Vatican Proposal to SSPX: Call Off the Bishops’ Consecrations and We’ll Talk!

Fr. Pagliarani meets with ‘Cardinal’ Fernandez…

Vatican Proposal to SSPX:
Call Off the Bishops’ Consecrations and We’ll Talk!

In the words of the American baseball player Yogi Berra, “It’s déjà vu all over again.”

This morning, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), Father Davide Pagliarani, together with the two remaining bishops of the Society, Alfonso de Galarreta and Bernard Fellay, had a formal meeting with the Vatican’s Prefect of the so-called Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘His Eminence’ Victor Manuel Fernandez.

The meeting had been announced last week after the SSPX Superior announced the Society would consecrate more bishops on July 1, regardless of whether Robert Prevost (‘Pope Leo XIV’) grants them a mandate to do so or not:

According to official Novus Ordo church law (1983 Code of Canon Law), ordaining a bishop without a papal mandate results in immediate and automatic excommunication, without the need for a declaration (see Canon 1387). Clearly, the SSPX has a problem on its hands.

That the Vatican’s front man for negotiating ‘full communion’ status with the SSPX is Victor Fernandez, doesn’t help things. The osculatory therapist from Argentina may be known for a lot of things, but being an uncompromising bulwark of doctrinal orthodoxy isn’t one of them.

In 2023, in an official response to dubia submitted by ‘Cardinal’ Dominik Duka, he took the official position that adultery could be merely a venial sin in certain cases. And of course he is also the notorious author of the Vatican declarations Fiducia Supplicans on the blessing of homo couples and Dignitas Infinita on man’s supposedly ‘infinite’ dignity, which apparently does not completely rule out bodily mutilation for victims of the transgender ideology.

So that is the man with whom Fr. Pagliarani is to come to an agreement concerning doctrine and the choice of new bishops. Congratulations.

After the meeting today, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith swiftly released a statement in Italian, which has since been translated by third parties. The following is the full English version of the text as published by the indult Rorate Caeli blog:

DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
COMMUNIQUÉ
Regarding the meeting between the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Superior General of the FSSPX

On February 12, 2026, a cordial and sincere meeting took place at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith between the Prefect, His Eminence Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, and the Superior General of the FSSPX (Society of Saint Pius X), the Reverend Don Davide Pagliarani, with the approval of the Holy Father Leo XIV.

After clarifying certain points presented by the FSSPX in various letters, particularly those sent between 2017–2019 — among other matters, discussion concerned the question of the divine will regarding the plurality of religions — the Prefect proposed a specifically theological dialogue process, with a well-defined methodology, concerning themes that still lack sufficient clarification, such as the difference between an act of faith and “religious submission of mind and will,” or the different degrees of assent required by various texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and its interpretation. At the same time, he proposed addressing a series of topics listed by the FSSPX in a letter dated January 17, 2019.

The purpose of this process would be to highlight, in the debated topics, the minimum requirements necessary for full communion with the Catholic Church and consequently to outline a canonical status for the Fraternity, together with other aspects requiring further study.

It was reiterated on the part of the Holy See that the ordination of bishops without a mandate from the Holy Father — who holds ordinary supreme power that is full, universal, immediate, and direct (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 331; [Vatican I] Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, chaps. I and III) — would imply a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism), with grave consequences for the Fraternity as a whole (John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, July 2, 1988, nos. 3 and 5c; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, August 24, 1996, no. 1).

Therefore, the possibility of carrying out this dialogue presupposes that the Fraternity suspend the announced decision regarding episcopal ordinations.

The Superior General of the FSSPX will present the proposal to his Council and will give his response to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In the case of a positive response, the steps, stages, and procedures to be followed will be established by mutual agreement.

All the Church is asked to accompany this journey, especially in the coming time, with prayer to the Holy Spirit. He is the principal agent of the true ecclesial communion willed by Christ.

[Signed] + Victor Fernández

Depending on from what theological perspective one views the above press release, and what points one wishes to emphasize or de-emphasize, one can generate rather differently-sounding headlines from this text for one’s news report or commentary. This accounts for what we’ve seen so far in that regard:

The Society of St. Pius X issued its own press statement on the meeting late on Feb. 12:

Evidently, the Vatican is taking a very confident approach to dealing with the SSPX. Fernandez even unearthed a reference to the First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus on papal primacy! Ironically, that very document the Vatican’s ecumenical dicastery is currently trying to deconstruct in the name of ‘Christian unity’, but no matter. For present purposes, the dogma of the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction is coming in quite handy for him!

All this despite the fact that just a few days ago, on Jan. 27, 2026, Fernandez opened his dicastery’s first plenary meeting of the year by warning his colleagues to avoid “deception by living too securely in what we think we know”, telling them that “we must reflect, think, and analyze reality, but while also listening to others, welcoming their perspectives … and opening ourselves to other points of view” (source). Strangely, Fernandez’s approach to the SSPX seems rather rigid, speaking of “requirements” and “grave consequences” if they’re not met, including a “decisive rupture”, “schism”, and “excommunication”. Why such unmerciful words against an ecclesiastical periphery, Your ‘Eminence’?

So the Vatican’s doctrinal office proposes to the SSPX to “highlight, in the debated topics, the minimum requirements necessary for full communion with the Catholic Church” (emphasis in original text). Perhaps Fr. Pagliarani can counter with a proposed ecumenical approach that transcends conversion to the demands of the ‘Holy See’ and instead seeks unity as a ‘gift of the Spirit’ by both sides simply ‘drawing closer to Christ’?

In response to a threatened excommunication or the charge of schism, the SSPX superior general could quote ‘Pope’ Francis, who in a General Audience of Feb. 2, 2022 taught that it is impossible for people ever to be excluded from the Church: “The Church is the community of saved sinners [sic]. This is a beautiful definition. No one can exclude themselves from the Church”, his apostate mouth proclaimed. Besides, what about the SSPX bishops’ “infinite dignity”, Mr. Fernandez?

Of course the present Vatican ‘offer’ puts the SSPX in a somewhat difficult position because their need for bishops is pressing and they cannot postpone episcopal consecrations indefinitely in the hopes of reaching some kind of agreement with the Unholy See in the meantime.

The game of delaying bishops’ ordinations again and again is what the Vatican played with SSPX founder Abp. Marcel Lefebvre in 1987-88, until the latter finally had enough and, especially on account of his advanced age, went ahead with the consecrations anyway. It was clear that the Neo-Modernists in Rome were hoping for Abp. Lefebvre to die before he could carry out these consecrations, but that was not to happen. (Lefebvre’s chief negotiator, we might point out, was ‘Cardinal’ Joseph Ratzinger, the future ‘Pope’ Benedict XVI.)

In this latest round of the Vatican-SSPX battle, the Unholy See clearly has the upper hand. In order to avoid a Pyrrhic victory, Fr. Pagliarani and his advisors must pull off a balancing act between meeting the Vatican on its terms and yet also not splitting their own adherents or driving them away. Meanwhile, their organization is too large to have only two bishops serve it for an unspecified amount of time, contingent upon a mutually acceptable resolution to a dialogue that could go on for years with no realistic prospect of success. Obviously, the ‘Holy See’ knows that and therefore can afford to be bold in making its moves. The SSPX has more to lose than the Vatican.

Some are making a big deal about the “different degrees of assent required by various texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council” Fernandez mentioned, as if this were some kind of opening or concession on the part of Rome. Yet, from the very beginning, ‘Pope’ Paul VI was clear. A few weeks after solemnly closing the Second Vatican Council, which had ended on Dec. 8, 1965, the fake ‘Roman Pontiff’ said:

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents.

(Paul VI, Audience of Jan. 12, 1966; English translation from The Pope Speaks 11, n. 2 [Spring 1966], pp. 152-154; underlining added. Italian original here.)

Acceptance of doctrinal statements with an assent that is less than that of Faith is nothing new: “Internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See authentically approved by the Supreme Pontiff”, Fr. Joachim Salaverri wrote in Thesis 15 of his treatise On the Church of Christ, first published in 1955 (in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, vol. I-B, p. 241).

In fact, the issue of the assent required to non-infallible doctrinal statements was raised in the Protocol of Accord of May 5, 1988, which then-‘Cardinal’ Ratzinger succeeded in getting Abp. Lefebvre to sign — only to find the archbishop renouncing the agreement the very next day. This document included the following line: “We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical Magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.” Here is the most relevant part of the passage in question:

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

(Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 25; underlining and italics added.)

Considering what has been taught in this manner since the council by people whom the SSPX acknowledges as Popes, and considering how unwilling the Lefebvrists have been to countenance the possibility that the men who have been wrecking Catholicism in their official acts and documents for decades are not actually what they claim to be, the SSPX has maneuvered itself into a position that requires them to refuse assent to this teaching in Lumen Gentium — a teaching that, ironically, is quite traditional!

To our knowledge, no ‘Pope’ since 1965 ever demanded that the SSPX accept everything in Vatican II with the assent of Faith, which would be absurd. That not everything the council says — if we suppose for a moment, for the sake of argument, that Paul VI was a true Pope — requires the assent of Faith, but some of it merely an assent of obedience, is beyond dispute, since it deals with many matters not directly connected with Divine Revelation. But the kind of assent that would be owed to the apostate pseudo-council if it were a real Catholic council is not really relevant, because no assent may be given to its errors. In other words, it doesn’t matter what kind or degree of assent Leo XIV and his henchmen will propose to the Lefebvrists for ‘full communion’ status because the problem is the assent itself.

From the Lefebvrist side, it seems clear that attempting to negotiate their way to getting bishops that would be acceptable both to them and the Unholy See, would be a fool’s errand. Do they really think that ‘Smoochie’ Fernandez will be able to ‘clarify’ doctrinal matters in such a way that traditionalists will no longer find them objectionable, without the Vatican repudiating any of its obvious errors? Has it really all been merely a matter of misunderstanding of things that only need to be ‘clarified’? And do they really think that reconciliation with Club Prevost will happen fast enough for them to be able to keep going with only two elderly bishops for the time being? Do they really think that Leo XIV — or his successor — will give a mandate for the consecration of candidates they will find acceptable every time? Let’s not kid ourselves.

The SSPX wants, and (in a sense) needs, autonomy, and this shows the SSPX to be quintessentially schismatic in nature. The fact that Leo XIV, the man whom they refuse submission to, is not in fact the Pope, is merely incidental to the whole problem since the Lefebvrists insist on recognizing him as a true Pope. Many think that their acceptance of Leo’s claim to the Papacy shows they are not schismatic, but this is false.

As Fr. Ignatius Szal (1918-2010) explained in his 1948 canonical dissertation, the notion of schism (pure schism, unmixed with heresy) actually requires that the schismatic recognize the man whom he disobeys as the legitimate Pope to whom submission is owed (otherwise he is guilty also of heresy): “…despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, p. 2). Thus also Pope Pius IX had pointed out to the Chaldean schismatics of his time, “is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is recognized as a duty?” (Encyclical Quae in Patriarchatu [Sept. 1, 1876], nn. 23-24; in Acta Sanctae Sedis X [1877], pp. 3-37; English taken from Papal Teachings: The Church, nn. 433).

Despite any and all potential agreements, ‘deals’, or guarantees, for as long as the Lefebvrists retain their fundamentally schismatic attitude, they will not actually render genuine submission to whom they profess in words to be the legitimate and supreme Catholic authority. For they are clearly of the mindset that, ultimately, it is they who will decide and not the (supposed) Pope. They (effectively) overturn his decisions, and they will not accept him overturning theirs in any meaningful sense. They want to be able to determine who their bishops will be, and they determine if they have been validly excommunicated or not. They trust their judgment, not the post-Catholic Vatican’s. (Of course, who can blame them for not trusting the Neo-Modernists who’ve been gradually snuffing out Catholicism in souls since the 1960’s? But then, why do they care to be in communion with them?)

However, Catholic dogma is clear:

And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.

(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 3; Denz. 1830)

The 1917 Code of Canon Law, solemnly promulgated by Pope Benedict XV, translates this dogma into a canonical principle: “Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur” —  “The First See is judged by no one” (Canon 1556). Writing in 1922, Fr. Thomas J. Burke explained as follows:

The Roman Pontiff has received from Christ supreme authority over the whole Church, and it follows from this very fact that he, in the direction of the faithful to eternal salvation, possesses full jurisdiction and all its attributes. He alone, or together with a Council called by him, can make laws for the universal Church, abrogate them or derogate from them, grant privileges, appoint, depose, judge or punish Bishops. He is the supreme judge by whom all causes are to be tried; he is the supreme judge whom no one may try.

…It is not becoming that the supreme legislator [i.e. the Pope] should be subject to other laws, except to those which emanate from the Sovereign Pontificate; it is not becoming that he who constitutes the tribunal of appeal for all men, rulers as well as subjects, should be judged by his inferiors….

The divine law upon which rests pontifical immunity in spiritual things, is also the foundation upon which is built the ecclesiastical law in things partly spiritual and partly temporal. That the Apostolic See is subject to no judgment is affirmed by Boniface VIII in these terms, “The superiority of the Church and ecclesiastical power over the State and civil power is verified by the prophecy of Jeremias, ‘I have set thee this day over the nations, and over kingdoms to root up, and to pull down, and to waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant’ [Jer 1:10]. Therefore, if the earthly power shall go astray, it shall be judged by the spiritual; and if a lesser spiritual power shall go astray, by its superior: but if the supreme power shall go astray, he can be judged by God alone, not by man, according to the Apostle, ‘The spiritual man judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man’” [Bull Unam Sanctam].

…

The Roman Pontiff is declared to be free from subjection to any forum or tribunal by the first Canon in De Fore Competente. “Prima Sedes a nemine judicatur” [Canon 1556]. By the Prima Sedes is meant the Roman Pontiff, as is apparent from the nature of the thing [cf. Canon 7]. The Sacred Congregations, Tribunals and Offices by means of which the Pope is wont to transact the affairs of the Church are not included in this immunity, and their members may be judged by the Pope himself or by his delegate. The reason why the Pope can be judged by no one is evident. No one can be judged by another unless he is subject to that person, at least with respect to the subject matter of the trial. Now, the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, who is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, and to him has been entrusted the commission to feed His lambs and His sheep. In no way, therefore, can he be subjected to any man or to any forum, but is entirely immune from any human judgment. This principle, whether taken juridically or dogmatically suffers no exception.

(Rev. Thomas Joseph Burke, Competence in Ecclesiastical Tribunals [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1922], pp. 85-87; underlining added.)

Catholic doctrine really has no room for the SSPX’s practical position with regard to Rome. They want ‘guarantees’ before signing an agreement, but in the Catholic Church, the only guarantee needed is given by God Himself: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). As Pope Leo XIII explains: “The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail” (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 12).

In other words, the Papacy is the guarantee. The real nature of the problem we have today is that the papal throne is vacant, not that it is filled by anti-Catholics who can only be submitted to if they agree to ‘guarantee’ that they will not interfere in the doctrine, government, or worship of a particular group.

But does the Society of St. Pius X believe in the Papacy?

Image source: composite with elements from doctrinafidei.va and Shutterstock (Proton-stock)
License: fair use and paid

Share this content now:

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.