Having dealt with bishops and Church bureaucrats, I know the one thing they respond to is threats. And deadlines spur action. They force this situation by leaving no other practical choice.
Let’s say a child tells his teacher he does not feel comfortable at school unless he has a knife in his backpack. I hope you would say no for the good and well being of the others. But adding your twist and because the school board may be a bureaucracy would you then change your mind because the child gave a deadline?
I only know a small number of SSPX folks and they are not the type you would invite to a dinner party. This action confirms the ‘irregularity’ with that group as they thrive not on doctrine but rather a solipsistic view of their tiny cabal.
It’s ok for the Chinese Communists to ordain bishops without Vatican approval or excommunication? Perhaps the SSPX should donate $2 Billion to the Holy See and they can do anything they want.
My issue isn’t that other people do evils. It’s that the Vatican happily rubber stamps some evil while cracking down on other evils. I’d like some consistency.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, but those who have greater access to truth are more culpable. Sheesh, if I attended Mass at an SSPX parish, I’d be very upset about this because I’d hope that my clergy would seek to attain highest standard of obedience.
I’m no big fan of the SSPX but the people super animated over this and not the Chinese Communist Party appointing handpicked commie stooges as bishops are total hypocrites.
Because one is realism in dealing with an oppressive government (something the Church has been required to deal many times in history) and other are just schismatics.
I hold no brief for the specific deal Cardinal Parolin arranged with the Chinese...but dealing with the authoritarian government of a major world power involves considerations just a wee bit different than dealing with a breakaway traditionalist priestly fraternity.
It's less apples and oranges than apples and rutabagas here.
An officially atheistic group that puts people in camps due to religion/race appointed their own bishops after Francis died but before Leo was elected. The Vatican later rubber stamped it.
I’m not defending the SSPX here but my oh my do people love to do selective outrage.
I'm always up for hearing a "the Vatican-China deal isn't working, harms the unity of the Church and the Vatican's best-of-bad-options is to simply announce it was broken and start over" argument if that's the pov you're coming from; and I think that framing is much less dangerous than "the sspx/anyone should adopt these same practices"
Something that is easy to lose track of is that the CCPA's tactics ultimately don't "work", in that they cause ongoing and increasing harm to the souls of those who pursue them. They may effectively appear to get what they want in the short term, but they are not getting what is good.
the Parolin deal, for all that may be said of it, at least has historical continuity with historical investiture controversies. Now try to find a historical precedent for a Religious Order, Congregation, Society, or Priestly Fraternity, that habitually has its own Bishops...
During the papal interregnum between Francis and Leo the CCP unilaterally appointed two new bishops with no prior approval or even heads up to Rome (in violation of the Vatican-China deal). Leo let them stand in a pastoral attempt at unity.
Cardinal Zen called it an "incredible betrayal" and a "shameless surrender". Human Rights Watch heavily criticized Rome for letting them stand.
I note you say nothing about these two bishops. Did they Holy See rubber stamp them, or did they consider that they were acceptable and therefore under difficult circumstances, did not object? You assert the former without evidence.
I think the absolute control that the CCP has over the lives of millions of Catholics, and their willingness to kill them for getting out of line, has more to do with the Vatican's willingness to play ball with China's government than any checks that were cut.
The difference is that there is no necessity for the SSPX to ordain new bishops. No one would be without the Sacraments if these Bishops were not ordained. In the western world, a priest is always available within a reasonable distance; and to the best of my knowledge no SSPX is ministering in the Mongolian desert or the arctic of Alaska.
Personal preference as to the style of liturgy is not a valid concern; and if it would lead a person not to receive the necessary Sacraments, then at least in an adult that could be considered a defect that would inhibit the reception of Sacramental Grace. While "ex opere operato" obviously exists for the minister, the interior disposition of the recipient can and dose effect the Grace received.
It depends. If you are in St. Mary's, KS - SSPX run the only Catholic grade school / high school / jr college around. It is instructive to note that the Jesuits could not keep this school afloat.
(I'm all for the traditional forms being available to those who want them, and people who find it easier to be more fully receptive to the graces of the Sacraments when approached in those forms by all means should do so. And likewise, those who find themselves better prepared and more open to grace when approaching in the ordinary form should do so. But the actual sacraments don't carry "more graces" in one form or the other (neither do they in the Latin rite vs other rites).
Well it really also depends on the disposition of the recipient, does it not? If I am in a situation where I can't go to the gracier (more graceful?) thing then I simply say "God, it is YOUR WILL that I cannot go to x but instead have to y, therefore I accept your will and I politely demand that you give me all the graces that I would have got from x" and then I pause for a moment to hear the beep beep beep of the dump truck backing up to bury me.
There are many diocesean priests I know who hold this belief. It’s hardly controversial, and it’s not at all Donatist. It’s the same as saying a high mass in a grand cathedral is better than a mass in the back of a jeep.
It's not true, it's not Catholic teaching, and by that logic, any simpler forms of the Roman liturgy in the first millennium carried lesser graces. I'm only posting this for the sake of any readers who think that many Priests actually think this (we don't, including those such as myself, who regularly celebrate Mass using the '62 Missal). Ryan, you're placing a stumbling block in front of others, especially the scrupulous. Comments with patently false theology shouldn't be permitted.
If there were rankings, and there are NOT, the Jeep Mass would be the widow’s mite of forms because participants are literally risking all they have to be there. I don’t have a lot to say on this particular article topic, but I had to at least respond to denigration of bush Masses/Masses for service members who gratefully accept anything they receive vs turning up their noses at the full platter laid before them.
The SSPX leaders seem to have been excommunicated and in-communicated so many times now that it's hard to keep track. They clearly see themselves as faithfully bearing the standard of Christ as much as the progressive German bishops do.
The SSPX deserves very little sympathy, in no small part because of this. I have traditional liturgical leanings and therefore agree with their laments about the decline of reverential worship. But at this point the SSPX are just Protestants with cassocks.
That is unfair. The Protestants have large issues theologically. Would you describe the Eastern Orthodox the same way? Where is your theological difference with the SSPX?
In the minds of some bishops, yes. In others no. A number of people are not fans of the Novus Ordo. Should they be separated from Rome? Vatican II did not get rid of the Latin Mass. It created an alternative that some thought would be better for the masses. I think the jury is out on that.
But what does "not a fan" mean? Wholesale rejection? Begrudging acceptance? How can one extrapolate a regrettable lack of liturgical decorum to a rejection of a valid form of the mass? How many bishops is "some" beside fringe figures like Schneider?
Growing up I attended a parish with a wishy-washy, "Spirit of Vatican 2" priest who put the tabernacle to the side of the church to be forgotten about. But I still went because the mass was valid.
I would add Cardinals Burke, Sarah, and Muller to that list. I am sure there are others. Are those that practice the Byzantine rite put under the same scrutiny? It is almost like a personal affront to some that the SSPX don't appreciate the liturgical changes of Vat II. Were these the bishops that struggled with Latin in seminary?
None of the other rites Sui Iuris teach that the NO missal is invalid. They are also in communion with Rome. The Church is unified under Peter, the Vicar of Christ. You cannot intentionally break that communion and claim that their activities are noble. It’s not just “small potatoes” as they say, it’s a critical tenet of our faith they are rejecting
So...4 bishops. I'll give you 5 if you count the excommunicated Vigano. And the Cardinals you mention have not said that the NO is invalid, even if they do advocate for the reform of the reform (as I do).
The liturgical changes allow and encourage the use of Latin and chant, even if appreciation of those principles vary. So why does the SSPX not go that path? The answer is that viewing the SSPX through the myopic lens of liturgy fails to account for their divergence from Holy Mother Church in terms of magisterial authority, ecclesiology, collegiality, and religious freedom. And that isn't just me talking, it's on their website.
Pope Benedict told the bishops, in a letter with Summorum Pontificum, that priests who refused on principle to celebrate the NO were not in 'full communion'. I think that implies that they have separated themselves from the pope.
I gracefully appreciate the canon law primer by yourself and several others here. I think we went offtrack though on the question of theological difference, which was my main point. Is NO validity a theological difference? I would argue not. It is a liturgical, canonical dispute that unfortunately will result in a parallel group theologically aligned with the Catholic Church but not in communion with Rome.
"Is it valid" does seem like a theological question at core though - what constitutes the nature of this sacrament?
And if the Pope & the bishops acting in union with him could officially propagate invalid sacraments, that seems like it raises some very core questions about whether the Church is actually what we think it is.
Yes, what you're getting at here is the difference between heresy and schism - Heresy means "I make up my own version of Christianity", schism means "I believe the same as you do, but I refuse to obey you"
And it should be noted that excommunication is not supposed to simply mean "You're bad, you're out". It's supposed to start a dialogue that optimally leads with the schismatic to come back to the fold:
(Aquinas again, https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q39.A4) "Excommunication does not forbid the intercourse whereby a person by salutary admonitions leads back to the unity of the Church those who are separated from her. Indeed this very separation brings them back somewhat, because through confusion at their separation, they are sometimes led to do penance."
But, the theology is the same. Our biggest issue with Protestants is their theology that leaves out 1500 years of Christian Tradition. It is almost a nonissue with the Orthodox. That is why we are trying to reunite with them. That is the flaw in the original comparison.
I am not an SSPX parishioner and likely never will be because believe it or not I'm too progressive to fit in over there, but from a theological standpoint, SSPX are not Protestants. Protestants are heretics. SSPX are schismatics or leaning that way. There is a HUGE difference.
If a nuclear war destroyed every Catholic church within 1000 miles tomorrow and I had my choice of a Protestant church or a schismatic church, I would go to the schismatic church, because the sacraments are likely to be valid over there. In an emergency, Father SSPX can still absolve your sins and consecrate the body and blood of Christ. While over at Minister Protestant's church, he can't absolve you and you'll be eating a symbolic cracker and grape juice.
Thank you. The SSPX are not protestants, nor are they sedevacantists. It is important to not bandy around terms loosely, in a manner which often proves not only not helpful but actively detrimental.
People usually don't understand the differences, largely because the Church has eliminated words like "heretic" and "schismatic" from the common prayers like Good Friday, and replaced them with stuff like "let us pray for all our brothers and sisters who share our faith in Jesus Christ". The result being the usual failure of catechesis in an attempt to be "nice".
Yes, I thought this Pontiff is about unity and liturgical reverence. Why is the Novus Ordo the hill that so much of the hierarchy want to 'die' on? How many different rites do we have?
I put this on the the SSPX. Let's do a very high level comparison of the SSPX and the FSSP. Both celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively and share similar liturgical practices, but the FSSP chose the path of working within Church structures while the SSPX maintains its independent position. The FSSP works with local bishop's approval and maintain normal relationships with diocese and they accept the Vatican II and interprets it in continuity with Tradition while the SSPX, operates independently of local bishops, which creates canonical tensions and they reject or seriously question certain Vatican II documents and reforms
Shouldn’t a “high level comparison” of the two also note that, despite their extreme cooperativeness with and general obedience to Rome, the FSSP has been severely curtailed by progressive ecclesial apparatchiks who are hell-bent on ghettoizing them until there’s an opportune moment to force them all to abandon their charism and switch to the Novus Ordo?
I think Michael's point boils down to obedience. Is the church flawed? Yes. Do we still owe our obedience to Christ's successors? Yes, in every way that is required. We may suffer when we are obedient, but God sees this obedience.
While I understand the inclination to play diplomatic hardball, this seems short-sighted at best on the part of the SSPX. After all, illicitly consecrating bishops is what got the SSPX in their current situation, and while the slow course of rapproachement and reconciliation with the Vatican may be frustrating, forcing this kind of confrontation seems likelier to backfire than not. Pope Leo may not have Francis' temper or expansive approach to papal authority, but I'd be shocked if he responded well to such a blatant attempt to usurp the authority and prerogatives of his office, especially by a group that so strongly claims to value tradition and the Church.
I, unfortunately, agree with you. For a Church though that should care about membership and spreading the word of Christ, why is the Vatican not trying harder to retain a body of the faithful? Tomorrow we will be meeting with Orthodox trying to reunite......
That's a fair question, and while I have no good answers, I have a couple thoughts:
1. We don't know exactly what the SSPX requested or what the Vatican said in response. It may or may not have been reasonable on either side. For my part, I would be very reluctant to allow them to consecrate new bishops without a full, formal apology from the superior and bishops, oath of allegiance to the pope on the part of said bishops and priests, and a several-year probationary period for good measure.
2. Related to the above, the Church may care, but she also can't very well reward disobedience. The Orthodox are in a very different boat, because they've been separated for so long and don't claim to be part of the Catholic Church. 2/4 of the illicitly consecrated bishops are *still alive*, and the SSPX itself purports to be part of the Church. This makes it a different problem to my eyes.
3. Things take time. The Vatican is slow-moving on the best of days, and to call this a complex, thorny situation is an understatement and a half. It could well be that there is a plan or roadmap for reconciliation with the SSPX that's either still being worked out or is on a longer timeline than the SSPX prefers. To extend the benefit of the doubt to the SSPX, I've certainly been in situations where I think I see a problem, a solution, and I know who can make it happen—and they either don't act on it or don't move as fast as I'd like, and that can produce a strong impulse to do something anyways. That perception and impulse isn't always wrong, but it's not always right, either. Fr. Pagliarini may well be perceiving the present situation as far more pressing than the Vatican does, which could be driving this announcement. I pray that cooler heads prevail on all sides.
I agree that deadlines spur action, but this deadline is not diplomatic it’s practical. It the same reason Archbishop Lefebvre acted so urgently in 88: he was dying.
Two of the four bishops from 88 are dead. The two remaining bishops are in their late sixties. For the last forty years they’ve racked up more frequent flier miles than just about any prelate. They travel the world non-stop. With the loss of +Williamson and death of +Tissier, their burden is even more accute. They need relief.
So yeah, maybe a deadline will help spur things along, but this is much more about the current bishops’ mortality and fragility.
in the words of a friend, "and they say piles of words about how this is totally not in a spirit of disobedience, rebellion, or resentment... and then announce that the planned date is the thirty-eighth anniversary of their previous excommunication."
Exactly. If the Church hadn't faced lawsuits, bankruptcy, and public pressure to do something about the abuse crisis, it would still be just shuffling problematic clergy around and under the carpet.
I think a core difference is that the eg. abuse victims have a right in justice to compensation through the civil courts. Communities have a right in justice to protect themselves from an abuser in their midst. Law enforcement has both a right and obligation in justice to protect others from their predation.
Now all of that may have had the secondary effect of pressuring bishops to do what they should already have done. But it was just on its own merits. The SSPX has no right in justice to schism, so threatening to do so with hopes that it has the secondary effect of pressuring the church to make some policy change is also unjust.
"Make threats to get what you want" is very much the spirit and logic of the moment.
Followers of Christ would do well to resist it, as it is the spirit and logic of the lord of this world, much more than it breathes of the Spirit of the true Lord of Heaven and earth.
If the Vatican is willing to "work with" LGBTQ groups/ Fr James Martin, African polygamists, and the German bishops pushing Der Synodal Weg, then the Vatican can just man up and "work with" the SSPX too so we don't have another schism.
Pointedly true. We will "work" with heretics and sinners to be tolerant -- but, my goodness, you cannot question whether reforms were actually effective. It seems to be an affront to their power.
Gross arrogance and pride. Sin and schism. Especially distressing coming at a time I would otherwise hope for a more healthy environment and dialog around celebrating the TLM.
Grateful we in Chicagoland have the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius. Tradition WITH obedience.
You all used to have ICKSP as well, until the good Cardinal Archbishop unceremoniously kicked them out. They, of course, obeyed. And yet, the flock is the worse for it.
Such triumphalism, eh! We on the canonically-regular end of things have no right to turn up our noses and scoff at the Society when our own house has some serious scandalous problems going on. Look at the standard milieu of headlines here on the Pillar, and tell me we have no problems with arrogance and pride and sin and schism and disobedience!
I had the fortunate opportunity to attend a Mass there and have watched several online. It is a beautiful congregation. It somewhat surprises me that it is exists in that diocese.
Here is my two cents as an SSPX "parishoner" at the priory in Phoenix, but as someone that does not blindly follow the SSPX and recognizes the situation is not ideal (or even good).
In the last year, I have spent hundreds of hours volunteering my time a TV director (my real job) to build out a profession quality broadcast center to livestream a high-quality TLM every Sunday from our SSPX priory. But I intentionally do not send my kids to the SSPX school here--rather I send them to local diocesan ("Novus Ordo") elementary school.
Let's pray that Pope Leo, in charity to millions of faithful Catholics, can find a resolution to this.
Let's pray that in the next few months, the SSPX works with Pope Leo.
I am not optimistic about this, but prayer is all we got in this situation.
If the SSPX proceeds, it kicks the can down the road another 40 years.
If the Rome instinctively excommunicates the Bishops, it kicks the can down the road another 40 years.
Excommunication is meant to correct and fix a problem, but in this case, excommunicating will do nothing except deepen the divide. It will not fix this problem, only make it worse.
Division in the Church will only deepen; good traditional Catholics will be the ones that suffer, and the SSPX will only continue to grow... and its priests, religious, and faithful will continue to exist in a gray area for another 40 years.
Coming to a resolution-even if its uneasy or (temporarily) vaguely defined-will be a great benefit to the Church.
Fr. Ripperger I think gets this right. I would love for Pope Leo to call in Fr. Pagliarani and say "you are regularized. You can't resist this. We'll figure it out later. I'll send a Bishop to Econe in July to be the principle consecrator. No questions. Now show yourself to the exit."
Small point of order: Rome won't have to declare them excommunicated; the excommunications are automatic (latae sententiae) when a bishop illicitly consecrates someone a bishop without a papal mandate (see Code of Canon Law, c. 1387).
Smaller point of order: yes, but the canonical crime/penalty of Schism is distinct (though not disconnected from) the act/sin of schism, and therefore is a legal matter and does require a declaration.
I am not gonna join everyone today in pretending to be a canonist today, but the SSPX has long held the excommunications in 88 were null and void. And if there was a “state of necessity” in 88, then I would say the state of necessity is even greater in the post TC world. I mean just look at the state of insanity in Charlotte.
I think the SSPX can also look at the way the Vatican is handling the illicit consecration of Bishosp and say why can the CCP do this but we can’t?
There are smarter and qualified people than I to argue this on both sides… all I’m praying for is for Rome to step in a find a solution. Maybe the solution vague, maybe it’s a “we’ll figure this out later”. And I’m praying for the Society to be open to more conversations in the coming months.
Again, we are just set to kick the can down the road… because the Society isn’t going anywhere.
> I think the SSPX can also look at the way the Vatican is handling the illicit consecration of Bishosp and say why can the CCP do this but we can’t?
But the CCP isn't consecrating Bishops, and excommunicating atheists doesn't do anything - they're already not in communion.
I'm all for criticizing conniving with the communists, but I don't think we can set up an equivalence between a formal atheist "disobeying" the pope and an actual Bishop disobeying the pope.
But the Vatican under Francis signed official concordants with Beijing and regularized their “Patriotic Church”.
Since then the CCP has repeatedly ignored the provisions of that agreement and nominated their own bishops (and had them illicitly consecrated).
Now the CCP officials are atheists, but the bishops running the church in China? They should be Catholic. They should be obliged to follow the laws of the Church- especially in areas of Church governance which is what the agree specifically outlines.
And there has been no push back, let alone punishment.
I still pray there will be resolution to this before the consecrations take place in July. But if nothing happens and the Vatican declares the new SSPX bishops excommunicated (I know there is a laetae sentare, but in 88 the officially came out declared their excommunications just it was clear to everyone), Rome will essentially be saying that there is an exception to Canon 1013 and 1382… “you need a papal mandate to consecration bishops unless it upsets a diplomatic deal that we care about”.
Agree and happy to hear the community is alive and well in AZ. I view the SSPX and groups like them as our liturgical Library of Alexandria. While I do not have a location near me, I support them financially and will continue after a break. After our failed attempts at progress burn themselves out and the papacy changes-- the Church of 2 millennia will still be alive because of them and groups like them. We survived the Avignon Papacy and can survive this with Grace.
It is perplexing though. Many talk about the importance of Catholic identity. What speaks to that identity as much as Latin? There are a few things but not many. I find it ironic that I see the Protestants re-embracing Latin. I know of several Protestant schools that focus on Latin. I was at a Baptist church for a civic meeting and above the platform was a Latin saying. However with the Catholics, we have some bishops trying to suppress it wherever they can. And this is just language. How many prayers were lost going from the extraordinary form to the Novus Ordo? Does anyone know? I do not know the count, off hand, but it was a decent number. The process is sad and has not drawn people to the Church. I pray that humbler wiser minds prevail.
So it sounds like the SSPX sent out a genuine earnest request to Rome to meet with the Holy Father and talk things over directly, and apparently Rome has kicked the can by not responding timely, only to send a dismissive response back to the society? Sounds familiar.
Pope Leo is fumbling the bag here with the SSPX. If I were Pope Leo, I would have cleared my entire calendar for the SSPX the very day I received that initial request. Knowing what happened last time, the long difficult work it took to even get back on speaking terms, and the current state of the SSPX (and of "traditionalism" more broadly), there's a lot on the line in this moment.
The SSPX is a worldwide institution. They are successful and often out-perform the local diocesan church wherever they go (in terms of vocations produced, sacraments administered, strength of congregations, low apostasy rates), in places where people aren't even aware they have missions. This is a sizable and relevant and influential institution, especially as "traditionalism" appears poised to grow to preeminence in the global church's vibe-shift. With Francis now deceased, the SSPX was probably genuinely open to seeing how relations could go with "this new guy in Rome," but if Pope Leo kicks them to the curb, they know that the next 20 years are going to be pointless, and the Society will simply walk.
Here's the kicker: either Rome takes the SSPX seriously and with actual real fraternal charity and paternal care, or it loses any chance of future reconciliation for centuries. After 50+ years, the Society now has had generations of fervent adherents, and will now have multiple "generations" of episcopal consecrations. I predict that in a few decades the SSPX will begin to make EO-style claims of "we are a sui juris church with a valid line of apostolic succession and valid sacraments, but we don't claim to be in communion with the current See of Rome" and then we're just stuck with another EO-style permanent schism. I don't want that!
When it comes to prudence and pragmatics, I do not like the triumphalist approach of many Catholics regarding the SSPX, and the disdain that's typically coupled with a dismissal of the SSPX's points, an oversimplified "me good guy, you bad guy." I am not a member of the Society, I don't agree with all their ecclesiology... but I *do* have deep sympathy for them. I do think we should take their concerns seriously. And we on the canonically-regular side of things have no right to turn up our noses at them when our own house is rife with serious horrific problems.
I think this is a priority issue, now or never, and if Pope Leo doesn't treat this seriously and tenderly... well, this is how things like 1054 become a millennium-long schism that doesn't conveniently go away.
The problem is that the SSPX mentality seems to be that they have an express right to the things they want to do absent the approval of the Vatican. If the Vatican says okay, great. If the Vatican says no, they'll do it anyway. I can be sympathetic to Archbishop Lefebvre and his mission to maintain the traditional parts of the church. I can even think that the Vatican *should* have ordained another bishop when he requested them to. But the Vatican didn't and indeed JPII explicitly told them not to. Instead of being obedient to that decision, they decided to schism and illicitly consecrate their own bishops. That's incredibly grave. They're not entitled to a bishop. The Vatican doesn't have to ever give them one. It can be petty not to, it can be imprudent not to, but that's an exercise of the Pope's prudential judgment.
Part of becoming canonically regular, I would expect, would require them to recognize that that initial decision to consecrate bishops for their order without Vatican approval was *wrong* and demonstrate repentance for that. Them playing hardball and threatening schism because the Vatican didn't reply fast enough or in a way they liked doesn't seem to demonstrate that level of penitence and instead seems to be an exercise in obstinance.
There are pretty obvious, I think, issues with giving an order with a history of disobedience a greater veneer of legitimacy by approving episcopal ordinations. It's at least an issue the Vatican should weigh carefully. We don't know what the letter sent *did* say, but I can say with some certainty that if the SSPX follows through with their ordinations they will once again be solidly in the wrong and such an act would deserve full-throated condemnation regardless of how you feel about anything else they do.
I don't care to talk about the SSPX's end of this, the full breadth of discussion on which has already been exhausted by a million people online... whether the SSPX is correct, whether it's justified, obedience/schism/emergency supplied jurisdiction, yadda yadda yadda. It adds nothing to the discourse.
My comment is meant to focus on the less-talked-about Vatican end of things, Rome's handling/mishandling of the matter at hand, why that's important, and the dire permanent consequences on the horizon that seem to escape the short-sighted both IRL and online.
1) as I allude to in my last paragraph the decision before Pope Leo was hard before the SSPX pulled this stunt. The SSPX already has a weird position in the church. Should we be ordaining bishops to canonically irregular groups in the first place? Does that bring us closer to reconciliation or give the SSPX enough stability to maintain the status quo and kick reconciliation down the road indefinitely. Does the Vatican co-signing a new bishop for the SSPX make the guidance that Catholics should not be attending SSPX parishes if at all possible less clear? Is there an SSPX priest we could even ordain that we would trust to be a faithful bishop given the group's history?
Now they're essentially trying a hostage approach of "give us permission to ordain a bishop or we'll go back into total schism". Is that what good faith discussion looks like? They've put the Pope in a position where he either gives them what they want and looks like these tactics work against him or he refuses and allows the SSPX to return to schism. Additionally, this calls into serious question whether a normalization of their canonical status is even possible. Are they serious about reconciliation with Rome?
2) We don't know what's in the letter. So I don't think we should be judging the Vatican response until and unless that becomes public. You're presuming it's of a certain character, but we simply don't know. However, my point was, even if the letter said "no, you may not ordain bishops" or "The Holy Father is not ready to make a decision on permitting you to ordain bishops at this time". Those are entirely reasonable answers given the complexity of this situation. Them not getting a positive response from the Vatican isn't justification for them to then disregard the Vatican if they indeed claim to be faithful to the Vatican.
3) That's why I think your sympathy is misplaced. Some of their goals may be noble, and you can be sympathetic to specific points, but their organization has brought much of this angst upon themselves and there are orthodox organizations, like the FSSP, that do much of the same work. If the SSPX is interested in reunion, they can't be pulling stunts like this every time the Pope doesn't jump when they ask him to.
That's really the important thing here - I have my sympathies for the SSPX (and especially poor Abp. Lefebvre), but on the whole I see our options are:
a) Withhold judgment altogether
b) Criticize the SSPX for threatening to perform an explicitly schimatic act
c) Criticize the Vatican for writing a letter that we didn't see
I don't know much about the SSPX, but do have a question for Edgar (or someone on the team) about the subhead. I'm not sure if this is a canon-law question or a journalism question, I'm hoping you'll tell me.
Is an episcopal consecration without papal permission always and everywhere a canonical act of schism? I'm thinking in particular of cases in China. If so, is it just me, or do those cases tend to get reported on with a different language and tone than a lot of the current reporting around the SSPX?
Are there other salient differences between these of which I should be aware?
I don't know that there are any post-2018 China agreement instances of the CCP consecrating its own bishops. The Shanghai incident during the sede vacante period was an already consecrated bishop being moved somewhere without Vatican approval, which is probably a shade less bad (but still bad).
If the CCP were to try to consecrate bishops without the Vatican, those bishops would be
~invalid~ EDIT: illicit and would also incur excommunication (alongside the bishop that ordained them). The bishops ordained by the CCP prior to the Vatican agreement had to have their excommunications expressly lifted by Pope Francis in 2018.
The other obvious difference is that the CCP is the decision maker in their episcipal ordinations and doesn't believe that Catholic Church's claims are legitimate and thus has less to lose from compelling bishops to violate the Church's dictates (though the priests and bishops that participate also incur moral culpability). In contrast, the SSPX at least claims to be Catholic and thus should care about the obedience due to the Vatican in these matters
One of the sede vacante bishop appoints was to remove a Vatican placed bishop as head of a diocese with a unilaterally commie placed one. I think that's a big deal.
If Chinese bishops started consecrating new bishops they wouldn't be invalid but they'd be illicit. They'd be real bishops.
That said, I agree that that's very bad, but I will stand by it being "a shade less bad" than doing the same thing and *also* ordaining your own bishop. For one, it seems to avoid the Bishop falling into schism since he doesn't seem to have taken over the diocese until after Vatican approval, though the reporting out of China is generally poor. That at least means that the only bad actor was the CCP, which we probably shouldn't be expecting to be an honest broker to begin with.
Ok, so perhaps the analogy isn't as tight as I thought.
But does appointing / moving bishops and creating / suppressing dioceses amount to similarly illicit material? Is it also a "canonical act of schism"? If not, why not? If so, why do we tend to see it covered journalistically in a different light?
If a bishop were to take possession of (rather than being named to) a non-vacant sea, that, I would imagine, could rise to schism. I’m, again, not sure how many times that’s happened since 2018, many of the disputes have been in the appointment phase.
The fundamental difference in my mind is that we don’t expect the Chinese government to be obedient towards the Vatican. If the SSPX proclaims that they are a part of the Catholic Church then they should be held to a higher standard than the CCP, who only have a treaty obligation.
The CCP also has civil methods of coercion at their disposal to induce bishops into obeying them. That may not absolve bishops who participate in illicit Chinese appointments from their responsibility, but it probably lessens their responsibility compared to the SSPX who are under no such coercion.
I’m sure there are lots of good and bad reasons that Rome would either reject or allow the consecrations. As Pope Leo has often done so far, I’m sure he’ll make the right choice given all the facts, public and private. Frankly, I couldn’t care less. What troubles me is the tactic of a seemingly unrepentant and reckless Society.
Deadline threats of lawsuits or escalation to a higher authority that is so often characteristic of people’s (and even priests’) interactions with bishops is so common it verges on the cliche. But that sort of tactic doesn’t cut at the unity of the church.
But, playing chicken with genuine lack of unity, with yet another breach of the Body of Christ, despite the MASSIVE display of good faith offered by Pope Benedict XVI, goes to show that the SSPX doesn’t actually give a rip about their unity with Rome. It’s always been clear that they never repented for their previous schism and are here on their terms, not those of the Apostolic Church.
If His Holiness approves the consecrations, great. Nothing changes. We can continue to tolerate each other.
If he doesn’t approve them, I suspect they’ll do them anyway.
We can stop pretending this has anything to do at all with the new Mass or the tradition. This is about asserting spiritually charged, holier-than-thou nonsense.
As the tradition gradually restores both as a natural outflow of the new generation of priests and as a result of papal action (we hope), I hope to see a dulling of the SSPX blade anyway in favor of the ones who never held up their unity as a bargaining chip (or quickly rethought their poor choice).
Pray that this schismatic act doesn't happen. This tears at the Body of Christ.
The point is for the act to not happen. It’s like nuclear war.
Brinkmanship is a dangerous game. It's been tried before.
Having dealt with bishops and Church bureaucrats, I know the one thing they respond to is threats. And deadlines spur action. They force this situation by leaving no other practical choice.
Let’s say a child tells his teacher he does not feel comfortable at school unless he has a knife in his backpack. I hope you would say no for the good and well being of the others. But adding your twist and because the school board may be a bureaucracy would you then change your mind because the child gave a deadline?
I only know a small number of SSPX folks and they are not the type you would invite to a dinner party. This action confirms the ‘irregularity’ with that group as they thrive not on doctrine but rather a solipsistic view of their tiny cabal.
All my experience dealing with pastors and bishops is that they will ignore you until you force them not to ignore you. Their rules, not mine.
Except they started a tussle with a Pope not some local Parish that did not respond timely to emails asking for more Bingo nights.
"we'll try to stay serene and calm when the SSPX gets the bomb" ? https://youtu.be/oRLON3ddZIw?si=Y6-sOiUBHHh4SkCP
Playing chicken with the pope feels like a great way to catch an easily avoidable excommunication.
It’s ok for the Chinese Communists to ordain bishops without Vatican approval or excommunication? Perhaps the SSPX should donate $2 Billion to the Holy See and they can do anything they want.
Of course it's not okay. But "other people do other evils" never has been and never will be an excuse for "So we can do these evils"
My issue isn’t that other people do evils. It’s that the Vatican happily rubber stamps some evil while cracking down on other evils. I’d like some consistency.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, but those who have greater access to truth are more culpable. Sheesh, if I attended Mass at an SSPX parish, I’d be very upset about this because I’d hope that my clergy would seek to attain highest standard of obedience.
I’m no big fan of the SSPX but the people super animated over this and not the Chinese Communist Party appointing handpicked commie stooges as bishops are total hypocrites.
Yes, but I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.
> handpicked commie stooges
Clearly they are handpicked but are they stooges?
Because one is realism in dealing with an oppressive government (something the Church has been required to deal many times in history) and other are just schismatics.
I hold no brief for the specific deal Cardinal Parolin arranged with the Chinese...but dealing with the authoritarian government of a major world power involves considerations just a wee bit different than dealing with a breakaway traditionalist priestly fraternity.
It's less apples and oranges than apples and rutabagas here.
An officially atheistic group that puts people in camps due to religion/race appointed their own bishops after Francis died but before Leo was elected. The Vatican later rubber stamped it.
I’m not defending the SSPX here but my oh my do people love to do selective outrage.
I'm always up for hearing a "the Vatican-China deal isn't working, harms the unity of the Church and the Vatican's best-of-bad-options is to simply announce it was broken and start over" argument if that's the pov you're coming from; and I think that framing is much less dangerous than "the sspx/anyone should adopt these same practices"
Something that is easy to lose track of is that the CCPA's tactics ultimately don't "work", in that they cause ongoing and increasing harm to the souls of those who pursue them. They may effectively appear to get what they want in the short term, but they are not getting what is good.
the Parolin deal, for all that may be said of it, at least has historical continuity with historical investiture controversies. Now try to find a historical precedent for a Religious Order, Congregation, Society, or Priestly Fraternity, that habitually has its own Bishops...
Does it? How many other atheistic regimes have been able to appoint bishops?
The Vatican has not rubber stamped anything here.
During the papal interregnum between Francis and Leo the CCP unilaterally appointed two new bishops with no prior approval or even heads up to Rome (in violation of the Vatican-China deal). Leo let them stand in a pastoral attempt at unity.
Cardinal Zen called it an "incredible betrayal" and a "shameless surrender". Human Rights Watch heavily criticized Rome for letting them stand.
I note you say nothing about these two bishops. Did they Holy See rubber stamp them, or did they consider that they were acceptable and therefore under difficult circumstances, did not object? You assert the former without evidence.
I think the absolute control that the CCP has over the lives of millions of Catholics, and their willingness to kill them for getting out of line, has more to do with the Vatican's willingness to play ball with China's government than any checks that were cut.
Perhaps, but then the lesson learned by every other government from that is a very bad one indeed..
The difference is that there is no necessity for the SSPX to ordain new bishops. No one would be without the Sacraments if these Bishops were not ordained. In the western world, a priest is always available within a reasonable distance; and to the best of my knowledge no SSPX is ministering in the Mongolian desert or the arctic of Alaska.
Personal preference as to the style of liturgy is not a valid concern; and if it would lead a person not to receive the necessary Sacraments, then at least in an adult that could be considered a defect that would inhibit the reception of Sacramental Grace. While "ex opere operato" obviously exists for the minister, the interior disposition of the recipient can and dose effect the Grace received.
It depends. If you are in St. Mary's, KS - SSPX run the only Catholic grade school / high school / jr college around. It is instructive to note that the Jesuits could not keep this school afloat.
But none of that implies that the SSPX needs to have its own bishops. The FSSP does not have its own bishops.
True, but are there entities in the Church that select their own bishops?
The traditional forms of the sacraments are equally valid but carry more graces.
citation needed
(I'm all for the traditional forms being available to those who want them, and people who find it easier to be more fully receptive to the graces of the Sacraments when approached in those forms by all means should do so. And likewise, those who find themselves better prepared and more open to grace when approaching in the ordinary form should do so. But the actual sacraments don't carry "more graces" in one form or the other (neither do they in the Latin rite vs other rites).
Well it really also depends on the disposition of the recipient, does it not? If I am in a situation where I can't go to the gracier (more graceful?) thing then I simply say "God, it is YOUR WILL that I cannot go to x but instead have to y, therefore I accept your will and I politely demand that you give me all the graces that I would have got from x" and then I pause for a moment to hear the beep beep beep of the dump truck backing up to bury me.
This is patently false and sounds like a strain of Donatism. Repent.
There are many diocesean priests I know who hold this belief. It’s hardly controversial, and it’s not at all Donatist. It’s the same as saying a high mass in a grand cathedral is better than a mass in the back of a jeep.
It's not true, it's not Catholic teaching, and by that logic, any simpler forms of the Roman liturgy in the first millennium carried lesser graces. I'm only posting this for the sake of any readers who think that many Priests actually think this (we don't, including those such as myself, who regularly celebrate Mass using the '62 Missal). Ryan, you're placing a stumbling block in front of others, especially the scrupulous. Comments with patently false theology shouldn't be permitted.
If there were rankings, and there are NOT, the Jeep Mass would be the widow’s mite of forms because participants are literally risking all they have to be there. I don’t have a lot to say on this particular article topic, but I had to at least respond to denigration of bush Masses/Masses for service members who gratefully accept anything they receive vs turning up their noses at the full platter laid before them.
No one (on the Catholic side) ever said it was "okay" . ( a term neo-traditionalist seem to love despite it lack of precision they seek elsewhere).
The SSPX leaders seem to have been excommunicated and in-communicated so many times now that it's hard to keep track. They clearly see themselves as faithfully bearing the standard of Christ as much as the progressive German bishops do.
Excellent point.
Good comparison. And neither group is respecting the authority of the pope at this moment.
The SSPX deserves very little sympathy, in no small part because of this. I have traditional liturgical leanings and therefore agree with their laments about the decline of reverential worship. But at this point the SSPX are just Protestants with cassocks.
That is unfair. The Protestants have large issues theologically. Would you describe the Eastern Orthodox the same way? Where is your theological difference with the SSPX?
Is the validity of the Novus Ordo NOT a large issue?
In the minds of some bishops, yes. In others no. A number of people are not fans of the Novus Ordo. Should they be separated from Rome? Vatican II did not get rid of the Latin Mass. It created an alternative that some thought would be better for the masses. I think the jury is out on that.
But what does "not a fan" mean? Wholesale rejection? Begrudging acceptance? How can one extrapolate a regrettable lack of liturgical decorum to a rejection of a valid form of the mass? How many bishops is "some" beside fringe figures like Schneider?
Growing up I attended a parish with a wishy-washy, "Spirit of Vatican 2" priest who put the tabernacle to the side of the church to be forgotten about. But I still went because the mass was valid.
I would add Cardinals Burke, Sarah, and Muller to that list. I am sure there are others. Are those that practice the Byzantine rite put under the same scrutiny? It is almost like a personal affront to some that the SSPX don't appreciate the liturgical changes of Vat II. Were these the bishops that struggled with Latin in seminary?
None of the other rites Sui Iuris teach that the NO missal is invalid. They are also in communion with Rome. The Church is unified under Peter, the Vicar of Christ. You cannot intentionally break that communion and claim that their activities are noble. It’s not just “small potatoes” as they say, it’s a critical tenet of our faith they are rejecting
So...4 bishops. I'll give you 5 if you count the excommunicated Vigano. And the Cardinals you mention have not said that the NO is invalid, even if they do advocate for the reform of the reform (as I do).
The liturgical changes allow and encourage the use of Latin and chant, even if appreciation of those principles vary. So why does the SSPX not go that path? The answer is that viewing the SSPX through the myopic lens of liturgy fails to account for their divergence from Holy Mother Church in terms of magisterial authority, ecclesiology, collegiality, and religious freedom. And that isn't just me talking, it's on their website.
Those cardinals you mention all celebrate the Ordinary Form regularly.
Pope Benedict told the bishops, in a letter with Summorum Pontificum, that priests who refused on principle to celebrate the NO were not in 'full communion'. I think that implies that they have separated themselves from the pope.
That's such a weird way to frame the issue - the real question is "Should priests who refuse obedience to Rome be separated to Rome".
(The answer, of course, is that it's not about whether they should be separated but that they have separated themselves already.)
I gracefully appreciate the canon law primer by yourself and several others here. I think we went offtrack though on the question of theological difference, which was my main point. Is NO validity a theological difference? I would argue not. It is a liturgical, canonical dispute that unfortunately will result in a parallel group theologically aligned with the Catholic Church but not in communion with Rome.
"Is it valid" does seem like a theological question at core though - what constitutes the nature of this sacrament?
And if the Pope & the bishops acting in union with him could officially propagate invalid sacraments, that seems like it raises some very core questions about whether the Church is actually what we think it is.
Yes, what you're getting at here is the difference between heresy and schism - Heresy means "I make up my own version of Christianity", schism means "I believe the same as you do, but I refuse to obey you"
And you are correct that heresy is worse than schism (See, e.g., Thomas Aquinas: https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q39.A2)
And it should be noted that excommunication is not supposed to simply mean "You're bad, you're out". It's supposed to start a dialogue that optimally leads with the schismatic to come back to the fold:
(Aquinas again, https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q39.A4) "Excommunication does not forbid the intercourse whereby a person by salutary admonitions leads back to the unity of the Church those who are separated from her. Indeed this very separation brings them back somewhat, because through confusion at their separation, they are sometimes led to do penance."
The SSPX acts like Protestants in their rejection of the Ordinary Magisterium when it conflicts with their private judgement.
But, the theology is the same. Our biggest issue with Protestants is their theology that leaves out 1500 years of Christian Tradition. It is almost a nonissue with the Orthodox. That is why we are trying to reunite with them. That is the flaw in the original comparison.
I think that SSPX has an ecclesiology that is seriously lacking if it doesn’t rise to the level of outright heresy.
This is a deadline and a threat to spur action.
I am not an SSPX parishioner and likely never will be because believe it or not I'm too progressive to fit in over there, but from a theological standpoint, SSPX are not Protestants. Protestants are heretics. SSPX are schismatics or leaning that way. There is a HUGE difference.
If a nuclear war destroyed every Catholic church within 1000 miles tomorrow and I had my choice of a Protestant church or a schismatic church, I would go to the schismatic church, because the sacraments are likely to be valid over there. In an emergency, Father SSPX can still absolve your sins and consecrate the body and blood of Christ. While over at Minister Protestant's church, he can't absolve you and you'll be eating a symbolic cracker and grape juice.
Thank you. The SSPX are not protestants, nor are they sedevacantists. It is important to not bandy around terms loosely, in a manner which often proves not only not helpful but actively detrimental.
People usually don't understand the differences, largely because the Church has eliminated words like "heretic" and "schismatic" from the common prayers like Good Friday, and replaced them with stuff like "let us pray for all our brothers and sisters who share our faith in Jesus Christ". The result being the usual failure of catechesis in an attempt to be "nice".
I’m not sure if I’d go so far as to call them heretics, but the SSPX’s ecclesiology is certainly not small-“o” orthodox.
They have asked the Holy See for permission to ordain and Rome is stalling.
Yes, I thought this Pontiff is about unity and liturgical reverence. Why is the Novus Ordo the hill that so much of the hierarchy want to 'die' on? How many different rites do we have?
I put this on the the SSPX. Let's do a very high level comparison of the SSPX and the FSSP. Both celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively and share similar liturgical practices, but the FSSP chose the path of working within Church structures while the SSPX maintains its independent position. The FSSP works with local bishop's approval and maintain normal relationships with diocese and they accept the Vatican II and interprets it in continuity with Tradition while the SSPX, operates independently of local bishops, which creates canonical tensions and they reject or seriously question certain Vatican II documents and reforms
Shouldn’t a “high level comparison” of the two also note that, despite their extreme cooperativeness with and general obedience to Rome, the FSSP has been severely curtailed by progressive ecclesial apparatchiks who are hell-bent on ghettoizing them until there’s an opportune moment to force them all to abandon their charism and switch to the Novus Ordo?
I think Michael's point boils down to obedience. Is the church flawed? Yes. Do we still owe our obedience to Christ's successors? Yes, in every way that is required. We may suffer when we are obedient, but God sees this obedience.
Yep - did Rome learn nothing from last time?
While I understand the inclination to play diplomatic hardball, this seems short-sighted at best on the part of the SSPX. After all, illicitly consecrating bishops is what got the SSPX in their current situation, and while the slow course of rapproachement and reconciliation with the Vatican may be frustrating, forcing this kind of confrontation seems likelier to backfire than not. Pope Leo may not have Francis' temper or expansive approach to papal authority, but I'd be shocked if he responded well to such a blatant attempt to usurp the authority and prerogatives of his office, especially by a group that so strongly claims to value tradition and the Church.
I, unfortunately, agree with you. For a Church though that should care about membership and spreading the word of Christ, why is the Vatican not trying harder to retain a body of the faithful? Tomorrow we will be meeting with Orthodox trying to reunite......
That's a fair question, and while I have no good answers, I have a couple thoughts:
1. We don't know exactly what the SSPX requested or what the Vatican said in response. It may or may not have been reasonable on either side. For my part, I would be very reluctant to allow them to consecrate new bishops without a full, formal apology from the superior and bishops, oath of allegiance to the pope on the part of said bishops and priests, and a several-year probationary period for good measure.
2. Related to the above, the Church may care, but she also can't very well reward disobedience. The Orthodox are in a very different boat, because they've been separated for so long and don't claim to be part of the Catholic Church. 2/4 of the illicitly consecrated bishops are *still alive*, and the SSPX itself purports to be part of the Church. This makes it a different problem to my eyes.
3. Things take time. The Vatican is slow-moving on the best of days, and to call this a complex, thorny situation is an understatement and a half. It could well be that there is a plan or roadmap for reconciliation with the SSPX that's either still being worked out or is on a longer timeline than the SSPX prefers. To extend the benefit of the doubt to the SSPX, I've certainly been in situations where I think I see a problem, a solution, and I know who can make it happen—and they either don't act on it or don't move as fast as I'd like, and that can produce a strong impulse to do something anyways. That perception and impulse isn't always wrong, but it's not always right, either. Fr. Pagliarini may well be perceiving the present situation as far more pressing than the Vatican does, which could be driving this announcement. I pray that cooler heads prevail on all sides.
I’m sure the July 1 date is open to negotiation. But it needs to be a real threat to get Rome to move.
Nothing moves unless it’s pushed. Deadlines spur action. This had to happen sometime.
I agree that deadlines spur action, but this deadline is not diplomatic it’s practical. It the same reason Archbishop Lefebvre acted so urgently in 88: he was dying.
Two of the four bishops from 88 are dead. The two remaining bishops are in their late sixties. For the last forty years they’ve racked up more frequent flier miles than just about any prelate. They travel the world non-stop. With the loss of +Williamson and death of +Tissier, their burden is even more accute. They need relief.
So yeah, maybe a deadline will help spur things along, but this is much more about the current bishops’ mortality and fragility.
"Lefebvre was excommunicated by Pope St. John Pual II..."
Gosh, I don't even remember there being one John Pual, much less two.
in the words of a friend, "and they say piles of words about how this is totally not in a spirit of disobedience, rebellion, or resentment... and then announce that the planned date is the thirty-eighth anniversary of their previous excommunication."
“Setting a date [for the consecrations] is a way of pressuring the Holy See, and making it negotiate,” the source added.
That’s what this is. Deadlines spur actions, and these church bureaucracies only reply to threats. I’ve seen this myself.
If you’re missing this context, you’re missing the point.
Exactly. If the Church hadn't faced lawsuits, bankruptcy, and public pressure to do something about the abuse crisis, it would still be just shuffling problematic clergy around and under the carpet.
That’s a great example of what I’m talking about. These bishops never do anything unless they are threatened.
I think a core difference is that the eg. abuse victims have a right in justice to compensation through the civil courts. Communities have a right in justice to protect themselves from an abuser in their midst. Law enforcement has both a right and obligation in justice to protect others from their predation.
Now all of that may have had the secondary effect of pressuring bishops to do what they should already have done. But it was just on its own merits. The SSPX has no right in justice to schism, so threatening to do so with hopes that it has the secondary effect of pressuring the church to make some policy change is also unjust.
The hubris of "If you don't give us what we want we're going to schism ourselves (again)" is outstanding.
These bishops and Church bureaucrats don’t respond to anything but threats. That’s the way they have made things.
And wildly selfish!!! They’re risking the offering of licit Sacraments to their own people.
"Make threats to get what you want" is very much the spirit and logic of the moment.
Followers of Christ would do well to resist it, as it is the spirit and logic of the lord of this world, much more than it breathes of the Spirit of the true Lord of Heaven and earth.
Based on this morning’s statement from the Vatican, the gambit worked. So much for your novena strategy.
"The threats worked; so much for your stupid prayers" is even more the spirit and logic of the lord of this world.
Stop following him.
If the Vatican is willing to "work with" LGBTQ groups/ Fr James Martin, African polygamists, and the German bishops pushing Der Synodal Weg, then the Vatican can just man up and "work with" the SSPX too so we don't have another schism.
Pointedly true. We will "work" with heretics and sinners to be tolerant -- but, my goodness, you cannot question whether reforms were actually effective. It seems to be an affront to their power.
Oh, riiight. The reforms. The reforms to the Church, the reforms chosen especially to improve the Church, the Church’s reforms.
How did those ever work out?
And the Church "works with" SSPX. None of those groups are allowed to ordain their own bishops however. Try to use terms consistently.
Are there groups in the Church that appoint their own bishops?
Gross arrogance and pride. Sin and schism. Especially distressing coming at a time I would otherwise hope for a more healthy environment and dialog around celebrating the TLM.
Grateful we in Chicagoland have the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius. Tradition WITH obedience.
You all used to have ICKSP as well, until the good Cardinal Archbishop unceremoniously kicked them out. They, of course, obeyed. And yet, the flock is the worse for it.
Let us pray that there will soon be another Cardinal and the ICKSP will return.
Such triumphalism, eh! We on the canonically-regular end of things have no right to turn up our noses and scoff at the Society when our own house has some serious scandalous problems going on. Look at the standard milieu of headlines here on the Pillar, and tell me we have no problems with arrogance and pride and sin and schism and disobedience!
"Until all the animals play along on the ark, we cannot critizise those who jump overboard."
I had the fortunate opportunity to attend a Mass there and have watched several online. It is a beautiful congregation. It somewhat surprises me that it is exists in that diocese.
I'm not aware of any Ecclesia Dei institutes that insist on the ordination of their own bishops.
Ohh boy... the hot takes will fly today...
Here is my two cents as an SSPX "parishoner" at the priory in Phoenix, but as someone that does not blindly follow the SSPX and recognizes the situation is not ideal (or even good).
In the last year, I have spent hundreds of hours volunteering my time a TV director (my real job) to build out a profession quality broadcast center to livestream a high-quality TLM every Sunday from our SSPX priory. But I intentionally do not send my kids to the SSPX school here--rather I send them to local diocesan ("Novus Ordo") elementary school.
Let's pray that Pope Leo, in charity to millions of faithful Catholics, can find a resolution to this.
Let's pray that in the next few months, the SSPX works with Pope Leo.
I am not optimistic about this, but prayer is all we got in this situation.
If the SSPX proceeds, it kicks the can down the road another 40 years.
If the Rome instinctively excommunicates the Bishops, it kicks the can down the road another 40 years.
Excommunication is meant to correct and fix a problem, but in this case, excommunicating will do nothing except deepen the divide. It will not fix this problem, only make it worse.
Division in the Church will only deepen; good traditional Catholics will be the ones that suffer, and the SSPX will only continue to grow... and its priests, religious, and faithful will continue to exist in a gray area for another 40 years.
Coming to a resolution-even if its uneasy or (temporarily) vaguely defined-will be a great benefit to the Church.
Fr. Ripperger I think gets this right. I would love for Pope Leo to call in Fr. Pagliarani and say "you are regularized. You can't resist this. We'll figure it out later. I'll send a Bishop to Econe in July to be the principle consecrator. No questions. Now show yourself to the exit."
Worth a listen: https://youtu.be/gEKdA4xx6io?si=w85lSKQSUZZwZwDn&t=3682
(Link should go to the timestamp, but he starts his discussion at 58:00)
Small point of order: Rome won't have to declare them excommunicated; the excommunications are automatic (latae sententiae) when a bishop illicitly consecrates someone a bishop without a papal mandate (see Code of Canon Law, c. 1387).
Smaller point of order: yes, but the canonical crime/penalty of Schism is distinct (though not disconnected from) the act/sin of schism, and therefore is a legal matter and does require a declaration.
I am not gonna join everyone today in pretending to be a canonist today, but the SSPX has long held the excommunications in 88 were null and void. And if there was a “state of necessity” in 88, then I would say the state of necessity is even greater in the post TC world. I mean just look at the state of insanity in Charlotte.
I think the SSPX can also look at the way the Vatican is handling the illicit consecration of Bishosp and say why can the CCP do this but we can’t?
There are smarter and qualified people than I to argue this on both sides… all I’m praying for is for Rome to step in a find a solution. Maybe the solution vague, maybe it’s a “we’ll figure this out later”. And I’m praying for the Society to be open to more conversations in the coming months.
Again, we are just set to kick the can down the road… because the Society isn’t going anywhere.
> I think the SSPX can also look at the way the Vatican is handling the illicit consecration of Bishosp and say why can the CCP do this but we can’t?
But the CCP isn't consecrating Bishops, and excommunicating atheists doesn't do anything - they're already not in communion.
I'm all for criticizing conniving with the communists, but I don't think we can set up an equivalence between a formal atheist "disobeying" the pope and an actual Bishop disobeying the pope.
In spirit, I agree with you.
But the Vatican under Francis signed official concordants with Beijing and regularized their “Patriotic Church”.
Since then the CCP has repeatedly ignored the provisions of that agreement and nominated their own bishops (and had them illicitly consecrated).
Now the CCP officials are atheists, but the bishops running the church in China? They should be Catholic. They should be obliged to follow the laws of the Church- especially in areas of Church governance which is what the agree specifically outlines.
And there has been no push back, let alone punishment.
I still pray there will be resolution to this before the consecrations take place in July. But if nothing happens and the Vatican declares the new SSPX bishops excommunicated (I know there is a laetae sentare, but in 88 the officially came out declared their excommunications just it was clear to everyone), Rome will essentially be saying that there is an exception to Canon 1013 and 1382… “you need a papal mandate to consecration bishops unless it upsets a diplomatic deal that we care about”.
Look, I won't defend the China deal. (Which, by the way, is not an official concordat, but an "agreement".)
I just know that "I let thugs with guns take my valuables" doesn't translate to "It's okay for my employees to take my valuables".
Agree and happy to hear the community is alive and well in AZ. I view the SSPX and groups like them as our liturgical Library of Alexandria. While I do not have a location near me, I support them financially and will continue after a break. After our failed attempts at progress burn themselves out and the papacy changes-- the Church of 2 millennia will still be alive because of them and groups like them. We survived the Avignon Papacy and can survive this with Grace.
It is perplexing though. Many talk about the importance of Catholic identity. What speaks to that identity as much as Latin? There are a few things but not many. I find it ironic that I see the Protestants re-embracing Latin. I know of several Protestant schools that focus on Latin. I was at a Baptist church for a civic meeting and above the platform was a Latin saying. However with the Catholics, we have some bishops trying to suppress it wherever they can. And this is just language. How many prayers were lost going from the extraordinary form to the Novus Ordo? Does anyone know? I do not know the count, off hand, but it was a decent number. The process is sad and has not drawn people to the Church. I pray that humbler wiser minds prevail.
So it sounds like the SSPX sent out a genuine earnest request to Rome to meet with the Holy Father and talk things over directly, and apparently Rome has kicked the can by not responding timely, only to send a dismissive response back to the society? Sounds familiar.
Pope Leo is fumbling the bag here with the SSPX. If I were Pope Leo, I would have cleared my entire calendar for the SSPX the very day I received that initial request. Knowing what happened last time, the long difficult work it took to even get back on speaking terms, and the current state of the SSPX (and of "traditionalism" more broadly), there's a lot on the line in this moment.
The SSPX is a worldwide institution. They are successful and often out-perform the local diocesan church wherever they go (in terms of vocations produced, sacraments administered, strength of congregations, low apostasy rates), in places where people aren't even aware they have missions. This is a sizable and relevant and influential institution, especially as "traditionalism" appears poised to grow to preeminence in the global church's vibe-shift. With Francis now deceased, the SSPX was probably genuinely open to seeing how relations could go with "this new guy in Rome," but if Pope Leo kicks them to the curb, they know that the next 20 years are going to be pointless, and the Society will simply walk.
Here's the kicker: either Rome takes the SSPX seriously and with actual real fraternal charity and paternal care, or it loses any chance of future reconciliation for centuries. After 50+ years, the Society now has had generations of fervent adherents, and will now have multiple "generations" of episcopal consecrations. I predict that in a few decades the SSPX will begin to make EO-style claims of "we are a sui juris church with a valid line of apostolic succession and valid sacraments, but we don't claim to be in communion with the current See of Rome" and then we're just stuck with another EO-style permanent schism. I don't want that!
When it comes to prudence and pragmatics, I do not like the triumphalist approach of many Catholics regarding the SSPX, and the disdain that's typically coupled with a dismissal of the SSPX's points, an oversimplified "me good guy, you bad guy." I am not a member of the Society, I don't agree with all their ecclesiology... but I *do* have deep sympathy for them. I do think we should take their concerns seriously. And we on the canonically-regular side of things have no right to turn up our noses at them when our own house is rife with serious horrific problems.
I think this is a priority issue, now or never, and if Pope Leo doesn't treat this seriously and tenderly... well, this is how things like 1054 become a millennium-long schism that doesn't conveniently go away.
The problem is that the SSPX mentality seems to be that they have an express right to the things they want to do absent the approval of the Vatican. If the Vatican says okay, great. If the Vatican says no, they'll do it anyway. I can be sympathetic to Archbishop Lefebvre and his mission to maintain the traditional parts of the church. I can even think that the Vatican *should* have ordained another bishop when he requested them to. But the Vatican didn't and indeed JPII explicitly told them not to. Instead of being obedient to that decision, they decided to schism and illicitly consecrate their own bishops. That's incredibly grave. They're not entitled to a bishop. The Vatican doesn't have to ever give them one. It can be petty not to, it can be imprudent not to, but that's an exercise of the Pope's prudential judgment.
Part of becoming canonically regular, I would expect, would require them to recognize that that initial decision to consecrate bishops for their order without Vatican approval was *wrong* and demonstrate repentance for that. Them playing hardball and threatening schism because the Vatican didn't reply fast enough or in a way they liked doesn't seem to demonstrate that level of penitence and instead seems to be an exercise in obstinance.
There are pretty obvious, I think, issues with giving an order with a history of disobedience a greater veneer of legitimacy by approving episcopal ordinations. It's at least an issue the Vatican should weigh carefully. We don't know what the letter sent *did* say, but I can say with some certainty that if the SSPX follows through with their ordinations they will once again be solidly in the wrong and such an act would deserve full-throated condemnation regardless of how you feel about anything else they do.
110% correct
I don't care to talk about the SSPX's end of this, the full breadth of discussion on which has already been exhausted by a million people online... whether the SSPX is correct, whether it's justified, obedience/schism/emergency supplied jurisdiction, yadda yadda yadda. It adds nothing to the discourse.
My comment is meant to focus on the less-talked-about Vatican end of things, Rome's handling/mishandling of the matter at hand, why that's important, and the dire permanent consequences on the horizon that seem to escape the short-sighted both IRL and online.
As to that, just a few things:
1) as I allude to in my last paragraph the decision before Pope Leo was hard before the SSPX pulled this stunt. The SSPX already has a weird position in the church. Should we be ordaining bishops to canonically irregular groups in the first place? Does that bring us closer to reconciliation or give the SSPX enough stability to maintain the status quo and kick reconciliation down the road indefinitely. Does the Vatican co-signing a new bishop for the SSPX make the guidance that Catholics should not be attending SSPX parishes if at all possible less clear? Is there an SSPX priest we could even ordain that we would trust to be a faithful bishop given the group's history?
Now they're essentially trying a hostage approach of "give us permission to ordain a bishop or we'll go back into total schism". Is that what good faith discussion looks like? They've put the Pope in a position where he either gives them what they want and looks like these tactics work against him or he refuses and allows the SSPX to return to schism. Additionally, this calls into serious question whether a normalization of their canonical status is even possible. Are they serious about reconciliation with Rome?
2) We don't know what's in the letter. So I don't think we should be judging the Vatican response until and unless that becomes public. You're presuming it's of a certain character, but we simply don't know. However, my point was, even if the letter said "no, you may not ordain bishops" or "The Holy Father is not ready to make a decision on permitting you to ordain bishops at this time". Those are entirely reasonable answers given the complexity of this situation. Them not getting a positive response from the Vatican isn't justification for them to then disregard the Vatican if they indeed claim to be faithful to the Vatican.
3) That's why I think your sympathy is misplaced. Some of their goals may be noble, and you can be sympathetic to specific points, but their organization has brought much of this angst upon themselves and there are orthodox organizations, like the FSSP, that do much of the same work. If the SSPX is interested in reunion, they can't be pulling stunts like this every time the Pope doesn't jump when they ask him to.
> We don't know what's in the letter.
That's really the important thing here - I have my sympathies for the SSPX (and especially poor Abp. Lefebvre), but on the whole I see our options are:
a) Withhold judgment altogether
b) Criticize the SSPX for threatening to perform an explicitly schimatic act
c) Criticize the Vatican for writing a letter that we didn't see
I don't see why we should do c)
I don't know much about the SSPX, but do have a question for Edgar (or someone on the team) about the subhead. I'm not sure if this is a canon-law question or a journalism question, I'm hoping you'll tell me.
Is an episcopal consecration without papal permission always and everywhere a canonical act of schism? I'm thinking in particular of cases in China. If so, is it just me, or do those cases tend to get reported on with a different language and tone than a lot of the current reporting around the SSPX?
Are there other salient differences between these of which I should be aware?
I don't know that there are any post-2018 China agreement instances of the CCP consecrating its own bishops. The Shanghai incident during the sede vacante period was an already consecrated bishop being moved somewhere without Vatican approval, which is probably a shade less bad (but still bad).
If the CCP were to try to consecrate bishops without the Vatican, those bishops would be
~invalid~ EDIT: illicit and would also incur excommunication (alongside the bishop that ordained them). The bishops ordained by the CCP prior to the Vatican agreement had to have their excommunications expressly lifted by Pope Francis in 2018.
The other obvious difference is that the CCP is the decision maker in their episcipal ordinations and doesn't believe that Catholic Church's claims are legitimate and thus has less to lose from compelling bishops to violate the Church's dictates (though the priests and bishops that participate also incur moral culpability). In contrast, the SSPX at least claims to be Catholic and thus should care about the obedience due to the Vatican in these matters
One of the sede vacante bishop appoints was to remove a Vatican placed bishop as head of a diocese with a unilaterally commie placed one. I think that's a big deal.
If Chinese bishops started consecrating new bishops they wouldn't be invalid but they'd be illicit. They'd be real bishops.
Yes, screwed up the terminology there, thanks.
That said, I agree that that's very bad, but I will stand by it being "a shade less bad" than doing the same thing and *also* ordaining your own bishop. For one, it seems to avoid the Bishop falling into schism since he doesn't seem to have taken over the diocese until after Vatican approval, though the reporting out of China is generally poor. That at least means that the only bad actor was the CCP, which we probably shouldn't be expecting to be an honest broker to begin with.
Ok, so perhaps the analogy isn't as tight as I thought.
But does appointing / moving bishops and creating / suppressing dioceses amount to similarly illicit material? Is it also a "canonical act of schism"? If not, why not? If so, why do we tend to see it covered journalistically in a different light?
If a bishop were to take possession of (rather than being named to) a non-vacant sea, that, I would imagine, could rise to schism. I’m, again, not sure how many times that’s happened since 2018, many of the disputes have been in the appointment phase.
The fundamental difference in my mind is that we don’t expect the Chinese government to be obedient towards the Vatican. If the SSPX proclaims that they are a part of the Catholic Church then they should be held to a higher standard than the CCP, who only have a treaty obligation.
The CCP also has civil methods of coercion at their disposal to induce bishops into obeying them. That may not absolve bishops who participate in illicit Chinese appointments from their responsibility, but it probably lessens their responsibility compared to the SSPX who are under no such coercion.
I’m sure there are lots of good and bad reasons that Rome would either reject or allow the consecrations. As Pope Leo has often done so far, I’m sure he’ll make the right choice given all the facts, public and private. Frankly, I couldn’t care less. What troubles me is the tactic of a seemingly unrepentant and reckless Society.
Deadline threats of lawsuits or escalation to a higher authority that is so often characteristic of people’s (and even priests’) interactions with bishops is so common it verges on the cliche. But that sort of tactic doesn’t cut at the unity of the church.
But, playing chicken with genuine lack of unity, with yet another breach of the Body of Christ, despite the MASSIVE display of good faith offered by Pope Benedict XVI, goes to show that the SSPX doesn’t actually give a rip about their unity with Rome. It’s always been clear that they never repented for their previous schism and are here on their terms, not those of the Apostolic Church.
If His Holiness approves the consecrations, great. Nothing changes. We can continue to tolerate each other.
If he doesn’t approve them, I suspect they’ll do them anyway.
We can stop pretending this has anything to do at all with the new Mass or the tradition. This is about asserting spiritually charged, holier-than-thou nonsense.
As the tradition gradually restores both as a natural outflow of the new generation of priests and as a result of papal action (we hope), I hope to see a dulling of the SSPX blade anyway in favor of the ones who never held up their unity as a bargaining chip (or quickly rethought their poor choice).
At this point they should be excommunicated.