In case anyone has been wondering, I had been waiting to address the SSPX controversy until it had played itself out, at least in its most recent iteration. I wanted to see if a) those bishops would be ordained, and b) the promised excommunications would result. For those interested in a helpful analysis of where we are now canonically, I suggest reading Fr. Gerald Murray at the Catholic Thing. If you want a good history and why all this back-and-forth between the Holy See and the followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre might sound familiar for those of a certain age, I suggest listening to this episode of Inside the Vatican. If podcasts from America Magazine are not your thing, you can read the chapter on SSPX in John Thavis’ wonderful Vatican Diaries or the essay by Richard Declue for Word on Fire. Many interesting and informative options.
For theological analysis, there is also a lot to choose from. I find, as I always do, Larry Chapp helpful. His two reflections for First Things, one before the excommunications of bishops, priests, and associated laity, and one after, rightly point to the tiresome inevitability of it all. Anyone reading Fr. Davide Pagliarani’s letter to the DDF can see that the SSPX objects to much more than the new Mass. The Second Vatican Council is the problem. Note the following:
We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council. This disagreement, for the Society’s part, does not stem from a mere difference of opinion, but from a genuine case of conscience, arising from what has proven to be a rupture with the Tradition of the Church. This complex knot has unfortunately become even more inextricable with the doctrinal and pastoral developments of recent pontificates.
I therefore do not see how a joint process of dialogue could end in determining together what would constitute “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, since—as you yourself have recalled with frankness—the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged.
