Pope Leo XIV writes to the Lefebvrians to avoid the consecration of new unauthorized bishops. The risk of a definitive schism
A letter written “with a fatherly soul”, sent at the last moment in the hope of stopping something that now seems unstoppable. Pope Leo XIV wrote to the superior and the members of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius to avoid the consecration of new bishops without pontifical mandate, expected in Écône, the Swiss village in the Canton of Valais where Marcel Lefebvre founded the Fraternity in 1970. An act which, according to canon law, would entail automatic excommunication, what theologians call «latae sentiae».
“Filled with Christian affection, I beg you and ask you with all my heart: retrace your steps”, wrote the Pontiff. The words are measured, but the gravity of the situation is evident.
Who are the Lefebvrians and what are they aiming for
Before delving into the tortuous political and cultural labyrinth of the Vatican, we need to delve deeper into the history and mission of this very particular community.
The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius This is a reality that he never fully accepted the reforms introduced by the Second Vatican Councilwhich ended in 1965. Its members consider themselves guardians of the “true Catholic tradition” against what they define as a liberal and, more radically, apostatic drift of the Church.
Their requests are precise and unchanged for decades: the exclusive return to the Latin Mass according to the Tridentine ritewith the priest facing the altar and not the faithful, and the rejection of three conciliar documents deemed incompatible with traditional doctrine. The first is the «Dignitatis Humanae», which establishes religious freedom. The second is the «Lumen Gentium», which opens up the possibility of salvation even outside the visible Catholic Church. The third is “Nostra Aetate”, the declaration that on 28 October 1965 marked the Church’s turning point towards the Jews, who were no longer considered “deicides”. For Lefebvrians, these documents represent a break with tradition. They reject religious pluralism, ecumenical dialogue, and maintain that the State must recognize Catholicism as the only true religion.
A fracture that comes from very far away
The story of this separation was born neither today nor yesterday, but is the result of long and complex disagreements. Lefebvre had led the resistance to the Council and in 1988By illegally ordaining four bishops, he had attracted the excommunication of John Paul II. The theological and canonical problem is subtle but essential: the Pope is the only one who has the power to appoint bishops. If a bishop ordains another without his consent, the ordination is illicit but not invalid, because the “apostolic succession” (the unbroken thread that binds the bishops to the apostles) remains de facto intact. This is why the Church cannot simply ignore the issue: the sacraments administered by these bishops remain valid, and the faithful who seek them find themselves in an ambiguous canonical zone.
In 2009 Benedict XVI he had performed a gesture of great courage: the lifting of the excommunications of the four Lefebvrian bishopsin the hope of restarting the dialogue. However, the initiative was overwhelmed by a sensational accident. The Vatican commission had not verified the profile of one of the four, Richard Williamson, who had revealed himself to be a Holocaust denier: he claimed that the gas chambers in the Nazi extermination camps had never existed. It fell to Benedict XVI himself to write a letter “to the bishops of the whole world” to explain what he defined as an “unforeseeable misadventure for me”.
Years of negotiations, but without results
After the lifting of the excommunications, three years of theological negotiations followed. But they led nowhere. THE bishops, no longer excommunicated but remained suspended to divinis (a canonical penalty provided for by Catholic Church Law which prohibits a priest or cleric from exercising his ministry). Two of them, meanwhile, died, and never returned to full communion with Rome. The Society continued to reject the Council as a precondition of any agreement.
The theological discussion ended definitively when the then Lefebvrian superior Bernard Fellay declared that “the enemies of the Church” hostile to the Fraternity were “the Jews, the Freemasons, the modernists”. A position by its very nature incompatible with post-war Catholicism. Benedict XVI, who had participated in the Council personally as a theologian, defined the Jews as “fathers in the faith” and would never have tolerated ambiguity on this point. The same goes for Francis and Leo XIV, who in recent months has dedicated his catecheses to a systematic rereading of the conciliar documents.
The response of the Lefebvrians and the unresolved issue
The current superior, Don Davide Pagliaraniresponded to Leo XIV’s letter by stating that the Fraternity intends to serve the Church as one serves “a Mother in difficulty who needs particular help”. He asked the Pope for a “gesture of understanding” and to “take the necessary time: it is not too late”. Two years ago, however, Pagliarani himself had reaffirmed the “doctrinal battle against a clearly identified enemy: the Reform of the Council, a poisoned whole conceived in error that leads to error”.
These are words that make it difficult to imagine a meeting point. The Fraternity asks that tradition be put back “at the center” of the life of the universal Churchnot as one of the permitted sensibilities, but as the only legitimate form.
The final call of Leo XIV
Leo XIV concluded his letter with solemn words: «I pray for you, because tearing the useless Tunic of Christ is a sin of extreme gravity. May the Lord enlighten your consciences and awaken your hearts. For the authority received from Christ, with a sorrowful but still full of hope soul, I feel the duty to ask you to desist from your intent».
He also warned against concrete consequences for the faithful: a schismatic act would deprive them “of the lawful and, in some cases, even valid reception of the Sacraments that they love and seek for their own sanctification”. It is not just an institutional question. Behind the doctrinal positions there are people, families, communities who find an authentic spiritual reference in the traditional Mass.
What is being consumed in Écône is not exactly new. It is, more precisely, the continuation of a schism that has never really ended. Every attempt at reconciliation sadly crashed on the same rock: the Second Vatican Council.
