 |
| SSPX Holy Thursday Mass- Credit Latin Mass Photographer |
by James Baresel
Despite it being clear for some time that Society of Saint Pius X would consecrate new
bishops sooner rather than later, its recent decision has perplexed many. Granting—even if only
for the sake of the argument—that sufficiently grave reasons can justify episcopal consecrations
in positive opposition to the Vatican, why less than a year into a new pontificate, why under a
pope seemingly open to wider use of the Tridentine Mass?
Anyone whose goal is regularization of the Society rather than hurling deprecations must
understand the answer to that question.
First and foremost, the SSPX will consecrate bishops in July because this is precisely
what it has intended for the past thirty-eight years—not in the sense of planning for a particular
date but of planning for particular circumstances. While When Archbishop Lefebvre believed
that no more than a few years would be needed to reach an agreement with Rome when
consecrated four bishops in 1988, he and his Society were determined—rightly or wrongly—that
its future would never again depend upon the life of a single aging prelate. If one or two bishops
were lost or the bishops reached too advanced an age before an agreement was reached,
successors would be consecrated. Lefebvre chose the youngest priests he thought suitable
specifically the delay any future consecrations as long as possible.
Consecration of a bishop following the expulsion of Bishop Richard Williamson in 2012
would have been consistent with that policy. Such a course of action was not taken because three
relatively young bishops—at the time aged fifty-three, fifty-five and sixty-seven—remained the
SSPX wanted to avoid new consecrations except as an absolute last resort. Serious internal
discussion of new consecrations did not begin for a decade and initial public statements
suggested a slow and cautious approach.
What accelerated a decision was the death of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais in
October of 2024, the result of an accidental fall which emphasized how relatively slender a
thread the continued existence of the SSPX now depends on. Had it not been for Pope Francis’s
rapidly deteriorating health and the election of Leo XIV, new consecrations may well have been
announced months ago. Rather than not giving Leo a chance, the SSPX waited until efforts to
obtain a papal audience failed.
Cardinal Fernandez’s conditions for negotiations do not substantially change the
situation. During the negotiations preceding the 1988 consecrations of bishops in 1988, the
Vatican did not require Lefebvre to suspend his decision, as Fernandez now requires. Their aim
was to reach an agreement that would allow the planned consecrations to be papally mandated.
Other conditions laid down by the cardinal give no reason to believe that negotiations with him
could succeed where those of the past four decades have failed.
Many have been quick to cast one-sided blame on the SSPX for its undeniable but
ultimately understandable contribution to the impasse—unwillingness to recognize that the
Missal of Paul VI has the bare essentials required for a minimally acceptable Catholic rite or to
presume that it is probably possible for particular non-infallible statements of Vatican II to
reconciled with traditional doctrine.
By any reasonable standard, the Vatican contribution to the impasse has been
considerably worse.
Given that some scholars have demonstrated the unorthodox motivations of some who
played key roles in drafting conciliar documents and the new missal while others have shown
how they can nevertheless be interpreted in Catholic ways, it would be bad enough if for the
Vatican merely upon vague notions like a “hermeneutic of continuity” without providing official
explanations, reaffirming the necessary truths or re-condemning the pertinent errors.
But—aside from a handful of individuals—the Vatican, including popes and prefects of
the curial bodies responsible for doctrine and liturgy, have not stopped with such limited
utterances or even remained silent. Instead, de facto rupture has consistently been urged and even
virtually imposed.
No more exemplary case can be cited than the instruction “Concerts in Churches” issued
by the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship on November 5, 1987. It was well-known at the
time that the prefect of the CDW, Cardinal Augustin Mayer, was—together with Cardinal
Ratzinger—one of two non-traditionalist Vatican cardinal most friendly to the Tridentine Mass.
Archbishop Lefebvre had announced his intention to consecrate bishops the previous June.
Cardinal Gagnon (one of the Vatican’s four truly traditionalist cardinals) was to begin an
apostolic visitation of the SSPX as part of regularization efforts four days after the CWD
instruction was issued.
One might think Cardinal Mayer would have wanted to reassure the SSPX of Vatican
goodwill towards traditional practices, or at least to avoid even the slightest hint of hostility.
Instead, “Concerts in Churches” attempted to further de-traditionalization of the Novus Ordo by
excluding “musical compositions which date from a period when the active participation of the
faithful was not emphasized as the source of the authentic Christian spirit [i.e. polyphony, which
can only be sung by a trained choir]” on the grounds that they “are no longer to be considered
suitable for inclusion within liturgical celebrations.”
Music whose suitability for liturgical use has been affirmed by numerous popes
(including in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei) was to be banished from Mass because its
use conflicted with the Liturgical Movement’s erroneous belief (explicitly condemned by
Mediator Dei and opposed to the clear implications of other magisterial texts) that the laity must
“participate” (make the responses, sing along with the choir and so on) and base their prayer at
Mass on the liturgical texts (rather the rosary, mental prayer, etc.).
Little has changed in forty years. Archbishop Joseph di Noia praised the Tridentine Mass
during his time as secretary of CDW and vice president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission under
Benedict XVI and then argued that Pope Francis was right to restrict it—not because he was a
careerist or because his views changed but because he believed preserving Tridentine Mass was
reasonable if it is used in accordance with the same false principles of the Liturgical Movement
which motivated Cardinal Mayer. Since many who offer and attend the Tridentine Mass want to
use it in traditional ways rather than reduce it to a Liturgical Movement pastiche, di Noia
concluded it must go.
Pope Benedict himself, though he did not approve of virtually forcing congregations to
conform to Liturgical Movement ideology, strongly encouraged it and hoped that it would—at
least slowly and gradually—be voluntarily adopted.
Similar attitudes have characterized much of the Vatican’s approach to the conciliar
document most frequently criticized by the SSPX, Dignitatis Humanae. Scholars have offered
interpretations consistent with traditional Church teaching that (when feasible) the state should
recognize and encourage Catholicism as the true religion, that conversions cannot be forced but
that if a particular religion (i.e. the Thuggee murder cult) is a real threat to the common good the
government must take action. While a handful of Vatican figures have been favorable to such
efforts, popes and prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith have either been
uninterested or actively opposed—favoring instead a strictly neutral state.
Given the extent to which de facto rupture has frequently been either favored or
unopposed—depending on the individual—by those with the highest authority over doctrinal and
liturgical matters, it is hardly surprising for the SSPX to consider rupture the “correct”
interpretation rather than alternatives put forward by scholars whom leading Vatican figures
slapped in their faces.
If no circumstances, no matter how grave, can justify episcopal consecrations in
opposition to the pope, it would obviously follow that the Society’s decision is wrong. Wrong.
Not reckless. Not cavalier towards excommunication and schism. Wrong only in believing
disobedient episcopal consecrations are morally permissible as an absolute last resort—an
extremity limited to the gravest circumstances and acted on only because of a crisis whose basic
roots the Society analyzes with greater accuracy than many who profess to share their concerns
about liturgical irreverence and the spread of heterodoxy.
Fairness requires us to admit that if—and I stress if—disobedient episcopal consecrations
can be justified in principle, it would be hard to see how they could be unreasonable at present.
We can only hope sensible churchmen will at least be understanding of their views, intervene
with Pope Leo and help develop a solution which renders the question academic.
