COMMENTARY: The Society of St. Pius X’s latest rejection of Vatican overtures must be called out for what it is: a not-so-latent de facto sedevacantism.

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by Cardinal Victor Fernández, recently hosted the superior general of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Father Davide Pagliarani, to begin an ecclesial dialogue. 

Sadly, and predictably, the Society, in a Feb. 18 letter to Cardinal Fernández, has rejected the offer of continuing dialogue, claiming it has no hope of success. Father Pagliarani enumerated five reasons. All five of his reasons are theologically deficient and ultimately expressive of a deep ecclesiological rupture with tradition. 

Before offering his five reasons, Father Pagliarani positions the Society as the more honest interlocutor since the Society has been proposing such a dialogue since 2019, only to be supposedly met with a cold silence from the Vatican. 

But under closer examination, the Society is “open” to dialogue until it isn’t. Its alleged “openness” is contingent upon the conversation taking place only if it does so based upon the Society’s ground rules.

But how is that a “traditional” Catholic posture? 

The Vatican was clear about its ground rules and was willing to discuss canonical regularization based on them, but those rules are based on the traditional Catholic teaching concerning the authority of the supreme pontiff, a valid ecumenical council, and several synods of bishops. It is precisely this presumption that Father Pagliarani is rejecting as a “skewed” starting point for dialogue since it “unfairly” favors in advance papal authority over that of the superior general of the SSPX.

In stark terms, what the Society is asserting is that it believes in papal authority and desires full communion with that authority, but that the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar popes have forfeited their authority by teaching doctrinal error, creating a grave crisis that legitimates disobedience to the papal magisterium. 

The SSPX, therefore, has set itself up as a parallel magisterium that alone possesses the proper interpretation of “tradition.” Affirmations of “loyalty to Rome” aside, the bizarre incoherence involved in claiming to defend tradition by repudiating papal authority cannot be ignored. 

Furthermore, SSPX leadership goes on to claim that they are the ones who get to define both the nature of the crisis and its parameters. This amounts to a de facto sedevacantism with a concomitant justification for calling itself the “true remnant” of the “true Church.” Some describe this as “Protestantizing,” but I view it as a form of Catholic apocalypticism wherein the rejection of the magisterium from 1962 forward is viewed as resistance to a prophetically predicted “Great Apostasy.”

The five reasons Father Pagliarani goes on to list elucidate these points. 

First, he states that Vatican II represents a “rupture” with tradition and, therefore, for the Society, it is a matter of moral conscience to reject it. If the Council cannot be reversed — which the Society acknowledges won’t happen — then there is no point in moving forward. And this is a baseline non-negotiable — SSPX locuta est, causa finita est.

Second, Father Pagliarani states, correctly, that the entirety of the modern magisterium through many successive pontificates has already given us a clear hermeneutic for how the Church understands the Council and, therefore, as Cardinal Fernández made clear, this understanding is to form the foundation for all discussions going forward. Therefore, in rejecting this offer of dialogue, what Father Pagliarani is saying is that the two approaches to Vatican II — that of the “magisterium” of the Society and that of the entirety of the modern magisterium — cannot be reconciled. And this is a matter of conscience for the Society in a manner reminiscent of Martin Luther’s “Here I stand; I can do no other.”

Third, Father Pagliarani says that the Vatican has renewed a call for dialogue only because the Society has announced its intention to engage in new episcopal ordinations. He might be correct that the Vatican was never really serious about wanting a dialogue and only reluctantly agreed to it in the face of the SSPX announcement. But, given his letter, neither is he open to dialogue, as the entirety of his letter makes clear. 

Beyond such recriminations, there is once again a hidden rejection of papal authority in his remarks. He laments that these threats of excommunication from the Vatican have been made “public” and implies that the Society, portrayed as the honest interlocutor and devoted servant of the truth, is the victim of Vatican intimidation. 

But the self-justifying arrogance here is astounding. No acknowledgment is made of the Pope’s fully traditional and legitimate juridical right to impose sanctions for illicit ordinations. Nor is it mentioned that it was the Society itself, through its own public announcement of future illicit ordinations, that provoked the public Vatican response. 

This whole affair began when it publicly slapped the Vatican in the face and then screamed, “No fair!” when it got slapped back. The Vatican seemed perfectly happy to let the SSPX status quo simmer on the stove under low heat, until the SSPX turned the burner on high and accused Rome of burning the meal.

Fourth, the Society claims that it can be judged only by the pre-conciliar tradition of the Church since all post-conciliar teachings are grounded in a heretical rupture with tradition. The Society, however, ignores the fact that it is not in any way “traditional” to set itself up as the sole arbiter of adjudicating between what is true and false tradition. Tradition teaches that this function is the role of the magisterium and not of individual Catholics. 

So once again, we see the latent sedevacantist claim lurking in the background. Because the claim is that the modern Church is so lacking in fidelity to the tradition that “true Catholics in the remnant” must sadly now turn to the past, and only the past, for guidance. 

Finally, Father Pagliarani claims that the path of dialogue was tried before, but that Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ruined the party by insisting upon sincere and real fidelity to the latest ecumenical council. Therefore, according to Father Pagliarani, because of Cardinal Müller’s demand for faithfulness to the magisterium, the whole thing was a “forced” conversation lacking in integrity and therefore rightly collapsed. This is just a repetition of the already cited assumption from the Society that asking for loyalty to the magisterium as an upfront condition for regularization is a bridge too far for any true “traditionalist.” 

So it looks as if the SSPX will once again defy Rome and incur an excommunication. But as it exits the door this time, let us not allow it to co-opt the narrative by insisting that it really is still inside the Church when everyone with even a modicum of Catholic theological training can see that it are not. 

And let us attend carefully to the recent remarks from Cardinal Müller, who contends that a true reform of the Church can only take place from within the Church. 

But also, as adherents of the SSPX go out the door, and with an eye toward the return of the wayward prodigal sons, let us remind them that the door is not locked from the inside and that at any moment they can repent, turn back, open the door wide, and walk through freely into the warm embrace of Holy Mother Church.

This article was originally published by NCRegister.