The Catholic Church has a simple principle that ecclesial revolutionaries keep finding impressively difficult to understand: obedience to legitimate authority belongs to communion and covenant hierarchy rather than institutional convenience. The announced plan by the Society of St. Pius X to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate is grave because such an act claims loyalty to tradition while damaging the apostolic communion through which tradition remains visible in history.
Canon law speaks with unusual directness since canon 1382 says that the consecrating bishop and the man receiving consecration “incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See” (Code of Canon Law canon 1382). That canon is the Church’s way of saying that Rome already placed the warning sign directly on the road, so nobody should feign amazement after driving through it.
The Vatican has now said this directly, since Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, warned that the SSPX plan to consecrate new bishops without a papal mandate “will constitute ‘a schismatic act,’” and he further stated that “formal adherence to schism constitutes a grave offense against God and entails the excommunication established by the law of the Church,” which means the Holy See is no longer merely discussing theoretical danger here because it is identifying the proposed act as the kind of rupture the Church has repeatedly warned against.
Canon 751 defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff” (Code of Canon Law canon 751). That definition matters because schism usually begins with religious language that makes disobedience sound almost heroic to people already inclined to excuse it. It begins when anxious men explain that Rome has failed them so completely that ordinary ecclesial authority somehow remains theoretically sacred while becoming practically optional in their own immediate case.
The SSPX’s claim of necessity must be judged with sobriety because necessity can never become an ecclesial magic wand through which a priestly society grants itself authority to preserve the Church from the Church. Ignatius of Antioch wrote that “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”. That sentence alone should make every Catholic pause before treating episcopal consecration as a private emergency mechanism for a group that claims to protect Catholic identity while refusing the necessity of Catholic communion.
The irony is rather thick here because the SSPX often states that the crisis in the Church requires heroic fidelity to Catholic tradition. But Catholic tradition has never taught that ecclesial disorder is healed by an unauthorized episcopal line in defiance of the Roman Pontiff. Vatican I taught that the Roman Pontiff has “full and supreme power” over the whole Church (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus chap. 3). That teaching means papal authority has real global jurisdiction over matters involving faith and morals. The Church is a covenantal body with one fatherly hierarchy.
This is where the comparison with the German bishops becomes useful. Progressive rebellion and traditionalist rebellion often despise each other, but they share the same spiritual disease. One faction claims obedience while draining Catholic moral teaching through pastoral innovations that effectively authorize what the Church lacks the power to bless.
Another faction claims tradition while creating an episcopal structure that implies ordinary Catholic life has ceased to provide a reliable means for salvation. The Germans insist that their proposed blessings preserve Catholic teaching, although the practical effect of a formalized blessing for an immoral union is obvious to anyone whose moral reasoning has survived adolescence. The SSPX insists that its bishops are needed to preserve the Faith, although unauthorized consecrations create a parallel structure that suggests Rome has failed so badly that salvation needs outside management.
That teaching may irritate modern instincts, even though modern instincts have hardly produced a civilization of disciplined sanctity. The deeper theological point is that obedience in the Catholic tradition is familial. Obedience is the ordered surrender of the will to truth as mediated through rightful authority within the covenantal life of the Church. Aquinas says that obedience belongs to justice because the superior directs the faithful “to God” (Summa Theologiae, II-II q.104 a.1).
That phrase matters because Catholic obedience is never blind submission to arbitrary force. It is a disciplined participation in the divine order through which Christ governs His Church by visible instruments. Therefore, obedience has limits when a command requires sin, although those limits can never be inflated into a permanent habit of suspicion by which every unwanted instruction becomes proof of an emergency.
There is a massive difference between resisting a sinful command and creating bishops without papal mandate because one has judged the ecclesial situation intolerable. Once that principle is accepted, every faction can justify its own emergency. Soon enough, everybody possesses necessity, while nobody retains obedience. At that point, the Church becomes a spiritual parliament with incense. This is precisely why the SSPX crisis must be addressed firmly and pastorally. Mercy severed from truth becomes indulgence, while discipline severed from charity becomes administration. The Holy Father’s prayer that SSPX leaders reconsider is exactly right because the goal is the return of sons rather than the theatrical punishment of enemies. Still, the Church must speak with sufficient force because unauthorized episcopal consecration is never internal housekeeping.
A bishop is a successor of the apostles whose office is ordered toward the unity of the Church. Thus, when bishops are consecrated apart from papal mandate, the damage touches the apostolic structure of the Church herself. Cyprian of Carthage, in “On the Unity of the Catholic Church,” taught that “the episcopate is one”. That ancient line rejects the idea that episcopal authority can be severed from ecclesial communion while remaining traditionally healthy.
Thus, Catholics tempted to sympathize with unauthorized consecrations should think carefully before baptizing their frustration as fidelity. Reverence for the older liturgy is a genuine good when it deepens communion with the Church rather than serving as a refuge from her visible authority. Doctrinal seriousness is also a genuine good when it strengthens obedience rather than feeding the illusion that purity requires distance from Peter.
Against this chaos, the Church must recover filial obedience as a serious virtue. Filial obedience recognizes that Christ saves us as members of a covenantal body rather than isolated religious consumers. We enter a visible Church through baptism and receive divine life through sacraments entrusted to apostolic authority. This visibility offends the age of autonomy because dissent eventually struggles with a Church that comes from Christ rather than from private preference.
The Church’s position is clear since episcopal consecration without papal mandate is gravely illicit and incurs excommunication according to canon law. Formal adherence to schism is a grave offense against God because it wounds the unity for which Christ prayed. Blessings that effectively legitimize immoral unions are pastorally deceptive because they obscure the conversion that every sinner needs.
The faithful must obey Christ in His Church while praying for the pope and asking God to purify each corner of Catholic life where pride has learned religious vocabulary. Above all, Catholics must center everything on Jesus Christ, who founded one Church upon Peter and promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. That promise is enough because Christ remains Lord over His Church even when sons in distant corners of the vineyard discover impressively sophisticated ways to avoid the Father’s command.
The Catholic answer is covenantal fidelity to Christ through His Church, with the Blessed Virgin’s fiat as our model and Peter’s office as our visible bond. The Eucharist remains our life because obedience is the path by which proud men finally learn that holiness begins when self-will kneels before the Lord.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Not schism. The ape church is so far from what it is supposed to be that the SSPX, if excommunicated, is excommunicated from a joke. I will stick with them over the NO church of accompaniment.
God help you friend.
You do realize that their Sacraments are valid, right?
But germans heretical bishops remain in full communion with the Pope without any risk of being excommunicated. Curious? Not.
XX centuries of Church Tradition and history is the problem for Rome, not blatant heresies.
Everything in this article should be fully reconciled with the process used to name bishops in China who are picked by communist Chinese leaders.
I want to preface this by saying that I acknowledge that the process of selecting bishops in China has been abused by the CCP. I likewise assert that there needs to be action with respect to China; but because the Vatican has no ability to threaten legitimate political repercussions via military action, or economic action I see the need to walk a fine line in order not to endanger the lives of the Church’s people. This is actually where the US could help the Church.
That said, the structure of the formal agreement with the CCP is not without historical precedent. The Church has allowed political heads of state to select bishops for the Church to approve for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The Chinese government has a similar deal in place. Again, it’s pretty obvious that the deal is being manipulated; but in this case, the origin of the Chinese conflict is more essentially political than it is ecclesial (obviously it also has ecclesial ramifications that need to be addressed). All that to say, I think that there is some nuance that places the Chinese conflict in a category apart since the Chinese government makes no pretense of submitting to the Pope as their spiritual leader.
The CCP is still wrong; but you can’t exactly threaten to excommunicate an entity that is already outside of the Church. And you could openly excommunicate the CCP’s bishops; but the situation is far more delicate for the real-life consequences to which you are potential subjecting faithful Chinese. The same does not apply in Germany nor within the SSPX. To be clear: does that make the Chinese situation okay or less grave? Absolutely not. Does it make it more pastorally complex? Without a doubt.
Bingo
Well this argument is sound and righteous, per se, but it would have more integrity if the Vatican hand not groveled at the feet of the Chinese Communist Party and accorded them the right to appoint Bishops.
Excellent, Thomas
Thanks for the excellent article, very clear and precise.
A conundrum for me. I believe in truth, not some “my truth” and “your truth” silliness, but universally the Truth.
What should I do when I feel the papacy has gone astray? Francis’ reign was a constant source of confusion. He seemed intent on undoing many of Saint Pope John Paul II’s and Pope Benedict’s achievements, like transforming the JP II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family into a watered-down version of its former self. Then there’s the ongoing promotion of figures like Father Martin and his events, the puzzling crackdown on the Latin Mass, and the drawn-out, seemingly pointless synod on synodality. It often feels like Francis and Leo are distracting with one hand while causing trouble with the other.
I have never attended an SSPX mass and have no intention of doing so now. Still, I feel a certain compassion for them and their actions. I admire that the SSPX group is earnestly striving for holiness, while Rome seems preoccupied with questioning the core truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ and showing interest in modernist ideas.
Excellent, Michael B
But the Vatican has no problem letting the CCP select Bishops in the Catholic Church in China? The SSPX is not in Schism, the Vatican is.
It’s all about Vatican II, which the SSXP have some concerns about. The Vatican has said NO to even discussing these concerns with the SSPX! The Chinese bishops are V II bishops.
The best thing to do whenever the person God has given us to lead us in our sanctification has gone astray is to take that concern to the Lord in the Eucharist. Look for a church that offers perpetual adoration and bring that before Him there. The next mass that you attend, prayerfully bring this concern to Him when you receive the Eucharist. Then listen. And wait. Remembering that it’s Jesus’ Church brings me much comfort when I observe the leaders He has ordained appearing to have fallen short of the mark. And also, in humility, I don’t always see what’s happening in private.
Michael B, it seems you are confusing or conflating two very different things when you accuse the “Papacy” of having gone astray. Men can err, men can “go astray”, but “The Papacy” as an office is from Christ: never.
This article is nonsense. The Pope is delighted with the SSPX’s intention to consecrate bishops. That is why he sent the official Vatican pornographer, Tucho Fernandez, to “dialogue” with Fr. Davide Pagliarani, to make absolutely sure that nothing would come of any discussions. The SSPX consecrations and “excommunications” are a very welcome distraction from the Vatican’s real agenda, advancing the homosexualization of the Church.
Check which side, the SSPX or the present leadership of CC, goes against or sustains and defends Holy Scripture:
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. AND SAINT AUGUSTINE:
“Those sins which are against nature, like those of the men of Sodom, are in all times and places to be detested and punished. Even if all nations committed such sins, they should all alike be held guilty by God’s law” (Confessions 3.8).
Homosexualty with the church reflects an unfortunate result of Satan’s influence. Other institutions in the world suffer the same ill effects of sin. But to suggest it is an intentional “agenda” of the Roman Catholic Church is to mischaracterize a problem that reflects an unfortunate failure of her true agenda, the salvation of souls through Christ.
We need to take a good hard look at the original causes for Archbishop Lefebvre starting the SSPX. It seems as if the Vatican is ignoring the elephant in the room. When someone acts badly in the family, we don’t tell that person to “Get out!”. We try to understand them and seek reconciliation. We’ll just see how serious Leo is about bringing unity.
Aggiornamento cannot be stopped!
Back to meetings with Sarah Mullaly and David Axlerod and winking and nodding at the deviant doctrinal excursions of the German Cardinal, Karl Marx.
Maybe that meteor over Ohio that created the sonic booms the other day is just a shot across our bow. Next up perhaps a Tunguska event?
The question becomes what happens when the progressive rebellion is being led from the chair of Saint Peter?
In 1988, Pope John Paul II substantively erred in his application of canon law, and this error was such that it rendered the so-called excommunications dead upon publication.
To see why the 1988 consecrations were not acts that brought about the penalty of excommunication, and that pronunciations made by Pope John Paul II cannot be viewed as overriding intentions that simply erase or ignore his canonical mistakes, read with very thoughtful concentration an analysis and assessment of the 1988 consecrations and alleged excommunications by a recognized expert among experts in canon law, the Rev Dr. Denzil Meuli (1926 – 2019) S.T.D.,U.J.D., Ph.L., LL.B., Advocate for the Holy Roman Rota, Barrister for the High Court of NZ, that can be accessed at the following website:
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2026/05/a-compelling-defense-of-sspx-by-fr.html
Also note the canon law’s specific exceptions that permit or allow to take place without penalty some “extraordinary actions” that are taken in response to a perceived crisis in the Church, and that this perception does not need to be proven. Archbishop Lefebvre appealed to such exceptions in 1988, and the current SSPX leadership has also indicated that they are also appealing to the same canon law exceptions in support of the planned July consecrations.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law states that any bishop who attempts to consecrate another priest to the episcopate incurres automatic excommunication.
St Pope John Paul II was absolutely correct in excommunicating the SSPX. To not do what he did would be placing Rome under the jurisdiction of a rogue group of priests who think they’re in charge.
That is the exact opposite of humility and obedience.
I am a conservative Catholic, and prefer Eastern Liturgies. Unity means a lot to Byzantines and other Eastern Catholics. It must not mean much to the SSPX if they’re willing to enter schism freely.
To see why your comments on the so-called excommunication by Pope John Paul II are erroneous, seriously engage the superior analysis of the applicable canon law by Fr. Meuli, including that specific section which you incompletely and misleadingly reference (hence leading to your false conclusion) at the site referenced in my comment above.
I don’t mislead people. You and I are going to disagree on this matter. But that does not change the fact that St John Paul II’s 1988 excommunications were correct. No sympathizer article from a TLM priest is going to convince me or other people that Rome erred.
The Roman Pontiff is the infallible head of the Catholic Church. Bishop Lefebrve died as an excommunicated Catholic who rejected the authority of the Pope. He had a pride problem because Rome didn’t cater to his demands.
The SSPX are not in charge of the universal Church. If they were to return to full union with Rome, then they would be subject to them.
To Didn’t Think So:
You have now misled yourself by mischaracterizing and unjustly criticizing your straw man version of who Fr. Meuli was, and by your own admission, you have no interest in honestly engaging what he has actually written, instead merely repeating what you wrongly believe to be true, but you cannot refute what Fr. Meuli wrote. Nobody can, because he was correct. Moreover, some of the terminology and argumentation used by Fr. Meuli was also used by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 in his declaration regarding the extant excommunications of the living 4 SSPX bishops at that time. Contrary to the oft-claimed “lifting of their excommunications,” Pope Benedict actually declared that they were null and void…as if they never existed in the first place. I don’t expect you to have any desire to understand or accept this reality, but other people in this combox will be willing to look more into this reality as well as honestly engage the cited analysis of Fr. Meuli that proves you and many others completely wrong regarding the so-called 1988 excommunications.
As for your other declarations also assuming to know the heart and mind of Bishop Lefebvre and condemning him based on your assumptions, if such makes you feel good, so be it.
Michael Angelicus
It’s a complicated question, the excommunicated “father” of the group was never reconciled by Benedict, the group is at large with no root and remains so. My proposal to have Lefebvre rehabilitated as like “in extremis”, has not been taken up anywhere and not by Benedict or anyone I know.
I have the Benedict intervention declaration before me, in this link; look to see if it was retroactive or if it released them in the future. It seems plain that it explicitly identifies the latae sententiae situation and then lifts the excommunication from the present January 2009 going ahead to the future.
I understand there followed March 10 2009, an explanatory letter to bishops to elucidate for them how they are to understand the context and receive the group. Meuli, respectfully, can have been taken away in his excitement.
JPII had declared Lefebvre schismatic in the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei. Before Benedict’s declaration, Those who were following him were also schismatic. Meuli could possibly have fueled fire of confusion on it.
What seems to be emerging is truly a mind of defiance deeply fixed in SSPX and if it materializes concretely, we will be witness to the prophetic in JPII.
Bless.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html
Had the SSPX not taken their stand, the traditional Mass could have been lost forever, and the Church would have been forever enfeebled.
We need to take a good hard look at the original causes for Archbishop Lefebvre starting the SSPX. It seems as if the Vatican is ignoring the elephant in the room. When someone acts badly in the family, we don’t tell that person to “Get out!”. We try to understand them and seek reconciliation. We’ll just see how serious Leo is about bringing unity. .
But no threats of excommunication to the German bishops, James Martin and the authors of synod report 9. Why?
One cannot be in schism if one affirms the Deposit of Faith thus your statement Canon 751 defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff” (Code of Canon Law canon 751)”, is true but does not pertain to The SSPX who affirm The Deposit Of Faith.However, prior to his election to The Papacy, Jorge Bergoglio, denied the sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and God’s Will that we respect The Sanctity and Dignity of the life of every human person from the moment of conception, ipso facto, defecting from Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, ipso facto defecting from The One Body Of Christ, and thus The Ministerial Office has been vacant. The question of whether or not a Pope can resign The Munus is a separate one, as in resigning The Office Of The Munus would be like rejecting The Unique Gift Of The Holy Ghost, which comes with The Forever Office Of The Munus.
The godless Communist Party of China or CCP chooses the bishops of the Catholic Church in China with the approval of Rome — essentially an agreement to not enforce the papal mandate. If that is the problem with the SSPX, then on the surface Rome appears guilty of cafeteria Catholicism. Pick and choose when and against whom to enforce the law. Of course the Church has many examples of differing rules over who chooses the bishop of a given church throughout history. Consider France in the not too distant past or Switzerland basically currently. The SSPX just says aloud what many believe and they are ushered towards schism and excommunication. Cardinals call for ordaining women when that’s a rejection of the deposit of faith which means these men are unbelievers wrongly occupying an ecclesiastical office with the mandate and blessing of the Pope. Let that sit in. The Pope is keeping heretics and unbelievers in the seat of bishop and cardinal while refusing to meet with a group on the precipice of schism who warn that there is a state of emergency in the Church. Absolutely no sign of excommunication on the way for the men in miters promoting a departure from the deposit of faith. What else would be a state of emergency than the Roman Pontiff keeping in the office of bishop and cardinal men who publicly reject the deposit of faith?
I observe that publicly self-declared heretics are Cardinals.
It may be the case, therefore, that schism might only be a purely juridical matter, without any substantive meaning?
Alas, I fear it is the RCC that is the one in schism with the One True Faith and not the SSPX—and I say that as one who isn’t a “trad” or particularly interested in TLM, etc
MrsHess:
As someone who isn’t a trad or interested in the Latin Mass either, I kindly ask you to refrain from wringing your hands. The Catholic Church isn’t just “Roman”. It’s mostly Roman, but along with 23 or 24 other Eastern Catholic sui iuris Churches in full communion with Rome, that makes up the entirety of the
The Catholic Church (AKA, the One True Faith).
The Church can’t enter schism with itself. The Church ITSELF can’t enter schism with anyone, as it is indefectible. Schism occurs when Canon Law or papal authority is rejected, which is precisely what the SSPX is doing.
There are a lot of people leaving comments here in favor of the SSPX’s actions, but as a traditional conservative Catholic, I’m sticking with Rome and the Barque of Peter.
The Latin Mass isn’t superior to the English Mass, or vice versa. It’s just a different form of the Roman Rite.
For those of you who have never seen a Byzantine liturgy, you might check one out. It has the original Ad-Orientum posture, vernacular language, reverent liturgy, and a much more relaxed environment than the uptight and pompous TLM crowd. Be aware though, that if one were to start bringing trad ideology and anti-Rome statements into a Byzantine Church, that person would not make many friends at that parish, as they have preserved their liturgy and take joy in being in union with Rome and Leo XIV.
Heroic priests don’t willingly enter schism and drag their flock with them. Rather, heroic priests guide their flock and make certain that none jump ship.
Define that “uptight and pompous TLM crowd.”
I do not think so, DTS.
I know so, meiron. I’ve seen it.
Many, but not all have the attitude that the TLM is the last bulwark against the evils of the secular world. I respectfully disagree. One particular Rite or form of a Rite is not superior to another, as they are all equal under Rome. Whether the Mass is in Latin, English, or any other language, you will still receive the Eucharist. Likewise, Byzantine rites aren’t superior to the English or Latin Masses. Completely different liturgy, but you still receive the Eucharist. The Catholic Church is the bulwark, and not a particular form of the Roman Rite.
You surely could get a patent for seeing an attitude!
I do not see what you see, first, because I cannot see attitudes. Second, I would hazard that I know many more TLM-goers than you.
Yes, one still receives the Eucharist in a Mass of any language. One also may receive the Eucharist without attending any Mass at all. So there is that.
Latin is neither the only reason nor the predominant reason for preferring the TLM. People prefer the TLM for many different reasons.
I belong to a Byz Rite parish. And it seems pretty clear to me that the RCC is in fact in schism. Impossible? But here we are
Oh, and anti-Rome sentiment is rather popular at our parish
Anti-Rome sentiment is often found in Orthodox parishes. Don’t let your parish become one of those by de-facto.
I believe we should stick with Rome and the Barque of Peter, along with the Roman Church. It’s imperative.
The “what-aboutism” used to justify the SSPX’s demonstrably untraditional and schismatic approach is beyond the pale. Yes, there are other situations within the Church that are also scandalous, but different situations require different responses and remedies. Those judgments belong to the Pope and the bishops. Our role is to pursue personal holiness, support our local clergy and bishop, and remain faithful to the teachings of the Holy Father and the universal Church (as written in the Catechism). It is not for us to constantly judge situations about which we know very little, only then to undermine those who have been entrusted, by grace of office and responsibility, with the authority to lead the Church.
Wellsaid-thank you for a reasoned and faithful approach.
Hmm, the Holy Father is not the Truth. I am aware of a single Way, the Truth, and the Life – the Lord, Jesus Christ. The Pope is supposed to be his vicar on earth. However, as such, he is supposed to uphold his commitment to uphold the faith and the truths taught within the Church for the past two thousand years. Franics, and now Leo, have chosen to avoid standing for Truth and have promoted some heretical teachings.
Other than that, I appreciate the reminder that we are really just ignore pope and Rome in general and focus on our personal challenge of seeking holiness in our thoughts and actions.
The real scandal is that the German synod can promote homosexuality and not a word is said against them, and yet the SSPX is Catholic (even Pope Francis said “you are Catholic I have no problem with you.”) and they are being threatened with something that was once a slap on the wrist?! St Joan of arc was excommunicated as well and now she’s a great Saint. It takes courage to stand up against the wolves in the church
Agree 100%.
For all those who still believe or are convinced that Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX were excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in 1988, I urge and respectfully challenge you to engage an analysis of the so-called excommunications by a canon lawyer recognized as an elite canon lawyer among canon lawyers, and then apply the analysis set forth by this extremely learned man to what may occur in July.
Please see and read with a desire to honestly engage without prejudging the following analysis by the Rev Dr. Denzil Meuli (1926 – 2019) S.T.D.,U.J.D., Ph.L., LL.B., Advocate for the Holy Roman Rota, Barrister for the High Court of NZ, that can be accessed at the following website:
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2026/05/a-compelling-defense-of-sspx-by-fr.html
Also note that, so far as is known, nobody ever successfully showed any errors in Fr. Meuli’s analysis that would refute his conclusions. Moreover, in his so-called lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009, the official document that purports to do this contains some of the same analysis as found in Fr. Meuli’s analysis, which suggests that Pope Benedict knew that the so-called excommunications of 1988 were never valid, and so he corrected the error in a kind of “diplomatic way” instead of flat out declaring that his predecessor had erred.
Seems to me the Vatican and most bishops have been defecting from the Faith and putting themselves in schism with all which came before, while the SSPX is doing their own version of what they think necessary to save the Faith from Rome. Not as if the Vatican hasn’t been waiting for their four original and only bishops to die off ever since they were named, and only two are left, and both pushing 70 of unknown health which always is failing at that age as I well know. They will soon have no bishops, and then no priestly ordinations by Vatican will, so, what choice do they really have, considering their numbers have exploded world wide? Fernandez is the exact wrong person to be put in charge of this, or doctrine, or even a parish.
I don’t think it’s a good headline. Should be “the sspx chooses the path of Catholicism unvarnished and undiminished.”
Is the SSPX is choosing the path of schism or is it the synodal masquerade and their infamous “reports”? A new paradigm is heresy.
I am not a Catholic, but follow Church news. This is a brilliantly written piece which calls a spade a spade, though lovingly and without malice.
The bottom line is that there are no “freelance Catholic priests” and doubly no “freelance Catholic bishops.” I can only hope that Pope Leo does what he must to make this clear to both extremists on the right as well as those on the left– but I suspect that neither group will care what he says and will continue doing what they have been doing as they use tortuous logic to justify it. Thanks to Dr. Peter for another reasonable, balanced essay.
Another time-wasting argument. NOT ONE WORD about why the traditionalists have “chosen the path of schism”, about what they and the Vatican don’t agree on: ideological novelties in the texts of Vatican II that contradict longstanding Catholic magisterium and have led to the practice and notions that are the chaos of the Church since the Council. If there is no problem with Vat II texts, then traditionalists are wrong to take the means to live avoiding the contagion till Rome gets its Roman act together again. If there are serious problems with Vat II texts and various statements and actions of post-conciliar Popes in line with its “spirit”, then the SSPX actions are legitimate and put them in the vanguard of Church vibrancy. Still waiting for Tucho, and Year Zero Vatican II defenders to exlain where the traditionalists read the Council incorrectly. But please, give up telling us to shut up and obey. That might have worked with the Catholics of the sixties and seventies who watched on as their idiotic hierarchy trashed their churches and liturgy and cow towed to the world. No one’s listening now.
In the meantime, here’s Father Pagliarani’s declaration of Catholic faith addressed to Pope Leo. Why is it that Pope Pius XII could easily have signed it but today… Marcus, can you sign this declaration? Why not?
https://fsspx.news/en/news/declaration-catholic-faith-addressed-pope-leo-xiv-59110
If the SSPX just came out as endorsing homosexuality, they would be in excellent standing at the Vatican. This threat of excommunication would go away tomorrow and they would be invited for a private meeting with Pope Leo.
(SEE HOW EASY THAT WAS?)
Thank you, Miguel, for sharing this declaration.
Praise the Lord!
Galater 1,8:
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”
Look beyond the letter of the law and at the glaring contradictions between the church of ‘1789’ [Card. Suenens on the Post V2 church] and the teaching of Christ and his apostels in the gospels.
Matters worth your attention:
1. Condemnation vs. blessing of homosexual relationships
2. Universalism vs. ecumenical collaboration with blatant idol worship
3. Holy Mass sacrifice with real presence of Christ vs. community happening.
Then ask yourself who the the’ecclesial revolutionaries’ are.
Chances are you will find out what every kid knows:
When wokists are in opposition, they demand domination-free discourse.
When wokists are in power, they demand discourse-free domination.
Yet synodality deviates from the Vatican I authority of the Papacy that you write about in your story. Also, how does one rectify the government of China and their appointment of Bishops? How about the heresies of the German Bishops or of James Martin, SJ who go unpunished? Seems there is no consistency in enforcing Church doctrine from Rome
Agree 100%.
I have no involvement with the SSPX, but it seems to me that while they may recognize that schism may result,, they are actually choosing to continue to exist, since without new bishops to replace their two aging bishops they would eventually die out.
Dear Father_______,
What a start you gave me! I hope you are very well. You are always in my prayer intentions.
I have nothing but good will for the many fine Society priests I have ever known. All of you will always occupy a warm place in my heart.
My decision to go to our diocesan parish here in Kansas might seem bewildering to you. I doubt that I can explain it in a combox. I will briefly say that with you, I desire with all my soul whatever is best for the Catholic Church. Kyrie Eleison.
I have come to believe in long hindsight that the Archbishop should have accepted the agreement he once signed from Rome. I suspect that submission to that agreement might still be acceptable to Pope Leo.
I think you could wish I was right. Maybe not. I know you love Rome and Holy Mother Church. I cherish the brief moments when we have met since the old days. Pray for me please.
Excellent point.
In contrast to the Church Establishment, who it seems are choosing suicide.
This is all political. An American, liberal pope, who talks about climate change and allowing illegal immigration run rampant, is shutting down traditional Catholics because traditional Catholics are 99.9% conservative in political beliefs.
It’s not about political reasons, or liberal vs conservatives. It’s about accepting Rome’s authority and Vatican II, which the SSPX explicitly reject.
First let me say, in place of all due respect, that Dr Peter’s knowledge and expertise are sterling. However, value judgment is where most of us may follow predilection rather than evidence.
Insofar as the canonical argument there’s no question that the SSPX ordination of bishops sans papa consent deserves the canonical sentence of schism. However as said elsewhere there’s a distinction between legal justice and moral justice. In that regard I address elsewhere “Vatican says SSPX faces excommunications for ‘schismatic’ bishop consecrations” that there are features of unfairness in the position the SSPX has been placed.
For an example not mentioned in response to that article is the request made by SSPX superior Fr Davide for a meeting to discuss the SSPX plea for accommodation that the SSPX may remain formally within the Church – was responded with apparent callousness referring the SSPX leader to Cardinal Victor Fernandez, perhaps the most morally discordant prelate in the Curia. Nevertheless, Leo XIV granted a non Catholic pro homosexual layman access.
If Leo XIV cannot meet in person with his own for sake of unity, that he would graciously concede to the SSPX request – such a meeting offered the pope with a real moment of explanation and perhaps changing the SSPX course – suggests Leo XIV has a preferential form of unity in mind, that he lacks moral fiber.
“If Leo XIV cannot meet in person with his own for sake of unity.”
I am not a theologian, I am a student of management and bureaucracy-and make no mistake the intellectually and theologically itinerant Jerry Pournelle nailed it with his (first iteration of) the “Iron Law of Bureaucracy”. The Vatican is a bureaucracy-get over it-if you have some emotionally indignant reaction.
“In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely”. This is evidenced by Consalvi’s response to Napoleon when the latter man threated to obliterate the Church-saying that priests and bishops had done their best for eighteen centuries to so-so he could have at it.
So we have a group interested in the preservation of the Church’s liturgical patrimony being eliminated.
Contra Mr. Staudt-Leo so far has been unimpressive and barring some epiphany, I don’t see much cause for celebration. So far, he’s Francis without the dour disposition and “the little book of insults”. Francis was dedicated to making a “mess” and was successful. Since “synodality” is all the rage, why not Cadaver Synod 2.0 to clean up the mess.
Leo got into a mudslinging contest with a unrestrained, acknowledged expert. You would think a Chicago boy would know not to roll in mud with pigs. He met with Sarah the costumed counterfeit as something of a peer, and she leveraged that moment to be the ill-tempered canine female that she certainly is. Add to that David Axlerod, who is neither Christian or the head of a political or ecclesial body and now everybody’s arguing about what sort of thing was dispensed on Iran and whether it is-in the words of “the old man” from the Christmas Story: “a major award” or a political act. Meanwhile, the Germans and Jimmy Martin continue to be the megaphones of the “love that dare not speak its name” and its inability to just shut the hell up already.
The Papacy is the one office of the world that is both head of state and head of faith-and as such it will inevitably be drawn into both and situations that reside in both dimensions, and is likely to meet with tax collectors. That I get.
It would be useful therefore to study the thickets of five centuries ago. Another Leo, looking for allies against Luther, granted Henry Tudor the title “Fidei Defensor” for what was likely a ghost-written book.
Instead of securing Merry Old England, it may have already engorged Henry’s titanic ego and libido dominandi and resulted in centuries of oppression.
Failing to meet with people who seem to be interested in preserving the endogenous liturgical patrimony and maintaining their shepherds is in stark contrast to how Benedict handled the appeals of disaffected Anglicans-allowing them to be received fully and with their liturgical legacy and a dedicated episcopacy and an allowance for married priests. Somebody is going to have to explain to me why this has to come to such a breach, because right now it appears to be once of those informal military acronyms containing the monosyllabic word for fornication.
I suppose your right about bureaucracy, at least to a given extent. Although we’re dealing with the spiritual, competing dynamics of good and evil. At this time in his pontificate, who knows that a miracle may occur, Leo XIV comes across as someone afflicted with chronic laissez faire-ism with pietistic features.
Some say he needs the right time to reveal his hand as Chapp says. Counter to that opinion his appointments and failure to correct injustices, his petty antagonism with Trump say otherwise.
Although, I continue to pray for him not simply because the liturgy of the Mass calls for it, rather for his good as well as our own.
Yes. The last sentence indicts with truth and brought tears to my eyes. I see it exactly as you. I do pity the pope. He is in a hell of a pickle.
Yes. The last sentence indicts with truth, and tears came to my eyes. I see it exactly as you. I do not pity the pope. He is in a hell of a pickle.
I meant to say I DO pity the pope.
The path SSPX should be choosing at this time is taking leads from the Pope’s catechesis on VATICAN II and giving good example by it.
Move away from the hoopla and harum scarum.
I had said I would’ve preferred the Pope did not do that catechesis, meaning to put the burden on the rest of the hierarchy and Church to show what they’re -we’re- made of; but he has instead made it easy for all. Wrong response SSPX.
Stop trying to turn the Council into a synod.
I don’t know if I could add anything to some of the comments above, but it’s worth noting that many in the Corporate Catholic Church always refer to their own statements validating the “authority” of the “hierarchy” (them) when scant evidence of it exists in the Bible. I think the modern “hierarchy” has done a good job of perpetuating the buildings and sacraments all these years, but increasingly they are incapable of teaching or standing for the basic Christian beliefs our ancestors were willing to die for. (With the possible exception of abortion.)
The “hierarchy” seems most interested in avoiding controversy, even when that means they don’t really proclaim the Gospel boldly or effectively.
When the Bible says, “call no man Father…Teacher…Master” (Matthew 23:8-12) it seems to be a direct refutation of any hierarchical system of religious authority by any man, really. It really doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what you call your priest or Dad, like the Prots. and Catholic apologists debate. Oh no, it is something with far more serious implications for the Catholic system. It seems like Jesus was giving Peter and his successors far more responsibility than authority. Maybe that was on purpose.
I find the clerics’ discussion of religious issues very helpful and I am glad the Corporate Catholic Church exists, but we are in serious trouble if we rely on them to do everything or lead us in everything Jesus commanded Christians to do. It’s up to the laity to fill in the gaps the Corporate Catholic Church has been leaving open all these years, even if it means we do so without their “permission” or “approval.”
‘ The “hierarchy” seems most interested in avoiding controversy, even when that means they don’t really proclaim the Gospel boldly or effectively. ‘
The idea that preaching the Gospel necessarily causes controversy is not true. What we are told is that it can produce division and we are to remain faithful when it does. The Lord told Paul to remain in Corinth and preach steadfastly; and Paul was there 18 months during which time there was controversy and it arose among non-believers who fought among themselves. See Acts 18.
When certain voices (including from the lodge) resist the Gospel and “announce” things like “who is without sin cast the first stone”, in a contrary manner, as for example, posted against the asserted “Catholics can not help with abortion” – they are trying to bring confusion into the preaching: because Scripture such as that was most definitely never meant to censor the faith. They are masking the controversy at work in them while attempting to sustain what is unsustainable. Very deceptive. They will do this for abortion AND ANYTHING ELSE when it is useful even less serious matters.
Skipping past controversy is not a bad thing. Queen Esther was able to do this as the method for saving the Jews from a progrom; but in addition she saved many other groups from the similar fate while also bringing down a maleficent administrator.
Is teaching the Catholic Faith and celebrating the Mass of centuries schism?
I live in Germany. Now here is REAL SCHISM!
It is disappointing that Pope Leo, through his proxy Cardinal Fernandez, is offering only threats of punishment but not any sort of lifeboat to make at least some in the SSPX reconsider supporting this step. Why doesn’t he overturn Traditionis custodes to show that those who love the traditional Latin Mass are welcome in the Church and re-establish the Ecclesia Dei Commission to aid in the regularization of SSPX priests who don’t want to go along with this or even to establish new traditional religious orders and priestly societies? It is sad that the Holy See does not want to offer anything. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but MANY Catholics (not just SSPX fellow travelers) are fed up with the hypocrisy in Roe’s attitude (cf. the case of the bishop of Fresno, the heresy of the German bishops, the Chinese bishops who are not only illicitly consecrated but actually claim jurisdiction over dioceses). One can both think that the SSPX are going too far AND that the Holy See is not handling this very well (cf. the stubborn insistence of Cardinal Fernandez that everything jot and tittle of Vatican II is beyond reform). Two other observations: (1) Rome could act graciously and, without authorizing the consecrations and in fact while still condemning them, find a way to prevent this from congealing into a longterm rift: that episcopal consecration without papal mandate incurs immediate excommunication is a novelty of the 1983 Code of Canon Law; previously the penalty was simply not being allowed to perform other consecrations in the future for a few years. The pope could simply do a line-item change to canon law on this point and revert to the former discipline. The July 1 consecrations would still be illicit and would incur a penalty, but this way the door would be much more open for a future reconciliation. (2) Does the pope realize the role scandal plays in all this? Scandal in the strict theological sense — doing something which leads another person to commit sin. Authority figures in particular need to be attentive of their duty to avoid giving scandal. Even if (or, rather, especially if) one agrees that the consecrations are Very Bad and Very Illicit and Very Schismatic, then one should do everything possible to avoid them — and to avoid provoking them. You do not have to buy into the SSPX argument of the current crisis in the Church as a “state of emergency” that justifies ignoring some provisions of canon law to understand that the inaction of the Holy See to stop the crisis in the Church is a SCANDAL in the full sense of the term, and that this a major reason the SSPX is doing what they are doing. When Pope Leo allows the Synod to publish “recommendations” that distort the basic moral law, when he does nothing about an American bishop who simulates a sacrament by participating actively in the “consecration” of an Episcopalian “bishop,” when the disorder introduced by Amoris laetitia and Fiducia supplicans is met with a coy papal response about how “religious freedom,” etc., is more important than being obsessed with sexual morality, when the disaster of Traditionis custodes is left on the books … all of this gives scandal. “Taking scandal” is also a sin (which is arguably what the SSPX is doing if one thinks they are overreacting), but “giving scandal” is no less grave in this case. The Holy See bears very heavily the weight of this rift.
I fully agree with the author of this article. Perfect. The moment you allow them to use traditions as an excuse it will ballon into something else.
Besides, if my memory serves me right Germany is where Martin Luther came from.
Go figure.