At a time when Catholics attending the TLM are facing persecution from various elements of the Church hierarchy, the spectacle of one eminent lay voice condemning another Traditional Catholic organization in public only boosts the cause of those who would like to see the TLM vanish into oblivion.
Even if one has opinions regarding the prudence or canonical standing of the SSPX’s decision, articulating these remarks in a way that plays to an establishment generally hostile to TLM-going Catholics risks transforming intra‑traditional rifts into public fodder for those who oppose the cause of the TLM and traditional Catholic teachings.
When a figure like Shaw attempts to distance himself from the SSPX in a condemnatory or dismissive way, he is not simply “clarifying” positions; he is signalling to bishops, journalists, and opponents of the TLM that Traditional Catholics themselves are divided, thus undermining the bargaining position of every individual TLM-loving group vis-à-vis the Vatican authorities. By trying to disprove the SSPX and spending time and effort trying to pander to the Vatican authorities that he and the Latin Mass Society are “not like those SSPXers”, Shaw is also undermining his very own TLM cause from within.
Arguably, the 2026 announcement of new SSPX bishops is precisely the sort of moment that calls for a prudent Christian response, instead of point‑scoring with the Vatican authorities. Traditional Catholics may disagree among themselves about whether the SSPX decision to consecrate bishops is the right step or strategy to be adopted at the right time. However, any honest and serious evaluation of the entire situation between the Vatican and the SSPX must admit the reality that due to the lack of doctrinal clarity from Vatican authorities and numerous scandals involving the clergy, especially during the pontificate of Pope Francis, the SSPX has developed into the global force it is today. Public attacks of the SSPX that gloss over this context and neglect decades of episcopal misgovernance while placing the blame squarely on the SSPX and its sympathizers for refusing to capitulate the TLM and traditional Catholic doctrine are historically unjust and theologically short-sighted.
In the English context, long before Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum, the so‑called Agatha Christie Indult permitted for limited public celebration of the TLM under limited conditions. Hence, English Catholics attached to tradition enjoyed, at least in theory, some access to the 1962 Missal without needing the SSPX’s presence in the same way Catholics in France, Switzerland, the United States, or in many parts of Asia did. This Indult meant that English Traditional Catholicism could develop around particular diocesan permissions, small approved communities tolerated at least by bishops.
Nonetheless, such a historical particularity is exactly why English traditional leaders should display a greater, not lesser, solidarity with countries that did not have such an indult. Where England had a restricted means to preserve some form of traditional worship, many other countries had none at all; the SSPX became, for countless souls, the only place to hear the TLM as it had been celebrated for centuries.
Additionally, the Agatha Christie Indult itself was never secure and sustainable enough to guarantee the future of the TLM and Catholic Tradition. The Indult was reliant on the good will of particular hierarchs and on a delicate political balance that could easily be overturned. In that sense, the SSPX’s unwavering stance in ensuring the accessibility of the TLM, even if one may deem it to be highly flawed—created conditions that helped pave the way for later concessions, such as those granted to the Ecclesia Dei communities or Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, Many of the very liberties that English traditionalists would enjoy more broadly were partially shaped by the reality of a huge group of Catholics who simply refused to let the TLM fade into the annals of history. To pretend that this wider historical dynamic can be completely detached from the contributions of the SSPX is to indulge in selective historical amnesia.
The deeper issue, then, is not whether one approves of every tactical move the SSPX makes, but whether Traditional Catholics will act as a united front or as rival factions clamoring for favor with the Vatican authorities.
Traditional Catholics like Shaw, who benefit from canonical recognition, should acknowledge that others such as those belonging to the SSPX, have endured immense risks and costs to defend the TLM; whereas those in irregular situations should acknowledge the burdens faced by those trying to work within dioceses. Having said that, all traditional Catholics should avoid situations in which they judge and condemn each other more harshly than the modernism, doctrinal heterodoxies, and liturgical abuses that continue unchecked in many places around the world. The resources and energy spent criticizing the SSPX in public would be far better spent safeguarding reverent worship, orthodox catechesis, and the TLM.
In this light, what is required at the moment in view of the upcoming SSPX episcopal consecrations among traditional Catholics is not more public distancing but a renewed commitment to unity in essentials, charity in disputes, and a shared recognition that we are all bound together by the same love for the ancient Roman rite and the same desire to transmit the Catholic Faith in its entirely to our progeny.
Maria, Mater Ecclesiae, ora pro nobis.
