May 3, 2026 (Steven O’Reilly) – The date on which the SSPX’s plans consecrations of new bishops is now less than two months away. That date, July 1st, is just around the corner, and as we approach it, the plaintive cries for the pope to show ‘mercy’ to the SSPX and to approve of the consecrations intensify.
Sure, many Catholics, including me – who has attended, but is not a regular Latin Mass attendee – do believe there is much wrong in the Church today, and 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. Yet, even granting the truth of a “crisis” as a premise in principle, the SSPX has misdiagnosed the problem, and in turn has proposed 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. In fact, the SSPX by committing schismatic consecrations would only deepen and extend the crisis.
Certainly, it is true the pope has been tone deaf and blind to the ‘optics’ on the ecumenical front. Unfortunately, Catholics have grown accustomed to seeing their liberal prelates enamored of ‘ecumenism at any costs.’ There is the glaring, recent example of the pope’s greeting of the female “archbishop” of Canterbury (for example, see HERE). There are other scandals such as the pope’s meeting with Fr. James Martin, or allowing homosexual groups to hold masses in Roman churches (see Pope Leo XIV: Silence gives consent).
The examples above and others are cited by SSPX apologists and sympathizers to complain that the pope meets with and or shows mercy to others but not to the SSPX. For example, SSPX sympathizer like Michael Matt said on X: “The paradox is staggering: mercy for heresy, patience for moral confusion, and yet an apparent severity reserved for those who cling most firmly to what the Church has always taught.” (See HERE).
Unfortunately, the last couple of popes have met all sorts of people and groups that previous popes would never have considered meeting. However, as scandalous as these papal meetings, actions, statements and documents have been, this sort of fallacious “whataboutism” does not make the case for the SSPX a strong one.
Roma Locuta Est has previously outlined our opposition to the SSPX consecration in an article titled, A growing case of SSPX fatigue. In sum, consecrating bishops without a papal mandate would be an act schism. Per canon law, “No bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone a bishop unless it is first evident that there is a pontifical mandate” (c. 1013). So, for one, the SSPX does not have papal permission. So, if they go ahead, without papal permission, it must be remembered “…schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (c. 751). And, it would be clear the SSPX has refused submission to the Supreme Pontiff. Hardly a ‘traditional thing to do!‘
Yet, the online SSPX apologists claim these consecrations would not really be an act of schism. The SSPX justifications they are acting for “the salvation of souls” or that there is a “state of necessity” are tendentious. The claims collapses= when confronted with the Church’s infallible teaching on the power of the popes, such as Unam Sanctam, Boniface VIII:
“…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.”
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”?
Yet, it is curious, that to get around the ‘necessity’ of being subject to the Roman Pontiff, the SSPX conveniently devises its own ‘necessity’ which they say allows or justifies the consecrations. The SSPX argues they are operating under a “reason of necessity” (cf canon 1325.5), or a “state of necessity” for the salvation of souls which justifies the SSPX in consecrating the bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff.
In a recent interview, the Superior General of the SSPX, Don Davide Pagliarani, made the following statement, that is probably as good as any other in summing up the SSPX view of this “state of necessity.” According to Don Pagliarani (bold and italics added):
“...in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation. This is what constitutes the state of necessity.” (see HERE).
Now Mr. Matt’s X post speaks of Pope Leo XIV’s “apparent severity reserved for those who cling most firmly to what the Church has always taught.” However, respectfully, Mr. Matt’s analysis neglects the “severity” of what the SSPX really believes and holds. The fundamental problem is not that that the SSPX wants to “cling most firmly to what the Church has always taught.” If it were only as simple as that, I would be sympathetic in some degree toward the SSPX!
However, the problem is not as simple as that. The problem is that SSPX believes, per Pagliarani, that “…in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation.” This is the underlying assertion, i.e., the supposed “state of necessity,” upon which the SSPX justifies the need for illicit consecrations.
But, Pagliarani’s assertion — “in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation” — is untrue, divisive, uncharitable, and arguably heretical. Many other words come to mind regarding this ‘dogma’ of the SSPX, such as asinine, and arrogant.
Pagliarani’s claim is absurd. And I speak as one who grew up during the 60s and 70s, and as one who supports the Latin Mass. In “ordinary” parishes, the Holy Mass is truly offered, there is the Real Presence, the Sacraments are truly offered, etc. All are approved rites of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Sacred Scriptures are read at Mass. Ordinary parishes offer Adoration, Rosaries, Stations of the Cross, etc. New Catholics enter the Church every Easter. Has Fr. Pagliarani even been to an “ordinary” parish? Fr. Pagliarani’s claim smacks of a neo-Novatian, or neo-Donatist like heresy.
Furthermore, it is a truth of the Catholic Faith that the Catholic Church offers the necessary means for salvation. Fr. Pagliarani’s claim denies these means are found in an “ordinary parish.” What? If not the “ordinary parish” where the majority of mass-going Catholics attend, then where can the necessary means be found?
One cannot be faulted for concluding Pagliarani’s claim is but a sly, circuitous, and deceptive way of saying the Catholic Church no longer offers the necessary means of salvation. That is, surely, if the “ordinary parish” no longer offers the necessary means, then either the Catholic Church has either failed, or the necessary means are found elsewhere. Thus, the unstated, implied, and subversive corollary to Pagliarani’s claim is that the Catholic faith and the necessary means are only — or are only surely found within the SSPX.
This an intolerable offense against truth, and against the unity of the Catholic Church. Pagliarani’s statement is untrue, divisive, uncharitable, and arguably heretical. Consequently, if the SSPX proceeds with consecrations without the papal mandate, any bishops involved should be excommunicated. In addition, sanctions should be placed on any of the laity attending SSPX rites, as well as any who provide any support to the SSPX organization.
Obviously, Pope Leo XIV may do what he wants. The opinion of this Lilliputian blog amounts to little in the grand scheme of things. However, I strongly believe Pope Leo XIV and or any future pope would be ill-advised to ever agree to the consecration of even a single SSPX bishop, or the ordination of a single SSPX priest as long as the SSPX operates under this fundamental SSPX ‘dogma’ enunciated by Pagliarani.
Fr. Pagliarani’s claim is untrue, and divisive. It subverts the unity of the Church, and is a potential cause of confusion among the vast majority of mass-going Catholics who either regularly attend “ordinary parishes” or who attend both TLM and “ordinary” parishes. It is thus a danger to their faith. Before the SSPX is to ever be regularized, it must abjure such belief, and rid itself of it, in root and branch.
Excommunications as a Medicinal Penalty
The excommunications and other policies suggested above are intended as “medicinal” (cf. canon 1312). Unfortunately, the situation with the SSPX has gotten to the point, in our opinion at least, that these remedies, in charity, are absolutely necessary. The Church has gone on for decades like this, and the SSPX is no closer to being, or even wanting to be regularized unless it be on its own terms. This is impossible. The SSPX’s fundamental premise of a “state of necessity” is subversive of Church unity. As such, the SSPX is only bound to spread confusion in the wider Church over the coming decades unless it is corrected, and unless it submits to this correction.
The SSPX sympathizers among prominent Catholic influencers emphasize the important role of the SSPX in keeping tradition alive, or the SSPX’s ministry for salvation of souls among its faithful, etc. However, unfortunately, these sympathizers have done a great disservice to the Church, and to the SSPX by not calling the SSPX to account for its grave deficiencies, and the wounds it inflicts on the unity of the Church. Again, it’s operative principle upon which it stakes it claim for a “state of necessity” to defy the Roman Pontiff is that “in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation.” It cannot be reiterated enough, this claim is untrue, divisive, uncharitable, and arguably heretical.
The SSPX theological position on this “state of necessity” is in and of itself divisive, and subversive of Church unity, as well as a cause of confusion among the faithful. This can no longer be tolerated. This SSPX position tends toward schism and heresy. It is now long past time for the Church to apply the appropriate medicinal treatment that charity requires for the good of all–both faithful Catholics, and SSPXers.
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 