Father X Takes Issue With Father SSPX-X

Father X Takes Issue With Father SSPX-X

Written by Father X


On February 16, just two days after the Church observed the Feast of Saint Valentine, who was known for his kind gestures and notes, a rather unkind anonymous post appeared on the SSPX U.S.A. website, criticizing of all things anonymous posts on websites, among other things, such as the anti-Francis posters that appeared on many streets throughout Rome last week:

An excerpt from the SSPX website appears below:

“Further, and as we have touched on before, we cannot support this passive-aggressive and disrespectful method of “correcting” the Sovereign Pontiff. While privacy and confidentiality are not without their place, hiding behind a computer screen has, unfortunately, become an accepted method of public discource. Letters sent without signatures, anonymous emails, and posts on websites using pseudonyms are not done by men of fortitude and conviction in the truth. They are the acts of cowards, who like the mythological figure Eris, only seek to attain their goals – however noble they may be – through chaos.”

Beyond the amusing irony of an anonymous poster denouncing anonymous posts, as an anonymous poster myself I take issue with the anonymous poster, whom we will refer to hereafter as SSPX-X.

In my experience there are two groups of people highly critical of anonymous criticism or correction: those who wield power tyrannically and those who are protected or immune from the power of the tyrant. In the case of Francis of Rome, it is manifestly the case that this man wields his crosier like a club. If you doubt this, ask the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate or Cardinal Raymond Burke or anyone else who has been the object of his papal tirades and insults—to include traditional Catholics.

With regard to those who are protected or immune from the power of the tyrant, to a degree this applies to the Society of Saint Pius X. Even though—and precisely because—they are regarded as irregular by the Vatican authorities and mainstream Church, this has put them in a position to stand in private and public opposition to the aberrations of the Vatican II era Church with relative impunity. After all, what Society priest would be suspended or laicized by superiors for criticizing Vatican II or any heterodoxy. On the other hand, what diocesan cleric dares speak publicly about the same without a realistic fear of suspension, or far worse?

It is my hope that the criticisms of SSPX-X are not widespread within the Society and do not represent an official position of the Society, even though the post appears on the Society webpage. Many anonymous bloggers and authors within the broad spectrum of tradition are strong supporters of the SSPX, including many or most of us here at The Remnant. And while still supporting the SSPX, many of us are gravely concerned about the impending regularization of the Society with Rome, under a papal regime that is transparently tyrannical, heretical and unprecedented in Church history.

The atypical silence of the Society over the constant outrages of Francis in the months leading up to a possible regularization with Rome does not bode well for the future, for the Society itself and for tradition as a whole. If the price to pay for regularization is silence now, the cost to remain will be the same. Then, my friend SSPX-X, you will find out what it is like to fight in the trenches of tradition and keep your head down from enemy fire.

Get AQ Email Updates

4 comments on “Father X Takes Issue With Father SSPX-X

  1. Well said, Fr. X.
    The judgment expressed by SSPX-X is inane, for two other reasons that I can think of besides those you mentioned.
    1) The judgment tars everyone with the same brush. There are numerous reasons why someone would communicate anonymously. Cowardice is only one of them. This is a *legitimate* case where one should say “Who am I to judge?”
    2) Why does it really make any *difference* to a debate who the debaters are? You prove your point with reasons, not by appeals to one’s own authority — as if anyone has any, unless it be the Church Herself in Her magisterial teaching.
    For my part, I choose an anonymous web presence for this latter reason, and for another: It is easier not to take disagreement personally, so everyone is freer to say what they really think, and the conversation is more enlightening therefore. If people see something in what I say that they think needs to be blasted, I want them to use both barrels. Don’t hide any truth from me out of stupid human respect.
    Of course, one does have to have charity. I just prefer mine to be of the tough love variety. I think it works better. It’s not nice, but nice doesn’t usually work.

  2. Oh, and about those posters.
    Passive-aggressive? Really?

    Passive-aggressive behavior, as commonly understood, means trying to fight someone by indirect means, often dishonestly trying to hide your aggressive intent through veiled words or actions.
    That’s the pope’s specialty.
    In those posters, I didn’t even see any aggression. I just saw truths that needed to be told, and I say: “Right on!”
    I would, however, prefer something a little more in-your-face, like street demonstrations in Rome, with people carrying signs and handing out information sheets exposing the heresies and crimes of the Judas Pope.
    How I wish I lived in Italy!

  3. Has anyone ever considered public protests or marches shouting slogans like: ,”viva Cristo Rey”?

    • Yes, I have.
      In fact I posted on AQ a plan for an ongoing protest movement.
      Let me know if you are interested in participating in such a thing. If so, maybe the moderators can let us know how to get into private communication.

Leave a Reply