Apologia pro Society of St. Pius X

Dr. Fred Wenzel | Guest Article |The Daily Knight

For forty years, enemies of Tradition have advanced a canonical claim of schism against the Bishops and Priests of the Society of Saint Pius X and the faithful who support them. Some Vatican officials persist in these claims, such as Cardinal Burke, who has expressed them in a private capacity in interviews and letters. However, these claims have been and continue to be refuted by Vatican officials speaking in an official capacity as well as by the official actions of Popes Benedict XVI and Francis. Pope Benedict remitted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops and Pope Francis has granted the Superior General of the Society the permission to ordain priests, named Bishop Fellay a canonical minister of the second instance, granted global faculties for hearing confessions and ordered the bishops of the world to witness marriages in SSPX chapels (or otherwise delegate faculties, as most have done). None of these grants would be canonically possible if the SSPX were in a state of schism.

https://onepeterfive.com/anti-sspx-critics-follow-holy-see/

Official Vatican sources:

1. STATUS OF SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X MASSES

1995 Letter, Commission Ecclesia Dei, https://web.archive.org/web/20190622190205/http://www.ewtn.com:80/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM

The following letter was received from the Pontifical Commission established to oversee the granting of celebrets (right to celebrate) to those priests desiring to offer the Holy Mass according to the Missal of 1962. The authorizing decree of the Supreme Pontiff, Ecclesia Dei, was issued in 1988 on the occasion of the schism of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X, and encourages the generous granting of permission for the Tridentine Mass by bishops, in order to facilitate communion with the Holy See of those who have a particular love for the older Rites.

Not all bishops have been generous, despite the continuing pastoral concern of the Holy Father, causing many traditionalist Catholics to attend the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X or of priests operating independent of their bishop. In a famous case the Bishop of Honolulu excommunicated specific Catholics who frequented such chapels, only to have the excommunication overturned by Rome. This action has encouraged traditionalist Catholics to believe that it is not schismatic, and therefore not excommunicable, to attend such chapels. This response from the Commission was precipitated by a letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and has been generously shared with EWTN. The letter to the Cardinal had expressed concern for the status of such attendance and asked two specific questions:

1) Is it schismatic in attending the Society of St. Pius X chapels?

2) What does the Hawaiian Case mean to someone attending such chapels?

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DE N. 117/95 Rome 29 September 1995

Dear ...

Thank you for your letter of 4 September 1995 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters related to our particular competence.

We are aware of the lack of authorized celebrations of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal in [dioceses] and we can appreciate your desire to assist at the traditional Mass. We also recognize your earnest desire to remain in full communion with the Successor of Peter and the members of the Church subject to him, a desire which obviously prompted you to write this letter. In order to answer your questions we must explain the Church's present evaluation of the situation of the Society of St. Pius X.

1. There is no doubt about the validity of the ordination of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. They are, however, suspended a divinis, that is prohibited by the Church from exercising their orders because of their illicit ordination.

2. The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

3. While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior of the Society in the United States, has publicly stated that he deplores the "liberalism" of "those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the post concilliar church." With such an attitude the society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. According to canon 751 such "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him" constitute schism. Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

4. The situation of at least one of the "independent" priests . . . to whom you allude is somewhat different. He and the community which he serves have declared their desire to regularize their situation and have taken some initial steps to do so. Let us pray that this may soon be accomplished.

5. Finally, we may say that "the Hawaiian case" resulted in a judgment that the former Bishop of Honolulu did not have grounds to excommunicate the persons involved, but this judgment does not confer the Church's approbation upon the Society of St. Pius X or those who frequent their chapels.

With prayerful best wishes, I remain Sincerely yours in Christ,

Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary

2. 2003 Letter, Commission Ecclesia Dei, Mgr. Perl letter, 2003: http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses

Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites. At the request of the Commission, we are publishing it below.

Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei" January 18, 2003

Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response.

Oremus pro invicem.

In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ, Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins

Msgr. Camille Perl's response:

Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.

In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated. (N.B. This has now changed since the excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009)

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:

"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."

His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:

"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."

Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:

"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the 'traditional' Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.

"You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a 'right' to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a 'right'. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church's law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice."

We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.

With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ, Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary

3. 2009 Decree of Pope Benedict XVI remitting the excommunications of the SSPX bishops: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

4. 2009 Letter from Pope Benedict XVI regarding the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

5. 2014 SSPX Priest Permitted to Say Mass in Saint Peter's Basilica, https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/sspx-priest-celebrates-mass-in-saint.html

6. 2015 The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has appointed the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, as first-instance judge in a case involving a Lefebvrian priest. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/06/for-record-ecclesia-dei-secretary.html

7. 2016 Pope Francis, APOSTOLIC LETTER, Misericordia et misera, extending faculties to SSPX priests to hear confessions. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html

For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins.[15] For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.

8. 2017 Letter, Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Cardinal Mueller, granting SSPX priests faculties to witness marriages. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20170327_lettera-presuli_en.html

9. 2017 SSPX bishops authorized to ordain priests without permission of local bishops, https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=31663

May 24, 2017

Bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) have been authorized by Pope Francis to ordain new priests without the approval of the local diocesan bishop, according to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior of the traditionalist group.

“Last year, I received a letter from Rome, telling me you can freely ordain your priests without the permission of the local ordinary,” Bishop Fellay reported. He said that the move indicated that although the status of the SSPX remains irregular, “the ordination is recognized by the Church not just as valid but in order.”

The SSPX has been involved in talks with the Vatican, aimed at regularizing the status of the group, and informed sources have indicated that an agreement is close to establish the SSPX as a personal prelature. Pope Francis has already said that SSPX priests have the authority to hear sacramental confessions and preside at weddings that will be recognized by the Catholic Church. Bishop Fellay remarked that the permission to ordain bishops is “one more step in his acceptance that we are... ‘normal Catholics.’“

Analysis by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Zuhlsdorf, member of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, founded by Pope John Paul II to oversee the traditional Mass and traditional religious communities (now absorbed into the Congregation for Divine Worship by Pope Francis). Therefore, a very knowledgeable authority on matters pertaining to traditional orders.

https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/ask-father-whats-the-truth-about-the-sspx/

ASK FATHER: What’s the truth about the SSPX?

Posted on 16 April 2020 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I was informed that some prominent internet wonks were/are having a spat about the SSPX.

I looked around and found all manner of strange, useless and confusion-riddled comments about the status of the SSPX, their objectives and holiness, and blah blah. Various sections of the addled peanut gallery got involved in the online feud. As inevitably happens. Thus, we are again presented with a concrete demonstration that in many of these dust ups a heck of a lot of people don’t know what they don’t know.

Let’s aim for some clarity and charity about the SSPX.

I preface this with my observation, from personal experience, of some of the priests of the SSPX. They are mostly terrific guys, dedicated, zealous for souls, hard workers and determined priests. Better formed in history, philosophy, liturgy and theology than a great many of garden variety priests I know. (Not that we think clergy should be well educated. Sheesh.) I would be, will be I hope, honored to have them working alongside me in this diocese or wherever God takes me.

Here are a few facts.

The SSPX (technically Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Santi Pii X) is a priestly Fraternity or Society of priests. The SSPX does not have formal canonical status other than they are exercising a canonical right to associate with each other. Their “association of the faithful” does not now have canonical recognition. Hopefully one day they will be set up and recognized formally as a, say, Personal Prelature or some variant. However, can. 299 §1 says that by private agreement among themselves, the faithful have the right to constitute associations for the purposes mentioned in can. 298 §1, which are, for example, when clerics or laity want to strive with common effort to foster a more perfect life, promote public worship, etc. The SSPX is an association of the faithful. No question.

Could it have higher status? Sure. It doesn’t have no status.

On 8 December 2015, Francis told the Catholic faithful that for the Holy Year of Mercy they could go to priests of the SSPX for the Sacrament of Penance and that they could be validly absolved. That provision was extended beyond the “Year of Mercy” in the 2016 Apostolic Letter Misericordia et misera. It stands today. This is a little odd, because it was not really a formal grant of faculties in the usual and expected way to the priests of the SSPX, as when a bishop grants faculties to a priest to receive sacramental confessions. Those faculties are demonstrable with a document saying that Fr. Soandso has the faculty, etc. In this case there is no document that I’m aware of that explicitly grants faculties to the priests of the SSPX to hear confessions and to absolve. However, Popes can do what they want in this regard. It’s better when they do things in a way that make things clear, with all the i’s dotted. In this case, Francis said that people can be absolved by SSPX priests and that, as they say, is that. Popes can do that sort of thing, whereas other entities such as dicasteries of the Holy See (e.g., the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” (PCED) of old and now CDF, and diocesan bishops) have to use another procedure. So, SSPX priests can validly absolve sins even when there is no danger of death. You can go to confession to them not just because there are no other priests around. You can go to them because you want to. No question.

On 27 March 2017 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which had absorbed my old office, the PCED) informed all the bishops of the world that they could give faculties to SSPX priests to witness marriages. As in the case of hearing confessions, marriages require that a priest have the appropriate faculty. There had been considerable debate about the validity of SSPX witnessed marriages. What Francis did removed doubt. The priests can now have the faculty themselves and they can work with a local diocesan priest. Since then, I think most, not all, diocesan bishops have worked with local SSPX priests in this regard and simply given the SSPX priests the faculty.

Something important to note about this is that that letter of the CDF did NOT say that, “Up until now, the marriages witnessed by the SSPX priests were invalid.” The Apostolic Letter Misericordia et misera did NOT say that, “Until now, the absolutions given by priests of the SSPX were invalid.” That’s food for thought. That moves the goal posts significantly. We can’t just think of the SSPX priests and confession and marriages in the same way that we did before those grants.

Furthermore – AND PAY ATTENTION because this is really important – suspended priests cannot receive faculties. If the SSPX priests can receive faculties, and they have, all over the place, then they are not suspended!

Another point, and one that touches close to home with many lay people who love our Catholic tradition: attendance at SSPX Masses.

The Masses celebrated by SSPX priests are celebrated in a Catholic rite. No question. As I have written a zillion times on this blog about fulfilling Sunday and Holy Day obligations, in can. 1248 §1 we read that a person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass. Again, the SSPX priests use a Catholic rite, the Missale Romanum and other liturgical books of the Latin Church. So, yes, you can choose to go to a Mass of the SSPX, not just because there is no other Mass, but because you want to. No question.

As to the question: “Is it sinful to go to an SSPX Mass?” Answer: It depends on why you are going there.

Frankly, yes, it would be sinful to go to their Masses out of sheer desire to hurt local parishes or priests or because you hate the local bishop, or Pope, or some aspect of the Church, blah blah blah. Frankly, yes, it would be sinful to attend a parish where there are liturgical abuses that you happen to know are abuses but you like those abuses and you don’t care about authority. Frankly, no, it is not sinful to attend an SSPX Mass if you are seeking sound liturgy and preaching and other good people who desire the same. No question.

As a matter of fact, you can contribute money to their collections: it is a matter of justice. If you receive services from them, you can contribute.

Sometimes I hear the claim that the SSPX is “not in communion” with the Catholic Church. I have heard that they are “not Catholic”. These claims are absurd on the face of it. No reasonable and even half-informed mind can conclude that they are not “Catholic”. They are clearly not Protestant, who are heretics. They are clearly not Orthodox, who are schismatics. And I am not sure that there is such as thing as “imperfect communion”. What would that be, exactly? You are either in communion or you aren’t. In the past, sometimes we have seen statements, for example in the decree issued by the Congregation for Bishops in 2009 which lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, that such a gesture aimed at “full communion” and as well as “proof of visible unity”. It doesn’t say that there wasn’t/isn’t communion or unity. It aims at making both more apparent, which is not the same as bringing either one about.

Moreover, the three bishop members of the SSPX – excluding the fourth, a separate case – are NOT excommunicated. Benedict XVI lifted that excommunication incurred in 1988 – probably with retroactive effect – in 2009. And the priests are not excommunicated.

Also, it is claimed that the SSPX has been in schism since 1988 because the illicit consecration of bishops by Archbp. Lefevbre was a “schismatic act” (cf. Ecclesia Dei adflicta 3). However, it takes more than “an act” to create a real schism. (Also note that Pope John Paul II himself illicitly consecrated priests as bishop of Cracow, and Cardinal Slipyj of the Ukraine iliicitly consecrated a bishop, both with no consequences, see article below*)

It was obviously, manifestly, NOT Archbp. Lefevbre’s intention to set up a separate or rival Church, or to make himself or someone else an anti-Pope, or to create other aspects of a true schism. The SSPX priests quite openly have used the names of the Popes in the Roman Canon during Mass. They have recourse to diocesan tribunals in marriage and other matters. They follow the decrees of the Sacra Paenitentieria Apostolica in the matter of indulgences. They accept faculties for marriages etc. from local bishops. Recently, they communicated to their followers the dispensations and provisions given by local bishops in this time of Coronavirus lockdown. These are not the acts of schismatics.

The SSPX has common and shared faith, sacrament and governance. Protestants have some shared faith, a couple sacraments, and no governance. Orthodox have shared faith and sacraments but not shared governance. The SSPX has all three, as is clear by the fact that Francis acted in their regard about the Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony in way that would be impossible with, say, heretics or schismatics. They are not “separated brethren”. No question.

Some don’t like the SSPX because they say that people should attend the Traditional Latin Mass and not the Novus Ordo. How shocking that they should say that people would do better to come to their Masses rather than someone else’s, particularly when they sincerely believe that the Novus Ordo is flawed and inadequate. They do NOT believe that it is invalid! They think it is flawed and, in some respects, possibly harmful to the faith. It could be argued that after several decades of the Novus Ordo a large percentage of Catholics have a flawed understanding of a great deal of Catholic teaching. But I digress. The SSPX doesn’t say that Novus Ordo is invalid.

The SSPXers are often said to be against or critical of the Second Vatican Council. However, they acknowledge that Vatican II was, in fact, the 21st Ecumenical Council. What they say about the Council is what the Council said about itself: it was intended to be a pastoral Council (which is itself a historical departure) rather than a Council that would issue dogmatic statements. Paul VI took the documents and he promulgated them. That doesn’t mean that everything in every document is beyond criticism. Some things are crystal clear and others are as clear as mud. Libs say that everything in the mud is dogmatic according to their own interpretations. It is legitimate to debate about the debatable things. We can be convinced one way or another by clarifications made by legitimate authority (e.g., CDF) or by the force of the arguments. For example, the “Dogmatic Constitution” Lumen gentium had a point about the possibility of salvation outside the church (there’s a dogmatic teaching about that). It was not clear. Many debated about it. Hence, in 2000 the CDF issued Dominus Iesus. It is possible to be confused by things in Council documents, debate them, make arguments and then have them clarified, over time, by subsequent authoritative declarations. BTW… one might read the commentary on Gaudium et spes by young Fr. Ratzinger in the book edited by Herbert Vorgrimler (HINT: deep reservations about its drafting, structure and anthropocentrism).

So, the SSPX is in a strange state, but not really the state that some (most?) think they are in. Their chapels are not parishes; a parish is a formal canonical structure. They don’t have a clear ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as dioceses or a personal prelature or religious order does. Their priests are not incardinated anywhere, which make them odd ducks in a way, but not less priests than priests who are incardinated in a diocese or in a religious group. They can and do receive faculties from legitimate authority and, hence, they are not suspended.

Let’s bring this to the bottom line.

When it comes to critics of the SSPX, clerical and lay, it seems to me that a little more charity, thoughtfulness and prudence might be adopted. There is a rigidity running through some conservative or tradition-leaning Catholics which reminds me a little of the attitude of the Pharisees. Libs remind me of Pharisees all the time, by the way.

Within the very heart of how the Church applies and interprets her laws there is a beautiful and gentle principle the spirit of which we can learn from when talking about the SSPX: odiosa restringi et favores convenit ampliari, or else odiosa sunt restringenda et favoribilia amplianda/ampliantur. That is to say, laws that place burdens or restrictions on people must be interpreted strictly so that they don’t put onto people what the laws don’t say. On the other hand, laws which grant favors or freedoms to people should be interpreted as generously as possible so that people can enjoy favors and freedoms. Be narrow and picky with laws that restrict and wide and generous with laws that grant things.

The SSPX is an association of the faithful. They don’t yet have canonical recognition. But they could and, I think, will. Until then they are still a real thing in the Church. Their sacraments are valid. The priests can receive faculties, so they are not suspended. Their bishop members are not excommunicated. They have shared faith, sacraments and governance, which is borne out everyday in practice by their recourse to tribunals, reference to the decrees of the Paenitentieria, etc. They aren’t a separate Church. They aren’t heretics. They aren’t a schism. You can satisfy your Mass attendance obligations at their chapels. You can be validly absolved by them. They can witness your marriages.

Is their situation complicated? Heck, yeah it is! Especially in regard to the question of incardination of the priests. That’s really the most difficult canonical issue.

Also, the situation of the SSPX and of the wider Church is evolving, especially in light of the concession of faculties. As it evolves, we have to step back, cool down and reevaluate.

We probably have a whole bunch of living to do before the trumpet sounds. I think our views can evolve in a constructive way. I sure hope so.

Meanwhile, quite a few people would do well to stick a sock in it when it comes to the SSPX. Carping at them, or parroting inaccuracies, does no one any good and it confuses people. This is a really complicated situation that is not helpfully characterized by glib cliches or reduced to simplistic conclusions. Having a gentler attitude, even in regard to their lawful status, as suggested by the Latin dictum I quoted above, seems to me to be the better and the more Catholic approach. We might apply a little mercy.

Speaking of mercy, during the Year of Mercy convoked by Francis – which the SSPX observed! – the leadership, 250 priests and 5500 followers of the SSPX had their pilgrimage to St. Peter’s Basilica, where they were welcomed. Then-Superior Bp. Fellay gave a sermon and they prayed for Francis.

*Clandestine Ordinations Against Church Law: Lessons from Cardinal Wojtyła, the future Pope John Paul II, and Cardinal Slipyj, in which both prelates performed ordinations against Church law with impunity.

https://onepeterfive.com/clandestine-ordinations-against-church-law-lessons-from-cardinal-wojtyla-and-cardinal-slipyj/

Recent Statements by Tradition-friendly bishops

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan

As a delegate on behalf of the Holy See to the SSPX, he visited two SSPX seminaries in 2015 and shared his observations with the news service Adalente la Fe. He recounted how he could see “no weighty reasons in order to deny the clergy and faithful of the SSPX the official canonical recognition.”

Referencing how the SSPX “believes, worship and conducts a moral life as it was demanded and recognized by the Supreme Magisterium and was observed universally in the Church during a centuries long period,” as well as recognizing the legitimacy of the Pope and local bishops and praying for them, he called for full unity to be granted to them.

“Current ‘emergency of faith’ means Catholics can receive sacraments from SSPX” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bp-schneider-current-emergency-of-faith-means-catholics-can-receive-sacraments-from-sspx/

Bishop Athanasius Schneider encouraged Catholics to attend Masses celebrated by the Society of St. Pius X, noting that they are “not outside the Church” and are simply doing what the “Church did always” until the Second Vatican Council.

Most recent interview with LifeSite News regarding the SSPX:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/episodes/826568/

Archbishop Vigano, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States

Response to questions regarding the SSPX, https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2020/09/01/breaking-news-archbishop-vigano-responds-to-questions-posed-by-cfn/

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

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

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

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

“Archbishop Viganò Calls for Abolition of the Novus Ordo” https://www.theeponymousflower.com/2022/09/archbishop-vigano-calls-for-abolition.html

One could say, to use a parable, that the healthy blood of the Gospel flows in the veins of the Tridentine Mass, while in the veins of the New Rite flows the polluted blood of heresy and the spirit of the world.

A Rite based on lies and deceit, devised by a modernist Freemason and violently enforced by the abolition of a Rite two millennia old, does not even deserve to be analyzed in all its critical aspects: it must simply be obliterated.

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/6174-vigano-interview-by-michael-j-matt-for-the-catholic-identity-conference-pittsburgh-october-2-2022

I cannot say whether this crisis is the worst that the Church will have to face between now and the end of time. Certainly, it is the worst to date, both for the devastating proportion of the apostasy and for the narcotization of the lower clergy and the faithful towards the Hierarchy. On other occasions, the persecution was more ferocious, but it found resistance in the Bishops and opposition in the Catholics, who could look to the See of Peter as a beacon of Truth and an obstacle to the establishment of the kingdom of the Antichrist. Today the katèchon has passed away, at least temporarily, and the Apostolic See is occupied by a declared enemy of the Church of Christ.

Never in History have we witnessed a systematic betrayal of the Faith, Morals, Liturgy and ecclesiastical discipline, favored and even promoted by the supreme Authority of the Church itself, in the complicit silence of the Hierarchy and in the uncritical acceptance of many of the clerics and faithful. The gravity of this situation is increased by the fact that the work of dissolution of the deep church advances in sync with the subversive action of the deep state in the nations, causing the Catholic faithful to be the object of a double attack, as faithful and as citizens.

A Compelling Defense of the SSPX by Fr. Denzil Meuli, S.T.D., U.J.D., Ph.L, LL.B., Advocate for the Roman Rota

https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2022/12/a-compelling-defense-of-sspx-by-fr.html

Editor's Note: There were so many mistakes and irregularities in the attack on the SSPX it would take an encyclopedia to list them all. Lefebvre was denied a fair hearing or even to be given the charges. Like so many cases in the Church where good priests have experienced kangaroo court proceedings, this was the case for the Archbishop. He defied the modernist takeover of the Church, so he was guilty. Take a look at the credentials of Fr. Meuli at the end of the article. His opinion weighs very heavily in terms of his expertise as both a canon and civil lawyer. As I have said numerous times, the SSPX is NOT in schism. I base that not on my own opinion but on the legal opinions of those with impeccable credentials. At the very least, the situation is confusing enough with varying opinions from canon lawyers that charity calls for the benefit of the doubt to be given to the accused. Fr. Meuli died in 2019 at the age of 92. His letter is a blessed gift to the Church and defends very well the fact that the SSPX is NOT IN SCHISM! [My comments are in red, although I feel a little silly to even think of adding to this brilliant canonist's writing. I hope the few comments I've made help clarify.] And, by the way, if anyone is in schism it's the modernists in the Church who are running the synodal horrors undermining the faith.

LETTER FROM REV. DR. DENZIL MEULI, S.T.D.,U.J.D., Ph.L., LL.B., Advocate for the Holy Roman Rota, Barrister for the High Court of NZ REGARDING THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE SSPX WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH JULY 21 2001

Extracts from lengthy reply to a slanderous e-mail:

... As it happens, John Paul II has said all that needs to be said concerning the same organization. [the SSPX] He said it in the most eloquent way possible, by actions, not merely by words. He allowed five thousand members of the Society, shepherded by three of their bishops and some number of their priests to make a pilgrimage to the Pope's own church, the Basilica of St Peter. There these thousands assisted at Mass celebrated by their bishops, who preached, led devotions and all this over a period of three days. [You can see photos of the pilgrimage at http://sspxasia.com/Newsletters/2000/July-Aug/Roman-Pilgrimage-of-the-SSPX.htm] They were given a big welcome by the officials of the Basilica including the Cardinal who has charge of that venerable church. It seems from all this that there is an attachment in a marked form and degree on the part of John Paul II and his staff to the Pius X Society....If all that is good, what is wrong with 'attachments in various forms and degrees to the Society of St Pius X concerning which Society Cardinal Ratzinger stated: 'Any problem we have with the SSPX is internal to the Church.'? If the short and exasperated answer to that is 'They are in schism' or 'They are excommunicated' then I affirm that that is no more than an ipse dixit. [Ipse dixit is an assertion made, but unproven.] A rigorous construing of Ecclesia Dei Adflicta (any imputation of crime or application of penalty is to be treated with rigour according to the Regula Juris: 'Odia restringi, et favores convenit ampliari does not lead to the conclusion that they (leaving aside for the moment who they may be) are in schism.

Further, the term schism is, at large, misunderstood. Schism is the total rejection of the authority of the Pope. Impossible to predicate that of those who dutifully pray for the reigning Pontiff at the appropriate place in the Canon of the Mass. Impossible to predicate that of consecrators who publicly proclaim the conferral of jurisdiction to be to them ultra vires, beyond their powers and not to be within their intention. [which is exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre said] Concerning that, in the matter of the consecration of a bishop, account is to be had of a major distinction, viz. that between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. These powers have different causes. The power of order, namely, the power to confirm and ordain, comes from the sacrament of holy order while the power of jurisdiction, according to the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, comes from the Pope. It is, in his words: 'received from the Sovereign Pontiff himself. 'For a bishop to confer the power of order without a papal mandate is not a schismatic act. The Code makes that limpidly clear. According to circumstances it may or may not be disobedience. If it turns out to be disobedience, according to further circumstances, it may or may not turn out to be punishable. It is a totally different issue for a bishop to attempt to confer the power of jurisdiction, as distinct from the power of order. An attempt to confer the power of jursidiction would be to arrogate to oneself a power belonging to the Pope alone and hence would be a rejection of Papal authority. That is patently a schismatic act. That did not take place. As was affirmed in the public declarations of the ordaining Prelates, any intention to attempt to confer jurisdiction was expressly excluded.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his co-consecrator Bishop Castro de Mayer were at pains to make known that they were about to confer orders, not jurisdiction. They acknowledged that to confer jurisdiction was beyond their power, and outside their intention even if it were within their power. [Archbishop Lefebvre stated over and over that he had no intention of separating himself from the Church. What he wanted to see was for Rome to return to the Tradition that was unchanging over the millennia!] The relevant canon is 751. The defining word in that canon is detrectatio, by which is meant a refusal of all submission. It is precisely this all-encompassing rejection which differentiates schism from disobedience.

An example will aid comprehension. One can disobey one's parents, even in serious matters, and not reject their authority. That is, one can disobey but still recognize that they are one's parents with legitimate authority over one even while disobeying them. That is no more than disobedience. Schism would be to reject the totality of their parental authority. Cardinal Rosalio Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, points out that the Code of Canon Law makes this same distinction. In commenting on the consecrations by Msgr Lefebvre in the 10 July 1988 issue of La Repubblica, he states: 'The act of consecrating a bishop (without a papal mandate) is not in itself a schismatic act. In fact, the Code that deals with offences is divided into two sections. One deals with offenses against religion and the unity of the Church, and these are apostasy, schism and heresy. Consecrating a bishop without a pontifical mandate is, on the contrary, an offense against the exercise of a specific ministry.'

In case that is not clear, Cardinal Lara is stating that schism is one thing, and dealt with in its part of the Code, viz. 'Offences against Religion and the Unity of the Church,' whereas consecration without papal mandate is another thing, and dealt with in its own part of the Code, viz. 'Usurpation of Ecclesiastical Functions'. The 'Usurpation of Ecclesiastical Functions' is not a rejection of Papal Authority, hence the characterization of any such usurpation as 'schism' is mistaken. It is a fiction, not supported by the law. In his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei Adflicta the Holy Father writes of the subject act of disobedience in the following terms:

'In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated.'

But then, remarkably, the Holy Father draws a conclusion not found in the premises. He writes:'

Hence (my emphasis) such disobedience - which implies in practice a true repudiation of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.'

That utterance is supported neither by the premises nor by the law. What may be the explanation of this anomaly? Either the Holy Father is using the term schism loosely, that is to say, equivocally, or he is simply mistaken. It does not appear that he is using the term equivocally. Were he using it equivocally it would be inapproprate to cite, as he (or perhaps the editors of the AAS) does, those canons of the Code of Canon Law, which refer to schism as it is understood by the Code.But then, how can he be mistaken? That is easily explained. The Holy Father is a professional philosopher (he taught philosphy for decades), he is a theologian, he is an acclaimed litterateur. He is no jurist. For the accurate presentation of the law in any writing of his he relies on his advisers. They have served him badly. The mistake they made is so clamorously obvious the suspicion arises that they had an agendum of their own....

A propos, Cardinal Oddi, then Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, when asked if assisting at Mass in a SSPX Chapel satisfied the obligation for Sunday Mass wrote, with nary a word about 'disunity', tragic or otherwise:

Dear Mrs Keenan, I have your letter of January 11th and thank you for it. According to the new Code of Canon Law, 'The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite either on the day of obligation itself or in the evening of the previous day.' (Canon 1248.1) I hope that settles your doubts. In the meantime, I send you and your loved ones my blessing ....etc. (signed: Cardinal Oddi)

...But what about that excommunication? This about that excommunication. It is no less a fiction than the charge of schism. To begin with there has never been a condemnatory sentence imposed on the presumed excommunicati.

So far only a declaratory statement has been issued stating that the men were excommunicated latae sententiae by reason of the violation of penal law forbidding the consecration of bishops without papal mandate. A declaratory statement is no more than that, viz. a statement making an assertion. It doesn't make that which is asserted true. If that which is asserted is true it is true not from the assertion but from some other source of legal consequences. In itself it has no more juridical weight than a similar statement made by the corner grocer. It is its provenance that determines its clout. If it comes from a court in session, lawfully seized of the subject matter and is condemnatory then it is a judicial sentence with consequences, one of which is the right of contestation, that is, the right of appeal.

The subject declaratory statement was made by Cardinal Gantin, prefect of the Congregation for the Bishops and is revealed in the text to be no more than an advertisement of the material elements of the matter. It is described as a decree but is devoid of the notes characteristic of a legally binding decree, for example, a clear identification of the court in session whence it emerges. It was issued 1st July 1988. Despite that deficiency it could be argued by someone determined to pursue the matter that it is, nevertheless, valid, but the exercise would be in vain since the decree repeats the self-same error to be found in the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, viz. it confounds two distinct institutions in law. It confuses Title I with Title III of Part II of Book VI of the Code. Title I concerns itself with 'Offences Against Religion and the Unity of the Church' (Canons 1364 to 1369). Title III concerns itself with 'Usurpation of Ecclesiastical Offices' (Canons 1378 to 1389). What the minions of the law have equivalently done is, as it were, to uplift Canon 1382 (which deals with consecration without papal mandate) from Title III and to insert it in Title I (which deals, amongst other offences, with schism).

After this bit of foolishness they then stated that the accused was guilty of schism, thereby misnaming the offence and proceeded to predicate the penalty for schism of a man who was guilty, if he was guilty, of something altogether different, namely, usurpation. The incompetence thereby demonstrated is a bit difficult to credit. There is no dearth of Canon lawyers in these congregations. Had the minions done it correctly they could still have got a putative excommunication out of the exercise, since excommunication is also the penalty, as from 1951 by Decree of the Holy Office to cover the rise of the Nationalist Church in the People's Republic of China, for a consecration without papal mandate. Whatever the reason they simply did not do it correctly. It is not germane to this present argumentation but it is instructive to note that in the same above mentioned decree of Cardinal Gantin the same mess was made of the excommunication of the Co-consecrator Bishop Castro deMayer. The few lines given over to him state simply that he had incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364:1, i.e., the penalty for schism, whereas, similar to the situation of Archbishop Lefebvre, the supposed offence was not schism but usurpation. Penal law is, as is only fitting, very exacting. Unless you get it right, first time, you are out of court.

Odia restringi, et favores convenit ampliari. To complete the picture, let us suppose that consecration without a papal mandate is in very fact a schismatical act and that therefore the perpetrator of the consecration incurs excommunication latae sententiae, i.e. automatically, then it must be ascertained whether the perpetrator is liable to the penal sanction envisaged for the consecration without papal mandate. Canon 1323 states that no one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept, violates it under certain defined circumstances. These circumstances are contained in seven subsections of which subsections 4 and 7 are relevant. Subsection 4 exempts from penalty, one who acted by reason of necessity. In the common estimation of man, necessity arises when there is a crisis. Cardinal Ottaviani speaks of 'a spiritual crisis without precedent' (Ottaviani Intervention p.54 TAN). Cardinal Ratzinger states that there is 'a crisis of faith and of the Church' (The Ratzinger Report). In his From My Life he writes: 'I am convinced the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.' Paul VI on three separate occasions gave expression to his grief at the collapse of the Church. (If you want details, ring me: 64 9 817 7582) The people who vociferously deny the state of emergency are the very people who brought that state about, the state, to give an example, that sees only 8% of the population of the Pope's own diocese inside a church of a Sunday. The state, to give another example, that sees in the U.S.A. between 1963 and 1993 Mass attendance plummeting from 71% to 25%, a decline of 65%. That means twenty-four million fewer Catholics in the U.S. attend Mass now than was the case before the Council. Seventy percent (70%) of U.S. Catholics do not believe in the real presence. I mention the USA not to single it out but because the statistics of that country are readily available. Subsection 7 exempts one who through no personal fault thought that there was a necessity. It should be obvious - I hope it is - that subsections 4 and 7 fit the case perfectly. But if somebody is of another opinion and wishes to press the matter give me your argumentation in writing, supported by documentation, and I shall deal with it. .....”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Rev. Dr. P.D. Meuli, born 22 September 1926, entered the national seminary, Mosgiel, New Zealand in1951. He transferred to the Urban College for the Propagation of the Faith and to the Urban University, Rome, in 1953 where he obtained a Licentiate in Theology and a Licentiate in Philosophy in 1956 and1959 respectively. December 27, 1956 he was ordained to the priesthood. He secured a Doctorate in Theology at the Gregorian University in 1959, returned to New Zealand to work in parishes in theAuckland diocese. He graduated Bachelor of Laws from the Auckland University Law School in 1976 and was admitted as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand the same year. He returned to Rome to enter the Lateran University School of Canon and Civil Law in 1976 and graduated in 1980 Doctor in Utroque Jure, Summa cum Laude after defending the thesis: 'The Status and the Defences of the Unborn Child in Common Law'. A three year course of studies in law was then undertaken in the school of the Sacred Roman Rota leading, in 1983, to the qualification 'Rotal Advocate' licensed to appear before the Sacred Roman Rota and the Signatura Apostolica. This was followed by an administrative law course given by the Sacred Congregation for Sacraments and Divine Cult. From 1980 to 1985 he was attached to the Regional Tribunal located in Bologna, Italy where he functioned as Defender of the Bond. In 1985 he returned to New Zealand and parish work. In 1987 he became acquainted with the arguments of Patrick Henry Omlor, particularly Mr Omlor's 'Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the new, all-English Canon.' From then on Father Meuli was in turmoil until he returned to the Immemorial Mass, the Mass for which he had been ordained. By the kindness of the then Ordinary (Bishop Denis Browne) of the Diocese of Auckland, this was greatly facilitated. In 1989 a small church was detached from the jurisdiction of the parish wherein it is located and placed under Father's care. This singular apostolate was designated: 'Alternative Ministry.' There, to this day (November 2000), eleven years later, Mass is celebrated and the sacraments administered according to the traditional Roman Rite.

Quotes from Fathers of the Church and other great Popes and Saints

St. Athanasius (the Great, the Father of Orthodoxy)

The primary defender of the faith against the Arian heresy, lived under 5 Popes and 5 emperors, was exiled five time for a period totaling almost 20 years, and excommunicated by Pope Liberius.

Michael Davies (St. Athanasius): The saint and the archbishop (Lefebvre) both acted outside the normal hierarchical structures in order to uphold what they maintained was authentic Catholic tradition, both were supported by a remnant of the faithful laity, both were repudiated by almost all their fellow bishops, and both underwent the agony of being excommunicated by the pope of their day.

St. Athanasius (340 AD):

Our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers. Neither had our faith its beginning at this time, but it came down to us from the Lord through the His disciples. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the Churches from old time until now, may not be lost in our days, and the trust which has been committed to us required at our hands; rouse yourselves, brethren, as being stewards of the mysteries of God, and seeing then now seized upon by aliens.

Cardinal Newman (The Arians of the Fourth Century):

It is not a little remarkable that, though historically speaking the fourth century is the age of the doctors, illustrated as it is, by Saints Athanasius, Hilary, the two Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine (and all those saints bishops also, except one), nevertheless in that very day the divine tradition committed to the infallible Chruch was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than by the episcopate.

Here, of course, I must explain: -in saying this then, undoubtedely I a not denying that the great body of the bishops were in the internal belief orthodox; nor that there were numbers of the clergy who stood by the laity and acted as their centres and guides; nor that the laity actually received the faith in the first instance from the bishops and clergy; nor that some portions of the laity were ignorant, and other pertions were at length corrupted by the Arian teachers, who got possession of the sees, and ordained an heretical clergy: -but I mean still, that in that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of Our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the Ecclesia docta (the “taught Church”- the faithful) than by the Ecclesia docens (“the teaching Church”-the Magisterium); that the body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time, the pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan, or other great sees, at other times general councils said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth, while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Eusebius of Vercellae, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them..

On the other hand, then, I say that there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens. The body of the bishops failed in their confession of the faith.

St. Gregory of Nazianzen (360 AD):

Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel by the influence of the Spirit, all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and other later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear, or by interest, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance.

St. Basil (372 AD):

Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in the faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven. Ep. 92

376 AD:

Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in the deserts, - a pitiable sight, women and children, old men and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid the most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under the scorching sun. To this they submit because they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven Ep. 242

Only one offence is now vigorously punished – an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into deserts. The people are in lamentation, in continual tears at home and abroad. There is a cry in the city, a cry in the country, in the roads, in the deserts. Joy and spiritual cheerfulness are no more; our feasts are turned into mourning; our houses of prayer are shut up, our altars deprived of the spiritual worship. Ep. 243

St. Jerome (361 AD):

Nearly all the churches in the whole world, under the pretense of peace and of the Emperor, are polluted with the communion of the Arians.

The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian. (360 AD)

St. Pius V (Quo Primum)

Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church.

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski

Is It Ever Okay to Take Shelter in an SSPX Mass? https://onepeterfive.com/sspx-mass-shelter/

talk: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-primacy-of-tradition-and-obedience.html

The Profession of Faith established at the Council of Trent recognizes, as essential to Catholicity, adherence to “received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the sacraments”—“received and approved” here mean obviously nothing other than the traditional rites. In fact, this is simply the Catholic forma mentisor frame of mind—what it means to think and love as a Catholic (and not, say, as a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist).

Given this attitude, we should hardly be surprised to find eminent canonists and theologians maintaining that a pope guilty of injuring either tradition or the Christian people who rely on it deserves to be resisted. Juan de Torquemada states that if a pope fails to observe “the universal rite of ecclesiastical worship,”[8] he is neither to be obeyed nor “put up with.”[9] Cajetan counsels: “You must resist, to his face, a pope who is openly tearing the Church apart.”[10]Francisco Suárez declares:

If the Pope lays down an order contrary to right customs, one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defense.[11]

Suárez moreover claims that the pope could be schismatic “if he wanted to overturn all the ecclesiastical ceremonies resting on apostolic tradition.”[12] (Note he says “resting on,” apostolica traditione firmatas: he’s talking about the whole structure that has been raised upon apostolic origins. That would mean something like the 1570 Missale Romanum.) Sylvester Prierias explains that the pope “does not have the power to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandate prevented.”[13] Francisco de Vitoria likewise says: “If the Pope by his orders and his acts destroys the Church, one can resist him and impede the execution of his commands.”

State of Emergency

The SSPX claim their existence and faculties from the stipulation in Canon Law, that in a state of emergency, the Church supplies the faculties (Ecclesia supplet). Is there a state of emergency now? Consider the following:

Hijacking of the Vatican II Council by the liberal faction, ambiguous documents produced at align the Church with the “modern world”, abandonment of the traditional Mass and Sacraments in favor of a novel Mass concocted by Abp. Bugnini, who was almost certainly a freemason, in order to appease the Protestants. Further novelties: Communion in the hand, altar girls, Mass facing the faithful at a supper table.

Progressive abandonment of the traditions of the Church, including scandalous interfaith Assisi meetings and kissing of the Koran by JPII, and now with Pope Francis. Idolatry tolerated by the Pope, the installation of the Pachamama statue at the Vatican, Native American spiritualist mud-smudging ceremony and invocation of non-Christian spirits by the Pope and bishops in Canada, Abu Dhabi and Kazakhstan interfaith statements claiming God willed a plurality of religions, one as good as the other. Teaching documents such as Amoris Latitiae, allowing divorced Catholics to Communion, and Traditionis Custodes, suppressing (illegally) the traditional Mass and Sacraments. Large numbers of homosexuals infiltrating the clergy and hierarchy. Cover up of clerical sexual abuse for decades. Toleration of and even promotion of suspected pedophile priests and bishops (Cdl McCarrick). Tolerance of all manner of heterodox teaching and liturgy (German Syndodal Way, LGBT Masses, homosexual civil unions) except for anything related to Tradition, which is suppressed and persecuted (Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, Abp. Vigano, FSSP in some dioceses, Institute of Christ the King in Chicago). Large segments of the Church in outright apostasy, with faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist at all time lows, and huge of numbers of Catholics fallen away or non-practicing, the vast majority of those remaining supporting contraception, abortion, homosexuality and other heinous sins. Rumors of upcoming abandonment of prohibition of contraception, acceptance of homosexuality.

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/6151-francis-s-unholy-occupation-of-the-papacy-fatima-and-the-pressing-need-for-holiness

• He has convoked the Synod on Synodality, which by its structure and objectives seeks to undermine the immutable nature of the Catholic Faith and set aside Christian morality;

• He travelled to Canada to apologize for evils the Church did not commit be present for a ceremony described by Archbishop Vigano as “the satanic rites of evocation of the dead performed by a shaman”;

• He has increased his attacks on Traditional Catholics with his Traditiones Custodes and accompanying measures;

• He participated in the “Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions” in Kazakhstan, where he endorsed false religions and false gods;

• He issued his apostolic letter Desiderio Desideravi, which suggests that the Church should permit everyone to receive communion; and

• He has repeatedly put himself, and the apparent authority of the Catholic Church, at the service of the anti-Catholic globalists and the Great Reset.

In addition, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre recognized another important aspect of our resistance: that we cannot allow enemies of the Faith to coerce us to abandon the beliefs and practices of the Church that honor God and lead souls to Heaven. In his Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais quoted the archbishop’s notes from 1983:

“The problem of the situation of the faithful and the present papacy renders obsolete the difficulties of jurisdiction, disobedience, and apostolicity. These notions presuppose a Pope who is Catholic in his faith and in his government [of the Church]."

In 1983, many faithful Catholics might have considered this to be a schismatic attitude that would ultimately harm souls. But Francis has made Archbishop Lefebvre’s holy wisdom much more evident to those who would have disagreed decades ago. Today it should be beyond question that Bishops, priests, and faithful have every right — and indeed a duty — to practice the Faith in accordance with what the Church has always taught instead of showing false obedience to those who seek to destroy the Mystical Body of Christ. To do otherwise is to cooperate with the destruction of the Church, which Archbishop Lefebvre refused to do.

Prophecy

We know that the Catholic Church will endure until the end of time: “I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.” (Matthew, 28:20) Nevertheless, the misconception that the Church will always have a large number of faithful Catholics, is not claimed in Sacred Scripture nor anywhere else. Quite to the contrary, Scripture tells us: “… yet the Son of man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8).

History has witnessed time and again entire nations (England) and even groups of nations (the Great Eastern Schism), who were once Catholic, apostatizing from the Faith. That this would happen on a larger scale, especially in consideration of a “shrinking world” due to modern technology, is not at all inconceivable, and in fact, was predicted and has happened.

This was accomplished, in part, because the enemies of the Church had become historically astute, and cognizant of the fact that external persecution of the Church actually brings about Her greater growth, as the saying goes: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Faith.” That is why for centuries they have been focusing their efforts on destroying Catholicism by infiltration.

Pope St. Pius X warned the Church of this in 1907:

“[T]hey put into operation their designs for Her [the Church’s] undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of Her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers.” – Pascendi Dominici Gregis

Pope St. Pius X was not revealing anything new; rather He was adding His own warning to that of many other Popes and to the numerous warnings Heaven had been sending for hundreds of years.

WARNINGS FROM THE GREAT MOTHER OF GOD, MARY MOST HOLY

Our Lady of Good Success

In the early 17th century, a Conceptionist nun in Ecuador, Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres (1563–1635), was the recipient of various apparitions from the Mother of God, including many prophecies concerning the 20th century. The fact that these prophecies date back 400 years makes them especially noteworthy. Mother Mariana’s incorrupt body was discovered in 1906 and can still be seen today.

“Thus I make it known to you that from the end of the 19th century and shortly after the middle of the 20th century… It will be difficult to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, and also that of Confirmation… The Catholic spirit will rapidly decay; the precious light of the Faith will gradually be extinguished…”

“Various heresies will be propagated in this land, then a free Republic. As these heresies spread and dominate, the precious light of Faith will be extinguished in souls by the almost total corruption of customs [morals]… The small number of souls who, hidden, will preserve the treasure of the Faith and the virtues will suffer an unspeakably cruel and slow martyrdom…”

“In the 20th century… the corruption of customs will be almost universal and the precious light of Faith all but extinguished.”

Again, referring to the 20th century:

“How the Church will suffer on that occasion – the dark night of the lack of a Prelate1 and Father to watch over them… The lukewarmness of all the souls consecrated to God in the priestly and religious state will delay the coming of this Prelate and Father.”

Our Lady of La Salette

In 1846, the Mother of God appeared to two shepherd children in La Salette, France. She gave them many warnings about how God is going to punish mankind if mankind did not stop sinning. She also made some startling predictions.

Universal relaxation:

“Lucifer, with a great number of demons will be unchained from Hell. By degrees they shall abolish the Faith, even among persons consecrated to God.”

“In every place there will be extraordinary prodigies, because the true Faith has been extinguished.”

“[T]he abomination shall be seen in holy places, in convents, and then the demon shall make himself the king of hearts.”

“Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of Antichrist.”

When Our Blessed Mother warns that the true Faith will be abolished and extinguished, what She is prophesying is that the number of true Catholics will be so small, that it will appear as if they have been abolished or extinguished, but, as noted above, we know that the Church can never be totally extinguished, but will endure until the end of time.

Regarding the veracity of this apparition, which some modernist authors erroneously challenge, the Bishop of the diocese of La Salette published in 1851 a mandate which in part said: “[The apparition] has within itself all the characteristics of the truth, and that the faithful are justified in believing it is beyond doubt and for certain.” This mandate was sent to Rome and received the approval of Pope Pius IX.

Our Lady of Fatima

Mary appeared six times to three shepherd children at Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Besides the message of amendment of life, praying the Rosary and doing penance, she entrusted them with three secrets; the only one relative to this article is commonly known as the 3rd Secret of Fatima.

Third Secret of Fatima - “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…”

Even setting aside those portions of the 3rd Secret that Modernists are wont to ignore, the segment “in Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved” is admitted by all. This partial sentence speaks volumes. What a strange statement to make at a time when essentially every country on the face of the earth had the dogma of the Faith. The implication is clear: Our Lady was, at the very least, forecasting that entire countries would lose the dogma of the Faith, Portugal being an exception.

“Satan rules even in the highest positions and determines the direction of things. He will succeed in worming his way even into the highest summits of the Church…”

“But this will be a time of great trials for the Church. Cardinals will oppose cardinals. Bishops will oppose bishops. Satan will walk in their ranks. In Rome, there will be great changes. What is rotten will fall and what will fall will never rise again. Darkness will envelope the Church and the world will be thrown into a panic.”

The quote given above is taken from a German periodical published in 1963, Neues Europa, and received unofficial approbation in the 1960’s by several Church officials who had read the original 3rd Secret text hand written by Sister Lucia. Among these Church officials was the respected Cardinal Ottaviani. The new and “official” version put out by the Vatican in 2006 has been demonstrated to be utterly false.

Our Lady of Marienfried

As the pleas, requests, and warnings sent to mankind by a merciful God through His Immaculate Mother at La Salette and Fatima went unheeded, He sent that same loving Mother once again to warn a prideful world in 1946 at Marienfried, a small town in Germany.

As the pleas, requests, and warnings sent to mankind by a merciful God through His Immaculate Mother at La Salette and Fatima went unheeded, He sent that same loving Mother once again to warn a prideful world in 1946 at Marienfried, a small town in Germany.

“The Star of the infernal regions (Lucifer) will rage more violently than ever and will cause frightful destruction, because he knows that his time is short, and because he sees that already many have gathered around my sign.”

PREDICTIONS FROM THE SAINTS

St. Hippolytus (3rd century)

"And the churches too will wail with a mighty lamentation, because neither oblation nor incense is attended to, nor a service acceptable to God; but the sanctuaries of the churches will become like a garden-watcher's hut, and the Holy Body and Blood of Christ will not be shown in those days. The public service of God shall be extinguished.”

St. Nicholas von Flue (15th century)

“The Church will be punished because the majority of Her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until She will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, She will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”

St. John Bosco (19th century)

“There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church.” [1862 Prediction]

Venerable Anna Katarina Emmerick (19th century)

The Venerable Anna Katerina Emmerick was a German mystic who was favored with extensive revelations. Six weeks after her death, upon a rumor that her body had been stolen, she was disinterred and found to be incorrupt. She came to international fame when Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ” was acknowledged to have been based upon her revelations.

“I saw also the relationship between the two popes… I saw how baleful (evil; harmful) would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size;2 heretics of every kind came into the city (of Rome)3 … Once more I saw the Church of Peter was undermined by a plan evolved by the secret sect (Masonry), while storms were damaging it.”

“I saw a secret sect relentlessly undermining the great Church… When the Church had been for the most part destroyed (by the secret sect), and when only the sanctuary and the altar were still standing, I saw the wreckers (of the secret sect) enter the Church with the Beast.”

“I saw an apparition of the Mother of God, and she said that the tribulation would be very great. She added that these people must pray fervently with outstretched arms… They must pray above all for the Church of Darkness to leave Rome.”

“The Church is in great danger… I see that in this place (Rome) the (Catholic) Church is being so cleverly undermined, that there will hardly remain a hundred or so priests who have not been deceived. They all work for destruction, even the clergy. The great devastation is now at hand.”

“When I saw the Church of St. Peter in ruins, and the manner in which so many of the clergy were themselves busy at this work of destruction – none of them wishing to do it openly in front of others – I was in such distress that I cried out to Jesus with all my might, imploring His mercy. Then, I saw before me the Heavenly Spouse… He said, among other things, that this translation of the Church from one place to another meant that She would seem to be in complete decline. But She would rise again; even if there remained but one Catholic, the Church would conquer again because She does not rest on human counsels and intelligence. It was also shown to me that there were almost no Christians left in the old acceptation of the word.”4

“The Church is completely isolated and as if completely deserted. It seems that everyone is running away.”

“Among the strangest things that I saw, were long processions of bishops. Their thoughts and utterances were made known to me through images issuing from their mouths. Their faults towards religion were shown by external deformities. A few had only a body, with a dark cloud of fog instead of a head. Others had only a head, their bodies and hearts were like thick vapors. Some were lame; others were paralytics; others were asleep or staggering.”

“I saw what I believe to be nearly all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound…”

“Then I saw that everything that pertained to Protestantism was gradually gaining the upper hand, and the Catholic religion fell into complete decadence…”

“In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars.”

“I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church…”

“I heard that Lucifer (if I am not mistaken) will be freed again for awhile fifty or sixty years before the year 2,000 AD.”

PREDICTIONS FROM THE POPES

Pope Leo XIII

On September 25, 1886, Pope Leo XIII was favored with a vision of the legions of Hell and their efforts in destroying the Catholic Church. The vision so frightened Him that it caused Him to lose consciousness. In response to this vision, He composed a prayer to St. Michael the Archangel and commanded that this prayer be said every day after the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A relevant part of that prayer is here presented, as it was found in the foremost book of indulgenced prayers of the Catholic Church (the Raccolta) in 1930: (It is noteworthy that later editions of the Raccolta have extracted this portion of Leo XIII’s prayer).

“These most crafty enemies [the devils] have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”

Pope St. Pius X

“… there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days.

Pope Pius XII

“We believe that the present hour is a dread phase of the events told by Christ. It seems that darkness is about to fall on the world. Humanity is in the grip of a supreme crisis.”

“Mankind must prepare itself for sufferings such as it has never before experienced.” This comment comes from the Pope who lived through World War I and World War II! He expressed dismay at what he saw facing humanity in the not so distant future, describing those times as “the darkest since the deluge.”

“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a Divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the true Faith of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past.”

“A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, ‘Where have they taken Him?’”

The red lamp burning in Catholic Churches signifies that God is really present before them in the Most Blessed Eucharist – Pope Pius XII is here prophesying that the Most Blessed Sacrament will no longer be able to be found in the ‘Catholic’ churches, a reality which took place shortly after his death as a result of Vatican Council II.

* Melanie Calvat was one of the two seers of La Salette. The following extract is taken from the book “The Secret of Melanie and the Actual Crisis” by Abbot Combe, 1906:

“The Church will be eclipsed. At first, we will not know which is the true pope. Then secondly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will cease to be offered in churches and houses; it will be such that, for a time, there will not be public services any more. But I see that the Holy Sacrifice has not really ceased: it will be offered in barns, in alcoves, in caves, and underground.”

* Cardinal Manning was a high ranking official of the Anglican church and achieved notoriety when he converted to Catholicism in the 19th century. He was a staunch supporter of papal infallibility and a close friend of Pope Leo XIII.

“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”- Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)

* Yves DuPont, author of the book “Catholic Prophecy” and many other works on prophecy, wrote in 1970:

“Some prophecies seem to warrant the inference that the true Catholic Church will disappear completely for a while as an organization; but although disorganized, it will survive in the persons of the faithful members of the clergy and laity who will go underground.”

CONCLUSION

The above quotes are but a sampling of the many prophecies foretelling a great apostasy, i.e., a large scale falling away from the Catholic Church. Prophetically, we know that such an event is not only possible, but inevitable. Doctrinally, we know for a certainty that the current usurpers in Rome cannot possibly be Catholic, and therefore they cannot be the leaders of a Church of which they are not members. They may be in possession of the buildings once belonging to the Catholic Church, but they are not in possession of the Catholic Faith, and that is what really matters. For Faith is the life and heart of the true Christian, not just buildings or possessions.

To those who would put forth the argument that the Catholic Church is the “Roman Catholic Church” and that Catholicism is inseparable from Rome, I refer them to an allocution given by Pope Pius XII in 1949:

“If there should ever come a day – We say this as a matter of pure hypothesis – when the physical reality of Rome were to crumble; if ever this Vatican Basilica, the symbol of the one, invincible, and victorious Catholic Church, were to bury beneath its ruins the historical treasures and the sacred tombs it enshrines, even then the Church would not, by that fact, be overthrown or undermined; the promise of Christ to Peter would always remain true, the Papacy would continue unchanged, as well as the one, indestructible Church founded on the Pope alive at that time.”

“Thus it is: Rome the Eternal in the supernatural and Christian sense, is superior to the Rome of history. Her supernatural and eternal truth are superior to and independent of the historic City.”

As prophecy has foretold, those who possess the gift of the Catholic Faith in these times have been driven underground, where, barely noticed, but still despised by the world, they practice and keep alive the Treasure of pure Catholicism. There they will remain until God, in His mercy, will once again cause His Church to rise, as it were, from the tomb, through the instrumentality of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This too has been prophesied:

Our Lady of Good Success

“When I, in a marvelous way, will dethrone the proud and cursed Satan, trampling him under My feet and fettering him in the infernal abyss. Thus the Church and Country will finally be free of his cruel tyranny….Then, joyful and triumphant, like a tender child, the Church will be reborn…”

Our Lady of La Salette

“Eventually water and fire will cleanse the earth and the works of human pride will be destroyed and all will be renewed. Then will all serve God and glorify Him.”

“The new kings will be on the right hand of the Church which will grow strong, and which will be humble, pious, poor, zealous and followers of the virtues.”

“Everywhere the Gospel will be preached, people will make great progress in the Faith; there will be unity among the laborers of Jesus Christ, and people will live in the fear of God.”

“Jesus Christ will be served, adored, and glorified. Everywhere love of neighbor will begin to flourish.”

Our Lady of Fatima

“In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

https://www.marcotosatti.com/2022/09/08/ratzinger-tyconius-and-fatima-an-interpretive-key-for-the-end-times/

Pope Benedict’s most theologically-charged statement, however, was his comment about the vision designating a passion of the Church. According to Benedict’s assessment, the revelation to the three young children of Fatima was primarily about that passion – the coming sufferings of the Church, which are still to unfold and will be “reflected in the person of the Pope.” And, from where will the attacks that bring about this passion arise? He attested: “Precisely from within the Church.”

First, Cardinal Oddi, a personal friend of Pope John XXIII, who had discussed the secret with him, said in testimony to an Italian journalist in 1990: “It [the Third Secret] has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church.” [lxii]

Second, Cardinal Ciappi, a personal papal theologian to Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, in a communication to a certain Professor Baumgartner in Salzburg, divulged: “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”[lxiii]

Alberto Cosmedo Amaral, Bishop of Fatima from 1972–1993, gave a nod in the same direction – that of apostasy – when he attested at a question-and-answer session at the Technical University of Vienna in 1984:

The Secret of Fatima speaks neither of atomic bombs, nor nuclear warheads, nor Pershing missiles, nor SS-20’s. Its content concerns only our faith. To identify the Secret with catastrophic announcements or with a nuclear holocaust is to deform the meaning of the message. The loss of faith of a continent is worse than the annihilation of a nation; and it is true that faith is continually diminishing in Europe.[lxiv]

As a final endorsement of this perspective, Father Gabriel Amorth, the former chief exorcist of Rome, who personally knew Padre Pio for twenty-six years, gave a nearly identical verification, which he attributed to the great capuchin saint and extraordinary mystic. Here is a segment of his exchange with Spanish author, José María Zavala, during a 2011 interview:

‘Forgive me for insisting on the Third Secret of Fatima: Did Padre Pio relate it, then, to the loss of faith within the Church?’

Fr. Gabriele furrows his brow and sticks out his chin. He seems very affected.

‘Indeed,’ he states, ‘One day Padre Pio said to me very sorrowfully: ‘You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.’’

‘Oh my God! Some kind of Antichrist! When did he prophesy this to you?’ I [Zavala] ask.

‘It must have been about 1960, since I was already a priest then.’

‘Was that why John XXIII had such a panic about publishing the Third Secret of Fatima, so that the people wouldn’t think that he was the anti-pope or whatever it was…?’

A slight but knowing smile curls the lips of Father Amorth.

‘Did Padre Pio say anything else to you about future catastrophes: earthquakes, floods, wars, epidemics, hunger… ? Did he allude to the same plagues prophesied in the Holy Scriptures?’

‘Nothing of the sort mattered to him, however terrifying they proved to be, except for the great apostasy within the Church. This was the issue that really tormented him and for which he prayed and offered a great part of his suffering, crucified out of love.’

‘The Third Secret of Fatima?’

‘Exactly.’[lxv]

Venerable Fulton Sheen described the coming anti-church with uncanny accuracy as early as 1948:

[The Antichrist] will have one great secret which he will tell to no one: he will not believe in God. Because his religion will be brotherhood without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect. He will set up a counterchurch 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 Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ.[lxxix]