Communique of the General House on the Meeting between Cardinal Ladaria and Father Pagliarani, November 22, 2018



Communiqué of the General House of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X on the meeting between Cardinal Ladaria and Father Pagliarani, 22 November 2018

On Thursday, November 22, 2018, Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, visited Rome at the invitation of Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He was accompanied by Father Emmanuel du Chalard. Cardinal Ladaria was assisted by Mgr Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

The interview took place in the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Its purpose was to allow Cardinal Ladaria and Father Pagliarani to meet for the first time and to review together the relations between the Holy See and the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, since the election of his new Superior General last July.

During the meeting with the Roman authorities, it was recalled that the fundamental problem is indeed doctrinal, and neither the Fraternity nor Rome can avoid it. It is because of this irreducible doctrinal divergence that any attempt to elaborate a draft doctrinal declaration acceptable to both parties has not been successful for seven years. This is why the doctrinal question remains absolutely essential.

The Holy See does not say anything else when it solemnly affirms that the establishment of a legal status for the Fraternity can only be done after the signature of a document of a doctrinal nature.

Everything therefore pushes the Fraternity to resume the theological discussion, well aware that the Good Lord does not necessarily ask it to convince its interlocutors, but to bring before the Church the unconditional witness of the faith.

The future of the Fraternity is in the hands of Providence and the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, as shown by its entire history, from its foundation to the present day.

The members of the Fraternity want nothing more than to serve the Church and cooperate effectively in its regeneration, even to the point of giving their lives for its triumph, if necessary. But they cannot choose the way, the terms or the moment of what belongs to God alone.

Menzingen, 23 November 2018


Brief Commentary:

  1. The communique recalls that the differences between Menzingen and Rome are indeed doctrinal, and because of this “doctrinal divergence” (not so deep as in previous years!), attempts to reach an acceptable doctrinal declaration (in advance of a juridical “regularization”) have been unsuccessful.

But then comes the non-sequitur (i.e., A conclusion or statement which does not logically follow from the previous statement):

“Everything therefore pushes the Fraternity to resume the theological discussion.”


In fact, it is precisely the opposite which is the case:

Everything indicates the pointless nature of resumed doctrinal discussions if in fact the “doctrinal divergence” remains intact.

Consequently, we are left to conclude that either Menzingen is willing to blur its own doctrinal positions (Something it has been doing already since at least 2009, with the scandalous statements of Bishop Fellay in his CNS interview accepting in principle religious liberty, in addition to his placing the Second Vatican Council within the Church’s Tradition), or, Rome is converting to Tradition.

It is obvious which of the two has transpired.

  1. After the non-sequitur follows this amazing statement: “…the Good Lord does not necessarily ask it to convince its interlocutors, but to bring before the Church the unconditional witness of the faith.”

This is the official announcement of the abandonment of any requirement of conversion on the part of Rome back to Tradition as a prerequisite for a juridical “regularization.” As such, it reverses the official position of the SSPX in effect from 1988 - 2012 (but as recounted elsewhere, had been undermined within the SSPX at least since GREC in 1997, and according to Bishop Williamson in a recent conference, was already being undermined during the Archbishop’s lifetime).

Moreover, the quotation carries within itself an internal contradiction:

The Good Lord, apparently, does not require of the SSPX to try to convert Rome, but only to bear witness to the Faith. But, if the SSPX is not interested in converting Rome back to the Faith, in what way is it bringing the Church an unconditional witness of the faith?

And more to the point, what is the purpose of these discussions, from the perspective of Tradition, if not to convince Rome of its errors and bring it to conversion?

With Archbishop Lefebvre, the purpose of discussions was very clear:

“We have been at cross purposes in these conversations. On our side, we are expecting the return of Tradition to Rome. On their side, they do not budge.”

But from the level of common sense, a branded SSPX which fears to upset Rome with any criticism of Vatican II and the post-conciliar reform is in no position to enter into doctrinal discussions with Rome, much less pretend it is bringing “the Church an unconditional witness of the faith.”

Far from it!

I woud be less critical of Menzingen if it would just come out and say, “After 10 years of branding and refusing to condemn the conciliar errors, we believe we have successfully prepared minds (clerical and lay) for the acceptance of an accord with unconverted Rome, and consequently we believe the time is right for us to resume the charade of doctrinal discussions, in order to announce a doctrinal agreement.”

  1. “The future of the Fraternity is in the hands of Providence and the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, as shown by its entire history, from its foundation to the present day.”

In other words, the gratuitous and manifestly false idea that God wants a deal, and backs the ralliement!

How then was Bishop Tissier de Mallerais telling us in 2012 that the same Blessed Virgin Mary had protected the SSPX by blocking Bishop Fellay’s treasonous deal?

Note also the reference to “as shown by its entire history…” An attempt to smooth over the abrupt reorientation in 2012 by asserting a fictitious continuity of position with regard to Rome. Nothing could be further from the truth: It is this abrupt reorientation which was the genesis of the Resistance in the first place (If there were truly continuity over the entire history of the SSPX, what reason would we have had to organize in a contrary direction?).

But just as with the Rosary Crusades, the neo-SSPX does not hesitate to lay claim to the sponsorship of Heaven to endorse its worldly aspirations:

God wants the betrayal of Tradition, and the death of any substantial opposition to the conciliar errors which have caused the apostasy and damnation of millions.

It takes ones breath away even to think such a thought, but still they use the technique.

  1. “The members of the Fraternity want nothing more than to serve the Church and cooperate effectively in its regeneration, even to the point of giving their lives for its triumph, if necessary. But they cannot choose the way, the terms or the moment of what belongs to God alone.”

More of the same: God is commanding them to have doctrinal discussions to get a deal from unconverted Rome, and who are they to refuse the manifest will of God?

More to the point: The organization of the apostolate as it existed in the SSPX from 1988-2011 is no longer “the way.”

God commands the changes in the SSPX, and what can we do but follow His will?

At bottom of that idea is one undeniable conclusion: “The way” of Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong. He was wrong, for example, to have said:

“The day when the Vatican will be delivered from this occupation by Modernists and will come back to the path followed by the Church down to Vatican II, our new bishops will put themselves entirely in the hands of our Sovereign Pontiff, to the point of desisting if he so wishes from the exercise of their episcopal functions.”

They will say he was right for his time, but we can’t be 1988ers anymore (Fr. Simoulin), and this Pope is giving us everything we could ask for. But it is clear that Francis (as with BXVI and JPII before him) is overtly modernist and hostile to Tradition, and the criterion which Archbishop Lefebvre laid out above (which did not have a shelf-life) has not been met.

What can neo-Menzingen do but prattle on about how “Its not a trap,” and “there have been no compromises?”

  1. Meanwhile, for quite a different interpretation of God’s Providence, see this 2009 Letter of Fr. Jean de Morgon



Dear parishioners from Aldergrove and Post Falls,

The new General Superior of the Neo-SSPX, Fr. Pagliarani, has been received today in Rome by the President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission (Abp. Pozzo). He had asked for such a meeting after his election of July. You can see more details in the link below.

Let me just say this:

1-How could any true lover and soldier of Christ the King want to meet with members of an organization (the Conciliar Church) that, as Abp Lefebvre wrote, has uncrowned Him? How can somebody with a clear vision of the Catholic Faith, and of the pure worship due to God Almighty, ever engage in discussions and negotiations with God’s unrepentant ennemies? How can we pretend to work for the salvation of souls, when we “discuss” with those unrepentantly responsible for the loss of millions of souls (many of them our own relatives)?

2-The Society already had two years of such discussions (2009-2011). The official results were that they have exposed irreconciliable doctrinal differences between the Conciliar Church and the Society. But we know that Rome has not changed since 2011, except in worse. We also know that they are not about to change for the better and reject Vatican II and its “reforms”. Therefore, such new doctrinal discussions, if they have to have any purpose at all, must try to achieve a different conclusion to those of 2009-2011, and this could only happen if the Society is ready to change its own doctrinal views. (In practice, the abandonment in 2012 of the 2006 Declaration was already a change in doctrine, an official shift towards liberalism).

3-Despite this “disappointing” conclusion of the 2009-2011 discussions, Rome proposed, on September 14th 2011, a “Preamble” for an agreement. It was studied and rejected at a special meeting of SSPX Major Superiors in Albano in October 2011. The fact that this “Preamble” was even studied and discussed by the Society leadership, despite the failure of the 2009-2011 doctrinal discussions, and the fact that Bishop Williamson had been excluded from attending, because of his refusal to stop his Eleison Comments blog, denouncing these tractations with Rome, show us that the desire for a “normalization” was already strong in many hearts…

4-Despite this October 2011 refusal of the Roman “Preamble”, the Society’s General Superior at the time (Bp. Fellay) maintained contacts with Rome, and proposed to Rome his own version of the Preamble on April 15 2012. This “Declaration” to Rome was only slightly different from the Roman Preamble of 2011. Bishop Fellay then received assurances from his Roman insider “friends” that his Declaration was accepted by the Pope, and that he would be summoned to Rome in June to sign the final agreement. Bishop Fellay and his collaborators then embarked on a worldwide tour of conferences and sermons and TV interviews to promote the idea of a Roman “recognition”.

5-The only thing that prevented a formal agreement between Rome and the Society at the time was the leakage, on May 10 2012, of the letters exchanged in April 7 and 14 of that year between Bishop Fellay and the three other SSPX bishops, who were opposed to his Declaration (which he had submitted to them before sending it to Rome on April 15). This leakage, and the “promotion” tour of Bp Fellay and his friends, having created a strong public reaction from many SSPX priests, Rome declared, on May 16th 2012, that the cases of Bishop Fellay and of the 3 dissenting bishops would have to be dealt with separately by Rome. This was a way of saying that, because of the internal dissensions at the highest level in the Society, a general agreement between Conciliar Rome and the Society was not possible at the time. In other words: Before Rome could “normalize” the Society, the Society would have to clean up its own mess and come back with a united front.

6-Then Rome, as promised, summoned Bp Fellay to Rome. He quickly complied, and was there on June 13. But there he was given to sign a new version of his April 15 Declaration that had an added paragraph asking for full acceptance of Vatican II. Thus Rome allowed Bp Fellay to save face within the Society, by giving him an official reason to refuse Rome’s latest proposition, and thus to appear “traditional” again. Bishop Fellay then declared that all contacts with Rome were stopped and that the Society was “back to square one” (June 13, 2012).

7-Despite this “valiant” refusal of Rome’s June proposition by Bp. Fellay, the subsequent General Chapter (July 2012) made a 180 degrees change in Society policy, and officially declared that the Declaration of the 2006 General Chapter (“no practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement” i.e. no agreement with non-converted Rome) was henceforth null and void, and that a recognition from non-converted Rome could now be accepted, provided Rome fulfilled three “necessary conditions” to protect the Society’s “identity” and “mission”. (More later about this).

8-Moreover, the 2012 General Chapter, thanks to the intervention of Fr. Pagliarani (yes, the new General Superior!), did not condemn Bp Fellay for his April 15 proposition to Rome. Moreover, it issued a final Declaration of unity, expressively saying that the Society, after some difficult times, had recovered its unity. The General Superior and his Assistants later on proceeded to officially expel, or to move away to the “boonies”, all those who expressed publicly their opposition to the abandonment of the 2006 policy, it is to say Bp Williamson and a few priests (your humble servant being one of them). Thus, only a few months after Rome had sent the message that the SSPX Superiors needed to “clean up the Society’s mess” and present a “united front”, it has seen its wishes being granted!

9-This led to more meetings with Roman officials, and even with Pope Francis, and to the September 2014 adoption by Abp Pozzo and Bp Fellay of a resolution to “regularize” the SSPX situation, and to bring it to “full communion” in a “step-by-step” manner. They also declared that a “regularization” could come before all points of divergence were cleared-up, and that these “difficult questions” could be dealt with, in an atmosphere of “fraternal charity”, after the “normalization”.

10-This was followed by “concessions” from Rome that “regularized” the Society’s administration of the sacraments of: Penance (on a provisional basis in 2014, and then permanently in 2015); Holy Orders (2016); and Matrimony (2017). These “concessions” brought the Society, at least for the administration of these three sacraments, under the rule of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 (which, as J-P II said in its Preface, puts into laws the teachings of Vatican II). These “concessions” were all gratefully and officially accepted by the Society’s General Council (Bp Fellay and his two Assistants).

All that precedes is to show that the doctrinal discussions of 2009-2011 have led to a point where, had it not been for the May 2012 leakage of the letters exchanged by the four bishops, the Society would have been “recognized” by non-converted Rome in the spring of 2012, and given a statute of Personal Prelature.

And even if this plan was not achieved in June of 2012, it nevertheless led to radical changes in the Society’s orientations and membership, just a few months later!

(A quick side note about the 2012 General Chapter “necessary conditions” to an agreement with the Conciliar Church: These Neo-SSPX “conditions” are reminiscent of the language used in all the agreements signed by other traditional Congregations with the Conciliar Church! Indeed, all these agreements proclaim that Rome promises to protect the “special grace and charisma” of the Institute! Now, just think a little bit, and you will see how such language is very revealing! Indeed, if Rome declares that being Catholic is a “special grace and charisma” of a religious Institute that needs a special approval and protection from Rome, it implies that Rome doesn’t consider being Catholic as being “mainstream” and “normal” in the Conciliar Church! And that is because the Conciliar Church is officially ecumenical since the end of the Council (1965). In other words, when the Conciliar Church “recognizes” a Traditional Institute, it: 1-Declares implicitely that the Conciliar Church itself is different from the Catholic Church; 2-It accepts Tradition in the spirit of ecumenism, it is to say that of “Unity in Diversity”).

Back to November 22, 2018: Now, what can we reasonably expect from Fr. Pagliarani’s request of a re-opening of “doctrinal discussions” with Rome?

Obviously, nothing good!

Indeed, during the 2009-2011 doctrinal discussions, the Society was still officially guided by the Declaration of the 2006 General Chapter mentioned above (#7). Moreover, during these discussions, the Society had 3 out of 4 bishops who were opposed to a “practical” agreement with non-converted Rome. The Society also could then count in its bosom a good number of staunchly anti-liberal priests who were not afraid to publicly “bark at the wolves in sheep clothing”.

But, in 2018, the Society will start a new round of doctrinal discussions with Conciliar Rome on a much weaker basis! Because, since 2012, the Society has changed deeply!

Indeed, since 2012, the Society: 1- Has accepted the principle of an agreement with a Conciliar Church that would remain Conciliar; 2- It has expelled all its members that were vocally anti-liberals, and Bishops Galarreta and Tissier have changed their minds and joined Bisop Fellay; 3-By accepting the three Roman “concessions” of 2015, 2016, and 2017, it has already placed itself under the jurisdiction of the Modernist Code of Canon Law of 1983 and of Modernist authorities. 4- The 2018 General Chapter has failed, once again, to condemn Bishop Fellay’s Declaration of April 15 2012, which had the initial approval of Pope Benedict XVI. 5-The same 2018 General Chapter has elected at its head five Major Superiors who have been actively seeking a “regularization” from the Conciliar Church. 6-It has also adopted an ambiguous turn of phrase that could be interpreted as giving the new General Superior full and absolute authority to unilaterally sign an agreement with the Conciliar Church, i.e. without the need of an approval by a new General Chapter. (Obviously, such ambiguity in the Society’s own official documents does not bode well for the clarity of the upcoming discussions with Rome!).

Therefore, if the 2009-2011 discussions led a strong Society to the brink of a formal agreement with the Conciliar Church, we have reason to fear that the 2018 discussions will bring a weak Society to formally agree to make “full” what has been so far a “partial” regularization, in other words, to go from a partial to a full “Communion”. This could only bring a disaster in this world and in the hereafter.

The Superiors, members, and faithful of the Neo-Society should remember the warning given by Our Lord in the Book of the Apocalypse: "Go out from her (i.e. the Great Babylon sitting on the seven hills = Prostituted Rome), my people: that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues." (Apoc 18:4).

God have mercy on His Church!

Fr. Girouard



Archbishop Lefebvre will indeed become the nice and quaint founder who will become more and more remote of a figure.


Back to Square 1?

I have written in the past that, at particularly delicate and dangerous points for the Roman/Menzingen ralliement process, the parties have declared that negotiations have crumbled, and everything has gone “back to square 1.”

The purpose, of course, is to dissipate the tensions and potential oppositions forming around new developments in the ralliement process which have actually brought that process closer to its “successful” conclusion.

So, for example, back in 2012 (shortly after Bishop Williamson had sabotaged the ralliement with the leakage of the “Letter of the Three Bishops,” and just prior to the General Chapter), Bishop Fellay used the technique to enable him to survive that Chapter with his authority (and therefore the ralliement) intact, by declaring at the June 29, 2012 ordinations sermon in Econe:

"There has been a lot of back and forth, exchanges, letters and protests, but we are back to square one.”

Five years later, in the spring of 2017, a furor arose over Bishop Fellay’s acceptance of “pastoral guidelines,” which submitted SSPX marriages to diocesan approval (i.e., subordinated the SSPX to diocesan authority). Bishop Fellay would once again use the same technique in an attempt (inevitably successful) to dissipate pressures, and save the incremental ralliement process:

“It is like in the Game of the Goose. We were almost at the end and then we landed on the ‘go back to start’ square. Everything has fallen to the ground, it is necessary to begin again from square one.”

Today, in the face of the bizarre news that Fr. Pagliarani has gone begging to Rome, and initiated a request to reopen doctrinal discussions (discussions for which both sides acknowledge the existence of an irreconcilable doctrinal divergence), raising the well-founded suspicion that the SSPX is ready to take a more liberal approach this time around, the Roman media machine and Andrea Tornielli (of Vatican Insider have again come to the rescue of the ralliement process, by claiming that everything is back to square 1:

Everything is wrong, we have to do everything again. After years of theological dialogue, hard discussions, reserved meetings in Vatican palaces, the relationship between the Holy See and the St. Pius X Fraternity continues on the high seas, and any possible solution or approach seems to be moving away. In spite of the great availability shown first by Benedict XVI (with the liberalization of the old Mass and the cancellation of excommunications) and then by Francis (assuring the validity of confessions and marriages celebrated by the priests of the Fraternity), it seems that one returns to the starting point…"

But is it really true that on any of these occasions, the ralliement process was destroyed, and the state of relations brought back to a starting point?


Deep compromises and concessions on both sides had already been made, and they were not retracted or annulled in 2012, 2017, or 2018:

In 2012, by the signing of the April 15, 2012 doctrinal declaration, Bishop Fellay had already agreed to -and never recanted- the legitimacy of the new Mass and the hermeneutic of continuity; he had already publicly announced his departure with Archbishop Lefebvre’s prudential precondition for “regularization” by his willingness to accept a merely practical accord; he had already gone on record as accepting in principle religious liberty in his CNS interview; he had already decided to alienate and marginalize Bishop Williamson’s contrarian voice by eliminating him from important SSPX meetings on the subject of the ralliement; etc.

And by that same year, Rome had reciprocated: The (unacceptable) motu proprio was left in place; the “excommunications” were not reactivated; Bishop Fellay had received canonical authority to try his own priests; etc.

In other words, despite Bishop Fellay’s 2012 claim that things were back to square 1, relations between Rome and the SSPX were quite well advanced, and if some inconveniences or delay arose regarding the timing of the evevntual accord, and some brush fires had to be put out, the state of the ralliemment remained exactly where it was, and had even progressed.

The same can be said with regard to Bishop Fellay’s 2017 claims:

After the furor (particularly in France) regarding the “pastoral guidelines,” Bishop Fellay reverted to this tactic, but in fact, “progress” towards the ralliement of the SSPX had made remarkable advances in the intervening years between 2012-2017:

The SSPX had received ordinary jurisdiction to hear confessions; it had received jurisdiction for extreme unction; it had received tacit approval to ordain priests; it even had Sunday Masses in some dioceses with the permission of local bishops; it could now say Mass in the Roman basilicas; etc.

For its part, Menzingen was quick to reciprocate:

Defenses of the Ecclesia Dei groups popped up on SSPX internet sites, and in its condemnation of Fr. Pivert’s book (which it claimed emphasized too much Christ the King!); participation in tradcumenical events became commonplace; it no longer told its faithful they could not attend indult Masses; more and more priests of questionable ordination began to staff its parishes; it chose not to comment on the never-ending barrage of Roman scandals; it refused to condemn Roman modernism or Vatican II from the pulpit.

The same can be said with regard to Tornielli’s claims today:

Not only has there been no setback in “progress” towards an accord from the time of Bishop Fellay’s 2017 claim until today, but on the contrary, there has been remarkable progress:

The furor regarding the “pastoral guidelines” submitting SSPX marriages to diocesan control has been contained, even in France (where those who opposed those guidelines have either left the SSPX, or submitted to the punishment meted out for “disobedience” and gone silent); Bishop Fellay is briefly removed from power at the 2018 General Chapter, only to be replaced by his savior from the 2012 General Chapter: Fr. Davide Pagliarani (himself in favor of a practical accord), before popping back into the picture by being placed back into a position of power through the creation of a new “Counselor” position (along with fellow accordist, Fr. Franz Schmidberger); the SSPX felt compelled to submit its election results to roman ratification; the SSPX even promotes evolution in its’ priest’s books, telegraphing a new openness (just like at Vatican II) and a new attitude; etc.

But Tornielli would have you believe Fr. Pagliarani is a hardliner; a setback for the ralliement process, and intransigent in matters of doctrine, thereby bringing the whole process back to square 1 (even though Fr. Pagliarani himself has expressed his openness to a practical accord):

If we do not arrive at some canonical regularization, that simply means that the hierarchy is not yet sufficiently convinced of the urgent need for that contribution. In that case we will have to wait a few more years, hoping for an increase in that awareness, which could occur along with and parallel to the acceleration in the process of the Church’s self-destruction. See interview here

Consequently, if on the one hand Fr. Pagliarani is acknowledging a doctrinal divergence between Rome and the SSPX, while simultaneously expressing his desire to reopen doctrinal discussions, the conclusion is obvious.

Therefore, Fr. Pagliarani, far from representing a setback for Roman-SSPX negotiations and the ralliement process, represents instead a remarkable continuity with the previous regime.

As I have said before, when the SSPX or Rome tell you that relations are back to square 1, you had better hang onto your hat. It is usually shortly thereafter that some of the biggest “advances” towards the impossible reconciliation are made.

If we were really back to square 1, it would mean that Rome and the SSPX have renounced and/or taken back that which they have conceded or been given.

But that has not happened.

No, things have not reverted back to square 1.

They have picked up right where they left off.


I fully agree with you Seraphim.

And if I may add, it is important to make a distinction between the objective and the tactic.

The tactic of the Romans and the Neo-SSPX seems to be to oscillate for a while between square 1 and square 2 (or at least to give that impression), just like in order to break metal one only has to bend it back and forth a number of times until it finally snaps. But the objective has always been, and still is, to find a practical way for the Neo-SSPX to cohabitate with the modernists in Rome, to find a place for them in the ecumenical zoo.

To be precise, we are no longer oscillating between square 1 and square 2, but rather between square 5 and square 6. It’s just that all the concessions and cooperation achieved in square 1 to 5 have now become accepted as the new normal by the frogs in the boiling water. As these frogs always extend “the line in the sand” forward, every new step will appear to them as step 2, until one day they will wake up, or rather “arrive without waking up”, at their destination.


Agreed, agreed, agreed!



I am distressed to learn that some in the Resistance are interpreting Fr. Pagliarani’s comments as reversing the ralliement process of his predecessor, and “placing doctrine first.”

Here is how you know, whatever he may say to the contrary, that the pursuit of an accord trumps doctrine with Fr. Pagliarani:

Archbishop Lefebvre: “As long as you do not accept to correct the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these [previous] popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” (Fideliter, Nov/Dec, 1988)


Fr. Pagliarani: “Everything therefore pushes the Fraternity to resume the theological discussion, well aware that the Good Lord does not necessarily ask it to convince its interlocutors…” (Menzingen communique of 11/23/18)

To Archbishop Lefebvre, this kind of dialogue was useless. To Fr. Pagliarani, it is of the utmost importance.

In other words, if you are putting doctrine first, you necessarily take the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, and require Rome to embrace Catholic doctrine, whereas Fr. Pagliarani announces precisely the opposite.

It matters not at all that he equivocates (ie., says one thing in one place, and negates it with a contradictory proposition in another place), for this is the telltale symptom of all liberals, who play to both sides simultaneously:

Rome is supposed to hear their conversion is no longer necessary, but SSPXers are supposed to cultivate a blind spot in regard to that statement, pop some soma, and fixate on the earlier statement that “the doctrinal question remains absolutely essential.”


How can the doctrinal question remain absolutely essential, if the SSPX is stating a Roman conversion is not necessary?

There is one way:

The same practical accord dreamed of by GREC, and which Bishop Fellay has been progressing toward for decades.

For those who think to see (want to see?) in Fr. Pagliarani communique a new development, you had better re-read the whole thing again.

You are being deceived.

Understanding liberalism is indeed a gift from God, and it is not given to all!

Meanwhile, the SSPX-controlled Catholic Family News offers this blatantly false appraisal by Brian McCall:

One would hope that the critics of the Society who have claimed that an unacceptable compromise with Rome that would betray the Faith was imminent would finally, after seven years, accept that they may have been too hasty in their judgment. This latest Communiqué is a sure sign that the Superior General remains fully committed to the path cleared by Archbishop Lefebvre with respect to Rome: Do not submit to novelty and error, but continue to go to Rome to witness to the Faith.

Yes, Fr. Pagliarani is fully committed to the path cleared by Archbishop Lefebvre (quoted above in Fideliter), even as he directly contradicts him, nearly word for word!

Only liberals and liars are capable of this kind of nonsense: “Doctrine comes first! But we don’t care if you agree with us or not!” And in the same breath (without blushing): “We’re holding to the path of Archbishop Lefebvre!”

Seven years of compromise, contradiction, and change have shown the Resistance perfectly justified, and the communique of Fr. Pagliarani telegraphs to any with eyes to see more of the same to come.


“The Liberal has recovered his breath. So soon as he has recovered it, he resumes his discourse, and it is quite evident that what he heard made no impression on him whatsoever, if indeed he heard it at all. He adds any number of words to those which he has already spoken in great profusion, but says nothing new. It was all a most intricate medley of historical arguments against history, of biblical arguments against the Bible, of patristic arguments against history, Bible and Fathers, nay even against common sense. . . He keeps on rehashing this cant about the modern world, emancipated humanity, the Church asleep and on the verge of awakening to rejuvenate her creed. The dead past, the radiant future, liberty, love, democracy, humanity, are interspersed therein like the false brilliants which the ladies now-a-days scatter through their false tresses. All he says subsequently appears neither more clear nor more true than the first time he said it. He becomes conscious of this at last, and so he tells us that we separating ourselves from the world and from the living Church, which will also be well rid of us. He all but anathematizes us, and finally leaves us filled with the consternation at his folly.” (L. Veuillot, L’illusion libérale, § 1-4.)

The argument goes is that if the SSPX remains in its position of canonical irregularity then it runs the risk of truly being separated from the living Church.


Yes, they fear not to evolve…er…”live” with them, and so they will broker the “best” deal possible, but take it they must: “To reject the offer is schismatic.”

Hence, Fr. Pagliarani’s new position, which more or less amounts to this:

For us in the Society, doctrine comes first, but for you in Rome (and the rest of the Church), it need not be so.

Anyone who cannot see the inherent liberalism in such a position (and the doctrinal pluralism implicit in it) is either full, or infected with the same liberalism.


Do you know what their arguments are? Why do they believe Fr. Pagliarani is “placing doctrine first”? Is it just wishful thinking, a daydream, or is there any solid evidence or reasoning behind their opinion?


Hello Samuel-

One example of deceived Resistance is that of the (still?) excellent French media outlet (which often publishes the EXCELLENT works of Christian LaSalle, an outspoken opponent of the Ralliement), which introduced the communique of Fr. Pagliarani on its website with these words:

"We are relaying the press release issued this morning by the FSSPX. We welcome the clarity of its language, which reflects the position held by the FSSPX in general until 2009: “It is because of this irreducible doctrinal divergence that any attempt to develop a draft doctrinal declaration acceptable to both parties has not been successful for seven years. That is why the doctrinal question remains absolutely essential.”
(See original French Here.)

One person on the French Resistance forum commented, “If this statement seems clear to them, it is because the smokescreen is a success.”

Another Resister opined thusly to me:

  1. If Tornielli is doing damage control, it evinces that the 3rd and 4th paragraph of Fr. Pagliarani’s communique have hit the conciliarists where it hurts (i.e., the alleged placing of doctrine over practical considerations);

  2. That if he were a conciliarist, those two paragraphs would represent enormous “red lights,”

  3. The communique is therefore a sign of hope.

Obviously, I disagree.

As regards Tornielli, my take is that he is running a disinformation campaign on behalf of his personal friend, Francis: By pretending Fr. Pagliarani has reverted to the primacy of doctrine and the position of Archbishop Lefebvre (something I have shown to be pure idiocy above), he is conditioning SSPXers to more easily swallow their soma.

Nothing more.