CathInfo.com

Unofficial transcript from: https://tradtalk.substack.com/p/as-novas-sagracoes-da-fsspx-por-ser
February 14, 2026


  THE NEW CONSECRATIONS OF THE SSPX, by His Excellency Fr.  Gerardo Zendejas Conference on the topic "The new consecrations of the SSPX" held at the Monastery of the Holy Cross on 02/14/26 - Three generations of priests, three
principles, one same congregation.

  Just a few words regarding the events related to the episcopal consecrations by the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, just a few reflections.

  Today, there was a meeting between the Superior General, Father Pagliarani, and Cardinal Tucho, who is Argentine. The only outcome was that an agreement was established to initiate a dialogue. Theological meetings will be held to discuss the issue of episcopal consecrations. That was the fruit of today's meeting, held in Rome. Therefore, they will be entering into discussion.

  A very concrete example is as follows: with the announcement made by Father Pagliarani and with the indicated date — the first of July this year — there is an intention to hold an episcopal consecration ceremony. One of the reasons is that time is running out. The health of Dom de Galarreta is not so good. He suffers ... Traveling is difficult for him, but he continues.

  The priests of the Fraternity who most push for these consecrations are those ordained between 1988 and 2009. In practice, when listening, it becomes clear that the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X are divided in their way of thinking. The priests ordained before 1988 have an understanding of what led, at that time, to the episcopal consecrations. For example, when discussing the position of the Society of Saint Pius X, it specifically referred to the position of Dom Lefebvre. Now it does not. Now it concerns another point of view. It is true that the priests ordained after the consecrations — from 1988 until 2009 — some of them had already come from the formation and maintained this idea of tradition. But certainly, after 2009, there is another way of thinking among the priests. And for what reason?

  Because in 2009 the excommunications of the four bishops were lifted. With the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops, all priests ordained thereafter no longer bear a canonical penalty. Before 2009, they did. When a priest is ordained by a bishop in an irregular situation who is
excommunicated for any reason, the ordained priest incurs ‘suspension a divinis’. This is referred to as irregularity. It is important to make this known because, until 2009, although the excommunications of the four bishops had been lifted, the irregularity of the priests persisted. That is to say, there could be no agreement with Rome while this irregularity existed.

  Thus, the obstacles at that time for an agreement with Rome were, first, the irregularity of the priests.

   Second, the sisters of the Fraternity, the Society of Saint Pius X, which is a distinct congregation. If they wanted to regularize their situation with Rome, they should deal directly with Rome, not the priests. Another difficult aspect at that moment was that the brothers who form the Society of Saint Pius X do not constitute a congregation. They are oblate Brothers. For this reason, one of the proposed solutions for them — about eighty brothers — was to send them back to their homes. This was what was then proposed, as they are not a congregation. In other words, this was part of what needed to be settled in the eventual agreement.

  The congregations that were around — the Benedictines, the Dominicans, the Franciscans — each should make their own agreement with Rome, as they are considered distinct congregations. This was the situation then existing.

  With the lifting of the excommunications in 2009, a new phase opens. All young priests are, therefore, from Rome. They are not separated from Rome. The training of these priests is very clear and part of other principles. From the discussions I had with them, the idea they have is that, in the beginning, the Society of Saint Pius X was very wild and rebellious, indifferent to the laws. After the lifting of the excommunications, the younger generation would have the responsibility to bring order to the Fraternity.

  This remained primarily as a way of acting, and thus it has been carried out. The most essential change occurred precisely in 2012, when Dom Fellay stated that an agreement with Rome could not be made on a doctrinal level, but should be practical.

  From then on, another mode of solution came into play.

  One of the principles that still remains on the table is the doctrinal statement by Bp. Fellay, composed of 12 numbers, 12 principles, presented to Rome on April 15, 2012. And there it remained. This entire proposal was the subject of conflict until Bp. Williamson refused to participate in the general chapter.
They managed to ensure that he was not present in 2012. Subsequently, Bp. Williamson never received a formal decree of expulsion. Never. It was something more practical: he was simply removed.

  The same happened with Bp. Faure. There was no formal decree for them, strictly speaking. It is, therefore, an irregular canonical situation.

  In 2012 — and this is what we will examine now, in the current situation — the canonical figure offered to the superiors of the Society of Saint Pius X was the personal prelature. And the argument is very simple.

  Dom Lefebvre founded the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. In other words, it was not foreseen that there would be bishops. The regulations were specific to a priestly apostolate. With the presence of bishops, one then moves to another level, and that is why we talk about personal prelature.

  This structure only exists in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Before that, it did not exist… Currently — even at present — there is only one structure with that name: that of Opus Dei. It was transformed after the death of its founder, Escrivá de Balaguer, and was reorganized with new principles and rules in this form called personal prelature. Thus, in principle, apostolate no longer exists as an independent legal entity, speaking technically. These aspects are important because, at that moment, this structure was offered as a solution to the problem, in order to facilitate an agreement with the bishops of the Fraternity. And there arises a question, because an implicit condition was that Bp. Williamson be out.
That was it.

  This rumor arose due to the letter that Pope Benedict XVI wrote in March 2009, indicating what should be done with the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X. It is a public act, a public writing, a long letter, drafted in March, shortly after the lifting of the excommunications. The excommunications were lifted on January 21, 2009. As is known, Pope Benedict XVI resigned. He left the position. He did this at an important moment, as a possible agreement with the Society of Saint Pius X was approaching. Upon his departure, everything was left in suspension.

  One of the reasons — and this could be confirmed by Father de Cacqueray, then superior of the District of France — is that he left the Fraternity to become a Franciscan monk in Morgon. He no longer wished to interact with that situation.
But one of the things he did was confront that moment, namely, to tell Bp.  Fellay that he could not change the statutes of the Society of Saint Pius X. This was the secondary reason for the meeting held in June 2012. It was the necessary principle to take a step toward an agreement with Rome. All of this is technical, all of this is legal. And precisely this legal aspect remained pending. Why?

  Because the aspect of the episcopal consecrations of 1988 was a doctrinal aspect, not a legal one. And the doctrinal aspect is the necessity of the salvation of souls. And the only way to save souls is through the reception of the sacraments. For Mgr. Lefebvre, there was a doubt regarding the sacraments of the Novus Ordo. This is the reason he founded the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X: to ensure there was no doubt in the sacraments, from baptism to the last rites. The fact that he performed the episcopal consecrations in 1988 was to maintain this line: safe sacraments.

  In the attempts at agreement since 2012, Bp. Fellay simply jumped the fence. Or if, before it was on this side, tradition...; on the other side, Novus Ordo. Bp. Fellay jumped the fence. Now he is on the other side and claims that all the sacraments of the Novus Ordo are valid, as long as they are performed with the Church's traditional intention. With this principle — expressed in its doctrinal declaration and now accepted — one of their practices has been not to re-ordain priests of the Novus Ordo. They accept them as such. And, over time, problems arise.

  Currently, for example, in the United States District of the Fraternity, there are more than twenty priests of the Novus Ordo who assist in the apostolate. One of them is married. And he is accepted as a priest, administering a chapel. How was he married? They don't want to say, but apparently this priest, already elderly, was Anglican and got married. Later he converted to Catholicism, but he never stopped being married. He stayed married. After his conversion, he no longer co-habited, but he had children. And they still live. If someone asks him: are you married? He answers: yes. Do you have a wife? Yes. Do you have children? Yes. The children are forty, sixty years old, something like that. But the question is about the principle. Why?

  Because, for them now, the intention in the sacraments is the intention that the Church realizes, and all the sacraments of the Novus Ordo are valid. All of them. How did this principle start? After 2012, in February, when Pope Benedict XVI resigned and Pope Francis was elected. When Pope Francis took over, shortly thereafter he announced what he called ‘Year of Mercy’. He said that it would be a year of mercy. Everyone could go to the chapel, and all sins would be forgiven. It was established for one year. At the end of that year, he declared: to commemorate this Year of Mercy, we will grant universal jurisdiction to all priests of the
Society of Saint Pius X. In other words, he delegated them jurisdiction.

  First for confession. The docuмent was published: their confessions are valid because they are within the Church. We forgive them. That was the news. But what happened? With this act, they eliminated the irregularity of all priests ordained between 1988 and 2009, without requiring the priests to submit a letter requesting regularization. Do you understand? Do you understand what I am saying? Exactly. The
pretext of a universal jurisdiction was used to forgive all the irregularities that the priests had, without requiring repentance, and the entire Fraternity entered into communion with Rome. That is what happened. This occurred with the Year of Mercy, especially with the delegation for confession.

  In the following year, Pope Francis granted that all marriages celebrated by the Fraternity were accepted by the local bishop and jurisdiction was granted to the priests of the Fraternity who wished to accept it to celebrate marriages. Since then, not all priests celebrate marriages; only those who accept the delegation granted by the bishop of the place. It is a very important distinction because there are many priests who do not accept it and, as a result, are not allowed to celebrate marriages. There have been very concrete cases that demonstrate this. All docuмents for the marriage go to the prior. The prior presents them to the bishop. The bishop then endorses them. And then the marriage is celebrated, sometimes with a Novus Ordo priest as a witness. This is the normal procedure. Later, during Father Wegner's time, the superior in the United States requested what is called ‘sanatio in radice’. All of this is technical, but this ‘sanatio’ indicated that those people who had doubts about the validity of their marriages, through this request from the superior, came to have them recognized as valid.

  But here arises the problem. The ministers of marriage are the husband and wife, not the priest. This is catechism. Therefore, if someone wants the ‘sanatio in radice’, it must be the ministers themselves who request it, not the priest. And what the Fraternity did was have the superior ask the bishops of the place to cure all marriages. These are seemingly small details, but they reveal a purpose:

    union with Rome,

  and to validate all the sacraments of the Novus Ordo.

  And, precisely, last year, this went even further. Last year, the district superiors, particularly from Germany and England, sent a circular note stating that, from that moment on, the sacrament of Confirmation could no longer be conferred conditionally. This would be entirely unacceptable.

  And two weeks ago, no more than three weeks, in France, the District Superior sent a letter stating the same, prior to the announcement of the episcopal consecrations. In other words, they will not accept it. The important question is why those sacraments of the Novus Ordo conferred during Confirmation would be valid. Therefore, this is a practical issue.

  If all the priests ordained in the Novus Ordo are valid, what purpose does the
Traditional Mass serve? For what?

  These details show that the current doctrinal position of the Society of Saint Pius X, when performing episcopal consecrations, is not to exit the system. Because, at this moment, they are regularized. A very simple example is that of a candle. When Father Pagliarani announced that on the following first of July, they would perform episcopal consecrations, he presented the act as lighting a candle. But Rome quickly responded and lit the candle from the other side, applying pressure. Now the candle is lit from both sides. Is this a doctrinal issue or a legal issue? There are four principles that differentiate the Resistance from the Fraternity. Even though the Traditional Mass is celebrated, even though everything is done as it was done before with Mgr. Lefebvre, there are four points that are different at this moment.

  First, confessions. Many priests say that the confessions we perform are not valid because we do not have delegation to carry them out. That is not true; they are valid. But they say they are not, because they have delegation granted by the Popes. Thus, the absolution in the sacrament of penance they perform in one way; we perform it in another, as it was done before.

  Second, marriage. They celebrate it with acceptance from the bishop of the place. We use the principle that people wishing to marry cannot find a priest who thinks according to tradition in four fundamental points. To get married, there are four points. And here a small but very dangerous detail emerges.

  The Novus Ordo allows divorce under the name of nullity. Different name, same fact. It's a trap. So it is preached that divorce is not accepted, that one cannot live in free union, that it is a sin to live in free union. There is also the issue of chastity in the conjugal act, openness to life, and the use of methods to restrict it. And that marriage must be blessed as a sacrament of the Church, being the ministries...the spouses themselves and the priest as the qualified witness who celebrates this marriage.

  Therefore, four points. First, the confession is different. Second, the marriage is different.

  Third, the principles by which Bp. Williamson consecrated bishops. He did so to maintain two things. First, the episcopal succession, the apostolic succession, the note of apostolicity. That was what Mgr. Lefebvre upheld: the sacraments. The episcopal consecrations of the sedevacantists are considered dubious by the way they were carried out. It is known that the sedevacantists have two main lines. Perhaps a third one here in Brazil. There is the line of Thuc and that of Méndez. And the sedevacantists have been divided for almost fifty years, saying that these are not valid and those are, and vice versa. What is the spark that fuels this battle that has lasted fifty years? The fact that they were done in secret. The ceremonies were never public. For example, Bp. Méndez did not want to be excommunicated and asked for photographs to be taken and that, after his death, the name of the consecrated bishop, who was Kelly, be revealed. However, in all the photographs taken with Kelly, the bishop is never seen acting at the altar; he is always seated, as if posing for a photo, but not pontificating. In the case of Mgr. Thuc, who consecrated others, especially in Palmar de Troya, the situation was different, but also problematic.

  Mgr. Thuc never completely abandoned the New Mass. He performed episcopal consecrations and priestly ordinations in Latin, with the traditional rite, but remained a member of the official Church. Always. He was even linked to charismatic movements when he was a bishop in Vietnam. When he went to Spain, to Palmar de Troya, he consecrated bishops. And those bishops consecrated others. And they multiplied. They made cardinals. Then, a conclave. Then, they elected a pope. All of this caused great confusion. And one of the serious facts was that, when later questioned, it was attributed to him that he had, it is said, that he did not intend to make bishops. Do we believe in him or not? That is the doubt. And this doubt has lingered for fifty years.

  Therefore, for Mgr. Lefebvre, it was essential that the consecrations be public and clear. To maintain the tradition and to confer the traditional sacraments without doubt. When he consecrated four bishops in 1988, he ensured the continuity of the traditional episcopate. Now, in the current consecrations, one important aspect will be the mandate, the written docuмent by which they will consecrate these bishops. What is stated there will show the intention. Currently, Rome strongly promotes the acceptance of the synodal Church. They want the Fraternity to be part of this Church as a recognized traditional wing. Will they do it or not? We will see. But it is a theological discussion they will have to face. This situation makes the consecrations they will perform this year different from those conducted in 1988 with Mgr. Lefebvre.

  Dom Lefebvre wanted to preserve the tradition, the sacraments as a means of salvation. There was a state of necessity, because there was no certainty regarding the sacraments. It was necessary to make bishops to maintain the traditional Catholic priesthood. Now it is different. Now it is: we do not want to be excommunicated, but we want to be within the Church. So we will do it this way. Yes, there is a need to attend to souls, but they seek to do so without legally breaking. It is completely different. Completely. According to what I heard secondhand, they want to consecrate several bishops, between five and seven, young and older. And, apparently, some of the younger ones have set a condition: if it is with the permission of the Pope, yes; if it is not with the permission of the Pope, no. If the Pope gives permission, I want to be a bishop. But if he does not, I do not want to be a bishop.

  Therefore, there is a difference in principles at this moment. And they have set a date. If they change the date, they weaken themselves. In any case, Bp. de Galarreta and Bp. Fellay have a lot of work. And the years do not pass in vain. They have canceled many Confirmation ceremonies in France. Many.

  There are three groups. Before 1988. From 1988 to 2009. From 2009 to present. Since 2009 until now, there are approximately 350 priests. From the intermediate group, about 300. And from the previous group, around 100. This is the approximate totality. When they speak of necessity, they also refer to internal necessity. Because there is no absolute unity as in 1988. There are internal tensions.

    But it is a fact. There is a lack of bishops. It is a fact. Bp. Tissier, in the  year before his death, could no longer conclude ordination ceremonies without breaks. He had to sit down, drink water, rest, and then continue. The ceremonies became shorter. The same happened recently. Bp.  de Galarreta canceled ordinations in the United States for health reasons. Therefore, there is a practical necessity. But the question is: at what cost? And here lies the delicate point.

  The state of necessity they now present contradicts what they previously asserted. When Bp. Williamson consecrated Bp. Faure over ten years ago, the Fraternity published a docuмent stating that there was no state of necessity. Therefore, it incurred excommunication. And until a few years ago, some superiors claimed that when a crisis exceeds fifty years, it ceases to be extraordinary and becomes ordinary. Thus, the Magisterium should be accepted as ordinary, including that of Vatican II. Furthermore, they prepared the doctrinal ground. About a year ago, Father Pagliarani gave a conference to the superiors saying that the position on ordination in the new rite explained by Father Álvaro Calderón was not the official position of the Fraternity. A retraction was requested. Editions of the book Prometeo were modified. In some translations, there are significant differences from the original. This shows a clear doctrinal line.

  The current thesis is that the rite is one, in ordinary and extraordinary form. This originates from the principle formulated by Benedict XVI. And this has influenced the mentality of many young priests. Thus, they see the necessity of bishops for survival, but at the same time, it is about [a deal?],a rapprochement with Rome, not a distancing. And that is what we are seeing. The fact that they announce episcopal consecrations does not mean that it is done under the same principles as in 1988. If they do, some will say that this confirms that Bp. Williamson was right to preserve the succession. But the doctrinal context is different. That is what is happening.

  As for the Society of Saint Pius X and Rome, it is known that the Pope is American. He was educated in Chicago. He is a disciple of that school, and he himself stated it. This can be seen in the speech he gave when he obtained the degree in canon law to become a cardinal. He speaks Spanish perfectly. He lived in Peru for more than twenty years. At the university, in Peru, he was presented as a cardinal, and his thesis deals with the ethics of Cardinal Bernardin. Cardinal Bernardin is known for his entire history linked to a progressive line in the United States. It is said that, when young, he belonged to that group — not that he personally participated in certain conduct, but that he was part of that intellectual formation. Thus, for him, it is about the ethics of the moment and the intellectual principle of engaging in dialectics. This is the way of action of this Pope.

  For example, in concrete terms: it formulates a principle on the right, formulates another on the left, and unites them in the center. This is called dialectics. Then he says: traditionalist Catholics are fine; the Orthodox are also fine. But not too far right, nor too far left. It is necessary to be in the center. He always brings them together in the center to avoid extremes. Today, it is forbidden to be fundamentalist in anything. If you are a Protestant fundamentalist, no. If you are a Roman Catholic fundamentalist, no. If you are a Muslim fundamentalist, also no. One must be tolerant. But one cannot tolerate the intolerant. Do you understand?

  For example, regarding cremation: it is known that in the Code of Canon Law of
1917 it was prohibited under penalty of excommunication. In 1983 it is permitted. But the Pope states: it is not good to be cremated because it destroys the image of God; we were created in the image of God. It is not good to be burned. But since everyone does it, now it is necessary to regulate it well. It then establishes conditions: that the ashes are not to be consumed, that they are not to be scattered, that they are not to be treated as trivial objects, and that they should be placed in a sacred location. It imposes conditions, and in the end concludes that cremation may now take place. This is how the reasoning works. It consolidates the steps taken by Pope Francis. And what is the force driving this?

  The synodal Church. So far, he has appointed women to important positions in the dicasteries. He does not call them cardinals, but functionally they occupy positions of authority. He has appointed bishops in the United States with a clearly progressive profile. He takes a step to the right and another to the left. He ordains priests in Saint Peter's Basilica with litanies in Latin, the Kyriale in Latin, chants in Latin, but within the new rite. There is con-celebration. Readings may be done by women.

  In the Novus Ordo, during the priestly ordination, holy chrism is used. In the traditional rite, the oil of catechumens is used. In the traditional ordination, the bishop anoints the hands by tracing two crosses, anoints the fingers, the palm, ties the hands of the new priest, and then he touches the paten and the chalice. It is a theology of sacrifice.

  In the new rite, it is not like that. One is anointed with the holy chrism, and the ceremony proceeds without such marked symbolism.

  Then the question arises: why change the matter? The chrism is properly reserved for the bishop; the oil of catechumens corresponds to the priest. Why use chrism for the priest? Because, in the baptism of the new rite, there is the possibility of anointing the hands, which opens the door for extraordinary ministers of communion. And, since both women and men are baptized, it is justified that women
distribute communion. It is another theological concept. The priest is no longer primarily seen as a man of the Sacrifice and becomes an administrator. According to classical theology, a priestly ordination must take place within the Mass. Not outside of it. Mgr. Lefebvre, when re-ordaining priests from the new rite, did so within the complete Mass, not merely by laying on of hands. I asked priests who were re-ordained by him. It was always within the complete Mass. And many of those priests remained more steadfast than those who only received the laying on of hands. That was his way of proceeding.

Dom Lefebvre was not infallible, but he was a man of the Church and had a deep sense of fidelity. Today, both in the Fraternity and in the Resistance, his approach is not precisely followed. Regarding the liturgy of 1950, 1955, and 1962: the 1955 reform was partially experimental. The 1962 missal incorporates earlier reforms, many from Saint Pius X. The missal used for chanting in religious orders was promoted by Saint Pius X. The reduction of the breviary volumes has precedents in earlier reforms. Therefore, the 1962 missal does not emerge from a vacuum.

  ‘Traditionis Custodes’, signed by Pope Francis, has binding force linked to Vatican II. It is an application of the liturgical reform initiated by the Council. If one fully accepts this magisterium as binding in everything, one also ends up accepting the synodal structure. Thus, the superiors of the Fraternity find themselves in a delicate situation. They are negotiating to avoid an internal division that already exists.

  Four concrete differences today: confession, marriage, episcopal consecrations, and the concept of state of necessity. In the United States, there is a large number of annulments. Incompatibility of character and immaturity are frequent causes. Often, the local bishop intervenes. The liturgical question also involves rubrics. Some strictly follow the 1950 calendar. They do not celebrate Mass in the afternoon. They require fasting from midnight. They observe the Ember days under grave obligation. The 1950 missal does not have its own pontifical; the previous one is used. The 1962 reform established that the previous ritual is normative for the sacraments. Benedict XVI permitted the use of the 1962 rite for the Mass and the previous ritual for the sacraments. The only significant change was the prayer for Good Friday. The Fraternity rejects it.

  Heretic means one who chooses. And today there is a selective mentality: choosing what is convenient. Mgr. Lefebvre suffered internal divisions because of the liturgy. He established a loyalty letter that remained in place until his death. Afterward, it was modified. In 1988, when the protocol was presented to him, there was an additional docuмent that involved doctrinal acceptance of Vatican II. He rejected it. He said: we have the same words, but not the same concepts. That is the current problem. If one fully accepts the validity without reservations of the Novus Ordo sacraments, the argument of the state of necessity disappears. Father Pagliarani argues that one cannot systematically doubt. Thus, he requested retraction from Father Calderón.

  According to some writings, intention is not the subjective intention of the minister, but the objective intention of the Church. Therefore, they no longer accept “conditional confirmations”. They do not re-ordain under condition. The main fear is internal division. Annulments are frequent. Modern pressure is strong. And people move from one center to another. They marry here, annul there, and remarry elsewhere. Two principles coexisting. That is the current state.
__________________

Bp. G. Zendejas, Feb. 14, 2026
Unofficial translation of the Portuguese transcript.