sspx | Blogger Priest

THE DISSENT OF THE SSPX: An Unlikely Reconciliation

Posted on July 8, 2026 by Father Joe

Protesters holding signs opposing church reform in front of a church building

When mention is made of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), what comes to the mind of most is their insistence upon celebrating the Tridentine Mass. However, their divide with the Vatican is far more serious and complicated. If the problem were simply an attachment to the older ritual, there would be no excommunications and schism. The proof of this is the regularized status of the Fraternity of St. Peter. They offer the pre-Vatican II Mass exclusively and without hindrance. The crisis with the SSPX is over the direction and teachings of Vatican II.

Portrait of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, no frame

A growing number of living Catholics were not around or were small children prior to Vatican II (1962-1965). At the request of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X was established and canonically erected as a “pious union” on an experimental basis for six years by Bishop François Charrière of the Diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg in Switzerland on November 1, 1970. His successor, Bishop Pierre Mamie, petitioned Rome and formally suppressed the SSPX’s canonical status on May 6, 1975. Archbishop Lefebvre refused to shut down the operation for the formation of seminarians and restructured the SSPX as a clerical or priestly organization. While Archbishop Lefebvre signed 14 of the 16 conciliar documents from Vatican II, he later renounced the Council and accused the post-Vatican II Church of modernism, liberalism, and adopting the “spirit of the modern world.”

The point of contention continues to be an interpretation of centuries old tradition and the extent of ongoing development. There are five areas of friction:

(1) HUMAN DIGNITY – As the root premise from which flow as corollaries the other areas of objection from the SSPX, we must begin with the most foundational principle of Catholic social doctrine. At the core of our belief in what Pope John Paul II called the Gospel of Life, is the conviction that every person is created in the image of God and as such, possesses an inherent, inalienable and incommensurate value that defeats every effort at quantification. Everyone has worth, even prior to the indwelling of divine grace. Even in the womb, human life is precious and irreplaceable. This valuation stems from humanity’s place as the steward of creation. This dignity is damaged by the primordial fall and sin but not destroyed. Human worth is not a measure that society can assign or reward to those it most favors. It is given immediately by God at the moment of conception. Most recently, this teaching emerges in Dignitas Infinita (2024) wherein Pope Francis speaks of “infinite dignity” grounded in the created order as a facet of our very being. He lists the violations against this dignity as including poverty, war, human trafficking, abortion, euthanasia, and gender theory. Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes (1965) makes human dignity a central component to Catholic teaching and outreach. This conviction places us at odds with any discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, color, social status, or religion. Such bigotry contradicts the will of God. Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae (1965) connected this dignity to freedom of conscience and religious freedom. Evangelium Vitae (1995) written by Pope St. John Paul II, focused on the value and inviolability of every human life, objecting to abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Pacem in Terris (1963) written by Pope St. John XXIII associated dignity and human rights with the pursuit of peace while respecting truth, justice, charity, and liberty.

Elderly woman sitting on a moss-covered rock holding a book with mountains and river in background at sunset

The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) contends that human nature alone does not inherently possess any dignity that grants inalienable rights. Let that sink in, especially the consequences. They argue that true dignity belongs to the Christian, achieved exclusively through divine grace, rather than merely by being a human created in the image of God. It is no wonder that traditionalists constitute hawks in terms of military intervention around the world and are often rabid defenders of the death penalty. They refuse to acknowledge any doctrinal development about capital punishment. Indeed, some will even advocate for the Church’s past passivity for slavery, echoing ancient arguments— punishment for conquered peoples, a means to pay back debts, a manner to civilize savages with the faith and Western civilization. Indigenous culture is devalued. The traditionalist fraternity finds itself in conflict, not just with liberalism but with the Catholic mainstream.

The conciliar popes see human dignity as inherently rooted in creation itself, in nature (see CCC 1700). Human rights are first based upon natural dignity. By contrast, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre stated, “There is not a dignity of man; there is only the dignity of the Christian.” The SSPX argument is that Original Sin damages or corrupts human nature. The mainstream would also agree that it has been wounded, but not that it has become devalued. The SSPX repudiates the notion that unbaptized human beings (unregenerated and still in sin) possess any inherent incommensurate natural dignity. Where does the truth stand? There is no rift with tradition. But this is the great conflict that makes the regularization of the SSPX impossible. Our tradition is that human dignity is damaged but not destroyed. The “supernatural” or divine grace builds upon the “natural.” Baptism and saving faith transform creatures of God into adopted sons and daughters of the Father. Made in the “image of God,” divine grace makes possible our rebirth into the “likeness of Christ.” The implications of this even speak to the Church’s new interest in ecology. Why? It is because any abuse or neglect of our environment works to impoverish human persons. Our Christian anthropology looks to a creation where man stands at the center. The consequences of this understanding impact upon our understanding of the incarnation. Jesus comes into the world to save us and yet he also comes to resolve a metaphysical conflict. Christ as the Word is also the saving plan and the center of creation. You cannot have two centers. Thus, the Word becomes man. The consequence for fallen man is decisive; grace builds upon nature. While we would not reject the wonder that is man, a notion that comes down to us from the Enlightenment, it is that good seed from the natural order that grows by God’s intervention into something even more marvelous. Potency is actualized. Wired for God, that immeasurable dignity is used by God as a building block for his incarnation and the new man in baptism. That which is beyond evaluation is granted something of the infinite goodness that belongs to God.

(2) RELIGIOUS LIBERTY – The Council established religious freedom as a basic human right (see Dignitatis Humanae). No one should be compelled to violate his or her conscience about faith. But the response of the SSPX is an explicit objection. In its estimation, all must be subject to the Kingship of Christ and error has no rights. These traditionalists would reject religious liberty as an American imposition upon the universal Church.

Prior to the revolutionary War, Maryland as a colony had issued the Edict of Toleration (1649). This decree grated religious freedom for Trinitarian Christians. Maryland Catholics invited the Puritans persecuted in Virginia to join us in our colony. However, in 1654, Puritan rebels seized control of Maryland and revoked the colony’s groundbreaking Act of Religious Toleration. They quickly enacted sweeping penal laws that banned Catholic worship, prohibited Catholics from voting or holding public office, and severely restricted the religious freedoms of Jews, Quakers, and other dissenters.

As citizens, we know that freedom of religion is protected under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It also established the separation of church and state. While we had to suffer the bigotries of the political Know Nothings and the prejudice of various early hate groups. The enactment of religious liberty would give us an even playing field wherein the Church in the United States could flourished.

American enthusiasts for the liturgies and spirituality of the SSPX might be less than pleased with this mentality toward our non-believing and Protestant neighbors. Our forefathers, Catholic and Protestant alike, came to this country to escape the oppression of state religions where institutionalized favoritism to one church came at the cost of persecuting all others. More than once the tables turned in Europe, and the Catholic Church suffered much in what were regarded as states favorable to Rome. But princes rose and fell and along with this movement also went the fortunes of the Church. One can certainly argue as a philosophical notion that the ideal state is one where there is harmony with the Church and concurrence with the truth. This is an ancient tradition. However, in practice, the subjective assessments of men lead to division. This particularly became the case after the reformation. The old mind about such matters allowed a king to steal the Church away in England where he made himself the head over the Pope. Even agreements of the Church to preserve peace in Europe often tolerated believers following the local prince, either into Catholicism or into the Protestant sects. The American notion of religious liberty severed this ability of the state to violate conscience and to compel a certain form of worship. Vatican II gives an emphasis to the nation of the new Israel or Christ’s reign over earthly kingdoms. Catholicism unlike the churches of the East is no national church. There is no American Catholicism or French Catholicism but rather as Roman it is, like the empire of old, international in scope. One can speak of the Catholic Church in America but never of an American Catholic Church. This distinction is often lost. Again, while in principle it would make sense that the Catholic political heads should have the moral duty to favor Catholicism and restrict error; the capriciousness of men and the changing state of the world made such imposition difficult or impossible to maintain. What was given by one monarch could just as easily be stripped away by the next. Did we really want to continue in a society where Catholics and Protestants conspired against one another and where both suspected the Jews of dark machinations? Certain Catholic traditionalists have argued, not only for the suppression of Jews to ghettos, but that Protestants should be restricted to home churches and forfeit their worship sites and schools. This is the mindset of the SSPX. But the world has moved on from such anachronism, or has it? It is precisely the mindset of militant Islam that forbids conversion to Christianity and in places like Saudi Arabia has outlawed the Church, altogether. The trouble with the shoe on the other foot is when it comes down to being kicked around. The Church’s teachings upon such matters must reflect the realities of the modern world. It makes no sense to speak of the divine rights of kings when such despots have disappeared. Toleration of false religions is not to posit faith or confidence in those creeds; no, it is rather a common respect for persons and a desire to live together in peace as brothers and sisters of a common homeland. This liberty allows us to persuade and to seek conversion through charity and dialogue, not through intimidation as through edict or decree.

(3) ECUMENISM – The Vatican Council urged dialogue over anathema. Pope John XXIII saw ecumenism as a manner to draw fallen away children back to the fold of Mother Church, not with scolding and threat of punishment but with affirmation of shared beliefs and the compelling power of the truth (see Unitatis Redintegratio, 1964). While we could never engage in non-Christian prayer, we might sometimes pray side-by-side and work together to improve the society in which we must live as neighbors. The SSPX wrongly condemns such efforts as the sin of indifferentism. But there is no pollution of true faith. Further, no one questions the ancient teaching from the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” The dogma of “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is straightforward, since there is no salvation apart from Christ, and given that the Church is his mystical body, then the Church is the necessary vessel or great sacrament of salvation in Christ. It is for this reason that we seek to attract all to the safe harbor of salvation— the Catholic Church. However, teaching must be applied in a way that respects changing circumstances around us. While the great schism between the East and West had occurred in 1054 AD, the reformation rebellion did not occur until 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. This signified a great fracturing of the Church in the West. The reformers absconded with many Catholic beliefs and most importantly, with the sacrament of baptism. Unfortunately, they forfeited the crown treasures of Priesthood, Eucharist and Penance. Many through no fault of their own have been born into the Protestant confessions. They are baptized, read the Bible, love Jesus and know him as the Second Person of the Trinity and the Word incarnate, and seek to keep the commandments. The SSPX would contend that these saving elements are for nought. But our hearts will not let us believe that a good God would spurn their cry. The post-Vatican II Church would argue that these elements cry out for Catholic unity. Our Lord will not abandon those who love him and place their faith in his saving Cross. While our unity is not what it should be, it is not utterly severed. The Catholic Church reaches out to them and intercedes for them to almighty God. We need to trust that the Church’s collective trust in Jesus and cry to heaven will grant hope and might be efficacious. The mystery of the keys may be impenetrable, but it is real and the authority is given to Peter. Unfortunately, the SSPX gives lip service to Rome but nothing of true respect and subservience.

The SSPX is frequently tagged for being antisemitic. Whether they are or not, it is a question I would leave to others. However, they are on the record for questioning whether the Jews today are one and the same with the Jews of old. They would insist that their covenant ended with the coming of Christ and that those Jews who failed to convert to Christianity are no longer the People of God. This is not the view of the living Magisterium (see Nostra Aetate, 1965 on relations with non-Christian religions). Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church does not subscribe to Zionism, as the prophesied new Israel or new Jerusalem is not the political state of Israel but is rather the Church, herself. We believe that Jesus Christ is the consummation of the old covenant, but that God keeps his promises, and the Jews remain God’s own and our elder brothers and sisters in faith. There are not two separate covenants but one. The old becomes something new in Jesus Christ. The natural religion of the Jews with its belief in one true God is given a further revelation in the new dispensation of God as a Trinity. This belief of one God in three divine Persons raises Christian faith to a supernatural religion. No matter whether all Jews know it or not, Jesus is the Messiah and our Savior. We believe that Jesus is the ultimate term of salvation. None are saved apart from him. But we also appreciate that God’s grace cannot be utterly contained. God will save whomever he wills. We leave judgment to God. The SSPX would outrightly condemn much of the planet to perdition. By contrast we do not teach universalism (that all will be saved). Indeed, even Catholics with a soured faith and in mortal sin might forfeit heaven. However, if we walk with the Lord, people of faith live in the sure and certain hope of their salvation in Christ. We pray and intercede for others. Again, we do not usurp a prerogative that belongs to the Almighty— we leave judgment to almighty God.

(4) LITURGICAL REFORM & THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE –

Vatican II called for a renewal of the liturgy. After much consultation and work, the reformed Mass of Paul VI was promulgated in 1969. While Latin was to have a preferred place, the vernacular quickly displaced it. Many lamented the loss of the many chants and our legacy of hymnody. While Society of Saint Pius X has objected to the changes, it has become abundantly clear that they would resist even the most modest alterations. They contend that the Novus Ordo obscures the sacramental aspect of the liturgy and waters down Catholic elements to appease Protestants. They will go so far as to castigate the reformed Mass as dangerous. It is my argument that they trespass in their critique into the moral area of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. If they believed that holy orders were truly conferred to priests of the living Church, why do they insist upon re-ordination when received into the SSPX? If they really believe the Novus Ordo Mass is valid then how can they urge against attendance, especially since the fruits prevail over any subjective aesthetic? No, they speak out of both sides of their mouths. Their arrogance destroys the humility necessary for a theologian and the posture of a Catholic who is one with Peter.

The changes in the liturgy were the result of a liturgical reform that in theory and small steps went back many decades prior to Vatican II— dialogue Masses, experiments with the orientation of the priest, the use of the vernacular, expansion of the Scriptures, the introduction of microphones, the permission for missal translations for the people, the reduction of duplication (as with the double Confiteor), etc. What surprised many people was the wholesale rewrite of the offertory and the addition of Eucharistic prayers. The latter is why some have suggested that the new liturgy signified a new rite and the loss of the Roman rite. However, the Roman Canon is still retained, and the liturgical pattern of the Roman rite remains the guide for our worship. What is this pattern?

THE STRUCTURE & ELEMENTS OF THE NOVUS ORDO (ROMAN RITE)

First, there are the Introductory Rites: 1. Introit (Antiphon /Hymn) & Kissing Altar, 2. Sign of the Cross & Greeting, 3. Confiteor & Kyrie Eleison & Absolution, 4. Gloria (Glory to God), and 5. Collect (Opening Prayer).

Second, is the Liturgy of the Word: 1. Reading(s), 2. Responsorial Psalm, 3. Alleluia or Gospel Verse, 4. Gospel, 5. Homily, 6. Creed (Profession of Faith), and 7. Prayer of the Faithful.

Third is the Preparation of the Gifts (Offertory): 1. Bringing Up the Offertory Gifts, 2. Blessing of the Bread, 3. Mixing Water into the Wine, 4. Blessing of the Chalice, 5. The Lavabo (The Washing), 6. The Orate Fratres (Pray Brethren), and 7. Prayer over the Gifts.

Fourth is the Liturgy of the Eucharist: 1. Introductory Dialogue & Preface, 2. Sanctus & Benedictus, 3. Eucharistic Prayer (Canon), and 4. Closing Doxology & Amen.

Elements of the Eucharistic Prayer or Anaphora: 1. Appeal to the Father or Plea for Acceptance, 2. Epiclesis (Invocation of the Holy Spirit), 3. Consecration (Words of Institution), 4. Memorial Acclamation, 5. Anamnesis (Memorial Prayer), and 6. Oblation to the Father.

Intercessions in Variable Order: 1. Intercession of the Saints, 2. Intercession for the Church, 3. Intercession & Memento for the Living, and 4. Intercession & Memento for the Dead.

Fifth is the Rite of Holy Communion: 1. Our Father, Deliver Us Prayer & Doxology, 2. Sign of Peace, 3. Fraction & Commingling, 4. Agnus Dei (Lamb of God), 5. Secret Prayer for Priestly Worthiness, 6. Ecce Agnus Dei (Behold the Lamb of God), 7. Communion & Antiphon (Hymn), and 8. Prayer after Communion.

Sixth, there are the cursory Concluding Rites: 1. Final Blessing and 2. Dismissal.

Finally, there is a truth that many seem to have historical amnesia about. Ultimately what makes the Roman rite, the Roman rite? There are many other liturgies that go back into antiquity. What gives singular value to this one ritual? The answer is simple and straightforward. The priests of the West wanted to do as the Romans do. In other words, they desired to imitate Peter or the Pope in Rome. The Holy Father is the living embodiment of the Roman rite!

The Holy Father is obligated to maintain the Church’s inheritance, but he can also rescue eclipsed traditions from the Church’s past treasure and build upon new insights that will add to the richness of faith for future generations. The Novus Ordo (the Vatican II Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) restored several ancient liturgical elements that had been lost, obscured, or marginalized over time. These included expanded readings from Scripture (especially the Old Testament), the Prayer of the Faithful Bidding Prayers, multiple Eucharistic prayers, and concelebration. While many complain about the editing, the short Second Eucharistic Prayer borrowed from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. Communion in the hand was restored as an option that was normative for the first eight hundred years of the Church’s history.

Repeatedly, the hardliner traditionalists struggle with transition or development. One often feels more comfortable and secure with a staid tradition and dead popes than with a living tradition and breathing popes! Pope Francis was the symbol for everything a lover of tradition fears— novelty and uncertainty. I suppose that is why so many are hoping and praying that when the new cat, Pope Leo XIV, makes his final leap from the altar, that he will land on his feet and put all things right again— please, pretty, please!

(5) COLLEGIALITY & CHURCH AUTHORITY – Ultimately the fight between the SSPX and the Vatican is over ecclesiology or authority. The SSPX abhor Lumen Gentium (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964. The document fundamentally reshapes the Church’s self-understanding in the modern world. Who speaks for the Church? Is it one dead archbishop and a few illicitly manufactured bishops against the thousands of bishops at Vatican II who remain in full union with Rome? Did our Lord promise Peter and his Church the gift of indefectibility or not? The SSPX has gotten so used to having its own way that it no longer knows how to concede to the papacy. It is an organization born from rebellion and its identity is tied up with its position as the opposition to reforms of any sort. It sees itself as the bastion of orthodoxy against a larger and universal Church which it has condemned as in the grips of the heresy of modernism. If it would not concede to Pope Benedict XVI, then it was highly unlikely that it would acquiesce either to Francis or now to Leo XIV. I suspect that is why the current Pope has said that it is time to let them go their way. We might get a few stragglers to return but like the Anglicans, they are set on their own path. Sadly, they will do so without Peter, which means that they have left the boat established by Christ on the sea of salvation history. Their stance over the last half century is becoming increasingly untenable. Do not be surprised when the day comes that one of their prelates will arise and be declared the great antipope of their confession.

While there is legitimate confusion about what constitutes the current synodal way, especially with the inclusion of select laity, the SSPX were not entirely happy with the college of bishops helping the Pope to govern the global Church, either. But the Church has grown too big for the small structures of the past to suffice. He needs people of varying expertise and learning. Mistakes will be made but the Church will be richer for the talents and wisdom of its saints, and yes even sinners who might become saints. While the SSPX might object that collegiality diminishes the supreme and monarchical authority of the Pontiff; it makes an exception for itself and has become querulous or whiny about being rebuffed by Rome. The SSPX tends to view sacred tradition as immutable and as a product from heaven against the dictates of shifting cultural opinions. However, just like Sacred Scripture, that is both the work of men and that of divine inspiration; tradition is a mixture of providence within the framework of human history. There is always both an immutable and a mutable component. The Church tolerated slavery but the egalitarian component of baptism and an extended reflection upon the dignity of the human person made such a concession or passivity to evil into something that could no longer be sustained or tolerated. The Church granted the state the right to execute the most dangerous criminals but here too, with the development of a more corrective penal system, the necessity of such an extreme measure was increasingly questioned. Pope John Paul II, who had known men to lose their lives under both the Nazis and later under Communist rule, distrusted the judgment of those who held the reins of power to make just decisions. Indeed, given the rise of abortion where innocent children were sentenced to death, he felt that a Western world in the grips of a culture of death had sacrificed the authority to condemn the guilty. Instead of concurrence with the world, we have witnessed the Church’s continuing moral ascendance as a sign of contradiction that challenges contemporary secular culture. The Church finds herself targeted as the enemy by the left and right. She is daily combating challenges to religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and crimes against human dignity. She is a Church in conflict, not only with the modern world, but with the world of old and the hardened traditions paraded by the SSPX. Today we are seeing this same clash or friction regarding warfare. The Church looks at weapons of mass destruction and the thousands of non-combatants in harm’s way and pleads for peace. This earns praise from the weak and recrimination from the strong. The weak look to the Pope and the Church as the voice for the oppressed and the marginalized. The strong tell Catholic leaders to stay out of politics and to mind their own business, or else.

The values of the Church are what they have always been. Homosexuality is still a disorientation, but we tell these people that we love them and desire to walk with them in the hopes that together we might “together” travel the path to conversion and holiness. We recognize a messiness and brokenness that touches many marriages and families these days. Instead of condemnation, we seek to bring healing and a path to regularization. We reach out to those who live for the flesh and remind them that there is a life in the spirit where one can find true happiness and something lasting. We plead that human beings should not be reduced to commodities— not in abortion, not in sweat shops, not in human trafficking— but persons who must be valued and loved. We are condemned for taking the cause of the immigrant. We are ridiculed for seeking to advance the poor. The same voices that might praise us for speaking up for the unborn child demand our silence about the prisoners on death row. The SSPX defenders add their voices to this worldwide ridicule. Notice how incensed they became when the Vatican library offered a small room for a few Moslems to pray privately in peace. It was no temple or public worship space, but still Vatican authorities were chastised for making a concession to the “Church of Satan”!

A man who would become a special prophet for Vatican II should be mentioned. Beloved by Traditionalists because of his orthodox television programs and a classic photo book on the Mass, Archbishop Fulton Sheen became a strong supporter for the Second Vatican Council. He praised the document Gaudium et Spes as “brilliant” in his book, Treasure in Clay. He advanced with zeal the Council’s directives. He delivered a strong and supportive speech to the Council fathers in November 1964 on our missionary outreach. He adopted the reforms of the council, including the Novus Ordo. At the beginning of the Council he remarked that Pope John XXIII was calling the Church to stop hiding behind closed doors and go out into the world because it was “waiting for salvation.” As Bishop of Rochester, Sheen fully implemented the ecumenical and pastoral directives of Vatican II. In September 1968, he became one of the first U.S. prelates to invite a Protestant leader to speak from his cathedral pulpit, aiming to make his diocese a catalyst for post-conciliar renewal and ecumenism. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen preached at televangelist Rev. Robert Schuller’s Arboretum in 1972. Traditionalists were infuriated; how dare he speak for a Dutch Reformed minister and treat his congregation as real Christians! Archbishop Sheen also frequently used the story of Lutheran Pastor Richard Wurmbrand—who endured 14 years of brutal torture and solitary confinement in Romanian Communist prisons for his Christian faith—to illustrate the reality of modern Christian martyrdom and the redemptive power of suffering. Making the case for religious liberty and ecumenism in the same breath earned contempt from the likes of the SSPX.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholic, christianity, Conscience, Ecumenism, Faith, fulton-sheen, human-dignity, image-of-god, interfaith-dialogue, Jesus, latin-mass, novus-ordo, Religion, Religious Liberty, sspx, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

Conformity about Essentials, Freedom about Accidentals

Posted on June 28, 2026 by Father Joe

Priest holding communion wafer in front of a woman with hands clasped in prayer

This statement is taken from the SSPX Profession of Faith . . .

Here we begin to see a problem with the SSPX stance. What is said about the Eucharist as the substantial presence of the complete risen Christ is true. It is what we believe. But then there is a not-so-subtle opinion, more subjective than measured by immutable doctrine. The SSPX rejects the reformed liturgy as a “practice which weakens faith in the Real Presence, the respect due to the Eucharist,” and “trivializes Holy Communion.” The SSPX statement even makes liturgical architecture into a matter of faith, given what they define as the “sacred character of the sanctuary.” As a priest aware of the sacred beauty of the Tridentine Mass, I can attest disagreement to their negative assessment against the Missal of Paul VI. The reformed liturgy cannot be defined by abuses in its administration. No matter whether the priest faces away (East) or in the direction of the people, he is still facing and offering his ministrations at the altar. Certain cathedral churches with central altars, always had people behind and in front and on the sides or the celebrant. The priest raises his eyes to heaven and that is where we should set our sights. While communion on the tongue is normative, for the first thousand years the preferred manner was in the hand. Either option is permitted today. It is preferred that tabernacles be central to the worship space, but even if this is not so, the real presence of Christ is still honored. Indeed, in such cases the gravity given the altar of sacrifice is highlighted in terms of worship. It is okay that SSPX members prefer the older forms. However, it is wrong that they would condemn and force the rest of the Church to abandon the reformed liturgy. I would argue fidelity about essentials and freedom about accidentals. They would interpret their 600,000 lay worshipers as the faithful remnant against the one-and-a-half billion Catholics in juridical union with the Holy See. They would insist that their rebellious two serving bishops should be able to dictate to the 5,600 faithful bishops of the Catholic Church who are one with the Pope. No way— it will never happen. No matter whether they appreciate it or not, they malign our legitimate pastors, the faith of our people and the presence and activity of Christ in our reformed sacraments. Their own profession of faith will come back to condemn them.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, christianity, Eucharist, Faith, Jesus, Mass, missal-of-paul-vi, sspx | Leave a comment »

SSPX Goodbye: So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

Posted on May 14, 2026 by Father Joe

Five priests wearing black cassocks and wide-brimmed hats walking in a line on a cobblestone street.

https://fsspx.news/en/news/declaration-catholic-faith-addressed-pope-leo-xiv-59110?

The SSPX has from its beginnings been guilty of presumption in judging the Holy See and the heavy consensus of the many bishops who participated at Vatican II. Why they cannot see their terrible arrogance about this is a matter hard to understand. They suggest that there has been a break with the past when the best minds in the Church demonstrated organic development regarding essentials and needed changes to accidentals to respond to modernity. Had the issue only been the liturgy this impasse would have ended long ago. But it is so much more, particularly about ecclesiology and soteriology. They would reduce the magisterium to a political congress to which they alone would have an absolute veto. No, this cannot be permitted and their upcoming consecration of bishops will signify not merely the widening of a rift but the formal institution of a new offshoot or ecclesial reality like the Anglicans and the Greeks before them. They hide behind the abandoned artifacts of history, heralding tradition, while refusing to honestly engage with a changing world. They feign fidelity while dissenting from the authority of the living magisterium.

It is ironic that they appeal to “conscience” for their fractured communion when they formally reject the expansion of its definition at Vatican II. They accuse the Holy Father and the post-Vatican II Church of heresy, “destroying Catholic faith and morals.” If the reforms attest to the movement of the Holy Spirit, then they commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a sin regularly committed in their attack against the Novus Ordo Mass as evil and dangerous. They spurn canon law as being used to undermine the holy faith. The law of just authority applies to all except themselves.

Fidelity to the Catholic faith is more than “devotion,” it is measured by obedience to the Pope and the living magisterium. The declaration reverses reality and presumes that the SSPX is the true Church to which the Holy See must be in communion. This is utter nonsense! What are their “indispensable” faith capitulations for juridical reunion?

One Covenant That Does NOT Include the Jews, YES or NO?

It is true that the Catholic faith is the one true Church instituted by Christ. But the SSPX refuses to acknowledge contemporary Jews as children of Abraham. As far as they are concerned, the old covenant first established with them as God’s people was rendered “definitively null and void” some two thousand years ago. The implication of their faith profession is that they are guilty of deicide and that by extension the Moslems (along with them) are now children of Satan who reject Christ as the Messiah. It is no wonder that this negative assessment includes allegations of collective guilt as enemies of the Church for the death of Christ, antisemitic slander about clandestine Jewish influence for world dominion and even denial of the Holocaust atrocities. The SSPX thoroughly rejects the Nostra Aetate declaration and interfaith dialogue.

The Catholic Church neither believes that God has severed his covenant with the Jews nor that there are two covenants, one for Jews and the other for Christians. The relationship with the Jews remains because God keeps his promises. The old covenant is fulfilled by the new in Jesus Christ. The Church is the New Israel and as such we would reject Zionism. Just as many of the Jews accepted Christ in the ancient church of Jerusalem, we pray that many of our Jewish brothers and sisters will today come to know and love him. The Jews are our elder brethren in faith, the first called, and they are still beloved of God. We read in Romans 11:25-29:

“I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not become wise in your own estimation: a hardening has come upon Israel in part, until the full number of the Gentiles comes in, and thus all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The deliverer will come out of Zion, he will turn away godlessness from Jacob; and this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.’ In respect to the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but in respect to election, they are beloved because of the patriarchs. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

While we can argue a movement from the natural religion of Judaism (belief in the one true God) to a supernatural religion in Catholicism (the revelation of the Trinity), we share a common faith patrimony. The Christian Savior will always be the Jewish Messiah. None of this detracts from “Jesus” as the saving name— that none are saved apart from him— that he is our one Mediator and Savior— that none come to the Father except through him. We are redeemed by the saving work of his Cross which is re-presented to us in an unbloody fashion by the Eucharist. The significance of Christ and the sacraments remain what it has always been, but the SSPX declaration would intimate a change where there has been none.

Devaluation of Mary’s Role in Salvation, YES or NO?

While there has been a warning about misunderstanding certain Marian titles, it is still acknowledged that Mary cooperates in a unique way with the redemptive work of her Son. Nothing has changed in our teachings.

No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church – YES or NO or Qualified?

The SSPX profession next makes a subtle nod to Fr. Feeney’s literal interpretation of “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” or no salvation outside the Church. Despite SSPX protestations to the contrary, this dogma of faith remains intact. Just as none are saved apart from Christ, the Church as his mystical body is also necessary for salvation. However, the SSPX would reject any nuances to this teaching. This would appreciably leave as damned, all non-Catholic “Christians” as well as all “Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists.” By contrast, we would resist making a verdict and leave ultimate judgment to God regarding those not in formal communion “through no fault of their own.” We would insist that the negative judgment is upon those who die knowing that the Catholic Church is the true Church and still refused to get baptized and join her. There is also ambiguity because of the reformation and Protestant faith communities. If their baptisms are judged as valid then are they not affiliated with the Catholic Church, even if tenuously? Will Jesus renounce those who have faith in him and love him? When the Protestant reformers broke away, they purloined many essential elements of the true Church. Would there not be salvific value to these elements, like baptism and the Bible, for those who were born into these sects? The SSPX says no, “Outside the Roman Catholic Church, and without the profession of Faith that she has always taught, there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.” Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium says yes, clarifying that those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, may yet achieve eternal salvation. Ignorance does matter. God is neither capricious nor monstrous in his providence. Any who are saved are saved through the Church. About this there is no debate— where the SSPX and the Vatican part ways is over whether all the saved must be a visible part of the Church during their mortal lives.

Who is the Real Threat to the True Church?

The declaration asserts, “The denial of even a single truth of the Faith destroys faith itself and renders radically impossible all communion with the Catholic Church.” Given the SSPX misinterpretations, made clear by the Vatican, I would concur that the SSPX is not spiritually prepared for full reunion with the Church established by Christ. When they consecrate their illicit bishops, they will enter formal schism and face excommunication. While they may consider themselves to be the true Church, in fact they will stand condemned by their own reasoning— placing themselves outside the Barque of Peter.

The Pope is the Guardian of the Deposit of Faith, YES or NO?

The great commission has never been renounced. Continuity with our traditions has been maintained. The SSPX “doth protest too much.” We give no quarter to false worship and the reformed liturgy is both licit and valid as are all the seven sacraments. The Pope continues his role in history as the guardian of the deposit of faith. Unfortunately, some would wrestle this role away from him.

The Mass is an Unbloody Sacrifice for the Forgiveness of Sins

The Mass remains essentially a sacrifice for atonement or propitiation and yet this does not make it any less a sacred meal where the Lamb of God must be eaten. We would also affirm the real presence of the Eucharist.

We May Not Bless Gays but Should We Hate Them?

Threaded among the many things we have in common are the matters of ambiguity and deliberate misrepresentation. Outreach to gays can mandate no violation of the moral law and it is true that their unions “can in no way be blessed by ministers of the Church. This was recently reaffirmed by Pope Leo XIV. But we have always regularly blessed groups and individuals without interrogations about their state of life and sins. Blessings may be affirmations as over Christian marriages, but they might also be appeals for repentance, conversion and healing. The declaration makes no mention of this.

Should We Rescind Religious Liberty?

The SSPX declaration also makes more of a variable social teaching than I suspect it was supposed to mean. We read: “The submission of institutions and nations, as such, to the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ flows directly from the Incarnation and the Redemption. Therefore, secularism of institutions and nations constitutes an implicit denial of the divinity and universal kingship of Our Lord.” What are we to make of this? The separation of church and state in the United States has allowed the Church to flourish. The right to religious liberty has protected the Church even as it has made space for others to freely exercise in conscience what they believe. Can we ignore a world that has changed around us? What sense would it make to speak of the divine right of kings when there are none? Should our teachings not reflect interaction with the current real world and not one that has disappeared? Many Americans might love the old Mass, but they would not be so happy to see their Protestant neighbors forcibly divested from their churches and forced to worship underground. Ecumenism does not mean we are all the same. It opens doors for Catholic reunion, yes; but it also allows separated brethren (not just heretics) to work together with us for a better world that reflects shared values about justice and charity.

Which Roman Catholicism is Truly Protestant?

The SSPX has long argued against what is seen as the Protestantism of Roman Catholicism. However, maybe they need to look at themselves? Davide Pagliarani’s declaration finishes with, “With the help of Our Lord, we would rather die than renounce them” (the listed articles of faith). I am reminded of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms. He said, “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.” He concluded, “Here I stand, I can do no other!”

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, christianity, ecclesiology, Ecumenism, Faith, God, Jesus, jews, latin-mass, no-salvation-outside-the-church, Religious Liberty, soteriology, sspx, traditionalist, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

Do the SSPX & Vatican Hear & Understand Each Other?

Posted on March 18, 2026 by Father Joe

While I am only a dabbler when it comes to pondering significant questions in religion, I must wonder if the multitude of clergy in the SSPX are any better. Most priests who minister in the trenches, no matter whether juridically licit or not, are more comfortable with settled definitions and basic catechesis than with professional theological wrangling. Dialogue with divergent groups, even among the few learned on both sides, can be difficult for numerous reasons. The millennium long schism with the Eastern churches is a case in point where politics, language and basic philosophical concepts were at odds. The communities grew apart regarding preparation of the Eucharistic species, the inner life of the Trinity, the background to Mary’s sinlessness, the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church, etc. While we acknowledge the sacraments in Orthodoxy as valid, disagreements persist and reunion evades us. Similarly, behind mutual anathemas, the break with Protestantism was not only because of abuses and outright heresies but because of character clashing egos and a failure to understand each other. Mutual condemnations were often directed against straw-men arguments and not the actual ideas in contention. As evidence for this, I would point to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) wherein a consensus was achieved between Lutherans and Catholics. It is proof that dialogue can resolve doctrinal confusion between faith communities. While Lutherans emphasized justification by faith, it was conceded that we are saved by “grace alone” and not strictly by “faith alone.” “Good works” constitute a vital result of genuine faith (that takes precedence). Both sides had been arguing for centuries at cross-purposes. Scholarship, honesty and goodwill were able to heal old wounds. But can we find these elements in the current stalemate between the SSPX and the Vatican? Where there is arrogance, windows are closed to the Holy Spirit and doors are locked to men of goodwill.

Bishop Robert Barron has observed that spokesmen for the SSPX not only reject Vatican II but do so while repeatedly mischaracterizing its genuine teachings. Further, their attacks upon the Novus Ordo liturgy focus upon aberrant abuses and fail to give a proper assessment of its potential to enrich believers even as it seeks to worship almighty God. Too much weight is given to innuendo and sensational gossip while little to no attention is given to what is “actually” taught by the Council and post-conciliar popes. I have argued that the Holy Father should continue a discussion about the liturgy and Vatican II, even if the SSPX should decide not to be a part of it. The Lefebvrites may have become too comfortable with their autonomy to want to surrender anything to Rome. Note that Pope Leo XIV, at this writing, is using weekly audiences to speak about Vatican II. If he should resolve the doctrinal reservations held by the SSPX and others, then he would reveal their dissent as just empty posturing. But do not expect his critics to give him a fair hearing or to honestly assess his views.

Just as Protestant-Catholic dialogue often suffers from a confusion in terminology and language, the hermeneutical shift in Catholic theology likely has apologists for the old and the reformed at odds to understand each other. Of course, there are exceptions and Protestants frequently have their own problems in speaking to other non-Catholic Christians. Fundamentalist Bible Christians are literalists and treat the Bible as a science book and morality manual. There is a huge gulf between churches of the Word and those of the Table. Those with an intellectual bent had previously embraced the historical-critical method and as with Catholic modernism, struggled with atheism. Many of the Evangelicals focus upon the existential experience. Increasingly Protestants are gravitating from the objective to the subjective, moving from facts to how God’s revelation engages and transforms the believer. Considering all this, are we to treat the dialogue between traditionalists and post-Vatican II Catholics as in-house dialogue or as ecumenical debate?

The Catholic hermeneutical shift in theology signifies a transition from static doctrinal propositions to an increasingly dynamic, contextual, and historical perspective. Certain teachings are infallible, but their formulations are not immutable. Other teachings are not understood as settled and we should avoid creeping infallibility. As an example, many authorities taught, even prior to Vatican II and the universal catechism, that the “limbo of the innocents” was a scholastic theory and not settled doctrine. A study of the fathers was always disconcerting in this regard because St. Augustine posited unbaptized infants who died as in hell and not in any abode where they might be ignorant of God but naturally happy. What is the truth? The most honest will admit that we are not sure, but we are optimistic given our Lord’s love for the innocent children. Pope Benedict XVI subscribed not to a hermeneutic of “rupture” but one of “continuity” or reform.

Faith is not ancient dictums locked away in dusty old texts but is a living tradition that engages modernity. We know both adaptation and development. There is movement from the theoretical or abstraction to the pastoral and realized. There is a renewed interest in Christian anthropology, inter-religious dialogue and cooperation, and appreciating our place within creation. However, not lost is the chief concern of soteriology as the Church is defined as the great sacrament or mystery of salvation through which we encounter Christ.

The reformed Protestant Karl Barth labeled Catholicism as the Church “of the great AND.” What he meant was that where historic Protestantism argued for only the Bible, Catholicism would add, “and sacred tradition.” Protestants asserted that we were saved by Jesus alone, and Catholics would add, “and within his holy Church.” Mention the mediation of Christ and Catholics inserted, “and with the intercession of Mary and the saints.” Protestants would echo Luther in saying that we are saved by faith, and Catholics would insist, “and by works.” Catholicism insured that classical Christianity would never allow crucial elements of faith to be forgotten or eclipsed. The Word is vital, but so is sacrament. Knowing the truth is crucial, but no less was the gift of charity. The Church would seek to reconcile all the dualities and not repudiate or leave them hanging. Similarly, today the SSPX must find a way to reconcile what they interpret as rupture or ambiguity between the historic faith and the Church in the modern world. It is the same Church, not two. The face we show the world may have changed but “the faith” remains the ancient faith.

While nothing is denied, there has been a hermeneutical shift away from reducing faith to a series of dogmatic, liturgical and moral propositions as found in the Catechism of Trent and in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The Catholic faith is, at its heart, not a philosophy text or a morality book, but a relationship of faith with Christ lived out in loving obedience. Many Protestants as Bible Christians make a similar mistake by reducing the new dispensation to a book religion. The saving faith or Gospel is not simply words written upon paper but a sacred encounter that penetrates minds and hearts. The law is still important, but the emphasis is how revealed truths bring us into a saving covenant with Jesus and his Church. Note that SSPX seminaries resort to reprinting centuries old religious manuals for the memorization of settled definitions. Many modern texts and even Vatican II documents are treated as Forbidden Books. By comparison, priests formed in schools sympathetic to Vatican II study the primary sources and seek to make fluid connections to the lived faith. Each does this according to his intelligence and gifts.

Revelation comes to us from both Scripture and Tradition, but we should be wary of any strict duality. An Analogy is sometimes made of God’s Word that is transmitted to us against the backdrop or parchment of Sacred Tradition. One always requires the other. The professional theologian, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught, is at the service of the Magisterium. It is not an adversarial relationship. When it comes to teachings, infallible or mutable, they are affirmed and passed down by the Pope and those bishops in union with him. Exacting dogmas wherein God reveals himself and the terms of salvation demand absolute assent as true. Teachings that belong to papal opinion or practical necessity are respected because of his office and require obedience. However, popes may disagree about the latter and change direction. For instance, instead of extending an amnesty that was typical, Pope Sixtus V ordered the execution of highway bandits in the Papal States. This is in an entirely different ballpark from Pope John Paul II who discouraged capital punishment and Pope Francis who rejected judicial homicide altogether. The authority of the Pope is respected throughout. There is a concurrence in faith. A distinction is made about those things that are always true and those that are maintained for practical expediency for the good governance of the Church. An example of this distinction is the doctrinal prohibition for women priests as compared to the discipline for celibate priests— the former is absolute— the latter is not. Reason, nature and experience constitute the prism for theological understanding and formulations about Christian doctrine. This horizontal movement must be complemented and affirmed by the teaching authority of the Church which is gifted by Christ with the protective guidance of the Holy Spirit. More than just the use of the Latin language is at stake. Indeed, while theologians are well-versed in Latin, Greek, French, German and other languages, the SSPX and the Vatican— are still at odds and seem to be speaking different theological languages. The manner itself is problematic. Where there should be mutual respect and dialogue there is distrust and enmity. You cannot expect much good fruit from that. Traditionalists tend to expand what they feel should be infallible. That is why some resist any change to the liturgical calendar, expansion of the readings or even the revised Easter Vigil from Pope Pius XII. Vatican II application of Catholic teachings or principles to intersect modernity are frowned upon or deemed as errors. While religious liberty as practiced in the United States allowed the infant Catholic Church to grow and flourish, the principle is rejected as heretical. It makes no difference that had it been practiced in England— More, Fisher and generations of Jesuits would not have been martyred. The ideal state is still regarded as wholly Catholic and monarchial, with the practice of other denominations either outlawed or restricted to private homes. It makes no difference to them that historic Catholic states would do much to persecute the Church and that Western democracies, Asian Communist dictatorships and Islamic theocracies are all that is left. The traditionalists in the SSPX camp would thus necessarily dismiss notions about freedom of conscience and Pope John Paul II’s teaching about the inherent dignity of the human “person.” They are resolute in the assertion that error has no rights and that the unregenerated person lacks genuine dignity. The post-Vatican II apologist interprets this as a recipe for oppression. While not denying the heightened value given by sanctifying grace to the baptized man or woman, Pope John Paul II also championed natural human dignity and rights from conception to natural death. His theology of the body expanded our appreciation of universal human rights, contending that human dignity is derived from our Creator God. The SSPX do not accept this expansion of the Gospel of Life.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, christianity, doctrine, Faith, Jesus, latin-mass, sspx, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

The Society of St. Pius X Does Not Play Fair

Posted on March 17, 2026 by Father Joe

The SSPX postures a “gravitas” and dignity, not against the best that the rest of the Catholic Church has to offer, but the worse. It defines itself through criticism of the aberrational, not the normative. The Masses it deplores are not well conducted Novus Ordo liturgies but clown Masses, liturgies with puppets, dancers and priests making fools of themselves. Every fumble a bishop and even the Pope makes is paraded for all to scorn and laugh.

The liturgies advertised by the SSPX are high Masses, celebrated according to strict rubrics with Latin masterfully articulated from the altar for all to hear. Chant and schola choirs sing with solemn beauty and professionalism. However, this is not how I remembered the old Mass from when I was a boy. The Masses were largely inaudible for congregations as microphones were forbidden on the altar. Altar boys mumbled half-remembered words, and the music was either absent or poorly done. Pope Benedict XVI said that the Latin high Mass was one of the most beautiful forms of worship ever fashioned; but he also lamented that low Mass (which was what most people experienced) was stylistically as bad as it gets. Yes, the supernatural reality was all present— sacrament and the risen Jesus— but artistically it was poor and not very moving. My old pastor had an early working man’s Latin Mass that was rattled off in about 13 minutes each workday morning. The words came out at machine gun speed. Sunday Mass might be 40 minutes. But without the choir, it was not much better. We came to church, said the rosary, took communion at the rail, and went home. Those with missal books followed the Mass as best as they could, essentially reading the Mass while the priest performed his deep mystery. Many who exalt the old Mass and criticize the new, do not remember or were not born when it was the only liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. (By the way, in truth there is no new Mass, just a Mass with reformed elements.)

Fidelity to the Pope is Essential

There seems to be no breaking of the deadlock between the SSPX and the Vatican over the pending illicit episcopal consecrations. The Society and its defenders are quick to shift blame from themselves to the Vatican. Indeed, faithful Catholics who urge practical fidelity to the Holy See are accused of ultramontane excesses. No one is saying that popes can do no wrong, only that we should not sever juridical ties with the Vicar of Christ. However, those who regularly charge the Pope and other bishops with the heresy of modernism will likely delight in severing any residual ties with Rome. The SSPX says that it acknowledges Pope Leo XIV as the visible head of the Church, but their dissent and autonomy speak of a gravitation toward the sedevacantist stance.

Just as under Pope John Paul II, it is likely that Pope Leo XIV would allow the consecration of a bishop during the time of dialogue. However, such would demand a proper profession of faith and an end to derision against Vatican II. Disobedience to the Holy See and the repudiation of an ecumenical council strips the groundwork to any such concession. The SSPX already acknowledges the validity of the reformed liturgy, although they must be wary of questioning its spiritual effects or labeling it as evil.

While the Pope functions as an absolute monarch regarding temporal matters in the Vatican and many practical elements of Church governance, he is always the servant of the Word and not its master. He is the chief ecclesial lawgiver on earth. Regarding what constitutes the Roman rite, historically it was regarded as how the Pope celebrated the Mass and other sacraments. Lesser churchmen imitated him. It is in this sense that he is the Roman rite.

While foolishness and ambiguities in the Church, even from Rome, have been inflicted upon believers in recent years; we must not lose confidence in Christ’s Church. True reform must take place within and not outside the Church. It is not enough for a representative of the SSPX to talk with Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández. The two remaining bishops and the Superior General of the SSPX should request an audience with Pope Leo XIV. He is the one they need to trust if we are to move forward as a unified Church.

An Ecclesial Hermeneutic of Continuity

Both sides protest too much about one form of liturgical worship over another instead of fostering a mutual respect that would grant freedom for rituals old and new. Technically there is no “new” Mass, only a Mass with various liturgical forms. Liturgy contains elements both essential and immutable as well as accidentals open to revision. When it comes to doctrinal issues, Vatican II must always be viewed through the prism of tradition. The dogmatic teachings derived from Trent remain true. The teachings of Vatican II are meant to advance and not to renounce what came before. There remains one Church throughout, not one with loyalties to Trent that is usurped by a post-Vatican II Church. I am at odds to understand why a consensus on this truth, despite dissenters, would not suffice to heal a schism with traditionalists.

The charge given the Pope is both to preserve and transmit the deposit of faith as well as to sustain the legacy and identity of the Church from age to age. Development is necessary as faith is a living thing, but never at the cost of continuity. It is this avoidance of doctrinal rupture that distinguishes Catholicism from confessions like Anglicanism where the fads and fashions of the times sever the lifelines to perennial truths. The Pope points the way to the future while sustaining the Church in the present and always grounded upon a historical magisterium and the legacy of the saints.

Popes generally speak the mind of the Church and are careful about their personal ideas or speculation. The former is infallible and while the latter is not, there is a measure of religious assent given that it arises from the Successor of Peter. The latter is open to review as was Peter’s stance at the Council of Jerusalem about the reception of Gentiles. However, after the apostle Paul made his challenge, Peter as the one with the “keys” from Jesus ultimately agreed and the matter was resolved. It should be noted that no shepherd, not even the Holy Father, can force compliance to error or to sin. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit has largely protected the Church’s teaching office, ensuring the indefectibility of the Church promised by Christ.

Wayward traditionalists often make much about nothing. They are quick to enumerate on papal scandal or ambiguity and slow to acknowledge orthodox wisdom. What are some of these malicious gossip points that take us afield?

The Kissing of the Koran – Critics harp about this event as if this made Pope John Paul II an Islamist. Nonsense! The gesture took place in 1999 when a delegation from Iraq visited the Vatican. It included the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch, the Shi’ite leader of the Khadum Mosque, and the Sunni president of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. Gifted with the ornate book, the Pope bowed and kissed it as a sign of respect to his guests. Given that war was looming, the act was a symbolic gesture for peace and a sign of respect for the suffering people of Iraq. The act signified human respect and in no sense was a profession of faith. Nevertheless, pope bashers labeled it as syncretism and a denial of Christ’s divinity. It was an effort to show respect to “a people,” not to a religion. Admittedly, it was a gesture that backfired and should have been avoided because of possible scandal. But it should remain obvious that the Holy Father placed no faith in the Islamic book.

Conferences in Assisi – Despite traditionalist accusations, the various gatherings in Assisi with world religious leaders signified no syncretistic compromise of the faith but rather constituted efforts at fostering peace. There was no merging or blending of religion but rather, a coming together for dialogue and petitions for peace and harmony. The rejection of ecumenism is manifested by rigid traditionalists on every front. They still speak the language of indictment and curse. Instead of dialogue, there is anathema. Protestants are labeled as heretics, non-Christians as pagans, the oriental believers as demonic idol worshipers, and Jews as the murderers of Christ.

Natural religions may point to the Creator God, much as did the philosophy of the ancients, but Catholic Christianity is the true faith and the supernatural religion that reveals and worships the Almighty. All religions are not paths to God, especially those that disavow a deity or that worship demons. But elements of truth can be found mingled with the errors of other religions. Past statements must always be properly understood and clarified. A failure to do so is symptomatic of deliberate bias and absurdity.

The Pachamama at the Amazonian Synod – This was a definite misstep and debacle that came largely from ignorance of symbolism and a loss of control over events. But note that there was no effort to codify idolatry. Indeed, many voices within the Church rendered proper rebuke and commentary as it was happening.

Status of Those in Irregular Unions – While there has been much discussion about accompaniment and outreach to those in irregular unions, particularly the divorced and remarried, nothing about Catholic moral teaching has changed. Believers are still urged to receive Holy Communion in a state of grace and without mortal sin. Leadership should not be faulted for compassion regarding the alienated. This should especially be the case of the SSPX given their tenuous situation in the Church.

The Death Penalty – Too much is made about capital punishment, almost as if traditionalists suffer a bloodlust for revenge if not for justice. Pope John Paul II argued that leaders within a culture of death forfeit any right to take human life, even for those that are guilty of high crimes. Given the effectiveness of penal reform, what stake do we have in this fight? Compared to the numbers of lives lost through abortion and wars, we are talking about a very small number. Why should it grieve Christians that a few might live to repent? Can it not become a witness to God’s sovereignty over life as the Creator? Would the SSPX really refuse to rejoin the ranks of juridically approved movements in the Church over this issue?

Blessing Those with Same-Sex Attraction – While there are efforts within Western culture to welcome and walk with those suffering from same-sex attraction, it is true that we cannot bless immorality; however, we can pray that God’s healing and mercy will embrace these brothers and sisters. The African bishops forced clarification about this from the Holy See. Here again we find the power of correction within the Church as opposed to those who seek to do so from outside.

Need for Mutual Goodwill & Respect

While the motives of the Society might demand scrutiny, no one should doubt that most SSPX priests are acting from conviction and good faith. They are intensely concerned about the care of souls. Hopefully they appreciate that priests on the other side of the liturgical divide are also dedicated to their flocks. This is often a cause of great pain when SSPX chapels are set up near parishes and Catholics are told that they should never attend a Novus Ordo Mass for fear of spiritual detriment. Not only is this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but the juridical alienation of flocks from their appointed shepherds. Where there should be collaboration, there is rivalry. Pastors should function as shepherds, not as wolves or thieves of the sheep. This was a problem in the past, even with priestly societies recognized by the Church, like the Legionaries of Christ. They would frequently offer home Masses and spiritual programs for groups like homeschoolers without the permission of dioceses or even the okay of local pastors. While their enthusiasm was to be applauded, they overstepped their bounds by acting autonomously.

The true issue here is a lack of trust in the Pope and the universal Church. Admittedly draconian efforts to eradicate the traditional Latin Mass and to supplant it with the reformed liturgy have understandably strained confidence. Further, while the SSPX has faced various censures, often the worst of liberal dissenters were not only tolerated but pampered. I suspect this situation reflects no apostasy from Rome but rather an appreciation that most traditionalists will obey and take sanctions seriously while liberal dissenters will not. Tactics with the right are different than those used with the left, to forestall further fracturing of the Church. However, it may be high time to acknowledge what has and has not worked.

The minimal expectations of the SSPX by the Holy See, the continued ministry and expansion of the Fraternity of St. Peter (as a similar organization), and the availability of bishops in good standing to ordain priests according to the old form— all this undermines the argument of the SSPX that the episcopal consecrations reflect an emergency arising from pastoral necessity. Is there any reticence about apostolic succession and holy orders among the clergy outside the SSPX? They say, no, but one must wonder.

Arguably, the overture of the SSPX to the Holy See is less a “respectful request” for consent to the episcopal consecrations as it is an “arrogant demand” about their intent. The situation is one of intimidation or coercion, not benevolent or suppliant discretion. The SSPX wants the revocation of Vatican II and the comprehensive return of the traditional Latin Mass. The Society is angry that the universal Church with her Pope and 5,430 bishops in union with him will not acquiesce to the demands of the Society’s two remaining bishops, who were themselves, ordained illicitly.

Is there an Emergency Situation from Necessity?

The perpetuation of Latin Masses by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP), as well as by various monastic communities and diocesan priests, is evidence that the SSPX need not fear the extinction of the old liturgy. Indeed, there are several bishops authorized to ordain clergy who celebrate exclusively the traditional Latin Mass. Further, there is no danger that those affiliated with the SSPX would spiritually starve should the pending episcopal consecrations not take place. As a preference, the traditional Latin Mass will not disappear, and the Novus Ordo is available most everywhere to make present the oblation of Calvary and Christ’s precious body and blood. I suspect the issue is less of a concern about the flock, which has been largely purloined from other shepherds, as it is to retain what they have built. There is a reluctance to trust the Holy See. They desire to keep authority and power for themselves. This places them on a course like that of the reformational Protestant churches. No good will come from this mentality.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholic, christianity, excommunication, Faith, Jesus, latin-mass, Religion, schism, sspx, traditionalists | Leave a comment »

SSPX & Vatican Dialogue: No Need for Talking Parrots

Posted on March 16, 2026 by Father Joe

The SSPX prefer unchanging liturgy and stagnant cut-and dry definitions. And yet, at this crucial time in history, we neither need nor want talking parrots without the basic tools for the give-and-take required in theological reflection and discourse with intellectual giants like Cardinals Robert Sarah and Gerhard Ludwig Müller.

We must be wary of those who speak out of both sides of their mouths. Certain progressives would supplant an oblation to the divine with a fellowship supper and prefer a revolutionary break with past teachings and values. Anachronistic traditionalists would embrace an unchanging liturgy and dogmas reduced to staid definitions that are either disconnected from modernity or attack it head on. Instead of ecumenical outreach the Society is often locked in attack mode and employs old and aggressive proof text apologetics. This will not get us very far. Both the SSPX and the Vatican must take care about who speaks for them in any dialogue. Many of their priests would do poorly with their ingrained resistance. This is not a debate that one must win at all costs. The starting point must be obedience to the Holy See, affirmation of the various liturgies approved, and the acceptance of Vatican II as a genuine ecumenical council. This does not mean that the door is closed to clarifying teachings and reconciling them with previous formulations. When it comes to the brightest minds in favor of the traditional Latin Mass, and who are aware of the other issues, we must turn to learned laymen like Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and Dr. Taylor Marshall. While we might sometimes disagree with them, they would legitimately seek to maintain communion with the living Magisterium. Resolution about the status of liturgy and reconciling Trent with Vatican II would be good for the Church overall, even if the SSPX and other groups should still go into formal schism or their bishops face excommunication.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, christianity, Faith, God, Jesus, latin-mass, sspx, Tradition, vatican-ii | Leave a comment »

The SSPX is Racing Away from the True Church

Posted on March 6, 2026 by Father Joe

Father Etienne Ginoux’s rebuttal to Cardinal Sarah is more of the same disheartening SSPX apologetics, not only for the illicit episcopal consecrations but also for the Society’s widening departure from Catholic unity. But it is nonsensical to imagine that the SSPX can preserve doctrinal integrity when it pits itself against the living Magisterium of the one true Church instituted by Christ and protected by his grace and the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. The Pope and other churchmen are not impeccable and certainly there is no guarantee that every loose opinion or practical judgment will be infallible. However, despite the presence of weak men, and even the intrusion of ambiguity, the charism of truth remains with the Catholic Church. Sacred Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian revelation that are handed down to us through the teaching authority appointed by our Lord— through the ordinary and extraordinary teaching authority of the successors of Peter (the Popes) and the bishops in union with him. Our doctrines are preserved and develop through their transmission by the Holy Father and through the many ecumenical councils where bishops gathered to formulate truth and to establish discipline for the Holy Church. Vatican II was one of these councils. While it may sound cynical, I suspect that SSPX intransigence is largely due to its origins of rebellion and over a half century of stubborn juridical autonomy from the Holy See. The Lefebvrites are reluctant to hand over what they have built, especially to a larger Church in which they no longer have supernatural faith and to a leadership they mistrust. Despite what the SSPX would have us believe, the Church today may face many afflictions, but she is not ready for hospice and is certainly not dead. Indeed, the emergency crisis of faith does not require the poison of illicit consecrations but rather the medicine of obedience and fidelity.

Schismatic groups represent a lesser share of the overall Latin Mass community than they would make out. The SSPX has 103 chapels in the U.S., compared to the some 500 non-SSPX parishes that offer the TLM. Before the 2021 restrictions took effect, more than 800 parishes offered the TLM. The crisis in the Church does not demand what the SSPX plans to do. We must not catch the disease of atheistic or secular humanism from the left nor an inflexible legal dogmatism on the right. Both the schismatic anachronists and the heretical progressives suffer from a profound wariness, a deficiency of trust and faith in the Pope and the living magisterium. They are opposite sides of the same coin and that coin is the price of departure from Catholic unity.

Of course, as with the “churches” of the Eastern schism and the “ecclesial communities” of the Protestant reformation, once union is broken, time only cements the separation. An individual here or there or a few lesser groups might return to Catholic unity, but generally the fracture persists and there is a continuing divergence in teaching or beliefs. Reconciliation may yet be possible, but it is unlikely. While the SSPX level the charge of doctrinal “rupture” upon the leadership of the Catholic Church, the real estrangement or even schism rests upon them.

Cardinal Sarah writes: “How many souls are at risk of being lost because of this new division?” Father Etienne Ginoux of the SSPX returns, “One might rightly ask whether it is truly the souls of the faithful who attend the chapels of the Society that are in danger, or whether we should fear more for the salvation of those who follow the ‘prelates who renounce teaching the deposit of faith’ or the ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ — denunciations that come from the cardinal himself.” This is his rationale for the excommunications and disobedience to the Pope should the pending consecrations take place. While currently lacking juridical standing, what is left unspoken is that should the SSPX sever its ties with the Vatican, the bishops involved will be excommunicated and schism will be threatened. You cannot save the Church by leaving the Church. Fundamental to all the other amassing errors of the SSPX is their divergent ecclesiology.

I am reminded of the Protestants, particularly those that followed Martin Luther. The errant Augustinian friar never intended to establish a new church, but like the SSPX, sought to reform the Catholic Church. He also did not trust the Pope. It is ironic that the SSPX which so thoroughly spurns the “heretics” should mimic their disobedience and rebellion. The fealty that SSPX past generations gave the Pope will likely dissolve altogether in the next. There can be little to nothing of allegiance with the loss of respect.

Seeking to rationalize disobedience and rebellion, Father Ginoux offers a litany of complaints against the Holy See. His argument is that a Church that has compromised itself cannot demand compliance. No reconciliation on these matters will make any difference because they are “excuses” for an autonomy that has become habitual. Nevertheless, what are some of these matters?

He first mentions the opening of Eucharistic communion to remarried divorcees and yet what has changed in general practice? While we do not interrogate communicants or violate the seal of confession, there is no encouragement for those in mortal sin to receive the Eucharist (this includes adulterers, fornicators, and active homosexuals). Despite talk and speculation, nothing has changed. All are still urged to be in a state of grace to receive the sacrament. Those who are not Catholic or spiritually prepared are asked to make a good act of contrition and pray for spiritual communion. Divorced Catholics desiring to regularize their situations may explore the possibility of an annulment and con-validation. We do not interrogate believers or risk breaking the seal of confession for would-be communicants. We do not lock out those in bad marriages from attending Mass. We do not refuse to baptize children from questionable or compromised unions. Despite speculation and questionable statements from certain churchmen, where is the codification of change on this matter? It is nowhere to be found.

While there is a certain ambiguity over the possibility of blessing same-sex couples, these irregular unions are not directly blessed or affirmed, rather individuals are blessed and we prayerfully ask that they might know contrition, repentance and healing. The Church does not bless sin. The Holy See has directed that the so-called blessings cannot be directed toward any validation or solemnization of unions. Fr. James Martin, SJ, might be given a certain deference for his work as a priest to an alienated population, but he is not the Pope. Indeed, Pope Leo XIV recently met with and praised those who continue the COURAGE ministry that urges celibate love, charitable service and prayer from those with the same-sex disorientation. This is where we find the mind of the Church.

God does not directly will religious pluralism as such would constitute the sin of indifferentism. Our Lord instituted the Catholic Church as the true faith, and we should work and pray for the day that all might be one. While other churches or faiths might have elements of the truth mixed with error, we have an obligation as missionary disciples to bring others to the truth and Catholic unity.

The titles of Mary are not so much questioned as there is a concern about misunderstanding. The sole Mediator of Christianity is Jesus Christ. But Mary as the Mediatrix of All Graces always directs her children to Jesus. As some of the fathers have speculated, she functions as the neck of the Mystical Body with Christ as the head and the rest of us as the body. All graces pass through the neck to the body! Mary is also called Co-Redemptrix. But this must be properly defined. She cooperates with the saving work of her Son. Jesus is the redeemer who buys us back from the devil at the price of his bruised flesh and saving blood. As the first disciple of her Son, Mary cooperates with his saving work. She is there at the nativity and at the cross and after the resurrection. Jesus gives himself to the Father. At the nativity God comes down from heaven and she holds him in her arms. At Calvary, the dead body of her Son is placed in her arms and taking a priestly stance, she offers him back to the Father. She joins her suffering to the Lord’s passion. The terms may or may not be employed, but nothing changes in terms of Marian agency.

The so-called emergency in the Church is real, but if the SSPX goes ahead with illicit episcopal consecrations, it will prove itself as not part of the solution but of the problem. I suspect the future will find them as a breakaway church and one that disavows ecumenical dialogue and collaboration. They will become a spiritual ghetto outside the Catholic Church.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Bishops, Catholic, christianity, Church, Faith, Jesus, sspx, traditional-latin-mass | Leave a comment »

The SSPX Waves Goodbye to Rome!

Posted on March 3, 2026 by Father Joe

What are we to make of the (February 18, 2026) response from Father Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X to Cardinal Victor Fernandez, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Rooted in pessimism, the SSPX is demonstrably negative by questioning Rome’s intentions and yet urging continuing discussions that are deemed futile. The SSPX has lost sight of the fact that the current standoff is untenable for them and detrimental to the universal Church. One cannot simultaneously claim fidelity and then further treacherous nonconformity. The Pope is the visible head of the Church. He is the Vicar of Christ. Repudiation of that authority ultimately leads to one of two scenarios: either one will defect from the true Church or else, ecclesial authority has been assumed by an anti-pope and the chair of Peter is vacant.

Father Pagliarani spills the beans for rejecting the Vatican’s goals for dialogue by saying he “cannot accept the perspective and objectives” offered by the Dicastery. He writes: “We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” He contends that this stems from “a rupture with the Tradition of the Church,” positing the culpability with the Pope and most of the Church’s bishops or Magisterium. Blame would also be assigned the majority of the Church’s laity who went along with the changes. It is unclear how he would reconcile his dissent with the solidarity of the Pope, episcopacy and the sense of the faithful as such functions providentially under divine grace as verification to Christian doctrine.

He stamps as abhorrent the Vatican insistence that “the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged.” Consequently, he is blunt in spurning any dialogue that will foster a sincere reunion, present or future tense. However, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about the cross-pollination of the liturgies, furthering a more organic reform upon the old and new. Apparently the SSPX does not buy the distinction between the questionable “spirit” of Vatican II and the actual orthodox texts or teachings. The Church is not going to permit any overt renunciation of an ecumenical council, but that does not mean that Vatican II is the last word. Indeed, the council’s directives about social communication are now largely obsolete. He is saying that Rome treats Vatican II with the same intransigence with which he does Trent. This simply is not the case.

While many of us would argue for correctives in Pope Francis’ “Evangelii Gaudium” (November 2013), “Amoris Laetitia” (March 2016) and “Traditionis Custodes” (July 2021), it is worth noting that Father Pagliarani also dissents and regards as problematic, Pope John Paul II’s “Redemptor Hominis” (March 1979) and “Ut Unum Sint” (May 1995). The SSPX wrongly critiques “Redemptor Hominis” as revoking the Church’s teaching about original sin and the plight of fallen man. The late Pope merely advances the implications of incarnation and redemption regarding all humanity. Arguing the sanctity of life and dignity of “persons” from the mystery of the God-Man and his saving work speaks to both the natural man as made in “the image of God” and the even greater high calling of the new “spiritual” man remade in “the likeness of Christ” by supernatural grace. Christ’s redemptive work is his gift to us but “fallen men” who would be saved must accept the gift by faith in Christ and membership in his Church. The SSPX is similarly over-reaching in its caricature of “Ut Unum Sint” as entitling Protestants to all the spiritual benefits that come with membership in the Catholic Church. The rigid voices of condemnation would insist that we cannot pray with heretics and that whatever faith they have is of no value or merit. The SSPX makes no acknowledgment of shared elements of faith or a common love for Jesus. They are infuriated that any might speak of “an invisible church” where certain Protestants and Catholics are together closer to the truth than many within their respective confessions. But while not denying that the Mystical Body is most appropriately identified with the Catholic Church, we should not underestimate the ties of genuine baptism and the evidence that an appreciable number of non-Catholics are intellectually closer to the truth than many fellow Catholics who dissent from Church teachings. Further many deeply believe and practice their faith, as with the Coptic martyrs who in witness to Christ had their throats cut by the ISIS Islamic terrorists. A third of the Catholic clergy in England began as Anglican prelates. What Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged draws believers to Catholic unity.

The prospect of schism and/or excommunication is posited as threats by Rome and yet it is the Society that has forced Rome’s hand. Father Pagliarani dictates to the Magisterium what is magisterial. This is an absurdity. The Society is still smarting from previous dialogue. He mentions this in his letter: “Yet, everything ultimately ended in a drastic manner, with the unilateral decision of Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who, in June 2017, solemnly established, in his own way, ‘the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church,’ explicitly including the entire Council and the post-Conciliar period.”

A shared recognition that we cannot concur about doctrine but only about “charity toward souls” is akin to our relationship with Orthodox or maybe even the Protestant sects— but it falls far short of the ecclesial union demanded under the Pope. While the Society cites against schism its traditional theology and constancy in Church teaching, such is not the Holy See’s assessment. Charity alone will not keep them in good standing. The divergence is clear, the Lefebvrites view themselves as Catholics opposed to a Protestant Rome. Any affiliation with the Holy See is simply an anachronistic nostalgia for a Rome that was. Does this attitude from the SSPX not convey schismatic intent? I believe so. The Society deems regularization as “impracticable due to doctrinal divergences.” Closing the letter, as a final twist of the knife, he signs off—”His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.” I suspect that the mystery of Mary’s cooperation with her Son’s saving work is a new item added to the Society’s list of objections.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: excommunication, Latin Mass, schism, sspx, Vatican II | Leave a comment »

The SSPX Makes It Itself Out More Than It Is

Posted on March 1, 2026 by Father Joe

Disassociation with the Church’s Living Magisterium

Father Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X has rejected the offer of dialogue toward possible canonical status from Cardinal Victor Fernandez, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Many of us are deeply saddened by this as most of those who attend SSPX chapels simply love the old Mass and would prefer to stay within the Catholic Church. The SSPX projects itself as a stalwart of truth for certain doctrines against error but it does so with an adversarial spirit opposing the living Magisterium, itself. As creatures of habit, we must ask, has the SSPX become comfortable with its autonomy and lack of confidence in the promise of Christ to Peter? If so, then maybe we were fooling ourselves from the start in thinking there was any real chance for reunion?

The rejection of the Profession of Faith a few years ago, as formulated under Pope John Paul II, was immediate evidence for the “unapologetic defection” of the SSPX from Catholic unity. Still used today, this revised statement includes an Oath of Fidelity for those assuming Church offices. Doctrinal adherence always comes together with obedience. Definitively proposed teachings on faith and morals require firm acceptance by all given a mission from the Church. In addition to the Nicene Creed, the hold up for the SSPX is the “religious submission of will and intellect” to teachings by the Holy Father and bishops in union with him, the Magisterium, even when the teachings are not proclaimed by a definitive act. This religious respect cannot be reconciled with their argument for disobedience. God is not fooled and the SSPX cannot give lip service to the Roman Pontiff while reserving true governing authority to itself. All this might seem peculiar given that the Society seems prepared to swear upon the Catechism of Trent on behalf of timeless or changeless truths. But all is not as it seems.

While feigning loyalty to the past, their dissent from long accepted ecclesiology is certain. There is no way that men rejecting a host of Church teachings, tempting schism and racing towards excommunication, could readily affirm a statement expressly designed to ensure that those in authority positions, i.e. bishops, pastors, and religion teachers—should be one with the Roman Pontiff in holding fast to the deposit of faith and avoiding contrary doctrines. The SSPX prefers dead popes to living ones, not simply because they prefer anachronism and older formulations, but because dead popes cannot correct or discipline them.

While it might seem unbelievable, the SSPX could very well be a player in the prophesied Great Apostasy and subsequent Chastisement. Many are supposing that the defection from faith will be centered on Rome and yet we are assured by Christ that the faith of Peter will be sustained until he comes again. Despite allegations of hiding abusers in their ranks and intimidating witnesses, there is the naïve presumption that SSPX priests are holy and safe while the Novus Ordo men are largely secret sinners and evil pedophiles.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, christianity, ecclesiology, excommunication, Faith, Jesus, latin-mass, schism, sspx, theology | 1 Comment »

Reflecting Upon SSPX Dissent & Disobedience

Posted on February 28, 2026 by Father Joe

My old classmate Dr. Larry Chapp summarizes in the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER (Feb. 24, 2026) the crisis with the SSPX in an article entitled, “The SSPX Rupture with Tradition.”

https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/chapp-sspx-rupture

He spells out the situation. Father Davide Pagliarani has rejected dialogue as hopeless and has listed five reasons as to why. Dr. Chapp argues that these five reasons are “theologically deficient and ultimately expressive of a deep ecclesiological rupture with tradition.” Indeed, even the basic ground rules for any discussion among Catholics are rebuffed. Such a stance repositions this from internal Catholic discussion to a debate with defectors who reject ecumenical niceties. Dr. Chapp is correct, this sets up the SSPX as a parallel magisterium. He does not mince words, they might say they accept the Pope but are acting in a manner that subscribes to “sedevacantism.” Not trusting Rome, they treat the Pope as if he were not the Pope, stripped of any authority to compel their obedience.

I reflected at some length upon how Dr. Chapp shredded Fr. Pagliarani’s five reasons for disobedience. (1) Despite the world’s bishops, priests and laity overwhelmingly accepting Vatican II, they interpret the council as “rupture” and reject it. (2) Since the modern magisterium’s stance cannot be reconciled with the SSPX, they play the part of Martin Luther in repudiating lawful authority. (3) They question the Vatican’s motives and seek to coerce the Holy See with the threatened episcopal consecrations. (4) The SSPX inadvertently becomes a victim of modernism in setting itself up as the sole arbiter of what constitutes true and false doctrine and tradition. (5) They continue to malign Cardinal Müller’s essential 2017 ground rules: acceptance of the Holy Father’s authority and preserving a respectful presumption in favor of an ecumenical council of the Church.

Masquerading as the true Church instituted by Christ, the SSPX was founded out of rebellion, not fidelity, by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. They have ever since feigned orthodoxy and tradition regarding many tenets, all the while embracing a heretical ecclesiology that is akin to the modernism of Alfred Loisy. Dr. Chapp concludes: “So it looks as if the SSPX will once again defy Rome and incur an excommunication. . . And let us attend carefully to the recent remarks from Cardinal Müller, who contends that a true reform of the Church can only take place from within the Church.”

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Bible, Catholic, christianity, Faith, Jesus, latin-mass, Magisterium, Pope, sspx, vatican-ii | 1 Comment »

	Father Joe on The Prayer to Saint Michael at…
	Inveilis on Ask a Priest
	Joanne M Rowan on Reflecting Upon SSPX Dissent…
	Joanne M Rowan on The SSPX Makes It Itself Out M…
	Jeremy on Ask a Priest

Blogger Priest

Our Blogger

Archives

Categories

Recent Posts

Recent Comments