Just to supply a context, two news items.
First, From EWTN: China’s Catholic bishops back worship limits, prompting call for Vatican action
The state-sanctioned Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China (BCCC) backed the government’s ban on unregistered clergy engaging in pastoral work and using unapproved sites for worship.
The BCCC said in a Feb. 4 statement that “religious groups must comply with relevant laws and regulations when conducting religious activities,” describing compliance as a matter of “national and public interest.” The statement aligned with the Chinese Communist Party’s controls over the region.
We still don’t know what is in the “agreement” between the PRC and the Holy See. I throw two names into the context: Card. Zen and Jimmy Lai.
Next, at the Catholic Herald UK we read: Bishop ordains priest using pre-Vatican II rite, despite Traditionis custodes
A French bishop has ordained a priest using the pre-Vatican II Pontificale Romanum in a ceremony that has renewed unresolved tensions surrounding the implementation of Pope Francis’s restrictions on the traditional liturgy.
On Saturday January 17, Bishop Alain Castet, the 75-year-old emeritus bishop of Luçon, ordained Brother Thomas-Marie Warmuz to the priesthood at Chémeré-le-Roi in western France. The ordination took place within the Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer, a Dominican-inspired clerical fraternity known for its exclusive use of traditional liturgical rites. During the same ceremony, Brother André-Marie Mwanza was ordained as a subdeacon.
My understanding is that the very fine group, the Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer, does not automatically have the permission to use the older Pontificale Romanum as does the FSSP and the ICK.
Now to the main point.
The leadership of the SSPX met today with the head of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith. After the meeting the Prefect issued a letter stating the position of the … dicastery, I guess, which means the Holy See. In other words, this is what he was told to offer to the SSPX.
In short, the SSPX is asked to postpone episcopal consecrations and engage in more dialogue. How could a they not offer dialogue in this springtime of “walking together”? Also included: threat threat threat… already known… move on.
A couple of interesting points.
The letter mentioned:
…a path of dialogue specifically theological, with a precise methodology, regarding issues that have not yet been sufficiently clarified, such as: the difference between an act of faith and “religious assent of the mind and will,” or the different degrees of adherence required by the various texts of the Second Vatican Council and their interpretation.
How that path might be laid out and who will determine the methodology was not revealed. However, the point of “degrees of adhere” is, in my opinion, pretty important. I guess that the concrete points for them to discuss would be “a series of issues listed by the FSSPX in a letter dated 17 January 2019”.
Then… why bother with this?
The purpose of this path would be to highlight, in the issues debated, the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church and, consequently, to outline a canonical statute for the Fraternity, together with other aspects to be further explored.
I will interject here that I don’t know what “partial” or “imperfect” communion would be. There’s either communion or not, right? Still, it is good that this is framed in terms of “minimum requirements”.
In other words it does NOT demand full surrender by the SSPX and full adherence of mind and will to ever tittle and jot of every document of Vatican II.
THAT is important.
Some will brush this off, saying, yeah, we’ve seen this before.
No. We have not seen this before.
Also, I must add that we see a great deal of jackassy stuff going on in the Church around the world and hear from various prelates truly dopey and shocking things. But the SSPX, which clearly strives to be faithfully Catholic in their presentation of doctrine and morals are on the outs? Does that make any sense?
Finally, in vain, I ask people inclined to comment in the tweetosphere or comboxes everywhere to a) not pretend you know what is going on b) not to pretend to know what is going to happen and c) not to violate the charity you are obliged to exercise in all things.
Here is the letter.
The Vatican has issued the following statement on today’s meeting between Archbishop Victor Fernandez, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Father Davide Pagliarani, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X:
“COMMUNIQUÉ
Regarding the meeting between… pic.twitter.com/5hyKTD2aZA
— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) February 12, 2026
“COMMUNIQUÉ
Regarding the meeting between the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Superior General of the FSSPX
On 12 February 2026, a cordial and sincere meeting took place at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith between the Prefect, His Eminence Cardinal Víctor Manuel FERNÁNDEZ, and the Superior General of the FSSPX, Rev. Don Davide PAGLIARANI, with the approval of the Holy Father Leo XIV.
After clarifying some points presented by the FSSPX in various letters, sent particularly in the years 2017–2019 – among others, the question of divine will regarding the plurality of religions was discussed – the Prefect proposed a path of dialogue specifically theological, with a precise methodology, regarding issues that have not yet been sufficiently clarified, such as: the difference between an act of faith and “religious assent of the mind and will,” or the different degrees of adherence required by the various texts of the Second Vatican Council and their interpretation. At the same time, he proposed to address a series of issues listed by the FSSPX in a letter dated 17 January 2019.
The purpose of this path would be to highlight, in the issues debated, the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church and, consequently, to outline a canonical statute for the Fraternity, together with other aspects to be further explored.
It was reiterated by the Holy See that the ordination of bishops without the mandate of the Holy Father, who holds supreme ordinary power, which is full, universal, immediate and direct (cf. CDC, can. 331; Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, chaps. I and III), would imply a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism) with grave consequences for the Fraternity as a whole (JOHN PAUL I, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, 2 July 1988, nos. 3 and 5c; PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS, Explanatory Note, 24 August 1996, no. 1).
Therefore, the possibility of carrying out this dialogue presupposes that the Fraternity suspend the decision of the announced episcopal ordinations.
The Superior General of the FSSPX will present the proposal to his Council and give his response to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In the event of a positive response, the steps, stages and procedures to be followed will be established by mutual agreement.
The whole Church is asked to accompany this journey, especially in the coming times, with prayer to the Holy Spirit. He is the principal architect of the true ecclesial communion willed by Christ.
+Victor Fernandez (hand signature)”
(AI translation from the Italian)
Loading ...
I have pointed before to the words of Pope Benedict VI
“Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. “
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA”
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
Or in German
“Um die volle communio zu leben, können die Priester, die den Gemeinschaften des alten Usus zugehören, selbstverständlich die Zelebration nach den neuen liturgischen Büchern im Prinzip nicht ausschließen. “
[test”im Prinzip”… whatever that means…]
Thanks for this post, Fr. Z., and your sober assessment of the situation. I write as a layman who attends almost exclusively the Mass, etc. at an SSPX chapel about half an hour away. (I go to Adoration and sometimes Confession at the local parish and contribute a small amount to them and the bishop.) Fr. Pagliarani is a pretty smart man, and the leadership of the Society is quite sound. I have no idea what they will do, but I hope they stand fast on the consecrations. However, if there is some sort of “deal” struck, it needs to be–unlike the one with China–public. Some commentators miss the point when they think faithful who go to Society chapels will leave for the mainstream. Some will leave if a deal is struck, thinking there was a betrayal, and they will go to independent chapels and the so-called “Resistance” or even to the sedes. What many with no contact with the SSPX don’t understand is that the faithful at those chapels have been tried by fire and they have passed down their values now into a third or fourth generation. Penalties coming form Rome don’t scare them–it is Rome’s intransigence that foments a schismatic spirit in this case, because the faithful come to feel that Rome just really doesn’t care for them and even despises them. And for those of us who came at the 11th hour, we can never go back to the chaos found in much of the Church these days. For those prepared to bask in schadenfreude if sanctions and penalties are imposed, you will be disappointed, because the weight of tradition is growing. Let’s all have some charity.
I’m just a dumb pew-sitter. If I reacted to everything I hear out of Rome, I’d go nuts in a hurry. I reckon Subsidiarity is just as good for myself as for any social system. Better to cultivate my own internal life using tried and true means than be blown about by every breeze from the Vatican.
I still question whether +Fernandez is the man for the job. On one hand, maybe it’s good to have fresh eyes on the situation. On the other, I question whether he fully grasps the extent and depth of the Society’s positions. It’s not just an objection to a certain document or an event. It’s the theological system post-Vatican II.
Knowing nothing about any of the inner workings and not being intimately familiar with the history of the interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX, my uninformed opinion is [*sigh*] that it seems like a delay tactic from the Vatican if they’re not willing to extend permission to consecrate new bishops while continuing to work though these theological questions.
While I have my personal thoughts on the meeting, the most positive is that they are trying to find a “bridge” between the old and the new so that neither side has to totally surrender to the other.
Pray for that bridge and pray for the Church!
They keep telling us that he dresses well and have a nice smile, so zip it; meanwhile Peter’s barque is struggling to keep afloat. Lord wake up we are sinking!
Forgive me Father for a second comment. If you don’t want to allow…it is your blog. This whole notion of “dialogue” coming from Rome is just so exasperating. Want to allow laypeople to govern in the Church? No problem. Want to acknowledge Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix? Nyet! Want to go on a shared journey with the Muslims during Lent? Bravo. See here from the Philippines: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2026-02/philippines-church-lent-ramadam-same-date-shared-path-of-faith.html Notice that the language used to describe God comes right from Islamic terminology: “Merciful and Compassionate.” The SSPX leaders need to dress up as imams or in rainbow colors. Then they will be accepted in Rome.
As I have mentioned before, when I left the Episcopal Church in 1998 I sought out a Latin Mass because I was skeptical of any Church which had modernized it rites. In the Episcopal Church this opened up that church to all sorts of changes inconsistent with traditional Christian morality. (At the time I was unaware of the true history of Anglicanism.) The schismatic group I identified was led by an elderly priest (by that time an Abbot) who had been treat rather badly by the local diocese as well as the Benedictine Monastery he had entered nearly 50 years before. In 1998 he told me that the local Bishop often visited him to ask him to join the diocese, but he refused because he did not trust the system. By 2010 he had 5 priests and 2 or 3 brothers living at the Abbey.
He died a few years after Summorum Pontificum. At the time of his death with his approval, his prior was negotiating an agreement to reconcile with the local diocese. It included (with the agreement of Rome) a promise that we would always have a TLM in the diocese and the priests at the Abbey would be allowed to seek Holy Orders. Only the prior and one other priest stuck around after the agreement went into effect. After six months the other priest left because they had not heard from Rome, the prior is a brother working with a semi-traditional group in the Chicago area, still not word from Rome.
At the prior’s urging I decided to begin going the diocesan TLM and do not regret it. I got to see some old friends from our days as schismatics who also began going to the diocesan TLM, also at the prior’s urging. I told them that I had recommended to the prior that he should have waited until Rome approved his entering Holy Orders before signing the agreement. The friends, who keep in touch with him, said the he wishes he had.
As Traditionis Custodes implies, you still cannot trust the system and for this reason I am skeptical that Rome will ever approve new Bishops for the FSSPX. They will dialogue with its leadership until all the FSSPX bishops have died. I hope I am wrong.
“At the same time, he proposed to address a series of issues listed by the FSSPX in a letter dated 17 January 2019.”
I will note that it has taken the Vatican a full seven years to respond to this letter with an offer of nothing more substantial than “dialogue.” If I were the head of the FSSP I would take that as proof positive that the Vatican (and by implication, the pope) is interested only in delaying, and would commit to the dialogue only if the pope authorizes the ordinations.
[Something important changed between 2019 and now.]
The SSPX response is masterful.
Finally, [Pagliarani] renewed his desire that, given the wholly particular circumstances in which Holy Church finds itself, the Society may continue to operate in its current situation – exceptional and temporary – for the good of the souls who turn to it.
For his part, Cardinal Fernández offered a different approach to the question. Relayed in an official communiqué swiftly published by the Holy See…
Translation: The statement (which includes a threat against not just the Superior and bishops) was pre-written and we’re definitely not on the same page about the good of souls being the most important thing. We’ll take it “under advisement” and let the Cardinal (and everyone else) know soon.
Plus, they continue to speak in the communique of future consecrations.
I suspect (but who am I) that reply in those few days might agree to a short period of discussions with a hard time limit, but only after a meeting with the Pope to ensure the Pope understands the actual situation.
So the DDF dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s about ordination of bishops with reference to the canon 331, Vatican I, and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. Well and good. But the reference to “the question of divine will regarding the plurality of religions” makes the section of the code pertaining to mixed marriages (1124-1129) incoherent.
I am accompanying the journey!
Fernandez is shutting down a tradtional order, the Miles Christi who celebrate the New Mass in a traditional way. He hates tradition. He forbade ad orientem for the NO in La Plata, Argentina and of course the TLM. The SSPX set up chapels as a result of Fernandez’s war against tradition. He writes like a sodomite, too. Nothing good can come from Fernandez!
@FRLBJ: I checked out the Miles Christi, and it turns out that their founder has been canonically convicted of sexual crimes with younger adults in his order (as well as physical abuse) and then of complicity in the confessional! He has accordingly been deposed from Holy Orders and his religious organisation is being wound up, apparently with suitable pastoral sensitivity and care for remaining members. Not everything done by those whose theological views one disagrees with is automatically questionable. Neither is everything done by those who espouse “traditionalism” automatically unquestionable. Tribalism and rash judgment are not helpful in these matters.