Leo XIV: The risk of schism

The small traditionalist schism of the SSPX, with all its aftermath, has highlighted how the unity in the Church that Leo XIV set as the primary goal of his pontificate is still far from being achieved.

Indeed, the debate within the Church is still too heated, so much so that it’s difficult to understand the contourss of what is happening.

After the episcopal ordinations without papal mandate and the consequent excommunication latae Sententiae for all members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), many so-called traditionalists have highlighted a sort of disparity in treatment.

“Why are followers of the traditional Mass excommunicated,” they ask, “while new Chinese bishops, some of whom were directly appointed by the government and whose appointments the Holy See simply accepted, are not?”

This comparison between the traditionalist and Chinese cases is interesting because it contrasts two strikingly different situations.

The problem of the so-called Lefebvrians—named after their founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—is not limited to the liturgy.

Already when the first schism occurred in 1988, the Holy See created the Fraternity of Saint Peter, which includes priests who celebrate with the Missal preceding the one promulgated by Paul VI, but who are in communion with the Pope.

The key point is that the Lefebvrists reject the conclusions of the Second Vatican Council en masse, considering them non-binding, and therefore decide to ordain bishops without papal mandate, in complete autonomy, to maintain a link, even of apostolic succession, with tradition. Those who ordain bishops have been legitimately ordained, and therefore the ordination is valid. But it is an illicit ordination.

In fact, by ordaining bishops without papal mandate, one excommunicates oneself. For this reason, excommunication is latae sententiae, for simply having committed the act.

But ordinations without papal mandate also occurred in China, and bishops ordained without papal mandate were automatically excommunicated.

In 2018, when Pope Francis agreed to sign the agreement with China for the appointment of bishops, one of the conditions of that agreement was precisely the return to full communion of all illicitly ordained bishops. And so it happened. In fact, the principle of that agreement was to re-establish communion in the Church, and that communion could not occur unless the excommunications were lifted.

Since the agreement was reached, there have been several extreme cases. Joseph Shen Bin was appointed bishop of Shanghai without the Pope’s approval, and Francis then had to “rectify” the situation by personally making the appointment.

And then there was the case of the auxiliary bishop of Shanghai, Ignatius Wu Jianlin , and the bishop of the apostolic prefecture of Xinxiang, Francis Li Jianlin. These two bishops had been “elected” in China during the days of the vacant see, although Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, later said that the appointments had nevertheless been agreed upon.

On June 15, Chang Yanfeng was ordained as the new bishop of the diocese of Chifeng , but this news was released only a month later, on July 22, and this raised suspicions that the ordination had taken place without the consent of the Holy See and that it had subsequently been rectified.

In none of these cases, however, is there a direct challenge to the Pope’s authority.

There is a procedure, established by an agreement, and the Holy See is attempting to uphold that agreement, despite the Chinese government’s apparent overreach. There may be limits to the excommunication, but the reason for this excommunication would be unclear, considering that we are moving within the realm of dialogue.

It is a complex dialogue, but still vaguely regulated, although many in the Holy See say the agreement with China needs to be changed and redefined. How this should be done remains to be seen, as the text of the agreement has never been released, and this secrecy prevents us from fully understanding how it works.

The case of the traditionalists is different, for several reasons.

First, there was an official announcement of ordination that preceded the ordinations well beforehand. There was a dialogue with the Holy See, which sought to avert new ordinations. There was a letter from the Pope explicitly requesting that the ordinations not proceed.

There was also a conscious decision by the Society to move forward with the ordinations of four new bishops, despite their awareness of the consequences they faced. Indeed, the Lefebvrists decided to move forward without any dialogue, even going so far as to appeal for a suspension of the decision.

While the Chinese government is pushing to the limit an agreement that nevertheless concedes something, the Lefebvrists have carried out an action that they believe is necessary to maintain a continuity of apostolic succession in tradition, but without any agreement with the Holy See.

It may seem like a subtle and administrative distinction, but it isn’t. The Pope must accept a situation for it to be valid.

But Leo XIV has not yet succeeded in highlighting, with facts and charisma, the need to maintain unity around the Pope. Francis was a Pope who imposed unity through the spoils system and the targeted selection of certain collaborators.

Benedict XVI sought to achieve unity through reason.

Leo XIV’s governing style is still unclear – partly because his pontificate is still stuck in the past, unable to change the men who have handled the dossiers so far.

The negotiation with China is a self-sustaining one, and perhaps soon the secret agreement will be changed and “adjusted,” or made public, so as to prevent anyone from manipulating its terms.

But the traditionalist question is also suspended in the past.

In effect, a global excommunication—which, among other things, has many limitations, starting with the declaration of invalidity of the sacraments, which was also questioned by Cardinal Müller—resolves the problem of having considered the traditionalist phenomenon as something to be eradicated.

It is no coincidence that the head of the SSPX, Davide Pagliarani, asked Leo for the mercy of which Pope Francis spoke so often and so eloquently.

That the two cases are being compared despite their evident dissimilarity and even incommensurability demonstrates the division and confusion within the Church.

There is a world that sympathizes with traditionalism and cannot accept seeing traditionalists excluded from the “communion” of the Church, without considering that it was their own decisions that put them outside of communion.

This same world, however, cannot accept the peculiar situation experienced in China, where the agreement with the government—which should be improved, clarified, or even abolished in extreme cases—serves precisely to protect the Chinese. Communion has been sought, perhaps (almost certainly) naively, but certainly with the idea of creating a space for dialogue.

Could communion have been sought with traditionalists as well?

Yes, undoubtedly, and it was probably not “negotiated” well – if “negotiated” is even the correct term – but the communion sought in China is also a way to overcome the tight grip of the Chinese government and its policy of sinicization.

For now, the Holy See has been somewhat passive, but it won’t be forever. At least, that’s the hope.