Is the pilot light going out?

"I have compared the Society of St. Pius X to the pilot light on a gas stove. When the gas is turned off, the gas-rings go dead, no cooking can be done and very little heat comes off the pilot light, but so long as one can see the pilot light still lit, one knows that the action will resume as soon as the gas is turned on again. But turning on the gas is not within the power of the pilot light itself." Bishop Richard Williamson, September 1991.

It has been over 20 years since the then Rector of Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary wrote the above words in one of his letters to friends and benefactors. In those days, few thought that the Society of Saint Pius X was in any real danger; after all, both Pope Paul VI and Pope John-Paul II had striven to destroy the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, hurling the thunderbolts of suspension and then excommunication against that French prelate, with little effect. The Society still remained, and though the saintly Archbishop had died earlier in that year of 1991, there was no serious threat that the defenders of Catholic Tradition would collapse. But the future is rarely easy to predict, and time would reveal a growing desire in the top echelons of the Society for some kind of rapprochement with Rome, the growing discontent with Bishop Williamson's reluctance for such a softening, and his final expulsion from the very Society that had trained him, ordained him priest, and consecrated him bishop. The tool for such an exclusion was at hand when the bishop's ideas on the "holocaust", though widely known for many years by all those in Society headquarters, were revealed to the eyes of the media, much to the chagrin of the Roman authorities.  A showdown was inevitable, as the Society distanced itself from any public criticism of the Jewish problem. Such a controversy would hardly be becoming if one wanted the right hand of fellowship from those who lauded Catholic-Jewish relations. So it was that expulsion was necessary, and timely as well, since it removed a very visible opponent to a Roman deal.

It might have seemed that a mass revolt within the ranks of the Society would be inevitable. Although such a revolt would not occur simply because of theories on the "holocaust", it would hardly be unthinkable that such a flare-up of discontent would arise over a future resolution of tension with Rome. There was some complaining, of course, but there was also a steadfast refusal to stand up on the part of those who might have been expected to defend the course of Archbishop Lefebvre. A few were vocal and then expelled; some groups like the Benedictines in Brazil and the Dominicans of Avrillé found themselves outside the camp; but most of the clergy and laity steadfastly closed their eyes and hid themselves behind the dream of the Society's indefectibility. The Society had shown itself to be faithful to Tradition- indeed it had replaced the modernist authorities in the hearts of the faithful. There was really nothing to fear.

Gone was the idea of the Society being a "pilot light". Indeed, it was now far better organized than in the old days; its priories were much more comfortable; the seminaries were ever so much more "spiritual" (meaning that uncomfortable things such as the loss of millions of souls at the hands of the modernist popes and bishops should not bother the future priests of the Society overly much); the Superior General had discovered that he alone really had the grace of state to make decisions for the Society priests, faithful, and even those religious orders who had fought beside the Archbishop- an amazing discovery on the part of one who held supreme office in a Pious Union! The Pilot light had evolved into being the means of bringing the Church back to her senses. Now the only concern was to find a way to convince the Pope and the bishops to approve the Society and let it join Rome in the desire to help the Church. This could not be done, of course, if the Society's image was one of being a complainer. A re-branding was in order, one which would allow the Society to showcase a more positive image. Its official pronouncements, its magazines, its entire manner of showing itself to the world would be one of accentuating the positive. It was the thought of Pope John XXIII re-vivus.

Of course, as mentioned above, a few of the priests and faithful along with the redoubtable Bishop did not find the new way applaudable. These began to voice their opposition. Newly founded Mass centres were set up, and the "resisting" priests now began to work in a much smaller milieu. Some of these could not live without the presence of the infallible Society, and so proceeded to claim infallibility for themselves, if not in words, at least in action. A cry went up for a new Society to replace the old; after all, the catholicity of the Church had to manifest itself somewhere, and the Society of Saint Pius X had defaulted from its Divine mission. Instead of the Society, there was now the "Resistance". This resistance was all that was left of true Catholicism. To support this new dogmatic identification of Tradition with the "Resistance", a great fight broke out over the possibility of attending Mass at places not "approved" by the "Resistance". One group identified itself as "red-lighter" while others took a "yellow" or "green" light position. One might well ask where the authority arose to make such determinations. It has always been clear that one could not attend the Masses of heretics or schismatics. But were Society priests now in either of those two categories? What would have happened before Vatican II if someone had decided that it was immoral to attend a Mass said by a Jesuit due to the fact that the theologians of the Jesuit Order had betrayed the doctrine of Saint Thomas on grace and predestination? What about the Scotist Franciscans? The most radical branch of the "Resistance" had narrowed down Catholicism to the question of what one thought of the 2012 Declaration of the General Chapter of the Society on a future deal with Rome. This is not to depreciate the dangers of that declaration, but such a declaration did not contain heresy. It is one thing to resist the present direction of the Society, and quite another to invent sins as a result.

No surprising, God has struck at the pride of some of these "resistants". The movement now finds itself hopelessly divided. One cannot help but be sympathetic to the reluctance of Bishop Williamson to lead a hierarchically structured counter-Society. It has proven wise for a number of reasons: there is no likelihood whatsoever that those priests who have proven the most anti-Williamsonian would ever have obeyed him in such an organization; secondly, the only hierarchy that can solve this present crisis is the one Divinely constituted of St. Peter's Successor and the bishops, and this is counter to the pride of the Society-Saviour or the Resistance-Saviours; the insanity of priests and laity who theologize on such topics as whether there could ever be a eucharistic miracle in cases when the host was consecrated at the New Mass only show that pride has overthrown all sense of the Faith. When did Archbishop Lefebvre ever deny the validity of the New Rite per se? The New Mass could be invalid in those cases where there was not proper matter, form, and intention, but that was never presumed to be the case in every New Mass. The New Mass was not held to be intrinsically invalid. Anyone who says differently has conveniently forgotten some facts about the Society while the Archbishop was still alive. Indeed, if one thing has become increasingly clear, it is that the Archbishop has been re-invented by those who hold the most unusual positions, positions not at all those of Archbishop Lefebvre. The radical branch of the Resistance has also given up a belief that the hierarchical Church still exists. This is logical, given the fact that adherence to the positions of certain resistance priests has become the mark of the true believer. The Conciliar Church has finally been identified with the "official Church". This being the case, the hierarchy has left the Church. Pride has led to heresy, for the true Church must be hierarchical in the real sense, that is, it must exist with bishops who hold ordinary jurisdiction. Without that, the Church ceases to be Apostolic.

Should we then despair of the situation? Certainly not. The breakdown within Tradition is not a sign that Christ's promises have failed, but quite the contrary. It shows that on the one hand, the Church can never be anything else than what Christ founded it to be- the sole means to salvation, even in this corrupt time.  Christ will not substitute anything else for the Pope and bishops. If He permitted this present disaster, it is only to be a temporary thing until He decides when the Church recovers.  The Society was a providential consequence of Christ's refusal to allow the entire Church to succumb to error. It was only to be a pilot light however, only to last for a little while. Secondly, as this collapse of both the Society and the Resistance continues, this only shows that Christ's triumph is at the door. The Fifth Age is closing, and the Sixth Age, the most glorious Age is near at hand.
"In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph" points the way towards the Age that is to come.