(ZENIT News – John Paul II Center / Vienna, 07.19. 2026).- «Pure as angels. Arrogant as Lucifer. Stubborn as demons.» Such was the judgment passed by the then-Archbishop of Paris regarding the lifestyle of the nuns in a 17th-century convent apparently marked by Jansenism.
Whether his judgment was accurate, I cannot say. However, this text came to mind on July 1, 2026, as I reflected on the schism caused by the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX) — Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii Decimi, or simply the «Society of Pius X.» It is not that all followers of the Society of Pius X, or the members themselves, are arrogant or stubborn. On the contrary, I believe many are of good will and simply want the best for the Church. And many of them are scandalized, disappointed, and frustrated.
The Emergency
The year is 1988. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, consecrated four priests from the community as Bishops in June 1988, without papal permission. With this act, Lefebvre and the Bishops he consecrated incurred excommunication. The Society of Saint Pius X maintains that this step was indispensable in the face of an ecclesial emergency.
Shortly before, I had celebrated my seventeenth birthday at my home in Western Canada. The ten-meter-high relief in our parish church depicted a naked Virgin Mary. Our community faithfully funded the Sandinistas (the Communist rebels who had recently come to power) in Nicaragua. During a parish mission, a parishioner asked how a priest could deny that Jesus Christ is God; the priest gave a curt reply: «Oh, that is nothing more than a Church dogma.» Leavened honey bread was baked for the celebration of Mass, rendering it invalid. But what was the problem with that, when in other parishes the Eucharist was celebrated with hot dogs and Coca-Cola? At least our priest took the female altar servers on trips to Las Vegas. Shortly thereafter, he got married. Oh, have I mentioned the rock-and-roll Masses? Every Sunday, we would drive up to two hours in one direction to find a religious service and a priest we could follow in good conscience (Canadian distances are somewhat vast)… only to drive in the opposite direction the following week.
Even amidst that madness, there were always signs of hope; the celebrations of the Society of Saint Pius X were a balm for anyone who valued their spiritual health. The congregation’s expectations were not high; a valid Mass would have been a good start. With the Society of Saint Pius X, one at least did not feel an irresistible urge to run out during the sermon or smoke a cigarette outside the door. The Masses were even celebrated with beauty and dignity. I understood why my parents eventually turned to the Society of Saint Pius X. Mom and Dad had founded and run two centers for women in crisis situations. It seemed as though these efforts — like their attempt to prevent the legalization of abortion up to the ninth month here on Canadian soil –were being sabotaged by the Bishops themselves. And all in the name of the Vatican Council II’s Declaration Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom. That was the last straw. From then on, they regularly attended the Society of Saint Pius X. Not because they hated the Church, nor because they were arrogant fanatics, but because they loved the Church.
Theology Among the Pius X Followers
Sometime later, I myself reached that point. I attended the FSSPX priestly seminary in the United States for three years. I was fascinated by their arguments and how their accounts seemed to make sense.
However, the study itself should have been the first warning sign for me. Their theology was stuck in the 1950s; all the textbooks we studied had been written before Vatican Council II. They weren’t bad books, just old. It was precisely while studying Fundamental Theology there that I began to wonder whether what we were preaching and saying could still be called Catholic.
I believe that many people came to the FSSPX for reasons similar to mine. Depending on where one lives in the world today, there may still be places where people turn to them for similar reasons. Objectively speaking, however, this certainly does not apply to a place like present-day Vienna. While in Canada one might have had to drive at least 100 kilometers to escape a local Mass and find another; here in Vienna I have about 100 Sunday Masses within a half-hour walk of my office. Perhaps not all of them are celebrated perfectly, and one might wish for greater devotion from the priests and sermons that are less superficial. Yet, one would have to search diligently to find a «Coca-Cola Mass,» let alone speak of a canonical emergency (an extreme situation objectively involving danger to body and soul, as well as the physical impossibility of finding a priest in good standing, under which laws may be suspended to administer the Sacraments).
I suspect that in our city, most people, especially the young, are drawn to the FSSPX by its beautiful liturgy. They attend Holy Mass there, then go to the Brothers of Saint Peter (the branch of the Society of Saint Pius X that, following the 1988 consecrations, accepted the conditions offered by the Pope at the time and, among other things, continues to celebrate the «old Mass» within the Catholic Church), and finally attend the evening Mass at the Cathedral. For them, it is generally simply a matter of longing to participate in a Mass that appeals to them, one where they feel welcomed, expect to hear a good sermon, meet like-minded people, and perhaps even go to confession. Yet, that is not the only reason for everyone. To some extent, the Society of Saint Pius X’s overarching narrative remains compelling. It is a narrative that claims:
- A state of emergency truly exists, not just back in 1988, but today, in the year 2026, as well.
- This emergency justifies the entire project of the Society of Saint Pius X, including the episcopal consecrations performed without papal permission.
And it is precisely in this overarching narrative that the error lies… or perhaps one should say, the core of the problem. The issue may not lie with the individual followers, but rather with the conceptual framework itself.
Protestantization
Canon Law is clear: there are only five cases that automatically entail excommunication, the lifting of which is canonically reserved exclusively to the Pope. Only he can lift it, not merely a Bishop, as is the case with other infractions. The consecration of Bishops without papal permission is one of these cases. This is of great importance for the unity of the Church, since in practice it implies a rejection of the papal primacy and, consequently, self-exclusion from the Catholic fold. The resulting schism has grave consequences for the faithful.
Arguments are being raised based on Canon Law as to why it should not apply in this instance. In a canonical proceeding, a case arising at the diocesan level might be referred to Rome. However, within the Catholic Church, there is no further level of appeal; therein lies the absurdity of the Society of Saint Pius X affair: unable to appeal to a higher authority, they resort once again — to justify their behavior — to their own private interpretation of Canon Law… and they even dare to invoke the «Protestantization» of the Church as a justification for their conduct.
The problem, however, runs deeper. I believe the Vatican was right to speak with such clarity this time. The automatic excommunication applies to the two consecrating Bishops and the four priests consecrated as Bishops. Furthermore, clergy belonging to the Priestly Society are in a state of schism; they must therefore be considered schismatics and are subject to the excommunication prescribed by Canon Law. Lay faithful who formally adhere to the Priestly Society are likewise considered schismatics and excommunicated. Marriages officiated by FSSPX priests, as well as confessions heard by them, are not only illicit but also invalid. Since this elusive case constantly tries to escape every definition, I would like to add yet another perspective. It is not just a matter of ecclesiastical discipline; it is also a matter of faith itself, and not at its periphery, but at its core.
The Dogmatic Problem
One of the fundamental pillars of the Catholic Church is that it is catholic, that is, universal. However, this term should not be understood solely in a spatial sense. Its vocation is catholic, universal: «Go and make disciples of all nations» (Matthew 28:19). «Catholic» embraces not only space but also time. «And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age» (Matthew 28:20). The mystery dwelling within the Church is not only eternal but also temporal. The Risen One acts within the Church, not merely up to a certain point in time after which it is assumed to have lost its way, but rather at all times and in every era.
If you wish to go back in time to the point where the Church was perfect, draw a line, and regard everything that followed as a deviation, you arrive once again at Luther, or perhaps Calvin or Zwingli. If you draw a boundary on the timeline and declare that, from that moment on, the Church was no longer catholic, you yourself cease to be Catholic.
Herein lies the problem. When the FSSPX did not seem radical enough for some of its members, several of them founded the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius V in the 1980s. Why? Because they drew the line at the pontificate of Pius XII, whereas the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X drew it at the Missal of John XXIII. The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius V could not accept the latter, for the name of Saint Joseph had been added to the Canon of the Mass (the Eucharistic Prayer)… and that was already considered the beginning of the decline.
Furthermore, they faced difficulties regarding issues of matrimonial annulment; they did not recognize any Pope after Pius XII as legitimate, thereby becoming sedevacantists (proponents of the view that the See of Peter is vacant). Approximately half of them later broke away again to found the «Catholic Restoration» group. Some priests established independent Mass centers, and a few were consecrated by an excommunicated Bishop from Vietnam. Denying the temporal continuity of the Church inevitably leads to the same fragmentation and the same problem, regardless of whether it takes a Protestant or a traditionalist form.
Indestructibility
The dogma of the «indestructibility (indefectibility) of the Church» refers to the divine promise that the Church will be preserved in the truth of its divine Master until the end of the world and will not change in its essence: «…upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it» (Matthew 16:18). The Society of Saint Pius X, however, denies this dogma in both practice and theory.
In his interview on February 2, Father Davide Pagliarani (Superior General of the FSSPX) stated: «In an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation. That is where the emergency lies.» This assertion is not only absurd and gravely false but also incompatible with Catholic doctrine. It is gravely false because it does not merely point to abusive situations, like those I mentioned at the beginning, but proceeds from the premise that, in principle and as a matter of principle, the celebration of the Mass in its new form (since the liturgical reform of 1969) no longer conveys those necessary means of salvation. Consequently, the entire sacramental order in its current form is cast under a cloud of mistrust. Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law in force since 1983 are presented as problematic.
The Church rests upon certain foundations. The Lord’s words — «The gates of hell shall not prevail against it» (Matthew 16:18) — have a practical consequence for the Church. There are areas of her essence where, were she to fail, the gates of hell would have conquered her. What are these areas and foundations of the Church? I would like to examine the following aspects here: the sacramental order, the doctrine of the faith, and apostolicity.
Sacramental Order and Apostolicity
On one hand, there is the sacramental order. If the Sacraments had been modified throughout history in such a way that, from a certain moment onward, they were no longer valid — no longer leading to the Lord or uniting one with Him, but rather distancing one from Him — then the gates of hell would have conquered the Church. In that case, the aforementioned principle of catholicity would no longer hold true.
Priestly ordination is conferred only once. Only once. To repeat it would be, according to the Catholic understanding, a grave sin. I personally knew priests who were ordained anew by the Society of Saint Pius X; one case struck me as particularly shocking.
I knew that priest personally. The FSSPX harbored serious doubts regarding the validity of his priestly ordination. Why? Because the Bishop who ordained him was considered a «Modernist» («Modernism» here refers not to «modernity,» but to a doctrine condemned by Saint Pius X in the early 20th century in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis). The question was whether the ordaining Bishop’s understanding of the Sacraments was compatible with Catholic doctrine. The name of the ordaining Bishop? Pope John Paul II. Wow. That is alarming. Not only because it is absurd to label John Paul II a «Modernist» — as is clearly demonstrated, for instance, in his encyclical Fides et Ratio — but also because it would entail enormous consequences that would in no way be compatible with the dogma of the Church’s indestructibility.
Pope John Paul II not only ordained priests but also numerous Bishops (321 in total). Many of them became Cardinals who subsequently elected a Pope. If his priestly and episcopal ordinations had not been valid, it would be doubtful whether one could still speak of true apostolic succession in large parts of the Church (this concerns the principle of apostolicity: the Church maintains that every Bishop can trace his lineage back to an Apostle through an unbroken chain of episcopal consecrations). Furthermore, it would then be doubtful whether the current Pope is legitimate and whether it would be possible to elect a legitimate Pope. Consequently, all confessions, Masses, and other ordinations of priests and Bishops celebrated by these individuals would be invalid, that is, they would not have taken place at all.
But the argument goes even further. According to the textbooks on Fundamental Theology studied in the seminaries of the Society of Saint Pius X itself, canonization is one of a Pope’s infallible acts. Why? Because otherwise, the faithful might be encouraged to pray to someone who is not in the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather in Hell. Yet the Society of Saint Pius X would have to assert, on the one hand, that the canonization of John Paul II was an infallible act of the Church, and on the other, cast doubt on whether he administered valid Sacraments. As the Mexican proverb goes, you cannot whistle and eat pinole at the same time.
Let us return to the Sacraments.
Let us take Confirmation as another example. During my years at the seminary with the Society of Saint Pius X, I was confirmed again by one of their Bishops because it could not be guaranteed whether olive oil or some other oil had been used in my «first» Confirmation (the new rite prefers olive oil, but other oils may also be used; the Society of Saint Pius X harbors doubts as to whether the use of non-olive oil affects the validity of the Sacrament).
A key issue is the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the celebration of Mass. I recall a question a woman put to Bishop Bernard Fellay (one of the Bishops recently excommunicated). I was sitting right next to him. She asked whether she could attend the «Novus Ordo Mass» (Catholic worship as celebrated following the liturgical reform of 1969, that is, after Vatican Council II, which is the norm across most of the Western world, including here in Vienna), especially when no «old Mass» was available locally. (The «old Mass,» or «Tridentine Mass,» was introduced in 1570 to implement the decrees of the Council of Trent, unifying the liturgy within the Latin Rite, a form familiar to most Catholics in the Western world. Eastern Churches were unaffected by this reform.) Bishop Fellay replied that the new Mass was valid but dangerous to the faith, or that it led to the faith’s erosion, and he advised against attending it. This aligns exactly with the official stance of the FSSPX.
In the aforementioned interview, Father Davide Pagliarani asserts, nearly forty years later, the same thing Bishop Fellay did back then: «But let no one be deceived: the only liturgy that adequately, immutably, and non-evolutionarily expresses the traditional conception of the Church, of the Christian life, and of the Catholic priesthood is the liturgy of all time» (referring to the Tridentine or «old» Mass). He speaks of an «intrinsic incapacity» of the Novus Ordo to «build up souls.» And then, in truly drastic terms: «How, then, can one understand that the Mass of all time stands in irreconcilable opposition to the new Mass, which remains the only true liturgy of the whole Church, and which no one may be prevented from celebrating? How can one acknowledge that the Mass of Paul VI (Novus Ordo post-1969) cannot be accepted because it represents a considerable deviation from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass, and that no one can be compelled to celebrate it? And how can souls be effectively steered away from this poisoned liturgy so that they may drink from the pure springs of Catholic liturgy?» (emphasis added).
These assertions are highly problematic, to put it mildly. And once again: not only because they foster schismatic tendencies (no communion with the universal Church, isolation), but also because they are incompatible with Church doctrine. Or to put it another way: it is not just a matter of schism, but also of heresy. If the Sacraments are no longer valid, or are valid but «dangerous,” then the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.
Doctrine of the Faith
Another foundation of ecclesial «indestructibility» is the doctrine of the faith. The Society of Saint Pius X acknowledges the «new Catechism» and the teachings disseminated under Pope John Paul II, albeit with certain reservations. Consequently, they advise against its use. Instead, they urge their faithful to read the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It may be 500 years old, but it is no less valuable for that. However… it is difficult to argue that the Catholic Church’s current official Catechism poses a problem for the faith, given the indestructibility of the doctrine of the faith.
Credible?
I fear that, no matter how clearly the Vatican speaks, the Priestly Fraternity will continue to cite reasons why the excommunication of July 1st is supposedly invalid and does not apply to them. They had already begun doing so prior to the consecration.
In a letter to the Pope written just days before the consecration, Father Davide Pagliarani asks how the Pontiff can regard the episcopal consecration as schismatic if they had supposedly already been excommunicated in 1988: «Your Holiness paternally exhorts me to avoid a schism that, theoretically, has already taken place.» Would this…, along with the Pope’s paternal concern for the FSSPX (as Father Pagliarani puts it), not be a sign that the Pope ultimately views the Society of Saint Pius X as schismatic? Pagliarani continues: «Do you not think that this very attitude… constitutes precisely the proof that the Society is neither schismatic nor hostile to the Church?»
Unbelievable. And hardly credible. The suspicion of dishonesty can scarcely be ruled out. Father Pagliarani was perfectly aware that the 1988 excommunication had been lifted by Pope Benedict in his attempt to bring the FSSPX back into the fold. He explicitly mentions this at the end of his interview on February 2. Therefore, he must have known that in his letter to the Pope, he was not paternally exhorting him to «avoid a schism that had theoretically already taken place,» but rather to prevent a new schism. He must have been fully aware that the reason for the Pope’s urgent and paternal plea was that he did not want a schism to occur again.
The Issue of Canon Law
Canon Law is a consequence of the Church’s sacramental order: the visible order is established by the legitimate legislator. According to the FSSPX, the Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II in the 1980s has not been delared invalid. However, as with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are allegedly problematic areas within it. For this reason, the Society of St. Pius X is governed primarily by the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
It is significant that the FSSPX makes full use of the new Canon Law when justifying its actions: «The axiom suprema lex, salus animarum –the supreme law is the salvation of souls — is a classic maxim of the canonical tradition expressly enshrined in the last canon of the 1983 Code. In the current emergency, the entire legitimacy of our apostolate and our mission toward the souls who turn to us depends ultimately on this higher principle» (see the aforementioned interview with Father Pagliarani).
However, if they derive «their entire legitimacy» from this principle, they face a serious problem. This line of reasoning is canonically untenable and constitutes a classic circular argument (petitio principii). They base the legitimacy of their actions on a premise that they seek to prove precisely through those very illegitimate actions.
Step A (The assertion): There is an extreme «emergency» in the Church that places the eternal salvation of the faithful in jeopardy. Step B (The justification): Since the salvation of souls is the supreme law (salus animarum), we have the right to consecrate Bishops autonomously –against the will of the Pope — and to administer sacraments. Step C (Defining the emergency): Who actually determines that this «emergency» is acute enough to justify a breach of Canon Law? The Priestly Fraternity itself determines this. The vicious circle: the Society of Saint Pius X sets itself up as the supreme authority proclaiming the emergency, only to then, on the grounds of that very emergency, arrogate to itself the right to disregard the true supreme authority (the Pope).
The central problem regarding Canon Law could be summarized as follows:
– The appropriation of the power of definition in Catholic Canon Law: the definitive decision regarding what serves the salvation of souls and when an emergency exists belongs exclusively to the Pope (as the holder of supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power; cf. canon 331 of the Code of Canon Law).
– Self-legitimation: by defining the emergency themselves, the FSSPX places its own judgment above that of the Pope. They argue: «The good of souls stands above the Pope, and we decide what constitutes the good of souls.» In doing so, they effectively set themselves up as a «mini-Vatican» and undermine the entire ecclesiology (the doctrine of faith regarding the nature of the Church).
A law cannot be applied against the legislator himself. The Pope is the supreme legislator and the ultimate interpreter of Canon Law. When a papal mandate is disobeyed by invoking an «emergency,» it ultimately signifies a rejection of the Roman primacy, which is precisely the core of a schism.
The «supreme end of the law» — the salus animarum (salvation of souls) — never nullifies the hierarchical constitution of the Church. Under Catholic Canon Law, the validity of the power of holy orders and of the pastoral mission is necessarily legitimized by the Pope as the universal head. Underlying this is a rejection of papal primacy: whoever consecrates Bishops against the express mandate of the Pope undermines the foundation of the Church. Excommunication for schism is, therefore, the logical consequence, since the rejection of the Roman primacy signifies and consummates a rupture with the Church. The salvation of souls can never be sought through an act that divides the unity of the Church from within.
Ideologically Charged
As I have said, there are people who go to the Society of Saint Pius X simply because they find the liturgy beautiful, or for other reasons that have nothing to do with ideology. There may even be priests who think this way. On the other hand, I find it easier to engage in dialogue with searching atheists than with an FSSPX member trapped in an ideological metanarrative.
They condemn rationalism while arguing in a rationalist manner. They condemn modernism, yet they fall into the exact same trap of subjectivism. They accuse Vatican Council II’s declaration on religious freedom of granting too much scope to individual conscience, while they themselves go far beyond the Council, practically presenting individual thought as the ultimate foundation of truth. They accuse the Pope of Protestantization, yet in their practical rejection of the Magisterium, they align themselves with Luther. You cannot whistle and eat pinole at the same time.
Conclusion
The danger in all this is that, at first glance, it appears so holy. Impeccable fidelity to Tradition. Purity of doctrine. And yet, at some point, they took a wrong turn. «Pure as angels. Arrogant as Lucifer. Stubborn as demons.» That was, at the time, a very harsh judgment passed by the Bishop of Paris. What strikes me as particularly complex about the history of the FSSPX is that it is difficult to apply that judgment to individual people. Certainly, it does not apply to the mother of five, whom we see in the NZZ, managing as best she can to take her children to the episcopal consecration in the Swiss mountains on July 1st. Perhaps that is precisely what allows one to recognize the shadow of the Adversary and his art of concealment. Perhaps it is like the early moments of the Titanic, when no one realized they had boarded the wrong ship.
For me personally, all of this has a particularly tragic tone. Almost 35 years after leaving the FSSPX, I am experiencing a sense of déjà vu.
The bearer, guarantor, and authentic interpreter of Tradition and doctrine is not the individual theologian, nor the «ego» itself, nor even a specific priestly fraternity, but rather the authentic Magisterium. Let us pray with Pope Leo XIV for wisdom in our dealings with the Brothers of Pius X. Let us pray for the members of the FSSPX, that they may attain understanding and conversion. Let us pray for the faithful attached to them, that they may find the path forward in following the Lord within the Church. Most especially, I wish to ask for the intercession of the Saints who found their spiritual nourishment precisely in the Novus Ordo, Saints such as John Paul II, Paul VI, Carlo Acutis, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Blesseds such as Rosario Livatino, Pino Puglisi, the martyrs of Tibhirine, and many others.
