Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the Superior of the SSPX, preached in French for about 37 minutes at the consecration of new bishops. The English translation is some 2100+ words. The English voice-over in THIS video is a bit loose. The English translation is HERE.
HOWEVER… as I listened, Pagliarani also spoke about the Most Precious Blood of the Lord. That part doesn’t result in the linked transcript. I found a way to tease it out and I will include it, as is, after this precis of the released version.
I’ve been saying in conversations that the SSPX and Rome (the tight circle now around Leo) are talking past each other, as if they were speaking difference languages. This is something that Pagliarani underscores.
A major theme is the inseparability of faith and Church.
Here is a summary for your convenience.
Pagliarani leads off saying the episcopal consecrations at Écône as a solemn, historic, and divisive event, but one whose meaning must be understood primarily as a manifestation of faith. He begins by thanking those who prepared the ceremony and those who traveled as pilgrims, then immediately frames the day’s central question: what do these consecrations mean? His answer is that they are not chiefly political, organizational, or sociological. They are an act ordered to preserving, living, and transmitting the Catholic faith as the Church has always taught it.
The speaker rejects the charge that one must choose between preserving the integral faith and remaining in the Church. He calls this a false dilemma. For Pagliarani, membership in the Church is founded above all on the integral profession of the faith of the Church. Therefore, he argues, fidelity to Tradition is not separation from the Church, but the very means of remaining within her. He insists that the Society does not seek a parallel Church, a factional identity, or a mere traditionalist sensibility. Its purpose is continuity with the faith, priesthood, Mass, sacraments, and doctrine handed down through twenty centuries.
Pagliarani also addresses accusations of disobedience or hostility toward the Pope. He insists that the Pope is loved and honored as Vicar of Christ, but argues that this love requires resisting situations in which the papal office appears, in his view, humiliated by being placed on the same level as false religions. He describes the conflict as one of language: the Society speaks “the language of faith” and Tradition, while the contemporary ecclesial establishment speaks the language of inclusion, listening, dialogue, and accompaniment. Pagliarani does not entirely reject accompaniment, but insists that it must follow the transmission of truth. The correct order, he says, is faith first, then Christian life, then accompaniment.
Pagliarani defends the consecrations as exceptional means proportionate to an exceptional need. He calls them a prudential provision for the future rather than provocation, challenge, or declaration of war. The reason for consecrating four bishops is described plainly: to secure the future, since the present bishops will not live forever and it would be irresponsible to wait until emergency conditions become irreversible. The act is therefore a foresight in service of the Church.
Pagliarani then turns to the new bishops. They are warned that they are receiving both an immense grace and a heavy cross. They are exhorted not to seek honor, power, or personal interest, but to disappear so that Christ may be known. Their office is defined in traditional episcopal terms: to preserve and transmit doctrine, sanctify souls, pray, sacrifice, and unite truth with charity. Pagliarani stresses that a bishop does not exist to manage an organization, cultivate publicity, or administer projects, but to lead souls to Heaven. At judgment, he says, what will matter is whether they preserved the faith, transmitted grace, and sanctified souls.
In addressing the faithful, Pagliarani speaks of their sacrifices, families, prayers, support for seminaries, and perseverance are praised as essential to the survival of this work. They are urged to remain simple, Catholic, humble, peaceful, and charitable. He warns them against controversy for its own sake, bitterness, resentment, and loss of hope. Even amid ecclesial crisis, he urges serenity because Christ has already conquered sin, death, and the world.
Pagliarani closes by presenting the consecrations not as an endpoint, but as a beginning. The future task is to continue forming priests, preaching, sanctifying souls, building Christian families, and handing on the faith whole and entire. His final appeal is Marian: the Blessed Virgin is invoked to preserve the Church, protect the Holy Father, strengthen the new bishops, sustain priests, and obtain perseverance in fidelity until death.
That was the sermon overall, but without the following:
On the feast of today, the feast of the Most Precious Blood, Our Lord very providentially expresses and summarizes perfectly the significance of these consecrations. He permits us to bring everything down to one point, to summarize everything in the Precious Blood of Our Lord.
He who does not know this Blood, who does not adore it and love it, does not know Our Lord and does not know the Redemption. And he who does not know Our Lord knows nothing and has understood nothing.
The Precious Blood is the unique remedy, the only remedy, the first and the last remedy for all the evils that afflict humanity. Why? Because all these evils come from sin. And the remedy for sin is the Precious Blood.
Everything evil comes from sin, and from one sin in particular. It is always the same kind of sin, from the very beginning until now: the exaltation of man. It is pride.
We are soaked in this today. This exaltation of man is everywhere: man as a wonder, man as seemingly perfect, man as seemingly possessing infinite power. In fact, all of this only pushes him toward pride. Ultimately, it pushes him toward contempt for God and toward apostasy, a silent apostasy. It comes from that.
And the more we exalt man, the more we become unbalanced, the more we become fanatics. We become far from God, and far from the true perfection of man. This is a disaster.
Man, full of all his rights, full of himself, becomes incapable of turning toward God, incapable of recognizing that he is wounded by sin. He needs redemption. He needs Our Lord. He needs His Precious Blood. That is the greatest evil of today, and of all history. It is the source of all the other evils, this disease, this excessive idea of man.
We have to recognize that. It penetrates very deeply. Unfortunately, even in the Church, this disease makes one blind. It blinds souls. It is not this that will bring souls back to God.
And so, by these consecrations, we want to do something. We want to continue to preach the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We want to continue, in a certain way, to spread and pour out this Blood upon souls.
It is in His Blood that Our Lord founds His Church, the new and eternal covenant, and there is only one. Whoever thinks that there are two or three covenants no longer believes in the infinite and unique power of the Blood of Our Lord.
And in speaking of the power, the value, and the dignity of the Precious Blood of Our Lord, we cannot forget where it comes from. It was formed, brought forth, and furnished by the most pure blood of Our Lady.
It was Our Lady who gave to the Word His humanity. It was in her most pure and immaculate blood that the humanity of Our Lord was formed, and that the Blood of Our Lord was formed. And it is she who offers it with Our Lord for us.
It is she who first saw the Blood flow from Our Lord’s wounds on the Cross. It is she who collects it at the foot of the Cross, who keeps it, and who still presents it at the altar. It is she who, at Mass, spreads these graces to souls.
She has understood the power and the dignity of this Blood.
What a mystery. What a mystery, this association of Our Lady with her divine Son, always at His side.
You can see how all our faith, all our religion, all our love, turns around Our Lord, because everything turns around this Blood.
Thank you for providing these summaries of the sermon. I have trouble listening to long sermons, particularly ones in French (which I don’t speak).
A big AMEN !
What he says about Bishops is beautiful and humble. I see none of this in some of our local Bishops.
Thank you for these words, Father. I was up watching at 3 AM. It was really beautiful. I observed what I believe was relief on Bp. Fellay’s face, and a great seriousness in the new bishops’ faces. They know what they are in for.
We know that for the SSPX, the only change is they have six bishops now instead of two. Their work, their demeanor, their prayers are all the same as yesterday.
I’m somewhat hearing, “Don’t become the late +Williamson.” I don’t doubt that the late Archbishop deeply regrets that particular consecration now. The question now is if Leo will make his own decisions on how to proceed or if he will outsource it to Tucho…
Thank you Father Z for providing this sermon information. I could not watch the ceremony as I was at work.
Although the day has a tinge of sadness due to the (needless) division and infighting which will result, I see it ultimately a great victory for the Catholic Church. How modest and restrained the SSPX Bishops are. Were it up to me, I would have consecrated a dozen men on the principle that you are as well to be hung for a sheep, as for a lamb.
I am deeply grateful for the selflessness of the SSPX Bishops (both old and new) – and indeed the clergy – who are willing to bear their crosses of calumny and isolation for the sake of we ordinary lay people who depend on them.
I have met some of the Bishops. Years ago, I attended SSPX confirmations in Edinburgh to experience the traditional ceremony. Bishop de Galaretta was the Bishop. Fr (now Bishop) Marc Happanier was for a period assigned to the SSPX Chapel I attend (Glasgow), seemingly in order to improve his English.
Both His (now) Lordship and everyone else was stunned to discover that Glasgow was seen as a place to learn anything about the English language, much less improve it! I suppose if you can understand Glaswegians, you can understand anyone.
Very friendly and approachable, both men struck me as extremely humble yet quietly determined men, full of love for Our Lord and intent on spending their lives in His service.
I have read the decrees issued by the Vatican in the wake of the consecrations and regard them as being completely meaningless. For one thing, all the Bishops and clergy need to do under canon law is to appeal their excommunications, which will immediately suspend the penalties until the appeals are heard.
Of course, the appeals will never be heard – just as +Lefebvre’s own appeal was never heard – because the Church is a highly dysfunctional organisation and today its laws are not used to ensure objectively fair and equitable treatment, but as selective tools of political suppression and bullying.
For example, why can the (canonically regular traditionalists) Institute of the Good Shepherd openly criticise Vatican 2, but the SSPX cannot? How can the Canadian Bishops issue a document like the Winnipeg Statement without sanction, yet the SSPX quickly receives sanction for its perceived transgressions?
Who would take these outrageous double standards seriously? I do not. I try to respect authority, but I do not accept myself (or others) being treated unfairly, or as being 2nd class.
For both lay people and clerics, canon law makes allowances for those who genuinely believe there to be a state of emergency (even in the case where they are wrong – though that does not apply here, very obviously).
Add in the Vatican’s contradictory approach to the Chinese Government consecrating Bishops, and its pandering to protestant groups and false religions, and it is clear the Vatican’s documents and threats are hardly to be taken seriously. It is sad to say that, but it is true. There are no governing Catholic principles in the Church of today, it is now just a political machine.
Perhaps the most disappointing thing for me in all of this, is the total lack of imagination and engagement on the part of Pope Leo and his hierarchy. I take no pleasure in criticising them, but how can we not be disappointed in them?
Leo describes Sarah Mullaly as his “sister in Christ”, but Fr Davide Pagliarani is excommunicated? This is insulting drivel. The obvious question is – if Leo is siblings with Sarah, what does an excommunication mean at all?
To prevent setting the Church back, could Pope Leo not have found it in his heart to allow this – what harm would result? It would only have maintained the status quo and without causing division. Would this path not been more appropriate for a Church which speaks of inclusion and mercy? Or are those just empty slogans for use purely when convenient?
Why cannot the Church, instead of scolding, choose to “accompany” the SSPX, the way it chooses to “accompany” all manner of groups and individuals who live in open rejection of Church teaching?
Seemingly all the Church can offer us is a re-run of the last 40 years. We have just had the non-serious excommunications. Cardinal Mueller has already proposed re-creating Ecclesia Dei. Maybe in a few years, we could again lift the non-serious excommunication and start the latest round of meaningless “dialogue”?
The hierarchy are yesterday’s men with yesterday’s solutions. Saving face and maintaining an illusion of authority are their main drivers. They clearly have no real understanding of the situation and no interest in digging into it, given the contradictions, double-speak and legal mess such an effort would uncover. Much easier just to paint the SSPX as schismatics.
So, my 3 kids and I will continue to attend our SSPX Chapel in good conscience. We will continue to receive the sacraments, hear solid preaching and continue to revere the beautiful and authentic liturgies we experience there.
Kissy Face Fernandez would have been as well to save his paper – its good for the environment, you know! His document references the “Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of 1996” when talking about schism.
This reference talks about the danger of exclusively attending SSPX services – this made me laugh, as previously I went to great effort to ensure my kids regularly attended TLMs at Diocesan venues too – until the Church took these Masses away (thanks Bergoglio). But now the Church is bleating about us “exclusively attending” SSPX services?
Again, am I supposed to take this seriously? All I can muster is a massive teenage-style sigh and eye roll.
Third Order SSPX here.
As we heard from last Sunday’s homily from our SSPX priest: “Remain at peace. There is nothing new to see here and the state of the Church is more grave than ever.”
I thank Heaven for these consecrations and the renewed future they bring to the SSPX; I feel at peace. I pray for the Pope and his cardinals. I don’t feel any different now that we’ve been declared “re-schismed”, and I pray to the Mediatrix of All Graces for the triumph of Eternal Rome.
If the SSPX truly desires to be united with Rome, these consecrations would have been conducted simply and without fanfare.
I say this as a person who has over the years, attended the TLM regularly, a “reverent Novus Ordo” regularly, and Byzantine Divine Liturgy regularly. I prefer the TLM to the Novus Ordo any day of the week, all else equal, though I’d switch Rites to the Byzantine if I could.
Thank you, Father, for this summary. There is much to admire in Fr. Pagliarani’s sermon, but this statement seems self-contradictory:
“The speaker rejects the charge that one must choose between preserving the integral faith and remaining in the Church.” If the SSPX is not in the Church, having rejected Papal authority, then exactly what faith are they preserving?
I did not watch the consecrations, but I was told that there was a lightning strike/clap of thunder during the Canon of the Mass. Any comment?
@Tomasthetorque – I watched it and kept thinking that the stormy weather was not a good omen for what they have just done.
@Gabriel Syme “Why cannot the Church, instead of scolding, choose to “accompany” the SSPX, the way it chooses to “accompany” all manner of groups and individuals who live in open rejection of Church teaching?”
Why indeed. There must be a reason. Why would Rome have this singular bugaboo? Why are only the persons who hold to the doctrines of the Church and the Catholic religion as taught by the Apostles the ones who cannot be included in “todos, todos, todos!”? Why does every other group, all of whom reject on some level the Catholic Church and Vatican II (including Muslims, Protestants, Hindus…you name it), receive a warm welcome and a com’on in!!!! and yet those who actually hold the Catholic Faith as taught by the Apostles and Church Fathers are rejected, the door shut in their faces? How can this be? Why would this be?
There must be a reason….
It seems to me the reason is that we are witnessing the fulfillment of the program by those who control the world through usury to overthrow the Catholic Church, the program started long ago, having some measure of success in 1517 (Protestant Revolution), and 1789 (French Revolution), and 1917 (Bolshevik Revolution) and witnessed by St. Maximilian Kolbe in Rome in 1917, when the Freemasons, celebrating the 200th anniversary of their establishment, marched in Rome carrying banners saying Satan would rule in St. Peter’s and that the Pope would be his slave, and depicting Satan crushing St. Michael. Is that not what we are seeing happening now? Would St. Maximillian Kolbe think so?
The only group unacceptable are actual Catholics who hold the true Faith.
The most dangerous enemy is the one who works hidden behind the scenes to effect the destruction of his enemies by poisoning the wells.
If nothing else, I am so grateful and heartened by the SSPX’s actions that served to issue a resounding and emphatic NO!!! to all those working so hard to destroy the Faith from both within and outside the Church. The SSPX’s actions are not like Luther’s, denying the doctrines taught by the Apostles. Their actions are like St. Athanasius’, denying the false doctrine of the Arians.
And what does it say about the Church as it exists today that the SSPX’s consecration of bishops warranted an excommunication, because if that Church professed the same Faith as professed by the SSPX, then why deny them bishops in the first place?
When I look at the SSPX, and then at many of the bishops and clergy I have known or witnessed over 60 yrs., I am filled with a sense of disgust. No doubt I have met some very good, holy priests in my day as a 67 yr. old life long Catholic. But when I compare the nonsense, sacrilege and plain BS I have witnessed as a Catholic vs. the seriousness, holiness and sincerity of the SSPX, I am disgusted to no end. The Vatican is a rats nest of woke, worldly,and weird men- not all, thank the Lord, but enough to make this Catholic wonder, if I had to choose, where and with whom to live out my Faith, to whom would I go?
“the Society speaks “the language of faith” and Tradition, while the contemporary ecclesial establishment speaks the language of inclusion, listening, dialogue, and accompaniment”
This is pretty straightforwardly heretical.
It proposes just for starters that the Church is to be viewed as being primarily institutional, whereas in fact Holy Church is the Communion of the Saints, the Quick and the Dead, with the Angels and through our Lord Jesus with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and through the Judgment of the Lord upon His Throne in Heaven as to who is and who is not saved.
Holy Church is NOT defined by such limited and transient political opinions.
“We are soaked in this today. This exaltation of man is everywhere: man as a wonder, man as seemingly perfect, man as seemingly possessing infinite power. In fact, all of this only pushes him toward pride. Ultimately, it pushes him toward contempt for God and toward apostasy, a silent apostasy. It comes from that.</i"
Well said.
But these very words are condemnatory of this Act of Schism.
Weather:
Rain is typically understood as “divine blessing”, a lightning strike independent of rain, not so much. Doves getting nailed by a crow, extra not so much. Though, we must be careful not to be superstitious.