In a letter dated Feb. 18 — Ash Wednesday — Father Davide Pagliarani, the SSPX superior general, told Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, that the traditionalist group could not accept either the Vatican’s proposed framework for renewed dialogue or a delay of the announced consecration date.
The SSPX, which exclusively celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass, maintains doctrinal differences with certain teachings and reforms of the Second Vatican Council, particularly with regard to religious freedom and the Church’s approach to other faiths.
“I cannot accept the perspective and objectives in the name of which the dicastery offers to resume dialogue in the present situation, nor indeed the postponement of the date of 1 July,” Pagliarani wrote.
The Vatican’s doctrinal office had recently proposed what it described as a “specifically theological” path of dialogue aimed at identifying the minimum conditions for full communion with the Catholic Church but made the opening of that process contingent on suspending the planned July 1 consecrations. The Holy See warned that “the ordination of bishops without a mandate from the Holy Father” would “imply a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism)” with “grave consequences” for the fraternity as a whole.
Under canon law, a bishop who consecrates another bishop without a papal mandate and the person who receives that consecration incur automatic (“latae sententiae”) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See, a penalty that was publicly declared in the SSPX’s 1988 rupture with Rome.
SSPX argues consecrations would not be ‘schismatic’
Alongside Pagliarani’s letter, the SSPX circulated a doctrinal statement disputing the Vatican’s characterization of unauthorized consecrations as necessarily schismatic.
“The society defends itself against any accusation of schism and, relying on all traditional theology and the Church’s constant teaching, maintains that an episcopal consecration not authorized by the Holy See does not constitute a rupture of communion — provided it is not accompanied by schismatic intent or the conferral of jurisdiction,” the SSPX statement said.
In that statement, the society argued that schism consists in assuming jurisdiction independently of the pope’s will and insisted that bishops consecrated as SSPX auxiliaries would “assume no jurisdiction against the will of the pope and will in no way be schismatic.”
‘A genuine case of conscience’
In his letter, Pagliarani said the current context — marked by public warnings about sanctions — undermines the serenity he believes is required for meaningful dialogue.
He wrote that the SSPX and the Holy See “both know in advance” they cannot reach doctrinal agreement “particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council,” describing the disagreement as “a genuine case of conscience” rooted, in the SSPX’s view, in a “rupture with the tradition of the Church.”
Pagliarani also questioned the feasibility of a process intended to determine together “the minimum requirements for full communion,” arguing that such criteria are the Church’s to define and not something to be established jointly in dialogue.
The letter, published by the society, was signed by members of its general council, including bishops Alfonso de Galarreta and Bernard Fellay.
A conflict stretching back to 1988
The Vatican warning revives memories of the 1988 crisis, when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without a pontifical mandate in defiance of Pope John Paul II. The Holy See declared the bishops excommunicated at the time; Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the surviving bishops in 2009 as a gesture toward reconciliation.
In subsequent years, Pope Francis granted SSPX priests faculties to hear confessions validly and to witness marriages under certain conditions, while the society’s canonical status has remained irregular and short of full recognition in the Church.
The SSPX announced Feb. 2 that it intended to consecrate new bishops on July 1, a date that coincides with the anniversary of the 1988 decree declaring Lefebvre’s excommunication.
This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.
By 
‘ Ln that statement, the society argued that schism consists in assuming jurisdiction independently of the pope’s will and insisted that bishops consecrated as SSPX auxiliaries would “assume no jurisdiction against the will of the pope and will in no way be schismatic.”
‘A genuine case of conscience’
In his letter, Pagliarani said the current context — marked by public warnings about sanctions — undermines the serenity he believes is required for meaningful dialogue.
He wrote that the SSPX and the Holy See “both know in advance” they cannot reach doctrinal agreement “particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council,” describing the disagreement as “a genuine case of conscience” rooted, in the SSPX’s view, in a “rupture with the tradition of the Church.” ‘
No.
The Church and the Council are under an ethereal morbid attack and it requires a right conscience to deal with it responsibly.
I have argued for Lefebvre’s rehabilitation; he consecrated his new 4 bishops with a view to upholding VATICAN II.
If now SSPX will be denying the Council, the purposed consecrations will be qualitatively different and will not pass the test of emergency or exceptinality. In this case there would be no grounds for rehabilitation and the whole SSPX would be lost and Lefebvre would have to be rehabilitated in his individual person. One solution would be for the Pope to seek out a true remnant in the SSPX and salvage with them while abandoning the recalcitrant, so that the legacy of Lefebvre is retained in all justice.
And based on my opening statement here, re ethereal morbid attack, the SSPX leadership would appear not to be able to discern the whole true situation for what it really is and would appear not to have a readied conscience open to the instruction.
In addition there is distinct problem that they are being egged on in that wrong way by a fiercely anti-Council side of “traditionalists” that shows as the direction that they -SSPX- are wont to follow.
Deja vu all over again.
Good for them.
Deo gratias! The SSPX will not become irrelevant and impotent, like the FSSP, and the Church’s perennial liturgy will survive. Some day, Rome will repent of its disastrous orientations.
I’m sticking with Rome, and I hope everyone else does too.
The Vatican gave the SSPX plenty of rope by lifting the excommunications, allowing for priests to hear confessions, etc, and they hung themselves with it. They are nothing more than Latin-rite Orthodox.
So will there be any concern for “undocumented” Bishops?
This situation is once again being navigated in the most irrational way one can imagine. I reveals a sort of disorientation in Rome that undermines the credence of the Church. Even I, a theological midget, knew that Cardinal Fernández had overstated the authoritative parameters of the council’s documents. In such a sensitive circumstance why would he do so? Is he trying to provoke? He paints himself yet again unable to clearly discern. Does he enjoy the role of provocateur? For what reason? Where is the humility? I perceive only hubris.
What an irony. The council described as pastoral employed as a sledge hammer.
Even allowing that the SSPX may be a bit intransigent, it is nonetheless demoralizing that the Holy Father would entrust such important and delicate negotiations to someone like Cardinal Fernandez. He does not … inspire confidence. The mostly likely outcome (especially if the pope does not fix the injustice of T.C. post haste) will be a massive upsurge in sympathy for the SSPX. Rome should allow the SSPX to hold their theological opinions about the non-infallible and extremely ambiguous texts of Vatican II *as opinions*, and the SSPX should not expect as a precondition that Rome should simply surrender and adopt the SSPX’s opinions as its own.
“O God, come to our assistance; O Lord, make haste to help us and protect us from the assault upon Your Holy Catholic Church, by Revolutionary Men attempting to destroy
from within. Please hear our prayer.”
Mr TJW:
The SSPX is already irrelevant and impotent. By proceeding with these illicit consecrations, they are rejecting Rome’s authority, and are therefore the ones who need to repent. Remaining in full communion and being part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is much more important and crucial than trying to preserve a particular liturgical rite. The SSPX is a dead-end road because they don’t have unity. Without unity, they can’t possibly be One, which means they are missing the first part of the 4 pieces of the Church.
Rome has nothing to repent for.
The SSPX grows by leaps and bounds, the Latin Mass that was brought back by Pope Benedict also saw enormous growth. There is no denying that masses of young people were abandoning the church built by their radical parents for the solid stability of the traditional mass. Continued refusals to acknowledge this fact by Rome is sheer obstinance. The future belongs to the past, The Orthodox Church and the Traditionalists..
Bergendahl:
The SSPX’s refusal to acknowledge Rome’s authority is extremely obstinate in itself. Rome is the Chair of Peter, and where the Chair is, you’ll find the Pope, who is the leader of the Universal Church. Last time I checked, they’re not the ones who have to kowtow to a schismatic, sedevacantist group of trads.
Part of being a traditional Catholic is not necessarily attending the Latin Mass. It’s accepting Church teaching, various councils (including Vatican II) and dogmas in relation to the Immaculate Conception etc.
Bottom line is the SSPX is missing the first part of the 4 points of Catholic doctrine, which is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”. Since they’re not in full communion with Rome, they can’t be One. And if they’re not One, then obviously that’s not being very Traditionalist, is it?
Once SSPX ends up putting itself outside the Church, it will not be able to reform anything and all is lost for them. This so basic apostolic succession point, lost on Vigano?
Mostly correct Mr Galy.
The SSPX can always return to full communion with Rome, but in order to do so, they absolutely and unequivocally HAVE to accept Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Mass, and reject their own policy of believing that they can act against the Pope’s authority in the name of protecting “Tradition”.
News flash to the SSPX: Part of tradition is adhering to Rome’s authority and the Successor of Peter.
The SSPX will retain Apostolic Succession, like the Orthodox. Valid but not licit. Sort of like driving without a license. They may know the rules of the road, and be a better driver than half the other people out there, but it doesn’t make it right.
As always, I urge everyone to stay in union with Rome. The SSPX is a schismatic sinking ship. Jump off while you can, the Barque of Peter has plenty of room.
If there were a Catholic Mass in the traditional Latin near me, then that is where I would attend every week. To put a little context to that statement, I am 75 yrs old and attended Catholic school for 13 years. My father was a conversion to Catholicism and was more devout than many others. He did not like the Vatican II changes and thought them unnecessary. But he hung in there his whole life.