By The former Vatican doctrine chief likened the Society of St. Pius X to the ancient Donatist schism, days before its planned July 1 episcopal consecrations at Écône.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller has called the Society of St. Pius X’s planned consecration of four bishops without papal mandate a schismatic act, while stressing that the dispute turns on authority, not the Traditional Latin Mass, which he affirmed remains valid.
In an interview with EWTN News In Depth, the former prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith said episcopal ordinations carried out “without the pope are absolutely impossible, against the will of God,” marking those who carry them out as “not Catholic or anti-Catholic.” That judgment, he stressed, rests on “objective criteria,” not “subjective judgments.”
The Society plans to consecrate four priests, including American Father Michael Goldade, on July 1 at its seminary in Écône, Switzerland, echoing Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s 1988 consecrations.
Without a papal mandate the consecrations would be valid but illicit, carrying an automatic “latae sententiae” excommunication.
Müller likened the society to the Donatists, the schism St. Augustine fought in North Africa.
“They should learn from the way of the Donatists,” he said, adding that St. Pius X, the society’s patron, “will pray against these people who abuse his name.” Pope Leo XIV, he noted, is himself an Augustinian.
The German prelate, a longtime professor of dogmatic theology, called devotion to traditional liturgy and the rejection of papal authority “two absolutely different questions,” and faulted bishops who forbid the TLM as “authoritarian.”
Asked what faithful drawn to SSPX Masses should do if a schism follows, Müller said they “shouldn’t go, and cannot participate in the Masses of schismatic priests and bishops.”
The Vatican’s current doctrine chief, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, warned on May 13 that the consecrations would be “a schismatic act.”
The SSPX rejects the charge, holding that such consecrations do not by themselves break communion; on June 24 it sent Pope Leo and the College of Cardinals a “Declaration of Catholic Faith.”
Superior General Father Davide Pagliarani has cited a “state of necessity,” noting only two aging SSPX bishops remain to ordain its priests.
Müller also discussed the June 26–27 consistory, which he said he expected to take up atheism and artificial intelligence, and renewed his criticism of “synodality,” which he said had been “abused” to push ideas against Church teaching on the priesthood and marriage.
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.
Cardinal Müller is that rare breed of curial character — a man of faith, courage and insight.
I think he’s laid out the SSPX situation as clearly as anyone I’ve heard.
Thank you. I’ve always thought Cardinal Muller fairminded and wise.
brineyman:
Well spoken, sir.
Crucial character, lived for grace.
Crucial question of character. Missing everywhere and maligned everywhere.
Cardinal Müller is correct as most apparently agree. That the SSPX consecration of bishops is valid although illicit. That it’s not a matter of the Traditional Latin Mass, rather the authoritative supremacy of the Roman pontiff.
Although, as argued elsewhere, they’re mitigating conditions surrounding this matter. First, that Pope Leo declined to meet with SSPX Superior General Father Davide Pagliarani, preventing the opportunity to resolve the issue in a pastoral rather than juridical manner.
For example, could Pope Leo, for sake of unity, have considered giving his permission, which the SSPX had requested, thereby making the consecrations both valid and licit and avoiding schism? Pope Leo would then be the de jure appointor.
As noted previously, Rome gave Vat Secy of State Cardinal Parolin the permission to allow Xi Jinping’s CCP to appoint Catholic bishops [this was arranged by the CCP choosing candidates for consecration from which Rome could then make their choice].
That brings into question the canonical validity of granting a foreign State the privilege belonging solely to the Roman pontiff. If the Church went so far as to questionably surrender its canonical authority to retain a modicum of unity with the Church in China, could it not do so in an actual licit manner with the SSPX?
Cardinal Mueller would have made a better Pope that Bergoglio and Prevost put together. The Holy Spirit must have a plan.
The Holy Spirit does have a plan. All in good time with everything.
Also for the record, those are their birth names. Kindly refer to them as Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV. By writing what you did, it’s subtlety implying that they weren’t really the pope(s) to begin with. As a deacon, you should know better, unless you are with the SSPX.
Fr Morello, what a thoughtful solution to the SSPX “problem.” Most practicing Catholics are aware that Rome choses its Chinese Bishops from a pre-selected and CCP-approved list. It would seem no further stretch to permit SSPX Bishops full canonical consecration. But I do not fully understand the SSPX rift and know that it goes well beyond a traditional Latin Mass. I may be misunderstanding far more important issues and nuances that arise in the schism.
Apparently Rebecca, the SSPX rejection of Vat II is one of those issues. While they accept the majority of the council’s texts, they firmly oppose those they view as contradicting pre-Vatican II Catholic tradition.
As such it may be reasonable to negotiate an acceptable compromise. Like theologian Msgr Nicola Bux my position is that the Church should make every effort at retaining the SSPX within the Church.
An example is the text on the declaration of religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae referencing the individual’s right to religious freedom as opposed to a State sponsored religion, or restraints on religious rights. SSPX believes the opposite, that a Catholic state has the right to forbid other religious practices.
Furthermore, the premise of freedom of conscience does not permit a baptized Catholic to reject doctrine contained in the Deposit of Faith. We are obliged to believe what Christ revealed and what the Church teaches as binding doctrine. Unfortunately, many Catholics presumed they were thereby free to reject what they disagreed with. There should, in my view be an addendum of clarification attached to Dignitatis.
Also Rebecca, that the “SSPX believes the opposite, that a Catholic state has the right to forbid other religious practices”, that position is unrealistic. In our day national populations lack strict uniformity. We’re no longer living in the era of Christendom.
I don’t accept that the consecrations will be valid; on the understanding that the original excommunication would have broken the line of succession.
For that is how it is in all cases when the line is broken; Church can’t make exceptions.
I do not know if SSPX has conducted itself sensibly; the undertaking of consecration in the circumstances being one factor showing they haven’t done so.
The excommunications of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 30, 1988, were lifted on January 21, 2009 by a decree from the Congregation for Bishops, acting under the authority of Pope Benedict XVI.
My argument is that the earlier excommunications immediately reinstate automatically. And this can’t be avoided or vitiated.
The excommunications had been lifted in order to serve the Church’s vision which as it turns out SSPX are revealing they never shared.
Raising up arguments about Germany and TC and FS is not how they address the issues to do with their standing.
We can in this particular respect see a little better from Cardinal Muller, the Church.
The excommunications of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 30, 1988, were lifted on January 21, 2009 by a decree from the Congregation for Bishops, acting under the authority of Pope Benedict XVI.
See my comments in the CWR article in the link Is A Schism In The Air? – Elias Galy
June 9, 2026 at 1:09 pm
Had SSPX gone the course of making a case for Lefebvre they would have been occupied with a work proper to the cause of SSPX.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/06/07/is-a-schism-in-the-air/