Paix liturgique

The deadline of July 1, 2026, set by the SSPX to proceed with the consecration of bishops who are undoubtedly faithful to the Tradition of the Church and to the Catholic Faith handed down from the Apostles, is a welcome announcement of a day of joy. Those who deplore Ecône’s policy of self-assertion, even though they share its unchanging Faith and are adherents of the vetus ordo, are confronted with the ambiguity of their position. Their elders, having deplored in 1988 the ordinations that Rome did not want, left the SSPX in the hope that the Holy See would be grateful to them. The Ecclesia Dei group (1988/2019), established to give this impression, never served as a bulwark, much less a refuge, against the fury of Ordinaries who, boasting from the pulpit of being open to all, reserved their venom solely for traditional Catholics, with rare exceptions.

What will happen, from a human perspective, following these new consecrations? At first glance, nothing, except to include the new bishops consecrated on July 2 in the overall situation of the SSPX; which, over the course of some thirty years, has gone from a high-profile excommunication to the validation of its confessions by the Pope, and of its marriages by the Ordinaries on the Pope’s orders. Let us not go into details. In short, the 1988 ordinations, once the initial discomfort had passed, were accepted. The following will be so, by virtue of jurisprudence, and because the Church cannot formally renounce her Tradition without bearing the responsibility for heresies whose accumulation amounts to schism. The conciliarists are in power: the emotional and cognitive schism increasingly fails to mask the actual schism.

The traditionalist circles that spoke out against the consecrations have demonstrated sophistry. With their hands on their hearts, they theorized the only choice that would temporarily preserve their foothold in enemy territory. As in 1988, clemency is hoped for, not through a shared dialogue with the dioceses, but through a shared rejection of these bishops of a bygone era, who have yielded to the audacity of the rebels and not to themselves, who are blameless or wish to be so. In short, these traditionalists thought of their own little shop rather than their Church. This is not surprising, given that in 1988, in exchange for incorporation into “Ecclesia Dei,” they had accepted a clause of silence regarding the ravages of Vatican II, which were already evident.

These groups could have remained silent without joining in with those who are strangling them. But such silence might have been seen as complicity with Ecône, from which nothing distinguishes them except the label. The silence demanded regarding that disastrous Council would have been culpable where freedom of speech had been compromised from the very beginning. Conversely, the French bishops, in Lourdes in recent weeks, made it clear that they were not fooled. Behind the attachment to the usus antiquior and its lex orandi, a problem of ecclesiology and a rejection of Vatican II, unbeknownst to the most naive, does indeed exist. It did not escape their notice that by never speaking of the Second Vatican Council, it became logical to act as if it had never taken place. The Pastoral Council, imposing a deviant praxis without ever proclaiming the extinction of dogma, but forgetting to reaffirm its vigor, eventually met its match, paradoxically sheltered by an imposed silence.

Those who were forbidden to target Vatican II, and to have the perverse texts studied—to which the “Acts of the Council” provide such easy access—have, willy-nilly, turned the situation on its head. Acting as if Vatican II had never existed historically did not enrich the theological and historical culture of their seminarians, but entrenched the imposture, like a non-event, inaccessible through documentation, which was itself prohibited. This quarantine of the Council did not occur for the right reason—which would have been to purge it of its poison—but rather through a process of guardianship. The strategy of extending yesterday’s lex orandi—and thus the lex credendi handed down from the apostles—while effectively sidelining Vatican II out of obedience is a practice that works, much to the chagrin of the bishops, who, not without reason, maintain the marginalization of these suspects, who are more fruitful than their own clergy. While ecclesial chaos seriously destabilizes the City and renders the Republic powerless, the crisis of European conscience in the 21st century makes collective revivals illusory in the face of the rampant entropy of apostasy. In short, it is more urgent to grow than to seduce the enemy.

The traditional circles that have chosen the wrong alliance, after denying their debt to Ecône in the hope of harmony with the authorities that are stifling them, show that they continue to believe that treacherous institutions—which are already dead—are still alive. If they were ordered to methodically study Vatican II, they would see, even if with a heavy heart, the poison mixed in with innocuous reminders. If, having seen the poison, they remain silent, what credibility will they retain in the eyes of their own troops? And if they speak out loud and clear, as the SSPX does, and this battle for the Faith leads to their exclusion from the dioceses, well, they will have no choice but to rejoin the SSPX.

What will happen, humanly speaking, on the evening of July 2nd? Those who were against it will be ashamed of their cowardice. Will they dare to bring charges against their more courageous brothers?

Philippe de Labriolle

Adjunct Psychiatrist at the Hospitals