Society of Saint Pius X: "In the Church, why shouldn't there also be a place for the 'traditionalists'?"
This article, written by a diocesan priest from France, was published yesterday in La Croix, the semi-official publication of the French Episcopal Conference. A very encouraging sign.
Fr. Pierre Amar. Priest of the Diocese of Yvelines
Are you familiar with the Instagram account "Catholic trash"? Don't click on it: it's a machine designed to send you straight into the arms of the Society of Saint Pius X! Run by Italian Catholics, it compiles—with evidence—the worst that can (really) be done in liturgy. Dubious iconography, kitschy devotional objects, extreme religious marketing products, hideous church decorations, scandalous celebrant vestments… In short, it embodies what Benedict XVI once denounced as a "creativity [that] has often led to distortions of the liturgy to the very limits of what is tolerable."
Herein lies the crux of the problem. The movement initiated by Archbishop Lefebvre did not spring from nothing: its roots lie in the abuses and brutality with which some implemented the liturgical reforms following the Second Vatican Council . Why, for example, are there far fewer priories of the Society of Saint Pius X in Poland than in France? Because there, the liturgical reform promulgated by Pope Saint Paul VI was carried out peacefully, without any intention of destroying everything. Thus, today, in that still deeply religious country, one can celebrate Mass with one's back to the congregation (for example, in Częstochowa, "the" national shrine), wear a cassock, and sing a hymn in Latin without being accused of backwardness.
Examination of conscience
What if we began with an examination of conscience within the Church? Yesterday, as today, arbitrary distortions of the liturgy deeply wound those rooted in the faith of the Church. In other words, are we not ourselves responsible for our own misfortune? Like Frankenstein, we have created our own monster. The unease is all the more intense because this creature comes from within our own family. Just as with Luther yesterday, produced by the corrupt bishops of the 16th century, we are no strangers to the emergence of Marcel Lefebvre. The liturgical malaise of the post-conciliar period was fueled by pettiness, a lack of charity, and unfortunate innovations. And also by a “spirit of the Council” that simply was not the Council itself.
The result? A story we can't seem to shake, a bit like Captain Haddock's Band-Aid. And a painful story, because it's no longer about unity among Christians—which is a topic in itself—but about unity among Catholics.
Of course, as in any family dispute, the blame is shared. For example, the recent statements by Father Davide Pagliarani, superior of the SSPX, are particularly hurtful: “It’s a fact: in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the necessary means to ensure their eternal salvation.” After such a statement, it’s tempting to accept that there’s really nothing left to say and that the break is complete.
The problem is that the Society of Saint Pius X is not wrong when it denounces, in addition to liturgical innovations, a certain doctrinal confusion that erodes the clarity of the faith's message. One even gets the impression of a double standard: why should we be particularly harsh with the Society of Saint Pius X when, from my point of view, surprising patience is shown with the German Synodal Path or with the Patriotic Association of Chinese Catholics? In an age when almost everything is accepted, why shouldn't there be room, within the family, for brothers and sisters—certainly very turbulent ones—but brothers and sisters nonetheless?
What if we began with an examination of conscience within the Church? Yesterday, as today, arbitrary distortions of the liturgy deeply wound those rooted in the faith of the Church. In other words, are we not ourselves responsible for our own misfortune? Like Frankenstein, we have created our own monster. The unease is all the more intense because this creature comes from within our own family. Just as with Luther yesterday, produced by the corrupt bishops of the 16th century, we are no strangers to the emergence of Marcel Lefebvre. The liturgical malaise of the post-conciliar period was fueled by pettiness, a lack of charity, and unfortunate innovations. And also by a “spirit of the Council” that simply was not the Council itself.
The result? A story we can't seem to shake, a bit like Captain Haddock's Band-Aid. And a painful story, because it's no longer about unity among Christians—which is a topic in itself—but about unity among Catholics.
Of course, as in any family dispute, the blame is shared. For example, the recent statements by Father Davide Pagliarani, superior of the SSPX, are particularly hurtful: “It’s a fact: in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the necessary means to ensure their eternal salvation.” After such a statement, it’s tempting to accept that there’s really nothing left to say and that the break is complete.
The problem is that the Society of Saint Pius X is not wrong when it denounces, in addition to liturgical innovations, a certain doctrinal confusion that erodes the clarity of the faith's message. One even gets the impression of a double standard: why should we be particularly harsh with the Society of Saint Pius X when, from my point of view, surprising patience is shown with the German Synodal Path or with the Patriotic Association of Chinese Catholics? In an age when almost everything is accepted, why shouldn't there be room, within the family, for brothers and sisters—certainly very turbulent ones—but brothers and sisters nonetheless?
Two paths
The first step is walking together. Couldn't we show historical generosity by allowing at least a partial integration of the Fraternity into the life of the Church without the doctrinal question becoming the first and foremost obstacle? A bishop recently observed how historical experience demonstrates that processes of reconciliation and integration do not always begin with a complete doctrinal resolution. On the contrary, they can progress gradually, first fostering visible communion and then allowing room for a more serene and fruitful theological dialogue.
Of course, not at any price. And it is up to Rome to set the minimum standards. But neither should we be bet on the long term and the grace of the Holy Spirit.
The first step is walking together. Couldn't we show historical generosity by allowing at least a partial integration of the Fraternity into the life of the Church without the doctrinal question becoming the first and foremost obstacle? A bishop recently observed how historical experience demonstrates that processes of reconciliation and integration do not always begin with a complete doctrinal resolution. On the contrary, they can progress gradually, first fostering visible communion and then allowing room for a more serene and fruitful theological dialogue.
Of course, not at any price. And it is up to Rome to set the minimum standards. But neither should we be bet on the long term and the grace of the Holy Spirit.
The second path involves promoting an alternative . This was the bold work of Saint John Paul II, somewhat weakened later by Francis. There are places where the traditional liturgy is celebrated peacefully, in communion with the bishop. This is the case, for example, in my diocese of Versailles, with serenity, away from the spotlight and press releases. Many young people in our parishes happily navigate from one missal to another. Some even discover the faith thanks to a Latin Mass. In the Church of Saint George, in the Diocese of Lyon, where the Mass of Saint Pius V is celebrated daily, there are currently sixty-three catechumens! In some dioceses of France, almost the only young priests are those who celebrate the traditional Latin Mass. We cannot ignore this reality. Isn't it time to make peace with this traditionalist world that accepts the Second Vatican Council? And if Pope Francis himself said that there is a place for everyone in the Church ("everyone... everyone!"), why wouldn't there also be one for the "traddies"?
Because these divisions are a waste of time compared to the true task that awaits all the baptized since Pentecost: evangelization.
Because these divisions are a waste of time compared to the true task that awaits all the baptized since Pentecost: evangelization.
