Will the SSPX Reach an Agreement with Pope Leo XIV?

An opinion piece from Rorate Caeli. I have my doubts, because Leo sent one of the greatest enemies of Tradition in the Curia to conduct the negotiations, "Kiss Me With Your Mouth" Fernández.

From Dew of Heaven

By Jan Filip Libicki

The announcement of new episcopal consecrations within the Society of Saint Pius X, followed by a swift reaction from the Vatican, raises a question that has been returning for nearly four decades: can the "Lefebvrists" and the Pope reach a lasting agreement? This time, however, the context is entirely different from that of 1988—both doctrinally and ecclesially.

The answer is yes—at least in the sense in which I pose the question. The title must be journalistic and provocative, but in reality the issue goes far deeper than a simple “agreement.” What is at stake is whether the Church can today find a formula for stable coexistence with a traditionalist movement that is no longer a marginal phenomenon, but a permanent element of its internal landscape.

Let us begin with the facts. On February 2, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, Fr. David Pagliarani, announced that he had instructed two auxiliary bishops of the Society to prepare new episcopal consecrations. Two of the four bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre are still alive and approaching seventy years of age, while the Society itself—regardless of one’s assessment—continues to grow both numerically and structurally.

The reaction of the Holy See was swift. The Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, announced a meeting with Fr. Pagliarani on February 12 at the dicastery’s headquarters. Although formally a working meeting, it carries symbolic significance and may prove to be a turning point.

How will events unfold? The reader should bear in mind that by nature I am an optimist. I believe—though of course without certainty—that this time the matter may end positively. Unlike in 1988, when Pope John Paul II imposed excommunication on Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated. That excommunication was lifted in 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI, who nevertheless left both the bishops and the entire Society in a canonically irregular situation.

On what do I base my cautious optimism?

First, the growing interest in the traditional Latin liturgy means that it is no longer a marginal phenomenon. This was directly fostered by Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. Despite the later drastic restrictions imposed by Pope Francis, the traditional liturgy today has a permanent place in the Church. The best proof of this is the fact—so it is said—that it was discussed at an extraordinary consistory of cardinals convened by Pope Leo XIV. This indicates that we are dealing with a real internal ecclesial issue, not with a peripheral anomaly that can simply be ignored.

Second—and this is crucial—the dispute is not purely liturgical in nature. The liturgy is merely the external expression of a doctrinal conflict. This is precisely why no agreement was reached between the Society and Benedict XVI, despite the fact that it came very close. Benedict demanded an unambiguous acceptance of the Second Vatican Council, setting doctrinal rather than liturgical conditions.

His successor, Pope Francis, approached doctrine—let us put it cautiously—with less rigor. It did not trouble him that some episcopal conferences adopted the document Fiducia supplicans on the blessing of irregular couples, including same-sex couples, while others openly declared that they would not implement it. For Benedict XVI such a situation was unacceptable; for Francis—regardless of intentions—it became, in effect, a model for how the Church functions.

An expression of this logic was also Cardinal Fernández’s statement that “we cannot obsessively cling to doctrine.” In the same spirit, Francis, without demanding any doctrinal declarations from the Lefebvrists, granted their priests the faculty to validly and licitly hear confessions and to assist at marriages. From the point of view of canon law, this was—in my opinion—a solution that was at least peculiar.

If Cardinal Fernández remains consistent with Francis’s line, it should not trouble him that some traditionalist communities fully accept the Council, others do so selectively, and all function within the Church—much as, admittedly by a rather peculiar analogy, those who bless same-sex couples and those who declare they never will coexist today within the same Church.

Third, there is a precedent in the form of the agreement between the Holy See and communist China. Fr. Pagliarani himself referred to this example in a recent interview, noting that if the Vatican agreed to a model in which the authorities of the People’s Republic of China have decisive influence over the selection of episcopal candidates—who are then approved and recognized by the Holy See—it is difficult to understand why a similar formula could not be applied to the Society of Saint Pius X.

Let us recall that under the provisional agreement between the Holy See and the government in Beijing—renewed despite numerous controversies—bishops nominated de facto by the communist authorities are subsequently consecrated and recognized by Rome. The Holy See maintains that this is not capitulation to a totalitarian state, but a realistic attempt to preserve a minimum of unity and ecclesial structures under extremely difficult political conditions.

In this respect, Fr. Pagliarani’s argument is logical. If the Vatican accepts the fact that bishops designated under such a system need not constitute a doctrinal monolith fully aligned with the Pope and the Church’s teaching, why could similar flexibility not be applied to the Society, which—unlike Church structures in China—is not subject to a hostile state ideology, preserves full apostolic succession, and functions entirely within Catholic sacramental identity?

Moreover, it is difficult to assume that all bishops emerging from a system controlled by the Chinese Communist Party represent a uniform vision of doctrine, morality, and ecclesiology consistent with the teaching of the current Pope. And yet the Holy See recognizes their ordinations and jurisdiction, guided by a logic of the “lesser evil” and pastoral pragmatism.

If, therefore, in the name of Church unity such far-reaching compromises are accepted toward a state openly hostile to Christianity, the argument that no canonical solution can be found for the Society of Saint Pius X loses much of its persuasive force.

Fourth, thirty-eight years have now passed since the last episcopal consecrations carried out by Archbishop Lefebvre. During this time, the phenomenon often—rather unfortunately—labeled “traditionalism” has not only failed to disappear, but has grown significantly. Moreover, the Roman Church has in practice tested various forms of its canonical functioning: both through institutes of consecrated life and through personal structures, such as the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney in Brazil.

These solutions—regardless of how one evaluates them—demonstrate one thing: the Holy See is capable of creating non-standard, flexible legal formulas when it deems them necessary for the good of the Church. The current Pope himself, even before his election to the See of Peter, had experience in governing structures with a special canonical status. This means that the issue is not entirely abstract or purely theoretical for him.

Finally, Pope Leo XIV—regardless of his personal theological preferences—will have to address this matter comprehensively. Not only with regard to traditionalist communities with an irregular status, such as the Society of Saint Pius X, but also those that currently function in a stable and recognized manner within the Church, and whose situation after years of tension likewise calls for a clear resolution.

In this context, one can imagine the creation of one or several personal structures—prelatures, administrations, or ordinariates—embracing various traditionalist currents. What is important is that there are also clerics of episcopal and even cardinal rank who could, at least theoretically, lead such ecclesial units. Regardless of one’s personal assessment of these figures, their very existence shows that what is lacking is not instruments, but decision.

All this leads to the conclusion that, both doctrinally and canonically, there already exist in Rome recognized models that would allow the problem of the Church’s relationship with the Society of Saint Pius X to be resolved in a lasting and systemic way. The problem, therefore, is not the absence of precedents, but the willingness to apply them.

Will Pope Leo XIV choose such a solution? We do not know. As I noted at the outset, however, I am rather optimistic. I believe that the present moment—after the experiences of the pontificates of Benedict XVI and Francis—creates a real opportunity to emerge from a long-standing impasse.

And it is precisely for such a solution—prudent, realistic, and serving the unity of the Church—that I intend to pray.