With the recent SSPX consecrations, arguments both for and against the SSPX have been making the rounds. Invariably, arguments against the Society tend to focus on two principal ideas which those who hold them believe constitute “slam dunks” against the SSPX. The arguments focus on the concepts of Canonical Mission and Incardination. Now, for the uninitiated, you may be wondering why those who have set themselves against the SSPX do not focus squarely on the concept of schism. In fact, it is through these concepts that it is argued that the SSPX is in schism. In essence, the arguments are: “You can say the SSPX isn’t schismatic all you want, but, according to XYZ, those who operate without a Canonical Mission or who have not been incardinated are by definition schismatic, according to sources ABC.” The principal source for this line of argumentation is none other than John Salza. Formerly a supporter of the SSPX, a few years ago he flipped and became one of the most vocal opponents around. John Salza is a lawyer, a tax lawyer, I believe, which means he is an expert at combing through extensive texts and finding quotations and documents to support his case. Furthermore, anyone familiar with Law as a profession will know that lawyers are expertly trained in producing massive documents. This is not an indictment of lawyers, but only an observation. Salza’s body of work is consistent with his professional work as a lawyer, in that it is voluminous and contains extensive citations. The effect this has on the average reader is that Salza “knows what he is talking about.” Most people are not scholars, theologians, or legal professionals, so when they see a 10,000-word essay, they naturally assume that the author must really know his stuff. Furthermore, given how voluminous his work on this subject is, it is an arduous task to pore over everything he has written. In addition, Salza’s work can seem intimidating because it is riddled with scary-sounding theological and canonical terms, and citations from popes that sound very powerful in the context of his assertions. In this way, Salza truly does argue like a lawyer, in the sense that he presents his arguments as very persuasive, given their seemingly rhetorical power. His goal is to prove to the audience that his position is right, and it is daunting to try to disprove a position buttressed by innumerable quotes and thousands upon thousands of words. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church is not a courtroom or a debate club, so beyond the rhetorical devices and methods employed by writers and scholars, we must get to the heart of the matter. We mustn’t be bamboozled by which argument “looks the strongest,” but rather be convinced by which argument is simply true. A man can cite a hundred popes and be wrong, and a man can cite no popes, or perhaps a handful, and be correct. I can only speak anecdotally, but given my unique experience in the SSPX conversation, I can attest that Salza is seen as an authority by the anti-SSPX crowd, in general. Time after time, I have seen in my comment sections on either videos or articles comments like, “Yeah, well, the SSPX has no canonical mission!” followed by a link to something from Salza. So, I have gone through his work on these subjects in great detail and have boiled down his basic arguments. Before we continue, it is important for the reader to keep in mind that much can be written in support of a given argument, but the argument is still the argument. What I mean is that we must prove that the bones of the thing are in the right place, and if they are not, then it does not matter how many citations are gathered in support. For example, if I start an argument with, “Canada is not a real country, because it was started in an illegitimate way,” and then I find a zillion citations from politicians and historians saying it isn’t a real country, I still haven’t proven anything. To do that, I need to define what “real country” means, and then demonstrate what would make the founding of any country legitimate or illegitimate, and then I would need to prove that this could apply to Canada. As we will see throughout, many of Salza’s assertions and citations do not support his claims about the SSPX, and in some cases, his citations are from contexts that have literally nothing to do with any topic approaching the SSPX question. John Salza’s strongest and most voluminous case against the Society of Saint Pius X rests on two claims: that its clergy have no mission, and that its priests cannot be incardinated. Both claims fail on canon law, on the Church’s own acts, and on the sources Salza himself cites. Salza argues that a cleric may minister lawfully only with an explicit Canonical Mission from the hierarchy or an extraordinary mission from God proven by miracles. Since the SSPX claims no miracles, he concludes its bishops and priests “have sent themselves” and that their acts are “criminal and sacrilegious.”¹ He also argues that SSPX priests could never be incardinated, because the Society was a mere pious union, was validly suppressed in 1975, and had no bishop with ordinary jurisdiction.² We will consider the following from his main works on the subject: * The choice between “canonical mission” and “miracles” is a false dichotomy. The Code of Canon Law, papal acts, and Church history all give us examples to consider. * The miracle requirement applies to those who claim a direct commission from God against the Church. The SSPX makes no such claim, and Salza concedes it makes none. * Several of Salza’s key quotations are misattributed, cut from their context, or turned against their authors’ meaning. * His incardination argument depends on a suppression he does not defend, on facts he omits, and on a factual/canonical error about the very communities he holds up as the model the SSPX should follow. References to the Code of Canon Law are to the 1983 Code unless marked “1917 Code.” Penal canons are cited by the numbering used in 1988 and in Salza’s articles; in the 2021 revision of Book VI, former canon 1382 (consecration without mandate) is now canon 1387. Before we continue, let it be known that we are addressing Salza’s claims on their own terms, meaning we will strictly follow what has been written in documents or can be found in the Code of Canon Law. For example, when considering the faculties explicitly granted by Pope Francis, we will treat them at face value when they are considered. In other places, we will consider things like Common Error or Supplied Jurisdiction which can be understood in light of the State of Necessity. So, for the committed Traditionalist reading this, please understand that by dealing with certain arguments and facts on their own terms, in no way does this entail some sort of legalist view of the SSPX situation. In any event, in this essay we will consider Salza’s main premise: lawful ministry requires either an explicit Canonical Mission (which he defines as incardination plus an office), or an extraordinary mission proven by miracles.³ His definition, explanation and application of the concept of Canonical Mission are incomplete, as will be shown. And, if any lawful ministry exists outside of his two narrowly defined categories, the premise is false, and his work fails. Such ministry exists, and it has been recognized by the Church. We will consider the facts that show how work can be done for the Church and explicitly on behalf of the Church below, but first, we will consider in some detail what a Canonical Mission is before we can see if it applies to the SSPX. 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. Canonical Mission Understood Shamelessly, and with gratitude, we are going to summarize work already done by Father Romano Tommasi on the subject. His work goes into considerable detail and his method of inquiry places the SSPX between “control groups” who are rec… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe
