Who Determines a State of Necessity?

If the Church's crisis extends to its highest authority, who determines a state of necessity? This article examines Roberto de Mattei's arguments for the SSPX and papal authority.

Roberto de Mattei, the renowned Italian historian and author who needs no introduction (click here for his website & more details), with books such as “The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story” and “Love for the Papacy and Filial Resistance to the Pope in the History of the Church”, among other titles, recently published a short article titled, “The Situation Regarding the SSPX Episcopal Consecrations of July 1, 2026”

Full disclosure: I do not claim to have read De Mattei’s books, though I am briefly aware of his treatment to Vatican II in his book titled “The Second Vatican Council: …” through secondary sources.
I do not represent the SSPX as its official spokesperson. My views on this matter are intended to be a common sense, practical breakdown of De Mattei’s article.
Note: I also use the terms “SSPX” and “Society” interchangeably while referring to the Society of Saint Pius X.

Papal fidelity?

In a recent Substack article, Roberto de Mattei reflects on the SSPX's forthcoming episcopal consecrations and offers what appears to be impartial advice to the Society. His central recommendation is that the SSPX should allow Pope Leo XIV to adjudicate the matter by appealing to the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff.

In that context, De Mattei writes:

“No solution to the grave problems afflicting the Mystical Body of Christ will be found outside of him or against him.”

Yet this recommendation appears difficult to reconcile with a position De Mattei himself articulated during the pontificate of Pope Francis. In his 2019 book Love for the Papacy and Filial Resistance to the Pope in the History of the Church, he wrote (emphasis mine):

“Tradition comes before the Pope and not the Pope before Tradition. Limiting oneself, then, to a generic denunciation of the errors that oppose the Tradition of the Church is not enough. It is our duty to call by name all those who, within the Church, profess a theology, a philosophy, a morality, a spirituality in contrast to the perennial Magisterium of the Church, regardless of the office they hold. And today we must admit that the Pope himself promotes and spreads errors and heresies in the Church. We must have the courage to say this, with all the veneration due to the Pope. True devotion to the papacy is expressed in an attitude of filial resistance, as occurred in the Filial Correction addressed to Pope Francis in 2017.”¹

The two statements appear to be in considerable tension. One must then wonder if De Mattei considers the above view that he espoused, to be limited only to the papacy of Francis.

This evident shift is fully consistent with all the classic hallmarks associated with the “Trad Inc. phenomenon” that we have witnessed since May of 2025, where most (if not all) prominent influencers, and even senior officials such as Cardinal Burke, have done an about-turn. (Go here to refer to a good explanation of the term Trad Inc.)

I also say this, as it has been made amply clear that,

• Leo XIV publicly pledged continuity with Pope Francis’ reforms, particularly Synodality, from the outset of his pontificate;

• No indication has been given that documents such as Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, or Traditionis Custodes will be reconsidered, let alone state that they are harmful to the faith;

• Leading figures from the Francis pontificate—including Cardinals Fernández, Roche, Cupich, and McElroy—remain influential under Leo XIV;

• Leo has welcomed representatives of non-Catholic communities, declaring that “we are all already one”

• Reports and images from 1995 have made it evident that then-Fr. Robert Prevost participated in a Pachamama rite ceremony. A similar episode took place in 2019 when Francis was Pope, which had particularly and rightly upset Trads.

  

  Left image: 1995 pachamama Mass with Robert Prevost; Right image: 2019 pachamama veneration & worship in the Vatican by Pope Francis

The question therefore arises: has Roberto de Mattei, despite his considerable contributions as a historian, undergone the same shift that has characterized much of what "Trad Inc." since the election of Leo XIV?

State of Necessity? Or ‘Conflict of Interest’?

Earlier in the same article, De Mattei questions the SSPX's authority to invoke a "state of necessity"—a principle upon which the Society has based its consecrations. He writes:

“The state of necessity is, by its very nature, an exceptional condition that permits deviation from the ordinary application of certain norms in view of a higher good — which, in the case of the Church, is the salvation of souls. But who has the authority to verify the existence of such a state and to determine its beginning and end?”

De Mattei then develops this argument further; that “the state of necessity” cannot, or should not be ‘assessed by the SSPX, because:

“[…] one would have to conclude that the state of necessity ceases when the Society deems it to have ceased — effectively attributing to it a power of judgment over the Holy See […] The result would be a situation in which a particular body sets itself up as the ultimate criterion for evaluating the actions of the supreme authority.”

Those of us who believe that Leo XIV has very evidently continued the trajectory of Francis would argue that the present pontificate remains part of the same crisis rather than distancing itself from it; the reasons for this, though several, are briefly elucidated in the previous section.

De Mattei's earlier writings flag several questions about the consistency of his present reasoning. Recall (from the previous section above) that in his 2019 work, De Mattei argued that Catholics must identify—even within the hierarchy—those who promote teachings contrary to the perennial Magisterium. Whether one labels these as “heresies” or doctrinal errors, his argument presupposes the existence of a grave crisis within the Church.

If the ecclesiastical authorities themselves are implicated in the crisis, then expecting those same authorities to declare a state of necessity presents an obvious circularity. This constitutes an inherent conflict of interest as well.

Nor does the SSPX claim the authority to redefine canon law or permanently determine when a state of necessity begins or ends. Rather, it argues that the extraordinary circumstances which prompted Archbishop Lefebvre's actions have not yet been resolved. This makes De Mattei's criticism particularly noteworthy, since he himself devoted an entire volume (The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story) to documenting the theological and historical problems associated with the Council. Below is a quote in context with the same council from yet another one of his books.

The Society's dispute thus has always centered principally on what it regards as the theological and ecclesiological trajectory following the Second Vatican Council. It therefore follows that the state of necessity would cease only when the underlying causes of that crisis have been remedied. That position, however, should not be confused with a rejection of papal authority itself.

Accordingly, this cessation of the state of necessity would require—not merely the election of a pope who adheres to Tradition—but a restoration of the Church's perennial teaching and a correction of those conciliar formulations that have evidently departed from Tradition; towards this, I hope De Mattei can agree & pray with me.

Ave Maria

1. From Roberto de Mattei, Love for the Papacy and Filial Resistance to the Pope in the History of the Church, pp. 114–115. The quotation was posted by the X account "TEOFOROS" and auto-translated by X from the Spanish original (source). While it is my belief that the translation faithfully conveys De Mattei's meaning, readers should allow for the possibility of minor translation nuances.