A fundamental ecclesiological problem.
It may be objected that this is a logical consequence of the position of the Society of Saint Pius X, which maintains that it does not possess ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful. Yet this explanation raises a difficulty: does it not tend to minimize the bishop's proper mission, whose first duty is to teach and preach the faith?
If one holds that a bishop consecrated under the present circumstances cannot publicly exercise this teaching office, it seems difficult to justify a simple priest exercising it in his stead. According to classical Catholic doctrine, the priest shares in the bishop's ministry, but he is not, properly speaking, a subject of the Magisterium; by divine institution, the bishop remains a member of the teaching Church.
The recent history of the Society itself appears to confirm this understanding. At the 1988 episcopal consecrations, it was not the Society's Superior General, a priest, who preached the sermon, but Archbishop Lefebvre himself, thereby demonstrating that the act of teaching naturally belonged to the consecrating bishop. Bishop Williamson likewise followed the same practice as Archbishop Lefebvre.
A similar difficulty arises regarding the selection of candidates for the episcopate. Traditionally, the designation of a future bishop belongs to the authority that performs the consecration, even though it may seek advice from others. Historically, Archbishop Lefebvre consulted several priests before the 1988 consecrations, but the final decision rested personally with him. Likewise, he himself chose the candidates whom he consecrated thereafter.
If, on the contrary, the selection of candidates results principally from a collegial decision taken by the authorities in Menzingen, one may legitimately question the ecclesiological coherence of such a procedure. Apostolic succession is certainly ensured materially through a valid consecration, but the question remains whether episcopal authority is fully manifested when the consecrating bishop no longer appears to exercise the decisive personal judgment. This question is all the more significant given that the Society has often expressed reservations about an excessively collegial conception of ecclesiastical government (the "synodal Church").
Finally, it has been stated that these new bishops were consecrated exclusively to meet the sacramental needs of the Society, particularly with regard to ordinations and confirmations.
However, if one considers that the present crisis in the Church is universal because it affects her supreme visible authority, a natural question arises: will these bishops, in conscience, be able to exercise their ministry for the benefit of priests, religious, or faithful outside the Society whenever a genuine state of necessity requires it?
At first sight, the facts appear to suggest otherwise. Thus, the Dominicans of Avrillé were reportedly refused participation in the July 1 consecrations. If this information is accurate, it would suggest that the state of necessity is understood as applying essentially to the Society of Saint Pius X and its affiliated communities alone. Such an understanding invites further reflection: would priests, religious, or faithful outside the Society, yet facing the same difficulties arising from the present crisis in the Church, be unable to benefit from the same pastoral solicitude? If that were the case, the state of necessity would appear to receive a particular rather than a universal application.
This stands in marked contrast with the broad ecclesial charity of Archbishop Lefebvre (and Bishop Williamson), who considered the Church and the Catholic Tradition to consist of a plurality of distinct works, each possessing its own proper mode of governance and its own legitimate authority, all of which deserved to be respected.
Does not such a closed attitude risk containing the seeds of schism?