In the last essay on this topic, we began with an overview of the twelve central points that Marshall put forth as objections to the recent SSPX consecrations. In that essay specifically, we concentrated on the issue of the Apostolic Mandate and the Order/Jurisdiction critique as it pertains to Father Davide Pagliarani’s authority in the matter as the General Superior of the Society, yet a mere priest and not a bishop. In this essay, we will discuss the points Taylor raised specifically regarding Don Davide Pagliarani’s leadership, which are: * Tone and rhetoric of Pagliarani’s letter to the Pope * Procedural and diplomatic complaint * Arbitrariness of the July 1 deadline I would like to reiterate my appeal to the better nature of the readers in their expressions of dissatisfaction with Taylor’s points. Certainly, we may all disagree with one another on certain points of controversy, and this is only natural. However, when we go from dissatisfaction about an argument or assertion being made to outright accusation or imputation of ill will, then we have crossed a line. Only when it has been made sufficiently clear by the words of the party in question, or by actions that can, realistically speaking, have no other sufficient cause, can we move from one category to the next. And, in doing so, it is necessary to be as measured as possible. As far as Taylor and I are concerned, it may shock some readers to know that we are still friends, and nothing has changed. In fact, we chat like normal friends who share thoughts, have fun discussion/debate-esque conversations in an atmosphere of friendship, and, of course, we make jokes and laugh at memes and funny gifs. It is my understanding that Taylor even recommended my recent essay on his podcast as a reasonable critique that he wanted his viewers to consider. A proud man does not do that, and I would like to again ask readers and viewers to act like Catholics, and not just profess to be so. A man who is wrong about fact or conclusion (I speak in general terms here) will still go to heaven so long as he keeps the Faith and remains virtuous, whereas a man who may be technically right can damn his soul, even if intellectually he keeps the Faith, because pride and charity cannot coexist in a soul. Finally, before we get into the heart of the essay, I would like to appeal to your better nature, if you are opposed to the SSPX, on another matter. This crisis in the Church affects us all in different ways, and, once you see it, you cannot unsee it. It pushes us to the brink of our trust in the hierarchy and our hope for the future, and even causes some of us to doubt the promises of Our Lord, or at least to be tempted to. Synodality is utter madness, and synodality appeals to Vatican II. Sure, one could argue that it isn’t truly found in the real Vatican II. That may be the case, but it does come from somewhere, and it comes from our era and not from the former. Wherever it comes from, its source is with us, and the source is very diseased and disordered, and the hierarchy perpetuates this disease, as much as that fact cries out to Heaven. It sometimes happens as a father that your principles come into conflict, and the solution seems almost impossible. If I can speak personally for a moment, I am in a bit of a crisis at the moment of writing this. My wife has been away from home for a while, in and out of the hospital, due to pregnancy complications. Thankfully, she is okay, relatively speaking, and the baby is stable, but we still have a long road ahead, especially for her. In any event, my duties as a father are simultaneously conflicted, because I must balance providing for my family, caring for and educating my children, and supporting my wife — which means travelling great distances to visit her multiple times a week. And I will be honest with you: sometimes I simply throw my hands up because I don’t know what the right thing to do is. I wish I had the perfect answer, but I don’t, and there is seemingly no way that I can equate all the principled duties of fatherhood at the same level at this moment, which means some areas may be lacking. I can neither confirm nor deny that I have resorted to giving my little ones — and the bigger ones, if I am being honest — more candy and treats than I normally would when their spirits are down. At any rate, it sometimes happens that one principle may be moved up or down the chain of priorities given the gravity of a given situation, and a decision must be made as best as it can be. The priests and bishops of the SSPX are spiritual fathers, and boy are they ever. They do not do what they do for wealth or fame, or to be part of some weird sect. No one does what they do for purely personal motives. If it were just about the Mass, they could go elsewhere. If it were just about the intellectual life, there are places for that. They do what they do because they love you, and they love you — even those of you who hate them — with a deep and burning charity. Alas, in the service of their spiritual children, who belong to the Church, they come into conflict with the hierarchy, who seem to have their priorities out of whack, to put it mildly. So, what should they do? Should they throw up their hands and give up? Or should they persevere and take whatever licks come their way, and from wherever those lashings come? The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and he is not Christ. He acts in the stead of Christ, but not when he acts in ways that are contrary to Christ. To say that he must be obeyed absolutely is to give him a divine quality that he does not have, and it borders on blasphemy to pretend otherwise. Only Christ can say, “I Am,” without adding a qualifying attribute. He can do this because He is God. A man must say, “I am a plumber,” or “I am a farmer,” but he cannot say simply, “I am,” as a declarative statement without qualification. It can happen, and is happening, that the Vicar of Christ conflicts with the teachings of Christ or even the actions of Christ. And when that happens, we still need fathers who care enough about us to take the beatings that we cannot take. You may disagree with the Society, but boiling things down to an axiomatic principle such as “Catholics obey the Pope” is an incomlete statement if it is set forth as principle that covers the totality of what is required of Catholics, like saying “Catholics receive the sacraments.” We must do both things, and other things, but there will come moments when doing the things we must do as Catholics may mean that certain nuances are necessary, because we are dealing with human beings who must lead a Divine Society, and they sometimes do a terrible job. We can say, with the historic theologian from the Tridentine era, Melchior Cano: “Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See — they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.” It is impossible to answer every possible objection that may arise in the theological and historical arena, so I ask the reader who is opposed to my arguments to remember that this is a question that concerns real people who have real souls, and the answers to your questions may not be as neat and tidy as you would like. My favourite chef, Marco Pierre White, has famously said on many occasions, when instructing how to cook a tomato sauce: “In a perfect world we would all be able to use fresh tomatoes, but we don’t live in a perfect world.” 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. HERE ARE THE LINKS MENTIONED IN THE AUDIO TRACK: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexico https://realestateforlife.org/ https://www.icatholicmobile.com/ Don Pagliarani’s Leadership I believe it is helpful to summarize the contents of a recent article published by the SSPX outlining the communication and interaction between the Society, under Pagliarani’s leadership, and Vatican officials. November 22, 2018 — Fr. Pagliarani met with Cardinal Ladaria, then-Prefect of the CDF, where both sides reaffirmed that the core divide between the SSPX and Rome is doctrinal, continuing from the impasse reached in the 2012 talks. January 17, 2019 — Fr. Pagliarani wrote to Bishop Guido Pozzo outlining doctrinal topics for dialogue (ecumenism, synodality, primacy, conscience in conciliar teaching) and proposing annual exchanges of written statements — evidence that, contrary to Pozzo’s later claim, the Society did not break off talks in November 2018. August 2025 — Ahead of the SSPX’s Jubilee Pilgrimage to Rome, Fr. Pagliarani wrote to newly elected Pope Leo XIV to congratulate him and request an audience, but received no reply, and no meeting was granted. November 2025 — Fr. Pagliarani wrote to the Pope again, explaining in writing the SSPX’s need for new bishops despite ongoing doctrinal differences and reaffirming its desire to serve the Church; Cardinal Fernández responded in late January 2026 with a threat of sanctions if the consecrations proceeded. February 2, 2026 — On Candlemas, Fr. Pagliarani publicly announced that the SSPX would consecrate new bishops in Ecône on July 1, 2026, framing the move as necessary to preserve the sacraments of confirmation and ordination for the faithful, made only after appealing to Rome. February 12, 2026 — Fr. Pagliarani met with Cardinal Fernández, explaining the pastoral need for new bishops; Fernández replied by calling for dialogue to define the “minima” for full communion and asked the SSPX to suspend the July 1 consecrations. February 18, 2026 — Fr. Pagliarani responded that dialogue could proceed but would not delay the consecrations, expanding his list of doctrinal disagreements a
