An extraordinary feature of the history of the Society of St Pius X is that, whenever there is contact with Rome, a group of the priests and the lay people in the chapels, up sticks and leave. Like affronted chefs, they run off in a huff and then accuse those whom they leave behind of ‘betraying’ the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre. Every major event in the Society in the past 40 years has resulted in a degree of internal strife followed by an exodus.
The episcopal consecrations in June 1988 presented a very nasty shock to many people who were, up until then, happily supporting the Society. For those who liked ‘bells and smells’ the consecrations were a savage reality check and our little congregation in a disused Anglican church in Bath, UK, was suddenly halved. As I surveyed the remnants on the first Sunday in July 1988, with many familiar faces gone and never to be seen again, it was my mother who whispered to me from her wheelchair: “these people who are left are all making a stand.” Suddenly the Vatican wielded their rusty swords of ecclesiastical penalties, including excommunication latae sententiae, so who in their right mind would not run for cover? The last excommunication in the United Kingdom had been in 1907.
For those priests and laypeople attached to SSPX these were frightening times as they were accused of heresy and schism. Many senior bishops, abbots and clergy who, up until recently, had publicly supported the Archbishop either disappeared from view or were openly hostile. All in all, it is arguable that God permitted these events so as to clear away the driftwood from the Society. In other words, all those who thought that they could have the trappings of Catholic tradition, and at the same time have the approval of Rome, were shafted. What remained was a leaner, fitter and persecuted remnant which was ideally fortified to face the advance of the crisis in the Catholic Church, although, glancing around at our own congregation at Bath few of us were fit or lean!
After this the existence of SSPX was barely remarked on by the Church authorities and largely ignored by the Catholic press during the 1990s. This, I think, was a deliberate ploy adopted in the hope that, starved of the oxygen of publicity, the Society would curl up and die. So far as I could judge, most of our little congregation consisted of old people and a few young men in tweeds who reeked of pipe tobacco. The large families were still a thing of the future and the noisy interruptions during Mass from babes in arms were quite rare. Nobody was interested in negotiating with Rome or even spreading the word. We were just grateful to get the Mass once in a while (by no means every Sunday) and we believed that we were keeping the flame alive, hoping that something would eventually happen with God’s grace and things could return to normal. We were a dispirited lot really.
In spite of the rejections and resulting hardships suffered by the priests and faithful of SSPX it was, of course, too much to expect that they would be united in their analysis of the crisis in the Catholic Church and the appropriate remedies.
There must have been alarm bells ringing in the papal palace in Rome as the dissident group continued to grow and become more established. The Summorum Pontificum of 2007 was an attempt by Pope Benedict XVI to placate the rising calls for the re-establishment of the Tridentine Mass (only the Mass, mind) with a view to ultimately re-integrating SSPX into the official Church. Additionally, the excommunications against the four bishops were lifted.
The effect of these changes were to make certain elements in SSPX keen to hurry along the process of integration and saw the dragging of feet by Bishop Fellay as a betrayal of the principles laid down by their founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. Various titans in the SSPX movement made separate deals with Rome, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer and the diocese of Campos, Brazil, to name a few. There were also defections of priests and seminarians, especially in Switzerland and the United States. I remember myself how many of our faithful resented the ‘hardline’ approach of the SSPX leadership and began to attend Tridentine Masses at local parish churches and also at mass centres founded, often tantalisingly nearby, by the Fraternity of St Peter.
The reason that I was not tempted to remove myself and my growing family from SSPX at that time and ‘return to the fireside of Mother Church,’ as one of my brothers put it, was because I did not trust Rome. I had this premonition of a new Pope and all the promises being quietly forgotten. It was a bit like living in England under the Tudors, where the welfare of the Church was putty in the hands of whoever was in charge. Besides which, I trusted the SSPX leadership to make the right decision. Finding the open disloyalty displayed by some clergy and laypeople distasteful, I wanted no part in it as, above all, I wanted peace in my family. This peace is essential if graces are to flow, and it is very destructive if children and parents are torn apart by debates. Some people said that I was a coward, but events have justified my position.
People nowadays seem to forget how close to self-destruction the SSPX seemed during the reign of Benedict XVI. The offer of reconciliation from Rome wrongfooted people and many were accused of having a ‘schismatic mentality’ for refusing to budge. It was these events which led to some more of our congregation disappearing. In France quite a few priests took off also, but apart from the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer on the island of Papa Stronsay, Scotland, the United Kingdom district remained intact, so I believe.
Turning now to the events leading up to the divisions of 2012, the causes were the exact opposite to those which occurred in 2007. Now the Society of St Pius X was invited to ‘talks’ with the Roman authorities, leading to a possible full integration. This time the boot was on the other foot and the people who left SSPX, and there were lots of them, claimed that the cause of Archbishop Lefebvre was being betrayed (that again!) and also claimed that the leadership were gung-ho for a ‘deal’ which would nullify the principles for which we had all fought. Thus began a very forceful and unworthy campaign of vilification against the SSPX leadership which resulted in the organisation of the SSPX ‘resistance.’ Again, I was pressured by many old friends to leave SSPX and join the ‘resistance’ but I had no doubts. I trusted the leadership. Again, I was accused of being a coward and even of being a liberal. A few priests here in England were tempted to leave but few did in the end.
So, was SSPX thinking of climbing into bed with Rome? I doubt it. Also, the ‘deal’ which was ‘just around the corner’ seems to have been buried along with the body of Pope Benedict XVI.
The mistake which many dissident Catholics made, whether in 2007 or 2012, was to regard Archbishop Lefebvre as some kind of ‘guru’ who had laid down a set of principles which had to be followed through thick and thin. To believe this is to misunderstand the mission of this saintly man. He said at the consecrations sermon in 1988 that he was a simple bishop carrying out his God-given and Catholic duty as he had sworn to do. No-one can possibly have any idea how the Archbishop would have reacted to the events of 2007 and 2012. Rome has at its disposal an ancient and powerful diplomatic department full of brilliant minds who are expert at applying pressure. They would have probably made short work of the Archbishop as they nearly did in the negotiations of 1988, and as they nearly did to Bishop Fellay in 2012. In fact, it is nothing short of miraculous that the Society of St Pius X survives at all, having regard to the machinations it has endured at the hands of Rome.
And now, the same arguments are being pulled from bookshelves and dusted down, like Christmas carol books, ready for the next crisis as the SSPX leadership contemplates how, when and if they should consecrate replacement bishops. Already the internet is coming alive with the same arguments as though the past never happened. Some commentators, I believe, are hoping for drama as they attempt to cause anger and division. We have the ‘we told you so’ from the so-called resistance groups and the ‘schismatic mentality’ from the other lot who joined Rome in 2007.
For the resistance groups it boils down to this: ‘how can we approve of any bishop, however saintly, if Pope Francis approves of him?’ For the 2007 lot it boils down to: ‘if SSPX consecrates bishops without papal approval that shows that they’re in schism.’ Whichever happens, if the consecrations take place with or without papal approval, more people will forsake the SSPX. So, history repeats itself.
Joseph Bevan has just published his memoirs, Two Families: A Memoir of English Life During and After the Council (Os Justi Press, 2024), available from the publisher or from Amazon.
