Defy One You Believe a True Pope, Suffer the Consequences Accordingly

The conciliar revolutionaries sure keep their promises whenever they are serious about stomping all traces of the “old religion” and thus is that Victor Manuel Fernandez, the “prefect” of the so-called” conciliar dicastery of the faith, acting upon the direct orders of Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV, has issue a decree of excommunication upon the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X’s Bishop Alfonso de Galareta, the principal consecrator of Bishops Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry and Marc Hanappier yesterday in Econe, Switzerland, before an estimated congregation of 17,000 Catholics, as well as the co-consecrator, Bishop Bernard Fellay, the former long-time Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X:

DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Prot. N. 99/2009

DECREE

Despite the warnings addressed to the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, having committed an act of a schismatic nature through the episcopal consecration of four priests, without a pontifical mandate and against the will of the Supreme Pontiff, has ipso facto incurred the penalties provided for by canon 1387 and canon 1364 § 1 CIC 2021.

I therefore declare for all legal purposes that both the aforementioned Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry and Marc Hanappier have incurred ipso facto the latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

I further declare that Bishop Bernard Fellay, having directly participated in the liturgical celebration as a co-consecrator, thus publicly adhering to the schismatic act, has incurred the latae sententiae excommunication provided for by canon 1364 § 1 CIC 2021.

Clerics and lay faithful are warned not to adhere to the schism of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, because they would ipso facto incur the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication.

From the Dicastery Building, 2 July 2026 (Decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith 2 July 2026. Just a side note: the “dicastery building” has been known for centuries as Santa Uffizio, the Holy Office, 11 Santa Uffizio, Vatican City. No more. The conciliar revolutionaries are now renaming buildings to conform with the synthetic faith that as much to do with Catholicism as Anglicanism, or perhaps that is the point, huh?)

Although some, such as those on the  the back-and-forth “Leo is “pope” and Leo is a “heretic” brigade, at LifeSiteNews.com, have concluded from the words of the decree that the faithful who adhere to the Society of Saint Pius have only been threatened with excommunication. However, the explanatory note accompanying explains that they are also excommunicated ipso facto latae sententiae:

The Dicastery’s Note

From the time of Saint Paul VI up to the most recent talks, held recently at this Dicastery, the many attempts to bring the members of the movement begun by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre back into full communion with the Catholic Church have proved vain.

This situation has been further aggravated by the recent episcopal consecrations celebrated without pontifical mandate, against the will of the Holy Father, and in open violation of canon law.

Therefore, this Dicastery, in the faithful exercise of the functions entrusted to it, considers it necessary to state that this act constituted the delict of schism, with the canonical consequences for the sacred ministers and lay faithful involved. Indeed, as was already declared in 1988, “such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act” (cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, 3).

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html

In this regard, from now on:

1. The sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics (cf. Ecclesia Dei, 5 c; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note on the excommunication for schism incurred by those adhering to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, 24.08.1996, 5-6), and are subject to the excommunication prescribed by law (can. 1364 § 1 CIC).

2. As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are to be Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (cf. ibidem, 7), which remains in considered schismatics and excommunicated under the conditions established in the 1996 Explanatory force and which this Dicastery adopts as its own.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_19960824_vescovo-lefebvre_it.html

3. Finally, the holy People of God are warned that the sacred ministers of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X administer the sacraments illicitly, and that the sacrament of penance administered by them and marriages assisted by them are invalid.

The Church, as a caring mother, will welcome with sincere affection and lively solicitude all those who wish to return to full communion. The Apostolic Nuncios will arrange the procedures that Ordinaries may use in the various cases.

Finally, all the faithful are urged to remain steadfast in communion with the Roman Pontiff, with the Bishops in communion with him, and with the whole Church (cf. Lumen Gentium, 22; can. 751 CIC), and to refrain from taking part in celebrations and activities promoted by the aforementioned Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. (Excommunication decreed for Lefebvrite episcopal ordinations.)

There is no wiggle room here.

The man whom the bishops, priests, and faithful of the Society of Pius X believe is a true pope issued a “canonical” warning to explain what would happen if yesterday’s consecrations took place then he ordered his “doctrinal” defender of all things impure, indecent, and perverse, Victor Manuel Fernandez, to carry out his warning once the consecrations had taken place, and the “explanatory note,” cited just above, makes it very clear that the faithful themselves who formally adhere to the Society have incurred their own excommunications as well.

To get around this, some are contending that a decree of excommunication issued by a known heretic carries no canonical weight, but such is an ontological impossibility as there has never been nor can there ever be a “heretical pope” despite all the decades of the Society’s leaders and their apologists in the “resist while recognize” keep contending with a straight face even though Saint Robert Bellarmine, Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., and Fathers Joachim Salaverri, S.J. and Michaele Nicolau S.J.. have been proved to be false and thus contrary to the facts.

Saint Robert Bellarmine refuted such a claim, which had to be reviewed by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council before issuing Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870, which was approved by a final vote of 433-2 (one of the two negative votes was cast by the Bishop of Little Rock, Arkansas, the Most Reverend Edward Fitzgerald, but there were several others who believed that they could withhold their internal assent and thus voted for the decree).

Very helpful in this regard, therefore, is Father JoachimSalaverri’s own wonderful and very concise summary refuting the charges against each pope who was deemed to be guilty of heresy:

1. Pope Liberius (352-366) signed the Arian or Semi-Arian formula of faith. Therefore he erred in the faith.

1) the fact historically is probably a fable, or at least there is no certainty about it. [Footnote: Saint Ambrose: Kch 597;  Rufinus: Kch 715 the genuine letters of Saint Liberius: Kch 550-559; Saint Anastasius I, D 209; Silva-Tarouca, loc.cit. 90-95. He proves from their style that the four letters attributed to Liberius are spurious (Kch 560-569) see F. di Capua, Il ritmo prosaico nelle lettere dei Papi (1937) 236-247.]

651 2. Pope Vigilius (540-555) at first condemned the so-called Three Chapters with his first Judgment in 548; then he revoked the condemnation with his Ordinance in 553; finally he condemned it with his second Judgment in 554. therefore, either in one case or the other he erred. The so-called Three Chapters are: a) the person and writings of Theodore of Mopuestia; b) the writings of Theodoret Cyrensis; c) the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian.

652 1. These facts historically are certain: a) Vigilius, taken to Constantinople, and detained by Emperor Justinian in 546, by his judgment in 548, seems to have condemned the Three Chapters, just as the Emperor, by a decree in 544, had previously condemned them. The text of this Judgment has been lost, and so we do not know the meaning and the limits of the condemnation. b) The same Vigilius, frightened by the dangers of schism, which his Judgment had caused, against the will of the Emperor, promulgated his Ordinance on May 14, 553, by which he revoked his first Judgment, condemned the heretical theses as taken from the writings of Theodore and Theodoretus, but he said that their persons and the letter of Ibas, since they had not been condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, should not at that time be condemned. c) Historically it is not at all certain that Vigilius was the author of the second Judgment, by which in 554 the condemnation of the "Three Chapters" is fully confirmed, which on June 2, 553 the Emperor Justinian obtained from the Council of Constantinople II.

2) The subject defining ex cathedra cannot be said to be Vigilius because of his first Judgment, because, having been forced and detained by the Emperor, he lacked the necessary independence to give an infallible judgment; nor is it the case because of the second Judgment, because either it is not the work of Vigilius or at least he is afflicted with the same crime of force. However, the Ordinance, carefully prepared and freely promulgated by Vigilius, can truly be said to be his definition ex cathedra.

3) The object of the infallible definition in the Ordinance is only the propositions given to Vigilius as they were taken from the writings of Theodore and Theodoret, and also the five anathemas whereby the doctrine of Nestorius and Eutyches is condemned. The remaining precepts are disciplinary. or prudential judgments concerning the appropriateness of condemning in 553 the person of Theodore, who died in the peace of the Church in 448, and the letter of Ibas, which the Council of Chalcedon in 451 did not condemn. However, the appropriateness was very doubtful because of the dangers of schism of the Churches especially in Africa. therefore, Pope Vigilius in no way contradicted himself by defining ex cathedra, what he had said previously with his Ordinance. 

653 3 The council of Constantinople II in 553, contrary to the Ordinance of Vigilius, condemned the Three Chapters at the request of the Emperor Justinian. Therefore, there are two infallible definitions which contradict each other.

1) the fact is historically certain, namely, that the bishops gathered together in Constantinople in 553 condemned the Three Chapters to please the Emperor, in opposition to Pope Vigilius. 2) It is not certain that this Council became the subject of infallibility except in 591 by the confirmation of Saint Gregory the Great (ML 77,478). 3) the object or doctrine of faith or morals defined by the Council and by Vigilius, the council adds a condemnation of the Letter of Ibae and of the person of Theodore, but for good reasons Vigilius thought that he should abstain from this further condemnation. Therefore there is no contradiction present of judgments as infallible, but at most progress both in the definition of a dogma and in the prudential judgment of opportuness and decency.

654. 2. Pope Honorius (625-38) taught that there is one will in Christ: D 487-496. Therefore he erred in faith.

1) The fact from history is sufficiently certain. 2) The subject of the definition ex cathedra in this case cannot be said to be Honorius, since he clearly shows that he was not aware of the gravity of the question: D 487. 3) The object of the definition, if perhaps it should be called a definition ex cathedra, does not seem to be an error in faith, for from the context it is clear that Honorius is speaking about the will of Christ, not as physically one but as morally one, because of the perfect agreement of the two natural wills of the Son of God: D 487. So I will put it in form: I distinguish the antecedent: Honorius taught ex cathedra that there is one will in Christ, denied he taught with a lower grade of authority, I subdistinguish: that in Christ there is one moral will, conceded; physically one, denied. 

655. 5. The council of Constantinople III in 680 condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic: Kch 1082-84. therefore Honorius erred in faith by teaching that there is one natural or physical will in Christ.

1) the fact: historically it is certain that the body of Bishops intended to condemn Honorius as a heretic together with other Monothelite heretics. 2) The subject of the infallible definition cannot be said to be this body of Bishops, because it is lacking the essential and necessary confirmation of the Head, that is, the Pope, 3) The object of the definition of the Council confirmed by the Pope was not the condemnation of Honorius of heresy (D 496-498), but of negligence in putting down the heresy: Kch 1085-88. Hence in form: I distinguish the antecedent. The Council of Constantinople III as a body without its essential Head attempted to condemn Honorius as a heretic, I bypass that; as the Body of the Heads or as a Council confirmed by the Pope, I subdistinguish: it condemned Honorius for negligence in suppressing the Monothelite heresy, conceded; for an error in faith or of the Monothelite heresy, denied.

656 6. Those things that are wont to be objected against John XXII concerning the beatific vision; against Sixtus V concerning the authentic Vulgate; against Urban VIII concerning the question of Galileo, and other similar things -- in these cases it is very certain that they are not dealing with definitions ex cathedra. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, pp. 237-239.)

This summary is very similar to the protracted analysis provided by Saint Robert Bellarmine, and, in the case of Honorius, the explanation contained in Dom Prosper Gueranger’s hagiography of Pope Saint Leo II in The Liturgical Year that is included in today’s accompanying commentary on the Feast of Pope Saint Leo II within the Octave of Saints Peter and Paul.

Father Salaverri also addressed whether it is possible for a pope to fall into heresy, noting that Saint Robert Bellarmine and Suarez did not think that this could ever happen:

657 Appendix Whether or not the Pope as a private person can fall into heresy? Theologians dispute about this question. It seems to us "more pious and probable" to hold that God in his providence will see to it "that the Pope will never be a heretic." For, this opinion, which was held by Bellarmine and Suarez, also was praised at Vatican Council I by Bishop Zinelli, Secretary for the Faith, when he said: "Because we rely on supernatural Providence, we think it is sufficiently probable that this will never happen. For God is not lacking in essentials, and therefore, if He were to permit such an evil, there would not be lacking the means to provide for it. (Joachim Salaverri, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, p. 240.)

Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, summarize the matter as follows in their massive and well-documented Tumultuous Times:

A legitimate pope cannot contradict or deny what was first taught by Christ to His Church. An essential change in belief constitutes the establishment of a new religion.

The attribute of infallibility was given to the popes in order that the revealed doctrines and teaching of Christ would remain forever intact and unchanged. It is contrary to faith and reason to blindly follow an alleged pope who attempts to destroy the Catholic Faith--for there have been 41 documented antipopes. Papal infallibility means that the Holy Ghost guides and preserves the Catholic Church from error through the succession of legitimate popes who have ruled the Church through the centuries. All Catholics, including Christ's Vicar on earth, the pope, must accept all the doctrinal pronouncements of past popes. These infallible teachings form a vital link between Christ and St. Peter and his successors.

If a pope did not accept and believe this entire body of formulated teachings (the Deposit of Faith), he could not himself be a Catholic. He would cease to belong to Christ's Church. If he no longer belongs to the Catholic Church, he cannot be her Head. (Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, p. 274.)

Indeed, Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, explains quite clearly that those who defect from even one teaching of the Catholic Church fall from the Faith and can no longer be considered a Catholic:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

In plain English, you see, at the heart of the whole crisis facing the Church Militant on earth right now is whether Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV is indeed a true Successor of Saint Peter. If he is, then Catholics must submit to his governance on matters of Faith and Morals with docility. There has never been a circumstance in the history of the Catholic Church where individuals, both in the clergy and in the laity, have acted on almost universal basis throughout the world as a sort of "super magisterium" to monitor the correctness of papal decrees and decisions. Sure, there have been instances of this confined to various regions at one point or another, which is why Pope Pius VI condemned the illegal Synod of Pistoia and its tenets in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.

However, there has never been a period before in the history of the Catholic Church in which one pope after another has contradicted the past dogmatic decrees and dared to commit one blasphemy after another against the honor and majesty and glory of God. One must come to recognize that such apostasy and blasphemy is not of God and that it cannot come from the Catholic Church. It took me long enough to "get it" despite entreaties made by one person after another dating back to November 25, 1976. Men who speak and act as the conciliarists have done have expelled themselves from the Catholic Church. Millions upon millions of Catholics gave up their lives rather than even to give the appearance of the sort of blasphemies that have become commonplace in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

To be quiet in the face of such apostasy and blasphemy and betrayal is to betray Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the true Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. It is to defend the very integrity of the papacy that those courageous priests who recognized that the conciliar claimants to the Throne of Saint Peter could not be true popes and that the Catholic Church cannot give us evil or defective liturgical rites took the measures that they did in the 1970s and the 1980s to attempt to correct the erroneous Gallican view of papal infallibility that was being propagated by the Society of Saint Pius X and that has spawned several generations of imitators across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide. These courageous priests spoke out. They acted. They defended the Catholic Faith. They would resist apostasy without acknowledging for one moment or by any act of omission that those promoting said apostasy could hold ecclesiastical office validly and exercise doctrinal authority in the name of the Catholic Church.

The conciliar revolutionaries reject Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals, yet it is that Father Paul Robinson, the Society’s prior in Wakins, Colorado, said that he believes that, as has happened in 1988, 2001, 2009, 2012, and 2017, the conciliar Vatican authorities will engage the Society’s representatives in “doctrinal discussions” even after the issuance of yesterday’s decree and its explanatory note:

And the Rev. Paul Robinson, the society’s prior in Denver, said he expected communication with Rome would continue, as it did after the 1988 excommunications. “There were plenty of conversations that took place” even after the fact, he said. “So I think there will still be contact with Rome.”  (Vatican Excommunicates Society of St. Pius X, in First Major Crisis for Pope Leo.)

However, Catholic doctrine is not open for any kind of discussion, negotiation, bargaining, or compromise and perhaps more to the point is the fact that the Society recently issued a one hundred fifty-three point statement of faith that is a entire contradiction of the conciliar sect’s embrace of dogmatic evolutionism, new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, the synod path, false ecumenism and interreligious “prayer” services,” and the conciliar sect’s embrace of religious liberty and separation of Church and State. To expect the conciliar officials to reconsider their total commitment to the “Second” Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo liturgical travesty, the “synodal path” is unrealistic to the point of being insane. The conciliar revolutionaries do not believe in Catholicism, which the Society of Sain Pius X’s own statement of faith makes very clear.

Unfortunately, the Society’s leaders do not really believe in Papal Primacy nor in their own obligations to obey one they believe to be the Supreme Pontiff without complaint, delay, or dissent, showing that they dissent from the Holy Faith concerning the nature of the papacy s they cling doggedly to a Gallicanism, a stepchild of Jansenism, that was mocked by Bishop Emil Bougaud, C.M., who wrote biographies of Saint Vincent de Paul and of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, when describing the recrudescence of Gallicanism in the 1880

Bishop Emile Bougaud, who served as the ordinary of Laval, France, from November 16, 1887, to his death on November 7, 1888, mocked those possessed o the Gallican mentality that teaches the falsehood that bishops and others can "sift" the wordst of a true:

The violent attacks of Protestantism against the Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror; nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all, perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See, and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church," were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must love him that governs her, else she can never obey.

These weaknesses should at least have been hidden in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no! parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world; kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates, bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined, and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)

Thus, the man believed by those in the “resist while recognize” movement to be “Pope Leo XIV” is entirely correct to state that Catholics who believe him to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter must follow the teaching of the “Second” Vatican Council and the magisterium of the postconciliar “popes” faithfully and unquestioningly, thus making him is a devilish defender of Papal Primacy in this regard.

Furthermore, while it is all well and good to point out, as I did five months ago in  Back to the Future with the Society of Saint Pius X, that the conciliar authorities have looked the other way as the Chicom rump church, the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA), continues to “consecrate” their presbyters without a “papal” mandate, continue to tolerate the German conciliar “bishops” in their direct support of sodomy and sodomite “marriages” as consonant with the “needs of the times,” and that Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV has treated a fellow lay person, Sarah Mullally, as the legitimate “archbishop” of Canterbury and thus the spiritual head of the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect (see Pachamama Bob Prevost and Sarah Mullally, part one, and Pachamama Bob Prevost and Sarah Mullally, part two), all of these scandalous actions must be accepted by Catholics worldwide as part of the “reconciliation with the world” begun by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII at the “Second” Vatican Council and continued by six successive “popes” since the latter’s death on June 3, 1963, if one accepts the validity of those “popes,” including that Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV now.

To quote the late Bishop Robert Fidelis McKenna, O.P., when he told me his judgment about the Society of Saint Pius X in 2007, “Doctor Tom, the Society of Saint Pius X wants to have their pope and eat him too.”

A true pope is in his person the guarantor of doctrinal orthodoxy and the sole Principle of Unity on the face of earth, but the Society of Saint Pius X treats their late founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre, as having been a parallel source of unity to preserve what he called the “authentic magisterium” from the “governing magisterium” even though no such distinction had ever been made before dating back to Apostolic times and the teachings of the Church Fathers, Holy Mother Church’s thirty-three Doctors, and her twenty legitimate general councils.

Finally, it has to be recognized that the Society of Saint Pius X, composed certainly of priests who are very zealous for the sanctification and souls, has done even more harm to the Catholic Church’s true teaching about the papacy than have the conciliar revolutionaries themselves by treating one “pope” after another as equivalent to a president or a prime minister who can disobeyed with impunity even though Pope Leo XIII specifically forbade any public criticism of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter:

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government.On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path . . . .

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.

That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885.)

Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of mind and heart.

But since We are here dealing with the lapse of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for Us once more to enjoin upon the editors of Catholic journals to respect as sacred laws the teaching and the ordinances mentioned above and never to deviate from them. Moreover, let them be well persuaded and let this be engraved in their minds, that if they dare to violate these prescriptions and abandon themselves to their personal appreciations, whether in prejudging questions which the Holy See has not yet pronounced on, or in wounding the authority of the Bishops by arrogating to themselves an authority which can never be theirs, let them be convinced that it is all in vain for them to pretend to keep the honor of the name of Catholic and to serve the interests of the very holy and very noble cause which they  have undertaken to defend and to render glorious.

Now, We, exceedingly desirous that any who have strayed return to soundness of mind and that deference to the sacred Bishops inhere deeply in the hearts of all men, in the Lord We bestow an Apostolic Blessing upon you, Venerable Brother, and to all your clergy and people, as a token of Our fatherly good will and charity. (Pope Leo XIII, Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. The complete text may be found at: Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. See also  Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position.)

As far as I am aware, no one in the Society of Saint Pius X nor elsewhere within the large “resist while recognize” movement has of yet “recognized” that Epistola Tua and Est Sane Molestum even exist, no less that each condemns the false assertion that one can openly criticize a true pope on matters of Faith and Morals. Both of these apostolic letters were entered into Pope Leo XIII’s Acta Apostolicae Sedis and are thus binding upon the consciences of every single Catholic around the world without any reservations, exceptions or qualifications whatsoever.  

There is really no reason to continue pointing all this out ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

While we must pray that the bishops, priests, seminarians, and lay faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X can come to acceptance of the truth that they cannot resist a man they recognize, no matter how incorrectly, as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, and that the See of Saint Peter has indeed been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, we must also understand that we owe our own doing so to the beneficence and efficacy of the graces Our Lady sent to us to take the scales from our own eyes if we had been, as I was for far too long, resistant to the truth until we could no longer defend the indefensible.

Moreover, we must always have the humility to recognize and accept the fact that we are not one whit better than any Catholic who does not as yet see the truth about the Church militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal and thus to pray fervently to bear ourselves kindly at all times all those of the household of faith who as deceived now as some of us had been for so long.

Saint Louis de Montfort taught that no one who is truly devoted to Our Lady and who prays her Most Holy Rosary every day will be lost, and thus it is that we pray to Our Lady through the same Most Holy Rosary to help us to sanctify and save our own immortal souls and thus, having been consecrated to her Divine Son’s Most Sacred Heart through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart here below in this passing, mortal vale of tears, enjoy the glory of an unending Easter Sunday of joy in Paradise for all eternity before the Beatific Vision of God the Father. God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

Pray to Our Lady daily for the restoration of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Pray to Pope Saint Pius X for the “restoration that is to come.”

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us. 

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Pope Saint Leo II, pray for us.