“My Will Be Done”: On the SSPX Consecrations

By Eamonn Clark, STL ( bio - articles ) | Jun 12, 2026

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has been involved in a decades-long conversation with the Holy See about its nature, rights, and duties. It is a complicated story, much of which has been playing out behind the scenes. With the impending consecration of four bishops against the express will of Pope Leo XIV, the SSPX has definitely signaled that a new chapter in the saga will begin next month.

The last time the SSPX consecrated bishops was in 1988, directly against the will of Pope John Paul II. These were two seminary rectors, a district superior, and a very young priest. Next month, there will be a consecration of two seminary rectors, a district superior, and a very young priest. This is hard to see as anything other than an intentional re-proposal of the 1988 moment.

It has been made abundantly clear by the Holy See that at least those directly participating in the consecration—the consecrators and the consecrandi—will incur excommunication due to an act of schism, just as happened in the consecrations of 1988.

Naturally, there have been many voices both against and in favor of the consecrations, or at least downplaying the seriousness of the action. What does the SSPX itself have to say about all this?

First of all, the fundamental claim of the SSPX is that the Church is in a particularly severe moment of crisis stemming from errors and ambiguities in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the liturgical reforms which followed. In their mind, this crisis justifies actions which would normally not be reasonable. The actions of the Society are certainly not normally reasonable, most of all the consecration of new bishops so that the priests of the Society need not depend on external favors from other, less sympathetic bishops.

The “long” problem with this that the Church has almost always been in a crisis. It is even appropriate to say that, in a certain sense, the Church Militant is a crisis. We have been left in between the Lord’s first and second coming, with our fallen nature, surrounded by all manner of evil and trouble. And we are always tempted to see our own time as the most serious, the most important, the most dramatic—just as every U.S. presidential election is touted as “the most important election ever.” The reality is closer to what Qoheleth says—not only is there nothing new under the sun, but those who ask why the old days were better do not do so from wisdom (Ecclesiastes 1:9, 7:10).

The more striking problem is revealed by a question that perhaps many priests outside the SSPX are asking themselves: why the need for this particular solution? Why not join any of the other traditional groups, which seem to have no problem getting along with the Holy See? Surely, there are even scores of “Novus Ordo priests” who hold more or less the same opinions on controverted passages in Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae as the average SSPX priest; they may even desperately long for the ability to celebrate the TLM. And yet, they put their heads down, they cooperate with their local bishop, and they quietly get the work done—from the ambo, in the confessional, and in their daily witness to holiness and truth. Why the need for a belligerent sui iuris group like the SSPX?

Second of all, the SSPX complains that the teaching of Lumen Gentium on the connection between consecration, jurisdiction, and schism is illegitimate, as the “traditional” teaching on episcopal consecration does not equate the conferral of jurisdiction with episcopal consecration, thus it does not entail breaking from the Pope’s governance.

Without a full history of the rather complex debate over the nature of the episcopacy, three points are worth mentioning.

First, there used to be a very popular and well-grounded theological opinion that the episcopacy was not only intrinsically connected with jurisdiction, but was so fully summarized by it that it was definable as “priesthood with jurisdiction.” This led to some instances of priests attempting to ordain to Holy Orders, with several cases of apparent papal approval for this practice. Today this is unthinkable, but the right and power of bishops alone to ordain to Holy Orders was not always evident. In fact, the Council of Trent pushed back against this error quite forcefully, yet without coming all the way to the sort of condemnation or definition that one might have expected or hoped for. And yet, we see that the appeal to “traditional teaching” by the SSPX is not exactly as clear-cut as they would have people think.

Note that even St. Thomas Aquinas denied that the episcopacy was a distinct order, as the meaning of the word and what it signifies were still in the process of theological clarification. With Lumen Gentium, we can clearly say that yes, it is a distinct order. And with that distinct order comes the unique prerogative and power to ordain validly to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy. Even if a bishop is not necessarily exercising real jurisdiction, it suffices for a fundamental kind of ecclesiastical disorder that he is in immediate potential to do so but was not given a legitimate mandate to have such authority—this disposition towards governance comes with the character conferred in episcopal consecration, and for a rupture of union with the lawful governor of the Church it is enough for it to be present, even if latent.

All this is to say that the SSPX’s claim that they are not trying to set up illegitimate episcopal jurisdiction, and that this is based on “traditional theology,” is more than a little problematic.

Second, no plausible argument can be put forward that the conferral of Holy Orders in whatever degree does not properly belong to the papacy’s Divine commission to regulate. We read the following in the First Vatican Council’s decree on papal primacy:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

The document continues:

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 3)

It clearly belongs to the pope to moderate the dispensation of the sacraments, most of all the selection of candidates to be his collaborators in the sacred ministry, and above all things to choose which men he wishes to call into the episcopal college. To put it more bluntly, if the selection of bishops does not belong to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, then nothing does. Else, as in the lawless days of the Judges, everyone would be left to do what was right in his own mind (Judges 17:6).

So, in the end, the consecrations are an act of schism, even if it is not the express intention, somewhat like a man who claims he did not intend to kill his victim but only to administer a lethal poison.

Third, even if all of this were wrong—and it is not—a childlike trust in God’s providence over His Church working through simple obedience would suffice to satisfy the duties of any cleric or priestly society. Individual clergy cannot see distant, contingent spiritual realities such that they could prudently sidestep commonsense obedience to those who have the office and mandate to care for the whole ecclesial community, and this is why God does not want them to do so. Offices exist for the sake of order, especially in the long-term, not merely for an outward show of polite symbolic requests for unnecessary permission. Instead, God wants those who have the office and accompanying grace of state to be stewards over the Church, with God working out the salvation of the multitudes in His own way, in His own time, even sometimes through unworthy hierarchs.

The Hebrew midwives could not see that a child would soon be born who would lead the Jews into Caanan because of their actions, nor can the SSPX see that some as-yet unknown saint will not be raised up by God to free the Church of Her present ills despite or even entirely apart from their actions. The SSPX has been attempting to “solve the crisis” for over fifty years—and yet, in its own words, things are worse now than they were before. So it is not even clear that they have been particularly effective. What will change now?

The SSPX simply thinks it is the only safe guardian of the Catholic Faith, and that the Pope must therefore listen to them about what to do—or else they will do what they want. They asked for a mandate for their consecrations as a gesture of politeness, not out of true obedience as sons. If David shrank from touching Saul’s cloak (1 Sam 24:1-22), should not the SSPX shrink from flagrantly disobeying the Pope?

The white lies of the Hebrew midwives were a small matter in themselves. Hijacking ecclesiastical jurisdiction by illegal sacramental actions and creating a de facto parallel Church is not. The spiritual sins—pride, disobedience, schism, sacrilege, scandal—are not always as easily appreciated for what they are. The abortionists, thieves, and adulterers can quickly be identified as wrongdoers, because the actions relate to the material order. But such sinners can and do claim they were motivated by “love for someone,” not unlike how the SSPX protests that its actions are motivated by charity, by concern for souls, by a sincere desire to transmit the tradition.

No doubt they do care for souls, but the first soul one must attend to is one’s own. Every schismatic and every disobedient person claims they are acting for the greater good. Yet the greatest good lies in doing the will of God, even when one is the subject of a superior with less talent than oneself, and even when the superior is evil. Even should bad motives enter into a command which is materially legitimate, God’s motives are never bad.

Jonah’s terrible five-second homily to the wicked masses of Ninevites was only effective because of obedience (Jonah 3:4, 4:5-11). Perhaps instead of insisting on what would likely be an unproductive meeting with the Pope, the SSPX might attend to the lesson the prophet learned as the shade of his precious vine disappeared: that God is concerned for His People and will work out His designs in His own way, and all we can do is what we are asked to do—or forced to do.