Forty Theses on the SSPX

The news as of late has simply been dominated by the spectre of the impeding SSPX consecrations in July. I have hitherto avoided any discussion of the matter, as I don't follow SSPX news nor do I have any history with the Society, for good or ill. I came to Tradition apart from them and have never found them to be an integral part of my own spiritual journey. And I certainly do not view them as an escape hatch in case things get bad enough, nor do I see them as standard-bearers of the Trad movement, so I don't feel that invested in whatever happens in July. 

Nevertheless, I do realize this is important for many and several people have asked my opinion, so I thought it might be wise to get my thoughts out—although, I should warn you, this is far from systematic, which has compelled me to present my thoughts rather as a miscellany of theses rather than a single comprehensive "argument" (so as you read, keep in mind I am making no single argument, but rather throwing out discussion points). 

Here follows my thoughts, such as they are at this time:

*    *    *    *    *    * 

1. It is fully possible for both Rome and the SSPX to be at fault. Both sides could have acted or be acting in bad faith. That is, in fact, what I think. Both sides are culpable for where we are at today.

2. There is a difference between consecrating bishops without papal permission and consecrating bishops against an explicit papal directive. These things are not equivalent and it is frustrating that this point is generally ignored. 

3. I have never attended an SSPX chapel, nor were they formative in my life in any sense. That being said, I have known many persons from the Society; I have taught many children from Society families, and they are often the kindest, brightest children I have the privilege to teach. If anything makes me sympathize with the SSPX, it is my experience with these good people.

4. But what ultimately diminishes my sympathy for them is reading the actual public statements of the SSPX. In fact, I have never seen any public statement of the Society that actually increased my sympathy for them, and in my opinion, all of Pagliarani's comments of late have been destructive and regrettable, unnecessarily combative, serving essentially to confirm many of the worst stereotypes repeated by the Society's opponents.

5. Speaking of opponents: there are opponents of the Society who devote all their time to refuting, attacking, and opposing the SSPX, as if this is the singular most important issue facing the Church. Every post, every article, every comment is some dig at the Society. I am incredibly irritated by these people and their obsession with this subject. I find them the singularly most pretentious and annoying faction in this discussion.

6. A major problem is that Rome has insisted that the SSPX must "accept the Second Vatican Council" but for thirty years refused to elaborate on exactly what that means—what specific propositions must be accepted? Unless this is defined, reconciliation on the basis of "accepting" Vatican II is chimerical.

7. Those who say that this is unnecessary because it is already perfectly clear what "accepting Vatican II" means without need of any further clarification or discussion are either daft or arguing in bad faith.

8. On the other hand, when Cardinal Fernández finally proposed discussions to clarify "the minimum requirements necessary for full communion with the Catholic Church" back in February and Pagliarani shit on it without even hearing what Fernández wanted to discuss, this was in my opinion, a fumble on Pagliarani's part. It also made it clear to me that the SSPX is not actually interested in reconciliation. Pagliarini said the dealbreaker was Fernández's statement that the documents of Vatican II could not be amended. This demonstrates that, from the Society's perspective, it's Rome that needs to be "regularized," not them. It is, of course true, that Rome is in a sorry state and has been for some time, but that notwithstanding, negotiating with Rome from the assumption that Rome must change first is incredible hubris.

9. The Society, too, has a fundamentally undefinable goal: when has Rome "converted" enough to justify reunion? Where is the goal post for what Rome must do to "come back to Tradition"?

10. On Facebook I hypothesized that Rome would not issue any new excommunications against the Society for the impending consecrations. In light of Fr. Pagliarani's letter to Cardinal Fernandez, I am not so sure anymore. Reading this letter, I could not help concluding that this man wants to sabotage the discussion.

11. If Rome does not take action, it is not because "the Society is too big" or any such nonsense. It will be because Leo decides some other response is better suited. The initiave on what will or will not be done in response to these consecrations will be entirely with Rome, because of Rome's reasons, on Rome's timetable. 

12. The SSPX does not have the leverage people think they do; in fact, they have none. That they are the biggest traditionalist group is irrelevant. When traditional movements, bishops, orders, etc. who enjoy regular canonical status are still run over roughshod, why would an irregular organization think it has any clout? The Society has zero leverage.

13. The actions or inaction of Rome with regard to the Chinese bishops, Fr. James Martin, and other "whatabout" cases are irrelevant. Rome is seldom consistent in its approach to anything, and its lethargy in Case A does not invalidate its attention to Case B. If anything, all this does is make Rome look partisan (which it is) but it has no ultimate relevance in what consequences follow nor the validity of those consequences.

14. Pope Leo recently stood shoulder to shoulder with representatives of schismatic churches, celebrated vespers together, and proclaimed "We are one! We already are!" Among these schismatics to whom the pope spoke were the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox, who are non-Chalcedonian and don't even accept the two natures of Christ. If such a generous and accomodating attitude can be shown to schismatics who literally reject one of the seven ancient councils, there is absolutely room for a very generous attitude towards the Society at every level of the Church—even if we granted the Society is in schism. Even if you disagree with the Society, why can we not adopt the attitude modeled by Leo in his meeting with other Christian schismatics, whose schisms are much bigger, older, and graver? Would you be willing to stand with the SSPX and say "We are one! We already are!" If you aren't, then either you are off or Rome is.

15. Despite the opinions of anti-Society apologists, it is clear that Rome views communion on a spectrum. It considers full communion something that is progressively journeyed towards,  not something either possesses or does not possess in a binary fashion; the phrase "full communion" really only makes sense if communion is being considered on a spectrum. Setting aside the question of whether this comports to traditional ecclesiology (it doesn't), I find it incontestable that this is how Rome views the matter today, especially if you examine the totality of Rome's statements with regards to other Christian sects, non-Christian religions, etc. Opponents of the Society who stubbornly insist on a binary view of this question ("You're either in or you're out and since you're irregular you're out") are working from an ecclesiological paradigm that Rome itself is not applying.

16. The Society's attitude that it will not seek regularization until Rome "renounces its errors" is utterly delusional. Even more delusional is the notion that Lefebvre will ever be canonized. 

17. One thing that is plainly clear from looking at the history is that schism does not necessarily entail denial that an authority exists. The SSPX argument that they are not in schism because they have not denied the legitimate authority within the Church is a weak argument that creates a definition of schism so narrow that virtually no one other than Sedevacantists would fit it. It is not necessary that the SSPX (or any group) deny the existence of a legitimate authority to be in schism—it is enough to disobey that authority whilst maintaing a distinct and autonomous authority, even if one continues to admit the existence of the legitimate authority. The argument that the Society cannot be in schism because they claim to be in communion with the pope and remember him in their prayers is nonsense. Mind you, I am not saying they are in schism, only saying that that their professions of loyalty to the pope do not prove that they aren't. As much as I love Athanasius Schneider I find his argument that future consecrations will not be schismatic semantic and unconvincing, akin to a wife caught in adultery denying she's an adulteress because she "didn't mean" to cheat. 

18. Over the years I have wavered in my approach to the Society, sometimes leaning more towards them, sometimes away. But at no time ever have I found their state of necessity argument covincing in the least. To me, this argument has always been the weak link in SSPX's claims.

19. As bad as the Catholic demographic freefall is, it does not constitute the kind of "state of necessity" as envisioned by canon law. The reader will have to forgive me as I cannot remember where I saw this, but some years ago I read a commentary on this phrase in canon law and it explained that the state of grave necessity envisioned was something like a situation where Holy Orders in a given territory was in danger of going extinct. For example, say there are three bishops in a mission territory and two of the three bishops are unexpectedly killed. This would constitute a state of grave necessity, as if that final bishop were killed it could mean the extinction of Holy Orders in that territory. Such a bishop would be justified in consecrating new bishops without papal approval and without the customary co-consecrators. But the point is this principle of grave necessity in canon law was never meant to be invoked for something like gradual demographic decline of practicing Catholics.

20. Even less could the "state of the necessity" be the need to provide for the continued existence of the SSPX. I am not aware of a single incident in the entire history of the Church where the propagation of a particular order or institution within the Church was licitly invoked as justification for such prolonged and grave violation of canonical norms. 

21. If, on the other hand, you really do think Holy Orders are literally in danger of extinction except for the SSPX, then it's difficult to see in what sense you don't believe that the Church has defected, which resolves into an argument that the SSPX represents the rump of the "true Church" and the Church in Rome led by Pope Leo is, quite literally, some kind of false Church, a position that I find completely untenable.

22. Too often schism is defined as simple disobedience. Defining schism as simple disobedience is not a sufficient defintion. There are scores of cases in which a Catholic, lay or clergy, disobeys legitimate authority without committing a schismatic act. This is not to suggest that disobedience is inconsequential, but that the equation of disobedience with schism is far too simplistic and unhelpful.

23. The famous 1991 case of the "Hawaii Six" demonstrates that it is not inherently schismatic for lay persons to receive the sacraments from the SSPX. That being said, this case proves far less than the Society claims. The SSPX argues that the Hawaii Six case proved "beyond a doubt that the faithful who attend the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X, or receive the sacraments from its clergy (either bishops or priests) are neither schismatic nor excommunicated for doing so—thus proving the claims made by the SSPX for many years." The actual decision, however, was made on circumstances relating to the very specific case of one particular woman, a Mrs. Patricia Morley. The judgment is a narrow one pertaining to the facts of her situation—facts which were not divulged in the ruling. The actual text of the ruling says, "This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner, though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism. Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the 'latae sententiae' penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which is founded." At most, this ruling says that one particular woman's actions—based on factors left unstated—did not constitute the canonical crime of schism. I certainly understand extrapolating legal precedent from particular case law, but that usually depends upon the elaboration of legal principles germane to the case. In the Hawaii Six case, there is no elaboration; Cardinal Ratzinger simply says "available documentation" vindicates Mrs. Morley. We don't know if this "available documentation" pertains to the status of the Society itself or to factors particular to Mrs. Morley. Based on this, I find it quite a stretch to try to extrapolate this case into a general canonical precedent with universal applicability. 

24. An excommunicated individual, even if he is morally certain his excommunication is invalid, is nevertheless bound to obey the legitimate authority and behave as one under excommunication while he strives to prove his innocence and seek the overturn of the sentence. An excommunication can never be ignored in the external forum; it must be observed, even if the subject of the censure believes or even knows himself to be innocent.

25. I often see people pretending that having no jurisdiction and being in schism are equivalent and that simply isn't so. One can be in an irregular canonical status without being in schism. We all know of clerics who have no jurisdiction but are not considered schismatic. My own understannding is that this is the state of the Society, at least after Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications: they remain without jurisdiction (as Benedict had stated) but they are not in schism. Schismatics are simply not granted faculties. The 2017 letter of Cardinal Muller on this subject avoids the word schism, using instead "canonical irregularity." But what the heck do I know?

26. Lol, no I am not going to read John Salza. Who can read through everything he has written on the subject? 

27. While it is enlightening to cite the words of Marcel Lefebvre in order to get insight into the founding ethos of the Society, Lefebvre's words are not relevant to questions of the Society's status today, just like one cannot make determinations about the state of contemporary Lutheranism by pulling up salacious quotes from Martin Luther. The Society's canonical status in 2026 is completely unrelated to whatever personal opinions Lefebvre might have held.

28. The word schism is used far too recklessly, especially by opponents of the Society. They also tend to blur the difference between the sin of schism and the canonical state of schism, which are two different things, as one can be guilty of the former without incurring the latter.

29. I do not believe the Society actually wants reconciliation. I think that if Rome came to them tomorrow and said, "We will regularize you at once with no conditions whatsoever" that the Society would still refuse—and not only refuse, but refuse in such a way as to frame it as Rome's fault. While I wholly agree that the concept of "schismatic mentality" is generally overblown, it is, nevertheless, a real phenomenon that can happen when a group gets so used to being on the outside that they no longer wish to be on the inside. It does seem to me that the SSPX exhibits this thinking. 

30. I have never believed that we "owe" the preservation of the Traditional Latin Mass to the SSPX, There were other groups and individual dedicated to preserving the old Mass besides the Society, even before 1988. 

31. Nor do I believe the future of the Traditional Latin Mass is with the Society, their numerical growth notwithstanding. All of the most important intellectual, scholarly, and ecclesial developments in Traditionalism have occurred outside the Society. Most Catholics discover Traditionalism through diocesan TLMs and ecclesia dei groups, using resources and content created by persons representing the same. Intellectually speaking, the SSPX is actually the most inert and stultified quadrant of Traditionalism. They may have been the standard-bearers of the movement at one time, but those days are long gone.

32. It should be remembered that SSPX faced ostracism well before their canonical status was ever in doubt. As early as 1974, only four years after the Society was established and when it was still on the straight and narrow as a pious union, the French episcopate had already collectively agreed to sideline the Society by refusing to incardinate any of their priests, effectively ghettoizing Lefebvre's group. If the SSPX exists on the margins of the Church, a good argument can be made that they were driven there. I do believe those in authority continue to drive them to the peripheries—and not the good peripheries that Francis was always bloviating about.

33. In 1982, the traditionalist Sacerdotal Society of Saint Jean-Marie Vianney (SSJV) was founded in the Diocese of Campos, Argentina by Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer. Like the SSPX, the SSPV was considered out of union with Rome after Mayer participated in the 1988 consecrations. The SSPV was reconciled with Rome in 2002 after swearing an oath of fidelity to the pope, saying that they recognized "his Primacy and the government of the universal Church, her pastors and her faithful', and likewise declaring: 'For no reason do we wish to be separated from the Rock (Peter) on which Jesus Christ founded his Church." This oath is remakrable: no mention of Vatican II or the new Mass at all! Why can't we use something like this formula to regularize th SSPX? If John Paul II was comfortable sidestepping the entire question of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo for the SSPV, we can do the same for the SSPX.

34. Sometimes we Trads can act as though absolutely anything is justified in the name of Tradition. I cannot accept this premise. I cannot believe that anything is justified if it supports the Tradition. Pitting the Church against its own Tradition was probably the most successful strategy Satan ever unleased upon the Church, as we cannot have one without the other, and forcing us to choose only ensures that everybody loses. The Tradition can only survive in the soil of the institutional Church within which it emerged; and the Church will remain a barren garden unless it clings to its Tradition. I refuse to accept the premise that an institutional break is necessary to remain faithful to Tradition, nor can I accept sleight-of-hand attempts to recontextualize a break as something other than what it is—but neither will I accept that the Church's autodemolition of its own Tradition is anything other than an unfathomable catastrophe that must needs be rejected with all possible vigor. Do I know how to reconcile all these things? No. Do I need to know how to reconcile them? Also no. And that's okay.

35. The popes have consistently demonstrated greater charitry, openness, and consideration for the Society than anti-SSPX apologists. This includes Pope Francis. Anti-SSPX crusaders should model their behavior towards the Society on that of the popes.

36. By its delusional insistence that Rome must convert first for regularization, the SSPX has pushed reconciliation into the realm of the eschatological; it is something that can only happen in a far-distant and hazy future, over the horizon of history. It is no longer a concrete reality to be attained through negotiation in the here and now, but an idealized fantasy that can only exist "somewhere-over-the-rainbow" in an illusory future where Rome has converted to the SSPX's point of view. Essentially, the Society has begun treating reconciliation with Rome the way Rome treats reconciliation with the Protestants. 

37. The amount of chaos and confusion being sowed by Rome is mindboggling—confusion which Rome itself does little to remediate and does much to make worse. With Rome and our bishops responsible for so much of this situation, it is absolute gaslighting to turn on regular rank and file pewsitters who, in their own conscience, feel that attending a Society chapel is in their best interest. The princes of the Church upend our traditions, devastate the vineyard, sow confusion and chaos everywhere, govern with incompetence or outright malice—and when a tiny handful of faithful respond to this by going to get their sacraments from the Society, they get ruthlessly attacked like they are the problem? Whatever I may think about the Society and its arguments, I would never lay blame with the people who are just trying to find a refuge from decades of disorder.

38. If Rome is concerned about people going over to the Society, the best action it could possibly take would be to revoke Traditiones custodes and return to the settlement of Summorum pontificum.

39. While appeal to Tradition does not justify everything, we can't act like this doesnt matter. We cannot simply bracket the autodemolition of the Church and set it aside while we discuss these matters. I often see anti-SSPX people doing this, making appeals to authority and pretending like our situation is nothing new and we are operating by the same norms the Church always has. This is some shady compartmentalized thinking. We are in uncharted territory and we do no one any favors by pretending we're not.

40. If Rome sees communion as existing on a spectrum, there is room for opinion on where along tht spectrum the SSPX is situated. This is why I have said before and will say again that I don't think Rome itself understands whether the SSPX is in schism.