We deeply respect the Society of St. Pius X. Archbishop Lefebvre’s courage in 1988, consecrating bishops without papal mandate to preserve tradition, parallels our own history. We believe he will be vindicated and perhaps canonized.

But there is an internal tension in the SSPX position we cannot ignore:

• They invoke the Pope and diocesan bishop in the Canon of the Mass
• Yet they do not obey the Pope or bishops they name
• They claim no jurisdiction of their own, only “supplied jurisdiction” due to necessity
• Yet they operate a worldwide network of schools, seminaries, and parishes

This creates cognitive dissonance. You’re asking God to preserve the Pope and bishop in the very liturgy that those authorities condemn you for celebrating. You’re claiming emergency jurisdiction while building permanent structures.

Our Position: Be honest about where you stand. We do not invoke authorities; we do not obey. We claim our own legitimate jurisdiction as a distinct Catholic jurisdiction awaiting reunion under an unambiguous Catholic Peter. We are the Old Roman Catholic Church, See of Caer- Glow, not an underground resistance within the Roman structure, but a visible, jurisdictional continuation of Catholic apostolicity operating in canonical irregularity due to Rome’s departure from Tradition.

Some traditionalists say: “We recognize Francis or Leo as Pope but resist his errors.” This sounds moderate, but creates impossible situations:

If he is truly Pope with full authority:

• You owe him religious submission of intellect and will (Vatican I)
• His liturgical legislation binds the whole Church
• Resisting him is schism

If his errors vitiate his authority:

• Perhaps he’s not actually Pope
• Or perhaps the situation is so confused that no clear obedience is possible

We take the latter position. We recognize Leo XIV holds the office of Bishop of Rome. We note that commencing with Francis his other titles are deprecated as “historical titles”. These include “ Vicar of Jesus Christ “, “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles”, and “Supreme Pontiff”, of the Universal Church”. We recognize his authority extends to legitimate commands. We also recognize that when a pope commands what contradicts defined dogma or destroys the Faith, we cannot obey, even if the consequences are canonical irregularity.

The Precedent of Athanasius: Saint Athanasius was excommunicated five times by ecclesiastical authority for defending Nicene orthodoxy. The Church was ruled by Arians. Councils condemned him. Popes wavered. He stood alone, and was vindicated as a Doctor of the Church.

Perhaps fidelity in times of crisis looks like “schism” to the compromised hierarchy. Perhaps God sees differently.

When Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum (2007), restoring freedom to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, we rejoiced. Perhaps the “hermeneutic of continuity” could work. Perhaps old and new could coexist as “two forms of the one Roman Rite.”

When it looked like the Traditional vs Modernist would heal, we actually initiated the process of reunion through an Eastern Rite bishop’s assistance. Years prior, Archbishop Humphreys had once been offered a position by then-Archbishop Ratzinger in Munich in the 1970s. We believed Benedict understood.

But Benedict’s resignation in 2013 and Francis’s election ended that possibility. Traditionis Custodes in 2021 proved what we had feared: the new church cannot tolerate the old because they are incompatible.

Benedict tried. God bless him for trying. But you cannot reconcile Truth and error by calling them both valid expressions. Eventually, one must win. And since the institutional power lies with the modernists, they chose suppression.

“But Aren’t You Schismatic?”

This is the accusation we face constantly, so let’s address it directly:

Canonical Schism (Canon 751, CIC 1983): “Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

By this definition: Yes, we appear schismatic—we lack juridical communion with Rome.

But consider:

• Schism is refusal to recognize legitimate authority
• What if the authority commands what contradicts the Faith?
• What if “communion” requires accepting a different religion?

We maintain:

• We recognize the Petrine office and its legitimate authority
• We do not recognize the authority to command us to accept:
  • Idolatry (Pachamama)
  • Blessing sodomy (Fiducia Supplicans)
  • Suppression of orthodox worship (Traditionis Custodes)
  • Syncretism (Assisi)

Dominus Iesus §17 complicates this: Rome’s own document says churches with valid apostolic succession and Eucharist are “true particular Churches” in “closest bonds” with Rome. We have both. So are we schismatic particular churches? Irregular but real churches? Rome won’t clarify, because clarifying would require admitting there are Catholics outside her administrative control.

Our position: We acknowledge administrative separation. We do not claim to be a separate church. We are Roman Catholics in irregular canonical standing due to Rome’s departure from Tradition, operating under principles of necessity until a future pope can restore unity on the basis of orthodox faith.

Some traditionalists become “sedevacantists”, believing the See of Peter is vacant, that the postconciliar popes aren’t really popes due to formal heresy. This position deserves serious engagement, not dismissal.

Why we respect sedevacantists:

1. Their scholarship is often excellent: Many sede theologians and apologists produce rigorous, well-researched defenses of traditional Catholic doctrine. Their historical and theological knowledge frequently surpasses that of mainstream clergy.
2. Their commitment is unquestionable: They have sacrificed comfort, canonical security, and social acceptance to maintain what they believe is theological truth. This is admirable.
3. Their concerns are legitimate: When a pope promotes idolatry (Pachamama), kisses books that blaspheme Christ (koran), blesses sodomy (Fiducia Supplicans), and suppresses orthodox worship (Traditionis Custodes), the question “Can he really be Pope?” is not unreasonable.
4. They may be right: We cannot claim absolute certainty on this question. The Church has never definitively answered: “At what point does a pope’s public heresy result in loss of office?” Canon law is unclear. Theology is disputed. Perhaps the sedes have correctly identified that the See is indeed vacant.

Why we don’t take the sedevacantist position:

1. The mechanism is unclear: How does a pope lose office through heresy? Who determines it? By what authority? These questions have no clear canonical answers.
2. The precedent is thin: The Church has endured terrible popes—wicked popes, heretical popes, antipopes—without definitively declaring the See vacant for extended periods. Liberius signed a semi-Arian formula under duress; Honorius was condemned posthumously for favoring Monothelitism. Neither lost office during their lifetime by theological consensus.
3. The practical impossibility: If the See has been vacant since 1958 (or 1965, or 1978— sedes disagree), we face 60+ years without a visible head of the Church. This seems ecclesiologically untenable, even if technically possible.
4. The question is above our pay grade: We are a small jurisdiction preserving tradition. We lack the theological authority, the institutional weight, and the comprehensive information to declare definitively whether the papal office is vacant. This is a judgment that should be made by a council of orthodox bishops, not by individual priests or small communities.

Our chosen path:

We operate on the working assumption that Leo XIV (and his recent predecessors) hold the office of Peter, even if they grossly abuse it. We recognize their authority extends to legitimate commands. We also recognize that when papal commands contradict defined dogma or attempt to destroy the Faith, we cannot obey, even if this results in canonical irregularity.

But we concede we might be wrong. Perhaps the sedes are correct. Perhaps these men never validly held the office, or lost it through formal heresy. If so, God will eventually make this clear, and the Church will be restored.

The ecclesiological problem sedes face:

We must note one concern about sedevacantist communities: without a clear hierarchical structure recognized by all, there is a tendency toward benefactor control of clergy. When wealthy laypeople fund entire operations, they often exercise de facto authority over priests and bishops who, lacking institutional support, depend on their patronage. This can also result in the optic of simony where sons of important benefactors are granted high office.

This isn’t universal, and it’s not malicious, it’s a practical reality of independent operations. But it creates an unhealthy dynamic where those with money can influence theological and pastoral decisions. The priest who challenges his primary benefactor’s pet theory may find himself without income. We have intervened to a sede bishop in a matter where his clergy was threatened physically, and that bishop sided with the benefactor because it would have resulted in a loss of property.

We’ve structured our jurisdiction to avoid this precisely because we saw it happen elsewhere. Our bishops have genuine ordinary jurisdiction; our priests are canonically subject to him, not to donors. Benefactors support the mission generously but don’t direct it.

A theoretical solution (admittedly impractical): If the question of papal legitimacy is to be resolved authoritatively, here’s how it should happen:

1. A census of bishops: Identify all validly consecrated bishops worldwide (Roman, Eastern, Old Roman Catholic, independent) and survey them: “Do you hold, without reservation, the de fide teachings of the twenty Doctrinal Councils, excluding all innovations contrary to those teachings?”
2. Identify the orthodox: Those who unambiguously affirm traditional doctrine, rejecting Teilhardian theology, syncretism, blessing of sodomy, suppression of tradition, etc.— would be identified as maintaining the apostolic faith.
3. Form an imperfect council: These orthodox bishops, acting under the principle that the Church’s faith cannot fail even if its human leadership falters, would constitute an “imperfect council” (one without papal ratification, operating in emergency).
4. Address the crisis: This council would:
   • Evaluate whether the current occupant of the papal office has, through public and formal heresy, lost that office
   • If so, proceed to elect a valid successor
   • If not, petition him to correct the errors and restore tradition—or, for the good of the Church, to resign so an unambiguous successor can be elected.
5. Restore unity: Once an unambiguously Catholic pope is in place—one who unequivocally holds the faith of the councils, condemns modern errors, and restores traditional worship—all orthodox Catholics could reunite under his authority.

Why this won’t happen:

This solution requires:

• Agreement on who counts as “orthodox” (we can’t even agree on this)
• Practical means of assembling bishops globally
• Willingness of orthodox bishops within the Novus Ordo structure to openly rebel
• Mechanism for deposing or requesting resignation of a reigning pope
• Political and logistical coordination beyond current capabilities

Moreover, many orthodox bishops, while troubled by current trends, are not prepared to declare the See vacant or challenge papal authority openly. They hope for reform, pray for a future pope who will correct course, and maintain their positions within the structure.

Our position in practice:

We operate as if Leo XIV holds the office but gravely abuses it. We preserve the Faith. We wait for God’s intervention, whether through:

• A future pope who restores orthodoxy
• A miraculous conversion of current leadership
• A theological development that clarifies the canonical situation
• Christ’s return, which solves all ecclesial problems definitively

We respect sedevacantists as brothers in the fight for tradition. We applaud their scholarship and courage. We acknowledge they may be correct in their theological conclusion. But we cannot, with the limited authority we possess, make that judgment definitively.

To our sedevacantist friends:

You’ve identified the problem correctly: the current occupant of the papal office teaches and promotes things incompatible with the Catholic faith. Where we differ is on the conclusion: you say he therefore isn’t Pope; we say he holds the office of “Bishop of Rome” who may or may not also be the legitimate successor of Peter, but even if so, we cannot obey his heterodox commands.

Practically, we’re in similar positions: both preserving Tradition outside the mainstream structure, both waiting for restoration, both subject to accusations of schism. Perhaps the difference is less significant than either side thinks.

If God grants the Church an unambiguously Catholic pope in our lifetimes, we’ll all joyfully submit to him. Until then, we each preserve the Faith as our conscience, informed by theology and canon law, directs us.

May God grant us wisdom to know the truth, courage to defend it, and charity toward those who disagree in good faith.