Before I begin, let me condition this article with several points to prevent misunderstandings. While I am not a supporter of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), I do not think certain figures in Rome are completely innocent either. Also, I have never attended an SSPX liturgy or chapel or even met an SSPX priest. (I attend the Novus Ordo but deeply love and prefer traditional Catholicism.) Lastly, though there objectively is a grave crisis in the Church, I do not believe there is a “state of necessity” that justifies breaking the canonical law requiring a papal mandate to consecrate bishops. Even so, and without intending to be an apologist for the SSPX, I am sympathetic to their central concern: the salvation of souls.
The consecration of the new bishops is approaching. Reporters asked Pope Leo XIV about this on Tuesday. Though the remarks were brief, the message was very clear. He is “still considering” making another appeal for the Society not to do the consecrations, saying: “Let us try to live communion in the Church.” He affirms that the “choice” belongs to the Society, but “if they make those choices,” “we must move forward.” Pope Leo seems to be implying that the choice to consecrate new bishops will definitely put them outside communion with the Church.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has very clearly stated that the consecrations are an “extremely grave decision” that will ultimately constitute a schismatic act, and that “formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offence against God and entails the excommunication established under Church law.”
The Society, on the other hand, has amplified its production of materials explaining and justifying the consecrations—not only for their faithful but as a type of apology (in the classical sense of articulating a defense) aimed at the rest of the Church. The most likely reality is that there will not be any kind of reconciliation beforehand. There will be a declaration of schism. I have been reflecting as it nears—as one aligned with Rome, is there anything we can learn from Écône?
My side has emphasized the need for dialogue with those outside the visible structure of the Church. For example, Pope Leo XIV has expressed enthusiasm in supporting, learning, and growing with Orthodox churches (see, for example, his Address to Priests and Monks from the Eastern Orthodox Churches). He also embraced a spirit of dialogue and collaboration with the world regarding artificial intelligence in his first encyclical.
The SSPX is outside—even if in an irregular or confusing way—the visible structure of the Church since it does not exercise canonical mission. However, they are different from other groups we dialogue with in that their official statements and positions claim to hold Catholic doctrine and “respect” for the hierarchy’s juridical authority. Thus, it seems unreasonable to think that we can learn something from groups like the Orthodox but not the SSPX. Furthermore, influential cardinals have already addressed the Society’s errors; rehashing them will not change anything at this point. So, what can we learn from the SSPX?
It seems unreasonable to think that we can learn something from groups like the Orthodox but not the SSPX.Tweet ThisI believe the impending schism can remind Rome that “the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes” (CIC, Can. 1752). To be clear, I am not saying nor implying that Rome has failed to uphold the Church’s supreme law. However, there is a perception (no matter how true or untrue it is) that Rome today tends to emphasize the grandeur of humanity and mission of fraternal communion over the necessity of sanctifying grace and supernatural communion (cf. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 60-65). Whether we like it or not, the SSPX leads with the latter kind of clarity.
On the other hand, despite their theological clarifications and intentions (which I presume are good in charity), the Society’s actions do cultivate—as Fr. Gerald Murray called it—a “separatist spirit” (2:15:26), at the very least, in the external forum. Furthermore, I know souls whose “fundamental openness” (cf. Donum Veritatis, §29) to accept magisterial authority has been diminished by their commentaries—which, though they sometimes raise valid questions or concerns, do appear dangerously close to propping up a “supreme magisterium of conscience” (cf. Donum Veritatis, §38). Even so, with these criticisms, there is no doubt that they genuinely believe the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church.
Our Lord warns that the road to salvation is narrow (Matthew 7:13-14) and that there is nothing worth more than our souls (Matthew 16:26). St. Paul says to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). In my own embrace of the Faith, I was mentored by incredible priests who really believed in these passages. They were “wise as serpents and innocent as doves”(Matthew 10:16) with a pastoral sensitivity rooted in the merciful work of winning souls for Christ. They made me understand that my soul would be lost if I did not embrace the lifelong journey of turning from my sins (cf. John 8:24). They walked with me for a time, but they were not afraid to confront me in charity and truth (Luke 24:13-26).
Rome, today, likes to walk with most groups and seems content to do so indefinitely. However, never-ending dialogue always risks falling into the pits we sinners dig (cf. Proverbs 26:27). At some point, the teacher has to call out the foolish men and their slowness of heart (cf. Luke 24:25); this is done for their good when we truly believe souls need to be saved.
The formal SSPX and Vatican dialogue has collapsed; but perhaps, in a hopeful hypothetical, this is where Rome could “listen” to Écône in the synodal spirit. The SSPX is willing to embrace whatever extreme they deem necessary to save souls that they genuinely believe are in danger. Perhaps, then, this tragic standoff can be an opportunity for Rome to renew this zeal—one which clearly shows the world that the salvation of souls is always the supreme law, against any misunderstandings or perceptions that might indicate otherwise.
Even with this lesson, I lovingly beg my brothers and sisters who attend SSPX chapels: stay in the Barque of Peter. As St. Jerome wrote to Pope Damasus:
As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!…This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails (Genesis 7:23). (Letter 15.2)
We do not know, at the moment, what exactly constitutes “formal cooperation” in the schism for ordinary laity; but cooperating in any way that risks finding yourself outside the Church built on Peter is simply not worth it.
I am well aware that figures of the hierarchy have caused confusion and scandal for many of the faithful, including myself. I share the frustration that there is clearly a double standard in how canonical penalties are applied to different ecclesial factions. I can admire the Society’s zeal for the salvation of souls; but please, do not endanger or risk undermining your own. There is a terrible flood, even at the highest levels of Church authority. I fully understand that the Society will not believe the schism is valid; but when that inevitable declaration is promulgated, please do not leave the Barque.
“Dialogue”, for it to be authentic, necessitates that both sides are acting in good faith. I have seen nothing on the SSPX-side that indicates in any way that it is acting in bad faith (I don’t agree with all its points, but I do not believe it is being deceptive), but everything on the Vatican’s side that it is acting in bad faith. To the Vatican, “dialogue” is just a code word that they redefine to mean “changes we are going to forcibly implement to the Church, as if we are a god on earth, and try our hardest to make it look like you really wanted them”.
If Leo were acting in good faith, not just regarding the SSPX but as a pope in general, the very first thing he would have done as pope was remove Tucho from his position. Allowing him to lead the Dicastry for the Doctrine of the Faith is like having a mafia don running the FBI (Tucho himself was once investigated by the Dicastry, and his appointment as a bishop was once held up for two years by it – now he runs it). Imagine having someone like Tucho for one’s spiritual director. That is certainly a sure way to end up in hell. This same person is in one of the top leadership positions in the Church. How many people could he lead to hell in that position? So much for Leo caring about the salvation of souls.
If Leo were acting in good faith, he would have accepted Cupich’s resignation by now, reassigned McElroy to be an auxiliary bishop of Saudi Arabia, and removed Parolin as the Vatican Secretary of State (for selling out the underground Church in China). He would also be concerned about the persistence of homosexuality in the clergy, especially in the higher clergy.
If Leo were acting in good faith and really believed in the Church’s mission – the salvation of souls – he would be talking more about the need for frequent confession, cooperating with God’s grace, and transcendent concepts like heaven, purgatory, and hell. But not only are most of what he talks about earthly things (climate change, immigration, etc.) but they are indistinguishable from the talking points of a European liberal elitist politician, or a US demonrat. And promoting Islamic immigration into Europe is a sure way to facilitate the extinction of the Catholic Church there in the future – or at least extreme repression of it. How can one claim to be acting in good faith, while encouraging this?
If Leo were acting in good faith he would exercise much more severity to the blatant heresy of the Church in Germany, keeping in mind that both schism and heresy refer to division, but heresy is a much more serious type of division, and also that the Church exists in heaven and purgatory, and heresy in the Church on earth divides it from those other and greater parts of the Church, of which there is no tolerance for heresy. But the German bishops have come out saying that the Vatican is practically encouraging them.
The only reasonable conclusion is that Leo is acting in bad faith. He has made no attempt on his part to reconcile the matter, and is most likely counting down the days until Tucho pronounces the excommunication. The very fact that he may extend the excommunication to both the priests and laity shows the maliciousness of his actions. JPII, while he may not have handled the matter in the best manner in 1988, at least kept the excommunications to just the bishops involved, which kept the doors open to later reconciliation. Leo is obviously trying his hardest to ensure that there never will be a reconciliation in the future.
Imagine taking a saint from pre-conciliar times, as far back as you want to go, and show them the modern Church, after Francis and now under Leo, and then show them the SSPX. The latter is what they would recognize as the Church.
Another issue somewhat alluded to in the article is the fact that the Orthodox obviously ordain bishops without papal approval, and they are referred to as our “other lung.” But the SSPX is treated very differently.
I appreciate the needed (renewed?) emphasis towards the salvation of souls of traditional Catholics in this time of environmentalism and grouping souls together as if their particular self-identity supersedes their true identity as unique children of God.
That said, while the “synodal magisterium” says it clings to dialogue, the Pope appears to be more of a wall than a bridge to understanding in this case.
It appears that the small but substantial part of Vatican II that deviates from tradition is being prioritized over listening, teaching and striving for unity (afforded others), all under the demand of authority. Why?
Many recent examples of church leadership make the future promise of excommunication in this situation appear to be lacking charity. Many in the church have lost trust, including me. I’m not going anywhere else. God is good.
The optics are really bad and common sense seems to point in one direction. The SSPX doesn’t impress me as trouble makers and renegades wanting to harm souls or deny doctrine.
Why after years of refusing to sit down and talk, refusing to provide bishops, and treating SSPX unlike any other group or even religion won’t papal permission be given to continue their service in the salvation of souls?
Look at all the bishops who have already been created with papal authority that were terrible mistakes. I trust the candidates proposed are servants of Christ, striving to work for the salvation of souls. True authority wouldn’t deny such servants unless it has another motive. A public declaration from the pope is needed to explain the refusal to give his permission and that seems like that is missing. Am I missing something?