Misframing Church Crisis: How a Pastorally Phrased Observation Replaces Doctrine with Alignment

Church crisis misframed:
The crisis is not about: drifting, being pushed out, or staying in.
It is about Catholic identity. 
The SSPX crisis is not a problem of alignment but of ontology; not of loyalty but of legitimacy; not of movement but of meaning; not of psychology but of ecclesiology.

Prologue: Pastorally Phrased, yet Grossly Faulty Observation

I came across a curious “observation” that reads thus: 

“MY OBSERVATION after reading many comments from different sides: The SSPX seems aware of the risks, yet remains firm in its stance instead of fully submitting to the Church, which is actually trying to keep them from drifting further away. At the same time, certain modernist groups appear to be pushing them out, while the sedevacantists seem almost eager to see them fall.

Stand with the Church! And let us pray that the July consecrations are carried out with Rome’s full approval.”

No doubts, this observation is pastorally phrased, but from a pre-Vatican II Traditional Catholic perspective, it rests on several unexamined assumptions that quietly shift the question from truth to alignment, and from doctrine to strategy. 

The clarity and precision that our Holy Faith demands obliges us to walk through it calmly and clearly for the edification of misled souls. 

1. “The Church” Is Assumed, Not Defined

“Stand with the Church!”

“…Rome’s full approval.”

From a traditional perspective, the first question is never who is trying to keep whom inside, but:

What, precisely, is meant by “the Church”?

Perennial Catholic theology does not equate “the Church” simply with:

• the current Roman administration,
• diplomatic recognition,
• or canonical approval detached from doctrine.

The Church is defined by:

• identity of faith,
• continuity of doctrine,
• unity of worship and belief,
• and legitimate authority ordered to guarding the Deposit.

Thus, “standing with the Church” is not a slogan; it is a theological claim that must be proven, not presumed.

2. The SSPX Is Framed as “Not Fully Submitting”; But to What?

“The SSPX seems aware of the risks, yet remains firm in its stance instead of fully submitting to the Church…”

This framing assumes that:

• the authority asking for submission is clearly Catholic in content, and
• submission would be an unambiguous good.

But Catholic theology insists:

• submission is ordered to truth, not vice versa.

Obedience is a virtue, not an absolute; its object matters.

If the SSPX hesitates, the classical question is not:

“Why won’t they submit?”

but:

“What exactly are they being asked to submit to?”

Is it:

• doctrinal continuity as taught pre-1958?
• or acceptance of Vatican II’s disputed doctrines (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, new ecclesiology)?

Without answering that, “submission” becomes a meaningless abstraction.

3. “The Church Is Trying to Keep Them from Drifting” ; A Modern Pastoral Lens

This language reflects a modernist pastoral mindset:

• centripetal vs centrifugal,
• inclusion vs exclusion,
• drifting vs belonging.

Catholic theology does not analyze crises in these sociological terms.

The Church does not ask:

“Who is drifting?” but:

“Who is teaching what the Church has always taught?”

If Rome itself has altered doctrine or discipline in substance, then the direction of “drift” is precisely the point under dispute; not something already settled.

4. Modernists “Pushing Them Out”;  This Is Not Accidental

“Certain modernist groups appear to be pushing them out…”

This is an important admission, though its implications are not followed through.

From a traditional perspective:

• modernists push traditional doctrine out because it contradicts them.
• hostility is not a misunderstanding; it is doctrinal incompatibility.

If modernists feel threatened by SSPX positions, that suggests:

• not a failure of charity,
• but a collision of incompatible principles.

That collision cannot be resolved by administrative compromise. It can only be resolved by ceasing to be co-religionists with the modernist impostors  whose religion is intrinsically not only non-Catholic, but anti-Catholic. Pope St. Pius X called them “the most pernicious of the adversaries of the Church” for a reason. 

5. “Sedevacantists Eager to See Them Fall”; A Misleading Psychological Reading

This line interprets theological disagreement as emotional motivation. And this is grossly misleading .

What are sedevacantists to gain if SSPX “falls”? 

To the extent sedevacantists:

• believe the modernist hierarchy lacks authority
  
  
• believe the SSPX position is incoherent
  
  
• believe consistency matters more than numbers
• There is no material, institutional, or ideological advantage to SSPX collapse.

• No power gain
• No jurisdictional gain
• No sacramental gain
• No canonical gain
• No organizational gain

The real issue is not who wants whom to fail, but:

what ecclesiology is true.

Sedevacantists do not argue:

“SSPX should fail.”

They bewail SSPX contradictory ecclesiology as they argue that:

attempts to regularize under a modernist framework are theologically incoherent.

Whether that argument is accepted or rejected, it must be answered doctrinally, not psychologically. 

In Catholic theology, authority is ontological before it is functional. In this framework, you cannot:

• deny legitimacy of authority doctrinally
  
  
• while seeking legitimacy from it practically

The one thing necessary which Sedevacantists look forward to is for the SSPX to be consistent: 

• to stop being practical sedevacantists while they condemn sedevacantistism.
• to stop recognizing authority where it does not exist: to admit Sede vacante with all its implications. 

Sedevacantism is logical rigor, not sectarian ambition. Sedevacantists are not calling for destruction;  they are calling for coherence:

Either:

• Authority exists, therefore unqualified submission follows
  
  
• Or: Authority does not exist, therefore sede vacante follows.

But not:

• Authority exists when convenient
  
  
• Authority does not exist when inconvenient

That middle position is what they see as ecclesiological incoherence. Who would dare gainsay this? 

6. Prayer for “Rome’s Full Approval” Presumes the Question

“Let us pray that the July consecrations are carried out with Rome’s full approval.”

Prayer is always good; but the object of the prayer assumes:

• that Rome’s approval, as presently constituted, is the decisive criterion of legitimacy.

Pre-Vatican II theology would add an essential qualifier:

• Approval is meaningful only if it is ordered to the preservation of faith and tradition.

Otherwise, approval risks becoming:

• administrative pacification,
• or symbolic unity without doctrinal unity.

And there is nothing Catholic about that. 

7. The Core Issue Quietly Avoided

The observation carefully avoids the central doctrinal question:

Is Vatican II in continuity with prior magisterium in meaning and doctrine; or not?

Until that is answered:

• SSPX hesitation cannot be reduced to stubbornness,
• Roman pressure cannot be reduced to pastoral concern,
• unity cannot be achieved by goodwill alone.

Conclusion

From a pre-Vatican II Traditional Catholic perspective, this “observation” 

• correctly perceives tension,
• but mislocates its cause.

The crisis is not primarily about:

• drifting,
• being pushed out,
• or staying in.

It is about identity.

Standing with the Church does not mean standing with whichever authority claims the name today, but standing with:

• what the Church has always taught,
• as she has always understood herself.

Until doctrinal continuity is resolved, every move toward “full approval” will remain unstable; no matter how sincere the intentions, or how fervent the prayers.

And that, precisely, is why the situation remains so charged. 

Yes, authority in the Church is intrinsically ordered to the transmission of immutable doctrine, and therefore cannot be treated as a neutral mechanism.

It must be noted that:

• The SSPX–sedevacantist conflict is not about desire, rivalry, or psychological hostility.  It is about whether authority is ontological or functional, and whether ecclesiology can remain coherent when authority is simultaneously denied in principle and sought in practice.
• The SSPX crisis is not a problem of alignment but of ontology; not of loyalty but of legitimacy; not of movement but of meaning; not of psychology but of ecclesiology.

 To miss this point, so crucial, is a colossal failure in anything that claims to be an “observation” of the analyses of the SSPX’s pickle, however sincere.