Paix liturgique

Following the announcement by the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) on February 2nd regarding the episcopal consecrations to be held in the meadow of Ecône on July 1st, Diane Montagna, an American Vatican expert based in Rome, immediately drew a parallel with the situation of the state Church in China. A provisional agreement signed between the Holy See and Beijing in 2018, renewed every two years until 2024 for a period of four years, stipulates prior agreement between the Chinese authorities and the Holy See for the appointment of bishops by Rome. However, deliberately ignoring this agreement, the Chinese government has repeatedly proceeded, through the Chinese Communist Party-controlled Patriotic Catholic Association (PCCA), to consecrate bishops without a prior papal mandate. Under the papacy of Francis, Rome repeatedly yielded and finally accepted these appointments.

Leo XIV continued in this same sense, effectively accepting the diocesan boundaries established by the Chinese government. On September 10, 2025, Bishop Giuseppe Wang Zhengui was ordained Bishop of Zhangjiakou, appointed by the Pope, and his candidacy was “approved” under the provisional agreement. Ordained in 1990 for Xianxian, he was affiliated with the official Church and was consecrated by Archbishop Li Shan of Beijing, president of the Chinese Pontifical Catholic Association (CPCA). However, in doing so, Leo XIV recognized the Diocese of Zhangjiakou, unilaterally created by the regime in 1980 and not previously accepted by the Holy See. Rome argues that this stabilizes the ecclesiastical and sacramental life of the 85,000 Catholics in Zhangjiakou. At the same time, Cardinal Zen, Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong, strongly protested and said out loud that this is a treason to the testimony of the underground Church, which had refused affiliation with the APCC at the cost of severe persecution.

Of course, neither Diane Montagna nor I would ever compare the SSPX with the Patriotic Association. However, it is impossible not to draw this analogy, albeit in a reverse sense, and derive from it an observation and question, which in fact are mere common-sense:

- 1/ The observation: if the two bishops who consecrated the SSPX (Bishop Fellay and Bishop de Galarreta) and the bishops consecrated on July 1st, 2026 (rumoured to be five, including two Frenchmen, Father Chautard, rector of the Institute of Saint Pius X, and Father De Lacoste, rector of the Seminary of Ecône), are declared excommunicated and responsible for an act that “would imply a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism)” (declaration of the Dicastery for the Doctrine for the Faith, February 12), public opinion would consider this an unjust double standard.

- 2/ And the question remains: why doesn't the Holy See apply to the SSPX a diplomatic procedure inspired by the one it uses for the Church in China? Perhaps a softer one even, by accepting the act de facto without applying any sanction (at the very least, by not "declaring" the automatic excommunication latae sententiae, according to canon law, or even by suspending this effect of excommunication).

On February 7, on Radio Notre-Dame, Martin Dumont, Secretary General of the Research Institute for the Study of Religions at the Sorbonne University and professor at the Catholic Institute of Paris, pointed out that Pope Leo, from whom people expect the pacification of the Church and the healing of her wounds, faces a considerable difficulty with the SSPX's announcement: a year after his accession to the papacy, he would have to pronounce a cascade of seven excommunications and a declaration of schism. Not to mention, presumably, the abolition of his predecessor's measures authorizing SSPX priests to hear confessions and receive mandates to bless marriages.

Moreover, probably without much effect. In an article in La Croix on February 9, "The Questions Raised by the Lefebvrist Crisis in the Church," Matthieu Lasserre and Mikaël Corre ask: "Does an ordinary faithful member of the SSPX commit a schismatic act?" and answer: "No, because in canon law, schism [...] presupposes an explicit and public intention to separate oneself from the Holy See and the Pope."

Hence the diplomatic reaction of the Holy See, which immediately offered the SSPX "negotiations," with Cardinal Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, receiving Father Pagliarani, Superior General of the SSPX, on February 12. The article in La Croix quoted a Roman canonist (Cardinal Mamberti?) who stated that the Pope, in order not to exacerbate the division, might issue a warning before the consecrations and not react afterward. This would leave us in a situation of canonical ambiguity: were the conditions for excommunication actually met? Martin Dumont, for his part, proposed a rather original idea: he imagined that the Holy See might send an official observer to Écône on July 1st to show that relations had not been severed.

Be that as it may, these events should logically have an effect on the treatment reserved for the traditionalists "inside" and encourage the Pope and the bishops to soften the restrictions imposed on the Mass and the sacraments under the provisions of Traditionis Custodes. Moreover, the freedom openly granted to the Tridentine liturgy would undoubtedly be the best solution to pave the way for the stabilization of the SSPX. Not to mention its beneficial effects for a resolution of the ecclesiastical crisis that began sixty years ago and restoring the strength of Catholicism.

Freedom from the Tridentine liturgy: this is the great prayer intention of our "vigils" praying our rosaries in Paris, 10 rue du Cloître-Notre-Dame, Monday to Friday, from 13:00 to 17:00, until 13:30, in Saint-Georges de La Villette, 114 avenue Simon Bolivar, on Wednesday and Friday at 17:00, in front of Notre-Dame du Travail, on Sunday at 18:15.