Joseph and his brothers: Cardinal Zen, the SSPX, and the crisis of episcopal succession
In the Book of Genesis, the patriarch Jacob’s beloved son Joseph is betrayed by his own brothers, cast into a pit, and sold into exile. Yet the drama is not merely one of treachery; it is also the story of a family conflict that ultimately demands reconciliation. It was this scriptural episode that inspired Cardinal Joseph Zen in his recent reflection on the growing tension between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Vatican.
Writing under the title Old Yosef, the veteran Chinese cardinal cast the Society in the role of Joseph—misunderstood and rejected by his brethren—while certain curial critics appear as the brothers who, out of suspicion and resentment, cast him aside. In Zen’s telling, the Roman Pontiff himself resembles Reuben, the brother who attempted to save Joseph from destruction. The analogy is not a partisan defence of the Society so much as a plea for prudence: a reminder that a dispute within the household of faith should not be allowed to become a permanent rupture.¹
Zen’s intervention comes at a moment when history appears to be repeating itself. The last great confrontation between Rome and the traditionalist movement occurred in 1988, when Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops at Écône in Switzerland without papal mandate. Those consecrations were swiftly condemned by Pope John Paul II, whose apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei adflicta described the act as a schismatic gesture against the unity of the Church.² Yet even then the controversy was not simply a matter of ecclesiastical discipline. Lefebvre argued that he had acted under a “state of necessity,” convinced that the preservation of Catholic doctrine and the traditional priesthood required extraordinary measures in a time of crisis.
The archbishop’s argument drew upon principles deeply embedded in canon law. The Church has long recognised that necessity can mitigate canonical penalties and that the salvation of souls—the salus animarum—remains the supreme law governing all ecclesiastical legislation.³ For Lefebvre and his supporters, the upheavals following the Second Vatican Council had created precisely such a crisis. Liturgical reform, doctrinal ambiguity, and the rapid decline of priestly vocations in many Western countries convinced them that the Church’s traditional patrimony required deliberate preservation.
Rome, however, viewed the matter differently. The episcopate is not merely a sacramental office but a hierarchical one; bishops exercise their authority only in communion with the successor of Peter. Consequently, consecrating bishops without papal mandate was seen as a direct challenge to the Church’s visible unity. The clash between these two principles—necessity and obedience—became one of the defining ecclesial controversies of the late twentieth century.
In the decades since, the relationship between Rome and the Society has moved through alternating phases of conflict and rapprochement. Under Pope Benedict XVI a significant gesture of reconciliation occurred when the excommunications incurred in 1988 were lifted in 2009, opening the door to formal doctrinal discussions between the Holy See and the Society.⁴ Later, Pope Francis granted faculties allowing priests of the Society to validly hear confessions and authorised local bishops to delegate them for the celebration of marriages.⁵ These steps suggested that a gradual regularisation might eventually be possible.
Yet the underlying theological questions have never been fully resolved. The election of Pope Leo XIV has therefore placed the issue once again before the Church. The Society’s leaders have warned that the advancing age of their bishops may soon necessitate new consecrations in order to ensure the continuation of their global apostolate. With seminaries in Europe and North America and missions on several continents, the Society now serves tens of thousands of faithful attached to the traditional Roman liturgy.
Public debate has inevitably revived the language of schism, but canon law itself defines the term with precision. According to the Code of Canon Law, schism consists in the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.⁶ The Society, however, has consistently professed its recognition of papal authority and has never claimed to establish a parallel ecclesiastical jurisdiction independent of Rome. Its clergy pray for the Pope at the altar and insist that their struggle concerns fidelity to tradition rather than rejection of the papacy. For this reason many canonists have argued that illicit consecrations, while gravely disobedient, do not in themselves constitute schism unless accompanied by a formal repudiation of papal authority.⁷
Complicating the debate is a striking contrast in the Vatican’s diplomatic approach to episcopal appointments in China. The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association—established by the Communist government in 1957—has long overseen the appointment of bishops without papal mandate, a practice once condemned in strong terms by the Holy See.⁸ Yet in 2018 the Vatican entered into a provisional agreement with Beijing intended to regulate episcopal nominations. Although the text of the agreement remains confidential, it has allowed for the recognition of several bishops previously consecrated without papal approval.
Events in recent years have illustrated the fragile nature of this arrangement. In 2023 Chinese authorities transferred Bishop Shen Bin to the Diocese of Shanghai without prior papal consent; the Holy See later confirmed the appointment in what many observers interpreted as a pragmatic concession.⁹ For critics such as Cardinal Zen—who has been an outspoken opponent of the agreement—the situation raises an uncomfortable question: why should illicit episcopal appointments carried out by an atheist state be accommodated through diplomacy while similar actions undertaken by traditionalist clergy are treated as threats to ecclesial unity?
Zen’s appeal therefore resonates beyond the immediate controversy. His reflection echoes a recent public appeal addressed to Pope Leo XIV by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who urged the Pontiff to approach the SSPX question with patience and pastoral prudence. Schneider warned that repeating the confrontational strategy of 1988 could deepen divisions within the Church rather than heal them.¹⁰
In this light Zen’s analogy of Joseph and his brothers acquires its full significance. The biblical narrative does not end with betrayal but with reconciliation. Joseph, once rejected, ultimately saves the very brothers who cast him out. By invoking this story, Zen suggests that the Church now stands at a similar crossroads. The dispute with the Society of Saint Pius X may yet become another chapter of estrangement—or, if handled with wisdom, the beginning of a long-awaited reconciliation within the Catholic family.
¹ Joseph Zen, “Old Yosef,” reflection on the SSPX controversy, oldyosef.hkcatholic.com.
² John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei adflicta (2 July 1988), Acta Apostolicae Sedis 80 (1988), 1485–1488.
³ Code of Canon Law (1983), canons 1323–1324; canon 1752.
⁴ Congregation for Bishops, decree remitting the excommunication of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre (21 January 2009).
⁵ Pope Francis, Letter granting faculties for confession to priests of the SSPX (1 September 2015); Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera (2016); Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, norms regarding SSPX marriages (27 March 2017).
⁶ Code of Canon Law (1983), canon 751.
⁷ Edward N. Peters, “Schism and the Lefebvre Consecrations,” Studia Canonica 24 (1990), 187–204.
⁸ Pius XII, encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis (29 June 1958).
⁹ Vatican News, “Pope confirms Bishop Shen Bin as Bishop of Shanghai,” 15 July 2023.
¹⁰ Athanasius Schneider, public appeal to Pope Leo XIV regarding the SSPX episcopal consecration question (2026).
RELATED ARTICLES
Latest ARTICLES
- Today’s Mass: April 28 St Paul of the Cross;The Feast of the Patronage of St Joseph, celebrated on the Third Sunday after Easter, highlights his role as Protector of the Universal Church, established by Pope Pius IX in 1847. It encourages the faithful to seek his intercession amidst modern challenges, celebrating his qualities of fidelity and paternal care in times of trial.
- Cardinal Ernest Simoni and Pope Leo XIV: The Witness of the Martyrs in an Age of AmnesiaIn April 2026, Pope Leo XIV met Cardinal Ernest Simoni and Dame Sarah Mullally, symbolising contrasting ecclesial priorities. Simoni’s testimony, rooted in his experience of persecution, highlights the importance of sacrifice and martyrdom within the Church. In contrast, Mullally embodies diplomatic engagement, emphasising the need to balance doctrine with contemporary discourse on unity and peace.
- Pope Leo XIV and Sarah Mullally: When the Church Shows What She Does Not TeachThe meeting between Pope Leo XIV and Sarah Mullally highlights the tension between visible gestures of unity and the Church’s established doctrines. While aiming for ecumenical cooperation, the Church risks projecting an image of unity that contradicts its teachings, particularly on Anglican orders and women’s ordination. This encounter exemplifies the need for clarity in presenting doctrinal truth amidst evolving perceptions.
- Today’s Mass: April 27 St Peter Canisius,St Peter Canisius (1521–1597), a key figure in the Catholic renewal during the Protestant Reformation, was a Jesuit priest dedicated to re-Catholicising German-speaking regions. Renowned for his catechisms and founding Jesuit colleges, he exemplified doctrinal clarity and pastoral care. Canonised in 1925, he is known as the “Second Apostle of Germany.”
- Immanence and Transcendence: The Relocation of God and the Crisis of the Modern ChurchThe modern Church faces a fundamental crisis rooted in a shift from a transcendent understanding of God to an immanent one, where theology begins with human experience rather than divine revelation. This reorientation risks diluting doctrine and morality, redefining the role of God from a commanding presence to a mere interpreter of human meaning.
Leave a Reply