Cassiciacum and the Problem It Does Not Solve
A response to Fr Federico Palma on totalist sedevacantism, the SSPX, the FSSP and the materialiter–formaliter thesis
Fr Federico Palma has offered a thoughtful and forceful defence of the Cassiciacum Thesis as an answer to the ecclesiological problems which arise both from “totalist” sedevacantism and from the recognise-and-resist position characteristic of the Society of St Pius X. His argument deserves to be taken seriously. Cassiciacum is not merely sedevacantism with an additional scholastic vocabulary attached to it. It was devised precisely because its author perceived the enormous difficulty created by simply declaring that the recognised Roman hierarchy had ceased to possess any juridical continuity whatsoever. It is therefore one of the more intellectually substantial attempts to account for the post-conciliar crisis.
The thesis was formulated by the Dominican theologian Fr Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers — later ✠Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers — publicly in 1978 and subsequently developed in the Cahiers de Cassiciacum. Guérard maintained that by 7 December 1965 at the latest, following Paul VI’s promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae, the Apostolic See was formally vacant. His solution depended upon an analogical application of the scholastic distinction between matter and form: the occupant of the Roman See might possess the material element of the papacy — designation to the office — without possessing its formal element, the authority by which the Pope is actually constituted Vicar of Christ.¹
This is the crucial point. Cassiciacum does not say merely that Paul VI and his successors were antipopes. It says that they occupied the position materialiter while lacking the papacy formaliter. Guérard argued that the man elected could be properly disposed to receive authority from Christ, yet fail actually to receive it if an obex — an obstacle — existed in his will. Where the occupant habitually pursued ends contrary to the supernatural common good of the Church, Guérard reasoned, that defect manifested an incapacity to receive or retain the formal authority of the Roman Pontificate. The apparent pope could therefore remain materially designated while his purported acts of papal authority were formally void.¹
Whether that argument succeeds is another question. But it should at least be represented correctly.
Fr Palma’s strongest point concerns the difficulty facing totalist sedevacantism. If every recognised claimant to the Roman See for more than sixty years has simply been an antipope; if the cardinals created by those men possess no canonical title; if episcopal appointments made by them are juridically null; and if Traditionalist bishops themselves possess episcopal Orders without ordinary canonical mission, an unavoidable question presents itself: where is the visible juridical Church which remains capable of having another Pope?
It is not sufficient to answer that valid bishops still exist. Apostolic succession is not reducible to the transmission of valid episcopal Orders. The Catholic Church is a visible hierarchical society possessing not merely sacramental power but teaching and governing authority. A group of validly consecrated bishops without canonical mission does not, merely by virtue of episcopal character, become the governing hierarchy of the universal Church. Nor can such bishops simply assemble themselves and acquire by mutual agreement the right to elect the Roman Pontiff. Conclavism therefore does not solve the totalist problem; in most forms it merely exposes it.
On this point Cassiciacum deserves credit. It recognises that any adequate account of the crisis must preserve not merely sacraments and doctrine somewhere in the world, but a recognisable continuity of the Church as a juridical society. Its defenders therefore maintain that a material hierarchy survives: the Roman See remains materially occupied, diocesan sees continue to have material incumbents, and the structures through which a future Roman Pontiff may be designated have not altogether disappeared. A later exposition of the Thesis states its purpose quite explicitly: material succession is required so that provision for the Roman See remains possible and a future legitimate Pope may again possess formal authority.²
That is a considerably more serious answer than simply declaring the hierarchy extinct.
But it is precisely here that Fr Palma overstates what Cassiciacum has accomplished. He says that the Thesis “resolves every one” of the objections raised against totalist sedevacantism. It does not. It relocates the principal difficulty.
For once it is asserted that the man materially occupying the Roman See possesses no formal papal jurisdiction, another question immediately follows: by what authority does he create the next generation of cardinals, appoint bishops and confer juridical titles upon the men whose subsequent acts are supposed to preserve the Church’s material continuity?
A man who possesses no papal jurisdiction cannot simply exercise papal jurisdiction when it becomes necessary to sustain the mechanism of material succession. The difficulty becomes increasingly acute with every succeeding pontificate. Paul VI was elected by a College overwhelmingly created before the crisis identified by Guérard. But successive generations of cardinals have been appointed by men whom Cassiciacum itself denies to have possessed formal papal authority. The chain has therefore moved progressively further from an indisputably canonical point of origin.
Contemporary defenders of Cassiciacum know this. That is why their argument is subtler than Fr Palma’s summary suggests. A recent exposition by Fr Piergiorgio Coradello invokes the concept of titulus coloratus, a “coloured title”: something possessing the external appearance of legitimate title while suffering from a hidden defect which prevents full juridical validity. Coradello explicitly concedes that such holders are not performing valid acts of authority in the ordinary sense. Instead he argues that a coloured title may itself suffice to “colour” another act, thereby perpetuating material designation even though formal jurisdiction remains absent.³
That deserves careful consideration. But notice what has happened. We have moved from the apparently simple proposition that “the hierarchy remains” to a much more extraordinary proposition: men without formal authority perform acts incapable of exercising true ecclesiastical jurisdiction, yet those acts nevertheless create sufficient juridical appearance to transmit coloured titles to other men, who may in turn transmit further coloured titles, until ultimately this succession retains the capacity to participate in the restoration of formal authority.
That is not the elimination of the problem. It is an attempted solution to it — and one which itself requires theological demonstration.
Fr Palma therefore moves too quickly when he says that the cardinals and bishops “are all there, validly designated.” Cassiciacum’s more developed defenders themselves speak more cautiously. They distinguish genuine formal jurisdiction from material succession and, in the case of later appointments, speak of coloured title precisely because ordinary canonical designation cannot simply be presumed once the appointing pontiff is denied formal authority.³
This becomes particularly important in Fr Palma’s discussion of papal election. He writes that apostolic succession continues through “the same electors Christ instituted (the College of Cardinals).” That statement is simply incorrect.
Christ did not institute the College of Cardinals as the body which elects the Roman Pontiff.
Christ instituted the Petrine office. The manner in which the successor of Peter is designated belongs to ecclesiastical law and has varied historically. Universi Dominici Gregis itself recognises the Roman Pontiff’s competence to determine and adapt the manner in which his successor is designated, while distinguishing that ecclesiastical mechanism from the divine origin of the papal authority received by the man legitimately elected.⁴ The perpetuity promised by Christ therefore attaches to the Church and the Petrine office, not to one historically developed electoral system.
Cassiciacum may argue that Providence preserves a materially continuous body capable of participating in the restoration of papal authority. What it cannot do is establish that conclusion simply by saying that Christ instituted the cardinals as papal electors.
The ordinary Catholic principle concerning the acquisition of papal authority is also considerably simpler than Cassiciacum requires it to be. Following canonical election, once the elected man accepts and is already a bishop, he acquires the full and supreme power of the Roman Pontiff.⁵ The formal authority is not bestowed by a later coronation, enthronement or installation.
Cassiciacum must therefore posit something additional: the external act of acceptance can take place while an interior obex prevents the normal effect of that acceptance. Guérard explicitly makes this argument. He proposes that the elect may exteriorly accept while interiorly possessing an habitual disposition incompatible with receiving Christ’s communication of papal authority. He then judges that disposition retrospectively from the man’s subsequent acts.¹
This is a serious theological construction. But it is the distinctive claim of Cassiciacum, not simply “what Thomistic theology teaches” about papal elections. Matter and form are certainly scholastic categories. The application of those categories to produce a Roman Pontiff who remains materially pope for years while possessing no formal papal authority is a further theological argument. One cannot establish the latter merely by invoking the former.
The Philosophy of Authority Beneath the Thesis
At this point an even deeper question emerges. The controversy is not ultimately only about papal elections, canonical title or the mechanics of succession. Beneath the Cassiciacum Thesis lies a particular philosophy of authority.
The Catholic philosophical tradition certainly understands authority teleologically. Government exists for an end; law is ordered to the common good; and authority which governs a Christian society must exercise its office according to the good proper to that society. St Thomas Aquinas makes the common good intrinsic to the nature of law and distinguishes genuine government from tyranny precisely by reference to whether rule is directed toward the good of the community or toward some private and disordered end.⁶ Applied to the Church, that end is necessarily supernatural: the preservation of the Faith, the sanctification of souls and their direction towards eternal beatitude.
Cassiciacum therefore argues from something deeper than the proposition that “heresy causes loss of office.” Guérard’s obex rests upon the contention that the man designated to supreme ecclesiastical authority cannot receive its formal principle from Christ while possessing a habitual intention fundamentally opposed to the very end for which that authority exists. The obstacle is therefore not incidental to the Thesis. It follows from its understanding of what authority is.
That makes the argument philosophically coherent.
But coherence is not yet proof.
For Catholic philosophy also distinguishes between possessing authority, using authority badly, and acting beyond or contrary to the proper limits of authority. A king may become tyrannical without every act of tyranny immediately annihilating his kingship. A bishop may betray the supernatural good of his flock without automatically ceasing at that instant to occupy his see. A father may gravely abuse paternal authority without the natural relation of fatherhood thereby disappearing. The fact that authority exists for the common good does not by itself establish that every sufficiently grave departure from the common good causes the authority itself metaphysically to cease.
Indeed, the very possibility of abuse of authority presupposes that possession and right exercise are distinguishable. One cannot corrupt what one does not in some sense possess.
This places a more fundamental burden upon Cassiciacum than the mere demonstration that the post-conciliar pontiffs have acted repeatedly against the objective supernatural good of the Church. The Thesis must establish that such habitual opposition constitutes not simply the corruption or abuse of papal authority, but a positive incapacity to receive the authority itself.
That is a substantially stronger proposition.
The crucial philosophical question therefore becomes:
Does radical disorder in the exercise of authority prove the absence of authority itself, or does it prove the corruption and abuse of an authority which nevertheless continues to exist?
The distinction is decisive. If opposition to the proper end of authority necessarily destroys authority, then the Cassiciacum argument becomes considerably stronger. But if a subject can possess genuine authority while gravely and habitually abusing it, then the existence of destructive pontifical acts does not itself demonstrate that Christ withheld the form of the papacy.
Here the recognise-and-resist position possesses a philosophical coherence of its own. It distinguishes the objective possession of office from the moral legitimacy of every act performed by its holder. Authority remains real; obedience is not therefore unlimited; and an act which exceeds the competence of authority, commands sin, contradicts a superior law, or gravely attacks the good for which the authority exists may fail to bind without the office-holder thereby ceasing to hold office. Aquinas himself recognises that human laws contrary to the divine good or exceeding legitimate competence do not bind in conscience in the ordinary manner.⁶ The conclusion is not that no legislator exists, but that the legislator has acted defectively or beyond the moral force of his authority.
This does not by itself establish the entire recognise-and-resist response to the post-conciliar crisis. The extraordinary breadth and duration of resistance still require explanation. But it does demonstrate that resistance to an abuse of authority and denial of the existence of authority are not philosophically identical propositions.
Cassiciacum must bridge that gap.
And there is an epistemological difficulty as well as a metaphysical one. The obex exists ultimately in the will of the man elected. Yet the habitual disposition of another man’s will cannot ordinarily be known immediately by an external observer. It must be inferred from words, policies, doctrinal propositions, legislation and patterns of conduct. Cassiciacum therefore moves from observable acts, to a judgement concerning habitual interior intention, and from that judgement to the further conclusion that Christ Himself has withheld the formal authority of the papacy.
Each stage may be argued. But each stage is also an inference.
The question then becomes unavoidable: who possesses competence to make that judgement, and with what degree of certainty?
If the ordinary Catholic, priest or bishop may conclude from an occupant’s public acts that his habitual intention is incompatible with the supernatural end of the papacy, and from this infer that Christ never communicated papal authority to him, the Thesis risks transferring an enormous juridical conclusion into the sphere of theological private judgement. Cassiciacum was intended to rescue Catholic ecclesiology from the arbitrariness of totalism, yet its account of the obex may itself require individual theologians to determine that an outwardly elected, accepting and universally recognised Pope was never formally Pope at all.
This is not a peripheral objection. It goes to the heart of the Thesis.
For the dispute beneath the dispute may finally be stated very simply:
Cassiciacum argues that radical opposition to the end of authority prevents the possession of authority. Recognise-and-resist argues that authority can remain while its exercise becomes radically disordered. Which account better reflects the Catholic philosophy of authority?
That question must be answered before the canonical consequences of either position can simply be assumed.
The same caution is therefore required when Fr Palma says that Cassiciacum preserves the Church’s visibility and apostolicity “in their full theological integrity.” It certainly intends to preserve them. Whether it succeeds is precisely the question under discussion.
Catholic doctrine identifies the Roman Pontiff as the perpetual visible principle and foundation of ecclesiastical unity, while episcopal succession perpetuates through the centuries the unity of the episcopate and therefore the identity of the Church with the Church founded upon Peter and the Apostles.⁷ Cassiciacum proposes that the structures ordinarily embodying this visible government can persist for generation after generation while being deprived of the formal jurisdiction which makes their holders actual governing authorities.
Again, perhaps that can be demonstrated. But it cannot simply be assumed.
There is an important distinction here between sacramental apostolic succession and apostolic succession in canonical mission and jurisdiction. A cardinal is not a successor of the Apostles by virtue of being a cardinal. Cardinals who are bishops participate sacramentally in episcopal succession because they are bishops. Their cardinalitial status is an ecclesiastical dignity and, under present law, carries electoral competence. Fr Palma’s description of apostolic succession continuing materially “through the cardinals” therefore conflates distinct questions. What Cassiciacum needs to preserve is not apostolic succession through cardinalatial office, but sufficient juridical continuity in the visible hierarchy for the Church eventually to recover a formally authoritative head.
That is harder to prove.
Fr Palma’s criticism of recognise and resist also contains a genuine difficulty, but once again he states it too absolutely. He argues that resistance is “theologically impossible” if the man resisted is a true Pope. Catholic theology has never taught unconditional obedience to every command of an ecclesiastical superior. St Robert Bellarmine famously allows resistance to a pontiff whose actions injure souls or disturb the Church, while carefully distinguishing resistance from judging or deposing the Pope. The SSPX has consistently relied upon this distinction and maintains that errors committed by occupants of the papal office do not themselves prove that those men have ceased to hold it.⁸
The answer to recognise and resist is therefore not that resistance to a true Pope is impossible.
There is, however, a much more difficult question which Cassiciacum is entitled to ask.
Resistance to a particular command is one thing. Resistance extending across an ecumenical council, a comprehensive liturgical reform, universal disciplinary legislation, substantial portions of ordinary papal teaching, ecumenical initiatives and recurring acts of papal government — and continuing through successive pontificates for more than half a century — is another. If the Pope possesses supreme, full, immediate and universal jurisdiction, what does acknowledgement of that authority mean when Catholics conclude habitually that much of its practical exercise must be refused?
That question cannot be answered merely by quoting Bellarmine. Bellarmine demonstrates that resistance may sometimes be lawful. He does not thereby supply a ready-made ecclesiology for six decades of institutional crisis.
The recognise-and-resist Catholic must therefore acknowledge a real tension. Papal authority cannot be reduced to an honorary recognition according to which the Pope remains Pope provided his actual governing decisions are continually submitted to private scrutiny before acquiring practical force. Authority which only binds once the subject independently determines that it ought to bind is scarcely authority at all.
But here too Cassiciacum should beware of claiming victory too quickly. Its answer to that tension is to posit something equally extraordinary: an internationally visible ecclesiastical hierarchy retaining its material configuration for generations while lacking the formal jurisdiction by which that hierarchy governs the Church.
The choice is therefore not between an obviously absurd recognise-and-resist position and a perfectly resolved Cassiciacum position. Both are attempting to account for circumstances which no ordinary ecclesiological manual envisaged in anything resembling their present scale.
Fr Palma also weakens his case by grouping together the SSPX, the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter and “conservative Traditional Catholics” as though they begin from essentially the same theological premises. They do not.
The institutional position of the FSSP is particularly clear. Together with other former Ecclesia Dei communities, its superiors have publicly affirmed their submission to the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and diocesan bishops and their adherence to the Magisterium, expressly including Vatican II and subsequent teaching according to the appropriate degree of assent.⁹ Whatever questions individual priests or faithful within the wider FSSP milieu may privately entertain, the Fraternity cannot accurately be treated as an institution which already accepts Fr Palma’s premise that Vatican II contains heresies which no true Pope could promulgate.
The SSPX occupies a quite different position. Its critique of religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality and the post-conciliar liturgical revolution is well known, but it has historically rejected the conclusion that the errors of the post-conciliar pontiffs establish vacancy of the Roman See. ✠Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, explaining ✠Marcel Lefebvre’s position, expressly appealed to the permanence of the papal function despite the errors of the men occupying it.¹⁰ This does not answer every Cassiciacum objection, but it demonstrates why speaking loosely of the SSPX and FSSP as though both were naturally awaiting discovery of sedeprivationism is misleading.
Nor can the assertion that Traditionalists who properly understand Cassiciacum become “willing — indeed eager” to embrace it substitute for evidence. Some undoubtedly do. Others study it carefully and reject it. The persuasive force of a theological thesis cannot be measured by the enthusiasm of those whom it convinces.
Yet Fr Palma has performed a service by placing the central issues together, because Cassiciacum exposes weaknesses which ought not to be concealed.
It asks totalist sedevacantists a question they must answer: if the recognised hierarchy has been juridically extinguished for generations, where is the visible ecclesiastical society possessing a credible juridical route to another Pope?
It asks recognise-and-resist Catholics another: if the recognised Pope truly possesses supreme jurisdiction, what does that authority mean amid habitual resistance to so much of the Church’s post-conciliar government?
And its underlying philosophy of authority raises a third question which reaches deeper than either: when a ruler habitually acts against the end for which his authority exists, does that demonstrate that he lacks authority, or that genuine authority has been gravely abused?
Those are formidable questions.
But Cassiciacum cannot demand answers from everyone else while treating its own central difficulties as though they were already resolved.
Its defenders must demonstrate how a man lacking formal papal authority can create even the material conditions necessary for the next generation of ecclesiastical office-holders; how one coloured title can transmit another without the jurisdiction ordinarily required for canonical appointment; how this process can reproduce itself indefinitely without eventually becoming mere sociological continuity; how a materially constituted hierarchy deprived of formal governing authority continues to satisfy the visibility and apostolicity promised to the Church; and why habitual opposition to the proper end of ecclesiastical authority proves absence of authority rather than its catastrophic abuse.
They must also explain how Catholics can know with sufficient certainty that the internal obex exists to justify the momentous conclusion that an externally elected, accepting and universally recognised occupant of the Apostolic See never received papal authority from Christ.
It is precisely here that the apparently elegant solution becomes less simple than Fr Palma presents it. The later Cassiciacum defence effectively acknowledges the juridical problem when it argues that a merely coloured title is enough to colour another act.³ That may be a defensible hypothesis. Guérard’s philosophy of the obex may likewise constitute an ingenious attempt to account for the apparent contradiction between papal authority and the post-conciliar revolution. But neither mechanism becomes Catholic doctrine merely because it renders the proposed system internally coherent.
And this is ultimately why Cassiciacum cannot simply be presented as “the theological key that unlocks the crisis.”
It is a thesis.
A serious thesis. An ingenious thesis. A thesis which asks questions that totalists ought to answer and which exposes genuine strains in recognise-and-resist ecclesiology. It is unquestionably more sophisticated than the notion that the Catholic hierarchy simply vanished sometime in the twentieth century and can now be reconstructed by whichever Traditionalist clergy decide to hold a conclave.
But Catholic doctrine does not oblige us to choose the hypothesis which most neatly eliminates intellectual discomfort.
It remains possible to hold that a Pope may misuse his authority without ceasing thereby to possess it; that possession of authority and its legitimate exercise are distinguishable; that non-infallible teaching may require correction or resistance; that ecclesiastical legislation may be gravely harmful; that an act of authority may fail morally to bind because it contradicts divine law, exceeds legitimate competence or attacks the very good for which authority exists; that Catholics confronted with necessity may preserve what the Church herself previously handed down when those charged with guarding that inheritance fail to do so; and that none of those propositions confers upon private persons the juridical competence to determine authoritatively that the Roman Pontiff has lost his office.
That position does not make the crisis tidy. Neither should it.
For the deepest temptation in an ecclesiastical catastrophe is not always disobedience. Sometimes it is the desire to possess an explanation more certain than the evidence allows. The Catholic response to a crisis of authority must itself remain Catholic: preserving what has been received, distinguishing divine constitution from human arrangement, distinguishing authority from its abuse, resisting what demonstrably contradicts the Faith without claiming powers we have not received, and refusing to transform a theological hypothesis into a certainty merely because it appears to make the pieces fit.
Fr Palma is right that totalist sedevacantism has an unresolved problem of juridical continuity. He is right that recognise and resist carries a serious burden of explanation concerning the meaning of papal authority. But Cassiciacum does not escape the same scrutiny.
The decisive question therefore becomes broader than before:
If the hierarchy possesses no formal authority, by what authority does that hierarchy perpetuate the juridical capacity through which formal authority will one day be restored — and if habitual abuse of authority itself proves that authority was never possessed, where in the received constitution and philosophy of the Church is that principle established?
Until Cassiciacum can demonstrate those propositions rather than merely construct a system in which they become necessary, it has not unlocked the problem.
It has moved the lock.
Accipere, non fingere.
¹ ✠Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers OP, exposition of the Thesis of Cassiciacum, originally published in the Cahiers de Cassiciacum; see also his later interview reproduced by Sodalitium, especially his account of the materialiter–formaliter distinction, the obex, and the formal vacancy of the Roman See from 7 December 1965 at the latest.
² Sodalitium, “Response to the Special Edition of La Tradizione Cattolica on Sedevacantism,” explaining that the Thesis claims to preserve the possibility of a future legitimate Pope through material succession in episcopal sees and among the cardinals.
³ Fr Piergiorgio Coradello, “By What Title?”, Sodalitium, 2026, on titulus coloratus, material designation and the transmission of coloured juridical title in the absence of formal authority.
⁴ John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, 22 February 1996, introduction and nos. 33–34, concerning the regulation of papal election and the competence of the Roman Pontiff to determine the manner of designating his successor.
⁵ Universi Dominici Gregis, nos. 87–88; Code of Canon Law, can. 332 §1, concerning acceptance of canonical election and the acquisition of full and supreme papal power by an elect who is already a bishop.
⁶ St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I–II, q. 90, a. 2, on law as ordered to the common good; I–II, q. 96, a. 4, on the binding force of just and unjust laws; De Regno, I, especially chs. 1–4, on government ordered to the common good and its corruption into tyranny.
⁷ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church,” 1998; Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, nos. 18, 22–23, concerning the Roman Pontiff as the perpetual visible principle of ecclesiastical unity and episcopal succession within the Church’s apostolic constitution.
⁸ St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 29, on resistance to a pontiff acting harmfully, distinguished from judging or deposing him; cf. the Society of St Pius X’s continuing appeal to necessity and legitimate resistance while maintaining recognition of the Roman Pontiff.
⁹ “Communiqué of the Superiors-General of the ‘Ecclesia Dei’ Communities,” 2021, published by the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter, affirming submission to papal and diocesan jurisdiction and adherence to the Magisterium, including Vatican II and subsequent teaching according to the appropriate degree of assent.
¹⁰ ✠Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, interview concerning ✠Marcel Lefebvre and the post-conciliar crisis, explaining that Lefebvre’s conviction concerning the permanence of the supreme pontifical function prevented him from adopting the sedevacantist conclusion.
RELATED ARTiCLES
LATEST ARTICLES
- Today’s Mass: August 19 S. John EudesSaint John Eudes (1601-1680) was a pivotal figure in promoting devotion to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Educated by Jesuits, he founded the Eudists and the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, establishing numerous seminaries and emphasising missionary work. He was canonised in 1925, leaving a lasting legacy.
- ACCIPERE, NON FINGERE ~ To Receive, Not to Invent: A Spiritual Conference for Nuntiatoria CXIXThe motto “Accipere, non fingere” emphasises the importance of receiving rather than inventing spiritual truths within Christianity. It articulates a vital distinction between accepting divine revelation and fabricating meaning. The Church’s mission is rooted in fidelity to received doctrine, urging believers to actively embrace their faith and transmit it authentically, preserving its integrity.
- When “Catholic” Ceases to Qualify: Leo XIV, Freemasonry and the First Jewish President of the Catholic Biblical AssociationRecent appointments within the Catholic Church, notably Professor Umberto Longo’s link to Freemasonry and Professor Amy-Jill Levine’s presidency of the Catholic Biblical Association as a Jewish scholar, raise fundamental questions about the meaning of Catholic identity. The situation reflects a growing ambiguity surrounding the qualifications for representing Catholic institutions, challenging traditional beliefs.
- The SSPX Is Not Really on Trial — The Post-Conciliar Settlement IsAthanasius Schneider’s critique of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) highlights the broader theological implications of their conflict with the Church regarding post-conciliar ambiguities. He argues that the SSPX’s resistance reflects a deeper crisis within the Church, demanding serious examination of Vatican II’s teachings rather than merely imposing canonical penalties.
- By Their Fruits: ✠Mutsaerts Puts Synodality to the TestAuxiliary Bishop Rob Mutsaerts has questioned the effectiveness of the Synod on Synodality, asking Pope Leo XIV whether its process has strengthened faith, conversions, and Catholic identity. He emphasises that consultation should focus on receiving divine truths rather than shaping them, urging a return to prioritising salvation and authentic pastoral care over administrative processes.
CURRENT EDITION
Today’s Mass Propers
- Today’s Mass: August 19 S. John Eudes
Saint John Eudes (1601-1680) was a pivotal figure in promoting devotion to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Educated by Jesuits, he founded the Eudists and the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, establishing numerous seminaries and emphasising missionary work. He was canonised in 1925, leaving a lasting legacy.
Leave a Reply