Vatican Threatens SSPX Excommunication Ahead of Consecrations, Faces Double Standard Accusations

The grapevine from the Eternal City has it that the Vatican is allegedly intent on SSPX excommunication (of it’s bishops and priests) over the upcoming July 1 episcopal consecrations without papal approval, reeking of Pope John Paul II’s own move in 1988.

On April 28, Vatican journalist Diane Montagna, citing reports from Italian journalist Nico Spuntoni, stated that Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández has purportedly drafted a formal declaration of schism in anticipation of the Society of St. Pius X carrying out episcopal consecrations in Écône. At the same time, the Vatican is preparing pastoral measures to receive members who may depart from the SSPX if it proceeds with ordaining bishops without papal approval.

“Informed sources on the matter have confirmed to me that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) is already prepared for a scenario of schism following the likely new consecrations,” Spuntoni reportedly informed Montagna.

Likewise, the website Rorate Caeli echoed what Montagna penned about Rome’s impending moves, stating in a report dated April 25:

“Pope Leo XIV is reported by our Roman sources to have decided to follow the “1988 jurisprudence” with regard to the episcopal consecrations that are to be conferred within the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) on July 1, 2026. He is said to have already had a decree prepared similar, in tone and content, to the one that Pope John Paul II had promulgated through Cardinal Bernardin Gantin,* Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, on July 1, 1988. The decree would declare the excommunication incurred ipso facto by the consecrating bishops and the bishops being newly consecrated, and would denounce these consecrations as a “schismatic act,” calling upon priests and the faithful not to give their assent to it. There are no plans for the Pope to receive Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior-General of the SSPX, beforehand. Naturally, circumstances may change in the upcoming months, but this is how things stand now.”

After the SSPX revealed that they were planning to consecrate new bishops on July 1 this year to ensure apostolic succession amid canonical irregularities vis-a-vis Rome, the Vatican reacted by cautioning them that such a move without a papal mandate “would constitute a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism)”.

“The possibility of a new rupture with the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) hangs over Rome in the early days of the Leonine pontificate. The SSPX has argued it’s necessary for them to ordain new bishops. A request for permission for the consecrations was predictably denied. Attempts were made at establishing a dialogue with the SSPX, specifically over contentious interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, but these soon stranded, largely over the same traditional fault lines. To complicate matters further, Leo inherited Fernandez as prefect of the DDF (along with many prefects over 75 and a divided Curia). As a result the highly controversial progressive Argentinian cardinal has by default become the one to conduct the talks with the SSPX. This hasn’t made the situation easier for either the SSPX or Pope Leo.”

“A respected source said that the Pope whom Pope Leo is most influenced by is Pope John Paul II. This bodes somewhat badly for the SSPX as it was under John Paul II that the SSPX bishops were first excommunicated. At the same time, circumstances are currently radically different, Leo enjoys the benefit of hindsight and decades of events to provide practical wisdom. Many conservative cardinals influenced by John Paul II are relatively sympathetic towards the SSPX. They’re not isolated and stigmatized the way they were under Paul VI or the early days of John Paul II.”

Unsurprisingly, the dialogue the SSPX had with Cardinal Fernández in February this year failed due to irreconcilable interpretations and conclusions about Vatican II amid SSPX calls for liberty of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) and doctrinal clarity.

Amid Rome’s threat of a “decisive rupture” with the SSPX, the SSPX leadership, under the watch of Don Davide Pagliarani, has portrayed their decision to proceed with the episcopal consecrations as a reaction to what it claims is a “grave necessity” for bishops to administer confirmations, ordain priests, guarantee the sacramental life of faithful Catholics attached to the ancient and venerable Roman rite before Vatican II, as well as transmit traditional Catholic doctrine.

From the viewpoint of the SSPX, decades of futile attempts at dialogue with Rome, together with doctrinal disagreements have left faithful Catholics in a Catch-22 situation, torn between remaining silent on certain disturbing and ambiguous aspects of Vatican II or recognizing any current Pope at a given time while resisting many post-conciliar statements and actions. For a long time now, the SSPX has contended that the ecclesiological vision of the post‑conciliar Church has eroded the clerical state, diluted the theology of the Catholic priesthood, and paved the way towards a post-conciliar “People‑of‑God” framework that undermines the distinction between the clergy and the laity.

On its end, the Vatican thinks the SSPX move is a provocation that would further entrench the Society’s “irregular” canonical status or even one that could be deemed a schismatic act. Already, the SSPX is considered to be in a state of “institutional irregularity” or “partial communion” (whatever this phrase means) by Vatican authorities and many other mainstream Catholics.

Predictably, the notion of new unauthorized bishops would almost certainly spark a formal reaffirmation of excommunication and possibly even a declaration of schism, especially since Cardinal Fernández is in charge of the DDF.

Consequently, the SSPX may likely end up in an unenviable position (vis-a-vis the Vatican) similar to 1988—only that this time, the number of traditional Catholics globally has skyrocketed. This reality implies that the ramifications of a Fernández-imposed declaration of “excommunication” on the SSPX will be felt far beyond Menzingen, affecting SSPX priests, families, and individuals who have benefitted from the tireless dedication of many SSPX apostolates across the world over the years.

Nonetheless, the very same Vatican whose Pontiff, Leo XIV, has not granted a private audience (as of the time of writing) requested by Don Pagliarani, has received the first female “Archbishop” of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, in a formal and highly symbolic meeting at the Vatican, where the two prayed together.

For faithful Catholics who love the Traditional Latin Mass and remain committed to the Church’s unchanging doctrine, including Church teaching of the divinely instituted Sacrament of Holy Orders the optics are unmistakable: the prelate who is currently leading the SSPX in its decades‑long battle to preserve the traditional Catholic priesthood from moral decline modernist errors has been purportedly ignored by the highest echelons of the Vatican. In contrast, a woman who is presiding over the heretical Church of England, the latter founded by the lustful Henry VIII and one that denies the sacrificial character of the Mass, as well as the male character of the priesthood, is embraced as a guest of the Successor of Peter.

Such a spectacle defies logic. After all, the Catholic Church has solemnly proclaimed that the ordination of women is “not possible” and that the priest must act in persona Christi male. Yet it presently appears to provide pastoral and symbolic embrace to women who have assumed episcopal‑style roles in a decidedly schismatic communion. The recent meeting between Pope Leo XIV and Mullally showed the post‑conciliar Vatican’s imperceptible assault on the traditional Catholic priesthood—and, as I argue, through the priesthood, on the very nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Simply put, according to Catholic teaching, without male, validly ordained, and spiritually well-formed priests, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be celebrated.

Yet the Vatican is threatening to “excommunicate” the SSPX, which has fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve the Catholic priesthood.

For decades, the SSPX has been pouring in significant efforts to form male priests who are doctrinally sound, morally upright, and spiritually disciplined—men who will eventually offer the Holy Sacrifice with reverence and who will be true pastors to souls, teaching them the fullness of Catholic doctrine.

Even so, many elements in the Vatican bureaucracy have sidelined these faithful priests, left their canonical status in limbo, and treated the continuity of their priestly fraternity as a “liability” to be dealt with by unforgiving ecclesiastical sanctions.

Concurrently, a woman whose very office hinges on the invalidity of female ordination in Catholic eyes is welcomed into the Pope’s private office, prayed with, and touted as a spiritual leader of millions.

The Vatican’s double standards vindicate what SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre feared decades ago: a post-conciliar Church that is “modern” and “inclusive” at the doctrinal level will tolerate, or even encourage, heterodox or heretical gestures, while treating fidelity to centuries‑old liturgical and sacramental norms as a travesty. As the late archbishop explained in the sermon of a priestly ordination ceremony on 29th June 1976:

“If in all objectivity, we seek the true motive animating those who ask us not to perform these ordinations… it is because we are ordaining these priests that they may say the Mass of all time… It is clear, it is evident that it is on the problem of the Mass that the whole drama between Ecône and Rome depends… in fact, the very insistence of those who were sent from Rome to ask us to change rites makes us wonder. And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith.”

Also, Pope Leo XIV’s alleged refusal to dialogue directly with the SSPX leadership, while receiving a delegation from the liberal-leaning Archdiocese of Cologne, telling them that dialogue “strengthens communion” and “serves the cause of peace”, as well as maintaining that the Church “must proclaim truth without imposing itself”, is highly telling regarding the Vatican’s asymmetrical attitudes towards the SSPX and other liberal groups.

With all filial respect to the current pontiff and the institution of the Papacy itself, the claim that the Church “must proclaim the truth without imposing itself”, while sounding benevolent, risks becoming a mere platitude or motherhood statement if not followed up by an authentic openness to Catholic groups like the SSPX who understandably view post‑Vatican II developments as sources of doctrinal and liturgical confusions that reverberate to this very day.

Certainly, the SSPX is by no means the infallible Magisterium of the Church, nor is the late and highly respectable Archbishop Lefebvre the guardian of the Deposit of Faith. Nonetheless, the persistent requests of the SSPX for direct dialogue with the Pope signify its desire to resolve the long standing juridical and sacramental rupture between Ecône and Rome, instead of fostering a definite schism. To some, Rome’s declaration that talks with the SSPX would only happen only if the latter suspend their plans for episcopal consecrations, while ignoring the SSPX’s own requested conditions, gives the appearance that the Vatican is more keen on managing appearance and retaining institutional control than defining and clarifying ambiguous parts of Vatican II and Catholic doctrine for the spiritual benefit of all Catholics.

The difficult situation beleaguering many faithful Catholics who love the Traditional Latin Mass and who are profoundly sympathetic to the SSPX is the question of how to remain faithful Catholics who cherish and honor the Papacy in an era when the very exercise of Roman authority seems to target the very crux of the Catholic priesthood and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. When the pontiff himself seems to ignore the SSPX who preserves the all‑male priesthood and the TLM, while appearing to endorse a female “Archbishop” of the Anglican schism, faithful Catholics devoted to the truth and the Papacy experience a genuine dilemma of discernment. The inner crisis of conscience for many faithful Catholics is not a blanket resistance to Rome, but a filial love for the Papacy mingled with shock and oftentimes disgust at what the Vatican authorities may do or say. Many faithful Catholics (including those who attend SSPX Masses exclusively) sincerely hope to belong to the visible Church and to recognize the Pope as the successor of Peter; yet they realize that obedience cannot be servile where doctrine or the liturgy is in danger of being compromised. For the time being, the path ahead for many Catholics will be one of continued fidelity to the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the one, holy, and immutable Catholic Faith, even as Vatican authorities outwardly champion groups who contradict the very nature of the priesthood that Christ left the Church.

Although it is easy to wallow in criticism, despair, or even sedevacantism given the dire state of Church affairs, Catholics must remember the reality that those entrusted with leadership—whether in Rome or within traditional communities like the SSPX—carry an immense responsibility that is not merely administrative or political. The Holy Father and the SSPX leadership stand in positions that few would willingly choose if they fully grasped their spiritual and eternal weight. Every decision they make and every word or action they undertake or omit would one day be laid bare before the judgment seat of God, before Whom “nothing unavenged remaineth”. It is exactly because of this profound responsibility on all sides regarding the Vatican-SSPX dispute that Catholics’ response must be primarily one of humble, earnest, and sacrificial prayer.

We pray that Pope Leo XIV be granted the clarity, fortitude, and fidelity to the unchanging deposit of faith—that he may confirm his brethren without ambiguity and shepherd the universal Church in the spirit of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, and Eternal High Priest. Likewise, we pray that SSPX leadership be given prudence and humility in the service of the Catholic Church, that they may navigate their complex position without fostering unnecessary divisions.

Message from Jim Robinson:

Dear FRiends,

We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.

If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you,

Jim

Nonetheless, the very same Vatican whose Pontiff, Leo XIV, has not granted a private audience (as of the time of writing) requested by Don Pagliarani, has received the first female “Archbishop” of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, in a formal and highly symbolic meeting at the Vatican, where the two prayed together.

...

Also, Pope Leo XIV’s refusal to dialogue directly with the SSPX leadership, while receiving a delegation from the liberal-leaning Archdiocese of Cologne, telling them that dialogue “strengthens communion” and “serves the cause of peace”, as well as maintaining that the Church “must proclaim truth without imposing itself”, is highly telling regarding the Vatican’s asymmetrical attitudes towards the SSPX as opposed to liberal groups.

I’m posting this for those unfamiliar wqith the SSPX movement within the Roman Catholic Church...

To promote traditional Catholic teachings and practices, the SSPX movement focuses on the following:

Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to preserve traditional Catholicism.

Opposes certain reforms of the Second Vatican Council, particularly regarding liturgy and ecumenism.

Operates independent chapels, schools, and seminaries worldwide.

Advocates for the Latin Mass and traditional sacraments.
Engages in theological discussions with the Vatican for potential reconciliation.

Faces criticism for its stance on Church authority and relations with the mainstream Catholic Church.

Edit to Add ... SSPX stands for: The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX; Latin: Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X “Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X” ).

The society is named after Pope Pius X, whose anti- Modernist stance it stresses, retaining the Tridentine Mass and pre-Vatican II liturgical books in Latin for the other Holy Sacraments.

The current Superior General of the Society is Father Davide Pagliarani.

Also:

The SSPX acknowledges the Pope, and the local bishop, and prays for them at all their Masses in the canon of the Mass.

Also, whenever the SSPX establishes a new mission church, they ask the local bishop permission of faculties to administer the sacraments.

Most (franken)bishops refuse, but a few good ones have granted those faculties.

Reasonable questions:
How does the need to return to “traditional Catholicism” fit with the claim the the “church” is “universal?
How did “traditional Catholic teachings and practices” ever get lost with the “church” that claims its traditions go back to the First Century?
How can there be “independent chapels, schools and seminaries” when there is an oft-repeated claim that the “church” has no sects or divisions and that y’all are just one happy family?
And why is “reconciliation” needed when you have one “magisterium” guiding the “one true church”?

Some of it just doesn’t make sense.

NOTE: I am not addressing ET - he has enough to worry about and I won’t reply to him because... well, you know.

Sounds just like what the Roman Catholic church did to Luther...

Nope, unlike Pope Leo X who held dialogues with the heresiarch, Martin Luther, before Luther's eventual excommunicaton; Leo XIV refuses to engage in discussions with the SSPX.

"(Pope) Leo X bemoaned the fact that Luther did not respond to repeated attempts at reconciliation, including the request to come to Rome in person to discuss his teachings."

He prefers to dialogue with muslims and fake female "bishops", rather than discussing Catholic doctrine, dogma, faith and morals with fellow Catholics.

Some of it just doesn’t make sense.

I agree the questions are reasonable and that since the Second Vatican Council, the situation within the Church makes little or no sense - until one accepts that after that Council, Liberalism went wild within the Church. That's the short answer to your questions.

Since that Council, a great Revolution has occurred, and the official Church has been transformed into the Conciliar Church, a Humanist bureaucracy, whose reason for existing is completely "this-worldly."
Some among its controllers are hardened Masonic Revolutionaries, others are Liberal or Modernist ideologues; but the great majority of ruling clerics are merely misguided and lapsed Catholics, who give the impression that they are as yet unaware that their faith is neither orthodox nor spiritual.
To sum it up, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column.

Well you asked.

Note:
I’ve NEVER BEEN afraid to contend with you. Whenever I do, you lie, change the subject, make accusations, draw false conclusions, and generally speaking, you are a jerk.

You are so hard over on your false “church” that I believe you are mentally ill.

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.