To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, Fb Messenger or X.
If it weren't such an indictment of the Conciliar Church it would be ridiculous. Risible. The Superior General of the traditionalist order of the Society of St Pius (SSPX), Fr Davide Pagliarani, has been summoned to Rome by Cardinal Victor Emmanuel 'Tucho' Fernandez. As every Catholic who knows anything knows, the porn poet +Fernandez has "the spiritual sensitivity of a hoe and the erudition of an IKEA assembly manual". So says Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, and so say all of us.
 |
| Fernandez and Pagliarani: comparisons are odious, but ... |
- That Rome is still Catholic, even after the declaration and acceptance by Francis of the 'New Synodal Church'.
- That Bergoglio was a pope.
- That Leo is the Pope of the Catholic Church.
- That by accepting the document from the 16th General Assembly declaring that the Church is now 'Synodal', and their advocating a new 'Church' which is Synodal in structure rather than apostolic and hierarchical, thereby denying the Apostolic Mark of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, Leo and his cardinals did not apostatize.
+Pagliarani tacitly assumes as much. A large amount. He may not believe it but to call any of the above into question would nix his chances of a 'papal' mandate from Robert Prevost. In other words, in dealing with the whited sepulchres now residing in the Vatican, honesty is not the best policy.
AI Overview:
In Catholic canon law, the ordination of a bishop (episcopal consecration) generally requires a pontifical mandate—the express approval of the Pope—to ensure unity within the Church (Can. 1013). While the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Can. 1382) imposes automatic excommunication on bishops who consecrate others without this mandate, the concept of a "state of necessity" or "state of emergency" is often raised in debates regarding such actions.
Here is a breakdown of
the canonical and theological perspectives on this issue:
1. The General Rule
(Normative Canon Law)
- Papal Mandate Required: No
bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone as a bishop unless a pontifical
mandate is evident.
- Validity vs. Illicit: An
episcopal ordination performed without a mandate is considered valid (the
character of the episcopacy is conferred) but illicit (illegal/contrary
to Church law).
- Consecrators: Typically,
three bishops are required for a licit consecration, though only one is
necessary for validity.
2. "State of
Emergency" or Necessity
- Canon 1323 (State of Necessity): Canon law acknowledges that if a law is violated due to a state
of necessity or emergency, the person does not automatically incur a
penalty (such as excommunication).
- Historical Examples: In
situations of intense persecution, such as in communist-controlled
Czechoslovakia in the 1950s-60s, bishops were sometimes ordained without
immediate papal approval because the Vatican could not be reached, or the
Pope was effectively incapacitated by the regime.
- Theological Arguments: Some
argue that in extreme circumstances where the "good of souls" or
the survival of the faith is at risk, a bishop may ordain another to
ensure the continuation of the apostolic succession, provided they intend
to inform Rome as soon as it is safe to do so.
|
In a new in-depth interview with SSPX Superior General Fr. Davide Pagliarani, he says the consecration of bishops has become “a matter of grave necessity,” citing what he describes as an effort to preserve the “doctrinal emptiness characteristic of Pope Francis’ pontificate” as an “irreversible trajectory for the entire Church.”
Noting that his initial request for a private audience with Pope Leo XIV received no response, Fr. Pagliarani adds: “It seems to me extremely important to speak with the Holy Father. There are many things I would like to share with him that I was not able to include in my letters. Unfortunately, Cardinal Fernández’s response does not address the possibility of an audience with the Pope. It also evokes the possibility of new sanctions.”
Other key points in the interview:
- Fr. Pagliarani asserts that, through synodality, “traditional answers are being replaced by arbitrary decisions, with a high risk of being absurd and doctrinally unjustifiable.” He notes that “Cardinal Zen himself considers this method manipulative and considers attributing it to the Holy Ghost blasphemous.”
- Regarding the Abu Dhabi document’s assertion that “the plurality of religions had been willed as such by divine Wisdom,” he says: “I believe that a Catholic should prefer martyrdom rather than accept such an affirmation.”
- Observing that Cardinal Roche’s recent liturgical brief to cardinals effectively “condemns the liturgical project of Pope Benedict XVI,” he adds that, when one considers the post–Vatican II liturgical reform, “one arrives at shocking paradoxes: the reform was intended to foster greater participation by the faithful; yet the faithful abandoned the Church en masse because this insipid liturgy failed to nourish them— and this would supposedly have nothing to do with the reform?”
- In the February 2 interview—given on the liturgical feast of the Purification of the Most Blessed Virgin—Fr. Pagliarani also appears to allude to the controversial new DDF document “Mater Populi Fidelis”. Referring to the feast, he remarks: “It is an important Marian feast because, in announcing a sword of sorrow to Our Lady, Simeon clearly shows her role as Co-Redemptrix alongside her divine Son.” - https://x.com/dianemontagna/status/2019392493725307236
The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX) has confirmed that Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández will meet the group's Superior General in Rome next week, days after the traditionalist society announced plans to consecrate new bishops without a papal mandate. The announcement of a high-level meeting in Rome suggests that the Holy See is keen to prevent a further rupture.
The Society’s dispute with Rome has never been fundamentally about discipline, personalities or structures. It concerns teachings on religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism and the authority of the Second Vatican Council.
That is why the meeting is not being handled by the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life, headed by Sr Simona Brambilla. He (+Fernandez) is the Vatican’s designated enforcer with regard to its more progressive positions, where Rome believes the problem is not misunderstanding but resistance.
Why is the meeting not with the Pope himself? There is, of course, the principle that doctrinal matters are handled by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. But if episcopal consecrations without mandate threaten communion, why is the Successor of Peter absent from the room?
From the Society’s perspective, the question practically asks itself. Its deepest suspicion: that Rome wants delay without decision, dialogue without resolution. Every serious moment of SSPX–Vatican engagement has followed a crisis created by unilateral action, with Rome responding, talks intensifying and then stalling once the immediate pressure subsides.
The upcoming meeting would be limited to him and Pagliarani.https://thecatholicherald.com/article/vatican-summons-sspx-superior-after-bishops-consecration-announcem
 |
| +Fernandez soft porn that Leo's Rome would rather forget |
For readers with stamina:
The following is a February 2, 2026, interview with the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, Father Davide Pagliarani, originally published on February 5 by FSSPX.News (redacted).
(SSPX) — “Suprema lex, salus animarum” – “‘The supreme law is the salvation of souls.’ It is upon this higher principle that, ultimately, the entire legitimacy of our apostolate depends.”
FSSPX.News: Reverend Superior General, you have just publicly announced your intention to proceed with episcopal consecrations for the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X on July 1 next. Why did you choose to make this announcement today, February 2?
Don Davide Pagliarani: The feast of the Purification of the Most Blessed Virgin is the day on which candidates for the priesthood receive the cassock. The Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple reminds them that the key to their formation and preparation for Holy Orders lies in self-giving, which passes through the hands of Mary.
In announcing a sword of sorrow to Our Lady, Simeon clearly shows her role as Co-Redemptrix alongside her divine Son. Our Lady accompanies the future priest in his formation and throughout his entire life – it is she who continues to form Our Lord in his soul.
It was deemed necessary first that we approach the Holy See – which we did – and wait for a response. This was not a decision that we could take without concretely manifesting our recognition of the authority of the Holy Father.
You stated that you had indeed written to the Pope.
DP: Last summer, I wrote to the Holy Father to request an audience. Having received no reply, I wrote to him again a few months later.
A reply reached us a few days ago, from Cardinal Fernández. Unfortunately, it took no account whatsoever of the proposal we put forward, and offers nothing that responds to our requests.
We promised the Pope to devote all our energy to the safeguarding of Tradition, and to make of our faithful true sons of the Church.
Why do you consider it necessary to proceed with episcopal consecrations?
DP: This is an extreme means, proportionate to a real and likewise extreme necessity.
The fundamental reasons that justified the consecrations of 1988 still exist and, in many respects, impel us with renewed urgency. The Second Vatican Council remains more than ever the compass guiding today’s churchmen.
An explicit determination to preserve the line of Pope Francis as an irreversible trajectory for the entire Church is discernible.
It is sad to acknowledge, but it is a fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation. Missing are both the preaching of Catholic truth and morality, and the worthy administration of the sacraments. Our bishops are growing older, and are no longer sufficient to meet the demands of the faithful worldwide.
In what way do you believe that last month’s consistory confirms the direction taken by Pope Francis?
DP: Cardinal Fernández, speaking in the name of Pope Leo, invited the Church to return to Evangelii gaudium. He believes that the Gospel should be proclaimed by a series of concise and striking formulas – the “kerygma” – with a view to eliciting an “experience,” an immediate encounter with Christ. Everything else should be set aside, however precious it may be.
Tradition is considered as accessory and secondary. This new evangelization has produced the doctrinal emptiness of Pope Francis’s pontificate, keenly felt by many in the Church.
One must provide new and relevant answers to the questions of our time, but according to Cardinal Fernández this is to be done through synodal reform. So Pope Francis has imposed catastrophic decisions such as authorizing Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, or the blessing of same-sex couples.
Through the “kerygma,” the proclamation of the Gospel is isolated from traditional doctrine and morality. Through synodality, traditional answers are replaced by arbitrary decisions, with a high risk of being absurd and doctrinally unjustifiable. Cardinal Zen himself considers this method manipulative and considers attributing it to the Holy Ghost blasphemous.
The Society can give the impression of challenging the Church, especially if episcopal consecrations are envisaged. How do you explain this to the Pope?
DP: We serve the Church first and foremost by serving souls. The Church exists for souls; her purpose is their sanctification and their salvation.
The Church is in danger of busying herself with both everything and nothing. Ecological concerns, for example, or the preoccupation with the rights of minorities, of women, or of migrants, risk causing the essential mission of the Church to be lost from view. If the SSPX strives to preserve Tradition it is solely because these treasures are vital for the salvation of souls, and because it aims at nothing else but the good of souls, and that of the priesthood – ordered to their sanctification.
It is for the Pope himself, as such, that we preserve this treasure until the day when its value will once again be understood and when a Pope will wish to make use of it for the good of the whole Church.
But the Society has no mission over souls. It was canonically suppressed more than 50 years ago. On what basis can any mission of the Society towards souls be justified?
DP: It is quite simply a question of charity. We do not wish to attribute to ourselves a mission that we do not have, but at the same time, we cannot refuse to respond to the spiritual distress of souls who are increasingly perplexed, disoriented, and lost. And they find deep joy, light, and consolation in the riches of the Tradition of the Church. To these souls, we have a true responsibility. If someone in the street sees another in danger, he is bound to come to that person’s aid according to his means, even if he is neither a fireman nor a policeman.
This charity is a duty which commands all others. The very law of the Church provides for it. The good of souls represents the law of laws, against which no ecclesiastical law can prevail.
The axiom “suprema lex, salus animarum” – ” the supreme law is the salvation of souls” – is taken up by the final canon of the 1983 Code. We fulfil a role of supplying for a deficiency, in the name of that same charity.
Are you aware that contemplating episcopal consecrations could place the faithful who have recourse to the Society before a dilemma: either the choice of integral Tradition or “full” communion with the hierarchy of the Church?
DP: A Catholic must preserve both integral Tradition and communion with the hierarchy. He cannot choose between these goods, because they are both necessary.
But communion is founded upon the Catholic faith – a true sacramental life – and this requires the exercise of a governance that preaches this same faith and ensures that it is put into practice.
The Society cannot accept what opposes and distorts that communion, even when this comes from those who themselves exercise authority in the Church by right.
Could you give a concrete example of what the Society cannot accept?
DP: Pope Francis signed, together with an imam, the Abu Dhabi declaration. He affirmed that the plurality of religions had been willed as such by divine Wisdom.
A communion founded upon such a statement would simply not be Catholic. It would constitute a sin against the First Commandment and denial of the first article of the Creed.
I consider such a statement to be more than a simple error. It is simply inconceivable. It cannot be the foundation of Catholic communion, but rather the cause of its dissolution. I believe that a Catholic should prefer martyrdom rather than accept such an affirmation.
Throughout the world, awareness of errors long denounced by the Society is growing. Would it not be better to allow this movement to develop and to trust in Providence rather than intervene with a strong public gesture such as episcopal consecrations?
DP: This movement is certainly positive, and one can only rejoice in it. Undoubtedly, it illustrates the soundness of what the Society defends, and there is every reason to encourage this dissemination of the truth by all available means. That said, the battle of faith cannot be restricted to the internet.
On Sundays, souls do not need to consult the internet; they need a priest who hears their confessions and instructs them, who celebrates the Mass for them, who truly sanctifies them and leads them to God. Souls need priests. And to have priests, bishops are required, not “influencers.”
 |
| How it's done |
Do you not think that the Society could end up considering itself to be the Church, or attributing to itself an irreplaceable role?
DP: The Society retains a deep awareness that it exists solely to serve the Church. It is not she who saves the Church, for Our Lord alone preserves and saves His Spouse.
Do you think the Holy Father might accept, or at least tolerate, that the Society consecrate bishops without a pontifical mandate?
DP: A Pope is first and foremost a father. As such, he is capable of discerning a right intention, a sincere will to serve the Church, and above all, a genuine case of conscience in an exceptional situation.
Do you think that Rome could tolerate such a decision on the part of the Society?
DP: The Holy See is sometimes capable of showing a certain pragmatism, and even a surprising flexibility, when it is convinced that it is acting for the good of souls.
Despite a genuine schism of the Chinese Patriotic Church, despite the persecution of the underground Church faithful to Rome, despite agreements renewed and then broken by the Chinese authorities, in 2023, Pope Francis approved, a posteriori, the appointment of the Bishop of Shanghai by those authorities.
Pope Leo XIV accepted, a posteriori, the appointment of the Bishop of Xinxiang, designated in the same manner during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, while the bishop, faithful to Rome – who had been imprisoned several times – was still in office.
These were pro-[CCP] government prelates, imposed unilaterally by Beijing to control the Catholic Church in China.
The Society’s case is not a matter of favoring a communist or anti-Christian power, but solely of safeguarding the rights of Christ the King and of the Tradition of the Church. t
The Holy Father knows the Society has no intention of granting jurisdiction to its bishops, which would amount to creating a parallel Church.
With regard to the traditional Mass, do you think that the necessity of souls is as grave today as it was in 1988? In what direction are we heading with the new Pope?
DP: Pope Leo XIV has maintained a certain discretion. Very recently, however, a text by Cardinal Roche on the liturgy was made public. There is no reason to doubt that it corresponds to the orientation desired by the Pope.
This text, in perfect continuity with Traditionis custodes, condemns the liturgical project of Pope Benedict XVI who sought to promote the coexistence of the two rites inSummorum Pontificum.
While maintaining the assertion of a continuity from one rite to the other through reform, Cardinal Roche firmly opposes their coexistence. In the Church, “there ought to be only one rite,” in full syntony with the true meaning of Tradition.
This is a just and coherent principle, b applied to a wrong conception of Tradition. Cardinal Roche conceives Tradition as something evolving, and the new rite as its sole living expression for our time.
That there is a present “division” and incompatibility between the two rites now appears more apparent than ever. But the only liturgy that adequately expresses the traditional conception of the Church, Christian life, and of Catholic priesthood is the liturgy of all time. On this point, the opposition of the Holy See appears more irrevocable than ever.
Cardinal Roche nevertheless has the honesty to acknowledge that there are still specific problems in the implementation of the liturgical reform.
DP: It is astonishing that, after 60 years, a real difficulty in applying the liturgical reform is still admitted, and its riches are still to be discovered. But instead of facing the reality that churches are emptying and vocations are declining, instead of asking why the Tridentine rite continues to attract so many souls, Cardinal Roche sees no other solution than an urgent preliminary formation of the faithful and seminarians.
Without realizing it, he thus enters into a vicious circle, for it is the liturgy itself that is meant to form souls. For almost 2,000 years, souls – often illiterate – were edified and sanctified by the liturgy, without the need for any prior formation.
Failing to recognize the incapacity of the Novus Ordo to form and edify souls and continuing to demand ever better prior formation seems to me to be the sign of an irremediable blindness. One arrives at shocking paradoxes: the reform was intended to foster a greater participation of the faithful; yet the faithful abandoned the Church en masse, because this insipid liturgy failed to nourish them – and this would supposedly have nothing to do with the reform?
 |
| Assisi: the catalyst for Archbishop Lefebvre's episcopal consecrations |
Today, in many countries, groups outside the Society still use the 1962 Missal. Such possibilities hardly existed in 1988. Would this not be a sufficient alternative, rendering new episcopal consecrations premature?
DP: The question we must ask ourselves is this: do these possibilities correspond to what the Church and souls truly need? Do they respond sufficiently to the necessities of souls?
The framework is that of a Church in which the only official and “normal” rite is that of Paul VI. The celebration of the rite of all time, therefore, takes place under a regime of exception.
Those priests attached to this rite receive dispensations which are inscribed within the logic of the new ecclesiology. They tacitly accept that the new liturgy remains the criterion of the piety of the faithful and the authentic expression of the life of the Church.
Why do you say that one cannot abstract from this exceptional framework? Is not good, nevertheless, being done? What concrete consequences would be regrettable?
DP: At least three harmful consequences result. The most immediate is a profound structural fragility. Priests and faithful who benefit from certain privileges allowing them to use the Tridentine liturgy live in anxiety about the future – a privilege is not a right.
So long as authority tolerates them, they may carry on their religious practice without being troubled. But as soon as authority formulates particular demands, imposes conditions, or suddenly revokes the permissions granted, priests and faithful find themselves with no means of defending themselves to effectively guarantee the traditional assistance that souls have a right to expect.
Furthermore, the reason for the attachment of these groups to the Tridentine liturgy is no longer understood. This gravely compromises the public rights of the Tradition of the Church and thereby the good of souls.
Indeed, if those attached to the Mass of all time are deemed to accept that the modern Mass be celebrated throughout the Church, and if they are believed to claim for themselves only a particular privilege, how can it then be understood that this Mass of all time stands in irreducible opposition to the new Mass, remains the sole true liturgy of the whole Church, and that no one may be prevented from celebrating it?
 |
| Archbishop Viganò gives 'full support' to SSPX consecrations |
How can it be known that the Mass of Paul VI cannot be recognized, because it constitutes a considerable departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and that no one may be compelled to celebrate it? And how are souls to be effectively turned away from this poisoned liturgy, to drink from the pure sources of Catholic liturgy?
Finally, the fear of breaking a fragile stability by behavior deemed “disturbing” reduces many pastors to a constrained silence, when they should be raising their voices against scandalous teaching which corrupts faith or morals.
The necessary denunciation of errors that undermine the Church – required by the very good of souls who are threatened by this poisoned nourishment – is thereby left undone. One may enlighten another in private, but it may be only a timid whisper, in which truth struggles to express itself. Once again, souls are no longer enlightened and are deprived of the bread of doctrine for which they remain hungry.
Over time, this progressively alters mentalities and gradually leads to a general and unconscious acceptance of the various reforms affecting the life of the Church. Towards these souls, too, the Society feels a responsibility to enlighten and not to abandon.
Insofar as the use of the traditional liturgy remains conditioned upon at least an implicit acceptance of the conciliar reforms, the groups who benefit from it cannot constitute an adequate response to the profound necessities experienced by the Church and by souls.
Catholics today must be offered a truth without compromise together with the means to live it fully, for the salvation of souls and the service of the whole Church.
Do you not think that Rome might show itself more generous in the future with regard to the traditional Mass?
DP: Rome may adopt a more open attitude in the future, as in 1988 when the old Missal was granted to specific groups in an attempt to draw the faithful away from the Society. Should this happen again, it would again be more political than doctrinal. The Tridentine Missal is intended solely to adore the divine majesty and to nourish faith; it must not be instrumentalized.
Both Pope Francis and Cardinal Roche saw that broadening the use of the Missal of Saint Pius V inevitably triggers a questioning of the liturgical reform and of the [Second Vatican] Council on a scale that is both troublesome and, above all, uncontrollable.
What would you like to say in particular to the faithful and to the members of the Society?
DP: We must prepare ourselves to receive the grace that these consecrations will occasion for the whole Church.
 |
| Pope St Pius X |
Do you still hope to meet the Pope?
DP: Yes. It seems extremely important. Cardinal Fernández’s response does not address the possibility of an audience with the Pope. It also evokes the possibility of new sanctions.
What will the Society do if the Holy See decides to condemn it?
DP: First of all, let us recall that in such circumstances any canonical penalties would have no real effect.
Nevertheless the Society would certainly accept this new suffering without bitterness, as it has accepted past sufferings, and would sincerely offer it for the good of the Church. It is for the Church that the Society works. Should such a situation arise it could only be temporary, for the Church is divine and Our Lord will not abandon her.
The Society will continue to pray with filial devotion for the Pope, as it has always done, while awaiting the day when it may be freed from any unjust sanctions, as was the case in 2009.
We are sure that one day the Roman authorities will acknowledge, with gratitude, that these episcopal consecrations providentially contributed to preserving the faith, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/interview-with-the-superior-general-of-the-priestly-society-of-saint-pius-x/?utm_source=t
Lord of the Harvest, have mercy on your Church
