What Can Rome Offer?
Can the Vatican lessen the fallout from an SSPX rupture?
A recent report from veteran Vatican journalist Nico Spuntoni (mentioned in English at Diane Montagna’s Substack) mentions that Rome:
“… is concerned about the pastoral care of the persons (i.e. clergy) connected to the Society who do not intend to remain in it after a further break with Rome.”
This should come as no surprise, as the Church has historically tried to limit the fallout of excommunications and schisms. Yet this presents an interesting question: what can Rome offer in terms of “pastoral” care to priests affiliated with the Society?
I know there are some of my brethren who think Rome’s response will be quite limited, but I think that is a risky proposition. In the eyes of Rome, the Society will now have had two generations of episcopal lineage consecrated in opposition to Rome. The 1988 consecrations did not necessarily (and did not in the end) create a parallel hierarchy. The act of illicitly consecrated bishops consecrating their successors illicitly effectively creates a parallel hierarchy. There seems to be no end game: Rome granting approval of a Bishop would not solve the SSPX’s desire to remain independent of any Roman jurisdiction. The risk of a permanent schism is real in a way that arguably was not in 1988.
In light of the severity of this, Rome would want to offer ways to reconcile priests who are not ready for such a move. Yet what can Rome offer? Concessions on the Traditional Latin Mass would be an obvious start, but why should they be believed? Francis demonstrated that it matters not if a move is injurious to souls and opposed by the majority of the world’s bishops. If the pope gets out of bed and thinks something is a good idea, he can make it Church law. He may be limited in enacting such law, but it is hard to build a culture of good faith once the bell has been rung. In a move of supreme irony, the pope who was most favorable to the SSPX might be the pope who made their schism impossible to avoid.
Even if such concessions were granted, the logical question would be raised: why did you not do this to begin with? Why are you only doing so now to prevent a catastrophe? In the end, the Church will have to encounter and swallow a bitter pill if she wants to avoid a permanent schism: a pope made a mistake, and we are now taking action to correct that mistake. Yet what certainty is there a future pope will not conclude this concession was a mistake? Furthermore, if the Church made a mistake with the Latin Mass, did she make any other mistakes surrounding the Second Vatican Council? What if the majority of chaos in the subsequent 60 years could have been avoided had the Church just adopted the attitude of “first, do no harm” when carrying out reform? Institutions will go to great lengths to avoid admitting a mistake, because of how much their authority is damaged.
Yet I am not sure Rome “wins” in this fight if the Society goes their own way. Yes, they win in an eschatological sense in that the gates of hell will not prevail. What makes this “win” any different from the Church “winning” a century after the fact with the Three Chapters schism, a schism that future historians admit was unnecessary, and would have been avoided had the Church had better leadership?
What is the Church fighting to preserve, outside of the principle Rome has to approve every episcopal consecration, something relatively recent in Church history, and even now only sustained by a series of legal fictions in concordats with authoritarian regimes? Vatican II? By Cardinal Fernandez’s own admission, the Church doesn’t know what to require acceptance on for Vatican II, or what, 60 years later, the Council actually taught on several key matters.
It is obvious that Rome should make concessions on things like the Traditional Latin Mass, and even offer priests who want to be in union with Rome a way to live out their charism under the aegis of the Holy Father, with potentially even their own bishop in the future. Yet those concessions can’t exist in a vacuum, and require admitting those above mistakes, which in the long term make such offers less likely, not more.
I sympathize much with the SSPX, but not with their position. I defend Rome despite my belief that Rome has contributed much to this situation. I think Catholics, especially traditionalists, are called to navigate this situation with grace and humility. We are called to remember three things:
Everyone is responsible for their own actions.
Schisms are just as much (if not more) a product of bad Catholics/leaders than the sinful nature of those in rebellion.
We are called to partake in the life of the Church despite these two true statements.
With that in mind, we must implore both Rome and Écône to do all that they can to preserve unity, starting with admitting their faults. Only with such humility can true reconciliation be possible, and the absence of such humility is as good of a sign as to whether either are serious about reconciliation.
What is this 'unity' everybody keeps prattling on about? Where is the 'unity' between Rome and Êcone no matter what they do? I am no lover of the SSPX for a multitude of reasons, but it is plainly obvious that those who dominate the ecclesial hierarchy in Rome, and who have set up a system to ensure that only those who believe as they do will be appointed as their succesors, do not believe the same things about God, Jesus Christ, or the Church that the priests of the SSPX do. There is no unity, and if these wounds are ever to be healed we need to drop the sham pretense that it exists
It’s a sticky situation. I think one thing to keep in mind is that it doesn’t have to be solved all at once. Being extraordinarily generous on the TLM and sacraments—maybe by going ever further than Summorum did—would be a necessary kick start. It’s actually the easiest place TO start, so start there.