A Consideration of the Risk of Sedevacantism and Disunity in the SSPX

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 concern LINKS MENTIONED IN RECORDING: Mexico Pilgrimage: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexico https://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-Risk As 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 prie