Skip to main content

THE RED HERRING OF THE CHINESE PATRIOTIC BISHOPS VS THE SSPX

Stephen Hepburn, it's apples and oranges, Sir. 

Those Chinese bishops are to replace actual existing empty seats of authority. The SSPX bishops, that were illegally consecrated, were replacing no existing vacant sees, and are not essential to the continuation of the church.

They know this because they are not claiming any kind of jurisdiction or territory. The SSPX bishops are sacramental bishops. But of course, the ignorant faithful practically treat them like their local ordinary, while they totally ignore the true jurisdictional territorial Bishop of the diocese in which they reside. 

Also, considering the fact that, the Vatican expressly forbade the SSPX to do what they did, in 1988, and clearly now in 2026. 

Besides that, come on, it doesn't matter what you or I really think. It only matters what the church authority says about it. If the church excommunicates the SSPX, then they are. Formally. And even if they didn't, they would be automatically excommunicated, latae sententiae at the moment the act of disobedience occurs. In this case it will be July 1st.

...

Stephen Hepburn, I don't know why this is a favorite topic for SSPX defenders. I honestly haven't really studied the Chinese Bishop situation very deeply, nor am I very interested in the Chinese bishops situation. They don't affect me personally. SSPX is all over the place in my sphere of ecclesial experience. If I'm sitting here talking about a moral situation of Catholics in close proximity to me I will engage those topics, but if the response is trying to talk about similar situations in a different state or country, those are distractions in my view. I'm talking about the SSPX and why they are in schism and will be formally so in a few days. If you want to talk about the Chinese bishops go find somebody else to hash out the minutiae on that issue. :-) 

Many of the points you raise are already addressed in my blog. If you want to respond to all of the posts on my blog, feel free to do so. :-) Here:

https://sspxschism.blogspot.com

My personal argument that I would present to anyone who wants to read it is here:

https://sspxschism.blogspot.com/2025/10/a-case-against-association-with-sspx.html

My video interview that I did on the topic is here:

https://sspxschism.blogspot.com/2025/11/why-you-should-not-attend-sspx-deep.html 

Theologian Father Brian Harrison explains why the SSPX is currently in schism here:

https://sspxschism.blogspot.com/2025/11/fr-brian-harrison-os-ma-std-on-status.html

Cardinal Burke says the SSPX are not part of the Catholic Church here:

https://sspxschism.blogspot.com/2023/01/at-this-time-they-sspx-are-not-part-of.html

John Salza responds to every single question that came in to Pints with Aquinas and I provided a topical table of contents here 

https://sspxschism.blogspot.com/2023/01/schismatics-sspx-and-sedes-w-john-salza.html

John Salza addresses this particular issue here: 

https://www.youtube.com/live/PVnnJfQD-aU?t=899&is=CPZxqArHprdU6a7C

Every single one of the points you've made thus far that I've read addressed to me, I've already responded to in some post on the blog. You can also consult the wealth of in-depth canonical analysis done by John Salza and Robert Siscoe at www.TrueorFalsePope.com. Some people are cool with writing their positions out all day everyday ad nauseam. I don't. That's why I put it on a blog so I can just link people to it. :-)

It's out there, with a ton of bonuses, absolutely free, no pay well, no signing up for my newsletter. 

Also this effort so that nobody follows their perception of what Tradition is outside of the Catholic Church. 

Outside of which, there is no salvation.

Addendum

John Salza adds via SMS:

"Excellent! BTW there is no such thing as sacramental bishops. That is an invention of the false church of tradition. All legitimate bishops are consecrated for a diocese."

Laurence:

Thanks for pointing out that need to clarify. I guess I should have made that clear. It's the whole point of a bishop to be the overseer of a territory with the fullness of the priesthood in the bishop, and priests being his extension of priestly ministry. In the actual Church, the bishop that is more versed in the tlm ceremonials may come in as a substitute for the territorial Bishop, but only by permission, right? He can't just come in and do his own thing contrary to the will of the local ordinary.

John Salza:

"Correct."

Popular posts from this blog

Lefebvre: Marks of the Church only with SSPX, not with others

Lefebvre: Marks of the Church only with SSPX, not with others "Where is the visible Church? The visible Church is recognized by the signs that she has always given for her visibility: she is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. (…) where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more in the official Church (it is not the visible Church, it is the official Church) or with us, in what we represent, what we are? If there is still any visibility of the Church today, it is thanks to you. These signs are no longer found in others. There is no longer any unity of faith among them, yet it is faith that is the basis of all visibility of the Church. Catholicity is one faith in space. Apostolicity is one faith in time and holiness is the fruit of faith, which materializes in souls by the grace of God, by the grace of the sacraments. It is quite wrong to consider ourselves as if we were not part of the visible Church. […] is to make a mistake in equating the official Church with th...
Read more

As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is the fool that repeateth his folly: The folly of the Transalpine Redemptorists

As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is the fool that repeateth his folly. -Proverbs 26:11, DRB Let's start off with what was publicly stated by the Transalpine Redemptorists in 2008. Read how important undisputed communion with Rome is for them... back in 2008. Tuesday, July 01, 2008 Canonical Good Standing 1 July, 2008 Feast of the Precious Blood My dear friends, I am happy to inform you that last June 18th, before Cardinal Castrillon and the members of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in Rome, I humbly petitioned the Holy See on my own behalf and on behalf of the monastery council for our priestly suspensions to be lifted. On June 26th I received word that the Holy See had granted our petition. All canonical censures have been lifted. Our community now truly rejoices in undisputed and peaceful posession of Communion with the Holy See because our priests are now in canonical good standing. We are very grateful to our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI for issuing, last July,...
Read more

Fr. Brian Harrison, OS, MA, STD on the Status of the SSPX

Father Brian Harrison, OS, MA, STD on The Journey Home (EWTN) Editor, L. Gonzaga: With permission, I publish here a private group message written by Fr. Brian Harrison, OS, MA, STD addressed to two SSPX priests, whom I am not naming as their emails have not been approved for publication. This message was in support of an initial case made by Dr. Robert Sungenis on the status of the SSPX. On Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 5:55 PM Brian Harrison wrote: If I may be permitted to weigh in here:   Dr. Sungenis is right.  Pope Benedict XVI, even when lifting the 1988 excommunications on the SSPX bishops in 2009, said (via the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops), that the Society was not "in full communion" with the Catholic Church, and that he hoped this gesture would be a step towards bringing them back into full communion.    As is well known, "not in full communion" with the Catholic Church is just the polite, ecumenically-oriented post-Vatican II term for being in schism ...
Read more