A guest article by Joseph Bevan.
With the current speculation about whether, and when, the SSPX will consecrate new bishops, we can all agree on one thing: that they are needed.
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 50 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 (usually only the Mass) 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, the superior general, 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.
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 reverse of 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 and many of its adherents accused Bishop Fellay of wanting to do a deal with Rome at any cost. To sum up, in 2007 Bishop Fellay was accused of being anti-Rome, and in 2012 he was said to be pro-Rome. Thus began a very forceful and unworthy campaign of vilification against the SSPX leadership which resulted in the organisation of the SSPX ‘resistance.’
So, was SSPX thinking of climbing into bed with Rome? I doubt it. Also, the ‘deal’ which they said 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 or, indeed, the later actions of Pope Francis. 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.
A lot has changed since the SSPX last entered into those fruitless negotiations in 2012, which resulted in the last major split. The reign of Pope Francis has vindicated Archbishop Lefebvre’s suspicions about Rome’s desire to restore Catholic tradition, especially with the promulgation of Traditiones Custodes. Also, the sidelining, and even open persecution, of those who are attracted to the Tridentine Mass has removed the possibility that the authorities are seeking an understanding with traditional Catholics. The suppression of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer in New Zealand is the latest event in a long line of attacks which have taken place since the death of Pope Benedict. Other institutions are now finding themselves on the receiving end of ‘apostolic visitations,’ which is code for shutting them down in due course.
Whichever way one looks at it, Rome has declared open war on Catholic Tradition. SSPX has few friends in Vatican City nowadays, which is also a big change since the last contacts in 2012. Most of the high officials in the curia are either openly hostile to them, or else so committed to the new initiatives, such as Synodality, that a rapprochement with SSPX is almost unthinkable.
It was the tenure of Pope Francis which has, amazingly and paradoxically, driven many more souls into the arms of SSPX. A visit to St Michaels Church in Newbury (UK) will be rewarded by the sight of countless new young families crowding into the recently completed church. In addition, most of us who have seen pictures and videos of the recent SSPX pilgrimage to Rome cannot fail to be impressed and overwhelmed by the numbers of fervent pilgrims. The sight of crowds of priests, young nuns and families was a joy to behold.
If the SSPX consecrates bishops without papal approval again—and this seems most likely to anyone who understands the history of this saga—it is possible that the penalties from Rome would be hard to comprehend for those who just love the SSPX way of doing things. There is a risk that some of the faithful will desert the SSPX chapels rather than be accused of being outside the Church. On the positive side, canonical penalties would effectively ‘shoot the fox’ of all those in the ‘resistance’ who think that the SSPX is in league with Rome!
To consecrate without Rome’s approval will probably result in a leaner, but fitter, SSPX, as happened in 1988. To consecrate bishops with papal approval is highly unlikely to happen. The reason is that the SSPX are still ‘raining on the parade’ of the liturgical and doctrinal revolution, not to mention synodality and the toleration of the worst immoral excesses in the history of the Church. It is unlikely that Pope Leo XIV is going to officially allow the SSPX any bishops unless they make all kinds of undertakings which would represent a betrayal, not only of its founding principles, but also the Faith itself.
I certainly wouldn’t like to be in the Pope’s shoes at the moment! What can he possibly do? The answer lies in political history and goes back centuries. Where there is nothing one can do, then that is exactly what one does: nothing! The officially unauthorised consecrations will probably take place with informal and deniable approval from Rome. After this, the authorities will simply avoid the issue because, after all, hasn’t that ambiguity been the hallmark of the relationship between Rome and the SSPX?
So, we can sum up the situation as follows: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!
Joseph Bevan
August 2025
Joseph Bevan has published: Two Families: A Memoir of English Life During and After the Council (Os Justi Press, 2024), available from the publisher or from Amazon. Further memoirs are coming out in the Autumn.
