Bishop Schneider Appeal to Pope Leo XIV

A Fraternal Appeal to Pope Leo XIV to Build a Bridge with the Priestly Society of St. Pius X

by Bishop Athanasius Schneider

The current situation regarding the episcopal consecrations in the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has suddenly awakened the entire Church. Within an extraordinarily short time following the February 2nd announcement that the SSPX will proceed with these consecrations, an intense and often emotionally charged debate has arisen throughout wide circles of the Catholic world. The spectrum of voices in this debate ranges from understanding, benevolence, neutral observation, and common sense to irrational rejection, peremptory condemnation, and even open hatred. Although there is reason for hope—and it is by no means unrealistic—that Pope Leo XIV could indeed approve the episcopal consecrations, already now proposals for the text of a bull of excommunication of the SSPX are being put forward online.

The negative reactions, though often well-intentioned, reveal that the heart of the problem has not yet been grasped with sufficient honesty and clarity. There is a tendency to remain at the surface. Priorities within the life of the Church are reversed, elevating the canonical and legal dimension—that is, a certain juridical positivism—to the supreme criterion. Moreover, there is at times a lack of historical awareness concerning the Church’s practice with respect to episcopal ordinations. Disobedience is thus too readily equated with schism. The criteria for episcopal communion with the Pope, and consequently the understanding of what truly constitutes schism, are viewed in an overly one-sided manner when compared with the practice and self-understanding of the Church in the Patristic era, the age of the Church Fathers.

In this debate, new quasi-dogmas are being established that do not exist in the Depositum fidei. These quasi-dogmas maintain that the Pope’s consent to a bishop’s consecration is of divine right, and that a consecration carried out without this consent, or even against a papal prohibition, constitutes in itself a schismatic act. However, the Church’s practice and understanding during the time of the Church Fathers, and for a long period thereafter, argue against this view. Furthermore, there is no unanimous opinion on this matter among the recognized theologians of the Church’s two-thousand-year tradition. Centuries of ecclesial practice, as well as traditional canon law, also stand in opposition to such absolutizing assertions. According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, an episcopal consecration carried out against the will of the Pope was punished not with excommunication, but only with suspension. By this, the Church clearly manifested that she did not consider such an act to be schismatic.

The acceptance of papal primacy as a revealed truth is often confused with the concrete forms—forms that have evolved throughout history—through which a bishop expresses his hierarchical unity with the Pope. To believe in the Papal Primacy, to acknowledge the actual Pope, to adhere with him to all that the Church has taught infallibly and definitively, and to observe the validity of the sacramental liturgy, is of divine right. Yet, a reductive view that equates disobedience to a papal command with schism—even in the case of a bishop’s consecration performed against his will—was foreign to the Church Fathers and to traditional canon law. For example, in 357, St. Athanasius disobeyed the order of Pope Liberius, who instructed him to enter into hierarchical communion with the overwhelming majority of the episcopate, which was in fact Arian or semi-Arian. As a result, he was excommunicated. In this instance, St. Athanasius disobeyed out of love for the Church and for the honor of the Apostolic See, seeking precisely to safeguard the purity of doctrine from any suspicion of ambiguity.

In the first millennium of the Church’s life, episcopal consecrations were generally performed without formal papal permission, and candidates were not required to be approved by the Pope. The first canonical regulation on episcopal consecrations, issued by an Ecumenical Council, was that of Nicaea in 325, which required that a new bishop be consecrated with the consent of a majority of the bishops of the province. Shortly before his death, during a period of doctrinal confusion, St. Athanasius personally selected and consecrated his successor—St. Peter of Alexandria—, in order to ensure that no unsuitable or weak candidate would assume the episcopate. Similarly, in 1977, the Servant of God Cardinal Iosif Slipyj secretly consecrated three bishops in Rome without the approval of Pope Paul VI, fully aware that the Pope would not allow it because of the Vatican’s Ostpolitik at the time. When Rome learned of these secret consecrations, however, the penalty of excommunication was not applied.

To avoid misunderstanding, under normal circumstances—and when there is neither doctrinal confusion nor a time of extraordinary persecution—one must, of course, do everything possible to observe the canonical norms of the Church and to obey the Pope in his just injunctions, in order to preserve ecclesiastical unity both more effectively and visibly.

But the situation in the life of the Church today can be illustrated with the following parable: A fire breaks out in a large house. The fire chief allows only the use of new firefighting equipment, even though it has been shown to be less effective than the old, proven tools. A group of firefighters defies this order and continues to use the tried-and-tested equipment—and indeed, the fire is contained in many places. Yet these firefighters are labelled disobedient and schismatic, and they are punished.

To extend the metaphor further: the fire chief permits only those firefighters who acknowledge the new equipment, follow the new firefighting rules, and obey the new firehouse regulations. But given the obvious scale of the fire, the desperate struggle against it, and the insufficiency of the official firefighting team, other helpers—despite the fire chief’s prohibition—selflessly intervene with skill, knowledge, and good intentions, ultimately contributing to the success of the fire chief’s efforts.

Faced with such rigid and incomprehensible behavior, two possible explanations present themselves: either the fire chief is denying the seriousness of the fire, much like in the French comedy Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise!; or, in fact, the fire chief desires that large parts of the house burn, so that it may later be rebuilt according to a new design.

The current crisis surrounding the announced—but as yet unapproved—episcopal consecrations in the SSPX exposes, before the eyes of the whole Church, a wound that has been smouldering for over sixty years. This wound can be figuratively described as ecclesial cancer—specifically, the ecclesial cancer of doctrinal and liturgical ambiguities.

Recently, an excellent article appeared on the Rorate Caeli blogspot, written with rare theological clarity and intellectual honesty, under the title: “The Long Shadow of Vatican II: Ambiguity as Ecclesial Cancer” (Canon of Shaftesbury: Rorate Caeli, February 10, 2026). The fundamental problem with some ambiguous statements of the Second Vatican Council is that the Council chose to prioritize a pastoral tone over doctrinal precision. One can agree with the author when he says:

“The problem isn’t that Vatican II was heretical. The problem is that it was ambiguous. And in that ambiguity, we’ve seen the seeds of confusion that have flowered into some of the most troubling theological developments in modern Church history. When the Church speaks in vague terms, even if unintentionally, then souls are at stake.”

The author continues:

“When a doctrinal ‘development’ seems to contradict what came before, or when it requires decades of theological gymnastics to reconcile with previous magisterial teaching, we have to ask: Is this development, or is it rupture disguised as development?” (Canon of Shaftesbury: Rorate Caeli, February 10, 2026).

One may reasonably assume that the SSPX desires nothing more than to help the Church emerge from this ambiguity in doctrine and liturgy and to rediscover her saving perennial clarity—just as the Church’s Magisterium, under the guidance of the Popes, has done unequivocally throughout history after every crisis marked by doctrinal confusion and ambiguity.

In fact, the Holy See should be grateful to the SSPX, because it is currently almost the only major ecclesiastical reality that forthrightly and publicly points out the existence of ambiguous and misleading elements in certain statements of the Council and the Novus Ordo Missae. In this endeavor, the SSPX is guided by a sincere love for the Church: if they did not love the Church, the Pope, and souls, they would not undertake this work, nor would they engage with the Roman authorities—and they would undoubtedly have an easier life.

The following words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre are deeply moving and reflect the attitude of the current leadership and most members of the SSPX:

“We believe in Peter, we believe in the successor of Peter! But as Pope Pius IX says well in his dogmatic constitution, the pope has received the Holy Ghost not to make new truths, but to maintain us in the faith of all time. This is the definition of the Pope made at the time of the First Vatican Council by Pope Pius IX. And that is why we are persuaded that in maintaining these traditions we are manifesting our love, our docility, our obedience to the Successor of Peter. We cannot remain indifferent before the degradation of faith, morals, and the liturgy. That is out of the question! We do not want to separate ourselves from the Church; on the contrary, we want the Church to continue!”

If someone considers having difficulties with the Pope to be among his greatest spiritual sufferings, that in itself is a telling proof that there is no schismatic intent. True schismatics even boast of their separation from the Apostolic See. True schismatics would never humbly implore the Pope to recognize their bishops.

How truly Catholic, then, are the following words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

“We regret infinitely, it is an immense pain for us, to think that we are in difficulty with Rome because of our faith! How is this possible? It is something that exceeds the imagination, that we should never have been able to imagine, that we should never have been able to believe, especially in our childhood–then when all was uniform, when the whole Church believed in her general unity and held the same Faith, the same Sacraments, the same sacrifice of the Mass, the same catechism.”

We must honestly examine the evident ambiguities regarding religious freedom, ecumenism, and collegiality, as well as the doctrinal imprecisions of the Novus Ordo Missae. In this regard, one should read the recently published book by Archimandrite Boniface Luykx, a Council peritus and renowned liturgical scholar, with its eloquent title A Wider View of Vatican II. Memories and Analysis of a Council Consultor.

As G. K. Chesterton once said: “Upon entering the church, we are asked to take off our hat, not our head.” It would be a tragedy if the SSPX were completely cut off, and the responsibility for such a division would rest primarily with the Holy See. The Holy See should bring the SSPX in, offering at least a minimum degree of Church integration, and then continue the doctrinal dialogue. The Holy See has shown remarkable generosity toward the Communist Party of China, allowing them to select candidates for bishops—yet her own children, the thousands upon thousands of faithful of the SSPX, are treated as second-class citizens.

The SSPX should be allowed to make a theological contribution with a view to clarifying, supplementing, and, if necessary, amending those statements in the texts of the Second Vatican Council that raise doctrinal doubts and difficulties. This must also take into account that, in these texts, the Magisterium of the Church did not intend to pronounce itself with dogmatic definitions endowed with the note of infallibility (cf. Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966).

The SSPX makes exactly the same Professio fidei as that made by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, known as the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei. If, according to the explicit words of Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council did not present any definitive doctrines, nor intend to do so, and if the faith of the Church remains the same before, during, and after the Council, why should the profession of faith that was valid in the Church until 1967 suddenly no longer be considered valid as a mark of true Catholic belief?

Yet the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei is considered by the Holy See to be insufficient for the SSPX. Would not the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei in fact constitute “the minimum” for ecclesial communion? If that is not a minimum, then what, honestly, would qualify as a “minimum”? The SSPX is required, as a conditio sine qua non, to make a Professio fidei by which the teachings of a pastoral, and not definitive, nature from the last Council and the subsequent Magisterium must be accepted. If this is truly the so-called “minimum requirement,” then Cardinal Victor Fernández appears to be playing games with words!

Pope Leo XIV said at the ecumenical Vespers on January 25, 2026, at the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, that there is already unity between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians because they share the minimum of Christian faith: “We share the same faith in the one and only God, the Father of all people; we confess together the one Lord and true Son of God, Jesus Christ, and the one Holy Spirit, who inspires us and impels us towards full unity and the common witness to the Gospel” (Apostolic Letter In Unitate Fidei, 23 November 2025, 12). He further declared: “We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, experience it and make it visible!”

How can this statement be reconciled with the claim made by representatives of the Holy See and some high-ranking clergy that the SSPX is not doctrinally united with the Church, given that the SSPX professes the Professio fidei of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council—the Tridentine-Vatican Professio fidei?

Further provisional pastoral measures granted to the SSPX for the spiritual good of so many exemplary Catholic faithful would stand as a profound testimony to the pastoral charity of the Successor of Peter. In doing so, Pope Leo XIV would open his paternal heart to those Catholics who, in a certain way, live on an ecclesiastical periphery, allowing them to experience that the Apostolic See is truly a Mother also for the SSPX.

The words of Pope Benedict XVI should awaken the conscience of those in the Vatican who will decide on the permission of episcopal consecrations for the SSPX. He reminds us:


“Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew” (Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform carried out in 1970, 7 July 2007).


“Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? And should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her?” (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009).[1]

Provisional and minimal pastoral measures for the SSPX, undertaken for the spiritual good of the thousands upon thousands of its faithful around the world—including a pontifical mandate for episcopal consecrations—would create the conditions necessary to calmly clarify misunderstandings, questions, and doubts of a doctrinal nature arising from certain statements in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent Pontifical Magisterium. At the same time, such measures would provide the SSPX with the opportunity to make a constructive contribution for the good of the entire Church, while maintaining a clear distinction between what belongs to divinely revealed faith and doctrine definitively proposed by the Magisterium, and what has a primarily pastoral character in particular historical circumstances, and is therefore open to careful theological study, as has always been the practice throughout the life of the Church.

With sincere concern for the unity of the Church and the spiritual good of so many souls, I appeal with reverent and fraternal charity to our Holy Father Pope Leo XIV:

Most Holy Father, grant the Apostolic Mandate for the episcopal consecrations of the SSPX. You are also the father of your numerous sons and daughters—two generations of the faithful who have, for now, been cared for by the SSPX, who love the Pope, and who wish to be true sons and daughters of the Roman Church. Therefore, stand aside from the partisanship of others and, with a great paternal and truly Augustinian spirit, demonstrate that you are building bridges, as you promised to do before the whole world when you gave your first blessing after your election. Do not go down in the history of the Church as one who failed to build this bridge—a bridge that could be constructed at this truly Providential moment with generous will—and who instead allowed a truly unnecessary and painful further division within the Church, while at the same time synodal processes that boast of the greatest possible pastoral breadth and ecclesial inclusivity were taking place. As your Holiness recently stressed: “Let us commit ourselves to further developing ecumenical synodal practices and to sharing with one another who we are, what we do and what we teach (cf. Francis, For a Synodal Church, 24 November 2024)” (Homily of Pope Leo XIV, Ecumenical Vespers for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, January 25, 2026).

Most Holy Father, if you grant the Apostolic Mandate for the episcopal consecrations of the SSPX, the Church in our day will lose nothing. You will be a true bridge-builder, and even more, an exemplary bridge-builder, for you are the Supreme Pontiff, Summus Pontifex.

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

24 February 2026


[1] 2026 Annual Statistics of the FSSPX: Total Members: 1,482; Bishops: 2; Priests (excluding bishops): 733; Seminarians (including those not yet committed): 264; Religious Brothers: 145; Oblates: 88; Religious Sisters: 250; Average age of members: 47 years; Countries served: 77; Districts and Autonomous Houses: 17; Seminaries: 5; Schools: 94 (of which 54 in France).

Robert Cardinal Sarah Response to SSPX Consecrations

"To abandon Peter’s boat and organize oneself autonomously and in a closed circle is to surrender to the waves of the storm."

"Before It's Too Late" Call For Unity By Cardinal Robert Sarah

«You are the Christ, the Son of the living God» (Mt 16, 16). With these words, Peter, questioned by the Master about the faith he has in Him, expresses in synthesis the heritage that the Church, through apostolic succession, has guarded, deepened, and transmitted for two thousand years: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, that is, the only Savior. «These words so clear from Pope Leo XIV on Peter’s faith, the day after his election, still resonate in my soul». The Holy Father thus summarizes the mystery of the faith that the bishops, successors of the apostles, must never cease to proclaim. Now, where can we find Jesus Christ, the only Redeemer? Saint Augustine answers us clearly: «Where the Church is, there is Christ». That is why our concern for the salvation of souls translates into our commitment to lead them to the only source that is Christ, who gives Himself in His Church. Only the Church is the ordinary way of salvation; it is, therefore, the only place where faith is transmitted in its entirety. It is the only place where the life of grace is given to us fully through the sacraments. In the Church there is a center, a mandatory point of reference: the Church of Rome, governed by the Successor of Peter, the Pope. «And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it» (Mt 16, 18).
To abandon Peter’s boat is to surrender to the waves of the storm

I want to express my deep concern and profound sadness upon learning of the announcement by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, founded by Msgr. Lefebvre, to proceed with episcopal ordinations without pontifical mandate.

We are told that this decision, which would disobey the law of the Church, is motivated by the supreme law of the salvation of souls: suprema lex, salus animarum. But salvation is Christ, and He gives Himself only in the Church. How can one claim to lead souls to salvation by other paths different from those He Himself has indicated to us? Is wanting the salvation of souls to tear the mystical Body of Christ in perhaps an irreversible way? How many souls are at risk of being lost because of this new rupture?

We are told that this act seeks to defend Tradition and the faith. I know how much the deposit of faith is sometimes despised today by those very ones who have the mission to defend it. I know that some forget that only the uninterrupted chain of the life of the Church, of the proclamation of the faith and of the celebration of the sacraments, which we call Tradition, gives us the guarantee that what we believe is the original message of Christ transmitted by the apostles. But I also know, and I firmly believe, that at the heart of the Catholic faith is our mission to follow Christ, who became obedient unto death. Can we really dispense with following Christ in His humility to the Cross? Is it not betraying Tradition to take refuge in human means to maintain our works, even if they are good?

Our supernatural faith in the indefectibility of the Church can lead us to say with Christ: «My soul is sorrowful unto death» (Mt 26, 38), upon seeing the cowardice of Christians and even of prelates who renounce teaching the deposit of faith and prefer their personal opinions on matters of doctrine and morals. But faith can never lead us to renounce obedience to the Church. Saint Catherine of Siena, who did not hesitate to admonish cardinals and even the Pope, exclaimed: «Always obey the pastor of the Church, for he is the guide that Christ has established to lead souls to Him». The good of souls can never pass through deliberate disobedience, because the good of souls is a supernatural reality. Let us not reduce salvation to a worldly game of media pressure.

Who will give us the certainty of being truly in contact with the source of salvation? Who will guarantee us that we have not taken our opinion for the truth? Who will preserve us from subjectivism? Who will guarantee us that we remain irrigated by the only Tradition that comes to us from Christ? Who will assure us that we are not getting ahead of Providence and that we follow it by letting ourselves be guided by its indications? To these anguishing questions there is only one answer, given by Christ to the apostles: «He who hears you hears me. Those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; those whose sins you retain, they are retained» (Lk 10, 16; Jn 20, 23). How to assume the responsibility of straying from this only certainty?

We are told that it is done out of fidelity to the previous Magisterium, but who can guarantee it if not the Successor of Peter himself? Here there is a matter of faith. «Whoever disobeys the Pope, representative of Christ on earth, will not participate in the blood of the Son of God», said Saint Catherine of Siena as well. It is not a matter of worldly fidelity to a man and his personal ideas. It is not a matter of a cult of the Pope’s personality. It is not a matter of obeying the Pope when he expresses his own ideas or personal opinions. It is a matter of obeying the Pope when he says, like Jesus: «My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me» (Jn 7, 16).

It is a matter of a supernatural gaze on canonical obedience, which guarantees our bond with Christ Himself. It is the only guarantee that our struggle for the faith, Catholic morals, and liturgical Tradition does not deviate toward ideology. Christ has given us no other sure sign. To abandon Peter’s boat and organize oneself autonomously and in a closed circle is to surrender to the waves of the storm.

I know well that often, even within the Church, there are wolves disguised as lambs. Did not Christ Himself warn us of this? But the best protection against error remains our canonical bond with the Successor of Peter. «It is Christ Himself who wants us to remain in unity and that, even wounded by the scandals of bad shepherds, we do not abandon the Church», Saint Augustine tells us. How can we remain insensitive to Jesus’ prayer full of anguish: «Father, that they may be one as we are one» (Jn 17, 22)? How can we continue to tear His Body under the pretext of saving souls? Is it not He, Jesus, who saves? Are we and our structures the ones who save souls? Is it not through our unity that the world will believe and be saved? This unity is first and foremost that of the Catholic faith; it is also that of charity; and it is, finally, that of obedience.

I would like to recall that Saint Padre Pio of Pietrelcina was unjustly condemned during his life by men of the Church. When God had granted him a special grace to help the souls of sinners, he was forbidden to hear confessions for twelve years. What did he do? Did he disobey in the name of the salvation of souls? Did he rebel in the name of fidelity to God? No; he kept silent. He entered into crucifying obedience, certain that his humility would be more fruitful than his rebellion. He wrote: «The good God has made me understand that obedience is the only thing that pleases Him; it is for me the only means to hope for salvation and to sing victory».

We can affirm that the best means to defend the faith, Tradition, and authentic liturgy will always be to follow the obedient Christ. Christ will never command us to break the unity of the Church.

Originally published in French in Le Journal Du Dimanche.

Español

Gerhard Cardinal Müller Response to SSPX

"If the Society of St. Pius X wants to have a positive impact on church history, then it cannot fight for the true faith from a distance and from the outside against the Church united with the Pope…”

Gerhard Cardinal Müller, Rome

Vatican (kath.net) The General Council of the Society of St. Pius X published a letter of reply to Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, at its meeting in Menzingen on February 18, 2026.

It refers to the long road of intensive dialogue between the Holy See and the Society leading up to the pivotal date of June 6, 2017. Then follows a harsh attribution of sole blame at the end of this – in their view – hopeful dialogue, asserting: “But everything ultimately ended drastically through a unilateral decision by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Müller, who, in his own solemn way, established the necessary minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church, explicitly including the entire Council and the ‘post-conciliar’ period.”

Since this concerns the great good of the unity of the Catholic Church, which we all profess in faith, personal sensitivities should take a back seat.

Church history teaches us how schisms, unlike heresies, also arose and solidified among orthodox Catholics. The reasons for this were human failings, theological dogmatism, and also a lack of sensitivity on the part of legitimate authority. One need only recall the Donatists, with whom St. Augustine had to contend; the controversy surrounding Jansenism, which led to the Schism of Utrecht with the illegitimate episcopal consecration of Cornelius Steenoven (October 15, 1724); and also the Old Catholics after the First Vatican Council with the illegitimate episcopal consecration of Hubert Reinkens (August 11, 1873), although this latter group, with its formal denial of the dogma of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and his primacy of jurisdiction, ultimately descended into heresy.

However, there are clear criteria for Catholic orthodoxy and full Catholic membership, formulated since the time of the martyred bishop Ignatius of Antioch (at the beginning of the 2nd century) and increasingly refined since then, especially at the Council of Trent against the Protestants. Essential to these criteria is full communion with the universal Church and especially with the College of Bishops, which has its perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity in revealed truth in the Roman Pontiff, as the personal successor of St. Peter. While other ecclesial communities may claim to be Catholic because they agree wholly or almost entirely with the faith of the Catholic Church, they are not truly Catholic unless they also formally recognize and practice the Pope as the supreme authority and sacramental and canonical unity with him.

There is no doubt that the Society of St. Pius X agrees with the Catholic faith in substance (apart from the Second Vatican Council, which it erroneously interprets as a departure from tradition). And if it does not recognize the Second Vatican Council in whole or in part, it contradicts itself, since it rightly states that the Second Vatican Council did not present a new doctrine in the form of a defined dogma for all Catholics to believe. The Council itself is based on the clear awareness that it stands in the line of all ecumenical councils, and especially the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council. Its sole purpose was to present to the faithful, in a dogmatic and profound way, the ever-valid doctrine of Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) and the Church of the Triune God (Lumen Gentium), within its entirety. Nor was the liturgy to be reformed as if it were outdated. Contrary to the progressive narrative, the Church does not need to undergo any kind of medical rejuvenation, as in a biological aging process. For it was founded once and for all by Christ, because in his divine person all newness came into the world unsurpassed and remains present in the Church's doctrine, life, and liturgy until his return at the end of history (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies IV, 34, 1). The Church, as the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit, is young and alive until Judgment Day (even if some appear old within it through unbelief and sin, i.e., they refuse to overcome the old Adam within themselves).

The very substance of the sacraments and their essential form are given to us and beyond any intervention by the Church (Council of Trent, Decree on Communion under One Kind, Chapter 2: DH 1728), while ecclesiastical authority is entitled to determine their ritual form, but not arbitrarily and authoritatively, rather with great respect for established ecclesiastical traditions and the sensibilities and sense of faith of the faithful. Therefore, conversely, the assertion that the Latin liturgy according to the Roman Missal and Ritual (according to the ancient rite) is illegitimate because the law of prayer is the law of faith (Pseudo-Celestine, Indiculus, Chapter 8: DH 246) is theologically false. This principle refers to the content of the faith expressed in the sacraments, not to their external ritual form, of which there have been many variations throughout Church history up to the present day. Therefore, every Catholic is entitled to criticize the motu proprio "Traditionis custodes" (2021) and its often undignified implementation by intellectually overwhelmed bishops, as well as their inadequate theological argumentation and pastoral recklessness. However, the doubt that the Holy Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI (for example, because of the possibility of concelebration, the orientation of the altar, the use of the vernacular) contradicts the Church's tradition as a normative criterion for interpreting Revelation (and is permeated by Masonic ideas) is theologically absurd and unworthy of a serious Catholic. The actual abuse of the liturgy (carnival masses, the atheist rainbow flag in the church, arbitrary changes according to one's own taste) is not to be blamed on the rite of the Novus Ordo or even the Council, but on those who, through ignorance or frivolity, are gravely guilty of these blasphemies and liturgical abuses before God and the Church.

Nor can any true Catholic be expected to accept every document that comes from Rome or an episcopal authority without criticism. Irenaeus of Lyon, Cyprian of Carthage, Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, Catherine of Siena, Cardinal Bellarmine, Bishop Ketteler of Mainz (in his dealings with Pius IX), and many others have rightly complained about certain statements and actions (such as the authoritarian mass disenfranchisement of many religious orders during the last pontificate, which were arbitrarily placed under commissariat).

And so, orthodox bishops have also taken offense at more recent documents in which dogmatic and pastoral arguments have become entangled in a dilettantish manner, or when ill-considered statements have been made that—relativizing Christ—all religions are paths to God, while, with regard to Mary, Corredemptrix et Mediatrix omnium gratiarum, the sole mediatorship of Christ has been emphasized again without considering the Church's teaching on Mary's participation in Christ's work of salvation. This always happens when bishops pay more attention to public appeal than to first making use of scholarly, faith-based theology and proclaiming the word of God and the truth of the faith "in season or out of season" (2 Tim 4:2).

But looking at the entire history of the Church and theology, I am fully certain that the Church cannot be overcome by anything or anyone, not only by external opposition but also by internal turmoil.

Rightly so, not only the Society of St. Pius X, but a large part of the Catholic population laments that under the guise of Church renewal—with the process of self-secularization—great uncertainties regarding dogmatic questions and even heresies have infiltrated the Church. But, in the 2000-year history of the Church, heresies from Arianism to Modernism were only overcome by those who remained in the Church and did not turn away from the Pope.

If the Society of St. Pius X is to have a positive impact on church history, it cannot fight for the true faith from a distance, from the outside, against the Church united with the Pope, but only within the Church, with the Pope and all orthodox bishops, theologians, and faithful. Otherwise, its protest remains ineffective and is even mockingly misused by heretical groups to accuse orthodox Catholics of sterile traditionalism and narrow-minded fundamentalism. This can be seen particularly in the so-called Synodal Path, which is indeed about introducing heretical doctrines, especially in the adoption of atheistic anthropologies, and establishing a kind of Anglican church constitution (with a self-appointed church leadership of weak "yes-men" bishops and power-hungry, ideologically entrenched lay officials). This is diametrically opposed to the sacramental and apostolic constitution of the Catholic Church (Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrament of Holy Orders, Chapter 4: DH 1767-1770; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Articles 18-29). A German national church established by human decrees, which only symbolically recognizes the Pope as its honorary head, would no longer be Catholic, and belonging to it would not be necessary for salvation. For, as St. Augustine says: “Whoever does not love the unity of the Church does not possess the love of God. For this reason, it is rightly said: Only in the Catholic Church is the Holy Spirit received.” (De Baptismo 3, 21).

In any case, no single group, like the Donatists (the Donati pars), can oppose the acceptance of the defined doctrine of faith on behalf of the entire Church, the Catholic Church, by appealing to its own subjective conscience. To do so would require the honesty to completely renounce its unity and consequently accept the odium of a schismatic. The Second Vatican Council did not proclaim a new dogma, but rather presented the ever-valid dogmatic doctrine anew within a different intellectual and cultural-historical context. Here, nothing should be interpreted based on subjective assumptions; instead, every Catholic must inform themselves about the Church's teaching and, if necessary, allow themselves to be corrected. Matters not concerning binding doctrine of faith and morals remain open to free theological discussion. For the overall hermeneutics of the Church's faith, Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the (infallible) Magisterium of the Pope and bishops (especially at the Ecumenical Council) are considered the ultimate norms for understanding the revealed faith. The magisterial documents, which each claim varying degrees of authority, are to be interpreted according to the established system of theological certainty.

No orthodox Catholic can invoke reasons of conscience if he withdraws from the formal authority of the Pope regarding the visible unity of the sacramental Church in order to establish an ecclesiastical order not in full communion with him, in the form of a makeshift church, which would correspond to Protestant arguments in the 16th century. Such a schismatic stance cannot appeal to a state of emergency that can only affect the individual salvation of a few or even many souls. Anyone affected by an unjust excommunication, as even the holy Doctor of the Church Hildegard of Bingen once was, must, for the good of the Church, come to terms with this spiritually without jeopardizing the unity of the Church through disobedience. Every Catholic will agree with the young Martin Luther in his fight against the unworthy sale of indulgences and the secularization of the Church, but will sharply criticize him for disregarding the threatened excommunication, rejecting ecclesiastical authority for himself, and placing his own judgment above the judgment of the Church in the interpretation of revelation.

The well-formed conscience of a Catholic, and especially of a validly consecrated bishop and of one who is to receive episcopal consecration, will never confer or receive holy orders against the successor of St. Peter, to whom the Son of God himself entrusted the leadership of the universal Church, and thus be guilty of a grave sin against the unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity of the Church of Christ as revealed by God.

The only solution possible in conscience before God is for the Society of St. Pius X, with its bishops, priests, and laity, to recognize our Holy Father Pope Leo XIV as the legitimate Pope not only in theory but also in practice, and to submit to his teaching authority and his primacy of jurisdiction without preconditions.

Then a just solution can be found for their canonical status, for example, by endowing their prelate with ordinary jurisdiction over the Society, who is directly subordinate to the Pope (perhaps without mediation through a Curial office). But these are canonical and practical consequences that will only hold true if they are dogmatically consistent with Catholic ecclesiology. The Society of St. Pius X, like every other orthodox Catholic, rightly has the duty to embrace the teachings of the First Vatican Council and to let them guide its actions: “We therefore teach and declare that, by the Lord’s decree, the Roman Church possesses the Principate of ordinary power over all others, and that this truly episcopal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is immediate, to which pastors and faithful, and pastors of every rite and rank, both each in particular and all together, are bound to hierarchical submission and true obedience, not only in matters relating to faith and morals, but also in those concerning the discipline and governance of the Church spread throughout the whole world; so that, by preserving the unity of both communion and of the same profession of faith with the Roman Pontiff, the Church of Christ is one flock under one supreme shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can be excluded without prejudice to his faith and his salvation may deviate." (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church "Pastor aeternus", Chapter 3: DH 3060).

Alea jacta est?

All readers of this blog have surely already read the public letter sent yesterday by Fr. Davide Pagliarani, superior of the SSPX, to Cardinal Víctor Fernández, in which, rejecting dialogue with Rome, he announces that episcopal consecrations will proceed without fail on July 1st. It is at least curious that the letter maintains that the Vatican did not accept the suggestion of holding a theological dialogue in 2019, and when the Vatican finally accepts such a dialogue, the offer is rejected because reaching an agreement is deemed impossible. In other words, in 2019 dialogue and an agreement were possible, but in 2026 neither is feasible. The reason, of course, is the pressure regarding excommunications; Rome, for its part, could cite the pressure regarding consecrations.

Alea jacta est? (Is the die cast?) It would seem so, but there is still time until July, and the Holy Spirit, encouraged by the prayers of all of us, and of tens of thousands of faithful of the Church - whether they are from the SSPX or not - may have some surprise in store for us, as the Deceased liked to say.

I'm not going to try to predict the surprises of the Spirit, but I see at least three possibilities:

I. Pope Leo XIII received Father Pagliarani in a private audience, and they reached some kind of agreement that satisfied both parties. In my opinion, this would be the best solution, but it seems to me the most difficult: for Rome, because it would show weakness; for the SSPX, because it would face certain fragmentation, since their ranks are already more than divided.

II. The bishops of the Society consecrate new bishops, and Pope Leo and the Vatican remain silent . This would surely be the option Pope Francis would have chosen. An army of neoconservatives would, of course, rise up to say that there's no need to say anything, since these are automatic excommunications (latae sententiae) , and their official promulgation isn't necessary. They would also add the label of schismatics. The priests and faithful of the Society would continue as before, with a few losses here and there, but not much more than that. Time would do its work, and the Blessed Virgin Mary hers, and in a few years everything could be resolved peacefully. I don't think this is improbable, since I don't believe the Pope would be interested in beginning his pontificate by excommunicating seven bishops.

III. The bishops of the SSPX consecrate new bishops, and the Vatican issues a document ratifying the excommunications and explicitly speaking of schism. At the same time, it favors the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, rendering Traditionis Custodes ineffective through some legal artifice . This would be the option favored by John Paul II, and painful for the Society, because it would surely produce a strong internal division and the separation of a more or less significant group of priests and faithful (the districts in Germany and the United States are very unhappy with the decision made by the Council). It would also be painful for the Church, because it would reopen a wound among its members. Furthermore, I believe it would be a point of no return for the SSPX, as it would be definitively seen as a group separated from the body of the Church. And there are many examples of how such groups end up. Personally, it would not only be painful but heartbreaking. I have many very good friends in the Fraternity, whom I love with the love that Our Lord taught us to have for our neighbors, and it is not only that this friendship could be damaged in some cases, but that they will be treated like dogs as happened in 1988. For a large part of the world, in the Church where everyone is welcome, they will be the only ones left out, and their pain will be my pain.

Some might say that a variant of the third possibility could emerge, in which there would be no relaxation whatsoever regarding the celebration of the traditional liturgy. It's possible, but I find it difficult; the traditional Mass, Ecclesia Dei , to put it simply, is much stronger than it was in the 1980s, and I would venture to say that in many parts of the world, it is much stronger than before Traditionis Custodes . It cannot be erased with a stroke of the pen unless Leo opts for a final solution in the Hitlerian style, which seems highly improbable to me.

SSPX Response on Episcopal Consecrations: "Maria Mediatrix, Ora Pro Nobis!"

Response of the General Council of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Menzingen, 18 February 2026
Ash Wednesday

Most Reverend Eminence,

First of all, I thank you for receiving me on 12 February, and for making public the content of our meeting, which promotes perfect transparency in communication.

I can only welcome the opening of a doctrinal discussion, as signalled today by the Holy See, for the simple reason that I myself proposed it exactly seven years ago, in a letter dated 17 January 2019.(1) At that time, the Dicastery did not truly express interest in such a discussion, on the grounds—presented orally—that a doctrinal agreement between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X was impossible.

For the Society’s part, a doctrinal discussion has always been—and remains—desirable and useful. Indeed, even if we do not reach an agreement, fraternal exchanges allow us to better know one another, to refine and deepen our own arguments, and to better understand the spirit and intentions behind our interlocutor’s positions—especially their genuine love for the Truth, for souls, and for the Church. This holds true, at all times, for both parties.

This was precisely my intention in 2019, when I suggested a discussion during a calm and peaceful time, without the pressure or threat of possible excommunication, which would have undermined free dialogue—as is, unfortunately, the situation today.

That said, while I certainly rejoice at a new opening of dialogue and the positive response to my proposal of 2019, I cannot accept the perspective and objectives in the name of which the Dicastery offers to resume dialogue in the present situation, nor indeed the postponement of the date of 1 July.

I respectfully present to you the reasons for this, to which I will add some supplementary considerations.

We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council. This disagreement, for the Society’s part, does not stem from a mere difference of opinion, but from a genuine case of conscience, arising from what has proven to be a rupture with the Tradition of the Church. This complex knot has unfortunately become even more inextricable with the doctrinal and pastoral developments of recent pontificates.

I therefore do not see how a joint process of dialogue could end in determining together what would constitute “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, since—as you yourself have recalled with frankness—the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged.


This dialogue is supposed to clarify the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. But this interpretation is already clearly given in the post-Conciliar period and in the successive documents of the Holy See. The Second Vatican Council is not a set of texts open to free interpretation: It has been received, developed, and applied for sixty years by successive popes, according to precise doctrinal and pastoral orientations.

This official reading is expressed, for example, in major texts such as Redemptor hominis, Ut unum sint, Evangelii gaudium, or Amoris lætitia. It is also evident in the liturgical reform, understood in the light of the principles reaffirmed in Traditionis custodes. All these documents show that the doctrinal and pastoral framework within which the Holy See intends to situate any discussion has already been firmly established.


One cannot ignore the context of the dialogue proposed today. We have been waiting for seven years for a favourable response to the proposal of doctrinal discussion made in 2019. More recently, we have written twice to the Holy Father: first to request an audience, then to clearly and respectfully explain our needs and the real-life situation of the Society.

Yet, after a long silence, it is only when episcopal consecrations are mentioned that an offer to resume dialogue is made, which thus seems dilatory and conditional. Indeed, the hand extended to open the dialogue is unfortunately accompanied by another hand already poised to impose sanctions. There is talk of breaking communion, of schism,(2) and of “serious consequences”. Moreover, this threat is now public, creating pressure that is hardly compatible with a genuine desire for fraternal exchanges and constructive dialogue.


Furthermore, to us it does not seem possible to enter into a dialogue to define what the minimum requirements for ecclesial communion might be, simply because this task does not belong to us. Throughout the centuries, the criteria for belonging to the Church have been established and defined by the Magisterium. What must be believed in order to be Catholic has always been taught with authority, in constant fidelity to Tradition.

Thus, we do not see how these criteria could be the subject of joint discernment through dialogue, nor how they could be re-evaluated today so as not to correspond to what the Tradition of the Church has always taught—and which we desire to observe faithfully in our place.


Finally, if a dialogue is envisaged with the aim of producing a doctrinal statement that the Society could accept regarding the Second Vatican Council, we cannot ignore the historical precedents of efforts made in this direction. I draw your attention to the most recent: the Holy See and the Society had a long course of dialogue, beginning in 2009, particularly intense for two years, then pursued more sporadically until 6 June 2017. Throughout these years, we sought to achieve what the Dicastery now proposes.

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.(3) This shows that, if one persists in a doctrinal dialogue that is too forced and lacks sufficient serenity, in the long term, instead of achieving a satisfactory result, one only worsens the situation.

Thus, in the shared recognition that we cannot find agreement on doctrine, it seems to me that the only point on which we can agree is that of charity toward souls and toward the Church.

As a cardinal and bishop, you are above all a pastor: allow me to address you in this capacity. The Society is an objective reality: it exists. That is why, over the years, the Sovereign Pontiffs have taken note of this existence and, through concrete and significant acts, have recognised the value of the good it can accomplish, despite its canonical situation. That is also why we are speaking today.

This same Society asks you only to be allowed to continue to do this same good for the souls to whom it administers the holy Sacraments. It asks nothing else of you—no privileges, nor even canonical regularisation, which, in the current state of affairs, is impracticable due to doctrinal divergences. The Society cannot abandon souls. The need for the sacraments is a concrete, short-term need for the survival of Tradition, in service to the Holy Catholic Church.

We can agree on one point: neither of us wishes to reopen wounds. I will not repeat here all that we have already expressed in the letter addressed to Pope Leo XIV, of which you have direct knowledge. I only emphasise that, in the present situation, the only truly viable path is that of charity.

Over the last decade, Pope Francis and yourself have abundantly advocated “listening” and understanding of non-standard, complex, exceptional, and particular situations. You have also wished for a use of law that is always pastoral, flexible, and reasonable, without pretending to resolve everything through legal automatism and pre-established frameworks. At this moment, the Society asks of you nothing more than this—and above all it does not ask it for itself: it asks it for these souls, for whom, as already promised to the Holy Father, it has no other intention than to make true children of the Roman Church.

Finally, there is another point on which we also agree, and which should encourage us: the time separating us from 1 July is one of prayer. It is a moment when we implore from Heaven a special grace and, from the Holy See, understanding. I pray for you in particular to the Holy Ghost and—do not take this as a provocation—His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.

I wish to thank you sincerely for the attention you have given me, and for the interest you will kindly take in the present matter.

Please accept, Most Reverend Eminence, the expression of my most sincere greetings and of my devotion in the Lord.

Davide Pagliarani, Superior General
+ Alfonso de Galarreta, First Assistant General
Christian Bouchacourt, Second Assistant General
+ Bernard Fellay, First Counsellor General, Former Superior General
Franz Schmidberger, Second Counsellor General, Former Superior General

Annex I: Letter from Father Pagliarani to Bishop Pozzo, 17 January 2019
Annex II: Order and Jurisdiction: The Futility of the Schism Accusation
Annex III: Letter from Cardinal Müller to Bishop Fellay, 6 June 2017

1 Cf. Annex I.

2 The Society, however, defends itself against any accusation of schism and, relying on all traditional theology and the Church’s constant teaching, maintains that an episcopal consecration not authorised by the Holy See does not constitute a rupture of communion—provided it is not accompanied by schismatic intent or the conferral of jurisdiction. Cf. Annex II.

3 Cf. Annex III.

A Natural Benefit to the Traditional Fast

I lose over 25 lbs. every Lent ever since I started doing the traditional Lenten fast. Mind you, I am a sixty-year-old Catholic priest who has a decent-sized paunch, which very much appreciates this yearly downsizing. Of course the weight comes back by the end of Christmas each year!

The traditional Catholic Lenten fast, what it was for many centuries before the Second Vatican Council, was basically no breakfast. "Breakfast" means to "break" the Christian "fast," in most of the major European languages, a living testimony to that immemorial Catholic penance of Lent. That rule meant no food or drink from midnight to midday on a day of fast, except water and necessary medications.

In 1962, throughout the world, the fast was required for all Catholics within the ages of 18-59 on all the days of Lent, except Sundays and 1st Class Feasts. Abstinence for meat bound all from the age of 7, and it included total abstinence from meat on Ash Wednesday and all the Fridays of Lent (some places included the Wednesdays and the Saturdays of Lent for total abstinence, which I also do) and partial abstinence on all the other penitential days of Lent (which meant meat only at the major meal of the day).

What is more, I do the added penance of no meal at all on Ash Wednesday and all the Fridays of Lent, just taking water on those days, and a little bread with some simple condiment (e.g. butter) in the evening, so as to deceive the stomach to feel that it has eaten! It works!

There is no feast in this vale of tears without a fast. That is the long-standing Catholic tradition. Do it!

Happy Lent!

The Traditional Lenten Fast

btw

APPOINTMENTS ARE LOVE

How aptly our proverb says it! “Love means deeds, not good reasons.” (The Way, 933) However sound the reasons may be, if the actions contradict them, the persuasive power of those reasons is exhausted. And it is clear that a Pope's most decisive actions are not his trips (including World Youth Day, always with enormous media coverage), nor are they his sermons, speeches, and documents of varying quality. Nor are they the convocations of consistories and synods, more or less synodal, so easily manipulated that they always produce predetermined results. What is most decisive, and with far-reaching repercussions, are his appointments.

Among the highly controversial appointments, we have Cardinal Fernández placed at the head of nothing less than the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Roche, tasked with keeping alive and constantly activating the liturgical conflict that, by the grace of God, is the most visible one persisting in the Church, overshadowing other nefarious conflicts that have generated so much media attention. Of course, these are Bergoglian appointments; but keeping them in their positions is now entirely the decision of Leo XIV: at this point (nearly a year after his election), they can no longer be attributed to the previous pontiff. Much less so the designation of Cardinal Fernández (we will soon see what this is all about) as the interlocutor for the SSPX.

Since the election of Cardinal Prevost as the new Supreme Pontiff of the Church, who chose the papal name Leo XIV, the first question on everyone's mind regarding the new pope is whether he will follow in the footsteps of his predecessor Francis (with whom he collaborated closely in the appointment of bishops), effectively becoming a Francis II; or whether he will prefer to leave his own mark on the name he chose, attempting to be a successor (in and for the 21st century) to Pope Leo XIII. This choice of name, incidentally, aroused great hopes, precisely because of the impressive trajectory of that pontiff. And let's not forget Saint Leo the Great, the first pope of this name, who created a legend by daring to confront Attila, the bloodthirsty Attila, to save the city of Rome from his formidable army. We must confess that the great name chosen by the new pope filled us all with hope. Above all, the hope that he would not hide behind the legacy of the previous pontiff to leave things as they were.

It must be acknowledged that the Dicastery in which Cardinal Prevost worked under Pope Francis did not begin its decline with the latter pope, but rather aggravated it with tremendously controversial appointments that, during the last two years of his pontificate, passed through the hands of the last prefect of that Dicastery, Cardinal Prevost.

We are certainly aware of the disastrous appointments that Cardinal Prevost approved and confirmed for Pope Francis. But I want to believe that the number of appointments (perhaps even more disastrous) that the new Prefect thwarted for the Pope must not be small. I fear we will never know.

But what is certain is that the dicastery Satan chose with absolute preference to obscure with his noxious smoke was the Dicastery for the Election of Bishops. And we've been dealing with this for quite a few pontificates: perhaps since John XXIII. Let us remember that it was Paul VI, the pope who had to emerge from the Council as best he could, who said, more than half a century ago (June 29, 1972) , that “ it was believed that after the Council a sunny day would come for the history of the Church; instead, a day of clouds, storms, darkness, investigation, and uncertainty has arrived .” It was Paul VI who stated with sorrow: “ We no longer trust the Church.” Exactly. And he said all this in the same speech in which he declared, desolate, that “ Through some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God .” A crack? The Second Vatican Council was a gaping hole in the walls of the Church. Like the hole the Trojans opened in their walls to "welcome" the famous "Trojan horse" that the Achaeans presented to them.

It was the backlash of the Council, which, as we see in that famous 1972 homily commemorating the 10th anniversary of his pontificate, he viewed with bitter pessimism. Let us not forget the tremendously bitter weight of the majority rejection (yes, majority) of his Humanae Vitae .

The undeniable truth is that the "smoke of Satan" had already infiltrated the Second Vatican Council itself. There was already a great deal of tares mixed in with the pure wheat. And it is quite possible that those who brought the tares, who openly displayed their true colors because they came to be seen as "the good guys," and who also developed a spectacular capacity for proselytizing, launched themselves at that very moment to conquer the highest bastions of power within the Church. And among these, obviously, were the two great powers to elect bishops, and to regulate seminary training.

Since then, we know very well how things have gone; and above all, we have before our eyes the state of both the election of bishops and the norms governing the formation of future priests. This is not some devilish scheme. What we see before us is the result of a dark storm that has swept away what, until the Council, were the dominant characteristics of the men and women (religious orders) of the Church. Pure desolation.

And so, amidst this desolation, we find ourselves faced with one final appointment precisely in the episcopate and seminary appointments: that of Roberto Maria Radaelli, Archbishop of Gorizia, as Secretary (he may well succeed the current Prefect, who is about to retire) of the Dicastery for the Clergy. This appointment is as crucial for the future of the Church as the appointment of Cardinal Fernández to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith was in its day. In fact, it is likely to be even more so, because all seminaries, and therefore the formation of future priests, depend on it. Granted, Tucho was appointed by Francis; but Radaelli, to mention only his most recent appointment, was appointed by Leo XIV.

And who is this Roberto Maria Radaelli? Just another member of the LGBT+ community (those in this camp are called "homosexualists" to avoid causing offense), to whom this pope seems to show a deference similar to that shown by his predecessor (we'll never know if it's out of conviction or due to pressure: the lobby is incredibly powerful). And he also has a history of being a staunch supporter of the Vetus Ordo. He believes and states that Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum lacks sufficient canonical support.

In short, love is in appointments, not in good reasons.

Virtelius Temerarius

Viganò Calls FSSPX to Refuse to Cancel Episcopal Consecrations

Statement by Archbishop Viganò

 "The SSPX should refuse to suspend its episcopal consecrations."

I can only note with sorrow and indignation the statement released today by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, at the end of his meeting with Don Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X.

After decades of humiliation, inconclusive dialogues, partial concessions revoked with “Traditionis Custodes,” deafening silences regarding doctrinal and liturgical deviations widespread throughout the Church, and even more serious doctrinal and moral errors promoted by the Highest Throne, Rome now claims to make the suspension of the episcopal consecrations announced by the SSPX for July 1st a preliminary condition for dialogue. These consecrations are not acts of rebellion, but a supreme act of fidelity to the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, deprived for almost sixty years of Bishops who preach the integral Doctrine and administer the Sacraments without compromising with error.

The Dicastery's statement subtly repeats the same modernist scheme seen in 1988: it offers a "theological dialogue" on issues the Holy See has always refused to seriously address—religious freedom, destructive episcopal collegiality, pan-heretical ecumenism, the Nostra Aetate declaration that equates false religions with the one true Faith, the Abu Dhabi Document—while threatening "schism" for the only gesture that could guarantee the certainty of Apostolic Succession.
But who wields "schism" as a weapon today?

Who excommunicated the Bishops consecrated in 1988 for defending Tradition and its beating heart, the Catholic Mass?

Who excommunicated me and silenced me, while promoting declared heretics and covering up abuses of every kind?

Who forced the faithful to submit to an authority that has renounced immutable Catholic doctrine in the name of a "new humanism" and a "synodality" that is nothing other than the cancer of democracy applied to the Catholic Church to destroy from within its divine hierarchical Constitution and Petrine Primacy?
The true schism is not that of those who consecrate Bishops to guard and transmit the Catholic Faith in its entirety, but rather that of the conciliar and synodal Hierarchy, which has rejected Apostolic Tradition, replacing Doctrine with heretical ambiguities, Catholic Worship with a Protestantized liturgy, and Authority with a totalitarian power exercised against the faithful who refuse to apostatize.

The Society of Saint Pius X does not need the permission of those who have renounced the Faith to do what Providence asks of it: namely, to perpetuate the episcopal line faithful to Tradition.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre acted not out of schism, but out of necessity; the same state of necessity that persists today, aggravated by the systematic persecution of the traditional Mass and the imposition of false doctrines that contradict the perennial Magisterium.
Therefore, with the clarity that the situation requires and with the responsibility that falls to those who have sworn to defend the Faith to the point of shedding their blood:

* I urge the Society of Saint Pius X to categorically refuse to suspend the announced episcopal consecrations. They are non-negotiable: they are a sacred duty before God and souls;

* I urge you to reject any "theological dialogue" that starts from the assumption that the Second Vatican Council is compatible with Tradition. The problem is not "interpreting" Vatican II, but recognizing that it introduced errors that undermine Catholic doctrine on essential points and jeopardize the salvation of souls;
* I declare that true ecclesial communion is not measured by canonical recognition by a Hierarchy that has lost the Faith, but by integral fidelity to divine Revelation, to the two-thousand-year-old Magisterium, and to the Holy Sacraments transmitted without adulteration.
* I invite all Catholics of good will—clergy, religious, and faithful—to recognize that the state of necessity endures and that the salvation of souls requires pastors who do not compromise with error.

I am certain that the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X will continue to pray for the conversion of unfaithful pastors and for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And that it will not exchange the Truth for a recognition that would mean accepting error and betraying the legacy of its Founder, the venerated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Viterbo,
February 12, 2026

__

Plinthos postscript.

In this age of "listening" and of every manner of "tolerance" this excommunicated Archbishop makes many very valid arguments for rejection of negotiations with the catholic hierarchy regarding the celebration of the Roman Mass of the Ages. When will the Vatican finally officially admit the total failure of the Second Vatican Council?

We need to try something new! Bold, Unapologetic, Tradition!

Priests are Like Cathedrals --Pope Leo XIV

LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER LEO XIV

TO THE PRESBYTERATE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MADRID
ON THE OCCASION OF THE "CONVIVIUM" PRESBYTERAL GATHERING

Dear Sons:

I am pleased to address you with this letter on the occasion of your Presbyteral Gathering, and I do so with a sincere desire for fraternity and unity. I thank your Archbishop and, from the bottom of my heart, each one of you for your willingness to meet as a presbyterate, not only to discuss common matters, but also to support one another in the mission you share.

I value the commitment with which you live and exercise your priesthood in parishes, ministries, and diverse realities. I know that this ministry often unfolds amidst weariness, complex situations, and a silent dedication witnessed only by God. Precisely for this reason, I hope these words reach you as a gesture of closeness and encouragement, and that this encounter fosters an atmosphere of sincere listening, true communion, and trusting openness to the action of the Holy Spirit, who never ceases to work in your lives and mission.

The times the Church is living through invite us to pause together for serene and honest reflection. Not so much to dwell on immediate diagnoses or emergency measures, but to learn to deeply understand the moment we are living in, recognizing, in the light of faith, both the challenges and the possibilities the Lord opens before us. On this path, it becomes increasingly necessary to cultivate our vision and practice discernment, so that we may perceive more clearly what God is already working, often silently and discreetly, in our midst and in our communities.

This reading of the present cannot disregard the cultural and social framework in which faith is lived and expressed today. In many circles, we observe advanced processes of secularization, a growing polarization in public discourse, and a tendency to reduce the complexity of the human person, interpreting it through ideologies or partial and insufficient categories. Within this framework, faith risks being instrumentalized, banalized, or relegated to the realm of the irrelevant, while forms of coexistence that dispense with any transcendent reference become entrenched.

Added to this is a profound cultural shift that cannot be ignored: the progressive disappearance of shared points of reference. For a long time, the Christian seed found largely fertile ground, because the moral language, the great questions about the meaning of life, and certain fundamental notions were, at least in part, shared. Today, that common ground has weakened considerably. Many of the conceptual assumptions that for centuries facilitated the transmission of the Christian message are no longer evident and, in many cases, even comprehensible. The Gospel encounters not only indifference, but also a different cultural landscape, in which words no longer carry the same meaning and where the initial proclamation can no longer be taken for granted.

However, this description does not fully capture what is really happening. I am convinced—and I know that many of you perceive this in the daily exercise of your ministry—that a new disquiet is stirring in the hearts of many people, especially young people. The absolute pursuit of well-being has not brought the expected happiness; freedom divorced from truth has not generated the promised fulfillment; and material progress alone has not managed to satisfy the deepest longing of the human heart.

Indeed, the dominant proposals, along with certain hermeneutical and philosophical interpretations of humanity's destiny, far from offering a sufficient answer, have often left a greater sense of weariness and emptiness. Precisely for this reason, we observe that many people are beginning to open themselves to a more honest and authentic search, a search that, accompanied by patience and respect, is leading them back to an encounter with Christ. This reminds us that for the priest, this is not a time for withdrawal or resignation, but for faithful presence and generous availability. All of this stems from the recognition that the initiative always belongs to the Lord, who is already at work and precedes us with his grace.

This is how it is becoming clearer what kind of priests Madrid —and the entire Church— needs at this time.  Certainly not men defined by a multitude of tasks or the pressure of results, but men configured to Christ, capable of sustaining their ministry through a living relationship with Him, nourished by the Eucharist and expressed in a pastoral charity marked by the sincere gift of self. It is not a matter of inventing new models or redefining the identity we have received, but of proposing anew, with renewed intensity, the priesthood in its most authentic core—being alter Christus —allowing Him to shape our lives, unify our hearts, and give form to a ministry lived from intimacy with God, faithful dedication to the Church, and concrete service to the people entrusted to us.

My dear children, allow me to speak to you today about the priesthood using an image you know well: your Cathedral. Not to describe a building, but to learn from it. For cathedrals—like any sacred place—exist, like the priesthood, to lead us to an encounter with God and reconciliation with our brothers and sisters, and their elements hold a lesson for our life and ministry.

By simply looking at its facade, we learn something essential. It is the first thing we see, and yet it doesn't say everything: it indicates, suggests, invites. Likewise, the priest does not live to show off, but neither does he live to hide. His life is called to be visible, coherent, and recognizable, even if it is not always understood. The facade does not exist for itself: it leads inward. Similarly, the priest is never an end in himself. His entire life is called to point to God and accompany the journey toward the Mystery, without usurping God's place.

Upon reaching the threshold, we understand that it is not fitting for everything to enter, for it is a sacred space. The threshold marks a passage, a necessary separation. Before entering, something remains outside. The priesthood, too, is lived in this way: being in the world, but not of the world (cf. Jn 17:14). At this crossroads lie celibacy, poverty, and obedience; not as a denial of life, but as the concrete means by which the priest can belong entirely to God while still walking among men.

The cathedral is also a common home, where everyone has a place. This is how the Church is called to be, especially toward her priests: a home that welcomes, protects, and never abandons. And this is how priestly fraternity must be lived: as the concrete experience of knowing oneself to be at home, responsible for one another, attentive to the lives of our brothers and sisters, and ready to support each other. My sons, no one should feel exposed or alone in the exercise of the ministry: resist together the individualism that impoverishes the heart and weakens the mission!

As we walk through the temple, we notice that everything rests on the columns that support the whole. The Church has seen in them the image of the Apostles (cf. Eph 2:20). Likewise, the priestly life does not stand on its own, but rather on the apostolic witness received and transmitted in the living Tradition of the Church, and safeguarded by the Magisterium (cf. 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Tim 1:13-14). When the priest remains anchored on this foundation, he avoids building on the sand of partial interpretations or circumstantial emphases, and instead rests on the firm rock that precedes and surpasses him (cf. Mt 7:24-27).

Before reaching the sanctuary, the cathedral reveals to us discreet yet fundamental places: at the baptismal font, the People of God are born; in the confessional, they are continually renewed. In the sacraments, grace is revealed as the most real and effective force of the priestly ministry. Therefore, dear children, celebrate the sacraments with dignity and faith, being aware that what is produced in them is the true power that builds up the Church and that they are the ultimate end to which all our ministry is ordered. But do not forget that you are not the source, but the channel, and that you too need to drink from that water. Therefore, do not neglect confession, always returning to the mercy you proclaim.

Several chapels open up around the central space. Each has its own history and dedication. Although different in style and composition, they all share the same orientation; none is turned inward, none disrupts the harmony of the whole. This is also true in the Church with the various charisms and spiritualities through which the Lord enriches and sustains your vocation. Each one receives a particular way of expressing faith and nurturing inner life, but all remain oriented toward the same center.

Let us look to the heart of it all, my children: here is revealed what gives meaning to what you do each day and from where your ministry springs. On the altar, through your hands, the sacrifice of Christ is made present in the highest action entrusted to human hands; in the tabernacle, He whom you have offered remains, entrusted anew to your care. Be adorers, people of deep prayer, and teach your people to do the same.

At the end of this reflection, to be the priests the Church needs today, I leave you with the same advice of your holy compatriot, Saint John of Ávila: “Be all his” ( Sermon 57). Be holy! I entrust you to Our Lady of Almudena and, with a heart full of gratitude, I impart to you the Apostolic Blessing, which I extend to all those entrusted to your pastoral care.

Vatican City, January 28, 2026. Memorial of Saint Thomas Aquinas, priest and doctor of the Church.

Bad Bunny, Bad Image for Young Latinos!

Bad Bunny's performance at last night's Supper Bowl was weird. His singing, exclusively in Spanish, was not singing at all but a recitation, a telling of his supposed sexual exploits, with musical accompaniment. He did it in a beautiful white suit though he groped his crotch throughout, while humping the air with his hips. And there were dozens of what appeared to be all-female dancers, scantily dressed (cheerleader-like attire), also with quite indecent gesticulations throughout, emphasizing their butts and the crotches. That was the first half of the half-time performance.

In the second half of the performance the crowd of dancing performers was now in very nice traditional tropical attire. Lady Gaga came out singing and gesticulating, waving the tattooed arm in the air. Again, the dancing movements were, as throughout the entire performance, excessively abrupt, violent! The dancing consisted of continual jerking back and forth, giving the overall impression of great uneasiness and discomfort. Very little of harmonious and continuous flow which should be typical of graceful dancing.

All of this is a testament to the confusion of generation Z. It is largely of Latin American descent but is trying to find itself in America.

The fact that Bad Bunny's entire performance was is Spanish can be taken in two ways. The first is that this was obviously intended to be a great affront to the American viewing public, which is notoriously xenologophobic! Americans notoriously, though quite unreasonably, hate people to speak languages other than English in America. This was predictably very offensive and provocative to many. The second is the undeniable demographical fact that the majority of generation Z and generation Alpha have some Latin American descent. Furthermore, the Spanish language is historically more a part of America than any other language. Spanish has been continually spoken in this part of the world from 1492 to the present. And now it is the language of many millions of the young people today, and of their Spanish forebears. And, much more importantly, their heritage is Catholic! They mainly identify with the Catholic faith! It is because of this high concentration of hispanidad in the youth of America that they identify more as Catholic than as Protestant.

What I have to say, therefore, about that woeful performance of the Bad Bunny disgrace last night is that at least he's of Spanish descent. He is a bad representative of a very good and burgeoning population of young Latinos.

Here is what President Trump had to say about the performance.

“The Super Bowl Halftime Show is absolutely terrible, one of the worst, EVER! It makes no sense, is an affront to the Greatness of America, and doesn’t represent our standards of Success, Creativity, or Excellence,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social, calling the event a “slap in the face.” “Nobody understands a word this guy is saying, and the dancing is disgusting, especially for young children that are watching from throughout the U.S.A., and all over the World.”

In a rare instance of Super Bowl counter-programming, Turning Point USA aired its own halftime show. Turning Point’s lineup featured Kid Rock and a handful of lesser-known country music stars: Lee Brice, Brantley Gilbert and Gabby Barrett.

The alternative performance was streamed on YouTube, garnering more than five million viewers online.

Show de Bad Bunny en el Super Bowl genera debate sobre representación latina y valores culturales

The Mind and the Machine: AI Can Never Think

Dr. Michael Augros, Ph.D.

Thomas Aquinas College

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2026/02/no-ai-does-not-have-human-level.html