Rubriik: Teade

2. veebruaril, Neitsi Maarja Puhastamise pühal, tegi Püha Pius X Preestrite Vennaskonna kindralülem reverend isa Davide Pagliarani avaliku teadaande. Ta kuulutas Prantsusmaal Flavigny-sur-Ozerainis Saint-Curé-d’Arsi seminari sutaani vastuvõtmise tseremoonial välja otsuse anda Vennaskonna piiskoppidele ülesandeks pühitseda ametisse uued piiskopid. Pühitsemine leiab aset 1. juulil 2026. 

Möödunud aasta augustis palus kindralülem Pühalt Isalt audientsi ja palus pojalikus vaimus võimalust anda paavstile ülevaade Püha Pius X Preestrite Vennaskonna hetkeolukorrast. Järgmises kirjas väljendas ta selgesõnaliselt Vennaskonna erilist vajadust kindlustada piiskoppide pühitsemise jätkumine. Ta selgitas, et Vennaskonna piiskopid on juba ligi 40 aastat reisinud mööda maailma nende paljude usklike teenistuses, kes on ustavad Kiriku Traditsioonile ja soovivad oma hingede heaks vastu võtta vaimulikuseisusesse pühitsemise ja kinnitamise sakramenti. 

Olles kaua palves mõtisklenud ja saanud nüüd Pühalt Toolilt vastuseks kirja, mis ei vasta ühelgi moel meie palvetele, leiab isa Pagliarani, toetudes oma nõukogu ühehäälsele soovitusele, et ustavate hingede tõsine hädavajadus nõuab sellise otsuse langetamist. 

Sõnad, mille ta kirjutas 21. novembril 2024, peapiiskop Marcel Lefebvre’i ajaloolise deklaratsiooni 50. aastapäeval, peegeldavad paremini kui miski muu tema mõtet ja kavatsusi: 

„Üksnes katoliku Kirikus sellisena, nagu ta on alati olnud, ja tema muutumatus Traditsioonis on meile kindlustatud Tões püsimine ning võimalus seda kuulutada ja teenida. […]

Vennaskond ei võitle mitte omaenda ellujäämise, vaid ülemaailmse Kiriku hüvangu eest. Vennaskond on Kiriku missiooni ehedaim näide, kuna vastab meie enneolematult traagilise ajastu vajadustele nüüdisajal harvaesineva vabaduse ja jõuga.“

Nagu viiskümmend aastat tagasi, on ka praegu meie ainus eesmärk säilitada Traditsioon. „See on põhjus, miks me ilma igasuguse mässumeele, kibeduse või vihata, alati muutumatu Õpetusameti juhiste järgi, jätkame preestrite koolitamist. Oleme veendunud, et nii teenime parimal võimalikul viisil Püha katoliku Kirikut, paavsti ja järeltulevaid põlvi.“ 

Lähipäevil annab kindralülem täiendavaid selgitusi meie olukorra ja oma otsuse kohta. 

“Nos cum Prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria.“

„Õnnistagu meid Neitsi Maarja koos oma jumaliku Pojaga.“
Menzingen, 2. veebruar 2026

“suprema lex, salus animarum”  – ” the supreme law is the salvation of souls”

“‘The supreme law is the salvation of souls.’ It is upon this higher principle that, ultimately, the entire legitimacy of our apostolate depends.”

1. FSSPX.News: Reverend Superior General, you have just publicly announced your intention to proceed with episcopal consecrations for the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X on 1 July next. Why did you choose to make this announcement today, 2 February?

Don Davide Pagliarani: The feast of the Purification of the Most Blessed Virgin is of great significance within the Society. It is the day on which candidates for the priesthood receive the cassock. The Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple, which we celebrate today, reminds them that the key to their formation and preparation for Holy Orders lies in self-giving, which passes through the hands of Mary. It is an important Marian feast because, in announcing a sword of sorrow to Our Lady, Simeon clearly shows her role as Co-Redemptrix alongside her divine Son. We see her associated with Our Lord from the very beginning of His earthly life until the consummation of His sacrifice on Calvary. In the same way, Our Lady accompanies the future priest in his formation and throughout his entire life – it is she who continues to form Our Lord in his soul.

2. This announcement has been a persistent rumour in recent months, especially since the death of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in October 2024. Why did you wait until now?

Like Archbishop Lefebvre in his time, the Society has always been anxious not to precede but follow Providence, allowing itself to be guided by its indications. A decision of such importance cannot be taken lightly or in haste.

In particular, since this decision clearly concerns the supreme authority of the Church, it was deemed necessary first that we approach the Holy See – which we did – and wait for a reasonable period for a response. This was not a decision that we could take without concretely manifesting our recognition of the authority of the Holy Father.

3. In your homily, you stated that you had indeed written to the Pope. Could you tell us more about this?

Last summer, I wrote to the Holy Father to request an audience. Having received no reply, I wrote to him again a few months later, in a filial and straightforward manner, without concealing any of our needs. I mentioned our doctrinal divergences, but also our sincere desire to serve the Catholic Church without respite, for we are servants of the Church despite our irregular canonical status.

To this second letter, a reply from Rome reached us a few days ago, from Cardinal Fernández. Unfortunately, it took no account whatsoever of the proposal we put forward, and offers nothing that responds to our requests.

This proposal, given the very particular circumstances in which the Society finds itself, consists concretely in asking that the Holy See agree to allow us to continue our work – temporarily, in our exceptional situation – for the good of the souls who turn to us. We promised the Pope to devote all our energy to the safeguarding of Tradition, and to make of our faithful true sons of the Church. It seems to me that such a proposal is both realistic and reasonable, and that it could, in itself, be approved by the Holy Father.

4. But then, if you have not yet received this approval, why do you nevertheless consider it necessary to proceed with episcopal consecrations?

This is an extreme means, proportionate to a real and likewise extreme necessity. Indeed, the mere existence of a necessity for the good of souls does not mean that, in order to respond to it, any initiative whatsoever is automatically justified. But in our case, after a long period of waiting, observation, and prayer, it seems that the objective state of grave necessity in which souls, the Society, and the Church find themselves today calls for such a decision.

With the legacy left to us by Pope Francis, the fundamental reasons that justified the consecrations of 1988 still exist and, in many respects, impel us with renewed urgency. The Second Vatican Council remains more than ever the compass guiding today’s churchmen, and they are unlikely to change course in the near future. Furthermore, the major orientations already taking shape in this new pontificate – particularly through the most recent consistory – only confirm this. An explicit determination to preserve the line of Pope Francis as an irreversible trajectory for the entire Church is discernible.

“We promised the Pope to devote all our energy to the safeguarding of Tradition, and to make of our faithful true sons of the Church.”

It is sad to acknowledge, but it is a fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation. Missing, in particular, are both the integral preaching of Catholic truth and morality, and the worthy administration of the sacraments as the Church has always done. This deprivation is what constitutes the state of necessity. In this critical context, our bishops are growing older, and, as the apostolate continues to expand, they are no longer sufficient to meet the demands of the faithful worldwide.

5. In what way do you believe that last month’s consistory confirms the direction taken by Pope Francis?

Cardinal Fernández, speaking in the name of Pope Leo, invited the Church to return to Pope Francis’s fundamental intuition expressed in his key encyclical, Evangelii gaudium. Put simply, he believes that the Gospel should be proclaimed by reducing it to a primitive and essential expression, a series of concise and striking formulas – the “kerygma” – with a view to eliciting an “experience”, an immediate encounter with Christ. Everything else should be set aside, however precious it may be. In concrete terms, all that is Tradition is considered as accessory and secondary. It is this method of the new evangelisation that has produced the doctrinal emptiness characteristic of Pope Francis’s pontificate, and is keenly felt by many in the Church. 

In a similar vein, one must provide new and relevant answers to the emerging questions of our time, but, according to Cardinal Fernández, this is to be done through synodal reform, rather than by rediscovering the classical and ever-valid answers provided by the Tradition of the Church. It is by these means, in the “breath of the Spirit” of this synodal reform, that Pope Francis has been able to impose catastrophic decisions upon the whole Church, such as authorising Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, or the blessing of same-sex couples.

In summary, through the “kerygma”, the proclamation of the Gospel is isolated from the whole corpus of traditional doctrine and morality. And through synodality, traditional answers are replaced by arbitrary decisions, with a high risk of being absurd and doctrinally unjustifiable. Cardinal Zen himself considers this method manipulative and considers attributing it to the Holy Ghost blasphemous. Unfortunately, I fear that he is right.

6. You speak of service to the Church, but in practice, the Society can give the impression of challenging the Church, especially if episcopal consecrations are envisaged. How do you explain this to the Pope?

We serve the Church first and foremost by serving souls. This is an objective fact, independent of any other consideration. Fundamentally, the Church exists for souls; her purpose is their sanctification and their salvation. All fine speeches, the various debates, the major themes upon which one discusses or might discuss, have no meaning if they do not have as their finality the salvation of souls. It is essential to recall this because the Church is in danger of busying herself with both everything and nothing. Ecological concerns, for example, or the preoccupation with the rights of minorities, of women, or of migrants, risk causing the essential mission of the Church to be lost from view. If the Society of Saint Pius X strives to preserve Tradition, with all that this entails, it is solely because these treasures are vital for the salvation of souls, and because it aims at nothing else but the good of souls, and that of the priesthood – ordered to their sanctification.

“In an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the necessary means to ensure their eternal salvation. This is what constitutes the state of necessity.”

In so doing, we place what we preserve at the service of the Church. We offer the Church, not a museum of old and dusty things, but Tradition in its fullness and fruitfulness. Tradition, which sanctifies souls, transforms them, and gives rise to vocations and authentically Catholic families. In other words, it is for the Pope himself, as such, that we preserve this treasure until the day when its value will once again be understood and when a Pope will wish to make use of it for the good of the whole Church. For it is to the Church that Tradition belongs.

7. You speak of the good of souls, but the Society has no mission over souls. On the contrary, it was canonically suppressed more than fifty years ago. On what basis can any mission of the Society towards souls be justified?

It is quite simply a question of charity. We do not wish to attribute to ourselves a mission that we do not have, but at the same time, we cannot refuse to respond to the spiritual distress of souls who are increasingly perplexed, disoriented, and lost. They are calling for help. And, after searching for a long time, it is quite natural that they find deep joy, light, and consolation in the riches of the Tradition of the Church. To these souls, we have a true responsibility, even if we do not possess an official mission. It is the same for someone in the street – if he sees another in danger, he is bound to come to that person’s aid according to his means, even if he is neither a fireman nor a policeman.

The number of souls who have thus turned to us has increased over the years, particularly in the last decade. To ignore their needs and abandon them would mean betraying them, and thereby betraying the Church herself, for once again, the Church exists for souls and not to feed vain and futile discourse.

This charity is a duty which commands all others. The very law of the Church provides for it. In the spirit of ecclesiastical law, which is the juridical expression of this charity, the good of souls comes before everything else. It truly represents the law of laws, to which all others are subordinate and against which no ecclesiastical law can prevail. The axiom “suprema lex, salus animarum”  – “ the supreme law is the salvation of souls” – is a classic maxim of canonical tradition which is explicitly taken up by the final canon of the 1983 Code. In the present state of necessity, it is upon this highest principle that the entire legitimacy of our apostolate and of our mission towards the souls who turn to us depends. For us, we fulfil a role of supplying for a deficiency, in the name of that same charity.

8. Are you aware that contemplating episcopal consecrations could place the faithful who have recourse to the Society before a dilemma: either the choice of integral Tradition with all that it implies, or “full” communion with the hierarchy of the Church?

In reality, this dilemma is only apparent. A Catholic must preserve both integral Tradition and communion with the hierarchy. He cannot choose between these goods, because they are both necessary.

But too often it is forgotten that communion is founded essentially upon the Catholic faith with all that this entails – beginning with a true sacramental life – and this requires the exercise of a governance that preaches this same faith and ensures that it is put into practice, using its authority not arbitrarily, but truly with a view to the spiritual good of the souls entrusted to its care.

It is precisely to safeguard these foundations – these conditions necessary for the existence of communion in the Church – that the Society cannot accept what opposes and distorts that communion, even when this comes from those who themselves exercise authority in the Church by right.

9. Could you give a concrete example of what the Society cannot accept?

The first example that comes to mind dates back to 2019, when Pope Francis, on the occasion of his visit to the Arabian Peninsula, signed, together with an imam, the well-known Abu Dhabi declaration. Together with the Muslim leader, he affirmed that the plurality of religions had been willed as such by divine Wisdom.

It is evident that a communion founded upon the acceptance of such a statement, or which would include it, would simply not be Catholic, since it would constitute a sin against the First Commandment and the denial of the first article of the Creed. I consider such a statement to be more than a simple error. It is simply inconceivable. It cannot be the foundation of Catholic communion, but rather the cause of its dissolution. I believe that a Catholic should prefer martyrdom rather than accept such an affirmation.

10. Throughout the world, awareness of the errors long denounced by the Society is growing, particularly on the internet. Would it not be better to allow this movement to develop and to trust in Providence rather than intervene with a strong public gesture such as episcopal consecrations?

This movement is certainly positive, and one can only rejoice in it. Undoubtedly, it illustrates the soundness of what the Society defends, and there is every reason to encourage this dissemination of the truth by all available means. That said, it is a movement with limits, for the battle of faith cannot be restricted to, nor exhausted by, discussions and position – taking on the internet. 

The sanctification of a soul certainly depends upon an authentic profession of faith, but this must lead to a devout Christian life. On Sundays, souls do not need to consult the internet; they need a priest who hears their confessions and instructs them, who celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for them, who truly sanctifies them and leads them to God. Souls need priests. And to have priests, bishops are required, not “influencers”. In other words, we must return to reality – that is, the reality of souls and of their concrete, objective needs. Episcopal consecrations have no other purpose but to guarantee, for the faithful attached to Tradition, the administration of the sacrament of Confirmation, of Holy Orders, and of all that flows from them.

11. Do you not think that, despite its good intentions, the Society could in some way end up considering itself to be the Church, or attributing to itself an irreplaceable role?

In no way does the Society claim to take the place of the Church or to assume her mission. On the contrary, it retains a deep awareness that it exists solely to serve her, relying exclusively on what the Church herself has always and everywhere preached, believed, and practised.

The Society is likewise deeply conscious that it is not she who saves the Church, for Our Lord alone preserves and saves His Spouse – He who never ceases to watch over her.

In circumstances it did not choose, the Society is simply a privileged means of remaining faithful to the Church. Attentive to the mission of her Mother, who for twenty centuries has nourished her children with doctrine and the sacraments, the Society devotes itself with a filial spirit to the preservation and defence of integral Tradition – taking advantage of an unparalleled freedom to remain faithful to this inheritance. According to the expression of Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society is nothing more than a work “of the Catholic Church, which continues to transmit doctrine”; its role is that of an “envoy”. And it desires nothing so much as to see all Catholic pastors join it in the fulfilment of this duty.

12. Let us return to the Pope. Do you think it is realistic to believe that the Holy Father might accept, or at least tolerate, that the Society consecrate bishops without a pontifical mandate?

A Pope is first and foremost a father. As such, he is capable of discerning a right intention, a sincere will to serve the Church, and above all, a genuine case of conscience in an exceptional situation. These elements are objective, and all those who know the Society can recognise them, even without necessarily sharing its positions.

13. That is understandable in theory. But do you think that, in practice, Rome could tolerate such a decision on the part of the Society?

The future remains in the hands of the Holy Father and, of course, Providence. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the Holy See is sometimes capable of showing a certain pragmatism, and even a surprising flexibility, when it is convinced that it is acting for the good of souls.

Let us take the current case of relations with the Chinese government. Despite a genuine schism of the Chinese Patriotic Church, despite the uninterrupted persecution of the underground Church faithful to Rome, despite agreements regularly renewed and then broken by the Chinese authorities, in 2023, Pope Francis approved, a posteriori, the appointment of the Bishop of Shanghai by those authorities. More recently, Pope Leo XIV himself ultimately accepted, a posteriori, the appointment of the Bishop of Xinxiang, designated in the same manner during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, while the bishop, faithful to Rome – who had been imprisoned several times – was still in office. In both cases, these were clearly pro-government prelates, imposed unilaterally by Beijing to control the Catholic Church in China. It should be clearly noted that these were not merely auxiliary bishops, but residential bishops, that is, ordinary pastors of their respective dioceses (or prefectures), possessing jurisdiction over the local clergy and faithful. In Rome, it is perfectly well known for what purpose these pastors were chosen and unilaterally imposed.

“The Society of Saint Pius X aims at nothing else: the good of souls,and that of the priesthood ordered to their sanctification.”

The Society’s case is entirely different. For us, it is obviously not a matter of favouring a communist or anti-Christian power, but solely of safeguarding the rights of Christ the King and of the Tradition of the Church, at a time of general crisis and confusion in which these are gravely compromised. The intentions and the ends are clearly not the same. The Pope knows this. Moreover, the Holy Father knows full well that the Society has no intention whatsoever of granting any jurisdiction to its bishops, which would amount to creating a parallel Church.

Frankly, I do not see how the Pope could fear a greater danger to souls coming from the Society than from the government in Beijing.

14. With regard to the traditional Mass, do you think that the necessity of souls is as grave today as it was in 1988? After the well-known vicissitudes of the rite of Saint Pius V, its liberation by Benedict XVI in 2007, and the restrictions imposed by Francis in 2021, in what direction are we heading with the new Pope?

As far as I am aware, Pope Leo XIV has maintained a certain discretion on this subject, which arouses great expectation in the conservative world. Very recently, however, a text by Cardinal Roche on the liturgy – intended initially for the cardinals participating in last month’s consistory – was made public. There is no reason to doubt that it corresponds, in its broad lines, to the orientation desired by the Pope. It is an unambiguous text, and above all, logical and coherent. Unfortunately, it is based on a false premise.

Concretely, this text, in perfect continuity with Traditionis custodes, condemns the liturgical project of Pope Benedict XVI, according to whom, the ancient rite and the new rite are two more or less equivalent forms, expressing the same faith and the same ecclesiology, and therefore capable of mutually enriching one another. Concerned for the unity of the Church, Benedict XVI sought to promote the coexistence of the two rites and, in 2007, published Summorum Pontificum. For many, this occasioned a providential rediscovery of the Mass of all time; but over time, it also gave rise to a movement calling the new rite into question—a movement deemed problematic and which Traditionis custodes, in 2021, sought to stem.

Faithful to Pope Francis, Cardinal Roche is now attempting to promote an elusive unity of the Church according to an idea contradictory to that of Benedict XVI. While maintaining the assertion of a continuity from one rite to the other through reform, Cardinal Roche firmly opposes their coexistence. He sees in it a source of division, a threat to unity, which must be overcome by returning to an authentic liturgical communion. “The primary good of the unity of the Church is not achieved by freezing division, but by finding ourselves in the sharing of what cannot but be shared.” In the Church, “there ought to be only one rite”, in full syntony with the true meaning of Tradition.

This is a just and coherent principle, since the Church, having one faith and one ecclesiology, can have only one liturgy capable of expressing them adequately. But it is a principle applied to a wrong conception of Tradition. Consistent with the new post-conciliar ecclesiology, Cardinal Roche conceives Tradition as something evolving, and the new rite as its sole living expression for our time. The value of the Tridentine rite can therefore only be regarded as obsolete, and its use, at most, a “concession”, and “in no way a promotion.”

That there is a present “division” and incompatibility between the two rites now appears more apparent than ever. But let there be no mistake, the only liturgy that adequately expresses, in an immutable and non-evolving manner, the traditional conception of the Church, of Christian life, and of the Catholic priesthood – that is, Tradition – is the liturgy of all time. On this point, the opposition of the Holy See appears more irrevocable than ever.

15. Cardinal Roche nevertheless has the honesty to acknowledge that there are still specific problems in the implementation of the liturgical reform. Do you think that this could lead to an awareness of the limits of that reform?

It is astonishing that, after sixty years, a real difficulty in applying the liturgical reform is still admitted, and its riches are still to be discovered. This is a refrain heard whenever this subject is addressed, and which Cardinal Roche’s text does not evade. But instead of sincerely questioning the intrinsic deficiencies of the new Mass, and therefore the overall failure of the reform, instead of facing the reality that churches are emptying and vocations are declining, instead of asking why the Tridentine rite continues to attract so many souls, Cardinal Roche sees no other solution than an urgent preliminary formation of the faithful and seminarians.

Without realising it, he thus enters into a vicious circle, for it is the liturgy itself that is meant to form souls. For almost two thousand years, souls – often illiterate – were edified and sanctified by the liturgy, without the need for any prior formation.

Failing to recognise the intrinsic incapacity of the Novus Ordo to form and edify souls and continuing to demand ever better prior formation seems to me to be the sign of an irremediable blindness. One arrives at shocking paradoxes: the reform was intended to foster a greater participation of the faithful; yet the faithful abandoned the Church en masse, because this insipid liturgy failed to nourish them – and this would supposedly have nothing to do with the reform?

16. Today, in many countries, groups outside the Society still use the 1962 Missal. Such possibilities hardly existed in 1988. Would this not be a sufficient alternative for the time being, rendering new episcopal consecrations premature?

The question we must ask ourselves is this: do these possibilities correspond to what the Church and souls truly need? Do they respond sufficiently to the necessities of souls?

It is undeniable that, wherever the traditional Mass is celebrated, it is the true rite of the Church that shines forth with a profound sense of the sacred, which is not found in the new rite. However, one cannot abstract from the framework within which these celebrations take place. Independent of the goodwill of one party or another, and especially since Traditionis custodes and its confirmation by Cardinal Roche, the framework is that of a Church in which the only official and “normal” rite is that of Paul VI. The celebration of the rite of all time, therefore, takes place under a regime of exception. Those priests attached to this rite receive, by gratuitous benevolence, dispensations which allow them to celebrate it, but these dispensations are inscribed within the logic of the new ecclesiology. They therefore tacitly accept that the new liturgy remains the criterion of the piety of the faithful and the authentic expression of the life of the Church.

17. Why do you say that one cannot abstract from this exceptional framework? Is not good, nevertheless, being done? What concrete consequences would be regrettable?

From this situation, at least three harmful consequences result.

The most immediate is a profound structural fragility. Priests and faithful who benefit from certain privileges allowing them to use the Tridentine liturgy live in anxiety about the future – a privilege is not a right. So long as authority tolerates them, they may carry on their religious practice without being troubled. But as soon as authority formulates particular demands, imposes conditions, or suddenly revokes, for one reason or another, the permissions granted, priests and faithful find themselves in conflict, with no means of defending themselves to effectively guarantee the traditional assistance that souls have a right to expect. How, then, can such cases of conscience be avoided in the long term, when, between two irreconcilable conceptions of the life of the Church – embodied in two incompatible liturgies – one enjoys complete legitimacy while the other is merely tolerated?

Furthermore – and this is probably more serious – the reason for the attachment of these groups to the Tridentine liturgy is no longer understood. This gravely compromises the public rights of the Tradition of the Church and thereby the good of souls. Indeed, if those attached to the Mass of all time are deemed to accept that the modern Mass be celebrated throughout the Church, and if they are believed to claim for themselves only a particular privilege linked to a preference or a proper charism, how can it then be understood that this Mass of all time stands in irreducible opposition to the new Mass, remains the sole true liturgy of the whole Church, and that no one may be prevented from celebrating it? How can it be known that the Mass of Paul VI cannot be recognised, because it constitutes a considerable departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and that no one may be compelled to celebrate it? And how are souls to be effectively turned away from this poisoned liturgy, to drink from the pure sources of Catholic liturgy?

“The Society is simply, in circumstances it did not choose, a privileged means of remaining faithful to the Church.”

Finally, a more remote consequence flowing from the previous two: the fear of breaking a fragile stability by behaviour deemed “disturbing” reduces many pastors to a constrained silence, when they should be raising their voices against scandalous teaching which corrupts faith or morals. The necessary denunciation of errors that undermine the Church – required by the very good of souls who are threatened by this poisoned nourishment – is thereby left undone. One may enlighten another in private, if able to discern the harmfulness of a given error, but it may be only a timid whisper, in which truth struggles to express itself with the required freedom – especially in the shadow of tacitly accepted, contradictory principles. Once again, souls are no longer enlightened and are deprived of the bread of doctrine for which they remain hungry. Over time, this progressively alters mentalities and gradually leads to a general and unconscious acceptance of the various reforms affecting the life of the Church. Towards these souls, too, the Society feels a responsibility to enlighten and not to abandon.

This is not a matter of judgment and condemnation, but of opening one’s eyes and acknowledging the facts. We are obliged to recognise that, insofar as the use of the traditional liturgy remains conditioned upon at least an implicit acceptance of the conciliar reforms, the groups who benefit from it cannot constitute an adequate response to the profound necessities experienced by the Church and by souls. On the contrary, to take up an idea already expressed, Catholics today must be offered a truth without compromise, served without conditioning, together with the means to live it fully, for the salvation of souls and the service of the whole Church.

18. That being said, do you not think that Rome might show itself more generous in the future with regard to the traditional Mass?

Rome may adopt a more open attitude in the future, as happened in 1988 in analogous circumstances when the old Missal was granted to specific groups in an attempt to draw the faithful away from the Society. Should this happen again, it would again be more of a political decision than a doctrinal one. The Tridentine Missal is intended solely to adore the divine majesty and to nourish faith; it must not be instrumentalised as a tool of pastoral adjustment or as a variable of appeasement.

However, greater or lesser benevolence would change nothing of the harmfulness of the framework described above, and would therefore not substantially modify the situation.

Moreover, the scenario is more complex in reality. In Rome, both Pope Francis and Cardinal Roche saw that broadening the use of the Missal of Saint Pius V inevitably triggers a questioning of the liturgical reform and of the Council on a scale that is both troublesome and, above all, uncontrollable. It is therefore difficult to foresee what will happen, but the danger of becoming trapped in a logic that is more political than doctrinal is real.

19. What would you like to say in particular to the faithful and to the members of the Society?

I would like to emphasize that this is a time for prayer and preparation of hearts, souls, and minds. We must prepare ourselves to receive the grace that these consecrations will occasion for the whole Church. This should be done with recollection, peace, and trust in Providence, which has never abandoned the Society and will not abandon it now.

20. Do you still hope to meet the Pope?

Yes, certainly. It seems to me extremely important to speak with the Holy Father. There are many things I would like to share with him that I was not able to include in my letters. Unfortunately, Cardinal Fernández’s response does not address the possibility of an audience with the Pope. It also evokes the possibility of new sanctions.

21. What will the Society do if the Holy See decides to condemn it?

First of all, let us recall that in such circumstances any canonical penalties would have no real effect.

Nevertheless, should they be pronounced, the Society would certainly accept this new suffering without bitterness, as it has accepted past sufferings, and would sincerely offer it for the good of the Church. It is for the Church that the Society works. And there is no doubt that, should such a situation arise, it could only be temporary, for the Church is divine and Our Lord will not abandon her.

The Society will continue to work to the best of its ability to be faithful to Catholic Tradition and to humbly serve the Church by responding to the needs of souls. It will also continue to pray with filial devotion for the Pope, as it has always done, while awaiting the day when it may be freed from any unjust sanctions, as was the case in 2009. We are sure that one day the Roman authorities will acknowledge, with gratitude, that these episcopal consecrations providentially contributed to preserving the faith, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.

Interview given at Flavigny-sur-Ozerain on 2 February 2026
on the feast of the Purification of the Most Blessed Virgin

© 2026 SSPX Society of Saint Pius X

Source: FSSPX News

Headquarters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Press release dated 5 February 2026.

COMMUNIQUÉ FROM THE GENERAL HOUSE

Following the announcement, on 2 February, of future episcopal consecrations for the Society of Saint Pius X, His Eminence Cardinal Fernández wrote to the Superior General to propose a meeting in Rome. The Superior General accepted this proposal. The meeting will take place on Thursday, 12 February.

We invite the members and faithful of the Society to offer their prayers for the good outcome of this meeting.

Source: FSSPX News

(Prantsuskeelsel videol on ingliskeelsed subtiitrid.)

Piiskoppide pühitsemise teemat käsitletakse selles videos otseselt alates 29:55, kuid jutluse esimene osa selgitab hädaolukorra seisundit. Selle tähtsa otsuse konteksti ja põhjuste mõistmiseks kuulake-lugege kogu jutlus.

Sermon of 2nd February 2026, Saint-Curé-d’Ars Seminary, France.

“Reverend fathers, seminarians, sisters, my dear faithful.

It is a great joy for me to bless the cassocks of twenty-two new seminarians on this holy day when Our Blessed Lord, for the first time, went to the Temple to present Himself before the altar, so as to outwardly manifest the offering of Himself and of His life. “Here I am to do Thy will” – “This is the purpose of my Incarnation, and today I manifest Myself”. As much as possible, these perfect dispositions of Our Lord must be the dispositions of a young man who wants to give his life to Our Blessed Lord, in order to one day ascend to the altar.

What a beautiful example! This is the model to follow throughout our lives. This takes place in unity: the unity of Our Blessed Lady and of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lady, the Immaculate One, the Perpetual Virgin, accepted the rite of purification according to the law of Moses. Never had any creature ever been – or ever will be – as pure as the Blessed Virgin Mary. Yet, out of humility, she accepted this ritual. The offering of two turtle doves was brought, one for the burnt offering and one for remission of sins, and she is purified. It was the offering given by the poor.

And Our Lord Himself was redeemed because, as the firstborn, He belonged to God, and He was redeemed by paying the small sum of five shekels or five coins. He who was the true Redeemer – He who was himself the price of our redemption, accepted to be redeemed by a few simple coins. What humility! He was not strictly obliged to go to Jerusalem for this ritual. Jews who lived far away could do this by proxy. However, the Holy Family wanted to fulfil the law themselves, out of obedience.

What a magnificent example! Our Blessed Lord already presented Himself to us as obedient, obedient unto death. We know the perfection of His inner dispositions. He was already disposed to give everything for our redemption. To fulfil His duty of obedience to His Father and to fulfil His will. In this context of an already perfect immolation, we have a prelude to His Passion  and to His Cross.

Our Lord cannot leave us indifferent

It is in this scene that Simeon appeared, a scene that was so common and so simple in appearance, but in the eyes of God, so unique, because Redemption had already begun. This old man spoke, and his words were divided into two contrasting parts. Firstly, the joy in seeing Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in taking Him in his arms. A joy proportionate to the desire he nurtured until that day. “At last, I have seen the Saviour, the salvation of Israel. Yes, I have seen Him!”

In Heaven, we will do nothing else but contemplate what Simeon contemplated in his arms during those few moments: this salvation, this Saviour, who has been prepared by Divine Providence, ever since the beginning of time. Christ’s incarnation was in God’s mind, if we may say so, for all people – ante faciem omnium populorum, lumen ad revelationem gentium. He is the only saviour who is given and offered, to all people and to all races, without distinction. What incredible joy! What joy in the eyes and words of this old man! Finally the light to teach the truth has come! The only path to salvation!

Nevertheless, Simeon’s joy and light, was suddenly interrupted by the announcement he made to Our Lady and Saint Joseph. He turned towards them, blessing them and telling them something in a very different tone – which is of course related to what had gone before. What exactly was he going to tell them? He told them that the redemption of mankind by this Child will come about through suffering, through the cross and through the Passion. This Child will be a sign of contradiction. This is a very beautiful definition of Our Blessed Lord. He is a sign of contradiction.

What does this mean in a more modern language? It means that Our Lord will not hide the truth, but He will affirm it. He is a sign of contradiction. He will manifest it through His words, and He will confirm it through His miracles. He will proclaim it and clearly state that it is the only way of salvation – there is none other. Why does He say that? It is because He cannot deceive souls. He did not come into this world to deceive souls. He came to save them. He came to manifest the truth and therefore, He will be persecuted. Furthermore, those who will follow Him will also be a sign of contradiction. Therefore, we must choose. We cannot remain indifferent before Our Blessed Lord. We cannot remain indifferent before the work of Redemption. Those who remain indifferent have already made their choice. Those who remain indifferent have rejected Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Simeon himself said this quite clearly. What did he say in his prophecy? He said: all these elements of Our Lord’s work of Redemption, all this will take place so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. What does this mean? In what sense will the thoughts of men’s hearts be revealed? It is in the sense that no one will be able to remain truly indifferent before Our Blessed Lord. One must choose. He is a sign of contradiction. Our Lord Himself will say one day: “He that is not with Me, is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth”.

And this revelation of the mystery of Redemption, which will be accomplished through the sufferings of Our Lord, will be accompanied by another suffering. This mystery of Redemption was first revealed through the suffering of Our Lord. However, God willed that Our Blessed Lady be associated with this work, and that Our Lady’s role alongside Our Lord be revealed at the same time as the role of Our Lord was revealed to men. Simeon, addressing the Virgin, said to her: “A sword of sorrow will pierce your heart. Your soul will be pierced by a sword”. What a sublime mystery that is hidden in these words! Yet a mystery that we can penetrate, and one that is extremely dear to Holy Mother Church. It is the mystery of co-redemption, the mystery of Our Lady’s association with the work of Our Blessed Lord.

The place of Our Blessed Lady in Redemption

Now we understand why the angel asked for Our Lady’s consent, her ‘fiat’. She truly understood that becoming the mother of God meant becoming the mother of a suffering God, of a redeeming God, a suffering Messiah, as was described in the Old Testament. Understanding that, she said “Yes, I accept. If it is the will of God, I accept”. God became man for a very specific purpose – and Our Lady understood this. She accepted this over and above all else. But why? Why, in His Divine wisdom, did God want to associate Our Blessed Lady in this way with Our Lord Jesus Christ’s passion?

It is because Our Lord came to save souls. However, He will ask each soul for its own collaboration, its own adherence to the faith and its own share of suffering. Nevertheless, Our Lady, despite being preserved from original sin before her conception, she who was in a certain way the most perfect and unique redeemed one, being never touched by sin, was still asked by God for her cooperation in the work of Redemption, in a manner proportional to her holiness. What a mystery! It is a profoundly Catholic vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Yes, God wants the cooperation of his creatures, and has made Our Lady the prototype of this cooperation.

You see none of this in Protestantism, which destroys all forms of cooperation. For them, it is only God who saves the predestined. This is Luther’s theology, and consequently, what are Protestants looking for, since this cooperation is not necessary? Logically, they reject the religious life, mortification and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, because Holy Mass, according to the Protestants, is a human effort or cooperation in a work that is purely divine. They reject the veneration of saints, because we do not need any intercessors or intermediaries. Above all, they reject the veneration of Our Blessed Lady. This is terrible because it destroys the work of Redemption as God intended it. However, for them it is logical.

It must also be said, on another level and in a different way, modernism has done the same thing. Modernism, without denying these truths has distorted them. Behind the ill-placed shield of a misunderstood Christocentrism, that is to say, the false fear of taking away Our Lord’s centrality, modernism also diminishes all human cooperation. Human efforts, mortifications and even the religious life are no longer understood. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is understood in a completely different way, as is the role of Our Lady. She is somewhat sidelined, negating her role in redemption, which is so central. This too, is terrible!

When you have a beautiful painting, what do you do to make it stand out? You try to find a frame that is worthy of that painting. This is precisely what God Himself did with the Blessed Virgin Mary. This magnificent painting of redemption is framed by Our Lady herself, by her co-redemption. What Divine wisdom! Yet, today, we are told that in order to better appreciate and so as not to lose the beauty of this painting, we should remove this frame.

Our Lady accompanies Our Lord in suffering

[The following part was spoken in Italian, here we provide a translation] Three times, the Blessed Virgin Mary accompanied Our Lord to Jerusalem. The first journey was for the Presentation in the Temple and the Purification of Our Lady, which we are celebrating today. There were also two other occasions when Our Lady accompanied him, and all these three episodes are linked to one another. They are on the same axis. They have a common denominator.

Today, Jesus, presented in the Temple, offered His human life to the Father. At the age of twelve, once again accompanied by the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus manifested His divine wisdom and offered it to the Father. The third time was at Calvary, again accompanied by Our Lady, Jesus once again offered to the Father His own life and His own blood.

What do these three very different episodes have in common? Why is the Blessed Virgin always present? She accompanied Our Lord three times in pain and in suffering. The first time, today, 2^nd February, Simeon announced: “A sword will pierce your heart”. At the age of twelve, she accompanied Him once again to the Temple, and suffered the terrible heartbreak and the sorrow of losing the Christ-Child. This was the most unimaginable ordeal for Mary. The third time was when she accompanied Him again in sorrow, in the suffering of Calvary.

Why did each time that she accompanied Him, she had to do it in sorrow? It is because she is co-redemptrix. It is because she systematically participated in the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. She prepared for the passion with Our Lord. Our Lord’s Passion is also hers. That is obvious.

Therefore, what is the consequence of this truth, which is in the Gospel and has not been made up? It is that just as Mary was present throughout Our Lord’s life and followed Him in His Passion, and in everything that prepared and was linked to His Passion, so today Mary – in all logic – continues to be Our Lord’s associate and continues to dispense the graces that are the fruit of His Passion, to which she was associated ever since Simeon’s prophecy, making it also her passion.

What a profound mystery is contained in this sword! [End of passage spoken in Italian]

On Judgement day, Our Blessed Lord will ask: “What have you done with my Mother?”

I would like to go even further. How could Our Lady offer her Son, and such a Son? We can understand that she offered herself to God, her existence and her virginity, but offer such a Son? How could she offer Him? This Son, virginally conceived and virginally born, of whom she was the only human parent – the human nature of Our Lord came entirely from Our Blessed Lady. It is her immaculate flesh and her immaculate blood that formed the humanity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and it is logical that she adores this perfect Son. Yet, how could she offer Him? How could she say “yes”? Not just, “I say yes and I will stay in Nazareth”, but “I wholeheartedly say yes, and I will go with Him”. How could she do that? How can we explain this?

The answer is very simple. She did it out of love for us. This is not a story tale! It is the Gospel. Therefore, are we going to renounce this doctrine? Are we going to forget this sword that pierced the heart of Our Blessed Lady? Are we going to forget its meaning? Are we going to forget what Our Lady did at the foot of the cross? Are we going to forget her role as co-redemptrix? That is out of the question! It is part of our faith! It is the heart of our faith! This is something that we hold most dear!

We know that on the day of judgement, Our Lord Jesus Christ will show us His wounds. Our Blessed Lord, the just judge of all humanity, will show us His wounds and ask each one of us: “What have you done with My wounds? What have you done with My Passion? Have you taken refuge in My side or have you preferred the world? What have you done with My blood shed on the cross? What have you done with the Blessed Eucharist? What have you done with My grace?”

Then, He will also ask us one last question… “What have you done with My mother? I had nothing left. I was stripped of everything and abandoned by everyone. I had not a drop of blood left in My body. All I had left was My mother – and not just any mother, but a mother I myself had prepared – an immaculate mother, a mother full of grace, the mother of God. I had prepared her for Me. I had prepared her for My incarnation, My coming into this world. She was a mother who accompanied Me from the presentation in the Temple all the way to the cross. Throughout My life she never abandoned Me. All I had left was My mother, and I gave her to you so that she could continue to mould My image in your soul, something that in one way or another could resemble me. I gave you My mother. Therefore, what have you done with My mother? In Me, she gave birth to you in the manger without pain, surrounded by heavenly songs. Albeit in poverty, but without pain. She also gave birth to you at the foot of the cross. Therefore, what have you done with her? Did you celebrate her greatness? Did you honour her and treat her truly as a mother?”

There is no way you can sidestep this question. This is what Our Blessed Lord will ask us. Therefore, can we renounce this most beautiful and most profound doctrine, which shows us overabundantly Our Blessed Lord’s charity? Are we afraid that by treating Our Blessed Lady as she deserves – as co-redemptrix – she would alienate us from the mystery of Redemption, in which she herself is totally immersed? Can a true Catholic be afraid of that? It is impossible! Totally impossible! Moreover, are we permitted to deceive souls in this way? That is unacceptable! Are we permitted to drive souls away from Our Blessed Lady – when her role is not only to bring souls to Our Lord Jesus Christ, but also to mould His image in all souls? That is out of the question!

Episcopal consecrations out of fidelity to the Church and to souls

We believe that the time has come to think about the future of the Society of Saint Pius X, the future of all souls, whom we cannot forget, whom we cannot abandon, and above all, the good we can do for Holy Mother Church. And this raises a question that we have been asking ourselves for a long time and to which, perhaps, we must now give an answer. Should we wait longer before considering consecrating bishops? We have waited, prayed and observed the developments in the Church, and also sought advice. We have written to the Holy Father to present, in all simplicity, the situation of the Society, explaining these needs and at the same time to reconfirm to the Holy Father our only raison d’être, which is the good of souls.

We wrote to the Holy Father: Your Holiness, we have but one intention, which is to make all the souls who turn to us, true sons of the Roman Catholic Church. We will never have any other intention, and we will always keep this intention. Furthermore, the good of souls corresponds to the good of the Church. The Catholic Church does not exist in the clouds. The Catholic Church exists in souls. It is souls that constitute the Church and if we love the Church, we love souls. We want their salvation and we want to do everything possible to offer them the means to attain their salvation. Therefore, we have begged the Holy Father to understand the very unique situation in which the Society finds itself, and to allow it to take the means to continue this work in such an exceptional situation. We all know that the work of the Society, once again, has no other purpose than to preserve Catholic Tradition for the good of souls.

Well, unfortunately, these reasons do not seem to be of interest to Rome, and are not convincing. If you like, unfortunately, these reasons have not found a favourable ear with the Holy See, for the moment. We profoundly regret this situation. Therefore, what are we going to do? Are we going to abandon souls? Are we going to tell them that there is ultimately no case of necessity for the Society to continue its work? That ultimately everything is more or less fine. In other words, that there is no longer a state of necessity in the Church that would justify our apostolate and our existence so as to help the Catholic Church.

Can we therefore tell them that, despite everything, everything is fine? Certainly not! That would be a betrayal of souls, and betraying souls would mean betraying the Church. We simply cannot do that. This is why we think that 1^st July 2026 could be a good date – an ideal date – as it is the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the feast of Redemption. Nothing else is of interests to us. What we hold most dear is the Precious Blood of Our Lord, flowing down from his feet onto the wood of the cross. Our Lady, at the foot of the cross, was the first to adore this Precious Blood, and which we continue to adore at the foot of the altar. This is the only thing that interests us, and it is the only thing that we want to give to souls – souls have a right to this, it is not a privilege, it is their right! We cannot abandon them.

In the coming days, we intend to give you more information and greater detail. It is important to understand the reasons. It is important to understand what is at stake in all this. This is crucial. However, at the same time, we must understand all this through prayer. It is not enough to prepare our minds alone. I would even say that it is not enough to take a purely apologetic approach to all this. We must prepare hearts – our hearts – as it is a grace, and we must hold on to this grace. We must give thanks to God, and we must prepare ourselves. Yes, consecrations, once more, there will be episcopal consecrations. However, this is not to challenge the Church – it is definitely not a challenge. They will be consecrations out of fidelity to the Catholic Church and to souls. 

Furthermore, I would like to add one last consideration… I fully assume responsibility for this decision. I assume it, firstly before God. I assume it before the Blessed Virgin Mary and before Pope Saint Pius X. I assume it before the Holy Father. I would sincerely like to meet the Pope before 1^st July. I would like to explain to him, so as to make it possible for him to understand our real and profound intentions, and our attachment to the Catholic Church, so that he knows it, and so that he can understand it. I also accept this responsibility before the Holy Catholic Church and before the Society, before all the members of the Society and – I repeat yet again – before all the souls who in one way or another have recourse to us, and who ask us for help now or in the future. All these souls and all these vocations that Divine Providence has sent us and who continues to send us. Before them, I assume this responsibility – each and everyone in particular, because each soul has an infinite value.

Furthermore, in the Catholic Church, we must never forget that the law of laws, the supreme law that takes precedence over all others, is the salvation of souls. It is not the prattle of small-talk, it is not the synod, it is not ecumenism, it is not liturgical experiments, nor new ideas and a new evangelisation, it is the salvation of souls. This is the law of laws, and we all have a duty, each in our own place, to observe this law and to devote ourselves totally to defending it. Why must we do this? It is because Our Blessed Lady and Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us during their life here on this earth that they had no other intention and no other goal than the salvation of souls. Therefore, in one way or another, and according to our talents and our circumstances, each one of us must do everything we can, making our contribution to save our own souls and the souls of others. Amen.”

(Source : FSSPX)

COMMUNIQUÉ FROM THE GENERAL HOUSE

On 2 February 2026, the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, the Reverend Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, during the ceremony of the taking of the cassock which he presided over at the International Seminary of Saint-Curé-d’Ars in Flavigny-sur-Ozerain, France, publicly announced his decision to entrust the bishops of the Society with the task of proceeding with new episcopal consecrations, on 1 July next.

Last August, he sought the favour of an audience with the Holy Father, making known his desire to present to the Holy Father, in a filial manner, the current situation of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. In a second letter, he explicitly expressed the particular need of the Society to ensure the continuation of the ministry of its bishops, who have been travelling the world for nearly forty years to respond to the many faithful attached to the Tradition of the Church and desirous, for the good of their souls, that the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation be conferred.

After having long matured his reflection in prayer, and having received from the Holy See, in recent days, a letter which does not in any way respond to our requests, Father Pagliarani, in harmony with the unanimous advice of his Council, judges that the objective state of grave necessity in which souls find themselves requires such a decision.

The words he wrote on 21 November 2024, for the fiftieth anniversary of the historic declaration of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, are more than ever the reflection of his thought and intentions:
“It is only in the Catholic Church as it has always been, and in her unchanging Tradition, that we have the guarantee of possessing the Truth, of being able to preach it, and of being able to serve her. […]
“The Society [of Saint Pius X] is not primarily seeking its own survival. It primarily seeks the good of the Universal Church and, for this reason, the Society is, par excellence, a work of the Church, which, with unique freedom and strength, responds adequately to the specific needs of an unprecedentedly tragic era.
“This single goal is still ours today, just as it was fifty years ago. ‘That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity (Abp. Lefebvre, Declaration of 21 November 1974)’.”

In the coming days, the Superior General will provide further explanations regarding the present situation and his decision.
“Nos cum Prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria.
May the Virgin Mary bless us, together with her divine Son.”

Menzingen, 2 February, 2026