Now That the Dust Has Intensified 

With Rome’s excommunication of the SSPX, one thing is clear: things aren’t clear. While the excommunication has settled the status of (certain members of) the SSPX, what it doesn’t do is settle the underlying issues. It is probable that they won’t be settled for generations. 

For those wishing to understand the issues, I suggest watching a podcast by Conor Gallagher with Fr. Gerard Murray and Fr. Jonathan Loops of the SSPX. It is long (about four hours), but both sides are charitable and articulate. I’d like to simplify the presentations (as I understood them) and then add other considerations to show why the short-run (but perhaps necessary) act of excommunication does little for the average Catholic. 

In a nutshell, the two sides looked at the major issues dividing Rome and the SSPX: ecumenism, the relationship between Church and State, and the nature of the office of the episcopacy. The issue of the Mass was not discussed (probably for time’s sake), but Fr. Loops says that particular issue, while important, is more symptomatic of the larger issues than an issue in itself. 

On the above issues, Fr. Loops showed that before Vatican II, the Church’s position was “A” but that certain documents of the Council seemed to imply—or explicitly say—“B.” His point being that you may agree with “A” or “B,” but you can’t reconcile them. Further, even if you could stretch the documents into some consistency with previous Church teaching, the actions and pronouncements of the Church hierarchy (including the popes) since the Council, and done in the name of the Council, have undeniably contradicted previous Church teaching. 

As a result, a “state of necessity” exists for the consecration of bishops so that the faithful may have consistent and true Church teaching. He used the analogy of a father malnourishing his children (even if unknowingly), necessitating one of the children to act against the wishes of the father to provide proper nourishment. It is a compelling comparison. 

Fr. Murray seemed to agree that there may be problems reconciling documents of the Council with previous teaching, but also thinks that they could ultimately be reconciled. In addition, he agreed that certain actions taken by the popes and bishops since the Council have been problematic (to put it mildly). The thrust of his argument, though, was that the SSPX’s consecration of bishops would do nothing to solve these issues and was in direct contradiction to the wishes of the pope to which the SSPX claims to be loyal. Those, also, are forceful, if not definitive, points. 

I hope I have been fair to both sides. So now we are at the point of excommunication. What is the average Catholic to make of all this? And by the “average Catholic,” I include most of the clergy. If he is worried about it, he is probably also (still) confused. 

We are now on the second (or third) generation since Vatican II. To most, it is a dim memory. Few have read the documents; fewer still can claim to understand them. But the post-Conciliar church is all that he has known. He has been raised on what I would call a “Whig” history of Vatican II; he has a “Vatican II mind-set.” He would be aghast at the Syllabus of Errors or the Oath Against Modernism.  

Added to this is the long and dynamic pontificate of Pope St. John Paul II. He was charismatic and effective. He revitalized an anemic Church, was influential on the world stage, and had a profound effect on the youth (many of whom are now adults and attribute their “reversion” to the Faith to him). To the delight of conservative Catholics (and the dismay of liberals), he was a forceful voice for the family and against abortion. To many, he was the Church. 

But…there is no denying he did and said questionable things regarding ecumenism and the relationship between the Church and the state. He was a champion of Vatican II and did what he did in the name of the Council and the very documents most in question. There is also no denying he had a seeming blindness, or at least negligence, regarding certain men he appointed to the episcopacy (who would eventually exert tremendous influence throughout the Church). His culpability in this is not for me to say. Finally, the magnitude of his personality contributed to what has been called “hyperpapalism,” the notion that the pope is the voice, as opposed to the vicar, of Christ.  

After JPII came a quarter century—with a brief hiatus under Benedict XVI—of problematic, ambiguous, perhaps even heretical, statements and actions from Rome and many bishops and clergy. Pope Francis had us on a roller coaster. The Synod on Synodality put this on warp speed. And all this has been done in the name or under the influence of Vatican II (its “spirit”) . 

The most unsettled point, it seems to me, is that no one has been able to assert just what the authority of Vatican II was or is. To some, mostly those in positions of power, it and its “spirit” is dogmatic. What the pope says in the name of the Council, what Rome says in the name of the Council, what the Synod on Synodality says in the name of the Council must be taken as definitive Catholic teaching; yet much of what is being said and done directly contradicts previous Church teaching. To others, Vatican II was “pastoral,” often “merely pastoral” (whatever that means). Are you with me so far? 

For years I’ve heard the confusion about Vatican II explained away by people saying, “Well, you know, it often takes a long time for a Council to take effect.” True, but past Councils issued definitive decrees in lapidary prose accompanied by authoritative anathemas. They issued them in the days when news travelled on foot or by horse. It may have taken a while for the declarations to get to you, but once you got them, you knew exactly what they were. In contrast, Vatican II issued turgid committee reports in an age of instant communication. We got the news right away, but, sixty years later, we’re still at a loss as to what it means. 

To many (and I would put myself in this category), it does seem as though the SPPX is being “picked on” by Rome. Why single them out for consecrating bishops when you just reaffirmed a treaty with the Communist government of China (negotiated by Theodore McCarrick, no less) that has that government naming—effectively consecrating—bishops? Why single out the SPPX for consecrating bishops when a Catholic bishop assisted in the consecration of an Anglican bishop with no repercussions? 

Even those who are “JPII” Catholics are finding their faith in the Church tested. How long can the Catholic who knows anything of his faith say, “Well, I guess that’s where we are now; allowing divorce, blessing homosexual couples, at one with all faiths, and…whatever.” Will the young and supposedly conservative clergy “tow the company line” as they “move up the ladder” (if they are allowed to move up at all)? They are finding themselves between a rock and rock. 

Underneath all this is another trend: a growing, youthful, vibrant, and even militant Traditionalist movement that is knowledgeable about the Faith and, while respectful, is very wary of the hierarchy. This is where growth is coming from, and it also seems this is where those in power have set their sites as far as anything regarding Vatican II is concerned. 

How long does a state of affairs designated a “crisis” have to last before it just becomes the status quo? Really, we are no longer in a “crisis;” we are mired in a swamp. Being a Catholic now almost requires a level of cognitive dissonance. I think Rome—especially with everything else they countenance—should have been able to work out something with the SSPX. I also think the SSPX should not have disobeyed the pope. In any case, the event is settled, yet everything is still up in the air.