The decision announced by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X to proceed with new episcopal consecrations starting from July 2026 cannot be dismissed as an isolated gesture nor reduced to an ideological provocation. It is an event of enormous ecclesial significance that reopens one of the most delicate chapters in the life of the contemporary Church and compels us to pose an uncomfortable but unavoidable question: could this situation have been avoided?
Read also: The FSSPX announces that it will consecrate new bishops on July 1, 2026
The honest answer is affirmative. And precisely for that reason, we are facing the first major avoidable crisis of Leo XIV’s pontificate. Not because the FSSPX is right in all its positions, nor because its decisions lack objective gravity, but because Rome cannot allow a reality of this weight to reach a breaking point without having clearly and verifiably demonstrated an effective exercise of pastoral governance.
Listening is not enough when direction is lacking
From the beginning of his pontificate, Leo XIV has wanted to present himself as a Pope of listening. He is described as close, attentive, capable of dedicating time and patience to hearing his interlocutors. No one disputes the evangelical value of that attitude. The problem arises when listening becomes an end in itself and not the starting point for concrete decisions.
Governing does not consist only in hearing; it consists in ordering, structuring, assuming responsibilities, and offering real solutions. When a crisis erupts and the only thing that can be exhibited is a prior attitude of listening, without measures or stable channels, that listening ends up seeming insufficient, if not evasive.
The necessary question before the analysis
Before judging the Fraternity’s decision, Rome should respond clearly to a fundamental question: does the Holy See today guarantee stable access to the sacraments for the faithful linked to the vetus ordo?
Concrete experience demonstrates that it does not. Since the implementation of Traditionis Custodes, there is no universal legal guarantee for the regular celebration of the traditional Mass, nor for access to Confirmation according to the ancient rite, nor much less for the continuity of priestly ordinations destined for this apostolate. Everything is subordinated to revocable permissions and the will of diocesan bishops, which generates a fragile, unequal, and deeply insecure pastoral care.
The framework imposed by Traditionis Custodes has not produced the promised unity. It has produced precariousness, arbitrariness, and a permanent climate of suspicion, precisely in the area where there should be the greatest pastoral clarity: access to sacramental life.
Partial solutions are not an ecclesial policy
It is often argued that there are sufficient channels for the faithful linked to the liturgical tradition. But this statement is only partially true. In many places, those avenues are scarce, fragile, and dependent on local authorizations that can disappear from one day to the next.
The consequence is a regime of administered exception: permissions, restrictions, sudden changes, uncertainty. A Church cannot pretend to resolve a structural problem by indefinitely relying on provisional solutions. Unity is built with stable institutions, not with revocable licenses.
The FSSPX is not marginal (and Rome cannot pretend that it is)
It is worth emphasizing clearly: the FSSPX is not a marginal or residual phenomenon. It has hundreds of priests and seminarians, a consolidated international network, and tens of thousands of practicing faithful, in many cases young and with large families. It is, objectively, a significant pastoral reality.
Moreover, we are not dealing with a movement that denies dogmas of faith or that officially holds positions like sede vacante. The gravity of the disagreements does not eliminate the main fact: there exists a real, greatly growing body of faithful, with intense sacramental life, that cannot be treated as if it did not exist or as if it were an anomaly that time will correct through attrition.
What Leo XIV should have demonstrated before reaching this point
We do not know what has happened in detail, but it seems clear that before this crisis erupted, the Pope should have shown something more than good disposition. He should have officially received the Fraternity’s leaders, listened also to its faithful, appointed a working team with real mandate, and guaranteed, at least provisionally, access to the sacraments that are today de facto blocked or conditioned.
There are canonical formulas for this, from the appointment of a delegated bishop for confirmations and ordinations to the creation of transitional structures that allow progress without precipitating ruptures. It is not about legitimizing problematic positions or renouncing ecclesial demands; it is about avoiding dead ends when what is at stake is the continuity of sacramental life.
In return, Rome could—and should—have demanded clear commitments: progressive integration into ecclesial life, transparency in formation, explicit rejection of any drift toward rupture, and a non-aggressive doctrinal framework. Unity is not built without demands, but neither is it built without guarantees. Offering sacraments and demanding responsibilities is the classic logic of ecclesial governance.
When inaction accumulates, crises chain together
The FSSPX episode does not occur in a vacuum. It inserts itself into a worrying dynamic of passive management through blockages and delays. There are living vocational realities—with numerous candidates for the priesthood and strong pastoral implantation—that have been dragging on for years situations of provisionality, restrictions, or freezes, without transparent procedures or defined horizons. This way of governing is unsustainable for much longer if we want to avoid a dismembered Church.
This mode of proceeding does not resolve conflicts: it freezes them. And when the life of communities with real vocations is frozen for years, what is generated is not serene obedience, but frustration, distrust, and, finally, emergency decisions. Listening, without acts of governance, ends up becoming a form of indefinite postponement.
Unity is not built by asphyxiation
The unity of the Church is not built by attrition, by blockage, nor by administrative silences. It is not achieved by reducing, postponing, or letting problems rot. It is built by integrating, ordering, and governing with pastoral realism.
When a Church does not offer stable channels for the Mass, the sacraments, formation, and the continuity of ministry, it cannot be surprised that emergency decisions arise. And when those decisions arrive, it is no longer enough to lament the fait accompli: one must respond for the path that led there.
An avoidable bomb
The FSSPX’s decision is grave. But even graver is that Rome cannot show that it did everything possible—something more than listening—to avoid it. Leo XIV still has time to demonstrate that his pontificate will not be limited to passively accompanying crises, but to anticipating and resolving them.
Because listening is a virtue. But a Pope has not been elected only to listen.