"There’s a reason the laity’s trust in their clergy and especially their bishops is at an all-time low. After waves of sex-abuse coverup (McCarrick, anyone?), then COVID insanity, and finally Traditiones Custodes, we are just fed up with the gaslighting, with being told “shut up and obey, it’s for your own good,” when all the evidence screams the contrary."
1000% I went from a Diocese that is bankrupt from abuse cases and was closed for over a year from COVID restrictions to a Diocese that just ended all of their TLM. While I've met some wonderful individual priests, the idea of "the clergy" as a body of leadership with moral authority is forever lost on me. That's for me to work through, but at least I'm still in the pews. How many have left?
Yes. I would put it this way: the truly orthodox clergy are generally under the thumb of the heterodox/gay/compromised/careerist clergy, and when they step forth boldly, they get crushed like bugs. Laity fortunately have more freedom about where they go and what they say, but it's still by no means easy for us.
I don't know what you mean. The FSSPX (usually referred to in English sources as SSPX) is in a state of juridical separation from the rest of the Church hierarchy. The FSSP (Fraternity of St. Peter) is the 1988 breakaway group from the SSPX that is one of the Ecclesia Dei institutes.
What do you mean “separated from the rest of the hierarchy of the Church?” As a Fraternal Society it exists outside the Diocesan hierarchy under Papal authority like the Dominicans, Franciscans, Cistercians, etc. This is why the “suppression” of the FSSPX in Switzerland by a new Diocesan Bishop was invalid. Only the Pope can suppress a Fraternal Society that exists only by the authority of the Pope. So, the “suppression” of the FSSPX was simply ignored by everyone.
I don't know where you're getting that information from. The Ecclesia Dei Commission was only ever for the groups that "came back into full communion" or however you want to put it.
I have been corrected by new information. The FSSPX was not one of the official institutes under authority of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. I bow readily to the knowledge of Dr Kwasniewski.
I chose to attend the SSPX masses because they are the most beautiful I e seen. Having 7 priest at our priory ensures that masses will be said on all three altars most weekdays, 4 altars on special feast days. Often two altars are in use on Sundays. That is beautiful to witness. Further I prefer that no monies go to Rome but instead build the Societies properties and allow for mission masses. And I certainly am not an expert; however, doesn’t the Fraternity have to say the new order mass a few times a year in Lieu of the traditional Latin Mass? If this is true then I see this as pinching incense. Sorry. I’m not trying to pick a fight. If I’m wrong, I stand corrected and will accept correction. I do support the consecration of bishops. I believe the law of the church is to save souls first and foremost.
Thank you. I understand perfectly what you are saying.
And, to correct you, no, the FSSP priests don't have to celebrate the Novus Ordo ever. Some few of them have chosen to concelebrate at the Chrism Mass with the bishop once a year, but most who attend simply stand in choir, and some do not attend at all.
"The great good is full and regular communion with the hierarchy of the Church. The Ecclesia Dei institutes have chosen this good as a first principle..."
I wonder about such a choice, whether it isn't indicative in itself of real corruption. When you look at all of the blatantly and grossly corrupt individuals who enjoy the allegedly "great good" which is "full and regular communion of the Church," how is it possible to see this formal condition as being of such great value? I suppose I myself enjoy this formal condition, but I don't esteem it as a great good, as if in virtue of it I am justified in the eyes of God. To paraphrase our Lord, you can compass land and sea to maintain 'full and regular communion,' and make your converts -- those belonging to the spirit of your communion -- twice the sons of hell you yourselves are. On that day many will say to him, "Lord, Lord, were we not in full and regular communion with the Church?" And what will he say?
Very well said! The price of “Full Communion” is to celebrate the Novus Ordo Seculorum at least once a year. This is seen as a marker of the unbridled unquestioning acceptance of Vatican II. The irrational and deceptive false motive of “full communion” the Holy See has set before us is merely jargon and propaganda used to control us into accepting Vatican II. A POX ON IT!
Our current stock of bishops have lost their way and like bought off American politicians they do not listen to our needs. Things are changing and paradigms shift in 80 year cycles. SSPX isn’t going to wait around and watch the Church lose its stature as keepers of tradition and truth.
The SSPX consecrations may not be schismatic but these actions hardly work towards unity in the Church. In fact I suggest this is part of the US Doctrinal Warfare program founded in 1953 on the feast if St Peter and St Paul and indirectly targetting theCatholic Church. It was specifically designed to create schism and division in "Totalitarian thought patterns". Thr Coetus Patrum, all of whom had masonic epsicopal lineages did not block the liberal heresies being pushed at VII but allowed the documents to be written in such a way as to allow for a liberal AND a conservative interpretation leaving the post VII Church more divided. Then the Rockefellar Organisation funded Los Tecos who were a Mexican Catholic Right Wing secret organisation whose spiritual director Father Sáenz y Arriaga published the first Sedevacantist Thesis. From then Lefebvre dencounced the Council and Thuc after visiting Econe recast himself as a Traditionalist and began consecrating Bishops without jurisdiction. Lefebvre imitated this in 1988.
Neither Arriaga, Lefebvre nor Thuc acted in a Catholic manner which would have been to suffer meekly trustint in God' providence.
The SSPX consecrations may not be schismatic but these actions hardly work towards unity in the Church. In fact I suggest this is part of the US Doctrinal Warfare program founded in 1953 on the feast if St Peter and St Paul and indirectly targetting theCatholic Church. It was specifically designed to create schism and division in "Totalitarian thought patterns". Thr Coetus Patrum, all of whom had masonic epsicopal lineages did not block the liberal heresies being pushed at VII but allowed the documents to be written in such a way as to allow for a liberal AND a conservative interpretation leaving the post VII Church more divided. Then the Rockefellar Organisation funded Los Tecos who were a Mexican Catholic Right Wing secret organisation whose spiritual director Father Sáenz y Arriaga published the first Sedevacantist Thesis. From then Lefebvre dencounced the Council and Thuc after visiting Econe recast himself as a Traditionalist and began consecrating Bishops without jurisdiction. Lefebvre imitated this in 1988.
Neither Arriaga, Lefebvre nor Thuc acted in a Catholic manner which would have been to suffer meekly trustint in God' providence.
Thank you for the article. If I may supplement with the following.
I appreciated several points in the piece, especially the clear affirmations of the Pope’s legitimacy, the Church’s indefectibility, and the good of the Traditional Latin Mass. Those foundations help anchor the discussion.
At the same time, for anyone trying to sort through this topic without getting swept up in fast‑moving online reactions, it can be helpful to keep a few distinctions in view. SSPX Masses are valid; absolution and marriage are valid through explicit papal provisions; the society remains canonically irregular and without ordinary jurisdiction. The planned consecrations also fall under the canon‑law norms that govern episcopal mandates, with 1988 as the relevant reference point. And even in difficult moments, legitimate authority retains its authority; crisis doesn’t suspend the Church’s structure.
I’m offering these notes simply to support a clear and temperate reading of the situation. A few steady distinctions can help all of us approach the conversation with clarity and avoid the momentum that often comes with social‑media dynamics.
I agree that we should keep our heads calm and clear.
I think where you'll find a lack of obviousness is here:
"Even in difficult moments, legitimate authority retains its authority; crisis doesn’t suspend the Church’s structure."
Sure, at the 30,000 foot level, that's true; but what's precisely in question here is what is a difficult moment, what legitimates authority or what is a legitimate exercise of it, what kind of crisis are we dealing with, can there be a "suspension" of magisterium as Newman thought occurred in the Arian period, and so forth.
Fair enough. The point I wish to highlight in this apparent vagueness is this: it’s not clear that Newman ever taught a true “suspension of the magisterium” during the Arian crisis — he spoke more about a failure of many bishops, not a collapse of the Church’s authority. But even if one granted that interpretation, Christ never abandoned His Church then, and He hasn’t now. So when things feel unclear, we each have to choose what we anchor ourselves in — either the difficulty of the moment or the stability of the Church’s divine constitution. That choice of anchor shapes how we interpret the crisis and how we respond to it.
Peter, let's talk about the same fruits - not apples and oranges.
For one, a Council cannot change dogma - it can only clarify. Yet, nothing in Vatican II (or, to use your broader, much more general and unspecified term, "after the last Council") changed this necessity.
Second, for the Orthodox, there've been clarifications from Rome since the 500s (clearly following Augustine's logic in dealing with nascent and inveterate schisms) - that those who don't knowingly and voluntarily go along with the fullness of a schism can rightly still be called Catholics. So, nothing new. Let's not invent "novelty" where there is none.
And, although Unam Sanctam is a good reminder (and quick re-read) for those who call themselves Catholic in any way, it too clarified this [Quicunque igitur huic potestati a Deo sic ordinatae resistit]! Besides, as you too surely know, its aim was those who opposed Civil Authority to the Pontifical: again, apples and oranges in the "ad quem" and "ad quid", so, I am surprised that you'd mention it on this occasion.
Thus, the only part that is not "black-and-white" in this dogma is that which is known to God alone - unless a man makes it manifest that he *RESISTS* the power that was ordained by God, as Unam Sanctam says. I seem to recall that word "resist" used in this very sense by those who support the SSPX.
Finally - and surely in a moment of inattention - you offer one of the most unreasonable enthymemes of theology and logic: "In any case, it's obvious that the clergy of the SSPX are more united to the Catholic Church than the Eastern Orthodox are." The error in logic is clear: if one is "better" or "more united" than the Orthodox - who are clearly not Catholic as an ecclesial entity - then nothing would be proved in regard to one's catholicity. Theologically, the error is distinct: refusal to submit to the God-ordained [θεόβουλος θεόσδοτος & θεόμητις!] power can begin in one who is already hardened in schism, as Augustine said, or it begin in one who is "more Catholic" - even in one who was seemingly Catholic the day before (as with Döllinger).
Now, you may *think* it is untrue to say that the faithful are not in communion, and since the group itself has no juridical or administrative power to bind its own faithful it is hard to have more than an opinion; but, I would suggest you read more carefully the comments and posts from those who clearly support the SSPX. 99% of it = modern "Church" - "Synodal Church" - "Neomodernist Church" - "Novus Ordo Church" - "Bergoglian/Pauline/Prevost Church" - etc. As I recounted in my article about the schism, their words and actions are actually quite clear: their clergy and faithful believe that the Catholic Church, over which the current Pope is Head and in whose communion are many other local bishops and lay faithful, is a different Church than the "Catholic Church" to which they belong. At a certain point in this debate, you will have to take more seriously their comments and protests to the contrary - not matter what this might cost.
I'm grateful that you defend the ED institutes from some of the false statements made about them; I am sure that you will get around to justly criticizing the SSPX for their rampant habit (in the US and in France, especially, but also in several other countries) of moving around pedophile clergy - even into positions where they have direct and daily contact with many children. I happened to know Fr. Abbet quite well, and his terror caused grave damage in the US and in Europe. At some point, SSPX defenders will have to address how their various superiors, pre-/during/post-Fellay, hid this and have not properly admitted wrong all this time. Sadly, since they recognize no higher authority than themselves and are effectively *Self-Shepherded*, this seems quite unlikely.
I myself have sounded the warning multiple times about the rhetoric used by the more enthusiastic online proponents of the Society. All of their clergy that I've had dealings with, and the more serious of the faithful, wince at these exaggerated and tendentious caricatures. Of course, you and I wince when we see how "normie" Catholics describe adherents of the traditional liturgy.
There is manifestly a legitimate sense in which one can use the phrase "recognize and resist." Let's not play language games. The entire traditional movement, from 1965 onwards, is an exercise in it -- one, moreover, that Ratzinger had plenty of empathy with.
Indeed, let's not play language games: I will be even more frank, then, given your encouragement! Dear friends can handle otherwise harsh truths, in the spirit of charity.
Does the SSPX claim to submit and be subject to the Roman Pontiff, or that they are in communion with him and those who are subject to him, i.e., in line with the traditional and current definition of Union? Of course they don't. They have not - as an organization with more prominent voices - since the late 1970s, and certainly by the mid-1980s [even before Assisi 1].
The Orthodox, at least, are honest about this and do not play pretend by hanging pictures of the Roman Pontiff and Local Bishop (to whom they never submit). So too are the Sedes: they don't pretend.
The Orthodox also recognize Catholic doctrine in regard to the Pope as head of the Catholic Church - in the normal sense of those words, as they've always been used and lived out through the centuries. They simply confess clearly that they are not in communion with said Roman Pontiff - not that they *are* in union, despite their complete lack of obedience to any juridical or administrative decision by the Pope or Local Bishop in union with him. The SSPX tells the local ordinary, sometimes, what it is going to do, but the SSPX never changes course because of anything the Pope or Local Bishop says to the contrary. Everyone knows this.
The subject and object of the verb "resist" is key - again, along the lines of not playing language games, as you yourself wrote. Resist is a transitive verb, after all. To whom and in regard to what? Such slogans are spiritually dangerous precisely because they are language games: they play on people's inattentiveness and lack of logic: Recognize...what? and Resist...whom/what? To what extent? The SSPX prefers to keep this vague. At least Orthodox and Sedes make the objects clear.
Finally, you really should not ignore the point about pedophile abuse. I am sure that, if such a "very-limited hangout" roundtable were to address anything relevant, it would not address that.
I certainly respect and love many of you who happened to be invited to that hangout, but I don't see anyone among those faces who could be called anything but SSPX-sympathizer. So, Limited-Hangout, as always, and such limited-hangouts never actually address the issues at hand: they speak of what they're allowed to speak of; otherwise, they'd be open to those who see the situation as significantly different than they do. Thus, even the "objections" tend to be soft-balls, slow-pitches, to accommodate the intended audience. You could have, for example, asked me - or more widely-respected scholars: Salza, Sungenis, Fr. Harrison, et al. Or, you could have included some of the few more sober of the Sedevacantists, who have taken the SSPX-position to what many think is its logical end. I think we both understand why the round-table was not so broad.
Veritas liberabit vos. That's my motto in all this.
Wow. I am very pleasantly surprised and apologize for assuming the worst: if the subject of the scandalous moving-around of SSPX child-abusers was discussed, then I can only congratulate you all for handling a subject that is usually off-limits in Trad-land. May God reward your courage!
I would offer the simple but important correction to this supposed primary good: <The Ecclesia Dei institutes have chosen this good as a first principle>. Rather, unity - unitas- or communion with the Roman Pontiff and those Catholics in communion with him, has always been recognized and is still called “necessary”. Necessary for salvation. Necessary even to retain the theological virtue of charity. Even the new Catechism repeats this traditional teaching.
So, to pretend that this is an additional choice by Ecclesia Dei institutes is both incorrect theologically and seems to paint them in less than optimal light, simply because they are choosing to be fully Catholic.
Again, to repeat and be absolutely clear: any clear exposition of this subject by a traditional source of teaching in the Catholic Church has taught that unity/communion is absolutely necessary.
I'm not sure if the Vatican, especially after the last Council, would concur that, e.g., the Eastern Orthodox cannot be saved because they are lacking something absolutely required for salvation. That hard-line position, characteristic of the most hard-core trads, has many authorities behind it (including, e.g., Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam), but as you well know, there are also reasons to question a black-and-white application of it.
In any case, it's obvious that the clergy of the SSPX are more united to the Catholic Church than the Eastern Orthodox are. I think it is untrue to say that the faithful who attend the Society chapels are not in communion with the Roman Pontiff or other Catholics in communion with him.
Sorry, that was a mistake on my side, it had been inadvertently set to premium. It is now open to anyone who is signed in (even if a free subscriber). Thanks for reading!
"There’s a reason the laity’s trust in their clergy and especially their bishops is at an all-time low. After waves of sex-abuse coverup (McCarrick, anyone?), then COVID insanity, and finally Traditiones Custodes, we are just fed up with the gaslighting, with being told “shut up and obey, it’s for your own good,” when all the evidence screams the contrary."
1000% I went from a Diocese that is bankrupt from abuse cases and was closed for over a year from COVID restrictions to a Diocese that just ended all of their TLM. While I've met some wonderful individual priests, the idea of "the clergy" as a body of leadership with moral authority is forever lost on me. That's for me to work through, but at least I'm still in the pews. How many have left?
Yes. I would put it this way: the truly orthodox clergy are generally under the thumb of the heterodox/gay/compromised/careerist clergy, and when they step forth boldly, they get crushed like bugs. Laity fortunately have more freedom about where they go and what they say, but it's still by no means easy for us.
Thank you,
Lord have mercy!
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church 🌐🕊️⛲🔥
The FSSPX IS an Ecclesia Dei organization.
I don't know what you mean. The FSSPX (usually referred to in English sources as SSPX) is in a state of juridical separation from the rest of the Church hierarchy. The FSSP (Fraternity of St. Peter) is the 1988 breakaway group from the SSPX that is one of the Ecclesia Dei institutes.
What do you mean “separated from the rest of the hierarchy of the Church?” As a Fraternal Society it exists outside the Diocesan hierarchy under Papal authority like the Dominicans, Franciscans, Cistercians, etc. This is why the “suppression” of the FSSPX in Switzerland by a new Diocesan Bishop was invalid. Only the Pope can suppress a Fraternal Society that exists only by the authority of the Pope. So, the “suppression” of the FSSPX was simply ignored by everyone.
FSSPX means Fraternal Society of St Pius the Tenth, and it was also supported by the Ecclesia Dei authority.
I don't know where you're getting that information from. The Ecclesia Dei Commission was only ever for the groups that "came back into full communion" or however you want to put it.
Then why did Pope Francis admonish the FSSP to “increase its communion with the Church?”
Pope Francis did still admonish the FSSP to increase their communion with the Church.
I have been corrected by new information. The FSSPX was not one of the official institutes under authority of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. I bow readily to the knowledge of Dr Kwasniewski.
I chose to attend the SSPX masses because they are the most beautiful I e seen. Having 7 priest at our priory ensures that masses will be said on all three altars most weekdays, 4 altars on special feast days. Often two altars are in use on Sundays. That is beautiful to witness. Further I prefer that no monies go to Rome but instead build the Societies properties and allow for mission masses. And I certainly am not an expert; however, doesn’t the Fraternity have to say the new order mass a few times a year in Lieu of the traditional Latin Mass? If this is true then I see this as pinching incense. Sorry. I’m not trying to pick a fight. If I’m wrong, I stand corrected and will accept correction. I do support the consecration of bishops. I believe the law of the church is to save souls first and foremost.
Thank you. I understand perfectly what you are saying.
And, to correct you, no, the FSSP priests don't have to celebrate the Novus Ordo ever. Some few of them have chosen to concelebrate at the Chrism Mass with the bishop once a year, but most who attend simply stand in choir, and some do not attend at all.
The Priests of the FSSPX are not required to say the Novus Ordo Seculorum counterfeit Mass.
"The great good is full and regular communion with the hierarchy of the Church. The Ecclesia Dei institutes have chosen this good as a first principle..."
I wonder about such a choice, whether it isn't indicative in itself of real corruption. When you look at all of the blatantly and grossly corrupt individuals who enjoy the allegedly "great good" which is "full and regular communion of the Church," how is it possible to see this formal condition as being of such great value? I suppose I myself enjoy this formal condition, but I don't esteem it as a great good, as if in virtue of it I am justified in the eyes of God. To paraphrase our Lord, you can compass land and sea to maintain 'full and regular communion,' and make your converts -- those belonging to the spirit of your communion -- twice the sons of hell you yourselves are. On that day many will say to him, "Lord, Lord, were we not in full and regular communion with the Church?" And what will he say?
Very well said! The price of “Full Communion” is to celebrate the Novus Ordo Seculorum at least once a year. This is seen as a marker of the unbridled unquestioning acceptance of Vatican II. The irrational and deceptive false motive of “full communion” the Holy See has set before us is merely jargon and propaganda used to control us into accepting Vatican II. A POX ON IT!
Our current stock of bishops have lost their way and like bought off American politicians they do not listen to our needs. Things are changing and paradigms shift in 80 year cycles. SSPX isn’t going to wait around and watch the Church lose its stature as keepers of tradition and truth.
The SSPX consecrations may not be schismatic but these actions hardly work towards unity in the Church. In fact I suggest this is part of the US Doctrinal Warfare program founded in 1953 on the feast if St Peter and St Paul and indirectly targetting theCatholic Church. It was specifically designed to create schism and division in "Totalitarian thought patterns". Thr Coetus Patrum, all of whom had masonic epsicopal lineages did not block the liberal heresies being pushed at VII but allowed the documents to be written in such a way as to allow for a liberal AND a conservative interpretation leaving the post VII Church more divided. Then the Rockefellar Organisation funded Los Tecos who were a Mexican Catholic Right Wing secret organisation whose spiritual director Father Sáenz y Arriaga published the first Sedevacantist Thesis. From then Lefebvre dencounced the Council and Thuc after visiting Econe recast himself as a Traditionalist and began consecrating Bishops without jurisdiction. Lefebvre imitated this in 1988.
Neither Arriaga, Lefebvre nor Thuc acted in a Catholic manner which would have been to suffer meekly trustint in God' providence.
https://open.substack.com/pub/archbishoplefebvrewasafreemason/p/the-us-doctrinal-warefare-program
The SSPX consecrations may not be schismatic but these actions hardly work towards unity in the Church. In fact I suggest this is part of the US Doctrinal Warfare program founded in 1953 on the feast if St Peter and St Paul and indirectly targetting theCatholic Church. It was specifically designed to create schism and division in "Totalitarian thought patterns". Thr Coetus Patrum, all of whom had masonic epsicopal lineages did not block the liberal heresies being pushed at VII but allowed the documents to be written in such a way as to allow for a liberal AND a conservative interpretation leaving the post VII Church more divided. Then the Rockefellar Organisation funded Los Tecos who were a Mexican Catholic Right Wing secret organisation whose spiritual director Father Sáenz y Arriaga published the first Sedevacantist Thesis. From then Lefebvre dencounced the Council and Thuc after visiting Econe recast himself as a Traditionalist and began consecrating Bishops without jurisdiction. Lefebvre imitated this in 1988.
Neither Arriaga, Lefebvre nor Thuc acted in a Catholic manner which would have been to suffer meekly trustint in God' providence.
https://open.substack.com/pub/archbishoplefebvrewasafreemason/p/the-us-doctrinal-warefare-program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaqu%C3%ADn_S%C3%A1enz_y_Arriaga
This Priest had more Faith and Charity than entire disgusting Sspx organization. Acts like controlled opposition to true Catholics, Sedes
Thank you for the article. If I may supplement with the following.
I appreciated several points in the piece, especially the clear affirmations of the Pope’s legitimacy, the Church’s indefectibility, and the good of the Traditional Latin Mass. Those foundations help anchor the discussion.
At the same time, for anyone trying to sort through this topic without getting swept up in fast‑moving online reactions, it can be helpful to keep a few distinctions in view. SSPX Masses are valid; absolution and marriage are valid through explicit papal provisions; the society remains canonically irregular and without ordinary jurisdiction. The planned consecrations also fall under the canon‑law norms that govern episcopal mandates, with 1988 as the relevant reference point. And even in difficult moments, legitimate authority retains its authority; crisis doesn’t suspend the Church’s structure.
I’m offering these notes simply to support a clear and temperate reading of the situation. A few steady distinctions can help all of us approach the conversation with clarity and avoid the momentum that often comes with social‑media dynamics.
I agree that we should keep our heads calm and clear.
I think where you'll find a lack of obviousness is here:
"Even in difficult moments, legitimate authority retains its authority; crisis doesn’t suspend the Church’s structure."
Sure, at the 30,000 foot level, that's true; but what's precisely in question here is what is a difficult moment, what legitimates authority or what is a legitimate exercise of it, what kind of crisis are we dealing with, can there be a "suspension" of magisterium as Newman thought occurred in the Arian period, and so forth.
Fair enough. The point I wish to highlight in this apparent vagueness is this: it’s not clear that Newman ever taught a true “suspension of the magisterium” during the Arian crisis — he spoke more about a failure of many bishops, not a collapse of the Church’s authority. But even if one granted that interpretation, Christ never abandoned His Church then, and He hasn’t now. So when things feel unclear, we each have to choose what we anchor ourselves in — either the difficulty of the moment or the stability of the Church’s divine constitution. That choice of anchor shapes how we interpret the crisis and how we respond to it.
Peter, let's talk about the same fruits - not apples and oranges.
For one, a Council cannot change dogma - it can only clarify. Yet, nothing in Vatican II (or, to use your broader, much more general and unspecified term, "after the last Council") changed this necessity.
Second, for the Orthodox, there've been clarifications from Rome since the 500s (clearly following Augustine's logic in dealing with nascent and inveterate schisms) - that those who don't knowingly and voluntarily go along with the fullness of a schism can rightly still be called Catholics. So, nothing new. Let's not invent "novelty" where there is none.
And, although Unam Sanctam is a good reminder (and quick re-read) for those who call themselves Catholic in any way, it too clarified this [Quicunque igitur huic potestati a Deo sic ordinatae resistit]! Besides, as you too surely know, its aim was those who opposed Civil Authority to the Pontifical: again, apples and oranges in the "ad quem" and "ad quid", so, I am surprised that you'd mention it on this occasion.
Thus, the only part that is not "black-and-white" in this dogma is that which is known to God alone - unless a man makes it manifest that he *RESISTS* the power that was ordained by God, as Unam Sanctam says. I seem to recall that word "resist" used in this very sense by those who support the SSPX.
Finally - and surely in a moment of inattention - you offer one of the most unreasonable enthymemes of theology and logic: "In any case, it's obvious that the clergy of the SSPX are more united to the Catholic Church than the Eastern Orthodox are." The error in logic is clear: if one is "better" or "more united" than the Orthodox - who are clearly not Catholic as an ecclesial entity - then nothing would be proved in regard to one's catholicity. Theologically, the error is distinct: refusal to submit to the God-ordained [θεόβουλος θεόσδοτος & θεόμητις!] power can begin in one who is already hardened in schism, as Augustine said, or it begin in one who is "more Catholic" - even in one who was seemingly Catholic the day before (as with Döllinger).
Now, you may *think* it is untrue to say that the faithful are not in communion, and since the group itself has no juridical or administrative power to bind its own faithful it is hard to have more than an opinion; but, I would suggest you read more carefully the comments and posts from those who clearly support the SSPX. 99% of it = modern "Church" - "Synodal Church" - "Neomodernist Church" - "Novus Ordo Church" - "Bergoglian/Pauline/Prevost Church" - etc. As I recounted in my article about the schism, their words and actions are actually quite clear: their clergy and faithful believe that the Catholic Church, over which the current Pope is Head and in whose communion are many other local bishops and lay faithful, is a different Church than the "Catholic Church" to which they belong. At a certain point in this debate, you will have to take more seriously their comments and protests to the contrary - not matter what this might cost.
I'm grateful that you defend the ED institutes from some of the false statements made about them; I am sure that you will get around to justly criticizing the SSPX for their rampant habit (in the US and in France, especially, but also in several other countries) of moving around pedophile clergy - even into positions where they have direct and daily contact with many children. I happened to know Fr. Abbet quite well, and his terror caused grave damage in the US and in Europe. At some point, SSPX defenders will have to address how their various superiors, pre-/during/post-Fellay, hid this and have not properly admitted wrong all this time. Sadly, since they recognize no higher authority than themselves and are effectively *Self-Shepherded*, this seems quite unlikely.
I don't know if you had the chance to watch this round table but nearly all the points you raised were intelligently addressed there:
https://app.pelicanplus.com/tabs/home/videos/59942
I myself have sounded the warning multiple times about the rhetoric used by the more enthusiastic online proponents of the Society. All of their clergy that I've had dealings with, and the more serious of the faithful, wince at these exaggerated and tendentious caricatures. Of course, you and I wince when we see how "normie" Catholics describe adherents of the traditional liturgy.
There is manifestly a legitimate sense in which one can use the phrase "recognize and resist." Let's not play language games. The entire traditional movement, from 1965 onwards, is an exercise in it -- one, moreover, that Ratzinger had plenty of empathy with.
Indeed, let's not play language games: I will be even more frank, then, given your encouragement! Dear friends can handle otherwise harsh truths, in the spirit of charity.
Does the SSPX claim to submit and be subject to the Roman Pontiff, or that they are in communion with him and those who are subject to him, i.e., in line with the traditional and current definition of Union? Of course they don't. They have not - as an organization with more prominent voices - since the late 1970s, and certainly by the mid-1980s [even before Assisi 1].
The Orthodox, at least, are honest about this and do not play pretend by hanging pictures of the Roman Pontiff and Local Bishop (to whom they never submit). So too are the Sedes: they don't pretend.
The Orthodox also recognize Catholic doctrine in regard to the Pope as head of the Catholic Church - in the normal sense of those words, as they've always been used and lived out through the centuries. They simply confess clearly that they are not in communion with said Roman Pontiff - not that they *are* in union, despite their complete lack of obedience to any juridical or administrative decision by the Pope or Local Bishop in union with him. The SSPX tells the local ordinary, sometimes, what it is going to do, but the SSPX never changes course because of anything the Pope or Local Bishop says to the contrary. Everyone knows this.
The subject and object of the verb "resist" is key - again, along the lines of not playing language games, as you yourself wrote. Resist is a transitive verb, after all. To whom and in regard to what? Such slogans are spiritually dangerous precisely because they are language games: they play on people's inattentiveness and lack of logic: Recognize...what? and Resist...whom/what? To what extent? The SSPX prefers to keep this vague. At least Orthodox and Sedes make the objects clear.
Finally, you really should not ignore the point about pedophile abuse. I am sure that, if such a "very-limited hangout" roundtable were to address anything relevant, it would not address that.
I certainly respect and love many of you who happened to be invited to that hangout, but I don't see anyone among those faces who could be called anything but SSPX-sympathizer. So, Limited-Hangout, as always, and such limited-hangouts never actually address the issues at hand: they speak of what they're allowed to speak of; otherwise, they'd be open to those who see the situation as significantly different than they do. Thus, even the "objections" tend to be soft-balls, slow-pitches, to accommodate the intended audience. You could have, for example, asked me - or more widely-respected scholars: Salza, Sungenis, Fr. Harrison, et al. Or, you could have included some of the few more sober of the Sedevacantists, who have taken the SSPX-position to what many think is its logical end. I think we both understand why the round-table was not so broad.
Veritas liberabit vos. That's my motto in all this.
«I am sure that, if such a "very-limited hangout" roundtable were to address anything relevant, it would not address that.»
In point of fact, we did discuss the imperfections and sins present in the SSPX. There is no need to deny that whatsoever.
The men on the panel are all writers for Pelican+, so it was a natural grouping.
Wow. I am very pleasantly surprised and apologize for assuming the worst: if the subject of the scandalous moving-around of SSPX child-abusers was discussed, then I can only congratulate you all for handling a subject that is usually off-limits in Trad-land. May God reward your courage!
I would offer the simple but important correction to this supposed primary good: <The Ecclesia Dei institutes have chosen this good as a first principle>. Rather, unity - unitas- or communion with the Roman Pontiff and those Catholics in communion with him, has always been recognized and is still called “necessary”. Necessary for salvation. Necessary even to retain the theological virtue of charity. Even the new Catechism repeats this traditional teaching.
So, to pretend that this is an additional choice by Ecclesia Dei institutes is both incorrect theologically and seems to paint them in less than optimal light, simply because they are choosing to be fully Catholic.
Again, to repeat and be absolutely clear: any clear exposition of this subject by a traditional source of teaching in the Catholic Church has taught that unity/communion is absolutely necessary.
I'm not sure if the Vatican, especially after the last Council, would concur that, e.g., the Eastern Orthodox cannot be saved because they are lacking something absolutely required for salvation. That hard-line position, characteristic of the most hard-core trads, has many authorities behind it (including, e.g., Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam), but as you well know, there are also reasons to question a black-and-white application of it.
In any case, it's obvious that the clergy of the SSPX are more united to the Catholic Church than the Eastern Orthodox are. I think it is untrue to say that the faithful who attend the Society chapels are not in communion with the Roman Pontiff or other Catholics in communion with him.
Tried to read the article but got an error message
Grace and peace to you,
https://substack.com/@robertcculwell/note/c-210699897?r=26w20k
I created a login but Pelican is still requiring me to purchase a subscription for today's article.
Sorry, that was a mistake on my side, it had been inadvertently set to premium. It is now open to anyone who is signed in (even if a free subscriber). Thanks for reading!