Leo XIV Can Stop the SSPX Schism — If He Chooses To

Pope Leo XIV has deliberately identified his pontificate with the pursuit of Christian unity. He has crossed confessional frontiers, prayed with separated Christians and insisted that existing bonds must be recognised and made visible. The threatened SSPX consecrations therefore expose a grave contradiction. The Society must answer for what it does at Écône. But the Pope must answer for why the patience, imagination and urgency extended to those outside full Catholic communion appear absent when dealing with Catholics who profess fidelity to him.

Pope Leo XIV chose as his motto In Illo uno unum: “In the one Christ we are one.” At the Mass inaugurating his Petrine ministry on 18 May 2025, he said that “love and unity” were the two dimensions of the mission entrusted by Our Lord to Peter. The following day, addressing representatives of other Churches and ecclesial communities, he described unity as a constant concern of his ministry. On the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, 29 June 2025, he declared again that his episcopal ministry was at the service of unity.¹

These were not incidental remarks. Leo XIV has deliberately sought to identify his pontificate with the pursuit of Christian unity.

In November 2025, he travelled to Türkiye to commemorate with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew the 1,700th anniversary of the First Council of Nicaea. At İznik, where the bishops of the undivided Church confessed the consubstantial divinity of Our Lord in A.D. 325, Leo prayed with representatives of Orthodox and other separated Christian communities and recited the Nicene Creed with them. His Apostolic Letter In unitate fidei presented the anniversary not as ecclesiastical archaeology, but as a summons to recover and manifest the unity grounded in the common confession of Jesus Christ.²

The gestures towards Anglicanism have been no less deliberate.

On 23 October 2025, Leo XIV received King Charles III, Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Pope and the King prayed together at an ecumenical service in the Sistine Chapel. Later that day, with papal approval, the King became “Royal Confrater” of the Abbey of St Paul Outside the Walls. A specially created seat bearing the Royal Arms was placed in the papal basilica and will remain there. The Royal Household described the confraternity as a recognition of “spiritual fellowship”.³

On 25 January 2026, at Second Vespers for the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, Leo XIV stood before representatives of separated Christian communities in the Basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls and declared:

“We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, experience it and make it visible!”⁴

He did not mean that doctrinal differences had disappeared or that full visible communion had already been restored. His point was that Christians should begin with the real bonds which already unite them in baptism and faith in Christ, rather than treating division as though nothing remained in common.

That principle is important.

It means that unity is not pursued merely by cataloguing deficiencies. It begins by recognising what already exists, receiving it with gratitude and building upon it patiently.

Then, on 27 April 2026, Leo XIV received Dame Sarah Mullally under the title Archbishop of Canterbury. He met her privately, addressed her publicly and afterwards prayed the office of Terce with her in the Chapel of Urban VIII. The Pope acknowledged continuing difficulties in Anglican–Catholic relations, but insisted that Christians must continue working to overcome differences, however intractable they may appear.⁵

The differences involved are not marginal.

The Catholic Church continues to teach that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void”. She teaches definitively that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Sarah Mullally cannot possess the sacramental episcopate in the Catholic meaning of that term. The Anglican Communion differs from the Catholic Church concerning Holy Orders, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, ecclesiastical authority, marriage, sexual morality and other matters touching faith and discipline.⁶

Yet Leo XIV found the language, the time and the pastoral imagination to receive her, pray beside her and speak of continued common witness.

The point is not that the Pope should refuse to meet Orthodox or Anglican leaders. He should seek the conversion and reconciliation of all Christians. Courtesy, prayer, serious theological discussion and the patient removal of obstacles to unity are proper to his office.

The point is the contrast.

Leo XIV has crossed the Bosphorus to pray with Orthodox hierarchs. He has commemorated Nicaea with Christians outside Roman communion. He has prayed in the Sistine Chapel with the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. He has approved the establishment of a permanent place of honour for that Protestant monarch in a papal basilica. He has received and prayed with a woman presented to him as Archbishop of Canterbury. To representatives of separated Christian communities he has said: “We are one! We already are!”

Yet when he turns towards the Society of Saint Pius X—a body which professes the Catholic Creed, offers the traditional Roman Mass, has validly ordained priests, celebrates valid sacraments, recognises Leo XIV as Pope, prays publicly for him and repeatedly petitions him as the Successor of Peter—the language is markedly different.

“It is their choice.”

“I am sorry, but we must move forward.”

That difference requires an explanation.

The Orthodox Churches possess valid bishops and sacraments but remain outside full communion with Rome. The Anglican Communion does not possess valid Holy Orders according to the solemn judgement of Leo XIII. Yet Leo XIV begins with the bonds that remain, speaks of unity already possessed and seeks to make it visible.

Why does he not begin in the same way with the Society?

Why is unity treated as an existing reality to be recognised and patiently developed when the Pope addresses separated Christians, but as an almost exhausted possibility when he addresses traditional Catholics who insist that they recognise his office?

Why are apparently intractable differences with Anglicanism met with prayer, encounter and persevering dialogue, while the difficulties raised by the SSPX are met with fixed preconditions, warnings and the prospect that Rome will simply continue without them?

The Pope cannot maintain two standards of unity: generosity, symbolic recognition and patience towards those outside full Catholic communion; prohibition, ultimatum and resignation towards Catholics who say that they desire to remain subject to Rome.

If Leo XIV can say “We already are one” to Christians separated from the Apostolic See for centuries, he cannot act as though nothing of Catholic unity remains with priests who pray for him at Mass and expressly profess his supreme jurisdiction.

This does not settle every question in the Society’s favour. It does establish the standard against which the Pope’s conduct must be judged.

On 1 July 2026, at the International Seminary of Saint Pius X in Écône, Switzerland, four priests are due to be consecrated bishops without pontifical mandate: Fathers Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry and Marc Hanappier. The Holy See has warned that these consecrations would constitute a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion. The Society maintains that they are necessary for the continuation of its priestly and sacramental apostolate. It denies any intention to establish a parallel Church, exercise territorial jurisdiction or reject the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff.⁷

The Society must answer for its decision.

Episcopal consecration without papal mandate is no small matter. It strikes directly at the visible order of the Church. A priestly society cannot simply declare that its own judgement of necessity overrides the judgement of the Apostolic See. Nor can professions of fidelity remove the contradiction between recognising papal authority and acting against the express will of the Pope.

The Society’s superiors will have to answer before God for whether their judgement was sound, whether the necessity they claim was genuine, whether every lawful remedy had been exhausted and whether an act undertaken to preserve Tradition instead inflicted another wound upon the Church.

But Rome must stop speaking as though responsibility ends there.

The Pope is responsible for the unity of the Church. He is responsible for the care and cure of souls. He possesses supreme, full, immediate and universal jurisdiction. He can grant the mandate which the Society lacks. He can approve or reject candidates. He can nominate others. He can limit their faculties, forbid territorial jurisdiction, establish a suitable canonical structure, appoint a pontifical delegate, guarantee the traditional liturgy, grant dispensations from ecclesiastical discipline and provide an interim settlement while doctrinal discussions continue.⁸

He can impose penalties. He can also remove the circumstances which make recourse to an unlawful act appear necessary.

That is the point which much of the present Roman commentary avoids.

The Society can decide whether to proceed. The Pope can decide whether there remains any credible necessity for it to proceed. These are not equal responsibilities. The Society has the power to commit the act. The Pope has the power to remove the principal justification advanced for it.

He holds the keys. Écône does not.

The Petrine office was not established so that the Pope might stand aside while a foreseeable rupture develops and then pronounce upon the consequences. Our Lord said to Saint Peter: “And thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” He commanded him to feed His lambs and His sheep.⁹ The Pope is not merely called to condemn division after it occurs. He is charged to prevent it where he can, to correct those who err, to strengthen those who falter and to recover those who are in danger of separating themselves from the fold.

Leo XIV cannot invoke Peter’s mission when speaking about ecumenical unity and then behave as though the SSPX crisis belongs entirely to others.

His remarks of 16 June were therefore deeply unsatisfactory. Speaking of the proposed consecrations, Leo said that Rome was considering another appeal to the Society and acknowledged that Christian division is always painful. He accused the Society of refusing certain “fundamental elements of the Church”, beginning with points of the Second Vatican Council. Yet his conclusion was stark: “But it is their choice.” If the Society proceeded, he said: “I am sorry, but we must move forward.”¹⁰

Of course it is their choice in the immediate sense. The men involved possess free will and bear personal responsibility. But this is not merely their crisis.

The Pope has powers which they do not possess. He can provide bishops lawfully. He can give canonical security. He can receive their professions of fidelity and test them in practice. He can offer an arrangement which removes any plausible appeal to necessity.

Until he has done so, Rome cannot simply say that the choice belongs to Écône.

What does it mean to “move forward” after the consecrations?

Does it mean declarations of excommunication? Does it mean arrangements for clergy who leave the Society? Does it mean another generation of priests and faithful living amid arguments about necessity, supplied jurisdiction, schism, canonical penalties and sacramental liceity? Does it mean repeating the wounds of 1988 and transmitting them to Catholics not yet born?

That is not moving forward. It is allowing an old failure to become a permanent condition.

The contrast within the Pope’s own remarks was striking. On war, he spoke of dialogue and negotiation. On migration, he warned against sending people away and washing one’s hands of the problem. Yet when he came to the SSPX, his language suggested that Rome might appeal once more, express regret and continue without them.

The Pope cannot wash his hands of this.

Nor can Rome pretend that this crisis appeared suddenly.

The history of the SSPX dispute is now more than half a century old. Successive Popes have negotiated, warned, conceded, withdrawn, regularised particular acts and left the central problem unresolved. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s actions in 1988 did not arise in a vacuum. Neither do the proposed consecrations of 2026.

Rome has had decades to determine how a body which professes the Catholic faith, recognises the Pope and remains attached to the traditional Roman liturgy might be given a stable canonical future.

It has failed to do so.

John Paul II attempted reconciliation but did not secure it. Benedict XVI remitted the excommunications and opened doctrinal discussions but left the Society without canonical recognition. Francis granted Society priests faculties for confessions and approved arrangements for marriages involving Society faithful, but later imposed extensive restrictions upon the traditional Roman liturgy elsewhere in the Church through Traditionis custodes.

Leo XIV has inherited this history, but inheritance does not remove responsibility. Once he accepted the office of Peter, the unresolved failure became his responsibility to address.

The present sequence makes the point clearly.

On 12 February 2026, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández met Father Davide Pagliarani with the Pope’s approval. The Holy See proposed a theological dialogue on condition that the consecrations be suspended. The proposed discussion was to address questions which Rome itself acknowledged had not been sufficiently clarified, including the distinction between “the act of faith” and “the obedience of faith”—that is, the religious submission of intellect and will—as well as the differing degrees of assent owed to texts of the Second Vatican Council and their interpretation.¹¹

That admission was important. It confirmed that the dispute cannot honestly be reduced to a refusal to obey.

Yet the proposed dialogue was not genuinely open. According to the Holy See’s published account of the Society’s response, the texts of Vatican II could not be corrected and the legitimacy of the post-conciliar liturgical reform could not be questioned. The official interpretation and application of the Council by successive Popes formed the already determined framework within which the discussion was to proceed.¹²

The Society may have been unwise to refuse the proposed talks. It may have been better to enter them, make its case and insist upon the necessary distinctions from within the process. The Society cannot demand that Rome concede its theological case before dialogue begins.

But neither can Rome determine the permissible conclusion before the conversation begins and then call the result an open dialogue.

If the conciliar texts may be discussed but never found defective, if their continuity may be asserted but never subjected to a test which could conclude otherwise, and if the liturgical reform may be explained but not judged, the Society is not being invited to examine the substance of the dispute. It is being invited to negotiate the terms upon which it must accept Rome’s existing conclusions.

This contrast with the Pope’s wider ecumenical practice is impossible to ignore.

With Orthodox and Anglican interlocutors, Leo XIV speaks of walking together despite outstanding differences. He recognises existing unity before full agreement has been achieved. He insists that present obstacles must not prevent prayer, friendship and common action.

With the Society, Rome appears to require the substantial resolution of doctrinal disputes before secure canonical communion can be restored.

Why?

If unfinished theological agreement does not prevent Leo XIV from identifying real bonds with Anglicans and Orthodox, why must every difficulty surrounding Vatican II be settled before the Society can be given bishops under papal authority?

If communion can be pursued by stages with those long separated from Rome, why can it not be regularised by stages with those who continue to profess Roman primacy?

If the Pope can recognise what already unites separated Christians, why does he appear unwilling to recognise the very substantial Catholic bonds which already unite the Society to Rome?

The Society has continued to place those bonds before him.

On 14 May, Father Pagliarani addressed a Declaration of Catholic Faith to Leo XIV. He reaffirmed papal authority and asked to be instructed and confirmed by the holder of the Petrine office. On 26 May, the Society submitted to the Pope the names and dossiers of the four proposed bishops. It expressly denied any intention to create a parallel hierarchy. On 24 June, Father Pagliarani and the General Council wrote again to Leo XIV and the College of Cardinals. Their profession of faith declared the desire to remain subject to the Holy Roman Church and to the Pope as Vicar of Christ.¹³

These professions do not resolve every contradiction in the Society’s position. Rome is entitled to test them. Indeed, it must test them.

But the test cannot consist merely in issuing another prohibition.

The Society has repeatedly asked for bishops, canonical security, protection for the traditional liturgy and serious theological engagement. The form of its petitions has not always been prudent. Its public language has sometimes been excessive. Its conduct has often made reconciliation more difficult. But it has continued to petition Rome because it continues to recognise Rome.

That gives an unavoidable relevance to the words of Our Lord:

“Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone?”¹⁴

This does not mean that everything the Society asks for is bread, or that everything Rome refuses is a stone. A father may refuse what would harm his son. The Pope may reject candidates, impose conditions, condemn errors and forbid acts which endanger communion.

But a father does not fulfil his duty by refusing alone.

If Rome says that the proposed consecrations are unlawful, it must provide a lawful alternative. If Rome says that these candidates are unacceptable, it must name acceptable candidates. If Rome insists upon postponement, it must offer a definite timetable and binding commitments. If Rome demands submission to papal authority, it must make possible an act of obedience which does not require the Society first to abandon every substantive concern it has raised.

It is not enough to say no.

The Society’s need for assured episcopal provision is real. Priests must be ordained; confirmations and the other ministries ordinarily or exclusively entrusted to bishops must be provided for. A worldwide priestly society cannot be left indefinitely without an assured episcopal future and then be condemned when it attempts to secure one for itself.

The remedy chosen by the Society may be wrong. The need which produced it is not imaginary.

This is where Leo XIV must act.

He could receive Father Pagliarani himself. He could approve one or more of the proposed candidates or choose others. He could grant a mandate subject to strict conditions, including a solemn oath recognising papal primacy and renouncing all territorial or parallel jurisdiction. He could define the sacramental functions of the new bishops. He could appoint Roman oversight. He could guarantee the traditional liturgy. He could create a canonical structure and a theological commission authorised to examine disputed questions honestly.

He could require postponement in return for an agreement containing dates, names and enforceable commitments.

None of this would amount to surrender.

It would place the Society before the clearest possible test of its professed fidelity. If Rome provided adequate bishops, liturgical security and a real canonical future, and the Society rejected them in order to proceed independently, its appeal to necessity would collapse. Responsibility would then fall far more plainly upon Écône.

Rome has not yet done this.

It has demanded that the Society refrain from acting. It has not supplied what would make the action unnecessary.

The controversy over Vatican II cannot be used to excuse this failure.

Leo XIV said that the Society refuses “certain fundamental elements of the Church, starting with various points of the Second Vatican Council”. But this formulation obscures the distinctions which Rome itself acknowledged in February.

Which elements? Which points? What degree of authority belongs to them? What precisely is rejected? What assent is owed? Where is the alleged contradiction with Catholic doctrine?

Monsignor Brunero Gherardini made the essential distinction in his 2011 response to Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz. He did not deny that Vatican II belonged to the Magisterium. He argued that identifying a text as magisterial does not determine the precise authority of every proposition, convert every sentence into dogma or demonstrate its continuity with preceding teaching merely by asserting it.

The Magisterium is not an absolute authority standing above Scripture and Tradition. It is the servant of the Deposit of Faith which it is charged to receive, guard, explain and transmit.¹⁵

This is straightforward Catholic theology.

Vatican II produced sixteen documents of differing character. It did not define every proposition contained in them as divinely revealed. Not every conciliar sentence carries the same theological note. Some passages repeat dogma. Some teach authoritatively without defining. Some concern pastoral judgement, policy or discipline. Some remain disputed in wording, interpretation or application.

It is therefore not sufficient to demand acceptance of “the Council” as though it constituted a single proposition requiring one undifferentiated assent.

A Pope has the right and duty to require adherence to the Catholic faith. He does not strengthen the Magisterium by refusing to distinguish among its different acts.

Rome should require the Society to identify its objections precisely. Rome must answer those objections with equal precision.

Canon law likewise provides no excuse for papal inaction.

Canon 1387 establishes that a bishop who consecrates another bishop without pontifical mandate, and the person who receives that consecration, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. But the penal law also requires imputability and recognises necessity, grave fear, grave inconvenience, error and diminished culpability as potentially relevant to whether penalties are incurred or mitigated. In circumstances recognised by canon 1324, a person is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.¹⁶

These provisions do not prove the Society right. The claimed necessity may be rejected as exaggerated, culpably created or insufficient. The proposed action may be judged harmful to souls rather than necessary for them.

They do prove that the matter cannot be settled simply by repeating the words “automatic excommunication” or “schism” as though no juridical judgement remained to be made.

The opinion of the anonymous English-speaking canon lawyer republished by the Society argues that the claimed necessity, the absence of declared schismatic intention, the strict interpretation required in penal law and the foreseeable pastoral consequences weigh against treating the act automatically as formal schism. His conclusions are not authoritative and may be contested. But he identifies the essential pastoral point: the Church should not reach first for the hammer of the law while leaving unused the means of preventing the offence.¹⁷

The Pope is not the prisoner of canon law. He is its supreme legislator. He has the power to dispense as well as to punish. He has the power to supply as well as to prohibit. He can grant the mandate which would remove the offence altogether. The law does not make him helpless. It makes his responsibility greater.

There are precedents.

In 2002, John Paul II reconciled the traditionalist community of Campos and established the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney. He recognised its communion with Rome, guaranteed its traditional liturgical life and assured its episcopal succession without pretending that every historical and theological disagreement had first disappeared.¹⁸

In 2009, Benedict XVI remitted the excommunications of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. He asked whether the Church could remain indifferent to hundreds of priests, seminarians and religious, and thousands of faithful. His question remains the standard against which Rome’s conduct should be measured: “Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church?”¹⁹

Under Francis, the Holy See granted Society priests faculties to hear confessions validly and licitly. It subsequently made provision for marriages involving Society faithful, expressly recognising both the Society’s continuing irregular condition and the pastoral need to protect souls and consciences. Francis later restricted the wider use of the traditional Roman liturgy through Traditionis custodes, but even that contrast demonstrates that Rome is capable of distinguishing pastoral provision from complete canonical regularisation when it chooses to do so.²⁰

These actions did not resolve every doctrinal dispute. They showed that Rome can act pastorally before every question is settled.

Nor is Rome without a still more exact episcopal precedent.

In 2018, Pope Francis reconciled the seven remaining living Chinese “official” bishops who had been consecrated without pontifical mandate. He lifted the relevant canonical sanctions and readmitted them to full ecclesial communion. He did so expressly to overcome the wounds of the past, restore unity and advance the good of the Church in China.²¹

The Chinese authorities nevertheless continued to interfere unilaterally in episcopal government. In November 2022, they installed Bishop Giovanni Peng Weizhao as auxiliary bishop of a “Diocese of Jiangxi” which the Holy See did not recognise. The Vatican expressed “surprise and regret”, but reaffirmed its willingness to continue dialogue. In April 2023, the Chinese authorities transferred Bishop Joseph Shen Bin to Shanghai without involving Rome in the decision. Pope Francis subsequently “rectified the canonical irregularity” of the transfer for the greater good of the diocese. The Holy See then renewed its agreement with the People’s Republic of China for a further four years in October 2024.²²

The circumstances are not identical. The Pope is entitled to judge each case according to its facts, intentions and consequences. But the actions of the Chinese were arguably deliberately schismatic. The Chinese precedents do not justify an act of disobedience at Écône, but at least the Society has sought permission and professed recognition of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

The contrast is unavoidable.

Rome has demonstrated that bishops consecrated without mandate can be reconciled, that unilateral interference in episcopal appointments need not terminate dialogue, and that even an accomplished canonical irregularity can be regularised for the good of souls.

When an avowedly atheistic state interferes with episcopal appointments, transfers bishops unilaterally and acts outside its agreement with the Holy See, Rome expresses regret, regularises what it can and continues negotiating.

When Catholic priests who profess the Roman primacy ask the Pope himself for episcopal provision, Rome speaks of excommunication, schism and moving forward without them.

Why?

Why is patient regularisation possible for bishops advanced through structures controlled by the Chinese Communist authorities, but apparently unavailable for bishops requested by the Society of Saint Pius X?

Why can Rome accept accomplished facts created by Beijing, yet refuse to prevent an accomplished fact at Écône by granting or negotiating a lawful mandate beforehand?

Why can bishops consecrated without papal mandate be reconciled for the good of the Church in China, while the Pope appears unwilling to make such consecrations unnecessary among traditional Catholics who recognise his office?

The Chinese precedent destroys any suggestion that Leo XIV lacks the authority, the canonical flexibility or the pastoral precedent required to resolve the present crisis.

Rome has shown extraordinary patience when dealing with the Chinese Communist authorities.

The Society is entitled to ask why Catholics professing fidelity to Peter receive less.

Why, then, should Leo XIV not act?

Why should the Pope who tells separated Christians that unity already exists and must be made visible refuse to give canonical form to the real Catholic bonds which the Society professes?

Why should the Pope who prays with an Anglican Archbishop not meet personally with the Superior General of the Society?

Why should the Pope who approved permanent honour for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England in a papal basilica be unable to approve Catholic bishops for traditional priests and faithful who recognise him as Pope?

Why should the Holy See which regularised Chinese bishops consecrated or transferred outside proper papal processes be unable to negotiate a lawful mandate before Écône acts?

Why should differences over Vatican II be treated as a more absolute obstacle than the rejection of papal primacy, Catholic Holy Orders and Catholic doctrine represented elsewhere in ecumenical dialogue?

These questions cannot be dismissed as rhetoric. They arise from Leo XIV’s own ecumenical principles and from Rome’s documented practice.

If existing unity must be recognised, then recognise it.
If dialogue must continue despite intractable differences, then continue it.
If canonical irregularities may be rectified for the good of souls, then prevent one before it occurs.
If Christians must avoid washing their hands of difficult human problems, then Rome must not wash its hands of Écône.

The SSPX is not a handful of eccentric clerics who can be discarded without consequence. It possesses seminaries, schools, priories, religious communities, missions and a large international body of faithful. Its priests offer the traditional Roman Mass, preach the Catholic Creed, administer valid sacraments and pray publicly for Leo XIV as Pope.

What good would be achieved by driving them farther away?

Excommunication may sometimes be necessary. But an ecclesiastical penalty is medicinal. It exists for the correction of the offender and the restoration of communion, not to make an awkward problem administratively easier.

The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls.²³ That principle binds every exercise of ecclesiastical authority. It binds priests and bishops. It binds dicasteries. It binds the Pope.

The question must therefore be asked plainly: does Leo XIV truly intend reconciliation?

It would be unjust to claim without evidence that he desires a schism. But if he continues to warn, prohibit and prepare penalties while declining to use the powers available to him, he will create the impression that some in Rome find a condemned SSPX more convenient than a reconciled one.

An irregular Society can be kept at a distance. Its arguments can be dismissed because of its canonical condition. A reconciled Society would have to be heard from within the visible structures of the Church. Its theological criticisms could no longer be answered merely by pointing to disobedience.

A formal rupture would simplify the administrative problem. It would not resolve the ecclesial one.

Unless there is some other agenda, Leo XIV should be doing everything within his power to avoid schism. He should receive the Society’s stated fidelity to him and his office. He should test it. He should bring the Society to himself. He should provide the bishops it needs under papal authority. He should establish the canonical conditions under which its apostolate can continue in communion with Rome. He should require obedience by making obedience practically possible.

He cannot proclaim dialogue and unity to the world while appearing unwilling to employ every lawful means of dialogue and unity with Catholics who have petitioned him repeatedly.

He cannot say “We already are one” to Anglicans and Orthodox and then speak as though separation from the Society were simply its own affair.

He cannot regularise episcopal irregularities created by the Chinese Communist authorities while claiming that no comparable flexibility is possible for Catholics appealing directly to him.

He cannot make In Illo uno unum the motto of his pontificate and then allow its first years to be marked by a rupture which he possesses the authority to prevent.

No one asks the Pope to endorse every judgement made by Archbishop Lefebvre or Father Pagliarani. No one asks him to deny the authority of Vatican II or abandon canonical discipline.

He is asked to govern.
He is asked to summon, judge, correct, dispense, provide and reconcile.
He is asked to use the keys.

The Society’s leaders will stand before God to answer for what they do at Écône. They will answer for every soul affected by their decision, for the judgement of necessity upon which they rely and for the consequences of acting without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff.

But Leo XIV will also stand before God.

The Fisherman’s Ring will not remain upon his hand for ever. The papal titles, the dicasteries, the audiences and the authority of his office will pass to another. Robert Prevost will stand before Christ as a Christian soul and as the steward to whom the visible unity of the Church was entrusted.

Holy Scripture says that pastors watch over souls “as being to render an account”. It warns that “unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required”.²⁴ No pastor on earth has been given more responsibility for the unity of the Church than the Pope.

At the judgement seat of Christ, it will not be enough to say that the Dicastery issued warnings, that canon law contained a penalty, that the Society made its own choice or that Rome moved on.

The Pope will have to answer for what he did with the keys.

Did he confirm his brethren?
Did he feed the sheep?
Did he receive those who repeatedly petitioned him?
Did he extend to them the same patience he extended to separated Christians and Communist authorities?
Did he recognise and build upon the Catholic bonds which already existed?
Did he provide a lawful remedy before condemning an unlawful one?
Did he exhaust every means of justice, truth, discipline, patience and charity before allowing another division to harden within the Church?

The Society will answer for whether it disobeyed.

The Pope will answer for whether he made disobedience unnecessary.

The divine Judge will ask not only whether those who came to Peter were impatient, imprudent or wrong. He will ask whether Peter, when they asked him for bread, did everything within his power before allowing them to believe that Rome had given them a stone.

History may record that the consecrations took place against the will of the Pope. The judgement of God will go further. It will ask what the Pope did to prevent them.

In Illo uno unum must now become more than a motto.

Unity is the Pope’s responsibility.

And the Pope himself will stand before God to account for how he discharged it.

---

1. Holy See Press Office, “The Coat of Arms of Pope Leo XIV: Explanation”, 14 May 2025; Leo XIV, Homily for the Beginning of the Petrine Ministry, 18 May 2025; Leo XIV, Address to Representatives of Other Churches and Ecclesial Communities and of Other Religions, 19 May 2025; Leo XIV, Angelus, 29 June 2025.
2. Leo XIV, Apostolic Letter In unitate fidei, 23 November 2025; Leo XIV, Address at the Ecumenical Prayer Service near the Archaeological Excavations of the Ancient Basilica of Saint Neophytos, İznik, 28 November 2025; Joint Declaration of Pope Leo XIV and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, 29 November 2025.
3. Royal Household, “Further Details of The King and Queen’s State Visit to the Holy See”, 17 October 2025; Royal Household, “State Visit to the Holy See”, 23 October 2025.
4. Leo XIV, Homily at Second Vespers for the Conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, Basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls, 25 January 2026.
5. Leo XIV, “Address on the Occasion of the Visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury”, 27 April 2026; Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, “Visit to Rome of the Archbishop of Canterbury”, 4 May 2026.
6. Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Apostolicae curae, 13 September 1896; John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, 22 May 1994.
7. General House of the Society of Saint Pius X, “The General House Announces the Names of the Future Bishops”, 26 May 2026.
8. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, chapters II–III; Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), canons 331–333 and 85–93.
9. Luke 22:32 and John 21:15–17, Douay-Rheims Bible.
10. Vatican News, “Pope: May US–Iran Memorandum Be ‘Truly a Solution to the War’”, 16 June 2026.
11. Vatican News, “Holy See Proposes Theological Dialogue with Society of St Pius X”, 12 February 2026.
12. Vatican News, “Society of St Pius X Rejects Dialogue Proposed by the Holy See”, 20 February 2026.
13. Davide Pagliarani, “Declaration of Catholic Faith Addressed to Pope Leo XIV”, 14 May 2026; General House of the Society of Saint Pius X, “The General House Announces the Names of the Future Bishops”, 26 May 2026; Davide Pagliarani and the General Council of the Society of Saint Pius X, “Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Leo XIV and to the Cardinals of the Holy Church”, and “Profession of Catholic Faith of the Society of Saint Pius X to Enlighten Souls in the Face of Modern Errors”, 24 June 2026.
14. Matthew 7:9, Douay-Rheims Bible.
15. Brunero Gherardini, “What Adherence Is Due to the Second Vatican Council? The Answer of Msgr Gherardini”, originally published by Disputationes Theologicae in 2011; republished by InfoVaticana, 21 June 2026.
16. Codex Iuris Canonici, canons 1321–1324, 1364 and 1387.
17. “Opinion of a Canon Lawyer Concerning the Consecrations”, originally published by Rorate Cæli, 6 May 2026, and republished by the Society of Saint Pius X, 8 June 2026.
18. John Paul II, “Autograph Letter to Bishop Licínio Rangel and the Sons of the Union of Saint John Mary Vianney of Campos, Brazil”, dated 25 December 2001 and published 19 January 2002.
19. Congregation for Bishops, Decree remitting the latae sententiae excommunications, 21 January 2009; Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, 10 March 2009.
20. Francis, Apostolic Letter Misericordia et misera, 20 November 2016, no. 12; Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Letter concerning faculties for marriages of faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X, 27 March 2017; Francis, Apostolic Letter Traditionis custodes, 16 July 2021.
21. Francis, Message to the Catholics of China and to the Universal Church, 26 September 2018, no. 3. Francis stated that he had granted reconciliation to the remaining seven “official” bishops ordained without papal mandate, lifted the relevant canonical sanctions and readmitted them to full ecclesial communion.
22. Holy See Press Office, statement concerning the installation of Bishop Giovanni Peng Weizhao as “Auxiliary Bishop of Jiangxi”, 26 November 2022; Vatican News, “Chinese Bishop Shen Bin Transferred to Shanghai, Holy See Learns of Move from Media”, 4 April 2023; Vatican News, “Cardinal Parolin: Pope Appoints Shanghai Bishop for Good of Diocese and Dialogue”, 15 July 2023; Holy See Press Office, “Communiqué on the Extension of the Provisional Agreement between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China Regarding the Appointment of Bishops”, 22 October 2024.
23. Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 1752.
24. Hebrews 13:17 and Luke 12:48, Douay-Rheims Bible.

---

RELATED ARTiCLES

LATEST ARTICLES

• Leo XIV Can Stop the SSPX Schism — If He Chooses ToJune 29, 2026
  Pope Leo XIV prioritises Christian unity, engaging in ecumenical efforts with various denominations while facing criticism for his handling of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) schism. The Pope’s contrasting approach raises questions about his commitment to reconciliation with traditional Catholics who seek to remain loyal to the Church.
• Today’s homily: SS Peter & PaulJune 29, 2026
  On the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, the Church contemplates two men transformed by grace and united in one faith, one apostolic mission, and one Roman martyrdom. Peter, strengthened after weakness, and Paul, converted from error, teach us that Christ’s truth endures, His Church cannot be overcome, and fidelity reaches its fulfilment in sacrifice.
• Today’s Mass: June 29 SS. Peter & Paul, ApostlesJune 29, 2026
  The commemoration of SS Peter and Paul marks their martyrdom on June 29, A.D. 67, celebrated with a shared feast at their respective basilicas. St. Peter, the first pope, signifies Christ’s foundation of the Church, tasked with guiding it through divine authority, while St. Paul emphasizes the spread of Christianity.
• Sermon for St. Peter and St. PaulJune 29, 2026
  Today we celebrate the great feast of St. Peter and St. Paul. We mark the feast of these two saints together due to their martyrdom in Rome under the Emperor Nero. Today’s lections focus on St. Peter, while tomorrow’s commemorate St. Paul. Hence, today’s sermon will be about St. Peter. 
• The Blood of the Everlasting Testament: The Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Month of JulyJune 28, 2026
  July is dedicated to the Most Precious Blood of Jesus, symbolising redemption and the Church’s life. Its universal feast, established by Pope Pius IX, invites the faithful to honour this sacrifice through adoration and service. The Blood represents both Christ’s love and the means of salvation, fostering devotion and moral responsibility.

CURRENT EDITION

Today’s Mass Propers

• 
  Today’s Mass: June 29 SS. Peter & Paul, Apostles
  The commemoration of SS Peter and Paul marks their martyrdom on June 29, A.D. 67, celebrated with a shared feast at their respective basilicas. St. Peter, the first pope, signifies Christ’s foundation of the Church, tasked with guiding it through divine authority, while St. Paul emphasizes the spread of Christianity.