NEW BISHOPS FOR SSPX WITHOUT LEO'S APPROVAL

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X 

 

The Priestly Society of St Pius X (SSPX) finally announced yesterday on the Feast of the Purification, after years of deliberation, that it will consecrate new bishops. And in so doing, it will place 'Pope Leo XIV' and his homoheretical hierarchy in an invidious position. 

When Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated bishops in 1988 he was excommunicated. In 2026 it's hard to see how the pretender Pope Leo could get away with the same treatment for SSPX Superior General Fr Father Davide Pagliarani. 

The SSPX has acquired 700 priests, 200 seminarians and 500 religious and is now vastly more influential than was +Lefebvre and his fledgling traditional movement, even armoured, as the archbishop was, by saintliness. And in the nearly 40 years intervening, the internet has meant that priests and laity are vastly more informed on what goes on in the conciliar church. 

There's the Vatican's secret deal with Beijing, and its consequences, for Leo to consider. If the Chinese Communist Party can consecrate actual schismatic bishops without papal mandate as it has for years, excommunications of faithful Catholics by the Vatican's veterans in double-dealing would provoke a scandal too grave for laity, so recently infuriated by the demotion of Mary, Co-Redemptrix, to stomach.

All true Catholics (and even good Proddies) can and will know the SSPX by their fruits, which show up the conciliar regime for what it is: a false, barren religion serving the new world agenda. As the wise Gamaliel advised the Pharisees in Acts, if the SSPX's work were of men, it would have come to naught; but its growth in spite of the Vatican's bullying and vindictiveness would seem to show that "it be of God", in which case the hierarchy "cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps [they] be found even to fight against God". 

The hierarchy's heavies weren't interested in emulating the SSPX success in its seminaries and schools; they've done with conversion and saving souls and care only for their god, the Second Vatican Council and substituting its new doctrine for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They likely shelved the SSPX in the impious hope that its bishops     (declared non-schismatic by both Benedict XVI and Francis) would die off and and its faithful, left leaderless, go to other ghettos in ethe traditional priestly fraternities. 

The SSPX, in setting a date months ahead for its consecrations, is putting Rome and its Modernists on the hot spot. What's the betting that +Leo will fudge instead of fighting? That he'll pursue the Vat II pogrom and keep the SSPX in their ghetto where they can be managed, rather than alienate all decent, fairminded Christians by clobbering them with canon law, excommunication and exile? 

The mission given to the SSPX by Archbishop Lefebvre was to preserve the Faith until Rome returns to It. It is NOT the mission of the bishops to return the SSPX to Rome which is now the seat of a new religion.

When souls are in danger and the Faith is at stake, the Church’s laws (even the requirement of papal mandate for bishops) must yield to the higher law of saving souls. https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/schism-for-thee-but-not-for-me-the

 "In like manner, everyone who has received from God the power of distinguishing and yet follows an unskillful pastor and receives a false opinion for the truth shall be punished…

Be not deceived: if any man follows him who separates from the truth, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood he shall be condemned to Hell (St Ignatius of Antioch).

Leo XIV grovelling to schismatic Patriarch Bartholomew I 

Vatican II teaches that non-Catholic religions and communities can be “means of salvation,” which is a direct contradiction of the infallible dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (no salvation outside the Church).

 

Heretics and schismatics endanger souls. Vatican II says that “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using separated communities as means of salvation.”

 

The Council’s constitution Lumen Gentium stated that the Mystical Body of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church, rather than flat-out is the Catholic Church. 

 

The Conciliar Church all but abandoned conversion efforts and instead began an endless dialogue with false religions.

 

Consider how modern Rome treats the Eastern Orthodox versus how it treats the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The Eastern Orthodox churches broke from Rome over 1,000 years ago, rejecting papal supremacy and several dogmas. By any traditional definition they are formal schismatics.

 

The Vatican II popes flatter the Orthodox as “Sister Churches.” Their clergy, who definitively operate outside papal authority, are extolled as legitimate pastors of part of Christ’s flock.

 

Roman authorities even declare that the Orthodox churches have a “mission in the plan of salvation.” Yes, you read that correctly: Rome claims these schismatic churches, which refuse submission to the Pope, nevertheless play a positive role in saving souls.

 

The Vatican added non-Catholic “saints” to the Catholic calendar. Francis inscribed the 21 Coptic Orthodox martyrs killed by ISIS as “martyrs for all Christians” in the official Martyrology, even though those men did not die as members of the Catholic Church. He even named an Orthodox monk, St. Gregory of Narek (who lived and died outside Catholic unity), a Doctor of the Catholic Church.

 

The Vatican establishment harangue Catholics not to attend SSPX Masses, warning of “schismatic mentality", ambiguous terms like “imperfect communion” or “canonically irregular.”

 

Orthodox prelates who flat-out reject the Pope’s authority are celebrated and never called schismatics, whereas traditional Catholic clergy who acknowledge the Pope but resist his modernist errors are vilified and labeled schismatic at the drop of a biretta.

 

A textbook example of hypocrisy: a Communist-picked candidate was consecrated as bishop of a Chinese diocese immediately after Pope Francis died, without any clear papal mandate. Instead of condemning this as a schismatic act, the Vatican under Leo XIV quietly “validated” his status in order to keep the Beijing deal rolling.

 

This new bishop, it turns out, had been a key functionary in the regime’s Patriotic Association, effectively a Communist agent, and yet he now enjoys Rome’s blessing as a legitimate shepherd. Lefebvre and the newly consecrated bishops were vilified and punished with the harshest penalty. The “crime”? Refusing to let the Traditional Latin Mass and orthodox priestly formation die out (redacted). https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/schism-for-thee-but-not-for-me-the

 

 

Yesterday (February 2, 2026), on the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), publicly announced the Society’s intention to proceed with new episcopal consecrations on July 1, 2026.

 

Citing a “grave necessity” in the Church and the failure of dialogue with Rome, the SSPX once again prepares to take an extraordinary step outside the ordinary structures of ecclesiastical governance.

 

While the Society presents this decision as an act undertaken “without any spirit of rebellion” and for the good of souls, the announcement itself reveals the profound and unresolved disaster of the post–Vatican II Church.

 

This announcement will, of course, provide ammunition for critics and enemies of the fraternity on both sides of the spectrum: the purveyors of the new false religion on the one side, and ultra-traditionalists (sedevacantists, etc.) on the other.

 

The SSPX explains that its bishops, now advancing in age after nearly four decades of ministry, must be replaced in order to ensure the continuation of ordinations and confirmations for the faithful attached to Tradition.

 

This reasoning closely mirrors that given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988. Nearly forty years later, the same justification is invoked, the same extraordinary measure proposed, and the same appeal to “grave necessity” made.

 

The crisis that has led to these continued desperate actions is flowing directly from the post-conciliar revolution inaugurated by Vatican II and embodied in the men who claim authority within the modern Roman hierarchy.

 

Critics on the Traditional side argue that as long as the SSPX continues to presume the legitimacy of the conciliar hierarchy while simultaneously acting independently of it, it remains trapped in a permanent state of emergency—one of its own making.

 

Any announcement of new episcopal consecrations by the SSPX inevitably recalls the controversial events of June 30, 1988, when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without papal mandate.

 

At the time, Rome denounced the act as schismatic, declaring automatic excommunications—penalties later lifted in 2009, though without resolving the underlying doctrinal dispute. The episode has since become emblematic of the post-conciliar “Church’s” inability to address crisis except through juridical improvisation.

 

From the SSPX’s own perspective, the 1988 consecrations were justified by a state of necessity caused by the devastation of priestly formation and sacramental life following Vatican II.

 

Yet nearly four decades later, the same justification is advanced once again. The very need to repeat such an act underscores that the supposed “exception” has become permanent, and that the emergency measures taken in 1988 failed to resolve the deeper problem: a new false religion has been entrenched in Rome.

This historical continuity is decisive. The controversy was never fundamentally about canonical technicalities, but about authority itself. If a true Roman Pontiff had been governing the Church, the situation would not have devolved into competing claims of necessity followed by decades of ambiguity, partial reconciliations, and doctrinal silence.

 

The fact that the SSPX could be alternately condemned, tolerated, and courted by Rome only highlights the absence of clear, binding authority at the center.

 

Thus, the impending consecrations of 2026 do not represent a new chapter so much as a continuation of the same unresolved drama. What was extraordinary in 1988 has become almost routine. Rather than argue about the technicalities of what is announced, the faithful need to wake up and realise that Rome isn’t merely “going through a rough patch,” as the current “crisis” is thirty years short of a century.

 

Robert Prevost aka 'Pope Leo' meets with a notorious heretic but refuses an audience for Fr Pagliarani

Father Pagliarani recounts having sought an audience with the man he calls the Holy Father, hoping to present the Society’s situation “in a filial manner.” The subsequent response from Rome—described as failing to address the Society’s requests—is now offered as justification for proceeding without papal mandate.

 

But this outcome was inevitable.

 

Rome’s post-conciliar authorities cannot grant what the SSPX implicitly seeks—recognition of Tradition as normative—without condemning the very Council and reforms they are bound to defend.

 

Dialogue, therefore, can only ever end in ambiguity, delay, or refusal. The SSPX’s continued expectation of a different result betrays a lingering attachment to an authority structure that no longer functions as the Catholic Church: the Synodal False Church.

 

 

Archbishop Lefebvre and friends

It will now be particularly revealing to observe how Rome—and especially Prevost himself—responds to this latest announcement. In 1988, the reaction of the conciliar authorities was swift and juridical; in the decades since, it has been inconsistent, oscillating between censure, toleration, and strategic silence.

 

If nothing else, this move will further expose the usurpers in the Vatican. Should Rome react harshly, it risks exposing the emptiness of its oft-proclaimed “pastoral accompaniment” and synodal inclusivity. Should it react with silence or studied ambiguity, it tacitly admits its inability to govern even those who still claim allegiance to it. And should it once again pursue negotiations, it will only confirm that doctrinal clarity has been subordinated to pragmatic containment.

 

In every scenario, the response of Leo XIV and the Roman dicasteries will serve less as a solution than as a diagnostic—revealing a system that demands obedience while lacking the authority to command it, and that disciplines Tradition while endlessly tolerating innovation and sin.

 

The Society insists that it does not seek its own survival, but the good of the Universal Church. But by attempting to preserve apostolic succession while refusing to draw the necessary conclusions about the nature of authority in the Church today, the SSPX perpetuates an unstable ecclesiology: bishops consecrated without a pope, operating indefinitely in a canonical vacuum, while professing submission to a hierarchy that condemns their very existence.

 

I, for one, pray that the Society soon recognises that the absence of a true pope explains both the necessity and the disorder. The crisis of authority is not resolved by repeated “emergency” consecrations, but by acknowledging the reality that the Apostolic See has been eclipsed by modernist enemies of Christ.

 

Father Pagliarani speaks of an “unprecedentedly tragic era.” This observation of his can’t be faulted. But tragedy must be named correctly if it is to be endured faithfully.

 

The announcement of new SSPX episcopal consecrations is just another confirmation that the post-conciliar system cannot sustain Catholic Tradition, nor reconcile itself with it, because it is the system of a different and false religion that opposes Catholicism!https://radicalfidelity.substack.com/p/breaking-sspxs-announcement-of-new?r=41tkum&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVari

                                             The Martyrdom of Saint Blaise (Gaspar De Crayer)

                                                 St Blaise, Martyr, pray for the Church