I wish Fr. Pagliarani had specifically reiterated the importance of the state of necessity. A state of necessity does not go away just because an authority claims it has gone away. If a state of necessity appears to exist then irrefutable evidence should be presented to dispel it. The Vatican hierarchy, through Tucho at this juncture, refuses to answer any and all accusations which objectively exist to support this state of necessity, i.e. its abandonment of previous Catholic teaching. I suspect they do so because their answers will only confirm the Modernist principles upon which those answers would be based, principles infallibly condemned by the Catholic magisterium. The state of necessity therefore continues to exist and affirms the actions of the FSSPX as an exception under Canon Law, at least as I see it.
What necessity? They claim that every "bishop" in the world is indeed a bishop. The only necessity is that they needed their "own" to keep the $ rolling in.
Of the Vatican 2 sect is the church and all their 'evil' ceremonies are 100% valid, then why tf does sspx exist? Use the n.o. bishops. Why do they need their own?
Criticism should be fair and faithful to the truth of things. The necessity to have a bishop who professes the Catholic Faith and dispenses the sacraments using Catholic rites is very much (and rightly!) recognized by the SSPX, so it is not about money, but about the the true worship of God and about souls. The SSPX holds that even if the N.O. bishops are validly consecrated, most of them are Modernist and don't use Catholic rites, which means that it is impossible to go to them. The SSPX is opposed to the N.O. rites just as much as Sedevacantists, and does call the new rites "evil". Even if they were valid rites, they still wouldn't be acceptable because they are not Catholic rites.
I don't see this as a good letter. Objectively, heretic impostors imposing a new religion against the Will of Christ the King DESERVE an outright and clear condemnation, and full separation from them, according to the spirit and words of St. Paul the Apostle:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
And what do we have here? "But above all, the Society of Saint Pius X promises You today that it will not receive these new sanctions—objectively unjust and invalid—with bitterness or revolt."
What bitterness and revolt there is, to declare a just war and anathema to impostors and usurpers pretending to be authorities of The Church?
It feels like controlled opposition, although I do not know if Fr. Pagliarani is speaking out of ignorance or with good intentions, nevertheless result is quite similar: away with the militancy, let us not rally and let's keep giving credibility to this ape of a church. Let us not revolt against the false religion.
Fine by me, I will fight. Hopefully the FSSPX will too, sure could use some help, but in the end, our help is our God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and His Ever-Virgin Mother, together with St. Joseph Their Protector and all The Saints and Angels of God.
Summary: Fr. P is willing to talk if only Rome will open the door. Meanwhile Cardinal Parolin expresses hope for immediate resumption of dialogue. Who would have thought the SSPX ralliement could survive excommunication? Not I! Yet here we go again (unlike in 1988).
Is it weak, theater or simply pathetic? I can't help from having the sense of "beware" as none of it adds up. Something's "off."
Don't forget, these are the same men who sent Bp.W packing for critiquing the juice and, at the same time, put a known homosexual and pedophile as district superior (who, btw, further attempted to molest boys in the USA). I'm done assuming "goodwill."
In the end, they are liars. PETER doesn't teach error. PETER doesn't promulgate harmful discipline. The BRIDE OF CHRIST doesn't make use of ceremonies that are incentives to impiety. The SSPX preach lies and heresy. They, objectively, are not friends of Our Sweet Lord.
May the "good ones" who are simply brainwashed wake up, by the grace of God, and get out.
Very weak letter, at least Bishop Goldade called it a new religion. I can see why the resistance became a thing under Bishop Williamson. The society has become very weak since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre. Aside from the fact they sadly cling to Leo, they need to recover that militant spirit and just see the bigger picture regarding the claimants to the Holy see.
Even if they remain dense about the claimants… It would be great if they adopt the hard line behavior they once had.
'Remain dense'. Their seminary training is structured to achieve just that. Bp Roy said that if one pushed against one's professor in seminary on these very issues one got the 'exile of the ignored' treatment (I'm paraphrasing). If these men as petri-dish priests are raised to be part cockle and part wheat - genetically modified, what's to be done? Only God can de-modify them.
Bang!!!!!!!!!! Long live the SSPX! To God be all the Glory!! It’s not necessary to go crazy with condemnation when they can’t hear you. I’m sure Rome would love a fight. None will be given. The short and sweet letter stings all the more. They will continue and that’s it. 🙏
The letter is severely disappointing, and far from the old fighting spirit of Abp. Lefebvre's SSPX, as demonstrated by the comparison to the 1988 letter. Thank you to Mr. Wright for this important comparison of the two.
While the 1988 letter took the fight to the Modernists, accusing them, condemning their crimes and proclaiming the truth boldly, evincing a spirit of strength and conviction, the 2026 letter is weak, soft, nauseatingly deferential to a destroyer of the Church, omitting what it should say and avoiding saying anything that would accuse the heretics or make them squirm. It conveys primarily sadness, and offers nothing in its defense. It is telling that Fr. Pagliarani now repeatedly disavows any reaction of "bitterness and revolt" - is that how he views the previous (1988) reaction?
The 2026 letter is an expression of the liberal Fellayite SSPX, which was and is rightly opposed by the Resistance, and which probably never wanted to go through with the consecrations but was forced by biological imperatives, and now regrets this bad blood between themselves and the Modernist heretics and enemies of the Reign of Christ, instead of rejoicing to be declared out of communion with the Conciliar Church (but the Fellayite SSPX no longer makes the distinction between the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church, as is evident also by comparing the two letters).
We hope for an end to this liberal orientation, and that the SSPX will return to its roots, not so much for the sake of the SSPX itself, but for the sake of souls depending on it. The words of Bp. Goldade give hope. Unfortunately, this letter and the recent sermon of Bp. Schreiber (which is also not characterized by a fighting spirit, and in which he criticizes "bitter zeal", and when mentioning the Mass and the formation of priests doesn't include combatting errors in the principal tasks of the Society) take some of that hope away.
Of course bitter zeal as such is not good. It was the context and what appears to be implied by his statement which is concerning, e.g. the only time he mentioned combatting errors was to condemn "bitter zeal": "We fall into this danger of bitter zeal when we combat errors only with harsh reproaches and sharply censure faults."
“Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance.” (Apoc. 3:19)
To characterise zeal against evil as ‘bitter’, is just gaslighting against the the good who have zeal on the one hand and human respect for the devils in the Vatican on the other.
If Prevost and his satalites were true pope and true bishops that would have been a beautiful letter, but then if they were there’d be no need for the letter or for the consecrations. What comes to mind is, ‘throwing pearls before swine.’
Is it ever going to end? If the letter had begun, 'most unholy, un-Catholic perverted fraud against the faith,' I might have been able to continue reading it. What part of 'let him be anathema' includes let him be declared, not only 'holy', but 'most' (?!?) and 'father'. This has to stop. The SSPX do have a 'biitter zeal', and it is against the reality of the promises of Christ regarding His Vicar. I had a moment of hope after the consecrations but this 'lukewarm' business strategty - two bishops to placate Prevost, and two bishops to preach zeal for 'Tradition'. They have four new bishops and still a priest is their 'superior' ostensibly because of travel committments - didn't stop Abp Lebvfre from taking the reins. Oh well. If this is the 'cruise control' after the consecrations then the SSPX will continue abuse the consciences of the laity. It's lamentable. Kyrie eleison.
I've calmed down a bit, but the letter was the opposite of the awesomeness of the consecration ceremony. At least Abp Lefevbre's response to the modernists' 'excommunication' did not betray his answering a need for consecrations and the holy courage it took. In contrast Fr P's response is a disappointing example of 'human respect'; it's not the words of a Soldier of Christ but a politician.
I think it's politics. Think of Fr P as a party leader in a proportional representation parliament on the one hand, but the current 'prime minister' is a tyrant on the other, and Fr P - party rep - is tacticly trying publicly to appease a tyrant with an argument from a democratic mindset. It is objectively nuts.
Based on his letter, Fr Pagliarani is a highly intelligent and good man. He remembered Our Lady and was clear that he would NOT hold resentments. Only an evolved soul would respond this way.
If Fr Pagliarani - voice of the SSPX - really is a 'most devoted son' of Prevost - son of perdition... Abp Lefvbre's Society really died with the Arhcbishop.
If you have one foot on the Rock and the other on the synodal boat as the latter drifts... Fr SSPX, in this letter, wants to have his cake/pope and eat it too. It just isn't Catholic.
Beautiful letter
I wish Fr. Pagliarani had specifically reiterated the importance of the state of necessity. A state of necessity does not go away just because an authority claims it has gone away. If a state of necessity appears to exist then irrefutable evidence should be presented to dispel it. The Vatican hierarchy, through Tucho at this juncture, refuses to answer any and all accusations which objectively exist to support this state of necessity, i.e. its abandonment of previous Catholic teaching. I suspect they do so because their answers will only confirm the Modernist principles upon which those answers would be based, principles infallibly condemned by the Catholic magisterium. The state of necessity therefore continues to exist and affirms the actions of the FSSPX as an exception under Canon Law, at least as I see it.
What necessity? They claim that every "bishop" in the world is indeed a bishop. The only necessity is that they needed their "own" to keep the $ rolling in.
Not a whit of evidence to support your contention of cash rather than a desire to supply traditional sacraments unavailable otherwise.
Of the Vatican 2 sect is the church and all their 'evil' ceremonies are 100% valid, then why tf does sspx exist? Use the n.o. bishops. Why do they need their own?
Criticism should be fair and faithful to the truth of things. The necessity to have a bishop who professes the Catholic Faith and dispenses the sacraments using Catholic rites is very much (and rightly!) recognized by the SSPX, so it is not about money, but about the the true worship of God and about souls. The SSPX holds that even if the N.O. bishops are validly consecrated, most of them are Modernist and don't use Catholic rites, which means that it is impossible to go to them. The SSPX is opposed to the N.O. rites just as much as Sedevacantists, and does call the new rites "evil". Even if they were valid rites, they still wouldn't be acceptable because they are not Catholic rites.
I don't see this as a good letter. Objectively, heretic impostors imposing a new religion against the Will of Christ the King DESERVE an outright and clear condemnation, and full separation from them, according to the spirit and words of St. Paul the Apostle:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
And what do we have here? "But above all, the Society of Saint Pius X promises You today that it will not receive these new sanctions—objectively unjust and invalid—with bitterness or revolt."
What bitterness and revolt there is, to declare a just war and anathema to impostors and usurpers pretending to be authorities of The Church?
It feels like controlled opposition, although I do not know if Fr. Pagliarani is speaking out of ignorance or with good intentions, nevertheless result is quite similar: away with the militancy, let us not rally and let's keep giving credibility to this ape of a church. Let us not revolt against the false religion.
Fine by me, I will fight. Hopefully the FSSPX will too, sure could use some help, but in the end, our help is our God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and His Ever-Virgin Mother, together with St. Joseph Their Protector and all The Saints and Angels of God.
Who said it was a good letter?
Nobody. EDIT: In the comments somebody did. I don't think you did though.
Summary: Fr. P is willing to talk if only Rome will open the door. Meanwhile Cardinal Parolin expresses hope for immediate resumption of dialogue. Who would have thought the SSPX ralliement could survive excommunication? Not I! Yet here we go again (unlike in 1988).
Is it weak, theater or simply pathetic? I can't help from having the sense of "beware" as none of it adds up. Something's "off."
Don't forget, these are the same men who sent Bp.W packing for critiquing the juice and, at the same time, put a known homosexual and pedophile as district superior (who, btw, further attempted to molest boys in the USA). I'm done assuming "goodwill."
In the end, they are liars. PETER doesn't teach error. PETER doesn't promulgate harmful discipline. The BRIDE OF CHRIST doesn't make use of ceremonies that are incentives to impiety. The SSPX preach lies and heresy. They, objectively, are not friends of Our Sweet Lord.
May the "good ones" who are simply brainwashed wake up, by the grace of God, and get out.
Very weak letter, at least Bishop Goldade called it a new religion. I can see why the resistance became a thing under Bishop Williamson. The society has become very weak since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre. Aside from the fact they sadly cling to Leo, they need to recover that militant spirit and just see the bigger picture regarding the claimants to the Holy see.
Even if they remain dense about the claimants… It would be great if they adopt the hard line behavior they once had.
'Remain dense'. Their seminary training is structured to achieve just that. Bp Roy said that if one pushed against one's professor in seminary on these very issues one got the 'exile of the ignored' treatment (I'm paraphrasing). If these men as petri-dish priests are raised to be part cockle and part wheat - genetically modified, what's to be done? Only God can de-modify them.
Bang!!!!!!!!!! Long live the SSPX! To God be all the Glory!! It’s not necessary to go crazy with condemnation when they can’t hear you. I’m sure Rome would love a fight. None will be given. The short and sweet letter stings all the more. They will continue and that’s it. 🙏
The letter is severely disappointing, and far from the old fighting spirit of Abp. Lefebvre's SSPX, as demonstrated by the comparison to the 1988 letter. Thank you to Mr. Wright for this important comparison of the two.
While the 1988 letter took the fight to the Modernists, accusing them, condemning their crimes and proclaiming the truth boldly, evincing a spirit of strength and conviction, the 2026 letter is weak, soft, nauseatingly deferential to a destroyer of the Church, omitting what it should say and avoiding saying anything that would accuse the heretics or make them squirm. It conveys primarily sadness, and offers nothing in its defense. It is telling that Fr. Pagliarani now repeatedly disavows any reaction of "bitterness and revolt" - is that how he views the previous (1988) reaction?
The 2026 letter is an expression of the liberal Fellayite SSPX, which was and is rightly opposed by the Resistance, and which probably never wanted to go through with the consecrations but was forced by biological imperatives, and now regrets this bad blood between themselves and the Modernist heretics and enemies of the Reign of Christ, instead of rejoicing to be declared out of communion with the Conciliar Church (but the Fellayite SSPX no longer makes the distinction between the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church, as is evident also by comparing the two letters).
We hope for an end to this liberal orientation, and that the SSPX will return to its roots, not so much for the sake of the SSPX itself, but for the sake of souls depending on it. The words of Bp. Goldade give hope. Unfortunately, this letter and the recent sermon of Bp. Schreiber (which is also not characterized by a fighting spirit, and in which he criticizes "bitter zeal", and when mentioning the Mass and the formation of priests doesn't include combatting errors in the principal tasks of the Society) take some of that hope away.
We're all against bitter zeal. You or I could decry that too. Bitter zeal isn't a good thing. But the use of the term can, at times, be indicative.
Of course bitter zeal as such is not good. It was the context and what appears to be implied by his statement which is concerning, e.g. the only time he mentioned combatting errors was to condemn "bitter zeal": "We fall into this danger of bitter zeal when we combat errors only with harsh reproaches and sharply censure faults."
Indeed.
“Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance.” (Apoc. 3:19)
To characterise zeal against evil as ‘bitter’, is just gaslighting against the the good who have zeal on the one hand and human respect for the devils in the Vatican on the other.
Goldade probably already told to get in line. 🤣
The possibility occurred to me as well. Hopefully the SSPX is not so far gone.
If Prevost and his satalites were true pope and true bishops that would have been a beautiful letter, but then if they were there’d be no need for the letter or for the consecrations. What comes to mind is, ‘throwing pearls before swine.’
„I declare that you excommunicated yourselves with these consecrations!“ SSPX:“No, that doesnt count“
Sorry but he should have at least make a coherent case. Whom do they fear to offend now anyway?
💯
I'll pass. What you've written is already enough.
Is it ever going to end? If the letter had begun, 'most unholy, un-Catholic perverted fraud against the faith,' I might have been able to continue reading it. What part of 'let him be anathema' includes let him be declared, not only 'holy', but 'most' (?!?) and 'father'. This has to stop. The SSPX do have a 'biitter zeal', and it is against the reality of the promises of Christ regarding His Vicar. I had a moment of hope after the consecrations but this 'lukewarm' business strategty - two bishops to placate Prevost, and two bishops to preach zeal for 'Tradition'. They have four new bishops and still a priest is their 'superior' ostensibly because of travel committments - didn't stop Abp Lebvfre from taking the reins. Oh well. If this is the 'cruise control' after the consecrations then the SSPX will continue abuse the consciences of the laity. It's lamentable. Kyrie eleison.
Well said!!!
I've calmed down a bit, but the letter was the opposite of the awesomeness of the consecration ceremony. At least Abp Lefevbre's response to the modernists' 'excommunication' did not betray his answering a need for consecrations and the holy courage it took. In contrast Fr P's response is a disappointing example of 'human respect'; it's not the words of a Soldier of Christ but a politician.
Almost like they still want to be officially in the V2 sect. So sad.
I think it's politics. Think of Fr P as a party leader in a proportional representation parliament on the one hand, but the current 'prime minister' is a tyrant on the other, and Fr P - party rep - is tacticly trying publicly to appease a tyrant with an argument from a democratic mindset. It is objectively nuts.
Based on his letter, Fr Pagliarani is a highly intelligent and good man. He remembered Our Lady and was clear that he would NOT hold resentments. Only an evolved soul would respond this way.
If Fr Pagliarani - voice of the SSPX - really is a 'most devoted son' of Prevost - son of perdition... Abp Lefvbre's Society really died with the Arhcbishop.
Whew, tough crowd.
If you are standing on The Rock, you don’t need to push their sinking synodal boat out into the raging sea.
If you have one foot on the Rock and the other on the synodal boat as the latter drifts... Fr SSPX, in this letter, wants to have his cake/pope and eat it too. It just isn't Catholic.
A powerful letter to stiff neck and heart of stone. Blessed Be God Forever!
It is graced with the mercy, simplicity and tenderness of Our Mother. That's my take. Thank you.
Speaking of the Dicastery for the Destruction of the Faith (a crucial term coined by Louie Verrecchio) and its censure:
"This is an excommunication of Roman Catholicism." Bp Sanborn.
I hope the SSPX can understand this.
I had considered assisting an an SSPX mass tomorrow, but the mood will be so maudlin.