https://lesalonbeige.fr/la-fsspx-developpe-explicitement-une-ecclesiologie-de-suppleance-etrangere-a-la-tradition-catholique/AI Translation, by pdftranslator.org (free !)
Excerpt -unofficial. This interview sheds more light on the
potential "schism" of the SSPX.
2026 Trad world is not the same as 1988 Trad world. In May 1988, Vatican had accepted, in principle, to have ONE bishop consecrated...that is a strong argument for avoiding schism in 1988. Many groups at present live the TLMass and keep Tradition alive, so the SSPX isn't in an identical position today. Also, the SSPX has no authority (Jurisdiction) to morph into the real Magisterium, and present itself as the Teaching authority for all things Catholic...Has this ever been the case in history? Simply asking.
___________________
May 16, 2026.
After being a member of Society of Saint Pius X until the consecrations of June 1988,
Father Albert Jacquemin
joined the diocese of Paris. A Doctor in the history of law and canon law, he is a lecturer at the canon law faculty of the Catholic Institute of Paris and has been presiding since 2022 over the National Canonical Penal Tribunal of the French Bishops' Conference. He has just published “ Le Choix de la rupture. Mgr Lefebvre, Rome,les sacres, 1974-2026”.
Having closely lived through the consecrations of 1988, the author provides his insight on the upcoming consecrations. According to him, these consecrations have often been interpreted as the immediate consequence of the failure of negotiations between the Society of Saint Pius X and Rome. This perspective is too narrow: the event is actually part of an older process that began in the 1970s and is marked by an increasingly radical critique of the Second Vatican Council. By retracing the doctrinal and ecclesiological journey of Mgr Lefebvre, Albert Jacquemin demonstrates that the consecrations of 1988 do not stem from a simple disciplinary or liturgical dissent, but touch upon more fundamental questions: the nature of Tradition, the authority of the living magisterium, and the conditions for hierarchical communion within the Church.
As new episcopal consecrations are being considered in 2026, this work provides
decisive insight into a crisis that raises several essential ecclesiological questions.
We asked him:
The SSPX justifies the consecration of new bishops by the state of necessity in which the Church finds itself. What do you think? Does a state of necessity allow for the consecration of new bishops against the pope's authorization?
In the Church, if the "state of necessity" exists, it can never be invoked against the explicit will of the pope. Canon law recognizes this principle, particularly when it comes to ensuring the salvation of the faithful in extraordinary circuмstances: wars, persecutions, threats to life, prolonged inability to access the sacraments, or temporary hindrance in reaching ecclesiastical authority. However, the state of necessity requires specific conditions. The danger invoked must threaten an essential good of the Church: it must be serious, objective, current, or imminent. Above all, no other legitimate solution should be possible. Finally, the means used must remain proportionate to the danger and compatible with the hierarchical structure of the Church. The state of necessity is therefore not a right of exception that allows for the unilateral suspension of obedience to the Church.
Furthermore, the state of necessity cannot be proclaimed by a particular group that intends to take advantage of it. In the Catholic Church, the ultimate assessment of such a situation always belongs to the competent authority, especially to the Holy See, when an act concerning the ecclesiastical structure is involved.
The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) invoked this state of necessity to justify the episcopal consecrations of 1988. According to them, the doctrinal and liturgical crisis following the Second Vatican Council threatened the transmission of the Catholic faith and priesthood. These consecrations, according to Mgr Lefebvre, constituted an exceptional act aimed at preserving Tradition. [...] they led to the gradual autonomy of the Fraternity regarding Roman authority.
However, already in 1988, this argument was devoid of foundation since the Holy See had accepted the principle of consecrating a bishop from the Fraternity. It was also agreed that this bishop would be consecrated on August 15, 1988. Rome thus offered a canonical solution that ensured the continuity of Mgr Lefebvre's work without a break from ecclesial communion. The essential condition of the absence of any other legitimate solution was therefore not met. Mgr Lefebvre's decision did not meet any of the criteria of the state of necessity.
This is why John Paul II, in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, classified these consecrations as a "schismatic act."
Today, the SSPX's argumentation has further hardened. It now claims that the ordinary means of sanctification have practically disappeared from the Catholic Church and that Tradition only truly subsists within the Fraternity. However, beyond the fact that it is not the role of a particular sacerdotal society to make such a diagnosis about the state of the universal Church, this assertion directly contradicts the Catholic doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church. To assert that the hierarchical Church has substantially ceased to ensure the ordinary transmission of faith, sacraments, and grace amounts to practically denying that Christ continues to be present and acting in his Church.
[...] the heart of the matter here: the SSPX explicitly develops an ecclesiology of substitution that is foreign to Catholic Tradition. It claims to have received the mission - “ without specifying from which authority - “ to supplement the alleged failings of the Church itself. The recognition of the Pope has become merely theoretical, as real authority is effectively transferred to the parallel "jurisdiction" of the Fraternity, which decides for itself where the authentic Tradition is found and when obedience to the Holy See can be suspended.
The schism,[...], not only constitutes a serious offense against God, but it is also not about denying the authority of the Roman Pontiff; rather, it concretely involves obstinately refusing to submit to it. In practice, this results, despite all the protests of fidelity to the successor of Peter, in the establishment of a structure and an ecclesial life that are autonomous outside of hierarchical communion. This is why the consecrations of 1988 were described as a schismatic act. The ordination of bishops against the explicit will of the pope severely undermines the visible unity of the Church in a domain that directly touches on its divine constitution.
This is why new episcopal consecrations without pontifical mandate on July 1, 2026, would not simply repeat those of 1988 but would represent a significant aggravation.
In 1988, Mgr Lefebvre claimed to take an exceptional action related to
a transitional situation. Nearly forty years later, the repetition of the same act would signify the permanent establishment of the Fraternity within a logic of separation. After decades of persistent refusal of canonical regularization and progressive autonomization, new consecrations would display the intention to perpetuate an episcopal succession independent of Roman authority.
These consecrations, if celebrated, will no longer be merely an isolated schismatic act, but rather, due to their very repetition, the culmination of a schism that has been fully realized in practice, even if this term continues to be rejected by those who provoke it.
Question 2: The broad and generous welcome requested in 1988 by John Paul II, followed by Benedict XVI's reminder that the extraordinary form had never been abolished, has been challenged by ‘Traditionis custodes’. Do the Roman authorities not bear some responsibility for this situation of deadlock?
The real issue of the consecrations envisioned by the SSPX is not liturgical but ecclesiological. The question of celebrating the Tridentine Mass can no longer be seriously invoked, as in 1988, since this liturgy continues to be celebrated in the
Catholic Church, including outside the Fraternity, by institutes in communion with Rome and even, despite the recent restrictions - ”which can always be relaxed ” - in many dioceses around the world.That is why the true point of fracture between the SSPX and the Holy See does not concern the celebration of the old liturgy, but rather the doctrinal authority of the Second Vatican Council, the interpretation of Tradition, and ultimately, the very nature of authority in the Church.
In 1988, Mgr Lefebvre argued that it was necessary to ensure the survival of the priesthood and the Tridentine rite. Today, this argument has lost its relevance.
The Tridentine liturgy still exists in the Church; priests, seminaries, and communities recognized by Rome ensure its transmission. Therefore, if the SSPX is considering new consecrations, it is less to preserve a liturgical rite than to perpetuate a doctrinal and ecclesiological position.
It is sometimes claimed that if Mgr Lefebvre had not carried out the consecrations of 1988, the traditional institutes, which are now in communion with Rome, would never have come into existence. It can be argued that if the Holy See long exhibited strong reluctance towards the Tridentine Mass, it was precisely because Mgr Lefebvre associated the defense of this liturgy with a doctrinal challenge to the Council and to Roman authority. The liturgical question then appeared inseparable from an ecclesiological opposition to Roman authority.
But above all, the institutes celebrating the traditional liturgy in the Church today benefit from the provisions that the Holy See had granted to the Fraternity in the protocol agreement of May 5, 1988, which Mgr Lefebvre ultimately refused. In other words, the conditions allowing the celebration of the Mass of Saint Pius V within ecclesial communion existed already before the consecrations. Thus, these were not the necessary condition for the survival of the Tridentine liturgy in the Church.
The fundamental question today is much more serious. The underlying reason for
new consecrations is as follows:
the Fraternity believes it must ensure the authentic continuity of Catholic Tradition independently of the judgment of the Holy See.
In other words, it
effectively attributes to itself a normative function that is superior to the Magisterium of the Church. The issue is therefore no longer about a liturgical form that is insufficiently welcomed, but
rather about a parallel doctrinal authority. Perhaps the restrictions introduced by ‘Traditionis custodes’ have fostered among the faithful attached to the old liturgy a feeling of misunderstanding or injustice. However, they are not sufficient to explain, let alone justify, episcopal consecrations without pontifical mandate. These respond to the logic of a permanent constitution of a succession of bishops intended to guarantee, against the so-called "neo-modernist Rome," what the SSPX considers the "true Tradition." This claim presents future consecrations not as a mere disciplinary conflict, but as the culmination of a logic of doctrinal and hierarchical separation, which is objectively schismatic.
Question 3: Do you think that excommunication could be formalized when, at the same time, it seems that there are no sanctions against the German bishops or the members of the synodal group who justify unions between people of the same sex?
Canon law (c. 1387) attaches a penalty of excommunication latae sententiae (automatic), reserved for the Holy See, to the act of episcopal ordination performed without pontifical mandate. This provision aims to express the extreme seriousness of such an act, as it directly affects the hierarchical constitution of the Church and its visible unity. A bishop acting under these conditions places himself outside ecclesial communion. The Holy See, at the end of the celebration, merely recognizes and declares a penalty already incurred by the very fact of the act accomplished. On May 13, 2026, the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, relying on the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei by John Paul II from 1988, as well as on the Explanatory Note from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts in 1996, recalled what the canonical situation would be for those who would once again commit such a schismatic act.
The comparison with the situation of certain German bishops engaged in the 'synodal way' calls for distinctions, as the acts in question are not of the same nature. In the case of episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate, the law explicitly provides for an automatic penalty determined in advance. The canonical offense is objectively constituted by the act itself. An episcopal consecration without a pontifical mandate constitutes immediately a public act of break in the order of hierarchical communion. It directly affects the exercise of papal primacy and the apostolic structure of the Church.
The situation of the German bishops is different. Some of their positions certainly represent serious challenges to the Catholic doctrine on the sɛҳuąƖ morality, ecclesiastical authority, and the very nature of the Church. Rome has
reminded us of this several times. But this is not a unique canonical act to which the law would automatically attach an excommunication ‘latae sententiae’. With the German bishops, we are faced with serious doctrinal errors, ecclesiological
challenges, or disobediences that could ultimately lead to sanctions, but through different procedures.
It is therefore inaccurate to present the situation as if Rome were arbitrarily applying double standards to identical realities. Canonical offenses are not the same, nor are the legal mechanisms. In one case, the law explicitly provides for an automatic penalty; in the other, the ecclesiastical authority must progressively establish the exact nature of the doctrinal or disciplinary errors, their accountability, and any possible obstinacy of those involved. It should be added that the Holy See has never ruled out the possibility of resorting to canonical sanctions against certain German leaders if they persist in positions incompatible with Catholic doctrine or concretely involve the Church in Germany in a path contrary to ecclesial communion. Several recent Roman interventions have specifically aimed to prevent a national synodal process from claiming to establish itself as an autonomous doctrinal authority in relation to the Church's universal
magisterium.
In both cases, the fundamental question remains that of the unity of the Church and communion with the successor of Peter. However, the forms of break, their canonical nature, and the legal consequences that arise from them are not identical.
The End.
Topic: Fr. Pagliarani Burns Leo's House Down (Read 447 times)