SSPX Priest Fr. Gleize Persists in His Error and Deception

 

SSPX Priest Fr. Gleize
Persists in His Error and Deception

 A reply to the Society’s latest article

“Future Consecrations: An Approaching Deadline?” 

Mr. John Salza, O.P.

April A.D. 2025

 

            In the wake of the many podcasts I did in 2022[1] which explained why the SSPX’s 1988 consecrations were schismatic (as Pope John Paul II declared), the Society attempted damage control by publishing an article by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize called “We Owe to Pius XII Important Clarifications on the Nature of the Episcopate” (September 22, 2022). In the article, which attempted to defend the consecrations, Fr. Gleize made the devastating admission that usurping a divine right which belongs to the Pope alone is a schismatic act.

Fr. Gleize’s admission was absolutely critical because it reduced the debate to a principle we both agree with (usurping a divine right of the Primacy = schismatic), and opened the door for me to prove that the selection and consecration of bishops is such a divine right of the Primacy, thereby proving, according to Gleize’s own principle, that the Society’s consecrations against the will of the Pope were schismatic. I proved this point in my rebuttal article entitled “SSPX Priest (Inadvertently) Admits the Society is in Schism” (November 2022), which included the following Magisterial teachings: 

·     Pius XII: “From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.”[2]

 

·       Bl. Pius IX: “The writings of the ancients testify that the election of Patriarchs had never been considered definite and valid without the agreement and confirmation of the Roman Pontiff.”[3]

 

·       Bl. Pius IX: “Everyone knows that the eternal and at times the temporal happiness of people depends on the proper election of bishops; the circumstances of time and place must be considered referring all the authority for selecting the bishops to the Apostolic See.”[4] 

 

·       Bl. Pius IX: “However, some resent and bemoan both Our declaration that this Apostolic See has the right and power to elect a bishop…”

 

·     Bl. Pius IX: “…the Apostolic authority given to Us by the Lord through the most holy Peter, prince of the Apostles,’ to appoint bishops, priests and deacons in every city subject to the sees of Jerusalem and Antioch.”[5]

 

·     Bl. Pius IX: “But We considered that We should not keep silence on Our right to elect a bishop apart from the three recommended candidates, in case the Apostolic See should be compelled to exercise this right in the future. But even if We had remained silent, this right and duty of the See of blessed Peter would have remained unimpaired. For the rights and privileges given to the See by Christ Himself, while they may be attacked, cannot be destroyed; no man has the power to renounce a divine right which he might at some time be compelled to exercise by the will of God Himself.”[6]

 

·       Pius VI: “For the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions.”[7]

 

·       Council of Trent – condemned the proposition that bishops “who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments.”[8]

 

As I said in my article, this was the game-over moment for the SSPX.

Well, fast-forward three years, and Fr. Gleize hasn’t learned his lesson. In his latest article, “Future Consecrations: An Approaching Deadline?,” published by the Society on February 25, 2025,[9] Gleize defends both the 1988 (and 1991) consecrations as well as the consecrations the Society is planning for the future (in light of Bp. Tissier’s recent death), without ever addressing the game-over issue, namely, that the right to select and consecrate bishops belongs to the Pope alone a matter of divine law, as revealed by Christ and taught by the Magisterium. Fr. Gleize and the SSPX conspicuously never address that truth because they cannot refute it and they know it. Thus, as we will see, they have manufactured a ridiculous theory which bifurcates the episcopacy between orders and jurisdiction, which they think gets around their violation of divine law (it does not).

Fr. Gleize did get smart about one thing, though, and it only further damages his case. Prior to my articles and podcasts, Gleize and the Society generally pretended that the sole issue of their consecrations concerned not having an Apostolic Mandate from the Pope, and not that they were carried out against the explicit will (and canonical warning) of the Pope. They argued this way because, unlike consecrating against the will of the Pope, consecrating solely without an Apostolic Mandate is not always schismatic (but is an offense to which automatic excommunication applies). The late Michael Davies also repeatedly made this (false) argument during his days of defending the Society, while failing to make the distinction between consecrating without a papal mandate as such, and doing so against the explicit will of the Pope. It is a red herring.

In light of the material we have put out since 2022, Fr. Gleize has now been forced to deal with the fact that the Society’s consecrations, in addition to being without an Apostolic Mandate, were also “contrary to the explicit will of the Roman Pontiff” (his words). Thus, he incorporates this admission into his latest analysis. While this fact is obvious, it is also a most damaging admission, since if an act which is contrary to the Pope’s will usurps a right that belongs to the Pope alone, then that act is necessarily schismatic, according to Fr. Gleize’s own admissions. This truth applied in 1988 and will apply again if the Society carries out more consecrations against the will of the Supreme Pontiff.

Fr. Gleize tees up his latest article by claiming that “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.”[10] Let us now address Fr. Gleize’s three points. 

                                                           False Proposition #1 – What is “Possible” 

Fr. Gleize begins this section with the following: “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 ecclesiastical law. An act is possible if its realization does not repudiate it, or does not entail an intrinsic contradiction… 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.”[11] Again, Gleize states: “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.”[12]

Thus, Fr. Gleize opens by stating an obvious proposition, which is completely true and has never been relevant to the debate: it is possible for a bishop to confer the power of episcopal orders against the will of the Pope. Well, no kidding. If it weren’t “possible” to commit an act of schism, there would be no act of schism. The very fact that episcopal orders are actually conferred contrary to the will of the Pope is what makes them so pernicious (and schismatic), because it is an actual (not just a symbolic or feigned) attack on the unity of the Church, and the means that Christ willed for her perpetuation (apostolic succession) until the end of time. That is why consecrating bishops against the will of the Pope is an attack against the will of Christ Himself, Who gave this divine prerogative to the Pope alone. 

                                                 Acts which are Possible are not Schismatic? 

Now, you may be wondering, why does Fr. Gleize begin by stating something so obvious? Because he wants to deceive the reader into believing that acts which are “possible” (whose intended ends are realizable) are not schismatic, while acts which are impossible (whose intended ends are not realizable) are schismatic. In Gleize’s words, “An act is possible if its realization does not repudiate it, or does not entail an intrinsic contradiction.”[13] Gleize made this argument in 2022 and repeats it here. This intentional deception is a little tricky, so bear with me. More background is needed.

The purpose of an episcopal consecration is to confer both (1) the power of orders (for sanctifying) and (2) the power of jurisdiction (for teaching and governing). Now, it is “possible” for any bishop to confer orders, but only the Pope can confer jurisdiction; it is not “possible” for any other bishop to do so. To elaborate, an episcopal consecration, even when done against the Pope’s will, confers the power of orders (the sacramental character), due to the nature of the sacrament itself (which takes place ex opere operato, or “from the work worked”). However, only a legitimate episcopal consecration, approved by the Pope, confers the actual power of jurisdiction, because as Pius XII teaches, jurisdiction is conferred by the Pope alone. This happens when the Pope confers a canonical mission upon the bishop (i.e., when he assigns the bishop to a diocese), which is the very meaning of the Apostolic Mandate (the bishop is “sent” by the Pope, just as the Apostles were sent by Christ).

On the other hand, a schismatic consecration (against the will of the Pope) only confers the ontological capacity (called “functions” or munera in Latin) upon the schismatic bishop to receive jurisdiction (he does not actually receive jurisdiction without a further canonical determination by the Pope). Because the schismatic bishop has no canonical mission, he has no power to teach or govern (his “functions” are not true powers or potestates ready to act), nor does he have the authority to sanctify (e.g., to perform confirmations, ordain priests, etc.). This is the case for the SSPX bishops, as well as the Sedevacantist, Old Catholic and independent Resistance bishops.

Now, according to Fr. Gleize, because the conferral of episcopal orders against the Pope’s will is “possible” (the sacramental character is validly conferred by any bishop), he argues that such an act is not schismatic. Fr. Gleize states: “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.”[14]

Note well that Gleize is actually arguing that if the sacrament is valid, then the act: (1) satisfies divine law; and, (2) is not schismatic - without actual regard to the divine law itself, namely, how Jesus Christ wills the sacrament to be conferred and the divine rights He conferred upon the Papacy to fulfill His will. Gleize makes this crystal clear when he says: “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.”[15] Of course, Gleize’s formula is utterly absurd, for it would mean that all validly celebrated consecrations (including the episcopal consecrations of the Old Catholics, who were declared excommunicated by Pius IX, as well as the excommunicated Resistance and Sedevacantist bishops of our day) would not be schismatic or violate divine law.

Fr. Gleize then reasons that because the conferral of jurisdiction against the Pope’s will is impossible (jurisdiction comes from the Pope alone), any attempt to do so is “necessarily schismatic.” Fr. Gleize affirms the same by stating: “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.”[16] Gleize then concludes the section: “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.”[17]

What Fr. Gleize is arguing, which is a repeat of his 2022 article, is that an episcopal consecration “against the explicit will of the Supreme Pontiff” is not schismatic if the consecrator only intends to confer the power of orders but not jurisdiction (again, because any bishop can confer orders but only the Pope can confer jurisdiction).[18] Of course, you will never find such an absurd thesis in all of Catholic theology. And that is because it is not based on Catholic theology, but rather Gleize’s own contrived thesis which distinguishes what a bishop is metaphysically capable of doing versus what a bishop has, or does not have, a right to do (according to divine law and the teaching of the Magisterium).    

Fr. Gleize fails to recognize that selecting and consecrating a bishop (communicating the power of orders) against the will of the Pope is also a schismatic act, because the Pope alone has the right to select who will join the College of Bishops (of which he is the head), which is a matter of divine law (by virtue of the Primacy). Never does one become a member of the College of Bishops, against the will of the head of the College of Bishops. In Gleize’s own words, the determination of bishops “is precisely an act of the Pope’s will that is fundamentally necessary.”[19]  Thus, the Council of Trent says that bishops “must be assumed by authority of the Roman Pontiff,” which again means they must be received by the Pope (the superior always receives the inferior), and that only happens when the Pope approves their selection for the College of Bishops.

It makes no difference that it is metaphysically “possible” for a bishop other than the Pope to confer orders; he has no right to do so against the will of the Pope. The Church does not supply what the Pope explicitly refuses. Again, it is astonishing that Fr. Gleize, a seminary professor, continues to overlook all the Magisterial evidence I have provided proving the Pope’s divine right to select a bishop to perpetuate formal apostolic succession (an issue of ecclesiology and the divine constitution of the Church), while zeroing in on a bishop’s mere ability to confer orders (an issue of sacramental theology).

We must say it again, that the determination of who will join the College of Bishops (which is the exclusive right of the Pope, and which he does either explicitly, or at least tacitly[20]) necessarily precedes the conferral of the power of orders, which is then done by either the Pope or another bishop with the Pope’s consent. This is why the formal efficient cause of a Catholic episcopal consecration is the Roman Pontiff, even if he is not the one actually conferring the orders (the consecrating bishop is only the material efficient cause). This is because the selection of the bishop, and corresponding episcopal consecration belong, by divine right, to the Pope alone.

Thus, because Fr. Gleize, in his own words, has admitted that “someone who arrogates to himself the Pope’s own authority…fits this definition of schism,”[21] the conferral of episcopal orders (and not just jurisdiction) against the will of the Roman Pontiff is also a schismatic act, according to Fr. Gleize’s own principle. That means the 1988 and 1991 consecrations performed by the Society were schismatic, and any future episcopal consecration against the will of the Pope will likewise be schismatic.

Of course, schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with those subject to him (canon 751). Such refusals of submission or communion are always “possible,” since it is within a person’s power of the will, which is why schism is a sin against charity. Moreover, the SSPX bishops have refused to place their (illicit) power of orders under the jurisdiction of the Pope, and hence their episcopal acts in the realm of sanctifying are just as schismatic as their acts of teaching and governing. Fr. Gleize’s first argument is bogus. 

False Proposition #2 – What is “Necessary” 

After Fr. Gleize explains why doing what is “possible” (here, consecrating a bishop against the “explicit will” of the Pope) is not schismatic, he then attempts to tell us why doing this “possible” act is also “necessary.” You’ve heard the tired arguments before: the SSPX can do as they please due to their assertion of “necessity,” “crisis,” “survival” and “the salvation of souls.” However, if you even superficially read the Magisterial quotes at the beginning of this article, you will immediately sense a problem. How can it ever be “necessary” to violate divine law and the will of Christ? The answer, of course, is obvious. It can’t.

Because the right to nominate, select, consecrate and send bishops belongs to the Supreme Pontiff alone as a matter of the divine law of Jesus Christ, there can never be a “necessity” which would justify usurping this “divine right” (Bl. Pius IX). After all, the divine law of Christ foresees all things, including a “crisis in the Church.” If it didn’t, then Christ would have failed in His promises, by conferring an exclusive right upon the Pope (to name and send bishops) that would be insufficient to survive a ”crisis.” Indeed, when the Church was overwhelmed by the Arian crisis of the fourth century, the true Catholic bishops did not take matters in their own hands and consecrate non-Arian priests against the will of the Pope in order to form a parallel hierarchy like the Arian bishops and Lefebvre did. The Catholic bishops fought the fight inside the Church, and Providence brought the crisis to an end.  

                                                         Divine Law vs. Ecclesiastical Law 

And here is where Gleize runs into another wall, by claiming that the Pope’s right to select bishops is merely “ecclesiastical” (or human) law. Never mind that Bl. Pius IX (and the entire Catholic tradition) teaches that “the Apostolic authority given to Us by the Lord through the most holy Peter, prince of the Apostles,’ to appoint bishops,” and “For the rights and privileges given to the See by Christ Himself, while they may be attacked, cannot be destroyed; no man has the power to renounce a divine right.”[22] Fr. Gleize and the SSPX are quick to praise Bl. Pius IX for his Syllabus of Errors, but then commit the most grievous error against his teaching by attacking and usurping the divine rights of the Pope.

Fr. Gleize exposes his error when he points out that the conferral of orders can happen against the will of the Pope due to the “divine positive law” (by the principle “ex opere operato”), while failing to recognize that the selection and juridical determination of a bishop is also a matter of divine positive law (“divine rights” belonging to the Pope). He says: “This (‘the realization of the sacrament’) is regardless of the decisions of ecclesiastical law, which considers such a celebration illicit.”[23]

Fr. Gleize similarly says that the “state of necessity” obliges us “to disregard the abusive and tyrannical implementation of the law,” and claims that “if the application of ecclesiastical law comes into conflict with the law’s intended purpose, 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.”[24] Of course, none of these principles actually apply to the Pope’s “divine right” to choose his bishops, for ecclesiastical law does not trump divine law. Moreover, divine law cannot “contradict itself.” Nay, God cannot contradict Himself!

Because Fr. Gleize claims that it is “necessary” to violate the Pope’s divine right to choose bishops to perpetuate apostolic succession, he is essentially arguing that the Society’s “gravely illicit” and schismatic acts were “necessary” to save the Church from defection. Indeed, in this latest article, Gleize repeatedly says the Society’s schismatic consecrations achieve “the survival operation of Tradition” and the “survival of the priesthood.” This is yet another grave error flowing from the wellspring of the SSPX schism, which is nothing less than a denial of the Church’s attribute of indefectibility. For if “Tradition” and “the priesthood” would not have “survived” without their schismatic consecrations, then the divine structure of the Church and the means of preserving it (through formal apostolic succession)[25] would have ceased to exist. This is a denial of the dogma of indefectibility and the promises of Christ, proving that most schismatics are heretics as well. 

                                           The SSPX says the Indefectible Church Defected 

Guess what? This is precisely what Abp. Lefebvre himself believed and taught his sect. Lefebvre denied the dogma of indefectibility by claiming that the Roman Catholic Church, over which Popes Paul VI and John Paul II reigned, ceased to be the Catholic Church and defected into what he called the “Conciliar Church.” For example, Lefebvre said the following:   

·     “Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church. ... That is no longer the Catholic Church: that is the Conciliar Church.” 

·     “It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church.”

·     “…we are talking about a counterfeit version of the Church, and not the Catholic Church. It does not teach any longer the Catholic faith. It teaches something else, it leads the Church to something else other than the Catholic Church. It is no longer the Catholic Church.” 

·     “This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church.” 

·     “This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time.” 

·     “This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic.” 

·     “It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church.” 

·     “Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy. They have left the Church. This is sure, sure, sure. It is a schismatic council. The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic.”[26]

And if it couldn’t get any more heretical, Fr. Gleize actually claims that “future consecrations themselves will benefit everyone by providing God’s holy Church with the means of its indefectibility.”[27] You read that correctly. According to Gleize, the Church’s indefectibility will be preserved by schismatic consecrations that are done against the law of Jesus Christ and the will of the Vicar of Christ. So the dogma of indefectibility is preserved after all! 

                                                     Red Alert: The Collegiality Canard 

Addressing all the reasons why Fr. Gleize says it is “necessary” to do another round of schismatic consecrations is beyond the scope of this article (you have heard them before: “Vatican II and the New Mass”). However, I want to address one of the main reasons the Society gives, which Gleize advances in his article, and that is Vatican II’s teaching on Collegiality in Lumen Gentium (yes, the SSPX claims to have a right to operate outside Christ’s Church because they don’t like a teaching of Christ’s Church, which they don’t even understand). Fr. Gleize calls Collegiality “a new Credo” that was “imposed” upon the faithful and twice refers to “the new ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium” in his latest article.

It is important to briefly address just one of the Society’s errors on Collegiality - for two reasons: First, because Collegiality is perhaps the Society’s greatest justification for its rebellion against the Church, since the Society claims the council’s teaching on Collegiality is the foundational “heresy” which leads to its other alleged “heresies” (heresy being the grossest deviation from Catholic truth possible). Second, because the Society’s erroneous understanding of Vatican II’s teaching on Collegiality is actually a root error in their position on the consecrations, as I will further explain (that is, the Society’s error on Collegiality is actually what leads them to conclude their consecrations are not schismatic). I have not seen anyone make this connection before.

In my February 2022 article “Exposing the SSPX’s Errors on Collegiality,” I addressed three of the Society’s errors concerning this doctrine. Here, I limit my very brief analysis to one of those errors which concerns episcopal consecration and jurisdiction, the subject matter of this article. Beginning with their founder Marcel Lefebvre, the Society has always claimed that Lumen Gentium teaches bishops receive actual jurisdiction from God upon their episcopal consecrations (this notion has now also spread throughout the false traditionalist movement). Where do they get this false understanding? From Lumen Gentium 21 which says in part: 

And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church's liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry. But Episcopal consecration, together with the office [function = munere]  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.           

            The Society claims the council’s teaching conflicts with the teaching of Pius XII who said: “The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same divine right, but only through the successor of Peter (Pius XII, Ad Sinarum Gentem).” Does Vatican II conflict with Pius XII? Not at all, and anyone with high school reading ability can see why. When Lumen Gentium says that episcopal consecration confers the “office” of teaching and governing (acts which require jurisdiction), it is not referring to actual jurisdiction, but only the interior, ontological capacity to receive jurisdiction upon the canonical determination of the Pope, which is part of the sacramental character. This is why Lumen Gentium does not use the word “jurisdiction” (iurisdictio) or even “power” (potestates), but rather “function” (munere) when it describes what is conferred.

            The Society has absolutely no excuse for interpreting “function” as actual jurisdiction because Pope Paul VI in his Nota Previa clearly explains the difference between “functions” (munera) and jurisdiction (which actually preempts the Society’s false interpretation): 

In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions [munera]; this is absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included. The word "functions [munera]" is used deliberately instead of the word "powers [potestates]," because the latter word could be understood as a power fully ready to act. But for this power to be fully ready to act, there must be a further canonical or juridical determination through the hierarchical authority. This determination of power can consist in the granting of a particular office or in the allotment of subjects, and it is done according to the norms approved by the supreme authority.[28] 

As we can see, the SSPX has failed to understand that the “function” [munere] conferred in episcopal consecration is merely the ontological capacity the bishop receives at consecration, making him capable of receiving the fullness of episcopal jurisdiction (not that he actually receives jurisdiction from God at his consecration, as Lefebvre, Gleize and the rest of the Society claim). Completely consistent with the teaching of Pius XII, Lumen Gentium says the bishop receives jurisdiction (the function becomes a power ready to act) upon “canonical or juridical determination,” according to the “norms approved by the supreme authority” (the Roman Pontiff).

       Clearly, Fr. Gleize and the Society disregard the Pope’s official explanation and insist on interpreting munera to mean actual jurisdiction (which is what Pius XII is addressing in Ad Sinarum Gentem), and not the mere ontological function to receive jurisdiction (which is what Lumen Gentium is addressing). But for those who have a basic reading level and can comprehend the Church’s distinction between “function” and “power” (which is easily comprehended by reading the Nota), they find no contradiction between Lumen Gentium’s use of munera (the functions to receive jurisdiction) and Pius XII’s use of iurisdictionis autem potestas[29] (the power of jurisdiction itself). That is because no contradiction exists. Yet the Society of St. Pius X calls the Church’s teaching “heretical,” and even the most “foundational heresy” that gives rise to the rest of the heresies and errors of the post Vatican II period!  As Pius IX taught, “every schism fabricates a heresy to justify withdrawal from the Church.”[30]

            Perhaps now one can see the connection between the Society’s erroneous interpretation of Lumen Gentium and its erroneous defense of its schismatic consecrations. But let’s have Fr. Gleize explain it to us: “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.”[31]

Aha! There you have it. The SSPX opposes those who point out their consecrations are schismatic on the ground that we have embraced the “heretical” ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium (which, again, allegedly teaches that episcopal consecration confers actual jurisdiction), which is contrary to the teaching of Pius XII.

The SSPX then claims that because their consecrations do not presume to confer jurisdiction like Lumen Gentium teaches, their consecrations cannot be schismatic. In Fr. Gleize’s own words: “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.”[32] And again: “this [accusation of schism] 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.”[33] Both Fr. Gleize’s reasoning and theology are totally erroneous. Why? As we have already seen: 

·       The SSPX’s interpretation of Lumen Gentium is completely false (it does not teach that actual jurisdiction is conferred in an episcopal consecration).

 

·       The conferral of episcopal orders against the will of the Pope is also schismatic, without regard to jurisdiction (because selecting and consecrating bishops is a divine right of the Pope alone).

 

·       Pius XII also teaches that “no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.”[34] 

Fr. Gleize’s second proposition is bogus.

 

False Proposition #3 – “Without Serious Detriment” 

Fr. Gleize opens this last section by claiming that because any future consecrations against the will of the Pope will be “necessary,” they can be carried out “without serious detriment,” for the “common good of the Church.” He then makes a statement that – brace yourself – you will never find in any teaching of the Magisterium (except as a condemned proposition): “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.”[35] Fr. Gleize not only denies the dogma of indefectibility, but here, also the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Church,” for schismatic consecrations “against the explicit will of the Pope” always take place outside the Catholic Church, and hence cannot be “for the salvation of souls.”

Fr. Gleize and the Society’s errors are borne not only from their failure to understand the divine positive law of episcopal consecration, but also the very nature of the episcopate. Says Gleize: “The episcopal consecration, as we have understood it above, 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.”[36] And, again: “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.”[37]

Fr. Gleize’s error, which bifurcates the power of orders from the power of jurisdiction, comes directly from his hero, Marcel Lefebvre, and reveals a seriously erroneous understanding of the nature of the episcopate itself (which is also reflected in the Society’s grave errors on Vatican II’s teaching on Collegiality). St. Thomas teaches that while the simple priest is primarily ordered to sanctification (confecting the physical Body of Christ), a bishop is ordered to governance (the Mystical Body of Christ).[38]  As the Council of Trent affirmed, the bishops have been “placed by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God.”[39]

Thus, the Church teaches that a Catholic bishop is first and foremost ordered to ecclesiastical governance, to rule his flock, for which jurisdiction is required. Episcopal consecration gives him supplementary powers through the sacramental character to perfect his mission (including the fullness of the priesthood), but he is ordered primarily to govern, through jurisdiction. An anticipated episcopal consecration (for a bishop selected by the Pope) necessarily includes the related canonical mission and jurisdiction (again, determined by the Pope), along with the power of orders. The SSPX has attempted to bifurcate two powers that are necessarily interdependent and ordered to each other. Indeed, episcopal jurisdiction is the authority required to carry out the divine mission of the Church. 

                 Further Proof of Schism: Assumed Jurisdiction against the Will of the Pope 

Fr. Gleize’s assertion that the Society’s consecrations intend to only confer orders and not jurisdiction also directly contradicts the statements and actions that Abp. Lefebvre himself took, as well as those of the other SSPX bishops. Lefebvre not only intended to confer the power of orders upon the four bishops, but also grant them a power of jurisdiction in the realm of governance (not just sanctification), the type of which would normally be exercised by bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (over dioceses), or of the Holy See.

Why is this significant? Because Fr. Gleize himself has admitted that “communication” of the “episcopal power of jurisdiction” contrary to the “explicit will of the Pope” is “necessarily schismatic.”[40] As Gleize also said in his 2022 article: “Schism consists precisely in refusing as a matter of principle to subordinate one’s action to the precept of the authority and to separate oneself from it so as to set oneself up as a competing authority.”[41]

Was Abp. Lefebvre content to simply confer the power of orders upon his bishops? Or did Lefebvre intend to set up a “competing authority” that would clash with the diocesan bishops and the Holy See? Lefebvre answered that question for us. At the end of his life, Lefebvre desired to set up an ecclesiastical tribunal of sorts, that would operate as a competing or “substitute” authority vis-à-vis diocesan tribunals and the Roman Rota. Said Lefebvre: “As long as the present Roman authorities are imbued with ecumenism and modernism, as long as their decisions and the New Code of Canon Law are influenced by these false principles, it will be necessary to establish substitute authorities, faithfully keeping the Catholic principles of Catholic Tradition and Catholic Law.”[42]

            The Society has indeed erected a tribunal that acts as a “competing authority” with the legitimate tribunals of the Catholic Church, which it calls the ”St. Charles Borromeo Canonical Commission.” According to Bishop Fellay, this schismatic tribunal arrogates to itself the jurisdiction to grant dispensations for mixed marriages, issue declarations of nullity (marriage annulments), lift ecclesiastical censures in the external forum including excommunications, dispense from religious vows, and authorize exorcisms, all without any ecclesiastical approval whatsoever.[43]

            The Society’s schismatic tribunal is specifically designed to operate as a “competing authority” (Fr. Gleize’s words) with the legitimate tribunals of the Roman Catholic Church, by requiring its adherents to swear on the Gospels that they will “conform myself to the verdict of the tribunal” and “not to approach an official ecclesiastical tribunal” of the Church, which the Society calls “Novus Ordo tribunals.”[44] In fact, the late Bishop Tissier even declared: “The faithful do not have the right to go to Novus Ordo tribunals” and “the priest must never advise anyone to go to a Novus Ordo tribunal.”[45] A clearer case of “setting oneself up as a competing authority” (again, Gleize’s words) against legitimate authority can hardly be imagined.

            Hence, notwithstanding Gleize’s claims to the contrary, Lefebvre did intend to communicate the power of jurisdiction to his bishops and priests by erecting a competing tribunal to judge matters that can only be rightly judged by “official ecclesiastical tribunals.” Lefebvre’s usurpation of the authority to judge marriage cases by true ecclesiastical judges is anathematized by the Council of Trent which declared: “If anyone shall say that matrimonial causes do not concern ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema.”[46]

            Note also that the Society is not merely claiming that its tribunal operates on the basis of “supplied jurisdiction” (which, as I have proven in other articles, does not even apply to SSPX clergy because of the absence of common error and positive and probable doubt). Rather, the Society claims that it enjoys “ordinary episcopal jurisdiction,” in addition to supplied jurisdiction. Says Bishop Fellay: “The bishops of the Society, though deprived of any territorial jurisdiction, nevertheless possess the suppletory jurisdiction necessary to exercise the powers attached to the episcopal order and certain acts of ordinary episcopal jurisdiction.”[47]

Notice that Bishop Fellay distinguishes between “suppletory jurisdiction” (by which he presumably means “supplied jurisdiction”) and “ordinary episcopal jurisdiction,” which would be jurisdiction granted by the Pope in connection with a canonical appointment to an office - even though the Society bishops hold no office in the Church to which “ordinary episcopal jurisdiction” would attach. Hence, Fr. Gleize’s superior, Bp. Fellay, claims to have the very jurisdiction that Gleize says would make Fellay and the Society “schismatics.” In fact, Bishop Fellay further clarified that Abp. Lefebvre considered himself to possess a jurisdiction “permitting him, in the interests of the faithful, to grant his priests similar faculties.”[48] Faculties? From whom?

Fellay also refers to their “added powers and faculties relating to marriage certificates (cf. Cor Unum n. 42, p. 44-56), dispensations from vows and the lifting of censures, along with useful precisions regarding cases where there is a danger of death and cases of emergency.”[49] Fellay further says: “The faculties granted to priests are not only for priests who are members of the Society, but for all priests who reside for a prolonged period of time in our houses…”[50] Thus, according to Fellay, faculties of jurisdiction are somehow granted even to non-SSPX priests (again, by whom?) if they hang out with SSPX priests long enough. Indeed, because supplied jurisdiction is not a “faculty” that is “granted” to priests by a bishop, Fellay is referring to an “ordinary episcopal jurisdiction” (his words) that could only come from the Pope, and hence is “necessarily schismatic,” in the words of Fr. Gleize.[51]

Bishop Tissier further explained that the Society’s jurisdiction is “a true jurisdiction” because “we have the power and the duty of handing down true verdicts which have potestatem ligandi vet solvendi [the power of binding and loosing]. Our verdicts therefore have an obligatory character.”[52] And, if it couldn’t get any clearer, Tissier exclaimed: “It is true that our verdicts of the third instance replace the verdicts of the Roman Rota, which acts in the Pope’s name as a tribunal of the third instance.”[53] You read that correctly.

In the exact words of Fr. Gleize, schism consists precisely in refusing as a matter of principle to subordinate one’s action to the precept of the authority (that is, true Catholic tribunals, which the SSPX calls “Novus Ordo tribunals”); and to separate oneself from that authority (by swearing on the Gospels never to approach such tribunals and to submit to the Society’s verdicts); so as to set oneself up as a competing authority (or “substitute authority,” in the words of Lefebvre, whose verdicts will “replace” those of the Roman Catholic Church); and, to “communicate” the “episcopal power of jurisdiction against the explicit will of the Pope” which Gleize has conceded is “necessarily schismatic.”

Indeed, schism consists precisely in the Society’s erection of a canonical tribunal which assumes a power of jurisdiction that the Pope alone can confer.[54] As Gleize himself states: “Someone who arrogates to himself the Pope’s own authority in order to communicate a power of jurisdiction of which he is not the source fits this definition of schism.”[55]

In summary, Fr. Gleize has already admitted that the usurpation of a power which belongs to the Pope alone is necessarily schismatic. He has now also conceded that those who presume to confer and accept episcopal jurisdiction against the will of the Pope are “necessarily schismatics,” which his own superiors have confirmed is the case.

Fr. Gleize’s third proposition is also bogus. Again…it is game over for the Society of St. Pius X.

                                                              Closing Remarks 

As can be expected, Fr. Gleize closes his article by once again appealing to the nebulous “state of necessity” argument and that which the SSPX alleges brought this state about (e.g., the council and the New Mass). However, Fr. Gleize also admits that no “state of necessity” or “crisis” or “state of emergency” exonerates an act from schism when the act is a usurpation of a right or power which belongs to the Pope alone. Says Gleize: “To communicate somehow the power of jurisdiction in the Church contrary to the will of the Pope contradicts a principle of divine right and is therefore a theological impossibility. No exceptional situation, no extraordinary circumstance could ever legitimize, much less make possible, the communication of the power of jurisdiction against the Pope’s will.”[56] Because the selection and consecration of bishops is also a divine right of the Pope, and because the SSPX has assumed an “ordinary episcopal jurisdiction” against the will of the Pope, no doubt means that the SSPX is in schism, according to Fr. Gleize’s own admissions.

Fr. Gleize also reiterates that those who claim the SSPX consecrations are schismatic have bought into the “new ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium” which “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.”[57] For Gleize, such people have been “won over by false principles”[58] (which, in reality, means the divine law and the teaching of the Church) and have thus “capitulated before the false idea of the intrinsically evil and schismatic nature of an episcopal consecration carried out against the explicit will of the Pope”[59] (evidently, pre-Vatican II Popes like Pius VI, Pius IX, Pius XII, among others, have also capitulated to this false idea).

Indeed, all notorious schismatics have followed this playbook throughout history, by creating a heresy to justify their schism, and they often end with the most egregious form of schism, which is the usurpation of the Primacy through illicit episcopal consecrations. Lucifer of Cagliari’s consecration of Paulinus, and the many consecrations of Donatist bishops (e.g., Majorinus, Donatus, Crispinus) during the Arian crisis are some of the earliest examples, and the schismatic consecrations of the Old Catholics, the SSPX, the Resistance and the Sedevacantists are the most recent examples.

The buzzer has already sounded on the SSPX. They have conceded that usurping a divine right that belongs to the Pope alone is schismatic. They have conceded that conferring or assuming jurisdiction against the will of the Pope is schismatic. And they have conceded that they themselves have assumed a type of ordinary episcopal jurisdiction to carry out their counter-mission against the Pope and the Princes of the Church, which is “necessarily schismatic.” It is time for the leadership of the SSPX to admit and renounce its errors, and stop deceiving its adherents, which is leading them to perdition. We have been corresponding with SSPX priests behind the scenes, and they have no reasonable answers to our arguments. Let us pray for their return to the Church post haste. 

 

---

[1] “Leaving the SSPX Behind,” Salza & Bartel, The Logos Project (July 23, 2022); “What is the Way Forward for the SSPX?,” Salza, Decrevi Determined to be Catholic (July 30, 2022); “The Errors of Archbishop Lefebvre,” Salza, The Robert Sungenis Show (August 4, 2022); “Is the SSPX Right?,” Salza, Reason & Theology (August 6, 2022); “The Formation and Suppression of the SSPX,” Salza & Bartel, The Logos Project (August 9, 2022); “The Schism of the Century – SSPX,” Salza & Bartel, The Logos Project (August 20, 2022); “The SSPX and the Sunday Obligation,” Salza, The Logos Project (August 27, 2022); “Marcel Lefebvre Was Wrong,” Salza, The Logos Project (September 3, 2022); “Questions for Bishop Schneider on the SSPX,” Salza, The Logos Project (September 17, 2022).
[2] Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958, No. 47.
[3] Quartus Supra, No. 33.
[4] Ibid., No. 30.
[5] Ibid., No. 29.
[6] Ibid., No. 31.
[7] Pius VI, Charitas, April 13, 1791, no. 10.
[8] Trent, Session 23, On the Sacrament of Orders, chapter 4, canon 7.
[9] www.sspx.org; originally published in French in Courrier de Rome, No. 682 (January 2025).
[10] Ibid., No. 3 (emphasis added).
[11] Fr. Gleize, “Future Consecrations: An Approaching Deadline?,” (emphasis added), Nos. 4, 5, www.sspx.org; originally published in French in Courrier de Rome, No. 682 (January 2025).
[12] Ibid., No. 6.
[13] Ibid., No. 4.
[14] Ibid., No. 6.
[15] Ibid., No. 15 (emphasis added).
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid., No. 7 (emphasis added).
[18] Note also that Fr. Gleize now actually admits that conferring episcopal orders against the will of the Pope is “gravely illicit.” This is another “doctrinal development” of the SSPX. According to Gleize, “gravely illicit” acts were necessary to save the Church.
[19] Ibid.
[20] We see the Pope’s tacit approval of episcopal ordinations in cases of the Eastern Church (e.g., St. Eusebius) as well as the more recent cases of Cardinals Wojtyla and Slipyj behind the Iron Curtain.
[21] Fr. Gleize, “We Owe to Pius XII Important Clarifications on the Nature of the Episcopate,” No. 19, September 22, 2022, www.sspx.org.
[22] Quartus Supra, Nos. 29 and 31.
[23] Fr. Gleize, “Future Consecrations: An Approaching Deadline?,” No. 4 (emphasis added).
[24] Ibid., No. 9.
[25] By formal apostolic succession, we mean the process by which bishops are not only consecrated with the Pope’s approval but also given canonical mission through juridical determination by the Pope, something that the SSPX and the rest of the independent schismatic bishops lack. This is what is meant by the mark of Apostolicity in the Nicene Creed.
[26] www.archbishoplefebvre.com, “Greatest Quotes.”
[27] Gleize, No. 19.
[28] In Lumen Gentium’s Preliminary Note of Explanation, No. 2, at www.vatican.va.
[29] Pius XII, Ad Sinarum Gentem, No. 12 (1954).
[30] Quartus Supra, no. 13.
[31] Gleize, No. 17.
[32] Gleize, No. 15.
[33] Ibid., No. 18.
[34] Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958, No. 47.
[35] Gleize, No. 13.
[36] Ibid., No. 14 (emphasis added).
[37] Ibid., No. 15 (emphasis added).
[38] See Summa Theologiae, IIIa, q.82, a.1 and IV Sent. d.25, q.1, a.2.
[39] Trent, Session 23, chapter 4; Acts 20:28.
[40] Gleize, No. 7.
[41] Fr. Gleize, “We Owe to Pius XII Important Clarifications on the Nature of the Episcopate,” No. 19.
[42] Lefebvre letter to Fr. Schmidberger, January 15, 1991.
[43] Fellay, “Ordinances concerning the powers and faculties enjoyed by the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X,” 1997; see also Cor Unum, No. 61, pp. 33-46.
[44] Ibid., See also www.thetraditionalcatholicfaith.blogspot.com/2010/12/canon ical-tribunals-of-sspx.html.
[45] Legitimacy and Status of our Matrimonial Tribunals – Status Questionis, Canonical session at Econe, August 24, 1998.
[46] Touching the Sacrament of Matrimony, Session 24, canon 12.
[47] Bishop Fellay, “Ordinances concerning the powers and faculties enjoyed by the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X,” 1997, 79-page pamphlet.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Fellay also refers to SSPX bishops as “auxiliary bishops,” which is false. Auxiliary bishops have habitual jurisdiction that has been delegated to them by a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, which is certainly not the case with the Society bishops.
[52] Legitimacy and Status of our Matrimonial Tribunals – Status Questionis, Canonical session at Econe, August 24, 1998.
[53] Ibid.
[54] As Fr. Gleize concedes: “The power of jurisdiction is communicated ‘only’ through the Pope…” and “The power of jurisdiction must be communicated by the will of the Pope alone…” Gleize, “We Owe to Pius XII Important Clarifications on the Nature of the Episcopate,” no. 11.
[55] Gleize, “Future Consecrations: An Approaching Deadline?,” no. 19.
[56] Gleize, “We Owe to Pius XII Important Clarifications on the Nature of the Episcopate,” no. 20 (emphasis added).
[57]  Gleize, “Future Consecrations: An Approaching Deadline?,” no. 18.
[58] Ibid., No. 18.
[59] Ibid.