Editor’s note: the original video was truncated in error. This post corrects that.
Meaning of Catholic is “reclaiming this right of Christian noblemen which has always been approved of and valued by the hierarchy of the Church.” -Our Lady of Victory Press Constitution
37 Theses on the SSPX
1. “He whose will and desire in conversation is to establish his own opinion, even though what he says is true, should recognize that he is sick with the devil’s disease. ” (St. John of the Ladder, step 4). Therefore, I offer my worthless Layman’s opinion and it is worth only how much you paid for it, which is nothing.
2. It is beyond the competence or authority of the lay nobility to judge the nuances of theology, that is, disputatae quaestiones. Nevertheless, since we are the “first preachers of the faith to our children” (Lumen Gentium, 11) we do have a duty before God to pass down the depositum fidei, that is dogmas of the faith. This means that we must form our children to recognise and judge what are the dogmas of the faith (NOT adjudicate quaestiones disputatae), in order to participate in the infallible sensus fidelium.
3. Moreover, the international theological commission has confirmed that the faithful, participating in the sensus fidelium, can perceive heresy against the dogmas of the faith, showing that they are not judging and adjudicating disputatae, but rather manifesting their rational faith in the dogmas.
4. Thus, the faithful have been able to see that many bishops are hirelings who have left the faithful to the heretical and iconoclastic wolves, who poison our little children with heresy. But these evil wolves in clerical clothing also destroy the faith of the little ones by desecrating the Blessed Sacrament and tearing down the monuments of our forefathers, both in liturgy, art, architecture and more. In these iconoclastic acts, these wicked clerics imitate the evil men who scourged Our Lord’s own Body, for these wicked clerics are handling the Most Sacred Body of Jesus Christ and His Precious Blood unworthily.
5. Shortly after Vatican II, the head of the Holy Office called on all bishops to defend the faithful from these wolves, and Archbishop Lefebvre zealously agreed. He did his best to do this, even though he had his own strengths and weaknesses. Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict did their best to do this as well, but nevertheless, these wolves still prowl around the world, seeking the ruin of souls. (“St. John Paul II and Lefebvre- Mythbusting Two Great Men of the 20th century”)
6. The SSPX confesses many dogmas of the faith fearlessly that many bishops today seem to be afraid to confess publicly, or they are heretics themselves.
7. Moreover, the SSPX defends the rights of our children to have the ancient Roman liturgy, a right that has been vindicated in principle by Pope Benedict: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”
8. On the other hand, the SSPX claims to defend Tradition, yet it seems to me that their treatment of Tradition is superficial and fails to account for the Patristic revival of the 19th century as well as the eastern Catholic traditions. This seems to be why their treatment of Vatican II lacks a theological depth beyond the modern neo-scholastic mindset (which is itself an imperfect imitation of true scholasticism). (“The Pre-Vatican II Decline of Theology”)
9. In particular, the SSPX maintains a Modern, clericalist mindset, and thus their account of the post-Tridentine period (and thus, their proposed solution) is incomplete and risks making serious errors against the depositum fidei, like “Neo-Jansenism” (“The Dubia of Vatican One”)
10. For example, the SSPX claims that the term “Paschal Mystery” is problematic, because the heretics have used and abused this term, and even claims that the term is only a minor Patristic concept (see their book the Problem of the Liturgy Reform, pp. 39-51). But the pre-55 rite of Holy Saturday proclaims that the “Paschal Mystery” (Paschale sacramentum) is the summation of the Old and New Testaments. This shows the SSPX’s lack of depth in the Tradition. (“The Paschal Mystery: the Traditional Aspects of Vatican II & the Novus Ordo Missae”)
11. Further, there is a lack of depth by the SSPX in the Tradition when treating on the post-Tridentine period. We spend so much time worrying about Vatican II, and it is not unreasonable to consider issues with this Council. But the SSPX fails to face the false spirit of Vatican I, nor the critical dubium from Trent: the Two Swords Dogma. But it seems to me that in terms of this period, the real failed council is not Vatican II, but Lateran V. Because everyone agrees that that council was an utter failure - and all of our problems resulted therefrom, including the Protestant revolt, Modernism, etc.
12. Moreover, this council shows the critical importance of the cooperation between the two swords of Christendom, the temporal power (the lay nobility) and the clerical spiritual power. This is because at Lateran V a lay nobleman, Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola, as a traditional lay participant in an ecumenical council, rebuked the clergy and exhorted the Pope to solve the corruption in the Church. This exhortation from the lay nobility was refused, and therefore God punished the Church by means of the Protestant revolt.
13. The Counter-Reformation was a great success in the Spanish Empire and elsewhere, and created Baroque Civilisation. Nevertheless, in France and elsewhere, the poison of Jansenism and political, economic, & sexual tyranny infected the Church, deepening the existing wounds which obtained at the time of the Protestant revolt, and spreading these around the world. In France as elsewhere, the lay nobility went beyond their authority and attempted to control the clergy as their bureaucrats. The Kings of France refused to repent and consecrate their Nation to the Sacred Heart, and so God punished France (and the world) with the French Revolution. (“The Tyranny that Led to Liberalism”)
14. In response, the Papacy, already corrupted by Freemasonry since 1773 (with the unjust suppression of the Jesuits), fell into the opposite extreme against the lay-led Liberalism: they created a clericalist Church. Blessed Pope Pius IX broke with centuries of Tradition and refused to invite the lay nobility to Vatican I. As a result, the Freemasons were able to invade Rome and stop that council. (“Clericalism & the False Spirit of Vatican One”)
15. This was when the prophecy of La Salette was fulfilled: the city of Rome lost the faith and became the seat of the Antichrist, that is, the Freemasons. (“The Real Alta Vendita: When the Gates of Hell ‘Prevailed’ in 1870”)
16. But then, Pius X broke with Tradition even further by revoking the right of the Roman emperor to veto papal elections. As a result of all this, the appointment of Bishops is nowadays extremely clericalist for the first time in centuries. This is a result of the break in Tradition which happened. And this all goes back to the dubium of Trent about that dogma non definitum, the Two Swords Dogma.
17. If we were looking at the appointment of bishops in a truly traditional way, there would be a cooperation between the lay nobility and the clerical power in the appointment of bishops. The lay investiture controversy hammered out a compromise wherein the pope or other clerical powers would appoint bishops and the nobility had certain rights of veto or certain cooperations thereof. (City of God vs. City of Man”: the Battles of the Church from Antiquity to the Present)
18. However, nowadays, the pope and the clerical power has the complete and absolute right over the appointment of bishops. This situation is clericalist and is not traditional. But it did not start with Vatican II.
19. Another issue that did not start with Vatican II is liturgical revolution. The SSPX spends a lot of energy criticising the liturgical revolution of Paul VI. They are right to do so. However, they fail to face the liturgical revolution of Pius X, which broke with centuries of Tradition regarding a much more significant and spiritually grave issue: the frequency of Holy Communion.
20. Liturgical revolution was made possible, not by Vatican II, but by 19th century clericalism. This is why the lay nobility did not defend their children from the heretical and iconoclastic clerics who destroyed the liturgy and the Faith in the 1960s and 1970s. But this is why so many lay people flocked to the SSPX. These priests defended the liturgy and the dogmas.
21. Now it is manifestly clear that even in our own clericalist epoch, the clerical power needs the lay nobility to help GOVERN even bishops themselves. We know this because in many diocese throughout the world there is an official policy to hand over criminal priests to the police. This is an admission by the clerical power that the lay nobility needs to help govern clerics in certain extreme cases.
22. Therefore, it is within the competence of the lay nobility, if they are properly formed and are in places of authority (such as political governance) to have an opinion about the Episcopal consecrations of the SSPX – as long as they maintain strict reverence for their spiritual fathers (especially the Holy Father) and say or do nothing that would harden the hearts of the faithful against their spiritual fathers. It is not an intrinsically schismatic act for the lay nobility to disagree with the opinion of the Pope regarding the appointments of bishops, but again, only with fear & trembling. But this act of the lay nobility disputing with the clerical power over the appointment of bishops is entirely traditional and was accepted by the Papacy for centuries (albeit sometimes reluctantly, like the Holy Roman Emperor vetoing the papal election) without serious ecclesial penalties, like the excommunications which are now threatened.
23. Now on the other hand, let us return to the weakness of the SSPX’s treatment of traditional theology. First of all, many critiques of Vatican II are superficial, since Vatican II explicitly confirms the Thomistic, neo-scholastic hermeneutic in the appendix of Lumen Gentium. Therefore the SSPX is wrong to refuse dialogue, since the metaphysical architecture to exclude heresy is explicitly affirmed by the texts of Vatican II itself, by means of the qualifications theologicae. (“The Post-Vatican II Collapse of Theology”; cf. Schrader, “Theological Notes and Censures,” Encyclopedia of Catholic Theology)
24. And therefore the competent head of the SSPX dialogue with Rome has confirmed that the quaestiones disputatae from Vatican II are not binding. (Dr. Maike Hickson, “Abp. Pozzo on SSPX: Disputed Vatican II Documents Are Non-Doctrinal,” OnePeterFive)
25. This seems to be why nearly EVERY other Latin Mass priestly society has reconciled with Rome, except the SSPX. (“What about the Non-SSPX Traditional Clerics?”)
26. The reason the SSPX has not reconciled with Rome, like the other traditional orders, seems to stem from their erroneous views about Sacramental grace. First, the SSPX holds an untenable position regarding the new rite of Mass: they erroneously assert that a doubtful faith in a priest creates a doubtful intention for the validity of the Sacrament. This opinion has been explicitly excluded in responsa by the holy Office before Vatican II. It is beyond the competence of the lay nobility to dispute about a responsum from the Holy Office, since it is aimed at definitively clarifying dubia. Therefore, on the most fundamental issue, which is the question of Sacramental grace, and thus of the salvation of souls: the SSPX is in error and explicitly working against the Tradition before Vatican II. (“The SSPX Confronts Rome”)
27. In addition, the priests of the SSPX take an oath and officially advocate that a Catholic should never attend even a “Reverent Novus Ordo,” which means they would refuse even the Pope’s own Mass. Therefore they have no real Sacramental communion with the Holy Father with or without being excommunicated. (Ibid., op. cit.)
28. In the 2009 edition of the SSPX Christian Warfare prayer book on page 289 it has an examination of conscience and one of the questions before confession is this: “have you attended and actively participated in the New Mass?” To put this into an examination of conscience is, in my view, prima facie, spiritual abuse. Other editions, however, do not have this.
29. Since this position against participation in the new rite of Mass (even celebrated “reverently,” by the Pope himself) refuses charity in the most fundamental sense of the Holy Eucharist, it seems to me, in my worthless layman’s opinion, that this position is schismatic and must be renounced by the SSPX.
30. Thanks be to God, in the most recent confession of Faith by the SSPX (2nd Confession of Faith, no. 125), this position is softened significantly to the point that Rome can accept it and Rome should. This proposition seems to exclude the iconoclastic, heretical celebration of the Novus Ordo Missae and implicitly accepts the Pope’s own celebration of Mass.
31. But turning to the most pressing issue facing the lay nobility, the question of religious liberty and the Kingship of Christ must be brought to the forefront, and everyone should be grateful to Archbishop Lefebvre for that. In his “Summa,” They Have Uncrowned Him, Archbishop Lefebvre shows that even if the text of Vatican II is completely orthodox, the Vatican since Vatican II has attempted to uncrown Jesus Christ from reigning over souls and society by promoting American-style religious liberty, which is rightly condemned by Lefebvre as “State Atheism without the Name.”
32. On the whole, the fundamental defence of the depositum fidei and the liturgy by the SSPX is their strength, and the whole Church should be grateful for that. Therefore it would seem to me, to my worthless layman’s opinion, that excommunicating them for this act is a disproportionate and merciless act which ignores the rampant heresy and liturgical abuse elsewhere, and therefore harms the Church. But it is beyond the competence and authority of the lay nobility to excommunicate or not.
33. At the same time, if the SSPX did not hold to their erroneous views regarding Sacramental grace and the new rite of Mass, it would seem they would be not be so urgent to consecrate bishops as soon as possible. If the SSPX is renouncing these erroneous views, then they should do so humbly, explicitly, and publicly.
34. Therefore, the SSPX should not consecrate bishops and should correct their erroneous views regarding Sacramental grace and the new rite. Then they can initiate a true dialogos with the Holy See to resolve the important doctrinal issues that they are courageously confessing when many bishops are hirelings.
35. Therefore, it seems to me that the Vatican and the SSPX are both in error in different ways and they must take out the beam in their own eye to see the speck in their brother’s eye.
36. In the end, charity and truth must prevail.
37. That’s my worthless layman’s opinion. It’s worth as much as you paid for it.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meaningofcath.substack.com/subscribe
