By 
Pope Leo XIV is not even two years into his pontificate and he is already facing one of the most delicate episodes of his ministry: a new rupture within the Church.
In a defiant move and despite repeated warnings from Rome, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) went ahead Wednesday with the consecration of four new bishops without a pontifical mandate — an act of open disobedience to the authority of the pope that, under canon law, carries automatic excommunication for the six bishops involved.
The Vatican’s official response is now awaited and could include a formal declaration of schism, as Rome had warned in the days leading up to the ceremony.
In 1988, after Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the SSPX, consecrated bishops without a papal mandate, Rome responded two days later. On July 2, St. John Paul II published the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, in which he spoke openly of a “rupture” of ecclesial communion and created a commission to help reconcile faithful linked to the society.
A schism is a tragedy for any pope. In the case of Pope Leo XIV, it also carries a more personal resonance: The pope belongs to the Augustinian order, the same religious family to which Martin Luther belonged, whose break with Rome helped lead to the Protestant Reformation and the fracturing of Western Christianity.
A repeated act of defiance
The illicit ceremony took place in a meadow in Écône, Switzerland, home to the SSPX international seminary — the same place where Lefebvre caused a rupture with Rome exactly 38 years ago by consecrating four bishops without the required pontifical mandate.
That act of defiance was repeated Wednesday, July 1, apparently without regret, despite the paternal plea in which Pope Leo XIV warned Tuesday of the “sin of extreme gravity” they were about to commit.
The ceremony was carried out by the two surviving bishops from the illicit 1988 consecrations. Spanish Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta presided as principal consecrator, assisted by Swiss Bishop Bernard Fellay as co-consecrator.
The new bishops — Swiss Father Pascal Schreiber; American Father Michael Goldade; and French Fathers Michel Poinsinet de Sivry and Marc Hanappier — were designated as auxiliaries of the society with the stated aim of serving the Church, though in practice the act marks a decisive step toward rupture.
Provocative symbolism
The ceremony included several elements loaded with symbolism recalling — not without a certain provocation — the 1988 consecrations. The liturgical feast chosen, the Most Precious Blood of Christ, was the same. So was the throne on which De Galarreta sat, the one once used by Lefebvre. The vestments worn by the bishops were those used by the four bishops ordained 38 years ago.
Thousands of faithful arrived hours early, many dressed in traditional attire and straw hats and carrying folding chairs, in an atmosphere that mixed celebration with solemnity. For the occasion, the SSPX even sold commemorative items, including an exclusive 75 Swiss franc box of wine — about $92.50 — called “Cuvée des Sacres,” featuring pinot noir, syrah, petit arvine, and fendant, with each bottle decorated with the image of one of the consecrated bishops.
De Galarreta whispered the liturgical formulas into the microphone, strictly in Latin, with his back to the 17,000 faithful present, according to organizers. Those gathered came from nearly 70 countries.
Without the pope’s mandate
Outwardly, the episcopal consecration followed a valid rite. But it lacked the essential element: the mandate of the pope.
The ceremony began with a solemn procession to an altar set up beneath a tent, with members of several religious orders linked to the SSPX taking part. Priests and religious sisters connected to the society sat in the front rows.
Many families were also present, following the rite on giant screens set up in the Swiss field.
In principle, those faithful did not automatically incur excommunication. Father Pierpaolo Dal Corso, an expert in penal and sacramental canon law, told ACI Prensa that such a penalty would apply only if they rejected the authority of the pope or the legitimacy of the Catholic Church.
In 1996, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts clarified that excommunication for schism does not automatically apply to those who attend SSPX celebrations. In the same line, canonist Msgr. William King told ACI Prensa that excommunication requires conscious adherence to the denial of the pope’s authority.
Before the rite of consecration, Father Davide Pagliarani, the SSPX superior general, spoke and even defended the need to canonize Lefebvre. The movement’s founder died in 1991 without public signs of repentance, a necessary condition for full reconciliation with Rome.
An invalid argument
Pagliarani read a text justifying the consecrations by appealing to an alleged “state of necessity,” an argument also used in 1988, though the Holy See has repeatedly said it does not apply — especially after an explicit warning from the pope.
In his remarks, Pagliarani made clear his doctrinal break, saying that “from the Second Vatican Council to our own day, the authorities of the Church have been imbued with a spirit contrary to the faith and have acted against holy tradition.”
“We consider it a sacred duty toward Holy Mother Church and souls to proceed with the consecration of bishops fully faithful to holy tradition and the constant magisterium of the Church,” he added.
The four candidates pronounced their oath in Latin, even pledging to “fight against schismatic heretics,” in a paradox that did not go unnoticed.
The SSPX superior general insisted on rejecting what he called a “false dilemma” between fidelity to the faith and ecclesial communion, attempting to argue that the society’s decision does not constitute a break with the Catholic Church.
But the canonical situation of the SSPX remains complex. The society continues to reject key elements of the Second Vatican Council, especially Dignitatis Humanae, the council’s declaration on religious freedom.
“We are accused of not respecting the pope, but it is precisely because we love him as the vicar of Christ that we do not want to see him humiliated alongside false shepherds, representatives of false religions,” Pagliarani said, effectively closing the door to ecumenical and interreligious dialogue.
“We live these consecrations in joy and hope. We do not live them in polemics, tension, bitterness, or resentment,” he said.
“Your worst enemies will not attack you head-on, but will try to make you slide gradually toward a more updated perception of the faith and of relations with the world. When you sense this danger, reflect, pray, seek counsel, evaluate, remain still before reacting like a serpent,” he urged the newly consecrated bishops.
He added: “Never, ever retreat. That is what it means to be like a serpent: to perceive the duplicity, the ambiguity, the cunning that exists in the world.”
“God now asks us to be treated as rebels,” Pagliarani declared at another point.
The SSPX is already clearly outside the canonical jurisdiction of the Church. But with this new step, it has directly defied the pope. If the Vatican now formally declares a schism, its members will become even more isolated, without the possibility of receiving any ministry or mission in dioceses. That would leave its members — some 600,000 people — headed toward an increasingly sectarian circle.
Although SSPX priests are suspended, Pope Francis granted them faculties to hear confessions and witness marriages. If a schism is confirmed, those concessions could be reviewed.
This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.
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.
We read “The society continues to reject key elements of the Second Vatican Council, especially Dignitatis Humanae, the council’s declaration on religious freedom.”
Such freedom is explicitly defined NOT as subjective license but as “freedom from coercion.” And, other Documents, to be read integrally with Dignitatis Humanae, explicitly affirm the binding force of the natural law, and (elsewhere) the obligation in conscience to seek the truth:
“Contemplating this melancholy state of humanity, the Council wishes to recall first of all the permanent binding force of universal natural law [!] and its all-embracing principles. Man’s conscience [!] itself gives ever more emphatic voice to these principles” (Gaudium et spes, n. 79).
For SPPX to reject such fully understood freedom of conscience…in these compact and convoluted times, does this action seem to align with Islam which also rejects human freedom and free will, while explaining to deluded Christian infidels that God still allows us to think we have freewill?
Paul VI declared no infallible doctrines were declared by the Vatican II Council.
Yet those who dictate total fidelity to Vatican II documents including Dignitatis Humanae as sine qua non for SSPX fail to acknowledge the rupture and contradiction inherent in Traditionis Custodes.
Some flexibility required for two rigid mindsets.
True, no one can coerce another to Love them, for Love is a Gift given freely from the heart; Love is not possessive, nor is it coercive, nor does it serve to manipulate for the sake of self satisfaction; this does not change the fact that if you do not realize Christ Is King for all persons, and/or deny The Unity of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit of Perfect Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds from Both The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, you cannot, in essence, be worshipping The Most Holy Blessed Trinity.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“No one can come to My Father, Except Through Me.” In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
Instead of speculating what the Society of Saint Pius X says about such texts, why not look at what they’ve actually declared.
When did the Society reject the primacy of conscience? When did post VII pontificates emphasize the Church’s primary mission to save souls?
No worries. That bit about “what you bind on earth” surely has no real weight anymore. Right?
So I guess blessing couples in irregular relationships is all the rage in heaven now.
I guess whataboutism is the best you can do.
My parents never let me get away with that. Did yours?
Noting incoherence is not “whataboutism.” Sorry your parents never taught you about distinctions.
Deo gratias!
Yes indeed. Now the SSPX can quit toeing the line and pretending to recognize and accept the Roman Pontiff’s authority.
They’re fooling no one except their brainwashed parishioners.
Maybe learn what schism actually is as opposed to what people have been brainwashed into believing what it isn’t.
I already know what schism is, Nick. It’s either rejecting Catholic dogma, and/or rejecting papal authority, creating a split from full communion with the Roman Pontiff.
“To love anyone (or anything) more than Christ is to commit adultery.” St. Augustine
As such, the SSPX are spiritually adulterous. They are abandoning the Mystical Body of Christ, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, to adulterate with their own will.
Pray and stay Catholic.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2026/07/02/sspx-schism-and-excommunication/print
DTS: You are aware of the two recent popes rejecting dogma, aren’t you? And the imperative to refuse to embrace their heresies?
brainwashed? seriously?
The head is with Rome, the heart is with Econe.
Lex orandi lex credendi lex vivendi.
Synodal Rome will struggle with these laws, Econe must be faithful to them if it wishes to help restore union within the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
No, when Rome is heretical, refusal to conform is an obligation to Our Lord.
Unity is not an intrinsic good. Pro-life Catholics should not be “united” with Catholics supporting the slaughter.
…a new rupture within the Church.
…a defiant move
…despite repeated warnings
…an act of open disobedience
…as Rome had warned
…a “rupture” of ecclesial communion
…a tragedy for any pope
…A repeated act of defiance
…The illicit ceremony
…That act of defiance was repeated
without regret
…the “sin of extreme gravity”
…the illicit 1988 consecrations
…a decisive step toward rupture.
…Provocative symbolism
…with his back to the 17,000 faithful present
…founder died in 1991 without public signs of repentance
…The SSPX… has directly defied the Pope
EWTN New knows how to pile it on. Do they think this is objective journalistic reporting?
Let’s face it: the hierarchy simply cannot handle traditionalists in the Church; apostates from the faith, yes, but not traditionalists. The Vatican tolerated thousands of clergy sexually abusing minors in the Church and it was only when the State, the media and lawsuits were filed that the Church reluctantly admitted these flagrant abuses. The bishops want be be seen as heroes becuase billions of dollars (none of it their own) were paid out to victims and they haven’t stopped with the endless streams of ‘mea culpas.’ But they certainly know how to pounce on traditionalists.
…a new rupture within the Church.
…a defiant move
…despite repeated warnings
…an act of open disobedience
…as Rome had warned
…a “rupture” of ecclesial communion
…a tragedy for any pope
…A repeated act of defiance
…The illicit ceremony
…That act of defiance was repeated
without regret
…the “sin of extreme gravity”
…the illicit 1988 consecrations
…a decisive step toward rupture.
…Provocative symbolism
…with his back to the 17,000 faithful present
…founder died in 1991 without public signs of repentance
…The SSPX… has directly defied the Pope
Well, yeah, that about sums up the SSPX’s schismatic actions. (with the exception of his back to the 17,000 people)
DTS: You missed the point.
Well, at least we agree on the ad-orientem posture. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fair minded traditional Catholic, conservative, and am staunchly pro-life. I cannot, however, condone schism, even if it were to involve my best friend.
Nothing good can come from a deliberate schismatic action. You must be able to understand that. Now that this has happened, those idiotic German bishops could very well be next. They’ve been a thorn in the side for too long as well. Call me crazy, but I think Pope Leo will one day win over his critics.
The SSPX has had its share of sex abuse cases too, as well as the universal Church. That fault does not lie with the Catholic Church in and of itself.
It lies with the countless bishops and priests who covered it up.
Happy 4th, God bless ☦️
DTS writes: “The SSPX has had its share of sex abuse cases too, as well as the universal Church.”
You’re going to have to cite specifics for this statement to be credible.
There have been SSPX clergy abuse convictions abroad. In France & Belgium perhaps.
SSPX clergy are human beings with a few errant members just like everyone else.
The same Pope Leo who is seeking to outpace the heresies of his predecessor? He’ll “win me over” when he has the good grace to resign.
DTS or DTAL?>
Pitchfork, I don’t understand what you mean by DTAL>.
Decipher. If that’s some kind of insult, it’s a very poorly done one.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/04/11/society-of-st-pius-x-priest-admits-to-years-of-sexual-misconduct-with-minors/&ved=2ahUKEwje9vaA9LSVAxUQAzQIHTbVExsQFnoECFMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2OdXrHEUTEJEqbVj-4yNpj
Here’s an example. My statements are credible, with or without specific links, by the way.
Progressivists might deny it, but bald faced slanderous lies are still a transgression of the Eighth Commandment.
You bet they are. Just so you know, I’m not a progressivist. I’m the opposite.
Itemizing phrases without quaification is flat out dishonest.
I have donated regularly to EWTN. This may be the year I redirect my donations.
Feel free to donate to CWR. We’re working on a new site, so …
Let me find my checkbook!
Then I have to see how much money I have left in the bank.
Congratulations, CWR and Carl. I look forward to seeing the new site. My suffering nears its end!
Carl, be careful in distancing from EWTN. They have a long history of doing good works in and for the Church. We need them and they need us.
James:I’m not sure how I’m distancing myself or CWR from EWTN. We have a good relationship, and I’ve been a guest on many (many!) of their programs.
JC: Unfortunately, I get the distinct sense that EWTN has strayed from the path established by it foundress.
You would be a top alternative.
Carl Olson what’s going to happen to old comments in the new website, will they become unavailable?
Trying to get Carl’s attention.
Carl Olson, will the new website feature the same arrangement with the comment boxes. I’ll tell you why I ask this. The combox arrangement here is like or works like the Aquinas method of question, objection/sed contra and “I answer that”/reply. In a “natural” effect if you will. Something to be prized since it dovetails but also leads the writers and readers into the method, instructively and intuitively without having to be overly focused on it.
I was also looking for the answer to my first question.
No, probably not. There are still many details to be worked out, but migrating comments is not likely.
Dear Carl it’s not everyday we get to have a direct conversation with the editor so it is of some moment. A new work is opening up for me in the next 4 months or so and likely will be absorbing a lot of my time maybe for at least 2 years. My existing job will carry on alongside. I might not be a regular comment contributor as time will be against me, I would have to leave off a bit; and it would be difficult to keep up with threads of thought. But I will know for sure as the new thing comes into place shortly.
Best wishes on the anniversary of the US. May God bless all.
Noticed your followup below. Hope you have good IT people. Migrating comments should not be difficult.
“…a new rupture within the Church?”
Certainly the rupture is not due to those who hold fast to The Teaching of The Magisterium of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church and recognize first and foremost, “It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesiastical Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, for it Is “Through Christ,With Christ, And In Christ, Oh God Almighty Father, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son (Filioque) that Holy Mother Church, outside of which there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Exists.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
Although it’s popular in what we call the “Western World”, where demographic collapse has been engineered for decades, not everybody is fond of dying off.
If the Vatican can accept Bishops referred by the totalitarian Chinese government, it can accept these Bishops.
Have another meeting with Sarah or Bad Bunny and send out that pornographer “Tucho”.
So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Members of the clergy who are trying to uphold traditional forms of faith, doctrine, and practice must be excommunicated. But clergy who are actively and intentionally undermining the church’s historic teachings about homosexuality remain in ministry in good standing.
Precisely
Athanasius: please note that the bishop of San Bernardino CA just “celebrated ” a Mass for active homosexuals. Last I looked, sodomy was a mortal sin against nature and God’s law. But, as Pope Prevost instructed us this past week, sexual sins don’t count as much as social sins. But don’t expect Pope Prevost to excommunicate this bishop; reserve that judgment for the Traditionalists!
“The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.”
― Robert Conquest
In this, we have sufficient evidence to displace the assumption with a reasonably well supported inference.
“Outwardly, the episcopal consecration followed a valid rite. But it lacked the essential element: the mandate of the pope.”
And why was no mandate given by the man who currently sits on The Chair of Peter, who refuses to declare that one cannot be a true Vicar of Christ while claiming sin done in private as long as it is consensual is not sin in order to justify the engaging in of sexual acts that regardless of the actors, or the actor’s desires/inclinations deny the inherent Sanctity and Dignity of the human person and are physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually harmful? How is that not, in essence, a schismatic act , that in denying The Unity of The Holy Ghost, deny The Divinity of The Most Holy Trinity, and thus deny Divine Law, and the fact that Christ Is King for all people.
I grew up before Vatican II and I was confirmed in 1963. We were carefully taught what all the items used in the Mass were used for. One day, I remember thinking, “Catholics have the Church and Protestants have Jesus.” It was made clear to us to have devotions, like the devotion to the Sacred Heart, but to have a personal relationship with Jesus was Protestant. You could be led stray. Relating to God through the priests was the only way to be safe.
Thinking over what I have experienced, I seriously wonder if what groups like the SSPX object to in the Second Vatican Council is the teaching of the universal call to holiness: that the laity could have a direct personal relationship with God, like the mystics.
The saints were presented as intercessors to God, along with the Angels and especially Mary. This kept God safely at a distance.
This reminds me very much of the attitude of the Israelites at Mount Sinai: “When all the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking, they were afraid and trembled and stood at a distance, and said to Moses, ‘You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, or we will die.’ Moses said to the people, ‘Do not be afraid; for God has come only to test you and to put the fear of him upon you so that you do not sin.’”
Is Luther a better model then? No intercession from Saints or Our Lady there.
I appreciate your input. I had never thought of this particular reason but it does seem to have a solid explanatory quality for otherwise senseless behavior.
I have dear Protestant friends who sincerely love the Lord & try to walk with Him daily. I hear in part what you are saying, Sister. But we actually *have* Our Lord present in every tabernacle in every Catholic church. And we receive Him : Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity at Holy Communion.
It’s shame that our separated brethren miss out on the Blessed Sacrament. And we certainly could be catechized better. How much closer a relationship could we have with Jesus in this present life than when we receive Him in the Eucharist?
Unlike our “Protestant “ brethren I believe the SSPX do receive a valid, but not a licit Eucharist. So they DO receive the true body and blood !j
“a personal relationship with Jesus”
I hear that phrase and wonder what exactly do people who say that by that? What is the nature of a “personal relationship” between Almighty God and one of his finite creatures separated from Him by sin? How is it established in their mind, what is its nature and its elements? Reciprocation? It seems like a tabula rasa that is subject to personal construction. But it’s one of those slogans that are emotionally disarming- who could possibly object?
Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
Christ gave us his Body and Blood, that is as personal as it gets.
Then again, I can’t see any mention of that phrase in Scripture.
From The Problem with “A Personal Relationship with Jesus”
Homiletic and Pastoral Review, July 10, 2014
Jay Boyd
“On the other hand, for Catholics there is an observable measure of one’s relationship with our Lord. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our life as Catholics, and a baptized, confirmed Catholic who faithfully partakes of the sacraments of reconciliation and Holy Communion in the manner prescribed by the Church certainly has a “personal relationship” with Jesus, whether or not he or she uses that phrase to describe it. Of course, this presupposes a belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It presupposes a belief in hell and in the necessity of sacramental confession. In other words, it presupposes a basic knowledge of the faith.”
I have found Protestant sources that object to the notion as well.
errata: say that MEAN by that.
Matthew 6:9-13
New International Version
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,[a]
but deliver us from the evil one
Jesus Himself told us how to have a personal relationship with the Trinity and how that looks.
What a shameful piece and shame on CWR for printing it. Putting aside the subject, this is not so much news but it largely contains opinion, with sweeping judgments thrown in- the author takes it upon herself to proclaim the sspx has no valid argument and that they are already completely outside of the Church; not bothering to realize that if they were, Leo would have no authority to levy penalties against them and neither would a declaration of schism be possible if they are already are in such!? There are other such canonical and theological mistakes here. Under Leo, american outlets are not longer trustworthy at presenting the facts.
If ever the SSPX and the Church were to engage in renewed dialogue, perhaps the central issue is NOT the legitimacy of the Council and the message of “Dignitatis Humanae” taken out of context from the other and interrelated Council Documents—but rather dereliction in teaching and governance following the Council. Is such focus possible?
As for tradition (lower case), and how “conscience” is actually addressed throughout the Council Documents, from the back bleachers we notice, first, something from St. John Henry Cardinal NEWMAN, and second, some relevant CITATIONS from the Documents.
FIRST, some tradition (lower case) from Newman, a century before the Second Vatican Council:
“…I have already quoted the words which Cardinal Gousset has adduced from the Fourth Lateran; that ‘He who acts against his conscience loses his soul.’ This ‘dictim’ is brought out with singular fulness and force in the moral treatises of theologians. The celebrated school, known as the Salmanticeases, or Carmelites of Salamanca lays down the broad proposition that conscience is ever to be obeyed, whether it tells truly or erroneously, and that whether the error is the fault of the person thus erring or not [citing St. Thomas]. They say that this opinion is certain, and refer, as agreeing with them, to St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Cajetan, Vasquez, Durandus, Navarrus, Corduba, Layman, Escobar, and fourteen others. Two of them even say this opinion is ‘de fide.’ Of course, if a man is culpable in being in error which he might have escaped had he been more in earnest, for that error he is answerable to God, but still he must act according to that error while he is in it, because he in full sincerity thinks the error to be truth” (Newman, from a “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk,” in Vincent Ferrer Blehl [ed.], “The Essential Newman,” Mentor Omega, 1963, pp. 270-271).
SECOND, “Dignitatis Humanae” affirms “freedom from coercion;” it does not affirm subjective decisions in place of conscience. Elsewhere in the Documents:
“…the Synod teaches that it is through His revelation ‘that those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude, and with no trace of error, even in the present state of the human race” (Dei Verbum, I: n.6).
“Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said of a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or of a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 16).
“Therefore, if methodical investigation within every branch of learning is carried out in a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms, it never conflicts with the faith” (ibid., n. 36).
“For we are tempted to think that our personal rights are fully ensured only when we are exempt from every requirement of divine law. But this way lies not the maintenance of the dignity of the human person, but its annihilation” (ibid., n. 41).
“…the Council wishes to recall first of all the permanent binding force of universal natural law and its all-embracing principles. Man’s conscience itself gives ever more emphatic voice to these principles” (ibid., n. 79).
For an inside view of the Second Vatican Council (and demonstrating legitimate room for matter-of-fact and collegial attention to strengths and weaknesses of the Documents), here’s a link to a 2006 assessment of Pope Benedict’s involvement and thoughts, written by Cardinal Avery Dulles shortly after Benedict was elected pope. https://firstthings.com/from-ratzinger-to-benedict/
Benedict affirms “continuity” (rather than discontinuity), but in some later writings after 2006 was nuanced with the similar term “discontinuity within continuity.” A starting point for a “family” conference?
First and foremost, to be a well formed Catholic Conscience , one’s conscience must be in Communion with Christ, In The Unity of The Holy Ghost.
Traditionalists are wrong and so are modernists. There, that wasn’t hard, was it?
The Church should correct liturgical abuses without reverting to the unreformed Mass from before the Council. The Church should adhere to the texts of Vatican II, understood in the light of and as developing prior magisterial teaching.
Let the SSPX go, then tell the FSSP and similar Ecclesia Dei societies that their days with the unreformed Mass are numbered. Tell bishops that they need to fix the way the reformed Mass is celebrated in their dioceses. Finally, reign in Fr. James Martin, the German synodal way and its bishops, and all other objectively manifest dissidents from Catholic faith and doctrine.
The Church needs purification.
Miss Dorothy, with respect the SSPX are a reactive symptom to abuses done in the “Spirit of VII” that were not dealt with properly or in a timely fashion.
The Latin Mass itself is not a problem.
Dorothy: I agree
Why do the recent popes hate the SSPX so much? It is not complicated, and it is NOT just the Mass. The SSPX refuses to bow down to false idols, refuses to honor Martin Luther, refuses to bless the idea that homosexuals can constitute a “couple,” refuses to violate Christ’s decrees on marriage, refuses to concelebrate with a Protestant bishopess, refuses to declare all religions willed by God, refuses to praise Islam, refuses to bow down to the CCP… In other words, all the things that are so dear to the heart of Rome right now, and so contrary to the Gospel, will NEVER be accepted by the SSPX. At this sad moment in Church history, discussions are pointless. Until Rome rediscovers the Catholic Faith, it is much, much safer to be declared “schismatic” by the apostates.
That must have been some tasty kool-aid, TJW
Mary Elizabeth: But in your heart, you know he’s right!
One cannot possibly be in Communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church and thus be a Temple of The Holy Ghost in all our relationships and experiences and exist in a state of Apostasy and yet a man was elected to the Papacy who claimed that “if there is a union of a private nature there is neither a third party nor is society affected” in order to justify sexual immorality, denying our Call to Holiness is
a Call to be Temples of The Holy Ghost. If that is not schism what exactly is that?
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
Sr. Gabriela: one thing the SSPX and Arch. LeFebvre “object to in the Second Vatican Council” is the well known fact that VII started teaching previously condemned, anti-Catholic, Freemasonry principles of religious liberty/tolerance/ecumenism and then Popes like John Paul II started dedicating the twenty-seven years of his papacy to promoting.
Defiance of the Pope…
James Martin blesses openly gay couples and confirms gay lovers…no excommunication
Bishops shuffle sex abusers…no excommunication
China handpicks communist friendly bishops without papal mandate…no excommunication
To judge the SSPX is to point a loaded gun at your soul and ask Our Father to forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. This is all a sham and a joke. The Pope welcomes Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury and his delegate Crossed himself to signal his reception of her blessing…no excommunication
The double standards are rich.
Exactly.
Case in point. This man never has received so much as a mild rebuke from anyone in authority for this heresy.
“I believe that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct,” Cardinal Hollerich told KNA. He said it was time for a fundamental revision, and the way Pope Francis had spoken about homosexuality in the past could lead to a change in doctrine.”What was condemned in the past was sodomy. At that time, it was thought that the whole child was contained in the sperm of the man, and that was simply transferred to homosexual men. But there is no homosexuality in the New Testament. There is only the mention of homosexual acts, which were partly pagan ritual acts. That was, of course, forbidden. I think it is time for a fundamental revision of the doctrine.”
Yes,I find myself torn, torn that what attracts so many young men to a philosophy that is doing a good. They have their problems, that’s true, but I also feel sad that schism has come. Everything through Peter, I’ve always held and will always do, but when you see the likes of Tobin McElroy and Cupich, the likes of Tucho’s dirty writing there is a small part comes to understand. If I were Pope I would have flown to Switzerland and embrace all there and raised them to a personal prelature! Simplistic, but as a gesture of fatherally concern yes! But even at this late stage, I hope a gentle act is forthcoming! Prayers for the pope and especially those prelates that I know I’ve been uncharitable to.
Rome must clean its own house (the board stuck in its eye) before villainizng traditionalists in the Church.
#1. Rid the clergy of sodomite priests and bishops and those who sympathize with sodomy. When the Church turns a blind eye to mortal sin, it has departed from the faith; it has fallen into apostasy.
#2. Stop treating non-Catholic heretics like that woman posing as an Anglican bishop as if they were members of the Catholic Church. They are not. They are apostates to the faith and when the Church acts otherwise, it too apostacizes.
#3. Popes and bishops should stop worshipping God in muslim “holy” places. They are not holy places and allah is a false god. When Popes and bishops do this it creates scandal to the Catholic faithful. Popes give false witness when they kiss the Koran with reverance.
#4. Catholic hierarchy must stop worshipping false idols like Pachamama as it scandalizes the Faithful and is a mortal offense against unity and communion within the Church.
5. If Rome and the Pope want to govern the Church with authority, respect and credibility, then it needs to exercise that goverance over the wayward churches in places like Germany, Switzerland (St. Gallen diocese), and elsewhere where the Catholic Church acts independently of Rome and Rome says and does nothing.
Rome needs to sit back and assess how Rome created the problem of SSPX themselves. This is NOT about Mass prayed in Latin and according to the former Missal. This about Rome doing nothing and, in some cases, supporting apostasy from the Catholic faith within its own ranks. A famous president once said, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat Party left me.” My guess is that SSPX says the same about Rome.
Even as a devotee of the traditional Latin Mass, I agree that the SSPX is unfortunately reactionary and deliberately provocative. Still, it is hard to have much respect for the Vatican’s hard-nosed behavior here given the way they have groveled at the feet of the unapologetically atheist CCP on its appointment of Chinese bishops, and the Vatican’s repudiation of churches there historically faithful to Rome.
#1. A majority of Roman Catholics in union with the Pope support abortion.
My guess is that few, if any, Catholics aligned with SSPX support abortion.
#2. About 40% of Roman Catholics in union with the Pope support homosexual relationships that are sinful according to the teachings of the Church.
My guess is that few, if any, Catholics aligned with the SSPX support homosexual relationships.
#3. The vast majority of Catholics in union with the Pope support and/or actively engage in contraception contrary to Church teaching.
My guess is that few, if any, Catholics aligned with the SSPX support contraceptive practices.
So, you tell me, where are the faithful Catholics to be found.
(Caveat: the present pontiff doesn’t think that sexual sins are all that serious…or at least, he hasn’t indicatedcsame).
There’s no viable reason why the Vatican, specifically Pope Leo should not have attempted a negotiated compromise. Instead he forwarded the request for a meeting by Fr Davide the superior general to the Prefect of the DDF.
There remains the possibility to modify the sentence and attempt reconciliation with a movement that represents approx 600,000 adherents. If we have compromised the ordination of bishops elsewhere there’s precedent to do so here.
Thank you, Father Peter. It takes courage for a cleric to speak truth in the current climate.
There was a time in the Catholic Church that the act of excommunication meant something. No more.
Those who rail against SSPX accuse them of wanting to live in pre-Vatican II times. The fact is that nothing is more pre-Vatican II than threatening to excommunicate members of the Church.
“The fact is that nothing is more pre-Vatican II than threatening to excommunicate members of the Church.”
I think you must be mistaken, When in Salvation History did The Vatican threatened to excommunicate Faithful Catholics for holding fast to Tradition and defending The Deposit of Faith? The election of a man to the Papacy who denied God’s Divine Law regarding sexual morality would not have been valid before or after Vatican II.
“Pagliarani read a text justifying the consecrations by appealing to an alleged “state of necessity,” an argument also used in 1988, though the Holy See has repeatedly said it does not apply — especially after an explicit warning from the pope.”
Oh, so the pope infers there is no state of emergency. Therefore all the tens of thousands of scandals in the past sixty years never happened?
Could anyone please help me understand why the Pope Leo XIV did not want French Marc Hanappiier, French Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, American Michael Goldade and Swiss Pascal Scheiber to become bishops? I can’t find a document where Pope Leo XIV explains why he had no other choice