 |
| (photo source) |
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. [In necessary things, unity, In doubtful things, liberty, In all things, charity]
But 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? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. (Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the World’s Catholic Episcopate on Remission of Excommunication of the four SSPX Bishops, 10th March 2009)
The resolution of the SSPX question is hindered not only by a reluctance to confront, with intellectual honesty, the underlying doctrinal issues and to acknowledge the existence of doctrinal ambiguities requiring correction but also by an unhealthy mentality that has developed within the Church over the past several centuries: namely, the primacy of legalism or juridical positivism, together with an excessive papal-centrism that approaches a quasi-divinization of both the office and the person of the Pope. (Bishop Athanasius Schneider, The Core Question Regarding the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, 4th June 2026)
They are already in communion with the Church, since they recognize the current pope [Francis], mention him in the Canon, pray for him publicly, and pray for the local diocesan bishop. The SSPX has received faculties for absolution from the pope, and the priests of the SSPX may now obtain faculties from the diocesan bishop or from the parish priest canonically to assist at marriages… the members of the SSPX are not excommunicated.
With regard to the Society of Saint Pius X, we reiterate what has already been communicated. The episcopal ordinations announced by the Society of Saint Pius X do not have the necessary papal mandate. This act would constitute ‘a schismatic act’ and ‘formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offense against God and entails the excommunication established by canon law.
The theology of the Church has changed. Whereas before the priest represented, at a distance, all the people—they were channeled through this person who alone was celebrating the Mass. Now, though, it is not only the priest who celebrates the liturgy but also those who are baptized with him, and that is an enormous statement to make.
I make one last observation concerning the so-called living Tradition of the Church. Apparently it is an irreproachable expression, yet it is in fact ambiguous. It is irreproachable because the Church is a living reality and Tradition is its very life. It is ambiguous, because it allows the introduction into the Church of any novelty, even the least recommended, as expression of the Church’s life. … Tradition is living not when it becomes integrated into some novelty, but when we discover in, or deduce from it some new aspect, which, had before escaped notice; or when some new understanding of its original contents enriches the present life of the Church.
Jacques Maritain (1882–1973), the prominent French Catholic philosopher who contributed to the drafting of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, expressed deep alarm over what he saw as a radical shift in the Catholic Church. In his 1966 book, The Peasant of the Garonne, Maritain argued that the post-Vatican II Church had surrendered, both spiritually and intellectually, to the secularism of the age through a misguided and incautious openness to the world. He asserted that the Church had betrayed its mission by unthinkingly "kneeling" before secular culture rather than elevating it through Christ. To describe this worship of the present age, which treats secular progress as salvation, Maritain coined the term "chronolatry." Ultimately, he viewed this uncritical adaptation to worldliness as a profound failing of charity, since it deprived the world of the redeeming truth of the Gospel.
The tension described above creates a striking paradox within the contemporary Church. In an article titled “The Reconciler,” published in the Italian daily Il Foglio on July 12, 2014, the renowned scholar and historian Roberto de Mattei highlighted this contradiction:
In this age of de-dogmatization, why dogmatize Vatican II? The word today is that of praxis, of lived experience, from which truth should come forth. If this is so, why not listen to the voice of the ones who propose Christianity experienced through Tradition, which does not deny the primacy of doctrine, which does not recreate truth, but which recalls and conforms itself to the unchangeable Truth?
Ultimately, the ongoing confusion following the Council can be distilled into one simple question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic Church in terms of its historical self-understanding, self-presentation, and view of the world? In other words, is post-Vatican II ecclesiology fundamentally consistent with the ecclesiology that preceded it, or has there been a genuine rupture?
The Position of Pope Leo XIV
On 16th June 2026, Pope Leo XIV remarked on the SSPX matter during a press interview outside his summer residence at Castel Gandolfo:
We have invited them, and I am still considering making another appeal, to say: ‘Do not do this. Let us try to live communion in the Church.’ But it is their choice. They must understand what it means for them and for the Church. Certainly, division among Christians is always a painful matter. But they refuse to accept certain fundamental elements of the Church, beginning with various points of the Second Vatican Council. And if they make those choices, I am sorry. But we must move forward.
It is rather disappointing that this anxiously awaited papal statement on so weighty a matter was delivered impromptu within the informal, fluid context of an open-air press interview. A formally worded, authoritative statement might have spared the dignity of the papal office from the semantic perils of misinterpretation, decontextualization, and ideological manipulation.
For example, the papal call to “move forward” invites varied interpretations. In the 20th century, the Nouvelle Théologie reform movement sought to liberate Catholic intellectual thought from traditional scholasticism by embracing modern intellectual currents. Among its proponents, the French word marchons (“let us move forward”) served as a rallying cry for the entire Church to engage in dialogue with the modern world, primarily by retracing its steps to original scriptural and historical sources. Understood through this lens, the Pope's call to move forward could suggest a validation of the ideological rupture between traditional scholarship and modern Catholic thought. Consequently, from a traditionalist perspective, one could interpret Pope Leo XIV’s statement as a confirmation that the shift away from the traditional theological positions defended by the SSPX is entirely non-negotiable.
Ultimately, the papal remarks adopt a tone of managerial pragmatism. They not only suggest the near-inevitability of excommunication as prescribed by the Code of Canon Law, but also signal a definitive failure to establish a meaningful rapport between Rome and the SSPX at this late stage.
The Catholicity of the SSPX
Catholics believe that, despite having no personal merit, they are privileged by a gratuitous act of divine mercy to belong to the one true Church of Christ—the ark of salvation. To be cast out of this ark, therefore, is no mere canonical technicality. For a true Catholic, being described as in schism, or labeled a schismatic, should strike existential terror due to its eternal consequences. Given the gravity of such a state, the wanton application of the term “schismatic” to the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) must be prudently restrained. The question of the SSPX's Catholicity is highly pertinent, for it directly concerns the non-negotiable nature of the Catholic faith: Is the SSPX a truly Catholic organization, or is it, as critics claim, essentially Protestant?
Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law stipulates:
1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
There is a widespread intra-ecclesial tendency to conflate the canonically irregular status of the SSPX with being entirely outside communion with the Catholic Church. While the former can be argued to be a strictly jurisdictional matter, the concept of full communion is much more encompassing. It requires adherence to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith as the sine qua non of membership in the Church.
In June 1968, Pope St. Paul VI closed the Year of Faith, which celebrated the nineteenth centenary of the martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul. To mark the occasion and respond to a request by the 1967 Synod of Bishops, he issued the motu proprio Solemni hac liturgia, better known as the Credo of the People of God. In its preamble, the Pope observed:
We are aware of the disquiet which agitates certain modern quarters with regard to the faith. They do not escape the influence of a world being profoundly changed, in which so many certainties are being disputed or discussed... We see even Catholics allowing themselves to be seized by a kind of passion for change and novelty.
Pope St Paul VI’s Credo, which has since suffered studied neglect from progressive hierarchs and theologians, won the unqualified praise and ready acceptance of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Eight years later, in 1976, the archbishop wrote to Pope St. Paul VI before conducting his first priestly ordinations, stating:
Your Holiness has known me since 1948, and you know perfectly well what the faith is that I profess, the faith of your Credo, and you know equally my profound submission to the Successor of Peter which I renew into the hands of Your Holiness.
It should be noted that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to sign the 1989 Profession of Faith introduced under Pope St. John Paul II, which included a new clause:
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 archbishop argued that assenting to this clause meant accepting novel, post-Vatican II doctrinal ambiguities and pastoral orientations. Given that the Magisterium has not pronounced these modern orientations to be infallible, they remain legitimate subjects of theological dispute. While the Archbishop's rejection of these non-infallible orientations could be classified as a disciplinary issue, labeling it as "heretical" is unjust. Indeed, a credible question arises: were there any new infallible pronouncements regarding faith and morals issued between Pope Paul VI’s Credo and the 1989 Profession of Faith?
In the closely monitored run-up to the imminent episcopal consecrations, the SSPX twice publicly testified to its adherence to the Catholic faith. The first profession was issued on May 14, 2026, the Feast of the Ascension, responding directly to Cardinal Fernández’s formal statement from the previous day, discussed above. The second profession was published as an open letter to the Pope and Cardinals on June 24, 2026, the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, representing the SSPX's most comprehensive declaration of faith to date.
For well-catechized Catholics seeking deeper understanding, these two SSPX statements offer reassurance through their traditional expressions of truth, providing an oasis of clarity and stability in a sea of contemporary doctrinal and moral fluidity.
Reflecting on the first statement, distinguished scholar Peter Kwasniewski observed on X:
This remarkable document was released today: a profession of faith on the part of the SSPX, addressed to the Holy Father as evidence of their sincere attachment to the Catholic Faith. In a short space it manages to address nearly every controversial question that has arisen since the last Council.
Kwasniewski argues that this declaration creates a stark dichotomy, pitting Rome's canonical disciplinary regime against doctrinal clarity and consistency. Because fence-sitting is untenable for Rome, the declaration forces an either-or choice that leaves no room for nuance. He further noted that, to preserve a semblance of doctrinal authority, Rome is forced to rely on the muscular exercise of canonical power via excommunications.
In an overzealous and misguided attempt to be “more Catholic than the Pope,” sections of the Catholic commentariat have sought to dismiss these two professions of faith as peculiar theological constructions. There is an inexplicable reluctance to recognize them as authentic expressions of the Catholic faith, handed down since apostolic antiquity and consistently taught by the historic Magisterium. The tragic state of ecclesial rupture is highlighted when these two SSPX professions—which simply restate Catholic dogma in the timeless register of approved catechisms—are clinically dissected merely to gauge their conformity with the post-Vatican II Magisterium.
Truth and Charity
As argued in my thesis above, there have been two casualties in the heat of this latest SSPX controversy, namely truth and charity.
Regarding truth, Pope St John Paul II, in his encyclical on Ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint (1995) wrote:
The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?
The truth of the matter is not merely the potentially schismatic nature of the SSPX’s imminent move to consecrate new bishops. While such a view should concern every Catholic Christian and is validated by a strict reading of Canon Law, focusing solely on it is simplistic and perhaps even disingenuous. Much as these episcopal consecrations could easily be dismissed as an isolated event triggering Vatican legislative action, such a view, however, ignores the broader reality of the SSPX within the ecclesial landscape. The Society's continued and even thriving presence serves as a constant reminder that the Church must address its post-Vatican II legacy and ongoing intra-ecclesial identity crisis. That is the truth of the matter. What is required now is a profound diagnosis of this underlying problem, rather than a superficial focus on its symptoms.
Following the publication of Vatican II: A Much Needed Discussion (2009), Msgr. Gherardini, backed by like-minded Catholic intellectuals, officially petitioned Pope Benedict XVI in 2011 to authorize a public debate regarding the true meaning and authority of the Second Vatican Council. By doing so, the petitioners aimed to resolve decades of confusion and clearly separate orthodox truth from modern errors.
It is revealing that in light of the Vatican’s hesitation to formally authorize such a debate, Msgr Gherardini published a follow-up book in late 2011 entitled, Vatican Council II: A Debate That Has Not Taken Place.
Father Jaime Mercant Simó, a Spanish diocesan priest and canon law scholar published a post on X in which he laid out his position in a structured format of 23 questions and answers. Among others, he posed the following questions:
Catholic ecclesiology lies at the heart of the Church’s crisis today. Has the process of implementation of Vatican II been undertaken with respect not only for the true wishes of the Council fathers, as set out in the 16 conciliar documents, but also for the unbroken magisterial teaching of the Church, as embodied in the previous 20 councils that preceded Vatican II? Can we truly identify with the Church before Vatican II which nurtured the spirituality and vitality of our ancestors in the faith or we believe that Church has undergone a paradigm shift to contemporaneity and modernity, losing touch with what is ostensibly historically-dated?
Contributing an Eastern Catholic perspective to the SSPX controversy, Fr. Romano Tommasi, SLD, formerly a Vatican Curial official, and seasoned teacher of philosophy and theology of international standing argued that the canonically irregular status of the SSPX does not constitute a schismatic situation, but rather points to a major crisis within the contemporary Church which challenges the operationalization of normal ecclesiastical order. According to him, the accusation of the SSPX being schismatic is rendered untenable by the fact that it is Rome herself who, for example, granted faculties to SSPX priests to hear confessions and act as official witnesses of the Church at weddings. He defends as valid the Society’s doctrinal concerns regarding post-Vatican II orientations on issues such as religious liberty and ecumenism.
Taking a dispassionate look at Church history, Fr Tommasi argues that it presents several instances of a magisterial pragmatism in settling theological disputes that do not touch on the divinely-revealed and dogmatic truths of the Catholic faith. Church history is rife with examples of popes seeking accommodation with situations of a canonically intelligible and theologically defensible irregularity.
Following the Protestant Reformation in sixteenth-century Europe, countries hostile to the Catholic Church, such as England, criminalized the activities of Catholic priests. To minister to the remaining faithful and keep the faith alive, these priests operated clandestine networks under unstable, temporary jurisdictional structures. Given this severe crisis, Rome bypassed its usual concerns regarding strict legal compliance. Instead, the Church prioritized the maxim salus animarum suprema lex [the salvation of souls is the supreme law], which is today codified in canon 1752 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. For the greater pastoral good of souls, Rome chose to accommodate this administrative messiness by granting exceptionally broad faculties while strictly maintaining doctrinal purity.
Saint John Henry Newman, the latest addition to the exclusive list of the Doctors of the Church, wrote in his work, A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk (1875):
To be a true Catholic a man must have a generous loyalty towards ecclesiastical authority, and accept what is taught him with what is called the pietas fidei, and only such a tone of mind has a claim, and it certainly has a claim, to be met and to be handled with a wise and gentle minimism. Still the fact remains, that there has been of late years a fierce and intolerant temper abroad, which scorns and virtually tramples on the little ones of Christ.
St John Henry Newman is defending a vision of Catholicism where authority and personal conscience exist in a healthy equilibrium. True Catholic faith requires a loyal heart, but, importantly, for him, magisterial authority must be exercised with prudence and restraint. He did not take kindly to the view that Catholic loyalty requires an unconditional, blind submission to the magisterium, including assent to personally-held opinions on matters other than faith and morals. It is important to recall the then prevailing ecclesial climate of ultramontanism, descriptive of a heightened veneration of the person and office of the pope, in the wake of the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council.
Fr Roger Calmel, OP (1914-1975), in his article “De l'Église et du Pape” [“Of the Church and the Pope],” May 1973, writes on true obedience:
The interior life of a son of the Church who would set aside the articles of Faith concerning the Pope, obedience to his legitimate orders, and prayer for him would have ceased to be Catholic. On the other hand, an interior life which includes yielding to the Pope unconditionally, that is to say, blindly in everything and always, is an interior life which is necessarily subject to human respect, which is not free with regard to creatures, which is exposed to many occasions of compromise. In his interior life, the true son of the Church having received with his whole heart the articles of the faith with regard to the vicar of Christ prays for him faithfully and obeys him willingly, but only in the light, that is to say, only while the Apostolic tradition and, of course, the natural law are preserved whole and entire.
As discussed above, the SSPX, in the run-up to the episcopal consecrations, twice made declarations of its Catholic faith. Notwithstanding the challenges of appreciating the traditionally couched register of these declarations, it would aggravate the credibility crisis in the Church if they were either dismissed as productions encompassing the peculiar spiritual position of the SSPX, or marginalized by laying greater focus on the Code of Canon Law. By dismissing the SSPX professions of faith, which satisfy all dogmatic requirements for full communion through their adherence to the historical Magisterium, the contemporary Church leadership faces the burden of demonstrating the truth of her own claims to historical continuity in faith and morals.
Given that the Church already recognizes the validity of SSPX sacraments and their core Catholic identity, withholding legal regularization over non-infallible disputes creates an internal canonical contradiction that conflicts with the supreme law of the salvation of souls. The demand for further validation from the SSPX borders on absurdity because the Church creates a sacramental paradox by granting valid faculties for confessions and marriages to a group it simultaneously treats as a canonical outsider. Furthermore, a glaring double standard is exposed when the Magisterium requires unconditional assent to non-infallible pastoral texts from a group holding all defined Catholic dogmas, while applying far more lenient standards to ecumenical groups that reject papal primacy entirely.
The maxim that forms the title of this article appears in Pope St. John XXIII’s proto-encyclical, Ad Petri Cathedram. He applied it to encourage healthy debate and a tolerance for difference—all in a spirit of love—among an increasingly polemical theological community on the eve of the Second Vatican Council. His only requirements were that this debate be carried out with Christian charity and that unity be maintained around core dogmatic teachings.
In contrast, the mutual judgmentalism seen in the current SSPX controversy is entirely inimical to Christian charity. Positions are defended strictly according to Canon Law, creating a predictably litigious situation of would-be winners and would-be losers. Writing about the danger of such judgmentalism, St. John Cassian (c. 360–435 AD) observed:
It is dangerous to judge others because, being unaware of the need or the motive out of which they do things offensive to us but either correct or excusable in God’s sight, we put ourselves in the position of having judged them rashly; in this we commit no small sin by thinking of our brothers other than we ought.
The onus for a greater demonstration of Christian charity lies with the Church’s Magisterium. As Pope St. John XXIII stated in his encyclical Mater et Magistra (Mother and Teacher), “the Catholic Church—in imitation of Christ and in fulfillment of His commandment—relies not merely upon her teaching to hold aloft the torch of charity, but also upon her own widespread example.”
The Way Forward
In his 2009 letter to the Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI highlighted the urgent crisis of our era: “In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God.”
Despite this priority of evangelization, the old chestnut of "schism" is constantly being weaponized as a war cry to rally Catholics into defensive positions to protect assailed papal prerogatives. Rather than viewing the SSPX as a fringe group of recalcitrant nostalgics who must be dealt with resolutely, the Church should appreciate the value of its priestly and pastoral service. The SSPX remains the largest association of priests exclusively dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass and the preservation of Catholic Tradition. Commentators frequently overlook the fact that the SSPX maintains a sizeable, cross-continental presence of faithful seeking spiritual direction. In Africa, for instance, the SSPX maintains a permanent presence with priories and resident clergy in South Africa, Gabon, Kenya, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe, supplemented by missionary outreaches across the rest of the continent.
Among the many titles of venerable antiquity possessed by the Holy Father, three stand out: Summus Pontifex (Supreme Pontiff), Pastor Pastorum (Shepherd of the Shepherds), and Supremus Legislator (Supreme Legislator). These titles must be held in a dynamic balance.
In his letter, A Fraternal Appeal to Pope Leo XIV to Build a Bridge with the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (February 24, 2026), Bishop Athanasius Schneider wrote:
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.
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.
I am in full agreement with the pastoral position taken by Bishop Schneider. The current debate must expand beyond a hyper-fixation on episcopal consecrations as an isolated event, and beyond the hair-splitting calibration of who is or is not in full or partial communion. The Church must honestly engage with the doctrinal and pastoral concerns not only of the SSPX, but of the entire Traditionalist community regarding post-Vatican II ecclesiology.
Given the unequal status of the Vatican and the SSPX, it behoves the stronger party—the Vatican—to make the greater effort to repair this breach of trust. Christian charity must animate this dialogue. Instead of getting entangled in a fratricidal battle for the post-Christian world to behold, the Church must clarify her identity by overcoming what are fundamentally ideologically-motivated ruptures in faith and doctrine. Rather than threatening punitive measures of institutional authority to force compliance, and exacerbate polarization, the Vatican should demonstrate the grandeur of its paternal heart and make unmistakable overtures of goodwill.
