Rome will not approve new bishops for the SSPX. Here's why.

Over the last few years, and especially after the recent passing of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, the traditionalist world has been abuzz with speculation about the SSPX and the question of consecrating new bishops. The growth of the SSPX and the age of their two remaining bishops both make this a matter of more urgency for them.

The SSPX has already announced their plans to consecrate new bishops and why this action is justified in their eyes. In their own words, "any potential episcopal consecrations in the future, even if carried out against the explicit will of the Supreme Pontiff, will be: a) possible; b) necessary; and c) without serious detriment." The District Superior of the SSPX in Italy stated in December of 2024 that the consecrations would happen "soon", and I have heard from someone who attended a recent SSPX conference that Bishop Fellay confirmed the consecrations would occur in 2026.

So, the burning question is: will Rome grant permission for the SSPX to consecrate these bishops, making it canonically legitimate and helping to heal the rift between them and the Church? Or will the Vatican deny their request, generating a repeat of the 1988 incident?

It is my opinion that Rome will not grant the SSPX's request for new bishops. And to understand why, we need to look at the history between the SSPX and Rome; specifically, the discussions that were happening in 1988 before Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops. Many people know that Rome agreed to grant the SSPX a bishop, at their request (and despite the various renditions of the story told by the SSPX, Rome was indeed prepared to give them one, to be consecrated on August 15, 1988). But what is often overlooked is that this concession was granted to them in tandem with an agreement of reconciliation with the church. It was not an isolated permission; it was contingent on a broader agreement that would facilitate unity between the SSPX and the church.

Let's look at the text of this agreement, often referred to simply as the "May 5 protocol". This agreement established the SSPX as a society of apostolic life, per canons 731-746. The protocol granted generous allowances for the SSPX, including granting it full autonomy and ability to form members and incardinate priests. The conditions were that the SSPX would promise loyalty to Rome and that they would "have a positive attitude" towards the Vatican II reforms that they took issue with. (Note that Rome did not even ask them to accept them without any questions asked; they simply asked the SSPX to at least try to study them and communicate their differences in a non-polemical way.)

Additionally, a Roman commission was to be established "to coordinate relations with the different dicasteries and diocesan bishops, and also to resolve problems and disputes that may arise," which "would have the function of supervising and offering assistance to consolidate the work of reconciliation, and to settle questions related to the religious communities having a juridical or moral bond with the Society." The May 5 protocol recommended that the new SSPX bishop be a part of this commission.

Now, here is the key point about the SSPX bishops. The reason I believe Rome will not grant this permission a second time is not what you might think. It's not because of the SSPX's history, or their tensions with various dioceses (and Rome itself), or their canonical status. It's because the SSPX has a fundamentally incorrect idea of what a bishop is.

The SSPX views bishops simply as a means to an end. They exist to consecrate churches, administer Confirmation, and ordain new priests. In the words of Lefebvre himself, "[W]e have chosen, with the grace of God, priests from our Society who have seemed to us to be the most apt, whilst being in circumstances and in functions which permit them more easily to fulfill their episcopal ministry, to give Confirmation to your children, and to be able to confer ordinations in our various seminaries." They are to the SSPX what the pope is to the church. They are simply the means by which the SSPX continues to exist.

But this is an incomplete and erroneous understanding of the episcopacy. Just as parenthood is not simply a role by which individuals procreate and raise their children independently of other parents and other communities, the episcopacy does not exist to simply "make" more priests and churches so that they can carry on a mission that is independent of other priests and communities. Parenthood is so much more than that. It's a state by which parents live in union with their children, with other families, within the community. Likewise, the episcopacy is a role that by its very nature is meant to operate in union with the college of bishops and with the church as a whole. A bishop does not exercise his powers independently or in opposition to his brother bishops. As Lumen Gentium states, "Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college." But the way the SSPX sees it, bishops are simply a tool by which to perpetuate their organization, not a position that operates in union with the rest of the church.

This very important point is accounted for in the May 5 protocol. Rome understood that the SSPX wanted bishops for their own purposes, and so it clearly stated:

1. At the doctrinal (ecclesiological) level, the guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the Society is assured by its erection as a Society of Apostolic Life of pontifical right, and by the approval of its Statutes by the Holy Father.

2. However, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop appears useful. This is why, in the framework of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from within the Society, upon the presentation [of a terna of candidates] by Archbishop Lefebvre.

Per this agreement, the existence of the SSPX would be contingent on its relationship with Rome, and the bishop was granted as a concession, but not as a means by which to continue the SSPX. (It also declared that this bishop should not be the Superior General of the SSPX.) The Vatican knew that granting full control to the bishop would be inappropriate for achieving the long-term goal of unity.

This is the central point behind the granting of permission for a bishop. The SSPX wanted one (or several) to have a means by which to continue their work. Rome was willing to grant them one to help bring about unity, but not as the means to keep the SSPX in existence. (This is why the FSSP does not have any bishops; because they and the Vatican both know that its work and mission can be carried out through the assistance of the bishops around the world. They are simply following the words of Lefebvre himself, who wrote in An Open Letter to Confused Catholics before reversing this stance several years later: "It has also been said that after me, my work will disappear because there will be no bishop to replace me. I am certain of the contrary; I have no worries on that account. I may die tomorrow, the Good Lord answers all problems. Enough bishops will be found in the world to ordain our seminarians: this I know.")

Which brings us to the present day. The SSPX has engaged in several rounds of discussions with Rome, and the most recent one ended with the SSPX declaring the following on June 27, 2013:

Fifty years on, the causes persist and still engender the same effects. Hence today the consecrations retain their full justification. It was love of the Church which guided Archbishop Lefebvre and which guides his sons. [...] This love of the Church explains the rule that Archbishop Lefebvre always observed: to follow Providence in all circumstances, without ever allowing oneself to anticipate it. We mean to do the same: either when Rome returns to Tradition and to the Faith of all time – which would re-establish order in the Church; or when she explicitly acknowledges our right to profess integrally the Faith and to reject the errors which oppose it, with the right and the duty for us to oppose publicly the errors and the proponents of these errors, whoever they may be – which would allow the beginning of a re-establishing of order. Meanwhile, faced with this crisis which continues its ravages in the Church, we persevere in the defence of Catholic Tradition and our hope remains entire, as we know by the certitude of Faith that “the gates of hell will not prevail against her.” (Mt 16:18)

In other words: no deal. And no deal means no bishops.

After Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops, he said the remaining impediments are not "based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons." The central issue at hand here is the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council, and if Rome were to grant the SSPX bishops without any further requirements, it would essentially mean that Rome was providing them the means to continue a ministry that the Holy See itself has called illegitimate, and would give the impression that the Church somehow approves of bishops (who have no jurisdiction) ordaining priests without commendatory letters, and delegating them to the dioceses of their brother bishops without their permission and without the priest being incardinated.

The risk of performing additional consecrations without permission is little to nothing, in the SSPX’s eyes. They will continue to use the same defenses and justifications they have been for decades and which their followers already accept. They might lose a few leery people here and there, but nothing significant. The risk of accepting an agreement with Rome is much higher. It means “compromising” on key issues, being subject to authority in a capacity they have thus far avoided, and risking many priests and laity leaving to form their own groups, which would create an even bigger mess than bringing them into the church.

So the "point of no return" might unfold in one of two ways:

1) The SSPX asks for permission to consecrate bishops. Rome grants the request on the condition that they accept Vatican II (which would mean essentially renouncing their entire position). The SSPX will refuse and proceed with consecrations. 1988 all over again.

2) The SSPX asks and Rome simply says no, or the SSPX does not even bother to ask. 1988 all over again.

This situation very well may end with a final and decisive action by the Vatican to settle the 50 years of unlawful ministry. The next opportunity might not be for another 50 years. We may see an irregular and unexpected action by Pope Leo, as we saw with Pope Francis and the granting of various faculties, but there does not appear to be an avenue for this sort of thing.

It remains to be seen what will happen. We can only pray that there is a peaceful resolution.