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

In the last essay on this topic, we began with an overview of the twelve central points that Marshall put forth as objections to the recent SSPX consecrations. In that essay specifically, we concentrated on the issue of the Apostolic Mandate and the Order/Jurisdiction critique as it pertains to Father Davide Pagliarani’s authority in the matter as the General Superior of the Society, yet a mere priest and not a bishop.

In this essay, we will discuss the points Taylor raised specifically regarding Don Davide Pagliarani’s leadership, which are:

* Tone and rhetoric of Pagliarani’s letter to the Pope

* Procedural and diplomatic complaint

* Arbitrariness of the July 1 deadline

I would like to reiterate my appeal to the better nature of the readers in their expressions of dissatisfaction with Taylor’s points. Certainly, we may all disagree with one another on certain points of controversy, and this is only natural. However, when we go from dissatisfaction about an argument or assertion being made to outright accusation or imputation of ill will, then we have crossed a line. Only when it has been made sufficiently clear by the words of the party in question, or by actions that can, realistically speaking, have no other sufficient cause, can we move from one category to the next. And, in doing so, it is necessary to be as measured as possible.

As far as Taylor and I are concerned, it may shock some readers to know that we are still friends, and nothing has changed. In fact, we chat like normal friends who share thoughts, have fun discussion/debate-esque conversations in an atmosphere of friendship, and, of course, we make jokes and laugh at memes and funny gifs. It is my understanding that Taylor even recommended my recent essay on his podcast as a reasonable critique that he wanted his viewers to consider. A proud man does not do that, and I would like to again ask readers and viewers to act like Catholics, and not just profess to be so. A man who is wrong about fact or conclusion (I speak in general terms here) will still go to heaven so long as he keeps the Faith and remains virtuous, whereas a man who may be technically right can damn his soul, even if intellectually he keeps the Faith, because pride and charity cannot coexist in a soul.

Finally, before we get into the heart of the essay, I would like to appeal to your better nature, if you are opposed to the SSPX, on another matter.

This crisis in the Church affects us all in different ways, and, once you see it, you cannot unsee it. It pushes us to the brink of our trust in the hierarchy and our hope for the future, and even causes some of us to doubt the promises of Our Lord, or at least to be tempted to. Synodality is utter madness, and synodality appeals to Vatican II. Sure, one could argue that it isn’t truly found in the real Vatican II. That may be the case, but it does come from somewhere, and it comes from our era and not from the former. Wherever it comes from, its source is with us, and the source is very diseased and disordered, and the hierarchy perpetuates this disease, as much as that fact cries out to Heaven.

It sometimes happens as a father that your principles come into conflict, and the solution seems almost impossible. If I can speak personally for a moment, I am in a bit of a crisis at the moment of writing this. My wife has been away from home for a while, in and out of the hospital, due to pregnancy complications. Thankfully, she is okay, relatively speaking, and the baby is stable, but we still have a long road ahead, especially for her. In any event, my duties as a father are simultaneously conflicted, because I must balance providing for my family, caring for and educating my children, and supporting my wife — which means travelling great distances to visit her multiple times a week. And I will be honest with you: sometimes I simply throw my hands up because I don’t know what the right thing to do is. I wish I had the perfect answer, but I don’t, and there is seemingly no way that I can equate all the principled duties of fatherhood at the same level at this moment, which means some areas may be lacking. I can neither confirm nor deny that I have resorted to giving my little ones — and the bigger ones, if I am being honest — more candy and treats than I normally would when their spirits are down.

At any rate, it sometimes happens that one principle may be moved up or down the chain of priorities given the gravity of a given situation, and a decision must be made as best as it can be.

The priests and bishops of the SSPX are spiritual fathers, and boy are they ever. They do not do what they do for wealth or fame, or to be part of some weird sect. No one does what they do for purely personal motives. If it were just about the Mass, they could go elsewhere. If it were just about the intellectual life, there are places for that. They do what they do because they love you, and they love you — even those of you who hate them — with a deep and burning charity.

Alas, in the service of their spiritual children, who belong to the Church, they come into conflict with the hierarchy, who seem to have their priorities out of whack, to put it mildly. So, what should they do? Should they throw up their hands and give up? Or should they persevere and take whatever licks come their way, and from wherever those lashings come?

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and he is not Christ. He acts in the stead of Christ, but not when he acts in ways that are contrary to Christ. To say that he must be obeyed absolutely is to give him a divine quality that he does not have, and it borders on blasphemy to pretend otherwise. Only Christ can say, “I Am,” without adding a qualifying attribute. He can do this because He is God. A man must say, “I am a plumber,” or “I am a farmer,” but he cannot say simply, “I am,” as a declarative statement without qualification.

It can happen, and is happening, that the Vicar of Christ conflicts with the teachings of Christ or even the actions of Christ. And when that happens, we still need fathers who care enough about us to take the beatings that we cannot take.

You may disagree with the Society, but boiling things down to an axiomatic principle such as “Catholics obey the Pope” is an incomlete statement if it is set forth as principle that covers the totality of what is required of Catholics, like saying “Catholics receive the sacraments.” We must do both things, and other things, but there will come moments when doing the things we must do as Catholics may mean that certain nuances are necessary, because we are dealing with human beings who must lead a Divine Society, and they sometimes do a terrible job.

We can say, with the historic theologian from the Tridentine era, Melchior Cano: “Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See — they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.”

It is impossible to answer every possible objection that may arise in the theological and historical arena, so I ask the reader who is opposed to my arguments to remember that this is a question that concerns real people who have real souls, and the answers to your questions may not be as neat and tidy as you would like.

My favourite chef, Marco Pierre White, has famously said on many occasions, when instructing how to cook a tomato sauce: “In a perfect world we would all be able to use fresh tomatoes, but we don’t live in a perfect world.”

Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

HERE ARE THE LINKS MENTIONED IN THE AUDIO TRACK:

https://kennedyhall.ca/mexico

https://realestateforlife.org/

https://www.icatholicmobile.com/

Don Pagliarani’s Leadership

I believe it is helpful to summarize the contents of a recent article published by the SSPX outlining the communication and interaction between the Society, under Pagliarani’s leadership, and Vatican officials.

November 22, 2018 — Fr. Pagliarani met with Cardinal Ladaria, then-Prefect of the CDF, where both sides reaffirmed that the core divide between the SSPX and Rome is doctrinal, continuing from the impasse reached in the 2012 talks.

January 17, 2019 — Fr. Pagliarani wrote to Bishop Guido Pozzo outlining doctrinal topics for dialogue (ecumenism, synodality, primacy, conscience in conciliar teaching) and proposing annual exchanges of written statements — evidence that, contrary to Pozzo’s later claim, the Society did not break off talks in November 2018.

August 2025 — Ahead of the SSPX’s Jubilee Pilgrimage to Rome, Fr. Pagliarani wrote to newly elected Pope Leo XIV to congratulate him and request an audience, but received no reply, and no meeting was granted.

November 2025 — Fr. Pagliarani wrote to the Pope again, explaining in writing the SSPX’s need for new bishops despite ongoing doctrinal differences and reaffirming its desire to serve the Church; Cardinal Fernández responded in late January 2026 with a threat of sanctions if the consecrations proceeded.

February 2, 2026 — On Candlemas, Fr. Pagliarani publicly announced that the SSPX would consecrate new bishops in Ecône on July 1, 2026, framing the move as necessary to preserve the sacraments of confirmation and ordination for the faithful, made only after appealing to Rome.

February 12, 2026 — Fr. Pagliarani met with Cardinal Fernández, explaining the pastoral need for new bishops; Fernández replied by calling for dialogue to define the “minima” for full communion and asked the SSPX to suspend the July 1 consecrations.

February 18, 2026 — Fr. Pagliarani responded that dialogue could proceed but would not delay the consecrations, expanding his list of doctrinal disagreements and noting that prior talks had collapsed once Cardinal Müller made full acceptance of Vatican II and post-conciliar teachings a precondition for communion.

May 7, 2026 — The General House invited the faithful to a period of common prayer, running from May 8 to July 1, asking God’s grace on the men to be consecrated.

May 14, 2026 — Fr. Pagliarani issued a Declaration of Catholic Faith to Pope Leo XIV, meant to demonstrate the Society’s fidelity and spell out what it saw as the minimum requirements for communion with Rome.

May 26, 2026 — The General House named the four priests to be consecrated — Frs. Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Marc Hanappier — stressing that the consecrations were not a bid for jurisdiction or a parallel hierarchy.

June 24, 2026 — Fr. Pagliarani, his assistants, and counselors sent Pope Leo XIV an open letter with an attached, heavily footnoted Profession of the Catholic Faith, meant to demonstrate full conformity with Catholic Tradition.

June 29, 2026 — On the eve of the consecrations, Pope Leo XIV sent a terse letter asking the SSPX to stand down, calling the planned act “schismatic” (echoing John Paul II’s 1988 language) without further justification, and without addressing the SSPX’s stated concerns or its two unanswered requests for an audience.

July 1, 2026 — Before roughly 17,000 faithful from nearly 70 countries, Bishops de Galarreta and Fellay consecrated the four priests; the General House issued a statement expressing regret that circumstances forced the consecrations without papal authorization, and that Fr. Pagliarani was never granted a personal audience to explain the Society’s reasons.

July 2, 2026 — The DDF, under Cardinal Fernández, decreed that the four new bishops and the two consecrating bishops incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication for a schismatic act; an accompanying explanatory note extended excommunication to all SSPX priests and, on a case-by-case basis, to laity who formally adhere to the Society.

July 11, 2026 — The SSPX filed a preliminary canonical appeal against the July 2 decree under CCL §1734, which automatically suspends the decree’s enforcement under §1353 — meaning the penalties are not currently in effect.

Now, the context of this publication was to demonstrate the truth about what has actually happened, compared to what has been claimed about the SSPX (not specifically by Marshall, but in the general commentariat).

A few things are worth noting.

First, the core issue, according to both Rome and the SSPX, is doctrinal, and not liturgical. And that doctrinal impasse is characterized by Cardinal Müller’s insistence that one must wholeheartedly accept all of Vatican II and the post-conciliar teachings as a precondition for normality. This is quite striking, because the entirety of the post-conciliar teachings would include things like Amoris Laetitia, which I am not sure most — if not the majority — of traditionally minded Catholics would accept. In fact, I believe even many conservatives without a devotion to the ancient rites of Mass would also express difficulty on the subject. Furthermore, this would include Fiducia Supplicans, which the entire continent of Africa essentially rejected. In addition, it would include the recent document on Mariology, which said, among other things, that “it is always inappropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ to define Mary’s cooperation.” (The emphasis is native to the Vatican document.)

In any event, there are a host of other problematic things that would have to be accepted, according to Cardinal Müller, which is a bit ironic, because he himself has spoken out publicly against some of the very documents that the SSPX has issues with, especially since he was retired by Pope Francis. Furthermore, regarding Vatican II, one need not accuse the Council of heresy to conclude that there are simply factual errors that cannot be accepted. It is not the right occasion here to go into a detailed analysis of Vatican II; nevertheless, I remember a time speaking with a former Buddhist who, as a former devout Buddhist, told me that Vatican II, in Nostra Aetate, was simply incorrect about Buddhism on a couple of crucial points.

Or, in Gaudium et Spes, we read:

At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable.

Well, this statement was written on the eve of the legalization of abortion, at a time when no-fault divorce became almost universal, and during the rise of radical environmentalism, which conflates men and beasts as equals. Furthermore, given the chronology, every man present at Vatican II had lived through the periods of the First and Second World Wars and the genocidal era of Russian Communism, among other things. How such a statement could be published with a straight face is utterly baffling.

While it is not a heretical statement, it is simply a false statement about observable facts. I cannot accept this statement any more than I can accept a statement like, “Prime Minister Trudeau was a good Prime Minister and is a good husband and father.” He was a terrible leader, and has divorced his wife and is now involved in a celebrity relationship with a pop starlet as he gallivants around the world dressed like an adolescent partying as if he is attempting to join a fraternity at college. It is not heretical to suggest something incorrect about Trudeau, but I cannot accept a falsehood as true, no matter who says it.

In any event, without belabouring the point, it is within the realm of a true Catholic conscience to reject certain aspects of Vatican II, even if one accepts the doctrinally positioned statements of the Council. Also, I would imagine that Traditionalists writ large would have a hard time accepting Vatican II as Müller desires, not to mention the post-conciliar magisterial corpus as such.

Now, we also see that Don Pagliarani attempted to reach out to the Holy See numerous times, and the first response, which came after multiple attempts, was merely a threat from Cardinal Fernández.

With that in mind, let us consider the aforementioned first three points in reverse order.

Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Arbitrariness of the July 1 Deadline

It is an opinion that the Society could have postponed and did not have to bind its efforts to July 1, which was a date chosen by Don Pagliarani and the leadership of the Society. Of course, this is theoretically true, as any date could have been chosen, and any amount of time could have been waited — at least until there were no bishops left in the Society to consecrate.

The above historical timeline demonstrates that after 2019, relations between the Vatican and the SSPX cooled, and there wasn’t much communication. In an SSPX podcast discussing this very topic — why now and why not at another time — Father Shane Pezzutti gave an overview of why it didn’t happen before, and why it was the opinion of the Society that it needed to happen now. I will summarize.

Relationships between Rome and the SSPX were very good under Francis, generally, but after the attempt in 2019 to continue dialogue with Vatican officials, the SSPX was essentially “ghosted.” Of course, the officials of the Holy See are under no obligation to talk to anyone, technically speaking; although, morally speaking, it is their duty, and one would hope that Catholics could have as much communication with Rome and the Holy Father as the veritable troupe of circus freaks and proponents of diabolism who pose in pictures with the Pope all the time. However, the 2019 event was uncharacteristic of how things had been. Things in Rome move slowly, generally speaking, so a waiting period did not seem like the end of the world. Nevertheless, we all remember what happened in 2020, and then in 2021 it was clear that Pope Francis was cracking down on the Latin Mass, so it was unlikely that any overtures to the SSPX could be reasonably expected. At that time, the SSPX still had three living bishops, and the late Bishop Huonder had, in a sense, become associated with the Society and even began performing sacramental functions, as he did in 2023 when he celebrated a Chrism Mass for the Society, which is where holy oils are consecrated. Whether he ever would have acted as a bishop for the Society like the others is unknown to me; nevertheless, he passed away not long after. In the fall of 2024, Bishop Tissier died after a tragic fall. This left the Society with two living bishops, who were now getting on in years. Of course, Pope Francis became sickly around that time, and it was unreasonable to expect much from him as he was in and out of the hospital. He died around Easter 2025, and then came Pope Leo.

As was seen in the timeline, attempts were made to connect with Pope Leo, but only a threat was received in response.

So, after consideration, and due to the precarious reality of only two living, aged bishops remaining, a decision was made. Now, whether one could quibble about July 1, the reality is that the wait could not be stretched much further. To say nothing of the fact that the remaining two bishops could have taken a turn for the worse, their workload was simply too strenuous for their mileage.

Yes, Cardinal Fernández asked for dialogue, with the expectation of the consecrations being postponed indefinitely. However, I think it is quite reasonable to assume that this dialogue would have gone nowhere. If Cardinal Müller, who is supposedly more traditional, demanded that the SSPX accept Vatican II as such, and the post-conciliar magisterium in a way that even he does not accept, then any hope of a resolution was unreasonable, to say the least.

Also, if we have learned anything from the history of Archbishop Lefebvre, it is clear that Curial officials have endless time to play waiting games while they watch the Church burn. I cannot imagine a world wherein the author of a document promoting the blessings of homosexual couples would somehow have a conversion of heart and advocate for the canonical reconciliation of the SSPX. Perhaps it could have happened miraculously, but this is speculation.

Now, Don Pagliarani is the head of a society of priests, and many faithful are under his leadership, at least indirectly, as their priests ultimately report to him. So, he has many factors to consider.

He must act prudently; and, for advice on how to act prudently, we should first consider the words of Our Lord:

“For which of you having a mind to build a tower, doth not first sit down, and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have wherewithal to finish it: Lest, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that see it begin to mock him, saying: This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, about to go to make war against another king, doth not first sit down, and think whether he be able, with ten thousand, to meet him that, with twenty thousand, cometh against him? Or else, whilst the other is yet afar off, sending an embassy, he desireth conditions of peace” (Luke 14:28–32).

This passage from Our Lord is fitting because it describes the responsibilities that face Don Pagliarani. He must be acutely aware of whether they can finish what must be built, and, sadly, the wartime analogy does seem to fit as well, considering the Vatican’s war on Tradition. The costs were counted, and attempts at peace were made. The time to act had arrived, and a decision had to be made, taking into account the resources and the manpower available.

We must remember that this whole controversy isn’t about the Society as such, but about why they exist. They exist to serve the Church, and the Church exists in souls, fundamentally. Of course, we do not deny the reality of the visibility of the Church as a society, but the Church is in Purgatory (the Church Suffering), here on Earth (the Church Militant), and in Heaven (the Church Triumphant). The care of souls is the primary reality that concerns the Church, as Our Lord desires that all men be saved (even if, in the particular, they are not). To do this, we need sacraments; and for sacraments we need priests, and sometimes bishops; and for priests we need bishops; for bishops we need other bishops, and on it goes.

Surely, it will be retorted that the SSPX doesn’t need bishops, because priests in other traditional groups are ordained without their own bishops. Well, all I can say is that there is likely not a bishop on Earth in good standing who will touch the SSPX with a ten-foot pole, sacramentally speaking, at least publicly. Perhaps Bishop Schneider would, or maybe Bishop Strickland. This is, of course, hypothetical, and Rome never proposed such a solution. Furthermore, it must be asked, as uncomfortable as it may be: if an unadulterated acceptance of Vatican II and all that has followed is required for a Traditionalist to be canonically kosher with the Vatican, then how does this apply to the other groups devoted to the Latin Mass? I will leave that up to the reader’s speculation.

The Society summarized what has just been read in an article:

The only alternative would have been to request bishops from Rome, to have priests ordained by diocesan bishops, or to send the faithful to parish priests. However, each of these solutions would have implied accepting, at least practically, the false doctrines of the Council and the post-conciliar period. We are already seeing this today: the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the annex attached to the decree of excommunication published on July 2, requires all those who wish to return “in communion with Rome” to sign a declaration affirming that they accept Vatican II according to the interpretation given by the current Magisterium, and that they undertake never to criticize the teachings of the Pope. Consequently, without episcopal consecrations, the Fraternity would have been forced to accept doctrines such as religious freedom, ecumenism, collegiality, the illicitness of the death penalty, the possibility for divorced and remarried people to receive communion, or the blessing of homosexual couples; or, at the very least, to agree not to criticize them publicly.

It would be unreasonable, even irresponsible, to delay the consecrations any further, arbitrarily, because of what is at stake. Even if one were to concede that there is no fundamental difference between what is offered by the Society and the other traditional groups, this still would not fix the problem of the upwards of one million people who rely on the Society throughout the world. They rely on the Society because of the Crisis, and not because of the Society. Therefore, the SSPX must continue for the good of souls, because the Church is in the business of saving souls above all else; and, when all the costs are counted, this is what costs the most.

In the interest of brevity, I offer here a definition of Prudence, which is a concise and condensed version of the more elaborate treatments found in classical theological and spiritual works — my personal favourite being found in the devotional book Divine Intimacy.

Prudence does not mean inaction. It means waiting prayerfully for Providence to manifest in a clear way, consulting wise counsel, making a decision based on all available information, and then acting on that decision without delay.

Critically, a prudent decision involves choosing between two possible goods, not simply choosing the good over the evil. Choosing good over evil is morally obligatory, strictly speaking. Prudence is required precisely when two legitimate goods are in tension, and a decision must be made between them.

In the case of Don Pagliarani, all of these stipulations were considered and met. A period of waiting and prayer was accomplished, and then Providence manifested itself through ordinary means, which is how Providence ordinarily works. The deaths of the SSPX bishops were a clear sign that they were running out of time, which, combined with the radical growth of the SSPX, made an urgent situation evident. Attempts were made at communicating, with the express intention of dialogue and petition, but only threats were received initially, followed by extraordinarily unreasonable demands that would kick the vast majority of Traditionalists out of “full communion” if followed logically.

Counsel was sought, and a decision was made based on all the available information; and then a choice between two goods followed: the good of canonical regularity and the good of obtaining the means necessary to serve starving spiritual children. Little delay followed the decision, because truly prudent decisions must be put into action, or they are not, in fact, prudent.

If I may, I would suggest that future generations should study the actions of Lefebvre and Pagliarani for a veritable case study in the virtue of prudence when the right decision is seemingly impossible to see.

In any event, one thing that I personally appreciate is how the Society has always acted, and continues to act under the current leadership, in that nothing is hidden. “For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad” (Luke 8:17).

So, while I concede that any date could have been chosen hypothetically, given what we have considered, another date arbitrarily chosen would not have made a difference, as far as any of us could know. And any date would be arbitrary, technically speaking, because an endless loop of dialogue, which has been going on for almost twenty years, will not accomplish under Cardinal Fernández what it could not under seeming conservatives.

To finish this section, I will give a personal opinion that is my own and has not been published by the Society.

It is clear that the attempts of Cardinal Fernández to downgrade the perennial honour given to the Virgin Mary incensed Don Pagliarani. Good.

Don Pagliarani is Italian, as am I, despite my surname. And I believe that any good Italian son could say with me: “Lasci la madre in pace. Non la tocchi.” (Leave the mother alone. Do not touch her.)

Nothing is more repugnant to an Italian, or to any Latin for that matter, than a salvo thrown across the bow at Mamma, especially La Madre di Dio. It is a sign of a world filled with men without chests that such an event did not spark veritable riots in the streets. I shudder to think what it would be like to stand before Christ at my judgement if, in my role as the head of doctrine for the Catholic Church, I spent any effort denigrating the perennial honour due to the Virgin Mary.

Quite frankly, it makes me sick, and it should make any man filled with devotion to Our Blessed Lady burn with righteous anger. If your blood isn’t boiling, then you should consult a doctor about your testosterone levels.

Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Procedural and Diplomatic Complaint

Another objection is that there was a procedural error or diplomatic faux pas on behalf of the Society, given the short time frame between the release of a lengthy profession of Faith and the impending consecrations. Yes, there was not much time, but there was enough time for all of us to read it, talk about it, and do podcasts about it. Furthermore, no time should have been needed to digest its content, because its content should be known by every Cardinal and Curial official — because it is Catholicism. Furthermore, a declaration of Faith was already released in May and addressed to the Holy Father, and, as with previous attempts, it fell on deaf ears. Of course, Pope Leo did finally reach out to the Society at the 11th hour.

I understand that some commentators have expressed their opinion that Pope Leo’s intervention was fatherly in tone. Well, it may have been; but remember, the Society up until that point had received threats almost exclusively, which were written by Cardinal Fernández. Do you think Fernández did so without consulting the Holy Father?

If my children appeal to me for something they desperately need, and I ignore them for months, and then merely threaten them rather than engage with their request, will a fatherly tone cover those sins?

We could construct an analogy.

Suppose a son wants to marry the love of his life, and by all measures, the woman he has chosen is upright and worthy of marriage. The son tries for months to have his father’s blessing, but receives no response. The son even travels across the world to see if he can visit his father, but doesn’t even get a reply to his request to see him. Then the son tries again, but only receives a threat. Then the son tells the father that he must proceed with the marriage for reasons that are noble, and the father sends someone else, who tells the son that if he calls off the marriage indefinitely, they can talk about the marriage. So the son persists; and the father, the night before the wedding, reaches out to the son, begging him to stop, while at the same time threatening to disinherit the son from the estate if he persists. All the while, the father has never interacted with his son, and he has never even made an attempt to meet the wife-to-be.

People will say, “Well, this is different, because the Pope is the Pope!” Well, that is sort of like saying, “Love is love,” or “Blue is blue.” But, yes, the Pope is the Pope; and because of that, his responsibility is more severe than that of the father of a family, and the consequences for his failures are more severe as a result. The Pope is the Holy Father, and there is no excuse for a complete failure in paternity, and no amount of last-minute eloquent words coupled with grave threats can gloss over grave negligence. Pope Leo certainly has great affection for actual schismatics — and even schismatics with fake orders, and women who pretend to be bishops, dressed up like a Renaissance Fair.

A wise man once reminded me of an ancient Roman maxim: acta non verba. Eloquent words are one thing, but actions that make a mockery of the Catholic Church are quite another.

Thomas Aquinas, when commenting on the famous passage in Galatians where Saint Paul rebukes Peter to his face, writes:

Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith; and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.” (Summa Theologiae II-II, Q. 33, Art. 4)

At times, I think moderns would disagree with Aquinas and say:

Peter should have dressed Paul down for his efforts and threatened to excommunicate him, because, after all, Peter is Peter! Oh, and he should do so in a nice letter, with warm feelings, which would make it all better and show how Paul was out of line.

Tone and Rhetoric of Pagliarani’s Letter to the Pope

This final consideration flows naturally from the last, because, in essence, what Don Pagliarani did was rebuke his superior — and he did so publicly.

In the letter he wrote to the Pope after the consecrations, he wrote very strong words, and for some, they tasted bitter. However, strong medicine is often bitter.

Don Pagliarani simply told the truth, and he did so by using the words of Our Lord, which is something we should all attempt to do. Of course, some words of Christ are appropriate for certain occasions, and others for other occasions.

He quoted Our Lord at the beginning of the letter:

Among yourselves, if a father is asked by his son for bread, will he give him a stone? Or for a fish, will he give him a snake instead of a fish? Or if he is asked for an egg, will he give him a scorpion? Why then, if you, evil as you are, know well enough how to give your children what is good for them, is not your Father much more ready to give, from heaven, his gracious Spirit to those who ask him? (Luke 11:11–13)

“We had asked for bread, that is to say, a measure of understanding for a sincere case of conscience — an act of fatherhood directed not so much toward the Society of Saint Pius X as toward souls, promising You to form them into true sons of the Roman Church; unfortunately, we received a stone,” he wrote.

Importantly, he made it clear why the action was taken, and it was done for the good of souls. It is often forgotten that the Society of Saint Pius X does not exist for itself, and never has. As was written above, the Church was founded for the salvation of souls, and, in its most fundamental nature, it exists in souls. Those souls are often left to drown in a sea of heresy and the plague of modernity, and, for some reason, the leaders of the Church — whatever their intentions may be — are incapable of following the example of Peter and accepting the rebukes, the just rebukes, of their inferiors who are on the front lines of the spiritual combat. Why they look at the Pauls of our age with scorn and bemusement is a mystery in some ways. Although perhaps Dr. Peter Kwasniewski was correct when he wrote:

The answer is not an agreeable one, but sometimes we must take bitter medicine in order to get well. Truth can be the bitterest of medicines. And of all the sicknesses in the Church, denial of reality is one of the most widespread and most unacknowledged. When this sickness is not diagnosed, the sufferer cannot take the steps he needs to take in regard to spiritual diet and exercise… The reason the Church’s leaders persecute the most faithful Catholics is that, broadly speaking, the leadership of the Catholic Church on earth at this time is dominated by a network of active homosexuals and theological modernists… Homosexuals reject the first principles of natural law. Modernists reject the first principles of divine revelation. Together, they reject the foundations not only of Christianity but of religion as such, and therefore of morality… Their “religion,” if such it can be called, is one of self-actualization and self-regard — a secularized inversion of the Christian mission to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness… This false religion, combined with unlimited vanity and lust for power, explains why much of our senior leadership is hell-bent on erasing the TLM from the Church and uprooting the communities that grow around it.

Parrhesia has never been a virtue Dr. Kwasniewski has lacked.

The SSPX is the standard-bearer of the righteous opposition to this new religion built upon the inverse principles of the True Religion, and we must admit this. Why this has happened, and why God has allowed it to happen, could be answered by a prophet or a mystic; but I am merely a simple man who believes what he sees. And what I see corresponds to what has been written above.

In any event, it is my opinion that Don Pagliarani followed the principles Our Lord gave us when dealing with those who do harm to the Faith:

But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:15–17).

It is, of course, very sad that we even have to speak in such terms regarding the hierarchy, and even the Pope; but, alas, sad times are these, and truth is still necessary during sorrow.

Nevertheless, Don Pagliarani followed Our Lord’s example and first tried to correspond privately; then again; and so on; then took it to the Church, and the rest is history.

Perhaps the Peter of our day will have the humility of the First. But every pope of the Conciliar Age has demonstrated an unwillingness to accept any rebuke — well, at least from Traditionalists, because they often take the rebukes of the godless world — from faithful inferiors who have the courage to defend the lost sheep. Pope Benedict may have been an exception, to a degree, but he prophesied his own resignation, in a way, when he expressed his need for strength in a den of rabid wolves.

The wolf who nursed Romulus and Remus and gave us Rome has made her den around the Throne of Peter, and the ancient paganism that dominated the Ancient Empire has reincarnated in a particularly grotesque modern fashion.

In Italian, when we wish someone luck, we say, In bocca al lupo (To the mouth of the wolf), to which one replies, Crepi il lupo! (May the wolf die!)

Allora, a Don Pagliarani, dico: La ringrazio! (So, to Don Pagliarani, I say: thank you!)

In bocca al lupo, Don Davide, e crepi il lupo! (To the mouth of the wolf, Don Davide, and may the wolf die!)

I am hoping there will only be two more essays in this series, so we will continue in the next one.

Kyrie Eleison

Thanks for reading Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall! This post is public so feel free to share it.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe