From the site Una Vox Italy:
On 24 December 2023, the new issue of the Bulletin of the French Priory of Pointet, of the Society of Saint Pius Fraternity. [SSPX]
Currently the Fraternity has 3 bishops: Mons. Bernard Fellay, 65 years old, Mons. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, 78 years old, and Mons. Alfonso de Galarreta, 66 years old.
We report a summary of Don Delagneau’s communication.
The Superior General asked us to prepare the faithful for the consecration of new bishops, without specifying the date. In fact, our prelates are growing old and their ministry is expanding throughout the world.
It is a serious issue that can disturb certain faithful, especially young people who are not very interested in the crisis of the Church, but also new faithful who do not have sufficient information on the 1988 consecrations.
We must expect – on the part of the authorities – to be treated as excommunicated, as schismatics. All painful and worrying things for a Catholic. The media will know how to amplify these condemnations, as will the Fraternity of Saint Peter and company; for these it will be a good opportunity to justify their choice in the crisis of the Church. [That was unnecessary, to jab at the FSSP about something that hasn’t happened.]
We must therefore prepare ourselves for this new persecution, which can be beneficial as it will force us to delve deeper into the reasons for our battle. […]
It is clear that it is the Pope who has universal jurisdiction over all Christians, and it is therefore he who entrusts a part of the flock to each bishop, remaining responsible before God. And this is of divine right.
But the choice of bishops is of ecclesiastical right […]
And therefore the refusal of bishops to Tradition pertains to human law, while saving souls pertains to divine law. It follows that in the case of grave necessity for the souls of the entire world, one can and even must go against a human law to safeguard the divine law.
We invite all our readers to pray for future bishops and that the Priestly Society of Saint Pius will have the strength, as in 1988, to resist the conciliar Church that destroys everything in its path.
We associate in our prayers the pious and happy memory of Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, without whom nothing would have been possible.
Perhaps they should find someone who has a more mature filter to write for them.
NB: In my opinion, any “jabbing” that is being done between the SSPX, FSSP, and any other group simply has to stop. There is too much at stake right now to show anything other than fraternal charity and unity in the face of the juggernaut. All differences are really “small” these days. They have to be set aside for now.
Dear readers, I’m going to moderate comments rather severely. I don’t want whatever grievance or battle you may be involved with fought out here, in my “living room”.
Loading ...
As I commented on here a few months ago, our chapel’s priest gave us a heads up about this. Nonetheless, the tone was the polar opposite of how this statement is written. There are plenty of charitable voices in the Society…sounds like they need a new representative.
I am admittedly an impulsive person who often speaks and/or writes based off emotion, even when I’ve taken a couple minutes to think about it. In other words people like me are not the best choice of blogger.
This seems like almost an unnecessary need. With Francis firing traditional Bishops left and right you would think there may be a few laying around willing to take up the task.
If they go through with this, I wonder if the Pope will remove the faculties for confession that he granted them during the year of mercy…
I doubt it personally. But it’s a possibility.
(I realize the SSPX believe that they have faculties regardless of what the Pope says or does… but I personally wouldn’t approach an SSPX priest if Rome takes this action).
Disappointing they feel the need to fire a poisoned arrow at the FSSP; once again, do people forget that passage about a house divided against itself? How much of Protestantism developed because of groups who should really have been allied, making enemies of one-another?
Perhaps we ought to pause and instead judge these traditionalist movements on their fruits rather than their differences, maybe even try to “walk together” for once?
I don’t know what good will come from this. I recall discussion in the past about how an entire generation has now grown up in the SSPX, completely disconnected from Rome. If full corporate reunion did not happen yet, I fear it will never happen. The “us vs. them” mentality is very strong and hard to root out.
I am not knowledgeable on this topic, I’m just curious, has the Society attempted to get the approval of the Holy See recently? As crazy as the times are in The Church, I wonder if PF would capitalize on the opportunity to shake things up again by ambiguously approving. I attend an ICKSP apostolate and I personally haven’t heard any criticisms of the SSPX or FSSP in preaching or in casual conversation over the years.
Dan may have a point. It could have a positive double effect if the approached someone like +Strickland.
First of all, it would ensure their survival and provide a Confirmation resource.
Second, it could actually purify the attendees…allow me to explain.
The SSPX acknowledges the validity of the new ordination rite (when done properly). In Googling our former priest, his name was cited in, shall we say, RadTrad websites for not being conditionally ordained after leaving the NO for the SSPX. One website referred to him as “So-called Father”.
Well, “So-called Father” baptized my son, gave my Dad extreme unction and gave homilies that boosted my spiritual life. Frankly I feel no doubt as to the validity of his ordination.
Pretend Strickland began assisting the SSPX. Only the hardliners would take issue with the validity of his ordination and consecration. They would probably mozy on off to the Resistance. This in turn could create a positive impact between not only Rome and the SSPX, but also between laity of both Society and Diocesan Mass-goers.
Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but I think something like that could bear great fruits.
Incidentally, that same priest that the hardliners refer as “So-called Father” said in a sermon that he’s met 4 FSSP priests and he thinks they’re great guys. He has his differences of opinion but he shows respect. That’s what the SSPX should have their priests post, not pointless barbs.
I admit the SSPX has been and is comforting to think about. Let’s face it, knowing they are there as Rome goes off the rails is definitely a comfort. We’ve got a long way to go here, but I agree with you 100% on the write-up here, Fr. Z. It’s not major but not minor either. The stakes could not be higher, this is ultimately for souls, supposedly, and is not a time for public snark. That’s unbecoming and jangles my nerves a bit, to be honest. We need grownups, real Catholic ones, men with leadership and zeal. Catholics need shepherds, and may need them more in the near future. It may get very bumpy. God be with us all.
@redneck, I like your comment. I wouldn’t be good at it either.
We have great bishops who have been fired by the CEO of our corporation, but they too, are older. It would be wonderful if they had a home as well. Better men would be hard to find. I wonder if the SSPX is thinking like the man in the film Jaws who said, we’re gonna need a bigger boat. They see what’s likely coming.
“There is too much at stake right now to show anything other than fraternal charity and unity in the face of the juggernaut. All differences are really ‘small’ these days. They have to be set aside for now.”
Hear, hear, Father. Old battlefields between various kinds of subdivisions of Christians seem silly now in comparison with the one distinction that unites a faithful remnant of global Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and Evangelicals alike–the love of tradition, moral courage, truth, and beauty. In the face of the Unreason that now has a chokehold on every mainstream Christian body, we can see that the one thing we share is far deeper and more important than whatever might divide us.
The Pope of Christian Unity was helping set us on the road toward this realization decades ago with things like the Joint Declaration on Justification, Summorum Pontificum, and, finally, Anglicanorum coetibus.
As the last vestiges of institutional Christendom crumble around us and diminish into obscurity and irrelevance, we may enter into a new millennium of persecution. Even if we are deemed harmless and left relatively unmolested, at the very least traditional Christianity will become increasingly “niche” or “quaint,” perhaps like we view the Amish or Orthodox Judaism today. My hope is that it will also be a time when Christians of formerly different backgrounds will together come to a new understanding of what really matters and how–as in the Ordinariates–what is good and worthwhile in our various patrimonies can be retained even as we struggle toward a new era of Christian Unity, but an unprecedented Unity-in-Diversity.
Blessed Charles, King and Martyr, pray for us.
I am finally at the point where I basically have nothing of major substance to quibble about with the Society. In my “traddy” journey, I have gone from thinking they are schismatic and don’t want anything to do with them, to becoming less suspicious due to Francis’ actions, to now (a year or two ago) when I had a realization. That realization being: look at the state of the world and even more tellingly, the state of the Church today with Francis and all, and then look me in they eye and tell me the SSPX is part of the problem.
I get that they can grate on the nerves sometimes – and I still do believe myself, as a non-SSPXer, that those within can have dangerous tendencies in their views about those not attending their chapels – but if you tell me they are not on my side, the side of truth and the fight against modernism and our faithless world, you are simply crazy and/or have blinders on.
The 1988 consecrations have taken a long time for me to become comfortable with. However, it seems clear in the circumstances that existed in 1988 that there wasn’t really anything else to be done as Rome seemed to be playing games with the matter of a bishop for the SSPX.
If the SSPX were to consecrate more bishops now, I suspect that I would be a little uncomfortable for me if it was without Rome’s permission, but I wouldn’t change my positions really at all.
I agree that all traditional groups need to band together as much as possible and continue to work in their own way in the fight against modernism and for the restoration of tradition and Catholic culture. The SSPX has gone the “canonically irregular” route at great cost (their reputation, so much slander, so many outright lies against them, etc.) and after years of trying to regain regularity without any sort of compromise. And insofar as they guard against giving any sort of impression that they think SSPX is the “true Church” and against disregarding and being uncharitable toward one – lay or cleric – who still celebrates the Novus Ordo (as terrible as it is), their approach is one good, needed way of fighting today.
The FSSP has chosen to “reconcile” with Rome. Therefore, they are also a good, legitimate option and way of fighting today, because they are still a major part of restoring liturgical and (maybe not directly, but definitely by extension) cultural, Catholic traditions. One disadvantage of being regular is that they usually can’t afford to *publicly* make any specific criticisms of actual bishops, especially the pope, when these make major errors that are relevant enough to be resisted and preached against. The SSPX rightly points this out as a negative thing. However, they are wrong to refuse to see the FSSP on the same side as them.
I could continue slightly off topic (from SSPX) to say that I admit I have trouble understanding those priests and faithful who know and love the Latin Mass and the whole shebang of Catholic life, and know the origin and flaws of the Novus Ordo Mass yet still celebrate it. I would tend to say this is extremely dangerous because it legitimizes the purposeful, conscious break with and disrespect for tradition that is the Novus Ordo. That being said, I realize that even these people have their role to play, on our side, in fighting against the evil in the world and our church – for despite the NO’s flaws, people who attend it can still foster a life that is conducive/favorable toward learning to know and love the Church and the Catholic life more fully.
“…the refusal of bishops to Tradition…”
That certainly makes it sound as if the SSPX has made a request to Rome for the approval of episcopal consecrations and it’s been refused. So, they seem to be preparing for 1988 all over again.
I don’t know enough to understand the following statement from above. Can someone explain?
“ But the choice of bishops is of ecclesiastical right […]
And therefore the refusal of bishops to Tradition pertains to human law”
That jab at the FSSP is deplorable, unnecessary, and unhelpful. I have always understood that within the FSSP it is considered bad form to speak ill of the SSPX. At least my FSSP pastor will have none of it.
A major problem the SSPX is facing exponential growth, at least in some areas. Our chapel started de novo during Covid and has grown to over 300 members, 50% increase over just the past year. This despite 3 active diocesan TLM nearby (which were impacted by Traditionis Custodes). The congregation comes not only from diocesan trads but also Novus Ordo, Eastern rite and a surprising number of entirely new Catholic converts. I do think the whole “obedience” issue is being cast in a new light for many with the recent homosexual blessing uproar.
I guess my point is that the SSPX is seeing a large influx of new blood, much more than they have dealt with in the past, and are trying to maintain their identity and faithfulness to Abp. Lefebvre’s ideals. So despite involving retired diocesan bishops recently, they will want to draw from their own ranks.
I also take exception to a previous poster- while there may be some extremists among the SSPX, the vast majority do not see themselves as “separate “ from the Church, and of course pray for the Pope and local bishop at each Mass. I’ve actually experienced more radical types at indult TLMs than with the SSPX.
This piece seems to have been written by Abbé Alain Delagneau. The next thing Google showed me was a 2020 article in which he attacked Abp Viganò for failing to denounce Popes Benedict and John-Paul. It looks as though he does not wish for allies.
I have two unrelated comments. The first comes from my dissertation director, who is now deceased and was an atheist. Way back in 1979 or 80, while discussing the tendency of members of the Austrian school of economics to criticize free-market-oriented economists who held policy positions similar to the Austrians, he said, “They are like a religious group because they spend time criticizing those whose views are closest to their own.” Hence the jab at FSSP.
The second comes from listening to Catholic Answers when they had a discussion with a non-priest representative from the SSPX and a Norbertine Priest who had always seemed very supportive of Tradition. The representative from SSPX (who I think was an editor with their publishing house) stated that Pope John Paul II had actually approved the 1988 ordinations but whenever the said date of them drew near, the Pope would come up with a reason to postpone them. The Archbishop became frustrated with this and finally just went ahead with the ordinations. I wonder if this story is true and whether they want to get the Pope’s approval for additional ordinations. If he says yes, they benefit, and if he says no, they also benefit.
Be that as it may, the idea that JPII or his bureaucracy was trying to wait out the society until Archbishop Lefebrve died seems plausible.
I think the jab against FSSP shows exactly what happens when a society such a SSPX strays too far and begins to have the problems that Fr. Ripperger notes plagues traditionalists when they believe themselves to be an exclusive society and everything non-trad is considered bad with a ridiculous statement that the “conciliar Church destroys everything in its path” which will serve the current Vatican well in attacking traditionalists. Although I wonder if the attack on FSSP may have a positive effect, as with the current Vatican policy of placing traditionalists into a liturgical ghetto, the FSSP can show that the SSPX hates it because of its loyalty to the current hierarchy and therefore have a somewhat protective effect against further restrictions against FSSP and the other officially sanctioned traditional religious orders.
Context: Fr Phil Wolfe, the on-line golden tongue of the FSSP, just recently (11/19/23) had a long on-line discussion about how the Society is in schism. Vertascaritas.com. Coffee with Father 9: suspension of the teaching function of the Church. From min 16 and on.
I’ve never heard any Society priest at our chapel say a single word about the FSSP. But everyone knows the history.
I’ve been going to Mass with the SSPX for about 10 years now. I’ve been going nearly exclusively (primarily for geographical reasons) for the last 2 years. I’ve been to Mass with the FSSP and the ICKSP loads of times over the years as well (and continue to do so when they are an option)
I’ve never heard anything really negative from SSPX clergy or ICKSP clergy about anyone else. I only ever heard something negative from a single FSSP priest and he was in the SSPX up to 1988.
Yes, there will be some individuals who might express less than ideal views but I think they are rare and it really only exists in clergy who were around at the time of the split.
I agree with Fr Z and others than the dig at the FSSP was unnecessary. However, I believe that reflects an individual’s point of view, rather than the stance of the SSPX as a whole.
A lot of people in the traditional world have had their opinions formed years or decades ago, and some hard-line views can linger even though circumstances have changed significantly.
People who have been the with SSPX since the beginning are used to being called schismatics, simply for adhering to the Catholic faith, and so can be defensive, or dismissive of non-SSPX structures. They are only human, like us all.
But yes, it is ever clearer that traditionalists (of any type) should work together – or, at least not fight among themselves. Division among Catholics is the only real strength of the modernists.
The article is interesting and offers a tantalising hint at the securing of the SSPX ministry for the coming decades. I have heard this notion of new Bishops crop up a couple of times in the last year or so. The SSPX has long said that, while it would prefer not to do so without mandate, it would not hesitate to repeat the 1988 consecrations if it was considered necessary.
I think the Bergoglian pontificate has unequivocally proven the SSPX arguments right, regarding issues with Vatican II and the crisis in the Church. Under JP2 and Benedict, I could understand why people may have been sceptical about these arguments. But now, I struggle to see how any serious Catholic could not see that things are seriously amiss, especially while Bergoglio accelerates as he senses the end.
It would be preferable if consecrations could happen with a mandate, but if not, I understand canon law allows for unmandated consecrations in the case of emergency. This is what +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer did in 1988 and how very much clearer is the state of emergency today?
I always thought Francis was lenient towards the SSPX as a way of ‘balancing out’ the confusion and chaos he generates. Maybe this scenario could give rise to a mandate, who knows? That said, there is no functioning authority in the Church at present and canon law and the Church’s structures only seem to be employed to oppress faithful Catholics.
The SSPX have very many excellent young priests – ours is a young American, from Wisconsin. A convert to the faith, he is excellent – so some wisely chosen Bishops could secure the SSPX for decades to come. This is important, as the demand is huge. After the Episcopal hireling in our Archdiocese shut-down all but one of our Diocesan TLMs, the SSPX Chapel has boomed, to the extent an additional Sunday Mass has been necessary.
This is what +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer did in 1988 and how very much clearer is the state of emergency today?
In this specific sense, not at all clearer.
We’ve got to distinguish.
The SSPX is in danger of treating a few assumptions as principles, which are not. For simplicity’s sake, in the following some mock citations which are not actual citations, but which do accurately represent a certain mindset present among the SSPX flock (perhaps actually less in actual SSPX members).
1. “The Pope is bad. We’ve got to do something against him.”
No serious discussion about the former (at least objectively about his “poping”). But the second does not follow from the first. – SSPX adherents are even able to quote “qui tacet ubi loqui debuit ac potuit consentire videatur” into your face, and in fairness to them: quote it in full, without even apparently realizing that it contains the subclause “ubi debuit ac potuit” which condemns their overinterpretation.
2. “By right ‘Tradition’ ought to have bishops, again. Hence, we need to consecrate some.”
No. It can be argued that that would be the decent thing to do, but one thousand appropriatenesses do not make a right. – There is a right, of sorts, for dioceses to have their bishops (though even that can be temporarily suspended by the Holy See). Neither they nor the former Ecclesia Dei communities are dioceses. There is also a right for episcopal services, more on that later, but there is no right for any pia unio (their official status under 1917 even if we set their dissolution, which they disclaim, aside) to have her own bishops.
—
With that in mind, now onto the dear Gabriel Syme’s question whether the situation of emergency is not now much clearer than 1988.
For this, let’s assume by hypothesis that the 1988 consecrations were justified. (I am very far from conceding it.) They claimed they needed those because they feared to die from lack of bishops to ordain their priests and confirm their flock, with both bishops 83 and 84 respectively, and also they had a right to continue to exist and were needed for the good of the Church. Then apparently, the Holy See was ready to grant a bishop, but Archbishop Lefebvre got the invincible feeling that they played him dirty and would await his death; and so he went on to consecrate bishops.
(And four of them, rather than perhaps less; and some I guess at rather short notice. I’ve heard that only two of the original candidates were consecrated bishops, plus two others. So, let’s speculate: Under normal circumstances, the general-superior of the Society, Fr Schmidberger – Abp Lefebvre had already retired from that post – would have become bishop, but Abp Lefebvre desired that in this situation a presbyter at helm was needed to avoid any semblance of schism; the bishops should only serve as auxiliary bishops. The two of the originally proposed candidates have somehow a ring of “Tissier de Mallerais” (rather certainly) and perhaps De Galarretta to them. Thus, one of the two set on the new-bishops list at short notice would have been Bp Williamson. That should be a cautionary tale to prove that it is important to pick bishops carefully.)
But that situation is not the one we have now. We have, granted, no Pope St. John Paul II, no Cardinal Ratzinger at the CDF, and all. But the emergency they claimed then was not the general state of the Church. It was the danger for the survival of trad communities in general and the SSPX in particular. And there is no emergency here that I can see. Danger of inconvenience in near future maybe, but not at all any danger of asphyxiation.
The Ecclesia Dei communities, with all due respect to the sufferings of some communities, have so far proven unoutstompable after one and a half year of the highest authority theoretically trying to do so. – The SSPX is, not formally, but virtually recognized as institution within the Church, and has two bishops well below 70 years of age, one other bishop from the 1988 consecrations, and one retired diocesan bishop that went over to them if “going over” it is. – Plus, plenty of bishops can now be assumed to step in as consecrators and confirmators if a pressing need should arise. Bp Strickland has been mentioned; Abp. em. Haas, Cdl Ranjith, possibly (though it would be a heavy effort of will) Cdl Müller, and perhaps others.
So, the specific emergency that the SSPX claimed in 1988 (I do not grant that “let’s rather trust in God to sort it out” was not the preferable choice then, but that aside) does, in spite of everything, not exist now.
Through all this, a few things stand out prominently to me:
1. The Church always does something for a reason. There’s always a context for why a pope directs or rejects something. Even this same-sex blessing mess does so.
2. At best, pro-SSPX and pro-modern advocates in the Church tend to interpret various documents over the centuries as they see fit, not necessarily in context.
3. Every organization depends on clear direction to function. Lack of decision for long periods rarely result in sound operations.
Pope Francis would do us a great deal of help by making a clear declaration of SSPX status. If they’re not in communion, he needs to give reasons why. If they are, …he needs to give reasons why.
I get the distinct impression that one of SSPX key requirements will be having at least one bishop explicitly allowed consecrated by Rome. ..Given the status of other communities, I think this fairly unlikely. It would be quite unfortunate if the main matter preventing SSPX from being reconciled with Rome would be a tiff over perceived right to a bishop.
1) Dig at other trads is unnecessary and may even cause some people to leave their SSPX chapel. Hope he’s happy.
2) I always take the SSPX on a chapel-by-chapel basis; I can and do attend the one in western MI (and the priest there had hinted that the Society was asking Rome for another Bishop,) but I will never in a thousand years attend the Chicago one again. Priests make or break the experience, which shouldn’t be the case but is.
3) I’m in 100% agreement with the commenter who suggested that our recently-deposed Bishop of Tyler could be a good solution for the Society. Just like +Williamson being expelled took a horribly toxic element of the Society and its faithful with him, as the above commenter noted, +Strickland would likely chase out what toxicity still remains. How practical would it be to refuse to go to your chapel whenever a priest ordained by +Strickland was the celebrant? Or to refuse to get your kids Confirmed if he was going to be the officiating Bishop? Precisely the element of trads that Pope Francis cites as his reasoning for TC would likely go full-on sede and hang with the Resistance, SSPV, or CMRI/other Thucc-line. I’d hate to see them go, because yes their souls would be at stake, BUT it would remove a LOT of straw from the modernist straw man.
So, the specific emergency that the SSPX claimed in 1988 (I do not grant that “let’s rather trust in God to sort it out” was not the preferable choice then, but that aside) does, in spite of everything, not exist now.
Hi Imrahil,
As I understand it, the “state of necessity” (apologies I said ’emergency’ above) claimed to justify consecrations in 1988 referred not specifically to the SSPX, but to the whole Church.
They set out that a general (or public) state of necessity existed, because many Catholics worldwide were threatened in faith and morals – the spiritual goods necessary for salvation – by the spreading of modernist ideas and “new theology” (essentially the types of thought previously condemned by both Pius X and Pius XII).
Its a matter of historical record that there was chaos in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. I was not even born yet, but have heard about various incidents: the reaction to Humane Vitae, the Dutch Catechism etc.
I personally received no catechesis to speak of and I have experienced all of the illicit liturgical innovations such as altar girls, EMHC and communion in the hand.
Popes Paul VI and John Paul II both admitted that these claimed circumstances did in fact exist, the former in now famous quotes about the “auto-destruction of the Church” and the “smoke of Satan” entering the Church. JP2 said “heresies….have been spread” and that “the liturgy has been violated”.
Despite these clear concerns from the Popes, I think its fair to say no major progress was made whatsoever in these areas and – after 10 years of Francis – they have become measurably worse.
Liturgy has now been degraded to the point of honouring a being called “Pachamama”. We had a decade of ambiguity and doublespeak, instead of clear teaching. The Church now contradicts herself and blesses sin. Bishops Conferences of varying nations line up against one another. Faithful Bishops are sacked while Belgian and German schismatics are given free reign. Mass attendance and belief has collapsed, across the West in particular.
The Pontiff constantly attacks both the clergy and lay people, as well his brother Bishops: Destroying religious orders, forbidding ordinations, closing down Masses, forbidding sacraments and even removing shelter and sustenance to try to undermine a Cardinal.
I think that, objectively, the Church is in an absolutely mental state of affairs.
If people do not accept the premise that the circumstances mean Catholics are spiritually threatened, what kind of events would convince in this regard?
In my understanding Canon Law does not penalise a Bishop who consecrates without mandate, if he at least subjectively thought there was a state of necessity.
However, I believe we can objectively say there is a state of necessity, as we have now had decades of trends and concrete examples.
I came to the comments hoping to see a theological commentary on the way Father Delagneau invokes and applies the concept that “the choice of bishops is of ecclesiastical right.” Not seeing any, Let me kick off the discussion with a few preliminary thoughts. (My main reference here are the Denzinger entries from the pontificate of Pope Pius IX, where one finds several mentions of this topic since the 19th century was the time in which this type of question was receiving attention after the unusual action of Pope Pius VII redrawing the dioceses of France.)
–
We don’t have the full text of Father Delagneau’s reasoning reproduced online, because there is an ellipsis. (If someone could provide the missing portion of text, I would be grateful). All we can see is that somehow he got from the idea that since the manner of selecting bishops is an ecclesiastical right (that is, not divine right), it’s okay to go ahead with consecrating bishops for the SSPX. Perhaps Father Delagneau is trying to compare to situations in the Middle Ages where new bishops were often elected by the priests of their diocese and the Pope was informed later, and expected to give tacit acceptance. However, there is a problem with a comparison between this and the SSPX because, as Father Delagneau admits, it is up to the Pope (by divine right) to confide a part of the faithful to a bishop in the first place. In other words, the act of creating a diocese (or another type of grouping that should have a bishop by divine right) belongs to the Pope. Once created, the Pope can’t decide to leave a diocese without a bishop permanently. Were the Pope to act in this way, one could build an argument that other bishops could invoke a “case of necessity” to fill the vacancy according to some other pre-existing customary selection process. But this argument hinges around the observation that a diocese ought to have a bishop by divine right. There is no such equivalent observation to be made about the type of grouping that is the SSPX: it is not a diocese and doesn’t have the right to a bishop. Even if one were to admit (for the sake of argument) that the SSPX should have been granted the same status as the FSSP (a society of apostolic life of pontifical right), such a status doesn’t confer the right to a bishop. These societies of apostolic life are designed to cooperate with bishops from outside their ranks, as the FSSP does. In arguing that the topic in question is merely the selection process, Father Delagneau is implying that there is a structure demanding a bishop: almost as though the SSPX is claiming the rights of a Personal Prelature. (Which is ironic for two reasons, both because the SSPX more than once refused the offer of a Personal Prelature by Pope Benedict and by Pope Francis, and because that type of structure is more recent – modern, i.e. not a traditional concept – than the SSPX, having been outlined canonically only in the 1980s.)
–
The other part of Father Delagneau’s argument invokes “grave necessity for the souls of the entire world.” I would perhaps be more open to discussing the validity of this element of his argument if the SSPX was actually open to cooperation with Catholics who are not of the SSPX. Unfortunately, long practical experience with the SSPX and Father Delagneau’s own attitude earlier in his letter gives an indication about the extent to which cooperation with other traditionally-minded Catholics will be limited by the internal mindset of the SSPX. Safe to say that if bishops are consecrated by the SSPX, they will not be serving “souls of the entire world” but only souls inside the structure of the SSPX. And this is a structure what doesn’t have a divine right to a bishop.
–
This was a long way of saying that I don’t see a theologically accurate way for the SSPX to incorporate the argument “the choice of bishops is of ecclesiastical right” into a coherent argument for their proposed consecration of bishops for their own group.
[Leaving aside entirely whether you are right or wrong on this matter, that was an interesting comment.]
Dear Gabriel Syme,
I think it is rather obvious that the provisions canon laws has for states of necessity and emergency (call it what you will) or the exemption from punishment or latae sententiae punishment therein (which, in itself, does not confer a right by the way) do not mean that in the mind of the legislator, an individual of such and such a rank can diagnose that the state of the Church is bad (or very bad, or very very bad, or very very very bad) and this just gives them any exemption they want, or any exemption at least from merely-ecclesiastical law they want.
One other bishop, even if he is orthodox and some (or many, or very many, or very very many) of the existing ones aren’t, does not change the fact that they commit all those abuses you list (and all those not-ideal things you, while right about them not being ideal, incorrectly list among the abuses).
“Somebody just has got to strike back somehow” is not an acceptable necessity (or emergency, call it what you will).
And while it is no secret that I disagree about the 1988 consecrations (and especially about them putting two bishop-candidates onto the list at short notice, we see what resulted from that) – I think it is unfair to Abp Lefebvre and all the involved to suppose they had such motivations. Such motivations, that is, for the specific case of the episcopal consecrations. That was, of course, why they founded the SSPX when they could not find a seminary they considered acceptable, and kept it alive when the Pope had ordered it to dissolve – for a long time strictly denying any idea of unauthorized episcopal consecrations in very explicit terms. That they did them later was by the threefold reason: “we need bishops to survive to do our job; Rome has in principle agreed; Rome played us dirty though”.
I doesn’t take agreeing with them to see that they were really miles away from merely taking the statement alone “I think that, objectively, the Church is in an absolutely mental state of affairs. The circumstances mean Catholics are spiritually threatened”, and inferring from it a necessitarian right to consecrate bishops as a sort of counterbalance.
Reverend Fr Jackson,
thanks, both for your comment and in particular for the interesting observation that “ecclesiastical right” here means “that is to say not of divine right”.
One of the things that are pretty obvious once you are told them, but you don’t ever get the idea any sooner than that (I had thought it meant “we have a right to a bishop”). So, thank you.