Leo Finally Speaks About the SSPX. The “Excommunications” Are Mainly About Vatican II Itself, Not Mainly About Not Having a Canonical Papal Mandate

 The Second Vatican Council’s lower level pastoral statements on religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality are supposed to be “essential elements” of the Church, as Leo recently said.  Yet, if they were “essential,” they would be dogmas, which must be believed to remain a member of the Church, and would have been taught before the Council.  And, you know,not condemned by the Church before Vatican II.  

Leo is treating them like the other arch-conciliarists as if they are dogmas, VII being treated as a super-dogma, when in fact they are the novelties that serve as pillars of the New Church and New Religion.  

So be it.  A line has been drawn in the sand.  They are on one side.  We are on the other side.  

Leo seems oblivious to the SSPX, traditional movement, and our concerns.  It also seems deliberate since I would give him the benefit of the doubt he is able to seriously look at the doctrinal and liturgical issues.  At least try and understand us, but the fact he will not even meet with the SSPX shows he does not and has not tried to seriously understand us. 

That by extension includes all traditionalists who would adhere to the TLM while making serious objections about the Novus Ordo.  

And so by extension, that would mean he has not and cannot be expected to truly understand those of us dedicated to the traditional Mass, and Catholic Tradition itself.  They want us relegated to the museum of nostalgia.  

Very soon on July 1st things will be more clear than ever before, which will be the silver lining in the pseudo “excommunications.”  Today within the juridical structure, besides the true Faith and the true Church, there is more clear than ever before also the False Religion or Ape of the Church founded upon the doctrinal errors of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass, and in the first place the non-Catholic teaching that those official non-infallible documents can’t ever admit of doctrinal error, being not correctible. 

They are not infallible, can contain error, do contain error, and can be corrected. 

Leo makes it clear in the last hour that yes indeed, the forthcoming “excommunications” are not simply because of episcopal concentrations without papal mandate, but rather that the mandate won’t be given since the SSPX doesn’t accept these so-called “essential elements” of the Church.  

Religious liberty is not a natural right and can be limited through legal coercion.  Not an “essential element” but a “modernist error” of the Novus Ordo Church. 

Ecumenism is not morally legitimate to widely engage in, including to turn nearly every sector of the Church into an ecumenical/Protestant state of affairs.  Not an “essential element.”

And, collegiality is only true in the sense the College of Bishops exercise joint authority as in an Ecumenical Council, with the Pope, but collectively is inferior in authority to the Supreme Pontiff.  The Church is a monarchy, not a democracy.  The language clearly suggesting a double supremacy is not “an essential” element, but a doctrinal error.  

These truths have been distorted by the modernist reformers attempting to create a new version of the Church, which they practically have done, even though it is a de facto, revolutionary system of novelties, and not a new formal, schismatic Church.  This is because “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.”

The SSPX-Vatican relations will take an indefinite nosedive into the abyss. Thanks to Leo the Pachama-worshipper and Fernandez the Child Porn Author.  But ironically the SSPX ranks will increase.  

And in another decade or two, what are left of the Baby Boomers will be retired or pushing up daisies.   And then the hierarchy will have to become occupied by the now younger clergy who are relatively more traditional and conservative.  

And then maybe say in 2040, the new leadership in the Vatican will hopefully have its wits enough about them to sit shown and have a BILATERAL intellectually honest exchange about the main issues raised by us traditionalists.  

To at least not gaslight us.  To at least acknowledge we’re not making this sh*t up nor are crazy.  That is, we are at the very least sincerely reporting what our five senses and intellect has been observing.  

As Leo also said, “we must move on.”  They will move on with their Synodal Church wrecking ball trying to destroy whatever is left of the Church, especially the hierarchy as a patriarchy, while the Remnant Church will grow, bringing Catholic Tradition to millions.  

P.S. In response to the neo-conservative who once promoted the worship of JP2 and blind obedience to the conciliar popes,  George Weigel is now saying the SSPX literally “does not have the Catholic Faith,”that is they would be either in heresy or apostasy,,because in their recent doctrinal Declaration sent to Leo, it says the Old Testament is “null and void.”   

Yeah, that’s a logical conclusion. 

Which objectively is true, yet with a certain emphasis to make the point that the Old Law of the Jews no longer exists, because they obviously would know it was fulfilled in Christ rather than abolished.  There is now only the New Law. 

The Grand Inquisitor single-handedly insists the meaning must mean a denial of the truths of the Old Testament, which is a conclusion that is as absurd as it is uncharitable.  

The Law of Non-Contradiction and the Constant Teaching of the Catholic Church. Traditional Catholics Have No Other Choice Than to Reject the Conciliar Errors. Even If Falsely “Excommunicated”

The Catholic Church essentially teaches we must always morally follow the Law of Non-Contradictions, because we are taught we are always absolutely bound to adhere to objective Truth.  If the Church has always taught that 1 + 1 = 2, a Catholic can never believe 1 + 1 does not equal 2, or that say 1 + 1 = 3.   

This is true even if a Pope or Ecumenical Council should insert a new false position into a paragraph of a document.  The Magisterium is subordinate to and for the purpose of Truth, whereas Truth is not subordinate to the Magisterium.  

What else are we suppose to do when, after exhaustive study,  we see a conciliar or post-conciliar document contradicting the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Constant Teaching of the Catholic Church?  Whether about religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, liturgical reform, whether or not Catholics and Muslims “adore” the same God, the proper ordering of ends of marriage, whether or not one can participate in non Catholic rites, what are good reasons to justify war, whether or not the Jews are still governed in some way by the Old Law, which is primary—the propitiatory sacrifice or memorial aspect of the Mass, the minimum requirements in Church discipline throughout the liturgical year for fasting and abstinence to have any real spiritual, habitual effect, the role of women in Church leadership, communion for unrepentant public sinners, the suitability of practicing homosexuals in serving as lectors, Eucharistic ministers, or Sunday school teachers, the right of the State to use the death penalty for just reasons, or the immemorial right of Roman rite Catholics to Mass using the perpetual Missal of St. Pope Pius V.

Several principles guide us in what choice to make, when this paradox presents itself, either to embrace a hermeneutic of continuity vs. discontinuity, obedience especially to the Pope, but also fidelity to Scripture and Tradition (divine and ecclesial), and to the Magisterium from 33 A.D. until 1962 A.D. when Vatican II began. 

Are we required to doubt our five senses, our reading comprehension, our internal power of perception, or our common sense contextual reading of texts?  Are we required to doubt our own mental faculties? To endlessly try and square the circle?  To obey the conciliar Popes even if our conscience tells us not to only on certain points, remaining faithful instead to the constant Tradition and basic logic?

Doctrine does develop.  But a new teaching must be a development, not a contradiction.  

For example, according to Pope Pius XII, it is divinely revealed that the matter of priestly ordination is the laying on of hands, not the handing of the chalice to the man being ordained, as was non-definitively and erroneously taught in a document of the Ecumenical Council of Florence.  Therefore, the teaching of Florence was a doctrinal error, not a doctrinal development.  

We go by what the Church says, especially in writing.   When the Popes have always upheld the right of the State to uphold the true religion, and not only the temporal common good,  and therefore may use legal coercion to limit the public expression or spread of a false religion, then if the Church authorities suddenly then essentially say through Vatican II that the State cannot do this, without violating the nature of man, then the Catholic is compelled to make a choice. To first obey all the past popes and constant teaching, and therefore refuse this novel error of Pope Paul VI and the Council Fathers.  That is in that singular statement. This is because adhering to Truth is absolute, whereas obedience is not.  

The Pope and Bishops need to stop gaslighting us.  We’re not idiots.  And we’re not insane.  We might be traumatized with clinical neurosis, but that does not mean our intellectual observations are dubious, or mental faculties are not intact.  To think that is a form of gaslighting.  

No Catholic is required to do mental gymnastics to square the circle.  We have every right to just go by our observations of what is plain and obvious in certain contentious documents, and rely on theologians, priests, and bishops well formed in and dedicated to Catholic Tradition.  

Amoris Laetiteae includes the infamous Footnote 51,  later the Argentinian bishops ask Francis to clarify if that literally means priests can give Communion to Catholics who are divorced, remarried, who have not received an annulment, yet persist in public adultery with no sign of repentance, and Francis says “Yes, you’ve got the right interpretation,” and then he adds that response to the Acts of the Apostolic See making it Magisterial.   Every Catholic and their dog has a right to call that out as a substantial mutation of doctrine, contradicting the constant Catholic teaching of 2000 years.  

You cannot square that circle.  AND, Leo and Tucho can’t justly make the SSPX assent to it as true, as they are requiring of them for all conciliar and post-conciliar doctrinal errors, before consecrations are permitted.  

In essence, the constant teaching of the Catholic Church is that absolutely under no circumstances is  giving Communion in that situation ever morally permissible.  

But according to Francis, it is.  And according to Leo and Tucho, the SSPX must accept this heretical error or  else no permission to consecrate, and therefore if you do, kaboom, you’re now officially outside of communion with the Catholic Church.  Even if hypothetically they accepted the Council’s errors, which is impossible, they still have to accept A.L., otherwise the practical result is “schism.”

It’s the same for the death penalty now being always “impermissible.”   Don’t accept that as true, then no permissions to consecrate for you, and if you do, EXCOMMUNICATION!

Sacred Tradition is a higher authority than any singular Pope or Ecumenical Council.  

There is nothing Catholic or normal about being put in this extremely difficult position, morally speaking, between choosing to A) believe the traditional doctrine contrary to the conciliar or post-conciliar teaching, vs. B) allowing yourself to be illogical, violating the Law of Non-Contradiction and falling into cognitive dissonance pretending to believe both that 1 + 1 = 2, and 1 + 1 = 3, simply because the pope or ecumenical council says so.  

That is blind obedience and a state of absurdity.  Both are not true.  You cannot believe both to be true at the same time or in the same sense  in any sincere or meaningful way.   That is foolishness. 

I have yet to see any rational, well thought out and presented explanation by any Prelate, or by anybody, how any of these novelties are in continuity with what the Church was teaching since the Enlightenment philosophers spread their modern errors.    Because they know it’s impossible.  When some try to, it’s a very thin stretch of the imagination at best, more like P.R. talking points, but always revealing the requirement and mindset of blind obedience.  

We keep hearing “1 + 1 = 3 does not violate 1 + 1 = 2 because the Church says so.  Because the Church says so. Because the Church says so….”

The presupposition in this hermeneutic of continuity, trying to square the circle, is itself a doctrinal error that contradicts the First Vatican Council.  It says “every official, universal document promulgated by the pope, or by an ecumenical council in unity with the pope, is infallible, and therefore cannot contain doctrinal errors, or be open to correction.”

Yet, Vatican I only taught strict infallibility belongs to the pope only, and only when solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.  All other teachings are still infallible only if they have been constantly taught by everyone and always since the Apostles, if not defined or expressed in a definitive way.  

For example, there has never been an extraordinary solemn papal definition of the all male priesthood, yet that has always been the constant teaching “always and everywhere,” and John Paul II did present it in an encyclical as “definitive” dogmatic teaching.   It is infallible because it is the constant teaching of the Church. 

The doctrinal novelties in question are in non-infallible documents, and not made in a definitive way.  They can be corrected if there is objective error.   

This therefore means it is legitimate for the SSPX and other traditional Catholics to sincerely publicly point out doctrinal errors, to be corrected.  This is not rebellion against Church authority or the pope, or the Magisterium, like the heretics or schismatics have done in the past. 

What this is, is making sincere observations, backed up as being reasonable by legitimate theological opinions, especially of bishops and priests, and then saying “With all due respect, I don’t know who actually wrote this document, or their private intentions, but while I do accept all of it from the Vicar of Christ that is clearly Catholic, or if only ambiguous giving it assent by interpreting it in the orthodox sense, even if that requires bending my imagination, these few statements over here clearly, as I read them, contradict on some level what the Church has always taught.  Until they might be clarified to show continuity, or rather corrected in its language, my fidelity to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church requires me and mine to temporarily suspend giving any assent to those very specific statements, and to reject any doctrinal error that clearly appears in the text. “

We actually do this with precedence!   For example, there are all those Catholics such as the Doctors of the Church AFTER the Council of Florence, such as St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis de Lasalle, who taught differently than that Ecumenical Council on what is the matter for priestly ordination.  To be definitively corrected later by Pope Pius XII, the true matter being the laying on of hands.  Bishop Athanasius Schneider makes this point, to defend the orthodoxy of the SSPX’s positions.   

It is therefore not a rebellion or actual formal dissent from the Magisterium as such, still recognizing the validity of Vatican II, the conciliar popes, and their Magisterial documents, while publicly observing what common sense, well informed by the traditional teaching, says is at least an error in language that tends to substantially contradict the previous teaching on some level.  At least in the use of a particular paragraph, sentence, or phrase, in such a way to lead others into error about the doctrine.  

That is it!  Not a rebellion.  Not true disobedience.  

And not schism.  

The authorities in Rome, and generally those who currently occupy the diocesan Sees, generally speaking, DO NOT GET ANY OF THIS!  THEY AREN’T EVEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND!  THEY ARE NOT LISTENING TO US, BUT ONLY FALSELY CONDEMNING US AS SCHISMATICS!!!  STILL TO THIS DAY IN 2026!!!!

That is, as a general rule, every general rule of course admitting of exceptions, Bishop Schneider being one rare exception.  

I put this into colloquial, non-technical language because this injustice against us is at the HUMAN, EVERY DAY level.   This reality harshly and constantly affects us at the local, concrete level in our dioceses.  Everywhere.  

Except maybe in certain Eastern Catholic dioceses or eparchies. 

Christ did not found the Catholic Church only as a divine and supernatural institution.  If that were the case, these recent popes and bishops would be angelic, impeccable, and beyond grievances by the laity.  

But Christ also founded the Church to be in part natural and human.  Its nature is dual, supernatural and natural, as well as divine and human.  

So when you force the SSPX, for example, to accept the blessing of homosexual couples, Fernandez himself having already clarified that Fiducia Supplicans does authorize the blessing the couple AS SUCH, in their relationship (just somehow not in their “union”), or that Catholics and Muslims “adore” the same God, etc etc etc, in order to receive permission to consecrate a few auxiliary bishops for ordinations and confirmations, then it is a grave injustice to threaten them with excommunication for doing so, or to excommunicate.  

Gravely unjust punishments from Church authority are null and void.  They lack the force of law since, as St. Thomas says, “an unjust law is no law at all.”  That includes any legal ruling and punishment. 

The SSPX, as it endlessly states, IS NOT consecrating bishops as an act of denial of the pope’s authority, which would be required to make it a schismatic act, not only the act itself, but only to have bishops to ordain and confirm, their two remaining bishops approaching seventy years of age. That is it!!!!!

The likes of Leo, Tucho, Muller, Fr. Murray, or George Weigel are being INHUMAN in their blind judgment, not only theologically ill-informed.  It is spiritual and psychological persecution and spiritual martyrdom of those Catholics today remaining faithful to Catholic Tradition.  

In conclusion, the forthcoming “excommunications” of July 1st will be gravely unjust acts fundamentally against the traditional doctrine, heroic fidelity to that doctrine, intellectual honesty, and basic human justice and charity.  It comes from a camp hell bent on destroying the traditional Church once and for all, and therefore eventually bringing us and all of Catholic Tradition and orthodoxy to an end.  

As St. Athanasius says, “they may have the churches, but we have the apostolic Faith.”

Leo will do his evil deed.  And we will rejoice at least that the movement of Tradition continues strong with four new, young bishops.  And that we are not part of the “Ape of the Church” which “excommunicates” us.   

We will not compromise.  We will keep the Faith.  And pray for the conversion of the modernists, and for the restoration of the Church one day.  

The Okie Traditionalist Responds to Cardinal Muller’s Condemnatory, Alienating Interview About the SSPX, and the Upcoming July 1st Episcopal Consecrations. The Dye Has Been Cast. The “Ape of the Church” Wages War with the True Church. So Be It.

Muller shows his contempt for the work of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society in his overtly hostile interview just recently released.  He commits hypocrisy by, on one hand, being a promoter of ecumenical unity, but on the other hand in this interview taking a non-pastoral, polarizing, arrogant, and condemning tone to hundreds of thousands of sincere Catholics, attached to a Congregation of about 1,500 formal members around the world, as priests, brothers, sisters, oblates, and seminarians. Who are, by the way, also sincere.  

How does this help anything?!?  It doesn’t. 

And it signals The End.  That is that Leo will now do nothing but cast the SSPX into the abyss on July 1st.  Otherwise, this interview would be derailing any last minute effort, which Muller would certainly not do to Leo.  Therefore, it stands to reason his attitude is aligned with that of Leo, or vice versa. 

This interview signals to me there will now be no last minute conciliatory efforts as asked of the Pope repeatedly by the Society.  It was a long shot, but I think we can now rule that out, just 23 days before the historic ceremony.  

We have reached an impasse on this spiritual battlefield onto which Divine Providence has placed us.

The interview is full of red herrings, psychological  projections, and misrepresentations.  I can say this having read it carefully twice, and having studied for over 25 years the conciliar Crisis and the SSPX’s critiques.  

Many times he overtly misrepresents the position of the SSPX.  It is embarrassing for that to come from such a prominent Cardinal in this hour, trying to promote his point of view.  

He limits his portrayal of the SSPX position on religious liberty to saying it is a denial there is only one Church, and, in addition, in another recent statement, falsely claiming the Society’s objection to it is that the conciliar teaching means all religions are equal.  Those aren’t precisely the main arguments made by the Society about religious liberty. 

Actually, the direct criticism is that the text clearly contradicts in its language pre-conciliar papal teaching condemning the modern error of religious liberty, with no clear explanation or clarification of this to this day.  Only to blindly insist on continuity without explaining how.  

This is specifically relative to whether or not the State has the authority to ever restrict exercise of false religion, which it does, whether it is a natural right the State must uphold without limit, which it is not, vs. simply being a potential civil right the government can indeed grant, limit, or deny.   

The conciliar doctrinal error  in contrast is presented as a  natural right, and therefore must be treated as such by government in civil law, without explicitly upholding the above traditional distinctions.  If you are going to charitably debate your enemies position, have the decency not to misrepresent that position and put words in their mouth.  

His characterization of the Society position does not even remotely, truthfully, or factually represent the SSPX criticisms.  

He mentions the idea that religious liberty is a natural right without rejecting that position, clearing implying  that is his position and that of the conciliar church establishment, which frankly is at least an honest admission of the real, heterodox meaning of this conciliar teaching, which is actually what the Society points out as contradicting Tradition.  Religious liberty can only be granted as a civil right, under certain conditions, not recognized as a natural right that government cannot limit through legal  force, or certain forms of legitimate coercion by law. 

Those are distinctions not made in conciliar or post-conciliar texts.  

Or by Muller. 

Muller gives the impression he hasn’t really read the positions of the Society, but is coming from a place of rage and rash judgment.  His attitude is that of a vehemently anti-Protestant Catholic German, putting hyper-emphasis on obedience to the pope, reflecting the traditional apposition between Catholicism and Lutheranism in Germany.  

He is projecting that dynamic onto the SSPX comparing it to Luther and a new Protestant reformation.  He is injecting a legalistic, rigoristic German attitude into the situation, only making matters worse.  He therefore aggravates the situation. 

The SSPX does not hold there are “dogmatic errors” in the Council or New Mass, as he says, but on a much lower level  “doctrinal errors.”   He is therefore practically making the mistake of confusing lower level pastoral teaching and discipline such as liturgical books, with dogma itself.  Again he puts words in the mouth of his decided enemy.  

One thing we learned well from the example of St. Thomas, in his use of the scholastic method, which applies to every dispute, is to truthfully and charitably represent the position of your opponent, without red herrings, straw man arguments, or sophistry.  For Muller, he gives little to no indication he has taken the time to seriously read or understand the SSPX positions.  Or to clearly represent them in this interview.  

This is in comparison to the once official SSPX visitor appointed by Rome, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who has currently come to the defense of the Society, the orthodoxy and reasonableness of its critiques, and the fact the forthcoming consecrations, in their intent and circumstances, do not rise to the level of a schismatic act.   They are specifically a different moral act, whether justified or not, than formally breaking with the Pope. 

The difference between the two men is the latter is humble, especially intellectually humble in analyzing the argument, whereas the former speaks with intellectual pride.  The contrast between the two approaches is striking.   This is one reason why in my earlier days I tuned out such anti-SSPX rhetoric as being typically so uncharitable and intellectually unfair as to render their arguments unreasonable.  

This difference would lead the inquiring person to take what Schneider says more seriously.  And tune out Muller’s hostility.  

Muller keeps projecting onto the Society error and shame in his interview.   He accused it of Protestant rebellion, yet the conciliar reform itself, which he upholds, is fundamentally Protestant and rebellious in spirit, especially literally making every aspect of the life of the post-conciliar Church “ecumenical,” and therefore somewhat Protestant, especially the new liturgy, church architecture, and church music, and is therefore itself a rebellion from the Church and Popes prior to the Council.   

It is therefore disingenuous to characterize opposition to  a new kind of Protestant Reformation in the Church, as itself a new Protestant Reformation. That again is psychological projection and an abuse of his Office as a Bishop and Cardinal.  

He accuses it of not being fully Catholic if it believes conciliar religious liberty and the like are errors to be resisted, yet himself has practically and strongly rejected Fiducia Supplicans on “same sex couple blessings.”

You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t condemn the SSPX for finding errors in certain non-infallible Magisterial documents in the 1960’s, of a pastoral Council, while you are doing the same for certain recent non-infallible Magisterial documents. 

If Francis made any positive contribution to the Church, it ironically was by inserting certain doctrinal errors into his documents that were more explicit and outrageous to everyone who espouses orthodoxy, traditionalist or not, than the conciliar popes before him had ever done.  This fact alone then vindicates the doctrinal analysis of the Society that certain doctrinal errors in certain conciliar and post-conciliar documents do exist. 

And CAN exist. 

Yet this irony seems to escape the all compassionate and kind Cardinal Muller. 

He falsely accuses the Society of not accepting dogmatic teachings in Vatican II, literally suggesting  by not accepting the pastoral teachings on religious liberty and ecumenism, that the Society does not accept certain dogmas and therefore cannot be in full communion. 

But that is taking an erroneous view of the pastoral Council and certain low level pastoral teachings and making them De Fide.   That is being necessary to believe in order to be in full communion.  

That is imposing a false view of how the Council viewed itself, and how the Popes viewed it ever since, and therefore himself, in an abstract sense, erects a false version of the Church, based on novel pastoral teachings misconstrued as dogma, while essentially falsely accusing the Society of promoting a false, schismatic, and Protestant view of the Church.  It is ecclesiastical bullying again in the form of hypocrisy and projection. 

He also calls into question  the SSPX position of the necessity of an officially Catholic State, which is by the way the traditional teaching, based on the Tradition’s teaching against religious liberty, as being unrealistic, suggesting no country today would adopt that model.  And so he once again misrepresents either intentionally or recklessly the Society position. 

The Archbishop and the Society raised the alarm from the beginning how conciliar religious liberty would result in the secularization of certain Catholic States after Vatican II, like would happen with Spain and Italy, through a “separation of Church and State,” which was/is a stated goal of the modernists.  By correcting the error, in due time, the Society wishes this to be reversed.  It obviously doesn’t expect any current nation to realistically become a Catholic State now or any time soon, as Muller suggests as if to mock the Society view, but instead one day. 

King St. Louis IX

This kind of anti-SSPX screed is a very old and annoyingly overused trope  that accomplishes nothing, except rallying one side vs. another.  

So be it.

I interpret this former head of the traditional Holy Office, by the way who supports liberation theology which is Marxist and heretical, as shooting a gun in the air like one of the generals speaking for and to the conciliar establishment, which treats Vatican II as a permanent super-dogma.  He is preaching to the choir, and rallying together going forward those who oppose the SSPX, the traditional Mass as more than a personal preference, and who are trying to silence legitimate traditionalist critiques.  

So be it.  The dye has been cast.  Leo will surely not answer the Society’s recent letter asking to confirm them in central dogmas of the Faith, to show we can trust him going forward.  Either he does not firmly believe them, doesn’t believe them, or doesn’t care about confirming them to prevent an unnecessary appearance of “schism.”  

Like Muller, he will maintain a polarizing posture to the Society by not really taking the time to truly understand what it really has said or done.  Francis in contrast is said to have read three times the 1000 page biography of Archbishop Lefebvre.  Influencing later his mindset of mercy towards the Society.  

But now this is just more  “dialogue of the deaf,” a term used by the Society to characterize how Rome tried to engage doctrinal discussions after the lifting of the 1988 “consecrations.”  More internal Church war.  Post July 1st, even more division!  Much more than the division caused by the last pontificate, in the first year of Leo’s “pontificate of unity.”

Church history and future popes and ecumenical councils will be the final judge, looking back. And God is the ultimate judge. 

Until then, by means of the diabolically unjust act that Leo WILL perform in a few weeks on July 1st (which is obvious when contrasting the recent open, filial efforts on the side of the Society towards the Pope, compared to his and Tucho’s heavy hammer approach), it will be clear more than ever before that in this spiritual war there are, in a sense, two versions of the Church in opposition.  

On one side is the SSPX and other like-minded Catholics, standing together in defense of the Faith and theirs rights.  They in this war help to represent, though of course not exclusively, the true Church and the true Faith. 

On the other side stands the armies of Mordor, Satan’s legions of devils, and those modernists and liberals in Rome and in the highest positions of authority (like that of a Cardinal!).  While they may officially and validly occupy the seats of authority within the juridical structure, those like Muller, Tucho, Francis, or Leo himself practically represent the side that is a new false Faith and Church.  

The “Ape of the Church,” as the Venerable and soon-to-be Blessed Archbishop Fulton Sheen once termed and predicted.  

They are the aggressor, and we with Christ are on the receiving end.  They created this spiritual battlefield across the Church, not us.  And we WILL NOT fade backwards into quietism or cowardice. They will lie, defame, persecute, gaslight, and divide Christ’s Church, while we will stand up publicly to their heresies, doctrinal errors, bad theology, sacrileges, and betrayals of Christ the King.  Our spiritual weapons of DEFENSE are  the traditional doctrine, traditional Mass, prayer, and penance.  

We will maintain humility, charity, the supernatural vision, truthfulness, intellectual honesty, a fair representation of the conciliar side, continue our rosary crusades and pilgrimages for the restoration of Tradition, and in support of our unending mission to see Tradition fully restored once and for all to the papacy and to the Vatican.  

In conclusion, Cardinal Muller’s interview falls short and is offensive to pious ears.  It accomplishes nothing.   After July 1st, after the “excommunications,” and to what extent they are imposed, it will be a time of great thanksgiving and peace.  This persecution of the SSPX, and indirectly all Catholics who support them and the traditional doctrine in question, will be a Sign of Contradiction.  This situation is a clear line in the sand and reference report reminding us God has blessed us traditional Catholics with clear signs we belong to the True Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.

As St. Athanasius once said, “They may have the churches.  But we have the apostolic Faith."