John Salza, a long-time Catholic apologist, has made an extremely good case against the ecclesiological convictions of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). I’ve long said before that, whatever one might legitimately point out about the issues with the current state of the hierarchy in the Catholic Church, the solution embedded into the SSPX narrative is irreconcilable with Scripture, Tradition, and the consensus of the Fathers/Theologians. Consequently, there is no hope within the SSPX to regain something from the Apostolic tradition as understood by historic Catholic theology. Anyone involved would do well to rethink their steps, revisit the cogency of their position in light of what men like Salza are saying, and hopefully see the ecclesiological dead-end in the SSPX for what it is. Salza and Fradd do wonders in this video.
Nevertheless, if one were to think that this interview was supporting the pendulum-swing opposite of cheering on the Pontificate of Pope Francis, in either doctrine or discipline, they might be surprised to find a rather glaring 2-min segment between 2:40:55 and 2:42:20 which I’ve transcribed below. Anyone who listened to the whole video would not be surprised overall since even Salza himself expressed elsewhere in the video his difficulties with the continuity between the traditional Catholic doctrine of Church/State and the extremely controversial decree Dignitatis Humanae, what appears to be St. John Paul II’s “extremely scandalous” sin against the faith when he publicly kissed the Quran, the “Pachamama” event, and a variety of other issues related to the liturgy.
What this shows is that while people are sure to benefit from the clear and convincing case against the imaginative solutions in sedevacantism and the SSPX, this is not meant to squelch all the difficulties that are involved in dealing with the current crisis within Catholicism. One is urged to remain firm in the unity of the Catholic Church by strict adherence to the unity of the Apostolic See, a principle, however difficult to cope with, that is well established in Church history. But no one is put under an illusion that all is well, that we should ignore talking about the problems that are unmistakably displayed by the Roman Pontiff himself and spread throughout the hierarchy, nor that every problem is safely solved. If today’s issues do not exclude the kind of thought that the heir to St. Peter’s throne could be a danger to our children, were he to be a children’s catechist, let alone Pope, then the point of this interview cannot be entirely one of relief.
No, the problem(s) are still there, and they don’t appear to be going anywhere soon. The aim here is not so much ecclesiastical therapy or one’s finally casting off the burden of anxiety that comes with joining what appears to be the antithesis of the real Apostolic patrimony as much as it is simply the raw persevering of the legal principles that undergird the essence of Catholic ecclesiology, come what may. In my own mind, this kind of candid admission from prominent Catholic speakers does not leave us without a bit of self-reflection. Regardless of how theologically correct the arguments are, this should also calibrate just how we treat folks who are flying off to sedevacantism, the SSPX, Eastern Orthodox, Protestantism, and whatever alternative happens to appear especially sweet from the current sewage-vantage point. If anything else were also clear, it is the sheer inconsistency of making one’s undiluted aim of attacking dissent within while also being forced by the undeniable evidence, even if it occurs in a few minutes of time, to admit the matter that plagues all of these souls in the first place anyway.
𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗱: 𝘐 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘶𝘮 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨… 𝘴𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴… 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘺𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘴, 𝘰𝘬.. 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘗𝘰𝘱𝘦. 𝘚𝘰 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝑰’𝒎 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒍𝒂𝒊𝒎, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅𝒏’𝒕 𝒊𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑷𝒐𝒑𝒆 𝑭𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒘𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝑷𝒐𝒑𝒆, 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑰 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅𝒏’𝒕 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒉𝒊𝒎 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒆 𝒂 𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒎𝒚 5-𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒓-𝒐𝒍𝒅 𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒅, 𝒍𝒆𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝑷𝒐𝒑𝒆, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒚𝒆𝒕 𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒆 𝑷𝒐𝒑𝒆.
𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗦𝗮𝗹𝘇𝗮: 𝘖𝘩 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝒔𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒍𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒂𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓𝒔, 𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘔𝘢𝘵𝘵… 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺, 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳, 𝘐’𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦, 𝘐 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯… 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 , 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘢𝘵 𝘶𝘴…. 𝘺𝘢 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 24 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘺, 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘗𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘺? 𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵…
𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗱: 𝘎𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝒄𝒖𝒛 𝑰 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒌 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒔𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝑻𝒂𝒚𝒍𝒐𝒓 𝑴𝒂𝒓𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒌… 𝘮𝘢𝘺𝘣𝘦 𝘐’𝘮 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘺𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭… 𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘵 𝘗𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘏𝘦’𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦.