| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 360 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 354 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yandex
|
|
|
| The Catholic Trumpet: Who Will Confess Him? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-30-2025, 06:32 AM - Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
- No Replies
|
 |
WHO WILL CONFESS HIM?
![[Image: rs=w:1280]](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/df55e1a9-c854-4d0b-a2a9-94177954436c/IMG_6352.png/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280)
The Catholic Trumpet [Slightly adapted and reformatted]| May 28, 2025
“Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.” — Matthew 10:32–33, Douay-Rheims
To confess Christ is not merely to say His name. It is to profess the true Catholic Faith: whole, public, and uncompromised, the Faith as it was always held before the disasters of Vatican II, and defended without wavering by +Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It is to say: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus—outside the Church there is no salvation.
It is not enough to believe this privately. Our Lord binds us to speak it openly, or be counted among those who deny Him.
And make no mistake: when a Protestant or false Christian says, “We are all Christians”, and we respond with silence, we do deny Him.
We deny His Church.
We deny His truth.
We deny the One whom we pretend to honor.
As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:
“There is no confession of faith unless there is also the confession of those truths without which salvation is not possible.”
— Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 3, a. 2, ad 2
This is why silence is not neutrality. It is betrayal. It is cowardice wrapped in counterfeit charity.
St. Thomas More was beheaded for refusing to acknowledge a false head of the Church. He would not lie by silence. On the scaffold, his final words were:
“I die the King’s good servant, but God’s first.”
(Witness account, July 6, 1535)
St. Thomas Becket was murdered before the altar for defending the liberty of the Church against a crown that wanted submission. In a letter to Pope Alexander III, he wrote:
“It is because I fear the judgment of God more than the judgment of men, that I refuse to betray the liberty of the Church.”
(Letter to Pope Alexander III, 1166)
Both could have lived, if only they had kept silent.
But silence is not confession.
Silence, when truth demands a voice, is denial.
To withhold the Catholic Faith from a Protestant is to deny the visible Church of Christ. It is to speak a lie by omission. This violates the law of non-contradiction: what is true must be spoken; to remain silent in the face of heresy is to permit and promote error.
And Our Lord has warned us with eternal clarity:
“He that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him.”
There is no middle.
Confess Him, or deny Him.
Confess Him in His divinity.
Confess Him in His Sacraments.
Confess Him in His Church.
Confess Him through the Immaculate Heart of His Blessed Mother, without whom no one can truly know or love Him.
And if the world rejects us, then we will join the company of the martyrs.
St. Thomas More and St. Thomas Becket died with the Church. The question is not whether we admire them, but whether we will join them.
|
|
|
| The Society’s Silence: What Happened to the Prophetic Voice of the SSPX? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-30-2025, 06:17 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
The Society’s Silence: What Happened to the Prophetic Voice of the SSPX?
How the SSPX Lost Its Voice When the Church Needed It Most
![[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...3x477.jpeg]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd3a55102-f28d-4c61-a76e-0a751e525b86_653x477.jpeg)
Chris Jackson - Big Modernism [Emphasis mine] | May 28, 2025
For many years, the Society of St. Pius X was a voice crying out in the wilderness. When the Church seemed to abandon her own traditions and embrace the modern world with open arms, it was the SSPX that stood up, refused to conform, and denounced the errors with apostolic clarity. They warned of a “new religion,” identified the dangers of ecumenism, and fearlessly called modernist Rome to conversion. Whether one agreed or disagreed with their canonical standing, few could deny the moral courage they displayed when nearly every other traditional voice had been silenced or absorbed.
But something changed.
Under the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the SSPX was vocal, aggressive, and spiritually militant. Under Francis, and now Leo XIV, that voice has been muted. It is not merely a matter of tone but of mission. The SSPX of the 1990s and early 2000s was on fire. The SSPX of 2025 feels like it's been professionally managed, polished, and de-fanged.
What happened to the Society that once stood in opposition to the errors of the age, regardless of the consequences?
The Boldness of the Old SSPX: Public Rebukes, Fiery Sermons, and Clear Teaching
One of the clearest examples of the old SSPX spirit was the historic occupation of the Church of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris in 1977. Led by the fearless Mgr. François Ducaud-Bourget, traditional Catholics physically reclaimed the church for the Latin Mass, refusing to yield even under police pressure and media condemnation. That act of defiance wasn’t just symbolic, it was a lived expression of the SSPX’s willingness to stand firm in the face of institutional apostasy. It was a moment that inspired thousands and marked a real line in the sand. Where are priests like that today?
During the reign of John Paul II, the SSPX did not mince words. Their critiques were unambiguous. The 1986 Assisi prayer meeting was denounced as a public scandal: a “blasphemous pantheon of religions.” Archbishop Lefebvre and his successors saw it as a betrayal of the First Commandment and of the missionary mandate of the Church. The SSPX’s publications, such as The Angelus and Fideliter, routinely ran scathing theological critiques of the pontificate, analyzing conciliar texts, dissecting speeches, and comparing them to the perennial magisterium.
In 2005, when Benedict XVI took the throne, many hoped for a shift back toward Tradition. And in some ways, Benedict did soften the treatment of traditionalists, most notably through Summorum Pontificum. But the SSPX remained clear: Benedict was still a Vatican II pope. He upheld ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality: the very errors the Society had been founded to resist.
The Society issued respectful but firm critiques of his writings, including Deus Caritas Est, and raised alarms over the continuity Benedict tried to establish between the Council and Tradition. At no point did they imply that the crisis was over. Nor did they ever hint that reconciliation should come at the price of silence. Their sermons reflected this urgency: preaching was often direct, theologically rigorous, and unflinching in naming the crisis and its causes.
Their theological criticisms were reinforced by real ecclesial action. They continued to form priests, ordain bishops, and expand chapels while issuing public warnings about modernist Rome. In short, the SSPX had a mission and they fulfilled it openly, even defiantly.
The Turning Point: Rome’s Outreach, Internal Purges, and the PR Pivot
After 2009, things began to change.
Rome opened the door to doctrinal discussions with the SSPX. Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the four bishops. On the surface, this seemed like progress. But the cost of these talks became clear soon after. Once rumors of a possible agreement began to circulate in 2011–2012, internal divisions surfaced. Bishop Williamson was expelled. Priests known for their hardline positions began to vanish from public view.
A purge occurred.
Those who had spent years boldly denouncing the crisis in the Church, especially in sermons and publications, were replaced with calmer voices, more cautious men, men willing to “dialogue.” Sermons shifted. No longer did the Society’s priests call out the Pope by name for heretical statements. No longer did they explain how ecumenical actions contradicted Mortalium Animos or Quanta Cura. Now the sermons became “spiritual meditations,” perhaps personally edifying, but studiously apolitical and avoidant of crisis.
The Society’s messaging began to shift. The tone became polished, corporate, sanitized. The passion was gone.
The SSPX that once raged against the modernist Vatican was now issuing press releases “welcoming” gestures from the Holy See; even when those gestures came from Francis, whose record of doctrinal and liturgical abuse far exceeded that of his predecessors.
The Francis Years: From Prophets to Diplomats
With Francis, the crisis reached new heights. Pachamama. Abu Dhabi. The Amazon Synod. The Synod on Synodality. The persecution of the Latin Mass. The canonizations of John Paul II and Paul VI. Communion for the divorced and remarried. The papal silence on blessing same-sex couples in Germany. The public praise of Luther. The declaration that “diversity of religions is willed by God.”
What did the SSPX say?
Very little.
When they spoke at all, their tone was cautious, deferential, and oddly bureaucratic. Their critiques were not even remotely as forceful as their old responses to Benedict and John Paul II. Some examples:
- When Traditionis Custodes was released, the Society called it “a matter of concern,” but emphasized their own immunity and invited displaced faithful to attend SSPX chapels. No condemnation. No outcry. No “blasphemy” or “betrayal” like in the days of Assisi.
- When Francis signed the Abu Dhabi declaration, they issued a measured statement of theological “clarification,” avoiding any direct accusation of heresy or doctrinal rupture.
- When Pachamama was enthroned in the Vatican Gardens, the SSPX responded late and limply, with a generic critique of syncretism in general, not even naming Francis or the event in its headline.
Even in the rare instances where the SSPX has responded, such as its published analysis of Fiducia Supplicans, the Vatican declaration permitting blessings for same-sex couples, the tone was cautious, clinical, and oddly dispassionate. Issued through FSSPX.News rather than from any district superior or bishop, the statement expressed concern over doctrinal confusion but avoided directly confronting the Pope’s personal approval or calling for resistance. Gone was the prophetic indignation once directed at lesser scandals; in its place stood a subdued essay that read more like an academic memo than a cry of alarm.
What once would have triggered a spiritual call to arms now elicited only a press release with footnotes.
And now, under Leo XIV, this pattern continues.
The Fullerton Letter: Polished Deference in the Age of Apostasy
Perhaps no document better illustrates the SSPX’s new tone than the May 21, 2025 letter issued by Fr. John Fullerton, the District Superior of the SSPX in the United States, addressing the election of Leo XIV. What should have been an opportunity to express grave concern, or at the very least, to issue a sober, theologically grounded warning, was instead a carefully constructed exercise in institutional diplomacy. In fact, the letter could have been mistaken for something issued by the FSSP or Opus Dei.
From the opening paragraph, the letter is drenched in procedural reverence and restrained commentary. Cardinal Prevost’s election is called a “momentous occasion,” and the faithful are encouraged to scrutinize the future with hopeful eyes, by examining not the doctrinal fruits of the new pontificate, but by comparing his gestures to those of his “predecessor.” Which predecessor? Even here, there is no mention of Francis at all, only a reference to Pope Leo XIII from over a century ago. As if the path to understanding Leo XIV’s pontificate lies in the 19th century rather than in the revolution of the last twelve years.
What follows is a striking absence of clarity. Instead of naming Leo XIV’s well-known track record—his praise for the Abu Dhabi declaration, his fidelity to the synodal revolution, his enthusiastic appointment of female dicastery heads, the letter warns the faithful not to be “overly influenced” by the online world or by “experts” scrutinizing the Pope’s words. In other words, don’t trust your own eyes. Don’t read what’s on the page. Don’t weigh his public record. Instead, just pray. Hope. Assume the best. Be quiet.
This rhetorical evasion is not merely disappointing, it is pastoral negligence. In decades past, the SSPX formed consciences by equipping them to judge modernism through the lens of Catholic Tradition. Now, it is instructing the faithful to suspend judgment, sideline their concerns, and defer to an undefined and nebulous “spirit of charity.”
The most glaring omission is any reference, explicit or implicit, to the doctrinal crisis the Church now faces under Leo XIV. This is the same man who canonized Francis with a tweet, praised the spirit of Nostra Aetate, and doubled down on the ecumenical and environmental trajectories of the past twelve years. And yet, not a single word of caution is issued. Not a hint of doctrinal discernment is proposed. Instead, Fullerton concludes with a sentimental invocation that Leo XIV might “fill the shoes of St. Peter,” as if the pontificate of Francis had never happened.
The letter says the Church has been “beset by a crisis that has lasted for nearly six decades,” yet offers no indication that the new pontificate continues or intensifies that crisis. On the contrary, it seems to suggest the opposite: that Leo XIV might be the man to reverse it. There is no recognition that Leo’s stated agenda is a continuation of Francis’s revolution, nor that his first public acts were celebrations of synodality, interreligious harmony, and a renewed “ecological conversion.” The reader is left with a vague impression that things are uncertain, but hopeful, and the job of the laity is not to analyze, not to speak, not to resist, but to pray and hold the pope “in your hearts.”
To be clear, prayer for the pope is right and good. It has always been part of the traditional liturgy, and no faithful Catholic would deny its necessity. But to use prayer as a substitute for truth, or worse, as a way to quiet legitimate alarm, is not spiritual leadership. It is public relations.
This is not how the SSPX once spoke. In the 1980s and 1990s, their press statements named names. They laid out the errors of Dignitatis Humanae, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Nostra Aetate with surgical precision. They did not tell the faithful to withhold judgment until more time passed, they warned that modernist theology had infected the Church at the highest levels, and that to remain silent in the face of such error was itself a betrayal of the faith.
Fr. Fullerton’s letter is not a betrayal in that sense, but it is a warning signal. It reveals an SSPX that now seeks to manage its public profile, rather than proclaim the truth without compromise. It reveals a Society increasingly cautious about how it is perceived by Rome and the public. It reveals a churchman more concerned with sounding “charitable” than being prophetic.
This is what happens when prophecy is replaced with diplomacy. When a society of priests founded to resist the revolution instead prays politely for the revolutionary-in-chief without a word of warning, the faithful are left without shepherds who speak plainly. The priests may still offer the Mass. They may still teach the catechism. But their silence on the great crisis of the day, when it counts most, will echo louder than any sermon.
The SSPX Faithful Deserve the Truth
None of this is to say the SSPX is invalid or useless. They provide the sacraments. They educate children. They form priests. For thousands of families, they are the last refuge from a Church that often feels hostile to its own patrimony.
And that is precisely the tragedy.
Because the faithful deserve more than silence. They deserve truth.
When those entrusted with preaching and shepherding choose diplomacy over doctrine, when they pull their punches for fear of losing favors, then they are no longer fulfilling their apostolic mission. They are managing a brand.
This doesn’t mean the SSPX is wicked. It means they are at a crossroads. Their silence may be strategic. It may be fearful. It may be the fruit of some unspoken understanding with Rome.
Whatever it is, it is not the voice of Archbishop Lefebvre. And it is not the SSPX many of us once knew.
|
|
|
|
| Leo XIV As Bishop: "Develop All International Institutions for Agenda 2030" |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-30-2025, 06:06 AM - Forum: Pope Leo XIV
- No Replies
|
|
Leo XIV As Bishop: "Develop All International Institutions for Agenda 2030"
![[Image: t9zw5i96hpu57liwy0u3pgu8r2tn6oxtgissmfn....57&webp=on]](https://seedus6826.gloriatv.net/storage1/t9zw5i96hpu57liwy0u3pgu8r2tn6oxtgissmfn.webp?secure=tFdNWepDXUyJ2knGUD--lQ&expires=1748681257&webp=on)
gloria.tv | May 30, 2025
On 15 October 2015, Bishop Robert Prevost, the Grand Chancellor of the Catholic University Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo (USAT) in Chiclayo, Peru, supported the anti-Catholic UN’s Sustainable Development Goals in a speech.
He touched on topics such as universal unity, 'integral sustainable development', achieving the goals by 2030, social inclusion, the 'common home', and other dubious concepts.
From the outset, the Sustainable Development Goals/Agenda 2030 incorporated contraception, abortion, homosexual ideology, climate hysteria, and state tyranny.
Here are some horrific excerpts from the speech, even if they are slightly hidden in clerical jargon:
- "In light of Pope Francis' recent address to the United Nations Assembly and the pronouncement of this body on the Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in the ‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, it is worthwhile to rethink and evaluate the personal and institutional objectives of this university, but also of all public and private bodies and institutions worldwide."
- "USAT, through its various professional careers, will have the special and Christian mission of adapting to a more social vision that sets the tone in the country. This will be our contribution to achieve the 2030 goals."
- "Communicators, doctors, nurses, engineers, lawyers, businessmen, educators, ALL of us, will contribute with a policy of transversal social responsibility in all our 'being', to train professionals capable of establishing social and economic inclusion as the guiding axis of the new Sustainable Development Goals; as well as including the conservation of biodiversity and the adoption of commitments to face climate change as key instruments of sustainable development."
- "This is a clear demonstration of our commitment to join the new strategy that will govern national development programs for the next 15 years."
- The university USAT wants "to obediently fulfill our mission and contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals”: “This internalization must be assumed and shared by ALL."
|
|
|
|
| Petition re: Conditional Ordination of Priests Transferred from the Novus Ordo |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-29-2025, 09:26 AM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
The following is a petition started by a 'Vlad Sarto' on the change.org website regarding the SSPX's decision to nearly cease to conditionally reordain priests joining from the Novus Ordo. The petition is well written and does an excellent job summarizing how most traditional Catholics think and feel.
Conditional Ordination of Priests Transferred from the Novus Ordo
Decision Maker: SSPX
The Issue
We the faithful, the same faithful who financially support the operations of the SSPX and actually provide the canonical justification for the operation of all your clergy, clergy who have no jurisdiction other than with regard to what's necessary to meet the grave spiritual needs of the faithful who request the Sacraments from them, as supplied by the Church only for these emergency purposes, we in turn therefore have a right to insist upon and demand that the SSPX send us valid priests, priests who do not labor under the positive doubt created by the altered Conciliar Rites for the Ordination [sic] of Priests and the Consecration [sic] of Bishops. Even if there (may seem to be) less doubt regarding the Rite of Ordination, few priests remain who were not "ordained" in this New Rite by putative bishops who in turn had been "consecrated" in the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
Principle
While the SSPX have made public statements and videos arguing in favor of the validity of these New Rites, barring some defect in the intention of the one confecting [or attempting to confect] these Sacraments, and you can continue to argue for hours until turning blue in the face, the simple fact remains that the BURDEN OF PROOF rests squarely with those maintaining the validity of the Sacraments, since any Sacraments that labor under positive doubt must be treated in the practical order for all intents and purposes as if they are invalid ... except that the faithful may avail themselves of these in danger of death when no alternative can be found. In other words, we are not required to prove them to be invalid, but it is, rather, you who are required to prove that there does not so much as exist a reasonable positive doubt ... and that's a burden you are in no position to meet, having neither irrefutable arguments nor the authority to impose your conclusions on consciences.
By way of basic definition, it is a simple matter to establish positive doubt. Fundamentally, if you can point to something concrete, as opposed to the "what if" types of doubts, that suffices to establish POSITIVE vs. "negative" doubt. Examples of negative doubt would include scenarios like: "I could not hear Father pronounce the words of absolution during Confession. What if he forgot? What if he got them wrong?" Those "what if" doubts are negative doubts. But when the faithful can point to: "Look, they changed what Pope Pius XII had authoritatively declared to be the essential form of the Sacraments." ... that alone suffices to constitute positive doubt. At times, SSPX have added the novel qualifier of insisting that there must be "serious" positive doubt, where you can then unilaterally decide when this arbitrary and rather subjective threshold for "seriousness" has been met, thereby serving as your own referee, as it were, in the debate.
Now, the SSPX have attempted to gaslight the faithful who consider these Orders to labor under positive doubt as [mostly] "sedevacantists", a charge that is at once untrue as it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Now, normally, when a legitimate Pope has promulgated Sacraments, that would suffice to ensure their validity, due to the infallibility of the Church's Universal Discipline ... except for the fact that the SSPX have effectively denied this prerogative of legitimate papal authority and have made this denial the veritable cornerstone for their entire theological position regarding the crisis ... and of course this simply kicks the can down the road by begging the question that the V2 papal claimants are in fact legitimate popes.
I will briefly discuss here the false and disingenuous arguments being made by the SSPX in their attempts to assure the faithful that the Sacraments do not labor under any positive doubt, and then touch upon the motivations for these false arguments.
Ordination to the Priesthood. Ah, look, they only changed ONE "two-letter" word in Latin. I had been under the impression that the SSPX seminaries taught Latin, and that this particular single word "ut" would have caused much consternation among those struggling with the language as it generally leads to the challenge of understanding the subjunctive mood, and I had also been under the impression that your seminaries inculcated the principles of Aristotelian logic and ontology, the chief fundamentals of which rest on the notion of causes. If you but dust off your Latin dictionary and look up the word, it basically means "so that", where what comes after it is the effect of what comes before it. Interestingly, when Pope Pius XII authoritatively taught about the essential form of Holy Orders, he stated that of the essence are invocation of the Holy Ghost and the unequivocal designation of the Sacramental EFFECT, you know, the "effect" that usually comes after that pesky little two-letter word. In the old Rite, you have an invocation of the Holy Ghost, being invoked clearly IN ORDER TO [ut] make the ordinand into a priest. In the new, you have an invocation of the Holy Ghost. Stop. That's then followed by a prayer, unrelated?, asking that the ordinand be made a priest [by God?]. There's no linking of the Holy Ghost by that little two-letter word to the EFFECT. So why is the Holy Ghost being invoked here? Not sure. To give the man the proper dispositions to become a priest, or the graces necessary to be a good priest? Evidently the infiltrators who have been out to wreck the Church knew their Latin and the teaching of Pope Pius XII better than the SSPX do.
That raises another point. There's overwhelming evidence that bad actors had infiltrated the Church with the intent upon doing as much damage as they could. Why would the "good-willed" modernizers have bothered with that little two-letter word you claim to be meaningless? I guess removing it makes the sentence sound much more modern, and relevant to the laity, right? No, the fact that there's no good reason other than destruction to explain its removal also suggests that this may have been a deliberate attempt to invalidate the Sacrament where "an enemy hath done this".
Then there's the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration [sic]. It's radically different, and the best that various apologists have manage to do is to liken it to some Eastern Rite ceremony ... except that they made the mistake of likening it to an Eastern Rite ceremony for the installation of a patriarch, who was already presumed to be a bishop, rather than as a Rite to confer the Holy Order of Episcopacy upon someone who had theretofore lacked it.
Now, SSPX refer to other mentions of the words "priest" or "bishop" in the respective Rites outside the essential form [as indicated by Paul VI Montini], but these occur AFTER the Sacrament had allegedly been conferred, and do not indicate an action of creating a priest or bishop, but a mere assertion after the fact of having done so, one that's completely inadequate to express the form denoting the sacred action of a Sacrament. So a priest might butcher the essential form of Holy Mass, but then because 10 minutes later you say, "Yep, we consecrated this bread.", that makes it all better, right? So, then, when did the Sacrament actually get confected? Did the Holy Ghost scan forward to detect the future declaration to disambiguate this form? If the priest dropped dead before he added the "Yep, we consecrated this bread.", would there be a valid Sacrament? This reminds me of the controversy over the Eastern Rite epiklesis.
Finally, Pope Leo XIII taught regarding Anglican Orders that what was at issue was not the intention of the celebrant (which the Church presumes, unable to read the internal forum) but the intention of the Rite, where even AFTER the Anglicans had desperately tried to "fix" the form, the Holy Father taught that it was too little and too late, since the intention of the Rite to remove all that was distinctly Catholic in the Rite (sound familiar?) established an objective intention of THE RITE ITSELF (independent of the internal intention of the celebrant). But SSPX have historically INVERTED the emphasis, attempting to claim that they "investigate" the internal forum "intention" of the celebrant that even the Church does not presume to know ... de internis Ecclesia non judicat ... as taught by Pope Leo XIII.
All this suffices to CLEARLY establish OBJECTIVE POSITIVE DOUBT, a much lower threshold than proving the contrary beyond any reasonable doubt, and the faithful have a right not to be subjected to dubious Sacraments. You could keep arguing for hours, but, understand that YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY to impose YOUR CONCLUSIONS (arrived at by your own private judgment) upon the consciences of the faithful. SSPX have historically claimed that they have the right to RESIST the Vicar of Christ on earth TO HIS FACE, but then gaslight the faithful who don't agree with THEM as proud and disobedient. You reserve the right to disobey the Vicar of Christ, but how DARE the faithful disobey you. Isn't that so? That's to arrogate unto yourselves a greater authority than you do to the Vicar of Christ. So, that expression, which used to be applied to the authority of the Pope in Rome has been re-formulated by SSPX as if it were ... Fellay [aut Pagliarani] dixit; res clausa est.
PETITION / DEMAND
With this petition, therefore, WE HEREBY RESIST YOU TO YOUR FACE and assert that we reject your sending of putative "priests" ordained [sic] in the New Rites by "bishops" consecrated [sic] in the New Rite and demand that you conditionally ordain them before sending them into our chapels.
FINAL ADMONITION
You are also hereby put on notice that you are playing with fire here, and by that we mean the rather literal HELLFIRE, since I hope you're sure enough of your "arguments", such as they are, that you're willing to risk your own eternal salvation ... since you will be in fact be held liable to the judgment of hellfire if you subject the faithful to invalid Sacraments, where souls may be lost as a result ... and let us here be blunt about the motive ... so as not to compromise your ability to continue playing "footsie" with the Modernist occupiers of the Holy Catholic Church. Well, we can't very well expect to have any chance of "regularization" from Rome if we question the validity of their Sacraments, so we're going to engage in intellectual dishonestly to shut down all discussion. If we don't get regularized, how on earth are we going to pay for that 50-million-dollar-and-counting seminary built on the backs of the faithful often working more than one job to make ends meet for their large families when the slight overcrowding problem artificially created by the "Humanities Year" could have been rectified for one or two million dollars through the addition of an extra wing or building on the ample grounds in Winona? What's going to happen to our priests and their livelihood as they sip on hundred-dollar bottles of wine (financed by the faithful), living in groups at priories with a half dozen or so priests while many even-large chapels get a Mass on Sunday and an occasional First Friday ... and the faithful hope that they can hold off dying and needing the Last Sacraments until the priest shows up for the weekend? What'll happen if there's nowhere to shuffle credibly-accused predators? I mean, where else do we send a priest who admitted to predations against young men but to quarters adjacent to the dormitory of a boys' boarding school, from which had ready access to them for additional predations? I do wonder where sentiments of anti-clericalism may have originated. Or have the same enemies who infiltrated the Church at large to begin with planted their men in the ranks of the SSPX ... as such decisions are inexplicable (especially after they should have learned this lesson from the Novus Ordo that the coverups are worse than the crimes) other than as deliberate attempts to harm Traditional Catholicism and give us a bad name. Well, not in our name!
|
|
|
|
| Macron endorses Freemasonry’s anti-Christian ideology as guide for French society |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-28-2025, 08:42 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
Macron endorses Freemasonry’s anti-Christian ideology as guide for French society
French president calls Freemasonry a ‘spiritual family’ and thanks it for shaping euthanasia policy,
embracing a worldview long condemned by the Catholic Church.
![[Image: GettyImages-2214761449-e1748356344627-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/GettyImages-2214761449-e1748356344627-810x500.jpg)
TIRANA, ALBANIA - MAY 16: French President Emmanuel Macron arrives at the 6th European Political Community summit
on May 16, 2025 at Skanderbeg Square in Tirana, Albania
Armando Babani / Getty Images
May 27, 2025
(LifeSiteNews) –– French President Emmanuel Macron has publicly embraced Freemasonry’s worldview, declaring its anti-Christian vision of man to be foundational to the Republic—and praising it for its involvement in recent euthanasia legislation.
“Freemasons are taking up this fundamental debate regarding the end of life,” Macron said during a May 5 visit to the Grande Loge de France. “Be proud of it.”
Macron praised the Lodge’s framing of end of life issues not as “good on one side and evil on the other,” but as “simply a choice to be made in concrete situations.”
The president went beyond policy, endorsing what some have called the cult of man that underlies Masonry and his new law:
Quote:‘That Freemasons should have this ambition to make man the measure of the world, the free actor of his own life, from birth to death, should come as no surprise,’ he said. ‘I welcome it.’
‘The Republic is more than at home in Freemasonry, it is in its heart and soul,’ he said, and affirmed that ‘Freemasonry is at the forefront of the crucial battle we must fight if we want to mold the times for the good of humanity.’
The Catholic Church has always been the foremost critic of Freemasonry, condemning its rejection of divine law, religious truth, and the supernatural order.
In Humanum Genus, Pope Leo XIII warned that Freemasonry aims at “the utter overthrow of the whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced,” replacing it with a system “drawn from mere naturalism.”
Masonry was also condemned by many other popes, and membership of such organizations carries penalties including automatic excommunication.
Macron’s speech praised this ideology of naturalism and humanism, calling Freemasonry a guardian of France’s “project of revolution and emancipation.” He dismissed its critics as “conspiracy theorists and obscurantists, who attribute to it an influence that actually does it credit” – even as he confirmed the Masons’ active role in shaping national policy.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...6x558.jpeg]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F10c8242a-087b-4072-a492-8e04c9638b66_836x558.jpeg)
![[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...4x675.jpeg]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc2aab535-dda7-49b5-8d88-a10c327722cc_1094x675.jpeg)
