“In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.” The SSPX and the Holy See.

The Superior General of the SSPX, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, issued a communique following his meeting with the Prefect of Doctrine of the Faith.  The Prefect’s communique HERE.

On 12 February 2026, Reverend Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, was received at the Palace of the Holy Office by His Eminence Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. This meeting had been proposed by the Cardinal following the public announcement, on the 2nd of February, of future episcopal consecrations within the Society of Saint Pius X.

The conversation, held one-on-one at the Cardinal’s request, lasted an hour and a half and took place in an atmosphere that was both cordial and frank. It enabled Father Pagliarani to listen attentively to the Prefect and to clarify the scope of the 2nd of February announcement, as well as the meaning of the steps taken with the Holy See over the recent months.  [I assume that includes the Jubilee and requesting an audience with Pope Leo, etc.]

The Superior General was thus able to present, in person, the current situation of the Society of Saint Pius X and its duty, in the spiritual necessity in which souls find themselves, to ensure the continuation of the ministry of its bishops.

Above all, he [Pagliarani] emphasised the spirit of charity in which the Society envisages these consecrations, as well as its sincere desire to serve both the souls and the Roman Church.

Finally, he renewed his desire that, given the wholly particular circumstances in which Holy Church finds itself, the Society may continue to operate in its current situation – exceptional and temporary [!!] – for the good of the souls who turn to it.

For his part, Cardinal Fernández offered a different approach to the question. Relayed in an official communiqué swiftly published by the Holy See, his proposal consists of “a specifically theological path of dialogue, according to a very precise methodology, […] in order to highlight the minima necessary for full communion with the Catholic Church”, which would make it possible “to define a canonical status for the Society”.

These exchanges would seek, in particular, to reach agreement on “the different degrees of adherence required by the various texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and their interpretation”. The Cardinal stated orally that, while it would be possible to engage in dialogue about the Council, its texts could not be corrected. As a prior condition for this dialogue, it is required to suspend the decision regarding the announced episcopal consecrations.

The Prefect of the Dicastery specifically asked the Superior General to present this proposal to the members of his Council and to take the necessary time to evaluate it.

Father Pagliarani will therefore respond within the next few days. He will write directly to Cardinal Fernández and will also make his response known to the faithful.

The Superior General renewed to Cardinal Fernández his wish to be able to meet personally with the Holy Father. He remains very peaceful and is grateful for all the prayers offered. He continues to commend this situation to the prayers of the faithful.

Menzingen, 12 February 2026

I’m reminded of the old chestnut sometimes attributed, incorrectly, to St. Augustine of Hippo: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.  In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity.  I wrote about this phrase years ago, HERE.  John XXIII used the phrase in his 1959 Encyclical entitled Ad Petri cathedram.

Sometimes there arise really hard issues and questions in the Church, so much so that, after fights erupt, a Council is called, a compromise credal formula or “symbolon” is drafted, all sign and life goes on until the next round of fights that arise from the previous clarification… and so on and so on.    Fights have erupted over things in Vatican II documents that would benefit from greater clarity.  I dare say that there are “doubtful” things in the documents…  not from the perspective of just being but from the perspective of raising further really hard questions.

I raise this as a case in point: the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney, SJ, who took a hardline position about a truth of the Catholic doctrine, “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus … outside the Church there is no salvation”.  After significant conflict with ecclesial authority, he was censured with an excommunication. Later, he was reconciled and he did not have to abure his hard-line position.  Read that again.   The censure was lifted and he didn’t have to say he changed his mind or was wrong.  He was dealing with something really hard to understand and he was within the boundaries, so to speak, to hold to his understanding of that truth that “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”.

The situations of the SSPX and Fr. Feeney are not strictly parallel, but the example of the later serves to illustrate that Catholics, rather well-informed theologians, can have differing positions about difficult points of doctrine, so long as they do not dissent in a scandalous way from dogma.

There should be some flexibility when an issue is really hard.  The issue of religious liberty is really hard.   It is complicated, fraught with questions.  Do people have a natural right to pursue error, or is this only a civil right?  Are there really paths to salvation outside the Church?  Does what the Second Vatican Council resolve these questions definitively?  Is there any room for discussion or differing view about what Nostra aetate says?

Of course there is room for differing views because what Nostra aetate has brought up is really hard.

Let’s drill further.

Nostra Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority.  Hence, one cannot demand from anyone to recognize this declaration as being dogmatic.   It is a declaration that can only be understood in the light of tradition and of the continuous Magisterium.  Alas, there exists today a notion contrary to the Catholic Faith that there is a salvific path independent of Christ and His Church. That was confirmed by the Congregation for the Faith itself in Dominus Iesus.  Therefore, any interpretation of Nostra aetate which goes into this erroneous direction has to be rejected.  But some do go in that direction.  Others, on the contrary, avoid going anywhere near that direction (e.g., SSPX).

It is not disobedience to desire clarifications about really hard questions that result from documents that are fraught with controversial points and that are not dogmatic.

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.