
CRITICAL CATHOLIC COMMENTARY
in the Twilight of Reason

Mary, Conceived without
Sin,
pray for us who
have recourse to thee
___________________________________________________________________________
Editor’s
note: There are
5,430 Catholic bishops in the world as of this writing on February
15, 2026.
In only two do we hear the voice of the first
Apostles:
Bishop Joseph Strickland and Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
If there are more, we do not hear them ...
A Line in the Sand

Bishop Joseph Strickland
and the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X
the Vindication of Truth and the Perpetuation of Lies
[Bishop Strickland]:
“Every
Texan knows this story:
Long before we knew
about politics, before we knew the arguments, before we knew how to
quibble over details, we were taught something in school that shaped
our bones. At the Alamo, there came a moment when there were no more
letters to send, no reinforcements coming, no negotiations left to
try. The enemy was at the gates. Surrender had been demanded. And
everyone knew what surrender would mean.
So the commander –
William Barrett Travis – gathered his men – not to inspire them, not
to give a pep talk, but to tell them the truth. He drew a line in
the dirt. On one side of that line was safety – at least for the
moment. On the other side was almost certain death. And he said, in
effect: “Choose.” Only one man stepped back. The rest stepped
forward.
That line in the
sand was not drawn to start a rebellion. It was drawn to end
illusions. Crossing it did not guarantee victory – it guaranteed
fidelity. And whether we like it or not, that is where the Church
stands right now.
The Church is in an
emergency. Not an emergency invented by commentators, not a mood
manufactured by social media, not hysteria.
A real emergency –
measured not in feelings, but in facts. An emergency
measured by silence where there must be answers. In tolerance where
there must be correction. In shepherds who refuse to name wolves,
while those who simply want to guard the flock are treated as a
problem.
Let me be very
clear: this is not about personalities. It is not about preferences.
It is not about clinging to the past. It is about survival – not of
an institution, but of the priesthood, the sacraments, and the
Catholic Faith as it has been received, handed down, and guarded for
centuries.
When men who openly
contradict Catholic teaching are tolerated, promoted,
even celebrated – while those who hold fast to tradition are
restricted, sidelined, or ignored – something is upside down.
When confusion is
indulged and fidelity must beg to survive, authority has stopped
doing what authority exists to do.
And there comes a
point when silence itself becomes an answer
When a crisis is
acknowledged, when a plea is made soberly and respectfully, and when
that plea is met with silence, delay becomes a decision. Inaction
becomes a judgment. Refusal to act becomes abdication.
This is not theory.
This is history.
The Church has faced
moments like this before – moments when men were forced to act not
because they wanted confrontation, but because the alternative was
surrendering what had been entrusted to them. That is why the name
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre still provokes such strong reactions. Not
because the moment was comfortable, but because it was clarifying.
No one claims those
decisions were light. No one claims they were painless. But they
were made under the conviction that necessity had arrived,
that waiting longer would mean watching something essential die.
And today, we are
standing in another moment of necessity.
This is not about
one group. It is not about one society. It is not about one bishop,
or one letter, or one unanswered request. It is about a pattern – a
pattern where orthodoxy is treated as dangerous, tradition is
treated as suspect, and fidelity is portrayed as rigidity while
error is praised as pastoral sensitivity.
It is about a moment
when the things the Church once defended without apology must now
justify their existence. When the preservation of the priesthood is
treated as optional. When the formation of priests is obstructed.
When the ordinary means of apostolic continuity are quietly denied.
And at that
point, the line is already being drawn. Not by agitators. Not by
rebels. But by reality itself.
At the Alamo, one
man stepped back. His name was Moses Rose. History does not mock
him. It simply records the choice. That is what lines do. They do
not condemn. They reveal. The line does not create courage or
cowardice. It exposes it.
And the line the
Church faces today is not asking who is angry, who is loud, or who
is popular. It is asking who is willing to remain faithful when
fidelity costs something. Because there are things worse than
defeat. There are things worse than being crushed. There are things
worse than dying.
There is surrender
Our Lord did not
draw His line in sand. He drew it in blood. He stood silent before
Pilate not because truth was unclear, but because truth does not
negotiate with lies. He did not promise safety. He did not promise
comfort. He did not promise success.
He promised the
Cross
And He warned his
disciples plainly what fidelity would cost them.
So when we speak
today about lines being drawn, we are not inventing something
new. We are standing where Christians have always stood, when
obedience to God and submission to confusion finally diverge.
Today, I am asking
who is honest. I am not asking who feels secure. I am asking who is
faithful.
Because the line is
already there
It has been drawn by
silence. It has been drawn by inversion. It has been drawn by the
refusal to act when action is required. And the only question left –
the only honest question – is whether we are willing to cross it.
Not with triumphalism. Not with rebellion. But with fidelity.
The Church survives
by saints
And saints have
always known what to do when the line appears.
And now I am going
to say some things plainly, because the hour for careful phrasing
has passed.
There are people who
will say that naming realities like this is divisive. They are
wrong. What is divisive is tolerating error while punishing
fidelity. What is divisive is demanding silence from those
who believe what the Church has always taught, while applauding
those who contradict her openly. What is divisive is calling
confusion “pastoral,” and clarity “dangerous.”
And we have seen
this pattern long enough now that pretending otherwise is no longer
honest.
There are priests
and bishops who publicly undermine Catholic teaching on marriage, on
sexuality, on the uniqueness of Christ, on the necessity of
repentance – and nothing happens. They are praised for their
“accompaniment.” And we are told this is mercy.
But when
priests want to offer the Mass as it was offered for centuries, when
they want to be formed according to the mind of the Church that
produced saints, when they want bishops so the priesthood itself
does not die out – they are treated as a problem to be managed.
That is not mercy.
That is inversion.
And when this
inversion is brought directly to Rome – calmly, respectfully,
without threats – and the response is silence, we are no longer
dealing with misunderstanding. We are dealing with refusal.
I am speaking here
of the Society of St. Pius X.
They are not asking
for novelty. They are not asking for power. They are asking for
bishops – because without bishops there are no priests, and without
priests there are no sacraments, and without sacraments the Church
does not survive in any meaningful way.
They asked. They
waited. They received no answer that addressed the reality.
And I will say this
plainly: when heresy is tolerated but tradition is strangled,
something has gone terribly wrong. When those who break with
doctrine are welcomed, and those who cling to doctrine are treated
as suspect, authority has turned against its own purpose.
That is not
rebellion speaking. That is fact.
Some will say, “But
you must wait.”
Some will say, “But
you must trust.”
Some will say, “But
you must be patient.”
Patience is a
virtue. But patience does not mean watching the priesthood die
while those responsible refuse to act. Trust is necessary. But trust
does not mean pretending silence is wisdom when it is not. Obedience
is holy. But obedience has never meant cooperating in the erosion
of the Faith.
There is a moment
when continuing to wait becomes a form of surrender.
That moment has
arrived
And I know some
people will recoil when they hear that. They will say this language
is too strong. They will say it unsettles people.
Good
Because a Church
that is never unsettled by truth is already asleep.
Our Lord unsettled
people constantly. He overturned tables. He named hypocrisy. He
warned shepherds who fed themselves instead of the flock. He did not
speak gently to those who distorted the truth while claiming
authority.
And I am not
interested in a peace that is purchased by silence. I am not
interested in unity that requires lying to ourselves. I am not
interested in stability that comes at the price of surrender.
The line has been
drawn
It is being drawn
every time a faithful priest is punished for doing what saints did.
It is being drawn every time error is tolerated because correcting
it would be uncomfortable. It is being drawn every time Rome chooses
silence when clarity is required.
And here is the part
that must be said out loud: lines like this are never drawn by those
who want conflict. They are drawn by reality when authority refuses
to act.
At the Alamo, the
men who crossed the line did not think they would win. They knew
they would likely lose. They crossed because surrender would have
meant denying who they were and what they had been entrusted to
defend.
That is the choice
facing the Church now.
Not between victory
and defeat.
But between fidelity
and surrender.
Between truth and
managed decline.
Between saints and
administrators.
I am not calling for
rebellion. I am calling for honesty. I am not calling for chaos. I
am calling for courage. I am not calling anyone to abandon the
Church. I am calling the Church to remember herself.
Because if we will
not defend the priesthood, if we will not defend the sacraments, if
we will not defend the Faith when it costs something – then we are
already stepping back from the line.
And history will
record that choice too.
The Church does not
need more silence. She does not need more delay. She does not need
more careful statements that say nothing. She needs men who will
stand, speak, and if necessary, suffer – without illusions.
Because the line is
no longer theoretical.
It is here
And each of us –
bishop, priest, layman – is already deciding where we stand.
And now I am going
to stop explaining.
Because there comes
a moment when explanation becomes avoidance, and words become a way
of delaying obedience.
The line is no
longer in history books. It is no longer theoretical. It is no
longer something we debate at conferences or behind closed doors.
It is here
And it is not asking
what position you hold, or how many followers you have, or how
carefully you word your statements. It is asking one thing only:
whether you will stand with the truth when standing costs you
something.
Because this is what
must finally be said without ornament or apology: a Church that will
not defend her priesthood will not survive. A Church that treats
fidelity as dangerous and error as pastoral has already begun to
surrender. A Church that answers emergencies with silence is
choosing decay over courage.
That is not an
insult. That is not a threat. That is a diagnosis. And diagnoses are
meant to wake people up and call people to action.
There is no neutral
ground here. There is no safe middle space where one can quietly
wait and hope someone else acts. Silence itself has become a
position. Delay itself has become a decision.
The line is
drawn every time truth is asked to wait. Every time error is
excused. Every time courage is punished. Every time a shepherd looks
away.
And the most
terrifying thing about moments like this is not that some will
choose wrongly. It is that many will choose quietly – and tell
themselves they chose nothing at all.
History will not
agree with them
Neither will Christ
Because our Lord
does not ask whether we were comfortable. He asks whether we were
faithful. He does not ask whether we preserved our standing. He asks
whether we carried our cross. He does not ask whether we survived.
He asks whether we loved the truth more than our own safety.
So I will end this
where I must.
Not with a strategy.
Not with a program. Not with another conversation.
But with a call to
kneel
If you are listening
to this and your heart is unsettled, do not numb it. If you are
angry, examine why. If you are afraid, admit it. And then pray – not
for the Church to become easier, but for her to become holy again.
Pray for bishops who
will speak even when it costs them everything. Pray for priests who
will remain faithful even when abandoned. Pray for Rome – not that
it will manage this crisis, but that it will answer it.
And pray for
yourself
Because the line is
already there.
And when the noise
stops, and the chairs have finished hitting the floor, and there is
nothing left to hide behind, each of us will have to answer the only
question that matters:
Where were you
standing?
May Almighty God
bless you and keep you, in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”
Bishop Joseph E.
Strickland
February 2026
Bishop Emeritus
Printable PDF Version
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
___________________________________________________________________________
Our Holy
Catholic Faith
Where is it And Who is Keeping it?

Has
the Post-Catholic
Conciliar
Church
Lost Custody of the Faith?
All
indications are that is has ...
The “Dark
Ages” — that disdainful term for the period in history following
the collapse of the Roman Empire in 476 A.D. until the 15th
century (a period correctly described as the Middle Ages) is
understood by the secular world to have lasted roughly 1000 years,
beginning in Florence, Italy.
Within the
post-Catholic Conciliar Church, however, it appears that the term
extends well beyond the 15th century; indeed, some 500 years
beyond it! According to contemporary Catholic thought articulated within
the past five papacies, the “Dark Ages” really ended in 1965 at the
conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. All the doctrines and
teachings prior to that Council were only imperfectly, deficiently,
and insufficiently articulated or defectively understood.
The 1000 Years of
Darkness
Only
the Second Vatican Council finally attained to enlightenment
in the divine economy, and after 1,965 years of suspension, it alone
has provided the final, sufficient, and correct understanding
of God and Church, man and nature. Prior to that, according to post-Conciliar
thought, Catholics had essentially lived in darkness, specifically the
darkness of the “pre-Conciliar Dark Ages.” It may be said that where
the Rational Enlightenment “saved the world from religion,” Vatican
II saved the Church from Catholicism.
This argument
— that God concealed the “real” truth from us for either 1500
years on the one hand (concerning Protestants) or for 2000 years on
other (concerning Vatican II) does not, of course, speak well of God’s
munificence, truth, or goodness — and that it is the very argument
to be brought against Protestants by Catholics, is good to keep in mind.
Why would a good, loving, and truthful God conceal the real nature
of the Church, the Sacraments, and true worship from us for so long?
Pay No Attention
to What You See!
We are told so
many times that what we see is no indication of what is real.
It is true in
two venues: the political landscape, which really of
no interest to us here except as a paradigm of our being told
that what we perceive to be open anarchy in our streets, violent
insurrection by carefully orchestrated Left-wing mobs, and the
stifling of free speech on university campuses where indoctrination
has replaced education ... is really
an organic and benevolent expression of our noblest aspirations and
deepest democratic instincts. We are simply
not socially-enlightened enough (“woke” enough) to see it, you understand.
The other venue,
of course, is the ecclesiastical landscape, specifically
the Vatican, and more specifically the papacies of the Vatican II pontiffs
and the various Dicasteries under them. Within this crumbling landscape
we are told that all the dismantling, removal, renovation, and ultimately
the detritus following Vatican II has resulted in a more beautiful,
vibrant, healthy, and faithful Church, with pews filled at Sunday Masses;
a Church brimming with baptisms, confirmations, marriages, vocations,
ordinations … a chrysalis bursting in a renewal of all things
holy and good! We are simply too “rigid,” too “backward,” not “progressive-enough”
to see it — because we do not “walk in Accompaniment with the Spirit,”
(and “Synodalism”)
we are blind … you must understand.
From Pope Leo’s
perspective — one nurtured on, and in complete alignment with, Bergoglio’s
— “looking back (indietrismo) is useless,”1
and given Francis’s insolent
treatment of those who worship as our forefathers did for 200 centuries,
they are equally useless as well. Traditional Catholics (really, are
there any other kind of Catholics? Were there, before
Vatican II?) are impediments to this progressive
agenda. To use Bergoglio’s infamous (and typically vulgar) words, they are “imbavagliando,”
— “gagging” the Church.2
The aggressively
Modernist agenda set in motion by Vatican II, apparently, is too far
advanced for the possibility of retrenching. It is “useless” to even
entertain the possibility of rapprochement with the Mass of the
Ages and the 2000-year spirituality inseparable from it; a Mass within
which we immediately find sanctity, solemnity, sacrality, holiness,
heavenliness, beauty, spirituality, form, sobriety, chant, mystery,
the choir of angels; in short, all that is egregiously absent
within the bland, mundane, and very worldly Novus Ordo
“Mass of Paul VI.”
What, Exactly, are We
to Understand by “Keeping — and Having Kept — the Catholic
Faith?”
The notions of
Keeping, and having kept, the Catholic Faith can only be
understood as retaining (keeping), and having preserved (kept), the
one true holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith that has been
kept and practiced for the 2000 years prior to Vatican
II — even when the practice of that venerable Faith has been unjustly
deprived through ecclesiastical duress. That unchanging and unchangeable
Faith is kept in the unwavering allegiance to it despite persecution
and even deprivation. It can be physically removed from us, but
it cannot be taken away from us.
Indeed, why do
we keep anything at all? We only keep what we want and value;
what is good and beautiful. Understanding this, we must ask,
is there anything more beautiful this side of Heaven than the Most Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass? … than the Faith bequeathed to us by our fathers,
by the Saints, by the Martyrs — the Faith that has generated the greatest
and most brilliant constellation of saints and martyrs in the history
of the Church?
It cannot
be the case that Faith of the Church for the 2000 years preceding
December 8, 1965 (when the Second Vatican Council was formally concluded)
is no longer the Faith of the Church now — for if the Faith
is different then the Church, which is the embodiment of that Faith,
is different, and if the Church is different, the Church is no more.
This cannot be. Christ promised that this cannot be.
But it can
be said that the teaching of the Church is now vastly
different from the teaching of the Church for the 200 centuries prior
to John XXIII and his five successors, and most especially in what are
presented to us as the “Conciliar” documents of Vatican II, documents
that vastly, even essentially, diverge from centuries
of incontestably authoritative Catholic teaching.
So much so, in
fact, that in its latest iteration under the papacy of Francis, we have
begun to ask in earnest, perhaps for the first time in our lives, “has
the post-Conciliar Catholic Church, or perhaps more accurately, the
“Post-Catholic-Conciliar-Church” — an increasingly different
Church that first emerged from Vatican II and has continued to
diverge from it through every successive papacy until that rupture with
the past has culminated in a Church, together with its hierarchy, largely
lost custody of the Catholic Faith?
Loathsome
Since beginning this article some days ago, some alarming news has begun
to emerge from credible sources that has necessarily changed the tenor
of this discussion, one which, much to our consternation, now
concerns not simply the nature of the custody of the Faith vis-à-vis
the papacy of Francis and the disaffected ecclesiastical apparatus in
the Vatican under him, but concerning nothing less than the integrity*
of the Catholic Faith itself. It has come to our attention that under
the direction of Pope Francis, English Cardinal Arthur Roche, prefect
of the Congregation for Divine Worship, together with other powerful
figures within the Roman Curia are preparing to completely abolish
— for all time — and with no possibility of reclaiming
— what they perceive as the threat posed by the celebration of the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass in Latin — in other words, The Latin Mass, TLM,
as it has been celebrated for 2000 years which must yield
to the Novus Ordo (New Order) “Mass of Paul VI”
exclusively — a Mass now barely half a century (54 years)
in the making … and still in the making. In order to accomplish
this with absolute, clinical exactitude, Leo, Francis & Friends have determined
to stamp out the Latin Mass as something loathsome.
Such fear of something holy! As though the Mass of 2000
years can be shackled and plunged into a dungeon of unfathomable depth,
hidden from sight, concealed as a destructive secret, and made irrecoverable
to memory! How can we begin to imagine such malice in the Church toward
those within the Church; how are we to begin to grasp the Church
promulgating such an evil law and with an iron fist as hateful
as the crushing fist of any petty dictator?
Too
Catholic (for Ecumenism)
The Latin Mass, however, must go: apart from the many contrived and
ultimately superficial reasons for abolishing the Latin Mass, the principal
reason is this: it is an impediment to Ecumenism, the
very corner-stone of Vatican II. This is the real reason
behind the vitriolic, almost pathological animosity exhibited toward
the Latin Mass by the liberal, Modernist Church of Vatican II and its
principal proponent, Jorge Bergoglio: The Latin Mass is not amenable
to non-Catholics; it is … too Catholic, it bears within itself
the history, the memory, the devotion, the filial love of two hundred
centuries of generations of Catholics who cleaved to the Faith through
persecution and hardship and for many, to the point of the shedding
of their blood.
Dwindling participation on the Novus Ordo (Vernacular) Mass,
and an alarming increase in participation in the (Latin) Mass, especially
among young Catholics, appears to be the principal motivation behind
this draconian measure. The belief that Traditional Catholics will become
Vernacular “Paul VI Mass” Catholics by heavy-handed decree; that they
will be forced into this free-form Mass by Procrustean measures, is
nearly delusional. It will not happen. I do not know what will
happen, but I am confident that this fiction will not occur. Schism
may occur. Were this the case, it would appear from several informed
sources that Francis himself would be the formal cause of schism, and
hence the Schismatic. This is not a shocking possibility.
Of course, we
must ponder the question on everyone's mind: the fearful question that
wrenches our gut: where do Traditional Catholics go from here
— should the hammer fall on the Faithful?
Who is To Answer This?
Shall Canon Lawyers
decide this … who are part of the very ecclesiastical apparatus that
is prejudicial against the continued celebration of the Latin Mass?
Even were Canon Lawyers able to answer this (they are not), it
is not theirs to decide, for:
Ecclesiastical law derives its formal authority from the supreme
legislator understood as the reigning Roman Pontiff who,
in his person, “possesses the totality of legislative, executive,
and judicial power.”
In other words,
since there is no superior above the pope,
3
Francis
is exempt from, and not subject to, Canon Law
… and will do as he has ever done: whatever
he wills — which, as a matter of record, has not
always, or even often, been just, or even good.
Leo alone,
then — temporally speaking — will determine where Traditional Catholics
go from here, and given his clear ideological alignment with his
beloved mentor and predecessor, Francis, whose outspoken animosity
toward the Latin Mass was both vitriolic and undisguised, together
with his even greater contempt
for Traditional Catholics, it appears that Leo is prepared to offer us
two options only:
-
Go to the Novus Ordo (New
Order) “Mass of Paul VI.”
-
The second option is intended to
be optimally coercive:
No Mass at all. Essentially, “Attend the Novus
Ordo Mass or leave the Church.”
What crime,
we must ask, have these Catholics committed in continuing to
worship in Latin (that is, until Francis spitefully repealed Summorum Pontificum
through his motu proprio Traditionis Custodes in 2021) as their Catholic
Religion has always worshipped up to a mere 70 years ago? Is this
the crime that will cause them to be expelled from the
Church?
Who
is prepared
to call the Tridentine Mass
— the worship of God
in Latin — a crime?
Is it the case that every other
language is, through the Church, acceptable to God ... except
Latin?
“Aboriginal
Masses”
5 of the most exotic sort,
including dancing with spears, are promoted, much like the
so-called “Charismatic Renewal”,
with its dramatic behavior and unrestrained emotional excess
— but the quiet, recollected prayer of Traditional Catholics is not
only frowned upon, but excoriated as unworthy of “modern day
Catholics” — that is to say, not in keeping with the last 70
years of liturgical abuse and excess ... even if in keeping
with 2000 years of sacred Church liturgy and practice.
What induced this
madness? The answer, I believe, is manifestly evident and
remarkably simple: that ecclesiastical aberration that we
benevolently call “Vatican II” — which has been anything other than
benevolent to the faithful and faithful to Holy Mother Church.
One thing, however, is clear
in this contention between “modernity” and history: “This Missal (the Tridentine Mass), promulgated in Quo Primum
4
(Pope Pius V, 1570):
‘Grant[s]
to all priests of the Latin Rite the right to celebrate the Roman Mass
[of 1570] in perpetuity.”
There is as little equivocation about this word — from the Latin
perpetuitatem: everlasting, unceasing, existing indefinitely,
continuing forever in future time — as there is about the authority
that made it so.
Whether or not matters come
to such a destructive, divisive, and unimaginably ignominious a conclusion
as that envisioned by Leo and his immediate predecessor remains to
be seen, and likely very shortly.
However, given the tutelage of Leo
XIV
under so malformed and despotic a figure as Bergoglio, it appears to
be all but a forgone conclusion.
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
March 6, 2026
Feast of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua
and Felicity
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Printable
PDF Version
_________________________
*
integrity: the quality
or state of being complete, sound, unimpaired or undivided, uncompromised.
1
https://thedialog.org/vatican-news/pope-francis-reminds-u-s-catholics-being-backward-looking-is-useless/
2
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/06/14/pope-francis-traditionalist-gag-243151
3
“The First See is judged by no one” (#1404, The Code
of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, 1983).
4
“We require then that all men, everywhere, shall embrace and observe
the teachings of the sacred and holy Roman Church, mother and mistress
of other churches; and that at no time in the future should Mass be
sung or recited otherwise than according to the manner of the
missal which we have published, in any of the churches of
the provinces of Christendom, of Patriarchal, Cathedral, Collegiate
or parochial status, secular and regular belonging to any kind of order,
monasteries, both of men and women, also the military orders, and churches
without cure of souls or chapels, in which conventual Mass is customarily
celebrated or ought to be celebrated according to the rite of the Roman
Church, either aloud with a choir, or in a low voice.”
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm
5
https://praytellblog.com/index.php/2016/05/09/an-australian-aboriginal-mass/
___________________________________________________________________________
The Most Urgent Question
of Our Time:
“When
the Son of Man Comes, will He Find Faith on Earth?”
(St. Luke 18.8)
No
more stunning,
no more frightening, and perhaps no more ominously portentous
words are spoken in all the Gospels, in fact, in the entire
New Testament — perhaps even in the entirety of Sacred Scripture
itself; words that have become increasingly fraught with
significance with every passing year of the most unfortunate
papacy of Francis — a papacy not just likely … but
I believe with certainty … will be understood not simply
as among the worst … but the worst … the most destructive
to the Faith and to the Church in the annals of 2000 years
of Church history.
Indeed, with every generation following that devastating
Second Vatican Council — that scorched earth assault on
Tradition and historical Catholicism — the question increasingly
verges on an implied and obvious answer.
Indeed, we must wonder if the question that Christ poses
… “When the Son of Man comes will He find Faith on earth?”
… is, in fact, spoken of this generation, or of one soon
— very soon, to come.
As with so many of Christ’s teachings, this troubling question
is too often and too deftly explained away — especially
by the overwhelming number of the liberal theologians and
bishops who have proliferated and multiplied since 1962
— which is to say, by “the learned
and the wise”. If we heed them, it would appear that
either Christ does not know what He is saying, or
we do not know what He is saying — although we all
agree that He said something ... that sounds
suspiciously clear.
We must, however, pay careful attention to these twelve
words, …. perhaps more now than at any
other time in Church history.
“When the Son of Man comes
will He find Faith on earth?”
These are twelve words, however,
to which we must pay careful attention, perhaps more now
than at any other time in Church history.
However reluctant we are to
take Christ at His word — which becomes increasingly inconvenient
to us — we must recognize that Jesus never spoke idly: His
words, His teachings — and yes, His Commandments
— were always uttered to one explicit end: the salvation
of souls — attaining to Heaven and everlasting happiness
and to avoiding Hell and eternal misery.
The Jewish religious authorities
— “the learned” of His own
time — had scornfully dismissed Christ’s warning that not
so much as stone would remain standing in the great Temple
1 ... the
very Temple within which, 70 years later, these words were
fulfilled when Rome laid waste in days what took 46 years
to build.
We tend to view such alarming
statements made by Jesus — and there are many — with the
same scorn and disdain today.
Indeed ... what has become of the “Faith
of our Fathers?”
A mere fifty years ago we
ourselves would have instinctively replied “Of course
He will find faith! There simply must be some deeper,
some obscure and less evident meaning to this that we do
not presently understand — and what He appears to
be saying, He is not really saying at all. Surely
the “learned” of our own day can deftly explain the answer
to this troubling question. In the end, they will conclude,
Jesus is really asking something entirely different from
what He appears to be asking and that it has
nothing to do with our very real defection from the Faith.”
It is likely that many Jews
of Jesus’ time — both the learned and the unlearned — had
replied in much the same way. In fact, they did.
In other words, to us, our
faith, the Faith of the Catholic Church for two millennia,
could no sooner disappear than ... well, the stones of the
great Temple 2000 years ago!
If, however, we take a careful
inventory of our present and undeniably dismal and increasingly
scandalous situation in the Church — especially as it has
unfolded in the last five decades — Jesus does not quite
appear as ... “perplexing” ... as so many apparently make
Him to be.
Candidly
Ask yourself the following:
Has the Faith — the Catholic
Faith — flourished in the last 50 years, or has it
withered?
Are vocations to the Priesthood
and Religious life growing or dwindling?
Are Catholics having more
children or are they having fewer children?
Are Missionary efforts,
to the end of (dare we say it?) “conversion” as mandated
by Christ
encouraged
as intrinsic to Catholicism — or are they discouraged
as impolite, obtrusive, culturally imperialistic and inherently
inimical to the “Ecumenical spirit of Vatican II” — especially
as interpreted by Pope Francis for whom “proselytism is
solemn nonsense,” to use his own words, words that mock
the sacrifices of countless missionary saints through the
2000 years preceding Vatican II’s
“more enlightened”
understanding of the
Great Commission*?
Rather, we find that “conversion”
to Christ and His Church is actively discouraged
— that especially under Pope Francis it is no longer
understood as a holy and inherently necessary endeavor
— instead, it is disdained, even dismissed, as “socially
and culturally incorrect” — indeed, we find that promoting
our Catholic Faith — as Christ has commanded us to—
has been forbidden by Francis and his “progressive”
coterie of feckless and disaffected cardinals and bishops!
What pope, prior to Vatican II, could ever have envisioned
this?
Is our understanding of the
Catholic Church, as an absolutely unique institution
indispensable to the ordinary means of salvation, emphasized
as urgently today (if it is emphasized at all) as it was
a hundred years ago? Fifty years ago? Indeed, is the concept
itself — of the singularity and indispensability of the
Holy Catholic Church — still deemed an actual dogma
and a viable concept at all?
For all our insolence and
equivocation, we know the answers, and we are uncomfortable
with them, for they fly in the face of Christ and all that
He taught — to say nothing of Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition,
and the Sacred Deposit of the Faith entrusted to the Catholic
Church by God Himself.
Indeed, Christ’s question
takes on a greater sense of urgency still, for the sheep
are scattered and confused as never before. The papacy of
Francis has been disastrous for the Church. Why? Precisely
because he has taken Vatican II to its logical conclusion:
the irrelevance of the Church.
Ubi est Pastor?
Where is the Shepherd?
Who is earnestly addressing this spiritual malaise and religious
decay due to the indolence and dereliction of the vast majority
of American and European bishops who appear far more eager
for secular plaudits than the now quaint and discredited
notion of “the salvation of souls.” Pope Francis has effectively
declared this mandate defunct in favor of the rehabilitation
of bodies, societies, economies, and “the environment”.
That the passing material environment of man is infinitely
less important than the eternal abode of his soul,
often appears to elude Francis. Indeed, it appears to elude
most Catholics whose mantra increasingly coincides with
the world’s: Social activism! ... not interior
conversion away from this world ... and to Christ.
Shame! Shame on us!
By our silence, our fear of being disparaged by
“other Catholics” for the sake of Christ, we condone this
travesty — are complicit in it ... even promote it!
What will motivate
us to recognize, and to redress, this frightful and ultimately
deadly state of affairs?
There are, after all, other
contenders in this world for the souls of men ... seen and
unseen! As our own wick smolders, others blaze! The burning
Crescent of Islam, poised like a scimitar, and every bit
as deadly, glows and grows in the east, and with it, not
an ethnic, but a Religious Cleansing
to which the world remains indifferent — an expunging of
every vestige of Christianity in partibus infidelium.
And even Islam has its secular collaborators: the European
Union — once a continent raised up from utter barbarism
to a civilization formed and ennobled by its Catholic heritage
— will no longer tolerate the inclusion of its indissoluble
Christian heritage within its Constitution. Not only does
it thoroughly repudiate its own Christian cultural heritage
— it prohibits it — even banishes it! This
is nothing less than self-loathing. And perhaps it ought
to be.
Surely, then, in our effort
to remedy this impending state of dissolution, we will first
turn to our bishops, since they are, preeminently, the “Teachers
and Guardians of the Faith”. But more often than not — much
more often than not — in the well-appointed office at the
end of the corridor we do not find a shepherd of souls but
a deeply sequestered, occasionally avuncular, and predictably
remote ... “administrator.”
Relegating his prime responsibility
as Teacher and Promoter of the Faith ... to others, in the
form of Lay committees and subcommittees largely “chaired”
by liberal Catholics more concerned with social issues than
the salvation of souls, are we confident that the patrimony
of our faith will somehow percolate through this strata
of already contaminated soil and reach our children authentically
and intact? Is our fear mitigated ... or further exacerbated
... by our bishops’ resolute lack of diligence in being
attentive to what Catholic colleges and theologians in their
own dioceses are really teaching — and who are teaching
the teachers ... who, in turn, are teaching our children?
Do you think that your bishop
actually — that is to say, cognitively — is aware of, or
even concerned with — what the teachers themselves are actually
teaching?
Not in this diocese. Not in
Boston. In fact, the former Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley
had routinely feted, praised, and held up as exemplary,
the clueless “Catechists” who churn out our children to
the Sacrament of Confirmation — with no clue whatever of
that in which they are being confirmed. By comparison, even
the dismal failure of our public schools in Boston must
be deemed a stunning success.
For most of us — especially
in the Archdiocese of Boston, but no less elsewhere — the
answer is, as they say, a “no-brainer:” it is a universally
resounding no. Most of us find, to our growing dismay
and deepening cynicism, that our bishops appear to have
“more important,” more ... “pressing” things to do ... than
to communicate the Faith to the faithful ... especially
the children.
Really, we beg the question:
if no one teaches the teachers — who, then, teaches the
children? If they are not brought the faith by those to
whom it has been entrusted — the bishops, the episcopacy
— who will bring it to them?
Will they — how can they — acquire the Faith ...
if no one brings it to them? Saint Paul is very clear about
this:
“How then shall they call
on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall
they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And
how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how
shall they preach unless they be sent ...?”
(Romans 10.14-15)
Ask yourself candidly: do you know more ... or less ...
of your Catholic faith than your children? Very likely more
— although, in all honesty, it is probably little. You politely
assent to the now quaint Catholic notion that “parents are
the primary teachers of their children,” but knowing little
of your own Faith, you simply shell out $175.00 per child
and pan off this grave responsibility to others of whom
you know nothing, and who themselves largely know nothing
of the faith they presume to teach. You go through the motions
as careless of what your children are taught in their 10
years of “Religious Education” as your bishop is of what
the teachers teach. 10 years later, and $1500 poorer per
child, you scratch your head and wonder why Johnny still
does not know God, and why Judy never goes to Mass — and
yet we have agreed that you know more than your children
...
What, then, we must ask — with growing apprehension — will
your children teach their children ...?
What will they — who know even less than you
— teach those who know nothing?
Total Ignorance
The momentum, as we see, is
inexorable — until it culminates in total ignorance: every
generation knows less of their faith than the generation
preceding it. It is, in the end, the devolution from doctrine
to legend, from legend to fiction, and from fiction to myth.
That is not just a poor, but
a stultifying and ultimately deadly patrimony.
This default — at every level
— in transmitting the authentic Catholic faith intact ...
leaves Jesus’
question very suddenly very real.
“Recently,
a Gallup poll was taken on Catholic
attitudes toward Holy Communion. The
poll showed serious confusion among
Catholics about one of the most basic
beliefs of the Church. Only 30 percent
of those surveyed believe they are actually
receiving the Body and Blood, soul and
divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under
the appearance of bread and wine.”
The problem is more than mathematical;
as we have seen, it is exponential. 70% of Catholics do
not possess this most fundamental, this most essential understanding
of the core article of genuine Catholic doctrine: that
“Unless you eat of the flesh of the
Son of Man, and drink His Blood, you have no life in you.”
Heavy stuff!
It is not just a matter of the greatest concern, but nothing
less than a matter of the gravest dereliction that most
Catholics do not realize — do not know — that the very
Mass itself is an abbreviation of “The Most Holy Sacrifice
of the Mass”, and that it is really a Sacrifice,
the actual re-enactment of Calvary before their very eyes!
This failure of understanding ... culminates in a failure
in Faith. It possesses, in significant ways, the remorseless
characteristics of mathematical certainties. Not understanding,
grasping — having never been taught — the most elementary
features of the faith, how can they be understood to possess
what they have not acquired, and how can they transmit,
pass on, what they do not possess? It is inescapable.
Prognostication, of course,
is for fools.
But the words of Christ are
certainties that will come to pass.
“Weep
not for Me, but for your children,” 5
Christ told the sorrowing
women on the road to Calvary.
Jesus’ question, then —
“When the Son of Man comes will He
find faith on earth?”— is not a “rhetorical
question” at all; it is a question fraught with enormous
significance ... the frightful answer to which appears to
be unfolding before our very eyes ... but that is if you
take Christ at His word — and given Jesus’ track record
on things yet to come, we would do well and wisely to give
pause for more than thought.
Are you worried now ...? Not nearly enough.
And this is all the more frightening still.
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Printable PDF Version
___________________________________________________________________________
Martyrology for Today
Semen est sanguis Christianorum (The
blood of Christians is the seed of the Church) Tertullian,
Apologeticum, 50
2004 Roman Martyrology
by Month
2004 Roman Martyrology

Saturday, March 7th in the Year of Grace 2026
This Day, the Seventh Day of March
Memorial of the holy martyrs Perpetua and Felicity,
who, under the emperor Septimius Severus, were arrested
at Carthage along with other catechumens who were young
adults. Perpetua, a matron about twenty-two years old,
was the mother of an infant still at the breast. Felicity,
a slave, was pregnant and, according to the laws, was
kept alive until she gave birth. Even in the pains of
labor, she rejoiced when exposed to the wild beasts.
From prison to the amphitheater they advanced with cheerful
countenance, as though to heaven.
2. In the same place,
the passion of the holy martyrs Saturus, Saturninus,
Revocatus, and Secundinus; of whom, during the same
raging persecution, the last died in prison, but the
others, having been tormented by various wild beasts,
kissed one another and were all struck down by the sword.
3.
Caesarea in Palestine, the passion of Saint Eubulus,
who was the companion of Saint Hadrian, and two days
after him was torn by lions and slaughtered by the sword.
4.
Cherson, the holy bishops Basil, Eugene,
Agathodorus, Elpidius, Aetherius, Capito, and Ephrem,
martyrs.
5.
In the Thebaid in Egypt, Saint Paul, surnamed the
Simple, disciple of Saint Anthony.
6.
Brescia in Venetia, Saint Gaudiosus, bishop.
7.
In the monastery of Aniane in Septimania, Saint Ardo
Smaragdus, priest, who was a companion of Saint
Benedict of Aniane in monastic life.
8.
Prusa in Bithynia, Saint Paul, bishop, who, for
defending the veneration of sacred images, was expelled
from his homeland and died in exile.
9.
In the monastery of Fossanova of the Cistercian Order
in Latium, the passing of Saint Thomas Aquinas,
whose memorial is celebrated on the 28th
of January.
10.
London in England, blessed Martyrs John Larke and
John Ireland, priests, and German Gardiner,
who, for their fidelity to the Roman Pontiff, were hanged
at Tyburn under King Henry the Eighth.
11.
Florence in Etruria, Saint Teresa Margaret Redi,
virgin, who, having entered the Order of Discalced
Carmelites, walked the arduous path of perfection and
was seized by an untimely death.
12.
Seoul in Korea, Saint John Baptist Nam Chong-sam,
martyr.
13.
the place Sai-Nam-Hte also in Korea, the holy martyrs
Simeon Berneux, bishop, Just Ranfer de Bretenières,
Louis Beaulieu, and Peter Henry Dorie, priests of
the Paris Foreign Missions Society, who, having confidently
answered their persecutors that they had come to Korea
to save souls in the name of Christ, were beheaded.
14.
In the city of Kirov in Russia, blessed Leonid
Fedorov, bishop and martyr, who, exercising the
office of apostolic exarch of the Russian Catholics
of the Byzantine Rite, before a regime hostile to religion,
merited to be a faithful disciple of Christ even unto
death.
__________________________________________________________________
And elsewhere in divers places, many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
Omnes sancti Mártyres, oráte pro nobis.
(“All ye Holy Martyrs, pray for us,” from the Litaniae Sanctorum, the Litany of the Saints)
℟. Thanks be to God.
|
The 1956 edition below, issued during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, is a revision of the typical edition of 1749, which had been promulgated by Pope Benedict XIV remained the foundational text for later updates throughout the 18th–20th centuries up to 2004 — the English translation of which remained the sole source of the Martyrology until the present translation of the 2004 Roman Martyrology by the Boston Catholic Journal in 2025.
|
|
1959 ROMAN MARTYROLOGY

Saturday, March 7th in the Year of Grace 2026
This Day, the Seventh Day of March
In the monastery of Fossanova, near Terracina,
St. Thomas of Aquin, confessor and
doctor, of the Order of Preachers, illustrious by
the nobility of his birth, the sanctity of his life, and
his knowledge of theology. Leo XIII declared him Heavenly
patron of all Catholic schools.
At Tuburbum, in Mauritania (Barbary), in the reign of the
emperor Severus, the birthday of the
Saints Perpetua and Felicitas, whose festival is
kept on the 6th of this month. St. Augustine relates that
Felicitas, being with child, her execution was deferred,
according to the laws, until after her delivery, and whilst
she was in labor she mourned, and when exposed to the beasts,
she rejoiced. With them suffered Revocatus,
Saturninus, and Secundulus. This last died in prison;
all the others were delivered to the beasts.
At Caesarea, in Palestine, the passion
of St. Eubulus, the companion of St. Adrian. Two
days after the latter, being mangled by the lions, and killed
with the sword, he was the last of all those who received
the crown of martyrdom in that city.
At Nicomedia, St. Theophilus, bishop,
who was driven into exile for the worship of holy images,
and there closed his life.
At Pelusium, in Egypt, St. Paul, bishop,
who for the same cause also died an exile.
At Brescia, St. Gaudiosus,
bishop and confessor.
In Thebais, St. Paul, surnamed the
Simple.
And elsewhere in divers places, many other holy martyrs,
confessors, and holy virgins.
Omnes sancti Mártyres, oráte pro nobis. (“All ye Holy Martyrs, pray for us,” from the Litaniae Sanctorum, the Litany of the Saints)
Response: Thanks be to God.
|
___________________________________________________________________________
1959 Roman Martyrology by Month
___________________________________________________________________________
Why the Martyrs Matter
Each
day we bring you a
calendar, a list really, of the holy Martyrs who had suffered
and died for Christ, for His Bride the Church, and for our holy
Catholic Faith; men and women for whom — and well they knew
— their Profession of Faith would cost them their lives.
They could have repudiated all three (Christ, Church, and Catholic
Faith) and kept their lives for a short time longer (even the
lapsi * only postponed their death — and
at so great a cost!)
What would motivate men, women, even children and entire families
to willingly undergo the most evil and painfully devised tortures;
to suffer death rather than denial?
Why did they not renounce their Catholic Faith when the first
flame licked at their feet, after the first eye was plucked
out, or after they were “baptized” in mockery by boiling water
or molten lead poured over their heads? Why did they not flee
to offer incense to the pagan gods since such a ritual concession
would be merely perfunctory, having been done, after all, under
duress, exacted by the compulsion of the state? What is a little
burned incense and a few words uttered without conviction, compared
to your own life and the lives of those you love? Surely God
knows that you are merely placating the state with empty gestures
…
Did they love their wives, husbands, children — their mothers,
fathers and friends less than we do? Did they value their own
lives less? Were they less sensitive to pain than we are? In
a word, what did they possess that we do not?
Nothing. They possessed what we ourselves are given in the Sacrament
of Confirmation — but cleaved to it in far greater measure than
we do: Faith and faithfulness; fortitude and valor, uncompromising
belief in the invincible reality of God, of life eternal in
Him for the faithful, of damnation everlasting apart from Him
for the unfaithful; of the ephemerality of this passing world
and all within it, and lives lived in total accord with that
adamant belief.
We are the Martyrs to come! What made them so will make us
so. What they suffered we will suffer. What they died for, we
will die for. If only we will! For most us, life will be
a bloodless martyrdom, a suffering for Christ, for the sake
of Christ, for the sake of the Church in a thousand ways outside
the arena. The road to Heaven is lined on both sides with Crosses,
and upon the Crosses people, people who suffered unknown to
the world, but known to God. Catholics living in partibus
infidelium, under the scourge of Islam. Loveless marriages.
Injustices on all sides. Poverty. Illness. Old age. Dependency.
They are the cruciform! Those whose lives became Crosses because
they would not flee God, the Church, the call to, the
demand for, holiness in the most ordinary things of life made
extraordinary through the grace of God. The Martyrology we celebrate
each day is just a vignette, a small, immeasurably small, sampling
of the martyrdom that has been the lives of countless men and
women whom Christ and the Angels know, but whom the world does
not know.
“Exemplum enim dedi vobis”, Christ
said to His Apostles: “I have given you an example.” And His
Martyrs give one to us — and that is why the Martyrs matter.
-
A Martyr is
one who suffers tortures and a violent death for
the sake of Christ and the Catholic Faith.
-
A Confessor
is one who confesses Christ publicly in times of persecution
and who suffers torture, or severe punishment by secular
authorities as a consequence. It is a title given only
given to those who suffered for the Faith —
but was not killed for it —
and who had persevered in the Faith until the
end.
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Boston Catholic Journal
Note:
We suggest that you explore our newly edited and revised
“De
SS. Martyrum Cruciatibus — The Torments and Tortures of the
Christian Martyrs”
for an in-depth historical account of the sufferings of the
Martyrs.
____________________________
*
Those early Christians who renounced their Catholic Faith
in times of persecution. When confronted with the prospect
of torture and death if they held fast to their faith in
Christ, they denied Him and their Faith through an act of
sacrificing (often incense) to the pagan Roman gods and
in so doing kept their lives and/or their freedom and property.

Totally
Faithful to the Sacred Deposit of Faith entrusted
to the Holy See in Rome
“Scio
opera tua ... quia modicum habes virtutem, et servasti verbum
Meum, nec non negasti Nomen Meum”
“I
know your works ... that you have but little power, and
yet you have kept My word, and have not denied My Name.”
(Apocalypse 3.8)
Copyright © 2004 - 2026 Boston
Catholic Journal. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise
stated, permission is granted by the Boston Catholic Journal
for the copying and distribution of the articles and audio
files under the following conditions: No additions,
deletions, or changes are to be made to the text or audio
files in any way, and the copies may not be sold for a profit.
In the reproduction, in any format of any image, graphic,
text, or audio file, attribution must be given to the Boston
Catholic Journal.
|
|