Shortly before his death in 1988, the French Dominican bishop Mgr Guérard des Lauriers reflected on the rumoured episcopal consecrations, which Archbishop Lefebvre conferred soon after.
Interesting, as I myself (though unaware of these words of +des Lauriers) had recently written several articles making the same argument regarding the 2026 consecrations: That a secret permission by Prevost to consecrate could not be ruled out unless excommunications were declared to have been incurred.
What I did not foresee (and in sharp contradistinction to the 1988 Letter of District Superiors to Cardinal Gantin), was that the ralliement impulse would survive uninterrupted in the hearts of the SSPX leadership, despite the excommunications (as evinced in Fr. Pagliarani’s letter to Prevost after the Roman declaration).
Finally, it is also interesting that whereas +des Laurier had hoped that excommunications in +Lefebvre’s case might push him toward reconsidering the legitimacy of the recent papal claimants, as S. Wright observes, this does not seem likely in 2026. Quite the opposite, actually: The tenor of sadness in Pagliarani’s response to Prevost almost causes one to wonder if a slingshot effect in the opposite direction might not be the outcome (where remorse at the action reluctantly undertaken causes an intensification and acceleration of the ralliement impulse). Indeed, Cardinal Parolin says he is ready to resume talks, and there is nothing in Fr. Pagliarani’s response -unlike the response in 1988- indicating he is opposed.
The unsaid intention of the Society is admirable and Catholic; they seek to return the lost lamb to the flock. Indeed, it is eminently Catholic to not abandon the sinner. So it makes sense that despite the declaration by the Society, they still wish to negotiate with the Novus Ordo. I do not fault them this. The problem is, they keep trying to bring Catholicism to a Modernist fight, as Dr. Naveen Maliakaal said to Stephen Kokx just this week (time stamped to the relevant section):
I believe that the Spanish priest mentioned by Msgr. des Lauriers was Bl John of Avila, who was forming his own congregation of missionary priests, and when learning of the Jesuits, sent them all over to them.
Yes, it was mentioned in this book, which is great advice for any Catholic. A wonderful, very gentle Priest who converted multiple other canonized Saints through his preaching such as St. John of God:
"John of God, assisted by the grace of the Lord who gave force and virtue of such lively and effective words, was penetrated to the depths of his heart. No sooner had the sermon ended than John rushed outside imploring and shouting in a loud voice for God’s mercy. He leapt up and ran about wildly…until he reached his shop…he began to tear the chivalric novels and other profane books in his stock into shreds. Any book of sound doctrine and those of the lives of the saints, he gave away free to anyone who asked for them for the love of God…He stripped himself of everything and gave it all away then once more ran shouting into the streets of Granada begging the Lord’s mercy. Some honest persons who saw all this took him to where Father Avila was staying. And after comforting him he sent him away saying…’Go in peace with the Lord’s blessing and my own, because I am confident that the Lord will not refuse you his mercy.’ Placed in the Royal Hospital as a madman, he experienced the ‘cures’ used there to heal insane patients and this experience matured his vocation; ‘May the Lord grant me that I may have my own hospital to care for the sick.’"
He also guided St. Teresa of Avila and St. Ignatius, what a man and a Priest.
Thanks for the above information and the book on Fr. Avila's sermons: I recently purchased his biography (Spanish) by P. Longaro de Oddi, translated by D. Luis de Duran Y Bastero into Spanish. I have not read it yet, as I just finished the biography of Blessed Baltazar Alvarez S.J. written by one of his disciples Ven. Louis de la Puente.
He was a disciple Bl Avila and a spiritual director of St. Teresa of Avila; St. Teresa said of Fr. Alvarez, that there was no degree of prayer to which she had attained to, that Fr. Alvarez had not already reached before her.
This "elephant in the room" of semi-commumion with Rome having some kind of moral legitimacy needs to be addressed by the society urgently. It serves only to lend credence to the heresy of a valid pope having limited authority only over his subjects.
How long can such a stance persist without the inevitable consequences being reaped, ie, full absorption into the counterfeit religion of Vatican2. As it's ingested ittle by little one can see the poison taking effect with the small (and not so small) compromises made by the society since its founding. Associating with these synodal heretics and allowing them to believe they hold the authority of Christ on earth is playing with fire. The affect that this will have on the laities perception of the Church's constitution can only be catastrophic
Exactly. The 'sermons' from the SSPX priests trying brand the intellects of those who assist at the Masses with the mark of their R&R pretzel needs to stop. For instance, rather than a sermon on the Gospel last Sunday ,the sermon was according to the 'gosplel' of Fr Pagliarani's 'love letter to Leo'; we first had to sit through a loud speaker narration of it and then a messed up defense of it. The laity of the SSPX are stellar examples of truly charitible practicle cheerful Catholics pouring out their phsysical, financial and psychic resources and for these priests ( who are otherwise equally dedicated and sincere) who deserve better than this poisonous R&R extra-gospel.
Well, the SSPX are in fake schism from their fake pope, using fake arguments. It can’t continue. We gather around the ‘hearth’ – Our Lord in the tabernacle – seeking the warmth of the sacraments, but to do so we must suffer the circlular ‘reasoning’ of R&R on the one hand and the hatred of a heresiarch pretending to rule in the name of Christ on the other. Between these to falsities – one with a valid priesthood and Catholic morals, the other perfidious lay usurpers – we are being buffeted and ill-treated, by the well-meaning on one side and evilly intended on the other.
Interesting, as I myself (though unaware of these words of +des Lauriers) had recently written several articles making the same argument regarding the 2026 consecrations: That a secret permission by Prevost to consecrate could not be ruled out unless excommunications were declared to have been incurred.
What I did not foresee (and in sharp contradistinction to the 1988 Letter of District Superiors to Cardinal Gantin), was that the ralliement impulse would survive uninterrupted in the hearts of the SSPX leadership, despite the excommunications (as evinced in Fr. Pagliarani’s letter to Prevost after the Roman declaration).
Finally, it is also interesting that whereas +des Laurier had hoped that excommunications in +Lefebvre’s case might push him toward reconsidering the legitimacy of the recent papal claimants, as S. Wright observes, this does not seem likely in 2026. Quite the opposite, actually: The tenor of sadness in Pagliarani’s response to Prevost almost causes one to wonder if a slingshot effect in the opposite direction might not be the outcome (where remorse at the action reluctantly undertaken causes an intensification and acceleration of the ralliement impulse). Indeed, Cardinal Parolin says he is ready to resume talks, and there is nothing in Fr. Pagliarani’s response -unlike the response in 1988- indicating he is opposed.
The unsaid intention of the Society is admirable and Catholic; they seek to return the lost lamb to the flock. Indeed, it is eminently Catholic to not abandon the sinner. So it makes sense that despite the declaration by the Society, they still wish to negotiate with the Novus Ordo. I do not fault them this. The problem is, they keep trying to bring Catholicism to a Modernist fight, as Dr. Naveen Maliakaal said to Stephen Kokx just this week (time stamped to the relevant section):
https://www.youtube.com/live/qekYOn8KZNs?si=QVbEhyq2eUWUUhgN&t=4468
I believe that the Spanish priest mentioned by Msgr. des Lauriers was Bl John of Avila, who was forming his own congregation of missionary priests, and when learning of the Jesuits, sent them all over to them.
Yes, it was mentioned in this book, which is great advice for any Catholic. A wonderful, very gentle Priest who converted multiple other canonized Saints through his preaching such as St. John of God:
https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Confidence-Times-Trial-Letters-ebook/dp/B009KDVEEO?ref_=ast_author_mpb
"John of God, assisted by the grace of the Lord who gave force and virtue of such lively and effective words, was penetrated to the depths of his heart. No sooner had the sermon ended than John rushed outside imploring and shouting in a loud voice for God’s mercy. He leapt up and ran about wildly…until he reached his shop…he began to tear the chivalric novels and other profane books in his stock into shreds. Any book of sound doctrine and those of the lives of the saints, he gave away free to anyone who asked for them for the love of God…He stripped himself of everything and gave it all away then once more ran shouting into the streets of Granada begging the Lord’s mercy. Some honest persons who saw all this took him to where Father Avila was staying. And after comforting him he sent him away saying…’Go in peace with the Lord’s blessing and my own, because I am confident that the Lord will not refuse you his mercy.’ Placed in the Royal Hospital as a madman, he experienced the ‘cures’ used there to heal insane patients and this experience matured his vocation; ‘May the Lord grant me that I may have my own hospital to care for the sick.’"
He also guided St. Teresa of Avila and St. Ignatius, what a man and a Priest.
Thanks for the above information and the book on Fr. Avila's sermons: I recently purchased his biography (Spanish) by P. Longaro de Oddi, translated by D. Luis de Duran Y Bastero into Spanish. I have not read it yet, as I just finished the biography of Blessed Baltazar Alvarez S.J. written by one of his disciples Ven. Louis de la Puente.
He was a disciple Bl Avila and a spiritual director of St. Teresa of Avila; St. Teresa said of Fr. Alvarez, that there was no degree of prayer to which she had attained to, that Fr. Alvarez had not already reached before her.
Ah, sorry I made a mistake, he was actually beatified before the takeover 1958, so I need to call him Blessed instead of Saint.
This "elephant in the room" of semi-commumion with Rome having some kind of moral legitimacy needs to be addressed by the society urgently. It serves only to lend credence to the heresy of a valid pope having limited authority only over his subjects.
How long can such a stance persist without the inevitable consequences being reaped, ie, full absorption into the counterfeit religion of Vatican2. As it's ingested ittle by little one can see the poison taking effect with the small (and not so small) compromises made by the society since its founding. Associating with these synodal heretics and allowing them to believe they hold the authority of Christ on earth is playing with fire. The affect that this will have on the laities perception of the Church's constitution can only be catastrophic
Exactly. The 'sermons' from the SSPX priests trying brand the intellects of those who assist at the Masses with the mark of their R&R pretzel needs to stop. For instance, rather than a sermon on the Gospel last Sunday ,the sermon was according to the 'gosplel' of Fr Pagliarani's 'love letter to Leo'; we first had to sit through a loud speaker narration of it and then a messed up defense of it. The laity of the SSPX are stellar examples of truly charitible practicle cheerful Catholics pouring out their phsysical, financial and psychic resources and for these priests ( who are otherwise equally dedicated and sincere) who deserve better than this poisonous R&R extra-gospel.
Well, the SSPX are in fake schism from their fake pope, using fake arguments. It can’t continue. We gather around the ‘hearth’ – Our Lord in the tabernacle – seeking the warmth of the sacraments, but to do so we must suffer the circlular ‘reasoning’ of R&R on the one hand and the hatred of a heresiarch pretending to rule in the name of Christ on the other. Between these to falsities – one with a valid priesthood and Catholic morals, the other perfidious lay usurpers – we are being buffeted and ill-treated, by the well-meaning on one side and evilly intended on the other.