CathInfo.com

A real man meets his rival face to face. A coward threatens a man’s wife and children.

What are you talking about

Father Pagliarani’s answer to Pope Leo XIV is not simply defiance. Écône remembers its disputed suppression, the failed settlement of 1988, the FSSP’s continuing lack of its own bishop, and Rome’s later regularisation of illicit Chinese bishops. The Society must pause—but Peter must offer more than another promise. https://nuntiatoria.org/2026/06/30/econe-remembers-why-the-sspx-answered-leo-xiv-as-it-did/

Fr. Pagliarani's reply is ridden with Novus Ordo buzzwords and pleasantries but other than that, he did present his arguments clearly (albeit in the form of “facts for reflection”). I am a nobody but I can't help but notice how weak the arguments are:

1. Fr. Pagliarani claims that Leo/Prevost's urging of the SSPX to avoid schism “constitutes proof that the Society is neither schismatic nor hostile to the Church”.

- If what Leo/Prevost says or thinks can be taken as evidence for the Society's status in relation to the Church, then the Society must also take with equal weight his warnings about their impending schism, and later, his declaration that they have commited schism. It is not consistent to affirm Leo/Prevost when he implies you are not in schism, but deny him when he declares you are.

2. Father suggests that the fact that Leo/Prevost and the Society are speaking “like father and son” supports the argument that they are not in schism.

- It is a non sequitur. A father can speak to his wayward son “like a father to his son” - this does not mean his son is not going astray. The Prodigal Son in our Lord's parable never ceased being his father's son, no matter how much he strayed from the right path. Even Luther can be considered a son begotten by the Augustinian Order... just a son that has strayed far from the path of salvation.

- If the Church is the “pillar and ground of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and it is built upon Peter (Mt. 16:18) and Prevost is Peter, the Society would do well to stay with their father rather than go against his commands.

- If the Society decides to take seriously the lovey-dovey “we are one family” theatrics of the Novus Ordo, they ought to be consistent. Since their father Prevost considers Jews, Protestants, etc. to be “family”, the SSPX should follow suit. If the Anglican Church is a sibling of the Novus Ordo Church, that would make Sarah Mullaly an aunt of the Society?

3. Fr Pagliarani defers to Huonder and Schneider as judges/witnesses to the Society's Catholic spirit.

- If Novus Ordo bishops can serve as authoritative figures to “discern” the Catholicity of any individual or group, then they must be good enough, and certainly Catholic enough. Then why is the Society consecrating bishops in the first place? There is no need for them to have their own bishops because Novus Ordo bishops are fine. They should defer to & depend on diocesan bishops, who are not lesser bishops in the Novus Ordo than Huonder and Schneider.

- Likewise, why can't the supposed head of all bishops (the Pope) determine the Catholicity of the Society? How are the opinions of two lower-ranking bishops greater than that of the supposed highest-ranking bishop on earth? The Society cannot cite “discernment” as the difference between Prevost and Huonder/Schneider - their actions are clear enough for Leo/Prevost to make a judgment. No “discernment” would change what is right and wrong - that would be situation ethics.

To me it's embarrassing how easy it is to turn Fr. Pagliarani's arguments against him.