As an addendum to my earlier reflections on the pope’s wish that priests of the traditionalist Fraternal Society of St. Peter (FSSP) concelebrate (or at least participate in) the annual Chrism Mass with their local bishops and brother priests during Holy Week, I want to emphasize the central problems that this request is intended to address. (They might have gotten lost in my 4,000-word analysis.)
To put it simply:
- The pope and the bishops are concerned that priests of the FSSP do not assent to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council (in whole or in part) and do not accept the legitimacy and liceity of the reformed liturgical rites promulgated by Pope St. Paul VI following the Council.
- The pope and the bishops are also concerned that the priests of the FSSP do not seek to build ecclesial communion with their local churches and the universal Church.
Whether made intentionally or not, arguments based on the provision in Canon Law (cf. CIC 902) that priests are “fully entitled to celebrate the Eucharist individually” only distract from these two concerns. According to the FSSP memorandum, Pope Francis did not demand or mandate concelebration for FSSP priests, he shared “his wish – while respecting the freedom of each individual priest – for the concelebration of the Chrism Mass, or at least for the presence and Eucharistic Communion of priests at this ceremony.” He did not make it obligatory, but his request makes it clear that their willingness to participate would be a reassuring gesture.
The problem is also not primarily a matter of liturgical preference or training. It is a matter of fidelity to the Church. This is made clear in that Pope Francis calls “at least for the presence and Eucharistic Communion of priests at this ceremony.” It would be understandable for an FSSP priest to feel uncomfortable participating as a concelebrant in a liturgical form with which he is not familiar, especially the first few times he attends a Chrism Mass. Perhaps he even has a psychological aversion to concelebration or the reformed liturgy due to a past affiliation with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) or another radical traditionalist group, and he has not yet fully recovered from the psychological conditioning or trauma of that experience. In such a case, his presence and reception of the Eucharist at the Chrism Mass would certainly be sufficient (along with his ongoing formation) to manifest his unity with his bishop.
The pope, in expressing his wish, is clearly not worried about perfect attendance at the Chrism Mass or a special case here or there where a priest chooses not to participate. A priest may not be able to attend the Chrism Mass for any of a number of understandable — or at least benign — reasons: illness, distance, exhaustion, infirmity, scheduling conflicts, travel, family emergencies, or urgent pastoral situations. A priest may be unable to drive after dark or doesn’t like parking downtown and is unable to find alternative transportation. It’s a simple fact that not every priest in a diocese shows up to the Chrism Mass every year. These reasons apply just as much to traditionalists as they do to any other priest.
If a priest refuses to concelebrate the Chrism Mass (or even to participate “in choir” and receive communion) as a matter of principle, however, that points to a serious problem. The Church’s position on Eucharistic concelebration — especially concelebration of the Chrism Mass — is manifestly positive. Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, says that concelebration is where “the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested” (no. 57.1). The Chrism Mass is described in the Ceremonial of Bishops as, “The Mass, which the bishop concelebrates with his college of presbyters and at which he consecrates the holy chrism and blesses the other oils, manifest the communion of the presbyters with their bishop.” Manifesting this communion is integral to the institution of the FSSP. Pope St. John Paul II, in his 1988 decree erecting the FSSP, calls on the priests of the Fraternity to better foster “the necessary unity of the Church,” asking them “with particular diligence to seek communion with the bishop and diocesan priests.”
Unfortunately, many Catholics — including priests of the FSSP — have come under the influence of dissenters who advance views radically opposed to the Magisterium and the Catholic liturgical tradition. Despite all the lip service that these voices give to Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum for allowing wider use of the 1962 Missal, it is clear that they reject much of what it says regarding the unity between the two forms of the Roman Rite. Such voices, by their own rhetoric, undermined Benedict’s prediction that, “These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.” Sadly, a divisive attitude is pervasive in the FSSP if the words and actions of its superior in France, Fr. Benoît Paul-Joseph, are indicative of the positions held by the other priests of the Fraternity.
Michael Haynes, the Vatican correspondent for LifeSiteNews, published a lengthy blog post on the controversy today. His analysis focuses on the canonical right of a priest to refuse to concelebrate (which is, once again, not the issue) and he makes some dubious claims (such as his assertion that “In the current ecclesial sphere, it is now far more common to find one Mass with several priests around the altar than to find a large number of individual Masses”). But he also shares quotes from a 2021 interview with Fr. Paul-Joseph, who attended both the 2022 and 2024 audiences with Pope Francis. This interview was conducted in the aftermath of the FSSP’s expulsion from the French Archdiocese of Dijon but before the promulgation of Traditionis Custodes. In the interview (originally published in French) Fr. Paul-Joseph provides additional background for the refusal of Fraternity clergy to concelebrate at the Chrism Mass:
The question of concelebration is a delicate one, particularly in our institute, given our internal history and the crisis we have been through. As a preamble, let me remind you that if the majority of FSSP priests do not concelebrate, this is not due to an unofficial prohibition from their superiors, nor to an impossibility linked to their constitutions (which would be impossible), but to their personal choice, as the Church allows.
[…]
I can understand that this is difficult for some bishops to accept, but it seems unfair to me to suspect or penalize people who make use of a right, or to put their motives behind their choice. The priests of the FSSP have never questioned the validity of the Mass celebrated according to Paul VI’s missal; on the contrary, they have always pointed out its inadequacies and ambiguities, in a filial spirit. That’s why, since they have permission, they prefer not to concelebrate it.
Fr. Paul-Joseph’s statements (such as, “The priests of the FSSP have never questioned the validity of the Mass celebrated according to Paul VI’s missal”) are striking in that they closely resemble talking points typically expressed by radical traditionalists. He should know that belief in the validity of the reformed liturgy is not the real issue. The concern of the Church’s hierarchy is that many traditionalist priests hold views similar to John Lamont, who affirms the sacramental validity of the Vatican II liturgy but also believes, “The Novus Ordo has grave intrinsic flaws that make it at best unsuited for the celebration of the Eucharist.” Lamont and others frequently and boldly assert that the reformed Roman Rite is inferior and even illicit, making statements such as, “the Novus Ordo itself is illicit,” “I can no longer recognize in the Novus Ordo a legitimate liturgical rite of the Roman Church, even if it is sacramentally valid,” and “The Novus Ordo rite as commonly presented is not the Roman rite.” Such views approach those of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which describes the “New Mass” as “a danger to the faith of the faithful” and advises that one who attends “commits a sin against faith.”
Fr. Paul-Joseph’s statement that FSSP priests “have always pointed out [the reformed Missal’s] inadequacies and ambiguities” easily accommodates these positions. As does the statement of Fr. Roch Perrel, one of the FSSP priests who was expelled from Dijon. Explaining the position on the Chrism Mass that he and other FSSP priests hold to Catholic News Agency, Fr. Perrel said, “we haven’t done it for years, as we have reservations on the New Mass and we don’t celebrate at the same pace.”
Notably, neither priest lists his specific concerns about the “New Mass.” Would it be reasonable to assume that they hold back because their views are contrary to Church teaching and they fear correction by Church authorities?
Regardless, these carefully-phrased public statements about “inadequacies and ambiguities” and “reservations on the New Mass,” made by leaders in the FSSP community, are problematic in themselves. They are especially problematic if they lead to the refusal to concelebrate once a year with their bishop.
Additionally, the fact that they place repeated emphasis on their belief in the validity of the Vatican II Mass makes one wonder about their silence on what they think about its legitimacy. Rejecting the legitimacy of the liturgical reform is nearly as troubling as rejecting its validity, because it indicates a rejection of the authority with which it was promulgated. In this case, validity and legitimacy go hand-in-hand. Remember, Pope Benedict’s instructions on the implementation of Summorum Pontificum state that those “who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church” (art. 19, emphasis added).
Is the FSSP such a group?
If they aren’t, then participating in the Chrism Mass would be an opportunity to demonstrate it.
The survival of the FSSP as a society in full communion with the Catholic Church is at stake.
Image: “Concelebrate” (CC BY-ND 2.0) by michael_swan
Mike Lewis is the founding managing editor of Where Peter Is. He and Jeannie Gaffigan co-host Field Hospital, a U.S. Catholic podcast.
Popular Posts