A great many commentators have taken up the cudgels both before and after the Society of St.Pius X consecrated bishops without Rome’s permission last July 1. Some are for, some are against; but most subscribe to a single narrative. In his Pelican Plus-based substack, “The Meaning of Catholic,” Tim Flanders has written a fine piece on “The SSPX and the Lay Nobility.” Comprising 37 Theses, it makes the cases that both the SSPX and their opposition have abandoned key parts of Catholic Tradition. These in fact revolve around the very nature of Catholic Society.
Although present in potentia since Christ united His Davidic Kingship with the Communio of the Church at the Last Supper, it was only in the fourth century that the reality of which we speak came into act — that is, when Armenia, Georgia, Ethiopia, and at last the Roman Empire converted en masse. The result was the Res Publica Christiana, the Christian Body, of which the Church was the Form and the State the matter, the two co-existing facets giving the whole meaning and guidance. This was summed up by the 494 letter from Pope St. Gelasius I to Emperor Arcadius, which reads, in part: “Indeed, there are two means, August Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled: the sacred authority (auctoritas sacrata) of the priests and the royal power (regalis potestas). Of these, how much greater is the responsibility of the priests, in that they even have to render an account for the kings of men at the divine judgment. You also know, most merciful son, that though you preside over a human office, as a devout man you nevertheless bend your neck to the rectors of divine things and await from them the reasons of your salvation. And in their taking up the heavenly sacraments and distributing them, as is appropriate, you recognize that you should be subordinate to the priestly order rather than rule over it, and so in these things you depend on their judgment and do not wish to bend them to your will. For if, to the degree that it pertains to the order of public discipline, the ministers of religion also obey your laws, recognizing the power of command attributed to you by divine disposition — lest their own judgments, which are excluded from worldly affairs, are seen to stand in the way [of them] — with what fitting readiness, I beseech you, should you not yield obedience to those who are assigned those venerable religious rites? Accordingly, just as no slight danger falls upon bishops if they should keep silent concerning the divine cult (which is appropriate); given these things, there is no little risk for those who scorn — God forbid! — when they ought to obey.”
So it was that the Pope and Emperor (both Holy Roman and Byzantine) were considered partners in the governance of the Christian World. Under them came the co-dependent hierarchy of Primates and Kings, Bishops and Barons, Pastors and Gentry, and the subjects common to them all. This neat hierarchical model also encompassed a great deal of habitual historical conflict. But the interaction of laity and clergy was key; the Emperor and the Kings needed Papal and Primatial Coronation — but the Emperor and the Kings of France and Spain could veto particular Papal candidates — and an Emperor had to convoke an Ecumenical Council, although the Pope had to approve its proceedings. If Kings and nobles had ecclesiastical privileges, bishops and abbots had temporal ones. Despite the inevitable frictions, no one disapproved of the arrangement itself.
All of this came to an end with the Protestant Revolt. Although bereft of independence, the new Protestant Churches were assigned all of the interior roles in society the Church had occupied; but even in Catholic countries there was often a loss of some control to the temporal authorities. The following French and other Revolutions ended that system entirely. Through the 19th century, the Church fought a series of losing clashes with triumphant Liberalism, culminating in the wreckage of 1918. But the destruction of Catholic societies led to the erosion of the lay or noble element in the governance of the Church, and a corresponding clericalisation. In time this became accepted as normal. Flanders reminds us that it is not. Let us look at a few of his theses:
14. In response, the Papacy, already corrupted by Freemasonry since 1773 (with the unjust suppression of the Jesuits), fell into the opposite extreme against the lay-led Liberalism: they created a clericalist Church. Blessed Pope Pius IX broke with centuries of Tradition and refused to invite the lay nobility to Vatican I. As a result, the Freemasons were able to invade Rome and stop that council. (“Clericalism & the False Spirit of Vatican One”)
That the invasion was due solely to the lack of lay delegates at Vatican I may be debated. But it is certain that this was the first Ecumenical Council since Nicaea not to be convoked by the Emperor. This is seen as an advantage by clericalist writers, but it meant that there was not a single temporal government dedicated to propounding and expounding the Council’s teaching. The concurrent loss of the Papal States is often praised by clericalist writers as a “work of the Holy Ghost,” but the point might be made that successive Popes have become ever less realistic in dealing with political affairs.
15. This was when the prophecy of La Salette was fulfilled: the city of Rome lost the faith and became the seat of the Antichrist, that is, the Freemasons. (“The Real Alta Vendita: When the Gates of Hell ‘Prevailed’ in 1870”)
Certainly the Kingdom of Italy was heavily dominated by the Freemasons, and we have forgotten the memory of the brave Papal Zouaves, the stout-hearted young Catholic men who fought for Pope Pius IX from 1860 to 1870.
16. But then, Pius X broke with Tradition even further by revoking the right of the Roman emperor to veto papal elections. As a result of all this, the appointment of Bishops is nowadays extremely clericalist for the first time in centuries. This is a result of the break in Tradition which happened. And this all goes back to the dubium of Trent about that dogma non definitum, the Two Swords Dogma.
This was indeed an enormous break — and St. Pius X owed his election to the veto — which otherwise would have gone to the odious Cardinal Rampolla. Of course, given where the governments of Europe ended up, it was perhaps a blessing — but only perhaps. It was certainly a radical move.
17. If we were looking at the appointment of bishops in a truly traditional way, there would be a cooperation between the lay nobility and the clerical power in the appointment of bishops. The lay investiture controversy hammered out a compromise wherein the pope or other clerical powers would appoint bishops and the nobility had certain rights of veto or certain cooperations thereof. (City of God vs. City of Man: the Battles of the Church from Antiquity to the Present)
This is quite true. Certain Kings and Princes had the rights of episcopal appointments in some places — as certain noblemen had the right to present pastors to parishes. Of course, this was also bound up with obligations to provide for the Cathedral and/or the Diocese. Some bishops were elected by the cathedral canons — whose offices and even the Cathedral architecture surrounding it were substantially altered after the papal centralization consequent upon the reforms of the Council of Trent.
18. However, nowadays, the pope and the clerical power has the complete and absolute right over the appointment of bishops. This situation is clericalist and is not traditional. But it did not start with Vatican II.
No indeed — and in fact it was hailed by many as sign of the “Freedom of the Church.” There was a utility in it when trying to escape the control of Liberal Regimes who were trying to misuse the prerogatives they inherited from Catholic ones. But a misuse of something does not make the thing itself bad (abusus non tollit usum).
19. Another issue that did not start with Vatican II is liturgical revolution. The SSPX spends a lot of energy criticising the liturgical revolution of Paul VI. They are right to do so. However, they fail to face the liturgical revolution of Pius X, which broke with centuries of Tradition regarding a much more significant and spiritually grave issue: the frequency of Holy Communion.
St. Pius X made a number of changes to the Divine Office, which will be understood by fans of both Dom Guéranger and the English Breviary of the Marquess of Bute. These were seized upon as a precedent by such as Bugnini. St. Pius X certainly encouraged frequent Holy Communion; as always this a personal issue. But he also permitted First Communion before Confirmation, which many have felt has downgraded Confirmation. Purely out of practical pastoral reasons, a number of dioceses have restored the original schema, and one must receive Confirmation and its defensive graces before First Communion.
20. Liturgical revolution was made possible, not by Vatican II, but by 19th century clericalism. This is why the lay nobility did not defend their children from the heretical and iconoclastic clerics who destroyed the liturgy and the Faith in the 1960s and 1970s. But this is why so many lay people flocked to the SSPX. These priests defended the liturgy and the dogmas.
Certainly, for many in 1967, the voice of the pastor was the voice of God, and to question the changes was to be begging for public abuse from that voice. But not just the SSPX — any priest who seemed sane and opened up a chapel soon had a devoted following. Fr. Gommar de Pauw, Fr. Fenton and his Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement, Boston’s own Fr. John J. Keane, and a great many others emerged.
21. Now it is manifestly clear that even in our own clericalist epoch, the clerical power needs the lay nobility to help GOVERN even bishops themselves. We know this because in many diocese throughout the world there is an official policy to hand over criminal priests to the police. This is an admission by the clerical power that the lay nobility needs to help govern clerics in certain extreme cases.
It is an admission that has come at a heavy cost. Of course, in the Middle Ages, all morals charges — even those of laymen — were dealt with by ecclesiastical courts; this is why, in many places, adultery, abortion, and sodomy, came under the civil power’s criminal jurisdiction only in the nineteenth century.
22. Therefore, it is within the competence of the lay nobility, if they are properly formed and are in places of authority (such as political governance) to have an opinion about the Episcopal consecrations of the SSPX — as long as they maintain strict reverence for their spiritual fathers (especially the Holy Father) and say or do nothing that would harden the hearts of the faithful against their spiritual fathers. It is not an intrinsically schismatic act for the lay nobility to disagree with the opinion of the Pope regarding the appointments of bishops, but again, only with fear & trembling. But this act of the lay nobility disputing with the clerical power over the appointment of bishops is entirely traditional and was accepted by the Papacy for centuries (albeit sometimes reluctantly, like the Holy Roman Emperor vetoing the papal election) without serious ecclesial penalties, like the excommunications which are now threatened.
Actually, Pope Francis, by turning over to the Communist Party of China the appointment of Bishops in that country, created almost a satirical modern day parallel to such appointments. It would be hard to think of anyone less well formed in this area than the Communists. Of course, by ordering the resignation of the Grand Master of the Order of Malta, Francis reclaimed the Medieval Right of deposing temporal Sovereigns. It is ironic that Pope Pius XII, in his alterations for Holy Week in 1955, disposed of the prayers for the Emperor on Good Friday (in the Solemn Prayers) and Holy Saturday (in the Exultet) — they were the last remanants of the Old Order in the Missal.
