+
JMJ
My current thoughts on the eventual consecration of new bishops by the SSPX.
- It is not a matter of if but when.
- The SSPX will ask for permission from Rome.
- #2 is what faithful non-schismatic / non-sedevacantist Catholics will do.
- It is ludicrous to say that one can't accept a bishop that Pope Francis gives permission to be consecrated.
- What if Pope St. John Paul II had given permission for the four consecrated in 1988?
- Rome may or may not give permission ... but ...
- This may be taken as an opportunity to restart discussions
- Pope Francis is just the type of person to do it.
So what?
We need to pray because as long as the SSPX is not given a no-compromise regularization, the Church is not on a path to recover from the current crisis.
End Stop.
P^3
“SSPX Episcopal Consecrations – Ignoring the Past” – Guest article by Joseph Bevan
SSPX Episcopal Consecrations – Ignoring the Past
An extraordinary feature of the history
of the Society of St Pius X is that, whenever there is contact with
Rome, a group of the priests and the lay people in the chapels, up
sticks and leave. Like affronted chefs, they run off in a huff and then
accuse those whom they leave behind of ‘betraying’ the legacy of
Archbishop Lefebvre. Every major event in the Society in the past 40
years has resulted in a degree of internal strife followed by an exodus.
The episcopal consecrations in June 1988 presented a very nasty
shock to many people who were, up until then, happily supporting the
Society. For those who liked ‘bells and smells’ the consecrations were a
savage reality check and our little congregation in a disused Anglican
church in Bath, UK, was suddenly halved. As I surveyed the remnants on
the first Sunday in July 1988, with many familiar faces gone and never
to be seen again, it was my mother who whispered to me from her
wheelchair: “these people who are left are all making a stand.” Suddenly
the Vatican wielded their rusty swords of ecclesiastical penalties,
including excommunication latae sententiae, so who in their right mind would not run for cover? The last excommunication in the United Kingdom had been in 1907.
For
those priests and laypeople attached to SSPX these were frightening
times as they were accused of heresy and schism. Many senior bishops,
abbots and clergy who, up until recently, had publicly supported the
Archbishop either disappeared from view or were openly hostile. All in
all, it is arguable that God permitted these events so as to clear away
the driftwood from the Society. In other words, all those who thought
that they could have the trappings of Catholic tradition, and at the
same time have the approval of Rome, were shafted. What remained was a
leaner, fitter and persecuted remnant which was ideally fortified to
face the advance of the crisis in the Catholic Church, although,
glancing around at our own congregation at Bath few of us were fit or
lean!
After this the existence of SSPX was barely remarked on by
the Church authorities and largely ignored by the Catholic press during
the 1990s. This, I think, was a deliberate ploy adopted in the hope
that, starved of the oxygen of publicity, the Society would curl up and
die. So far as I could judge, most of our little congregation consisted
of old people and a few young men in tweeds who reeked of pipe tobacco.
The large families were still a thing of the future and the noisy
interruptions during Mass from babes in arms were quite rare. Nobody was
interested in negotiating with Rome or even spreading the word. We were
just grateful to get the Mass once in a while (by no means every
Sunday) and we believed that we were keeping the flame alive, hoping
that something would eventually happen with God’s grace and things could
return to normal. We were a dispirited lot really.
In spite of
the rejections and resulting hardships suffered by the priests and
faithful of SSPX it was, of course, too much to expect that they would
be united in their analysis of the crisis in the Catholic Church and the
appropriate remedies.
There must have been alarm bells ringing
in the papal palace in Rome as the dissident group continued to grow and
become more established. The Summorum Pontificum of 2007 was
an attempt by Pope Benedict XVI to placate the rising calls for the
re-establishment of the Tridentine Mass (only the Mass, mind) with a
view to ultimately re-integrating SSPX into the official Church.
Additionally, the excommunications against the four bishops were lifted.
The
effect of these changes were to make certain elements in SSPX keen to
hurry along the process of integration and saw the dragging of feet by
Bishop Fellay as a betrayal of the principles laid down by their
founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. Various titans in the SSPX movement made
separate deals with Rome, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer and the
diocese of Campos, Brazil, to name a few. There were also defections of
priests and seminarians, especially in Switzerland and the United
States. I remember myself how many of our faithful resented the
‘hardline’ approach of the SSPX leadership and began to attend
Tridentine Masses at local parish churches and also at mass centres
founded, often tantalisingly nearby, by the Fraternity of St Peter.
The
reason that I was not tempted to remove myself and my growing family
from SSPX at that time and ‘return to the fireside of Mother Church,’ as
one of my brothers put it, was because I did not trust Rome. I had this
premonition of a new Pope and all the promises being quietly forgotten.
It was a bit like living in England under the Tudors, where the welfare
of the Church was putty in the hands of whoever was in charge. Besides
which, I trusted the SSPX leadership to make the right decision. Finding
the open disloyalty displayed by some clergy and laypeople distasteful,
I wanted no part in it as, above all, I wanted peace in my family.
This peace is essential if graces are to flow, and it is very
destructive if children and parents are torn apart by debates. Some
people said that I was a coward, but events have justified my position.
People
nowadays seem to forget how close to self-destruction the SSPX seemed
during the reign of Benedict XVI. The offer of reconciliation from Rome
wrongfooted people and many were accused of having a ‘schismatic
mentality’ for refusing to budge. It was these events which led to some
more of our congregation disappearing. In France quite a few priests
took off also, but apart from the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer on the
island of Papa Stronsay, Scotland, the United Kingdom district remained
intact, so I believe.
Turning now to the events leading up to the
divisions of 2012, the causes were the exact opposite to those which
occurred in 2007. Now the Society of St Pius X was invited to ‘talks’
with the Roman authorities, leading to a possible full integration. This
time the boot was on the other foot and the people who left SSPX, and
there were lots of them, claimed that the cause of Archbishop Lefebvre
was being betrayed (that again!) and also claimed that the leadership
were gung-ho for a ‘deal’ which would nullify the principles for which
we had all fought. Thus began a very forceful and unworthy campaign of
vilification against the SSPX leadership which resulted in the
organisation of the SSPX ‘resistance.’ Again, I was pressured by many
old friends to leave SSPX and join the ‘resistance’ but I had no doubts.
I trusted the leadership. Again, I was accused of being a coward and
even of being a liberal. A few priests here in England were tempted to
leave but few did in the end.
So, was SSPX thinking of climbing
into bed with Rome? I doubt it. Also, the ‘deal’ which was ‘just around
the corner’ seems to have been buried along with the body of Pope
Benedict XVI.
The mistake which many dissident Catholics made,
whether in 2007 or 2012, was to regard Archbishop Lefebvre as some kind
of ‘guru’ who had laid down a set of principles which had to be followed
through thick and thin. To believe this is to misunderstand the mission
of this saintly man. He said at the consecrations sermon in 1988 that
he was a simple bishop carrying out his God-given and Catholic duty as
he had sworn to do. No-one can possibly have any idea how the Archbishop
would have reacted to the events of 2007 and 2012. Rome has at its
disposal an ancient and powerful diplomatic department full of brilliant
minds who are expert at applying pressure. They would have probably
made short work of the Archbishop as they nearly did in the negotiations
of 1988, and as they nearly did to Bishop Fellay in 2012. In fact, it
is nothing short of miraculous that the Society of St Pius X survives at
all, having regard to the machinations it has endured at the hands of
Rome.
And now, the same arguments are being pulled from
bookshelves and dusted down, like Christmas carol books, ready for the
next crisis as the SSPX leadership contemplates how, when and if they
should consecrate replacement bishops. Already the internet is coming
alive with the same arguments as though the past never happened. Some
commentators, I believe, are hoping for drama as they attempt to cause
anger and division. We have the ‘we told you so’ from the so-called
resistance groups and the ‘schismatic mentality’ from the other lot who
joined Rome in 2007.
For the resistance groups it boils down to
this: ‘how can we approve of any bishop, however saintly, if Pope
Francis approves of him?’ For the 2007 lot it boils down to: ‘if SSPX
consecrates bishops without papal approval that shows that they’re in
schism.’ Whichever happens, if the consecrations take place with or
without papal approval, more people will forsake the SSPX. So, history
repeats itself.
Joseph Bevan has just published his memoirs, Two Families: A Memoir of English Life During and After the Council (Os Justi Press, 2024), available from the publisher or from Amazon.
Comments
Post a Comment