MGS: My interest in their description of themselves as under the authority of the bishops of the SSPX derives from the near parody it makes of the exercise of private judgment. If you’re on the inside, as it were, and you’re convinced that the bishops of the SSPX are in all relevant respects zealous defenders of the Faith and right interpreters of doctrine - not because of some special grace they have received, but because they happen to have the right views - then aligning oneself with the bishops of the SSPX makes sense.

But to an outsider, to someone who is very little convinced that the bishops of the SSPX are bound to get it right on all relevant matters - though many times they are dead on - this submission will appear ad hoc and motivated by he knows not what.

I must reiterate: I am very partial to the SSPX, but not to the point of making a submission to them as to some body which serves as pope pro tempore, in this time of doctrinal confusion, liberalism and modernism.

The sad fact of these times is that we must rely so often upon our own private judgment: if the Pope of Rome says that it’s black when all the rest of the world and we can see that it’s white, we must not say that it’s black. Yet if only it were that easy in the real world! I have more fully expressed my views about this matter here.

Essentially, what I’m asking is that we remember the distinction between the pope, who is the only one capable of being the authority, and other folks, bishops, priests, cardinals who may happen to hold orthodox positions in times of confusion.

If someone said: “I submit to Athanasius as the authentic interpreter of tradition and the Faith” - he would be nuts. But if he said: “I’m with Athanasius because he holds and only in as much as he holds the truth Faith” - he would be a good man.

The description on their website for the newspaper sounds to me too much like the former strange view. Are they really saying that if the bishops of the SSPX were to conclude that, after giving Benedict a good chance, he must in fact not be a true pope, the monks would follow the bishops?

The bishops of the SSPX are just as liable to err and to do strange things as Cardinal Mahony in Los Angeles - they both have the grace of state; and Mahony even has a pallium. Would I not be insane, though, if I said: come hell or high water, I’m with Mahony? Rather I should say: as long as Mahony teaches and upholds the Faith, I’m with Mahony. So I think that the monks on Papa Stronsay should say: as long as the bishops of the SSPX uphold the Faith, we’re with them.

The trouble is that if you come to have a disagreement over a serious matter, how do you know who has departed from tradition and the Faith? You have not Rome to decide between you. And that’s the sad state of our situation today.

To mock this stance, and to state that the authority of the bishops is given to them from below, is to grossly miscast the relevant canons regarding “extraordinary jurisdiction,” as some kind of democratic fantasy in action.

If the bishops, validly ordained as they are, effectively defend the faith against modern errors, and confect the sacraments for the benefit of faithful starved for order, doctrine, and consolation, can you possibly think that Our Lord would not demand obedience and loyalty, (subject, of course to all reasonable provisions of law and orthodoxy) from the priests and faithful who benefit from their sacrifices? Who are you to make a mockery of an obedience which in the end is offered to God Himself, pliant to the circumstances God has permitted in our time?

I think you may find that Our Divine King lacks your sense of humour on this point - which is not to accuse you of anything worse than momentary misjudgement.

I do often enjoy your commentary and thank you for it, -but I assure you that I- who personally benefit from the prayers and masses of the Transalpine monks, and who likewise submits himself and his family to a practical obedience to the superiors of the SSPX, in those areas where they have competence, do not find laughable an earnest effort by the monks and traditional faithful who, repeatedly abused by their legitimate pastors, offer to God an obedience grounded in the faith to those clerics who have stepped forward and maintain the breech during an hour of madness in ecclesiastical affairs. To do otherwise would be simply to grant to chaos a traditional flavour - neither lasting nor effective.

Regards

M.G. Stannus