He also has a personal history with the Society of Saint Pius X -- his Dominican-inspired community was founded with the help of the SSPX in 1979, but, in 1988, with the episcopal consecrations by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, they were one of those who decided to seek Rome for a permanent settlement (along the many individual priests who left, including those who founded the Fraternity of Saint Peter, and the Benedictine Monastery of Le Barroux).
He has published a long piece on the planned 2026 SSPX Consecrations, which we publish below (once again, we wish to make clear we want to present both sides, and hope for friendship, peace, and stability for all).
*****
Separatism Is Not a Catholic Solution
by Dom Louis-Marie de Blignières
article published in Sedes Sapientiae no. 176
The consecrations announced by the Society of Saint Pius X against the will of the Pope and without a mandate from the Church lead to separatism. There is indeed a crisis afflicting the Church, but the rupture of hierarchical communion by a particular group will only make the resolution of that crisis more difficult. Cardinal Gerhard Müller recently stated:
"Rightly so, not only the Society of Saint Pius X but also a large part of Catholics deplore the fact that, under the pretext of renewing the Church — through a process of self-secularization — grave uncertainties on dogmatic questions, and even heresies, have made their way into the Church. But even over the course of the Church's 2,000-year history, heresies, from Arianism to Modernism, have been overcome only by those who remained within the Church and did not deviate from the line of the Pope.
If the Society of Saint Pius X wishes to have a positive impact on the history of the Church, it cannot fight for the true faith from outside, against the Church united with the Pope, but only from within the Church, with the Pope and all orthodox bishops, theologians and faithful. Otherwise, its protest will remain without effect and will even be contemptuously exploited by heretical groups to accuse orthodox Catholics of sterile traditionalism and narrow-minded fundamentalism."
Following a meeting on February 12, 2026, with Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), Cardinal Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), published a communiqué in which he proposed a "specifically theological dialogue process," on the prior condition of "suspending the decision regarding the episcopal ordinations that have been announced" by the SSPX on February 2. He "recalls on behalf of the Holy See" that "the ordination of bishops without the mandate of the Holy Father… would imply a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion (schism)."
Father Davide Pagliarani, after consulting his Council, responded to the DDF Prefect with a lengthy letter dated Ash Wednesday, in which he confirms the intention to have new bishops consecrated on July 1, 2026. Two excerpts follow:
We both know in advance that we cannot reach agreement on the doctrinal level, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations taken since the Second Vatican Council. This disagreement, on the Fraternity's side, does not amount to a simple difference of opinion, but constitutes a genuine matter of conscience, born of what proves to be a rupture with the Tradition of the Church. […]
Furthermore, it does not seem possible to us to undertake a dialogue in order to define what the minima necessary for ecclesial communion would be, quite simply because this task does not belong to us. Throughout the centuries, the criteria for membership in the Church have been established and defined by the Magisterium. What had to be believed as obligatory in order to be Catholic has always been taught with authority, in constant fidelity to Tradition.
The Society of Saint Pius X, the Council, and the Post-Conciliar Era
The SSPX maintains that "the fundamental orientations taken since the Second Vatican Council" constitute "a rupture with the Tradition of the Church." A distinction must be made, however.
Certain acts of John Paul II — such as the Assisi gathering — do raise genuine and serious problems of continuity. Certain acts and declarations of Pope Francis have had dramatic consequences within the Christian people with respect to doctrinal accuracy and moral rectitude. The controversies unleashed by Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custodes, and Fiducia Supplicans bear witness to these grave deficiencies, as well as to the health of the sensus fidei of the prelates and Christian faithful who reacted. Under the current pontificate, Mater Populi Fidelis displayed certain deficiencies that rightly troubled the Marian sensibility of Christians.
However, Father Pagliarani's brief enumeration of documents (Redemptor Hominis, Ut Unum Sint, Evangelii Gaudium, and Amoris Laetitia) leaves aside numerous important documents that clarify or correct questionable points. We may cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Caritas in Veritate, which offer a traditional interpretation of religious freedom; Veritatis Splendor, against relativism; Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, on the fact that the Church has no power to ordain women; Evangelium Vitae, on the defense of life and the sanctity of marriage; Ad Tuendam Fidem, on the degrees of authority within the Magisterium; Fides et Ratio, on the importance of reason and the place of realist philosophy in the Church; and Dominus Iesus, against errors concerning the mediation of Christ, non-Christian religions, and ecumenism.
In Father Pagliarani's letter, the subject is not the texts of the Council itself, but the post-conciliar period: "the fundamental orientations taken since the Second Vatican Council." As regards the interpretation of the Council itself, Father Pagliarani states that "this is already clearly given in the post-conciliar period and in the subsequent documents of the Holy See." But the SSPX, as we have noted, makes a one-sided reading of the post-conciliar period. Moreover, the SSPX highlights acts and declarations — some of which are objectively scandalous (such as the Pachamama and the Abu Dhabi Declaration) — as though they carried the authority of official interpretations, while dismissing or criticizing the genuine interpretive texts such as the Catechism or Veritatis Splendor.
Criteria for Membership in the Church
For the SSPX, it is now pointless to continue working with the DDF; the matter is closed. Without providing convincing official explanations for the alleged "rupture" of the Council itself with Tradition, the SSPX asserts this rupture on the basis of its one-sided reading of the post-conciliar period. The central point — the rupture in matters of faith — is asserted as a foregone conclusion, but is never demonstrated.
The SSPX shows no interest in the distinctions recalled by the DDF between what pertains to "the act of faith" and what calls for "religious submission of intellect and will." The DDF distinguishes between "the various degrees of adherence required by the various texts of the Council." This means that one can accept them as acts of the Magisterium while remaining free, where they do not involve infallibility, to note their weaknesses or deficiencies.
The SSPX rightly underscores that "the criteria for membership in the Church have been established and defined by the Magisterium." It mentions "what had to be believed as obligatory in order to be Catholic," but not the ordinary Magisterium, and it appears to reduce adherence to the Magisterium to what is strictly a matter of faith. It also passes over in silence the other two criteria: submission to the hierarchy and participation in the sacraments. "The Catholic Church — teaches the Catechism of Saint Pius X — is the society or assembly of all the baptized who, living on earth, profess the same faith and the same law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same sacraments and obey the legitimate pastors, principally the Roman Pontiff."
Vatican II: Various Degrees of Adherence
It is indeed necessary to emphasize "the distinction between the overall reception of Vatican II as an act of the Magisterium, with the differentiated reception of each point (which is required), and an absolute adherence to each and every proposition (which could not be demanded)." The SSPX can recognize the magisterial character of Vatican II while adhering to each proposition according to the differentiated degree of authority it carries. This implies, salva reverentia, a certain freedom of judgment with regard to the very numerous pastoral and disciplinary considerations present in the text of Vatican II. A reading of the Council in the light of Tradition does not entail any adherence to erroneous doctrines.
The Initial Position of Archbishop Lefebvre
Moreover, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor Bishop de Castro Mayer ever affirmed a "rupture" of the Council itself with Tradition — the rupture on which the SSPX relies to claim the right to create "a truly Catholic episcopate free from the errors of the Second Vatican Council" in order to safeguard Tradition. Both bishops signed all the Acts of the Council, including those texts they had opposed during the conciliar debates (such as the Declaration on Religious Liberty). This cannot be explained if the definitive texts formally taught heresies or grave errors; it is, however, fully explained by the fact that certain texts were weak and deficient in some respects — but not heretical.
Furthermore, from 1965 to 1974, Archbishop Lefebvre did not publicly protest "errors of the Council." In 1966, he offered a lengthy and very positive explanation of Presbyterorum Ordinis to his Spiritan religious.
On November 18, 1978, received by John Paul II, he declared himself "prepared to accept the Council read in the light of Tradition." He also signed, together with Cardinal Ratzinger, the Protocol of Agreement of May 5, 1988, which explicitly contains, in its second point, the differentiated acceptance of magisterial texts according to the degrees of adherence formulated by Lumen Gentium. It is worth reproducing the entire "Doctrinal Section" of that Protocol:
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Society of Saint Pius X founded by me:
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of Bishops.
We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in n. 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on ecclesiastical Magisterium and the adherence owed to it.
Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or regarding later reforms of the liturgy and of canon law, which seem to us difficult to reconcile with Tradition, we commit ourselves to having a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.
We declare moreover that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and of the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, with the discipline special to the Society being preserved as conceded by a particular law.
Point (3) shows that the proposal of Saint John Paul II was reasonable and acceptable to traditionalists. Since the signing of this Protocol, two Magisterial documents have confirmed the importance of this point. In 1990, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith affirmed that
in the area of prudential interventions, it has happened that magisterial documents are not free from all deficiency […]. It is the duty of the theologian to make known to the magisterial authorities the problems raised by a [non-irreformable magisterial] teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented.
In 1993, John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, acknowledged "the possible limitations of the human arguments employed by the Magisterium."
The Position of the First Traditionalists
The priests and laypeople who were at the origin of the traditionalist movement also, for the great majority, "accepted the Council," while noting that certain formulations could lend themselves to error. Thus Archbishop Lefebvre's theologian at the Council, Father Victor-Alain Berto, wrote to Father Georges de Nantes that the Council "now consists entirely in the promulgated documents; nothing else of it remains. […] The promulgated acts of the Council […] can receive a correct interpretation, compatible with the Acts of prior Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs acting extra-concilially."
Father Calmel himself, extremely critical of Vatican II, affirmed that, while the Council contains certain texts that can "be drawn in a direction contrary to the faith," they cannot "be branded as outright heretical propositions."
Jean Madiran wrote in the issue of Itinéraires that followed the close of the Council: "We receive the decisions of the Council in conformity with the decisions of previous Councils. […] We receive the decisions of the Council while making it our concern to identify the theological note appropriate to each of them."
Madiran insists, twenty-eight years later:
When, at the end of 1965, the Second Vatican Council closed, all its texts having been voted on or at least signed by Archbishop Lefebvre, the journal Itinéraires stated the principle of receiving them by interpreting them in the spirit and in the light of the prior teachings of the Magisterium. If any given texts should appear, as can happen with any human formulation, susceptible of several interpretations, we believe that the correct interpretation is established precisely by and in conformity with previous Councils and with the full body of Magisterial teaching.
It is worth noting that Madiran is here responding in advance to an objection raised by certain traditionalists who are rather ignorant of the history of the Church: "A Magisterial text never needs to be interpreted." As an example, the German bishops in 1875 were obliged to issue a lengthy joint declaration, subsequently approved by Pius IX, in order to counter Bismarck's misinterpretation of Vatican I's doctrine on papal jurisdiction and to provide the correct interpretation.
Following the publication of the encyclical Veritatis Splendor on August 6, 1993, Madiran judged that "if the encyclical quotes and requotes the Council, it does so to correct its interpretation in the light of and in continuity with Tradition. […] The fifty-eight passages of Vatican II, as they are cited and interpreted by the encyclical, no longer give rise to any dubium."
Louis Salleron wrote in 1980: "As a pastoral Council, Vatican II raises no particular difficulties if it is interpreted according to the norms it has itself recalled and which we have mentioned above. Moreover, John Paul II has explained this on numerous occasions, notably during his visit to France. From his address to our bishops on June 1, 1980, let us extract a few passages: […] 'to accept the authentic interpretation of the Council — for that is the fundamental question…'"
It is also worth noting that the reason put forward by Archbishop Lefebvre when he finally repudiated the agreement of May 5, 1988 — withdrawing his signature on May 6 — was, by his own admission, a loss of confidence in authority. He did not, on that occasion, affirm that the Council was in itself absolutely unacceptable.
What Are the "Errors of the Council" According to the SSPX?
The SSPX, and certain of its sympathizers, have been claiming for thirty-eight years that the Council "taught errors," yet without rigorously demonstrating this. And yet the matter is of the gravest kind, since one is accusing the Magisterium itself of formally erring in the faith. It is therefore necessary to provide sufficient proof of a formal error, or else to confine oneself to denouncing ambiguity or weakness.
Moreover, under the pretext of denouncing errors, SSPX priests launch aggressive and often disrespectful attacks against the Magisterium. The extremism of the attack, combined with interpretations that are often tendentious and invariably unfavorable to the Magisterium — even when it repeats classical doctrine — undermines the very cause the SSPX claims to be defending.
Let us give one example among many, dating back several years. In a critical pamphlet, the SSPX maintained that the Catechism of the Catholic Church "is the exposition of the modernist faith of the conciliar Church," and that "the faith it proposes is not the Catholic faith, for it is a faith stained by errors, heresy, and even blasphemy." The authors of the pamphlet, however, have difficulty specifying in what exactly these heresies or blasphemies consist. In their "critical examination," confusions abound. They sometimes rest on a surprising ignorance both of what the Catechism and Vatican II actually teach and of traditional doctrine.
More seriously still, the authors of the pamphlet against the Catechism, reacting against errors — unfortunately widespread — on the dignity of man or the conflation of the natural and supernatural orders, fall into the opposite extreme. They end up distorting true doctrine and falsely diminishing the greatness of man, the work of grace outside the visible boundaries of the Church, and the elements of goodness and truth contained in various religions. Thus Father Simoulin maintains that "our perfection and our dignity do not consist in being free" (p. 27), and he favors the Jansenist error by stating that it is false to say that God "need not refuse his grace to anyone" (p. 50). Father Lorans (pp. 69–70) offers a supposed example of modernism with article 1, n. 1701 of the Catechism, which is entitled "Man as the Image of God" — an affirmation found verbatim in Saint Thomas Aquinas. Father Marcille, regarding Catechism n. 2516, writes that "the text of Saint Paul is distorted, for he says exactly: all works of nature are defiled by themselves" (p. 78).
The Disparagement of What Is Good in the Post-Conciliar Period
When the Magisterium has spoken by providing a correct interpretation of questionable texts, the leaders of the SSPX do not necessarily take it into account — and sometimes they consider such interpretations to be maneuvers of co-optation that make those texts even more dangerous. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church would be particularly dangerous because it would be like an appetizing dish containing a deadly poison. The better it appears, the more one must be wary of it: "Now the catechism inoculates the poison into the very minds of the faithful, and in a pleasant and easy manner."
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, in 1994, speaking in a sense radically contrary to Madiran's very positive reading of Veritatis Splendor, speaks of a "rupture of the encyclical with the Magisterium of the pre-conciliar popes, consisting in the liberalism and modernism condemned by those same popes." Among other criticisms, he judges that Veritatis Splendor offers an "anthropocentric, naturalistic and transcendental reinterpretation" of the mystery of the Incarnation. He believes he detects in the encyclical a "self-idolatrous anthropocentrism," with a "distorted image of man" and a "modernist gnosis"; and he invites the reader "to disengage from this attempted amalgamation of Thomism and Kantian idealism." He suggests the encyclical would be better named Seductionis Splendor.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, in 2001, was very reluctant to accept Dominus Iesus:
[Question] It was a "clear statement," though, was it not?
— No. There are clear things in the text, and it is against these that the "progressives" reacted. But the extremely strong formulations, to which we were no longer accustomed and which pleased me, are qualified at almost every sentence by conciliar contributions.
[Question] Are these formulations a sign for you that Rome is gradually approaching your positions?
— I am not sure, precisely because of the mixture. One truly gets the impression that Rome, in order to maintain unity in the Church, is forced to try to please everyone.
Is the SSPX Alone in Denouncing Errors?
To justify the announced consecrations, the SSPX and its sympathizers also argue that "the SSPX alone denounces the errors." This is false. Let us note in particular Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra, Müller, Sarah and Zen; and Bishops Schneider, Mutsaerts and Eijk — and, in the case of Fiducia Supplicans, the entire African episcopate — who have firmly denounced certain declarations of Pope Francis.
The priests and faithful of the institutes formerly under Ecclesia Dei (and other priests) denounce errors. They do so more typically through carefully argued articles than through sweeping declarations from the pulpit. And they strive to maintain the tone appropriate to theologians or educated laypeople addressing the authorities of the Church — as sons addressing their father, with "the respect due to pastors," as canon law itself recommends.
They wage this fight against errors more completely than the SSPX does. On one essential point, the former Ecclesia Dei world does not mutilate tradition in the way the SSPX and the faithful and communities that follow it do. There is indeed a fundamental part of Catholic tradition that is no longer honored in the position and actions of the latter: union with the Catholic hierarchy. The struggle of the former Ecclesia Dei world holds together two inseparable elements: continuity over time in what comes (by way of doctrine and sacraments) from the Apostles, and union with their successors.
On this point, I reject the accusation of "silence" that is sometimes leveled at us. For the journal Sedes Sapientiæ alone, I note critical contributions on the liturgical reform (nos. 40, 45, 49, 56, 84, 93, 107, 158, 163, 167), on religious life in the Code of Canon Law (no. 49), on the pseudo-obligation of concelebration (nos. 68, 113, 158, 159, 172, 174), on repentance (nos. 74, 80, and 100), on Assisi (no. 80), on Amoris Laetitia (nos. 136, 137, 140, 166), on Cor Orans (no. 149), on Traditionis Custodes (nos. 159, 160, 167), on homosexuality (no. 165), on the modern conception of law (nos. 163, 167, 171), and on the DDF text on co-redemption (no. 174).
Publicists and lay figures who did not accept the 1988 consecrations — most notably Jean Madiran and Bernard Antony — have also remained very active in the domain of doctrinal controversy. One need only read what Madiran wrote in Itinéraires and then in Présent until his death in 2013, and what Antony has written in the journals and on the websites where he has published from 1988 to the present day, to be convinced of this.
The argument — "Consecrations must be performed in order to denounce errors, because only the SSPX does so" — is therefore false. It unfortunately happens that SSPX leaders state falsehoods in this domain. At public symposia or from the pulpit, they maintain, for example, that all the Ecclesia Dei superiors concelebrated in the new rite, or that they did not react to the recent DDF document on co-redemption. Yet they publish no correction after being informed of their error.
How Credible Are the Society of Saint Pius X's Denunciations?
The SSPX does denounce errors — but is it always credible in doing so, having separated itself and placed itself beyond any oversight? The extremism of its language, which is at times flagrant, does not argue in favor of its objectivity. The argumentation is not always convincing either, given that the SSPX is in a crescendo of criticism of the hierarchy, and gives the impression of overstating its case in order to justify its separation.
One is struck by the sometimes simplistic and one-sided character of the reasoning of SSPX priests and sympathizers — the shift from theological argument to rhetoric (the Church is a sinking ship or a burning house; the "good" post-conciliar teachings are in fact poisoned cakes) — and sometimes by the arrogance of tone. This is quite deplorable for people who wish to call themselves Catholic and who address themselves to the hierarchy of the Church. Let us give a recent example drawn from a text by Father Jean-Michel Gleize, a highly influential and quasi-official theologian of the SSPX:
In reality, there is: 1° a gravely failing authority in Rome, to the point of gravely scandalizing souls; […] The whole question is whether one accepts point 1°. If one does not accept it, if the New Mass is not a bush full of venomous reptiles, if the Second Vatican Council does not endanger the faith, if religious liberty is not contrary to the teachings of Pius IX, if ecumenism does not call into question the dogma of the uniqueness of the salvific value of the Catholic Church, if Collegiality does not call into question the dogma of the uniqueness of the subject of the Primacy, then "everything is fine" and the Superior General is a madman and the whole Fraternity along with him.
This text reveals a binary vision. For Father Gleize, either the Magisterium is heretical (Vatican II is full of errors contrary to the faith, the reformed liturgy is full of "venomous reptiles"), or there is no crisis in the Church (everything is fine). There is no middle ground.
But reality is more nuanced. If one wished to sketch the broad outlines of the grave crisis the Church has been passing through for sixty years — without complacency, but without overstating the case — three points might be identified:
- There is a certain weakness in the Acts of Vatican II, as Father Berto explains in his letter to Father de Nantes quoted above. And there are ambiguities in certain passages that the progressive movement exploited to spread errors in the Church.
- For many years, the hierarchy was too weak to halt this subversive movement; it scarcely encouraged those who were striving to contain it, and in certain cases even actively opposed them.
- The reform of the liturgy, through its deficiencies — although the sacraments are valid and therefore sanctifying in themselves — contributed to destabilizing the Christian lives of the faithful.
Judging the Tree by Its Fruits?
Finally, the criterion advanced by certain SSPX leaders and sympathizers of "judging a tree by its fruits" is sometimes employed in a rather crude manner. "There are many children and families in our assemblies; we have many vocations and we regularly open new places of worship." Yes — but this argument does not speak in favor of the SSPX alone, for the same is true of the former Ecclesia Dei institutes, as well as several "non-traditional" institutes that are experiencing a flourishing of vocations. A genuine dynamism is also observed among the Orthodox, and among Evangelical Christians. This is not sufficient to affirm that these trees are good in every respect.
This criterion is also applied selectively, for one would need to take all fruits into account — both good and bad.
The division of the traditionalist movement, for example, is also a fruit of the 1988 consecrations. Had Archbishop Lefebvre, instead of consecrating illicitly, persevered in the agreement he signed, we would today have traditionalist bishops in a regular canonical situation. In all likelihood, the dissemination of traditional methods of catechesis would have been reinforced within the visible structures of the Church, acquiring legitimacy and institutional support, rather than being partly relegated to the outside. Would the crisis not have been combated more effectively in that case? Bishop Richard Williamson, and the dozen or so bishops he has consecrated, are also a fruit of the 1988 consecrations. By consecrating bishops on July 1, 2026, the SSPX will risk seeing new and ever more "wild" episcopal lines founded — as has historically occurred in every case of consecrations performed outside and against the Catholic hierarchy.
The Faults of the Hierarchy
From the 1988 consecrations to those of 2026, the Holy See, on various occasions and under successive popes, attempted to address the dissidence that was becoming entrenched over time. It offered meetings to the SSPX leadership — notably in 2001, then in 2010–2012 with Bishop Fellay, and most recently (too late) with Father Pagliarani. There are several reasons for the failure of these initiatives. I have mentioned some of them above, attributable to the SSPX.
But it is only fair to mention another important reason for these failures, where the fault appears to lie with the hierarchy: the loss of trust.
First of all, despite the praiseworthy efforts of several Cardinal Presidents of Ecclesia Dei, the Holy See was unable to ensure that ill-disposed bishops — as was frequently the case in France — respected the provisions of the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988, for "Catholic faithful who feel attached to some earlier liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition." Thus Bishop Fellay said in 2001: "The faithful who wish to follow the ancient Mass must be able to do so without harassment. The solution granted to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter is unworkable: the local bishops are left to decide everything, and they are for the most part radically opposed to tradition."
The Holy See also failed to fully implement what was legitimately requested for the Motu Proprio to be effectively applied. The ordination of bishops drawn from the traditionalist world — requested by the institutes and the faithful — was never carried out. It would, however, have constituted a powerful argument for credibility vis-à-vis the SSPX. Furthermore, during a serious internal crisis that threatened the identity of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (1998–2006), the latter did not receive from the Holy See the protection it was entitled to expect, while the disruptive elements were being encouraged. This created, among SSPX leaders, an understandable distrust of the promises being made to them:
It is natural that there should be distrust when one sees what is happening, […] when one sees what has just occurred at the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter. One can legitimately wonder whether it is not a trap meant to break us apart — to create, for example, a division between those who would wish to accept some Roman proposal and those who would not. It is therefore obvious that there is a distrust; it cannot be otherwise.
Subsequently, in 2021, the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes — which in law programmed the disappearance of the ancient rites from the Church — provided substantial fuel for distrust within the SSPX and for the rejection of any attempt at rapprochement with the Holy See.
Furthermore, in the negotiations with Bishop Fellay and then with Father Pagliarani, the failure to hold to the terms of the Protocol of May 5, 1988, constituted a grave blunder. There had been an "anti-Vatican II outbidding" on the SSPX's part, which in part explained the Holy See's anxiety — but the text of the Protocol offered the only guarantee acceptable to the SSPX. The SSPX was given the impression in 2012 that this text was considered outdated, and that the Holy See was demanding full alignment with precisely those new elements that were causing it difficulty.
In 2026, the DDF's proposals were broader, but they were formulated — after several years of silence — in the context of the announcement of the consecrations, and trust had long since evaporated.
As Cardinal Ratzinger said to me in 1988: in a schism, the faults are unfortunately shared on both sides.
Saving Tradition?
If the faults of the hierarchy are quite real, does this justify claiming that "Tradition" can be concretely maintained and lived only outside the Catholic hierarchy? No — that would be a fundamentally non-traditional position, and ultimately a non-Catholic one. One does not save tradition by anti-traditional means, as Jean Madiran observed in his time:
"I have no personal doctrine," Archbishop Lefebvre used to say. "I have held throughout my life to what I was taught on the benches of the French seminary in Rome. I have invented nothing new. We cannot go wrong by holding fast to what the Church has taught for two thousand years. I do what bishops have done for centuries and centuries; I have done nothing else."
But here, precisely, on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre does something else; he does something new: he consecrates bishops against the expressly notified will of the Pope. One cannot say this time that bishops have done this for centuries and centuries. The Church has never taught — not over two thousand years, nor on the benches of the French seminary in Rome — that one can override a formal prohibition of the Sovereign Pontiff concerning the consecration of new bishops.
For this act, the guarantee of holding to what the Church has always done has simply vanished. Archbishop Lefebvre has stepped outside the domain where "we cannot go wrong."
Let us close by meditating on the beautiful reproach addressed by a Father of the early Church to a promoter of schism: "We ought to endure all things rather than rend the Church of God — wrote Saint Dionysius of Alexandria to Novatian — and martyrdom in refusal to worship idols is no more glorious than that in refusing to make a schism; for in the former case one lays down his life for the sake of his own soul, but in the latter for the sake of the whole Church."
----
[NOTES]
[1] Statement by Cardinal Müller, February 21, 2026, https://www.kath.net/news/89675.
[2] Cf. L.-M. de Blignières, "Réflexions sur Assise," Sedes Sapientiæ, no. 80, Summer 2002, pp. 7–38.
[3] L.-M. de Blignières, "À propos d'Amoris lætitia," Sedes Sapientiæ, no. 136, June 2016, pp. 15–33; Vincentius, "L'imputabilité du péché mortel dans l'exhortation apostolique Amoris lætitia," Sedes Sapientiæ, no. 137, September 2016, pp. 83–105; Vincentius, "La communion des 'divorcés remariés': une révolution pastorale?," Sedes Sapientiæ, no. 140, June 2017, pp. 39–64.
[4] Cf. R.-M. Rivoire, "Le motu proprio Traditionis custodes à l'épreuve de la rationalité juridique," Sedes Sapientiæ, no. 160, June 2022, pp. 61–73.
[5] Cf. Emmanuel Perrier, "Fiducia supplicans face au sens de la foi," Revue thomiste, https://revuethomiste.fr/contenu-editorial/chroniques/lumieres-et-grains-de-sel/fiducia-supplicans-face-au-sens-de-la-foi.
[6] Cf. L.-M. de Blignières, "À propos de Mater Populi fidelis," Sedes Sapientiæ, no. 174, December 2025, pp. 3–10.
[7] Statuettes of the Pachamama, the "earth goddess" of the Andean peoples, were deposited and venerated before the Pope in the Vatican Gardens, and then installed in a nearby church, during the celebrations of the Synod in October 2019.
[8] Declaration signed in Abu Dhabi by Pope Francis and Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar Mosque, on February 4, 2019, stating in particular: "The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings." But the "diversity of religions" cannot in any way be the object of God's positive will, since God has revealed a single path of salvation: Christ and the Catholic Church instituted by him.
[9] Contrary to the traditional doctrine recalled by Pius XII in the Encyclical Humani Generis of August 12, 1950: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand assent, on the plea that the Popes do not exercise in them the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me.' […] If the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." (AAS, vol. XXXXII, p. 568.)
[10] Catechism of Saint Pius X, Part One, Chapter 10, paragraph 2.
[11] Bernard Lucien, "L'autorité magistérielle de Vatican II," Sedes Sapientiæ, no. 119, March 2012, p. 7. This study was at the time praised by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and appreciated by Bishop Bernard Fellay, then Superior General of the SSPX.
[12] Father Gleize, "Les sacres du 1er juillet 2026," La Porte Latine, February 11, 2026.
[13] Cf. La Rédaction, "Did Archbishop Lefebvre Accept Religious Liberty?," Sedes Sapientiæ, no. 31, Winter 1990, pp. 41–45; "Archbishop Lefebvre's Signature at the Second Vatican Council," no. 35, Winter 1991, pp. 33–45. Archbishop Lefebvre's official biographer acknowledged the accuracy of what we affirm; cf. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre: Une vie, Clovis, 2002, pp. 331–334.
[14] It was not until 1976 that the small book J'accuse le Concile! appeared, published by Éditions Saint-Gabriel in Switzerland.
[15] Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, op. cit., pp. 352–353.
[16] Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, op. cit., pp. 536–537.
[17] Instruction Donum Veritatis, May 24, 1990, nos. 24, 28, and 30.
[18] Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, August 6, 1993, no. 110.
[19] The case of Father Georges de Nantes stands apart. But it may be said that he was not a significant representative of the traditionalist movement, which he opposed on many points.
[20] Father Berto adds: "By putting 'the Council' on trial and lumping everything it produced 'into the same bag,' you are placing yourself in a poor position. I think it is better — because it is more accurate in itself, and more opportune in your case — to focus one's effort on the 'one-sided exploitation,' sometimes shamelessly dishonest, that is made in France of the promulgated Acts of the Council." (Letter of July 29, 1966, to Father Georges de Nantes, copy communicated to the author by Mother Marie-Dominique Renault, one of the founders of Pontcallec.)
[21] R.-Th. Calmel, Itinéraires, no. 153, May 1971, pp. 160–161.
[22] Itinéraires, no. 99, January 1966, pp. 22–23.
[23] Itinéraires, no. 338, December 1993, pp. 7–8.
[24] Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum [DS], nos. 3113–3117.
[25] "Le miracle," Itinéraires, Third Series, no. 3, Winter 1993–1994, p. 4.
[26] "In view of the practice of Councils and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The other things which the sacred Synod proposes, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme Magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Synod itself, which mind may be known either from the subject matter or from the language employed, according to the norms of theological interpretation." (Declaration of the Doctrinal Commission of March 6, 1964, reproduced in the Acts after the Constitution Lumen Gentium.)
[27] "Vatican II: A Pastoral Council. What Is Meant by 'Pastoral'?," Itinéraires, no. 248, December 1980, p. 107.
[28] Fathers Michel Simoulin, Alain Lorans and Philippe Marcille, Is the New Catechism of the Catholic Church Catholic? A Critical Examination, preface by Father Schmidberger, Éditions Fideliter, 1993, pp. 8 and 50.
[29] Cf. Commentary on the Second Book of the Sentences, distinctio 16, expositio textus; Summa Theologiae, I, q. 35, a. 2 ad 3; ST, I-II, Prologue.
[30] Father Marcille thus attributes to Saint Paul a doctrine very close to that which Saint Pius V condemned in 1567 in Baius: "All the works of unbelievers are sins, and the virtues of the philosophers are vices." (DS, no. 1925.)
[31] Father Michel Simoulin, in Is the New Catechism of the Catholic Church Catholic?, op. cit., p. 24.
[32] Supplement to no. 47 of Cor unum, March 1994.
[33] "The Splendor of Truth: Commentary on the Encyclical Veritatis Splendor," Le Sel de la Terre, no. 9, Summer 1994, pp. 32–68; citations pp. 35–36 and 67–68.
[34] "Écône Wants Unity Without Conceding Anything," interview with Bishop Fellay in La Liberté, May 11, 2001, published on the La Porte Latine website.
[35] Code of Canon Law, can. 212 §III: "According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons."
[36] "It Is Possible to Proceed with the Episcopal Consecrations Announced for July 1, 2026, Without Committing Schism or an Act of Disobedience," article published February 11, 2026, on La Porte Latine.
[37] In addition to key passages from Dignitatis Humanae (DH 2), Unitatis Redintegratio (UR 3), and Nostra Aetate (NA 2) — which have been partially corrected by the post-conciliar Magisterium — one may also cite pastoral and disciplinary decisions that ultimately proved to be of little fruit or even harmful: such as the creation of a permanent married and non-continent diaconate that had never existed among Latins (LG 24); the aggiornamento of religious orders launched with somewhat confused directives (PC 2–4), while the traditional doctrine on the states of perfection was not recalled (LG 43–47).
[38] This judgment must be qualified beginning in the 1980s with the arrival of Cardinal Ratzinger in Rome.
[39] For example, the Russian Orthodox Church began in 2011 the "Program of 200 New Churches in Moscow." Since that date, 152 churches have been placed in service in the capital. Elsewhere in Russia, at least five new cathedrals have been consecrated.
[40] Motu Proprio of Saint John Paul II Ecclesia Dei, July 2, 1988, no. 5c.
[41] Interview cited above.
[42] "Resumption of the Protocol of Agreement in the Light of the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei," Rome, July 6, 1988, no. 3.2: "In view of the particular situations referred to, ordination of a bishop from within these groups."
[43] Cf. L.-M. de Blignières, "A Canonical Jurisdiction Dedicated to the Ancient Latin Rite," II: Progressive discernment of the canonical solution of a dedicated ecclesiastical jurisdiction, Sedes Sapientiæ, no. 165, September 2023, pp. 20–30.
[44] Interview with Bishop Fellay reproduced in Fideliter, March–April 2001, La Porte Latine, March 1, 2001.
[45] Jean Madiran, "Duo dubia," Itinéraires, no. 330, February 1989, pp. 24–25. Regarding an alleged change of position by Jean Madiran on the consecrations (based on a brief passage in a documentary), Béatrice Doyer, who was very close to Jean Madiran at the end of his life and organized his funeral, wrote on March 26, 2022: "Whether regarding the events of 1988, his positions, or his analysis in the years that followed those events, Jean was always very clear on the subject of the consecrations, and in my view he never changed. The documentary, it seems to me, was drawing on phrases taken out of context."
[46] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, VI, 45.
