(LifeSiteNews) — Today the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) released a major statement explaining the reasons behind their announcement of upcoming episcopal consecrations. This comes from Superior General Davide Pagliarani, and it directly addresses the current pontificate of Pope Leo XIV, describing it as continuing the “irreversible trajectory” set by Pope Francis. The document outlines why the SSPX believes these consecrations are necessary, while still expressing some hope for dialogue with Rome.
In addition to spelling out the Francis/Leo crisis, the statement addresses the silence of conservative bishops in the Church, the possibility of sanctions, their hopes, the ultimate reason for their action and their perspective on the Traditional Latin Mass. Let me read the key portions directly from the statement, but I encourage you to read the full statement by clicking here.
READ: Interview with the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X
They spell out the Francis and Leo crisis
Furthermore, the major orientations already taking shape in this new pontificate – particularly through the most recent consistory – only confirm this. An explicit determination to preserve the line of Pope Francis as an irreversible trajectory for the entire Church is discernible.
It is sad to acknowledge, but it is a fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation. Missing, in particular, are both the integral preaching of Catholic truth and morality, and the worthy administration of the sacraments as the Church has always done. This deprivation is what constitutes the state of necessity. In this critical context, our bishops are growing older, and, as the apostolate continues to expand, they are no longer sufficient to meet the demands of the faithful worldwide.
In what way do you believe that last month’s consistory confirms the direction taken by Pope Francis?
DP: Cardinal Fernández, speaking in the name of Pope Leo, invited the Church to return to Pope Francis’s fundamental intuition expressed in his key encyclical, Evangelii gaudium. Put simply, he believes that the Gospel should be proclaimed by reducing it to a primitive and essential expression, a series of concise and striking formulas – the “kerygma” – with a view to eliciting an “experience,” an immediate encounter with Christ. Everything else should be set aside, however precious it may be.
In concrete terms, all that is Tradition is considered as accessory and secondary. It is this method of the new evangelization that has produced the doctrinal emptiness characteristic of Pope Francis’s pontificate, and is keenly felt by many in the Church.
In a similar vein, one must provide new and relevant answers to the emerging questions of our time, but, according to Cardinal Fernández, this is to be done through synodal reform, rather than by rediscovering the classical and ever-valid answers provided by the Tradition of the Church. It is by these means, in the “breath of the Spirit” of this synodal reform, that Pope Francis has been able to impose catastrophic decisions upon the whole Church, such as authorizing Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, or the blessing of same-sex couples.
In summary, through the “kerygma,” the proclamation of the Gospel is isolated from the whole corpus of traditional doctrine and morality. And through synodality, traditional answers are replaced by arbitrary decisions, with a high risk of being absurd and doctrinally unjustifiable. Cardinal Zen himself considers this method manipulative and considers attributing it to the Holy Ghost blasphemous. Unfortunately, I fear that he is right.
[…]
[…] the Church is in danger of busying herself with both everything and nothing. Ecological concerns, for example, or the preoccupation with the rights of minorities, of women, or of migrants, risk causing the essential mission of the Church to be lost from view. If the Society of Saint Pius X strives to preserve Tradition, with all that this entails, it is solely because these treasures are vital for the salvation of souls, and because it aims at nothing else but the good of souls, and that of the priesthood—ordered to their sanctification.
[…]
[…] 2019, when Pope Francis, on the occasion of his visit to the Arabian Peninsula, signed, together with an imam, the well-known Abu Dhabi declaration. Together with the Muslim leader, he affirmed that the plurality of religions had been willed as such by divine Wisdom.
It is evident that a communion founded upon the acceptance of such a statement, or which would include it, would simply not be Catholic, since it would constitute a sin against the First Commandment and the denial of the first article of the Creed.
I consider such a statement to be more than a simple error. It is simply inconceivable. It cannot be the foundation of Catholic communion, but rather the cause of its dissolution. I believe that a Catholic should prefer martyrdom rather than accept such an affirmation.
They address the silence of conservative bishops in the church to the crisis of Pope Francis and Leo
[…] the fear of breaking a fragile stability by behavior deemed “disturbing” reduces many pastors to a constrained silence, when they should be raising their voices against scandalous teaching which corrupts faith or morals. The necessary denunciation of errors that undermine the Church – required by the very good of souls who are threatened by this poisoned nourishment – is thereby left undone. One may enlighten another in private, if able to discern the harmfulness of a given error, but it may be only a timid whisper, in which truth struggles to express itself with the required freedom – especially in the shadow of tacitly accepted, contradictory principles. Once again, souls are no longer enlightened and are deprived of the bread of doctrine for which they remain hungry. Over time, this progressively alters mentalities and gradually leads to a general and unconscious acceptance of the various reforms affecting the life of the Church. Towards these souls, too, the Society feels a responsibility to enlighten and not to abandon.
Realistically sees possibility of sanctions
[…] Cardinal Fernández’s response does not address the possibility of an audience with the Pope. It also evokes the possibility of new sanctions.
What will the Society do if the Holy See decides to condemn it?
DP: First of all, let us recall that in such circumstances any canonical penalties would have no real effect.
Nevertheless, should they be pronounced, the Society would certainly accept this new suffering without bitterness, as it has accepted past sufferings, and would sincerely offer it for the good of the Church. It is for the Church that the Society works. And there is no doubt that, should such a situation arise, it could only be temporary, for the Church is divine and Our Lord will not abandon her.
[…]
We are sure that one day the Roman authorities will acknowledge, with gratitude, that these episcopal consecrations providentially contributed to preserving the faith, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.
READ: SSPX reported to be engaging in ongoing talks with the Vatican
They make the comparison to the China Communist Party naming bishops without the Pope’s approval
Let us take the current case of relations with the Chinese government. Despite a genuine schism of the Chinese Patriotic Church, despite the uninterrupted persecution of the underground Church faithful to Rome, despite agreements regularly renewed and then broken by the Chinese authorities, in 2023, Pope Francis approved, a posteriori, the appointment of the Bishop of Shanghai by those authorities.
More recently, Pope Leo XIV himself ultimately accepted, a posteriori, the appointment of the Bishop of Xinxiang, designated in the same manner during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, while the bishop, faithful to Rome—who had been imprisoned several times—was still in office.
In both cases, these were clearly pro-government prelates, imposed unilaterally by Beijing to control the Catholic Church in China. It should be clearly noted that these were not merely auxiliary bishops, but residential bishops, that is, ordinary pastors of their respective dioceses (or prefectures), possessing jurisdiction over the local clergy and faithful. In Rome, it is perfectly well known for what purpose these pastors were chosen and unilaterally imposed.
The Society’s case is entirely different. For us, it is obviously not a matter of favoring a communist or anti-Christian power, but solely of safeguarding the rights of Christ the King and of the Tradition of the Church, at a time of general crisis and confusion in which these are gravely compromised. The intentions and the ends are clearly not the same.
They lay out the request ignored by the Pope since last summer
Last summer, I wrote to the Holy Father to request an audience. Having received no reply, I wrote to him again a few months later, in a filial and straightforward manner, without concealing any of our needs. I mentioned our doctrinal divergences, but also our sincere desire to serve the Catholic Church without respite, for we are servants of the Church despite our irregular canonical status.
To this second letter, a reply from Rome reached us a few days ago, from Cardinal Fernández. Unfortunately, it took no account whatsoever of the proposal we put forward, and offers nothing that responds to our requests.
Still retains hope Pope Leo will acquiesce
A Pope is first and foremost a father. As such, he is capable of discerning a right intention, a sincere will to serve the Church, and above all, a genuine case of conscience in an exceptional situation. […]
In fact, the superior general suggests that the consecration of new bishops will be a grace for the whole church when they happen
I would like to emphasize that this is a time for prayer and preparation of hearts, souls, and minds. We must prepare ourselves to receive the grace that these consecrations will occasion for the whole Church. This should be done with recollection, peace, and trust in Providence, which has never abandoned the Society and will not abandon it now.
The ultimate reason: for the salvation of souls
[…] it is for the Pope himself, as such, that we preserve this treasure until the day when its value will once again be understood and when a Pope will wish to make use of it for the good of the whole Church. […]
[…]
[…] The very law of the Church provides for it. In the spirit of ecclesiastical law, which is the juridical expression of this charity, the good of souls comes before everything else. It truly represents the law of laws, to which all others are subordinate and against which no ecclesiastical law can prevail.
The axiom “suprema lex, salus animarum” —”the supreme law is the salvation of souls”—is a classic maxim of canonical tradition which is explicitly taken up by the final canon of the 1983 Code. In the present state of necessity, it is upon this highest principle that the entire legitimacy of our apostolate and of our mission towards the souls who turn to us depends. For us, we fulfil a role of supplying for a deficiency, in the name of that same charity.
READ: Liturgy expert suggests SSPX consecrations influenced by Vatican document on Mary’s titles
About the Traditional Latin Mass
As far as I am aware, Pope Leo XIV has maintained a certain discretion on this subject, which arouses great expectation in the conservative world. Very recently, however, a text by Cardinal Roche on the liturgy—intended initially for the cardinals participating in last month’s consistory—was made public. There is no reason to doubt that it corresponds, in its broad lines, to the orientation desired by the Pope. It is an unambiguous text, and above all, logical and coherent. Unfortunately, it is based on a false premise.
Concretely, this text, in perfect continuity with Traditionis custodes, condemns the liturgical project of Pope Benedict XVI, according to whom, the ancient rite and the new rite are two more or less equivalent forms, expressing the same faith and the same ecclesiology, and therefore capable of mutually enriching one another. Concerned for the unity of the Church, Benedict XVI sought to promote the coexistence of the two rites and, in 2007, published Summorum Pontificum. For many, this occasioned a providential rediscovery of the Mass of all time; but over time, it also gave rise to a movement calling the new rite into question—a movement deemed problematic and which Traditionis custodes, in 2021, sought to stem.
Faithful to Pope Francis, Cardinal Roche is now attempting to promote an elusive unity of the Church according to an idea contradictory to that of Benedict XVI. While maintaining the assertion of a continuity from one rite to the other through reform, Cardinal Roche firmly opposes their coexistence. He sees in it a source of division, a threat to unity, which must be overcome by returning to an authentic liturgical communion. “The primary good of the unity of the Church is not achieved by freezing division, but by finding ourselves in the sharing of what cannot but be shared.” In the Church, “there ought to be only one rite”, in full syntony with the true meaning of Tradition.
This is a just and coherent principle, since the Church, having one faith and one ecclesiology, can have only one liturgy capable of expressing them adequately. But it is a principle applied to a wrong conception of Tradition. Consistent with the new post-conciliar ecclesiology, Cardinal Roche conceives Tradition as something evolving, and the new rite as its sole living expression for our time. The value of the Tridentine rite can therefore only be regarded as obsolete, and its use, at most, a “concession”, and “in no way a promotion.”
That there is a present “division” and incompatibility between the two rites now appears more apparent than ever. But let there be no mistake, the only liturgy that adequately expresses, in an immutable and non-evolving manner, the traditional conception of the Church, of Christian life, and of the Catholic priesthood—that is, Tradition—is the liturgy of all time. On this point, the opposition of the Holy See appears more irrevocable than ever.
Direct calling into question of the Novus Ordo
[…] instead of sincerely questioning the intrinsic deficiencies of the new Mass, and therefore the overall failure of the reform, instead of facing the reality that churches are emptying and vocations are declining, instead of asking why the Tridentine rite continues to attract so many souls, Cardinal Roche sees no other solution than an urgent preliminary formation of the faithful and seminarians.
[…] For almost two thousand years, souls—often illiterate—were edified and sanctified by the liturgy, without the need for any prior formation. Failing to recognise the intrinsic incapacity of the Novus Ordo to form and edify souls and continuing to demand ever better prior formation seems to me to be the sign of an irremediable blindness. One arrives at shocking paradoxes: the reform was intended to foster a greater participation of the faithful; yet the faithful abandoned the Church en masse, because this insipid liturgy failed to nourish them—and this would supposedly have nothing to do with the reform?
[…]
[…] how can it then be understood that this Mass of all time stands in irreducible opposition to the new Mass, remains the sole true liturgy of the whole Church, and that no one may be prevented from celebrating it? How can it be known that the Mass of Paul VI cannot be recognized, because it constitutes a considerable departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and that no one may be compelled to celebrate it? And how are souls to be effectively turned away from this poisoned liturgy, to drink from the pure sources of Catholic liturgy?