Fidelity or Ingratitude? Re-examining the Case Against the SSPX

With the SSPX’s recent response to the Vatican and its decision to proceed with episcopal consecrations, criticism has intensified. Having previously addressed similar attacks by Christine Niles, I now turn to Father Raymond De Souza’s article in the National Catholic Register, “How Have the Popes Treated the SSPX?”

Full disclaimer: I do not represent the SSPX as its official spokesperson. My personal views on this matter are intended to be a common sense, practical breakdown of Father De Souza’s article.
Note: I also use the terms “SSPX” and “Society” interchangeably while referring to the Society of Saint Pius X.

Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Is it time to treat the self-styled “traditionalist” Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in a more traditional manner?

De Souza’s first statement (above), which is tacitly meant as a rhetorical question, is actually veiled rancour, one which is only to be expected from conservatives or moderates who swear allegiance to a form of controlled Modernism (they believe it is Catholicism) that itself has now evolved out of control.

By referring to the Society as “self-styled traditionalists,” the taunt assumes an evolving notion of “Living Tradition” largely emanating from the post-conciliar papacies. Yet even that dear-departed, now-obsolete, post-conciliar “tradition” was akin to theological jello in the face of the present synodal climate created by Pope Francis, rendering appeals to post-1965 “continuity” weak at best, and laughably rich at worst.

One needs to note that Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society, clarified that he had always held to what he was taught as Catholic doctrine in the French Seminary, a Tradition that was in line with the interpretation given by the teaching authority of the Church from century to century, having an Apostolic legacy up until before the commencement of the Second Vatican Council.1 In other words, Abp. Lefebvre’s position was not innovation but true continuity with pre-conciliar Catholic Tradition. If there is one thing that Abp. Lefebvre did not maintain “continuity” with, it was the Vatican II revolution after 1965, and any Catholic in good standing certainly should not blame him for that.

Guilt. Not Mercy.

My criticism of De Souza rests, not as much on what he says, but what he does not say. He uses grandiloquent language to glorify the post-conciliar Vatican, while holding the cards to his chest in not presenting the flip side of reality to his readers about the same regime.

De Souza portrays Rome’s congenial action in context with their attitude and action towards the Society, as “untraditional,” “unusual,” and marked by “patient indulgence” and “personal mercy,” inviting sympathy for successive post-conciliar popes, all while omitting the historical tensions underlying the 1988 negotiations.

What De Souza does not reveal is that during the negotiations with the Society, Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), while under the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, repeatedly (and one could argue, even deliberately) delayed or altered terms regarding episcopal consecrations, leading Lefebvre-already gravely ill-to rightly conclude that Rome intended to stall the consecrations until his imminent death (This is also narrated in the documentary titled, “Archbishop Lefebvre: A Documentary – Full Movie”). Contemporary documentation of the exchanges between Rome and the Society recount multiple such rejected requests by the Vatican.

In summary, the need for “indulgence” and “mercy,” apart from being “unusual” and “untraditional,” emanated from the tactical and diplomatic mind games—the equivalent of a “let’s-see-who-blinks-first” approach – that were played out before Lefebvre proceeded with the consecrations in 1988. It is perhaps this sense of guilt that later led Pope Benedict XVI to lift the excommunications of the Society’s bishops in 2009, rather than an extraordinary show of “mercy” and “compassion.”

Inertia by the SSPX?

While De Souza asks, “What has the SSPX done?” and answers it himself in the negative, the record shows continued dialogue since 2012, Cardinal Müller’s 2017 conditions (which Müller also reminds the Catholic world) for canonical recognition, ongoing communications under Fr. Pagliarani, and even a 2022 meeting with Pope Francis demonstrate sustained, albeit unsuccessful, engagement.

Hence, it is after several years of unsuccessful discussions with Rome that the Society have come to where they are today. This is something De Souza does not tell his readers, probably hoping to frame the Society as the villains of the post-conciliar story.

Lack of goodwill and “towering ingratitude” by the SSPX?

De Souza characterizes the Society’s stance as one of “towering ingratitude” toward Pope Benedict XVI and frames papal concessions as acts of generosity. The implication? Having received jurisdictional faculties and other allowances, the Society, in his view, ought to capitulate in their unreasonable demands.

But can gratitude override doctrinal conviction? From the Society’s perspective, fidelity to the Deposit of Faith and Apostolic Tradition supersedes & trumps diplomatic accommodation. To portray resistance as mere “ingratitude” or lacking “goodwill” reduces fundamental disagreements to an emotional internalization of the perceived disobedience by the Society.

What is thus implicit in De Souza’s communication is this: the Society needs to pledge unconditional loyalty to the Holy See by turning their backs to the fidelity due to the Deposit of Faith and Apostolic Tradition.

This is thus an exercise in guilt-tripping. Conservatives like De Souza are reaching new lows in their obvious bias toward the Society. Certainly, they are critical of the synodal popes when it comes to dime-a-dozen, hot-button issues. But their Catholic “schism-o-meter” shifts from amber to a deep red, with sirens blaring, when it comes to the Society.

How has the SSPX treated the Pope(s)?

One of the aspects that has personally impressed me after recently familiarizing myself with the history of the Society, is its continued respect for the Pope and his office. With the rise of Sedevacantism (although I am not a sedevacantist & do not hold to dogmatic Sedevacantism personally), the Society – stopping short of calling the Pope and his coterie heretics* – has not capitulated to the other extreme of either dogmatic or mild sedevacantism.

The Society has always maintained fidelity to the Papacy through the teachings of the First Vatican Council in the form of the Primacy of Peter, and Papal infallibility, which were further also based on Pope Boniface VIII’s papal Bull Unam Sanctam.

“[…] we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

However, the proclamation in Unam Sanctam above is not, and obviously cannot be, a carte blanche without delimiters.

St. Cajetan, in his commentary on the Summa Theologiae – and who would surely have been aware of the proclamation in Unam Sanctam – explains as follows:

If someone, for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the pope in suspicion and refuses his presence and even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism, nor any other whatsoever, provided that he be ready to accept the pope were he not held in suspicion. […]2

So what’s the problem?

The problem is in the lopsided treatment of papal primacy and infallibility that is held by many a conservative, one which does not take into account the fidelity to the Faith as a primary act.

The Society for their part, grounds its resistance in scriptural and theological precedent, citing Acts 5:29, Galatians 2:11, Leo XIII’s Diuturnum Illud (§ 15), and theologians such as Aquinas, Cajetan, Suarez, and Bellarmine3, who affirm that obedience does not extend to acts endangering the Faith, even if emanating from the Pope.

In other words, the basis for the Society’s disobedience (and disobedience is the only relevant charge against the Society) is that “if the Faith were endangered” […]” (citing Aquinas), “[…]he (The Pope) should not be obeyed […]” and it is therefore “[…] licit to resist him” (citing Suarez).

Rev Jaime Mercant Simó, A Spanish diocesan theologian recently summarized the position rather plainly, as follows (paraphrased and summarized by me):

1. The Society is not in schism; for a “perfect schism” to occur, there must be a clear intention to perform a schismatic act and to establish with the new bishops, a hierarchical jurisdiction parallel to the one existing in the Roman Catholic Church. In the case of the expected consecrations, neither of these two things will occur.
2. The Society can be “materially” in an act of disobedience, but they do not commit a mortal sin of disobedience since their intention is upright as they invoke the “state of necessity”, which justifies their “material disobedience”. There is no objective basis to doubt their conscience nor their upright intention, which is for the good of the soul.
3. The Society could incur an excommunication, although this will also be null and void, since on the supernatural level of the Mystical Body, the Society’s bishop(s) had never ceased to be in communion with the Church.

Similarly, Chris Jackson, critiquing the views of Cardinal Sarah in a separate but related article, had this to say that was noteworthy:

“The SSPX is not proposing a second Church, a second Christ, or a parallel sacramental economy independent of Catholicism. […] The SSPX case, is […] an extraordinary measure aimed at keeping Catholic life available when the official apparatus treats that life as a problem […].”

Conclusion

In closing, I echo the same request & advice which I offered Christine Niles in my last post; that is the counsel Gamaliel gives the Sanhedrin in Acts 5:38-39:

38 […] keep away from these men and let them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them – in that case you may even be found fighting against God!”

In reality, these acts of slander against the Society stem from an uncharitable emotional bias. Those who lend such criticism risk supporting error at the very least, and risk supporting heretics and apostates at worst (in line with Mark 9:40). In the current context, that such high ranking prelates as Müller, Sarah, Eleganti and Burke are unable to achieve clarity, is certainly no excuse. A priest, especially one crowned as “Canada’s finest Catholic commentator“, should really know better than that.

Ave Maria