FSSP believes in the Pope and actually is obedient to him. SSPX claims to believe in the Pope but are not obedient to him.

This is a misrepresentation of the differences between the SSPX and the FSSP. Before 1988, traditional Catholics were unified in recognising the nature and extent of the liturgical and doctrinal crisis in the Church. But in 1988, it became clear that there were two different schools of thought with regard to the question of obedience in responding to the crisis. Both schools recognised that certain actions of the pope were destructive to the Church, but while one invoked a state of necessity and applied equity in response by setting aside canon law, the other chose to submit in blind obedience.

It has often been argued that because the SSPX did not follow the law and disobeyed the pope, they were necessarily wrong. This is a misguided conclusion, as the Catholic view of law is completely different from the way it has been viewed in the Western world since the time of the so-called “Enlightenment”. God did not only create the universe and everything in it, but also created law, which is why His creation is not chaotic and unruly, but ordered by eternal law which directs all creation to its proper end. However, natural and divine law are general, and so man is called to participate in the eternal law and in the governance of creation, and promulgate laws by which man himself is ruled and directed to his end. Thus, all human laws must be more specific formulations of the general principles found in divine and natural law, and yet also subordinated to them. This is called the principle of higher law.

In addition, there is also equity, a concept which has been around since Aristotle’s time, and which provides a solution for when human law fails to be in accordance with the eternal law. According to the teaching of the Angelic Doctor, the more specific a law is, the more likely it is to fail in extraordinary circumstances. How do we apply these principles to the Écône consecrations? Certainly, canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, which prohibits unauthorised episcopal consecrations without papal mandate, is not part of eternal law, but rather a man-made law which governs the continuation of the divine command to transmit Apostolic Succession through future generations. Thus, if a circumstance ever arises in that this human law could be used to act against divine or natural law, it is licit to set it aside, according to the principle of equity.

For Abp. Lefebvre, the matter was simple; from his perspective, the modernists could complete their destruction of tradition by simply waiting for the last traditional bishop to pass away. In his negotiations with Roman authorities, it became clear to him that they were simply trying to delay the consecrations. And having the benefit of hindsight, today we know that they were in fact trying to cause a delay; the FSSP has been left waiting for a bishop for thirty years. Given these factors, it became clear to Abp. Lefebvre that if canon 1013 was being used in order to contradict a divinely given command (to transmit the Tradition of the Church through the ages), it would be licit for him to “set aside” the human law for the purpose of fulfilling divine law. The principle of equity is not a means of justifying “breaking canon law”, but precisely of saving the dignity of canon law where its human aspect fails in an extraordinary circumstance.

The modern view of law, however, radically differs from the traditional Catholic perspective. Indeed, the philosophers of the so-called “Enlightenment”, ignoring the eternal aspects of law, fabricated a new jurisprudence without God, in which men were subject only to other men. Consequently, the commands of lower authorities must be obeyed, even when they contradict higher authorities. Although the priests who formed the FSSP sympathised with Abp. Lefebvre when he invoked the state of necessity due to the crisis in the Church, they refused to apply the principles of higher law and equity, choosing instead to practise legal positivism and submit to the pope’s laws even when their application would impede their purpose. When the pope promoted things contrary to divine law, the FSSP chose to obey the pope rather than God, ignoring Acts 5:29.

The priests who left to form the FSSP were practising false obedience, which consists of deferring to an ecclesiastical authority even when that authority exceeds its purview by issuing a command that is contrary to the will of God, as revealed to us through natural law or Church teaching. Obedience of this sort is only obedience so-called and has always been reprobated by the Church (Summa Theologica II-II, q. 104, art. 5, co.). With this in mind, there is no wonder that the FSSP has strayed greatly from its original mission. Their effectiveness in the fight for Catholic Tradition has been greatly reduced, to the extent that most of their members and supporters hold on to the traditional Mass due to nostalgia or personal preference, rather than for doctrinal reasons.