Why Do Some Catholics Still Question Role of the SSPX as Crisis Continues? 

Consider…

Some weeks ago, a reader from a far-flung part of the world, emailed to ask for my help in responding to critics of the SSPX . It surprises me that there are still Catholics out there who are living through the utter chaos in both the Church and the world, and yet do not recognise the role of the SSPX in the Church at this time.   

The above short video gives a very basic background to the work of the Society, and hopefully bloggers will be able to offer answers (in the comments below) to those critics who, astonishingly, continue to see the SSPX as somehow a “problem”.  This thread, then, is offered as (I hope) a useful response to that “far-flung” correspondent, who is probably thinking that I’ve forgotten all about her request.  I mean, would I? 😀  

Below, two short videos which explain why Catholics should not attend the new Mass.

Part I …

Part 2 …

Comments invited…

The Vexatious Vaccine Versus Catholic Integrity – SSPX “Lifeboat” Leaking…

Martin Blackshaw, aka blogger Athanasius, has penned another very strong correction to the Pope Francis-inspired permission for Catholics to take the abortion-tainted Covid-19 vaccines.

During the current diabolical disorientation within the Church – otherwise fondly known as the Barque of Peter – many Catholics, seeking liturgical relief, took refuge in the  “lifeboat” provided by the Society of St Pius X (SSPX).

Returning to the traditional Latin Mass and Sacraments, plus the reassurance that the Society preaches only that which is found in Catholic Tradition, has kept a lot of us afloat, this past half-century. It is, therefore, hugely disappointing and, indeed, shocking, to discover that the  “lifeboat” is leaking – that the SSPX has decided,  for example,  to go along with the Vatican line  on the Covid-19 vaccines.

Having discussed our concerns about this already here, we feel the need to return to the topic, given the ongoing confusion and unrest felt by many lay people, including those long devoted to the SSPX.  Martin  Blackshaw writes…

Background

Most of us, I’m sure, could never have imagined just one year ago that in as short a period as 12 months the global economy would be smashed to pieces, millions would be put out of work, Christians would be denied their fundamental right to the public worship of God and the vast majority of the citizens on earth would be deprived of their natural freedom and liberties. Yet, in the name of a respiratory virus, which is relatively harmless for most people, this apocalyptic scenario has come upon the human race with lightening speed.

The culture shock resulting from such a transformation of our way of life is not new to Traditional Catholics who witnessed a similar evil sweep through the universal Church following Vatican II, trampling all that had been held sacred and secure for generations, thus paving the way for the present victory of Communist totalitarianism over the nations.

Archbishop Viganò  has more than once cited this work of iniquity as a coalition effort between operatives of the “deep Church” and operatives of the “deep State”, working together to bring about a New World secular Order over which Lucifer will usurp the Kingship of Christ.

That we are in fact living through the chastisement revealed by Our Lady in the Third Secret of Fatima is beyond question. Ours is a time largely of apostasy from God, even at the highest levels in the Church, resulting in victories for the anti-Christian forces beyond anything they, or we, could ever have imagined possible.

We know through faith of course that this time of trial will pass, as all such assaults of the devil on the Church and the world have passed. Our Lady will have the final victory and all will be restored in grace, though we know not how or when this will come about. What we do know is that matters are presently racing to a conclusion in this final battle between the serpent and she who will crush his head, so an end to it is not too far distant.

So much for the black and white of opposing forces in the present supernatural warfare, by which I mean the obvious evil and the obvious good as well as the happy outcome that those who are well disposed can see. But what about the grey areas, those danger zones which, like minefields, have to be traversed cautiously if we are to arrive safely at our destination when the war is won?

One such grey area has recently appeared before us and it threatens to wipe out a good many good souls who, in my opinion, have imprudently diverged from the safe path of the Church’s traditional and authentic moral teaching in favour of a more convenient, less arduous route only recently mapped out and offered non-authoritatively for alternative use.

I write of course about COVID-19 vaccines produced from or tested using the stem cell lines of aborted fetuses and the quite shocking position of the SSPX hierarchy in relation to their use.

If the faithful needed reminding that no particular institution in the Church is 100% safe at a time when the legitimate authorities themselves, the successors of St. Peter and the Apostles, are failing so manifestly in their duty to teach and to sanctify, it is in the SSPX position that such vaccines may be licitly taken in cases of necessity where moral alternatives are unavailable.

I first read (and re-read) this astounding and dangerously flawed guidance on the SSPX U.S. website some months back and I couldn’t believe my eyes. My Catholic conscience immediately alerted me to the falsehood before me.

I guess many other simple faithful were likewise seriously disturbed by this development, for the aforesaid website guidance was quickly taken down and replaced with a message announcing that an SSPX moral theologian was examining it, together with superiors, and would post an update soon.

Well it didn’t take long before the same guidance was back up on the website, only in a much longer text which read remarkably like sophistry.

The next I heard was that a certain Fr. Loop had been designated to present a conference on the subject to the faithful of Post Falls, Idaho – one of the largest Traditional Catholic enclaves in the U.S. I can only presume that many of the faithful remained troubled and Fr. Loop’s job was to reassure them. As far as I can tell from some comments I’ve read online, Fr. Loop failed in his task.

While this was ongoing I wrote to Fr. Fullerton, the U.S. District Superior, expressing my concern on the basis of the alternative (authentic) teaching of a number of tradition-leaning prelates whose counsel is that Catholics are not permitted to take vaccines tainted with the stem cell lines of aborted fetuses under any circumstances, given the very grave nature of the sin of abortion.

I wrote similarly to Fr. Loop, to Fr. Seligny, the SSPX moral theologian responsible for the U.S. website article and to Fr. Brucciani in the UK, who has sadly put out the same erroneous and dangerous advice. Not one of these priests granted me the courtesy of a response, which is extremely disturbing.

I did, however, receive a prompt and kind response from another SSPX superior who shall remain nameless for reasons of prudence.

Sadly, though, while evidently of upright intention, this superior is also on board with the “party line” (to use a crude term), convinced that the moral principle of “remote material co-operation” expressed in the works of St. Alphonsus may be applied in the case of grave necessity to abortion-tainted COVID vaccines.

Here is the proposition summarised in paraphrase: ‘The faithful are generally not permitted to receive abortion-tainted vaccines. However, in cases of grave necessity where moral alternatives are unavailable it is licit to receive such vaccines provided that objection is first made to the method of manufacture. This exception to the general rule, in cases of grave necessity only, amounts to “remote material co-operation”, a much lesser sin than formal co-operation.’

Juxtaposed to this proposition we have the joint letter of Cardinal Pujats, Archbishops Peta and Lenga and bishops Strickland and Schneider, reminding us of the authentic moral teaching of the Church. Here are a few excerpts of that letter which can be read in full here 

In the case of vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted human fetuses, we see a clear contradiction between the Catholic doctrine to categorically, and beyond the shadow of any doubt, reject abortion in all cases as a grave moral evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2268, n. 2270), and the practice of regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines as morally acceptable in exceptional cases of “urgent need” — on the grounds of remote, passive, material cooperation. To argue that such vaccines can be morally licit if there is no alternative is in itself contradictory and cannot be acceptable for Catholics…

…The theological principle of material cooperation is certainly valid and may be applied to a whole host of cases (e.g. in paying taxes, the use of products made from slave labor, and so on). However, this principle can hardly be applied to the case of vaccines made from fetal cell lines, because those who knowingly and voluntarily receive such vaccines enter into a kind of concatenation, albeit very remote, with the process of the abortion industry. The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it. One who uses these vaccines must realize that his body is benefitting from the “fruits” (although steps removed through a series of chemical processes) of one of mankind’s greatest crimes…

…More than ever, we need the spirit of the confessors and martyrs who avoided the slightest suspicion of collaboration with the evil of their own age. The Word of God says: “Be simple as children of God without reproach in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation, in which you must shine like lights in the world” (Phil. 2, 15)…”

Bishop Athanasius Schneider reiterates the position thus In a separate LSN interview, the full transcript of which can be read, or video viewed, here 

“…I repeat, it is the most anti-pastoral and counterproductive, that in this time, exactly in this historical hour, [that] Catholics will justify their use of abortion-tainted vaccines with the theory of material remote cooperation. It is so illogical – we have to recognize this in this historical hour in which we are living…”

In yet another interview with LSN, Bishop Schneider warns:

“…some bishops, even good ones, are making a huge explanation to me in a sophistic manner, of the principle of moral cooperation only, without your will, without your consent. But this is for me as sophism which cannot be applied to this concrete case, because it is evident to simple common sense that when you know this – that this vaccine is from aborted babies – then you cannot apply this moral principle, or theory, to this concrete case. And therefore we have to be very careful not to be induced into error because of this sophistic argument, even when it comes from good, traditional priests. This is the danger, and we have to resist this…”   Read the full transcript here

Finally, in a May 8 “Appeal for the Church and the World“, signed by a number of prelates including Cardinals Gerhard Müller, Zen & Pujats, Archbishop Viganò , Bishop Schneider and other senior Churchmen as well as countless Catholic journalists, physicians, academics and associations, we find this declaration:

“…Let us also remember, as Pastors, that for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses…”  – click here to read the Appeal for the Church and the World.

Writing in reply to the aforementioned SSPX District Superior, whose identity is not important here, I upheld this authentic moral teaching of the traditional prelates and other Catholics in the following words:

“I share the view of Bishop Athanasius Schneider and the other traditional prelates in this instance, who insist that abortion is so uniquely and gravely sinful as to render the normal considerations of “necessity” and “remote material co-operation” moot. These are general moral principles that are weighed in matters pertaining to sins common to fallen human nature, not to sins that are against nature and which cry to heaven for vengeance. Hence, the “material co-operation” argument is misapplied in the case of abortion-tainted vaccines and is therefore fallacious…

…I would like to clarify that it was never my intention to contend that those who seek to benefit from these vaccines are guilty of formal co-operation in the sin of abortion itself, but rather that they are guilty of formal co-operation in the use of evil means, i.e., the immoral process of using aborted fetal cells in the production and/or testing of the vaccine. In other words, they are guilty of using an evil means in order to accomplish good–which is never allowed. I apologise if I did not make myself clear on this point in my previous communication.”

Summary…

For whatever reason, whether by simple error or for reasons of avoiding direct confrontation with this vaccine-pushing Pope and his various national hierarchies, the SSPX is seriously ill-advising the faithful for the first time in the 35-years I have been associated with it.

Therefore every Catholic with a sense of the faith, whose conscience automatically balks at the suggestion that we may, in circumstances of grave necessity, do evil that good may come from it, must disregard this SSPX advice along with that of other churchmen, be they Traditional or Modernist, Pope or priest, who propose the “remote material co-operation” fallacy in the case of abortion-tainted vaccines.

We are never at liberty to benefit from an evil means, not even when our lives depend on it. This is the authentic moral teaching of the Church and the faith of the martyrs, who could so easily have burned a mere grain of incense before the pagan deities to save their lives using similar argument in their minds, but who chose instead to die a cruel death rather than offend God.

Let us consider just one example of such ardent faith – the martyrdom of the early Christian St. Sophia and her three young daughters, aged 11, 10 & 9 years.

All four steadfastly refusing before the Roman emperor Hadrian to burn incense before the goddess Artemis, Hadrian proceeded to have the children horribly tortured one after the other in full view of their mother.

At length, when the children finally succumbed to the unspeakable sufferings inflicted upon them, St. Sophia was granted leave to take them for burial, the idea of the pagan emperor being that she should live with the torment in her heart.

But Our Lord had other plans. After three days of mourning her beloved children He took her from this world to enjoy eternal beatitude in heaven.

Compare this example of great faith with that of Catholics today who advise that it is licit under certain strict circumstances to use products made from or tested with the stem cells of brutally murdered little babies. Yes, it is wholly scandalous!  

 

Comment:

There will be people who attend SSPX churches who read this and become angry at the very idea that anyone should criticise the SSPX for just about anything. It’s an immature attitude, if not completely childish.

There will be comments flowing into me by email and newcomers to the blog who will languish in the moderation file, telling me to stop attending the SSPX church if I don’t like it etc. blah blah.  Martin will, needless to say, get it in the neck as well. 

So, please be assured; we fully appreciate the SSPX clergy providing us with Mass and the Sacraments.  Just as we appreciate that the Scottish Bishops are counted among the successors of the apostles.  Doesn’t mean we cannot comment on their statements or actions as we may comment on the statements and actions of other professionals. After all, priests are the most important of all professionals.

Other professionals are limited to catering for the well-being of people in this world alone, while priests are charged with the immensely more important work of preparing souls for eternity in Heaven.

So, folks, please don’t expect replies to any emails calling us names for expressing our concerns about this matter. A measured comment – absent any nasty personal remarks – submitted for publication on our blog, is a different matter. Feel free. 

Vaccines: Catholics To Benefit From Murdered Babies On Vatican Say-So? 

Editor writes…

I received the following email last night from a reader in the USA…

Good evening,…

I wanted to share with you the most recent posting that my wife Vickie and I placed on our page concerning what we see as a shift in emphasis by many Catholics away from opposing the COVID-19 vaccine for moral reasons to relying on arguing pragmatically that the vaccine is dangerous (which it truly is). 

If you would like to use our posting, please feel free to do so.  Or you link to it, if you prefer …the priests here in Post Falls are apparently following the SSPX hierarch lead, unfortunately, even to the point of having held a “vaccine presentation” on 4 January.  We have our take on that in an earlier posting that you may find interestingOn Distractions and Staying Focused | Tradidi Quod et Accepi (wordpress.com)

In any event, please let me know what you think, and feel free to use what you wish from our blog. Ends

Coincidentally, I also received an email last night from a reader at home, here in Scotland, who is puzzled that her priest is promoting the vaccine – if the CDF has approved it then surely Catholics may take it?  

Given the continuing confusion surrounding the Catholic position on this (and on just about everything else, under the Francis pontificate), I think it’s time for another thread on the subject of the Covid vaccines.  Below, then, the text of the above linked article from the Tradidi Quod et Accepi blog…

From the Tradidi Quod et Accepi Blog…

On Distractions and Staying Focused

Over the last couple of weeks, the focus of the COVID-19 debate seems to have shifted — amongst Christians in general, and some Catholics in particular — from the moral liceity of abortion-tainted vaccines and pharmaceuticals to the dangers of the shots. It is a distraction that should give us concern; for the logical extension of the argument is that when or if we have a safe COVID-19 vaccine, there will no longer be any basis for objection. When I tried to re-focus a friend of many years on the real issue — the immorality of any vaccine associated with murdered babies — he argued we would never be able to convince our legislators of the evil of the vaccine on moral grounds, so we should shut down the vaccination program through the pragmatic approach of sounding the public health warning.

No doubt, many of those who agree with my pragmatic friend have viewed the interesting video making the rounds on “social media” of Dr. Simone Gold, of Frontline Doctors. In the video, Dr. Gold, who is also an attorney, gives a convincing presentation at what appears to be a Protestant church earlier in January, on the many dangers of what she correctly calls “experimental biological agents” being injected into millions of Americans. Some of you may remember that Dr. Gold and several of her colleagues had gone to Washington, D.C., several months ago and held a press conference there to promote the common sense approach of using hydroxychloroquine and zinc in the treatment of what Frank Walker of Canon 212 humorously calls “the Blessed and Eternal Virus.” You can view the hour-long video here:

Dr. Simone Gold: Experimental Biological Agents [Ed: YouTube removed Dr Gold’s video, but you can view it here ]

Dr. Gold’s sound arguments notwithstanding, most of us are adamant that the focus of the opposition to these vaccines should be on their lack of moral liceity.  We should be even more insistent that the current COVID-19 vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna are morally unacceptable after viewing the recent video of Lifesite’s John-Henry Westen interview of vaccine research expert Pamela Acker. Viewing this video will be an hour well spent:

Lifesite: Pamela Acker; Vaccine expert explains how aborted baby cells taint covid vaccines

Biologist Pamela Acker puts some big lies to rest in this interview, including the fable from “fact-checkers” (and unfortunately from some priests in the SSPX) that specific lines of what is termed “fetal cell lines” were perpetuated from two or three babies killed thirty of forty years ago. In fact, these stem cells/DNA (which Fr. Chad Ripperger correctly insists must be buried with a Christian burial) actually consist of stem cells/DNA from scores of murdered babies. The lie, for example, that HEK-293, which was used in both the development and testing of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, were not just from the one baby we were told was killed in 1973. In fact, in the interview, Pamela Acker specifically mentions HEK-293:

[T]he HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney, but 293 stands for . . . the 293rd experiment that this particular researcher did to develop a cell line. And that doesn’t mean that there were 293 abortions, but for 293 experiments you need far more than one abortion. And we’re talking probably 100s of abortions. And, this was done with the collaboration of some hospitals. And there was a group in Sweden that was involved in developing the WI-38 cell line, so a different cell line, but they routinely were aborting babies for the use in trying to develop fetal cell lines.

There is far too much info in the interview — some quite gruesome — to allow me to dwell on all the points that this courageous young biologist makes. I am anxiously awaiting her book, which is on back order. I will be reviewing Pamela Acker’s Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective, on this site in the near future, God willing. In the meantime, you can order the book from the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation at:

Kolbe Center; Vaccination: A Catholic Perspective, Pamela Acker

It comes down to this: the tragic fact is that even if a vaccine does not use mRNA, nor contain oncogenic elements, most are either tested with or contain stem cells of brutally murdered babies —  many, many more than we were being told by the Left and sadly, by the SSPX, which bought into the idea years ago that fetal cell line WI-38, for example, was from a single baby aborted forty years ago, as articulated on page 9 of the Dr. Timothy P. Collins, M.D., article in the Angelus “Vaccine” issue of February, 2006. In fact, a 2018 video of a court case in which the ghoulish vaccine researcher and developer, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, was a witness, is eye-opening and nauseating. Parts of the original footage (in which Dr. Plotkin, under oath, reluctantly admits that seventy-six murdered babies were used in the development of the stem cell line WI-38) have been included in another gut-wrenching Lifesite video here:

THE PROOF: Many aborted babies used in vaccine creation

As an aside, Dr. Collins makes this unfortunate statement in the second paragraph of his article in that issue: “I accept the usefulness of mass vaccinations in general.” The fact of the matter is, there is at the very least reasonable doubt that most of the vaccines routinely required for children today were ever really necessary. I will address this in a future posting; but for an excellent analysis of this, take some time to peruse the “Learn the Risk” website, particularly:

Learn the Risk: Did diseases decline because of vaccines? Not according to history

Unfortunately, too many traditional Catholics buy into the disinformation propagated in the infamous Angelus issue of February 2006 regarding the SSPX change of heart on Rubella vaccines.  The issue was prompted, of all things, by the pronouncement the year before by the Pontifical Academy for Life, that itself allowed Catholics the possibility of taking abortion-tainted vaccines like Rubella, if there were no alternative and if one makes his objection known.  The Angelus issue included the entire text of the PAL “decision”.  I have a copy of the February 2006 Angelus issue before me as I write. The article by Dr. Collins is obviously the centerpiece of the issue, and clearly breaks with the statement in 2000, by then-District Superior (and physician) Fr. Peter Scott. At that time, Fr. Scott was disseminating what he described as the teaching of Holy Mother Church regarding the moral theology principle of “cooperation in evil” with respect to abortion-tainted vaccines such as the Rubella shot. But in the February 2006 “Vaccine” issue of the Angelus, Fr. Scott, referred to as the “publisher emeritus,” changes his mind. On page 14 of that issue, he can hardly contain his enthusiasm for the June, 2005, statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life:

It is a surprising relief and unusual joy to find this quandary resolved authoritatively for Catholics. The document . . . is admirable and refreshing to see. (The PAL document) does allow the possibility of using such vaccines in the case of necessity for the health of one’s children when no other alternative exists, such being a very remote and material cooperation in the evil of abortion.

The February, 2006, issue is still available from Angelus Press. It is a sad and even heartbreaking realization — but an undeniable fact — that the SSPX unfortunately opened the door publicly to the possibility of taking abortion-tainted vaccines for “proportionate cause” with that Angelus issue – a break with what had previously been taught to the laity in the pews.  Most recently, the awful article that appeared in December, 2020, on the sspx.org website should give all traditional Catholics pause.  It is absolutely scandalous! All of a sudden, we agree with something out of “Modernist Rome,” as Archbishop Lefebvre so often called the cesspool on the banks of the Tiber. In fact, here is what Archbishop Viganò has to say about the Pontifical Academy for Life:

When we consider the new orientation of the Pontifical Academy for Life… we cannot expect any condemnation of those who use fetal tissue from voluntarily aborted children. Its present members hope for mass vaccination and the universal brotherhood of the New World Order, contradicting previous pronouncements of the same Pontifical Academy.

If you bring up objections to an SSPX priest, many will give you the three “talking points” reportedly being proffered as responses on at least three continents (though there are many priests who dissent from the official position):

  1. “You are too emotional!”
  2. “It is a very complex matter, and you are simply laymen;”
  3. “Don’t you trust us?”

Well, there is a plethora of responses I could give to each of those, but the bottom line is that sometimes, we lay people have to stand up, with a properly formed conscience and a sensus Catholicus, for what we know is the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church from time immemorial. We were told from the pulpit last week that we have to “discern spirits” and we were given elements of the three arguments above — obviously a thinly veiled slap on the wrist for those faithful at Immaculate Conception Church in Post Falls that have pushed back against what was disseminated in the unfortunate “vaccine talk” of 4 January. We must stand our ground and remind priests that they cannot assume we are stupid.  Furthermore, there are many, many Catholics – both traditional and Novus Ordo – who have discerned correctly that vaccines containing murdered baby stem cells (as described by Pamela Acker) or derived from such testing are morally wrong. Period!

We are on the right side of this issue, and we are in good company. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and countless prelates and priests throughout the world stand with us! Here is Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, one of the few courageous American bishops, who wrote on 22 January, the anniversary date of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decisions:

All the political posturing on vaccines is truly disgusting. The fact remains that ANY vaccine available today involves using murdered children before they could even be born. I renew my pledge . . . I will not extend my life by USING murdered children. This is evil. WAKE UP! (Upper case in the original)

Dear readers, don’t be led astray by the distraction of the (very real) medical/scientific/health problems of the vaccines. And do not listen to those who try to rationalize that taking abortion-tainted vaccines is only “remote” cooperation in evil. It is sheer sophistry! These extractions and subsequent murders of babies for the sole purpose of medical “research” continue today. It is why Bishop Athanasius Schneider calls it “concatenation.” It is not only a linkage, it is an interdependence. Worse, by taking such morally unacceptable vaccines, we create a demand for more and more babies to die these horrible deaths, as the pharmaceutical companies perpetuate the lie that this barbarism (Bishop Schneider calls it “cannibalism”) is needed. So do not be distracted. Let’s stay focused on the real issue: the horrendous evil of abortion-tainted vaccines. May Almighty God grant us victory in this combat against the forces of darkness, which seem to have seduced so many of those who should be with us! [Emphasis added]

Note:  I have emailed the link to this discussion to the three SSPX priests at Post Falls – the Prior as well as the Principal and Vice-Principal of the school.

Some time later…  the administrator of the Tradidi Quod et Accepi Blog alerted me to the fact that they link to our original post on the topic of the SSPX support for the Covid vaccines in their original post on the topic, The SSPX Blinks – click here  

There is also a further post on the subject on their blog, enetitled The SSPX Dobles Down on the Vaccine here

Comments invited…   

Catholics Must Withdraw From Facebook, Twitter etc – Immediately! 

Comment: 

It is self-evident that these Big Tech giants as they’re known, (“monsters” is more accurate), are hand in glove with those intent on embedding totalitarian governance across the world.  The censorship is utterly brazen.   Thus, knowing how these evil-doers have used their power and influence to get rid of President Trump and put the puppet Biden into the White House by manifestly foul means, it’s interesting to read the following from blogger, Athanasius… an email sent to the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) Prior in Scotland & District Superior in London. It is worth each of us giving serious thought to removing ourselves from these platforms.  Ditto every parish – they’re all into Facebook and Twitter.  No Catholic should be supporting these evil-doers. We should withdraw our business immediately, if not sooner. Read on and see if you agree…  

[Dear Fathers…]  

I received a phone call today from a fellow Glasgow parishioner asking if I knew anything about the SSPX Mass schedule for Scotland given the new lockdown rules. 

Like me, this person had searched through the SSPX websites for England and Scotland looking for current information but was unable to find any clarification on the Masses for the foreseeable future. I had also emailed St. Andrew’s House many days ago seeking clarification but received no response.

Fortunately, I was able to tell the person in question that I had discovered from other sources that Sunday Mass is, as we suspected, cancelled, probably for the next four weeks at least.

As the conversation developed he told me that his information is that the SSPX only makes formal announcements and updates now via its Facebook account. I have heard this said before but didn’t actually believe it given that Facebook is presently engaged in suppressing truth and justice with regard to both the U.S. election and Covid-19 frauds. Indeed, Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg played a particularly nefarious role in the election fraud through fund distribution to subversive groups in the key swing States.

As a result of his actions and those of other “Big Tech” organisations many Catholics, myself included, have been forced in conscience to terminate our Facebook, Twitter and Google accounts, lest by our continued patronage we approve the diabolic actions of these Marxist social media outlets.

I think the SSPX should lead the way in this matter by publicly disavowing the aforementioned outlets, encouraging the faithful to switch instead to alternative platforms such as Parler for chat and DuckDuckGo for web searching. To continue to use Facebook in light of what we now know about Zuckerberg would be unconscionable and reprehensible before God. For general SSPX news and updates, I hope to see a return to posting these on the SSPX website.

I hope you see the moral imperative for the SSPX to be seen to act in this matter, not just in the UK but all around the world. Strong in faith and resolute in the moral teaching of the Church, I think all Traditional Catholics must be urgently advised to reject any perceived benefits from continued use of these evil platforms, for we are simply not at liberty to profit from evil. Ends. 

 

 

 

 

 

Warning: SSPX Shock Approval For Covid-19 Vaccine – Catholics Beware…


A few weeks ago the SSPX USA District published an article on its website headed: “Is it morally permissible to use the Covid-19 vaccine?”  It was a rather short piece advising on the moral implications for Catholics weighing new and existing vaccines produced from the stem cell lines of aborted babies.

Short as it was, however, the article was read by many Traditional Catholics, myself included, as a scandalous capitulation to Modernist moral theological thought. I wrote immediately to the District Superior of the U.S., as did others, raising objection to the piece which was subsequently removed and replaced with a message that said something to the effect that the Society’s moral theologians and medical experts were now reviewing the content under the supervision of SSPX superiors and would re-publish in due course.

Well, the SSPX reposted their review on December 4 and it said exactly the same as the first time around, except this time with lots of added superfluous passages to make it appear more deeply researched and authoritative.

Here are the three principal erroneous teachings expounded in both the original and revised articles:

1: “The doctor who vaccinates a patient, or the patient who is vaccinated, has only distant cooperation, for these acts only encourage and promote the sin of abortion in a very remote and very slight way. For sufficient health reasons, such acts could therefore be morally permitted.”

2: “A young woman who is to get married can thus receive the rubella vaccine, although such a vaccine is almost always prepared on fetal cells obtained by abortion. The reason is the danger for the child: if a woman contracts rubella during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, the risk of birth defects – eye, hearing or heart – are significant. These malformations are permanent.”

3:As cooperation is only distant, and the reason given is serious enough, it is possible in these cases to use such a vaccine. Moreover, it remains for each individual to judge, with the help of appropriate advice, this real need. ..It must be clearly stated that we are here in the domain of a prudent judgment, which cannot be uniform for all and in all cases. Moral theology says what is lawful or unlawful. It gives the principles. But it is for personal prudence to judge their application on a case-by-case basis.”

Concerning this third erroneous proposition, it seems to me that there’s a bit of sophistry being employed here similar to that used by the Francis revolutionaries who also use the ‘principle Vs. prudence’ argument in order to justify the admittance of divorced and remarried Catholics, cohabiting couples, etc., to Holy Communion. At any rate, I ran these past a trustworthy Traditional Catholic priest of more than 35 years and he in turn responded with the following three reasons showing why this SSPX advice is both ethically and morally wrong:

Vaccines Derived from Aborted Fetal Cells (Fetal DNA) are Immoral and Must be Rejected

(1) Reason 1: It is sinful to do evil to accomplish good (Rom. 3:8). Thus, it is sinful to make use of a good effect/benefit that has been derived or procured from an evil means. Using a covid-19 vaccine derived from, or tainted with, or tested with, aborted fetal tissue (fetal DNA) would constitute using an evil means, i.e., tissue (DNA) from an aborted fetus, in order to accomplish a good end, i.e., a medical cure. Therefore, the use of vaccines derived from, or tainted with, aborted fetal tissue is immoral and forbidden.

The “double effect” cannot be invoked: According to the moral principle of “double effect,” it is morally permitted, in cases of necessity, to employ an action which simultaneously produces two effects, one good and one evil, provided that: (1) only the good effect is willed, and (2) the good effect is not derived from the evil effect (for it is sinful to obtain a good end by the use of evil means). The principle of the “double effect” cannot be invoked in the use of vaccines derived from, or tainted with, or tested with, aborted fetal tissue (fetal DNA). The reason is because the good effect, i.e., medical cure, is obtained by means of the evil effect, i.e., the sin of abortion, from which the fetal tissue (DNA) was procured and used in the development and/or testing of the vaccine. Thus, the use of such vaccines is morally illicit.

[An example of a permissible action with a “double effect” would be a doctor’s prescription of a strong pain medication to relieve severe pain in a cancer patient, even though the use of such medication may also have the side effect to slowly shorten the patient’s life. In this case, the good effect, i.e., the present relief from severe pain, is the direct result of the pain medication, and is not derived from the evil effect, i.e., the shortening of life. Rather both good effect and bad effect are a simultaneous result of the use of the strong pain medication.] 

(2) Reason 2:  Just as it is forbidden to knowingly receive and use stolen money, especially if the victim was murdered in order to steal his money (for it is unlawful to benefit from a crime), so also it is forbidden to use a vaccine which is developed with the use of fetal tissue (fetal DNA) that has been stolen from an aborted (murdered) fetus—which is already a human person. Just as the stolen money always remains the property of the victim of theft or robbery, so also the vital organ (e.g., kidney, liver, etc.) and the tissue/DNA taken from it, always remain the property of the fetus—and connected to the physical integrity of his/her body. Therefore, it is immoral and illicit to use vaccines that have been developed or tested with the use of aborted fetal DNA.

(3) Reason 3: “Organ donation”: The use of covid-19 vaccines derived from aborted fetal tissue cannot be likened to the use of a donated vital organ, e.g., kidney or liver, for in the case of organ donation, the organ donor gives consent to donating his organ, i.e., he freely donates his organ. However, if an organ “donor” is murdered in order to obtain his vital organ, the use of such an organ, or tissue (DNA) from this organ, is immoral and forbidden. Consequently, since this is the method used in obtaining fetal tissue from an aborted fetus, it follows that using a vaccine derived from aborted fetal DNA is immoral and not permitted.”

Now some may argue that this response is merely the opinion of one priest setting himself against eminent moral theologians of the SSPX. My answer to that is to quote the following statements of far more eminent Church prelates whose words ring true in every properly formed Catholic conscience.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider

From a Lifesitenews article, for example, which includes an interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, we have this:   

Maybe I’m wrong, but I have the suspicion that partly this COVID situation was created not only to implement a new dictatorship and control of the population, but in some way to legalize abortion globally – the killing of unborn babies – so that the entire planet will be collaborating in the process of killing babies through the vaccine which will use parts of aborted babies. The vaccine will be imposed and obligatory – so that you cannot work, travel, go to school without it, obliging the entire population to receive the vaccine, but the only vaccine will be that made with cells from aborted babies. Perhaps they will not accept other vaccines, and they will lie, saying that these are not effective, that the only effective vaccine will be from aborted babies. I am not affirming now that this will happen, but it is my suspicion: it appears to me realistic that this could come. This is for me the last step of Satanism: that Satan and the world government – ultimately the Masonic world government – will oblige all, even the Church, to accept abortion in this way. And therefore we must resist very strongly against this, if it comes. We must even accept to be martyrs…Unfortunately, some Bishops, even good Bishops and priests, are already presenting what for me is a sophism in justifying that you can accept this vaccine from aborted babies according to moral principles.”

From the same article Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas concurs thus:

Bishop Joseph Strickland

  “…if a vaccine for this virus is only attainable if we use body parts of aborted children then I will refuse the vaccine…I will not kill children to live.” The bishop publicly re-issued this rejection of such vaccines: “I renew my call that we reject any vaccine that is developed using aborted children. Even if it originated decades ago it still means a child’s life was ended before it was born & then their body was used as spare parts.”  Source

Also, in an open letter published in May, several Catholic Cardinals and bishops led by former papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Joseph Zen, and Janis Pujats said that “for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.”

Additionally, at the May 2020 Rome Life Forum Cardinal Raymond Burke said: “It must be clear that it is never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses.” He added that forced vaccines violate the
“integrity of citizens.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke

These authoritative declarations conclusively show the moral theologians of the SSPX to have deviated from Traditional Catholic teaching in so grave a matter, a fact confirmed by the references they cite from more recent Vatican advice that just happens to be shared by most of the destructive Modernist hierarchy right up to Francis himself.   

And this is not an isolated incident. Recall, for example, the invitation extended to Fr. Sean Kilcawley to share the lecture podium with Bishop Fellay during the October, 2019 Angelus Conference. this Novus Ordo priest, said to be an expert on John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, is touted as a pornography addiction counsellor. Here is one example of Fr. Kilcawley’s counselling, a highly controversial video statement that went viral:

“… simply invite Our Lord into our temptation and into our thoughts in the present moment. To say, “Jesus, I want to look at pornography right now.” Or, “Jesus, I’m having an impure thought right now. You’re welcome into my imagination. You’re welcome to watch these thoughts with me.”   [Ed: click here to read our discussion in response to that scandal].

Nor is it just in the sphere of morals that we have reason to question the direction of the SSPX right now, for there is also a definite lean towards embracing modern pseudo-scientific thought.

Most informed Traditional Catholics, for example, are fully aware that the Covid-19 plague narrative is a geopolitical ruse concocted by a world Socialist elite as a means of supplanting global democracy with Communist totalitarianism. Proper official science has long proven this Coronavirus to be harmless for 99.97% of the global population, a fact easily discerned from a mere cursory glance at national and global death figures, yet the SSPX raises the controversial question of vaccines for the virus as though the plague narrative were credible and the vaccine question of some urgency.

Covid-19 patient, 120 years, mother of 12, wheeled out of hospital after two weeks “with clean bill of health” to applause from NHS staff .

A similar example of drift towards pseudo-science was Fr. Paul Robinson’s book “The Realist Guide to Religion and Science“, a work that has nothing whatever to do with the supernatural mission of the SSPX but which nevertheless negatively impacts on the Traditional Catholic understanding of Genesis by attempting to reconcile the Scriptural account of Creation with the utterly ridiculous “Big Bang” theory.

This is all very concerning, indicative of a serious problem within the higher clerical structure of the Society of St. Pius X. Whether the issue is one of infiltration or weakening of faith, I cannot say. What I can say to all those who, like me, are decades attached to the SSPX, to the saintly memory of Archbishop Lefebvre and to the many good priests who still make up the majority in the Society, is that we must watch like hawks going forward!

Not only must we reject deviations such as the advice on vaccines, the Fr. Kilcawley experiment and the Fr. Robinson science fiction, we must also henceforth check everything the SSPX superiors propose touching on faith and morals against the Traditional teaching of the Church and we must be vigilant in particular with regard to what is being taught to children in SSPX schools.

While it grieves me very greatly to have to say this publicly, I’m afraid there is no other option given the gravity of the situation and a demonstrable track record of SSPX superiors treating the concerns of subordinates with a contemptuous silence and a “business as usual” attitude which is utterly destructive of trust.

We all know the subtlety of Modernism, how it creeps in by degrees and ends in the destruction of everything we hold dear. If Vatican II and its aftermath have taught us anything it is that silence in the face of error is fatal to faith and must therefore be stopped immediately at source. That’s our task now, to react instantly like an immune system whenever the least sign of Modernist poison is detected within the SSPX. So let us be vigilant and let us not fail to raise our voices dutifully in respectful correction whenever error is taught, regardless of the dignity of the one who teaches it. Let us also pray fervently for all our priests.   (Published with kind permission of the author, Martin Blackshaw aka Catholic Truth blogger Athanasius).

Comments invited…  

Archbishop Viganò: Don’t Leave the Church – Stay and Fight the Modernists! 

This new statement is important, inasmuch as in recent days, both Father Thomas Weinandy, as well as Father Raymond de Souza, spread the suspicion that the Italian prelate might be “schismatic,” thus intending to leave the Catholic Church. This suspicion had arisen because of Viganò’s critique of the Second Vatican Council and its detrimental effects on the life of the faith in the Church. For example, de Souza’s article is entitled: “Is Archbishop Viganò’s Rejection of the Second Vatican Council Promoting Schism?” And Weinandy stated: “My concern is that, in his radical reading of the Council, the archbishop is spawning his own schism.”

In an August 22 article published by the traditional Catholic newspaper Catholic Family News, Kokx had asked Viganò a set of questions with regard to what faithful laity can do in the midst of this Church crisis that is going back to the Council. 

Kokx suggested Viganò needs to give more advice to laity and priests on what to do next: “He’s certainly diagnosed the problem, but what are his solutions, if any? What, in other words, is it that he believes Catholics in the 21st century should do in response to the crisis?”

Archbishop Viganò’s response as published on September 1 by Catholic Family News (see full text below) is clear: it is not the faithful Catholics who oppose the changing of the faith, but those who perpetrate these changes that ought to be questioned. He writes that we need to discuss “the position of those who, declaring themselves Catholic, embrace the heterodox doctrines that have spread over these decades, with the awareness that these represent a rupture with the preceding Magisterium. In this case it is licit to doubt their real adherence to the Catholic Church, in which however they hold official roles that confer authority on them.”

If people who hold heterodox views are in positions of authority in the Church, he continues, “It is an illicitly exercised authority, if its purpose is to force the faithful to accept the revolution imposed since the Council.”

In addition and on a practical level, the Italian prelate gives us advice on how to live and grow in the faith, working on our sanctification and remaining in the state of “sanctifying grace.” But at the same time, we are to assist and “comfort” good priests and bishops, seeking out reverent Masses. 

“Faithful laity have the right and the duty to find priests, communities, and institutes that are faithful to the perennial Magisterium,” Viganò explains. “And may they know how to accompany the laudable celebration of the liturgy in the Ancient Rite with adherence to sound doctrine and morals, without any subsidence on the front of the Council.”

Finally, Archbishop Viganò also praises the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), which has defended the traditional faith for decades now. They “deserve recognition” for their work of preserving the Catholic faith, he says, and adds that he considers Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of this Society, to be a “confessor of the Faith.”

Here we might remember that just recently, a cardinal stated that Lefebvre will one day be declared a “Doctor of the Church” and that he was “prophetic.”

Let us close with Viganò’s last words of his response to Kokx’s questions:

“The cure for rebellion is obedience. The cure for heresy is faithfulness to the teaching of Tradition. The cure for schism is filial devotion for the Sacred Pastors. The cure for apostasy is love for God and His Most Holy Mother. The cure for vice is the humble practice of virtue. The cure for the corruption of morals is to live constantly in the presence of God. But obedience cannot be perverted into stolid servility; respect for authority cannot be perverted into the obeisance of the court. And let’s not forget that if it is the duty of the laity to obey their Pastors, it is even a more grave duty of the Pastors to obey God, usque ad effusionem sanguinis.”

Below is the full statement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, reprinted with permission:

Disclaimer: The following positions adopted and advice offered by Archbishop Viganò do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews and are presented only for your information.

Dear Mr. Kokx,

I read with lively interest your article “Questions for Viganò: His Excellency is Right about Vatican II, But What Does He Think Catholic Should Do Now?” which was published by Catholic Family News on August 22 (here). I am happy to respond to your questions, which address matters that are very important for the faithful.

You ask: “What would ‘separating’ from the Conciliar Church look like in Archbishop Viganò’s opinion?” I respond to you with another question: “What does it mean to separate from the Catholic Church according to the supporters of the Council?” While it is clear that no admixture is possible with those who propose adulterated doctrines of the conciliar ideological manifesto, it should be noted that the simple fact of being baptized and of being living members of the Church of Christ does not imply adherence to the conciliar team; this is true above all for the simple faithful and also for secular and regular clerics who, for various reasons, sincerely consider themselves Catholics and recognize the Hierarchy.

Instead, what needs to be clarified is the position of those who, declaring themselves Catholic, embrace the heterodox doctrines that have spread over these decades, with the awareness that these represent a rupture with the preceding Magisterium. In this case it is licit to doubt their real adherence to the Catholic Church, in which however they hold official roles that confer authority on them. It is an illicitly exercised authority, if its purpose is to force the faithful to accept the revolution imposed since the Council.

Once this point has been clarified, it is evident that it is not the traditional faithful – that is, true Catholics, in the words of Saint Pius X – that must abandon the Church in which they have the full right to remain and from which it would be unfortunate to separate; but rather the Modernists who usurp the Catholic name, precisely because it is only the bureaucratic element that permits them not to be considered on a par with any heretical sect. This claim of theirs serves in fact to prevent them from ending up among the hundreds of heretical movements that over the course of the centuries have believed to be able to reform the Church at their own pleasure, placing their pride ahead of humbly guarding the teaching of Our Lord. But just as it is not possible to claim citizenship in a homeland in which one does not know its language, law, faith and tradition; so it is impossible that those who do not share the faith, morals, liturgy, and discipline of the Catholic Church can arrogate to themselves the right to remain within her and even to ascend the levels of the hierarchy.

The situation is certainly more complex for clerics, who depend hierarchically on their bishop or religious superior, but who at the same time have the right to remain Catholic and be able to celebrate according to the Catholic Rite. On the one hand laity have more freedom of movement in choosing the community to which they turn for Mass, the Sacraments, and religious instruction, but less autonomy because of the fact that they still have to depend on a priest; on the other hand, clerics have less freedom of movement, since they are incardinated in a diocese or order and are subject to ecclesiastical authority, but they have more autonomy because of the fact that they can legitimately decide to celebrate the Mass and administer the Sacraments in the Tridentine Rite and to preach in conformity with sound doctrine. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum reaffirmed that faithful and priests have the inalienable right – which cannot be denied – to avail themselves of the liturgy that more perfectly expresses their Catholic Faith. But this right must be used today not only and not so much to preserve the extraordinary form of the rite, but to testify to adherence to the depositum fidei that finds perfect correspondence only in the Ancient Rite.

I daily receive heartfelt letters from priests and religious who are marginalized or transferred or ostracized because of their fidelity to the Church: the temptation to find an ubi consistam [a place to stand] far from the clamor of the Innovators is strong, but we ought to take an example from the persecutions that many saints have undergone, including Saint Athanasius, who offers us a model of how to behave in the face of widespread heresy and persecuting fury. As my venerable brother Bishop Athanasius Schneider has many times recalled, the Arianism that afflicted the Church at the time of the Holy Doctor of Alexandria in Egypt was so widespread among the bishops that it leaves one almost to believe that Catholic orthodoxy had completely disappeared. But it was thanks to the fidelity and heroic testimony of the few bishops who remained faithful that the Church knew how to get back up again. Without this testimony, Arianism would not have been defeated; without our testimony today, Modernism and the globalist apostasy of this pontificate will not be defeated.

It is therefore not a question of working from within the Church or outside it: the winemakers are called to work in the Lord’s Vineyard, and it is there that they must remain even at the cost of their lives; the pastors are called to pastor the Lord’s Flock, to keep the ravenous wolves at bay and to drive away the mercenaries who are not concerned with the salvation of the sheep and lambs.

This hidden and often silent work has been carried out by the Society of Saint Pius X, which deserves recognition for not having allowed the flame of Tradition to be extinguished at a moment in which celebrating the ancient Mass was considered subversive and a reason for excommunication. Its priests have been a healthy thorn in the side for a hierarchy that has seen in them an unacceptable point of comparison for the faithful, a constant reproach for the betrayal committed against the people of God, an inadmissible alternative to the new conciliar path. And if their fidelity made disobedience to the pope inevitable with the episcopal consecrations, thanks to them the Society was able to protect herself from the furious attack of the Innovators and by its very existence it allowed the possibility of the liberalization of the Ancient Rite, which until then was prohibited. Its presence also allowed the contradictions and errors of the conciliar sect to emerge, always winking at heretics and idolaters but implacably rigid and intolerant towards Catholic Truth.

I consider Archbishop Lefebvre an exemplary confessor of the Faith, and I think that by now it is obvious that his denunciation of the Council and the modernist apostasy is more relevant than ever. It should not be forgotten that the persecution to which Archbishop Lefebvre was subjected by the Holy See and the world episcopate served above all as a deterrent for Catholics who were refractory toward the conciliar revolution.

I also agree with the observation of His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais about the co-presence of two entities in Rome: the Church of Christ has been occupied and eclipsed by the modernist conciliar structure, which has established itself in the same hierarchy and uses the authority of its ministers to prevail over the Spouse of Christ and our Mother.

The Church of Christ – which not only subsists in the Catholic Church, but is exclusively the Catholic Church – is only obscured and eclipsed by a strange extravagant Church established in Rome, according to the vision of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. It coexists, like wheat with the tare, in the Roman Curia, in dioceses, in parishes. We cannot judge our pastors for their intentions, nor suppose that all of them are corrupt in faith and morals; on the contrary, we can hope that many of them, hitherto intimidated and silent, will understand, as confusion and apostasy continue to spread, the deception to which they have been subjected and will finally shake off their slumber. There are many laity who are raising their voice; others will necessarily follow, together with good priests, certainly present in every diocese. This awakening of the Church militant – I would dare to call it almost a resurrection – is necessary, urgent and inevitable: no son tolerates his mother being outraged by the servants, or his father being tyrannized by the administrators of his goods. The Lord offers us, in these painful situations, the possibility of being His allies in fighting this holy battle under His banner: the King Who is victorious over error and death permits us to share the honor of triumphal victory and the eternal reward that derives from it, after having endured and suffered with Him.

But in order to deserve the immortal glory of Heaven we are called to rediscover – in an emasculated age devoid of values such as honor, faithfulness to one’s word, and heroism – a fundamental aspect of the faith of every baptized person: the Christian life is a militia, and with the Sacrament of Confirmation we are called to be soldiers of Christ, under whose insignia we must fight. Of course, in most cases it is essentially a spiritual battle, but over the course of history we have seen how often, faced with the violation of the sovereign rights of God and the liberty of the Church, it was also necessary to take up arms: we are taught this by the strenuous resistance to repel the Islamic invasions in Lepanto and on the outskirts of Vienna, the persecution of the Cristeros in Mexico, of the Catholics in Spain, and even today by the cruel war against Christians throughout the world. Never as today can we understand the theological hatred coming from the enemies of God, inspired by Satan. The attack on everything that recalls the Cross of Christ – on Virtue, on the Good and the Beautiful, on purity – must spur us to get up, in a leap of pride, in order to claim our right not only not to be persecuted by our external enemies but also and above all to have strong and courageous pastors, holy and God-fearing, who will do exactly what their predecessors have done for centuries: preach the Gospel of Christ, convert individuals and nations, and expand the Kingdom of the living and true God throughout the world.

We are all called to make an act of Fortitude – a forgotten cardinal virtue, which not by chance in Greek recalls virile strength, ἀνδρεία – in knowing how to resist the Modernists: a resistance that is rooted in Charity and Truth, which are attributes of God.

If you only celebrate the Tridentine Mass and preach sound doctrine without ever mentioning the Council, what can they ever do to you? Throw you out of your churches, perhaps, and then what? No one can ever prevent you from renewing the Holy Sacrifice, even if it is on a makeshift altar in a cellar or an attic, as the refractory priests did during the French Revolution, or as happens still today in China. And if they try to distance you, resist: canon law serves to guarantee the government of the Church in the pursuit of its primary purposes, not to demolish it. Let’s stop fearing that the fault of the schism lies with those who denounce it, and not, instead, with those who carry it out: the ones who are schismatics and heretics are those who wound and crucify the Mystical Body of Christ, not those who defend it by denouncing the executioners!

The laity can expect their ministers to behave as such, preferring those who prove that they are not contaminated by present errors. If a Mass becomes an occasion of torture for the faithful, if they are forced to assist at sacrileges or to support heresies and ramblings unworthy of the House of the Lord, it is a thousand times preferable to go to a church where the priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice worthily, in the rite given to us by Tradition, with preaching in conformity with sound doctrine. When parish priests and bishops realize that the Christian people demand the Bread of Faith, and not the stones and scorpions of the neo-church, they will lay aside their fears and comply with the legitimate requests of the faithful. The others, true mercenaries, will show themselves for what they are and will be able to gather around them only those who share their errors and perversions. They will be extinguished by themselves: the Lord dries up the swamp and makes the land on which brambles grow arid; he extinguishes vocations in corrupt seminaries and in convents rebellious to the Rule.

The lay faithful today have a sacred task: to comfort good priests and good bishops, gathering like sheep around their shepherds. Give them hospitality, help them, console them in their trials. Create community in which murmuring and division do not predominate, but rather fraternal charity in the bond of Faith. And since in the order established by God – κόσμος – subjects owe obedience to authority and cannot do otherwise than resist it when it abuses its power, no fault will be attributed to them for the infidelity of their leaders, on whom rests the very serious responsibility for the way in which they exercise the vicarious power which has been given to them. We must not rebel, but oppose; we must not be pleased with the errors of our pastors, but pray for them and admonish them respectfully; we must not question their authority but the way in which they use it.

I am certain, with a certainty that comes to me from Faith, that the Lord will not fail to reward our fidelity, after having punished us for the faults of the men of the Church, granting us holy priests, holy bishops, holy cardinals, and above all a holy Pope. But these saints will arise from our families, from our communities, from our churches: families, communities, and churches in which the grace of God must be cultivated with constant prayer, with the frequenting of Holy Mass and the Sacraments, with the offering of sacrifices and penances that the Communion of Saints permits us to offer to the Divine Majesty in order to expiate our sins and those of our brethren, including those who exercise authority. The laity have a fundamental role in this, guarding the Faith within their families, in such a way that our young people who are educated in love and in the fear of God may one day be responsible fathers and mothers, but also worthy ministers of the Lord, His heralds in the male and female religious orders, and His apostles in civil society.

The cure for rebellion is obedience. The cure for heresy is faithfulness to the teaching of Tradition. The cure for schism is filial devotion for the Sacred Pastors. The cure for apostasy is love for God and His Most Holy Mother.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

The cure for vice is the humble practice of virtue. The cure for the corruption of morals is to live constantly in the presence of God. But obedience cannot be perverted into stolid servility; respect for authority cannot be perverted into the obeisance of the court. And let’s not forget that if it is the duty of the laity to obey their Pastors, it is even a more grave duty of the Pastors to obey God, usque ad effusionem sanguinis.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
September 1, 2020               

Source               

Comments invited…                                    

SSPX: Church Militant Guilty of Peddling Sleaze – Catholic Truth


       

Michael Voris, Church Militant

Editor, Catholic Truth, writes…

Our blogger, Athanasius, has now studied the recent articles about the SSPX published by the American organisation known as Church Militant (CM), which were brought to our attention recently. 

To describe those articles as “sleaze” is an understatement, by any standards. Their most recent piece can be read here but we warn readers that there are descriptions of graphic sexual deviancy published therein, and so, since Athanasius’s article below is perfectly understandable without the need to read the CM articles, we do not recommend visiting the link; we supply it only in the interests of necessary documentation for those who require to see the writings at source. 

A Response to the Church Militant Reports on Former SSPX Priests Accused of Homosexual Abuse…

Having read the sexual abuse trilogy produced by Church Militant against the SSPX, one question above all remains to be answered: Has this been a noble cause for justice or an exercise in vengeance?

The first step to answering this question is to ask another… Given that this handful of accused homosexual abuser priests are no longer in the SSPX, and given the new, very strict guidelines that all religious communities are obliged to follow concerning child safety, is there anything constructive to be gained from this trilogy?

The answer is clearly and emphatically no;   there are no young men or children presently at risk in the SSPX and no predators presently at large within its priestly structure of 500 – 600 clerics. Hence, it seems more likely that this is a set of historical accounts written up with a view to doing more harm than good.

I think anyone with a knowledge of Church Militant’s very deep seated hatred for the SSPX over many years will be hard pushed to imagine that justice was ever the motive here, bearing in mind that Michael Voris is himself a former sexual pervert who, unjustly in my opinion, was forced to admit as much in public before others revealed his past sins with a view to discrediting him.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Founder, SSPX

I mention this because it seems strange to me that a man who had himself suffered such injustice would be so ready to reveal the sins, or perceived sins, of SSPX superiors, not even sparing the holy memory of the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre.

That superiors within the SSPX may have failed in the past to adequately address predator priest issues is sadly all too familiar in the Church. How many times have we heard of superiors failing to take appropriate action against abusers for fear of scandalising the faithful, or simply because they were negligent due to incredulity, failing to believe what the victims’ parents themselves were apparently failing to believe from their own children’s accounts? Sadly, it is a very common theme.

Whatever the reason for past failures in the SSPX, scandalous as they are, it is fairly certain that the superiors themselves were not sexually deviant men intent on enabling abusive priests. At worst they were irresponsible, perhaps even criminally so, God alone knows. No one will escape the divine justice, that’s for sure, although, thankfully, God judges by intent and not by perception.

Speaking of which, I am fairly sure that Church Militant did not intend by its graphic revelations to enable paedophiles, as I suspect its detailed descriptions may well do. I am no psychiatrist but it seems to me that such deviants may be drawn like magnets to stories revealing graphic accounts of child sexual abuse, if only to pleasure their sick minds with whatever images the Church Militant accounts conjure up for them.

Has anyone thought about this? Do these people not realise that the Church has a very good reason for referring simply to impure acts rather than detailing those acts in a graphic way? But then I suppose when the end is vengeance you really have to be graphic enough in detail to elicit an emotional response from readers, even if some happen to be deviants whose emotional response is altogether different from that which was intended! Graphic details of child sexual abuse are for courts of law, not for public platforms where anyone can read them and be incited to offend.

Worse still is the possibility that weaker souls could be lost to the faith as a result of such revelations, as happened en masse in Ireland when the secular media reported its stories on clerical abuse and the failures of superiors, demanding severe and immediate punishment for all who failed.


I wonder if the authors at Church Militant have considered that if just one immortal soul is lost as a result of the utterly depressing and demoralising stories they have published, stories that will result in no natural or supernatural good whatsoever, then there is every possibility that they themselves may lose their souls as a result.

Had children still been at risk in the SSPX then there would have been every good reason for Church Militant to highlight the fact, but that’s not the case and they know it.

So what is the motive? Well, given that Our Lord suffered the ultimate injustice in this world, even to the point of being betrayed by one of His own, the motive is clearly not justice in the Catholic sense that teaches us that divine justice is unavoidable, infallible and far stricter. No, this is vengeance, a desire to do harm to a priestly fraternity which, while it has suffered its share of “filth in the Church”, to quote Pope Benedict XVI, is nevertheless in general a good and holy institution founded by God through His servant Archbishop Lefebvre in a time of great crisis in the Church.

If it were not for the SSPX there would be no Traditional Mass in the Church today, no Traditional priesthood, no Traditional doctrine, all would have been swept aside by now. Had Church Militant included this vital objective observation, along with a balancing reminder that the greater majority of SSPX priests are good and holy priests, then I might have been inclined to believe that the intention is to serve some form of natural justice. But no, it is a biased piece of sleaze reporting that benefits no one other than bitter people and perhaps the aforementioned paedophiles who may enjoy, if such is the word, the filth CM has printed for their deviant pleasure.

That natural justice for genuine victims of clerical abuse within the SSPX or anywhere else may yet be possible, is for the proper legal authorities to assess, for they, not Church Militant, are solely empowered to investigate and report in such criminal matters.

In the meantime, anticipating the response of Church Militant and anyone foolish enough to trust its motives, I lay down the following challenge:

Show me one good to come from this sleaze story that will truly benefit victims, the Church or any individual soul, naturally or supernaturally, which could be said to equate with true Catholic justice.

That’s all I ask, just one concrete proof that this was about true Catholic justice and not the secular worldly parody of justice that convicts without trial and demands public humiliation for all who are perceived to have failed in their duty to protect.  The author of the above article is Martin Blackshaw, who lives in Scotland  –  aka our blogger, Athanasius. 

Comment:

 The traditional calendar, names today, Friday 8th May, as the Feast of the Apparition of St Michael the Archangel. Our editorial comment on this subject concludes, therefore, with the recitation of the prayer to  St Michael, which we suggest be offered for Michael Voris and his team, i.e. all those involved in the work of his organisation, Church Militant…

Holy Michael, Archangel, defend us in the day of battle.
Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of he Devil;
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Hosts,
by the power of God, cast down into Hell, Satan, and all wicked spirits,
Who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

 

Priest on Scandal of Denying The One True Religion: Outstanding Interview

Comment: 

Fr David Sherry is an Irish priest of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) who served in Scotland for a year before he was re-assigned to Canada.  We have very happy memories of him in Glasgow – indeed, one of my Great-Nephews received his First Holy Communion from Fr Sherry, with a photograph on their fridge as a permanent reminder! 

Topics for discussion in the above lengthy interview with Fr Sherry of the SSPX, include: 

1. What is the SSPX
2. Who was [Archbishop] Lefebvre
3. Was he guilty of a schismatic act when he ordained 4 bishops or was it necessary due to a state of emergency?
4. Does the Vatican allow Catholics to attend SSPX masses to fulfil their Sunday obligation?
5. Is the status of the SSPX currently canonically irregular or schismatic?
6. Will there be an agreement with the Vatican soon, in your estimation?
7. What are some of the problems with Vatican II?
8. What are your thoughts on the Pachamama ceremony in the Vatican Gardens?
9. Is the Novus Ordo valid?
10. What should a Catholic do if an SSPX chapel is not available near them?

Share your thoughts on Father’s very clear explanation of the work of the Society in the context of the current unprecedented crisis in the Church.  What possible reason can anyone offer for continuing to avoid the SSPX Masses/Sacraments in this worsening time of trial within the Church? 

For more conferences, visit the St Peter’s Hamburg blog

Is The SSPX Now Fully Regularized?

Pope Francis has fully regularized the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), James Bogle, the ex-president of Una Voce International, told Gloria.tv (video below: see link – Ed)

Bogle stressed that the SSPX and the sacraments administrated by them, including marriages and confessions, have been formally recognized by Francis. The Society is also allowed to ordain to the priesthood whomever they see fit.

Francis further appointed SSPX Bishop Bernard Fellay as a judge at the Rota Romana, the highest appellate tribunal of the Church, thus recognizing his authority.

“I don’t see how much more regular you can get than that,” Bogle concludes. He acknowledges, however, that there are a lot of intolerant bishops who still treat the SSPX as if it were irregular.

To them, Bogle answers that those who do not like the integration of the SSPX “better have the argument with Pope Francis.”   Click here to read more and view video

Comments invited…    

The Theology of Mass “Preference”

With increasing frequency, I hear people saying that, while they prefer the traditional Latin Mass (and attend it when they can), they still attend the novus ordo Mass;  generally speaking, it’s easier to get to the new Mass or, in some cases, the people concerned have commitments in their parishes which they are not yet ready or willing to relinquish.  Having educated themselves on the Mass controversy, and come to the conclusion that they really ought to be attending the traditional Mass, they are still somewhat (and naturally so) attached to their parish communities.   But are they right to continue to attend the new Mass, knowing what they now know? Here’s a short talk on the question of informed Catholics continuing to attend the new Mass…

Comment: 

Imagine the reaction of a judge in any courtroom you care to name, listening to  to a defendant accused of any crime, who, while admitting his guilt sought to excuse himself by arguing that he would have “preferred” not to have committed the crime at all, but…  Is that a defence?  Aren’t we all expected to conform our behaviour to comply with the law, whether road traffic laws or the moral law?  Try running a few red lights and telling the court that you’d really have “preferred” not to do so, or excusing the murder of your annoying neighbour by insisting that it really wouldn’t be your first choice of action, your “preference”, but… 

Why, then, do we think that it’s OK to swap the new Mass for the traditional Mass when it suits us, spuriously claiming that we “prefer” the traditional Mass, so that’s all right then?  

Answer:  it’s not.  It’s really not all right.  God more than “prefers” the traditional Mass; this is the worship that He wants from us, as is clear from the history and tradition of the Church – not to mention the decimation of entire congregations since the introduction of the new Mass in recent years.   So, what any of us “prefers” is irrelevant. Goodness, we might “prefer” to spend a couple of hours clap-happy singing in the nearest Pentecostalist church –  who cares?  “Preference” is irrelevant. Our duty is to give due and true worship to God. We are quite simply not doing that at the new Mass. 

If you have some cast iron evidence to the contrary, of course, let’s hear it!