Everyone knows this by now, but I pretty much have to post.
The leadership of the SSPX announced their plans to consecrate bishops on 1 July.
They said that their superior had sought an audience with Pope Leo last August. They wrote to discuss bishops for the Society and the Holy See’s answer was not satisfactory for them. The SSPX Council agreed.
There is a latae sententiae excommunication for consecrating bishops without the mandate of the Holy See. In the case of 1988, it was also a declared by the Congregation for Bishops.
Will this result of formal schism? I don’t know. Neither do 99% of commentators, so it is best just to zip it about that. Will the usual dilettante suspects zip it? Not a chance. Let the click bait begin! RUSH to opine! I fear they will greatly complicate this situation by stirring people up and poisoning the atmosphere, setting everyone back another decade or so.
UPDATE:
SSPX Update: According to a French SSPX Priest in the sermon that Fr Davide Pagliarani gave, the Superior General of the SSPX, in Flavigny, he stated would meet with the Pope before the consecrations to hash out the negotiations. pic.twitter.com/2leOwBu94x
— Niwa Limbu (@NiwaLimbu1988) February 2, 2026
SSPX Update 2.0: It has also been claimed to me by numerous sources that twelve names were submitted for selections in four groups of three names.
This has not been confirmed whether this was Internally within the SSPX or submissions for Rome. pic.twitter.com/OtdJ5LihkI
— Niwa Limbu (@NiwaLimbu1988) February 2, 2026
UPDATE
I think Peter is on to something here. The letter ends: Nos cum prole pia!
Fr. Pagliarani’s homily today shows how much this decision to move ahead with consecrations was determined by the attack in ‘Mater Populi Fidelis’ on Our Lady’s privileges, in particular her being the Co-Redemptrix.
In my opinion, the commentariat had not paid sufficient…
— Peter Kwasniewski (@DrKwasniewski) February 2, 2026
Fr. Davide Pagliarani made the public announcement on the Feast of the Purification in a sermon that was highly Marian. It is a rather long sermon, in English translation 5100+. Fr. Pagliarani used the Gospel scene to expound a theology of humility, obedience, redemption, and Marian co-operation. Christ’s submission to the Law and Mary’s acceptance of purification rites exemplify perfect humility and obedience, already prefiguring the Cross. Simeon’s prophecy reveals Christ as the sole Savior and a “sign of contradiction,” before whom no one can remain neutral, and announces both the redemptive suffering of Christ and the sword of sorrow that will pierce Mary’s soul.
Fr. Pagliarani emphasizes Mary’s unique association with the work of redemption, presenting her as the model of creaturely cooperation with divine grace. This Marian co-redemptive role is defended against Protestantism [and Rome, it seems], which denies human cooperation, and modernism, which diminishes sacrifice, the Mass, religious life, and Marian devotion. Mary’s presence at the Presentation, the finding in the Temple, and Calvary shows her continual participation in Christ’s redemptive suffering.
From this Christological and Marian theological foundation, Fr. Pagliarani turns to the present crisis in the Church and the mission of the Society of Saint Pius X. He argues that the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. He explains that appeals to Rome have not borne fruit and that the current situation still constitutes a state of necessity. Consequently, he announces his intention to proceed with episcopal consecrations, not in defiance of the Church, but in fidelity to her and for the good of souls, assuming full personal responsibility before God, the Church, and those entrusted to the Society’s care.
The moment and the Marian dimension sermon seem to be at least a partial grounding for the decision.
Loading ...
My guess is they’re hoping to force a return to Ecclesia Dei or something similar. I don’t think that’s likely to happen for a few reasons.
The Holy Father spent a lot of his time in Peru essentially de-Opus Deifying his diocese there. That was the motivation for his appointment to the specific diocese he was entrusted: it was thought he had the diplomatic skills to bring a diocese that had more or less become an enclave of Opus Dei that was disconnected from the rest of the Church into a more mainstream version of Catholicism.
By all accounts he was largely successful and did it without breaking anything.
I’m confident that experience is going to weigh on him now that he’s being forced to deal with this mess by the SSPX. Very different groups, but similar dynamic: insular right-wing religious society existing parallel to many dioceses.
This is such an easy thing for the Holy Father to do – just give them permission. He loses nothing – the SSPX would continue to function as it currently is. If “unity” is the most important thing in the universe, then why not make this simplest of gestures to allow them to continue to exist? However, I’m sure it won’t happen, and the thousands upon thousands of Catholics who are a part of the SSPX [No. Only the priests are part of the PRIESTLY Fraternity of Pius X, along with the brothers, probably, and perhaps their religious. That doesn’t mean that lay people who attend their chapels won’t be persecuted.] will be once again vilified and demonized, especially by diocesan Catholics and priests, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It will be a completely avoidable train wreck, but as with T.C. and the persecution of traditional minded religious orders, the powers-that-be have shown they couldn’t possibly care less about hurting or destroying traditional minded Catholics regardless if it goes against logic, reason, charity, or even the wishes of the majority of bishops.
And, @R2D you never fail to give the most uncharitable and political read on any given situation, at least if it involves those you like to call “right wing.”
On the one hand, it’s upsetting because of the seemingly inevitable impact this will have on Rome’s relationship with traditional Catholics already in full union with her. On the other, as a complete outsider to the SSPX, it seems they are genuinely following the mandate of their consciences in regards to the times we live in.
Father – are you aware of anything comprehensive and accurate about Lefebvre and the formation of SSPX? Like many, I suspect, I was comfortable with the “he’s a schismatic, don’t do schism” explanation until I learned a bit more. But I’m hesitant to read an outright apology of Lefebvre too – even great men go astray, and it seems clear he went astray.
While I am thrilled the SSPX will consecrate new Bishops, I am saddened that seemingly the Church has not found it in its heart to authorise at least some Bishops.
This would have maintained the status quo at least. My fear is that unauthorised consecrations – rather, the official response to them – will set the Church back to the 1980s.
If only the Church could be as accommodating to the SSPX as it is to the Chinese Government, homosexual dissidents and protestant groups. When you think about things in these stark, comparative terms, it is difficult to take the Church’s authority seriously. I say that with great sadness.
Or even, as accommodating as it is to those who enjoy Anglican Patrimony Masses, or Ambrosian or Dominican rite Masses or Syrio Malabar rite Masses.
I fail to see what is achieved by keeping the SSPX in this irregular state, which is for no good reason. Should not every action or decision be aimed at the good of the faithful? It is hard not to see the malign hand of pig-headed men like Arthur Roche in this.
None of this is driven by the SSPX and all of it – in my opinion – is driven by ideological “Roman Protestants” in the hierarchy, who cant bear to think their lives work (the Novus Ordo) has been a failure – which it has. Sadly, it seems that only their deaths will resolve the situation. So be it.
Meanwhile, if the SSPX is forced to act without a mandate, then they should go “all in” and consecrate a whole bunch of Bishops – I have got 3 kids needing confirmed in the near future and we don’t care for typical Novus Ordo standards in this house.
I grew up with the Novus Ordo and will never return to it – never – having now tasted true latin rite Catholicism. And I insist on only the very best for my 3 girls, especially as I hope they will continue to practice the faith as adults.
I don’t say this lightly – its a big deal to do things without a mandate. But this is very much about survival in a crisis, a crisis which is even more obvious that it was when the great +Lefebvre consecrated his Bishops. Anyone who claims the Church is not in a major crisis must either be a fool or a liar.
But first, before digging our trenches and settling into our gun bunkers – again – let us all pray sincerely that this situation can be resolved and does not set the Church back. I mean, cant we all just get along? If anyone can find a way, Pope Leo can.
In recent years we’ve seen a familiar pattern: the Chinese Communist Party arranges for the consecration of a new bishop in Shanghai or similar, and then the Holy See approves it ex post facto. Happens all the time. The SSPX has noticed this too. Not that anyone in sunny Roma cares much about appearances of hypocrisy, but it will be interesting to see if a harsher standard is applied to the Lefebvrists (actual, full-spectrum devout Catholics) than to the ChiComs (officially, well… atheists).
I’m sure I read somewhere that the Chinese (Communist Peoples’) Bishops were consecrated without bothering about ‘papal approval’.
@WVC — the consecration of bishops is an inherently political situation even when done with a papal mandate for a diocese that isn’t in an irregular status. That is doubly the case when it involves consecrations by a group with a large following that wants bishops but Rome isn’t willing to consent. It’s not uncharitable to admit that.
The Opus Dei background is relevant because they also have had recent issues with Rome, and similarly to the SSPX, Rome took away their bishops because of concerns.
The Holy Father because of his work in Peru, where he was the first bishop who hadn’t been a member of the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross in 40 years and then later as Cardinal Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops is likely to have that as his reference point. It’s the most similar situation from the last decade, and the Holy Father has been directly involved with it basically since he was first consecrated a bishop in Peru.
If you want a preview of how he’s likely to handle it, that’s probably your best reference point, whether you like the groups involved or not.
I find the thought that Leo’s experience with Opus Dei will inform his treatment of SSPX an interesting speculation. Maybe he didn’t “break anything” there but apparently that’s not extending to SSPX now as his meeting with them has broken something to the extent they will go ahead & consecrate bishops.
Father:
It’s not clear from what you’ve posted that Fr. Pagliarani in fact had an audience with Pope Leo. The communique suggests only that an audience was requested, not that it was granted. The link you included refers to a 2022 audience with Pope Francis.
I wonder what Leo really knows about the SSPX. From the communique, it sounds like the Society may be frustrated at a perceived lack of comprehension. From the pope’s point of view, the SSPX may be low on his list of priorities.
Lacrimae a Matre dolorosa emolliant corda effusae.
@R2D
It was your ” insular right-wing religious society” that I was commenting on. Labeling those who don’t follow your left-of-center creed and then justifying any wrongs done to those you so label is not necessary in explaining Pope Leo’s historical experience.
With Lent coming up, this is a wonderful opportunity for us to offer up our penance for the unity of all to Rome. Praying that cool heads on both sides prevail and that the ‘Podcastsphere’ remains respectful without knocking off a hornets nest.
I feel for those who attend Society chapels as they will always be the first to cop it in the neck.
This might be a good time to recall that Rome has offered the SSPX a bishop a few times over the course of the last 14 years in the context of a Personal Prelature. The SSPX refused for various reasons. I read one such proposal with my own eyes. So for me the question is not so much why Rome is refusing bishops to the SSPX but why the SSPX has been consistently refusing the solutions put forward by Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. I don’t have any recent information about what Pope Leo may have put on the table, but in his shoes I’d be confused (and frustrated) about why the SSPX turned down the great offers made to it, particularly in 2012 and 2015.
[Your claims are, I believe, partly accurate but overstated. In 2012 Rome seems to have proposed a personal prelature as a canonical solution for the SSPX. The proposal was ultimately not accepted. It is also credible, based on later SSPX reporting, that a written project in 2015 envisioned a bishop as prelate, possibly with auxiliaries. However, what is not publicly established is that Rome made repeated, formal offers of bishops over many years that the SSPX clearly and definitively refused as such. In 2012 the refusal is documented but it turned primarily on doctrinal conditions, not simply on the provision of a bishop. In 2015 the situation appears to have involved draft proposals and ongoing discussions, but not a clean, finalized offer that was explicitly rejected. Vatican statements have consistently avoided confirming concrete commitments regarding bishops. In short, Rome proposed reconciliation frameworks, and the SSPX declined at least one; the narrative of multiple clear bishop offers repeatedly refused is not solidly supported by public evidence. S.M.I.]
I’m not the sharpest pencil in the cup when it comes to ecclesiastical etiquette and protocols. But reading this letter several times I can’t help but wonder if Pope Leo was aware of these requests. Was he possibly blindsided in a very public way today because the mail was being filtered? While I believe Pagliarani is not bluffing, the letter conveys to me a feeling of exasperation in not getting the audience.
For someone who understands this stuff, what is the harm in granting them an audience?
There has to be a better way.
Enlighten me, please. I feel like I’m watching a chess game here.
I have a decent respect for the SSPX, as Fr. Z does, and generally judge priests as individuals. However, if the Bishop(s) contain anyone in +Williamson’s vein, my sympathy will quickly evaporate. [No way that will happen.] In 1988, one could give the Archbishop some grace of not exactly being able to google every priest he was considering; that excuse doesn’t exist now and if another +Williamson makes it in, it shows the Society learned NOTHING. (Huge reason why I’ve abandoned our local SSPX chapel for HDO night Masses and just go to the inner city Diocese TLM is that the priest there is a perfect clone of +Williamson, except less openly antisemitic.)
Why does China get a pass ?
They don’t offer the Vetus Ordo.
Do any of the Ecclesia Dei Communities have their own bishops ?
@maternalView: They were previously offered the option of becoming a personal prelature like OD, and OD has also had issues with Rome since JP2’s passing. I think it’s a likely model for whoever will be negotiating to look at.
I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to say he broke something. They want their own bishops and that’s something Rome has been leaning away from since Benedict XVI for alternatively structured groups — I’m not aware of any of the Anglican ordinariates having a bishop and OD’s had theirs removed. The only one that still has their own is the Brazilian SSPX offshoot that reconciled in the late 80s/90s, and the territory there very closely maps with a diocese. If the new Roman norm is for prelatures and ordinariates not to have their own bishops, the SSPX coming in and saying they want them and getting refused wouldn’t really be the fault of the Holy See.
@WVC — isn’t that one the primary concern of the Holy See with both groups? They set up a de facto or de jure separate hierarchy that operates alongside diocesan bishops but not under their authority in the way you’d expect from priests of traditional religious congregations operating with parishes and missions within a diocese.
There’s been a decent amount of concern coming from Rome in the last 15 years or so about structures like that (Legionaires of Christ/Regnum Christi, Opus Dei, Transalpine Redemptorists, etc.) Picked up steam under Francis, but BXVI really kicked it off by forcing reforms of the LC.
I thought “insular right-wing groups” was fairly neutral way to describe the idea of groups on the right-leaning end of the spectrum that operate in parallel hierarchies to the particular church around them. It wasn’t intended as an insult, just a description of a reality.
Anyway, not going to argue the point further, but thought it’d be something interesting to raise for people looking for clues from the recent past.
It’s happening again. Whether they are following their consciences or not, this is objectively an action that incurs excommunication, so that’ll be sorted out between them and God. I hope this is not used as an excuse to crack down on traditionalists within the mainline of the Church. We ought to pray for everybody concerned, since this is something that will have a lot of consequences in one way or another.
@R2D the latest head of the Anglican Ordinariate of OLOW is Bishop Waller (this comes after a Priest head).
@R2D
” If the new Roman norm is for prelatures and ordinariates not to have their own bishops, the SSPX coming in and saying they want them and getting refused wouldn’t really be the fault of the Holy See.”
This is an absurd statement. As if the reign of Benedict XVI were ages ago. This is a new requirement, made up out of nowhere, implemented by Francis and not even explicitly written in Cannon Law or any type of regulation, but, no, it’s all the SSPX’s fault for still wanting a bishop, something they’ve been consistent about since they came into existence. Give me a break.
I also feel like there’s a big piece of the puzzle about the reform of the Legionaires which you’re conveniently forgetting about.
That you see apparently everything about the Faith and the Church in terms of “right-wing” vs. “left-wing” and not “orthodox vs. heterodox” says a lot about how you perceive reality.
Question.
Does all this means that Rome is asking SSPX to accept all the documents of CV2 as a requisite for going somewhere, and SSPX refuses? or this is a thing of the past?
@R2D
Regarding what you call “de-Opus Deifying” of a diocese. I have seen that happening in mission lands, specifically in Asia, in which a religious order had been in charge for many years of an area (dioceses, apostolic administration,etc) , and after a while they are no more in charge. Naturaly the Church there had the style of that institution.
More complicated still when it was a colonial area in which a country had control over the area and the missionaries were under the law of that country.
Yes, Fr Z, you’re right that some of what I’m saying here is not going to be verifiable based on publicly available or searchable documents. Some day someone will need to write a history to lay it all out. May I ask what S.M.I. means at the end of your comment in red above?
In 2012, Bishop Fellay turned down the Personal Prelature because he was going to have to sign a statement saying the New Mass was “valid and legitimate.” Calling the new mass legitimate was one of the main sticking points. Archbishop Ladaria-Ferrer personally added that word during the negotiations. (Later made a Cardinal, he was secretary of CDF at the time and thus involved with Ecclesia Dei negotiations with the SSPX.) It’s worth mentioning this detail because the discussion of the “state of necessity” hinges on accepting or rejecting little words like this.
As far as I know, the SSPX-Rome relationship is still operating under an informal agreement reached at Bishop Fellay’s 2015 meeting with Pope Francis. Bishop Fellay explained to Pope Francis that if he signed a formal agreement, some significant portion of the SSPX priests would form a breakaway group under Bishop Williamson and his line of bishops. Pope Francis responded by saying that such an outcome would negate, from his perspective, the goal of granting a status to the SSPX. The pope’s conclusion was that it was better to keep the extremists encapsulated inside a unified SSPX that in turn openly professed to want to be in union with Rome, as opposed to a situation where the group splintered into a section in union with Rome and another section composed of all the radical elements with no moderates to keep them in check. Pope Francis subsequently granted the confession and marriage concessions in an attempt to show those 20% that Rome was trying to play nice. Those concessions effectively cemented that new informal situationship for about a decade now. Pope Leo has left those concessions in place so far. I do wonder if episcopal consecrations will call into question the status of those confession and marriage concessions.
I think it’s relevant to bring this all up because I wonder if Rome can give permission to consecrate bishops without solving the status of the SSPX? Pope Francis probably would have. But under any normal pope it seems unrealistic to imagine bishops being granted to a group with an irregular status.
Bishop Fellay came rather close to signing an agreement with Rome in 2012. That somewhat freaked out the less conciliatory wing of the SSPX heavyweights, which is why the SSPX General Chapter of 2012 imposed conditions on the Superior General to consult with them before signing anything. Then the General Chapter elected a new Superior General – Pagliarani – in 2018 whom they knew to be less disposed to pursuing these sorts of agreements. So SSPX-Rome contacts have been much quieter since 2018.
In the 1970’s and 80’s, the Church couldn’t understand the Society because it was so infatuated with itself in the aftermath of the Council. How could someone reject Vatican II? How could someone reject her liturgy? And they used this superiority as a cudgel. Regardless of how you feel about the Econe Consecrations, it shocked sense into the Church. All of a sudden, the hierarchy knew how much the faithful desired the TLM, and JPII made provision.
Today, however, the situation is something far more grim. The Church is still infatuated with itself, but it’s not animated by the Council. It’s animated by synodality. In other words, the hierarchy views the Church as just another corporate entity. What is the result?
The SSPX send a letter requesting bishops, and they receive a piece of corporate slop back in the mail. There is no one left in the hierarchy with whom to interface. That job belonged to Ecclesia Dei. Now, no one who works in a curial office has the slightest idea what to make of this.
I’m still processing the implications of this news today, and like most people, I pray that there is a peaceable solution. At the same time, I hope that this situation is a needed shock in the bureaucracy of Rome that will result in an ardent desire for unity from Pope Leo.
“It is better to obey God than to obey man”.
R2D,
With the ordination of now-Bishop Waller for the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in 2024, all three ordinariates for former Anglicans have bishops.
@DianeK – the frustration seems especially warranted when folks like Fr. Jimmy Martin get an audience with Pope Leo – if the pope can make time for that cretin how can he honestly not have time for a group like the SSPX?
The comparison R2D is trying to make between the SSPX and Chiclayo is absurd.
I’m gonna give this the most concise context I can: in 1957 Pius XII erected the territorial prelature of Yauyos, in Peru, and entrusted it to the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross. Said society has two main kinds of members: priests that are incardinated in it, who were “full” members of the then secular institute Opus Dei (numeraries and associates/coadjutors), and other diocesan priests incardinated in their own dioceses (supernumeraries). The apostolic labor in Yauyos led with time to a relatively wider extension of the PSHC in Peruvian dioceses, in supernumerary members. In Chiclayo specifically, the first bishop was not linked to OD; the second one was a numerary; the third was a supernumerary; the fourth was our current Holy Father. A significant number of priests in the diocese are PSHC supernumeraries.
Now, with that context… what does “deopusdeifying” even mean? R2D makes it sound as if OD had somehow executed a violent overthrow of Catholic authority and created an OD guetto, where the reality is more like… any diocese that is recent mission territory where the mission was mainly carried out by a specific institute. By that criteria we need to “desalesianize” Patagonia. Arrant nonsense.
Francis, like Ghirlanda, are Jesuits, and Jesuits and OD have had a bitter opposition since the latter came into existence. Jesuits hate the OD with a passion, and in turn they are not allowed to set foot on OD centers. Naturally, Francis spent some energy in kicking and punishing OD pettily in various ways, such as the outing of +Livieres in Ciudad del Este, snubbing +Gomez of a red hat, and Chiclayo, of course. The 2022 Ad Charisma Tuendum motu proprio was the supreme stroke of it, even if there is some sense to it from a canonical standpoint. The figure of the prelature never ensured that the prelate HAD to be made bishop; Francis’ reform just made it so he CANNOT be, which largely obeys to no other reason than public humiliation of the only personal prelature in existence (I mean, the fact that the text says he can be at most an Apostolic Protonotary Supernumerary shows how pointed… and nonsensical it is). Personal prelatures never worked canonically as “parallel” dioceses any more than religious institutes do.. They still required permission from the ordinary to work on a diocese and open houses on it, and the link of lay faithful to the prelature was contractual by nature, unlike their belonging to their respective dioceses.
The point is, the “concern” and the “issues” in Francis’ case had little to do with the notion that the OD is a “parallel church”, and a lot to do with personal and institutional feelings. Now, Benedict. Yes, Benedict did in fact press OD pretty hard in a similar way to the LC… about problems with the mixing of the internal and the external forum, spiritual direction and governance… which in the OD is carried out by lay people (yes, even OD priests have lay spiritual directors). THIS, and its adjacent abuses of conscience IS the main issue exes and other serious and informed critics cared and care about, and which has seen steady improvement since this happened in 2011.
The Francis “concern” and Benedict’s concern are by far not the same thing, and neither, but specially the latter, have anything to do with any parallel churches in Chiclayo (which, again, having a PSHC bishop and a pretty extensive presence of the society’s supernumeraries does not a parallel church make) or any such nonsense.
The only connection between OD and the SSPX is the offer that was made of a personal prelature for the latter. And precisely the one strong point of the ACT debacle was that OD acted like the lay faithful (the vast majority of the institution, and what makes for its actual structure of governance) were incorporated to the prelature and subject to the prelate, which isn’t true. But that wouldn’t have been a problem for the SSPX, which is a clerical institute through and through.
Pope Leo’s passage through the diocese of Chiclayo can tell you zilch about his managing of the SSPX issue. It’s less like apples and oranges and more like baseball bats and Spanish olives.
@R2D, there are three personal ordinariates for former Anglicans:
1. Personal Ordinariate or Our Lady of Walsingham, headed by Bishop David Arthur Waller.
2. Personal Ordinariate of The Chair of Saint Peter, headed by Bishop Steven Lopes.
3. Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross, headed by Bishop Anthony Randazzo as Apostolic Administrator.
So two of the three ordinariates are headed by their own bishops.
Given the reaction to Mater Populi Fidelis by the SSPX (articles, podcasts, strong words by the Superior General), I agree that Dr. K is onto something. I suspect this was one of a few “signs” that suggested the threat of a trigger pull was needed. (I’d guess Traditiones Custodes, the death of Msgr. Tissier de Mallerais, and the unanswered requests or lack of any meeting may be other signs).
But also reading how careful the wording is, and the large lacunae in the communiqué, I also suspect that no audience was granted yet, despite the requests (and that seems scandalous given the size of the SSPX, and that Fr. James Martin got himself a photo-op to self-promote early along).
I also suspect that even if the request did pass by the Pope’s eyes, it was entrusted to the DDF, and thus, to the author of Mater Populi Fidelis himself. I very much doubt Cardinal Fernandez would facilitate any honest presentation of the SSPX’s request (even for a meeting) to the Pope. I could easily see the “response” be a non-answer to the bishop question entirely. Hagan lío!
As such, (I am engaging in dubious speculation, of course), I could also see the strategy of announcing this publicly, but without a number of ordinands, also without rejecting any agreement, simply setting a date, this may be a way of getting the Pope’s attention, and bypassing the DDF.
From one SSPX priest friend, I understand that in addition to formal letters, there also have been informal efforts, but these seem to have been stymied. He also told me that the members of the SSPX were only notified a few hours before the communiqué went public, so whatever has been going on at the higher levels in the SSPX (and their interactions with Rome) has been kept to a very tight circle, and on a need-to-know basis. Much more that is unsaid is likely to have transpired, and we know almost nothing.
Thus, what is striking to me about the commentators (as you highlight), is how much they are filling those lacunae with their own opinions, pre-conceived ideas, and prejudices. (Those physician heal thyself, I’m dubiously speculating!)
We know there were requests, no meeting, and an unsatisfactory response from “the Holy See” not “the Pope”. Yet reading even a little shows how much people are willing to make up and then make very categorical judgments about. Case study for rash judgement.
It is worth looking at the documents and letters surrounding 1988. One sees there precisely how trust broke down, and the real sense that Lefebvre was firmly convinced he was morally obliged to proceed as a result.
Hopefully, this communiqué ends up being the match that sheds light, not enkindles a blaze. That lessons from what didn’t work in 1988 are seen and taken on board by cooler minds. Perhaps, even this ends up forcing some formal agreement and regular status like a prelature.
I hope that’s the case, because it’s hard to see how, if the Holy See tacitly allows the Chinese to consecrate without Papal Mandate thanks to Parolin’s arrangement, they can turn around and slap future SSPX bishops with a penalty. That shows that in fact this mess really is comparable to the Committee of Public Safety, destroying everything of the old.
Also, given what we now know about how Cardinal Slipyj (and John Paul II, before his papacy) and the consecrations explicitly against Paul VI’s clear will (which were not so well known in 1988).
Worth breathing, having a sip of wine, and getting back to the breviary offering it for God’s Will to be done here, hopefully with a “win” on both counts.
In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated three bishops and the society continued to grow as will happen if they go ahead with the current plan. If the Church were to approve the new consecrations, they will only grow faster and this is the real reason why Rome will never approve them and the real reason why name-calling is the only argument that anti-SSPX people have. (Saying they are schismatic is name-calling, particularly if one does not explain why Bishops who tacitly approve of sexually immoral behavior on the part of their priests and fellow Bishops are not heretics.) The Church is currently full of parishioners who receive the Sacrament even though they continually use artificial birth control, or are divorced and remarried without an anullment, or have committed other mortal sins that they feel no need to confess. In these circumstances why would someone not think it is okay to seek the sacraments from the SSPX?
In 1998 Malachi Martin in a telephone conversation told me the 1988 excommunications were not valid, I presume because they were done because of necessity.
I agree with @WVC, the Church has nothing to lose from approving the consecrations, unless of course having devout Bishops and more devout Catholics is a bad thing. As the late Father Hunwicke pointed out, the Bishops in England once squashed an agreement that would have brought several Anglican Bishops into the Church because they would have been the wrong kind of Catholics.
Father Z : Will this result of formal schism? I don’t know. Neither do 99% of commentators, so it is best just to zip it about that.
Obviously, that will only happen if and when the Pope says so, and after the fact ; and as Leo himself likely does not know yet what he shall do before or after the consecrations, this should be obvious to one and all.
Not every excommunicable disciplinary offence leads to an actual excommunication, and this is certainly not a matter automatically and necessarily providing an excommunication for “schism”.
The last SSPX consecrations had been actually forbidden pending a review by the Holy See, and so incurred an actual disobedience to the Pope, whereas this time, as far as I can see, they have simply not been authorised so far. So it looks as though there is no formal disobedience in this case, therefore no presumptive formal “schism”.
Pope Francis had ordered diocesan bishops to work with the SSPX regarding marriages. Does anyone know how that’s going so far? I believe Pope Leo to be very intelligent but also a very practical pope. The dynamics of this situation offer many opportunities, depending on what way he wants to go. One of the things I think he would consider is how well the SSPX priests have been working with the local bishops. I trust Pope Leo, that he will thread the needle, avoiding a serious crisis while not giving anyone exactly what they want.
Our reverend host is entirely right with this: I fear they will greatly complicate this situation by stirring people up and poisoning the atmosphere, setting everyone back another decade or so.
Exactly.
Also, to repeat myself: Do not forget that Popes, even good Popes, are human beings, and human beings when antagonized have a tendency – a tendency that lessens while sanctity grows, but I daresay does not totally vanish this side of River Jordan for all those subject to the effects of original-sin – to reluctantly accept the position of antagonist. Pope Leo is not Pope Francis, but do not make him.
Two observations:
1. About the Marian motivations in Fr Pagliarini’s sermon. I could, of course, look it up myself, and some time probably will, but: Did Fr Pagliarini include that Mater Populi Fidelis actually does teach that our Lady is co-redemptrix and mediatrix?
The document says the titles are inadvisable. You can think that’s wrong (I do, and especially for the latter); you can start to use the titles even more and defend (and explain) their doctrine in beautiful sermons (a priest in my vicariate does); you can say this amounts to an impiety against our Lady (I wonder, or I would wonder if the the document had a name like Cdl Müller’s as signature, which by the way is not totally unthinkable); you can totally think that this is something worth expiating for.
Do not get me wrong. He can be very much offended on these counts; which you’d put in phrases like “even if technically … this is still …” and the like. What he ought not to say is that it denies the content of the teaching when it doesn’t.
It would be premature to say this before reading the sermon, but I do suspect the result to include: “Ah yes, the SSPX and theological precision. Haven’t we had that before.”
2. Abp Lefebvre based his “state of emergency” on the observation that there would be no bishops to continue traditional Catholicism.
And it was not his chief argument but certainly an important additional one that Rome in principle had agreed, which it had. He then backed out because “they’re stalling, they intend that to be on-paper-only, they’re playing us dirty”. I do not grant that he was right. But that’s what he, in any case, did.
He did not base his episcopal consecration on “the Pope is bad, the Curia is bad, the Church’s policy is wrong, we’ve got to do something against them”. That was, of course, his reasons for founding the SSPX, which did, initially, find approval by the authorities, and for continuing it with some legal loophole-finding (to say the least) when it had lost that approval. It was the reason for that, but not for the consecrations. The reason for them was “I need to consecrate a bishop or else there won’t be trad communities once I’ve died”.
Can anyone seriously suggest, does Fr Pagliarini even try to suggest, that this is the situation we’re in now?
As I perceive the discussion, SSPXers argument more like this: “But Pope Francis is worse than Pope St. John Paul II, and Pope Leo is not going to totally reverse everything his predecessor did.” True enough on both counts, but this was not Abp Lefebvres argument at all.
I am writing this not as someone who “has an opinion” about the SSPX, but as someone who, after a long pilgrimage of faith, found refuge at an SSPX chapel and a welcoming community. It is not a parish, but it is is far healthier than any parish in my diocese: vibrant liturgical and sacramental life, overflowing with kids, vocations, etc. It is the best option for my wife and I. The local parish is completely beholden to the whims of the pastor, and is filled with boomers (of which I am one) who have begun to die out at an unsustainable rate, because there are almost literally no kids in the pews. (And parishioners flashing the peace sign at the peace part of the Mass–UGH!) There is a diocesan parish a little farther away than the chapel which offers the TLM on Sundays, but at a less-convenient time, and it is not really a community. If, and I sure hope this does not happen, the Holy father sanctions the SSPX and there are excommunications from Rome, it is likely that we will continue going to the chapel, as will almost all the current attendee families. While some of the long-term families there are now in the third generation, and thus with no exposure to the NO and institutional Church, there has been a steady stream of refugees coming who know exactly what they have left behind. Also: Our Irish pastor and many other clergy grew up non-traditional. They all make tremendous sacrifices to keep this traditional community going, and families with a dozen or more kids work themselves to a heroic degree in order to keep their children on the path to Heaven even as they are all surrounded by a dying, decaying, degenerate culture. It’s not about politics–it’s about Heaven or Hell. Finally, I have never met better-formed priests than the ones I’ve met in the SSPX. Abp. Lefebvre knew what he was doing. And now for my two cents bonus thoughts: observers try to figure out what Pope Leo will do based on what he has done in the past. Fair enough, but he wasn’t pope then. I am curious to see what he WILL do as it might reflect on the SSPX situation. The traditional diocese in Brazil (Campos) is in need of a new bishop because the current one has hit retirement age. Sooner or later he will be replaced–who will the Supreme Pontiff select to replace him? It is a tricky thing. If it were me, the name “Bishop Athanasius Schneider” would be in the front of my mind: He is traditional and he has served in Brazil and (I think) fluent in that tricky language (just as Dr. Maturin), Portuguese. God works miracles; Our Lady is powerful. I am going to trust that Pope Leo won’t listen to bad advice, but will go on his knees about this and through Our Lady’s intercession we can have a clear papal pronouncement that will give the SSPX their due as faithful to the Magisterium while also sending a message to Germany and China to stop messing around. God wants us to think big, right? Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Left confounded as I am by Pope Leo’s recent comment regarding the ecumenical enterprise “We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, experience it and make it visible!” yet the SSPX which clearly articulates and upholds the perennial Magisterium could be found further marginalized.
Is the Holy Father unaware of the state of the broad theological academy, of which Catholic departments constitute membership, which has clearly moved away from a Trinitarian belief and abandoned orthodox Christology? Common perception is that the SSPX could face a stern rebuke from Rome should it proceed with episcopal ordinations, yet the German synodal debacle is handled quite gently. Rome’s episcopal appointments during the new pontificate have left a lot to be desired by the faithful, but the anticipated SSPX appointments would surely be perfectly in accord with the timeless perennial Magisterium.
And then we have the assault by the DDF in regard to long held Marian mysteries and now just affirmed verbally by Pope Leo. It appears that the study of Sacred Scripture has slipped away from the post-conciliar now synodal Church. Catholics have always had a fruitful engagement with Scripture, not finding anything inconvenient in the allusions the inspired authors gift us with. Luke 2:35 and Colossians 1:24 are rich beyond measure.
I’m waiting to see the infinity of images of our Lady of Grace and all Miraculous Medals suppressed by Tucho decree…
We are about to hand over the Church to a body of the faithful who have no idea what authentic accurate catechesis is. It was abandoned almost sixty years ago. An ignorant faithful — Pew Research says only 9% of Catholics believe in the Most Blessed Trinity [lets say that is very wrong…lets say a more accurate reading is 50%]! Small comfort…we are constituted by baptized pagans…
Exactly what is the Holy See doing about that?
Sociologically speaking, what keeps a bishop like Strickland, Schneider or Abp Viagano (if not Card. Mueller) from following the lead of Abp Lefebvre and Bp Castro Mayer?
Dear WVC,
sorry for the nitpick, but:
for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Well, obviously not.
Maybe not a justifiying reason, maybe not a sufficient reason, and all that sort of thing, especially for layfolk.
But it wouldn’t be “with absolutely no reason whatsoever”, even if the SSPX were totally right about this (they aren’t)
@R2D
There is a certain unhealthy tension within the Roman Church that the episcopal structure has to be a very linear command and control structure with a specifically Roman metropolitan at the top — no overlapping or coexisting juridical structures within the same geographic area. Plenty of historic problems and tensions with Eastern Churches operating in the same geographic area as a Roman Catholic diocese. Plenty of historic problems and tensions with monastic and ascetical orders operating within the same geographic area as a Roman Catholic diocese. Leads to such high-brained ideas as the recent push to have “only one” liturgical rite, of which T.C. is a symptom.
In my opinion, it is a symptom of a misunderstanding of the hierarchical nature of the Church (a metaphysical/epistemological statement, not a strict C&C statement), along with a misunderstanding of the nature of the virtue of obedience.
If we look at Vatican II, it is envisioning a more plural form Church — especially in regard to the East and allowing it to breathe and expand — which seeks to move away from a “this is my ball, you do what I say because I say it” attitude that you can get in Roman Catholic ecclesiology of both the orthodox and heterodox stripes. That is not really what we have got going — especially with Francis, who was considerably more “right wing” in governance style than people like to notice.
The SSPX issue is a perennial issue regarding C&C and the expression of the faith. It is a combination of a territorial issue and certain parties thinking that the Body of Christ is all foot or all hand or all eye.
Hello, Friends!
I have one question: did Paul VI authorize (for lack of a better word) the founding of the SSPX?
Many thanks! PAX.
I don’t like this one bit. Like the Synodal Way in Germany, defiance of Rome in favour of your own way of configuring authority within the Church gives me bad vibes.
Father, I agree with you that the less speculation on this the better. To my knowledge, Pope Leo hasn’t even responded to this yet.
Pray for the SSPX, pray for the Pope, and pray for the Church!
The SSPX still has issues. One pastor in US chapel recently, within the last three months, have a homily wherein he made an aside comment that everyone should note the the Novus Ordo is not valid and once can only attend their Mass under penalty of sin. I was quite surprised and just blew it off as one errant person… But who knows.
[That’s not the position of the SSPX (that the N.O. is “invalid”). The regional head or prior there should have a talk with him.]
@Imrahil
I apologize if the way I structured the statement is unclear. The “absolutely no reason whatsoever” was in reference to how people would start vilifying and demonizing the SSPX clergy and the laity who support the SSPX. Nothing has changed in what the SSPX clergy and associated laity are doing, teaching, and saying – just news broke about what was an inevitable problem that was going to have to be faced. Yet I’m already seeing articles condemning all things SSPX as schismatic and prideful and wicked and “right-wing” (h/t R2D) and the comments to these stories show even more folks venting their spleen. There’s no reason for the sudden uptick in hatred – it’s just folks taking the opportunity to refresh their biases and prejudices. I saw the same thing happen in my own parish after T.C. was promulgated. We were the same families going to the same liturgy at the same parish, but suddenly folks felt emboldened to bad mouth us in public as rigid or stuck up or self-righteous . . .etc.
When you say no one is suggesting that the SSPX still needs bishops to keep Tradition alive . . . well, I’m suggesting it. It’s hard enough trying to figure out how to get Confirmation for one of my kids in a diocese where my local bishop has not only forbidden it but the chancery won’t send any letters to other diocesan bishops willing to offer Confirmation but request a letter from the confirmand’s bishop. Does anyone think, if the SSPX (God forbid) lost their remaining bishops that the Vatican would, without conditions, allow for new SSPX priests to be ordained? Consider the case of poor Dom Alcuin Reed. I believe part of why the Ecclesia Dei communities haven’t been more roughly treated is because there’s a certain fear that they would leave to join the SSPX and only strengthen their ranks – if there was no SSPX I can almost bet there would be “you have to offer at least one Novus Ordo a month” and then “there must be at least one Novus Ordo per Sunday at all locations” and then “Confirmation only in the NO form” requirements put on them one after the other.
Church politics is still politics. You can’t win a game of chess if the only thing on your side are pawns. Having SSPX bishops is a critical requirement in the current state of the Church, especially as a fortification against another future Francis (and we still have no serious indicator on what direction Pope Leo will lead us – perhaps this moment will be defining).
So count me as one person who very strongly suggests it is vital for the good of the Church, for Tradition, and for the SSPX that new bishops be consecrated. It would be for the best of the Church if they were consecrated with Pope Leo’s warm and gracious permission. But the need is absolutely there, regardless.
I am late to the conversation.
After carefully reading ALL the comments I see that the SSPX has thriving communities where the faith is strong.
Why would Rome want to suppress this?
Fr Martin doesn’t like them? The guitar Union will go on strike? They want to bankrupt the Chapel Veil business?
Just asking
I have a typo in my other comment: It should read ASK Dr. Maturin (From the O’Brian books) about Portuguese, which is a difficult language to pick up. I listened to Fr. Pagliarani’s sermon (in translation), and it is an extremely well-constructed oration. Peter K. is right about the Marian angle. Cdl. Tucho really offended, outraged, and ticked off the SSPX with his unnecessary document about Our Lady. The SSPX is deeply Marian, as well as Thomistic in philosophy and theology and disciplined like the old Jesuits.
Fr Z said: “Everyone knows this by now, but I pretty much have to post.”
Not only “knew” it, Padre, but in my case, I truly was “depending” on you to post on this subject in particular. You have the blessed ‘skill set’. It provided some much needed equilibrium. Thank you.
As an aside – I think everyone who contributed in your blog’s com box on this one is to be commended. I just visited a site that published an article on the subject and read through all 117 comments (at the time of the reading) in their com box and at least 90% of them were spouting venom. Came to WDTPRS , read your post, then went to the com box here and it was like, suddenly, I could breathe again while I was reading . . . and there were some great insights to be gleaned.
@ProfessorCover : It warmed the heart to see Fr. Hunwicke’s name mentioned again (so many great articles and posts) – It gave me pause to say a Hail Mary for him and one for his dear wife, and subsequently ask for their intercession. Thanks.
“Zipping it” is a personal invitation I receive on almost a daily basis. In my own case, it combines nicely with 3 words which come to mind after reading everyone’s posts here:
“Watch and pray.”
PS @ Fr. Z : You sent me to the dictionary just to ensure I knew precisely what the word ‘dilettante’ meant (lol). What a great fit. Thanks for the smile – wishing you one back.
Bev wrote “Pope Francis had ordered diocesan bishops to work with the SSPX regarding marriages. Does anyone know how that’s going so far?” In the one archdiocese of which I have any knowledge, it is going very well between the Cardinal Archbishop and the SSPX.
Father, rather like Fr Jackson, I have not yet managed to find a persuasive expansion of “S.M.I.” Do, please, relieve our suspense.
Isn’t asking the Pope for leave to consecrate bishops a curious thing for schismatics to do? Wouldn’t real schismatics just ignore the Pope?
Why do so many people automatically equate disobedience with schism, and admit no conceivable justification for disobedience? Is that most people’s model for obedience in their own lives? Is it a standard they themselves would care to be held to?
Why do so many people entirely disregard the SSPX’s reasons for what they’re doing, as if these were totally irrelevant and they were doing this in a vacuum? Is there compelling evidence that we are living in normal times?
If this is not a dire crisis that we are now living in, such as to justify extraordinary measures, how much worse do things need to get before reasonable men in the Society’s position would think extraordinary measures were justified?
Dear WVC,
I might come to your arguments on what we might call the “justification of the SSPX claim” some other time, but for the time being let me restrict myself to what was the actual topic of my comment addressing you, what you here refer to:
The “absolutely no reason whatsoever” was in reference to how people would start vilifying and demonizing the SSPX clergy and the laity who support the SSPX.
No need to clarify that. The thing is there would obviously be “some reason or excuse”. And “some reason or excuse” is not “absolutely no reason whatsoever”.
It is quite immaterial if the “some reason or excuse” were totally insufficient, and unjust, and overdoing, and whatever you want: “some excuse” never becomes “absolutely no reason”.
I pointed out the precise meaning of the words, that’s all, a thing quite distinct from my (or anyone else’s) opinion. I admittedly have a fondness for this sort of “Beppo Streetcleanerisms” (the character is from the novel Momo which alas is I guess not that much known to English-speakers).
But also, in my sympathy (which does not mean adherence, much less full-blown flocking-to-the-banner, but does mean sympathy) for the SSPX, I do think that things like that are actually part of the problem here. What could not have been averted if Abp Lefebvre in 1974 had abstained from the rhetorical figure of “an eternal Rome vs. the actual Rome”! He ought to have known how problematic the image is – and precisely the image, not the criticism he meant by it. He did know, afterwards, and spoke about his “doubtlessly excessive indignation” when he coined the phrase. And when authorities you do recognize are out to get you, that’s the time to be extra careful with words.
S.M.I.
“salvo meliore iudicio”
Many thanks!
R2D :
I’m not aware of any of the Anglican ordinariates having a bishop
The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham is led by Bishop David Waller, who converted to Catholicism from his former position as a celibate Anglican “priest”.
Imrahil :
1. About the Marian motivations in Fr Pagliarini’s sermon. I could, of course, look it up myself, and some time probably will, but: Did Fr Pagliarini include that Mater Populi Fidelis actually does teach that our Lady is co-redemptrix and mediatrix?
The document says the titles are inadvisable. You can think that’s wrong (I do, and especially for the latter); you can start to use the titles even more and defend (and explain) their doctrine in beautiful sermons (a priest in my vicariate does); you can say this amounts to an impiety against our Lady (I wonder, or I would wonder if the the document had a name like Cdl Müller’s as signature, which by the way is not totally unthinkable); you can totally think that this is something worth expiating for.
Despite being published during the current Pontificate, and despite having been reviewed and revised by the Pope prior to publication (the rather good section on the monastic Marian traditions is likely to be from his direction) — it is still a fundamentally Bergoglian document, and so really this sort of wishy-washy confusion-making in it should not be terribly surprising.
Blessed meanwhile be Saint Mary, Mother of God, Mediatrix of All Graces.
A.M. says:
Why do so many people automatically equate disobedience with schism, and admit no conceivable justification for disobedience?
Canon Law advises that to directly disobey a direct order from the Roman Pontiff in disciplinary matters is schismatic, and the SSPX in 1998 had been forbidden from consecrating any Bishops pending a review by the Holy See.
So this was not just a simple matter of any old disobedience, justifiable or not ; but it was a direct act against the expressly stated will of the Pope.
Of course, that didn’t magically make the SSPX “non-Catholic” or anything silly like that. And ONLY the Bishops who were involved in these 1998 consecrations had been excommunicated, and not anyone else, and certainly none of the priests, religious, or laity involved in the SSPX. (As an aside, Archbishop Lefebvre’s own excommunication was lifted when he received Last Rites as he was dying, from his Diocesan Parish Priest, given that in such extraordinary circumstance the Sacrament when provided by the legitimate Authority, and here his P.P., provides forgiveness for ALL sins, including a sin of schism ordinarily reserved to the Apostolic See.)
But in the current situation, AFAIK the Pope has not personally forbidden anything in these matters, but instead the consecrations have to date not been authorised ; so that if disobedience there is, it would not be against the Holy Father as in 1998, but against ordinary Church discipline.
I stumbled on a substack (see link below) post this morning.
It includes excerpts from statements made by youth ministers and others who had participated in programs that had resulted in impressive local church growth only to be stifled by the Bishop or local pastor which in turn caused all the work to go for naught.
https://open.substack.com/pub/christendomq/p/the-parish-you-hate-hates-you?r=brpti&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
I know nothing about the author of this substack, but the writing is very good and well-reasoned in my opinion. I bring it up here because it might cast some light on why a wise FSSPX would be weary of any oversight of its chapels by local ordinaries.
Are laypeople invited? How much for a ticket to Switzerland?
gothic serpent:
I have heard that the consecrations are to take place in Rome – though I cannot immediately find details about where exactly or about possibilities of attending.
On 5 February, the FSSPX News website posted an interview given by the Reverend Superior General, Dom Davide Pagliarani, on 2 February. I’ve only read the English version, which reads well. What I take to be the French original does not identify the interlocutor. Among many other things worthy of attention, it gives more detail about the two (attempted) communications addressed to the Holy Father, and the reply to the second “a few days ago, from Cardinal Fernández. Unfortunately, it took no account whatsoever of the proposal we put forward, and offers nothing that responds to our requests.” It also includes detailed attention to the a posteriori approval, by Pope Francis in 2023 and more recently by Pope Leo “of residential bishops, that is, ordinary pastors of their respective dioceses (or prefectures), possessing jurisdiction over the local clergy and faithful” unilaterally imposed by the Chinese authorities. This answer ends with “Frankly, I do not see how the Pope could fear a greater danger to souls coming from the Society than from the government in Beijing.”
It might be worth mentioning that the proportion of SSPX priests and faithful who doubt the validity of orders of Novus Ordo bishops and priests is not zero. That plays into the subjective need they perceive for consecrating and ordaining their own. Please don’t take my word for it. Go look at sermons on YouTube from SSPX priests. Here’s one as an example : Father Michael Johnson – an SSPX priest in good standing – on June 18th, 2023 “It is my personal conviction that Novus Ordo priests are not validly ordained.” I don’t think I can put a YouTube link in this comment but you can search for those words in quotes and find it.
gothic serpent,
It appears that my tinny ear picked up an ‘o’ and a nasal, and my wild imagination read the sound as ‘Rome’. For in his sermon of 8 February, Fr. Bernard de Lacoste, director of the St. Pius X Seminary, (for which see the FSSPX News website) clearly says ” The ceremony will take place here in Ecône, on the famous Ordination Meadow, in the very same spot where Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops on June 30, 1988.” No word about possibilities of attending, though.