[Catholic Caucus] Can the SSPX be banned from allowing the Chinese Communist Party?

This is not an artificial parallel. The facts are public, repeated, documented. For years, the Chinese communist power — officially atheist, doctrinaly materialistic, structurally hostile to the social kingship of Christ — has been directly involved in the appointment of bishops. He does not do this to serve the Church, but to control it. He does not do so to protect the faith, but to frame it, to monitor it, to guide it according to the interests of an ideological state.

And yet, in the face of these grave interferences in the divine constitution of the Church, Rome dialogue, negotiation, compose. It goes so far as to recognize certain appointments made without a pontifical mandate, unilaterally, in the name of diplomatic pragmatism presented as necessary for the good of souls, to preserve the agreement signed since 2018 between the Beijing government and the Holy See.

The context is then invoked. We are talking about realism. It is explained that it is necessary to avoid a total break, to maintain a channel, to preserve what can still be preserved from Catholic life in an environment of persecution.

But then the question arises: why would this reasoning, admitted in the face of a communist power, become inadmissible in the face of the SSPX?

Finally, what is the intention of the SSPX? To serve a state? Founding a National Church? Promoting a foreign ideology to faith? Obviously not. His only raison d’être is the safeguarding of the Catholic priesthood, the full transmission of the faith, the defense of the traditional Mass, the protection of souls in an unprecedented crisis of the Church.

When the SSPX refers to the need for bishops, it does not speak of territorial or personal jurisdiction. It speaks of confirmations, ordinations, sacramental continuity. It speaks of the concrete survival of a priesthood formed according to the doctrine of always. It speaks of the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments in their doctrinal and liturgical integrity.

The purpose is radically different. On the one hand, an atheist power imposes bishops to enslave the Church. On the other hand, a priestly society envisions bishops to preserve the faith and the sacraments. To put these two realities on the same disciplinary level, without considering the intention or the context of the crisis of the Church, would be tantamount to applying the law in an abstract way, detached from the end for which it exists: the salvation of souls.

This is precisely the principle that Rome invokes in China. We would accept an imperfect situation to preserve a superior good. Would the good of souls be less committed when it comes to Tradition? Would the danger to the faith be less when the faithful are deprived of confirmations, ordinations, priests formed according to the constant doctrine of the Church?

Who can seriously argue that the threat to souls would come more from the SSPX than from a communist state apparatus that imprisons faithful bishops, watches seminaries and rewrites doctrine in the light of Marxism?

Disproportion is such that it disturbs many faithful, far beyond the ranks of Tradition. They see the patience with Beijing. At the same time, they see the restrictions, the pressures, the suspicions weighing on the traditional communities. They find that we tolerate widely where faith is threatened by state atheism, but that we are intractable where it is defended in its integrity.

It is not a question of challenging the authority of the Holy See, nor of denying its right to appoint bishops. It is a question of recalling that the exercise of this authority is always in the order of the salvation of souls, which remains the supreme law of the Church.

If, in order to preserve this salvation, Rome can recognize canonically irregular situations in China, how could it consider as a more serious danger of consecrations motivated solely by the safeguarding of the priesthood and Tradition?

The Holy Father knows — and the SSPX has always said so — that it is not a question of constituting a parallel hierarchy or of usurping a jurisdiction. It is an act of necessity in a context of a generalized doctrinal and liturgical crisis, comparable in principle to other extraordinary measures taken in the history of the Church when faith was seriously threatened.

The question asked is not disciplinary but ecclesial and doctrinal. It affects how the authority perceives the current crisis. If this crisis of the Church is recognized in its gravity, certain exceptional measures become understandable. If it is minimized, they appear intolerable.

Here’s Grok’s attempt. The headline, at least, is better:

Here is the English translation of the main article from the provided French webpage (published February 11, 2026, on fsspx.news). The translation preserves the original tone, structure, and intent as closely as possible.

**Title:** Can We Prohibit the FSSPX What Is Permitted to the Chinese Communist Party?

**Subtitle/Lead:** Can We Prohibit the FSSPX What Is Permitted to the Chinese Communist Party?

**Date:** February 11, 2026
**Source:** FSSPX News

**Image caption/description (from original):** Bishop Joseph Shen Bin, Bishop of Shanghai, and Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of the Holy See.

The question arises in the minds of many Catholic faithful around the world. How can it be understood that Rome might view with severity the episcopal consecrations in the FSSPX scheduled for July 1 next, while it recognizes, tolerates, or retroactively endorses nominations imposed by the Chinese Communist Party?

This is not an artificial parallel. The facts are public, repeated, and documented. For years, the communist Chinese government — officially atheistic, doctrinally materialist, structurally hostile to the social kingship of Christ — has directly intervened in the nomination of bishops. It does this not to serve the Church, but to control it. It does this not to protect the faith, but to regulate, monitor, and direct it according to the interests of an ideological state.

And yet, faced with these grave interferences in the divine constitution of the Church, Rome dialogues, negotiates, and compromises. It even goes so far as to recognize certain nominations made without a pontifical mandate, unilaterally, under the banner of diplomatic pragmatism presented as necessary for the good of souls, to preserve the agreement signed since 2018 between the government of Beijing and the Holy See.

One then invokes the context. One speaks of realism. One explains that a total rupture must be avoided, that a channel must be maintained, that what can still be preserved of Catholic life in an environment of persecution must be safeguarded.

But then the question arises: why would this reasoning, accepted in the face of a communist power, become unacceptable in the face of the FSSPX?

After all, what is the intention of the FSSPX? To serve a state? To found a national Church? To promote an ideology foreign to the faith? Obviously not. Its sole reason for being is the safeguarding of the Catholic priesthood, the integral transmission of the faith, the defense of the traditional Mass, the protection of souls in an unprecedented crisis of the Church.

When the FSSPX speaks of the necessity of bishops, it is not talking about territorial or personal jurisdiction. It is talking about confirmations, ordinations, sacramental continuity. It is talking about the concrete survival of a priesthood formed according to the doctrine of all time. It is talking about the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments in their full doctrinal and liturgical integrity.

The purpose is radically different. On one side, an atheistic power imposes bishops to subjugate the Church. On the other, a priestly society contemplates bishops to preserve the faith and the sacraments. Placing these two realities on the same disciplinary plane, without considering the intention or the context of the Church’s crisis, would amount to applying the law in an abstract manner, detached from the end for which it exists: the salvation of souls.

Yet it is precisely this principle that Rome invokes in China. An imperfect situation would be accepted to preserve a higher good. Would the good of souls be less at stake when it comes to Tradition? Would the danger to the faith be lesser when the faithful are deprived of confirmations, ordinations, priests formed according to the Church’s constant doctrine?

Who can seriously claim that the threat to souls comes more from the FSSPX than from a communist state apparatus that imprisons faithful bishops, monitors seminaries, and rewrites doctrine in the light of Marxism?

The disproportion is such that it troubles many faithful, far beyond the ranks of Tradition. They see the patience extended toward Beijing. They see, in parallel, the restrictions, pressures, and suspicions weighing on traditional communities. They observe that tolerance is widely extended where the faith is threatened by state atheism, but that intransigence is shown where it is defended in its integrity.

This is not about contesting the authority of the Holy See, nor denying its right to appoint bishops. It is about recalling that the exercise of this authority is always inscribed in the order of the salvation of souls, which remains the supreme law of the Church.

If, to preserve this salvation, Rome can recognize canonically irregular situations in China, how could it consider as a graver danger consecrations motivated solely by the safeguarding of the priesthood and Tradition?

The Holy Father knows — and the FSSPX has always affirmed — that it is not about constituting a parallel hierarchy or usurping jurisdiction. It is about an act of necessity in a context of generalized doctrinal and liturgical crisis, comparable in its principle to other extraordinary measures taken in the Church’s history when the faith was gravely threatened.

In the end, the question raised is not disciplinary but ecclesiastical and doctrinal. It touches on how authority perceives the current crisis. If this crisis of the Church is recognized in its gravity, certain exceptional measures become understandable. If it is minimized, they appear intolerable.

The response now belongs to Rome.

**(Sources: Info Vaticana - FSSPX News)**

**Illustration:** Vatican News

This appears to be the complete main article content. The piece is an editorial/commentary from the perspective of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX), highlighting perceived inconsistencies in Vatican policy regarding episcopal matters in China versus with the FSSPX.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.