A Growing Apprehension

+Schneider Provides the Pretext

Introduction:

Last week, I offered some commentary on the recent letter of Fr. Pagliarani to Cardinal Fernandez, in which the former rejects the offer to reenter into pointless doctrinal discussions in lieu of moving forward with the SSPX’s announced episcopal consecrations, slated for July 1.

In the course of that commentary, I expressed both surprise and approval at this response of Fr. Pagliarani, noting that he sounded very much like the post-1988 Lefebvre, as both tone and content seemed to represent an abrupt change from that which has emanated from Menzingen these past 15 years, and contrasted sharply with the “branded” non-combative demeaner which has characterized the SSPX throughout the long ralliement in pursuit of a practical accord with modernist Rome.

But for all that, I also issued a caveat: The possibility that this could all be calculated, pre-scripted “Kabuki theatre” (i.e., disingenuous communiques, letters, and interventions designed and released to create the impression of authentic opposition between the two sides, whereas in reality and behind closed doors, an agreement has already been hammered out well ahead of time).

In this article, I’m going to explain my growing apprehension regarding this possibility, while still holding out hope that the contents of Fr. Pagliarani’s letter are sincere, and to be taken at face value.

I reject in advance any notion that it is somehow paranoid or uncharitable to explore the possibility that all is not as it seems, particularly in light of the documented compromises, changes, and contradictions which have typified the long SSPX ralliement to modernist Rome, both in my book, and in the Resistance Writings section of The Seraphim:

The husband of a known adulterous wife is not paranoid or uncharitable for questioning her intentions, motives, and actions, in light of past infidelities, but is instead dialed-in, with a heightened awareness to which others not party to the facts find unreasonable (but only on account of their ignorance). The same can be said of those who have not closely followed the long ralliement process of the SSPX over the last couple decades. Neither does an abrupt declaration of fidelity, as Fr. Pagliarani’s letter might be taken to represent, restore trust after 25 years of unfaithfulness. Time is needed to watch, heal, and prove oneself anew.

I say again what I said previously: Anything short of declared excommunications after the July 1 consecrations will suggest a prearranged agreement between Rome and Menzingen, with the latter already approved, subservient, and in the control of the former. I’ll lay out some corroborating observations which could be taken to enhance this suspicion, while reaffirming again my hope that I am wrong.

Concerns About an Abrupt Departure:

Since at least 1997 (with the commencement of the secret GREC meetings), the SSPX has pursued a practical accord with modernist Rome, despite doctrinal differences. The 2000 Pilgrimage to Rome at the conclusion of three years of secret meetings led to an agreement between +Fellay and +Castrillon de Hoyos to “proceed by stages” toward a practical accord. Thence began an incessant campaign of conferences regarding “Roman relations” to build expectations, and in the late 2000s, a branding campaign quietly initiated to gradually muzzle the combative tone in SSPX periodicals, and issue instructions to all SSPX priests (via promulgation of +Di Noia’s letter in the Cor Unum) to cease criticism of modernist Rome and Vatican II in order to begin improving relations in anticipation of an eventual accord. 2012 would see the beginning of a massive purge of those SSPX priests still clinging to +Lefebvre’s post-1988 refusal to consider a practical accord with unconverted Rome, including its best bishop. In 2015, the SSPX would condemn +Williamson for the unapproved episcopal consecration of +Faure. By 2019, the SSPX would even staff some of its own chapels with conciliar priests (Africa), and take in a conciliar bishop into its house in Wangs, Switzerland, who would begin providing sacramental acts for the faithful, even to the point of “consecrating” holy oils, and end up entombed alongside +Lefebvre in Econe.

For modernist Rome’s part, they (seemingly) reciprocated, with Summorum Pontificum in 2007, “freeing” the Latin Mass; the “lifting” of the excommunications in 2009; tacit permission for priestly ordinations; ordinary jurisdiction for confessions in 2015; recognition of marriages under humiliating and unnecessary conditions in 2017. More concerning than any of these is the strange 2015 Argentinian recognition, whereby the cardinal of that country officially recognized the SSPX as “Catholic” (ostensibly to alleviate visa issues for traveling priests), but never explaining how SSPX priests could be Catholic in Argentina, and non-catholic everywhere else.

Here’s what I’m getting at:

Am I to believe the SSPX is now suddenly turning its back on all this? A revolution within the Society decades in the making, which transformed the apostolate and reoriented it upon a new trajectory in preparation for reinsertion into the conciliar pantheon is now to simply be cast aside? 50 priests expelled or resigned, the loss of entire allied religious communities all over the world, the expulsion of +Williamson, everything described above in my book and in the Resistance Writings section, was all for nothing? 30 years of ralliement jettisoned in the blink of an eye with seemingly unapproved consecrations?

I would posit this is not normal behavior.

Of course, it could be as stated: The need for bishops might trump everything else, and the SSPX could be willing to lose it all in order to secure its continuity.

Concedo.

But in that case, there is a rather simple way to tell if this is true: From Rome’s side, we would not only expect declarations of excommunication, but also the revocation of jurisdiction for confessions and marriages, and the other various concessions granted to lure the SSPX in over the years.

And from the SSPX’s side, we would expect to see a corresponding unwinding of compromises, changes, and contradictions it was willing to make in pursuit of a practical accord: The cancellation of the branding campaign, a return to Lefebvre’s post-1988 position regarding the impossibility of a practical accord with unconverted Rome, rejecting collaboration with diocesan and indult clergy and communities, walking back its scandalous statements and declarations on Vatican II, the hermeneutic of continuity, etc.

We would also expect to see some humility from the SSPX, admitting the Resistance was correct after all, and perhaps even an attempt to repair relations with some of those it unjustly excluded.

If these things don’t transpire after the consecrations, and the status quo in SSPX-Roman relations is largely preserved, only an ideologue could fail to suspect the ralliement remains in place, and is in fact advanced rather than destroyed by these consecrations, and that this “Kabuki theatre” has all been a scripted deception to make the SSPX appear as though it is holding the line of Lefebvre and acting independent of Rome (i.e., to placate its own people), whereas the exact opposite is the case.

More on this last consideration now.

The Pretext: Rome’s “Charity” Will Avert Excommunications

The pretext for not excommunicating (as with not rescinding any of the other concessions/traps Rome has granted the SSPX) will be “charity.” Has not Fr. Pagliarani said that charity is the only way forward? Is not +Athanasius Schneider now agitating for Rome to approve these consecrations out of charity:

Further provisional pastoral measures granted to the SSPX for the spiritual good of so many exemplary Catholic faithful would stand as a profound testimony to the pastoral charity of the Successor of Peter. In doing so, Pope Leo XIV would open his paternal heart to those Catholics who, in a certain way, live on an ecclesiastical periphery, allowing them to experience that the Apostolic See is truly a Mother also for the SSPX.

Would not all the neo-SSPX feel all gooey inside about the “Holy Father” for his great “charity” (another win for him)?

Note how not only have Trad Inc. media outlets latched onto the “charity” spiel, and are now advocating that very approach for the “Holy Father,” but so is the SSPX, posting +Schneider’s appeal on their own website (See here)!

And would it not be in modernist Rome’s interest to maintain relations with the SSPX in order to continue to exert some kind of disintegrating and containment influence upon them, which they lose if excommunications transpire? It makes good sense that Rome will not want to torpedo all the inroads it has made with conciliarism into the SSPX. Neither will the SSPX want to forfeit all the privileges it has gained. All things considered, an approval is “best” for both sides so far as getting what they want is concerned. Conversely, an excommunication destroys everything (presuming the SSPX continues the unwinding process described above).

Conclusion:

For all these reasons, I’m beginning to wonder if the smart money shouldn’t be placed on there being no July declaration of excommunications. Quite the contrary, the consecrations are now beginning to appear as simply the next step in the long ralliement.

If the excommunications transpire, all is well.

We should pray for them.

But if for any pretext whatever (e.g., charity) the declaration of excommunications are not forthcoming, and the status quo between Rome and Menzingen is largely maintained, be assured this theatre has all been pre-scripted well in advance, and unmistakably points to an SSPX coached and controlled by apostate Rome.

Update (3/1/26):

+Thomas Aquinas, OSB (Resistance - Brazil) has now issued his own caveat, which is worth reading (republished here):

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2026/02/como-calificar-la-actividad-de-roma-en.html?m=1