NEWS: February 27, 2026
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bird’s Eye View of the News
CHOOSING BETWEEN PHARISEES & SADDUCEES –
Friends have asked my opinion on the present-day rift between the SSPX and the Vatican regarding the consecrations of five Bishops that the Society head Fr. Davide Pagliarani announced would take place on July 1.
He met at the Vatican with Card. Victor Fernandez, who proposed a dialogue with the condition that the consecrations be postponed; if this condition were not met, the Vatican would declare SSPX schismatic. Shortly after, Pagliarani issued a public statement declining a dialogue based on the argument Fernandez had affirmed that Vatican II is an untouchable topic. So, he confirmed that the consecrations were still planned for that announced date.
/bev314_Rug.jpg)
We have a picture of two Argentinians playing hard ball, as Argentinians habitually like to do. Both teams are preparing their fans for the grand match to come. Emotions are high and spirits are polarizing. Conservative Prelates – Arch. Vigano, Bishops Schneider and Strickland – have entered the picture dramatically cheering for SSPX. Progressivist newspapers are booing SSPX, radically comparing it to the sect of Old Catholics which rejected Vatican I and became schismatic and heretic.
The game is thus being presented as a confrontation between these two sides:
Since many Catholic traditionalists are taking a position before this dilemma and being dragged to adherence with the SSPX and schism, I feel obliged to say a word on it.
I believe that this whole scenario is being inflated by malicious persons in both parties. It does not demand a dramatic decision like this: Either maintaining orthodoxy and entering into schism or accepting Progressivism and staying in the Church. Below, I will try to show the errors of this melodramatic false dilemma.
SSPX accepts Vatican II
The first great mistake is to imagine that the SSPX does not accept Vatican II. It does accept it, insofar as it is interpreted in the light of tradition.
‘62 Missal Is a Transition to the ‘69 Missal
The supposition that SSPX is only in favor of the Tridentine Mass is disputable. There are important hues in its adhesion to the ’62 Missal:
Mess between powers of teaching & government
There are three fundamental papal powers: the power of teaching, the power of government or jurisdiction, and the power of orders.
By the power of teaching the Pope must give Catholics good doctrine to confirm them in the Faith (cf. Lk 22:32). By the power of government or power of jurisdiction – the Petrine Primacy or Power of the Keys – the Pope has jurisdiction over the entire Church (cf. Mt 16:18-19). By the power of orders, which is the power to minister the Sacraments, the Pope has the same plenitude of orders as any other Bishop. However, in practice his power of orders is closely connected to his power of jurisdiction, that is, no one can be made a Bishop or ordained a priest without his permission.
Now, when the Pope teaches a wrong doctrine, he can be resisted by Catholics insofar as the resistance is respectful.
/bev314_Epi.jpg)
No Catholic can legitimately deny the power of jurisdiction of the Pope since this would represent a break in the Church unity and throw her into chaos. Those in the past who pretended to consecrate bishops against the Pope’s will fell into schism and placed themselves outside the Church.
There have been times in History when successive Popes have annulled the power of orders of previous Popes, such as in the case of Pope Formosus, which created a complete chaos regarding the Sacraments. Those examples taught the Church to not return to that practice.
Today, the SSPX superiors pretend to have the right to consecrate bishops without the Pope’s permission based on doctrinal disagreements on the way Vatican II was interpreted.
TIA says: These two topics are distinct. One does not justify the other. Regarding the power of teaching, the superiors of SSPX may continue to have a respectful doctrinal discussion with the Holy See on the topics they wish. This is the legitimate solution for their case.
Regarding the powers of jurisdiction and orders, until a doctrinal solution is agreed upon, the SSPX superiors may ask the Pope for a provisory solution so that the followers of their movement will not be deprived of the Sacraments.
But they cannot decide on their own to publicly consecrate bishops against Rome’s will. It is an arrogant rebellion that calls for the most severe punishment. Since this punishment is known as excommunication, the perpetrators of this crime place themselves voluntarily outside of the Church.
The true resistance against Progressivism – Vatican II and its consequences, the New Mass, the usurpation of the government of the Church and so on – must be made inside the Church, as we do at Tradition in Action.
So, my third conclusion is that the drama being presented to the public by the SSPX and the progressivist media is fundamentally flawed if not dishonest. The two topics – doctrinal objections and bishops’ consecrations – are independent issues and must be dealt with separately. There is a clear solution for each one.
My general conclusion: The game behind the Pagliarani versus Fernandez confrontation seems to be calculated to free the post-conciliar Church from all its traditionalist opponents – who are meant to follow the SSPX into a new episcopal church – and to give free rein to the progressivist Pope(s) to march even faster toward a Universal Religion on an unobstructed road inside the Church.
He met at the Vatican with Card. Victor Fernandez, who proposed a dialogue with the condition that the consecrations be postponed; if this condition were not met, the Vatican would declare SSPX schismatic. Shortly after, Pagliarani issued a public statement declining a dialogue based on the argument Fernandez had affirmed that Vatican II is an untouchable topic. So, he confirmed that the consecrations were still planned for that announced date.
Argentinians playing rugby
The game is thus being presented as a confrontation between these two sides:
- Pagliarani represents fidelity to the tradition of almost 2,000 years of the Church before Vatican II; is against the Council and its consequences; is the holder of the Tridentine Mass. The announced consecrations of Bishops are intended to maintain these treasures.
- Fernandez represents both the official Church and the hardest line of Vatican II – the Francis' line – which does not admit discussion on the text of its original documents. He is only open to a theological discussion about degrees of adhesion to a Church document. If the SSPX does not comply with Fernandez’ demand he will declare it schismatic.
Since many Catholic traditionalists are taking a position before this dilemma and being dragged to adherence with the SSPX and schism, I feel obliged to say a word on it.
I believe that this whole scenario is being inflated by malicious persons in both parties. It does not demand a dramatic decision like this: Either maintaining orthodoxy and entering into schism or accepting Progressivism and staying in the Church. Below, I will try to show the errors of this melodramatic false dilemma.
SSPX accepts Vatican II
The first great mistake is to imagine that the SSPX does not accept Vatican II. It does accept it, insofar as it is interpreted in the light of tradition.
- Arch. Marcel Lefebvre stated this clearly in public documents that can be found here.
- Bishop Bernard Fellay – former Superior General of the Society and still a member of its General Council – also affirmed he accepts 95% of Vatican II as reported
here.
- Card. Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who was then head of the Commission Ecclesia Dei in charge of dealing with traditionalists, publicly said that the four SSPX Bishops had agreed with Vatican II, as I published and commented on here and here.
- When he was head of the SSPX seminary in Winona, Bishop Richard Williamson, visiting me at the TIA headquarters, affirmed his difference with us: “The problem is that you want to destroy the Council, and we [SSPX] have only some points against it.”
- In his letter declining the dialogue, Fr. Pagliarani argues that the agreement with Rome was proceeding well until Card. Müller closed the door with his “it is everything or nothing” regarding the Council. He blames Fernandez for taking the same radical position. The obvious consequence is that Pagliarani himself is open to accept Vatican II if it is interpreted differently.
/bev314_Pha.jpg)
Pharisees
‘62 Missal Is a Transition to the ‘69 Missal
The supposition that SSPX is only in favor of the Tridentine Mass is disputable. There are important hues in its adhesion to the ’62 Missal:
- SSPX hides the fact that Arch. Lefebvre said the Novus Ordo Mass for a while, according to this testimony of Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, who was a professor at the Êcone Seminary. Fr. Des Lauriers was a well-known and respected theologian at the
Angelicum University in Rome who had greatly contributed to the studies leading to the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption of Our Lady in 1954. His testimony has enormous weight, and cannot just be disregarded as gossip.
- By the way, it was Fr. Lauriers who wrote the later famous Ottavinani Intervention against the 1969 Mass. He asked several Prelates to sign it – including Msgr. Lefebvre who refused to do so – but only Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci subscribed to it. The refusal of Lefebvre to sign it speaks of his complacency with the
Novus Ordo.
- When he was pressured by his grassroots to say only the traditional Mass, Lefebvre adopted the ‘62 Missal, which was a transition between the Tridentine Mass prior to 1955 and the 1969 Novus Ordo. The ’62 Missal was a work of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, who was also the architect of the ‘69 Mass. Msgr. Lefebvre preferred to stay in that compromised “middle” ground.
- For those who want to know the suspicious changes and subtractions made in the ’62 Missal, they may check
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here and
here.
- Actually, this “middle” position of the ’62 Missal has allowed the SSPX in diverse places to become more aggiornati. Such is the case for example of its chapels in Germany,
according to Msgr. Patrick Perez, or some of its chapels in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles in the U.S. where the ’62 Missal has evolved to the “dialogue Mass.”
- Since 1955 all the reforms in the Catholic Liturgy have been made by Annibale Bugnini: They include the 1955/1956 Holy Week Reform of Pius XII, the Vatican II Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, the ’62 Missal, the ’69 Missal and the ‘70 Missal, which was the ’69 version with a few non-essential “corrections” to dodge the accusations of the Ottaviani Intervention.
/bev314_Sad.jpg)
Sadducees
Mess between powers of teaching & government
There are three fundamental papal powers: the power of teaching, the power of government or jurisdiction, and the power of orders.
By the power of teaching the Pope must give Catholics good doctrine to confirm them in the Faith (cf. Lk 22:32). By the power of government or power of jurisdiction – the Petrine Primacy or Power of the Keys – the Pope has jurisdiction over the entire Church (cf. Mt 16:18-19). By the power of orders, which is the power to minister the Sacraments, the Pope has the same plenitude of orders as any other Bishop. However, in practice his power of orders is closely connected to his power of jurisdiction, that is, no one can be made a Bishop or ordained a priest without his permission.
Now, when the Pope teaches a wrong doctrine, he can be resisted by Catholics insofar as the resistance is respectful.
Will SSPX officially become another episcopal church separated from Rome?
There have been times in History when successive Popes have annulled the power of orders of previous Popes, such as in the case of Pope Formosus, which created a complete chaos regarding the Sacraments. Those examples taught the Church to not return to that practice.
Today, the SSPX superiors pretend to have the right to consecrate bishops without the Pope’s permission based on doctrinal disagreements on the way Vatican II was interpreted.
TIA says: These two topics are distinct. One does not justify the other. Regarding the power of teaching, the superiors of SSPX may continue to have a respectful doctrinal discussion with the Holy See on the topics they wish. This is the legitimate solution for their case.
Regarding the powers of jurisdiction and orders, until a doctrinal solution is agreed upon, the SSPX superiors may ask the Pope for a provisory solution so that the followers of their movement will not be deprived of the Sacraments.
But they cannot decide on their own to publicly consecrate bishops against Rome’s will. It is an arrogant rebellion that calls for the most severe punishment. Since this punishment is known as excommunication, the perpetrators of this crime place themselves voluntarily outside of the Church.
The true resistance against Progressivism – Vatican II and its consequences, the New Mass, the usurpation of the government of the Church and so on – must be made inside the Church, as we do at Tradition in Action.
So, my third conclusion is that the drama being presented to the public by the SSPX and the progressivist media is fundamentally flawed if not dishonest. The two topics – doctrinal objections and bishops’ consecrations – are independent issues and must be dealt with separately. There is a clear solution for each one.
My general conclusion: The game behind the Pagliarani versus Fernandez confrontation seems to be calculated to free the post-conciliar Church from all its traditionalist opponents – who are meant to follow the SSPX into a new episcopal church – and to give free rein to the progressivist Pope(s) to march even faster toward a Universal Religion on an unobstructed road inside the Church.
______________________
______________________
 Volume I |
 Volume II |
 Volume III |
 Volume IV |
 Volume V |
 Volume VI |
 Volume VII |
 Volume VIII |
 Volume IX |
 Volume X |
 Volume XI |
 Special Edition |