Re. the SSPX. An Intervention By The Okie Traditionalist, Appealing To Tulsa Bishop David Konderla and the U.S. Papal Nuncio: A Proposed Doctrinal Agreement and Profession of Faith to Demonstrate “Full Communion” for He and His Wife, all SSPX Laity, the entire SSPX, and Others. For the Greater Glory of God and in Veneration of Our Lady, Queen of Heaven and Earth

Introduction

The SSPX, its bishops, priests, seminarians, brothers, sisters, oblates, third order members, affiliated religious orders, monasteries, and convents, and over 600,000 laity (some say upwards of 1,000,000) should be treated right now not as proud schismatic rebels, but as White Martyrs.  

The Decree signals in the most formal way yet that there are, in a sense, two Churches within the juridical structure, even much more clear now since July 1st.  Mainly based on a doctrinal divide.  One is of course  the true Church. The second is a regime and network of modernists and liberals in power, not creating formally a new church,  who have effectively created a new religious system of belief and worship that is analogous at least materially to a new religion and a new church. 

A Time to Give Thanks

Therefore, this is truly  a moment for a non-triumphalist, modest celebration that the SSPX, the laity, and all those around the world who “are faithful to Tradition” do not cave to this “modernist church,” applying what St. Athanasius once said, they are “the True Church of Jesus Christ. “ 

As long as we remain humble in this moment, about this much more clear reality, I think we all should imitate with cheer and joy, with some brats, beer,,and chocolate cake, imitating our movement’s  patron saint and confessor bishop, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who, after his heroic act of consecrations in 1988, rightly afterwards for a modest moment, with the new bishops, celebrated being essentially, ironically cast out of the “false conciliar church.” This is a rightful analogy, of course.  

Why This  Doctrinal Intervention by The Okie Traditionalist with the Catholic Church, Through the Diocese of Tulsa?

Apart from the reasons already listed in the title, and my love of not only the Universal Church, but my own Local Church, since I was a boy serving Mass and attending Catholic school, which has always been the main motive of a few past interventions in my diocese, ultimately the outcome, however positive or negative, could possibly  be used as a Formal, Doctrinal, and Canonical Reference by other laity “formally adhering” to the SSPX, the SSPX itself, and anyone else affected. 

By the SSPX faithful who want to do the same kind of witness and Profession of Faith., to help challenge and one day destroy the modernist errors.  To throw them into hell where they belong.  

This is certainly not because we have cause for fear or scruples.  This can be a historical record of the current impass between the Traditional Catholic Remnant and—not the divine Church as such— but with those on the side of what is called the “Ape of the Church.”

Disclaimer

My wife and are at peace with the Decree and its practical outcomes, and are certain the penalties are gravely unjust, doctrinally AND canonically improper, and therefore null and void.  This is the general mind of the SSPX priests and laity.  Any contestation at this point is simply to continue the line of the Archbishop and Society, to maintain true unity and avoid even the appearance of schism, to remove that barrier that would discourage some from returning to Tradition, while helping Rome return to Tradition. 

My Intervention 

I sent the Bishop, etc. a Letter by email last week, and yesterday this Doctrinal Agreement we are requesting to add to any signed documents as a practically necessary prerequisite.  The purpose is to know—in a precise, clear, and non-contradictory way—which by the way has never before been granted the Society or anyone else—what teaching or discipline and its precise, clear meaning we must give “religious assent” to, to be “in full communion” and “Catholics in good standing.”  AND clearly how that teaching is in continuity with papal teaching prior to the Council, and with all of Sacred Tradition.

And I am in a unique position as a public figure as a Catholic writer, however modest that may be, with an MA in Thomistic Philosophy, from a seminary college, with some qualifications, per Canon 212,  to help not only ourselves, but you and others.  We also must insist that this Doctrinal declaration be practically included in order to sign anything, as our own personal way of presenting our Profession of Faith. So that the Church herself clearly knows what we believe before they judge whether or not we are “schismatics” and “excommunicated.” 

In Any Agreement Both Sides Must Be Clear. Especially If Determining What Must Be Accepted to Show “Full Communion.”  Especially Since That Could Potentially Affect a Person’s Eternal Destiny

AND, so the Church since Vatican II once and for all clearly explains what must be accepted, according to what clear meaning, clearly demonstrating continuity with Tradition in the controversial documents. To once and for all be transparent and crystal clear about the Council and reforms, how exactly they are in continuity with Tradition. 

Imagine This Scenario 

Imagine if the pope sat me down and said to me “I am the pope.  I will tell you a teaching you must give religious assent to, to determine your salvation. Here it is,” and then says like a loud, screeching alien “Yee yee yo  yo batcha batcha oreos batcha batcha, yo yo,” ending in a very loud and long “meeeeeeeeeooooow.”

Am I required to give my religious assent to THAT?!?  If I didn’t, but suspended temporarily my religious assent until he will clarify or correct his statement so I clearly know what the heck I’m agreeing to, AND how the heck that is Catholic, am I a “schismatic” guilty of an ecclesial crime resulting in “excommunication?”   

That is of course a rhetorical question with an obvious answer.  

I imagine and hope this practical requirement would be our canonical right, at least since on the human, natural law level, considering, you know, the extreme gravity of this situation, and any potential spiritual outcome for us and others, we would have a moral right to this.  Otherwise denying this would be putting us potentially into jeopardy, and would be too one-sided and hard-handed.  

At some point, especially if there is a negative outcome, such as not including this document, but requiring a blind acceptance, which we refuse to give due to the Crisis, it will be reported here.   And the judgment and precise reasons ought to be in writing, as a public record.  We have already asked in advance for a canon lawyer and appeal process to see this through to the very end, if/when it becomes necessary,  for all of the above stated  purposes.  

Please share this with others especially those in our situation who could benefit from this, as a kind of help to them, and pray for us, and this.  

Feel free to contact me about this, as long as you are civil.  I ask others to consider doing this very thing in their diocese, wherever it is in the world.  Now we the laity can have our day in court, so to speak, and by our own professions of faith compel the authorities to confirm us in the true Faith, and to help “restore all things to Christ.”

Feel free to use this Statement to present to your own bishop, to seek doctrinal clarity, or to modify it if necessary.  

If you are interested in organizing this effort globally through social media, making this viral, let me know.  We could set up a Facebook page as a hub to organize this activity.  

My non-pen name is Chris Kennedy, Joseph being my middle name, and Ostermeir my mother’s maiden name. I once kept my IRL name private for professional and safety reasons. I don’t care about maintaining anonymity in this situation. 

chrisbrokenarrow@yahoo.com 

See below the Doctrinal Agreement I wrote up, still adding some edits, retracting some of the more personal information and personal sections applying to our case.  

PS: as a side note, I intend to mentally compartmentalize this as much as possible as one of my many tasks on my To Do list.  Soon I’ll put everything on this subject in a separate folder attached above.  

I’d rather be blogging about things like trips to Blue Hole Spring, its ice cold waters being medicinal, and how God instills special properties in nature for the purpose of healing.  

———————————————-------------------------

DOCTRINAL AGREEMENT AND CLARIFICATION  

By Christopher J. Kennedy,  A.A.S, B.S., M.A. 

Masters of Arts in Thomistic Catholic Philosophy

Holy Apostles College and Seminary

Re: Second Vatican Council, Post-Conciliar Magisterium, and All Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Disciplines

Submitted by: Christopher J. Kennedy and Cecil Kennedy  

Residence: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma  

Diocese: Tulsa  

Date: July 6, 2026  

Purpose: Request to adjoin this Agreement and Statement with the required DDF documents regarding SSPX Faithful for recognition of “Full Communion.” 

To clarify what must be accepted. Also, re: Promise of Obedience to Pope Leo XVI and All His Successors, to the Church, and to our local Ordinary, Bishop Konderla and all his Successors.

Reference: Added to the Initial Letter of July 2, 2026 sent to the Bishop etc. by email  regarding our Positions and Background. 

Request to include these statements and the initial Letter in the Formal Agreement, to fully, clearly represent what we believe and accept, and our personal circumstances, requesting to be accepted by the bishop as a reference and part of this mutual Agreement.

PREAMBLE AND METHOD OF ASSENT

Please initial next to each statement if you, representing the Bishop and Diocese, accept it to be either the proper, official interpretation or meaning, or a licit, allowed interpretation or understanding of the teaching.

1. General Position on Vatican II  

We generally accept with religious assent the Second Vatican Council and all its non-infallible teachings and pastoral disciplines, with necessary caveats for the sake of clarity, and give total assent of faith to all its dogmatic statements.

2. Nature of Vatican II  

We accept it is a licit, legitimate Ecumenical Council, mainly of a pastoral nature. Yet according to Pope Paul VI, the new pastoral teachings and disciplinary reforms are not guaranteed to be infallible. Therefore, as has happened in the past, certain errors regarding what is true or correct related to doctrine or discipline are objectively possible in the language of certain Magisterial, non-infallible statements, while the Holy Ghost still gives the general charism of infallibility granting a general protection.

3. Openness to Development and Legitimate Critique  

We remain in principle open, and now even more open, in a general way, to gaining more positive understandings or applications of certain controversial texts or disciplinary changes, while still supporting certain legitimate critiques, like that of the SSPX, as seen during their 2009–2011 bilateral doctrinal discussions at the then-CDF in Rome, so that the integrity and clarity of the Faith is maintained for future generations.

4. Regarding a Few Non-Definitive, Extremely Unclear Statements.  A Conditional, Temporary  Suspension of Full Religious Assent 

However, with regard to only a few controversial statements in Vatican II, as critiqued by Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X, and many others, based on the Church allowing this approach in the past for exceptional cases — which we believe this is — we respectfully, temporarily withhold or suspend a full, ordinary religious assent to a few statements until the Vatican, or the bishop or diocese in this very Agreement, will clarify or correct these statements in continuity with Tradition — in writing — such that we then and only then are able in conscience to give a free, full, and ordinary religious assent.

5. Need for True Clarity Before Full Religious Assent  

This is because the clarification or correction makes it clear what precisely and exactly is the meaning of the text as to be understood and fully accepted, in fairness to us and all the laity needing a basic level of doctrinal clarity before we can give religious assent, since we have the right first to clarity before agreeing to a particular statement.

6. Criteria for Acceptable Clarification  

Any clarification must be:  

a) In clear, explicit continuity with both the pre-conciliar papal Magisterium, especially since the Age of the Enlightenment, regarding the errors of modernism and liberalism, especially pseudo-Catholic modernism and liberalism within the Church. Those pre-conciliar teachings remain true and relevant today with no substantial change.  

b) In clear, explicit objective continuity with all of Sacred Tradition and the exercise of the Magisterium since the Apostles, to clearly maintain fidelity to all the divine revelations given to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ, in our ultimate fidelity to Him, the Logos, the divine Word of God.

7. Partial Religious Assent to Controversial Texts  

Regarding religious assent to these few controversial statements, we do give religious assent in at least a partial way to a few controversial statements, or parts of them, to whatever is still clearly true within each statement, and clearly in continuity with Tradition within the language of those statements.

8. Precedent for Doctrinal Error in Magisterial Texts  

We admit that doctrinal errors in Church documents are historically rare, and that the frequency of these errors in and since the Council is unprecedented, but we know it is theoretically possible. 

For example, the Council of Florence erroneously taught the matter of ordaining priests is the handing of the chalice to the ordinand, later definitively corrected by Pius XII to be the laying on of hands. 

This was an error related to doctrine, which Doctors of the Church like St. Robert Bellarmine respectfully corrected and rejected long before Pius XII officially taught it. This is a point brought up recently by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

9. The Catholic Conscience and the Law of Non-Contradiction  

We are not able in good conscience, under pain of sin, of violating the law of non-contradiction, of violating the Faith, and our own personal faith, of our sensus fidei, to give the full ordinary religious  assent to the main, problematic, controversial statements — as critiqued by the SSPX and others — until clarified or corrected in such a way we can honestly and truthfully sign the required documents, or agree in some manner to the true teaching.

10. Difficult Assent via Mental Distinction  

If we are to use our mind to its greatest abilities, however difficult or contorted it might be in doing so, yet we are able to see certain controversial statements, or parts of those statements, with some degree of clarity with an orthodox meaning in the language — despite in a material linguistic way it seeming almost impossible to accept — then we do give the most basic religious assent, but with great difficulty and reservation.

II. LUMEN GENTIUM 25 AND RELIGIOUS ASSENT

11.  Pledge of Fidelity with a Necessary Distinction 

We promise in the future, and promise to continue maintaining as we have, fidelity to the Magisterium, the Pope, and the Bishops, and to give religious assent to all clearly intelligible, non-infallible, authoritative teachings, and the assent of faith to all dogmatic teachings repeating the constant Tradition.  

However, as a necessary distinction, we repeat commitment to the above method of holding and expressing reservations, including a respectful but temporary suspension of a full, ordinary religious assent only when strictly necessary. 

This method, which the Church has permitted in the past in difficult cases, we carefully apply only to a few controversial statements as critiqued by Archbishop Lefebvre.  We agree to give at least some partial assent that we are able to give, depending on the exact language of the statement. 

We absolutely do not do this in a spirit of disobedience, nor rebellion, nor schism, but as a necessary step for us, binding on our consciences, especially in light of the Crisis in the Church, of doctrinal confusion, sometimes rightly called the “Great Apostasy.”

III. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY - DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

12. Assent to Dignitatis Humanae  

We give religious assent to those aspects of the controversial statements called into question by Archbishop Lefebvre regarding the conciliar teaching on religious liberty, which are clear, and obviously in continuity with Tradition.  Yet those aspects of the language that appear to materially or formally conflict with pre-conciliar papal teaching and all of Tradition, we again temporarily withhold or suspend the full, normal religious assent to those specific statements, or parts of statements, until clarifications or corrections are made to show continuity with pre-conciliar teaching and Tradition. 

Yet, those statements, or parts of statements that, even with a great degree of mental or theological contortion, are clear enough to give religious assent to, we do so, and will do so, with great difficulty and reservation.

13. Acceptance of Pre-Conciliar Teaching  

We accept all pre-conciliar teachings which condemn the modernist teaching on religious liberty as still being true and applying today, but also those aspects of the conciliar language that are clearly in continuity with that teaching and with Tradition.

14. Rejection of Coerced Faith  

We accept absolutely that no government or person has the right to force the Catholic Faith upon a person — to literally force them legally, morally, or psychologically to believe or practice the Faith, either privately or publicly, by individuals and especially by all governments. This includes tyrannical or unjust methods approved of by government.

15. Civil Religious Liberty for Common Good  

We accept the need and legitimacy of civil religious liberty in a religiously plural state for the common good. In the era after World War II, we accept that this especially applies due to an increase of pluralistic societies, the decline of religious practice, and a decline in a homogenous Christian culture.

16. Limits on Civil Religious Liberty  

We believe civil allowance for religious liberties cannot be absolute. We believe the government can impose limits, such that in a legal sense, “legal coercion” by means of the civil or human law — that is, to forbid or restrict certain public religious activities that are non-Catholic — is morally permissible.  We believe the term “religious tolerance” best represents the Church’s timeless teachings regarding civic religious liberties for non-Catholics.

17. Theological Basis for Not Forcing Faith  

The basis of not forcing the Catholic Faith on individuals is truly based on respect for each person, based on the rights of personal dignity, but even more so, in obedience to the divine law of God, in which this form of coercion is intrinsically a sin and violation of the 5th commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” meaning we must not cause illicit harm in any manner to another human being, because all people are made in the image and likeness of God.

18. No Natural Right to Error  

We adhere to the clear pre-conciliar teaching, and that of all Sacred Tradition, related to religious liberty: that no human being ever under any circumstances, anywhere in the world, for all time, has a strict natural right or divine right to an absolute, unrestricted religious liberty privately, publicly, in the social or political sphere, or to be guaranteed in this sense by government, whether that government may be that of a pluralistic society, a majority Catholic society, or a de factoCatholic society. 

In all cases, the government never has an obligation to uphold this erroneous form of religious liberty, but only a civil religious liberty which is limited and can be modified based on changing circumstances.

19.Orthodox Sense of Religious Liberty  

The only orthodox sense of religious liberty is a limited civic religious liberty, based on the human law, not found absolutely in the natural law or natural rights. That is, religious liberties given only by human or civil law, for the common good. 

The role of the natural and divine law regarding religious liberty is the moral requirement to protect the common good and not force faith on others, but absolutely not an intrinsic moral right to believe or profess a non-Catholic religion, privately or publicly, protected by the government or not.  Man has no strict moral right to error, and to practice a false religion.  He does have a right to share in the common good, as upheld by civil religious liberty.

20. Social Kingship of Christ  

We still believe in and uphold as still relevant and applicable the pre-conciliar papal teachings known under the general doctrine of the “Social Kingship of Christ.” 

The Church teaches that under certain ideal circumstances, as when a particular nation and culture is de facto Catholic, that government under those circumstances has a right to declare Catholicism as the “state religion” and in official ways honor Christ as the King not only of the Church, but the King over every society and government, which ultimately under ideal circumstances, generally has a responsibility to do. A Catholic may licitly believe this entire statement.

21. Right to Critique  

We maintain the right to support and even at times publicly engage in the above critiques of religious liberty, which are basically those of the SSPX.  As a Catholic with an MA in Thomistic Philosophy, with some theology, from Holy Apostles College and Seminary, I reserve the right and under some circumstances the general responsibility, especially through my blog articles at The Okie Traditionalist, to help Catholics and non-Catholics alike, including myself and my wife, to better understand what the Church has always taught, and to oppose the modernist and liberal errors.

IV. ECUMENISM AND INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE

22. Critique of Ecumenism  

We hold the licit opinion that the general course of ecumenism directed by the Council and Church after the Council has been gravely imprudent, and in a general sense Catholics can licitly not support in their opinions or activities a wide involvement in the ecumenical movement.

23. Effects of Ecumenism on Church Life  

We believe that the ecumenical movement, in particular its effect on the life of the Church, especially through a near-ubiquitous influence on theology, church architecture, the liturgy, liturgical music, etc., has been gravely imprudent, unnecessary, practically leading to much illegitimate destruction of Ecclesial tradition, therefore leading often to heterodox or even heretical beliefs and practices as its expected consequence.  

24. Rupture with Tradition  

We believe the practical, unacceptable result is a practical rupture with the continuity of Ecclesial tradition, especially in the liturgy, as generally maintained since the Apostles, the apostolic age, and the ancient Church, until a major, universal, practical rupture in the 1970s or before. We believe it is licit to hold and promote this critique.

25. Pre-Conciliar Tradition and Discipline on “Communicatio in sacris.”That is on participating in the religious rites or sacraments of non-Catholic communions or religions 

We uphold the constant tradition and law before Vatican II which forbade receiving the sacraments, except when in danger of death, on doctrinal and canonical grounds, or actively participating in the liturgies or “sacred rites” of the Orthodox, Protestants, or any non-Catholic communion or religion. 

We believe it is licit to believe this is the unchanging, still-binding teaching of the Church, to avoid sinful activities with regard to active  participation in false religion, and the scandal of religious indifference.

26. Objection to Ecumenical Directory  

Therefore, permissions for active participation in non-Catholic rites in the Ecumenical Directory are cause for licit objection. We are free to hold, as we do and the SSPX does, that this change is an error related towards the sphere of doctrine — that is doctrinal error — and in good conscience we cannot accept it, unless it is sufficiently clarified or corrected that in certain circumstances, one may passively observe the non-Catholic religious rite, for special purposes, including to promote unity as well as conversion to the Faith.

27. Religious Assent with Reservations on Ecumenism Texts  

Re all the conciliar statements regarding ecumenism, we give our most basic religious assent yet with great difficulty, due to our position about grave imprudence. Yet we do not give the full and normal religious assent to the heterodox intentions of certain modernists who helped write the document, including perhaps certain bishops who helped write it, nor to any “spirit” in the language of the document they caused, or within post-conciliar documents, at least materially in the language, that “tends” towards religious indifferentism, a false ecumenism of “no necessary return to the Church,” or even “tilts” towards the heresy that there are legitimate religious and spiritual paths to God other than that of the Catholic Church and Our Lord Jesus Christ.

28. Jews as the Once Chosen People 

We do believe that the Jews in their religion once had the true religion, and once deserved the honor of the name Chosen People of God. However, we do not accept the proposition, whether somehow in a conciliar or post-conciliar document or not, that in a true and binding sense the Jews must still be referred to as the Chosen People of God.  It is licit to honor the fact they once deserved the title The Chosen People of God, and still hold some special role in history, related to the Church, in that Scripture says they will one day convert.  That conversion will surely help many others convert.  

The proper application of this term is only to Christians who do not in their religion or doctrine reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Christians alone are, strictly speaking, the “Chosen People of God” since the time of Christ, that is bound in a special Covenant to God.  Also, we reject as an error that the Jews are still objectively under the Old Covenant, or that adherence to it remains a formal path to salvation for them.  This is heresy most offensive to Our Lord Jesus Christ who said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father accept thorough me.” 

29. Muslims and Worship of God  

Re the Muslims, in Vatican II and post-conciliar discipline, we temporarily suspend religious assent to the surface meaning that on the level of the supernatural, religious, and liturgical worship, Catholics truly “adore” the same God as the Muslims. This is because there are major, substantial errors in the Muslim doctrine of God, especially their rejection of the divinity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, and that God in His nature can command us to actions considered by the Catholic Church to objectively be grave, disordered sin, such as justification for cases of multiple wives, revenge, lying, deceit, or the non-defensive killing of Christians and Jews. 

Therefore, the only way to give religious assent to the statement we “adore” the same God is by means of a difficult mental contortion, if the above distinctions are recognized as true, with the orthodox way of interpreting the conciliar text. Catholics and Muslims worship the same God not on the official, doctrinal, or religious level, though having some commonalities in so far as they accept certain truths about God as revealed through Abraham. 

They, to a certain degree, as individuals, worship the same God on a natural, philosophical, and cultural level in the sense that there is only one God, Who is the Creator, a personal God, with divine Providence.

30. Protestants, Orthodox, and Salvation  

Re Vatican II on the Protestants and Orthodox, the Church insists that they and all people must enter the Catholic Church to be saved, as the only ordinary imperative, and that salvation outside of the visible Church can come through extraordinary means such as through invincible ignorance, water baptism, baptism of intention, or baptism of blood, according to God’s mercy and power.

It is still licit to believe in the place called Limbo, as a theological opinion, as a more natural paradise than heaven for the unbaptized, as once commonly held by theologians. It is licit to believe some people who die without water baptism or knowing Christ, go to Limbo, where they would still enjoy God’s presence, and potentially some relation to souls in heaven, like the Blessed Virgin Mary or deceased loved ones. 

However, if they know the Catholic Church is the true Church, and Christ is the true Messiah, and through culpable ignorance or pride formally and completely reject in principle Church membership, in Christ, then they are to be considered seriously at risk of damnation. To say that all men in the end will certainly be saved, in the sense that no soul will eternally be damned, or that hell does not exist, or is not eternal, is heretical.  To even entertain the idea most or all will be saved is already condemned by the Pope as a modernist error, still applying today. 

It is objectively possible that each person individually will be saved, by the power of God’s grace and mercy, but that is not a certainty. There is only one God, one Messiah, who is Jesus Christ only, and only one visible institutional Church founded by Christ, “outside of which there is no salvation,” that is there is no other god, messiah, religion, Church, or way of life given or approved by God as a formal path to salvation. 

Also, one may believe the teachings of many saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, that the majority will in the end be damned.

V. COLLEGIALITY

31. Assent with Reservation on Collegiality  

Re Vatican II on collegiality. We give religious assent to all conciliar and post-conciliar texts’ statements on collegiality, yet with some great difficulty and reservation and need of clarification.

32. Limits of Episcopal Power  

We accept that the College of Bishops does have the power of supremacy as does the pope. However, we only know that they can only execute this power of supremacy over the universal Church strictly speaking at and through a valid Ecumenical Council, ratified by the pope. 

However the authority of each bishop, the entire College of Bishops, including through an Ecumenical Council, is inferior to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. He alone has the highest authority and highest supremacy in the Church.

33. Diocesan Bishop and Conferences  

A diocesan bishop must obey the pope, or any national conference directives taken up and mandated by the pope, but each bishop as a kind of vicar of Christ over his diocese. As a monarch, he cannot by divine right be forced to follow other national conference directives, or guidelines, unless approved by the Pope to be imposed on the bishops.

34. Critique of National Conferences  

We maintain with the Society, the post-conciliar system of national conferences is very problematic, gravely imprudent, tending to turn the Church into a democracy — as does the more recent “synodal path” — on a practical level weakening the authority and influence of the Supreme Pontiff over the universal Church, and that of the Ordinary over his diocese. We maintain it is licit to maintain and promote the above opinions for the good of the Church.

VI. AGGIORNAMENTO

35. Orthodox Sense of Aggiornamento  

Re Aggiornamento in Council documents and the orientation of the Council, regarding reforms to adapt the Church to the modern world, and especially since the new era after World War II: We do accept the principle of aggiornamento as objectively taught in Council documents, accepting each statement with religious assent, that is in a meaning that is in continuity with the true meaning contained in pre-conciliar teaching, and all of Tradition.

36. Rejection of Conformity with Modern Errors  

This fundamentally means that the Church cannot adapt its teaching and disciplines to bring it into conformity and harmony with the errors of the Enlightenment, the errors of modern philosophy, the errors of modernism or liberalism, or of secularism. Instead, it is the responsibility of the Church to, through certain relative allowable adaptations, better facilitate the secular world adapting itself to Christ and the Church, as the proper vertical ordering of an orthodox aggiornamento.

37. Interpreting Ambiguity  

Any ambiguous expression of aggiornamento in council documents, and in any conciliar statement, we accept in the orthodox sense, as we do with all ambiguous statements, interpreted according to and in light of pre-conciliar papal teaching, and in accord with and in light of all of Sacred Tradition.

38. Ordering of Ends  

Any adaptations in Church discipline must clearly, primarily be for the purpose of saving souls. We accept other ends such as social peace and justice as being secondary ends, but ultimately, necessarily oriented to the primary end. 

And disordering of that order we reject. Any “spirit” in the language of conciliar or post-conciliar documents, or disciplinary texts, that even accidentally disorders these ends, in the language, especially which makes the primary end secondary or even irrelevant, and the secondary end primary, we do not accept or follow, but oppose as an example of modernism trying to secularize the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to create a new horizontal false form of the Church.

39. Incompatible Ideologies  

We hold that the following systems of thought are so incompatible with the Catholic Faith, that mutual dialogue and consensus between these two systems of belief and thinking are practically impossible without risking compromising on a point of faith or morals: modernism, liberalism, post-modernism, socialism, and communism. 

We hold that is still licit to believe and publicly promote these positions.

VII. LITURGICAL REFORM - SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

40. Basic Assent with Reservation  

Re Vatican II on the reform of the liturgy. We give basic religious assent to every statement in Sacrosanctum Concilium, but with reservation and great difficulty. We recognize the objective right of the Council and Pope Paul VI to create a very simplified, novel form of the Roman rite, or an experimental rite, and for all seven sacraments. 

And to use the vernacular, and only technically for the priest to face the congregation.

41. Critique of Rupture  

However, we believe these changes do represent a gravely imprudent rupture with the Ecclesial tradition of the Roman rite, especially by making the vernacular the primary language of the Roman rite, facing the people the norm, and trying to recreate a primitive form of the liturgy of the early Church.

42. Liturgical Antiquarianism  

We believe this reform at least tends to depart from the spirit or point of view of the liturgical teachings of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei about a liturgical antiquarianism. As taught by the Protestants based on an erroneous version of early Church history, especially about the liturgy. Therefore, we cannot give religious assent to that “tendency,” we must maintain we are free to resist and criticize that tendency, yet objectively we do still give basic religious assent objectively to all statements in Sacrosanctum Concilium, yet with great difficulty and reservation.

43. New Missal Validity  

We accept the new missal of the Mass as being basically licit in the sense of being legitimately promulgated by the pope, and valid, when the priest uses the valid form, matter, and intent.

44. Protestantization of Liturgy  

We do not tell people that it is intrinsically a sin to actively participate in the new Mass. Yet we maintain that there is a “spirit” or “orientation” in the rubrics and prayers of the missal, especially during the Canon, that “tends” towards a kind of Protestantization of the liturgy. 

We support this position as maintained by the SSPX, and many others, especially by Bishop Athanasius Schneider. We do not give religious assent to this perceived “spirit” or “orientation.”

45. Doctrinal Deficiencies in Missal  

We also do not give religious assent but suspend it, to what we observe as certain doctrinal deficiencies in the missal, even though we maintain it is a valid Catholic Mass, and objectively licit, except with regards to these deficiencies that Catholics can licitly identify as doctrinal errors (not heresies).

46. Obscuring of Sacrifice  

In the new missal, we observe a major diminishing and obscuring of the teaching of the propitiatory sacrifice, the sacrificial priesthood, the miracle of transubstantiation, and the Real Presence. We observe a strong tendency of the rubrics and prayers to present the Mass primarily as the memorial and communion, and secondarily as the sacramental priest, acting as another Christ, in the person of Christ, literally re-presenting the bloody sacrifice of the Cross on the altar in an unbloody sacramental way, to satisfy the Father’s need for a perfect redemptive sacrifice and atonement, to forgive sins, and to save souls. 

At the same time this worship is adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and atonement.

47. Proper Ordering of the Mass  

All of the above must clearly be presented in the new missal as the primary ends of the Mass, clearly showing that the secondary ends of memorial and communion among the congregation with the priest are very important and intrinsic to the Mass, yet clearly secondary, and as means to the primary ends. If the necessary clarifications or corrections are made to the new missal, we will objectively give full religious assent to all of the missal, yet with great difficulty and reservation. 

We would still have the right to take theological positions giving the opinion that the new rite is imprudent to create, is in a practical rupture from the Ecclesial traditions of the Roman rite, and ought to be one day discontinued, and the missal of Pius V fully restored universally. As part of the restoration of the Church, and to bring the current Crisis to an end.

1. Basic Religious Assent to New Missal with Distinctions 

Therefore, we give the most basic religious assent to the basic legality, validity, and doctrinal content contained in the new missal, but otherwise temporarily withhold full religious assent on certain aspects until necessary corrections are made.

49. New Canon and Offertory  

But we cannot give a full and ordinary religious assent to the entire revised Canon of the new Mass, especially the new Offertory which is very difficult if not impossible to see as oriented to offering a propitiatory sacrifice, and to the revised new form of Consecration.

50. Partial Acceptance of New Canon  

We do accept materially certain aspects of the new Canon, such as some only relative new emphasis to better remind the faithful of the memorial and communion aspects, and how Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, but not the way the current missal tends to “obscure” the propitiatory sacrifice and “tends” in our observation to make it secondary.

51. Call for Correction  

We absolutely cannot give religious assent of any kind to these serious deficiencies, until corrected, which we maintain the right to call doctrinal errors. That is errors in the rubrics or prayers that create certain deficiencies and obscuring of the proper vertical, sacrificial ordering of the Mass. 

The doctrine and proper ordering of ends must be clarified for the laity, with necessary corrections in the new missal to clearly express the true doctrine and ordering of ends, and only then can we give the full, ordinary religious assent.

52. Preservation of the Tridentine Rite  

Vatican II called for the preservation of pre-existing traditional rites and usages besides the creation of a new simplified form of the Roman rite. This is similar to how Pius V in Quo Primum, promulgated the codified Roman rite, allowed the preservation of certain rites and usages 200 years old or older. 

Therefore, the Tridentine form or usage of the Roman rite is to be preserved. It was not done away with by the Council. This position was essentially upheld by Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum, in his still valid liturgical teaching (distinct from discipline regarding the issue of allowing the traditional ancient Mass). Therefore, the missal of Pius V, which is the official codification of the Roman rite as it had developed into its permanent, traditional form, like the Byzantine liturgy had achieved in the first few centuries of the Church, still applies in some way to today as to what is the Tridentine usage or final codification of the ancient Roman rite.

53. Right to the Tridentine Rite  

A Catholic is free to maintain, as we do, that the authoritative codification of the Roman rite by Pius V was not a new form of Mass, but rather the ancient rite consolidated into its proper, permanent form, such that the liturgy of the Tridentine missal is the most authoritative, proper form of the Roman rite, as determined in Quo Primum, such that it must be preserved today. 

A Catholic has a right to the liturgical rite of Mass to which they belong, according to canon law.  Therefore, it is licit to argue that Roman rite Catholics generally have a right to the Tridentine form or usage, from canon law, as Vatican II called for retaining traditional liturgies. 

It did not eliminate the Tridentine missal. It is a permanent part of the Roman rite, and a general right of Roman rite priests and the laity, as is commonly understood to still be the authoritative teaching of Pope Benedict XVI.

VIII. PRACTICALITIES OF PRACTICING OUR FAITH - DIOCESE OF TULSA

54. Latin Mass Attendance  

As a general rule of thumb, we only attend the Latin Mass, not only because of the observed deficiencies in the new missal, or the observed Protestantization of the Mass, but especially in the de facto normal way it is said resembling a Protestant liturgy, and the common and frequent occurrences of liturgical abuses and serious irreverences. We know of no new Masses in this Tulsa diocese that do not fit these descriptions.

55. Excuses from Mass Obligation  

We follow Church teaching that there are different reasons that justify not attending Mass on Sundays or Holy Days, or at particular churches. Among these reasons in the traditional approved theology manuals and other sources, the laity are permitted to follow, are the pastor habitually preaching heterodox or heretical ideas, or scandalous sermons, the frequency of grave irreverences and liturgical abuses, the frequency of saying Mass in a very casual way, the statistical numbers of people in the pews who reject certain teachings, including by priests, the frequency of immodest dress, music and hymns that do not meet the traditional definition of sacred music fitting for Mass, a very casual environment, or there being any kind of grave scandal.

56. Gossip and Alienation  

One example is a group of members spreading false gossip against a person resulting in chronic stares, insidious statements, alienation, or similar rude behavior, over the span of more than a year, ultimately damaging their peace of mind and reputation in a substantial way. 

Especially in part or mainly because of their devotion to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X, or their devotion to traditional theology and liturgy under the theological system sometimes called “Catholic traditionalism,” especially when that devotion and application is strictly upheld and applied in their daily lives. 

This is a common experience of traditionalists attending new rite parishes, and even at times attending approved Latin Masses and at the FSSP or Institute parishes.

IX. CRISIS IN THE CHURCH

57. Existence of the Crisis  

Through observation, statistics, and reading the history of the Church before, during, and after Vatican II, and studying many theological books, articles, and attending conferences, and based on over fifty years for each of us practicing the Faith, we believe there is a universal, grave Crisis in doctrine, liturgy, and discipline shaking the very foundations of the Church, at least throughout the Latin Church, in a diabolical way, the “smoke of Satan” entering the Church (Paul VI).

58. Traditionalist Position  

We generally follow the point of view and critiques on the Crisis as maintained by people like Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Castro de Mayer, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, recently Bishop Gracida of Texas (RIP), Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Huonder, and Bishop Strickland. Which can be described as “traditionalist,” in contrast to “reform of the reform” “conservatives,” moderates, liberals, or extreme leftists.

59. Rejection of Sedevacantism  

We reject the theological system called sedevacantism as objectively schismatic. The sedevacantists generally believe the papacy and hierarchy as a whole has defected and dissolved since the Council, including the elimination of a valid Mass and other sacraments. 

We do not observe this, and according to the Church’s indefectibility, that should be impossible without violating Christ’s teaching that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against thee.” We do however have sympathy and understanding in their point of view, considering the extreme complexities of the current Crisis. 

Therefore, since they objectively reject the current pope and college of bishops, going back to the Council, and doing so is impossible because of indefectibility, and therefore they are wrong in rejecting the conciliar hierarchy, then logically it necessarily follows they are objectively in schism. We therefore reject their positions and movement, and solution to the Crisis in the Church.

60. Re. The FSSP Approach  

We also do not agree with the way the FSSP and other formerly Ecclesia Dei institutes generally approach the Crisis, by giving a normal, complete, unqualified total acceptance or religious assent to all controversial statements of Vatican II, and to all post-conciliar doctrinal statements, and to the doctrinal deficiencies in the new missal. 

They will not temporarily suspend religious assent, as is objectively allowed by past precedent, at least partially about certain specific statements, publicly and privately seeking first necessary clarifications and corrections before giving a full and ordinary consent. 

For us, this constitutes in some sense an unacceptable doctrinal compromise, and grave scandal, choosing to accept certain errors in order to achieve canonical approval.

61. Primacy of God over Pope  

For us, this is a disordering of the proper order between two intertwined but distinct things: that is the Deposit of the Faith/divine institution of the Church, and the hierarchy, especially obedience to the pope. 

First must come obedience to God, especially to accept His Divine Revelation, especially the commandments and dogmas of the Faith, even more so than obeying the pope and hierarchy.

62. Conscience and Material Disobedience  

We believe that the two elements described above are metaphysically united as one reality, yet it is possible that the authority can be so corrupted morally or on a doctrinal issue, that the individual Catholic is forced by their conscience, in some special circumstances only, to make a choice between the two. 

When the authority commands religious assent to a teaching, or obedience to a command clearly at odds with Sacred Tradition, on some level, or the commandments, even just in a material way in certain aspects of statements, being at odds with the constant teachings and practices of past popes, then a Catholic, after a reasonable attempt at clarification or discussion

of the problematic requirement , cannot in good consciencuj fully or completely give religious information ms assent to what clearly is erroneous until it is either clarified or corrected to result in an orthodox meaning.  

They also cannot obey a command that requires objective sin, diminishes their spiritual life or faith.  They are otherwise free to comply with gravely unjust commands or punishments, but are also free to materially disobey if it is prudent to do so, based on the moral theological teachings of St. Thomas. 

63.A False Version of the Church

Our position is that of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, that within the juridical structures of the Church since the Council, a movement by modernists and liberals have gained power and influence, establishing a novel, non-Catholic, informal religious system and ideology of worship, theology, and discipline that as a whole is not Catholic. 

We do not maintain this system is literally, formally a formal rejection of the traditional Faith and Church by the pope or hierarchy,nor the literal new creation of a formal new, heretical and schismatic church.  

However, we observe and maintain that in a material and informal way, this new modernist religious system is effectively analogous to a new religion and a false version of Christ’s Church, and for polemical and pastoral purposes can be called as such.   

We maintain with the SSPX  that the modernists doing this are basing it on an erroneous view of Christ, the Church, salvation, Divine Revelation, the immutability of dogmatic teaching, as well as an erroneous view of religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, aggiornomento, liturgical reform, and the nature of the Mass. 

64.The Magisterium of Pope Francis 

Re communion for the divorced and remarried without annulment, and with no repentance,  that is as taught by Pope Francis in Amoris Laetiteae, especially Footnote 51, and his Magisterial confirmation of the Argentinian bishops’ letter asking for clarification, we in no way give religious assent to this new discipline, or disciplinary teaching.  

This for us would have to be officially corrected by the Pope.  Under no circumstance can this be morally permissible even with risk of death, unless there is first confession of the sin of adultery and repentance.   We do not merely withhold religious assent, but strongly reject this error in defense of the Eucharist and Holy Matrimony.  

Regarding Fiducia Supplicans, we withhold religious assent to the common interpretation of the document and its obvious surface meaning.  Cardinal Fernandez later confirmed in a media interview that it is indeed not merely the blessing of the individuals, certainly not of the sexual union itself, but it is a blessing of the couple as such, in the positive aspects of the relationship, such as friendship or companionship.  

However, we believe that it is metaphysically, morally, and doctrinally impossible for a pastor to give a licit blessing to a homosexual couple, or a divorced and remarried couple in an invalid marriage, in their relationship itself and not just as individuals,  that is the in the positive aspects, without also blessing the central sinful aspect.  

We hold to this orthodox position as written by the DDF Prefect who preceded Cardinal Fernandez.  

Therefore, as is, we are unable to give any religious assent to that aspect of the document, F.S, until clarifications or corrections clearly result in an orthodox meaning.  For example, objectively if a footnote were added that said something like “in no way is the couple as such, as the relationship, that is distinct from the sexual “union” aspect, to be blessed, but only the individuals,” then we can give basic religious assent, though with some reservation. 

Re the change in the new catechism (CCC) that says the death penalty is now to be considered always inadmissible.   We temporarily withhold religious assent to the obvious surface meaning, that the death penalty is now to be always, intrinsically, unjustified and a sin, because it necessarily violates human dignity.  This meaning violates the constant Tradition of the Church.

For us, we need clarification or correction before we can give full, ordinary religious assent to the new statement in the catechism.  We can give a partial consent, if we give it an orthodox interpretation as described below, even though the true, intended meaning is obvious.   

We believe that with modern prisons, in many cases life in prison is more just and merciful, and serving the common good, than capital punishment.  There are major institutional and social problems wrongly leading to the death penalty, such as putting to death the insane or mentally handicapped, or too frequently and hastily, as not rarely does law enforcement later find evidence to show innocence especially with developments in forensic, DNA evidence, but too late and only after the innocent person is killed.  

Any unbridled, excessive, revengeful mentality of the death penalty, not uncommon in some parts of the country, and the world, is to be condemned as part of what John Paul II called the “

However, in accord with Sacred Scripture, and the constant Tradition, it is at least an unacceptable error related to doctrine (doctrinal error) to mean that the death penalty as such is intrinsically, morally evil and sinful, and morally impossible in absolutely all cases, especially the erroneous position that this is or would be an orthodox development of Church teaching,,and in continuity with Tradition.

We reject the attitude or position that simply because the Church officially issues a new teaching or new discipline, then absolutely that alone demonstrates continuity with Tradition, which for us equates to legal positivism, abuse of the Magisterium, and imposing a blind obedience and a blind faith. 

Our Pledge of Fidelity to the Church, the Pope, and our Bishop

We promise obedience and fidelity to the pope, the Church, and to our bishop.  We promise to always obey and be faithful to the Church authority, especially the pope and bishop.  

At the same time, we must always obey first and foremost God and His Divine Revelation.  Our obedience is also to the teachings and timeless disciplines of all previous popes.  

Also, we adhere to the teachings of the Church that this obedience and fidelity is not absolute, and that under certain circumstances we must materially disobey, or materially resist, if the command includes any requirement to commit a sin, or that would seriously diminish our faith and spiritual life.  

If a command or judgment such as a punishment is gravely unjust, but abiding by it is not a sin, per St. Thomas, one may choose to obey or materially disobey, according to what is most prudent. 

When a person’s conscience is clearly and properly informed, especially by the constant  teachings of Christ and the Church, they must obey it.  

Regarding attending Mass and other Ecclesial Activities. And Our Relationship with the SSPX

1. Chris has been having for over 3 years chronic severe medical symptoms which we understand to strictly excuse him from the Sunday obligation, and Cecil is currently unable to drive herself to church, not having a full driver’s license, being from the Philippines. 

1. After the SSPX had to shut down its Tulsa chapel of 47 years, in 2017, we have mainly attended the Latin Mass at the FSSP, Sts. Peter and Paul, and Holy Cross in Wagoner.  During this period, we still were in principle mainly attached to the SSPX, as to follow their advise and direction.  The SSPX remained our “spiritual home and family,” especially with a strong, emotional and spiritual attachment to the priests and movement worldwide.    
2. However, about a dozen times from 2017 until 2025, we were able to drive to Oklahoma City to the SSPX.  In principle we would have mainly gone there to this day, except for the barrier of a four hour round trip drive, and difficulties with Chris’ sleep and energy levels driving across state early in the morning.  
3. We continue to plan, when able, to return to the SSPX chapel in Oklahoma City, to mainly attend there, and when health permits to ideally go weekly.  
4. However, our attendance with the SSPX never has been strictly exclusive.  When Cecil discovered the Society in the Philippines, there were times she went to approved Latin Masses, participating during certain occasions at the new Mass, and attending approved Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.  After physical therapy school, she lived at the SSPX House of Bethany in Manila for 4 years, and then for one year as a postulant at an SSPX-affiliated Franciscan convent in France.  
5. As for Chris, he attended mainly the FSSP, and rare occasions the new Mass from 2000 to 2007.  From 1999-2000 he mainly attended the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.  Before that during college he mainly attended Holy Family cathedral, and the Newman center at OU.  He grew up mainly attending the new Mass at St. Anne’s under the Capuchin Friars.
6. From 2011 to 2017, Chris and Cecil mainly attended SSPX Masses in Tulsa, but at times the Latin Mass at Most Precious Blood, Sts. Peter and Paul, and Clear Creek monastery.  One morning, Chris attended a new Mass with the sisters at the St. John’s hospital chapel, especially to be able to receive Holy Communion.  We have continuously and often participated in Adoration at the cathedral, Christ the King, St.Anne’s, and the St. Benedict’s adoration chapel.  
7. REDACTED  
8. To be clear, we have never been absolutely strictly, exclusively attending the SSPX, both in principle and in practice, but for stretches of many years, we habitually and mainly attended them. 
9. Also to be clear, we were both very saddened when the SSPX left Tulsa, REDACTED.
10. When we moved to Broken Arrow from Tulsa in 2022 to be closer to Chris’ elderly mother, to help her in her old age, we did register online at St. Anne’s with the plan of still attending the Latin Mass, but at Sts. Peter and Paul, and when possible the SSPX in Oklahoma City, but attending other events like Adoration or Stations of the Cross at St. Anne’s, and also for more fellowship.  
11. REDACTED
12. In 2023, Chris becoming extremely ill to this day, so ill to excuse him from Mass attendance, as we understand it,  which tended to seriously flare up his symptoms, deciding instead to mainly pray at home, to watch the Latin Mass on YouTube, at the SSPX Seminary in Virginia, including their rosary and liturgical hours.  There are times we will listen to other “approved” Catholic conferences or sermons. 
13. During this period, from 2023 to 2025, Chris had several bad experiences with priests in the diocese.  REDACTED.
14. When one day Chris’ mother(91 years old) passes away, we plan to semi-retire and move to the Philippines near an SSPX priory for daily Mass, likely near Tagbilaran City on the island of Bohol, but between now and then, and for the rest of our lives we are open in principle and practice to attending approved Latin Masses or a Byzantine rite depending on the circumstances.   
15. We never have nor will treat the SSPX like a cult or sect which it is not, nor the only remnant of the Catholic Church, nor absolutely limit ourselves to only the SSPX, which for us would be a schismatic attitude.  We are even open in principle to the possibility of living in another diocese with no SSPX Mass in driving range, if necessary, and attending for example the FSSP or Institute of Christ the King, or an Eastern rite, likely with reservations, but for us that would very unideal and a situation we would avoid.  

Last Points:

1. We do not, never have, and never would place obedience to the SSPX itself—which by the way there is not strict obedience required, or that we give —over obedience to the pope.  That is a false dichotomy regarding the faithful formally attached to the SSPX. If we “follow” the SSPX on a certain point, for example to follow the advise to temporarily suspend religious assent for example to communion for public unrepentant adulterers, then we would not be obeying them per se over the pope.  Rather, after following their advise and presentation of the traditional doctrine in question, we would be rather obeying Tradition, and all the popes prior to Pope Francis, and not per se the Society itself. 

1. In order to sign the required profession of faith, required by Cardinal Fernandez, all of the above paragraphs would need to be accepted, or clarified and then accepted, as either the true understanding of the doctrine, or at least a licit interpretation, and understanding, we requesting to  do so with initials of approval for each paragraph, and a final signature below, by a diocesan official, officially representing the Bishop. 

1. To be clear, this is not a demand, but a request and a practical requirement for us in order to sign the documents in good conscience.  This is because the  more general statement of fidelity and adherence, issued by Cardinal Fernandez, for us must be accompanied by detailed, nuanced, clarifications or corrections by the Church, which is owed to us and all laity, as described above, and explanations when necessary, so that we know exactly what we are agreeing to. 

1. Again, please include this statement as part of our Agreement to show “full communion.” For the official record, if necessary to send to Rome for their records, and if this requires their approval.  

1. If any above paragraph or statement agreed to by us, to explain in what sense we agree to what the documents would require of us, according to the above nuances and distinctions, if it does not meet the current requirement by the DDF, then please give a through explanation and proof from Church teaching, why and how we might be required to modify our positions to now canonically demonstrate we are truly Catholics in good standing, free of penalties, and in full communion with the Church. 

1. Otherwise, if there is an impasse, and you judge us to currently be schismatics and excommunicated, according to the DDF guidelines, then we will consider it gravely unjust and null and void.  Yet, we will still show respect for the authority issuing it, by not attending any liturgy under the diocese, as would be required.  

1. Hopefully the outcome of this is positive.  If not, we request an appeal and a canon lawyer to assist us.  In the mean time, we pray Pope Leo will finally meet with the SSPX leadership, and Fernandez will open up a truly bilateral, ecumenical dialogue and not the unilateral meeting he required months ago to merely discuss what must be accepted according to its doctrinal weight, under threat of excommunication.  
2. It was only to be a sit down, listen to what they require, sign it, and if not, no papal mandate, no new auxiliary-like bishops simply for ordinations and confirmations.  But instead if consecrations do occur ultimately because of the doctrinal impasse imposed by Fernandez, the harshest of penalties for over 700 priests, hundreds of brothers, sisters, seminarians, and oblates, and at least 600,000 laity, some estimating close to one million.  Like dropping a nuclear bomb on the SSPX, with shockwaves of division for years to come across the Church.  We believe this could have been prevented (and could still hypothetically be remedied) had the pope agreed to meet with the SSPX as our Holy Father and find a solution not in the aggressive, take it or leave it approach taken by the current DDF Prefect.  

We will never compromise on one iota of the Catholic Faith, even if refusing to do so results in a gravely unjust punishment and persecution, and all the social stigma that goes with it. At the same time, we will never truly depart from true obedience and fidelity to the bishops and pope.  But our first allegiance is to Our Lord Jesus Christ.  

The bishop, our priests, and our local Church remain in our prayers.

Everything above we testify to be what we believe and understand about the teaching of the Catholic Church which we accept.

Dated 7/ /2026

Signed, 

Christopher Kennedy and Cecil Kennedy 

Residence: Broken Arrow 

Baptized Catholic in 1975, and 1974, respectfully. Lifelong Practicing, Orthodox Catholics 

Signed by official Tulsa Diocese Representative (see their initials above next to each paragraph, if given), accepting everything above as a proper understanding of Church teaching, or a licit doctrinal position, adjoined to two signed DDF documents, for clarity regarding professing the  faith and fidelity to the pope.  

Date: