25th

Anniversary of Foundation of FSSP

In the name of the Father …

The 25th

anniversary of the foundation of the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter – the FSSP - is an

occasion for giving thanks to God for the great graces he has bestowed both on and through the

Fraternity's work: to the members of the Fraternity proper, to the members of its Confraternity, and also

to all those who benefit from the Fraternity's ministrations.

The FSSP was founded in 1988 after Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - then superior of the Society

of St. Pius X, the SSPX - performed episcopal consecrations contrary to a papal mandate. Several of his

own priests withdrew and petitioned the Holy See to allow them to continue forming priests and

exercising the priestly ministry in the spirit of the SSPX, but under the auspices of Rome.

The Holy Father, Blessed John Paul II, acquiesced and established the so-called Ecclesia Dei

Commission1 directly under his jurisdiction to oversee the work. In this environment, guided by the

then Cardinal Ratzinger, the Fraternity's founders formed the constitutions which, upon ecclesial

approbation, came into effect on the 18th

October 1988, the feast of St Luke, establishing the Fraternity

as a society, not of diocesan rite under a local bishop, but of Pontifical Rite, the immediate superior of

the Fraternity's superior being the head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, his superior being the Holy

Father.

The constitutions articulate three particular characteristics of the Fraternity.

First, an attachment to - and exclusive use of - the venerable and ancient Roman liturgy in all its

dimensions as nourished in the west for almost two millennia, codified by Pope St Pius V after the

Council of Trent and last promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962;

Second, the academic formation of priests according to the philosophy and theology of St

Thomas Aquinas;

Third, filial subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the bishop of Rome and the visible head of Our

Lord's Church – the Catholic Church.

It would seem that these three particular characteristics demand nothing special. Indeed, they

were the standard for any priest of the Roman Rite, at least for the 450 years since the venerable

Council of Trent. And yet it is a sad indictment of the times that divine providence saw necessary to

establish a priestly fraternity with such defining characteristics.

A few words are in order about each of these characteristics.

First, obedience to the Roman Pontiff. This jurisdictional link is necessary because it is upon

1 On his own initiative, i.e., by the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Afflicta.

Roman Pontiff that Our Lord continues to build his Church and through whom he continues to direct it.

It is specious to appeal to some epi-phenomenon or penumbra beyond him which somehow preserves a

jurisdictional link with the Church. No such thing exists. The visible Church of today begins with the

successor of Peter – and nowhere else. Consequently, nothing must ever be done which would cast into

doubt that link to the Roman Pontiff.

This obedience, however, is not a blind unquestioning obedience – common in so-called

conservative circles - but a discerning obedience, moderated by filial piety. It does not consider the

Roman Pontiff to be always-and-everywhere beyond clarifying or correcting himself: St Peter himself

saw this need after intervention by St Paul.2 But any approach for clarification must be made in a spirit

of humility and filial piety, remembering who received the munus of preserving the faith inviolate.

Second, the principles and methods of St Thomas Aquinas. While it is true that the Catholic

Church has never officially adopted any particular philosophy as its own, it has de facto done so, for

during and ever since the Council of Trent – until recent decades, the Church has always relied on St

Thomas' principles and methods to refute the errors of the ages. Certainly, the Church's dalliance with

modern philosophy, and accommodation of the mantras of empirical science as some sort of new

revelation has been not far short of disastrous. Since the near total abandonment of St Thomas in the

middle of the last century, confusion has abounded ever since, even at the very highest levels of the

magisterium, to the Church's great detriment.

If the Church is – according to the mandate of her divine founder – to drive out error from

minds clouded by sin and/or a thirst for novelty,3 then she must again embrace the timeless wisdom of

him who was her greatest theologian. This would also be a great ecumenical venture. There is much

interest outside of the Church in St Thomas' work and the beauty of his synthesis, which can serve to

draw people into the Church.

Third, the liturgy. Prior to the liturgical reform of the 1960s, certain elements viewed the

venerable and ancient Roman liturgy as unable to meet the needs of modern man, as an obstacle both to

the proper participation of the Catholic faithful in liturgical worship and the Christian reunification

efforts which were becoming prominent. The liturgy was arcane, complex, impenetrable even.

To draw those outside the Church into the Church, however – and this must be the end of any

ecumenical venture - one must give them a reason to choose. The Catholic Church must be seen to be

different, to be worthy of choice: something is not worthy of choice which is like all the others.

Moreover, something worthy of choice is beautiful, because it is beauty which attracts the soul, be it

2 Gal 2:11ff

3 2 Tim 4:3

the imposing simplicity and contemplative silence of the Low Mass or the choreographed splendour

and Gregorian chant of the High Mass. Faced with these, even if someone does not know exactly what

is going on, he is nonetheless aware that he is being taken out his mundane existence, and being

brought into contact with the transcendent living God.

Although the liturgical reform of Vatican II called for active participation of the faithful, active

and actual participation can be very different. For to actually participate in something is to be informed

by that thing – to receive a form from it and to be conformed to it, a predominantly passive activity –

and necessarily so: it is receptive.4 This is what actual participation means: to allow oneself to be

informed – sanctified – by the liturgy, requiring physical and intentional presence.

Moreover, informing requires excellence on the part of the one doing the formation: it requires

discrimination, even hierarchy. And it requires ability and proper execution: a badly performed liturgy

can only serve as an obstacle to sanctification – to being informed by the liturgy.

This can be contrasted with the modern obsession of active participation. Because everyone

now must have a part, there can no longer be any requirement for excellence, discrimination, hierarchy:

the liturgy becomes horizontal and indeed closed in on itself. Moreover, because everyone is now so

concerned with doing, they are either no longer in that predominantly passive state whereby they can

be informed, or if by chance they are, they are informed by those who are decidedly mediocre, with

consequent disastrous results.

The venerable and ancient Roman liturgy however, because of the excellence and beauty

inherent within it – like the excellence and beauty of St Thomas' synthesis - can serve as a most

powerful instrument both in sanctifying the faithful and in true ecumenical endeavours.

Whatever our individual connection with the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter is, let us give thanks

to God for his benevolence and providence in continuing to provide within his Church for those who

would seek to work out their salvation in the timeless Latin traditions of that Church.

In the name of the Father ...

4 The two need not be exclusive: witness the path to holiness trodden by, e.g., Benedictines, who spend much of the day

chanting the divine office, and over the years should be formed by it (if they are intentionally present). This is an ancient

and venerable path to holiness: although active, it fosters a spirit of recollection. This is in sharp contrast to the modern

obsession of “doing” which in practise at least is profoundly contrary to a spirit of recollection.