Kennedy Hall Wants to Get a Deal Done
“How about we just get you guys (SSPX) your stuff done by other (non-Traditional) bishops? Maybe there’s some compromise there...I think it would be a good thing...I think there's a value in that."
“It is impossible to remain silent, or to pretend that we do not see and do not understand. We are dealing with a counterfeit Church, not the Catholic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ... We must not compromise. We must not collaborate. It is a strict duty for every priest and faithful who wishes to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church.” - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 1988
I want to reflect on Kennedy Hall’s recent video about the SSPX and what may lie ahead under Pope Leo XIV. This isn’t a hit piece — I want to be charitable — but we need to be clear and firm about the issues. Because what Hall says, even if well-intentioned, is incredibly dangerous.
Let’s walk through it.
Timestamp 3:38
"In my entire life, we have never seen a traditional bishop consecrated in the Catholic Church have we? Except for the bishops of the society."
This is false. Bishop Williamson has consecrated bishops. Ironically, earlier in the video at 1:08, Hall says, "God rest his soul" about Bp. Tissier, but not about Bp. Williamson. That seems quite deliberate.
He reiterates the same false claim again at 14:46, asserting there are no Traditional bishops outside the SSPX.
Note: Hall openly acknowledges at the beginning of this video that bishops like Bp. Schneider are NOT Traditional. This is important, because it shows how illogical it is for him to later suggest that diocesan bishops like Schneider or Strickland could be used for ordinations or confirmations for the SSPX.
If Schneider isn’t Traditional, why would it be acceptable to use him for Traditional sacraments?
Bishops like Schneider and Strickland who refer to "Saint" John Paul II, promote the Divine Mercy devotion of "Saint" Faustina, and publicly align themselves with the post-conciliar canonizations and teachings are not in line with Archbishop Lefebvre. I do not want them being called in to perform sacraments for the SSPX.
Timestamp 5:31–8:00
Hall chronicles the "legal" permissions given to the SSPX under Benedict and Francis: the Latin Mass, the lifting of excommunications, permission to hear confessions and witness marriages.
Not once does he mention that none of these permissions were necessary.
The SSPX has Supplied Jurisdiction. They have always had the right to do these things.
By omitting this point, Hall subtly normalizes the false idea that these permissions from Rome are needed or helpful. They are not. In fact, one could argue they are harmful because they reinforce the idea that the SSPX depends on Rome’s approval to do what it has always done (which is to say, what the Catholic Church has always done). Archbishop Lefebvre would have never accepted that.
“It is a strict duty for every priest and for every faithful who wishes to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church.” — Abp. Lefebvre
Timestamp 8:09
"The late great Bishop Huonder..."
Great? Really Kennedy? Huonder was a modernist who claimed the SSPX was not in schism — big deal. Hall then goes on to lump the SSPX in with the Ecclesia Dei communities. He mumbles a bit saying, “they’re not really an Ecclesia Dei community... you know what I’m saying.”
Actually, no. I don’t.
Timestamp 8:46
"[Bp. Huonder] was very clear that Pope Francis told him in a conversation that the SSPX were not schismatics."
And? Francis was a heretical usurper. His opinion on the status of the SSPX is utterly irrelevant. Why should anyone rejoice at being "recognized" by one who openly persecuted the faith? Why would we care what an apostate thinks about the SSPX?
Timestamp 10:00–10:45
Hall argues that the SSPX needs to at least try to follow the usual steps for consecrating bishops, to show a willingness to do things properly. That’s fair — in principle. But here’s the real question:
Will the SSPX consecrate the best possible bishops — the strongest, clearest defenders of Archbishop Lefebvre’s legacy — or will they make concessions?
What if Rome says “no” to the best men and tries to hand them a list instead? What if Fr. Rostand (now a convicted pederast) had been on a Vatican-approved list in 1988?
Will the SSPX accept bishops that aren’t even from the Society?
This is critical.
Timestamp 11:12–11:32
Hall notes how hard Archbishop Lefebvre tried to work with Cardinal Ratzinger and Rome. He says, "sadly, that fell through."
What he omits is why it fell through. He omits what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say on the matter.
“They just wanted to gain time… It was a trap!”
“It is impossible to trust these men. They have not changed.”
“I have no bitterness. I am at peace because I know I have done my duty.”
Timestamp 13:00
Hall says his "gut" tells him Pope Leo wants unity and doesn’t want another 1988.
Okay. But on what evidence is this based?
You don't know Leo’s heart. He’s been Pope for a few weeks. That’s not a solid basis for optimism.
Timestamp 17:30–18:45
Hall references Leo’s homily where he spoke about unity. He says Leo addressed "other Christian groups," and admits this was "problematic in some cases."
You don’t say.
Leo literally called these heretical sects our “sister churches.” That’s not just problematic — that’s a red flag. That’s modernist ecumenism 101. That reveals that Leo has no sense of what true unity entails.
Timestamp 18:47
Hall rightly acknowledges that unity requires unity in Faith, Governance, and Sacraments.
So how exactly does he think SSPX can be united with the conciliar church?
Abp. Lefebvre was crystal clear:
“We must not simply be content to say the traditional Mass, we must also reject the errors that came from Vatican II and the reforms.”
“They are in the process of re-integrating us. Slowly, cleverly, little by little, they want to bring us back into the conciliar Church.”
“We are not of this Conciliar Church. We do not accept it because it is destroying us.”
There can be no unity with the post-Conciliar Church! None whatsoever.
Timestamp 19:53
Hall says: "Pope Leo wants a solution."
Let’s define solution.
A solution is the specific and effective course of action that resolves a clearly identified problem, such that the disorder is removed and the original order is restored.
Problem: Post-conciliar crisis in doctrine, liturgy, and authority.
False “solutions”: Dialogue, compromise, integration into the new religion.
True solution: Rome returns to Tradition.
Hall isn’t describing a solution. He’s describing appeasement. He's describing compromise (which he subsequently admits...).
Timestamp 20:24–22:10
“I think it’s going to be like... SSPX has permission to just continue with their apostolate... and continued dialogue... and bishops of the world are encouraged to work with them.”
Again, that is not a solution.
That is pacification. That is prolongation of the crisis. That is modernist soft-sell.
Timestamp 22:47
Hall says he’s not involved in conspiracies to sway papal elections — weird, random non sequitur.
Why even say that? It sounds like a smokescreen...a very bizarre remark to make.
Timestamp 25:00
Hall drops the bomb:
"I think Bishop Schneider would be willing to perform consecrations or ordinations. I think Bishop Strickland would help out too."
WHAT?
Even Hall admitted earlier in the video that none of these men are Traditional. How could we possibly be certain of these bishops' legitimacy or the legitimacy of their intentions? (Certain is the operative word.)
This is madness.
Timestamp 25:46
“How about we just get you guys your stuff done by other bishops? Maybe there’s some compromise there.”
Damning remarks! Truly damning. Hall uses the "C" word that Abp Lefebvre CONDEMNED in his sermon at the 1988 Consecrations!
“It is not we who separate ourselves from the Church. On the contrary, we are the faithful ones. It is impossible for us to collaborate in the destruction of the Church. That is all. There is no need to argue. We cannot COMPROMISE.”
Timestamp 26:00
"Would that be a good decision for the society? I don't know. On the one hand personally I would think it would be a good thing...I think there's a value in that."
Then you do not understand Archbishop Lefebvre.
Hall is advocating for what I call intra-ecclesial ecumenism. He is proposing SSPX integration with the very bishops and dioceses that Archbishop Lefebvre condemned and fled from. Ironically, though he no longer holds this opinion, even Bishop Fellay called out this dynamic back in 2000 in Flavigny:
“They want to put us in the zoo—an ecumenical zoo. We would be there, with our Latin Mass and cassocks, as a decoration, as a traditional ornament, while the Conciliar revolution continues. But we will not be part of that zoo.”
Timestamp 27:11 Hall mocks the Resistance and says that Lefebvre worked tirelessly for a canonical solution "until his death."
He omits the dying words of Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy.”
“We await the day when Rome returns to Tradition.”
Archbishop Lefebvre tried to do things in the normal way until 1988, when he finally realized, by God's grace, that "Rome has lost the faith." And then Abp Lefebvre made his views on the Conciliar Church and Modernist Rome ABUNDANTLY clear until his death.
Hall then goes on a 1 minute apologetic in favor of Bp Strickland...a lot of solemn nonsense, again revealing he (Hall himself and by his own words) is a compromiser.
He reiterates yet again that Leo wants unity and is a missionary...blah blah blah.
Final thoughts:
Hall’s remarks reveal either deep confusion or grave compromise. His praise for non-traditional bishops, his attempts to normalize permissions from Rome, his flirtation with "compromise," and his apparent faith in Pope Leo XIV after just a few weeks all raise serious red flags.
In spite of whatever books he has written and whatever endorsement he has from SSPX priests, he does not represent the spirit or fidelity of Archbishop Lefebvre.
"We persevere in the line of the great popes who condemned this modernism, this liberalism, this destruction of the Faith and the Church." — Abp. Lefebvre
Vigilate et Orate. AND NO COMPROMISES!
Saying, "We don't need faculties because we have supplied jurisdiction" is a stupid argument, because supplied jurisdiction exists precisely to fix a situation in which one does not have habitual jurisdiction. The very existence of supplied jurisdiction presupposes that "official" approval (habitual jurisdiction) is necessary in the first place.
The last time I checked, the SSPX isn't sedevacantist, so I don't understand why so many people on the Internet are angry about the SSPX being glad that Rome gave them "official" permissions such as faculties for confessions. The hierarchical nature of the Church does not cease to exist simply because there are bad leaders. As members of a society of apostolic life, SSPX priests are supposed to receive faculties from the local ordinaries within whose territories they operate. This fact would remain true regardless of whether the local ordinary is a good person or not, and regardless of whether the Church is in crisis or not.
Now I did make an argument in favor of supplied jurisdiction in the cases that SSPX priests usually deal with (see here: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/i/153586353/a-case-for-regularization), and this argument could be made without any reference whatsoever to the SSPX's theological views on Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae, or anything else. Nevertheless, the defenders of the SSPX who default to arguing that "there is a crisis in the Church, therefore they have supplied jurisdiction" are making a canonically fallacious argument because supplied jurisdiction, by definition, works on a case-by-case basis, not on a general basis.
This argument that such "official" approval is harmful most likely stems from an excessively emotional consideration of the canonical facts, leading one to have a visceral reaction to the idea of "receiving jurisdiction from modernists" and thereby losing reason in the process. While I understand that people are upset and suspicious about wolves in sheeps' clothing, we still have to distinguish between the office and the person who occupies the office. Not making that distinction can lead to (dare I say?) a bit of a schismatic mentality.
I've given up on 'Traditional Catholic' you tubers. Without exception these R&R influencers seek to influence towards error. Archbishop Lefebvre had concerns about Novus Ordo episcopal consecrations. If the SSPX get any closer to Rome they will dissolve into the modernist stew. The likes of Romano Guardini are being forced on the faithful, and the pulpit is all too often used to preach SSPX policy rather than the faith.