Join the SSPX and go partially to Hell

Wherein I rant

Good day, All,

Given that I am the ‘SSPX’ guy for many people, I have heard every possible objection you could imagine about every possible aspect of every possible question anyone could ever have about the SSPX. I have heard it all, and just when I think I can’t hear anymore, well, I hear something else.

Back when I was discovering Tradition circa 2017-18, I discovered the SSPX. Admittedly, I had absolutely no idea what the SSPX was, not the slightest idea. I think at one point I had seen in some French Catholic film about John Paul II the mention of “Lefebvrists,” but that is about it. I didn’t know who Lefebvre was, so it was of no consequence to me what a supposed Lefebvrist was.

Come to think of it, the film was called The Jewish Cardinal and depicted the life of Jean-Marie Lustiger, a Polish-Jew in France who became a Catholic priest, the Bishop of Paris and eventually a Cardinal under JP2. At any rate, the film portrays him as a darling of the super groovy New Evangelization, as he is always on the radio, hanging with young kids and doing cool things like swimming in JP2’s pool. I have no idea if the film was accurate, and I have no opinion of the Cardinal. Point is, at one moment in the film, Father Lustiger is speaking to someone in his parish Church and I think he was wearing a cool and hip short-sleeved shirt with a collar, just when two cassock-wearing priests or seminarians — it isn’t clear in the film — storm into his Church and start yelling racial epithets at Lustiger.

They cry “Jew, Jew,” and things like that, and the hero of the film brushes it off and tells them to get out of the Church and says, “Ugh, Lefebvrists.” So, according to the film, SSPX priests have a habit of wandering around looking for Jews to yell at; who knew! Perhaps the film was produced by Church Militant… but I digress.

As I was saying, it wasn’t primarily the SSPX that I discovered those few years ago, but Tradition per se. Like all conservative Novus Ordo Catholics, I found a world of dogma and clarity that shook me to my core, but in a good way. It was like a breath of fresh air, and I couldn’t get enough of it. Within short order, I had happily converted in my heart into a rigid, backward, yet blissfully happy Traditional Catholic who daydreamed of Latin, and Chant, and old catechisms like a 12-year-old boy daydreams about that pretty girl he can’t even be in the same room with without either passing out, making a fool of himself, or feeling nauseous.

SSPX or Bust

As luck — or more likely, Providence — would have it, when I looked for somewhere to take my growing family (three kids at the time, six kids now) to Mass, the good folks at Google had not yet portioned off their search results in the Maps app into categories of varying degrees of ecclesial communion. So, when I typed in" “Latin Mass near me,” I found the closest option at St. Peter’s Church served by the SSPX, and it was only 20 minutes from my house. Contrariwise, a diocesan TLM was either 45-minutes or an hour away, and the closest FSSP was a two-hour hike.

So, armed with my newfound traditional understanding of the Faith I looked into this SSPX thing with an open mind. For whatever reason, I was convinced with a quick internet search that I could take my family to the Society for Mass, even if I still had some things to figure out about the whole paradigm.

I was easily convinced because of Traditional Catholic belief. In the traditional Faith, things are very black and white. Granted, there are shades of grey here and there due to the nature of black and white, but there are not 50 shades of it like there is in a Tucho Fernandez erotic novel. So, it was clear to me in a purely logical way, that if the argument against the SSPX was that you could attend Mass there according to the relevant authorities in Rome, then the argument that the SSPX was separated from Rome in any official clearly couldn’t hold water.

Simply put; if Rome and the SSPX were not in Communion with one another, then Rome would have no say in the matter; and, if Rome was saying that you could go into schism with their permission, then the Crisis was even graver than I thought, which would further justify the SSPX. It was a very simple logical consideration for me, and it still is, I am not sure why so many people can’t put two and two together…

This is to say nothing of the full-fledged apologetic for the SSPX which does not require a document from this or that congregation in Rome to justify supporting the heroic efforts of the SSPX, but at the time it was a clear sign from a clear source of authority that going there was fine. For a full treatise on the matter, see my book SSPX: The Defence.

In any event, it was SSPX or bust for me and my kin if we wanted to escape the Novus Ordo, so we took the plunge.

Not enough, but some Communion

As I mentioned, my wife and I were in the midst of growing our family — rapidly, I might add, as at the time we had three children all under three years old… three kids in diapers. In addition, we don’t live in the same city as our parents and siblings, so we relied on our good Catholic community quite heavily. Sadly, without telling our friends that we were attending the SSPX, I ascertained that if they found out, it was likely that we would lose a lot of friends, given the perception many Catholics have about the SSPX… you know, like the fact that they run around yelling at Jews.

As a result, my wife and I decided to drive the extra distance to a diocesan TLM for a period of about a year, until we decided to commit fully to the SSPX. By that time, we realized that it was worth losing all our friends — if that is what it would take — to raise our kids in a fully traditional environment.

For example, many people will move to a different city, or county or even country so that their children will have a good education or grow up in a safer place, and we imbibed that same mentality about attending the SSPX.

If we had to make new friends, then so be it.

We pulled the trigger, and we lost most of our friends but kept a few who ended up following us, which was a happy surprise. The friends we have made are the most amazing people we have ever known, and they have become like family.

However, when COVID hit, some of our old friends wanted to have an intervention with us because they were worried about our SSPXness. So, my wife and I sat in a room with about nine other people who proceeded to tell us that it was a very bad thing for us not to be in “full communion.”

It was a surreal conversation, as our old friends — bless their hearts — knew virtually nothing about the SSPX, but boy-o-boy, did they tell us the nothing they knew as if it was gospel.

Nothing I said made a difference, because it was an indisputable fact in their minds that the SSPX was not in “full communion.”

I tried to explain that although “full communion” sounds like a really smart word, it is really a modernist term at worst, and at best a fancy way to talk about reconciliation efforts with the Orthodox. I tried to explain that you are either in or out of the Church, and if you are in you are in communion and if you are out you are not in communion. Sadly, so many Catholics are complete modernists — even if they are good people — so such logical arguments based on objective reality are lost on them.

At one point during the conversation I had had enough so I said, “You realize you are saying we are damned to Hell, right?”

They were very taken back by that statement and they protested that they meant nothing of the sort…

The thing is, as I tried to explain, there is no salvation outside the Church, so it is impossible for someone to be objectively in and out of the Church at the same time, just like it is impossible for one to be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time.

Think about it like this — if a man attends the SSPX and catches the partial communion cooties, then how much of him is in the Church and how much is out? Is he 70 percent Catholic and 30 percent schismatic? This is absurd, as any reasonable person knows.

A man who dies outside the Church will go to Hell, and it will not be a case of 70 percent of his soul being saved and 30 percent not.

Modernism, where reason goes to die

The conversation I have described briefly is one of dozens and dozens I have had with Catholics who should know better. I even had a two-hour sit-down conversation with the Vicar of my diocese who, in the end, admitted that the priests of the SSPX were not in schism, not excommunicated, and not under any penalties, and ordained as valid Catholic priests, but still just didn’t have enough communion and therefore were not part of the Church…

I asked him how he was able to justify his opinion, and if the priests of the SSPX should wear badges saying “We are Catholic priests,” and he simply replied that they were just not “in union” with the Church.

The conversation ended with no resolution, as this priest had clearly lost his ability to think logically many decades ago.

But, what else should we expect, given the modernist understanding of Communion that has plagued even the greater minds of the Church?

Traditionally, it has always been understood that to be in communion with the Church it is necessary to satisfy three criteria:

1. Believe the Catholic Faith

2. Partake in the Catholic sacraments

3. Recognize the governance of the legitimate pastors of the Church

Of course, there are qualifications to be made about the third point, given the fact that one could simultaneously recognize the authority as legitimate, while disobeying an unjust command. This is common sense, as popes, bishops, and priests can all be heretics in some way, and we are not required to follow heretics if they want us to go down with them.

However, a misunderstanding of Tradition plagues the modern theologians of the Church.

Compare and contrast the old understanding and the new understanding:

Old

•  Vatican I – “The doctrine of faith which God revealed … has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding [can. 3]. ‘Therefore… let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding’ (St. Vincent of Lerins).”  Dei Filius, ch. 4 (Dz 1800)

New

•  Vatican II – “The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes… through the contemplation and study of believers, who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience ... As the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her." Dei Verbum, §8.

Old

•  Pope Pius IX – ”The Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them.” Ineffabilis Deus

New

•  Fr. Joseph Ratzinger – “He [St. Vincent of Lerins] no longer appears as an authentic representative of the Catholic idea of tradition, but outlines a canon of tradition based on a semi-Pelagian idea.” Commentary on Vatican II (1969)

Old

• Pope St. Pius X – “Tradition, as understood by the Modernists, is a communication with others of an original experience, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula. To this formula, in addition to its representative value they attribute a species of suggestive efficacy which acts firstly in the believer by stimulating the religious sense ... and secondly, in those who do  not yet believe by awakening in them for the first time the religious sense and producing the experience. In this way is religious experience spread abroad among the nations.” Pascendi, §15 (Dz 2083)

New

•  Pope Benedict XVI – “It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it… The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions, but in this apparent discontinuity it has actually preserved and deepened her inmost nature and true identity.” December 22, 2005

The old understanding of Tradition as fixed, while the new considers it as changing.  In the traditional sense, Tradition is objective (dogmas), while for the new notion, it is subjective (experiences).  Traditionally, man believes what he is told, the Modernist tells what he believes.

In an allocution of April 26, 2006, Pope Benedict defines the nature of Tradition:

The Church’s apostolic Tradition consists in this transmission of the goods of salvation which, through the power of the Spirit, makes the Christian community the permanent actualization of the original communion… Tradition is the communion of the faithful around their legitimate Pastors down through history, a communion that the Holy Spirit nurtures, assuring the connection between the experience of the apostolic faith, lived in the original community of the disciples, and the actual experience of Christ in his Church.

Compare Benedict’s definition of Tradition with that of Saint Vincent of Lerins who said in his Commonitorium: [Tradition is} Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est. (What is always, everywhere, believed by all.)

For even Benedict, Tradition hinges on the communion of the faithful around their pastors, whereas in previous times, Tradition hinges on the faith of all time, shared by all, in all places.

Granted, it is of divine faith that the Church has pastors, but even they must submit themselves to Tradition.

To conclude, in the Old Church, you are in the Church as long as you believe the faith, attend the sacraments and recognize the pastors, whereas in the New Church, you are in the Church as long as you are in a community with the pastors, Tradition be damned.

I’ll take the Old Church — the Catholic Church — over the New Church — the Modernist Church — even if the anti-SSPX malcontents think 30 percent of me is damned.