https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611/posts/pfbid0W6z9bUjfdberLSmu6nxDNb3FhQLsWakMaGW25TNWFrdni2TXFE1kdWjoMioNYW18lFr. Paul Kramer was referring to the following Facebook post:
https://www.facebook.com/thetradicalreport/posts/pfbid0UcvnWYNAEnvqNuBr8rtPUcLqRyfMXjdqRRwncVVSmaxH5AjGam32Dvx2UrYgbEK5lThe Tradical Report
# The SSPX Excommunication of 2026: A Canonical and Theological Examination from the Resistance Perspective
## Introduction: A Moment of Clarification
The recent events of July 1, 2026, when the SSPX proceeded with the episcopal consecrations of four bishops despite the explicit prohibition of Pope Leo XIV, have once again brought to the forefront the fundamental questions that have troubled traditional Catholics since the Second Vatican Council. The Vatican's swift decree of excommunication against the six bishops involved has been met with confusion, consternation, and—among those of the Resistance—a certain grim satisfaction.
Fr. Patrick Girouard, in his sermon
https://youtu.be/oBApPU7Qbug following these events, articulated what many in the Resistance movement have long held: "You have been excommunicated from the Conciliar Church... you should be happy about this, you should be proud about it. If I have one regret, it's that my name is not on the decree of excommunication." This sentiment, shocking to many ears, reflects a fundamental reality that the Resistance movement has faced for decades: fidelity to Tradition has become a mark of contradiction in a Church that has, in their view, abandoned its own patrimony.
This article will examine the canonical, theological, and spiritual dimensions of the current situation, drawing upon the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre, the canonical analyses of Michael Davies, the positions of Resistance figures such as Bishop Richard Williamson, Fr. François Chazal, Fr. Paul Kramer, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, and the broader traditional Catholic movement. We will explore the nature of the excommunication decreed, the question of true and false obedience, and the necessity of maintaining a valid episcopal succession for the preservation of the Catholic priesthood.
---
## Part I: The Canonical Status of the SSPX Excommunication
### The Decree and Its Deficiencies
The Vatican's decree of July 2, 2026, issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, declared that the six SSPX bishops—Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and the four newly consecrated bishops, along with Bishop Bernard Fellay for his role as co-consecrator—had incurred automatic (*latae sententiae*) excommunication. The decree further warned, in an accompanying explanatory note, that priests and lay faithful who formally adhere to the SSPX would likewise incur the same penalty.
Fr. Gerald Murray
=AUDS_FGkxnCdCOvvd3rzp4Ao8CbXxh3DzFgDoxEKfqIYOfD9GTqlseTCVfKHVxrsaSa16vN4yPI21DebSL5QVfU3-TaD4BZSPgsdOYnCpFnxsOnA8ThE9DVfcUVC7E4MWv7ZZLtHKLMVa8pJ690ziXlOi7wtK-YewIOlTS-XuWrtqmBfAt0MNsgmAe1bHaIJYmg"]https://youtu.be/VMyv7O-P0yo , a canon lawyer of the Archdiocese of New York, has offered a nuanced critique of this decree that is worth examining in detail. Speaking on Raymond Arroyo's program, Fr. Murray identified several canonical deficiencies in the Vatican's action:
**First**, he distinguished between a *declaration* of an automatic penalty and an *imposition* of a penalty. In the case of the six bishops, the decree was a declaration that the penalty had been incurred by the act itself—the consecration of bishops without a papal mandate, which carries automatic excommunication under Canon 1382 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. However, Fr. Murray noted, "the priests are labeled as schismatics in the explanatory note... The Holy See did not declare in the decree any of the priests to have committed a schismatic act."
**Second**, Fr. Murray pointed out that an explanatory note cannot legally add to what a decree contains. "An explanatory note can explain what a decree contains; it can't ADD to a decree. So, the decree did not say the priests were excommunicated, therefore the explanatory note cannot do that, having legal effect." This, in his judgment, constitutes "a canonical mistake on the part of the authors of this docuмent."
**Third**, and perhaps most significantly, Fr. Murray identified a serious procedural flaw regarding the sacramental faculties of SSPX priests. Pope Francis had granted SSPX priests the faculties to hear confessions validly and to witness marriages under certain conditions. Fr. Murray argued: "An act of the Congregation for the Doctrine—or the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith—in an explanatory note cannot undo what Pope Francis did. They have to get Pope Leo to issue a decree revoking what Pope Francis did."
### The SSPX Canonical Defense
The SSPX itself, through Superior-General Fr. Davide Pagliarani, has responded by declaring the excommunication "unjust" and therefore "invalid." This position echoes the canonical arguments made by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 and subsequently defended by the SSPX.
An internal SSPX docuмent from Fr. T.C. Glover, an Oratorian canonist who worked for the Vatican for many years, laid out the canonical case:
First, no penalty is ever incurred without grave moral imputability (Canon 1323.7). The Archbishop acted only after years of thought and months of protracted negotiations, with the primary purpose of ensuring a future supply of priests to provide the laity with Mass and the Sacraments. Even if the final decision is judged a mistake, "it cannot amount to subjective mortal sin."
Second, Canon 1323.4 states that a penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of "necessity," unless the act is intrinsically evil or damaging to souls. It was the necessity of providing for a future supply of traditional priests that motivated Archbishop Lefebvre.
Third, the charge of "schism" itself is problematic. Canon 751 defines schism as "refusal of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff and refusal of communion with other members of the Church." A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority. "The child who says, 'I won't!' to his mother does not deny that she is his mother."
### The Perspective of the Resistance
From the Resistance perspective, however, the canonical arguments miss the deeper point. Fr. Girouard's sermon captured this succinctly: "Now here's my answer to this: I'm very sorry to say, Father Pagliarani, but you are indeed excommunicated. Those are very valid and they are a punishment that's in canon law—obviously the new canon law—and you have been excommunicated and it's valid. But you have not been excommunicated from the Catholic Church. You have been excommunicated from the Conciliar Church."
This position reflects a fundamental ecclesiological judgment: the "Conciliar Church" that has emerged from the Second Vatican Council is, in the eyes of the Resistance, not the Catholic Church but a counterfeit institution that has maintained the external forms while abandoning the substance of the faith. "If they were the Catholic Church, we would not hear anything—we would not have the New Mass, we wouldn't have a new code of canon law, we wouldn't have ecuмenism, we wouldn't have the synodality, we wouldn't have a new rosary, we wouldn't have a new rite of exorcism," Fr. Girouard argued.
---
## Part II: The Question of True and False Obedience
### The Nature of Obedience in Catholic Teaching
The current crisis raises fundamental questions about the nature of obedience in the Catholic Church. Dr. Jeff Mirus, writing for Catholic Culture, has articulated the conventional position: "It almost never happens that even the worst pope, bishops, religious superiors and parish priests actually command the faithful to do something evil. Far more than nine-hundred and ninety-nine times out of a thousand, they simply give bad guidance or, if they command something, they command you to stop doing something that would normally be considered good."
Mirus distinguishes between a crisis of conscience and a crisis of willfulness: "The fact that I am prevented, by any circuмstance, including the will of a superior, from pursuing a particular good that I would like to pursue may indeed provoke a crisis of obedience in me, but it will be a crisis not of conscience but of my own willfulness."
This position, while superficially appealing, fails to address the specific nature of the current crisis. What if the superior is not merely preventing the pursuit of a particular good but is actively promoting error? What if the superior is commanding, or at least permitting, actions that are objectively evil? What if the "bad guidance" extends to the very substance of the faith and worship?
### The Teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre
Archbishop Lefebvre consistently taught that obedience to legitimate authority is not absolute but is conditioned by the nature of that authority and the commands it issues. He famously distinguished between the "visible hierarchical Church" and the "Church of the faith." In his view, when the hierarchy deviates from the faith, the duty of obedience is replaced by the duty of resistance.
Archbishop Lefebvre's position was rooted in the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and the great theologians of the Church. St. Thomas taught that obedience is a virtue when it is directed to a good end; when it is directed to an evil end, it ceases to be a virtue and becomes a vice. The obedience owed to superiors is always subordinate to the obedience owed to God.
In his Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies developed this argument at length. Davies, who was president of the international Traditionalist Catholic organization Una Voce from 1992 to 2004, defended Archbishop Lefebvre against accusations of disobedience and schism. While Davies opposed the 1988 episcopal consecrations as "canonically illicit," he continued to support Lefebvre's defense of the Tridentine Mass and traditional Church teachings.
Davies's position reflected a nuanced understanding of obedience. He recognized that the duty of obedience is real and binding, but he also recognized that there are limits to this duty. When the superiors of the Church command something contrary to the faith, or when they fail in their duty to defend the faith, the Catholic is not obligated to obey—and indeed, may be obligated to resist.
### The Position of the Resistance Movement
The Resistance movement, which emerged from the SSPX following the 2012 doctrinal discussions with Rome, has developed this teaching further. Resistance figures such as Bishop Richard Williamson, Fr. François Chazal, and Fr. Paul Kramer have argued that the current crisis in the Church is so profound that the ordinary structures of authority have been compromised.
Bishop Williamson, who was one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, consistently argued that the true Catholic Church must be distinguished from the Conciliar Church. In his view, the Conciliar Church has become a "counter-church" that uses the language and externals of Catholicism while promoting a fundamentally different faith.
Fr. François Chazal of the MCSPX has emphasized the importance of maintaining a valid episcopal succession. In the Resistance view, the new rites of episcopal consecration introduced after Vatican II are doubtful in validity. The 1968 reform of the episcopal consecration rite, like the reform of the priestly ordination rite, has introduced elements that call into question the validity of the sacrament.
This is why the Resistance maintains its own bishops, consecrated in the traditional rite, and why the conditional consecration of certain bishops has been a matter of importance. The goal is to ensure that there are bishops who are truly validly ordained and who will maintain the traditional Catholic faith.
### The Question of a Corrupt Head
The core question facing traditional Catholics is this: What is the proper response when the head of the Church appears to be corrupt in faith and cannot or will not provide good priests?
The Resistance position is clear: the faithful must resist the corruption and maintain the faith, even if this means operating outside the normal structures of the Church. This is not schism, because schism implies a refusal of submission to the Pope and a withdrawal from communion with the Church. Resistance, by contrast, is a refusal to submit to commands that are contrary to the faith, and a refusal to accept innovations that are destructive of the faith.
The distinction is subtle but crucial. The Resistance does not deny the papacy or the authority of the Pope. It denies that the Pope has the authority to change the faith or to impose innovations that are contrary to tradition. When the Pope commands something that is contrary to the faith, or when he permits errors to be taught, he is acting beyond his legitimate authority—and Catholics are not obligated to obey him in such matters.
This is not a sedevacantist position. The Resistance recognizes the Pope as Pope. But it also recognizes that the Pope can err, and that when he does err, Catholics must resist. This is the teaching of the great theologians of the Church, from St. Robert Bellarmine to St. Alphonsus Liguori.
The "true" obedience is obedience to God and the Church of the faith. The "false" obedience is obedience to a hierarchy that has abandoned the faith. The faithful Catholic must always obey the Pope in matters of faith and morals when he teaches in communion with the Church. But when the Pope teaches error, the faithful Catholic must resist, for the sake of the faith itself.
---
## Part III: The Need for Valid Bishops
### The Importance of Episcopal Consecration
The Catholic Church teaches that the episcopate is a sacrament, and that valid ordination requires valid form, matter, and intention. The traditional rite of episcopal consecration, as found in the Pontificale Romanum, has been used for centuries. The reformed rite of episcopal consecration, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968, introduced significant changes.
Many traditional Catholics have questioned the validity of the new rite. The changes to the essential form of the consecration—the prayer of consecration—have been particularly concerning. While the Holy See has declared the new rite valid, the traditionalist argument is that the changes have introduced doubts about the intention of the Church, and that such doubts render the ordinations "doubtful" at best.
Archbishop Lefebvre addressed this issue in his writings and sermons. He argued that the new rites, both for priestly ordination and episcopal consecration, were deficient in form and matter, and that they had been designed by Protestantizing liturgists to undermine the Catholic priesthood.
### The SSPX Position vs. the Resistance Position
The SSPX, under its current leadership, has maintained that the new rites are valid, albeit deficient. This is the position articulated by Fr. Pagliarani in his response to the Vatican. The SSPX continues to recognize the validity of the new Mass and the new sacramental rites, while maintaining that the traditional rites are preferable and should be used.
The Resistance, by contrast, has taken a much more critical stance. Many in the Resistance argue that the new rites are not merely deficient but are actually invalid. This is the position articulated by Fr. Chazal and other Resistance figures. They argue that the new episcopal consecration rite, like the new priestly ordination rite, lacks the essential form necessary for validity.
This is why the Resistance has emphasized the need for bishops consecrated in the traditional rite. The status of bishops consecrated in the new rite is a matter of concern, which is why conditional consecration has been employed to remove doubts about validity.
### The Conditional Consecration of Archbishop Viganò
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was ordained a priest in March 1968, before the new rite of priestly ordination was imposed on June 18, 1968, making his priestly ordination valid . However, his episcopal consecration in 1992 was performed by Pope John Paul II using the new 1968 rite of episcopal consecration, which many in the Resistance regard as doubtful in validity .
Given the question mark hanging over his episcopal consecration, Bishop Richard Williamson performed a conditional episcopal consecration of Archbishop Viganò to remove all doubt . This was done privately and kept discreet for strategic reasons—to preserve Viganò's influence among those still in the Conciliar Church . Bishop Williamson confirmed this fact in private correspondence, stating plainly that he had conditionally consecrated Viganò .
As Bishop Williamson wrote: "Yes, I conditionally consecrated +Vigano... We decided it would be a mistake to announce it at this time" . The consecration was performed in a simple setting—vested in the sacristy or empty chapel, with the candidate in a chasuble and the consecrator in pontifical vestments . This private nature has led to ongoing discussion within traditionalist circles, but definitive proof exists in the form of Bishop Williamson's own written confirmation .
The significance of this conditional consecration is that it brings Viganò—who had become a prominent voice against the errors of Vatican II and the modernists—into the Resistance episcopal lineage and removes the doubt about his episcopal powers to ordain priests and confirm the faithful .
### The Resistance Bishops Consecrated by Bishop Williamson
Bishop Richard Williamson, seeking to ensure the continuation of the traditional priesthood and sacraments, consecrated six bishops for Catholic Tradition during his years of independent ministry . These are:
1. **Bishop Jean-Michel Faure** (consecrated 19 March 2015) – originally chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre for episcopal consecration in 1988 but declined, suggesting Bishop de Galarreta instead. He leads the Society of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary (SAJM) with its seminary in Avrillé, France .
2. **Bishop Tomás de Aquino Ferreira da Costa, OSB** (consecrated 19 March 2016) – prior of Santa Cruz Monastery in Brazil, which runs a house of formation. He broke away from the conservative Benedictines of La Barroux when Dom Gerard began splitting with Lefebvre .
3. **Bishop Gerardo Zendejas** (consecrated 11 May 2017) – a member of the SAJM based in America (Connecticut), where he has his largest chapel and school, as well as schools in St. Mary's, Kansas, and Houston, Texas. He was an SSPX priest for over 25 years .
4. **Bishop Giacomo Ballini** (consecrated 14 January 2021) – based out of Ireland, with a chapel, small house of formation, and a group of 3-4 priests. He was ordained in the SSPX and left after a few years .
5. **Bishop Michał Stobnicki** (consecrated 15 August 2022) – has a chapel and Mass circuit in Poland. He completed priestly studies at the SSPX but was never ordained a priest there; he was ordained and then consecrated by Bishop Williamson .
6. **Bishop Paul Morgan** (consecrated 14 February 2022) – active in England and France .
These six bishops, plus Archbishop Viganò (who received conditional consecration to remove the doubt from his 1992 consecration), represent the episcopal leadership of the Resistance movement. This is why the Resistance can count seven bishops, with Bishop Williamson's conditional consecration of Viganò making him the seventh .
### The Role of the SAJM and Traditional Religious Communities
The Society of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary (SAJM), founded by Bishop Jean-Michel Faure in 2016, represents a vital strand of the Resistance movement . It was established following Bishop Faure's departure from the SSPX in 2013-2014 over the Society's move toward reconciliation with Rome .
The SAJM has its seminary at Morannes, with a community also based at Avrillé, France, where Bishop Faure and the traditional Dominicans maintain a steadfast commitment to the traditional rites . The SAJM has its own bishops—beginning with Bishop Faure himself—and continues to ordain priests in the traditional rite .
The Benedictine monks of Brazil, under the leadership of Bishop Tomás de Aquino, OSB (one of the six Resistance bishops), operate from Santa Cruz Monastery, which serves as a house of formation . They broke away from the traditional Benedictine community of La Barroux when Dom Gerard began departing from the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre .
These communities, along with the traditional Dominican community at Avrillé and various Resistance chapels worldwide, ensure the continuation of the traditional Catholic faith, liturgy, and priesthood .
---
## Part IV: The Voice of the Resistance Fathers
### Bishop Richard Williamson
Bishop Williamson, one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, was a central figure in the Resistance movement until his death on 29 January 2025 . His "Eleison Comments" and other writings provided spiritual guidance to traditional Catholics around the world.
Bishop Williamson consistently argued that the crisis in the Church is a crisis of faith. The errors of Vatican II, he argued, are not merely disciplinary but doctrinal. The Council's teachings on religious liberty, ecuмenism, and collegiality are, in his view, fundamentally at odds with the teaching of the Church.
Bishop Williamson also emphasized the importance of maintaining a valid episcopal succession. He argued that the Resistance must have its own bishops who can ordain priests and confirm the faithful. This is why he supported and performed the consecration of new bishops in the traditional rite .
In recognition of his concern for the faithful and his work in preserving Tradition, Bishop Williamson consecrated six bishops for Catholic Tradition. He also conditionally consecrated Archbishop Viganò to remove the doubt created by his 1992 consecration in the new rite .
Bishop Williamson passed away on 29 January 2025 at 11:23 p.m. London time, having received the prayers of the Rosary said for him worldwide . He had a good death, surrounded by the prayers of the faithful who recognized him as a true shepherd of souls in a time of crisis .
### Fr. François Chazal
Fr. François Chazal of the MCSPX has been a leading voice in the Resistance, particularly on questions of liturgical and sacramental theology. His work on the validity of the new rites has been influential among traditional Catholics.
Fr. Chazal has argued that the new rites of ordination and consecration are doubtful in validity because they lack the essential form necessary for validity. This is why, in his view, the Resistance must maintain the traditional rites and must have bishops consecrated in the traditional rite.
Fr. Chazal also indicated obliquely that Archbishop Viganò had "done what was necessary" regarding his episcopal consecration—a reference to the conditional consecration performed by Bishop Williamson—before the matter became public .
### Fr. Paul Kramer
Fr. Paul Kramer, a noted theologian and Resistance priest, has written extensively on the crisis in the Church. His work on the nature of papal authority and the limits of obedience has been particularly influential.
Fr. Kramer has argued that the Pope can err in his teaching and that Catholics are not obligated to obey erroneous teachings. He has also argued that the Church's teaching on the papacy does not require blind obedience to the Pope; rather, it requires obedience to the Pope when he teaches in communion with the Church.
Fr. Kramer has emphasized the importance of maintaining the traditional Catholic faith and worship. He has argued that the innovations of Vatican II have been destructive of the faith and that traditional Catholics must resist them.
### Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Archbishop Viganò, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, has become a major figure in the Resistance movement. His "testimony" on the corruption in the Church and his criticism of Pope Francis have been widely circulated among traditional Catholics.
Archbishop Viganò was ordained a priest in the old rite in March 1968, before the imposition of the new rite . His episcopal consecration in 1992 was performed in the new rite, creating a question of validity that was addressed by Bishop Williamson's conditional consecration .
Archbishop Viganò has spoken out against the errors of Vatican II and the innovations of the post-conciliar period. He has also addressed the question of obedience, arguing that Catholics must obey the Pope in matters of faith and morals when the Pope teaches in communion with the Church, but that they must resist the Pope when he teaches error.
In July 2024, Cardinal Fernandez declared Viganò excommunicated from the Conciliar Church—a distinction that, in the Resistance view, was of no consequence to his standing in the true Catholic Church .
### The Dominican and Benedictine Tradition
The traditional Dominican community at Avrillé, France, has maintained a distinct witness within the Resistance movement. These Dominicans have preserved the traditional Dominican liturgy and spirituality while working alongside the SAJM .
The Benedictine monks of Brazil, under Bishop Tomás de Aquino, have maintained the traditional Benedictine life and liturgy at Santa Cruz Monastery . Bishop Tomás de Aquino was consecrated by Bishop Williamson in 2016 and has continued to provide the traditional sacraments and formation to his community .
Both communities have contributed to the theological and spiritual formation of the Resistance. They have also provided the faithful with the traditional Mass and sacraments, and have maintained the traditional religious life.
---
## Part V: The Canonical Analysis of Michael Davies
Michael Davies, the former president of Una Voce International, provided a comprehensive canonical and theological analysis of the 1988 episcopal consecrations in his Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre. His analysis remains relevant to the 2026 situation.
Davies argued that the 1988 consecrations were not "schismatic" because Archbishop Lefebvre did not intend to create a separate Church or to deny the authority of the Pope. Rather, he acted out of necessity, to ensure the continuation of the traditional priesthood.
Davies also argued that the charge of "schism" was inappropriate because the SSPX had maintained the traditional faith and worship of the Church. The SSPX, in his view, was not separating itself from the Church but was being expelled by a hierarchy that had abandoned the faith.
Davies's analysis was nuanced. He opposed the 1988 consecrations because he believed they were "canonically illicit," but he continued to support Archbishop Lefebvre's defense of the traditional Mass and traditional Church teachings. This nuanced position has been adopted by many in the Resistance movement.
---
## Part VI: The Legal Position of Faithful Catholic Priests
### When the Head is Corrupt
The question at the heart of the current crisis is this: What is the legal position of faithful Catholic priests if the head of the Church is corrupt in faith and refuses to continue the true priesthood line?
The Resistance answer is clear: Faithful Catholic priests must resist the corruption and maintain the faith. This resistance is not schism but fidelity to the Church of the faith.
The legal position is complex. The 1983 Code of Canon Law provides for the possibility of resistance to unjust commands. Canon 1323 provides for the reduction or removal of penalties when an act is performed out of necessity. Canon 1324 provides for the reduction or removal of penalties when the act is performed in ignorance of the law.
The Resistance argues that the current crisis is a "state of necessity" that justifies the consecration of bishops without papal mandate. This is the argument made by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 and repeated by the SSPX in 2026. The Resistance goes further, arguing that the state of necessity justifies a more fundamental resistance to the Conciliar Church and its innovations.
### True and False Obedience
The distinction between true and false obedience is crucial. True obedience is obedience to God and the Church of the faith. It is an obedience that is informed by the teachings of the Church and that seeks to promote the faith and the salvation of souls.
False obedience, by contrast, is obedience to a hierarchy that has abandoned the faith. It is an obedience that is blind to the errors of the hierarchy and that seeks to maintain institutional unity at the expense of the faith.
The Resistance argues that traditional Catholics must practice true obedience. This means resisting the errors of the hierarchy while maintaining communion with the Church of the faith. It means being willing to suffer for the faith, even if this means being excommunicated from the Conciliar Church.
---
## Conclusion: A Future of Fidelity
The excommunication of the SSPX bishops in 2026 is a moment of clarification. It reveals the fundamental division between those who accept the innovations of Vatican II and those who resist them. For the Resistance, this excommunication is not a condemnation but a confirmation—a confirmation that the Conciliar Church has rejected the traditional Catholic faith.
The Resistance will continue to maintain the traditional Catholic faith and worship. It will continue to ordain priests in the traditional rite, to celebrate the traditional Mass, and to provide the faithful with the traditional sacraments. It will continue to resist the errors of Vatican II and the innovations of the post-conciliar period.
The Resistance is not sedevacantist. It recognizes the Pope as Pope, and it prays for his conversion and for the conversion of all who have been led astray by the errors of the Council. But it does not recognize the authority of the Pope to change the faith or to impose innovations that are contrary to tradition.
The Resistance is, in the words of Fr. Girouard, a "proof of Catholicism" in a time of crisis. It is a witness to the faith that has been handed down from the apostles. It is a beacon of hope in a darkened world.
The future of the traditional Catholic movement lies with the Resistance. The SSPX, by seeking reconciliation with Rome, has compromised its witness to the faith. The Resistance, by maintaining its fidelity to Tradition, has preserved the faith for future generations.
The question for the faithful is clear: Will they follow the Resistance in its fidelity to Tradition, or will they follow the SSPX in its quest for reconciliation with the Conciliar Church? The answer to this question will determine the future of the traditional Catholic movement and, perhaps, the future of the Church itself.
Topic: Leo XIV Is a Doubtful Pope - Fr. Paul Kramer (Read 201 times)