Roma Locuta Est

February 4, 2026 (Steven O’Reilly) – Roma Locuta Est recently published some thoughts on the SSPX announcement that it would consecrate new bishops on July 1st of this year (see SSPX to consecrate new bishops? Enough of the nonsense!).  Even though there is word that talks between Rome and SSPX continue, the SSPX announcement at this time suggests to many that the SSPX will go ahead with the consecrations whether Rome permits it or not.

In Catholic social media some defenders of the SSPX have pointed to the situation in China as something of a defense.  In China, the CCP has been appointing bishops without Rome’s approval, yet Rome has not (yet) excommunicated them.  Thus, given the CCP-appointed bishops have not been excommunicated, the SSPX defender suggests that it would be unfair or unjust of Rome to excommunicate new SSPX bishops – and those associated with their consecrations.

As pointed out in our recent article on the SSPX (HERE), the case against any new SSPX consecrations is straightforward. However, in attempt to defend the SSPX with regard to potential, new consecrations in July, there have been some wanting to engage in ‘whataboutism‘ to defend the SSPX against possible excommunications in that event.

One bit of whataboutism seen online is the suggestion that the SSPX should not incur any excommunications for illicit consecrations because Rome, under Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV, have not excommunicated bishops in China who were consecrated and put in place by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) without the agreement of Rome.  Essentially, the claim is, the failure of Rome to excommunicate the illicit Chinese bishops should give the SSPX something of a ‘get out of jail’ card if they proceed to consecrations in July without Rome’s approval.

For the record, Roma Locuta Est opposed the Vatican’s deal with the CCP (see  Peter Grants Lions Authority to Appoint Catholic Bishops?), and has covered various issues and controversies related to the Church in China (see Here, Here, Here, and Here). In sum, Roma Locuta Est believes the Vatican should never have entered the deal with the CCP, and that Pope Leo XIV should walk away from it–and excommunicate all illicitly consecrated bishops.

An Analysis of the SSPX-CCP Analogy

Okay. As noted, some would cite the China situation as an analogy to defend the SSPX against potential excommunications.  Do I think the analogy a good or fair one?  No, I don’t.  Beyond the simple basics of both cases involving illicit consecrations, the two situations (SSPX vs. China) have some significant differences, making the analogy as a defense of the SSPX a poor one.

In the Chinese case, the Church in China is under threat and persecuted by a totalitarian, police state, which cannot be said of the SSPX. Given the threats to and persecution of the Church in China, Rome has a quite a few more things to consider in the case of China that do not enter the equation of the SSPX. We won’t bother to get into the obvious nature of such considerations here.  Given these two situations are different, it is not obvious at all that prudence, fairness, or justice requires both cases be treated the same.  

Frankly, I could well imagine the average Chinese Catholic faithful being absolutely insulted by the suggestion the SSPX case is at all analogous to their own. In the Chinese Catholic case at least, the everyday lay faithful, and I assume most priests, are 100% obedient to and 100% in union with Rome. That is manifestly NOT the case with regard to the SSPX bishops, SSPX priests, or a good number of the SSPX ‘faithful.’ 

For example, the faithful of the Catholic Church in China would fully accept bishops fully chosen and appointed by Rome, without any reference to any other organization (e.g., the CCP) or Society (i.e., SSPX). It would not be possible to say this in the case of the SSPX. At the present moment, would the SSPX accept it if Rome chose all of its bishops, perhaps including Cardinal Burke? No it would not.

In the case of China, Rome is not allowed to choose the bishops it wants. But this is also true in the case of the SSPX–Rome can’t choose the bishops it wants! In both the case of China and SSPX, someone other than Rome wants to choose and appoint bishops against the will of Rome. In one case it is the CCP, and in the other case it is the SSPX.  Consequently, a closer look at the proposed analogy really puts the SSPX and CCP on similar terms, as both thwart the will of the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church!

Final Thoughts

In view of the above, it is quite clear, the proposed SSPX/China analogy is seriously flawed.  In order to fix the analogy, we would have to consider whether the following would be true in both the cases of SSPX and the Church in China:

1.  Are the faithful of both SSPX and Catholic Church in China (or would they be) 100% obedient to, and in 100% union with the Bishop of Rome, and local bishops in union with him?
2. Today, would the SSPX and the faithful of the Catholic Church in China fully accept the authority of either local or other bishops appointed over them by the Bishop of Rome, even without prior agreement or consultation (i.e., of the SSPX or CCP)?

The faithful of the Church in China have been heroic. For them, I am confident the answer is “yes” to both of the questions above.  In the case of the SSPX, the answer is “no” for both. The SSPX might claim the answer is “yes” for question #1, but they would need to equivocate on “obedience” and “union” to argue their point.  No such equivocation would be necessary for the Chinese faithful.   The SSPX would certainly say “no” to #2, certainly at present.

The Catholic faithful in China are fully obedient to and in union with Rome, without any equivocation.  Rome must deal with prudential question of how to insure they continue to receive all the sacraments, when they perhaps have access to only illicitly consecrated bishops that are CCP controlled. In the case of the SSPX faithful, access to true, licit bishops is not denied to or withheld from them — they just don’t like the ones they have access to in their local diocese!  They don’t want the ones Rome gives them, they want the ones they choose for themselves, on the conditions they demand! Consequently, while it is right to feel empathy and sympathy for the Chinese faithful, and to identify with their cause–it is impossible for most faithful Catholics to do so for the SSPX.  Their cases are completely different.  Thus, the example of China does not support the argument the SSPX should be spared excommunications if they consecrate bishops in July without Rome’s permission.

In view of the above, the proposed SSPX/China analogy suggested by defenders of the SSPX fails.

Finally, as stated earlier, I could well imagine the faithful of the Catholic Church in China would both object to, and resent the notion of their case being compared in any real sense to that of the SSPX, either by way of reality or analogy. My heart and prayers go out to our fellow Catholics in China, who in their faithfulness — including full obedience to and union with Rome — in the midst of persecution are, and should be, an example to us all.  That is the lesson of the analogy that the SSPX needs to learn.

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. He writes for Roma Locuta Est He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com. Follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA.