The worst has happened: the illicit ordinations, the excommunications, the schism. A fissure has appeared (or re-appeared, or widened) in the unity of the Catholic Church. Recriminations will not change the history nor repair the damage. What will?
In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI offered some wise counsel for Church leaders facing such crises:
“Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.”
That advice came in a letter that Pope Benedict wrote to the world’s bishops in July 2007, accompanying the release of Summorum Pontificum, his effort to heal the wound that is now festering. That effort was abruptly ended, of course, when Pope Francis issued Traditionis Custodes five years ago.
Avoiding further alienation
In effectively reversing Summorum Pontificum, Pope Francis explained that he was acting for the sake of Church unity: the same goal that Pope Benedict had cited as the reason for his initiative. Having surveyed the world’s bishops, Pope Francis reported that tensions within the Church had been aggravated by the wider use of the traditional liturgy.
Thanks to the reporting of Diane Montagna, we now know that explanation was inaccurate. Most of the bishops did not report problems with the implementation of Pope Benedict’s directive. In fact an internal Vatican report concluded that “the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire stated that making legislative changes to Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good.”
Several questions now arise. If most bishops were not troubled by the growth of traditionalism, why were there so few public objections to Traditionis Custodes? Why did those bishops who had advised against “legislative changes to Summorum Pontificum” remain silent when Pope Francis made those changes? Why did the cardinals, whose role it is to advise the Pontiff, not urge him to reconsider? Why did diocesan bishops quietly surrender their responsibility for appraising the pastoral needs of their own flocks? Did all those prelates fear the wrath of Pope Francis more than they valued the unity of the Church?
But again, recriminations will not repair the damage done. Our task now is to bring the two sides back together—or at a minimum, following the advice of Benedict XVI—to avoid a further hardening of the opposing stances.
To that end, those who lament the intransigence of the Society of St. Pius X (and I count myself among them) should be prepared to go the extra mile, assuming—perhaps even sometimes against the evidence—that the SSPX leaders are acting in good faith, motivated by what they perceive as the urgent needs of the Catholic faithful. The Vatican and the world’s bishops should discourage the controversialists who are in effect saying “good riddance” to traditionalists.
Tone down the rhetoric
For their part, responsible SSPX leaders should do their best to tone down the incendiary rhetoric of some of their own followers—and for that matter, at least one of their newly ordained bishops. When Bishop Goldade preached that “the modernist Church is a desert that kills everything that it touches,” he fueled apprehensions that the SSPX has no real desire for communion with the Holy See. Why would the group want closer contact with a Church that kills what it touches?
Surely SSPX members should not rejoice over the rupture. Several traditionalist sources have reported that attendance at SSPX Masses has increased significantly since the excommunications. If accurate, those reports are troubling, Why would someone who had not already been attending Mass at SSPX chapels now join those congregations, if not to thumb their noses at the Vatican?
Because the decree of excommunication and the accompanying Note from Cardinal Fernandez were (or purported to be) documents with the force of law, some canon lawyers are now questioning the validity of the rulings. I would urge supporters of the SSPX to let the canonical appeals run their course, and not to base their own decisions too heavily on those canonical arguments, for three reasons:
The system of canon law is not the same as the Anglo-American legal system, and amateur canonists often make fundamental mistakes about the strength of different arguments.
Any canonical appeal will ultimately be decided by a Vatican tribunal; the field is heavily tilted to favor the home team.
A canonical dispute cannot resolve the real problem, which is the alienation of the SSPX from the Holy See. Even in the (highly unlikely) event that the excommunications were lifted, the status of the SSPX would remain irregular; the mutual suspicions would remain.
The first positive step: undo Traditionis Custodes
These are all negative suggestions: advice on what good Catholics should not do. What positive steps can Church leaders take— especially if they follow the advice of Pope Benedict XVI and “make every effort to enable those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew”?
If the goal of Pope Francis was to enhance Church unity, his 2021 apostolic letter has been a failure. The initiative was based on false information and a faulty judgment. Its practical effect has been to increase the tensions between tradition-minded Catholics and the hierarchy. Since Traditionis essentially reversed Summorum Pontificum, it seems obvious that Pope Leo, too, could reverse his predecessor’s policy.
Since Pope Leo took office there have been signs that he is disposed to allow diocesan bishops more freedom to accommodate the legitimate requests of traditionalists, loosening the tight restrictions of the previous regime. But he could do more than issue subtle signals; he could abolish the restrictions and actively encourage the “mutual enrichment” that Pope Benedict sought. Indeed if he had done so earlier in his pontificate, the new Pope would have given tradition-minded Catholics more confidence in his leadership—and consequently, less sympathy for the SSPX members who defied him.
Prominent Vatican officials, past and present, have reached that same conclusion. “Traditionis Custodes has failed; we must return to Summorum Pontificum,” says Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Maintaining the prohibitions is an assist to Lefebvrist propaganda.”
“We need to rethink Traditionis Custodes, especially for those faithful who feel drawn to [the traditional liturgy] without sharing the ideology of the SSPX,” agrees Cardinal Kurt Koch — who is, by the way, the prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity.
Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the retired Archbishop of Genoa, recognizes the pastoral wisdom of encouraging the traditional liturgy, as allowed by Summorum: ‘If, in this area, differences do not become absolutes, banners, or parties, then why not? The good of souls is the mission of the Church.”
And it should be no surprise that Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the longtime secretary to Pope Benedict, sees the same wisdom in Summorum. “I believe that Pope Francis made a mistake, without realizing it,” he says of Traditionis. He acknowledges that Pope Francis was seeking unity, “but it had the opposite effect.” He goes on to suggest:
Speaking frankly, I believe that Rome can now open to the possibility of being more flexible, generous, and paternal with regard to the possibility of celebrating Mass in Latin.
Second, crack down on serious liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo.
Many faithful Catholics have become traditionalists after fleeing from parishes where the Mass was celebrated without reverence, where liturgical rubrics were ignored, where the altar became an ideological showcase. For some such refugees from liturgical corruption, the SSPX was the only readily available alternative.
Now, having learned to love the ancient liturgy, those Catholics ask why the only priests subject to prompt disciplinary action by the hierarchy are those who celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. Why are they expected to adhere to strict liturgical guidelines, when so many other priests make their own rules?
“I believe we must put an end to the abuses of the liturgy,” says Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, the retired Archbishop of Madrid, noting that some practices that are common today are contrary to the actual recommendations of Vatican II. He argues: “The liturgy of Vatican II must be celebrated properly, and we also need understanding for those who prefer the old rite.”
Bishop Johannes Henriks of Amsterdam has a similar perspective. He has urged his priests to welcome lay Catholics who have been active in the SSPX, understanding that many of them have had “disappointing experiences within the Catholic Church, such as a lack of reverence and fidelity to Church and faith.”
Third, reassure traditionalists that they are welcome.
The SSPX has broken with Rome, but the many thousands of traditionalist Catholics who are not affiliated with the SSPX should not be regarded as second-class citizens in their dioceses. (That was, unfortunately, the result of Traditionis Custodes). At the same time, those who have worshipped with the SSPX, but do not want to join in the schism, should be extended a warm welcome.
In Norway, Bishop Fredrick Hansen of Oslo recognized this pastoral challenge, and issued a message to all traditionalists:
“You wish to be able to take part in the liturgical celebration according to the 1962 Missal. Many of you also look to a spiritual expression and a spirituality shaped by the pre-conciliar liturgy. I understand this. Masses according to the 1962 Missal are celebrated every Sunday at St. Joseph Church in Oslo. This will continue. If there is a need for it, and if it would be for the good of the Church and of souls, I will also expand this form of Mass celebration in our local Church.”
In Minnesota, Bishop Bernard Hebna of St. Paul-Minneapolis sounded a similar note:
“At this difficult moment, we are blessed that the same traditional Eucharistic liturgy beloved by those who have worshipped with the SSPX in the past continues to be celebrated in six locations throughout the archdiocese,” Hebda said. “I am confident that those who prefer the Traditional Latin Mass could find a home here.
In Bridgeport, Connecticut, Bishop Frank Caggiano also put out the welcome mat, saying: “I invite home those who previously worshipped with the Society.” He added: “The reverent worship that has drawn those faithful remains very much alive in our own parishes.”
Finally, if diocesan bishops should make special efforts to welcome traditionalists, it follows that the Vatican should reprimand bishops who show an active hostility toward the traditionalists in the flock. The Diocese of Charlotte might be a good place to start.
Some good here, but the author misses the point when he proposes that the TLM can continue to exist in the Roman Church. The TLM should have no place in the Church anymore. Improve the celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass so that it resembles the TLM: yes, that is what should happen. But the only Missal that should be used is the Novus Ordo Missal. The TLM, which is the unreformed Mass, does not adequately express the Church’s faith or identity anymore. Vatican II mandated a reform of the liturgy, and all Roman Catholics must accept that. Period. Priests who refuse the Novus Ordo should be kicked out. Same with laity. The Novus Ordo is the Roman Church’s Mass. That’s settled and final.
Get a good, authentic Catholic education. The Roman Catholic Church did not begin with Pope St. John XXIII and his Vatican II in the 1960s. The New Mass of 1969 did not at all resemble the ideas of the Council Fathers, proposed in the Council’s liturgical document, “Sacrosanctum Concilium.” The 1500+-years-old Catholic Tridentine Latin Mass is a great treasure, ltimelessl, an authentic, beautiful and holy, theologically correct Catholic Mass. Ignorant, irreligious Modernists cannot cast it aside in a mere trivial manner. It contains the whole Catholic Faith and will endure forever. Modernists only know the shallow, secular “zeitgleist,” the contemporary “spirit of the age.” They have no true concept of God, Christ, Salvation, and the ancient, true, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass– the Mass of the Ages, of our Christian forefathers, of the holy Saints and Martyrs. The shallow, secular, “spirit of the age”-filled, post-Conciliar Mass, and corrupt, wayward Church, will have to return to Christ and His true Mission. Nobody wants a wayward, Christ-less Church– led by filthy “Tucho,” James Martin, “Rapenik,” and the faithless “Three Stooges” (McElroy, Cupich and Tobin) who disrespect Christ and give Communion to pro abortion politicians– a horrific mortal sin. Sorry–God does not honor any of their evils. Just like God did not honor pro abortion Pres. Obama to receive Univ. of Notre Dame honors and a medal, with his 2009 graduation speech.
” The TLM should have no place in the Church anymore.” Pope Benedict, who knew something about Vatican II and theology in general, disagreed with you.
Pope Benedict was wrong. Pope Francis mostly corrected Benedict’s error on that particular liturgical judgment and got the Roman Church back on track to eventually eliminate the TLM.
Benedict’s liberalization of the TLM had terrible consequences in the Church. Notably, the TLMers became liturgical separatists and in some cases doctrinal separatists. TLM enclaves became centers of resistance to Vatican II.
“Pope Benedict was wrong.”….”Benedict’s liberalization of the TLM had terrible consequences in the Church” Many people apparently found in the TLM a deeper experience of prayer and appreciation of the eucharist. What a terrible consequence! Conversely, many people have found their belief in the eucharist dwindling through exposure to the Novus Ordo. What an exciting development!
Pope Francis was a heterodox pope who did extensive damage to the Catholic religion. Pope Benedict was an outstanding Catholic scholar, and a good, faithful Catholic pope. He was correct with his “Summorum Pontificum.” It is now being said that Pope Benedict may oneday be named a Doctor of the Church.
Wow. Phil Lawler wrote my thoughts.
One paragraph resonated: “Many faithful Catholics have become traditionalists after fleeing from parishes where the Mass was celebrated without reverence, where liturgical rubrics were ignored, where the altar became an ideological showcase. For some such refugees from liturgical corruption, the SSPX was the only readily available alternative.”
I didn’t know I was a traditionalist until I was drawn to it, kicking and screaming, by the inanities celebrated in my local parish(es).
Perhaps the liturgical idealogs will get the message that we are not drawn to extremes but to the stability of its teachings in a chaotic world.
The SSPX is the prophesied “Ape of the Church”.
Venerable Fulton Sheen described this many years ago.
The SSPX movement was born in pride and disobedience.. It is emptied of it’s Divine content. The Divine will not countenance these sins.
No. The true “Ape” are hypocrites and criminals hiding in clerical robes, “aping Christ and His Church.” The post-Conciliar Church, with corrupt, fake “Catholic” clergy, parishes, schools and universities, Pope Francis’ many heretical blunders, criminal clerical sex abusers and their prelates hiding them, evil Jesuits like gay-promoter, James Martin and former Jesuit, ‘Rapenik” and his horrific sins and evil works, evil “Three Stioges,” McElroy, Tobin avd Cupich– who do not respect the Blessed Sacrament abd give it to pro abortion political leaders, the fake “New Church” to be created in the Synod on Synodality, the German Synodal Way, etc. The post-Conciliar era is totally full of sinful, phony, false “Catholic” leaders, who are fakes– “Apes of the Church.” Christ’s true followers are few.
Just how many “Gay, fake Catholic clerical Apes” do we have, in the post-Conciliar Church– ruining it? Plus, their many clerical supporters, like McElroy, Tobin, Cupich, Grech, Hollerich, James Martin, Wester, German Synodal Way and other bishops, etc.? How many post-Conciliar priests and prelates (and popes)– are actually homosexuals, themselves?? What are these heretical “Church Apes” planning to do, with Synod on Synodality’s Study Group #9?? A great big problem! Plus, Pope Leo convened a Vatican global summit, Oct. 7-14, 2026, to celebrate the 10th anniversary of “Amoris Laetitia.” OMG!! What does this mean?? “The Ape of Catholic Holy Matrimony?”
“Reply” should check out the damning write-up by Cassandra Hackstock. I post it below.
In that piece you will read about your beloved SSPX leadership turning a blind eye on incidences of abuse, mistreatment, misogyny, and their participation in types of psychological terror, elitism, and manipulation.
Your beloved SSPX are not good people.
In the months before the Fall of Jerusalem, the Old Testament priests serving in the Temple suddenly heard mysterious voices all saying, “Let us leave hence. Let us leave this place.”
I reckon holy angels are now saying those very words about your beloved SSPX.
https://wherepeteris.com/seven-years-in-the-sspx/
Who cares about your “Cassandra” story? Our Archdiocese is now paying $400 million for 530+ lawsuits of poor, suffering victims of clerical sex abuse. How many poor, suffering victins of clerical sex abuse do you have in your Diocese? How much is the Diocese paying them? Did your Diocese file for bankruptcy? Do you still love and trust your “beloved” Church?
“How’s” comment confuses the painful cost of justice with institutional negligence. Mainstream dioceses are paying millions precisely because they are rightfully making amends, complying with modern safeguarding laws, and face the legal music.
But SSPX has no such accountability. Because they chose to be outside the Catholic Church, consequently they are outside the safeguarding bounds of the Dallas Charter; therefore, they evade the mandatory third-party audits and strict zero-tolerance policies that protect children and vulnerable adults.
“How’s” pointing to diocesan lawsuits backfires on his/her argument; those lawsuits represent a past broken system being forced to heal in the open.
But Hackstock’s shows that the SSPX hierarchy is using its independent status to hide complicity, bury abuse, and deny victims the very justice mainstream dioceses are currently paying to provide.
Jon, Ms. Hackstock’s story has nothing to do with the recent SSPX excommunucations. No crime was committed, just one kooky church bunch. It does not reflect the entire SSPX. Other people have favorable stories to relate about the SSPX. There are many Catholic and Protestant church groups that have some kooky people with unusual problems. Lately I have read some very troubling stories related by Catholics who got involved in the popular Neocatechumenal Way. Many of their members have had some serious psychological problems as well as liturgical abuses. The pope supports them, but has warned of these problems too in audiences with them.
The Neocatechumenal Way has its own seminaries called Redemptoris Mater seminaries. They ordain their own priests, and some have become bishops. They have a different style of the Novus Ordo Mass with some liturgical abuses that the pope also has warned about. They only let their members attend their own type of Masses and separate members from their parishes. They are like a parallel church. They reportedly have secret, undisclosed activities n the Church, and secret financial dealings. Members are required tithes of 10 per cent of their incomes separate from regular church tithes. They have group sessions in which all the members are required to publicly reveal all their sins and faults in a manner that has harmed many members, especially young people. There is a great deal of pressure to stay in the group never to leave, and threats and intimidation are reportedly aimed towards those who want to leave or who have left the group. Anyone here belong to the Neocatechumenal Way? Or might be a former member?
In San Francisco, there is a strong Neocatechumenal Way group at St. Peter’s Church in the Mission. They donated the new, full-immersion baptismal font at St. Mary’s Cathedral. They have mandatory meetings every Wed. night at 7pm, and their Mass, like all Neocatechumenal Way Masses, is always on Sat. night at 7pm. The Neocatechumenal Way typically does not hold its Masses in a church, but in a separate location. All members are required to only attend Neocatechumenal Way Masses, they are not allowed to attend regular Novus Ordo parish Msses. Their Masses are unique, and they have been warned about liturgical abuses.
The Neocatechumenal Way sounds like a dangerous cult to me. Also I think it is very hypocritical for the Pope and Vatican to support the Neocatechumenal Way, which prohibits its members from attending Novus Ordo Masses; they can only attend Neocatechumenal Way Masses– which have reportedly had many liturgical abuses. And yet the Pope and Vatican— with “Traditionis Custodes” — disapprove of a traditional Catholic church with both Novus Ordo Masses and a Tridentine Latin Mass. People should be free to choose from several legitimate options for Mass. A Novus Ordo Mass in English, one in Spanish, a Mass for immigrants from other countries (France, Italy, Poland, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, etc.) or a Latin Tridentine Mass, or a Catholic Charismatic Mass.
So, like the previous Lawler write-up (ie, by Leila Marie), this one by another Lawler (ie, by Philip) is also a dud. If they happen to be related, I won’t be surprised.
Firstly, this Lawler puts too much credit on Diana Montagna’s so -called “reporting.” But Montagna’s “reporting” effectively ignored the glaring negative responses from the French bishops (and possibly the Italian bishops too) concerning the implementation of “Summorum Pontificum.” Totally ignored it. This is significant because it is in France that this “movement” to foist the 1962 Missal upon the Church is perhaps the largest. And the negative responses of the French bishops to the survey about how some people are misusing the TLM in order to divide the Church was damning.
Secondly, this Lawler’s remedy by undoing “Traditionis custodes” will never happen. He points out that because Francis can reverse Benedict’s “Summorum” therefore Leo can reverse Francis’ “Traditionis.” False. This is because Francis based his reversal squarely on the decision by the Conciliar Fathers to reform the sacred liturgy. Reversing the good decision of an Ecumenical Council on the liturgy will never happen. The Roman Catholic Church is committed to the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. You can take that to the grave.
Thirdly, designating “traditionalist” Catholics as if they’re a separate and distinct group of Catholics is just a bad thing to do. Honestly. We have to many divisions already. All Catholics uphold and adhere to Sacred Tradition and to tradition. Full stop. Therefore all Catholics are “traditionalists.”
But hey, if Lawler wants to make a point of “welcoming traditionalists” after the aftermath of the beloved SSPX’s schismatic act, so be it. The Church’s umbrella is large enough: if she can welcome the divorced-and-remarried and the gays, she can welcome the “traditionalists” too. Let them all in.
Why don’t you get a Pachanama idol to worship, set it up in your garden, and invite all your fake “Catholic” friends to have an Amazonian service, dancing and bowing down to the Pachamama fertility goddess? Next, you all can read “Synod Study Group #9’s” report– and celebrate the “New Synodal Church,” coming soon to your diocese and parish. Wow! You are going to be the best “New Synodal Church Catholics” on the planet! And best of all– you will hardly need a priest, when the New Synodal Church is implemented.
The error in “Get’s” response is that it replaces actual logical debate with internet memes and emotional grievances. Instead of addressing the documented failure of Summorum Pontificum, the irreversible nature of Vatican II, or your beloved SSPX’s schismatic actions, you threw a sarcastic tantrum about Pachamama and the Synod.
By inventing a fictional “New Synodal Church” to scare yourself, you are simply trying to justify your preference for an irregular, parallel hierarchy which is your beloved and schismatic SSPX. Resorting to dramatic insults is a textbook defense mechanism used when you cannot defeat a structural, legal argument on its merits.
At the end of the day, shouting about Rome will never change the immutable laws of Catholic ecclesiology. The true Catholic Church is not a museum frozen in 1962, nor is it a boutique club where you get to choose which Pope or Council you want to obey based on your personal comfort level. If your only defense of your schismatic SSPX’s unlawful canonical actions is to scream that the Vatican is apostate, you have already conceded the argument.
jon, as a grown man you should be willing to admit to the evils and corruptions in either our nation, in secular society — or in the Church. That is very important. The SSPX issue is not based on immorality. If your kids come home from school and tell you they had a sex-ed lesson today with Drag Queens and explicit details and were forced to read graphic child sex books– you and your wiife had better call the school principal, your Congressmen, and lawyers ASAP. If the same thing happens in your children’s Catholic parish school– you must likewise take immediate action.
jon could be a woman. think jon benet ramsey.
They are now the SchiSmPX.
Sodomites have an open door with the Vatican while those who are trying to preserve the tradition of the church are excommunicated. Leo created this problem not the SSPX.
Ron’s comment expresses a truth. The Church has a huge problem with people, even priests and bishops, doing whatever they want and remaining in good standing. Cracking down on the SSPX was good and necessary. What is also needed is cracking down on dissidents who flout moral doctrine or exploit ambiguity to imply flouting moral doctrine. Fr. James Martin and all his disciples should not be in good standing. There are bishops who should not be in good standing.
The Church seems to be becoming a group that believes whatever it wants and celebrates Mass however it wants and is united only by calling themselves Catholic and having a loose juridical association with the pope and local ordinary. Catholics do not have unity in faith. Not right now, they don’t. Catholics are as divided about what it means to be Catholic as Americans are divided about what it means to be American.
You forgot the godless Communists from the Catholic Patriotic Association under the CCP that appoint their own bishops and abuse our brethren; they are the from the Bergolio pontificate and embraced by Prevost . They are given a free hand. Communists have a say in church affairs; why? Good religious and laity are treated with contempt; why? .
I once lived in Santa Clara, and I knew some of the Catholics who attended SSPX Masses in Los Gatos. This was many decades ago. They all were normal people, dressed and talked normally, and had good jobs. They were not a cult of crazy, young nutcases, as Cassandra described. They were very normal, mostly middle-aged like me (I was in my 40s)– and elderly. Very few young people. One time, a couple in their 80s invited me to attend an SSPX Mass with them. I liked the Mass– and especially liked the rural atmosphere, a few adorable animals for pets, and the fact that their church was made out of a converted barn. That was the only time I went out there. For health reasons, inclement weather (rain and mud) sometimes, and driving on rural roads, it was not the best thing for older folks. These Catholics also attended Masses anywhere else they wished, like at my favorite, Our Lady of Peace. Another Latin Mass church was formed, but didn’t last. It was run for awhile by the Institute of Christ the King. I liked going to their Tridentine Latin Masses in Oakland, at St. Margaret Mary Church.
It is hard to believe, but a young, traditional Catholic of today, age 26, married and raising children in a church with a traditional Tridentine Latin Mass, would have been born in the year 2000! Charlie Kirk, who was very gifted in many amazing ways, was born in 1993. He started his career at age 18, founding TPUSA. He only lived to be a month short of his 32nd birthday. St. Carlo Acutis was born in 1991, and died at age 15, in 2006. You never know those who may be born among us, blessed with many amazing gifts of God. Maybe one of the children born recently, in a good Traditional Catholic family, will oneday become a priest, and then later– a pope!
Soon after I attended that one SSPX Mass long ago, I moved back to San Francisco. It is unlikely that I will ever again attend an SSPX Mass. Regardless I think it is a good idea for the Vatican to open up a dialogue with them, and discuss things. The SSPX just filed an appeal on July 11th. The Catholic Church is currently two-faced about papal approvals of episcopal consecrations. They look the other way and allow the anti-Catholic, Communist, atheist CCP to cast aside papal episcopal choices– and let the CCP choose bishops, and change the Catholic Church in China to fit CCP beliefs. Sincere Chinese Catholic clergy and lay people suffer greatly– with no Vatican nor papal support at all.
Doesn’t the Vatican understand that pornography is a mortal sin? Totally unacceptable for a Catholic priest or prelate? Especially pornography that blasphemes Our Lord and His Most Holy Mother. Cardinal “Tucho” Fernandez should have been kicked out of the Church when he wrote those pornographic books for teenagers. I can’t believe he wrote a story about a sexual fantasy between a 16-year-old girl, and Christ– the most pure Son of God, Who suffered and died unjustly on a Cross for our sins. I am sure that the Pope’s good parents would understand the excommunication of the SSPX. Fine. But I know that poor Mr. and Mrs. Prevost would be horrified by Cdl. Fernandez– and would be alarmed that he works with their son in such a high post at the Vatican.
Since the Church sees nothing wrong with women dressing in sexually promiscuous ways, I am sure that the Six Commandment does not matter anymore.
The deep flaw in “Get rid’s” commentary is that it substitutes emotional outrage and personal “disgust” for actual Catholic theology and canon law.
First, “Get rid” fundamentally misunderstands Catholic justice by demanding excommunication for decades-old books that were actually an overzealous pastoral effort by a young priest at reaching out to a youth demographic—writings that were long ago retracted, destroyed, and explicitly cleared of heresy by Rome.
Second, invoking the imagined reactions of Pope Leo XIV’s deceased parents is a purely emotional distraction that holds absolutely no weight in formal Church governance.
Third, comparing Fernández’s case to your beloved and schismatic SSPX completely breaks down because it equates a past, over-ambitious pastoral effort by a young priest with an ongoing, public act of formal schism and structural disobedience against the papacy.
Ultimately, bringing up Cardinal Fernández is a futile attempt at deflection, meant only to distract from the real, uncomfortable reality of your schismatic SSPX’s unlawful canonical standing.
No, jon. Many criminals in the Church are also brilliant, talented, highly educated men. Never take your wife and children to a parish with a priest who has been a child or teen pornographer, who severely blasphemes Christ and His Most Holy Mother. Yes, a prelate may carry out an excommunication, properly following Canon Law. But he himself must be a good, trustworthy, holy Man of God.
The core defect in “No’s” comment is that it relies on an error wrapped in extreme exaggeration and emotionalism in order to evade the actual reality of canon law.
First, labeling Cardinal Fernández a “child or teen pornographer” is a distortion of the facts. There is a vast, legally and morally distinct line between an overzealous pastoral effort by a young priest reaching out to the younger generation, a decades-old book exploring the boundaries of mystical theology — which was suppressed by the author himself — and the grave, illegal criminal activity of child exploitation. Distorting definitions to score internet points does not make your accusation true.
Second, your argument that a prelate must be a perfectly “holy Man of God” to enforce Church discipline falls directly into the ancient heresy of Donatism. The Catholic Church explicitly rejected this centuries ago, defining that the legal and sacramental authority of an office does not depend on the personal perfection of the individual holding it. If Church governance required flawless ministers to function, the entire apostolic hierarchy would collapse.
Ultimately, you completely bypassed the point about your schismatic and beloved SSPX because you cannot defend the indefensible. Moving the goalposts from actual canon law to emotional safety appeals is just another attempt to deflect from the hard truth: individual pastoral mistakes, however controversial, do not justify entering into a structured, ongoing act of formal schism against the papacy.
Theodore McCarrick, who was smart and talented, rose to the highest levels in the Church. But he was a criminal clerical sex abuser. He destroyed the lives of many young men. He should long ago have been laicized and excommunicated, and sent to prison for his crimes. Fernandez does not belong in any church.
No, jon. The excommunications of the SSPX have nothing to do with “Tucho” Fernandez. That is a separate issue. What is so wrong, is promoting a cleric who is a man of poor character to the highest offices in the Vatican. Let a man of moral integrity take his place– and properly carry out all Church duties including excommumications. A man of poor character who writes teen blasphemous books should certainly be expelled from the clergy. And please do not let your kids check out Tucho’s books in the Catholic school library.
As a Catholic, present reactions against a dropped stitch from the fabric of a well-worn sweater and pulling threads of the past to renew the present is, in my opinion, does not make the sweater wearable. While stated with good or ill intentions, what goes on at the interior of the Church has little to do with the salvation of souls of Catholics. There appears no recollection to living faith. As American, it is obvious there are two churches, one of heresy and one holy. Very difficult to discern but not impossible. My faith has been challenged. So, when attendance increases in sympathy of an alleged victim, I do not see this as living faith. If that were the case, attendance should have increased over the scandal of the 20th century in sympathy of the Church. Excommunication does not sever but rather provides distance and a bridge for reconciliation over time. It is not a call to arms nor an opportunity to give advantage to suppressed opinions. Instead, it is a call to the faith in allegiance with Pope Leo XIV (and not his predecessors) which is a challenge to faith for anyone unyielding to papal infallibility. The salvation of my soul is at stake when heresy and holy fight over unity.
It is very important, that the Cardinals in the Vatican— as well as our local bishops and parish priests– be dedicated, trustworthy men of God, men of great integrity, goodness, and moral decency. The Church must never give Catholics and their families clerical men of corruption, sin and filth– criminals. Too many people today, are really blinded about this. Some of these clerical criminals are brilliant, and have even written big, important books– like Theodore McCarrick. Others have helped write important Papal documents. These sinful clerics are never disciplined. Many are promoted. Why isn’t Marko “Rapenik” expelled and laicized? Will all those poor nuns he raped, ever receive justice, and peace of mind? How many hundreds of poor, suffering victims of clerical sex abuse are in your Diocese? How many millions of dollars are being paid to these poor people? This should never exist in a church! The Cardinal who is head of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith, may justly carry out an excommunication. But he himself must be a very fine, dedicated, excellent and holy Man of God.
Why, when the SSPX is brought up, do its defenders always bring up perverted priests?
That’s deflecting and distracting from the issue here. The issue in this story is the SSPX and its excommunication.
No one is denying predatory, abusive priests and the bishops who covered for them. It’s like saying, “Well, your bad guys are worse than our bad guys!” Sure, child abuse is probably worse than schism, but both are grave sins. This isn’t a race to the bottom (of hell). For those who prefer the TLM, attend Mass with the FSSP, ICKSP or other churches which are still Catholic, in union with the bishop of Rome and all the bishops throughout the world united with the successor of Saint Peter. “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia” (“Where Peter is, there is the Church”) – St. Ambrose of Milan, 389 AD.
Another point often neglected is that nobody should be “preferring” the TLM. The TLM is to be phased out of use, then permanently and completely decommissioned and prohibited. The reformed liturgy is to be the sole liturgical expression of the Roman Rite for the sake of unity in liturgical prayer.
No, Alien. Pope Benedict’s “Summirum Pontificum” is best. You as a Catholic, should learn to appreciate greatly, and greatly treasure, the great and holy 1500+-years-old Tridentine Latin Mass. It was originally codified by the great Pope St. Gregory, long ago, in the 6th century. A great, original liturgical masterpiece for our holy Faith. No true religious leaders on this earth, pretend to “despise” their beloved religion’s great origins, and masterpieces of its history. Modernist, secular, shallow Catholic leaders of today, who “despise” their religion’s holy traditions and 2,000+ years of history and development– are extrenmely immature, fake Catholics, demanding a fake, “convenient” false “unity” on their selfish, immature, worldly terms.Next, they are demanding a false Church, with the wrongful worldwide implementation of the non-Christian, phony “Synod on Synodality” in every parish– to include the heretical evils of “Synod Study No. #9.”
The cleric in the shoes of the Fishernan, St. Peter– may be a holy Catholic saint. Or, he may be be a bad cleric– or worse. Some popes in the Middle Ages committed horrific sins. You cannot trust sinful Man, period. Only place your trust in God. Where Christ is, we will always find the True Church. And yes, best to stick with Church-approved groups.
This is to “jon”. Both factors can be true, i.e., that the SSPX can be in schism and that Cardinal Fernandez is guilty of creating lascivious material, even if he was an “overzealous young priest” – your words. The statute of limitations does not run out for clergy who have created scandal, and who have then gone on to oversee an excommunication. We have every right to question how Fernandez rose up the ranks.
We are seeing that trads and Vatican 2 Catholics cannot coexist. You either accept V2 or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re not Catholic. The compromise that so many want — namely, to have the V2 Church offer the TLM — won’t work. We saw that with Summorum Pontificum. The trads claimed to accept V2, but they actually rejected it and rejected the novus ordo Mass and created staunchly isolated trad communities.
Time to draw a hard line, as the DDF has done with its process for accepting SSPX priests into communion with the V2 Church. You must accept V2, and you must accept the new Mass. Those are absolutes.
No, what needs to happen, are honest discussions about the ambiguities of Vatican II, and to find good ways to fix these problems. Next, implememt Pope Benedict’s excellent solution, of “Summorum Pontificum.” Why promulgate the weird, new “Mayan Missal” and its Mayan Mass– and suppress the beautiful, holy old Latin Tridentine Mass, with “Traditionis Custodes?” Ridiculous! Our churches are fast-emptying with Vatican II and its many problems. The Church leaders really need some serious discussions.
Maybe if we .looked at those Catholics who prefer to maintain TLM as a 24 rite within the one true & apostolic church all would be well with out souls. I certainly pray so.