Schism for Thee, But Not for Me: The SSPX, Leo XIV, and the Vatican’s Double Standards

Modern Rome Embraces Heretics, Schismatics, & Communists While Persecuting Traditional Catholics

(Leo XIV and schismatic Patriarch Bartholomew I embrace each other on the balcony of the patriarchate following a Divine Liturgy at Patriarchal Church of Saint George, in Istanbul on November 30, 2025)

On February 2, the Society of St. Pius X publicly announced that new episcopal consecrations will take place on July 1. The Superior General, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, says he requested an audience, wrote again to explain the need, received a letter from the Holy See that “in no way” answered the Society’s requests, and judged that “the objective state of grave necessity in which souls find themselves” requires the decision.

The next months force the Vatican II machine to show its hand again, in public, with the same familiar pattern: thunder at Tradition, soft voices for schism, smiles for the regime in China, gentle language for Eastern separation, and a permanent allergy to precision whenever Rome’s new ecumenical theology starts contradicting itself.

The SSPX has effectively said: Rome will not provide what the crisis demands, so we must. Will Leo XIV try to punish that act of survival while continuing to tolerate, validate, and even canonically absorb acts that would have been treated as genuine schism in any sane Catholic century?

Vatican II’s New Theology: “Means of Salvation” Outside the Church?

To understand today’s crisis, we must start with the seismic shift of Vatican II. The Council’s documents introduced a novel ecumenical theology that would have been unthinkable to pre-conciliar popes. Vatican II taught that non-Catholic religions and communities can be “means of salvation,” a direct contradiction of the infallible dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (no salvation outside the Church). Where the true Church always held that heretics and schismatics endanger souls, Vatican II gushed that “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using separated communities as means of salvation.” In other words, Protestant sects and the schismatic Orthodox, according to the Council, help save souls despite rejecting papal authority and key Catholic dogmas. This claim effectively downgrades the Catholic Church from the one ark of salvation to merely the “fullest” option among many valid Christian paths.

As if that weren’t bad enough, the Council’s constitution Lumen Gentium muddied the waters further by saying that the Mystical Body of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church, rather than flat-out is the Catholic Church. That linguistic sleight-of-hand implied that Christ’s Church might include bodies outside the Catholic fold. It was a wink and nod to Protestants and Eastern schismatics: “Don’t worry, you’re part of the Church of Christ too, in some way.” Small wonder then that post-Vatican II Rome started treating those groups as separated brethren on the road to Heaven, rather than as lost sheep needing conversion.

This new theology has had disastrous consequences. If you truly believe other religions are valid paths to salvation, then the old missionary zeal dies. The Conciliar Church all but abandoned conversion efforts and instead began an endless dialogue with false religions. It’s no exaggeration to say the Vatican II church preaches a soft indifferentism: the idea that one religion is as good as another. And yet, in a supreme irony, these same Vatican II talking heads love to accuse traditional Catholics of “schism” simply for rejecting novel errors and clinging to the unchanged truth. The double standard is obvious: Non-Catholics get a free pass to Heaven, but Catholics attached to Tradition get threatened with Hell.

Orthodox “Sister Churches” and the SSPX: A Tale of Two Schisms

Consider how modern Rome treats the Eastern Orthodox versus how it treats the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The Eastern Orthodox churches broke from Rome over 1,000 years ago, rejecting papal supremacy and several dogmas. By any traditional definition they are formal schismatics. Do the Vatican II popes call them that? Of course not. The Orthodox are flattered as “Sister Churches.” Their clergy, who definitively operate outside papal authority, are extolled as legitimate pastors of part of Christ’s flock. Roman authorities even declare that the Orthodox churches have a “mission in the plan of salvation.” Yes, you read that correctly: Rome claims these schismatic churches, which refuse submission to the Pope, nevertheless play a positive role in saving souls.

Leo XIV and his Vatican apparatus bend over backwards to accommodate the Orthodox. Intercommunion, once strictly forbidden, is now quietly tolerated in practice. Conciliar bishops have allowed Catholic faithful to receive sacraments from Orthodox priests in certain cases, and vice versa. Ecumenical gestures abound: just a few years ago, the Vatican added non-Catholic “saints” to the Catholic calendar. Francis inscribed the 21 Coptic Orthodox martyrs killed by ISIS as “martyrs for all Christians” in the official Martyrology, even though those men did not die as members of the Catholic Church. He even named an Orthodox monk, St. Gregory of Narek (who lived and died outside Catholic unity), a Doctor of the Catholic Church. In the Conciliar mindset, apparently you can reject the papacy and still be a saint or Doctor, just as long as you aren’t a traditional Catholic critical of Vatican II.

Now contrast this with Rome’s attitude toward the SSPX, a priestly fraternity founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to preserve the Tridentine Mass and true doctrine after Vatican II. The SSPX recognizes the papacy and prays for the Pope at every Mass. They operate chapels and schools to keep the Faith alive. Indeed, they have bent over backwards not to establish a parallel hierarchy or declare a sede vacante. By any fair standard, the SSPX is far less “schismatic” than the Eastern Orthodox: the Society’s bishops claim no territorial diocese and have no jurisdictional authority; they simply provide sacraments in what they (rightly) see as a crisis of faith. Yet how has Rome treated them? With decades of suspensions, excommunications, and incessant accusations of “schism” and “illegitimacy.”

For years, the Vatican establishment harangued Catholics not to attend SSPX Masses, warning of “schismatic mentality.” The Society’s clergy were treated as outcasts whom “obedient” Catholics should avoid. Only grudgingly, in recent times, did Rome acknowledge reality: Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications on the SSPX bishops in 2009 (without ever admitting the unjust nature of those penalties), and Francis even granted SSPX priests faculties to hear confessions and witness marriages. Why would Francis do that if he truly believed the SSPX was in schism? Rome’s own actions tacitly admitted that the SSPX is part of the Church, serving souls in need: a de facto state of necessity. But in typical two-faced fashion, they extended one hand in “mercy” while brandishing a stick in the other. To this day, Vatican officials refuse to say the SSPX is in full communion; they prefer ambiguous terms like “imperfect communion” or “canonically irregular.” It’s a far cry from the red-carpet treatment they give the Orthodox.

So here we have it: Orthodox prelates who flat-out reject the Pope’s authority are celebrated and never called schismatics, whereas traditional Catholic clergy who acknowledge the Pope but resist his modernist errors are vilified and labeled schismatic at the drop of a biretta. If that isn’t a textbook example of hypocrisy, what is? Modern Rome’s principle seems to be: Reject our authority entirely and we’ll respect you; acknowledge our authority but resist our errors and we’ll crush you. It’s schizophrenic – or rather, schismatic – and utterly indefensible.

Tolerating Heresy, Punishing Tradition

The post-Vatican II Church not only coddles non-Catholic sects; it coddles internal heretics and wild theologians too. Nothing is too liberal or too blasphemous for the Conciliar Church to “tolerate.” Do you deny core doctrines? You’ll still find a cozy pew in the Vatican II big tent. Do you publicly doubt the existence of Hell or preach that virtually everyone will be saved? Rome will make you a celebrated theologian.

It’s not an exaggeration. High-ranking churchmen in the Conciliar establishment have flirted with universalism (the heretical notion that all souls are saved and Hell is empty) without any censure. One prominent cardinal of the John Paul II era (the darling theologian of the neo-modernists) wrote a book suggesting we can hope that Hell is empty. He was elevated to a position of honor, not condemned. Today, popular bishops in the Novus Ordo structure openly speculate that “no one goes to Hell” or that perhaps only a few of the very worst sinners end up there. The current Vatican regime (Leo XIV’s included) smiles upon these rosy theories. No anathemas, no warnings. These men remain in good standing. Even Francis himself implied in an infamous 2019 document that the plurality of religions is “willed by God,” essentially equating false religions to God’s will.

Yet contrast that permissiveness with how they treat Catholics who simply want the traditional Latin Mass and the unadulterated doctrine of the ages. Those Catholics get brutal crackdowns. Under Francis, the Latin Mass was ruthlessly restricted with Traditionis Custodes, effectively punishing priests and laity attached to the immemorial Mass. Seminaries that foster traditional piety or adhere to pre-Vatican II theology are hounded or shut down. Priests have been exiled simply for suggesting that maybe we shouldn’t give Communion to active adulterers or Protestants; that is, for upholding what was Catholic teaching yesterday. Liberal theologians can deny Hell with impunity, but woe to the priest who publicly questions Amoris Laetitia or Vatican II: he’ll be forced to recant or get the boot.

This outrageous double standard proves that the Conciliar Church values conformity to its new humanistic creed over fidelity to Christ’s truth. You can deny any dogma, even dogmas defined by Trent or Vatican I, and still be “in good standing” as long as you profess loyalty to the Vatican II program. But reject that program or hold fast to Tradition, and you are the enemy. Modernist Rome reserves its condemnations not for heretics, but for the orthodox (small “o” – i.e., faithful Catholics). As many have rightly observed, the only real sin in the Vatican II church is to actually believe and behave as Catholics always did. Their hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.

Beijing’s Bishops vs. Écône’s Bishops: Communist Consecrations Good, Traditional Consecrations Bad

If you want a crystal-clear example of Rome’s contradictory stance on “illicit” bishops, look no further than Communist China. Under a secret 2018 Sino-Vatican pact (upheld and renewed by the Vatican through today), the Holy See agreed to share, or rather, surrender, control of bishop appointments in China to the Communist government. In practice, this has meant that Beijing picks bishops for the state-controlled “Catholic Patriotic Association” and the Pope rubber-stamps them. In some cases, the Communist authorities have even installed bishops without waiting for Rome’s approval, blatantly violating the agreement – and what does Rome do? It meekly issues a mild statement of “regret” and then proceeds to recognize those illegitimately consecrated bishops after the fact.

Think about that: a proudly atheist, totalitarian regime consecrates bishops (often men chosen for their loyalty to the Party rather than their fidelity to Christ), and Rome officially accepts these bishops into communion with barely a slap on the wrist. One recent example: a Communist-picked candidate was consecrated as bishop of a Chinese diocese immediately after Pope Francis died, without any clear papal mandate. Instead of condemning this as a schismatic act, the Vatican under Leo XIV quietly “validated” his status in order to keep the Beijing deal rolling. This new bishop, it turns out, had been a key functionary in the regime’s Patriotic Association, effectively a Communist agent, and yet he now enjoys Rome’s blessing as a legitimate shepherd. Meanwhile, the truly Catholic underground bishop of that diocese (loyal to Rome for decades at great personal cost) was left out in the cold, forced to step aside. Leo XIV’s Vatican actually applauded the regime for finally “recognizing” the underground bishop (after driving him into retirement) and is delighted that now the official and underground church in that area are “unified,” under a Communist-approved prelate! You can’t make this stuff up.

Now contrast this scandal with how Rome has historically responded to traditional Catholic bishops consecrated without its approval. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s 1988 consecrations of four bishops for the SSPX, done to ensure the survival of Tradition amidst a modernist onslaught, were met within hours by declarations of excommunication and hysterical condemnations of “schism.” Rome thundered about the “wound to unity” and the “grave disobedience” of consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. Lefebvre and the newly consecrated bishops were vilified and punished with the harshest penalty. The “crime”? Refusing to let the Traditional Latin Mass and orthodox priestly formation die out.

Compare that to no excommunications whatsoever for the numerous bishops illicitly ordained by the Chinese Patriotic Association over decades. Many of those communist-picked bishops never even asked for papal approval. In fact, for years they explicitly rejected the Pope. Yet when the Vatican struck its deal, it lifted any sanctions and welcomed these schismatic bishops with open arms, no public repentance needed. Again, under Francis and now Leo XIV, even when China breaks the deal and performs unauthorized consecrations, Rome pointedly does not excommunicate the officiating consecrators or the new bishops. Instead, it seeks to appease the communist overlords in Beijing, apparently judging that political considerations trump canon law or Church principle.

So here we have Rome saying: “Communist-ordained bishops? Let’s quietly recognize them and maintain dialogue. Traditional-ordained bishops? Unforgivable! Schism! Schism!” The double standard is sickening. It reveals that the Conciliar authorities have no real concern for true unity or apostolic succession; only for enforcing their new world order agenda. If they truly cared about the laws of the Church, they’d have excommunicated the communists and their puppet bishops long ago. If they cared about orthodoxy, they’d never have even entertained a deal that hands power over the Church to godless tyrants. But they don’t care about those things; they care about crushing Tradition. A faithful Catholic resisting modernism is a bigger thorn in their side than a hundred Communist bishops operating a false church. In their warped view, Archbishop Lefebvre’s act to preserve the faith was a heinous crime, but the Chinese Patriotic Association’s decades-long schism was just an “unfortunate situation” to pragmatically tolerate.

This hypocrisy is so glaring that anyone with eyes to see should realize: the Vatican II church betrays the martyrs (who died rather than cooperate with communists or heretics) by cozying up to the enemies of Christ, and it condemns the faithful who only want to worship as their fathers did. We now witness the absurd spectacle of the Vatican trying to lecture traditional Catholics about “unity” and “obedience.” No thanks! We are not buying what you’re selling. Your actions speak far louder than your hollow words.

The SSPX Strikes Back: Press Release of February 2, 2026

Given all these contradictions, it was only a matter of time before something snapped. On February 2, 2026, the SSPX finally made a bold move. In a public statement (issued on the Feast of the Purification of Our Lady), Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the SSPX, announced that the Society will proceed with new episcopal consecrations on July 1 of this year with or without Leo XIV’s approval. This announcement came after months of fruitless dialogue with the Vatican. Pagliarani revealed that he had humbly requested an audience with “the Holy Father” last August to explain the Society’s situation and its urgent need for more bishops to minister to the faithful attached to Tradition. Instead of a meeting or any constructive response, Rome sent a dismissive letter that utterly failed to address the SSPX’s concerns. In other words, Leo XIV’s Vatican brushed them off.

After praying and consulting with his advisors, Fr. Pagliarani concluded that the faithful are in an “objective state of grave necessity” and that the Society must act to ensure the continuation of its apostolate. He invoked the same principle Archbishop Lefebvre did in 1988: when souls are in danger and the Faith is at stake, the Church’s laws (even the requirement of papal mandate for bishops) must yield to the higher law of saving souls. In the press release, the SSPX made it clear they do not take this step lightly or in rebellion. They quoted Archbishop Lefebvre’s famous 1974 declaration that “we pursue our work… without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness, or resentment,” only seeking to form priests and hold fast to what the Church has always taught. The Society reaffirmed that it seeks not its own advantage but “the good of the Universal Church.”

This language is important: the SSPX is essentially saying, “We are not leaving the Church; we are acting for the good of the Church when the supposed shepherds are asleep (or worse).” By announcing episcopal consecrations, the Society is drawing a line in the sand. They are politely but firmly telling Leo XIV: “We will not let the traditional priesthood and sacraments die off. If you refuse to help, we’ll do it ourselves – for the Catholic faithful.” It’s a stinging indictment of Rome’s dereliction of duty.

How has the Vatican responded so far? As of this writing, mostly with stunned silence and murmurs about “schism” in the mainstream Catholic press. The usual chorus of Vatican yes-men are decrying the SSPX decision, wringing their hands that this will be a “canonical crime” and a setback for “unity.” Unity? What unity? The unity of the Conciliar new religion, perhaps. Because in truth, as the Society and many traditionalists see plainly, the faithful remnant has virtually zero unity with the modernist hierarchy on the level of belief. We have a conciliar pope and bishops who promote religious indifferentism, modernism, and even pagan Pachamama idols in churches. We share no common faith with such men. The Society’s move simply acknowledges reality: the Conciliar authorities are not interested in Tradition’s survival, so Tradition must carve its own path by necessity.

Importantly, let’s recall that Francis himself already legitimized certain aspects of the SSPX’s ministry. He acknowledged their confessions as valid and arranged for their marriages to be recognized. Those concessions, born of practical necessity, were a tacit admission by Rome that “Yes, the SSPX is providing something we cannot provide, and souls need it.” Yet now that the SSPX is taking the logical next step (securing successors for their aging bishops), the Vatican might suddenly rediscover its taste for excommunications. The faithful are not fooled: you can’t tell us one day “you may go to an SSPX priest for confession because it’s good for your soul” and the next day say “but if that same priest’s bishop ordains another bishop, he’s a vitandus excommunicate you must shun.” This farce needs to end.

Leo XIV’s Endgame: Will Rome Risk an All-Out Schism?

All eyes now turn to Leo XIV. How will he, a product of the Vatican II establishment through and through, deal with the SSPX’s defiance? Will he take the hardline approach of his predecessors and hurl an excommunication decree the moment those new bishops are consecrated on July 1? Or will he quietly seek a way to compromise and co-opt the Society? Here’s my prediction, and you heard it here first: Leo will ultimately work something out to avoid a permanent rupture.

Why am I confident of this? Because the Vatican has spent years cultivating a strategy of ambiguous semi-tolerance towards the SSPX. They gave the Society limited faculties (confessions, marriages) and refrained from branding them schismatic in recent times, precisely to keep them on the hook. Leo XIV is not going to let the SSPX slip completely out from under Rome’s thumb so easily. If he were to go nuclear – declare the new consecrations a schismatic act and excommunicate everyone involved – he would drive the Society irrevocably away. Excommunicated and finally free of Rome’s meddling, the SSPX might find its voice again and start openly condemning the Conciliar Church’s apostasy with even greater force. That is the last thing Leo wants. He much prefers them somewhat muzzled by the hope of “reconciliation.”

Moreover, Rome has a cynical but shrewd motive for keeping the SSPX in a gray area of “imperfect communion.” The modern Vatican wants all troublesome traditionalists out of the mainstream Church (where they keep alive the old Faith Rome wants to extinguish) and corralled into a separate fold where they can be monitored and contained. We’ve seen this under Francis: the crackdown on the Latin Mass in dioceses was meant to drive tradition-minded Catholics to the margins. In Leo’s era, that pressure will continue. The goal is to ghettoize all “pre–Vatican II” Catholics into the SSPX or similar communities, away from parishes and chanceries. But that only works if the SSPX isn’t outright “excommunicated schismatic.” If the Vatican declares the SSPX completely in schism, many conservative-minded folks who are still on the fence would shy away from attending SSPX chapels. Leo would lose the convenient ghetto into which he hopes to herd diocesan Trad cats. Far better from his perspective to keep the SSPX at arm’s length; not fully regularized (so they have no real influence in the official Church), but not officially excommunicated either. That way, diocesan bishops can tell Latin Mass groups, “If you don’t like our rules, you can go to the SSPX (who aren’t technically schismatic, just not fully regular).” It’s a devilish strategy: use the SSPX as a pressure release valve for discontented tradition-loving Catholics, while keeping the Society itself dangling for eventual absorption or attrition.

Leo XIV likely understands this game. He inherited it from his cunning predecessor. Therefore, I predict he will play “good cop, bad cop.” The Vatican will lament the SSPX consecrations, maybe issue a weak condemnation to save face, but behind closed doors they will rush to offer some olive branch or negotiation to keep the SSPX from completely cutting ties. Perhaps they’ll promise another “dialogue” or hint at personal prelature status again; anything to stall and prevent a final break. In the end, Leo will try to save Rome’s control by avoiding open schism at all costs. Whether the SSPX will fall for this again is another matter, but Rome’s tactics are predictable.

Conclusion: The Double Standard That Will Not Stay Hidden

In sum, the entire saga Vatican II’s doctrinal drift, Rome’s indulgence toward schism and political compromise, the persecution of Tradition, and the looming SSPX showdown exposes a single pattern. The postconciliar regime treats “unity” as a managerial slogan, then deploys “schism” as a selective weapon. When the offender is useful to the ecumenical project or the diplomatic program, Rome finds a vocabulary of patience, dialogue, and gradual integration. When the offender is a Catholic attached to the old Faith, old Mass, old catechism, the regime discovers its voice again and suddenly remembers the language of penalties, scandal, and obedience.

For anyone trying to stay sane, this should be an alarm bell. The Church’s public leadership keeps insisting that the crisis is exaggerated, that the old categories still function, that the system is coherent, that the faithful should relax and trust. Then the actions contradict the rhetoric. Communist nominated bishops receive recognition. Eastern separation receives deference and praise. Theological extravagances get tolerated. Meanwhile, the people who simply want to hand on what they received are treated as the problem.

So no, the accusation of “schism” should not intimidate Catholics who see the double standard and refuse to applaud it. The charge has been hollowed out by the men who wield it. They use it to silence dissent instead of defending the Faith. They use it to police boundaries around the Vatican II project, instead of preserving the inheritance of the Church.

Christ promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. That promise is not a guarantee of calm decades, competent administrators, or honest shepherds. It is a guarantee of survival and ultimate vindication. So Catholics who cling to Tradition have every reason to stand firm, keep their heads, and refuse to be bullied by words that the postconciliar machine no longer uses consistently. The truth has outlasted every court intrigue, every diplomatic bargain, every fashionable theology. It will outlast this one too.

---

If you value independent Catholic analysis and want to help keep this work going, you can make a contribution or subscribe below. Every donation and subscription directly supports the writing, research, and production of Hiraeth in Exile.

Thank you for helping preserve independent Catholic journalism rooted in truth and tradition.