A Consideration of Marshall’s Arguments Contra-SSPX: Part Two

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 deadline I 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 the