Lefebvrists Fire More Salvos at Post-Catholic Vatican: A Sedevacantist Assessment

Society of Saint Pius X on the brink…

Lefebvrists Fire More Salvos at Post-Catholic Vatican:
A Sedevacantist Assessment

left to right: Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, Mr. Victor Manuel Fernández
(base image is copyright 2025, KNA GmbH, www.kna.de, All Rights Reserved)

Last Wednesday, on May 13, 2026, ‘His Eminence’ Víctor Manuel Fernández issued the following brief statement in his role as prefect of the Vatican’s so-called Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith:

With regard to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, we reiterate what has already been communicated. The episcopal ordinations announced by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X [FSSPX or SSPX] do not have the requisite papal mandate. This act will constitute “a schismatic act” (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, no. 3) and “formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offence against God and entails the excommunication established under Church law” (ibid., 5c; cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, 24 August 1996).

The Holy Father [Leo XIV] continues in his prayers to ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten those responsible for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X so that they may reconsider the extremely grave decision they have taken.

From the Vatican, 13 May 2026

This was really nothing unexpected nor explosive. Fernandez was simply reiterating in a succinct statement what has been the Vatican’s position since at least 1988, and what he had already communicated to the SSPX earlier this year.

The Society of St. Pius X responded the very next day with a doctrinal declaration, and again the following day with a direct response to Fernandez:

In the present post, we will take a somewhat detailed critical look at the first one and provide a few remarks on the second one.

Some Introductory Points

First, as regards the “Declaration of Catholic Faith Addressed to Pope Leo XIV”, it was penned by the SSPX Superior General, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, who issued it with a preface in which he remarked:

Most Holy Father,

For more than fifty years, the Society of Saint Pius X has endeavoured to set before the Holy See a matter of conscience in the face of the errors that are destroying Catholic faith and morals. Regrettably, all the discussions entered into have remained without result, and none of the concerns expressed have received any truly satisfactory response.

For more than fifty years, the only solution truly considered by the Holy See has appeared to be that of canonical sanctions. To our great regret, it seems to us that canon law is thus being used, not to confirm in the Faith, but to lead away from it.

In the text that follows, the Society of Saint Pius X is glad to express to You, filially and sincerely, its devotion to the Catholic Faith, concealing nothing, either from Your Holiness or from the Universal Church.

The Society places this simple Declaration of Faith in Your hands. It seems to us to correspond to the minimum indispensable to be in communion with the Church, and to truly call ourselves Catholics and, consequently, your sons. 

We have no other desire than that of living and being confirmed in the Roman Catholic Faith.

To someone who lives and operates strictly within the SSPX’s theological position of recognize-and-resist, these words will seem very reasonable. However, when they are analyzed from a truly Catholic position, they quickly become unreasonable.

The first problem we notice is that even though Fr. Pagliarani is rightly lamenting “the errors that are destroying Catholic faith and morals”, he is addressing his lament to a ‘Pope’ who does not share that conviction. In fact, most (if not all) the errors Fr. Pagliarani has in mind are embraced by ‘Pope’ Leo XIV as being either true Catholic doctrine or at least in conformity with it. The SSPX superior’s accusation, therefore, that “canon law is thus being used, not to confirm in the Faith, but to lead away from it”, will not impress Leo.

Another major incongruity is that Fr. Pagliarani and the Vatican are not referring to the same thing when they each speak about “the Roman Catholic Faith”, since what constitutes that Faith is among the very issues being disputed between the two parties. It accomplishes little, therefore, to issue a “Declaration of Catholic Faith” to Leo, or to assure him that one has “no other desire than that of living and being confirmed in the Roman Catholic Faith.”

If Leo XIV is clever, he will respond to Fr. Pagliarani using the words of Pope Pius IX regarding the Armenian schismatics in 1873:

The chief deceit used to conceal the new schism is the name of “Catholic.” The originators and adherents of the schism presumptuously lay claim to this name despite their condemnation by Our authority and judgment. It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error. St. Jerome, presbyter, referred to these men, among others, when he said: “The heretics are accustomed to say to their king or to Pharaoh, ‘We are the sons of wise men who have handed down to us from the beginning the Apostolic teaching; we are the sons of ancient kings who are called kings of the philosophers; and we possess the knowledge of the scriptures in addition to the wisdom of the world.’”

But to prove that they are Catholics, the neo-schismatics appeal to what they call a declaration of faith [!], published by them on February 6, 1870, which they insist disagrees in no regard with the Catholic faith. However it has never been possible to prove oneself a Catholic by affirming those statements of the faith which one accepts and keeping silence on those doctrines which one decides not to profess. But without exception, all doctrines which the Church proposes must be accepted, as the history of the Church at all times bears witness.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra, nn. 6-7; underlining added.)

There is a reason why the Society of St. Pius X does not use the 1992 so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, nor does it promote the encyclicals or other magisterial decisions since the atrocious Second Vatican Council (with very few exceptions, perhaps, such as John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of 1994, presumably).

It is, of course, true that the Vatican has never provided a serious, detailed rebuttal to the doctrinal objections of the Lefebvrists (at least not to our knowledge) and has instead responded with disciplinary sanctions. However, since Fr. Pagliarani claims to be adhering to traditional Roman Catholicism, we must remind him of the following words of Pope Pius XII:

The power of the Church is not bound by the limits of “matters strictly religious,” as they say, but the whole matter of the natural law, its foundation, its interpretation, its application, so far as their moral aspects extend, are within the Church’s power. For the keeping of the Natural Law, by God’s appointment, has reference to the road by which man has to approach his supernatural end. But, on this road, the Church is man’s guide and guardian in what concerns his supreme end. The Apostles observed this in times past, and afterwards, from the earliest centuries, the Church has kept to this manner of acting, and keeps to it today, not indeed like some private guide or adviser, but by virtue of the Lord’s command and authority. Therefore, when it is a question of instructions and propositions which the properly constituted shepherds (i.e. the Roman Pontiff for the whole Church, and the Bishops for the faithful entrusted to them) publish on matters within the natural law, the faithful must not invoke that saying (which is wont to be employed with respect to opinions of individuals): “the strength of the authority is no more than the strength of the arguments.”

Hence, even though to someone, certain declarations of the Church may not seem proved by the arguments put forward, his obligation to obey still remains. This was the mind, and these are the words of St. Pius X in his Encyclical Letter Singulari Quadam of September 24, 1912 (A.A.S., vol. 4, 1912, p. 658): “Whatever a Christian man may do, even in affairs of this world, he may not ignore the supernatural, nay, he must direct all to the highest good as to his last end, in accordance with the dictates of Christian wisdom; but all his actions, in so far as they are morally good or evil, that is, agree with, or are in opposition to, divine and natural law, are subject to the judgment and authority of the Church.”

(Pope Pius XII, Allocution Magnificate Dominum, Nov. 2, 1954; underlining added.)

Although the immediate context in which Pius XII was speaking pertained to matters of natural law, this is irrelevant because the principle he is enunciating is a general one that finds applicability in all matters that concern human actions, as we see confirmed by his use of a quote from Pope St. Pius X; and if it applies to natural law, then it applies to religious issues all the more so.

Thus far the brief preface. Next, we will now look at select excerpts from the declaration proper.

A Lefebvrist ‘Declaration of Catholic Faith’

Father Pagliarani begins the SSPX’s profession of faith thus:

DECLARATION OF CATHOLIC FAITH

In the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, divine Wisdom, the Word Incarnate, Who willed one sole religion, Who rendered the Old Covenant definitively null and void, Who founded one sole Church, Who triumphed over Satan, Who conquered the world, Who remains with us until the end of time and Who shall come again to judge the living and the dead.

He, the perfect Image of the Father, the Son of God made man, was appointed the sole Redeemer and Saviour of the world through the Incarnation and the voluntary offering of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Our Lord satisfied divine justice by shedding His Most Precious Blood, and it is in that Blood that He established the New and Eternal Covenant, abolishing the Old. He is therefore the sole Mediator between God and men and the sole way to come to the Father. Only he who knows Him knows the Father.

By divine decree, the Most Holy Virgin Mary has been directly and intimately associated with the entire work of Redemption; to deny this association — in the terms received from Tradition — is therefore to alter the very notion of Redemption as willed by divine Providence.

Even just from reading these initial three paragraphs it becomes clear that the text is written in such a way as to reject — quite rightly, of course — certain major errors of our times.

The emphasis on “one sole religion” is obviously meant to criticize the apostate human fraternity document ratified by ‘Pope’ Francis in 2019 in Abu Dhabi and later confirmed by Leo XIV. The double mention of the Old Covenant having been abolished is clearly directed against the post-Vatican II quasi-doctrine that “the Old Covenant has never been revoked” (Catechism #121). The reference to “one sole Church” is no doubt meant to disparage the Vatican II ecclesiology of ‘partial communion’. And of course the last paragraph in the above quote opposes Mater Populi Fidelis’ rejection of the titles ‘Co-Redemptrix’ and ‘Mediatrix of All Graces’ for Our Lady.

This pattern continues throughout the text, but we will refrain from calling out every single such instance.

The Society’s declaration continues:

There is only one Faith and one Church by which we may be saved. Outside the Roman Catholic Church, and without the profession of Faith that she has always taught, there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.

Consequently, every man must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to save his soul, and there is but one baptism as the means of being incorporated into her. This necessity concerns the whole of humanity without exception and embraces without distinction Christians, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists.

If one believes the very authority the Lefebvrists themselves insist is the true and lawful supreme shepherd of the Roman Catholic Church, indeed the very Vicar of the Son of God, then the SSPX is about to eject itself, through a voluntary act of schism, from that very Church outside of which no one can be saved. This much irony is hard to top.

But notice that Fr. Pagliarani has introduced a little nuance into his declaration that there is no salvation “without the profession of Faith”: He modified the term “Faith” by appending the little relative clause “that she has always taught”. In other words, precisely to avoid the ambiguity in the term “Faith” that we pointed out above, the SSPX declaration is now explicitly restricting the term to “what the Church has always taught”.

There is, however, a problem with this way of putting it. The SSPX ought to be consistent and candid enough to admit that this faith to which they adhere is what the Church used to teach, because the very authorities whom they recognize as the lawful teachers in the Chuch certainly do not teach it (anymore) at present.

Of course in emphasizing their professed adherence to the “Faith that [the Church] has always taught”, the declaration implicitly means to reject the novelties of the Vatican II period (such as, for example, the supposed immorality of the death penalty). However, if the Novus Ordo hierarchy is, as the Lefebvrists believe, the true Roman Catholic hierarchy, then no one can reject the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and all the bishops in union with him on faith and morals on the grounds that it wasn’t taught before:

The SSPX’s proclamation that “every man must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to save his soul” is technically inaccurate, since the dogma does not require membership in the Catholic Church for salvation but only being inside her, which, strictly speaking, is possible without being a member (hence unbaptized catechumens who are martyred for the Faith die inside the Church, but not as members).

The next portion of the declaration we will examine is this:

The Roman Church alone possesses simultaneously the four marks that characterize the Church founded by Jesus Christ: Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity.

Her unity flows essentially from the adherence of all her members to the one true Faith, faithfully preserved, taught, and handed down by the Catholic hierarchy throughout the centuries.

The denial of even a single truth of the Faith destroys faith itself and renders radically impossible all communion with the Catholic Church.

If this be a true expression of what the Lefebvrists believe, then how can they accept Leo XIV as the Pope of the Catholic Church? How can they accept the multitude of clerics, religious, and laity under him as Roman Catholics united in the same Faith? And if this unity, holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity are indeed found in Leo’s church, how could they not want to submit to him, whom they regard as Pope, precisely as the traditional Catholic teaching requires?

For the first and greatest criterion of the faith, the ultimate and unassailable test of orthodoxy is obedience to the teaching authority of the Church, which is ever living and infallible, since she was established by Christ to be the columna et firmamentum veritatis, “the pillar and support of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

Jesus Christ, who knew our weakness, who came into the world to preach the gospel to the poor above all, chose for the spread of Christianity a very simple means adapted to the capacity of all men and suited to every age: a means which required neither learning, nor research, nor culture, nor rationalization, but only willing ears to hear, and simplicity of heart to obey. This is why St. Paul says: fides ex auditu (Rom 10:17), faith comes not by sight, but by hearing, from the living authority of the Church, a visible society composed of masters and disciples, of rulers and of governed, of shepherds and sheep and lambs. Jesus Christ Himself has laid on his disciples the duty of hearing the instructions of their masters, on subjects of living in submission to the dictates of rulers, on sheep and lambs of following with docility in the footsteps of their shepherds. And to shepherds, to rulers, and to teachers He has said, Docete omnes gentes. Spiritus veritatis docebit vos omnem veritatem. Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem sæculi (Mt 28:19-20): “Going, teach ye all nations. The Spirit of truth will teach you all truth. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

(Pope St. Pius X, Allocution Con Vera Soddisfazione, May 10, 1909)

This is the clear teaching of the SSPX’s own patron saint, Pope Pius X, incidentally.

With regard to the Catholic teaching on the Papacy, the Lefebvrist declaration merely states:

The Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, is the sole possessor of supreme authority over the whole Church. He alone directly confers on the other members of the Catholic hierarchy jurisdiction over souls.

“The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might make known, by His revelation, a new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is, the Deposit of the Faith.” [Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4]

Father Pagliarani must think that the quoted text from the First Vatican Council’s Pastor Aeternus restricts papal authority. Indeed it does, but not in the way the SSPX thinks.

It is a very common mistake among recognize-and-resisters to believe that the dogmatic statement that the Holy Ghost was not given to the Popes so they can invent new doctrines, means that if the Pope is found to have deviated from traditional teaching, then, in virtue of this conciliar text, the faithful can and must dismiss it, denounce it, ignore it, reject it, resist it. But this would mean that papal teaching is continually subject to review by a kind of ‘orthodoxy police’ after the fact, and of course that would be preposterous, because the ultimate guardian of orthodoxy is precisely the Pope and not his inferiors.

The true meaning of the council’s teaching, rather, is that because the Holy Ghost was given to the Pope to preserve the Faith and not invent new doctrines that the his teaching will always be in conformity with the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. In other words, the First Vatican Council wasn’t telling the faithful to ensure the Pope won’t get away with teaching novelty; it was simply pointing out that the function of God’s special assistance to the Papacy is to keep the Apostolic See from ever deviating from “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3; cf. Heb 1:1-2) rather than have new revelation divulged.

So, yes, the Pope’s teaching authority has limits, but these limits are imposed a priori (applied before any papal action) by God Himself, by divine constitution; they are not applied a posteriori (after the fact) by self-appointed papal correctors, such as the SSPX, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Kennedy Hall, or Eric Sammons):

The SSPX declaration ends with these words:

It is in this Faith and in these principles that we ask to be instructed and confirmed by Him Who has received the charism to do so. With the help of Our Lord, we would rather die than renounce them. It is in this immutable Faith that we desire to live and die, in the hope that it may give way to the direct vision of the immutable eternal Truth.

The Lefebvrists’ recognition of Leo XIV as the Pope of the Catholic Church is what makes their entire declaration absurd. Here they are asking “to be instructed and confirmed” by a man whom they are instructing on what the Catholic Faith is.

The words of Pope Pius VI against Febronianism are very relevant here: “In every age it has been preached as the teaching of the Gospel that the sheep were entrusted to Peter, by Christ for him to provide for their food, not Peter who was entrusted to the sheep to receive his spiritual nourishment from them” (Apostolic Constitution Super Soliditate).

In the controversy between the SSPX and the ‘Holy See’, who is teaching whom? Not without a certain justification Leo XIV could ask them: “What need have you of being instructed and confirmed in the faith by me, when apparently you are doing just fine on your own?”

Fr. Gleize’s Retort to ‘Cardinal’ Fernández

Lastly, we turn briefly to the response to ‘Cardinal’ Fernandez’s May 13 warning Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize wrote, which was published on May 15.

It begins with the words “Physician, heal yourself” (Lk 4:23) and is followed by a total of eight numbered paragraphs, most of which simply outline the canonical arguments the SSPX likes to use in its defense. One of them states:

In the homily he delivered on the day of the consecrations, June 30, Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre already alluded to various canonical studies written by specialists in the field, which could be used to legitimize the act of episcopal consecration on that occasion of June 30. Among these studies, that of Professor Rudolf Kaschewsky was initially published in the March-April 1988 issue of Una Voce-Korrespondenz.

This is not the place now to engage the Lefebvrists’ canonical arguments, nor is it really necessary. In any trial, the accused will have a defense, but that defense does not decide the case. The accused may have experts answering in his favor, but so will the prosecution, to his detriment. Either way, it does not belong to the accused to judge his own case — that is left to the judge or the jury.

Thus, the SSPX’s most fundamental error lies beyond the canonical dispute about this or that law, precept, or penalty. The error is to consider itself authorized to pass judgment on its own case, and to refuse the judgment of the ‘Roman Pontiff’. They do this even though Vatican I plainly teaches:

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, Ch. 3; Denz. 1830; underlining added.)

In disclaiming the judgment of the man they insist is the Pope, the Society actually confirms the most serious charge made against them: schism, that is, refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff.

He who is a schismatic is not a Catholic; not because he does not believe or profess the true Faith — he does — but because he refuses to be governed by the Pope. Thus Pope Pius XII taught: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed” (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 22).

Tragically, Fr. Gleize does not seem to care. In the final paragraph of his response to the Vatican, he asks defiantly: “Excommunicated? But by whom? By those who receive the blessing of a schismatic woman, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally? By those who authorize the blessing of Fiducia supplicans? And who kneel before Pachamama?” Although these words may be rhetorically brilliant, Fr. Gleize has not done the SSPX a favor here, for he has just exposed the absurdity of the Lefebvrists’ position.

The SSPX is trying to have it both ways: On the one hand, Leo XIV is the “Most Holy Father” and “Your Holiness”, as Fr. Pagliarani addressed his declaration “filially and sincerely”; and it is consequently from him that they request the “papal mandate” for their scheduled episcopal consecrations. On the other hand, when this “Most Holy Father” does not do as they wish, they remember that he is really a nobody on account of his heresies and other scandals.

These two things simply don’t go together. If Leo’s heresies, errors, blasphemies, and other scandals are sufficient to allow the Society to question “by whom” they are being excommunicated, then they must also ask themselves of whom they are requesting a papal mandate for episcopal consecrations in the first place. If the one is absurd, so is the other. If the one is not absurd, neither is the other.

Alas, this is simply the latest installment in the unending soap opera that is Lefebvrist theology. We have called it “theological Absurdistan” for a reason.

By the way: Similar arguments have been made by SSPX supporters on social media. Some seem to think that warnings, condemnations, or excommunications from (what they recognize as) the lawful Church authority cease to have any force if the people who issue them are personally moral reprobates. Such a view is a dangerous error and perhaps even approaching heresy — think of the similarities with Donatism –, as it assumes, falsely, that ecclesiastical authority proceeds from personal moral uprightness and not from lawful ecclesiastical appointment, which is rooted, ultimately, in the commission given by Christ to St. Peter and the other Apostles.

The Society of Saint Pius X is fighting a losing battle. They are trying to square the circle by seeking to adhere to the traditional Roman Catholic Faith while at the same time recognizing people who reject that Faith as the legitimate Catholic hierarchy. Tragically, in attempting to pull off this impossible balancing act, they too end up abandoning that very Faith they so profess to hold.

And for what? For people who receive the blessing of a schismatic woman, authorize the blessing of Fiducia supplicans and who kneel before Pachamama?

Image source: composite with elements from laportelatine.org, YouTube (thumbnail), and KNA GmbH (Alessia Giuliani/CPP/KNA)
Licenses: fair use and rights-managed

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.