It's 1054 for Traditionalist Catholics
Once again, the SSPX is forced to choose between loyalty to the pope and loyalty to tradition.
At our very convert-heavy OCA parish, my family and I are the only converts from traditional (i.e., Latin Mass) Catholicism in a sea of ex-Protestants. Inevitably in the getting-to-know-you conversations that take place after liturgy and at social events, my husband and I are asked to explain the goings-on in Vatican politics, and in particular the current situation for Traditionalists within the Catholic Church.
I think also the current situation of the “trads,” and in particular, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is a historically instructive event even for we modern Orthodox to follow. Because what Traditionalist Catholics have encountered again and again—and what the SSPX are encountering now—are very similar conditions to the ones that led to the Great Schism between East and West nearly one millennia ago.
The tragedy of doctrinal error in the West is that it compounds and repeats.
And I think my Orthodox brothers and sisters sense this: the overwhelming feeling of those who pay attention to Catholic church politics is that of sympathy and pity for Catholics who love their church, but who seem to receive ill-treatment from their hierarchs.
In a recent episode of the Lord of Spirits podcast, Father Stephen DeYoung even alluded to this situation in contrasting the perennial problems faced in Orthodox parishes to what happens to faithful Catholics:
But the flaws we have, the problems we have, the difficulties we have are the flaws and difficulties that the church has faced in every generation forever. They are not new problems.
They are not problems that result from an abandonment of core Christian teachings. They are not problems that result from having lost elements of traditional Christian praxis. People who are fervent and traditional about the Orthodox faith are not considered the enemy by the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church.
They may want to rein in their zeal once in a while, but they are not the enemy. They are trying to drive them out of the church for being traditional, right, or conservative, right? That's not a thing in the Orthodox Church.
What is the current issue between the SSPX and the Vatican? First, a very contracted history. The SSPX was formed by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, who had been a leading Traditionalist at the Second Vatican Council. It was founded explicitly to preserve the canonical forms that threatened to be wiped out in the aftermath of the Council, in particular, the old liturgy as well as all associated liturgical rites and sacraments, especially that of priestly ordination.
According to Lefebvre, Vatican II introduced a “new faith”—one that stood in contradiction to Catholic Christianity. The Archbishop also opposed the Novus Ordo Missae: the New Order of the Mass. The Novus Ordo changed about 80 percent of the Mass. Its architect, Cardinal Annibale Bugnini, told the Vatican’s official newspaper that the reforms aimed to remove elements that could be a “stumbling block” for “separated brethren” (i.e., Protestants).
Throughout the years, Lefebvre endeavored to remain obedient to the Papacy and sought approval for all his work in training and ordaining priests. The relationship was always rocky, however. Its breaking point came in 1988, when Lefebvre consecrated four priests as bishops. For years, he had sought permission to consecrate bishops for years. He had even signed an agreement with the Vatican saying that he would be allowed to consecrate at least one new bishop… eventually.
But Lefebvre was an old man. He knew that, if he died, there would be no bishop left to ordain priests in the Old Rite. So, at last, he informed the Pope of his intention to perform the consecrations with or without permission. The day after the consecrations, Rome declared that he and his confederates had incurred the canonical penalty of automatic excommunication.
Lefebvre argued that his actions had been necessary because the traditional form of the Catholic faith and sacraments would become extinct without Traditionalist clergy to pass them on to the next generation. He called the ordinations “Operation Survival.”
The excommunications were withdrawn by Pope Benedict in 2009, and while the SSPX has always affirmed the authority of the Papacy and sought full communion, their situation has never been regularized.
The reasons for this are fairly straightforward. The SSPX and the Holy See do not agree on the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. For the SSPX, the innovations introduced by the Council constitute a fundamental break with the traditional teaching of the Church on several grounds.
In February, the Superior General of the SSPX announced their intention to consecrate new bishops for the Society on July 1, 2026. The reason for this is the same as it was in 1988: only two of the four bishops are still alive today, and both are getting on in years.
According to the SSPX, they have been seeking dialogue with the Vatican since 2019 about consecrating their replacements. Such requests went ignored until the announcement of their intention to do so with or without Rome’s permission. Then, suddenly, they were offered a meeting with Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, the current head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, appointed by Pope Francis. (As an aside, Fernández’s appointment was somewhat curious, as previous holders of that office had kept a file on him since the early 2000s, due to concerns over his own heterodox theological teachings.)
Fernández’s letter after the meeting affirmed that if the SSPX proceeded with the consecrations, it would be considered an act of schism, breaking communion with the Roman Catholic Church. He offered, instead, to begin a “dialogue”—precisely what the SSPX had asked for, seven years earlier.
The SSPX responded in a letter which was signed by its Superior General and the remaining bishops. It consists of a rejection of the offer, and a respectful explanation. Notably, Fernández stated as the goal of the dialogue, finding out what would constitute “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church.” But the SSPX response highlights that Fernandez himself has stated that the texts of the Second Vatican Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged—a nonstarter for any dialogue, from the Traditionalist perspective.
In its letter, the Society writes:
One cannot ignore the context of the dialogue proposed today. We have been waiting for seven years for a favorable response to the proposal of doctrinal discussion made in 2019. More recently, we have written twice to the Holy Father: first to request an audience, then to clearly and respectfully explain our needs and the real-life situation of the Society.
Yet, after a long silence, it is only when episcopal consecrations are mentioned that an offer to resume dialogue is made, which thus seems dilatory and conditional. Indeed, the hand extended to open the dialogue is unfortunately accompanied by another hand already poised to impose sanctions. There is talk of breaking communion, of schism, and of “serious consequences”. Moreover, this threat is now public, creating pressure that is hardly compatible with a genuine desire for fraternal exchanges and constructive dialogue.
Furthermore, to us it does not seem possible to enter into a dialogue to define what the minimum requirements for ecclesial communion might be, simply because this task does not belong to us. Throughout the centuries, the criteria for belonging to the Church have been established and defined by the Magisterium. What must be believed in order to be Catholic has always been taught with authority, in constant fidelity to Tradition.
Thus, we do not see how these criteria could be the subject of joint discernment through dialogue, nor how they could be re-evaluated today so as not to correspond to what the Tradition of the Church has always taught—and which we desire to observe faithfully in our place.
Two high-profile conservative cardinals, Robert Sarah and Gerhard Muller, have both written public letters to the SSPX, condemning their refusal to bend to the commands of the Vatican. For these two, unity under the Papacy is the highest good, no matter the cost.
The most interesting response, however, comes from the moderate Traditionalist Bp. Athanasius Schneider. It is addressed, not to the SSPX, but to Pope Leo XIV, urging him to relent and allow the SSPX to consecrate their bishops.
Schneider’s letter is quite long, but I believe it contains many things that resonate with a pre-Great Schism—that is, an Orthodox—understanding of ecclesiology.
Indeed, he even contrasts the reaction from most Catholics to the current situation with “the practice and self-understanding of the Church in the Patristic era, the age of the Church Fathers.” He notes that in the first millennium bishops were typically elected and consecrated locally (as the Orthodox still do), with no formal papal mandate required. Bp. Schneider warns that “a reductive view that equates disobedience to a papal command with schism—even in the case of a bishop’s consecration performed against his will—was foreign to the Church Fathers and to traditional canon law,” citing the example of St. Athanasius disobeying the Arian pope Liberius.
He also points out that, the Vatican currently allows the Communist Party of China to select candidates for bishops, while the SSPX cannot be afforded the same treatment.
Finally, he makes the point that every trad Catholic to Orthodox convert jokes about: that the Orthodox are afforded a far greater degree of Christian unity in papal rhetoric than the Traditionalists within their own church.
The SSPX will carry out their episcopal consecrations in July. I pray that they are enlightened by the Holy Spirit with the same painful discovery that the Orthodox made in 1054: no matter how much they reverence the Pope of Rome, Holy Tradition must be defended. I pray they discover that there is a deeper Holy Tradition than the one they know, one older and better defended than they realize.
Dr. Marjorie Habighorst is a wife and mother from the American South. She also holds a doctorate in political science and international relations. You can follow more of her writing on her Substack.
