Already in the 5th century, St. Vincent of Lérins wondered: «Is there progress in religion?». And he was sure that yes, there was, and moreover it was great. But it had to be progress, not a change. Vincent described the task of the Church as follows: «It never modifies the truths of the faith that have been entrusted to it, it removes nothing nor adds anything. (…). What else has it wanted to obtain with the decisions of the councils but that what was previously accepted with simplicity be believed later with greater certainty; what was previously preached with greater ease be announced later with greater emphasis; what was previously preserved with tranquility be taught later with greater care?» (Commonitorium; 23).
When it comes to the question of the episcopal ministry, and therefore also of the potestas sacra, these very words of Vincent of Lérins can be applied: over time, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has specified and deepened its doctrine of faith on this matter, without ever modifying its essence.
In the first millennium, there was a recognized ecclesiastical and sacramental practice, but a profound theology of the sacrament of holy orders had not yet been developed. The bishop was the visible principle of unity and the principal celebrant of the Eucharist, in union with the Pope and the college of bishops.
In the second millennium, due above all to the Scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas, the evaluation changed. This was also the period in which the sacrificial character of the Holy Mass came to occupy a more central place in theology. The focus shifted and the question was posed: what is the essence of the priesthood? It was recognized that it was primarily to offer the sacrifice of the Mass. But this the priest could already do. Therefore, the question arose: what then is the episcopal ministry? What more is added? Was it perhaps a proper grade of the sacrament of holy orders?
The tendency of theology was to say: there cannot be greater sacramental fullness, because it already exists. Rather, the episcopal ministry is a juridical extension: the aspect of governance is added; the episcopal ministry is the priesthood extended juridically.
This was also the period in which the absolute power of the Pope over the Church (jurisdictional primacy) was affirmed. In this strongly juridical and centralist vision, bishops appeared primarily as delegates and representatives of the Pope, less as successors of the apostles. In fact, they received jurisdiction from the Pope that distinguished them from priests. This led, in extreme cases, to some bishops not having received priestly or episcopal ordination. Appointment by the Pope was considered the essence of the episcopal ministry. For purely «cultual» (sacramental) functions, many bishops of the Holy Roman Empire maintained an auxiliary bishop.
This division of the potestas sacra into power of orders and power of jurisdiction was devastating. In fact, it led to a juridification of the Church, after which its sacramental mystery disappeared. The Church thus approached secular organizations, particularly the modern State, which clarified its structures and appointed the necessary personnel even by purely juridical means. How could the Church appear divine if it acted in such a human and juridical way as the State? One of the reasons for the Reformation lay precisely in this self-secularization of the Church.
With the Second Vatican Council, there was a return to the theology of the Church Fathers of the first millennium. This allowed for a deepening of the Church’s doctrine, clarifying that the Church is based primarily on the sacraments. The bishop is the center of the sacramental life of his particular Church. He is the true celebrant of the Eucharist. Priests do so in his mission.
If the Church, in the sense of this new emphasis, is conceived primarily in sacramental terms, this must also apply to its governance. Law is therefore necessary secondarily to order what is first transmitted through the sacrament. But it is not the core of the Church and its organization. The apostles did not appoint their successors, but sent them with the imposition of hands.
Accordingly, the Second Vatican Council clarified in Lumen Gentium (LG) 21: «This holy Synod teaches, therefore, that in the episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred». The episcopal ministry is therefore not a mere juridical extension of the priesthood, but the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders.
And the sacrament itself, as such, already confers fundamentally everything necessary for governance: «Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the offices of teaching and ruling, which, however, by their very nature, can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the Head and members of the College».
Pope Paul VI clarified this in the Nota explicativa praevia, an integral part of the Lumen Gentium: «In the consecration there is given an ontological participation in the sacred ministries, as is evident from Tradition, even liturgical».
It therefore falls to the ecclesiastical authority to determine more precisely, through canon law, how the sacramental gift should be exercised in the service of the universal Church and the particular Churches (as diocesan bishop, auxiliary bishop, prefect of a dicastery, etc.). This is the task of the Pope, whose authority has therefore not been diminished by the Second Vatican Council. But the sacrament of holy orders is in itself the ontological foundation (enablement) for exercising the power of governance. The latter cannot be conferred without the former.
Pope Francis has rejected the Second Vatican Council and returned to a pre-conciliar theory, granting laypeople the power of governance (potestas ordinaria vicaria), for example, to the «prefect» of the Dicastery for Religious. These have no capacity to exercise the power of governance. Therefore, in the worst pre-conciliar sense, here there is a division between the power of orders and the power of governance.
Cardinal Ouellet, who is naturally aware of the impossibility of such an approach, has then sought another way out: the lack of enablement to receive the power of governance could be remedied by some «charisms» that would be conferred by the Holy Spirit. Here it becomes clear how important the Filioque of the Creed is: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Therefore, He cannot and does not want to act independently of the Son. Therefore, He cannot bring about things in the Church without the Son or even against Him. Ouellet’s assertion is therefore a theofantasy. I choose this term to avoid mentioning canonical categories.
The separation between sacramental power and jurisdictional power, the rejection of the Second Vatican Council, now also plays a role in the announcement of the consecration of «auxiliary bishops» by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X. This also rejects—explicitly—the Lumen Gentium 21 (cf. Anexo II de la carta del 18 de febrero de 2026). Here one sees how extremes meet.
The Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X declares, in a pre-conciliar sense, that the bishops’ power of governance is conferred directly by the Pope, not through the sacrament of holy orders and a canonical determination. Here too, the division of the potestas sacra into power of orders and power of governance is emphasized.
At this point, the Fraternity agrees with Pope Francis and with Cardinals Ouellet and Ghirlanda. Ecclesiastical authority therefore derives, in the sense of a superpapalism, exclusively from papal juridical omnipotence. And this contradicts the Lumen Gentium, which precisely in the sense of Vincent of Lérins explicitly declared something that had always been believed implicitly. Going back today means dividing the Church.
Straying from the doctrine of the Church always leads to aporias. Cardinal Ouellet’s desperate attempt is an example of this. But so is what the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X is trying to do.
In fact, the Fraternity’s mere assertion that the bishops who should be consecrated would be auxiliary bishops, who therefore would not exercise any power of governance (and therefore would not violate the CIC at all, can. 1387), raises a question: what is the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X really?
In theory, it should be a diocese. In fact, only these have auxiliary bishops. But in reality, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X is an entity that belongs to the sector of religious orders. However, there are no bishops here.
Religious orders, in fact, owe their existence to a charism. They are an expression of the freedom of association of the faithful and do not belong to the hierarchical-sacramental structure of the Church. For this reason, even the ancient Benedictines do not have their own bishops, but ask a diocesan bishop or an auxiliary bishop of a diocese to ordain priests for their brothers.
So, is the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X a diocese? According to the theory of the Fraternity described earlier, according to which all jurisdiction derives from the Pope, only the Pope can establish dioceses. Has the Pope established the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X as a diocese?
Even if the Fraternity had the status of a diocese or something similar and, at the same time, the auxiliary bishops did not exercise any jurisdiction within the Fraternity, but rather an elected superior general, currently Fr. Davide Pagliarani, who did so, the question arises: from where does the power of governance of the «superior general» (a term from canon law relating to religious) derive, including jurisdiction over the auxiliary bishops?
According to the theory of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, the power of governance can only derive from the Pope. Has Fr. Pagliarani been appointed by the Pope and granted the power of governance? Evidently not.
It is especially ironic that he was elected by the members of his institution. If one considers the difficulty the Fraternity has with the achievements of the French Revolution, such legitimation of the superior «from below», by the members, seems quite strange. In fact, an organization that laments the aristocracy practices within itself a democratic principle to determine authority and confer it. Here too, one sees aporias upon aporias.
The solution, if it is ever found, can only be identified on the basis of the doctrine of the Church. Pope Leo XIV must heal the fracture of the Council, caused by his predecessor and sustained by him until now. And the Fraternity must separate itself from the Scholastic theories on the episcopal ministry, which the Church has meanwhile deepened. Then we will meet halfway: in the doctrine of the Church, as last presented by the Second Vatican Council.
The same applies to the liturgy. As long as the Holy See continues to presumptuously claim that the liturgy currently in force is faithful to what was established in the Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), there will never be agreement.
In fact, where does the Council speak of the celebration versus populum? What about Latin, which should be preserved in all parishes and communities (cf. SC 36)? Without an admission of guilt by the Holy See for not having faithfully applied the Council, there will be no improvements.
And at the same time, demanding obedience (regarding the liturgy), but ignoring the Council itself (regarding LG 21), will cost the Apostolic See greater respect from many of the faithful.
These are just some points. And undoubtedly there is also a human side, as in all things.
We have a prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith who has tried to legitimize the blessing of homosexual couples, with the Pope’s approval. Assigning this person to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X as an interlocutor makes as much sense as wanting to dialogue with Baron Munchausen about the concept of truth.
Pope Leo XIV has spoken out several times on the issue of artificial intelligence. This is praiseworthy and important. But in the case at hand, it would first and foremost be a matter of making use of natural intelligence. And it would be a matter of invoking the Holy Spirit, not as the author of chimerical charisms, but as the one who, as Vincent of Lérins describes, accompanies the Church to deepen ever more, without altering its essence, what Jesus Christ has bequeathed to it.