Ready, Lord! I now follow your command to put on the full armor of God because I know that my battle is not against flesh and blood but against rulers, authorities and the powers of this dark world.
I stand firm with the belt of truth buckled around my waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place and with my feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. I take up the shield of faith, and wear the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Just how bad will things have to get for the conservative Cardinals to do something? The Transalpine Redemptorists and the SSPX are leading the way. Are the Cardinals just watching & waiting? Maybe they can't bring themselves to declare the synodal church is in heresy/schism itself for what that implies about *them* and their episcopal ordinations (?). Spitballing over here...
It comes to authority. Those without the authority (like me, Jerry Pewsitter) are held hostage in a sense, while those with authority seem to be doing nothing. I can only hope and pray that Our Lord will guide them to the proper time and course. Till then, praise God for the sspx and transalpine redemptorists.
Bear in mind that there are a lot of Catholics who do not attend SSPX Masses and have no real connection to the SSPX who will be cheering when new bishops are consecrated this summer. Or maybe Rome should bear that in mind.
Cajetan: If someone for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism nor any other whatsoever provided he be ready to accept the pope were he not held in suspicion. It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and ward of that which is dangerous. Gaetano Dei Conti Di Thieni
These heathens with their Post-Concilliar Vatican2 show should be roundly denounced by the SSPX for what they are: Anathema.
As to threats of ‘schism’, from what? The V2 big tent houses Protestants, Jews, Moslems, etc. and according to V2 teaching even, in theory, satanists. To be publicly separated from the Novus Ordo sect is a great blessing.
It is confusing and even ludicrous that something that was legitimate in the Church for 1988 years, and then by virtue of an administrative act, not a declaration of moral depravity, something like a liturgical program of ordination conferred on men who exhibit no legitimate antagonism toward the Church, is now considered schismatic, merely because they did not ask “May I”. Wow. And who issues the warning? That paragon of moral superiority.
Thank you for this clarification; it doesn't make a difference to me, but I know of people who attend the SSPX for whom this can be crucial for their continuing to do so.
Doesn't anyone here follow Sean Johnson (the Seraphim) on substack? excommunication from the anti-church, won't fix things. All it can mean is a much slower steep in the modernist pot. SSPX will still have an una cum mass, use the 62 missal, permit NO priests (without conditional ordination), AND they will try even harder to get back in the good graces of the Synodal Church if excommunication happens. No true progress can be made without pinpointing the actual problem: its not V2- its the usurper who permits V2. Dancing around this with R&R is only muddying the waters and keeps people sitting on the fence.
Right on target Radical Fidelity, bull’s eye hit! Thank you for laying this Truth out so clearly, yes, it really is that logical and that simple.
I also appreciate being reassured that I have “nothing to worry about”. But Truth be told I do worry about confused and misled sheep who can’t see the Truth you just succinctly expressed. I pray daily for the victims of the “ape of a pope” and the “ape of a church”!
The Vatican is threatening to excommunicate the SSPX. That means it believes they are in communion with them. That means, the Vatican agrees that we can dissent from the teachings and directives of the pope and the magisterium because the Vatican hasn't excommunicated the SSPX while they know they have dissented on a number of teachings and directives.
You make a lot of unsupported assertions for someone who’s not a canon lawyer. Diane Montagna just posted about canonist Fr. Gerald Murray’s uncertainty about what the “adherence” phrase means. I do hope you are right, RF, but take on a lot by assertions without citations and without acknowledging your (lack of) qualifications. Again, I hope you’re right, but tread carefully.
The whole Fernandez statement is short-circuited by the fact that it appeals to Scripture and Tradition to warrant the threat but, at the same time, Leo explicitly rejects Scripture and Tradition in some instances and refuses to condemn rejections of Scripture and Tradition on other (including rejections put forward by Fernandez.) In other words, we are not dealing with actual statement here. It is a contradiction along the lines of asking someone to open and close a door simultaneously. It is not a question of the SSPX obeying or not. There is nothing to obey - just the bark of a dog or the babble of a madman.
When Pope Francis has publicly stated on two occasions that "all religions are a path to God"; when Pope John Paul II celebrated the infamous inter-religious prayer meeting at Assisi (and repeated several times); when Vatican II in her official documents stated that the Holy Ghost does not refuse to use false religions as a means of salvation; what difference does it make if one belongs to Leo's sect or not?
Many people, including canon lawyers have their positions and jobs to protect. Did Jesus say He was going to the Father and would send us the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete an Advocate to lead us in Truth?
Being a Roman Catholic, striving to be faithful to the Catholic Church as Jesus founded it, and being concerned about the salvation of souls is a form of truly stellar “qualification”.
Oh, FFS, are we back to calling each other Protestants again? And this nonsense about "not being a Canon lawyer" and therefore have no right to proffer an opinion lest you mislead the faithful. Gimme a break.
Go ahead. Post a snarky response, then ask me if I care.
That reminds me of the guy who said to another, "I respect you & your right to have your opinion, but please excuse me for preferring God's opinion to yours." ;)
The article supports all it's 'assertions'. As for Rev. Murray, who was 'ordained' in the schismatic institution founded by Montini by the Jewish Archbishop of NY - also 'consecrated' in an invalid rite - is a Conciliar creature with a concillier canon who had no qualms disobendiently telling his 'pope' Bergoglio off.
It is inevitable. Catholics will be forced to choose a side.
There is no need for a canon lawyer, just someone willing to read scripture and know the church cannot contradict it's eternal teachings.
The fear of a lifelong worldview being shattered keeps most from opening their eyes.
SSPX attendees are there.
sure seems to me that the Synodal NuChurch is the one in schism, away from Catholicism tenets
Clear explanation of schism, and the difference between material and formal schism. Thank you!
Ready, Lord! I now follow your command to put on the full armor of God because I know that my battle is not against flesh and blood but against rulers, authorities and the powers of this dark world.
I stand firm with the belt of truth buckled around my waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place and with my feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. I take up the shield of faith, and wear the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Just how bad will things have to get for the conservative Cardinals to do something? The Transalpine Redemptorists and the SSPX are leading the way. Are the Cardinals just watching & waiting? Maybe they can't bring themselves to declare the synodal church is in heresy/schism itself for what that implies about *them* and their episcopal ordinations (?). Spitballing over here...
Didn’t Jesus Christ say, “let the dead bury the dead”?
Catholics waiting for Cardinal Burke to say something remind me of the elderly Japanese soldier stranded on a Pacific island and still fighting WW2.
It comes to authority. Those without the authority (like me, Jerry Pewsitter) are held hostage in a sense, while those with authority seem to be doing nothing. I can only hope and pray that Our Lord will guide them to the proper time and course. Till then, praise God for the sspx and transalpine redemptorists.
Bear in mind that there are a lot of Catholics who do not attend SSPX Masses and have no real connection to the SSPX who will be cheering when new bishops are consecrated this summer. Or maybe Rome should bear that in mind.
Cajetan: If someone for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism nor any other whatsoever provided he be ready to accept the pope were he not held in suspicion. It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and ward of that which is dangerous. Gaetano Dei Conti Di Thieni
These heathens with their Post-Concilliar Vatican2 show should be roundly denounced by the SSPX for what they are: Anathema.
As to threats of ‘schism’, from what? The V2 big tent houses Protestants, Jews, Moslems, etc. and according to V2 teaching even, in theory, satanists. To be publicly separated from the Novus Ordo sect is a great blessing.
It is confusing and even ludicrous that something that was legitimate in the Church for 1988 years, and then by virtue of an administrative act, not a declaration of moral depravity, something like a liturgical program of ordination conferred on men who exhibit no legitimate antagonism toward the Church, is now considered schismatic, merely because they did not ask “May I”. Wow. And who issues the warning? That paragon of moral superiority.
Thank you for this clarification; it doesn't make a difference to me, but I know of people who attend the SSPX for whom this can be crucial for their continuing to do so.
RCI now more than ever.
Doesn't anyone here follow Sean Johnson (the Seraphim) on substack? excommunication from the anti-church, won't fix things. All it can mean is a much slower steep in the modernist pot. SSPX will still have an una cum mass, use the 62 missal, permit NO priests (without conditional ordination), AND they will try even harder to get back in the good graces of the Synodal Church if excommunication happens. No true progress can be made without pinpointing the actual problem: its not V2- its the usurper who permits V2. Dancing around this with R&R is only muddying the waters and keeps people sitting on the fence.
May 13, 2026
Right on target Radical Fidelity, bull’s eye hit! Thank you for laying this Truth out so clearly, yes, it really is that logical and that simple.
I also appreciate being reassured that I have “nothing to worry about”. But Truth be told I do worry about confused and misled sheep who can’t see the Truth you just succinctly expressed. I pray daily for the victims of the “ape of a pope” and the “ape of a church”!
The Vatican is threatening to excommunicate the SSPX. That means it believes they are in communion with them. That means, the Vatican agrees that we can dissent from the teachings and directives of the pope and the magisterium because the Vatican hasn't excommunicated the SSPX while they know they have dissented on a number of teachings and directives.
You make a lot of unsupported assertions for someone who’s not a canon lawyer. Diane Montagna just posted about canonist Fr. Gerald Murray’s uncertainty about what the “adherence” phrase means. I do hope you are right, RF, but take on a lot by assertions without citations and without acknowledging your (lack of) qualifications. Again, I hope you’re right, but tread carefully.
The whole Fernandez statement is short-circuited by the fact that it appeals to Scripture and Tradition to warrant the threat but, at the same time, Leo explicitly rejects Scripture and Tradition in some instances and refuses to condemn rejections of Scripture and Tradition on other (including rejections put forward by Fernandez.) In other words, we are not dealing with actual statement here. It is a contradiction along the lines of asking someone to open and close a door simultaneously. It is not a question of the SSPX obeying or not. There is nothing to obey - just the bark of a dog or the babble of a madman.
When Pope Francis has publicly stated on two occasions that "all religions are a path to God"; when Pope John Paul II celebrated the infamous inter-religious prayer meeting at Assisi (and repeated several times); when Vatican II in her official documents stated that the Holy Ghost does not refuse to use false religions as a means of salvation; what difference does it make if one belongs to Leo's sect or not?
Do you mean "papal pretender Francis" & "papal pretender John Paul II"?
novusordowatch.org/john-paul-ii
Many people, including canon lawyers have their positions and jobs to protect. Did Jesus say He was going to the Father and would send us the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete an Advocate to lead us in Truth?
Being a Roman Catholic, striving to be faithful to the Catholic Church as Jesus founded it, and being concerned about the salvation of souls is a form of truly stellar “qualification”.
Spoken like a true Protestant
Oh, FFS, are we back to calling each other Protestants again? And this nonsense about "not being a Canon lawyer" and therefore have no right to proffer an opinion lest you mislead the faithful. Gimme a break.
Go ahead. Post a snarky response, then ask me if I care.
You just made me choke on my morning coffee with laughter😂
To be clear, I most certainly did not say that RF couldn’t assert an opinion. I just urged caution.
You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to seek my own salvation and the salvation of others.
That reminds me of the guy who said to another, "I respect you & your right to have your opinion, but please excuse me for preferring God's opinion to yours." ;)
True that! Hope we meet up there.
Thanks me too, let’s keep each other in prayer!
The article supports all it's 'assertions'. As for Rev. Murray, who was 'ordained' in the schismatic institution founded by Montini by the Jewish Archbishop of NY - also 'consecrated' in an invalid rite - is a Conciliar creature with a concillier canon who had no qualms disobendiently telling his 'pope' Bergoglio off.
Do you have a Readers Digest version of all that?