This is a brief post, containing one of those all too frequent mentions of Peter's Headship, in frequently used liturgical texts - this one in honor of Holy Mary's Dormition / Assumption into heaven:
Πέτρος, ἡ κορυφαία καὶ πρεσβυτάτη τῶν θεολόγων ἀκρότης
which the poor Latins rendered in various ways, since this famous homily made its way into Latin Breviaries/Divine Office:
<Petrus, supremus praestantissimusque apostolorum vertex / suprema et antiquissima theologorum summitas>

Read more

And, dear reader, our “psychological prompts” have theological and political causes: the theological cause is original sin. I call it a “theological cause”, but we can only understand it properly if we take into account what God Himself tells us in Revelation, both through Scripture and Tradition.

The political cause of current psychological pathologies is more complicated in some ways, but you can also grasp it with a simple description: we’re disconnected, not well-founded and “rooted”, dominated by wander-lust…mixed with an unhealthy sort of nostalgia (as if “going back home” would suffice to heal our ill). All of this means that things are changing constantly; our daily input of “news” does not help but only exacerbates this rate of change.

When I say and write “we” or “us” nowadays, I mean: those of us who treasure our Faith and seek to grow in it, as well as in Theological Hope and in the Theological Virtue of Charity, by which latter we love God above all things, and we love neighbor as ourselves. We, too, who know that the post-Luther political order is badly broken, but also that the old “cujus regio, eius religio” (your area [is, determines, makes] your religion) also has a certain rationale and a “verisimilitude” that helps us to sympathize with the Latin phrase. We know that huge amounts of migration - whether immigration or emigration - is not a sign of healthy, even if the economists tell us otherwise. Or, we know that “The Benedict Option” was / is wildly popular for a reason; likewise for the new farming and homestead movements; the “intentional communities”; and so much more that might seem disconnected. These are signs of our times; signs that we recognize how important is stability (one of the vows of the overwhelming majority of medieval monks), and how detrimental is consistent change, all other things being equal.

When I put “we/us” here, I also mean those who know or at least sense that the problems are very deep and that the solution is an overhaul, or , to quote John Rao: “all we need is everything”. That is: we need all that the modern world puts just outside the average man’s - and especially the average family’s - reach.

For our putative “other”, those who aren’t “us”, they are content- or claim to be content - with partial measures. Like the Chestertonian quip: “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins”. This other definitely does not want to seriously, calmly, and profoundly consider older roots of our current malaise.

And here is where the modern world has perfected the world’s battle against the Christian soul: the means - literally, “the media” - are made such that they excite our concupiscibles and ignite our irascibles. The passions have become another Passion, but one that is not a participation in Christ’s Life, Death, and Resurrection. It’s just plain death (of the soul’s particularly human capacities).

This really started with “the news”, and this is why I am still very enthusiastic about the Pope’s choice of name: Leo. Leo I wrote masterfully about the human passions and how Christ’s victory over sin can help us in that battle; Leo XIII, a little over a century ago, saw how the “res novae” - the new things, revolutions of various sorts - were undermining the Christian Fight.

Every time we check our phone before we pray - or before we take time for some serious philosophical consideration of the human condition - we are opening ourselves up to the attack. After all, as men smarter than me have said: if it’s free, you’re the product. The news, the latest, the current thing is right at our fingertips. And, we often give it our first moments, as soon as the screen “lights up”. It’s over at that point: the world has got you right where it wants you.

What’s our response? to put - or to leave - ourselves right where God has placed us, insofar as it lies within our means. You and I both know how much the American-led globo-cap political order does not want that contentedness.

Read more

You can see for yourself, but I’m warning you: it’s a rabbit-chase - just to find a string of thought that is continuous and identifiable.

The good news: as interested as he is in the anti-Christ, HE AIN’T IT.

The bad news: if folks whose thinking is so confused can also be billionaires, the world is in a very bad way.

See for yourself…if you have time and don’t mind a wild-goose-chase!

https://firstthings.com/voyages-to-the-end-of-the-world/

Read more

One of these is “acceptance of a Council”. For now, let’s ignore the extreme - which is, sadly, allowed a potent voice - and which speaks of The Council. Even Jerusalem wasn’t styled “The Council” before Nicaea! Yet, what is involved in “accepting a council”?

To answer that question, you could consult many good works: “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787): Their History and Theology”, by Leo Donald Davis; “The Orthodox Church” by Kallistos Ware; even “The Church in Ancient Society”, by Henry Chadwick or “The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God”, by R. P. C. Hanson. From any of these (and several other books), you’ll get a sense of all the good, the bad, and the ugly. The better books also show the mixed reaction to almost every council; in fact, it is probably much closer to reality - even documented reality, and not simply “facts on the ground” - to say that much of the reaction was more often contrary to a Council. Several caused long-lasting schisms or made clearer the already nascent heresies. Yet, I want to focus on something else, specifically.

One could accept a Council verbally and yet act in a manner that, to any person of common sense, would seem to indicate that you accepted that it was a council, but not that you were bound to its every jot, tittle…canon or command. This didn’t always involve slipping an “iota” (Greek’s smallest letter, by which you can change the Homoousios to Homoiousios - or the adjective “same-substance” to “similar-substance”.

What could you say about the Fifth Council - even after a two-hour video from Erick Ybarra? Could you explain what it might mean to condemn the Three Chapters, their authors, or even Origen…in practice? Would such condemnation involve, logically, a condemnation of the Cappadocians? Of St. Ambrose?

What about First Lyon? Vienna? Fifth Lateran? Can you write even a single declarative sentence? Most devout and even learned Catholics could say next-to-nothing. I dare say that even your average Academic Catholic would find himself hard-pressed to say much about the Council of Jerusalem.

So, let’s talk about that first Council - which was “The Council” for about 300 years; it counted the Apostles in attendance. And yet, the first words of Scripture after the account of this council are an account of how St. Paul seems to do the exact opposite of what The Council had said: there was no need to circumcise in order to embrace the Faith. St. Paul, however, finds Timothy - whom he loves almost immediately - and he circumcised him “on account of the Jews”. What the what?!

To be honest, I’ve always found Acts 16 one of the most bizarre of all chapters in the Bible: you have this contrarian act by St. Paul, and then, in the next paragraph, we read “the Spirit [of Jesus]” forbid Paul et al. from evangelizing there. How does one discern that the Spirit of God is forbidding an Apostle from spreading the Gospel in a particular area? “Preach the Gospel at all times”?

There are lots of guesses about both passages. The Fathers had all kinds of various explanations for what Paul did and then, immediately afterward, what he did not do, but the Fathers are about as discordant and confused as you and I are, if you compare the different opinions.

All that to say: Vatican II was a Council. It produced “Nostra Aetate”, which is said to contain all sorts of things that it most certainly does not contain; it also contains many things which true heretics say are no longer part of Catholic teaching. This same thing could be said of most documents. That is one problem - and it is not a new problem.

But, there’s also the “command problem”: Sacrosanctum Concilium also says, in article 89: “The hour of Prime is to be suppressed.” And yet, the Monastics, the Byzantines and all the other Sui Juris Churches that have such “hours” in their Office, kept it. In fact, in a very confusing legal interim, the Latin Church had it in her official prayer books for another six years. Still, we who love the Latin tradition have retained it in our prayer lives! Even groups who have obtained full Vatican permission to continue doing what they’re doing, Latin traditionalists of various sorts, continue to offer Prime in prayer and to practically ignore Article 89. Yet, these same groups accept Vatican II, just as St. Paul accepted Jerusalem.

Let’s be frank before we close here: the Vatican has not been very specific about what, precisely, the SSPX need to accept when they “accept Vatican II”, but it clearly means, “except the thing about Prime”, at the very least. In all seriousness, if the SSPX wanted to be united with “modern Rome”, as they sometimes say (in less flattering terms, actually), they could “accept Vatican II”. We know this. They know this. We both know that the other knows this.

This has been a post-final reminder that no one in the SSPX had been or would have been required to “accept the errors of Vatican II”. Even Card. Levada’s “intervention” in 2012 is not said to have contained any specifics that could labeled “errors of Vatican II”. This is simply a lie. Another lie. Say that Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, over which the Pope presided and to which all living Bishops in office, even if some more begrudgingly than others, gave a final acclamation. Their names were etched in stone thereafter, so even Archbishop Lefebvre could be shown to have “accepted the Council”. What did that mean for him? What would that mean for the SSPX now???

I won’t leave you with a question: I’ll answer it. It would mean that one would still have to obey a legitimate superior - a local bishop; and any and every bishop would have to be submissive to the Pope - just as has always been required, at times more explicitly, at times much more explicitly. Something that is most certainly NOT new is this Catholic union of the hierarchy. It is, however, novel that an episcopus vagus/vagans - or a half-dozen such vagantes - would roam the world (and even Rome itself!), offering all the sacraments - and even declaring null matrimony, even assuming the nullity of unrepeatable sacraments…which they would then repeat “sub conditione”. And, even if their means and proposals suggested that the roam the world and offer all sacraments, they would never pretend that they “recognize” a Pope and those bishops in union with him.

So, in sum: for the SSPX, accepting the Second Vatican Council is an explicit way of saying that they believe that the Church of Christ that was before the Council has indeed persisted and continued to be, even after the Council. If they cannot say that, then clearly they are Sedevacantist, Sedeprivationist, or simply “Sedes”. To pretend otherwise is to make a complete joke of all human language. It is to abuse the very word “Catholic”, which requires not only believe in all the Church’s teachings (including those about the Pope’s supremacy in governing the Church, together with the monarchical episcopate, based on individual places), but it also means that one is “universal” in his acceptance of all times - first through the twenty-first century; that one accepts all other Catholics as those who indeed and actually have access to valid and legitimate sacraments (barring any true contradiction to liturgical norms that are approved by the Pope); and they would be universal in their acceptance of the true jurisdiction that already exists in those members of the hierarchy who are united to the Roman Catholic Church, which is the Church of Christ and in which Christ’s One True Church subsists.

Here I give some of the ample evidence for an ancient (= patristic), medieval and perpetual canonical terminology that uses “adhere to schism/heresy”. I do this because I heard, in the intermediate wake of the Vatican’s letter, that “adhere to schism” was just made up, novel, senseless, etc. I immediately spoke up to the contrary, but none listened. So, I offer some of the evidence in written form, for easier consultation.

I am not attempting to prove that the DDF worded everything perfectly. I am simply responding to the ignorant and puerile argument (one which was used frequently, nevertheless), that “adhere to schism” made no sense, wasn’t really defined, or that no one could know what that meant. It was a silly comment, but it was offered repeatedly, it is easily refuted, and I am only showing that - once again - the supporters of the SSPX have not sought and defended the truth, and that repeated lies that are demonstrably false should be seriously considered by anyone who would defend this group.

The consistent usage is: schismaticis / haereticis adhaerere. In English, we’d say, “adhere to the schism[atics] / heretics”. Heresy, in ancient terms, had the strong Greek undertones of our “sect”, “cult”, “breakaway group”, but there are also very old instances when this referred to what we’d call a heresy, not simply a schism.

This meant, in context: supporting, remaining in communion with, following, or affiliating oneself with schismatic/heretical parties or groups.

First, here are the 1917 and 1983 Code, for immediate reference:

1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 2314 §1, n. 3 Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint vel publice adhaeserint, ipso facto infames sunt... “If they have joined [given their name = become a member who consistently goes] or publicly adhered to a non-Catholic sect, they are by that fact infamous...”

1983 CIC, Canon 696. Sodalis dimitti etiam potest ob alias causas, dummodo sint graves, externae, imputabiles et iuridice comprobatae, uti sunt: habitualis neglectus obligationum vitae consecratae; iteratae violationes sacrorum vinculorum; pertinax inoboedientia legitimis praescriptis Superiorum in materia gravi; grave scandalum ex culpabili modo agendi sodalis ortum; pertinax sustentatio vel diffusio doctrinarum ab Ecclesiae magisterio damnatarum; publica adhaesio ideologiis materialismo vel atheismo infectis; illegitima absentia, de qua in can. 665, Ҥ1 A member can be dismissed for other causes, provided they are grave, external, imputable and juridically proven. Among such causes are: habitual neglect of the obligations of consecrated life; repeated violations of the sacred bonds; obstinate disobedience to the lawful orders of Superiors in grave matters; grave scandal arising from the culpable behaviour of the member; obstinate attachment to, or diffusion of, teachings condemned by the magisterium of the Church; public adherence to materialistic or atheistic ideologies; the unlawful absence mentioned in can. 665.

So, too: 1983 CIC can. 753: christifideles religioso animi obsequio adhaerere tenentur - ”the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission”

and can. 750: communi adhaesione christifidelium...”common adherence of the Christian faithful”.

Also, in between the Codes, we read the following in the AAS, XI (1919) 310-312 ut edoceantur fideles ne haereticorum ductu hanc cum iisdem haereticis et schismaticis societatem ineant....caveant igitur summo studio Christifideles ne hisce societatibus conjungantur, quibus salva fidei integritate nequeunt adhaerere - “…that the faithful be taught that they should not join a society with these same heretics and schismatics, being led by heretics…therefore the Christian faithful should be extremely careful lest they be joined to such societies, to which they cannot adhere and retain the Faith integral and whole.”

But, this usage of adhaerere + Dative or “adhaesio” is not some novelty from the novel 1917 Code. Here is the Council of Constance: Constat insuper ex praemissis eumdem Hieronymum praedictis Wicleff et Huss damnatis et eorum erroribus adhaerere illorum que fautorem fuisse et esse: “It is evident from the above that the said Jerome adhered to the condemned Wyclif and Hus and their errors, and that he was and is a supporter of them.”

et ad omnem scrupulum submovendum eadem sancta synodus et singulos in eadem synodo praesentes et venturos qui eidem synodo adhaerebunt ad omnes actus legitimos in eadem synodo agendos active et passive quatenus opus est habilitat et habiles esse declarat ceteris eiusdem sacri concilii decretis semper salvis supplens omnes defectus si qui forsan intervenerint in praemissis apostolicis etiam et in generalibus conciliis editis constitutionibus et aliis in contrarium facientibus non obstantibus quibuscumque. - “The same holy synod, in order to remove all scruples, makes and declares fit for actively and passively carrying out all legitimate acts at the same synod, insofar as this is necessary, all those who are present at the same synod as well as those who will come and adhere to it, always saving the other decrees of this same sacred council, and it will supply for any defects, if perchance any shall occur in the above, notwithstanding any apostolic constitutions, even those published in general councils, and other constitutions to the contrary.”

quos si ante consummatam electionem futuri summi pontificis venerint et eidem concilio adhaeserint iuxta iuris dispositionem et decernenda per concilium una cum aliis ad electionem praedictam admittendos esse declarat. - “It declares, however, that if they arrive before the election of the future supreme pontiff has been completed, and if they adhere to the council, they are to be admitted to the aforesaid election together with the other cardinals, according to the directives of the law and what shall be decided by the council.”

Yet, it wasn’t even Constance that first formulated “adherence”. Here’s the Angelic Doctor, after whom the SSPX seminary in the US is named: in IIaIIae, a.10 a.2 [ad] III. qui ei inhaeret intendens bono Angelo adhaerere - “the man who adheres to the angel, since his intention is to adhere to a good angel.”… Sed si aliquis Satanae adhaereret cum incipit ad sua ducere, idest ad mala et falsa, tunc non careret peccato, ut ibidem dicitur. - “But, according to the same authority, to adhere to Satan when he begins to invite one to his abode, i.e. wickedness and error, is not without sin.”

And in IIaIIae, q.10, a.5 ad primum - adhaeret uni primae veritati - adhering to the one First Truth

Finally, this usage goes back even before St. Thomas’ time: Gratian, Gregory IX, and Boniface VIII (contemporaneous with Thomas) all use the same phrase. I am not going to copy and paste all that, but you can consult their texts easily online, in the MGH and elsewhere. Their texts - it’s worth recalling - were the canonical attempts to summarize patristic teaching on adherence to schisms, especially the teaching of Sts. Augustine and Jerome (on which two authors’ works I wrote my doctoral thesis.) adhaerere alicui was not always the word-choice employed by these two Fathers and Doctors, but it was a common medieval canonical interpretation of their spiritual admonitions.

With this, I’m done. I mean, there is simply no point to any dialogue [they mock the very name!], conversation [to what end? delight in conversation? Hardly! when truth is clearly not the end or aim], or debate. The SSPX and its adherents take the “modern” Roman Catholic Church to be completely in the wrong, and the SSPX and its defenders do not admit any missteps, faults, or grave misdirection in its previous and current trajectories - and I saw trajectories, in the plural, after their decision to simply omit the words “habemus” and “legatur”, at the beginning of the Consecration Rite, as opposed to Lefebvre’s simple lie and fabrication: Lefebvre said “Habemus” - even though he and de Castro Mayer did not have the Apostolic Mandate - not for the original one or two - and definitely not for the four (two of whom were more than four years younger than the canonical lowest age for a bishop! Shall I digress…?)

I simply wanted to show that their latest feigning is a posturing, not any argument based on truth or patient study of any traditional sources.

I was present for many conversations with SSPX adherents in the immediate aftermath of les sacres which occurred on July 1. I posed questions. I heard nothing but ridicule, whataboutism, and perpetual subject-changing whenever I presented proof that the SSPX had broken a commandment (lying about a mandate and omitting red/black in the Rite), continued to repeat unrepeatable sacraments as a sine qua non for their “incorporated clergy”, forbade attendance at the New Rite and even called attendance at the New Rite a sin against the Third Commandment, had their own tribunals and all that would go with that (signed documents, affirming that one would not consult modernist Rome), etc. So, I give up. Individuals may revert to the Catholic Faith or go for a while into the more intellectually consistent de jure Sedevacantism (as opposed to the SSPX’s de facto Sedevacantism, a reality since at least 1974); but I cannot waste any more time on such fruitless banter.

This Substack has shown the evidence of how they abused the very beginning of the Rite at the Consecration, by omission of words and actions and the fabrication of a fake-mandate; and now I have shown that their claims of a novel and incomprehensible terminology in the excommunication are lies, and in fact demonstrate their own ignorance of the 1917 and 1983 Code, as well as terminology that is used by St. Thomas Aquinas and the medieval canonists, who were themselves using this phrase and verb “adhaerere” to describe how so-called Catholics would often join schisms and heresies under various pretexts. Nothing new under the sun…

“Formal adherence?! Yeah, whatever THAT means!”

I have heard this since July 2, even from people who should know better.

I tried to raise my hand; I interrupted and said that there was a clear meaning; I offered to provide ancient and modern examples of its definition and usage. Crickets. Rolling the eyes.

So, I resort to my Substack. I have translated the Italian (only) document from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. I used common English/Catholic canonical terminology, which is easily and precisely calqued on the Italian usage. This was not hard, and it should have been done by pundits like Fr. Gerald Murray (and many others) who professed an invisible ignorance of what *formal adherence* might mean. For ease of reading, I included hyperlinks to all the referenced documents, including individual canons in the Code.

Feel free to pass this along to those who repeat such hand-flailing ignorance, but I do warn you, if my experience is indicative: most will simply ignore you and this. I have kept this free, for the sack of easier sharing - and even comments.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_19960824_vescovo-lefebvre_it.html——————————————————-

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

EXPLANATORY NOTE

V. On the Excommunication for Schism Incurred by the Followers of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Movement

Communicationes, 29 [1997] 239–243

Following recent reports in certain media outlets, this Pontifical Council deemed it appropriate to make public an Explanatory Note that it sent to the Congregation for Bishops.

Vatican City, August 24, 1996

Your Most Reverend Eminence,

In a letter dated July 26 of this year, Prot. No. XXX, Your Most Reverend Eminence forwarded to this Pontifical Council a letter from His Excellency Bishop Norbert Brunner of Sion, Switzerland, in which the Bishop, in light of certain confusing press reports, sought an authoritative interpretation of the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” and the subsequent Decree of this Congregation concerning the excommunication imposed on Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the four bishops ordained by him, and Bishop Emeritus Antônio de Castro Mayer. At the same time, Your Eminence requested the opinion of this Dicastery regarding the wording of the reply to be given to the aforementioned prelate.

In this regard, I have the honor to inform you that the issue raised by the Ordinary of Sion does not appear to require an authentic interpretation of either the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” of July 2, 1988, or the Decree of this Congregation for Bishops of July 1, 1988, or the relevant canons of the Code of Canon Law: 1364, § 1, and 1382.

In fact, the Bishop bases his request on pastoral considerations, aimed at putting an end to erroneous interpretations, but he offers no evidence suggesting the existence or well-founded likelihood of an authentic dubium iuris in the provisions of the aforementioned documents, which is an indispensable condition for an “authentic interpretation.”

Nevertheless, in order to accommodate the request of this Dicastery, the attached Note offers some considerations and suggestions in the hope that they may be of use for the clarifying response that this Congregation intends to give to the Bishop of Sion.

If, on the other hand, the confusion mentioned by the Prelate in his letter were significant from a pastoral standpoint - not least because it extends to other dioceses and countries where the Lefebvrist movement is active - one might envisage a general declaration by the Holy See, to be prepared in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cf. Note, n. 5).

I take this opportunity to reaffirm, with profound veneration, my respect for Your Most Reverend Eminence,

Most devotedly,

Julián Herranz, Titular Archbishop of Vertara

President

Marino Maccarelli

Under–Secretary

NOTE

1. From the Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei” of July 2, 1988, and from the Decree “Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre” of the Congregation for Bishops, dated July 1, 1988, it is shown first and foremost that Archbishop Lefebvre’s schism was declared to be directly related to the episcopal ordinations performed on June 30, 1988, without a papal mandate (cf. CIC, can. 1382). However, it also clearly appears from the aforementioned documents that this most grave act of disobedience constituted the culmination of a progressive, overall situation of a schismatic nature.

2. In fact, n. 4 of the Motu proprio explains what the “doctrinal root of this schismatic act” was, and n. 5c warns that “formal adherence to the schism ” (this being understood to mean “Archbishop Lefebvre’s movement”) would entail the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364, § 1). The decree of the Congregation for Bishops also makes explicit reference to the “schismatic nature” of the aforementioned episcopal ordinations and recalls the most grave penalty of excommunication that would result from adherence “to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre.”

3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act that gave rise to the Motu proprio and the Decree has done nothing but bring to completion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner, through a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff, a process of separation from the communio hierarchica [translator’s note: hierarchical communion = communion with all the bishops of the world, in submission to the Collegial Head, the Pope]. Until there are changes leading to the restoration of this necessary communio, the entire Lefebvrist movement is to be considered schismatic, as there is a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.

4. No judgment can be made on the arguments of Murray’s controversial thesis because it is unknown, and the two articles that mention it appear confusing. In any case, the validity of the excommunications of the bishops declared in the Motu proprio and the Decree cannot reasonably be called into question. In particular, it does not appear that any exculpatory or mitigating circumstances can be found regarding the imputability of the penalty (cf. CIC, canons 1323–1324). As for the state of necessity in which Archbishop Lefebvre believed himself to be, it must be borne in mind that such a state must exist objectively, and that there is never a necessity to ordain bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of “serving” the Church by attacking its unity in a matter connected with the very foundations of that unity.

5. As stated in Motu proprio n. 5c, the latae sententiae excommunication for schism applies to those who “formally adhere” to said schismatic movement. Although the question of the exact scope of the notion of “formal adherence to schism” should be referred to the competent Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this Pontifical Council that such adherence must involve two complementary elements:

a) one of an internal nature, which consists in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism - that is, choosing/opting for the followers of Lefebvre in such a way that this choice is placed above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);

b) another of an external nature, consisting in the outward expression of that choice, the most evident sign of which will be exclusive participation in Lefebvrist “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, not an unambiguous sign, since it is possible for some faithful to take part in the liturgical services of Lefebvre’s followers and yet without sharing their schismatic spirit).

6. In the case of Lefebvrist deacons and priests, it seems beyond doubt that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two requirements mentioned above (in n. 5) are met and that there is therefore formal adherence.

7. In the case of other members of the faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrist movement - without adopting the movement’s attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity - is not sufficient to constitute formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice, it may prove more difficult to assess their situation. Above all, one must take into account the person’s intention and the translation of that inner disposition into action. The various situations must therefore be judged on a case-by-case basis by the competent authorities of both the external and internal forums.

8. In any case, it is always necessary to distinguish the moral question regarding the existence or absence of the sin of schism from the legal-penal question regarding the existence of the crime of schism and its consequent sanction. To the latter, the provisions of Book VI of the CIC (including canons 1323–1324) must be applied.

9. It does not seem advisable to further formalize (though the competent Dicastery should be consulted on this matter: cf. Apostolic Constitution “Pastor Bonus", article 52) the requirements for the crime of schism. There is a risk that stricter penal regulations might create more problems by failing to adequately cover all cases: either by excluding cases of substantial schism or by including external behaviors that are not always subjectively schismatic.

10. Again from a pastoral perspective, it would also seem appropriate to further recommend to the sacred Pastors all the norms of the Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, through which the Vicar of Christ urged dialogue and the implementation of the necessary supernatural and human means to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrists to full ecclesial communion.

Vatican City, August 24, 1996

For your information, if you didn’t already know, it is a waste of your time to debate the SSPX Consecrations with anyone who either supported them or considers the Vatican’s response “dubious”. Nothing will convince, and one has to have a modicum of both humility and learning to know that the “counter-arguments” are simply nonsense.

The point of this article is very different: it is to show - against a growing trad-tide that would have you believe the contrary (and is thus, as I will demonstrate, contrary to The Tradition) - that mandates and mission are established at the First Council of Jerusalem, become more explicit through the centuries, have been around ever since, and are in the first printed Roman Pontifical, and therefore, without any ambiguity: mandates and mission, from legitimate superiors who also rule the Church Catholic and the local diocese, are part of the Tradition and cannot be removed from Catholic life without a consequent “change of dogma”. Since Traditionalists have putatively been against any change of dogma, at least since the days of Dietrich von Hildebrand, we have to consider this more profoundly.

First, we set the argument in its proper place: in Acts of the Apostles 15:24-25, we read: “Forasmuch as we have heard that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment [mandavimus: mandatum]: It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men and to send [mittere: missio] them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul“. These are woefully unknown roots of what we still hear today: “mandate” and “mission”. These integral parts of all apostolic activity, i.e., the work of converting and forming men in Christ, for eternal salvation, these things cannot be removed from any legitimate communication of sacramental grace. The giving and receiving of sacraments is a 2000 year old love story between Christ and His Bride, the Church. And, the Church is one, and Her head - as we have heard since the 300s (at least), and have heard repeated in Florence and Vatican I - cannot be separated from the apostolic college, now the college of bishops, and from all true Catholics. Those who worried about Liberius’ actions (while he was exiled and effectively under not-his-house-arrest) never removed themselves from communion with him. Likewise, under Honorius, no one who sought to praise Our Lord’s Human and Divine Will dared to remove himself from communion with the Bishop of Rome, who was then denying any contradiction between two opposing human wills. Even at the 5th Ecumenical Council, after having removed the Pope from diptychs and not “commemorating” him for a time, the Emperor and Bishops demanded the same Vigilius’ approval of the Council - otherwise this council would not be considered a Council worthy of any ecumenical name.

Even in the late 100s/early 200s, when St. Irenaeus provided the antidote to all Gnosticism (neo or ancient), he did little more than list the names of Roman Pontiffs; St. Augustine did something similar in Letter 53, in response to the schisms of his day: he speaks of the true Church, in continuity with Apostles, and he simply lists the Popes up to his day!

Those who mandate and send (mission) others outside this communion, are thereby not in communion with Christ’s One Church, His sole Bride.

While much has been made (in certain traditionalist circles) of the relatively recent imposition of latae sententiae excommunication as the proper punishment for episcopal consecration without an apostolic mandate, the reality of harsh punishment for such an act is as old as Catholicism. Here are some examples:

At the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD), canons required that a bishop be consecrated by at least three bishops and only with the consent or confirmation of the metropolitan. Contrary to the grave misrepresentations by many in Trad-land, the Roman Pontiff’s control over episcopal ordination grew more or less consistently - both in geographical terms as well as in the theological precision of such arguments. There was some waning, too, but there is a clear [re]explanation of this truth at the time of Popes St. Leo IX and St. Gregory VII. There is nothing novel here: it is a re-articulation of what the Bishops of Rome had claimed intermittently throughout the First Millennium. The ability to decide who’s in communion (with Rome - with the Catholic Church - with Christ Himself) and who’s not was recognized as residing in the Pope, otherwise Pope St. Clement’s [~First] Letter to the Greek Corinthians makes no sense. St. Polycarp’s and St. Anicetus’ questions over Easter, followed by St. Victor’s and St. Irenaeus’ similar pleas and threats, would be beyond ridiculous. If this Papal prerogative weren’t recognized, the Christians of that time (and those Church Fathers who wrote about it in the immediate centuries thereafter) would have derided such presumption. Instead, they speak of it and provide no explanation or justification: it is simply “fact”.

A crucial part of this argument is that the Apostolic Mandate is required - and thus printed and explained in great detail in red rubrics - in the original print of the Roman Pontifical, the so-called Piccolomini-Patrizi editions. The text of episcopal consecrations - especially those initial three lines, with the question, “do you [presumably three bishops - SSPX only had two, at each illicit consecration] have the Apostolic Mandate?” - “We do have [it].” - “Let it be read”. Those can be read just as they are now, from the first printed edition : see 33v to 35v at https://digi.vatlib.it/view/Inc.II.252

I make bold to emphasize this fact, because it is now common in “learned” trad-circles to stress that “this changed” in the 1983 Code…or those who are somewhat more honest and learned may admit: this changed in 1958, i.e., in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis, against the works and words of the People’s Republic of China. Now, given that I have heard the whataboutist complaint about supposed Roman inaction, in the face of the Chinese Communist Party’s “choice of bishops” - which is a lie and gross oversimplification of the recent reunion of the Patriotic Chinese Church and the Underground Church, the import of this encyclical should be great! Instead, it seems that the same folks who would excuse the SSPX from any error would also like to use current Chinese compliance as a simultaneous argument against Rome’s Orthodoxy! This is not an exaggeration, and if you have even wondered aloud about the legitimacy of the SSPX’s actions on July 1, you would have surely heard some lament about how Rome allows the “Chinese Communist Church” to choose bishops, tout court. Again and again: this is a lie in each instance. The CCC does not choose bishops: it proposes, Rome disposes. Not even Cardinal Zen claims this - and he would know. And, how would following the CCC’s actions in the 50s excuse the SSPX in the 2020s?

Finally, we consider Canon 2370 of the 1917 Code. Consecration without an Apostolic Mandate may not have latae sententiae IPSO IURE excommunication as its penalty, but it is a suspension, reserved to the Apostolic See - and there are few crimes more seriously punished in the 1917 Code!

Would many dare to do what Lefebvre did? He lied when he said “habemus” [= have the apostolic mandate]; at the “legatur”, he pretended to read what would always be read as an apostolic mandate at that point in the liturgy. Instead, he read something of his own creation. On July 1, 2026, the SSPX followed that fabrication of reading a look-alike non-mandate at the point when “legatur” would have normally been read - but they chose not to read those words and to substitute - again - a non-mandate of their own composition, unrolled as a scroll, which is how these mandates are made. As if that fabrication and that omission were not bad enough, the SSPX omitted the words “habemus” too, in contradiction to Lefebvre’s fabrication.

No one in the SSPX has said publicly why the SSPX did differently (and against the explicit rubrics and black text of the Traditional Roman Pontifical); they went down a different path that Lefebvre. Lefebvre never received a mandate for any particular priest (which is what the first question asks), but at least he had been told that he would receive one - granted, not the three that he originally requested, nor the two that he later demanded from Card. Ratzinger - but at least he had been told provisionally that for one man he would receive this (and, yes, Ratzinger had agreed to ask JP II about a second).

To restate what we’ve shown: the demand, the necessity of an apostolic mandate and mission comes from the Council of Jerusalem, and even before Nicaea, the Popes judged the legitimacy of other bishops - even bishops from Sees that had been established and even held by Apostles!

Also, in response to later “canonical complaints” made by the SSPX and those who can find anything and everything wrong with Roman responses but nothing wrong with SSPX arguments: you should know that Roman legates - men sent by the Pope to judge in his name - have been used since at least the 2nd century, and was used most famously in the first millennium’s Councils (if one excepts the odd kidnapping before the Fifth Council).

I confess: I don’t expect this evidence to convince anyone who is not already convinced. I simply offer it as a presentation of what should be known and what should be confronted before one excuses a single act of the SSPX - much less that grave act that was carried out on July 1. Apologists, explicit and implicit, will simply ignore this bimillennial Tradition…to support other traditions. You might read St. Matthew’s Gospel 7:13 in this regard.

Two wrongs never make a right, as the common-sense saying goes; but I have never seen the SSPX pronounce any sort of “mea culpa”, from 1974-2026. And the individuals who remained with them for decades, but decided to return to the bimillennial Tradition and to the didascalia/magisterium, which St. Irenaeus mentions in Book Three of Adversus Haereses? They are called unpronounceable names by those who remain *attached to the SSXP*.

Speaking of “attached”, next time we’ll take a look at the long-standing usage of “adherence” / “attachment” - to a schism, in 2000 years of Church documents about Church unity. Spoiler alert: it isn’t a “novel” term, as many would like you to believe!

Stay tuned.

This is my first foray into recording - with my newly gifted microphone. Please let me know how it sounds, but do bear in mind that this was read as a prayer, not as a studio recording, so the setting was my room, in a house full of 8 livel…

Read more

Personal Note: I read this article (in French) a few days ago and was so impressed by its charity and clarity that I wrote to the publisher to ask if I could translate it. You may find it, therefore, on La Nef too, but do know that I received explicit permission to translate this article and that I couldn’t agree more with its contents. The author is a monk of Le Barroux, which is probably my favorite place on earth.

Bishop Schneider, a bishop well-known in traditionalist circles, published a “Fraternal Appeal to Pope Leo XIV to Build a Bridge with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius” on February 24, 2026. Father Cyrille, of Le Barroux, sensed himself compelled to respond and to methodically address certain arguments put forward, which he found problematic. This is a powerful and precise article that provides solid keys to understanding - prior to the probable episcopal consecrations in July. The current article distinguishes and examines certain elements of doctrine, some elements of Church history, some reminders from Canon Law, and certain interpretive misunderstandings in regard to figures such as St. Athanasius or Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider is auxiliary bishop of Astana, which is an immense diocese in its geographical extent, and has approximately 53,000 Catholic faithful and 37 priests. It appears, however, that few attend Mass on Sundays. The country is actually experiencing significant emigration of native Catholics - particularly those who are from Germany, Poland, and Korea - and this is gradually reducing the Catholic presence and undermining the ordinary transmission of the faith. Priestly ministry is thus often carried out “on the road,” well beyond urban centers. According to two witnesses who conducted on-site investigations, male participation remains low at places of worship, and there are very few solidly established Christian families to be found there. All these factors, combined with a challenging human and social climate, highlight all the more the faithful and persevering commitment of Bishop Schneider, who has devoted himself to this mission for nearly twenty-five years in a land-locked country with a harsh climate.

Beyond this demanding local ministry, Bishop Schneider has gained wide recognition in the so-called traditional Catholic world, notably through his writings, participation at international conferences, public appearances broadcast on the internet, and his regular presence in various media. His geographical location, at the heart of the peripheries of the Christian world in Central Asia, as well as his particular (and sometimes misunderstood) status as an auxiliary bishop, effectively grant him a certain freedom of speech.

The author of the observations presented below wishes first to express his sincere admiration for Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s pastoral work and the witness of fidelity and faithfulness. It is therefore only with restraint and in a fraternal spirit that the author humbly offers a few remarks regarding the “Fraternal Appeal to Pope Leo XIV for the Building of a Bridge of Dialogue with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X”.

The current situation regarding the episcopal consecrations within the Society or Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (FSSPX or simply SSPX in most of the English-speaking world) has suddenly stirred up strong emotions throughout the Church. Shortly after the announcement, on February 2, of the SSPX’s decision to proceed with these consecrations, an intense and often passionate debate emerged in many Catholic circles. The opinions expressed in this debate range from understanding, goodwill, neutral observation, and common sense to irrational rejection, peremptory condemnation, and even open hatred. Although there are reasons to hope (and this hope is by no means unrealistic) that Pope Leo XIV might actually approve these episcopal consecrations, draft texts for a bull of excommunication against the SSPX are already circulating online.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s appeal to the Pope in favor of these episcopal consecrations by the Society of Saint Pius X clearly demonstrates a sincere desire for unity, and many of the faithful are grateful to him for this. That said, to consider entrusting the priests of the Society with an episcopal mandate, without clearly formulated conditions, could create - even unintentionally - very concrete difficulties. In the absence of a recognized and clear framework, some would see this as the establishment of a form of de facto autonomy, which over time would lead to divergences in practice (formation, pastoral organization, relations with dioceses) and more difficult-to-determine responsibilities in the event of a dispute.

The point is therefore not primarily, as Bishop Schneider seems to believe with commendable goodwill, simply a matter of intentions, but rather of basic doctrinal clarity and long-term stability within defined structures: for a rapprochement to bear fruit, it must be sustainably structured, in order to avoid misunderstandings and not give the impression (even unintentionally) of endorsing still-sensitive doctrinal disagreements, as demonstrated by the immediate reaction of the Society of Saint Pius X’s own council.

In this spirit, with all due respect to Bishop Schneider, it seems wiser that any decisive step be taken within a clear, public, and solid framework. This requires prior dialogue. Yet the dialogue that had been rightly proposed by the Vatican was rejected by the Society.

<<The negative reactions, though often well-intentioned, reveal that the heart of the problem has not yet been grasped with sufficient honesty and clarity. There is a tendency to remain at the surface. Priorities within the life of the Church are reversed, elevating the canonical and legal dimension—that is, a certain juridical positivism—to the supreme criterion. Moreover, there is at times a lack of historical awareness concerning the Church’s practice with respect to episcopal ordinations. Disobedience is thus too readily equated with schism. The criteria for episcopal communion with the Pope, and consequently the understanding of what truly constitutes schism, are viewed in an overly one-sided manner when compared with the practice and self-understanding of the Church in the Patristic era, the age of the Church Fathers.

In this debate, new quasi-dogmas are being established that do not exist in the Depositum fidei. These quasi-dogmas maintain that the Pope’s consent to a bishop’s consecration is of divine right, and that a consecration carried out without this consent, or even against a papal prohibition, constitutes in itself a schismatic act. However, the Church’s practice and understanding during the time of the Church Fathers, and for a long period thereafter, argue against this view. Furthermore, there is no unanimous opinion on this matter among the recognized theologians of the Church’s two-thousand-year tradition. Centuries of ecclesial practice, as well as traditional canon law, also stand in opposition to such absolutizing assertions. According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, an episcopal consecration carried out against the will of the Pope was punished not with excommunication, but only with suspension. By this, the Church clearly manifested that she did not consider such an act to be schismatic.>>

Bishop Schneider’s intention is to be commended. He is right to point out that one must not confuse all disobedience with schism, and that in both law and theology the question of intention and the rupture of communion is decisive. A schism is not reducible to a legal irregularity.

The 1983 Code defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him” (can. 751). In other words, schism is formal when there is, explicitly or implicitly, a concrete and lasting refusal of primacy and a concrete challenge to ecclesial communion.

From this perspective, Bishop Schneider will no doubt acknowledge that three cumulative elements tip serious disobedience toward a schismatic logic: an objective element - an act that, by its nature, wounds the visible unity of the Church; a subjective element - persistence in refusing to submit to the authority of the Pope, who commands that this act not be performed; an ecclesiological element - the act of positioning oneself to function autonomously according to one’s own criteria and with one’s own hierarchical network. Can Bishop Schneider sincerely affirm that these three points are not fulfilled in the consecrations at Écône?

Historically speaking, Bishop Schneider is correct in recalling that the 1917 Code attached a suspensio a divinis (and not excommunication) to episcopal consecration without an apostolic mandate: “suspended by law, until the Apostolic See has dispensed them” (can. 2370). Nevertheless, a significant disciplinary shift occurred in the 20th century: by decree of the Holy Office (April 9, 1951), the penalty was increased to excommunication latae sententiae, “even if [one acts] under grave fear .” This point does not in itself settle the entire theological question, but it objectively changes the legal framework: the Church wished to mark more clearly the ecclesial gravity of such consecrations when they are performed outside the mission received from the Apostolic See [1].

Finally - and this fact seems decisive - regarding the events of 1988, one must take into account the explicit judgment issued by John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei (July 2, 1988). The Pope affirms there that the consecration of bishops in defiance of the pontifical prohibition that had just been issued constitutes “a schismatic act,” precisely because it entails “a genuine rejection of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome,” and he expressly refers to canon 751. One can naturally discuss, in a spirit of calm, how to interpret certain historical elements and subjective conditions (ignorance, fear, alleged state of necessity, etc.) however, for a balanced presentation of the 1988 consecrations, it is important to consider simultaneously: the canonical definition of schism (can. 751), the disciplinary evolution regarding consecrations without appointment or mandate (1917 and then 1951), and John Paul II’s public judgment of the 1988 act in Ecclesia Dei.

My intention is certainly not to question Bishop Schneider’s sincerity or his concern for unity, but to invite him to a more comprehensive reading of the normative and magisterial texts that frame this debate, bearing in mind that, according to all classical Catholic theologians, when the Pope addresses the faithful as pastor and teacher of all the faithful to judge a dogmatic matter (in this case, to determine whether an act is schismatic or not) he engages his apostolic charism of primacy. John Paul II’s statement in Ecclesia Dei, 3, seems to apply to this situation: “In itself, this act was a disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff in a matter of great gravity and of vital importance for the unity of the Church, since it concerns the ordination of bishops, through which the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. That is why such disobedience, which constitutes in itself a genuine rejection of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, constitutes a schismatic act. ”

<<The acceptance of papal primacy as a revealed truth is often confused with the concrete forms—forms that have evolved throughout history—through which a bishop expresses his hierarchical unity with the Pope. To believe in the Papal Primacy, to acknowledge the actual Pope, to adhere with him to all that the Church has taught infallibly and definitively, and to observe the validity of the sacramental liturgy, is of divine right. Yet, a reductive view that equates disobedience to a papal command with schism—even in the case of a bishop’s consecration performed against his will—was foreign to the Church Fathers and to traditional canon law. For example, in 357, St. Athanasius disobeyed the order of Pope Liberius, who instructed him to enter into hierarchical communion with the overwhelming majority of the episcopate, which was in fact Arian or semi-Arian. As a result, he was excommunicated. In this instance, St. Athanasius disobeyed out of love for the Church and for the honor of the Apostolic See, seeking precisely to safeguard the purity of doctrine from any suspicion of ambiguity.>> AS

Bishop Schneider is right to distinguish between two levels that are sometimes confused: the primacy of the pope as a truth of faith (by divine right), defined dogmatically (at Vatican I, and confirmed by Vatican II); and, on the other hand, the historical and disciplinary modalities through which hierarchical unity is expressed (the role of metropolitans, appeal procedures to Rome, papal mandates, etc.), which have varied greatly over the centuries. He rightly emphasizes that, in patristic tradition as in classical canon law, disobedience - even grave disobedience - does not automatically amount to schism. This has already been noted above. However, these distinctions are not sufficient to resolve concrete situations.

The oft-cited example of Saint Athanasius, from this perspective, must be handled with caution: as Patriarch of Alexandria [translator’s note: second in rank only to the Bishop of Rome, according to Nicaea], he faced considerable imperial and ecclesiastical pressure during a complex doctrinal crisis, in which many positions were adopted under duress and due to a lack of clarity in the terminology used. The Council of Nicaea, though rightly venerated, is not immune to certain criticisms regarding misunderstandings of vocabulary that had to be resolved. It was entirely to the credit of Saint Basil that he succeeded in clarifying the meaning of the words. The Creed we sing at Mass is the formula of the Council of Constantinople (381): it does not merely supplement the Nicene Creed, but perfects it in several respects.

Perhaps it is also worth recalling that Pope Liberius, after courageous resistance and the ordeal of an exile, signed - under heavy pressure from imperial authority - a formula that was theologically imperfect but not explicitly heretical (357), while Athanasius intended to remain faithful to Nicaea. Pope Liberius’s perfect orthodoxy was studied very closely in 1870. If a pope could have thus officially erred in the faith, this would call into question the doctrine of papal infallibility.

The idea that Athanasius would have disobeyed an explicit order from Liberius requiring him to maintain hierarchical communion with a majority that was then Arian or semi-Arian seems anachronistic in the context of the time. The customary relations in the 4th century between Rome and a major patriarchate were ill-suited to such a scenario. Similarly, the claim of a formal papal excommunication of Athanasius by the pope does not align with the facts. The condemnations against Athanasius came from the Eastern synods under imperial influence. While the pope’s attitude was certainly too hesitant in his support of Athanasius (which is known as Liberius’s fall or fault) it did not result in excommunication. The case illustrates a crisis of governance rather than a doctrinal rupture. It is therefore not correct and just to claim that Athanasius “resisted Rome,” with all due respect to the author.

Moreover, even if - hypothetically - one were to admit direct disobedience, the example of Athanasius cannot be generalized to legitimize any serious disobedience: every crisis is unique. Looking to the past calls for greater caution in judgment rather than providing ammunition to justify this or that current position. Anachronism is a real danger in history.

<<In the first millennium of the Church’s life, episcopal consecrations were generally performed without formal papal permission, and candidates were not required to be approved by the Pope. The first canonical regulation on episcopal consecrations, issued by an Ecumenical Council, was that of Nicaea in 325, which required that a new bishop be consecrated with the consent of a majority of the bishops of the province. Shortly before his death, during a period of doctrinal confusion, St. Athanasius personally selected and consecrated his successor—St. Peter of Alexandria—, in order to ensure that no unsuitable or weak candidate would assume the episcopate. Similarly, in 1977, the Servant of God Cardinal Iosyf Slipyj secretly consecrated three bishops in Rome without the approval of Pope Paul VI, fully aware that the Pope would not allow it because of the Vatican’s Ostpolitik at the time. When Rome learned of these secret consecrations, however, the penalty of excommunication was not applied.>>

Bishop Schneider is absolutely right. Nicaea is the first normative ecumenical conciliar text on the consecration of bishops, and it required consecration by the bishops of the province, with the decisive role of the metropolitan. There is no mention of the Bishop of Rome. The reason is stated in Nicaea when it specifies that recourse to the metropolitan may be dispensed with if he is too far away. It would have been impossible, given the means of communication at the time, for the Bishop of Rome to confer a canonical mandate on bishops far removed from him. The Church was therefore structured in a concrete way that differed from our day.

But even if the Bishop of Rome did not intervene, he remained nonetheless the source from whom the unity of the episcopate emanated - “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia,” as St. Ambrose said - insofar as the appointments of bishops and their canonical installation took place with his tacit consent.

Even at that time, as the canons of the Council of Sardica (343) would later recall, the pope reserved for himself the ultimate right to judge appeals against bishops, to overturn a bishop’s deposition, or to depose a fallen or failing bishop. These provisions prove that even if the pope did not directly appoint bishops, he remained the head of the episcopate and the sole judge in such matters. The absence of Roman opposition thus amounted to indirect authorization, based not on a formal mandate but on the bishop’s effective integration into the communion of the universal Church. Papal authority was thus exercised primarily a posteriori, as a body of appeal and regulation, and not a priori as a centralized decision-making power.

The modern practice of prior papal authorization, beginning with the Gregorian Reform [2], thus constitutes a subsequent, consistent disciplinary development, compatible with tradition, even if it changes the practice of the first millennium.

It also seems that, living in a context of extreme doctrinal confusion, Athanasius used all his influence to ensure a proper succession, that of his brother Peter. But did he truly consecrate him as a bishop? The sources seem to indicate that the latter was consecrated according to the customs of the time, after Athanasius’s death. There is nothing irregular about this.

Bishop Schneider rightly cites the exception of the Servant of God Slipyj as an example of a consecration without Rome’s permission. But Rome did not justify this by challenging the normal canonical rule. It took into account the circumstances of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which was in a state of systematic persecution. Even as a refugee in the West, Slipyj lived in fear. He also invoked the canonical law of his Church (the Eastern Code had not yet been promulgated). Rome recognized that the rigid application of disciplinary norms would have compromised apostolic continuity and sacramental life in this instance. A decisive factor was the total absence of schismatic intent on the part of Cardinal Slipyj, who did not claim to be establishing an independent hierarchy. Consequently, the act was judged objectively irregular but subjectively excusable. One of the three bishops ordained clandestinely (Lubomyr Husar) was eventually elected Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics (January 25, 2001), and John Paul II confirmed his election the following day. This is the accepted system in the East.

Bishop Schneider: <<To avoid misunderstanding, under normal circumstances—and when there is neither doctrinal confusion nor a time of extraordinary persecution—one must, of course, do everything possible to observe the canonical norms of the Church and to obey the Pope in his just injunctions, in order to preserve ecclesiastical unity both more effectively and visibly.

But the situation in the life of the Church today can be illustrated with the following parable: A fire breaks out in a large house. The fire chief allows only the use of new firefighting equipment, even though it has been shown to be less effective than the old, proven tools. A group of firefighters defies this order and continues to use the tried-and-tested equipment—and indeed, the fire is contained in many places. Yet these firefighters are labelled disobedient and schismatic, and they are punished.

To extend the metaphor further: the fire chief permits only those firefighters who acknowledge the new equipment, follow the new firefighting rules, and obey the new firehouse regulations. But given the obvious scale of the fire, the desperate struggle against it, and the insufficiency of the official firefighting team, other helpers—despite the fire chief’s prohibition—selflessly intervene with skill, knowledge, and good intentions, ultimately contributing to the success of the fire chief’s efforts.

Faced with such rigid and incomprehensible behavior, two possible explanations present themselves: either the fire chief is denying the seriousness of the fire, much like in the French comedy: Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise! [a classic song, meaning: everything’s fine! But your husband just suffered a dire calamity]; or, in fact, the fire chief desires that large parts of the house burn, so that it may later be rebuilt according to a new design.>>

Without denying their educational intent, which is often commendable, might we dare suggest to Bishop Schneider that little stories or anecdotes prove nothing in theology: “A comparison is not proof!” The parable of the fire station presents certain difficulties that its author may not have noticed, and he has not developed it with sufficient precision.

1. The Church is not a fire station. She was divinely founded by Jesus Christ on the visible foundation of Peter and his successors, with the promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her. Leo XIII: “Here is the meaning of this divine word: the Church, supported by Peter, no matter the violence or the skill deployed by her enemies, can never succumb or fail in anything. ” (Encyclical Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896). Pius IX specifies: “Let the faithful peoples remember that here lives and presides, in the person of his successors, Peter the Prince of the Apostles, whose dignity does not even cease in an unworthy heir. Let them remember that Jesus Christ Our Lord placed upon this Chair of Peter the impregnable foundation of His Church, for which He prayed that Peter’s faith might never fail, commanding him to confirm his brothers in this faith. ” (Encyclical Nostis et nobiscum, December 8, 1849)

2. In the case of a physical fire, one must above all be effective (use the right equipment). In the context of an intervention in a doctrinal crisis within the Church, one must above all be in the truth. Jesus did not say, “I have come to bear witness to effectiveness,” but, “I have come to bear witness to the truth.” It is therefore not a matter of old or new equipment, of old or new methods, but of applying doctrinal principles in accordance with the tradition of the Church. To do this, one must first and foremost remain within the framework of the Church, “outside of which there is no salvation.” Yet belonging to the Church depends as much on fidelity to the faith and tradition as on not separating oneself from the apostolic succession. Father Bryan Houghton said this to Archbishop Lefebvre just before the consecrations: “One does not defend the faith by destroying the Church.” A bishop can exercise his office only by entering into the apostolic succession through a mission from the competent authority, which in the West is expressed through the apostolic mandate. As we saw above, there have certainly been episcopal ordinations that were legitimate from the outset (in the early Church or even in the Eastern Churches today), or legitimized later (the current Ukrainian case), which took place WITHOUT the Pope’s consent, but the Church has never accepted recognizing as Catholic those bishops who are ordained AGAINST the Pope’s prohibition. That would be a contradiction in terms.

3. Has Bishop Schneider ever witnessed the fight against a major fire like the one at Notre-Dame de Paris? That might help him refine his parable. Here is how Notre-Dame was saved, it seems. Just when the danger was concentrated on the north tower, it is reported that a staff sergeant who knew the cathedral well proposed a plan to save the tower in extremis. The idea was relayed to the chain of command. The sergeant suggested an operation via the upper walkways and the passageway. At the same time, engineers on site warned of the risk of a domino-effect collapse if the north tower fell. This underscored the urgency of a decisive maneuver. This would involve a team entering an unstable area with potentially no way out. Such a dangerous operation could not be an individual initiative: it required decision-making, coordination, and accountability at the highest level of command. Generals Gallet and Gontier assumed this responsibility within a structured chain of command. Firefighters, who are soldiers, never act without orders during a major fire. The perfect coordination of the troops is a prerequisite for success. The same is true in the broad outlines of the life of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre wanted the following inscribed on his tomb: Tradidi quod et accepi. But as Jean Madiran pointed out: “Consecrating bishops contrary to the Pope’s formal order … Archbishop Lefebvre did not receive this from tradition.” This has never been seen, anywhere or at any time. The Pope had, moreover, offered a bishop to Archbishop Lefebvre for August 15, 1988, and a memorandum of understanding under the leadership of Cardinal Ratzinger had been signed, which could have led to further consecrations. The “fire chief” had therefore not refused to use the old equipment. As at Notre-Dame de Paris, he had given the green light for the survival operation. He had integrated it into the titanic battle against the fire that the Church is waging today. But the leader of the small group of Lefebvrist firefighters broke ranks and refused to use the equipment in unity with the other firefighters. One may doubt that in the fight against a fire such an attitude truly “pays off effectively”.

4. In the context of the consecrations currently being prepared, the fire chief also offered a dialogue that would allow the Society of Saint Pius X to play its role within the vast and universal organization of the Church, provided there was agreement on a minimum of doctrinal consensus. This dialogue was refused. It is this refusal of communion on the part of the Society of Saint Pius X with the Pope and those subject to him that constitutes the schism. Nothing else.

5. Finally, here is the moving letter that “the fire chief,” John Paul II, wrote on June 9, 1988, to the leader of the small group that wanted to separate itself from the others. In it, John Paul II presents himself as “guided solely by concern for the unity of the Church in fidelity to revealed truth… ” and he recalls that “solutions had been worked out, accepted, and signed … which allowed the Society of Saint Pius X to exist and work within the Church in full communion with the Supreme Pontiff, guardian of unity in the truth… In the letter you addressed to me, you seem to reject all the achievements of the previous colloquia, since you clearly express your intention to ‘provide yourself with the means to continue your work,’ notably by proceeding quickly, and without an apostolic mandate, to one or more episcopal ordinations… with a fatherly heart, but with all the gravity required by the present circumstances, I urge you, Venerable Brother, to renounce your plan, which, if carried out, can only be seen as a schismatic act whose inevitable theological and canonical consequences are known to you. I earnestly invite you to return, in humility, to full obedience to the Vicar of Christ. Not only do I invite you to this, but I ask it of you by the wounds of Christ our Redeemer, in the name of Christ who, on the eve of his Passion, prayed for his disciples “that they may be one.” To this request and invitation, I add my daily prayer to Mary, Mother of Christ. Dear brother, do not allow the year dedicated in a very special way to the Mother of God to bring a new wound to her Mother’s heart! From the Vatican, June 9, 1988, Joannes Paulus secundus.”

It is time to conclude these brief remarks regarding some of Bishop Schneider’s letter. This in no way discredits his personal intentions. His professed love for the Church, his attachment to the Catholic faith, and his courage to recall certain truths deserve to be acknowledged once again.

If Saint John Paul II ‘s letter from June 9, 1988, has been quoted so extensively at the end of these reflections, it is because it manifests, in a situation that is objectively dramatic for the unity of the Church, the very voice of the Magisterium exercising its mission as “ guardian of unity in the truth .” It shows how the Church, when tested from within, ceaselessly calls for holding together what the spirit of intra-ecclesial conflict sometimes tends to dissociate: doctrinal fidelity and visible obedience to the successor of Peter.

Recent history shows, even with the best of intentions, just how great the risk is of slipping from legitimate criticism into a logic of isolation, and then of rupture, in the name of a good that one believes one must save alone. All too often we forget all those who work with us for the salvation of souls. Simply because they find themselves outside our small, familiar circles. We withdraw into groups of like-minded people and look down on others. This mindset can lead to the worst - let us not forget that!

Rereading the texts from the painful days of 1988, comparing them with current positions, and drawing lessons from them has no other purpose than to aid discernment, especially for troubled faithful seeking sure points of reference. May these debates (which are necessarily heated at times but also necessary) never lose sight of Christ’s prayer “that all may be one,” nor stray from the humble and patient framework within which the Church, assisted by the Holy Spirit, navigates the crises of Her history.

Thank you - thank you very much! - to Bishop Athanasius Schneider for helping us in this way to reflect on the theme of true fidelity, where truth and mercy embrace rather than oppose one another.

Father Cyrille, a Monk of Le Barroux

[1] Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, April 9, 1951: AAS 43 (1951) 217 ff., the translation of which is as follows: “A bishop, of whatever rite or dignity, who consecrates as a bishop someone who has not been either appointed or expressly confirmed by the Apostolic See, and the one who receives the consecration, even if they were compelled by grave fear (can. 2229, § 3, 3°), incur ipso facto the excommunication reserved in the most special manner to the Apostolic See.” Canon 2229, § 3, 3°: “Grave fear, if the offense amounts to contempt for the faith or contempt for ecclesiastical authority or public harm to souls, does not excuse latae sententiae penalties. ” The consecration of a bishop without a pontifical mandate was therefore considered by Pius XII to be an act that in itself amounts to contempt for the faith or contempt for ecclesiastical authority or public harm to souls.

DECRETUM : DE CONSECRATIONE EPISCOPI SINE CANONICA PROVISIONE

Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, ex speciali facultate sibi a Summo Pontifice facta, hoc edidit decretum:

Episcopus, cuiusvis ritus vel dignitatis, aliquem, neque ab Apostolica Sede nominatum neque ab Eadem expresse confirmatum, consecrans in Episcopum, et qui consecrationem recipit, etsi metu gravi coacti (c. 2229, § 3, 3°), incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem Apostolicae Sedi

specialissimo modo reservatam.

Hoc decretum vim suam exeret ab ipso promulgationis die.

Datum ex Aedibus Sancti Officii, die 9 Aprilis 1951.

Marinus Marani, Supremae S. Congr. S. Officii Notarius

[2] It is somewhat more complex for the East, where the method of appointment has, moreover, varied. There, one does not find the principle of the apostolic mandate permitting episcopal ordination and the assignment of a function, much less a free and direct appointment by the Pope, but rather a nihil obstat from the Holy See prior to the publication of the election made by the synod of the Eastern patriarch or major archbishop. In any case, the principle is upheld: consecration does not take place in defiance of a formal prohibition by the Pope. Logically speaking, “absence of opposition” is the opposite of “express refusal.”

Note from the translator: I have added the Latin from the AAS, because this important decree has been almost completely overlooked or ignored in the discussion hitherto. That is, during the Pontificate of Pius XII, the consecration of a bishop without a papal or “pontifical/apostolic” mandate, brought with it an immediate excommunication, reserved in the most particular or restrictive manner (specialissimo modo) to the Apostolic See itself. Therefore, it was not simply with the promulgation of the 1983 Code that excommunication became the penalty for the act that the SSPX is planning to carry out. This also seems important because some traditionalists would otherwise consider a change in law that was initiated by John Paul II to be somewhat dubious or questionable, at least; not even the Sedevacantists, however, would question the validity and primacy of Pius XII in 1951.

Also, I have standardized (by UK/US standards) the terms, titles and orthography most commonly used in English to describe church affairs.

Council of Trent, Session 23, Canon VII: If any one saith, that bishops ... who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but

Read more

Now, if you want to follow in the spirit and power of Athanasius, you therefore cannot be rebellious against the Catholic Church and you must positively support monasticism.

Read more

So, these thoughts may go into the net and get stuck, but at least my dear readers will get the best of what I can offer.

To wit, one of the most useful phrases for understanding reality is “obediential potency”. You could “google” it; you could research it long and hard; or you could take this summary: it is the scholastic (Thomistic) explanation of that potency in man’s being that is actualized, made to be what it ought to be, by baptism and - insofar as one’s intellect demonstrates - by faithful adherence to what the Catholic Church (as faithful guardian of Baptism) teaches and commands; and, something that bears repeating when the exterior visage of Holy Mother Church is less immaculate-looking than it was at other times: it is also the faithful adherence to the communion of the Church Militant, submission to the pastors whom God has placed over us (as Romans 13 says).

If man acts against that which actualizes a beneficial potency, he fights with himself, he fights against himself.

This much is clear from Scholastic philosophy and theology; but, I wanted to add a personal touch to this - something that I saw implied in Cajetan, but not explicitly stated (likely because he knew that if there were still faithful Catholics reading his commentary on the Summa, they’d not need to be told twice about the suitability of that word “obediential”. What does that word mean and suggest?

Think before you continue reading.

Obediential is an adjective - and it’s added to the loaded word potency.

This is a potency, the actualization of which, you have to listen for (ob+audire = obedire: to really listen to someone, to obey); like the “Sh’ema Israel” - Hear O Israel. This suggests that silencing many other voices and noises will likely be necessary, in order to hear this voice.

From Salvation History - and a memory of what we have habitually done ourselves - we know how averse most of us are and have been to any obedience towards anyone. We men do not like being told what to do - or when to do it - or how to do it.

Still, you might get someone to obey a time or two: obediential as an adjective for this potency, though, suggests that we’ll be needing to obey consistently, perpetually, actually.

This isn’t going to win friends and influence people, usually. You’re suggesting the great Ignatian prayer: to hand over someone’s will, desire, intellect - whatever someone has that is most intimately his own.

Yet, if we don’t actualize this “obediential potency” - which is exactly where GRACE lands and is the actualization, then we are not saved.

Think about it. This was Cardinal Cajetan’s beautifully profound way of saying that St. Thomas Aquinas - and the Catholic tradition - used the word “supernatural grace” correctly: it was something both freely from God (super + grace) and it fit right on top of our nature (and on top of any intellectual nature, hence also congruent with what we know about angels). It also makes sense of the main argument of Sacred Scripture, since Genesis 3: disobedience; versus the great reparation that happens with the New Adam and New Eve: “fiat”, let it be done, “not my will but thy will be done”.

Without this, all else fails - because we will have missed the point of the whole Divine Drama. We are the children who must obey God - and those whom God has placed over us in this life. The difficulty of reconciling these has never been easy. Those who claim otherwise should be forced to show you immediately where and when in history this was easy - even for the greatest saints. If they give you an example, take the time to consider whether it’s fitting or not.

Read more

Dedicatory Letter. To the Holy Sister Florentina, [St.] Isidore [sends his greetings].

1. I thought it fitting to present a few things, from the countless things foretold at various times in the books of the Old Testament concerning the Lord and our Savior’s birth according to His divinity, His incarnation, His passion and death, His resurrection, kingdom, and judgment, according to my ability, so that the authority of the prophets may strengthen the grace of faith, and to prove the ignorance of the unbelieving Jews. Therefore, holy sister, at your request, I have dedicated these things to you for the edification of your study, so that in our fellowship of blood [kinship - because siblings], I may also make you a co-heir and a partner in my labor.

Chapter I. That Christ was begotten by God the Father.

1. The Jews, with wicked unbelief, denying Christ the Son of God, impious and hard-hearted, unbelieving to the ancient prophets and closed to the new, prefer to be ignorant of the coming of Christ rather than to know it; to deny it rather than to believe. For they accept him as one coming, yet they do not want to accept that he has already come. They read that he will rise again, they do not believe that he has risen.

2. But they pretend not to understand these things because, by their sacrilege, they know that these have been fulfilled. To refute their perfidy, we have gathered certain testimonies from the Old Testament, by which they may know the Christ [annointed one] of the nations, from the omnipotent Father, as He Himself testifies: “With you is the beginning in the day of your power, in the splendors of the saints; from the womb before the morning star I have begotten you.” (Psalm 109/110:3). From the womb, therefore, that is, from that most intimate and incomprehensible substance of the Father, or from that divine and immense mystery of the Father’s heart, from which the Father, as generator, utters the good Word from His heart.

3. As He Himself also says elsewhere: “My heart has uttered a good word” (Psalm 44/45:2). And elsewhere the Father himself said: ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’ (Ps. 2:7). This was not said of David, nor of any of the kings who followed him. For there it is added: ‘Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession.’ Which was granted neither to David, nor to the Hebrew nation, but only to Christ, whose name is spread throughout all nations, to whom kings obey and nations serve, as it is also written elsewhere of him: All the kings of the earth shall worship him, all the nations shall serve him (Psalm 71/72:11).

4. Likewise Solomon, while he wished to know the name of the Father and the mystery of the birth of Christ according to His divinity, thundered forth these words in the Book of Proverbs, saying: Who has ascended into heaven, and descended? Who has gathered the waters as if in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, if you know? (Prov. 30:4).

5. This Son of God, the king of Daniel’s vision beheld, and said: “Behold, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no harm, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God” (Dan. 3:92); whom we believe faithfully, and in no way doubt, the Lord and Savior to have appeared in a glorious vision. But it is objected that in Daniel this Son of God is also called an angel above (Dan. 3:49). I grant it. For Christ is also called the angel of God. For thus the prophet says of him: “The Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the covenant, whom you desire, shall come to his temple” (Mal. 3:1).

6. For Christ is called the Son of God in that he was begotten of the Father; but he is called an angel in that he is often sent by the Father to announce things to the fathers. Of whom the Father himself also thus testifies to the lawgiver, saying: ‘Behold, I send my angel, who shall go before you, and keep you in the way, and shall bring you into the place which I have prepared; observe him, and hear his voice, and do not think him contemptible, for he will not forgive when you have sinned, and my name is in him’ (Exodus 23:20).

7. Who then is this angel to whom God gave both his power and his name? For if it is said that he is some other angelic power, it is impious to believe this. For who in the clouds is equal to the Lord, or who is like God among the sons of God (Ps. 88/89:7)? For he who is not equal by nature cannot be equal by name. For He is the Son, who was always sent by the Father and appeared visibly to men. Therefore, from this very mission, He is rightly called an angel. Isaiah, however, more openly confirming the Son as begotten of God, thus proclaims: “The voice of the Lord avenging his enemies” (Isa. 66:6), that is, the very ones who do not believe, the Jews: “Before she was in labor, she gave birth; before her time came, she delivered a male child” (Ibid., 7).

8. As if he were speaking openly: before the Virgin was to bring forth Christ in the flesh, the Father generatively begot the Son in the divinity, and before the time of the Virgin’s delivery came, the Father begot him timelessly. Hence he says below: Who has ever heard such a thing? or who has seen anything like this? (Isa. 66:8) ? Truly, because nothing like this happens among men, or anything similar, and after this he adds: “Shall he who causes others to be born not beget himself?” says the Lord; “and he who gives generation to others, shall I be barren?” says the Lord (Isa. 66:9). By all these testimonies, the unbeliever must be compelled to choose one of two things: either to believe that Christ is the Son of God, or to consider liars the prophets who spoke these things.

Book 2, Chapter 28

O deplorable madness of the Jews! Behold, they neither understand the Savior’s coming by the authority of the Old Testament, nor do they accept that he has come. They read of the conversion of the Gentiles, yet are not in the least ashamed of their own rejection. They observe the Sabbath, which they know by the testimony of Scripture to have been abolished. They honor the circumcision of the flesh, having lost the purity of the heart.

We, however, who are under grace, know that all these things and celebrations, which were signs of things to come, have now been fulfilled. For Christ has already fulfilled whatever was prophesied of this kind of sacrament, because he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Therefore, with the coming of the truth, the shadow has ceased, and for this reason we are no longer circumcised according to the flesh, because in the type of circumcision we are cleansed by the sacrament of the promised baptism. We do not observe the Sabbath rest, because we hold the revealed hope of eternal rest.

3. We do not offer the sacrifices of the old law, because through those same sacrifices we recognize the foreshadowing of either the Passion of Christ or the mortification of carnal vices. We do not observe the unleavened bread, because, having purged the malice of the old life, we walk in the new grace of faith. We do not keep distinctions of food, because we spiritually discern all those things in human conduct that the diversity of unclean animals signified.

We do not celebrate the Passover of the eating of the lamb, because Christ, our Passover, has already been sacrificed. He was prefigured by that lamb which was led as a sheep to the slaughter and, like a lamb before its shearer, did not open its mouth (1 Cor. 5:7). We do not observe the New Moons of the new moon, because in Christ we are already a new creation; the old has passed away, and behold, the new has come. We do not observe the Feast of Tabernacles, because the holy ones are the dwelling place of God, in whom He dwells forever.

+

CHAPTER 54. He rose from the dead.

1. For that he would rise from the dead on the third day, the prophet Hosea had foretold, saying: “Come, and let us return to the Lord, for he has taken, and will heal us; he will give us life after two days, on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight” (Hos. 6:1). All these things were so fulfilled in Christ. For he was delivered up on the fifth day [Thursday], suffered on the Preparation [Friday], and rising on the Lord’s Day at dawn, he returned from the dead.

2. Hence the prophet also added: “His going forth is prepared like the dawn.” And what he said, “we shall rise again and live before him,” the prophet speaks of himself, or of the saints, who were in hell and rose again with him on the third day.

====

Well, what do you think? This is a Latin work by St. Isidore that has never been put into English! It seems timely to me. If you’d like more, please let me know.

Read more

Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus: today’s Gospel (in the Pristine Roman Rite, used in the Catholic Church for 1,500 years or so, as far as we know) is so profound that it is hard to know what to add. Yet, after reading a Lapide, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, Msgr. Knox and Haydock, Bossuet and Straubinger, it became clear that some profound points were yet to be made or explored. So, audaciously, we press forward in the Tradition.

First, pericope is an important word: each gospel in the Holy Liturgy is always a “passage” or “section” of the Gospel (of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John); so, it reasonably follows that, in almost every case, there are circumstances that precede or follow the pericope, and these circumstances and further comments from the Inspired Author would add to one’s understanding of the gospel passage. This is somewhat more important in the Gospels, because the Epistles and Prophecies, read elsewhere in the Holy Mass, more naturally move from one subject to another, as a letter is wont to do.

Today, in a Gospel pericope that is so often overlooked, several words can seem curious or nearly inexplicable unless one sees what has transpired just prior in John’s Gospel, 7:31 and the following verses, we see that Our Lord is:

1. Speaking to those Jews “who have believed in Him”, or to use a popular word in modern evangelical speech, “believers”. This is crucial. These are not the Pharisees or another group of similarly hard-hearted Jews. These have believed in Him!

2. They are exhorted to “remain in [Him and]…[they] will truly be [His] disciples”. Clearly, believing is not enough. “Sola Fide” is never found in Scripture - not simply is it not where Martin Luther added it to his German translation, in Roman 3:28, but the only time the phrase comes up, St. James tells us in Chapter 2 that a man is NOT saved by Faith alone. It can be easy for Catholics to jump on board such an apologetical explanation, but we should dig deeper.

3. In today’s Epistle, we learn that we are made - by Christ’s blood - to “serve the Living God”; the Jews here say that they have never served anyone, since they are the seed of Abraham. Now, this is of course a lie: the Jews had served many foreign masters since Abraham’s day. Yet, The Lord does not combat that ridiculous claim, but He rather says that anyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The devout Jew would admit that, right?

4. As we approach the beginning of today’s Gospel, we see that there is a dispute over fatherhood and offspring: these believing Jews say, in response to Jesus’ claim that they do the works of their father, that they are not born fornication. Note that Jesus does not fight this obvious lie: remember that Judah was not only born of Leah (not the wife for whom Jacob had agreed to work), but also, Judah fathered children by his daughter-in-law, Tamar! Still, Jesus lets this statement - another lie - simply remain hanging in the air.

5. In the verses just before today’s pericope, Jesus says that the Jews are from their father, the Devil - who is leader of the demons. The Devil, too, was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. This is key to what follows.

Now, we come to the passage that was read at Mass. We return to truly free vs. slave of sin. There is also another recurrent theme from the Old Testament, which formed the foundation of Jewish identity and still does, to a great extent: the famous “shema”, or “Hear O Israel”, from Deuteronomy 6. Jesus says that, if these Jewish believers were of/from God, they would “hear” Him.

In response to this, the Jews make two accusations: first, that Jesus is a “Samaritan” - which requires a comment - and then that He “has a demon” - which also occasions some commentary!

What is a Samaritan? Well, there are four principal descriptions that relate to Our Lord’s earthly life: His early home in Nazareth - which was outside Judea - as the Samaritans lived outside Judea; Jesus was, like them, a son of Joseph! the Samaritans, you see, thought they were the true Israelites, being descended from Joseph’s sons; the Samaritans also believed they had preserved the authentic worship of the God of Israel; finally - and most interesting: the Jews in Judaea saw Samaritans as a mixed people, and Our Lord was obviously “mixed”, if by this you mean His Father was truly God and His earthly but nonetheless real Mother was Mary. Yes, all four of these could be caricatures and understood in different ways, but the connection is most Jews’ minds would have been enough to redirect the focus of the conversation.

Now, having a demon is obviously different than being one - but it is also different from being God or a mere mortal who is not in possession of or possessed by a demon. That distinction was not needed by Our Lord’s interlocutors, since the “daimon” could have been anything from Socrates’ famous “daimon” who spoke to him, or to the demonic voices which the false prophets heard, and any nebulous intermediate of those two seeming extremes. Worthy of note: the Prophets of Ancient Judaea and Israel were not considered to have had a demon. They were speaking the “Word of the Lord”.

Another very interesting clarification is needed in vv. 51-52: Jesus says that those who keep His word will not see death; the Jews, in reply, speak of one who would not taste death. Where do all four of those words - keep, see, death and taste - come up in a single biblical passage? Try Genesis 3! And, the addition of “forever” or “in aeternum”, after death, seems to be an interesting Gloss or explanation of the Hebrew “dying the death”, the curious double use of death in God’s warning to Adam and Eve, were they to eat from the tree - not if they were to “touch” it…as is stated in the conversation between Eve and the Serpent.

Finally, another necessary distinction: while talking about Abraham, Our Lord says that Abraham rejoiced to see His day; they Jews say, incredulously, that one who is not yet 50 years old would have thus seen Abraham - and that would make the seer not Abraham, but Our Lord. Obviously, Abraham could see anyone, since, as Our Lord would contend, the God of Abraham is the God of the living; but, if Jesus admitted the Jews’ point - that He had seen Abraham, while not being even 50 years old - He would logically have to be divine. What other option is there? And, sure enough, Our Lord follows up on the Jews’ claim and makes that greatest of rejoinders: “Truly, truly [not mendaciously or by lies] I say to you: before Abraham came to be - I AM”. The name used by God for Himself in the Burning Bush in Exodus 3, certainly, but also an affirmation of the final “sentence-mutation-operation” which those believing Jews had performed on Our Lord’s true words.

In response, the Jews took up stones. Wait! Did not Our Lord mention, shortly before His Sacred Passion that these “serpents” had killed the righteous and just of the Old Testament - from Able to Zechariah - in Matthew 23:35? Yes. This was recorded in 2 ChroniclesParalipomenon 24, when Zechariah had rebuked Judah (and their leaders) for having turned away from God. He was then stoned in the temple court; Our Lord, at this attempted stoning, leaves the temple and “hides Himself”, much in the manner that the early monks and nuns did…and as many religious still do, in imitation of Our Lord and Our Lady, of St. Mary Magdalene, of St. Anthony, of St. Elijah - the father of the “sons of the Prophets”.

More could be said and written about the connection between today’s Gospel and Epistle, but this will have to suffice for now. May it be for your benefit, unto life everlasting.

This is a liturgical reminder: the Mass Collect for today, Friday after the Third Sunday of Lent, says something which - when said by the previous Roman Pontiff and repeated by the Gloriously Reigning Pope Leo XIV - was criticized for being “not traditional”. If it’s in the Collect of our Gregorian Rite Mass, that’s Traditional enough for me.

Ieiúnia nostra, quǽsumus, Dómine, benígno favóre proséquere: ut, sicut ab aliméntis abstinémus in córpore; ita a vítiis ieiunémus in mente.

Lord, we beseech thee graciously to bless this our Fast, that we who are now outwardly denying meats to our bodies, may have power inwardly to keep our souls fasting from all sin.

So, be careful about those in whom you put your trust and faith: you may not trust the Holy Father, but you’re likely to find consistent liars among those who would lie about the Pope even once - and who’d refuse to retract their dishonest calumny.

Read more

Pope St. Gregory the Great has a lot to teach us at all times, but in these times, when the OrthoBros and the SSPX seem to be as strong as or stronger than ever, his [repeated] letters to the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, as well as [repeated] letters to the Emperor, he gets practical about Papal Primacy in an unrivaled way. This might surprise you - and hopefully it surprises and convinces the OrthoBros - because many Orthodox will [mis]quote Gregory by giving his words not only out of context…but implying that they meant the opposite of what he states!

Let me tell you something personal before I offer some tidbits of wisdom from Gregory the Great.

I’ve always loved Pope St. Gregory: as soon as I converted, in 2001, I started reading his works and Pope St. Leo’s - in order to read the “Greats”! I was already reading the Great Books: why not the Great Popes?

Then, 9 years later, after 6 years of seminary studies, I moved to Rome. My father had just died; and, a guy whom I had met in Rome, well, his parents had died recently too. We were both lovers of Latin and Greek, of the Gregorian Liturgy, of the Fathers. His name also happened to be Gregory; he lent me a room in the apartment where he lived in the City. Then, we moved into another apartment with another friend who was likewise enamored of Latin, the Gregorian Liturgy and the Fathers. That second apartment was on the Celian Hill, with Sts. John and Paul Church just a five minute walk away. Blessed times!

Also, I loved then and still love to read, write, hear and speak Latin. So, naturally, my study of Gregory the Great persisted and even grew! Gregory’s Latin is notably different from the sound and style used in most of the other Latin Fathers. Still, when he needed to be very clear and direct, he did what was needed.

Now, on to another Gregorian controversy that isn’t even as pleasant as that: the Orthodox, or perhaps OrthoBros, have often - recently - copied and pasted a statement or two from Gregory, wherein he says that a haughty name for a prelate is bad. Yes, he does write that - to rebuke the Patriarch of Constantinople, so that the Constantinopolitan Bishop would no longer use this “novum nomen” - or “new title”. He later calls this title <perverse, profane, irreverent, haughty and proud, even “stupid”>. Meanwhile, Gregory says of himself: “cum indignus ego ad Ecclesiae regimen adductus sum”. <When I was led - unworthy though I am - to the headship of the Church.> That’s Gregory’s understanding of his own position. The same bishop and see is called even by the enemy Tertullian: “episcopus episcoporum” - <bishop of bishops>; this is fitting and normal for the Pope of Rome; it is not fitting and not right for any other bishop - even the Bishop of Constantinople. The Bishop of Constantinople - not an apostolic see in any sense of the word - was calling himself “universal” in the sense that, “cuncta eius [ecclesiae] membra tibimet conaris universalis apppellatione supponere” = he was attempting to have place underneath himself all other members.

Further, Gregory notes how, at the Council of Chalcedon, the Bishops of Rome were called the “universal” or “ecumenical” Bishop - but that this was a title given to them - at the Ecumenical Council, by the Bishops present - not one which the Popes had arrogated to themselves; he writes this after he had referred to St. Peter as the “First/Prince of the Apostles”. He also states, near the end of the letter, that this usurpation is principally an offense against the Pope, Gregory himself: <et nos quidem in quos talis tantaque per ausum nefarium culpa committitur, servamus quod Veritas praecepit: “we at least - against whom such a grave and serious fault is committed by impious audacity - preserve that which Truth commanded”>

If this letter weren’t clear enough, Gregory makes the same Papal point even more forcefully in his letter to the Emperor Mauricius, #20. He reminds the Emperor that not only has someone who never was given such a title or such an office begun to call himself by this novel title, but that all who know the Gospel also know that the care over the entire Church was granted to the Prince of the Apostles, Peter, by Our Lord’s own voice.

Also, this Pope dares to prohibit one apostolic delegate from [con]celebrating Mass with the Patriarch: “et si emendare nolles, eum missarum solemnia cum fraternitate vestra celebrare prohibui”. The Pope was able to - or at least presumed to - forbid eucharistic communion between prelates of the highest rank.

To summarize, although the precise references are below: St. Gregory the Great is not only an unparalleled specimen of holiness and humility, but he also clearly teaches that the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, has plenipotentiary power that he hopes and prays to use only sparingly. He clearly re-enunciates the Church’s teaching and distinctions about “The Two Powers” (of Church and State). Finally and most important, if there is continued disobedience to his requests and commands, he threatens to “use the Church” against the disobedient. The Popes perpetually have that power. The official Catholic teaching on that great and grave power has never really changed since St. Peter, St. Clement, St. Victor, etc. Popes have threatened excommunication for these seeds of schism.

Read more

Pardon the pictures. I took two yesterday too: those came directly from the official “traditional” liturgical book that was used and will be used by the SSPX to consecrate Bishops. It demonstrates that the SSPX must begin the entire ceremony with a lie, because they have no Apostolic Mandate from the Pope. It is explained in red rubrics, and the question is directly posed to the Consecrating Bishops in additional black (=to be said) words.

Today, we see…or struggle to see…the Benedictus Lauds Antiphon - the linchpin of the Morning Divine Office.

Its second half:

“Listen to the Traditions!” Amen. And, understand them. They are there for our instruction and as guard-rails, lest we fall off the ship. They are not simply a “restriction of our liberty and freedom”, as the Protestants claimed; they are not a “bastardization” of the First Millennium’s traditions. Yet, they do restrict what we can do and say - if we wish to remain good, faithful Catholics. Some Traditionalists do not like that restriction. Yes, the traditions of the First Millennium have been clarified, but the ones that I discuss below are as old as Ignatius and Clement, Cyprian and Tertullian.

Here are some older articles wherein I respond to common - way too common - RadTrad errors in regard to ecclesiology. As far as I know, none of the Trad talking-heads have repudiated their repeated (and reposted) claim that, “the Pope is NOT the Head of the Church”, even though there is an anathema attached to such a statement in Vatican I, among many, many other places.

Dr. Scott Hahn was honest and brave enough to admit his error when he had stated that the Pope is not the Head of the Church. Well-known “traditional” writers have not followed that Sacred Tradition. That is lamentable.

For your reading pleasure:

And, because lying even about an otherwise lamentable Pope is not a Catholic thing:

Read more

<“No one must be consecrated unless it is first certain that the Consecrator has the [per]mission to consecrate...given to the Consecrator from the Supreme Pontiff”>

“Most Reverend Father, Holy Mother Catholic Church beseeches that you should raise the present priest to the burden of the Episcopacy.” The consecrator says: “Do you have the Apostolic Mandate?” The Senior Consecrating Bishop responds: “We do have it”. The Consecrator says: “Let it be read aloud”. Then the Consecrator’s Notary takes the mandate from the consecrating bishop’s hand and reads it from beginning to end. Meanwhile, all other sit, with their heads covered. Once the mandate has been read in full by the Notary, the Consecrator says: “Thanks be to God”.

This is to abuse the holy Traditional books by admitting a lie - at the very beginning of both the red rubrics and the black words to say. Any honest Traditionalist must admit that this is a grave sin. No matter what the impersonal and unidentified “Rome” may be doing, we know that She did not give the Apostolic Mandate in 1988, nor in 2026. Non possumus; we cannot…admit a lie. As Aristotle and St. Thomas repeat so consistently: a small error in the beginning becomes a grave and great error in the end.

Read more

There has to be some [more] interior criticism of traddom - that is, within Traddyland - especially when we Trads will listen to no one - and I mean no one - outside our camp. In this house, you’re with us or against, you’re scattering if you’re not gathering with us to our church/chapel.

One of our own arose, full of abstinence and fasting, and didst tell us the truth: the Modern Roman[-ist] Church is Modernist for talking about fasting and abstaining from sin and vice. “They just say that because they don’t fast or abstain anymore: I mean, a full meal and two half-meals for a Fasting and Abstinence day? Come on! Can you even take these faux-clerics seriously??”

Then, unassuming and naïve follower that I am, I simply read my missal and breviary last Monday and this Monday. Lo’ and behold, it spoke of fasting AND abstaining from sin and vice!
Præsta, quǽsumus, omnípotens Deus: ut família tua, quæ se, affligéndo carnem, ab aliméntis ábstinet, sectándo justítiam, a culpa jejúnet. Per Dominum.

Almighty God, grant, we beseech thee, unto this thy family, that as they do abstain from meals to afflict the flesh, so by following after righteousness they may fast from sin.
Córdibus nostris, quǽsumus, Dómine, grátiam tuam benígnus infúnde: ut, sicut ab escis carnálibus abstinémus; ita sensus quoque nostros a nóxiis retrahámus excéssibus. Per Dóminum. O Lord, we beseech thee mercifully to shed abroad thy grace into our hearts, that we who are now denying carnal meats to our bodily cravings, may have power likewise to withhold from the same all yielding to the deathful lusts of sin.

There was also another mention of this last week, in the official prayer for Vespers (which differs from the Mass’s oration). I assume the talking-heads of Traddom read the breviary too. TraddyInc must have missed those three @mentions, @AuthenticTrad, @Tradissimus in one week.

How silly I was to lend my credence to a sect that is from yesterday - 50 years ago - and which group is fully and completely self-shepherding.

Still, I haven’t thrown out the baby with the bath-water and I shall not. As for me and my household, we’ve been, we are and we intend to keep chugging along the same path of seeking a legitimate TLM - that is, a truly and fully Catholic TLM, in union with the same Church that Christ founded on Peter and on that successive “head of the Church”, “sitting first in the Agape [Charity=Church]”, called “The Pope”, the “Bishop of Rome”, “the Bishops of Bishops”, “Servant of Servants of God”, “Supreme Pontiff”, etc., by the Councils and Fathers. De facto and undeclared anti-Popes have been around since the middle of the Second Century, and me and mine don’t plan on falling for that old trick: “where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church1”, as an ancient witness said.

It is best not to judge one’s superiors - but these Traddy commentators, who made such a mistake and committed such an error in judging the statements of successive Popes, are not superiors to or for anyone. They hold no authority, for they were given no authority. Authority is delegated by Holy Mother Church in a specific, easily discernible manner. So, as I said above, I won’t reject the great good of the legitimate TLM just because there are talking-heads who are not the Head of the Catholic Church but pretend to judge the actual Head of the Catholic Church.

Read more