Tuesday evening’s remarks by the Holy Father on the episcopal consecrations announced by the Society of St Pius X are the first time that we have heard from the Pope himself on the issues involved. To be sure, his remarks were a brief response to an apparently impromptu journalistic question, but His Holiness’s response is both succinct and instructive.

Pope Leo seemed almost resigned to the hardening of division: “We are considering making another appeal, to say: ‘Do not do this. Let us try to live communion in the Church,’ but it is their choice. They must understand what it means for them and for the Church.” This most probably reflects the thinking of the Holy Father’s advisers – there seems to be little hope amongst them of overcoming the impasse. They simply seem to be preparing coldly to declare the canonical penalty of excommunication and possibly a schism.

This is understandable. The rather brusque communications between the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X in February this year did little to open doors or to give hope that they would be unlocked any time soon. Ever since, both sides seem simply to have got on with business as usual, preparing for July 1, and all that is likely to come in its aftermath, with an almost fatalistic efficiency.

Yet the Holy Father also stated that “division among Christians is always a painful matter”. For the man whose very vocation is to be “the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 882), this is more than an understatement. Such division is an ecclesial catastrophe – a new wound in the Body of Christ, nothing less, and not something simply to be accepted as inevitable. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote when trying to heal such division:

“Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.” (Letter to the Bishops, July 7, 2007)

What, then, needs to be done today on the part of the Church’s leaders so that the SSPX and others can “live communion in the Church” as the Holy Father wishes? What is the ‘extra mile’ (cf. Mt 5:41) required today to achieve this?

Pope Leo lamented that the SSPX “refuse to accept certain fundamental elements of the Church, beginning with various points of the Second Vatican Council” – and it is precisely here that we confront the impasse. Indeed, in February the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith underlined the issue of “the differing degrees of adherence required by various texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and their interpretation” as being crucial in identifying “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”.

The conflation of “certain fundamental elements of the Church” and “various points of the Second Vatican Council” is the problem and, with the greatest respect to the Holy Father – whose sincerity is not in question – and his officials, the ‘extra mile’ required today is finally to draw the necessary distinction between the two. That is to say, we must be utterly clear that the “fundamental elements of the Church” are that which a new convert must accept in saying “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God” – nothing more, nothing less. No one has a right to demand more. No one can permit less.

The “fundamental elements of the Church” are to be found in the teachings of Sacred Scripture, in the dogmatic definitions of the ecumenical councils of the Church, in the Creeds and in the infallible teachings of the Popes on matters of faith and morals. These are the minimum requirements to be in communion with the one, true Catholic Church founded by Christ. In the words of St Paul, the Sacred Liturgy teaches us in the epistle of the votive Mass for the Unity of the Church that “there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:3–7). These are the “fundamental elements of the Church”.

As we know only too well from Church history, there are many other elements of the Church’s life, yesterday and today, which are far from fundamental and about which Catholics may legitimately hold different views. Were papal policies in the time of the Crusades correct? Should the Church have condemned and burnt Joan of Arc? Should the response to the Protestant Reformations or the French Revolution have been different? Is the Holy See dealing appropriately with the crisis of the Church in Germany? The list could go on.

Today, the question is whether Church authorities can finally admit that the pastoral policies and orientations of the Second Vatican Council (the policy of aggiornamento, or updating of the Church, as it was called) are just that – prudential judgements made at a certain period in history (now over 60 years ago) and not doctrines of the Catholic Faith “that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God”. The policies of Vatican II and their frequently mutant implementations do not form a “super dogma” to which one must subscribe in order to be a Catholic. The Creed we sing at Mass does not begin Credo in concilium Vaticanum secundum... but Credo in unum Deum...

This is no small ask, for three generations of clergy and faithful have in fact been formed in the assumption that one must unquestionably believe in those pastoral policies and all that they are perceived to stand for. Lives have been lived and careers built upon this foundation. So-called “Vatican II deniers” have been marginalised and ignored for decades.

When someone asks whether the SSPX or some other person or group “accepts Vatican II”, what are they asking? That it occurred? No problem. That it was a validly convoked ecumenical council of the Catholic Church? Again, this is not an issue. That the person or group accepts its dogmatic definitions? Once again, there is no difficulty here: Vatican II made no dogmatic definitions – that is to say, it neither taught nor proclaimed anything at all new as revealed by God to be held by all Catholics. If it had, acceptance of these teachings would be required as a minimum condition for full communion with the Catholic Church. But it did not.

What is in fact being asked is whether or not a group or individual accepts the policies and pastoral orientations authoritatively adopted by the Council in the early 1960s or, more often, whether the post-conciliar implementation of the Council’s policies (which often differ significantly from the intentions of the Council Fathers at Vatican II) are accepted as unquestionably binding. That is to put it politely. The reality has long since been that any lack of docility to, or the raising of any critical questions about, the Council’s policies and their implementation have been decried as the unforgivable modern heresy of “failing to accept Vatican II”.

Respect is due to the policies and non-defined teachings of an ecumenical council, certainly, but one may freely question the wisdom of the prudential judgements of any general council of the Church without denying anything “that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God”, be those judgements the policy on religious liberty, the desire for reform of the liturgy, a naïve, starry-eyed openness to the modern world, a desire for ecumenism, or whatever. In all of these areas, as in others, there are significant differences, if not substantial deviations, from the nuanced positions adopted at the Council and their later interpretation and implementation.

With 60 years of hindsight and experience, a loyal Catholic could even suggest that it is high time to revise, retire or ressourcer some of these policies for the urgent good of the Church and the salvation of souls. But no. For many ecclesiastics, particularly bishops, this is simply unthinkable. It would betray everything for which they stand and have worked lifelong. Credo in concilium Vaticanum secundum... is indeed their creed.

The Holy Father is no doubt able to appreciate this distinction, but the personnel who surround him may have numbed his appreciation of its crucial importance, particularly at this time. For in truth, it is only the Pope who, as a Scribe of the Kingdom of Heaven bringing forth from his treasury things both new and old in due season (cf. Mt 13:52), can once and for all clarify the pastoral nature of the Second Vatican Council and of all its policies and orientations, and permit their long-overdue respectful critical evaluation with the freedom of conscience and expression that is the right of all the faithful.

This would be a courageous move. It could be seen in some ways as a capitulation, without demanding anything of the SSPX or others who have themselves at times contributed to the building up of a climate of accusation and mistrust through ill-chosen words and actions. The SSPX must avoid becoming a ghetto or presenting itself as the sole arbiter of Truth, even as it has sought simply to preserve traditional Catholic life and teaching in its integrity. There is no place for sects in the communion of the Church.

The drawing of such a clear distinction on the part of the Holy Father could also be seen as a truly pastoral act of a good shepherd, seeking out straying sheep in the hope of bringing them back into the one sheepfold of the Church. If it is true that, in the past, “at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity”, then there is indeed “an obligation on us today to make every effort to enable all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew”.

On Tuesday the Holy Father concluded his remarks by saying: “If they [the SSPX] make those choices [to refuse certain points of the Second Vatican Council] I am sorry. But we must move forward.” Let us pray and fast and work in whatever way we can so that we may all move forward in that unity of faith of which we sing in the Creed, unencumbered by any overstating of the nature or policies of the Second Vatican Council. And let us earnestly beseech Heaven with prayers that the Holy Father will receive the particular graces he needs truly to be the “visible source and foundation of unity” in the Church at this moment of crisis.

‍

Dom Alcuin Reid is the Prior of the Monastère Saint-Benoît in Brignoles, France.

‍