Marxist Archbishop Hebda Censures Father Conklin for “Connection” to SSPX

Do heretics have jurisdiction?

Archbishop Bernard Hebda will stand in the sanctuary of the Basilica of Saint Mary while a rabbi addresses the Catholic congregation and an imam quotes the Quran from the same floor. He will not let one of his own priests remain in public ministry for affiliating with the Society of Saint Pius X.

That is the pattern. The non-Catholic thing is hosted. The Catholic thing, if it is the old Mass and the old objections, is processed.

On the evening of 28 August 2025, the day after the shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church and School, Hebda led an interfaith service at the Basilica. The Basilica’s own page lists the company: Rabbi Marcia Zimmerman of Temple Israel, Imam Matthew Ramadan of Masjid An-Nur, Episcopal Bishop Craig Loya, Metropolitan Nathanael of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Chicago, and, on the Catholic side, Hebda with Bishops Michael Izen and Kevin Kenney. The Catholic Spirit reported the imam greeting the congregation and citing the Quran: “Whoever kills a soul, unless for justice or for corruption in the land, it is as if they had killed all of humanity.” Father Daniel Griffith, the rector, told reporters the doors were open to “people of faith, people of no faith, agnostic.” Two children, Fletcher Merkel and Harper Moyski, had been killed at Mass the morning before. The archdiocese’s answer was a shared service.

The Eponymous Flower wrote it up on 30 August 2025 under the headline “Minnesota McCarrick, Archbishop Hebda Advocating for Gun Control at Interfaith Mess in Fancy Gay Basilica.” 

The post quotes the line, attributed there to Christopher Hale, that describes the arrangement exactly: a Jewish rabbi who does not believe in the divinity of Christ, a Protestant minister who doubts it, and a Catholic priest who agrees to forget it for an evening. Hebda’s contribution, as that piece records it, was that prayer “doesn’t absolve us” from steps against gun violence, and that prayer is not “a hall pass for political inaction.” The same post sets the old law next to the new courtesy. Canon 33 of the Council of Laodicea: “No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics.” Apostolic Canon 45: a bishop or priest who merely joins in prayer with heretics is to be suspended, and if he has permitted them to perform any service as clergymen, deposed. The 1917 Code forbade Catholics to take part in non-Catholic worship. None of that was cited from the ambo.

The companion piece, posted 28 August, “Minnesota Archbishop’s Mealymouthed Response to Trannycide,” takes the statement Hebda actually issued. “My heart is broken as I think about students, teachers, clergy and parishioners and the horror they witnessed in a church, a place where we should feel safe.” The blog’s complaint is not that he grieved. It is that grief was asked to do the work of a judgment he would not make, and that the public act which followed was the interfaith service rather than a procession or a day of reparation.

The Basilica evening was not the first counter-example. The Eponymous Flower’s Hebda file records the 2 June 2020 walk. Hebda and other Minnesota clergy, Christian and otherwise, went in silence to the place where George Floyd died and prayed at the memorial. His own summary, quoted there from a tweet: “While many faiths were represented, there was great unity as we prayed for justice and peace.” The same file notes him on a platform with Jewish and Muslim leaders calling for refugee admissions, speaking from Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church. Canon 1210 is quoted against the habit: in a sacred place only what serves worship, piety, and religion is to be permitted.

Set the other column beside it. This week Hebda wrote to the people of Saint Michael and Saint Mary in Stillwater that Father Philip Conklin, ordained for the archdiocese in 2024 and parochial vicar there until March, had affiliated with the Society of Saint Pius X and would not end the affiliation. Hebda has opened a canonical process “to clarify the situation and his status,” and has told Conklin he is not to exercise any public priestly ministry. In July he had already said the Society had rejected Pope Leo XIV’s pleas and gone ahead with episcopal consecrations. The Eponymous Flower noted the canon-law scramble at the time: “Canon 844 & Archbishop Hebda Reaches Out to SSPX Friends.”

So the permission and the prohibition are both public. An imam may quote the Quran in the Basilica, and a rabbi may speak from its sanctuary, and the archbishop will stand with them and call it prayer. A priest of the archdiocese may not remain in public ministry if he goes to the Society that still says the Mass Pius X knew. The non-Catholic thing is allowed. The older Catholic thing is not.

AMDG

The 2nd Assassination Attempt

The American Apparition the Vatican Rejected

Stop eating Goyslop!

History of the Black Legion

Are Catholic media too hard on the pope?

Scofield Bible & Darwinism

New Chinese Bishops! Will Rome excommunicate them like the never-to-be sufficiently condemned SSPX or embrace them like Chicoms?

Why is Judaism like that?

Ben Shapiro Attacked Tucker Carlson & Gave Away Israel's Plans

The Protestant "Reformation" was worse than you thought

The Inquisition was awesome!

Malachi Martin on the Medjugorje hoax

The USCCB is coming after your guns

https://www.musingsoverabarrel.com/2025/02/the-patron-of-handgunners-st-gabriel.html

The Jewish Takeover of MAGA?

Judaism before and after Vatican ll

Scottish roots of the KKK

Who Controls Catholic Media?

Brother Nathaniel's Spiritual Odyssey

Twenty-five years ago...

 

The Octopus of Population Control

After rounding up the day's top stories, Richie is joined by the author and broadcaster Charlie Robinson. Charlie came on to discuss his new book - published this week - The Octopus Of Population Control. The book - which took Charlie three years to write - is a deep dive into the origins of eugenics, the key eugenicists and why population control is at the heart of every nefarious agenda. The book is available to order on Amazon right now. 

 https://x.com/macroaggressio3 

 https://www.macroaggressions.io/

The Settlers were right

Jewish influence on modern liturgy

☘️ Was American-born bastard Éamon de Valera's Poblacht na hÉireann a theocracy? 🇮🇪

 The Inquisition, The Crusades, Residential Schools, Magdalene Laundries, etc.,etc.     Do you ever feel the Church is too willing to take it on the chin?  In the Twentieth Century, we were taught to think that Franco's Spain and de Valera's Ireland were both repressive integralist hell holes.  We'll leave el Generalissimo out of the discussion for the time being but Ireland prior to the Celtic Tiger was a little more complicated and liberal than the caricature that only legalized divorce in 1996.

 Sinn Féin today is a globalist friendly left-leaning nationalist party known for being very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.   A Century ago, it climbed in to bed with Zionists to expel the Sasanaigh.

Fr. Denis Fahey became disillusioned during the drafting of the Constitution.  He felt it hadn't gone far enough and he opposed a United Ireland out of fear of it being influenced by Protestant and Masonic attitudes on the other side of the border.   He founded Maria Duce to push for an established church as opposed to just a special one.    Nevertheless, the Republicans (a group led by protestants until the events of 1916 and some famous conversions on death row won Catholic support) had little difficulty getting the rabbis to declare it kosher.

Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog, Irish speaker and Jewish chaplain to the IRA.

When a holy priest revealed his secret

Inside the most secretive society

Why Do Black People Have a High Propensity for Aggression, Loudness & Violence?

MLK: a real dirtbag

The question NASA couldn't answer

— How Catholics Can Survive the Collapse & Rebuild Christendom w/ Brother André Marie --

Who created black culture? (hint: the Joos)

https://youtu.be/lsvthBuAIKo?si=jvxglWMFn1ymwj3r 

 https://youtu.be/lsvthBuAIKo?si=AdoZC1R5Ii0DMtdq 

 https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BqtjerjKK/?mibextid=wwXIfr

EWTN deletes scandalous Fulton Sheen video

Were they afraid it would sink this showboat's canonization?

Ninth Circuit Wants to Shut Down ™️ Catholic Shrines

Yep, them again.

[Fox]  A legal battle over a nearly century-old cross tradition and longstanding Nativity display in the historic heart of Los Angeles could threaten generations of Mexican-American traditions and leave religious monuments across the country vulnerable, an attorney representing local merchants fighting to preserve the displays told Fox News Digital.

"If the cross and nativity were taken down, it would just be the first step in unraveling the vibrant community cultural celebrations, a lot of which have their roots in Mexican-American Catholic history and really decimating this tight-knit community," Andrea Butler, counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the merchants, told Fox News Digital Thursday in an interview.

A cross has stood at the head of Olvera Street since 1929, when the original was raised to celebrate Los Angeles' 148th birthday, while a life-size Nativity is displayed each December as part of the community's traditional Las Posadas celebration.

And these are the ones that are obvious. How many are Marrano? Why all the Mormons?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/la-merchants-fight-save-97-year-old-cross-lawyer-warns-nationwide-stakes

AMDG

Kosher Catholicism Exposed

Hey EMJ: The Nervous disOrdo is imploding!

Are Indians the new Joos?

When Will the COVID-Era Bishops Be Held Accountable?

Were you smart enough to take saline there, Soupy?

 

  https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/when-will-the-covid-era-bishops-be-held-accountable

Maybe this guy should've protected his flock instead of sending their pastors to the nuthouse.

The Progressives Have Lost and They Know It

Napoleon’s Retreat from Russia by Adolf Northen, 1854

By Caminante Wanderer*

One of the most significant historical events of the past century was the collapse of Communism. In 1991 the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Yet the ideology on which Soviet Communism rested had already collapsed in the 1970s under Brezhnev and had definitively sealed that decline under Andropov from 1982 onward. In those years no one still believed in the Soviet paradise—not even the apparatchiks. Nevertheless the machinery continued to run until 1991, directed by a committee of highly aged functionaries who resisted the inevitability of reality. Between the death of legitimacy and the death of the system lay twenty years. That is a historical regularity: systems survive their own legitimacy by roughly fifteen to twenty years. They continue to move like the light of a star that has long since gone out.

Exactly the same thing is happening today with progressivism inside the Church—and, in my view, in the West as a whole. It was an experiment that lasted a shorter time than the Soviet Union, yet it has already failed. We now find ourselves in a kind of Brezhnev phase, waiting for the neo-modernist old men, products of the most unedifying manifestations of the spirit of the Council, to leave the stage. The baby boomers will die in the not-too-distant future, and the light of that extinguished star, the Second Vatican Council, will cease to shine. It will go out and disappear from the horizon of the Church. Of course residues will remain, and their removal will be laborious, yet the light will inevitably be extinguished.

What I am saying here is not a prophecy. “I am no prophet, nor a prophet’s son” (Amos 7:14). I am merely an observer of reality. And the signs of the decline of this system appear to me unmistakable. I wish to name two of them that are easy to recognize.

The first concerns the priesthood. The Catholic Church cannot do without priests. If they disappear or are finally transformed into something else, the Catholic Church itself ceases to exist. Precisely into this danger many bishops have led the Church—and continue to lead it—through the formation they impart in their depleted seminaries. The solution to this tragedy does not consist in building parallel structures. The solution is called hope and patience—two fundamental virtues in times of crisis.

The seminaries are emptying, and the priests are aging in nursing homes because they themselves, as children of this system, refused to be priests. By that I mean that they refused to exercise their munera, their priestly offices. They refused to sanctify, to teach, and to govern. Instead they wanted to be community animators and agents of social change—encouraged in this by the highest ecclesiastical authorities. They despised the dignified celebration of the sacraments and turned them into a cheap and vulgar spectacles. They stopped proclaiming Catholic doctrine and taught sociology instead. They devoted themselves to a dialogue-oriented synodality. They refused to be what they were. Now they are dying—for nature is relentless—and with them their caste dies as well.

What normal young man, whose intellect and whose drives are in balance, would want to give up his life and all the pleasures the world offers in abundance in order to become an insignificant clown—like those boomer priests we encounter daily when they make fools of themselves on social networks? Their days are numbered. The future belongs to the priests who grew up in the new millennium. They have a different view of things and will gradually change the situation—if only for reasons of institutional survival.

Only a few days ago Archbishop Cordileone said: “Young people love tradition, and that is a movement that can no longer be stopped.” This year only 26 priests were ordained in the entire Federal Republic of Germany. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter alone ordained just as many priests in the same year; if one adds the other traditional institutes, the number is significantly higher. And it becomes still substantially higher if one includes those who can be described as “classical.”

Precisely for that reason the outbursts of Cardinal Arthur Roche last week are nothing other than the swan song of a dying system. As the journalist Damian Thompson wrote: “I don’t want to be rude, but he is an old, poisonous toad, bitter that his influence had already begun to wane before the death of Francis.” Reality speaks an all-too-clear language, and they know that reality. Yet like Brezhnev and Andropov they will continue to keep the system artificially alive until death finally carries them off.

We have said that systems survive their legitimacy by fifteen to twenty years. Here I recognize the second sign: the mitred boomers know that they are losing their legitimacy at a rapid pace. That is why they act as they do—at least in Argentina.

A few days ago we pointed out that the bishops are worried. The reason for their worry is the reality that is becoming ever clearer before their eyes. That the Archbishop of Buenos Aires instructed his education department to investigate which priest had celebrated a Mass in Latin at a Catholic school in the city is an unmistakable sign of desperation. It is a measure typical of the Soviet regime when it realized that its narrative was beginning to crack and therefore persecuted Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sinyavsky, or the musicians Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaya—solely because they had given Solzhenitsyn refuge. (The religious sisters who made the Mass possible will no doubt be punished by Archbishop García Cuerva just as the priest who celebrated it will be.)

The regime had lost its inner cohesion. Its narrative was exhausted, its framework was collapsing. Therefore all that remained to it was the violence of decrees and persecutions in order to maintain itself. Exactly that is what the bishops are doing today toward priests and groups of the faithful who resist their modernist narrative: they persecute them with decrees and banishments.

A system that is sure of its legitimacy does not need to issue decrees against priests because they celebrate the Mass in Latin, or against laypeople because they write a blog. These are not signs of strength. They are the reflexes of a body that knows it has lost its legitimacy and that death awaits it.

How else is one to explain that the president of the Argentine Bishops’ Conference—synodal among the synodals—has locked the comments on his X account? Or that the press office of the same institution deletes every critical comment on its Instagram account? Quite simply because they are dominated by the fear that the faithful might realize that they—like the king in Andersen’s fairy tale—are naked.

It is only a matter of patience. It will take time, yet nature is relentless. I myself will probably not live to see the collapse of the progressive system. I shall have to content myself with having fought against it all my life—provided God grants me the grace to be able to do so to the end. But the generation of today’s children will experience it.

Not so very long ago I held a far more apocalyptic view. That was due both to my age and to the authors who formed me—all of them witnesses to the decline of the West. Today I am no longer so certain that we are not free rather standing on the threshold of a new flowering. And in this I do not look forward, as a prophet would—which I am not—but backward.

When after the victory of the Cross in the first centuries that world collapsed under the barbarian invasions and the emerging Europe lay in ruins, two unexpected events changed everything. From the “far West,” as Toynbee called it, missionaries streamed from the small and forgotten island of Ireland onto the continent and rekindled the embers of Christianity—the peregrinatio pro Christo. A little later Charlemagne succeeded in ordering the political and administrative chaos left behind by the invaders.

When the sleepy and sensual Catholicism of the sixteenth century was torn apart by the Reformation, the Council of Trent came onto the scene, which—with all its lights and shadows, like everything human—breathed new life into the Church. And after the devastations of the French Revolution, after its ideas had spread across all of Europe under Napoleon, an unexpected missionary awakening arose. Numerous new religious communities were founded and revived what the revolutionaries had long considered dead.

Why, then, should we assume that it will be different in our time?

*Caminante Wanderer is an Argentine philosopher and blogger.

Translation: Giuseppe Nardi

Image: Wikicommons

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Brother Nathaniel Joins SSPX Resistance

Edit: “and now for my next trick!”

 AMDG

Is the Vatican unfair to trads?

Clash over the Liturgical Question with Progressive Dictats

Edit: it’s a wonder that the manifest arrogance and narrow-mindedness of liturgical vandals like Grillo and the Bologna School, isn’t repaid with indifference or contempt by the laity and the publishing houses that impose their malaise on a captive laity.

By Don Mario Proietti*

As a lover of Korean drama series (K-dramas), I must confess that the controversy surrounding the liturgy has taken on the pace of a multi-season show. First, Cardinal Arthur Roche announced in an interview what Leo XIV would not do, presenting future liturgical discipline as if it were already definitively settled.

Immediately afterward, the liturgist Andrea Grillo spoke up to reinforce this reading. He called on the faithful to go through the "grieving process" for Summorum Pontificum and described the use of the old Missal as carrying a schismatic dynamic.

At this point, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone enters the stage. He does not claim to know the Pope's mind better than his Prefect, but he urges caution and points out the pastoral consequences of the restrictions. He asks whether an overly strict discipline might push some faithful away from full communion with Rome.

Then comes the appearance of Cardinal Cupich, who calls for liturgical controversies not to be conducted too publicly or divisively almost as if the real problem were talking about them, rather than the wound inflicted by the debate itself.

Now Andrea Grillo re-enters the scene. He does not limit himself to defending Roche's position. Rather, he targets Cordileone directly, accusing him of serious theological errors, questioning his professional qualifications, and ultimately even linking his position to the temptation of schism.

The series has apparently been renewed for another season.

The liturgist's new article already bears a revealing title: "A Cordileone Alone Is Not Enough to Preserve Tradition."

The author is not content merely to discuss the Archbishop's reflections. He dismisses them as a collection of platitudes, attributes grave errors to Cordileone, claims he "has not studied enough theology," and goes so far as to declare that his position undermines episcopal authority and exposes him to the temptation of schism.

The Archbishop, by contrast, had expressed himself far more reservedly. In light of the certainty with which Roche had anticipated the Pope's future decisions, he merely remarked that he did not know how precisely the Prefect actually knew the mind of Leo XIV.

He did not claim an unrestricted right to celebrate according to the former Missal. Rather, he posed a pastoral question: Could ongoing restrictions move some faithful to join communities that are not in full unity with Rome?

At the same time, he stated that generous access to the traditional liturgy must go hand in hand with unqualified assent to the Church's teaching and the Second Vatican Council.

This position is not schismatic. It corresponds precisely to the attitude of a shepherd who has the consequences of ecclesial decisions in view. A norm may pursue a certain intention; however, a bishop must also ask what fruits it produces among the people entrusted to his care.

Grillo does the exact opposite. The pastoral question is reinterpreted as a doctrinal error. Concern for the faithful is declared complicity with traditionalism. The risk that some might distance themselves from Rome is interpreted as proof of a schismatic tendency already inherent in their liturgical devotion.

The intellectual framework is constructed in such a way that it cannot be refuted. If the faithful remain silent, the discipline has worked. If they suffer, they are too attached to the past. If they leave diocesan parishes, they prove their inclination toward schism.

Every possible reaction confirms the original diagnosis. When a theory is always right, it has usually stopped perceiving reality.

The weakest point of the article concerns the relationship between the 1962 Missal and the Second Vatican Council.

Grillo claims that it is impossible to accept the Council while desiring that liturgical form, since Sacrosanctum Concilium demanded the reform of the Roman Rite. From this he derives an absolute opposition: either the Council or the former Missal.

Yet Traditionis custodes itself shows that this equation does not hold. The document grants the bishop the authority to authorize the use of the 1962 Missal, while requiring him to ensure that the groups in question do not call into question the validity of the liturgical reform, the teaching of the Council, or the papal Magisterium.

Current ecclesiastical discipline thus explicitly distinguishes between the permitted use of the former Missal and a rejection of the Second Vatican Council. Grillo declares impossible what canon law continues to explicitly provide for.

The same is evident when he describes the traditional rite as clerical, lacking active participation, and suited to turning the faithful into "museum pieces."

However, liturgical participation cannot be reduced to the number of spoken words or external actions. Sacrosanctum Concilium describes it as conscious, active, and fruitful, connecting it to the formation and interior disposition of the faithful. At the same time, the Council decrees that the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites, and calls for the faithful to be able to sing or say in Latin the parts of the Ordinary that pertain to them.

The real problem is not that Grillo has the right to criticize a bishop. A theologian may, of course, do so.

Rather, the problem lies in the disciplinary nature of his criticism. Archbishop Cordileone is not treated as a shepherd raising a question of pastoral prudence. Instead, he is portrayed as pastorally irresponsible, insufficiently trained in theology, and dangerously close to schism.

The resulting message is hard to miss. Anyone who dares to question the pastoral effectiveness of Traditionis custodes risks being categorized outside the bounds of a "proper" understanding of the Council.

The question asked is not answered; instead, the one who asked it is discredited.

Grillo's concluding sentence reveals this mindset with particular clarity: "Whoever loves tradition has no choice."

For an ecclesial culture that speaks incessantly of listening and discernment, that is a remarkable formulation.

Ideology does not accompany reality; rather, it informs reality that it has no alternative. It does not listen to what young people are searching for, but dictates what they ought to be searching for. It does not examine whether a particular discipline actually preserves ecclesial communion, but simply equates communion with its own solution.

Cordileone did something far simpler and, at the same time, far more episcopal. He looked at the faithful, at the danger of losing them, and at the spiritual longing showing itself among the younger generations.

Grillo, on the other hand, looked at his paradigm and scolded the bishop because the facts refused to yield willingly to it.

This clash does not prove that there is a centrally coordinated direction. Rather, it reveals something deeper: a cultural milieu in which various individuals use the same language, defend the same mental framework, and react immediately as soon as an episcopal voice brings the discussion back to its concrete pastoral consequences.

Ideology does not primarily fear opposition. It fears the shepherd who knows his flock.

For real people with their faith and their wounds have the most unpleasant habit of not behaving according to the categories designed for them.

*Don Mario Proietti is a priest of the Congregation of the Missionaries of the Precious Blood (CPPS). He was born on October 22, 1965, and ordained to the priesthood on May 26, 1991. He is the rector at the Abbey of San Felice in Giano della Umbria, where he carries out pastoral work. Since 2025, he has contributed regularly to the Catholic platform UCCR and his blog "Tra cuore e sapienza" ("Between Heart and Wisdom"). His articles primarily deal with ecclesial and theological topics, including liturgy, the priesthood, Church reforms, the Second Vatican Council, as well as questions of pastoral care and Church life.

Translation: Giuseppe Nardi

Image: Corrispondenza Romana

Trans:  Tancred 

AMDG