It is often remarked that my SSPX chapel has an amazing community. Most visitors- whether they agree with the positions of the Society of Saint Pius X amidst the current crisis or not- leave and begin singing their praises.

After a recent phone call with a troubled friend, in which I imparted some advice, some wisdom might’ve come out of my mouth for once, and I’d like to share it with you. Hopefully it will be just as edifying for you as it was for him.

In stark contrast to our local diocesan TLM, there is a relative tranquility amongst our faithful, a true Christ-like spirit, and deep bonds of friendship are easily formed because of the high trust we have among one another.

This local TLM does not share our tranquility in the slightest. The priest comes from the Novus Ordo, there is constant drama emanating from a select group of individuals, scandal after scandal among the laity- both young and old, and no amount of smells and bells can mask this horrific odour. All of this is notwithstanding their gravely erroneous theology, Ratzingerian Hermeneutics, and mere preference for the TLM- which excludes any criticisms of Vatican II and usually ends up with vitriolic slander of the SSPX.

When letting my words flow on the phone call, I besought my friend to consider why this is the case. I asked him to consider his own role in his community and how he can further sanctify himself to help them at large.

What is particularly important to note is that a community is the sum of the individuals that are part of it. If the majority of the members fail to introspect, to cooperate with God’s graces, and to grow spiritually each day, they will negatively impact the community. Now, if the members are striving for constant improvement, are up-to-date on their studies, growing in sanctity, and correcting their errors, the community will benefit from their positive growth.

My friend also lamented the fact that he is excluded from much of his community’s social gatherings due to his negative reputation, which he has been striving to improve.

What I told him is that, although some people will continue to look down upon him for his past mistakes, there are two considerations he must take to heart.

Firstly is that he mustn’t worry about things he cannot control. Preceded by his reputation, the only thing that he can change is himself. He cannot force people to accept him as he grows- albeit, mistakes are bound to be made along the way- and that leaves him only the ability to focus on his own sanctity.

I admonished this friend to continue his studies (particularly Bishop Williamson’s doctrinal sessions, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, and more), to not speak unless spoken to, and to make any and all future interactions positive.

If he continues to grow in sanctity, does not needlessly approach people, and lets them come to him when they desire, all they will be able to see is growth.

This is the first step in turning the tide.

If we have a poor reputation and are seemingly cast away, but yet, every future interaction leaves those that interact with us wondering what changed, then we’ve done our part.

Unfortunately, not all souls care too much to go to Heaven, which leads me to my second point.

I’ve touched upon this before, but it wouldn’t hurt to reiterate.

We should not lament the fact that we are excluded from poor company. Not only is it bad to be envious (in the proper sense of the word), but who cares if people that do not plan from deviating from the trajectory of Hell will exclude us.

Our Lord tells us “the servant is not greater than his [master]. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept My word, they will keep yours also” (St. John 15:20).

May we never take part in the gatherings of the ungodly!

If these poor souls purport themselves to be good Catholics and pray the rosary every day, yet fail to forgive others of their trespasses, as they themselves ask God to do to them in the manner they do to others, shame on them!

They will not be forgiven if they do not forgive. Woe unto he that mindlessly repeats these words and prays for his own condemnation. May God have mercy on them.

Not only that, but the suffering that you may feel from being excluded is a good opportunity to offer up your sufferings to Christ, to unite with Him on the Holy Cross!

There is no Resurrection without the Crucifixion, so, dear friend, glory in your pains, no matter how small!

Finally, let us take the time to reflect on our own shortcomings.

Whether your community is healthy as mine is, consider how you, as an organ of it, leave your mark.

Are you welcoming and courteous to those that step foot in your chapels, to each and every soul that you encounter?

If you are a messenger of Traditional Catholicism, are you worth listening to?

Do you carry yourself well, dress appropriately, repent of your sins, study the position well so that you may eloquently present it, and act Christlike?

And if you’ve made mistakes in the past, have you cared to reflect upon them?

None of us, not even the best of us, are perfect. We are all sinners in need of God’s grace, and may we persevere until the end.

It is always worth echoing the Episcopal motto of Bishop Williamson: Fidelis Inveniatur,

That We May Be Found Faithful,

Be a saint!

Sincerely…

There was a recent debate between Ethan Muse and Miles K. Donahue about ‘Hell, Catholicism, and Fine-Tuning’ in which the two young gentleman performed at a stunningly high capacity, yet, as the episode neared its end, Ethan’s interlocutor began to show his true colours.

Mr. Donahue spent a good hour and a half pontificating philosophy above the average calibre, just to ask Mr. Muse if he ‘really believes that an all-good God would send me to Hell for stealing a pack of gum?’

Now, it was at this moment that Mr. Donahue revealed the fatal flaw in his argumentation, namely, the fact that his entire philosophical training has been done to mask his inability to come to terms with the notion of sin.

Of course, the comments are chock-full of idiots claiming that Mr. Muse essentially made a ‘holier-than-thou’ argument by 1) presenting the faith in an extraordinarily succinct and beautiful way, but 2) humbly stated that if he was able to put together a good presentation, how much better would the saints, doctors of the church, and mystics do compared to him?

What has been exposed here is not just an incredibly poor line of reasoning, but the human mind rebelling against the Divine Programme for souls.

In most debates about the existence of God, we see a head-to-head about His existence, but the conversation is often framed as a ‘what if’ God exists, rather than ‘He does.’

In deference to the title, the notion I’d like to expound upon is simple- God exists, and we have a set of obligations towards Him; the question is not His existence, but how are we to grapple with it?

Mr. Muse did a terrific job presenting the truths and reality of the faith in such a way that it is almost entirely irrefutable, yet, many choose not to believe.

Modern man, insofar as he is different than previous generations, is only profoundly more stupid than those who came before.

He is more out of touch with reality, with fallen human nature, surrounded by technocratic imbeciles and online temptations, and has arrived at the conclusion that he knows it all.

What often slips the mind of modern man is not the latest sportsbooks, decisions of world leaders, or which scantily dressed woman at the bar he can try to take home, but the omnipotent, Eternal, omnipresent Triune Godhead that ceaselessly begs him to comply with the graces of the Sacred Heart.

God is not hard to find, much to the contrary of the question of Divine hiddenness. Our Lord instructs us simply, ‘ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, knock, and it shall be opened unto you1.’

There is a certain relinquishing of our own wills and our own desires that must be done before being willing to accept the plan God has for us, but modern man is usually not interested in that.

He might remark that there are too many religions for him to figure out which one is actually true, even though the principle of non-contradiction can easily rule out most, he might define himself as ‘someone that believes in Jesus,’ yet, forgets that Our Lord tells us, ‘if you love Me, you will keep my Commandments2,’ and ‘wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction.3’

Modern man is simply uninterested in the regulatory Catholic way of life, which, by its virtue of being true, imposes plenty of restrictions and obligations in order that a soul might be sharpened against evil (which actually exists) and sanctified for Heaven.

If someone is sincere, than the arguments of Mr. Muse should only further push them towards the Catholic religion, but, regardless of how good the arguments are, there comes a certain point where we ought to worry less about the proof, and more about the action.

God exists, now what?

Dear soul, retain the childlike innocence that Sacred Scripture asks of us. Be not afraid to ask your Heavenly Father for your most grand desires. There is not a prayer that goes unanswered if it is done with sincerity and in accordance with our sanctification. Ask God to free all souls from Purgatory; to grant you a greater knowledge of Heavenly things with each passing day; to turn you into a great Apostle, not for your own sake, but His, that you may be used as a tool by the Divine Lord; ask for the conversion of every soul that you know, and that you may be granted the graces to soften their hearts if need be.

The evidence for the Catholic faith is endless. Never fear to challenge an interlocutor to disprove it, because they cannot!

Whether it be the stigmata of St. Padre Pio, the hundreds of Eucharistic miracles, historical evidence for the Resurrection, the witness of the Apostles and Martyrs, the prophecies fulfilled by Our Lord, or other, the Catholic faith simply necessitates adherence. Nothing else can be true except this most spotless religion, perfect in its doctrine, coming from Heaven itself.

Importantly, we must leave the Kantian philosophy at the door. We can know both the substance and the appearance of things, and sin exists.

There is objective truth, which is Jesus Christ Himself, and truth is not relative.

Jesus Christ is the ‘way, the truth, and the life4’ and His Holy Catholic Church is the custodian of that truth, infallible in its perennial teachings, spotless in doctrine, being the Mystical Body of the Heavenly Saviour.

This Holy and Catholic Church posesses the philosophy of the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas, a gift from Heaven itself, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine, and is the only institution which can guide your soul to Heaven, outside of which no man can be saved.

Sooner, rather than later, I cannot but beseech you to get in before it is too late, ‘because you know not the day nor the hour.5’

In this present crisis, let us not delay any longer. Our Lord may end this wicked world sooner than we expect.

Dear friend, the Catholic faith is the one true religion. No amount of philosophising will change that fact. God exists, and He has made that abundantly clear for us, and it is not a matter of if He does, but because. Because He exists, we are obliged to follow Him, and if not, we risk Eternal Damnation.

That we may be found faithful (rest in peace Bishop Williamson),

Fidelis Inveniatur,

Sincerely…

I’d like to take some time to reflect on the painful realisation that we must always strive for self improvement, which almost always comes at the cost of luxurious comfort.

So accustomed are we to avoiding reality, so accustomed to unfamiliarity with pain, that we often fail to realise the ways in which we inhibit our growth as people, as Catholics, as soldiers of Christ.

This thought comes amidst various personal trials I’ve encountered these last fews months, but I deemed it appropriate to reflect on for the good of souls.

Primarily, we ought to consider the intellectual rigour and spiritual pursuits of those we surround ourselves with.

As Catholics, our destination is obvious- we are striving to save our souls and make it to Heaven- which comes at the tremendous cost of uniting ourselves to the Cross of Christ, facing rejection by the world, and having to wake up each day striving to do better than the last for the God-Man that shed His most Precious Blood for the salvation of our souls.

Unfortunately, or rather fortunately actually, is the fact that we must come to terms with this reality, and at times, that will cost us friendships, worldly success, and even at the great expense of losing those we love most dearly, if they cannot fathom the Divine Programme of which we follow.

If you find yourself in a relationship, yet the other person cannot wrap their head around the prerogatives of traditionalism or the mission of the SSPX, or if you have friends that will attack your faith unrepentantly, it is best to let go of them, no matter the pain that will follow.

Even within Catholic circles, there may be a friend or two that finds themselves defending the post-conciliar principles by way of attending the Indult (FSSP/ICKSP, etc.) or the New Mass, yet, if these people end up becoming obstacles to your personal sanctity, at the least it is best to keep a distance, and at the most severe, you may need to gradually remove yourself from their accompaniment.

It is no easy task to put forth the principles of the Crisis, the entire history that surrounds it, the extraordinary justification required to explain away the mission of the SSPX, or such, but for souls that are unwilling to grapple with reality, or at least approach the situation with soberness, they must be kept at arms length.

What should give us peace in this loss of dear companions is the very motivation for our freedom from their errors, their antagonism, or the danger they pose to our souls.

What we sacrifice, we must do for God. Not in a spirit of pride, but in a spirit of piety.

What is at stake is infinite and eternal, it is quite literally our souls in many cases, but our soul must be set straight on the trajectory towards Heaven. Even a slight deviation may be enough to send us to Eternal Damnation, and that is a cost we ought to be unwilling to pay.

The example of the great Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre should be of great profundity to us, given that he gave up his ecclesiastical career, recognition, many friendships, his canonical status (so to speak), and ultimately defined himself as a man of history, a man unwavering in his principles, but ultimately may now be defined as a protector of Tradition, a saviour of many abandoned souls.

This surely came at no little cost.

There is an intense agony in the loss of friendships, status, and normalcy that comes at the cost of growth, but that is the cost we must be willing to pay for sanctification. We are bound by conscience to follow what we know to be right and ordered, most certainly in the worship we offer to Almighty God and the everlasting principles of the Catholic Faith.

Yet, among this turmoil, we ought not to look back and desire the bonds we once had, the companions that provided so many good memories, if these people were a threat to our souls.

If their place in your life was adversarial to the great mission that we should all strive to accomplish, bid them adieu, and carry on.

It is this carrying on from dangerous companions that will ultimately unlock a new level of growth that would previously be unforeseen.

Finally, let us consider the intellectual rigour of those we surround ourselves with.

It is uncommon in the first place to find an academic with his head on his shoulders, and we should not expect to find intellectuals at every corner we turn, yet, we shouldn’t bother to keep poor company.

For those that have the grace to attend a chapel of the Society of Saint Pius X, or some other form of a ‘radical traditionalist’ group, there is likely a soul much like yours, willing to undergo study and to discuss important matters at length.

But for those that adhere to the bizarre fantasies of the Newchurch (as Bishop Williamson would call it), stay far away.

It is not a ‘cult-like’ mentality to keep a distance from those that so vehemently oppose the truth of the Catholic Faith.

Our minds are feeble and corruptible, much to our dismay, and regardless of the pride that must be set aside to recognise this, we are quite susceptible and oftentimes prone to adopt the errors of those closest to us.

For your own sake, be sober and vigilant!

Dear friend, I figured it would be opportune to draft a quick reflection for our mutual edification.

May it find you well,

Pray for me!

Sincerely…

Below, I will attach an incredibly striking letter of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, along with the summary of the post-conciliar errors they cowrote.

Unsurprisingly, such a respectful letter with its summary of errors fell upon dear ears in Rome.

Important to note is the fact that this was written five years before the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations, and is a clear manifestation of good will and legitimate pastoral concern amidst the uneasy post-conciliar period.

Let us begin with the letter, addressed to John Paul II1:

Given at Rio de Janiero, Brazil on November 21, 1983.

Holy Father,

May Your Holiness permit us, with an entire filial openness, to submit to you the following considerations. During the last twenty years the situation in the Church is such that it looks like an occupied city.

Thousands of members of the clergy, and millions of the faithful, are living in a state of anguish and perplexity because of the “self-destruction of the Church.” They are being thrown into confusion and disorder by the errors contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the post-conciliar reforms, and especially the liturgical reforms, the false notions diffused by official documents and by the abuse of power perpetrated by the hierarchy.

In these distressing circumstances, many are losing the Faith, charity is becoming cold, and the concept of the true unity of the Church in time and in space is disappearing.

In our capacity as bishops of the Holy Catholic Church, successors of the Apostles, our hearts are overwhelmed at the sights throughout the world, by so many souls who are bewildered yet desirous in continuing in the faith and morals which have been defined by the Magisterium of the Church and taught by Her in a constant and universal manner.

It seems to us that to remain silent in these circumstances would be to become accomplices to these wicked works (cf. II Jn. 11).

That is why we find ourselves obliged to intervene in public before Your Holiness (considering all the measures we have undertaken in private during the last fifteen years have remained ineffectual) in order to denounce the principal causes of this dramatic situation, and to beseech Your Holiness to use his power as Successor of Peter to “confirm your brothers in the Faith“ (Luke 22, 32), which has been faithfully handed down to us by Apostolic Tradition.

To that end we have attached to this letter an appendix containing the principal errors which are at the origins of this tragic situation and which, moreover, have already been condemned by your predecessors. The following list outlines these errors, but it is not exhaustive:

• A latitudinarian and ecumenical notion of the Church, divided in its faith, condemned in particular by the Syllabus, No. 18 (Den. 2918).

• A collegial government and a democratic orientation in the Church, condemned in particular by Vatican Council I (Den. 3055).

• A false notion of the natural rights of man which clearly appears in the document on Religious Liberty, condemned in particular by Quanta cura (Pius IX) and Libertas praestantissimum (Leo XIII)

• An erroneous notion of the power of the Pope (cf. Den. 3115).

• A Protestant notion of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, condemned by the Council of Trent, Session XXII.

• Finally, and in a general manner, the free spreading of heresies, characterized by the suppression of the Holy Office.

The documents containing these errors cause an uneasiness and a disarray, so much the more profound as they come from a source so much the more elevated. The clergy and the faithful most moved by this situation are, moreover, those who are the most attached to the Church, to the authority of the Successor of Peter, and to the traditional Magisterium of the Church.

Most Holy Father, it is urgently necessary that this disarray come to an end because the flock is dispersing and the abandoned sheep are following mercenaries. We beseech you, for the good of the Catholic Faith and for the salvation of souls, to reaffirm the truths, contrary to these errors, truths which have been taught for twenty centuries in the Church.

It is with the sentiments of St. Paul before St. Peter, when he reproached him for having not followed “the truth of the Gospel (Gal. 2, 11-14), that we are addressing you. His aim was none other than to protect the faith of the flock.

St. Robert Bellarmine, expressing on this occasion a general moral principle, states that one must resist the pontiff whose actions would be prejudicial to the salvation of souls (De Rom. Pon., I.2, c.29).

Thus it is with the purpose of coming to the aid of Your Holiness that we utter this cry of alarm, rendered all the more urgent by the errors, not to say the heresies, of the new Code of Canon Law and by the ceremonies and addresses on the occasion of the Fifth Centenary of the birth of Luther. Truly, this is the limit!

May God come to your aid, Most Holy Father. We are praying without ceasing for you to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Deign to accept the sentiments of our filial devotion,

H.E. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,

International Seminary of St. Pius X

Econe, Switzerland

H.E. Bishop Antonio de Castro-Mayer

Riachuelo 169, C.P. 255

28100 Campos, (RJ) Brazil

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLE ERRORS OF CONCILIAR ECCLESIOLOGY:

1. A LATITUDINARIAN (INDIFFERENTIST) AND ECUMENICAL CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH

The conception of the Church as “the People of God” is hereafter found in many official documents: the acts of the Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, Lumen Gentium; the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Canon 204. 1); the letter of Pope John Paul II, Catechesi Tradendae; the allocution in the Anglican Church at Canterbury; the ecumenical directory, Ad Totam Ecclesiam of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians. It [this conception] breathes a latitudinarist interpretation and a false ecumenism.

The facts manifest with evidence this heterodox conception: the aurhorizations for the construction of rooms which are destined for religious pluralism; the edition of ecumenical Bibles which no longer conform to Catholic exegesis; the ecumenical ceremonies like those of Canterbury.

In Unitatis Redintegratio, it is taught that the division of Christians:

“..is for the world an object of scandal and the obstacle of the preaching of the Gospel to all creatures.. that the Holy Spirit does not refuse to make use of orher religions as means of salvation.”

This same error is repeated in the document Catechesi Tradendae of Pope John Paul II. It is in the same spirit and with affirmations contrary to the traditional faith that Pope John Paul II declared at the Cathedral of Canterbury, May 25, 1982, “that the promise of Christ inspires us with confidence that the Holy Spirit will heal the divisions introduced into the Church from the first times at Pentecost” as though the unity of the Credo had never existed in the Church.

The concept of the “People of God” leads to belief that Protestantism is none other than a particular form of the same Christian religion.

The Second Vatican Council teaches “a true union in the Holy Spirit” with heretical sects (Lumen Gentium, S14); “a certain, though imperfect, communion with them” (Unitatis Redintegratio, $3).

This ecumenical unity contradicts the Encyclical Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII which teaches that:

“Jesus did not found a Church made up of a number of communities that were generically similar, yet separate and without those bonds of unity which make the Church one and indivisible.”

Similarly, this ecumenical unity is contrary to the Encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII, which condemns the idea of reducing to a vague formula the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church. It is also contrary to the Encyclical Mystic Corporis of the same Pope which condemns the conception of a “pneumatic” Church which would be an invisible bond unifying the separated communities in the faith.

This ecumenism is equally contrary to the teachings of Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical Mortalium Animos. Concerning this point it is timely to expose and reject a certain false opinion which is at the origin of this problem and of this complex movement by the means of which non-Catholics strive to obtain a union of Christian churches.

Those who adhere to this opinion constantly cite these words of Christ:

“That they all may be one...and there shall be one fold and one shepherd” Jn. 17:21; 10:16), and they claim that by these words Christ expresses a desire or a prayer which has never been realized. In fact, they claim that the unity of faith and of government, which is one of the marks of the true Church of Christ, in a practical manner, up to today, has never existed and today does not exist.

This ecumenism condemned by Catholic morality and law, now manages to permit the reception of the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction from “non-Catholic ministers” (Canon 844, 1983 Code of Canon Law), and encourages “ecumenical hospitality” by authorizing Catholic ministers to give the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to non-Catholics.

All these things are contrary to Divine Revelation which stipulates the “separation” and rejects the union “between light and darkness, between the faithful and the unbeliever, berween the temple of God and that of sects” (II Cor. 6:14-18).

II. THE COLLEGIAL-DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH

Having undermined the unity of the faith, the Modernists of today strive to undermine the unity of government and the hierarchical structure of the Church.

The doctrine, already insinuated by the document Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II, is taken up again, explicidy, by the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Canon 336). According to this doctrine, the College of Bishops united with the Pope, has an equal possession of the supreme authority in the Church, in a habitual and constant manner.

This doctrine—of a double supreme authority—is contrary to the teaching and to the practice of the Magisterium of the Church, especially in Vatican Council I (DS 3055), and in the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum. The Pope alone has this supreme authority which he can communicate, in the measure which he judges expedient and in extraordinary circumstances.

To this grave error is attached the democratic orientation of the Church, with the power residing in the “People of God” such as it is defined in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This Jansenist error is condemned by the Bull Auctorem Fidei of Pope Pius VI.

This tendency to cause the “base” to participate in the exercise of power is found in the institution of the synodal and episcopal conferences, in the priestly and pastoral councils, and in the multiplication of Roman commissions and national commissions, as in the heart of religious congregations (concerning this, see Vatican Council I, DS 3061; 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 447).

The source of the anarchy and disorder which today reign throughout the Church is to be found in this degradation of authority.

III. THE FALSE NATURAL RIGHTS OF MAN

The Declaration Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican Council II affirms the existence of a false natural right of man in religious matters, contrary to the pontifical teachings which repudiate such a blasphemy.

Thus Pope Pius IX in his Encyclical Quanta Cura and the Syllabus, Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclicals Libertas Praestantissimum and Immortale Dei, Pope Pius XII in his allocution, La Riesce, to the Italian Catholic jurists, deny that reason and revelation found a similar right.

Vatican II professes, in a universal manner, that “the Truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own Truth.” This is formally opposed to the teaching of Pope Pius VI against the Jansenists of the Council of Pistoia (DS 2604). The Second Vatican Council thus arrives at the absurdity of affirming the right not to adhere to, and not to follow the Truth, in order to oblige civil governments to no longer discriminate for religious motives, thus establishing a juridical equality between false religions and the true one.

These doctrines, which have already been condemned by Pope St. Pius X in the Pontifical Mandate, Notre Charge Apostolique-Our Apostolic Mandate, are founded on a false conception of human dignity which comes from the agnostic and materialistic pseudo-philosophers of the French Revolution.

Vatican Il says that from religious liberty will emerge an era of stability for the Church. Pope Gregory XVI affirms, on the contrary, that it is a supreme impudence to attirm that the immoderate freedom of opinion would be beneficial for the Church.

The Council expresses in Gaudium et Spes a false principle when it says that human and Christian dignity come from the fact of the Incarnation, which has restored this dignity for all men. This same error is affirmed in the Encyclical Redemptor Hominis of Pope John Paul II.

The consequences of the recognition by the Council of this false “Rights of Men” destroys the foundations of the social reign of our Lord. They undermine the authority and power of the Church in its mission to cause our Lord to reign in souls and in hearts, for the Church must direct the battle against the satanic forces which subjugate souls.

The missionary spirit will be accused of exaggerated proselytism.

The neutrality of States in religious matters is injurious for our Lord and His Church, when it is a question of States with a Catholic majority.

IV. THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE

Most certainly the authority of the pope in the Church is a supreme authority, but it cannot be absolute and without limits, since it is subordinate to Divine Authority, which is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the ecclesiastical Magisterium (DS 3116).

The authority of the pope is subordinate and limited by the end for which this authority has been given to him. This end is clearly defined by Pope Pius IX in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican Council I (DS 3070). It would be an intolerable abuse of power to modify the Constitution of the Church and, in doing so, pretend to appeal to the rights of man against the Divine Right, as in religious liberty, as in the eucharistic hospitality which is authorized in the new Canon Law, as in the assertion of two supreme authorities in the Church.

It is clear that in these cases and in other similar cases, it is the duty for each member of the clergy and each faithful Catholic to resist and to refuse obedience. Blind obedience is a contrary sense and no one is exempt from his responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God (DS 3115). This resistance must be public if the evil is public and an object of scandal to souls (ST, II, II, Q.33, Art.4).

The above statements are elementary principles of ethics. They regulate the relations of subjects with all legitimate authority.

Moreover this resistance finds a confirmation in the fact that henceforth those who hold firmly to Tradition and the Catholic Faith are penalized; those who profess doctrines which are heterodox, or who effect sacrileges are in no way troubled.

That is the logic of an abuse of authority.

V. PROTESTANT NOTION OF THE MASS

The new notion of the Church, such as Pope John Paul II defined it in the Constitution which precedes the 1983 Code of Canon Law, evokes a profound alteration in the principal act of the Church, which is the Sacrifice of the Mass. The definition of the new ecclesiology gives exactly the definition of the New Mass: it is a collegial and ecumenical service and communion. The New Mass cannot be better defined and the New Mass, just as the new Conciliar Church, is a profound rupture with the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.

It is a conception more Protestant than Catholic, and it explains all that which has been unduly exalted and all that which has been diminished.

Contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent in its 22nd session, contrary to the Encyclical Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII, the role of the faithful in the participation of the Mass has been exaggerated, and the role of the priest, now become a simple president, has been diminished. The importance of the Liturgy of the Word has been exaggerated, and the importance of the propitiatory Sacrifice has been diminished. The meal of the community has been exalted and the Mass has been laicized, to the detriment of the respect and the faith in the Real Presence by transubstantiation.

By the suppression of the sacred language, the rites have been infinitely multiplied. They have been profaned by worldly and pagan additions. False translations have been propagated to the detriment of the true faith and the true piety of the faithful.

And yet the Councils of Florence and Trent had pronounced anathemas against all these changes and they had affirmed that the Canon of our Mass goes back to Apostolic times.

Popes St. Pius V and Clement VIII had insisted upon the necessity of avoiding changes and mutations, by perpetually keeping this Roman Rite consecrated by Tradition.

The removal from the Mass of that which is sacred, and its licization have led to the laicization, in a Protestant manner, of the priesthood.

The liturgical reform in a Protestant style is one of the greatest errors of the Conciliar Church and one of the most ruinous for the Faith and grace.

VI. THE FREE DIFFUSION OF ERRORS AND HERESIES

The situation of the Church, its state of searching, has introduced, in practice, the free-thinking of Protestantism. This is the result of the multiplicity of credos at the interior of the Church. The suppression of the Holy Office, of the Index, of the Anti-Modernist Oath, has provoked among modern theologians a need for new theories which bewilder the faithful and induce them toward the charismatic movement, pentecostalism and base communities. It is a true revolution, ultimately directed against the authority of God and the Church. Grave modern errors which remain condemned by the popes are now freely developing at the interior of the Church:

1. Modern philosophies which are anti-scholastic, existentialist, anti-intellectualist are taught in Catholic universities and seminaries.

2. Humanism is favored by the need of ecclesiastical authorities to be an echo of the modern world by making man the end of all things.

3. Naturalism-the exaltation of man and human values, is causing the supernatural values of the Redemption and grace to be forgotten.

4. Evolutionary Modernism is causing the rejection of Tradition, of Revelation, of the Magisterium of 20 centuries. No longer is there an unchanging Truth, nor any dogma.

5. Socialism and Communism: The refusal of the Council to condemn these errors was scandalous and legitimately causes the belief that today the Vatican would be favorable to a socialism or a communism more or less Christian.
   The attitude of the Holy See, both in its dealings with the other side of the Iron Curtain and this side, during the past 15 years, confirms this judgment.

6. Finally, the agreements with Freemasonry, the ecumenical Council of Churches, and Moscow, reduce the Church to the state of a prisoner. She becomes totally incapable of freely fulfilling her mission. These are real treasons which cry to heaven for vengeance, just as are the praises uttered in these recent days to the heresiarch who was the most scandalous and the most noxious to the Church.

It is time that the Church recovered its freedom in order to advance the Reign of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Reign of Mary without being preoccupied with its enemies.

Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison,

Fidelis Inveniatur,

Sincerely…

Having just finished Fr. Cekada’s brief essay (linked here), I write to you in hopes that my own reflection may induce some pursuit of study.

Within only thirty-two pages, the Rev. Fr. Cekada forcefully enlightens the mind of the reader with the diabolical intentions of the so-called ‘reformers’ (the word ‘deformers’ would be more accurate) of the liturgy, collectively known as the Consilium.

These pernicious men sought after, and ultimately achieved, a destruction of the traditional liturgy in favour of a ‘softened’ and ‘adapted’ Mass that is more suitable for ‘modern man,’ who, as Bishop Williamson would say, “is as dumb as his feet.”

Feeling that the traditional liturgy was unacceptable on these six grounds,

1. Negative Theology

2. Detachment from the World

3. Prayers for the Departed

4. Ecumenism

5. The Merits of the Saints

6. Miracles

These evil deformers excised essentially all Catholic teaching in the prayers of the Mass in favour of more lighthearted sentiments that almost never call man to repentance, conversion, thoughts of Hell and suffering, and the effects of sin.

Now, why is this important?

Well, dear friend, the Society of Saint Pius X (predominantly) and other so-called ‘radical traditionalists’ are often faced with the accusation that we are in grievious error for calling the New Mass a ‘danger to souls’ that ought to be avoided entirely (with the exception of funerals or weddings attended out of charity).

Unsurprisingly, this accusation is often levelled by a Catholic who either fails to study his faith, one who is wholly obedient to the reforms of Vatican II without question, or some sort of 1960’s hippy Catholic who thinks that the reforms were a great revitalisation of the Church against the dormant and rigid Medieval scholastic ways.

I will say without even the slightest inkling of doubt, the New Mass must absolutely be avoided by any serious Catholic, and, in fact, the New Mass is gravely deficient, bastardised (illegitimate), and even if valid, constitutes an offence against the Catholic Faith.

But how could I say such a thing?

Well, if you follow my advice and purchase a copy of this study, you will see that the intentions of the reformers were not only straight from the depths of Hell, but logically incoherent.

Rather than reacting in an emotional way, take a moment to consider this: how can it be, that in the modern world, far from the heights of Christendom, wherein modern man tends towards irreligion, is plagued with perpetual debauchery, impurity, heresy, and other temptations, that the Mass had to have been stripped of all references to the effects of sin, Purgatory and Hell, the saints, and more, for his benefit?

In fact, I don’t think there can be something so illogical, as to strip the highest act of worship from its remedial propensity, for a sickly, dying, and faithless generation, one that needs more graces than ever.

Did not these wicked men trust in the words of Our Lord, “ask and ye shall receive?”

If the Traditional Mass does more asking, in a more profound and Catholic way, has rehabilitated the greatest sinners and produced the greatest saints over the centuries, and modern man is in the most need of God’s graces in this profoundly anti-Catholic world, what possible justification could there be for a radical overhaul and diminishment of the Mass?

Not only is this evident on paper, but the effects of the New Mass being said by the majority of the Church is evident in the lack of catechesis, vocations, belief in essential Catholic doctrines, and more.

With less asking, clearly has come less receiving.

With the removal of the Good Friday prayer for the ‘older brothers’ that Vatican II speaks of, do we see many conversions from their camp?

With the removal of the references to our Eternal Destination, whether it be Heaven, Hell, or a brief stay in Purgatory, do we see many Catholics living each moment as if these destinations were a reality?

With the removal of prayers for the conversion of heretics, apostates, and pagans, do we see many Catholics advocating for these souls to return to the unique Ark of Salvation?

Of course, those ‘obedient’ Catholics love to claim that “the Mass isn’t the direct cause of those things!” but it would seem to me that they are lacking supernatural faith.

“Traditional Catholics only believe in the Real Presence, are against contraceptives and LGBTQ, veiling, etc., because those who seek out the Latin Mass usually take their faith more seriously!”

And why is that?

Oh, dear friend, let me once again remind you to purchase a copy of this study, maybe even Fr. Cekada’s book, Work of Human Hands, and to take the faith seriously.

The motto of the late Bishop Williamson was such:

Fidelis Inveniatur,

That We May Be Found Faithful.

Sincerely…

I’d like to properly frame the conversation surrounding the SSPX, which is something that most anti-SSPX apologists always fail to do. They often seek to poke holes in our ‘Lefebvrian’ position, yet haven’t the slightest clue where we’re arguing from.

A perfect example is that of Joe Heschmeyer, in his recent video ‘Answering SSPX Objections to Vatican II.’

To his credit, he was charitable enough, dialogued with Fr. Palko, and even conceded that there are at least four worrisome aspects of Vatican II. Of course, he ultimately believes these aspects aren’t enough justification for the SSPX to do as it has, draws a comparison to the reception and promulgation of Councils in the early Church, etc.

What’s fundamentally missing from his analysis is understanding the nature and development of the Church, a lack of familiarity with pre-Conciliar Encyclicals, most likely a failure to understand the internal battles of Vatican II, and more.

Before I begin, I’d like to make it clear that this isn’t a personal attack against Joe, but what I see as a refutation of his dangerous line of attack. His charitable tone and seemingly-scholarly apologetics will arouse those in the Novus Ordo who already have a bone to pick with the SSPX, and will ultimately make defending our position much more of a headache.

The first major divergence between our understanding of Vatican II and his is the nature of the Council. Not only was it absolutely unnecessary, but completely imprudent.

There is definitive proof that Ven. Pius XII thought of convening a Council early in his Pontificate, but ultimately opted against it. If you choose to look into this, you may find evidence that he thought it was too hard, the time wasn’t ripe, or more, but ultimately one thing is evident- and that was his choosing not to. I would assume he had the foresight to know how badly the Church was infiltrated, considering that St. Pius X wrote in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

And this is only the beginning! Three paragraphs into this most resounding Encyclical is the key to understanding why the Church needed a flushing out, not an opening up.

If, while writing in 1907, St. Pius X saw this abominable infiltration, was able to cast it underground for about five decades, and it saw a resurgence under the Pontificate of Pius XII (though he did fight against it), any future Pope, unless he desired to introduce Neo-Modernism into the Church, would not convene a Council under these circumstances.

It is important to note that Pius XII severely restricted those suspect of heresy and error, namely Cdls. Roncalli and Montini (future John XXIII and Paul VI), Yves Congar, and more, who ultimately played some of the most prominent roles at the Council.

How can it be, that some of the worst and most perfidious men in the Church are suddenly not suspect, and within a decade or so are rehabilitated as the most capable theologians the Church has seen?

With that being said, knowing that Vatican II explicitly decided not to define any doctrines, dogmas, or anathemas, what was its purpose?

If it was a mere restatement of the Faith applicable to the modern world, it failed to succinctly summarise or articulate the faith. At best, it muddied the waters, and at worst (or most accurately), it introduced ambiguities, errors, and maybe even heresies.

What’s worse is that Mr. Heschmeyer looks at this situation and boldly proclaims ‘this is just like the early Church!’

In a similar sense to the Novus Ordo, returning to the Early Church in all things is not best, especially when it happens to be liturgical customs that were rightfully phased out, and most definitely not the confusion caused by a lack of theological exposition.

As time went on, the Church clarified more things, so it should be natural to expect that with each Council, things get clearer, because there is more defined and less to define.

That is not the case with Vatican II. After the most beautiful and rich expositions of Trent, Vatican II was absolutely unnecessary. And of course, as the world secularised, Vatican II’s definition of Religious Liberty might’ve been the most horrid idea to cross those wicked minds of the deformers.

For those that may be unfamiliar, the Vatican reached out to multiple still-Catholic states and asked them to remove their exclusivity clauses in their constitutions in accordance with Vatican II. Rather than recognising the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Vatican kindly asked those in accordance with Church teaching to now recognise the pantheon of religions.

Further, these Catholic Inc. apologists never talk about the internal battles of Vatican II- because why would they?

There is never a mention of the Coetus Internationale Patrum, the battles of Cardinal Ottaviani with Cardinal Bea, the work of Archbishop Lefebvre (see I Accuse the Council!), the Rhine vs the Tiber alliances (see Ralph Wiltgen’s book), or a peep about the three years of preliminary schemata that were trashed immediately and replaced with the heretical jargon of suspected Freemasons.

In the mind of Catholic Inc., rather than questioning the Council, which ultimately leads to some conservative position- whether it be SSPX, Sedevacantism, C-Thesis, etc- they assume that the Council must be absolutely perfect and there is no room to question it. That is what good Catholics do!

Unfortunately, they could not be more wrong. There are definitive breaks with Tradition, and even their favourite ‘saintly’ Popes- Montini, Wojlyta, Ratzinger- all recognise the discontinuity with Tradition.

Some examples:

“From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”

Paul VI, Homily for the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, 29 June 1972.

“The Church is in an hour of anxiety, of self-criticism, one might even say of self-destruction.”

Paul VI, Allocution at the Lombard Seminary, 7 December 1968.

“If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text as a whole, we might say that it is (along with the texts on religious liberty and on world religions) a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-syllabus.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), Principles of Catholic Theology (1982).

“Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church.”

Cardinal Léon-Joseph Suenens

For a look at how terribly Vatican II breaks with all pre-conciliar doctrine compare:

Dignitatis Humanae vs. Quanta Cura (Pius IX, 1864), the Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX, 1864), and Libertas Praestantissimum (Leo XIII, 1888)

Nostra Aetate vs. Mortalium Animos (Pius XI, 1928)

Unitatis Redintegratio vs. Mortalium Animos (Pius XI, 1928)

Lumen Gentium (§8, “subsistit in”) vs. Mystici Corporis Christi (Pius XII, 1943)

Lumen Gentium (on collegiality) vs. Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I, 1870)

Gaudium et Spes vs. the Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX, 1864), Quas Primas (Pius XI, 1925), Immortale Dei (Leo XIII, 1885), and Humanum Genus (Leo XIII, 1884)

Sacrosanctum Concilium vs. Mediator Dei (Pius XII, 1947) and, in discussions of the later liturgical reform, Quo Primum (Pius V, 1570)

Dei Verbum vs. Providentissimus Deus (Leo XIII, 1893), Spiritus Paraclitus (Benedict XV, 1920), and Humani Generis (Pius XII, 1950)

Orientalium Ecclesiarum vs. Mortalium Animos (Pius XI, 1928)

Ad Gentes vs. Maximum Illud (Benedict XV, 1919).

Finally, towards the end of the video, our friend Mr. Heschmeyer asserts that the Novus Ordo Mass is quite like the evolution of the 7 liturgical traditions, in the sense that it expresses the same theology in its own voice and in a slightly different way.

He continues by comparing this to the evolution of languages, in the sense that one may capture some things better than others.

But he fails to consider a variety of problems with the Novus Ordo, and that could not be more evident.

1. There simply cannot be a coexistence of two Roman Rites (the ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ forms, coined by BXVI). By rightfully making this dichotomy, Ratzinger has implicitly conceded that one is greater than the other, and the New Mass should never be offered to God. Why withhold the ‘extraordinary’ Sacrifice of the Mass, if it is more than capable of being offered, has been offered continuously and virtually untouched for centuries on end, and is in greater continuity with anything the Church has ever taught?

2. Mr. Heschmeyer presupposes that the theology of the Novus Ordo is a different expression of the same truth. This could not be farther from the truth. The Novus Ordo was created with the assistance of (at least) six Protestant ministers, was inspired by a heretical triple-Real Presence as taught by Scandinavian Lutherans (see A Work of Human Hands: a Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI, Fr. Anthony Cekada, SGG), the GIRM for the N.O.M sees the Mass as a communal supper, the propitiatory nature of the Mass is reduced and/or eliminated, the hierarchical role of the priest is outright diminished and/or abolished, and the New Mass removed dozens of Signs of the Cross, prayers, essentially the entire offertory, and introduced a Talmudic meal prayer. This in no way is the same theology of the Tridentine Mass or the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Let the words of the great Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ring:

« Cette messe nouvelle est une messe bâtarde. Elle est bâtarde parce qu'elle est faite de morceaux anciens et nouveaux, et parce qu'elle est ambiguë. Elle n'est plus la messe catholique. »

“This new Mass is an [illegitimate] Mass. It is [illegitimate] because it is made up of old and new pieces, and because it is ambiguous. It is no longer the Catholic Mass.”

And to finish, I’ll quickly address the ridiculous nature of the comments calling the SSPX ‘Lefebvrians’ or ‘Lefebvrists,’ etc.

There is a rich irony in those in absolute discontinuity with the entire history of the Roman Catholic Church, who weekly attend a hodge-podge Mass (if it even be called that) that was constructed by various false religions in a tremendous ecumenical effort, whose entire liturgical calendar and fasting practices differ from the historical faith, and those who blindly follow the ‘teachings’ of the Post-Conciliar Church calling us ‘Lefebvrians.’

It would do them well to travel to Écône and see the tombstone of our founder, who chose the words of St. Paul: Tradidi et Quod Accepi, I Have Passed Down What I’ve Been Given.

The very same founder of the Society of Saint Pius X who refused the title of ‘head of traditionalists.’

Dear friend, let this serve as a reminder to ignore most of what comes out of ‘Catholic Inc.’ (coined by Chris Jackson/Hiraeth in Exile, I believe).

They often levy criticisms against ‘traditionalism’ as a whole, yet, the plank is never removed from their eyes, and the background of the entire drama is never set. They speak so confidently, yet always dodge our inquiries. It is a favourite pasttime of theirs to speak against the SSPX, but they do not hear what we are saying.

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

St. Matthew 11:15

Marvel at the significance of such a day as today. Today marks 38 years since Operation Survival and only momentarily will it be repeated. Four Catholic priests are preparing this very night to embark on the arduous journey of the episcopate. An episcopate deemed ‘schismatic,’ ‘rebellious,’ and ultimately concluded as a horrible action by the authorities of the Church.

For the love of God, why must it be done?

The Catholic faith, the faith instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, the only means of salvation, the faith of the martyrs and of the saints is at stake.

It is not present in the ordinary means of the Church. They have forsaken it. They have abandoned it for the ideals of the French Revolution.

‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité’

No longer will you find the Catholic faith in the most beautiful cathedrals, nor your local Novus Ordo parish, nor in the great Basilica of St. Peter.

They do not wish to proclaim the exclusivity of the Catholic faith, outside of which nobody can be saved.

They wish to preach the Gospel of Chocolate. To them, life is not participation in the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but a mission to feel as warm and gooey as possible. The suffering of the cross is replaced only by sentimental feelings and a false notion of the Divine Saviour.

They actively encourage those in error to persist in their errors, to assist them in their errors, never rebuking their false religions, praying alongside them, even going as far as saying that salvation may be found in their religions. They ask for the blessings of schismatics and heretics, even the blessings of those of orders deemed ‘utterly null and entirely void’ by our predecessor of happy memory, the great rosary Pope, Leo XIII.

Yet, as we have a man claiming to be his successor in name, he forgets the denunciation of Apostolicae Curae, and chooses to pray with the false ‘Archbishop of Canterbury,’ Sarah Mullally.

Our enemies claim that we think the Church has defected. It has not!

We are presently in the worst crisis the Church has ever seen, worse than any previous heresy. We live in the time of neo-modernism, as condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, deemed the ‘synthesis of all heresies.’

No longer do the churchmen believe in the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, the legendary lives of the saints, the Traditions passed down to us, but they prefer a new Gospel, a new faith, a new catechism, a new Code of Canon Law, and worst of all, a New Mass.

The Mass of the Saints, the Mass of the Martyrs, the Mass of Our Fathers, it has been abandoned. Abandoned to appease Protestants, abandoned for a Talmudic meal prayer, abandoned to destroy the role of the priest, and abandoned to destroy belief in Our Lord’s Real Presence.

These wicked deformers, they have spat on the faces of those who gave up their lives for the Cross of Christ, and even on the face of our Blessed and Divine Saviour.

They may profess the Catholic faith in name, but in practice, they do not believe that Our Lord’s Sacrifice was enough. To them, all religions are a pathway to God, and in some you might even find salvation. How utterly contradictory to the words of our Blessed Lord: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6).

In Novus Ordo parishes, we can easily find celebrations of sodomy, rampant liturgical abuse, invalid absolution formulas, horribly formed priests, and more.

And they tell us there is no state of necessity!

The faith is a necessity, and where the faith is not present, it is up to those courageous priests to offer themselves as an oblation and undertake whatever false ecclesiastical penalties that are pronounced against them for the salvation of souls.

As the great Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre once said, ‘That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity. That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practised in the Faith: morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institutions of the Church, by the Church of all time. To all these things as codified in those books which saw the day before the modernist influence of the Council, this we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.’

And what of the Indult Masses?

Why must the Society have its own bishops? Can’t it get along with everyone else, the same Novus Ordo bishops that ordain for the Fraternity of St. Peter and Institute of Christ the King?

Resoundingly, the answer is no! They confer doubtful orders, having doubtfully been consecrated in the New Rite, and are traitors to Tradition. They’ve given up the fight for the faith out of liturgical preference and ‘full communion,’ rather than to stand against the errors of Vatican II, the selfsame errors that have caused the Crisis in the first place.

We cannot shake the hands of those who shake hands with the enemies of the faith! It may be painful, but we must have nothing to do with their doubtful sacraments, their compromised mentality, and we must not forsake our own principles, a man is nothing without them. It is the spirit of compromise that led to the fall of Catholic Europe, of Christendom, and we must pity the fool that continues to compromise for doubtful sacraments!

Modernism is a ferocious disease, and we ought to stay as far away as possible from it as we can.

In battle, must we fraternise with the enemy, insofar as they have fancy tents, merry old songs, and nice soldiers? No!

Our Lord is very clear on this point: “he that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth” (Mt. 12:30)

If they are against the Catholic faith, they are against Our Lord, and if they are against Our Lord, we must have no dealings with them. They are scattered, bound by liberal bishops with doubtful orders, repeatedly kicked out of the diocese, and bite their tongues often to maintain their heraldic ‘full communion’ status. Dear friend, do you desire to be in ‘full communion’ with error?

Again, with no bitterness, with no spite, but with sheer determination must we progress forward. As faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X, we must carry our banners with ferocity, devote ourselves to our communities, the formation of our peers, the commands of our priests, and raise the sword that Our Lord has brought to us with confidence.

It is with God on our side, the Blessed Virgin assisting us, and with the great treasures that Archbishop Lefebvre has left us, that we must focus and continue to work of the salvation of souls, in raising holy Catholic families, in garnering vocations, and fight against the Synthesis of all Heresies.

Fidelis Inveniatur.

This morning, a letter entitled, ‘LETTER OF POPE LEO XIV TO THE SUPERIOR GENERAL OF THE PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X’ was sent out by Pope Leo XIV.

I write to you dissatisfied, seeing that our Holy Father has not the time to take matters serious. Not only did he deem the Society of Saint Pius X worth less than 300 words and 1700 characters (including spaces and line breaks), but he did so on the eve of the consecration of four holy men to the Episcopate.

After repeated and desperate appeals to himself and Tucho ‘Kissy’ Fernandez (the Vatican’s mystical kissing expert and head of the DDF) by Fr. Pagliarani and the SSPX, it is only as the sun sets that the Holy Father desires to make his appeal. Before we even touch upon the lack of substance in his appeal, is not the timing a bit off?

To The Reverend
Davide Pagliarani
Superior General
of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X

With a paternal heart, and aware of the responsibility entrusted to me by the Lord as the Successor of the Apostle Peter, I address you and, through you, the bishops, priests, seminarians and faithful connected to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.

The Church recognizes the devotion to liturgical life, commitment to priestly formation, apostolic zeal and desire for fidelity to Tradition that characterize many people and communities connected to your Fraternity. This has motivated the attentive and generous attitude that my Predecessors have consistently shown to you.

A classic Vatican II word salad, served fresh!

After sending an immense profession of faith, tirelessly putting out content on the errors of Vatican II on religious libety, ecumenism, collegiality, and more for 56 years, the Society of Saint Pius X is reduced to a fraternity that likes the Tridentine Mass and making good priests!

There is no substance to this letter, it is all fluff. And if you could believe it, this short quote is half of it!

As for the ‘attentive and generous attitude’ shown to the SSPX by Leo’s predecessors, particularly in the case of Francis, they saw good fruits. Was it not Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos that remarked those selfsame words and could not answer Bishop Fellay’s juxtaposition: that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit! (Matthew 7:18).

Francis, as Archbishop Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, defended the SSPX to the government of Argentina, recognising them as a Catholic society of priests and worked alongside the SSPX’s tireless missionaries in the slums of the city. Has Leo considered visiting Écône, even for some wine? Maybe Dillwyn, Virginia, which ordained 7 to the priesthood and 10 to the diaconate this month, whereas the diocese of Chicago, which consists of approximately 2.2 million Catholics, ordained three.

Let’s continue:

In this spirit, and filled with Christian affection, I plead with you and ask you with all my heart: please turn back! I urge you to consider carefully the spiritual good of the faithful, because the schismatic act you are about to undertake would deprive them of the licit and, in some cases, even valid reception of the Sacraments, which they love and seek for their sanctification.

The Church is open to a path of dialogue and understanding that the Holy Spirit can make possible and fruitful.

I pray for you, because to tear the seamless garment of Christ is a sin of extreme gravity. May the Lord enlighten your consciences and awaken your hearts. With a sorrowful yet hopeful heart, I feel it is my duty, through the authority received from Christ, to ask you to desist from your intended act. I entrust these intentions to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of Good Counsel.

From the Vatican, 29 June 2026

Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul

LEO PP. XIV

I am already anticipating the nauseating repetition of the phrase ‘please turn back!’ by the influencer sphere for the next 24hrs.

Turn back? Holy Father, if you were truly concerned for the souls that could end up in jeopardy, why wait until the last second, as they slip out of your hands?

There is no excuse for this pathetic appeal to be sent out so late, utterly devoid of substance, full of fluff, an indirect accusation of schism, and of course, more dialogue!

What is interesting to note is that he is tacitly trying to convey that confessions and marriages done by the SSPX may no longer be valid after tomorrow, which is quite ironic, considering that we are unsure if he can even confect the sacraments himself. Validity is a concern now? Shall we touch upon the New Rite of Consecration? The New Mass? No, no, we mustn’t go there… let’s be charitable!

The same principles apply, for those who are worried. It is within your canonical rights to approach a priest for the sacraments in times of crisis, and even a laicised priest can hear a valid confession.

See HERE and HERE

But hey! We got invited for more dialogue! Wouldn’t it be nice to dialogue with someone who actually knows what our position is? The SSPX is not here exclusively in defence of the Tridentine Mass or good formation- though they are definitely a large part of the mission of the Society- but because there are legitimate and pernicious errors in the documents of Vatican II that are endangering souls and leading to this ecumenical fiasco that is Modern Rome.

Bah! Who cares for the pre-conciliar encyclicals that condemned all of the modern errors (Pascendi, Quanta Cura, Mirari Vos, etc), let’s dialogue!

The problem is simply that these men profess a different religion, a religion of peace and love and charity towards all separated brethren, ‘Christian’ sects, false religions and the rest, but when there is a society of priests and bishops that actually wants to retain the faith, whole and entire, we’ve basically got an ecumenical holocaust going on!

‘Tearing the seamless garment of Christ…’ woah, woah, woah…

If I were to ask an innocent bystander if an organisation of over 1 billion people decided to change the central component of their mission (the Mass) after 1700 years of organic development to something new, introduce tons of novelties in its juridical practice, change how it hires and promotes people (ordinations and consecrations), and in the midst of this wave of change, is rapidly losing adherents, but the singular group that is faithful to this organisation’s original plan is still growing and is alive and well, who would they accuse of tearing this organisation apart?

How can those faithful to the supreme law of the Church, ie. the Salvation of Souls, in the face of the denial of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, be tearing the tunic of Christ?

The Catholic Church is identical to the Church of Christ, it does not merely subsist in it, and it is necessary for all men to be united to this church in order to be saved. Would Leo ever deliberately say that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, or did he tell the usurping Sarah Mullally, an ardent proponent of playing episcopal dress-up, that ‘God’s abiding presence’ is with her, and allows her to ‘bless’ himself and his confreres?

Dear friend, though this situation is immensely grave, there is no reason to fear. The Pope’s letter is meant to scare you away, all while remaining fairly vague, and failed to address the most simple of points. It was not written as a formal rebuke of the SSPX, but to scare those who are sitting on the fence and were still leaning towards ‘full communion.’

The SSPX will keep doing as it has for over five decades, because that is all it can do. Tradidi et Quod Accepi… I have passed down what I’ve been given…

“That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.

That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.

By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen.”

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

November 21, 1974
Econe, Switzerland.

I’d like to reflect on the current state of affairs, somewhat foreign to my platform, but at the same time, loosely related.

Though we are self-avowed ‘Traditional Catholics,’ nothing we can do, whether it be attending the Vetus Ordo, dressing rightly, being modest in speech and in action, or smoking a pipe will bring back the ‘old days.’

Now, what I presented above is merely a caricature of ‘tradition,’ yet, it is some of our only semblance to the better days of old.

I recently watched ‘Young Sherlock Holmes’ (1985), a childhood favourite of mine, and loved every aspect of the atmosphere.

Of course, the homogeny was one thing, but the attire, manner of speech, interior decor, and intellect of the characters was what stirred up these feelings of sentimentality, a yearning for an age I wasn’t born in.

Now, before you accuse me of buffoonery, I’m well aware that I’m speaking of a movie. Nonetheless, there was a time where the average man was dressed in a suit, speech was proper and not vulgar (depending on the place and time of course), food was cultivated and harvested without sythentic ingredients, interpersonal relations were not broadcast to the masses, religion was taken seriously, manners were still taught, and even the dullest place was conducive for thought.

We ought to compare that to today’s world, where formality is seen as authoritarian and classist- outdated, even- where even the smallest act of religiosity makes you seem like a dinosaur among your peers, where neither the rich or the poor dare throw on a suit- bah! I’d just like to be casual!

How miserable this fall, and even worse, that it’s taken ahold of the Church!

Not only has the Mass been undressed- stripped of all its mysticism, sacerdotal and propitiatory nature- but even the formalities of the Papacy have gone out the window.

Why must it be, that even kissing the Pope’s ring is uncomfortable for many?

It seems that everywhere we look, things must be simplified and sterile. Modern man is impressed by the most putrid piece of architecture, so long as it has some sort of complex scheme where intersecting beams can magically hold much more weight than they should.

These same buildings insistingly must be built out of some recycled material, and everyone’s belongings have also been built to perish within a few uses.

When we compare that to the great Catholic architecture of Cathedrals and Basilicas, where the lowest men of society would toil relentlessly with their hands to make a single brick that honoured God, spending days, weeks even, to fashion a single detail for the glory of God, we then begin to understand how far things have fallen.

My friend, I apologise if I’m coming across as a rambler, but it becomes quite hard to bear the modern world at times!

Luckily, with whatever semblance of those better days we have left, our sanity gets recharged at Holy Mass and we must continue to persevere in our time.

The hour is getting late and I must be getting off to bed,

Fidelis Inveniatur,

Sincerely…

Oftentimes, when someone is unusually belligerent against the SSPX and its 1988 Episcopal Consecrations, they fail to understand the mind of their supposed villain- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

It interests them little who this great man was, his story, or even his motives behind the historic consecrations.

It matters not that he was the son of a great traditional Catholic family, of a mother who possibly bore the stigmata, a father that was a martyr, a brother who was a priest, of sisters that entered into and founded their own religious orders, the Apostolic Delegate of all of French-speaking Africa and close friend of venerable Pius XII, a Vatican II Father, but most of all that he was a troubled old man, approached by scandalised seminarians, who reluctantly agreed to form them in pre-conciliar fashion, of which he was previously hailed for.

One who has the ability to think may ask themselves: knowing all of this, why would such a man risk his eternal reward, knowing the pain of a true and valid excommunication?

Precisely in that question lies the answer.

Whether you feel that he was a magnanimous or perfidious man, you must enter the realm of insanity to believe that such a character would even entertain for a second losing his own soul for the act of self-preservation.

Believing that he acted in such a way- against all that he knew- from childhood until death- would logically force you to concede that he either had an insincere or false faith, or that he was legitimately troubled and earnest in consecrating the four young men as his successors, the auxiliary bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X.

Opponents of Archbishop Lefebvre- at least those whose minds are not poisoned by the Hegelian dialectic and Kantian nonsense- must then regard the 1988 Consecrations as an intrinsic good, or a manifestly evil and devastating action.

But how can it be so?

Knowing that the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides exemptions for those who consecrate without papal mandate- provided that they act under grave necessity (not explicitly defined), fear, or even out of major inconvenience- how can anyone believe that our good Archbishop did something evil on 30 June 1988?

The consecrations would’ve had to be intrinsically evil for Archbishop Lefebvre to remain unqualified for the exemptions previously mentioned.

Yet, that is not possible. Affirming the faithful, but most importantly, the Pope, that he had no intention to create a parallel Church like the Bishops of Palmar de Troya, nor to confer jurisdiction (which he did not have the power to do, and would constitute a legitimately schismatic act), but only for the good of the faithful, so that they may have bishops to confer the sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders to ensure the traditional faith continued, and that he could not go before God and provide an account of how he failed to do what he was called to do, how could this act have been anything but heroism and self-immolation?

“Even if the act wasn’t per se schismatic, he divided the Church!”

Oh, dear friend, how much further from the truth can you be?

When reality is divorced from the law, as our Superior General recently spoke about, absurd conclusions follow.

How can it be, that the sole Archbishop who stood by the faith as others tore it down and permitted abuses, or those who unhesitatingly accepted this New Mass that ‘represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent1,’ or who, out of obedience to all prior Popes and their Magisteriums, could not accept these novelties that contradicted Quanta Cura, Mirari Vos, or Pascendi Dominici Gregis, be the villain?

This is the sickness that has permeated the minds of the hierarchy and faithful alike!

Oh, how painful it should be, to think that nearly all of the hierarchy of the Church permitted an overnight shift to a Mass that eradicated the mysticism of the ancient Roman Rite, an Ecumenical Council that teaches that we have a right to worship false gods, that the perfidius Iudaeis maintain a covenant with the Man-God, that allowed the One True Church- that is equivalent to the Church of Jesus Christ, not one that merely subsists in- to redefine itself as ‘synodal,’ and now believes that it is one among many, with false religions partaking in some ‘partial communion’ with it!

Even worse, that the Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, the Head of Christ’s Mystical Body on Earth, participated in the 1986 Assisi Meeting, wherein he humiliated all of Christendom by holding flower pots with false religions on either side of him!

In this situation, the good Archbishop Lefebvre rose above his confreres- taking on the task that none but one wished to accompany him in- and provided the ‘emergency lighting’ system to sustain the faithful.

Dear friend, take some time to consider what I have laid out above, and even more importantly, pray unceasingly for the Society of Saint Pius X to discern and follow God’s Providential Will in the coming months.

May God bless you,

Fidelis Inveniatur,

Sincerely…

Having just watched a discussion between a (Novus Ordo) Catholic priest and a popular Protestant Youtuber, I had some thoughts on evangelism that I wanted to share with you.

Though the priest did a decent job at sharing the truth of the Catholic faith with this young man, I couldn’t help but notice the objective nature of the faith lacking in his examples.

When dialoguing with Protestants or any other schismatic sect, it is crucial that the faith is not spoken of in a chocolatey, shallow, and suggestive way. The faith must be shared objectively, reverently, but most importantly, in an exclusive way. Those outside of the Church must be called to conversion for the love of Our Lord.

One of the three foundational pillars of logic is the principle of non-contradiction- ie. that two opposite things cannot both be true at the same time, with one being correct, or both being wrong.

In terms of the faith, since the Catholic faith must be held entirely, without one article missing, anyone who lacks an article of the faith or a doctrinal difference must come to these terms- who is correct, or who is false?

When speaking of the Eucharist to a Protestant, is it, or is it not the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

This question leaves us with a binary set of options.

If it is, then we need to belong to an Apostolic Church, if not, then it doesn’t really matter.

Of the Four Marks, does their Church retain the marks of Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam, Ecclesiam Apostolicam?

A Protestant must face the facts.

Is their Church one in doctrine, founded directly by God Himself, with all Seven Sacraments, has it penetrated all corners of the Earth and baptised all nations, and does it maintain the ever-so necessary Apostolic Succession that the early Church Fathers spoke of and died for?

If the answer to any of these questions is negative, their entire denomination is false.

It cannot be left out that in a false Church, there is little to no hope of salvation. These ‘dialogues’ between Catholics and schismatics always seem to leave out Our Lord’s mandate that ‘he who loves Me will keep My commandments.’

If we are bound to keep Our Lord’s commandments, would it not be the case that we must also be uniquely part of His One Church- not a breakaway or some figmentary personal understanding?

This crucial aspect of evangelism always seems to be left out when New Order priests talk with schismatics in hope of a softer, more friendly conversation, but implicitly leave the schismatic in limbo.

If they do not go home trying to figure out whether or not to belong to the Catholic Church in hopes of being saved, the entire conversation was a waste.

Now, this process might not always be immediate, but souls are at stake every time we evangelise improperly and do not eventually get our brothers to consider the necessity of the Catholic Church in salvific matters.

That brings us to a concrete post-Concilliar example- the Assisi Meetings which ever-so scandalised Archbishop Lefebvre.

Failing to do everything listed above, in typical post-WWII fashion, a Pope stood among many false religions- not calling them to conversion for their own sake- but ‘praying’ a ‘unitive’ prayer with them- albeit to whichever false deity or counterfeit Christ that they follow.

This is one of the quintessential errors of the ecumenical movement. Failing to at least propose that a heretic or schismatic ought to return to the one body in which they can be saved is a lack of Christian charity. It is a most grevious error, one that may even jeopardise our own soul one day.

Before the Second Vatican Council, it was known that Popes might’ve met with someone seeking out Our Lord in the Catholic Church, but it was done so privately, and always emphasised the unique Ark of Salvation.

There has been a lack of conversions since the Council, not due to the faith being untrue, but because of the manner in which it has been presented. If there are ‘good’ or ‘true’ things in all religions, under what circumstances would someone want to join the Church that necessitates prayer, penance, and alms, the Church that calls them to follow a crucified Saviour in hopes of being crucified themselves, to implent dietary and lifestyle restrictions, a Church where salvation is not promised?

One of the most remarkable examples is that of Rabbi Israel Zolli, who died as Eugene Zolli- taking upon himself the name of Venerable Pope Pius XII after conversion.

This Rabbi was the head of the Synagogue in Rome, yet converted after witnessing the powerful Catholic faith of Pope Pius XII. Undertaking such a conversion in such a position is not for the faint of heart- surely it came with social pressure, ostracisation, and plenty of times where Zolli questioned if he was truly doing the right thing.

But if it were today, would Rabbi Zolli have converted?

If he was told that a document of an Ecumenical Council referred to him as an ‘older brother in the faith’ (even though the rabbinic religion is not that of the Old Testament), or that the Covenant that God made with the Israelite people was somehow valid alongside the New and Eternal Covenant, would he still have joined the Church?

Not only that, but do the majority of Catholics today believe that the Catholic Church is the one unique Ark of Salvation, or do they hold it to be one religion among many, just a more straightforward pathway to salvation?

Truly, it is remarkable that this newly concocted religion of the Novus Ordo sect fails to understand the treasures that the Catholic faith has been built upon for centuries- whether it be by blood, theology, witness, or other.

This is surely the reason for the death of its missionary spirit, of the lack of conversions, and the reason that the Vatican is consistently rejecting the faith wholesale in these ‘Ecumenical gatherings.’

This is also why we must embrace the missionary spirit of the great Archbishop Lefebvre, Apostle of Africa, who converted tens of thousands of souls by his witness and preaching of the truth.

If we are trying to save souls, as our faith calls us to do, it must be presented as a non-negotiable, utterly and entirely true proposition, of which the recipient must accept or perish.

Dear friend, in your own apostolic encounters, do not forget to speak charitably in conversation, but to share the faith in its entirety, offering your brothers and sisters to face the truth or to continue down their path of treachery. Commend their souls to Our Lady, teach them the Rosary, and try to soften their hearts.

It is only if they join Christ’s One Mystical Body on Earth, united to all of the saints, to the fullness of truth, to the Blessed Virgin, and to Christ truly present in the Eucharist and Sacraments, that they may one day see Eternal Life.

Et Nos Credidimus in Caritati,

Sincerely…

Imagine a world without the Latin Mass. Your only option for a Roman Liturgy is the soulless New Mass- full of irreverence, guitars, mariachi bands, a Talmudic meal prayer, a Mass almost identical to that of the Lutherans, and thoroughly detached from the traditions of your ancestors.

That was the reality in the 1970s, and would be today’s as well, had it not been for the Episcopal Consecrations of 1988 by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and may have been the reality today otherwise. His supposed ‘disobedience’ to the ecumenist Pope John Paul II was the only preventative measure for the absolute destruction of Tradition and his ‘Operation Survival’ has clearly worked.

Since 1988, the SSPX has grown to 725+ priests, likely well over 1,000,000 faithful, the forced creation of groups such as the FSSP, ICKSP, IBP, and more, and many souls must have been saved in the meantime. According to the most up-to-date statistics, the FSSP weighs in with 387 priests, the ICKSP with 147, and the IBP with 62- with the SSPX being larger than all three combined by ~130 priests.

With that out of the way, the SSPX has just announced that they will be consecrating more bishops on 1 July 2026. An unfortunate reality, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais passed away in late 2024, and the expelled Bishop Richard Williamson followed in early 2025. Left with no choice, the SSPX is once again preparing to consecrate successors to Archbishop Lefebvre with its two remaining sons.

Knowing that an ‘illicit’ consecration will likely be followed with an Latae Sententiae (automatic and invalid) excommunication, the SSPX’s Superior General, Fr. Davide Pagliarani has expressed hope to speak with Pope Leo XIV beforehand.

There are a few potential outcomes following this announcement:

1. In having 5 months to prepare, the Holy Father may give them approval with no strings attached.

2. He may attempt to ‘reconcile’ the SSPX by means of some agreement.

3. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF, previously known as the CDF) led by the erotic-pornography author Cardinal Tucho Fernandez, famous for his books ‘Heal Me with Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing’ and ‘The Mystical Passion: Spirituality and Sensuality’ may issue a warning against the Episcopal Consecrations, likely threatening automatic excommunication.

   ---

The 1988 ‘excommunications’ themselves (lifted in 2009) were not valid to begin with.

The Motu Proprio ‘Ecclesia Dei Adflicta,’ released after the consecrations merely stated that the Archbishop, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and the four men consecrated had incurred an automatic excommunication.

This Motu Proprio did not declare with juridical force this unreality, but merely suggested that, by ‘breaking the law’ of the Church, the Archbishop and his co-consecrator had incurred the punishment themselves.

Since the successor of St. Peter himself possesses the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, it may have been more tactical to proceed with a proper canonical trial- similar to that against Archbishop Vigano- and falsely declared Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated by law (Ferendae Sententiae excommunication).

With that not being the case, there is no juridical certitude that the Archbishop had even incurred the penalty suggested against him, but let us lay the fact of the law down below.

An episcopal consecration done without or against the will of the Pope is not punishable by Latae Sententiae excommunication if:

1. The consecrator acts out of necessity or grave inconvenience, insofar as the act is not intrinsically evil (Canon 1323:4)

2. The consecrator is mistaken, but acted with proper intention (to preserve the Traditional Mass is one example) (Canon 1324).

3. The consecrator did not seek to usurp the Pope’s sole authority to provide jurisdiction (Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated his successors as Auxiliaries without attempting to confer territorial authority) (Canon 375:2)

4. The consecrator does not refuse communion with the Church by creating a parallel Church or refuses to recognise the Pope’s authority in principle (Canon 751).

That being said, it is canonically impossible for the Archbishop and his companions to have been excommunicated Latae Sententiae.

Let us not forget that the SSPX has operated under a state of necessity since any ecclesiastical penalties were leveraged against the Archbishop in the 1970s as well.

The raison d’être of the SSPX has always been preservation in the face of the restrictions against the Latin Mass and the imposition of the New Mass- thoroughly deficient by nature- against the faithful.

It was not the Archbishop who paraded himself as the saviour of the Church amidst the Crisis- the old prelate had since retired- but scandalised seminarians that encouraged the reluctant missionary to teach them.

The SSPX was founded in November of 1970 due to the diocesan seminaries being outright heretical, flying communist flags for months with no punishment, a stripping of the cassock and tonsuring ceremony, and lack of Thomistic education. Reluctant to assist these poor seminarians, the Archbishop remarked that he would take it as Divine Providence if the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg granted canonical approval to start a seminary in Écône.

What then, of the impending consecrations later this year?

Whether they are done with, or without approval by Leo XIV, they cannot, by nature be schismatic- with the same canons being applicable- due to the immense size and continued growth of the SSPX, the utter inconvenience to the distressed faithful, and the necessity of successors to Bishop Bernard Fellay and Bishop Alfonso de Galaretta.

It is important to remember that the Code of Canon Law ends with Salus Animarum Lex Ecclesiae Maximae, otherwise meaning: the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls.

If the faithful worldwide are hesitant to step foot into a Novus Ordo Church- whether it is because the priest recites an invalid formula for absolution, blesses homosexual unions, preaches heresy from the pulpit, or otherwise- believing that their soul, and the souls of their families are at stake, there is a ontological necessity for the preservation of the SSPX.

Throughout it all, let us keep the Guiding Hand of Providence at mind, fight for our own salvation against the powers and principalities of this world, and keep both the Pope and the SSPX in our prayers.

God’s Will be done,

Credidimus Caritati

Ipsa Conteret

Fidelis Inveniatur

Pax Christi Regis

Omnia Per Mariam

Spes Nostra

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, pray for us.

Death is never easy to grapple with, let alone the passing of a great man, even more so a great prelate. As today is the one year anniversary since the late Bishop Richard Nelson Williamson’s passing, it would do us well to reflect on his virtues and sheer magnanimity.

Much could be said about his character, his faults, or the amount of polarisation his name evokes. Such a character then, must be approached carefully, respectfully, but also honestly- for without this good shepherd, the Mystical Body of Christ would be lacking six Bishops, hundreds of priests, and some of the best catechesis the Church has seen in ages.

As for His Excellency’s biographical details, it is best to cover briefly, as many writers greater than I have touched upon the topic, but also because His Excellency has covered much of that himself in this interview series.

A young man led by Divine Providence, Richard Williamson was at first a teacher, but later found himself the student of Fr. John Flanagan D.C.L of St. George’s Church, Polegate, Sussex, UK. This remarkable priest- of whom little is known- challenged the intellect of the young man, urged his conversion, and sparked his curiosity enough that he began travelling to many of Our Lady’s apparition sites. The future Bishop found himself interacting with Our Lady early on, to whom he had bountiful devotion, and laid the groundwork for an inestimable amount of graces to flow toward himself.

After being scandalised by the recruiters of the Novus Ordo seminaries, Fr. Flanagan encouraged our heroic friend to test out his vocation at the ‘Wildcat Seminary’ of Ecône, led by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It was in this little village, this blossoming community, that Richard Williamson had met his match.

Ecône proved itself to fancy His Excellency’s traditional instincts, academic rigour, and was the battleground in which Richard Williamson fought to become a priest. After being ordained in 1976, Fr. Williamson stood out among the other priests as a natural teacher and brilliant intellectual. Formed early on by classical composers such as Mozart, and having thoroughly read the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, he was destined for something greater.

It should’ve come as no surprise then, that Fr. Williamson was the prime candidate for the Archbishop to consecrate in 1988 for the English-speaking world. After the spectacle of the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations, now-Bishop Williamson found himself as the rector of the seminary in the United States, where he would eventually form hundreds of young men into capable and educated missionary priests. The success of the American District of the SSPX is almost entirely due to His Excellency. Myself, having the great privilege of being under the care of one of his priests, can attest to the remarkable character that Bishop Williamson instilled in these young men.

A priest of Bishop Williamson can be identified by his holiness, zeal, tireless spirit, acute political knowledge, and anti-technological spirit. These priests are unlike those formed by any other- with their detachment, they are able to connect better with reality, provide much-needed guidance against the modern spirit, and ensure that their faithful have a fighting chance at making it to Heaven.

Eventually, His Excellency made some remarks against the religion of the Red Sea Pedestrians built upon modern narratives that upset the Superiors of the SSPX, Pope Benedict XVI himself, and various anti-’hate’ groups. Standing his ground, these tensions eventually cultivated into him being kicked out of his beloved SSPX, and forced him into poverty, homelessness, and international shame. Though I am still with the SSPX in spirit and not part of His Excellency’s Resistance, I must say that the SSPX handled this situation shamefully.

The late Bishop then went on fairly peacefully to continue forming priests, but also became an internet figure due to his recordings and the podcasts he appeared on. Every single interview he was involved in is now worth it’s weight in gold, in which he shared his knowledge, perspectives, wisdom, and his saintly personality shone through. I would absolutely encourage you to watch his 15 part Doctrinal Sessions, and any other interview you may find of him. I have linked his series on the book of the Apocalypse for your enjoyment as well.

Though our dear Bishop often found himself in controversy, what must be stated is that, though we are ‘deep in the doo-doo,’ as he himself would say, this successor of the Apostles proved himself to be the teacher that we all so-desperately need in these times.

Never backing down from the truth, Bishop Williamson stands among other giants of Tradition, such as the Archbishop himself, for his relentless pursuit of the salvation of souls. He was known to offer First Fridays and Saturdays, to hear confessions frequently, and is famous for his saying: ‘Watch and Pray, Watch and Pray, 15 Mysteries Every Day.’

More importantly, his archaic persona was quite sober, and will continue to contribute to the awakening of many young souls as the years go by. It is nearly impossible to grow a devotion to the late Bishop Williamson without being formed into a proper man yourself, to inflame your zeal, and to cultivate boundless knowledge. The ‘Dino-Scopus’ also left us his Eleison Comments, also turned into a three-part book series, for our enrichment and fortification against the world and the modernist spirit of the Post-Concilar Church.

Such a figure, then, will go down in the history books (if they are still produced) as a faithful witness to the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a bulwark of Tradition, a spiritual successor to Archbishop Lefebvre, an educator, a friend, a leader, and I reckon, even as a saint.

Dear friend, I must encourage you to dive into the treasures he left us- whether it be online content or interacting with priests that he formed- because the world is blessed with only a handful of individuals of his capacity.

Let us honour his memory by following his example, by praying our Fifteen Mysteries a day, and please spare a prayer for his soul. If we are able to receive the benefit of His Excellency’s prayers from Heaven, then surely we will grow closer to Our Lord, to attaining truth, an increase of virtue and of knowledge, and a very powerful intercessor.

As this story comes to a close, let us thank His Excellency for all that he did, and for all that he continues to do for us.

Fidelis Inveniatur

That We May Be Found Faithful

Requiescat in Pace Episcopus Williamson.

1940-2025†

2026 has presented itself to me as the most hectic, interesting, painful, and peculiar year of my life thus far, yet, I don’t utterly detest it. What’s even more absurd is that we’ve only just reached the third week! It’s been quite the ride, but God has masterfully guided these events, so I’m left to adore and reflect on His Divine Providence.

The year began with a bang- or more accurately, a crash- for me, on the way to the Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord. I’d been hearing from priests and layfolk alike to offer things up, to expect life to get harder if I ever prayed to become a saint, and looking back, I merely drifted through the end of 2025, facing little to no trouble. I lost something which was materially valuable to me, though Our Lord has been teaching me plenty of lessons since.

The foremost lesson to come out of this event has been detachment. It appears that I was too attached to my mode of transportation- whether I was becoming prideful, focusing too much on the temporal, or something entirely different that I haven’t meditated upon yet. The very least that could be taken away from this is to love what we have, but not let material things hold the yoke over the Eternal.

Secondarily, I realised that I, and many others, are absolute cowards in the face of adversity. We often pray to God to let us share in His Crucifixion, to agonise with Our Lord and Our Lady, for some partaking in the Passion of Our Lord, yet, when the time comes, we are underwhelmingly prepared. Meditating upon this brings my mind to this prayer of St. Augustine:

Before Thy eyes, O Lord, we bring our offences, and we compare them with the stripes we have received.
If we consider the evil we have wrought, what we suffer is little, what we deserve is great,
What we have committed is very grave, what we have suffered is very slight.

We feel the punishment of sin, yet withdraw not from the obstinacy of sinning.
Under Thy lash our inconstancy is visited, but our sinfulness is not changed.

Our suffering soul is tormented, but our neck is not bent.
Our life groans under sorrow, yet mends not in deed.

If Thou spare us we correct not our ways: if Thou punishest we cannot endure it.
In time of correction, we confess our wrong-doing: after Thy visitation, we forget that we have wept.

If Thou stretchest forth Thy hand, we promise amendment;
If Thou withold the sword, we keep not our promise.
If Thou strike, we cry out for mercy: if Thou spare, we again provoke Thee to strike.

Here we are before Thee, O Lord, shameless criminals: we know that unless Thou pardonest, we shall deservedly perish.

Grant then, almighty Father, without our deserving it, the pardon we ask for; Thou who made out of nothing those who ask Thee.

Through Christ, Our Lord. Amen.
V. Deal not with us, O Lord, according to our sins.
R. Neither requite us according to our iniquities.

As far as I can assume, many of you reading this article will be doing so from the comfort of a home, in proper attire, with some control over the temperature around you, in a relatively peaceful place.

Modern man has become so pampered with luxuries that he forgets what it is like to face actual adversity.

These past few weeks have provided me with lots to consider, namely that any loss or suffering I’ve faced has been negligible compared to Our Lord, but even to my neighbour. So many people have it worse, yet find themselves more content than I.

Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!

Finally, I’d like to reflect momentarily on the grace of a good confession.

Throughout it all, no matter how many sins we’ve fallen into, God has allowed us to exist until this very moment, notwithstanding our ineffectual resolutions, our carelessness, and our lack of faith.

Each additional confession that God grants us serves as a reflection upon His mercy; that he did not strike us down overnight, or before we made it to the confessional, or as we continued to sin.

Even if we detest our offences, there must be some comfort in the fact that God is actively drawing us closer to Himself with every confession we make. Woe unto him who does not marvel at the mercy of God!

There is truly nothing like a good confession- renewing our resolutions, begging pardon for our offences, a refreshed confidence in our salvation, and a chance to rejoice that Christ our Saviour has paid the price for our sins.

Tread lightly, pray frequently, and make reparations as often as possible.

I thank you for listening to my rambles once again.

May we all progress on the path towards sanctification this year,

Ad Jesum per Mariam,

Sincerely…

After a long day exploring the Cloisters and MET Museum in New York, it is ever so apparent that modern man has forgotten true religion, and in its place, begun to worship alternate things.

With both museums displaying incredible relics of the past- parts of monasteries, religious items and artwork, and more, they appear to most as nothing more than dusty artifacts, no longer relevant.

In the place of the Catholic religion- more abundantly apparent in New York than other places- the religion of idolatry has taken its place.

Men are not hesitant to worship their sports, materials, celebrities, and just about anything else, yet, scoff at the restrictive religion that may have led their forefathers to Heaven.

For them, it is fair game to blaspheme the Lord, but let us not speak ill of the vanities of this world! Let us not order our thoughts towards God, but the pigskin, the puck, or sexual fantasies!

One of the more heartbreaking things of my trip was an LGBTQ ‘Mass’ at St. Ignatius of Loyola Church in commemoration of ‘National AIDS Day,’ sponsored by none other than ‘Fr.’ James Martin.

For modern man, Heaven forbid that we don’t tend towards disordered acts or show genuine love to our neighbour.. rah! Just let people live!

This spirit is precisely why the world is headed towards a great chastisement, as the late Bishop Richard Williamson (1945-2025) would often remark. It is a thing of the past to engage in prayer, penance, or alms- an utterly foreign practice- because why would we do that?

Dear friend, let this serve as a reminder to remain steadfast in the faith, to be grateful for the blessing of the faith, and to live as though we were still in Christendom.

Even though the modern church could not be in a more tumultuous place, take every opportunity to bring those around you to a Traditional Mass, to catechise them, and to know and practice the faith yourself.

Go to confession frequently, receive the Sacraments, and repent before it is too late- because the hour is approaching sooner than we think.

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam,

Sincerely…

When the subject of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) arises, there is often someone that will mention the ‘excommunications’ of 1988 that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer (although not directly mentioned), and Bishops Williamson, Tissier, Galaretta, and Fellay ‘incurred.’

In short, none of these six men ever did incur an excommunication in 1988, and I will provide a brief examination into why that is.

I will lay these out briefly:

Conditions for Valid Latae Sententiae Penalties.

• Canon 1321 §1–3: Culpability requires deliberate violation with full knowledge.

• Canon 1323 and 1324 enumerate conditions that exempt or mitigate culpability:

  • Canon 1323 §4–7: No penalty if one acts out of necessity, grave fear, or to avoid grave inconvenience.

  • Canon 1324 §3: Even if the act is objectively penalized, the penalty is not automatic if the person acted under necessity.

Interpretative principle: In penal law, strict interpretation (canon 18). Doubt favors the accused (favor rei).

What then, was the Archbishop’s motivating principle?

He justified the 1988 consecrations by invoking a state of necessity to preserve Catholic Tradition, priestly formation, and the Mass of Ages.

Canon 1323 §4 states that no penalty is incurred by one who acts out of necessity or to avoid grave inconvenience, unless the act is intrinsically evil or harmful to souls.

Since consecrating bishops to ensure the continuation of the traditional priesthood and sacraments cannot be considered harmful to souls, the canonical intent (mens rea) required for excommunication was absent.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s decision was motivated by what he perceived as a grave state of necessity within the Church.

At the time, he was eighty-two years old, aware that his death was imminent and that the Society of Saint Pius X would soon be left without bishops to ordain priests or confirm the faithful.

Dozens of seminarians, particularly some from the United States, were awaiting ordination, and tens of thousands of faithful throughout the world depended upon him for the continuation of traditional sacramental life.

Rome, while acknowledging these concerns, had repeatedly delayed approving a candidate, though they agreed in principle to grant him a bishop.

He feared that the Holy See intended simply to wait for his death to let the traditional movement collapse.

In his conscience, he judged that preserving the priesthood and the Latin Mass- then scarcely available and treated as suppressed- was necessary for the spiritual good of souls.

Thus, acting under the principles outlined in Canon 1323 §4, he held that extraordinary circumstances justified his actions, which were aimed not at defying papal authority but at safeguarding the faith and sacramental life of those entrusted to his care.

On Ecclesia Dei Adflicta (1988):

Although Ecclesia Dei adflicta declared that the bishops “had incurred the penalty,” this was merely a declarative statement, not a formal judicial decree.

According to Canon 1314, latae sententiae penalties take effect automatically only if the law expressly provides and all juridical conditions are met.

Since no formal judicial process or canonical trial was ever undertaken to verify the alleged offence, the juridical fact (factum) of excommunication was never formally established.

This could have been done by a formal trial (Ferendae Sententiae excommunication), but was not, thereby leaving the ‘excommunication’ subjective.

Undoubtedly, with the sentiments in Rome and within John Paul II’s heart, a formal trial could’ve easily been undertaken and a farse of an excommunication still could’ve been pronounced, but that was never the case.

“But the Pope Is Above Canon Law and He Excommunicated Them!”

While the Supreme Pontiff possesses full and supreme authority in the Church (can. 331), that authority does not render his administrative or penal acts arbitrary or extrajudicial.

The pope is the legislator of canon law, but he is not above justice or the principles of law that express divine and natural justice.

As St. Thomas Aquinas and classical canonists maintain, even papal acts must be grounded in law and reason, since the pope’s power exists ad aedificationem, non ad destructionem- for building up, not for destroying (cf. 2 Cor 10:8).

In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, no formal ferendae sententiae excommunication was ever issued by judicial decree (as mentioned).

The statement in Ecclesia Dei adflicta merely declared that a latae sententiae penalty “had been incurred”; it did not impose a new penalty by papal act.

Canonically, such a declaration presupposes that the penalty already existed by law- which, as shown above, was not the case given the mitigating circumstances of necessity.

Therefore, even the pope’s declaration did not create or ratify an excommunication juridically, since a latae sententiae penalty cannot be declared where its conditions were never fulfilled.

On the 2009 Remission of the “Excommunications.”

In January 2009, Pope Benedict XVI issued a decree through the Congregation for Bishops “remitting the censure of excommunication” declared in 1988.

Many have interpreted this act as confirmation that the penalty had indeed existed.

However, the language and canonical form of the decree indicate otherwise.

The remission was not a juridical acknowledgment of a valid excommunication but a pastoral act of reconciliation intended to heal ‘division’ within the Church.

The decree did not use the formula of a juridical sentence being lifted, nor did it affirm that the penalty had been lawfully incurred; rather, it expressed the Holy Father’s desire to “consolidate mutual relations of trust” and promote unity.

In canonical terms, one cannot remit a penalty that never validly existed; rather, one can choose to declare reconciliation where the law’s application had been doubtful or irregular.

Benedict XVI’s gesture was therefore an act of diplomacy, not a retroactive validation of a juridically defective censure.

Moreover, Benedict’s own comments to the press and in his Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church (March 10, 2009) clarify that his intent was to foster healing and “remove an obstacle to communion,” not to settle the canonical question of the 1988 events.

In doing so, he implicitly acknowledged that the supposed excommunications were never judicially verified, and that the bishops of the Society had always remained within the visible structure of the Church.

“So If They Were Never Excommunicated…”

If the 1988 consecrations never truly incurred excommunication, then the bishops and priests of the Society of Saint Pius X have always remained what they profess to be- Catholic clergy within the one true Church of Christ, never separated from her life or her sacraments.

There was no act of expulsion, no juridical sentence, and no decree of schism- only a cloud of misunderstanding born of confusion in the post-conciliar crisis.

The Society never lost its canonical identity, only its regular jurisdiction.

Its members continued, by necessity, to exercise the Church’s public ministry for the salvation of souls, which is the supreme law (salus animarum suprema lex).

Canonically, excommunication (Canon 1331) entails loss of rights and offices, yet none of these effects were ever applied to the SSPX.

The bishops and priests continued to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, hear confessions, and administer the sacraments- acts always valid and, in cases of necessity, lawful in the eyes of God.

In reality, then, the SSPX has never been “outside” the Church- it has been the faithful remnant within her, preserving what was handed down when so many abandoned it.

Juridically irregular, maybe, but spiritually and doctrinally, profoundly Catholic.

The Society’s priests and bishops have carried on the mission of the Church when the shepherds of the post-conciliar era faltered: to teach, to sanctify, and to guard the deposit of faith.

The so-called “excommunications” were never more than words on paper; the reality, visible to any honest Catholic, is that the SSPX has never ceased to serve Christ’s Church and remains one of the last living witnesses of the unbroken Tradition of Rome.

The choice is simple- in this life you either desire to become sanctified, or you’re complicit in going to Hell.

Rather than distorting the reality, let us face the facts- the Catholic Faith is fundamentally integralist- either you’re all in, or you’re all out. There is little hope for Purgatory, and even then, why aim for the bare minimum?

There is the famous saying “aim for the moon, land in the stars,” encompassing the idea that even if you miss your destination, you end up somewhere desirable. Catholics have to aim for Heaven, and if all else goes wrong, the best case scenario is that they end up in Purgatory rather than Hell.

But what does it mean to be sanctified?

I recently had an enlivened conversation on the phone with one of my friends, expressing this very thought.

As we worked our way through talking about Eastern ‘Orthodoxy,’ I ended up talking about the uniquely Latin expression of the Liturgy- how we focus on the Sacrifice of Mass, the horrors of the Crucifixion, and how naturally our own Resurrection can only come after a life of Crucifixion.

What came to mind next was the idea that, though God is our Doctor, His Mercy is in accordance with His Justice. Many Catholics today often mistakenly think they deserve God’s Mercy, while completely forgetting what His Justice looks like for them. Contrariwise to the Catholic Faith, God will not pile favour after favour upon us, completely forgetting to terribly chastise us. We deserve the worst imaginable chastisements and we should welcome them with open arms and an outstretched smile on our face.

Rather than giving most of our attention to the Resurrection- obviously something we should cherish and celebrate- we should joyfully go about our lives in this Valley of Tears, always open to the Cross, finding peace in suffering, and maintaining an adequate and exemplary prayer life.

The Catholic should be mindful, contemplative, apostolic, and most of all- Christocentric.

So often do we speak of the saints, but little attention is given to becoming one. A priest once told me that the truest form of faith is found in he who turns to prayer in temptation, tribulation, and doubt. We may purport ourselves as having the faith in our conversations, but how many of us have it when it really matters?

Are you avoiding the near occasions of sin, living a chaste life, practising virtuous and physical activity, always praying and cheerfully singing hymns, or are you making an idol out of women, sports, television, status, career, and the sort?

Oh how it pains me to see the vast majority of people living their lives idly!

You must remember that doing (or saying) something that does not benefit yourself (spiritually) or others is idle, and how much of what we do falls into that category?

Are our conversations vain? Hobbies? Leisure time?

Moreover, I haven’t forgotten this incredible sermon by Fr. Jamey Rigi from over two years ago! Linked above for your listening, what still stands out to me is his method for uprooting sin by focusing on the cause of the cause. If my memory serves me correct, one example is that of an uncharitable wife.

In the sermon, he focuses on a wife who struggles with the sin of being uncharitable to her husband when he returns home from work.

Though this example doesn’t seem incredibly dire, he asks the listener to think about the root cause of her sin.

In this case, we assume that her lack of charity stems from stress. Her stress stems from disorder, and her disorder stems from a lack of sleep and a late start to the next day.

Therefore, if the hypothetical wife desires to eradicate this specific sin from her life, she needs to get her sleep schedule in check, which will fix her day-to-day life, and by the time her husband gets home from work she (hopefully) will not be cranky and uncharitable.

This line of thinking is incredibly useful and applicable to all types of sin.

Another example may be a young man who struggles with pornography and private sins.

If this is his sin and we assume that it was provoked by watching immodest videos on social media or the internet, and that he found himself viewing those videos because he decided to fill his leisurely time with that activity, the way to uproot this specific sin would be something like a more rigorously planned schedule so that he doesn’t find himself caught up in immodest videos which lead him to fall into private sins.

With two examples now before you, think about the ways in which you fall into sin, how ardently you desire to overcome them, and if you’re on the road to sanctification or perdition.

Dear friend, I could go on for hours on this specific topic- although it is particularly easier to talk about rather than to write about- but I believe I’ve left you enough to chew on.

I will end this by requesting that you ask yourself which of the two paths you find yourself on, and if it is the latter, urgently fix your situation. We do not know the hour or day that the Son of Man will put an end to our lives, so I beseech you to die as a saint.

Echoing the motto of the late †Bishop Richard Williamson…

Fidelis Inveniatur

That He May Be Found Faithful

May God Have Mercy on us all.

Sincerely…

Initium Sapientiae Timor Domini.

The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom.

May the peace of the Lord be with you, and may we all give adequate praise and honour to He who sustains us.

Feeling called to a reflection on these last few days is what motivates me to write this.

We’ve seen horrific events before, but this week alone- the vicious and brutal murder of an innocent Ukrainian immigrant by a deranged criminal, and the shocking assassination of a beloved political figure- has been particularly awful.

Irina Zaruska and Charlie Kirk were both taken from us quite youthful, but Our Lord has called them to Judgement. How terrible is the manner in which they departed this veil of tears, yet nothing in comparison to the Judgement we will all face- in which every sin we’ve ever committed will be laid before us- either sentencing us to the eternal fires of Hell, or to union with God for all Eternity.

Zaruska, travelling on public transit, minding her business, and Kirk, ready to speak out against gang violence, both gone in an instant. How terrible is this world- one that commits sin after sin, act of violence after act of violence, continual revolt against Our Lord and His plan for us.

What then, are we to think?

How often do we contemplate the finality of this life, looking ahead to eternity? How easily do we fall into sin, and how reluctant are we to repent? How awful our crimes, and how insufficient our repentance?

As the esteemed St. Alphonsus reminds us- reflection on death is the greatest inhibitor to sin.

Rather than living a virtual life, let us call our sins to mind and make a sincere act of contrition. Let us not focus on the fleeting moments of this life, but pay mind to the Eternity ahead. Let us not cast stones and condemn, but accuse ourselves.

Frankly, it is improper to invoke extra Ecclesiam nulla salus against either of these individuals.

Neither of them were Catholic. We know that by any ordinary means they were not saved. It is moot to dwell on this fact, rather we should pray for their souls, and hope that the merits may be applied to theirs, or other suffering or endangered souls.

By no means am I canonising either of them, but let “he who is without sin cast the first stone.1”

Have you taken a moment to reflect on your own sins, the gift of today, or prayed for those that are against you?

Far too often we, and others, tell Our Lord, “Not yet! I don’t want to be a Saint!”

Far too little is our prayer, our gratitude, our penance, our contemplation, and our love for God.

Rather than be fearful of Hell, let us take this time to make a true act of love for Our Lord- thanking Him that we have not faced the same brutality as these individuals.

How awful is the punishment we deserve, how lazy our repentance, yet, how great is Our Lord’s mercy upon us?

Dear soul, use this time wisely. Fall not into sin, but into prayer and devotion.

These individuals may have put God aside and told themselves: I will get started tomorrow.

Don’t you see? Tomorrow is not promised.

Your life could come to a close this very instant, this night or tomorrow.

Your neck could be viciously penetrated by a knife or a bullet at any given moment, yet, are you prepared to die?

Forget financial planning and worrisome thoughts about friends and family- is your soul in the state it ought to be?

Are you disposed towards Heaven or Hell?

Take then this night, and all the others that you may be sustained, and repent. Pray, hope, and do not worry.

Purge yourself of sin in this life, so that in the next you may not suffer worse pains. Be grateful for your state in life, that you are not set to go in the ground tomorrow. Maintain gratitude and a deep love for God at all moments of your day, so that in the moment that your body perishes, your soul does not.

How simple are these truths, yet so infrequently invoked?

Lip service is disservice to He that created, sustains, and recalls our corporal nature.

If you are not with Our Lord, you are against Him.

Dear friend,

With urgency I beseech you to turn to God, to confess and repent of your sins, and never to take this life for granted.

Time and time again we are reminded of the finality of life, the misery of death, and the glories of God.

Let this be your last warning. Go, and sin no more.

Empty your soul of vice, malice, anger, pride and the like; instead, replace those awful things with love, contrition, humility, devotion, and gratitude.

May the Almighty God preserve you this night, shower you with graces, and grant you final repentance.

May the souls of Irina Zaruska and Charlie Kirk, and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

+Pax et Bonum…

On my way to confession today, I was pondering the immense amounts of mercy God has poured out for us in this modern world!

Not only is it such a grace to follow in the footsteps of the great Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his Society, but even simpler, the fact that, in His ineffable Providence, Our Lord has been showering the modern world with graces- meeting it where it’s at- and though the situation could not be more dire, He has not chastised us just yet!

Knowing that man is weaker than ever- in a world full of temptation, vices, governments that have abandoned their own, and this awful internet- God has supplied us with much more grace than ever seen before. Look no further than the simple fact that you are [most likely] a Traditional Catholic, are [hopefully] well catechised, and have somewhat of an accessibility to priests for Mass and Confession.

A great thought to meditate on is this:

The revolting Angels who joined Satan in his pride were given a single opportunity essentially- their singular sin had sent them to Hell for eternity- yet, many of us have been supplied with abundant graces to recover our Salvation after sinning so many times.

Not only that, but I was once told by my wise Society priest that God, in His Providence, has already allotted a certain amount of confessions that we will receive, and so, use them sparingly!

Avoid near occasions of sin (not necessary ones), sin itself, and sinful companions. Though this confession instilled great fear in me, suffice it to say, I have not always meditated on it. This sinful condition is miserable to say the least, but, as always, God has continued to soften my sinful heart and allow me to persist long enough to make it to confession many times since.

Dear friend, flee from sin, flock to confession, and meditate upon these words!

Kyrie Eleison

Fidelis Inveniatur,

Sincerely…

In a world that calls for irrational amounts of speed and relentless work, you musn’t forget to slow down once in a while.

Though you may constantly be offered money, pleasures, and other things, the simple things will always remain.

The tobacco pipe is a tool that will open the door to deep contemplation.

A timeless masterpiece, the pipe harkens its user to slow down, carefully pack the tobacco, light, tamp, smoke, and think.

An interesting pursuit, but a useful one.

Accused of being unhealthy, though healthy in its own way.

I’m convinced there is no greater way to relax than to mindfully enjoy a pipe alongside a good conversation or perhaps a book.

The world calls you to speed up, to produce endless amounts of work, to engage in all types of sin- but tells you to avoid tobacco, to pollute the mind with rubbish, and steals your precious time so that you may not think.

Reject the world and stick to what’s tried and true.

Joy is a virtue.

Be mindful of your end, O man, and fear not a good smoke.

Time is limited, so take pride in slowing it down and thinking often.

Stress kills, and the pipe kills stress.

Enjoy a good smoke, productive conversation, and fantastic thoughts.

God bless you, my friend, and enjoy your pipe.

Sincerely..