I am a member of a diocesan parish and only rarely attend the Traditional Latin Mass now. An SSPX chapel is within driving distance but I don’t go there except to attend friends’ weddings, baptisms etc. (When I do, I don’t hesitate to receive the Eucharist.) But I FULLY support the SSPX here.
https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/sspx-defies-vatican-warning-confirms SSPX Defies Vatican Warning, Confirms July 1 Episcopal Ordinations Official response of Fr. Davide Pagliarani to Cardinal Victor Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith Diane Montagna ROME, 19 February 2026 — The leadership of the Society of Saint Pius X has announced that it will proceed with episcopal ordinations on July 1, despite the Vatican’s warning that doing so without a papal mandate “would constitute a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism).” In a letter dated Feb. 18 to Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, following a Feb. 12 meeting at the Vatican, SSPX Superior General Fr. Davide Pagliarani welcomed the Prefect’s offer to resume theological discussions but stated that he “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” for the episcopal ordinations. Here below is the official English text statement released by the SSPX. The statement can also be read in Italian, French, German and Spanish here. 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. con’t
Con’t 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.
Thanks for sharing this Brian. I too am in a NO parish but have relatives in this group. So i am actually pained by it. I find this whole situation deeply saddening, not because I question anyone’s love for the Church, but because unity matters so much. I understand the SSPX’s concern for Tradition and their conviction of conscience. Many faithful Catholics sympathize with that desire to preserve what has been handed down. At the same time, communion with the Successor of Peter is not a secondary issue — it’s part of what makes the Church the Church. Consecrating bishops without papal mandate has always been treated very seriously in the Church’s history. Even if the intention is not schismatic, acting in defiance of explicit warning risks creating deeper wounds. I pray both sides find a way forward that protects Tradition and preserves unity. We’ve lived through hard moments before in Church history, and Christ has never abandoned His Bride. Above all, I hope this leads to more prayer and humility rather than hardened camps. The Church needs both truth and charity.
I remember an old Priest was asked when the war in Ireland would end. He replied that it would end when both sides would want it to end. I suppose the same thing could be said for this problem here. Pope Benedict had this whole issue sorted and buried. Pope Francis and Leo unburied it and kicked the Liturgy wars of again. So sad and unnecessary. I place the major blame here on both men. May God forgive them. Ephesians 6:4 "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord".
My heart breaks with this situation and I do feel we are very close to the Church being in a desperate situation. With the Bishops,Cardinals and Priests being assigned from Pope Leo, it's pretty heartbreaking. Praying so hard for our Beautiful Church.
It’s interesting that the possible schism would occur on July 1, 2026—exactly three and a half years, plus one day, after the death of Pope Benedict XVI.
Gotta love his ending: 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.
Maybe not a "provocation", but definitely a point of disagreement, of wanting to defend historical titles of Our Lady used by previous Pontiffs. It speaks volumes to end his letter in such a fashion.
One thing I notice the SSPX leaders say over and over again is that they cannot trust the Vatican; anything they say or anything they do. I sympathise with them in this for I would not trust anyone in the Vatican as far as I could throw them as they have their won Modernist Agenda. Balancing this we have the Words of Jesus: Matthew 23:2 Woes to Scribes and Pharisees 1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: 2 “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.… So I could not join the SSPX; for the Catholic Obedience is everything.
Interesting! Perhaps all of this points to Benedict XVI as the eschatological figure of the Katechon. The first 3.5 years after his death could be a calm period, a brief stability away from his presence, before the schism.
I agree...I believe Pope Benedict held on, despite much hardship and ridicule. He may have been in mystical communion with the Lord. Just my opinion, because he never complained about the way he was treated. After His death all heck has broken loose.
Let us offer the Precious Blood (e.g. the Divine Mercy Chaplet) to the Eternal Father and pray that the SSPX and Rome come to a Canonical Agreement. Jesus has said in the Gospel that, whatever we ask with Real Faith, we will surely receive: "Whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours" (Mark 11:24) St. John adds the Condition, we must ask according to the Divine Will: "This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us." (1 John 5:14). And it certainly is the Divine Will for a SSPX-Rome Agreement. Let us also ask for it during the Holy Hours of Eucharistic Adoration we make, and during the Consecration at the Holy Mass, OF or TLM. I wrote an article for 1P5 earlier (2021, 5 years ago, how time flies) defending the SSPX from John Salza's attacks, but also encouraging them to seek Canonical Status, and become FSSP 2.0: " Fact III: Pope Francis, while still Cardinal Jorge Mario, clearly said to the SSPX Priests, in Argentina: “You are Catholic. That is evident. I will help you.” The truth is both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI worked hard to grant the Society a canonical status, and perhaps Pope Francis could complete the task, if the Society desires and asks for it. Pope Francis said some 30 years ago to Fr. Christian of the SSPX: And the Cardinal [the current Pope Francis] told us, ‘No, no, you are Catholic, that is evident; I will help you.’ He wrote a letter in our favor to the government, that is so leftwing that they managed to find an opposing letter by the nuncio. Therefore, a 0-0 tie. Now he is the pope, and our lawyer had the opportunity of having a meeting with the Pope. He told him that the problem was still going on with the Society, and asked him to please designate a bishop in Argentina with whom we could sort out this problem. The Pope told him, ‘Yes, and this bishop is myself, I promised to help, and I will do it.’ Now reportedly Cardinal Ratzinger said of Archbishop Lefebvre in 2003: “I consider him to be the most important bishop of the 20th century with regard to the universal Church.” Further, he directly addressed Mr. Salza’s critique when he said: From my current point of view, I have to agree with Archbishop Lefebvre in retrospect about having his own bishops. Today after the experience of ’15 years of Ecclesia Dei,’ it is clear that such a work as that of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X cannot simply be handed over to the diocesan bishops."
https://onepeterfive.com/in-praise-of-archbishop-lefebvre-and-defense-of-the-sspx/ I personally go to both Novus Ordos and SSPX TLMs. I think many others here do so as well. God Bless. "Reverend Fathers of the SSPX, John Salza, whose book you endorsed, and who frequented Society chapels for over a decade, is now attacking the Society for lacking canonical status. Although some of his claims are clearly mistaken, just think, beside the theological reasons why canonical mission is necessary, how many practical advantages and blessings it would bring both to the SSPX and to all Catholic Tradition. Continue to advocate for Tradition and defend its cause in Rome and the wider Church, just like Archbishop Lefebvre so rightly did, and as you are so nobly continuing to do. But also, now that fifty years have passed since you were founded as a canonically regular society, and about thirty since Archbishop Lefebvre came very close to canonical normalization with Rome, please understand why so many Catholics who love and support you with all their strength, who pray for and donate to your apostolate, believe it would be better and preferable for you to obtain canonical normalization. If the Pope himself said the Society is canonically regular, all the Bishops of the Church would be absolutely obliged to accept it. And it is very probable that most of them will. The SSPX has already grown to nearly 700 Priests. It can easily cross 1000 and even surpass 1500 soon, but it will do all that much faster if it has canonical status first, like St. Peter’s Fraternity. As we saw earlier, Archbishop Lefebvre lobbied for an “as-is” canonical regularization with Rome many times in His Grace’s letters. When more traditional Catholics can work within the canonical structure of the Church, the Latin Mass can be definitively restored and strengthened, for the good of souls. The SSPX can do the same even today, bring the case to a happy conclusion, and silence the mouths of all misguided objectors like John Salza once and for all. Deus Vult! God wills it!"
Xavier, you didn't clearly express how you recommend the SSPX to obtain canonical status. Would agreeing with thee Vatican's allowance for one Bishop to be ordained in July achieve it?
