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:
- 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?
- 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.
Roma Locuta Est 
Once again, Mr. O’Reilly uses reason and logical argumentation to prove his points. Please share this article out on X and other social media so that more souls can read it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dan.
Thanks for the comment. It’s out there on X now!
This is a wee, humble, lilliputian blog. I put it out there. Copied some ‘influencers.’ We’ll see where it goes!
God bless,
Steve
LikeLike
Before 1951 consecration of a Bishop only resulted in suspension a divinis. In 1951, the Vatican issued a Decree specifically directed toward the Chinese Bishops. It excommunicated them “even if compelled by grave fear”. This excommunication is what was functionally adopted in the 1983 code.
Chinese Priests must explicitly affirm the adherance to an independent self-governing church.
This: 独立自主自办教会
In fact, they persecute Bishops like +Guo Xijin for refusing to assent to the independence of the Church.
Agreeing with the assertion of independence has consistently been called it “incompatible with Catholic doctrine”. (See most recently Letter to the Catholics of China (2007) ) The Chinese Catholic Bishops/priests do not agree 100% with Rome as you explicitly announce you assume.
Often, but not always, depending on local circumstances, they must reject “foreign interference” explicitly including the Roman Pontiff in matters of episcopal appointment. This was supposed to stop after Francis’ agreement. It hasn’t.
So, this all continues.
And yet, even when Bishops are consecrated without Papal Mandate — nothing.
LikeLike
Papabile, thanks for the comments.
Not sure what point you are making about the pre-1951. Canonical penalties may change over time, but the reality is, a bishop not subject to the pope is in schism from him, and the Church.
I don’t think focusing on this helps the case of the SSPX. Whatever the history of the matter — it is an excommunicable offense under canon law now.
As for the true loyalties of Catholic in China, in my article I had in mind the ‘underground’ Church which has remained faithful to Rome (as represented by the likes of Cardinal Zen), and had rejected participation in the “patriotic” Church.
But even all that aside, the plight of the Catholics in China is not that of the SSPXers. The Catholic Church situation in China is complicated by external factors, threats, and persecution. I think Rome should walk away from the Vatican-CCP deal, and excommunicate bishops not 100% obedient and 100% in union in Rome. Such obedience and union cannot be said of the SSPX which does not have the excuse of operating under any government interference as does the Church in China. So, the analogy, as I have argued doesn’t support the SSPX case.
God bless,
Steve
LikeLike
My only comment is that particular excommunication was written specifically for the Chinese Bishops. It was the basis for including an excommunication attached to the 1983 code for consecration without mandate. It’s intent from the beginning was clearly oriented toward the Chinese Bishops.
Whether it is used to go after the SSPX is interesting but immaterial.
What IS interesting is that this piece of code written to specifically address the China situation is no longer used for the China situation at all.
Additionally, the 1951 penalty was NEVER applied to Cardinal Slipyj when he was living in Vatican City in 1977 and consecrated Bishops without Canonical mandate. The 1951 decree clearly applied to him at the time as it covers ALL rites, NOT JUST the latin rite, like the 1917 code.
LikeLike
Papabile, what matters is what’s in canon law. And what is in it does not favorable to the SSPX position on consecrating bishops without a papal mandate.
The SSPX would be wise to remember Pope Boniface VIII and his dogmatic definition in Unam Sanctam: “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Thus, how can SSPX appeal to ‘salvation of souls’ as a justification while at the same time refraining from being subject to the pope on the question of consecrations?
The SSPX position is untenable. I wouldn’t have to defend it before the Lord.
God bless,
Steve
LikeLike
I hope someone can address my concern. I am not an SSPX’er and believe they should not consecrate their own Bishops.
The Chinese Communist part is in full and complete control of the consecration of Bishops in China.
The basic standards:
1. A Chinese Bishop must put the state over God.
2. A Chinese Bishop must fully accept an honor all Chines Communist Party laws such as legal abortion.
3. A Chinese bishop must never, never, never, criticize any crime committed by the party.
4. The Chairman must come before Jesus.
If you think the Chinese Communist does not have full and complete control over the Bishops they appointed at best you are naive but most likely delusional.
So I do agree with you for different reasons. The consecration of the Chinese and SSPX Bishops do not compare. The Chinese Bishops are consecrated to do the evil and demonic will of the Communist party and the SSPX Bishops are so disgusted by the Fr. James Martin church that they are making a mistake out of desperation.
LikeLike
Maggie, I don’t disagree with your points 1-4 regarding the CCP appointed bishops. However, the appointments of the CCP bishops, and SSPX bishops is against the will of the Roman Pontiff.
Yes, of course, the whole Fr. James Martin stuff is horrible — and other things are wrong in the Church of our time. I certainly don’t dispute that. I’ve written about many of the things on this blog. So, yes, there is a crisis.
However, to say there is a crisis, therefore we get to choose and consecrate our own bishops is a non sequitur. The solution doesn’t follow from the premise.
While the SSPX argue that they are acting out a state of necessity….it does not follow that a state of necessity therefore means any bishop, or groups of bishops, or society of Catholics can go off and consecrate their own bishops. It is a schismatic act.
As I cited, in my article about SSPX fatigue (see https://romalocutaest.com/2026/02/20/a-growing-case-of-sspx-fatigue/) Pope Boniface VIII infallibly defined:
“we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Unam Sanctam)
So, the SSPX cannot on the one hand use “the salvation of souls” argument to justify acting in defiance of the ROMAN PONTIFF; when it is a defined doctrine of the Catholic Faith that it “…is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
In the very act of consecrating its own bishops, the SSPX contradicts the Catholic faith, so they are definitely being schismatic, if not heretical as well.
There is a crisis. Unfortunately, the SSPX will be adding fuel to it by its consecrations. The Lord won’t bless disobedience. I don’t know of any story in the lives of saints where disobedience was the means used by God to obtain a good end. The end does not justify the means.
God bless,
Steve
LikeLike