Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: SSPX Responds to Cardinal Fernandez  (Read 2125 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

Re: SSPX Responds to Cardinal Fernandez
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2026, 11:51:31 AM »
I'm not an SSPX hardliner (though I do attend the SSPX for the sacraments), but I find this new stance of Fr. Pagliarani to be hopeful. He obviously doesn't go far enough in his criticism of the New Church, but quite frankly, I'm very surprised by his last few communications, given his non-critical stance toward Rome since he was elected SP. Why the sudden change? 

While I'm hopeful, there's always a chance that the SSPX will halt or postpone the July 1 consecrations. I hope, too, that good faithful men (who follow the strong stance of +ABL) will be chosen to be consecrated, but that probably won't happen. 

Re: SSPX Responds to Cardinal Fernandez
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2026, 02:09:34 PM »
Please elaborate.
The SSPX is like the Traditionalists’ punching bag. They’ve not been perfect, but I can assure not one single grupe is purists of the purists. But the SSPX represents Thomism better than any other group out there. Byzantines and Sedeprivationsists run a close third and second. But they abandon some principles of Thomism or never had them to begin with. 

Thomism was canonized at the Council of Trent symbolically. It is the light that illuminates the path. 

And that is where you will find your balance. 

Dogmatic Sedevacantists will say that SSPX are in schism, while Resistance will say they are too cozy with Rome. Traditionalists themselves have painted SSPX into a corner where they are darned if they do and darned if they don’t. If they never consecrate bishops-see, they abandoned us. If they do consecrate bishops they are either schismatic or already made a secret deal with Rome. The problem with Traditional Catholicism is Traditional Catholics. Meanwhile, the SSPX pays no attention and focuses on the Thomistic way forward. 

Many wild and imprudent speculations are already doing damage to the common good. Accusing them of secretly having chosen Bishops with Rome and all kinds of haste accusations. The Traditionalists do to SSPX what the modernists are not capable of: casting them in a negative light to right-minded Traditional Catholics. 

 I was at the Bishops Faure and Aquinas consecrations. I attended several episcopal consecrations at SGG. I profess allegiance to no group other than the Catholic Church.

The SSPX is not immune to criticism and far from perfect. But to attack these consecrations with wild accusations with no proof is a ridiculous example of what Traditional Catholic is or should strive to be. 


Re: SSPX Responds to Cardinal Fernandez
« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2026, 02:15:59 PM »
Why then, dear Fr Pagliarani, was a canonical regularisation not impracticable due to doctrinal divergences in 2012? Why were all the bishops, priests, religious orders and faithful crucified by you then for making this very argument? Is it this kind of charity that you are requesting of Rome, the same charity that you showed towards those who resisted from 2012? The Society cannot abandon souls? Yet how many Resistance souls did it abandon for putting forward the very arguments you now set forth? You cut off the Benedictines of Brazil, spiritually and materially, and even condemned Bishop Williamson for going to their rescue. You refused ordinations countless times to the monastic orders who stood firm on this principle. You persecuted the Knights of Our Lady. How many souls were refused entry to SSPX churches or refused absolution in the confessional, refused Holy Communion, refused Confirmation, refused Extreme Unction?

While part of me wants to rejoice in this declaration, how can we not see the hypocrisy? As Fr Pagliarani says to Rome, so we say to him: "we cannot ignore the historical precedents of efforts made in this direction".

Similarly, we cannot ignore the fact that in spite of these fine words, that could just as well be attributed to the Resistance, the iniquitous "conditions" laid down by the extraordinary General Chapter of 2012 foreseeing the possibility of a practical agreement without doctrinal agreement remain in place, in spite of another General Chapter being held in 2018. Actions speak louder than words. We must conclude that these people are not serious. They talk to the right and walk to the left. How can we not be concerned that even if these episcopal consecrations do eventuate, they will be a walk to the left regardless of appearances?

The SSPX is infiltrated, that is clear. Just as St Pius X warned us about the enemy being in the very bosom of the Church, how could they not now concentrate their efforts to destroy the Church on that part which remains healthy? And all the evidence is there since 2012. The compromises, changes and contradictions so well catalogued by Sean Johnson are there for all to read. But perhaps that of most immediate danger to souls is their increasing refusal to "repeat" Conciliar ordinations and confirmations.

Of course, our hopes are that the SSPX will recover to be that Bastion of Tradition that Archbishop Lefebvre founded, and we hope against hope that these episcopal consecrations will give us truly Catholic, uncompromising bishops that will set right all the wrongs of the SSPX.

Fr. Paglariani was a priest in Argentina. I think he may have been the rector or some other position. He had nothing to do with anything you speak of in 2012. The Superior General at that time was Bishop Fellay. 

Also, you might would like to know that the Benedictines in Brazil were very satisfied with the election of Fr. Paglariani. I know. I was there. 

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX Responds to Cardinal Fernandez
« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2026, 03:14:04 PM »
Fr. Paglariani was a priest in Argentina. I think he may have been the rector or some other position. He had nothing to do with anything you speak of in 2012. The Superior General at that time was Bishop Fellay.

Also, you might would like to know that the Benedictines in Brazil were very satisfied with the election of Fr. Paglariani. I know. I was there.
Fr Paglariani was in Argentina at the same time as Bishop Bergolio.   Don’t be naive.  

Re: SSPX Responds to Cardinal Fernandez
« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2026, 04:22:43 PM »
Fr Paglariani was in Argentina at the same time as Bishop Bergolio.  Don’t be naive. 

That’s the worst Non-sequitur I have ever seen. Faulty logic and rash judgement. I’m not really interested in furthering discussion with you as it appears to be a moraless waste of time.