EPISTLES

Based on everything I know of Fr. Charles Murr, he does not approve of the SSPX proceeding with episcopal consecrations without a papal mandate, nor is he praising their disobedience, supporting illicit consecrations, or endorsing a break from Rome. His praise is directed solely at their efforts amid what he considers an emergency—not at any act of disobedience or separation.

In an interview with Robert Moynihan, Father Charles Murr offers a favourable view on the SSPX, recognizing their need for new bishops to continue their ministry. He situates the issue within the wider crisis in the Church, highlighting both the challenges the SSPX faces and the Vatican’s role in the matter. Before speaking, he clarified that he is neither for nor against the SSPX, though he admires their spirit.

Fr. Murr explains that the current bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) are overwhelmed with sacramental duties worldwide, prompting the group to seek additional bishops. Rome has refused, which Murr frames as a repeat of the 1988 conflict between Marcel Lefebvre and the Vatican.

Drawing on the testimony of Édouard Gagnon, Murr recounts how Lefebvre refused to consecrate only one bishop because he feared Rome would later undermine the Society—fears Gagnon privately affirmed. Murr compares this to the later case of Opus Dei, whose single bishop was removed by Pope Francis, reinforcing the concern about long-term Vatican control.

Murr argues that the SSPX now faces the same dilemma: without more bishops, their global apostolate—serving hundreds of thousands—cannot continue. He believes the Church is in a deep crisis marked by doctrinal confusion from Rome, while the SSPX sees the need for bishops as essential for preserving the faith and serving souls. According to Murr, whether their actions seem justified depends entirely on whether one believes the Church is currently in an emergency state.

Father Charles Murr: “Their bishops right now are probably the busiest bishops in the Catholic Church. I mean, they’re flying everywhere they can to be with people for confirmations, for baptisms, for everything—for priestly ordinations—doing all that they can, unlike many bishops I know who never leave home. These are really missionaries.

So, we’ve come down to this: they want to have more bishops to be able to continue their apostolate, and Rome is saying no. Now we’ve got a problem here… I’ve got some background information.

Let’s just look at the history of the SSPX. Now, I’m not “in favor” or “against.” I have nothing to do with the SSPX, really. I admire their spirit. I’ve always admired Archbishop Lefebvre’s spirit. However, I’m not part of that movement…

In 1988, Pope John Paul II made Archbishop Edouard Gagnon a Cardinal. And in 1988, he sent Cardinal Gagnon to Écône to Archbishop Lefebvre to try to convince the Archbishop not to consecrate four new bishops. He had permission from the Vatican to consecrate one bishop, not four.

And so, Gagnon was sent with that message—a personal message from the Pope to Archbishop Lefebvre. He was also sent as an Apostolic Visitor, which means as the Pope’s representative, to look into the situation of the seminary in Écône. Was the seminary being properly run? Were there irregularities or any sort of problems with it?

After studying it for a month and speaking with everyone—you know, I saw and lived with Cardinal Gagnon for years; I knew what dedication he put into all of these assignments—he was absolutely dedicated to doing the best job he could, and he did. He spoke to everyone he could in the seminary and came out with this: I asked him, because shortly after that he came to Mexico and was with me, and I said, “Well, how did the visitation go with Archbishop Lefebvre?”

And he said, “The seminary should be used as a model for all other seminaries.” It’s just remarkable how the young priests and the seminarians are being taught, what they learn, what they understand, and their devotion. He said it was phenomenal. It could be used as a model throughout the entire Catholic Church. That was number one.

Secondly, I asked him, “You weren’t successful then with Archbishop Lefebvre, convincing him not to consecrate four new bishops?” He said, “No, I wasn’t successful.” But he said, “Let me tell you why.”

I told him that the Holy Father—actually, Cardinal Ratzinger really was the one who was pushing for this—would permit one, but not four, new bishops. And Archbishop Lefebvre told me the reason that he would not agree to one rather than four is because he didn’t trust the Vatican.

The Cardinal said, “In what sense don’t you trust the Vatican?” He said, “You can’t guarantee me that after I die, the one bishop that they will permit—and they’ll name him—won’t turn out to be exactly the person they want to play their game and destroy this whole movement.” He said, “I don’t trust them.”

All right. You know what Cardinal Gagnon said? He said, “You do well not to trust them.”

Now, just a minute. This is a man whose career was in the Vatican, and he knew what he was talking about. He said, “I can’t blame him at all because I wouldn’t trust it.”

Now, let me just add something to that. Not for years… I knew Opus Dei when I was in Rome as a student. I got to meet them. I knew about them before, but I met members of Opus Dei in Rome as a student—that was 50 years ago. They had been working—the founder was still alive, I met the founder in St. Peter’s Square, St. Josemaría Escrivá.

At that time, they were working—Opus Dei in Rome especially—on becoming a Personal Prelature. This was a category… if people don’t understand what that means, it’s not because they’re ignorant; it’s because it had never existed before in the Church. Basically, what happened is that Opus Dei would be its own diocese with its own bishop. So their clergy would be answerable to their bishop, not to the bishops of different places, which was a great freedom. And they had been working on this canonically, trying to figure out how this could be, and they worked out an arrangement and it was accepted. It was accepted, and they were given one bishop.

Now, to show you the intelligence of Archbishop Lefebvre when he said, “I don’t trust the Vatican with that one bishop.” The Pope—Pope Francis—took away that one bishop and told them basically to rewrite their constitution and put them under the authority of the Congregation for the Clergy, just like every priest. Therefore, all of that work went for naught. It’s because what happened was the Pope, at his leisure, at his will, took away that one bishop.

Now we’re at the same crossroads today. It’s the same situation. What the Society of St. Pius X is asking for is to name their own bishops. And they need the same quantity, if not more, because it is now a worldwide organization—more than 700,000 people. They’re everywhere, and growing.

Therefore, this is the dilemma. The Vatican is saying no. What they’re promising is a dialogue. In other words, the SSPX has to agree with the Vatican: “No, we won’t consecrate new bishops,” and then they’re invited to dialogue. Well, they’ve been dialoguing for years—this famous dialogue for years—and nothing is being accomplished.

Their worry is that without bishops, this whole movement—which they consider the future of the Catholic Church, and many people consider it will be very influential in the future—without those bishops, it will simply die. Therefore, they’re going ahead with the consecration of new bishops.

This is not simply about the Latin Mass. It’s also about the Latin Mass, but it’s not simply the Latin Mass. It’s about the whole state of the Catholic Church today.

I’ll put forth my belief—that the Church is in crisis mode. It has been in crisis mode off and on to different degrees for the past 60 years.

It is now in real crisis mode because we have had Popes and the Roman Curia contradicting the Catholic faith. I mean, it’s that evident. I know this sounds startling, but they have been. So, it’s not just a question of the Latin Mass. It is a question of the direction that the Church has taken and is going to continue taking with “synodality” and what have you in the future.

If they want to talk about a schism, it’s not really from the SSPX that a schism would be coming. It is from Germany that a schism would be coming. They are really a threat to that. I mean, we can go off in all different directions on this, but it comes down to this, and with this: you either see the state of the Catholic Church today as chaotic and in an emergency state, or you don’t.

If it’s an emergency state, what the SSPX is proposing to do makes sense. They want to survive, and they want to survive not for themselves, but for the good of souls. The supreme law of the Catholic Church is the salvation of souls, and that’s why they want this and that’s why they’re going to continue.

If you don’t believe the Church is in an emergency state, well then you would say, ‘No, what they’re doing is wrong. Everything is fine.’ It’s one or the other.”

Quote Source: Urbi et Orbi Communications. (2026, February 25). Is the Church in an Emergency State? SSPX, Rome & the Future | Moynihan & Fr. Murr [Video].

In another interview—this time with John-Henry Westen—Fr. Murr was congratulating the SSPX for their clarity, for taking the initiative to reach out to Rome when Rome would not receive them, and for acting according to conscience in what he views as a genuine crisis in the Church.

Father Charles Murr: “I think the attitude of the SSPX is remarkable. I congratulate them for stating their case. I congratulate them for having taken the initiative. They took the initiative, not the Vatican. The Vatican did not answer them, would not receive their Superior General in audience, and did not answer their communiqués.

I think what they’re doing is remarkable, and it comes down to this… you are either of the opinion that the Catholic Church today—and for a long time, but certainly today—is in a crisis mode. I call it an emergency, a state of emergency, and I personally believe that it is.

If you don’t believe the Church is in a state of emergency, then you will have a problem with all of this. If you think there is no crisis, you will have difficulty with the response the SSPX gave to His Holiness. But if you do see an emergency, a crisis in the Church, then you understand that whatever we can do to preserve the Catholic faith, we do under those circumstances. Again, what is the supreme law of the Church? The salvation of souls…

If anything came out of the Second Vatican Council—and not everything was bad—but if one of the major things that came out of it, actually in the in aftermath of the Council, was the importance given to the individual conscience…

You have to make up your mind and listen to your own conscience: is the Church in crisis? If it is, what the SSPX and others are doing is fine. If it’s not, then it’s not fine…

If somebody can’t see that we are in a state of chaos, then he is blind. It’s just that simple.”

Quote Source: Sign Of The Cross. (2026, February 26). Pope Leo DIVIDES CHURCH on SSPX, Freemasonry, and Homosexuality [Video].