Based on its public commentary of the past two years or so, it is unfortunately difficult to say what the SSPX considers its greatest challenges in the present day.
I’ve written rather extensively in this space about the mixed and contradictory messages that have been coming from the SSPX in recent years. I won’t repeat those concerns here other than to say that a sincere seeker of truth today may very well come away from their website more confused than ever as to what is, and what is not, consonant tradition.
As of this moment, it seems that the SSPX has lost sight of the grave necessity of having a very clear and consistent public stance on the current state of affairs in the Church; offering bold and unambiguous condemnations of every blasphemy and heresy that comes forth from men in authority who are trusted by many.
Doing so in our day requires, above all, a willingness to address head-on the unprecedented mockery that is being made of the papacy. One thinks back to October of 2013 and Bishop Fellay’s public declaration, which has since faded into a deafening silence, “We have in front of us a genuine Modernist!”
Returning to such clarity and conviction, in my view, is the major task that lies before the SSPX, and only time will tell if the election of a new Superior General will make a difference in this regard.
One thing is certain: To the extent that the SSPX is pleased to operate – as it has appeared of late – under the assumption that it is enough to simply minister to their own, to focus on priestly formation, and to manage their own internal affairs, while taking care not to offend neo-conservative sensibilities, it will ultimately fail to adequately serve the needs of God’s people in the present day.
Writing in the August 2008 issue of Si Si No No, Fr. Pagliarani said of Vatican II:
The very finality of the Council, convoked with the explicit intention not to define truths of faith and not to condemn error (cf. Gaudet Mater Ecclesia), inaugurated a magisterium with a novel method and approach… the Second Vatican Council was convoked not to define dogmas, correct errors, or condemn doctrinal deviations as in the past, but to bond with the modern world. This decision to leave aside any intention of imposing certain truths of faith meant that the Council was intended to abstain from teaching in the objective, traditional, and magisterial sense of the term.
These words were written nearly a decade ago and one wonders:
Does Fr. Pagliarani believe that the Society has a duty to teach in the objective, traditional, and magisterial sense of the term, and if so, does he still believe that this necessarily involves correcting errors and condemning doctrinal deviations, otherwise it will merely be bonding with the modern world?
We shall see. In the meantime, let us pray and fast for the SSPX and for Fr. Pagliarani, as clearly he has a lot of important work to do.
It is not infrequently that the Mass propers call to mind the present situation in the Church in some way or another, but this past Sunday (the Seventh Sunday of Pentecost) this was the case, at least for me, more pointedly so than certain others.
It began at the Collect:
O God, whose providence faileth not in its designs, we humbly entreat Thee: put from us all that might be harmful, and give us all that will be profitable.
Is there any so harmful in our day, not just to the faithful, but to the world at large, as the man widely accepted as the Vicar of Christ?
As should be perfectly clear to those who hold the Catholic faith and understand that the greatest good to be had is salvation, this is a rhetorical question and not in the least bit intended to be taken as mere hyperbole.
As such, though many a Catholic (in particular those cut from “conservative” cloth) would perhaps shudder to do so, is it not meritorious for us to make this venerable prayer our very own? (Again, a rhetorical question.)
O God, whose providence faileth not in its designs, we humbly entreat Thee: put from us this dangerous man, Jorge Bergoglio, and give us all that will be profitable.
And yet, we mustn’t stop there. As has been stated many times in this space, “Francis” (as he is known) is a major problem, but he is not the problem. Therefore:
O God, whose providence faileth not in its designs, we humbly entreat Thee: put from us the false and misleading Council known as Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae that it inspired, and all who labor to press them upon Your people, and give us all that will be profitable.
Indeed, one may choose to fill in the blanks in any number of ways; e.g., put from us the scourge of abortion; put from us warlords and tyrants; put from us the many threats to marriage and family, etc.
Even so, there is only one real solution to the many societal ills of our day, and that is Truth incarnate, Christ the King, and the Holy Catholic faith that He Himself established.
And then came the Gradual at Sunday’s Mass:
Come, children, hearken to me; I will teach you to fear the Lord. Come ye to Him and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be confounded.
In context, the word “confounded” in this verse (taken from the Psalms) is best understood as “ashamed,” but the more common usage suggests confusion and bewilderment.
Whether it be in reference to written texts like Amoris Laetitia, commentary on a plethora of topics ranging from homosexuality to Hell, or the hidden agendas of Synods that have yet to take place, how often we hear it said that Francis sows confusion.
At times, we’ve even heard it suggested in traditional circles (by those who should surely know better) that Francis’ major faults are “weakness, innuendo or ambiguity;” as if he is guilty of little more than creating confusion among the faithful as opposed to actively leading the Church into error.
In all cases, it seems as if the Gradual (i.e., God’s word) is telling us that the reason so many are confounded by Francis is that they lack, in some degree, an appropriate fear of the Lord.
More specifically in the present case, there appears to be a lack in that awe inspiring awareness of God’s majesty, purity and holiness; the same that naturally gives rise to an abhorrence of heresy and other affronts to His infinite goodness.
In A Passiontide reflection on heresy, written by his Fr. Frederick William Faber (28 June 1814 – 26 September 1863), one gets a sense for the relationship between fear of the Lord and heresy:
The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities. Yet how light we make of it! We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odor, and show no signs of detestation or disgust.
Yes, today, many of us seem to “mix with” (i.e., tolerate) the heresy that is flowing out of Rome and elsewhere like so much refuse; showing relatively little fear, both of it and the Lord, as demonstrated by a willingness to relegate these attacks against the Truth to mere ambiguity and confusion; thereby downplaying its offensiveness in light of God’s greatness.
With this in mind, it is imperative for all of us in this age of diabolical disorientation, and I include myself first and foremost, to pray for an increase in the gift of the Holy Ghost that is fear of the Lord.
And then came the Gospel at last Sunday’s Holy Mass:
At that time, Jesus said to His disciples: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 7:15-21)
While we stop short of judging the interior disposition of anyone’s soul, which is the prerogative of God alone, we can “know” who the false prophets are among us:
They are those who say “Lord, Lord,” but whose fruits – plainly observable in an objective sense – are evil.
Again, my thoughts turned to this Francis that we’ve been discussing. What are his fruits?
– An increase in Eucharistic sacrilege even to the point where Cardinals and bishops are encouraged to institutionalize it.
– An increase in acceptance of homosexuality both within and outside of the Church.
– An increase in respect, honor and deference for the godless opinions of heathens, heretics, Jews, Muslims, earth worshipers, proponents of abortion, and euthanasia, etc.
– A full blown assault on marriage and family.
– A practical abrogation of mortal sin.
– Outright blasphemy that paints mortal sin as God’s will, and Divine Law as impossible for some to keep.
Each of these “fruits” are objective realities, plainly visible and right before our very eyes.
We could go on to list far more evil Bergoglian fruit, and I invite you to do so below if you’re so inclined.
And why should we even bother to consider such things?
Not for spite or for boasting or any such thing, but in order to warn the ignorant; i.e., those who cannot see beyond the sheep’s clothing to the false prophet who is lurking beneath.
All glory and honor to God, however, my next thought; a far more important one – was to ask myself, “What are my own fruits?”
And it occurs to me – if any among us should find that particular examination a walk in the park, then either great virtue or great delusion is present.
May it please the Lord to grant us greater insight into the will of our Father who is in heaven, and the grace to make it our own.
Earlier today, His Humbleness addressed “The International Conference Marking the 3rd Anniversary of Laudato Si’,” encouraging those in attendance to hear “the increasingly desperate cries of the earth and its poor” and to meet “the urgent need to respond to the Encyclical’s call for change, for an ecological conversion.”
A load of Bergoglian garbage, you say?
Well, yes, but it’s not his garbage, per se; Francis (as he likes to be called) is just the trash man du jour as he himself acknowledged later in the address when he gave credit to John Paul the Great Ecumenist who first issued that call back in 2001.
In context, the Polish pope said:
Unfortunately, if we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has disappointed God’s expectations. Man, especially in our time, has without hesitation devastated wooded plains and valleys, polluted waters, disfigured the earth’s habitat, made the air unbreathable, disturbed the hydrogeological and atmospheric systems, turned luxuriant areas into deserts and undertaken forms of unrestrained industrialization, degrading that “flowerbed” – to use an image from Dante Alighieri (Paradiso, XXII, 151) – which is the earth, our dwelling-place.
We must therefore encourage and support the “ecological conversion” which in recent decades has made humanity more sensitive to the catastrophe to which it has been heading.
Devastated… Disfigured… Unbreathable… Unrestrained… Catastrophe…
It’s always the same with these humanists and their earthbound causes; rallying the masses with a near endless flow of hyperbole in order to create a frenzied sense of urgency.
Even as John Paul II spoke, contrary to his claim that the environment was being devastated with neither restraint nor hesitation by the industrialized nations of the world, the same were investing in technological advances that would make more efficient use of the planet’s natural resources, lead to an improved quality of life for many of its poorest inhabitants, while also lowering humankind’s impact on “our dwelling-place.”
For example, 2001 was the very year that the first mass-produced hybrid automobile, the Toyota Prius, hit the marketplace.
As for the plight of the poor, one would think based on Francis’ constant drumbeat about income disparity and poverty that the trend is decidedly downward. Not so.
In a 2017 Op-Ed for New York Times, Nicholas Kristof, a columnist specializing in “human rights, women’s rights, health, and global affairs,” posed the following pop quiz:
On any given day, the number of people worldwide living in extreme poverty:
A.) Rises by 5,000, because of climate change, food shortages and endemic corruption.
B.) Stays about the same.
C.) Drops by 250,000.
We know how the Bergoglians would answer, but Kristof reveals:
Polls show that about 9 out of 10 Americans believe that global poverty has worsened or stayed the same. But in fact, the correct answer is C. Every day, an average of about a quarter-million people worldwide graduate from extreme poverty, according to World Bank figures.
This is the New York Times!
About that so-called “climate change” problem, Francis said in his address:
All governments should strive to honor the commitments made in Paris, in order to avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis … We cannot afford to waste time.
Putting an ersatz religious spin on his eco-mania, he said:
Here we can think back on the call that Francis of Assisi received from the Lord in the little church of San Damiano: “Go and repair my house, which, as you can see, lies in ruins”. Today, the “common home” of our planet also needs urgently to be repaired and secured for a sustainable future.
In truth, as told by St. Bonaventure in a biography of St. Francis:
Francis began zealously to repair the church materially, although the principle intention of the words referred to that Church which Christ purchased with his own blood, as the Holy Spirit afterward made him realize.
Church, smurch… who needs it? Not Francis, who went on to invoke the “climate / environmental / ecological crisis” three more times in his brief address even though the cat’s well and truly out of the bag – there is no crisis.
Al Gore, the Nobel Prize winning purveyor of global warming hysteria, whose personal carbon footprint is the size of several small towns put together, is a laughingstock among all but the most deluded for his laundry list of failed predictions of environmental doom.
More noteworthy are the scientists whose voices will no longer be silenced; men like Richard Siegmund Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry, who said in a recent interview:
The mostly non-scientist proponents of climate hysteria realize that distant forecasts of remote problems by inadequate models are unlikely to motivate people to shut down modern industrial society. They, therefore, attempt to claim that we are seeing the problems right now. Of course, the warming that has occurred over the past 200 years or so has been too small to have been a major factor. However, objective reality matters little when it comes to propaganda – where repetition can effectively counter reality.
The Bergoglians, however, are undeterred, and we were given a hint as to the reason when Jorge said, “All governments should strive to honor the commitments made in Paris…”
Their motives were made all the more clear when the Ringleader in Rome went on to say:
Along with states, local authorities, civil society, and economic and religious institutions can promote the culture and practice of an integral ecology.
States, authorities, religious institutions…
You see, eliminating poverty and caring for Mother Earth are not the real goals of conciliar madmen like Wojtyla, Bergoglio, and Ratzinger for that matter; those are but rallying cries used to stir the emotions of the ignorant and the faithless as a means toward attaining the ultimate prize – a one-world government that will have oversight over a one-world religion.
[NOTE: Subscribers to The Catholic Inquisitor, the inaugural issue of which goes out in the mail on July 10, will be treated to an in-depth treatment of the “one-world religion” masterfully written by Cornelia Ferreira.]
[NOTE: Previous editions of the Fatima Newsletter dating back to May 2017 are available by clicking on the image on the right sidebar.]
CLICK for July 2018 Newsletter PDF
As reported by Vatican News, the German bishops have published guidelines “on sharing Communion” with Protestants that are married to a Catholic.
A statement published on the website of the German Bishops’ Conference declares:
We are concerned to provide spiritual assistance for those addressing questions of conscience in individual cases who receive pastoral care for inter-denominational married couples who have a grave spiritual need to receive the Eucharist.
This one sentence confirms precisely the bottom line that we identified in early May; those favoring so-called “intercommunion” – Jorge Bergoglio chief among them – simply do not believe that the Blessed Sacrament is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
More to the point, they do not believe the very words of Our Lord. As such, the plain, objective reality is that these people simply do not hold the Catholic faith. PERIOD.
Pay close attention to what the German bishops are proposing: Some people have ‘a grave spiritual need to receive the Eucharist.’ Other people, not so much.
What did Our Lord say?
Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. (John 6:53)
It’s simple, folks: Either one believes in the words of Jesus Christ, who made it perfectly clear that everyone has a grave spiritual need to consume His Body and Blood in the Most Blessed Sacrament (i.e., is Catholic), or one doesn’t (i.e, has no claim to Catholicity).
Let us not lose sight of the fact, however, that Jorge Bergoglio and his merry band of modernists are not so much the revolutionaries as they are a product of the revolution.
During his most recent in-flight presser, His Humbleness opened wide the way for “sharing Communion” with Protestants by pointing to Canon Law; saying that it is up to the local bishop to decide how to proceed:
It [the Code of Canon Law] foresees the competence of the diocesan bishop [in the matter of intercommunion in special cases], but not of the Episcopal Conference. Why? Because something approved in an Episcopal Conference immediately becomes universal.
In this, he is partially correct. Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) places that competence “in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops.” [Emphasis added.]
In this case, I would not be surprised if His Humbleness eventually admits his mistake.
In any event, the 1983 (read, conciliar) Code of Canon Law states that a Protestant (e.g., a grape juice drinking / sourdough bread eating Methodist) can receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church if the diocesan bishop approves, and, get this, if he or she “cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it.” (ibid.)
Can’t ask for it?
Think about what you just read: The Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul the Great Ecumenist (a canonized saint, according to some) actually equates the snacks that are handed out in the heretical communities (“it”) with the Most Holy Eucharist!
That said, the 1983 Code, just like Karol Wojtyla, is an outgrowth of the Revolution – the Almighty Council – the same that anointed the heretical communities and their liturgical actions as salvific. (See Unitatis Redintegratio – 3)
It is perfectly obvious to those who are but paying attention that the masquerade has reached midnight and the Catholic masks are coming off; one by one, one after the other.
That’s the beautiful thing about the Bergoglian occupation in general, and the present intercommunion scandal in particular; both are making the grave errors and the false doctrines that were put forth by the Council, and then dutifully disseminated by its enforcers, perfectly plain.
Whereas one could perhaps reasonably claim, in the years immediately following the Council, that the errors enshrined in the text of Vatican II were in some sense lying dormant or not entirely obvious (i.e., they were but “time bombs” as Michael Davies called them); that dog will no longer hunt.
Unbelievers in Catholic costume, like Jorge Bergoglio, are daily revealing their true identity for all to see. Sure, they continue to self-identify as Catholic – the new and improved Catholic, that is – but not all are fooled.
Their assorted heresies and blasphemies are being met with vocal opposition, condemnation, and correction from a growing number of true believers at all levels of the Church; ordinary laymen, theologians, religious, priests, bishops, and even from certain members of the College of Cardinals.
Masks are not falling from Bergolgian faces alone, however, as the blind, the cowardly, and the complicit are revealing their true identities as well.