Our Lady of Sorrows, Softener of Evil hearts, save us.
This essay is part 2 of the editorial process responding to the SSPX situation.
See Meaning of Catholic for the author’s official retractions on the SSPX, which include several texts published at OnePeterFive.
Yesterday I laid out what seems to be the framework for a Christian approach of truth and charity to Archbishop Lefebvre or any controversial person whatsoever. Over the past few years, I’ve been trying to live up to these Christian principles in my public apostolic work, especially in regards to the history of the SSPX.
I’ve studied this issue on and off as best I can, using the primary sources, giving the SSPX every benefit of the doubt possible. I have studied The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, read his They Have Uncrowned Him and Letter to Confused Catholics, edited and published lots of articles from different sides of the SSPX question, attended SSPX conferences and talked to different knowledgeable experts on the “SSPX side” of things – so that I can attempt to understand the SSPX view point from their point of view and not according to rumour, hearsay, or false accusations.
As I said yesterday, it seems reasonable to say that Archbishop Lefebvre and his sons in the priesthood (and episcopacy) have suffered from an anti-Christian, Soviet-style Liquidation campaign in an attempt to “cancel” them and destroy them.
But is it true that Archbishop Lefebvre never got “his day in court”? Having studied the issue as best I can, I can no longer say that Archbishop Lefebvre and his priests are only victims of Vatican injustice. Rather, it seems to me that the SSPX priests also have a great deal of fault in this whole sad saga, and that begins with the basic principle of fatherhood.
What follows is my own opinion as a father, trying my best to make a decision for my family based on limited information. But this is what every father must do. This is not going to be an exhaustive treatment – I’m going to make a bunch of general statements only, which is basically critiquing what I would call the “SSPX Narrative.”
This “Narrative” refers to a conceptual framework that influences general attitudes and thinking in the traditionalist movement, and is related to the SSPX in various ways. (If you want all the citations and footnotes, you can find that at Meaning of Catholic where we will explore these concepts in greater detail.) This essay is not going to satisfy supporters of the SSPX – this is not intended as an exhaustive treatment, but a general summary, as a part of the OnePeterFive editorial process at this time.
In short, I feel bound in my conscience to admit that I’ve been wrong about the SSPX Narrative. I was wrong because I allowed the SSPX Narrative to influence my thinking, and this caused me to misunderstand the SSPX situation within the history of the traditionalist movement. I’ll try to unpack that below.
But before we look at that, I want to lay out some of the basic approach I’m taking here, which will influence the editorial process at OnePeterFive as a traditionalist online journal.
The Holy See Never “Cancelled” Archbishop Lefebvre, Neither Should You
I believe the “SSPX Narrative” – that I will discuss below – is wrong. But as I said, the answer is not to “cancel” the SSPX priests. This is a Marxist attitude. So what if Archbishop Lefebvre made an error of intellect, or committed some sin? He deserves his day in court, and his due process, like everyone else. That was his assertion in the 1970s with Paul VI.
Now fast forward to July 1988 – the canonical process has gone through two popes now canonised – Pope St. Paul VI and Pope St. John Paul II – and now Archbishop Lefebvre and his brother bishops are all excommunicated. Whatever you think of the canonical procedure and the justice or injustice thereof from 1974-1988, let us turn to the Christian example of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in July of that year. What did he say in his speech?
The problem raised by Lefebvre, however, does not end with the rupture of June 30th. It would be far too comfortable to surrender to a kind of triumphalism and to suppose that this problem has ceased to be one from the moment that Lefebvre’s movement has clearly separated itself from the Church. A Christian can neither rejoice in, nor ought he rejoice in, a disunity. Even though the blame cannot with any certainty be laid at the Holy See’s door, it is our obligation to ask ourselves what errors we have committed, what errors we are still committing (emphasis added).[1]
Notice the immense humility displayed by Cardinal Ratzinger in this speech. He has just been instrumental in the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and his brother bishops. Does he take this opportunity to rail on the Archbishop and tell the world – in a major address – all the errors of Lefebvre?
No.
He acts like a Christian instead – like a father – and asks basically this: “What did the Holy Father do wrong to fail to win the heart of Lefebvre and lasting unity”?
This is exactly what I have to do as a father – when my son does something wrong and I have to punish him, I have to ask myself: “What could I have done to be a better father?” A good father blames himself for his son’s sins and tries to make up for them somehow, and correct whatever is wrong in his fatherhood. This is what good leadership does, as explained in the popular business book Extreme Ownership. It means taking responsibility for the failures of your subordinates.
And this is what Ratzinger said in July 1988, and what happened in the 1990s? The New Catechism, the condemnation of Modernism in Veritatis Splendor,[2] the condemnation of Women’s Ordination and, among other things, the imposition of the Professio Fidei (the new “anti-Modernist oath”), and then in 2007, Summorum Pontificum. Did it fix every problem? Obviously no. But was this at least facing the situation that had been left unchecked to some degree? Yes.
So Cardinal Ratzinger (and Pope St. John Paul II) certainly believed that the SSPX bishops and priests were schismatic. But instead of “cancelling” them like Marxists, they attempted to examine themselves and be better fathers.
So we can apply this same attitude to our time in 2026.
What is the Christian response? Cardinal Ratzinger already shows us – it is not to “surrender to a kind of triumphalism” – no. It is to look in the mirror and examine ourselves.
It is unfitting for a lay person to question a clerical court,
in the same way for a cleric to question a lay court
Now as a father, I am the king of my kingdom. I am tasked by God himself to raise my children. Parents are “the first preachers of the faith to their children” (Lumen Gentium, 11). I pass down the dogmata of the Faith, but as for quaestiones disputatae, I cannot judge these things. I can tell my kids “some Catholics think A” and “some Catholics think B. It’s disputed. Not dogma.”
And more than this, I have no authority or competence to judge a cleric. As it stands, the highest ecclesiastical court has judged all the SSPX clerics to be schismatic. Yes, this judgement could be in error (as historical examples show). But in the first place, who am I as layman to judge the clerical judgement of clerics on a clerical question (i.e. the specific clerical act of July 1 which is judged by the clerical court)?
So as it stands, I do not question the clerical judgement. Roma locuta est. Whether the decision is wrong or right, the specific question of the SSPX clerics and their schism is now in the hands of the clerics and their theologians. If anyone is to publicly discuss this judgement (and some Bishops and other clerics or their theologians have discussed it), it should not be laymen who holds no authority or competence in clerical questions. Therefore as a father, I hold the SSPX priests to be schismatics – but not any layman attached to the SSPX: these faithful I am utterly incompetent to judge.
It is unfitting for a lay person to dispute about a clerical court, in the same way as it is unfitting for a cleric to dispute about a lay court. St. Thomas Becket died to keep the clerical court independent of lay influence. Imagine this: John Doe is convicted of some crime and receives a one year jail sentence. Then a priest comes and says “This civil court is entirely invalid! John Doe: you should ignore this invalid court judgement and follow my judgement as a priest instead!” The lay judge would say to the priest: “Reverend Father, you have no jurisdiction over my court.” And he would be right. This hypothetical cleric would be promoting lawlessness in the lay, civil sphere.
In the same way, I will not judge and dispute about what a clerical court has said about the canonical status of a group of clerics. If I believe in my conscience that their judgement is in error, I can send my protest through a private, official channel. Otherwise, in critiquing the lawlessness of the Vatican, I myself promote lawlessness in return. Lawlessness does not drive out lawlessness, only logos can do that.
However, in the second place, as a father I have to make certain extrinsic judgements about clerics, since I must hear Mass and seek to worthily receive Sacramental grace, and, as the king of my kingdom, I must guide my children to cooperate with divine grace. Therefore I must decide if I would ever hear Mass with an SSPX priest or allow my children to be catechised by them, etc. More on this in a minute.
Finally, as a writer who has written and spoken about this topic for some time, I also feel bound before God to retract certain statements that I have said before on this topic which now seem to be in error and misleading to those whom I influence. Thus this essay (and the official retraction statement here).
The Purification by Charity of Our Eucharistic Sacrifice
This is where a very uncomfortable truth arises: I have already made peace with the fact that since I am a father, I must hold the SSPX clerics to be in schism. Prima facie these priests are out of communion with the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. But let’s go back to Solzhenitsyn to let his wisdom cut like a knife:
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?[3]
The nature of schism is a “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (CIC, can. 751). But what if those who are in Sacramental communion treat those who are outside as unclean lepers? What if we treat them mercilessly and viciously? In fact, the Blessed Apostle has words for us on this, in the context of Holy Communion:
Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you. When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper. For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk. What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not (I Cor. xi. 17-22).
The essence of schism is a sin against charity. But what if a man “in communion” treats those outside in an uncharitable way? Then he, simply put, eateth and drinketh unworthily and eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord (I Cor. xi. 29). If we are truly “in communion” we would live from the Eucharist and manifest the fruits of His Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, self-control.
If we act contrary to these things, we are acting contrary to Holy Communion. Ite, Missa est. Let us go, and let the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus act and speak through us, and not profane the temples of our bodies which have become His own.
Oh my sweet mother Mary, mother of Him Whom I hold within my heart, keep that heart which thy Jesus has chosen this day for his dwelling; defend it by thy ceaseless prayer, and obtain for me that the spirit of my Jesus, abiding within me, may continually remind me of the Gift of Gifts I have received, and inflamed my heart with love and with all holy desires. Pray for thy child, O dearest mother, that the soul of him who has been a living Tabernacle for the Eucharistic God may seek in all things the glory of that God and the interests of His Sacred Heart. Amen.[4]
And from the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican:
This Sacred Council… [b]asing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition… teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation… Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.” All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged (Lumen Gentium, 14, emphasis added).
There is an abyss of difference between the SSPX priests (who have been judged schismatic) and the “faithful” who receive the Sacraments from SSPX priests.
Before we go any further, we cannot tire in emphasising this: OnePeterFive is a lay apostolate. For the most part, we are not clergy. We publish a few clerical writers (and two of our editorial staff do indeed hold the office of theologian), but this organisation is lay-run, according to the traditional mode of the lay apostolate, that is, the lay nobility.
The traditional doctrine and practice of the lay nobility is contained in the Two Swords dogma non definitum. We defend the Two Swords dogma against clericalist hyperüberultramontanism, hoping to do something to balance things out a bit, reconciling clergy and laity.[5] What I say – and what any layman says (as a layman, not a theologian) in this online journal – is only in the lay sphere, discussing my own jurisdiction as a father.
For me, I will speak in the following words only in terms of the SSPX questions as they relate to the aforementioned lay domain regarding the SSPX priests, namely:
- Will I hear Mass with an SSPX priest to fulfil my Sunday Obligation (outside some grave cause)?[6]
- Will I give my children to an SSPX priest to catechise?
- Will I support the SSPX in terms of their leadership in the lay-led aspect of the traditionalist movement, i.e. my role as editor of OnePeterFive?
The answer to all of these questions for me as a father is no. The reasons for my negative answer will be clear in this and further writings. The negative answer to the first two questions is contained in two parts, both focusing on a dogma non definitum:
Dogma Non Definitum: Two Swords
The SSPX & the Lay Nobility: 37 Theses on the SSPX
Dogma Non Definitum: Eucharistic Ecclesiology
Timothy Flanders’s Retractions on the SSPX
The rest of this piece will focus on the SSPX in terms of the history of the Traditional Movement. These are the reasons I was wrong about the SSPX. For that, it is essential to read my study here:
The Pre-Vatican II Decline of Theology
Post-Vatican II Collapse of Theology
Trad Godfathers
Part I: Traditionalism at Sixty
Part II: What are the Non-Negotiables of the Trad Movement?
Side note: Does this Mean that Non-Trads are Heretics?
Part III: Who are the Clans of Traditionalism?
In short, we should honour Archbishop Lefebvre for all the things he did right, but we should be willing to admit that there is an “SSPX Narrative” which has produced certain negative effects on the overall movement of traditionalism. I myself have fallen into this narrative, and I will attempt to begin to admit my fault in this essay. This identification of the “SSPX Narrative” is meant to point out ways that I have been wrong, and to serve as an examination for all traditionalists to look at ourselves and our movement. But it is identified with the SSPX because I ultimately believe these blind spots have been caused directly or indirectly by the SSPX movement as a whole.
The SSPX Narrative and the Future of the Traditionalist Movement
First Error of the SSPX Narrative: “Ahistorical Aristo-Thomism”
There seems to be three main errors which guide the SSPX Narrative into the hole it is currently in. The first is what I term “Ahistorical Aristo-Thomism.” The Neo-Modernist heretics attempted to say that all of pre-Vatican II, Neo-Scholastic Thomism was like this, when they attempted to overthrow Tradition at and after Vatican II.
However, heretics only gain ground because they can point to an actual abuse. The actual abuse of Thomism is “Ahistorical Aristo-Thomism.” What do I mean by this term? This is the same thing as what Kwasniewski calls “Neo-Scholastic reductionism.” First, this abuse of Thomism is in contrast to true Thomism. True Thomism is:
- deeply Marian,
- fluent in all Holy Scripture,
- deep in the interior, mystical life of St. Thomas,
- and only because of these things, is doctrinally and philosophically rigorous
This is why true Thomism is almost always Dominican (although I’m not sure if that’s always true). True Thomism is personified and exemplified by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.
Ahistorical Aristo-Thomism has merely superficial Marian piety (if that), is ignorant of Scripture, and has little to no interior life, but is obsessed with a very Aristotelian reading of the Summa. As a result the Neo-Platonic reading of the Summa is de facto denied, and, moreover, the Tradition itself is falsified, since this abuse of Thomism also operates as if there is “no salvation outside ahistorical Aristo-Thomism.” Ahistorical Aristo-Thomism is exemplified in young kids like myself reading a few manuals and then denouncing people online for heresy (that’s what I’ve done, and I was wrong).
But what did Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange say about Manuals in the beginning of his magnum opus on the spiritual life?
Moreover, questions of spirituality, because they are most vital and at times most hidden, do not easily fall into the framework of a manual; or to put the matter more clearly, great risk is run of being superficial in materially classifying things and in substituting an artificial mechanism for the profound dynamism of the life of grace, of the infused virtues, and of the gifts. This explains why the great spiritual writers have not set forth their thought under this schematic form, which risks giving us a skeleton where we seek for life.[7]
(See Matthew Minerd, “Of Manuals and Those Who Did Not Write Them: The Case of Garrigou-Lagrange”).
A good test to see if you are an Ahistorical, Aristo-Thomist is to read that paragraph while closing your eyes to see the source. Imagine Pope Francis wrote that – how would you understand those words? Are those words Modernist? If you think they teach Modernism, then you are an Ahistorical Aristo-Thomist. I know that when my mind was filled with this superficial, false Thomism, I would have read that text and believed it was Modernism.
The SSPX Narrative seems to start with this philosophical framework which de facto denies the reality of the subjective. As a result if anyone talks about the reality of the subjective experience of God, this talk is “obviously Modernist.” This is why I have seen it again and again: those who think with this frame of reference cannot understand what Christian Personalism is, and thus they misunderstand Vatican II and think Pope St. John Paul II is a heretic.
This is just bad Thomism.
St. Thomas would never make philosophical mistakes like that. Instead, he would enter into dialogos to understand a person and his ideas from the inside out, and then he would form a solid understanding of the reality of the person and the ideas. Instead, in my own zeal as a traditionalist to condemn Modernism, I fell into a zeal for God without knowledge (Rom. x. 2) – I sniffed Modernism everywhere, so I would have condemned the Augustinian Phenomenology of St. Teresa Benedicta and Dietrich von Hildebrand as “subjectivism.” But this is not Thomistic. I am guilty of this, and I was wrong.
Clericalist Hyperüberultramontanism seems to be the presupposition of the SSPX Narrative
Next, we turn to the SSPX Narrative’s emphasis on the concept of “Eternal Rome.” This is central to the 1974 declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre which introduced this ambiguity as an overreaction to Neo-Modernist (material) heretics sent from the Vatican to investigate his seminary. The Archbishop even admitted this document was written “in a spirit of doubtless indignation.”[8]
This concept of “Eternal Rome” is understood in the SSPX Narrative, in general, to be the body of teachings and acts of the Popes up to, and including to some extent, Pope St. John XXIII. The first problem with this is that the concept seems to “savour of heresy,” because it not only does not define what “Eternal Rome” is exactly, but it defines Eternal Rome as something not exactly the same as the current Bishop of Rome.
For me as a father, I just can’t understand this at all. What exactly is “Eternal Rome” if not the current bishop of Rome? Obviously as traditionalists we all know the doctrine of Vatican I says that the bishop of Rome is to guard the Tradition and not invent new teachings, and Vatican II confirms this same thing in a beautiful passage from Dei Verbum paragraph 10.
But what exactly is “Eternal Rome”? The SSPX Narrative does not say exactly. The various factions of the SSPX clerics themselves disagree with each other about what is Eternal Rome and what is the practical application of adhering thereto. Meanwhile, it seems to me that they have rejected the offers of the Bishop of Rome (in 1988 and 2026) to accept him as the “true Rome.” Therefore it is shifting sand to which I cannot build my house.
This seems to be why Pope St. John Paul II correctly diagnosed the main issue of this concept of “Eternal Rome”:
The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition… But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church (Ecclesia Dei, 5).
Here at OnePeterFive we have criticised what we term “the False Spirit of Vatican One” in which the Pope becomes an “oracle of Delphi” to invent new doctrine. But the SSPX Narrative seems to do the same thing in the opposite sense: adhering to an abstract, ambiguous concept of “Eternal Rome,” which appears to be a particular view of Tradition.
But the Archbishop’s own treatment of the pre-conciliar Popes is merely his interpretation thereof. Yes, I can see that the Archbishop is fighting for a large body of Tradition which many bishops question, and that Neo-Modernists seek to destroy. But his treatment of the pre-conciliar period interprets the Popes in only one way, but in fact even the pre-conciliar Papal tradition is more complicated than the Archbishop claims. His treatment of various questions on the Tradition very often uses absolute terms of “all the Popes taught XYZ” or such things but the reality is not so absolute, and the Archbishop seems to ignore the nuances and complexities of the papacies of Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, or Pius XII for example.
The SSPX Narrative seems to suffer from a real problem of clerical hyperüberultramontanism which becomes much more hardened in the pontificate of Blessed Pius IX, and this is a root factor of modern questions. But because of the concept of “Eternal Rome,” the complexity of the issue is not faced and analysed with the depth that is necessary. There is a zeal to defend the 1962 Missal, even though the broader Traditionalist scholarship questions this as well. But if we take the concept of “Eternal Rome” in a very fideistic, abstract sense of “What Lefebvre claimed was ‘Tradition’ in his life time” then we are stuck in this reductionist mindset.
We can forgive the Archbishop for his “excessive indignation” about these things, because he said them more than thirty-five years ago. But we cannot continue to rehash these tired arguments which are unsound, not academically serious and very often theologically misleading.
SSPX Narrative of Vatican II Does Not Pass our Editorial Standards
This brings me to my next problem. I have not seen anything written from the SSPX Narrative about Vatican II that passes our editorial standards at OnePeterFive:
8. Vatican II at Sixty. 2022 marked sixty years since the opening of Vatican II. Once we delve deeper into the clericalism and ultramontanism that already existed, then we can properly understand what happened at Vatican II. Many Trad critiques of Vatican II fail to take into account this deeper analysis of this Council and fail to distinguish the many layers of meaning from the various players: from those who would founded the Concilium journal and their variance with the Communio school of thought, to the Eastern Catholic view and especially the Coetus Internationalis Patrum, our Trad godfathers. Therefore submissions in this category must first read and review the Pre- and Post-Vatican II decline and collapse of theology (here and here) and then understand better the historical context of the Council as a “post-war” event. We particularly wish to promote the high standard set by the studies of Kirwan (here and here), Sire, Wemhoff, Davies and Bishop Schneider and other such erudite voices. Articles tackling Vatican II must be well-versed in the content published in response to Trads, especially people like DeClue, Chapp, Nichols (here and here) and Wicks, after a careful study of all 16 documents and all of the postconciliar Magisterial clarifications.
The things I have read from the SSPX Narrative often make it clear very quickly that the author does not have a handle on the source material, or does not have some very basic research in reading Magisterial texts – or, even worse, has not even read through all sixteen documents of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. (One of the worst examples of this is in the “Subsistit In” controversy.[9])
This is the type of mishandling of Magisterial texts that hurts the traditionalist movement because it tells any basic scholar who has a Bachelor’s Degree or higher that we are not serious about having an academic, theological debate. And it tells any Popes or Bishops of good will that we should not be taken seriously. This is a very serious problem in the traditionalist movement in general, but the SSPX Narrative has been promoting this weak handling of the Council for decades now. I’m sorry to say, if you read only the Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, your view of Vatican II will be malformed.
Neo-Jansenism
The most important thing that a Catholic must have in reading Magisterial texts is the virtue of piety. But not only does the SSPX Narrative lack theological acumen, it also – more damaging to the soul – lacks piety. Piety is the virtue whereby we give due honour to our superiors. This means that your heart is open to be taught by the Magisterium. That allows you to read the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican with an open heart and then be taught by all the good things in it. This is the Catholic attitude.
Without piety, we fall into Neo-Jansenism.[10] This term is not referring to any of the superficial issues of the historical movement known as Jansenism (but it may include those things). No, this term is referring to the deeper issue of a lack of piety in that historical movement. Neo-Jansenism is what Ripperger calls “Disrespect of Authority and the Magisterium” and lists as one of the “ten problems in the Traditional movement.” It is the reason why Msgr. Ronald Knox put Jansenism in his book Enthusiasm – it is primarily a lack in the virtue of piety as it regards ecclesiastical authority. It is one of the dubia of Vatican One which is excluded as contrary to Catholic doctrine.
Neo-Jansenist – the pope (and the Magisterium in general) can be ignored, dismissed and disobeyed in all their acts which fail to achieve infallible authority, and the faithful possess carte blanche to mock, ridicule and insult ecclesiastical authority publicly (Rash, dangerous, contrary to Catholic teaching).
The most conspicuous instance is when the SSPX Narrative makes an argument about Vatican II like this: this council did not dogmatise any anathemas, therefore I do not need to submit to this council with obsequium religiosum. That argument denies the virtue of piety and is thus the framework for Neo-Jansenism. To its great credit, the SSPX clerics have dialogued with the Vatican on their issues with the council for decades, leading to many clarifications. This is good. But the problem is that the SSPX clerics have chosen to go into schism rather than finish the dialogue which has many great progress in clarifying the Council. And moreover, as we said, the texts of Lefebvre do not teach piety to the Council or the authorities, due to a reductionist, adversarial view of the Council.
Again, we can forgive the Archsbishop these omissions, but not thirty-five years later.
But the SSPX Clerics have the Gravitas of the Priesthood
Beginning in 2020 thousands of faithful were refused the Sacraments by “ordinary priests” during COVID. Moreover, many bishops seem to tacitly permit heresy or sacrilege. Heretical, wicked clerical wolves scatter the flock and destroy the faith of little ones.
Some priests and bishops fight these wolves, and among these priests are the SSPX. But because many bishops do not fight the wolves, many faithful flock to the SSPX priests who seem to act like true men of God. This instinct of the faithful is not wrong, but is a manifestation of their sensus fidei, which intuits the gravitas of the priesthood in the SSPX priests who preach the dogmas of the faith fearlessly against the heretical wolves.
Even though the SSPX priests have gone too far and fallen into schism, every Catholic in communion should recognise this issue and, following the example of Ratzinger, do what we can to address it. Thanks be to God, the younger crop of priests in many dioceses worldwide are zealous for the Faith and the Tradition. Therefore even though we must commend and admire the gravitas of the priesthood among the SSPX, it is false to claim they are the only “good priests” out there defending the Tradition. Therefore, this undermines their claim to suffer excommunication for the sake of their own bishops.
Lefebvre’s Greatest Strength: His “Summa”
Some say that the Latin Mass would never have endured if not for Archbishop Lefebvre. Obviously it is true to say that his influence is massive on the history of the Latin Mass. However, we cannot claim to know exactly what would have happened without him. We know that the lay faithful were advocating for the Latin Mass since Una Voce in 1964, and that Dr. Alice von Hildebrand seems to have won over Pope St. John Paul II to the first big indult in 1984, and that Fr. Joseph Ratzinger defended the Latin Mass with or without the existence of the SSPX. So because of those factors, the claim does not seem reasonable, even while we pay due honour to the man of God that the Archbishop was.
Rather, the Archbishop’s greatest strength, in my view, is in defending the lay apostolate of the social kingship of Christ. This is the lay sphere and in an ironic way, the SSPX Narrative seems to suffer from the clericalist hyperüberultramontanism, but it also defends the Two Swords dogma by means of They Have Uncrowned Him.
The greatest argument of this text is to say that the Vatican officially promoted American Style “Religious Liberty” to Catholic Nations like Spain to undermine the Kingship of Christ there.[11] This shows that even if Dignitatus Humanae contains no error – which is conceded by traditionalist scholars themselves – the practical application of the promulgator thereof – Pope St. Paul VI – ended up promoting the error of Liberalism, which Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange says is a theological error.[12]
The problem is that the Two Swords doctrine was already in decline under Blessed Pius IX. Therefore, in order for the SSPX’s greatest strength to help the Church, a deeper presentation of Tradition is necessary, which is in communion with the local bishop.
Conclusion
At OnePeterFive I will be making our standards of publication regarding the SSPX more strict. Following the example of Ratzinger, we are not “cancelling” the SSPX clerics, but I am not going to be lionising the SSPX movement as the long term solution or the “voice of Traditionalism.”
As a lay apostolate, we will highlight the words of bishops and some clerics (and their theologians) on the SSPX question, but intend to shift our focus of “unite the clans” to the area of the lay apostolate. We still want to unite the clans. But as lay people, we cannot unite except in the one Eucharistic altar. Nevertheless, we can unite for the Kingship of the Eucharistic Heart over souls and society.
More to come. Stay tuned.
[1] Joseph Ratzinger, “On the Attitude of the Holy See Regarding the Lefebvre Movement,” Wednesday, July 13, 1988.
[2] Confirming the anti-Modernist language used by Pope St. Pius X: “This truth of the moral law — like that of the ‘deposit of faith’ — unfolds down the centuries: the norms expressing that truth remain valid in their substance, but must be specified and determined ‘eodem sensu eademque sententia’ in the light of historical circumstances by the Church’s Magisterium, whose decision is preceded and accompanied by the work of interpretation and formulation characteristic of the reason of individual believers and of theological reflection” (Veritatis Splendor, 53).
[3] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, abridged ed. trans. Whitney & Willets (Harper: 2007), 75.
[4] Fr. Lasance, With God: a Book of Prayers and Reflections (Benzinger Brothers, 1911), 432-433 contained in Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Crusade of Eucharistic Reparation Manual (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2025), 108.
[5] Clericalist hyperüberultramontism defined: the assertion that “the Church” is the clerics in general and/or the pope in particular, as in the phrase “Church and State.” The phrase itself seems to imply a clericalism and seems to implicitly deny the Two Swords doctrine. Clericalist hyperüberultramontism is the same thing as the “False Spirit of Vatican One.” This will be discussed further below.
[6] The Tradition always affords a soul to approach a schismatic or suspended priest to receive the Sacraments for some grave cause. This seems to be why, even in the most recent ruling of the Holy See, the Vatican does not judge the lay faithful attached the SSPX to be “schismatics automatically”
[7] Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Three Ages of the Interior Life, trans. Sr. M. Timothea Doyle (B. Herder Book: 1947), v.
[8] In Itinéraires, quoted by H. J. A. Sire, Phoenix from the Ashes (Kettering, OH: Angelico Press, 2015), 415.
[10] Flanders, “The Dubia of Vatican One,” OnePeterFive (September 15, 2022).
[11] The passages of this text would still not be published at OnePeterFive, however, since it doesn’t interact with current scholarship on the question.
[12] Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, On Divine Revelation, trans. Matthew Minerd (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Academic, 2022), vol. II, 556-557.