Archbishop Pozzo: In 2018, It Was the Society That Refused the Agreement
History might have unfolded differently had the Society of Saint Pius X not, eight years ago, rejected the doctrinal declaration proposed by Rome — despite the fact that it had been the fruit of a collaborative effort — while demanding that the Apostolic See make its own self-correction. The patient work of reconciliation that was interrupted at that moment has now been followed by the rupture consummated on July 1st at Écône, an event experienced with deep sorrow by those who knew those negotiations at close range. Speaking to La Bussola is Archbishop Guido Pozzo, titular Archbishop of Bagnoregio and current Superintendent of the Economy of the Pontifical Musical Chapel, who served as the last Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei from 2009 to 2018. The prelate does not minimize the post-conciliar turbulence afflicting the ecclesial community, but reaffirms that none of it can justify a schismatic act, nor the pretension of a so-called "emergency Church" removed from the authority of the Pope.
Your Excellency, with what frame of mind did you receive the news of the episcopal consecrations performed without a papal mandate on July 1st at Écône?
With a heavy heart and great sorrow. It is a grave wound to the Church — one that could have been avoided had the SSPX accepted the Doctrinal Declaration proposed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which would have been followed by canonical recognition in the juridical form to be determined. Bishop Fellay, at the meeting of February 28, 2018 with Cardinal Ladaria, then Prefect of the Congregation, and with me at the Dicastery, stated that he would bring the text of the Declaration to the consideration of the SSPX's General Chapter, scheduled for July 2018. In the autumn of 2018, Cardinal Ladaria and I met with the new Superior of the SSPX, Father Davide Pagliarani, elected in July at the Chapter meeting, who informed us that he would not sign the Declaration, deeming it insufficient and inadequate to address the difficulties and objections raised by the SSPX — and that it was Rome that should acknowledge its own errors. Note was duly taken of this refusal, and Pope Francis, informed of the negative outcome, decided to suppress the Ecclesia Dei Commission — which since 2009 had been engaged in doctrinal conversations with the SSPX's Superior with a view to achieving a reconciliation — and transferred competence for any future relations with the SSPX to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I must confess that I was deeply disappointed by the SSPX's refusal, not least because many points of the Declaration had been the fruit of the common work that had emerged from the dialogue up to that point.
There is a dimension of which few commentators speak — the interior one: what are the effects on souls of an act claimed in the name of the salus animarum but which, on the objective plane at least, remains schismatic in nature?
The salus animarum is not something subjective that can be divorced from obedience to the formal and juridical authority of the Pope. There is no such thing as an "emergency Church" that can withdraw from the visible unity of the Church in order to establish an ecclesial order not in full communion with the Successor of Peter. No Catholic group or individual Catholic can appeal to a subjective conscience of truth in order to oppose the institutional Church and the jurisdictional authority of the Roman Pontiff — not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those pertaining to the discipline and governance of the Church. This is the doctrine of the Catholic faith, from which no one can depart without failing in faith and imperiling salvation (cf. Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, ch. 3, DH 3060).
Even if the rite is the most visible element, we know that the question is not primarily liturgical. In your view, what are the principal "knots" to be untied?
The principal knots are the acceptance of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and of the subsequent Magisterium. When I speak of the Council, I am referring to the contents of its documents — not to the Council of the Media, nor to the virtual or para-Council, nor to the phantasmagoric "spirit" of the Council, which has unfortunately but really overlaid the true Council in public opinion and in numerous ecclesial circles.
In this regard, the principal points of the Doctrinal Declaration of the CDF proposed for the SSPX's acceptance addressed precisely these knots — and, in my judgment, in a satisfactory manner.
(a) The SSPX was asked to accept the Catholic truth that Christ the Lord has entrusted to the Magisterium "the deposit of faith — that is, Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be kept safe, defended, and interpreted" (Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, 18, DS 3884) and that "the Magisterium is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on" (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10). The Magisterium of the Church, in turn, has the authority to explicate or make explicit even prior magisterial documents, including those of the Second Vatican Council, in conformity with the truths of the Catholic faith and in the light of the perennial Tradition that progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit — not as a contrary novelty, but as a deeper understanding of the depositum fidei, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu eademque sententia (cf. Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, 4, DS 3020; Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8).
(b) The SSPX was asked to recognize that the Second Vatican Council must be understood in the light of the whole of Tradition and on the basis of the constant Magisterium of the Church, while the possibility of legitimate discussion and theological clarification regarding the formulation of particular points of the conciliar documents — or regarding the subsequent reforms of the liturgy and of canon law — remains always open.
(c) The SSPX was asked to recognize the validity of the Rite of Holy Mass and of the Sacraments legitimately celebrated according to the liturgical books in their editio typica, promulgated by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II.
It would not, however, be honest to address the questions concerning the SSPX without acknowledging that since the Second Vatican Council and up to the present day, Catholicism finds itself in the midst of a turbulence — caused not by the teaching of the Council and the subsequent Magisterium, but by many internal and external factors within the ecclesial community — which manifests itself in deep divisions and errors within the Church (but not of the Church), regarding doctrine and Catholic identity, pastoral practice, with many deviations and ambiguities that create confusion and uncertainty among the faithful. Criticism and resistance to such errors and deviations must not be lacking; but a schismatic act — the consecration of bishops without a pontifical mandate — cannot be justified on these grounds, nor can the presumption of pronouncing oneself judge and declaring that the current Magisterium or the Council departs from the Tradition of the faith of the Church. One may legitimately request clarifications or precisions regarding certain formulations or orientations expressed by the non-definitive ordinary Magisterium or those of a practical-pastoral character, in order to avoid one-sided or reductive interpretations of the Magisterium itself.
But can one truly wish to "save" the Catholic priesthood — as the Society has always claimed — by transplanting it outside the visible Church?
I do not think so at all. Let us recall the teaching of Saint Robert Bellarmine, subsequently taken up and defined by the First Vatican Council in Pastor Aeternus. The nature of the Church is described as the assembly of believers who profess the same faith, participate in the sacraments, and allow themselves to be guided by legitimate bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Communion with the Roman Pontiff is the absolutely necessary condition for being a member of the Catholic Church. This is all the more true for the Catholic priesthood.
On this point, it seemed to me implausible that the SSPX should affirm, on the one hand, that one belongs to the Church through the integral profession of the faith — which in reality is only one of the essential elements, not the sole one — while at the same time affirming (and judging) that the authorities of the Church are manifesting an attitude contrary to the faith and acting against Holy Tradition and the constant Magisterium of the Church. It can happen — and in the past it has happened, and today it unfortunately happens — that certain bishops and priests, theologians and laypeople, fall into errors and deviations in matters of faith and morals; but one cannot extend the criticism to the authorities of the Church in general, and still less disobey hierarchical communion with the supreme authority. It appears at the very least incongruous that the SSPX should ask the Pope for a paternal gesture while simultaneously accusing the authority of the Holy See of departing from Tradition and of being subservient to a modernist church.
The consecrations of July 1st repeat those performed by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. Are we before a definitive rupture, or can one still discern an opening for a future reconciliation of the Society with Rome?
Never say never. It would be necessary to return to the contents of the CDF's Doctrinal Declaration — but above all, what must change is the SSPX's prejudicial attitude, whereby it holds that Rome is certainly wrong and the SSPX is certainly right.
Would you exclude the creation of a structure — proposed by Cardinal Müller — along the lines of Ecclesia Dei, or, for example, the creation of ordinariates modeled on those established for former Anglicans?
I would not exclude juridical structures of this kind, provided that the doctrinal problems are resolved and that a sufficiently substantial group of priests can be constituted who, as happened in the case of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or the Institute of the Good Shepherd, intend to return to full communion with the Roman Pontiff.
Around the SSPX there is, naturally, a great deal of media clamor — but there are "traditional realities" that already live sub Petro. Are these not perhaps ignored and somewhat marginalized, even within the Catholic world itself, as though they were reservations rather than a gift to be offered to the whole Church?
The institutes to which you refer are living realities in continuous growth. As Pope Benedict XVI taught and declared, the two liturgical forms — the Novus Ordo, which is the common, habitual, and universal form of the liturgy, and the Vetus Ordo, for particular and special groups — are both a mutual enrichment and are not in opposition to one another. The institutes and the faithful who follow traditional liturgical and spiritual disciplines must not only not be marginalized or isolated; they must contribute, in communion with the other ecclesial realities, to evangelization and the Christian apostolate. What seems to me urgently necessary is to strengthen those ecclesial and priestly communities that live fidelity to Tradition, to the integrity of the Catholic faith, and to the sacred liturgy, in full communion with the episcopal order sub Petro et cum Petro.
[Source, in Italian]
