In a recent podcast, Taylor brought forth a number of objections about the recent consecrations and the present SSPX as such, and I have gone through his arguments and they can be broken down into twelve points, which will be addressed after an introduction. The Obligation of Christian Charity Taylor and I have been friends for years, so, I have to say plainly, that I really hate this situation. I also want to make it clear that it is disrespectful for anyone to impugn motives to Taylor that he hasn’t expressed or made clear. Taylor is a noble man. He is a top-notch husband and father. His wife adores him, and his children respect him, and his children are faithful Catholics. He is a man of great courage and he has done, and will continue to do, a lot of good for the Church. While men of principle will have disagreements, it is unconscionable, as far as I am concerned, to resort to some sort of tabloid-style speculation about a man’s reasoning for changing his mind. Taylor has, for years, been a supporter and defender of the SSPX, and I even sat with him and prayed with him in St. Mary’s, Kansas at the consecration of the Immaculata. His reasons for changing his tune on the Society in recent months are his own, and Taylor is not easily coerced or manipulated. He is, in a true sense, a real Texan, and because of that he is largely self-reliant and not easily intimidated. So, I reject any speculation that he has been “compromised” or whatever else certain commentators have been opining about online. If you will allow me, I will bring up Michael Davies as an analogous situation. Davies was a massively important defender of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society from the very start. However, Davies believed that the ’88 consecrations were a step too far, and he expressed those beliefs to the Archbishop, and to the public after the fact. For a number of years, Davies continued in that belief, however, eventually he changed his mind and resumed his leonine defence of Lefebvre and his associates. It would have been wrong to impugn any ulterior motives on Davies during that period, and, whether Taylor is planning to stay fixed in his positions as they stand, will be known to history as it unfolds. But, Taylor is a humble man and he does not express his beliefs for mere personal gain, so if he wants to change his mind, he will. He is a good Catholic and should be treated as such. Also, it should be noted that he does not, at least as far as I can tell, believe you are a schismatic if you attend the SSPX, and, he mentioned me by name in the show, expressing his understanding of my situation, which is common to so many, wherein it is a choice between the SSPX or Modernism. He seems to believe that the right choice in a situation like that is to go with the SSPX. So, as a Thomist, he must believe that the SSPX is not in schism, because a Thomist would never make a consequentialist argument. Thanks for reading Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall! This post is public so feel free to share it. The Twelve Arguments 1. Order/jurisdiction critique of Fr. Pagliarani’s authority Marshall’s central procedural objection: Pagliarani is a priest of ~20 years standing at the head of six consecrated bishops. He invokes the religious-order analogy (Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits) to argue that once a member of an order is raised to the episcopate, he’s no longer under his order’s superior — implying the SSPX’s structure, where a priest-superior directs bishops, is anomalous and disordered. 2. Tone/rhetoric of Pagliarani’s letter to the Pope He treats the “bread/stone, fish/serpent, egg/scorpion” language as effectively accusing the Pope of bad faith or malice, and reads this as prideful — contrasted pointedly against what he reads as the conciliatory, paternal tone of Leo’s letter. 3. The “fake apostolic mandate” — the dissimulation charge This is his most repeated point: the liturgy asks “do you have the apostolic mandate,” and he characterizes the SSPX’s response (reading a rolled parchment with a red ribbon, in French, calling the new bishops “auxiliary bishops,” then having them swear obedience to Leo XIV) as three separate untruths/theatrical deceptions rather than a straightforward “we don’t have one and don’t believe we need one.” 4. Arbitrariness of the July 1 deadline He argues no one has shown why consecration had to happen on that specific date rather than allowing further negotiation — framing Pagliarani’s inflexibility (announced Feb 2, no budging) as itself a choice, not a necessity. 5. 1988 vs. 2026 disanalogy Central to undercutting the “state of necessity” argument: in 1988 there were few TLM options; in 2026 there’s FSSP, ICKSP, Institute of the Good Shepherd, etc. He argues the necessity claim that justified Lefebvre’s actions doesn’t hold the same force today. 6. Ecclesiological/papal-primacy argument An appeal to the authority of the Pope to judge who is in schism, and the framing that historically all Church crises were resolved through the papacy, never through a body acting independently of it — the papacy as “the immune system,” distancing from it is self-harming even if not formal schism. 7. St. Francis contrast Used as a positive model of humility/obedience under difficult treatment from Rome, versus what he frames as Pagliarani’s defiance. 8. Internal-unity/schism-risk argument Points to Williamson’s break as precedent — worries that without submission to the Holy See and canon law, a larger group of SSPX bishops (6 now) is structurally prone to further splintering. 9. Sedevacantist-harboring concern Argues part of the SSPX’s lay base includes people who reject Leo XIV’s legitimacy outright, and that this is a distinct pastoral problem from the mainstream SSPX position. 10. Procedural/diplomatic complaint The submission of a lengthy document to the Pope days before the consecration is characterized as poorly timed and undiplomatic regardless of its content. 11. Distinction from the Chinese Patriotic Church comparison He preempts a “why not treat SSPX like Chinese state-appointed bishops” objection by arguing the SSPX bishops operate trans-diocesan/universally (not tied to a single contested see), which he says is a different canonical problem from Rome’s vantage point. 12. General obedience argument Christ’s obedience unto death as the governing paradigm; obedience owed to the Pope except where he commands sin. The arguments or opinions that he presents are of three cateogories; on the one hand there are arguments made about the general coherence of the Society’s actions from a canonical/juridical perspective; on the other hand, he expresses his opinion about how he believes the leadership of the Society did not act rightly and that it could have acted better; and, on the third hand, he expresses the belief that the Society framework has great risks of defects inherent therein, characterized by a possible schismatic spirit, a sedevacantist mindset, and a disobedient spirit. For the sake of this essay, I will consider two substantive arguments that pertain to canonical/juridical considerations, which are 1. The “fake apostolic mandate” charge. 2. Order/jurisdiction analogy In subsequent essays, I will address the other arguments. The present arguments take longer to address, so in subsequent essays, there will be more points addressed therein. 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. The “Fake Apostolic Mandate” About the Mandate — or lack thereof — Marshall’s arguments can be broken down as such: 1. What the mandate is, in his framing He explains that during the consecration liturgy, there’s a formal moment where the liturgy asks whether the celebrant has the “apostolic mandate” — which he defines as papal permission to proceed with consecrating a bishop. He states plainly: they don’t have it, and everyone involved knows they don’t have it — SSPX knows, Pagliarani knows. In essence, it is Taylor’s opinion that, since they don’t have a mandate, which the Society clearly acknowledges, then they should basically skip this part or reframe that moment in the liturgy. 2. What he says they should have done His position is that the honest move was to simply say “we don’t have it, and we don’t believe we need it” and move on. Well, I am unsure of whether something has been missed here, because the text from the Mandate reads: “It is the Catholic and Roman Church, always faithful to the holy traditions received from the Apostles, who, in entirely exceptional circumstances, demands that we provide for the upholding of these holy traditions – that is, the deposit of faith – and that we take the means necessary to transmit them faithfully to all men for the salvation of their souls. From the Second Vatican Council up to the present day, the authorities in the Church have been animated by a spirit that is contrary to that of the Faith, and have been acting against holy Tradition – “they will no longer endure sound doctrine, turning away their hearing from the truth, and turning towards fables,” as St. Paul says to Timothy in his second epistle (4:3-5). Therefore, before God, we consider it a sacred duty towards Holy Church and towards souls to proceed with the consecration of bishops who are entirely faithful to her holy Tradition and to her constant Magisterium. Moreover, everywhere in the world, we hear souls beseeching us that, by the preaching of the Truth and the administration of the sacraments, the Bread of Life which is Christ might be given to them. That is why, out of compassion for this multitude, we have the most serious duty to transmit the grace of the episcopate to these dear priests, so that they themselves might confer the grace of the priesthoo
