What are we to make of the (February 18, 2026) response from Father Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X to Cardinal Victor Fernandez, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Rooted in pessimism, the SSPX is demonstrably negative by questioning Rome’s intentions and yet urging continuing discussions that are deemed futile. The SSPX has lost sight of the fact that the current standoff is untenable for them and detrimental to the universal Church. One cannot simultaneously claim fidelity and then further treacherous nonconformity. The Pope is the visible head of the Church. He is the Vicar of Christ. Repudiation of that authority ultimately leads to one of two scenarios: either one will defect from the true Church or else, ecclesial authority has been assumed by an anti-pope and the chair of Peter is vacant.
Father Pagliarani spills the beans for rejecting the Vatican’s goals for dialogue by saying he “cannot accept the perspective and objectives” offered by the Dicastery. He writes: “We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” He contends that this stems from “a rupture with the Tradition of the Church,” positing the culpability with the Pope and most of the Church’s bishops or Magisterium. Blame would also be assigned the majority of the Church’s laity who went along with the changes. It is unclear how he would reconcile his dissent with the solidarity of the Pope, episcopacy and the sense of the faithful as such functions providentially under divine grace as verification to Christian doctrine.
He stamps as abhorrent the Vatican insistence that “the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged.” Consequently, he is blunt in spurning any dialogue that will foster a sincere reunion, present or future tense. However, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about the cross-pollination of the liturgies, furthering a more organic reform upon the old and new. Apparently the SSPX does not buy the distinction between the questionable “spirit” of Vatican II and the actual orthodox texts or teachings. The Church is not going to permit any overt renunciation of an ecumenical council, but that does not mean that Vatican II is the last word. Indeed, the council’s directives about social communication are now largely obsolete. He is saying that Rome treats Vatican II with the same intransigence with which he does Trent. This simply is not the case.
While many of us would argue for correctives in Pope Francis’ “Evangelii Gaudium” (November 2013), “Amoris Laetitia” (March 2016) and “Traditionis Custodes” (July 2021), it is worth noting that Father Pagliarani also dissents and regards as problematic, Pope John Paul II’s “Redemptor Hominis” (March 1979) and “Ut Unum Sint” (May 1995). The SSPX wrongly critiques “Redemptor Hominis” as revoking the Church’s teaching about original sin and the plight of fallen man. The late Pope merely advances the implications of incarnation and redemption regarding all humanity. Arguing the sanctity of life and dignity of “persons” from the mystery of the God-Man and his saving work speaks to both the natural man as made in “the image of God” and the even greater high calling of the new “spiritual” man remade in “the likeness of Christ” by supernatural grace. Christ’s redemptive work is his gift to us but “fallen men” who would be saved must accept the gift by faith in Christ and membership in his Church. The SSPX is similarly over-reaching in its caricature of “Ut Unum Sint” as entitling Protestants to all the spiritual benefits that come with membership in the Catholic Church. The rigid voices of condemnation would insist that we cannot pray with heretics and that whatever faith they have is of no value or merit. The SSPX makes no acknowledgment of shared elements of faith or a common love for Jesus. They are infuriated that any might speak of “an invisible church” where certain Protestants and Catholics are together closer to the truth than many within their respective confessions. But while not denying that the Mystical Body is most appropriately identified with the Catholic Church, we should not underestimate the ties of genuine baptism and the evidence that an appreciable number of non-Catholics are intellectually closer to the truth than many fellow Catholics who dissent from Church teachings. Further many deeply believe and practice their faith, as with the Coptic martyrs who in witness to Christ had their throats cut by the ISIS Islamic terrorists. A third of the Catholic clergy in England began as Anglican prelates. What Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged draws believers to Catholic unity.
The prospect of schism and/or excommunication is posited as threats by Rome and yet it is the Society that has forced Rome’s hand. Father Pagliarani dictates to the Magisterium what is magisterial. This is an absurdity. The Society is still smarting from previous dialogue. He mentions this in his letter: “Yet, everything ultimately ended in a drastic manner, with the unilateral decision of Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who, in June 2017, solemnly established, in his own way, ‘the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church,’ explicitly including the entire Council and the post-Conciliar period.”
A shared recognition that we cannot concur about doctrine but only about “charity toward souls” is akin to our relationship with Orthodox or maybe even the Protestant sects— but it falls far short of the ecclesial union demanded under the Pope. While the Society cites against schism its traditional theology and constancy in Church teaching, such is not the Holy See’s assessment. Charity alone will not keep them in good standing. The divergence is clear, the Lefebvrites view themselves as Catholics opposed to a Protestant Rome. Any affiliation with the Holy See is simply an anachronistic nostalgia for a Rome that was. Does this attitude from the SSPX not convey schismatic intent? I believe so. The Society deems regularization as “impracticable due to doctrinal divergences.” Closing the letter, as a final twist of the knife, he signs off—”His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.” I suspect that the mystery of Mary’s cooperation with her Son’s saving work is a new item added to the Society’s list of objections.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: excommunication, Latin Mass, schism, sspx, Vatican II | Leave a comment »
Blogger Priest 