SSPX 2026 Consecrations: Why It’s No Longer 1988

Not much, if anything, has changed about the fundamentals of the SSPX’s position since Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated bishops without Rome’s approval in 1988. Indeed, Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermon from the 1988 consecrations includes many passages that continue to define the SSPX’s entire mission, such as the following:

“This is why we do this ceremony. Far be it from me to set myself up as pope! I am simply a bishop of the Catholic Church who is continuing to transmit Catholic doctrine. I think, and this will certainly not be too far off, that you will be able to engrave on my tombstone these words of St. Paul: ‘Tradidi quod et accepi—I have transmitted to you what I have received,’ nothing else. I am just the postman bringing you a letter. I did not write the letter, the message, this Word of God. God Himself wrote it; Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave it to us. As for us, we just handed it down, through these dear priests here present and through all those who have chosen to resist this wave of apostasy in the Church, by keeping the Eternal Faith and giving it to the faithful. We are just carriers of this Good News, of this Gospel which Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to us, as well as of the means of sanctification: the Holy Mass, the true Holy Mass, the true Sacraments which truly give the spiritual life.”

The bishops, priests, and religious of the SSPX, as well as the laity attached to the SSPX, simply want the unadulterated Catholic Faith and Sacraments as they had existed prior to the radical changes that flowed from Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre continued his sermon in 1988 by putting this core idea within the perspective of what the pre-Vatican II popes had consistently taught:

“It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I am hearing the voices of all these popes—since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII—telling us: ‘Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our preaching, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from this earth? Please, please, continue to keep this treasure which we have given you. Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the Church! Continue the Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Modernism, Sillonism. All the errors which we have condemned are now professed, adopted, and supported by the authorities of the Church. Is it possible? Unless you do something to continue this Tradition of the Church which we have given to you, all of it shall disappear. Souls shall be lost.’”

There is nothing complicated about this — it is all very simple. The SSPX position is nothing other than a firm resolution to remain Catholic in a way that Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, and all the great saints would recognize as Catholic. And if God had miraculously allowed Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated to stop aging in 1988, perhaps there would be no need for consecrations in 2026. But this did not happen, and today the SSPX has two bishops who cannot indefinitely care for many times more faithful than in 1988, when there were five bishops. As such, the practical need for the consecrations is arguably more pressing now than in 1988.

So not much, if anything, has changed with the fundamentals of the SSPX’s position since 1988. However, God has permitted a few things about the crisis to become progressively clearer since 1988. To the extent that we undertake to formulate a judgment about the 2026 consecrations, it seems that we cannot ignore those developments.

Interlocutors. At least superficially, there is a profound difference between the top men in the Vatican facing off against the SSPX. In 1988, John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger handled the negotiations with Archbishop Lefebvre. Many serious Catholics who oppose the SSPX today have far greater respect for these two men than for Leo XIV and Cardinal Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández. Among many other indications of how the situation today differs from that of 1988, we should take notice of the fact that whereas Cardinal Fernández recently issued his document rejecting Our Lady’s title of Mediatrix of All Graces, the SSPX chose the Feast of Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces to begin its daily prayer crusade for the new bishops.

Newsworthy Scandals. The biggest scandal Archbishop Lefebvre could point to in 1988 was the 1986 Prayer Meeting at Assisi. Today, though, spectacles like the 1986 Assisi event are common enough to no longer be newsworthy. Now we have Pachamamas, Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, and weekly endorsements from high-ranking bishops of various anti-Catholic initiatives. Even our Protestant brethren wonder at how far the Catholic Church has fallen (in the eyes of the world) over the past few decades, so it is no longer possible for a reasonable Catholic to deny that Rome has become a prolific source of grave scandals.

Synodal Church. We now have the Synod on Synodality and the Synodal Church. Even so-called conservative Catholics who had hitherto found little reason to complain about the post-Conciliar ecclesiology have discovered that the entire Synodal process is unambiguously anti-Catholic. The Synodal Church is blasphemous, heretical, and nonsensical . . . and yet it is the most prominent initiative of the Vatican today.

Homosexual Dominance. Whereas there were certainly problems with respect to homosexual clergy in 1988, those problems were nothing compared to what they are today. If we are to take the current signals from Rome at face value, we would have to conclude that the Vatican champions homosexuality because it is controlled by the homosexual lobby. This may seem like a small matter to some, but for many of us it renders the crisis absolutely impossible to ignore.

The Ubiquity of Cafeteria-Catholicism. Cafeteria-Catholicism became so prevalent after the Council, in large part due to the widespread rejection of Paul VI’s reiteration of Catholic teaching about contraception in Humanae Vitae. What, though, has Rome done to actually correct this fatal plague? Outside of Traditional Catholic communities, there has been almost no real effort to curb this disastrous acceptance of a situation that offends God and leads countless souls to hell. This demonstrates quite clearly that Rome is either completely incompetent or else no longer has any interest in honoring God and leading souls to Heaven.

Questioning of Vatican II. In 1988, few Catholics other than Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX raised questions about Vatican II’s documents. It was thus relatively easy for John Paul II to condemn the SSPX for their failure to accept the Council. Today, however, there are many more prominent Catholics who realize that Archbishop Lefebvre’s criticisms about the Council were valid and necessary. As Fr. Robert McTeigue, S.J. recently explained so eloquently, it turns out that almost nobody — unless they are schizophrenic or ignorant of what is in the Council documents — can accept Vatican II in its entirety. Anyone who has studied the works of Archbishop Lefebvre should understand why this is: the opposing sides drafting the Council’s documents did not attempt to harmonize their conflicting viewpoints; rather, they simply allowed contradictory passages to appear side by side, such that it is actually impossible for a rational Catholic to “accept all of Vatican II.”

The Vindication of Archbishop Lefebvre. Especially with Francis, we have seen many serious Catholics who had opposed Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX come to realize that he was right to denounce the errors he saw so clearly long before most others did. It is now perfectly clear why Rome dedicated so much effort to persuading simple Catholics that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong: his work would have undermined the revolution if more Catholics had paid attention. For this reason, his 1974 Declaration (which perfectly encapsulates the SSPX position) is even more important today than in 1974, as it sets forth the true Catholic response to this crisis, which only God can ultimately resolve.

The Fruits of the SSPX. Like any other community within the Catholic Church, the SSPX is not perfect. However, it is evident that the SSPX has produced abundant and wholesome fruits since 1988 in spite of the fact that Rome has dedicated significant resources to destroy it. Moreover, even though it would be natural for the SSPX to reject the pope on the basis of what happened in 1988, the SSPX has never done so. Instead, the SSPX has always contended that, until a future pope or council determines otherwise, the men recognized as popes by the Church are truly the popes. In other words, the SSPX has continuously produced wholesome Catholic fruits while never succumbing to the temptation to reject the current occupants of Rome. The sedevacantists fault the SSPX for this, but those who profess loyalty to Leo XIV today ought to take note of this paradoxical fidelity. As Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX have always maintained, the greatest service we can render the pope and the Church is to remain faithful to what the Church has always taught, especially when the cost of doing so is so high.

Rome’s Changed Stance on the 1988 Consecrations. After the 1988 consecrations, Rome declared the SSPX schismatic and excommunicated the SSPX bishops. Benedict XVI withdrew the excommunications in 2009, and Francis subsequently granted the SSPX faculties to administer the Sacrament of Penance and celebrate the Sacrament of Matrimony. These realities, coupled with the evident reality that Rome would not be warning the SSPX against schism today if it was already in schism, show that Rome recognizes that the SSPX is not schismatic. As a matter of common sense, then, the SSPX is justified in firmly holding that the 2026 consecrations will not lead to schism.

God has permitted all of these things to become evident over the past few decades, and we have to decide what we want to do with this information. From every worthwhile perspective, the case in favor of the SSPX in 2026 is much more clear than it was in 1988. Are we supposed to believe that our loving God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, actually wants us to ignore all of these clear signs that He has given us? When it is so obvious that the crisis perpetuated from Rome has gone from bad to worse to absolutely diabolical, and that the SSPX has produced exemplary fruits despite being persecuted by Rome, are we really justified in acting as though the picture is as murky as it seemed in 1988?

God has permitted us all to see enough to comprehend the true picture of the crisis. The damage in the Church was not caused by some random act of nature but rather the machinations of men who wanted to reshape the Church to serve anti-Catholic ends. The heirs of the original destroyers still run the Vatican and have succeeded in completely separating truth and authority. As we are seeing now, essentially the only remnant of Traditional Catholicism that the destroyers will not jettison is the one measure that would be used against them if God were to restore the Church today: the ability of Rome to declare that certain men are schismatic or excommunicated. One can imagine that if there could be mirth in hell, it has seldom been greater than when contemplating the prospect of Tucho excommunicating the SSPX.

Whatever happens, we do not need to add to Satan’s temporary victory by echoing any condemnations that Rome may hurl at the SSPX. It is not 1988, and it seems that we would do far better to open our eyes to the realities that God has allowed us to see since then. May God grant Leo XIV the grace to see all of this as well, and to have the heroic fortitude to resist those who say that the SSPX must be condemned. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

There is nothing complicated about this — it is all very simple. The SSPX position is nothing other than a firm resolution to remain Catholic in a way that Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, and all the great saints would recognize as Catholic. And if God had miraculously allowed Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated to stop aging in 1988, perhaps there would be no need for consecrations in 2026. But this did not happen, and today the SSPX has two bishops who cannot indefinitely care for many times more faithful than in 1988, when there were five bishops. As such, the practical need for the consecrations is arguably more pressing now than in 1988.

...

Synodal Church. We now have the Synod on Synodality and the Synodal Church. Even so-called conservative Catholics who had hitherto found little reason to complain about the post-Conciliar ecclesiology have discovered that the entire Synodal process is unambiguously anti-Catholic. The Synodal Church is blasphemous, heretical, and nonsensical . . . and yet it is the most prominent initiative of the Vatican today.

en.news shares from Don Cesare Toscano4 hours ago

"Excommunication of FSSPX Will Go Down in History as Huge Error of Leo XIV":

Talking to EWTN on May 14, Bishop Athanasius Schneider notes that the Vatican shows leniency toward anti-Catholic movements, the German Synodal Way, and even state-controlled forces like Communist China, while cracking down harshly on the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X: “Now it seems that the Vatican and the Pope are showing their power: ‘We have the power. We will excommunicate them.’ This is not synodal. This is not pastoral. If the Pope excommunicates them, it will go down in history as a huge error of rigidity, pastoral rigidity, and one-sided severity toward tradition in the Church.”

ICK isn't being threatened with "excommunication" by a little homo (‘Heal Me with Your Mouth. The Art of Kissing’) running the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Mystical Passion: Vatican doctrine chief under fire for his book about orgasms

“What’s the advantage of promoting the SSPX rather than the Institute of Christ the King?”

Or the FSSP for that matter.

There really isn’t one. The SSPX has always wanted to be independent of the Vatican’s authority structure. That’s been the case since the 1970s - long before the illicit consecrations of 1988. They will continue to call themselves Catholic while essentially ignoring the authority of the Bishop of Rome. What the pope should do is create a personal prelature for the SSPX and name someone with traditional leanings do it. Meet them half way, but do so in a way that binds SSPX more closely to the Church’s authority.

No one will budge, however. The arrogance of the SSPX (remember, it’s really a French institution), motivates them. And Leo XIV is motivated by his disdain of traditionalists.

The SSPX has always wanted to be independent of the Vatican’s authority structure.

Not true, vlad.

The SSPX had twice asked for an audience with Pope Leo to seek permission to consecrate new bishops. The Pope never responded to those requests.

The question is: Why is the Pope refusing to even grant an audience with them, while he's meeting imams, fake female bishops, etc?

District Superior Letter: On the New Holy Father (May 21, 2025)

As an apostolate of the Catholic Church, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) prays for Pope Leo XIV at every Mass and offers prayers daily for the success of his reign. The task he has been called to is formidable. The state of the world appears dire, and the Church remains beset by a crisis that has lasted for nearly six decades. Now this man, born and raised in our own country, is charged with the care of 1.4 billion souls across the globe. As such, it is imperative that all of us—the priests, religious, and lay faithful who attend the Society’s chapels—pour out our prayers for the Pope with all the fervor we can muster.

Two big reasons.
1. It isn’t just about the mass. The SSPX can and does defend the faithful against the modernist heresies rampant in the Church. The FSSP and ICK are forced to keep there mouths shut in general ( although I do know one FSSP priest that doesn’t- shocking really that he hasn’t been sent to a gulag somewhere.)

2. The presence of the SSPX protects the FSSP and the ICK. If there is no alternative then the Vatican can shut down the other traditionalist groups at their leisure. Note, the FSSP still hasn’t gotten the bishop they were promised, and were told that they will not be getting one. Personally- I would feel a bit cowardly letting others take the brunt of of the Modernist attacks on the Faith, while I hid behind their protection, but I do realize that other factors come into play for some families (location, a disordered view of obedience which is really servility that has been propagated throughout the Church, family obligations, etc.) and I don’t begrudge anyone making that choice.

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.