Considerations Sine Ira et Studio on the Ad Petri Sedem Pilgrimage
Roberto de Mattei
Now that the polemics that arose in the heat of the moment have settled, let us attempt to offer some dispassionate considerations, sine ira et studio, as the Romans used to say, on the fifteenth Peregrinatio ad Petri Sedem, held in Rome from October 23 to 25, 2026.
The Roman pilgrimage is organized by the Coetus Internationalis Summorum Pontificum, chaired by Christian Marquant. It takes place each year at the end of October and concludes on the Sunday of Christ the King, according to the traditional liturgical calendar. Friday is devoted to the Paix Liturgique conference and to solemn Vespers; Saturday constitutes the central moment of the gathering, with the procession and prayer at Saint Peter's. In several editions, and again in 2025, the pilgrimage was also able to include the celebration of Mass in the Vatican Basilica.
This year, however, Mass was not authorized in Saint Peter's and was held, as a Missa Praelatitia, in the Basilica of Saint Mary Major. To this first denial was added a second, concerning the entry of the procession into the Vatican Basilica, for the first time in fifteen years.
The Vatican journalist Diane Montagna and the blog Messainlatino have published the correspondence exchanged between the organizers of the pilgrimage and the Holy See in the months preceding the event. It consists of two letters, sent on August 7 and September 30, 2026 by Archbishop Paolo Rudelli, Substitute for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State, to Father Claude Barthe, chaplain of the pilgrimage. The letters respond to the requests that the French priest had addressed on June 12, 2026 to Pope Leo XIV, and on September 8 to Archbishop Rudelli himself, seeking authorization to celebrate Mass in the Vatican Basilica or, at the very least, to enter Saint Peter's collectively in order to pray at the tomb of the Apostle.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, O.R.C., Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Most Holy Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan, has also stated that he personally presented to Pope Leo XIV a request to celebrate a Pontifical Mass in Saint Peter's, during the private audience the Pontiff granted him on December 18, 2025.
There was, then, a dialogue with the Holy See, but the requests of the pilgrimage's organizers received a negative response. This provoked bitterness and fueled numerous discussions about who bears responsibility for the restrictions.
The principal office that prohibited the various activities of the pilgrimage was certainly the Vatican Secretariat of State, in the person of the Substitute, but it seems difficult to believe that the prohibition did not have the approval of Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin and of Pope Leo XIV, since this was a matter inevitably destined to provoke controversy. The view that the Vatican authorities have shown themselves willing to open the doors to everyone except the defenders of Tradition appears, in this case at least, inadequate. The Ad Petri Sedem pilgrimage of last year had in fact its culminating moment in the solemn Pontifical Mass celebrated on October 25 by Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke at the Altar of the Chair of Saint Peter. At that time, both the Pope and the Secretary of State were the same persons. What, then, has changed?
The most logical explanation points to an event that falls between October 2025 and October of this year: the episcopal consecrations of the Society of Saint Pius X, which took place on July 1, 2026 at Écône without a pontifical mandate, with the consequent excommunication of those who carried out the schismatic act. What has happened cannot be underestimated, because it has introduced a laceration not only within the ecclesial body but also within what is called the traditionalist world.
Luigi Casalini has described the Secretariat of State's refusal as an assist objectively handed to the Society of Saint Pius X — that is, a choice that would end by strengthening the position of those who consider dialogue between the faithful attached to the traditional liturgy and the Holy See to be useless. The observation identifies a real problem. When a pilgrimage that intends to manifest its attachment to the See of Peter encounters such obstacles, it is not easy to explain to the participants the reasons for the trust they must maintain toward ecclesiastical authorities. Cardinal Parolin and his collaborators should reflect on the possible "boomerang effect" of their decisions, at a moment when the number of priests and faithful drawing close to the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X is growing, not diminishing.
On the other hand, the centrality which the Coetus Internationalis attributed to Bishop Athanasius Schneider, confirmed as the principal celebrant of the pilgrimage, surely offered the Secretariat of State an argument for stiffening its position. The public statements of the Auxiliary Bishop of Astana in favor of the Society of Saint Pius X in fact gave his presence a prominence that went beyond the liturgical function. Bishop Schneider spoke out on the Écône consecrations on March 9 and June 4, 2026 and, after the event, again on August 17. In the three interventions he maintained a consistent position, always supporting the reasons of the Society and the wrongs of the Vatican. On March 9, he asked the Pope to authorize the consecrations even before the resolution of the doctrinal controversies, asserting that the lack of a mandate would not make them schismatic. On June 4, he presented the Society as a providential help for the Church and a possible excommunication as a grave pastoral error. On August 17, he sought to offer a theological and moral justification for the act performed, appealing to the primacy of divine law over ecclesiastical norms. In a subsequent interview on October 13, ten days before the pilgrimage, the bishop reiterated that "with the passing of history, the contribution of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X will later be regarded as beneficial for the whole Church." His position leaves no room for misunderstanding.
The organizers were careful to specify that the faithful gathered in Rome are not "Lefebvrians." But the episcopal face of the pilgrimage was that of a bishop favorable to the Society of Saint Pius X in its conflict with Rome.
It is true that Bishop Schneider had been designated as celebrant many months before the episcopal consecrations of 2026. His subsequent statements should, however, have prompted the organizers to reflect on whether it was advisable to confirm that assignment. Bishop Schneider himself could have considered stepping back, leaving to another bishop the leadership of the pilgrimage, rather than playing the role of guide of the Populus Summorum Pontificum during the three Roman days.
The prevailing chaos does not annul the principle of causality, according to which every act has consequences. Bishop Schneider certainly has the right to set forth his own judgments. The organizers, however, bear in turn the responsibility to ask themselves whether those judgments are compatible with the representative function he is called to fulfill.
In fact, Bishop Schneider's leadership offered the Vatican authorities the possibility of interpreting the pilgrimage as a demonstration of support, at least indirect, for the Society's line. This does not mean that this interpretation was well founded, nor that it could justify restrictions extended to all the pilgrims. It does mean, however, that prudence requires consideration of the delicacy of certain choices, especially in a context marked by mistrust and controversy, such as that in which the world attached to Tradition finds itself today.
