If receiving the Eucharist is supposed to make one more like Christ, and 98% of the NO Catholics have used or are using contraception with no repentance, will Christ find faith when He comes again? Is this rejection excommunicable?
I think he would find a lot of sheep who have had no shepherds -- or rather false shepherds, who have not told the sheep what it means to have Christian faith, because the false shepherds themselves do not believe.
"In the Catholic Church, obstinate and persistent sin becomes excommunicable when it transitions from a personal struggle into a public, manifest, and contumacious (unrepentant) rejection of Church authority or doctrine."
That said, I would suggest that the average person in the pew would have to be rebuked by a priest or bishop for that sin. Do you really see that happening?
This could drive us to despair and into the arms of the resistance, but then I think of the age of Arianism. We survived that. This too shall pass. I hope. It’s all so discouraging. I had hoped things might improve with a new Pope. In the meantime the FSSPX is my home.
It doesn’t drive one to despair but to clarity — this hideous thing is not the Catholic Church and we are not part of their evil sodomist communion. It is despair to stay and still call Prevost and Bergoglio “popes”.
Pope Leo XII made clear that human weakness cannot vitiate Christ’s promises in a true Pope, that “his high rank does not fail even in an unworthy heir” (Encyclical Ubi Primum, n. 22). (This stood out to me upon reading it)
One of my brothers is a sedevacantist. He’s bright and well read. He’s also proud, uncharitable, self righteous and stubborn as a mule. He told our devout, faithful and good father that he was going to hell. He insisted we denounce the Pope (Pope Benedict) or we’d burn in hell. This was while my father lay paralyzed and near death. My brother then boycotted the funeral and ceased to speak to any of us. We are a huge, Irish Catholic family, mostly traditional Catholics. Every single resistance or sedevacantist I encounter speaks in the same tone. I’ll never understand his logic. I will always steer clear.
Read the following quote. Then apply it to the Vatican II "popes." It's utterly preposterous to do so, thus providing yet more proof that they cannot possibly be/have been actual popes.
"The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth
and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he
Very disgusting situation!!!!! wow.... This is the Vatican under Prevost, which shows such hostility toward the traditional Latin Mass, which is our precious tradition and treasure and attended by countless saints and martyrs, while showing kindness to the heretics who support LGBT and indiscriminate promotion of abortion... In this way, Bergoglio's errors have not improved at all, but rather seem to be solidifying in a new form under Prevost. I really wonder if Trad inc will still say things like we need to wait and see, be calm, and not rush things...I've heard that some are even suggesting that a Third Vatican Council will be convened as a means of solidifying the errors. I don't think that's something to be dismissed...In times like these, I am convinced that the true stance of orthodox Catholics is to speak out and fight against errors, not just to be clear about what is wrong.
This is absolutely not the case for all members of Trad Inc., who call themselves orthodox Catholics... Even if we're a small minority, even if we're just one person, I firmly believe that it's important to walk the right path. How glorious it would be if even one person could walk the right path! and then... until the moment our Lord Jesus Christ allows, whether it is now or tomorrow, we must fight against all false ideologies and defend Orthodox teachings and the true truth!!! May the our Lord Sacred Heart of Jesus always grant you, your family and all your loved ones infinite graces....Holy Mary, all Angels and Saints.. pray for us... Amen.. take care.. have a wonderful day... preparing about huge perseution.. have a great Lent season again... Chris... Even though I am a sinful, worthless, and utterly insignificant human being, I still choose to walk that path...If we continue to act like Trad Inc., the process of errors becoming orthodox doctrine and orthodox doctrine becoming errors will only become more evident. This is absolutely unacceptable...
"the true stance of orthodox Catholics is to speak out and fight against errors, not just to be clear about what is wrong." Agree. Here's a classic example.
Once again Jackson NAILS IT HERE in this article. I have found a total disregard for "Catholics" and more acceptance in search of "being liked" not conversion.
The Roman Catholic Church has devolved into a mere exercise in project management since the moment Jorge Mario Bergoglio—known to the world as Francis—grasped the papal staff. Under his pontificate, the universal Church has been reduced to a diminished version of Europe itself: shrinking in fidelity, influence, and true spiritual vigor, while opening its doors wide to a relentless influx of mass illegal migration from adherents of other religions and from those professing no faith at all. This policy appears calculated to facilitate a demographic and cultural takeover, eroding the Church's sacred identity as the guardian of revealed truth.
The rapid elevation of Robert Francis Prevost—now styled Pope Leo XIV—mere minutes after Bergoglio's death in April 2025, reveals the depth of premeditation involved. His selection on the second day of the conclave, following a swift consensus among the electors, betrays a process far more orchestrated than organic. It was not merit rooted in unwavering adherence to the deposit of faith that secured his election, but rather a pre-programmed reward for loyal service within the Bergoglian apparatus—evident in his appointments as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops and his proximity to the prior regime. Such haste underscores a continuity of agenda rather than a genuine discernment guided by the Holy Spirit.
This trajectory demands vigilant discernment from the faithful, lest the Church's divine mission be further subordinated to temporal expedients.
Modernist wolves hate this Mass. Suppression and mockery of it, canceling of Holy priests and bishops who offer it, is their response. They will bless same sex “couples”, welcome heretics to the Vatican, and obey the WEF. “By their fruits”….Jesus told us of all of this. We have no obligation to obey sin.
I would like to hear someone with more knowledge than I have to comment on this as my understanding is only a priest can baptise in normal situtations, though in extreme situations a faithful Catholic may baptise.
Outside of extreme situations a lay person baptizing might not be licit but it would still be valid.
If I may offer an irrelevant anecdote, as a 3-week-old baby near death I was actually baptized three times. The first time of course saved my soul. The second time saved my life because the frigid November water used for the baptism made me start gasping and breathing again after I had stopped breathing. (I spent the next week in an oxygen tent in a hospital.) And the third baptism later in the church by the priest just made it all official.
Yes, as a 3-week-old baby I was on the verge of Eternal Glory, and yet here I am on Earth still struggling it out 75 years later. Strangely, whenever I mention all this to my 11 children I get no sympathy from them for what I missed out on...
Any indication as to how many priests will be consecrated on July 1st? Since the SSPX is so much bigger now (more priests, more lay faithful) seems to me that more than 4 priests should be consecrated to maintain the Society worldwide. Say at least 10?
This crushing of the Mass and persecution of faithful priests sounds eerily like the times of the witch queen of England, Elizabeth 1. St Edmund Campion pray for us.
"Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used."- Quo Primum, St. Pius V
I love how there is specifically a clause of this that says "In any church whatsoever"
It defies reason that the heretics can delude themselves and the laity into accepting a false "mass" in open defiance of Quo Primum. Let them be anathema, and let we faithful stand strong in the Traditional Rite of the Mass and of the Sacraments, regardless of what the heretics and idolaters say.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Lets be clear here, this bishops actions are directly refusing submission to at least two very clear papal precedents. One being Quo Primum by St. Pius V which says no priest can incur canonical penalties for celebrating the Latin Mass. The other being the precedent set by Benedict XVI lifting the excommunications of the hawaii six; any Catholic can attend the latin mass and recieve the traditional sacraments without fear of canonical penalty. So this is by definition an act of schism.
Lets be even clearer here, Traditiones Custodes as a whole was also very contrary to Quo Primum. That passage from Quo Primum very clearly says, "by virtue of Our Apostolic authority." Is it possible for a Roman Pontiff to wage his authority against that of his predecessor who is explicitly calling upon the authority of the office they both claim? That appears in all ways to be by definition an act of schism as well. Interesting. I just have to wonder, what good does me acknowledging this do? It seems clear as day to anyone who can admit that 1+1=2 without arguing some subjectivism.
The good your comment does it to clarify the situation for those of us who, like me, have not studied Canon Law. I read it but I am no scholar, so thank you.
As a science major you insist on the use of logic. And as a Catholic you insist on the use of logic so as to obey Christ's command that we love God with our whole mind, the seat of reason.
Whatever other harm the Enlightenment did, perhaps the worst harm was that it seems to have given the use of reason a bad rap.
Without getting. too deeply into this, keep in mind that Quo Primum was a papal bull, which despite its language most canonists indicate that it is not binding on subsequent popes who have the ultimate authority in the Catholic Church on liturgical matters. Now that doesn't mean popes can act willy-nilly on liturgical matters nor should they but the argument that Quo Primum binds subsequent popes from altering liturgical practices is just not tenable. Better to reject the NO because it fails to clearly comport with the Catholic faith, but rather reflects the conciliar faith of VII, than rely on the Quo Primum argument.
A pope may use a term for a variety of reasons including emphasis, and his intentions are clear, but he can not bind a pope on liturgical matters if a reigning pope is the ultimate authority. That is my understanding from years of coming across this disputed question. Certainly alterations were made from the original text of the missal, even by Pius V himself, although minor. John XXIII added St. Joseph to the canon and the consensus of even traditionalists is that it shouldn't have been done, not that it can't be done. The other question is whether the NO is a new liturgy (however awful this one is and lacking in Catholicity) that a pope has a right to promulgate vs a reformation of the TLM, and with such major changes it more likely is new rite and not a reformation.
I mean it is definitely a new liturgy, they call it the Novus Ordo after all lol. But as for the whole Quo primum thing. What does it mean for a Pope to make a declaration "by virtue of Our Apostolic authority" ?
Obviously St Pius V held that he had full papal authority to grant this directive "in perpetuity", or else he would not have done so. And he did not condition his directive on any future pope revoking it.
Those who oppose what he granted are opposing legitimate papal authority.
For those of us who have been in the Traditional movement for years, this is nothing new. Though never explicitly stated, with the introduction of the "New Mass", what was implied was that the Traditional Mass was somehow deficient, even "bad", and that "adherence" to it was in defiance of the Pope and the mandates of Vatican II.
Of course, what was never stated in the '70's, which was still in the shadow of the Three Angelic Piuses who both promoted and were the epitome of hyperpapalism. These people are of the opinion that Our Lord appointed St Peter to his Chair in order to micromanage every jot and tittle of Holy Mother Church. While it is true that the pope has the plentitude of power and jurisdiction and that every cleric must have his Apostolic Mandate, it is equally true that the pope does not have unlimited power. He cannot, for example, uncanonize St Paul, or declare the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception null and void.
The argument has been made that Pius V Canonized the Traditional Mass by his Bull Quo Primum, and that subsequent popes are powerless to legislate against it, not because of legalize, but rather because of ontology. The Traditional Mass springs from Immemorial Custom, which even Pius V recognized in his bull Quo Primum, which did not, for example, abolish either the Sarum Rite of St Osmund or the Dominican Rite of St Dominic (Duh).
Of course, Paul VI and his Liturgical Anarchist Cronies gave us the same answers as the Producers of the Moon Landings: Never A Straight Answer. Those as old as I may recall the answer we were given for the rendition of the Consecration of the Chalice from "for many" to "for all". They told us there was no corresponding word in Aramaic for the phrase: "For Many". This and similar inanities were foisted upon us for the subsequent practices of Women Lectors, Communion in the Hand, Eucharistic Ministers, and suchlike Protestantizations of the Divine Liturgy.
And the moment we began to object to these inanities, we were "not with the pope" and "schismatic".
Well, I for one was "excommunicated" from the Conciliar Church on multiple occasions. I was told ARchbishop Lefebvre was in Hell. I was told that going to an SSPX Mass was an "act of schism". I was actually glad for the divide.
The people of South America should thank the Primate (Taxidermic Pun Intended) of Brazil for throwing down the gauntlet. It will keep the queasy and lukewarm from darkening the doorsteps of their "Unauthorized Mass Centers". In the Land of the Cristeros, only Men with a Pair need apply.
"I was actually glad for the divide." At this point, I think that a blanket 'excommunication' from them would be most welcome. It would clarify the situation and then people would have a straight choice 'officially'.
Yes, I know, that's why I put it in inverted commas, but it would separate out the two 'Churches' (again in inverted commas!) so that people in the N.O. who are still ignorant might start looking into the situation more. They might ask why there are suddenly two Catholic Churches. That's based on my time in the N.O. which only ended about 12 years ago. Tradition just wasn't mentioned and most have absolutely no connection to it so aren't aware of it - except possibly now as the bogey man their Bishops love to push.......
"Well, I for one was "excommunicated" from the Conciliar Church on multiple occasions. ...I was actually glad for the divide."
Amen, brother. I can't wait for my 9x12 notice of excommunication, suitable for framing, from the Conciliar Church (sic). I will display it proudly near my front door as a daily reminder of what church (small c) I am NOT a member of.
Thank you, Brother, Michael of the Cross. Agree 100% that Liberalism is a serious mental disorder. How do these people perpetuate their nonsense and evil?
Evil Pope Leo is a wolf in sheep clothing who will never become a sheep no matter how hard and how much Catholics pray for him.
Catholics praying for wolves in sheep clothing turn wolves into false saints.
Just look at 60 years of proofs of all the Vatican II popes wolves in sheep clothing that Catholics prayed for who are now false saints.
Just look at how gullible Catholics turned the second longest reigning pope, the most travelled wolf in sheep clothing John Paul II into a fast-tracked false saint.
He travelled as pope for 27 years and people prayed with him and for him and meanwhile he was spreading pagan worship and destroying Catholic traditions like wildfire as they adulate him before their very eyes.
Leo is now the captain of the Talmudic Trojan Horse and his main mission is to erase Catholic traditions and the Traditional Latin Mass and make the Vatican as the Seat of the Anti-Christ Talmudic One World Religion.
"Pray for Pope Leo" and "pray for our enemies" have a way of transforming Catholics into stupidity and passiveness and inaction that prevent them from helping Our Lady crush Leo who is the serpent's head. One of the things you must do is not to feed the serpent by encouraging Catholics to go to adulate Leo the Serpent's head and henchman in the Vatican through pilgrimages to Rome. https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/synodal-subversion-how-leos-church/comment/213499840
If we refuse to pray for them, we are not following Christ's command to love our neighbour, which in this case translates to praying for their conversion and repentance. "if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool."
I agree with you about praying for Pope Leo and our “enemies” and Christ’s command to love our neighbors. For if we don’t, we become like them; without truth, love and charity. Without love in our hearts other things start to fill in that the enemy uses like Judo to take us down to the floor. We start having hardened hearts. This does not mean we stop fighting for truth and His Church. We do both; fight always with love and truth. A secular fine example would be young Luke Skywalker being trained by Yoda in one of the Star Wars movies. Yoda warned Luke not to let his anger take hold when fighting Darth Vader as that would take him over to the Dark Side. At the end of that movie Luke faces Darth Vader and does start to let his unrighteous anger take hold in their fight as the evil Emperor looks on with glee knowing young Skywalker will soon be his with the demise of Darth Vader. But Luke remembers Yoda’s training and relents his anger showing the love I am talking about. He states he see’s good in Vader. Luke wins. Watch for yourself. That’s how to fight.
I’m truly asking a valid question. Should we be praying for those who are totally dead set against the Truth?
Should we be like St. Francis of Assisi who told the crusaders to wipe out Saladin and his troops because he would not convert?
Are those men who wear the clothes of supposed shepherds and don’t believe anything that the clothing is supposed to represent…well, after years of praying for them and now knowing that they are in the opposing kingdom, do we continue to pray for them?
Of course we should pray for them. Doesn't God want their conversion? Jesus called Judas "friend." Even as He was being betrayed and knowing that Judas would not convert, He still willed that conversion. That Judas rejected the invitation was a tragedy, but I have no doubt that the Blessed Mother was praying for him right up to his death.
If you mean literally, no, because it is forbidden to pray for those in Hell and we know from Christ's words and also Acts 1 that Judas is in hell. Everyone alive we pray for, or we'd all be making our own judgement calls on who to pray for, which is NOT Catholic. God could be waiting for our prayers in order to bestow the necessary graces for their repentance. If people are refusing to pray for our enemies, God may withhold the graces necessary to clear up this mess and leave us with a long line of Leos.
They are not in the 'opposing kingdom' yet. I fail to understand how anyone who calls themselves Catholic could think that God wants them to stop praying for those most in need of prayers, even their enemies. I'm sure Satan is very happy with that approach though.
You're mixing up two different things - praying for someone's salvation is not the same as dealing with them in the world as necessary. When people were executed as heretics, did any Pope tell Catholics not to pray for their last-minute repentance and salvation?
Just for the record, St Francis of Assisi did not tell King Wenselas to wipe out Saladin and his troops because they would not convert. Saladin and his troops were wiped out because they were enslaving Christians and making them row galleys, among other things. No true Catholic would ever advocate wiping out heretics simply because they were heretics. Even the Inquisition was not concerned with heretics per se, but rather those who were infiltrating the church while pretending to be men of God.
So sorry! I obviously am remembering incorrectly. I thought that’s what St. Bonaventure had written about St. Francis. I wish i still had St. Bonaventure’s book about St. Francis! It was so poignant a piece that I thought that it’s what I read him to say.
These are confusing times. But Our Lord Jesus Christ did tell us to pray for our enemies and those who persecute us. And despite all the Satanism and etc no moratorium was put upon that command.
At the same time, of course, we should call out all the wolfs in sheep's clothing.
Jo, Your comments are untrue and therefore, offensive. Disagreement is one thing, provided you can show a valid source for them other then your opinion. But ad hominem attacks are completely unacceptable.
""Pray for Pope Leo" and "pray for our enemies" " on one hand, and "adulation" of Pope Bob on the other hand, are by no means even remotely the same thing. Sorry, but your assertions are malformed nonsense which I hope you will reconsider.
So you also refuse to obey Christ's command to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us? WOW! Christ's assertions must be malformed nonsense then. I think it's you who need to reconsider. I'll continue praying for their repentance and salvation.
This behaviour isn't due to lack of charity. When someone writes things (many such things) like "Get behind me Satan. You are a cheap paid controlled-opposition eating off the dust of the belly of the serpent.", there's more than a lack of charity involved.
WOW! is right. Regrettably, you seem to have completely misunderstood my written statement, Francisca. I was expressing my disagreement with Jo who was trying to convince folks not to pray for the occupant of Peter's See, and presumably for other clerics in grievous error at this time. That was the malformed though I referred to.
I was contradicting her assertion that praying for them amounts to or is conducive to adulation - "...on the other hand...".
Thanks for clarifying - on my screen your comment is an answer to me!! The lines are always all over the place. I thought it was a bit strange given your previous comments but have got so used to strange utterances from unexpected quarters.
I thought Francisca's comment was directed to Jo. All faithful Catholics should disagree with Jo's comments due to the reasons Francisca stated, so I think we are on the same page.
The Papacy was taken Captive by the Synagogue in the Early 1960s. Ecumenism was never taught before Vatican II. Ecumenism is preparing Catholics to accept becoming part of the One World Religion. Noahidism is the name of this One World Religion.
I excommunicate all bishops who participate in synodalism unless they repent and say 10 Hail Co-redemptrixes
If receiving the Eucharist is supposed to make one more like Christ, and 98% of the NO Catholics have used or are using contraception with no repentance, will Christ find faith when He comes again? Is this rejection excommunicable?
I think he would find a lot of sheep who have had no shepherds -- or rather false shepherds, who have not told the sheep what it means to have Christian faith, because the false shepherds themselves do not believe.
It's likely they don't even know the Catholic faith.
Using contraception is objectively a mortal sin. It is not grounds for excommunication.
When does obstinate and persistent sin become excommunible
"In the Catholic Church, obstinate and persistent sin becomes excommunicable when it transitions from a personal struggle into a public, manifest, and contumacious (unrepentant) rejection of Church authority or doctrine."
That said, I would suggest that the average person in the pew would have to be rebuked by a priest or bishop for that sin. Do you really see that happening?
no but I see popes and bishops and priest ,who are guilty thus.
Receiving the Eucharist while being in mortal sin, without confession/reconciliation, being absolve by a priest, one would be eating self damnation?!
You mean people using contraception are excommunicated? Because the fail to go to confession, repent and make reparations?
This could drive us to despair and into the arms of the resistance, but then I think of the age of Arianism. We survived that. This too shall pass. I hope. It’s all so discouraging. I had hoped things might improve with a new Pope. In the meantime the FSSPX is my home.
It doesn’t drive one to despair but to clarity — this hideous thing is not the Catholic Church and we are not part of their evil sodomist communion. It is despair to stay and still call Prevost and Bergoglio “popes”.
Read The following with extreme care and repeatedly:
https://novusordowatch.org/2024/07/mystical-passion-of-the-church-real-vs-fake/
Pope Leo XII made clear that human weakness cannot vitiate Christ’s promises in a true Pope, that “his high rank does not fail even in an unworthy heir” (Encyclical Ubi Primum, n. 22). (This stood out to me upon reading it)
Bergoglio and Prevost promoting and insinuating heresies again and again is not a sign of human weakness but of purposeful sabotage of the faith.
Recall that Pope Leo XII was talking about a true pope, not an invalid one.
One of my brothers is a sedevacantist. He’s bright and well read. He’s also proud, uncharitable, self righteous and stubborn as a mule. He told our devout, faithful and good father that he was going to hell. He insisted we denounce the Pope (Pope Benedict) or we’d burn in hell. This was while my father lay paralyzed and near death. My brother then boycotted the funeral and ceased to speak to any of us. We are a huge, Irish Catholic family, mostly traditional Catholics. Every single resistance or sedevacantist I encounter speaks in the same tone. I’ll never understand his logic. I will always steer clear.
That's not an argument against sedevacantism. It's an argument against your vile brother. Now see:
What is Sedevacantism? Why is Sedevacantism 100% Safe & 100% Catholic?
https://youtu.be/z5RHQ8M7iiU
"You can't blame an idea for the people who hold it."
Read the following quote. Then apply it to the Vatican II "popes." It's utterly preposterous to do so, thus providing yet more proof that they cannot possibly be/have been actual popes.
"The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth
and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he
makes charity and virtue loved."
Pope Pius XII
Ancora una volta, 1949
Also see:
Do You Believe in the Papacy? Take this brief Test and Find Out! https://novusordowatch.org/2020/06/do-you-believe-in-the-papacy/
And unto thee end may that continue Sister ó Éirinn. God bless
Áiméan
https://www.scribd.com/document/341580358/An-Open-Letter-to-Confused-Catholics
I recommend this one.
Yes completed on entry. And Apologia, Cranmer's Godly Order etc by Michael Treharne Davies. God bless you
Very disgusting situation!!!!! wow.... This is the Vatican under Prevost, which shows such hostility toward the traditional Latin Mass, which is our precious tradition and treasure and attended by countless saints and martyrs, while showing kindness to the heretics who support LGBT and indiscriminate promotion of abortion... In this way, Bergoglio's errors have not improved at all, but rather seem to be solidifying in a new form under Prevost. I really wonder if Trad inc will still say things like we need to wait and see, be calm, and not rush things...I've heard that some are even suggesting that a Third Vatican Council will be convened as a means of solidifying the errors. I don't think that's something to be dismissed...In times like these, I am convinced that the true stance of orthodox Catholics is to speak out and fight against errors, not just to be clear about what is wrong.
This is absolutely not the case for all members of Trad Inc., who call themselves orthodox Catholics... Even if we're a small minority, even if we're just one person, I firmly believe that it's important to walk the right path. How glorious it would be if even one person could walk the right path! and then... until the moment our Lord Jesus Christ allows, whether it is now or tomorrow, we must fight against all false ideologies and defend Orthodox teachings and the true truth!!! May the our Lord Sacred Heart of Jesus always grant you, your family and all your loved ones infinite graces....Holy Mary, all Angels and Saints.. pray for us... Amen.. take care.. have a wonderful day... preparing about huge perseution.. have a great Lent season again... Chris... Even though I am a sinful, worthless, and utterly insignificant human being, I still choose to walk that path...If we continue to act like Trad Inc., the process of errors becoming orthodox doctrine and orthodox doctrine becoming errors will only become more evident. This is absolutely unacceptable...
"the true stance of orthodox Catholics is to speak out and fight against errors, not just to be clear about what is wrong." Agree. Here's a classic example.
The SSPX just fought Cardinal Fernandez personally head-on at the Vatican and delivered a TKO blow on him and with his queer queen down, now Leo is cornered in a Checkmate! https://kokxnews.substack.com/p/trad-watch-friday-sspx-weekly-news/comment/218502721
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
Always great to hear from you, Sister!
Once again Jackson NAILS IT HERE in this article. I have found a total disregard for "Catholics" and more acceptance in search of "being liked" not conversion.
The Roman Catholic Church has devolved into a mere exercise in project management since the moment Jorge Mario Bergoglio—known to the world as Francis—grasped the papal staff. Under his pontificate, the universal Church has been reduced to a diminished version of Europe itself: shrinking in fidelity, influence, and true spiritual vigor, while opening its doors wide to a relentless influx of mass illegal migration from adherents of other religions and from those professing no faith at all. This policy appears calculated to facilitate a demographic and cultural takeover, eroding the Church's sacred identity as the guardian of revealed truth.
The rapid elevation of Robert Francis Prevost—now styled Pope Leo XIV—mere minutes after Bergoglio's death in April 2025, reveals the depth of premeditation involved. His selection on the second day of the conclave, following a swift consensus among the electors, betrays a process far more orchestrated than organic. It was not merit rooted in unwavering adherence to the deposit of faith that secured his election, but rather a pre-programmed reward for loyal service within the Bergoglian apparatus—evident in his appointments as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops and his proximity to the prior regime. Such haste underscores a continuity of agenda rather than a genuine discernment guided by the Holy Spirit.
This trajectory demands vigilant discernment from the faithful, lest the Church's divine mission be further subordinated to temporal expedients.
The devolution of the Vatican began with Roncalli in 1958.
Thank you. Just what I was going to say, though I would add the V-II ape of the Church is NOT the true Catholic Church in any way.
The Holy Ghost does not lead or inspire the heretical ape of the church as that false church long ago turned its back on God and embraced Satan.
The Church's divine mission cannot fail as Jesus said, no matter what the heretics in Rome say or do.
The church started going down hill in the pontificate of John23rd. All post conciliar popes were modernist heretics.
Modernist wolves hate this Mass. Suppression and mockery of it, canceling of Holy priests and bishops who offer it, is their response. They will bless same sex “couples”, welcome heretics to the Vatican, and obey the WEF. “By their fruits”….Jesus told us of all of this. We have no obligation to obey sin.
Well said!
It’s so amazing how modernists utilize ad hominem attacks against Catholics!!! AND THEN claim we’re the ones who have lost our minds and the Faith!!!!
God bless the SSPX for consecrating bishops!!! I hope they consecrate 12 of them!!!
Blessed be Jesus Whose mother is Mary, CoRedemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and Queen of all creatures!!!
♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
Anyone can Baptise a baby as long as the correct words are said, the water runs and you intend what the Catholic Church teaches.
I would like to hear someone with more knowledge than I have to comment on this as my understanding is only a priest can baptise in normal situtations, though in extreme situations a faithful Catholic may baptise.
Outside of extreme situations a lay person baptizing might not be licit but it would still be valid.
If I may offer an irrelevant anecdote, as a 3-week-old baby near death I was actually baptized three times. The first time of course saved my soul. The second time saved my life because the frigid November water used for the baptism made me start gasping and breathing again after I had stopped breathing. (I spent the next week in an oxygen tent in a hospital.) And the third baptism later in the church by the priest just made it all official.
Yes, as a 3-week-old baby I was on the verge of Eternal Glory, and yet here I am on Earth still struggling it out 75 years later. Strangely, whenever I mention all this to my 11 children I get no sympathy from them for what I missed out on...
Nothing irrelevant in your comment. I found it to be inspirational, as you were clearly protected and Blessed to be alive.
I needed a laugh after this thread!!!
Can’t wait for July 1.
Any indication as to how many priests will be consecrated on July 1st? Since the SSPX is so much bigger now (more priests, more lay faithful) seems to me that more than 4 priests should be consecrated to maintain the Society worldwide. Say at least 10?
This crushing of the Mass and persecution of faithful priests sounds eerily like the times of the witch queen of England, Elizabeth 1. St Edmund Campion pray for us.
Christ will become Hate-Speach in the near future.
Total disgrace, that Brazilian Archbishop. People should simply call his bluff: "You can't excommunicate ALL of us, your so-called "Eminence"."
There has been a number of canonized Saints who were 'excommunicated' when running afoul of a bishop.
"Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used."- Quo Primum, St. Pius V
I love how there is specifically a clause of this that says "In any church whatsoever"
Thank you.
It defies reason that the heretics can delude themselves and the laity into accepting a false "mass" in open defiance of Quo Primum. Let them be anathema, and let we faithful stand strong in the Traditional Rite of the Mass and of the Sacraments, regardless of what the heretics and idolaters say.
Deo gratias.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Lets be clear here, this bishops actions are directly refusing submission to at least two very clear papal precedents. One being Quo Primum by St. Pius V which says no priest can incur canonical penalties for celebrating the Latin Mass. The other being the precedent set by Benedict XVI lifting the excommunications of the hawaii six; any Catholic can attend the latin mass and recieve the traditional sacraments without fear of canonical penalty. So this is by definition an act of schism.
Lets be even clearer here, Traditiones Custodes as a whole was also very contrary to Quo Primum. That passage from Quo Primum very clearly says, "by virtue of Our Apostolic authority." Is it possible for a Roman Pontiff to wage his authority against that of his predecessor who is explicitly calling upon the authority of the office they both claim? That appears in all ways to be by definition an act of schism as well. Interesting. I just have to wonder, what good does me acknowledging this do? It seems clear as day to anyone who can admit that 1+1=2 without arguing some subjectivism.
Thank you, Brother.
The good your comment does it to clarify the situation for those of us who, like me, have not studied Canon Law. I read it but I am no scholar, so thank you.
Haha, I am a 22 year old Physics Major, I'm no canon lawyer either, I just pick up bits and pieces and have a good memory.
As a science major you insist on the use of logic. And as a Catholic you insist on the use of logic so as to obey Christ's command that we love God with our whole mind, the seat of reason.
Whatever other harm the Enlightenment did, perhaps the worst harm was that it seems to have given the use of reason a bad rap.
Without getting. too deeply into this, keep in mind that Quo Primum was a papal bull, which despite its language most canonists indicate that it is not binding on subsequent popes who have the ultimate authority in the Catholic Church on liturgical matters. Now that doesn't mean popes can act willy-nilly on liturgical matters nor should they but the argument that Quo Primum binds subsequent popes from altering liturgical practices is just not tenable. Better to reject the NO because it fails to clearly comport with the Catholic faith, but rather reflects the conciliar faith of VII, than rely on the Quo Primum argument.
define "in perpetuity"
Yes, why would Pope St Pius V use the word "perpetuity" if he held that any future pope could reverse him? He clearly would not have used that word.
A pope may use a term for a variety of reasons including emphasis, and his intentions are clear, but he can not bind a pope on liturgical matters if a reigning pope is the ultimate authority. That is my understanding from years of coming across this disputed question. Certainly alterations were made from the original text of the missal, even by Pius V himself, although minor. John XXIII added St. Joseph to the canon and the consensus of even traditionalists is that it shouldn't have been done, not that it can't be done. The other question is whether the NO is a new liturgy (however awful this one is and lacking in Catholicity) that a pope has a right to promulgate vs a reformation of the TLM, and with such major changes it more likely is new rite and not a reformation.
A reigning pope is the continuing authority, not the ultimate one.
I mean it is definitely a new liturgy, they call it the Novus Ordo after all lol. But as for the whole Quo primum thing. What does it mean for a Pope to make a declaration "by virtue of Our Apostolic authority" ?
Obviously St Pius V held that he had full papal authority to grant this directive "in perpetuity", or else he would not have done so. And he did not condition his directive on any future pope revoking it.
Those who oppose what he granted are opposing legitimate papal authority.
Also, I'm guessing that at that time there would have been uproar, if he'd granted it without the power to do so.
For those of us who have been in the Traditional movement for years, this is nothing new. Though never explicitly stated, with the introduction of the "New Mass", what was implied was that the Traditional Mass was somehow deficient, even "bad", and that "adherence" to it was in defiance of the Pope and the mandates of Vatican II.
Of course, what was never stated in the '70's, which was still in the shadow of the Three Angelic Piuses who both promoted and were the epitome of hyperpapalism. These people are of the opinion that Our Lord appointed St Peter to his Chair in order to micromanage every jot and tittle of Holy Mother Church. While it is true that the pope has the plentitude of power and jurisdiction and that every cleric must have his Apostolic Mandate, it is equally true that the pope does not have unlimited power. He cannot, for example, uncanonize St Paul, or declare the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception null and void.
The argument has been made that Pius V Canonized the Traditional Mass by his Bull Quo Primum, and that subsequent popes are powerless to legislate against it, not because of legalize, but rather because of ontology. The Traditional Mass springs from Immemorial Custom, which even Pius V recognized in his bull Quo Primum, which did not, for example, abolish either the Sarum Rite of St Osmund or the Dominican Rite of St Dominic (Duh).
Of course, Paul VI and his Liturgical Anarchist Cronies gave us the same answers as the Producers of the Moon Landings: Never A Straight Answer. Those as old as I may recall the answer we were given for the rendition of the Consecration of the Chalice from "for many" to "for all". They told us there was no corresponding word in Aramaic for the phrase: "For Many". This and similar inanities were foisted upon us for the subsequent practices of Women Lectors, Communion in the Hand, Eucharistic Ministers, and suchlike Protestantizations of the Divine Liturgy.
And the moment we began to object to these inanities, we were "not with the pope" and "schismatic".
Well, I for one was "excommunicated" from the Conciliar Church on multiple occasions. I was told ARchbishop Lefebvre was in Hell. I was told that going to an SSPX Mass was an "act of schism". I was actually glad for the divide.
The people of South America should thank the Primate (Taxidermic Pun Intended) of Brazil for throwing down the gauntlet. It will keep the queasy and lukewarm from darkening the doorsteps of their "Unauthorized Mass Centers". In the Land of the Cristeros, only Men with a Pair need apply.
"I was actually glad for the divide." At this point, I think that a blanket 'excommunication' from them would be most welcome. It would clarify the situation and then people would have a straight choice 'officially'.
A blanket 'excommunication' from them would be irrelevant in substance.
Yes, I know, that's why I put it in inverted commas, but it would separate out the two 'Churches' (again in inverted commas!) so that people in the N.O. who are still ignorant might start looking into the situation more. They might ask why there are suddenly two Catholic Churches. That's based on my time in the N.O. which only ended about 12 years ago. Tradition just wasn't mentioned and most have absolutely no connection to it so aren't aware of it - except possibly now as the bogey man their Bishops love to push.......
Yes, except men loving God with their whole mind is more important than any other 'attribute'.
"Well, I for one was "excommunicated" from the Conciliar Church on multiple occasions. ...I was actually glad for the divide."
Amen, brother. I can't wait for my 9x12 notice of excommunication, suitable for framing, from the Conciliar Church (sic). I will display it proudly near my front door as a daily reminder of what church (small c) I am NOT a member of.
Quite a plate of madness served up on the Friday of the First week of Lent 2026. But, we can handle it easily:
" Quem deus vult perdere, prius dementat."
“Whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes insane."
The cracks are showing in the tottering structure.
Holy Mother Church, rooted and grounded forever in our Blessed Lord, remains steadfast.
Priceless! A perfect description, in Latin, of the maxim that Liberalism is a serious mental disorder!
Thank you, Brother, Michael of the Cross. Agree 100% that Liberalism is a serious mental disorder. How do these people perpetuate their nonsense and evil?
Doc Malone shares:
https://www.malone.news/p/three-diagnoses-of-totalitarianism?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=583200&post_id=188843395&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=pc7nv&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Thank you, Brother. That article was fascinating, thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it. I thought it explained a lot.
Evil Pope Leo is a wolf in sheep clothing who will never become a sheep no matter how hard and how much Catholics pray for him.
Catholics praying for wolves in sheep clothing turn wolves into false saints.
Just look at 60 years of proofs of all the Vatican II popes wolves in sheep clothing that Catholics prayed for who are now false saints.
Just look at how gullible Catholics turned the second longest reigning pope, the most travelled wolf in sheep clothing John Paul II into a fast-tracked false saint.
He travelled as pope for 27 years and people prayed with him and for him and meanwhile he was spreading pagan worship and destroying Catholic traditions like wildfire as they adulate him before their very eyes.
Leo is now the captain of the Talmudic Trojan Horse and his main mission is to erase Catholic traditions and the Traditional Latin Mass and make the Vatican as the Seat of the Anti-Christ Talmudic One World Religion.
The Talmud Unmasked https://web.archive.org/web/20241208154200/http://www.talmudunmasked.com/index.htm
Kabbalah Secrets Christians Need to Know https://www.kabbalahsecretschristiansneedtoknow.com/
Leo XIV – The Shocking Truth Almost No One Is Talking About https://endtimes.video/leo-xiv-not-pope/
John Paul II videos https://endtimes.video/?s=john+paul+ii
"Pray for Pope Leo" and "pray for our enemies" have a way of transforming Catholics into stupidity and passiveness and inaction that prevent them from helping Our Lady crush Leo who is the serpent's head. One of the things you must do is not to feed the serpent by encouraging Catholics to go to adulate Leo the Serpent's head and henchman in the Vatican through pilgrimages to Rome. https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/synodal-subversion-how-leos-church/comment/213499840
and https://radicalfidelity.substack.com/p/more-false-faith-filth-and-fiends/comment/216203752
Vatican II 60 years of proofs.
Catholics praying for wolves in sheep clothing turn wolves into false saints https://kokxnews.substack.com/p/trad-watch-friday-sspx-weekly-news/comment/220569472
If we refuse to pray for them, we are not following Christ's command to love our neighbour, which in this case translates to praying for their conversion and repentance. "if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool."
I agree with you about praying for Pope Leo and our “enemies” and Christ’s command to love our neighbors. For if we don’t, we become like them; without truth, love and charity. Without love in our hearts other things start to fill in that the enemy uses like Judo to take us down to the floor. We start having hardened hearts. This does not mean we stop fighting for truth and His Church. We do both; fight always with love and truth. A secular fine example would be young Luke Skywalker being trained by Yoda in one of the Star Wars movies. Yoda warned Luke not to let his anger take hold when fighting Darth Vader as that would take him over to the Dark Side. At the end of that movie Luke faces Darth Vader and does start to let his unrighteous anger take hold in their fight as the evil Emperor looks on with glee knowing young Skywalker will soon be his with the demise of Darth Vader. But Luke remembers Yoda’s training and relents his anger showing the love I am talking about. He states he see’s good in Vader. Luke wins. Watch for yourself. That’s how to fight.
You NAILED it, Kevin in FL!
WE FIGHT!
"Occupy your mind with good thoughts, or the enemy will fill them with bad ones. Unoccupied, they cannot be."~ St. Thomas More
I do pray for the conversion of these wayward and scandal giving prelates daily.
Should we be praying for Judas Iscariat?
I’m truly asking a valid question. Should we be praying for those who are totally dead set against the Truth?
Should we be like St. Francis of Assisi who told the crusaders to wipe out Saladin and his troops because he would not convert?
Are those men who wear the clothes of supposed shepherds and don’t believe anything that the clothing is supposed to represent…well, after years of praying for them and now knowing that they are in the opposing kingdom, do we continue to pray for them?
Of course we should pray for them. Doesn't God want their conversion? Jesus called Judas "friend." Even as He was being betrayed and knowing that Judas would not convert, He still willed that conversion. That Judas rejected the invitation was a tragedy, but I have no doubt that the Blessed Mother was praying for him right up to his death.
Please keep the Blessed Mother out of your theological confusion.
LOL! I guess we'll know who was confused on Judgment Day.
If you mean literally, no, because it is forbidden to pray for those in Hell and we know from Christ's words and also Acts 1 that Judas is in hell. Everyone alive we pray for, or we'd all be making our own judgement calls on who to pray for, which is NOT Catholic. God could be waiting for our prayers in order to bestow the necessary graces for their repentance. If people are refusing to pray for our enemies, God may withhold the graces necessary to clear up this mess and leave us with a long line of Leos.
They are not in the 'opposing kingdom' yet. I fail to understand how anyone who calls themselves Catholic could think that God wants them to stop praying for those most in need of prayers, even their enemies. I'm sure Satan is very happy with that approach though.
You're mixing up two different things - praying for someone's salvation is not the same as dealing with them in the world as necessary. When people were executed as heretics, did any Pope tell Catholics not to pray for their last-minute repentance and salvation?
Get behind me, Satan.
Are you trolling?
Just for the record, St Francis of Assisi did not tell King Wenselas to wipe out Saladin and his troops because they would not convert. Saladin and his troops were wiped out because they were enslaving Christians and making them row galleys, among other things. No true Catholic would ever advocate wiping out heretics simply because they were heretics. Even the Inquisition was not concerned with heretics per se, but rather those who were infiltrating the church while pretending to be men of God.
So sorry! I obviously am remembering incorrectly. I thought that’s what St. Bonaventure had written about St. Francis. I wish i still had St. Bonaventure’s book about St. Francis! It was so poignant a piece that I thought that it’s what I read him to say.
God bless you!
These are confusing times. But Our Lord Jesus Christ did tell us to pray for our enemies and those who persecute us. And despite all the Satanism and etc no moratorium was put upon that command.
At the same time, of course, we should call out all the wolfs in sheep's clothing.
In the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
He is a controlled-opposition https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/synodal-subversion-how-leos-church/comment/213934347
Stop trolling me. That's not exactly Catholic either.
You are the one trolling me.
You are the first one to reply to my comment this morning. And look how much of your comments is occupying in my thread.
That is one of the tasks of controlled-oppositions which is to mess up the threads of truth-tellers.
LOL. You're the expert. So everyone who replies and disagrees with you is a troll? Right - I think we've got that one.
it's you again, Satan's foot soldier.
Please stop the personal attacks!
Thank you! "Jo" is out of control and not contributing to a thoughtful discussion in any way.
Jo, Your comments are untrue and therefore, offensive. Disagreement is one thing, provided you can show a valid source for them other then your opinion. But ad hominem attacks are completely unacceptable.
""Pray for Pope Leo" and "pray for our enemies" " on one hand, and "adulation" of Pope Bob on the other hand, are by no means even remotely the same thing. Sorry, but your assertions are malformed nonsense which I hope you will reconsider.
So you also refuse to obey Christ's command to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us? WOW! Christ's assertions must be malformed nonsense then. I think it's you who need to reconsider. I'll continue praying for their repentance and salvation.
I have suspended Jo for 24 hours. Hopefully he or she will get the message and start acting more charitably.
This behaviour isn't due to lack of charity. When someone writes things (many such things) like "Get behind me Satan. You are a cheap paid controlled-opposition eating off the dust of the belly of the serpent.", there's more than a lack of charity involved.
WOW! is right. Regrettably, you seem to have completely misunderstood my written statement, Francisca. I was expressing my disagreement with Jo who was trying to convince folks not to pray for the occupant of Peter's See, and presumably for other clerics in grievous error at this time. That was the malformed though I referred to.
I was contradicting her assertion that praying for them amounts to or is conducive to adulation - "...on the other hand...".
Thanks for clarifying - on my screen your comment is an answer to me!! The lines are always all over the place. I thought it was a bit strange given your previous comments but have got so used to strange utterances from unexpected quarters.
I thought Francisca's comment was directed to Jo. All faithful Catholics should disagree with Jo's comments due to the reasons Francisca stated, so I think we are on the same page.
As you can see in her comment just above yours, Francesca mistakenly believed I was addressing her.
Jo's impact on these boards is atrocious, IMO.
Is there an ignore button?
You can also report someone to the substack author by clicking on the 3 dots at the right of the page in line with the persons name.
If you want to block someone, just click on their name which takes you to their page and there are three small dots under which you'll find block.
My comments are truthful
with 60 years of proofs
that the wolves in sheep clothing
could never turn into sheep
but instead
because of foolish Catholics prayers
the wolves became the Vatican II popes false saints
https://kokxnews.substack.com/p/trad-watch-friday-sspx-weekly-news/comment/220569472
.
You can't handle the truth!
I warned you to stop with the personal attacks. We can disagree without calling each other Satan’s foot soldiers.
Thank you.
"Pray for Pope Leo" and "pray for our enemies" have a way of transforming Catholics into stupidity and passiveness and inaction that prevent them from helping Our Lady crush Leo the serpent's head. https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/synodal-subversion-how-leos-church/comment/213499840
and https://radicalfidelity.substack.com/p/more-false-faith-filth-and-fiends/comment/216203752
Just look at 60 years of proofs of all the Vatican II popes wolves in sheep clothing that Catholics prayed for who have now become false saints. https://kokxnews.substack.com/p/trad-watch-friday-sspx-weekly-news/comment/220569472
The Papacy was taken Captive by the Synagogue in the Early 1960s. Ecumenism was never taught before Vatican II. Ecumenism is preparing Catholics to accept becoming part of the One World Religion. Noahidism is the name of this One World Religion.
In 1958.
The Man who took the name John XXIII was a Freemason and a Philosemite who met with B'nai B'rith before being installed as Pope.
So that would make the date of capitulation to Satan prior to the 60s, right?