[The following text reflects the personal opinion of the author.]
The SSPX, the ordination of bishops, and the end of the post-conciliar era
by John Lamont
Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, has announced that the SSPX plans to proceed with the ordination of bishops this coming July. This plan has been harshly criticized by many Catholics who do not share the heterodox opinions that the Society was founded to oppose. I do not attend SSPX masses and cannot be described as an admirer of the Society (perhaps they do not admire me either). However, I cannot see any serious objections to their plan to consecrate bishops, and I fear that the objections that have been raised by believing Catholics are a sign of refusal to face up to unpleasant realities.
These objections are based on the fact that the SSPX plans to proceed with the consecrations whether or not a pontifical mandate for the consecration is provided, and that such a pontifical mandate has been refused up to the present and is not likely to be forthcoming. The objectors assert that consecrating bishops without a papal mandate would be a crime under Canon 1387 of the Latin Code of Canon Law, which decrees that both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. The position of the SSPX is that 'the salvation of souls must always be the supreme law in the Church' (cf. Canon 1752), and that a state of necessity exists that requires them to consecrate bishops for the sake of the salvation of souls. The supreme law of the Church thus voids Canon 1387 under the circumstances the SSPX is in. This is the reason that was given for the original consecration of bishops by Abp. Lefebvre in 1988, and it is the reason given by Fr. Pagliarani now. In defence of this position, the Society points to cases where Canon 1387 was violated for this reason, such as the ordination of bishops behind the Iron Curtain, and no offence against canon law was judged to exist by the Holy See.
The SSPX has as its purpose the formation and apostolate of priests, focusing on the role of the priest in offering the sacrifice of the Mass and the holiness and knowledge required for the priestly ministry. This purpose as the SSPX understands it requires the practice of the traditional Latin liturgy and the proclamation of the Catholic faith in opposition to modernist denials of it. Regardless of any serious faults the SSPX may have, this is the official purpose of its existence; it is a good purpose, and the SSPX is justified in pursuing it. In order to continue to exist as a priestly society and to pursue this goal, and in particular to offer the full range of the sacraments in the traditional liturgy, it has to have bishops to ordain its priests and confirm its faithful. Its bishops are aging. So it has to ordain new ones soon. If carrying on the purpose of the SSPX is necessary for the salvation of souls, the SSPX is justified in ordaining bishops, and is not violating canon law by doing so.
So the questions is: does the salvation of souls require that the SSPX carry on its preservation of the traditional Latin liturgy and its proclamation of the Catholic faith in opposition to modernism? An affirmative answer to this question does not require that the SSPX be the only entity carrying out these two projects. It simply means that these projects are directly aimed at the salvation of souls, they succeed in saving souls, and their salvific effect will cease if they are stopped.
The case for this necessity was originally made under John Paul II. This case is now far stronger due to the actions of Francis and Leo, and it cannot now reasonably be doubted. We can see this by examining the present situation of the traditional Latin liturgy and the teaching of the Catholic faith.
The traditional Latin liturgy
It is necessary for the Catholic Church to preserve the traditional Latin liturgy for the reasons given by Benedict XVI; 'What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.'
Is the preservation of the traditional Latin liturgy necessary for the salvation of souls? The priests of the SSPX can reply that it is necessary for the salvation of their souls. As priests, they have an absolute responsibility before God to preserve the traditional Latin rite. They thus have both the right and the duty to take those means that are necessary for its preservation.
There are of course other reasons why the preservation of the Latin rite is necessary. With respect to God, the preservation of this rite is necessary so that the Latin rite of the Church – by far the largest part of the Church – can worship God in a fitting manner. The Novus Ordo was deliberately designed to downplay or omit certain essential, divinely revealed truths of the Catholic faith. This has been demonstrated by scholarly examination of its texts, and is even admitted by some of its more honest defenders (these persons deny of course that the truths in question are divinely revealed, but clearly state that they were removed from the Novus Ordo on purpose). Uncomfortable Scriptural passages present in the traditional lectionary have been removed from the Novus Ordo lectionary. For example, there are no Scriptural readings in the Novus Ordo that condemn sodomy and the unworthy reception of the Eucharist, and Matthew 24:15-35, which describes the advent of false prophets, persecution, and the end of the world, has been removed. The character of the Scriptural texts that were excised gives a clear indication of the beliefs and purposes of the drafters of the rite of Paul VI.
See, e.g.:
https://onepeterfive.com/bugnini-destroyed-mass
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/10/all-elements-of-roman-rite-mythbusting.html
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2023/07/paul-vi-against-council-censorship-of.html
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2020/10/the-sanctoral-killing-fields-on-removal.html
https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/damning-expose-of-bugnini-in-prominent
https://www.chantcd.com/doct/vatican_liturgy.htm
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/09/dominican-theologian-attacks-catholic_18.html
The downplaying or omission of these truths in the Novus Ordo is a grave offence against God, and it means that although the sacraments can be confected through the use of the Novus Ordo, it is unfit to serve as a means of worshipping God. The sacrilegious censoring of the Bible is sufficient in itself to make the Novus Ordo unacceptable as a form of worship of God. The failure to worship God in a fitting manner that results from the practice of the Novus Ordo means that the Church is not properly interceding for the Catholic faithful and the entire human race, and this in turn means that the grace that God gives to humanity is greatly lessened. The results of this can be seen in current events.
Now consider the current situation of the traditional Latin rite, as compared to the situation under John Paul II at the time of the original consecrations of the SSPX bishops. John Paul II instructed bishops to permit the use of the traditional rite to those priests who asked for it. He convened a commission of cardinals that ruled that the traditional rite and never been legally suppressed, and that every priest of the Latin rite was entitled to say it – although he shamefully kept this ruling secret and did not act on it.
In the motu proprio Traditionis custodes, Francis stated that the traditional Latin liturgy is not an expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church, that all previous permissions and regulations concerning its use are abrogated, and that its use is subject to the conditions of the motu proprio. The letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments explicating Traditionis custodes stated:
• Traditionis custodes 'intends to re-establish in the whole Church of the Roman Rite a single and identical prayer expressing its unity, according to the liturgical books promulgated by the Popes Saint Paul VI [sic] and Saint John Paul II [sic].' The object of the motu proprio is the eventual total suppression of the traditional liturgy, and the permissions it grants for the celebration of the mass according to the Missal of 1962 are intended solely to ease the transition to the Novus Ordo.
• The use of the Pontificale Romanum of the traditional rite is absolutely forbidden. The sacraments of confirmation and ordination in the old rite may not be performed.
• The use of the Rituale Romanum of the traditional rite, containing the traditional rites of confession, baptism, matrimony, and extreme unction, is forbidden, although the diocesan Bishop is authorised to grant permission to use the Rituale Romanum to those canonically erected personal parishes which celebrate using the Missale Romanum of 1962. This applies only to the personal parishes already existing, since the the erection of new personal parishes using the old missal is forbidden.
Since Pope Leo has not rescinded this legislation despite requests to do so, it remains in force. The traditional Latin rite has thus already been partially forbidden, and the plan is to eliminate it entirely. It cannot be preserved without bishops. There are currently no bishops in the world outside the SSPX who state that they are willing to disregard Rome's illegal orders to suppress the traditional rite and to act to preserve it. Therefore, the SSPX is correct in stating that it is necessary to ordain bishops to preserve the traditional rite. This suffices to justify their project of ordaining bishops.
The preaching of the Catholic faith
The preaching of the Catholic faith is not needed as a further reason for the SSPX's ordaining bishops, but it does provide such a reason. It is obviously necessary for the salvation of souls. Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX originally refused to accept elements of the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar documents issued by Rome. The archbishop thought that these elements contradicted teachings of the Catholic faith that had been irreformably taught by magisterial statements prior to the Council. His case against these conciliar and post-conciliar texts was strengthened by a widespread tendency to agree that they contradicted prior teachings, and to reject the prior teachings on their authority. The situation of the Catholic faith in the Church is now much worse than it was in Abp. Lefebvre's time. The faith has been attacked by a number of official Roman documents issued under Francis and Leo that contradict divinely revealed truths. Francis issued documents making the following heretical assertions:
- Adultery can sometimes be morally legitimate. (Amoris laetitiae 298-305.)
- Unrepentant grave public sinners can legitimately receive the Eucharist. (Amoris laetitiae 298-305.)
- Christians are not always able to follow the divine law. (Amoris laetitiae 295, 298-305.)
- There are no moral laws that absolutely forbid certain kinds of actions under every possible circumstance. (Amoris laetitiae 298-305.)
- The diversity of human religions is a positive good that is willed by God. (Statement 'Document on Human Fraternity', signed by Francis and Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque on February 4th, 2019).
Supporters of Francis's teaching will deny that he make any heretical statements; but if they are asked whether they will flatly deny the truth of the heretical statements given above, as for example by asserting in unambiguous terms with no exceptions or mental reservations that absolutely every adulterous act is morally illegitimate, they will never do so.
Pope Leo has not withdrawn these teachings or denied that they are true. Instead, he has consistently praised Francis and his teaching. He has himself issued a document, Mater Populi Fidelis, which makes the heretical assertion that the Blessed Virgin Mary does not cooperate in the birth of divine life in the individual souls of redeemed men. The reader is referred to examinations that scholars have made of these heretical statements for further information:
https://www.correctiofilialis.org/
https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/5983408-Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic/
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-mother-of-god-and-salvation-article.html
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/11/contra-recentia-sacrilegia.html
Prior to being elected pope, Leo took part in a idolatrous ceremony of veneration of the Pachamama goddess, just as Francis did: https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/03/18/photographs-of-robert-prevost-kneeling-in-worship-of-the-pachamama-come-to-light/
(Many of these documents can be found gathered in Defending the Faith Against Present Heresies: Letters and statements addressed to Pope Francis, the Cardinals, and the Bishops with a collection of related articles and interviews, available in the USA here. Also recommended along the same lines is The Disastrous Pontificate: Pope Francis' Rupture from the Magisterium.)
The most severe condemnations of the veneration of Pachamama have been confirmed by the fact that its cult involves human sacrifice. Two men were condemned in a Bolivian court in 2025 for burying a woman alive as a sacrifice to the Pachamama goddess. https://eldeber.com.bo/pais/por-que-ofrendaron-a-la-pachamama-a-una-joven-madre-en-la-paz_359956/
Priests must reject and preach against these heresies; this preaching is a basic responsibility imposed by the priestly state, and it is necessary for the salvation of the souls of both priests and laity. There are obvious difficulties with this happening when the heresies are pronounced by men holding the supreme office in the Church, with the backing of a substantial faction of heterodox clergy and laity. Priests and bishops who preach against these heretical pronouncements are punished. Other priests and bishops who may reject these heresies keep silent about them in consequence. The SSPX can truthfully maintain that in order to have priests who carry out the duties of their state, they need someone to ordain these priests; and this someone must be a bishop who is committed to the Catholic faith and its open proclamation, and who will not be intimidated by Roman threats and punishments. The ordination of such a bishop or bishops is therefore canonically justified as necessary for the salvation of souls. The SSPX is thus justified in ordaining bishops – provided they are suitable candidates – even if the Society does not obtain a papal mandate for doing so.
The end of the post-conciliar era
The circumstances in which such ordinations would occur are different from those of the original ordinations in 1988. The heretical statements of Francis and Leo have caused a fundamental shift in the situation of the Church. The entire believing Catholic Church now finds itself in the situation of the SSPX between its founding and the election of Francis as pope. During this period, the SSPX was raising questions about conciliar and post-conciliar documents, and objecting that some parts of these document on the face of it contradicted authoritative pre-conciliar teachings. In reply to these questions, the SSPX was told by the Roman authorities that
A) there was no real contradiction between the conciliar and post-conciliar documents and preconciliar magisterial statements (the absence of real contradiction was never clearly defended or defined);
B) the conciliar and post-conciliar documents are the basis for the interpretation of Catholic teaching, and no appeal to the preconciliar statements can be accepted as a basis for questioning the conciliar and post-conciliar ones, no matter how clear or authoritative the preconciliar ones may be;
C) any questioning of A) and B) is a rejection of the magisterial authority of the Church, and cannot be permitted.
An example of this Roman position is found in the letter to the SSPX of 6 June 2017 from Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stating the doctrinal requirements for canonical recognition of the SSPX. https://fsspx. .org/en/news/letter-cardinal-muller-bishop-fellay-6-june-2017-57314These requirements were as follows:
1. It is necessary to require members of the Society of Saint Pius X to adhere to the new form of the Professio fidei dating from 1988. Consequently, it is no longer sufficient to ask them to make the Professio fidei of 1962.
2. The new text of the doctrinal declaration must include a paragraph in which the signatories explicitly declare their acceptance of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and of the post-conciliar period, granting to said doctrinal affirmations the degree of assent due to them.
3. Members of the Society of Saint Pius X must recognise, not only the validity, but also the legitimacy of the Rite of the Holy Mass and the Sacraments, according to the liturgical books promulgated after the Second Vatican Council.
The feature of the Professio fidei of 1988 (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html) that matters for this issue is the passage: 'Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.' The SSPX had offered to make the profession of faith of the First Vatican Council as a condition of canonical regularization. This profession of faith does not refer to the teachings of the 'authentic Magisterium'. Instead, it states 'The Apostolic and Ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same Church I firmly admit to and embrace.' https://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html The difference here is that the 'authentic Magisterium' includes all magisterial documents, even those that do not make infallible definitions that must be believed by Catholics. 'Apostolic and Ecclesiastical traditions' does not cover every authoritative assertion of every magisterial document, but only those traditions that are infallible or irreformable because of their apostolic origin or infallible teaching by the Church.
The 1988 'Profession of Faith' is fraudulent, because it imposes conditions that are not required by the Catholic faith, and hence that do not form part of a profession of faith. A magisterial statement that is not proclaimed by a definitive act, and that does not repeat teachings that have been taught elsewhere by a definitive magisterial act, is a statement that is not taught by the Church as a doctrine to which Catholics must give the assent of faith. It is not part of the Catholic faith – otherwise it would be definitive. So it has no place in a profession of faith. Assent to it cannot be required as a condition for membership in the Catholic Church. The most that can be said in favour of this condition is that a requirement to not publicly reject non-infallible magisterial teachings is justified in the case of priests and bishops, on the grounds that their publicly contradicting magisterial authority is damaging to the Church and undermines the faith of Catholics.
Before Francis was elected pope, this position would have been coherent as far as the conciliar and post-conciliar documents went. Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and their curial underlings worked out an interpretation of the Second Vatican Council and expressed it in a number of documents. This interpretation abandoned some Catholic truths that had been heavily attacked at the Council and left out of its documents, but upheld many Catholic teachings that the modernist vanguard at the Council had intended to do away with. The principal doctrines that it erased were the identity of the Roman Catholic Church and the one Church of Christ, and the consequent status of Protestants as heretics and Orthodox as schismatics who have separated themselves from the one Church of Christ and are duty bound to return to it by becoming Catholics; the fact that non-Christian religions are not only powerless to save souls, but of themselves lead souls to hell by being adhered to, and the consequent requirement to convert non-Christians to Christianity in order to save them; and the duty of the state to recognize the Catholic faith as the true religion.
The SSPX was expected by Rome to sign on to this 'conservative Catholicism', a position that was not negotiable for John Paul II. In exchange, it was offered some liturgical freedom – the precise amount of this freedom was never completely clear; it would have included the freedom to celebrate the traditional liturgy, but whether or not the SSPX would have been given the freedom to refuse to say the old liturgy under John Paul II is unclear. Benedict XVI was willing to allow the Society to refuse to say the new liturgy – he did this with the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei institutes. But he was not willing to make 'conservative Catholicism' optional. This was partly because he considered that 'conservative Catholicism' was the only strategy that could keep the Church from total collapse, and partly because this ideology was what was left to him of the conciliar project that he had taken part in with such enthusiasm. He could not bear the idea of making it optional, and perhaps was fully convinced of it.
However, this state of affairs ceased to exist with Francis. He issued a number of documents that flatly contradicted the doctrinal positions of Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI; and Pope Leo has done the same.
- Traditionis custodes contradicts Summorum pontificum on the traditional Latin rite.
- Amoris laetitia contradicts Familiaris consortio on communion for the divorced and remarried.
- Amoris laetitia contradicts Veritatis splendor on the existence of exceptionless moral norms.
- Amoris laetitia contradicts Veritatis splendor on the capacity of Christians to keep the divine law.
- The 'Document on Human Fraternity' and Francis's involvement in and defence of veneration of the Pachamama idol contradicts the encyclicals Evangelii nuntiandi and Redemptroris missio and the Declaration Dominus Iesus on the missionary goal of the Church (if God positively wills the diversity of religions as a good, it would not be right or desirable to eliminate this diversity by converting everyone to Christianity).
- Mater Populi Fidelis contradicts Lumen gentium on the Mother of God as mediatrix of all graces.
It is thus now impossible for the SSPX or for anyone else to accept the documents of the Second Vatican Council and of the post-conciliar period up to the present, because these documents contain contradictions on central matters of the faith. They cannot 'adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act': and neither can anyone else. The 1988 'Profession of Faith' is obsolete and cannot be followed. The entire Church has to choose which side of these contradictions to believe; the positions of Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, or those of Francis and Leo XIV. This development marks the end of 'conservative Catholicism'. It also marks the end of the post-conciliar era, in which the teachings, interpretation and implementation of the Second Vatican Council was the main issue for the life of the Church. The understanding of the conciliar project constructed by Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI has been repudiated and condemned, and the Council's documents have been directly contradicted. Those Catholics who adhere to the doctrinal content of 'conservative Catholicism' are now condemned by modernist hierarchs such as Cardinal Victor Fernandez for rejecting the magisterium of the Church, and told that it is the current Roman authorities alone who decide what the faith teaches.
This is not just a simple exercise of power on the part of these authorities. There is a philosophy behind it that should be understood. The constant appeal to the Second Vatican Council by these authorities is not just a cynical propaganda ploy. The leading progressive forces at that council, the persons who called the tune for the two-thirds majority bloc of the bishops, were modernists, who did not believe that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are directly revealed by God Himself, and thus infallibly and permanently true; they thought of these dogmas as human interpretations of divine initiatives, and thus as revisable in the light of advances in knowledge. That is why important figures at the Council, such as Cardinals Bea, Liénart, Döpfner, König, Frings, Lercaro, and Suenens, and theologians like Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Marie-Dominique Chenu, all made public statements that contradicted revealed dogma during or after the Council. Cardinal Julius Döpfner, speaking to a conference of European bishops in 1969, summarized the modernist position while attacking the position of Paul VI's encyclical Mysterium Fidei, which upheld the doctrine of transubstantiation:
All the dogmas in the strict sense of the word, in turn call for interpretation. Although they also contain, with the help of the Holy Spirit, a "timeless" truth, i.e. an objectively valid truth for all times, they still present this truth in a time-bound language. Dogmas are always statements which are historically determined in a conceptual system; they are tied to a particular time and a particular way of thinking. Dogmas come to be in a concrete situation because of a specific set of causes. Doctrinal statements, therefore, always express the truth which is their object in an inadequate and fragmentary way which, nonetheless, is valid from a specific perspective, namely, the perspective of a certain group of hearers. In order to understand a doctrinal truth, one must be familiar with these circumstances. Insofar as these circumstances have changed, the content of a certain dogma no longer exists for us.
Döpfner's argument here is idiotic. Every human thought is 'historically determined in a conceptual system', 'tied to a particular time and a particular way of thinking', and 'comes to be in a concrete situation because of a specific set of causes'. That does not mean that all thoughts must 'express the truth which is their object in an inadequate and fragmentary way'. In some cases, the causes and historical and conceptual circumstances of a thought will lead it to express the truth in an inadequate and fragmentary way. In other cases, these causes and circumstances will permit the thought to express an 'objectively valid truth for all times' that is not in any way inadequate or fragmentary. We can describe the causes, circumstances and conceptual systems that were involved in Galileo's coming to the conclusion that Jupiter had moons. It remains true that Galileo's belief that Jupiter has moons is entirely true.
The error of this modernist position is however exactly what makes it powerful and attractive for those who wish to abandon Catholic truth. Since absolutely every human belief occurs in some causal, historical and conceptual situation, it permits modernists to reject any belief at all if they wish to. For example, Piet Fransen S.J., an influential modernist theologian who gave informal instructional lectures to bishops attending the Second Vatican Council, cited Döpfner's position as a justification for rejecting the coeternity of the three Divine Persons of the Trinity. Fransen's modernism continues to be given as a justification for rejecting Catholic dogma in the 21st century (https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-on-time-and-dogma/). This modernism is what is referred to as the 'spirit of the Council' among theologians, and its influence at the Council is the 'event of the Council' to which importance is attached and to which loyalty is demanded.
If it is objected that the authority of an ecumenical council is itself justified by the traditional conception of Catholic dogma, so that modernism destroys the conciliar authority to which modernists make appeal, and that the modernists who appeal to the authority of the Second Vatican Council are themselves ready to reject the authority of previous ecumenical councils that they disagree with, such as the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, the modernists will reply that they do not base their appeal to the authority of the Second Vatican Council on the traditional dogmas about revelation and the Church that were defined by the First Vatican Council. They base this claim instead on the fact that the Second Vatican Council brought together all the leaders of the Church – bishops, cardinals, patriarchs, Pope – and these leaders agreed to their programme. This collective leadership, simply because it is the leadership, has the task and the right to judge what the Church teaches. It is self-refuting for the SSPX to question these leaders in the name of traditional Catholic dogma, which itself proscribes anything like a Protestant right to reject the teachings of the pope and bishops in favour of one's individual conception of what Catholicism should be. Moreover, those same pope and bishops rejected at the Council certain dogmas that the traditional understanding of the Church and revelation held to be divinely revealed and thus irreformable. If this traditional understanding were in fact true, such a rejection by the Church would be impossible. So the traditional understanding of dogma as made up of immutable truths was shown to be false by the Council's acceptance of modernist theses.
This is incorrect by traditional Catholic standards, because only infallibly defined conciliar pronouncements are guaranteed to be free from error according to Catholic theology, and the Second Vatican Council did not infallibly define any modernist theses. However, this careful delineation of what Catholics are and are not required to believe is itself a part of the traditional Catholic theology that modernists reject. It is not compatible with the modernist view that the current hierarchy has the right and responsibility to determine what the Catholic faith consists in under today's circumstances, circumstances which can cause the faith to differ from what it was yesterday. This view is the outlook of a religious cult, where the intellect and will must be surrendered to the leaders who can say today that what was believed yesterday must be rejected. Modernism is indeed a religious cult of an exceptionally dreary kind. Religious cults however are often successful for a time, and this has unfortunately been the case with modernism.
The modernists believe that it is not just the hierarchical position of the pope and bishops at the Second Vatican Council that gave them authority to make this change in Catholic self-understanding; they were also warranted by advances in theology, history, and Scripture, that had developed in the decades preceding the Council, that showed beyond a doubt that the traditional understanding of revelation and dogma was untenable, and that the modernist conception of it was correct. The current leadership of the Church has the right, the responsibility, and the expertise to determine what these advances in knowledge reveal, and to require Catholics to accept their determinations. This conviction of superior knowledge explains the contempt held by modernist partisans such as Prof. Andrea Grillo for their traditionalist critics.
Because the post-conciliar era and 'conservative Catholicism' are now at an end, those Catholics who were conservatives, but who retain their faith and reject the heresies of Francis and Leo, are now in the position that the SSPX has been all along. They have to reject the orders of current officeholders and the statements of current official documents in the name of the Catholic faith. This is a fundamental change. Catholics can no longer accept the conciliar project of Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI because it is no longer on offer. The choice is between conforming to the modernist beliefs and the modernist conception of magisterial authority that is now offered by Rome, and holding that the past dogmatic teachings of the Church are divinely revealed, are not revisable, and must be believed even if the current office holders in Rome deny them and insist that they must be rejected; that is to say, holding the position that the SSPX has held all along. In truth, Catholic believers have been in this situation ever since Francis was elected pope, but they generally managed to persuade themselves that Francis's position and policy were the product of his own unpleasant personality and personal convictions, rather than the manifestation of a systemic problem. Now that Leo has made it clear that he will continue with Francis's modernism, this can no longer be maintained. Francis was not just expressing his personal convictions; he was the product and representative of a dominant faction of the clergy, who continue to hold power in the person of Leo.
Catholics who choose to preserve the faith are thus now in substance in the situation that the SSPX has been in since its foundation. What can such Catholics learn from the history of the SSPX?
In retrospect, and without intending any disrespect to Archbishop Lefebvre, it can be seen that he was initially too moderate and restrained. As one of the principal leaders of the orthodox minority of bishop at Vatican II, he fought to get the documents of that council amended in a Catholic sense. He never openly announced and insisted that the leaders of the progressive majority of bishops were modernist heretics working to destroy the Catholic faith. His work on the conciliar documents was useful in one respect, as producing better documents. But this was in no way an insuperable obstacle to the modernist project; indeed, in an important sense it was helpful. Because the documents could be more easily interpreted in a Catholic sense, those Catholics who retained the faith could be more readily convinced that the project of Vatican II was a good one and that its critics were opposing legitimate authority. By the mid-1970s, the archbishop was publicly denouncing the heresies promoted at Vatican II and the devastation being wreaked in the Church. By this time, however, the coalition of anti-modernist forces that had been willing and able to act in coordination at Vatican II had been destroyed. Its members had been isolated and picked off, or broken into submission. No religious orders remained in the hands of orthodox leaders – Archbishop Lefebvre himself had been removed as the head of the Spiritan order. Archbishop Lefebvre's belated openness about the situation of the Church had little effect.
A similar dynamic occurred under Francis. He was openly attacking the Catholic faith and working for its destruction from the Synod on the Family in 2015 onwards. During the next ten years before his death in 2025, only a tiny fraction of Catholics were willing to state this and denounce him for it – a fraction that notably did not include the SSPX. If all the conservative Catholics who had cheered on John Paul II had united at the outset to publicly oppose Francis's open denial and demolition of the Polish Pope's work, they might have achieved something. But they were largely silent and ineffective, and were accordingly deprived of power and the capacity for resistance.
The lesson for believing Catholics in the new, post-conciliar situation is clear. It is no good keeping your head down and hoping for better times. There will be no better times unless the enemies of the faith who dominate the Church are openly fought and defeated by a united opposition. What means are there for doing this?
The balance of forces
One advantage of the end of the post-conciliar era is an end to confusion. 'Conservative Catholicism' had real strengths as a policy, which partly explains how it had such a long run. It did retain important doctrines and insist on them against opposition, particularly some doctrines connected with marriage and family that are important for the lives of Catholics and attacked by contemporary secularism. This convinced many Catholics that it was a legitimate presentation of Catholicism to the contemporary world, and rallied them to it. Its main problem as a programme was that because it did in fact dispense with some unpopular Catholic doctrines, it could not be enforced on modernists who rejected much more of the faith, if not all of it. The modernists were able to counter that 'conservative Catholicism' made use of modernist principles itself, and could not consistently require belief in the Catholic doctrines it promoted while also dispensing on modernist grounds with the Catholic doctrines it did not like.
Now that 'conservative Catholicism' is gone, the struggle is between straightforward modernism and Catholic belief. There are certain advantages that Catholic believers have in this new struggle.
The openly modernist position advanced by Francis and Leo has much less appeal and plausibility than 'conservative Catholicism' did. It is obviously not a form of Catholicism or even of Christianity. It rejects the existence of divine commandments and the necessity of belief in Christ for salvation, which are the fundamental principles of the Christian economy of salvation. The 'new discoveries' in scholarship upon which it was supposedly based were always fraudulent, and imposed by the propagandist and political means that sustain all leftist thought – misrepresentation of the opposing position, slander and personal attacks, punishment and exclusion of opponents. However, in the 1950s and 1960s this thought had the advantage of being fashionable. Now it is not; it is dated, and its shallowness and tedium are apparent.
The revolutionary enthusiasm underlying the modernist transformation of the Church from the 1950s to the 1970s is gone. The promise of a new golden age that powered the revolution has been shown to be illusory, as always happens with revolutions; the 'spirit of Vatican II' has produced failure and disaster in every aspect of Catholic life. The results of the modernist program are an argument against it.
The clerical leadership that adheres to modernism is riddled with criminality, both financial and sexual. A group of men who reject Christian faith and morals and are officially committed to celibacy will inevitably have a large or predominant proportion of homosexuals and pederasts. Indeed, the observation that modernist clergy have these sexual tastes underestimates the problem. One should not blame the evils of the Catholic clergy on the fact that they are homosexuals. The writer Joseph Sciambra, who was actively homosexual for a number of years, noted that the homosexuals he knew who entered the Catholic priesthood were the dregs of the homosexual community, the ones who had no discernible talents and no attractive or valuable personality traits. This is to be expected in men who deliberately choose a life of lies and betrayal, which is what is involved in pretending to be a celibate Catholic priest while practicing homosexuality. The sexual opportunities open to such men, who are middle-aged or elderly, are limited to the sexual abuse of unpaid vulnerable young men, and to patronizing male prostitutes (which is itself a form of sexual abuse, but involves payment). This costs money, which has to be obtained by underhanded means. Clerical poverty does not make sense on modernist assumptions, and it is not practiced by the modernist clerical leadership. This also requires dubious financial manoeuvres. Carrying on with these criminal activities and covering them up is an extremely demanding occupation (bishops who are blamed for being lazy and without initiative are often being maligned; in fact, they are usually working hard at something that cannot be made public). That leaves less energy for carrying on the combat against Catholic believers. It also makes modernist leaders vulnerable to pressure. If faithful Catholics were to pool some of their money to invest in lawyers, forensic accountants and private investigators, they could easily eliminate pressure from modernist leaders in the episcopate.
However, in order to take advantage of this improved situation there has to be a realistic understanding of the situation of the Church among believing Catholics, and this understanding has to be publicly stated and communicated to the faithful. This is not happening. Instead, there are signs of a strange inversion. A main tenet of 'conservative Catholicism' was the claim that the conservative form of the conciliar project was a success. This tenet entailed that the state of the Church was good, despite small minorities on both the left and the right that complained and made difficulties, and that papal leadership was wise and beneficient and could not be questioned. Now that the complete falsity of this tenet is apparent, many traditionalist Catholics who formerly told the truth about the condition of the Church are taking up this conservative attitude towards Pope Leo. They are silent about his heretical teachings, his praise of Francis, and his evident policy of continuing the ideological line of Francis in a kinder way. They attack the SSPX plan to consecrate bishops while ignoring or denying the solid reasons that exist for these consecrations. The SSPX, highly imperfect as it is, deserves credit for refusing this inversion and announcing that it will take a step that is a proper response to the crisis that Catholics are all in.
A great advantage of the SSPX's proposed consecrations is that they would make an honest statement about the real state of the Church. The SSPX is not going to save the Catholic Church. But its consecrations will give Catholics a chance to explain why the crisis in the Church in faith and liturgy is so severe that there is a real need for the consecration of orthodox bishops without a papal mandate. This is another way, beyond serving the needs of the SSPX faithful, in which such consecrations will serve the good of souls.
---
Notes:
1. Julius Döpfner, "Das Bleibende und Sichwandelnde in Priestertum," Herder Korrespondenz 23 (1969): 369-70; quoted and translated in Piet Schoonenberg, "The Theologian's Calling: Freedom, and Constraint," in Authority in the Church, ed. Piet Fransen, S.J. (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1983), p. 104.
2. Piet Fransen S.J., 'The Theologian's Calling, Freedom, and Constraint', in Authority in the Church, ed. Piet Fransen, S.J. (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1983), p. 111.
