RORATE CAELI is a traditionalist blog that focuses upon the Roman politics that surround the Latin Mass. Its recent posts on the illicit consecrations of the SPXX bishops document that split that is now occurring between the SPXX traditionalists and those inside the Church advocating the Old Latin Mass.
"After the 1988 consecrations of four bishops, 12 long years were spent by the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) mostly ignored by the Holy See. There were contacts, but subdued"\
Circumstances changed in the year 2000, when, as part of the great Jubilee, Pope John Paul II opened up the churches of Rome to all Traditional groups. Cardinal Hoyos, Prefect for Clergy (1996-2006) and President of Ecclesia Dei (2000-2005), took the opportunity to open conversations with the SSPX. Rumors from the time assured that a worldwide Apostolic Administration was already then offered to the Society. Negotiations broke down.
Anyway, with the election of Pope Benedict XVI, who, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had spent so much time and effort trying to end the irregularity in 1988, the SSPX had the most sympathetic person they could ever hope for on the throne of Peter.
Negotiations started almost immediately, and the two demands of the SSPX were met in close succession: the freedom of the Traditional Mass for all priests in the Latin Church (Summorum Pontificum, in 2007); and the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops consecrated in 1988 (January 2009).
What followed were years of agonizing "doctrinal discussions," and, though Pope Benedict XVI offered a variety of different structures for the regularization of the SSPX, they still rejected it.
Under Francis, who had a particular and unexpected affection for the SSPX, even greater concessions were granted by the Holy See: jurisdiction for confessions, granted temporarily for the Jubilee of Mercy, and then extended indefinitely in the Apostolic Letter Misericordia et misera (2016); and jurisdiction for marriages (Ecclesia Dei commission, 2017).
In the 25 years following the 2000 Jubilee, therefore, under 3 different popes of diverse thinking and temperament, the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Authority of the Church, gave in, again and again. Generous concessions were granted, one after the other. An objective observer, even one who has great love for the reality and work of the Society, and unending gratitude for the work the Society has accomplished through the decades, cannot but be struck by the fact that there were no true concessions by the Society at all.
The new pope was elected in May 2025, and he is his own man. When the consecrations were announced months ago, it was as if an ultimatum had been placed on him, without even giving him enough time to fully assess the situation -- while he was still receiving pleas from regularized Traditional Catholics regarding a reevaluation of Traditionis custodes. An ultimatum is not the best way to test the spine of a new leader. New leaders do not like to be bossed around.
My conclusion: The SPXX has been very successful in catering to Catholics who want a pre-Vatican II church which has the Latin Mass and rejects modernity. They have little motivation to give up their autonomy. The efforts of traditionalists within the Church, e.g. the Extraordinary Form, tend to imitate them in their criticism of Vatican II and the liturgical reforms rather than promoting Latin and chant in the Ordinary Form. Francis saw this and severely limited the Old Latin Mass. Leo has now said that the SPXX is a schismatic group and its priests and laity along with its leadership needs to be treated as such.
RORATE CÆLI: Rome and the Econe Consecrations: a Dispassionate Analysis of What is at Stake
Orthodox Catholics are radically split over the Society of Saint Pius X, the consecration of its new bishops, and the excommunications that followed from Rome.
Whatever one's position on whether the excommunications were just or unjust, one thing has become indisputably clear: Rome is now treating the Society as a whole as engaged in schism.
The situation now resembles, at best, that of 1988, but with a far more permanent rift. Comparisons have been drawn to the Old Catholic schism in the Netherlands, in which Jansenist sympathizers were excommunicated alongside other opponents of the First Vatican Council, and the analogy appears at least partially apt. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is now encouraging SSPX priests to seek reconciliation with the formal Church in the same manner employed with schismatic groups in the past.
The Society's decision to proceed with episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate a second time appears to have hardened both conservative cardinals and Pope Leo against it.
The prominent orthodox cardinals who led opposition to Francis for years — Burke, Müller, and Zen among them — criticized the intended consecrations both before and after they took place.
As a result, the legacy of these consecrations may become inextricably bound up with the success or failure of Pope Leo XIV's pontificate. If Leo demonstrates that he is not a second Francis — that he is in fact more traditional than John Paul II or Benedict XVI, that he liberalizes the Tridentine Mass and promotes bishops and cardinals of a traditionalist disposition — then the consecrations will appear in retrospect to many as premature, impatient, and imprudent. If, however, he disappoints conservatives, many may find themselves returning to sympathy with the SSPX or even joining it. Whether or not it was the Society's intention, the consecrations have effectively become a negative assessment of Pope Leo himself.
The SSPX presented a major challenge to Leo very early in his pontificate. Negotiations were brief, and the Society moved quickly to what can only be described as the nuclear option. After reconciliation talks under both Benedict XVI and Francis, everything collapsed at the outset of the new pontificate. For Leo to respond to the Society's decisions with any degree of leniency would risk implicitly validating the criticism directed against him. For the conservative cardinals who placed their trust in Leo, championed his candidacy during the conclave, and staked their own credibility on him, this early challenge to his authority is likely to be read as an act of sabotage and a fundamental failure of trust.
The semi-retirement of Bishop Fellay appears indicative of a broader trend within the Society: the moderate center has largely disappeared. Clergy and laypeople aligned with the Francis era who view Leo as a restorer have overwhelmingly turned against the SSPX over this decision. The Society's more vocal defenders, meanwhile, tend to be fierce critics of Leo and often of a more radical traditionalist orientation, harboring a deep distrust not merely of Francis but of all recent pontiffs. Archbishop Viganò and his most ardent supporters have openly sided with the SSPX.
The conflict has polarized into two radically opposed camps: those who believe that healing is possible under Leo, and those who believe that Rome has been captured by enemies of the Church and that the present crisis is of eschatological proportions. The consecrations were either gravely wrong or absolutely necessary: there is little ground between these positions.
When Leo was still Bishop Prevost in Peru, he was accustomed to working with some of the most integralist and least Vatican II-oriented clergy within the entire institutional Church. Unlike the SSPX, however, those clergy never publicly challenged the appearance of unity. If any historical analogy involving Jansenism is apt here, it is that of Pope Clement IX and the so-called Clementine Peace: Clement tolerated moderate Jansenists so long as they maintained public obedience. Leo has adopted a similar approach toward ultra-traditionalists and integralists.
Under Leo, Vatican II appears to have been transformed primarily into a question of authority rather than of doctrine. The conflict with the SSPX is over schism, not heresy. The real dispute concerns who has the authority to determine when an emergency situation exists within the Church, and who can be trusted to address it. Pope Leo has proved considerably firmer regarding authority and hierarchy than many initially expected. He is not despotic in the manner Francis could often be; he follows the law, but he follows it very strictly.
My Conclusion: Traditionalist cardinals such as Burke and Mueller have great hopes in Leo. In Peru as bishop, Prevost worked with Opus Dei priests to reform his diocese. Francis saw this as a positive because it got the Opus Dei priests to change; the traditionalists cardinals are saying here is a man that can get along with us. That ignore the fact that at the beginning of his pontificate Francis tried his best to work with conservatives, Mueller, Burke and Sarah rather than immediately replacing them. When that failed, he simply promoted them all to retirement rather than new positions.
Leo is doing a good job of giving traditionalists hopes by doing small things: returning to the Apostolic palace, traditional vestments, the summer palace, etc. But, of course, what Leo expects in return is support for synodality, immigration, etc.
This paragraph, to me, summarizes the whole controversy:
ReplyDelete"" In the 25 years following the 2000 Jubilee, therefore, under 3 different popes of diverse thinking and temperament, the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Authority of the Church, gave in, again and again. Generous concessions were granted, one after the other. An objective observer, even one who has great love for the reality and work of the Society, and unending gratitude for the work the Society has accomplished through the decades, cannot but be struck by the fact that there were no true concessions by the Society at all."
I'm not sharing with Rorate Caeli any "....love or gratitude for the work of the Society", because what they have mainly accomplished is division in the church. But what they are basically saying is that three successive popes have bent over backwards and made multiple concessions to try and get the Society back on board, but that SSPX did not budge an inch and made no concessions at all. They were not negotiating in good faith. They don't recognize the authority of the pope. They pretend to be the faithful remnant. But they are choosing not to be part of the church, let them go their own way.
Agree. They should have cut them loose a long time ago. They haven taken up too much bandwidth for decades. They can become their own little group of disaffected Catholics just as some Episcopal parishes broke from ECUSA and joined fringe dioceses in Africa and Latin America. Just as Luther defied Rome ( of course, Luther was largely in the right and Rome’s stubbornness contributed to the eventual massively successful Reformation) and inadvertently started Protestantism. And eventually more splintered off Protestant churches. It’s happened for centuries.
DeleteYes, the Latin Mass folks can be exasperating. I am pretty sure a lot of local bishops feel that way. But - to cite another Vatican II teaching that probably hasn't gone down well with the Latin Mass crowd - the church does have an obligation to work for greater unity, including and especially with those who are somewhat estranged from us. I.e. an obligation to pursue ecumenism. In that light, I think what the recent popes have done can be considered admirable, even when we haven't entirely agreed with some of their specific initiatives.
DeleteStill, at some point, it becomes an exercise in trying to save the marriage with a spouse who has been given second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth chances yet still shows no interest in reconciling. One's patience with that spouse may not be infinite. That's kind of how I was reading Leo's decision, prior to seeing this post. I think the Rorate Coeli post somewhat supports that point of view.
"If Leo demonstrates that he is not a second Francis — that he is in fact more traditional than John Paul II or Benedict XVI, that he liberalizes the Tridentine Mass and promotes bishops and cardinals of a traditionalist disposition"
ReplyDeleteI don't think Leo is a second Francis per se - but he has certainly demonstrated repeatedly that he intends to continue and extend Francis's greatest legacy, synodality. And I don't expect Leo to liberalize the Tridentine mass and promote bishops and cardinals of a traditionalist disposition.
A little side note, Omaha has a SSPX church, Immaculate Conception. It's across the street from large Catholic girl's prep school, Marian High. Immaculate Conception runs its own high school, Mater Dei. They graduated 15 students in May.
ReplyDeleteIt kind of reminds me of Walgreens and CVS, it seems like they're always across the street from each other.
The reason I know Mater Dei's graduating class was 15 kids is because I met a girl who was in that class.
Now Katherine, you don't have to buffalo us - we know you are putting on your mantilla and organ shoes every Sunday morning and accompanying SSPX masses :-)
DeleteLOL, not so much!
DeleteI was going through a dresser drawer the other day and found a mantilla. I think the last time I wore it was maybe 1970.
Katherine, this is a list of their schools in the US
Deletehttps://sspx.org/sites/default/files/documents/RCR_August_2022.pdf