February 19, 2026 (Steven O’Reilly) – “Fatigue” has been applied on social media in reference to folks being tired of the extreme behavior patterns associated with a certain ethnic group, a “fatigue” experienced by members of said ethnic group. Having now observed recent developments involving the SSPX, and the social media commentary by SSPX defender; I have now gotten to the point that I can say I have a growing case of what I will call “SSPX fatigue.” I am tired of SSPX arguments and defenses of schismatic acts.
I say this as one who wants the TLM to continue, and to be become more widely available for all Catholics, whether through the FSSP or other TLM groups, or offered as options in novus ordo parishes. I speak as one who, over many years, has voiced concerns to bishops, priests, school administrators, etc. In addition, I have written about problems with documents like Amoris Laetitia (e.g., HERE), and Fiducia Supplicans (HERE), and other ongoing problems in the Church (e.g., synodalism, etc). The point is, as one born two weeks before Vatican II officially started, I am not one who denies there are problems in the Church. I’ve seen a lot of it in my time, and have not ignored it. However, I have stayed fully within the Church, without declaring my own personal ‘state of emergency’ — or glomming onto an institution which intends to — or going rogue, or separating from, or going into an ‘irregular’ situation relative to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ.
The most recent SSPX Developments
Following its meetings with Cardinal Fernandez in Rome on the topic of episcopal consecrations, the SSPX has responded (see HERE). In the meeting, Rome had offered the possibility of theological discussions on some disputed points with the proviso that the SSPX suspend plans to consecrate new bishops. Unfortunately, in its response, the SSPX indicated it will continue with the consecrations planned for July 1, 2026.
While the SSPX likes to claim itself to be “traditional,” the act of consecrating bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff is hardly something good “traditional” Catholics should ever do, or think of. For example, in 1791, Pope Pius VI in Charitas wrote:
“For the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions.”
(Charitas, Pope Pius VI, 10)
Consecrating bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff is a schismatic act, per Pope Pius VI. The code of canon law reflects the gravity of the act by attaching an excommunication to it, for example, canon 1387 states:
“A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”
(see New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, edited by John P Beal, et al).
Per canon law, “…schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” c. 751. Yet, even so, SSPX and its defenders will say the act of consecrating these bishops is not a schismatic act. They will claim that they are operating under a “reason of necessity” (cf canon 1325.5) or “state of necessity” for the salvation of souls which justifies the SSPX in consecrating the bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff.
But this is nonsense. Yes, many Catholics, including me – who is not a regular Latin Mass attendee but who supports it – would agree, as state earlier, there is much wrong in the Church today, gravely so. For just a couple of examples, Amoris Laetitia is problematic, as is Fiducia Supplicans. We have published much on these topics here on Roma Locuta Est. Also, as another example, many bishops, including the pope, have either been too accommodating and or silent with regard to the homosexual movement within the Church (see Pope Leo XIV: Silence gives consent).
Yet, even granting the truth of a crisis as a premise, the SSPX proposes a non sequitur for a solution. It does not follow from the premise (there are grave problems in the Church) that the situation necessitates the consecration of bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff. It simply does not follow.
But, if we were to entertain the ‘necessity’ argument of the SSPX to consecrate bishops of their own, what then is to stop any other bishop who thinks things are in a ‘state of necessity’ from their perspective from doing the same? Why not Vigano? Why not a “conservative” or a “liberal” bishop who wants to preserve some truth or practice as they see it, for the ‘salvation of souls’? The truth is — as would be the case in such extreme hypothetical situations — the SSPX has, in fact, wrongly made itself the judge and jury of its own cause.
Further, to even suggest the SSPX solution is necessary for the ‘salvation of souls’ seems to suggest that salvation is not to be had outside of the SSPX, or – at best – only with difficulty within the “novus ordo Church.” Even to accept such an implication, stated or not, is already to have placed ones foot on a road that will carry one to schism. Similarly, there are those who attend SSPX masses who suggest that they are free from attending a novus ordo mass – or at least would not do so to fulfill their Sunday obligation, even if there are no SSPX chapels available in the area. Prominent SSPX defenders have spread this view on social media. This view which one will see often in the comments sections of threads ,on X, if not outright schismatic, certainly tends to it, and is at least, shall we say, ‘schismatic-ish.’ If this is the general, accepted opinion of SSPX faithful (bishops, priests, and faithful); then there is a wide chasm between them and 99.9% of all other practicing Catholic faithful. This neither good nor healthy for the Catholic Church.
Yet, this SSPX appeal to “necessity” and the “salvation of souls” to justify not obtaining the approval of the Roman Pontiff is quite curious in light of what Pope Boniface VIII infallibly defined in Unam Sanctam:
“…This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven‘ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
So, here is the question: How can the SSPX appeal to “salvation of souls” as an argument to justify not subjecting itself to the Roman Pontiff in consecrating new bishops, when it is an infallibly defined doctrine of the Catholic Church that it is “absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
The SSPX and its defenders on Social Media cannot square this circle. Thus, it is unfortunate — even if completely expected — to find SSPX defenders encouraging the SSPX leadership when it announces it will proceed with such consecrations in defiance of Rome. It is unfortunate as well when an SSPX defender says “praise God” for an act which is disobedient, and schismatic (see below).
Aside from those who both attend and defend the SSPX, there also will be prominent social-media, non-SSPXer talking heads, although not explicitly SSPX, who will nonetheless sympathize with and encourage the SSPX position on their podcasts, etc. Many of this latter group of non-SSPXers are in something of a position of a ‘moral hazard,’ wherein they’ve built over the years their audiences with SSPX-friendly content, and on the clicks of SSPX faithful. Whatever the inclinations of these talking heads, there is a disincentive for them to insist on a truth in their podcasts and blogs that the SSPX viewers need to hear, that is, per Unam Sanctam, “whoever resists this power (of the pope) thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God.”
Final Thoughts
Unfortunately, I expect we will see an increase in SSPX “defenses” leading up to the July 1st consecrations. More claims of Vatican II “heresies”, more rationalizations about the Sunday obligation, non sequitur arguments about “necessity” and the “salvations of souls”, etc. Oh, joy.
I wasn’t a fan of Pope Francis, and Pope Leo XIV clearly seems to be something of a protege’ of his predecessor on the Chair of Peter. That is unfortunate, as there it not likely to be the sort of vigorous effort necessary — by the pope and the world’s bishops — to address and combat the crisis in the Church. While there is a crisis, what the SSPX is contemplating is not the solution to it. The SSPX — by consecrating new bishops without Rome’s approval — is not combatting the crisis, it is only adding fuel to it. On top of that, the SSPX’s disobedience may even blow back, unfairly so, upon Latin Mass communities which fully subject themselves, and are obedient to Rome.
It is certainly up to Pope Leo XIV if he wishes to remain silent when the consecrations are done, or whether he wishes to cut some sort of deal. He is pope. However, barring a suspension of the SSPX plan, my view is, Pope Leo XIV has no choice but to excommunicate them–if the July 1st consecrations come to pass. All faculties should be withdrawn.
The ambiguity with the SSPX’s situation has gone on long enough. The Catholic Church cannot consent to the proposition that Vatican II, properly understood – inclusive of any and all ambiguities needing clarification, was heretical. The position of SSPX faithful on the Sunday obligation, outlined above, is also a problem — it fosters a sense of ‘otherness’ inimical to the unity of the Church. This must end.
Future consecrations would be a schismatic act. A practical denial of Unam Sanctam is schismatic, and possibly even heretical as well. One cannot hold that one does not need to subject oneself to the will of the Roman Pontiff on consecrations for “the salvation of souls“, while at the same time holding it is “absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
If Rome relents without requiring major concessions by the SSPX on doctrinal and liturgical points, we’ll be back here in the same place in another 20 to 30 years when the SSPX again feels it necessary to consecrate without Rome’s mandate. Rinse and repeat. This is untenable.
If Pope Leo XIV does excommunicate the SSPX bishops, I doubt whether he or any future pope will lift such potential excommunications as Pope Benedict XVI once did — at least not without major concessions on the part of the SSPX. They have probably been offered the best deal they will ever get. The SSPX should drop plans to consecrate bishops in July, and get back to discussions with Rome.
I really hope so. I am not looking forward to more “SSPX fatigue.”
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 