Future Consecrations: An Approaching Deadline?

1. The episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988, took place at Ecône nearly 40 years ago. After serving as a bishop for 40 years, this was the moment when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made public his intention to provide successors for his work by consecrating bishops. Today, a number of circumstances seem to indicate that the favorable moment for new consecrations may have once again arrived. In an interview on November 1, 2024, published in the November-December 2024 issue of The Angelus magazine, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, in fact stated, mentioning the recent passing of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:

“But obviously, Providence is speaking to us through this event. It is very clear that his death raises the question of the continuance of the work of the Society, which now has only two bishops, and whose mission for souls appears ever more necessary, in the time of terrible confusion that the Church is living through today”^[1].

2. If this continuity of the Society’s work calls for new episcopal consecrations, it is up to the Superior General of the Society to decide on them. When that moment arrives, it will doubtless be willed by divine Providence. “When the time comes,” Fr. Davide Pagliarani states, “we will know how to take up our responsibilities, in conscience.” 

Restating the Argument

3. For the present moment, we would like to present the properly theological justifications for future consecrations, at an hour to be fixed by the Superior General. These reasons have not changed since June 30, 1988. At the time, they were presented and developed in various publications, the most complete of which was unquestionably the article published in the September 1988 issue of Courrier de Rome (No. 285), titled “Neither Schismatics, Nor Excommunicated”^[2]. Others, seemingly more modest, nevertheless had the great merit of making immediately accessible to the ordinary faithful the arguments intended to soothe their potentially hesitant or troubled consciences^[3]. From these two types of explanations, theological and pastoral, we can retain and deepen the following framework: like those of the past, 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.

Possible

4. Possibility must be examined on its own level. This examination concerns the consecrating act understood as such, independently from its conformity or nonconformity to the rules established by law—whether that be divine law or ecclesiatical law. An act is possible if its realization does not repudiate it, or does not entail an intrinsic contradiction. In this sense, it is possible (even if it is gravely illicit, which is an entirely different matter) that a priest reduced to the lay state validly celebrates Mass, because the canonical measure imposed upon him has not removed his priestly nature. On the other hand, it is impossible for a priest to validly celebrate Mass by consecrating a cornmeal wafer or a chalice filled with beer, because divine positive law makes the realization of the sacrament dependent on a strictly determined matter. This is regardless of the decisions of ecclesiastical law, which considers such a celebration illicit.

5. It is therefore possible to consecrate bishops, even against the explicit will of the Supreme Pontiff. This means simply that such a consecration is valid, whether or not it is licit and regardless of its morality. And it is important here to understand the reasons for this validity. The two surviving bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop de Galarreta and Bishop Fellay, are endowed with the fullness of the priesthood and possess the power to confer the priesthood and the episcopacy, just as much as any other bishop validly consecrated in God’s holy Church. But today, it is important to highlight an additional reality.

6. In actual fact, the episcopacy corresponds to a dual power: on the one hand, the episcopal power of order, which is the power to ordain priests, to administer the sacrament of confirmation, and to consecrate bishops; on the other hand, the power of jurisdiction, which is the power to govern a part of the Church (a diocese)[4]. It is possible for a bishop to confer on a priest, through episcopal consecration, the power of the episcopal order, even if this consecration is carried out against the explicit will of the Supreme Pontiff. In fact, although it is gravely illicit because it is contrary to the will of the Pope, this consecration remains necessarily valid, since the power of the episcopal order can be communicated by every bishop, and not only by the Pope.[5] That is to say, it is carried out by means of an act producing its effect by itself, or ex opere operato, independen of the Pope’s will. On the other hand, it is impossible for a bishop to confer on anyone the episcopal power of jurisdiction if this communication were considered contrary to the Pope’s will, because it is precisely an act of the Pope’s will that is fundamentally necessary. Only the Pope can communicate to a bishop the power of jurisdiction, whether immediately himself or indirectly, through another bishop delegated for this purpose. The communication of an episcopal power of jurisdiction carried out contrary to the Pope’s will would be thus purely and simply invalid, whereas the communication of an episcopal power of order, also carried out contrary to the Pope’s will, would indeed be gravely illicit, but perfectly valid.

7. This is thus the case if one accepts the formal and radical distinction that separates the power of order and the power of jurisdiction, a distinction which has always been taught in the Church[6]. Denying this distinction amounts to asserting that the episcopal power of jurisdiction is also communicated through a rite producing its effect itself, ex opere operato: the simultaneous communication of both powers would therefore be valid, but if accomplished against the explicit will of the Supreme Pontiff, it would necessarily be schismatic.

Necessary

8. In the homily he delivered on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre explained in detail why the episcopal consecrations, although carried out against the explicit will of the Pope, were necessary. “We find ourselves,” he said, “in a case of necessity”[7]. This explanation had already been summarized, a little less than a year before, in a letter dated July 8, 1987, which the prelate of Ecône had addressed to Cardinal Ratzinger: “A permanent will for the annihilation of Tradition is a suicidal will that, by its very nature, authorizes true and faithful Catholics to take all necessary initiatives for the survival and salvation of souls”[8].

9. The state of necessity is an extraordinary situation in which the goods absolutely necessary to natural or supernatural life are gravely compromised due to circumstances. This can occur—among other circumstances—because those entrusted with applying the law apply it in an unjust manner and against the will of the legislator. In this way, the subjects are usually obliged, if they wish to protect the goods which are necessary to their vital needs, to disregard the abusive and tyrannical implementation of the law. The law is in fact essentially meant, according to the legislator’s intention, to provide the subjects with these necessary goods. In the Church, the entire body of ecclesiastical law, by its very definition, is ordered to the preaching of the doctrine of the Faith and the administration of the sacraments[9]. If the application of the law comes into conflict with the law’s intended purpose, as willed by the legislator, it is no longer legitimate, because it contradicts itself. The subjects can and must disregard it in order to obtain the end of the law. This is so despite the authorities applying the law contrary to its purpose.

10. Now, it is clear that since the Second Vatican Council, the faithful of the Catholic Church have found themselves confronted with such a situation. Since 1965, the Church authorities have imposed on them a new Credo in three forms: religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality. And since 1969, they have also imposed on them a reformed liturgy, with a new Mass in a Protestant spirit and sacraments redeveloped in an ecumenical direction. In this way, these Popes impose on the faithful the serious errors of neo-Modernism, already condemned by their predecessors. In the face of this widespread Protestantism, every faithful Catholic in the Church must react. This point corresponds to what is commonly called “the crisis in the Church” and “the state of necessity.” This justifies resistance: it is this resistance that explains the work of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X.

11. How far should it go? As far as the threat of this Protestantization extends. It threatens, if not the very existence of the priesthood (as in 1988), then at least the freedom and functioning of the Catholic priesthood (as today). Thus, episcopal consecrations carried out against the explicit will of the Pope therefore become necessary. Indeed, the transmission of the Faith requires the preaching of the true doctrine. It also requires bishops and priests who are free from all errors opposed to this doctrine and who are determined not only to preach it clearly, but also to denounce errors clearly and freely. The sanctification of souls requires the administration of the true sacraments, and this also demands priests who are validly ordained and determined not only to remain faithful to the traditional rites of the Holy Church. They must also loudly denounce the denaturation of these same rites, in a Protestant direction, carried out by the reform of Paul VI. Now, if there can be no priests without bishops to ordain them, neither can there be priests firmly determined to resist error without bishops equally determined to ordain them for this most necessary resistance. It is all interconnected.

12. And let us note this well: it is all interconnected from beginning to end because it all rests on the proper assessment of this state of necessity. The difficulty is that this state of necessity is recognized—"We are indeed forced to recognize..." Archbishop Lefebvre would repeat—and cannot be proven. And to recognize it, one must grasp the excessive gravity of the errors, and therefore understand the absolute importance of the truth they oppose. If one admits: 1) that there is a crisis in God’s holy Church; and 2) and that its gravity is such that it justifies the survival operation of Tradition, then one sees all the implications: first, there is the preservation of the old discipline and the old doctrinal formation against Modernism; second, the ordinations of 1976 to ensure this preservation; and third, the consecrations of 1988 to ensure these ordinations continue. And now there is a need for further consecrations to continue this survival of the priesthood. Understood in this light, the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society is perfectly justified. However, if 1) one does not admit that there is a crisis; or 2) does not admit that this crisis is grave enough to justify the survival operation of Tradition by resorting to the exceptional measure of episcopal consecrations without apostolic mandate, then the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society is not justified. 

Without Serious Detriment[10]

13. If the consecrations are necessary—gravely and urgently—to protect the common good of the Church, they are licit. Against this, no reason could stand, for the common good is the very principle, the first and supreme principle, of all social life. This is true in the Church as elsewhere. The canonical licitness and the moral legitimacy of the episcopal consecrations carried out against the explicit will of the Pope are derived from the very definition of the Church, taken in the full exigency of its common good, which is identified with the salvation of souls. For if "it is the Church that saves us," she does not save us without us, even if it is despite the Pope. And, in case of necessity, the Church cannot save us independently of this extraordinary action of the episcopate, which will one day reveal to all Christendom the glory of Archbishop Lefebvre.

14. The episcopal consecration, as we have understood it above[11], as the ritual communication of the episcopal power of order alone, is not, when carried out against the explicit will of the Pope, an intrinsically morally evil and illicit act. It can be both, such as when it amounts to an act of disobedience. This ordinarily happens in most circumstances when there is not a state of necessity. But it is not in itself (or intrinsically) an evil and illicit act. It can be a morally good, licit, and salutary act, precisely because of the circumstance of a state of necessity, where the consecration is the only or privileged means to resist an abuse of power by the Pope.

15. This is the case because the act of episcopal consecration in itself communicates only the power of order, not the power of jurisdiction, which only the Pope can grant due to a properly divine right. Against such a right, there is indeed no reason that can be considered; and to confer, against the will of the Pope, jurisdictional authority over a part of the Church to a bishop is equivalent to a schismatic act. It is as invalid as it is illicit. However, the episcopal consecration that limits itself to communicating only the power of order, even against the Pope’s will, does not in itself go against divine law. In this case, divine law requires no more and no less than the conditions necessary for the validity of the consecration, which are the valid ordination of the consecrating prelate and the respect for the substance of the rite of consecration.

Objections: Old and New

16. To all this, who can object? We would like to examine here some typical reactions, as hypotheticals while, of course, refraining from any judgment regarding individuals.

17. Some will simply deny the necessity of the consecrations. These persons are those who see no state of necessity, at least not a serious and urgent one. They will hold that the Second Vatican Council was a good council in every respect, or, at the very least, it was a true and good Council. They may lament the implementation of the Council remains unfortunately paralyzed or parasitized by the false and bad "para-Council," the infamous media-driven Council. Those holding to this line are supporters of Joseph Ratzinger’s thesis, a thesis he defended with remarkable steadfastness, both when he was Prefect of the former Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and when he was the 265th Successor of St. Peter. In their view, moreover, and in accordance with the new ecclesiology of Lumen gentium, the episcopal consecration communicates both the powers of order and jurisdiction, which is why any episcopal consecration carried out against the explicit will of the Pope would be illicit and schismatic. In short, for all these neo-conservatives, the consecrations, even if they were possible, would be neither necessary nor without serious detriment. Where do such objectors stand? Certainly not within the movement of the Society, but neither are they only within the non-Traditionalist (or official) movement of the conciliar Church. Some of these conservatives may be found even within the so-called Ecclesia Dei movement. In the eyes of some of these supposed beneficiaries of the 1988 motu proprio of John Paul II, the Second Vatican Council still retains the full value of magisterial authority ("to varying degrees"…); the declaration Dignitatis humanae on religious freedom is not in contradiction with the Social Kingship of Christ; the new ecclesiology of Lumen gentium is in harmony with the constitution Pastor aeternus of Vatican I; and the new Mass of Paul VI is, at worst, only "less good" than the Mass of St. Pius V. And for them, papal documents such as Amoris laetitia and Fiducia supplicans can be read in a manner that is, if not encouraging, at least benevolent and exonerating.

18. Others will concede, to a certain extent, the existence of a state of necessity. Among these people, some will not go as far as to deduce the necessity of the consecrations, failing to properly appreciate the full gravity and urgency of the situation. They will place their hope in the allegedly sufficient interventions of "good bishops" and "good priests.” The unfortunate reality is that these priests and bishops are often won over by false principles. They hesitate to face all the consequences of the crisis in pastoral and liturgical matters. Others would go as far as to acknowledge the necessity of episcopal consecrations within Catholic Tradition, but capitulate before the false idea of the intrinsically evil and schismatic nature of an episcopal consecration carried out against the explicit will of the Pope. Again, this is directed by a belief that the communication of the power of jurisdiction is intrinsically linked, in one way or another, to that of the power of order. Even if consecrations are ideally necessary, they will always appear to them as illicit and even schismatic. Their resistance is limited to preaching the correct doctrine, celebrating the true Mass, and remaining silent on many other errors. Fiducia supplicans has only elicited from them a disheartening silence.

19. Whatever the various reactions may be, future consecrations themselves will benefit everyone by providing God’s holy Church with the means of its indefectibility, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls. This will be seen at the hour willed by God, and as determined by the prudence of the Superior General of the Society.
 

---

[1] Interview with Very Rev. Davide Pagliarani, “Privileged Witness of Tradition,” The Angelus, November-December 2024, p.6.

[2] “Neither schismatic nor excommunicated,” District of the USA: Society of Saint Pius X, https://sspx.org/en/neither-schismatic-nor-excommunicated-30934.

[3] For example, “Des sacres d’évêques : pourquoi ?” [“Consecrations of Bishops: Why?”], Editorial in the July-August 1987 issue of Chardonnet in Abbé Philippe Laguérie, Avec ma bénédiction. Quatorze ans au Chardonnet, Certitudes, 1997, p. 96-99.

[4] See the July-August 2022 issue of Courrier de Rome, particularly the article “L’opinion commune des théologiens sur l’épiscopat” [“The Common Opinion of Theologians on the Episcopacy”].

[5] We avoid writing “of sacramental nature,” because whether or not episcopal consecration is a sacrament is disputed. Cf the article “L’épiscopat est-il un sacrement ?” [“Is the episcopacy a sacrament ?”] in the September 2019 issue of Courrier de Rome.

[6] See in the July-August 2022 issue of Courrier de Rome the article “L’opinion commune des théologiens sur l’épiscopat” [“The Common Opinion of Theologians on the Episcopacy”].

[7] Archbishop Lefebvre, “Homélie à Ecône le 30 juin 1988 à l’occasion des consécrations épiscopales” [“Homily at Ecône on June 30, 1988, on the Occasion of the Episcopal Consecrations”] in Vu de haut No. 13 (Autumn 2006), p.64.

[8] See the July-August 2008 issue of Courrier de Rome.

[9] 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 682, and new 1983 Code, canon 213.

[10] For all the points raised in this section, the reader may refer to the July-August and November 2022 issues of Courrier de Rome, where all the justifications drawn from magisterial and theological Tradition can be found.

[11] Cf. nos. 6-7.