New developments on the SSPX

fellayThere is a fascinating development last week in the ever unfolding saga of the Society of St. Pius X. Firstly, however, in the name of full disclosure, I need to point out that I worked in a Society school for 4 years, and I am well disposed towards them, albeit I do not agree with all of their positions. So whether you love the SSPX or hate them, at least appreciate the value of their position in the continuing crisis in the Church. People of good faith can disagree about them, and I do not agree with all of their theological positions, but that is another matter.

Now, we are often told that the SSPX is schismatic, disobedient, that they are not in communion, and one priest even argued they are worse than the satanists who offered a black mass in Oklahoma City [!]. I really wish I was making the last one up, but, alas. It is one of those curious things, even if we were to grant that the SSPX priests commit a sin when they say Mass (which I don’t), we need to ask how is a sin which the priest incurs personally, worse than the sacrilegious action that desecrates the host to offer it to the devil and curse everyone publicly? There is simply no comparison. Obviously, the Vatican does not see it that way, or else they would not have invited Fellay for another round of talks. It has long been patently obvious that the Holy See does not consider the Society “schismatic”, but merely disobedient, which in the post-Vatican II world, is nothing new.

Nevertheless, this interesting detail came out of Rome last week. Bishop Fellay met with Cardinal Müller, the prefect of the Congregation on Doctrine and the Faith, and moreover, with several other prelates. That a meeting happened doesn’t surprise me, but what was said on Rome’s side was quite surprising. The Communque from the Vatican Press Office said: “The SSPX are in a state of imperfect reconciliation.” The language has shifted from 2011. Then it was imperfect communion. Now its imperfect reconciliation, which implies they are in full communion (though in fairness the Vatican press release did not say that). I’m not sure what “imperfect reconciliation” is meant to mean exactly, though seemingly it would suggest a lack of formal faculties. On the, frankly, amazing website Rorate Caeli, there is an article where a French commentator opined:

“The canonical recognition of the SSPX, in case it took place in the times ahead, would not have anymore the appearance and interest of an earthquake that it would have had within the Church at the end of the Benedict XVI pontificate. On the other hand, it has paradoxically become much easier to accomplish, from the moment the current pope – it’s the least we can say – does not have the reputation of traditionalism that his predecessor did.” (Source).

It is a fascinating irony, that Francis, being more progressive to say the least, might be better able to reconcile the Society than Benedict was. It has also been suggested that Müller is trying to find common cause with his erstwhile opponents and seek aid in the clear division with Cardinal Kasper on marriage questions. It is amusing, that when Müller was chosen to be the new prefect of the CDF, there was widespread outcry amongst Trads and conservatives that he was a big liberal, that he had denied our Lady’s perpetual Virginity, and that he was another Tubingen modernist. Now, however, Francis has shifted the paradigm so far to the left, that Muller is the new conservative. The irony. Is Müller looking for friends amongst the SSPX? Is Francis more likely to reconcile the Society than Benedict? It is an interesting argument, but I find it lacking in a number of areas.

The last round of SSPX-Rome talks occurred while I was out of the Catholic internet world. I will say now what I would have said then: I’ll believe it when I see it. In the year 2000, being largely new to the Traditional movement and unaware of a lot of the wider history, there was talk of an SSPX reconciliation by Easter. The SSPX superiors were buzzing about it (particularly Fr. Schmidberger), insiders in Rome were talking about it, then it fell apart, entirely on Rome’s side. Then it was talked about heavily under Benedict’s reign, in 2006, 2009, and fatefully 2011. This last time was not just on Rome’s side, though there were clear machinations in that direction, rather on the Society’s side it provoked a small breakaway group which still operates today. Apart from those particular dates, there was constant buzzing on the subject about the SSPX making an agreement with Rome. It never came to pass.

Frankly, I do not believe it will come to pass under Francis either, for many reasons. Firstly, although Francis has left Summorum Pontificum largely intact (except for the FIs), he is obviously opposed to the restoration of traditionalism. When I was in Rome recently a priest told me that Francis was leaving Traditionalism alone because he feared giving a new impetus to it by attacking it outright. Whatever the truth of that, he has attacked traditional spirituality as “Pelagian”, “backward”, and a number of other things that I find personally offensive. If, in fact, I were to say that those who attend the Novus Ordo were “Pelagian” or modernist, or whatever demeaning name for their particular spirituality, there would be a chorus (of the handful who actually read me!) decrying the judgmentalism and arrogance of such a thing. We might say to Pope Francis “Who are you to judge”, but as we know that is a one way street. Not only will Francis not be very keen on “reconciling” a group he considers to be Pelagian, for the crime of offering a spiritual gift of rosaries, but even more, he would find serious opposition from his friends and advisers.

Moreover, Müller has been strongly opposed to the Society in the past, and there is no evidence that he has shifted his position. In fact, as Fellay noted in an interview following the meeting, “There is nothing new, in the sense that both our interlocutors and ourselves, we realize that doctrinal differences still exist—which had been made quite clear during the theological discussions in 2009-2011—and that because of this we were unable to sign the Doctrinal Preamble that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has proposed to us since 2011.” (Source) So, really nothing has changed. Like in past meetings, they still want to ring from the Society a positive confirmation of Vatican II, which is not going to happen. Even if Fellay were inclined to do so (I don’t think he really is) the Society would fall apart.

This brings us to our next point. A serious discussion of “fully reconciling” with Rome provoked such an outcry in the Society in 2011, that several priests broke away and tried to form their own “traditional SSPX”, or “resistance” or whatever they call it. Generally it goes by the latter name. They did this before Fellay actually signed anything, and before there was any real talk about accepting the doctrinal preamble. In some countries there was a very marked anger toward it, such as in France, but also in Asia. The resistance is interesting, having left their local SSPX churches, they meet in basements and community centers, and celebrate the exact same 1962 Missal that is celebrated in SSPX Churches (alas! if only they’d go back to the ’44), the preaching is more or less the same, there is no discernible difference from the SSPX. The Society didn’t even sign anything! There were rumors in that process that the main movers of the resistance in this country, Fr. Pfeiffer, would start a new society with Bishop Williamson as its head. The problem there, of course, was most did not know that Fr. Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson do not get along. And I predicted that Williamson would just go to quiet retirement, which at the present he has done. Whether the resistance will fizzle out or not I don’t know, but a new round of discussions over the doctrinal preamble will open up the old wounds, and Fellay knows, better than anyone I think, that such a move would threaten the unity of the Society. That is largely the reasoning behind his clear statement that “we cannot sign”. So in the end it will not happen, at least under present conditions.

Don’t believe the media hype if anything should be suggested. We just need to pray that in God’s time, this all gets sorted out.

Correction: Above I had originally said: “The Holy See Press Office said the SSPX are in full communion but imperfect reconciliation.” That was the gloss from a priest in one of my sources, it was not what the Holy See Press office had in fact said. I corrected the paragraph above to reflect this.

4 thoughts on “New developments on the SSPX

  1. ParaTrad0914

    “There were rumors in that process that the main movers of the resistance in this country, Fr. Pfeiffer, would start a new society with Bishop Williamson as its head. The problem there, of course, was most did not know that Fr. Pfeiffer and Bishop Williamson do not get along. And I predicted that Williamson would just go to quiet retirement, which at the present he has done.”

    Not only were their rumors but also pressure from the priests of the Resistance to start some new Society with Bishop Williamson as the leader. I, as a resister, never quiet agreed with that. But the the issue was not that they disliked each other but rather the fact that Bishop Williamson knows he simply cannot, in any way right now, canonical establish a new Society for Tradition as Archbishop Lefebvre did Nov 1st, 1970. The SSPX was canonically founded. The Resistance, because of the deep seated Modernism in all the bishops today, could never get canonical approval. Bishop Williamson knows this and I think now the priests know it too.

    Bishop Williamson has not retired by any stretch of the imagination. He regularly travels the world baptizing, confirming, absolving, ordaining and preaching. He holds conferences and every week publishes an email based newsletter about some important topic. He has established his HQ in England and receives disenfranchised SSPX priests often. He supports many of the initiatives of the Resistance priests, such as the most recent meeting in France. He plans on ordaining more priests and plans on consecrating more bishops for Tradition. He does what no other bishop in the world does: he feeds the Catholic flock Catholic food.

    “(alas! if only they’d go back to the ’44)”

    Agreed.

    “The Society didn’t even sign anything!”

    Does it have to sign anything in order to start changing for a more suitable time to fully reconcile with unconverted Rome? What did Bishop Fellay write to Benedict in Dec 2012? “Unfortunately, in the current context of the Society, the new declaration will not get through.” So would it not stand to reason that in order for it, either the 2011 Roman Proposal or +Fellay’s 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, to “get through” that the leadership must start to change the context of the Society? Would these changes not have to be gradual and subtle as well in order to not startle the faithful? And why does he say its unfortunate?

    And remember it will be put to a deliberative vote whether or not to fully reconcile should Modernist Rome meet 3 or more of the 6 Conditions “for an eventual canonical normalization.” Now what leader would dare keep any sort of principled opposition in the ranks of his group. The vote would and will no doubt turn out in favor of the +Fellay’s “new position with respect to the official Church.”

    So the Resistance could care less if anything is signed. Its the desire for a purely practical agreement, of any kind, before a Doctrinal agreement that causes our (just) indignation against the Neo-SSPX.

    Reply
  2. John R

    “Firstly, however, in the name of full disclosure, I need to point out that I worked in a Society school for 4 years, and I am well disposed towards them, albeit I do not agree with all of their positions. So whether you love the SSPX or hate them, at least appreciate the value of their position in the continuing crisis in the Church. People of good faith can disagree about them, and I do not agree with all of their theological positions, but that is another matter.”

    Ryan, I am a long time reader but first time commenter. I am glad that you wrote this, especially the part that goes “at least appreciate the value of their position in the continuing crisis…”. Yes, it behooves the FSSP, the “indult/Motu” crowd, et al. at least to show a modicum of gratitude to Archbishop Lefebvre because, frankly, these groups do reap the benefits of his fight for Tradition and would likely either not exist or be practically irrelevant if it weren’t for him.

    That said, for full disclosure, I matriculated at St. Mary’s Academy in KS and maintained active ties to the SSPX for nine formative years of my adolescence (we are about the same age, so this was during the 90s) before wandering over into the “Indult”. I remain a parishioner at a TLM parish run by a diocese today. However, 15 years after disassociating myself from the SSPX (I lived in Post Falls before you were there and went to IC – this was well before the St. Joan of Arc FSSP apostolate was formed), I find myself increasingly sympathetic and morally attached to them in the current day; I have been following these back and forth talks closely, and I agree that no clear resolution would appear on the horizon.

    I would be interested if you would write a post further elaborating on your position concerning both the theology and practical action the SSPX has taken during the crisis. Specifically, would you say that we have returned (if ever) to a state whereby it is justifiable for the SSPX to continue as they are? I am of the opinion that the FSSP et al. would not have so much leeway (e.g. listen to some Audio Sancto sermons) to be Traditional, in all respects, if it weren’t for the “gravitational pull” of the SSPX keeping the conversation on doctrine and Tradition vis-a-vis Vatican II and not just on the Liturgy itself (aka “Latin Massism”). One has only to consider the FFI situation or Fisher More College to see how the smallest leaven of Tradition from the SSPX, FSSP, etc. into the broader non-Ecclesia Dei umbrella can be quashed.

    Reply
  3. Mighty Joe Young

    We (the sons of Adam) are now living through a third generation of youth raised in the schism who have been taught to believe that modern popes are heretics and that the Catholic church teaches error. If you think those people will approve a reconciliation, I have some land in the everglades for sale…The SSPX goes to The Apostolic See only in search of its surrender

    Of course, one ironic result of this is that there is not one sspx cleric who could take the oath against modernism for the sspx teaches the church teaches error whereas the oath taker swears the opposite..

    The sspx is a fully concretised schism with its own tribunals that have supplanted Papal authority and jurisdiction and not one of its bishops is catholic in the traditional sense because the sspx bishop have orders but no jurisdiction.

    But, the new tradition is that vagus bishops and priests (condemned at Trent) represent Tradition. Well, the sad truth is the sspx is completely outside the church accord to Tradition

    Reply
  4. Dan Hunter

    I just wish the Society received clear faculties to absolve sins again.

    I have serious misgivings about their “supplied jurisdiction” from Canon Law argument.

    Confession would be nice.

    Reply

Fac responsum tuum hic...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s