John Salza vs. SSPX Priest
on the Schismatic Consecrations
December A.D. 2024
In
November 2024, John Salza and Robert Siscoe were beneficiaries of a slew of
emails from a layman who attempted to defend the position of the SSPX, with
banal arguments we have already refuted in our many articles since 2020. In his
email campaign, the layman copied an SSPX priest (we shall keep him anonymous)
who is considered one of the Society’s top theologians (and who endorsed our
book True or False Pope?). During the exchange, the SSPX priest,
presumably to “save face” due to the embarrassing efforts of the layman, jumped
in to offer his own defense, specifically on the merits of the 1988
consecrations. In doing so, he attempted to take on Mr. Salza.
While
the exchange was brief, we believe it is fruitful to publish, because it
highlights the Society’s fundamental errors (and, perhaps, abject ignorance) on
key issues concerning the nature of the Church and the divine rights of the
Roman Primacy, most especially the divinely revealed truth that the right to
select, consecrate, and send bishops belongs to the Pope alone (a right that
the Savior exclusively conferred upon St. Peter and his successors, and which
Abp. Lefebvre and his bishops have usurped).
This is why it is never
permissible, and always a violation of divine law (and intrinsically
schismatic), to consecrate bishops against the will and prohibition of the Holy
Father, who is the visible rock of unity in the Church. As we have demonstrated
in other articles, there is no “necessity” exception which justifies the
usurpation of a right that belongs to the Pope alone. Otherwise, one would be
saying (which is what the SSPX effectively does) that the Church can no longer
fulfill Christ’s mission, except by the ”necessity” of consecrating bishops
against the will of the Vicar of Christ who has been entrusted with the mission
above all. This, of course, would mean that the Church has defected (and could
only be saved by a schismatic act).
These errors concerning the usurpation of a right of the Roman Primacy are most telling, especially because they come from the “top brass” of the Society of St. Pius X, as shown in this exchange. Among them are the following (and which are the same errors the SSPX has been making since 1988):
·
The
SSPX makes our position a matter of ecclesiastical or canon law, when in
reality the Pope’s exclusive right to consecrate bishops is a matter of divine
law. Church law is not relevant to our position.
·
The
SSPX fails to distinguish between consecrating a bishop without a Pontifical
Mandate (which is not necessarily schismatic) and consecrating a bishop
contrary to the will and canonical warning of the Holy Father (which is always
schismatic).
·
The
SSPX claims that there is a “necessity” exception to the divinely revealed
truth that the Pope alone has the right to consecrate, as well as to prohibit
the consecration of, bishops (because they fail to understand that this right
itself is a matter of divine law). When pressed for Magisterial teaching in
support of their position, the SSPX provides none (because none exist).
·
The
SSPX, in claiming a “necessity” to consecrate bishops against the will of the
Pope and set up rival altars against true Catholic bishops, effectively argues
that the Church has failed in her mission and defected.
·
The
SSPX, in failing to recognize the divine rights of the Roman Primacy, appeal to
the events of Assisi and the Koran kissing to justify their attack on the Roman
Primacy, as if appealing to alleged violations of divine law justifies
violating divine law.
· The SSPX claims that violating divine law allows for the preservation and transmission of what they call Tradition.
Please keep the foregoing errors in mind as you read this exchange.
SSPX Priest: It seems to me that the root error of Mr Salza's position is to confuse "canonical status" and "membership in the Church", at least for members of the clergy. This is because of a very legalist/univocal understanding of theology, as if Canon Law was equivalent to Divine Law, when it is only a practical application and determination of it.
[JS Note: Here the SSPX priest reveals his error that the Pope’s right to choose or approve bishops is only a matter of ecclesiastical law, and not divine law. He persists in this error throughout the exchange].
St Thomas Aquinas very well explains that human laws (including Canon Law, which is "ecclesiastical" law, i.e. laws made by members of the Church's hierarchy) fail to grasp all the possible practical situation, and therefore cannot be applied blindly, ignoring the practical situation. It is good in most situation, but in special cases, one ought to have recourse to the principles of the Law, rather than their application. Sometimes even one may depart from a practical application in order to remain faithful to the principles of the law, where the practical application would be wrong.
[JS Note: None of this talk of ecclesiastical law is relevant to our position, that is, the position of the Catholic Church. It is a mere smoke screen. Moreover, the Church does not teach that there may be “practical applications” which would allow the circumvention of divine law, here, as it relates to the Roman Primacy and Apostolic Succession. The divine law foresees all things, including states of “necessity.”]
One obvious example of that is the duty to drive on the proper side of the road (right side in the USA, left side in England...): but if there is a wounded person lying on that side of the road, one should drive carefully on the other side, rather than run over the wounded person! (then get medical help as soon as possible...)
[JS Note: In this analogy, the SSPX priest confuses rights with duties. As applied here, it is the divine and exclusive right of the Pope alone to choose and consecrate bishops (and to prohibit the consecration of bishops), and it is the SSPX’s duty to obey the Pope in this regard, as a matter of divine law. The priest also continues to falsely assert that choosing bishops is merely a matter of ecclesiastical law (which side of the road you drive on).]
Similarly in the Church, the law used to bid all the faithful to fulfil their Easter duty in their own parish church. This is a good law; yet, evidently if the local priest is a wolf in shepherd's clothing, the good faithful is entitled to go to another Mass where the priest is a good shepherd, and will provide proper food for his soul rather than the poison of modernism. Now in the New Canon Law, this law is no longer. But the example remains valid.
[JS Note: Again, the SSPX priest, in focusing on ecclesiastical law, fails to comprehend that the 1988 consecrations were a violation of divine law. He also assumes there is a right and duty to usurp the office of the Roman Pontiff if he believes the Pope is “a wolf in shepherd’s clothing.” He also makes the blanket statement that the 1983 Code of Canon Law no longer nourishes souls, which would also mean that the Church has defected in her mission.]
We accept all the teachings of the Church concerning the Supreme Pontiff, etc.,
[JS Note: This is clearly not true; the SSPX rejects the doctrinal teachings of both the Extraordinary (e.g, Trent) and Ordinary (e.g., Charitas, Quartus Supra, Etsi Multa, Ad Apostolorum Principis) Magisterium that the Pope alone has the right to select, consecrate and send bishops, among many other things (Collegiality is another example; the SSPX rejects the truth that the bishops, as members of the College, collectively share in the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope, even claiming this truth is a heresy.]
…anti-SSPX quote (forgetting their context), but we simply say that they apply these laws and principles in a wrong manner, because they do not analyse properly the current situation.
[JS Note: It is actually the SSPX that “applies these laws in the wrong manner,” because the right to choose bishops belongs to the Pope alone as a matter of divine law, and not ecclesiastical law as this priest falsely claims].
They refuse to see Assisi, Synodality, and so many other obvious scandals (and novelties in teaching: religious liberty, etc.) As if no matter what the Pope does, one should ALWAYS without exception follow him. Some Popes are in Hell - and no one says that they should be followed.
[JS Note: We do not “fail to see”Assisi, Synodality, and the rest of the scandals. We have also advocated for the Recognize & Resist position, properly understood, for many years (we devote an entire chapter to this in our book). Thus, we do not follow the Pope (i.e., pray with pagans) if it would cause us to sin. However, we are bound to follow the Pope when he exercises a right of the Primacy, here, in choosing to determine who is a bishop and who is not, which is a matter of divine law and within the scope of his divine authority. The SSPX fails to recognize this truth.]
Now, to apply this to the SSPX situation is very simple. In two
points:
1/ that our canonical situation is not what a "normal" situation should be ("normal" taken in the sense of conformity with the norm), we all acknowledge - but the fault is NOT OURS: no one deserves sanctions for doing one's duty, and keeping Tradition and passing on Tradition is the duty of every member of the clergy. Though we should not refuse to work for the correction of this deficient situation, yet we are not to be blamed for it.
[JS Note: The priest does not understand that “conformity with the norm” means conformity with divine law. The SSPX claims they were “keeping Tradition” by rejecting Tradition, here, a divine right of the Roman Primacy. Like little children, they blame their Father for their crimes.]
2/ It is also obvious that if Archbishop Lefebvre and other traditional priests in the 1970s had simply kept the Traditional Mass for themselves and refused to come to the help of the faithful who were begging for it, they would never have been threatened and opposed by the Modernists who had taken positions of authority in the Church. Some say that these good priests (and bishop) should have "relied on Divine Providence" that would have provided for the continuation of the Traditional Mass through other ways - and then these priests would not have come to the rescue of the faithful who were pleading with them to help them. This is very much like if someone would have said to the Good Samaritan "to take care of his own business" since he was in a foreign country (the road from Jerusalem to Jericho is not in Samaria) and had no "mission" to intervene, under the pretext that he should rely of Divine Providence Who had other means to come and help the wounded man!
[JS Note: The SSPX engages in revisionist history to justify its rebellion. After 13 years of Lefebvre’s explicit withdrawal of submission to the Holy Father (during which time Lefebvre continued to ordain priests against the will of the Pope and send them into dioceses against the will of the bishops), Pope John Paul II was still willing to give Lefebvre a bishop for consecration, to which Lefebvre initially agreed, and then backed out. It was the Pope who was the “Good Samaritan,” who attempted to “intervene” to save the SSPX from schism. It was Lefebvre who was the robber, who took something (the act of consecrating bishops) that was not his.]
Such an advice is very clearly against the lesson our Lord Jesus Christ Himself wanted us to learn from His parabola: we should be willing to get out of our way to help others in need - even at the danger of being hit by ecclesiastical "sanctions", which are not valid, because not in conformity with the superior Law, the Law of God, which is the Law of Charity.
[JS Note: Again, this is more evidence of the SSPX’s failure to understand that their act of usurping an exclusive right of the Pope was against “the superior Law,” the divine law on the rights of the Roman Primacy.]
May our Lady, Guardian of the Faith, help all of us to remain faithful, because this is what is required: "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful."
[JS Note: The SSPX ministers are not ministers of Christ, because they have no juridical mission from the Vicar of Christ; they have stolen their ordinations and the sacraments, and they teach errors and heresies. This statement underscores the SSPX’s failure to understand the nature of the Church, which they think is composed of those who dispense and receive the sacraments in the traditional rites, without regard to whether the bishops have juridical mission, whether the priests are incardinated, and whether anyone is subject to the divine government of the Church (a requirement of divine law) by being in subjection to their local bishop.]
Salza Reply: I will make this simple for everyone. Consecrating a bishop against the will of the Holy Father is necessarily a schismatic act, because it violates divine law and the Petrine office which is the source of unity in the Church. It is a usurpation of a right of the Primacy which belongs to the Pope alone. This is the constant, 2,000 year old teaching of the Church as I prove in my article against Fr. Gleize.
You are convoluting the issue by raising matters of "ecclesiastical law" and "Church membership," which are not relevant to the main issue, which is a usurpation of the right of the Primacy that is contrary to divine law.
SSPX Priest: Dear John,
I pray that this mail finds you in good dispositions, not attachment to self-ideas, but real love for the objective truth. If your first sentence were true, then the Church would have erred for more than 1900 years, until Pope Pius XII put the excommunication for a bishop consecrating without papal mandate: before that, a bishop doing such a consecration was not outside the Church, just within the church under a mere suspense (CIC 2370), or perhaps under none if he acted in a case of necessity. Hence it could not have been an intrinsically schismatic act.
[JS Note: The priest’s argument explicitly reveals the
SSPX’s following errors:
(1) Error #1: The Pope’s right to consecrate bishops is solely a matter of ecclesiastical law.
(2) Error #2: The failure to distinguish between consecrating a bishop without a Pontifical Mandate versus consecrating against the will and canonical warning of the Holy Father.
(3) Error #3: An alleged case of “necessity” allows one to violate divine law by usurping a right of the Roman Primacy.]
EVEN IN THE 1983 CANON LAW, the consecration of a bishop without mandate is a delict not in the “titulus I = delict against religion and Church unity”, but in the “titulus III = usurpation of ecclesiastic office or in their exercise”; now schism is in the first “titulus”, not in the third. That itself makes it very plain and manifest: it is not intrinsically a schismatic act.
[JS Note: The priest continues to manifest his error by failing to distinguish between consecrating without Pontifical Mandate and consecrating contrary to the warning of the Supreme Pontiff. He also fails to see that, in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, Pope John Paul II declared that Lefebvre not only excommunicated himself for consecrating without the Mandate (ecclesiastical law), but also for an act of schism by an “attack on the Roman Primacy” (divine law), which is a “titulus I – delict against religion and Church unity.” The priest’s opinion is expressly rejected by the explicit declarations of the Pope himself.]
It seems that you WANT it to be a schismatic act, because it makes your argument easier. But it is not so.
You confuse “Papal mandate” and Ecclesiastical Communion.
The “mandate” given by the Pope for the consecration of a bishop is just ONE OF MANY historical ways to transmit the episcopacy. There was no such mandate for hundreds of years. When a bishop died, his successor was chosen locally, following different methods in different places. And after, what was from the beginning is the “letters of communion”, which is quite different; it means the recognition of the authority of the Pope and the will to be united with the universal Church – and Archbishop Lefebvre did both, and the SSPX continues to do both. Normally, there is the mutual recognition, but in our case the problem is not on our side, but rather on the side of the Pope of Assisi, who found himself unable to recognise those who denounced that scandal…
[JS Note: Again, this is more proof that the SSPX errs in believing the right of the Pope to determine bishops is solely a matter of ecclesiastical law. We are well aware of the many historical ways in which the episcopacy has been transmitted throughout the centuries. And none of those ways included selecting, consecrating and sending bishops contrary to the express prohibition of the Supreme Pontiff. While many episcopal consecrations were given only the tacit approval of the Pope, none were ever recognized by the Holy See which had been done contrary to a canonical warning by the Pope. Further, all legitimate episcopal consecrations throughout history conferred title and office to the bishop, unlike the SSPX and other schismatic consecrations which conferred no title or office, but were only done to carry on sacramental functions – an idea that is totally contrary to the very nature of the episcopate.]
I pray for you, to cease your campaign against the SSPX: it does not edify.
Salza Reply: Dear Fr. XXX
Peace be with you. I am only in this for the truth, to defend Holy Mother Church.
There is a distinction between consecrating a bishop without Pontifical Mandate and consecrating a bishop contrary to the express will (and canonical warning) of the Holy Father. You have failed to make that distinction. I am very aware of how the Church has carried out episcopal consecrations over the centuries, particularly in the East, where patriarchs made their own appointments, but always with the tacit approval of the Holy Father (and never against his will).
You have failed to recognize this distinction; that the right to nominate, select, consecrate and send bishops belongs to the Pope alone, according to divine law. Popes have tacitly or expressly approved nomination processes over the centuries, and certainly delegate the act of consecration to other bishops.
But a bishop can never consecrate another bishop against the will of the Holy Father. There is never a justification to usurp a divine right of the Primacy on the grounds of "necessity." If that were the case, the Church would have defected by failing in her mission. Even Fr. Gleize admits that usurping a right that belongs to the Pope alone is necessarily a schismatic act. He just hasn't put two and two together.
No, I don't "want" the consecrations to be schismatic. Rather, the Supreme Authority of the Church has declared them to be schismatic. That is how I know they are. Moreover, the priests who left the SSPX to form the Fraternity provided Abp. Lefebvre their extensive study which explained this right of the Roman Primacy is divinely revealed, the usurpation of which would necessarily be schismatic, according to the constant teaching of the Church. This is not a question of papal mandates under ecclesiastical law, but rather the divine law itself. Hence, your reply is misguided.
SSPX Priest: Dear Mr Salza,
When one prays “for the intentions of the Pope” in order to obtain indulgences, one prays for the good of the Church, for the propagation of the Faith, for the extirpation of heresies, etc. even if the Pope never made an act of the will to intend these goods! And today, I do not think he makes many acts of the will “for the extirpation of heresies”: is that goal no longer part of “the intentions of the Pope”?
This should help you to realise that to be against the actual will of the Pope is not the same as to be against the “good will” of the Pope! Some Saints explicitly refused to do what the Pope was telling them (e.g. St Louis king of France refuse to support the Pope in some of his conflicts with the emperor of Germany): that never meant that they were “against the Pope” as such, but rather against the man, who happened to be Pope but behaved not in a manner fitting for the Pope.
[JS Note: This argument is bizarre. The priest claims that violating a divine right that Christ exclusively conferred upon St. Peter and his successors for the perpetuation of the Church is compatible with the “good will” of the Vicar of Christ, even if it is not in accord with his actual will (and canonical warning). In other words, the priest claims that the SSPX was truly obeying the Pope by disobeying him, even though the Pope was acting within the scope of his divinely-appointed authority. Indeed, like all schismatics, the SSPX puts itself above the divine rights of the Roman Primacy and makes itself the judge of whether the “Pope behaves in a manner fitting for the Pope” (as if that has anything to do with the right to consecrate bishops)].
Keeping this important distinction in mind, and go back to the situation of 1988: the choice was between one who worked in order to continue the Tradition of the Church, tradition of Doctrine and tradition of Liturgy, the transmission of which was severely endangered by acts of the pope such as Assisi (and MANY other acts of the Popes since Vatican II), and one who did Assisi and visited a Lutheran Church and (later) kissed the Koran, etc, etc, etc. In such a context, it is not surprising that the continuation of Tradition was somehow “against the will of the Pope”, but it was not against his “good will”, what will he should have!
[JS Note: Here is an example of the fallacy of red herring, which introduces false information to distract from the real issue. As applied here, the SSPX priest introduces the issues of Assisi, the Koran, Lutheran churches, etc. to distract from the real issue, which is the Society’s usurpation of a right that belongs exclusively to the Pope, without regard to whether the Pope is good or bad, or caused scandal, etc. The Church does not teach that one can misappropriate such a divine right on the grounds that he thinks the Pope is not doing a good job. Moreover, as we have proven in many articles, the Society has not “continued the Tradition of doctrine” within the Church, but rather teaches all kinds of errors on ecclesiology, jurisdiction, sacramental intention, etc. Finally, the SSPX strongly implies that Catholics could not save their souls without the 1962 Missal, which would be an attack on the Church’s divine attribute of indefectibility.]
God will judge that at the end of the world, and I am confident that FIDELITY to what the Church has always taught and done, including the transmission of that doctrine and practice, will not be condemned by our Divine Saviour – even if it was temporarily condemned by his vicar, the next one lifting that up.
[JS Note: We might ask the SSPX priest if that “transmission of doctrine” and “fidelity to what the Church has always taught and done” include claiming that “jurisdiction comes from the people,” or setting up a rival “canonical” tribunal which allegedly gives true ecclesiastical verdicts without the approval of the bishops or Holy See, or teaching that the Primacy is the same thing as Supreme Authority, or claiming that the priest must intend the sacramental effect in order for the sacrament to be valid, or that supplied jurisdiction applies to non-Catholic chapels full of people who know their priests don’t have habitual jurisdiction. Are these things what the Church has always taught and believed? The SSPX priest does not realize that his sect does not transmit true doctrine, but rather all kinds of perverse errors.]
The “will of the Pope” does not make good and evil. St Augustine explicitly teaches, speaking of the Law of God, that “Non sane ideo malum est, quia vetatur lege; sed ideo vetatur lege, quia malum est.”
The same should apply to the law of the Church, to commands of the Pope. Our Lord Himself told Peter: “et tu CONVERSUS confirma fratres tuos”, in other words, first be converted, and only then will you be in a position to confirm your brethren. Tell me when did John Paul II make amends for the scandal of Assisi: putting the true religion on the same footing as all kinds of false religions (omnes dii gentium daemonia).
[JS
Note: According to the SSPX priest, the Pope forfeits his divine
right to determine bishops if he thinks the Pope has not properly “confirmed
his brethren.” Of course, if that were true, then all the other schismatic
consecrations throughout Church history, and especially the most recent
Sedevacantist and Resistance consecrations, were justified, since they too use
the same arguments against the conciliar Popes as does the SSPX.]
Salza Reply: Fr. XXX, your subjective assessments about the Pope's will are not relevant to the divine truth that consecrating a bishop contrary to the Pope's express and canonical prohibition is a usurpation of a right of the Primacy. You seek only to justify the usurpation, which reveals, in plain view, that you have no argument, since there is never a justification to consecrate a bishop contrary to the will of the Pope in order to continue the mission of the Church (no matter what your subjective assessments about the Pope's will or the crisis may be).
Otherwise, the Church would have defected in her mission. Using your logic, all the other schismatic consecrations throughout history would have been justified, since they all (e.g., the Old Catholics) made the same arguments as you. But as the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts declared, there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of 'serving' the Church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.”[1]
[1] Nota sulla scommunica per scisma in cui incorrono gli aderenti al movimento del Vescovo Marcel Lefebvre, allegato al Prot. N. Protocol 5233/9624 August 1996, Communicationes, 29(2) [1997].
__________________________________
SSPX Priest: Dear Mr Salza,
I have trust in God’s judgement, more than in yours. There will be some surprised at the Last Day!
Salza Reply: Fr. XXX, you are bound to trust the Pope's judgment, not mine. Pope John Paul II has judged the matter consistent with all the Popes throughout history. I submit to the Vicar of Christ and my local bishop.
You are bound to do the same. There will be no surprise on the Last Day for those who know this but refuse.
SSPX Priest: Dear Mr Salza,
Peter denied Christ three times. I am not bound to follow him when he does so. John Paul II did the scandalous meeting of Assisi (plus many other scandalous ecumenical actions, such as kissing the Koran). I am not bound to follow him in his judgements on such matters. Such judgements of his were certainly not “consistent with all the Popes throughout history.” Please be honest! Which Pope did an Assisi meeting before him? It was explicitly condemned at the end of the 19th century (Chicago) and again in the late 1940s.And confronted with such a Pope, those actions which were influenced by such judgements as Assisi are flawed in their principle: that includes his condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre.
[JS Note: Notice, again, the red herring. Because of Assisi and the Koran kissing (as scandalous as they were), the SSPX now gets a suppletory right to usurp a power of the Roman Primacy. Do the various competing Sedevacantist sects also get the same right? What about the Resistance bishops, who oppose the Sedevacantists and the SSPX? Do they also get the same right? Of course, the entire teaching tradition of the Church rejects this position. If not, then the schismatics of yesterday (e.g, Donatists, Fratricelli) and today (e.g., Old Catholics, Sedevacantists) were all justified in their attacks on the Roman Primacy as well.]
Our Lord did not say simpliciter “confirma fratres tuos”, but
rather “et tu CONVERSUS confirma fratres tuos.”
We ought to obey God rather than men, including the Pope when he
acts as successor of Peter denying Christ at Assisi.
We follow all the faithful Popes and continue their doctrines, not the novelties of Vatican II.
[JS Note: Again, the SSPX priest conspicuously avoids addressing the issue of the divine rights of the Roman Primacy and diverts the discussion to Assisi and the need for the Pope to “convert.” This is not only evidence that he is unable to defend his position, but also a symptom of one who does not know what the Catholic Church is. He also continues to repeat the mantra that the Society teaches faithful doctrine and not the novelties of Vatican II (as if that is relevant to the Pope’s right to select and consecrate bishops).]
There are blinds that follow the blind: BOTH fall into the pit. Be careful and open your eyes before it is too late.
Salza Reply: Fr. XXX, one's subjective assessment of whether the Pope has erred in other matters does not give one the right to usurp a divine right of the Roman Primacy concerning the consecration of bishops. Otherwise, all the other schismatic consecrations were justified as well. Your argument is the same as that of the Old Catholics, and yet you would still call them schismatics, and you are just as separated from the Church as they are (your bishops have no title, office or ordinary jurisdiction; your priests are not incardinated, just like the Old Catholics).
It is quite telling that you don't see your inconsistency. John Paul II's error at Assisi does not give the SSPX some suppletory right to consecrate bishops against the will of the Pope and set up shop around the world, separated from the divine government of the Church, even erecting its own "canonical" tribunal. To claim the same is completely foreign to Catholic teaching.
Moreover, the SSPX does not teach Catholic Tradition. To the contrary, the SSPX promotes all kinds of theological errors, particularly in ecclesiology, most notably its complete misunderstanding of the doctrine of Collegiality, which Robert and I have demonstrated in our articles. Your rule is not Tradition, but rather Abp. Lefebvre (and his many errors on the Primacy, Collegiality, sacramental intention, jurisdiction, and others which we have already addressed).
You have added nothing new to this exchange. Your argument is the same as that of the Old Catholics (who also mention Pope Francis in the canon of the Mass). They rejected Vatican I and consecrated bishops against the will of the Pope; the SSPX rejected Vatican II and consecrated bishops against the will of the Pope.
SSPX Priest: Dear Mr Salza,
It is not a “subjective” assessment, but rather a very objective scandal for the faith of millions that was given at Assisi. This is the hard truth that many have difficulty to acknowledge. It is beyond doubt that if Archbishop Lefebvre had been Pope and if even as Cardinal Wojtyla would have done the Assisi meeting, he would have been most severely and justly condemned. Does it become good just because he is Pope, and would have been wrong just because he would have been just a Cardinal???
[JS Note: Again, for this SSPX priest, Assisi justifies the intrinsically schismatic act of consecrating a bishop against the express prohibition of the Supreme Pontiff. For this priest, a violation of one divine law (a scandalous but isolated event) justifies the violation of another (which concerns the very transmission of Apostolic succession over generations). For the SSPX, due to the scandal of Assisi, if it weren’t for their schismatic act, the Church could not fulfill her mission of saving souls. Of course, this argument is fallacious, because two wrongs don’t make a right, and most especially because the Catholic Church is indefectible, and does not need schismatic acts to preserve her indefectibility, even when a Pope causes scandal.]
Similarly, what Archbishop Lefebvre did – consecrating bishops in a most traditional manner and for a most important purpose, i.e. to keep and pass on Tradition integrally – all that is perfectly Catholic (before considering the mandate): does it just become bad because the Pope does not like it, and would it be good just in case the Pope would have approved it?
[JS Note: Consecrating bishops against the express will and canonical warning of the Supreme Pontiff is not “consecrating bishops in a most traditional manner,” but rather in the most schismatic manner, according to the totality of Church history, which has always held such acts to be a violation of divine law. Just as Christ alone chose and sent his Apostles, so the Vicar of Christ alone chooses and sends the successors of the Apostles.]
The Pope is not the MAKER of good and evil! His will is not the rule, but only the Divine Wisdom. Assisi had put the Church in a very difficult situation, and it is useless to do like ostriches, put one’s head in the sand.
[JS Note: The Pope is not the maker of good just as he is not the maker of the Papacy and the divine prerogatives which are attached to that office. Our Lord Jesus Christ is. The SSPX has violated the will of Christ by violating the divine rights He bestowed upon the Vicar of Christ.]
With the advent of Pope Francis and the scandals he has added, by supporting priests such as Fr Martin SJ, and others, one would have hoped that conservative Catholics who want to keep the faith, would have opened their eyes to the fact that sometimes, it is necessary to say with St Paul to Peter: “you are not walking uprightly according to the Gospel!”
The same St Paul warns that there would be wolves from among the bishops. Are you going to follow the wolves just because they are bishops or Popes? Good luck! This is not the will of God. It is rather the Will of God that those who keep the Faith have the courage to profess it - even if that leads to their being killed. And that is what happened to Archbishop Lefebvre, and the SSPX, killed not with bullets but with (invalid) ecclesiastical sanctions.
[JS Note: Like all schismatics throughout history, the SSPX claims that its actions were done to “fulfill the will of God,” to save the Church and the hierarchy and to “keep the Faith.” If that were true, then every other schismatic consecration in Church history would also have been justified, and the unity of the Roman Primacy would mean nothing. Indeed, there would be no unity. There would be no One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church.]
Our hope is in the name of the Lord. Amen.
Salza Reply: Father, an objective scandal does not give a cleric the right to violate divine law (usurping a right that belongs to the Pope alone; consecrating and sending bishops against the will of the Pope is condemned by Trent and the 2,000 year-old Magisterium). Two wrongs don't make a right, as they say, especially when it violates divine law.
Again, with due respect, you have offered nothing new to this discussion. Your arguments are the same as those who performed their schismatic consecrations throughout Church history, from the Fratricelli, to the Old Catholics, to the Sedevacantists of our time.
If you disagree, then please show us where the Magisterium agrees with you; that it has qualified its condemnations of consecrations against the will of the Pope when the parties to the consecration believe (rightly or wrongly) that an objective crisis justifies their actions. Please cite the Magisterial teaching on this specific question which supports your position.
SSPX Priest: Dear Mr Salza,
That “law” is not the way you say it is. There is need of precisions which you do not put, which precisions are included (though not explicitly) in the documents that are presented from the past Magisterium. This is typical of “ordinary magisterium” that usually does not have all the precision of the extraordinary magisterium.
[JS Note: The SSPX priest, quite incredibly, without citing any authority, claims that the Ordinary Magisterium teaches that one can attack the Roman Primacy if he believes he is justified, even though both the OUM and the Extraordinary Magisterium teach exactly the opposite (and the priest cites no authority for his assertion, because there is none). He then goes on, like a Protestant, to quote Scripture which he uses to further justify the schismatic act, pitting Scripture against divine law.]
To put it in one word, the simplest, and the surest: St Paul says that he received his authority “unto edification and not unto destruction”. The way the Pope used those texts that are given, was “unto edification.” The way you want to use it is “unto destruction.”
You do not appreciate enough the “masterstroke of Satan, which is to lead in the name of obedience to disobedience to the whole of Tradition.”
The root of the error is to forget our dependence on God. A man’s authority cannot be considered apart from God, even the Pope’s. Therefore, no human authority, not even the Pope, is unlimited, is arbitrary. If one uses his authority against the very purpose for which God gave it, it becomes void, the command has no force, no moral force. Even the Pope.
Any other notion of authority leads to the worse dictatures.
May the Blessed Virgin Mary help you see that.
Salza Reply: Fr. XXX, do you really adhere to, in your words, the "precision of the extraordinary Magisterium"?
Okay, here goes:
“If anyone saith that bishops…who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.” Council of Trent [1]
Your "bishops" have not been "rightly ordained" or "sent by ecclesiastical and canonical power."
You expressly reject the Extraordinary Magisterium's condemnation of your position.
You are not interested in the precision of the Extraordinary Magisterium.
Indeed, "man's authority cannot be considered apart from God" and the infallible dogmatic canons issued by the Extraordinary Magisterium which He guides and protects.
Your position is anathema.
May Our Lady help you see that.
SSPX Priest: Dear Mr Salza,
We embrace that Canon, and the whole Council of Trent. But that canon does not apply to us, for reasons which are unfortunately useless to discuss with you because you are not opened to see them.
I pray for you, and that is enough.
Salza Reply: That's exactly what the Old Catholics argued!
Your "reasons" were also "useless" to Blessed Pius IX.
SSPX Priest: Dear Mr Salza,
Give us a Pope like Pope Pius IX and he will the first to approve all what we have done! There is no doubt at all. At the last Judgement, you will see if he does not approve us!
Salza Reply: Fr. XXX, I hope we get another Pius IX as well.
But he would not "approve all what you have done." He condemned the episcopal consecrations of the Old Catholics for rejecting Vatican I, just like he would condemn the consecrations of the SSPX for rejecting Vatican II. But we already know that, because a successor of his did just that, based on the entire tradition of the Church concerning the exclusive rights of the Roman Primacy.
I asked you to provide the Magisterial teaching which supports your position that there is an exception to the Church's condemnation of bishops who were not rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical power, and you have provided none. Not one.
We all know why. Because there is none. There are no exceptions to usurping a divine right of the Supreme Pontiff. If there was, you and your Society would be citing it - book, chapter, and verse.
Because you initiated this exchange, and have offered nothing new since 1988 (revealing a complete inability to even address, much less prove, your assertions of a "necessity" exception to consecrating bishops against the will of the Supreme Pontiff), this exchange is now complete.
We believe it will be fruitful for the public to read this exchange, which confirms our position on the SSPX. However, we will not disclose your identity.
May God give you the grace to one day be reconciled to the Church. That is my prayer for you and all the priests of the Society. I still hold some of them very dear to my heart. As I said in my first email, I am only in this for the truth.
God be with you.
John Salza
END
