The Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Fr. Davide Pagliarani, has recently given a lengthy interview in which he lays out his case for why the Society is justified in defying Rome by ordaining new bishops this July without a papal mandate.
The interview is revealing insofar as Fr. Pagliarani reaffirms all the major arguments that have already been made with no indication of nuancing his views on any of the salient points.
Disregard for Pope Leo
Why revisit this tired and sad situation yet again? With the focus of late on the war with Iran and the alleged feud between Pope Leo and President Trump, the looming schism of the SSPX has faded from the news. But the SSPX issue is not going to go away, and it is clear in light of this interview that the Society has deliberately steered itself into a clear and direct collision course with Rome.
This latter point is the quiet part that the Society refuses to say out loud; to wit, that this is a confrontation of choice, of their own making, and that there was still time to avoid the conflict with the new pope. Instead, they have deliberately chosen the path of confrontation. After all, the Vatican under Leo had made no new aggressive moves toward the Society or made any negative public comments. Furthermore, Pope Leo had only been in office about ten months when the Society made its announcement about ordaining new bishops. Therefore, it is more than suspicious that the Society apparently decided it was pointless to wait and see what the new pope thought of the Society.
But why did they think it was pointless? Perhaps it is better to say that the Society decided that the views of the new pope were not pointless, but irrelevant. The Society discerned that Leo, no matter his views on the Society, was not going to be the strong-armed papal ruler they deem so necessary in order to restore “true Catholicism” and so decided to pull the Band-Aid off the scab and to make their full intentions clear. Pagliarani, in his interview, makes it clear that what is needed is another pope cut out of the mold of Pius X. Apparently, even Pius XII is a bit too squishy for him, which gives you some indication of the thoroughgoing dissociative mental state the Society is in.
Pagliarani is saying in effect that the Society does not care what the new pope thinks of it because Leo, in the Society’s estimation, is just one more iteration of the error-laced, heretical “Vatican II, Novus Ordo Church”. Thus, there is now no need to wait around for Rome to toss the SSPX some crumbs of tolerance since the Society views itself as more than an “alternative subculture” within the Church. Rather, it views itself as the true “Holy Remnant” of “true Catholicism” whose task has been given by “Providence” to save the Church from itself.
Pagliarani repeatedly refers to this “Providence” as a justification for the fractious ecclesial stance he is taking. There is not the slightest hint in the interview of ecclesial humility or, perhaps more importantly, of charity. The interview drips with victim status posturing, never hints at the possibility that they might be wrong, never squares the circle of how it is in any way a part of Catholic “tradition” to accuse an ecumenical council and several popes of teaching serious doctrinal error, and never addresses the sedevacantist elephant in the living room, which all of that implies.
A crisis too great for the Church?
Pagliarani justifies all of this by appealing to the same tired narrative that the Church of today—ever since Vatican II—is in a crisis so deep that average souls are in real danger of going to Hell because the Church has fallen into error. But he never provides a coherent set of criteria for determining when an ecclesial crisis is so deep that it requires the creation of a parallel episcopacy in defiance of Rome and devoted to a restorationist agenda, the contours of which are defined by the Society itself.
What we see is that the Society, based on its own private theological opinions about what constitutes true Catholicism—in order to imbue those opinions with the patina of Providence and to justify its rupture with the tradition’s affirmation of papal authority—has invented the scenario of a Church in the crisis of an apostasy so deep that there can be no fixing it short of rebellion. No mention is made of why God has apparently and rather suddenly abandoned the pope and the episcopacy. And no mention is made either of why, exactly, we are to assume that the mantle of Providence has now fallen on the shoulders of the SSPX rather than on some other disgruntled faction of hyper restorationist land of super Catholics.
Yes, the Church does indeed have major problems today. I have written much about those problems and can in no way be accused of soft-pedaling the crisis at hand, which is, in my view, a crisis of a de facto atheism in the Church’s culture. Nevertheless, true Catholics understand that charity demands the realization that the answer is not to run away from the mainstream Church as a lost cause and into a Qumran-like compound of defiant apocalypticism, thus abandoning the very souls they claim so ardently to want to save.
Pagliarani repeats ad nauseam that the concerns of the SSPX are purely and simply for the salvation of souls. But it is not hard to see the purely rhetorical nature of such claims when the SSPX is advocating that those same souls accompany them into schism. The Society claims, of course, that it is not going into schism but that it is Rome that has already gone into schism, echoing the polemic of the most anti-Roman Orthodox firebrands one can imagine; “We did not break away!! Rome did first, and we are just where we always were!”
The fact remains that the Society’s claim to be concerned about saving souls rings hollow when, instead of staying within the canonical and doctrinal boundaries of the Church, it abandons that Church and the souls within it in the name of some kind of “purity”—a purity that would be tainted and diluted should they stay. That is not charity. It is rather an ideologically driven elimination of cognitive dissonance, as in the dissonance between their view of the tradition and the modern Church’s view of the same. This is done by dissolving one pole of the dissonance and creating an alternative society that, instead of active evangelization in ordinary parishes, will act as a flame that will, allegedly, attract those lost sheep stranded out in the cold pastures of Novus Ordo land.
The Society further asserts that its interpretation of the Tradition is the only correct one, in a manner all too reminiscent of every schismatic and heretical group in the history of the Church. By whose authority does the Society do this? By God’s authority? That is their claim. But that means God has apparently radically shifted directions, and the Holy Spirit, apparently absent from the Church since at least 1962, has instead landed like a dove on the heads of the SSPX. For reasons known only to God, the “rock” that is Peter is now instead a sponge that soaks up only what is in its cultural environment. The SSPX now claims, in a tacit manner that is logically within its theological assertions, that it is now the rock.
Insincerity and misplaced confidence
They say otherwise in their official pronouncements, of course, and even in Pagliarani’s interview, there are all kinds of unctuous formalisms at the beginning wherein he expresses his love and admiration for Rome. However, everything that follows these words of praise betrays the insincerity of such affirmations. Pagliarani comes across instead as a kind of Eddie Haskell with a cassock on, hiding his true feelings and motives underneath faux words of praise.
The truth is that the SSPX does indeed view itself as being on a “mission from God” as they seek to put the Baroque Catholic band back together again. And the further truth is that in claiming, repeatedly, the “Providential” nature of this mission, the Society is claiming it is now the rock upon which the salvation of the Church depends.
Pagliarani, of course, never mentions that there are former SSPX priests and bishops who have splintered off the Society because they view it as still too compromised by its putative desire for reconciliation with Rome. He dares not mention this because, being an intelligent man, he understands that this is the standard path taken by all schismatic movements, which are devoid of grounding beyond their own solipsistic claims to superior insights. Inevitably, others will arise who believe that the muse who imparts such privileged divine secrets has inspired them with even better divine secrets, and that the mother ship of the schism has floundered and needs to be abandoned for purer and safer waters.
Nevertheless, this does not trouble Fr. Pagliarani, who remains supremely confident that the SSPX movement is a genuine movement of the Holy Spirit and that it is therefore blessed by Providence with manifest success. As corroboration for this view, he alludes to statements made by Archbishop Lefebvre:
On another occasion, Archbishop Lefebvre declared, serenely and in a profoundly supernatural manner, that if the Society of Saint Pius X were not the work of God, it would not continue and would not survive him. It is not for us to provide an answer to this question. But history has already begun to pronounce itself.
But this “success as a sign of divine approval” argument is completely incoherent and is little more than a rhetorical fig leaf used to cover over the raw theological nakedness of the Society’s inflated claims for itself. It is an incoherent argument because its sole criterion of divine approval is perdurance over time with a requisite number of followers to sustain it.
But that proves too much because it could also be applied to the Old Catholics, Protestants, every Catholic schismatic movement in history that still exists today, and (irony of ironies!) to the “Vatican II Novus Ordo Church” whose death spiral has been greatly exaggerated. Indeed, the latest statistics say that there are 1.4 billion Catholics in the world, and that the number of SSPX adherents worldwide is around 800,000. It would seem that even by the logic of the SSPX, the greater Providential blessing still resides with the mainstream Church.
The fact is that many evil movements have arisen within the Church over 2000 years and have survived and even thrived for a time. There are many deceivers who have ravaged the flock of Christ (1 Jn 4:1-3), which is why every saint, every true mystic, every Doctor of the Church, every Church father, and every medieval scholastic theologian has warned against false teachers and the allure of schism. They have all warned us to stay close to Peter. They have stated that legitimate and respectful criticism of a pope is sometimes needed. But they all agree that the schismatic impulse is of Satan.
And there is no schismatic impulse more dangerous than among those who appeal to the need to “preserve tradition” by breaking away from the ecclesial leaders of the day. It is a seduction that appeals to the most devoted Catholics. As such, it is a deception of the devout.
Manipulation and confusion
And, as such, it represents a horrible manipulation of the confusion of many truly devout Catholics whose long-suffering perdurance through the malaise of milquetoast Catholicism is real and understandable. These are the rank-and-file Catholics who still believe, go to Mass, volunteer at their parish as needed, put money in the envelopes, and instill the faith in their children. Ecclesial sexual scandals, financial mismanagement, and LGBTQ+everything have eroded the peace of these good Catholics, who therefore are easily swayed by claims of an apostasy so great that one needs to go into schism to save the Church.
Should the Pope excommunicate the leadership of the SSPX, it should not be viewed as the persecution of the poor little “victim” that is the Society, but instead viewed as the imparting of the proper clarity needed to safeguard the little ones of the flock. It is not punitive but remedial.
And we have not even touched upon the horrible denigration of the many thousands of priests who are active in ministry today who are doing the Lord’s work in the vineyard, who are not heretics or apostates, but who work hard to administer the sacraments with due devotion, who are in hospital rooms at 2:00 a.m. administering the sacrament of the sick to dying Catholicd, who teach and preach with vigor, and who have given their whole lives to the Kingdom of God. And the number of such priests is not negligible.
But according to the SSPX, these priests are unwitting participants in the spiritually toxic ethos of the entire modern Church. They might be sincere, but they are dupes of the system and, at the end of the day, part of the problem. That is why the Society claims the need for new bishops of its own, not appointed by Rome. This is to maintain the independence necessary from Rome, in order to be able to ordain priests who are not tainted by Novus Ordo, the Vatican II heresy. Therefore, this denigration of the mainstream priesthood is part of the broader narrative of apostasy and crisis that requires the grave necessity of disobedience.
Pope Leo has remained thus far silent on the matter, content to allow Cardinal Fernandez to do all the heavy lifting. And this silence has been noticed by Fr. Pagliarani, who laments the fact that Pope Leo has shown no inclination to meet personally with the leaders of the Society to “dialogue” with them.
If I were Pope Leo, I would not “dialogue” with them either. And I don’t think he will. Therefore, the SSPX is going to get the confrontation they have manufactured and desired. That will be a sad day, as all schisms are sad. But, as Pagliarani has himself noted in the Society’s defense, their actions represent a “cruel necessity”.
Perhaps it is now time for Pope Leo to have recourse, however reluctantly, to the “cruel necessity” of excommunication in July. At this point, it seems inevitable.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
There is a schismatic/sedevacantist church just south of town, not sure which splinter group. A few weeks ago my wife (who is Protestant) and I happened to drive by and she asked me about it. I explained the nature of the schism and her reply was spot on: “They sound like Protestants”.
But it is not protestantism, the SSPX is entirely committed to the entire perennial Magisterium of the Church. The SSPX is not schismatic — that according to Joseph Ratzinger, a theological advisor at the mid-century council, who was to become Pope Benedict XVI. There was a man of unquestionable theological credentials.
The same cannot be said of Cardinal Tucho Fernandez, author of “Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing” who promotes Marian minimalism, allows Marko Rupnik, serial rapist, to retain his clerical rank, and has no stomach to reproach and correct the German episcopate about any of their aberrant notions including those regarding sodomy.
The synodal enterprise has only ears to hear those who affirm its erroneous character.
We observe an institution on life support spending what is left of its credence like a protracted adolescent.
Personnel is policy, and as long as Cardinal Fernandez holds his post it reflects as poorly as can be imagined upon our Holy Father. Those who are giving the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt [and it is doubt] appear to be idealizing the man and the office he holds. The papacy is not a magical enterprise. Bishop Melchior Cano, O.P., at the Council of Trent stated: “Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See – they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.”
The entire Catholic Church is on a collision course with Rome. Rome is doing everything they can to alienate the Faithful. Pious talk about “unity” is no longer believable.
Good points, and this is certainly not a recent issue or concern. This was par for the course with Francis, and the bad dream seems to be continuing with Leo. Maybe it’s time for believers to start standing up and holding the hierarchy accountable for its behavior and misplaced priorities. We should do that vocally and financially. Why respect “leaders” who treat the flock with contempt?
Athanasius,
Why indeed… You point out the gulf betwixt the free-masonic sympathethetic Bishops and the Catholic laity who discover themselves members of a Church in 100% contradiction with Herself.
Uh huh. But the bar for being part of “the Faithful” is pretty low, huh? At least if we recognize your right to set that bar. It’s part of the Magisterium of the Internet, a core concept of most commenters on this site.
Not relevant to note whether you would dialogue with them or not.
The SSPX did not “manufacture” the issues in the Church. Neither do they desire any confrontation. They do desire the salvation of souls but according to your claims, the desire is not genuine or misplaced.
The judgement here relies mainly on the SSPX’s desires to be insincere. I’m not sure by what authority or evidence you make that claim.
Well said
The Church has continuously attempted to dialogue with the Society throughout the past two pontificates (and even JPII attempted that very dialogue, which, ultimately, Lefebvre rejected). The problem is, ultimately, the path to communion is not for the Church to overrule her Magisterial teachings, but for the Society to abandon its claims that the Church’s Magisterial teachings are heretical – especially those from Vatican II – and to submit to the authority of the Chair of Peter.
In any case, from my tracking the history of the dispute between the Society and the Church, it does seem that they intentionally and imprudently forced a confrontation with Pope Leo without any real attempt to understand his papacy first. Given that no Pope has yet to have done more to extend faculties and to move the Society closer to regular status than, ironically, Pope Francis and that Pope Leo has said he intends to stylize his pontificate on the Franciscan Papacy while highlighting unity, the diplomatic move by the Society is reckless and seems as though it will prove a grave miscalculation.
The Society cannot simultaneously assert that they are the “remnant” of the “True Church,” while denying the very ecclesiastic structures and powers Christ gave the Church through Peter. That sort of insistence on the primacy of ‘tradition’ over Magisterium becomes traditionalism and ultimately an idol. That’s the insincerity.
“even JPII attempted that very dialogue, which, ultimately, Lefebvre rejected”.
Lefevbre was dying of cancer.
He could see that Rome was playing for time.
He chose to save what could be salvaged and left the rest in God’s hands.
It weakens the essay to open with the completely preposterous suggestion that the feud between the Pontiff Leo and President Trump is “alleged.” Everyone can see and hear the fact of that feud. It is stone cold reality.
And it is stone cold reality. Just as real as the Pontiff Leo’s nakedly political act of his private audience with David Axelrod, and the resultant nakedly political stunt of the “3-Stooges-of-McCARRICK” doing the bidding of the Pontiff Leo and Axelrod in their “60 Minutes” stagecraft.
I reject the claim that “there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.”
I also reject the behavior of the Pontiff Francis, especially his orchestration of the Pachamama stunt in 2019, which was his blasphemous attack on the 1st Commandment, which I understand him to have done in order to further undermine the 6th Commandment by daring to show contempt for the 1st Commandment.
I likewise reject the nakedly political behavior of the Pontiff Leo, aa well as his free will act as a priest to kneel with in worship of Pachamama in a Pachamama ritual. And I reject the Pontiff Leo for continuing the program of the Bergoglian demoralization and deconstruction of the faith, and his airplane speech that makes him sound like a contestant for Miss Congeniality, instead if a serious shepherd like Pope Benedict or Pope John Paull II.
And I also reject the fraudulent Cardinals of the cult if McCARRICK, which includes the “homosophisticate” Cardinals McElroy, Cupich, Tobin, Hollerich and all of their like-minded conclave voters, and the Cardinal Heretic Emeritus Walter Kasper, who denies the Gospels, The Creed, and The Resurrection.
There are bad Popes, and as we all know, there are evil men that have been Pope, including men “alleged” to have murdered Popes to become Pope.
Popes are not to be cavalierly equated with St. Peter, who, unlike the Pontiff Leo, shared the conviction of the other apostles that sexual immorality is a mortal sin, far beyond the beauty pageant category of “world peace” and the Marxist ideology of “social justice.”
I also reject
I appreciate your comments and can relate to them. I don’t believe the SSPX is at fault, but it’s clear they’ve drawn a firm line. They’ve observed the actions and heard both Francis and Leo state their beliefs and doctrines, and they know further talks with Leo or similar popes will lead nowhere. They choose to follow where they believe Jesus is. I’ve never attended an SSPX congregation; for now, that’s a step too far for me. Still, I won’t reject them or deny their deep Christian faith. In short, I believe they are doing their best to follow Jesus Christ and remain Catholic. I pray the popes and the Church return fully to the Way, abandoning modernism and its influences, and cease flirting with heresy. Rome has created division in the Church and continues to fan the flames. Stop denying Tradition and true doctrine.
Michael – I want to affirm you on not joining an SSPX congregation. It’s a fine thing to appreciate and it’s a good thing to participate in the forms of the mass that are sanctioned by Rome – including the Extraordinary Rite. The Society runs afoul where, as men who have taken vows to wed themselves to the Church, they are not ultimately living that vow – regardless of how messed up everything may be. Either the Holy Spirit works through the Church, or He does not. Tradition and true doctrine hinge on the former, and the SSPX, certainly implicitly – if not explicitly on occasion, teaches the latter. Have hope: while things are bad, they are not nearly so bad as the SSPX needs to convince the world to substantiate their disobedience.
“The Society runs afoul where, as men who have taken vows to wed themselves to the Church, they are not ultimately living that vow.”
And they would be less afoul then the failure to living vows taken by McCarrick or Marx? I’m not part of FSSP, but if I had to trade my own eternal judgement for that of a sincere FSSP member or one of the M&M’s, I’d take that of the sincere FSSP member.
Imagine a military, where incompetence, dereliction of duty, sedition, treason, drunkenness and sodomy ruled the officer corps, but the only requirement of honorable attachment was saluting those of a higher rank and the enlisted were expected to die in futile and stupidly executed engagements such as Vietnam, where deskbound imbeciles spoke of “limited engagement” while exposing their own troops to toxic defoliants.
This past weekend the Gospel was about the Good Shepherd. My pastor’s sermon was focused on how sheep would know their Shepherd. I don’t hear the call of “Men” like Cupich, McElroy, McCarrick and Marx because they sicken me as they are enveloped in an acrid lupine miasma. I couldn’t even shake their hands if I had the misfortune to meet them, because I detest the soft and weak, and the temptation to crush their effeminate hands would overwhelm me.
“The Society runs afoul where, as men who have taken vows to wed themselves to the Church, they are not ultimately living that vow”
How is aquiescing to an ape of the Catholic Church magisterially promoting the blessing of sodomy ultimately wedding oneself to eternal Rome?
Do explain when the Holy Spirit changes his mind. I know Pope Bergoglio was fond of appealing to the God of Surprises, but I’ve only been surprized by an episcopate gone amuck in relation to the perennial Magisterium.
Today we read at another site: “In Flanders, Bishop Johann Bonny included these words on the implementation of the synodal process (published exactly one month ago) in the diocese of Antwerp wherein he explicitly states that he intends to ordain married men: For these reasons, I will make every effort to ordain married men as priests for our diocese by 2028. I will approach them personally and ensure that by then they have the necessary theological training and pastoral experience, comparable to that of other priest candidates. This preparation will be transparent but discreet, away from the media spotlight. The next two years will also serve to ensure the necessary communication and arrangements, both with the Belgian Bishops’ Conference and with the Vatican, as we can learn from each other’s experiences and insights.”
So how will the Leonine pontificate respond to this? The good Bishop Bonny has an erroneous attempt to “ordain” females as well.
Will he meet the same fate intended for the SSPX?
Thank you Chris in Maryland. You articulated my opinion much more succinctly than I could have done.
Mr Chapp
Thank you sir.
The SSPX is jumping ship without life jackets. No one should ever willingly leave the umbrella of Rome, and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Formal schism is not a Traditional Catholic thing to do, so how can the SSPX look at themselves in their cracked mirror and call themselves Traditionalists?
They are now nothing more than Latin-Rite Orthodox. (Or Protestants at this rate)
The door is open to the SSPX to return, but they are the ones who need to knock.
“They are the ones who need to knock”(Didn’t Think So). 👀 The Society has been requesting an audience with Pope Leo, but he’s been too busy meeting with David Axelrod and “Archbishop” Sarah Mullally to meet with Fr. Davide Pagliarani. When you publicly misrepresent someone and accuse them of a canonical crime, it’s important as a matter of charity to be honest. The SSPX has not stopped knocking at the door. This is according to the Vatican itself, which tells us that Pope Leo has refused to meet with them.
They are now nothing more than Latin-Rite Orthodox. (Or Protestants at this rate)
Well if that’s the case let’s role out the red carpet of dialogue! I look forward to chocolate statue of Marcel Lefebvre!
“They are now nothing more than Latin-Rite Orthodox. (Or Protestants at this rate)”
You mean like the woman with the equine denticia engaged in ecclesial cosplay?
I’m sorry, but all this talk of “unity” rings hollow when the Pope has time to meet with frauds from the CofE as a peer or to meet with non-Christians such as Axlerod, but not with this group, who is being offered the Catch 22 of death or apostasy or non submission.
The objective is clear. No shepherd and the flock scatters.
So you accept blessing sodomite couples as a “Catholic Didn’t think” so?
Mr C.N.
I absolutely do not accept the blessing of same sex couples. Choosing to remain in union with Rome than with a rogue group of priests only makes sense.
The SSPX are Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, but since they aren’t in full communion with Rome, they are missing the first section of the four pinnacles of the Catholic Church.
Do what you like, but I’m sticking with Rome. Being a schismatic isn’t part of Tradition.
Are you AI?!
“The interview drips with victim status posturing, never hints at the possibility that they might be wrong, never squares the circle of how it is in any way a part of Catholic “tradition” to accuse an ecumenical council and several popes of teaching serious doctrinal error”
Not since Larry Chapp insulted traditionalists by calling their claims of Masonry within the Vatican ridiculous, has he composed such preposterous nonsense as this article.
(Annibale Bugnini’s name is on the Italian registry of freemasonry. His serial no. 1365-75. His initiation date was April 23, 1963. He is only one of many. A member of the P2 lodge called Carmine Pecorelli, presented documents regarding names of Masons in the church and got murdered for his troubles.) Even if one refuses to believe this, it is absurd to deny widespread syncretism in the Church. No less than Fr. Charles Murr, assistant to Archbishop Edouard Gagnon, commissioned by Pope Paul to investigate the Masonic corruption, which he found and recorded in a massive dossier, has testified to this extensively.
And it is most certainly a part of Catholic tradition to identify material heresy when they see fit. It has only been done copious times over the course of centuries.
And it is the Vatican that sabotaged opportunities for SSPX meeting with and reconciliation with Leo, not the other way around.
When has Larry Chapp ever given public indications he might be wrong?
When has Larry Chapp ever given public indications he might be wrong?
Never. The nouvelle theologie didn’t fail, we failed it.
Perhaps he’d also like to challenge Father Ripperger, the exorcist that claims in his rites, he’s been told that diabolical reaches into the Vatican (as it no doubt does everywhere else).
Watch the Youtube video: “Exorcist Fr. Ripperger REVEALS Demonic Infiltration in Vatican”.
“Father Ripperger, the exorcist that claims in his rites, he’s been told that diabolical reaches into the Vatican.” Fr. Ripperger is believing the devil? I thought that exorcists were taught never to believe the devil.
I know the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right,” but it’s difficult to see Rome take a hard line with the SSPX while appearing to do little about bishops “in full communion” who openly preach error or promote policies at total odds with Church teaching. It’s an odd juxtaposition for Rome to be extremely strict with the SSPX while, at the same time, the Pope is exchanging jars of honey and other gifts with the head of the Anglican Communion, who is not only in schism but also actively teaches things that oppose Christian orthodoxy.
If “full communion” is reduced to something merely institutional or juridical, it risks losing any real meaning. For the term to carry any meaningful weight, it has to reflect a deeper unity, one that includes not just formal structures, but also fidelity in belief, teaching, and practice.
As we’ve been constantly reminded by promoters of ecumenism, schism is a failure on the part of both parties. I would be surprised if Rome took responsibility for its part in creating this situation.
The fact that PL does not meet with SSPX Society but meets with a fake Anglican Archbishop (“fake” primarily because of her sex – a woman cannot be an icon of Christ = to represent Him during the Eucharist) and other fakes/blurs/etc. is entirely logical. Whatever faults SSPX have, they so far are sticking to what the Church has taught for twenty centuries, I mean the doctrine. (I have a problem with their “remnant” ideation because such an ideation tends to bring a person or a group of people down but it is another matter.)
According to human psychology, a narcissistic/toxic family always relies on “blurred boundaries” for smooth operating. The rules are unspoken and subject to an abrupt change, by those who rule the family. There are no objective ethics and morals because if they were, they would constrain those who possess that kind of toxic power. Thus, when a member of a family suddenly “sees the light”, draws a boundary and appeals to objective morals, he automatically becomes an outsider. He dared to say “you are wrong and this is why”. His behaviour thus makes the problems within a family very visible and this is the reason why he is typically ostracized, thrown out as a result. He becomes “a traitor”; the head of the family and his “capos” then engage in a projection and slander, attributing their own sins to him (blame shifting).
And so, “the Archbishopess” does not threaten PL and his system because she matches that system perfectly: no objective rules – in fact, “the Archbishopess” owns her rank in the Church by twisting that very Church’s teaching and Scriptures. Most importantly, she makes PL look “nice and kind and non-rigid”. “Look at PL, he accepted a female head of the Church!” – the world applauds, including the majority (?) of Christians.
On the other hand, SSPX makes PL look semi-heretical i.e. they expose him via their adherence to what PL is desperate to blur and do away with. Most importantly, SSPX introduces blur the objective rules. PL knows this (consciously or not I have no idea) thus he avoids them.
From here follows that PL does not encourage those who stick to the doctrine but those who twists it for one reason only: it is beneficial for him – not for God and the Church of Christ – because it makes him likable in the eyes of those who don’t mind the blur, basically the majority of population of the globe.
To make a conclusion: all rigid (clear Church’s teaching, Scriptures, Church fathers, saints, mystics, tradition and Christ of course) must go “away from the family” because they expose what is going on. The problem is that PL and his system need those who must go away to excuse PL’s and his system’s existence. The Pope cannot exist without a reference (even extremely blurred) to Christ. This is why the current heresy does not have a solid and clear theological component which would openly change things. This is why PL is engaging in almost impossible: holding on to Church twenty centuries doctrine and blurring and twisting it at the same time. He found a genius solution: the past doctrine must be turned into a point of reference in a hypertext which is activated via periodic acting out “the tradition” but the true life is elsewhere, in the realm of human psychology dressed in ecclesial clothes. What is going on is the antithesis of Christ, much more “likable” than Christ, trying to hold it all in his hand.
Laughable. The SSPX is staying Catholic. Rome is not. It is as simple as that. Maybe the Archbishopess of Canterbury can explain it to Dr. Chapp. An “excommunication” at this point will merely point out Rome’s further apostasy. At any rate, the SSPX will continue to flourish, and Rome will continue to burn.
SSPX = LARP
SSPX is speaking to a real crisis. This author downplaying that seems arrogant and delusional.
The article simply identifies the combatants in the endless conflict between those intent on conforming the world to God (tradition) or conforming god to the World (modernism). Granted we each shall have a choice to go one direction or the other so as for my choice is to adhere to the Catholicism of the Moderate Scholastic of St Thomas who enjoy the Beautific Vision, thus as a recusant Traditionalist I shall reject modernism as my means to aspire to the Faithful Remnant. When asked the proverbial question “Where do we go from here?” we have the traditional response “Only to God, only to god”. Within the Created Order, there has been and is the desecrating chaos, the loss of moral authority with and since V2.
What about the FSSP? Why not build up this group as a fully recognized part of the Chirch and invite the SSPX to become part of it? They could have a status simulator to the Anglican prelature
The FSSP was promised a bishop 30 years ago, and entry into every diocese where Catholics requested the TLM. Both promises were fake. The FSSP will never have any real place in the Church because they were created only to draw people away from the SSPX. If the SSPX were gone tomorrow, the FSSP would be suppressed the day after tomorrow.
Honestly the FSSP seems almost in the same “irregular” position they just don’t openly challenge Rome like the SSPX. Some liberals seem to want to change this by requiring them to say the New Rite, to concelebrate etc. My understanding is that the FSSP seminary utilizes more or less the classic formation in traditional Thomism though of course with some updates (current Catechism and Code of Canon of Law). But this it seems to me would need to revised in the name of unity. The FSSP seminarians should have their dose of De Chardin, Barth, DeLubac and Balthasar as well. To exclude the new theologians is essentially tantamount to rejecting Vatican II.
We don’t warn the Orthodox that they are on the brink of schism, because the Orthodox already are in schism. Either the SSPX is or might later be in schism. The Vatican wouldn’t warn them of a future schismatic act if they’re already in schism. Dr. Chapp writes here: “the looming schism of the SSPX has faded from the news,” yet we see priests pastors and canon lawyers preach in Arlington that the SSPX is already in schism. Which is it? The schism is looming, ie approaching, or already fact?
Many Traditionalists will never accept the new stripped-down post-1962 pseudo-Mass, nor will they accept the Popes Pro-LGBTQ doctrine and the heresy which these apostates have steered the modern Roman Catholic Church, which resembles Lutheranism more than the SSPX. We’ve been excommunicated before and it didn’t stop us. If we have to go back to having Mass in the basements of people’s home we will because it is the one true approved Mass which most of you fake Catholics can live without all the way to Hell.
Dear Joseph,
I never attend novos ordo post-Catholic masses, but attending TLM with a priestly confraternity in full communion with the apostates has become difficult.
It means aquiescing to Vatican II in theory and thus rubber-stamping gay-couple blessings in practice. As a Catholic this is simply untenable.
So if Rome declares Lefevbre’s men unacceptable to “gay-couple blessing post-Catholic conciliared Church,” I will in conscience have to join Lefevbre’s men in order to simply remain a Catholic defender of the faith of our fathers?
Thank you for commenting, Joseph.
I welcome intelligent responses to my crisis of traditionalist conscience.
MCN, it’s not possible to be in “communion” with apostates. To be guilty of apostacy is, de facto, to be in mortal sin. The very Body and Blood of Christ cannot be not granted to or received by one who is in mortal sin (physically, sure; but spiritually, no). That is to say, I believe your underlying premise is flawed.
For the record, FS – as confusing as it may be – explicitly prohibits blessing couples as “gay couples.” An act of “rubber stamping” a “gay couple” as that, is mortal sin. Vatican II has nothing to do with this practice. I’m hopeful that in the not-too-distant future, Pope Leo will more directly address these situations in a more head-on fashion, too. Have hope, brother.
Joseph is wrong in attitude. I am a traditionalist of the Catholic Church, with qualifications, myself. For me it means attending the TLM as often as I can and holding true to the liberating immutable truths of Her precepts. And this includes the right of every Catholic to be concerned and call out material heresy, no matter the source of heresy. A fundamental principle of natural law is that right is right even if no one is right, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong.
But we do not serve our traditional cause by publicly condemning “fake Catholics” to hell. One of the gravest of mortal sins involves usurping God’s judgment for ourselves. It will not go well at anyone’s final accounting if we have this sin to which we must give an account.
In recent weeks the ugly specter of anti-Semitism has appeared among a few “traditionalist” pundits. Vanity always seeks affirmations of moral and spiritual superiority even when it requires hatred to accomplish it. Catholicism does not accept the false interpretation of Scripture singularly condemning Jews for the crucifixion for all time. And Catholicism does not exempt anyone from heaven for not having an outward Catholic identity, which happens to coincide with a position held by no less than Archbishop Lefebvre.
It is not surprising that Dr. Chapp locates the “problem” in the Church to be the SSPX. Dr. Chapp taught for 20 years at DeSales University, which has co-ed dorms and all the usual dissenting groups, such as a student LGBTQ affirmation club. The same problems exist everywhere in the Church today, but of course, the perpetuation of the Traditional Latin Mass is the only “real” problem…
Sigh. Anyone who has read Dr. Chapp’s pieces here or elsewhere knows that your remark is deeply misleading. He has written pieces (for example) criticizing Cardinal’s Cupich, McElroy, and company, on issues such as homosexuality, conscience, etc. He has written pieces criticizing Pope Francis, the German bishops, etc. Also, I think it’s fairly well know that Dr. Chapp left DeSales, in part, because he no longer wanted to deal with the insanity there. Further, the LGBT group/club at that school was founded 5 or 6 years ago; Dr. Chapp left in 2013. Sure, criticize this essay, but please stop lying.
I think you are missing my point entirely. Despite Dr. Chapp’s knowledge of the state of the Church today, he zeros in on the SSPX as the “disobedient Catholics,” the ones who are “schismatic,” the problematic Catholics who need to suffer the ultimate penalty of the Church. That position is quite common among “conservative” Catholics, and it is cowardly. I cannot even imagine the cognitive dissonance of those who force themselves to think in this manner. They are not helping defend the Church. They are going right along with its auto-destruction, just lemmings leaping off the cliff…
I have a relative that attended De Sales. Married there because the parish priest wanted corrective action about the couple’s cohabitation, so the ceremony was conducted at De Sales after over a decade or so of an apparently unhappy, childless “union”, divorced and now with a new “significant other”.
I’m not expecting or suggesting every Catholic college graduate is a perfect Catholic, but I would be curious as to why the Salesian order would have agreed to override the parish priest and witness a union that quite frankly due to reasons I will not disclose (apart from the cohabitation isn’t terribly limiting any more) should have been a giant red flags of incompatibility and perhaps insincerity in pre-marital counseling. That seems like an anecdotal indication of a permissive environment to me. Is DeSales just another completely off the rails CINO place? Is is as bad as the place that chased Anthony Esolen away from its faculty?
Funny thing about Harvey’s Lake. It was better when the Lehigh Valley Railroad ran trains under the now defunct Hanson’s amusement park roller coaster. Oh well at least the park train survives as an attraction on the farm of the parents of wrestler Zain Retherford’s parents in not too far away Benton, PA. And if you go to HL, The Grotto was a good pizza place-haven’t been there in years. There used to be a wing shack called Rich and Charlotte’s, where the hottest version produced a curious reaction of sweating from the eyebrows.
I hear that when you meet as a church there are divisions among you, and to a degree I believe it; there have to be factions among you in order that [also] those who are approved among you may become known. 1 Cor 11:18-19
Jesus promised to be with Peter, not those who disagree with him.
I do not see, whether the SSPX is right or wrong, that they desire confrontation. Their existing bishops are aging. Unless they want to die out they need new bishops. That seems to me to be their motivation.
But that also brings up the question of why the German Church is not accused of confrontation, and action taken. When Pope Leo was questioned on his airplane return about the latest German bishops defiance his response was that he had let them know that he disagreed. Wow! What a strong leadership statement.
This latter point is the quiet part that the Society refuses to say out loud; to wit, that this is a confrontation of choice, of their own making, and that there was still time to avoid the conflict with the new pope.
They claim the decision is of necessity to ensure the provision of sacraments to society members. Would it have killed Mr. Chapp to address that in his rather long diatribe against the SSPX?
In government and major organizations, the are COOPs (Continuity of Operations Plans) that anticipate the vacancy of key positions or the incapacity of the incumbents. I was involved in an organization where a key position was staffed by nobody less than 60 years old, save two. In less than ten years, all of the 60+ were dead, physically unable or “retired”.
Forcing an organization to careen toward the risk of “mass superannuation” or “mass mortality” of it’s episcopacy might be a “choice”, but it’s the sort of choice one is offered with a firearm muzzle firmly indenting their temple.
Dear SSPX,
As you might already know, my view is that the original excommunication would simultaneously revive and the new ordinations would be void putting the group in a tailspin going into a disarray inevitably. Well, the proposed ordinations are also, in the unique circumstances in which they occur, extra-ecclesial process that the Church can’t uphold or reconcile by extraordinary means, it’s a chaos.
Maybe, during this time when SSPX is in communion still, it can have bishops ordained outside the Society who can then be inducted into SSPX while the situation continues to resolve stably and serenely over the course of time -and without all kind of big fanfare. Opus Dei has an annex by incardination. Vincentians have a Priests of the Mission membership.
If I am making a meaningful contribution here, they -you, SSPX- will have to attribute it to the Lord Jesus Christ. Lest they overlook.
Sincerely,
ELIAS
The Vatican disagrees with Germany about same sex blessings, but the German Church is in good standing with the Vatican. Not sure why the Vatican and the SSPX can just agree to disagree.
*Not sure why the Vatican and SSPX CAN’T just agree to disagree
The bottom line Mr Chapp is Agenda 2030 or the Faith of our Fathers?
We read: “Why revisit this tired and sad situation yet again? With the focus of late on the war with Iran and the alleged feud between Pope Leo and President Trump, the looming schism of the SSPX has faded from the news.”
Three points and a Question:
FIRST, can’t help but notice the parallel with Luther, where both the emperor and the pope were distracted from the monk’s early ripple in the carpet because both were preoccupied with the intrusion of Islam farther to the east. And then there’s the possibly instructive parallel between an SSPX second episcopacy to that of the Donatists in St. Augustine’s 4th- and 5th-century North Africa. Lingering aftereffects might have continued until the entire region was overrun by Islam in the 7th Century….
SECOND, Le Febvre’s claim to be vindicated by history— the same claim used by Muhammed II in the 15th Century, summarily justifying Islamic truth by the direct intervention into history of Allah—by finally delivering fortress and gateway Constantinople into Muslim hands in A.D. 1453. What could be more obvious!
THIRD, and possibly as an irrelevant aside….more about ping-pong “dialogue” within reasonophobic Islam— Al-Ghazali (1058-1111), the greatest theologian of Islam, wrote against any openings toward natural philosophy, in a work entitled the “Destruction of Philosophy.” And then in the back-and-forth sequence came the “Destruction of the Destruction” by Ibn Rushd (also known as Averroes), who was a direct influence on the Christian thought of the thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris. Ibn Rushd’s work was followed by the “Destruction of the Destruction of the Destruction” by Hodia Zada (d. 1487), who at the command of Mohammed II (second point, above) again wrote against philosophical inquiry, following the successful siege of Constantinople in 1453 (W.H. McNeill, the “Rise of the West,” Mentor, 1963, p. 555).
QUESTION: about some form of “dialogue” with SSPX, still….Somewhere on the recent pages of CWR the idea was floated that rather than “excommunication,” another option exercised in the past has been “suspension” (of some sort). What might this look like, and is this an option today?
When Rome publishes magisterial documents promoting soddomite-couple blessings in accordance with free masonic Agenda 2030, is it eternal Rome or Apostate Rome? Which Rome is Rome?
So, are the Sacraments offered by SSPX valid (I already know they’re not licit, so don’t bother reminding me)? If their Sacraments are valid, Catholics are free to participate in the Sacramental Graces afforded by their rites.
What’s odd is that Pope Prevost won’t meet with the SSSPX whose Sacraments are valid but does meet with the Halloween Queen from Canterbury whose sacraments are NOT valid.
I fear that the Catholic Church is devolving into a Lewis Carroll story. (Let’s ask Alice)
Today, the memorial of Saint Catherine of Siena, that intimate of Jesus Christ, that fearless woman sent to admonish the papacy, has this antiphon for the BENEDICTUS during Lauds: “The holy virgin Catherine steadfastly begged the Lord to restore peace to his holy Church, alleluia.”
May our present pontiff have an ear of the heart to perceive the nature of this moment.