The relationship between the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and the Catholic Church is a complex one, with a history marked by both agreement and disagreement.
While Archbishop Lefebvre was a staunch defender of Tradition, his actions and the subsequent history of the SSPX have been subject to much debate and controversy. It's important to approach this topic with nuance and respect for differing viewpoints.
The SSPX's Relationship with Rome:
The SSPX's relationship with Rome has been characterized by periods of tension and reconciliation. While the Society has maintained its commitment to the Traditional Latin Mass and the pre-Vatican II theological Tradition, it has also engaged in dialogue with the Holy See. Today the SSPX asks the Holy See to approve needed episcopal consecrations. Whether or not the Holy See approves, and whether or not there are associated conditions remains to be seen. Neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor the SSPX have compromised their mission of training holy Catholic priests, who celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, and who preach the entirety of Catholic doctrine, and who condemn contemporary errors in the past. There is no reason to believe that the FSSPX will compromise these Catholic principles today based on its historical track record.
The Future of the SSPX: The future direction of the SSPX depends on bishops required to ordain new priests, and who administer the Sacrament of Confirmation. The future, however, is unknown, and is, therefore, a matter of ongoing discussion and speculation . It is important to rely on official statements from the Society of St. Pius X, rather than its detractors, and the Holy See website itself for accurate and up to date information rather than pure speculation and guess work.
A Word of Caution: It is crucial to avoid making definitive statements about the future of the SSPX, or the intentions of the Holy See regarding the eventual approval, or disapproval of SSPX's episcopal consecrations. The situation is fluid, and new developments can arise.
Seeking Accurate Information: If you have specific questions about the SSPX, or its relationship with the Holy See, it is advisable to consult official sources, such as the SSPX's website: Home | FSSPX News or publications:Angelus Press - Traditional Catholic Books, Missals and Supplies Additionally, seeking guidance from an SSPX priest, a trusted traditional spiritual director, or traditional Catholic theologian can provide valuable insights.
Why didn't Padre Pio tell his Franciscans to stay with TLM? That how great Lefebrve had the guts to be a man. He should be called the great Archbishop the man who stared down great powers and principalities. God bless you
St. Padre Pio X died in 1968 before the New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI: a common misperception. He was given permission as an old priest to continue to offer the TLM instead of switching to the simplified Roman Rite of 1965 in Italian which was mandatory for all other priests.
I am asking why didn't he as a mystic warn Franciscans not cooperate with archbishop Bugnini new masonic mass But hold on to sacred tradition . He could read souls but not see Vatican II I knew about permission
The Roman church is Apostolic, passed down from the Apostles who were taught by Jesus Himself. Every Mass rite comes from one of the Apostles. No modern pope has the authority to establish a new rite. Lefebvre knew that.
Archbishop Lefebvre always wanted to obey because he was staunchly Catholic and obedience had been ingrained in him from the earliest age. He was the last person in the world to countenance disobedience to his religious superiors, including Rome, and the pope. Divine Providence, however, had a different plan in mind for this saintly, humble prelate... From the events of 1988, we know the convoluted path taken by Archbishop Lefebvre who did not anticipate Divine Providence, but allowed himself to be led by events, so as to be guided by Divine Providence. We know how he reacted to Rome's offer of "one bishop" conditional upon his giving lip-service to the legitimacy of Vatican II, "interpreted through the eyes of Tradition," and to the validity and liceity of the New Mass. He signed the agreement initially but immediately afterward he had doubts. He spent the night in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament tormented by these doubts. In the morning, however, Archbishop Lefebvre emerged from the chapel with a new, clear-eyed, steely resolve. Everyone remarked it. His doubts had vanished. He returned to the Holy Office by chauffeured car, and promptly withdrew his signature reneging on the agreement. In this circuitous manner, Divine Providence had revealed itself to him. He clearly saw what lay behind the agreement that he had signed. Modernist Rome had no intention, long term, of granting Archbishop Lefebvre's "experiment of Tradition" at Écône equal standing with the post-conciliar reforms of Vatican II and of the New Mass. His eyes were opened so to speak at the last hour... While initially the Holy Office would allow "one bishop," allow the FSSPX's seminaries to continue giving traditional priestly formation, and allow the Traditional Latin Mass to be celebrated, long term, Modernist Rome's true intention was to approve these concessions temporarily, and then to walk back these concessions one by one, while pressuring the FSSPX to adopt the post-conciliar doctrine and usages. Pope Francis' actions in this regard have put to rest any doubts that some might have as to the truth of what I state above. In 1988, not so much however. Only the Archbishop, aided by divine grace, saw the outcome clearly as we do today, thanks to Pope Francis, who has pushed the conciliar envelop to its logical conclusions, including the New Mass being the "Only Roman Rite", full stop. Bye-bye the intellectual contortions of Benedict XVI's dialectical hermeneutics to two equal Roman Rites which contradicts the principle of non-contradiction of logic: "a thing cannot be, and not be, in the same sense, and in the same manner, at the same time." After praying all night, Archbishop Lefebvre took on a new resolve as he clearly saw now that the long-term goal of the Vatican was quite simply to re-integrate the FSSPX into the conciliar Church lock, stock and barrel. First declaw the FSSPX, by getting them to accept Vatican II forced through Catholic filters, while engaging to continue to dialog with Modernist Rome. Second, neuter the FSSPX by getting them to stop preaching against the errors of Vatican II. Then, albeit in one or two decades, in the long run, force the FSSPX to abandon the Old Rite of the Mass and switch over to the New Mass. It was a classic "switch and bait" manoeuvre for which Vatican diplomacy is renowned. We will give you "one bishop" who will be our man, and whom we can always take away from you, if you pledge a qualified allegiance to Vatican II and to the liceity of the New Mass. The rest is history. He consecrated four bishops without papal mandate. He was excommunicated. Divine Providence: God Writes Straight With Crooked Lines Given the convoluted series of events above, like a tapestry, , all knots, and disconnected swirls in the back, but which in front is a beautiful landscape, no-one can possibly have any idea how Archbishop Lefebvre would have reacted to events after his death in 1992. In the events of 2007, when Benedict XVI promulgated his hegellian communist dialectical "hermeneutical path", or "Summorum Pontificum," which falsely posits two equal Roman Rites, the Old and the New, thesis, and anti-thesis, both supposedly of "equal worth and dignity": which would become, the synthesis, or the "Reform of the Reform," many listened to the Sirenes of Modernist Rome, believed their empty promises, and left the FSSPX. In the events of 2012, Bishop Fellay entered into negotiations with Modernist Rome and again today 2024. Yet so many have fallen into the error of "second guessing" what Archbishop Lefebvre would have done today. The mistake which many dissident Catholics made, whether in 2007 or 2012 or today 2024, was to regard Archbishop Lefebvre as some kind of ‘inflexible rigorist' who had laid down a set of principles which had to be followed through thick and thin no matter what. Nothing could be farther from the truth. To believe this is to misunderstand the mission of this saintly man. He did not seek out his role as Defender of the Tradition. Divine Providence sought him out, and then provided the means, one humble step at a time, to continue his work of saving the traditional Catholic priesthood, and the traditional Catholic Mass. He said at the consecrations sermon in 1988 that he was a simple bishop carrying out his God-given and Catholic duty to pass on that which he had received as he had sworn to do. He believed that Divine Providence would show him a path forward if it was God's Will. Projecting the Present on the Past No-one can possibly have any idea how the Archbishop would have reacted to the events of 2007 and 2012 and today 2024. Those who claim otherwise did not truly know Archbishop Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre's deal with Pope John Paul II: For the 1988 lot who left the FSSPX: ‘if the Archbishop Lefebvre and the FSSPX consecrates bishops without papal mandate that shows that they’re in schism.’ “Join the FSSP and Rome, our True Mother! The Archbishop has betrayed his own principles and has left the Church.” Bishop Fellay's deal with Benedict XVI stemming from "Summorum Pontificium": For the 2007 lot, who left the FSSPX, it boils down to: ‘if the FSSPX consecrates bishops without papal approval that shows that they’re in schism.’ “Join the Transalpine Group of Papa Stronsay! We are the true guardians of the Tradition! Bishop Fellay has betrayed Archbishop Lefebvre and the principles that he fought for. We will continue to defend them.” Bishop Fellay's deal with Pope Benedict XVI over "full integration": For the 2012 resistance groups, it boils down to this: ‘how can we approve of any bishop, however saintly, if Pope Francis approves of him?’ The principles of Archbishop Lefebvre were being betrayed. Join the resistance, true defenders of the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre! Thus, began a very forceful and unworthy campaign of vilification and calumnies against the FSSPX leadership This time the boot was on the other foot and the people who left SSPX, and there were lots of them, claimed that the cause of Archbishop Lefebvre was being betrayed, and also claimed that the leadership were gunning for a ‘deal’ which would nullify the principles for which we had all fought. Today, in 2024, when the FSSPX has requested approval from Modernist Rome to consecrate bishops, many have forgotten how we got here and the above historical events: "nihil novi sub sole." The Resistance descendants cry out: "how can we approve of any bishop approved by Rome--this would betray the principles defended by Archbishop Lefebvre!" The Fr. Bisig and FSSP descendants exclaim: "how can we accept bishops consecrated without papal mandate--this would be a schismatical act?" The FSSPX will follow the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, who always allowed Divine Providence to unfold, so that events revealed God's Holy Will, and the correct actions to be taken. In God's time and manner, the God will turn the "tapestry" from back to front so that the knots on the back finally make sense when the "beautiful landscape" is revealed on the front. We are certain that God will lead the superiors of the FSSPX, who only seek to do God's Holy Will, to the correct course of action given the current circumstances. Sancte Pie X, Ora pro nobis!