"Three days ago, the Superior of the FSSPX gave a brief lecture or talk in the priory of Buenos Aires. There were only 26 minutes touching on the usual topics, the common places already exhausted in relation to Rome, and omitting any inconvenient or controversial topic. At the end, he answers a couple of questions. We include our comments in red.

He begins by saying that about the situation with Rome, things will surely happen in the future, but it is necessary to take everything "calmly", not passionately, and "take distance from the electronic media". In reality with Rome "nothing happens"

The FSSPX superior seems to take the faithful of his congregation for idiots. After all the facts that in recent years have shown the actions of Francis tending to "normalize" the Fraternity, plus the active participation of a conciliar bishop who now resides in internal dependencies of the same Fraternity, Fr Paglariani says that "nothing happens".

"Rome continues to ask to accept all the reforms of the council and the post-council. Let us also accept that the New Mass is valid and legitimate. We cannot accept it. It would be a betrayal.

What did he say? The legitimacy of the new Mass was solemnly accepted by Monsignor Fellay, former superior, in his April 2012 doctrinal statement (*). As for the council, he accepted that "95% is good," and that "religious freedom is very, very limited. They have already accepted diocesan interference in marriages and in the Fraternity the reception of the canons of the new modernist code advances at the expense of the code of Saint Pius X.

(*): 7 We declare to recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and of the Rituals of the Sacraments legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

Then he criticizes Amoris laetitia for a while. "The Fraternity cannot accept this.

He speaks of the fact that from 2009 onwards many rumours began in Rome (Mons. Pozzo, etc.) "which were in the sense that we would not be required to accept the Council." "Expressions that made believe in a possible solution in a pragmatic framework, where doctrinal questions do not seem to have importance for the Romans."

In other words, they were ready - as they were about to enter Rome in 2012 - to accept a "pragmatic framework", something very different from a "doctrinal framework."

He says that the FSSPX does not cut any relationship with the Roman hierarchy, which it never did because it considers it legitimate.

Not having relations with these authorities does not mean that one does not recognize them as legitimate. Pagliarani's justification is weak. Didn't Bishop Lefebvre say at the end of his life the following words, now very unhealthy in the FSSPX: "For any priest who wants to remain Catholic, it is a strict duty to separate from this conciliar church as long as it does not return to the tradition of the magisterium of the Church and the Catholic faith. ("Spiritual Itinerary", 1991). And, by the way, that did not amount to proclaiming oneself a sedevacantist.

"The Fraternity continues to promote doctrinal debate”

He called them to fight them, he called them the worst enemies of the Church, those who hide within it to do more harm. From what we will see below in the words of Fr. Pagliarani himself, this turns out to be either simply an excuse to obey a Roman strategy, or a great naivety, or a pure illusion. Debate with who honors Luther by introducing his statue in the Vatican?

"Francis' purpose is in continuity with what preceded him. Francis can have an original, new, extravagant presentation. But it is a continuity...(...) He wants to impose democracy on the Church, synodality".

Pagliarani avoids, as always in Neo-Fraternity, all virile and strong, necessary and just criticism, such as that which Bishop Lefebvre once dared to make with the Roman hierarchs, in order to put things in their place. The strongest thing he says is that he is "extravagant" (!), what in a certain sense could be said of several of his predecessors, and could still be, at times, an aspect of sympathy that does not detract from his doctrinal position. It is clear that there is either fear or there is an order "not to be hard on Pope Francis". But that is nothing but a lack of zeal against those who destroy the Church!

"There are interesting reactions against this pontificate and this situation, but they do not get to the root of the problem. Here is the role of the Fraternity: to be able to explain, to show that the problem has its root in the Council. Pope Francis did not appear out of nowhere" (...)  "The debate with Rome is a way to show that we continue to recognize official authority" (...) Discuss religious freedom, ecuмenism (...) the salvation of the Jєωs, who in the new catechism says that they are saved by waiting for the Messiah for the first time... (...) "The debate with Rome is a way to show that we continue to recognize official authority" (...) Discuss religious freedom, ecuмenism (..) the salvation of the Jєωs, who in the new catechism says that they are saved by waiting for the Messiah for the first time... (..)

"Does Rome have an interest in doctrinal discussion? So far, none.

"In Rome we are very welcome. But they want to talk about something else. What is doctrinal does not seem to be of interest.

"The FSSPX is still waiting for a response to its doctrinal proposal. It will take time.

We have boldly highlighted these three statements of the Superior General because they overturn his supposed "strategy" of "doctrinally debating" to restore Tradition in the Church. We are totally in the realm of the absurd. The Fraternity says it wants to discuss. Does the reader remember that for two years there were "doctrinal conversations" with Rome that did not lead to any result... on the part of Rome? The FSSPX says it wants to discuss doctrine and also says that Rome is not interested in discussing doctrine. So why try to argue with someone who not only says he is not interested in Catholic doctrine, but acts to destroy everything that is Catholic? What justification is there for this absurdity? If it is a question of manifesting a recognition of official authority, there are many other less ridiculous, less scandalous and less dangerous means than seeking to sit down and discuss the Truth with liberal and modernist prelates who are not willing to discuss the Truth. It occurred to none of those present at the talk to ask about this, or if it occurred to any, did not dare to ask. It really is incredible that this nonsense is overlooked. So much seems to have arrived the numbness of the faithful of the Fraternity, that nobody seems to care that the modernist enemy that occupies Rome has trapped the Fraternity in its cunning network of "dialogue and sympathy" and of friendly "discreet but not secret contacts" while the Superior says that "nothing happens"... It is the devastating effect "laxotanil" with which the poor faithful have been bombarded for years... While Rome continues its task of softening the fraternal resistance and Francis continues with his steamroller....

Questions were asked:

"-Will there be consecration of bishops?

"The conditions of 30 years ago continue and worsen. However, it is an exceptional event, justified by a real need. Bishop Lefebvre waited as long as possible. The Fraternity will do it when there is no other. It can continue with two active bishops. But the Fraternity will try to get a permit from Rome which is what it should be.

We will see what names the FSSPX will propose to Rome at that time...

"-Can the Fraternity attract groups that have left the Fraternity?"

"It is not possible, but not because of the Fraternity. They made decisions that got in the way of their positions. Once these decisions have been made, one has to justify oneself. They have to look for elements to justify themselves... "One does not speak as before... Monsignor Huonder..." If there is no Monsignor Huonder, there is something else... (...) It is like when two people, forgive the comparison, two people are to be divorced. When they get divorced, the perspective changes, one feels freedom, reads back all their past and their present in function of what happens to them now. There is a rejection of the Fraternity that is not purely rational, a rejection that becomes visceral, to justify itself. And also because they suffered I don't know what... other things are mixed, we are all human, many times they are people who can be hurt, they feel disappointed, there are many elements. My answer is very general. It's difficult. The door is open..."

Here appears all the animosity he carefully avoided for the modernist destroyers of the Church. One falls into "the passionate," which was the first thing he asked his listeners to put aside. There are no problems in the Fraternity, it is simply the exalted imaginations of people whose rejection is not entirely rational, who have been wounded and disappointed... It touches upon passing - before anyone touches it - the theme of Bishop Huonder, as if it were something minor, irrelevant, or normal... Before Fr. Pagliarani criticized the Jєωs slightly but says nothing about the fact that a bishop has been introduced into the Fraternity who is an excellent friend of the Jєωs (see this article) and who is there to fulfill the mission of bringing the Fraternity closer to Francis. As we said years ago in this blog, "there is, then, an accuмulation of precise, concordant, serious and undeniabe facts that prove the liberal drift, the agreeable will and the betrayal of the leadership of the FSSPX to the point of exhaustion," but it "wants to persuade us that there are no certainties of the liberal drift and consequent betrayal of the FSSPX, but mere judgments of intentions, doubts, suspicions and reckless judgments.

"When a priest tastes freedom, returning to a structure, with a prior, with a superior, with common life, with some restrictions, is not easy, it is men..."

The Superior of the Neo-Fraternity generalizes, making believe that all the priests who are outside and criticize the Fraternity are "independent". But while there are cases like this, there are also those who are grouped into one congregation, the SAJM (whose statutes can be consulted here and the list of its members in this link). The Benedictine monks of Brazil and the Dominicans of Avrillé, among others, have also been forced to break with the Fraternity, who are not exactly "independent"... in such a way that Fr. Pagliarani leaves aside any doctrinal question to caricature dissidents or detractors as unbalanced ones who only aspire to be independent.
Summary for dummies: They, the Fraternity, are the "good guys" of the film. Francis is the "extravagant". The bad guys are us, the ones who "divorce" us.

Ah hah! The other shoe falls. Yesterday we were treated to a sermon about internet "backbiting." I said to myself that certainly there will soon be revelations of another betrayal… and there you have it.

Interesting, because I attended an SSPX chapel yesterday with the same sermon topic.  It is in Ohio, USA.  After Mass, there seemed to be many little groups discussing the sermon, but the mannerism of most was that of gossip, not wanting other little groups to hear what their little group was saying.  The people I went with go for Mass and Sacraments, then they leave.  They purposely do not involve themselves in chapel social life or politics, having been badly burned by it years ago.  They also have a five hour drive to get to their home in another state, a Catholic wasteland, even by novus ordo standards.  
Taking the sermon as general guidance, there was nothing wrong with it.   Allusions to specifics went over over my head because I keep a very low profile on line. Sometimes I comment on a YouTube.  
The most I reveal myself is here on Cathinfo.  I don’t use any other social media; never have, never will.  If I google myself, I’m very hard to find!  There are a number of people with my name, but the only one that’s actually I-me-myself is on those white pages ads, where, for free, one can get my name, my age, a few possible relatives, and a few towns or states where I’ve lived.  They missed a few and do not, at present, have my correct residence.  All fine with me!  If you pay money, you can find out where I work, if I own a home, business, or real estate, if I’ve been convicted of any felonies or done jail time, or served in the military or held public office.  
CathInfo curious- Don’t waste your money!  I work privately for homeschoolers, don’t own a building or land, have no legal record beyond a parking ticket, have been neither in the service nor public office.  I’m female, always single, no children, age 60.  Pretty boring, huh?