The Society of St. Pius X and Rome (The Consecrations)
Pere Bruno’s Announcements of Sunday, March 1, 2026
Here are some comments on the response of the General Council of the Society to Cardinal
Fernandez (February 18). Reflections which are inspired particularly by the comparison of this
letter of 2026 with two other letters written in a similar context, in 1988: that of Archbishop
Lefebvre to John Paul II (June 2) and that of the superiors of the SSPX – Signed by twenty-four
priests – to the prefect of the Congregation of Bishops (July 6).
Let us first note some positive elements in Menzingen's docuмent:
– Pertaining to—fortunately—the refusal of the Roman proposal.
– This refusal is public, and everyone can know in what terms it was formulated. Archbishop
Lefebvre acted like this, but Bishop Fellay was less transparent.
– The Society rightly points out that there is no need to define what Rome calls "the minimum
requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church": the criteria have been around for a
long time.
– Among the three annexes attached to Menzingen's letter, the second is very interesting: it briefly
recalls how the distinction of the two episcopal powers of order and jurisdiction makes it possible to
show that consecrations against the will of the pope do not necessarily lead to schism (this applies
in particular to the consecrations of June 30, 1988).
That said, there are also negative elements in the letter of February 18. It was also to be expected.
Father Pagliarani had the choice, so to speak, between three formulas:
1. the acceptance of the Roman proposition, but he risked not being followed by his right wing;
2. the refusal with a very firm letter, but he could fear losing his left wing;
3. the refusal with a "soft" letter.
He chose this third solution, the diplomatic way. The right wing of the Society can say: "You see,
he said no!" The left wing consoles itself in this way: "He said no, but he said it so nicely! We may
be able to get along with Rome”. Once again, it is the concern for unity—more apparent than deep
unity—that takes precedence over attachment to the Truth.
– Preamble question: Should we accept a meeting with Cardinal Fernandez? If Father Pagliarani
believed yes, he should have approached this sulphurous character as an enemy, and take the
initiative by attacking, that is to say by questioning him about his doctrine and his morals, of which
we know how much they are opposed to tradition. In reality, the cardinal kept the direction of the
operations, and he did very well, especially by asking Father Pagliarani to refer to the General
Council, which greatly reduced his room for maneuver.
– When we successively read the letter of 2026 and the two letters of 1988, we are struck by the
difference in tone: on the one hand, an irenic text; On the other, a martial tone. For example, the
introduction and conclusion formulas of Archbishop Lefebvre and his priests in 1988 are respectful
but brief, and they do not express thanks. Father Pagliarani, he adds "plentifully": "Eminence
Reverendissime", "I would like to thank you sincerely"...
- He hardly speaks of the crisis: there is the word "rupture" and the expression "doctrinal
divergences", and that's it, in this long letter. Archbishop Lefebvre, in his letter of June 2, 1988,
clearly designated the "false ecuмenism" which "leads the Church to its ruin and the Catholics to
apostasy"; he realized that "Modernist Rome" was "infested with Modernism". As for the superiors
of the Society, they had strongly denounced "the adulterous spirit that blows in the Church",
"blindness of spirit and the hardening of the heart of the Roman authorities", "this system which
qualifies itself as a Conciliar Church", she being described as "a counterfeit Church, evolutionary,
Pentecostal and syncretist". What a contrast between the letters of 1988 and that of 2026!
- In the latter, the word "dialogue" comes up fourteen times! This term is an essential element of the
conciliar language, having been introduced in full Council (1964) by an encyclical of Paul VI, then
taken up in all matters since then. Archbishop Lefebvre used it in 1988 in a caustic context: it was the
day after the consecrations, July 1; Bishop de Castro Mayer left Écône and was going to visit ‘le
Barroux’; Archbishop Lefebvre gave him a card: to the attention of Dom Gérard—to exhort him—
in vain, alas!—not to be tempted by the dialogue with the Roman serpent”. Father Pagliarani should
have remembered the saying that "to adopt the language of the enemy is already to have lost half of
the war".
– But precisely, the authorities of the Society seem to forget that we are at war, and that in Rome
there are many enemies. They wish (I quote the letter of February 18) "fraternal exchanges" which
"allow us to know each other better", even though they admit that a doctrinal agreement is
impossible. It is however clear that we have no need—and no desire!—to get to know Cardinal
Fernandez better: what we already know is more than enough to affirm that he is one of the worst
enemies of the Church and Tradition. Where did the combative spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre and
the Superiors of 1988 go? I quote Monseigneur's letter again: "[We are] radically opposed to this
destruction of our faith... [We want] to guard against the Spirit of Vatican II and the Spirit of
Assisi... protect ourselves from any compromise”. And the letter from the superiors: "We have no
part with the Pantheon of the religions of Assisi... We ask nothing better than to be declared
excluded from impious communion with the infidels."
– The worst passage in the letter of February 18 is perhaps the one that makes the link between the
two parts of the docuмent: since "we cannot reach an agreement on the doctrine", "the only point on
which we can join is that of charity towards souls and towards the Church". In other words: faith
separates us, but charity can unite us. That's false! Faith can subsist without charity (in the Christian
in a state of mortal sin: we then speak of a "dead faith"); but charity cannot exist without faith. One
wonders, moreover, where the "charity towards souls" can be in a prelate who encourages public
sinners to remain in their sad state, with a blessing as a bonus, and who would like to prevent the
faithful from invoking Mary Mediatrix and Mary Co-Redemptrix?
- Despite this, Father Pagliarani writes to the Cardinal that he is "above all a pastor". He is careful
not to specify that he is a ‘bad’ pastor, who leads the sheep to poisonous pastures. The Superior
General evokes "concrete and significant acts" by which the last popes "have recognized the value
of the good that the Society can accomplish": one obviously thinks of the granting of jurisdiction
for the sacraments; you know what to think about it... Note that according to the Superior General,
it is a form of gratitude (recognition). We knew it well, but it is good to read it from his pen.
- I continue reading the letter: "The Soiety only asks you to be able to continue", it "doesn't ask you
anything else". This is reminiscent of Pope Paul VI's message to the rulers at the end of the Council:
"The Church only asks you for liberty”. The apostate Lammenais, the founder of Catholic
liberalism, already said: “The Church needs only one thing: liberty”. Today, the Superior General
only asks for liberty for Tradition...
- I pass over certain more or less sentimental considerations, the argument of pluralism, the call for
"understanding", to tolerance which would allow a peaceful coexistence. Since when should the
Truth beg for tolerance in the Holy Church of God?
To sum up, the main criticism that can be made to this unfortunate letter from the General Council
of the Society is that there is no need to ask the Roman authorities, so seriously failing, for
permission to do one's duty, that is to say to continue the Operation Survival initiated by
Archbishop Lefebvre. What a pity that the superiors of the Society did not write a brief and clear
text, a kind of profession of faith, by simply taking up some expressions of their founder, taken for
example from his famous Declaration of 1974, from his letter of June 2, 1988, or from the sermon
of the consecrations!
To conclude with the Blessed Virgin, it is very sad that Fr. Pagliarani believes he should
apologize ("Do not take this as a provocation") to mention, at the end of his letter, the title of
"Mediatrix of all graces". He should rather have added that of Co-Redemptrix, and firmly reproach
the Cardinal for the outrage inflicted on Our Lady in the text published by his Dicastery, and
endorsed, it must always be recalled, by Leo XIV himself.
Let us pray and sacrifice, during this holy time of Lent, for the conversion of the Pope and the
bishops, and that the Society will regain the meaning of the fight for the Faith.
End.
AN EARLIER STATEMENT:
Pere Bruno’s announcements of February 8, 2026
You have probably all learned of the announcement of the consecration of bishops for the Society
of St. Pius X. I'm not going to expand much, because we only see the tip of the iceberg for the
moment. In itself, it is a good decision, necessary for the continuation of "operation-survival"
launched by Archbishop Lefebvre in ‘88. But...
There are many unknowns (the hidden part of the iceberg), in particular the names of the priests
who are expected to be consecrated on July 1; The choice of candidates is obviously very important.
On the other hand, what happened – what is happening right now, what will happen – with Rome
behind the scenes? Archbishop Lefebvre was transparent; His successors have been much less so
for many years. If consecrations take place soon, even in the best conditions, this will be able to
give new impetus in the fight of the faith to a few; But it is feared that many priests and faithful will
not find, as by a stroke of a magic wand, the vigor which was once that of the Fraternity. Who still
understands today the deep meaning of operation-survival? The mentalities have really changed, to
the point that very serious events have ultimately caused only a slight tremor: I am thinking, among
other things, of the Huonder affair and the successive "levels" of recent years (confessions,
marriages, etc.).
Next Thursday, the Superior General will meet Cardinal Fernandez, who is the head of the DDF,
the dicastery for the... demolition of the faith. He is perhaps the worst prelate of the Roman Curia
(yet there is competition!). It is to be hoped that this interview will not be "cordial", according to the
expression often used for twenty or twenty-five years. It would be appropriate for Fr. Pagliarani,
following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, to set his conditions: "Do you accept all that the
Tradition of the Holy Church teaches us? If you don't accept it, there's no need to discuss; If you
accept it, prove it by solemnly retracting your scandalous docuмents, especially that of the end of
2023 permitting the blessing of unnatural unions, and that of the end of 2025 which is an odious
outrage to the Holy Mother of God."
Topic: Fr Bruno OSB, Analysis of SSPX Consecrations vis a vis Rome (Read 226 times)