SSPX: The Risk of Excommunication and the Shadow of Schism

Following the death of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1991—and the subsequent deaths of two of the four bishops he consecrated in 1988—the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is left today with only two living bishops: Bishop Bernard Fellay and Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta. This situation has long fueled internal concern within the Society about maintaining its leadership structure and sacramental life, particularly the ordination of priests and governance of its communities.

Against this backdrop, the SSPX has repeatedly expressed its desire to consecrate new bishops, viewing this step as essential to ensuring the Society’s long-term continuity. Yet the issue extends well beyond internal organization: it touches directly on the order of ecclesial communion and the canonical discipline of the universal Church.

Under the Code of Canon Law (1983), a valid episcopal consecration requires the participation of at least three bishops—a principal consecrator and two co-consecrators—unless an explicit dispensation from the Holy See is granted. This norm is not a mere liturgical technicality; it safeguards the principle that the episcopal ministry is conferred within visible communion with the Successor of Peter.

In announcing plans for new consecrations, the SSPX’s Superior General, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, argued that the Society faces an “objective state of grave necessity for souls,” asserting that action without papal authorization is therefore required. He emphasized that such a decision would be taken “without any spirit of rebellion or opposition.”

However, appeals to a state of necessity do not negate the clear legal consequences established by canon law. Should episcopal consecrations take place without a pontifical mandate, the law provides for automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication for both the consecrating bishop and the bishop-elect. This penalty is neither discretionary nor political; it follows directly from an act that violates the Church’s sacramental order and bonds of communion.

More gravely still, such an act would not be limited to personal discipline. It risks placing the faithful associated with the SSPX into a de facto state of schism—a separation from the legitimate authority of the Pope—even while preserving Catholic liturgy and doctrine in form.

For this reason, the Holy See has repeatedly stressed its determination to avoid an irreversible rupture and to persist in dialogue. Rome’s central concern is not punishment, but the preservation of the Church’s visible unity, which is profoundly wounded whenever unilateral actions undermine the foundations of communion.

In the present circumstances, any decision by the SSPX regarding episcopal consecrations is therefore not merely an internal matter, but a serious test of the boundary between dissent, disobedience, and schism within the life of the Catholic Church.