Author’s note: I dedicate these words to my editor-in-chief, the Immaculata. May she open all hearts to reconcile with brothers and unite in the one faith and one truth of Christ in His One Church, the Holy Roman Catholic Church. O Theotokos, softener of evil hearts, by your sorrows and tears, I beg you to reconcile brothers in Christ.
The announcement has finally come that the SSPX intends to consecrate bishops this year. The press release is very short so let’s read the whole thing. From their website:
—
Press release dated 2 February 2026.
On 2 February 2026, the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, the Reverend Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, during the ceremony of the taking of the cassock which he presided over at the International Seminary of Saint-Curé-d’Ars in Flavigny-sur-Ozerain, France, publicly announced his decision to entrust the bishops of the Society with the task of proceeding with new episcopal consecrations, on 1 July next.
Last August, he sought the favour of an audience with the Holy Father, making known his desire to present to the Holy Father, in a filial manner, the current situation of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. In a second letter, he explicitly expressed the particular need of the Society to ensure the continuation of the ministry of its bishops, who have been travelling the world for nearly forty years to respond to the many faithful attached to the Tradition of the Church and desirous, for the good of their souls, that the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation be conferred.
After having long matured his reflection in prayer, and having received from the Holy See, in recent days, a letter which does not in any way respond to our requests, Father Pagliarani, in harmony with the unanimous advice of his Council, judges that the objective state of grave necessity in which souls find themselves requires such a decision.
The words he wrote on 21 November 2024, for the fiftieth anniversary of the historic declaration of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, are more than ever the reflection of his thought and intentions:
“It is only in the Catholic Church as it has always been, and in her unchanging Tradition, that we have the guarantee of possessing the Truth, of being able to preach it, and of being able to serve her. […]
“The Society [of Saint Pius X] is not primarily seeking its own survival. It primarily seeks the good of the Universal Church and, for this reason, the Society is, par excellence, a work of the Church, which, with unique freedom and strength, responds adequately to the specific needs of an unprecedentedly tragic era.
“This single goal is still ours today, just as it was fifty years ago. ‘That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity (Abp. Lefebvre, Declaration of 21 November 1974)’.”
In the coming days, the Superior General will provide further explanations regarding the present situation and his decision.
“Nos cum Prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria.
May the Virgin Mary bless us, together with her divine Son.”
Menzingen, 2 February, 2026
—
Once again, as with other negotiations with the Holy See, we’re not sure exactly what was said, written or unwritten, between the priests and superiors of the SSPX and the representatives of the Holy See and her representatives. That’s fine – it’s not for us to judge them and know all their words and intentions. But there are several positions which we do know, and to me, seem to be the areas which need to be addressed by clerical theologians on both sides.
Let me say that again, clerical theologians, not laymen, like me, who have no competence or authority. I’m just going to lay out these propositions for what they are said to be by the clerics themselves, and then hope and pray that the clerics can work them out and we don’t have another break of communion on our hands, which would only harm all souls, in my view. (See my article: “The SSPX & Sedevacantism: Clerical Questions that Need Not Concern the Laity“)
So here I’m going to lay out what seem to be negative positions by the SSPX preventing reconciliation, and then negative positions of the Vatican on these issues, preventing reconciliation. God is the judge and it’s for the clerics to judge, not me. As a layman, I’m just hoping to bring clerics together to work out these issues, and I’ll just do what I can to make that happen. It’s not my role to judge, so clerics, please do your job.
SSPX Positions that Need to Be Addressed
1. The SSPX warns against attendance even at a “Reverent Novus Ordo” Mass calling it “a poison harmful to the faith.”[1]
While the criticisms of the new rite seem reasonable to me and any traditionalist, this is the position which seems to go too far. Like I said, I’m not a cleric, so I’ll let the clerics figure out the theological details. But I am a father, and I teach my children the following:
My son, Sacramental grace is your whole life. Sacramental grace is EVERYTHING. It is your whole life. You should desire Sacramental grace more than your next breath. If you cannot attend the Holy Mass, then you should burn with all spiritual desire for the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus and make a spiritual communion.
Therefore, whatever problems with the Novus Ordo Missae exist, how can I tell my child to avoid Sacramental grace? It seems to me that there is a metaphysical abyss between the harmful elements in any Novus Ordo – the lackluster rites or words in text speech or action, which are or human origin – and the reality of Sacramental grace – which is nothing less than eternal life – of divine origin.
The Real Presence of Jesus Christ – if we meditate on this for just one second, everything else is nothing in comparison. So perhaps I’m misunderstanding the SSPX here, but this is officially its position according to the document I just cited. (If you, dear reader, can provide something better to clarify this position, please do so – perhaps I’ve misunderstood the SSPX!)
When I study Bishop Schneider, it seems to me that he takes a more nuanced view on these Trad controversies which accord more to the truth, in my view. A while back I asked him about this view of the SSPX, and here’s what he said:
2. If a Novus Ordo priest fails in his intention because his faith is corrupted, the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid
Here I do not know what the official position of the SSPX is. So I assume they have a higher view than what I’m about to say. But here is what the Archbishop said in his famous book Open Letter to Confused Catholics:
But how can we assess the intention of the priest? It is obvious that there are fewer and fewer valid Masses as the faith of priests becomes corrupted and they no longer have the intention to do what the Church–which cannot change her intention–has always done. The present-day training of those who are called seminarians does not prepare them to accomplish valid Masses. They are no longer taught to consider the Holy Sacrifice as the essential action of their priestly life.[2]
Perhaps the Archbishop explains himself in more detail somewhere else. In fact, I’m sure he does, on such a critically important pastoral question. But he says this in passing. Perhaps the original French gave more precise language on this point.
In any event, there seems to be an idea among some traditionalists that the Novus Ordo Missae is valid per se (which the SSPX indeed affirms), but that it is often invalid due to a defect in the priest’s faith. The reasoning goes like this:
- We know that there are many heretic priests who do not believe in the dogma of the Real Presence
- We also know the Novus Ordo diminishes the rites which safeguard this same dogma
- Therefore these heretic priests who disbelieve the dogma, using a defective ritual, therefore do not confect a valid Sacrament
This is the vulgar, layman’s argument. Of course – like I said – I assume the SSPX clerics have a much better argument and so I’m trying to emphasise that this is probably not what they say. I’m sure Archbishop Lefebvre has a more precise position. In any event, I have heard this view from lay people, and this position is at least implied by the words I quoted above from Lefebvre himself. And this position is false.
Why is this false? Because the Holy Office clarified that the bare minimum for validity is actually much lower than that. To make this abundantly clear, and since this is a very important question that interests many of our readers, let me provide these quotes in full:
—
Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, December 18, 1872: Dubium quoad Baptisma administratam ab haereticis: “In some places, some (heretics) baptize with the proper matter and the form simultaneously applied, but they expressly warn the baptizands not to believe that baptism has any effect upon the soul; for they say that it is merely the external sign of aggregation of the sects. And so often the Catholics in their crowd turn around their belief about the effects of Baptism, and call it superstitious.
“Question: 1. Whether baptism administered by those heretics is doubtful on account of defect of intention to do what Christ willed, if an express declaration was made by the minister before he baptized that baptism had no effect on the soul?
“Question 2. Whether baptism so conferred is doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made immediately before the conferring of baptism, but had often been asserted by the minister, and the same doctrine was openly preached in that sect?”
“Reply to the first question: In the negative; because despite the error about the effects of baptism, the intention of doing what the Church is not excluded.
“Reply to the second question: Provided for in the answer to the first.”
(Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii. 18 Decern. 1872 – Vic. Ap. Oceaniae Centr. “Dubium quoad Baptisma administratam ab haereticis.” Acta Sanctae Sedis, Vol. XXV, 1892-93, p. 246.)
—
Here is another citation:
—
“The Bishop of Nesqually had addressed to the Propaganda an inquiry concerning the validity of baptisms conferred by Methodists, against the validity of whose baptisms he alleged an insufficient and adverse intention and consequently the presumption of invalidity. The Bishop stated that the Methodists held so many errors about the necessity, the power, and the efficacy of the sacrament of Baptism that they considered it merely an indifferent rite which had been entirely omitted in the past and at a later time had been put into use again for the purpose of deceiving the faithful and attempting to show them that their false religion did not differ from the true religion. (Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, Jan.24, 1877-CSCPF, n.1465, Vol.11, pp.99-100.)
“To this question the Holy Office gave a very detailed answer which is one of the most explicit statements about the intention of doing what the Church does. In substance the reply lays down the following principles:
“1. It is a dogma of faith that Baptism administered by anyone, whether a schismatic, a heretic, or even an infidel, must be considered valid, as long as in their administration those things are present by which the sacrament is perfected, namely, due matter, the prescribed form, and the person of the minister with the intention of doing what the Church does. Hence it follows that the peculiar errors which the ministers profess either privately or publicly do not at all affect baptism or any other sacrament.
“2. The errors which the heretics profess privately or publicly are not incompatible with that intention which the ministers of the sacraments must have, namely, of doing what the Church does. Those errors in themselves cannot give rise to a general presumption against the validity of the sacraments in general and baptism in particular.
“From these principles taken from the decision of the Holy Office it must be concluded that as a general rule the baptisms of heretics are valid in spite of the fact that their ministers hold beliefs entirely incompatible with the Catholic doctrine concerning Baptism, and deny all power of regeneration in that sacrament. Their error does not offer sufficient reason to conclude that they have an insufficient or adverse intention in regard to conferring the sacrament.” (De Salvo, Rev. Raphael, O.S.B., S.T.L. The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments. 1949. pp.28-29)
—
Now St. Robert Bellarmine summarises these responsa, a few centuries before they were given:
The Council of Trent does not mention the purpose of the sacrament or say that the minister ought to intend to do what the Church intends but what the Church does. Moreover, what the Church does refers to the action, not the purpose. There is required the intention with regard to the action, not in so far as it is a natural action, but in so far as it is a sacred action or ceremony, which Christ instituted or Christians practice. If one intends to perform the ceremony which the Church performs, that is enough. (Bellarmine, de Sacramentis in genere chapter 27.)
These quotation both come from this article by the SSPX critics John Salza and Robert Siscoe. Credit where credit is due. Although I personally disagree with these two on their critical view of the SSPX, which seems excessive to me, on this point I don’t see any way around it.
—
These two positions of the SSPX – the first the official position, the second unofficial and held by some lay faithful – seem to be untenable positions. The first, official position, seems to suggest that the SSPX wants to have 1 billion faithful around the world avoid the Novus Ordo Missae – even if it’s totally reverent – and as a result deprive themselves of Sacramental grace. This seems like an untenable pastoral solution to the New Iconoclasm, and I cannot tell any soul to stay away from Sacramental grace. Who am I to say such a thing?
The second position seems to be shared by some lay faithful, but seems to be obviously bad Sacramental theology, which leads to depriving more faithful of the life-giving fount of Sacramental grace.
So, like I said, I’m not a theologian and I don’t want to be. But I have to teach my children about the basics of the spiritual life, and as far as I can read the Tradition, Sacramental grace is everything. And if I’m not all off course with this instinct, then I can see why the Holy See has a problem with this. Does the SSPX teach the faithful to not attend the Novus Ordo Missae, even if that Novus Ordo, presumably, is celebrated by the Holy Father himself? This would seem to be a red flag for the Holy See.
Rome Positions that Need to be Addressed
1. The Latin Mass must be liberated forever
Summorum Pontificum was a positive fruit of the SSPX dialogue with Rome. Because the SSPX fought for Tradition, they forced the issue and brought the New Iconoclasm to the light in defending the fate of little ones spiritual abused by bad clerics abusing the Blessed Sacrament and destroying the faith of children. Joseph Ratzinger agreed with them from the start, as he says in Milestones, and the force of Tradition itself in Ratzinger’s mind, with pressure from the SSPX, brought about Summorum Pontificum which benefited every Latin rite priest worldwide.
Moreover, Summorum Pontificum vindicated the central claim of the SSPX that is contained in the 1974 declaration above, implicitly: the Latin Church – the Church of Rome – cannot deny her own rite. Period. Therefore the abolition of the Roman rite – the ancient, Apostolic Roman rite, aka the Latin Mass – is an unjust law which must be disobeyed by every cleric. Period. Full stop.
End this madness, we beg Your Holiness, Most Holy Father.
2. The controversial teachings of Vatican II are non-dogmatic
The Vatican official representative to the dialogue with the SSPX admitted that the disputed teachings from Vatican II are non-dogmatic. This is the positive fruit of the SSPX-Rome dialogue. The Holy See can admit – without loss of face or honour, as it were – that every paragraph of Vatican II must be understood according to its precise theological note. And that’s actually what Lumen Gentium already says in its appendix, so they can admit that without dishonouring the Holy See.
Hence, when the SSPX signed their original agreement of 1988, they were only required to assent to paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium, even though the SSPX actually believes more doctrines from Vatican II than the vast majority of Neo-Modernists claiming to “follow Vatican II”.
3. End the Double Standard: Neo-Modernist Child Abusers get parishes!
The reality is this: whatever problems might exist with the SSPX in their positions I outlined above, the wolves in shepherd’s clothing are worldwide devouring souls and leading them to hell. The SSPX has its own problems – like every order of priests – but the fact that they, and they alone (it seems), are the ones who receive no mercy is a slap in the face of every man, woman, and child seeking the water of Eucharistic reverence in a desert of heresy and wicked clericalism. For the sake of souls, Holy Father, please regularise the SSPX! Set them free to do their work in peace in every diocese and let the faithful attend their Masses in peace and get on with the business of saving their souls!
Whatever happens, VIVA CRISTO REY!
T. S. Flanders
Editor
The Purification of the Virgin Mary
[1] The quote is from Lefebvre himself and is contained in the relevant sections in the official positions of the society. See the SSPX, Most Asked Question: a Brief Summary of the Positions of the Society of Saint Pius X, 3rd ed. (Angelus Press, 2024), 151-157.
[2] Archbishop Lefebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, trans. Fr. M. Crowdy(SSPX, 1986), 35.
Comments