February started off with a chaotic flurry of Rome and SSPX interactions.
I've pulled together quite a list of internet articles (see below) and more keep appearing on my regular searches. ... So I think I need to stop adding as of today.
I think that there are only two documents that bear a separate analysis - the two press releases made by Rome and the SSPX. One element that I learned is that the SSPX intends to consecrate five bishops.
We now know that the SSPX is going to proceed with the Consecration of Five (5) Auxiliary Bishops. I will post another article on this event in more detail once time allows.
Here is a discussion by John-Henry Westen on his YouTube Channel Sign of the Cross.
My only comments at this time on the events are:
We've been in this situation in 1988, so what is old is new again.
For those who feel that the SSPX is leaving communion, yeah ... no. This does not materially change the situation of the SSPX as the legal aspects of the excommunications have been lifted, but the SSPX still is still not in 'full communion' as they say these days.
Regarding the meeting between the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Superior General of the FSSPX
On February 12, 2026, a cordial and sincere meeting took place at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith between the Prefect, His Eminence Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, and the Superior General of the FSSPX (Society of Saint Pius X), the Reverend Don Davide Pagliarani, with the approval of the Holy Father Leo XIV.
After clarifying certain points presented by the FSSPX in various letters, particularly those sent between 2017–2019 — among other matters, discussion concerned the question of the divine will regarding the plurality of religions — the Prefect proposed a specifically theological dialogue process, with a well-defined methodology, concerning themes that still lack sufficient clarification, such as the difference between an act of faith and “religious submission of mind and will,” or the different degrees of assent required by various texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and its interpretation. At the same time, he proposed addressing a series of topics listed by the FSSPX in a letter dated January 17, 2019.
The purpose of this process would be to highlight, in the debated topics, the minimum requirements necessary for full communion with the Catholic Church and consequently to outline a canonical status for the Fraternity, together with other aspects requiring further study. [Tradicat: So ... what is the state of the Chinese Catholic Church in this regard?]
It was reiterated on the part of the Holy See that the ordination of bishops without a mandate from the Holy Father — who holds ordinary supreme power that is full, universal, immediate, and direct (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 331; Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, chaps. I and III) — would imply a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism), with grave consequences for the Fraternity as a whole (John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, July 2, 1988, nos. 3 and 5c; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, August 24, 1996, no. 1).[Tradicat: I find it interesting that he doesn't actually cite the canon's that were cited in 1988 (link). There have been changes to the code and the correct canon is now 1387 (link) but the wording remains as well as the section. It is not in the section on the Unity of the Church.]
Therefore, the possibility of carrying out this dialogue presupposes that the Fraternity suspend the announced decision regarding episcopal ordinations. [Tradicat: We now know that is not going to happen.]
The Superior General of the FSSPX will present the proposal to his Council and will give his response to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In the case of a positive response, the steps, stages, and procedures to be followed will be established by mutual agreement.
All the Church is asked to accompany this journey, especially in the coming time, with prayer to the Holy Spirit. He is the principal agent of the true ecclesial communion willed by Christ.
[Signed] + Victor Fernández
[Source for the Italian text: Matteo Matzuzzi on X]
Communiqué From the General House: Meeting in Rome
On 12 February 2026, Reverend Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, was received at the Palace of the Holy Office by His Eminence Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. This meeting had been proposed by the Cardinal following the public announcement, on the 2nd of February, of future episcopal consecrations within the Society of Saint Pius X.
The conversation, held one-on-one at the Cardinal’s request, lasted an hour and a half and took place in an atmosphere that was both cordial and frank. It enabled Father Pagliarani to listen attentively to the Prefect and to clarify the scope of the 2nd of February announcement, as well as the meaning of the steps taken with the Holy See over the recent months.
The Superior General was thus able to present, in person, the current situation of the Society of Saint Pius X and its duty, in the spiritual necessity in which souls find themselves, to ensure the continuation of the ministry of its bishops.
Above all, he emphasised the spirit of charity in which the Society envisages these consecrations, as well as its sincere desire to serve both the souls and the Roman Church.
Finally, he renewed his desire that, given the wholly particular circumstances in which Holy Church finds itself, the Society may continue to operate in its current situation – exceptional and temporary – for the good of the souls who turn to it.
For his part, Cardinal Fernández offered a different approach to the question. Relayed in an official communiqué swiftly published by the Holy See, his proposal consists of “a specifically theological path of dialogue, according to a very precise methodology, […] in order to highlight the minima necessary for full communion with the Catholic Church”, which would make it possible “to define a canonical status for the Society”.
These exchanges would seek, in particular, to reach agreement on “the different degrees of adherence required by the various texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and their interpretation”. The Cardinal stated orally that, while it would be possible to engage in dialogue about the Council, its texts could not be corrected.
As a prior condition for this dialogue, it is required to suspend the decision regarding the announced episcopal consecrations.
The Prefect of the Dicastery specifically asked the Superior General to present this proposal to the members of his Council and to take the necessary time to evaluate it.
Father Pagliarani will therefore respond within the next few days. He will write directly to Cardinal Fernández and will also make his response known to the faithful.
The Superior General renewed to Cardinal Fernández his wish to be able to meet personally with the Holy Father. He remains very peaceful and is grateful for all the prayers offered. He continues to commend this situation to the prayers of the faithful.
+ JMJ I suspect that the 'resistance' will be freaking out about this ... but as with the Archbishop, when Rome calls ... they go ... even if just to let them know (again) why they do what they do. Concerning the alleged 'sell-out' I have this to say: I should update the meme ... with 2017, 18 etc. The 'resistors' should stop and think a little: We are in the 18th year of the latest sell-out frenzy. So we're still waiting. Try and reconcile the 'resistance' positions with the Catholic Faith. If it doesn't objectively sync up - admit that you're wrong and take appropriate action. I have also attached some commentary from CFN. P^3 Courtesy of FSSPX.news Courtesy of Catholic Family News Communiqué on the Meeting between Cardinal Ladaria and Fr. Pagliarani November 24, 2018 By Eucharistic Crusade The Palace of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith i...
+ JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...
+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3
There has been some discussion (read lots) about the term 'Conciliar Church'. I have posted this letter written by the Superior General and District Superiors of the SSPX after the 1988 Consecrations. Of particular interest is that the 'Conciliar Church' being referred to as a system. My paraphrase would be that the SSPX regards the 'conciliar Church' as an error within the Church. Source Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...
Comments
Post a Comment