Tag Archives: SSPX

Bishop Fellay consecrates the parish of Our Lady of Sorrows

Here are some pictures and videos below that a dear friend of mine shared with me since she attends this parish herself. Also, please keep her in your prayers, she’s discerning the religious life. 




Filed under Holy sacrifice of the Mass, Latin Mass, liturgy, Pictures, Prayer, Prayers, SSPX, Traditional Latin Mass

The Michael Voris camp and their obsession with the Society of Saint Pius X


You all know where I’m going with this. Our dear friends at CMTV have done it again. Since they have deleted many of my comments upon their facebook page and suggested that I “go defend the SSPX elsewhere” then that’s exactly what I will do. So let’s get started with the recent video in which Michael Voris has slandered the Society of Saint Pius X – again unfortunately – within his recent vortex video that can be found here. I will place quotes of his arguments below and I will comment in red.

 “To tell Catholics to stay home and to not attend Mass on Sunday – and to refuse to fulfill their Sunday obligation to assist at the sacrifice of the Mass is beyond imagining.. To call the Mass an offense against God? (That’s not what the SSPX said) Are you serious? To encourage people to commit mortal sin by refusing to fulfill their Sunday obligation. But it’s good that this Video is out there now because finally the mask can be taken off of this renegade outfit” (He later quotes Pope Benedict XVI on canonical status).

First let’s define the word ‘renegade’. Being a renegade is to be one who deserts and betrays an organization, country, or set or principals. What Michael Voris fails to recognize is the very fact that the Pope – that being Pope Paul VI – had no authority or any right to construct a new rite, not to mention that Six protestant ministers and the archbishop and masonic Bugini were behind it (and yes Michael Voris – as well as Father Paul Nicholson have previously admitted this within an episode of ‘One true faith’); henceforth being a man made and innovative liturgy.

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren: that is the Protestants.” – Archbishop Bugini

This is blasphemy and heresy. I cover more upon the Novus Ordo Link. If what the Society of Saint Pius X is saying is supposedly ‘schismatic’, then Michael Voris would have to admit that he rejects ‘Summa Ecclesia’ of Cardinal Torquemada – in whom was the theologian for Pope Eugene the 4th – in which insisted that if a Pope were to change the rites of the Church; he would be anathema. After Pope Eugene the 4th read this book, he later titled Cardinal Torquemada a “defender of the faith” at the infallible Council of Florence. Talk about “disobedience to the Pope” as Michael portraits the Society, not to mention that Pope Innocent III stated that if a future Pope were to change the sacraments of the Church he were to be resisted. Pope Saint Pius V later goes on to repeat the anathema in Quo Primum and the Council of Trent. So if anybody is a renegade, Mr.Voris, it’s the modernists that made the new rite of Mass, not fellow Catholics who defend Tradition rather than innovation such as communion in the hand and altar girls.

Second Council of Nicea: “ Let everything that conflicts with ecclesiastical Tradition and teaching, and that has been innovated and done contrary to the examples outlined by the saints and hereafter at any time be done in such a fashion, be anathema.

To say that the Society of Saint Pius X encourages that we must not attend Mass is not only absurd, it is calumny. The Society insists we avoid non Catholic worship just like any other Catholic would since not only is it heretical, it does not in any way, shape, or form fulfil ones Sunday obligation. This does not exclude the Eastern Rites (not schismatic orthodox) if attending the ancient Roman Rite is impossible. The new code of canon law states in Can. 1248 the following:

“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.”

Being that the Novus Ordo isn’t a official Catholic rite, this is impossible. Hence, Michael Voris’ argument, in which borderline dogmatizes that one must attend the Novus Ordo, is invalid. Continuing…

Second argument: “The real problems, as the Pope himself says, are with the Second Vatican Council… Doctrinal issues which placed them outside the Church.”

Is that so, Mr.Voris? So you’re telling us that one must accept heresy to be in communion with the Church? That being religious liberty, innovative liturgies, Catholics worshiping the false god ‘Allah’ etc.? I guess 2000 years of Tradition and anathemas no longer apply.

Third argument: “The cheer leaders of the SSPX (he’s obviously referring to me, those at The Remnant, Harvesting the Fruit, Catholic Family news etc.) will have you believe that various prelates support them without any issue or doubt. Really? Do they really expect these prelates would accept the notion that you must stay at home on Sunday – and refuse to go to Mass and just say a private Rosary and that’s good enough for your Sunday obligation because the Mass you would be attending is the new Mass? Do you really think the prelates your saying “yay they support us” would accept that idea? We should ask them that; shouldn’t we? Would they say that the New Mass is an offense against God? Really? A Bishop, a bishop of the Catholic Church would say that?

As a consequence of the innovative ‘spirit of Vatican II’ and ‘The Church of Nice’ as you prefer to identify them, absolutely not since they prefer liberalism in the first place, henceforth your vortex videos exposing them for their true colors in which I credit you for. But since you brought up the question upon if a Bishop of the Church would actually say something so absurd, have you considered reflecting upon your own position in which you quote bishops to expose them for either heresy or luke warmness? What about Cardinal Kasper – the Pope’s “theologian” – in whom insisted that the miracles in the Bible are not historical fact… something that is pure rationalist and blasphemous within its nature? Something condemned by the Church?

Fourth Argument: They obey him (The Pope) until you don’t want to obey him…”

False. They disobey the Pope when he insists that we must accept something that contradicts the faith, henceforth the recognize and resist position in which you previously supported.

Fifth argument: “They decry the Mass, they encourage people to Mortal sin, they defy the Pope, they refuse him obedience due to him by his office – if that doesn’t constitute a schism; pray tell what does?”

Lets be honest here; this statement is plain silly. The Society of Saint Pius X does quite the contrary. The Society insists one avoid the new Mass to AVOID sin within itself since non Catholic worship is sinful within its nature, therefore lacking virtue. Refusing to include the Pope within the canon would be an act of Schism as we see with the schismatic orthodox churches in which Michael Celuarius initiated in the 11th century, not resisting the Pope in matters of his personal disobedience to his own office, something even Cardinal Burke supported in regards to Pope Francis and the extraordinary synod.


Filed under SSPX

Mr. Voris, when will it end?

On today’s Vortex Mr.Voris speaks upon Rome not condemning specific issues of our time. My only question is this: why target the SSPX since they are faithful to the Church’s teachings and openly condemn the same errors in which you are protesting against? They recognize the current pontiff to be the Pope, so aren’t we on the same side here? In fact, why not have the SSPX explain themselves on your Mic’d up programs? Or why not have a debate with one of their priests to prove them wrong? I’m sure you would get a lot of views.

Also, are you not aware that the whole “SSPX is Schismatic” is modernist propaganda in which is used against the Society to persecute them? Talk about Ecumenical dialogue of Vatican 2, in which you defend as a infallible council. If resisting the Pope due to heresy is schismatic then why be an advocate for Cardinal Burke when he made it clear that he would also resist Pope Francis if he pushes for the innovative and heretical doctrines of the modernists at the next “extraordinary synod on the family”? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Is it because Archbishop Lefebreve  “illicitly” consecrated bishops that you are against the society?

Cardinal Castillo Lara – President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law & President of the Disciplinary Commission of the Roman Curia – in the Italian newspaper ‘La Republica’ on July 8, 1988 states the following:

“The act of consecrating a bishop [without a papal mandate] is not in itself a schismatic act.”

There you have it, Mr Voris, a Cardinal of the Church in which is an expert on the proper interpretation of Canon law making it very clear. I would assume he is also “schismatic” just as anybody else who attends their chapels or supports their mission, correct? I guess that leaves Ecclesia Dei out of the question since the Secretary of Pontifical Commission, Msgr. Camille Perl, stated on May 28, 1996 the following:

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

Last time I checked Canon Law states you must attend a valid Mass within the Church to fufill your Sunday obligation.

– Caution, Jimmy Papist Moment –


– Ooo, ooo, let’s not forget what St. Robert Bellermine said about resisting heretical Popes! 

“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.” 

Thanks, Jimmy. Also: Innocent III explains that a pope can fall into heresy:

“The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, (should a pope ‘lose his savor’) could cast him out or trample him underfoot – Since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy flock into thy fold’. Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God.

Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.”

Pope Innocent III went on to explain, “In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If the salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled underfoot by men’.”

Is this not what the society is doing, Mr. Voris? Let’s be honest, the Pope Francis pontificate is an absolute mess and the man on the throne of Peter speaks things that contradict the ancient Roman Catholic faith. Laudato Si’ is an good example in which he stated in Section 222:

“Christian spirituality proposes an alternative understanding of the quality of life, and encourages a prophetic and contemplative lifestyle, one capable of deep enjoyment free of the obsession with consumption. We need to take up an ancient lesson, found in different religious traditions and also in the Bible.”

Are not other religions false, Mr.Voris?


Filed under Canon Law, SSPX