Distressing words of Leo about the SSPX consecrations

Distressing.

BREAKING: Pope Leo XIV on the upcoming SSPX Consecrations:

“I am considering making another appeal saying don’t do this, let’s try to live the communion of the Church.

But it’s their choice. One must realize what it means for them and for the Church.

Certainly, the division… pic.twitter.com/wXvaSeldVC

— LifeSiteNews (@LifeSite) June 16, 2026

There are a lot of holes in this slice of Swiss cheese.

“I am considering…”.

Okay, you are running out of shopping days.

“Let’s try to live the communion of the Church.”

What does it mean “to live the communion”? And just what does that look like?  Meeting with a lay woman dressed like a bishop?  How does one “live the communion”?  I sense here a rather nebulous notion of a word we hear a lot these days which doesn’t seem to have a clear definition: unity.  What is “unity” in 2026?

“what it means for them and for the Church.”

On the one hand, the antics that take place in German churches and in S. America are given a pass, but the faithful celebration of the Church’s liturgical rites is marginalized.  What does that mean for the Church?  Lex orandi.

“division among Christians is a painful point.”

Then don’t punch the bruised part.

“they refuse to accept some fundamental elements of the Church, starting with several points from the Second Vatican Council.”

Let me get this straight… the SSPX refuses “to accept some fundamental elements of the Church” and the starting point is “several points” Vatican II?   When did “points” from Vatican II become the “fundamental elements of the Church”?  And, please, which points are those again?

If I am not mistaken, the SSPX accepts everything in the Council documents which has been dogmatically defined.  However, there are “several points” in the documents – which aren’t intended to define anything – which seem to contradict things which have been promulgated by Popes in the past.  That makes those points matters for deeper discussion.   Otherwise, you are merely forcing people to say that they accept something they don’t understand or which they disagree with.

“How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’
‘Four.’
‘And if the party says that it is not four but five—then how many?’
‘Four.”

Is this what we are about now?   What happened to John XXIII’s “In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity?”

This is a formula for moral injury.

“I’m sorry but we have to move on.”

Move on to… what?    What does “moving on” involve and towards what?

3 So he told them this parable: 4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it says “Well… I still have 99, so that’s just too bad – gotta keep moving”? 5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing moved on with his 99 sheep, he says, “¡Qué lástima, pero adiós!”. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.  I’ve walked together with an increasingly smaller flock, but that’s how things are because there are fundamental points which emerged in the 1960’s so important in 2026 that it’s time to move on’.

Nope.  Sorry it’s time to move on.  That sheep, well… too bad.  Because,… points.

This is so confusing.

Meanwhile, I could point out that no matter what the high and mighty in the Church have since the Council done to the Church and her identity for the sake of “unity” with the Orthodox or Anglicans or Lutherans has resulted in true unity. They are still doing whatever they do, even though we’ve done backflips while juggling umbrellas to signal that we aren’t rigid and scary and, gosh, we don’t want to offend them. Fact: they’re not going to join up if we try to be like them.

I urge people to watch the second part of the SSPX video series about their missionary work.