caseybogs

.

@shiningsweu Leo’s statement is just plain dumb. What if the people you share truth with call it into question? Aquinas would not have written his Summa if he believed that.

Leo XIV is so wrong here! He is miscast as pope. Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, paragraph 25 reads: “I reiterated that the Church ‘does not want to raise the banner of the possession of the truth’, because truth is not a territory to be defended, but a good to be shared.”

@FrStephenImb “Defying Christ’s authority on earth?” See attached link. Vigano tried to meet w/Leo to discuss Francis’ excommunication of him. They strung him along & Leo didn’t even have the courtesy to meet with him. So much for reaching out to sinful, smelly sheep. #google_vignette" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">aldomariavalli.it/2026/03/19/arc…

Publicly excommunicated, formal schismatic Vigano sitting on his earthly throne defying Christ’s authority on earth.

@S_OReilly_USA @VermontCrank It’s not a rationalization. I agree with what you say but there are extenuating circumstances. I guess God plays a game of “Gotcha”. Go to hell for consecrating w/o a mandate but extenuating circumstances or go to hell for taking Leo’s words/example to their logical conclusion.

@caseybogs @VermontCrank Acting in defiance of the explicit will of the sovereign pontiff regarding consecrations without a papal mandate can hardly be said to be for the “good of souls.” Talk about a rationalization.

The SSPX is sick and it ain't coming home to seek healing culturewars.com/news/the-socie…

@S_OReilly_USA @VermontCrank Nice misread of what I am saying. I didn’t say the Church acts a jury. Canon 1752: The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. Please be consistent and defend what’s in those pictures that I attached earlier. Think people will find salvation in things like that?

@caseybogs @VermontCrank Unfortunately for your argument; the Church doesn’t act as a jury in cases such as this. The pope’s decision is what will matter in upholding canon law; not a jury of peers or supposed experts. Papa est supra canones.

@S_OReilly_USA @VermontCrank Well, I guess that’s where you and I differ, and that’s what it boils down to. 12 people on a jury can hear/see the same evidence and either come to a unanimous verdict or end in a hung jury.

@caseybogs @VermontCrank There is no special “state of necessity” that can justify the willful defiance of the Supreme Pontiff when he explicitly opposes your plan for consecrations.

@S_OReilly_USA @VermontCrank They do apply to me AND the SSPX. It’s part of the mountain of evidence that many ignore and deflect with “whataboutism”. SSPX acknowleges that it is a serious matter to consecrate without a mandate, but that there are extenuating circumstances, namely, a state of necessity.

@caseybogs @VermontCrank As an aside, isn’t Leo XIV your pope too? So how can those pics apply more to me than to you?

@VermontCrank The Roman See and pope you would defend are more like Luther.

Martin Luther, "The Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become . . . the very kingdom of sin, death and hell; so that not even the Antichrist, if he were to come, could desire any addition to its wickedness." According to Marcel Lefebvre,

@S_OReilly_USA @VermontCrank No, because the SSPX acknowledges reality.

@caseybogs @VermontCrank This can be flipped back on the SSPX just as easily.

@pluant “10th century.” That’s supposed to downplay this?

Yes, this priest is causing scandal. Be glad you didn’t live in the 10th century. Then you’d really have a chance to see clerical scandals.

@AuditeInsulae @S_OReilly_USA No. Leo has to bring the same attitude to a meeting with the SSPX that he brought to his meeting with the actually schismatic Oriental Orthodox: “I am disarmed of the need to be right, to justify myself by judging others…”

@AuditeInsulae @S_OReilly_USA There has been no word yet from the Catholic side of this dialogue. Until Leo formally abrogates FS, the Copts can print their words in gold and it won’t make a difference. BTW Leo, another dialogue with actual schismatics but you can’t give the time of day to the SSPX?

Another little step in the right direction?

@AuditeInsulae The only word given on the status of the blessings came from the Coptic side. I haven’t yet seen direct words from the Roman See. Curious how this was done two days before the release of MH. Perhaps the Roman See doesn’t want embarrassing questions.

Father James Martin insisting that Fiducia Supplicans “still stands” may itself reveal that Pope Leo XIV is quietly narrowing the Francis era’s most controversial trajectory. Reassurance only becomes necessary when people sense retreat. But beneath the Church’s arguments over sexuality lies a far deeper conflict: not simply about blessings, but about the meaning of the human person itself. What happens to civilisation when the body loses meaning? My latest essay examines: • Pope Leo’s minimalist reading of Fiducia Supplicans • why ambiguity cannot preserve unity indefinitely • the anthropology beneath Catholic sexual ethics • and how pornography, surrogacy, gender ideology, collapsing fertility and the Cass Review are all connected by the same philosophical rupture. The debate is no longer merely moral. It is civilisational. catholicunscripted.com/p/the-anthropo…

@VermontCrank Here’s Pope Leo’s unity:

Some excellent priests are now publicly supporting the SSPX schismatic redux consecrations on the Anniversary of Lefebvre’s illegal consecrations in the name of - get a load of this- unity imanamateurbrainsurgeon.blogspot.com/2026/05/pcilt-…

@FatherNaugle Ok

"No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff."

@pluant (2 of 2) …..the past 60 years, with the last 13 being particularly intense, some people reach a point of just not caring what is issued by the Roman See. I’ll stick to the old paths.

@pluant (1 of 2) After 11 years of Francis and one of Leo, papal documents are going to be a mixed bag. One doesn’t have to be perpetually aggrieved. Leo’s predecessor in name gave us the “poisoned drop” principle in Satis Cognitum. Not saying Leo XIV is a heretic. However, given…..

Another reason for shorter encyclicals: less chance for the perpetually aggrieved to nitpick this or that paragraph that allegedly proves the pope is a heretic because it doesn’t sound exactly like something Pius IX-X-XII wrote…

@CatholicSmark Either keep this tweet with a written retraction of it, or, delete this tweet.

Leo XIII: a uniquely gifted pope who probably wrecked the modern papacy

@FatherNaugle This is a personal moral failure with no instant media. It reflects on his person and scandalized those nearby; no doctrine was undermined or called into question. Today it’s doctrinal with millions affected via mass communication. So yes, state of emergency.

Pope Paul III and his grandsons, 1546. And some people claim there's a "emergency" in 2026!

@lukei4655 I quoted part of your statement that the SSPX “denied” Leo his right to interpret and apply the law. Leo wouldn’t even respond to requests for a meeting. How did the SSPX deny him his right to interpret and apply the law?

@caseybogs Not sure how this affects how law works?

And yet, their actions proclaim two possible positions. By denying the Supreme Lawgiver his right to authentically interpret and apply the law, they act as if the Holy Father is either not free or not the Holy Father. Either position is untenable.

@CatholicSmark Though Chartes is more than just the SSPX, Leo and his Vatican aren’t exactly innocent. Though Leo and Co didn’t stop it, they un-personed (to use 1984 language) the SSPX by removing them from the 2025 Jubilee calendar last September.

I think what's interesting this year is how the pilgrimage is a non-event in discourse. Thousands (tens of thousands) show, but everyone just accepts and expects it to keep doing well. Whereas during the Francis years there was concerted pressure by Rome to kill it.