To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.
Cardinals Gerhard Müller and Robert Sarah have joined the chorus line on stage in the Vatican's SSPX soap opera. +Muller's theology is dodgy (he denies the Virgin Birth); and Sarah - who supports Medjugorje - accuses the SSPX of 'leaving Peter's boat'. But just as St Peter's love for Christ induced him to leap into a stormy sea, so was Archbishop Lefebvre persuaded in 1988 to expose his Society to the danger of excommunication, simply to preserve the Catholic priesthood and the Depositum Fidei (Deposit of Faith).
The core issue here is not one of obedience to the papacy but of preserving the Superdogma of Vatican II which propelled the Church into a tailspin of socialism, heterodoxy, sodomy and synodality - a new, false religion. A schism of Rome's own creation. The SSPX will consecrate bishops. And if Antipope Leo and Tucho Fernandez retaliate with excommunications, the Society will be freed from Rome's clutches and any contamination with its heresy.
Pope Benedict XVI never validly resigned. He remained the one and only Vicar of Christ until his death. So Jorge Bergoglio was an Antipope, and likewise now the non-Catholic Robert “FtR” Prevost.
So one wonders why the SSPX exhibits such cognitive dissonance in behaving as if Bergoglio and now Prevost were/are popes. Surely the Superior General of the SSPX is above pragmatism? But in 'dialoguing' with the porn peddler Fernandez, Fr Pagliarani should beware: he who sups with the devil should have a long spoon.
The response of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirms decades of consistency, without yielding to the pressures and overtures of the conciliar and synodal Church.
It has the merit of wittily demonstrating the paradox of those who in words preach dialogue and inclusiveness, but in practice demonstrate a “double standard” depending on who they are speaking to.
Fr. Davide Pagliarani provocatively asks Tucho Fernández to grant the SSPX the same “pastoral flexibility” it has demonstrated in other cases, knowing full well that the “pastoralism” of synodal officials is a hypocritical rhetorical pretense.
His words echo those of Archbishop Lefebvre to Paul VI: “Let us make the experience of the Tradition” (September 11, 1976). It is the “argumentum ex concessis”—a rhetorical and logical technique in which an interlocutor uses the assertions made by the opponent to construct his own argument, in order to refute or demonstrate the opponent’s position as erroneous.
Fernández remains in charge of the Dicastery in order to continue the Bergoglian agenda https://youtu.be/boQT5qKFSt4?t=1436 At 23:56min
Fr. Pagliarani reminds Tucho Fernández that the Society does not intend to embrace the hypothesis of a “lowest common denominator” that smooths over obvious doctrinal differences; and that the task of the Hierarchy is to safeguard the integrity of the Depositum Fidei, not to prune it to avoid friction.
And precisely by virtue of this principle, the General Superior demonstrates the absurdity of engaging in debate on the level of Charity, ignoring the Truth.
A beautiful lesson—very elegant and not without a touch of healthy irony—that reminds Tucho Fernández that the role of Prefect of the former Holy Office does not consist in selling out the Faith in the name of a unity that can be founded solely and exclusively on the integrity of the Catholic Faith.
If Tucho Fernández truly believes that the pastoral approach has any chance, he must demonstrate it by acting consistently with what he affirms, something that Tucho—like Cardinal Müller—rules out a priori, elevating Vatican II to an untouchable fetish.
Not a good look for a prince of the Church. It's the Novus Ordo effect
The ball is now in Tucho’s and Leo’s court. The only thing either can do is declare a “schism”, and thus definitively save the Society of Saint Pius X from any contamination by the errors of the conciliar and synodal Church.
 |
The schism exists: but it is that of a “Church” willing to deny all Catholic Dogmas to save the conciliar and synodal superdogma.
As I stated hopefully in a recent interview with Stephen Kokx: Tucho and Leo have now been “backed into a corner,” or as they would say in Chiclayo: “Entre la espada y la pared” (between the sword and the wall). Deo gratias.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Viterbo, 20 February 2026 https://x.com/CarloMVigano/status/2025133700233474070
 |
| The episcopal consecrations of the SSPX, 1988 |
Like the Protestant Reformation where churches have split into a number of different denominations, the SSPX has experienced three major internal splits since the 1988 episcopal consecrations. None of these were mere personality departures; each produced a distinct group with its own structure, clergy, and long term trajectory.
ReplyDeleteThe three major post 1988 splits
1) 1991–1994: The “Resistance to the Resistance” and the birth of the SSPV aligned currents
This was not a single moment but a cluster of defections. After Archbishop Lefebvre’s death in 1991, a minority of priests concluded that the SSPX was becoming too “soft” toward Rome.
• Some joined or aligned with the Society of St Pius V (SSPV), which had already broken from Lefebvre in 1983 over liturgical and jurisdictional issues.
• Others formed small independent chapels.
• This was the first significant fragmentation after 1988, even though the SSPV itself pre dated the consecrations.
2) 2012: Bishop Williamson and the “SSPX Resistance”
This is the clearest and most widely recognised split.
• Bishop Richard Williamson was expelled from the SSPX in 2012.
• He and a group of priests formed what is now called the “SSPX Resistance” or “Marian Corps”, later coalescing into the Union of Catholic Priests (UCP) and eventually the “FSSPX Resistance / SAJM” (St Augustine’s Seminary, Bishop Faure, etc.).
• This split was explicitly over the SSPX leadership’s willingness to negotiate canonical regularisation with Rome.
3) 2018–2020: The “Strict Observance” / “SSPX SO” micro split
A smaller but still structured break.
• Some priests argued that the SSPX leadership under Fr. Pagliarani had become too institutional and insufficiently combative toward Rome.
• They formed the SSPX Strict Observance (SSPX SO), a tiny group but a real organisational departure.
Therefore, if people want to leave the Church there are several choices for them besides the SSPX.