AI Translation, Completely unofficial. Only for discussion purposes on forum.
Just noticing that the YouTube page has 20K views today - and after only 9 days being posted!!!
; so that tells me that this is an interesting topic for many.
(English captions).
_______________________________
New Episcopal Consecrations : An SSPX Theologian Answers Young People’s Questions
Fraternity Saint-Pie X – FSSPX.Actualités
12.1K subscriber
19,731 views May 1, 2026 Formation - Crise de l'Église
As the July 1 episcopal consecrations in Écône approach, many Catholic faithful are asking important questions: why is this act considered legitimate? What does Catholic theology really teach about the Church, authority, unity, and the state of necessity?
To answer these crucial questions with clarity, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, professor of ecclesiology, responds to the concerns raised by four young faithful Catholics.
CHAPTERS:
CHAPTER The Importance of the Consecrations
00:44 Why are these consecrations so important for the Society?
01:40 How can you say this is for the good of the Church while acting against Rome?
02:40 You often speak about a “survival operation.” What does this survival consist in?
03:40 Is the Church still in a state of “survival” today?
CHAPTER The State of Necessity
05:42 The state of necessity: what does this argument of the Society really mean?
06:55 Is the Society in danger of drifting into Protestantism?
07:57 Why does the Society reject the “Ecclesia Dei” path despite its apparent security?
08:45 Priests ordained without their own bishops: why is this insufficient according to the Society?
CHAPTER The Errors of Vatican II
09:40 Are the errors of Vatican II truly decisive for the survival of the Faith?
11:20 Are there concrete signs of this state of necessity for the faithful?
12:29 Indefectibility of the Church: does the Society call this dogma into question?
CHAPTER Which Laws Can Admit Exceptions?
14:24 Does the state of necessity justify everything? What are its real limits?
17:02 Consecrations without a pontifical mandate: opposition to divine law or merely ecclesiastical law?
CHAPTER Schism or Disobedience?
19:00 Grave disobedience or schism? Understanding the essential difference
20:47 Are the July 1 consecrations intrinsically evil?
21:22 What would truly make an episcopal consecration schismatic?
21:57 Is the Society already acting as if it possessed jurisdiction?
24:20 Resisting without leaving the Church: how can one distinguish SSPX bishops from true schismatics?
CHAPTER Faith and Obedience
26:26 Faith and obedience: upon what does the true unity of the Church primarily rest?
27:30 A supernatural yet visible Church: how should this unity be understood?
28:49 Can one obey at the expense of the Faith?
29:56 The Pope as the visible principle of unity: how can authority and fidelity to the Faith be reconciled?
31:19 How can one truly love the Pope during a crisis in the Church?
32:19 Resisting without drifting away: how can one avoid the trap of sedevacantism?
CHAPTER: The Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction
34:18 The power of order and the power of jurisdiction: the key distinction for understanding the consecrations
37:23 Order and jurisdiction: why can they remain distinct despite their usual union?
39:32 Consecration and canonical mission: why is this distinction theologically decisive?
40:41 Did Vatican II blur the distinction between the power of order and jurisdiction?
42:20 Does the growing authority of the laity in the Church confirm the distinction between order and jurisdiction?
43:16 Order and jurisdiction: the essential point the faithful must understand simply
CHAPTER: Objections from Conservative and Ecclesia Dei Circles
43:59 Cardinal Sarah: what is the fundamental limit of his position?
44:50 Is a bishop defined above all by his power of jurisdiction?
47:11 Fr. de Blignières: does his error concern the state of necessity or the unity of the Church?
51:41 Does the rite of episcopal consecration intrinsically unite order and jurisdiction?
CHAPTER: External Support
54:38 Do Bishop Strickland and Bishop Schneider confirm the Society’s analysis?
55:53 External support: does it strengthen the argument itself—or merely its visibility?
CHAPTER: Excommunication
56:25 Threat of excommunication: automatic, valid… yet without real effect?
CHAPTER: 1988 and 2026
58:17 1988 and 2026: what has truly changed?
1:01:04 1988 and 2026: the same principle of transmission without jurisdiction?
1:01:47 Does the media narrative of the “Écône schism” obscure the real theological debate?
CHAPTER: What Should the Faithful Remember?
1:03:07 As July 1 approaches: the essential point every Catholic should remember
1:04:05 As July 1 approaches: what danger threatens the faithful?
1:04:43 What concrete act of faith must one make in order to remain truly Catholic today?
1:06:26 The act of the intellect: what essential distinction must be understood in order to preserve the Faith.
- - - - - - - - - -
Transcript
0:00 Intro:
Question 2: Why are these consecration so important for the Fraternity?
As the consecrations approach, scheduled for July 1st, many members of the Fraternity have many questions. Why is this act legitimate? What does Church theology say about authority and unity? We therefore wished to conduct an in-depth interview with Father Gleize to address these questions with the seriousness they deserve. We will ask him several questions to review, point by point, the doctrinal foundations of such a decision. Father, before addressing the various points that justify these consecrations, can you tell us why this ceremony, which will take place for the time being without a papal mandate, is so important for the Fraternity? Important for the Fraternity, yes, it is. We will, in all likelihood, welcome 15,000 people to the seminary in Écône: it is therefore an unprecedented event,
1:08
significant in itself. But beyond the logistical and organizational aspects necessary to manage these crowds, we must not lose sight of the fact that the consecration ceremony is ordered for the good of the entire Church. It is precisely the means by which the Church, with fully Catholic bishops, can persevere in its faith amidst this widespread crisis.
QUESTION 3: How can you say that this is for the Church when you are acting against Rome?
The accusation of acting against Rome is nothing new. It was leveled at us as early as 1988. Archbishop Lefebvre was already defending himself against it. Recall the homily for the consecrations on June 30th: the Archbishop refers to this ceremony, which was apparently undertaken against the will of Rome. Here, a very simple distinction must be made between Rome, which we have always recognized as the principle of unity and authority in the Church—we are Catholics, and Archbishop Lefebvre reminded us of this many times: “Far be it from me to set myself up as pope”—and the men in Rome, invested with these functions and positions of authority, but who, unfortunately, are imbued with these pernicious ideas that have generated, and continue to generate, this unprecedented crisis throughout the Church.
QUESTION 4:
You often speak of a survival operation. What does this survival entail?
It is about surviving when things become difficult. Today, it is becoming difficult to be Catholic. It is becoming difficult to find a Mass according to the traditional rite of the Church. It is becoming difficult to hear an authentically Catholic sermon. And when I speak of this difficulty, I am not measuring it on the ultimately rather limited scale of the small traditional world. We must consider it on the scale of the entire universal Church, throughout the world . What does it mean to survive? It means continuing to breathe clean air while the atmosphere becomes increasingly poisoned. We want to find ways to give souls clean air, truly Catholic preaching and sacraments, to save their souls.
3:46
QUESTION 5: Is the Church still in “Survival mode today?
Perhaps that was the case in the 1970s and 80s, which led Archbishop Lefebvre to ordain the new bishops in 1988. But today, we are still seeing a return to the Church, with many baptisms on Easter night throughout the Church, and so on. Ultimately, is this state of survival still relevant? Yes, it still is. We are not saying that the air has completely disappeared, nor that the atmosphere has become totally unbreathable. We are simply saying that the air is poisoned. At first, there was the massive influx, throughout the Church, of this poisonous atmosphere of the Council. This is what we saw in the 1970s and 80s: churches emptied, priests desacrated,, abandoning their cassocks, going too far into the world to the point of sometimes abandoning their priesthood, and a completely desecrated liturgy, of which only the name remained. Today, since John Paul II and with Benedict XVI, we observe among Catholics a need for spirituality, seriousness, and the sacred. This is true. But the atmosphere remains poisonous.
5:00
Why? Because this return to the sources remains based on false principles, the principles of liberalism. Moreover, the liturgy has not been reformed. There may be an attraction to the traditional liturgy, but the norm remains the modern liturgy. The new liturgy, which is a liturgy designed to Protestantize. And there are still these ideas of liberalism, with a new evangelization that forgets the fundamental role of the priest and maintains a very real and consistent ecuмenical dimension. So we are far from being out of the crisis in the Church.
Question 6:
Indeed, Father, I see where you're going with this: it's the argument you often invoke and which is often defended by the authorities of the Society, that of the famous state of necessity. Could you try to explain it to us, to define it in a few words?
The most important word is "necessity." This means that, whatever one may think, one finds oneself obliged—one would wish it weren't so—to disregard, if one wishes to keep the faith, the application made by the authorities of Church law. We respect the law: it is good. But the law is made to give souls the means to be saved. It is meant to give faith, to give the sacraments. Today, Churchmen are applying these laws to impose the false principles of the Council. In this case, we disregard them. We disregard these laws when they take away our catechism, when they take away our Mass, and when they turn our priests into meeting organizers instead of being fellow believers.
7:00
Question 7 :
Are there limits to this state of necessity? How far will you go? If this continues, eventually you will no longer recognize the Pope and you will become Protestants. You accuse the Church of becoming Protestant, but isn't the Society itself, by not recognizing the Pope, becoming Protestant?
I answer you with what Archbishop Lefebvre said: we do not criticize or reject the Pope, but what he does. The limit, therefore, is imposed upon us by the Pope himself. He sets it, in so far as he departs from tradition and introduces false principles into the Church. We are resisting an invasion. Our stance is a reaction, a secondary, consistent stance, intended to protect us against this unjust aggression stemming from the errors of the Council. We will therefore go as far as necessary to protect the faith, within the bounds of Providence.
Question 8 :
It is not necessarily understood how a state of necessity can, in itself, justify recourse to these episcopal consecrations.
We see around us the communities formerly known as Ecclesia Dei, which recognize the hierarchy of the Church, which obey, at least in principle, and which nevertheless manage not to cooperate in error. Their seminarians are ordained priests, and so on.
Question 9: Priests ordained without proper bishops: why is this insufficient for the SSPX?
I was actually asked this question by a priest from the Fraternity of Saint Peter, who himself answered it: have the promises of 1988, contained in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, been kept? No, indeed, they have not been kept. That said, they still have their priests ordained every year, admittedly by diocesan bishops, but they can continue to benefit from and receive the sacraments. And this remains precarious. We saw this clearly with the motu proprio Traditionis custodes, which clearly demonstrates
9:03
Rome's intention to restrict these privileges. And I think there's something very important here: these concessions are always granted not for the good of the Church, but as a concession to these communities, who, moreover, have to demand them loudly and defend themselves to obtain even the smallest amount. For our part, we want—and this has been the initial idea—the good of the Church. As Bishop de Castro Mayer said, we are not asking for the possibility of celebrating Mass in a side chapel; we want the high altar, because we want the Church, the good of the Church.
10:05
Question 10:
Father, you just spoke about Vatican II and the errors often mentioned: collegiality, ecuмenism, the reformed liturgy. But are these errors of Vatican II so significant? You yourself said it: the atmosphere isn't completely poisoned. Can't we set aside these flawed principles and continue to live healthily in the Church? Or are they truly decisive?
You know the expression—I believe it's Pope Francis's—is that of the Church's compass. The ideas of the Council are just that: a compass. And a compass shows the way; it therefore has a very concrete scope. These are not texts that remained a dead letter in the Council's records. These are texts that have led to very concrete reforms, that have changed the lives of Catholics, their way of praying, the way priests live. We see it more and more: we are truly in an ecuмenical Church. What is the most important part—or at least one of the most important—of the Pope's activity? It is the ecuмenical meetings. We saw it with the ecuмenical jubilee, or again with the Pope's congratulations to the new
11:01
Archbishop of Canterbury, since she is a woman. Ecuмenism remains very much present, and it is the harbinger of indifference. These are not merely abstract ideas; they are ideas that have taken root in our lives in a very concrete way and that are bringing about what has been, quite rightly, called a Protestantization.
11:24
Question 11:
Are there, for us faithful, concrete signs of this state of necessity?
I will give you just one example: the declaration Fiducia supplicans,
this docuмent from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith that authorizes the non-sacramental blessing of couples in irregular situations. How will you explain this to your children? You take them to Mass on Sunday, and they see their uncle living in concubinage, their divorced and remarried aunt, approaching the Holy Table and receiving Communion...
12:00
How will you explain to them that divorce and concubinage are immoral, and that normally one should not receive Communion under these circuмstances? This situation compels us precisely to react, to protest, to defend our faith. Hence the recourse to a Catholic episcopate that will not authorize this sort of thing and will even go so far as to say that communion must be refused to such people.
12:29
Question 12:
Here is an objection that one easily encounters: that of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church. Either you reject this dogma of the indefectibility of the Church, or you consider that it is you who allow the Church to remain indefectible. Could you simply define this dogma briefly for us and explain where you stand in relation to it?
The question is very interesting because behind it lies the idea one has of the Church. Very often, when I hear this well-known reproach—"It is not we who save the Church, it is the Church that saves us"—it is as if, in the mind of the person making this objection, the Church is not us, but something other than us. In reality, the Church is us. Not just us, the traditionalists or the faithful of the Fraternity, but us, the members of the Church, the baptized faithful, from the Pope to the newest baby baptized. The Church is indefectible through us, through what we do precisely to preserve the faith, to safeguard the sacraments, through the actions of men, of the Pope, of the bishops, and also of ordinary faithful. The Church will therefore not be indefectible because we remain passive in the face of Vatican II, accepting without a fight all
14:03
the measures that forbid us the true Mass, the true sacraments, and the true catechism. The indefectibility of the Church passes through us. Far from questioning this indefectibility, and far from mistaking ourselves for the Church, we each fulfill, in our own way, with the graces of state that God bestows upon us, the role that God expects of us.
14:25
Question 13:
Father, earlier you invoked the state of necessity to justify the episcopal consecrations of July 1st. But does the state of necessity justify everything? For example, there are laws, such as the law against killing an innocent person, that cannot be circuмvented. Isn't there a limit? Aren't there laws that cannot be transgressed?
Yes, indeed. We see it clearly, and you say it: it's the most vivid experience. One cannot kill an innocent person. Abortion, for example, admits of no exception, not even if the person is suffering unbearably. On this point, there can be no compromise. However, we must...One thing must be understood: these laws cannot be transgressed precisely because they were established directly by God himself. They belong either to the natural order, by virtue of God's very existence—these laws are then the expression of what nature and justice demand—or to the supernatural order, when God reveals them to us through his revelation, because they concern the situation of his Church. For example, the fact that the Pope, Bishop of Rome, is the head of the Church, he alone and no one else. Therefore, there are laws that admit absolutely no exceptions. But these are not the only laws. There are others: laws enacted by human beings in dependence on God's laws, in order to clarify them and facilitate their application in particular, variable, and contingent cases. This is human law: civil laws, such as traffic laws, and the laws of canon law. God commands us to keep the Lord's Day holy: this comes directly from God. The Church specifies how to keep it holy by asking us to attend Sunday Mass. This commandment can be subject to exceptions: if you are unable to attend Mass, you can still keep Sunday holy. Therefore, a very important distinction must be made. Some laws do not admit of exceptions; others, depending on the
circuмstances, may. It is precisely these laws that come into play in the problem we are addressing: episcopal consecrations.
17:00
Question 14: Specifically, on this subject, are episcopal consecrations conferred without a papal mandate contrary to divine law or ecclesiastical law?
This is the main objection raised against us. There are two types of objections. Either we are denied the state of necessity, being told that it does not authorize us to resort to these exceptional measures. Either we accept it, but are told that this state of necessity does not give us the moral option of doing what we are about to do, because it would be contrary to divine law. The answer is very simple, for it is found in all treatises on canon law. The fact that the Pope reserved to himself the power of episcopal consecrations, that is, the power to consecrate other bishops, is a recent measure, dating from the 12th century. It cannot be proven that it goes back to the time of the apostles and that it is, therefore, the expression of divine right. Church history shows that at a certain point the Pope reserved this power to himself. Why? Because there were abuses: bishops were consecrating a little too freely, with harmful consequences. To establish order, the Pope reserved this power to himself. But this is a matter of ecclesiastical law. We can therefore encounter rare, exceptional situations where, for the good of the Church, it becomes necessary to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate, or even against the explicit will of the Pope. We saw this during Paul VI's Ostpolitik: bishops in Eastern European countries secretly consecrated Catholic bishops even though they knew perfectly well that Paul VI was opposed to it, for the well-known political reasons. If I understand correctly, consecrating bishops against the Pope's wishes would not be a schism, but a serious act of disobedience.
Question 15: Grave disobedience or schisme? Understanding the essential difference.
19:04
[What is the difference between the two? Is that correct?]
It would be a schism if a bishop were consecrated by giving him not only the power to perform ordinations and administer confirmation— that is, to give the sacraments—but also jurisdiction, authority. That would be a schism. Why? Because only the Pope—and this is a matter of divine right—can grant
jurisdictional power, that is, establish a bishop at the head of a part of the Church in a position of authority and governance. Only the Pope can do this. To do so in place of the Pope and against his will constitutes an usurpation contrary to divine right, and therefore a schism. But granting the power of Holy Orders without granting jurisdictional power is not a schism.
It would perhaps be, and this is most often what Church history attests to,
20:01
It's disobedience, because it requires the Pope's permission. But there may be circuмstances where it wouldn't even be disobedience, because those circuмstances demand Catholic bishops, and the Pope cannot refuse them. If he refuses, he abuses his power. He truly acts like a tyrant, because he refuses them for illegitimate reasons. Unfortunately, that's what we see today. We are being denied fully Catholic bishops—that is, bishops opposed to the errors of the Council— precisely because those who refuse them to us, the Pope in particular, are attached to those errors, which run counter to the common good of the Church.
Question 16: Are the consecrations of July 1st intrinsically bad?
No, they aren't. Normally, doing what we're doing would be disobedience in a serious matter. But, given the circuмstances, it isn't.
21:05
It's part of what the Bishop called "Operation Survival." Normally, the Pope cannot and indeed should not, refuse us this. He has a grave duty to give souls the means to sanctify and save themselves. Among these means is the fully Catholic episcopate.
Question 17:
What would truly constitute a schism in an episcopal consecration?
What constitutes a schism is precisely granting the power of jurisdiction that only the Pope can bestow. It is an usurpation. It is, in a way, exercising authority in place of authority, an act of supreme authority in place of supreme authority. This is what the Orthodox bishops did in 1054, and they remain schismatic because they still do not recognize the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.
Question 18:
But, Father, how can you say that the consecrations of July 1st will not grant jurisdiction to the bishops, when for years the Society has acted as if it truly possessed jurisdiction?
For example, by preaching, or even by declaring marriages null and void—I'm thinking of the Saint Charles Borromeo Commission. Several elements thus show that the Society acts as if it truly had jurisdiction over souls. You said it, and it's interesting: the Society acts as if, from the outside, it had jurisdictional power. But it doesn't, and it denies having it. We mustn't forget that the Society acts in this way under the law that provides for what is called a supplementary jurisdiction. What does that mean? It's an aspect of the state of necessity. When souls are destitute and need someone to act with authority for their own benefit—you gave the example
23:04
of a declaration of nullity of marriage, made in a way that truly respects the rules of the Church—they can turn to someone and request a single act of authority. This means that we exercise authority on a case-by-case basis, at the request of souls. It is not the people who have given us a power we do not possess. It is not a power we have arrogated to ourselves. We respond, as the law stipulates, to the requests of souls. In a sense, it is these souls who, in quotation marks, grant us jurisdiction, that is to say, they authorize us to perform these acts of jurisdiction for their benefit. But it is not by carrying out dozens, hundreds, or thousands of individual acts of jurisdiction to come to the aid of these souls that we would possess jurisdictional power. Power descends from above, and it can only descend from the Supreme Pontiff. Here, we are dealing with something quite particular: exceptional measures provided for by law. They multiply due to circuмstances, but that does not change the matter. They are exceptional measures. This is merely a jurisdiction, in the improper sense of the term, a substitute, in the sense I have just explained.
24:26
Question 19: For the faithful, how can one distinguish between leaving the Church and resisting a particular orientation? Concretely, how can one distinguish the bishops of the Society from the schismatic bishops?
I will answer you first with an initial distinction: an Orthodox bishop will refuse to recite the Filioque when reciting the Creed. The bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X do recite the Filioque; this signifies that they remain Catholic, unlike Orthodox bishops. This is a primary difference in the profession of faith. More fundamentally, the bishops of the Society recognize the very principle of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. An Orthodox bishop does not recognize the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. He rejects him. Certain ecuмenical gestures may give the impression of this, but one should not be fooled. The Society and its bishops have always recognized the Pope for who he is. Once again, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, we reject not the Pope, whom we recognize for who he is, but what he does. We are therefore not leaving the Church,
for leaving the Church means abandoning the Catholic faith, refusing to recognize the divinely instituted government of the Pope, or rejecting the true sacraments. We reject none of these three things. On the contrary, we protest against the harmful measures and false principles of the Council that tend to destroy or corrupt these three things: the Church in its governance, in its profession of faith, and in its worship. Far from leaving the Church, we remain in it, and we resist what seeks to destroy it. Archbishop Lefebvre said: “I do not want to be reproached, when I appear before God, for having contributed to the destruction of the Church along with others.” In this regard, Father, you wrote in several of your articles in the Courrier de Rome that the unity of the Church truly rests on faith, and not primarily on obedience.
Question 20
Faith and obedience – Was is the foundation of the veritable unity of the Church?
One thing must be remembered: in a natural and temporal society, like the French Republic, you have obedience, and that's all. There is an authority, and people who obey through the laws. The Church is much more than that. The Church is a supernatural society, founded first and foremost on faith, that is, the adherence of the intellect to the truths that God reveals to us. Authority in the Church is established by God for this very purpose: to communicate His truths to us, so that our intellect can give them its full assent. Obedience in the Church, therefore, only has meaning in dependence on faith. All the laws of the Church exist to allow us to protect our faith, to profess it, and to draw all the necessary conclusions from it in our lives.
27:33
Question 21:
A supernatural Church – but visible: how to understand this unity?
This unity of the Church, which, as you said, rests first and foremost on faith, is supernatural; yet, it is quite evident. It is visible, yes, but visible through what is called the profession of faith. What is the profession of faith? It is what we do when we recite our Creed. It is precisely the same Creed. We are united in our faith, in particular because we sing the same Filioque in the Creed, which the Orthodox do not sing, and which,
28:03
unfortunately, Pope John Paul II omitted to sing so that he could recite the Creed with them, even though they are not Catholic, in the context of an ecuмenical meeting. Where is the unity of the Church at that level? It is precisely to maintain this visible unity that we profess the same faith on Sundays at Mass, every time there are religious services, and even in our behavior and our activities. We take the truths of the faith into account in the way we conduct ourselves. There is therefore a moral life that flows from what God has revealed to us. Adultery is condemned by the Gospel; therefore, divorce is not something a Catholic can condone. This has consequences.
29:05
Question 22:
What do you say to those who truly place faith and obedience on the same level, and consider obedience almost more important than belief?
It simply means they haven't understood the supernatural nature of the Church. This is somewhat the tragedy of these generations of Catholics, both before and after the Council: by constantly emphasizing the role of the Pope in the Church, they forget what the Church is.
The Pope. There's a loss of the supernatural spirit. We no longer see the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, primarily charged with preaching Christ's word to us. We see him as a head of state, a man charged with enforcing laws and governing, without going beyond what one might find in a French president. It's a kind of desacralization and de-supernaturalization of the Church. By constantly insisting on obedience, we create a false unity, a temporal and naturalistic unity, no longer supernatural.
Question 23:
To return to this question of unity of faith you were talking about, you said it should be expressed through our profession of faith.
But precisely, this profession is given to us by the Pope. He is the principle of the Church's visible unity. Yes, but we must always return to the principles, that is to say, to the initial truths. Certainly, it is the Pope who gives it to us, but he does so because he is the Vicar of Christ. Consequently, he has no right to change the word of Christ. He transmits it to us, and it is always the same word.
He is the Vicar of Christ. If we oppose him, it is not the Pope himself, as Vicar of Christ; on the contrary, we rely on the entire line of Popes throughout the history of the Church, who have been, one after another, like the unaltered echo of this word of Christ, always transmitted in the same sense and with the same meaning, as Saint Vincent of Lérins says. Today, we oppose not the Vicar of Christ, but a man invested with this power of Vicar who, unfortunately, abuses this power, diverts it from the expression of the true faith, and imposes errors already condemned or theological opinions already rejected.
Question 24:
What is the right way to love the Pope in this crisis?
The answer is always the same: to have an ever more purified gaze of faith. We must see beyond the person who is harming the Church and causing us suffering; we must see beyond this person the office, the Vicar of Christ, and pray that this man will be faithful to his office. We all have a stake in this. This is not about polemics: these are all-too-human reactions. Archbishop Lefebvre was far above this kind of reaction. He saw the good of souls and was concerned with bringing Rome back to tradition, as he said. Against all hope, he hoped for the Pope's return to traditional ideas, for the good of the Church,
32:08
for the good of souls, and also for the salvation of the Pope himself. We pray for him as the head of the Church, but also as an individual, that he too may be saved.
Question 25:
Isn't there still a danger of sliding towards sedevacantism?
The danger, or rather the risk, exists. But it is, in a way, a risk inherent to the situation we are experiencing. It is not a risk we ourselves created, nor is it inherent to our person or our position; it is inherent to the situation. We are forced to acknowledge what we see: a papacy that is causing people to lose their faith. We are forced to react. But this does not mean that we believe there is no longer a pope, nor that there is no longer any authority in the Church. Not at all. It is simply
a conviction we hold, perhaps contrary to what we are forced to experience, by living, it is true, somewhat as if there were no pope. But this does not mean that we acknowledge that there is no pope. On the contrary. This situation calls for prayer and study, to become ever more convinced and deeply entrenched. Above all, we must not forget that this situation, which may carry this risk, is not of our own making. It is Providence that has imposed it upon us. It is God who allows this. It is God who has placed us in this situation. If He has placed us here, as long as He allows us to remain so, He will grant us the grace to persevere and remain Catholic, preserving the faith and our reference to the See of Peter.
I would also add common sense: a Church without a pope cannot stand, neither theologically nor according to sound reason. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, the possibility of sedevacantism is becoming, really, to a dead end. The visible Church, in order to be visible, needs a visible leader.
Question 26:
Father, you said earlier that there will be no schism during the episcopal consecrations to be conferred on July 1st in Écône, because Holy Orders will be given but not jurisdiction. Can we now turn to what is probably the most technical point? Can you explain to us what the power of Holy Orders is and what the power of jurisdiction is?
The simplest way is to go back to Christ. As you know, Christ is priest, prophet, and king. He communicates his powers to men so that they can, after him, continue his work in the Church. What is the power of Holy Orders? It is the power of Christ the priest, that is to say, the power to sanctify, to give souls grace through the sacraments. It is therefore the power to administer the sacraments. It is acquired through a rite, a consecration. It is equivalent to the priestly character of the one who receives it, and it is a power that cannot be lost: it is indelible. It is given, through the rite, directly by God himself; the one who ordains, the consecrator, is merely God's instrument.
The power of jurisdiction, on the other hand, is the power of Christ the King and also the Prophet. It is the power of Christ who teaches and governs us to enable us to obtain the salvation of our souls and to prepare us to receive the sacraments. This power is communicated to men through what is called jurisdiction. It is given by a man, by the Pope, by means of a canonical mission. It is an
36:07
act of the Pope's will, which grants authority to a priest so that he may have authority over a diocese and be a bishop by virtue of that authority. It is a power that can be lost. The Pope can withdraw jurisdiction just as he can grant it. It is therefore the power to govern, to guide souls toward the end of society, through laws. These two powers are quite distinct, but there is a link between them in the Church. Why? Because the Church is a supernatural society. Its purpose is the salvation of souls. In the Church, therefore, government aims at sanctification.
Jurisdiction is ordered to order. This is why these two powers are linked and must be coordinated in their exercise. There is also another important element: in the Church,
37:00
power is sacred power. This is the meaning of the word hierarchy, which signifies sacred power.
He who has the authority to govern in the Church must therefore be a sacred figure, because he is God's representative in the supernatural order. Consequently, it is fitting that, in the Church, he who possesses jurisdiction should also be consecrated and possess the power of order.
Question 27:
You are establishing a distinction between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. But how can we arrive at a perfect separability of the two, when most of the time, if not always, we observe that bishops possess both?
We mustn't confuse things. Just because, most of the time—as you said —they are not separate, doesn't mean they are inseparable. They can be separate. Why
38:00
are they not usually separated? Because, as we have just said, the purpose of government is the sanctification of souls, and the one who governs is a sacred figure. Therefore, the one who governs must possess holy orders. There is a kind of connaturality, a destiny, even an aptitude, almost a requirement, between jurisdiction and holy orders. On the other hand, the reverse is not true. Therefore, one will very rarely, almost never, find someone who possesses jurisdiction without having holy orders. When the Church grants jurisdiction to someone who lacks the power of Holy Orders, it aims to grant that person the power of Holy Orders as quickly as possible. However, the reverse is not true. One can find—it is rare, but not extraordinary—within the Church,
individuals who possess the power of Holy Orders without having any jurisdiction, and without any qualification or requirement whatsoever regarding jurisdiction. Why? Because these are bishops whose role is to sanctify: the auxiliary bishops. They come to assist the bishop.
39:03
who is a bishop and who possesses jurisdiction, because he cannot suffice on his own for this entire work of sanctification. The bishops of the Society will be, and are, auxiliary bishops . They do not have jurisdiction. They simply have the power of Holy Orders to sanctify. There is perfect autonomy here, perfect separation, and this is entirely traditional in the history of the Church. One can therefore confer the power of Holy Orders without conferring jurisdiction.
33:33
Question 28:
So you maintain that a bishop can validly and licitly receive episcopal consecration without receiving a canonical mission. Why is it theologically decisive to make this distinction?
This is precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre did not want to do, quite simply because he could not. Only the Pope can confer jurisdiction in the Church. If one confers jurisdiction in the Church in place of the Pope, it means one is
40:00
usurping it. This is an usurpation: we are appropriating, arrogating to ourselves something that only the Pope possesses and can exercise. It is precisely to avoid being schismatic that we refuse to do what would be an usurpation. We must maintain a balance between two demands. We must grant the power of Holy Orders because there is a state of necessity: we cannot leave souls in distress, even if Rome opposes it. But on the other hand, we reasonably restrain ourselves so as not to go beyond what the situation requires and so as not to grant a jurisdiction that would be usurped and that would undermine our credibility.
41:00
Question 29:
In this regard, can you explain and show us how the new ecclesiology of Vatican II blurs this distinction between the power of Holy Orders and the power of jurisdiction in the texts of the Council?
This is an important aspect of the problem, and it helps to understand why Rome considers us schismatic despite
everything we may say. In the new ecclesiology—that of the constitution Lumen Gentium, in Question 3—it is stated that episcopal consecration, within the framework of a rite, confers both the power of Holy Orders and the power of jurisdiction, which thus comes directly from God, and which every bishop possesses by virtue of his consecration. This is
something entirely new, completely contrary to all tradition. At the time of the Council, Council Fathers, comrades-in-arms of Archbishop Lefebvre within the Coetus, and even others, remarked, in giving their opinion on the text of this schema, that it contained something absolutely new that could find no justification in the tradition of the Church. Nothing like it had ever been seen before. The consecrated bishop does not possess jurisdiction: it is the Pope who grants it to him.
42:00
This, therefore, represents a new logic. In this line of reasoning, indeed, if we consecrate bishops against the Pope's will, and if the consecration ipso facto confers jurisdiction, then we can only conclude that there is a schism. But we can only conclude that there is a schism based on these false presuppositions of the new ecclesiology of Vatican II.
Question 30:
Moreover, Father, doesn't the growing authority of lay people in the Roman Curia indirectly confirm of this distinction?
Yes. At the same time, this puts the conciliar authorities in contradiction with themselves. We see it clearly: they give positions of authority and jurisdiction to women, that is, to members of the faithful of the Church who, by definition, cannot receive the power of Holy Orders. This clearly proves that there is a distinction between the two. If they were consistent with themselves, they should consider that jurisdiction derives from a consecration, and they would then have to consecrate these people, which is not possible.
Question 31:
There is therefore both a contradiction within the conciliar system, within the new ecclesiology, and an indirect acknowledgment of the correctness of the traditional position. For a non-specialist faithful, could the question be summarized without losing precision?
Quite simply, episcopal consecration makes a bishop by giving him the power to confer the sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders. In concrete terms, the bishops in the Society, as we will have them and as we have them, are bishops who travel the world to give Confirmation and ordinations. They have no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is granted by the Pope, and we do not grant it because we are not the Pope.
44:02
Question 32: Father, may we move on to the objections?
Gladly.
Q. What, fundamentally, do you find fault with in Cardinal Sarah position ?
Cardinal Sarah is a man of goodwill, and we see that he is reacting up to a point. He has spoken quite strongly. But he is content with a unilateral appeal for obedience, and this appeal is repetitive. There is no real argument: "You are going to disobey, it's serious, obey, otherwise you will cause a schism in the Church." “One gets the impression that unity of faith no longer exists, and that it can no longer justify an action that, apparently, goes against obedience, but which, in reality, is entirely in line with just and true obedience, which has no reason to exist in the Church except to preserve the faith.
Question 33:
Another objection, raised by the Fraternity of Saint Peter and based on Saint Thomas Aquinas, is that the bishop is like a prince in the ecclesiastical order. Should we understand by this that the bishop is defined above all by his power of jurisdiction?
When quoting Saint Thomas, one must be very careful to place the quotation in its context and to see precisely what he is talking about. Saint Thomas spoke very little about the bishop from the point of view of jurisdiction—he does speak of it in Contra Gentiles, but very little elsewhere—because, for him, jurisdiction falls under canon law, which he does not deal with directly. ” It is not a theological matter.” Saint Thomas Aquinas, therefore, speaks primarily of the bishop in the context of the sacraments, that is, the power of Holy Orders. Indeed, he says that the bishop is a prince, a king. But he is so in the order of worship. This is what we see in a pontifical Mass: there is a throne, a king assisted by servants, who exercises authority, but in the order of worship, by analogy. Why? Because he gives the priests
46:00
the power to consecrate the Body of Christ. Yes, the words prince, king, and regency are present, if you will; but this is entirely metaphorical and inappropriate, by analogy in the order of worship. This has nothing to do with a true jurisdiction corresponding to a true power of government. We must put things in context. We must also understand—as we have already said and we repeat here—that the power of Holy Orders is formally autonomous within its own order. It does not necessarily imply the power of jurisdiction. Not at all.
The Church, as a society, needs both. There must be, in one way or another, individuals within the Church who possess both powers in order to exercise them, one for the sake of the other—jurisdiction for the sake of order. But this does not mean that every individual in the Church must necessarily possess both. And it certainly does not mean that the power of order requires jurisdiction. Absolutely not.
Question 34:
You have responded extensively to Father de Blignières in the pages of the Courrier de Rome lately. What exactly do you criticize him for? Is it for minimizing the state of necessity? Or is it for being mistaken about the unity of the Church, particularly on the question of hierarchical communion, which, according to him, is a matter of divine right?
I criticize, or rather I deplore—and I am not addressing Father de Blignières personally, whom I do not know and have never met, but his ideas and what he develops—first, that he repeats himself without renewing his arguments. He takes up the arguments of 1988,
repeats them, harps on them ad nauseam, and does not respond to the arguments we have already
48:04
raised and which we renew in an attempt to clarify the issue ever more precisely. He does not answer us; he repeats himself. What are these arguments? He tends, and increasingly so over time, to minimize the state of necessity. We see it. This minimization unfolds indirectly and takes the form of a reproach addressed to the Society: "You are exaggerating.
When we see this, we cannot help but think of the reflection that Archbishop Lefebvre made about Dom Gérard when the latter, after the consecrations, took the wrong path , that we all know. The Bishop said, "He no longer sees the gravity of the errors." Because the state of necessity is measured by the gravity of the errors. They minimize them: there are errors, there are indeed things
49:00
that are wrong in the Church, but it's not so serious as to… We can clearly see that they said nothing about Fiducia supplicans, or very little, or not enough. There is a truly marked weakness in the reaction to errors, and it's growing. So, on the one hand, there is the minimization of the state of necessity, and on the other hand, the famous argument of divine right, according to which the requirement of a papal mandate for the consecration of bishops by the Pope is a requirement of divine right. But no, that's not true. All canon lawyers say so. The law states that the Pope reserves the consecration of bishops to himself. But this reservation dates back to the 11th century. Father Cappello, in his well-known treatise, demonstrates and proves this. Why this reservation? Because there were abuses. The Pope therefore reserved this power to himself, but it falls under ecclesiastical law. No explicit mention of this requirement, according to which only Saint Peter and his successors could consecrate other bishops, is found in the sources of revelation. No, absolutely not. It would have to be proven before it can be asserted.
Yet it is asserted to say that we cannot do what we are about to do, and that, consequently, it would necessarily be schismatic, or intrinsically evil, against divine law.
They assert it, but they do not prove it. That is not true. It is a measure of ecclesiastical law, which therefore allows for an exception due to the circuмstances. The bishops of Eastern European countries did so during the communist persecution, despite the opposition of Paul VI, who was then engaged in his Ostpolitik. Some might say this argument is self-serving, but it remains a matter of common sense that should resonate with the conscience of Catholics. Archbishop Lefebvre
50:58
was not a madman. He was a man of the Church, a great bishop. He had long enjoyed Rome's confidence. He had been to Africa; he knew its theology. I can attest to this, as I was in charge of the archives at the seminary in Écône: you should see the sheer number of pages he filled in his fine handwriting with the study of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church Fathers, and the early popes. He knew canon law. I therefore do not believe he acted entirely recklessly. He knew what he was doing. He said so and explained himself by citing studies by canon lawyers in the sermon at the consecration. This is therefore a miscarriage of justice.
51:37
Question 35:
Another objection that could be raised, Father, is that the very liturgy of consecration seems to demonstrate the profound link between the power of Holy Orders and the power of jurisdiction in the episcopate.
I am thinking, for example, of the episcopal ring, but also especially of the crosier and the enthronement that takes place at the end of the liturgy. All of this seems to show that there is an intrinsic, deep, fundamental, almost necessary link between episcopal consecration and the power of jurisdiction. It is quite beautiful, moreover. We will see this in the ceremony: at the end, the bishop is accompanied, he leaves with the crosier and takes possession of the flock. Indeed, this could give the impression that consecration confers jurisdiction. But a distinction must be made, which can be illustrated by a similar, though not identical, example.
Look at the coronation of the kings of France. There, too, you have the presentation of the insignia of power: the crown, the scepter. The king is crowned, but he is already king. In France, he is king from the moment the previous king dies: "The king is dead, long live the king," even before he is consecrated.
Another interesting example: when the pope, in former times, received the tiara at the papal coronation, he was already pope. What does this mean? There can be a simultaneity between episcopal consecration and the bestowal of a symbol corresponding to something else: the power of jurisdiction. But this simultaneity, this synchronization, does not mean that episcopal consecration is the cause and source of this power of jurisdiction. The liturgy He did things this way, and it's easily explained. Ordinarily, most of the time, the consecrated bishop already possessed jurisdiction, having received it beforehand, and the liturgy expressed this. The liturgy therefore remains what it is, even in the rare, though not extraordinary, case where the consecrated bishop does not receive jurisdiction. What ultimately matters is not so much the details of the liturgy, but the form—insofar as the episcopate is a sacrament, which is disputed—for there is a form and a substance. Now, in the very expression of the form, you have no mention of the power of jurisdiction. The form of the rite indicates what is caused by the rite; here, what is designated is the power of Holy Orders, and by no means the power of jurisdiction. Contrary to all these objections, do the statements of figures outside the Society, such as They primarily confirm the Church's traditional doctrine, quite simply, because the Society has no analysis of its own. There is only the Society's fidelity to Church doctrine.
Question 36:
Bishop Strickland or Bishop Schneider, confirm the Society's position and analysis?
It is both fortunate and heartening to see two bishops reflect, evolve, be clear-sighted, honest, and upright, and draw their conclusions. What is impressive about Bishop Schneider is that he has evolved considerably. He is becoming more aware of things, he is moving in the same direction, always more and always better. He is taking a stand, he is courageous, because he is taking our side and defending us. But it must be clearly understood—and here we return to the initial point—that consecrations are not for the Society. He is taking a stand for the Church, and he defends the Church through the Fraternity. Indeed, this is very beneficial.
Question 37:
Does this external support change anything about the nature of the arguments, or simply their visibility?
It doesn't change the nature of the arguments. It simply gives them much more weight in terms of visibility.
56:06
We can see, therefore, that it is not only we who are saying this in what would be a self-serving argument; it is also being objectively observed by people who are not part of our Fraternity and who have no particular interest in doing so. This therefore lends it added credibility.
Question 38:
You explained to us earlier why the accusations of schism would be futile concerning the consecrations conferred on July 1st in Écône. But there is still the threat of excommunication. What are we to make of this? Will this excommunication be automatic? What will its value be?
In 2026, as in 1988, we must adhere to the letter of the law; Otherwise, we get lost in imaginary things and no longer know where we're going. The law is very clear. This was also highlighted by a German canon lawyer whom Archbishop Lefebvre quoted in his homily of June 30, 1988. The law states that anyone who acts against ecclesiastical law, or the law in general, driven by grave necessity, is excused from any offense. Therefore: no offense, no punishment. The law also stipulates that even if someone acts in this way is mistaken, erroneous, or in bad faith, and even commits an intrinsically evil act, as long as they are driven by grave necessity, there would certainly be an offense, but the punishment should be mitigated, because the extenuating circuмstance that led them to act out of necessity is taken into account. The punishment would therefore necessarily be less than excommunication, by the very nature of the law. Whatever the hypothesis considered, according to the letter of the law, we should be no more liable to excommunication in 2026 than we were in 1988.
58:11
This would not only be fundamentally unjust, but contrary to the very letter of the law.
Question 39:
Father, is there a difference between 1988 and 2026?
Something has changed, and something hasn't. Both are true. What hasn't changed is us. And without any presumption, we must face this. I think it's very important, because it's striking and can serve as an example: precisely, we haven't changed. One might have expected it—because that's generally what happens when there's this kind of initiative. Truly schismatic, breaking with the Church—leading to fragmentation. Society splintered at the same time as it broke with the true Church. We saw this among the Orthodox: an
59:11
immediate and seemingly endless fragmentation of autocephalous churches. We also see it in Protestantism. Yet the Fraternity remained as straight as an arrow and as united as one, in its threefold unity of worship, profession of faith, and governance. There are, of course, always the human stories inherent in the history of the Church, with this or that isolated defection of this or that priest. But society itself has maintained its unity. I emphasize this: the unity of its Catholic faith, without veering into exaggeration or hardening, without falling into sedevacantism. It has also experienced a rejuvenation, with young priests ordained every year, and an internal balance at all levels,
1:00:05
even from a purely human perspective. On the other hand, in present-day Rome, things have changed. The crisis has certainly worsened, particularly under Pope Francis. But even under John Paul II and Benedict XVI, we saw a deepening of the crisis, with an intensification of ecuмenism, which is fostering an increasingly indifferent mentality. If you ask an ordinary Catholic today, they will tell you—because they believe it and because it has become a unanimous conviction—that salvation can be found in all religions. They believe it because it has been said. So, the crisis has worsened on all levels. In that respect, yes, there has been a change in present-day Rome, and that is what justifies our initiative all the more.
1:00:59
Question 40:
Can we say that the principle of 1988 remains the same in 2026, namely the desire to transfer the power of order without transferring the power of jurisdiction?
Yes, it is still the same principle. I would even say that it lends us all the more credibility. This worsening of the crisis still does not tempt us to replace the authorities in place. We remain in our place. We want the salvation of souls, and we are taking the necessary steps. Precisely because the crisis is worsening, we do not see, from a human perspective, any real hope of a return to tradition on the part of the conciliar authorities. We must therefore take the necessary steps to continue, but only as much as necessary, and no more.
1:02:00
Question 41:
Do you think that the media's focus on the schism at Écône somewhat obscures the theological argument?
Undoubtedly, as always. Remember the consecration ceremony: during his sermon, Archbishop Lefebvre paused and alluded to the journalists, saying that the media would not to write their story, pushing whatever is in vogue. There is a single way of thinking, and that is manipulation, not information. The mechanism will therefore certainly come into play. It may come into play in different circuмstances, because today, thanks to or because of the internet, alongside the official media, we have a multitude of independent and parallel media outlets. But this only exacerbates the circus surrounding the Magisterium. It is confusion. Yes, there will certainly be this demonization, this kind of screen preventing people from seeing clearly. All the more reason to pray,
1:03:00
reflect, study, take a step back, and always maintain a clear perspective.
Question 42:
Father, what should a member of the Society remember first and foremost as July 1st approaches?
The most important thing to remember is that, if it hadn't been for the consecrations of June 30, 1988, there most likely would have been no members of the Society, because there would have been no Society at all. I mean, there would no longer have been a Society as it is now, as it has remained, faithful to itself. There would also have been no communities. This shows the full importance of this founding act of Archbishop Lefebvre, which gave us the means to persevere through the crisis. The consecrations of 2026 are therefore part of a continuity, a repetition made possible thanks to this initial initiative of Archbishop Lefebvre. This simply means that we continue to work for the salvation of souls in complete safety, by the grace of God. What danger do we face?
1:04:07
Question 43:
As July 1 approaches, what is the danger for ther faithful in this context?
The danger that lies in wait for us is always the same: believing we have arrived. We must not forget that we take the means that God gives us, and that these means must be used according to God's will. It is not because we once again have four young and effective bishops that everything is won. The salvation of our souls is never won. We must always persevere to the end, remain faithful in faith, in humility, in self-distrust, and in surrender. In such a situation,
Question 44:
Father, what concrete act of faith must each faithful person who truly wants to remain Catholic make, in your opinion?
I believe that we must truly believe in the indefectibility of the Church. We spoke about this earlier, and we must believe in this indefectibility while fully understanding what it means. The Church is indefectible, but the Church is us. Once again, we are not the only traditionalists, nor are we the only faithful of the Society: it is everyone, all the baptized. The Church is infallible because each person, in their place, corresponds to the graces
1:05:20
God gives them to work out their own salvation and contribute to the salvation of others. That is what the Church is: the Pope in his place, the bishops in their place, and each faithful person in their place. The Church is not an entity separate from us. The objection raised against us—"It is the Church that saves us, and it is not we who save the Church"—when one reflects on it, is meaningless and, moreover, betrays its origins. There is an entirely artificial, even antitheological, dichotomy here between the Church and us. But we are the Church. The Church is us: the Pope, the bishops, the faithful. We were told often enough at Vatican II that the Church is the people of God. Indeed, the Church is steadfast because we work and contribute, at our own level, with the graces God bestows upon us, to this perseverance. This is what we must not forget: believing in God's help, which can never fail us.
Question 45: You have just highlighted the act of will that must be made. But as for the act of intellect, what is the fundamental distinction that must be understood?
It is essential to understand that the Church is a society of a supernatural order. It is the mystical body of Jesus Christ. It is not a society like any other. Its unity rests on the gift of God's grace. This is first and foremost the gift of faith. The unity of the Church, fundamentally, is the unity of the profession of its faith. Faith is the beginning of salvation. Dependent upon this, and in service to it, is the unity of governance.
1:07:07
The governance of the Church, once again, only has meaning if it is there to maintain this profession of faith. The gravity of the present moment lies precisely in separating the two.
Question 46:
Father, you now have thirty seconds to convince
Topic: May 1, 2026, Question / Answers re: Consecrations, 2026 AD. Fr. J.M. Gleize -AI (Read 170 times)