On February 12, the announced meeting took place in Rome between Fr. Davide Pagliarani, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, and Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. The conversation, described as “cordial and sincere,” confirmed a situation now well established: the dialogue between the Holy See and the Society has been proceeding for decades without producing a stable solution.
Far from being a mere quarrel between reformers and nostalgics of a world that no longer exists, this meeting also represents the tension between two possible but irreconcilable visions of the West, within the only institution capable of defining its features, the Catholic Church. To retrace what has happened so far, I invite the reader to explore this analysis.
The context of the meeting
According to statements released by the Dicastery, the meeting was intended to constitute the beginning of a “structured theological dialogue.” The declared objective would have been to identify the “minimum requirements for full communion” of the Society with the Catholic Church, possibly also outlining a possible canonical statute.
The Holy See has, however, set a preliminary condition: the Society must not proceed with the announced five episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate. An action of this type would be interpreted by Rome as a schismatic act, with “serious canonical consequences” not only for the individual bishops involved but for the entire Society.
The official response of the heirs of Lefebvre, published on February 18, positively welcomes the prospect of doctrinal dialogue. Fr. Pagliarani recalled, in fact, that it was the Society itself that proposed a resumption of dialogue as early as 2019, without receiving a favorable response at that time. Only the announcement of the episcopal consecrations induced the Holy See to reopen the dossier. This fuels, according to the Society (and not only), the suspicion that dialogue is being used as a delaying instrument, accompanied by a ‘polite’ threat of sanctions.
Moreover, Pagliarani stressed that dialogue can be useful even without agreement because it would foster mutual understanding. At the same time, he reaffirmed that a doctrinal agreement on the fundamental points of the Second Vatican Council appears impossible at present, since the interpretation of the Council has already been fixed by the post-conciliar magisterium, that is, by the documents of Paul VI and his successors.
Finally, the Society recalled the previous cycle of theological talks held between 2009 and 2017, which ended when Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller unilaterally established that the “minimum requirements” for reconciliation included the integral acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent magisterium, rather than fidelity to the traditional and two-thousand-year doctrine of the Catholic Church.
For this reason, Fr. Pagliarani proposed a more pragmatic ground: to recognize for the Society the freedom to continue its apostolate without granting immediate canonical regularization, considered unrealistic under present conditions. In this perspective, the episcopal consecrations, to be celebrated without any claim to the attribution of governance, would be considered necessary solely in order to guarantee the survival of Catholic Tradition in its doctrinal and liturgical forms, and nothing else.
The use of law in the Church
The outcome now appears clear: the Society will consecrate the new bishops in July, and the Holy See will declare those involved excommunicated, as already happened in 1988. As to the validity or otherwise of this excommunication, it is already a matter of debate among theologians (I have personally examined the matter in this analysis).
Beyond its internal meaning, what interests us here is its ‘cross-cutting’ significance. This controversy, in fact, highlights several serious and unresolved problems of the contemporary Church, as already noted elsewhere and examined here in greater depth.
First of all, the relationship that the present Roman hierarchies have with the law. Canon law, in fact, is today employed above all as an instrument for preserving personal power and institutional control, whereas it should be ordered to the “salvation of souls,” which the canonical tradition indicates as the supreme law of the Church (salus animarum suprema lex).
This perception is reinforced by comparison with the manner in which the Holy See has treated other ecclesial situations, irregular but far more delicate than that of the Society, which europeanconservative.com has examined: the Chinese situation and the German situation. The Society is accused of schism for episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate, but in communist China, not only has the regime imposed puppet bishops regardless of the judgment of the Vatican, but the latter has even approved them through secret agreements. A double standard thus results: discipline is applied with rigidity toward traditionalists and with flexibility toward realities that are theologically or politically far more problematic.
Within this framework, it is not clear what the expression “full communion” used by Fernández means. If it is true that this, according to canon law (cf. can. 205), occurs “by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance,” then why is the Society considered in practice outside the Church while the hundreds of heterodox, if not openly heretical, woke, socialist bishops now at the head of dioceses throughout the world are considered to be in communion? The bond of ecclesiastical governance cannot be identified with simple and blind submission to the pope.
The improper use of law also emerges from Fernández’s threat, which evokes “serious consequences for the Society,” when, in reality, the canonical sanctions for the particular case affect physical persons, not collectives. In the case of ordinations without a pontifical mandate, the Code provides excommunication only for the consecrating bishop and for the one consecrated, not for the entity to which they belong. A threatening language devoid of juridical foundation is purely rhetorical, inadequate for one who acts in the name of the pope, and historically typical of totalitarian regimes.
A further contradiction is given by the fact that, according to the interpretation that the hierarchy gives of the Code, manifest membership in Freemasonry and other associations that openly work against Christianity does not today entail immediate excommunication, whereas an episcopal ordination carried out by the Society, which does not declare itself separated from Rome nor intends to create a parallel hierarchy, does.
Is Bergoglio’s Curia afraid of the Society?
The immediate reaction of the Holy See to the announcement of the ordinations, after years of silence, fuels the suspicion that the Curia—and Pope Leo XIV, who does not conceive of himself as above it, like a monarch over the aristocracy or a bishop over his vicars, but rather horizontally embedded, more similar to a presiding officer of an assembly—fears that the work of the Society may in fact survive over time.
As long as the Society continues to preach and to form clergy, it represents an alternative but efficient model of catholicity, not controlled by the Roman apparatus. Hence the rapid and concerned reaction of the Holy See, to be interpreted therefore as a mere institutional defense, rather than as concern for juridical observance. The Curia reacts in this drastic and centralizing way, in the face of generally synodal and ecumenical attitudes, because it perceives a threat to its own influence and its own revolutionary agenda, not because it is confronted with an objectively grave act.
The Society can in fact die only if their bishops disappear, the only ones capable of ensuring new ordinations. This is very well known in Rome. But in 2026, the situation is very different from that of 1988: while remaining a minority, the Society is steadily growing throughout the world, and its witness to Tradition now reaches broader Catholic environments, often vaguely described as ‘conservative.’ It is a reality more deeply rooted and more widespread, but also younger.
It is a historical fact: the controversial choice of Marcel Lefebvre made possible the survival of doctrinal and liturgical Tradition, generating a paradoxical reality, canonically irregular but still attached to the pope, who is regarded as imprisoned within categories foreign to the Church. The crisis, in fact, is above all a crisis of authority, in continual contradiction with itself.
If Lefebvre had accepted the conditions set by Rome first in 1976 and then in 1988, Traditional Liturgy would have disappeared: in those years there existed neither spaces nor institutional will to preserve it. Only thanks to Lefebvre’s resistance did John Paul II establish Ecclesia Dei in reaction, Benedict XVI deepen the question and move away from his earlier, more progressive positions, and the liberalization of Summorum Pontificum come about.
Lefebvre’s choice, though contested, created a place in which liturgical and doctrinal tradition could continue to live in a coherent context. Without this continuity, doctrine would have been more exposed to the theological drifts of the time, because the liturgy—which is its primary expression—would have been absorbed into the new progressive paradigm.
A condition that recalls the Gospel episode of the man who cast out demons in the name of Christ without formally belonging to the Twelve (cf. Lk 9:49–50; Mk 9:38–40). The apostles—say the evangelists—wanted to stop him, but Jesus replied that “whoever is not against you is for you.” Thus, an authentically Christian action can exist even outside ordinary structures, provided that it does not oppose the authority of the Church. Saint Augustine himself recognized that Providence sometimes allows good men to remain separated from the visible community when the hierarchies are dominated by “carnal men,” that is, worldly men, without losing the faith and continuing to serve the Church while awaiting the healing of divisions (cf. De vera religione 6,11).
The Holy See and SSPX: The Dialogue That Is Not There
Argentinian cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, speaks during a press conference on September 19, 2024 in The Vatican.
TIZIANA FABI / AFP
You may also like
Europe’s Order of the Golden Farce
Europe’s elites have turned a powerhouse into a punchline, then give themselves medals for the collapse.
The Catholic Church Is Focusing on the Wrong Crisis
Every attempt to correct inequalities through political intervention or global planning ends up destroying the mechanisms that generate real prosperity.
The Quiet Collapse of Belonging
Britain’s young people are among the loneliest in Europe. This should concern us far more than it does.
On February 12, the announced meeting took place in Rome between Fr. Davide Pagliarani, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, and Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. The conversation, described as “cordial and sincere,” confirmed a situation now well established: the dialogue between the Holy See and the Society has been proceeding for decades without producing a stable solution.
Far from being a mere quarrel between reformers and nostalgics of a world that no longer exists, this meeting also represents the tension between two possible but irreconcilable visions of the West, within the only institution capable of defining its features, the Catholic Church. To retrace what has happened so far, I invite the reader to explore this analysis.
The context of the meeting
According to statements released by the Dicastery, the meeting was intended to constitute the beginning of a “structured theological dialogue.” The declared objective would have been to identify the “minimum requirements for full communion” of the Society with the Catholic Church, possibly also outlining a possible canonical statute.
The Holy See has, however, set a preliminary condition: the Society must not proceed with the announced five episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate. An action of this type would be interpreted by Rome as a schismatic act, with “serious canonical consequences” not only for the individual bishops involved but for the entire Society.
The official response of the heirs of Lefebvre, published on February 18, positively welcomes the prospect of doctrinal dialogue. Fr. Pagliarani recalled, in fact, that it was the Society itself that proposed a resumption of dialogue as early as 2019, without receiving a favorable response at that time. Only the announcement of the episcopal consecrations induced the Holy See to reopen the dossier. This fuels, according to the Society (and not only), the suspicion that dialogue is being used as a delaying instrument, accompanied by a ‘polite’ threat of sanctions.
Moreover, Pagliarani stressed that dialogue can be useful even without agreement because it would foster mutual understanding. At the same time, he reaffirmed that a doctrinal agreement on the fundamental points of the Second Vatican Council appears impossible at present, since the interpretation of the Council has already been fixed by the post-conciliar magisterium, that is, by the documents of Paul VI and his successors.
Finally, the Society recalled the previous cycle of theological talks held between 2009 and 2017, which ended when Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller unilaterally established that the “minimum requirements” for reconciliation included the integral acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent magisterium, rather than fidelity to the traditional and two-thousand-year doctrine of the Catholic Church.
For this reason, Fr. Pagliarani proposed a more pragmatic ground: to recognize for the Society the freedom to continue its apostolate without granting immediate canonical regularization, considered unrealistic under present conditions. In this perspective, the episcopal consecrations, to be celebrated without any claim to the attribution of governance, would be considered necessary solely in order to guarantee the survival of Catholic Tradition in its doctrinal and liturgical forms, and nothing else.
The use of law in the Church
The outcome now appears clear: the Society will consecrate the new bishops in July, and the Holy See will declare those involved excommunicated, as already happened in 1988. As to the validity or otherwise of this excommunication, it is already a matter of debate among theologians (I have personally examined the matter in this analysis).
Beyond its internal meaning, what interests us here is its ‘cross-cutting’ significance. This controversy, in fact, highlights several serious and unresolved problems of the contemporary Church, as already noted elsewhere and examined here in greater depth.
First of all, the relationship that the present Roman hierarchies have with the law. Canon law, in fact, is today employed above all as an instrument for preserving personal power and institutional control, whereas it should be ordered to the “salvation of souls,” which the canonical tradition indicates as the supreme law of the Church (salus animarum suprema lex).
This perception is reinforced by comparison with the manner in which the Holy See has treated other ecclesial situations, irregular but far more delicate than that of the Society, which europeanconservative.com has examined: the Chinese situation and the German situation. The Society is accused of schism for episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate, but in communist China, not only has the regime imposed puppet bishops regardless of the judgment of the Vatican, but the latter has even approved them through secret agreements. A double standard thus results: discipline is applied with rigidity toward traditionalists and with flexibility toward realities that are theologically or politically far more problematic.
Within this framework, it is not clear what the expression “full communion” used by Fernández means. If it is true that this, according to canon law (cf. can. 205), occurs “by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance,” then why is the Society considered in practice outside the Church while the hundreds of heterodox, if not openly heretical, woke, socialist bishops now at the head of dioceses throughout the world are considered to be in communion? The bond of ecclesiastical governance cannot be identified with simple and blind submission to the pope.
The improper use of law also emerges from Fernández’s threat, which evokes “serious consequences for the Society,” when, in reality, the canonical sanctions for the particular case affect physical persons, not collectives. In the case of ordinations without a pontifical mandate, the Code provides excommunication only for the consecrating bishop and for the one consecrated, not for the entity to which they belong. A threatening language devoid of juridical foundation is purely rhetorical, inadequate for one who acts in the name of the pope, and historically typical of totalitarian regimes.
A further contradiction is given by the fact that, according to the interpretation that the hierarchy gives of the Code, manifest membership in Freemasonry and other associations that openly work against Christianity does not today entail immediate excommunication, whereas an episcopal ordination carried out by the Society, which does not declare itself separated from Rome nor intends to create a parallel hierarchy, does.
Is Bergoglio’s Curia afraid of the Society?
The immediate reaction of the Holy See to the announcement of the ordinations, after years of silence, fuels the suspicion that the Curia—and Pope Leo XIV, who does not conceive of himself as above it, like a monarch over the aristocracy or a bishop over his vicars, but rather horizontally embedded, more similar to a presiding officer of an assembly—fears that the work of the Society may in fact survive over time.
As long as the Society continues to preach and to form clergy, it represents an alternative but efficient model of catholicity, not controlled by the Roman apparatus. Hence the rapid and concerned reaction of the Holy See, to be interpreted therefore as a mere institutional defense, rather than as concern for juridical observance. The Curia reacts in this drastic and centralizing way, in the face of generally synodal and ecumenical attitudes, because it perceives a threat to its own influence and its own revolutionary agenda, not because it is confronted with an objectively grave act.
The Society can in fact die only if their bishops disappear, the only ones capable of ensuring new ordinations. This is very well known in Rome. But in 2026, the situation is very different from that of 1988: while remaining a minority, the Society is steadily growing throughout the world, and its witness to Tradition now reaches broader Catholic environments, often vaguely described as ‘conservative.’ It is a reality more deeply rooted and more widespread, but also younger.
It is a historical fact: the controversial choice of Marcel Lefebvre made possible the survival of doctrinal and liturgical Tradition, generating a paradoxical reality, canonically irregular but still attached to the pope, who is regarded as imprisoned within categories foreign to the Church. The crisis, in fact, is above all a crisis of authority, in continual contradiction with itself.
If Lefebvre had accepted the conditions set by Rome first in 1976 and then in 1988, Traditional Liturgy would have disappeared: in those years there existed neither spaces nor institutional will to preserve it. Only thanks to Lefebvre’s resistance did John Paul II establish Ecclesia Dei in reaction, Benedict XVI deepen the question and move away from his earlier, more progressive positions, and the liberalization of Summorum Pontificum come about.
Lefebvre’s choice, though contested, created a place in which liturgical and doctrinal tradition could continue to live in a coherent context. Without this continuity, doctrine would have been more exposed to the theological drifts of the time, because the liturgy—which is its primary expression—would have been absorbed into the new progressive paradigm.
A condition that recalls the Gospel episode of the man who cast out demons in the name of Christ without formally belonging to the Twelve (cf. Lk 9:49–50; Mk 9:38–40). The apostles—say the evangelists—wanted to stop him, but Jesus replied that “whoever is not against you is for you.” Thus, an authentically Christian action can exist even outside ordinary structures, provided that it does not oppose the authority of the Church. Saint Augustine himself recognized that Providence sometimes allows good men to remain separated from the visible community when the hierarchies are dominated by “carnal men,” that is, worldly men, without losing the faith and continuing to serve the Church while awaiting the healing of divisions (cf. De vera religione 6,11).
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
Independence Before Identity—Montenegro at Twenty
Magyar’s Test: Sell Hungarian Children to Brussels’ Gender Cult for Cash?
French Cinema Pushes Back Against So-Called Far-Right Grip