Pope Leo XIV has made a fresh appeal to the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) to abandon plans to consecrate four bishops without papal approval.

Speaking to journalists outside Villa Barberini in Castel Gandolfo on 16 June, the Pope said he was considering making one final request to the traditionalist society before the planned consecrations on 1 July at the SSPX seminary in Écône, Switzerland.

“We have invited them, and I am still considering making another appeal, to say: ‘Do not do this. Let us try to live communion in the Church,’” the Pope said. “But it is their choice. They must understand what it means for them and for the Church.”

The remarks represent Pope Leo’s clearest public intervention since the SSPX announced earlier this year that it intended to proceed with the episcopal consecrations despite the absence of a pontifical mandate.

The Society has argued that the measure is necessary to ensure the continuation of its sacramental and apostolic work. Its leadership has maintained that an “objective state of grave necessity” exists within the Church, requiring the appointment of new bishops to safeguard the future of the fraternity’s ministry.

The Vatican, however, has repeatedly expressed concern that episcopal consecrations carried out against the explicit will of the Roman Pontiff would constitute a grave rupture in ecclesial discipline. The prospect of such a step led to the crisis of 1988, when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without papal approval, resulting in Rome declaring that a schismatic act had taken place.

Pope Leo indicated that the dispute is not merely procedural but touches on deeper theological questions. Referring to the SSPX’s longstanding criticisms of the Second Vatican Council, he said division within the Church remained “a painful matter”, adding that the Society continued to reject “certain fundamental elements of the Church, beginning with various points of the Second Vatican Council”. His Holiness added: “If they make those choices, I am sorry. But we must move forward.”

The Pope’s comments come after months of exchanges between the Holy See and the Society. Earlier this year, the SSPX confirmed its intention to proceed with the consecrations, while subsequent contacts between Rome and the fraternity failed to produce an agreement.

On 12 February, a meeting took place in Rome between SSPX Superior General Fr Davide Pagliarani and Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The encounter, described by the Vatican as “cordial and sincere”, saw Cardinal Fernández propose a structured path of theological dialogue aimed at addressing unresolved doctrinal questions, particularly those concerning the Second Vatican Council and the “minimum requirements necessary for full communion”.

Cardinal Fernández made clear that any such dialogue could only proceed if the SSPX agreed to suspend the planned 1 July consecrations. He warned that proceeding without a papal mandate would constitute a “decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism)” with grave canonical consequences, including automatic excommunication.

In a letter dated 18 February and made public the following day, Fr Pagliarani responded that, while the SSPX welcomed the idea of renewed doctrinal discussions in principle, it could not accept the condition of postponing the consecrations. “We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council,” he wrote, while renewing the Society’s request for a personal audience with Pope Leo XIV.

Subsequent exchanges failed to bridge the gap. In May, the Vatican reiterated its warnings, and the SSPX published a “Declaration of Catholic Faith” outlining what it considers the minimum necessary for communion while reiterating its concerns about post-conciliar errors.

On 26 May, the Society publicly named the four priests slated for consecration, framing the act as a necessary service to souls amid the ongoing crisis in the Church.

As the 1 July date at the Écône seminary approaches, negotiations appear effectively stalled. The SSPX maintains its position that an “objective state of grave necessity” justifies the consecrations to ensure the continuation of its sacramental ministry, while the Vatican insists on canonical obedience and prior doctrinal resolution.

Generally speaking, Pope Leo XIV addressed the Society of St Pius X in a manner that was pastoral, regretful yet resolute, characteristic of his style thus far. The delivery was conversational and non-confrontational, yet doctrinally unambiguous. By speaking informally to journalists rather than issuing a formal Vatican statement, the Pope signalled personal investment without escalating the matter into a formal magisterial intervention.

This approach is indicative of how Vatican communications have evolved in handling such matters. Most importantly, it marks a change from previous pontificates. It represents the first time a Pope has offered an off-the-cuff public comment on the SSPX situation in the lead-up to planned episcopal consecrations. By contrast, there was no specific public comment by Pope John Paul II on the planned 1988 SSPX episcopal consecrations prior to Archbishop Lefebvre’s announcement and the immediate lead-up in early June 1988.

What is really happening remains unclear, with little clarified in the public exchanges between Rome and the Society. The Pope’s remarks reflect this ongoing and opaque reality.

For many hoping for a resolution to the SSPX question, the latest developments will bring both frustration and renewed determination. The Pope’s sorrow is evident and more irenic than some had feared. Yet the public emphasis on Vatican II as the fault line confirms long-held suspicions. Rome still views critiques the of post-conciliar Church as the core obstacle, not merely Lefebvrist intransigence.

If the SSPX holds to what the Church taught before Vatican II, and Leo indicates that it cannot be accepted because of what Vatican II taught, then there is a perceived mutual exclusivity between what Catholicism was and what Catholicism is. How can continuity be maintained when pre-conciliar teachings appear at odds with the post-conciliar emphases now presented as essential?