 |
| 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 supreme pontiff, why less than a year into a new pontificate, why under a pope seemingly open to wider use of the Tridentine Mass? Those wishing to do more than hurl deprecations must understanding the Society’s reasoning.
First and foremost, the SSPX will consecrate bishops in July because this is precisely what it has intended for thirty-eight years—not in the sense of planning for a particular date but of planning for particular circumstances. When Archbishop Lefebvre 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 thought an agreement in the then near future likely but—as a backup plan—consecrated the youngest priests he thought suitable specifically to delay any future consecrations as long as possible.
Consecrating a bishop following Bishop Richard Williamson’s 2012 expulsion would have been consistent with long-standing Society intentions. But with three relatively young bishops—at the time aged fifty-three, fifty-five and sixty-seven—the SSPX chose against that option because it did not see it as necessary for its future security. Serious internal discussion of new consecrations did not begin for a decade and initial public statements suggested a slow and cautious approach.
It was the death of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais in October of 2024—as the result of an accidental fall which emphasized how relatively slender a thread the continued existence of the SSPX now depends on—which accelerated the move towards new consecrations. Had it not been for Pope Francis’s rapidly deteriorating health and the election of Leo XIV, they 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 negotiations preceding the 1988 consecrations, the Vatican did not require Lefebvre to abandon his plans for them, as Fernandez now does. Their goal was for the planned consecrations to be papally mandated. Other conditions laid down by the cardinal give no reason to believe new negotiations could succeed where those of the past four decades have failed.
Many are 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 it is probably possible for 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 numerous scholars having demonstrated the unorthodox motivations of individuals with key roles in drafting conciliar documents and the new missal, it would be bad enough if the Vatican did no more than insist upon vague notions like a “hermeneutic of continuity” without providing official explanations, reaffirming the necessary truths or re-condemning the pertinent errors.
Aside from a handful of individuals, the Vatican—including popes and certain 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.
Among the most exemplary cases is the instruction “Concerts in Churches” [1] issued by the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship on November 5, 1987. It was well-known at the time that the Vatican had four traditionalist cardinals (Edouard Gagnon, Silvio Oddi, Pietro Palazzini and Alfons Stickler) and two others friendly to the Tridentine Mass—Joseph Ratzinger and CDW prefect Cardinal Augustin Mayer. Just a few months before the instruction was issue, Archbishop Lefebvre announced his intention to consecrate bishops. Four days after it was issued, Cardinal Gagnon began an apostolic visitation of the SSPX as part of regularization efforts.
Common sense would have suggested reassuring the SSPX of Vatican goodwill towards traditional practices, or at least avoiding even the slightest hint of hostility. Instead, “Concerts in Churches” attempted further de-traditionalization of the Novus Ordo—declaring that “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 was affirmed by numerous popes (including in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei) was to be banished from Mass because of its incompatibility 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 on the liturgical texts (rather saying the rosary, practicing mental prayer, etc. while at Mass).
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 the Tridentine Mass was reasonable if it is used in accordance with same false principles of the Liturgical Movement which motivated Cardinal Mayer.[2] Since many who offer and attend the Tridentine Mass do not want to reduce it to a Liturgical Movement pastiche, di Noia concluded it must go.
Pope Benedict himself, while willing to tolerate traditional practices, hoped that Liturgical Movement ideology 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 teachings that (when feasible) the state should recognize and encourage Catholicism as the true religion, that conversions cannot be forced and that religions truly threatening the common good (i.e. the Thuggee murder cult) must be acted against by the government. Popes and prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith have either been uninterested in the work of those scholars or opposed them in favor of a strictly neutral state.
With de facto rupture either favored or unopposed by those with the highest authority over doctrinal and liturgical matters, it is hardly surprising that the SSPX considers rupture the “correct” interpretation of Vatican II and the new missal—rather than the alternatives put forward by scholars whom those same high-ranking churchmen have either ignored or slapped in the face.
If no circumstances, no matter how grave, can justify episcopal consecrations in opposition to the pope, the Society would necessarily be 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, as an extremity for the most desperate circumstances under the most severe papal misgovernment. 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.
[1] https://archive.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/13/11/09/23-54-00_0.pdf
[2] https://www.cathstan.org/us-world/traditional-latin-mass-movement-sows-division-archbishop-says
First and foremost, the SSPX will consecrate bishops in July because this is precisely what it has intended for thirty-eight years—not in the sense of planning for a particular date but of planning for particular circumstances. When Archbishop Lefebvre 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 thought an agreement in the then near future likely but—as a backup plan—consecrated the youngest priests he thought suitable specifically to delay any future consecrations as long as possible.
Consecrating a bishop following Bishop Richard Williamson’s 2012 expulsion would have been consistent with long-standing Society intentions. But with three relatively young bishops—at the time aged fifty-three, fifty-five and sixty-seven—the SSPX chose against that option because it did not see it as necessary for its future security. Serious internal discussion of new consecrations did not begin for a decade and initial public statements suggested a slow and cautious approach.
It was the death of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais in October of 2024—as the result of an accidental fall which emphasized how relatively slender a thread the continued existence of the SSPX now depends on—which accelerated the move towards new consecrations. Had it not been for Pope Francis’s rapidly deteriorating health and the election of Leo XIV, they 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 negotiations preceding the 1988 consecrations, the Vatican did not require Lefebvre to abandon his plans for them, as Fernandez now does. Their goal was for the planned consecrations to be papally mandated. Other conditions laid down by the cardinal give no reason to believe new negotiations could succeed where those of the past four decades have failed.
Many are 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 it is probably possible for 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 numerous scholars having demonstrated the unorthodox motivations of individuals with key roles in drafting conciliar documents and the new missal, it would be bad enough if the Vatican did no more than insist upon vague notions like a “hermeneutic of continuity” without providing official explanations, reaffirming the necessary truths or re-condemning the pertinent errors.
Aside from a handful of individuals, the Vatican—including popes and certain 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.
Among the most exemplary cases is the instruction “Concerts in Churches” [1] issued by the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship on November 5, 1987. It was well-known at the time that the Vatican had four traditionalist cardinals (Edouard Gagnon, Silvio Oddi, Pietro Palazzini and Alfons Stickler) and two others friendly to the Tridentine Mass—Joseph Ratzinger and CDW prefect Cardinal Augustin Mayer. Just a few months before the instruction was issue, Archbishop Lefebvre announced his intention to consecrate bishops. Four days after it was issued, Cardinal Gagnon began an apostolic visitation of the SSPX as part of regularization efforts.
Common sense would have suggested reassuring the SSPX of Vatican goodwill towards traditional practices, or at least avoiding even the slightest hint of hostility. Instead, “Concerts in Churches” attempted further de-traditionalization of the Novus Ordo—declaring that “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 was affirmed by numerous popes (including in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei) was to be banished from Mass because of its incompatibility 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 on the liturgical texts (rather saying the rosary, practicing mental prayer, etc. while at Mass).
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 the Tridentine Mass was reasonable if it is used in accordance with same false principles of the Liturgical Movement which motivated Cardinal Mayer.[2] Since many who offer and attend the Tridentine Mass do not want to reduce it to a Liturgical Movement pastiche, di Noia concluded it must go.
Pope Benedict himself, while willing to tolerate traditional practices, hoped that Liturgical Movement ideology 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 teachings that (when feasible) the state should recognize and encourage Catholicism as the true religion, that conversions cannot be forced and that religions truly threatening the common good (i.e. the Thuggee murder cult) must be acted against by the government. Popes and prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith have either been uninterested in the work of those scholars or opposed them in favor of a strictly neutral state.
With de facto rupture either favored or unopposed by those with the highest authority over doctrinal and liturgical matters, it is hardly surprising that the SSPX considers rupture the “correct” interpretation of Vatican II and the new missal—rather than the alternatives put forward by scholars whom those same high-ranking churchmen have either ignored or slapped in the face.
If no circumstances, no matter how grave, can justify episcopal consecrations in opposition to the pope, the Society would necessarily be 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, as an extremity for the most desperate circumstances under the most severe papal misgovernment. 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.
[1] https://archive.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/13/11/09/23-54-00_0.pdf
[2] https://www.cathstan.org/us-world/traditional-latin-mass-movement-sows-division-archbishop-says
