Theater on Both Sides of the Tiber: The SSPX Consecrations and Leo XIV

Thinking about the sad events of the last week, I could not help but be struck by the complete failure of negotiations on both sides. The back-and-forth leading up to the July 1 SSPX consecrations in Écône felt like the tortured counseling session of a couple who have already decided to divorce but are giving marriage counseling the old college try merely to save appearances. This is a suspicion I would like to examine here by looking at the behavior of both sides leading up to the consecrations on July 1.

Any kind of successful negotiation requires compromise from both sides, otherwise it is not a negotiation at all but just dictation of terms, two sides shouting at each other. From my perspective, I did not see any meaningful compromise in these discussions, especially from the Society but also from Pope Leo. It's like they tried nothing and were all out of ideas. We shall consider each in turn.

The Society of St. Pius X

I would like to begin by directing the reader to New Catholic's editorial on Rorate Caeli, "Institutional Breakdown and the SSPX: In Negotiations, Both Sides Must Concede Some Ground" (July 3, 2026).  The article chronicles the many gestures of reconciliation offered by popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and even Francis to the Society, all of which were met with indifference by the SSPX, who took no such reciprocal conciliatory actions. John Paul II inaugurated this when he opened the churches of Rome to all traditional groups during the 2000 Jubilee and offered the SSPX a personal prelature or a worldwide apostolic administration. The Society balked even as the SSJV accepted the offer and were granted an apostolic administration dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass—I should add, without having to swear to anything beyond recognizing the primacy of the Roman pontiff and expressing their desire for reconciliation. The SSPX, meanwhile, insisted the Holy See void the 1988 excommunications as a precondition for negotiations; even here we see the generosity of the Holy See, as Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos subsequently agreed that the excommunications would be lifted (not declared null as the Society requested). Negotiations continued into the 2000s which, while resulting in a lessening of tension, still did not yield any compromise on the part of the Society.

Thus was the condition until 2005 and the election of Cardinal Ratzinger. Rorate Caeli is correct in its assertion that the pontificate of Benedict XVI was the last best hope for reconciliation, as, in Ratzinger, "the SSPX had the most sympathetic person they could ever hope for on the throne of Peter." Benedict XVI made two tremendous gestures of unity towards the SSPX with the lifting of the restrictions on the TLM (thus depriving the SSPX of the argument that their extra-judicial status was necessary to preserve the TLM), and the lifting of the excommunications in 2009, thus doing away with the major canonical impediment. Was there any time more propitious for reconciliation than in 2009? Yet again the Society fumbled, making no meaningful compromises, insisting instead on years of tedious doctrinal discussions that fizzled out by the time of Benedict's resignation.

Even Pope Francis was surprisingly amenable to the Society, granting them faculties for confessions and marriages in Misericordia et misera (2016) and jurisdiction for marriages (Ecclesia Dei commission, 2017) respectively. Again, the Society did nothing, offered nothing, compromised on nothing. As Rorate Caeli observes:

In the 25 years following the 2000 Jubilee, therefore, under 3 different popes of diverse thinking and temperament, the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Authority of the Church, gave in, again and again. Generous concessions were granted, one after the other. An objective observer, even one who has great love for the reality and work of the Society, and unending gratitude for the work the Society has accomplished through the decades, cannot but be struck by the fact that there were no true concessions by the Society at all.

Going into the pontificate of Leo XIV, then, the Society had a quarter century of demonstrating nothing but stony indifference to the conciliatory gestures of the Holy See.

Pope Leo XIV

By the time we got to the announcement of the 2026 consecrations, it is understandable that the Holy See was likely exasperated by years of foot-dragging by the Society. Fernandez's explanatory note accompanying the DDF decree of excommunication begins by highlighting that "many attempts to bring the adherents of the movement initiated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre back to full communion with the Catholic Church have proven fruitless." As much as I dislike Cardinal Fernandez, I cannot disagree with his assessment of the "fruitless" years of effort, in which the Holy See's generosity was always met with obstructionist obstinacy from the Society, which always seemed obsessed with slogging through doctrinal matters rather than focusing on more practical solutions, like finding a canonical structure for ensuring the continued celebration of the TLM in union with Rome.

What did Leo offer in the months between the February announcement and the July 1 consecrations? Appeals to dialogue—the same open-ended dialogue that had gone nowhere for a quarter century. Asking the Society to halt the consecrations on the promise of more conversation had the vibe of Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka blandly saying "No. Stop. Don't" while making no real effort to intervene.

Then, within days of the consecrations, the DDF released its path of reconciliation for priests of the Society seeking reunion with Rome, the so-called Formula of Adherence. This text tells SSPX priests, in effect, "If you want reconciliation with Rome, follow this checklist." And the checklist is remarkably basic and generous. It asks priests to:

(1) Accept the papal primacy

(2) Affirm Lumen Gentium 25 on the authority of magisterial teaching

(3) Promise to obey the Code of Canon Law

(4) Admit the validity of the New Mass and associated rites when performed according to the intention of the Church.

(5) Make a good-faith effort to interpret ambiguities in the teaching of Vatican II in continuity with tradition.

Here the commentary of Peter Kwasniewski from his Facebook post of July 2, 2026 sums up my view on this formula:

This [formula] certainly does not exclude respectful criticism of any statement or action that seems to conflict with the Church's Magisterium...[and] since the Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium is a necessary guide to how one must read that document, this too does not exclude the possibility of entertaining, in good will, certain difficulties concerning the formulations or intentions of conciliar texts. But best of all, this formula admits that Vatican II must not be "separate[d] from the rest of the Church's sacred doctrinal heritage"—in other words, exactly what all the progressives have been doing for 60 years, and what traditionalists have fought against. [Regarding the reformed liturgy], note that one accepts the "validity" of the new sacramental rites (a very low bar), provided they are done with proper intention, and according to the new liturgical books. This consent certainly does not exclude the possibility of criticizing other aspects of the new rites, and of course, it is compatible with a firm principle of celebrating only the usus antiquior, as the DDF decree itself states plainly. All in all, this is what a priest of the FSSP or the ICKSP would agree with. It is a very modest formula.

(In addition to the Nota Praevia, I would say another necessary addendum to reading Lumen Gentium is the 2007 clarification issued by the CDF, which clarifies disputed questions on the Apostolic Constitution relating to the phrase subsistit in in favor of tradition).

A modest formula indeed—one that leaves ample room for the traditionalist critique of the post-conciliar epoch to remain intact. It even admits that "certain doctrines of the Second Vatican Council" might be "difficult to reconcile with previous declarations of the Magisterium," a striking concession to the general traditionalist objection.

Now consider the timing. A document of this care and specificity does not materialize in seventy-two hours. The Formula bears every mark of a text drafted well in advance and held in reserve: Rome had concrete, workable terms sitting in the drawer through the entire spring—terms so mild that any priest of the FSSP or ICKSP could sign them—and chose to lead with formless invitations to "dialogue" instead. Why not release this back in February when the consecrations were first announced? The natural inference is that the Formula was never meant as an instrument for negotiating with the Society at all. It serves two other purposes: an exit ramp for individual priests wishing to leave a newly excommunicated body, and a brief for posterity—essentially establishing a paper trail that Rome's terms were reasonable and the Society walked anyway.

Why would Rome withhold a concrete offer? Because Rome has run this experiment before. In 2012, under the most sympathetic pope the Society could ever hope for, the Holy See presented Bishop Fellay with a doctrinal preamble strikingly similar in substance to the Formula of Adherence: acceptance of papal primacy, acknowledgment of the validity of the new rites, room for legitimate discussion of ambiguous conciliar texts. Fellay came to the very edge of signing before the Society's leadership balked. Rome learned that if you put concrete terms before the Society all you get is years of negotiation theater followed by rejection. As I see it, this time around Leo simply decided to skip this charade entirely.

The 2026 Negotiations: Nothing But Theatrics

Whether one calls this prudence or cynicism depends on whether one still believed, in February 2026, that corporate reconciliation with the SSPX was possible. I personally do not think the Society was ever interested; from their perspective Rome needs to convert to them. Given the record laid out above, Rome's disbelief was certainly earned. But we should be realistic about what it means: a Church that has stopped proposing terms to a movement of this size has, in effect, already ratified the divorce. The invitations to dialogue were the appearance of counseling offered to a marriage both parties had privately abandoned—which is to say, the spring of 2026 was theater on both sides. The Society aped fidelity to a Rome it had no intention of obeying; Rome went through the motions in pursuit of a unity it had no expectation of achieving. The consecrations of July 1 merely made public what the preceding months had already decided.