Leo XIV has written to the SSPX.
UPDATE: Fr. Pagliarani’s response to Leo HERE
LETTER OF POPE LEO XIV
TO THE SUPERIOR GENERAL
OF THE PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X
___________________________________
To The Reverend
Davide Pagliarani
Superior General
of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X
With a paternal heart, and aware of the responsibility entrusted to me by the Lord as the Successor of the Apostle Peter, I address you and, through you, the bishops, priests, seminarians and faithful connected to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
The Church recognizes the devotion to liturgical life, commitment to priestly formation, apostolic zeal and desire for fidelity to Tradition that characterize many people and communities connected to your Fraternity. This has motivated the attentive and generous attitude that my Predecessors have consistently shown to you.
In this spirit, and filled with Christian affection, I plead with you and ask you with all my heart: please turn back! I urge you to consider carefully the spiritual good of the faithful, because the schismatic act you are about to undertake would deprive them of the licit and, in some cases, even valid reception of the Sacraments, which they love and seek for their sanctification.
The Church is open to a path of dialogue and understanding that the Holy Spirit can make possible and fruitful.
I pray for you, because to tear the seamless garment of Christ is a sin of extreme gravity. May the Lord enlighten your consciences and awaken your hearts. With a sorrowful yet hopeful heart, I feel it is my duty, through the authority received from Christ, to ask you to desist from your intended act. I entrust these intentions to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of Good Counsel.
From the Vatican, 29 June 2026
Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul
LEO PP. XIV
UPDATE:
Letter from the Superior General in Response to His Holiness Pope Leo XIV
The Superior General
To His Holiness
Pope Leo XIV
Ecône, 30 June 2026
Most Holy Father,
Thank you very much for the letter that Your Holiness so kindly addressed to me.
I have been deeply touched by Your paternal solicitude.
For a long time, I had hoped to have the opportunity of meeting You in person, in order to express to You directly our sincere desire to serve the Church. Unfortunately, that opportunity has not presented itself.
I ask only that You consider the sincerity of this intention, which is in no way feigned. Paradoxically, in the present circumstances, we believe it to be our very duty to do everything possible to mend Christ’s seamless garment, torn by forces and pressures incompatible with a truly Catholic spirit. I ask only that You consider the authenticity of this intention before making a decision concerning the Society of Saint Pius X. It is not yet too late.
Far be it from us to separate ourselves from the Roman Church. We desire, on the contrary, to serve her by means that are extraordinary, as one would assist a mother in distress who requires particular help, even if such help is not understood by everyone. Yet I am certain that the Holy Father could understand it.
The Holy See has shown itself capable of understanding very complex situations and of allowing time for discernment.
May I therefore filially ask Your Holiness to take the time necessary for that discernment.
If my own words are not sufficient, I would ask You to reflect upon two very simple facts. First, in 1988 the Society was already declared schismatic, for reasons and in circumstances entirely analogous to those of today. Yet, after so many years, we are speaking together as a father and his son. Your Holiness is paternally urging me to avoid a schism which, theoretically, has already taken place. Does not Your very attitude—whose paternal concern I deeply appreciate—constitute proof that the Society is neither schismatic nor hostile to the Church?
Secondly, some years ago, the Holy See entrusted two bishops of the Church with the task of engaging in dialogue with the Society of Saint Pius X: Bishop Vitus Huonder, then Bishop of Chur, now deceased, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Astana. Both, after taking the necessary time for discernment, recognised the profoundly Catholic spirit of the Society and bore public witness to it.
Above all, however, I venture to address Your Holiness in the name of the thousands of souls who have rediscovered the Catholic faith and the practice of religion through the apostolate of the Society. This is a fact of which Your predecessors themselves took note. These souls have but one desire: to attain salvation through this instrument which Divine Providence has placed at their disposal. They have suffered, and they are sincere. I am confident that Your paternal heart as universal Shepherd will be moved by this very particular situation. One day, all the difficulties between the Holy See and the Society will be resolved. A gesture of understanding on Your part, far from harming unity, could only manifest before the world and before all Christians Your concern for unity and Your goodness as a father.
I leave all this to Your consideration. I renew my prayers for Your Holiness.
For a long time, even before Your election, I have been praying to Saint Rita for the present situation. I saw in the election of an Augustinian Pope a sign of hope. I am certain that the Saint will intercede. It is never too late.
Please give us Your blessing.
I take this opportunity to remain, with the deepest devotion in Our Lord,
Don Davide Pagliarani
I sincerely don’t understand why Pope Leo refused to have a face to face meeting with them. And to pretend that the papacy and the cardinals and bishops who have waged open war (and are STILL waging open war) against diocesan Catholics devoted to the TLM (priests and laity), tossing them out of parishes, suppressing their communities, denying them the sacraments, have not also participated in the rending of the unity of the Church seems disingenuous.
This is a sad short letter, there is nothing in it that attempts to reconcile the situation. It is a legal step allowing them to move forward with excommunications. If the Holy Father truly cared with all of his heart, he would have granted them an audience and talked to them.
There was a path to reconcile this and the Holy See has chosen not to take it. The hammer of justice will fall hard on this traditional group of faithful priests. Meanwhile Rome will allow women pretending to be Bishops into St. Peter’s, will not sanction Bishops ripping out altar rails or canceling ad orientem, even though that is beyond their authority. Will allow open supporters of gay marriage and abortion into their audience and “synodal” way.
I am extremely disappointed with our Holy Father. I had hoped he would be a healing element for the Church after Pope Francis tore open old wounds that has started to heal.
I pray for a peaceful end to this situation and mercy from the Holy See.
So disappointed in Pope Leo, but I’m not surprised.
Notably, no one from Rome has said the Consecrations will never happen, just that they must not occur tomorrow.
The attempt at reconciliation is right there in the second to last paragraph. Underscoring it, of course, is the requirement that the Society ceases and assists from their intended objectively excommunicable action.
Again, no one has said that they’ll never get new bishops, just that now is not immediately the time. I wonder if anyone at the Dicastery for Bishops has yet vetted the candidates.
It would be good to avoid a repeat of last time, when Bishop Williamson proved himself to be of questionable character and has even schismized from the Society. We pray that it’s not the case this time, and it’s not reasonable to presume that it is. But by the same token, the Society seems to be operating according to a pretty arbitrary timeline.
Due respect given, this letter is little short of meaningless. An invitation to dialogue or else be excommunicated. The only thing that makes it news is that it comes directly from Leo rather than mediated through Tucho.
Yes, there are some nice words about the SSPX. But actions, such as giving Card. Besa-me sole responsibility for handling the situation, speak louder than words–as do inactions, such as the pope refusing to meet with them even once.
I am increasingly unimpressed with how the Vatican is handling this. I can’t say I fully agree with the Society, but I have great sympathy for them. But as I’ve said before, I’m not sure what else the Vatican would be doing differently if their affirmative intentions were to definitively cut off the SSPX.
Too little. Too late. Rome has created this mess. Could have been avoided.
The letter could have easily said, I, Pope Leo, grant permission for these consecrations. Case closed. However, that doesn’t fit into their true agenda of discarding the Old Rite altogether.
I’d encourage people to read Cardinal Müller’s intervention in the consistory the other day. In addition to the (correct) call for creating a way to receive those who break away from the SSPX, he ends with the following reflection on the Council of Trent:
“During the Council of Trent, the eminent Polish cardinal Stanislaus Hosius said to the Protestants of his time—and his words apply equally to the Lefebvrists of our time—:
Catholicus non est, qui a Romana ecclesia in fidei doctrina discordat.
He is not Catholic who disagrees with the Church of Rome in the doctrine of the faith.”
https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/06/29/full-text-of-mullers-intervention-at-the-consistory-comes-to-light-defense-of-the-papacy-criticism-of-the-synodal-format-and-response-to-the-fsspx/
@Discerning Altar Boy
So . . . . the FSSP accepted “the original deal” that had been offered to Archbishop Lefebvre. Where’s their bishop? It’s been 38 years.
I do not understand why so many people feel that meeting face to face or receiving them would change anything.
@Fr. Reader – It might not have changed anything, but it might have changed a great deal. Certainly many things are understood in face-to-face encounters that are not well communicated or understood via distant correspondence, especially when delivered through a figure as odious as Cardinal Tucho.
However, the point is, we’ll never know, because Pope Leo couldn’t be bothered to even try. Had he tried and it had not worked, he would have lost nothing. If anything, his last ditch appeal would hold more weight because it would be consistent with his efforts to date. However, if it had worked, even to the point of simply convincing them to attempt a renewed dialogue before proceeding with the consecrations, who knows how much might have been won.
History is replete with missed opportunities. This will surely be remembered as one such case.
i am baffled that on the .va site there is a version of the letter in, of all things, Arabic while there is not one in Latin.
@WVC
The FSSP don’t seem to have problems finding bishops to do their ordinations. In that sense they “have” quite a number of bishops by now.
@TheCavalierHatherly
Aside from the fact that your response is trying to skirt around the very obvious answer which is, “No, the Vatican never gave them the promised bishop,” this is an absurd premise to rest one’s hat upon.
The FSSP have no representation directly linked with their order or their mission to voice their needs or concerns within the Vatican, and they are entirely at the whims of bishops who have no official affiliation with them. If a local bishop allows them to build chapels and start a ministry within his diocese, they could just as easily get kicked out by the same bishop or by his successor. This is not hypothetical – it’s literally happened. Never mind the gross offense to justice and charity, it’s practically impossible to provide for a stable future if the entire practice of the faith is subject to the whims of the current bishop. And if Pope Francis had declared that traditional ordinations were also forbidden under T.C., do you think many of the FSSP friendly bishops would have been willing to continue to ordain men for the FSSP? Especially when so many of them won’t even lift a finger to defend their own parishioners and priests against T.C.?
To go even further, do you honestly think the FSSP would even get as much support as they have if it weren’t for the external pressure put on the Vatican by the existence of the SSPX? It was the 1988 ordinations that brought about the creation of the Ecclesia Dei commission and orders. And I can’t help but notice that in Arlington, after decades of refusing to allow the FSSP to establish a foothold within the diocese and after years of negelct under the implementation of T.C., the current bishop is finally allowing them to establish a chaplaincy on the same date as the SSPX consecration and in the same location as the growing SSPX chapel in Front Royal. Coincidence? Yeah, right.
So pretending that the FSSP “have” their own bishops is no better than wishful thinking.
This article sums my thoughts up surprisingly well. It even touches on another dynamic at play: the Vatican accepting the SSPX would entail putting the Vatican at risk of losing face over, or even worse possibly needing to backtrack on, some of the bad wording, misreadings, misinterpretations, and misapplications of Vatican II. Much easier to get rid of them, instead.
https://nuntiatoria.substack.com/p/leo-xiv-can-stop-the-sspx-schism
I have heard it directly from high-ranking members of the Fraternity that they don’t want a bishop, because they are fraternity of priests
“The Church is open to a path of dialogue and understanding that the Holy Spirit can make possible and fruitful.”
Oh that it be true!
That dialogue cannot be reasonably engaged with Cardinal Fernandez at all. A panel of theologically stable Cardinals — with the Holy Father’s frequent engagement — is required.
The SSPX needs bishops to function and it has only two bishops left. Unless at some point they have consecrations they will eventually will have none and will no longer be able to function. In fact, it has been the refusal of this Pope and the prior Popes to allow any consecrations that has caused the SSPX to engage in a “schismatic act.” Unless the whole point is to ultimately destroy the SSPX, why can’t a way be found to allow some consecrations? Unless there is some possibility that delay and discussion would ultimately lead to some new bishops for the SSPX, Pope Leo is essentially asking the SSPX to slowing commit suicide.
My interest in these events is primarily in relation to the Catholic East and Orthodoxy. My support for the East logically causes me to support the SSPX in this issue.
The letter from Pope Leo is incredibly sad.
The chief duty of the Bishop of Rome is to “confirm the brethren in the Faith.”
The SSPX have submitted to the Bishop of Rome in terms of Faith, Creed, and Praxis. They have submitted the names of the individuals to be ordained. The SSPX have clearly not submitted to the various nebulous things that have appeared post VII. Perhaps one can say that they need to submit to this or that, if a list of that were given, but there is never ever a list with progressives because the list is an affront to what progressivism is all about. Submit to shifting goal posts. Submit to there being five lights.
Has Rome said “Not this faith.” “Not these men.” No. Rome has simply said “No ordinations. Let’s dialogue.” Rome’s position does not confirm the brethren in their Faith.
I don’t know what there is to dialogue about or even why dialogue is important. The clear indicator of Pope Leo’s letter is that he isn’t listening, isn’t hearing, and isn’t interested. Dialog until you do what I say, without saying what it is that one wants in the first place. That is psychological abuse, and because it comes from a religious authority is also spiritual abuse. The only reason people are shy about not calling this out is that it comes from the Pope, and children tend to back the parent who has more authority when that parent is being unjust towards the other parent.
As a lay individual, do I know what Rome wants? No, not at all. What faith am I supposed to be submitting to? No clue.
My NO parish sings “Faith of Our Fathers” regularly. In what way does the SSPX not have this “Faith of Our Fathers”? I see none and I see nothing forthcoming from Rome.
Rome tends to be more afraid of schism than heresy. Makes sense from a progressivist ecclesiology — if you can keep everyone in the same pot, you can raise the temp slowly and shift the Overton window.
I don’t consider myself a traditionalist… a lot of the traditionalists who are siding with Rome strike me as crabs in a bucket. Submitting to the bucket doesn’t mean that you get eaten last (or first), just that you get eaten.
As for the SSPX, after you all get excommunicated, are you going to keep praying for the Pope in the Canon? If so, then at least you and I can be said to be in communion at the most basic and fundamental level, which is where it truly counts. If I had a brother whom my parents won’t speak to and whom they have disowned, but who is willing to speak to my parents, he and I can still be brothers and friends, even if it makes my parents mad. I need not participate in their madness; my obligation is to charity, not to doing whatever my parents feel like doing.
@Discerning Altar Boy
I heard this as a rumor, and I continue to hope it is just a rumor. Because if they actually turned down a bishop, that would be so incomprehensibly short-sighted and, in many ways, selfish, that it would not reflect well on those who made such a decision. It would be like playing chess and, upon one’s pawn reaching the end of the board declining it being promoted to be a Queen because “we’re happier just being pawns.”
The reality of Church politics is that it always has and always will exist. It’s part and parcel to every organization of human beings this side of the grave. To refuse to recognize the rules of the game or to fully participate is to doom one’s side to perpetually losing. If the Monks of Cluny had refused to go beyond being monks, think of what a catastrophe it would have been for the Church.
@R2D
You said, “He is not Catholic who disagrees with the Church of Rome in the doctrine of the faith.”
Ok, name the doctrine(s) that the SSPX disagrees with Rome about.
There are none. There are disagreements about praxis and interpretations, which are largely shifts in metaphysical and epistemological institutional positions following Vatican II and the arguments over 1.) the legitimacy of those shifts 2.) the legitimacy of those who do not shift metaphysically and epistemologically.
Pope Paul V told the Dominicans and Jesuits to knock it off and learn to get along despite different metaphysics and epistemology. It seems to me that Pope Leo is making a choice to reject prior legitimate metaphysics and epistemology, along with the “just get along” mandate. If you break things down, there is an implicit siding with the Molinists rather than the Thomists.
Consider “The Holy Spirit wills a synodal Church” vs. “The Holy Ghost does not will a synodal Church.”? Ya, now that is fun, let’s deal with that, shall we? That in the immediate future is where all this is heading. Catholics better be ready for it and better understand what and why they hold to the Faith.
In my opinion, the modern period is one giant intertwined pneumenological heresy that traces back to the despair of grace that infected the Jesuits in the early 20th century and then metastasized following the World Wars.
@Lurker59: “Rome tends to be more afraid of schism than heresy. ” There be the problem in a nutshell.
God reward your clarity…and your charity.
@Lurker59
While your comments are typically excellent, this one was even better than most. But, defining the progressivist agenda as, “Submit to there being five lights” . . .
*chef’s kiss*
Well done, sir.
@Lurker 59: I was quoting Mueller quoting a participant of the Council of Trent, and he was claiming the SSPX disagreed with Rome.
The obvious response to your question though is that in their recent statements they have started to proclaim a neo-Feeneyism thats incompatible with both the pre-1958 Catholic understanding of salvation and with Nostra Aetate. The issue isn’t that the SSPX wants doctrinal clarifications on the theme, they fundamentally reject NA, and this remains the main issue preventing their reconciliation.
That is the biggest issue every CDF/DDF prefect since Ratzinger has had with them: they can’t wholesale reject Nostra Aetate.
@R2D,
And Fr. Feeney was reconciled to the Church, after Nostra Aetate was promulgated and without abjuring his eponymous position.
@R2D “The obvious response to your question though is that in their recent statements they have started to proclaim a neo-Feeneyism thats incompatible with both the pre-1958 Catholic understanding of salvation and with Nostra Aetate.”
George Weigel tried to run that the other day. I think, rather than a snippet of a quote, evidence would be needed to accuse the society of neo-Feeneyism.
@R2D
Ratzinger’s “Dominus Iesus” reframes Nostra Aetate. I’d argue that it is more than a course correction. NA is also a “declaration” and has much more limited authority than one of the “constitution” documents from VII. That means that NA is not and cannot be used as an interpretative lens by which to read its own issue. Rather, other magisterial documents inform, limit, and constrain NA and NA interpretation can be informed by later magisterial documents, such as DI. Keep in mind that DI states that the Church of Christ is only present fully in the Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church is defined as the Roman Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation for those who know these facts. Yes, the light of Christ is present outside of the visible boundary but that light is ordered to real and formal membership in the Church. DI is no squish document and very far from the reading of NA following “the spirit of Vatican II”^tm. It is why the progressivists pitched a fit with DI.
Nos 54-66 of the SSPX’s “Profession of Faith” are not Feeneyite positions. They are well-sourced and fully consistent with pre V-II doctrine. State a specific doctrine of post VII (not praxis or interpretation) that the Vatican defines as doctrine that the SSPX disagrees with.
The trap that the progressivists are in is a simple one — doctrine, praxis, and prayer are all intertwined. The SSPX affirms that they hold the doctrine, praxis, and prayer of the Church. This is easily proven. By pointing to the post VII Church and saying “we accept what is doctrine in VII and YOU define what that doctrine is” while saying “we reject the post VII praxis WHERE it is incompatible with Tradition,” it forces the progressives into an untenable position of defining doctrine and praxis. Because if they define those elements in accord with that which allows the progressivist action, they show that the prayer of the Church (specifically the liturgical prayer) has indeed shifted and is no longer the universal prayer of the four marks of the Church.
It is the same trap you are in — name the doctrine that the SSPX disagrees with. The Vatican doesn’t have a defined position on dogma that is contrary to pre-VII. It is all praxis and interpretation of that praxis, and none of that one can force one to believe on pain of damnation. You cannot tie the shift in praxis and interpretation of praxis off to a different doctrine because that shows that the liturgy has changed — so everything gets tied off to a nebulous “spirit of Vatican”^II which is really a pneumatological heresy that is still under the surface. Rather, one is forced into arguing that people must go along with the specific changed praxis (rather than allowing a big-tent the old praxis is allowed as well) because of a post-enlightenment will to power of the sovereign. Ratzinger was smart enough to have avoided the trap. Francis and his buddies decidedly not.
The “living magisterium” of the Church is not synonymous with the present magisterium but rather the magisterial weight of sacred Tradition throughout the ages, which guides and informs the present magisterium, which is but steward of the aforementioned and to which the present magisterium is bound and ordered to. It is “living” because Tradition is life-giving — it is the life of Christ that flows from the Apostles down through the ages to our present time and present magisterium, which is alive due to its degree of connectivity. The voice of the present pope is only the voice of Peter insofar as it is united with Peter’s voice. Infallibility is a circular definition — it is not “because power is exercised, it is true” but rather “in the degree to which power corresponds to the truth, it is exercised.” We as Catholics MUST reject the position that authority makes the law and instead embrace the position that truth makes the law.
@R2D
The SSPX doesn’t wholesale reject NA. That is why they could and were going to sign the 2011 Doctrinal Preamble before Muller scuttled it. Ratzinger was fine with it.
Regarding the accusation that the SSPX is guilty of “neo-Feeneyism,” it is worth considering that the recent SSPX Profession of Catholic Faith addresses this issue in #60: “This truth means that no one can be saved without Christ and His Church, through a false religion as such, nor be assured of His salvation outside the visible structure of the Church. If men are saved without belonging to the visible society which is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, it is by a supernatural ordination to the one Church of salvation, and in spite of the errors of the false religions in which they find themselves, from which they free themselves by not refusing the grace offered to them and by corresponding to it.” Further, footnote 62 to this #60 of the SSPX Profession of Catholic Faith includes the following: “Decree of the Holy Office excommunicating Father Leonard Feeney (13 February 1953). In the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, it is said (DS 3869): ‘In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing’; and (DS 3870): ‘The same thing is to be said of the Church, in as far as it is the general means of salvation. For one is not bound to be incorporated really, as a member, in the Church in order to obtain eternal salvation; it suffices that he belong to her at least by desire and longing. It is not, however, always necessary that this desire be explicit, as it is in catechumens; when one labours under invincible ignorance, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul by which a person wishes his will to conform to the Will of God.’” This seems to sufficiently rebut the claim that the SSPX is guilty of “neo-Feeneyism.”
Honestly, the number of olive branches both publically and privately that have been offered to the SSPX since JPII has been, pardon the pun, extraordinary. They have been so close to reconciliation so many times only to remain obstinent.
Ecclesia Dei was issued 2 days after Lefebre consecrated the last group of Bishops. There will likely be another similar document issued before the end of the week.
In his very interesting 25 June One Peter Five article, “When Pope Leo Allowed Illicit Episcopal Consecrations”, Father Matthew Dimock, Jr. links the English version of the Bollettino including “Today, Wednesday, 15 October 2025, the episcopal ordination of the Reverend Ignatius Wu Jianlin took place. On 11 August 2025, the Holy Father appointed him auxiliary bishop of Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, China, having approved his candidacy within the framework of the Provisional Agreement between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China.” and the Bollettino including “Today, Friday 5 December 2025, the episcopal ordination of the Reverend Francis Li Jianlin, of the clergy of Xinxiang, took place. On 11 August 2025, the Holy Father appointed him as bishop of the Apostolic Prefecture of Xinxiang, Henan Province, China, having approved his candidature in accordance with the Provisional Agreement between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China, and having accepted the resignation from the pastoral care of the same Apostolic Prefecture presented by Bishop Joseph Zhang Weizhu.” – and, in each case, a “Curriculum vitae” of the appointee in question.
I presume ‘we’ know as little of what the Holy Father wrote on 11 August, 2025 – whether to the appointees, or any relevant officials of the diocese of Shanghai or the Apostolic Prefecture of Xinxiang, or of the People’s Republic of China – as we do of the details of “the framework of the Provisional Agreement between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China”.
I presume that all we know is that the Holy Father could have as easily on 3o June written – or yet may as easily on 1 July write – to The Reverend Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X,
‘I appoint each and every one of your candidates, the Reverend Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, the Reverend Pascal Schreiber, the Reverend Michael Goldade, and the Reverend Marc Hanappier bishops’, or words to that effect.
No one is mentioning the elephant in the room. Rome wants the SSPX to explicitly state that the Novus Ordo mass is a valid mass. If the SSPX were to do that, then Rome will order them to celebrate the Novus Ordo because it is the only valid expression of the Latin Rite. When that happens, Rome will have finally succeeded in killing the traditional Latin Mass.
Going to keep it brief:
1) Whatever level of magisterium NA is, it is part of the authentic magisterium of the Roman Church, and refusal to accept it has always been the main sticking point with the SSPX.
2) The first profession of Catholic faith they put out during this whole crisis was condemned even in these comboxes for straying dangerously close to Feeneyism if not crossing the line. Yes, Feeneyism is still condemned as a heresy to whomever pointed out that he was reconciled.
3) None of that matters now because as of about 2 hours ago as I’m typing this, they just rejected the divinely revealed truth of Petrine primacy by their actions (see Ecclesia de adflicta)
(Also apologies for the typos, EN/ES keyboard does weird things when typing in Latin and/or Church terms)
Was said of Bergoglio, “Can someone who publicly dismantles the faith, actually be the visible head of the Roman Catholic Church?” The current occupant of the Vatican is similar to a President, validly elected, but not yet sworn into office, or, in this case, not given the “Keys to the Kingdom”. If Bergoglio was a “True Pope”, protected by Christ’s promises of indefectability,and infallibility, then the “Taco-mama-mania” Idol worship, all pedestrian “walking together” and etc. ad infinitiam, must be embraced without question.
GOTO: Thethesis(dot)US
@WVC
The May 5th protocol did not promise a bishop. It became the basis of the FSSP. Have a look. It’s a publicly available document. You should not go around saying that a bishop was promised to the FSSP.
Nor is it just a “rumor,” except perhaps to those like yourself who have never spoken to the FSSP leadership, that they have quite willingly embraced their position as an apostolate towards bishops. That is to say that each time they get a bishop or a Cardinal to come do their traditional ceremony of ordinations they create an important contact with the hierarchy of the Church and re-inject the older forms of the liturgy into the mainstream. Their apostolate towards bishops has been and continues to be an important reason why there are as many bishops and Cardinals favorable to tradition as we see today.
It’s telling that the sharpest defenders of the SSPX have felt the need to criticize the FSSP with untruths, because the spiritual success of the FSSP’s careful and thoughtful approach is a silent reproach to the SSPX’s choice to “assist a mother in distress” by applying shock therapy. This is the key difference between the two groups : one sees the whole Church as the object of its apostolate while the other would prefer not to be in contact. One group is the leaven buried in three measures of flour, while the other is calling down fire from heaven. They know not what manner of spirit they are.
The May 5th protocol was reached ten months after the announcement of the 1988 consecrations. Archbishop Lefebvre knew that discussions with Rome take time. In 2026 Fr Pagliarani has visibly given up on discussions. Five months is not enough time to set up the apostolic visitation(s) that really ought to be part of serious discussions.
I knew Fr Pagliarani well. He took me to his parents’ house in 2002. His mother gave me a gift for my ordination. But that also means I remember the sedevacantist phase Fr Pagliarani went through years ago. I also remember the lively discussion with Fr Pagliarani in Singapore in 2006 when I told Fr Pagliarani that I believed the newly elected Pope Benedict was acting in good faith towards tradition. Fr Pagliarani exploded at me, yelling that Pope Benedict could not possibly be in good faith because he was a “destroyer of the Church”. One year later Pope Benedict gave us Summorum Pontificum. Sometimes one must give a little bit of time for Providence to work.
@Fr. Jackson
I was not aware that the May 5th Protocol was publicly available. I’ll give it a read. I based my assertion on the public statement of Fr. Bisig, often repeated by him (sometimes while even holding up a piece of paper which I assume is the My 5th Protocol), where he said, “We, the FSSP, are honoring the deal that Archbishop Lefebvre agreed to before he changed his mind and went on with the consecrations.” Since that deal included a bishop for the SSPX, I would understandably have assumed Fr. Bisig’s referred to deal also included a bishop.
I find the news that the FSSP have actually rejected having a bishop both sad and disheartening. As if it would be impossible to continue to be an apostolate towards bishop while still having a bishop. Living in a diocese where a very “tradition friendly” bishop both refused to allow the FSSP to enter into the diocese for years and also turned around and enacted TC with quite strict adherence, and who also hasn’t said a charitable word to any of us TLM faithful ever since – I would caution that putting all the FSSP eggs in the basket of “bishops favorable towards tradition” is a dangerous strategy. And, given that a “favorable” bishop can get replaced with an “unfavorable” bishop, changing the dynamics dramatically in a moment, refusing to take a seat at the leadership table so that a voice dedicated to Tradition (and not simply favorable towards it when convenient) is self defeating and short sighted. By refusing a bishop, the FSSP has refused to participate in any future consistories, run any dicastery, or even directly influence any national councils of Catholic bishops or even any future conclaves.
The criticism definitely goes both ways. I hear quite a lot of anti-SSPX criticism from FSSP priests and seminarians – my close friend’s sons who just returned from the FSSP summer camp complained about how much criticism the seminarians there kept flinging at the SSPX. I find it sad that both sides can’t recognize that there’s plenty of work to do in both positions. To pretend that the FSSP is not doing good within the diocesan Church is foolish, but likewise to pretend that the SSPX is not also doing good from their position, and that the FSSP does not often directly benefit from the work the SSPX is doing, is also foolish. My own diocese finally received an FSSP chaplaincy, but only after the SSPX chapel in that region had shown such growth after COVID and TC that folks in the Chancery couldn’t help but do something to respond.
I am not familiar with or talk with anyone in FSSP leadership. I also don’t know or talk with any priests in the SSPX. I’ve still yet to even set foot in an SSPX chapel, although that will likely change in the near future when I have to find Confirmation for one of my children (something still forbidden by my previously-tradition friendly bishop – he even confirmed my two oldest kids himself in the Traditional form back in the pre-TC days).
I can completely understand folks who argue the timing of the consecrations was imprudent or rushed or that the SSPX did not approach the situation well. I can also understand arguments that Pope Leo made so little effort to engage with the SSPX that there was little reason to hope anything would change after a longer wait. I cannot agree with anyone that believes there is not a grave crisis in the Church, though, or that there is no justification for the SSPX to consecrate more bishops.
But the die has been cast. God help us with whatever the future holds.
@Fr. Jackson
Having read the 5 May Protocols, I find that it does, in fact, call for the Holy Father to provide a bishop (for practical and psychological reasons) appointed from a member from within the society. While it’s phrased as a “suggestion” – within the context of the previous letters from Archbishop Lefebvre as well as his letter on 6 May to Cardinal Ratzinger, it’s clear that the intent was to provide a bishop to the SSPX, and that Lefebvre felt the request to delay the consecrations, once again, was a sign from the Vatican that there would not be a bishop provided after all, which he clearly saw as a deal breaker.
So I don’t think I’m guilty of incorrectly portraying the situation of the FSSP as not having a bishop despite having accepted the “deal” which Archbishop Lefebvre rejected.
@Fr Jackson
“I knew Fr Pagliarani well…..”
Perhaps what you said is true, but is this not detraction? You are a priest of Christ, so I say this with respect but also of necessity, as your collar chains you to less leeway. You are taking private personal knowledge of another individual and using that to cause that individual’s image to be degraded in the eyes of others. In this time of friction, may we please leave off such things, as it does no good to anyone and just invites evil thoughts to spread? I care not about your animas, rather following Abba John the Dwarf, I find I must stop my ears.
@WVC I too have just reread the May 5th Protocol and, even to the FSSPX, there is no promise of a bishop from among their ranks.
There is a declaration (5.1) that there is no need for a bishop since they will be a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Rite approved by the Holy Father. and a promise (5.2) to, nevertheless, suggest to the Holy Father that he “name a bishop chosen in the society proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre.” This last could not be fulfilled in the version given to Fr. Bisig and the newly formed FSSP since Archbishop Lefebvre and the FSSPX had removed themselves from the negotiations.
In any case the FSSP never refused a bishop, because they were never offered one.
@Fr. Kelly
Just to clarify – I was responding to others saying the FSSP refused a bishop which was offered at some later date. I had always assumed that was a rumor, but at least two folks here have assured me that it was true.
I don’t think it’s inappropriate to place the May 5th Protocol in the context of the original negotiations. Archbishop Lefebvre clearly wanted a bishop to provide stability and protection to the SSPX after he was gone. In that light, it’s reasonable to assume the language about “suggestion” for a bishop was his position that the SSPX should be given a bishop. The fact that he wrote a letter the next day explaining his dismay that the Vatican demanded he delay the consecrations again and that he felt this was them reneging on the agreement regarding a bishop adds further context.
So, when Fr. Bisig says things like, “we simply agreed to the same deal that Archbishop Lefebvre agreed to” – I think it’s disingenuous to imply that the deal was not supposed to include a bishop. Given the fallout about the consecrations in 1988, it’s sort of the central theme of the entire affair.
If Fr. Bisig or other leaders in the FSSP were in fact offered a bishop and turned it down – they have not made this information public. And I sort of think they ought to. Because it at least would show that the Vatican, presumably under Pope Benedict, did eventually try to honor that part of the original deal.
@Lurker59
The details I mentioned were not detraction both because the events were quite public at the time (Fr Pagliarani published articles about sedevacantism in the Italian SSPX district journal) and because the person in question was proud of their position and did not view it as a defect. He accused me of a defect – saying that Pope Benedict was acting in good faith in 2006 got me labeled as a liberal in the SSPX of 2006 – but I’m at liberty to divulge my own purported defects.
It’s interesting how I’m being accused of detraction today (by anonymous moralizing posters) when I simply state what were proudly held positions in the ghettoized SSPX world of 20 or 30 years ago. Some examples : Fr Peter Scott, US district superior, published and taught that eating meat on ordinary Fridays of the year was a mortal sin. This conclusion was but one ramification of a wholesale rejection of the 1983 code of Canon Law. Father Philippe Toulza, our seminary theology professor, published and taught that the New Mass is always a grave material sin in itself, mitigated only by ignorance. Father Benoît de Jorna, our seminary rector, published and taught that the celebration of the New Mass is an intrinsically evil moral act. It’s relevant to bring these things up not only because most readers here simply have no idea what we went through inside the SSPX back then, but also because this was the starting point and general atmosphere when the SSPX first started talking to Rome in 2001. There was a long trajectory from 2001 to 2017 during which we hoped the SSPX would reconcile. Things gradually got better inside the SSPX during this time as being in favor of reconciliation slowly entered the Overton window of acceptable discussion in SSPX circles. This strained the SSPX to its core, as evidenced by the letter of the 3 dissenting bishops to Bishop Fellay in 2012. (One bishop made sure to leak the letter so as to maximize impact – long since publicly available.) Ultimately, the members of the General Chapter experienced fatigue from Bishop Fellay’s constant contacts with Rome. That fatigue was expressed in the election of Fr Pagliarani in 2018. It was known that Fr Pagliarani held a more critical view of contacts with Rome. Sure enough, we heard very little about contacts with Rome starting in 2018. The Overton window inside the SSPX began to shift back and the older positions became more common once again.
It’s not detraction to bring up issues that were publicly known – or knowable to those who cared to look – in a time or place that some readers here did not have contact with. I’m from a generation that watched the entire evolution from the inside since 1988. Respectfully, I’m not sure that anonymous and wordy posters here who haven’t seen these things themselves have much of interest to add. I’m mainly here for Fr Z’s careful takes, which I respect.
People in 1054 did not realize that a definitive rupture had taken place. They assumed the excommunications were simply another temporary spat in a long series of disagreements. We only realize the significance of 1054 in hindsight.
I was in contact today with priest colleagues inside the SSPX who confided to me that they will feel obligated in conscience to leave the SSPX given today’s act.
A reconciled SSPX would have been such a powerful force for good. Their rejection of the Personal Prelature is tragic.
I can’t say I’m surprised that the Decree from the Vatican was about as harsh as possible. So far as I’m concerned, Pope Leo has quite definitively shown who he is and what his papacy is about. I no longer have any hope for any improvements on anything while he reigns, which, I suspect, will be for a long time.
And, while this may indeed go down in history as a defining moment, I suggest that history will not look kindly on the Church of Vatican II having a man like Cardinal Tucho being the one to sign his name to the excommunication of the SSPX. We live in times so bizarre it makes an Evelyn Waugh novel look sane and hopeful by comparison.
@Fr Jackson: I’m left of center on politics, but right of center on stuff related to the Church. These comboxes repeatedly scold me for putting obedience to the Holy See on matters of governance above what those who are not members of the Magisterium deem to be the Catholic Faith. You’ll get more deference because you’re a priest, but non-controversial opinions that were non-controversial pre-1958 have suddenly become controversial thanks to the recent turn of events.
Unrelated to the most recent back and forth: a friend pointed out that a way to read Leo XIV’s actions here is through the lens of “settled law”, which having read the DDF documents I agree with.
Essentially it looks like the point of view the Holy See is taking is that St. John Paul II resolved all of this in 1988 and 1996, that its position on this matter of governance has not changed and will not change, and that because of that there is no real need for fanfare for what amounts to a fringe group trying to re-litigate settled canon law disputes of 30+ years ago. Taking this stance, the involvement of the Holy Father would give credibility to a position the Holy See does not deem credible.
We’ll see if there’s a new motu propio, but given the line about apostolic nuncios providing bishops with instructions, I think this is it. TC provides bishops with means to erect chapels, and Ecclesia dei adflicta contains the magisterial teaching on this. There might not be much more to say.