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

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 Charity Taylor 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 Arguments 1. Order/jurisdiction critique of Fr. Pagliarani’s authority Marshall’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 Pope He 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 charge This is his most repeated point: the liturgy asks “do you have the apostolic mandate,” and he characterizes the SSPX’s