What I love about Pope Leo XIV is that His Holiness is clear, canonical and unambiguous. That is refreshing after 13 years of the opposite. His Holiness has calmed nerves, soothed hurt feelings and is the imaging the Good Shepherd—and no name calling, WOW!
As it concerns the FSSPX’s excommunication—they were warned, warned, warned, warned and like adolescent children they ignored, ignored, ignored. But worse yet, they broke the 4th Commandment. Read what the CCC says about the 4th Commandment.
They disobeyed the Holy Father in His most solemn demand that they not ordain any new bishops. They not only broke the 4th Commandment, Divine Law, but also canon law.
Thanks be to God that Pope Leo does not denigrate those who are canon lawyers and those who are in Church Law Enforcement. I have not heard Pope Leo call anyone in a derogatory way a “doctor of the law” meaning pharisaical—name-calling.
I am happy that the Vatican has acknowledged those institutes and dioceses that allow the celebration of the ancient liturgical forms of the Church and opens the door to FSSPX clergy to leave the FSSPX and be amalgamated into dioceses or institutes:
Following the schismatic act of July 1, a return to Catholic communion will not require repeating the experience of special commissions, such as Ecclesia Dei in the past, because the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has already established a procedure for both priests and lay faithful, directly involving diocesan Ordinaries and the leaders of the fraternities that follow the ancient rite and are united with Rome.
But, but, but Cardinal Fernandez, we have bishops galore, some newly appointed, suppressing the TLM in their dioceses as they believe that Pope Francis’ miserable TC demands that only the post-Vatican II Bugnini Ordo of the Mass should be celebrated as sign of the Church’s unity—a truly Orwellian attitude.
How can anyone who wants to be in Full Communion with the Church trust that the Vatican won’t try to force them to give up the liturgical heritage they have and for some younger people, the only Rite they have every celebrated?
27 comments:
Pope Leo XIV has taken a verbal beating on one right-wing blog/web site after another as said folks have responded negatively to the supposed "hammering" of the SSPX.
For example, I just read an array of anti-Pope Leo XIV comments posted to Father Zuhlsdorf's blog.
Two images of Pope Leo XIV that have prevailed among right-wingers:
-- With the exception of a supposed foul mouth, Pope Leo XIV is Pope Francis 2.0...if not more liberal.
From: Father Zuhlsdorf's blog:
jhogan says:
2 July 2026 at 5:54 PM
"Our current pontiff is a nicer version of his predecessor, but Leo XIV is Francis I 2.0.
"I wish it were otherwise, but his lack of correction of T.C. after the revelation of the defects in the report that prompted it shows his lack of interest in “walking together” with the traditionally-minded."
-- Pope Leo XIV has rolled out the red carpet for priestesses, Father Martin, an "ice cube" that he blessed, Hollywood celebrities, but has not spent one second with SSPX leadership.
From: Father Zuhlsdorf's blog:
James C says:
2 July 2026 at 8:25 PM
"...it’s tragic that Leo XIV refused to meet with the SSPX leaders at any time after his elevation to the papacy, despites months of requests. I know Leo was very busy hosting Robert DeNiro, Cardinal Mahony, Fr James Martin, Al Pacino, Spike Lee, David Axelrod, Governor Pritzker, Cate Blanchett, etc..."
=======
The spin among numerous right-wingers throughout the internet is that Pope Leo XIV has broken the hearts of trads within, and without, the SSPX. The response to the SSPX has been cruel and dictatorial.
Pope Leo XIV's supposed hammering of the SSPX will backfire on him as he will be viewed as a bully...he will only increase sympathy and support for the SSPX.
That is certainly the view of numerous right-wingers. Said folks have thrown in with the SSPX. But that is not surprising.
Conversely, we are called as Catholics to stand with holy Pope Leo XIV.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Pope Leo may be clear and unambiguous, but his curia is not. He is responsible for them, and they speak in his name. Hopefully, he will address this discrepancy.
Yes, the suppression of the old Mass or the new Mass celebrated in the manner of the old Mass needs to end, and end definitely. I have asked before, and I ask again, why should there be any restrictions on the form of the Mass that has been celebrated for over 1500 years? Both justice and charity demand that this end. Otherwise, it is disingenuous to say the adherents of the old Mass should come into union with their proper bishops if those bishops will not receive them.
At least they have the new schismatic sect to join. For many the schismatic Eastern Orthodox liturgies are just too foreign and long.
The old form was not celebrated for "over 1500 years."
Schismatics are free to come into union any time they want. The ONLY thing stopping them is not their bishop, their pastor, the pope, or anyone else. It is their own three-year old behavior in saying, "Gimme What I Want Or I Won't Play!"
This comment came from a lay woman in the diocese of Salt Lake. This is another bishop who should be removed from office:
Our Bishop,
@BpOSoli
, has restricted the Diocese of Salt Lake City to only two authorized priests celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass, despite a growing number of conversions from the Mormon community to the tradional faith.
He has scattered many thriving Latin Mass communities, forcing numerous faithful to relocate. Others now travel more than an hour each way just to attend Mass.
I converted to the Catholic faith through the Traditional Latin Mass in Park City, where Father Grey faithfully ministered to our community. After his reassignment, he still drives from the city, after fulfilling all his other duties, so that we are not left without the Holy Mass.
If this Mass is no longer offered, my family and I will have no choice but to relocate.
I cannot embrace liturgies that resemble entertainment, poor music, and endless customizations that depart from the norms laid down by the Second Vatican Council. Nor can I accept services that seek to elevate communal closeness over the worship of God.
The Roman Rite was stabilized from the 6th century, changes introduced after that being minor and affecting mainly the private prayers of the priest. Do not try to promote the falsehood that it was invented in the 16th century. The suppression of the historical Roman Rite should be no more acceptable than if the Church would try to suppress any of the Eastern rites and force them to use the Novus Ordo. There is no just reason for its suppression.
What you’re saying is adjacent to the point I was trying to make earlier this week in other comments.
The SSPX and those of their mindset ultimately and simply do not believe that the pope has authority to tell them what to do and that they can trust that authority in working out their salvation. It is obvious that adhering to the pope is the sine qua non of Roman Catholicism.
But for whatever reason, there are folks who are so attached to the aesthetics or ethos of so-called Traditional Roman Catholicism that they fail to understand that in doing so, they’re not actually Roman Catholic.
Pope Leo XIV has "calmed nerves, soothed hurt feelings?"
The overwhelming amount of Catholics loved and respected Pope Francis. Nerves had not required calming...the smoothing of hurt feelings had not been required among countless Catholics.
But folks who waged war against Pope Francis had been dedicated to ideologies that trumped said folks' loyalty to the Faith. Today, said folks have shifted their attention to Pope Leo XIV.
Among said folks who from the first day of his Pontificate to date, have attacked Pope Leo XIV restlessly. His Holiness has not clamed the nerves of said folks.
Pope Leo XIV has failed to stop the trampling of the TLM, according to said folks. Add to that their outrage that has accompanied Pope Leo XIV's supposed "trampling" yesterday of the SSPX.
There is also the outrage that followed Pope Leo XIV having legitimized supposedly the Archbishop of Canterbury, Father James Martin, climate change "communists/tree huggers" via the "pagan" ice cube blessing ceremony...
...Pope Leo XIV outraged folks via his strong support of Cardinal Cupich during the Senator Durbin "controversy"...
...now, following yesterday's supposed "cruel" response to the SSPX, Pope Leo XIV has outraged an even greater amount of folks.
Pope Leo XIV has been viewed as a divisive, doctorial, destructive Roman Pontiff by the same folks who had waged war against Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said...,"But, but, but Cardinal Fernandez, we have bishops galore, some newly appointed, suppressing the TLM in their dioceses as they believe that Pope Francis’ miserable TC demands that only the post-Vatican II Bugnini Ordo of the Mass should be celebrated as sign of the Church’s unity—a truly Orwellian attitude."
Then the above is on Pope Leo XIV. He promoted the new bishops whom you mentioned. He has allowed certain bishops to trample, if that is what said bishops have done, the TLM.
Traditionis Custodes has belonged for 14 months to Pope Leo XIV.
=======
"How can anyone who wants to be in Full Communion with the Church trust that the Vatican won’t try to force them to give up the liturgical heritage they have and for some younger people, the only Rite they have every celebrated?"
Said folks do not trust Pope Leo XIV?
He has the authority to ensure that the "only Rite" that said folks have celebrated remains in force.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The good news is the younger generations of Catholics and converts to the faith are solidly traditional, both young priests and laity. When the liberal boomers go to their judgement in a couple years they'll be replaced by young trads. His will be done.
The SSPX today promised to Pope Leo XIV that despite his supposed "unjust and invalid" treatment of the SSPX, that the Society would not repay him with "bitterness or revolt."
The SSPX has revolted, however, against His Holiness. It is preposterous that the SSPX has today pretended otherwise.
The Society stated today that they had asked Pope Leo XIV for bread. Instead, Pope Leo XIV had delivered a "stone," according to the Society.
=======
Father McDonald stated in this thread that "we have bishops galore, some newly appointed, suppressing the TLM..." Therefore, in turn, Father McDonald had noted:
"How can anyone who wants to be in Full Communion with the Church trust that the Vatican won’t try to force them to give up the liturgical heritage they have and for some younger people, the only Rite they have every celebrated?"
That is certainly the image among said folks that Pope Leo XIV has acquired today. It is a given that among trads, Pope Leo XIV has taken a hit...he has broken many a trad's heart today, according to said folks.
He reacted in harsh, cruel fashion supposedly as he hammered the SSPX, if not a considerable portion of the TLM movement. But as the following article has made clear:
https://www.reuters.com/world/excommunications-show-pope-leo-unafraid-making-firm-decisions-2026-07-02/
-- Excommunications show a Pope Leo unafraid of making firm decisions
"Leo ... is somebody that does not work in blurred lines," Elise Allen, author of a biography of Pope Leo for Penguin Peru, told Reuters. "He's not afraid to be extremely clear or firm when he needs to be."
"That's not going to be his immediate instinct, but he's not going to back down from doing that when he thinks it's needed," said Allen, the only journalist to interview the pope since his May 2025 election.
A NON-CONFRONTATIONAL POPE GETS CONFRONTATIONAL
Massimo Faggioli, an expert on the papacy, likened Thursday's response from the Vatican to how Leo has interacted with U.S. President Donald Trump.
Over the first 10 months of his papacy, the first U.S. pope never publicly referred to Trump by name. Then in April, Leo began firmly criticizing the violence of the Iran war, which drew unprecedented social media attacks by Trump on Leo.
After Trump's first attack on him, the pope told Reuters he planned to keep criticizing the conflict.
"Leo is a nonconfrontational figure but ... when he has to say something, do something, so far he has done that," said Faggioli, a professor at Villanova University, outside Philadelphia.
Leo "said the time has come to stop bending over backwards and to send a message," Allen said.
"What he wants to do is draw a very clear line in the sand and say, 'This is what the Catholic Church is, either you're with it or you're not.'"
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Interview of Archbishop Ganswein:
By "wrong decision" you mean the restrictions introduced by Francis on the letter Summorum Pontificum, through which Benedict had liberalized the Latin Mass in 2007?
"I believe that Pope Francis made a mistake, without realizing it…"
Francis said that the opening had been used "to increase distances, harden differences, and build oppositions"…
"Yes — but it had the opposite effect. Summorum Pontificum had borne fruit; ten years of positive experience demonstrated that. There had been abuses, it is true — but abusus non tollit usum: the fact that some abuses existed was not a good reason to forbid the Tridentine Mass to everyone. Moreover, the majority of bishops were in agreement with maintaining the openings. One would recover that liturgical peace that has been damaged."
In an act of pure evil, Cupich of Chicago, forbad the Institute of Christ the King in Chicago to celebrate the TLM without offering the Novus Ordo which was contrary to the Charism of their order. Here was the local reaction:
“Once again, all is up for grabs. On July 31st, in accordance with an order from the Archdiocese of Chicago, a sign was posted on the Shrine’s chapel door stating, ‘As of August 1st, the celebration of public Masses is suspended.’
“This announcement has implications not only for those who wish to partake in the Latin Mass, but also for Woodlawn area Catholics who now will have to go elsewhere for religious celebration. Suspension of the masses in Woodlawn relates to a recent papal decree limiting the traditional Latin Mass worldwide. St. John Cantius is the only remaining church celebrating this Mass in Chicago at this time.
“‘There is a widespread feeling of betrayal among all the groups who have supported the Shrine’s restoration over the past six years,’ Nielsen said. ‘Members of the First Presbyterian Church next door, which has been so supportive since the start, joined the Shrine’s Canons and faithful in their final procession around the neighborhood on July 31st. The university students who have given so many volunteer hours to the restoration project, both the Media Communications students at Kennedy King College down 63rd St. from the Shrine, and the graduate students from the University of Chicago who have participated through the Harris School of Public Policy’s Harris Community Action program, they have stayed engaged with the Shrine and I see their shock and disbelief in their reactions on social media.’
“‘The Shrine is a Chicago Landmark and we hope that this designation will be a strong protection,’ she said. Nielsen and other members of the Save the Shrine team appeared before the Chicago Landmarks Commission in August and September to tell their story.” (Carmack Bross, Classic Chicago Magazine, 10/29/22)
Many of the policies, especially affecting the Archdiocese of Rome, that Pope Leo is reversing were implemented by Pope Francis in the last years of his papacy. Throughout his papacy, starting at the beginning, people in the know felt Pope Francis was listening to all the wrong people or took the advice of the last person he heard. This became very problematic in his later papacy around the time of TC and other controversial Muto Proprios he issued. Certainly Pope Francis was hoodwinked by those who hate the TLM which led to TC. I pray Pope Leo will reverse it too as he has already done so for other Pope Francis’ decisions.
A very good commentary at Rorate Caeli:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/07/institutional-breakdown-and-sspx-in.html
Father McDonald,
It is a good commentary. So odd that Francis would have affection for SSPX. What is perplexing is that I still cannot find the reasons for the breakdown in negotiations between Benedict and the SSPX. If SSPX is expecting a total repudiation of Vatican II, they are bonkers. Even Archbishop Lefèvre approved Sacrosanctum Concilium and, to my knowledge, the other Conciliar documents as well. It was unfortunate that Lefevre and his fellow travelers could not get to Paul VI and persuade him that many of the "reforms" were not in keeping with the letter and spirit of SS.
Why should anyone oppose the celebration of the old Mass?
Nuts, evil or both!
"TOLD not to harass?" Didn't the late, great Benedict XVI do that? These guys thumb their noses at so much (with exceptions), the excommunications could go on for months purging Satan's smoke!
Marc says: "It is obvious that adhering to the pope is the sine qua non of Roman Catholicism."
No, Marc, it is not. The sine qua non is the celebration of the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith.
It's not Rome or Jerusalem or Econe. It's not St. John Cantius or the Office of the Archbishop of Chicago or the residence of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
That’s incorrect. Your church believes that us Orthodox have the Eucharist and valid sacraments; yet, you contend we must also acknowledge and submit to the authority of the pope in order to be saved (that is, to be part of [what you think is] the Church).
I have to say that clearly the SSPX and Eastern Orthodoxy are extremely similar in terms of hubris.
Where’s the hubris in what I’m saying?
Marc, I might qualify your comment relative to Roman Canon Law. It seems, based upon the analysis that I've read, that belief is predicted upon who erred, when and how. If, those excommunicating have erred, can they excommunicate? The Office supersedes the actions of individuals, of course, but this is nonetheless part of the consideration. As well, form was not followed thereby rendering the Decree and Note insufficient.
Regardless of side, this is a mess, driven by the goal of survival, that likely could have been avoided simply by acknowledging the structure of the other churches in the Communion, or simple adherence to tradition which should be seamless.
Fr. AJM, I am cautious about branding anything as hubris. To stand up for what one believes to be true and right, in this instance, is questionable as hubris. I'm not a Canon Lawyer, but debate seems provided for, yet has been stifled. The Dubia remain outstanding.
I'm not taking outright sides here. I do think the Society's concerns deserve consideration. It's not like they've eschewed dogma and started worshipping heads of lettuce.
If I’ve understood you correctly (and I may not have), I’d note that Roman Catholics are not permitted to disagree with the pope’s excommunications (Denz. 1698) and that it isn’t just the precise words that matter, it is the manifest will of the pope (Lumen Gentium 25).
Post a Comment