The reckoning the SSPX requires

If the Vatican recognizes a crisis of faith, there may be a solution

As I explained here, I deeply regret that decision by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to proceed with episcopal ordinations without a papal mandate. Nevertheless I must say that in the exchange of messages between the Vatican and the traditionalist group following a February 12 meeting in Rome, the SSPX has the better of the argument.

In a February 18 letter to Cardinal Victor Fernandez, the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), SSPX leaders made several telling points:

• Father Davide Pagliarani, the SSPX superior general, had sought long sought a meeting with Pope Leo (and before him with Pope Francis), to no avail. The invitation to a meeting— not with the Pontiff, but with the unsympathetic DDF prefect— came only after the SSPX had announced its plans to proceed with the ordination of bishops. When that meeting took place, what Cardinal Fernandez offered— “dialogue”— was no more than what Father Pagliarani had originally requested in 2019. So while SSPX created the current crisis by announcing the ordination plans, the Vatican might have avoided it by re-starting quiet talks long ago.

• Cardinal Fernandez warned that if the unauthorized episcopal ordinations take place, the SSPX will be guilty of schism. But the Vatican has repeatedly allowed the ordination of Chinese bishops without a papal mandate, and even welcomed those bishops into full communion. As Father Pagliarani put it, “Frankly, I do not see how the Pope could fear a greater danger to souls coming from the Society than from the government in Beijing.” He might have added, too, that the German bishops are proceeding down their radical “Synodal Path” in spite of warnings from Rome, without being accused of breaking communion with the universal Church.

• For all the talk of “listening” that has been proclaimed as a mark of the “synodal” Church, the Vatican has shown little interest recently in listening to the complaints of the SSPX. (True, years of talks have produced no agreement. But the same is true of Vatican talks with Anglicans, with the Orthodox, and for that matter with China. Yet those talks continue.)

The heart of the disagreement, however, lies in the Vatican’s insistence that the SSPX accept the authority of Vatican II. On that point the SSPX leaders are adamant, telling Cardinal Fernandez: “We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.”

Ecclesial cancer

Would further talks be useless, then? Cardinal Gerhard Müller— though he thoroughly disapproves of the SSPX ordination plans— observes that faithful Catholics can have legitimate disagreements about at least the interpretation of Council teachings, especially if they are read as radical breaks from previous teachings. “The Council itself is based on the clear awareness that it stands in the line of all ecumenical councils,” he says, and the Church did not need “to undergo any kind of medical rejuvenation.”

Cardinal Müller also allows that faithful Catholics have the right to criticize papal policies; he mentions in particular Traditionis Custodes. And he argues that the German bishops’ “Synodal Path” is “about introducing heretical doctrines.” Thus, although he argues strongly against SSPX defiance of the Vatican, he also indicates that there is room for discussion about the authority of Council documents and the implementation of papal policies.

And that is precisely what the SSPX seeks: a reconsideration of the changes in the Church since Vatican II. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who is more sympathetic toward the SSPX, laments that “the problem has not yet been grasped with sufficient honesty and clarity.” That problem, he explains, is “a wound that has been smoldering for over sixty years. This wound can be figuratively described as ecclesial cancer— specifically, the ecclesial cancer of doctrinal and liturgical ambiguities.”

Since Vatican II there have been sharp disagreements within the Church about matters theological, pastoral, and liturgical. There is no sign that those disagreements are likely to go away; on the contrary they have become more heated in the past decade. By refusing the challenge posed by the SSPX (and, more diplomatically, by other more docile traditionalist groups), is the Vatican passing up an opportunity at last to recognize this crisis of faith?

In proposing a theological dialogue with the SSPX, Cardinal Fernandez said: “The aim of this dialogue is to highlight, in the topics under discussion, the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church…” The implication here is that some carefully worded formula might be discovered, which could allow SSPX leaders to assent without compromising their principles. But the search for a minimum adherence to the faith is at odds with the nature and spirit of Catholicism. The Anglican communion has papered over disagreements with lawyerly formulations. (And consider the decrepit state of the Anglican communion today!) The Catholic Church calls for wholehearted assent to, indeed love for, the truths of the faith.

Cardinal Fernandez compounds the difficulty by insisting, before any dialogue begins, that the teachings of Vatican II “cannot be modified.” That is a strange claim to make about a pastoral council, since by their very nature pastoral practices are subject to change. But the teachings of any council— indeed of any human authority— can be clarified, developed, and corrected. As Bishop Schneider observed: “What cannot be changed is only the Word of God.”

Continuity or radical change?

Now we arrive at the nub of the problem— which, when we understand it, may present the key to a solution. If we read the documents of Vatican II as the teachings of a pastoral council, which can be clarified, can those teachings be seen as conforming to the teachings of previous councils, with the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church? Pope Benedict XVI said that they could, and demanded that the Council be understood with a “hermeneutic of continuity.” The SSPX argues that they cannot. Here is the baseline of the dispute.

Set aside that disagreement for a moment, and ask a different question: Can the teachings of Vatican II be interpreted in a way that is not in continuity with previous councils and with the perennial tradition? That question is much easier to answer, and the answer is an emphatic Yes. For years the Catholic faith has been battered by a “hermeneutic of rupture.” The vast variety in theological positions, all now uneasily contained within the same hierarchical structure, is the primary reason for the crisis of faith that afflicts the Church today.

The SSPX leaders, in their response to Cardinal Fernandez, argue that recent Vatican policies have established a de facto interpretation of the Council’s mandates: an interpretation that is incompatible with Catholic tradition:

But this interpretation is already clearly given in the post-Conciliar period and in the successive documents of the Holy See. The Second Vatican Council is not a set of texts open to free interpretation: It has been received, developed, and applied for sixty years by successive popes, according to precise doctrinal and pastoral orientations.

If the SSPX is right, and the Church has veered away from perennial teachings, that course should be corrected. If (as I believe) the SSPX is mistaken, and the teachings of Vatican II can be reconciled with the perennial teachings, then a frank and open dialogue might lead to a new understanding— and, what is perhaps even more important, a determination on the part of the Vatican to correct the errors that have been spread for decades. That, in turn, will require the Vatican to acknowledge that the Church is living through a great crisis of faith: a crisis caused by confusion and uncertainty, and aggravated by the failure of Church leaders to teach clearly and to correct errors.

If in the end, as seems likely, no such dialogue takes place and the SSPX proceeds with the illicit ordinations, the Church will muddle through. But an opportunity will have been missed: a chance not only to bring back prodigal sons but also restore the full integrity of the unchanging Catholic faith.