How the SSPX Stays Loyal to Rome

The SSPX "refuses to separate itself, even outwardly, from the visible authority of the Church and from the successor of Peter, to whom it remains filially attached".

From One Peter Five

By Joseph Bevan

Back in November 2025, Fr Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of St Pius X, paid a visit to Great Britain. This visit was routine, in the sense that canon law requires that superiors visit their subordinates at regular intervals.

On this occasion, amidst the canonical duties carried out, Don Davide gave a conference to the SSPX faithful of St Michael’s School in Hampshire. After explaining that the Church was indeed in a state of necessity and that episcopal consecrations should be expected, an interesting question was asked by a member of the laity: would the SSPX ask permission from the Holy See for such consecrations? “Yes, we will ask Rome” came the reply. “Yes, we will do our part, we will do our duty. But sadly, this may come upon deaf ears, they will not understand. But yes, we will do our duty.” Fr Pagliarani’s answer seemed straightforward and relatively obvious, but it is more interesting than it appears at first sight.

The announcement of the consecrations on the feast of the Presentation this year has caused a storm on social media, with reactions from across the traditional Catholic spectrum—few of which grasp the true role of the Society and why so many opinions have nothing to do with the SSPX and its mission.

An example can be found amongst benevolent neo-conservative Catholics, who consider the SSPX merely as a naughty version of the Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP). The SSPX, like the FSSP, want to preserve the Latin, the bells and smells, the beautiful liturgy, and by doing so, they hope to sail against the tide and navigate against the waves of unsound doctrine emanating from the Vatican. The SSPX seem to be doing their thing in their own safe playground, say the conservatives, while the traditionally minded priests in the dioceses carry on the real fight in trying to preserve the Church’s dignity but only within the canonical structures. 

That these priests endure hostility from the authorities and respond with such courage is commendable and it would be mean-spirited to criticise them. However, the SSPX does not campaign primarily for the preservation of the traditional liturgy, for their battle is a fight for the very soul of the Catholic Church. 

The current dispute between Rome and the SSPX does not involve the issue of validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments either. It is certainly true that further down the line, maybe in a few hundred years, when historians look back at this time, they will associate the preservation of the traditional sacraments and the priesthood with what happened at Écône on 30th June 1988. One of the reasons Archbishop Lefebvre gave for these consecrations is that he couldn’t abandon his priests to bishops “who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments” (“évêques conciliaires, dont les sacrements sont tous douteux, parce qu’on ne sait pas exactement quelles sont leurs intentions?” from the sermon of the Consecrations).

But again, this is not the primary fight of the SSPX. In fact, after extensive reflection and research from its theologian members (who do not have an online presence, so you probably would not know them), they maintain objective doubt over one sacrament, which is Confirmation, because Tradition says that olive oil is the matter, and Paul VI erroneously ruled that other oils are fine too.[1] Regarding any other Novus Ordo sacrament, albeit to be avoided, there is no case for invalidity. However, the SSPX does not fight on this front, much to many a disappointment and anguish. 

An even more hardline approach has been that of the so-called sedevacantists who claim that the SSPX are there to preserve the truth but have not yet come to the supposed logical consequence of the position they themselves have taken. Indeed, the SSPX seem to reject the ecumenical council, they seem to reject the jurisdiction of the Pope, they seem to reject the goodness of the new liturgy. Anyone could argue that to reject these things if they are legitimate is both heretical and schismatic, which is what modernist opponents of the SSPX will say. If the SSPX considers them illegitimate, either it is heretical and schismatic, or they are resisting a heresy in favour of truth, which would invalidate as a whole the preacher of such heresies.

These assertions, fraught with difficulties as they are, do not form part of the mission of the SSPX. This is because the SSPX is offering a ‘temporary’ solution to the crisis in the Church, a kind of emergency service, or an ecclesiastical ambulance. It is not in the business of providing a long-lasting cure for the illness but merely an Elastoplast. Only the Holy Father, aided by the Holy Ghost, can sort out the current mess. Interestingly, the sedevacantist argument, although persuasive on the nature and extent of the crisis, is also vague on the remedies. How we can elect a proper Pope with no valid cardinals is not something which sedevacantists are able to address.  

Now to the crux. What does the SSPX actually do? What is it fighting for? The said theologians of the Society whom no one knows, and who, I am sure, will be recognised posthumously when this mess is over, give two important points. First, they note that Lefebvre “watched” and prayed. His most pronounced expression is “nous sommes bien obligés de constater” (“We are forced to acknowledge…”). The crisis is a reality, and reality imposes itself on us; that is realism. Some remember him actually weeping at the events at Assisi where all the religions were put on the same level, and many say that this accelerated his choice to consecrate back in 1988. Again, Rome’s document, Mater Populi that strips Our Lady of her titles, will probably be remembered as an accelerator to the SSPX consecrations of 2026. Secondly, these same theologians insist that the Society is only concerned with the mission of the Church itself: to lead souls to the communion of saints by giving them, here and now, the means of salvation.

In other words, what is the SSPX standing for? The answer is: the Church. They want to do what the Church does. They don’t do this with jurisdiction or any kind of self-proclaimed authority; they do what the Church does. That is their concern. So, what does the Church do? She is not primarily concerned with preserving “the truth” as a set of abstract theses, nor simply the true liturgy as a cultural treasure; she is concerned with the Faith, which is what souls ask the Church for at baptism, and which baptised souls have a right to from baptism. This is made explicit in Fr Pagliarani’s sermon on 2nd February at Flavigny-sur-Ozerain. The reason? Only Faith gives Charity.

Let us go back a bit. The Church is understood in two ways and indeed is described in two ways in the Creed. On the one hand, as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, visible, hierarchical, governed by Peter and his successors on earth. On the other hand, as the communion of saints, the union of the just, those in heaven and on earth who enjoy the divine presence in their souls. But in God’s view, these realities are one, the former being a means to the latter. And this means has its end simultaneously. It’s for now, today. It’s urgent and it’s a necessity. The visible Church is the means now to give you the state of grace and access to the communion of saints… now. So, the way that the Church brings this about is by transmitting the Faith, so that souls can access Charity. As the baptismal ritual has it: “What do you ask of the Church of God? Faith. And what does Faith give you? Life everlasting.”

The rest is secondary.

Conclusion

Returning to where we began, this is why that brief exchange in Hampshire—“Yes we will ask Rome… we will do our duty”—contains, in germ, the whole position of the Society: it asks, fully expecting to be refused, not because it doubts the necessity of the consecrations in the present state of emergency, but because it refuses to separate itself, even outwardly, from the visible authority of the Church and from the successor of Peter, to whom it remains filially attached, as visible means to the communion of saints. The SSPX isn’t interested in anything else.

In the line of Lefebvre, who could write that “the greatest service we can render to the Church and to the successor of Peter is to reject the reformed and liberal Church,” the Society holds that the highest act of obedience today is to preserve, in action, what the papacy is for in principle: the transmission of the Catholic Faith, whole and entire, without which there is no supernatural Charity.

The future consecrations, then, are not a protest about rites, nor a reaction to a possible crisis of validity; they are claimed as an act of fidelity to the Church and to Peter precisely because they secure, here and now, bishops who will ordain priests who will hand on that Faith which alone opens souls to grace and to the true love of God—acting for the Church, for the Pope, regardless of their understanding. The SSPX doesn’t act against the crisis, it acts for the Church, as should every single religious and priestly institution that claims to be Catholic. To act according to what is and always will be the simple continuation of what has been normal in the Church for nearly two thousand years: the Glory of God and the Salvation of Souls.

Let Archbishop Lefebvre have the last word, taken from his sermon at the episcopal consecrations in June 1988: “I am simply a bishop of the Catholic Church who is continuing to transmit Catholic doctrine. I think, and this will certainly not be too far off, that you will be able to engrave on my tombstone these words of St. Paul: “Tradidi quod et accepi” – I have transmitted to you what I have received,” nothing else. I am just the postman bringing you a letter.” 

---

[1] DZ-450 (and the Latin word oleum [oil] etymologically comes from the word olive). Paul VI: Materia apta ad sacramentum est oleum olivarum aut, pro opportunitate, aliud oleum e plantis (from Ordo benedicendi oleum catechumenorum et infirmorum et conficiendi chrism, 1970).