Dr. K is one to talk. His anti-papalism allows him to call the Magisterium of St. Pius X into question, and essentially saying that the Holy Ghost led the Church astray at the Vatican Council of 1870.
In his defense I don't think he ever said that about Vatican I. Just that its declarations have been radically misused. And with regard to Pius X any honest look at the actual history will tell you that Divino Afflatu was a complete and total misuse of papal authority and a disaster that opened the door to all of the liturgical destruction that happened 50 years later in the Vatican II era.
The Pope is the Supreme Legislator. It is his job, as the Vicar of Christ, to implement the Magisterium, to the benefit of the faithful. What he says goes. To assume that a Pope is subject to a Council was condemned as the heresy of Counciliarism. It is not the popes who "misused" the Council's statements, but Dr. K who rejects the authority of the popes to make those interpretations.
Further, did you not call Divino Aflatu "demonic"? I seem to recall that you did. You did this because you disagreed with the changing of the Breviary from St. Pius V's Psalter to St. Pius X's Psalter... inferring that one is of God (St. Pius V's), and one is from Satan (St. Pius X). Taking your inspiration from Dr. "I know better than Pope St. Pius X" K, you then used that logic to condemn St. Pius V because of the hymn revisions he included into his Psalter. I am sure you also have serious issues Pope Gregory the Great as well, as he didn't do something you deem ideal. Apparently, living in the year 2025 makes us all "more Catholic than the Pope".
Impeccable does not mean they aren't prevented from leading souls astray through positive actions. By inaction and by direct action only is it possible for a Pope to lead souls astray. It is impossible for a true Pope to, through instituting laws or teaching on faith and morals, lead souls astray.
The Borgia popes were gravely sinful, but as the Church Herself affirms at the Vatican Council of 1870, they never led the faithful astray through exercising their office. In fact, theologians have taught that the teachings of even the worst popes (prior to V2) did not deviate from the Faith one iota.
Yes. I very much did call Divino Afflatu demonic. The Roman Pontiff, no matter who he is, has absolutely no right to either ban or forbid any valid liturgical right which has been hallowed by the saints and by immemorial custom and unanimously endorsed by every one of his predecessors. And that's right: Pius X didn't just 'change the breviary' as you so blithely put it, he explicitly banned priests from using the Roman Psalter which was actually even worse than what Paul VI did to the Mass.
Because Saint Pius V didn't invent the Roman Psalter in 1568 - it was already in use more than a thousand years before, when Rome fell in the West.
You don't ban things like that. You actually can't. It is like banning a mountain from being there or banning the sun from coming up in the morning. Sure a cloud might come over it and you might not be able to see it for a time, but it'll still be there. And to attempt to do so is yes, demonic.
So, for your assertion that a Pope can't do that, you have what? Your opinion? Pius X did what he did and it was accepted. I have read some contemporaries' opinions on the matter. Some whole-heartedly approved. Others agreed that a reform was necessary, but wished he had chosen a different model. None said he didn't have the authority to do what he did. None said it was "demonic".
I am interested: does any approved theologian (as in, a cleric who has a doctorate in theology or canon law from a Pontifical College, with a mandate to study/teach theology or canon law by a pre-V2 Pope) support your assertion that a Pope can't do what Pius X did, that he doesn't have that authority? I doubt there is one, but if there is, I want to see what they say.
No other pope ever did it. After 1880 years that precedent should have been good enough. Plus I know what Divino Afflatu led to. And by its fruits you shall know it. That is enough.
No need to be embarrassed. It happens to all of us.
I didn’t know the word, so I googled it and noticed that you transposed the letters. Now I know a new word, one that describes how I, too, feel. So, we both win.
But I will agree that it is totally hypocritical on his part. Dr. K made a career of going after Francis in the most whiny and hyperbolic ways possible most of the time and now to call for silence... Some of these guys are so bipolar that it begins to smell. Nor do I think that anyone should underestimate the pathological fear they have of being called a schismatic or a sede.
It's the policy of the benighted English Latin Mass Society writ globally: bells, smells, Latin & lace for the aesthetic, but modernism as doctrine. And an obsession with photographing everything. It's the Latin Mass as exception not, as it should be, the rule. The whole thing is a sellout to the Synagogue of Satan and stinks to high heaven. Here's the proof, LMS Chairman Joseph Shaw cravenly promoting the usual WWII fact free narrative: https://youtu.be/YaQQuA-E0UI?si=2Yg8TBJ1dTBj7uJm
Even those particulars are able to change when the appropriate minister (the Pope) deems it necessary. The idea that the liturgy is not subject to alteration, especially as the Church sees a need for alteration, is ridiculous. The Offertory was added, according to Fr. Adrian Fortescue, in the 13th Century. The litany of which the Kyrie was part of was removed earlier.
There is alteration and then there is alteration. It can be altered around the edges, new feasts etc., though even there people had better watch it. But when you rip out its guts, break its bones, and try to build something new in its place that is a no go zone.
A great many heretics have attended the Roman rite over the last 2000 years.
Knowingly believing non-Catholic things (such as is found in Vatican II and other modernist ideas) while attending the traditional Mass doesn’t make you Catholic.
If a Lutheran attends the TLM every Sunday but changes nothing, is he Catholic?
This is the core issue with the diocesan and ED trads, fundamentally, they’re modernist in belief but attend the old Mass. Mass attendance isn’t the full picture of what makes Catholicism.
Why even attend the old Mass if you still believe in the heresies and errors that created the new Mass?
I will not challenge you on any of your substantive claims about the Faith.
I write only to say that, if you think "Fr. Z built their reputations on clear, public opposition to error," you must not have been following him in the early years of the Francis papacy. He expressed confusion early on, sometimes even disappointment or frustration, but also tried hard to read Francis in continuity with Benedict and did not become a public dissenter until it was clear that Francis could not, in fact, be read in continuity with Benedict. This took several years. He gave Francis a fair shake. By the time T.C. came out, yes, he was unsparing, but that was eight years in!
Since Fr. Z is (whatever else you may say about him) a man of fairly clear principles, it is unsurprising that he is giving the new pope the same degree of deference, even though the trad online outrage machine has turned to a much higher pitch in the intervening years and it would therefore be more lucrative for him to immediately condemn the Holy Father.
Catholic blogs pushed fake news and distortions against the synod: On March 14, 2023, Cardinal Robert Prevost (now Pope Leo XIV) lamented at the Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo in Chiclayo, Peru: “There are people in the Church who harshly criticise the Holy Father, certain bishops, or situations. They reject his teachings and seek to divide, only looking at blogs and interviews. In recent months – before, during, and after the month of the Synod on Synodality – false news, distortions, and conspiracies theories and misinterpretations have been published about the many beautiful experiences that we had during the Synod.”
And they still say mass every day and ordain men multiple times a year without permission or faculties.
Just because he isn’t mentioned in every sermon doesn’t mean they are being silent. And that makes sense too, given that those in society chapels don’t need daily reminders that Francis is evil, they already know.
Dr. K is one to talk. His anti-papalism allows him to call the Magisterium of St. Pius X into question, and essentially saying that the Holy Ghost led the Church astray at the Vatican Council of 1870.
In his defense I don't think he ever said that about Vatican I. Just that its declarations have been radically misused. And with regard to Pius X any honest look at the actual history will tell you that Divino Afflatu was a complete and total misuse of papal authority and a disaster that opened the door to all of the liturgical destruction that happened 50 years later in the Vatican II era.
The Pope is the Supreme Legislator. It is his job, as the Vicar of Christ, to implement the Magisterium, to the benefit of the faithful. What he says goes. To assume that a Pope is subject to a Council was condemned as the heresy of Counciliarism. It is not the popes who "misused" the Council's statements, but Dr. K who rejects the authority of the popes to make those interpretations.
Further, did you not call Divino Aflatu "demonic"? I seem to recall that you did. You did this because you disagreed with the changing of the Breviary from St. Pius V's Psalter to St. Pius X's Psalter... inferring that one is of God (St. Pius V's), and one is from Satan (St. Pius X). Taking your inspiration from Dr. "I know better than Pope St. Pius X" K, you then used that logic to condemn St. Pius V because of the hymn revisions he included into his Psalter. I am sure you also have serious issues Pope Gregory the Great as well, as he didn't do something you deem ideal. Apparently, living in the year 2025 makes us all "more Catholic than the Pope".
You make a mistake thinking the popes are impeccable. Remember Jesus called Peter satan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Impeccable does not mean they aren't prevented from leading souls astray through positive actions. By inaction and by direct action only is it possible for a Pope to lead souls astray. It is impossible for a true Pope to, through instituting laws or teaching on faith and morals, lead souls astray.
The Borgia popes were gravely sinful, but as the Church Herself affirms at the Vatican Council of 1870, they never led the faithful astray through exercising their office. In fact, theologians have taught that the teachings of even the worst popes (prior to V2) did not deviate from the Faith one iota.
Yes. I very much did call Divino Afflatu demonic. The Roman Pontiff, no matter who he is, has absolutely no right to either ban or forbid any valid liturgical right which has been hallowed by the saints and by immemorial custom and unanimously endorsed by every one of his predecessors. And that's right: Pius X didn't just 'change the breviary' as you so blithely put it, he explicitly banned priests from using the Roman Psalter which was actually even worse than what Paul VI did to the Mass.
Because Saint Pius V didn't invent the Roman Psalter in 1568 - it was already in use more than a thousand years before, when Rome fell in the West.
You don't ban things like that. You actually can't. It is like banning a mountain from being there or banning the sun from coming up in the morning. Sure a cloud might come over it and you might not be able to see it for a time, but it'll still be there. And to attempt to do so is yes, demonic.
So, for your assertion that a Pope can't do that, you have what? Your opinion? Pius X did what he did and it was accepted. I have read some contemporaries' opinions on the matter. Some whole-heartedly approved. Others agreed that a reform was necessary, but wished he had chosen a different model. None said he didn't have the authority to do what he did. None said it was "demonic".
I am interested: does any approved theologian (as in, a cleric who has a doctorate in theology or canon law from a Pontifical College, with a mandate to study/teach theology or canon law by a pre-V2 Pope) support your assertion that a Pope can't do what Pius X did, that he doesn't have that authority? I doubt there is one, but if there is, I want to see what they say.
No other pope ever did it. After 1880 years that precedent should have been good enough. Plus I know what Divino Afflatu led to. And by its fruits you shall know it. That is enough.
Congratulations on your doctorate
Popes can make terrible mistakes. Again don't idolize the popes. It sick!!
Are you sure that’s not supposed to be hiraeth?
Goodness gracious! Thank you! How in the world did I misspell that!? Total typo. Thank you so much! Just corrected it. How embarrassing.
No need to be embarrassed. It happens to all of us.
I didn’t know the word, so I googled it and noticed that you transposed the letters. Now I know a new word, one that describes how I, too, feel. So, we both win.
God bless you.
But I will agree that it is totally hypocritical on his part. Dr. K made a career of going after Francis in the most whiny and hyperbolic ways possible most of the time and now to call for silence... Some of these guys are so bipolar that it begins to smell. Nor do I think that anyone should underestimate the pathological fear they have of being called a schismatic or a sede.
It's the policy of the benighted English Latin Mass Society writ globally: bells, smells, Latin & lace for the aesthetic, but modernism as doctrine. And an obsession with photographing everything. It's the Latin Mass as exception not, as it should be, the rule. The whole thing is a sellout to the Synagogue of Satan and stinks to high heaven. Here's the proof, LMS Chairman Joseph Shaw cravenly promoting the usual WWII fact free narrative: https://youtu.be/YaQQuA-E0UI?si=2Yg8TBJ1dTBj7uJm
Most "traditional" Catholics are subscribed to the version of Modernism which holds liturgy as a social construct, not an extension of the Faith.
Even those particulars are able to change when the appropriate minister (the Pope) deems it necessary. The idea that the liturgy is not subject to alteration, especially as the Church sees a need for alteration, is ridiculous. The Offertory was added, according to Fr. Adrian Fortescue, in the 13th Century. The litany of which the Kyrie was part of was removed earlier.
Who is 'The Church'? Who decided there was a need for an alteration?
There is alteration and then there is alteration. It can be altered around the edges, new feasts etc., though even there people had better watch it. But when you rip out its guts, break its bones, and try to build something new in its place that is a no go zone.
Bingo
Being a Catholic is more than a pretty Mass
And what has the ugly Mass given us?
A great many evils. But still, there’s more to being Catholic than going to the right Mass.
Perhaps you can explain?
A great many heretics have attended the Roman rite over the last 2000 years.
Knowingly believing non-Catholic things (such as is found in Vatican II and other modernist ideas) while attending the traditional Mass doesn’t make you Catholic.
If a Lutheran attends the TLM every Sunday but changes nothing, is he Catholic?
This is the core issue with the diocesan and ED trads, fundamentally, they’re modernist in belief but attend the old Mass. Mass attendance isn’t the full picture of what makes Catholicism.
Why even attend the old Mass if you still believe in the heresies and errors that created the new Mass?
Please provide a link to Dominus Iesus--I'm having trouble finding it. Thank you.
I will not challenge you on any of your substantive claims about the Faith.
I write only to say that, if you think "Fr. Z built their reputations on clear, public opposition to error," you must not have been following him in the early years of the Francis papacy. He expressed confusion early on, sometimes even disappointment or frustration, but also tried hard to read Francis in continuity with Benedict and did not become a public dissenter until it was clear that Francis could not, in fact, be read in continuity with Benedict. This took several years. He gave Francis a fair shake. By the time T.C. came out, yes, he was unsparing, but that was eight years in!
Since Fr. Z is (whatever else you may say about him) a man of fairly clear principles, it is unsurprising that he is giving the new pope the same degree of deference, even though the trad online outrage machine has turned to a much higher pitch in the intervening years and it would therefore be more lucrative for him to immediately condemn the Holy Father.
Does simply going to a diocesan TLM make you a heretic? How do you know what they believe?
Great post, Chris. Thanks.
What, or who, is Hireath?
A homesickness for a home to which you cannot return…
Babak Anvari's short film "Two & Two", 2011, is a good analogy of what has been happening in the Church for many years now.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kHOOV83j7bo
Cardinal Prevost declared critics of Pope Francis his enemies, May 2023
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/05/20/cardinal-prevost-declared-critics-of-pope-francis-his-enemies-may-2023/
Cardinal Prevost: Pope Francis lived the Gospel in a profound way, really
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/05/17/cardinal-prevost-pope-francis-lived-the-gospel-in-a-profound-way-really/
https://gloria.tv/post/ZfFjL1faDLiC4Gk9c2keVCGdV/replies
Catholic blogs pushed fake news and distortions against the synod: On March 14, 2023, Cardinal Robert Prevost (now Pope Leo XIV) lamented at the Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo in Chiclayo, Peru: “There are people in the Church who harshly criticise the Holy Father, certain bishops, or situations. They reject his teachings and seek to divide, only looking at blogs and interviews. In recent months – before, during, and after the month of the Synod on Synodality – false news, distortions, and conspiracies theories and misinterpretations have been published about the many beautiful experiences that we had during the Synod.”
If I google “SSPX Francis”, the third item listed is a critique. The entire first page of the item is attacks on Francis.
https://sspx.org/sites/default/files/documents/Angelus_march-april_2023.pdf
Just because they don’t speak exclusively about Francis’s errors doesn’t make them silent to them.
Your attack on the SSPX is misguided and also not factual.
They may not attack Francis with every word they speak, but to say they’re friendly to Francis is a pretty silly claim.
Google “SSPX Francis” and this is the third result.
https://sspx.org/sites/default/files/documents/Angelus_march-april_2023.pdf
And they still say mass every day and ordain men multiple times a year without permission or faculties.
Just because he isn’t mentioned in every sermon doesn’t mean they are being silent. And that makes sense too, given that those in society chapels don’t need daily reminders that Francis is evil, they already know.