"The Vatican/SSPX dispute is an unfortunate situation for sure. But is it an intrinsically evil act to ordain bishops without the Pope's approval?"
From lifesitenews.com, and written by Fr. Kevin Drew Thu Mar 12, 2026 - 1:46 pm EDT: Priest: 'Too many in the Church' would rather condemn the SSPX instead of abortion, sodomy - LifeSite
"(LifeSiteNews) — I get most all of my news regarding the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals from an old married couple at the nursing home. When I pop in they are almost always glued to the TV, watching sports.
On a recent visit I was somewhat surprised when the topic of religion came up before athletics. Before we started in about the Chiefs’ backfield or the Royals’ bullpen, the husband opened with a theological statement. He said, “Some lady told us you ran everyone off from your parish since you say Mass in Latin.” And I said, “Now wait a minute. That’s not totally true. I only say parts of the Mass in Latin. And I didn’t run everyone off, just most everyone.”
Now, for using Latin at Mass, does that make me “anti-Vatican II?” The Second Vatican Council, held from 1962-1965, had over 2,000 bishops go to Rome in the autumn months for 8-12 weeks to hold meetings. What was so important? Was there some great theological dispute to solve or heresy to crush? No. Wikipedia states:
Vatican II was called by Pope John XXIII to modernize the Catholic Church and address its relationship with the contemporary world, aiming to make its teachings more relevant and accessible.
Encyclopedia Britannica states:
The Second Vatican Council … produced 16 documents that enacted many modernizing changes in the church according to the theme of aggiornamento (Italian: “bringing up to date”).
The Vatican II bishops enjoyed nice lodgings, took in the sights in Rome, and ate and drank at fine restaurants. And then, when they attended meetings to discuss how to bring the Church up to date, “specialists” or “experts” were brought in to guide the process. Those experts arguably swayed bishops on how to vote on the proposed documents.
The first Vatican II document was on the Sacred Liturgy. The very first paragraph gave reasons to make changes to Holy Mass, including so that the Church could “adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times.”
The 36th paragraph of the liturgy document states that “the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” Then it goes on to say the vernacular “may” be used, giving for examples, the readings, and some of the prayers and chants. Paragraph 54 states once again that the vernacular “may” be used. And if so, “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (The Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc.) So there it is in black and white. When my parish sings in Latin at Mass, we are not disobeying Vatican II but actually doing what the Council said to do.
In 2009 I spent the summer serving Mass every day for a traditional priest from France who was ordained for the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), a religious order founded in 1970. In 1988 he became a founding member of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). That summer I spied a book in his office he let me borrow titled The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 by Annibale Bugnini. He was the priest and bishop who in his own words led the drafting of the liturgy document (1960-62), then served as an “expert” during the sessions of Vatican II (1962-1965), and afterwards (1964-1969) he led the implementation of the proposed reforms in the liturgy, most especially the New Order of Mass, Novus Ordo in Latin.
At the front of the Novus Ordo Missal on our altar is Annibale Bugnini’s signature. Arguably the New Mass is in many ways Bugnini’s Mass. After all, he led the way on it before, during, and after the Council. But for over half a century people have argued that the New Mass is not what the Vatican bishops voted on in 1962.
READ: Bishop Mutsaerts sides with Cdls. Burke, Sarah against Schneider on SSPX consecrations
For example, the bishops did not vote to remove high altars and replace them with tables for priests to stand behind as if they were Lutheran or Methodist ministers. The greater majority of them would have laughed at such a thing. The same goes for Communion in the hand, or women and girls serving at the altar. Those novelties were not put up for votes, yet somehow they were foisted upon the Church in the guise of bringing her “up to date.”
I know this because I read it in Bugnini’s book. In the late 1960s, after liturgical chaos engulfed Europe, with priests making up their own Eucharistic Prayers and giving out Communion in the hand, Bugnini proposed letting the abuse go unchecked. The world’s bishops, in March of 1969, overwhelmingly voted to stop it. The chart showing the vote numbers is on page 647 of his book.
Bugnini’s book contains many other such examples of the actual letter of Vatican II giving way to its “spirit.” That “spirit” can perhaps be found in paragraph 40 of the 1963 liturgy document on which “radical adaptations” were needed in the liturgy. Very few bishops at the time asked what those adaptations might actually entail.
As mentioned, the liturgy document states Latin is to be retained for Mass. Bugnini wrote or approved of that statement. Yet in 1969 Bugnini pressed for the removal of Latin, railing against its “meaningless sounds.” That’s on page 283.
On the same page he claimed that the unity of language found in Latin was “superficial and fictitious.” So from 1963 to 1969 Bugnini either changed his mind on Latin, or he was out to dupe bishops into voting for a document that could later be manipulated.
In 1975 Annabile Bugnini was exiled to Iran, where with seemingly little to do, the liturgy specialist wrote a 974-page book chronicling his decades-long quest to bring our time-tested and sacred liturgy “up to date.”
GK Chesterton had this to say about “specialists” in 1909:
When [our civilization] wants a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind, it uses up specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing round. The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity.
I mentioned the French priest I had served Mass for who was ordained by the SSPX. That order has been in the news lately. Unlike most religious orders, the SSPX is growing and is in need of priests. The Vatican, however, is refusing the SSPX’s request to consecrate bishops. The SSPX said it is going to consecrate bishops anyway.
It is quite the unfortunate situation for sure. But is it an intrinsically evil act to ordain bishops without the Pope’s approval? They will be valid bishops, just ordained illicitly. Is it a sin on par, say, with abortion or sodomy? Those things can never be valid. Yet too many in the Church, including those in the highest levels in Rome, appear to not only approve these grave sins but want to bless them (Fiducia Supplicans, 2023).
My friends, we are in a bad spot. While Rome is suppressing the Traditional Roman Rite of Mass and anything that resembles it, it is installing prayer rooms for Muslims at the Vatican. It seems as if the Church is entering a crucifixion mode. If you are aware of the Church’s past and her great traditions, the present state of affairs might make you want to cry. Those in power want you to forget the past. They want the past suppressed. They want a new order of things, a great liturgical reset. They then want you to merely live in the present, so you can be up to date with a world headed for hell.
[All my emphasis.]
Allow me quote Chesterton once again. At least he can make our present catastrophe sound a bit funny. If we are all on our way to crucifixion, I’d rather laugh than cry, wouldn’t you? Listen to Chesterton in 1935 call out the heresy of “up-to-date-ness” known as modernism:
We talk of people living in the past; and it is commonly applied to old people or old-fashioned people. But, in fact, we all live in the past, because there is nothing else to live in. To live in the present is like proposing to sit on a pin. It is too minute, it is too slight a support, it is too uncomfortable a posture, and it is of necessity followed immediately by totally different experiences, analogous to those of jumping up with a yell.
To live in the future is a contradiction in terms. The future is dead; in the perfectly definite sense that it is not alive. It has no nature, no form, no feature. … The past can move and excite us, the past can be loved and hated, the past consists largely of lives that can be considered in their completion, that is, literally in the fulness of life.
My friends, Christ suffered and died so we might have fullness of life. Let us then, as St. Paul urged Timothy, bear our share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God.
Let us pray for the grace bestowed on us in Christ Jesus before time began (that would be the past). And be so ever grateful that we have a Savior who is always up to date because He is the past, present, and future; a priest yesterday, today, and forever.
