Father Federico Highton, S.E. / ACN.- The Holy See promoted a dialogue with the SSPX and it responded by accepting it in the Letter from Father Pagliarani to Monsignor Pozzo of 17/1/19 in which the superior of the SSPX proposes as interlocutors on behalf of the Fraternity “the Fathers Arnaud Sélégny, Guillaume Gaud and Jean-Michel Gleize”.
That dialogue was truncated and Father Pagliarani on 18/2/26 complained, blaming Rome, saying that “the Dicastery did not show real interest in such a discussion, alleging—orally—that it was impossible to reach a doctrinal agreement between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X” (Response of the General Council of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X to the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith). Therefore, fearing to postpone the consecrations (since the two surviving bishops of the SSPX are elderly), the SSPX canceled the dialogue with the Holy See.
I.-Now, we can ask ourselves if the SSPX really wanted to dialogue with the Holy See. The answer seems negative since after several Catholic apologists had denounced the Lefebvrist schism, Father Gleize (one of the three Lefebvrist appointees for the dialogue with Rome) responded, with some linguistic circumlocution, implying that SS Leo XIV is schismatic.
He did so in his article “Where is the schism?”[1], published on 19/3/26 on an official SSPX website, in which he implies that the Pope is schismatic. He says it in these words:
The schism exists, certainly. But it is not where Msgr. Eleganti believes he sees it. And it is where he does not see it. The schism is that shameless ecumenism pursued obstinately by Pope Leo XIV.
Taking into account what Father Gleize said and that he was one of the three delegates appointed by Father Pagliarani for the dialogue with Rome (and given that his membership in the “dialogue table” cast was mentioned in one of the annexes of his recent letter to the DDF where he renounces the dialogue), we proceed to ask three questions of the superior of the SSPX:
Given and considering that dialoguing with schismatics is ecumenism, that the SSPX condemns ecumenism as a Vatican II heresy, and that Father Gleize considers SS Leo XIV to be schismatic, why does the SSPX say it wants to dialogue with the Pope?
Given and considering that, according to the SSPX, there is nothing to negotiate with schismatics and that Father Gleize considers SS Leo XIV to be schismatic, what sense does it make to pretend to obtain a papal permission to consecrate bishops? This, in fact, was, in nuce, Bishop Williamson’s criticism against the SSPX and that is why he founded “The Resistance”, a group of Lefebvrists who reject, at the level of principle, all dialogue with the Pope[2].
Can there be a “schismatic Pope”? Isn’t this an oxymoron? If a Pope is schismatic, he is not Pope but antipope and then the See is vacant. Ergo Father Gleize (chosen by the SSPX to dialogue with the Holy See) is implicitly sedevacantist, and with him the entire SSPX seems to be so today.
The choice of Father Gleize, as a member of the SSPX triad to dialogue with Rome, shows that the SSPX does not want to dialogue, since for Father Gleize the Pope is schismatic. Some will say that Father Gleize’s position is personal and does not represent the SSPX, even though his article was published on an official SSPX website.
II.- Some might say that when Father Gleize was appointed delegate for the dialogue (back in 2019) he perhaps did not believe that the Pope was schismatic and that it is not necessarily the case that now the SSPX would appoint him as a delegate in an eventual new dialogue table. These are objections that might seem reasonable but the reality is that Father Gleize is merely following the position that Msgr. Lefebvre held in 1976, who on 29/6/76, on the occasion of his suspension a divinis, declared that SS Paul VI was schismatic:
We are suspended a divinis by and for the conciliar church, to which we do not wish to belong. This church is schismatic, for it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time. It has new dogmas, a new priesthood, new institutions, a new worship. All this has already been condemned by the Church in many official and definitive documents…
The Church that affirms such errors is at the same time schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic. To the extent that the pope, the bishops, the priests or the faithful adhere to this new church, they thus separate themselves from the Catholic Church (Reflections on the Suspension ‘a divinis’).
Some will object to us that Father Gleize does not represent Msgr. Lefebvre since after saying what he said, after the embrace that SS John Paul II gave him (which took place on 18/11/78[3]), Msgr. Lefebvre changed his mind and opened up to dialogue with Rome by approving Vatican II and the Liturgical Reform by declaring on 8/3/80 the following:
Holy Father:
To put an end to some doubts that are now circulating in Rome and in certain traditionalist circles in Europe and America regarding my attitude and thought with respect to the Pope, the Council and the Novus Ordo Mass, and fearing that these doubts reach Your Holiness, allow me once again to say what I have always expressed…
That I am in complete agreement with Your Holiness’s judgment on the Second Vatican Council, made on November 6, 1978 in the meeting of the Sacred College. That the Council must be understood in the light of the entire Sacred Tradition and on the basis of the constant magisterium of the holy Church.
Regarding the Novus Ordo Mass, despite all the reservations that may be had, I have never said that it is invalid or heretical in itself.
This puts us in a dilemma: which Lefebvre does the SSPX follow? The “pre-embrace Lefebvre” who declared the “papal schism” on 29/6/76 or the “post-embrace Lefebvre” who, less than four years later, approved Vatican II and the “New” Mass on 8/3/80? What, then, is the pure Lefebvrist stance? The question is not easy since there are at least “five Lefebvres”.
Initially (this is the first period) Msgr. Lefebvre approved Vatican II, as seen in the fact that he signed all the conciliar acts and exhorted to follow Vatican II integrally (cf. Letter of 6/1/66[4]).
The second period is the “first hard Lefebvre”: that of the declaration of 21/11/74, which is the one of the “Two Romes” (recently celebrated by the SSPX) and the oxymoronic denunciation of the “Schismatic Pope” made on 29/6/76. This period ended when SS John Paul II surprised Msgr. Lefebvre by embracing him on 18/11/78.
The pontifical embrace gave rise to the third period which is that of a soundly conciliatory Msgr. Lefebvre who approved Vatican II and the Liturgical Reform and dialogued with Rome to obtain canonical regularity.
After some time, the ambivalent period began where he continued to dialogue and negotiate with Rome but violent statements are recorded that configure a virtual sedevacantism, as seen in this declaration from the Letter to the future bishops of 29/8/87:
My dear friends:
With the See of Peter and the positions of authority in Rome occupied by antichrists, the destruction of the kingdom of Our Lord is being carried out rapidly even within his Mystical Body here below, especially through the corruption of the holy Mass, which is a magnificent expression of Our Lord’s triumph over the cross — Regnavit a Ligno Deus — and source of the extension of his kingdom over souls and societies.
Despite this quasi-vacant violence, thanks to the patience of SS John Paul II, this period almost culminated in conversion and regularization since Msgr. Lefebvre on 5/5/88 ratified a “Protocol of agreement” with Card. Ratzinger that said the following:
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Emeritus Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X founded by me: We promise to always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of the Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in § 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesiastical Magisterium and the adherence due to it. On certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning subsequent reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not seem easily reconcilable with Tradition, we commit ourselves to having a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics. (…)[5].
Unfortunately, the day after signing he radically changed his mind by rejecting the Pope, thus beginning the next period.
The fifth and last period is that of the “second hard Lefebvre”, who not only rejects dialogue with the Pope but exhorts all the faithful to stay away from the Pope as one stays away from HIV. It is the Lefebvre of the 1988 consecrations. This was the last period since it ended with his death excommunicated. In fact, in this period the virulence was such that Msgr. Lefebvre came to accuse Card. Ratzinger and all of Rome of having “lost the faith”, of having “spiritual AIDS” and not having the grace of God” (Letter to the chosen bishop, 13/6/88). A few months later, Msgr. Lefebvre resumes the AIDS analogy asking for total distancing from Rome:
It is in Rome that heresy was installed. (…) If we distance ourselves from this kind of people, it is with the same precaution as one takes with people who have AIDS. We do not want to get contaminated. Now, they have spiritual AIDS, it is a contagious disease. If we want to preserve health, we must not approach them… That is why we cannot relate to Rome (Conference to Priests in Ecône, Fideliter 66, Nov.-Dec. 1988, pp. 27-31).
This last period was so harsh that Msgr. Lefebvre accepted as co-consecrator of the four bishops Msgr. Castro Mayer, who shortly before 1988 professed a crypto-sedevacantism, as can be seen from this statement of his in an interview given to Jornal da Tarde:
The church that formally and totally adheres to Vatican II, with its heresies, is not and cannot be the Church of Jesus Christ. In order to belong to the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ, it is necessary to have the faith, that is, not to doubt or deny a single article of Revelation. Now, the church of Vatican II accepts heretical doctrines, as we have seen (The Roman Catholic, August 1985).
Some might raise a far-fetched objection and say, as some Lefebvrist priests do, that Msgr. Lefebvre did not approve the conciliar acts. But if so, then there are at least six Lefebvres: 1) first hard period; 2) obedient period (expressed in the letter of 6/1/66); 3) second hard period (until 18/11/78); 4) conciliatory period; 5) ambivalent period and 6) third hard period.
III.- What has been said leads us to state three conclusions that show that the dynamic of the SSPX is erratic, contradictory and messianic.
First, the dynamic of the SSPX is erratic since Msgr. Lefebvre approved Vatican II at least three times: (a) by signing the Conciliar Acts and in the Letter of 6/1/66; (b) after the papal embrace by declaring himself “in complete agreement with Your Holiness’s judgment on the Council” (8/3/80) and (c) on 5/5/88 by signing the agreement proposal made by the Church basically approving Vatican II. This dismantles the simplistic narrative that presents a Msgr. Lefebvre always opposed to Vatican II.
Second, the dynamic of the SSPX is contradictory and it is not only because of the above, but also because the SSPX’s dialogue with the Holy See is already impossible since currently, according to Father Gleize’s statements, the SSPX considers the Pope to be schismatic (let us remember that in the SSPX no one speaks in a personal capacity, much less on such a serious matter[6]).
Third, the dynamic of the SSPX is messianic since if the SSPX declares that the Pope is schismatic, it is implicitly affirming that the Church subsists in the SSPX (and in a constellation of loose individuals here and there who are sympathetic to its theses as subordinate to the SSPX).
The Lefebvrist messianism goes so far that after the sacrilegious consecration of the four bishops for the SSPX in 1988, Stefano Paci, a reporter for 30 Days, held an interview with Msgr. Lefebvre, and the following excerpt was in its July/August edition:
PACI: And now, what do you foresee for the future of the Fraternity in its relations with the Church of Rome?
LEFEBVRE: I hope that in a few years, maximum four or five years, Rome will end up making an agreement with us.
PACI: And if this does not happen?
LEFEBVRE: Rome would remain far from Tradition, and it would be the end of the Church.
The dynamic of the SSPX is messianic at least for one further reason: if the SSPX declares that the Pope is schismatic, the only solution for the Church is that She convert to Lefebvrism and elect a Pope from the SSPX (which not only implies that he be a Pope with an impeccable theological curriculum but that he has been consecrated, absolved or sub conditione, by the SSPX). In any case, if this were to happen, almost certainly a part of the SSPX will be dissatisfied with the Lefebvrist Pope since it will accuse him of being liberal, since there will always be some point (real or apparent) to accuse the neighbor of modernist (see if not the vehement dispute of the post-Williamson Father Cardozo—one of the four founders of “The Resistance” in Brazil—against the Williamsonians) and thus the “Lefebvrist cycle” will repeat itself: protest – disobedience – schism – excommunication – internal ramifications – new schisms.
Let us conclude by pointing out that Lefebvrism encloses an impressive series of concatenated dilemmas that ends up entertaining and even fascinating the intellect since it gives it abundant material for the discovery of absurdities, paradoxes and contradictions, which gave us matter for reflection, which originated these lines, written in large part during a traffic jam in the land of Moors and croissants caused by the “Persian new year”, as they call it here. Let us end here since I have 2% battery left.
Quo vadis, SSPX?
Father Federico Highton, S.E.
21/III/26 (St. Benedict Abbot), Qharga, Afghanistan.
[1] https://fsspx.news/es/news/donde-esta-el-cisma-57949. The highlights of the quotes are ours.
[2] There was a concause of the Williamsonian schism which was “the question of the six million Jews”, on which there are numerous writings, including that of Dr. Antonio Caponnetto, but let us leave, for this time, that question aside.
[3] https://elpais.com/diario/1978/11/21/sociedad/280450809_850215.html
[4] https://www.infocatolica.com/blog/maradentro.php/2602280501-mons-lefebvre-apoyo-el-vatica
[5] https://laportelatine.org/formation/crise-eglise/rapports-rome-fsspx/protocole-daccord-etabli-entre-le-cardinal-ratzinger-et-mgr-lefebvre-du-5-mai-1988
[6]“In our congregation the priests do not act autonomously, expressing private opinions, but are the echo of the position of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, which, in short, is the pure Catholic position” (https://centroamerica.fsspx.org/es/news/comunicado-distrito-america-del-sur-respuesta-padre-federico-highton-27383).