Is the SSPX Schismatic — or Is the Church Facing a Deeper Crisis?

 

The announcement that the Society of St Pius X intends to consecrate new bishops on 1 July has provoked a predictable reaction. The word “schism” has been deployed quickly and confidently, often without any reference to canon law, Church history, or Rome’s own recent precedents. For many commentators, the case appears settled before it has even been examined.

But Catholic theology has never operated on slogans.

The question is not simply whether episcopal consecration without papal mandate is illicit. Everyone agrees that it ordinarily is. The real question is whether the Church still possesses the juridical and moral coherence required to condemn such an act unequivocally in the present circumstances.

In my latest Substack essay, I argue that this moment cannot be understood without grappling seriously with three uncomfortable facts.

First, the 1983 Code of Canon Law itself explicitly recognises situations of necessity that excuse or mitigate even the gravest canonical penalties. The SSPX is not ignoring the law. It is invoking provisions that many critics seem unaware exist.

Second, comparisons with 1988 are incomplete unless we also reckon with what has changed since then. Under Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, Rome has repeatedly clarified that the SSPX is not formally schismatic, even while remaining canonically irregular. That distinction matters, and it shapes how any future episcopal act must be evaluated.

Third, and most explosively, Rome has already accepted episcopal consecrations without papal mandate elsewhere, most notably in China, on grounds of pastoral necessity. Once that precedent is admitted, it becomes impossible to argue that such acts are unacceptable as such. What remains is the question of consistency.

The essay also confronts the growing sense of double standard felt by many Catholics. In a Church where bishops who openly dissent from Catholic doctrine are consecrated and promoted without sanction, while those seeking to preserve Tradition are threatened with the severest penalties, appeals to obedience alone no longer persuade.

This is not a defence of every SSPX position, nor an argument that the crisis has an easy resolution. It is an attempt to take the Church’s own theology, law, and recent history seriously, rather than reducing a complex ecclesial rupture to a single charged word.

If you want to understand why this SSPX decision is better read as a symptom than a rebellion, and why the deeper issue may be the erosion of coherent authority itself, you can read the full analysis here:

👉 Read the full article on Substack

As always, disagreement is welcome. But it should begin with clarity, not caricature.