Yes, you did get a couple things wrong:

1) Yes, the SSPX is concerned to preserve the priesthood, but you omit the following words:

“...and all that pertains to it.”

That one phrase opens their apostolate to a much broader field of action than you are giving credit for, and serves as the basis for many of the concrete services and institutions you are overlooking:

Schools, catechism classes, retirement homes, marriage instruction, publishing good books and magazines, giving conferences, preaching retreats, combating global and Roman modernism (at least until recently), leading pilgrimages, etc.

This activity is all directed outward, primarily for the benefit of the faithful, not themselves.


2) It is wrong to say the SSPX has no jurisdiction, unless you are denying the validity of Ecclesia supplet (in which case you would be wrong).  They also have conciliar ordinary jurisdiction, as most would be aware (are you new to tradition?), so even if you rejected the former, your contention does not hold true, in light of the latter.


3) Likewise, the mere presence of #2 (ie., jurisdiction) imparts the same obligations to the faithful which you deny exist.  For example, the obligation to dispense sacraments to recipients for whom they have no certain knowledge of mortal sin; they are obligated to instruct the faithful in preparation for the reception of the sacraments; etc.  To whatever extent Society priests might fail in this regard, we would be speaking of the personal and human failures to which we are all subject, not a defective policy based upon the Statutes of the Society (as I mentioned above at #1).


Keep in mind, this defense comes from one who is very critical of the Society’s ralliement to modernist Rome.

1) Supposing you were correct, it would be even MORE commendable that they would voluntarily undertake those apostolates which you claim are not based in their Constitutions (and this in turn would further undercut your criticism of a certain self-centeredness all the more);

2&3) It matters not whether jurisdiction is personal or territorial: In either case, the priest who exercises it incurs obligations on behalf of those for whom he exercises it.

A canonical argument in this regard is neither here nor there:

A priest or bishop who would dispense a sacrament is obligated to know that those who receive it are eligible and/or prepared.

I haven’t heard much of anything about the Society failing in this regard, before your claim (which appears to be based more on hypotheticals than reality);

As for the SSPX ralliement, I am pleased that you oppose it, and I too have objected to some of their COVID19 responses, but you are making the argument that the SSPX is essentially and systematically self-serving, (because of a too narrow apostolate stemming from their Constitutions, which you contend fixates unduly on the priesthood).

But I’m not sure you are taking a wide enough glance, when you omit to consider those same Constitutions as requiring “all that pertains to” the priesthood (which in turn is responsible for all those services and institutions they have erected for your benefit, not theirs).

It is that one clause which makes your claim that there is nothing stopping them from running off from becoming monks ridiculous (and I note again here that this contention has veered off into hypothetical future contingencies), in addition to all the concrete institutions erected for your benefit which would make such a development impossible..

I do admit to being furious about the “company first” mindset which has resulted in some who would/should have resisted instead preferring to remain quiet for the “good” (!) of the Society, but even that does not cancel out all the rest.
Hi