Transcript:
Fr. Daniel Maria Klimek: I wanted to ask you about the Society of St. Pius the Tenth. I know that you were a visitor to them on behalf of a pontifical commission and have had dialogue with them.
What is the current status of the SSPX in the Church, and are faithful Catholics allowed to attend SSPX Masses, especially those who desire the more traditional liturgy, the Extraordinary Form?
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Well, basically, the problem and existence of the Society of St. Pius the Tenth is there because of the crisis in the Church. If we had not had a doctrinal and liturgical crisis after the Council, there would be no Society of St. Pius the Tenth, no necessity.
Because, especially the Mass, Archbishop Lefebvre always stated this is the reason for the existence and the lizard— I mean the raison d’être— of the Society of St. Pius the Tenth is the Mass: to preserve and hand over this treasure of the perennial liturgy of the Church to the next generations because of the intrinsic weakness and ambiguity of the Novus Ordo, which contains some elements of Protestantism, enticing elements you cannot deny.
This was the first and basic reason of Archbishop Lefebvre, the Holy Mass, the traditional Mass. And thanks to him and his foundational work, not exclusively, I would say, but mainly him.
We now have the Traditional Latin Mass, and Pope Benedict extended this to the entire Church. Unfortunately, Pope Francis again limited it, but it is probably only a temporary measure. Then, simply to guarantee the pure formation of priests, as it was until the Council, simply the same way, theologically, doctrinally, and liturgically at least, to have this possibility to keep this formation as also a kind of treasure in the Church.
Because in the Council there are some affirmations which are still to be clarified, which are not so easy, and the official explanations are not satisfactory. We have to go to the depths of this. So I think, globally speaking, the Society of St. Pius X is a work of the providence of God, also from this point of view of doctrine, in the future, to make a contribution to clarify these aspects that must still be clarified in doctrine. They are not plain heresies, but unclear, not clear, ambiguous. We have to have clarity in the Church. We cannot continue with ambiguity, ambiguity.
In any case, this is, for me, the basic intention of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, and he also always rejected any sedevacantist tendencies. He was even expelled from the Society of priests who did not recognize the Popes in Rome, Paul VI or John Paul II.
Until the end of his life, especially when he consecrated the bishops, he tried to get the approval of the Pope. Until the last, he wrote letters and implored the Pope that he wanted to do this with his blessing. This also manifests that he had a true sense of the Church, and did this only as a measure of an extraordinary situation and emergency situation.
Now, to conclude your question, Pope Francis, in some way, improved the situation in the Church of the Society of St. Pius X in the sense that he granted them the usual ordinary faculties to hear confessions from all the priests of the Society. This is a very important step to normalize the Society of St. Pius X. Then, also to grant the possibility to assist weddings, marriages, and canonical assistance, with the possibility to celebrate the Nuptial Mass.
So consequently, Pope Francis allowed the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to publicly celebrate the Nuptial Mass. So in some way, the Nuptial Mass, at least, is approved by the Pope, and therefore it remains something contradictory.
I ask the Holy See to grant the priests of the Society the general permission to celebrate Mass, to make this permission consistent. Because when a priest celebrates the Nuptial Mass, it is approved, but the next day, his Mass is not approved. This is a kind of contradiction. I asked the Holy See to regularize this. It is not yet done, but maybe in the future or near future, I hope this.
They will get regularization simply because they are doing nothing else than what the Church did until the Council, and what the Church did until the Council was not wrong. On the contrary, it was meritorious, and so they do nothing else but this. I say the problem is more juridical, but also psychological. I wish that they must be regularized and integrated in the life of the Church from the canonical point of view in order to avoid a mentality of self-sufficiency or ghetto mentality. This is also a basic consequence of living too long autonomously in some way.
I hope this situation can be resolved. But now that people have the possibility to attend the Traditional Mass, of course, they can go to the Society of St. Pius X Masses, they are valid and they are not schismatic. There are statements from the Holy See that clearly state the Society of St. Pius X is not schismatic. We have this official recognition.
So even when, let’s say, people converted to Catholicism or began a new Catholic life within the communities or parishes of the Society of St. Pius X and grew up there, it is logical that they have the right to continue their formation and their church life.
We have to be very broad and pastoral in these cases because there is no heresy. They pray for the Pope, even publicly, for the bishop of the diocese they pray. That is already good. We must not, in this situation of extreme emergency, put the letter of the law above all else. No, the letter of the law in this case is secondary. What matters most is the purity of the faith, the liturgy, and the salvation of souls.
Provided they are united in this, united in the Mass with the Pope and the bishop, praying for and recognizing him, that must be sufficient. We need to unite all the good forces, including other communities of the Traditional Latin Mass, together with the Society of St. Pius X and all other good Catholics. They must unite. They cannot continue to antagonize one another. This is completely against, I would say, the good of the Church and the renewal of the Church. We must abandon these unnecessary antagonisms and look beyond them to the great benefit and good of the Church, of the renewal of the Church in this time of extraordinary, unprecedented crisis, and work together for the Holy Church.