A BAD PRECEDENT SET IN THE TULSA DIOCESE UNDER BISHOP DAVID KONDERLA: RE THE NEW METHOD OF THE SSPX FAITHFUL AND LIKE-MINDED TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS TO “RECONCILE” WITH THEIR BISHOP PER THE DDF. PLEASE SHARE

Overview 

Re Tulsa Bishop David Konderla, Chancellor Deacon Garlick, Vicar General Fr. Kastl, and the US Papal Nuncio Office. (Apparently) Refused to Assist Two Traditional Catholics, Husband and Wife, and (Apparently) Potentially Other Traditional Catholics Across this Local Church of Tulsa and Eastern Oklahoma.  To Examine Their Faith and Orientation Regarding their Support of the SSPX and its Traditional Doctrinal Stance, If They Canonically Incurred an “Excommunication,” or Not, And If Not, to Put That Into Writing for the Public Record.  To Help Other SSPX Faithful 

Preface

I hope this intervention, report, and analysis  will help serve as a precedent and reference for what the SSPX Laity or Like-minded Traditional Catholics may expect in the months and years ahead, should they approach their conciliar bishop to sign the DDF/Fernandez documents, in particular if they are still demonstrating their fidelity to Tradition.  

Catholic Action 

If you find this egregious, please help the cause of restoring Catholic Tradition by contacting the Bishop and Diocese below, and respectfully expressing your complaint and criticisms.  Or respectfully the same to the US Papal Nuncio Office.  You have every right to confront them, that is the problems, and express a measured amount of righteous indignation, even if they spin that as being “inappropriate” or “having a problem with obedience.”

Tulsa Diocese, Ask for Bishop Konderla: 

918-294-1904

US Nuncio Office 

+1 (202) 333-7121

Feel free to contact me for more information, as long as it is civil.  I can give more details what we said and how we said it.  Including to talk on the phone.  I can show all emails we sent. 

chrisbrokenarrow@yahoo.com

Disclaimer

We have no concern or reason to think we were or are excommunicated, but hope  the Church will make that official in our case, for our sake, and especially indirectly for the cases of  600,000 laity attached to the SSPX (some estimates are close to 1,000,000) given now this fake stigma, and others, and to honestly show us where we are wrong, if we are.  While we know with certainty that we are not.  

As with the past few times I’ve made interventions to Bishop Konderla, since 2016, it was never done in a spirit of disobedience or rebellion, and I have “the receipts” to show that, but also they were never in an effeminate, Stockholm syndrome, “I have to act like a little tiny scared servile mouse”  kind of way.  

We are confronting here the persecution of the traditional Catholic remnant, and the Faith itself,   by modernist bishops and priests, in defense of the true Faith, because the reality is there are practically two Churches, one which is composed of all those who adhere to the Deposit the Faith which includes Tradition, vs. all those who in belief and action do not, but instead adhere to the false “church of modernism.”  

This is a spiritual war waged on us, and if confronting that fact with the Church authority falsely stigmatizes me or others as being rebels, then so be it.  I know the facts of what I’ve written and the tone I’ve carefully taken. 

A Voice of the People 

I am being a voice of the people, as are other traditional Catholic bloggers, including for myself and my wife, and our traditionalist friends and family, as a Vox Populi, for those of you who feel like you have no voice, or are not taken seriously by the ecclesiastical authorities.  

I’ll take the risks and suffer the aftermath, which if you knew all the details, especially in my interactions with the chancery the last 2 years, or bishop many years ago, you’d know they are trying to chill legitimate speech and public grievances expressed on this Catholic blog.  And elsewhere.  And will do so in an insidious way to the “messenger,” which in this case is yours truly.  

If these were merely executives running a corporation, committing egregious acts, causing grave harm to the public, based on the context it could be wrong if I was just nice and polite in my grievance, and not castigate them, and tear them a new you-know-what.   But these men are in Holy Orders, so I’m obligated under pain of sin and avoiding scandal to not do that, even though I certainly would if they weren’t in Holy Orders.  

We can’t give them a good tongue lashing or ass whooping, trusting God will do that Himself, but WE CAN and generally MUST confront these modernists and liberals DIRECTLY contributing to the destruction of the Faith, and  to the harming of souls.  

The Context 

Per the DDF, communicated through the Nuncios to the Bishops, SSPX laity are now asked to contact their bishop to assess them, and sign papers, as we made a conscious choice to do, however odd that might sound to some people.  I didn’t think there was cause to have to do this, but rather a kind of unique cause or opportunity that presented itself as a kind of Catholic Action I can do to help the Church in some applicable way right now, via this blog. However effective you may find that to be, or not.  

The Right to Doctrinal Clarity 

We and everyone else also have a right during this kind of examination that the Church clearly explains and clearly shows how a few controversial aspects in question of the pastoral Council, new Mass, communion for unrepentant adulterers, blessing homosexual couples as such, declaring the death penalty now to be “inadmissible,” etc are clearly  true and clearly in continuity with the pre-conciliar popes and all of Sacred Tradition. That was my attempt, albeit knowing it was a long shot.  

It is a basic right and responsibility to know exactly what you are agreeing to in the above way before signing on the dotted line, before giving your full assent, when there is a grave lack of clarity, and when there is a doctrinal crisis in the Church. 

This by the way has NEVER been done by the conciliar authorities in the past, for the SSPX, FSSP, Institute, or anyone else, including when repeatedly asked, regarding Vatican II and the post-conciliar reforms.   

We all must present this challenge.  Please once and for all explicitly show or at least attempt to show, or that you can’t square the circle, how the Council or reform is in continuity with the Church prior to 1962, and all of Sacred Tradition. Since you can’t and therefore won’t do it, that should be a sign this reform project was one gigantic mistake, and the Church needs to be restored. 

What We Did 

See the Profession of Faith and Doctrinal Agreement proposal we sent our Bishop in a recent post, while asking to be assessed as the DDF Decree’s Note indicates on a “case by case” basis.  Even though the Decree itself must decree the priests and laity are excommunicated for it to be a canonical judgment and public imposition of the penalty, and a true, legal, public fact, which it does not, the Note does not canonically effect anything (see Fr Z). 

Officially in strict canonical terms, the only ones decreed and publicly judged to have incurred excommunication are the two consecrating bishops, and the four priests concentrated as bishops to be the mere equivalent to auxiliary bishops to ordain and confirm for the Society. 

With zero spirit of schism, or denying papal authority.  

And that sentence has been suspended since the Society submitted its appeal. 

The Outcome 

We’ve emailed everyone in the title above, our Letter with the request on 7/2, and then later the proposed Doctrinal Agreement (see in previous post) to what we believe, to include, on 7/4, and then then later three times by email, and two times by a voice message with the chancery (including twice with the US Papal Nuncio) merely asking  them to respond  to acknowledge RECEIPT they got our emails and requests. 

Waiting three business days in between each attempt. 

This unfortunately one way communication began over 2 weeks ago. The bishop’s secretary confirmed that they are not all out of the office on vacation.  They take vacations at different times. 

NO REPLY FROM ANYONE

Had we been expressing from the get go remorse for adhering to Tradition and giving support to the SSPX, I suppose by now they might have responded.  But the directives issued by Fernandez to the bishops do not require this, before being assessed on a case to case basis. 

Practical, Common Sense Conclusions

It would seem using the most conservative tone possible that apparently, and for legal purposes I will stress the term “apparently,” 1) they refuse to help us, which is their canonical duty, and to comply with the new Vatican procedure, ironically us following the Vatican procedure not them, 

2) are indifferent as to whether or not we are excommunicated,, and therefore in peril of damnation, 

3) this is obviously grave spiritual (and psychological) abuse, or neglect, though I’m sure not obvious to them, or if so  that they even care, 

4) they have a certain degree of  prejudice to traditional Catholics dedicated to Catholic Tradition, the Latin Mass, and the SSPX, 

5) we and those like us are not truly welcome by them in Christ’s Church to be treated with dignity, to help us get to heaven, by these Church leaders, but actually have a certain degree of hatred and disdain for us and what we are faithful to,  

6) This is a bad omen for others in our or similar situations. 

Bad Omen for Tulsa Diocese Trads and Beyond 

This only confirms the prejudices perceived by many Latin Mass Catholics and other Catholics in the Tulsa Diocese, of Bishop Konderla and his leadership towards them since becoming a bishop in 2016, dismantling one by one many of Bishop Slattery’s works of traditional restoration he made from 1995 to 2016.  

For example, per a credible source, when many people of the Sts. Peter and Paul Latin Mass community in Tulsa last summer called the bishop and chancery to express their sadness the Bishop was effectively ending their 13 year old community and the Latin Mass at that parish, and the desire it still be maintained, the chancery contacted their pastor to put a stop to the calls.   Which was a denial of their canonical rights, and showed antipathy to the group.  

It—apparently—showed a man in Holy Orders who exhibited a long term pattern of serious dismissiveness to all of us traditional Catholics in this diocese.  Remember, he was handpicked by Francis-Church of being of a certain ideology that is obviously now to the left even of Pope Benedict’s “reform of the reform.”  

Obviously now to help usher in the modernist Synodal Church and to move the Church fully past her own binding Tradition, including the Mass of the Ages.  You know this by his actions the last ten years.  

You judge the tree by its fruits. 

So much for the “synodal path” of listening.  

Why should any of us put our trust in any bishop and diocesan leadership who generally show indifference and even antipathy to us?  The way they did in this case, that of Fr. Ripperger, or Mother Miriam, or Saint Peter and Paul TLM community, or those who attended for years the traditional style Ad Orientem new Mass at the cathedral.  To our dedication and fidelity to Catholic Tradition.  

That is a serious barrier between them and us, for us not to walk away from them, or turn our backs on them, but simply to have to keep our distance, a division they created,not us.  Such is the necessary approach taken by the SSPX and others, based on the canonical  “state of necessity.”

We forgive them, and still include them in our prayers, but this intervention I just made, and the outcome, is just one more piece of evidence to show there is a battle between the true, Catholic Church, which loves and maintains Tradition, and a false heretical and schismatic “church of modernism.”

If ever in the future they communicate back, that update will be given here. 

Kyrie eleison. 

Please share this across Catholic social media.  

Okie Trad Responds. My Wife and I Received an Anti-SSPX Hit Peace and Condemnation Today from Tulsa Diocese Deacon Charles Beard, of St. Augustine’s Church

“The anti-Christ will set up a counter-Church which will be the ape of the Church because, he the devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the anti-Christ that in all externals will resemble the mystical body of Christ."


Introduction

He joins with all the other anti-SSPX, anti-Tradition haters right now currently circling the burning wagon of the SSPX like rabid Comanches fighting white European American settlers. He accuses us of now leaving the Church, advising others to leave the Church, now entering into schism, and following a false “gospel.”

Those are some pretty heavy accusations.

He would not logically nor transparently explain how he got my wife’s email and also sent her this trash, which also applied to her, unnecessarily. From our saved exchanges, I couldn’t get any clear, honest feedback why he did this, this way.

Nothing came through in our communications as he being straightforward or forthright. He being a seemingly smart man, the fact that almost every statement in his email/letter to me and my wife was a literal misrepresentation and distortion of exactly what I’ve said on this blog, and the SSPX, likewise betrays a spirit of duplicity.

He being a clergyman of the diocese, I took the time to very frankly engage him, and with this reply, but he acted as if he would hear nothing of my polite objections of EMAILING MY WIFE, how he got her email, or why he also emailed her, objecting to my questioning.

When I objected, no apologies from him or conciliatory words, only doubling down on his intentions to help us not fall into the “SSPX schism.”

He being a deacon, I’ll hold my tongue and say no more. You can judge for yourself from his email and my response below. The devil is trying to attack the SSPX and Catholics adhering to Tradition right now, using lies to get very ill-willed haters to do shit like this. There is no better word for this than shit. I’m resolved now to put these ill-informed Karen’s on ignore. For the sake of peace.

Deacon Beard

By the way, for context, this man was raised in the FSSP, but jumped ship for the mainstream. When I asked him if he and the pastor of St. Augustine’s would take down the blasphemous icon of Martin Luther King in the church, us trads back in the day when the FSSP was at St. Augustine’s wanting to see it removed, he defended keeping it up with a bit of situation ethics! I was in my late 20’s at the time when he was still studying for his SAT’s.

He literally said it would cause more harm than good by offending all of the African American parishioners, as if he doesn’t trust they will understand the change when explained.

Goodness gracious Charlie! I remember when you were still going through puberty. My point was that since it is intrinsically wrong, and a grave evil, offending God, they were morally obligated to take it down.

In his way of thinking, no they weren’t.

The Email/Letter Sent to Me Today (formally as a Tulsa Diocesan Clergyman to this blog) and to My Wife (?!?) by one Ever So Affable Deacon Charlie Beard

Chris,

I’ve been following your blog with interest ever since the dustup at Sts. Peter and Paul. I see on it now that you are celebrating the excommunications of the SSPX clergy and have written Bishop Konderla to state that you formally adhere to them.

I’m asking as your brother: please do not do so.

Two themes come up in your blog: the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Ape of the Church. I believe you are misapplying both of them and using your platform to encourage people to leave Christ’s Church and follow another gospel (Galatians 1:6).

The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true. This is not the Law of Non-Contradiction (???). It states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way.

You state that Vatican II violates the Law of Non-Contradiction on, for example, religious liberty. You fail to note that Vatican II was shifting the perspective by which the question of religious liberty is asked. As you rightly say, religious liberty is a civil right belonging to persons, not a natural right to err.

Your position is actually closer to Dignitatis Humanae than to the Syllabus of Errors. For better or for worse, we are postmodern Americans so it’s easier for us to adopt that shift in perspective. It doesn’t mean we oppose the Church. Indeed, we are applying the perennial (pre- and post-Conciliar) teaching of the Church to our circumstances.

Does error have rights? Of course not! But does a man’s conscience have rights even when wrong? Of course it does! The Church taught both these things before and after the Council. What changed is the perspective. You can prefer the old perspective. You can claim it’s clearer or better or has better results. But you cannot claim a new perspective violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (Yes we can. Case in point Francis allowing Communion for unrepentant adulterers). It simply does not.

Bizarrely, you also deny that the Novus Ordo is intended as a propitiatory sacrifice (We do not). Dom Pagliarani does the same in one of his letters to Pope Leo. That’s simply false. At the risk of an overly long quote, this is what the General Instruction of the (2002) Roman Missal states about the nature of the Mass:

“The sacrificial nature of the Mass, solemnly defended by the Council of Trent, because it accords with the universal tradition of the Church,[1] was once more stated by the Second Vatican Council, which pronounced these clear words about the Mass: ‘At the Last Supper, Our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, by which the Sacrifice of his Cross is perpetuated until he comes again; and till then he entrusts the memorial of his Death and Resurrection to his beloved spouse, the Church.’[2]

“What is taught in this way by the Council is consistently expressed in the formulas of the Mass. Moreover, the doctrine which stands out in the following sentence, already notable and concisely expressed in the ancient Sacramentary commonly called the Leonine—"for whenever the memorial of this sacrifice is celebrated the work of our redemption is accomplished"[3]—is aptly and exactly expounded in the Eucharistic Prayers; for as in these the Priest enacts the anamnesis, while turned towards God likewise in the name of all the people, he renders thanks and offers the living and holy sacrifice, that is, the Church's oblation and the sacrificial Victim by whose death God himself willed to reconcile us to himself;[4] and the Priest also prays that the Body and Blood of Christ may be a sacrifice which is acceptable to the Father and which brings salvation to the whole world.[5]

“So, in the new Missal the rule of prayer (lex orandi) of the Church corresponds to her perennial rule of faith (lex credendi), by which we are truly taught that the sacrifice of his Cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass, which Christ the Lord instituted at the Last Supper and commanded his Apostles to do in his memory, are one and the same, differing only in the manner of their offering; and as a result, that the Mass is at one and the same time a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation, and satisfaction.”

(GIRM 2, quoting among others Sacrosanctum Concilium, Eucharistic Prayer III, and Eucharistic Prayer IV)

The teaching of the Mass is the same before and after the Council, except that the Council articulated it differently to an age that no longer understands what we mean by “propitiatory sacrifice.” For this reason the SSPX claims that the Mass according to the reformed missal is in itself, even if valid, displeasing to God! (Think of the absurdity of this statement: Christ’s sacrifice is truly renewed, and God is displeased!)

If Lefebvre and the SSPX are right, then the gates of hell have prevailed over Peter and Christ is a liar. The sacraments in our own parishes cannot save us (once again that IS NOT their position). Council of Trent was wrong when it said that “in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, [the Church] may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient … according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places” (Session XXI, Chapter 2).

If you or the SSPX want to claim the changes of Vatican II were ambiguous, or ineffective, or imprudent, by all means do so! Lord knows many people within the Church make this claim. I think that view is wrong, but sometimes I’m wrong and thank God I’m not judged on my own rightness.

But the SSPX is making a much different claim. The consecration rite this week stated “From Vatican Council II up to the present day, the authorities in the Church have been animated by a spirit that is contrary to that of the faith and have been acting against holy tradition.” (This is obvious). Dom Pagliarani told the Pope in his letter in April that “in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation.”

The SSPX, while claiming to be Catholic, believes that Rome has defected from the faith. This seems to be the basis of the Ape of the Church idea that you attribute to Archbishop Sheen. (Near as I can tell, Sheen was talking about the Communist Party in the Soviet Union deciding Party orthodoxy the way Rome determines Christian orthodoxy; it had little to do with the faith itself.)

This is only possible because of Marcel Lefebvre’s novel doctrine contrasting Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome. I suppose he needed this doctrine in order to get out of his own snag in the Law of Non-Contradiction, but it has no basis in Tradition. The distinction between Eternal and Modernist Rome does not, has never, and cannot exist. The Church teaches that there is only one Rome: “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (St. Cyprian of Carthage).

There is no Ape of the Church; there is only the Church. The wheat and the tares are both in the garden. We do not get to claim the tares are a separate garden juridically inside the garden. I think Pope Leo is wheat, but if he is a tare, he is a tare in the garden. God has willed both the wheat and the tares to grow together until the end. We cannot claim there are two gardens in the same structure. To say otherwise is Donatism.

Every concern you have about the Council and the Mass is solved by receiving it in light of the living Tradition. That may look somewhat different for you than for me, and that’s OK because “the eye cannot say to the hand I have no need of you” (1 Cor. 12:21). What truly violates the Law of Non-Contradiction is to profess fealty to the Church then walk away from her hierarchical constitution that God has (positively or permissively) given to us. That’s what the SSPX is doing, either misunderstanding or lying about the Novus Ordo in the process.

Obviously you must follow your conscience. But following an erroneous conscience, while not morally culpable, still harms the Body of Christ and indeed the world. Please do not follow the SSPX out the door. I disagree with you on basically everything, and the Church still needs your perspective within her. For Christ’s sake, be strong and courageous

Do not depart from his law, either to the right or to the left (Joshua 1:7).

I have been praying for the SSPX ever since the consecrations and will continue to do so.

Dcn. Charles Beard


Deacon Charles Beard

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

—2 Corinthians 12:9



My Response

1. I did not celebrate the "SSPX excommunications." If you read what I wrote, I was characterizing them with an analogy that is not literal. If someone is invalidly excommunicated for keeping the Faith, instead of being downtrodden, you pick yourself up and celebrate for a moment not caving in and compromising on the Faith. Apples and oranges.

2. He writes “The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true. This is not the Law of Non-Contradiction. It states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way.” The second sentence makes no sense and what he is saying is literally what I said. In the same sense at the same time. That’s my point. Assent to the errors in V2 etc violates this.

3. His statements on religious liberty are traditional but that’s not what V2 means. You go by what JP2 etc said over and over that everyone has a public right to false religion always and at all times, unhindered by government, except for public order reasons, not to uphold the true Faith or Christendom. This is just a spin to square the circle, but it Contradicts the Syllabus of Errors. The new catechism describes it as a natural right, when per Tradition it is only at times a civil right. Read all of Archbishop Lefebvre’s interventions on this.

4. We do not reject all statements on religious liberty, but simply temporarily withhold religious assent until there is clarity or correction, traditionally allowed under canon law. Same for all other controversial new pastoral statements that can’t be logically reconciled.

5. No where did I or my wife or the SSPX deny that the “Novus Ordo intends a propitiatory sacrifice.” A word of advise, if you sincerely want to win over the other side, you might not want to characterize their position with terms like “bizarrely.” There is nothing bizarre about observing what is obvious, how the reformed liturgy, despite that definition in the GIRM, when examined side by side with the Mass of the Ages, as does the Ottaviani intervention, obscures the sacrificing nature of the Mass while giving it a practically Protestant form.

6. The Society recognizes the new Mass and sacraments are valid and give grace, and one can of course be saved in the new rite. You again twist the position. The modernist novel system within new rite parishes is a danger and hindrance. That is what is meant. The way you all say Mass as a standard is obviously banal, secularized, and effeminate. This goes beyond legalism what is in the missal or rubrics. This ape of the Mass is de facto the approved norm by the conciliar hierarchy.

7. Re Rome defecting, you again twist what I, my wife, or the SSPX observes. We do not observe as do the sedes a total, formal defection, but material and partial. Who knowing the facts would deny that the majority of clerics running conciliar Rome for the most part are in heresy or apostasy.

8. The irony is if we blindly accept your hermeneutic of continuity, to go into denial about the revolution that came via the Council as an event and in certain of its errors and spirit, then we must also blindly accept the absurdities of Pope Francis allowing communion for public adulterers, inserting into the CCC that the death penalty is now always inadmissible, which obviously contradict the perennial teaching.

9. Non-infallible documents are therefore not infallible. Believe it or not it is possible to contain doctrinal error. See the error in the Council of Florence on the validating matter for priestly ordination, later corrected by Doctors of the Church like St. Robert Bellarmine, long before Pius XII corrected it officially.

10. Re the idea of the Ape of the Church, you twist again what I said, what my wife would say, and what the SSPX says. We do not claim there is literally a new formal false church inside the juridical structure. That is a garden literally inside a garden. The false regime of novelty nearly everywhere is LIKE a false church, effectively but not formally a counterfeit church.

This is nothing new. The Bible, Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, not to mention the visionaries at La Salette (the full messages are allowed to be believed), Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich , etc prophesied this.

This is actually what Venerable, Soon-to-be beatified Archbishop Fulton Sheen ACTUALLY said, clearly speaking of a counter-fit church: “The anti-Christ will set up a counter-Church which will be the ape of the Church because, he the devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the anti-Christ that in all externals will resemble the mystical body of Christ."

11. Lastly, I’ll address the good Reverend’s condemnation right from the beginning of his “pastoral outreach,” that we are leading ourselves and others “outside of the Church” embracing a false “gospel,” even holding positions equivalent to the heresy of donatism.

a) You’re basing this rash judgment on the latest Fake News coming from Fernandez and the Vatican News that the priests, laity, and entire SSPX are excommunicated and now a “formal schism” because they consecrated the equivalent to auxiliary bishops. This is calmuny you and others who exhibit disdain towards the SSPX and like minded traditionalists are spreading right now. But that IS NOT the official canonical judgment per the decree, only the bishops.

Nobody is “about to leave the Church” for a false gospel. Nothing has changed except a few new bishops deemed excommunicated. See Fr Z summarizing the explanations of well respected canonists.

b) the accusation of donatism is actually rather annoying, often hurled at the Society. It is a false and frankly idiotic accusation because the Society DOES NOT question either the validity of conciliar sacraments or the authority of the conciliar hierarchy, due to their scandals. That’s more akin to sedevacantism. Apples and oranges.

Conclusion

This was not a sincere honest letter nor was it sent in a transparent or respectful way. His argument came almost entirely down to ignorance of our positions. Which is just a straw man argument. It accuses us essentially now of going into schism and heresy, when the DDF’s canonical decree itself, and Pope Leo HAVE NOT said anything of the sorts. And you don’t fuck around sending this shit also to my wife, if you respected women and the inner sanctum of holy matrimony.

He’s lucky he is in Holy Orders, which restrains me from saying more. May he consider the facts presented above, and learn more about Tradition.

Life goes on. I'd rather be swimming at Blue Hole Springs.

Public Service Announcement: SSPX Priests and Laity NOT Declared Excommunicated

See Fr. Z talking about this, based on basic explanations by well respected canon lawyers, as reported by EWTN and Rorate Coeli. 

It has to be in the Decree itself which it isn’t. The Note and the 1996 document it sites have no canonical effect.

Only the bishops are officially, canonically considered to be excommunicated, NOT the priests, the laity, or the organization as a whole canonically declared in schism.

Anything otherwise coming from Tucho or the Vatican News is disinformation.  By now, as long as they refuse to correct their false announcements, including to all the bishops, they are gravely lying by omission, giving the new false view to everyone that the SSPX is now a formal schism outside of the Church.

This lie is the radiation fallout of the Nuke they dropped on the SSPX.  Subversion by means of one great lie .

In my humble opinion, no new talks with Rome until Kissy gets removed, as well as Traditionis Custodes, as well as this lie.  The Vatican  must own its canonical errors and calumny   Odds that happens under Leo nearly 0%.  It seems then best to only engage the conciliar structure on a strict case by case basis based on strict necessity, while remaining in principle always open to contact and sharing in prayer and liturgy  

Please inform your friends and family, and share this message across Catholic social media to help stop this big lie. 

 

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

Update: 7/8, 4:30.  Left yesterday a voice message with the chancery and one with with the papal nuncio, explained context, polite message.  No reply 24 hours later.  Called today the chancery, receptionist cut me off mid sentence transferring me to the bishop’s secretary who was overbearing, seemingly in response to my repeated attempts, would not tell me her last name, me consistently being polite but firm, when I said that was rude and and I’m in contact with the nuncio she immediately brought the call to an end, as in hung up on me, all documented.  Reported incident by voicemail to nuncio (the second message with them).  By now, after almost a week, someone would have responded to acknowledge receiving the messages.  Based on the bishop several times ignoring my consistently polite attempts to get his help (Re several past incidents with priests, etc., long story), this is why I’m pressing this. If I did it more slowly, past experience clearly indicates we’ll still get blown off.  We are treated like we are not Catholics or citizens.  Or human beings.  

My last email asked for a response by Friday.  

Update: 7/7, 4:30. It’s been 3 business days since my first email, 4 if you include last Friday, but that was July 4th weekend for most a 3 day weekend.  Still no reply from the bishop, chancellor, vicar general, any diocesan representative, or anyone from the US Nuncio office.  

Emailed all again asking please for at least a reply acknowledging receipt of our emails/requests.  Asked to reply by end of business day this Friday, or we will have to conclude they have chosen not to provide the pastoral care we request, even if hypothetically we were “excommunicated.” I also left a voicemail asking for a reply.