Hope this goes ahead and His Holiness Pope Leo XIV restores Summorum Pontificum of the Late, Great Pope Benedict XVI. Let's pray for it to happen by July, along with SSPX Reconcilation! Deus Vult! God wills it, and our Rosaries and Holy Masses can Merit it from God's Grace.
It is true Obedience is a first. We see this again and again and again in the Rosary with Jesus and Mary. In Modern times we see this so well with Padre Pio. No one says this is easy and I know the SSPX have been very,very gravely provoked in this matter but still.
Cardinal Sarah appears to hold your stance also: Here are some excerpts from Cardinal Sarah: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). By these words, Peter, questioned by the Master about the faith he has in Him, expresses in synthesis the patrimony of the Church which, through apostolic succession, guards, deepens and transmits for two thousand years: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, that is to say, the only Savior.” These very clear words of Pope Leo XIV on the faith of Peter, the foundation of his election, still resonate in my soul. The Holy Father thus summarizes the mystery of the faith that we bishops, successors of the apostles, must never cease to proclaim. "But where can we find Jesus Christ, the only Redeemer? Saint Augustine answers us with clarity: “Where the Church is, there is Christ.” That is why our preoccupation with the salvation of souls is expressed in our solicitude to lead them to the only source, which is Christ who gives Himself in His Church. The Church alone is the ordinary way of salvation; she is therefore the only place where the faith is transmitted in its integrity. She is the only place where the life of grace is fully given to us by the sacraments. In the Church there exists a center, an obligatory point of reference: the Church of Rome, which governs the Successor of Peter, the pope. “And I say to you,” says Jesus, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18)." I also wish to express my deep concern and profound sadness on learning of the announcement by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X to proceed with episcopal ordinations without a pontifical mandate. We are told that this decision to disobey the law of the Church would be motivated by the supreme law of the salvation of souls: *suprema lex, salus animarum*. But... salvation is Christ and He does not give Himself outside the Church. How can one claim to lead souls to salvation by other paths than those He Himself has indicated to us? Is it to desire the salvation of souls to tear the Mystical Body of Christ in an irreversible manner? How many souls risk being lost because of this new rupture? We are told that this act is meant to be a defense of Tradition and of the faith. I know how much the deposit of the faith is today sometimes despised even by those whose mission it is to defend it. I know full well that some forget that only the uninterrupted chain of the life of the Church transmits doctrine and morals. But faith can never lead us to renounce obedience to the Church. Saint Catherine of Siena, who did not hesitate to make remonstrances to cardinals and even to the pope, cried out: “Always obey the pastor of the Church, for he is the guide whom Christ has established to lead souls to Him.” The good of souls can never pass through deliberate disobedience, for the good of souls is a supernatural reality. Let us not reduce salvation to a worldly game of media pressure! Lord have mercy on Holy Mother Church.
It’s sad to say, but the only winner is evil — and liberal bishops who can hardly wait for something like this to happen; every schism and every decline of the Church is a gain for them. It would be much wiser for the SSPX to lobby in a way that agrees, but asks for concessions, because their membership is growing, the number of faithful is increasing, and the number of seminarians is rising. It’s tragic that such power is held by those under whom churches are being turned into museums, concert halls, and unfortunately even restaurants, while the faithful and the faith are disappearing or have broken most Church rules and laws. Meanwhile, those who hold to the Word of God — where the Church is actually growing and where successful measures are being implemented — are the ones whose efforts are being buried and shut down. The Second Vatican Council is not dogma, nor did Christ Himself reveal that things must be exclusively this way. In my view, this is a kind of revolution whose real consequences were not immediately visible everywhere, because the Church was powerful as an institution and among the people precisely due to 1965 years of faithful Tradition. However, I have the feeling that it has become almost sacrilegious to voice normal criticism of the changes, and everything from before the Second Vatican Council is treated as heresy, with its advocates treated worse than Protestants. In fact, ideas from Protestants are sometimes adopted as normal, while traditional Catholics are attacked. Of course, obedience to the Pope and the Catholic Church still comes first. But our dear liberal, revolutionary bishops preside over empty churches; the only thing sustaining them is that they have climbed to high positions and now attack those who expose their defeat on the battlefield of faith — which is what ultimately matters most.
It occurs to me that Obedience takes only one word, a simple, 'Yes'. Or even no words at all, just a simple nod. But disobedience requires whole libraries of words to justify it.
I'm coming out: From the position of a traditionalist with only moderate knowledge of the subject, I would like to take the following stance and say that I can understand the FSSPX point of view that they feel compelled to take this step. Until a few years ago, I personally attended almost exclusively Holy Masses of the FSSPX, and sometimes also Masses at the FSSP for reasons of location. For several years now, for personal reasons, I have rarely been able to attend Holy Mass locally and have been forced to do so via TV channels. These are mostly in the NO (Novus Ordo). I do not dispute the validity of the Eucharist in the NO. Through the Eucharistic miracles, Jesus shows that he is truly present there in body and blood. However, I must state that the awe for the Blessed Sacrament, for God, and the handling of the Eucharist in virtually no NO-Mass corresponds to what is implicitly standard in TLM. But I don't want to digress. All of this is actually meant to serve as my brief layman's justification for why I support the episcopal consecration, which may not be authorised by the Vatican. Btw, let's wait and see how the whole thing develops. There is still plenty of time for unexpected developments before July. Just as I have no doubt that sacraments administered in the NO are generally valid, I have no doubt that priests of the FSSPX could ever have administered them invalidly. Until a few years ago, I lived with my mother. An FSSPX priest came regularly to administer Communion and hear confessions. I was able to witness supernatural gifts of grace, which took place in connection with my mother's last rites and her last communion. As far as I can tell from my former FSSPX parish, one of the main reasons why the FSSPX needs new bishops is a very practical one. The remaining two bishops are not getting any younger, travelling is becoming increasingly strenuous for them, and they are needed in all parishes around the world. How else, if not through their own bishops, could the availability of traditionally administered sacraments and priestly ordinations be guaranteed? I don't know how the FSSP does it. Are priests ordained and sacraments administered in the traditional manner or not? Which ‘regular’ bishops do this traditionally? I was born well after the Council and do not know much about the background to the Priestly Society and the changes brought about by the Council. What I have realised in the meantime, however, is that without Bishop Lefebvre, the Tridentine form of the Mass would have died out. It would no longer exist today, nor would it be known. Apart from the fact that I do not believe God would have allowed that to happen. As mentioned above, I respect the NO, but I still cannot imagine that God is pleased and honoured by the way the Holy Mass has changed. I am not an expert either and do not know what specific formulations there are in the text of the Second Vatican Council and which ones the FSSPX cannot agree with. Earlier, I read through their positions on religious freedom, collegiality, liturgical reform, etc. on the official FSSPX website. With my layman's understanding, I can find almost nothing that I would disagree with. However, I recognise from the fruits of the post-conciliar Church that something must have gone wrong there. I would only want to adjust the FSSPX's position on religious freedom insofar as we live in secular states and not in a utopian Catholic theocracy, and religious freedom would have to be defined differently there. Unfortunately. In some recent videos, The RemnantVideos classifies the developments at that time that led to the founding of the seminary by Bishop Lefebvre. Until now, I knew nothing about the ecumenical prayer meeting in Assisi in 1986, as a result of which the bishop decided it was his duty to do something to preserve tradition and to stay catholic. (In these 14 minutes, it is explained more concisely than I could: From Assisi to Pachamama: The Revolutionary Context of SSPX ‘Schism’) I will try to summarise my position briefly once again. My sister and her family are ‘active’ members of an FSSPX parish. Episcopal ordination is necessary. Everyone would prefer it if the Pope agreed to this. The priests and, of course, the bishops would also prefer this. Personally, I have distanced myself from the parish and no longer have any real emotional attachment to it. However, when I try to decide with a clear conscience what I think is right and what I think is wrong, I come to the conclusion that I cannot imagine God condemning the FSSPX for wanting to preserve the TLM and traditional rites. Nor can I imagine that there could be a morally comprehensible reason for excommunicating the FSSPX, but not an LGBT priest like James Martin or the synodal German bishops. The irony is that Cardinal Fernandez, of all people, represented the Vatican at the meeting between representatives of the FSSPX and the Vatican. He is Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and morality. Also author of books on morality (for example: Sáname con tu boca. El arte de besar, Heal me with your mouth. The art of kissing, Lumen, Buenos Aires, 1995). He is undoubtedly one of the double dealers who have infiltrated the Vatican. (Acts 1, 24: And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen...") Whether there is any way, for example by drafting a document in which the FSSPX does not have to sign anything that contradicts its conscience, I cannot say. However, the actions of the Vatican do not indicate any interest in giving tradition the opportunity to survive. These are politically not theologically motivated decisions. But hope dies last.
If this possible schism occurs, it will be “officially a schism,” because the media will give attention to the issue due to the split coming from the conservative side. In fact, I am wondering whether this is not a tremendous trap for the conservative wing of the Church, with the German Synodal Way being silenced and having its demands absorbed by the great assembly of 2028, while the defenders of the Tridentine Mass become "the official face of rebellion in the Church".
A Fraternal Appeal to Pope Leo XIV to Build a Bridge with the Priestly Society of St. Pius X by Bishop Athanasius Schneider The current situation regarding the episcopal consecrations in the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has suddenly awakened the entire Church. Within an extraordinarily short time following the February 2ndannouncement that the SSPX will proceed with these consecrations, an intense and often emotionally charged debate has arisen throughout wide circles of the Catholic world. The spectrum of voices in this debate ranges from understanding, benevolence, neutral observation, and common sense to irrational rejection, peremptory condemnation, and even open hatred. Although there is reason for hope—and it is by no means unrealistic—that Pope Leo XIV could indeed approve the episcopal consecrations, already now proposals for the text of a bull of excommunication of the SSPX are being put forward online. The negative reactions, though often well-intentioned, reveal that the heart of the problem has not yet been grasped with sufficient honesty and clarity. There is a tendency to remain at the surface. Priorities within the life of the Church are reversed, elevating the canonical and legal dimension—that is, a certain juridical positivism—to the supreme criterion. Moreover, there is at times a lack of historical awareness concerning the Church’s practice with respect to episcopal ordinations. Disobedience is thus too readily equated with schism. The criteria for episcopal communion with the Pope, and consequently the understanding of what truly constitutes schism, are viewed in an overly one-sided manner when compared with the practice and self-understanding of the Church in the Patristic era, the age of the Church Fathers. In this debate, new quasi-dogmas are being established that do not exist in the Depositum fidei. These quasi-dogmas maintain that the Pope’s consent to a bishop’s consecration is of divine right, and that a consecration carried out without this consent, or even against a papal prohibition, constitutes in itself a schismatic act. However, the Church’s practice and understanding during the time of the Church Fathers, and for a long period thereafter, argue against this view. Furthermore, there is no unanimous opinion on this matter among the recognized theologians of the Church’s two-thousand-year tradition. Centuries of ecclesial practice, as well as traditional canon law, also stand in opposition to such absolutizing assertions. According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, an episcopal consecration carried out against the will of the Pope was punished not with excommunication, but only with suspension. By this, the Church clearly manifested that she did not consider such an act to be schismatic. The acceptance of papal primacy as a revealed truth is often confused with the concrete forms—forms that have evolved throughout history—through which a bishop expresses his hierarchical unity with the Pope. To believe in the Papal Primacy, to acknowledge the actual Pope, to adhere with him to all that the Church has taught infallibly and definitively, and to observe the validity of the sacramental liturgy, is of divine right. Yet, a reductive view that equates disobedience to a papal command with schism—even in the case of a bishop’s consecration performed against his will—was foreign to the Church Fathers and to traditional canon law. For example, in 357, St. Athanasius disobeyed the order of Pope Liberius, who instructed him to enter into hierarchical communion with the overwhelming majority of the episcopate, which was in fact Arian or semi-Arian. As a result, he was excommunicated. In this instance, St. Athanasius disobeyed out of love for the Church and for the honor of the Apostolic See, seeking precisely to safeguard the purity of doctrine from any suspicion of ambiguity. In the first millennium of the Church’s life, episcopal consecrations were generally performed without formal papal permission, and candidates were not required to be approved by the Pope. The first canonical regulation on episcopal consecrations, issued by an Ecumenical Council, was that of Nicaea in 325, which required that a new bishop be consecrated with the consent of a majority of the bishops of the province. Shortly before his death, during a period of doctrinal confusion, St. Athanasius personally selected and consecrated his successor—St. Peter of Alexandria—, in order to ensure that no unsuitable or weak candidate would assume the episcopate. Similarly, in 1977, the Servant of God Cardinal Iosif Slipyj secretly consecrated three bishops in Rome without the approval of Pope Paul VI, fully aware that the Pope would not allow it because of the Vatican’s Ostpolitik at the time. When Rome learned of these secret consecrations, however, the penalty of excommunication was not applied. To avoid misunderstanding, under normal circumstances—and when there is neither doctrinal confusion nor a time of extraordinary persecution—one must, of course, do everything possible to observe the canonical norms of the Church and to obey the Pope in his just injunctions, in order to preserve ecclesiastical unity both more effectively and visibly. But the situation in the life of the Church today can be illustrated with the following parable: A fire breaks out in a large house. The fire chief allows only the use of new firefighting equipment, even though it has been shown to be less effective than the old, proven tools. A group of firefighters defies this order and continues to use the tried-and-tested equipment—and indeed, the fire is contained in many places. Yet these firefighters are labelled disobedient and schismatic, and they are punished. To extend the metaphor further: the fire chief permits only those firefighters who acknowledge the new equipment, follow the new firefighting rules, and obey the new firehouse regulations. But given the obvious scale of the fire, the desperate struggle against it, and the insufficiency of the official firefighting team, other helpers—despite the fire chief’s prohibition—selflessly intervene with skill, knowledge, and good intentions, ultimately contributing to the success of the fire chief’s efforts. Faced with such rigid and incomprehensible behavior, two possible explanations present themselves: either the fire chief is denying the seriousness of the fire, much like in the French comedy Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise!; or, in fact, the fire chief desires that large parts of the house burn, so that it may later be rebuilt according to a new design. The current crisis surrounding the announced—but as yet unapproved—episcopal consecrations in the SSPX exposes, before the eyes of the whole Church, a wound that has been smouldering for over sixty years. This wound can be figuratively described as ecclesial cancer—specifically, the ecclesial cancer of doctrinal and liturgical ambiguities. Recently, an excellent article appeared on the Rorate Caeli blogspot, written with rare theological clarity and intellectual honesty, under the title: “The Long Shadow of Vatican II: Ambiguity as Ecclesial Cancer” (Canon of Shaftesbury: Rorate Caeli, February 10, 2026). The fundamental problem with some ambiguous statements of the Second Vatican Council is that the Council chose to prioritize a pastoral tone over doctrinal precision. One can agree with the author when he says: “The problem isn’t that Vatican II was heretical. The problem is that it was ambiguous. And in that ambiguity, we’ve seen the seeds of confusion that have flowered into some of the most troubling theological developments in modern Church history. When the Church speaks in vague terms, even if unintentionally, then souls are at stake.” The author continues: “When a doctrinal ‘development’ seems to contradict what came before, or when it requires decades of theological gymnastics to reconcile with previous magisterial teaching, we have to ask: Is this development, or is it rupture disguised as development?” (Canon of Shaftesbury: Rorate Caeli, February 10, 2026). One may reasonably assume that the SSPX desires nothing more than to help the Church emerge from this ambiguity in doctrine and liturgy and to rediscover her saving perennial clarity—just as the Church’s Magisterium, under the guidance of the Popes, has done unequivocally throughout history after every crisis marked by doctrinal confusion and ambiguity. In fact, the Holy See should be grateful to the SSPX, because it is currently almost the only major ecclesiastical reality that forthrightly and publicly points out the existence of ambiguous and misleading elements in certain statements of the Council and the Novus Ordo Missae. In this endeavor, the SSPX is guided by a sincere love for the Church: if they did not love the Church, the Pope, and souls, they would not undertake this work, nor would they engage with the Roman authorities—and they would undoubtedly have an easier life.
cont. The following words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre are deeply moving and reflect the attitude of the current leadership and most members of the SSPX: “We believe in Peter, we believe in the successor of Peter! But as Pope Pius IX says well in his dogmatic constitution, the pope has received the Holy Ghost not to make new truths, but to maintain us in the faith of all time. This is the definition of the Pope made at the time of the First Vatican Council by Pope Pius IX. And that is why we are persuaded that in maintaining these traditions we are manifesting our love, our docility, our obedience to the Successor of Peter. We cannot remain indifferent before the degradation of faith, morals, and the liturgy. That is out of the question! We do not want to separate ourselves from the Church; on the contrary, we want the Church to continue!” If someone considers having difficulties with the Pope to be among his greatest spiritual sufferings, that in itself is a telling proof that there is no schismatic intent. True schismatics even boast of their separation from the Apostolic See. True schismatics would never humbly implore the Pope to recognize their bishops. How truly Catholic, then, are the following words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: “We regret infinitely, it is an immense pain for us, to think that we are in difficulty with Rome because of our faith! How is this possible? It is something that exceeds the imagination, that we should never have been able to imagine, that we should never have been able to believe, especially in our childhood–then when all was uniform, when the whole Church believed in her general unity and held the same Faith, the same Sacraments, the same sacrifice of the Mass, the same catechism.” We must honestly examine the evident ambiguities regarding religious freedom, ecumenism, and collegiality, as well as the doctrinal imprecisions of the Novus Ordo Missae. In this regard, one should read the recently published book by Archimandrite Boniface Luykx, a Council peritus and renowned liturgical scholar, with its eloquent title A Wider View of Vatican II. Memories and Analysis of a Council Consultor. As G. K. Chesterton once said: “Upon entering the church, we are asked to take off our hat, not our head.” It would be a tragedy if the SSPX were completely cut off, and the responsibility for such a division would rest primarily with the Holy See. The Holy See should bring the SSPX in, offering at least a minimum degree of Church integration, and then continue the doctrinal dialogue. The Holy See has shown remarkable generosity toward the Communist Party of China, allowing them to select candidates for bishops—yet her own children, the thousands upon thousands of faithful of the SSPX, are treated as second-class citizens. The SSPX should be allowed to make a theological contribution with a view to clarifying, supplementing, and, if necessary, amending those statements in the texts of the Second Vatican Council that raise doctrinal doubts and difficulties. This must also take into account that, in these texts, the Magisterium of the Church did not intend to pronounce itself with dogmatic definitions endowed with the note of infallibility (cf. Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966). The SSPX makes exactly the same Professio fidei as that made by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, known as the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei. If, according to the explicit words of Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council did not present any definitive doctrines, nor intend to do so, and if the faith of the Church remains the same before, during, and after the Council, why should the profession of faith that was valid in the Church until 1967 suddenly no longer be considered valid as a mark of true Catholic belief? Yet the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei is considered by the Holy See to be insufficient for the SSPX. Would not the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei in fact constitute “the minimum” for ecclesial communion? If that is not a minimum, then what, honestly, would qualify as a “minimum”? The SSPX is required, as a conditio sine qua non, to make a Professio fidei by which the teachings of a pastoral, and not definitive, nature from the last Council and the subsequent Magisterium must be accepted. If this is truly the so-called “minimum requirement,” then Cardinal Victor Fernández appears to be playing games with words! Pope Leo XIV said at the ecumenical Vespers on January 25, 2026, at the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, that there is already unity between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians because they share the minimum of Christian faith: “We share the same faith in the one and only God, the Father of all people; we confess together the one Lord and true Son of God, Jesus Christ, and the one Holy Spirit, who inspires us and impels us towards full unity and the common witness to the Gospel” (Apostolic Letter In Unitate Fidei, 23 November 2025, 12). He further declared: “We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, experience it and make it visible!” How can this statement be reconciled with the claim made by representatives of the Holy See and some high-ranking clergy that the SSPX is not doctrinally united with the Church, given that the SSPX professes the Professio fidei of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council—the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei? Further provisional pastoral measures granted to the SSPX for the spiritual good of so many exemplary Catholic faithful would stand as a profound testimony to the pastoral charity of the Successor of Peter. In doing so, Pope Leo XIV would open his paternal heart to those Catholics who, in a certain way, live on an ecclesiastical periphery, allowing them to experience that the Apostolic See is truly a Mother also for the SSPX. The words of Pope Benedict XVI should awaken the conscience of those in the Vatican who will decide on the permission of episcopal consecrations for the SSPX. He reminds us: “Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew” (Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform carried out in 1970, 7 July 2007). “Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? And should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her?” (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009).[1]
cont. Provisional and minimal pastoral measures for the SSPX, undertaken for the spiritual good of the thousands upon thousands of its faithful around the world—including a pontifical mandate for episcopal consecrations—would create the conditions necessary to calmly clarify misunderstandings, questions, and doubts of a doctrinal nature arising from certain statements in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent Pontifical Magisterium. At the same time, such measures would provide the SSPX with the opportunity to make a constructive contribution for the good of the entire Church, while maintaining a clear distinction between what belongs to divinely revealed faith and doctrine definitively proposed by the Magisterium, and what has a primarily pastoral character in particular historical circumstances, and is therefore open to careful theological study, as has always been the practice throughout the life of the Church. With sincere concern for the unity of the Church and the spiritual good of so many souls, I appeal with reverent and fraternal charity to our Holy Father Pope Leo XIV: Most Holy Father, grant the Apostolic Mandate for the episcopal consecrations of the SSPX. You are also the father of your numerous sons and daughters—two generations of the faithful who have, for now, been cared for by the SSPX, who love the Pope, and who wish to be true sons and daughters of the Roman Church. Therefore, stand aside from the partisanship of others and, with a great paternal and truly Augustinian spirit, demonstrate that you are building bridges, as you promised to do before the whole world when you gave your first blessing after your election. Do not go down in the history of the Church as one who failed to build this bridge—a bridge that could be constructed at this truly Providential moment with generous will—and who instead allowed a truly unnecessary and painful further division within the Church, while at the same time synodal processes that boast of the greatest possible pastoral breadth and ecclesial inclusivity were taking place. As your Holiness recently stressed: “Let us commit ourselves to further developing ecumenical synodal practices and to sharing with one another who we are, what we do and what we teach (cf. Francis, For a Synodal Church, 24 November 2024)” (Homily of Pope Leo XIV, Ecumenical Vespers for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, January 25, 2026). Most Holy Father, if you grant the Apostolic Mandate for the episcopal consecrations of the SSPX, the Church in our day will lose nothing. You will be a true bridge-builder, and even more, an exemplary bridge-builder, for you are the Supreme Pontiff, Summus Pontifex. + Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana 24 February 2026 https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-bishop-schneider-appeals
