Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall

Episodes

• 
  A Journey to Charity | From the Novus Ordo to the SSPX and Catholic Tradition: My Story 07.08.2026 1h 15m

  https://www.icatholicmobile.com/https://realestateforlife.org/ This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Re-education for Trads, Schismatic Communion, and Darwin vs Catholicism | Q&A 04.08.2026 15m

  This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit meretradition.substack.comhttps://www.icatholicmobile.com/https://realestateforlife.org/
• 
  By What Instrument? Ecclesia Dei Fulfilled 28.07.2026 33m

  Author’s note: Since the release of the documents regarding the July 1 SSPX consecrations, it has become public knowledge that Catholics, who are under no penalty, are being treated as criminals, even publicly so, and often in chapels and parishes run by Catholic priestly societies committed to the Traditional Mass. This is not the only place it is happening, but the fact that it is happening in those places is most disheartening. These events have inspired the following essay, which concerns the legal problem we are facing in general, but with some specific emphasis on the situation as it pertains to parishes committed to the Traditional Mass.Now, this article is not intended as an apologetic for the SSPX. I have made that case elsewhere, and men far more qualified than I am have made it in a million other places.Instead, I am taking the various documents released since 1 July and assessing the responses to them in light of canon law and the practice of the Church. My claim is narrow: the framework by which the lay faithful attached to the Society have been declared excommunicated cannot be applied consistently to anyone. The logic of the documents used as the foundation for the treatment of the lay faithful undercuts the very application of those documents.We do not need to absolve the Society of any wrongdoing here. We need only show that the instrument meant to condemn the priests and the faithful does not exist.It is unfortunate that so much of this conversation has become litigious, centred on canon law. Nevertheless, this is the ground on which the opponents of the Society have planted their flag. There are many other ways to argue for the innocence of the Society and of the faithful it serves, and I believe they are much stronger in the end, because the laws of the Church exist to serve her supernatural mission, which is the salvation of souls — and that mission is not accomplished by a code of human law.I hope readers will keep that in mind. At the same time, for those who want pedantic canonical proof, I hope this article will be useful.Before we continue, I ask the critic to keep this in mind before constructing an emotional argument in the comment section about topics that are not discussed here.Links mentioned in the Audio Recording:Mexico Pilgrimage: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicohttps://realestateforlife.org/https://www.icatholicmobile.com/Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.I. What Was Actually IssuedThree documents are in play, and almost every commentator has treated them as though they were one. They are not. They differ in kind, in the intention of their authors, and — decisively — in juridical force.The Decree of 2 July is a declaratory decree. It declares that six named men have incurred latae sententiae excommunication: two consecrators and four consecrated, under canons 1387 and 1364 §1. Six men are named. Technically, Bishop Fellay was not penalized in the same way as the others, and only the charge of schism was reserved to him.In any event, against no other person does the Decree declare, impose, or inflict any penalty whatsoever. No priests and no laymen are named.The Explanatory Note accompanies the Decree. It is a nota esplicativa. It is not a law: canon 7 provides that a law comes into existence when it is promulgated, and canon 8 specifies the manner. It is not a general decree with legislative force under canon 29. It is not a general executory decree under canon 31. It is not even an instruction under canon 34 — and canon 34 §2 is worth reading slowly, because it provides that instructions do not derogate from laws, and that any provision in them irreconcilable with law lacks all force.And, a document outlining how SSPX faithful and priests can be “reconciled” has been released as well.We should break this down for the average — normal! — reader who does not spend endless hours reading about canon law.It helps to think of it the way a lawyer thinks about the difference between a statute and a press release. The Church does not treat every document that comes out of Rome as binding. She is quite precise about which ones are, and the Code sets out the categories.A law is the strongest instrument, as it binds the faithful; canons 7 and 8 provide that it comes into being only when it is formally promulgated, published in the proper manner and in the proper place.A general decree under canon 29 is a law by another name, issued by someone with legislative power for a whole community.A general executory decree under canon 31 is one rung down: it does not make new law, but sets out how an existing law is to be applied.An instruction under canon 34 is lower still: it clarifies a law’s provisions and directs those charged with carrying it out.And canon 34 §2 is vital, because it tells you what happens when one of these lesser documents strays. Instructions do not derogate — that is, detract — from laws. Whatever cannot be squared with the law has no force at all.These are the principles of the Church, and they reflect a long and coherent canonical tradition. A document explaining a law can never override the law it explains.This raises a significant difficulty. An explanatory note is not found anywhere in the list above. It is not a law, not a general decree, not an executory decree, not even an instruction. It is an annex — a statement of how the officials of a dicastery understand a situation. That is not nothing; it tells you a good deal about the mind of the men who wrote it. But if a mere instruction lacks all force where it conflicts with law, we are entitled to ask what force belongs to a document that ranks beneath an instruction, and how it came to be treated as sufficient to declare a man cut off from the sacraments.That the Note has been used as a legal apparatus is alarming. We cannot know intentions, but we can plainly see canonical incompetence and incoherence, if not outright malice. Again, we cannot impute malice infallibly — but the harmful misuse of law is doing real damage to souls, and the men who have done this are culpable one way or another.The Prassi, the procedures document meant to help SSPX Catholics “come back into the Church,” is guidance directed to nuncios and Ordinaries for handling those who present themselves. Again, it is founded on a Note that has no legal force and, as we will see, is internally incoherent when the source material is considered.The Note exhorts the faithful to abstain from participating in the celebrations and activities of the Society.Exhorts.An exhortation is not a precept. It is an encouragement. And it is worth keeping in mind that this particular encouragement comes from a cardinal who has encouraged the blessing of unions that cry out to Heaven, and who has discouraged, in no uncertain terms, the use of theological titles for Our Lady that are deeply embedded in the devotional and theological tradition of the Church.If any traditionalists would like to hammer the SSPX with the contents of the Note, I would exhort them to follow Cardinal Fernández’s other exhortations as well — that is, if they wish to be truly obedient sons of the Church. I would exhort them to welcome any Fiducia Supplicans events that take place “spontaneously” in their parishes. And I would exhort them to make sure they tell their congregants that it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Our Lady’s cooperation. So: no more traditional Marian lectures, please, without the proviso that Catholics should not use outdated terms because Tucho said so.At any rate, canon 49 defines a singular precept as a decree by which an obligation is directly and legitimately imposed upon a determined person to do or omit something. A precept has a form, an author with executive power, and a determinate addressee. An exhortation in an annex has none of these. And where there is no obligation there can be no violation; where there is no violation there is no delict; where there is no delict there is no penalty.Rome possesses instruments for binding the faithful. They were not used.Consider, too, that it is highly unlikely Cardinal Fernández does anything without first consulting the Holy Father. You are free to draw your own conclusions.So the position after 2 July, strictly speaking, with no recourse to any Society apologetic, is this: six men have been penalized. No priest of the Society has been penalized by any juridical act. No layman has been penalized by any juridical act. Everything that has followed — the pulpit announcements, the diocesan instructions, the refusals to commune with SSPX attendees, as at some FSSP locations — has been done to people against whom nothing has been declared.II. The Remission That Remits NothingMere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Here is where the framework becomes an indictment of itself.Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a layman really has incurred an undeclared latae sententiae excommunication for schism under canon 1364 §1. What does the law itself prescribe?Canon 1357 §1. In the internal sacramental forum, any confessor may remit an undeclared latae sententiae censure of excommunication or interdict, where it is difficult for the penitent to remain in a state of grave sin for the time necessary for the competent superior to provide. The excommunication of canon 1364 §1 is not among those reserved to the Apostolic See. It is remissible in the confessional. Any confessional. Anywhere on earth.What this shows is that there is no need for any process of reintegration for any SSPX layman — assuming they need to be reintegrated at all, which I do not believe, but which I will grant for the sake of the strict analysis we are now conducting.What does the Prassi require instead? A signed and dated Profession of Faith. A Formula of Adherence affirming Lumen Gentium and the post-conciliar magisterium. Submission through the nunciature or the local Ordinary. A documented undertaking not to participate in the Society’s sacramental life in the future.The remedy does not match the chargeRemission of a censure has a defined condition, and only one. Canon 1358 §1 provides that remission cannot be granted unless the offender has withdrawn from contumacy, and canon 1347 §2 defines what that means: he has withdrawn who has truly repented of the delict and made suitable reparation for damage and scandal, or at least seriously promised to do so. That is the whole requirement. Repent of the delict; repair the damage.So ask what delict was alleged. Schism, under canon 1364 §1, defined at canon 751 as the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.Note what canon 751 does not say. It defines heresy separately, in the same canon, as the obstinate denial or doubt of some truth to be believed with divine and Catholic faith. Schism and heresy are distinct delicts with distinct objects. A schismatic is not by definition a man who denies a doctrine; he is a man who refuses submission and communion.The Prassi treats schism and heresy as though they were the same thing. It treats the faithful of the SSPX as though they were heretics who must demonstrate their fidelity to the Church by professing belief in disputed, non-infallible texts of the Second Vatican Council. Technically speaking it would be impossible to call someone a heretic for denying aspects of Vatican II, because the assent of divine and Catholic faith is reserved for definitive dogma.It asks for a signed Profession of Faith and a Formula of Adherence affirming Lumen Gentium and the post-conciliar magisterium. This concerns doctrinal assent, which is the apt remedy for heresy, not for schism.So the procedure convicts of one delict and supposedly cures another. Whatever else it is, it is not the remission of a censure for schism, because it does not ask for the thing whose absence constitutes that delict. And if what is actually sought is doctrinal assent to the conciliar texts, then that is an entirely separate issue — unless, in the New Springtime, one is in schism for questioning Vatican II. How many Catholics are in schism, then?It is applied to people who have no penaltyThe Note’s own two-tier structure admits this. Those who attend for liturgical or spiritual reasons, without rejecting the Magisterium or papal authority, are by the Note’s own terms not excommunicated. Yet they too are asked to undertake not to attend in future.You cannot remit a penalty a man does not have. Whatever is being asked of that second group, it is by definition not remission.The forum is wrongCanon 1357 puts the ordinary remedy in the internal sacramental forum, with recourse permitted through the confessor and without the penitent’s name. The Church’s own instrument for this censure is confessional and anonymous. The Prassi requires an event that is essentially public.Internal-forum remission produces a reconciled soul. External-forum submission produces a record.It is more like a humiliation ritual, and the logic of the thing is entirely alien to canon law — or, quite frankly, to any pastoral sensibility.Consider this in light of canon 1317, that penalties are to be established only insofar as they are truly necessary; in light of canon 18, that penal laws and laws restricting the free exercise of rights are subject to strict interpretation; and in light of canon 1341 as revised in 2021, which requires that penal procedure be reached for only when pastoral means have proven insufficient.Personally, I am about the most outspoken SSPX advocate I can think of, and I have not experienced any “pastoral” engagement from my diocese, or from any cleric for that matter. I have definitely been cursed at and yelled at online a million times, but that did not feel especially pastoral.All considered, this is unintelligible as penal law, and perfectly intelligible as something else.III. The Dilemma at the Heart of 1996The 2026 Note is built on the logic of the 1996 letter of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts concerning adherence to the Society. That is the locus.And that letter cannot bear the weight now placed on it, for a reason internal to the letter itself.Taken in the strict sense, the text exists in order to distinguish. It distinguishes those who merely attend the Society’s Masses — who do not thereby incur excommunication — from those who adhere to the schismatic principle, that is, who repudiate the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and communion with the Church subject to him. Attendance is not adherence, according to the letter. That distinction is the entire content and purpose of the document.We should also note that schism is defined as the withdrawal of submission from the Pope, and not as disobedience. This is without question the unanimous consent of the tradition on the matter, whatever has become a substitute for actual schism in the era of Modernism.The criterion of the letter is interior. Adherence to the supposed schismatic principle is an act of the will — a repudiation of primacy and communion. Very well. Then by that criterion’s own terms, consider the man being penalized. He names Leo XIV in the Canon of the Mass. His superior wrote to the Pope repeatedly and expressed his recognition of the papal office. His Society filed an appeal with the Dicastery on 11 July — and a body that has repudiated Roman authority does not petition the dicastery from which it has supposedly separated itself. By the criterion of 1996, no repudiation of primacy has been demonstrated in the Society’s priests, and still less in a mother of six who drives forty minutes on a Sunday because she wants her children catechized in the Faith she was raised in.And here the 2021 revision of the penal law is vital for our purposes. Pascite Gregem Dei inserted into canon 1321 §1 the clear statement that a person is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven, displacing the old imputability provision to §2, which requires that the external violation be gravely imputable by reason of malice or culpability. An interior act of the will is precisely the thing that cannot be presumed. The Church’s own penal code now says so in unambiguous terms.Someone will object that canon 1321 §4 provides that once an external violation has been established, imputability is presumed unless the contrary is clear. This is true, and it does not help them. That presumption operates only once the external violation has been established — and the external violation here is precisely what has not been established, because the 1996 letter itself says that attendance does not constitute adherence. You cannot presume imputability for a delict you have not first shown was committed.How, then, can we square any of this with the Note, which declares that faithful who “formally adhere” to the Society are to be considered schismatic and excommunicated? Formal adherence, as 1996 defines it, is an interior repudiation of primacy. The heart cannot be judged, and what cannot be judged cannot be proven. Meanwhile, the letter is clear that sacramental participation with the Society is not itself to be penalized.Do you see the problem? One cannot judge the internal forum of a man. And acts done by free will — such as going to the SSPX for Mass — do not constitute schismatic acts, according to the logic of the Note and of the letter it appeals to. So it is essentially impossible to prove that anyone has “formally adhered” to a schism that has never been established in the first place.Quite frankly, the method for assessing who is and is not schismatic is nothing short of what I can only call gnostic. People are to be judged on the basis of what they might believe in their hearts, but do not demonstrate by their actions. It is an imaginary schism — a schism that exists in the eye of the beholder. It is insane.And so the letter on which the Note is based turns out to be pointless.Consider why. Everyone sitting in an SSPX chapel on Sunday performs the identical external act. They show up. They kneel, they pray, they communicate. Externally there is nothing to distinguish the mother of six who has been coming for twenty years, from the curious visitor from the diocesan parish down the road, from the man who came for a cousin’s funeral.Now, the 1996 letter exists in order to say that these people are not all in the same canonical position. That is its entire content. Some are excommunicated and some are not, and the letter tells you which is which.But if the external act were the criterion, that sorting would be impossible — because the external act is the same in every case. You cannot distinguish among people by a feature they all share. So the very fact that 1996 sorts them proves it is sorting by something else, and it tells you what that something is: adherence to the schismatic principle, the repudiation of primacy and communion. Which is to say that the Note and the letter alike require you to assess the goodness or badness of another man’s will. Again: this is insane.To cite 1996 as your authority is to adopt a document whose whole reason for existing is that the external act does not settle the question. You cannot then turn around and settle the question by appealing to external acts. The document you are leaning on is the document telling you that you cannot.The Note wants both. It cites 1996 as its locus while discarding the one thing 1996 actually settled. It treats the Society as schismatic enough to ground a penalty against the laity, and simultaneously not so schismatic that attendance at its Masses was ever prohibited communicatio in sacris — because if it were, that would have been said plainly in 1996, and it was not.You cannot have the benefit of a distinction while denying the distinction.Again: it is incoherent, post-conciliar, modernist, subjectivist idiocy.Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.IV. The Canons Nobody Is CitingNow let us consider the practical implications for innocent Catholics who are being humiliated at FSSP chapels and elsewhere.A Catholic presents himself for Holy Communion at a diocesan parish. He is baptized. He is properly disposed. Against him no penalty has been imposed or declared by any competent authority. He is turned away — or he is at least implored, in an announcement read from the pulpit, not to receive Communion until he has done some paperwork.Let us be honest: traditional Catholic circles are small, and this sort of thing is degrading and humiliating.So how is it legal?Canon 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them. Note the construction. This is not a permission granted to the minister; it is a prohibition laid upon him. And the qualifying clause is prohibited by law. A nota esplicativa is not law. We have established this.Canon 912. Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion. Can and must.Canon 915 is the canon that would authorize refusal, and it is the one that destroys the case. It requires the exclusion of those upon whom a penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and of those obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.Against the lay faithful of the Society, no penalty has been imposed or declared by anyone. The very canon invoked to justify refusal, read as written, forbids it.And then the rights of the faithful, which traditional Catholics too rarely trouble to invoke:Canon 213 — the right of the faithful to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, above all the word of God and the sacraments.Canon 220 — the right to one’s good reputation, engaged by every public assertion that named or identifiable persons are excommunicated when no competent authority has declared them so. In plain terms: publicly describing people as excommunicated when no penalty has been declared against them violates a right the Code expressly protects, and canon 1390 §2 attaches a penalty to unlawfully injuring another’s good reputation.I wonder if anyone will be penalized for calling me a schismatic, publicly, on the internet… I won’t hold my breath.Canon 221 §3 — the right of the faithful not to be punished with canonical penalties except according to the norm of law.What we plainly see here is the law being used against its own purposes and against its own spirit. I am thinking of a word. It starts with “Ph” and more or less rhymes with “heresy.” For evidence of how Our Lord deals with those who fit the bill, see the New Testament.Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.V. The Standard That Runs One WayNow let me turn the framework around — and please understand that what follows is hypothetical, not an accusation.A priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter, or of any diocese, who announces from the pulpit that those attending the Society’s chapels are excommunicated, and who refuses them Communion, is doing everything I have just described: denying the sacraments to persons not prohibited by law, on the authority of a document that is not law, against a presumption of innocence the Code demands, in the teeth of canon 915’s own limitation, with a further injury under canon 220.Some will observe that schism, as canon 751 defines it and as St. Thomas treats it at ST II-II q. 39 a. 1, has two species: the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, and the refusal of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. They will observe that the Society has never done the first, and that refusing the Blessed Sacrament to fellow Catholics looks a great deal like the second.I am not accusing anyone of this. I am only telling you what it looks like.Schism requires the will to sever the bond of unity. A priest who refuses Communion on a mistaken reading of a document he takes to be binding is not willing separation from the Church’s unity. At least, we cannot claim he is doing that — even if that is the effect in practice.He is, wrongly, trying to enforce unity.So we could say that he is doing his best in a confusing situation, on advice he had reason to trust, and that it goes too far to call him schismatic.However — and this is anecdotal — if you attend a Fraternity chapel, or another TLM group, can you attest to what I have been told ad nauseam about priests from non-SSPX groups: that it is often the case that during homilies one hears a great deal of criticism of what comes out of Rome? I have been to a Fraternity chapel twice for Mass. One was a daily Mass with no homily. The other was a Sunday, almost a decade ago, at which the priest preached about the hierarchy more or less going to hell because of their scandals.I have been told a thousand times that homilies of this kind are not uncommon, even if that particular one was a little hardcore. So can we really say that the priests of the FSSP are in the habit of accepting and implementing the doctrinal and theological opinions of men like Cardinal Fernández with docility?Please be honest.Now, it will likely be said that this humiliation of SSPX faithful is taking place because local bishops are demanding it.Fair enough. But this is another illustration of why we need the SSPX — because the other groups of priests who are supposed to carry the banner of tradition are unable to resist overtures from modernists who exhort them to humiliate good Catholics and to spread doctrinal, legal, and theological confusion by way of incoherent applications of laughably untenable pseudo-legal documents that make a mockery of the dignity of the Church’s law.Do these priests not realize that they are helping to spread the heretical tendencies of Modernism by legitimizing all of this? Modernism is thoroughly subjective, grounded in feeling and perception. And these priests, who call themselves traditional, are cementing in the minds of their congregants the idea that a man can be judged on the basis of baseless interpretations of Church law, of perennial doctrine, and of the unknowable disposition of another man’s heart.Now: if good faith and the absence of schismatic intention protect that priest, then they equally protect the priest who names the Pope in the Canon and petitions the dicastery for redress. If interior disposition is decisive, it is decisive in both directions. The Note and the 1996 letter both insist that it is interior adherence to the schismatic principle that constitutes the delict. Very well. Apply it. Apply it to everyone.I expect the reply: the diocesan priest errs about a fact while trying to obey, whereas the Society’s adherents refuse obedience as such. Intention, they will say, is being applied consistently — merely to different objects.But the moment they say the object differs, they have abandoned interiority and returned to classifying acts objectively, which is the opposite of the logic of the 1996 letter and of the Note founded upon it. Objective classification would sweep in every Catholic who has ever heard Mass in an SSPX chapel. They cannot cite 1996 as their authority and then argue on a basis that renders 1996 pointless.You cannot invoke the perennial categories of objective classification in order to reach a judgment that rests on a directive refusing to base classification on anything objective. That is to keep perennial Catholic principles for personal use while demanding that others follow principles the tradition of the Church would find odious.And if we are, after all, to classify by external act, then let us compare the acts honestly.The layman’s external act is attendance at Mass — which the 1996 letter itself declared insufficient to constitute adherence.The priest’s external act is the positive refusal of the Body of Christ to a baptized Catholic against whom no penalty has been imposed or declared, contrary to canons 843 §1, 912, and 915, together with public assertions engaging canon 220.If we are being objective — which Cardinal Fernández forbids us to be — then the act of the priest who refuses Communion to SSPX faithful is the graver one, because it is the one the Code actually prohibits.So I say this, and I mean it without irony: I am content to hold that the priest who turns a Catholic family away from the altar rail acts in good faith on a mistaken reading. I ask only that the same charity be extended to a man who prays for the Pope by name in the Canon of the Mass, and who has never been penalized.Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.VI. Ecclesia Dei FulfilledWhat follows is a theological judgment rather than a canonical conclusion, and the reader should weigh it as such.For almost forty years a certain arrangement was on offer. Accept the framework, profess the necessary formula, and you may keep the Old Rite. Many good men accepted it in good conscience, and I have never thought them contemptible for doing so.But it was always a tenancy, not a title. Ecclesia Dei afflicta 3 declared that the consecrations were of their nature a schismatic act, and adherence to that characterization was part of the price of the arrangement. In 2021, Traditionis custodes demonstrated what the lease was worth.The Commission that administered it is gone. And now the arrangement requires something further. It requires a priest to stand in the pulpit and announce the refusal of the Body of Christ to baptized Catholics against whom no penalty has been declared, in violation of several canons of the Code he professes to obey, on the authority of an annex that is not law.This is the logic of Ecclesia Dei fulfilled.The traditional liturgy is not a preference in ritual style. It is the lex orandi, and it forms a mind — one that reasons from principles, distinguishes carefully, and refuses to call an exhortation a precept because a dicastery would prefer that it were. Whatever else this past month has shown, it has shown that keeping the Old Rite inside a framework that does not reason is not a stable position. Sooner or later, that framework will ask you to do something the traditional framework has trained you to recognize as wrong.I do not write this to score a point against men I regard as brothers. I write it because a good many of them are, right now, being asked to do something they know to be unjust, and are doing it because they have been told they must follow the law — when in fact they are breaking it by doing so. There are six bishops penalized by name, an annex without juridical force, and a great many Catholics being deprived of participation in the Church they belong to.And in any event, the decree against those six bishops is under recourse, and by canon 1353 recourse against a decree declaring a penalty has suspensive effect. So if everyone is so concerned that the SSPX should follow the law, why can everyone else not manage to follow it too?Thanks for reading Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall! This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  The Pope Saint Pius X "Eucharistic Revolution" | Q & A Episode 27.07.2026 10m

  This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit meretradition.substack.com
• 
  Catholic Tradition: Preserved by “Disobedience” Whether You Like It or Not 24.07.2026 25m

  Over the years, I have thought a lot about obedience, as I am sure you have, and something about how the topic is considered has always seemed “off” to me. Eventually, I realized that the major issue with how Catholics tend to talk about obedience is that they talk about it in abstract terms rather than concrete terms.Obedience as such is a morally neutral or indifferent abstract concept. For obedience to mean something and be either virtuous or vicious, it must have a concrete human act as its object. The abstract concept of obedience does not exist in reality. One cannot be “obedient” in the sense of living in a general state of obedience. For one to be obedient, one has to obey a particular order or command to concretize the concept of obedience and actuate it as an action in the concrete.And the object of obedience makes the act of obeying either good or bad. One can obey a command, but the obedience itself is not a virtuous or vicious thing; rather, what command is being obeyed and to what end is what makes it virtuous or vicious.Furthermore, circumstances can change whether an actuation of the abstract concept of obedience is good or bad, even when the actions themselves are the same, to the point where there is a qualitative change in what is happening — meaning that the good or bad action becomes a different kind of thing.We can break this down into three parts to help us understand:Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.1. You obey real actions, not hypothetical ones.When someone tells you to obey, they’re not asking you to obey some vague category of action floating in your head — they’re asking you to do (or not do) one specific thing, right now, in this exact situation. “Don’t kill” isn’t really the command; “don’t kill this person, in these circumstances” is. So when we ask whether obedience was owed, we can’t just ask “was the bare action bad?” We have to ask “was this actual act, with everything surrounding it, bad?”2. Whether something is right or wrong depends on more than just the action itself.Take walking. Walking, by itself, isn’t good or bad — it’s neutral. But walking to rob someone’s house is bad, and walking to clear your head is fine. Same action, different outcome, because the circumstances — especially why you’re doing it — change everything. Same with giving money to the poor — good in itself, but if you’re only doing it to be seen and praised, it curdles into something selfish. One bad ingredient can spoil the whole thing, even if the core action was fine on its own.3. Sometimes the “circumstance” isn’t just a detail — it becomes the whole point.Usually we think of circumstances as minor add-ons: where, when, small details around the main action. But sometimes a circumstance is so significant that it actually changes what the action is, not just how good or bad it is. Stealing is bad. But stealing from a church isn’t just “extra bad theft” — it’s a different kind of offence (sacrilege), because the location isn’t incidental; it’s central to what makes the act wrong. In cases like that, the “detail” stops being a detail and becomes part of the core action itself.Saint Thomas Aquinas explains this third concept in detail:“The process of reason is not limited to a single term; from any point, it can always go further. This is why what, in an act, is considered as a circumstance added to the object which determines the species of the act can then be considered by reason, when it orders, as a principal condition of the object which determines that species.”“Thus, appropriating another’s property derives its nature from the fact that this property belongs to another: this is what constitutes the nature of theft. If we then consider place or time, these are merely circumstances. But since reason can also order according to place, time, and other similar conditions, it can happen that the condition of place, in relation to the object, is considered contrary to the order of reason. For example, reason dictates that one must not commit an offence in a sacred place.”“Therefore, stealing someone else’s property from a sacred place adds a particular opposition to the order of reason. Thus, the place, which was previously only a circumstance, is now considered a principal condition of the object, insofar as it is contrary to reason.”“In this way, whenever a circumstance relates to a particular order of reason, favourably or unfavourably, it is necessary that this circumstance confer upon the moral act its kind, making it specifically good or specifically bad.” (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 18, a. 10.)A circumstance can affect an act’s morality in two very different ways.Sometimes the circumstance is what defines the act — it’s the reason a neutral or good act becomes evil in the first place. When that happens, the circumstance stops being a side detail and becomes part of the act’s essential moral character.Other times, the act’s moral character is already fixed by its object alone — good or bad — and the circumstance just makes it more or less so. Here the circumstance is incidental; it adjusts the degree, not the kind.The difference: does the circumstance determine what kind of act this is, or just how much good or evil is already there? Only the first kind can turn a neutral act into something evil or good in itself.Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The SSPX and ObedienceApplied to the SSPX situation: staying quiet and not consecrating bishops is, by itself, a neutral act — neither good nor bad. I imagine some readers will take offence to this statement, because we associate sacramental acts with something good. Yes, of course the acts in general are good, but the context changes things. For example, a valid priest could confect the Holy Eucharist in a satanic ceremony, and it would be evil to do so — the object of the act (a satanic ceremony and the desecration of the Eucharist) is vile, even though the Eucharist is, of course, good.Similarly, the consecration of a bishop as an action is morally neutral, and why it is being done makes all the difference, even though the conferral of the sacramental character, in its own proper existence, is always good. These distinctions make it possible for morally evil sacramental actions to exist, while the nature of the sacramental character remains not evil in itself.But in the case of the Society, to decide to postpone the consecrations indefinitely would not be a morally neutral act, given the circumstances. For the sake of this essay, we will assume that the reader is aware of the proper arguments for the State of Necessity, and of the intentions of the Society which pertain to their circumstances. Keeping these realities in mind, we understand that there is a state of public and grave necessity for many souls, and it is the opinion of the leadership of the Society that the two remaining living bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre are insufficient to keep up with the rapidly growing demand for Traditional sacraments worldwide, which include Confirmation and priestly ordination.So the Society was faced with a decision: obey a command from the Pope to forgo the consecrations, or disobey the command in order to move forward with the consecrations, for the sake of the continued existence of the Society and for the faithful who depend on it for the sacraments. Again, I am assuming the reader is at least familiar with the arguments regarding this topic.Now, even if you disagree with the Society’s reasoning, please try to understand the question of obedience under these circumstances. Again, obedience as an abstract concept is morally neutral and does not produce virtue in and of itself; therefore, what is being obeyed — the object — must be considered. As hard as it is for modern Catholics to understand, the Pope does not have magical powers to make good evil and evil good. A command from the Pope can have as its object a good or an evil outcome, depending on what is commanded, and the fact that the Pope commands it does not magically make it good.I imagine any reasonable person could picture a scenario in which a pope ordered Catholics living in adultery to receive Communion anyway. This is easily imagined because of the legacy of Pope Francis. Of course, he did not order Catholics to do so, but he clearly believed it was good for Catholics living in such a state to do so; therefore, it is conceivable that, if the situation arose, a command of that sort could be given. Obviously, one would have to disobey that command if they knew the teachings of the Church.The present circumstances are not so obvious or clear to many, which is understandable; nonetheless, the logic still stands. I hope that even the most ardent defenders of the recent popes would agree that disobeying the command of a pope is morally required under certain circumstances. You may draw your own line in a different place, but hopefully we can agree that not all disobedience of a papal command would be sinful.In any event, the concrete decision before the Society was not an abstract case study from a university philosophy class. It was decided that to obey in that circumstance would produce an evil, which would include a general acceptance of all the post-conciliar reforms, magisterial texts, etc. — including, of course, the more ludicrous documents of recent years, of which I am sure you are all aware.The reader must remember that the conditions for mere dialogue to begin — dialogue that could eventually result in a hypothetical permission to consecrate — were set by Cardinal Fernández, and those conditions were, in the opinion of the Society, evil. In addition, the language surrounding the conditions was that “full communion” would only be possible if those conditions were met.Again, while the reader may disagree, I hope the reader can understand the circumstances. And I imagine many readers, even if they disagree with the action, would find it morally repugnant to have conditions imposed on them by a Church official demanding wholehearted acceptance — hook, line, and sinker — of the entire post–Vatican II corpus. In fact, the very persistence of the so-called Traditional Movement is an active rejection of that corpus, even if that rejection is not spoken aloud by some groups.So the Society was faced with a situation which, in their opinion, required disobedience of a command, because the object of that command would produce an evil. And the disobedience of that command produced a great good: the continued preservation of Tradition.I understand that some readers will object and say that the preservation of Tradition does not require such an act. That argument is not the point of this essay — it has been discussed a million times elsewhere — and I only ask that the reader attempt to understand the circumstances and the distinction between abstract obedience, which is morally neutral, and concrete obedience, which is either good or bad.However, I would also like to add that the continuation of Tradition in the Church is, quite literally, the fruit of such material disobedience. The historical record cannot be changed: if it were not for Archbishop Lefebvre, primarily, Catholics the world over would not benefit from the continuation of Tradition, especially liturgically.Neither the Fraternity of Saint Peter nor any other Traditional group can claim that they are the result of a general obedience to the Roman authorities. One may draw the line at episcopal consecrations without mandate, but if we are speaking of obedience as such, the Traditional Mass and all that comes with it were commanded to cease in the 1970s, and this was quite public and unambiguous.And I would ask the reader not to bring up inapplicable examples like the so-called Agatha Christie indult, which was a regional concession and not applicable to the vast majority of Catholics on Earth.It is without question that Pope Paul VI, and later Pope John Paul II, were adamant in their disapproval of the continuation of the SSPX — which did, whether you like it or not, preserve the flame of Tradition that so many Catholics now benefit from, while simultaneously scorning the standard-bearers who took the abuse necessary to preserve the Pearl of Great Price. The Fraternity of Saint Peter is no more “obedient” in its origins than the SSPX, and this must be acknowledged, because the hypocrisy is irritating.I have written a parable that I believe will help illustrate this concept of obedience, in the present circumstances, in a relatable way.Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The Parable of the Two SonsImagine you have two sons, and their father had always been a good father. In fact, he had been a really good father. He ensured the kids’ education. He made sure they went to the best schools. He always made sure that they had enough to eat, and he always made sure that they had the best religious formation they could get.At some point, however, the father decided that he was going to change his mind. He believed that his family had to get with the times — something about the spirit of the ‘60s and the post-World War II false optimism. He had affection for the old ways in a nostalgic kind of sense, but because of the spirit of the world and the increasing pressure from popular culture and the global political media, he had been convinced that it was time to change.So one day he came to his sons and said, “Sons, no longer are we going to send you to that good school. No longer are we going to send you to that traditional religious formation. In fact, I think I’ve been too strict, and I think that what you need to do is embrace the times.”Now, initially, the sons were a little perplexed, because it was a shock to them, as you can imagine. They had always listened to their father because he had always been a good father, and their natural reaction was conflicted. On the one hand, they wanted to be good sons, and being good sons means, among other things, obeying the will of your father. But on the other hand, what their father was asking them to do was against what he had always willed.So in the early stages, they did what they could to obey. They thought to themselves, “Okay, well, Dad knows best, and although I don’t understand at this present moment, he must have a good reason for it.” They also started to notice that it wasn’t just Dad who had changed his mind — it was Dad’s brothers, it was Dad’s cousins. In general, most of the people in the neighbourhood and in the surrounding towns were also adopting similar philosophies, and it seemed they had all changed their minds together. The brothers noticed that the customs began to change. They noticed that the schools changed, and the parents were taking their children out of the seemingly outdated schools and putting them in the new schools with the new curricula, the new psychological methods, and the new approaches to community.Admittedly, the brothers did feel, even if conflicted, a sense of optimism at the beginning. However, after a short while — let’s say a matter of months or years — it was obvious that this new direction just didn’t seem to be working, and it wasn’t because the brothers were obstinate against what they believed to be the goodwill of their father. They simply noticed that things weren’t working. You see, these young men had been raised to believe in traditional moral standards. They had been raised with traditional piety. They had been raised in a classical education model, and it was becoming very evident that the new directions were, quite frankly, ineffective at best, and morally and spiritually repugnant at worst.The friends they had grown up with had embraced the new ways, and their friends and even cousins went on and on about how the new ways were so good. When the brothers asked why the new ways were so good, the answers they got were truisms and platitudes without substance. They would receive answers along the lines of, “These new ways are great because we don’t have to do all that old stuff anymore,” or “The new ways are great because we used to be so isolated from all these other types of people, and now we can do everything in common.”The brothers also noticed that the moral behaviour of their cousins, their friends, and the neighbourhood kids began to change. Before the changes, courtship had been much more chaste and traditional. But now all the families had adopted the new ways of dating. The advent of the automobile meant that a young lady could be picked up by a young man, and they could drive off to who knows where and do God knows what, and no one seemed to care. The movies they were watching started to change, and so forth.Well, eventually, the two brothers were convinced that the will of their father — and the will of their associates, the neighbourhood people, the townspeople, and their extended family — was simply wrong, because the results showed that everything they had been taught growing up, for so many years and decades, must be their father’s true will, since they could not imagine that he would ever will their moral and spiritual death. They realized that there must be not only a correlation but a causal link between the new orientations and the denigration of morals, education, and piety.So the older of the two brothers confronted his father about it. He said, “Father, I simply cannot do these things anymore, because not only am I suffering, but my younger brother is suffering.” Furthermore, some of the cousins had come to the older brother — although not many — and expressed similar sentiments. They were weary of the direction of their households. They were weary of the new educational orientations and the new piety, and it made them very sad. All were told simply, “These are the ways, and we have to get with the times.”So the older brother, being a courageous man, decided that something was wrong with what his father was asking him to do, and what everyone else was asking their own children to do. He then confronted his father again and said, “Father, I simply will not do what you ask, because what you’re asking me to do is against what I thought was your will for so many decades — and if I’m being honest, it’s against everything that your father taught you, and his father taught him, until time immemorial.”Well, the father didn’t like this. He threatened to disinherit the son from the will. He threatened to kick him out of the house. He threatened to not allow him to come to family vacations and family holidays. Quite frankly, the father began to blame the son for all the problems. You see, the father was a conflicted man, but he wasn’t stupid. He had convinced himself that the new ways were the best ways, but he also saw that the destruction of their way of life was ongoing, and it did cause him sadness. But for some reason, he took to blaming the older son rather than looking in the mirror and admitting it was his own fault. So the relationship between the older son and the father became very tense and very strained, and they had very little communication.Now, the younger son had grown accustomed to sheltering himself under the courage and the broad shoulders of his older brother, and he found much peace in doing so. But eventually, things came to a head. The older son said to the father, “I don’t care what you say. It doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that you’re my father. It doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that, objectively speaking, you have authority. But in this current situation, I refuse to do what you ask, and I will continue in the old ways, because the new ways bring death to both my soul and the souls of those I love.”The younger brother had supported the older brother the whole way, because he knew he was right. But the father became even angrier, and he promised that he would follow through on his threats. He promised that if the older brother did not stop immediately, he would do everything in his power to separate him from the family once and for all. Of course, this caused much distress in the older brother, but he simply could not give in to ways that were destructive — ways that were hurting his brother, his cousins, and his friends and family whom he had known his whole life.After receiving this extraordinary threat from his father — a threat that seemed so absurd — the older brother said, “Father, I must reiterate: I know that you’re my father, but I hereby make it very clear that I don’t care what you do to me. I will not be following in your ways, and I will continue in the ways that you taught me before. I reject the new ways, and in the future I will raise my family in the old ways, which bring life, because these new ways bring death.”The father followed through on his promises. He took out an ad in the local newspaper announcing that he had disinherited his son. He went to the lawyer and made sure that his son would never receive a penny. He forced the son to leave the home, threatening to call the police if he didn’t leave immediately. He did everything possible to ensure a complete separation between himself and his son. This was not his son’s will, but there was nothing the son could do about it.Throughout this whole ordeal, the younger brother had stood with the older brother and supported him. But when the day came that the father followed through on his threats, the younger brother, without telling the older brother, simply stopped supporting him. In fact, it became apparent that while the whole saga was unfolding, the younger brother had been talking with the father and speaking with the uncles, and they had decided that — while the father would not abandon his new orientations — he would tolerate the younger brother continuing in the old ways, so long as he did it far from the family home and without making too much fuss. So the father took the wealth he had saved all those years for the older brother and used it to build the younger brother a small property a couple of towns over, where he could continue in the old ways quietly.When this happened, the older brother felt deeply betrayed. He said to the younger brother, “I’m sorry, but why did you do this? I thought you agreed with me. I thought you understood that we had to do this because, of course, we respect our father — but in the eyes of God, we cannot obey if it means doing evil.”And the younger brother said, “I hear what you’re saying, but you’ve gone too far, and I’m going to stay obedient to our dad.”It was quite a shock. You see, the sons had been trained how to think. They knew that the act of obedience, in the abstract, was indifferent — that in order for obedience to be a virtue, the object of obedience had to be good. Nevertheless, the younger brother not only distanced himself from the older brother, but began to speak against him. In private, he acted exactly as the older brother had acted; but in public, he said the older brother was wrong for disobeying their father — all the while continuing down the very path his older brother had preserved for him.From that day, the father continued to tolerate the actions of the younger brother, but only if he stayed away from the older brother. And if he started to seem too much like his older brother, he would get a stern talking-to and be threatened with harsh punishments. Whenever the older brother came up, the younger brother made sure to tell everyone he knew that they should have nothing to do with him, because, after all, the older brother wasn’t as obedient as the younger.Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The Padre Pio Red Herring Before we end, we should quickly address the common appeal to saints like Padre Pio as examples of how one should obey under all circumstances. Of course, the reader should understand by now that it is morally incoherent to obey under all circumstances. Nevertheless, modern man thinks with a modern mind, and that thinking isn’t always coherent.At one point Padre Pio was ordered to stop hearing confessions and cut off contact with the people he’d been guiding spiritually. On the surface, that looks similar — a superior restricting something good. But here the circumstances didn’t poison the command: the people he’d been guiding could easily go to another faithful, orthodox priest instead. Nothing was actually lost or endangered. So the order, even if the superior’s motives were questionable, didn’t become “evil in itself” — and Padre Pio was right to obey it. This case matters because it shows the principle isn’t a blank cheque to disobey anything you dislike; it only applies when the circumstances genuinely change what you’d actually be doing.Furthermore, people often leave out that Padre Pio had ongoing preternatural encounters for decades, and the Church’s practice has always been very cautious in situations like these, because extreme care is needed to ensure that preternatural phenomena are not demonic. Of course, we all know Padre Pio was a great saint, but we have the luxury of hindsight and history.Also, Padre Pio took vows, which are required in orders such as the one he joined. Those vows are for the good of the order and of the monk or friar. Normally speaking, there is no issue obeying blindly in one of these orders, and that is sort of the point. If one thinks of a cloistered nun or a monk, we must remember that the majority of their tasks are morally neutral and usually pertain to things like chores and the discipline of the religious house.While it may seem unfair, for example, that a superior of a group of nuns could be hard on one particular nun, always telling her to clean the toilets or peel potatoes, there is no evil in cleaning toilets or peeling potatoes. The whole point of joining a monastic order with vows is that you agree to submit yourself to the will of the superior for the sanctification of your soul, and that is the context.It is different when souls are under your care, or when you have a public ministry, which is why the secular clergy do not take such vows.True obedience is demonstrated in the case of Saint Jean de Brébeuf as well. He was the superior of the Huron Mission in New France for a decade, and, despite the fact that he was a great saint, there was little success. So he was replaced, and he wholeheartedly embraced the fact that he was replaced, without any conflict. But he was replaced with another great priest, Father Jérôme Lalemant, who came with the same zeal, orthodoxy, and expertise for the role, and he didn’t come to preach the New Springtime or Synodality, or to tell the natives that they didn’t need to convert.Chesterton once said, in so many words, that when you enter the Catholic Church you are required to remove your hat, and not your head. Catholics, especially those who call themselves Traditional, must be precise and logically coherent. Throwing around platitudes about abstract obedience, or out-of-context historical examples that do not apply, is offensive and, quite frankly, unintelligent.Obedience in the Church is not some ethereal Platonic form that can be invoked as the end to all arguments. It is one of the virtues, and it cannot be heralded at the expense of all the rest, or of sound thinking.Kyrie eleison This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  FSSP Parish Gives SSPX Catholics a 'Test' to see if They Are Still Catholic... 🫠 😑 22.07.2026 32m

  Mexico Pilgrimage: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicohttps://realestateforlife.org/https://www.icatholicmobile.com/ This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  A Consideration of the Risk of Sedevacantism and Disunity in the SSPX 21.07.2026 31m

  Note: I made a mistake with some terms that I have fixed in the text, but the audio hasn’t been fixed yet. The mistake was in how I characterized the Des Lauriers position, and I mixed up some terms. I will fix the audio tomorrow. My apologies to anyone who believed I misrepresented their position. I’ve decided to discontinue using Taylor’s name in the titles of these essays written in consideration of the podcast he produced about the SSPX. The reason I have made that decision is that I personally get quite annoyed when other writers/podcasters do what can be called “clout chasing,” which is what happens when they use the name or likeness of another creator in order to drive traffic to their work. Of course, I wasn’t doing that, but the internet is a stupid place with a lot of stupid opinions, so I thought I would take that element out of the situation to avoid the perception of that reality.In any event, in this essay we will consider the opinion that within the structure of the SSPX, there is an inherent risk of sedevacantist mentalities as well as a risk of disunity that could lead to fracturing or breakaway groups.In the first essay in this series, I categorized those objections as:* Internal-unity/schism-risk argument* Sedevacantist-harbouring concernLINKS MENTIONED IN RECORDING:Mexico Pilgrimage: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicohttps://realestateforlife.org/https://www.icatholicmobile.com/The Internal-unity/schism-risk argument refers to the groups, loosely called the “SSPX Resistance,” that broke away from the SSPX around 2012. For the sake of this essay, it would be too cumbersome to give a detailed overview of that history, because it is complicated and the various personalities are not unified. Nonetheless, below we will take a brief look at the phenomenon for a bit of context, and, if the reader is so inclined, I did produce a longer podcast going over the topic. I would recommend listening to that or watching it after you have read this if you desire more information.The Sedevacantist-harbouring concern that Marshall mentions is a real mentality that is not uncommon in Tradition as such. I will also add that a variety of theories about the invalidity of certain post-conciliar papacies is not unique even to Traditional circles. The thesis that Pope Benedict remained pope even after his resignation is common in both Traditional circles and mainstream circles. Alas, we live in an age wherein such scandal, both moral and doctrinal, stems from the various pontificates, and it is only natural for members of the faithful to essentially throw up their hands and find an “anti-pope” solution to be the most fitting answer to the quagmire. Nevertheless, we will discuss this topic below and give some context on the sedevacantist situation that is often not considered.Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Internal-Unity/Schism-RiskAs was mentioned above, a brief overview of the SSPX Resistance will be offered here.The so-called SSPX Resistance traces its origin to the internal crisis within the Society that erupted in 2012, when Bishop Bernard Fellay, then Superior General, pursued doctrinal discussions with the Holy See under Benedict XVI that culminated in Rome’s offer of a “Doctrinal Preamble” as the basis for a canonical regularization of the SSPX. Bishop Richard Williamson, along with a number of priests and religious who shared his alarm, viewed any practical agreement absent a genuine conversion of Rome on the errors of the Council as a betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre’s own stated principles — namely, that no canonical status should be sought until Rome had unambiguously returned to Tradition. Williamson’s public dissent, expressed most notably through his Eleison Comments (an email newsletter), led to his expulsion from the Society in October 2012, and around the same period several other priests — Fr. Chazal and Fr. Pfeiffer among them — were likewise expelled or departed for holding the same position. Out of this expulsion emerged an informal but loosely organized network of priests, religious, and laity who considered themselves the true continuators of Lefebvre’s line of total resistance to the post-conciliar Roman authorities, in contrast to what they saw as an SSPX leadership drifting toward compromise.The Resistance solidified as a distinct, if loosely structured, movement without any single superior general or unified canonical framework, operating instead as a constellation of independent priories and chapels bound more by shared conviction than by common governance. This informality was thrown into sharp relief in 2015, when Williamson, acting on his own volition and without attempted recourse to Rome, consecrated Fr. Jean-Michel Faure a bishop in Brazil, a move that even many within the Resistance found difficult to justify canonically, since it lacked the kind of state-of-necessity argument Lefebvre himself had marshalled for the 1988 Écône consecrations. The episode exposed the structural weakness inherent to a movement, and further fragmentation followed in the years after. What holds the Resistance together to this day is less a common governance than a common diagnosis: that the SSPX’s post-2012 trajectory toward normalization with the conciliar Church represents an abandonment, whether gradual or decisive, of the very principles for which Lefebvre founded the Society in the first place.Now, as I said, there is more that could be said, but a couple of things are worth noting. It was not only Williamson and the priests who left the Society who had concerns about the negotiations between Fellay and the Vatican at the time, because the situation was precarious. This is not to fault Fellay, and, to Fellay’s credit, he never did compromise the Society or the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre. In speaking with members of the Society, I have been told that there was a period of concern within the Society about the direction proposed at the time; nevertheless, even those who disagreed felt it was irresponsible to air their grievances publicly or to jump to any conclusions when nothing concrete had actually happened. As it stands, no compromising agreement with the Vatican that would have thrust Modernist principles into the structure of the Society was ever reached, and Bishop Fellay did an excellent job guiding the ship during that internal tempest.In any event, we must move on from the historical consideration and address the notion that since something like this has happened before, it could happen again.Well, all I can say is that there is no guarantee that it could not happen again, because this will only be known to history after this whole saga has run its course. At the same time, we must also accept the fact that this sort of thing is not uncommon in the history of religious congregations within the Church. In addition, there is a trend that we tend to see when we look to history.Call to mind the formation of the Franciscans under Saint Francis. Saint Francis was an extraordinary Saint, to put it mildly, and the Franciscans grew rapidly throughout his life and continued to grow exponentially after he died. Nonetheless, something unfortunate took place not long after he died, which caused a rupture in the congregation, and a dissident group emerged that was called the Fraticelli.Thanks for reading Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall! This post is public so feel free to share it.The Fraticelli emerged in the decades following the death of Saint Francis of Assisi in 1226, as a reaction against what a faction of the Franciscan order regarded as a betrayal of Francis’s own rule and testament regarding absolute poverty. Francis had bound his friars to a radical renunciation of property, both individual and corporate, and his Testament attempted to foreclose any future relaxation of that ideal by his successors. Within a generation, however, the order split between the Conventuals, who accepted papal permission to hold property corporately and adapt the rule to the practical needs of a growing international order, and the Spirituals, who insisted that Francis’s original poverty was binding in its strictest sense and could not be dispensed by any pope. Figures like Peter John Olivi supplied the Spirituals with a theological framework, arguing that Christ and the Apostles had possessed nothing even in common, a position that increasingly took on an apocalyptic cast under the influence of Joachimite prophecy, casting the controversy as a decisive moment in salvation history rather than a mere dispute over religious observance.The rupture became formal and irrevocable under John XXII, who in the 1320s condemned the Spirituals’ core doctrine outright, declaring in Cum inter nonnullos that to assert Christ and the Apostles owned nothing was heretical, and moved decisively against the recalcitrant friars. Those who refused submission, now properly called Fraticelli, were driven out of the order and into clandestine communities scattered through central Italy, sustained by a hardened conviction that John XXII had fallen into heresy and had therefore forfeited the papacy itself — a conclusion some of them extended to the entire post-Nicholas III papal line. It is fascinating that the Fraticelli were essentially sedevacantists concerning John XXII’s ruling on the topic of property ownership, because John XXII infamously taught a legitimate heresy, or at least grave error, about the state of souls before the Second Coming, which he recanted on his deathbed.Deprived of any formal structure and increasingly persecuted as heretics by the Inquisition, the Fraticelli persisted in isolated pockets for well over a century, their communities dwindling but not entirely extinguished until the fifteenth century. Some members of the Fraticelli were even convinced enough to hold on to their positions to the point of being burned at the stake. Their trajectory stands as an early demonstration of a movement born from a sincere claim to represent the true intention of a founder against his own order’s later development, only to harden, in the absence of any legitimate structure to appeal to, into open defiance of legitimate superiors.I believe the similarities between the so-called SSPX Resistance and the Fraticelli should be evident.Ultimately, we cannot guarantee one way or the other whether there could be any further tension or breakaway groups that shed themselves from the SSPX, but we can say that a normal canonical status will not be the thing that guarantees against such sorrows. The Franciscans are not merely a religious order, but an order approved through miraculous intervention.If we could take a quick detour here, given that it is topical, we could also address the comparison that Marshall put forth in his podcast between the SSPX and the Franciscans. In essence, it was argued that Saint Francis is a great example of true obedience, who left the approval of his order up to the Pope. You may recall from the history of Saint Francis that he believed God had called him to an extraordinary mission to form a congregation, and he then sought approval directly from the Pope. At first, this seemed foolhardy, but the Pope at the time was informed miraculously in a dream that Saint Francis would be a great reformer within the Church.Certainly, this is a great event in Church history, and, of course, if something like this were to happen in the case of the SSPX, it would be a wonderful thing. Nevertheless, the founding of the Franciscans and the SSPX are very different. You see, Francis believed he had been called directly by God to do something unprecedented, whereas Lefebvre believed it was his ordinary duty to continue doing what he had always done and was trained to do when the hierarchy had taken an unprecedented step away from Tradition. The Society was not formed in an extraordinary way, and claims no extraordinary mission, whereas Saint Francis did something extraordinary and Heaven provided extraordinary proof.The crux of the SSPX issue is essentially juridical and doctrinal in an era of great confusion and the spreading of immorality and heresy amongst the hierarchy, and it is the SSPX that is holding fast to what has always been done, rather than trying to do something novel.At any rate, the Franciscans began with literal Divine Approval that manifested in an extraordinary manner, and a painful split in the order was not avoided; the ripple effect of that split lasted a long time and was not extinguished for over a century. If an order with such a miraculous beginning and such an incredible saint could not avoid any interior drama, then we cannot expect the SSPX to avoid any such risks either.However, we can say that the SSPX has handled the situation well, and it is worth remembering that the dissident groups left the SSPX because they were expelled. If the risk of such positions as held by the Resistance were inherent to the Society, then they would not be unwelcome within its structure. So, we could say that the split is not indicative of any disorder within the Society, but rather that such disorder is unwelcome, which is a good thing.Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Sedevacantist-Harbouring ConcernSedevacantism is a veritable rabbit hole where one can lose all sense of direction. Now, I understand this will be offensive to some sedevacantists; nonetheless, when we consider the landscape of the various sedevacantist theories, we find stark disagreements between the various camps, and, sometimes, the sharpest vitriol pronounced by sedevacantist writers and influencers is levelled at other sedevacantists.In any event, I do believe that it is fair to give the Sedevacantist milieu its due, because it is not an unfounded hypothesis in its own right, even if I believe there are holes in the various theories that leave certain fundamental questions unanswered. Furthermore, I will say to the inevitable onslaught from various sedevacantist writers that I am going to preemptively decline to engage in any form of debate or discussion, because, quite frankly, I have no desire to do such a thing, or the time to devote to the topic.The theological question of whether a pope can fall from office through heresy runs into an immediate structural problem that every scholastic who addressed it had to solve before saying anything else: the axiom, enshrined by Boniface VIII and carried into the 1917 Code, that the First See is judged by no one — prima sedes a nemine iudicatur. If no one on earth holds jurisdiction over the pope, then no tribunal can convict him, depose him, or strip him of office in the ordinary juridical sense, since a sentence presupposes a judge with authority over the one sentenced. Whatever solution a given theologian proposed, it had to respect this axiom, which is precisely why the debate turned on a distinction between an act that causes the loss of office and an act that merely recognizes a loss already caused by something else — namely, the heresy itself, understood as operating automatically under divine law rather than through any human sentence.St. Robert Bellarmine, in De Romano Pontifice (Book II, ch. 30), catalogued the prevailing opinions on the question before advancing his own. He rejected Albert Pighius’s view that a pope simply cannot fall into heresy at all, and he likewise rejected the opinion that a pope remains fully pope even in manifest heresy until some human sentence is passed against him — largely the position associated with Cajetan. Bellarmine’s own “fifth opinion,” which became the common Bellarminian position among later manualists, held that a pope who becomes a manifest and pertinacious heretic ceases ipso facto to be pope by operation of divine law itself, the moment he places himself outside the Church through public defection from the faith, since a public heretic is no longer a member of the Church and therefore cannot be her head. On this view, no human sentence is needed to effect the loss of office — it has already happened, self-inflicted, before any cardinal or council acts.Cajetan’s competing position, developed in his work on the authority of pope and council, took the connection between the man and the office more seriously as a juridical bond rather than a purely moral one, and argued by analogy to processes like the severance of a marriage bond or the deprivation of a beneficiary from a benefice: even where the underlying disqualifying fact already exists, the formal separation of a man from an office he validly held requires a ministerial, declarative-cum-deprivative act of the Church to sever it, since offices are conferred and removed through the Church’s own juridical action, not automatically dissolved by the subject’s private sin alone. In essence, Cajetan grants that a heretical pope forfeits the right to retain the office in the sight of God, but insists the juridical tie is only severed when the Church, acting through some competent body, formally declares and executes that separation.Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.John of St. Thomas and, later, Francisco Suárez largely sided with Bellarmine’s views while further developing the idea: the heresy itself, once manifest and pertinacious, is what severs the man from the papacy by the operation of divine law, but both insisted that the Church — practically speaking, the College of Cardinals, or in default of them a general council — would still have to act to establish the notoriety of the fact with juridical certainty, so that the faithful could know with confidence that the See was vacant and a conclave could proceed to a valid election. Cardinal Juan de Torquemada, writing a century before Bellarmine, had already anticipated this same requirement, holding that a manifestly heretical pope falls from the papacy by the very fact of his heresy, yet that this fall still needs the recognition and declaration of a general council before the universal Church can act on it with certainty. Even the manualists who followed the Bellarminian line most closely preserved this same two-step structure: the loss of office is automatic and prior, caused by the heresy itself under divine law, while the subsequent action of cardinals or bishops is merely declaratory, establishing as a matter of public juridical record what has already occurred, precisely so that the axiom nemo iudex in causa sua (no one is a judge in his own case), and the deeper axiom that no one judges the pope, are never actually violated. This is also, not incidentally, the theological seed from which canon 188 §4 of the 1917 Code grew, providing that ecclesiastical offices become vacant “ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione” (automatically, without any declaration) upon public defection from the faith — a codification of exactly the automatic-loss principle Bellarmine had defended three centuries earlier, even as the practical question of who must recognize and act upon that vacancy remained.The theological tradition, therefore, must be approached with honesty and caution when discussing this topic, and I do not believe it is helpful to simply disregard all sedevacantist thinking as if it were crazy, because the various theories are far from crazy, at least as theological arguments.One major theologian of the 20th century, who worked closely with both Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Lefebvre, attempted to give an answer to this conundrum.Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers, O.P. (1898–1988) stands as one of the most theologically formidable figures of our era, precisely because he came to it from the summit of the pre-conciliar Roman academy rather than from the fringe. A normalien and agrégé in mathematics before he ever entered religion, he took the Dominican habit in 1926, was ordained in 1931, and went on to teach philosophy at Le Saulchoir before assuming a chair in dogmatic theology at the Pontifical Lateran University under Pius XII, where he served as an advisor to the Pope on the dogma of the Assumption and, from 1954 to 1955, as Pius XII’s personal confessor before being succeeded in that office by the future Cardinal Bea. It was this same rigour that made him, in 1969, one of the principal theologians behind the Ottaviani Intervention, the critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae presented to Paul VI — a document some hold him to have substantially authored. He subsequently taught at Écône itself, but worked under Archbishop Lefebvre for a time before he came to the conclusion that Paul VI could not be a true pope, a conviction that led to Lefebvre removing him from his teaching post at the seminary in 1977.Rather than settling into simple sedevacantism, Guérard des Lauriers’s theological training pressed him toward a more precise formulation of the problem, since he judged bare “vacancy” insufficient to explain how a man could be publicly, if defectively, occupying the Roman See at all. Drawing on classical distinctions between the matter and form, he essentially argued from that point. His thought can be summarized thusly: In Thomistic generation, matter never receives form indiscriminately — it must first be brought into proximate disposition to that specific form, so that the form’s arrival simply actuates a potency the matter already stood ready to receive; applying this analogically to the papacy, a valid conclave election supplies the matter of the office by designating one subject, and one alone, in ultimate disposition to receive it, just as Cardinal Pacelli stood uniquely disposed the moment before his election — but the form, the actual conferral of papal munus and the charism of Christ’s indefectible assistance, is really distinct from that material designation and does not follow automatically wherever the matter is positively indisposed to receive it, the way an ill-disposed subject fails to receive a form it actively resists rather than merely awaits; since a publicly and pertinaciously heretical claimant is a subject whose will is fixed in a disposition contrary to the papal form, the election still produces a pope materialiter, but the formal conjunction of man and office fails to complete, leaving him non formaliter.This argument was des Lauriers’ attempt preserve both the Church’s unbroken juridical continuity through the conclaves and the dogmatic impossibility of a true pope teaching heresy, without falling into either bare sedevacantism or unqualified recognition. However, there is an issue with this because mere material without the form cannot generate. Because something purely material (in potency) cannot cause or create anything. So, it can be argued that after Paul VI everything is gone, there is no longer a hierarchy in the Church, not even in potency.In any event, I give this general overview of Sedevacantism to demonstrate that at root it is not an insane theory, but, at the same time, there are unanswered questions that have real consequences, given the many decades that have followed without any valid popes. Yes, I understand that sedevacantist authors may retort that I am not expressing which unanswered questions remain sufficiently, but, please, be patient, because I mention at least one below. Also, this is not meant to be a complete treatment of sedevacantism, and that has been done in other places by other authors.For its part, the SSPX recognizes the tradition, but rejects the concrete decision made by sedevacantists that we are required to adopt one of the aforementioned theories concretely. The SSPX’s case rests on necessity and epikeia operating on the disciplinary/governance plane — jurisdiction, faculties, penalties — which the tradition treats as flexible because it exists to serve souls, not the other way around. Sedevacantism falters because it applies that same necessity logic to the constitutional plane — who validly holds the papal office — which no strand of the tradition, not even Bellarmine’s most aggressive hypothetical, allows to be resolved by private judgment or unilateral declaration; that requires the Church’s own competent recognition.The aforementioned theories certainly give an honest man the right to entertain doubts about the validity of various popes, given all the dubious, if not heretical, theological positions that have been espoused from post-conciliar pontificates. At the same time, the SSPX as such rejects the adoption of these theories for prudential reasons.Because we are dealing with possible or probable opinions, which have not yet been defined, the prudent response can be summarized with an analogy:Suppose you happen upon a man who appears dead on the side of the road. Three doctors are called to assess the situation. One doctor believes that the man is dead, and then declares that he is, in fact, dead; another doctor has a suspicion that he may very well be dead, but, until it can be definitively proven by further examination and second opinions, he proceeds under the assumption that he could be alive, and therefore must be treated; a third doctor believes he is alive, even though he appears dead, and also proceeds to operate as if he is alive.The positions tolerated within the Society are the second and third positions, because the tradition gives us good reason to believe that the man may be dead, but we also may believe he is alive. Either way, until it is absolutely proven that he is dead, or a mechanism for proof is defined, we must do our best to save him.Until that definition comes forth, we proceed under the assumption that he could be alive, even if there are strong reasons to believe he is not. It is a prudential decision, and not a strictly theological one, because, morally speaking, there is more at stake.It is a prudential decision because, morally speaking, man does not do well unless submitted to authority, even if that submission is under tension. The post-conciliar popes have been less than stellar, to put it mildly; nonetheless, it is not natural for a Catholic to be without a pope, at least for an extended period. It is also not natural for a pope to allow or even cause the spreading of heresy, but, though we cannot solve this dilemma in theory, a prudential decision must be made regarding how to act.(I am already envisioning the screeds that will be written against me from sedevacantist authors, with many of the sentences in ALL CAPS.) As Catholics, we must maintain the sensus ecclesiae, which is a shared internal capacity, spiritual instinct, and habit of mind to think, feel, and will in harmony with the Catholic Church. Certainly, there is little harmony in the Church presently, humanly speaking; however, there is also no harmony of mind in the world of sedevacantism.Ultimately, all prudential decisions are decisions that must be made between competing goods, and we face, in this instance, two competing realities that have certainties, uncertainties, and possible defects which will only be known to history. For all we know, if we go back to the analogy, the man may be dead, and it may be useless to try and treat him. However, he may also be alive, so we must proceed to at least try to maintain his life.In this sense, we must try to maintain that living connection with Saint Peter’s office as it stands occupied by men who either hold it truly or do not. In addition, while schism is often considered merely in its vertical element — that is, top-down from the Pope — we must remember that schism is also considered horizontally, that is, in consideration of our communion with other Catholics.Many sedevacantist positions ultimately lead to a rejection of the Catholicity of other Catholics who do not hold the same sedevacantist position. Not all do, but some of the positions do, and they do so with vigour. There is a real risk of true isolation in the sedevacantist world, and as we meander through these uncharted waters as we have for decades, the prospect of decades without a true visible head of the Church, if I may say so in an unsophisticated way, simply doesn’t fit. Furthermore, while I fully grant the logical coherence of doubting the validity of a given pontificate for the reasons explained in our consideration of the theological tradition, I also struggle to understand why sedevacantists often argue that the SSPX position, which they call Recognize and Resist, is logically incoherent.It is the very theologians who are used to justify a sedevacantist thesis who give justification for resisting a pope who would seek to destroy the Church, either directly through evil doctrinal pronouncements, or indirectly through the toleration of the spread of heresy, or the promotion of heretics, such as was the case with Pope Honorius.In any event, among other reasons, so that the fundamental element of the sensus ecclesiae is upheld, the SSPX rejects the adoption of a sedevacantist thesis by its members in the concrete, even if the tradition gives reason to have good-faith doubts.Of course, some attendees of the SSPX will come to their own conclusions and adopt whatever positions they want, and, beyond a general approach wherein the leadership of the Society instructs members on valid positions on the papacy, there isn’t a whole lot that priests can do on the ground to police the thoughts and public expressions of the laity.Admittedly, I do regret some of the expressions of opinion of some SSPX laity in the public forum, but I also regret some of my own expressions as I think about what I have written and said over the years.But again, if there is a concern that the SSPX is not equipped to handle the issue of the spread of, let’s say, less than helpful opinions by parishioners, well, I can only say that we cannot expect the SSPX, with its limited resources, to do more than the institutions of the Church. At present, it seems that the hierarchy as such, with all its wealth, means of communication, and societal influence, cannot even ensure that the faithful are catechized to the level expected of a First Communicant in a Traditional parish or chapel.We might think of the old adage used to express obvious affirmation, “Is the Pope Catholic?” and how it is difficult to even use that adage today, sadly, because we are in a position where we are left to doubt the catholicity of the Roman Pontiff.If we cannot expect the Pope of the Catholic Church in our day to ensure that the Church operates in a Catholic way and teaches truly Catholic doctrine, then I think it is far too much to expect of overextended and self-sacrificing missionary priests in the Society to ensure theological and intellectual conformity about a question in the realm of theological dispute amongst their flock.Ultimately, we are facing a crisis that the hierarchy of the Church has caused, not the SSPX, and until that crisis is solved, we will have to tolerate differences of opinion that would not be conceived of during normal times.Kyrie EleisonMere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  "The SSPX is Protestant" 🙄 20.07.2026 1h 6m

  Mexico Pilgrimage: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicohttps://realestateforlife.org/https://www.icatholicmobile.com/ This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  A Consideration of Marshall’s Arguments Contra-SSPX: Part Two 17.07.2026 40m

  In the last essay on this topic, we began with an overview of the twelve central points that Marshall put forth as objections to the recent SSPX consecrations. In that essay specifically, we concentrated on the issue of the Apostolic Mandate and the Order/Jurisdiction critique as it pertains to Father Davide Pagliarani’s authority in the matter as the General Superior of the Society, yet a mere priest and not a bishop.In this essay, we will discuss the points Taylor raised specifically regarding Don Davide Pagliarani’s leadership, which are:* Tone and rhetoric of Pagliarani’s letter to the Pope* Procedural and diplomatic complaint* Arbitrariness of the July 1 deadlineI would like to reiterate my appeal to the better nature of the readers in their expressions of dissatisfaction with Taylor’s points. Certainly, we may all disagree with one another on certain points of controversy, and this is only natural. However, when we go from dissatisfaction about an argument or assertion being made to outright accusation or imputation of ill will, then we have crossed a line. Only when it has been made sufficiently clear by the words of the party in question, or by actions that can, realistically speaking, have no other sufficient cause, can we move from one category to the next. And, in doing so, it is necessary to be as measured as possible.As far as Taylor and I are concerned, it may shock some readers to know that we are still friends, and nothing has changed. In fact, we chat like normal friends who share thoughts, have fun discussion/debate-esque conversations in an atmosphere of friendship, and, of course, we make jokes and laugh at memes and funny gifs. It is my understanding that Taylor even recommended my recent essay on his podcast as a reasonable critique that he wanted his viewers to consider. A proud man does not do that, and I would like to again ask readers and viewers to act like Catholics, and not just profess to be so. A man who is wrong about fact or conclusion (I speak in general terms here) will still go to heaven so long as he keeps the Faith and remains virtuous, whereas a man who may be technically right can damn his soul, even if intellectually he keeps the Faith, because pride and charity cannot coexist in a soul.Finally, before we get into the heart of the essay, I would like to appeal to your better nature, if you are opposed to the SSPX, on another matter.This crisis in the Church affects us all in different ways, and, once you see it, you cannot unsee it. It pushes us to the brink of our trust in the hierarchy and our hope for the future, and even causes some of us to doubt the promises of Our Lord, or at least to be tempted to. Synodality is utter madness, and synodality appeals to Vatican II. Sure, one could argue that it isn’t truly found in the real Vatican II. That may be the case, but it does come from somewhere, and it comes from our era and not from the former. Wherever it comes from, its source is with us, and the source is very diseased and disordered, and the hierarchy perpetuates this disease, as much as that fact cries out to Heaven.It sometimes happens as a father that your principles come into conflict, and the solution seems almost impossible. If I can speak personally for a moment, I am in a bit of a crisis at the moment of writing this. My wife has been away from home for a while, in and out of the hospital, due to pregnancy complications. Thankfully, she is okay, relatively speaking, and the baby is stable, but we still have a long road ahead, especially for her. In any event, my duties as a father are simultaneously conflicted, because I must balance providing for my family, caring for and educating my children, and supporting my wife — which means travelling great distances to visit her multiple times a week. And I will be honest with you: sometimes I simply throw my hands up because I don’t know what the right thing to do is. I wish I had the perfect answer, but I don’t, and there is seemingly no way that I can equate all the principled duties of fatherhood at the same level at this moment, which means some areas may be lacking. I can neither confirm nor deny that I have resorted to giving my little ones — and the bigger ones, if I am being honest — more candy and treats than I normally would when their spirits are down.At any rate, it sometimes happens that one principle may be moved up or down the chain of priorities given the gravity of a given situation, and a decision must be made as best as it can be.The priests and bishops of the SSPX are spiritual fathers, and boy are they ever. They do not do what they do for wealth or fame, or to be part of some weird sect. No one does what they do for purely personal motives. If it were just about the Mass, they could go elsewhere. If it were just about the intellectual life, there are places for that. They do what they do because they love you, and they love you — even those of you who hate them — with a deep and burning charity.Alas, in the service of their spiritual children, who belong to the Church, they come into conflict with the hierarchy, who seem to have their priorities out of whack, to put it mildly. So, what should they do? Should they throw up their hands and give up? Or should they persevere and take whatever licks come their way, and from wherever those lashings come?The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and he is not Christ. He acts in the stead of Christ, but not when he acts in ways that are contrary to Christ. To say that he must be obeyed absolutely is to give him a divine quality that he does not have, and it borders on blasphemy to pretend otherwise. Only Christ can say, “I Am,” without adding a qualifying attribute. He can do this because He is God. A man must say, “I am a plumber,” or “I am a farmer,” but he cannot say simply, “I am,” as a declarative statement without qualification.It can happen, and is happening, that the Vicar of Christ conflicts with the teachings of Christ or even the actions of Christ. And when that happens, we still need fathers who care enough about us to take the beatings that we cannot take.You may disagree with the Society, but boiling things down to an axiomatic principle such as “Catholics obey the Pope” is an incomlete statement if it is set forth as principle that covers the totality of what is required of Catholics, like saying “Catholics receive the sacraments.” We must do both things, and other things, but there will come moments when doing the things we must do as Catholics may mean that certain nuances are necessary, because we are dealing with human beings who must lead a Divine Society, and they sometimes do a terrible job.We can say, with the historic theologian from the Tridentine era, Melchior Cano: “Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See — they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.”It is impossible to answer every possible objection that may arise in the theological and historical arena, so I ask the reader who is opposed to my arguments to remember that this is a question that concerns real people who have real souls, and the answers to your questions may not be as neat and tidy as you would like.My favourite chef, Marco Pierre White, has famously said on many occasions, when instructing how to cook a tomato sauce: “In a perfect world we would all be able to use fresh tomatoes, but we don’t live in a perfect world.”Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.HERE ARE THE LINKS MENTIONED IN THE AUDIO TRACK:https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicohttps://realestateforlife.org/https://www.icatholicmobile.com/Don Pagliarani’s LeadershipI believe it is helpful to summarize the contents of a recent article published by the SSPX outlining the communication and interaction between the Society, under Pagliarani’s leadership, and Vatican officials.November 22, 2018 — Fr. Pagliarani met with Cardinal Ladaria, then-Prefect of the CDF, where both sides reaffirmed that the core divide between the SSPX and Rome is doctrinal, continuing from the impasse reached in the 2012 talks.January 17, 2019 — Fr. Pagliarani wrote to Bishop Guido Pozzo outlining doctrinal topics for dialogue (ecumenism, synodality, primacy, conscience in conciliar teaching) and proposing annual exchanges of written statements — evidence that, contrary to Pozzo’s later claim, the Society did not break off talks in November 2018.August 2025 — Ahead of the SSPX’s Jubilee Pilgrimage to Rome, Fr. Pagliarani wrote to newly elected Pope Leo XIV to congratulate him and request an audience, but received no reply, and no meeting was granted.November 2025 — Fr. Pagliarani wrote to the Pope again, explaining in writing the SSPX’s need for new bishops despite ongoing doctrinal differences and reaffirming its desire to serve the Church; Cardinal Fernández responded in late January 2026 with a threat of sanctions if the consecrations proceeded.February 2, 2026 — On Candlemas, Fr. Pagliarani publicly announced that the SSPX would consecrate new bishops in Ecône on July 1, 2026, framing the move as necessary to preserve the sacraments of confirmation and ordination for the faithful, made only after appealing to Rome.February 12, 2026 — Fr. Pagliarani met with Cardinal Fernández, explaining the pastoral need for new bishops; Fernández replied by calling for dialogue to define the “minima” for full communion and asked the SSPX to suspend the July 1 consecrations.February 18, 2026 — Fr. Pagliarani responded that dialogue could proceed but would not delay the consecrations, expanding his list of doctrinal disagreements and noting that prior talks had collapsed once Cardinal Müller made full acceptance of Vatican II and post-conciliar teachings a precondition for communion.May 7, 2026 — The General House invited the faithful to a period of common prayer, running from May 8 to July 1, asking God’s grace on the men to be consecrated.May 14, 2026 — Fr. Pagliarani issued a Declaration of Catholic Faith to Pope Leo XIV, meant to demonstrate the Society’s fidelity and spell out what it saw as the minimum requirements for communion with Rome.May 26, 2026 — The General House named the four priests to be consecrated — Frs. Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Marc Hanappier — stressing that the consecrations were not a bid for jurisdiction or a parallel hierarchy.June 24, 2026 — Fr. Pagliarani, his assistants, and counselors sent Pope Leo XIV an open letter with an attached, heavily footnoted Profession of the Catholic Faith, meant to demonstrate full conformity with Catholic Tradition.June 29, 2026 — On the eve of the consecrations, Pope Leo XIV sent a terse letter asking the SSPX to stand down, calling the planned act “schismatic” (echoing John Paul II’s 1988 language) without further justification, and without addressing the SSPX’s stated concerns or its two unanswered requests for an audience.July 1, 2026 — Before roughly 17,000 faithful from nearly 70 countries, Bishops de Galarreta and Fellay consecrated the four priests; the General House issued a statement expressing regret that circumstances forced the consecrations without papal authorization, and that Fr. Pagliarani was never granted a personal audience to explain the Society’s reasons.July 2, 2026 — The DDF, under Cardinal Fernández, decreed that the four new bishops and the two consecrating bishops incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication for a schismatic act; an accompanying explanatory note extended excommunication to all SSPX priests and, on a case-by-case basis, to laity who formally adhere to the Society.July 11, 2026 — The SSPX filed a preliminary canonical appeal against the July 2 decree under CCL §1734, which automatically suspends the decree’s enforcement under §1353 — meaning the penalties are not currently in effect.Now, the context of this publication was to demonstrate the truth about what has actually happened, compared to what has been claimed about the SSPX (not specifically by Marshall, but in the general commentariat).A few things are worth noting.First, the core issue, according to both Rome and the SSPX, is doctrinal, and not liturgical. And that doctrinal impasse is characterized by Cardinal Müller’s insistence that one must wholeheartedly accept all of Vatican II and the post-conciliar teachings as a precondition for normality. This is quite striking, because the entirety of the post-conciliar teachings would include things like Amoris Laetitia, which I am not sure most — if not the majority — of traditionally minded Catholics would accept. In fact, I believe even many conservatives without a devotion to the ancient rites of Mass would also express difficulty on the subject. Furthermore, this would include Fiducia Supplicans, which the entire continent of Africa essentially rejected. In addition, it would include the recent document on Mariology, which said, among other things, that “it is always inappropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ to define Mary’s cooperation.” (The emphasis is native to the Vatican document.)In any event, there are a host of other problematic things that would have to be accepted, according to Cardinal Müller, which is a bit ironic, because he himself has spoken out publicly against some of the very documents that the SSPX has issues with, especially since he was retired by Pope Francis. Furthermore, regarding Vatican II, one need not accuse the Council of heresy to conclude that there are simply factual errors that cannot be accepted. It is not the right occasion here to go into a detailed analysis of Vatican II; nevertheless, I remember a time speaking with a former Buddhist who, as a former devout Buddhist, told me that Vatican II, in Nostra Aetate, was simply incorrect about Buddhism on a couple of crucial points.Or, in Gaudium et Spes, we read:At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable.Well, this statement was written on the eve of the legalization of abortion, at a time when no-fault divorce became almost universal, and during the rise of radical environmentalism, which conflates men and beasts as equals. Furthermore, given the chronology, every man present at Vatican II had lived through the periods of the First and Second World Wars and the genocidal era of Russian Communism, among other things. How such a statement could be published with a straight face is utterly baffling.While it is not a heretical statement, it is simply a false statement about observable facts. I cannot accept this statement any more than I can accept a statement like, “Prime Minister Trudeau was a good Prime Minister and is a good husband and father.” He was a terrible leader, and has divorced his wife and is now involved in a celebrity relationship with a pop starlet as he gallivants around the world dressed like an adolescent partying as if he is attempting to join a fraternity at college. It is not heretical to suggest something incorrect about Trudeau, but I cannot accept a falsehood as true, no matter who says it.In any event, without belabouring the point, it is within the realm of a true Catholic conscience to reject certain aspects of Vatican II, even if one accepts the doctrinally positioned statements of the Council. Also, I would imagine that Traditionalists writ large would have a hard time accepting Vatican II as Müller desires, not to mention the post-conciliar magisterial corpus as such.Now, we also see that Don Pagliarani attempted to reach out to the Holy See numerous times, and the first response, which came after multiple attempts, was merely a threat from Cardinal Fernández.With that in mind, let us consider the aforementioned first three points in reverse order.Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Arbitrariness of the July 1 DeadlineIt is an opinion that the Society could have postponed and did not have to bind its efforts to July 1, which was a date chosen by Don Pagliarani and the leadership of the Society. Of course, this is theoretically true, as any date could have been chosen, and any amount of time could have been waited — at least until there were no bishops left in the Society to consecrate.The above historical timeline demonstrates that after 2019, relations between the Vatican and the SSPX cooled, and there wasn’t much communication. In an SSPX podcast discussing this very topic — why now and why not at another time — Father Shane Pezzutti gave an overview of why it didn’t happen before, and why it was the opinion of the Society that it needed to happen now. I will summarize.Relationships between Rome and the SSPX were very good under Francis, generally, but after the attempt in 2019 to continue dialogue with Vatican officials, the SSPX was essentially “ghosted.” Of course, the officials of the Holy See are under no obligation to talk to anyone, technically speaking; although, morally speaking, it is their duty, and one would hope that Catholics could have as much communication with Rome and the Holy Father as the veritable troupe of circus freaks and proponents of diabolism who pose in pictures with the Pope all the time. However, the 2019 event was uncharacteristic of how things had been. Things in Rome move slowly, generally speaking, so a waiting period did not seem like the end of the world. Nevertheless, we all remember what happened in 2020, and then in 2021 it was clear that Pope Francis was cracking down on the Latin Mass, so it was unlikely that any overtures to the SSPX could be reasonably expected. At that time, the SSPX still had three living bishops, and the late Bishop Huonder had, in a sense, become associated with the Society and even began performing sacramental functions, as he did in 2023 when he celebrated a Chrism Mass for the Society, which is where holy oils are consecrated. Whether he ever would have acted as a bishop for the Society like the others is unknown to me; nevertheless, he passed away not long after. In the fall of 2024, Bishop Tissier died after a tragic fall. This left the Society with two living bishops, who were now getting on in years. Of course, Pope Francis became sickly around that time, and it was unreasonable to expect much from him as he was in and out of the hospital. He died around Easter 2025, and then came Pope Leo.As was seen in the timeline, attempts were made to connect with Pope Leo, but only a threat was received in response.So, after consideration, and due to the precarious reality of only two living, aged bishops remaining, a decision was made. Now, whether one could quibble about July 1, the reality is that the wait could not be stretched much further. To say nothing of the fact that the remaining two bishops could have taken a turn for the worse, their workload was simply too strenuous for their mileage.Yes, Cardinal Fernández asked for dialogue, with the expectation of the consecrations being postponed indefinitely. However, I think it is quite reasonable to assume that this dialogue would have gone nowhere. If Cardinal Müller, who is supposedly more traditional, demanded that the SSPX accept Vatican II as such, and the post-conciliar magisterium in a way that even he does not accept, then any hope of a resolution was unreasonable, to say the least.Also, if we have learned anything from the history of Archbishop Lefebvre, it is clear that Curial officials have endless time to play waiting games while they watch the Church burn. I cannot imagine a world wherein the author of a document promoting the blessings of homosexual couples would somehow have a conversion of heart and advocate for the canonical reconciliation of the SSPX. Perhaps it could have happened miraculously, but this is speculation.Now, Don Pagliarani is the head of a society of priests, and many faithful are under his leadership, at least indirectly, as their priests ultimately report to him. So, he has many factors to consider.He must act prudently; and, for advice on how to act prudently, we should first consider the words of Our Lord:“For which of you having a mind to build a tower, doth not first sit down, and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have wherewithal to finish it: Lest, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that see it begin to mock him, saying: This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, about to go to make war against another king, doth not first sit down, and think whether he be able, with ten thousand, to meet him that, with twenty thousand, cometh against him? Or else, whilst the other is yet afar off, sending an embassy, he desireth conditions of peace” (Luke 14:28–32).This passage from Our Lord is fitting because it describes the responsibilities that face Don Pagliarani. He must be acutely aware of whether they can finish what must be built, and, sadly, the wartime analogy does seem to fit as well, considering the Vatican’s war on Tradition. The costs were counted, and attempts at peace were made. The time to act had arrived, and a decision had to be made, taking into account the resources and the manpower available.We must remember that this whole controversy isn’t about the Society as such, but about why they exist. They exist to serve the Church, and the Church exists in souls, fundamentally. Of course, we do not deny the reality of the visibility of the Church as a society, but the Church is in Purgatory (the Church Suffering), here on Earth (the Church Militant), and in Heaven (the Church Triumphant). The care of souls is the primary reality that concerns the Church, as Our Lord desires that all men be saved (even if, in the particular, they are not). To do this, we need sacraments; and for sacraments we need priests, and sometimes bishops; and for priests we need bishops; for bishops we need other bishops, and on it goes.Surely, it will be retorted that the SSPX doesn’t need bishops, because priests in other traditional groups are ordained without their own bishops. Well, all I can say is that there is likely not a bishop on Earth in good standing who will touch the SSPX with a ten-foot pole, sacramentally speaking, at least publicly. Perhaps Bishop Schneider would, or maybe Bishop Strickland. This is, of course, hypothetical, and Rome never proposed such a solution. Furthermore, it must be asked, as uncomfortable as it may be: if an unadulterated acceptance of Vatican II and all that has followed is required for a Traditionalist to be canonically kosher with the Vatican, then how does this apply to the other groups devoted to the Latin Mass? I will leave that up to the reader’s speculation.The Society summarized what has just been read in an article:The only alternative would have been to request bishops from Rome, to have priests ordained by diocesan bishops, or to send the faithful to parish priests. However, each of these solutions would have implied accepting, at least practically, the false doctrines of the Council and the post-conciliar period. We are already seeing this today: the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the annex attached to the decree of excommunication published on July 2, requires all those who wish to return “in communion with Rome” to sign a declaration affirming that they accept Vatican II according to the interpretation given by the current Magisterium, and that they undertake never to criticize the teachings of the Pope. Consequently, without episcopal consecrations, the Fraternity would have been forced to accept doctrines such as religious freedom, ecumenism, collegiality, the illicitness of the death penalty, the possibility for divorced and remarried people to receive communion, or the blessing of homosexual couples; or, at the very least, to agree not to criticize them publicly.It would be unreasonable, even irresponsible, to delay the consecrations any further, arbitrarily, because of what is at stake. Even if one were to concede that there is no fundamental difference between what is offered by the Society and the other traditional groups, this still would not fix the problem of the upwards of one million people who rely on the Society throughout the world. They rely on the Society because of the Crisis, and not because of the Society. Therefore, the SSPX must continue for the good of souls, because the Church is in the business of saving souls above all else; and, when all the costs are counted, this is what costs the most.In the interest of brevity, I offer here a definition of Prudence, which is a concise and condensed version of the more elaborate treatments found in classical theological and spiritual works — my personal favourite being found in the devotional book Divine Intimacy.Prudence does not mean inaction. It means waiting prayerfully for Providence to manifest in a clear way, consulting wise counsel, making a decision based on all available information, and then acting on that decision without delay.Critically, a prudent decision involves choosing between two possible goods, not simply choosing the good over the evil. Choosing good over evil is morally obligatory, strictly speaking. Prudence is required precisely when two legitimate goods are in tension, and a decision must be made between them.In the case of Don Pagliarani, all of these stipulations were considered and met. A period of waiting and prayer was accomplished, and then Providence manifested itself through ordinary means, which is how Providence ordinarily works. The deaths of the SSPX bishops were a clear sign that they were running out of time, which, combined with the radical growth of the SSPX, made an urgent situation evident. Attempts were made at communicating, with the express intention of dialogue and petition, but only threats were received initially, followed by extraordinarily unreasonable demands that would kick the vast majority of Traditionalists out of “full communion” if followed logically.Counsel was sought, and a decision was made based on all the available information; and then a choice between two goods followed: the good of canonical regularity and the good of obtaining the means necessary to serve starving spiritual children. Little delay followed the decision, because truly prudent decisions must be put into action, or they are not, in fact, prudent.If I may, I would suggest that future generations should study the actions of Lefebvre and Pagliarani for a veritable case study in the virtue of prudence when the right decision is seemingly impossible to see.In any event, one thing that I personally appreciate is how the Society has always acted, and continues to act under the current leadership, in that nothing is hidden. “For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad” (Luke 8:17).So, while I concede that any date could have been chosen hypothetically, given what we have considered, another date arbitrarily chosen would not have made a difference, as far as any of us could know. And any date would be arbitrary, technically speaking, because an endless loop of dialogue, which has been going on for almost twenty years, will not accomplish under Cardinal Fernández what it could not under seeming conservatives.To finish this section, I will give a personal opinion that is my own and has not been published by the Society.It is clear that the attempts of Cardinal Fernández to downgrade the perennial honour given to the Virgin Mary incensed Don Pagliarani. Good.Don Pagliarani is Italian, as am I, despite my surname. And I believe that any good Italian son could say with me: “Lasci la madre in pace. Non la tocchi.” (Leave the mother alone. Do not touch her.)Nothing is more repugnant to an Italian, or to any Latin for that matter, than a salvo thrown across the bow at Mamma, especially La Madre di Dio. It is a sign of a world filled with men without chests that such an event did not spark veritable riots in the streets. I shudder to think what it would be like to stand before Christ at my judgement if, in my role as the head of doctrine for the Catholic Church, I spent any effort denigrating the perennial honour due to the Virgin Mary.Quite frankly, it makes me sick, and it should make any man filled with devotion to Our Blessed Lady burn with righteous anger. If your blood isn’t boiling, then you should consult a doctor about your testosterone levels.Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Procedural and Diplomatic ComplaintAnother objection is that there was a procedural error or diplomatic faux pas on behalf of the Society, given the short time frame between the release of a lengthy profession of Faith and the impending consecrations. Yes, there was not much time, but there was enough time for all of us to read it, talk about it, and do podcasts about it. Furthermore, no time should have been needed to digest its content, because its content should be known by every Cardinal and Curial official — because it is Catholicism. Furthermore, a declaration of Faith was already released in May and addressed to the Holy Father, and, as with previous attempts, it fell on deaf ears. Of course, Pope Leo did finally reach out to the Society at the 11th hour.I understand that some commentators have expressed their opinion that Pope Leo’s intervention was fatherly in tone. Well, it may have been; but remember, the Society up until that point had received threats almost exclusively, which were written by Cardinal Fernández. Do you think Fernández did so without consulting the Holy Father?If my children appeal to me for something they desperately need, and I ignore them for months, and then merely threaten them rather than engage with their request, will a fatherly tone cover those sins?We could construct an analogy.Suppose a son wants to marry the love of his life, and by all measures, the woman he has chosen is upright and worthy of marriage. The son tries for months to have his father’s blessing, but receives no response. The son even travels across the world to see if he can visit his father, but doesn’t even get a reply to his request to see him. Then the son tries again, but only receives a threat. Then the son tells the father that he must proceed with the marriage for reasons that are noble, and the father sends someone else, who tells the son that if he calls off the marriage indefinitely, they can talk about the marriage. So the son persists; and the father, the night before the wedding, reaches out to the son, begging him to stop, while at the same time threatening to disinherit the son from the estate if he persists. All the while, the father has never interacted with his son, and he has never even made an attempt to meet the wife-to-be.People will say, “Well, this is different, because the Pope is the Pope!” Well, that is sort of like saying, “Love is love,” or “Blue is blue.” But, yes, the Pope is the Pope; and because of that, his responsibility is more severe than that of the father of a family, and the consequences for his failures are more severe as a result. The Pope is the Holy Father, and there is no excuse for a complete failure in paternity, and no amount of last-minute eloquent words coupled with grave threats can gloss over grave negligence. Pope Leo certainly has great affection for actual schismatics — and even schismatics with fake orders, and women who pretend to be bishops, dressed up like a Renaissance Fair.A wise man once reminded me of an ancient Roman maxim: acta non verba. Eloquent words are one thing, but actions that make a mockery of the Catholic Church are quite another.Thomas Aquinas, when commenting on the famous passage in Galatians where Saint Paul rebukes Peter to his face, writes:Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith; and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.” (Summa Theologiae II-II, Q. 33, Art. 4)At times, I think moderns would disagree with Aquinas and say:Peter should have dressed Paul down for his efforts and threatened to excommunicate him, because, after all, Peter is Peter! Oh, and he should do so in a nice letter, with warm feelings, which would make it all better and show how Paul was out of line.Tone and Rhetoric of Pagliarani’s Letter to the PopeThis final consideration flows naturally from the last, because, in essence, what Don Pagliarani did was rebuke his superior — and he did so publicly.In the letter he wrote to the Pope after the consecrations, he wrote very strong words, and for some, they tasted bitter. However, strong medicine is often bitter.Don Pagliarani simply told the truth, and he did so by using the words of Our Lord, which is something we should all attempt to do. Of course, some words of Christ are appropriate for certain occasions, and others for other occasions.He quoted Our Lord at the beginning of the letter:Among yourselves, if a father is asked by his son for bread, will he give him a stone? Or for a fish, will he give him a snake instead of a fish? Or if he is asked for an egg, will he give him a scorpion? Why then, if you, evil as you are, know well enough how to give your children what is good for them, is not your Father much more ready to give, from heaven, his gracious Spirit to those who ask him? (Luke 11:11–13)“We had asked for bread, that is to say, a measure of understanding for a sincere case of conscience — an act of fatherhood directed not so much toward the Society of Saint Pius X as toward souls, promising You to form them into true sons of the Roman Church; unfortunately, we received a stone,” he wrote.Importantly, he made it clear why the action was taken, and it was done for the good of souls. It is often forgotten that the Society of Saint Pius X does not exist for itself, and never has. As was written above, the Church was founded for the salvation of souls, and, in its most fundamental nature, it exists in souls. Those souls are often left to drown in a sea of heresy and the plague of modernity, and, for some reason, the leaders of the Church — whatever their intentions may be — are incapable of following the example of Peter and accepting the rebukes, the just rebukes, of their inferiors who are on the front lines of the spiritual combat. Why they look at the Pauls of our age with scorn and bemusement is a mystery in some ways. Although perhaps Dr. Peter Kwasniewski was correct when he wrote:The answer is not an agreeable one, but sometimes we must take bitter medicine in order to get well. Truth can be the bitterest of medicines. And of all the sicknesses in the Church, denial of reality is one of the most widespread and most unacknowledged. When this sickness is not diagnosed, the sufferer cannot take the steps he needs to take in regard to spiritual diet and exercise… The reason the Church’s leaders persecute the most faithful Catholics is that, broadly speaking, the leadership of the Catholic Church on earth at this time is dominated by a network of active homosexuals and theological modernists… Homosexuals reject the first principles of natural law. Modernists reject the first principles of divine revelation. Together, they reject the foundations not only of Christianity but of religion as such, and therefore of morality… Their “religion,” if such it can be called, is one of self-actualization and self-regard — a secularized inversion of the Christian mission to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness… This false religion, combined with unlimited vanity and lust for power, explains why much of our senior leadership is hell-bent on erasing the TLM from the Church and uprooting the communities that grow around it.Parrhesia has never been a virtue Dr. Kwasniewski has lacked.The SSPX is the standard-bearer of the righteous opposition to this new religion built upon the inverse principles of the True Religion, and we must admit this. Why this has happened, and why God has allowed it to happen, could be answered by a prophet or a mystic; but I am merely a simple man who believes what he sees. And what I see corresponds to what has been written above.In any event, it is my opinion that Don Pagliarani followed the principles Our Lord gave us when dealing with those who do harm to the Faith:But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:15–17).It is, of course, very sad that we even have to speak in such terms regarding the hierarchy, and even the Pope; but, alas, sad times are these, and truth is still necessary during sorrow.Nevertheless, Don Pagliarani followed Our Lord’s example and first tried to correspond privately; then again; and so on; then took it to the Church, and the rest is history.Perhaps the Peter of our day will have the humility of the First. But every pope of the Conciliar Age has demonstrated an unwillingness to accept any rebuke — well, at least from Traditionalists, because they often take the rebukes of the godless world — from faithful inferiors who have the courage to defend the lost sheep. Pope Benedict may have been an exception, to a degree, but he prophesied his own resignation, in a way, when he expressed his need for strength in a den of rabid wolves.The wolf who nursed Romulus and Remus and gave us Rome has made her den around the Throne of Peter, and the ancient paganism that dominated the Ancient Empire has reincarnated in a particularly grotesque modern fashion.In Italian, when we wish someone luck, we say, In bocca al lupo (To the mouth of the wolf), to which one replies, Crepi il lupo! (May the wolf die!)Allora, a Don Pagliarani, dico: La ringrazio! (So, to Don Pagliarani, I say: thank you!)In bocca al lupo, Don Davide, e crepi il lupo! (To the mouth of the wolf, Don Davide, and may the wolf die!)I am hoping there will only be two more essays in this series, so we will continue in the next one.Kyrie EleisonThanks for reading Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall! This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Vatican II and Synodality, the History of Confession Faculties, No Salvation Outside the Church and more! Q & A for Members 09.07.2026 24m

  This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit meretradition.substack.comLink for Mexico pilgrimage: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicoNo Salvation Outside the Church podcast: Link for my books: https://kennedyhall.ca/books
• 
  A Consideration of Marshall’s Arguments Contra-SSPX: Part One 09.07.2026 33m

  In a recent podcast, Taylor brought forth a number of objections about the recent consecrations and the present SSPX as such, and I have gone through his arguments and they can be broken down into twelve points, which will be addressed after an introduction.The Obligation of Christian CharityTaylor and I have been friends for years, so, I have to say plainly, that I really hate this situation. I also want to make it clear that it is disrespectful for anyone to impugn motives to Taylor that he hasn’t expressed or made clear. Taylor is a noble man. He is a top-notch husband and father. His wife adores him, and his children respect him, and his children are faithful Catholics. He is a man of great courage and he has done, and will continue to do, a lot of good for the Church. While men of principle will have disagreements, it is unconscionable, as far as I am concerned, to resort to some sort of tabloid-style speculation about a man’s reasoning for changing his mind.Taylor has, for years, been a supporter and defender of the SSPX, and I even sat with him and prayed with him in St. Mary’s, Kansas at the consecration of the Immaculata. His reasons for changing his tune on the Society in recent months are his own, and Taylor is not easily coerced or manipulated. He is, in a true sense, a real Texan, and because of that he is largely self-reliant and not easily intimidated. So, I reject any speculation that he has been “compromised” or whatever else certain commentators have been opining about online.If you will allow me, I will bring up Michael Davies as an analogous situation. Davies was a massively important defender of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society from the very start. However, Davies believed that the ’88 consecrations were a step too far, and he expressed those beliefs to the Archbishop, and to the public after the fact. For a number of years, Davies continued in that belief, however, eventually he changed his mind and resumed his leonine defence of Lefebvre and his associates. It would have been wrong to impugn any ulterior motives on Davies during that period, and, whether Taylor is planning to stay fixed in his positions as they stand, will be known to history as it unfolds. But, Taylor is a humble man and he does not express his beliefs for mere personal gain, so if he wants to change his mind, he will. He is a good Catholic and should be treated as such.Also, it should be noted that he does not, at least as far as I can tell, believe you are a schismatic if you attend the SSPX, and, he mentioned me by name in the show, expressing his understanding of my situation, which is common to so many, wherein it is a choice between the SSPX or Modernism. He seems to believe that the right choice in a situation like that is to go with the SSPX. So, as a Thomist, he must believe that the SSPX is not in schism, because a Thomist would never make a consequentialist argument.Thanks for reading Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall! This post is public so feel free to share it.The Twelve Arguments1. Order/jurisdiction critique of Fr. Pagliarani’s authorityMarshall’s central procedural objection: Pagliarani is a priest of ~20 years standing at the head of six consecrated bishops. He invokes the religious-order analogy (Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits) to argue that once a member of an order is raised to the episcopate, he’s no longer under his order’s superior — implying the SSPX’s structure, where a priest-superior directs bishops, is anomalous and disordered.2. Tone/rhetoric of Pagliarani’s letter to the PopeHe treats the “bread/stone, fish/serpent, egg/scorpion” language as effectively accusing the Pope of bad faith or malice, and reads this as prideful — contrasted pointedly against what he reads as the conciliatory, paternal tone of Leo’s letter.3. The “fake apostolic mandate” — the dissimulation chargeThis is his most repeated point: the liturgy asks “do you have the apostolic mandate,” and he characterizes the SSPX’s response (reading a rolled parchment with a red ribbon, in French, calling the new bishops “auxiliary bishops,” then having them swear obedience to Leo XIV) as three separate untruths/theatrical deceptions rather than a straightforward “we don’t have one and don’t believe we need one.”4. Arbitrariness of the July 1 deadlineHe argues no one has shown why consecration had to happen on that specific date rather than allowing further negotiation — framing Pagliarani’s inflexibility (announced Feb 2, no budging) as itself a choice, not a necessity.5. 1988 vs. 2026 disanalogyCentral to undercutting the “state of necessity” argument: in 1988 there were few TLM options; in 2026 there’s FSSP, ICKSP, Institute of the Good Shepherd, etc. He argues the necessity claim that justified Lefebvre’s actions doesn’t hold the same force today.6. Ecclesiological/papal-primacy argumentAn appeal to the authority of the Pope to judge who is in schism, and the framing that historically all Church crises were resolved through the papacy, never through a body acting independently of it — the papacy as “the immune system,” distancing from it is self-harming even if not formal schism.7. St. Francis contrastUsed as a positive model of humility/obedience under difficult treatment from Rome, versus what he frames as Pagliarani’s defiance.8. Internal-unity/schism-risk argumentPoints to Williamson’s break as precedent — worries that without submission to the Holy See and canon law, a larger group of SSPX bishops (6 now) is structurally prone to further splintering.9. Sedevacantist-harboring concernArgues part of the SSPX’s lay base includes people who reject Leo XIV’s legitimacy outright, and that this is a distinct pastoral problem from the mainstream SSPX position.10. Procedural/diplomatic complaintThe submission of a lengthy document to the Pope days before the consecration is characterized as poorly timed and undiplomatic regardless of its content.11. Distinction from the Chinese Patriotic Church comparisonHe preempts a “why not treat SSPX like Chinese state-appointed bishops” objection by arguing the SSPX bishops operate trans-diocesan/universally (not tied to a single contested see), which he says is a different canonical problem from Rome’s vantage point.12. General obedience argumentChrist’s obedience unto death as the governing paradigm; obedience owed to the Pope except where he commands sin.The arguments or opinions that he presents are of three cateogories; on the one hand there are arguments made about the general coherence of the Society’s actions from a canonical/juridical perspective; on the other hand, he expresses his opinion about how he believes the leadership of the Society did not act rightly and that it could have acted better; and, on the third hand, he expresses the belief that the Society framework has great risks of defects inherent therein, characterized by a possible schismatic spirit, a sedevacantist mindset, and a disobedient spirit.For the sake of this essay, I will consider two substantive arguments that pertain to canonical/juridical considerations, which are1. The “fake apostolic mandate” charge.2. Order/jurisdiction analogyIn subsequent essays, I will address the other arguments. The present arguments take longer to address, so in subsequent essays, there will be more points addressed therein.Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The “Fake Apostolic Mandate”About the Mandate — or lack thereof — Marshall’s arguments can be broken down as such:1. What the mandate is, in his framingHe explains that during the consecration liturgy, there’s a formal moment where the liturgy asks whether the celebrant has the “apostolic mandate” — which he defines as papal permission to proceed with consecrating a bishop. He states plainly: they don’t have it, and everyone involved knows they don’t have it — SSPX knows, Pagliarani knows.In essence, it is Taylor’s opinion that, since they don’t have a mandate, which the Society clearly acknowledges, then they should basically skip this part or reframe that moment in the liturgy.2. What he says they should have doneHis position is that the honest move was to simply say “we don’t have it, and we don’t believe we need it” and move on.Well, I am unsure of whether something has been missed here, because the text from the Mandate reads:“It is the Catholic and Roman Church, always faithful to the holy traditions received from the Apostles, who, in entirely exceptional circumstances, demands that we provide for the upholding of these holy traditions – that is, the deposit of faith – and that we take the means necessary to transmit them faithfully to all men for the salvation of their souls.From the Second Vatican Council up to the present day, the authorities in the Church have been animated by a spirit that is contrary to that of the Faith, and have been acting against holy Tradition – “they will no longer endure sound doctrine, turning away their hearing from the truth, and turning towards fables,” as St. Paul says to Timothy in his second epistle (4:3-5). Therefore, before God, we consider it a sacred duty towards Holy Church and towards souls to proceed with the consecration of bishops who are entirely faithful to her holy Tradition and to her constant Magisterium.Moreover, everywhere in the world, we hear souls beseeching us that, by the preaching of the Truth and the administration of the sacraments, the Bread of Life which is Christ might be given to them. That is why, out of compassion for this multitude, we have the most serious duty to transmit the grace of the episcopate to these dear priests, so that they themselves might confer the grace of the priesthood on many clerics formed according to the holy traditions of the Catholic Church. And we consider that every punishment and censure brought to bear against this step will have no validity.Following this pressing demand of the always faithful Roman and Catholic Church, we choose these four priests here present as auxiliary bishops of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, with the one and only purpose of serving the Holy Roman Church.”The text read in 2026 is substantially the same as in 1988. There are slight differences, when compared to the text published in the official biography of Marcel Lefebvre, but the differences do not change the meaning.Explaining the meaning of the text, Lefebvre said during the ’88 ceremony:“…I am simply a bishop of the Catholic Church who is continuing to transmit Catholic doctrine. I think, and this will certainly not be too far off, that you will be able to engrave on my tombstone these words of St. Paul: ‘Tradidi quod et accepi—I have transmitted to you what I have received,’ nothing else….It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I hear the voices of all these Popes—Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII—telling us: ‘Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our preaching, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from this earth? Please, please, continue to keep this treasure which we have given you. Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the Church. Continue the Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we formerly condemned the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing.’” (Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, 563)Now, I know Taylor has great affection for Lefebvre, and that he has read the biography, so he must know this. In his show, he expressed his opinion that he (Taylor) was not changing his opinion on the Society, but that the SSPX had changed. “I didn’t change, guys. I’m the same Taylor Marshall. You know what changed? Y’all rolled out a parchment with a red ribbon on it and pretended it was an apostolic mandate.”I am struggling to understand how the Society has changed when it does the same thing it did in 1988, which, Taylor, apparently supports.Furthermore, Don Pagliarani spoke of the state of necessity numerous times in his sermon, at one point saying very clearly:“If we truly love Our Lord, we have the duty to share these goods which come to us first of all through the Faith. For he who does not have this desire to transmit the Faith, it is a sign that he himself no longer lives by the Faith. The more the Faith is attacked, the more it disappears, the more this duty becomes urgent, because, without the Faith, it is impossible to please God, it is impossible to live well, it is impossible to be saved. And today we are taking exceptional measures, proportionate to this necessity.”Now, if Taylor believes that it is wrong, or even sinful, to read a mandate that is not strictly from the Pope, then that is another matter. However, it seems that he still believes ’88 was justified, and, again, the same thing happened, so I am not sure how he could make that argument. Perhaps in another essay I can consider the extraordinary mandate question in detail, but for the sake of this piece, let us consider the following:* The Rite of Consecration has been established by the Church and it has been received* The Society is in no position to fundamentally change the rite* However, the Society believes that extraordinary measures are necessary due to Necessity* Therefore, a Mandate is read that both reflects the liturgical requirement for the Rite, but also the logic behind the extraordinary action* So, the continuity of the rite is upheld, and the slight modification in text is meant only to reflect the very circumstances that validate the extraordinary action, which, in this case, is the consecration of bishops without a MandateMere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.3. What he says they actually did — his three-part “dissimulation” chargeHe breaks this into three specific moments that, together, form his accusation of dishonesty:The parchment itself: He describes a notary reading from a rolled document tied with a red ribbon that visually resembles a papal document, at the exact point in the liturgy where the mandate would normally be produced. His claim is that the physical presentation was staged to look like an apostolic mandate to onlookers/the faithful present, even though it structurally cannot be one since Rome didn’t issue it.The content — “auxiliary bishops”: He says the document (per the ceremony’s printed bulletin/handout, which he says he reviewed) refers to the four men as “auxiliary bishops.” He states flatly this is inaccurate — they are not auxiliary bishops in the canonical sense, since auxiliaries are appointed by the pope to assist a diocesan bishop within a specific see, which doesn’t describe their situation at all.The oath of obedience: He notes that after consecration, the four new bishops swore a personal oath of obedience to Pope Leo XIV by name — which he finds contradictory given that this happened within 48 hours of the Pope directly asking them, in writing, to desist from the very act they’d just completed. His point isn’t that swearing obedience is wrong in itself, but that swearing it immediately after defying an explicit papal request reads as either incoherent or performative.Parchment GateRegarding the parchment scroll, well, it is customary to read from a scroll of that sort, even if it is not absolutely required (I am not sure if New Rite consecrations use scrolls in all cases). And, as was explained above by Archbishop Lefebvre, and Don Pagliarani, the extraodrinary act is done with the intention of serving the Church. Therefore, the ceremonial dignity of a parchment scroll is used to help visualize the dignity of episcopacy. Ultimately, it is a symbolic presentation of a document — nobody uses parchment scrolls anymore — and the intention of the Society is to demonstrate that they are doing this for the Papacy, and not against it.Alas, I think that there is no way the Society could perform this action without someone finding something to criticize, even from a Traditional perspective. If they left out the Mandate, then they could be accused of not even attempting to justify their actions; if they used a different form of paper for the scroll, or no scroll at all, then the “smells and bells” purists would find something wrong with that, too.Ultimately, the question is not whether the parchment itself is somehow symbolic of the usurpation of the authority of the Pope, because the whole ceremony is done in an extraordinary manner that is without the blessing of the Pope! If I may, this sort of nitpicking seems pedantic.It is Taylor’s claim that the Society, and Don Pagliarani have been dishonest — thus the term dissimulation is used — but dishonesty would require hiding motives, or misleading someone.The motives have not been hidden, and were not hidden in the ceremony. And, if one were to pay attention to the full ceremony, and everything that was said, then it would be clear that no lies have been told.Nevertheless, he repeatedly calls it “dissimulation,” says he had “a sense of deep dread” watching it in real time, and constructs an analogy to a wedding where a groom, lacking a marriage license, reads a different document aloud and claims it counts — explicitly to make the point that a valid form (mandate/license) can’t be substituted with a stand-in document while implying to observers that the requirement was satisfied. Well, this analogy fails, even by the standards of the current Code of Canon Law, which states:“If one who, in accordance with the law, is competent to assist, cannot be present or be approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter a true marriage can validly and lawfully contract in the presence of witnesses only… apart from danger of death, provided it is prudently foreseen that this state of affairs will continue for a month…” Canon 1116So, even the Code recognizes that a marriage can be valid without priests or proper permission, for reasons of necessity. Whether or not the State recognizes the marriage is irrelevant for the validity of the marriage. For reasons of necessity, both physical and moral (this is the logic of necessity in the Code), a couple could hypothetically get married in the forest with witnesses only if the situation warranted it, and they would have no official marriage license to read or sign, but they would be married. And, in a situation like that, they should then present themselves to a priest who can help them when it is possible, and the marriage will be officially recognized by the competent authority.This is, quite frankly, almost identical to the logic of the SSPX consecrations, as Archbishop Lefebvre stated:“And the day the truth of the Church of all time comes back to Rome, these bishops will put their episcopal dignity into the hands of the Pope and say to him: “Here we are. What will you do with us? If you wish, we will live now as simple priests; if you want to make use of us, you can do so.” (Bio, 545)Auxiliary BishopsRegarding Marshall’s argument that the term “Auxiliary Bishops” is misleading, I will cite from another author who has written on this better than I could.She writes:“… Marshall is right about their claim that SSPX bishops are not auxiliary bishops in the strict canonical sense of canon 403. They are validly consecrated bishops without ordinary diocesan jurisdiction, exercising episcopal ministry within an irregular canonical situation and, as the SSPX has unequivocally declared, under the claim of supplied jurisdiction in a state of necessity.But Marshall’s positive analogy is shaky, because SSPX bishops do not canonically function as Cardinal bishops [Taylor had been arguing on X that they were functionally Cardinal bishops]. This is imprecise and misleading, because Marshall begins with the subject (the SSPX) and shifts the discussion to an insignificant comparison (even if technically and canonically accurate) as it keeps the inquiry at the level of classification, administration, and institutional function. The question shifts from the pertinent question of why the SSPX bishops exist to what ecclesiastical category they most resemble.It is like standing on the deck of a sinking ship and arguing over whether the lifeboats have been properly categorized (rescue vessel, an emergency craft, or a temporary transport) while ignoring the breach in the hull that made them necessary. The classification may be technically correct, but it is radically disproportionate to the situation. The more urgent question is why the vessel continues taking on water and why the lifeboats had to be launched in the first place.In this particular crisis, merely applying a canonical label is misleading if the label hides the actual ecclesial reality, because the issue is not only whether the word auxiliary technically fits, but the real function of the SSPX bishops in the present crisis. So while Marshall is technically correct that they are not auxiliary bishops under canon 403, it is a purely legalistic flattening of the discussion. Marshall obscures the fact they are bishops consecrated for the preservation and continuation of traditional priestly formation, confirmations, ordinations, sacramental continuity, and apostolic succession under circumstances the Society has consistently described as extraordinary the sate of necessity.”It is not clear what the proper term would be for the SSPX bishops, because the terms used pertain to strict canonical proceedings, which are strained in the case of the SSPX, and which they do not deny. Lefebvre used the term that was recognized by Rome during their discussions. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to him, “The Holy See cannot grant the Society of Saint Pius X auxiliaries without the Society being given an adequate juridical structure.” (Bio, 548)Of course, that structure was never realized, nonetheless, if it were to be realized, it was the opinion of the Holy See that the bishops would be called auxiliaries. So, what other term should be used to express their function, even if the paperwork is absent?Certainly, not the pejorative term episcopi vagantes, because, that term refers to bishops who have no attachment to the Church, and whose flocks seek to serve the bishops, rather than the bishops to serve the flock. Furthermore, the bishops of the Society have no established flock because they claim no territory or juridical power over any group.The Oath of ObedienceTo answer the claim that the Oath of Obedience uttered by the new bishops is self-defeating, due to the extraordinary nature of the consecrations without a mandate, I will quote a recent article at length, published by the Society, so far only in French, which is translated here (I speak French and attest to the translation):In Catholic doctrine, obedience is not an absolute. Not even obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff.As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: “The abuse of authority can occur […] when what is commanded by the superior is contrary to the end for which the authority was instituted, for example, when he orders an evil act, contrary to the virtue that this authority is intended to promote and protect. In this case, not only is one not obliged to obey the superior, but one is even obliged not to obey him, as the holy martyrs faced death rather than obey the impious orders of tyrants.”The same teaching can be found in Leo XIII’s encyclical Diuturnum illud (June 29, 1881).Moreover, if the unjust order of the superior constitutes a danger to the faith, the disobedience itself must be public.It is again Saint Thomas who affirms this: “When there is an imminent danger to the faith, the prelates themselves must be publicly rebuked by their subjects. This is why Saint Paul, who was subject to Saint Peter, publicly rebuked him because of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith. And, as the Gloss says, quoting Saint Augustine, regarding Chapter II of the Epistle to the Galatians, ‘Peter himself thus gave superiors an example: if ever they should stray from the right path, they should not refuse to be corrected even by their inferiors.’”The great Dominican theologian Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468) summarizes all the above in these terms: “If the Roman Pontiff commands something that is evil in itself, that is, contrary to divine law, to the faith, or to the salvation of souls, in such a case, separating oneself from the Roman Pontiff by disobedience is not illicit and, consequently, should not be called schism.”One could not be clearer. And, let us repeat, this is not the isolated opinion of a theologian, but the unanimous teaching of the entire theological tradition.I cannot say it any better: one can profess obedience, even if at times, certain commands must be resisted. The current decision of the Holy See to condemn the SSPX certainly fits Torquemada’s insistence that the Pope can be resisted when the Pope commands something (in this case, don’t consecrate) that is contrary to “the salvation of souls.”Order/jurisdiction critique of Fr. Pagliarani’s authorityIn essence, Taylor argues that since Don Davide Pagliarani is a mere priest, he cannot have authority over bishops. And, since the bishops are members of the Society, they must be under Don Pagliarani’s authority since he is the superior. Marshall alludes to examples of other religious orders where members are made bishops, and rightly asserts that they remain members of the orders, and, that they are no longer subject to the superior of the Order once they are made a bishop. His contention is that it is disordered for the bishops of the Society to still be under Don Pagliarani as a superior. However, Marshall seems to assert that this norm for Religious Orders is the same for societies of priests, which, I imagine is meant to include the sort of organization that the SSPX is, which was founded as a Society of Apostolic Life.Canon 705 explains what Marshall is getting at: “A religious who is raised to the episcopate remains a member of his institute, but is subject only to the Roman Pontiff by his vow of obedience. He is not bound by obligations which he prudently judges are not compatible with his condition.”Now, this canon refers to the vow of obedience, which must be made to the Pope once a priest is elevated, and, the subsequent canon, 706, addresses the vow of poverty and how that would be understood in the case of a bishop, who must dispose of various goods and oversee property.In any event, the Society of Saint Pius X is not a Religious Order like the Dominicans, etc, and the members take no vows of obedience.Marshall takes great offence at the notion that a mere priest like Don Pagliarani, could have some sort of jurisdiction over bishops. However, that isn’t what is happening in the SSPX.Since they take no vows, they are not professed to be bound to the Superior, and he does not “command” them as if he has authority over them. Instead, the bishops have accepted a call to serve the faithful and seminarians who require sacramental functions that only bishops can perform.Father Paul Robinsion said in a recent interview when asked what will happen with the new bishops:“So we do not assign bishops to a certain part of the world as such, because of the fact that our bishops do not possess jurisdiction. We do not want to pretend that they are diocesan bishops and take care of a certain area. So what we do, for instance — if we have an ordination ceremony at Écône every year, we usually rotate the bishops. The bishops will be staying in the same place they were before they were consecrated. In fact, three of them are in the seminary in the United States. One of them is the superior of Benelux. So they will remain in their position, but they will also have some assignments, no doubt from the superiors, to do confirmations or ordinations, or like on Holy Thursday…”Now, undoubtedly one could take issue with the statement that there will be “assignments, no doubt from the superiors,” if he chooses. However, they are not commanded under obedience to do so, and by agreeing to serve the Society and the faithful, they are simply fulfilling that agreement.Furthermore, even if the Society were a Religious Order, the bishops who come from those orders still do obey the superiors as far as their dominative power (potestas dominativa) is concerned. This means that the decisions of the superior of an order are followed, even by the bishops who are members, as they pertain to the way of life, etc. For example, if a superior approves statutes that require members to go on a retreat once a year, then the member-bishop will do that, all things being equal. He will, in fact, obey the approved norms of the superior, who is a priest. However, the bishops who come from the order are not bound to follow directions that get in the way of their duties.In any event, the Society is not a religious order, and there are not direct parallels to be found in Canon Law that apply the same reasoning to Societies of Apostolic Life. So, the analogy from Marshall fails, and the logic does not apply.Don Pagliarani is the General Superior, and the men who have been made bishops are still members of the Society, and they will continue in their roles that they presently have. The Society will communicate to the bishops what they need from them for the sake of souls, liturgical functions, and the ordinations of priests, but they will not be ordered to do anything under a vow of obedience, or given any jurisdictional role by a mere priest, or by anyone from the Society because jurisdiction is not claimed or asserted.Lastly we would do well to explain how mere priests can, in fact, operate with jurisdiction, even over other bishops. Of course, this is not happening in the same way in the Society, but it speaks to the difficulty with Taylor’s claims that it woud somehow be unconscionable for a mere priest to tell a bishop what to do.The Catholic tradition recognizes a clear distinction between the sacrament of holy orders and the canonical grant of jurisdiction — the two are related but not identical, and history and current law both confirm that jurisdiction, even jurisdiction reaching bishops, can be held by a man who is only a priest.The sharpest example is the papacy itself: a man elected pope obtains full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, including every bishop on earth, the instant he validly accepts election, even if he has not yet been consecrated a bishop (c. 332 §1). History records several men who exercised complete papal jurisdiction over the whole episcopate while still only priests, prior to their later consecration.A second example is the diocesan administrator, or vicar capitular, who governs a vacant diocese: this office is very often filled by a priest, who then holds nearly the full ordinary power of a bishop over that diocese — including binding authority over any auxiliary bishop still resident there, since auxiliaries possess no jurisdiction of their own apart from delegation.A third example is the territorial abbot (abbatia nullius), who governs a jurisdiction entirely separated from any diocese; historically, not every man holding this office was himself a consecrated bishop, yet he still held full ordinary governing jurisdiction over the clergy and faithful within his abbey’s territory.A fourth is the prefect apostolic, typically a priest, who is granted ordinary governing jurisdiction over a mission territory not yet raised to the level of a diocese, functioning administratively much as a bishop would.A fifth is the cardinal-priest historically appointed to head a Roman dicastery: exercising real governing authority — delegated from the pope, not from his own priestly orders — that can reach into the affairs of diocesan bishops worldwide.Finally, the priest-superior of a clerical religious institute can hold genuine governing authority, under canon 596 and related law, extending even to a bishop who remains a professed or incorporated member of that institute, in matters proper to the institute’s internal governance. Taken together, these examples confirm the classical distinction — traceable through theologians like Suárez — that jurisdiction is fundamentally an office and mission-based grant, separable in principle from the sacrament of orders itself. The pope-before-consecration case is the clearest possible proof that priestly jurisdiction reaching bishops is not inherently disordered; the only real question in any given case is whether the specific grant or structure of authority in question was validly constituted — not whether a priest holding authority over a bishop is, as such, a contradiction in terms.In the next essay, we will discuss the comparison between 1988 and 2026, and the controversy of strained relations between the Holy See and the SSPX as it pertains to the Crisis in the Church and a desired solution.Kyrie EleisonMere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Canon Lawyers Speak, and the Real Schism Might be in Your Heart 06.07.2026 1h 29m

  Links from the showMexico Trip: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicoReal Estate for Life: https://realestateforlife.org/iCatholic Mobile: https://www.icatholicmobile.com/ This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Neither Schismatic Nor Excommunicated 02.07.2026 2h 10m

  Links spoken of in the showMexico Trip: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicoArticle I wrote: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Schismatic Popes and Excommunicated Saints 22.06.2026 38m

  iCatholic Mobile offers the finest 5G mobile service, and now get $100 off any new phone purchased. Call 802-988-6588 or go to iCatholicMobile.comReal Estate for Life: https://realestateforlife.org/Mexico Trip: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicoKennedy’s Books: https://kennedyhall.ca/books This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Woe to you Lawyers: Pope Leo and Canon Lawyers on the SSPX 19.06.2026 56m

  iCatholic Mobile offers the finest 5G mobile service, and now get $100 off any new phone purchased. Call 802-988-6588 or go to iCatholicMobile.comReal Estate for Life: https://realestateforlife.org/Mexico Trip: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicoKennedy’s Books: https://kennedyhall.ca/books This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Charismatic 'Control' Tactic, Theistic Evolution NONSENSE, and Courtship for Youngsters | Q&A 05.06.2026 13m

  This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit meretradition.substack.comMEXICO PILGRIMAGE: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicoiCatholic Mobile: https://www.icatholicmobile.com/REAL ESTATE FOR LIFE: https://realestateforlife.org/SSPX BOOK ONLINE: https://tradgpt.ai/author/kennedy-hall
• 
  The Roman Officials Don't Believe in Schism... Well, Except for the SSPX... 01.06.2026 1h 4m

  iCatholic Mobile offers the finest 5G mobile service, and now get $100 off any new phone purchased. Call 802-988-6588 or go to iCatholicMobile.comMexico Trip: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicoKennedy’s Books: https://kennedyhall.ca/books This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Even I was Shocked: The Connection Between the Charismatic Renewal and the New Mass! 29.05.2026 50m

  iCatholic Mobile offers the finest 5G mobile service, and now get $100 off any new phone purchased. Call 802-988-6588 or go to iCatholicMobile.comMexico Trip: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicoKennedy’s Books: https://kennedyhall.ca/books This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  From Vatican II to Synodality: Birds of a Feather (Plus, will SSPX laypeople be penalized?) 27.05.2026 41m

  This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit meretradition.substack.comMEXICO TRIP: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexicoSSPX BOOK ONLINE: https://tradgpt.ai/read/kennedy-hall_sspx-the-defenceLINKS TO EVERYTHING KENNEDY DOES, INCLUDING BOOKS: https://linktr.ee/meretraditionkh
• 
  What is the SSPX 'Resistance' and are They Correct About the SSPX 21.05.2026 29m

  This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit meretradition.substack.comMEXICO TRIP: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexico