Rome and SSPX 2026: Here We Go Again!!! (Part 2)

JMJ

Introduction

In Part 1, after reviewing sources and historical documents, I concluded that disobedience to a direct order from the Pope is not, in and of itself, a schismatic act. More is needed:

In this case the person is guilty of disobedience, but not of schism, even though he persists in his refusal; for he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the head of the Church.

The SSPX has manifestly not rejected the head of the Church, see FSSPX.news: Letter to the Holy Father regarding the Decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

... What the Society of Saint Pius X has done, and will continue to do, is nothing other than an extraordinary initiative for the salvation of souls, amidst the doctrinal and moral confusion into which the Church is plunged. We in no way claim to substitute ourselves for the Church, and we have no ambition other than to remain faithful to her. ... In conscience, we did not believe we could evade the moral duty we owe to souls, as we have already explained, both privately and publicly, to Your Holiness. ... I remain, Most Holy Father, your most devoted son in the Lord.

Other thinkers, formally trained and far more qualified canonists have reached the same conclusion (Rorate Caeli: Canonical Analysis):

It is noteworthy that Bishop Fellay is charged not under can. 1387 but under can. 1364 §1, the general schism provision. This is a legally significant divergence. The Code does not automatically treat unauthorized episcopal consecration as schism. Cardinal Fernández's invocation of Ecclesia Dei Adflicta (1988) to characterize the act as schismatic relies on a logical leap (from an act of disobedience to a wholesale rejection of papal primacy, but it is not a true leap, since they have reaffirmed their fidelity to the Holy Father) that the text of can. 751 does not support. Canon 751 defines schism as a withdrawal of submission: a total, wilful repudiation of authority, not a single act of disobedience. Disobedience and schism are distinct offenses. One can say ‘I cannot do this’ while still acknowledging an authority; that is not the same as saying ‘You have no authority over me.’

With this analysis behind us, I want to explore what the future may hold for the Church, the Pope and the SSPX.

The Church

There have already been calls for the abrogation (my word) of Traditiones Custodes. Given the irreverence for Pope Benedict XVI and the pre-V2 liturgy, I don't think this will happen.

What I do think is likely is that the canonically regular SSPX clones will find themselves under increased scrutiny for any 'schismatic' tendencies and pressure to accept the Spirit of Vatican II.

The Germans et al will continue on their current path towards something ... maybe a true rejection of the Pope ... or they'll just get their way, ignore Rome and Rome won't do anything.

The Pope

Pope Leo XIV is now the latest in a growing list of Popes who have been unable to reconcile the Second Vatican Council with the sensum fidei of Traditional Catholics. The closest to come had been Pope Benedict XVI with Summorum Pontificum (link), accompanying letter (link) and Universae Ecclesiae (link).

In each case, Agatha Christi Indult (1970), Quattuor abhinc annos (1982), Summorum Pontificum (2007). Universae Ecclesiae (2011), Traditiones Custodes (2021), a Pope has responded to either promoters or detractors of the pre-conciliar thinking and liturgy.

Benedict was the first Pope to accept Archbishop Lefebvre's suggestion to try the 'experiment of tradition'. Depending on who you were, the response was encouraging or terrifying. That's what got the attention of someone - either Pope Francis or someone able to influence him - to write and issue Traditiones Custodes.

Yes, the Bishops, enough to make a difference, are afraid of the Tridentine Mass and, I think, what the Tridentine Mass embodies. In this terror mistakes are made. Not responding to the SSPX, insisting on unconditional acceptance of the documents of V2, declining to approve the episcopal consecrations, excommunicating the SSPx et al are all the actions that repeat the mistakes of the previous pontificates.

This was to be expected.

Leo has now made his first step on this path. The question is what is the next step that he will take? Will he continue what others of done before him ... or will the Vicar of Christ change his course and the course of the entire Church on this crisis.

The SSPX and traditionalism in general is a problem that won't go away and had demonstrated a tenacity to challenge even Rome's ability to out wait an opponent.

The question is will the Church that is open and accepting to everyone except the SSPX, change and accept them?

To not accept the pre-conciliar sets the conflict on the same familiar course. To change will change the course of the entire Church.

The SSPX

The path for the SSPX will only change if the path of the Church changes and, in effect there is at least a partial alignment.

Key point will be for the SSPX to continue to walk the knifes edge between sedevacantism and compromise.

In a way, the work of the SSPX is simpler and direct.

Don't change the principles.

Conclusion

We have reached another milestone in this crisis of the Catholic Church.

The task of the traditionalists is to hold on.

Hold on to the principles,

Hold on to the Doctrine,

Hold on to the Dogmas,

Hold on to the Tradition.

Eventually, something will change and since the SSPX is up against a wall, it is up to the Church, the Pope to change the course of this conflict.

P^3

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay. Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

+ JMJ An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'. Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like. No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included. I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith. While...

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

+ JMJ Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3 Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean??? According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible. It means that they enjoy the beatific vision. ... that's it. That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians. It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious. That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection. The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements. So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

Tradicat

Search This Blog