To the beloved faithful of the Old Roman Apostolate
Carissimi
As we cross the threshold into Passiontide, the Church, in her maternal wisdom, begins to draw the veil over the face of her suffering Spouse. With the gravity of one who knows the hour is near, she prepares us not merely to recall the Passion of the Lord, but to enter it, to dwell within its mystery, to participate anew in the great drama of redemption. The sacred liturgy, especially in its traditional Roman form, offers not abstract theology but enfleshed truth — truth that speaks in signs and silences, gestures and omissions, in what is said and in what is no longer said.
Among these signs, subtle yet profound, is the shifting place of Psalm 42, Judica me, Deus, a psalm that forms the threshold prayer of the priest in the Mass throughout the year, but which is now deliberately silenced — and then made to reappear, not as the priest’s own private preparation, but as the public proclamation of Christ’s own entry into His Passion. I offer the following meditation to illuminate this sacred gesture and to draw out the spiritual significance it holds for our own participation in the liturgy of these most holy days. May it assist both clergy and faithful to enter more deeply into the mind of the Church, and through her, into the Sacred Heart of the Redeemer.
In the traditional Roman Rite, Passion Sunday inaugurates a profound shift in the spiritual landscape of Lent — a shift not merely seasonal or devotional, but sacrificial and sacerdotal. With the veiling of sacred images, the Church signals her entry into the hidden mystery of the Passion: the Bridegroom begins to withdraw from view, even as He prepares to ascend the mount of offering. This moment is marked with quiet solemnity by a liturgical detail easily overlooked, yet theologically luminous: the relocation of Psalm 42, Judica me, Deus.
Until Passion Sunday, this psalm — “Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy” — forms the heart of the priest’s private preparation at the foot of the altar, as part of the Preparatio ad Missam. From Septuagesima through the Fifth Sunday of Lent, it remains in place. Only on Passion Sunday is it conspicuously omitted — not as a Lenten gesture of penance, but as a Passiontide gesture of mystery. From this Sunday forward, the Judica me disappears from the priest’s prayers and is instead elevated to the public proclamation of the Introit of the Mass1.
This is no mere rubrical curiosity, but a liturgical transfiguration. The voice of the individual priest is quieted, so that the voice of the Eternal High Priest might resound. As the Church sings Judica me at the beginning of the Holy Sacrifice, it is no longer the voice of the minister preparing for Mass; it is the voice of Christ Himself, standing at the threshold of His Passion. “Why hast Thou cast Me off? And why do I go sorrowful, whilst the enemy afflicteth Me?” Here is Gethsemane, prefigured; here is the Cross, foreshadowed. “I will go to the altar of God”: here is the obedience of the Son unto death2.
The traditional liturgy is here doing something profoundly theological: it marks not merely the continuation of Lent, but a new and deeper phase — Passiontide — in which the High Priest begins His liturgical entry into the Holy of Holies. This is emphasized by the Epistle of the day, taken from Hebrews: “Christ being come, an High Priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle… entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption”3. The High Priest is Christ, and the altar is no longer merely the table of offering, but the wood of the Cross. The Mass of Passion Sunday stands at the threshold of this sacrificial ascent.
The relocation of the Judica me from the priest’s lips to the voice of the Church is the liturgical moment in which Christ takes full possession of the rite. The veiled crosses, the hushed tones, the intensification of the readings — all signify that the divine action is now taking centre stage. The priest no longer prays in anticipation of Christ’s action; now, Christ Himself prays in and through the liturgy. Ipse Christus agere incipit — Christ Himself begins to act.
Dom Guéranger notes that Passiontide marks “the solemn opening of the mysteries of the Passion,” in which the liturgy now becomes a direct participation in the redemptive work of the Savior4. The silence of the psalm at the foot of the altar becomes its proclamation at the head of the Church: the Lamb is stepping forward, and He does not go unwillingly. “I will go to the altar of God” — not the golden altar of the Temple, but the rough wood of Golgotha.
That the modern rites have suppressed this liturgical choreography altogether — omitting Psalm 42 from the New Mass entirely — is emblematic of a broader loss. The faithful are no longer mystagogically led into the mystery; they are instead given plain speech and procedural efficiency. But the traditional Roman Rite, in its very structure, teaches us how to perceive the hidden Christ — veiled, suffering, yet sovereign.
The Judica me is no longer the priest’s threshold prayer, because the liturgy itself has now become the threshold of the Passion. The Eternal High Priest goes to the altar, and we go with Him.
Let us, then, beloved in Christ, heed the wisdom of the Church, who veils her sanctuaries not out of despair, but out of reverence; who silences certain prayers not to impoverish the liturgy, but to make room for the voice of the High Priest Himself. In a time when so much of the sacred has been obscured not by veils but by neglect, not by reverent silence but by liturgical reductionism, we must redouble our fidelity to the tradition that nourished the saints and formed the martyrs. The sacred liturgy in its ancient form is not a relic of the past, but the living voice of Christ, speaking now as ever, in signs that are clear to the eyes of faith.
As we accompany our Lord toward His altar — which is His Cross, and through it, the heavenly sanctuary — may we learn to make our own the words of the Psalm: Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam. And may we never forget that in the Mass, above all in this solemn season, Christ Himself is the One who ascends — and we, if we are united to Him, ascend with Him, through suffering, into glory.
May the sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, who stood at the foot of the true altar, obtain for us the grace to remain faithful unto the end.
In Christo sacerdote et hostia,
I.X.
Brichtelmestunensis Dominica de Passione MMXXV A.D.
Oremus
Quǽsumus, omnípotens Deus, famíliam tuam propítius réspice: ut, te largiénte, regátur in córpore; et, te servánte, custodiátur in mente. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum, Fílium tuum: qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. R. Amen
Look graciously upon Your household, almighty God, we beseech You, that by Your grace we may be governed in body, and by Your protection safeguarded in mind. Through Jesus Christ, thy Son our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. R. Amen.
Missale Romanum (1962), Ordo Missae and Dominica de Passione, Introitus. See also Rubricae Generales, Tit. IV, §1: “A Dominica Passionis usque ad Sabbatum Sanctum inclusive, in principio Missae non dicitur Psalmus Judica me Deus.” ↩︎
Psalm 42:4: Et introibo ad altare Dei: ad Deum qui lætificat juventutem meam. In patristic tradition, this verse is interpreted Christologically, especially by Cassiodorus and the Fathers of Gaul. ↩︎
Hebrews 9:11–12, Epistle of Passion Sunday in the traditional Roman Missal. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 22, a. 2: “Christus fuit sacerdos secundum quod humanam naturam assumpsit.” ↩︎
Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 6: Passiontide and Holy Week (tr. Dom Laurence Shepherd), p. 87: “The holy Church begins, today, a new period, in her liturgical year. It is called Passiontide. This morning, the badge of mourning appeared on all the sacred images in her temples.” ↩︎
Please note that all material on this website is the Intellectual Property (IP) of His Grace, the Titular Archbishop of Selsey and protected by Copyright and Intellectual Property laws of the United Kingdom, United States and International law. Reproduction and distribution without written authorisation of the owner is prohibited.
A Pastoral Epistle on the Sanctity of Life in the Face of the End of Life Bill
To the Faithful of Christ, dear brothers and sisters in the Lord,
Grace, mercy, and peace be with you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
In these critical times, we address you with pastoral concern and apostolic conviction. On April 25, 2025, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is scheduled for further debate and voting in the House of Commons. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the bill, has confirmed this date and emphasized the importance of proceeding without delay.
As shepherds of souls and witnesses to the Gospel of life, we cannot remain silent in the face of legislation that seeks to legalize the deliberate ending of innocent human life. The implications of this bill—however framed in terms of compassion and autonomy—are profound and call for clear teaching, faithful resistance, and fervent prayer.
Life Is Not Ours to End The proposed bill seeks to permit adults with mental capacity, diagnosed with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or less, to request medical assistance to die. Such an act, regardless of intention, constitutes the moral equivalent of suicide, and the cooperation of others in that act is euthanasia. The Church has consistently condemned both.
From the earliest centuries, the Christian tradition has held that life is a gift entrusted to us by God, not a possession to be disposed of at will. “You are not your own; you were bought at a price” (1 Cor 6:19–20). St. Augustine taught with clarity: “He who knows it is unlawful to kill himself may nevertheless do so if he is ordered by Him whose commands we may not neglect.”¹ His words underscore that life and death are under divine sovereignty.
The Cross Is Not a Curse The suffering of terminal illness is real. It can be frightening, painful, and isolating. But Christ has gone before us. The Cross was not a failure; it was the place of redemption. Those who endure suffering in union with Christ participate in His saving Passion.
The Roman Catechism, issued by the Council of Trent, teaches us that suffering borne patiently is pleasing to God and a source of grace: “The other part of this Commandment is mandatory, commanding us to cherish sentiments of charity, concord, and friendship towards our enemies, to have peace with all men, and finally, to endure with patience every inconvenience which the unjust aggression of others may inflict.”² To propose death as a solution to suffering is not only a false mercy; it is a rejection of the redemptive value of suffering, which has always been part of Christian witness.
The Role of the Physician and the Meaning of Care This bill also distorts the very vocation of the physician. Traditionally, doctors have sworn the Hippocratic Oath, promising never to administer poison, even when requested. The Church has consistently upheld this moral boundary. Pope Pius XII taught that while one may accept palliative means to alleviate pain, “It is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness in order to eliminate suffering if this renders impossible a final act of love for God.”³
In his 1954 address to the World Medical Association, Pius XII emphasized the natural moral law, affirming that euthanasia has been officially condemned.⁴
The Slippery Slope and the Silence of Society Advocates of assisted suicide often claim strict limitations. But once society concedes that it is lawful to end life to alleviate suffering, the logic inevitably widens. We have seen this in nations where euthanasia was introduced with similar promises—only to expand later to include psychological distress, non-terminal illness, and even minors. St. Thomas Aquinas warned that the toleration of lesser evils often paves the way for greater ones: “Human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices.”⁵
Moreover, such laws erode the fabric of society. They suggest to the aged and the vulnerable that their lives are a burden. But as Pope Pius XI taught in Casti Connubii, life is sacred “not only in its beginning and development but also in its natural termination.”⁶ We must build a civilization of charity where no one is abandoned, and where each soul is cherished until God Himself calls them home.
Our Christian Witness and Duty Dear faithful, this is not merely a civil matter. It is a spiritual trial. In times like these, we are called to be salt and light, to give public testimony to the Gospel of life.
We urge you:
Pray earnestly for our legislators, doctors, and those approaching death.
Write respectfully to your Members of Parliament, urging them to reject this bill and protect the most vulnerable.
Visit the sick and elderly, accompany the dying, and support Catholic hospice initiatives.
Instruct the young in the sacredness of life, and the nobility of offering suffering to God.
St. John Chrysostom wrote: “The one who honors the sick honors Christ Himself.” Let this be our response to a culture that tempts the suffering to despair: to meet them not with poison, but with prayer; not with death, but with love.
Conclusion: Choose Life We must remind our fellow citizens and lawmakers of the ancient words of Moses: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live” (Deut 30:19). Let no Christian be found among those who choose otherwise.
May Our Lady, Health of the Sick, and St. Joseph, Patron of the Dying, intercede for us all. And may Christ our King, who conquered death by His own death, fill you with courage, fidelity, and peace.
May Our Lady, Comfort of the Afflicted, intercede for us.
Yours in Christ,
S. Isidori Episcopi Confessoris et Ecclesiæ Doctoris Brichtelmestunensis MMXXV
Footnotes ¹ St. Augustine, City of God, Book I, Chapter 26. ² Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III, The Fifth Commandment. ³ Pius XII, Address to Catholic Physicians and Anesthesiologists, November 24, 1957. ⁴ Pius XII, Address to the World Medical Association, September 30, 1954. ⁵ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I–II, q.96, a.2. ⁶ Pius XI, Casti Connubii, §64.
How to Contact Your MP Before the Assisted Dying Vote
Practical Guidance for Faithful Citizens
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is due for parliamentary debate and vote on April 25, 2025. Now is the time for faithful Catholics to speak out—clearly, charitably, and urgently. Here’s how to contact your MP effectively:
Email is fastest. Most MPs can be reached at: firstname.lastname.mp@parliament.uk (e.g., jane.doe.mp@parliament.uk)
Write a Letter if you prefer a physical approach. Address it to: [MP’s Name] House of Commons London SW1A 0AA
Call the Constituency Office or attend a local surgery (drop-in meeting). Times are usually listed on the MP’s official site.
3. Keep It Short and Personal
Start by stating you’re a constituent (i.e., you live in their area). MPs prioritize messages from their own voters.
Use your own words—this carries more weight than a form letter.
Share why you personally oppose assisted suicide. You might mention:
The sanctity of life and Christian teaching.
Concerns about the pressure this may place on the elderly, disabled, or those with mental health struggles.
The role of true palliative care as a compassionate alternative.
Fears of “mission creep” from other countries where similar laws have expanded.
4. Be Respectful and Clear
You don’t need to be a policy expert. Speak sincerely, and end by asking them to vote against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on April 25.
5. Follow Up
A short thank-you or reply if they respond can build trust—even if they disagree. If they express support for the bill, clarify your concerns respectfully and encourage them to reconsider.
Your voice matters. MPs often cite messages from constituents when making their decisions. As faithful citizens, let us not be silent when the vulnerable are at risk. As St. Paul reminds us, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21).
For further moral guidance and resources, see the Anscombe Bioethics Centre at bioethics.org.uk.
Would you like a printable or shareable version for parish bulletins or chapel noticeboards?
To the beloved faithful of the Old Roman Apostolate
Carissimi
On this great feast of St. Joseph, the Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Guardian of the Redeemer, the Church presents to us the most perfect model of true fatherhood, so necessary in these troubled times. At the root of much of the disorder in our world today is the crisis of fatherhood, a crisis that has left countless homes, communities, and even the Church itself weakened and vulnerable.
Our age suffers from a profound corruption of masculinity, with the true vocation of manhood and fatherhood being either distorted or denied entirely. On one side, we see the rise of a toxic machismo, promoted by worldly figures who glorify aggression, power, and self-indulgence, treating fatherhood as a means of dominance rather than a call to service. This counterfeit masculinity appeals to frustrated young men, offering them an image of strength that is, in truth, nothing but slavery to their own passions¹.
On the other side, we see the feminist distortion of patriarchy, a vision that portrays all fatherly authority as oppressive, all masculine strength as abusive, and all headship as a relic of a past best left behind². This ideology has so permeated modern culture that many men fear their own vocation, hesitating to lead their families, hesitant to take responsibility, and uncertain whether they should even assert themselves in the world. The result is an entire generation emasculated and passive, unwilling to act, unwilling to protect, and unwilling to embrace the burdens that true fatherhood requires³.
Caught between these two extremes—the arrogance of false machismo and the weakness of modern emasculation—the men of our age are left with no true guide. But St. Joseph stands before us as the alternative, the true model of fatherhood that the world so desperately needs.
The Fatherhood of St. Joseph: A Model for Our Time
St. Joseph was neither a tyrant nor a weakling. He was neither obsessed with power nor afraid to lead. He was neither a man ruled by his passions nor one who shrank from his responsibilities. Instead, he exemplified a fatherhood that is ordered toward God, lived in sacrificial love, and exercised with humility, strength, and obedience⁴.
He was entrusted with the greatest responsibility given to any man—to guard and protect the Holy Family, to lead Our Lady in purity, and to raise the Son of God in righteousness. He did not rule his household with harshness, but neither did he abandon his role. His strength lay in his self-mastery, his authority was exercised in service, and his leadership was not for his own sake but for the glory of God and the salvation of those entrusted to him⁵.
Fathers today must look to St. Joseph if they wish to restore their dignity and reclaim their sacred mission. The world desperately needs men who will take up the mantle of true fatherhood—men who will embrace their responsibilities with courage, discipline, and faith. The time for hesitation has passed; the time for action is now.
To Fathers and Husbands: The Sacred Duty of Leadership
Fathers and husbands, you are called to a divine mission. Your role in the home is not a mere social construct, nor is it a position of privilege for personal gain. Rather, it is a sacred duty entrusted to you by Almighty God, modeled after St. Joseph, who was given authority not for his own benefit, but to guard, guide, and sanctify the Holy Family. The same charge is now laid upon you: to lead your families in faith, prayer, and discipline, so that they may be brought safely to the gates of heaven.
The world has lost its understanding of fatherhood because men have abandoned their duty. Too often, fathers are either tyrants or cowards—either lording their authority over their family without love, or shirking their responsibility entirely, leaving their wife and children vulnerable to the dangers of the world. Neither of these is the way of St. Joseph. He did not dominate Our Lady, nor did he retreat from his role. Instead, he led with humility and quiet strength, accepting the immense burden of protecting, providing for, and sanctifying the Virgin Mother and the Christ Child.
Your headship is spiritual, not merely material. You are not just a provider of financial stability, though this too is an important duty⁶. You are above all the spiritual head of your home, the one upon whom God has placed the responsibility of leading souls to Him⁷. This means that you must be the first in faith, the first in prayer, and the first in sacrifice. You cannot expect your wife and children to love God if you do not show them by your own example⁸.
Be the first to rise for Mass. Ensure that your family attends Holy Mass faithfully⁹. It should not be your wife who drags the family to church while you remain indifferent or absent. As a father, you must be the leader in worship, teaching your family that nothing is more important than their duty to God.
Be the first to teach your children the faith. Too many fathers leave the instruction of their children entirely to their wives, or worse, to the schools and society. Yet God has given you this duty¹⁰. It is not enough to assume that religious instruction is happening elsewhere—you must be the one to ensure it¹¹. Catechize your children. Read the Scriptures with them. Teach them the lives of the saints. Pray the Rosary together as a family. Let your home be a domestic church, where your children see in you a model of unwavering faith and piety¹².
Be the first to demonstrate self-sacrifice. St. Joseph worked tirelessly to provide for the Holy Family, enduring hardship and exile without complaint¹³. So too must you embrace the burdens of fatherhood with fortitude and patience. You must be willing to deny yourself for the good of your family. This means sacrificing worldly distractions and vanities—your comfort, your time, even your career ambitions—when they conflict with the spiritual welfare of your wife and children¹⁴. It means setting aside pride and selfish desires to lead with humility¹⁵. It means protecting your home from the corrupting influences of the world, even when this requires difficult decisions¹⁶.
Your authority as the head of the family comes from God Himself, and it is not to be taken lightly¹⁷. The world tells men that authority is about control or personal dominance, but this is a lie. Authority in the Christian sense means responsibility before God¹⁸. You are entrusted with souls—the souls of your wife and children, whom you must lead to heaven. You will be judged not by the wealth you acquire, nor by the success of your career, nor by the comforts you provide, but by whether or not you have sanctified those under your care¹⁹.
“For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church” (Ephesians 5:23). Just as Our Lord laid down His life for the Church, so too must a husband be willing to lay down his life—not only in martyrdom but in daily sacrifice—for his wife and children²⁰. To neglect this duty is a grave sin, for Scripture warns: “If any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel” (1 Timothy 5:8)²¹.
The role of fatherhood is not optional, nor is it a matter of personal preference. It is a divine vocation, and you will be held accountable before God for how you have exercised it²². On the day of judgment, Christ will ask you: “Where are the souls I entrusted to you?” Woe to the father who has neglected them! Woe to the man who has abandoned his post!
Do not fail in this duty. Seek the intercession of St. Joseph, who will strengthen you to be the father and husband God has called you to be. Stand firm against the lies of the world. Do not be swayed by the voices that tell you to be passive, or to abdicate your authority, or to let others raise your children for you. Take up your cross, lead your family, and be the father they need—for their salvation, and for your own.
To Priests and Bishops: The Sacred Responsibility of Spiritual Fatherhood
Priests and bishops, you are called to be spiritual fathers, shepherds of souls, and protectors of the Mystical Body of Christ. Your fatherhood is not symbolic, nor is it merely a title—it is a true paternity, one that mirrors the fatherhood of God Himself. It is through your hands that men receive the sacraments of salvation, through your voice that the Gospel is preached, and through your fidelity that the Church is safeguarded from error. Yet in our time, this fatherhood has been gravely compromised. The crisis in the Church today is, in large part, a crisis of weak and compromised shepherds—men who have abandoned their duty, neglected their flock, and in some cases, even turned into wolves themselves.
A father who fails to discipline his household allows it to fall into ruin. A priest or bishop who refuses to teach the truth, uphold doctrine, and correct error permits his flock to be devoured by the enemy. But even worse than negligence is betrayal—the grievous wound inflicted by those who abuse their spiritual authority, scandalizing the faithful and leading souls away from Christ.
The Clergy Abuse Crisis: A Perversion of Spiritual Fatherhood
The great shame of our age is the scandal of clerical abuse, a betrayal so deep that it has caused countless souls to fall into despair and disbelief. What greater perversion of spiritual fatherhood could there be than for a priest, who stands in persona Christi, to abuse the very souls entrusted to his care? Just as the sins of a natural father can wound a child for life, so too does the abuse—whether sexual, emotional, or spiritual—by a priest or bishop inflict incalculable damage upon the Mystical Body of Christ.
Our Lord Himself reserved His strongest condemnations for those who lead His little ones astray: “Whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea” (Mark 9:41).
It is not only the abusers who bear guilt, but also those who covered up their crimes, excused their actions, or failed to remove them from ministry. A bishop who protects a criminal in clerical garb does not act as a father but as a hireling, one who sees the wolf coming and does nothing. He allows his flock to be devoured, fearing for his own reputation rather than the souls entrusted to him²³.
The faithful, understandably, have grown wary of trusting their shepherds. Many have abandoned the Church altogether, believing that all priests are corrupt. This is one of the greatest triumphs of Satan—that the sins of a few have led to the widespread loss of faith in the priesthood itself. It is no longer enough for good priests to simply say, “I am not like them.”Every priest and bishop must actively work to restore trust, transparency, and holiness to the Church.
Be True Fathers, Not Mere Administrators
Too many bishops today govern the Church as bureaucrats rather than fathers. They prioritize public relations over truth, compromise over clarity, and diplomacy over doctrine. Their sermons are filled with vague platitudes, never daring to rebuke sin, lest they offend. But a true father does not hesitate to correct his children, even when it is painful. St. Paul warns: “Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2).
The faithful are starving for real spiritual fathers, for shepherds who will defend the truth without fear. They do not need more managers who treat the Church like a corporation. They do not need more public figures who speak only when it is politically safe. They need strong men of God, who will preach Christ crucified, even if it costs them their reputation, their comfort, or their very lives.
Do not allow the wolves to scatter Christ’s sheep. Do not be silent in the face of heresy. Do not turn away from the corruption within the Church out of fear of scandal. True scandal comes not from exposing evil, but from allowing it to fester unchecked. St. Joseph, as the Protector of the Church, would never have tolerated the abuse of the innocent. He would never have remained silent while sin destroyed the purity of his household. Neither must you²⁴.
Standing Firm Like St. Joseph
St. Joseph was given the most sacred charge imaginable: to protect the Son of God and His Most Holy Mother. He was not a talkative man, nor a political figure, nor a man of great influence. But he was obedient, he was faithful, and he was unyielding in the face of danger. When Herod sought to destroy the Christ Child, Joseph did not hesitate—he rose in the night and fled to Egypt, carrying Jesus and Mary to safety (Matthew 2:13-14).
This is the model for every priest and bishop today. The world is waging war against Christ, against His Church, against purity, and against truth. The faithful are under attack. Souls are in danger. And yet, too many shepherds hesitate—they wait, they delay, they compromise, while the wolves tear apart their flock.
You must stand firm, as St. Joseph did. You must protect the innocent, as St. Joseph did. You must lead with strength and humility, as St. Joseph did. Your fatherhood is not a career—it is a vocation to spiritual battle, and the battlefield is the souls of those entrusted to you.
When you stand before Christ on the day of judgment, He will ask you: “Where are the souls I entrusted to your care?” What will your answer be?
Will you be able to say, “I defended them with my life, I fed them with Your Word, I sanctified them through the sacraments”?
Or will you be forced to confess, “I let them stray, I was silent when I should have spoken, I feared the world more than I feared You”?
Conclusion: Restore the Fatherhood of the Priesthood
The restoration of the Church will not come from committees or programs, nor from clever marketing strategies or ecumenical dialogues. It will come from holy fathers—priests and bishops who, like St. Joseph, protect the flock without fear, without compromise, and without hesitation.
Be true fathers to your people. Be guardians of the sacred. Be warriors for the truth.
And if you have failed in this duty—repent. Turn back to Christ. Reform your life. Defend your flock before it is too late.
To Young Men Preparing for Their Vocation: The Discipline of True Manhood
Young men, you are being formed in a time of great deception. The world offers you false models of masculinity—on one side, the lie that strength is found in aggression, dominance, and selfish ambition; on the other, the equally destructive lie that virtue is found in passivity, submission, and weakness. But both are distortions, for true manhood does not lie in brute force or in timid compliance, but in self-mastery, self-discipline, and self-sacrificial service.
The men of past generations, even in times of hardship and war, understood that virtue is forged through trial, that greatness comes only through suffering. But today, men are trained to seek comfort above all things. They are told that hardship is something to be avoided, that failure is something to be excused, and that responsibility is something to be feared²⁵. This has created a generation of men who refuse to persevere in anything—who abandon their purpose at the first sign of difficulty, who indulge in their emotions rather than conquer them, and who shrink from leadership rather than embrace it²⁶. This is not the way of Christ, nor is it the way of St. Joseph.
If you wish to become a true man, a man prepared for whatever vocation God calls you to, then you must begin with the conquest of yourself. You must master your body, your mind, and your soul²⁷. You must train yourself in the virtues that make a man strong—not in the worldly sense of dominance, but in the true sense of a man who is unmoved by passion, undeterred by difficulty, and unshaken by fear²⁸.
Self-Mastery: The Foundation of Strength
Self-mastery is the first and most essential virtue of manhood. A man who cannot control himself—his desires, his emotions, his impulses—is not free, but a slave²⁹. He is a slave to his passions, a slave to his fears, a slave to the opinions of others. He is ruled not by reason, nor by the law of God, but by his own undisciplined nature³⁰.
The world will tell you that “following your feelings” is natural, even good. It will tell you that your anger, lust, sadness, and laziness should be indulged, that you must not “suppress” your emotions. But the saints teach otherwise. They teach that a man must govern himself, that he must be the master, not the servant, of his emotions³¹. A man who follows his passions rather than leading them is like a city without walls—defenseless, vulnerable to every attack (Proverbs 25:28).
St. Joseph is the perfect model of self-mastery. He was a man of great responsibility, but he never let his emotions control him. When he discovered that Mary was with child, he did not act rashly. He did not let anger, fear, or sorrow consume him. Instead, he acted with prudence and obedience to God, waiting for divine guidance before making a decision (Matthew 1:19-21)³². This is what it means to be a man—not to be ruled by feelings, but to act according to reason and faith.
Self-Reliance: The Discipline of Responsibility
A man cannot lead others if he cannot stand on his own feet. The world today is full of men who cannot take responsibility for themselves, who are constantly dependent on others to solve their problems, to make their decisions, and to carry their burdens. But true manhood demands self-reliance, the ability to work, to endure, to build, and to persevere without constantly seeking comfort or escape.
This does not mean rejecting legitimate help from others—no man is an island—but it does mean rejecting the entitlement mentality that so many men have today³³. How many young men drift through life, waiting for someone to tell them what to do? How many refuse to make sacrifices, waiting for others to provide for them? This is not the way of a Catholic man³⁴. You are called to bear burdens, not to seek escape from them.
St. Joseph was a man of labor. He did not sit idly by and expect others to care for him. He worked. He built. He provided. He took responsibility. And he did so without complaint, without expecting recognition, and without seeking an easy way out³⁵. The world needs more men like this—men who will take responsibility for their lives, their families, and their vocations, rather than making excuses for their failures.
Self-Discipline: The Key to Perseverance
A man who cannot discipline himself will never persevere³⁶. He will start a task but never finish it. He will begin his prayers but grow bored and abandon them. He will set goals but give up when they become difficult. This is the mark of a weak man—one who is ruled by his own laziness rather than by a will trained in fortitude.
You must learn to discipline your body, your mind, and your soul. This means waking up early, working hard, controlling your appetites, fasting, praying, and practicing obedience even when it is difficult. Do not let yourself be ruled by comfort or pleasure³⁷. Do not let yourself be softened by the ease of the modern world. Train yourself in hardship, for life will demand it of you.
Scripture teaches: “Every one that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from all things” (1 Corinthians 9:25)³⁸. No great man has ever been made by indulging in luxury and comfort. Every saint, every soldier, every hero of the faith has become great through sacrifice, perseverance, and self-denial.
Conclusion: Become the Man God Created You to Be
The world needs strong, virtuous men. Your future wife, your future children, your future parishioners—they need you to become a man of faith, discipline, and self-mastery.
Do not waste your youth in weakness and distraction. Do not become a slave to your passions. Do not let comfort, emotion, or fear prevent you from becoming the man God intends you to be.
Train yourself now. Build your character now. Become a man of self-mastery, self-reliance, and self-discipline now. Then, when your time comes to serve, to lead, and to protect, you will be ready.
Conclusion: The Restoration of Fatherhood Begins Now
The crisis of our age is, at its root, a crisis of fatherhood. The disorder in families, the corruption within the Church, and the moral collapse of society all stem from the failure of men to embrace their God-given responsibilities. But no crisis is without a solution, and no battle is lost while the faithful still fight. The world is waiting for men to stand up once more—not as tyrants, nor as passive bystanders, but as true fathers, protectors, and guides.
Each of you—whether as a father in the home, a priest at the altar, or a young man preparing for his vocation—has been called to a mission greater than yourself. The time for excuses is over. You must become what God created you to be, regardless of the cost. No man is born a father; he becomes one through sacrifice, perseverance, and grace. You will not find strength in the empty promises of the world, but only by rooting yourself in Christ, submitting to divine authority, and living a life of discipline and virtue.
The restoration of fatherhood will not come through mere discussion or sentimentality. It must be lived. Fathers must lead their families in holiness. Priests must teach with clarity and govern with courage. Young men must embrace the discipline required to become strong, virtuous leaders. The work begins today, in the small decisions that shape your soul, in the daily sacrifices that form your character, in the quiet perseverance that makes a man worthy of the title “father.”
The enemy has spent decades undermining true manhood, knowing that the destruction of fatherhood leads to the collapse of all order. But he will not have the final victory. The Church is not without defenders, nor is the family without its guardian. St. Joseph remains the model, the protector, and the guide for all who seek to reclaim the dignity of fatherhood. Turn to him. Ask his intercession. Follow his example of silent strength, unwavering duty, and complete trust in God.
The world will not change on its own. The Church will not be renewed by compromise. Families will not be rebuilt without strong fathers. It is time to rise to the challenge, take up your cross, and reclaim the mission entrusted to you. Do not wait for others to act—begin now.
May St. Joseph, Model of True Fatherhood, strengthen you in your mission. And may the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, sustain you in your duty until the day when He calls you to give account for the souls entrusted to your care.
St. Joseph, Pillar of Families, Terror of Demons and Protector of Holy Church, pray for us!
I.X.
Brichtelmestunensis S. Joseph Sponsi B.M.V. Confessoris MMXXV A.D.
Oremus
Sanctíssimæ Genitrícis tuæ Sponsi, quǽsumus, Dómine, méritis adjuvémur: ut, quod possibílitas nostra non óbtinet, ejus nobis intercessióne donétur: Qui vivis et regnas cum Deo Patre, in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. R. Amen.
May the merits of Your most holy Mother’s spouse help us, we beseech You, O Lord, that through his intercession we may receive what we cannot obtain by our own efforts. Who livest and reignest with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, world without end. R. Amen.
¹ Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (1930) – On the duties of husbands and fathers in the divine order of the family, warning against both the abuse of authority and the rejection of paternal leadership. ² Ephesians 5:23-25 – “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church… Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it.” This passage affirms that true fatherhood is modeled after Christ’s sacrificial love. ³ Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum Divinae (1880) – Condemning modern distortions of marriage and family life, asserting the natural and divine order of fatherhood. ⁴ St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians – On the husband’s responsibility to love, guide, and sanctify his wife and children, not through tyranny but through sacrificial leadership. ⁵ Genesis 18:19 – “For I know that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord.” The biblical model of a father as a teacher and guide in righteousness. ⁶ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 32, a. 5 – On the duties of a husband to provide for his household, not only materially but spiritually. ⁷ Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (1930) – The father’s responsibility for the faith formation of his children, as he is the spiritual head of the home. ⁸ Proverbs 22:6 – “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” ⁹ Catechism of the Council of Trent – On the obligation of parents to bring their children to Mass and teach them the faith. ¹⁰ St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Ephesians 6:4 – On the duty of fathers to educate their children in holiness, disciplining them in love. ¹¹ Deuteronomy 6:6-7 – “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children.” ¹² Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae (1890) – On the home as a domestic church and the father’s role in guiding the family to holiness. ¹³ Matthew 2:13-15 – St. Joseph’s flight into Egypt as an example of paternal sacrifice, protecting his family from danger. ¹⁴ Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Fathers of Families (1951) – On the necessity of prioritizing spiritual over material success in fatherhood. ¹⁵ Ecclesiasticus 3:2-6 – On the responsibilities of fathers in ordering the home. ¹⁶ St. Augustine, Sermon 44 on the New Testament – On protecting one’s family from spiritual corruption, emphasizing the father’s duty to safeguard purity. ¹⁷ Ephesians 5:25 – “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it.” ¹⁸ Pope St. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio (1981) – On the father’s responsibility to mirror Christ’s love for the Church through sacrifice and guidance. ¹⁹ 2 Corinthians 5:10 – “For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil.” ²⁰ Colossians 3:19 – “Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter towards them.” ²¹ 1 Timothy 5:8 – “If any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.” ²² Hebrews 13:17 – “For they watch as being to render an account for your souls.” ²³ Ezekiel 34:2-10 – God’s rebuke of negligent shepherds: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel that fed themselves! Should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds? … Behold, I myself am against the shepherds, and I will require my flock at their hand.” ²⁴ Pope St. John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis (1992) – On the priest as a true father, not an administrator: “The priest is called to be a living image of Jesus Christ, the spouse of the Church … He is not just a teacher, but a father in the fullest sense.” ²⁵ Mark 9:41 – “Whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” ²⁶ St. Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule – “The spiritual leader must never hesitate to speak the truth, nor to expose the corruption of his time, lest his silence condemn him.” ²⁷ Matthew 2:13-14 – St. Joseph’s immediate obedience in protecting the Christ Child from Herod. ²⁸ 2 Timothy 4:2 – “Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.” ²⁹ Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris (1937) – On the dangers of softness and indulgence in men. ³⁰ St. Benedict, Rule of St. Benedict – On perseverance in discipline and responsibility. ³¹ St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew – On self-mastery as the foundation of holiness. ³² Proverbs 25:28 – “As a city that is open and without walls, so is a man that cannot rule his own spirit.” ³³ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 155 – On the vice of effeminacy as the inability to endure hardship. ³⁴ 2 Timothy 1:7 – “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear: but of power, and of love, and of sobriety.” ³⁵ St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises – On the need for the will to rule the passions. ³⁶ Matthew 1:19-21 – St. Joseph’s prudence and obedience. ³⁷ Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891) – On the dignity of labor and self-reliance. ³⁸ Ecclesiasticus 3:2-6 – On the responsibilities of young men. ³⁹ St. Joseph, Protector of the Holy Family – Traditionally honored as the patron of workers. ⁴⁰ Proverbs 6:6-8 – “Go to the ant, O sluggard, and consider her ways: and learn wisdom.” ⁴¹ Pope Pius XII, On the Ideal Christian Youth – On the necessity of sacrifice in forming strong men. ⁴² 1 Corinthians 9:25 – “Every one that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from all things.”
Please note that all material on this website is the Intellectual Property (IP) of His Grace, the Titular Archbishop of Selsey and protected by Copyright and Intellectual Property laws of the United Kingdom, United States and International law. Reproduction and distribution without written authorisation of the owner is prohibited.
Endorsement of the CitizenGO Petition: Stand with Keira and James – Help Stop Harmful Puberty Blocker Clinical Trials
I feel compelled to speak on behalf of the most vulnerable among us—our children. In light of the UK government’s recent decision to ban puberty blockers for individuals under 18 due to “unacceptable safety risks,” it is deeply troubling that the NHS intends to proceed with a £10.7 million clinical trial on these very same drugs¹.
This trial, set to run until 2031 under the oversight of King’s College London, comes despite clear medical and ethical concerns raised by leading experts, including those involved in the Cass Review². These drugs, once heralded as a harmless pause on development, are now acknowledged to carry significant, irreversible risks—especially to cognitive and physical maturation³.
The Scientific and Medical Concerns The use of puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria is not supported by robust, long-term scientific evidence. The Cass Review, an independent inquiry led by Dr. Hilary Cass, found that the available studies on puberty blockers were of “very low certainty” and that the risks outweighed the unproven benefits⁴. Among the most pressing concerns are:
Cognitive Development: Puberty is a critical period for brain maturation. Research suggests that halting this process may have detrimental effects on memory, executive function, and emotional regulation. A 2020 study found that children on puberty blockers showed decreased IQ scores, possibly due to the impact on brain plasticity⁵.
Bone Density Loss: Puberty is essential for bone mineralization. Studies have shown that children placed on puberty blockers experience significantly lower bone density than their peers, increasing the risk of osteoporosis and fractures later in life⁶.
Fertility and Sexual Function: The long-term consequences of halting natural puberty on fertility and sexual function are not well understood. However, evidence suggests that children who progress to cross-sex hormones after puberty blockers may face irreversible sterility⁷.
Psychological Outcomes: Proponents of puberty blockers argue that they reduce distress in gender-dysphoric youth, yet the evidence is inconclusive. In fact, studies have shown that many young people’s gender dysphoria resolves naturally if puberty is allowed to proceed. Blocking this process may reinforce distress rather than alleviate it⁸.
The UK government’s decision to ban these drugs was based on the assessment of the Commission on Human Medicines, which found that the safety profile of puberty blockers does not justify their continued use⁹. The notion that an NHS clinical trial will provide clarity is misleading—existing evidence already raises significant alarm, and ethical considerations make further experimentation on children unacceptable.
A Pastoral and Moral Duty Keira Bell’s courageous testimony, alongside that of James Esses, has already demonstrated the tragic consequences of prematurely medicalizing gender dysphoria. Their voices, and those of countless others who have suffered under ideologically driven policies, must not go unheard. It is unconscionable to proceed with clinical trials that will place more young lives at risk in pursuit of an agenda that prioritizes political expediency over scientific caution¹⁰.
For several years, I have raised my voice against the dangers of medicalizing gender dysphoria, particularly among children. In 2021, alongside over 2,500 Christian ministers and pastoral workers, I signed an open letter to the Secretary of State warning against irreversible interventions such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries¹¹. That letter reaffirmed our Christian duty to guide young people toward accepting their natural, God-given bodies rather than leading them down a path of lifelong medical dependency and regret. This commitment to truth and pastoral care has remained a cornerstone of my ministry.
Advocacy for Supporting Families In addition to these efforts, I have been actively involved in supporting families navigating the challenges posed by ideologically driven educational materials. As a co-founder of PSHEbrighton, I have worked to provide a platform for families to voice their concerns, seek advice, and collaborate in advocating for comprehensive and factually accurate Personal, Social, Health, and Economic (PSHE) education¹².
In 2024, legal experts, including Karon Monaghan KC, reviewed Brighton and Hove City Council’s Trans Inclusion Schools Toolkit and raised concerns about its legal robustness. The review indicated that the toolkit might be in breach of equality laws and could potentially violate the rights of young people, thereby exposing public authorities to legal challenges¹³.
Despite these well-founded criticisms, the council proceeded without adequately addressing the issues raised. Such actions exemplify the dangers of allowing ideology to override the best interests of children and the rule of law.
A Call to Action Therefore, I strongly endorse CitizenGO’s petition to halt these harmful trials and urge all people of goodwill—especially those entrusted with the safeguarding of children—to lend their support. By signing this petition, we send a clear message: children deserve protection, not experimentation. Let us stand together for the safety, dignity, and well-being of the young, resisting dangerous medical interventions that history may well judge as a grave moral failing.
May God grant us the wisdom and courage to uphold the truth.
✠Jerome Seleisi Titular Archbishop of Selsey
Click the logo to sign the petition
The Times, “Puberty blockers banned because of ‘unacceptable safety risks'” (2024).
The Times, “NHS to launch £10.7 million trial of puberty blockers” (2024).
Cass Review, Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (2024).
Ibid.
Biggs, Michael. “The Tavistock’s Experiment with Puberty Blockers,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy (2020).
Klink et al., “Bone Mass in Young Adulthood Following Puberty Suppression,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (2015).
Hembree et al., “Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (2017).
Singh et al., “A Follow-Up Study of Boys with Gender Identity Disorder,” Journal of Sexual Medicine (2021).
The Times, “Commission on Human Medicines advises against puberty blockers” (2024).
Bell v. Tavistock, UK High Court Judgment (2020).
Ministers Consultation Response, “Letter to the Secretary of State Opposing Gender Ideology in Law” (2021).
PSHEbrighton, Supporting Families through Honest and Evidence-Based Education (2024).
The Guardian, “Schools Using Gender Toolkit Risk Being Sued, Say Legal Experts” (2024).
To the beloved faithful of the Old Roman Apostolate
Carissimi
“Come back to the Lord your God; He is ever gracious and merciful, ever patient and rich in pardon, and when He threatens punishment, He is ready to forgive.” (Joel 2:13)
As the sacred season of Lent dawns upon us once more, Holy Mother Church calls us to a deeper conversion, a turning of heart and mind toward the Lord who has loved us with an everlasting love. The ashes imposed upon our foreheads today are not mere symbols of penitence, but an urgent reminder of the truth that modern man, in his folly, strives to forget: “Remember, O man, that thou art dust, and unto dust thou shalt return.” The world would have us believe that we are masters of our destiny, architects of our own fulfillment, yet here, at the very threshold of Lent, the Church strikes at our pride and reminds us that all flesh is grass, and all human glory fades as quickly as the flower of the field (cf. Is. 40:6-7).
But the Church does not call us to despair; rather, she bids us lift our eyes to the merciful Father who “desires not the death of the sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live” (Ez. 33:11). Lent is not a season of sterile self-discipline or mere external observance, but an interior renewal, a return of love for Love. Indeed, our fasts, our mortifications, our prayers, and our alms ought to spring from this one central truth: God has first loved us (cf. 1 Jn. 4:19), and we must love Him in return with the total gift of ourselves.
The Love that Fasts, the Love that Gives
Our Lord warns us in the Gospel for this holy day: “Where your treasure-house is, there your heart is too.”(Matt. 6:21). These words strike at the heart of the spiritual malaise of our times. The modern world teaches us to treasure ease, comfort, pleasure, and self-indulgence; our culture exalts those who accumulate wealth, who indulge their passions, who take pride in their self-sufficiency. And yet, Christ reminds us that these things are but dust and ashes. If we set our hearts on the transient, we will ourselves become transient; if we set our hearts on Heaven, we will be made worthy of Heaven.
Fasting, prayer, and almsgiving are not arbitrary Lenten disciplines, but the very means by which we tear our hearts away from earthly attachments and anchor them firmly in God. St. Augustine, reflecting on these three pillars, observes:
“Let no one think that fasts alone, or prayers alone, or alms alone are sufficient. Fasting without mercy is barren; prayer without fasting is weak; almsgiving without piety is vain. If one desires to fly to God, he must have two wings: fasting and almsgiving, animated and strengthened by prayer.”1
In fasting, we imitate Our Lord’s own forty days in the wilderness, subduing the flesh and restoring order to the soul. St. Basil the Great calls fasting ‘the weapon of the spirit,’2 for it strengthens us against temptation, trains us in virtue, and makes us more docile to divine grace. The Church, in her maternal wisdom, requires only the most modest fasts of us, yet how many today find even these unbearable! Let us rather embrace our fasting with joy, as a means of proving our love, for “the true measure of love is to love without measure”(St. Bernard of Clairvaux).3
Almsgiving, likewise, is the concrete manifestation of charity. Our self-denial must not end with ourselves, but spill over in love toward our neighbor, particularly the poor, the suffering, and the forgotten. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that “it is better to give alms from what one has denied himself than merely from one’s abundance, for in this a man shows greater love”.4Let our sacrifices be generous, not reluctant; let our giving be joyful, not constrained.
The Joy of the Saints in Self-Denial
The world scoffs at the idea that renunciation can be joyful. And yet, this is the paradox of the Gospel: the one who loses his life for Christ’s sake will find it (cf. Matt. 16:25). The saints, who loved most, understood this best. St. Francis of Assisi, who stripped himself of all worldly goods, called Lady Poverty his bride and rejoiced in suffering for Christ. St. Thérèse of Lisieux, though hidden in the obscurity of the cloister, found in her “little way” of self-denial the most profound happiness:
“When one loves, one does not calculate. One does not say, ‘I will go this far and no further.’ One loves as much as possible, and even more than one can.”5
Let us, then, not fast with a gloomy countenance (cf. Matt. 6:16), as the hypocrites do, but with the joy of those who know they are making a gift of themselves to their Beloved. Let us not pray as a mere formality, but with the fervor of those who long for Heaven. Let us not give alms reluctantly, but as those who see in the poor the very face of Christ (cf. Matt. 25:40).
A Season to Love Much
Our Lord commended the woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee, saying,“her many sins have been forgiven, because she has loved much.” (Luke 7:47). Lent is given to us so that we may love much—first and foremost by returning to God the love we owe Him, but also by pouring ourselves out in love for our neighbor.
The Baltimore Catechism reminds us that “to receive the Sacrament of Penance worthily we must have sorrow for our sins, a firm purpose of amendment, confess our sins to a priest, and be willing to perform the penance imposed”.6Lent is the time to rekindle this penitential spirit. It is the moment to renounce our sins not halfheartedly, but with a firm resolve to turn from them and embrace holiness.
Let this Lent be for us a season of true reorientation. Let us cast off tepidity and half-measures. Let us prove our love by our deeds—by fasting, by prayer, by alms, and above all, by a joy that manifests to the world that true happiness is found not in self-indulgence, but in self-gift.
As we journey toward Easter, may our sacrifices, undertaken with love, bear abundant fruit in holiness. And may the Blessed Virgin, who stood steadfast beneath the Cross, obtain for us the grace to love as she loved, to suffer as she suffered, and to rejoice as she rejoices forever in the presence of the Risen Christ.
With my blessing and prayers,
I.X.
Brichtelmestunensis Feria II infra Hebd Quinquagesimæ MMXXV A.D.
St. Augustine, Sermon 207: On Prayer, Fasting, and Almsgiving.
St. Basil the Great, Homily on Fasting.
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon on Love.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 32, a. 5.
St. Thérèse of Lisieux, Story of a Soul.
Baltimore Catechism No. 3, Q. 777.
Oremus
Deus, qui culpa offénderis, pæniténtia placáris: preces pópuli tui supplicántis propítius réspice; et flagélla tuæ iracúndiæ, quæ pro peccátis nostris merémur, avérte. Per eúndem Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. Amen.
O God, offended by sin, and appeased by penitence, graciously hear the prayers of Your people as they entreat You to turn away from us the scourges of anger that we have deserved because of our sins. Through the same Jesus Christ, thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.
Please note that all material on this website is the Intellectual Property (IP) of His Grace, the Titular Archbishop of Selsey and protected by Copyright and Intellectual Property laws of the United Kingdom, United States and International law. Reproduction and distribution without written authorisation of the owner is prohibited.
A paper by the Titular Archbishop of Selsey concerning frequently asked questions about the canonical liceity of sacraments offered by Old Roman clergy with reference to the 1983 CIC and the contemporary Roman hierarchy.
The canonical liceity of Old Roman sacraments with reference to the CIC 1983 and the contemporary Roman Catholic hierarchy
Due to the nature of the present crisis in the Church and the situation that has existed since the annexation by Bl. Pius IX of the primitive See of Utrecht, a not infrequent question posed by Catholic enquirers about receiving sacraments from Old Roman clergy concerns canonical liceity, e.g., does a Catholic fulfil their Sunday Obligation by attending Mass at an Old Roman chapel or Mass centre? Or even, does a Catholic receive a valid absolution for their confession heard by an Old Roman priest, etc?
Though the short answer is, “yes” the explanation as to how this is possible is not straightforward and requires a nuanced understanding of Canon Law more than the average layperson or even contemporary cleric may possess. This is aside from understanding the complexities, context, and development of Old Roman history!
While as Old Romans, we understand ourselves to be in every respect Catholics, and though estranged from the Holy See by force of historical circumstance and doctrinal polity not our own; many contemporary Catholics, unburdened by the weight of inconvenient history and beguiled by the Modernist confusion, think us “schismatics.” So it is, that now and again, Old Romans must attempt to correct ignorance and reprove superstition, by explaining to modern Catholics their own Canon Law, and sometimes doctrine.
The following answers questions arising from the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II. Though this is not the Code followed by Old Romans, it is the version most often quoted by contemporary Catholic enquirers and thus relevant to our purpose. Incidentally, much of the principles contained in the later Code are to be found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law that Old Romans do observe.
It should be noted, for the purpose of appreciating references to the contemporary 1983 Code of Canon Law that those of us who were formerly members of the contemporary Catholic Church, by our episcopal consecration have incurred latæ sententiæ excommunication (Canon 1382[i]); and those ordained to major orders are technically ipso facto suspended a divinis (Canon 1383[ii]). While such sentences have never been declared by Rome individually nor severally upon Old Roman clergy, anecdotally individuals who have later reconciled with Rome have been treated as though such sentences had been passed. This only serves to prove the obvious validity of our holy orders and that we are not regarded technically as “schismatic”; though this is a popular polemic against us.
Holy Church, despite the present crisis, has by God’s grace yet retained powerful minds able to express in continuity with Apostolic Tradition, the mission and vision of Her founder, Our Lord Jesus Christ to facilitate the salvation of souls! Eminent canonists cited below offer a clear understanding of Her laws and disciplines that enable Old Roman and other Traditional Catholic clergy still to serve the faithful.
It is important to remember that although the justification for the existence of Old Romans is historically distinct from other more recent Traditional Catholics i.e., orthodox Roman Catholics estranged from Rome by perception of necessity or polity e.g. the Society of St Pius X or Sedevacantists; nonetheless the regard of contemporary Catholics that generally applies to them also applies to us.
We are first and foremost “Catholics” and what’s more we are distinctly “Roman” Catholics even though distinguishable from the contemporary Roman Catholic hierarchy by virtue of history and doctrinal polity. We exist because of an unresolved historical canonical dispute over privileges and exemptions given to the primitive See of Utrecht by previous Popes. Due to the passing of time and the vicissitudes of men, we find ourselves currently in the unique position of being both “of the Church” yet not recognised as being “in it”. We are “of it” by virtue of our history, the Catholic Faith, our confession, praxis, and apostolic succession; yet estranged from the current temporal institution of the Church by polity and situation.
However, the distinction between “Old” Catholic and “Old Roman” Catholic has always been the adherence by the latter to perpetuate continuity with our historic Roman Catholic origins, as opposed to the former’s disavowal of the same. Though we are the materially disinherited continuation of the Ultrajectines rather than the temporal inheritors i.e. the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht churches, we are the authentic progeny of the historic orthodox See of Utrecht. Irrespective of the various mistakes and sins of men in the intervening years between Archbishop Mathew’s declared independence from apostate Utrecht[iii] until now, the mission and subsequent apostolate of the Old Romans has persisted to us today.
Thus, in continuity with our Ultrajectine forbears we are not “schismatic” as some would like us to be or regard us as being, but neither are we regular in the commonly perceived way people interpret canon law with regard to the contemporary institution of the Church. We are irregular in as much as we are presently estranged from Rome, but we are “Catholic” by virtue of our faith and praxis. It is in this latter respect that for the purposes of appreciating the contemporary canonical context, we may identify ourselves with other orthodox Catholics similarly estranged from and said to be not in “full communion”[iv] with the present Holy See.
As referenced before, like other Traditional Catholic clergy, e.g., the SSPX, we labour without an obvious declaration of schism from the Holy See. Neither the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism nor the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christianity Unity reference us, for we are not “separated brethren”[v] like the Eastern Orthodox or Protestant “ecclesial communities”[vi]. This lack of clear ecclesiological placement is why we are often derided and treated with suspicion by the average Catholic since 1870, “if you’re not with the Pope you’re not Catholic” and it is this erroneous hyper-papalism that is at the root of the crisis in the Church today.
The communio in sacris that Archbishop Mathew accomplished with the Eastern Orthodox in 1911 via the Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East and recognised in 1912 by the Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa did not consist of a declared disavowal of Rome but simply recognised Old Romans as “Orthodox” i.e. no formal “schism” from the western Church occurred, only a partial restoration of Christian unity. We were recognised by the Eastern Orthodox as having the “same faith”.
Our Ultrajectine forbears, Archbishop Mathew and others in the 20C approached Rome several times in a spirit of rapprochement. Unity with Rome has always been our corporate desire and in truth, if circumstances were favourable i.e., if the temporal institutional Church returned to the veritable fullness of the Catholic faith and religion, perennial magisterium, traditions, customs and liturgy, every one of us individually and severally would reconcile with contemporary Rome.
This is why we are not “schismatics” but as Cardinal Cajetan teaches, “If someone, for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the Pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism nor any other whatsoever, provided that he be ready to accept the Pope were he not held in suspicion. It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and to ward off dangers.”[vii]Such is the nature of the state of necessity as we have perceived it since 1853, we remain estranged until the Papacy is “restored.”
While as Old Romans we might – from our perspective – baulk at the suggestion that attendance at our own Sunday Mass might not fulfil the obligation that is a fundamental precept of the Church for the faithful, nonetheless this is a question often asked by ignorant contemporary Catholics.
Canon 1248 §1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that:
“A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.”
Canonist, the Rev. Brian Dunn, J.C.D., writes:
…This broad understanding of the fulfilment of the Mass obligation seems to have been the mindset of those who prepared the 1983 Code of Canon Law. While the proposed text for canon 1248 had read that the obligation of Mass attendance is satisfied “anywhere that a Catholic rite is celebrated legitimately” the commission eliminated the word “legitimately” since, the members argued, the cause of illegitimacy rests with the sacred minister, and the faithful should not be punished for the fault of the minister.[viii]
The notes from the discussions of the preparatory committee that formed this particular canon, stated the following:
It has been suggested that the word “legitimately” be deleted. All the consultants, with one exception, approve of such a suggestion, because often the cause of illegitimacy resides in the sacred minister, and the Christian faithful should not be punished for such a fault of the sacred minister.[ix]
The fact that the Code, in using the term “Catholic rite” is referring to a Catholic liturgical rite is apparent from the previous draft which used the term “celebrated legitimately.” One “celebrates” a liturgical rite. This is further confirmed by the history of determining the liceity of which Masses Catholics can assist at. When examining the issue of under what circumstances Catholics could participate in even schismatic worship in 1948, canonist Fr. Ignatius J. Szal stated:
The foregoing discussion on the rites to be observed in the administration of the sacraments has a bearing on the present subject. There are times when the Church does permit the faithful to receive the sacraments from a schismatical minister, but when such a permission is granted a necessary condition is set, namely, that the sacrament be administered according to the rite of the Church. It is not very likely that the schismatical minister will administer the sacraments in exactly the same rite as would be observed by a Catholic priest. However, before the faithful could receive the sacraments from a schismatical minister, there would have to be some certainty that the substantial or essential rites necessary for the validity would be observed by him when he confers the sacrament.[x]
In 1984 the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy in Rome confirmed the above interpretation applying it to the priests of the Society of St Pius X, who were suspended a divinis. As traditionalist Catholic writer Michæl Davies recorded:
“In a personal letter to Cardinal Oddi, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy in Rome, a Catholic lady who recently started attending the Latin Tridentine Mass wrote to him on January 11, 1984, regarding the “important issue concerning Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X” and pointedly asked His Eminence what is probably an unprecedented request:
“. . . could you kindly send my family and myself a letter with the information that you told me on the telephone that we are fulfilling our Sunday obligation for Sunday Mass by attending Holy Mass at the Chapel of St. Michæl the Archangel which is under Archbishop Lefebvre . . .”
This letter was signed by Mrs. Barbara Kennan. The Cardinal’s reply was as follows:
17 March 1984 Dear Mrs. Keenan, I have your letter of January 11th and thank you for it. According to the new Code of Canon Law, “The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite either on the day of obligation itself or in the evening a previous day.” (Canon 1248.1) I hope that settles your doubts. In the meantime, I send you and your loved ones my blessing and wish you God’s choicest graces, Faithfully in Christ, Signature”[xi]
A similar and more recent anecdotal testimony demonstrates a slightly different Curial perspective. perhaps noting a difference in regard to the situation after Msgr Lefebvre’s 1988 consecrations. Msgr. Camille Perl then secretary of the now extinct Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in an infamous “private” correspondence[xii] wrote:
Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:
“1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.”
His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:
“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”
His third question was: “Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection at a Pius X Mass,” to which we responded:
“3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”
While the anecdotal evidence above was originally situated in relation to the Society of St Pius X, nonetheless the canonical jurisprudence evident in the interpretation by both Curial officials lends itself to wider application such as our own, as will be made clearer below.
Pope Martin V issued in 1418 Ad evitanda scandala, and there has been subsequent legislation after it that replaced it but retained this essential provision, as is explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It does not oppose in any way the teaching of St. Thomas or Catholic Doctrine. The purpose of these rulings was to unburden the conscience of the faithful from having to discern for themselves which priests are excommunicated heretics and which are not. Charles-Marie Billuart O.P. explained:
“I say that manifest heretics, unless they are denounced by name, or themselves depart from the Church, retain their jurisdiction and validly absolve. This is proved by the Bull of Martin V, Ad evitanda scandala: “To avoid the scandals and the many perils that can befall timorous consciences, we mercifully grant to the faithful of Christ, by the force of this decree (tenore praesentium), that henceforth no one will be obliged, under the pretext of any sentence or ecclesiastical censure generally promulgated by law or by man, to avoid the communion of any person, in the administration or reception of the Sacraments, or in any other matters sacred or profane, or to eschew the person, or to observe any ecclesiastical interdict, unless a sentence or censure of this kind shall have been published by a judge, and denounced specially and expressly, whether against a person, or a college, or university, or church, or a certain place or territory. Neither the Apostolic Constitutions, nor any other laws remain in force to the contrary.” Then [the Bull] lists, as the only exception, those who are notorious for having inflicted violence on the clergy. From these lines, we argue that the Church is granting permission to the faithful to receive the sacraments from heretics who have not yet been expressly denounced by name; and, therefore, that she allows the latter to retain their jurisdiction for the valid administration of the sacraments, since otherwise the concession granted to the faithful would mean nothing. Our argument is confirmed by the current praxis of the entire Church; for no one today… avoids his pastor, even for the reception of the sacraments, as long as he is allowed to remain in his benefice, even if the man is, in the judgment of all or at least of the majority, a manifest Jansenist, and rebellious against the definitions of the Church; and so on with the rest.”
Now, to be clear, Fr. Charles-Marie Billuart O.P. here is discussing those apparently in communion with the Church while suspect of heresy, which is what Pope Martin V refers to when he says ‘those not expressly named.‘ In other words, if there is a priest who potentially holds certain sedevacantist errors, for example, and since his errors have not been defined and he had not been denounced by name, you are welcome to attend, by decree of Pope Martin V, without any concerns for schism or sin.
Can. 1335 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states:
If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latæ sententiæ censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.
As with all Traditional Catholic priests, e.g., the SSPX, all Catholic men ordained as Old Roman clergy incur automatically latæ sententiæ suspension – though so far “undeclared” by Rome – so the provisions of this canon apply to us.
Canon 194 provides for removal from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself in the following cases:
a person who has lost the clerical state;
a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church; and
a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.
However, canon 194 adds this restriction: “The removal . . . can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.” Such a declaration must be “personal” i.e. the offender must be named and the decree published and by the “competent authority” meaning the individual’s diocesan bishop, the Congregation for the Clergy or the Pope himself.
Therefore, in this context, Catholics are allowed to approach Old Roman clergy for either a sacrament, a sacramental, or an act of governance (including jurisdiction for confessions) for “any just cause”. If this is done, Canon 1335 eliminates the suspension for these asked for sacraments and sacramentals. This has the effect of making these activities permissible for the priest carrying them out and for the faithful receiving them.
The definition of a “just cause” is relatively non-prescriptive. The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, commenting on this canon, states “In such situations the faithful may generally seek such ministry for any just cause, e.g., deepening one’s spiritual life.”[xiii]
Even the 1917 Code contained this principle as Fr. Francis Hyland, J.C.L, gave the following examples of what qualifies as “just cause” from a canonical perspective:
…the earlier conferring of Baptism, the dispelling of a doubt concerning the gravity of a sin, the intention of approaching Holy Communion with greater purity of soul, the intention of receiving the Holy Eucharist more frequently, etc. “Any reason may be called just which promotes devotion or wards off temptations or is prompted by real convenience, for instance, if one does not like to call another minister.”[xiv]
Fr. Hyland commented on this requirement of the faithful to request the sacrament or sacramentals from even an excommunicated priest in order for the censure to be lifted for these acts. Fr. Hyland was examining Canon 2261 in the 1917 Code which is one of the corresponding provisions to Canon 1335 in the 1983 Code:
In order that a simpliciter toleratus[xv] may illicitly celebrate Mass, administer the sacraments and prepare and administer the sacramentals, he must be requested to do so (requisitus) . It is not necessary, however, that the request be explicit. Almost all authors teach than an implicit or reasonably presumed petition suffices. Such a petition is had whenever the good of souls demands the celebration of Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or the preparation or administration of the sacramentals…[xvi] Hence, such an excommunicate may show himself ready to hear confessions on Saturdays and vigils of feasts, to distribute Holy Communion even on weekday mornings, to celebrate Mass on Sundays and Holydays, and it would seem in these days of daily attendance at Mass, even on days throughout the week.[xvii]
Likewise for teaching and preaching, Dom Charles Augustine, O.S.B., in his commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law published in 1918 states the following regarding priests excommunicated without a “special sentence.” Considering the question of priests excommunicated without a condemnatory or declared sentence under Canon 2661 of the 1917 Code which is comparable to contemporary suspended Traditional priests, e.g., Old Roman clergy whose sentences haven’t been declared under Canon 1335 of the 1983 Code:
Persons excommunicated by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, and a fortiori vitandi, can neither validly nor lawfully perform acts of jurisdiction, except in danger of death, according to can. 2261, §3. Acts of jurisdiction are here expressly declared to comprise both the internal and the external forum. An act of jurisdiction is the so-called missio canonica because the commission to teach or preach, according to the more common doctrine, is an act emanating from jurisdiction. Consequently, this mission also is lost by excommunication.
However, here, too, must be applied what our text allows for those simply excommunicated without a special sentence. Therefore, if an excommunicated priest would be asked to preach or teach, he could do it lawfully.[xviii]
Thus, for “any just cause” Catholic faithful are allowed to request sacraments, sacramentals, teaching, and preaching from Old Roman priests who may be “suspended” in the manner stated above. Any of the following reasons would most certainly qualify as “just cause”: the desire for reverent traditional Masses, avoidance of rampant liturgical abuses among regular priests, avoidance of heretical teaching of regular priests, sound Catholic guidance in the confessional, sound Catholic teaching, especially to the children, sound doctrinal teaching on marriage, confirmation, etc.
In addition to the power of orders, certain sacraments, such as confessions and marriages, also require the power of governance known as jurisdiction in order to be valid. Canon 144 §1 of the 1983 Code states:
In common error or in positive or probable doubt about either law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum.”
The same norm is applied to the faculties mentioned in cann. 882.883.966. and 1111, §1.
An example of a “common error” would be the mistaking of an Old Roman chapel to be a regular diocesan church, or an assumption that an Old Roman priest is a regular Catholic cleric. In such a situation, the Church supplies jurisdiction to whatever sacrament an individual may have received under such a confusion of identity. As Old Roman chapels and clerics usually describe themselves as “Catholic” this is a reasonable error and is covered by Canon 144 §1.
It is interesting to note that The New Commentary on the 1983 Code states the following regarding section two:
The second paragraph states that the canon applies to the faculties mentioned in canon 883 on the sacrament of confirmation, canon 966 on hearing confession, and canon 111 1. §1 on assisting as an official witness at a wedding. Furthermore, the canon applies to the executive power of all superiors and chapters in institutes of consecrated life (c. 596, §3).[xix]
An interpretive error suffices to meet the requirements of common error.[xx][xxi][xxii] This means that the Church will supply jurisdiction when there are factual circumstances surrounding the confession that would lead people to believe the priest had faculties to absolve in that particular case. Thus, the key question in these cases is not whether certain penitents actually are in error, but whether a factual situation exists where people could be induced to believe the priest can validly absolve.
If the priest can think of good reasons why people might believe he has authority to absolve (he is in a confessional in a Catholic chapel), but also sees good reasons why they might not, this is called a positive and probable doubt of law (a doubt of the application of canon 144, section 1, to his case) and thus canon 144, section 2, would supply jurisdiction for validity.
People commonly have a dubious response to the notion of “interpretive error”, since this way of interpreting the law can appear contradictory. However, the idea of interpretive error has been a widely accepted practice of canonical interpretation since the early 1900s, which is demonstrated by the works of Fr. John C. Ford, S.J.
Fr Ford received his Doctor of Sacred Theology degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and was a professor at the same institution. He is most renowned for his substantial contribution to the issuance of the encyclical Humanæ Vitæ. According to John MacGreevy, who wrote Catholicism and American Freedom: A History, Ford’s role in the encyclical was critical:
On the papal birth control commission…which overwhelmingly recommended a change in official church teaching, Ford’s voice became perhaps the most powerful dissenting voice. (The conservative moral theologian Father Francis Connell, worried about the makeup of the commission, lauded Ford as a “staunch defender of truth.”) Even after nine of the twelve bishops and fifteen of the nineteen theologians on the commission voted for a change in church teaching, Ford helped draft (and distribute) an unofficial minority report that challenged the majority recommendation for change. When another Jesuit, Richard McCormick, Ford’s successor as an editor at Theological Studies, expressed the view that Gaudium et Spes left open the possibility of a change in church teaching on contraception, Ford retorted, “I do not consider it theologically legitimate or even decent and honest, to contradict a doctrine and then disguise the contradiction under the rubric: growth and evolution.”[xxiii]
In 1940, Fr Ford assessed a doctoral dissertation about the power of supplied jurisdiction for the magazine Theological Studies which was published by Weston College. The author of the dissertation claimed that the concept of “interpretive error” was not sufficiently trustworthy to be utilized in the assessment of Canon 209 (or Canon 144 in the new Code) based on positive and probable doubt. Fr Ford contested this opinion, saying:
…his conclusion that the interpretive theory lacks all probability and hence cannot even claim the benefit of the second half of the canon does not commend itself to the present writer. Apart from the argumentation which seems not to be flawless, it is a very bold assertion to say that an opinion which has been taught publicly in Rome for about thirty years, not in one university but in many, by some of the greatest modern canonists the Church has had, consultors to the Roman Congregations and of the Commission for Interpreting the Code, and which moreover has been taught by some of them not merely as a tenuously probable theory but as the only practical doctrine to follow,—it is a very bold thing to say that such an opinion is so devoid of probability that one is not justified in using the second part of canon 209 and putting it into practice.
The Latin phrase “Ecclesia supplet” meaning “the Church supplies” found in Canon 144 §1 is a longstanding principle in canon law but often misunderstood. It does not mean that anything contrary to the norms of canon law is permissible, but only in specific situations.
The Council of Trent in Session XIV, Chapter VII states:
Wherefore, since the nature of a judgment requires that sentence be imposed only on subjects, the Church of God has always maintained and this council confirms it as most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has neither ordinary nor delegated jurisdiction ought to be invalid.[xxiv]
The fact that Old Roman priests do not have a recognised canonical status in the contemporary Church and therefore arguably do not exercise a legitimate (licit) ministry, simply means they do not have ordinary jurisdiction to absolve sins. Does this mean that a priest who has neither ordinary jurisdiction nor jurisdiction delegated directly from an ordinary, cannot validly absolve sins? No.
Both the 1917 Code and the 1983 Code attest, jurisdiction can be delegated either by the ordinary or by the law itself. Clear evidence that the Council Fathers of Trent recognized this principle is located later in Chapter VII where it is stated that any priest whatsoever can absolve penitents from sins and censures normally reserved to the Holy See in danger of death. Obviously, jurisdiction in these cases was delegated by the law itself (the Council).
It is essential to recognize that Chapter VII of Trent, which comprises this quotation, does not form part of the doctrinal section of the Council Session. This is because, although the Church has always held that a priest requires jurisdiction to legitimately absolve, how the Church assigns that jurisdiction is an issue of discipline, and thus open to alteration. The Church presently allots jurisdiction according to its canon law as demonstrated in its 1983 Code. This code permits the delegation of jurisdiction from the law itself in specified circumstances (supplied jurisdiction), such as those given in Canon 144 §1.
Then there is also the principle of æquitas canonica (Canon 19, 20 in the 1917 Code) i.e. recourse to the mind of the legislator (when there is nothing explicit in writing), who never wants his legislation to be too onerous (burdensome), but always wants it to be interpreted in a just and favourable manner. That it is indeed the mind of the Church to be generous in the granting of jurisdiction and not overstrict or onerous is also apparent from the following two canons:
Canon 1335[xxv](1917 Canon 2261 §2). The Church suspends its prohibition for an excommunicated or suspended priest celebrating the sacraments or posing acts requiring jurisdiction, provided it be in favour of the faithful who request it for any reasonable cause at all, and especially if there is no other minister.
Canon 970[xxvi](1917 Canon 878 §2). Ordinaries and superiors are not to restrict jurisdiction. If the priest is suitable and the good of the faithful requires his services, this jurisdiction cannot be refused to him. Clearly traditional priests should in justice receive personal jurisdiction and that everywhere (1984 Canon 967[xxvii]).
As Fr Peter Scott concludes in his introduction to Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’s notes on this same question,
“…therefore, it is obvious that, besides the case of common error, besides the case of probable and positive danger of death as interpreted in the broad sense of spiritual death, traditional priests receive a iure (from the law itself) a supplied jurisdiction for all cases in which this jurisdiction is required. This is simply the application of Canon 20 (1917 CIC), notably of Canonical Equity. There are no solid arguments against this and since there is at least a positive and probable doubt in favour of this argument, and we know that in such a case the Church certainly supplies jurisdiction, then traditional priests can and must act accordingly and the faithful can and should approach them for Confession.”[xxviii]
It is sometimes erroneously asserted that Old Roman clergy, for want of Papal approbation, are “non-Catholic” ministers and so our sacraments e.g., confessions (that require juridical permission) are “invalid” despite the arguable validity of our ordinations, because we lack canonical status in the contemporary Catholic Church.
Can. 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states:
Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
A ”non-Catholic minister” as described in the canon is further defined by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity’s Directory for the application of principles and norms on ecumenism to be “the minister of a non-Catholic Eastern Church in which these sacraments are valid,[xxix][ n123] or the minister of a non-Catholic Western Church in which these sacraments are valid” or “who is known to be validly ordained according to the Catholic teaching on ordination”.[xxx][n.132]
Unlike Anglican ordinations that have been declared “null and utterly void”[xxxi] by the Catholic Church, holy orders descended from the primitive See of Utrecht have variously been acknowledged as “valid” by canonical commentators and sacramental theologians. Even Cardinals asked to give a judgement have answered positively the question of our validity.[xxxii]
Evidently, by providing Catholics with the opportunity to get absolution from “non-Catholic” ministers in situations other than “in danger of death”, the Church is aiming to expand the availability of sacraments to the faithful and attempting to prevent the issue of jurisdiction from becoming an impediment to the legitimacy and validity of a sacrament. Another illustration of this is the 1983 Code which includes “common error of law” explicitly in canon 144, though it was only a supposition before.
As to the mind of the legislators who wrote the canon, we have the testimony of Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, then secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, who stated to Catholic News Service in an article dated 17 May 2013:
The current code was drafted in the 1970s, Bishop Arrieta said, “a period that was a bit naive” in regard to the need for a detailed description of offenses, procedures for investigating them and penalties to impose on the guilty. It reflected a feeling that “we are all good,” he said, and that “penalties should be applied rarely.”[xxxiii]
The authors of the canon had a permissive attitude, thus enabling the faithful now to be able to ask absolution of Old Roman priests, who are in a less severe canonical state than the Orthodox, under the same or more expansive circumstances. In fact, canon 1335 does just this by allowing the faithful to ask certain censured Catholic priests for absolution “for any just cause.”[xxxiv]
Thus, the lack of a canonical status does not mean that Old Roman absolutions are per se invalid. This is obvious as both Orthodox priests and excommunicated clerics, neither of whom have a canonical status in the contemporary Church, can validly absolve in certain circumstances under canon law.
According to the contemporary 1983 Code of Canon Law, Masses offered by Old Roman priests are both valid and fulfil the Sunday Obligation by attending Catholics as they are celebrated in a Catholic Rite. (Canon 1248 §1)
Even though Old Roman priests might be regarded as “suspended” under an undeclared latæ sententiæ censure, Catholics are permitted to request sacraments, sacramentals, preaching or teaching from them for “any just cause.” These requests can be implicit, and the priest is not required to inquire into the reason. Thus, all these acts performed by an Old Roman priest are licit. (Canon 1335)
Jurisdiction is supplied to Old Roman priests under “common error and positive and probable doubt” for confessions, marriages, and confirmations. These sacraments are valid. (Canon 144 §1) But even if regarded as “schismatics” jurisdiction is supplied to Old Roman clergy under Canon 844 in extremis.
However, irrespective of all the above, the last words of the 1983 Code, found in Canon §1752 read, “…the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes.”
Pius XI confirmed this principle as canonist, Fr. Szal, stated:
The Church by its very purpose must look to the salvation of souls, and hence is bound to grant, to that end, all things that depend on its power. He [Capello, a noted canonist] states also that Pope Pius XI openly declared and wished it to be expressly known that the Roman Pontiff supplied jurisdiction, if there be need for it, to whatever extent it was required.[xxxv]
Pope Pius XII confirmed this as well:
For canon law, too, is for the good of souls, and all its rules and laws tend chiefly to this ultimate purpose that men may live sanctified by God’s grace and may die holy deaths.[xxxvi]
So it is that Old Roman clergy should have no qualms about ministering to contemporary Catholics not yet aligned with Catholic Tradition i.e., by formally becoming members of our missions and oratories. Whether intentional or not, Catholics who receive sacraments from Old Roman clergy may do so with clear consciences and restful souls, for the Church in Her own canon law enables them to do so for their salvation.
Footnotes
[i] Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latæ sententiæ excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
[ii] Can. 1383 A bishop who, contrary to the prescript of can. 1015, ordains without legitimate dimissorial letters someone who is not his subject is prohibited for a year from conferring the order. The person who has received the ordination, however, is ipso facto suspended from the order received.
[v] The phrase is a translation of the Latin phrase fratres seiuncti used as a polite euphemism in contexts where the terms “formal heretics” or “material heretics” might cause offense. Pope Leo XIII “was the first to speak of ‘separated brothers'” Kelly, John N. D.; Walsh, Michael J, eds. (2010). “Leo XIII”. A Dictionary of Popes. Oxford paperback reference (2nd ed.). Oxford [u.a]: Oxford University Press. p. 317. ISBN 9780199295814.
[vi] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responses to Some Questions regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church, Fifth Question Archived August 13, 2013
[vii] Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, Commentary on the Summa (Commentarium in II-II, 39, 1)
[viii]“Canon 1248: The Concurrence of Liturgical Days and the Obligation of Assisting at Mass,” Rev. Brian Dunn, J.C.D., Roman replies and CLSA advisory opinions 2008, Canon Law Society of America, 2008, p. 117.
[ix] “Suggestum est ut deleátur verbum « legitime ». Omnes Consultores, uno excepto, talem suggestionem approbant, quia sæpe sæpius causa illegitimitatis residet in ministro sacro et non debent puniri christifideles pro tali culpa ministri sacri.” Communicationis 12 (1980) 361.
[x]“The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics: A Historical Synopsis and Commentary,” Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., Catholic Universit of America Press, 1948, p. 62.
[xi]“THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE TRIDENTINE MASS: Some Further Thoughts,” Michæl Davies, The Angelus, September 1984.
[xiii]“New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law: Study Edition,” Beal, Coriden, Green, Editors., Paulist Press, 2000, p. 1553.
[xiv]“Excommunication: It’s Nature, Historical Development, and Effects,” Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies, Number 49., Fr. Edward Hyland, J.C.L., Catholic University of America, 1928, p. 92.
[xv]“Canon 2261, § 2 has reference to petitioning the sacraments and sacramentals from excommunicates who are neither vitandi, nor tolerati against whom any sentence, either declaratory or condemnatory, has been issued. They will be spoken of as the simpliciter tolerati.” Id.p. 91.
[xvi] Id. The cited text adds “and there is present no other minister besides a simpliciter toleratus.” However, this refers to the 1917 Code provision language in Canon 2261 §2 that used to say “The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking…” The language “especially if other ministers are lacking” has been removed from Canon 1335 in the 1983 Code and is no longer applicable. p. 92
[xviii]A Commentary On The New Code Of Canon Law, Volume 8: Book 5. Penal code (Can. 2195-2414) with complete index by Charles Augustine, Rev. P., O.S.B., B. Herder Book Co., 1918. pp. 194.
[xix] A Commentary On The New Code Of Canon Law, Volume 8: Book 5. Penal code (Can. 2195-2414) with complete index by Charles Augustine, Rev. P., O.S.B., B. Herder Book Co., 1918. pp. 189-190.
[xx] Pugliese, in Palazzini’s Dictionary of Moral Theology, 1962, article Jurisdiction, Supplied: the Church supplies jurisdiction in a case of common error. Cited by Fr. Ramon Angles, SSPX in his canonical study, “The Validity of Confessions and Marriagesin the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X” found at http://www.ireland.sspx.net/miscellaneous/validity%20confessions%20&%20marriages/code/2.htm. Fr. Angles also cites many more examples of Canon Law commentary confirming this concept in his study.
[xxii]New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, edited by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden and Thomas Joseph Green, Published 2000 by Paulist Press, p. 193.
[xxiii] MacGreevy, John T., Catholicism and American freedom: a history, p. 245
[xxv] Can. 1335: If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latæ sententiæ censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.
[xxvi] Can. 970 The faculty to hear confessions is not to be granted except to presbyters who are found to be suitable through an examination or whose suitability is otherwise evident.
[xxvii] Can. 967 §1. In addition to the Roman Pontiff, cardinals have the faculty of hearing the confessions of the Christian faithful everywhere in the world by the law itself. Bishops likewise have this faculty and use it licitly everywhere unless the diocesan bishop has denied it in a particular case.
[xxviii] Introduction by Fr. Peter Scott “Supplied jurisdiction & traditional priests” on Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais’s notes for a conference given to the Catholic Study Groups in Paris, March 9-10, 1991
[xxix] Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (1993-03-25). Directory for the application of principles and norms on ecumenism. Retrieved 2014-01-23 – via Vatican.va.
[xxx] Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (1993-03-25). Directory for the application of principles and norms on ecumenism. Retrieved 2014-01-23 – via Vatican.va.
[xxxii] Edouard, Cardinal Gagnon (1918-2007) in Montreal, 6 May 2002 in a statement by letter concerning the episcopal consecration of Mgr André Letellier by Archbishop André Barbeau “But nothing allows me to doubt the validity of episcopal ordination… The ordinations of the “Old Catholics” are generally considered to be the same as those of Orthodox bishops.”
[xxxiii] MacGreevy, John T., Catholicism and American freedom: a history, p. 245
[xxxiv] This canon allows a censured priest to validly absolve when a Catholic asks him to hear his confession for “any just cause.”
[xxxv]“The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics: A Historical Synopsis and Commentary,” Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., Catholic Universit of America Press, 1948, p. 58-59.
The Community Safety Strategy 2023-26 (Year 2 Refresh) is a policy document produced by Brighton & Hove City Council’s Community Safety Partnership. It outlines the Council’s approach to tackling crime, anti-social behaviour (ASB), hate incidents, extremism, and safeguarding issues. The document serves as a framework for local law enforcement, social services, and community organisations, setting priorities for intervention and enforcement.
As part of Brighton & Hove’s broader commitment to inclusivity and community protection, the strategy addresses a range of social concerns, including domestic abuse, hate crime, anti-social behaviour, and extremism through the Prevent strategy. It draws upon national legislative frameworks, including:
The Equality Act 2010 – Protecting individuals from discrimination based on protected characteristics.
The Public Order Act 1986 – Governing offences related to hate speech and harassment.
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 – Establishing the statutory Prevent duty.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – Safeguarding freedoms of speech, religion, and belief.
The strategy is particularly notable for its emphasis on addressing hate crimes and extremism, reflecting Brighton’s status as a progressive and diverse city. However, some definitions and policies outlined in the document raise concerns regarding free speech, religious freedom, and the potential for subjective enforcement against lawful expression of beliefs.
This document updates the existing 2023-26 strategy, refining policies based on emerging trends in crime and extremism while continuing Brighton & Hove’s commitment to community cohesion and safeguarding vulnerable groups. It remains a key reference for local agencies, influencing how policies on hate crime, radicalisation, and ASB are enforced at a city level.
The Archbishop’s Response
In response to the Brighton & Hove Community Safety Strategy 2023-26 (Year 2 Refresh), The Most Reverend Dr. Jerome Lloyd, Titular Archbishop of Selsey, offers a critical assessment of the document, highlighting potential risks to religious freedom, free speech, and the fair application of counter-extremism policies.
While acknowledging the Council’s commitment to public safety and community cohesion, the Archbishop raises concerns about the strategy’s broad definitions of hate incidents, anti-social behaviour (ASB), and extremism under Prevent. He warns that aspects of the policy may inadvertently infringe upon lawful religious expression, criminalise traditional moral teachings, and create a chilling effect on faith-based discourse.
This response seeks to ensure that the final strategy is both legally robust and balanced, protecting all protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, while safeguarding fundamental rights to belief, worship, and expression. The Archbishop urges Brighton & Hove City Council to amend the strategy in line with UK law and human rights obligations, ensuring that it serves as a genuine tool for community safety, rather than an instrument for ideological enforcement.
Subject: Feedback on the Draft Community Safety Strategy 2023-26 (Year 2 Refresh) To: Brighton & Hove City Council – Community Safety Partnership From: The Most Reverend Dr. Jerome Lloyd, Titular Archbishop of Selsey Date: February 11th 2025
Dear Members of the Community Safety Partnership,
I write to you as a religious leader, community representative, and advocate for the fundamental freedoms of belief, expression, and conscience. While I recognise and commend the Council’s commitment to promoting safety and community cohesion, I am deeply concerned that aspects of the Community Safety Strategy 2023-26 (Year 2 Refresh) risk infringing upon the lawful expression of religious beliefs, restricting freedom of speech, and disproportionately targeting certain faith-based and ideological communities.
Religious institutions and faith communities have long played a vital role in maintaining peace, moral responsibility, and social welfare in Brighton & Hove. However, the strategy’s definitions of hate incidents, anti-social behaviour (ASB), and the Prevent strategy could unjustly restrict religious expression and disproportionately affect faith-based individuals and organisations. I urge the Council to reconsider these elements and to ensure the final strategy upholds legal protections for free speech, religious freedoms, and balanced application of counter-extremism measures.
1. Inadequate Protection of Religious Beliefs under the Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from discrimination based on religion or belief. However, the strategy appears to prioritise gender identity over religious freedoms, creating a real risk of suppressing lawful religious expression.
The strategy defines hate incidents as “any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity” (p.34)[1]. This broad, perception-based definition lacks necessary legal safeguards and could lead to faith-based teachings on marriage, sexuality, and gender being wrongly classified as hate incidents.
The strategy does not reference Forstater v CGD Europe (2021), which affirmed that beliefs in the immutability of biological sex—many of which are rooted in religious doctrine—are protected under the Equality Act[2]. Many faith traditions uphold the theological view that God created humanity male and female (Genesis 1:27). The omission of this recognition risks penalising individuals and institutions for expressing foundational religious beliefs.
Recommendation: The strategy should explicitly state that lawful religious expressions, including traditional teachings on sex and gender, are protected under the Equality Act 2010 and cannot be classified as hate incidents unless they meet a legal threshold of harassment, abuse, or incitement to violence.
2. Overreach in Hate Incident Definitions—Threatening Religious Expression
The strategy’s definition of a hate incident as “any incident perceived as motivated by hostility” (p.34)[1] does not comply with UK case law.
In Miller v College of Policing (2021), the Court of Appeal ruled that recording non-criminal hate incidents based on perception alone violates free speech rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)[3].
If a church, mosque, or synagogue teaches traditional beliefs on marriage, gender, or morality, individuals could claim they feel “distressed,” leading to the incident being wrongly recorded as hate-related—despite no crime being committed.
The recording of non-criminal hate incidents against religious individuals and groups risks creating a chilling effect, where believers feel they must self-censor or refrain from public discourse on moral issues.
Recommendation: The strategy must align with Miller v College of Policing (2021) and state that perception alone does not determine hostility. It should clarify that lawful religious teachings and expressions of faith cannot be classified as hate incidents unless they meet an objective legal threshold.
3. Prevent Strategy—Potential for Overreach into Religious Expression
The Prevent section of the strategy presents serious concerns regarding religious freedom, free speech, and academic liberty.
The strategy seeks to manage “a diverse spread of narratives and beliefs that may be used to motivate and support terrorist violence, including conspiracy theories, anti-establishment narratives, [and] targeting of political leaders/public servants” (p.41)[1].
Concerns:
Vague definitions of extremism: The phrase “a diverse spread of narratives and beliefs” could lead to religious moral teachings, traditionalist political views, and critiques of government policy being labelled as radical or extremist.
Targeting of Faith-Based Speech: Religious doctrines that uphold sex-based distinctions, the sanctity of marriage, or critiques of secular ideologies could be wrongly classified as extremist or radicalising.
Disproportionate focus on right-wing extremism: The strategy downplays Islamist extremism, despite the Independent Review of Prevent (2023) confirming that Islamist radicalisation remains the UK’s primary terror threat[4]. Selective enforcement undermines the credibility and fairness of Prevent measures.
Legal Issue The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 requires that Prevent be applied proportionally and not infringe on legal religious or political speech. The Brighton Prevent strategy fails to provide safeguards against ideological bias, increasing the risk of faith-based viewpoints being unfairly targeted[5].
Recommendation:
Prevent definitions must align with legal standards and exclude broad, subjective categories such as “anti-establishment narratives.”
Explicit protections for religious expression should be included, affirming that lawful faith-based critiques of social policy do not constitute extremism.
4. Risk of Suppressing Academic and Religious Debate
The Williamson v Secretary of State for Education (2005) ruling upheld that religious schools have the right to teach their beliefs, even if they contradict mainstream views[6]. The Prevent strategy in Brighton must not override these legal protections.
Recommendation:
The strategy must include a commitment to uphold academic freedom and free speech in educational and religious institutions.
Prevent training should clarify that expressing lawful religious or political beliefs is not inherently a risk factor for radicalisation.
Conclusion
Key concerns include: ✅ Overly broad definitions of extremism that could criminalise dissent. ✅ Selective targeting of right-wing narratives while downplaying Islamist extremism. ✅ Threats to free speech, religious freedom, and academic debate. ✅ Pressure on faith-based schools and institutions to conform to state ideology.
Without safeguards, Prevent risks becoming a tool of ideological enforcement rather than a counter-terrorism measure.
Sincerely,
The Most Reverend Dr. Jerome Lloyd Titular Archbishop of Selsey
Footnotes
Brighton & Hove City Council, DRAFT Community Safety Strategy 2023-26 (Year 2 Refresh).
Forstater v CGD Europe (2021) – Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on gender-critical beliefs.
Miller v College of Policing (2021) – Court of Appeal ruling on non-criminal hate incidents and freedom of expression.
Independent Review of Prevent (2023) – UK Government findings on counter-terrorism failures.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 – Legal obligations on proportional application of Prevent.
Williamson v Secretary of State for Education (2005) – Supreme Court ruling on religious freedom protections.
To the beloved faithful of the Old Roman Apostolate
Carissimi
“Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you” (Isaiah 60:1).
On this holy feast of the Epiphany, we are reminded of the radiant light of Christ—a light that pierces through the deepest darkness and calls all nations to the truth. The Magi, representing the wisdom of the nations, were drawn to the star of Bethlehem, journeying through peril to pay homage to the true King. Today, we too are summoned to follow that light, amidst a world darkened by apathy, ignorance, and deliberate sin cloaked in false virtue.
A World in Crisis
We cannot ignore the profound brokenness that characterizes much of our modern societies. The Grooming Gangs scandal, with its systemic failures and moral cowardice, and the corrupting harm of Gender Ideology lays bare a society that has abandoned the weak to their predators, preferring the silence of complicity to the courage of justice. The duplicity of political leaders, who campaign on one set of promises and govern by another, reveals a class driven not by the common good but by self-interest and ideological servitude. A materialist and consumerist society driven by a greed that knows no limits to its sense of self, self-interest and possessive obsession.
Our politics have become arenas of hypocrisy and polarization, poisoned by cultural Marxism and critical theories that sow division and enmity. These ideologies elevate resentment to a virtue, dismantling the bonds of charity and truth upon which a just society must stand, falsely revising the history of our common humanity to exact faux revenge and ill conceived vengeance for a contemporary imagined injustice. The unchecked influx of mass immigration, coupled with the spread of radical ideologies, threatens the demographic, cultural, and democratic integrity of Europe and the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, collusion with evil – whether through apathy or active support – prevents nations from upholding the righteous actions of those courageous enough to call out or act to address the broader scourges of ideological totalitarian oppression and terrorism.
We see, too, the growing pressures on Christian witness in the public square. Increasingly, faith is marginalized, our dogmatic principles undermined and fictionalised, and moral truths are suppressed in favour of a culture that celebrates sin as virtue. A world threatened by thought, private prayer, overt charity, self-sacrifice, chastity, fidelity and true virtue. A world that cowers from truth. In such a world, standing for truth becomes an act of defiance, but it is a defiance rooted in love – a love that desires salvation for all.
The Hope of Christ’s Light
Yet, into this world of shadows, the light of Christ still shines. The message of the Epiphany is that the truth cannot be extinguished, for it emanates from the eternal Word of God. The Magi’s journey reminds us that even amidst chaos and confusion, there is a path to truth, discernible to those who earnestly seek it, and that the only worthy response is to humble oneself before it, surrendering all that is most precious.
Yet the light of Christ that calls us to action, is not a passive glow but a fire that ignites courage and righteousness. The Church, as the guardian of this light, must refuse to bend to the false idols of our age. We are called to be witnesses of truth, even when it costs us, and to stand against the evils that threaten the dignity of human life, the sanctity of family, and the sovereignty of nations under God.
The hope we proclaim is not mere optimism but a living assurance in Christ. It is the hope that transforms despair into trust, fear into courage, and division into unity under the banner of truth. This hope invites all people – regardless of background – to join in the joy of the Gospel.
A Call to Conversion
The darkness of our age is not merely external. Each of us must examine the shadows in our own hearts. The sins of apathy, cowardice, and complicity begin with individuals who prefer comfort to conviction. The light of Christ demands repentance, a turning away from sin, and a renewal of our minds and hearts.
In the Epiphany gospel, Herod exemplifies the “prince of this world” (John 14:30) with his duplicity (Matthew 2:8) and murderous will (Matthew 2:16) to preserve his power and control. Modernist exegetes obfuscate his sin as they do Judas, appealing to nihilism, blaming prophecy (Matthew 2:18), instead of recognising the disastrous exploitation of his freewill and culpability for his actions, just as they seek to cover their own faults and excuse sin with their obfuscating eisegeses.
There are many within the Church who try to extinguish the light of truth, refracturing it through the subjective prism of their relativism. Some through ignorance, some led and misguided by emotions and unrestored nature, some desiring to make the uncomfortable truths of the Gospel reconcile with worldly attitudes. Many have succumbed to the wiles of the Devil through his appeals to their prideful self.
As shepherds of God’s people, we call on all who read this letter to resist the seductive lies of false virtue. Compassion without truth is not love but deception. Tolerance without justice is not peace but betrayal. Love without sacrifice is no love at all. Let us embrace the authentic virtues of faith, hope, and charity, grounded in the unchanging truth of Christ.
Moreover, let us cultivate a spirit of prayer and fasting, recognizing that the spiritual battle we face requires spiritual weapons. In humility, we must intercede for our world, asking God to illuminate minds, soften hearts, and embolden spirits. We must embrace our own crosses of death to self and sacrifice self-interest for the sake of the higher purpose to which we are all called, to realise the common good and serve the supreme good.
Christ, the True King
The Epiphany reveals Christ as the King of kings, whose reign brings peace and justice. No earthly power can usurp His authority, and no ideology can overshadow His truth. Let us draw courage from this reality, knowing that we serve a sovereign Lord whose light will never be overcome by darkness.
Let us remember that we are not alone in this mission. The communion of saints surrounds us, offering their prayers and examples. The Blessed Virgin Mary, Star of the Sea, guides us toward her Son, teaching us to say, “Do whatever He tells you” (John 2:5). Our Lord Himself told us where His kingdom is – within our hearts (Luke 17:21)!
May this holy season be a time of renewal for all of us. Let us recommit ourselves to Christ, the light of the world, and become bearers of His light in our families, communities, and nations. Let us pray fervently for our leaders, that they may be guided by wisdom and courage. And let us work tirelessly to build a society that reflects the truth, beauty, and goodness of the Kingdom of God.
“And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it” (John 1:5).
With every blessing in Christ,
I.X.
Brichtelmestunensis In Vigilia Epiphaniæ MMXXV A.D.
Oremus
Deus, qui hodiérna die Unigénitum tuum géntibus stella duce revelásti: concéde propítius; ut, qui jam te ex fide cognóvimus, usque ad contemplándam spéciem tuæ celsitúdinis perducámur. Per eúndem Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. Amen.
O God, You Who by the guidance of a star this day revealed Your only-begotten Son to the Gentiles; mercifully grant that we who know You now by faith, may come to behold You in glory. Through the same Jesus Christ, thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.
Please note that all material on this website is the Intellectual Property (IP) of His Grace, the Titular Archbishop of Selsey and protected by Copyright and Intellectual Property laws of the United Kingdom, United States and International law. Reproduction and distribution without written authorisation of the owner is prohibited.
To the beloved faithful of the Old Roman Apostolate
Carissimi
“Fortiter Sperate”—Have Courage and Hope! As we stand on the threshold of a new year, these words encapsulate the spirit with which we are called to approach the challenges and blessings that lie ahead. For ours is not a hope rooted in fleeting things, but in the eternal promises of Christ, whose Incarnation we continue to celebrate in this holy season.
This day, the Octave of Christmas, also marks the Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord. In this sacred mystery, we are reminded of Christ’s humility, obedience, and His mission of salvation. The New Year begins with the Holy Name of Jesus, the Name that is above every name, proclaiming to all the world that “God saves.” It is a day that invites us to reflect deeply on our calling as disciples and to recommit ourselves to living lives of fidelity, humility, and mission.
Looking back over the year that has passed, we find much to give thanks for, even amidst the trials we have faced. In November, the passage of the Assisted Dying Bill in certain jurisdictions brought with it a stark reminder of the moral darkness that threatens to engulf our societies. Yet, the Apostolate responded with courage and clarity, proclaiming the truth that every human life, from conception to natural death, is sacred and inviolable. In a culture increasingly indifferent to the dignity of life, our steadfast witness has been a sign of hope and a call to repentance.
Amidst these challenges, God has also blessed us abundantly. This past year, we celebrated the ordinations of priests and deacons, men who have answered the call to serve Christ and His Church with courage and generosity. These ordinations are a testament to the Lord’s faithfulness, even in times of difficulty, and they inspire us to persevere in our mission. In the wider Old Roman tradition the consecration of two new bishops in America promises greater collaboration and a future for our efforts, pray for their Excellencies, ✠Luis Baez and ✠Raphael Villareal Falquez.
Similarly, the incardination of priests from other jurisdictions into the Apostolate has brought renewed strength and vitality to our mission. These clergy, drawn by the Apostolate’s unwavering fidelity to the faith of our fathers, have chosen to unite with us in proclaiming the timeless truths of the Gospel. Their decision speaks to the hunger for authenticity and truth in a world often lost in compromise and confusion.
I was privileged this year to visit many of our communities around the world. These pastoral visits allowed me to witness first-hand the vitality and faith of our clergy, religious, and lay faithful. From the missions of Asia to the parishes of Europe and the Americas, I saw a living Church, united in its love for Christ and its commitment to the sacred tradition of the Apostles. These encounters were moments of profound grace, reminding me of the beauty and resilience of our Apostolate.
The Feast of the Circumcision offers a profound model for how we should approach the coming year. In submitting to the rite of circumcision, Our Lord demonstrated His perfect humility and obedience to the Father’s will. He who is above the Law subjected Himself to it, prefiguring the ultimate sacrifice He would make on the Cross for the salvation of humanity. His example calls us to live lives of humility and fidelity, embracing God’s will in all things.
This feast also reminds us of the sanctity of the human body, a temple of the Holy Spirit, created in God’s image. In a world that increasingly distorts and desecrates the body, we are called to be witnesses to its dignity and sanctity, defending life, marriage, and the family as God ordained them.
Finally, this day proclaims the Holy Name of Jesus, a name that is both a prayer and a proclamation. It is a name that brings peace, salvation, and hope, reminding us of the centrality of Christ in all that we do. As we begin this new year, let us carry the Holy Name of Jesus on our lips and in our hearts, boldly proclaiming His truth to a world in desperate need of it.
Let this year be one of renewal. Deepen your prayer life, frequent the sacraments, and immerse yourself in the Word of God and the teachings of the Church. Commit to acts of charity, within your families and beyond, being the hands and feet of Christ in a world longing for His love. Be unafraid to speak the truth, even when it is unpopular, for the truth of Christ is the light that scatters darkness.
Above all, let us remain united in faith, hope, and charity. The strength of the Church lies in its unity, and our unity is rooted in the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith. Let us support one another in prayer and action, building up the Body of Christ as we labour for the Kingdom.
As we begin this new year, may the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose fiat made the Incarnation possible, guide and intercede for us. May the Holy Name of Jesus, proclaimed today, be ever on our lips and in our hearts. And may the Most Holy Trinity bless you and your families abundantly, granting you the grace to persevere in faith, hope, and love.
I.X.
Brichtelmestunensis S. Silvestri Papæ et Conf. MMXXIV A.D.
Oremus
Deus, qui salútis ætérnæ, beátæ Maríæ virginitáte fecúnda, humáno generi præmia præstitísti: tríbue, quǽsumus; ut ipsam pro nobis intercédere sentiámus, per quam merúimus auctórem vitæ suscípere, Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum, Fílium tuum: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti Deus per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. Amen.
O God, Who by the fruitful virginity of blessed Mary, have bestowed upon mankind the reward of eternal salvation, grant, we beseech You, that we may enjoy the intercession of her through whom we have been found worthy to receive among us the author of life, our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son, Who livest and reignest with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, world without end. Amen.
Please note that all material on this website is the Intellectual Property (IP) of His Grace, the Titular Archbishop of Selsey and protected by Copyright and Intellectual Property laws of the United Kingdom, United States and International law. Reproduction and distribution without written authorisation of the owner is prohibited.
Join Archbishop Jerome this Christmas season for a spiritual journey through the Twelve Days of Christmas, uncovering the hidden catechetical meaning behind this beloved carol. Each day’s reflection explores the virtues, teachings, and mysteries symbolized by the song’s “gifts,” drawing us closer to Christ and the abundant blessings of our faith. Rooted in Scripture and tradition, these meditations invite us to deepen our devotion, reflect on God’s call to holiness, and carry the light of Christmas into our daily lives.
The Twelve Days of Christmas: A Catechetical Journey
The Twelve Days of Christmas is often regarded as a joyful and whimsical carol, but beneath its festive melody lies a profound catechetical purpose. Traditionally celebrated from Christmas Day to the Feast of the Epiphany, these twelve days mark a time of spiritual reflection and renewal, inviting the faithful to delve deeper into the mysteries of Christ’s Incarnation and the truths of the Christian faith.
Historical tradition suggests that during the penal times in England, when Catholic practice was outlawed, the Twelve Days of Christmas served as a covert catechism. Its seemingly playful verses concealed a deeper meaning, allowing the faithful to teach and remember essential elements of their faith. Each “gift” in the carol represents a specific truth: the virtues, sacraments, commandments, and foundational doctrines of the Church. These symbolic gifts provided a way for the faithful to maintain their religious identity in a time of persecution.
This series of meditations by Archbishop Jerome, builds on the carol’s catechetical foundation, offering reflections rooted in Scripture and sacred tradition. Each day highlights the spiritual significance of the “gift,” guiding the faithful to consider its meaning in the light of Christ’s saving work. Through these meditations, we are reminded of the riches of God’s grace, the beauty of His Church, and the call to live as faithful disciples. May this journey through the Twelve Days of Christmas inspire a deeper understanding of the faith and renew our joy in the Good News of Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to my channel
