Popes and the Modernist sin

 « The modernist system, more precisely the modernist apparatus and procedures, offer the pope an entirely new occasion to sin, a possibility of evading his mission that has never before been proposed to him. […] There followed this destructive consequence: the apostolic Tradition in matters of doctrine, morals, and worship has been neutralized, although not killed, without the pope, officially and openly, having needed to renounce the whole Tradition and thus proclaim apostasy. […]

“The pope has never said, has never needed to say: ‘everything that was taught, everything that was done up to Vatican II, all the doctrine and all the worship prior to Vatican II, I strike with anathema.’ Yet the result is before our eyes… To reach where we are, it sufficed that the pope, without taking measures that would strike the Church’s prior tradition, allowed modernism to proceed. »

- Father Roger-Thomas Calmel, O.P. (1914-1975)

Why performative Catholics don’t show up at the TLM.

Richard Rich wants all the silver cups life has to offer. But you have to know the right people first.

It’s like the conversation between More and Richard Rich, who doesn’t want to be a teacher, in “A Man for All Seasons”, “because nobody will know.”

He’s performative. He wants a job, a vocation, a life that will draw attention and acclaim. Not a life pursuing truth or beauty or goodness for its own sake.

He’s superficial.

He wants to be the Lord Chancellor of England. Like More. Then people will know who he is. The right kind of people. Lots of people. That’s where the action is. It’s monetizable. People will read the blogs, buy the books, open their wallets for you, if you’re known. You’ll be invited to all the right parties. 

More’s answer: “God will know. Your students will know. You will know.”

That’s what separates the men from the boys. When, as More counseled, it’s enough that God knows. When the public gaze, monetization and the obsession with the externals and the superficial take a distant last place in spiritual priorities.

For the worldly, for the performative, the excuse for talking a good game without following through, it’s  always, “but nobody will know.”

For those who seek out the TLM, who turn away from the world together with the priest at Mass,“God will know.”

Horizontal vs vertical. Choose.

A “moderately grave” reason suffices to excuse from the obligation to attend holy Mass on Sundays

Friendly reminder, since I've seen it trending around Catholic X that "if you don't go to Mass on Sunday without a good reason you'll go straight to hell if you die", that pre-Vatican 2 moral theologians were quite generous in their interpretation of what a "good reason" actually is.

For example, Fr. Heribert Jone in his "Moral Theology" (which went through multiple editions in the mid-20th century) counsels confessors that "any moderately grave reason suffices to excuse one from assistance at Holy Mass, such as considerable hardship or corporal or spiritual harm either to oneself or another." He then lists several examples including:

-- women who are pregnant out of wedlock who would bring shame upon themselves and their families by attending Mass

-- those who cannot "abide the air in church" for physical or mental health reasons

-- servants whose duties require them to work on Sundays and/or whose masters forbid them to assist at Mass under threat of loss of employment

--those who lack clothing appropriate to their social standing

--those who would suffer the loss of "extraordinary gain" by attending Mass

He even excuses those who would miss Mass for the sake of a "pleasure trip", provided it happens only once or twice and one has no other opportunity throughout the year.

So maybe we should stop making scrupulous people feel even worse when they have to miss Mass through no fault of their own.

Source: @LB236 on Twitter/X.

Vatican II vs. the popes

“Either we agree with the Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom and thus oppose the teachings of the popes, or we agree with the teachings of the popes and thus disagree with Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom. It is impossible to subscribe to both.”

 -Abp. Lefebvre

The Vocation of SSPX Priests: A Response to Kevin Wells

 I caution anyone to consider carefully the claim that the active priesthood of the Novus Ordo is more important than the more targeted work of the SSPX.

• 
  Janet E. Smith

  Author Note: If it is objectively wrong for the priests of the SSPX to stay with an order whose bishops are in schism and who have been excommunicated, this essay is null—although I hope the discussion on what should be the primary focus of priests remains of value. For the purposes of the following piece, we need only allow that some priests may be subjectively non-culpable for remaining with the SSPX.

  My good friend Kevin Wells recently implored a priest of the SSPX to consider leaving the order not so much because the bishops of the SSPX have been declared to be in schism and thus excommunicated but because Kevin believes the work of the priests of the SSPX to be a less effective form of caring for souls than serving those who attend the Novus Ordo. Kevin seems to think the salvation of souls attended to by the SSPX is comparatively secure, and thus the work of NO priests directed toward the spiritually starved is more urgent.
  Kevin loves priests and is a great advocate for the priesthood. He has written beautifully about priests in The Priests We Need to Save the Church (where he tells the story of his uncle, Fr. Tommy), Priest and Beggar: The Heroic Life of Venerable Aloysius Schwartz,and Coached by the Curé: Lessons in Shepherding with St. John Vianney. These books tell the stories of priests whose work changed the lives of thousands. Kevin is, by temperament, an activist—a man driven by a flurry of wonderful ideas who is working zealously to reinvigorate the priesthood in a Church in crisis.
  But I caution him and those advised by him to consider carefully the claim that the active priesthood of the NO is more important than the more targeted work of the SSPX or that serving the poor is more important than learning Latin to celebrate the liturgy—or to be dedicated to the intellectual life. In the end, both are directed toward the same goal and should not be pitted against each other.
  Wells makes this plea:
  Father—and any other SSPX priest who has made it to this point—rather than mocking me for what I propose, would you at least consider looking into the ringed eyes of millions of spiritually-starved postconciliar Mass-goers? Would you dare cross the Rubicon and face West—versus populum—to look more deeply into the harrowed faces of faithful parents and grandparents who realize they are losing the souls of their children and grandchildren to the world?
  Although the care of souls is of foremost importance, saving as many souls as possible is not the goal of the Christian life; it is saving the souls that God has put under one’s care. Parents need to attend to the children entrusted to them and not abandon them to care for others more in need of attentive parental care. We must all do our best to discern what God wants us to do.
  I also find Kevin’s plea curious: SSPX priests believe that the suppression of the TLM and the problems with Vatican II are key sources of the desperation in “the ringed eyes of millions of spiritually-starved postconciliar Mass-goers.” Were they to join the NO priesthood, they would be abandoning the strategy they believe best for feeding souls—the very souls entrusted to them. Who would advise a homeschooling parent to abandon homeschooling to become a teacher in the public school system since the children there are more needy. Moreover, few diocesan bishops will accept SSPX priests, and they would not last long in the dioceses of today. Let me remind my friend Kevin that all too many faithful, good, zealous NO priests have been cancelled because they have been caught teaching the true Faith. 
  Kevin seems to think the sacrifices of more activist priests are greater than those of more traditional priests. He states:
  You see there lies a temptation within the SSPX—what I might call a “Pilate out-clause”—whereby the priests of your Society have found a way to wash their hands of the world’s moral pus and retreat into their palace of comfort—while Christ is left to die and the souls He came to save live in a world covered over by unseen, flapping black wings.
  Undoubtedly, there are SSPX priests who have some less than admirable reasons for being SSPX priests; but so, too, of course, do NO priests and many bishops as well. Certainly, some vocations are more “comfortable” than others, but it is wrong to think we should “select” vocations that are less comfortable. Rather, we should discern what God wants of us—if He wants us to be prosperous parents of a large family, we should embrace that; if He wants us to be a hermit in the wilderness, we should embrace that. If the principle that Kevin seems to advance here is true, there would be no place for contemplative orders or even the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP), for instance.  
  Kevin presents a bleak—and I suspect uncharitable—reading of most SSPX priests:
  Father, where is the sacrifice in shepherding to heaven the soul of a woman who wears a chapel veil and prays the Rosary every day? Where is the immolation and hard work in leading to Heaven a serious-minded man who delights in discussing Thomistic philosophy with you? Does the well-ordered, homeschooled child require your pastoral care as much as the blank-faced, porn-addicted teenager shuttled between divorced parents?
  Does Kevin know how many very wounded souls land on the doorstep of the SSPX or other TLM groups? I know a woman who used to be in a gang and engaged in prostitution who found the TLM and had her life reformed. SSPX priests are doing their best to help teenagers never become porn-addicted and helping spouses not divorce. Does he know that those women wearing chapel veils and praying the Rosary every day need to have their souls fed so they can more effectively serve members of their family and community who have gone astray? And would that more priests had parishioners who could discuss Thomism with them—the priesthood would become more and more powerful.
  
  More: https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-vocation-of-sspx-priests-a-response-to-kevin-wells

Maura Healey removes all remaining doubt about the existence of hell

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey Signs Bill for Abortions Up to Birth

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey has signed H.5595, which would legalize abortions up to birth.

The radical bill that allows abortions up until birth even on healthy unborn babies. Democrats fast tracked the measure to bypass the full committee process so the full body could pass the bill before the legislature adjourned.

The bill passed the overwhelmingly Democrat House on July 22 by a vote of 119-33. Under current state law, abortions are allowed up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, although weak exceptions essentially allow it up to birth.

More at LifeSite: https://www.lifenews.com/2026/08/10/massachusetts-governor-maura-healey-signs-bill-for-abortions-up-to-birth/

While destroyers in Rome break the Church up into smaller pieces a light of Catholic unity burns bright in Oslo

NEWS: Bishop Fredrik Hansen of Oslo has drawn a clear line on synodality. He recently extended permission for the Latin Mass.

As Bishop Hansen announced the convocation of the first diocesan synod of the Catholic Church in Oslo His Grace  stated:

“A diocesan synod is not a democratic assembly"

“As bishop, I am also obliged to exclude from the synod anything that contradicts or calls into question the doctrine of the Church. It is not for us to decide on matters of faith and morals.”

Full report to come @RealAdVaticanum

N.B. By means of what miracle did this man become a bishop in the Catholic Church?