+
JMJ
Perspectives – FSSP vs SSPX
In August, Fr. Debow (FSSP) of Holy Family Parish in Vancouver, B.C. wrote two letters on the SSPX “situation”. Obviously, Father is writing from the FSSP perspective and some elements are simply repeating what he’s been taught in seminary by the founders of the FSSP. In other words, they don’t truthfully reflect the position of the SSPX or, I feel, make the necessary distinctions.
Father’s key points I noted were:
The situation isn’t primarily about the Tridentine1 Mass,
the SSPX “no longer believes that Rome can transmit the faith,
the SSPX “have taken it upon themselves to save the Church”,
the penalties are not a persecution but a correction of a theological error manifesting itself as schism,
It is a sin to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel.
My goal is to assess the five points in as objective a manner as possible. Since I have sought the sacraments from either Fr. Normandin or the SSPX since the early 80’s it is probably that I have a bias. However, for well over a decade I have had close relationships and discussions with modern Catholic friends, even associating with priests. This has provided me with the ability to assess both the position of the SSPX, my own position and that of the experience of my friends.
What I Learned From My Modern Catholic Friends
First, while I am old enough to have been baptized in the pre-council rite (meaning I received the exorcisms absent in the new rite), I ‘grew up’ as a modern Catholic until my mid teens.
That’s how, when asked by one friend how I found the modern ‘midnight Mass’ at 8pm, I could say with some confidence that it was “as I remembered it”. Specifically, it was horrible.
It was at the time when Pope Benedict had just corrected the words of the consecration from ‘all’ to ‘many’ and “and with your spirit”. This resulted in the main choir (up in the loft) trying to out sing the entire Christmas congregation (meaning the majority only attend mass at Christmas, Easter, Weddings and Funeral). Sitting at my keyboard today, it seemed like a battle of the bands or guitar duel. That was the only humorous thing about the liturgy. The rest was as sad as I remembered. Two or four extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, one dressed in a t-shirt with some logo, communion in the hand, and of course the Novus Ordo a “banal on the spot product”.
Knowing what I know of the Theology of the Mass and Catholic Dogma concerning the Eucharist – it was a vindication of everything I heard from the ‘old timer’ traditionalists. They were the first ones cast to the lions as the liturgy, wrekovations and heresies of the 1970s took over their Churches. If they didn’t give in, then they were cast out.
That because they were ‘divisive’.
So the first thing I learned is that the Novus Ordo as practiced today is as bad and irreverent as it was in the days of my youth.
The second thing I learned from my friends is that there is still hope.
At one men’s meeting I was asked if I thought that they should all just leave their parishes. I am confident that my answer would not have satisfied many Traditionalists: “Try and fix your parishes and if they kick you out – then you’ll know what to do.”
I had two reasons for saying this.
The first was I don’t like to just retreat and give up in a fight, whether it is an argument between faithful Catholics or one with fists. My parents only made the move when it was obvious that our parish was hopeless. So – I felt they needed to fight for the Faith and witnessed them discovering pre-conciliar teaching in books. Sometime they would go off-base in their fervour and anger but in general they moved in the right direction. They have won a number of battles and their Church now has much more conservative priests who, in speaking with me, were as displeased with Pope Francis as myself.
The second reason, which I told them, was that the path of an SSPX Traditional Catholic is not a easy one to walk. I have witnessed my fair share of people who grew up ‘SSPX’ abandon the Faith completely, become sedevacantist, or become bitter at the hierarchy. I’ve witnessed the danger of the first fervour numerous times and it didn’t end well for many of the older ones.
My experience has been that dragging people to the SSPX, more often than not, has a bad outcome. For those that came looking for it, the outcomes seem to be much better. I suspect that it is because Providence was guiding them into looking for something better instead of reacting to the discovery of the betrayal of the 1970s.
The third thing I learned is that there is hope in this new generation of Catholics. As they have discovered the buried treasure of Church Teachings, they’ve become stronger and better Catholics. One or two have come to the SSPX for Mass or to have a child baptized, but all have made their parishes better. Kneelers have been re-installed. Preaching is more conservative. The greying liberals are being pushed back.
So there is hope.
Attending Mass at an SSPX Chapel Is A Sin?
Summary
Since July 1, 2026, Bishops and priests, such as Fr. Debow, are claiming that it is a sin to attend a Mass offered by an SSPX priest or bishop.
I have to say it, I’ve seen all this before in 1988 and the years that followed.
The 2026 consecrations are materially the same as those of 1988, as is the response from Rome, albeit the 1996 explanatory note was a predictable addition. Neither of which negates that, as the 2026 consecrations are materially the same as the 1988 consecrations, the situation of the SSPX is the same now as it was then.
What emerged in the years after the 1988 consecrations was that:
The SSPX isn’t in schismatic,
The Catholics who attend the SSPX masses aren’t excommunicated,
and as long as you don’t attend the SSPX with a schismatic intention, then you don’t sin by attending a Mass said by an SSPX priest.
Now for the more detailed and (sorry) longer thoughts.
St. Thomas vs the SSPX
In attempting to prove his case, Fr. Debow has reached back to the Summa of St. Thomas which, while laudable, lacks the context of what has actually been said by the Roman authorities from 1988 to present as well as the context of St. Thomas’ own thoughts.
First the context, St. Thomas wrote the Summa from 1265 to 1273. In that era the Heretics were primarily the Albigensians, Waldensians. The schismatics were the Greek Orthodox. The former’s heresies were formally condemned in four councils whereas the latter were addressed in the councils of Lyon and Florence. This was not the situation in which Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX found itself in the 1970s and today.
To try and transplant St. Thomas’ thoughts of the 13th to 21st century schismatics and heretics to today’s situation is not valid. Especially, if one were to equally apply this process to the situation of the Church where world wide heresy and immorality is openly tolerated if not promoted. I’m confident that a number of the more recent magisterial documents would definitely draw a stern response from his pen.
Nor would it be any use to try and cite St. Thomas’ doctrine on obedience as the Angelic Doctor’s understanding is far more balanced than the current application of St. Ignatius’ Obedience that currently holds sway in the mainstream Catholic Church.
For St. Thomas, if the order involved sin, there was an obligation to disobey.
From the perspective of Archbishop Lefebvre and now the Bishop de Galarreta, it would have been a dereliction of duty to not consecrate bishops to provide those sacraments that require the episcopal state. In the case of 1988, there has been full vindication given the events of the past 38 years. The persecution of faithful Catholics (Traditionalists), the Tridentine Mass and suppression of pre-conciliar teaching, except for the slight reprieve under Pope Benedict XVI, continues in full force, perhaps with even greater anxiety on the part of the persecutors.
For a deep dive, please review my series on St. Thomas’ teaching on obedience (link) Tradicat: Breaking Down St. Thomas' Teaching on Obedience
What the Church Said and Didn’t Say
Following the 1988 consecration the persecution of Traditional Catholic was in full swing to the point that, back in 1991, one bishop attempted to excommunicate the SSPX laity in Hawaii. I understand that the six Hawaii residents obtained the assistance of a Canon Lawyer and the excommunication was overturned by none other than Cardinal Ratzinger.
Further statements were made by prelates in positions of authority in Eccelsia Dei’ to clarify the situation:
Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in a May 28, 1996 letter and repeated in Protocol No. 236/98 of March 6, 1998 wrote:
In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. ...If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.
And in a letter of September 27, 2002:
It is true that participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism”.
So, in 1998, 2002 we have both the conditions for no sin and no schism.
SSPX.org: The Hawaii Six Case Published June 2011
SSPX.news: Two Contradictory Statements from the Secretary Ecclesia Dei
Phatmass: Vatican Admits SSPX Masses Fulfill Sunday Obligation 2005
Rorate-Caeli: Ecclesia Dei SSPX priests and faithful are not "excommunicates"
What Does The 2026 Decree Actually Say?
The Decree is the actual legal portion of the documents issued by the DDF and it clearly states that:
Bishop de Galarreta, Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Marc Hanappier have incurred latae sententiae excommunication as per canons 1387 (episcopal consecration without papal mandate) and 1364 (schism).
Bishop Felly has incurred a latae sententiae excommunication as per canon 1364 (schism).
Just those six people.
Attached to the Decree is an explanatory note that was issued in 1996 by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.
However, there is an issue – that existed in 1996 and still exists today. The attached document is just an explanatory note and not a decree and therefore not as explicit as teaching that people think it is. Finally, the Decree by the DDF doesn’t outrank the faculties granted by Pope Francis to the SSPX. I understand that it would take an explicit and direct act of Pope Leo XIV.
Attending Mass at an SSPX Chapel - The Question Answered
The situation after the 2026 consecrations is the same as that after the 1988 consecrations:
A Bishop, assisted by a co-consecrator, consecrated four priests as bishops.
We have authoritative statements from Rome that attending Mass for non-schismatic reasons does not constitute a sin.
Based on the express desire to not separate from the Church while feeling morally obliged to disobey, there are even grounds to assert that there was no schismatic act and therefore no schism.
In short, what was true in 1988 remains true in 2026, simply saying it was a schismatic act doesn’t make it a schismatic act. Paraphrasing one prelate, consecration without Papal mandate is not in and of itself a schismatic act. Disobedient yes, schismatic no.
Tradicat: Rome and SSPX 2026: Here We Go Again !!! Part 1
Tradicat: Rome and SSPX 2026: Here We Go Again !!! Part 2
Neither schismatic nor excommunicated | District of the USA
Episcopal Consecrations for a State of Necessity | Saint Pius V Chapel
The Mass
Cause of Persecution?
First, Father Debow is correct in stating that the situation of the SSPX isn’t primarily about the Tridentine Mass, but saying that doesn’t make it any less important because of the place that the Mass holds in the life of the Catholic Church.
Even in 1969 the conflict between Rome and the young SSPX started when the Archbishop “simply said: We’ll keep the old Mass, eh? Everyone agreed.” That was the first step, the decision to not adopt the Novus Ordo Missae. It was also the first step for many other priests who were targeted and persecuted for their adherence to the Mass of their ordination.
It was long argued that the Tridentine Mass had not been abrogated and as a result was licit to use even after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae. Many in Rome held the contrary opinion and punished everyone and anyone who said the Tridentine Mass (except the blessed English who had an early indult).
Priests were persecuted for saying the Tridentine Mass, Fr. Yves Normandin (RIP) (link) was the most notable in Canada. Every Traditional Catholic in Canada owes a debt of gratitude to Fr, and I remember fondly serving his Mass.
So in one manner of speaking, the Archbishop and the nascent SSPX, by making the same decision as Fr. Normandin, simply incurred the wrath of the hierarchy and the Tridentine Mass has definitely been one of the reasons for that persecution.
It would be 45 years before a Pope would vindicate the persecuted by writing in Summorum Pontificum (link) and his letter to the Bishops (link) that the Tridentine Mass had not been abrogated and that “… in principle, was always permitted”.
It would be an oversimplification to state that the Mass was the only reason for the persecution of faithful priests as well as the SSPX. However, it is undoubtedly one of two main reasons as Rome has repeatedly made the unreserved acceptance of the Novus Ordo and the Second Vatican Council a condition of a canonical regularization.
Novus Ordo vs SSPX
I believe I was speaking with a newly ordained Fr. Debow during a stop on their Canadian tour when I disabused him of the notion that the SSPX believes the Novus Ordo to be invalid (see table below).
The new ordinand was surprised when I went on to hypothesize that because the Novus Ordo suppresses much of the explicit expression of the doctrines and dogmas surrounding the Sacrifice of the Mass, a Catholic who keeps the Faith while attending the Novus Ordo may even obtain more graces that those who attend the Tridentine Mass.
The SSPX does not believe the Novus Ordo to be invalid – it believes it to be lacking of due good.
It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood.
7 – Nous déclarons reconnaître la validité du sacrifice de la Messe et des Sacrements célébrés avec l’intention de faire ce que fait l’Eglise selon les rites indiqués dans les éditions typiques du Missel romain et des Rituels des Sacrements légitimement promulgués par les papes Paul VI et Jean-Paul II. |
7 – We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does according to the rites set forth in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. |
Translation: DeepL.com (free version) |
A threefold comparison of the Tridentine Mass (ie Vetus Ordo), Cranmer’s Rite, and the Novus Ordo can be found below and the question is whether or not it is an accurate comparison. If it is, then the problem becomes fairly clear, especially when Protestants (ie Heretics) state that they could say the Novus Ordo with no qualms of conscience:
"With the New Liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord's Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church." Max Thurian, Protestant Minister of Taizé (SSPX.ca: The Traditional Mass vs the New Mass)
The Catholic Faith should not be hidden under a bushel (Matthew 5:15) it should be clear and unambiguous in order to bolster the Faith of those Catholics in attendance and lead others to the True Faith.
The Novus Ordo, as a rite, is the height of Ecumenism and Folly.
Canadians have a perfect example of this Ecumenistic folly: The exclusion of Filioque from the public recitation of the Nicene Creed at Mass (Ukrainian Catholic Hierarchy In Canada: On the Creed and the Filioque).
If a Faithful Catholic and an Orthodox can stand together and recite the Nicene creed without the Filioque while one denies the truth it contains – are they really one in the same Faith? It is the same if one of those two people can attend a Novus Ordo Mass and find it supports their belief that Transubstantiation occurs because of the faith of the people and not the words of the Priest.
So, yes, the SSPX does recommend against attending the Novus Ordo, receiving communion on the hand etc. Not because the Sacrifice of the Mass, but because of the ambiguous rite and all the attendant activities that take place in those Masses – not the least of which is what I hold to be the sacrilegious treatment of the Blessed Sacrament by communion in the hand.
I think that if what happens at the mainstream Novus Ordo, including Communion in the Hand, doesn’t bother a person … then they are proof of the danger presented by the Novus Ordo and all that attends to it. Let’s be clear, I was present when a bishop told a group of Traditionalists, that as a condition of having the Latin Mass they had to be ok with everything that happened at the other Masses in the diocese.
Transmitting the Faith
Another of Fr. Debow’s assertions is that the SSPX believes that Rome can no longer transmit the Catholic Faith. This seems to be his own personal opinion or one shared with his confreres. Frankly, if this is the case, I’m surprised that he wouldn’t take the opportunity to find some hard evidence and point out the following:
"The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world. (Sent. certa.)"Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Ludwig Ott
As worded by Fr. Debow, the belief is not that of the SSPX but of the Sedevacantists, who are currently calling for an imperfect council amongst their various bishops to end their imaginary sede-vacante and fill the decades long empty See of Peter.
The SSPX had a long history of expelling sedevacantists from its ranks – so that particular accusation is false.
Now what the SSPX could be accused of saying is that:
the consecrations of July 1st were accomplished because of such a case of necessity: the dramatic necessity in which we find ourselves today in the Church, where the Faith is no longer taught, where morality is flouted, where the faithful live in great confusion and profound darkness, because the highest authorities of the Church themselves sometimes become sources of confusion. SSPX.news: Invalid Punishments, Valid Sacraments
The assertion that the SSPX believes “… that Rome can no longer transmit the faith …” is not the same thing as “… where the Faith is no longer taught …”. While capable of transmitting the Faith, Rome largely fails to do so. Deficiencies surrounding blessing of same-sex couples, communion for the divorces and civilly remarried, are recent examples of this reluctance to actually teach the Faith.
Ambiguities around the nature of the Catholic Church – likewise are causing confusion amongst the faithful. I was once approached by a young conservative Catholic who attended the Novus Ordo throughout his whole life, attended Catechism class and stated that the Catholic Church and the Protestants are the same Church separated only by the degree of ‘fullness of the Faith’.
So let’s be clear, the SSPX does not contradict the Church Dogma and Doctrine on the Church. It simply points out that, as has happened in the past, Rome is failing to teach the Faith.
Save the Church
The reality is that the SSPX didn’t want this conflict – they just wanted to continue believing and behaving as they had before the post-conciliar madness. The consistent message that I’ve heard and experienced from the SSPX has been that they are performing a service to the Church by preserving the priesthood and transmitting the Catholic Faith to the best of their ability.
Schism
Fr. Debow’s thoughts concerning whether or not the SSPX is in a state of schism are the heaviest accusation and I find it confusing when placed against the back-drop of the development and history of authoritative statements made since the first episcopal consecrations.
The whole situation is very tangled, so I will do my best to untangle it.
Papal Mandate
Consecration without a Papal Mandate is not, in and of itself, a schismatic act (Tradicat: A Look Back – Cardinal Lara and the SSPX). Something more is needed to create a schismatic act an incur the excommunication of canon 1364: An explicit act demonstrating that the person in question intends to separate themselves from the unity of the Church. A good example is the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association’s actions in the 1950’s to establish a state-sponsored religion (Catholic Register: 80 years of Chinese Catholicism).
In 2026 the SSPX made it clear that this was not the case. The SSPX regards the Pope Leo XIV as the reigning pontiff and while they felt it necessary to disobey a direct order, this does not constitute a schismatic act.
Who is excommunicated by the law?
By the letter of Canon Law, the bishop who consecrates a bishop without papal mandate as well as the person who was consecrated bishop incurs an latae sententiae excommunication.
Year |
CIC 1982 |
CIC 2021 |
Consecration without Papal Mandate |
Section: Usurpation of Ecclesiastical Functions and Delicts in Their Exercise
Canon 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. |
Section: Offenses Against the Sacraments
Can. 1387— Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. |
A key item to note is the section in which the Canons were found in 1988 and 2026 – neither of which is under the section dealing with the unity of the Church. That would be Canon 1364. So, as Cardinal Lara said shortly after the 1988 consecration, consecration without Papal Mandate is not in an of itself a schismatic act.
Year |
CIC 1982 |
CIC 2021 |
Heresy and Schism
|
Section: Delicts Against Religion and the Unity of the Church's
Canon 1364. §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3. |
Section: Offenses Against the Faith and the Unity of the Church
Can. 1364— § 1. An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 § 1 n. 2; he or she may also be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4. |
That is the key element, a schismatic act is required to become a schismatic. Fr. Debow attempts to leverage Pope Pius VI to bolster his case
"For the right of ordaining bishops belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions.” (Papal Encyclicals.new: Pope Pius VI Caritas)
This statement lacks crucial context, Pope Pius VI was responding to the French Government’s attempt to place the Church under the control of the state – as did the Chinese a couple hundred years later. This is objectively not what the SSPX did in 1988 and did again in 2026. The bishops were consecrated for the express purpose of providing those sacraments requiring the episcopal power. They were given no jurisdiction and the SSPX goes to great lengths to ensure that even the appearance of jurisdiction – such as having a difference bishops make trips to perform confirmations.
So a consecration against papal mandate would normally incur an excommunication. That is by the law and Canon Law also has conditions that could and have been argued to either nullify or reduce the punishment. I’ll leave that for the canonists to continue their arguments on that manner.
Pope Benedict XVI and the SSPX
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI withdrew the decree of excommunication, paving the way for doctrinal discussions between Rome and the SSPX. One reason for the withdrawal was the letter sent by Bishop Fellay in 2008:
The decree of January 21 quotes the letter dated December 15, 2008 to Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos in which I expressed our attachment “to the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ which is the Catholic Church,” re-affirming there our acceptation of its 2000 year-old teaching and our faith in the Primacy of Peter. (SSPX.org: On the withdrawal of the 1988 excommunications)
The SSPX never intended to commit a schismatic act, it said so before, during and after the fact. They weren’t schismatics and a reiteration of their belief in 2008. That belief continues today and given the lack of explicit schismatic act – such as establishing a parallel hierarchy or stating a desire to separate from the Church – the ‘mentality’ cited by Fr. Debow is reduced to wishful thinking.
Persecution
While I earlier stated that the Mass is not the sole reason for the persecution of Traditional Catholics and the SSPX in particular – it was just the start. Quickly and continually the Teachings of the Second Vatican Council became the core issue. This makes sense because the Novus Ordo was a result of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the Tridentine Mass that result of legitimate development of Catholic pre-conciliar teachings.
A Crisis Centuries In The Making
It would be a mistake to think that this all started after the incense cleared from St. Peter’s after the closing of the Second Vatican Council. This conflict has been escalating since the Protestant Reformation, moving to liberalism that seeped into the Church (see chatGPT table).
Period |
Development |
Significance for Modernism |
|---|---|---|
1517 onward |
Protestant Reformation |
Separation of Scripture from the Church's authoritative interpretive structure |
1600s–1700s |
Rationalism, Deism, Enlightenment |
Increasing confidence that human reason can judge religious claims independently |
1700s–early 1800s |
Kantian philosophy, German Idealism |
Knowledge increasingly understood through the structure/activity of the human subject |
1800s |
Historical-critical methods, liberal Protestantism |
Bible and Christian doctrines increasingly treated as historical products subject to reconstruction |
1830s–1860s |
Catholic liberalism, rationalism, religious indifferentism |
Papal opposition to the separation of faith from objective revealed truth |
1864 |
Quanta Cura + Syllabus of Errors |
Pius IX condemns propositions involving rationalism, naturalism, religious indifferentism, etc. (Vatican) |
1870 |
Vatican I, Dei Filius |
Defines Catholic teaching on revelation, faith, reason, Scripture and divine authority |
1879 |
Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris |
Thomistic philosophy promoted as a principal intellectual defense against modern philosophical errors |
1890s |
Catholic biblical/historical scholarship influenced by modern criticism |
Modernist tendencies begin appearing more clearly within Catholic intellectual circles |
1893 |
Providentissimus Deus |
Leo XIII responds particularly to rationalistic/higher criticism of Scripture |
1903–1907 |
Pius X pontificate; Modernist movement becomes increasingly visible |
Crisis becomes an internal Catholic doctrinal problem |
1907 |
Lamentabili + Pascendi |
Modernism formally analyzed and condemned |
1910 |
Oath Against Modernism |
Pius X imposes an anti-Modernist profession of faith |
1910s onward |
Suppression/reorganization of Modernist networks |
The immediate crisis is contained, but many underlying intellectual questions remain |
20th century |
New biblical, historical, philosophical and theological developments |
Some issues associated with Modernism reappear in different forms |
Vatican II and after |
Major changes in theological methodology and biblical scholarship |
Creates a new phase of the debate over continuity/discontinuity with the pre-Modernist magisterium |
The Hijacking of the Council and What Followed
Now what did happen at the Second Vatican Council is that the neo-modernists were able to hijack the council and I read recently that Liberals decry authority and restrictions until they are in power – then they become tyrants.
That is a good description of what happened after the Second Vatican Council – I understand everywhere in the Catholic Church around the world – is the persecution of anyone (Bishops, Priests, Religious, Laity) and anything that represented the pre-conciliar.
It was so bad that I know of one nun who committed suicide, priests being sent for ‘re-programming’. Some held on for years – hoping for the return of the liturgy. One priest pointed out all the items from a Tridentine Altar scattered through the Church – hidden in plain sight.
There were the ‘renovations’ that Trads call Wreckovations. When visiting the hundred year-old Church in a town, the pastor pointed out beautiful paintings by a renowned local artist. Then mentioned that the entire ceiling has been painted but for some reason it was white washed in the 1970s.
My assumption is that this was done in order to facilitate the great forgetfulness that fell on Catholics in that decade.
While the material Wreckovations were underway, the theological ones also began in earnest and it was this that prompted a few seminarians to seek out Archbishop Lefebvre. The key point was the Mass – and it was clear that if the Archbishop would say the New Mass even once – all would be forgiven.
So for Fr. Debow to imply that the persecution isn’t about the Mass he is either naive or misleading. In the beginning it was all about the Mass and because you can’t have the expression of Catholic belief in the Mass without the Teachings – the doctrinal persecution soon followed.
Thus was born what I call the “Mantra” (Tradicat: The Mantra).
The Mantra is the consistent demand that the SSPX et al accept the New Mass and the Second Vatican Council. In 2012, Bishop Fellay and the SSPX went as far as they could, some said it went too far, in writing a Doctrinal Declaration or preamble that was the core document for a canonical regularization of the SSPX (French La Porte Latine - Doctrinale Declaration of 2012). I compared it with Archbishop Lefebvres ‘s 1988 Protocol (Tradicat: Doctrinal Preamble April 15, 2012 vs Protocol 1988).
Recently, Bishop Fellay told me about the day he walked into the Vatican. He had heard reports that the Pope was satisfied with the preamble and he was there to sign the agreement. However, between the notification of the Pope’s approval and Bishop Fellay’s arrival someone had amended the document changing the underlying principles completely. The basis of the change was surrounding the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council beyond what was previously approved.
5 – Les affirmations du Concile Vatican II et du Magistère pontifical postérieur relatives à la relation entre l’Eglise catholique et les confessions chrétiennes non-catholiques, ainsi qu’au devoir social de religion et au droit à la liberté religieuse, dont la formulation est difficilement conciliable avec les affirmations doctrinales précédentes du Magistère, doivent être comprises à la lumière de la Tradition entière et ininterrompue, de manière cohérente avec les vérités précédemment enseignées par le Magistère de l’Eglise, sans accepter aucune interprétation de ces affirmations qui puisse porter à exposer la doctrine catholique en opposition ou en rupture avec la Tradition et avec ce Magistère. |
5 – The statements of the Second Vatican Council and of the
subsequent papal Magisterium regarding the relationship between
the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian denominations, as
well as regarding the social duty of religion and the right to
religious freedom—whose wording is difficult to reconcile with
the Magisterium’s previous doctrinal statements—must be
understood in the light of the entire and unbroken Tradition, in a
manner consistent with the truths previously taught by the
Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of
these statements that might lead to presenting Catholic doctrine
as being in opposition to or at odds with Tradition and with that
Magisterium. |
6 – C’est pourquoi il est légitime de promouvoir par une légitime discussion l’étude et l’explication théologique d’expressions et de formulations du Concile Vatican II et du Magistère qui a suivi, dans le cas où elles ne paraissent pas conciliables avec le Magistère antérieur de l’Eglise |
6 – For this reason, it is legitimate to promote, through legitimate discussion, the study and theological explanation of expressions and formulations of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium that followed, in cases where they do not appear to be reconcilable with the Church’s prior Magisterium |
Translation: DeepL.com (free version) |
The result is that the Mass and the Doctrine are two facets of the same stumbling block for Protestants (paraphrase of Bugnini) and the Church hierarchy. After the comparative flourishing under Summorum Pontificum, the “experiment of tradition” was too compelling it to continue and Pope Francis issued Traditiones Custodes. It is clear that the Tridentine Mass allowed by the FSSP at this time is, if Traditiones Custodes is brought to its expressed aim, a temporary situation.
The Mantra is fully in place requiring the unreserved acceptance of the Novus Ordo and the Second Vatican Council.
§ 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs;
Key points from Pope Francis’ letter accompanying Traditiones Custodes:
… But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”...
... Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements...
So the desires of Traditional Catholics are reduced by this document and its accompanying letter to religious sentimentalism. While the FSSP has a reprieve, I am confident that as time goes a future FSSP chapter will arrive at the same crisis as the FFI and the one that caused the FSSP seminaries to be re-examined.
Persecution of the FSSP vs SSPX
While the persecution of the SSPX had a short reprieve in the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI and for a time continued under Pope Francis, there are no guarantees as long as one doesn’t fully agree with the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo. Even those who ‘do’ agree with the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo – like the FSSP are not safe because – as noted in Traditiones Custodes everything is oriented for a gradual return to the Novus Ordo.
We can’t think in terms of a decade. The post-V2 era is past 50 years and could easily last another 50 for all we know. The question is, do the FSSP principles threaten those in power?
The SSPX stands firm on the principles of how it accepts the Novus Ordo and the Second Vatican Council. For this they continue to be rejected by Rome (La Porte Latine - Doctrinale Declaration of 2012). Ignored in general, excommunicated when possible
Regarding the Council, the FSSP has a stance similar to that contained in the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. That was rejected by Rome, so they are on unsteady ground. Even their acceptance of the liceity (goodness) and validity of the Novus Ordo is a double edge sword.
Logically, if the New Mass is ‘good’, then the reason for keeping the Tridentine Mass is reduced to sentimentalism. The Tridentine Mass changes the priest as well as the faithful. When there is too much growth, then the hierarchy will take action. I’ve seen it in the 1984 Indult era and again in the Summorum Pontificum era.
It is only a matter of time.
Conclusions
What is obvious is that while the SSPX situation isn’t primarily about the Mass, it isn’t about some ‘schismatic mentality’. Such an opinion does a disservice to both Fr. Debow and the SSPX. The situation is about Church Teaching and the Tridentine Mass that embodies it.
The SSPX neither believes that the Rome can’t transmit the faith, nor have taken it upon themselves to ‘save the Church’. They have been forced into this position because they would not compromise on the either on the Church Doctrine or on the Novus Ordo.
The penalties are an aspect of the persecution. The Pope could have easily given a mandate for the consecration, just like he could just abrogate Traditiones Custodes as Pope Francis abrogated Summorum Pontificum. In this case, believing the SSPX, Rome chose to ignore the SSPX and only took action when they announced the consecrations. They had two years to talk, to accompany as they like to say. They chose not to accompany them – the problem someone in Rome has with the SSPX is that they won’t go away and make a real schism. So they do their best to make a schism where there isn’t one while ignoring the heretics within the Church.
Finally, it isn’t a sin to attend the Mass at an SSPX chapel with Catholic Devotion. You have to want to separate yourself from the Church and the Pope in order to become a schismatic.
Without that schismatic act, there is no schism.
1 I use Tridentine Mass because that is how the 1962 liturgy was first described to me. You can substitute the Vetus Ordo or any other labels used to describe the Roman Liturgy in use prior to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969.
Comments
Post a Comment