Pure as angels. Arrogant as Lucifer. Obstinate as demons. Such was the judgment of the then Archbishop of Paris concerning a seventeenth-century convent apparently influenced by Jansenism.
Whether his judgment was accurate, I cannot say. This quotation came to mind thinking about the schism caused by the Society of Saint Pius X (Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii Decimi, or simply “FSSPX”) on the 1st of July. Not that all followers of the FSSPX, or all members of the FSSPX itself, are arrogant or obstinate. On the contrary, I believe that many are people of good will and want only what is best for the Church. And many of them are scandalized, disappointed, and frustrated.
The State of Necessity
It is 1988. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the FSSPX, consecrates four priests of the community as bishops. Without papal permission. Through this act, Lefebvre, as well as the bishops he consecrated, were excommunicated. The FSSPX maintains that this was indispensable in view of the state of necessity in the Church.
Shortly before this, I had celebrated my seventeenth birthday at my home in western Canada. The ten-meter-high relief in our parish church depicted a naked image of the Virgin Mary. Our parish faithfully financed the Sandinistas—the communist rebels who had come to power at the time—in Nicaragua. During a parish mission, a parishoner’s question as to how a parish priest could possibly deny that Jesus Christ is God prompted the priest’s curt response: “Oh, that is only a dogma of the Church.” Honey-leavened loaves were baked for the celebration of Mass, rendering it invalid. But where was the problem, when in other parishes the Eucharist was being celebrated with hot dogs and Coca-Cola? At least our parish priest took the female altar servers on trips to Las Vegas. Shortly afterward, he got married. Oh, have I already mentioned the rock ’n’ roll Masses? Every Sunday, we drove for as long as two hours in one direction to find a Mass and a priest whom we could follow in good conscience – Canadian distances are simply a little greater 🙂 – only to drive in the opposite direction the following week.
Even though signs of hope repeatedly appeared amid all this madness, the Masses of the FSSPX were a relief for anyone who valued his sanity. The expectations of those attending were not high. A valid Mass would be a good start. At least with the FSSPX one did not feel an irresistible urge to run out during the homily or to stand outside the door to smoke a cigarette. The Masses were even celebrated beautifully and with dignity. I understood why my parents eventually ended up with the Society. Mom and Dad had founded and run two centers for women in crisis situations. It seemed that these efforts – as well as the attempt to prevent legislation in our Canadian homeland that would have permitted abortion up to the ninth month – were being torpedoed by the bishops themselves. And this in the name of the Second Vatican Council’s declaration Dignitatis Humanae, on religious freedom. That was the last straw. From then on, they regularly attended the FSSPX. But not because they hated the Church or were arrogant fanatics. Rather, because they loved the Church.
Theology with the FSSPX
Somewhat later, I reached the same point myself. I attended the FSSPX seminary in the United States for three years. I was fascinated by the way they argued and by how their narratives seemed to make sense.
The course of study should really have been the first warning sign. Their theology ended in the 1950s. All the textbooks we studied had been written before the Second Vatican Council. They were not bad books. Just old. It was only through my study of fundamental theology there that I began to question whether what we were practicing and saying could still be described as Catholic. And yet…
I believe that many people came to the FSSPX back then for reasons similar to mine. Depending on where one lives in the world today, some people may still find their way to them for similar reasons. Objectively speaking, however, this certainly does not apply to places such as Vienna today. Whereas in Canada one had to drive at least one hundred kilometers to escape a local parish Mass and find another one, today in Vienna I have around one hundred Sunday Masses within a half-hour’s walk of my desk. Perhaps not all of them are celebrated perfectly, and one might wish for greater devotion on the part of some priests and fewer superficial homilies. But “Coca-Cola Masses” are hard to come by – let alone speak of a canonical state of necessity (an extreme situation that objectively presupposes a danger to body and soul, as well as the physical impossibility of finding a priest in good standing, and in which laws may be suspended in order to administer the sacraments).
I suspect that in our city, most people — especially young people — end up with the FSSPX because they are attracted by the beautiful liturgy. They attend Mass there, then they attend Mass at the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (the part of the FSSPX that, after the 1988 consecration, adhered to the conditions offered by the Pope at the time and that, among other things, continues to celebrate the “Old Mass” within the Church) and finally they might go to the evening Mass at our local cathedral. Many of them are unaware of the underlying issues. They just want to participate in a Mass that draws them in, where they experience the sacred, where they feel at home, where they will hopefully hear a good sermon, meet like-minded people, and perhaps also be able to go to confession. But this is not the sole reason for everyone. To some extent, the metanarrative of the FSSPX continues to exert an attraction. It is a narrative that says:
- The state of necessity truly exists — not only in 1988, but still today, in the year 2026. And
- This state of necessity justifies the entire undertaking of the FSSPX, including episcopal consecrations without papal permission.
And it is precisely in this metanarrative that the error lies — or perhaps one should say, the heart of the problem. Perhaps not in the individual followers, but certainly in the system of thought.
Protestantization
Canon law is unambiguous: There are only five offenses that automatically incur excommunication and whose remission under Canon Law is reserved exclusively to the Pope. This remission can be granted only by the Pope himself and not, as with certain other offenses, simply by a bishop. The consecration of bishops without papal permission is one of these offenses. This is of great importance for the unity of the Church because, in practice, such a consecration signifies the rejection of papal primacy and thus the (self-)exclusion from what it means to be Catholic. The resulting schism has serious consequences for the faithful.
Attempts are made by the FSSPX to argue on the basis of canon law why it should not be applied in this case. In a canonical proceeding, an offense that occurred at the diocesan level could be referred to Rome. But no further appeal to a higher authority is possible in the Catholic Church. And this is what is absurd about the case of the FSSPX: Because they cannot appeal any further up the ladder, they fall back on their own private interpretation of canon law in order to justify their conduct—and still have the gall to cite the Protestantization of the Church as the justification for their behavior.
The problem, however, goes deeper. I believe it was right for the Vatican to speak so clearly this time. The automatic excommunication affects the two consecrating bishops as well as the four priests who were consecrated as bishops. In addition, the clerics who belong to the Society are in schism, are therefore regarded as schismatics, and are consequently subject to the excommunication provided for in Canon Law. All lay faithful who are formally associated to the Society are likewise regarded as schismatics and as excommunicated. Marriages witnessed by priests of the FSSPX as of July 1st, as well as confessions heard by them, are not only unlawful but also invalid.
Since this elusive case constantly seeks to evade one’s grasp, I would like to introduce one further perspective. We are not merely dealing here in Church discipline. The problem goes deeper. It is also a matter of dogma. And not at the margins, but at the very heart of the faith.
The Dogmatic Problem
One of the fundamental pillars of the Catholic Church is that she is catholic. That means all-encompassing. This term, however, is not to be understood only in a spatial sense. Her vocation is catholic, universal: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19). Catholicity encompasses not only space, but also time. “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the world” (Mt 28:20). The mystery dwelling within her is not only eternal, but also temporal. The Risen One does not act in the Church only until a certain point at which she is supposed to have lost her way. He acts at all times and in every age.
If you want to go back in time to the point at which the Church was perfect, draw a line there, and regard everything that came afterward as having fallen away, then you have once again ended up with Luther, perhaps with Calvin or Zwingli. If you draw a boundary on the timeline and say that from that moment onward the Church was no longer catholic, you yourself cease to be Catholic.
This is where the problem lies. In the 1980s, when the FSSPX was not radical enough for some within its own ranks, several of them founded the Society of Saint Pius V. Why? Because they drew the line on the timeline with Pius XII, whereas the FSSPX drew it at the Missal of John XXIII. The Society of Saint Pius V could not accept the latter because the name of Saint Joseph had been added to the Canon of the Mass—the Eucharistic Prayer. This was for them the beginning of the end. They also had difficulties with questions concerning declarations of nullity of marriages, recognized no pope after Pius XII as legitimate, and thus became sedevacantists – those who claim that the Chair of Peter is vacant. Around half of them later split off once again and founded the group “Catholic Restoration.” Some priests established independent Mass centers, and a few were ordained by an excommunicated bishop from Vietnam. The denial of the temporal dimension of Catholicity inevitably leads to the same fragmentation, the same fundamental error and the same problem, regardless of whether it has a Protestant or a traditionalist nomenclature.
Indefectibility
The dogma of the “indefectibility of the Church” refers to the divine promise that the Church will be preserved in the truth of her divine Master until the end of the world and will not change in her essential nature: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). The FSSPX, however, denies this dogma both in practice and in theory.
In his interview of February 2, Don Davide Pagliarini, the Superior General of the FSSPX, claimed: “In an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the necessary means to secure their eternal salvation. This is what constitutes the state of necessity.” This statement is not only absurd and blatantly false, but also incompatible with Catholic teaching. It is blatantly false because it does not merely point to abusive situations similar to those I mentioned at the beginning of this article. Rather, it proceeds from the premise that, fundamentally and as a matter of principle, the celebration of Mass in its new form since the liturgical reform of 1969 no longer communicates these necessary means of salvation. The entire sacramental order in its present form is thereby shrouded in a cloud of suspicion. Moreover, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law in force since 1983 are presented as problematic.
The Church rests upon certain foundations. The Lord’s words, “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18), have a practical effect upon the Church. There are areas that belong to her essential nature, and if she were to fail in these areas, then the gates of the netherworld would have prevailed against her. What are these areas and foundations of the Church? I would like to consider the following aspects here: the sacramental order, the doctrine of the faith, and apostolicity.
The Sacramental Order and Apostolicity
First, there is the sacramental order. If the sacraments had changed over the course of history in such a way that, from a certain point onward, they were no longer valid, no longer led people toward the Lord or united them with him, but instead led them away from him—then the gates of the netherworld would have prevailed against the Church. In that case, the previously mentioned principle of Catholicity would no longer apply.
Priestly ordination is conferred once. Only once. To repeat it would, according to the Catholic understanding, be a grave sin. I personally knew priests who were ordained again by the FSSPX. One case was particularly shocking to me.
I met this priest personally. On the part of the FSSPX, there were serious doubts regarding the validity of his priestly ordination. Why? Because the bishop who ordained him was said to be a “Modernist.” (By “Modernism,” one does not mean “modernity,” but rather a doctrine condemned by Saint Pius X at the beginning of the twentieth century in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis). It was questioned whether the ordaining bishop’s understanding of the sacraments was in harmony with Catholic teaching. The name of the ordaining bishop? Saint Pope John Paul II. Oof. That is hair-raising. Not only because it is nonsensical to attach the label “Modernist” to John Paul II — as is evident, for example, in his encyclical Fides et Ratio — but also because this would have enormous consequences that could in no way be reconciled with the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.
Pope John Paul II ordained not only priests, but also numerous bishops (321 in total). Not a few of them became cardinals who later elected a pope. Therefore, if his priestly and episcopal ordinations had not been valid, it would be questionable whether one could still speak of genuine Apostolic Succession in large parts of the Church. This concerns the principle of Apostolicity: The Church maintains that every bishop can be traced back to an apostle through an uninterrupted chain of episcopal consecrations. It would also then be doubtful whether the present Pope is legitimate and whether it would be possible at all to elect a legitimate pope. All the confessions, Masses, and further ordinations of priests and bishops celebrated by these persons would consequently be invalid—which means that they would not have taken place at all.
But the argument goes even further. According to the books of fundamental theology that the FSSPX itself uses in its seminaries, canonization belongs to the infallible acts of a pope. Why? Because otherwise the faithful might be instructed to pray to someone who is not to be found in the kingdom of heaven, but in the kingdom of hell. The FSSPX would now have to maintain, on the one hand, that the canonization of John Paul II was an infallible act of the Church and, on the other hand, question whether he celebrated valid sacraments at all. As a Mexican proverb puts it: “You cannot whistle and eat pinole (roasted corn) at the same time.”
Let us return to the sacraments.
Let us take Confirmation as another example. During my years in the FSSPX seminary, I was confirmed again by one of their bishops because it could not be established with certainty whether olive oil or some other oil had been used at my “first” Confirmation. The new rite does prefer olive oil, but another oil may also be used. The FSSPX entertains doubts as to whether the use of “non-olive oil” affects the validity of the sacrament.
One essential point is the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the celebration of Mass. I remember a woman asking Bishop Bernard Fellay—one of the recently excommunicated bishops—a question. I was sitting directly beside her. The question was whether one could attend the “Novus Ordo Mass” (the Catholic liturgy as it has been celebrated since the liturgical reform of 1969, that is, after the Second Vatican Council, and which is customary throughout most of the Western world, including here in Vienna) especially when no “Old Mass” was offered locally (The “Old Mass,” or “Tridentine Mass,” was introduced in 1570 as a direct implementation of the decisions of the Council of Trent in order to standardize the liturgy in the Latin rite, the rite familiar to most Catholics in the Western world. The Eastern Churches were not affected by this reform). Bishop Fellay replied that the new Mass was valid, but dangerous to the faith or conducive to its erosion, and he advised against attending it. This corresponds exactly to the official position of the FSSPX.
In the interview already mentioned, almost forty years later, Don Davide Pagliarini claims the same thing that Bishop Fellay said at the time: “But let no one be mistaken: The only liturgy that expresses the traditional understanding of the Church, Christian life, and the Catholic priesthood in an adequate, immutable, and non-evolutionary manner is the liturgy of all time”— by which he means the Tridentine or “Old” Mass. He speaks of an “intrinsic incapacity” of the “Novus Ordo” to “edify souls.” And then, in truly drastic terms: “How, then, can one still understand that the Mass of all time is irreconcilably opposed to the new Mass, that it remains the one true liturgy of the whole Church, and that no one may be prevented from celebrating it? How can one recognize that the Mass of Paul V I— the Novus Ordo after 1969 — cannot be accepted because it represents a considerable departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass, and that no one can be compelled to celebrate it? And how are souls to be effectively led away from this poisoned liturgy in order to draw from the pure sources of the Catholic liturgy?”— my emphasis.
These statements are breathtaking and extremely problematic, to put it mildly. And once again: not only because they foster schismatic tendencies (no communion with the universal Church and isolation) but also because they cannot be reconciled with the teaching of the Church. Or, to put it differently: This is not only about schism, but also about heresy. If the sacraments are no longer valid, or are valid but “dangerous,” then the gates of the netherworld have prevailed against the Church.
Doctrine of Faith
Another foundation of the Church’s “indefectibility” is the doctrine of the faith. The FSSPX recognizes the “new Catechism,” as well as the teachings disseminated under Pope John Paul II – though with certain exceptions. For this reason, they tend to advise against using it. Instead, they try to encourage their faithful to read the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This catechism may be five hundred years old, but that does not make it bad by any means. It is difficult, however, to argue that the present official Catechism of the Catholic Church constitutes a problem for the faith in light of the indefectibility of the doctrine of the faith.
Credible?
I fear that, no matter how clearly the Vatican takes a position, the Society will continue to put forward reasons why the excommunication of July 1 is invalid and does not apply to them. They had already begun doing so before the consecration.
In a letter to the Pope, written by Don Davide Pagliarini a few days before the consecration, he asks how the Pope could regard the episcopal consecration as schismatic if they had supposedly already been excommunicated in 1988: “Your Holiness paternally exhorts me to avoid a schism that, theoretically, would already have taken place.” Is this, together with the Pope’s paternal concern for the FSSPX – so Don Pagliarini argues – not a sign that, in his deepest heart, the Pope does not in fact regard the FSSPX as schismatic? Pagliarini continues: “Do you not think that this attitude itself … constitutes precisely the proof that the Society is neither schismatic nor hostile to the Church?”
Unbelievable. Because it is difficult to regard it as credible. The suspicion of dishonesty can hardly be dispelled. Don Pagliarini knew perfectly well that the schism of 1988 had been lifted by Pope Benedict in his attempt to bring the FSSPX back into full communion. He explicitly mentions this at the end of his interview of February 2. He must therefore have been aware that in his letter, the Pope was not presenting a paternal exhortation “to avoid a schism that, theoretically, would already have taken place,” but about preventing a new schism. He must have known perfectly well that the reason for the Pope’s urgent and paternal appeal was that he did not want yet another schism.
The Problem of Canon Law
Canon law is a consequence of the sacramental order of the Church: The visible order is established by the legitimate legislator. According to the FSSPX, the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II in the 1980s has not been declared invalid. Nevertheless, as with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it supposedly contains problematic passages. For this reason, the FSSPX adheres primarily to the 1917 Code.
It is remarkable that the FSSPX readily makes use of the new canon law when it comes to justifying the entirety of its undertaking: “The axiom ‘suprema lex, salus animarum’ -‚the supreme law is the salvation of souls’ – is a classic maxim of canonical tradition which is explicitly taken up by the final canon of the 1983 Code. In the present state of necessity, it is upon this highest principle that the entire legitimacy of our apostolate and of our mission towards the souls who turn to us depends.” (see the previously mentioned interview with Don Pagliarini).
If, however, they derive their “entire legitimacy” and lawfulness from this principle, they have a serious problem. This argument is untenable under canon law and constitutes a classic circular argument – a petitio principii. They justify the lawfulness of their actions by means of a premise that they first seek to prove through their unlawful actions.
- Step A (the claim): There is an extreme “state of necessity” in the Church through which the salvation of the faithful is endangered.
- Step B (the justification): Because the salvation of souls is the supreme law – salus animarum – we have the right, on our own authority and against the will of the Pope, to consecrate bishops and administer the sacraments.
- Step C (the definition of the state of necessity): Who, in fact, determines that this “state of necessity” is so acute that it justifies violating canon law? The Society itself makes that determination.
- The circle: The FSSPX declares itself to be the supreme authority that proclaims the state of necessity, in order then to use precisely this state of necessity to grant itself the right to ignore the actual supreme authority – the Pope.
The central canonical problem could be summarized as follows:
- The appropriation of the power to define: In Catholic canon law, the final decision as to what serves the salvation of souls and when a state of necessity exists belongs exclusively to the Pope – as the holder of supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary authority; cf. Canon 331 CIC.
- Self-legitimation: By defining the state of necessity itself, the FSSPX places its own judgment above that of the Pope. It argues: “The good of souls stands above the Pope, and we decide what the good of souls is.” In doing so, it effectively declares itself to be a “mini-Vatican” and undermines the whole of ecclesiology (Catholic doctrine concerning the nature of the Church).
A law cannot be applied against the legislator himself. The Pope is the supreme legislator and the final interpreter of canon law. If one refuses obedience to a papal command by invoking a “state of necessity,” this ultimately amounts to a rejection of the Roman primacy, which is precisely what constitutes the essence of a schism.
The “supreme purpose of the law,” the salus animarum – the salvation of souls – never abolishes the hierarchical constitution of the Church. In Catholic canon law, the legitimacy of the power of ordination and of the mission to provide pastoral care necessarily derives from the Pope as the universal head. Behind this lies a refusal of papal primacy: Whoever consecrates bishops against the express mandate of the Pope undermines the foundation of the Church. Excommunication for schism is therefore the logical consequence, because the rejection of the Roman primacy both signifies and is the rupture with the Church. The salvation of souls can never be sought through an act that divides the unity of the Church from within.
Ideologically Charged
As already stated, there are people who attend the FSSPX simply because they find the liturgy beautiful, or for other reasons that have nothing to do with the ideological underpinnings. Perhaps there are even priests who think this way. On the other hand, I find it easier to engage in discussion with searching atheists than with a member of the FSSPX who is ideologically entrenched in a metanarrative.
They condemn rationalism while arguing rationalistically. They condemn Modernism, yet fall into precisely the same trap of subjectivism. They accuse the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on religious freedom of giving too much space to the individual conscience, while going far beyond the Second Vatican Council and, in practice, presenting the thought of the individual as the ultimate foundation of truth. They accuse the Pope of Protestantization, while their practical rejection of the Magisterium places them on Luther’s side. You simply cannot whistle and eat pinole at the same time.
Conclusion
The whole affair is dangerous because, at first glance, it appears so holy. Immaculate fidelity to tradition. Purity of doctrine. And yet, somewhere along the way, they took a wrong turn. “Pure as angels. Arrogant as Lucifer. Obstinate as demons.” At the time, that was a very harsh judgment by the Bishop of Paris. What makes matters so convoluted when looking at the history of the FSSPX, is that one finds it difficult to apply this judgment to individual persons. It certainly does not apply to the mother of five children whom one sees in the NZZ, somehow managing to bring her children to the episcopal consecration in the Swiss mountains on July 1. Perhaps, however, this is precisely what reveals the shadow of the Adversary and his art of concealment. Perhaps it is like the first days of the Titanic, when no one realized that they had boarded the wrong ship.
For me personally, this carries a particularly tragic note. Almost thirty-five years after leaving the FSSPX, I am experiencing a déjà vu. The bearer, guarantor, and authentic interpreter of tradition and doctrine is not the individual theologian, not one’s own “ego,” and not an individual priestly society, but the authentic Magisterium. Let us pray with Pope Leo for wisdom in dealing with the FSSPX. Let us pray for insight and conversion for the members of the FSSPX. Let us pray for the faithful associated with them, that they may find the path to advance in discipleship within the Church. In this intention, I especially wish to ask for the intercession of those saints who found their nourishment precisely in the “Novus Ordo”: saints such as John Paul II, Paul VI, Carlo Acutis, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta; blesseds such as Rosario Livatino and Pino Puglisi; the Martyrs of Tibhirine; and many more.