SSPX
Debate
John
Salza Exposes the Grave Errors
of
James Bogle and OnePeterFive
April
A.D. 2026
On March 21, 2026, OnePeterFive published an article by
James Bogle called “The 60-Year Battle for Tradition: A Defence of the SSPX.”
In the article, Mr. Bogle accuses me of having launched an “abusive” and
“erroneous” attack against the SSPX, among other things. He even accuses me of
“papalotry” and triumphantly proclaims that “John Salza couldn’t be more wrong”
about the SSPX.
Mr. Bogle evidently thought he could swim in the complex theological and canonical waters concerning the SSPX, and manufacture a quick hit piece for his simple audience, which accuses me of all kinds of canonical errors, and then declare victory. I am grateful that he did, because his article has backfired on him, revealing his (and OnePeterFive’s) complete incompetence in defending the Society of St. Pius X. In fact, some of his errors are so amateurish, I wonder why he thought he was even qualified to write on this topic. I also question what standards of scholarship Tim Flanders, the editor of OnePeterFive, actually requires to publish articles. Further, I had to laugh at Peter Kwasnieski’s endorsement of Bogle’s article (posted for his paid members only), in which he says: “James Bogle, pugnacious lawyer that he is, mounts a vigorous defense of the Society against the likes of John Salza.” This also shows what kind of “scholar” this Ph.D. philosophy professor really is. Allow me to address some of the low points of this pugnacious lawyer’s article.
Bogle’s Failed Attempt to Poison the Well
Mr. Bogle begins his
article by calling me a “misguided pundit” who operates “from a position of
ignorance about the true beliefs of the SSPX.” Note well that Mr. Bogle is an
attorney like me, and thus, should be accustomed to providing evidence for his assertions.
After all, I have written dozens of articles since 2019 about the SSPX, and
have done countless podcasts explaining their errors. In all my materials, as
anyone can see, I quote extensively from the priests and bishops of the SSPX,
including Abp. Lefebvre (I have all his books), and from the Magisterium of the
Catholic Church. Not even the Society has accused me of misrepresenting their
claims (which is hard to do when you quote them directly).
However, Mr. Bogle does
not provide a shred of evidence of where I am “ignorant of the true beliefs of
the SSPX.” Throughout his entire article, he never quotes me (or refers to any
of my articles), nor does he quote from the SSPX materials upon which I have
made my case. Bogle simply slings mud at the wall, hoping that it will stick. Pretty
sloppy for a lawyer, wouldn’t you say?
Allow me to pose, “from
my position of ignorance” about the SSPX, the following questions to Mr. Boge: Is
Mr. Bogle aware that Abp. Lefebvre taught the heresy that jurisdiction comes
from the faithful? (an error that Bogle appears to have embraced). Is Bogle
aware that the SSPX has falsely accused the Catholic Church of heresy because
it misunderstands her teaching on Collegiality (falsely claiming that Lumen
Gentium teaches episcopal consecration confers actual jurisdiction and also
conflates the Primacy with supreme authority)? Does Bogle know that the SSPX
attacks the post-Vatican II sacraments because it errs in its understanding of
sacramental theology (arguing that the priest must intend the sacramental
effect)? What about the Society’s schismatic “St. Charles Borromeo” tribunal,
which purports to issue declarations of nullity, lift censures and dispense
with religious vows, without the authority of the Church? Many other questions
could be posed which expose the Society’s errors. Who is the one ignorant of
the “true beliefs” of the SSPX, Mr. Bogle or me?
Let me also show just how
confused Bogle is. At the beginning of the article, Bogle boldly claims that
the SSPX “holds fast to Catholic teaching on all issues.” But later in the
article, he says: “I do not agree entirely with all that the SSPX teaches but I
recognise the validity of their stand for the salvation of souls.” Thus, Bogle first says the SSPX holds fast to
all Catholic teaching, and then he says he doesn’t agree with all the SSPX
teaching! So either Bogle rejects Catholic teaching (which he actually does),
or this is a glaring contradiction, and the rest of article proves just how
confused and unread Mr. Bogle is on the matter of the SSPX. Tim Flanders, the
editor of OnePeterFive, should also be embarrassed for publishing this drivel.
Indeed, James Bogle is the real “pundit” who is ignorant of the “true beliefs
of the SSPX” and incapable of presenting a coherent “defence.”
Time and time again, we see these lazy, blanket statements from SSPX apologists, that “the SSPX holds fast to all the teachings of the Church” when these apologists haven’t actually studied the SSPX’s positions and are thus clueless about their errors and heresies. After all, SSPX priests wear cassocks and say the Old Mass, so they must be stewards of tradition, right? (but so do the Old Catholic and Sedevacantist schismatics). Note well that Bogle never quotes the doctrinal positions of the SSPX, while he tries to cover himself with a blanket defense of their theology, which is entirely vacuous and devoid of any scholarship whatsoever.
Exposing Bogle’s Error on Supplied Jurisdiction
Turning toward Mr. Bogle’s attempt to use canon law (which fails on every point), he claims that supplied jurisdiction applies to the SSPX and accuses me of error for arguing the contrary, stating that John Salza “errs in his understanding of their position based upon “supplied jurisdiction” (Ecclesia supplet).” He then says:
“It is applied in situations of
“common error” (where people believe a priest has authority when he hasn’t) or
“positive and probable doubt” regarding a priest’s actual authority, or when
higher authority is unreachable by dint of persecution or geography. However,
it is not limited to such situations, neither, logically, could it be so
limited. If authority is unreachable by dint of error, corruption or heresy,
then jurisdiction can equally be “supplied”.
Mr. Bogle is incorrect. He obviously has not read the
theology manuals on supplied jurisdiction or consulted with any canonists
before firing off his article. He presents broad principles without
understanding them, much less applying them to the facts and circumstances of
the SSPX. The Church does not supply jurisdiction when “people” believe that a
priest has “authority” as Mr. Bogle claims. Rather, the Church supplies
jurisdiction for common error when the Catholic community (which the manuals
describe as the territorial/diocesan parish in which the vagus priest illicitly
operates) would believe the SSPX priest was sent by the local ordinary.[1]
Of course, almost every SSPX adherent knows their priests have not been sent by
the local bishop, and the Society priests themselves admit it! But more
importantly, the crowd at the SSPX chapel is not the Catholic community to
which supplied jurisdiction would apply. Hence, supplied jurisdiction does not
apply to the SSPX.
As
I cite in my August 2021 article on supplied jurisdiction, Fr. Miaskiewicz
explains that “the error must be concerning the habitual power of
jurisdiction of someone.”[2] He
also explains: “That common peril does not exist except when the people of a
community fall into error about some qualification or power which a
priest is believed habitually to possess and which he might use to
their common detriment.”[3]
Miaskiewicz further says: “However,
it must be kept in mind that the law of canon 209 supplies only that
jurisdictional power which the holder of the office would legitimately
exercise, e. g., as canonical pastor or local ordinary.”[4] James Bogle has
failed to understand that the error that the local Catholic community must make
is that their priest has habitual, not supplied, jurisdiction,
and such habitual jurisdiction would obviously only be enjoyed by a legitimate
pastor (that is, an incardinated priest) or the local bishop (with a canonical
mission).
Bogle also falsely accuses me
of holding a position I do not hold concerning supplied jurisdiction. He says:
“Salza claims that the SSPX, being outside the Church, cannot have “supplied
jurisdiction” because it is outside the Church, a classic circular, question-begging
argument. First, he must prove that the SSPX is outside the Church.” If Bogle
actually read my work, he would know this is not my argument. Even an
excommunicated priest “outside the Church” could be supplied faculties if the
Catholic community believed he was sent by the bishop (the fact that the
Society of St. Pius X is not part of the Roman Catholic Church is not relevant
to the issue). Again, Mr. Bogle is very confused.
I should also note that Bogle
appears to have embraced the Lefebvrian heresy that “jurisdiction comes from
the people” (Lefebvre, January 1991 letter). Says Bogle: “In fact, the Church
“supplies” for this absence of jurisdiction on the part of a priest or bishop,
because the Church is not merely today’s pope and bishops but rather all the
faithful, including all the popes and bishops that ever were.” Evidently,
according to Bogle, because the Church “supplies for the absence of jurisdiction”
and this “Church is…all the faithful,” it follows that the jurisdiction comes
from this faithful (even those in purgatory and heaven), who desire the
sacraments. That view was condemned, ironically, in the Catechism of the
Society’s patron, St. Pius X, who called the position a “heresy.” Mr. Bogle now
appears to publicly hold two heresies – that jurisdiction comes from the
people, and that the Pope is not the head of the Church.
Thus, James Bogle’s first foray
into canon law and supplied jurisdiction is a swing and a miss. He
misunderstands the canonical principles, fails to apply them to the facts, and
also mispresents his opponent’s arguments. And his erroneous ecclesiology also
comes out in the next section.
Exposing Bogle’s False Ecclesiology
In his defense of the
SSPX, Mr. Bogle advances the condemned proposition which holds that if the Pope
is “corrupt” (whatever that means to Bogle), his authority can be bypassed
(this is his and the SSPX’s chief argument in support of their illicit
episcopal consecrations). Says Bogle: “To argue that a corrupt pope must be
obeyed before Christ is to defy St Peter’s command that we must obey God before
men (Acts 5.29) since a pope is not Christ Himself but simply His vicar.
To claim otherwise is idolatry and papolatry.”
The idea that an evil Pope loses his ability to command the faithful in matters within the scope of his authority has always been condemned by the Church. For example, the Council of Constance (1414-1418) condemned the following proposition of Hus and Wycliffe: “if the Pope is foreknown and evil, and consequently a member of the devil, he does not have the power over the faithful given to him by anyone, unless perchance by Caesar.” – CONDEMNED (Session VIII: error No. 8 of John Wycliffe). What Mr. Bogle fails to understand is that the Pope alone has the right to select, consecrate and send bishops (and to reject any consecration that is done against his will). This exclusive right is a matter of divine law, conferred by Christ Himself upon St. Peter and his successors, as I have demonstrated in other articles. For example, Blessed Pius IX declared:
“But We considered that We should not keep silence on Our right to elect a bishop apart from three recommended candidates, in the case the Apostolic See should be compelled to exercise this right in the future. But even if We had remained silent, this right and duty of the See of Blessed Peter would have remained unimpaired. For the rights and privileges given to the See by Christ Himself, while they may be attacked, cannot be destroyed; no man has the power to renounce a divine right which he might at some point be compelled to exercise by the will of God Himself.”[5]
Bogle is quick to accuse me and others of “question-begging” and “petitio principii,” but those charges actually apply to him, because he gratuitously asserts that we have a “corrupt Pope” (Leo XIV) and “heretical bishops” and then long-jumps to the conclusion that the Society can usurp a right of the Pope that belongs exclusively to him as a matter of divine law and make bishops against his will. Again, his arguments are completely incoherent and lack logical connection; they are high on emotion, but zero on theology. Bogle continues:
“They likewise forget the supreme principle: salus animarum suprema lex – “the salvation of souls is the supreme law”. For them, the supreme law is the opinion, however false, of the merely human hierarchy of the Church, a belief that is perilously close to idolatry, putting the created above the Creator.”
Here Bogle further reveals the error in
his ecclesiology, namely, that the hierarchy (or divine constitution) of the
Church is “human” (and because it is human, we are free to bypass its commands,
even when within the scope of its authority and a matter of divine law).
Separating the “human hierarchy” from the divine constitution of the Church is
an old heresy that has reared its ugly head in recent times, with the help of
Scott Hahn, Michael Matt/the Remnant, the Pelican apologists and now Tim
Flanders/OnePeterFive.
While
the Church is made up of human beings, the “hierarchy” is a divine institution
(or “structure” in the words of Pius XII). Pope Leo XIII said it was a
“grievous and pernicious error” to call the Church a “human institution”[6]
as Bogle et. al. does, in order to circumvent its divine authority. As I
demonstrate in another article, Scott Hahn, from whom Bogle got the heresy that
the Pope is not the head of the Church, has even tried to divorce the “human
institution” of the Church from her marks (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic)
by applying the marks to the Church Triumphant, which is totally false. Bogle
probably got this latest error from Hahn as well.
Further, when the Pope grants or does
not grant permission for an episcopal consecration, this is not an “opinion”
coming from the “merely human hierarchy of the Church” as Bogle maintains, but
rather “the exercise of a divine right given to the See of Peter by Christ
Himself,” in the words of Blessed Pius IX. Hence, the truth is just the opposite
of the position of James Bogle and OnePeterFive. Again, Bogle and Flanders
should be embarrassed of themselves.
With regard to Bogle’s assertion that the SSPX, by violating divine law, is “saving souls” (salus animarum suprema lex) – which is an inherent contradiction – is the SSPX saving souls by falsely accusing the Catholic Church of heresy? Is the SSPX savings souls by claiming that the Catholic Church has defected (in Lefebvre’s words, it is “no longer the Catholic Church”)? Is this what Bogle means by the Society “preserving the faith intact?” Is the Society saving souls by giving invalid absolutions and witnessing invalid marriages for over 40 years? Is the SSPX saving souls through its schismatic marriage tribunal? No, these are acts of damning souls, not saving them. I will give Mr. Bogle the benefit of the doubt and presume that he is clueless on what the Society of St. Pius X actually stands for, even though he was proud enough to seek publication of his article which accuses me of being ignorant of the Society’s teachings.
Bogle’s Error and Lie about Francis’ Conferral of Faculties
Next, Mr. Bogle turns to Pope Francis and his granting of the SSPX faculties to hear confessions. Strangely, rather than arguing this proves the SSPX priests are “in the Church” (it doesn’t), Bogle uses it to demonstrate that those who attend SSPX chapels are “faithful” members of the Church. Bogle quotes Francis’ Misericordia et Misera (2016):
“For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the pastoral benefit of these faithful.”
Bogle then concludes: “Observant
readers will have noticed that Pope Francis refers to them as “the faithful”
(not as “schismatics”, “heretics” or “unfaithful”).”
Frankly,
this argument is laughable. Francis also called Protestants, Jews, Muslims and
sodomites “faithful,” so what conclusions can we really draw from this
statement? More importantly, why did Pope Francis give the SSPX faculties to
hear confessions? Because their confessions were invalid for over 40 years!
(they did not have the benefit of supplied jurisdiction, as explained above).
Does Mr. Bogle not consider this fact? Again, since Bogle claims that the SSPX
is only about saving souls, can he explain to us how giving invalid absolutions
for decades contributed to saving souls?
Further, Bogle, once again, fails to make the necessary
distinctions (does he even know what they are?) about who the Church
theologically considers the “faithful” as regards the SSPX. As I have always
said, not all who attend SSPX Masses are schismatic (Robert Siscoe and I were
in that category). What we have said, which is the teaching of Pope John Paul
II and entire Catholic tradition, is that anyone who formally adheres to schism,
including the schism of the SSPX, is excommunicated for schism. Such people,
whom the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts
explained, adhere exclusively to “Lefebvrian ecclesial acts” (they only attend
SSPX chapels and refuse communion with the Novus Ordo), would not be considered
the “faithful.” They are excommunicated in the internal forum and morally
impeded from receiving the sacraments. Once again, Bogle takes dicta from a
papal statement and attempts to create a theological proposition out of it,
without making any distinctions, much less define his terms.
Even stranger is Bogle’s false claim
that I hold the SSPX faculties died with Francis. Bogle says: “Salza wrongly
claims that this recognition fell with the death of Pope Francis but that is
simply fallacious. Papal legislation does not fall upon the death of a pope but
only when reversed or repealed.” Bogle is bearing false witness (which is why
Bogle doesn’t quote me verbatim, although his “scholarship” does not generally
include direct quotations. He also oversimplifies what happens to delegated
faculties upon the death of the grantor, which is outside the scope of this
article).
Contrary to what Bogle
claims, I have publicly said many times that whether or not the faculties
continue after Pope Francis’ death is an open question, but that if I had to
conclude, I would say the faculties continue. I have even cited canon 78 in
support of my conclusion that the faculties continue (to my knowledge I am the
only one who has cited this provision). Hence, my conclusion is exactly the
opposite of what Bogle says it is. Either Mr. Bogle is getting his information
from liars and is not vetting it, or he is a liar himself.
When I read Mr. Bogle’s misrepresentation, I contacted Tim Flanders about it and asked him to issue a public correction on that point. Flanders refused to accommodate my request. Hence, we now have another Catholic editor who thinks he can bear false witness against a fellow Catholic in print media. This further shows how rotten the false traditionalist movement really is.
Bogle’s Hearsay and Error Regarding Fellay as Canonical Judge
Although entirely irrelevant to whether
or not the SSPX is part of the Catholic Church or can consecrate bishops
contrary to the will of the Holy Father, Bogle also appeals to a 10-year old
piece of news about Bishop Fellay’s participation in a canonical trial. In the
article, Bogle actually claims Fellay personally told him: “Pope Francis had,
two months earlier 2015, appointed him a judge of the Roman Rota to hear all
annulment applications from the SSPX secular laity. This, in effect, meant that
Pope Francis recognised the SSPX marriages as valid since, if they were all
invalid, as so many bishops claim, then it would be pointless to apply for
their annulment.”
Let’s unpack this hearsay (the meaning
of which Bogle as a trial lawyer should understand). First, Bp. Fellay was not
appointed as a judge of the Roman Rota (a listing of the judges on the court in
2015 prove that fact). Fellay would not be qualified, not only because he is
not a bishop who holds any office or title in the Catholic Church, but also
because he does not meet the canonical requirements of having a doctorate or at
least a licentiate in canon law. Either
Fellay lied, or Bogle misunderstood. This is an example of how myths are
created and evolve in the false traditionalist movement.
Rather, Fellay in 2015 was allowed to be a judge in a
canonical trial that involved an SSPX priest. It was precisely because the SSPX
priest had no legitimate bishop and hence was not technically a subject of the
Catholic Church that Fellay was brought in, presumably to better assist with
the finding of fact. Who better to judge the facts than this SSPX priest’s
superior? While allowing his participation was a gracious act, the concession
was also another novelty of Pope Francis, who completely reformed the Church’s
requirements to hold positions of authority (offices), including granting
offices to laypeople and even women (who can now head dicasteries).
That same year, 2015, a
non-ordained religious brother was allowed to vote in a synod for the first
time. Indeed, Pope Francis’ wild reforms granted temporary positions to
previously unqualified people, including allowing Fellay to sit as a judge in a
canonical trial. The “true Modernist,” as Fellay called Francis, in typical
ecumenical fashion, allowed a schismatic bishop to judge one of his vagus
priests in a canonical trial. It was the Francis program. So what? This has
absolutely no relevance to the SSPX’s status as an organization that is not
part of the Catholic Church, has no canonical mission, and no bishops with
ordinary jurisdiction.
Finally, this incident also has no bearing
upon SSPX marriages, unlike what Bogle claims. In fact, I have spoken with
Vatican lawyers and can say that in every single case where an SSPX marriage has
come before the Rota, they have told me the marriage was held to be invalid.
Every single case. If you don’t believe me, contact the Holy See yourself. Again,
either Fellay lied, or Bogle didn’t understand, but this permission to
temporarily sit as a judge in the first instance in a canonical trial has
nothing to do with whether SSPX marriages are valid. Their marriages have been
invalid for 45 years and are still invalid if they are carried out without the permission
of the diocesan bishops.
I don’t know what kinds of cases Bogle tries in the United Kingdom, but I believe he needs to refamiliarize himself with the rules of evidence, because he treats hearsay statements as facts and presents them as such. If he used this approach in an American courtroom, his cases would be summarily dismissed.
Bogle’s Hearsay Regarding SSPX Ordinations
Bogle also appeals to more hearsay about
certain SSPX ordinations in Switzerland, again in 2015, when he writes: “Bishop
Fellay went on to show us a letter from Pope Francis granting him and the SSPX
the right to ordain whomever they wished to the priesthood without the
prior approval of the local bishop, the Bishop of Sion.”
Now, if this were true, why wouldn’t Bp Fellay publish
the letter to the world? Fellay allegedly makes all kinds of claims about
statements that have been allegedly made in the Society’s favor, and yet the
SSPX is in the same position as it was in 1975 – a canonically suppressed lay
association which has no canonical mission and is not even part of the Catholic
Church.
But
let’s assume for the sake of argument that in this particular case, in 2015,
Pope Francis overrode the local bishop’s authority by allowing seminarians in
the diocese of Sion to be ordained without Bishop Jean-Marie Lovey’s permission
(which would be highly unusual if not unthinkable). The question then is, where
are these priests incardinated? Under which diocesan bishops do these priests
serve? Under canon 265, all priests must be incardinated because, according to
divine law, all clerics must be sent by and serve under lawful authority. And
because the SSPX is not a Catholic church or personal prelature under which a
priest could be incardinated, in which “modernist” dioceses of the “conciliar
Church” do these SSPX priests minister? Of course, if this story were true, Bp.
Fellay would have revealed their bishops and dioceses.
It follows that there is: (1) either a class of SSPX priests ordained in Econe in 2015 who were incardinated directly under Pope Francis and hence have or had a canonical mission and personal universal jurisdiction directly from the Pope (of which there is zero proof), OR (2) they are incardinated in a modernist diocese of the conciliar Church but remain SSPX priests (again, of which there is zero proof), OR (3) the whole thing is a lie. I don’t see any other alternatives. This is another myth of the false traditionalist movement.
Bogle’s
Embarrassing Error on the Excommunications
and Canon 1353
In his continued, fumbling attempt
to interpret canon law, Bogle now turns to the 1988 excommunications declared
by Pope John Paul II in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, and actually
claims that John Paul II did not declare the excommunications! You read that
correctly. Says Bogle: “Readers will recall that it was the consecration of
bishops in 1988 that led Cardinal Gantin (not Pope John Paul II, as is often
falsely claimed) to declare, on 1 July 1988, that those bishops who had been
consecrated, and their consecrators, were, ipso facto, excommunicate, latae
sententiae (i.e. automatically)” (emphasis added). It is difficult to
believe that Bogle would make such a ridiculous claim, and further think it
would even help his case.
While Cardinal Gantin on
July 1, 1988 did declare that Lefebvre and the other SSPX bishops had incurred
the censure of excommunication that he had canonically warned them about, Pope
John Paul II solemnly confirmed and declared the excommunication by Motu
Proprio, making it a judgment of the supreme authority, and thereby barring any
appeal. In fact, John Paul II never even mentions Cardinal Gantin by name in
the Motu Proprio, which provides, in pertinent part:
Because Bogle denies what everyone else
including the SSPX knows (that the Pope declared the excommunications were incurred),
he goes on to claim that the excommunications did not take effect because the
SSPX bishops had a right to appeal them:
“This was important because, under
the 1983 Code of Canon Law, any appeal against such a penalty automatically
suspends the penalty and the SSPX did, indeed, appeal, loyally observing the
canon law of the Church. Under canon 1353 of the 1983 Code, the filing of a
formal appeal or “recourse” (an administrative challenge) immediately suspends
the execution of the penalty, meaning the person is not bound by the penalty
while the appeal is pending. This applies to both judicial sentences and
extra-judicial decrees that impose or declare a penalty.”
This argument shows the total and
complete incompetence of James Bogle, and Tim Flanders as well, on matters of
canon law. The suspension provisions of the appellate process envisaged by
canon 1353 do not apply to decisions of the supreme authority! They don’t apply
to the judgments of the Pope. If Bogle actually knew canon law, he would be
familiar with canon 333.3 which states: “There is neither appeal nor recourse
against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontif.”
But you don’t even need to be
conversant in canon law to know this. Has Bogle not read the de fide teachings
of the First Vatican Council concerning the Pope’s authority over discipline
and governance? If Bogle submitted his article as a brief to a court, his
client could sue him for malpractice.
After embarrassing himself on
such a rudimentary point, Bogle has the nerve to say: “John Salza, though a
lawyer, clearly never bothered himself to investigate the legal position of the
SSPX before diving into attacking and criticising them. That is plainly unjust
and particularly so in a lawyer.”
I will let the reader decide which
lawyer in this debate has actually investigated the legal position of the
SSPX. Mr. Bogle is clearly way out of his
lane on this issue, but this is something we have come to expect from SSPX
apologists, who lead with emotion, not real theology or canon law. Unlike
Bogle, who admits he is not even a “regular attender at SSPX Masses,” I have
investigated the legal position of the SSPX for many years, after having spent
15 years attending their chapels and learning directly from them; I have
published my conclusions in over three dozen articles and many podcasts, and Bogle
hasn’t rebutted a single one of them. Not one. All he has done is show his
incompetence when attempting to address matters of canon law and theology.
Bogle’s unmitigated hubris
continues when he says: “There is really no excuse for modern commentators to
misrepresent the true position of the SSPX, as John Salza and Larry Chapp do,
since the true position has been very well and very succinctly set out on the
webpages of the SSPX USA for many decades.”
There is an example of another lazy, blanket statement from Bogle which he hopes will cover his lack of scholarship, since he never quotes the “true position” of the SSPX that he alleges I “misrepresent,” even though it is “succinctly set out” on SSPX websites. Hence, at least in this article, Bogle’s scholarship is limited to directing his readers to websites. The truth is, it is James Bogle who doesn’t understand the “true position” of the SSPX, and all their errors on jurisdiction, mission, episcopal consecration, sacramental intention, collegiality, etc. Indeed, “there is really no excuse” for James Bogle, a lawyer, to misrepresent his opponent’s positions in a public article, when his opponent’s positions are succinctly laid out on his www.trueorfalsepope.com website.
Bogle’s
Error on the Profession of Faith
Bogle’s incompetence continues to
be manifested when he makes another outrageous claim, that the Society does not
reject the 1989 Profession of Faith (which even the SSPX would disagree with!).
After explaining the first two categories of the Professio, Bogle turns to the
third category and says:
“Clearly, however, such third level
teachings, not being taught infallibly, must be rejected if they contradict any
teaching of the two, higher, and infallible, levels of teaching. So much is
simply obvious and logical since what is not taught infallibly remains
fallible. Yet, because the SSPX endorses this obvious position, John Salza
claims that the SSPX rejects the Professio Fidei and, in particular,
its third level of magisterial teaching. Once again, he simply fails to
understand the SSPX’s position.”
Unfortunately for Bogle, the Profession
of Faith must be either accepted or rejected in toto, because it is the
equivalent of a dogma. All four corners of the Profession must be accepted by
Catholics as a matter of Faith, and especially those who hold office in the
Church. A Catholic cannot accept some propositions, and reject others, because
all the propositions contained therein are matters of faith, including the
proposition contained in the third category, according to which we are to give
religious submission of intellect and will to the teachings of the authentic
Magisterium (a proposition that was taught in theology manuals long before
Vatican 2, based on the words of Christ Himself).
Bogle’s absurd claim that the SSPX
does not reject the 1989 Professio contradicts what the Society itself says
about the matter. In particular, the SSPX points out that Abp. Lefebvre refused
to sign the Professio because he thought it would mean he accepted Vatican II:
“The Archbishop went on to say that
at the time he did see the possibility of regular contacts with Rome, because
Rome was demanding that, for any concessions to be made, the SSPX sign a new
profession of Faith written in February 1989. He equated making that profession
with the explicit acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and its
consequences, that harmed the faith.”
In other words, Lefebvre rejected the
Profession of Faith because he refused to sign it, which is even the title of
the Society’s article on the issue.[7]
Evidently, James Bogle thinks the SSPX can reject part of a Profession of Faith
and still accept the Profession of Faith. That is like saying one can reject a
part of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and still accept the Creed! Again,
Bogle’s ignorance of the theology is astounding.
As I said in a recent podcast, the SSPX
has no reason to reject the third category, because it is that very category
which would give them the right to raise legitimate criticisms about authentic
but non-definitive teaching. The SSPX should be praising the third category,
and using it to press the Holy See about what teachings it believes are not in
the category and thus do not require even religious submission of intellect and
will. That is why Fr. Pagliarani’s decision not to enter into debate with the
Holy See on these issues is so unfortunate for the traditional movement, and
why I believe the SSPX’s underlying motives are not really about doctrine, but
about preserving its independence from the Catholic Church.
Bogle’s
Canonical Error on Penalty Exemption and Necessity
Bogle completes his piece by turning to the “state of
necessity” question, and ends his article like he began and continued it; with
another disastrous error on canon law. To that end, in light of the pending
schismatic consecrations scheduled for July 1, 2026 (a date chosen by the SSPX
to provoke the Holy See), Bogle refers to canon 1323. Says Bogle:
"In modern times, the “state of
necessity” is a critical concept in Canon Law (specifically Canon 1323 of the
1983 Code) which exempts individuals from penalties for breaking a law if they
acted out of necessity to avoid a greater evil.
"Accordingly, the principle is a
cornerstone of the legal defence argued by the SSPX sufficient to justify their
consecration of bishops without the specific sanction of the Holy See."
Once again, Bogle shows
his incompetence in interpreting canon law. Under canon 1323.4 (the very canon
Bogle cites), the exemption provisions (as well as the mitigation provisions of
canon 1324) do not apply to “an act which is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful
to souls.” Usurping a divine right that Christ gave to St. Peter and his
successors alone, which thereby contravenes “the will of God Himself” (in the
words of Pius IX), is intrinsically evil, because it is a violation of divine
law. That is why all episcopal consecrations against the Pope’s will are
schismatic (e.g., Old Catholics, Sedevacantists) and result in the penalty of
excommunication.
Also, attacking the divine constitution
of the Church, by a “rejection of the Roman Primacy” (in the words of Pope John
Paul II) is necessarily harmful to souls because the mission of savings souls
has been entrusted to the Vicar of Christ above all, who perpetuates the
mission through apostolic succession. Hence, here is no blanket defense of
“necessity” when consecrating bishops against the Pope’s will, as Bogle
imagines. He continues:
"Necessity arises whenever there are
impediments to obtaining full papal approbation. Such impediments, argue the
SSPX, can include a situation where a bad pope declines to do his duty to
preserve the faith intact."
As the PCILT declared against the SSPX in 1996, there is
never a necessity to consecrate bishops contrary to the will of the Pope which,
as John Paul II explained, constitutes a rejection of the Roman Primacy. This
truth is rooted in divine revelation itself. As already shown, the Church
condemns the proposition that the authority of a Pope – especially the exercise
of his divine rights – can be usurped because he is a “bad Pope.” Finally,
Catholics do not “preserve the faith intact” by seeking salvation outside the
Church from a parallel hierarchy that has no mission from the Pope (and whose
actual mission is to lead souls out of the Catholic Church and into its sect).
Bogle then attempts to be
clever by claiming that allowing the Pope to determine whether there is a state
of necessity is a circular argument because the Pope is the problem:
"Some critics have argued that only
the Supreme Pontiff can ultimately judge if there is a “state of necessity” but
this argument is clearly circular and question-begging. If it is a pope who is
the cause of the problem then obviously he cannot fairly it in judgment upon
his own misdeeds since that would breach the fundamental principle of natural
justice, nemo judex in causa sua – “no-one may justly be a judge in
his own case” – since, obviously, a wicked pope is likely to find himself
innocent of any charges and will believe himself right and justified."
Of course, Bogle is the one begging the
question, which has already been answered by the Magisterium, which has carved
out generous exceptions to ecclesiastical (human) law for cases of necessity
(based on common error, positive and probable doubt, and danger of death). None
of these exceptions apply to consecrating bishops against the Pope’s will,
which would be a circumvention of divine law, not human law. If this weren’t
the case, then the Church has defected in her mission, and we can all seek the
ordinary means of salvation outside of the Catholic Church (the divine
institution which Bogle only thinks is a human institution). In fact, Fr.
Pagliarani recently stated that the ordinary means of salvation cannot be found
in diocesan parishes, which means he does believe the Church has defected, just
like his patron saint, Marcel Lefebvre, did.
While SSPX apologists like
Bogle like to throw around the word “necessity,” they don’t understand that Our
Lord foresaw all things, including states of necessity and the current crisis,
when He conferred the exclusive right to select and send bishops to His Vicar
alone. And the post-Vatican II Popes have continued to obey the will of Christ
by selecting and sending bishops throughout the world, who provide us with the
ordinary means of salvation through the sacraments. Note well that “necessity”
never supplies mission. It only supplies jurisdiction, and in very limited
cases (e.g., common error, danger of death). Again, none of these exceptions
apply to episcopal consecrations against the will of the Pope.
Bogle’s
Erroneous Appeal to Epikeia
Before closing, I note that Bogle in a
footnote (the few that he provides) also attempts to appeal to the principle of
epikeia to justify the schismatic consecrations. Says Bogle:
"This, in turn, derives from the
principle of 'epikeia' (coming from the Greek ἐπιείκεια, 'epieíkeia' meaning 'equity') which is a moral and legal principle, originating from Greek
philosophy and developed by St Thomas Aquinas, referring to a 'reasonable' or
equitable interpretation of the law. It allows for departing from, or even
breaking, the letter of a law in specific, exceptional cases to follow the
higher, intended spirit of that law. It recognises a hierarchy of law whereby
adhering to the strict letter of the rule would cause harm or would contradict
the spirit of the law or the higher principles of natural law and justice."
Once again, Bogle throws around terms
without truly understanding them or their application. Epikeia refers to the
suspension of human law, in order that the divine law be satisfied. As already
demonstrated, the Pope’s right to select, consecrate and send bishops is a
matter of divine law, not human law, and thus epikeia does not apply to the
Society’s schismatic consecrations. While the ecclesiastical process for
identifying candidates for the episcopate is a matter of human law and has
changed over the centuries (but over which the Pope also has divine and
exclusive authority), the authority to make the final decision of who becomes a
successor to the Apostles is a “divine right” that was “given to the See by
Christ Himself,” and which “no man has the power to denounce” (Bl. Pius IX). Thus,
epikeia can never be used to justify episcopal consecrations against the will
of the Roman Pontiff. Bogle’s arguments are bogus.
Concluding
Remarks
I am very glad that James Bogle
wrote this article, that Tim Flanders published it, and that they both came
after me personally. This has provided me another opportunity to demonstrate
just how defective the apologetic for the SSPX is (and, in Bogle’s case, from a
trial lawyer no less). Bogle thought he could manufacture a quick hit piece
against me, but this has truly backfired on him, exposing his ignorance of the
applicable theology and canon law, not to mention the Society’s own positions, and
revealing that he, like the rest of his comrades, is driven by emotion, and not
fact or law. I do hope Mr. Bogle reconsiders his position by actually doing the
necessary research and investigation into the Society’s positions, as I have
done. If he does so, there is a chance that he will be able to better uses his
legal mind to serve the Pope and the Church, for the salvation of many souls.
Abp. Lefebvre is quoted as saying
the masterstroke of Satan was to get Catholics to disobey in the name of
obedience. But I say, the true masterstroke of Satan was to get Catholics to
commit schism in the name of Tradition.
Our Lady of Good Success,
pray for us.
St. Dominic, pray for us.
St. Pius X, pray for us.
[1]
The canonical elements of “positive and probable doubt” (c.144) do not apply to
the SSPX because its priests know they have not been sent by the local
ordinary.
[2]
Miaskiewicz, “Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209,” p. 168.
[3] Ibid, p. 278.
[4] Ibid, p. 228.
[5] Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra, No. 31.
[6]
Satis Cognitum, No. 3.
[7]
“Why Didn’t Archbishop Lefevre Sign the Profession of Faith in 1989,” March 23,
2023, www.sspx.org.
