Skip to main content

Rome and SSPX - Version 2026 Part 1

 +

JMJ


Part 1 Introduction

As expected, the SSPX has determined that the time has arrived to consecrate new bishops. I knew that it was being considered and guessed that a decision would be made soon. From my point of view it couldn’t be soon enough.

Now, here we are.

My collection SSPX & Rome web hits has exploded and there are a lot of opinions being voiced on the internet. So I feel that I need to synthesize what’s happened, happening and likely to happen.

What’s Happened?

The planned 2026 consecrations, as an event in the life of the Church was preceded by five key events. Obviously, the first is the consecration of four bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. He was ready to do the consecrations without the normal accompanying bishop if needed. This is done partially as a safeguard to ensure validity. In this case of necessity, Archbishop Lefebvre was ready to proceed on his own and the last-minute arrival of Bishop Castro-de-Mayer provided the safeguard.

This consecration was the first step.

The second step came in 2012, when Bishop Williamson, one of the four bishops was expelled from the SSPX. The workload was redistributed amongst the remaining three bishops. Any wish for Bishop Williamson to rejoin the SSPX was snuffed out when he passed away in 2025.

As a side note, while some would state that the six SSPX ‘Resistance’ bishops could be called upon to ordain priests, that is not a real option as there are fundamental differences in theology between the ‘Resistance’ and the SSPX that render such a though incompatible with right-reason.

The third step was the 2024 death of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (link), several days after fracturing his skull in a bad fall. Bishop TdM held a special place canonically (IIRC) in that he was not suspended due to his ordination to the priesthood as the supression of the SSPX and suspension of Archbishop Lefebvre (++L) etc came a year later. So while, from the perspective of the Church, he was only excommunicated while the others were both suspended and excommunicated.

So now the SSPX has two bishops, the standard minimum for consecrating additional bishops.

The fourth step was taken when in early April 2025, Bishop de Galarreta had a medical emergency. If already present, in my opinion, this highlighted the SSPX’s precarious position.

The final step was the death of Pope Francis (April 21, 2025). The Church soon had a new pontiff (Pope Leo XIV) whose name selection was a cause for some hope.

What’s Happening?

However, I long suspected, we now know that the SSPX had reached out Rome in 2019 (link) to propose discussions that were declined by the CDF.


The seven years of ‘silence’ meant something … it could have been internal conflict within the Vatican about what to do about the SSPX or simply oddly misplaced intransigence when considering how open Rome has been to China and other theological aberrations. Rationally, it makes sense that the SSPX should be allowed to consecrate bishops if China is? Rationally, the SSPX should be allowed to celebrate the Tridentine Mass if the Neocatechumical Way is allowed to carry out its own ‘rites’.

This situation is not rational. The SSPX is the only order (yes it was founded within the Catholic Church) that is so maligned … ok maybe the Society of Jesus (aka the Jesuits) have a similar history of being persecuted. The SSPX’s crimes are that they believe what the Catholic Church taught authoritatively before the Second Vatican Council.

Two key teachings would be that the Catholic Church IS the Church of Christ and that there is no Salvation Outside the Church (Tradicat Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 ). The CDF tried to clarify this V2 statement that the Church of Christ Subsists in the Catholic Church (link). The SSPX questioned this explanation here (link).

Side note, as I was looking for these references, I came across LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION (link) that Chatgpt summarizes as:

Communionis Notio (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion)_ — is a teaching letter issued on 28 May 1992 by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (approved by Pope John Paul II) that clarifies how the Catholic Church understands the concept of “communion” (Latin communio; Greek koinonia) as foundational to its self-understanding and ecclesiology.
Core Meaning — The Church as Communion
At its heart, the document teaches that:
1. The Church is fundamentally a “mystery of communion.”
Communion means a personal union of each believer with God (vertical dimension) and with others (horizontal dimension), grounded in faith and rooted in Christ’s Paschal mystery. This communion is both invisible (a sharing in the divine life through the Holy Spirit) and visible (expressed through apostolic teaching, sacraments, and hierarchical order).
2. Communion integrates key Catholic concepts.
It must be understood in harmony with:
  • People of God
  • Body of Christ
  • Church as sacrament
    These help explain how the Church exists as a community of believers united to Christ and to one another.
3. The Eucharist and the episcopate are central to Church unity.
The Eucharist is described as the creative source of communion — making the faithful into Christ’s Body — and the unity of bishops, especially through the successor of Peter (the Pope), contributes to the visible unity of the universal Church.
4. The universal Church and local (particular) Churches are in a mutual relationship.
The universal Church is not merely a sum or federation of local Churches; rather, it is ontologically prior and gives birth to them, even as each particular Church participates in the one communion.
5. Communion shapes the Church’s mission and ecumenical engagement.
Because the Church is a sacrament of unity, she is missionary and open to others, and the document encourages ecumenical commitment toward full visible unity with other Christian communities.
In Summary
Communionis Notio articulates that the essence of the Church is communion — a gift from God realized in Christ through faith, baptism, the Eucharist, and ecclesial structures — and that understanding this communion correctly is crucial for Catholic theology, ecclesiology, mission, and ecumenism.

So what is happening now is that, seeing an impasse almost identical as that of 1988, the advancing age of its two remaining Auxiliary Bishops, the SSPX has declined to enter into a dialogue of the deaf, proceed with the consecrations, continue to work for the salvation of souls, and wait for someone to look at the situation rationally.





What’s Likely to Happen?

I think that, barring an Act of God, on July 1, 2026 4+ bishops will be consecrated by Bishop Fellay and de Gallarreta to serve as auxiliary bishops for the SSPX.

There are a two scenarios how this will take place.

SSPX Consecrates Bishops without Papal Mandate

In this case the consecration will be canonically identical to the 1988 consecrations (Not Full Communion link) with the predictable reactions.

The first of these will be that the SSPX has committed the sin of schism. This would be more than a little inconsistent as … nothing has canonically changed since 1988 except that the excommunications were ‘lifted’. So … I don’t think you can be doubly schismatic. In other words, you have to be in the Church in order to leave it by the act of schism. So … if the SSPX is not in schism because of the 1988 consecrations … why would these create a schism?

You see my point … I suspect that someone will realise the inconsistency in the reasoning being spewed about on the internet.

So in this scenario life goes on pretty much as it has since 1970 (SSPX’s Founding Documents link).

SSPX Consecrates Bishops with Papal Mandate

This scenario is the one that creates a great deal of change and potentially turmoil within the Catholic Church.

Why? You may ask…

The Modernists and other even less orthodox members of the clergy, religious and laity of the Catholic Church are apparently incapable of tolerating Traditional Catholics, the Pre-V2 Liturgy and Rites and Doctrine.

In short … we may see a real schism or civil war within the Catholic Church.

I can almost hear Trads and ‘Resistors’ around the world screaming “Bring it!!!”. That would be the wrong response … I mean if you are Catholic and believe in the virtue of Charity. If unorthodox people separate themselves from the Catholic Church – what hope of salvation do they have? The rational Feeneyite, along with the Sedvacantists and ‘Resistors’ would say none.

Not a good look.

However, I pray, hope and look forward to this scenario because I, for one, would like to see the ‘cancelled’ bishops and cardinals – like Cardinal Burke, Sarah, Schneider, and Strickland attend the consecrations and even be co-consecrators.

P^3

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

 + JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org   A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...

Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

 + JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas.  After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP.  Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...

SSPX: Why Is the SSPX So Criticized?

 + JMJ As long as you are ok with what happens in other Catholic Churches, Traditional Catholics will be left 'alone'.  This is a paraphrase of words spoken by an Archbishop to Traditional Catholics (with a sprinkling of SSPX) who had requested the Traditional Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum. This reflects that attitude of the Church towards anyone who takes issue with some of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium.  If you reject the papacy but are ok with V2, the New Mass, and what Rome has stated since 1965 - then you are welcome. Question some of the more abiguous statements and ask for Rome to realise that a circle is not a square - then you are in for a world of hurt. This is where the SSPX exists and has existed from almost its very first moments. Pointing out contradictions with previous magisterium is not acceptable - under any condition. Why? Because it will cause the whole V2 house of cards to fall. I guess only when the contradic...

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 8 - Convention Centre Chapel

 + JMJ I came to Tradition a few years after they had bought a chapel. My wife told me of the earlier years when Fr. Normandin would come to town and Mass would be held in a room at the convention centre.  He'd start by blessing the room and then proceed with Mass. This went on for a while before the one of the faithful found a small hall that would suit just fine. They pooled their money and bought the building.  Then came the work as the retiree's refinished the floor, setup the sactuary. Oh, did I mention that I heard that the hall had been used by a motorcycle gang? The floor needed a lot of work.  I remember seeing pictures of the founders working to make the hall into a fitting place for the Sacrifice of the Mass. That little chapel would be a refuge like many others serviced by Fr. Normandin.  From Thunderbay, Ontrario to Nanaimo, British Columbia - the SSPX chapels are all the results of Fr. Normandin's missionary work in those desperate times. Without h...

How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD!

 + JMJ How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian) The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc.   So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens. Yep, this is going to be that type of post.  Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God.  So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors. This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective. The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries.   As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die? What the armchair virologists and ec...