THREAD: Some thoughts on the Society of St. Pius X (because that’s what everyone wants more of, right?).

(1) Like most “JPII Catholics” (which I was for over two decades), I long had a negative impression of the SSPX. But my opinions have developed in this regard over the years.

(2) I’ve had little direct contact with the Society. I’ve read the biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, listened to some SSPX podcasts, and read a good deal of material, both pro & con, about it.

(3) Until Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops in 2009, I would have classified the SSPX as “schismatic.” But that, along with Pope Francis’s granting faculties to SSPX priests to hear Confessions, led me to realize that the SSPX is *not* in schism.

(4) Schism, by definition, means that you don’t recognize the pope as the head of the Church. Yet the SSPX *does* recognize Francis, and it does include him (and the local ordinary) in the prayers of the Mass. Also, it’s clear the Vatican doesn’t consider the SSPX in schism.

(5) Another development in my mind is learning more about the life of +Lefebvre. Like many Catholics, for a long time all I knew about him was the illicit consecrations he performed in 1988. And while that is an important event, it doesn’t represent the totality of the man.

(6) I’ve come to realize that Archbishop Lefebvre was a great man. Of course, great men can make mistakes, and when they do make mistakes, they can have major consequences. But +Lefebvre is more than the events of 1988.

(7) He clearly loved the Church, and he clearly loved souls. In fact, what is so attractive about him was his singular focus on the salvation of souls. Would that more bishops today would be like that!

(8) Yet he was also a man, and therefore had flaws. Personally, I’m still convinced the 1988 consecrations were a terrible mistake. I understand the incredible pressure he was under, and I can see how he couldn’t see any other option moving forward. Yet still they were a mistake.

(9) At the same time, it’s a historical fact that +Lefebvre & the SSPX is the instrument God used to keep alive the TLM. Yes, God could have kept it alive in other ways, but He didn’t. He used +Lefebvre. It’s very Biblical, really: the flawed man as the instrument of God.

(10) And so anyone who loves the TLM should be thankful for +Lefebvre and the SSPX. You don’t have to think +Lefebvre is a saint (although I do), or that the 1988 consecrations were a good thing (I don’t). But he—and the SSPX—are the reason we have the TLM today.

(11) And yet I’m not a major booster of the SSPX. I’ve never attended a SSPX Mass, and I don’t have any plans to. I think there are many other options available in most places that are more canonically regular and therefore better choices for the TLM.

(12) Also, I have a serious problem with the SSPX view that one is not obliged to go to Sunday Mass if the only one available is the Novus Ordo. That’s wrong, and frankly, a dangerous view.

(13) While I’m no cheerleader for the NO Mass, I also think the SSPX view comes dangerously close to calling it invalid, which puts into question the authority of Rome. It also deprives people of the graces of the Mass if a TLM is not available.

(14) In the end, I think the “SSPX issue” is a complex one, and there’s no way to “settle the debate” about it. Like all human endeavors, the SSPX has its good and bad aspects. But on the whole, I’d say +Lefebvre and the SSPX have been a good for the Church.

/fin