Colum McCurdy

I’m not interested in debating the merits of a specific pamphlet published by one of the interested parties. I’m interested in the relationship between the Church and the SSPX based on official Vatican sources and Canon Law. If you have a canonical argument, present it. Passing off an Angelus Press book as the final word on the matter is just an invitation to an echo chamber, not a serious theological or legal discussion.

Respectfully, I don’t need to read an internal recruiting document to understand the basic canonical and ecclesial reality of the situation. Expecting an outsider to consult an internal party publication to verify that party’s own claims is a demand for bias, not an invitation to debate. If the SSPX’s position is as robust as you claim, it should stand up to scrutiny based on the Magisterium and Canon Law alone, without needing to reference the movement’s own PR materials.

I have decided to undertake a monumental task of examining the SSPX situation, the undeniable Church crisis, the nature of the papacy in light of some of its scandals and the nature of the Church itself. My examination will be based on what the Church herself teaches. I am neither a theologian nor a priest. Objectively speaking, without any false humility, I am not a saint. I am also not a preacher nor was I commanded by any Church authorities to do so. Yet I feel called to do this. I have rarely felt called to do any specific action in my life other than growing in holiness in general. For some reason, I believe I need to do this. I also believe this needs to be done in a careful, prayerful, slow way. I want to answer the following questions (both for myself and for anyone else interested): 1. What does the Church teach us about the nature of the Church? 2. What does the Church teach us about the nature, powers and limitations of papacy? 3. Which Church teachings apply to the SSPX situation and how? 4. How can we interpret the undeniable Church crisis that started in the middle of the 20th century in light of Church teaching? 5. What can we (ordinary faithful) do in this situation? What must we not do? This is what I set out to examine some 10 days ago and it's a lot of work. As I said, I will take my time with this. I plan to write a long thread on the topic with specific subtitles to make for an easier reading. I have also decided not to use any AI in researching or writing this, simply because I do not trust any of the LLMs and I abhor their writing style. Not using AI doesn't immediately make my posts trustworthy but there are more and more posts I see that are clearly not written by humans and in my own way, I wish to fight against this tendency (well, by writing long chunks of texts that in no way rely on any of the LLMs). God willing, in a few weeks I will have a long thread ready. I wish nothing for it then to be truthful. If I succeed in that effort, it will be by God's grace. I shall attempt to do it in a way that absolutely aligns with Church teaching and is objective. If anything in it ends up being subjective, biased or simply wrong, it will not surprise me because of my fallen human nature. However, I do have such an ardent desire for this effort to be in line with God's holy Will, that I simply must believe that the good Lord will prevent me from making some huge mistake. It will be long. Some may find it boring. It will probably have many words and be completely unsuitable for Twitter or its algorithm. But it doesn't matter. For some reason, I very much desire to do it so I will. For those who asked if I was ok, all is relatively well in my life, thank God. I have just made myself very busy with this particular topic in addition to everyday obligations. My time on here is very sporadic right now. I have decreased my online presence and it feels right. God bless and hope you are all ok.

This comment is an explicit descent into apocalyptic sectarianism and raw, emotional vitriol. You've fully abandoned the pretense of theological discourse in favor of conspiratorial fan-fiction. You've elevated your own personal judgment to a supreme tribunal, acting as judge and jury of the Pope’s soul, effectively declaring that Christ’s Vicar can be excommunicated by the sensibilities of your traditionalist sub-culture.

Leo XIV will be the merciless executioner of the SSPX, thereby earning his passport to Hell. At the beginning of his pontificate, Pope John Paul II was on the verge of suppressing the Jesuits, but, under pressure from lobbies, he did not do so. Now, it is said that Leo XIV wants to excommunicate the SSPX, none other than those who are the nec plus ultra of Catholicism, and for this purpose he has handed the matter over to the homosexual cardinal who deals with these issues. In my opinion, Francis was the most poorly formed pope who has ever existed, but if Leo XIV excommunicates the SSPX, it will be he who bears that sad reputation.

@OTSOTA @CatholicPebble @Pontifex @sspx Rome acts → Rome is betraying its mandate Rome refuses to act → Rome is persecuting the faithful There is no conceivable Church action that could falsify your position. This isn't not theology, it's is ideology.

@CatholicPebble '25 Scenario: Highest Law Salvation of Souls. Papal Jn21 Commission "Feed my Lambs: Tend my Sheep" defied by @Pontifex "refusing to hear" @sspx requests for Consecrations. Impasse of "I won't tend to you: but if you feed yourselves you're the schismatics & excommunicated"

@CatholicX_7 @CatholicPebble Directing someone to an SSPX-published source to resolve questions about the SSPX is circular reasoning so obvious it’s almost comedic....

@CatholicPebble I recommend you read the Angelus Press book; Most asked Question about the SSPX. It pretty much has done the work for you or at the very least is a good reference.

The fact the one believes they are called god to make authoritative declarations on establish church teachings, relying on their own intuition and divine inspiration is utter buffoonery and fundamentally Protestant in nature. “God won’t let me make a huge mistake” confidence is precisely the presumption that every amateur theologian and schismatic has used historically to justify their conclusions before arriving at them. The posture of “I desire truth so ardently that God must be on my side” has historically been the prelude to some of the worst theological errors, not their prevention.

@WalkingHymnal Absolutely.

Literally, I find it so funny all the SSPX guys coming out of the woodwork to illogically try & defend the leadership's actions. The Church is governed by law. The Pope is the Supreme Lawgiver in the Church as Vicar of Christ. The SSPX is clearly breaking the law. That simple.

Bellarmine’s marks identify the true Church positively- you're using observable changes to argue disqualification. Saying: Sufficient observable change = loss of identity = not the same Church First, the Church has always developed liturgy, discipline, and even doctrinal formulation. Trent’s liturgical standardization was itself a change from prior diversity. By your logic, the post-Tridentine Church disqualified its predecessor Second, you never answer my question: Who authoritatively judges when change crosses the threshold of disqualification? Your answer: the faithful individual observing from outside. That is not a Catholic epistemological principle. It is precisely private judgment. Third: “anyone in good faith can judge” is a Protestant formula — nearly verbatim with the Reformations claim about scripture’s perspicuity. You claim: "“Look how different things are — obviously it’s not the same Church” That is not theology. It is aesthetic and cultural grievance dressed in theological vocabulary, without any principled account of authority, judgment, or continuity. Are you a practicing Catholic or a sedevacantist who thinks praying five Rosarys on Sunday fulfills your obligation to attend mass on Sunday's?

@colum_mccurdy @EMichaelJones1 Anyone In good Faith can judge wether or not the Conciliar Sect teaches a different religion or not. But since apparently you have been living under a rock, ask yourself: do they have a differnt Liturgy ?, a different Doctrine?, a different Discipline?

Are Jews calling the shots at the SSPX? According to the SSPX, the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church Christ founded: according to SSPX spokesman Father Pagliarani “in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation.” Extra SSPX nulla salus. “The problem with this framing — indeed with the SSPX’s conception of dialogue,” writes The Pillar’s Ed Condon, 'is that it tries to pitch the society as both a true expression and member of the Catholic communion under the authority of the pope and, at the same time, when necessary, autonomous, and a kind of legitimate interpreter of doctrine apart from the Holy See." Father Pagliarani is correct though when he says: "In the shared recognition that we cannot find agreement on doctrine, it seems to me that the only point on which we can agree is that of charity toward souls and toward the Church." Charity toward souls demands that the Church draw a clear line between those in the Church and those outside her, because there is no salvation outside of the Church. That means the faithful should leave the SSPX immediately lest they be damned. The Pillar continues: “In that situation, Leo’s refusal to meet with Pagliarani has come under repeated fire. Surely — the argument has been made by supporters of the society — if the pope had a real concern for avoiding a canonical act of schism by the SSPX leadership, he would want to press his plea for restraint in person? “But a different assessment of the situation might conclude that, in fact, Leo’s refusal to meet with Pagliarani is an act of mercy — and an ultimate expression of the pope’s hope that reconciliation might still be possible. … “According to John Paul, ‘this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience — which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy — constitutes a schismatic act.’ “As to the idea of a meeting between Pope Leo and Pagliarani, the priest has already made it clear, in writing to Cardinal Fernandez, the SSPX cannot and will not accept that the Vatican’s position that ‘the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged,’ and thus ‘we cannot find agreement on doctrine.’ “In fact, the division is so acute that Pagliarani has affirmed in a recent interview that he believes it is a ‘fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation.’ … “It is because, according to Pagliarani, the means of salvation are not available in normal parishes that the SSPX must continue. And the SSPX cannot continue its self-ascribed ministry unless it has priests, which it cannot continue to ordain unless it has bishops to ordain them. “QED, because the Church’s ordinary ministry is salvifically ineffective, the society is justified in whatever means it chooses to continue its work. To concede ground on any of the points would be to undermine the entire rationale of the SSPX’s current self-articulation.” pillarcatholic.com/p/why-leo-wont…

I find the most vocal critics of the Holy Father that call themselves "Traditionalist" are Protestant converts, who coming into the Church rejecting Protestantism’s aesthetic poverty and doctrinal vagueness, yet bring with them Protestantism’s core epistemological move — private judgment over institutional authority. The ditch Protestant aesthetics yet bring with them Protestant ecclesiology; abandoning doctrinal minimalism, yet carrying suspicion of institutional authority; abandoning vernacular worship but keeping private judgment as final arbiter. The TLM is genuinely beautiful and formative — but beauty alone is not a sufficient theological foundation. The sensory experience of the TLM produces strong emotional attachment. Yet this attachment gets mistaken for doctrinal fidelity. Actual doctrinal fidelity — which requires submission to living magisterial authority — gets subordinated to aesthetic preference. In these converts is an obedience that is contingent on aesthetic and doctrinal satisfaction — which is not Catholic obedience at all. It’s consumer religion with Latin vestments.

Let's be clear: by authorizing this so early, & before the SSPX goes & does a schism, it's showing that Leo is clearly not Francis. Leo doesn't lump all TLM-devotees together, but clearly understands there is a clear separation between normie trads & SSPX nonsense.

@XVanitatem @Michael_J_Matt How so? Please I'd love to hear you perspective

@colum_mccurdy @Michael_J_Matt By that logic the Eastern Orthodox are Protestant too

PROPHET ALERT! The SSPX/Vatican drama is exposing a crisis foretold decades ago by Flannery O’Connor: A “tenderness” divorced from truth. Turns out, Flanery was SPOT ON! When compassion replaces doctrine… what’s left of the Faith? This is one of the most sobering analyses yet. 👉 Read now and decide for yourself (get the link in the reply)!

Your asking “Check indefectibility first, because the visible institution may have lost it” But Who judges whether indefectibility has been lost? The answer to your framework is the private individual — because you already ruled out the visible institution as the arbiter. This is a Protestant epistemological move. You're trying to use Catholic theological categories against Catholic ecclesiology, but the categories don’t work that way. Visibility and indefectibility aren’t independent tests — they’re unified properties that together identify one institution, which the Church teaches is the Roman Catholic Church under the Pope.

@colum_mccurdy @EMichaelJones1 Visible communion means nothing in and of itself as false religions have it as well. My framework does not require a partial failure of indefectibility. Although your characterization of it does.

Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops without the mandatum precisely because Rome refused it. The Church declared this a schismatic act producing automatic excommunication. The argument treats the mandatum as something Rome should readily grant, while glossing over why Rome has historically been extremely reluctant — it would effectively ratify a parallel episcopal structure.

Agreed 💯 👇

Previous concessions were pastoral accommodations regarding sacramental validity for the faithful. The mandatum for episcopal consecration is an entirely different canonical category — it concerns the apostolic succession and governance structure of the Church itself. Granting sacramental faculties does not logically entail granting episcopal consecration authority. Pastoral inclusiveness does not require institutional regularization on the requesting party’s terms. This is essentially arguing: Your niceness obligates you to give us what we want. This is a sunk cost argument dressed in theological language. The fact that previous popes made pastoral accommodations doesn’t create a canonical or moral obligation to grant full episcopal regularization. It actually inverts the proper relationship — suggesting Rome’s past generosity binds future papal authority.

Indefectibility cannot be partially retained. It cannot be held by a remnant group outside visible communion. It is guaranteed to the whole Church through Peter’s succession Your framework requires indefectibility to have partially failed — which is itself a contradiction of what indefectibility actually means.

Visibility and Indefectibility are inseparable and mutually reinforcing, not competing criteria you rank-order to determine which institution is “really” the Church. indefectibility is a property of the visible institution itself — not an abstract essence that can float free of it and relocate elsewhere. BTW Who judges whether indefectibility has been lost? You're Answer: the private individual — because you already ruled out the visible institution as the arbiter. This is precisely the Protestant epistemological move, just applied to ecclesiology rather than scripture.

The SSPX’s judgment of what constitutes authentic Catholicism supersedes the judgment of the visible Church? This is not traditionalism. It is ecclesiological protestantism with Latin vestments. The Reformation’s core move was precisely this: private judgment of scripture/tradition overrides institutional Church authority. Luther believed he was defending authentic Christianity against a corrupt papacy too.

@EMichaelJones1 They are uncapable of carrying premises to their final conclusions and hence get caught in their own contradictions. Truth is simple so that anyone in good faith can see it and act on it. Gates of Hell have prevailed if the Modernist Sect is the Catholic Church. It is not !

So SSPX’s judgment of authentic Catholicism is more reliable than the visible Church’s judgment, and those who disagree are instruments of Satan leading souls to spiritual gas chambers? This is not Catholic traditionalism. Catholic traditionalism, properly understood, is ordered toward full communion with Rome. Neither is it a layman claiming to know what constitutes acting as "a true Catholic"- the self has become the measure of orthodoxy, and the Church is judged by that.

@EMichaelJones1 Dr. Jones, your takes on Catholic tradition are so incredibly off base. Stick with what you know. Although, I don't understand how someone so in tune with Jewish meddling in the church still supports the Novus Ordo, which is fraught with Jewish and freemasonic influence.

O’Connor’s entire point was that sentimentality substitutes personal feeling for objective truth. Morrison is doing precisely that — substituting his personal assessment of Catholic tradition for the Church’s actual magisterial authority. He is exhibiting the very pathology O’Connor diagnosed.

Tenderness divorced from truth has characterized the Vatican's dealing with the SSPX for almost 40 years now allowing Trads like Michael Matt to blur the distinction between who is in the Church and who is not, thereby endangering the eternal salvation of the poor souls in the SSPX. Unlike Michael Matt, Bishop Fellay had the decency to warn his followers that they are going to be excommunicated. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus needs to be invoked as an act of merciful warning to those who think they are more Catholic than the pope.

The DDF statement was made before the 1988 consecrations. You collapse excommunication and schism into a single category, then treat the removal of one as resolving both. The lifting of excommunications in 2009 was NOT a full restoration of canonical standing..SSPX’s own leadership acknowledges irregularity requiring resolution “Until the question of jurisdiction is resolved, SSPX ministers do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church”

If the SSPX is currently in schism, then why did the DDF say that proceeding with consecrating new bishops without permission “would constitute a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism)”? (The obvious implication is that the SSPX is not currently in schism.) dianemontagna.substack.com/p/vatican-warn… The irony is that Sarah Mullally is an actual schismatic.