Audio only:
Schism Returns! The SSPX has just consecrated 4 new bishops against the Pope’s explicit orders—and the Vatican has declared them excommunicated.
In this must-hear episode, Jimmy Akin breaks down the full story: from Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 crisis to today’s dramatic repeat. He explains what schism really means, how it affects confessions, marriages, and Masses, and what ordinary Catholics need to know. Don’t miss this clear, balanced guide to a developing Church crisis!
TRANSCRIPT:
Coming Up
The Society of St. Pius X has just consecrated 4 new bishops—against the express instructions of the pope.
Now the Vatican says the society is back in schism, and its bishops are excommunicated.
What happened . . . and what does it mean for ordinary Catholics?
Let’s get into it!
* * *
Howdy, folks!
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years to come—and get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
Here We Go Again
Here we go again!
On July 1, the Society of St. Pius X—commonly known by its initials, the SSPX—consecrated 4 new bishops without the pope’s approval.
In fact, it did so against the pope’s express wishes.
The very next day, the Vatican announced that the bishops involved had excommunicated themselves and that the society has returned to a state of schism.
If this sounds familiar, there’s a reason: almost exactly the same thing happened back in 1988.
So in this episode, I want to walk through who the SSPX is, how we got to this point, what the Vatican has now said, and what it all means—especially for ordinary Catholics who may be wondering what this does to SSPX confessions, marriages, and Masses.
What Is the SSPX?
The Society of St. Pius X is a society of priests that was founded in 1970 by a French archbishop named Marcel Lefebvre, who lived from 1905 to 1991.
It’s named for Pope St. Pius X, who reigned in the early twentieth century.
The society promotes traditional theological views and traditional liturgy—especially the Traditional Latin Mass or TLM.
And—just for the record—I don’t have any problem with that. I’m a fan of tradition, and I’d like everyone who wants to have access to the TLM to have it.
The society also critiques certain statements made by the Second Vatican Council, particularly concerning religious liberty and ecumenism—that is, the effort to restore unity among Christians.
Today the society has around 750 priests and 264 seminarians.
The SSPX estimates that 600 thousand people worldwide attend its Masses regularly.
That’s a lot in absolute numbers, but it represents about 0.04 percent of the 1.4 billion Catholics in the world.
Although statistics are difficult to come by, it appears that a comparable number of traditionalist Catholics who are not affiliated with the SSPX—estimated at somewhere between 500 thousand to more than 1 million—attend authorized celebrations of the traditional Latin Mass.
That represents about 2 percent of the U.S. Catholic population.
So the SSPX is not the whole of the traditionalist movement, but it is the most prominent group operating outside the Church’s normal structures.
The Road to 1988
To understand what just happened, we need to go back several decades.
In 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended a divinis for ordaining priests without the proper authorization.
The Latin phrase A divinis means From divine things
In practice, this meant he was forbidden to exercise his ministry—for example, he couldn’t lawfully celebrate the sacraments.
Lefebvre continued leading the SSPX anyway, and he continued ordaining priests without authorization.
That placed the society in what came to be called a canonically irregular situation—that is, a situation where they weren’t operating in compliance with the Church’s law.
By 1988, Lefebvre was turning 83, and there were concerns about the long-term survival of the society, because only a bishop can ordain new priests.
Without a bishop heading it, other bishops might not be willing to ordain new priests for the society, particularly given its irregular status.
And without new priests, the society would eventually die out.
Consequently, Lefebvre entered into dialogue with what was then called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or CDF, which was headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—the future Pope Benedict XVI.
On May 5 of 1988, Lefebvre approved a statement affirming the pope’s authority and the continuity of the Second Vatican Council with the prior Magisterium.
Although groups like the SSPX are not normally headed by bishops, Rome agreed to approve and appoint a bishop from within the SSPX and to regularize the society canonically.
In other words, the society was going to get its bishop, and it was going to be brought back into a regular relationship with the Church.
However, the very next day—May 6—Lefebvre went back on this deal.
And it was soon announced that he would consecrate not one but 4 new bishops for the society.
That took place on June 30, 1988.
Ecclesia Dei
2 days later—on July 2—Pope John Paul II issued a motu proprio titled Ecclesia Dei.
The Latin phrase Motu proprio means On his own initiative
It’s the name for a kind of document that the pope issues without being prompted by someone else, and this kind of document often announces legal rulings.
In it, John Paul II ruled on what Lefebvre had done. He wrote:
Ecclesia Dei 3
This act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act.
The pope also addressed the penalty involved.
Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law—which is now canon 1387, after the canons were renumbered—provides as follows:
Canon 1382
A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
The Latin phrase Latae sententiae means Automatic
That is, the penalty takes effect the moment the act is performed—without any Church authority having to impose it.
So John Paul II ruled that Lefebvre and the 4 new bishops had excommunicated themselves.
He also issued a warning to everyone else:
Ecclesia Dei 5c
Formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.
The document also established a commission for those affiliated with the SSPX who wished to remain in communion with the pope and the Church.
This led to the founding of what are known as “Ecclesia Dei” orders, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which celebrates the traditional Latin Mass in full communion with Rome.
Efforts at Reconciliation
In subsequent years, efforts were made by both the SSPX and the Church to achieve a reconciliation.
In 2007, Benedict XVI liberalized the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass.
And in 2009, he lifted the excommunications on the 4 Lefebvrist bishops.
That implied that they were no longer in schism.
The reason is that schism carries an automatic penalty of excommunication under canon 1364.
So if the bishops had remained in schism, then as soon as the original excommunications were lifted, the ongoing state of schism would have automatically triggered excommunication all over again.
The fact that Rome lifted the excommunications thus indicated that it did not regard the bishops as being in schism at that point.
Still, the society remained in a canonically irregular situation, and dialogue continued with the goal of regularizing its status.
Let me give you an example of what that irregularity meant in practice.
Under normal circumstances, a priest needs permission—or jurisdiction—from the local bishop to validly hear confessions or witness marriages.
Without that jurisdiction, it isn’t just that the confession is against the rules—the absolution doesn’t take effect at all.
But in 2015, Pope Francis extended special faculties to the SSPX to allow its priests to validly hear confessions.
And in 2017, he granted the society faculties to allow its priests to validly celebrate marriages.
These generous provisions were signs of good will toward the society, and they were meant to protect ordinary believers while the larger issues were being worked out.
Ultimately, though, talks between the SSPX and what is now called the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith or DDF broke down.
The New Consecrations
That brings us to the present.
By 2026, the SSPX had only 2 of its original 4 bishops remaining, and they were aged 67 and 68.
So the society faced the same problem it faced in 1988: without bishops, it could not ordain new priests, and it would eventually die out.
On February 2, it announced that it would consecrate 4 new bishops for the ongoing health of the society.
This led to a flurry of new efforts by the Vatican to address the situation, including a last-minute appeal by Pope Leo.
But the society declined to postpone the new episcopal consecrations.
On July 1, the 2 remaining SSPX bishops—Alfonso de Galarreta and Bernard Fellay—consecrated 4 priests as bishops, including an American named Michael Goldade.
The new bishops’ ages are 53, 45, 42, and 36.
So if the society waits until its 2 youngest bishops enter the age range that de Galarreta and Fellay are in now, the situation will repeat itself around the year 2052.
The Vatican Responds
The very next day—July 2, the day after the new episcopal consecrations—Cardinal Victor Fernandez, the head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued 2 documents in response: a decree and an explanatory note.
These indicated that we’ve returned to the post-1988 situation, though the new documents clarified a few things.
As expected, the decree ruled that all of the bishops involved excommunicated themselves.
And it repeated the kind of warning that John Paul II gave in 1988:
DDF Decree
Clerics and lay faithful are warned not to adhere to the schism of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, because they would ipso facto incur the penalty of latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication.
The expressed logic of the new excommunications is slightly different from the logic in John Paul II’s 1988 motu proprio.
There, the pontiff ruled that the bishops had been excommunicated based on canon 1382—now canon 1387—which provides that one who consecrates a bishop without a papal mandate, as well as the one consecrated, incurs automatic excommunication.
However, the 1988 document did not state that the bishops were also excommunicated by canon 1364, which provides automatic excommunication for schism.
It only warned that canon 1364 applied to those who formally adhered to the Lefebvrian schism.
The new decree is more explicit about this matter and applies both canons to the bishops.
Specifically, it applies canon 1387—excommunication for the episcopal consecration—and canon 1364—excommunication for schism—to Bishop de Galarreta and the 4 new bishops.
It also applies canon 1364 to Bishop Fellay, but not canon 1387, since Fellay was only the co-consecrator and not the principal consecrator of the new bishops.
Is It Really Schism?
There has been confusion about the nature of the schismatic act that was performed in the 1988 consecrations and the ones just performed.
The word schism comes from the Greek term skhisma.
Skhisma means Tear, Split
Think of a tear in a piece of cloth.
The Code of Canon Law gives schism a precise definition. Canon 751 defines it as:
Canon 751
The refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
After the 1988 consecrations, the SSPX bishops claimed they had done no such thing—they said they still recognized the pope’s authority.
It was further pointed out that canon 1382 did not refer to schism, so merely consecrating a bishop “without a pontifical mandate” should not be an act of schism.
And that’s true. It’s not.
But that is not the situation Lefebvre was in.
He didn’t just consecrate bishops without a papal mandate.
He consecrated them against papal instructions not to.
This wasn’t a case of merely doing something without authorization, which would not be schismatic.
It was a case of defying orders to the contrary.
Consequently, John Paul II ruled that Lefebvre and the others had engaged in disobedience to the pope in a very grave matter—one of supreme importance for the unity of the Church—and that this disobedience “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy” and thus schism.
The new decree from the Dicastery uses this same logic. It states that the SSPX bishops:
DDF Decree
Committed an act of a schismatic nature through the episcopal consecration of four priests, without a pontifical mandate and against the will of the Supreme Pontiff.
That last phrase—against the will of the Supreme Pontiff—is important.
It’s that fact that elevates a merely excommunicable act into an act of schism.
What About the Laity?
The Dicastery’s accompanying explanatory note lacks the legal force of the decree, but it seeks to clarify a few matters.
Concerning the society’s clergy, it says:
Explanatory Note
The sacred ministers [bishops, priests, deacons] belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism . . . resulting in them being subject to the excommunication provided for by law.
The note also addresses lay people. It says that those:
Explanatory Note
Who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X . . . are to be considered schismatic and excommunicated.
So for a lay person, the key question becomes: what counts as formal adherence?
In explaining this, the note refers to a 1996 document from what was then known as the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts or PCLT.
That document did not formally rule on the matter, but it expressed the legal opinion that formal adherence involves 2 elements.
First, there is an internal element. The council described it as:
Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts
[An element] of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism, that is, in opting in such a way for the followers of Lefebvre that this option is placed above obedience to the pope.
And second, the council stated that there is also:
Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts
Another [element] of an external nature, consisting in the externalization of that option, the most manifest sign of which will be exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church.
In practice, that external element would mean things like attending SSPX chapels exclusively and never attending regular Catholic churches.
Now, the council recognized that these 2 elements will not be present in everyone who walks through the door of an SSPX chapel.
It noted that, for the faithful:
Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts
There is the possibility that some faithful participate in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre without, however, sharing their schismatic spirit.
But it took a different view of the society’s clergy:
Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts
In the case of Lefebvrian deacons and priests, it seems beyond doubt that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two requirements mentioned above . . . are present and that there is therefore a formal adherence.
This is the basis for the new explanatory note treating the 2 groups differently.
The sacred ministers of the SSPX are said to be in schism, because they have formally adhered to it.
The lay faithful, by contrast, receive only a warning.
Sacraments and Attendance
The explanatory note also addresses the sacraments that SSPX clergy celebrate.
Explanatory Note
Finally, the holy People of God are warned that the sacred ministers of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X administer the sacraments illicitly and that the sacrament of penance administered by them and the marriage assisted by them are invalid.
It states that “the sacred ministers of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X administer the sacraments illicitly” and that “the sacrament of penance administered by them and the marriages assisted by them are invalid.”
Illicit and invalid are technical terms, so let me explain them.
When the Church says that the celebration of a sacrament is Illicit, it means that it is Not in conformity with the Church law. The sacrament still really happens—an illicit consecration of the Eucharist is really consecrated—but it was done in an unlawful manner.
But when the Church says a sacrament is Invalid, it means the sacrament Doesn’t happen at all—an invalid absolution forgives nothing, and an invalid marriage ceremony means the parties aren’t actually married.
So all of the sacraments the SSPX celebrates are illicit, or unlawful, but the confessions and marriages they celebrate are also invalid—meaning they don’t happen at all.
Why would confessions and marriages be invalid when the other sacraments are merely illicit?
Because those 2 sacraments require jurisdiction, and jurisdiction comes through the Church’s authority.
The Dicastery thus regards the faculties granted by Pope Francis—the ones that allowed SSPX priests to validly hear confessions and celebrate marriages—as revoked.
However, since explanatory notes do not natively carry legal force, at this point we would only expect this one to reflect the Dicastery’s opinion.
But we may well see a future document that gives it binding force.
Finally, the note exhorts the faithful:
Explanatory Note
To abstain from participating in the celebrations and activities promoted by the aforementioned Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
So there is now an official exhortation not to attend SSPX Masses.
Conclusion
Speaking personally, I find it tragic that the SSPX has brought about this situation.
It would have been better if they had suggested an arrangement like the one Archbishop Lefebvre originally agreed to back in 1988.
And it would have been better if—upon the negotiation of such an arrangement, and unlike Archbishop Lefebvre—they had followed through on it.
That way, the society would have been able to obtain a new bishop from among its own members.
It would not have plunged itself into a state of schism again.
And it would not have lost the faculties that had been so generously granted to it.
Instead, the society has damaged the situation, set things back by almost 40 years, and harmed numerous souls.
Let us pray for all involved—both in the society and at the Vatican.
* * *
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so you know whenever I have a new video.
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years into the future—and can get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
Thank you, and I’ll see you next time
God bless you always!