Marco Tosatti
Dear StilumCuriali, Bishop Marian Eleganti, whom we thank warmly, offers you these considerations on the announcement of new episcopal consecrations by the FSSPX. Enjoy reading and sharing.
§§§
For those who have been in doubt until now: now they are going back into schism!
The universal primacy of the Pope’s canonical jurisdiction (ex sese) over the whole Church has been an infallible, dogmatized truth since the First Vatican Council. Therefore, in this article, we cannot speak of a legalistic misunderstanding of ecclesiastical obedience on our part when we classify the announced ordination of bishops by the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (FSSPX) without the express consent of the Pope as a schismatic act and, for the second time, note it with pain and condemn it in the strongest terms. By “we” I mean all believers who share my assessment presented here. Based on the media release of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, I assume that the bishops who will be consecrated on July 1, 2026, will not be appointed by Pope Leo XIV.
The main argument of the so-called “Pius Brotherhood” of a historically unique ecclesiastical emergency and its reference to the priority of the salvation of souls – especially those who have joined the Priestly Fraternity Pius X. (FSSPX) – cannot in any way legitimize such a serious step. Since my youth, I have always spoken out against a “church” alongside the Church or a “church” within the Church – the former always understood as the faithful and true, the latter (universal) as the unfaithful, having strayed from the right path. There is only one Church: the one, holy, apostolic, and catholic universal Church that Jesus Christ founded on Peter, the rock. It is visibly realized in unity with the Pope: this unity is not to be understood in an idealistic sense (as a general recognition of the papacy or of the currently reigning Pope in prayer), but must be realized in a factual and canonical sense by refraining from obvious acts of canonical disobedience. I do not include in the latter category criticism of the Pope that is always legitimate, which clearly distinguishes between fallible and infallible statements and acts of the Pope and generally concerns prudential judgments or spontaneous statements in interviews, or, in the worst case, non-infallible statements of the ordinary magisterium.
Popes adhere to tradition and do not contradict their predecessors on the Chair of Peter. The so-called “magisterium of Francis” (2013-2025) is a sui generis phenomenon in terms of rhetoric.
However, what the Priestly Fraternity St. Pius X announced today (February 2, 2026), namely the ordination of additional bishops on July 1, 2026 (CNA report of February 2, 2026), is, in my opinion, a clearly schismatic act, which consists in establishing and expanding a hierarchy alongside that which is in full, visible, and canonical unity with the current pope and is formed by thousands of bishops and priests throughout the world. This would mean that we would have—as I said—a “church” alongside the Church or within the Church with valid sacraments, which claims to be the true church. In this, it is mistaken.
What is meant here is the self-image of the Priestly Fraternity St. Pius X. What counts here is not communion in prayer and in the remaining intersections of common faith and common sacraments, but canonical unity with the Pope, which does not exist if bishops are consecrated without his will. The saints did not enter into schism in similar trials, while the schismatics always cited seemingly good and allegedly serious reasons to justify their actions.
The 4th century is often cited as an analogous emergency situation in church history. Pope Julius I (337-352) supported Athanasius, took him in in Rome, rehabilitated him, and condemned his deposition. Pope Liberius’ (352-366) condemnation of Athanasius came about only under torture and was not considered legitimate by Athanasius because it was made under duress. Therefore, he did not abide by it. Liberius later revised his position. Athanasius defended him in his writings. Pope Damasus I (366–384) supported Athanasius.
Basil (together with the other Cappadocians) made intensive efforts to gain support from the West against Arianism and imperial pressure (Valens). He wrote several times to Pope Damasus I, asking for clear support and recognition of the orthodox Eastern bishops (especially Meletius of Antioch). Basil was somewhat frustrated because Rome did not always understand the theological subtleties of the East (the hypostasis debate), reacted too slowly and hesitantly, and clearly supported Paulinus in the Antiochian schism, while Basil placed his trust in Meletius. Tensions arose and Basil refused to sign a formula demanded by Rome. To my knowledge, his resistance was more ecclesiastical-political and tactical than dogmatic in nature. However, Athanasius and Basil never took a heretical or schismatic position toward the pope, even though Rome’s practical support was disappointing for them at times. The idea that they were “disobedient” stems from later confessional polemics. This brings me back to the present day:
Even though I am of the opinion that …
1. passages in some conciliar documents (of very different weight) are certainly worthy of criticism;
2. the liturgical reform went beyond the will and ideas of the Council Fathers and introduced or abolished things that were not even within the horizon of their thinking and imagination and probably did not correspond to their intentions, …
I consider the ordination of further bishops by the Society of St. Pius X without express papal legitimation (appointment) to be a definitively schismatic act that cannot be justified by the aforementioned shortcomings.
The following remains advisable:
1. An honest examination of the liturgical reform and some of the statements of the Council.
2. A just order of rites in the Church that neither prohibits nor marginalizes the venerable Latin rite, but rather sees it as an inspiration to compensate for one-sidedness and deficiencies in the Novus Ordo.
As I have already emphasized, this requires expertise. Criticism must be taken seriously. The minutes of the Council sessions are very helpful in providing an unbiased view and should be communicated to the next consistory, which will deal with the liturgical question. The faithful who—to put it somewhat simplistically—criticize the horizontalism and anthropocentrism in the Novus Ordo must be taken seriously. However, the solution is not the Society of St. Pius X or a return to the 1962 Missal, but rather a “reform of the reform” (Benedict XVI) of some kind that heals the obvious rifts that have occurred. I am concerned with the issue itself, not with the provocative term (reform of the reform).
§§§
Aiutate Stilum Curiae
IBAN: IT79N0200805319000400690898
BIC/SWIFT: UNCRITM1E35
***
