yours…,’ or ‘Mine is the true one, yours is not true….,’ where does this lead?” One of the young people answered, “Destruction,” and the Pope responded, “That is correct.”

He went on to say, “Religions are seen as paths trying to reach God. I will use an analogy; they are like different languages that express the divine. But God is for everyone, and therefore, we are all God’s children. ‘But my God is more important than yours!’ Is this true? There is only one God, and religions are like languages that try to express ways to approach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian. Understand? Yet, interfaith dialogue among young people takes courage. The age of youth is the age of courage, but you can misuse this courage to do things that will not help you. Instead, you should have courage to move forward and to dialogue.”

He went on to speak about the need for respect and the danger of bullying. He concluded by saying, “And now, in silence, let us pray for each other. In silence. May God bless all of us. In the future, when you are no longer young, but you are elderly and grandparents, teach all these things to your children. God bless you and pray for me, don’t forget! But pray for, not against!”

Is the Holy Father’s emphasis the methodology of dialogue or the reality of God as revealed in world religions? I suspect it is the former. It is true that interfaith dialogue does not go very far when the different sides disrespect and deride each other. People of conviction feel that they are right and take exception to challenges toward what they believe. Pope Francis is correct that we must resist the temptation to argue and name-call. Civility demands that we temper our emotions, especially against criticisms that are quickly taken to heart and are painful. Those of us with pugnacious natures, instinctively want to hit back. History is largely written with such a lack of toleration that leads to violence, censorship, holy wars, torture, imprisonment and even death. The language of hate allows for no dialogue and little in the way of successful debates. Instead of discussing ideas, there is a harsh attack against persons— the opposition are decried as “heretics,” “heathens,” and “infidels.”

Each of us likely believes that his or her religion is the best or the truest, such is even the case for atheists who posit their non-religion or anti-religion as having a higher epistemological value. As Catholics, the most resolute believers are correct to maintain that our faith is the genuine revelation of God through the mediation of Jesus Christ. The New Covenant is the consummation of the Old. Both Judaism and Christianity are judged as true religions. Of course, a natural religion has been surpassed by a supernatural religion that understands God to be both one and a Trinity. Other religions may have elements of the truth, but they are also weighed down by serious errors. Traditionally, apologetics would list all the many false teachings and practices of these other belief systems. By contrast, Pope Francis is saying that this is not where dialogue begins. Such an approach closes minds to the truth and to any possible consensus. It is best to begin dialogue by examining the elements of faith that are shared. This will vary between creeds. Catholics and Jews both embrace Abraham as our father in faith. We have taken the Hebrew Scriptures as our own. Islam also believes in one God and claims facets of a shared revelation. The Hindus are arguably polytheists, but some of their modern-day teachers suggest that their many deities may in truth be manifestations of a single God. Where such thinking will go, I cannot say. Even if there should be no or little congruence on matters of theology, dialogue can be judged as successful if we learn to live in peace and to work together for a better world where human rights and freedoms are respected.

Yes, religions are seen as paths to reach God. However, we as Jews and Catholics understand religion as also the story of how God comes looking for us. There is a two-fold movement. God establishes relationships (covenants) with his people. The analogy of religions as different languages to express the divine is accurate. Left unsaid is that some languages are better in their evocative and descriptive power. Christianity not only espouses God-talk but has been given the revelation of how the eternal Word becomes flesh. The lack of such an appreciation is a defect that handicaps all other religions. God gives us his Word in Scripture, but more importantly writes his revelation upon human flesh in the incarnation. Jesus is the face of God and the revelation of the Father. He is the way and the truth and the life. There is no way to the Father except through him. Other religions, if they do not go off in the wrong direction, can only take their adherents to the door of the kingdom; it is Christ that lets us inside. His Church and the sacraments constitute the key to that door.

Are we all God’s children? As in the catechism and at Vatican II, a distinction must be made. Spiritually, through faith and baptism, we are made adopted sons and daughters of the Father. It is in this sense of grace and a new creation, that those of other religions are not children of God. However, the meaning of Pope Francis is in the sense of creation. All in the human family are creatures and children of the earth. Our source is almighty God. Regeneration aside, we are all arguably children made in the image of God. We are creatures of flesh and blood and soul. We are so much more than the animals around us. This notion speaks to human dignity. It is a major element of the Gospel of Life. In or outside the womb, God looks upon us with a Father’s love.

Knowing that he is speaking to a crowd of mixed faiths, Pope Francis asks that they might pray for each other in silence. Notice that he prays that God might bless them, but he refrains from asserting the saving name of Jesus. While we might question timidity regarding the name of Jesus and/or making the sign of the cross, we should remember Pope Francis’ words about courage. Certain Christians will not pray with Catholics. While we can pray the psalms with Jews, it is quite problematical to pray with non-Christians. We do not want to open such young people to rebuke or punishment from their own religious leaders. Importantly, we as Catholics must not subscribe to any form of religious indifferentism or the notion of universal salvation. Silent prayer is probably the best for all in such a situation.

ADDENDUM

Anyone with a smidgen of Italian can appreciate that the text on the Vatican website (yesterday) is not actually what the Pope said to young people in Singapore. Previous popes tended to be more careful with off-the-cuff or spontaneous remarks. Officially, the text that matters is the written one, today on the Vatican website and/or included in the published Acta.

When I was informed about a translation change, I went immediately to the Vatican site. What the hell? The official translation had at least corrected the Pope’s remarks. Now, the Vatican has returned to what comes across as deeply problematical. Last night, the text read, “Religions are seen as paths trying to reach God.” Yes, this is true, regardless as to whether they do so. This morning it has been changed to “All religions are paths to God.” This is not true. Even those in false religions reject this notion. Reading further, the initial papal text asserted, “There is only one God, and religions are like languages that try to express ways to approach God.” Yes, this is true, even defective religions are efforts to approach the transcendent. But the new version is as wrong as wrong can get, “There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God.” Not all religions target the true God. Indeed, it is Christ as the term of salvation that makes possible our reconciliation with the Father. None are saved apart from Christ and his Church. Further, not all religions are the same. Satanism and demon worship are counted as religions, but there is no redemption, just alienation and loss. Certain religions worship false gods or even demons.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, christianity, Faith, Jesus, Religion | 1 Comment »

What Makes You So Sure That There’s Only One God?

Posted on May 18, 2024 by Father Joe

Krystal Smith poses this question at STAPLER CONFESSIONS and states: “Most believers take the Bible or whatever their religious text may be as absolute truth. This is a matter of faith, something that atheists often have a hard time understanding or relating to. Atheists often point out the unknowable nature of an all powerful creator or concept of God or many gods. Without scientific proof, they find it illogical to believe so strongly in something that plays such an important role.”

Critics of Scripture often play fast and loose with how Christian believers regard and use the Bible. But of course, there is no unanimity between believers either. Protestant fundamentalists who believe in the Bible alone are a far cry away from Catholic integralists who interpret the Bible against the horizon of Sacred Tradition. There is also the tension between private interpretation and magisterial teaching authority. The issue is not just that atheists reject “the book,” but they general question any supposed revelation or communication from God as either delusion or as deception. Many refuse to seriously consider the arguments of either theologians or philosophers. If God cannot be shown through their microscopes or telescopes, then no ground is given for his existence.

While the atheist may find it illogical to believe in a “God” proclaimed from a book and not proven from science to his satisfaction, there may be far more anxiety with the prospect that we are alone and unloved in this vast universe. It is here that Pascal’s wager speaks to the agnostic. Pascal argued that if you believe in God and this truth should be realized, then you win everything. Whereas if he does not exist, then you have lost nothing regardless of your stance. While insightful, this approach is unsatisfactory for the believer because faith is about more than hedging your bets.

The atheist narrows truth to the scientific and even that is restricted by their bias. They make no distinction between the belief of one God and the notion of multiple deities. However, Christians, Jews and Moslems insist that there is a God and he is ONE. True, Christians speak of a Trinity, but he is defined as one divine nature in three divine Persons. The multiple deities of ancient pagans and the present-day Hindus are treated as idolatry and superstition. Here we would agree with atheists. There are indeed counterfeit religions and false gods. The early Christians regarded the pagan gods as demons in disguise. The Judaeo-Christian appreciation of one God signified a step forward to true religion and away from magic.

The pagan gods often behaved badly, and some were not even regarded as immortal. They were more like the Marvel comics vision of such gods as super-powerful aliens. Look at how Catholicism defines and speaks about God. He has within himself all perfections and is the Creator of all things. You cannot have two omnipotent beings because such would cancel each other out. God is perfect and that means he must logically be simple or one. All creatures receive their existence from God or participate or share in his existence. Nothing can exist apart from him. He keeps all things in being.

While we do not see God face-to-face, we know him in the created order from his effects. Revealing himself to us in salvation history, the God of reason becomes the God of faith. He wants to establish a relationship with us. Sacred signs or miracles are performed to help our unbelief.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Atheism, Bible, christianity, Faith, Religion | 2 Comments »

Do You Believe People Can Still Be Moral Without Religion?

Posted on May 17, 2024 by Father Joe

Krystal Smith poses this question at STAPLER CONFESSIONS and states: “Religion provides guidance for many people. It set laws and rules for ancient societies to abide by. And many religious people feel these laws are necessary to dictate what is right and wrong for humankind. Many atheists feel that morality is innate and modern society’s laws are sufficient to govern mankind.”

The Church had hoped that a healthy universal respect for natural law would bring consensus and cooperation in forming a better and moral society. However, the current clash in values is readily interpreted by believers as ample evidence that apart from God, men and women do not know how to be good. We would likely agree with the more reasonable atheists that there should be an innate sense of right and wrong, at least for most people. But we should not forget that human nature while good is also fallen.

Morality includes not only prohibitive acts but also altruism for the good of others and the poor. Ayn Rand’s thinking is particularly popular among conservative politicians on the right. She would also appeal to atheists. Her philosophy of selfishness shuns expressions of charity. It has been noted by certain atheists themselves that the charity and social justice efforts are disproportionately linked to churches and religious people. Both the civil rights efforts for racial integration and the marches for the lives of the unborn are heavily populated by believers. The faithful and Christian organizations are often the first on the ground to support the poor and disadvantaged. Where would they be if people of faith were to disappear?

Many a believer has prayed that he might be spared from the terrible compassion of non-believers with benign intentions but with a lack of guidance about right or wrong. A mother panics about an unplanned pregnancy and destroys her unborn baby. A family frets about the pain that an elderly grandmother suffers and opts for euthanization to end her misery. The Christian places ultimate trust in God. By contrast, the atheist must place his trust in mankind alone, and in practice this means politicians and the state. While believers speak of inalienable and God-given rights, what the state gives, the state can take away. Right and wrong becomes a capricious exercise of pandering to power. The wealthy and powerful will always win in this scenario. The poor and the weak will be victimized and manipulated. It is in recognizing God that we safeguard human dignity and rights. Nothing else satisfies as well.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Atheism, christianity, Faith, Philosophy, Religion | 1 Comment »

Why Have So Many Wars Have Been Fought in the Name of Religion?

Posted on May 16, 2024 by Father Joe

Krystal Smith poses this question at STAPLER CONFESSIONS and states: “From biblical times to modern day, it’s true that many wars have been fought in the name of religion. From the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, to modern religious extremists and terror attacks, many have suffered. However, most religious people don’t support going to war with people who have different beliefs. Those who have been mislead to resort to violence fail to see the peaceful messages that are present in virtually all religious texts. Some atheists feel that the world would be more peaceful without the impact of any religions.”

Were there many wars fought over religion? While Hitler ordered the holocaust of six million Jews, it was not really a war over religion. The first World War had to do with clashing empires, alliances and money. The Japanese wanted sovereignty over Asia and control of the Pacific Ocean. Korea and Vietnam was all about the aggression of Chinese atheistic Communism. The Inquisition employed religion as a tool but besides stamping out heresy was essentially a political effort to secure Europe from Moslem occupation. The Crusades preserved Europe from Islamic invasion. Religion was a factor in the Crusades because it was hoped that the Holy Land might be reopened to pilgrims. Religion is merely one factor among many in such questions about human congress and tension. It is not necessarily the single root-cause for hostilities.

Speaking in terms of Christianity, the pacifism of the earliest believers became increasing impracticable and hard to sustain. Believers were martyred like the killing of flies. The Roman empire opposed the new religion because Christianity was intolerant of paganism and believers refused to compromise. One could not worship idols or the demons they signified and still claim the lordship of Jesus Christ. Old Rome saw the emergence of Christianity as a political threat to the empire— especially the language about turning the cheek, giving to those who take from you, and loving your enemies. Christians joined with Constantine to bring three centuries of persecution to an end. When it came to the relationship between the Church and Islam, the weight of guilt was more heavily upon Islam and its notion of jihad or holy war to force religious submission. Islam was to Europe what the Soviet Union was to us during the Cold War. Our faith and civilization were all at stake. The inquisition expelled an enemy from our midst. The crusades sought to open the holy land to pilgrims. The tensions between Protestants and Catholics in Europe were part of a struggle for political power between princes, kings, and the Church. The conflict was more about temporal matters than spiritual ones.

While there are many apologists who argue that militant Islam is an aberration to a religion of peace, in truth every place that becomes 51% Islam experiences a repression of Christians, Jews and others. We would concur with atheists that God’s children should not kill each other over religion; however, Christian believers have a right to defend themselves. When this becomes impossible, as with the Coptic men who had their throats cut, there is a witness to how we should remain faithful even if we must die.

Those atheists who think that a world without religion would be more peaceful are delusional. Atheism has been tried, and as with Stalin, millions suffered the loss of rights and incarceration in the gulags. He killed 20 million of his own people. The atheists who claim political power, subsequently treat their anti-god philosophy like a religion, seeking converts not through argument but through war and revolution. When God is taken out of the picture, men assume his throne. There can never be a vacuum. While critics lament God’s laws and judgment, the verdict of men is much harsher. Separated from the Divine Mercy, why should we be surprised?

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Atheism, christianity, Faith, history, Religion | 1 Comment »

Why Do You Think Your Religion is the Correct One?

Posted on May 9, 2024 by Father Joe

Krystal Smith poses this question at STAPLER CONFESSIONS and states: “Religious people tend to subscribe to just one religion and reject the others. Theists who are impartial to any specific religion might share the same sentiment as atheists in this regard. They might acknowledge the similarities between some world religions and suggest that which exact one a person follows isn’t as important as recognizing there is a God and praying. Atheists tend to believe that a person’s choice of religion is based solely on what culture they were born into, and is thus arbitrary.”

Atheists are right that most people tend to join the majority religion of the culture and family into which they are born. However, we are not creatures of fate and many either change their affiliation or lose faith entirely. Further, given the missionary mandate of Christianity, many are moved by the preaching of the Church and the grace of God to become Christian or Catholic.

Catholicism views itself as the Church directly instituted by Christ and as the true religion. There is a historical bond between Judaism (the first People of God) and the consummation of the covenant by Christ for the Catholic Christian community, the new People of God, or the Church. Judaism and Islam are both natural religions with a belief in one God. Christianity is a supernatural faith given the belief in the mystery of the Trinity: three divine Persons in one divine Nature.

Just as scientific theories vary, so does religion. But the truth is still what it is. The many religions of the world are an expression of how we were made for God and search out ultimate meaning. Many are regarded by Christianity as wrong or incomplete. We reject the negation of Buddhism and the polytheism of Hinduism. While certain Protestant affiliations emphasize a personal or individualized faith; Catholicism also insists upon the corporate faith. The Church is not merely for fellowship but is the essential sacrament of salvation. Christ is the Mediator and is the one and only Savior. There is also no salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is for this reason that we intercede in prayer for those believers outside her fold.

We would claim that Catholicism best answers the longings of the human heart and the need for meaning and answers about suffering, death and our place in creation. The problem of pain finds resolution in a profound solidarity with Christ where there is redemption. Sacrificial love becomes a hallmark of Christian self-donation and identity. We have not been orphaned by God. We have a purpose and no one need live and die in vain. The Christian faith offers the gift of HOPE and LIFE while atheism can only grant a temporary respite for some, despair for the many and ultimately oblivion for all.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, catholicism, christianity, Faith, Religion | Leave a comment »

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

Blogger Priest

Our Blogger

Archives

Categories

Recent Posts

Recent Comments