A Critical Look at the SSPX’s Substitute ‘Apostolic Mandate’ Read During their Unauthorized Episcopal Consecrations

The Lefebvrists’ alternate reality…

A Critical Look at the SSPX’s Substitute ‘Apostolic Mandate’ Read During their Unauthorized Episcopal Consecrations

During the ordination ceremony, Fr. Foucauld Le Roux read a special declaration in place of the ‘papal mandate’ they didn’t have

The traditional Roman rite of episcopal consecration begins with the reading of the so-called ‘Apostolic mandate’ (Mandatum Apostolicum) that authorizes and orders the bishop’s ordination that is about to be carried out. Such an Apostolic mandate can only come from the Holy See, that is, from the Pope, hence it is also referred to as a papal or pontifical mandate.

When sedevacantists consecrate bishops, there is no papal mandate, as there is no Pope who could give it. This part of the ceremony is then simply skipped, since no one but the Pope has the authority to draw up a mandate.

In the case of the July 1, 2026 episcopal consecrations conducted by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (FSSPX), called in the United States the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), the required mandate was also not present. Not, however, for lack of someone recognized as Pope — for they believe Robert Prevost (Leo XIV), presently reigning, to be the Pope of the Catholic Church — but because their ‘Pope’ does not want them to have more bishops. The SSPX, therefore, acted not merely without the required authorization but against the explicit prohibition of the man they believe is the Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff.

At yesterday’s ceremony in Econe, was the reading of the papal mandate skipped therefore?

Yes and no. While, in accordance with the rubrics, the main consecrator, Bp. Alfonso de Galarreta, asked, “Habetis mandatum apostolicum?” (“Do you have the Apostolic mandate?”), Bp. Bernard Fellay, the co-consecrator, did not answer “Habemus” (“We have it”), but instead had the notary, Fr. Foucauld Le Roux, proceed immediately to the reading of the declaration giving the reasons for the need to ordain more bishops. Strictly speaking, therefore, they did not claim to have an Apostolic mandate — unlike at the unauthorized consecrations of 1988, where the answer “Habemus” was given –, only a grave need for more bishops. The exact wording of this substitute ‘mandate’ had been drawn up by the SSPX leadership and is very similar to that of 1988.

Here is a video clip showing exactly how this took place yesterday, followed by a transcript of the text that was read:

The text of the 2026 substitute ‘mandate’ reads as follows (in English translation from the original French):

It is the Catholic and Roman Church, always faithful to the holy traditions received from the Apostles, who, in entirely exceptional circumstances, demands that we provide for the upholding of these holy traditions – that is, the deposit of faith – and that we take the means necessary to transmit them faithfully to all men for the salvation of their souls.

From the Second Vatican Council up to the present day, the authorities in the Church have been animated by a spirit that is contrary to that of the Faith, and have been acting against holy Tradition – “they will no longer endure sound doctrine, turning away their hearing from the truth, and turning towards fables,” as St. Paul says to Timothy in his second epistle (4:3-5). Therefore, before God, we consider it a sacred duty towards Holy Church and towards souls to proceed with the consecration of bishops who are entirely faithful to her holy Tradition and to her constant Magisterium.

Moreover, everywhere in the world, we hear souls beseeching us that, by the preaching of the Truth and the administration of the sacraments, the Bread of Life which is Christ might be given to them. That is why, out of compassion for this multitude, we have the most serious duty to transmit the grace of the episcopate to these dear priests, so that they themselves might confer the grace of the priesthood on many clerics formed according to the holy traditions of the Catholic Church. And we consider that every punishment and censure brought to bear against this step will have no validity.

Following this pressing demand of the always faithful Roman and Catholic Church, we choose these four priests here present as auxiliary bishops of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, with the one and only purpose of serving the Holy Roman Church:

– Father Pascal Schreiber, Rector of Sacred Heart Seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany.

– Father Michael Goldade, Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Dillwyn, USA.

– Father Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, Superior of the Benelux District

– Father Marc Hanappier, Professor of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Dillwyn, USA.

(Source: FSSPX.news)

No doubt, from the perspective of Lefebvrism, all this must sound very reasonable, orthodox, and even heroic. However, from the perspective of traditional Catholic theology, this is a train wreck. As always, so here too, what poisons the Society’s otherwise perhaps laudable acts is the absurd theology behind it.

Let’s examine and evaluate the text of this declaration, which is essentially a mandate substitute.

First, it is presumptuous and scandalous to claim to be speaking and acting on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church while acting directly contrary to the explicit prohibitions and warnings of the person recognized to be the Sovereign Pontiff, who alone can speak and act for the Universal Church. The Lefebvrists’ position here implies that the Church can legitimately authorize or even mandate what the Pope has forbidden under the severest penalties. This is not only absurd, it would also mean that the Supreme Pontiff is subject to the Church — or even just subject to a very small part of the Church, since almost no one in this 1.1-billion-member-strong entity the SSPX believes to be the Catholic Church agrees with them. But to say that the Pope is subject to the Church, even if by ‘Church’ we mean the entire episcopate assembled in council against him, is HERESY (Conciliarism/Febronianism/Gallicanism).

Second, to say that “the Catholic and Roman Church [is] always faithful to the holy traditions received from the Apostles” while decrying that the Pope and the bishops in communion with him “no longer endure sound doctrine” because they are “animated by a spirit that is contrary to that of the Faith”, makes no sense. If “the Catholic and Roman Church [is] always faithful to the holy traditions received from the Apostles”, why is there “this pressing demand of the always faithful Roman and Catholic Church” to consecrate bishops without pontifical mandate, even in the face of automatic excommunication for doing so? Why are “souls beseeching us that, by the preaching of the Truth and the administration of the sacraments, the Bread of Life which is Christ might be given to them”?

Third, notice that the declaration says they must consecrate “bishops who are entirely faithful to her holy Tradition and to her constant Magisterium”. How are they “entirely faithful to her holy Tradition” if they adhere to their own (‘Lefebvrist’) ecclesiology in place of what was taught before the Second Vatican Council? Case in point: They are invoking adherence to the “constant Magisterium” as the criterion for orthodoxy. Yet Pope St. Pius X, the Lefebvrists’ own claimed patron saint, taught that “the first and greatest criterion of the faith, the ultimate and unassailable test of orthodoxy is obedience to the teaching authority of the Church, which is ever living and infallible, since she was established by Christ to be the columna et firmamentum veritatis, ‘the pillar and support of truth’ (1 Tim 3:15)” (Address Con Vera Soddisfazione, May 10, 1909).

The introduction of a distinction between a constant magisterium that is orthodox and that of a present-day magisterium which departs from the Faith, is an absurd novelty the SSPX had to invent in order to allow it to ‘remain faithful to Tradition’ (ouch!) while at the same time accepting the papal claimants since Vatican II as valid and legitimate. Moreover, how can they speak of a ‘constant’ magisterium when the ‘constant’ doctrines have not been taught for over six decades but rather contradicted? Would it not be more accurate to say that the SSPX’s constant magisterium should really be called the former magisterium? In other words, should the Lefebvrists not admit that, in their world, ‘what the Church has always taught’ is really ‘what the Church used to teach‘? No appeal to ‘Eternal Rome’ will help here.

Fourth, the fact that the SSPX claims that their “preaching of the Truth and the administration of the sacraments” is necessary for the salvation of souls, even in the face of excommunication and under penalty of schism, implies that outside of their ministrations, the truth and the sacraments are typically not found, at least not found together. Effectively, then, the Society appears to consider itself the ultimate guardian of orthodoxy and sanctification. Such a claim is manifestly contrary to the Catholic doctrine on the Papacy.

Naturally, the Lefebvrists preemptively claim that any penalties against them are of no validity or effect: “And we consider that every punishment and censure brought to bear against this step will have no validity.” But this fails to impress, for what heretic or schismatic in Church history ever admitted that the censures against him were just and therefore valid and lawful?

It is precisely because virtually every condemned man will assert that in his case, the penalty inflicted is unjust and therefore invalid, that the Church insists that even unjust excommunications, although actually invalid before God, must nevertheless be observed as if they were valid. While this may seem odd at first sight, upon second thought it is only reasonable because otherwise no one would ever have to consider himself bound by ecclesiastical punishment, and the Church would then be unable really to discipline wayward members. Obviously, it cannot be up to the accused to decide upon his own case, anymore than it could be up to a priest to absolve himself of his own sins.

On Sep. 8, 1713, Pope Clement XI issued the Apostolic Constitution Unigenitus, in which he condemned the Jansenist errors of Pasquier Quesnel (1634-1719), among which are the following:

CONDEMNED: The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.

CONDEMNED: To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity.

(Pope Clement XI, Apostolic Constitution Unigenitus, nn. 91-92; Denz. 1441-1442.)

It was these condemnations of Clement XI that Pope Pius IX invoked in his 1873 encyclical against the Armenian schismatics:

Since this does not please the neo-schismatics, they follow the example of heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. For “the whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment.” The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice. Each person should perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication. Our predecessor of happy memory Clement XI in his constitution Unigenitus against the errors of Quesnell forbade and condemned statements of this kind. These statements were scarcely in any way different from some of John Wyclif’s which had previously been condemned by the Council of Constance and [Pope] Martin V. Through human weakness a person could be unjustly punished with censure by his prelate. But it is still necessary, as Our predecessor St. Gregory the Great warned, “for a bishop’s subordinates to fear even an unjust condemnation and not to blame the judgment of the bishop rashly in case the fault which did not exist, since the condemnation was unjust, develops out of the pride of heated reproof.” But if one should be afraid even of an unjust condemnation by one’s bishop, what must be said of those men who have been condemned for rebelling against their bishop and this Apostolic See and tearing to pieces as they are now doing by a new schism the seamless garment of Christ, which is the Church?

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra, n. 10; underlining added.)

The Lefebvrists, therefore, who acknowledge Leo XIV as the Pope, cannot act as if they are not schismatics or excommunicated, for it is Catholic dogma that no one is permitted, or able, to pass judgment on the judgment of the Holy See.

Thus far our critical analysis of the substitute ‘mandate’ used by the SSPX during the episcopal consecrations yesterday in Econe.

At the root of the problem with the Society is not, of course, their efforts to adhere to Catholic Tradition and the Deposit of Faith instead of the ‘counterfeit Catholicism’ offered by those presently occupying the formerly Catholic structures in the Vatican. Rather, the real problem is their attempts to do so while accepting these manifestly false shepherds as the valid and lawful Roman Catholic hierarchy, because this requires them to twist Catholic ecclesiology to justify their departure from what that hierarchy teaches and legislates.

We saw the absurdity to which this leads in the newly-consecrated Bp. Michael Goldade declaring at yesterday’s Vespers service in Econe: “If the Catholic Church in her Tradition brings forth life, the Modernist Church is a desert that kills everything that it touches. It kills the supernatural life, it kills the sources of grace, and dries up everything because it has placed man in the place of God and therefore turned away from the sources of life.”

Here is video clip of this:

What “Modernist Church”, Bp. Goldade? Is it the one presided over by Leo XIV and from which you sought an ‘Apostolic mandate’?

In his sermon for the consecrations, the SSPX Superior General, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, stated: “We belong to the Church first of all through the Faith, through the integral profession of the Faith, through the integral profession of the Faith of the Church. Just as we belong to a nation because we speak the same language, because we share the same identity and the same culture; just as we belong to a family because we bear the same name, because we live in the same house; likewise, we belong to the Church because we profess the same Faith.”

If Leo is the Pope and he professes a false faith, how can the Lefebvrists claim to be united under him, who does not share “the same Faith” they profess? And how can they acknowledge him who does not “belong to the Church first of all through the Faith” to be the Vicar of Christ? And if they are not united under him, why did they attempt to obtain his authorization for their ordination of bishops, and why do they offer their Masses “together with Thy servant Leo our Pope, and our [local] Bishop, and all orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith” (“una cum fámulo tuo Papa nostro Leone et Antístite nostro et ómnibus orthodóxis, atque cathólicæ et apostólicæ fídei cultóribus”)?

The Lefebvrists are living in an alternate reality that is not only false but absurd.

Let us pray for the Society of St. Pius X, in which there are no doubt a great many pious, good-willed, and sincere souls whose only desire is to be truly Catholic. May they receive the grace to accept the frightful, though liberating, reality that the Chair of St. Peter is vacant – non habemus Papam!

It is this realization — which is simply a recognition of reality as it truly is — which frees the soul from the clutches of the false Vatican II Church and its damnable doctrines, evil disciplines, disgusting morals, fake saints, and impious liturgical rites.

Thus liberated from the deceptions of the “operation of error” (2 Thessalonians 2:10), the soul is finally free to be Catholic!

Image source: YouTube (screenshot)
License: fair use

Share this content now:

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.