The SSPX and sedevacantists look tame compared to this schism fomenting heretical, sentimental babel, no?
Pray for Pope Leo! What a mess! Haigan lio!
Press title for full report:
Friday, March 20, 2026
IF I WERE INCLINED TO PICK A SCHISMATIC SECT, I WOULD NOT PICK CARDINAL HOLLERICH AND THE GERMAN SCHISMATIC WAY BUT THE SSPX!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Why does the good cardinal not ask the question of why, after 2000 years, we suddenly have a shortage of vocations? You cannot properly address a problem if you first do not know the cause.
Father Anthony, Bingo!
Anthony - Has there NEVER been a shortage of priests at any time in the past? Are there places where, today, there are great numbers of men steeping up to enter seminaries?
And by all means, address the CAUSES, not "cause," of the shortage today. There are internal causes to be sure - celibacy, the abuse crisis, the careful (and necessary) screening, etc.
There are external causes as well, massive societal shifts in the west that have given rise to radical individualism, a lack of personal responsibility/accountability, a sense of entitlement, etc.
Michael Matt has bailed on his "Zip It" strategy that had been concocted to convince Pope Leo XIV that rational Catholics comprised Trad Inc.
The "Zip It" strategy: We know that Pope Leo XIV is another Vatican II, Novus Ordo, modernist Pope. But let us play nice with him, at least for a time, to convince him that Trad Inc. is not filled with destructive radtrads. He may then ease up on TLM restrictions.
Well, adios to Zip It.
The Remnant...March 20, 2026 A.D.
https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/leo-xiv-and-the-myth-of-restoration-why-the-francis-agenda-continues/
-- Leo XIV and the Myth of Restoration: Why the Francis Agenda Continues
=======
Excerpt:
"What is Pope Leo’s judgment on Francis?
"In light of speeches and acts, both magisterial and of governance, it is clear that Pope Leo XIV has a very positive judgment of the Pontificate of Francis.
"He simply seems not to share the same method, but he certainly shares the same objectives and, at least in large part, the same vision of the Church.
"It is no longer necessary to know that Prevost participated in a ceremony in honor of the bloodthirsty Andean goddess Pachamama in the now distant 1995, thus anticipating Francis in the Vatican by 24 years, in order to understand this."
"If Pope Leo had had a negative judgment on the governance or magisterium of Francis, he would not have adopted a document drafted under the Bergoglian pontificate but left unpublished, such as Dilexi Te (October 9, 2025)—which explicitly recalls from the very title a problematic magisterial document of Francis;
"he would not have allowed the publication of the heterodox Doctrinal Note on Marian titles (November 4, 2025), explicitly indicated by the Dicastery as one of Francis’s last acts;
"he would not have approved a document of the International Theological Commission in which the Bergoglian heresy of the infinite dignity of man is reiterated (March 4, 2026);
"he would not have indicated the heretical Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia as a “luminous message” to be further developed in the coming months (March 19, 2026);
"he would not have explicitly praised the documents of Fernández, listing them one by one, on the occasion of the Dicastery’s Plenary (January 29, 2026);
"he would not have corrected the juridical gaps of various acts of Francis, as done with the amendment of the Fundamental Law of the Vatican to make the governance of a laywoman juridically possible, but would rather have abrogated them, as he in fact did for other less welcome decisions of Francis, as in the case of the abolition of the IOR monopoly on investments or of Francis’ ideological decree that reduced certain cardinalatial privileges in residential terms."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I really tire of the progressives in the Church who refuse to take responsibility for the wreckage that their agenda has caused. No, there has never been the collapse of vocations and religious practice to the scale that we have witnessed since the Council. We have had celibacy for 2000 years. So no, that cannot be the cause. The collapse of vocations and religious practices began decades before the abuse crisis. So no, that cannot be the cause. All the indices in the Church were on the way up until Vatican II then took a massive nosedive. Do not insult my intelligence by pretending that this correlation does not indicate causation.
As for massive societal shifts, you are mistaking cause and effect. The abandonment of traditional Catholic practices and beliefs was a major contributing factor in those shifts. The bishops caved.
The denial of the trauma that was caused after the Council is pure delusion, or perhaps better, just dishonesty. There are those who would see the Church burn down rather than return pre-Vatican II practices and beliefs. Their adherence to secular, political ideology—and that is what is driving this—is more important than the promotion of the faith.
I had a Dominican professor in the seminary who told the story about an inner city parish after the Council. The elderly pastor at the time made the minimum changes required. As a result his parish was thriving despite the poor state of the neighborhood. When he finally retired he was replaced by a younger pastor who was determined to implement a progressive view of Vatican II. Not surprisingly, the parish died. But my professor was not lamenting; he was celebrating. In his words: "Where did all the parishioners go? I do not know, and I do not care. At least that parish was brought into the 20th century." I have seen this attitude repeated many times.
We should not be surprised that all of this happened, when the emphasis in the liturgy was moved from the action of God in re-presenting the sacrifice on the Cross to the action of the lay congregation. It was, indeed, predicted but dismissed out of hand as "prophets of doom." In hindsight, the prophets of doom were right.
The Dominican professor was evil. You stated the problem quite well.
How many men who felt called in those 2000 years did NOT pursue that route due to the celibacy requirements? Don't insult my intelligence and make assertions which you cannot support.
The data does not support your insulting claim that Vatican Two is the cause of the ills in the Church today. The data shows that liturgical issues are near the bottom of the list when people are asked why they no longer practice the faith.
Do we reverse the teaching of Vatican Two on religious liberty? Do we take back the words of Nostra Aetate or Unitatis Redentigratio and return to condemning to hell those who are not visibly part of the Catholic Church?
Some have asserted that having female altar servers dissuades young men from serving or considering the priesthood. Fr. McDonald has pointed out frequently that Holy Trinity Parish in Augusta which had female altar servers for decades was the single parish that produced the most priestly vocations in our diocese.
The cultural shifts began long before Vatican Two and had nothing to do with what did or did not happen in the Catholic Church. The Enlightenment which led to secularism and individualism. The Industrial Revolution which changed the family structure, the employer/employee structure, the urban/rural structure. The move to the middle class by Catholic after WW2 due, largely, to the GI Bill, which made possible a massive move to the suburbs and away from urban centers and churches. Feminism started LONG before Vat Two - the Seneca Falls convention was in 1848.
These are the cultural shifts that have impacted the Church. Did the bishop cave in the time of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the work women did to secure the vote that was rightfully their all the time, but that men refused to recognize?
I mean, Come On.
In those 2000 years that we have had celibacy there there there were plenty of vocations. If celibacy were the problem, that vocation problem would have existed throughout those 2000 years. Yours is the claim that cannot be supported.
The teaching of Vatican II needs to be interpreted through the lens of the entirety of church teaching, not as a break with the past. This is what Pope Benedict insisted on. It is the false progressive interpretation of Vatican II that has done so much damage.
And in how many parishes did the service of altar boys collapse with the introduction of female servers? There is also the problem that the use of female servers reinforces both the feminist rejection of the proper distinctions between men and women, and refocuses the action of the liturgy from that of Jesus Christ acting through the priest and his ministers to that of gathered community, i.e, from an act of God to an act of the people. But of course, that is what some people want to do.
Yes, the cultural shifts started before Vatican II, but the Church held its ground and the Church survived and even flourished. After Vatican II (not at the council itself) the bishops threw in the towel and stopped being a voice opposed to the world. Thus we see the bishops of Germany today promoting what can be described in no other way than as heresy.
The indices of church practice leading up to the Council and immediately following are too stark and too dramatic to ignore. To do so one must be either willfully ignorant or dishonest.
Anthony - Did any men NOT pursue a vocation due to the celibacy requirement? Also, what was NOT a problem in one age can become a problem in another. Try driving a Model T on an interstate highway today. No problem on the roads from 1908 to 1927, but today it would be a major problem.
"And in how many parishes did the service of altar boys collapse with the introduction of female servers?" We don't know. Got data? Data, not anecdotes.
Females get in the way of a proper understanding of the Eucharist? Yeah, with you among the Apostles, those dang women who were the first to experience the Resurrection still would not be believed.
Females can't be ministers of Christ?
YES, precisely, the cultural changes that impacted are centuries in the making. The "abandonment" to which you refer happened within the last 80 years. This is but one of the a-historical weaknesses of the traditionalists' arguments.
Show me the data that back your claim regarding "indices." Till then, it is willfully dishonest to present conjecture as fact.
The question is not if any men did not pursue a vocation because of the requirement of celibacy but is this requirement grave enough to explain the lack of vocations. The 2000 year history of the Church would say no. And how many men have been denied ordination or marginalized after ordination because of their adherence to the faith and practices of the faith received before the Council, labelled as "too rigid"? Much of the vocation crisis is a self-inflicted wound.
Females can't be ministers of Christ? Given that our Lord only chose men to be apostles, as well as the Old Testament male-only priesthood (an anomaly in the ancient world), the answer would be yes, the can't. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Jesus Christ.
You are ignoring the sharp change in vocations that happened immediately after the Council. This is too pronounced to be dismissed as merely coincidental. And you want data, try Kenneth Jones' Index of Leading Catholic Indicators or "Fruits of Vatican II: Observational analysis of the Religious Memberships" [https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/A5_Fruits_of_Vatican_II-part_1.pdf]
Juxtaposed to this are the many vocations today in the FSSP in and traditionalist orders. My small parish alone has four men studying for the priesthood and for women novices, with a fifth woman strongly thinking of joining. Nor are we unusual in this. But, of course, I expect that you will dismiss all of this.
The denial of the correlation between the implementation of Vatican II (Note I am blaming overly radical implementation and not the Council itself) and the drop off of vocations and religious observance is an indication of placing more importance on a secular, political agenda rather than the faith itself. Otherwise there would be not be such adamant opposition to traditional forms; there would be a live and let live attitude: You do what you think best and I will do what I think best, and let the best man win.
"The question is not if any men did not pursue a vocation because of the requirement of celibacy but is this requirement grave enough to explain the lack of vocations." It is AN explanation, not the only one. I don't know how many "too rigid" candidates have been turned out - neither do you. (But I'm sure you'll offer some conjecture.) My experience was that the men who were sent down from Mt. St. Mary's should have been released. (You can read all about one of the VERY rigid ones if you google Dr. Tom Drolesky.)
"You are ignoring the sharp change in vocations that happened immediately after the Council. This is too pronounced to be dismissed as merely coincidental." Why is it too pronounced to be dismissed as coincidental? This is your conjecture.
I am, not worried about "the best man winning." My intention is for the Church to win.
Additionally, you say, "The denial of the correlation between the implementation of Vatican II (Note I am blaming overly radical implementation and not the Council itself) and the drop off of vocations and religious observance is an indication of placing more importance on a secular, political agenda rather than the faith itself."
Please tell me you are inadvertently overlooking the LONG history of the Church's direct (and sometimes disastrous) involvement in politics and secular agendas from the time of the Edict of Milan to the days of the Holy Roman Emperors to the support given by the Church to many Central and South American dictators and everything in between.
You can deflect all you want but the statistical evidence does not support you. And if your intention were for the Church to win you would not be so adamantly opposed to the old Latin Mass. No, you are more concerned with advancing a humanistic centered agenda than advancing the Catholic faith as received before the Council.
And of course you would agree that those denied ordination at the Mount should have been. After all, they were too "rigid" and did not support your Spirit of Vatican II agenda. From personal experience I know that there were many of my classmates who were fearful of being viewed as too conservative. You did not suffer it so you can have the luxury of denying that it happened.
Today we face the prospect of the SSPX illicitly ordaining bishops, a move that I do not support. But you do have to understand their history. Archbishop Lefebvre originally started his seminary not to create a parallel church but because he had so many young men come to him who had difficulties with the existing diocesan seminaries. The original intent was for them to study the society and then be ordained by their home diocese, except their bishops would not accept them. Those bishops were just as much responsible for the present situation with the SSPX as Archbishop Lefebvre himself. Deny all you want, but good orthodox men were systematically blocked from ordination. It is not that bad now but it did happen in the past.
Father Anthony,
If Jesus Christ himself told him he was wrong, he would argue with our Lord!
Anthony - Christian Humanism is the Church's position. If you accuse me of being a humanist, I readily accept that charge with pride with Erasmus, St. Thomas More, C. S. Lewis, and many others. If you accuse me of atheistic humanism, provide the evidence.
No one was sent down from the Mount during my time for being "rigid." The rigid who WERE sent down were also mad as hatters. Again, check out Dr. Tom Drolesky. The last time we saw him was before a history class with Fr. Roach. Drolesky came into class wearing his cassock . . . and carrying his pet sock monkey. The monkey had band aids on its wrists because THE MONKEY HAD TRIED TO COMMITT SUICIDE THE NIGHT BEFORE. End of the "rigid/orthodox" Drolesky.
Fr. Kavanaugh, your position, with its selective rejection of Sacred Tradition, is not Christian humanism but secular humanism. In this I distinguish between secular humanism and atheistic humanism. I do not charge you with disbelief in God but rather placing the status of man above revelation and Tradition in the ordering of the Church. Thus your greater concern for the activity of the congregation than the action of God through the ordained priest and his ministers.
I have no knowledge of Tom Drolesky and I reject using him as the example of all those who were denied ordination at the Mount. This is your typical tactic of appealing to the most extreme cases to delegitimize those with whom you disagree.
I cannot speak of your time at the Mount since you were ahead of me, but I can testify that a number of men were rejected as being "too rigid" when I was there, including myself. And what were the signs of my "rigidity? Showing an interest in Latin, receiving Communion on the tongue, expressing support for the male-only priesthood, and, believe it or not, because by posture was too straight. I should point out that I had just got out of Army. The stories I have heard from those who attended other seminaries were even worse. Please, do not pretend that men were not denied ordination or marginalized after ordination because they were deemed too conservative. It happened; I know too many men who were victims. I wonder if you would have approved a young Joseph Ratzinger who had expressed his ideas found in The Spirit of the Liturgy for ordination.
Anthony - I am not a secular humanist. Period. every definition I find of secular humanism sounds like this: "Secular humanism is nonreligious, espousing no belief in a realm or beings imagined to transcend ordinary experience." I am not "nonreligious" and I most certainly believe in the transcendent. If you can't provide backup for that accusation, please withdraw it.
I do not understand - and the Church does not understand - that the "activity of the congregation" and "the action of God" are distinct. Quoting the Catechism, Pope Benedict said, "The liturgy is "service in the name of/on behalf of the people" and participation in "God's Action". He stated further, "The Catechism also indicates that “in Christian tradition (the word ‘liturgy’) means the participation of the People of God ‘in the work of God’” (n. 1069), because the People of God as such exists only through God’s action."
There "activity of the congregation" and the "action of God" are integrally united in liturgy. One does not supersede the other.
Yes, the example of Tom Drolesky is an extreme example, because it is the extreme folks, right or left, who were rightly sent down from the seminary. The vast majority of our classmates from FAR right to FAR left were all advanced to orders. Through the years guys from the FAR right and the FAR left have left ministry for a variety of reasons. In these 41 years, those who have remained in good, solid active ministry remained right and left.
I might not have approved of a young Jospeh Ratzinger; hell, I might not have approved of myself. Ratzinger was considered a liberal/progressive in his early years, strongly supporting reforms and modernization during the Second Vatican Council. You might have bumped him for being a leftie.
But you know what? That call was not mine to make. Nor is it yours.
Post a Comment