My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (

The Curt Jester


Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Rainbow Sashers' Big Day | Main | Another Heart-warming Pope Benedict Anecdote »

Monday, May 16, 2005


P. Jeremy Stevens

Those self-identified members of the SSPX posting on some websites, one of which is, certainly do not seem to be offering any "gleams" or any "hope."

Whatever his personal and theological sympathies to one or another valid criticisms or perspectives offered by the SSPX, the bottom line for Pope Benedict XVI is going to be one that the leadership of the SSPX seems genetically incapable of signing on to:

the four SSPX "Popes" are going to have to go back to being Bishops.

That means, they are going to have to take instructions from and offer obedience - not lipservice but actual deeds - to the papal magisterium as that currently resides in the person and teaching of Benedict XVI - not set forth their usual "non-negotiable demands" as if they were secular powers debating points of statecraft at the United Nations.

Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia.

And that ain't in Econe or Winona or - where did they stick Bishop Williamson, he of the acid pen and women's fashions obsession?


"The Vatican banned the Tridentate rite from 1971 to 1984, although Lefebvre’s followers and other traditionalist groups continued to use it. In 1984, Pope John Paul II said the Tridentate rite could be used in special circumstances."

Did I miss something? Did the Vatican ever ban the Tridentate Mass?! I thought it was always a valid Mass - right?


No, the Tridentine Mass was never banned. It's certainly a positive sign that many US bishops are allowing it on a more regular basis. Others, unfortunately, do not.


I am with the SSPX...and I can tell you Ratzinger makes most of us sick. We do not like the fact he pushed through the Augsburg Accord with the Lutherans in 1999 or that he denies the Eucharistic Presence and claims there is no need for Euchristic Adoration. His liberal theology is rampant with error. He took his knowledge from Kant, Blondell, de Luback and all their "ilk".

Ratzinger is as dishonest as the day is long. He has not released the real 3rd Secret of Fatima as anyone with a bit of logic can tell you. Russia has not been Consecrated. Were that so...why do they still forbid the Catholic Church there....and porno, abortions and murder are prospering there.

As for the Tridentine can not be abrogated. Of all people, Ratzinger was the very one to say so in his letter to the Hawaiian Bishops. Moreover, the Papal Bulll the Quo Primum can not be superceded by ANY future Pope no matter how he words his encyclicals...nor how much power the German Rhine Fathers exert on the current papacy. Someone needs to read "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber" and "The Devil's Final Battle".....Ratzinger, Sodano, Arinze, Kasper are all say Fathers Kramer and Gruener.,,,and a whole lot of other priests.

Bishop Williamson is in Argentina at the Seminary there.


I knew you would ask....


Saint Pius V conceded, as we have seen, exceptions to the norms laid down in his missal. Now we see that, in addition to the obligation which the Bull imposes, he adds a privilege which favors his own missal. This privilege is to be effective in all cases and at all times. "Furthermore, by virtue of the terms of these presents, in virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, We grant and concede..." and in this respect we wish to make seven observations:


What stands out in this section of the Bull is the use of the verbs "concedimus et indulgemus" which introduce it: their correct signification is of a favor which attains the legal status of a "private-law." As, in the present case, the privilegium adds itself to the law; it must be understood as conferring a new authority upon it which takes precedence in all cases, present and in the future, where the law of Quo Primum might be made the object of a derogation. Therefore, even where the law ceased to bind, the privilege would still exist.

The importance of this privilege is emphasized by the words "in virtue of Our Apostolic Authority," which the Pope invokes before conferring it.

This privilege is granted without exception to every priest, secular and regular, in every church, for every form of Mass.

No superior may impede the use of this privilege for any reason, either privately or publicly.

Those accorded the privilege cannot be obliged by anyone whatsoever, to use another missal ("a quolibet cogi et compelli"), or to implement even the slightest modification to the Missal of Pius V.

This concession has no need of any additional permission, agreement, or consent. The Bull states: "by the terms of these presents," which are thus considered adequate to suffice.

Finally, it is a matter of a perpetual privilege ("etiam perpetuo").

This final statement leads us to a question which affects each and every legislative disposition of the Bull: to what extent can a Pope bind his successors? This is a great and delicate question, which will be limited in this instance to the case under discussion. It is obviously not a question of the Pope as interpreter of the Divine Law, which is immutable, but of the Pope in respect of ecclesiastical law.



Here one principle stands out: "Par in parem potestatem non habet": Equals have no power over each other. No one, therefore, can constrain his equals. This is particularly true of the supreme power. This is essentially the same power exercised through its different holders. It is necessary to give the most careful consideration to the full import of this principle. If a pope (to speak only of the highest religious authority) has the power to loose what another pope by the same power has bound, then he should use this right only for the gravest possible reasons: reasons which would have prompted his predecessor to revoke his own law. Otherwise, the essence of supreme authority is itself eroded by successive contradictory commands.

When philosophers discuss "divine power" they make use of a distinction which is infinitely more applicable in the case under discussion: what God can do in virtue of "absolute power" and what He can do in respect of His "regulated power." 2

The matter has not been decided when one can say, for example: "Paul VI could validly abrogate the Bull of Saint Pius V." It remains to be shown that he is doing so legitimately.

Now this matter of lawfulness touches the very form and foundation of the new law —in the first place, involving the question of the mutability of law itself. Divine law contains the proof of its own universality and immutability within itself. But ecclesiastical law, like all human law, must add supporting evidence to its intrinsic proofs, even if this evidence is of the most obvious kind —purely conventional to begin with, but which by public consent eventually prevents the law from becoming arbitrary and artificial.

As to the form, the Bull Quo Primum possesses all the conditions necessary for perpetuity. We have adequately demonstrated this by illustrating the terms used by the legislator.

As to content, its perpetuity is confirmed by three characteristics:


The aim in view, which is that there, should be but one missal so that the unity of Faith may be protected and manifested by unity of public prayer.

The method of its establishment, which is neither that of an artificial creation devised from a number of possibilities nor even a radical reform, but the honest restoration of the ancient Roman Missal: the honest restoration of a well-proven past being the best guarantee of a tranquil future.

Its authorship, which is that of a pope acting with all the force of his Apostolic authority, in exact conformity with the express wish of an Ecumenical Council —in conformity with the uninterrupted tradition of the Roman Church —and, so far as concerns the principal parts of the missal, in conformity with the Universal Church.


Each of these characteristics taken separately, and still more when taken together, assure us that no pope can ever licitly abrogate the Bull of Saint Pius V, even if we admit that he can do so validly and without betraying either the Deposit of Faith or any fundamental law of the Church.

It seems indisputable to us that Pope Paul VI has not, in fact, made any such abrogation, even if one thinks only of the legal formulas that would be required, and which are lacking in his Act.

Unfortunately, however, it seems equally indisputable that Pope Paul VI does favor the de facto abolition of the Roman Missal, whether by deliberate will, or connivance, or tolerance, or by constraint due to obscure pledges from which he cannot free himself —or which make him their prisoner.

He who resists the failings of a pontiff for a day serves the eternal Papacy.

P. Jeremy Stevens

And there you have it!

As was said of the Jansenist Cistercian Nuns of Port Royale: Pure as angels, proud as devils.

After being their own Pope for all these years, the SSPX isn't about to go back to the submission of obedience to the actual Pope!

But, our poster claims, they serve "the eternal Papacy" - a convoluted mindtrick that neatly allows you to speak as if you believe in some abstract, ideal Papacy, while absolving you of the practical consequence and responsibilities of obedience to the real one; and, indeed, permitting you to dismiss the duly elected Pope and assorted Successors of the Apostles as "criminals."

Excuse me, but, if your faith reposes in the magisterium of bishops (episcopi) who are independent of the Pope, aren't you - by definition - Episcopalian?

And anyhow, who needs the Successor of Peter when you have such luminaries and paragons of mental stability as Fathers Kramer and Gruener to serve as official spokesmen not only for the Blessed Trinity but for Our Lady of Fatima as well? And we won't even get into Bishop Williamsom's magisterial teachings: most of which focus on the modesty of women's dress. Argentina is a good place for him: he'll be much more at home in the land of military juntas and dictatorships than he ever was in the United States, whose Constitution he despised (now THERE's a winning combination: British scorn and Lefebvrian contempt! The friendly face of Traditional Catholicism!).

Thanks be to God, we have the Traditional Mass readily available in this part of the world, in full communion with our new wise and holy Pope - and without all the rancorous baggage of the SSPX!


Thanks be to God, we have the Traditional Mass readily available in this part of the world, in full communion with our new wise and holy Pope - and without all the rancorous baggage of the SSPX!

And therein lies the irony. Without the SSPX you would NOT have the Traditional Mass in "this part of the world" or indeed any other. If you think you would, if you think the Vatican prelates would have re-introduce the indult just to be "nice", then I have a great plot of land to sell you (in Florida).

I don't attend the SSPX masses. My reason for this is that in many parts of the world the SSPX leadership leaves much to be desired (much like the post-concilliar Catholic church). The accusation that they are tinged with Jansenism and clericalism is certainly true. But, I am not so blind or proud that I cannot thank Lefebrve from the bottom of my heart for making a stand. Without him there would be no indult.

When this is all over, Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve will be canonised. No post Vatican 2 Pope will be.

B16 has just appointed a modernist heretic and probably apostate (Levada) to the head of the CDF, so I am personally not hopeful that this papacy is going to offer us any change for the better. He also lied about the TSoF, (as pointed out above) and in my view his orthodoxy is more form than substance. So the waiting continues. I'm expecting change to come from God, possibly in the form of divine chastisement, not the Vatican hierarchy. They are just a mutual backslapping society.

These are confusing times and if you're certain of where the truth lies, who to place your trust in and where your faith is protected and safeguarded then you're either very lucky or very blind. People with far better discernement than you are confused, as am I.


What came first, the Mass or the Church?

From Envoy Magazine:

"Once declared, a dogma must be believed by the Catholic faithful, and cannot be reneged upon — although the Church may always clarify her understanding of a dogma.

A mere discipline of the Faith, on the other hand, is a law, a custom or practice originating from the Church as a means of safeguarding the good order of the Church. To establish ecclesiastical discipline, the Church must ask herself: What is the most practical way of protecting the doctrine of the Church here and now?

Consequently, discipline is subject to change depending upon the present needs of the Church. Furthermore, mere disciplines of the Faith need not be applied in the same manner throughout the entire Church, and they may always be dispensed from, since the pastoral needs of one particular grouping of the faithful may differ from the pastoral needs of another. For example, the discipline of celibacy is imposed upon Catholic priests in the Latin Church, whereas this discipline is optional for Catholic priests in the Eastern Catholic churches.

Through this insight I first came to see the weakness of the SSPX’s claims. If Quo Primum Tempore had indeed been promulgated as a dogmatic declaration, then the SSPX would be correct in stating that every priest and bishop has a right in perpetuity to use the Tridentine Missal codified by St. Pius V. Nevertheless, within the very text of Quo Primum Tempore stood a clause by St. Pius V granting an exception to the declaration: All priests and bishops who said Mass using liturgical missals more than two hundred years old were not obliged to use this codified version of the Roman Missal. So even from the beginning of its promulgation, Quo Primum Tempore never applied to every Catholic priest.

From this fact alone I was able to draw the conclusion that Quo Primum Tempore was merely disciplinary rather than dogmatic in nature. For a dogmatic definition, by its very nature, binds the entire Church, while Quo Primum Tempore contains exceptions among the Catholic faithful in its application. Thus I was forced to conclude that the document could be legally changed or revoked by a future Roman Pontiff such as Pope Paul VI.

Yet even if this were not the case, and future Roman Pontiffs were forbidden from reforming the Missal codified by St. Pius V, I couldn’t deny that this papal bull merely granted the right to celebrate Mass according to the Tridentine Missal. Quo Primum Tempore did not extend the right to bishops — upon their own authority and against the expressed wishes of the Roman Pontiff — to ordain priests and consecrate bishops as Archbishop Lefebvre had done. In other words, using a certain liturgical Missal to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not the same action as consecrating bishops without permission of the Roman Pontiff; even if one consecrates bishops in order to provide a source of ordination for priests who will say the Tridentine liturgy."

P. Jeremy Stevens

Fortunately our Catholic faith frees us from having to worry - let alone JUDGE - the Holy Father's appointee to CDF as a heretic and apostate.

"Who hears you, hears Me."

"and the gates of hell shall not prevail . . . "

What EVANGELIUM . . . in fact, such good news that it seems to those who judge only by worldly, secular standards to be TOO GOOD.

Anyhow, we're back to Port Royale . . . if you set yourself up in judgment over the Pope and over the Spirit who guided the Electors in their choice of him, how to escape the epitaph "pure as angels, proud as devils" ?


You must be joking....

Ever heard of the Metz Agreement? And what happened of the anti-Communist manifest at Vatican was hidden by one Monsignor Gloria. To claim any of the last 4 Popes were chosen by anything other than a gang of thieves is tantamount to ignorance of history. The German Rhine fathers had all this planned in Vienna before Vatican II even opened it's doors.

As for stating "who hears you hears ME"....tell that to Pope Fortuna whose successor had him exhumed and then floated and unceremoniously dumped into the Tiber. Or to Pope Liberius who signed the Arian documents and expelled the very first Doctor of the Church St. Athanasuius...5 times over 17 years St. Athanasius was exiled into the desert....and where he was....THERE was the Church. "The Arians had the buildings but he had the Church!"

Ever heard of the Popes John XII, Benedict IX, Boniface VII, Urban VI, Alexander VI Leo X or Clement VII ? I think a serious study of history is necessary here. There were plenty of Bad Popes and heretical ones.

Yes, we are to listen to the Pope...when he is not in error. The last 4 Popes and this one, as well, were schooled in the liberal theologian arena. You seem to forget Roncalli was expelled to Bulgaria for his modernist teaching at the Pontifical College. Montini was sent to Ravenna for communicating with the Communists, Wojtyla was well known as a Communist sympathizer and Ratzinger was placed on the Holy Office's list of suspects for teaching heresy on the same page with Kant, Kung and Blondell.

As for the SSPX consecrating it's Bishops...sure they did in the matter of necessity. Let's take their reasoning before anyone makes wild accusations:

1. A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity1:

* If one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),
* and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties2 (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

2. No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations (Cf. The Sermon of June 30, 1988, and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 136 [APPENDIX II]). Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin.

3. Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural and eternal law and ecclesiastical law is at that of the divine law (PRINCIPLE 8). No “authority,” [PRINCIPLE 9] can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation. This was his duty as a bishop.

4.The Church’s approving the Society of Saint Pius X (QUESTION 2) allow it what it needs for its own preservation. This includes the service of bishops who will guarantee to maintain Catholic tradition.

So much for your arguments on Papal Infallability. It ONLY occurs in matters of Faith and Morals....most of which the current Pope has little. He does not even believe in the Eucharist presence and claims Eucharistic Adoration is not necessary for modern man!

...and as long as we are discussing Bible quotations: why not appeal to 2 Timothy 4:3-5....

"For there will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their own lusts, and they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables."

Sorry to be so ascerbic but...facts are facts and when one pushes the novus ordo heresy of modernism, religious indifferentism, humanism and all their bag of novelties they need to be dispelled immediately and with force.

Ubi Verum, ibi Ecclesia

P. Jeremy Stevens

Actually, it's VERITAS, not VERUM.

Another hallmark of "Traditionalist" Latin Rite Catholics is that they are wondrously ignorant of Latin.

Ah yes, UBI . . . that's the crux of the matter (pardon the pun), isn't it?

So - like the Protestant teachers of my collegiate days (necessity - the "necessity" of those illicit consecrations - maketh strange bedfellows, eh?) bring up all the bad Popes and all the anti-papal canards . . .

and then lift up thine eyes unto Winona or Econe.

I'll stay with Rome, thank you very much!


I'll stay with Rome, thank you very much!

Right, you do that, I'll stay with the Catholic Church and the traditions I was always taught and keep attending Latin Mass with the SSPX.

Our Lady of LaSalette, "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the anti-christ".

Our Lady of Good Success
and Our Lady of Fatima:
Prophecies for Our Times

P. Jeremy Stevens

Cindy, dear, just one problem . . . you can't have a Catholic Church apart from Rome . . .

Do you belong to the Anglo-Catholic Church (they are EPISCOPALIANS . . . that is, they look to BISHOPS - episcopi - for their ultimate magisterium). Or are you Lefebvrian-Catholic. If you're SSPX, I guess that's you . . . Williamson and the Gang of Four to whom alone absolute infallible truth has been suddenly revealed in Switzerland in 1988, not by the Sea of Galilee after the Resurrection.

And wouldn't Our Lady be proud of you . . . disregarding the teaching of her Son, PUBLIC REVELATION (the Scriptures and Tradition) - "the gates of hell shall not prevail" - and opting instead for PRIVATE REVELATION (a Marian apparition).

Hey, wait a minute! If you're PRIVATE REVELATION, then you're not Episcopalian after all - you're a Lefebvrian Mormon! Mormons base all their spiritual assurance, as you are doing, on a PRIVATE REVELATION.

Don't you have a Baltimore Catechism somewhere that you can look up all this stuff in?



You might want to look at your Wheelock's Latin 6th edition. It says "Verum"...not "veritas"......but I won't quibble over your Latin if you do not go to the Latin Tridentine Mass. Those of you in the novus ordo can not be expected to know your precise Latin. The new church threw out Latin when it threw out the valid Sacraments and changed all the rites for Extreme Unction, Holy Orders even Baptism....different church different "faith"

As for your comments on staying with Ratzinger, you really need to look at all the heresy he is absolutely guilty of pushing. May I send you directly to this well documented web site. I don't push their cause but I do push their facts.

Why do you elude the genuine facts on what transpired at Vatican Council II. Are you not ashamed that Pope Paul VI continued the VCII even after Pope John XXIII said specifically on his death bed "STOP THE COUNCIL!", STOP THE COUNCIL!"

Anyway, if you continue in your same direction of might soon be marveling after the antichrist. "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the antichrist"(Mary at the Church Approved Apparition of La Salette 1846)

It is apparent the "Faith" HAS changed and the fruits of that change are dreadfully apparent.....but maybe you are ignoring the obvious?

P. Jeremy Stevens

Ah Cindy, former Roman Catholic, now a faithful Lefebvrian-Catholic and Mormon-Private-Revelation-over-Public-Revelation-Catholic.

Wheelock? Tsk tsk tsk . . . stick to ECCLESIASTICAL LATIN, my dear, not classical Latin . . . in ecclesiastical usage, e.g. the Vulgate, VERITAS is the PREFERRED term for Truth (as in Divine Revelation . . . but then again, we know where you stand on Divine Revelation in its public form . . . you're only into PRIVATE revelation) . . .

Actually, dear, you'd be amazed at how committed I am to the Traditional Latin Mass, and remember, I know you're part of that "pure as angels, proud as devils" crowd, but YOU were the one who made the mistake in your Latin, NOT I (classical over ecclesiastical Latin, Cindy, really dear! Your SSPX card will be revoked).

But that is the LEAST of your problems!

You sent me to and called it a "well documented website".

In fact, it is HYSTERICAL!

It celebrates the election of PIUS XIII as the true Pope! The laughs on this website just never end. This is one of the nutty Pulvermacher brothers - two ex-Capuchin Franciscans, one of whom is still tied up with the SSPX and the other one who is gloriously reigning from a log cabin in Montana somewhere as Pius XIII.

(Of course, THEY get the Latin wrong, too, in the announcement, using the accusative Pium instead of the genitive Pii . . . but like I said, the thing you can most count on with Traditionalist Latin Rite Catholics is that they do NOT know Latin . . . though like our dear Cindy, here, they're usually too proud to admit such ignorance - if only the ignorance stopped at their Latin . . . but it doesn't, read on).

So, Cindy, this is your idea of a well-documented and reliable website. Make sure (EVERYBODY READING THIS - the laughs are non-stop at Cindy's Favorite Website: > besides the pictures of "Pius XIII" - a total scream - the picture of the white smoke coming out of the log cabin's chimney is GUFFAW CENTRAL:

you take a look at "Cardinal Bateman" being consecrated a bishop by the PRIEST Pulvermacher, so that he can in turn consecrate the new Pope a Bishop.

And this is where Cindy gets her "Catholic Truth".

Forget Ratzinger, Cindy, JUST GET A BALTIMORE CATECHISM for starters!!!!!!

Once I stop laughing, can you give me any encore . . . what's your next joke after ??????

P. Jeremy Stevens

It was another Catholic Rocket Scientist, JesseJr, who is pushing!!!!

Thanks for the laughs, Jesse man!

So you're a Pius XIII kinda guy!



P. Jeremy,

You are certainly having a terrible time getting your Latin and names straight. Apparently, you sit thinking "exceptio probat regulam"

Nonetheless, were you a true advocate of the never abrogated Tridentine Mass you would have abandoned the Vatican and it's coterie of brigands.

Instead you cling to the vestiges of a Vatican filled with deceit, heresy and as you prefer Biblical revelation: "every unclean spirit and hateful bird" (Apocalypse 18:3)

Take a hint, a glimmer, a trace...whether it comes from the CATHOLIC CHURCH APPROVED Prophecy of La Salette or the Apocalypse....or even one of your own brood (Pope Paul VI--"the smoke of Satan has entered the Church").. you are headed for the pit.

Can't you equate "novus ordo" with "novus ordo sæculorum"...why do your novus ordo churches have tables constructed exactly like what you find in Masonic Halls?
This is where your Popes JPII and now Ratzinger have led you. I can't believe we are even having this conversation when the obvious is blinding.

"De gustibus non disputandum est"

P. Jeremy Stevens

My Latin is quite good, thank you: VERITAS is TRUTH. Unless you're into CLASSICAL rather than ECCLESIASTICAL Latin . . . Wheelock! Tsk tsk tsk! Better check that out with your Pope Pius XIII !!!!!.

And that's the point. I got a name mixed up, but YOU have your Popes mixed up,

sending us all to "POPE PIUS XIII" for our magisterial truths! AND LOADS OF LAUGHS !!!!

I truly hope everyone who reads this blog, checks out the website YOU sent us TO:

and sees "Cardinal" Bateman "consecrating" the future "Pope" - in the motel room, with the suitcases right there on the dresser! - so that the "Pope" can then, in turn, consecrate him!!!!

Your problem is not a Masonic Hall or Ratzinger or even Latin.

Your problem is that log cabin in Montana with the white smoke coming out of it . . . being the source for your list of heresies and theological reflections.

By the way, apparently "Cardinal" Bateman has already flown the coop . . .

By the way Jesse, what's the Latin for gullible?

Check your Wheelock for us!

And give Pius XIII Pulvermacher our best!

Who IS his tailor ???? Looks like the Pope costume from some Halloween shop!

Pius XIII - HYSTERICAL, Jesse! Thanks for the laughs!


P. Jeremy

Looks like your dependence on "Ecclesiastical Latin" has bumps and bruises. I could refer you to the but I am afraid your "Ecclesiastical Latin" would be sadly lacking. I would send you scampering for Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar but I am afraid you would be aghast by it's complexity. Better you stick with your tiny fragment of "Ecclesiastical Latin"...sounds impressive until you see how small the text could read it all in one afternoon.

The trademark for most of you bleeding heart novus-ordo-ites is your complete reliance on what you call "archaism"...but you can not even quote the ancient texts...and your "Ecclesiastical Latin" goes out the window the moment you open your mouths to expel the novus ordo liturgy written for you by 6 Protestant Ministers. Tell me who is the greater imposter.
The laugh is on you Cowboy!

As for Pope Pius you saw in my admonition, I directed you to the website for your edification and told you I did not push their ideology. Apparently you were amused to find you follow a condemned heretic for Pope. If you need further proof, I can show you the very papal condemnation of Ratzinger.....but I am afraid you would be speechless and that would leave me without a partner to trade the barbs and superior knowledge with.

Needless to follow lock, stock and barrel the supreme heretic and his teachings of universal salvation, religious indifference and liberal theology. I wonder if he has mixed up the Cosmos with the Triune God. Teilhard de Chardin would be rabid with joy..if you are any example of his teachings.

Trad n' glad

P. Jeremy Stevens

Jesse, hon, the fact that you would use that website of Pius XIII for ANYTHING - quite apart from your arrogance regarding the Vicar of Christ - tells me, and everyone who reads this blog, all we need to know about you and your fellow Lefebvrian-Mormonite-"Catholics":

Pure as angels, proud as devils.

And I'm not all that sure about the pure part :-)

Now quick, Jesse, I think there's more smoke coming out of that log cabin in Montana!

Either Pius XIV has just been elected, or Pius XIII Pulvermacher is burning his breakfast!

Either way - enjoy your drift through the ecclesiastical Disneyland that your proud rejection of the True Faith has led you into!


"P" I assume means "poor" Jeremy,

I have no dealings with anyone living in log cabins and the smoke has nothing to do with any election I would consider valid.

Your mensicual knowledge of Latin and even worse logic give me platform for terse and pointed comments. I am guilty. Arrogance....does it really look that way? I thought it was superior knowledge.

For your perusal, I submit the present Papacy IS an invalid one. I was probably serving on the altar with Valid Masses while your parents were still in diapers or in kindergarten. So I guess your age would mandate your modernism.

Your knowledge of what is valid sounds tainted with the error of modernism. Your adequacy of history is minimal at best and I don't think your dogmatic, sacramental or moral theology are barely above the beginning stages. Or you wouldn't be harping on the validity of this papacy. Ever read the Codex Iuris Canonici...didn't think so....

So you can go spend your time observing the smoke at that log cabin you keep alluding to. I'm over here on the other side of the Atlantic where I can keep a closer eye on the events in the Vatican. You Cowboys always get the news second hand....

I bet Fatima is something you think is an obesity medication....

P. Jeremy Stevens

1) Ah . . . old Europe!

2) And a sedevacantist.

3) And an anti-American!

THREE STRIKES . . . . you know what that means here in Cowboy land?

But before I leave you to study the encyclicals of your Pope Pius XIII, could you tell us:

would you happen to be in one of those countries whose asses the Cowboys had to come and bail out at least once in the last century?

And superior knowledge? I'm afraid yours is "mensicual" - to use YOUR own word! Hahahaha!

Understandable, though, when your theological point of reference is the "log cabin catechism of Pius XIII"!

Nice having met you! Not the first arrogant "pseudo-Trad" I've met, but the first one to reference Pius XIII. By all means, do enjoy life on that side of the Atlantic, and - the next time you're invaded, attacked, or annexed, feel free to give us Cowboys a call (unless you can trade Kofi Annan some of your Saddam-given oil for some UN peacekeepers)!


"but I won't quibble over your Latin if you do not go to the Latin Tridentine Mass. Those of you in the novus ordo can not be expected to know your precise Latin."

My friend, I have attended one (ONE) so-called Tridentine Mass in my time on earth, and I assure you, my Latin, is quite good. The only thing more blatant than your anger is your ignorance. Attendance at Mass in the former rite makes one a Latinist no more than sitting in a library makes one genius. Before taking blind swings at folks, make sure you know at whom you are swinging!

Why don't the SSPX join with the Orthodox? The Catholic Church has eastern bishops, so why not let the Orthodox have a Roman bishop? The SSPX's Pope would be the first among equals in the Orthodox Church.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic