Society of St. Pius X

The 2026 SSPX Consecrations Do Not Change the Fact that…The SSPX is Still Liberal!

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Most of the Catholic world has heard the news that the SSPX consecrated four new bishops on July 1st, 2026, in Econe, Switzerland.

We at Catholic Candle are concerned that even many Catholics who consider themselves Traditional and have tried not to compromise, may perhaps be confused or even deceived by these new consecrations. Some people might argue thus: “After all, does not the Catholic world desperately need more Traditional Catholic bishops? There is a great shortage of bishops who are Latin-Mass and non-liberal. At least these consecrations were a wonderful thing!” Indeed, the “conservative” media, the friends of the “new” SSPX (such as LifeSiteNews) are ablaze with stories and coverage supporting the consecrations.

Further, some might even take a stronger position, something like this: “Rome is clearly even more evil and modernist today than it was in 1988 under Pope John Paul II. So these new consecrations are not only justified, but they are a sure sign that the SSPX has given up its decades of past liberalism, has given up trying to make a practical deal with modernist unconverted Rome, and has regained the no-nonsense attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre near the end of his life. Since this is the case, maybe we should consider attending the SSPX again.”

Below is a two-part article which will show these above conclusions to be great mistakes. Here is a summary:

PART ONE We will begin with a brief reminder of the critical lessons Archbishop Lefebvre learned in dealing with conciliar Rome and the modernist popes, and his resulting militant but charitable mindset and convictions.

PART TWO: Then we will contrast Archbishop Lefebvre’s wise approach in the final years of his life with the behavior and words of the “new” SSPX leaders beginning after Archbishop Lefebvre died, and continuing to the present. We will see that the SSPX’s serious liberalism continues up to the present time (2026).

CONCLUSION: Thus the “new” SSPX is still a liberal organization. Those who have remained in the “new” SSPX until now, over 14 years since the scandals became plain to see (in 2012), are condoning and supporting the SSPX liberalism. But consecrating new bishops in 2026 (who are themselves liberal) on behalf of a liberal organization – far from helping – only makes that liberal organization more likely to continue, and to continue to attack Genuine Catholic Tradition. Thus the 2026 consecrations themselves are the acts of liberals promoting their own liberal group. Nobody should think the SSPX has “turned around” just because there are new bishops. Much less should anyone think it is safe to return to the SSPX.

(In a future article, Catholic Candle will show that the SSPX has for years been continually eroding the central argument and justification for its own continued existence: the state of necessity and supplied jurisdiction. The issue of this erosion is important, and closely related to this present article.)

PART ONE: Archbishop Lefebvre Learned Lessons and Gained Wisdom

In any father-son relationship, it would be very difficult and painful for the son to see his father do and say evil and deranged things. Yet it would be very unlikely that a 16-year old son would suddenly “move out of his father’s home” the first time his father comes home stone-cold drunk and starts throwing furniture around. Rather, the loving son would likely retain hope through even more of such episodes and dangers, not only defending himself each time, but trying over and over again to help his father to see clearly afterwards. Things would likely continue this way until the son’s very life was threatened, and/or that son’s hope and trust in the father’s recovery all but disappeared. At that point, the son would realize – for his own sake – that he must remove himself from the practical control of the father by placing physical distance between them. Moving out would, of course, not mean the son thinks that his father no longer has any authority over him. Rather, the son moves out simply because he sees he must not allow that dangerous father to put him (the son) in practical danger by allowing him to misuse his authority through evil actions, commands, and bad examples.

The case of Archbishop Lefebvre and the conciliar popes is similar to this illustration, but is incomparably more serious. With the drunk father, it was just the son, and just his bodily life in danger. But with the conciliar popes, it is the entire human element of the Church put in danger, and not merely bodily, but put in danger of losing their immortal souls for all eternity. For at least the drunk father never sat down and insisted his son also get drunk and sin. But that is just what modernist Rome has done to the human element of the Church for 60+ years, attempting to make Catholics accept the heretical documents of Vatican II,1 the new mass, and all the other rotten fruits of Vatican II.

During the Second Vatican Council and all through the 1970s and 1980s, Archbishop Lefebvre was amazed at the innumerable and shocking scandals of the modernist popes (most notably Popes Paul VI and John Paul II). These popes were methodically implementing what Vatican II taught. Archbishop Lefebvre saw that these popes were clearly “stone-cold drunk” (as it were) with modernism, and that they demanded that the entire Church believe the same things. Archbishop Lefebvre tried in true charity for many years to help these popes (and modernist Roman clergy) and to protect the true Traditional Catholic Faith. He met numerous times with them and wrote many letters, hoping they would come to see reason and clear Traditional Catholic doctrine.

A Critical Turning Point for Archbishop Lefebvre

But – and here is the key point: eventually, he came to the firm conclusion that, just as was true of Pope Paul VI before him, Pope John Paul II and his staff also were completely unreceptive to the truth. Instead, they were firmly and hopelessly committed not only to the heretical and deadly documents of Vatican II, but also to the destruction of virtually all that is good and holy in the Church.

Traditional Catholics could never over-emphasize the importance of this “ah-ha!” moment – this tremendous grace in which Archbishop Lefebvre saw that he should never again work with Rome until it converts. The entire Church (including each of us) has been the beneficiary of his discovery and subsequent resolve. He summed up his more guarded, wiser mindset in a number of interviews. First, let’s consider the interview given shortly after the 1988 consecrations, including these famous words which we would all do well to memorize:

“Interviewer: … What do you think of a possible re-opening of the dialogue with Rome?

Archbishop Lefebvre: We [Rome and I] do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the [early 1988] dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level [saying the following to the pope, if he asks the SSPX to return to talks]: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” Thus, the positions will be clear. … What opposes us is doctrine; it is clear.”2

A few notes on the above quote:

  • Archbishop Lefebvre did not make this decision merely because he was “tired of these talks” or from some other personal motive of inconvenience or temporal concern. Rather, he did so because he realized that it is deadly, when dealing with a smooth-talking and tricky enemy, to continue “rubbing elbows” and engaging in dialogue. We must remember that just about any of us would be quite nervous and unable to think clearly if we ourselves were sitting in the office of the most powerful man on earth, the Vicar of Christ (yes, even the destroyer-popes), surrounded by the top Vatican officials. Our filial fear of our father would be present.

    On top of that, these Roman diplomats are very experienced with words and pressure techniques. For proof of how dangerous it is to talk with the modernist Romans, consider this: During the talks, Rome at one point even convinced Archbishop Lefebvre himself to put his signature on a deadly practical agreement which would have proven a death-warrant for the SSPX and all of Catholic Tradition.3 Through a great grace no doubt, he quickly realized his grave mistake, and rescinded his agreement the next day.

  • In the quote above, Archbishop Lefebvre used the conciliar-invented and nonsensical phrase “full communion”. He did so not because he really thought there exists such a distinction as “full” and “partial” communion with the Church (he explicitly denied that many times). Instead, he quotes that phrase to the Romans as a sort of tongue-in-cheek technique, using the conciliar popes’ own terminology against them (to help them, not to hurt them).

The same point is drawn out even more explicitly in another interview Archbishop Lefebvre gave a few months later:

  • “They have to stop with their ecumenism; they have to bring back the true meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring back the Catholic meaning of collegiality, and so on. I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of religious liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus [of Pope Pius IX]. They must accept all this, because this is, from now on, the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.”4

  • “If ever there were a willingness from Rome to resume discussions, this time, I will be the one to set down the conditions. As Cardinal Oddi said, ‘Archbishop Lefebvre is in a strong position.’”5

One might object: “Good heavens, Your Excellency, how in the world is Rome ever going to convert if we Catholics refuse to talk with them and convince them of their errors?” Archbishop Lefebvre certainly did not accept this naïve reasoning (which he knew some of his priests held). In an interview, he reminded us all of the important truth that, “It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.”6 Besides, he came to realize that modernism is such a fatal disease that Rome could only be converted by Our Lord’s power and grace obtained by the intercession of Our Lady. Besides, Rome already had all the documents it needed at its fingertips, all the persuasion given in the countless previous meetings and letters from Archbishop Lefebvre himself. Clearly no human means worked in his attempts to convert his superior, the pope.

Archbishop Lefebvre followed up with more interviews and statements, emphasizing how bad it would be to “make a deal” with modernist Rome, stating:

  • “It is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of the conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves into the hands of those professing these errors.”7

  • “It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this conciliar church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.”8

  • “The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome are being occupied by anti-Christs.”9

  • “We must no longer engage in dialogue with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the [Vatican II] Council; we must have no dealings with them.10

Take good note how Archbishop Lefebvre does not shrink from using the strongest of terms such as ‘antichrist’. This is to teach us just how dangerous modernist Rome is, as well as to show the Romans themselves true charity by telling them the great danger they are in. Keep this in mind when we consider the “new” SSPX’s words below.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s Reaction to the (Supposed) 1988 “Excommunications”

In June 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four new bishops for the SSPX. Pope John Paul II, claiming Archbishop Lefebvre’s act was disobedient and schismatic, almost instantly “excommunicated” Archbishop Lefebvre as well as the other bishops who were involved in the consecrations. It is not the intention of this article to dispel the myth that there was any validity to the purported excommunications. There are many good articles which prove conclusively that Pope John Paul II’s action was unjust, invalid, and of no effect.11

For our purposes here, let us focus on how Archbishop Lefebvre reacted to the fictitious excommunications. Keeping this in mind will help us to assess the current situation of the “new” SSPX. Here are Archbishop Lefebvre’s words:

  • “We are convinced that all these accusations of which we are the object, all these penalties of which we are the object, are null, absolutely null! … We take no account of them at all.”12

  • In July, 1988 – one month after the consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre paraphrased Rome’s words and his response to Rome: “‘[Rome:] Since you don’t want to come with us, we excommunicate you.’ [Archbishop Lefebvre:] ‘Very well. Thank you. We prefer to be excommunicated. We do not want to participate in this shocking work in the Church that has been carried out in the last 20 years.’”13

  • Archbishop Lefebvre knew the “excommunications” came from a pope acting on behalf of a new church (the conciliar church) and new religion (the conciliar religion), which were born during Vatican II. Here is his explanation: “But the Church [acting] against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.” 14

But it was not just Archbishop Lefebvre who alone had this spirit and correct thinking. All the top leadership of the SSPX worldwide also saw the truth and had the correct militant Catholic attitude at that time. In a 1988 letter to Cardinal Gantin, Fr. Franz Schmidberger (the Superior General of the SSPX) and all the District Superiors, Seminary Rectors, and Superiors of Autonomous Houses of the SSPX worldwide all asked Rome to also be “excommunicated” alongside Archbishop Lefebvre and the newly-consecrated bishops, so little did these SSPX leaders care about such an apparent “stain”. They wanted to help souls to see how evil Rome was, to show the unanimity of the top SSPX leadership, and most importantly, to show Catholics what they should do if the shepherd turns into a wolf. Here is what they wrote to Rome:

[W]e have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church … To be therefore publicly associated with the sanction [i.e., “excommunications”] which strikes the six15 Catholic bishops, defenders of the faith in its integrity and totality, would be for us [i.e., the other top SSPX leadership] a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful.16

While Archbishop Lefebvre was alive, the (old and good) SSPX was at its height. This was especially glorious in the 1980s and 1990s. There was a worldwide and consistent fighting spirit across the SSPX.17 Its media outlets, pulpits, magazines, books, and nascent websites consistently lit up in reaction to the scandals of Rome and the popes, exposing error, and teaching the opposing truths. It was a beautiful time most of us perhaps took for granted.

Archbishop Lefebvre died in March, 1991, just a few years after providing the Church four new bishops in what he called “Operation Survival”.

Let us recall critical truths here, to prepare for PART TWO of this article:

  • Until his dying breath, Archbishop Lefebvre never once spoke with regret of the consecrations;

  • Nor did he express any fear of the supposed excommunications. Rather, he spoke about them with disdain.

  • Nor did he take back his words that he would never again deal with Rome until Rome converted.

Conclusion of PART ONE: Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions and words were a critical guidepost for us all, showing his fellow Catholics these critical lessons of how to act and think in this crisis:

  1. Be confident that it is we, not Rome, that has Catholic Tradition.

  2. We should not fear or be pressured into compromise in response to the “scare tactics” from Rome or one’s own local conciliar “bishop”;

  3. And perhaps the most important practical lesson: It is hopeless, vain, and dangerous to “talk” with superiors who do not want to profess the Catholic Truth. They will “convert” us to their errors, rather than we converting them.

Keep these truths in mind as we now assess the “new” SSPX in 2026.

PART TWO: The SSPX after Archbishop Lefebvre

In the above review, we saw that:

  1. Archbishop Lefebvre learned the critical lesson that there should be no dialogue about a practical agreement with unconverted Rome;

  2. He completely disregarded Rome’s unjust punishments; and

  3. He had no intention whatsoever of placing the (then-good) SSPX into the hands of unconverted Rome.

That review was necessary in order to correctly analyze the modern-day SSPX, including the July, 2026 consecrations.

But just talking about 1988 and Archbishop Lefebvre is not enough to be able to assess the situation of the current-day SSPX. We must undertake a mini-review of what happened to the SSPX beginning after Archbishop Lefebvre died, and continuing to the present day. Sadly, the old SSPX under its new leadership almost immediately commenced the 20+ year series of scandals which transformed it into the “new” SSPX we see today.

Various Eras of SSPX Liberalism and Decay

1991 to 2012:

An important event took place in 1994: Bishop Bernard Fellay was elected Superior General, succeeding Fr. Franz Schmidberger. This was an immediate bad sign, for the Archbishop had not thought electing an SSPX bishop as superior of the SSPX was necessary, and in fact, in the 1988 consecrations, he avoided doing this.18

But more importantly, the SSPX’s former zeal quickly began to fade. Soon after Bp. Fellay was elected, the SSPX leaders quietly abandoned the wisdom of their founder and began secret talks with Rome with the specific intention of making a practical agreement with modernist, unconverted Rome.19

Beginning almost imperceivably, the SSPX’s media outlets and pulpits soon became more and more quiet and less militant about the errors of Vatican II, the conciliar Revolution, and the popes’ scandals.

This softening was no accident: the SSPX was doing two things:

  1. It was positioning itself to be less offensive and more “loyal” to the pope. The “new” SSPX hoped to please modernist Rome so that the SSPX could obtain a practical agreement with Rome. It is awkward and uncomfortable to attack Rome while engaging in “dialogue” seeking favors from it.

  2. It was painting those same modernist popes in a better light in order to weaken the resistance of some of its own priests and laymen to making a deal with Rome.

In 2006, Bishop Fellay was re-elected as Superior General for another twelve years – and this would virtually ensure the death of the “old” SSPX, as we will now see.

2012 to 2018:

These seven years produced a Mount Everest-sized heap of shocking scandals. For our purposes here, we will give a brief history and just mention a few of those scandals.

In the summer of 2012, the world suddenly learned about some of the fruits of Bishop Fellay’s years of secret maneuverings and betrayals – which had hitherto been known only to those directly involved. In what is perhaps the biggest SSPX scandal ever, Bishop Fellay gave Pope Benedict a shocking proposal (the “2012 Doctrinal Declaration”). In this document, Bp. Fellay asked Rome to grant the SSPX certain gifts. One of these was that Rome would “lift the 1988 excommunications.” This was a scandal in itself (remember the first part of this article) as is evident from Archbishop Lefebvre and all of the SSPX leadership (at the time) considering it a badge of honor to be “excommunicated” from the conciliar church. Heretofore, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX superiors in 1988 never considered those “excommunications” as real, and they certainly never asked for them to be rescinded. But in 2012, Bishop Fellay promised that, if Rome would “lift the excommunications”, then the SSPX would agree to officially accept the documents of Vatican II as reconcilable with Tradition (which was truly an impossibility), and to accept the new mass and the new Canon “law” as legitimate (which was impossible because evil things such as these could never be legitimate).

It became clearer and clearer that Bishop Fellay had, for many years, had his sights on a deal with Rome at all costs. The whole Traditional world was shocked and many good priests and faithful left the SSPX. In fact, some (but certainly not all) of the SSPX leadership reacted strongly, as shown in a very revealing internal letter leaked to the public in 2012. This letter was written by the other three bishops consecrated in 1988 (Bishops Williamson, Tissier, and Galarreta) to Bishop Fellay. In it, they pleaded with him to stop his destruction and suicide mission of talking with Rome, and instead to follow Archbishop Lefebvre’s wise principle: no practical agreement or talks with modernist, unconverted Rome. Bishop Fellay ruthlessly shut down those three bishops, painting them as sedevacantists and lacking Faith.20 This was the last significant defense of Archbishop Lefebvre’s policy and of Tradition we would ever hear from Bishops Tissier and Galarreta, for they soon afterwards became insignificant “yes men”, rubber-stamping all that Bishop Fellay did and said.

Shocking SSPX scandals continued at an alarming rate, not only from Bp. Fellay but from many district superiors and articles from the SSPX outlets. These scandals are well-documented in various Catholic Candle articles21, but here are a few reminders:

  • The “new” SSPX recast the conciliar revolutionaries and destroyers as being “victims” of Vatican II22 and says that the conciliar barbarians including Pope Francis “abide in the truth”.23

  • The slide continued in countless ways. The “new” SSPX followed the conciliar church by:

    • Calling heretics by the name “Christian”.24

    • Calling those persons who died for their heretical false faith by the name “martyr”.25

    • Declaring that we must continually change.26

    • Contradicting infallible Catholic teaching that the Jews committed Deicide.27

  • The “new” SSPX:

    • Softened its position on the new mass.28

    • Shifted its emphasis from fighting doctrinal errors to instead focus on the Latin Mass “culture”.29

    • Began saying kind and soft things about Vatican II.30

This period of years beginning roughly in 2012 commenced a new direction – a new marketing ploy in which the “new” SSPX continued to have doctrinal articles but those were largely in a liberal direction. Thus, there were a great many statements of the “new” SSPX proving its liberalism. But gradually the “new” SSPX began to avoid doctrinal matters in general because they were too controversial. Instead the “new” SSPX focused on positive, “happy” things such as:

  • Promoting gratitude to its own elderly priests;

  • Promoting its own confirmations, pilgrimages, camps, and (watered-down) retreats;

  • Promoting the beauty of the Mass;

  • Recounting the lives of the saints;

  • Giving a pious thought for each day or explanation of the Gospel;

  • Promoting cultural articles about Catholic art and music; and

  • Discussions – usually from conciliar “conservatives” of political news in the Church.

As explained by Fr. Jergen Wegner, who was then U.S. District Superior of the SSPX:

A final characteristic of the new style is its positivity. Devoid of any aggressive and imposing elements, we are committed to avoiding unnecessary polemics … primarily we want to stand out by positive reporting ….31

All such “happy” published material avoids controversy and avoids alienating modernist Rome.

There is so much more SSPX liberalism we could catalogue. For an incomplete but longer catalogue of SSPX liberalism, go to https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/#gsc.tab=0 and click on the SSPX button.

Many priests and laymen who had left the SSPX had all they could do at that time, writing article after article to warn others. The “new” SSPX eventually expelled the last bishop who was speaking out against its liberalism: Bishop Williamson, who, although he could correctly see Bishop Fellay’s errors, could apparently not see the many serious problems of his own – problems which are documented in many Catholic Candle articles.32

2018 – 2026:

On July 11, 2018, during the 4th General Chapter at Écône, Switzerland, Fr. Davide Pagliarani was elected as the new Superior General of the SSPX for a 12-year term (2018–2030). Some faithful did not know that Fr. Pagliarani had for years been Bishop Fellay’s “right hand man” and had been ordained a priest by him. Thus some folks held out the vain hope that there would now be a return to the “old SSPX” since Bp. Fellay was now no longer superior general.

Scandals of the “new” SSPX under Fr. Pagliarani

Why the “new” SSPX perhaps now merely APPEARS more conservative than in past years

One way to categorize scandals is whether they are commissions (things said and done) or omissions (things not said or done). During Bishop Fellay’s 24-year tenure, we saw countless scandals of both kinds, which caused many good priests and faithful to leave the SSPX.

Let us now examine both the commissions and omissions during Fr. Pagliarani’s tenure from 2018 to 2026. This will “put the nail in the coffin” to the myth that the “new” SSPX has “turned around”.

We will begin with the commissions because we want to leave the end of this article to expose the more difficult-to-detect omissions.

1. Scandalous Commissions under Fr. Pagliarani

During Fr. Pagliarani’s tenure (2018 to the present 2026), there perhaps have not been as many commissions. (The Catholic Candle team stopped carefully watching and analyzing the “new” SSPX liberalism at some point around 2017; so we do not have as thorough a list as we would like to provide.) Nevertheless, there have been enough to scandalize faithful and informed Catholics. Catholic Candle posted an article in March of 2025 entitled, 21 Examples of Liberalism in the “New” SSPX.33 The “new” liberal SSPX has never publicly retracted any of this liberalism, as is their duty.34

The “new” SSPX under Fr. Pagliarani has added the following additional scandals:

  1. The SSPX previously taught the truth that the rubella vaccine and other vaccines developed through abortion are always sinful.  By contrast, the “new” SSPX under Fr. Pagliarani now says not only that this same rubella vaccine is justifiable for some people, but also that the COVID “vaccines”, which were also developed through abortion, are also justified.  The SSPX’s new position is wrong, liberal, and contradicts its own prior teaching on vaccines developed through abortion.35 

  2. The “new” SSPX, rather than putting Bishop Fellay somewhere he can do no more damage, has instead retained him in an important role of SSPX leadership – that of First Counsellor General of the SSPX General Council. This shows the continuation of the liberalism that Bp. Fellay promoted.

  1. The “new” SSPX under Fr. Pagliarani has for years now had deals in place with modernist conciliar ‘bishops’ to use diocesan conciliar buildings in which to pray and say Mass. For example, a conciliar “bishop” in Fribourg, Switzerland had granted the “new” SSPX permissions to use certain “sacred” buildings of his diocese, and the “new” SSPX began taking advantage of those permissions as far back as 2019.36 But that same “bishop” withdrew those permissions in July, 2026, in response to the “new” SSPX’s consecrations.37 Multiple Catholic Candle articles have shown that there are many reasons why it is a great evil and scandal to use the buildings of the conciliar Revolution, including that sacrileges regularly take place in those buildings, and the danger to the Faith of those who enter and pray in those buildings.38

  2. The “new” SSPX now promotes the false conciliar “apparition” at Akita, Japan.39

  3. The “new” liberal SSPX promotes conciliar “saints” and the conciliar “canonization” processes, e.g., of Annella Zervas40, an American nun who is currently being promoted in the conciliar church’s processes for “canonization”, and for whom the conciliar church appointed a woman postulator.41

  1. The “new” SSPX, (which Rome has once again declared to be “excommunicated” in 2026), has reacted to Rome’s decree of “excommunication” in a way that was the very opposite of the militant and Catholic way Archbishop Lefebvre did in 1988. We saw in the first part of this article multiple quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre and the top SSPX leaders that they considered the 1988 “excommunications” to be nothing, proclaiming them null and void, even proud to have received them. Further, Archbishop Lefebvre knew that the “excommunication” came not from the Catholic Church, but from the conciliar church: “This is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.”42 By contrast, in July 2026, the “new” SSPX leaders even submitted a canonical appeal to Rome’s decree of excommunication. The “new” SSPX filed this request to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 11, 2026, in an attempt to suspend and even stop the (supposed) legal force of Rome’s ruling of excommunication.43 This legalistic approach is a scandal to Catholics:

  • By doing this, the “new” SSPX implicitly denies the existence of the conciliar church, and instead, continues its pattern (for over 10 years) of not distinguishing the Catholic Church from the conciliar church.44

  • By doing this, the “new” SSPX implicitly denies that they are at war with modernist Rome – for enemies at war do not file legal petitions seeking the help of the enemy.

  • Pope John Paul II’s horrific 1983 Code of Canon Law includes many evil precepts.  But the “new” SSPX in this 2026 appeal process quotes and relies upon only the 1983 Code, and does so in perhaps the most official correspondence to date with Rome.45  This informs the world that it is okay to use the terms and rules of the enemy, in order to get what you want. 

  1. The “new” SSPX under Fr. Pagliarani has continued to rely upon and has never rejected the faculties for confessions and marriages it received from Pope Francis under the tenure of Bishop Fellay.

  1. The “new” SSPX under Bp. Fellay began calling the new mass “Holy Mass”.46  Now, under Fr. Pagliarani, the SSPX calls the Traditional Mass by its conciliar name, viz., the “Extraordinary Form” 47 

2. Scandalous Omissions under Fr. Pagliarani

Omissions are by nature harder to recognize than commissions. For example, it is easy to spot the scandal of a priest who says in a sermon that “all religions are good and are willed by God.” Such things are even easier to spot if repeated over and over. (Hopefully, we would not keep coming back week after week to see if the priest did so!)

But the following is a rarer “catch”, for a hypothetical person to exclaim: “I just love Fr. Jones’ sermons – week after week he always talks about St. Thomas Aquinas, virtues, and charity. It is all so beautiful and inspiring. I feel like I am in heaven after I leave Church. (… long pause – grace enters in …) Hmmm…. But come to think of it, he rarely or even never talks about the errors of Vatican II that threaten us all, like Archbishop Lefebvre so frequently did...” This person has correctly recognized a serious omission. This sort of “Aha! moment” is much rarer, again because it is harder to spot omissions in general, but also because most of us are not as vigilant as we should be. All it takes for a person or parish to become liberal is to not regularly hear and be warned about those errors.

Here is another thought experiment. Imagine that “Pope Pius XIII” is elected after Pope Leo XIV dies. Suppose on the good side, Pope Pius XIII commits no modernist scandals, states good general doctrine, and even commands all bishops and priests to allow the Tridentine Mass with no restrictions. In short, suppose he does no commissions to shock even Traditional Catholic sensibilities. But suppose further that this pope says and writes absolutely nothing to explicitly condemn the previous 60+ years that elapsed since Vatican II – no condemnation of the rotten Vatican II documents themselves, no condemnation of the evil novus ordo rite of mass, and no condemnation of the infinitude of scandals of the modernist destroyer-popes that immediately preceded him, and so on. What should we think of this new pope? Is he a good pope? He is not! He is still a bad pope, because he is grossly negligent in his duty. Public scandals and problems must be corrected thoroughly, publicly, and as soon as possible, to avoid the loss of souls.48 Imagine the confusion of Catholics under this pope’s reign: “So what’s the bottom line: Was Vatican II right in all its teachings, or were all the previous popes? Should I go to the new mass or the Tridentine mass? Both are allowed everywhere and are easy to find now.” There would be countless other serious confusions, e.g., about the New vs. the Old Canon Law, and so on.

First omission under Fr. Pagliarani: failure to correct Bishop Fellay’s scandals

Just as in the “Pope Pius XIII” example above, the “new” SSPX has never distanced itself from, or made public retraction / reparation / correction of, any of the shocking scandals of the 24 years in which Bishop Fellay was the superior of the SSPX (1994-2018). These scandals were so numerous and many are so serious that almost any one of them could be enough in God’s eyes for a bishop or superior to lose his soul at his judgment. Yet, we are not aware of even a single SSPX article written since Fr. Pagliarani became superior general that states, “We were wrong about [such-and-such words and actions], and we seriously endangered many souls for years. We unjustly punished good priests and persecuted good faithful. Now we see that [the opposite] is the right thing to do and say”, etc.

Second omission under Fr. Pagliarani: failure to follow Archbishop Lefebvre ’s wisdom

Recall in the first part of this article that Archbishop Lefebvre learned the important lesson to never again “dialogue” with Rome without proof of its conversion, for he realized that nothing but great harm to souls could come out of doing so. The “whole world” knows that Bp. Fellay ignored that wisdom and persistently attempted49 to make a practical deal with unconverted Rome. But many people wrongly think Fr. Pagliarani has completely reversed that policy and returned to Archbishop Lefebvre’s wisdom.

The truth is that at best one might argue that Fr. Pagliarani has merely “suspended” Bp. Fellay’s policy of talks, while leaving the “window open” for Rome to see that “we are ready when you are ready”.

We can see this clearly by analyzing a February 18th, 2026 letter that the “new” SSPX wrote to Rome.50 The historical context of that letter is this:

  1. In 2019, only six months after Fr. Pagliarani took the reins of the “new” SSPX, he reached out to unconverted Rome under Pope Francis, asking for new talks.51 It was he that asked for these talks, not Rome. On the good side, the subject of the letter was clearly to discuss doctrine. (And that makes it better than Bp. Fellay’s maneuverings which were merely to make a practical deal without doctrinal agreement.) But on the bad side, in this letter Fr. Pagliarani follows nothing of the firm decision and wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre. That is, he omits to ask Rome: “Before we agree to talk, answer me this: Have you converted? Do you accept the truth the pre-Vatican II popes consistently taught?” In any case, Rome did not respond to the “new” SSPX’s request to dialogue.

  2. Seven years passed. No doubt the “new” SSPX was in a serious quandary of its own making. During this time, the “new” SSPX would be reflecting: “We hesitate to offend Rome by consecrations because we want to be accepted into the conciliar church and get lots of favors. But on the other hand, our remaining two bishops are soon going to die and then we’ll be helpless!” They made their decision: on February 2, 2026, the SSPX wrote to Rome (now under Pope Leo XIV) and announced that the “new” SSPX intended to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate.

  3. In response, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, invited SSPX Superior General Fr. Pagliarani to Rome for talks. The SSPX knew well that this Cardinal Fernandez was a modernist who had also written grossly impure books, and is guilty of many other grave scandals.

  4. Nevertheless, the “new” SSPX accepted the invitation, and the meeting took place on February 12, 2026. Once again, the “new” SSPX asked Rome nothing about whether it would accept true Catholic doctrine before talking.

  5. Six days after the meeting, on February 18th, 2026, Fr. Pagliarani wrote a follow-up letter back to Rome. It is that letter we analyze below.

Analysis of the February 18th, 2026, letter of the SSPX to Rome

Instead of reproducing the entire letter, we will provide excerpts. But we encourage all to read the letter in its entirety, at this link: https://fsspx.news/en/news/letter-father-pagliarani-cardinal-fernandez-57309

In that letter, Fr. Pagliarani’s SSPX writes the following:

  • “… This was precisely my intention in 2019, when I suggested a discussion during a calm and peaceful time, without the pressure or threat of possible excommunication, which would have undermined free dialogue—as is, unfortunately, the situation today. … We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally … [and that] the texts of the [Second Vatican] Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged … ”

    Note: The SSPX says that both sides know that there is no way to agree doctrinally, yet the SSPX seeks to continue meeting and dialoguing. What could another meeting accomplish except a practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement, to put the SSPX under the direct practical control of modernist Rome?

  • The “new” SSPX frames doctrinal discussions as merely ‘desirable’ and ‘useful’, rather than essential. But we already know that for Archbishop Lefebvre, it became a matter of principle that he would no longer talk with unconverted Rome. Yet the “new” SSPX writes this to Rome: “For the Society’s part, a doctrinal discussion has always been – and remains – desirable and useful.”

  • The “new” SSPX pretends that Rome genuinely loves the Truth and the salvation of souls. The “new” SSPX is patronizing and scandalous when it writes: “Indeed, even if we [viz., the SSPX and Rome] do not reach an agreement, fraternal exchanges allow us to better know one another, to refine and deepen our own arguments, and to better understand the spirit and intentions behind our interlocutor’s positions—especially their genuine love for the Truth, for souls, and for the Church. This holds true, at all times, for both parties.”

    Note: Although we would not judge or declare that we know that the conciliar hierarchy consciously hates souls and hates the Church, nonetheless, virtually everything they do attacks souls and attacks the Church. So this claim (viz., love of souls and the Church) is contrary to all objective evidence whatever might be their subjective, interior intent. It is as incongruous as watching a man stab people with a butcher knife and say “we know that he and we can agree on loving people and loving life.”

  • The “new” SSPX is firstly concerned with the welfare of the SSPX, not the Common Good: Fr. Pagliarani writes: “More recently, we have written twice to the Holy Father: first to request an audience, then to clearly and respectfully explain our needs and the real-life situation of the Society.” The “new” SSPX admits here that it writes to Rome to get favors, to get approval, to convince Rome “we are doing good work!”, to get ‘regularized’. All of this is quite different than Archbishop Lefebvre’s language of telling Rome to its face that they do the devil’s work and must convert, so that Rome might then convert the world.

  • The “new” SSPX continues to pretend its own canonical situation is irregular. There is nothing wrong with the SSPX’s canonical status. All of Rome’s past attempts to illegally and unjustly suppress, excommunicate, and silence it are null and void. Archbishop Lefebvre never recognized the validity of Rome’s “punishments”. Yet the “new” SSPX has for years now continued to tell the world (and Rome) that it believes in the validity of the censures, and that is why a deal is so badly needed. The “new” SSPX exhibits this same false concern in this February 18th letter regarding the “excommunications”. It writes: “That is why, over the years, the Sovereign Pontiffs have taken note of this existence [viz., of the SSPX] and, through concrete and significant acts, have recognised the value of the good it [i.e., the SSPX] can accomplish, despite its canonical situation”. And: “It asks nothing else of you – no privileges, nor even canonical regularisation”.

  • The “new” SSPX is craven in its cowardly attempts to defend Our Lady’s honor: Our readers probably know that in 2025, Cardinal Fernandez, with the approval of Pope Leo XIV, blasphemed Our Lady, telling the world to no longer use the glorious titles of Our Lady “Mediatrix of All Graces” and “Co-Redemptrix”. The “new” SSPX closes this February 18, 2026 letter, apologizing to those same modernist Romans as it faintheartedly defends her honor: “I pray for you in particular to the Holy Ghost and – do not take this as a provocation – His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.”

Contrast all this with the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre and the “old” SSPX in 1988 after the supposed excommunications. The tone of the entire February 18 letter is fawning and begging. The “new” SSPX lacks the militancy of the old SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. That militant spirit is seen in the multiple quotes provided earlier in this article, showing that Archbishop Lefebvre and the entire SSPX leadership took no notice of the “excommunications” and boldly told Rome so. Also, the cringing and soft diplomatic language of the “new” SSPX embodies a great lack of charity to the Romans. By failing to tell the Romans the truth (for fear of offending them and wrecking diplomatic relations), there is less chance of them ever converting and instead, them going to hell.

Conclusion

The “new” SSPX under Fr. Pagliarani might appear (though falsely) to have “turned around” because the scandals are less obvious than those under Bishop Fellay. But careful analysis shows that nothing has really changed. The consecration of new bishops in 2026 does nothing to show that the “new” SSPX has begun to come to its senses and reject its liberalism. Rather, it just gives those four new liberal bishops a greater capacity to promote the SSPX liberalism . The entire situation is very much unlike that of the beautiful 1988 consecrations performed by Archbishop Lefebvre .

Thus, faithful and informed Traditional Catholics should continue to shun the “new” SSPX and continue to pray for its conversion.

1 All of the documents of Vatican II are evil and they contain hundreds of heresies. See, e.g., Vatican II’s promoting religious liberty in contradiction to the infallible teaching of the Church. See, e.g., https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Errors-of-Dignitatis-Humanae.pdf

See also:

2 Archbishop Lefebvre And The Vatican, interview of Archbishop Lefebvre given to Fideliter Magazine, November-December 1988 (emphasis added; bracketed words added for clarity). This interview is found here: https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_II/1988-11.htm

3 In early May, 1988, he signed a sort of “truce” and practical agreement with Pope John Paul II (the “May 5th Protocol”). This agreement would have placed the SSPX under the practical control of unconverted Rome, allowing Rome to provide a replacement bishop and set up a sort of official structure for the SSPX within the conciliar church.

4 Interview in Controverses Magazine, 1988 (bracketed words added for clarity).

5 Interview in Controverses Magazine, 1988.

6 The Protocol of Agreement? No! (Fideliter, 1988, emphasis added).

7 Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview, Fideliter, 1989 (emphasis added).

8 Spiritual Journey, by Archbishop Lefebvre, ch.3.

9 Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to his four future bishops, Aug 29, 1987 (emphasis added).

10 Interview in Controverses Magazine, 1988 (bracketed words added for clarity; emphasis added).

12 Sermon at the Episcopal Consecrations, June 30, 1988 (emphasis added).

13 Fideliter Magazine, issue 65, 1988 (emphasis added; bracketed words added to show context).

14 Words of Archbishop Lefebvre, quoted from The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Bernard Tissier, Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2004, pp. 547 (emphasis added; bracketed word added for clarity).

15 Besides Archbishop Lefebvre and the four newly-consecrated bishops, this sixth bishop referred to here was Archbishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, bishop of the diocese of Campos, Brazil. He was faithful to Catholic Tradition, was co-consecrator of these new bishops, and died in April, 1991, exactly one month after Archbishop Lefebvre died.

16 Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops from the worldwide SSPX superiors, July 6, 1988 (emphasis added; bracketed words added to show context), published here: https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-07-06.htm

17 In spite of imperfections, some internal scandals, and a great number of defections of priests to the conciliar church, to sedevacantism, and so on.

18 https://sspx.org/en/news/archbishop-lefebvres-apostolic-journey-part-2-58917?utm_source=chatgpt.com and

“Moreover, he carefully avoided consecrating the Superior General of the Society at the time, namely Father Schmidberger, to demonstrate this simple role of auxiliaries to the new bishops, who have no governing power."

SSPX statement quoted here: https://mukwonago.wi.sspx.org/en/news/archbishop-lefebvres-consecrations-sspx-video-lesson-59723?utm_source=chatgpt.com

19 Here is a brief description of the secret meetings between representatives of modernist Rome and the liberalizing leaders of the SSPX after Archbishop Lefebvre’s death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_for_Reflection_among_Catholics

Here is the lengthy eyewitness account of one of the participants in these dialogues (after Archbishop Lefebvre ’s death) seeking this practical agreement between modernist Rome and the “new” SSPX: https://www.mollat.com/livres/681107/michel-lelong-pour-la-necessaire-reconciliation-le-groupe-de-reflexion-entre-catholiques-grec

We know about these secret dialogues because this (conciliar) participant decided to publish his memoirs. The SSPX would have preferred to keep these dialogues secret because the SSPX leadership correctly understood that Traditional Catholics would be alarmed by these scandalous negotiations.

20 This exchange of letters was made public by an SSPX priest who was alarmed by these compromises of Bishop Fellay.

21 For an incomplete but longer catalogue of SSPX liberalism, go to https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/#gsc.tab=0 and click on the SSPX button.

26

https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-simoulin-challenge-answered (2015). Quoting SSPX leader Fr. Niklaus Pfluger interview published in the SSPX magazine, Der Gerade Weg.

31 Quoted from The Last Word, published in the January/February 2012 Angelus magazine.

32 For an incomplete but lengthy catalogue of the liberalism and errors of Bishop Williamson and his group, go to https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/#gsc.tab=0 and click on the Bishop Williamson button.

35 For an analysis of why it is a mortal sin to use an abortion-tainted vaccine, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/01/01/reject-the-covid-vaccines/

This article also quotes and analyzes the SSPX’s old, traditional position and its more recent liberal position on abortion-tainted vaccines.

40 See, the SSPX Sisters in Browerville describing their pilgrimage to her gravesite. This description is included in their Summer 2026 newsletter.

42 Words of Archbishop Lefebvre, quoted from The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Bernard Tissier, Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2004, pp. 547.

44 For a brief comparison of the true Catholic Church to the conciliar church, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/10/03/the-devil-v-c-ii-the-conciliar-church/

45 Archbishop Lefebvre signed the May 5th protocol and then rejected it the next day. In this bad protocol, he agreed to “respect” the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The (compromising) Fraternity of St. Peter’s protocol with Rome is worse: it states that the FSSP will “adhere” to the 1983 Code. But here in 2026, with this appeal, the “new” SSPX officially argues from the 1983 code with no disclaimers, as if they, like the Fraternity of St. Peter, fully accepted it, practically speaking.

47 Fr. Pagliarani conference, September 2019, “The Confusion of the Church and the World at the Root of the Crisis”. Here is the quote: “The institutions and the religious communities who habitually celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass have found true stability in number and life.” (Emphasis added.) http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=4242

49 For example, recall the secret meetings between representatives of modernist Rome and the liberalizing leaders of the SSPX after Archbishop Lefebvre’s death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_for_Reflection_among_Catholics

Here is the lengthy eyewitness account of one of the participants in these dialogues (after Archbishop Lefebvre ’s death) seeking this practical agreement between modernist Rome and the “new” SSPX: https://www.mollat.com/livres/681107/michel-lelong-pour-la-necessaire-reconciliation-le-groupe-de-reflexion-entre-catholiques-grec

We know about these secret dialogues because this (conciliar) participant decided to publish his memoirs. The SSPX would have preferred to keep these dialogues secret because the SSPX leadership correctly understood that Traditional Catholics would be alarmed by these scandalous negotiations.

50 “Letter from Father Pagliarani to Cardinal Fernández” https://fsspx.org/en/publications/letter-father-pagliarani-cardinal-fernandez-57315

The “New” SSPX Promotes Praying in Conciliar Churches during the “Holy Year”

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Pope Francis declared that, in the 2025 “holy year”[1], people can gain a plenary indulgence by praying in one of many churches throughout the world, viz., the cathedral in any diocese, plus many other churches.  He did this in 2015 too.

The “new” liberal SSPX promotes participation in this “holy year” and encourages its followers to pray in conciliar churches.  One of the “new” SSPX priests, Fr. Peter Scott, who had previously been uncompromising, promotes this evil in these words:

Of course, most of us cannot go in person to Rome, but in this case, we can gain the plenary indulgence by visiting and praying a Rosary in the cathedral of our town, and fulfilling all the other conditions required.[2]

The now-liberal Fr. Peter Scott is simply following his now-liberal group.  When Pope Francis declared a “holy year” about ten years ago and declared that people can gain a plenary indulgence by praying in one of many churches throughout the world, viz., the cathedral in any diocese, plus many other churches, Bishop Fellay strongly urged his followers to participate in the so-called “holy year” by going to conciliar churches to pray.  He wrote:

Must we then deprive ourselves of the graces of a Holy Year?  Quite the contrary.  When the floodgates of grace are opened wide, we must receive abundantly![3]

The “new” SSPX has been weakening for a long time and has long blurred the difference between the conciliar church – which is a new religion[4] – and the true Catholic Church of all time.  This causes the “new” SSPX to increasingly promote praying in conciliar churches, which are occupied by the modernists and which for almost 60 years have been used to further Revolution. 

For example, the “new” SSPX was thrilled that one of its priests said Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.  http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/sspx-priest-celebrates-mass-in-saint.html  (Fittingly, this new-SSPX video showing the Mass in this basilica is posted by a person whose user name is New Catholic.)

Reminder: We Should Stay Out of Conciliar Churches and Other Compromise Chapels

There are three reasons we should not go into conciliar churches to pray:

1.    Places of sacrilege are most unfitting places to pray;

2.    We should abhor and shun places of sacrilege; and

3.    We must avoid giving scandal.


Below, we discuss each of these points.


1.  Sacrilege Makes a Conciliar Church Unfitting for Prayer

Places of evil are inherently very unfitting places for spiritual actions such as prayer.  Prayer is among the very best and most sacred “Things”.  To mix prayer with the worst (viz., an evil place) is most unfitting and offensive to God.  It is like choosing the filthiest, most disgusting vessel as the container for the most precious liquid – it is wholly unfitting.

The Summa explains this truth admirably:

Now although, properly speaking, a corporeal thing cannot be the subject of the stain of sin, nevertheless, on account of sin corporeal [i.e., physical] things contract a certain unfittingness for being appointed to spiritual purposes; and for this reason, we find that places where crimes have been committed are reckoned unfit for the performance of sacred actions therein, unless they be cleansed beforehand.[5]

But sins directed against God are the gravest sins – much worse, for example, than the crime of murder, because murder is a sin directed against man, not God.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.13, a.3, ad 1. 

The new mass is inherently protestantized and man-centered and so is always “an irreverent treatment of the Sacred” (the definition of a sacrilege).  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.99, a.1.[6]  Thus, the new mass is objectively worse than murder, since the new mass is objectively a grave offense directed against God Himself.

If a new mass is valid, that makes it objectively worse – by being a valid (rather than invalid) sacrilege.  A valid sacrilege even more strongly calls down the wrath of God because a valid sacrilege compels God Himself (Sacramentally present) to take part in the sacrilege. 

Thus, conciliar churches are inherent dens of sacrilege because the new mass is said there (and for many other reasons).  As a den of sacrilege, it is a very unfitting place to pray.  Summa Supp. Q.74, a.1, respondeo.

In conciliar churches also we find other evils such as scandalous conciliar sermons, “communion” in the hand and “eucharistic” ministers, gross immodesty, banal un-Catholic music, bookshelves full of poisonous materials, ugly conciliar “art”, “priests” walking around in street clothes, and so on.  All of these things tend to weaken the Faith of good Traditional Catholics, as well as weaken the horror for sin and compromise that we must maintain.


2.  Faithful and Informed Catholics Instinctively Abhor Conciliar Churches

In the proportion in which we love Our Lord, we should abhor conciliar churches.  This is like a widow who loved her deceased husband.  In proportion to her love for him, she would not wish to use as a place of amusement, rest, and comfort the location in which her husband had previously been tortured and brutally murdered.  Her love would not permit it. 

Similarly, those who love Our Lord and realize that the new mass is objectively a sacrilege, would never wish to be in a place which continues to be used for the new mass and other conciliar evils.  And the more an informed Catholic loves Our Lord, the more he finds conciliar churches intolerably odious – more because of the sacrileges that continue to occur there than because of the buildings’ conciliar ugliness!  This is a second reason informed Catholics do not enter conciliar churches.


3.  Entering Conciliar Churches Causes Scandal

Scandal is giving the appearance of evil which makes another person more likely to sin.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.43, a.1, ad 2.

To the extent others see us entering a conciliar church, it gives scandal because this would tend to give credence (in their minds) to what goes on there.  Most people would not make the distinction when we entered a conciliar church, e.g., to pray the rosary but not when the new mass is said there.  Each person’s presence adds a little to the appearance that the conciliar church is more visited/attended and that what goes on there is more accepted. 

Without thinking deeply about the matter, many people would tend to think that those entering a conciliar church approve what is happening there.  Therefore, in the eyes of many people, we would indicate our approval generally for what goes on there, regardless of our real opinion.  Because people are social creatures, they would tend to accept the conciliar church because they see other people accepting it.  This is a third reason that informed Catholics do not enter conciliar churches.


Conclusion

For the three reasons given above, Catholics should never go into a conciliar church to pray.  It is among the most unfitting places to pray and is among the places that a faithful and informed Catholic would least desire to be, because it is a place of sacrilege and grave offense to Our Lord. 

What a contrast this Catholic position is to that of the “new” SSPX leaders, who urge us to pray in conciliar churches for the “holy year”!  They see no reason why the new mass should make conciliar churches unfitting for prayer because they already say kind things about the new mass and are moving toward accepting it.[7]

Would the “new” SSPX tell the faithful to stay away from conciliar churches if, in those churches, people regularly and openly spit on the SSPX logo or on a picture of Bishop Fellay there?  If so, that means the “new” SSPX is more offended at insults to their bishop and their own institution, than at the infinite offenses given to Our Lord God in the sacrileges of the new mass.


Postscript:

Because of the liberalism and other compromises of groups such as the “new” SSPX,[8] their Masses and other activities in their own chapels also offend God.[9]  Thus, as outlined above, the “new” SSPX chapels are also unfitting places to pray, are places that faithful and informed Catholics should abhor, and are places where scandal would arise from persons entering there.  Let us stay out of their liberal and compromise chapels as we should stay away from the mainstream conciliar churches!


[1]           The conciliar church is a new and false religion.  Read this analysis here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/02/05/the-conciliar-church-is-anti-god-and-anti-catholic/

 

There has been nothing holy whatsoever about the new conciliar religion itself, arising out of the 16 documents of Vatican II, and perpetuated and strengthened through the gravely anti-Catholic words, actions, and omissions of the leaders of that false religion, such as the conciliar popes and the conciliar clergy.

 

But that does not mean that the leaders of this new religion might not (subjectively) believe that they can both be members of this new false religion while also being members of the Catholic Church, just as men could suppose that it is possible to be members of the freemasons at the same time as being Catholic.  Such dual membership, while possible, would show their great confusion of mind but it would not make it impossible for them to be (confused) members of the Catholic Church.

 

[2]           Fr. Peter Scott, 2- 20-25 Defende Nos, #123, p.3 (emphasis added).

[3]           Quoted from Bishop Fellay letter #84, May 24, 2015.

[5]           Summa Supp. Q.74, a.1, respondeo (emphasis added; bracketed word added for clarity).

[6]           Read this article about why the new mass never gives grace: https://catholiccandle.org/2020/03/01/the-new-mass-does-not-give-grace/

[7]           See, e.g., example #6 in the list of 21 examples of “new” SSPX liberalism.  This list is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/03/27/21-examples-of-liberalism-in-the-new-sspx/

 

[8]           See, e.g., the examples of 21 examples of “new” SSPX liberalism, found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/03/27/21-examples-of-liberalism-in-the-new-sspx/

 

21 Examples of Liberalism in the “New” SSPX

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note:  Occasionally, we analyze the liberal statements of the SSPX.  Someone could wonder:

Why mention the SSPX any longer, since they are unimportant as merely one of very many compromise groups? 

It is true that a priest (or group) is of small importance when he (or the group) is merely one of countless compromisers.  By contrast, an uncompromising priest is of great importance, even though he is only one.

However, regarding the “new” SSPX: we sometimes mention them for at least these five reasons, motivated by charity:

➢  New Catholic Candle readers might not be sufficiently informed of the “new” SSPX’s liberalism to avoid that group.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these warnings to help these new readers appreciate the danger of the N-SSPX.

➢  Some longtime Catholic Candle readers might forget the N-SSPX poison, or vacillate in their resolution to stay away from the N-SSPX if they never received a reminder warning about the danger of the N-SSPX.  This is like the fact that all it takes for many people to become conciliar is to never be reminded about the errors of Vatican II and the conciliar church.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these reminders for readers who would otherwise “forget” the danger of the N-SSPX.

➢  The N-SSPX serves as an important study case to examine how leaving the truth often happens.  It is a warning to us all about a very common way to depart from the truth and become unfaithful.  Out of charity for ourselves we occasionally provide these insights about becoming unfaithful by taking this common road of compromise the N-SSPX is taking.

➢  Over time, the N-SSPX provides us with a thorough catalogue of liberal compromises, and studying those compromises and errors with the contrasting Traditional Catholic truth is a helpful means of studying our Faith and guarding ourselves from the principal errors of our time.  This helps us to fulfill our duty of continually studying the doctrines of our Faith.  Out of charity for ourselves, we use the occasion of the N-SSPX’s liberalism to study our Traditional Catholic Faith better and the corresponding N-SSPX liberalism.

 

➢  If the SSPX ever abjured its liberalism, it could do great good as it used to do, since its bishops and its priestly ordinations so far have been valid (although the SSPX has taken in some conciliar and doubtfully-ordained “priests” whom it allows to administer “sacraments”).  This validity of SSPX ordinations stands in contrast to many compromise groups (such as the FSSP, ICK, and others), all of whose “ordinations” were and remain doubtful from the very beginning of those groups.

For those readers who are firm in their resolution to completely avoid supporting the N-SSPX, they can receive just as much of the substance of those Catholic Candle articles, if they substitute the phrase “a liberal could say” anytime they read “the SSPX teaches”.


21 Examples of Liberalism in the “New” SSPX

Today’s SSPX is not the same SSPX as the one in the old days.   There are countless examples of its teaching and practice to show this.  Many are documented in Catholic Candle, both on its current website and in its old one, CatholicCandle.neocities.org. 

Below are twenty-one examples of this SSPX liberalism, taken from many more which we could have listed here.  We cannot ignore the mountain of evidence.   You should not either.

1.    The SSPX previously taught that the rubella vaccine and other vaccines developed through abortion are always sinful.  By contrast, the SSPX now says not only that this same rubella vaccine is justifiable for some people, but also that the COVID vaccines, which were also developed through abortion, are also justified.[1]  The SSPX’s new position is wrong, liberal, and contradicts its prior teaching on vaccines developed through abortion.

2.    The SSPX says it now accepts 95% of Vatican II[2] and says that Vatican II contains no direct heresy and “not so many” errors.[3]  The truth the “new” SSPX denies is that the documents of Vatican II are riddled with liberal teachings and heresies.

 

3.    The SSPX now teaches that the religious liberty taught by Vatican II is “a very, very limited one, very limited”.[4]  The truth that the “new” SSPX denies is that the scope of religious liberty that Vatican II teaches is unlimited as long as public order is not breached.[5]  This is the same meager restriction that the French Revolutionaries insisted upon after the French Revolution.  In other words, buddhists, protestants, and even satanists can do what they wish in public, as long as they are peaceful and don’t become violent.

 

4.    The “new” SSPX falsely teaches that “many Vatican II texts are traditional”.[6]  The truth that the “new” SSPX denies is that there are no traditional documents of Vatican II (much less “many”).

 

5.    Among these Vatican II documents, is Lumen Gentium.  The SSPX now teaches that this document is free from errors/liberalism.[7]  The truth that the “new” SSPX denies is that there are hundreds of heresies, liberal and false statements in Lumen Gentium.[8] 

 

6.    The “new” SSPX called the new mass “Holy Mass”.[9]  Besides the “new” SSPX calling the new mass “Holy Mass”, it now calls the Traditional Mass by its conciliar name, viz., the “Extraordinary Form”.[10]  The SSPX taught that the new mass is good, but not as good, as the Traditional Mass by likening the new mass to a tin trumpet, and likening the Traditional Mass to a silver trumpet.[11]  Indeed, while Bishop Fellay was superior general, he attended the new mass and afterwards praised it.[12]  His two assistants (who were second and third in authority in the SSPX) attended a new mass on another occasion.[13]  The “new” SSPX has blamed the dispute between the Vatican and the “old” SSPX concerning the new mass, on how “profound” Archbishop Lefebvre’s “motives” were and the bewilderment of the SSPX priests and followers because they were “fed up” with the “way in which the new mass was being celebrated.”[14]  Bishop Fellay says that “what needs to be corrected” in the new mass are things like making a better vernacular translation.[15]  The truth that the “new” SSPX denies is that the new mass itself is evil and sacrilegious. 

 

7.    The “new” SSPX falsely indicates that Pope Francis abides in the truth, and is preserved from error.[16]  When he was superior general, Bishop Fellay declared that he is “very happy” with a lot of what Pope Francis teaches.[17] 

 

8.    Jesus Christ is God.  For this reason, Mary is the Mother of God because she is the mother of a Person Who is God.  For the same reason, the Jews committed Deicide because they killed a Person Who is God.  Vatican II contradicted the traditional teaching from the time of the apostles, that the Jews committed Deicide.[18]  The SSPX has adopted this conciliar error and denies the Church’s teaching that the Jews did commit Deicide.[19]  The truth that the “new” SSPX denies is that the Jews did commit Deicide – as the Church has always taught.

 

9.    Catholics should not hold it as certain that we will go to heaven.  But that is what the SSPX now teaches.[20]  The truth is that the (supposed) certainty of salvation is the vice of presumption.

 

10. The new SSPX falsely teaches that Vatican II does good, when Bishop Fellay, its then-superior general, stated that the “Second Vatican Council … illuminates – i.e. deepens and further makes explicit – some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church”.[21]  The truth is that Vatican II does no good.

 

11. Among countless other conciliar errors is the claim that there exist “degrees” of being in communion with the Catholic Church.[22]  The “new” SSPX indicates it accepts this conciliar theory by now using the term of “full communion”, as if there were any other kind of communion.  Id.

 

12. While he was superior general, Bishop Fellay said that Pope Francis’s exhortation on marriage (Amoris Laetitia) “contains many things that are correct and beautiful”.[23]  The truth is that this is a vile, thoroughly-conciliar document.  Bishop Fellay falsely says that Pope Francis’s abominable Amoris Laetitia is like a “beautiful boat” with a “very small” hole in it.[24]  The “new” SSPX is grossly minimizing the evil of Pope Francis’s teachings.

 

13. The SSPX teaches that Vatican II’s Optatam Totius is free from errors/liberalism.  The truth is that there are many liberal and false statements in it.[25] 

 

14. The “new” SSPX published an article about Islam’s hostility toward other religions.  This article stressed the importance of religious liberty for every religion and omitted to state the Catholic truth that error (including religious error) has no rights.[26]  The truth is that only the true Catholic Faith has rights.[27]

 

15. The “new” SSPX says we must continually change.[28]  This echoes the conciliar hierarchy, which continually emphasizes the need to change, to “renew” ourselves, and to “ride the wave of revolution of faith”.[29]

16. The conciliar church refers to promotion of conciliar errors as The New Evangelization.[30]   The “new” SSPX declared that Pope Francis sees the SSPX as a help in The New Evangelization.  Id.  This is scandalous since it implies that the N-SSPX approves of and is willing to promote Pope Francis’ modernism.

17. The SSPX now blurs the difference between the Catholic Church and the modernist conciliar church.[31]  Archbishop Lefebvre made this clear distinction.[32]

18. The SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre used to say that the indult groups “are doing the devil’s work”.[33]  Now the SSPX treats those groups as colleagues in the Lord’s vineyard.[34]

19. When he was superior general, Bishop Fellay said that by an agreement with Rome, the SSPX “will return to the Church”.[35]  The truth is that the “old” SSPX (and other Traditional Catholics who correctly saw things) were already in the Church.  Ironically, the more the “new” SSPX becomes conciliar, the more that “new” SSPX needs to “return to the Church” by rejecting its liberalism.

20.  The “new” SSPX, through one of its bishops, approved of a booklet for use in the SSPX, which teaches the conciliar position that a patient or the patient’s caregiver is permitted to choose to starve that patient to death if keeping that patient alive through providing food and liquids is too much of a burden for that patient or caregiver.[36]

21. The “new” SSPX promotes the “no nukes” unilateral nuclear disarmament position of Pope Francis and leftist organizations such as Greenpeace.  The N-SSPX argues against the pre-conciliar Catholic position that all weapons – including nuclear weapons – can be used as long as the Catholic teachings concerning war and a just defense are preserved.[37]


[1]           Here are the SSPX quotes (both the new and old ones) in part 3 of this article:  https://catholiccandle.org/2021/01/01/reject-the-covid-vaccines/

 

[3]           While he was superior general, Bishop Fellay said:


In Vatican II, there is no direct heresy.  There are openings.  Openings to the [sic] error.  And some direct errors.  Not so many direct errors.

 

Hear Bishop Fellay’s words here: August 24, 2016 video interview , beginning at the 50 seconds’ mark.  This video interview used to be here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuCOdk99mfA&spfreload=5 but has been made private.

[4]           Listen to then-superior general Bp. Fellay’s exact words at the following link – listen at minute 1:25 of 6:00 at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY&feature=topics

 

[5]           Read the quote from Vatican II here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/religious-liberty-vatican-ii.html

[9]           Bishop Fellay June 30, 2018 interview found at: https://fsspx.news/en/news/bishop-fellay-interview-are-disturbing-factor-church-19871 .


[10]         One of countless examples of this is the SSPX superior general using this phrase to refer to the true Mass here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=4242

 

[11]                    Here are Bishop Fellay’s words:

 

If you welcome a head of state and have the choice between a silver trumpet and a tin trumpet, do you use the tin trumpet?  That would be an insult; you don’t do that. And even the best new Masses are like tin trumpets in comparison to the old liturgy.  We have to use the best for the dear Lord.

 

Quoted from the Bishop Fellay June 30, 2018 interview found at: https://fsspx.news/en/news/bishop-fellay-interview-are-disturbing-factor-church-19871 (emphasis added).

 

[12]         Read the news report and quotes from Bishop Fellay here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-promotes-hybrid-mass.html

 

[14]         Here is the longer quote from Bishop Fellay, starting with the question:

 

Q: Cardinal Ratzinger was a connoisseur and veteran promoter of Catholic Tradition and a friend of the Traditional Mass; why couldn’t he reassure the Archbishop?

 

Bishop Fellay: He did not understand how profound the Archbishop’s motives were or how bewildered the faithful and the priests were. Many were simply fed up with the post-conciliar scandals and nuisances and with the way in which the new Mass was being celebrated. If Cardinal Ratzinger had understood us, he would not have acted that way.  And I think that he regretted it.  That is why he then tried as Pope to repair the damage with the Motu Proprio and lifted the excommunication. We are truly grateful for his attempts at reconciliation.

 

Quoted from the Bishop Fellay June 30, 2018 interview found at: https://fsspx.news/en/news/bishop-fellay-interview-are-disturbing-factor-church-19871 (emphasis added).


[15]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-promotes-hybrid-mass.html


[16]         Read the SSPX quotes and find the citations to the SSPX publications here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/bouchacourt-francis-preserved-error.html#fnref1

 

[17]         Read the SSPX quotes and find the citations to the SSPX publications here:

https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-interview-liberal-timid.html


[18]         Nostra Aetate, §4.

[19]         Quotations, citations, and analysis of the Catholic teaching and of the “new” SSPX’s denial of the Catholic teaching, are here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/2014-01-14-bp-fellay-ltr.html

[20]         Here is one example of this SSPX teaching: in the November-December 2016 Angelus Magazine, Fr. Wegner declares:

Faith makes us know God: we believe in Him with all our strength but we do not see Him. Our faith, therefore, needs to be supported by the certitude that some day [sic] we will see our God, that we will possess Him and willl [sic] be united to Him forever. The virtue of hope gives us this certitude by presenting God to us as our infinite good and our eternal reward.

https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-the-new-sspx-teaches-the-vice-of-presumption-as-if-it-were-the-virtue-of-hope.html

[21]         Quoted from Bishop Fellay’s April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration (dashes are in the original).


[22]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/schmidberger-conciliar-ideas-jargon.html


[23]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-francis-eroding-marriage.html


[24]         Amoris Laetitia is Pope Francis’s scandalous and heretical document on marriage.  The truth, of course, is that this document is a complete shipwreck! (continuing Bishop Fellay’s boat metaphor).  Plainly, Bishop Fellay greatly minimizes the truth when he says Pope Francis’s “beautiful boat” has a “very small” hole, because most boats have very small leaks.  That is why boats have bilge pumps – to remove the water from very small leaks.  A very small leak is not ideal but is not a disaster like Amoris Laetitia and other teachings of the conciliar church.

 

Read the SSPX’s Amoris Laetitia quotes and find the citations to the SSPX publications here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-francis-eroding-marriage.html

[26]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-jourdan-religious-liberty.html


[28]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/pfluger-traditional-catholics-change.html

 

[29]         To read the conciliar quotes promoting continual change (and to read an analysis of them), see Lumen Gentium Annotated, by Quanta Cura Press, pp.66-78, ©2013, available at: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/06/23/lumen-gentium-annotated/ (free) & at Amazon.com (sold at cost).

[30]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/SSPX-promote-new-evangelization.html

[31]         For example, here is Bishop Fellay: “The fact of going to Rome doesn’t mean that we agree with them.  But it’s the Church!  And it’s the true Church!” Bishop Fellay, Flavigny, 09/02/2012).

[32]         For example, here is Archbishop Lefebvre relating his discussion with then-Cardinal Ratzinger: 

 

Cardinal Ratzinger repeated it many times, “But Monsignor, there is only one Church, you mustn’t make a parallel church.” I told him: “Your Eminence, it is not us who are forming a parallel Church, as we are continuing the Church of all times, it is you who are forming the parallel church for having invented the Church of the Council, which Cardinal Benelli called the Conciliar Church; it is you all who have invented a new church, not us, it is you who have made the new catechisms, new Sacraments, a new Mass, a new liturgy, not us. We continue to do what was done before. We are not the ones who are forming a new church.

 

Econe, Press Conference, June 15, 1988.  There are many other examples of Archbishop Lefebvre distinguishing between the Catholic Church and the conciliar church.

 

[35]         Here is the longer quote: “Anyway, the Pope said that it is only a problem of canonical discipline. An act of Rome will suffice to say it is finished and we will return to the Church. It will come. I am very optimistic!” Bp. Fellay, Interview with Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes, 12/27/10.

Live Preparing for Your Particular Judgment

Posted on by Catholic Candle

We should live our life today as if we will face God for our Particular Judgment tomorrow.  God is the Judge at our Particular Judgment, and we have to give an account of our whole life: every thought, word, act, or omission.

More specifically, Jesus Christ as Man will be our Judge at the Particular Judgment.  Before Him each soul must stand.  The soul will stand in the awful presence of God the Son, to give and account of its whole life: of every thought, word, act, and omission.

Neither does the Father judge any man, but all judgment He has given to the Son.

St. John’s Gospel, 5:22.

A man’s whole life will be spread before him like a great picture.  He will remember everything, although he might have forgotten much at the moment of death.  How he will wish then that he had done only good![1]

He who dies in mortal sin, even if only with one single mortal sin, will be sent at once to hell.[2]

How can we be careless about a matter of such importance, when we are absolutely certain of being judged by God?  “For what shall I do, when God shall rise to judge?” Job, 31:14.[3]

One of the most important “topics” of our Particular Judgment, is whether we have compromised our perfect Catholic Faith.

Webster defines “compromise” as “coming to an agreement by concession” or “making a shameful concession.” It is no secret that today’s N-SSPX has become liberal following the death of its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1991.  

Thus, today’s followers of the Society – in order to remain in it – have had to compromise and accept its very liberal teachings.  At the top of the list of such compromises is the disgrace of accepting parts of the evil anti-Catholic Second Vatican Council with the insistence that it was okay to accept VII because the council “it was just misunderstood”.  The “new” SSPX also teaches many other errors which jeopardize the faith of their followers.

The conclusion is inescapable in our minds:  Today’s “new” liberal SSPX is not the same SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre.  Here are a few of the reasons we hold this.

1.    The SSPX previously taught that the rubella vaccine and other vaccines developed through abortion are always sinful.  By contrast, the SSPX now says this same rubella vaccine is justifiable for some people and similarly justified are the COVID vaccines which were also developed through abortion.[4] 

2.    The SSPX says it now accepts 95% of Vatican II[5] and says that Vatican II contains no direct heresy and “not so many” errors.[6] 

 

3.    The SSPX now teaches that the religious liberty taught by Vatican II is “a very, very limited one, very limited”.[7]  The truth is that the scope of religious liberty that Vatican II teaches is unlimited as long as public order is not breached.[8]

 

4.       The new SSPX falsely teaches that “many Vatican II texts are traditional”.[9]  The truth is that there are no traditional documents of Vatican II (much less “many”). 

 

5.       Among these Vatican II documents, is Lumen Gentium.  The SSPX now teaches that this document is free from errors/liberalism.[10]  The truth is that there are hundreds of liberal and false statements in Lumen Gentium?[11] 

 

6.    The SSPX called the new mass “Holy Mass”.[12]  Besides this, the SSPX now calls the Traditional Mass by its conciliar name, viz., the “Extraordinary Form”.[13]  The “new” SSPX teaches that the new mass is good (though not as good as the Traditional Mass), by likening the new mass to a tin trumpet, and likening the Traditional Mass to a silver trumpet.[14] 

7.    Indeed, while Bishop Fellay was superior general, he attended the new mass and afterwards praised it.[15]  His two assistants (who were second and third in authority in the SSPX) also attended a new mass on another occasion.[16]  The SSPX has blamed the dispute between the Vatican and the “old” SSPX concerning the new mass, on how “profound” Archbishop Lefebvre’s “motives” were and the bewilderment of the SSPX priests and followers because they were “fed up” with the “way in which the new mass was being celebrated.”[17]  Bishop Fellay says that “what needs to be corrected” in the new mass are things like making a better vernacular translation.[18]  By contrast, the truth is that the new mass itself (even in Latin, and under the “best” conditions) is evil and sacrilegious.

 

8.    The “new” SSPX falsely indicates that Pope Francis abides in the truth, and is preserved from error.[19]  When he was superior general, Bishop Fellay declared that he is “very happy” with a lot of what Pope Francis teaches.[20]  Bishop Fellay falsely says that Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia is like a “beautiful boat” with a “very small” hole in it.[21]  This SSPX praise is false and liberal and the SSPX is minimizing the evil of Pope Francis’s teachings.

 

9.    We know that Jesus Christ is God.  For this reason, Mary is the Mother of God because she is the mother of a Person Who is God.  For the same reason, the Jews committed Deicide because they killed a Person Who is God.  Vatican II contradicted the traditional teaching from the time of the apostles, that the Jews committed Deicide.[22]  The SSPX has adopted this conciliar error and denies the Church’s teaching that the Jews did commit Deicide.[23] 

 

10. Catholics should not hold it as certain that we will go to heaven.  But the liberal SSPX now teaches that Hope makes us certain of going to heaven.[24]  The “new” SSPX is teaching the vice of presumption not the Theological Virtue of Hope. 

 

11. The new SSPX falsely teaches that Vatican II does good, because the “Second Vatican Council … illuminates – i.e. deepens and further makes explicit – some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church”.[25]  The truth is that Vatican II does no good.

 

12. Among countless other conciliar errors, is the error that there supposedly exist “degrees of being in communion with the Catholic Church”.[26]  The “new” SSPX indicates it accepts this conciliar theory by now using the term of “full communion”, as if there were any other kind.  Id.

 

13. While he was superior general, Bishop Fellay said that Pope Francis’s exhortation on marriage “contains many things that are correct and beautiful”.[27]  This is false!  These teachings on marriage are vile and are thoroughly-conciliar.

 

14. The SSPX teaches that Vatican II’s Optatam Totius is free from errors/liberalism.  The truth is that there are many liberal and false statements in this conciliar document.[28] 

 

15. The “new” SSPX published an article about Islam’s hostility toward other religions.  This article stressed the importance of religious liberty for every religion and omitted to state the Catholic truth that error (including religious error) has no rights.[29]  The truth is that only the true Catholic Faith has the right to be taught.[30]

 

16. The “new” SSPX says we must continually change.[31]   This echoes the conciliar hierarchy, which continually emphasizes the need to change, to “renew” ourselves, and to “ride the wave of revolution of faith”.[32]

17. The conciliar church refers to promotion of conciliar errors as The New Evangelization.[33]   The “new” SSPX proudly declared that Pope Francis sees the SSPX as a help in The New Evangelization.  Id.  How could this happen without the “new” SSPX showing a willingness to promote conciliar errors?

18. The SSPX now blurs or even omits the difference between the Catholic Church and the modernist conciliar church.[34]  Archbishop Lefebvre made this clear distinction.[35]

19. The SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre used to say that the indult groups “are doing the devil’s work”.[36]  Now the SSPX treats those groups as colleagues in the Lord’s vineyard.[37]

20. When he was superior general, Bishop Fellay said that by an agreement with Rome, the SSPX “will return to the Church”.[38]  The truth is that faithful and informed Catholics (i.e., Traditional Catholics) have always been in the Church.

 

21. The liberal “new” SSPX promotes the error that everyone is in the state of grace.[39]

Plainly, the “new” SSPX is liberal and teaches conciliar heresy.  Why their followers didn’t wake up and leave could be due to having a “hard” conscience.  As is shown in many Catholic Candle articles, a sensitive and informed conscience is critical to salvation.  Without such a conscience one cannot get to heaven.

Here is one way that St. John of the Cross, the Church’s Mystical Doctor, teaches this truth:

God desires the smallest degree of purity of conscience in you more than all the works you can perform.

St. John of the Cross, Saying of Light and Love, #12.

Here is how The Imitation of Christ teaches this truth:

A pure and good conscience shall bring more joy than learned philosophy. Then shall the contempt of riches far outweigh all treasures of the children of earth ….  Learn to suffer now in little things, that thou mayest be delivered from more grievous  sufferings ….  All is vanity except to love and serve God alone”.[40]

We should help the followers of today’s liberal N-SSPX by informing ourselves so that we can help to inform them.  We should stand our ground and our lives should demonstrate that one can live a holy, devout Catholic life without Sacraments for as long a period as God Wills for us.  Catholic history has given us many examples from past centuries for us to follow.

As we know, God understands what is best for us at all times.  So, thank Him for all He is doing and has done for us.  He will neither lead us astray, nor will He be outdone in His generosity to those serving Him.

 

 


[1]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, 1949, Lesson 77, pp. 154-155.

[2]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, 1949, Lesson 77, p.155.

[3]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, 1949, Lesson 77, p.155.

 

[4]           Here are the SSPX quotes (both the new and old ones) in part 3 of this article:  https://catholiccandle.org/2021/01/01/reject-the-covid-vaccines/

 

[6]           While he was superior general, Bishop Fellay said:


In Vatican II, there is no direct heresy.  There are openings.  Openings to the [sic] error.  And some direct errors.  Not so many direct errors.

 

Hear Bishop Fellay’s words here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuCOdk99mfA&spfreload=5, beginning at the 50 second mark.

[7]           Listen to then-superior general Bp. Fellay’s exact words at the following link – listen at minute 1:25 of 6:00 at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY&feature=topics

 

[8]           Read the quote from Vatican II here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/religious-liberty-vatican-ii.html


[14]         Here are Bishop Fellay’s words:

 

If you welcome a head of state and have the choice between a silver trumpet and a tin trumpet, do you use the tin trumpet?  That would be an insult; you don’t do that. And even the best new Masses are like tin trumpets in comparison to the old liturgy.  We have to use the best for the dear Lord.

 

Quoted from the Bishop Fellay June 30, 2018 interview found at: https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-interview-%E2%80%9Cwe-are-disturbing-factor-church%E2%80%9D-39449 (emphasis added).

 

[15]         Read the news report and quotes from Bishop Fellay here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-promotes-hybrid-mass.html

 

[17]         Here is the longer quote from Bishop Fellay, starting with the question:

 

Q: Cardinal Ratzinger was a connoisseur and veteran promoter of Catholic Tradition and a friend of the Traditional Mass; why couldn’t he reassure the Archbishop?

 

Bishop Fellay: He did not understand how profound the Archbishop’s motives were or how bewildered the faithful and the priests were. Many were simply fed up with the post-conciliar scandals and nuisances and with the way in which the new Mass was being celebrated. If Cardinal Ratzinger had understood us, he would not have acted that way.  And I think that he regretted it.  That is why he then tried as Pope to repair the damage with the Motu Proprio and lifted the excommunication. We are truly grateful for his attempts at reconciliation.

 

Quoted from the Bishop Fellay June 30, 2018 interview found at: https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-interview-%E2%80%9Cwe-are-disturbing-factor-church%E2%80%9D-39449

 

Despite what Bp. Fellay says in the quote above, the “motu proprio” does not free the Traditional Mass for faithful and informed Catholics.  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/20-reasons-motu-proprio

 

Further, he misleads Catholics about the so-called lifting of the excommunications.  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/tissier-defends-agreement-rome


[18]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-promotes-hybrid-mass.html


[19]         Read the SSPX quotes and find the citations to the SSPX publications here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/bouchacourt-francis-preserved-error.html#fnref1

 

[20]         Read the SSPX quotes and find the citations to the SSPX publications here:

https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-interview-liberal-timid.html


[21]         Amoris Laetitia is Pope Francis’s scandalous and heretical document on marriage.  The truth, of course, is that this document is a complete shipwreck! (continuing Bishop Fellay’s boat metaphor).  Plainly, Bishop Fellay greatly minimizes the truth when he says Pope Francis’s “beautiful boat” has a “very small” hole, because most boats have very small leaks.  That is why boats have bilge pumps – to remove the water from very small leaks.  A very small leak is not ideal but is not a disaster like Amoris Laetitia and other teachings of the conciliar church.

 

Read the SSPX’s Amoris Laetitia quotes and find the citations to the SSPX publications here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-francis-eroding-marriage.html


[22]         Nostra Aetate, §4.

[23]         Quotations, citations, and analysis of the Catholic teaching and of the “new” SSPX’s denial of the Catholic teaching, are here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/2014-01-14-bp-fellay-ltr.html

[24]         Here is one example of this SSPX teaching: in the November-December 2016 Angelus Magazine, Fr. Wegner declares:

Faith makes us know God: we believe in Him with all our strength but we do not see Him. Our faith, therefore, needs to be supported by the certitude that some day [sic] we will see our God, that we will possess Him and willl [sic] be united to Him forever. The virtue of hope gives us this certitude by presenting God to us as our infinite good and our eternal reward.

https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-the-new-sspx-teaches-the-vice-of-presumption-as-if-it-were-the-virtue-of-hope.html

[25]         Quoted from Bishop Fellay’s April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration (dashes are in the original).


[26]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/schmidberger-conciliar-ideas-jargon.html


[27]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-francis-eroding-marriage.html

[29]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-jourdan-religious-liberty.html


[31]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/pfluger-traditional-catholics-change.html

 

[32]         To read the conciliar quotes promoting continual change (and to read an analysis of them), see Lumen Gentium Annotated, by Quanta Cura Press, pp.66-78, ©2013, available at: scribd.com/doc/158994906 (free) & at Amazon.com (sold at cost).

[33]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/SSPX-promote-new-evangelization.html

[34]         For example, here is Bishop Fellay: “The fact of going to Rome doesn’t mean that we agree with them.  But it’s the Church!  And it’s the true Church!” Bishop Fellay, Flavigny, 09/02/2012).

[35]         For example, here is Archbishop Lefebvre relating his discussion with then-Cardinal Ratzinger: 

 

Cardinal Ratzinger repeated it many times, “But Monsignor, there is only one Church, you mustn’t make a parallel church.” I told him: “Your Eminence, it is not us who are forming a parallel Church, as we are continuing the Church of all times, it is you who are forming the parallel church for having invented the Church of the Council, which Cardinal Benelli called the Conciliar Church; it is you all who have invented a new church, not us, it is you who have made the new catechisms, new Sacraments, a new Mass, a new liturgy, not us. We continue to do what was done before. We are not the ones who are forming a new church.

Econe, Press Conference, June 15, 1988.  There are many other examples of Archbishop Lefebvre distinguishing between the Catholic Church and the conciliar church.

 

[38]         Here is the longer quote: “Anyway, the Pope said that it is only a problem of canonical discipline.  An act of Rome will suffice to say it is finished and we will return to the Church.  It will come.  I am very optimistic!” Bp. Fellay, Interview with Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes, 12/27/10.

[40]         Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis; Book I, Ch. 24.

 

In case you missed it — October 2023

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note (about the article on the next page, concerning the “new” SSPX):  Occasionally, we call readers’ attention to some aspect of the SSPX’s liberalism.  Someone could wonder:

Why mention the SSPX any longer, since they are unimportant as merely one of very many compromise groups? 

It is true that a priest (or group) is of small importance when he (or the group) is merely one of countless compromisers.  By contrast, an uncompromising priest is of great importance, even though he is only one.

However, regarding the “new” SSPX: we sometimes mention them for at least these four reasons, motivated by charity:

➢  New Catholic Candle readers might not be sufficiently informed of the N-SSPX’s liberalism to avoid that group.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these warnings to help these new readers appreciate the danger of the N-SSPX.

➢  Some longtime Catholic Candle readers might forget the N-SSPX poison or vacillate in their resolution to stay away from the N-SSPX, if they never received a reminder warning about the danger of the N-SSPX.  This is like the fact that all it takes for many people to become conciliar is to never be reminded about the errors of Vatican II and the conciliar church.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these reminders for readers who would otherwise “forget” the danger of the N-SSPX.

 

➢  The N-SSPX serves as an important study case to examine how leaving the truth often happens.  It is a warning to us all about a very common way to depart from the truth and become unfaithful.  Out of charity for ourselves we occasionally provide these insights about what happens when a person takes this common road of compromise that the N-SSPX is taking.

 

➢  Over time, the N-SSPX provides us with a thorough catalogue of liberal compromises, and studying those compromises and errors with the contrasting Traditional Catholic truth is a helpful means of studying our Faith and guarding ourselves from the principal errors of our time.  This helps us to fulfill our duty of continually studying the doctrines of our Faith.  Out of charity for ourselves, we use the occasion of the N-SSPX’s liberalism to study our Traditional Catholic Faith better and the corresponding N-SSPX liberalism.

 

➢  If the SSPX ever abjured its liberalism, it could do great good as it used to do, without the grave problem of doubtful ordinations like most other groups.

In Case You Missed It

N-SSPX Bishop Uses Conciliar Church

The now-liberal SSPX recently held Mass and confirmations in the church of a conciliar diocese.[1]  The linked article describing this event states that the conciliar people at this church were very “welcoming”.[2]

The article includes a picture of the (now-liberal) Bishop Tissier sitting in front of this conciliar church’s “mass” table, behind which is the tabernacle stuck to the wall.[3]

The article states that that conciliar church “also offers the Traditional Latin Mass at the parish historic chapel”.  But the article does not mention that this chapel is a different building at a different location, and that the conciliar church used by the N-SSPX was a location only used for conciliar services. 

The website of this conciliar church shows that it features typical conciliar modernism such as English and Spanish “masses”, a “parish council”, and “parish synods” as well as women doing the “readings” of the “mass”[4] and administering the Ash Wednesday ashes.[5]

This conciliar hospitality was accorded with approval of the local conciliar “bishop”.[6]  This should not surprise us, since the “new” SSPX is liberal and is conciliar in many ways[7], e.g., accepting 95% of Vatican II.[8]

Faithful and informed Catholics know that such a conciliar church is a very unfitting place to pray because: 

➢  These churches are places of continual sacrilege;

➢  Catholic common sense and the love of God would make these places abhorrent to faithful and informed friends of God.

➢  Entering and being present in conciliar churches are occasions of scandal to others.

➢  Conciliar churches are places doing the devils’ work, accustoming people to the new conciliar religion, which is passed on, preached, and fostered there, amid ugliness, immodesty, banality, and heresy.

For a more thorough explanation about the evil of entering conciliar churches, read this article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/evil-praying-conciliar-church .



[6]           https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sspx-holds-confirmations-at-florida-diocesan-church-with-approval-from-local-bishop/

Note: Catholic Candle holds that the supposed “consecrations” of conciliar “bishops” is inherently doubtful and should be treated as invalid.  For further information about the doubtfulness of the conciliar “consecration” rite, read this analysis: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGZVF5cmFvMGdZM0U/view

For more about the principle that it is our duty to treat doubtful consecrations and ordinations as invalid, read this article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/new-ordination-doubtful.html

[7]           See, e.g., articles at these links: https://catholiccandle.org/category/resources-for-priests/society-of-st-pius-x/

A Lost N-SSPX Society

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: The article below refers to Rome’s betrayal of the Catholic Faith. However, a reader would be mistaken if he assumed that Pope Francis’ betrayal somehow means that he is not the pope.

 

Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism. Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist. On the contrary, we published a series of articles showing that sedevacantism is false (and also showing that former Pope Benedict is not still the pope).

 

We recommend a small book explaining the errors of sedevacantism. It is available:

 

➢   Here, for free: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html or

 

➢   Here, at cost ($4): https://www.amazon.com/Sedevacantism-Material-Quanta-Cura-Press/dp/B08FP5NQR6/ref=sr_1_1

 

Here is what St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, teaches concerning the need to recognize and respect the authority of a superior – such as the pope – even when he is bad:

 

Even should the life of any superior be so notoriously wicked as to admit of no excuse or dissimulation, nevertheless, for God’s sake, Who is the source of all power, we are bound to honor such a one, not on account of his personal merits, which are non-existent, but because of the divine ordination and the dignity of his office.[1]

 

However, even while recognizing the pope’s authority and our duty to obey him when we are able, we know we must resist the evil he says and does. Read more about this principle here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html#section-7

 

 

A Lost N-SSPX Society

A “lost” Society of St. Pius X sought anti-Catholic conciliar church acceptance from Rome after Archbishop Lefebvre died.  The N-SSPX Ship of State lost its compass and rudder on the storm-tossed religious sea of Vatican II.

There are those who say that Archbishop Lefebvre wanted to reunite with Rome, but the critical difference is that he was adamant that that could not happen unless and until Rome converted back to the Catholic Faith.  This was l988 and he had just survived the trap of the conciliar church proposing to recognize him and the Society, with impossible conditions, and from then on he refused to even discuss making a practical deal with Rome until Rome converted.

I believe that Rome has lost the Faith (as Our Lady of La Salette predicted it would) and is the seat of the anti-Catholic conciliar church of VC II.  If you think about it, you have to wonder why the Society would want to negotiate and seek acceptance from the conciliar church in Rome.  Rome, in pursuit of religious liberty, makes little pretext any more of believing that there is only one true Church, founded by Christ, and is the only possible path to salvation.

It becomes clearer if you keep in mind that there exist:

1.    The true Catholic Church; and

2.    A false, revolutionary conciliar church from Vatican II which is Catholic in name only and headquartered in Rome.

This Conciliar church is not merely a liberal way of thinking.  It is a human organization (which deceptively uses the name “Catholic”) and has its own:

➢   false doctrines (e.g., the teachings of VC II, accepting the COVID vaccine);

➢   false and sacrilegious worship (e.g., Novus Ordo mass);

➢   places for sacrileges (viz., the conciliar churches stolen from the Catholic Church);

➢   false priesthood (new concept of priesthood; doubtfully valid ordinations);

➢   false laws (e,g,, the new 1983 Code of Canon Law);

➢   false catechisms (e.g., the new conciliar Catechism of the Catholic Church);

➢   false bibles (e.g., replacing the Douay Rheims Bible);

➢   new, politically-correct “Decalogue” (i.e., new humanist 10 Commandments issued by Pope John Paul II);

➢  new, politically-correct “Beatitudes” (issued by Pope Francis);

➢   new Mysteries of the Rosary (the so-called “Luminous Mysteries”);

➢   new (supposed) “saints” and new canonization process (e.g., so-called “St. John Paul II”);

➢   new (supposed) “miracles” and “apparitions”; and

➢   new (supposed) “sacraments” with conciliar names and formulae: for Catholics, it’s Confession; for conciliars, it’s “Reconciliation”, and on Occasion it’s “Group Reconciliation”.

The above are merely some of the changes that the Society and its followers will have to overlook and be willing to accept for canonical recognition from Rome. I expect that the N-SSPX will never have an additional bishop unless Rome approves.

Now, as these above changes clearly indicate, this conciliar church is a different (and false) religion.  It uses the power structures of the Catholic Church for its own ends, punishing (including excommunicating) those who resist it.

But if followers of the Society were expecting the N-SSPX to make a powerful, public stand against Rome’s latest heresies (e.g., accepting the COVID vaccines, approval of the unnatural life style, religious liberty, celebrating Luther, etc.), then they usually wait in vain.  If they had hoped for a strong defense against heresy from the N-SSPX, they get a mere mention of it instead.  It’s well understood that when those in a position of authority (like the N-SSPX) fail to call a “spade” (heresy) a “spade” (heresy), the silence indicates acceptance.  Or, when derogatory statements about the Faith go unchallenged, it reveals a lack of zeal for the Faith.

This is just one of the Society’s problems: I believe they have lost their zeal for the Faith.  The leadership of the N-SSPX no longer has the burning desire to fight daily against the anti-Catholic conciliar church, as Archbishop Lefebvre did.

Unfortunately, loss of zeal leads gradually to loss of faith.  This is very similar to what happened in the 1960s, after Vatican II, when the crisis of faith came from the top down (the pope), and was bewilderingly accepted by the clergy and the people in the pews.  The return to the holy Catholic Faith seems likely to be from the bottom up, for Rome and (if the N-SSPX ever returns) for the N-SSPX too.

So, what is in store for the followers of the N-SSPX on their slippery slope of compromise?  They want to believe the Society knows best, and will go along to get along.  However, The Imitation of Christ states that: “We frequently judge that things are as we wish them to be, for through personal feeling, true perspective is easily lost.”[2]  In other words, just because they would like to believe that today’s N-SSPX is the same Society as it was under Archbishop Lefebvre, that doesn’t make it so.

Belonging to the Society today is the easiest path for followers, when most of the people they know join them on the slippery slope, and it “proves” to them that they are correct in their position.  And if there are only a very few who hold a contrary view and are willing to stand up and fight for Christ the King and against liberalism, then “those people” must be kooks and radicals.

Most members of the N-SSPX don’t want to work hard to understand or study the Faith, no matter how little energy and time it takes.  Plus, they think they are too busy, and that God will understand.  Wrong!  God expects Catholics to earn Heaven and keep the Faith.

So, what does the future look like, being that Rome has not converted?  This means real trouble for uncompromising traditional Catholics.  But keep in mind that they are not alone, for Christ is surely with them, with extra graces and love. 

We must pray hard, continue to sacrifice, and be on guard for-N-SSPX and conciliar traps, like accepting a hybrid Mass, being married or confessed in the Society (with its indults for the two Sacraments).

Let us trust in God, with strong hearts! Faithful and informed Catholics are sure to succeed.  They have Christ with them.

 

 


[1] Quoted from St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Third Sermon for Advent, entitled: On the Three Advents of the Lord and the Seven Pillars which we ought to Erect within us.

 

[2] The Imitation of Christ, Book I, ch.14.

 

The “New” SSPX Teaches Predestination of the Damned

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note:  Occasionally, we analyze the liberal statements of the “new” SSPX.  Yet, someone could wonder:

 

Why mention the SSPX any longer, since they are unimportant as merely one of very many compromise groups? 

 

It is true that a priest (or group) is of small importance when he (or the group) is merely one of countless compromisers.  By contrast, an uncompromising priest is of great importance, even though he is only one.

 

However, regarding the “new” SSPX: we sometimes mention them for at least these four reasons, motivated by charity:

 

➢  New Catholic Candle readers might not be sufficiently informed of the N-SSPX’s liberalism to avoid that group.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these warnings to help those new readers appreciate the danger of the N-SSPX.

 

➢  Some longtime Catholic Candle readers might forget the N-SSPX poison or vacillate in their resolution to stay away from the N-SSPX, if they never received a reminder warning about the danger of the N-SSPX.  This is like the fact that all it takes for many people to become conciliar is to never be reminded about the errors of Vatican II and the conciliar church.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these reminders for readers who would otherwise “forget” the danger of the N-SSPX.

 

➢  The N-SSPX serves as an important study case to examine how leaving the truth often happens.  It is a warning to us all about a very common way to depart from the truth and become unfaithful.  Out of charity for ourselves we occasionally provide these insights about becoming unfaithful by taking this common road of compromise the N-SSPX is taking.

 

➢  Over time, the N-SSPX provides us with a thorough catalogue of liberal compromises and studying those compromises and errors with the contrasting Traditional Catholic truth is a helpful means of studying our Faith and guarding ourselves from the principal errors of our time.  This helps us to fulfill our duty of continually studying the doctrines of our Faith.  Out of charity for ourselves, we use the occasion of the N-SSPX’s liberalism to study our Traditional Catholic Faith better and the corresponding N-SSPX liberalism.

 

For those readers who are resolute in their determination to completely avoid all support for the N-SSPX, they can receive just as much of the substance of those Catholic Candle articles, if they substitute the phrase “a liberal could say” anytime they read “the SSPX teaches”.

 

 

The “New” SSPX (and Calvin) Teach the

Heresy of the Predestination of the Damned


Recently, the Society of St. Pius X published an article which teaches that “divine predestination includes all poor sinners”.[1]

The “new” SSPX frequently teaches heresy as if it were Catholic doctrine.  For example, in 2016, the SSPX characterized the deadly sin of presumption as if it were the Theological Virtue of Hope.[2]

We mention this recent SSPX heresy because it is an instructive contrast to the Catholic truth and further brings to mind that the heretic John Calvin taught that the wicked were predestined – a heresy which was condemned by the Council of Trent.[3]

In twenty-five words, here is the explanation of the Catholic truth which is opposed to the heresy of the SSPX and Calvin:

Predestination is God’s foreknowledge of what He Himself will do.  But sinners damn themselves.  It is not God’s work.  Thus, the damned are not predestined.


Let’s look at the explanations of three of the great Catholic Doctors:

St. Paul shows us that the saints are predestined, but not the damned (i.e., not “all poor sinners” as the SSPX says).  Below, St. Paul plainly teaches that the predestined are the saints, who from their predestination, are then “glorified”:

Whom He predestinated, them He also called.  And whom He called, them He also justified.  And whom He justified, them He also glorified.

Romans, 8:30 (emphasis added).

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, elaborates on this Catholic doctrine that God’s predestination is God’s foreknowledge of what He Himself will do in causing the salvation of the saints.  Here are St. Thomas’s words:

Predestination refers to a certain preordination in the soul of those to whom this is done.  God predestines from eternity the blessings He gives to His saints.  For this reason, predestination is eternal.  Predestination differs from God’s foreknowledge because foreknowledge refers only to knowing the future, whereas predestination refers to what God Himself causes in the saints.  Therefore, God foreknows concerning sinners but predestines the salvation of the saints.[4]

In other words, God foreknows that some people will damn themselves but He does not force them to commit the sins that cause them to damn themselves.  Thus, God does not predestine them. 

By contrast, God is a necessary cause bringing about the salvation of the saints and God’s work in their salvation is called “predestination”.  Thus, the saints are predestined, but not “all poor sinners” (as the SSPX heretically claims).

The great Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine, explains this Catholic doctrine the same way as St. Paul and St. Thomas, showing that every person who is predestined, goes to heaven:

Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts [that God gives] which make certain the salvation of all who are saved.[5]

Conclusion

The “new” SSPX teaches heresy when it says that God predestines “all poor sinners”.  Again, here is the explanation of the Catholic truth which is opposed to the heresy of the SSPX and Calvin:

Predestination is God’s foreknowledge of what He Himself will do.  But sinners damn themselves.  It is not God’s work.  Thus, the damned are not predestined.

If you care about your eternal salvation, do not trust the “new” SSPX’s teaching on this or other matters.


[1]           Here is the longer SSPX quote:

 

Even though Mary’s birthday occurred a long time after the Creation of the world, Mary is truly the beginning of God’s ways because the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity became Man in Her womb and began His way of seeking sinners to teach them the ways of God. Before the Creation of the world God thought of our salvation and its precise fulfillment, beginning in Jesus and Mary.

 

At the same time, this divine predestination includes all poor sinners, for the delights of the Mother of God is [sic] to be in the midst of Her children made conformed to Jesus Her divine Son.  For this reason the Epistle continues: “And my delights were to be with the children of men. Now, therefore ye children, hear me, Blessed are they that keep my ways, hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.”

 

This article is found here: https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/blessed-are-they-who-keep-my-ways-60125 (emphasis and bracketed word added).

 

[3]           “If anyone saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.  Council of Trent, On Justification, Canon 17 (emphasis added).

 

[4]               The Latin is:

 

Praedestinatio importat praeordinationem quamdam in animo, eorum quae quis est facturus: ab aeterno autem Deus praedestinavit beneficia quae sactis suis erat daturus: unde praedestinatio est aeterna.  Differt autem a praescientia secundum rationem, quia praescientia importat solam notitiam furturorum, sed praedestinatio importat causalitatem quamdam respectu eorum: et ideo Deus habet praescientiam etiam de peccatis; sed praedestinatio est de bonis salutaribus. 

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Romans, Ch. VIII, lecture 6 (emphasis added).


[5]              The Latin is:

Prædestinatio nihil est aliud quam præscientia et præparatio beneficiorum, quibus certissime liberantur [i.e. salvantur], quicumque liberantur.

De dono persever., xxxv (emphasis added; bracketed words added to show context). 

Measuring How Much Piety has Atrophied in the “New” SSPX

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: The article below is an update of an article and data about the plummeting SSPX totals from its “rosary crusades”, comparing 2009, to 2016, and now in 2021.

 

 

 

St. Paul infallibly teaches us: “without Faith, it is impossible to please God.”  Hebrews, 11:6.  Therefore, without faith, no piety pleases God or can be a true piety.

 

There is no true Faith outside the Catholic Church.  Therefore, there can be no true piety outside the Catholic Church. 

 

As a person’s Faith weakens, so does his piety, diminishing his prayer life.  Our Lord told us that strong prayers require strong Faith and that strengthening our Faith will strengthen our prayers.  Here are His words:

 

If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, “Remove from hence hither”, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you.

 

St. Matthew’s Gospel, ch.17, v.19.

 

Just as our prayers become stronger when our Faith becomes stronger, likewise our prayers weaken when our Faith weakens.

 

The “old” SSPX recognized this obvious correlation, when discussing the conciliar church.  For example, in 2002, the SSPX said (regarding the use of the rosary in the conciliar church): “the rosary … has fallen into disuse and even contempt”.[1]

 

Of course, this decline in prayer took time among conciliar Catholics, just as their decline in Faith also took time.  Nonetheless, their decline in piety and prayer was inevitable, given their decline in Faith.

 

This same decline in Faith and piety is now occurring in the “new” SSPX, although (of course) this takes time and the decline still has far to go.  The decline of Faith is chronicled in Catholic Candle[2] and elsewhere.  Similarly, the corresponding decline of piety is palpable in every “new” SSPX parish, although in some more than others (as was similarly true among conciliar parishes in the 1970s).

 

One measure of the “new” SSPX’s overall decline in piety, is the tally of the latest rosary crusade:

 

➢  During the latest 4¼ month rosary crusade in the U.S. District (from November 21, 2020 through April 1, 2021)[3] the “new” SSPX claims its followers said 282,508 rosaries.[4]  If we multiply this by three, it would give us the approximate annual rate of 847,524.  

 

➢  Compare this to the 2016 one-year rosary crusade (beginning in August 2016), when the SSPX U.S. District tallied approximately 1.5 Million rosaries.[5]

 

➢  Compare that to the one-year rosary crusade (beginning May 2009), when the same U.S. District tallied approximately 5.5 Million rosaries.[6]

 

➢  In other words, after the weakening of the Faith within the SSPX, especially since 2012, SSPX followers prayed the rosary in 2020-2021 at a monthly rate which was a little more than half (56.5%) of the rate in 2016 and only roughly one seventh (15.4%) the monthly rate of 2009!

 

 

To our readers who still attend the “new” SSPX chapels:

 

Are you worried and scared?  Are you afraid to forgo sacraments that are frequent and relatively easy to obtain?  If you leave the “new” SSPX, do you fear you will lose whatever piety and prayer life you have?

 

The opposite is true!  If you stand up for the Faith and reject compromise and liberalism, God will strengthen your Faith and your piety, as He does for all Catholics who stand up for Him! 

 

If you put the Faith first and thus stand against compromise and liberalism, God will strengthen your Faith because you put it (and Him) first and act by the light of your Faith, by shunning the evils you now silently tolerate.

 

Likewise, because your prayer life and piety grow proportionately with your Faith (as shown above), you will improve your prayer life without those compromise sacraments you now receive from the “new” SSPX and which you dread forsaking.

 

If you stay in the (new) SSPX, your Faith and piety will inevitably atrophy, just as even the staunchest conciliar Catholics inescapably weakened.

 

The most important thing you can do for your piety and prayer life, is to leave the “new” liberal SSPX and its sacraments!  Do it now!

The New SSPX and Judas-type Liberalism

Posted on by Catholic Candle

If you have followed the New SSPX in its effort to be reconciled with Rome ever since Archbishop Lefebvre died, you noticed a type of Liberalism that deceives its followers.  Rome insists that the SSPX accept the evils of Vatican II, and the SSPX can’t do that – oh, they would if they could and still hold on to their pseudo-traditional followers.  But they can’t do that quite yet.

So, how has the “new” SSPX managed to hold onto these followers so far and still please Rome?  I’ll tell you how.  They use Judas-type Liberalism.  What is Judas-type Liberalism?  It’s when you have one N-SSPX leader making a liberal VC II statement, followed later by another N-SSPX leader making a traditional refutation of that statement.  In this way, the pseudo-traditional followers of the Society can believe the statement that salves their conscience and, of course, reject what bothers them.  So, you see, it is a Liberalism that deceives the ill-informed consciences of the Society supporters, but satisfies Rome that the N-SSPX is beginning to see the “truth” of the Second Vatican Council, which is a requisite for reconciliation.  Rome is happy with the N-SSPX, and so are its followers.  The N-SSPX found they could please both by being “for” and “against” something at the same time.  Judas-type Liberalism has been successful ever since the archbishop died.

Let me demonstrate Judas-type Liberalism based on a speech by Father Benoit De Jorno on Nov. 28, 2020.  He is the Superior of the N-SSPX district in France, and he refutes previous statements by Bishop Fellay.  Here is Fr. De Jorno:

Since 1969, a new rite has been introduced into the Church, profoundly modifying its worship and, as a consequence, seriously damaging the Faith, because, as we know, ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’ – the rule of prayer is the rule of faith.  The Society of St. Pius X, standing against this sickening novelty from the very moment of its foundation ….[1]

Fr. De Jorno also warned against humanism, saying:

[T]his deadly humanism has penetrated the Church, has become conciliar; with the Second Vatican Council, a great change, a great upheaval, a new doctrine has profoundly infiltrated the Church; ecumenism in particular is a cancer that gnaws at her bone marrow.  And the scourge is precisely the new mass, which as we know, significantly departs from Catholic tradition.[2]

These more conservative words are surely contrary to the repeated position taken by Bishop Fellay, who attended the new mass himself, showing by his own example the Society’s position that the new mass is acceptable.  After he attended the new mass, he enthusiastically praised it.[3] 

Bishop Fellay’s two assistants also attended the new mass when visiting Pope Francis, showing by their own example the N-SSPX’s position that the new mass is acceptable.[4]

The new SSPX says the new mass gives grace.[5]  In reality, the new mass never gives grace.[6]

Bishop Fellay says that “what needs to be corrected” in the new mass are things like making a better vernacular translation.[7]  This tells people that the “new” SSPX does not have a problem with the new mass itself.

Now, increasingly, the “new” SSPX respects the values of the world and wants to fit in with the world, e.g., the “new” SSPX says its school (in Missouri) is “very much like other schools”.[8]

The “new” Society no longer remembers what it is like to be a sign of contradiction, like Our Lord.

Another aspect of the “cult of man” (humanism) is to adopt the “modesty” standards of the world.  The “new” SSPX now progressively promotes mini-skirts, women with bare shoulders or exposed flanks, and women wearing trousers.[9]

The above examples of Judas-type Liberalism are only a few of the many, but they show the N-SSPX tactics as to how they please Rome and their followers’ consciences at the same time.

Don’t hold out hope that the N-SSPX will change course and become uncompromising and traditional, as the conciliar hierarchy promotes ever-more-extreme modernism, because the Society believes they can achieve reconciliation without defections, using the Judas-type Liberalism to put the final “piece of the puzzle” in place to please Rome.  This final piece is the acceptance, at least in part, of the soul-destroying Novus Ordo mass.

Based on the past success of the Judas-type Liberalism, I predict and won’t be surprised if in 2023 (or before), when Rome celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, they will reconcile with the N-SSPX, who will use “soft” Liberalism again to avoid defections by its supporters.  They may well begin by promoting a hybrid Mass, (i.e., the “best” parts from the Conciliar service mixed with the Traditional Mass).  Bishop Fellay already promotes a hybrid mixture of the new mass and the Traditional Mass.[10]

I predict that the N-SSPX will begin using the hybrid mass slowly.  First, the hybrid mass will be used at N-SSPX chapels once a month and be available as one option.  Later, the hybrid mass will be the only one available on some occasions, e.g., once a month, after the Society is certain they will not lose followers or revenue.

In closing, you can see what the naïve followers of the N-SSPX are up against.  We must hold fast without compromise and can be sure that Our Lord’s grace will help us and He will never abandon His soldiers in the Catacombs.  Our uncompromising position and our love of Our Lord will surely eliminate fear and problems we would otherwise face at our Personal Judgment.

Let us pray hard daily for the misguided leaders of the N-SSPX and their naïve followers.  Moreover, because the SSPX was dear to the heart of Archbishop Lefebvre while he was on earth, (and supposing that he is in Purgatory or Heaven), he is no-doubt continuing to pray hard for his now-wayward Society.  Let us join our prayers to his.


[1]           As reported in the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary Newsletter dated Feb. 11, 2021.

[2]           As reported in the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary Newsletter dated Feb. 11, 2021.


[3]           Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-promotes-hybrid-mass.html

[4]           Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-theory-baptismal-character.html

[5]           Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-softer-new-mass.html

[7]           Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-promotes-hybrid-mass.html

The N-SSPX tells of a journey from apostasy to liberalism

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Long ago, the SSPX’s Angelus magazine used to do good work in helping souls understand Tradition.  Although always enjoying a somewhat undeserved reputation for “hard-hitting articles”, in reality, most of its articles even in the good days were too short and lacked sufficient substance to warrant that praise.  But it may be the magazine kept the articles short because that was precisely what its audience wanted.

In November, 2020, the Angelus Online did not hesitate to print a particularly poisonous piece called An Apostate’s Journey Back.[1] Its author is a certain John McFarland, father of SSPX priest Mark McFarland (about whose scandals as an SSPX priest we could write a separate article).  In this article, Mr. McFarland, a self-described fighter against the Resistance,[2] first describes his journey to “Tradition”.  It is, however, clear from what he tells of his story, that he never truly found Tradition, but instead, only a softened, watered-down idea of who Archbishop Lefebvre really was, and thus a false “Tradition”.

First, to his credit, early in his “conversion”, Mr. McFarland correctly identifies the problem.  He says,

I didn’t go more than 50-75 pages into [a book called] “Iota Unum” before I recognized the crucial fact: the Church’s terrible problems did not stem primarily from Rome’s being disobeyed.  They stemmed from Rome’s being followed [by Catholics] in its failure to oppose and its supporting the modernist offensive during and after the Council.

McFarland, who tells us that he is an amateur philosopher and a lawyer, then began to assist at Fr. Ringrose’s St. Athanasius chapel in Northern Virginia.  [To our readers: Fr. Ringrose was a long-time friend of the SSPX until the SSPX’s liberalism and treachery became very apparent.  He broke with the “new” SSPX afterwards, and the “new” SSPX condemned him for it.  He now is affiliated with Bp. Williamson’s group.]

McFarland goes on to say that his newly-ordained son was home in 2012 when he and his son learned of Fr. Ringrose’s signing what McFarland calls the “foundational document” of the Resistance.   McFarland’s reaction was to immediately stop attending that chapel:

He [newly-ordained Fr. McFarland] was home on vacation when I came home from Holy Name Sunday Mass and discovered online its [i.e., The Resistance’s] foundational document, whose signatories included the pastor of St. Athanasius. I told [my son, newly-ordained] Father, he said “Well, you can’t go back there [i.e., to Fr. Ringrose’s chapel].”

We have seen this knee-jerk reaction before, in otherwise-good men who continue to support the liberal “new” SSPX, and will hear nothing of the Resistance’s claims that the SSPX has become increasingly liberal.  We think such men long ago made the tremendous mistake of placing their loyalty firstly in particular men or organizations (such as the SSPX or particular priests they admire), instead of giving unwavering loyalty first to uncompromising, unadulterated Catholic Tradition.  This principle is exemplified in McFarland’s case, where he did not ask Fr. Ringrose (who had a better “nose” for liberalism than McFarland) to carefully explain his decision for his break with the SSPX.  The McFarlands seem instead to have simply left because Fr. Ringrose objected to their group, viz., the SSPX.  If the McFarlands did give Fr. Ringrose a chance to explain, McFarland does not mention it, and thus leaves off all of Fr. Ringrose’s substantial reasons, which in justice he should have mentioned.

McFarland goes on to say he got involved in polemics with Resistance websites, and that the Resistance was, in general, uncharitable.  McFarland does not give any evidence to support this claim but, of course, it is always possible for individuals to overstep civility or charity.  In any case, the Angelus Online article allows McFarland to vent his poison by going on to say,

Most of those who consider themselves traditional Catholics and attack the SSPX refer to themselves as the Resistance. From the time that I first learned about them, it was obvious that they had no proof and that their thinking was incoherent.

Even Bishop Williamson, who must have a great deal of SSPX internal information from before his break with the Society, has never offered testimony for any of the charges against Bishop Fellay circulating in the Resistance.

In regards to thinking [sic], in 2012 Bishop Williamson condemned what he styled the SSPX’s wishing to put itself under the authority of the pope.  But if Bishop Williamson does not accept the authority of the pope, then His Excellency and those of his followers who agree with him look to be schismatics.

 

Let us take three of McFarland’s assertions, in the order he makes them.


McFarland’s first assertion:

1.    “From the time that I first learned about them [viz., the Resistance], it was obvious that they had no proof and that their thinking was incoherent.”

Is it not rash (and uncharitable) for McFarland to conclude it was “obvious” at his first learning about the Resistance, that they had “no proof” and that their “thinking was incoherent”?  How often does it ever happen that when receiving the initial information about any group, a person can prudently conclude that it is “obvious” that the group as a whole both has no evidence and also is illogical?

Further, McFarland’s hasty conclusion of “no proof” is shown by his overlooking a very long catalog of proof either because he failed to look deeply or he is too liberal to recognize the “new” SSPX’s own liberalism.  For example:

  Isn’t it liberal for the “new” SSPX to reverse its position on abortion-connected vaccines in order to now conclude they are acceptable?[3] 

➢  Isn’t it liberal for the N-SSPX to call the new mass “Catholic worship”?[4]

➢  Isn’t it liberal for the N-SSPX to promote a conciliar speaker who is an expert favorably promoting Pope John Paul II’s heretical “Theology of the Body”?[5]

➢  Isn’t it liberal for the N-SSPX to accept the post-conciliar popes as saints?[6]

➢  Isn’t it liberal for the “new” SSPX to urge its followers to join the pope in praying with false religions?[7]

For anyone who wants additional concrete evidence of the “new” SSPX’s increasing liberalism, click on the “Society of St. Pius X” tab at this link: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/#gsc.tab=0


McFarland’s second assertion:

2.   Bishop Williamson and the Resistance cannot support “the charges against Bishop Fellay circulating in the Resistance.”

Again, McFarland fails to look deeply or he is too liberal to recognize Bishop Fellay’s own liberalism.  Here are a few examples of it:

❖  Bishop Fellay promotes the new mass as good and holy;[8]

❖  Bishop Fellay denies that there are any errors in the documents of Vatican II;[9] and

❖  Bishop Fellay claims that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty “is a very, very limited one: very limited!” although Vatican II itself says that religious liberty is entirely unlimited as long as society does not erupt in violence.[10]

For anyone who wants additional concrete evidence of Bishop Fellay’s liberalism, click on the “Society of St. Pius X” tab, subtab “Bishop Fellay”, found at this link: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/#gsc.tab=0


McFarland’s third assertion:

3.    Perhaps the worst of McFarland’s nonsense however, is his attempted smearing of the Resistance as schismatic or sedevacantist.  He says, “In regards to thinking [sic], in 2012 Bishop Williamson condemned what he styled the SSPX’s wishing to put itself under the authority of the pope.  But if Bishop Williamson does not accept the authority of the pope, then His Excellency and those of his followers who agree with him look to be schismatics” (emphasis added).  

 

We emphasize those parts of that remark which show how McFarland grossly misrepresents and over-simplifies the true position of Resistance Catholics; and he does this not once, but twice.  McFarland implies that Bp. Williamson (and Resistance Catholics) have since 2012 wrongly condemned the SSPX for putting itself “under the authority of the pope”.  That is, he implies that Resistance Catholics think that Catholics should reject the pope’s authority outright, simply speaking.  If the situation were really as simple as McFarland paints it, then yes – Bp. Williamson and others who hold that view would indeed have committed the mortal sin of schism (as today’s avowed sedevacantists indeed have).  Such however, is not the case. 

 

McFarland (knowingly or unknowingly) ignores critical distinctions which separate true Traditional Catholics from men like himself, as well as those outside the Church (sedevacantists and other schismatics).[11]   The truly Traditional Catholic attitude has always been to both acknowledge the authority of the pope as the supreme head of the Catholic Church, and to protect oneself and one’s loved ones by refusing to obey sinful commands from that superior (that is, those commands that are against Faith and Morals).  This is true obedience and this principle applies whether the superior is ecclesiastical, political, or familial.   

 

But it is true that in the last 50 years, almost every command from conciliar church authorities has posed a serious danger to faith and morals, and thus, Catholics in practice refuse to obey almost everything their superiors command.  Yet those same Catholics know the men issuing these evil commands continue to be their superiors.   

 

It is precisely this attitude of true filial obedience coupled with caution and prudence that sedevacantists (on the one hand) and liberals like John McFarland (on the other) lack.  But this very balancing act is what Archbishop Lefebvre understood and “walked” every day.  It is true that in the earlier days (1970s) he was not yet certain of what Modernist Rome’s intentions were, and wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.  But after the mid-1980s, he became completely convinced that Modernist Rome had no other intention but to destroy Catholic Tradition.   

Bishop Williamson (despite his own serious liberalism on various matters)[12] clearly understands all of the above distinctions, as he has repeatedly, clearly, and publicly shown.  Yet McFarland, who implies he has engaged many times in serious polemics with the Resistance, as well as having spoken with Bp. Williamson, mentions none of this.

Conclusion:  The N-SSPX continues to print poison such as McFarland’s article so as to continue to corrupt its readers as well as faithful Traditional Catholics everywhere.  Not only is the N-SSPX no longer Traditional Catholic, but also it works directly AGAINST Catholic Tradition by misrepresenting, smearing, and silencing those who try to sound the alarm concerning its own liberalism.


[1]           This Angelus article is available here:      http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=4367

[2]           McFarland calls those opposing the SSPX’s liberalism “the Resistance”.  As such, he would probably call Catholic Candle part of “the Resistance” because it points out the “new” SSPX’s liberalism.  However, we don’t tend to call ourselves “the Resistance” but instead simply focus on striving to be completely uncompromising Traditional Catholics.

[3]           See part 3 of this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/01/01/reject-the-covid-vaccines/

[11]         Sedevacantism is wrong and is schismatic.  Read this short book: https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/sedevacantism-material-or-formal-schism.pdf  Concerning our duty to recognize the pope’s authority but resist his evil commands, read chapter 7 of this book.


[12]         See, e.g., the articles found at this link: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/#gsc.tab=0  Click on the “Bishop Williamson” tab.

 

The conciliar church & N-SSPX misrepresent the coronavirus “pandemic”

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note regarding why we occasionally analyze the statements of the liberal N-SSPX. 

Someone could wonder:

Why does Catholic Candle mention the SSPX any longer?  That group is unimportant because it is merely one of very many compromise groups. 

It is true that a compromise priest (or group) is of small importance insofar as he (or the group) is merely one of countless compromisers harming the human element of the Catholic Church.  By contrast, an uncompromising priest is of great importance, even though he is only one.

However, we sometimes mention the “new” SSPX for at least four reasons, motivated by Charity and Faith:

Ø  New Catholic Candle readers might not be sufficiently informed of the N-SSPX’s liberalism to avoid that group.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these warnings to help these new readers appreciate the danger which the N-SSPX presents to their souls.

Ø  Some longtime Catholic Candle readers might “forget” the N-SSPX poison or they might vacillate in their resolution to stay away from the N-SSPX, if they were to never receive a fresh reminder which warns them about the danger of the N-SSPX.  This is like the fact that all it takes for most people to become conciliar is to never hear about the errors of Vatican II and the conciliar church.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these reminders for readers who would otherwise “forget” the danger which the N-SSPX poses to their souls.

 

Ø  The N-SSPX serves as an important case study for examining the effects of gradualism – which is the usual route by which people leave the truth.  Out of charity for ourselves we occasionally examine the N-SSPX’s gradualism so that we can be more familiar with this tactic of the devil and guard ourselves against it.

 

Ø  Over time, the N-SSPX has made countless, different liberal compromises.  By our studying all of those different compromises and errors – and by examining the opposing Catholic truth, we better fulfill our duty of continually studying the doctrines of our Faith and the opposing errors that we must fight.

 

 

The conciliar church (including the N-SSPX) ignores the role of sin and God’s wrath in their prayers relating to the coronavirus “pandemic”[1]

The Catholic Church has always known that plagues are a just punishment of God for sin.  More than anything else, during times of plague, the Church prays to appease God’s just wrath for our sins.

In the Traditional Votive Mass for the Deliverance from Death in Time of Pestilence, the Church makes the direct connection between the plague, God’s just wrath and our need to repent and to sin no more. 

For example, here is the Introit from this votive Mass:

Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy covenant and say to the destroying Angel: Now hold thy hand, and let not the land be made desolate, and destroy not every living soul.

Here are the words of the Collect:

O God, who willest not the death of the sinner but that he should repent: welcome with pardon Thy people’s return to Thee: and so long as they are faithful in Thy service, do Thou in Thy clemency withdraw the scourge of Thy wrath.

We see throughout history that the Catholic Church’s traditional focus during a plague is on atonement for sin because God sends a plague as a chastisement for sin.  This is evident from the Church’s response during each particular plague which has occurred.  For example, when the plague ravaged Rome, this is what Pope St. Gregory the Great did:

[T]he plague continued to rage at Rome with great violence; and, while the people waited for the emperor’s answer, St. Gregory took occasion from their calamities to exhort them to repentance.  Having made them a pathetic [very moving] sermon on that subject, he appointed a solemn litany, or procession, in seven companies, with a priest at the head of each, who were to march from different churches, and all to meet in that of St. Mary Major; singing Kyrie Eleison as they went along the streets.  During this procession there died in one hour’s time fourscore [i.e., eighty people] of those who assisted at it.  But St. Gregory did not forbear to exhort the people, and to pray till such time as the distemper ceased.[2]

But as [St.] Gregory was passing over the bridge of St. Peter’s, a heavenly vision consoled them [viz., the people] in the midst of their litanies.  The archangel Michael was seen over the tomb of Hadrian, sheathing his flaming sword in token that the pestilence was to cease.  [Saint] Gregory heard the angelic antiphon from heavenly voices – Regina Coeli, lætare, and added himself the concluding verse – Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia.[3]

When the plague struck Milan, here is what St. Charles Borromeo did:

[T]he plague appeared in Milan.  [Saint] Charles was at Lodi, at the funeral of the bishop.  He at once returned, and inspired confidence in all.  He was convinced that the plague was sent as a chastisement for sin ….[4]

[H]e ordered public supplications to be made, and himself walked in the processions, with a rope round his neck, his feet bare and bleeding from the stones, and carrying a cross; and thus offering himself as a victim for the sins of the people, he endeavored to turn away the anger of God.[5]

There is no end to the other examples we could give of the Catholic Church’s focus on repentance for sin and appeasing God’s just anger – which is the cause of the plague.

In contrast to Catholic Tradition, the conciliar church ignores the role of sin and God’s wrath and focuses on our receiving comfort and relief from being afflicted by the plague

Pope Francis and the conciliar church deny that the coronavirus is a chastisement from God for sin[6] but instead insist that it is only the result of our failing to care for the environment.[7] 

Thus, in the text of the new, recently-published novus ordo “Mass in Time of Pandemic”, there is no mention of appeasing God’s wrath or His chastising us for our sins.  Instead, this new conciliar votive “mass” asks for comfort, strength for healthcare workers, etc.  Here is the new conciliar Collect:

Almighty and eternal God, our refuge in every danger, to whom we turn in our distress; in faith we pray look with compassion on the afflicted, grant eternal rest to the dead, comfort to mourners, healing to the sick, peace to the dying, strength to healthcare workers, wisdom to our leaders and the courage to reach out to all in love, so that together we may give glory to your holy name. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God forever and ever.[8]

The only mention of sin in the conciliar “Mass in Time of Pandemic” is a reference to asking God to keeping people safe, free from sin.  This is the opposite of the traditional focus which acknowledges that we have sinned.  Here is this novus ordo “prayer over the people” from this votive “mass”:

O God, protector of all who hope in you, bless your people, keep them safe, defend them, prepare them, that, free from sin and safe from the enemy, they may persevere always in your love.[9]


The “new”, liberal SSPX follows the conciliar church’s lead, praying only for comfort and relief from the pandemic

The N-SSPX takes its cues from the conciliar church.  As the modernists in Rome jumped on the corona-bandwagon with the newly-published, conciliar “Mass in Time of Pandemic”, likewise the N-SSPX published a booklet proposing a “spiritual crusade in response to the COVID-19 pandemic”.[10]

The N-SSPX booklet proposes that we say the rosary and love Our Lady for sixteen weeks.  (We suppose that the SSPX does not intend the obvious implication that praying the rosary and loving Our Lady be limited to this period.)  Here is the booklet’s proposal:

Together, we want to undertake something special, to change this time of containment into a spiritual remedy.  Let us ensure that the health crisis that menaces our bodies develops into a triumph of faith, hope and charity that refines and vivifies our souls internalizing what is now still too superficial.  So we turn again to the Rosary!  For 16 weeks, we will give our love to Our Lady: from the Sunday of the Good Shepherd until August 15th.[11]

Just like the conciliar church’s votive “mass”, the only N-SSPX COVID-19 prayer intentions during this rosary crusade are for relief from the sickness.  Here are the two N-SSPX pandemic intentions quoted in full:

1.    To implore the Blessed Virgin Mary for relief from the Coronavirus pandemic.

 

2.    To ask Our Lord to grant mercy to those souls afflicted by the virus, including protection for medical personnel and other first responders.[12]

Unlike Catholic Tradition, but exactly like the conciliar church, the liberal SSPX makes no mention of praying to appease God’s just wrath for our sins.

Conclusion

From the above, one can clearly see that if he follows the N-SSPX or any other part of the conciliar church, he will gradually lose his Faith, just as people lost the Faith when they stayed in their local conciliar parishes in the late 1960s and afterwards.

 


[1]           There is evidence that the danger of the coronavirus is greatly exaggerated in order to justify heavy–handed government intrusion and destruction of rightful liberty.  However, whether this virus is terrifying or is overblown, this article shows that the conciliar church (including the N-SSPX) doesn’t have the Traditional Catholic focus concerning prayers related to a pestilence.

[2]           Butler’s Lives of the Saints, March 12, Pope St. Gregory the Great (bracketed words added).

 

[3]           Quoted from The Formation of Christendom, by Thomas William Allies, Volume VI, The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations, from St. Leo I to St. Gregory I,

Ch. 5 St. Gregory the Great.

 

[4]           Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 2, article St. Charles Borromeo

 

[5]           The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, November 4, Feast of St. Charles Borromeo, volume 15, (also called volume 6 for the Time After Pentecost) New York, Benziger Bros., 1903, p. 189.

[6]           For example, one German so-called “bishop” declared that “the corona crisis is not a punishment from God.”  https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/german-bishop-idea-of-coronavirus-as-gods-punishment-is-terrible…un-christian

 

[10]         Quoted from the N-SSPX’s 19-page booklet, entitled, Assumption Rosary Crusade, A spiritual crusade in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and for preparation for a personal consecration to the Blessed Virgin Mary.  This booklet, which contains advertising on seven of the nineteen pages, arrived in the mail in about mid-May, 2020.


[11]         Quoted from this N-SSPX booklet, page 5 (emphasis added).


[12]         Quoted from this N-SSPX booklet, page 4.  This N-SSPX booklet has a total of six intentions but none of them pertain to appeasing God’s just wrath for our sins.  Besides the two intentions quoted above, the other four don’t mention the pandemic.  Here are these other four: “To ensure the protection and growth in holiness of the SSPX’s bishops, priests, brothers, sisters, oblates, seminarians, Third Order members, and all the faithful who attend their chapels”; “To beg for an increase of faith, hope, and charity in these times of trials”; “To strengthen the Church in the face of this affliction and for a return to Tradition”; and “For a greater spread and love of the traditional liturgy, especially for those currently deprived of it.”

The SSPX seminary rector encourages us to desire luxury cars during Passiontide

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

Right before the beginning of the holy time of Passiontide, we received Fr. Yves le Roux’s raffle ticket promotion for a new 2020 Jaguar XE luxury car, offered in a SSPX’s fundraiser.  He included a cover letter with his glossy Jaguar promotion. 

 

Fr. le Roux apparently can’t see the irony of trying to get SSPX followers to desire a rich man’s luxury car, while he also warns (in his cover letter) about the dangers of worldly and sensual objects undermining our souls and creating “insatiable needs” which harm our souls.  Here is a shortened version of Fr. le Roux’s words from his cover letter, followed by the words in his enclosed Jaguar promotion:

 

The constant search for his [viz., man’s] satisfactions, conscious or not, undermines man.  The inclination of his senses to enjoy their pleasing objects immediately exerts upon man a true tyranny.  …  Penance is a remedy.  It dries up the source of the insatiable needs that man himself has created and imposes a calming remedy that allows him to turn towards higher things and thus to leave the infernal decline into which he was sinking.  …  [Jaguar promotion:] Support us.  Win a 2020 Jaguar XE.[1] 

 

Despite some pious words, Fr. le Roux is blinded by the “true tyranny” of “pleasing objects” (to use his own words).  He cannot see that he is promoting this very same “tyranny” in his followers. 

 

As greatly as Fr. le Roux (and the SSPX) are harming the soul of the person who will actually win that rich man’s car, Fr. le Roux also does tremendous harm to all of his followers by promoting worldly desires in them.  (Fr. le Roux wants them all to strongly desire that luxury car so that they will buy many raffle tickets.)

 

Fr. le Roux’s example is the opposite of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who teaches us to:

 

Be not solicitous therefore, saying, what shall we eat: or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed?  For after all these things do the heathens seek.  For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things.  Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.

 

St. Matthew’s Gospel, 6:31-33.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, approves of and quotes the teaching of the Venerable Bede, Doctor of the Church, who especially warns priests to avoid that worldly focus we see in the “new”, liberal SSPX.  Here are St. Bede’s words:

 

For such should be the preacher’s trust in God, that, though he takes no thought for supplying his own wants in this present world, yet he should feel most certain that these will not be left unsatisfied, lest whilst his mind is taken up with temporal things, he should provide less of eternal things to others.[2]

 

Likewise, St. Thomas Aquinas approves of and quotes the teaching of Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church, who warns priests about the evil of being money-focused.  Here are his words:

 

For the preacher (of the Gospel) ought to have such trust in God, that although he has provided not for the expenses of this present life, he should still be most certainly convinced that these will not fail him; lest while his mind is engaged in his temporal things, he should be less careful for the spiritual things of others.[3]

 

By Fr. le Roux hawking Jaguar raffle tickets, he certainly focuses on temporal concerns, against the warnings given by Our Lord and the Doctors of the Church.

 

It might be that Fr. le Roux thinks he has “no choice” but to regularly ask for money because otherwise his followers would not give it.  But he should compare his money-focus to the instruction given to priests in St. Thomas Aquinas’s work on St. Luke’s Gospel:

 

However small in amount and vile is the food that you are given, ask for nothing more.”[4]

 

 

Conclusion                                                    

 

Truly, Fr. le Roux and the N-SSPX are the blind leading the blind.  As Our Lord warns us, they all fall into the pit. 

 

Above, blind Fr. le Roux incoherently warns about desiring the type of luxury goods that he wants his followers to desire.  As he tells us, these desires cause a man to sink further down the infernal path.

 

More than at any other time of year, Passiontide is a time for a higher focus than Fr. le Roux’s!

 

Let us continue to pity and pray for Fr. le Roux and his worldly SSPX!


[1]           Quoted from Fr. le Roux’s letter dated “Ash Wednesday 2020” but actually received weeks later on March 27, 2020 (emphasis added).

[2]           Words of the Venerable Bede, Doctor of the Church, from Catena Aurea on St. Mark’s Gospel, St. Thomas Aquinas, editor, ch.6, §2.

[3]           Words of Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church, from the Catena Aurea on St. Luke’s Gospel, St. Thomas Aquinas, editor, ch.10, §2 (parenthetical words in the original).


[4]           St. Thomas Aquinas approves of and quotes these words of Bishop Theophylactus, a learned 11th Century Bible scholar, commenting on Our Lord’s instruction to his disciples “Eat such things as are set before you” (St. Luke’s Gospel, 10:8).  Catena Aurea on St. Luke’s Gospel, St. Thomas Aquinas, editor, ch.10, §3.

 

In The Imitation of Christ, the Voice of Christ tell Fr. le Roux and the rest of us: “[D]esire nothing outside of Me.” The Imitation of Christ, Book III, Ch. 25 (emphasis added).

 

 

The N-SSPX Urges its Followers to Join the Pope in Praying with False Religions

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

On March 23, 2020, the “new”, liberal SSPX reported that Pope Francis has called for Catholics to jointly pray with non-Catholics.  Below, are the words of the N-SSPX’s report (typos in the original report), describing the pope’s ecumenical call to prayer:

 

A Call to United [sic] in Prayer

 

Pope Francis also took the occasion of his Angelus message to invite “the heads of the churches[1] and the leaders of all the Christian[2] communities, together with all Christians of the various confessions, to invoke the Almighty, the All Powerful God, by reciting contemporaneously the prayer that Our Lord Jesus has taught us.”  The Pope continued:

 

I therefore invite everyone to recite the Our Father at midday [noon Rome time] on March 25 next, on the day when many Christians recall the annunciation to the Virgin Mary of the Incarnation of the Word, so that the Lord may listen to the unanimous prayer of all his [sic] disciples that are preparing to celebrate the victory of the Risen Christ.[3]

 

In the N-SSPX’s report, the “new” SSPX encouraged its followers to join in the pope’s prayer with the heretical and schismatic groups.  Here are the N-SSPX’s words encouraging participation:

 

Pope Francis called on the world to unite in prayer to end the COVID-19 (“Coronavirus”) pandemic and stated he will offer an extraordinary blessing.

 

Those faithful who attend chapels administered by the United States District of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) are encouraged to unite themselves in prayer with the Pope.[4]

 

By encouraging its followers to join in this prayer with the false (anti-Catholic) religions, the N-SSPX is promoting the conciliar church’s false ecumenism.  As Vatican II says: “[I]t is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren.”  Unitatis Redintegratio, §8.

 

The N-SSPX’s ecumenism contradicts Catholic Tradition and is a mortal sin.  The Catholic Church “has constantly forbidden Her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion”.[5]

 

From very ancient times, the Church has forbidden joining with heretics to pray: “If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from communion”.[6]

 

Further, the Council of Laodicea decreed: “No one shall pray in common with heretics or schismatics”.  Council of Laodicea, Canon 33.

 

A reader might wrongly suppose that the only problem with joining the heretics or schismatics in prayer is that the wording of the prayers themselves might be heretical.  But the Catholic Church has always forbidden joining with heretics and schismatics in prayer even if the words of the prayer are good in themselves, such as the psalms.  Here are the words of Bishop Hay, teaching us about the Council of Carthage’s declaration which forbids Catholics to pray even the psalms with heretics:

 

[I]n one of Her [viz., the Catholic Church’s] most respected councils, held in the year 398, at which the great St. Augustine was present, She speaks thus:

None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergyman or laic [i.e., layman], let him be excommunicated ….[7]

 

The Catholic Church’s constant prohibition against praying with heretics and schismatics makes perfect sense because those outside the Church maintain the posture of being enemies of God.[8]  It would be complete stupidity (as well as a great scandal) to join with God’s enemies to attempt to be heard by Him.  For “God doth not hear sinners: but if a man be a server of God, and doth His will, him He heareth.”  St. John’s Gospel, 9:31.[9]

 

 

Conclusion

 

The “new” SSPX has joined the conciliar church.  Whereas Archbishop Lefebvre rightly condemned the ecumenical joint prayer initiatives of the conciliar church, (e.g., at Assisi), the N-SSPX encourages its followers to pray with the heretics and schismatics, along with Pope Francis.


[1]           Like Pope Francis, the ecumenical “new” SSPX frequently uses the conciliar lingo of (falsely) calling the heretical sects by the term “churches”.  See one of countless N-SSPX examples here:  http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/think-lent-tough-take-look-medieval-lenten-practices

 

This is un-Catholic!  The truth is that heretical and schismatic sects are not real churches.  They are merely lost sheep that have gone astray in one particular direction, e.g., over the same cliff or into the same swamp.  However, even such lost sheep who have wandered in a particular direction, do not thereby constitute another flock.

 

For more information regarding the truth that heretical and schismatic sects are not real churches, read Lumen Gentium Annotated, by Quanta Cura Press, p.135, footnote #142, © 2013, available at:

v  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGbzRhdmQ3X0Z6RFE/view (free) and

v  https://scribd.com/doc/158994906 (free)

 

v  at Amazon.com https://www.amazon.com/dp/1492107476?tag=duckduckgo-ffab-20&linkCode=osi&th=1&psc=1 (sold at cost).

 

[2]           Like Pope Francis, the ecumenical “new” SSPX frequently uses the conciliar lingo of (falsely) calling the heretical and schismatic sects by the name “Christian”.  See one of countless N-SSPX examples here: https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/moscow-and-constantinople-head-toward-schism-over-ukraine-41318

 

This is un-Catholic!  The truth is that heretical and schismatic sects are not real Christians because they do not really follow Christ and do not belong to His Church.  For a more complete explanation why heretics and schismatics are not really Christians, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/heretics-are-not-christians.html

 

[3]           https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/pope-invites-faithful-unite-him-prayer-march-25-56461 (bracketed words in the N-SSPX’s report).

 

[4]           https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/pope-invites-faithful-unite-him-prayer-march-25-56461 (parenthetical words in the N-SSPX’s report).


[5]           Quoted from The Sincere Christian, by Bishop George Hay, William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh, 1871, vol.2, p.373.

 

[6]           The Sincere Christian, by Bishop George Hay, William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh, 1871, vol.2, p.373, quoting Canon 44 of the apostolical canons.

[7]           The Sincere Christian, by Bishop George Hay, William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh, 1871, vol.2, p.373, quoting the Council of Carthage, iv, §§72 & 73.

[8]           God never gives the supernatural gift of the Catholic Faith without also giving Sanctifying Grace, which is the cause of supernatural Faith.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.4, a.4, ad 3.  Therefore, if we suppose a person outside the visible Catholic Church were to receive Sanctifying Grace, he would thereby become a Catholic (and have the Catholic Faith) even if he were somehow not to realize he is Catholic.

 

[9]           “If I have looked at iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.”  Psalm, 65:18.  God is not moved by the prayers of those who are not in the state of Sanctifying Grace.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.178, a.2, ad 1. 

The N-SSPX’s Liberal Slide Continues

Posted on by Catholic Candle

The N-SSPX’s Liberal Slide Continues

      The N-SSPX promotes a conciliar speaker who is an expert in Pope John Paul II’s heretical “Theology of the Body”.

The SSPX’s 2019 doctrinal conference includes so-called “Father” Sean Kilcawley as a speaker.[1] He is a conciliar (supposed) “priest” who was “ordained” by the Diocese of Lincoln, NE in 2005 and is now employed there.[2]

The conciliar Lincoln Diocese tells us that “Kilcawley is a nationally recognized speaker on Theology of the Body” who “completed a License in Sacred Theology at the John Paul II institute for marriage and family” in 2013.[3]

  1. Here is the SSPX’s conference promotional announcement: https://web.cvent.com/event/a227e593-2d5c-4426-88dc-2c3d6c3c2134/websitePage:4a9f1ae7-fd5e-40ea-a47b-8748de11f650 ↑
  2. https://www.lincolndiocese.org/family-life/2052-about-fr-sean-kilcawley ↑
  3. https://www.lincolndiocese.org/family-life/2052-about-fr-sean-kilcawley ↑