THE SSPX SAYS SEDEVACANTIST MASSES ARE LESS DANGEROUS THAN RESISTANCE MASSES
John F.
Salza, Esq.
1 September A.D. 2021
In Fr.
Robinson’s presentation, no mention was made of the necessity of canonical
mission in order for a priest to licitly offer Mass, the absence of which the
Church has always taught is a sacrilege.[1] Neither was
it mentioned that the absolutions of (non-SSPX) independent and Sedevacantist
priests who offer the traditional Mass are invalid (during the show, both Fr.
Robinson and the host of the program acknowledged, without objection, that
Catholics go to confession to such priests).[2] Fr.
Robinson also cast doubt upon the validity of Novus Ordo Masses by questioning
whether to attend traditional Masses where Novus Ordo hosts are distributed.[3]
But what was
most disturbing about this interview was Fr. Robinson’s statement that it is less
dangerous for a Catholic to attend a Sedevacantist Mass than a Resistance
Mass! You read that correctly. Fr. Robinson claims that it is more dangerous
for a Catholic to assist at a Mass offered by a Resistance priest who accepts
the conciliar Popes as true Popes than a Mass offered by a Sedevacantist priest
who rejects the last five or six Popes and practically the entire Church
hierarchy of the past 60 years. In Fr. Robinson’s own words:
Fr. Robinson: “I would
like to mention that, obviously, I think there are certain things that can be
said, like I think going to a Sedevacantist Mass would generally be fairly
dangerous; going to a Resistance Mass I think would be more dangerous
because of the scandalous situation in which they exist on a regular basis.”
Frankly, it is
difficult to believe Fr. Robinson made this statement on behalf of the SSPX.
The statement is not only false but entirely reckless and poses a danger to the
faithful. According to Fr. Robinson, the “scandalous situation” of the
Resistance priests (whose target, let’s face it, is the SSPX) is graver than that
of the Sedevacantists, whose target is and has been the Church herself
(her Popes and hierarchy for the last six decades). How could Fr. Robinson come
to such a conclusion, when the Resistance opposes some of the SSPX’s doctrinal
positions, while the Sedevacantists reject the infallible doctrines of the
Church, concerning her marks and attributes? According to Fr. Robinson, there
is less harm in worshiping with notorious heretics who reject the Pope (Sedevacantist
clergy have openly left the Church and believe the Catholic Church is a false
church, and hence are notorious heretics) than with the Resistance clergy and
laity who recently broke ranks with the SSPX but still believe we have a Pope
and a hierarchy.
We must ask what
priest who cares for souls could possibly conclude that it is less
dangerous for a Catholic to worship in the heretical milieu of Sedevacantism, whose
entire orientation is against the Church, rather than with those who believe
the Pope is the Pope and reject the heresy of Sedevacantism (although they
embrace lessor errors)? Fr. Robinson well knows the dangers of Sedevacantism
and how it leads Catholics out of the Church (after all, he endorsed our book True
or False Pope? which explained these errors). And yet Fr. Robinson
indicates that one’s salvation is more imperiled by attending a Resistance Mass
(where the priests and faithful seek prayerful union with the Pope, albeit illicitly)
than a Sedevacantist Mass (where priests omit Pope Francis from the canon and promote
the heresies of Sedevacantism and the “invisible” Church, among other things,
in their sermons).
For Fr.
Robinson, the Resistance Mass is “more dangerous” than the “fairly dangerous”
Sedevacantist Mass, which is offered by clergy who encourage their patrons to
leave the Roman Catholic Church as they themselves have done. While both the
Resistance and Sedevacantism are canonically irregular movements that have no
mission from the Church and thus whose Masses and sacraments are illicit (and
confessions and marriages invalid), to claim that Sedevacantism is less
dangerous proves too much for the SSPX and belies its claim of seeking the
salvation of souls.
Understanding
the Gravity of Sedevacantism
Perhaps Fr. Robinson does not truly understand
the gravity of the errors and heresies of Sedevacantism as we thought he did. After
all, Sedevacantists also reject the ordinations of some of Fr. Robinson’s
fellow SSPX priests, that is, those who were ordained in the Novus Ordo and not
conditionally ordained in the old rite (a position that both Fr. Robinson and
the Resistance reject). Most recently, Fr. Mauro Tranquillo of the SSPX
erroneously claimed that Sedevacantist priests receive supplied jurisdiction to
validly absolve in the sacrament of confession (an error that I thoroughly
refute in my article on the topic). These positions recently advanced by the
SSPX suggest that they believe Sedevacantism is merely a theological opinion,
albeit an erroneous one, but nevertheless one that is less dangerous than those
held by non-Sedevacantists (e.g., Resistance, Novus Ordo priests), and not a
grave sin against the Faith.
The truth is just the opposite. Sedevacantism,
which rejects the man the Church has universally accepted as Pope – is
indeed a grave error and sin against the Faith, and far graver than the
errors promoted by the Resistance or even Novus Ordo priests who are trying to
remain faithful to the Church. Moreover, as traditional theologians like John
of St. Thomas and Suarez teach, this rejection of the reigning Pope constitutes
a heresy.[4] This is based on the definition of Pope Martin V who, in his
bull Inter Cunctas (1418), required those suspected of heresy to profess
that the currently reigning Pope (his proper name being given) is the successor
of St. Peter with universal jurisdiction over the Church. Based on this definitive question, which those suspected of heresy had to answer
to demonstrate that they professed the true
faith, John of St. Thomas explains that the legitimacy of the currently
reigning Pope is a matter of Faith.
Commenting on the definitive profession of faith required by Pope Martin, he
wrote:
These
words do not speak of the truth of that proposition [whether he is the
legitimate Pope) as understood in a general sense—namely, that whoever is
lawfully elected is the Supreme Pontiff—but in the particular, concerning
whoever is Pope at the time, giving his proper name, for instance, Innocent X
[who was reigning at the time]. It is of this man, whose proper name is given,
that the Pope [Pope Martin] is bidding the person suspect in faith to be asked,
whether he believes that such a person is the successor of Peter and the
Supreme Pontiff: therefore this pertains to the act of faith—not
to an inference or a moral certitude; for neither of the latter two is a matter
of faith. (Corpus, n. 13)[5]
This means that the legitimacy of the
reigning Pope accepted by the Church is de fide, the rejection of which
would constitute a sin against the Faith, which is the very position of today’s
Sedevacantists – whose Masses the SSPX says are less dangerous than those of
the Resistance who accept the reigning Pope as Pope.
John of St. Thomas further explains that
it would be contrary to the special providence of God for a man, who does not
meet the required conditions for papal election, to be accepted as Pope by the
Church. He wrote:
[I]t
is not merely a pious belief, but a theological conclusion (as we have stated),
that God will not permit one to be elected and peacefully accepted by the
Church who in fact does not meet the conditions required; this would be
contrary to the special providence that God exercises over the Church and the
assistance that she receives from the Holy Ghost.[6]
Cardinal Billot teaches the same:
[T]he
infallible providence of God will prevent it from ever happening that the whole
Church adhere to a false head; consequently, no one will ever be accepted as
supreme pontiff who does not meet all the conditions necessary to be a member,
whatever those conditions may be. That visibility, therefore, by which the true
Church is recognizable as such, is in no way imperiled.[7]
John of St. Thomas proceeds to explain
precisely when the universal acceptance becomes sufficient to prove that the
man is a legitimate Pope. Note well that John compares this moment of
acceptance with a definition of faith promulgated by a council (underscoring
how they both pertain to the faith as objects thereof). He wrote:
All
that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of
the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition de fide. Is it as soon
as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate
locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread
through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?
I
REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and
their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council
legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like
a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is
realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the
news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual
acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the
election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has
been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to
believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him.[8]
Again, note that the Cardinals’ election
and declaration “is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council
legitimately gathered,” which is then “confirmed” by the rest of the Church
through its “acceptance” of the election. The universal acceptance is considered
to exist when the election becomes known and is not contested by the Church,
and is accepted by the prelates. While more could be said on the de fide
doctrine of Pope Martin V and peaceful and universal acceptance, the point has
been made that the Sedevacantists’ rejection of the doctrine is a far graver
danger to the faith than the errors promoted by the Resistance, who reject the
heresy of Sedevacantism. Contrary to the claims of Fr. Robinson and the SSPX, Sedevacantist
chapels, in which traditional Masses are offered, pose a greater danger to
souls.
Fr. Robinson Admits His Spiritual
Advice on which Mass
to Attend is Sometimes Based on “Political Reasons”
While Fr. Robinson claims that his advice
on which traditional Masses Catholics can attend is based on “doctrine,” he provides
no “doctrine” in support of his position that Sedevacantist Masses are less
dangerous than Resistance Masses. Rather, he makes a stunning admission in the
interview, that his spiritual counsel to souls on the question of which
traditional Mass one can attend is often not based on doctrine but “political
reasons.” In Fr. Robinson’s own words:
Fr.
Robinson:
“There’s other situations where, you know, just for what we might call political
reasons, I wouldn’t want to commit on saying something like, if someone
asked me, they are going to Nebraska, and the FSSP [Fraternity of St. Peter] is
there, Father, should I go to that Mass?…
Rather than explaining why a Catholic
should or should not attend an FSSP Mass on doctrinal or canonical grounds, Fr.
Robinson referred to the political landscape of the SSPX and FSSP, how “the
Society of St. Pius X and the FSSP have a history,” that priests who formed the
FSSP in 1988 “betrayed” Archbishop Lefebvre, how they “continue to speak
against” the SSPX, and thus hold a “compromised” position.
Fr. Robinson’s characterization of the
FSSP along with his admission of “political” motivations for his spiritual
advice are unfortunate, to say the least. While Fr. Robinson is entitled to
give his theological opinions, it does not seem proper for him, or any priest
for that matter, to give spiritual counsel about where to attend Mass based on
what he calls “political reasons.” If Fr. Robinson believes, on doctrinal
grounds, that the FSSP would be a danger to souls, he should not convolute the
discussion by making reference to “political reasons.” After all, Fr. Robinson
interjected that the question of which Mass to attend “is about saving souls.” Rather,
he should spell out the doctrinal or canonical grounds that form the basis of
his objection, which he did not do in this case, other than say the FSSP is
“compromised” for “betraying” Archbishop Lefebvre. None of this is truly helpful to the faithful.
Perhaps Fr. Robinson is simply being
honest here and admitting that there are no doctrinal or canonical grounds
(only political ones) for objecting to assisting at FSSP Masses, especially
when the FSSP has a canonical mission from the Church and hence offers licit
sacraments, while the same cannot be said for either the SSPX, the Resistance
or the Sedevacantist clergy. Indeed, at the end of the discussion on the FSSP,
Fr. Robinson concedes there are no doctrinal objections to assisting at FSSP
Masses because he ultimately tells the faithful: “I’m going to leave that for
you to decide.” Of course, if the FSSP posed a danger to souls, Fr. Robinson
would not “leave it to the faithful to decide” whether to attend their Masses;
he would advise them not to do so and explain why (or commit a grave sin of
omission).
The Apparent Position of the SSPX:
All Canonically-Approved Traditional
Masses
Leave Room for Doubt
And that might be the second biggest problem
with Fr. Robinson’s interview – he casts a cloud of suspicion and doubt upon
all Church-approved traditional Masses, including those offered by the FSSP
and ICK[9]. But he provides no general
principles that seek to resolve the question of whether Catholics can attend
them. Rather, in a very confusing, if not deceptive way, he chalks up the
attendance question to the “practical details” and the “specific context” of cases,
which evidently can only be definitively judged by an SSPX priest once he knows
all the facts (at least that is the impression he gives). Until then, Fr.
Robinson leaves the faithful with lingering doubts about whether to attend
Church-approved traditional Masses, and shouldering the burden to resolve the
question on their own.
Clearly, Fr. Robinson has no doctrinal
or canonical basis for his objection or hesitation with FSSP Masses, at least none
that he was willing to commit to explaining and defending. Again, he
articulates no general principle that applies to the FSSP or ICK as a whole
that would provide grounds for his reservations (other than the fact that they
are not SSPX). He even admits the FSSP and ICK are in “a much more normal
ecclesiastical situation” (More normal? Than those of the SSPX and their
Resistance and Sedevacantist offshoots, which have no canonical mission and,
ironically, all sprung from Archbishop Lefebvre?). And that means Fr. Robinson
has no basis to question them at all.
Because
there are no doctrinal reasons for favoring a Sedevacantist Mass over a
Resistance Mass, or an illicit Mass over a canonically-approved Mass, all this
gives the impression that Fr. Robinson and the SSPX are indeed being
“political” about this grave question of whether Catholics can attend illicit
traditional Masses. But that would be playing fast and loose with people’s
souls. Perhaps because the Resistance is more of a threat to the SSPX
than Sedevacantist chapels in terms of recruiting SSPX Mass attendees,
the SSPX is telling their adherents that the Resistance poses a greater danger,
to keep them in their ranks. This would indeed be a “political reason,” using
Fr. Robinson’s words. The same argument would be applicable to the FSSP and ICK,
who pose a greater threat of recruiting SSPX laity than do the Sedevacantists.
While Fr. Robinson claimed the SSPX’s
position “it’s not about getting our numbers up and getting more money in the
collection plate” (with a caption in the video that says “IT’S NOT A
COMPETITION THING”), that is precisely the impression he gave. Whatever the
case may be, there are no doctrinal or canonical reasons supporting the SSPX’s
position on Sedevacantist vs. Resistance Masses and illegal vs. canonically
approved Masses, and certainly none that Fr. Robinson attempted to explain.
When raising the question of whether
Catholics can attend FSSP and ICK Masses, Fr. Robinson was careful to hedge his
position by admitting, on the one hand, that if he tells people not to attend
the FSSP or ICK, it would be a “schismatic mentality,” and, on the other hand, and
in the same breath, questioning the prudence of attending their approved Masses
(which will have the same effect as telling them not to attend
their Masses, for those who look to Fr. Robinson and the SSPX for advice). In
fact, this attitude does evince a schismatic mentality, because it casts doubt
about whether Catholics can attend Church-approved traditional Masses and
worship with those subject to the Pope and the local bishop. Fr. Robinson
confirms this when he concludes that there is still a “problem” (with Church-approved
traditional Masses) and “there is a difference between the Society and the
Fraternity…in fact, there is a real difference.”
Of course, that “real difference,” as we
have said, is that the FSSP and ICK have a canonical mission from the Church
and offer licit traditional Masses while the SSPX does not, and the Church has
always taught that participating in illicit Masses is sinful and sacrilegious.
The real question for traditionalists is not whether they can attend non-SSPX
traditional Masses, but whether Catholics are fulfilling their Sunday
obligations (which is a strict legal obligation under pain of mortal sin) by
assisting at non-canonically approved Masses (SSPX, Resistance, Sedevacantist) or
whether they are committing grave sin and sacrilege by assisting at such
Masses. The SSPX would do well to address these topics in their Crisis Series
of podcasts.
[1] For example, Cardinal
Billot wrote: “This introduction shows, first, that legitimate dispensation of
the sacraments can only come from the Catholic Church, so that anyone who does
not have a mission from her, by that very fact administers illicitly,
and anyone who by receiving the sacrament communicates with the sin of the
minister receives sacrilegiously.”; “But the
sacraments are the property of Christ. Hence they can be legitimately dispensed
only by those who have a mission from Christ, i.e. those to whom the
apostolic mission has been transmitted.” Billot on Sacraments and Mission,
https://archive.org/details
/DeMembris Ecclesiae.
[2]
Based
on Fr. Mauro Tranquillo’s recent interview (Episode 34, Crisis Series),
it appears that the SSPX holds the erroneous position that all priests,
including Sedevacantist priests, receive supplied jurisdiction for confessions
due to “the state of necessity.” I address this error in detail in my article Do
Sedevacantist and “Independent” Priests Receive Supplied Jurisdiction for
Confessions? John Salza Responds to Fr. Tranquillo, SSPX, August 2021.
[3]
Fr.
Robinson’s position stems from a deeper error concerning sacramental intention
which started with Archbishop Lefebvre and has been promoted by the SSPX for
decades and which we will address in an upcoming article.
[4]
“Whoever would deny that a particular man is Pope after he has been peacefully
and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic;
for, not only would he rend the unity of the Church… but he would also add to
this a perverse doctrine, by denying that the man accepted by the Church is to
be regarded as the Pope and the rule of faith. Pertinent here is the teaching
of St. Jerome (Commentary on Titus, chapter 3) and of St. Thomas (IIa IIae Q.
39 A. 1 ad 3), that every schism concocts some heresy for itself, in order to
justify its withdrawal from the Church.
Thus, although schism is distinct from heresy, in most cases it is
accompanied by the latter, and prepares the way for it. In the case at hand,
whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure schismatic,
but also a heretic, as Suarez also reckons [above, in the solution to the
fourth objection]” (John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologicus II-II,
Tome, Questions 1-7 on Faith.
Disputation 8, A. 2).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Billot,
Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol.
I, Q. 7: “On the Members of the Church.”
[8] John
of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologici II-II,
Tome, Q. 1-7 on Faith, Disp. 8, Art. 2.
[9] ICK
refers to the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, which is a Society
of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right.
