SSPX Consecrations: The State of Necessity in 2026
The principal contention of those sympathetic to the SSPX, but in disagreement with the consecrations of bishops in 2026, is as follows: While in 1988 it could have been argued that a state of necessity for the survival of Catholic Tradition existed, this is not the case today because the Traditional Latin Mass is more accessible, even after Traditionis Custodes, when compared to 1988; and, men who wish to become Traditional Priests do not have to join the SSPX because of the FSSP, and other such groups.
I am paraphrasing the argument, but this is the general gist. Father Gerald Murray, a man I have never met personally, but for whom I have great respect, has made this claim on numerous occasions in interviews. In addition, in my conversations with other Traditionalists, or SSPX sympathizers, who do not share the SSPX’s view that extraordinary consecrations are legitimate in 2026, I have found this sort of line of thinking to be common.
The argument goes further as well, and can be summarized with the following points:
In 2026, there are more Bishops, Priests, and laymen devoted to the Traditional Rite than there were in 1988
In 2026, there are even Cardinals who celebrate the Old Rite, and there were essentially zero in 1988
The general fervour for Vatican II and its ambiguity and errors has largely collapsed, at least compared to the hysteria that enwrapped the Church in 1988
More people attend the Old Mass in 2026, and largely because of that, more Mass-attending Catholics are orthodox in belief than in 1988
What could be called “Papolatry” has, or is collapsing, and Catholics in general, especially after Pope Francis, are more willing to call foul on the shenanigans coming out of Rome
There are perhaps other points that could be addressed; however, I believe that these will suffice for the purpose of this essay, and, if there are other points, they are likely related to, if not practically identical to the aforementioned points in substance.
Ultimately, it boils down to the notion that, since the Traditional Liturgy is relatively widespread and gaining steam, despite suppression, the State of Necessity no longer exists as it did in 1988. It may be argued by those sympathetic to these points that we are in some way even close to a solution to the current problem, and that the SSPX consecrations may work against that solution being realized.
We will address these below; however, before doing so, it is necessary to lay some groundwork. If we are going to do our job well, we must define terms and ensure that we are thinking with the same definitions, principles, etc. In that spirit, I believe it is necessary to consider what a State of Necessity even is, and if that applies to the case of the SSPX and the consecration of bishops without papal mandate, and, even against the will of the Pope.
Before we continue, some commentators like to quibble about the difference between doing something without permission and doing things when permission is not only absent, but is strictly denied. The thinking goes: it is one thing to do something without permission, but it is worse to do something when you have been told not to.
This line of reasoning is contextual, and the context makes all the difference. A son may do something that he is not normally supposed to do without first asking his father, or he may ask his father, and then after he is told no, he may do it anyway. It could be argued that it is worse to do so without even asking, because he made absolutely no attempt to recognize his father’s authority, whereas, if he asked and his request was negated, it could be argued that he at least showed his principle subjection to his father’s rule. What would validate or invalidate his actions would be whether going against his father’s will, passively or actively, was warranted due to a necessity.
What is a State of Necessity?
Father Jean-Michel Gleize summarizes State of Necessity:
“A state of necessity is an extraordinary situation in which the necessaries of natural or supernatural life are threatened in such a way that to safeguard them one finds oneself habitually obliged to break the law. Now, law is essentially intended by legislators to procure these necessaries to their subjects. In the Church, the whole edifice of ecclesiastical law is by definition ordered to the preaching of the doctrine of faith and the administration of the sacraments.[5] If the application of the law goes against the end of the law intended by the legislators, it is no longer legitimate because selfcontradictory. The subjects can and must take no notice of it in order to obtain the end of the law despite the authorities who apply the law contrary to the law.”
Admittedly, this poignant and concise summary is likely jarring to some readers, especially if we come from predominantly Anglo-Liberal nations, like America, Canada, etc. We have imbibed, to varying degrees, the sickness of Legal Positivism, which is essentially the notion that the Legislator makes the law, so it must be lawful. This mentality has arisen in modern times saturated with Revolution, and we are not accustomed to thinking otherwise. However, in the received European Tradition, which is still more active in some European mentalities, there is much more nuance. We may think of the maxim uttered by men like Saint Thomas Aquinas and others, which states, “An unjust law is no law.”
Premodern thinkers could understand this easily because they could understand the distinction between the law, which has been promulgated in a code of law and the Law, as in the metaphysical principle that guides legislation. For example, it is not unlawful, morally speaking, to have some sort of taxation. However, if it so happens that laws about taxation become so burdensome that citizens cannot afford their basic necessities if they pay their taxes, then the law is sufficiently unjust to be no law at all.
The law is meant to govern a society, spiritual or religious, so that it can obtain its end, which must include the common good of the subjects. So, an unjust law truly is no law at all, because it does not function as a law should and works against its purpose.
This should be common sense, and while it is easily understandable in theory, it is harder for many to accept in practice. This is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to the consecration of bishops by the SSPX.
Now, the perennial understanding of Necessity applies to all societies of people, both secular and religious. It is easy enough for us to understand in the secular sphere, but how might we understand it in the religious sphere?
When assessing the theological tradition, we see five degrees of necessity:
Ordinary (or common) spiritual necessity is that in which any sinner finds himself in ordinary circumstances;
Grave spiritual necessity is that when a soul finds herself threatened in spiritual goods of great importance (e.g., faith and morals);
Spiritual necessity almost extreme is the status of a soul which, without someone else’s help, could be rescued only with great difficulty;
Extreme spiritual necessity is that status of a soul is situated which, without the help of someone else, could not be able to be saved or would be able to do so with such difficulty that her salvation would be considered morally impossible;
Grave general (or public) spiritual necessity is that when several souls find themselves threatened in spiritual goods of great importance (e.g., faith and morals). Canonists and theologians commonly adduce as examples of grave general or public spiritual necessity epidemics and the public spreading of a heresy.1
Now, a state of Spiritual Necessity is more urgent than a state of Material Necessity, because spiritual goods are higher and more vital than material goods. This is easily understandable if we consider parenting: if a father is a poor material provider but provides his children with the Faith and a good education, we would say he is a better father than a man who provides material wealth and comfort, but without the spiritual and metaphysical formation. Ideally, a father could provide both, but the material will always be secondary. Furthermore, we could say that a moral and religious society that serves Christ the King is superior to a wealthy society that is indifferent to Christ.
If we assess the degrees listed above, it should be easy to see that the fifth degree fits our present situation.
Notice how it is not necessary that all souls be deprived of requisite spiritual goods, but only that it is public or common. Can we say with a straight face that the spreading of heresy is not common today, and has not been for decades? I believe it is unnecessary to point out the myriad examples of spiritual deprivation in our day, but perhaps a paragraph summarizing the situation could suffice.
We live in an age of universal (meaning, in all places) spiritual deprivation. Liturgically, catechetically, educationally, and even legislatively, if we consider the effete and ineffective application of the law in the Church. Every Pope since John-Paul II has made public displays of Ecumenism that were universally regarded as condemnable before Vatican II (compare Assisi and the Pachamama event to Mortalium Animos, for example). The present head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has a history of writing what should be called theological erotica. The former head of the DDF, Cardinal Muller, seems to have denied, at least materially, perennial dogmas about the Blessed Mother.2 Pope Francis okayed the reception of Holy Communion by couples in an objective state of mortal sin. And, practically speaking, parents the world over experience great difficulty in raising their children in the Faith because of the general state of parishes. Furthermore, Mass attendance is abysmal globally (even in Africa, it is not as you may think, at least in many countries), and statistics show us that the majority of Catholics do not believe basic dogmas like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Again, this is all public knowledge, and I assume the reader of this publication will be aware of this and more.
What Must be Done?
Given what we have read thus far and what we already know, we must now consider how we ought to respond to a bona fide State of Grave Public Spiritual Necessity.
We would do well to consider the teachings of numerous Popes.
1. St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907)
Pius X warned that modernism had penetrated even “the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself,” threatening “the foundations of the faith itself.” He wrote: “The danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her.” And crucially, he defined Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies” because it seeks to “lay the axe not to the branches and shoots but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibres,” so that “there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched.”
2. Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae (1890)
This encyclical is the richest magisterial source for the duty that arises from this condition. Leo XIII taught that “when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: ‘Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.’”
And the duty becomes active and public: Leo XIII declared that “under such evil circumstances, each one is bound in conscience to watch over himself, taking all means possible to preserve the faith inviolate in the depths of his soul, avoiding all risks, and arming himself on all occasions, especially against the various specious sophisms rife among non-believers.”
More strikingly, the Pope frames silence in the face of attack as a kind of moral failure: “To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe.” And the chief duties of Catholics follow directly from necessity: Leo XIII identified “professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power” as the chief elements of this duty.
3. Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (1950)
Pius XII taught that “the duty incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly ‘to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,’ is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist.” He also described neo-modernist errors as “false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine.”
4. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (1896)
Leo XIII warned that “there is nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole series of doctrines, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, taint the real and simple faith taught by Our Lord and handed down by apostolic tradition.” The Church’s historical response to such threats is also established: Leo XIII noted that “the practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
Pius X demonstrates for us the gravity of the Modernist situation, which, in his opinion, was so grave that it struck at the very foundation of the Church. Can you imagine what he would say today?
Leo XIII hammers home the duty of those with the requisite power to do everything they can to affirm their brethren in the Faith and to ensure they hold fast to the Faith themselves. In addition, he makes explicit the perennial understanding of the Church, stemming from the Church Fathers, that true Communion cannot be found with those who deviate even an inch from the binding doctrines of the Church. Again, imagine what he would say if he were here today.
And, Pius XII shows us that we should flee, not just from full-blown heresy, but “those errors which more or less approach heresy.”
It would be too cumbersome here to do a deep dive into the writings of Pius X and Pius XII on Modernism and Neo-Modernism, but if you read their writings, you will find that virtually every jot and tittle of what they warned us of has been instantiated in some way in the institutional life of the Church.
So, we can gather that we have at least a Double Necessity from the writings of these Popes.
On the one hand, as individuals, we must flee from heresy and have nothing to do with heretics, as far as we can help it, whether they be formally condemned or not. As an aside, we cannot expect that every heretic would be formally condemned, especially in a time of great confusion; we must use our judgement as best we can, and there is nothing wrong with that. A child who knows his Catechism can identify heresy from the pulpit without needing a formal letter from Rome validating what he knows to be true by the use of his reason.
On the other hand, it is the duty of individuals with authority to fight heresy, and so forth, with all the power. Leo XIII explicitly invokes necessity: “When necessity compels, not only those who are invested with the power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: ‘Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.’”
Leo XIII takes it as a given that those invested with the power of rule would take the necessary steps.
I imagine it could be retorted that Pope Leo was, at least in the context of Sapientiae Christianae, to Christians in nations where revolution had taken hold in the civil sphere. This is true. But it is also true that any principles that implore us to defend the Faith in the secular sphere must apply to the religious sphere, because the safeguarding of religion in the Church is a higher good than the safeguarding of religion in secular society. In fact, we cannot expect any success regarding the safeguarding of religion in the public forum if it is not first safeguarded and confirmed in the ecclesial forum.
Now, what happens if a situation arises wherein those with the power of rule, even a Pope, are negligent in their duty? Well, that does not negate our duty as individuals to safeguard our souls from error and to stand firm in the Faith, even publicly.
However, as laymen, we cannot do this without priests and bishops who give us the sacraments and confirm us in the Faith. I am a layman, and I may be correct in what I say, but I have no authority behind me, so you are not bound to listen to me. You may choose to listen to me, but you can simply ignore me if you like, as I am sure many of you will.
We need Men of the Cloth to confirm us in the Faith, or we will die a spiritual death.
Of course, this logic led Archbishop Lefebvre to act in 1988, and the SSPX to act in 2026 under the leadership of Don Davide Pagliarani.
So, now, without considering the case of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society in 2026 specifically, we must investigate as to whether or not episcopal consecrations, without mandate, and with the intention of safeguarding Tradition for the sake of souls, is an appropriate response.
You do not have to agree that it is the only possible response, and you do not have to agree with the act itself in a particular context wherein men of goodwill may disagree on prudential matters; but, the principles behind the act must be coherent to be permissible, and all men of goodwill and common sense should at least consider them.
What Has Been Done. Is it Permissible or Necessary?
To save myself time and effort, what follows is essentially copy and pasted (with slight modifications) from my book SSPX: The Defence, pp. 151-157. I have already treated of this issue in there, and it does not make sense for me to write something substantially similar again.
A criticism from reasonable people about the 1988 SSPX consecrations is often formulated thusly: “I understand there is a crisis, I believe Lefebvre was saintly, but I still think God would have found another way to secure Catholic Tradition, and he shouldn’t have done the consecrations.”
I sympathize with this view, and I understand why it is not uncommon.
But there are a couple of issues about it that should be addressed.
First, whenever we opine about how we may have had a desired result without history having to be what it was, we are essentially saying that if history were different, then we could have still had the same results or at least similar results.
While this could be true, it is not much different from saying “if I had my way, history would have been different.” Again, it is possible, but it is not worth saying.
Secondly, any talk of “God would have” is merely speculation and runs the risk of manifesting ignorance of the will of God, rather than knowledge of it.
What I mean to say is that if something that happened in history was in fact God’s will, but someone opines that it was not and that God could have or would have done something different than what He did, then ultimately there is a danger of suggesting that God’s will was not done, when in fact it was.
It is not mysterious to discern what God’s will is in history. We need not look for mystical signs or private revelations, as it suffices to analyze events and to see if they are morally upright and if they seek to build up or tear down the faith. In addition, we can see through the lens of history if someone is vindicated, which is not always visible while they live.
For example, Joan of Arc was excommunicated, but is, of course, a great saint. The response to this comparison from the enemies of the Society will likely be that Saint Joan of Arc demonstrated her extraordinary mission through signs and wonders, which proved she was acting in accordance with God’s will.
This objection from critics falls short, however, because although the work of the SSPX has been called extraordinary, the SSPX has not claimed to have an extraordinary mission in the sense that critics have claimed it has. In addition, although Saint Joan of Arc did have an extraordinary mission, she did not manifest this by miracles or signs and wonders. The proof of her mission from God is that she prophesied, and her seemingly impossible prophecies came true, and they came true by the acts of ordinary men.
While it is true that some saintly souls have claimed to have an extraordinary mission to justify some out-of-the-ordinary work of the Church, like Saint Joan of Arc or St. Catherine Labouré, the mission of the SSPX does not compare to any such examples.
As esteemed Catholic scholar Brian McCall wrote: “The Society of St. Pius X has never claimed to have an extraordinary mission like that of St. Catherine Labouré or St. Margaret Mary. They have merely claimed to participate in the ordinary commission given by Our Lord to the Church by and through the Church. The bishops and priests of the Society exercise this ordinary mission under extraordinary circumstances, but it is the circumstances, not the mission, which are extraordinary. Likewise, St. Athanasius, when expelled from his See and excommunicated by the pope, continued exercising his ordinary mission as a bishop but under extraordinary circumstances of persecution.”3
Archbishop Lefebvre started his priestly society in a normal way, and without an appeal to the supernatural, and merely did what ordinary bishops have always done, as he transmitted the ordinary Catholic Faith. What made his activity extraordinary was the extraordinary crisis buttressed by the extraordinary ineptitude of the vast majority of the hierarchy.
Ultimately, if Lefebvre was an instrument of Providence, then his actions must be vindicated by the highest principles of morality, in line with the Catholic Faith, and have contributed to the building up of the Body of Christ.
Self-Defence and the Right to Act
If there is a state of necessity – which there clearly is! – then the principle of self-defence and various conditions must be considered before rendering any action lawful.
Referring to the rights of a Catholic to resist or even attack a pope (the term attack is used here equivocally), Francisco Suarez (1548–1617) of the School of Salamanca, a Jesuit priest and theologian, considered by many to be one of the greatest Scholastics after St. Thomas Aquinas himself, wrote:
“If the Pope lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defence.”
Sylvester Prieras (1456–1523), a Dominican theologian, appointed master of the Sacred Palace by Pope Leo X and known for his detailed rebuttal to Luther’s 95 Theses, wrote:
“In answer to the question, “What should be done in cases where the Pope destroys the Church by his evil actions?”: “He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion, nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension[.] … [H]e does not have the power to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is licit to resist him. The result of all of this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandate prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates’ abuse of authority stems also from natural law[.] … As Cajetan observes, we do not affirm all this in the sense that someone could have competence to judge the Pope or have authority over him, but meaning that it is licit to defend oneself. Indeed, anyone has the right to resist an unjust act, to try to prevent it and to defend himself.”
These citations from storied theologians represent a wealth of knowledge from Catholic theology, expressing the rights that Catholics have in resisting what amount to evil actions on behalf of a Pope. The point of these statements is not to accuse a given Pope of evil, but instead to point out that we can use our reason and come to an opinion that is within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy that justifies the right of defence against even a Pope if need be.
Critics will, of course, find citations from great saints that allude to opposite opinions, but this does not prove that the opinions of these theologians were false, but only that some faithful Catholics come to different conclusions about different problems.
This distinction is at the heart of the Marcel Lefebvre/SSPX question, as critics act as if there is some sort of de fide pronouncement that makes Lefebvre and his priests’ actions indefensible, when clearly an honest look at Church history and theological opinions says otherwise.
If it is possible that a Pope could “destroy” the Church in some way, then for the sake of the Church and for the honour of Christ Who founded the Church, a prelate has the right to do something about it.
It should be said that when we speak of a Pope “destroying” the Church, we do not mean that the gates of Hell will prevail, but rather that a Pope could act in a way that is destructive and could harm the institutions of the Church and her faithful.
If it is licit for a man to defend himself against the evil actions of a Pope, then it is, of course licit to defend others. And, given the fact that bishops are prelates who are charged with the duty to care for souls, we might say that a bishop must do something to defend others, as was explained above.
Because a bishop must defend Catholics from threats to their faith, he has a right to act, just as a father who must defend his family from an aggressor has a right to defend them.
That being so, there are five conditions to consider when assessing how one could act in a way of self-defence without crossing a moral line.
The five conditions are:
There must really be a state of necessity.
One must have attempted to remedy it by ordinary means.
The “extraordinary” act performed must not be intrinsically evil and no harm must result to one’s neighbour.
In this breaking of the law, one must keep to the limits of the requirements really imposed by the state of necessity.
In no way should the validity of the competent authority be questioned and that, on the contrary, one could presume that in normal circumstances, it would have given its consent.
Was there – is there – a state of necessity? Yes.
Did Lefebvre attempt to remedy the state of affairs by ordinary means? Yes, as is demonstrated by the historical record, and we can also say that Don Pagliarani and the Society since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre have done the same.
Is it intrinsically evil to consecrate bishops, even without a mandate? No.
We must take a quick detour here, because there is an opinion, most often promoted by theologians and writers who are from, or are attached to Ecclesia Dei communities, like the FSSP, that argues for the opposite opinion.
Father Gleize recently published a series of articles defending the Society’s actions and doctrinal position regarding consecrations against accusations and criticism found in a study published by the Fraternity of Saint Peter publication Claves, which is a French publication.
Gleize’s response is a three-part study that first appeared in the Courrier de Rome. For the sake of brevity — although I recommend reading it (it is called De la Nature de L’Épiscopat: L’Explications Facile de la Fraternité Saint Pierre) — I will offer here a summary of his arguments, with the relevant details, in a few paragraphs, after a brief explanation of the context.
For context, it is the position of those opposed to the Society that bishops cannot be consecrated without a mandate, because, among other things, both the power of order and jurisdiction are conferred in the consecration. The accusation is that, since this is supposedly the case, any consecration without the Pope’s blessing is necessarily schismatic, because it would be impossible to consecrate a bishop without also giving jurisdiction, which would be schismatic. Now, this is refuted by Pope Pius XII, who wrote in Mystici Corporis:
Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. (Emphasis added)
What this means is that the power of jurisdictions comes from the Pope, not from the act of consecration. Vatican II seems to contradict this where it says in Lumen Gentium, no. 21, paragraph 2:
“Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the offices of teaching and of governing, which, however, of their very nature, can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.”
What this seems to say is that the consecration of bishops confers both the power of orders and jurisdiction, de facto. However, the nota included at the end of the Vatican II document attempts to clarify, where it says:
“In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions [munera]; this is absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included. The word ‘functions [munera]’ is used deliberately instead of the word ‘powers [potestates],’ because the latter word could be understood as a power fully ready to act. But for this power to be fully ready to act, there must be a further canonical or juridical determination through the hierarchical authority. This determination of power can consist in the granting of a particular office or in the allotment of subjects, and it is done according to the norms approved by the supreme authority. An additional norm of this sort is required by the very nature of the case, because it involves functions [munera] which must be exercised by many subjects cooperating in a hierarchical manner in accordance with Christ’s will.”
In typical Vatican II fashion, the explanation is a bit unclear and is left open to interpretation. Although, to be fair, when interpreted from the vantage point of Tradition, it can be summarized thusly: When a bishop is consecrated, he receives, fully, the power of orders, and the power of jurisdiction in potency. And this potency (power) must be “activated” by an action of the Pope.
The opposite opinion, held by the Fraternity of Saint Peter publication, is that both powers are in fact actualized during consecration, but it is illicit to act on those powers without explicit mandate. Now, this position is not consistent with Tradition, and seems to be the application of a Conciliar novelty to a supposedly traditional critique of the Society.
At any rate, here is a summary of Father Gleize’s position.
The Fraternity of Saint Peter’s recent attempt to undercut the SSPX’s case for the July 1 consecrations rests on a single move: collapse the distinction between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction, so that any bishop without canonical mission becomes a kind of theological impossibility. Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize’s three-part response in Courrier de Rome shows that this move doesn’t survive contact with the sources it claims to be built on. Trent, Leo XIII, St. Thomas, even Vatican II’s own Nota Praevia — in every case, restoring the citation to its full context turns up the opposite of what “Theologus” (the pen name of the theologian who authored the Fraternity piece) needs it to say. St. Thomas’s line about the bishop’s “quasi-royal” charge over the Mystical Body, for instance, is offered in the very passage that explains why a deposed bishop, once restored to jurisdiction, is never reconsecrated — because what he kept through the deprivation was precisely his power of order, distinct from jurisdiction. The episcopate, on the Church’s own traditional terms, has never required the fusion the FSSP study needs.
What makes this more than a technical dispute is what’s actually riding on it. If the two powers are genuinely separable — which Trent, the Angelic Doctor, and even a fair reading of the Council itself all support — then there is nothing intrinsically incoherent about bishops consecrated for the sole purpose of preserving the power of order: ordaining priests, confirming the faithful, handing on a valid and integral priesthood through a moment when those entrusted with jurisdiction are failing to do so. That is the entire shape of the SSPX’s claim. The FSSP’s case against it isn’t really an argument from doctrine so much as a redefinition of the episcopate convenient to the conclusion it wants — and convenient, not incidentally, to a settlement that has left its own priests dependent on a hierarchy whose doctrinal and liturgical drift after the Council the FSSP itself doesn’t officially deny.
And that’s the deeper point Gleize keeps returning to: the entire debate over munus and potestas is a way of not talking about the thing that actually justifies the consecrations, which is the State of Necessity itself. Nobody disputes that the post-conciliar crisis is real, or that the promises made in 1988 have not held, or that Traditionis Custodes exposed exactly how contingent the FSSP’s own position remains. The question was never whether bishops normally need a papal mandate — of course they do. The question is what happens when the ordinary channels for safeguarding the faith of souls are themselves compromised, and whether, in that extraordinary situation, the Church’s own theology of the episcopate leaves room for what Archbishop Lefebvre did in 1988 and what the Society has done again. Read honestly, in full, and in context, it does.
Now, keeping that in mind, did Lefebvre remain within the bounds of what the State of Necessity required? Yes, he did not consecrate bishops with jurisdiction, and thus did not set up a parallel Church or hierarchy.
Did Lefebvre question the validity of the Pope’s office or powers as such? Not at all, in fact, the sermon from the consecration ceremony said as much. Also, the SSPX is very hard on the sedevacantist position and has had constant communication and interaction with the Popes since 1988.
Ultimately, in no way did Archbishop Lefebvre commit an intrinsically evil act, and he did what he did in order to build up the Body of Christ by ensuring that orthodox priests could be ordained and that the faithful could receive the Faith and sacraments without the fear of all the catechetical errors and sacrileges that have become ubiquitous in the so-called New Springtime. The same is happening now.
The Society’s actions are not schismatic and are proportional to the threat of destruction we are currently living under. It would be wrong to create a new jurisdictional structure, but it would also be wrong not to do everything possible, considering what is permissible during a State of Necessity, to help souls who are left orphaned.
Addressing the Five Objections
Now, let us return to the five objections listed above, which are:
In 2026, there are more Bishops, Priests, and laymen devoted to the Traditional Rite than there were in 1988
In 2026, there are even Cardinals who celebrate the Old Rite, and there were essentially zero in 1988
The general fervour for Vatican II and its ambiguity and errors has largely collapsed, at least compared to the hysteria that enwrapped the Church in 1988
More people attend the Old Mass in 2026, and largely because of that, more Mass-attending Catholics are orthodox in belief than in 1988
What could be called “Papolatry” has, or is collapsing, and Catholics in general, especially after Pope Francis, are more willing to call foul on the shenanigans coming out of Rome
I will respond to them in order.
1, 2. This argument is speculative because we can’t know what all the clerics and laymen believed in 1988. In fact, it was merely 18 years after the destructive reform of the liturgy, so the vast majority of Bishops, Cardinals, and Priests would have grown up in the pre-conciliar period, and many of them would have said the Old Rite for decades. The same would have been true for innumerable members of the lay faithful. Today, any memory of the “before-time” is functionally gone, and we are in a moment of rediscovery. While it is helpful that more Catholics are seeking out Tradition than in other times in recent history, it is also the case that the foundation has been almost totally lost, so the effort required to rebuild is herculean.
3. I believe this is the opposite, at least officially. I understand there are many tradition-minded priests and laymen, but we cannot say with any certainty that the post-conciliar trajectory of the hierarchy has diminished in any meaningful way. In fact, we have gone from the “Spirit of Vatican II” to the “Spirit of Synodality,” and so on. Pope Leo has repeatedly affirmed his commitment to “Vatican II harder,” and there is no sign of slowing down. Sure, it may be against the desires of many members of the faithful, but, as was stated above, we need bishops to do the work, because it is beyond our pay grade as laymen to do anything meaningful. Also, the vast majority of Catholics worldwide do not practice the Faith at all, so they care about Tradition as much as they do about Vatican II, which is to say, not at all.
4. Yes, it is true that more Mass-attending Catholics attend the Old Mass than in 1988, but that only buttresses the need for Society bishops, because about a million of those Catholics attend Masses offered by the Society. Remember, it is not necessary for a Grave General State of Spiritual Necessity for there to be a universal crisis, but only that several souls are afflicted. We are daft if we think that if the Society were to be without bishops, the lot of modernist churchmen would suddenly convert and step in. Yes, some friendly bishops to help the Ecclesia Dei groups when required, but this does not fix the problem. And, the issue is not primarily liturgical, but is instead about a total rejection of Modernism, not just personally, but as such by the Society. For all the good work that the Fraternity and other groups do, they do not, as such, reject the errors promulgated in and through Vatican II, at least officially. We need not only “friendly to Latin Mass” Bishops, but Bishops who completely and wholeheartedly reject the novelties, errors, and heresy that have been institutionalized.
5. Now, the notion that “Papolatry” has lost favour is not actually true, in my opinion. Take Cardinal Muller’s intervention at the recent consistory, where he hammered home the primacy of Peter — which I do not doubt — but then, in the next breath, stated: “It is our duty by virtue of our office, both individually and as a college, to reject the scandalous accusation that the Roman Church has departed from the Catholic faith.”
In other places, Cardinal Muller had this to say about a document promulgated with Roman authority — Fiducia Supplicans:
“Blessing a reality that is contrary to creation is not only impossible, it is blasphemy,” Müller said. “God cannot send his grace upon a relationship that is directly opposed to him and cannot be ordered toward him.” He went further, calling such a blessing “a sacrilegious and blasphemous act against the Creator’s plan and against Christ’s death for us.”
So, on the one hand, Muller thinks it is beyond the pale to state that Rome has promulgated errors, and on the other, he is free to say that a Roman teaching document is blasphemous, etc.
We could also cite remarks from Cardinal Burke on Amoris Laetitia, and other such statements from Cardinal Sarah, etc.
Whether or not Papolatry is on the downswing in the general zeitgeist is besides the point, because the hierarchy is still more than happy to swallow blasphemy and heresy, so long as they can reaffirm that Peter is Peter.
Again, we need Prelates to do the work for us, and even the “conservative” Cardinals and Bishops — but for a small handful of men like Schneider and Strickland — are not fit for the job.
Now, a fina objection that I did not list above, but follows from the logic of the afformentioned objections, is that the Society’s decision to consecrate is unwise, because, prudentially speaking, it will do more harm than good as far as a true reconciliation with Tradition is concerned for the Church at large. In essence, the thinking goes: Tradition has made headway, and these consecrations seek to bring us back to the drawing board and start over.
I believe this is untrue for a number of reasons.
First, the historical record shows us that the toleration of at least the Traditional Mass is the result of the Society’s principled stance. For evidence, see the 1984 letter published under Pope John-Paul II authorizing the Indult Mass, which made it clear that the purpose of the letter was to give Traditional Catholics somewhere to attend Mass that was “regular.” Now, there may have been a smattering of independent chapels in 1984, but the majority of Catholics who attended the Old Mass were doing so at Society chapels, so the document refers to them.
Second, I do not see how we can say that we are closer to a “solution” at this point, especially in the aftermath of Pope Francis’ smackdown of the Traditional Mass, and Pope Leo’s intention to follow in Pope Francis’ footsteps and accelerate the program of Modernism via Synodality, etc. Again, it is not only about the Mass, but the Faith, and, even if the Old Rite is tolerated, we cannot say that any true solution is on the horizon if it is tolerated in a sea of heresy.
Third, I would argue in a bit of an ironic sense that the actions of the Society may implore the Holy See to be more generous with “approved” parishes offering the Old Rite, as this has been the standard operating procedure in Rome whenever the SSPX takes a principled stand for Tradition.
Fourth, and I do not mean to offend good men and women whose home is at an Ecclesia Dei parish, but the approved orders and parishes do not foment a true solution. This is because these groups are tolerated as options for Catholics, as John Paul II put it in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, “who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition.” The logic of the toleration of these groups is based on providing alternatives for Catholics “attached” to liturgical and disciplinary customs, but there is no mention of doctrine. The effect of this is a ghettoization of Tradition via the reduction of Tradition to a liturgical preference that is available in some places for some people who desire it.
Of course, I know that many of the faithful who attend are truly Traditional Catholics, and they understand that there has been a true rupture, and their desire is for the fullness of Tradition to be restored. Nevertheless, when the Traditional Mass — to say nothing of the fullness of the Traditional Faith — is merely tolerated as a “charism,” as the Fraternity says, then we are no closer to a solution than we were in 1988.
The only solution will be when Rome returns to Tradition, which can only happen if at least some Princes of the Church, along with priests, are able to stand for the rights of Tradition, which should not only be tolerated, but enshrined, because the alternative, counterfeit experiment that we are living through should not be tolerated at all.
I don’t know when this solution will be realized, but I do know that it will only be realized if the fight for Tradition is clearly and unambiguously about more than the Old Rite, as magnificent and important as it is.
For my money, the Society offers a comprehensive resistance to the errors that lord over us, and they are in a unique position to not only serve the faithful with Tradition, but their prelates can stand tall and preach against the Smoke of Satan with true parrhesia, and this makes them indispensable, and their actions laudable.
This is taken verbatim from A theological study of the 1988 Consecrations, found here https://sspx.org/en/theological-study-1988-consecrations-1-31444. It is a summary of concepts from P. Palazzini, Dictionarium morale et canonicum, under the word “caritas”; Billuart, De charitate, diss. IV, art. 3; Genicot, S.J., Institutiones Theologiae moralis, vol. I, 217, A and B, etc. Palazzini, Billuart, and Genicot are standard pre-conciliar scholastic authorities: Pietro Palazzini (1912–2000), later a Cardinal of the Roman Curia, edited the Dictionarium Morale et Canonicum (Rome: Officium Libri Catholici, 1962–68), a four-volume Latin reference work of moral theology and canon law; Charles-René Billuart, O.P. (1685–1757), Dominican theologian and commentator on St. Thomas, authored the Summa Sancti Thomae sive Cursus Theologiae (Liège, 1746–51), of which De charitate forms part of volume five; and Eduard Genicot, S.J. (1856–1900), a moral theologian at the Louvain College of the Society of Jesus, authored the Institutiones Theologiae Moralis (Brussels, multiple editions), a widely used seminary manual.
“Beyond a Gnostic-dualistic misinterpretation of the virginitas in partu as a denial of the reality of Jesus’ humanity, the Church’s doctrine must be explained in the sense of the reality of the Incarnation. It is not about specific physiological peculiarities in the natural process of birth of Jesus (such as the birth canal not being opened, the hymen not being broken, and the absence of birth contractions), but rather about the healing and saving influence of the Redeemer’s grace on human nature. …
Because of her “yes” to God becoming man of her, Mary’s relationship to Jesus, even in the act of giving birth, should already be seen from the perspective of the eschatological salvation that came about in Christ. The content of the faith statement, therefore, does not refer to physiologically, and empirically verifiable somatic details. Rather, it recognizes already in the birth of Christ the initial signs of the eschatological salvation of the Messianic end time which dawned with Jesus (cf. Is 66:7-10; Ezek 44:1-2).
In any theological interpretation of Mary’s freedom from “pain” in the salvific event of the Savior’s birth, one should also take into account the biblically-based doctrine that Mary followed the way of the cross (Lk 2:35; Jn 19:25). With Mary as model, Christian spirituality recognizes in every birth, accepted by a woman in faith, an experience of the salvation that has come in the end time.”
(Gerhard Ludwig Müller, “Die Jungfräulichkeit Marias in der Geburt”, in Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), p 498
Brian McCall, “The Ordinary Mission of the SSPX”, OnePeterFive, January 17, 2022
Kennedy, thank you for this excellent synopsis and for all the great work that you do. May God bless you and your family.
Good words. Thank you. God bless you and your family.