SSPX poised for formal schism?

[giuseppeTO]

Since the SSPX appear to have cast him out, I couldn’t say. I would presume that he heads up a splinter group who have separated themselves off from the SSPX for whatever reasons; I have no idea where he is (physically) and no idea if any of the SSPX priests have aligned themselves with him.

He was expelled and is living in England. There are a small group of former SSPX priests who have loosely aligned themselves with him - two priests from the U.S. and another half dozen from France and Canada. He has chosen not to organize a formal group so far and I would not speculate on what his future plans are. He believes that a regularization by Rome would result in an eventual suppression of the Society. Again, I will not go into what he thinks.

As for replacing him, I do not think that is necessary in the near term. He was the oldest of the four bishops at 73 years of age. Bishop Fellay is in his mid fifties and the other bishops are around the same age. Since a consecration (without papal mandate) would bring this all to a head once again and since there is not a pressing need at the moment, I expect that there will be no near term move to replace +Williamson.

It would be impossible to speculate as to whether the papacy succeeding Pope Francis would provide a more favorable situation to resolve the remaining points of disagreement. I expect that the Society has at least that much time before it would need to consider replacing a bishop. I do believe the regularization will eventually happen and that Rome will avoid labeling the Society with formal schism.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

What happened to the 4th bishop? (Can we discuss on this forum?)

Richard Williamson was expelled from the SSPX in 2012.

 

[otjm]

I think it all depends on whether Rome decides to push for a resolution or maintain the status quo. One of the components of schism is the belief that the Pope does not have the authority to govern the church, which is not the Society’s position. This is different from disobedience, as in the case of +Lefebvre, which does not, in itself, constitute formal schism. The Eastern Orthodox schismatics, on the contrary, deny the Pope’s primacy.

The individual points that Rome and the Society differ over that remain an obstacle to regularization are few but well known. It is anyone’s guess as to whether Rome will pressure the Society to accept these points under this Papacy. I don’t think that is on the Pope’s agenda, but of course I can’t know that for sure. I do not propose that it would be impossible for Rome to declare the Society in formal schism but I, personally think it is unlikely for several reasons.

Most certainly, if the Society decides to ordain another Bishop without a Papal mandate, then Rome will be forced to respond. I would suggest that even in that case, the response would more likely be a censure of the bishops and not a declaration of schism for the Society. Just my opinion.

Pope Benedict was right in the middle of the controversy as it swirled between the Archbishop and John Paul 2, and it is certainly understandable that he wanted to bring this break to an end, and was actively seeking reconciliation.

It is also clear that reconciliation meant that the positions the SSPX took (and take) on Vatican 2 were not only not going top fly, they were not even going to crawl.

Pope Francis has not had such direct and lengthy history with the SSPX, and so the impetus may not be there to push one way or the other in particular; however, he has shown a bit more resolve in stepping in quickly and firmly (the Australian issue) than either of his predecessors (not that I suggest that he should have acted otherwise; only as a reflection that JP2 by his own admission was not as strong an administrator as he could have been). And there is no doubt that Cardinal Muller, as head of the CDF, has more than one pot on the stove, if you will. This could go on another 10 or 20 years; at that point we are reaching the age range where it is more likely one or more of the SSPX bishops could experience significant health problems or die, and we are back to the scenario of ordinations.

Supposedly a time line was in place to spit or get off the pot; but that passed in part likely to Benedict stepping down. Unless there is a trigger, it could simply sit. I sincerely doubt that we will get a pope who would disavow part or all of Vatican 2; so either the SSPX change and accept Rome’s position, it sits in a technical limbo, or they do something to trigger Rome. Having seen the swiftness of Francis’ reaction on Australia, I would expect something to happen upon the trigger very, very rapidly. Which is another way of saying that wisdom indicates that one does not go up and poke a sleeping bear.

 

[ProVobis]

Supposedly a time line was in place to spit or get off the pot; but that passed in part likely to Benedict stepping down. Unless there is a trigger, it could simply sit. I sincerely doubt that we will get a pope who would disavow part or all of Vatican 2; so either the SSPX change and accept Rome’s position, it sits in a technical limbo, or they do something to trigger Rome. Having seen the swiftness of Francis’ reaction on Australia, I would expect something to happen upon the trigger very, very rapidly. Which is another way of saying that wisdom indicates that one does not go up and poke a sleeping bear.

OTOH, we have a Pope and going forward probably we will have Popes who were not present at Vatican II, meaning that they will only have the documents to go on. Or the Pope may present his own opinions or state his own observations. So it might be in a different atmosphere any further negotiations would take place. Just saying.

 

[otjm]

OTOH, we have a Pope and going forward probably we will have Popes who were not present at Vatican II, meaning that they will only have the documents to go on. Or the Pope may present his own opinions or state his own observations. So it might be in a different atmosphere any further negotiations would take place. Just saying.

Don’t hold your breath, unless you look particularly good in blue. We already have one, and you can bet the farm he is not going there. To anyone who thinks that a pope is going to come along and refute the documents of Vatican 2, or say that they are not in continuity with prior doctrinal statements, I have some very nice inexpensive ocean front property for sale in Arizona.

 

[pnewton]

Most certainly, if the Society decides to ordain another Bishop without a Papal mandate, then Rome will be forced to respond. I would suggest that even in that case, the response would more likely be a censure of the bishops and not a declaration of schism for the Society. Just my opinion.

My speculative opinion is in line with your opined speculation. I think you have presented a good summary of the situation.

 

[ProVobis]

To anyone who thinks that a pope is going to come along and refute the documents of Vatican 2, or say that they are not in continuity with prior doctrinal statements, I have …

No one’s going to refute the documents of Vatican 2, just like no one has refuted the documents of Trent, although I hear retranslations and interpretations are very becoming these days. Just observing.

 

[AllSeasons]

Well, they still say this on their website:

The SSPX, as part of the Catholic Church, embraces an organized hierarchy.

Vatican

The Society of St. Pius X humbly submits to the authority of the pope, supreme guardian of the faith, and pays him all the reverence due to the chosen head of God’s Church.

So, I suppose it appears that they aren’t aiming for formal schism, but maybe the website just hasn’t been updated yet. That said, they also say this:

If and when the time-honored teachings of the Church are obscured or perhaps even seemingly contradicted by the authorities in Rome, however, the SSPX stands firm for tradition.

The founder of the SSPX, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, added,

“The day when God will allow light to replace the darkness that now reigns over Rome will be the day that Tradition will return. There will no longer be any problems. The bishops of the SSPX will entrust their episcopal charges into the pope’s hands and say: ‘now we will live like simple priests, and, if you wish it, use us’.”

Source: sspx.org/en/about/organization

 

[giuseppeTO]

I sincerely doubt that we will get a pope who would disavow part or all of Vatican 2;

I think that the point of the discussions from last year were not to disavow the Council, but to agree on some basis (traditional, for lack of a better word), that some of the problematic points could be understood. At least the last pope admitted there was room, if not a course of correction of understanding, that was needed or at least possible.

Which is another way of saying that wisdom indicates that one does not go up and poke a sleeping bear.

Absolutely … Without a doubt…

 

[Brendan_64]

At least the last pope admitted there was room, if not a course of correction of understanding, that was needed or at least possible.

And our current Pope has said nothing to the contrary. He just has other priorities that he views as more pressing, such as a greater push for evangelisation of people outside of the Church. At least the SSPX (disobedient though they might be) are still within the Church.

 

[otjm]

No one’s going to refute the documents of Vatican 2, just like no one has refuted the documents of Trent, although I hear retranslations and interpretations are very becoming these days. Just observing.

I seriously doubt that a re-translation is going to address the problems the SSPX have with it.

Just saying…

 

[otjm]

I think that the point of the discussions from last year were not to disavow the Council, but to agree on some basis (traditional, for lack of a better word), that some of the problematic points could be understood. At least the last pope admitted there was room, if not a course of correction of understanding, that was needed or at least possible.

Absolutely … Without a doubt…

I have not read the letter which the dicastery sent (and which, according to what was reported, was personally approved by Pope Benedict). The start of this thread is a reported statement that the SSPX are not going to accept Rome’s terms. Looking back with far too little information (that is, not having had the opportunity to be a fly on the wall), it would be my impression, that for everything that Benedict has said, they still reject. We have had what - something like 40 years for “some basis (traditional for lack of a better word), that some of the problematic points could be understood” and I would agree that Benedict said as much; the net result has been zero movement on the part of the SSPX, for all appearances. Perhaps they are right now sitting down with the dicastery to make such discussion, but that certainly is not the impression they give. They seem to take the position that some of the documents cannot be reconciled with the past.

 

[giuseppeTO]

They seem to take the position that some of the documents cannot be reconciled with the past.

Archbishop Lefebvre, who drafted the original schema for and was one of the Council fathers, signed all but 2 of the documents, which he apparently, even in 1965, had a problem with before there was any general understanding of them, one way or another.

Yet in 1988, he was willing to sign a protocol that identified a framework by which to proceed forward with a recognition of the Society and a discussion of these difficulties. That sentiment still exists within the Society.

 

[Brendan_64]

Archbishop Lefebvre, who drafted the original schema for and was one of the Council fathers, signed all but 2 of the documents

Archbishop Lefebvre signed all Vatican II documents. He voted against Dignitatis humanae and Gaudium et spes, but he signed all Vatican II documents.

 

[ProVobis]

I seriously doubt that a re-translation is going to address the problems the SSPX have with it.

Maybe but they’ve corrected “for all” theology that came out of the 60’s and it was indeed pressure from the traditionalists, not necessarily the SSPX, that caused them to take a second look at some of those translations.

 

[Brendan_64]

Archbishop Lefbvre’s signature to a list of Vatican II documents including Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes.



He certainly spoke out against Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes at Vatican II, but he did sign.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Archbishop Lefebvre signed all Vatican II documents. He voted against Dignitatis humanae and Gaudium et spes, but he signed all Vatican II documents.

Brendan,

What is your source? Here is the interview with the Angelus and +Lefebvre from June 6, 1982 (Vol V, No. 6)

You have debated and taken part in the deliberations of the second council of the Vatican, have you not?
Yes.

Did you not sign and agree to the resolutions of this council?
No. First of all, I have not signed all the documents of Vatican II because of the last two acts. The first, concerned
with “Religion and Freedom,” I have not signed. The other one, that of “The Church in the Modern World”, I also
have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism.

Are you on record for not only not signing the documents but also on record to publicly oppose them?
Yes. In a book, which I have published in France, I accuse the council of error on these resolutions, and I have
given all the documents by which I attack the position of the council - principally, the two resolutions concerning
the issues of religion and freedom and "The Church in the Modern World.”

 

[giuseppeTO]

As a correction to Post #313 above, the interview with +Lefebvre was from a 1978 interview with an American Catholic publication and published in The Spotlight, a weekly newspaper in Washington, D.C., in its issue of July 18, 1988.

 

[Lormar]

Brendan,

What is your source? Here is the interview with the Angelus and +Lefebvre from June 6, 1982 (Vol V, No. 6)

You have debated and taken part in the deliberations of the second council of the Vatican, have you not?
Yes.

Did you not sign and agree to the resolutions of this council?
No. First of all, I have not signed all the documents of Vatican II because of the last two acts. The first, concerned
with “Religion and Freedom,” I have not signed. The other one, that of “The Church in the Modern World”, I also
have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism.

Are you on record for not only not signing the documents but also on record to publicly oppose them?
Yes. In a book, which I have published in France, I accuse the council of error on these resolutions, and I have
given all the documents by which I attack the position of the council - principally, the two resolutions concerning
the issues of religion and freedom and "The Church in the Modern World.”

Read Bishop Tissier’s bio of the Archbishop. You will find that he did, in fact, sign all documents.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Read Bishop Tissier’s bio of the Archbishop. You will find that he did, in fact, sign all documents.

I have read it. Are you suggesting he lied to Pope Paul VI in his meeting with him (see page 492)?

PPVI:“Why do you not accept the Council? You signed the decrees”
Lef:“There were two that I did not sign. Yes, two, religious liberty and Gaudium et Spes. (I signed the others out of respect for the Holy Father)”
PPVI: “And why not religious liberty?”
Lef: “It contains passages that are word for word contrary to what was taught by Gregory XVI and Pius IX”