As the episcopal consecrations announced by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX) for July 1st approach, the debate over the canonical consequences of this act intensifies within the Church. Bishop Marian Eleganti, auxiliary bishop emeritus of Chur, Switzerland, has recently taken a position to dismiss the idea that a declared absence of a "schismatic intention" could be sufficient to invalidate a possible excommunication. In an interview with the Catholic Herald, the Swiss prelate described as a "stratagem" arguments seeking to legally protect the Fraternity solely through the lens of subjective intention.
This intervention responds directly to the theses defended by Bishop Athanasius Schneider. The auxiliary bishop of Astana had asserted, during a private meeting of the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima, that any Roman sanctions would be canonically invalid if the FSSPX did not manifest an explicit will to separate from Rome. According to Bishop Schneider, canon law would not allow punishing an act as schismatic if its authors proclaim their attachment to the Apostolic See.
A former official visitor of the Holy See to the Fraternity under the previous pontificate, Bishop Schneider also addressed an appeal to Pope Leo XVI, suggesting that an approval of these consecrations could serve as a bridge toward a definitive reconciliation. For him, since the leadership of the FSSPX does not intend to break with the successor of Peter, the act of consecrating bishops without a mandate would not carry the gravity of a formal schism.
Bishop Eleganti, however, categorically rejects this interpretation, insisting that the nature of an act does not depend solely on the justification given for it. For the Swiss bishop, claiming that one does not desire schism while performing acts of rupture is a way of exercising total autonomy under the appearance of communion. He emphasizes that as long as the Sovereign Pontiff does not authorize these ordinations, the act remains objectively an act of disobedience creating a situation of rupture. According to him, one must not stop at declarations, but observe concrete facts and behaviors.
To support his analysis, Bishop Eleganti detailed four elements which, in his view, characterize the existence of a parallel ecclesiastical structure. He first notes the exercise of full autonomy without papal mandate, followed by the presence of bishops outside of communion with the episcopal college. He also mentions the status of the hundreds of Fraternity priests who are not incardinated in a regular manner. Finally, he points to what he calls a "jurisdictional nirvana": a form of self-authorization where the Fraternity ends up considering itself the sole possessor of doctrine and sacraments without defect.
This situation would highlight a profound inconsistency. Bishop Eleganti believes the FSSPX acts as a church alongside the Church while claiming the opposite. More radically, he questions the Fraternity's real will to achieve canonical regularization. According to the emeritus prelate, full integration would mean for the FSSPX the loss of an independence to which it seems attached, obliging it to submit to a universal hierarchy it often judges severely. This attitude, he concludes, reflects a mentality and behavior that, in practice, resemble schism.