CathInfo.com

Well, Lad, I do not assume bad faith or bad intentions on your part. But I struggle with the level of suspicion you are applying, because once we begin interpreting every action as pre-scripted theatre or hidden manipulation, we move away from theological reasoning and into conjecture about motives that cannot actually be demonstrated. From a Thomistic standpoint, we must judge acts by their object, their principles, and their publicly verifiable effects, not by imagined psychological strategies or comparisons to political strongmen. It may be true that prudence requires vigilance, but prudence is not the same as presuming orchestration without proof. My concern is not whether Fr. Pagliarani is strong or weak, nor whether some arrangement may or may not occur later, but whether our system of interpretation remains logical and proportionate. If every development is interpreted through a lens of inevitable compromise, then no action can ever be read honestly, and we risk turning theology into suspicion rather than reasoned judgment. I respect your caution, but for me the issue is not being “right” about outcomes; it is whether the framework we use preserves intellectual charity, avoids rash judgment about persons, and remains consistent with the Thomistic demand for evidence rather than inference from perceived patterns.

But we know the motives of +Fellay and the Suoerior General, and of other prominent new-sspx priests like Fr Paul Robinson, etc.  They have ALL been open about their desire to make a deal with Rome.  

That’s why +Williamson was kicked out!!  He exposed +Fellay’s plans and spoke some sense to +Tissier and +Gallareta to oppose +Fellay, when at first, they were going to go along with him.  

Then we have +Fellay supporting the use of “bishop” Huonder and also the widespread “blessing” of marriages by diocesan “priests”.   All of this is part of the dialogue with new Rome.  NO ONE IS READING MINDS HERE.  THESE ACTIONS ARE CLEAR TO SEE.  THR MOTIVATIONS BY SSPX LEADERSHIP TO JOIN NEW ROME IS NOT A SECRET.  

Have you guys forgotten all of the above?  Or you have selective memories?  Or do you just not want to put the puzzle pieces together?

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 Pagliarani had everything to do with it.

He didn't resist in 2012 with the three good bishops at the time - read their letter to Bishop Fellay and his council if you have forgotten what needed to be resisted: nothing other than what the SSPX had always told us was a betrayal of the Faith, the road to death, ѕυιcιdє, and what was in fact the law of the Society from the Chapter of 2006.

Rather, in the 2012 extraordinary General Chapter, the little known young Italian priest, Fr Davide Pagliarani, recently appointed Rector of the seminary in La Reja, derailed the Chapter when his senior confrere Fr de Jorna was holding Bishop Fellay to account. Fr (now Bishop) Faure said he understood how the conservative council fathers at Vatican II must have felt being overwhelmed by the liberal conspirators.

During his tenure as Superior General he continued on the same path as his predecessor, as can be seen from this very letter to Rome. He actively pursued ongoing dialogue with Rome after the deal for an agreement broke down. And he has been at the helm for eight years and done nothing to repeal the conditions laid down by this 2012 General Chapter to make such a suicidal agreement with Rome possible.

He personally persecuted the Knights of Our Lady for their firm stance against an agreement.

He personally adopted Pope Francis's plan to accept doubtful-bishop Huonder into the SSPX, allowing him to consecrate holy oils, and then to be laid to rest beside Archbishop Lefebvre. He didn't extend any such hand to the Resistance when Bishop Williamson's body needed a resting place. Who, then, are his friends, and who are his enemies?

He ignored appeals from senior Society priests and faithful scandalised by articles promoting the new practice in the Society of broadly accepting new-rite ordinations and confirmations as valid in practice and refusing requests for convalidating these sacraments.

During his tenure, the Society has been largely silent about the scandals of the Conciliar Church, and the Society priests have remained muzzled just as they were under his predecessor. As one of these good priests said to me recently: "there are certainly things we are not free to talk about now as we once were".

Has Fr Pagliarani earned our trust? Surely, for any thinking Catholic, the answer is no. We have every reason to fear that the SSPX will go down the path pursued so ruthlessly by Bishop Fellay for so long, the road to death, the road officially opened up by the 2012 Chapter and still wide open today. Of course we pray that is not the case, but the historical evidence, the facts, gives us cause for grave concern.

If these SSPX authorities are not wolves in sheep's clothing themselves, they have certainly been in bed with them. And people like you promoting blind trust of authorities in this crisis, authorities who have done so much damage, can only result in the enemy emerging victorious in this Vatican IIb, as Bishop Williamson called it, just as it did after the Council.