Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 02/06/2026 2:14:26 PM PST by ebb tide
Between now and the eventual consecration of bishops for the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), there will be various newsworthy developments, and even more speculation about possible developments, much of which will turn out to be incorrect. As interesting as all of that will surely be, we can already think about something related to the matter that is both tremendously revealing and certain: how the religious views of Rome and the SSPX have changed since Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s June 30, 1988 consecrations of four bishops without Rome’s approval.
Days after the consecrations, John Paul II published his apostolic letter “Ecclesia Dei” in which he cited Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, to condemn the “schismatic” consecrations:
“The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught [in Dei Verbum], ‘comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.’”
According to John Paul II, the root of the schismatic act is a failure to take into account the living character of Tradition. The analysis that follows ties to this key disagreement between John Paul II and Archbishop Lefebvre, which has vital importance for all Catholics.
Nothing about the SSPX’s actual religious views has changed because, “it is only in the Catholic Church as it has always been, and in her unchanging Tradition, that we have the guarantee of possessing the Truth.” This is the view that John Paul II identified as “the root” of the problem with the SSPX because it does not take into consideration the living character of tradition.
If there is any sense in which the SSPX’s religious views have changed since 1988, it seems that it would be limited entirely to a greater willingness to engage in discussions with Rome about a solution to the present irregular situation. As interesting as that question is to those followers of Archbishop Lefebvre who oppose discussions with Rome, it has no real bearing on the present inquiry. When it comes to actual religious beliefs — as opposed to questions of how to address the crisis in Rome — the SSPX has not changed.
The clearest way to confirm this is to look to the November 21, 2024 message from the SSPX Superior General, Father Davide Pagliarani, commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre’s famous 1974 Declaration:
“Fifty years ago, His Grace, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, published a memorable declaration that was to become the charter of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. A true profession of faith with eternal resonance, this declaration expresses the essence of the Society, its raison d’être, its doctrinal and moral identity, and consequently its line of action. The Society cannot deviate one iota from its content and spirit which, fifty years later, remain perfectly appropriate to the present day.”
This follows logically from the conviction that the immutable Catholic Faith does not change over time. As another sign that the SSPX’s views have not changed, the February 2, 2026 communiqué from the SSPX General House in Menzingen quoted the 2024 message cited above:
“The words [Fr. Pagliarani] wrote on 21 November 2024, for the fiftieth anniversary of the historic declaration of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, are more than ever the reflection of his thought and intentions: ‘It is only in the Catholic Church as it has always been, and in her unchanging Tradition, that we have the guarantee of possessing the Truth, of being able to preach it, and of being able to serve her. . . . The Society [of Saint Pius X] is not primarily seeking its own survival. It primarily seeks the good of the Universal Church and, for this reason, the Society is, par excellence, a work of the Church, which, with unique freedom and strength, responds adequately to the specific needs of an unprecedentedly tragic era. . . . This single goal is still ours today, just as it was fifty years ago. . . .’”
Nothing about the SSPX’s actual religious views has changed because, “it is only in the Catholic Church as it has always been, and in her unchanging Tradition, that we have the guarantee of possessing the Truth.” This is the view that John Paul II identified as “the root” of the problem with the SSPX because it does not take into consideration the living character of tradition.
Unlike the SSPX, Rome’s religious views on several key matters of faith and morals appear to have changed dramatically since 1988. Although we need not consider the first item on this list to relate specifically to faith and morals, it clearly has immense importance to the present topic:
All of this flows logically from the notion of living tradition, which the SSPX rejects. Thus, Rome continues to move further away from what the Church taught prior to Vatican II, while the SSPX remains where it has always been.
Those who condemn the SSPX never have to risk being called schismatic by the Synodal Church, but they live with the perpetual threat that Tucho will change their religion.
This comparison of how the beliefs of the SSPX and Rome have changed since 1988 highlights a choice all Catholics must make, whether they recognize it or not. Those who agree with the SSPX’s fundamental position risk being called schismatic, but at least they have confidence that their religious beliefs cannot evolve; conversely, those who condemn the SSPX never have to risk being called schismatic by the Synodal Church, but they live with the perpetual threat that Tucho will change their religion. To better understand why this dichotomy has arisen, we can further consider Dei Verbum.
As mentioned above, John Paul lI cited Vatican II’s Dei Verbum in defense of living tradition. We can see another example of Dei Verbum’s importance from a telling question and answer from the 2023 response of Francis and Cardinal Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández to the “dubia” signed by Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Íñiguez, Sarah, and Zen:
Question of the Dubia Cardinals: “Following the statements of some bishops, which have neither been corrected nor retracted, it is asked whether Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted in the Church according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision promoted by these changes; or if Divine Revelation is forever binding, immutable, and thus, not to be contradicted, following the dictum of the Second Vatican Council, which states that ‘the obedience of faith’ is owed to God who reveals (Dei Verbum, n. 5) . . . .”
Response of Francis and Tucho: “The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word ‘to reinterpret.’ If it is understood as meaning ‘to interpret better,’ the expression is valid. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council affirmed that it is necessary that with the work of exegetes—and, I would add, with that of theologians—‘the judgment of the Church may mature’ (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 12). Therefore, while it is true that Divine Revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that it never exhausts her unfathomable richness and that she always needs to grow in understanding it. As a result, the Church also matures in the understanding of what she herself has affirmed in her Magisterium. Cultural changes and new historical challenges do not change Revelation; they can, however, stimulate us to explain better certain aspects of its overflowing richness, which always has more to offer. . . .”
What this boils down to is that the revolutionaries in Rome can justify dramatic developments through the concept of the “maturation” of the Church’s interpretations, and those who decline to question the Council’s documents are left without much room to persuasively object. Alas, a serious Catholic who lives by the Council tends to die by the Council.
All of this is somewhat nuanced, and may seem unimportant, but it is useful to explore because this exchange encapsulates much of the doctrinal battle that has raged for over sixty years. We essentially have the conservative Cardinals citing Dei Verbum to assert that truth cannot change, and Francis and Tucho citing Dei Verbum to say that our understanding of truth can “mature” based on cultural changes. What this boils down to is that the revolutionaries in Rome can justify dramatic developments through the concept of the “maturation” of the Church’s interpretations, and those who decline to question the Council’s documents are left without much room to persuasively object. Alas, a serious Catholic who lives by the Council tends to die by the Council.
How does Leo XIV think about this? Here is what he said in his January 28, 2026 catechesis on Dei Verbum:
“The Word of God, then, is not fossilized, but rather it is a living and organic reality that develops and grows in Tradition. Thanks to the Holy Spirit, Tradition understands it in the richness of its truth and embodies it in the shifting coordinates of history. In this regard, the proposal of the holy Doctor of the Church John Henry Newman in his work entitled The Development of Christian Doctrine is striking. He affirmed that Christianity, both as a communal experience and as a doctrine, is a dynamic reality, in the manner indicated by Jesus himself in the parables of the seed (cf. Mk 4:26-29): a living reality that develops thanks to an inner vital force.”
These words would suggest that Leo XIV is generally inclined to see Tradition as living and dynamic in a sense that the SSPX has rejected. However, Leo XIV continued his catechesis with words that sound much more consistent with the SSPX’s position:
“The apostle Paul repeatedly exhorts his disciple and collaborator Timothy: ‘O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you’ (1 Tim 6:20; cf. 2 Tim 1:12-14). The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum echoes this Pauline text when it says: ‘Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church,’ interpreted by the ‘living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ’ (no. 10). ‘Deposit’ is a term that, in its original meaning, is juridical in nature and imposes on the depositary the duty to preserve the content, which in this case is the faith, and to transmit it intact.”
Archbishop Lefebvre presumably would have agreed with much of this, especially the duty of the Church to transmit the sacred deposit “intact.” If this is truly how Leo XIV views the role of the Church, though, how does he reconcile this with the fact the “living tradition” has translated into a situation in which the SSPX is persecuted precisely because it strives to safeguard and transmit the sacred deposit intact?
We shall soon see how the drama plays out. While it seems highly improbable that Leo XIV (let alone Tucho) will come around to the SSPX’s way of viewing the immutable nature of the Faith, he will now have the opportunity to prayerfully consider arguments that ought to resonate with men of good will.
We shall soon see how the drama plays out. While it seems highly improbable that Leo XIV (let alone Tucho) will come around to the SSPX’s way of viewing the immutable nature of the Faith, he will now have the opportunity to prayerfully consider arguments that ought to resonate with men of good will who truly want to be faithful Catholics. As Fr. Pagliarani said in his recent interview about the announcement of the planned consecrations, all Catholics should join in prayers for Rome and the SSPX:
“I would like to emphasize that this is a time for prayer and preparation of hearts, souls, and minds. We must prepare ourselves to receive the grace that these consecrations will occasion for the whole Church. This should be done with recollection, peace, and trust in Providence, which has never abandoned the Society and will not abandon it now.”
All serious Catholics have good reason to pray that God will grant Leo XIV the grace to understand the SSPX’s position and the courage to do God’s will. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
/bev282-Tur.jpg)
Ping
I’m not an expert on the SSPX, though I am generally supportive of them, but one thing on which I’d say that they’ve changed since 1988 is that their leadership is a bit more tactful than when Bp. Williamson was in the fold. God rest his soul, Williamson was a loose cannon and something of a provocateur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.