CathInfo.com

Two Comments from the bulletin at SSP&P RCM, York, PA
http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Bulletin-Announcements/weekly_bulletin.htm

Letter from Father Pagliarani to Cardinal Fernández
February 19, 2026
Source: FSSPX News
Response of the General Council of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Menzingen, 18 February 2026
Ash Wednesday
 
Most Reverend Eminence,

First of all, I thank you for receiving me on 12 February, and for making public the content of our meeting, which promotes perfect transparency in communication.

I can only welcome the opening of a doctrinal discussion, as signalled today by the Holy See, for the simple reason that I myself proposed it exactly seven years ago, in a letter dated 17 January 2019. At that time, the Dicastery did not truly express interest in such a discussion, on the grounds—presented orally—that a doctrinal agreement between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X was impossible.

For the Society’s part, a doctrinal discussion has always been—and remains—desirable and useful. Indeed, even if we do not reach an agreement, fraternal exchanges allow us to better know one another, to refine and deepen our own arguments, and to better understand the spirit and intentions behind our interlocutor’s positions—especially their genuine love for the Truth, for souls, and for the Church. This holds true, at all times, for both parties.

This was precisely my intention in 2019, when I suggested a discussion during a calm and peaceful time, without the pressure or threat of possible excommunication, which would have undermined free dialogue—as is, unfortunately, the situation today.

That said, while I certainly rejoice at a new opening of dialogue and the positive response to my proposal of 2019, I cannot accept the perspective and objectives in the name of which the Dicastery offers to resume dialogue in the present situation, nor indeed the postponement of the date of 1 July.
I respectfully present to you the reasons for this, to which I will add some supplementary considerations.

1.    We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council. This disagreement, for the Society’s part, does not stem from a mere difference of opinion, but from a genuine case of conscience, arising from what has proven to be a rupture with the Tradition of the Church. This complex knot has unfortunately become even more inextricable with the doctrinal and pastoral developments of recent pontificates.
I therefore do not see how a joint process of dialogue could end in determining together what would constitute “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, since—as you yourself have recalled with frankness—the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged.

2.    This dialogue is supposed to clarify the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. But this interpretation is already clearly given in the post-Conciliar period and in the successive docuмents of the Holy See. The Second Vatican Council is not a set of texts open to free interpretation: It has been received, developed, and applied for sixty years by successive popes, according to precise doctrinal and pastoral orientations.
This official reading is expressed, for example, in major texts such as Redemptor hominis, Ut unum sint, Evangelii gaudium, or Amoris lætitia. It is also evident in the liturgical reform, understood in the light of the principles reaffirmed in Traditionis custodes. All these docuмents show that the doctrinal and pastoral framework within which the Holy See intends to situate any discussion has already been firmly established.

3.    One cannot ignore the context of the dialogue proposed today. We have been waiting for seven years for a favourable response to the proposal of doctrinal discussion made in 2019. More recently, we have written twice to the Holy Father: first to request an audience, then to clearly and respectfully explain our needs and the real-life situation of the Society.
Yet, after a long silence, it is only when episcopal consecrations are mentioned that an offer to resume dialogue is made, which thus seems dilatory and conditional. Indeed, the hand extended to open the dialogue is unfortunately accompanied by another hand already poised to impose sanctions. There is talk of breaking communion, of schism, and of “serious consequences”. Moreover, this threat is now public, creating pressure that is hardly compatible with a genuine desire for fraternal exchanges and constructive dialogue.

4.    Furthermore, to us it does not seem possible to enter into a dialogue to define what the minimum requirements for ecclesial communion might be, simply because this task does not belong to us. Throughout the centuries, the criteria for belonging to the Church have been established and defined by the Magisterium. What must be believed in order to be Catholic has always been taught with authority, in constant fidelity to Tradition.
Thus, we do not see how these criteria could be the subject of joint discernment through dialogue, nor how they could be re-evaluated today so as not to correspond to what the Tradition of the Church has always taught—and which we desire to observe faithfully in our place.

5.    Finally, if a dialogue is envisaged with the aim of producing a doctrinal statement that the Society could accept regarding the Second Vatican Council, we cannot ignore the historical precedents of efforts made in this direction. I draw your attention to the most recent: the Holy See and the Society had a long course of dialogue, beginning in 2009, particularly intense for two years, then pursued more sporadically until 6 June 2017. Throughout these years, we sought to achieve what the Dicastery now proposes.

Yet, everything ultimately ended in a drastic manner, with the unilateral decision of Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who, in June 2017, solemnly established, in his own way, “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, explicitly including the entire Council and the post-Conciliar period. This shows that, if one persists in a doctrinal dialogue that is too forced and lacks sufficient serenity, in the long term, instead of achieving a satisfactory result, one only worsens the situation.

Thus, in the shared recognition that we cannot find agreement on doctrine, it seems to me that the only point on which we can agree is that of charity toward souls and toward the Church.

As a cardinal and bishop, you are above all a pastor: allow me to address you in this capacity. The Society is an objective reality: it exists. That is why, over the years, the Sovereign Pontiffs have taken note of this existence and, through concrete and significant acts, have recognised the value of the good it can accomplish, despite its canonical situation. That is also why we are speaking today.

This same Society asks you only to be allowed to continue to do this same good for the souls to whom it administers the holy Sacraments. It asks nothing else of you—no privileges, nor even canonical regularisation, which, in the current state of affairs, is impracticable due to doctrinal divergences. The Society cannot abandon souls. The need for the sacraments is a concrete, short-term need for the survival of Tradition, in service to the Holy Catholic Church.
We can agree on one point: neither of us wishes to reopen wounds. I will not repeat here all that we have already expressed in the letter addressed to Pope Leo XIV, of which you have direct knowledge. I only emphasise that, in the present situation, the only truly viable path is that of charity.

Over the last decade, Pope Francis and yourself have abundantly advocated “listening” and understanding of non-standard, complex, exceptional, and particular situations. You have also wished for a use of law that is always pastoral, flexible, and reasonable, without pretending to resolve everything through legal automatism and pre-established frameworks. At this moment, the Society asks of you nothing more than this—and above all it does not ask it for itself: it asks it for these souls, for whom, as already promised to the Holy Father, it has no other intention than to make true children of the Roman Church.

Finally, there is another point on which we also agree, and which should encourage us: the time separating us from 1 July is one of prayer. It is a moment when we implore from Heaven a special grace and, from the Holy See, understanding. I pray for you in particular to the Holy Ghost and—do not take this as a provocation—His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.

I wish to thank you sincerely for the attention you have given me, and for the interest you will kindly take in the present matter.

Please accept, Most Reverend Eminence, the expression of my most sincere greetings and of my devotion in the Lord.

Davide Pagliarani, Superior General
+ Alfonso de Galarreta, First Assistant General
Christian Bouchacourt, Second Assistant General
+ Bernard Fellay, First Counsellor General, Former Superior General
Franz Schmidberger, Second Counsellor General, Former Superior General

SSPX bid farewell to Bishop Richard Williamson as only they could do!
His defiance of the Society's authorities ultimately made a separation inevitable. God forgive him for the errors and confusion he caused in the years that followed with his Kyrie eleison comments, and even more so for his episcopal consecrations, which lacked and still lack any objective necessity and any sensus ecclesiae.
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, former superior general of the SSPX, published in his weekly newsletter, on the death of Bishop Richard Williamson on January 29, 2025
COMMENT: The good bishop Williamson has only been dead for a little over one year. At the time of his death the SSPX judged him to be in need of God's forgiveness for the sin of consecrating bishops "which lacked and still lack any objective necessity and any sensus ecclesiae." They now threaten Rome with doing their own episcopal consecrations because their own "sensus ecclesiae" has now discovered that there is in fact an existing "objective necessity"!  Nothing has changed with regard to the Church but something has changed with regard to the SSPX. They are concerned only with their "objective necessity"!

From the Compromise Changes Contradictions pdf.
Excerpts:

#94 On July 16, 2006 Bishop Fellay's Letter to the Faithful announced that:
"The Society has the intention of presenting a spiritual bouquet of a million Rosaries to the Sovereign Pontiff for the end of the month of October, month of the Rosary.
These Rosaries will be recited for the following intentions:

1. To obtain from Heaven for Pope Benedict XVI the strength required to completely free up
the Mass of all time, called the Tridentine Mass.
2. For the return of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We are calling you, therefore, to a true Crusade of the Rosary."
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/Bishop_Fellays_Letter_post_General_C
hapter.htm

...
Our concern here is to consider the sincerity of the request made in this first Rosary Crusade.
Why?
Because this announcement was made in July/2006, but only three months later, while the Rosary
Crusade was still in progress, Bishop Fellay spoke of the "imminent arrival of a motu proprio which
would replace that of 1988 so as to give more freedom to the Mass, an equal right to the new Mass."
(Cor Unum #85) (*)

  And then, of course, in July 2007, the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм was promulgated (i.e., almost exactly one year after Bishop Fellay's announcement of the first Crusade.

  The (...)  concern here is that, with Bishop Fellay's October admission that he expected an imminent motu proprio, it makes it look like Bishop Fellay had called for a Crusade to effect an end already agreed upon, and more than this, that the purpose of the Crusade was not so much to bring about the already agreed upon result, but to make it look as though the Blessed Virgin herself was in support of the reconciliation process (a suggestion that Bishop Tissier...

  Is there some other explanation? Had Bishop Fellay learned of the imminence of the forthcoming motu
proprio sometime between the July announcement launching the Crusade, and his October
announcement? Or, had Bishop Fellay launched the Crusade merely in the hopes that Rome would
follow through on a promise made to him?

  Possibly, but in light of the tremendous scandal caused by the Crusade(s), of which the general House
was surely aware, one would have expected that if such were the case, the SSPX would have clarified
(particularly in the wake of Fr. Rioult's book The Impossible Reconciliation, wherein this timeline is laid out, and of which the General House was also well aware).
That they did not strengthens such a reading of events, and particularly in light of similar "incongruities" in the subsequent Rosary Crusades, of which we shall now discuss.
(*) I have not yet been able to secure the French version... stating:
"At the same time that it is announced to us the supposed imminent appearance of a motu proprio that
would replace the one of 1988 to give greater freedom to the Mass, giving it a right equal to the new
Mass."

#95: Compromise (The Second Rosary Crusade):
  On October 23, 2008 in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors #73, Bishop Fellay announced a second
Rosary Crusade, this time, to offer Our Lady 1 million chaplets to obtain the "withdrawal"(*) of the
"excommunications" through her intercession, and this time, he wanted it quickly:
"3 – Hope of a Rapid Fulfillment of Second Pre-condition [...]

  Confronted with these new difficulties, we take the liberty of appealing once more to your generosity.
Given the success of our first Rosary Crusade to obtain the return of the Tridentine Mass, we would now like to offer to Our Lady a new bouquet of a million rosaries (5 decades) to obtain the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication through her intercession."
http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/sup_gen_ltr_73.pdf

  Not even three months later, on January 21, 2009 the Blessed Virgin had (allegedly) answered, and
Bishop Fellay held in his hands a decree from the Congregation for Bishops "lifting" the "excommunications."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/docuмents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_
remissione-scomunica_en.html

  By January 29, Bishop Fellay explained in an interview with Libero that:
"We were embraced. Then, first of all, I gave thanks to the Blessed Virgin; it is her gift. It was to obtain her intercession that we gathered together more than one million, seven hundred thousand (1,700,000) Rosaries that had been recited by the faithful who desired the revocation of the excommunications." -Rioult, Fr. Olivier. The Impossible Reconciliation, p. 22 (2013 English-language edition)

  But it remains unclear how, once again, Bishop Fellay can attribute the "withdrawal" of the
excommunications to Our Lady as a result of the Rosary Crusade, when he himself attributed the measure
to his negotiations with Cardinal Hoyos as far back as 2005:
"[Monde et Vie:] Did you expect, Your Excellency, this removal of the excommunication concerning
you?
[+Fellay:] I expected it since 2005, after the first letter requesting the lifting of the excommunication which I had sent at the request of Rome itself. Because it is clear that Rome did not ask for this letter in order to refuse to lift the excommunication. As for the moment when it took place, I did not expect it. These past few months, after the ultimatum affair..., even after it had been minimized, we were mostly cool [in the mutual relations]. Then, I wrote the letter of November 15, which is mentioned in the decree and in my letter to the faithful... [sic]

[Monde et Vie:] Is this decree a sign of the Pope's will?

[+Fellay:] I ascribe it first of all to the Holy Virgin. It is a manifest sign, with an almost immediate response. I had just decided to go to Rome to deliver the result of the Rosary bouquet we had launched at Lourdes with this explicit intention when I received a call from Rome inviting me to go there."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-fellay-interview-division-will-be.html

  What is this double-mindedness which can simultaneously acknowledge the result was inevitable (even if the exact day was in question), based on negotiations and assurances from Rome, cook up a quick Rosary Crusade to make it appear that the Blessed Virgin wants a deal, and then attribute to her what had already been prearranged?

  But that was Bishop Fellay's story, and he was sticking to it, as he recounted in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors #74 a couple months later:
  "When we launched a new Rosary crusade during our pilgrimage to Lourdes last October, we were
certainly not expecting such a quick answer from Heaven to our petition! Indeed, as it has happened
with our first petition, which our good Mother in heaven answered so effectively through the intermediary of the Vicar of Christ and his motu proprio on the traditional Mass, the Blessed Virgin was pleased to grant us a second grace even more quickly during the same visit to Rome in the month of January when I presented the bouquet of 1,703,000 rosaries for the Sovereign Pontiff’s intentions, I received from the hands of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos the decree remitting the “excommunications.”"
https://sspx.org/en/publications/letters/april-2009-superior-generals-letter-74-784

  Not expecting that which you acknowledge you had been expecting for the last two years?
In the words of Fr. Alphonsus Rodriguez, it would seem that some men are as far from telling a lie, as
they are from telling the truth...."