As a young Catholic journalist serving The Catholic Observer (Diocese of Springfield, Mass.), I reported on how Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre broke with the Church in 1988 by ordaining four new bishops for the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), including Bishop Richard Williamson, who was stationed in nearby Ridgefield, Connecticut, and whom I interviewed. Thirty-eight years later, the SSPX has gone into schism again with four more illicit episcopal ordinations.
The decision by the SSPX reminds me of something I wrote in 2004, when the Church had not yet lifted the excommunications. In the first version of my book on the biblical roots of the Mass—Worthy Is the Lamb (Ignatius Press)—I made an observation that might seem counterintuitive, given the apparent reverence with which SSPX priests offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass and with which their lay adherents assist them. However, given that the Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity (1 Cor. 10:15-17), and that Jesus established St. Peter and his papal successors as primatial leaders in maintaining the unity of his Catholic Church (Matt. 16:18-19; see John 17:20-23), and because the Society has embraced schism anew in disobeying Pope Leo XIV, I hope and pray that SSPX clerics think twice when they seek to offer Mass and administer the other sacraments.
Eucharistic Prayer I of the Mass, historically known as the Roman Canon, presumes a valid consecration when it provides,
In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God:
command that these gifts be borne
by the hands of your holy Angel
to your altar on high
in the sight of your divine majesty,
so that all of us, who through this participation at the altar
receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son,
may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.
(Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)
In other words, as I wrote in 2004,
one cannot presume that the Father will accept the sacrificial participation in his Son’s one offering of a particular priest and his congregation. In summary, the petition for the Father’s acceptance is no idle plea. The petition is not on behalf of Christ’s offering, which has already been accepted. The plea is for accepting our participation in that one offering, which cannot be taken for granted, similar to the way Old Covenant priests could not presume that their offerings would be automatically accepted by the Father (emphasis original).
In a related footnote I commented on “priests who have recently and formally gone into schism,” namely, then as grievously now, SSPX priests:
A Mass offered by such a schismatic priest, when done with full knowledge of the grave wrongdoing and with complete consent of the will, is a grave offense against unity (cf. CCC 1854-1861), for it is deliberately offered against the express directive of the pope (cf. Matt. 16:19), the earthly leader of Christ’s Church, and thus not in full communion with Christ and his Church (Worthy Is the Lamb, pp. 178-180).
Thus, to reaffirm, formal schism and all it gravely entails, should be rejected.
Infernal Chess Master: How the Devil Can Dupe Even the Most Pious Catholics
The overwhelming number of people who commit mortal sins are not excommunicated for their transgressions, and yet they are in grave need of repentance and absolution. In addition, it’s possible that one whom the Church excommunicates is not in mortal sin. But an excommunicant who thinks he is in a state of grace should think again, lest he also commit the grave sin of presumption (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 2092).
Further, as a friend once wisely said, the devil has something for everyone, ready to harness one’s strengths in such a way that he concludes he’s choosing to do good, when, in fact, he’s choosing moral evil. In that light, regarding members of the Society, Satan is more than happy to make major concessions to the truth, provided those who affirm those truths end up going into deliberate schism. Regrettably, SSPX leaders seem oblivious to their grave wrongdoing, deluding themselves into thinking that they are the true defenders of the Faith.
Instead, the SSPX argues that it upholds Apostolic Tradition (inclusive of papal primacy), except for decades—in actual practice—the Society has not been docile to the Christ-ordained primacy of several popes; and their latest schismatic ordinations have only gravely deepened the disconnect between what they profess and how they live the Faith. In fact, the Society has once again set up a parallel church.
A true emergency or “state of necessity” would entail a directive from the Holy See to commit actual sin, which would justify the Society’s disobedience. In marked contrast, the pope has simply asked SSPX members to remain obedient to the Successor of St. Peter—whose office Jesus has ordained and sustains—and so trust in our Lord’s words that “the gates of hell will not prevail” against his Church, even in the worst (real or perceived) circumstances (Matt. 16:18).
Consider also that, months before the ordinations, the superior general of the SSPX illustrated that a reconciliation with Rome was unlikely, when Fr. Davide Pagliarani called into question the fidelity and ministry of non-SSPX priests across the world:
It is sad to acknowledge, but it is a fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation. Missing, in particular, are both the integral preaching of Catholic truth and morality, and the worthy administration of the sacraments as the Church has always done. This deprivation is what constitutes the state of necessity. In this critical context, our bishops are growing older, and, as the apostolate continues to expand, they are no longer sufficient to meet the demands of the faithful worldwide (emphasis added).
In making such a statement, Fr. Pagliarani implies that Leo XIV—and the bishops and priests in full communion with him—should be seeking reconciliation with the SSPX, not vice versa. To be fair, Fr. Pagliarani is not calling into question the Church’s charism of indefectibility outside the SSPX and other parishes that celebrate only the Tradition Latin Mass (TLM). Nor is he necessarily falling into the heresy of Donatism (see CCC 1128). Still, he has deep contempt for the great majority of his brother priests outside the Society, basically saying that they are unwilling to communicate and defend the saving truths of the Faith, including in administering the sacraments to which Jesus has normatively bound salvation.
Are there priests, e.g., who will not convict—both in their homilies and in the confessional—their flock regarding sins against chastity, which tend to be the more popular mortal sins committed by the faithful? Yes, sadly, such priests exist. However, is that the type of priest Catholics normally encounter in their parish? No. As one who has closely observed the Church in America (and elsewhere) for more than forty years, I can happily say that Fr. Pagliarani is mistaken about ordinary parish priests in today’s Church, priests who preach the truth and, correspondingly, faithfully administer the sacrament of confession (and the other sacraments), whatever other problems their parishes may have. He seems to be basing his conviction on the worst of what he’s observed in certain Western countries.
In any event, Fr. Pagliarani and his SSPX confreres would do well to examine their own consciences.
The Second Vatican Council Remains a Sticking Point, Even though Archbishop Lefebvre Approved All Sixteen Conciliar Documents
Despite Pope Benedict XVI’s lifting of the excommunications in 2009, the Society continued to refuse to recognize that the documents of the Second Vatican Council could be read with a hermeneutic of continuity with Apostolic Tradition (see CCC 75-79), not a rupture therefrom; and that refusal has long prevented the Society from being restored to full communion with the Church. As the SSPX states on its website, “The fact remains that the actual texts of Vatican II contradict the perennial teaching of the Church on the questions of religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality.”
Ironically, SSPX founder Archbishop Lefebrvre, who participated in Vatican II, signed not only the Declaration on Religious Liberty, but all sixteen of the Council’s documents, including the Decree on Ecumenism, which teaches that “all should be fully incorporated [into the one Catholic Church] who belong in any way to the people of God” (no. 3), and also the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, which unequivocally affirms papal primacy in addressing episcopal collegiality—and thus teaches that “the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter, as its head” (no. 22; see nos. 21; 25).
Here we see that Archbishop Lefebvre personally affirmed that the documents of Vatican II are in conformity with the deposit of faith (CCC 84), and that his later denunciations really had to do with the misrepresentation and misapplication of the Council’s teachings by post-conciliar dissidents.
There is no doubt that other leaders in the Church—clerical and lay alike—are themselves in grave need of repentance and discipline, and yet the reality of their wrongdoing can neither justify nor excuse the SSPX’s own grave disobedience. Let us pray for all concerned, that we may all be receptive to the transforming grace of our merciful Lord Jesus Christ, in whom all things are possible (Matt. 19:26).