Time to come home for SSPX

By Carl Green

ON June 30, 1988, Marcel Lefebvre, Emeritus Bishop of Tulle, consecrated as bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta. In so doing, Lefebvre and his co-consecrator, Bishop Antonio Castro de Meyer, and the four newly consecrated bishops, incurred ipso facto the grave penalty of excommunication. It was a day of shame for John Paul II and his predecessors whose liturgical policies had driven these men to so desperate an act.

Two days later, John Paul II promulgated his Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia Dei, which described as "rightful" the aspiration of faithful Catholics to worship according to the traditional liturgy. Perhaps this document relieved some of the guilt deeply felt, no doubt, during the preceding 48 hours.

Ecclesia Dei directed the bishops of the Western Church to provide a "wide and generous application" of the norms governing the use of the traditional liturgy that were promulgated in 1984.

This may end up being -- without his ever intending it -- the greatest achievement of the Holy Father's long and historic pontificate.

Some argue that the six bishops were not validly excommunicated. No doubt Lefebvre and Castro de Meyer have by now settled that matter directly with their Creator. We can, for present purposes, suspend judgment about the other four because their excommunications, if they exist, will be lifted in any reconciliation package. If they were never excommunicated, then there is no sentence to lift. What we do know for sure is without Marcel Lefebvre there would have been no Ecclesia Dei. In the dire years after 1969, he resisted the liturgical policies of Paul VI and clung to that which was rightly his – and ours – the immemorial liturgies of the Western Church.

But it is equally true that the Ecclesia Dei settlement has proved a durable compact. It has facilitated the permanent re-emergence of the traditional rites.

More importantly, it has lastingly re-entrenched the traditional liturgy in the structures of the Church. Such bodies as the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, and the Abbeys like Le Barroux, Fontgombault, Randol, Gap and Trior now have a firm juridical foothold. To this movement has been added considerable support from senior curialists like Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos and from bishops around the world like Bruskewitz, Lagrange, Timlin, Chaput, Pell, Krenn and hundreds more.

Gallic defiance

A posture of Gallic defiance was perhaps a logical response by Lefebvre in 1988. The events of the preceding two decades would have tried the patience of a saint, and Lefebrvre has some claim upon sanctity. But they make no sense today for the Priestly Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and its satellites given the fruits of Ecclesia Dei. It is time to come home, a fact acknowledged by Rome in the very act of holding negotiations.

Without formal and publicly manifest unity with Peter – the flesh-and-blood Peter not just the spurious "Rome of Tradition" – the SSPX risks slipping into Donatism. It is a real possibility after 13 years of separation. A schismatic mentality and many eccentricities must inevitably flow from it. In view of these dangers the SSPX needs Rome more than Rome needs it.

Donatist temptation

The consequences of separatism are already evident, particularly in the acts of jurisdiction that have occurred since 1988. For example, the Lefebvre bishops have consecrated another of their kind (in Campos, Brazil); they have established a marriage tribunal and purported to give annulments; they routinely offer the Sacrament of Penance without faculties; and they have established new, ‘shadow’ religious communities. The canonical justifications advanced in support of these actions are tenuous at best, though the desperate sense of emergency that animates them is very real among the SSPX.

These schismatic-seeming actions are all the more surprising when the Ecclesia Dei communities formally established within the Church are becoming larger and more entrenched by the month.

They are further than ever from being suppressed by the Holy See as the SSPX scaremongers routinely allege.

Rome must act decisively to secure the return of the Lefebvrists, using whatever juridical structure is convenient; for example, a personal prelature or a vicariate or prefecture apostolic or simply a religious congregation like the FSSP. The vehicle doesn’t really matter. What matters is that they are in the ring joining the fight, not forever condemned to be critics on the periphery.

However, any new structure should not become a corral or ghetto where lazy or vindictive bishops can toss all traditionalists. Respect must be shown for the existing traditionalist apostolates that have been faithful since 1988. Any vehicle for the return of the Lefebvrists must not become an omnibus solution to the wider traditionalist issue.

Coming clean

Moreover, John Paul II needs to do some fence mending a bit closer to home than Syria or Greece. Rome must finally stop stonewalling and grant the "universal indult". Rome must also publish the 1986 report of the ad hoc commission of cardinals that confirmed the validity of the traditional liturgy and recommended a universal indult for all those wishing to celebrate it. Ending the 15 year suppression of this important document would be a blow for truth and transparency amidst the obfuscations of Romanità.

It is true that Lefebvre’s concerns extended beyond the liturgical question. And rightly so. The Church’s position on the issues of religious liberty and ecumenism has been decidedly murky these past 40 years, in teaching and most definitely in practice. John Paul II owes it to us to clarify these areas with an exercise of the Petrine authority equal to the situation. He should assert the Church’s teaching in the clearest way possible, ensuring that what was said at the Second Vatican Council is restated through the prism and in the language of Tradition.

In this way, two of the vexing issues that exacerbate the Lefebvrist separation will be removed. This ought be done anyway, so why not heal some other wounds in the process. Dominus Iesus was a good start. But it was only a start.

The sacred cows of John Courtney Murray and Americanism are fat for the slaughter. And the Bishop of Rome must never again be swayed by the perhaps naïve and over-eager ecumenism that led to Assisi.

At the same time, the Lefebvrists should fight these issues within the Church along with the many other good Catholics who find the Church’s decline into doctrinal imprecision puzzling and indefensible. The quest for doctrinal clarity and purity is hardly restricted to the SSPX. They must accept this.

All that being said, the Lefebvrists are, generally speaking, terribly afflicted by the pathologies of the pre-Conciliar Church, the terrible trio of rigorism, clericalism and authoritarianism. (I won't re-trace these issues here but instead refer readers to the Oriens editorial of Autumn 2000.) At any rate, the Lefebvrists are unlikely to make happy partners in the Church but at least they will be there. Ut unum sint.

Recent troubles

Waggling monitory fingers at the SSPX is, however, a dangerous business.

The fact is the "terrible trio" is endemic in the Church. The recent troubles in the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter are a case in point, but their afflictions are by no means confined to the traditionalist sector. Look at many of the so-called "new movements" and their disinterment of old rigorist practices and outlooks.

And bear in mind that without the most "enduring duo" of the three, clericalism and authoritarianism, and their meek acceptance by the laity, today’s near universal heteropraxy in liturgy and pastoral action could never have been imposed. It leaves one in little doubt why a humane and humanistic traditionalist like John XXIII felt the need to call a Council. However, such attitudes are not amenable to a juridical solution.

Rather, the answer lies in a better understanding of the Church – of a more holistic and organic ecclesiology and an attack on the pathologies that entered the church with the devotio moderna, the Counter Reformation and the Enlightenment.

Finally, it must be said that the Lefebvrists have no monopoly on what it means to be a traditionalist. In fact, one would get a far better idea by spending a week at Le Barroux or Fontgombault. But they must return and Rome must ensure the red carpet is rolled out to make it happen. Then we can all turn our energies to what must really be the most pressing task – to renovate the face of traditionalism so that it looks less like a pathetic re-creation of the 1950s and more like the robust Church of the Ages.

Return to Oriens, Winter, 2001

Return to Oriens home page

The "terrible trio": rigorism, clericalism and authoritarianism.

Given these, there can be little doubt why a humane and humanistic traditionalist like John XXIII felt the need to call a Council