Priests like this can quote ++Lefebvre, but they can never defend him. Lefebvre’s objection is with the intention of a N.O. Minister, but the Holy Office decisions of 1872 regarding the validity of Methodist baptisms in Oceania disprove his understanding of a defect of intention. Though we should cut him some slack; things are easier now to research with online libraries and the like. As Clark notes, “Defect of ministerial intention must be judged a posteriori in individual cases;” (DFAO, p.6). Such a blanket statement as that of Lefebvre’s does not hold.
Fr. Pagliarani seems profoundly sad because the heretical usurper of the Sacred Throne of St. Peter has not blessed their actions and has declared them outside the communion of the unholy, man-worshiping, immorality-condoning, and religiously disunited society that he commands.
On the other hand, I am sure many of us feel profoundly sad when we read this sermon because we are reminded once again truly how much the Society has fallen and of all the good things that its liberal leadership has forsaken in these past decades.
It is telling a lot, what saddens someone, isn't it.
“They had denied the state of necessity for the consecrations of Bishop Williamson; they now assert it for themselves…”
Is the ‘New Order’ gradually being normalized or will it remain extraordinary? As for the Swiss Bishop Schrieber’s accusation against ‘bitter zeal’, it’s just gaslighting against zeal in general.
P.S. ‘...the advice they had received from the branding firm they consulted: “Emphasize positive communication; criticism is seen as a negative strategy.”’ Why am I not surprised? How many hundreds of thousands of pew punter’s pounds have gone into perfidious pockets to keep this ‘parley’ with pirates going?
It's difficult to see where the SSPX captains think they are heading. A hydra seems to be their consultant.
This phrase, and a similar one from Archbishop Lefebvre quoted in the sermon, are disturbing.
Theologians since the third century, (the baptismal controversy with St Cyprian, to be precise), have understood that heretics and schismatics can confer valid sacraments, i.e., have "the intention of doing what the church does."
Theologians will sometimes add that a Jewish doctor could validly baptize under certain conditions.
This notion of a universal doubt about ministerial intention in the NO is wrong. There is no basis for it whatsoever in Dogmatic or Moral Theology. A Protestant minister could deny that baptism takes away original sin moments before performing a valid baptism. This is what all Catholic theologians of repute used to understand.
Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong if he wasn't misquoted by the orator.
Please, please go back to objective theology (auctores probati). Alhough he was a great theologian at his best, Archbishop Lefebvre should not be used as an auctoritas about matters better left to approved theologians and their many De Sacramentis tracts.
Abp. Lefebvre was not mistaken because there is an important distinction you have not taken into account: the need to use a Catholic rite to be assured of validity, because the intention is apparent from the rite itself. Please carefully read this quote from Pope Leo XIII (Apostolicae Curae, 33):
"A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, **provided the Catholic rite be employed**. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament."
We know that the Modernists do not employ Catholic rites but that they have changed them. In certain sacraments they retained the essential Catholic form, which means that they are valid (e.g. Baptism, Confession), but in the rites of Holy Orders they changed the rite in such a way to deliberately remove every single mention of the powers that pertain to the sacrament - in priestly ordination: to offer Mass in propitiation for sins, and to absolve sins (except an optional mention in the Homily), in episcopal consecration: to confirm, to ordain priests, to consecrate altars and churches and to consecrate bishops. The chief architect of those changes (Bugnini) even said that the reason was to remove any obstacles to the participation of heretics. So, for example, a Catholic priest celebrating the N.O. liturgy could interpret it in a Catholic way (since various Catholic elements were retained, even an imitation of the Roman Canon, optionally), and a heretic celebrating the N.O. could interpret it in a heretical way. In other words, they made the rites of the sacraments an instrument of ecumenical false "unity", so that the same words and rites mean different things to different people, which is an intolerable ambiguity of the very nature of the rite which creates doubt in the intention of the minister (Does that particular priest intend to celebrate Mass, or a Protestant-like service? Does that bishop intend to ordain sacrificing priests, or merely men who preside over the community? Does he intend to consecrate sacramental bishops, or merely governors over a particular diocese?).
Even if we were to ignore the profound changes in the form and to adopt the hypothesis that the new rite is valid when there is the correct intention, in most cases the faithful would not know whether they were dealing with a valid priest or bishop because they would not know what the intention was of the person who ordained and/or consecrated them, and often neither would those who received such an ordination or consecration, so there would be a mixture of valid and invalid priests and bishops, valid and invalid sacraments. No longer could a Catholic be secure by relying on the intention apparent from the rite because it has been taken away.
Thank you Mr Collorafi. I believe your approach is that of Canon Gregorius Hesse who was a close collaborator with the Lefebvrite SSPX and was told by the Archbishop himself, and others, that conditional re-ordination was not necessary (indeed the Canon very vigorously stood on his priestly dignity) because matter, form and intention were clearly demonstrable in his case (Latin NO consecration by Cardinal Stickler). The canon's lectures online are a great source of precise distinctions and therefore, of peace or a spur to action.
As an aside, this priests adds, later in the sermon:
“Archbishop Lefebvre had established the following principle of action: no practical agreement without doctrinal agreement.
In 2012, under the pretext of prudent adaptation to circumstances, the SSPX authorities decided to cast this principle aside. Despite the examples of the affiliated institutes, all of which ended in failure, the SSPX believed it could convert the modernist authorities from within.
Dismissing—sometimes violently—all those who advised them not to deviate from Archbishop Lefebvre’s prudent stance, the SSPX authorities spent 14 years trying to curry favor with the modernists in Rome. And to what end? Fourteen years later, here they are once again falsely excommunicated, and all the few privileges they had managed to obtain have been revoked.
On July 1, 2026, the SSPX proved right all those who, for 14 years, had sought to dissuade them from this dead-end path of reconciliation with modernist Rome. It emerges from this attempt weakened and deeply divided, no longer truly knowing how to justify either their position or their consecrations, and responsible for countless injustices and sufferings inflicted upon good faithful and priests who simply wanted to remain faithful to the teachings of their founder, Archbishop Lefebvre.”
As I watched the video feed of those impressive consecration ceremonies, with many close-ups of +Fellay and the occasional glimpse of one Fr Niklaus Pfluger - and others - I could not help but recall the vindictive nastiness of their treatment of +Williamson; repeated memory flashes of conversations I had with him about that disgraceful letter to him by Fr Pfluger in particular ( https://tinyurl.com/59ywhuy2 ) . He was always reserved - even reluctant - to talk about such things but one phrase sticks hard in my memory: as I pressed him on Fr Pfluger and that letter, he described him simply as 'Fellay's attack-dog'.
I also met Fr Pagliarani a few years ago when he visited an SSPX gathering in Knock, Ireland. It was at the very end of the 2 day event. I was leaving but wished to thank Fr P in person for his Masses, sermons etc. He was seated at a large round table in a crowded hall in conversation with fellow priests and members. I had the temerity to interrupt whilst standing and asked if I might have a brief word. He insisted that I sit down. I was deeply impressed by his humble demeanour and the things he said during a conversation of about 5 minutes.
I am humbled to have known +Williamson personally and hope I will always be ready to acknowledge my profound spiritual indebtedness to him.
So... as can be imagined, all this leaves me with a profound sense of unease because what was done to +Williamson by those running the SSPX though the early 2000's is very difficult to forgive.
Priests like this can quote ++Lefebvre, but they can never defend him. Lefebvre’s objection is with the intention of a N.O. Minister, but the Holy Office decisions of 1872 regarding the validity of Methodist baptisms in Oceania disprove his understanding of a defect of intention. Though we should cut him some slack; things are easier now to research with online libraries and the like. As Clark notes, “Defect of ministerial intention must be judged a posteriori in individual cases;” (DFAO, p.6). Such a blanket statement as that of Lefebvre’s does not hold.
Fr. Pagliarani seems profoundly sad because the heretical usurper of the Sacred Throne of St. Peter has not blessed their actions and has declared them outside the communion of the unholy, man-worshiping, immorality-condoning, and religiously disunited society that he commands.
On the other hand, I am sure many of us feel profoundly sad when we read this sermon because we are reminded once again truly how much the Society has fallen and of all the good things that its liberal leadership has forsaken in these past decades.
It is telling a lot, what saddens someone, isn't it.
“They had denied the state of necessity for the consecrations of Bishop Williamson; they now assert it for themselves…”
Is the ‘New Order’ gradually being normalized or will it remain extraordinary? As for the Swiss Bishop Schrieber’s accusation against ‘bitter zeal’, it’s just gaslighting against zeal in general.
P.S. ‘...the advice they had received from the branding firm they consulted: “Emphasize positive communication; criticism is seen as a negative strategy.”’ Why am I not surprised? How many hundreds of thousands of pew punter’s pounds have gone into perfidious pockets to keep this ‘parley’ with pirates going?
It's difficult to see where the SSPX captains think they are heading. A hydra seems to be their consultant.
"Doubts... due to the minister's intention."
This phrase, and a similar one from Archbishop Lefebvre quoted in the sermon, are disturbing.
Theologians since the third century, (the baptismal controversy with St Cyprian, to be precise), have understood that heretics and schismatics can confer valid sacraments, i.e., have "the intention of doing what the church does."
Theologians will sometimes add that a Jewish doctor could validly baptize under certain conditions.
This notion of a universal doubt about ministerial intention in the NO is wrong. There is no basis for it whatsoever in Dogmatic or Moral Theology. A Protestant minister could deny that baptism takes away original sin moments before performing a valid baptism. This is what all Catholic theologians of repute used to understand.
Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong if he wasn't misquoted by the orator.
Please, please go back to objective theology (auctores probati). Alhough he was a great theologian at his best, Archbishop Lefebvre should not be used as an auctoritas about matters better left to approved theologians and their many De Sacramentis tracts.
Mr. Collorafi,
Abp. Lefebvre was not mistaken because there is an important distinction you have not taken into account: the need to use a Catholic rite to be assured of validity, because the intention is apparent from the rite itself. Please carefully read this quote from Pope Leo XIII (Apostolicae Curae, 33):
"A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, **provided the Catholic rite be employed**. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament."
We know that the Modernists do not employ Catholic rites but that they have changed them. In certain sacraments they retained the essential Catholic form, which means that they are valid (e.g. Baptism, Confession), but in the rites of Holy Orders they changed the rite in such a way to deliberately remove every single mention of the powers that pertain to the sacrament - in priestly ordination: to offer Mass in propitiation for sins, and to absolve sins (except an optional mention in the Homily), in episcopal consecration: to confirm, to ordain priests, to consecrate altars and churches and to consecrate bishops. The chief architect of those changes (Bugnini) even said that the reason was to remove any obstacles to the participation of heretics. So, for example, a Catholic priest celebrating the N.O. liturgy could interpret it in a Catholic way (since various Catholic elements were retained, even an imitation of the Roman Canon, optionally), and a heretic celebrating the N.O. could interpret it in a heretical way. In other words, they made the rites of the sacraments an instrument of ecumenical false "unity", so that the same words and rites mean different things to different people, which is an intolerable ambiguity of the very nature of the rite which creates doubt in the intention of the minister (Does that particular priest intend to celebrate Mass, or a Protestant-like service? Does that bishop intend to ordain sacrificing priests, or merely men who preside over the community? Does he intend to consecrate sacramental bishops, or merely governors over a particular diocese?).
Even if we were to ignore the profound changes in the form and to adopt the hypothesis that the new rite is valid when there is the correct intention, in most cases the faithful would not know whether they were dealing with a valid priest or bishop because they would not know what the intention was of the person who ordained and/or consecrated them, and often neither would those who received such an ordination or consecration, so there would be a mixture of valid and invalid priests and bishops, valid and invalid sacraments. No longer could a Catholic be secure by relying on the intention apparent from the rite because it has been taken away.
Thank you Mr Collorafi. I believe your approach is that of Canon Gregorius Hesse who was a close collaborator with the Lefebvrite SSPX and was told by the Archbishop himself, and others, that conditional re-ordination was not necessary (indeed the Canon very vigorously stood on his priestly dignity) because matter, form and intention were clearly demonstrable in his case (Latin NO consecration by Cardinal Stickler). The canon's lectures online are a great source of precise distinctions and therefore, of peace or a spur to action.
Stickler was himself consecrated in the new doubtful form in 1983.
++Lefebvre was inconsistent must be the conclusion.
While doubts are one thing, the reality of the words of consecration can't be denied - Montini the Monster's Epsicopal consecrations are a farce.
As an aside, this priests adds, later in the sermon:
“Archbishop Lefebvre had established the following principle of action: no practical agreement without doctrinal agreement.
In 2012, under the pretext of prudent adaptation to circumstances, the SSPX authorities decided to cast this principle aside. Despite the examples of the affiliated institutes, all of which ended in failure, the SSPX believed it could convert the modernist authorities from within.
Dismissing—sometimes violently—all those who advised them not to deviate from Archbishop Lefebvre’s prudent stance, the SSPX authorities spent 14 years trying to curry favor with the modernists in Rome. And to what end? Fourteen years later, here they are once again falsely excommunicated, and all the few privileges they had managed to obtain have been revoked.
On July 1, 2026, the SSPX proved right all those who, for 14 years, had sought to dissuade them from this dead-end path of reconciliation with modernist Rome. It emerges from this attempt weakened and deeply divided, no longer truly knowing how to justify either their position or their consecrations, and responsible for countless injustices and sufferings inflicted upon good faithful and priests who simply wanted to remain faithful to the teachings of their founder, Archbishop Lefebvre.”
As I watched the video feed of those impressive consecration ceremonies, with many close-ups of +Fellay and the occasional glimpse of one Fr Niklaus Pfluger - and others - I could not help but recall the vindictive nastiness of their treatment of +Williamson; repeated memory flashes of conversations I had with him about that disgraceful letter to him by Fr Pfluger in particular ( https://tinyurl.com/59ywhuy2 ) . He was always reserved - even reluctant - to talk about such things but one phrase sticks hard in my memory: as I pressed him on Fr Pfluger and that letter, he described him simply as 'Fellay's attack-dog'.
I also met Fr Pagliarani a few years ago when he visited an SSPX gathering in Knock, Ireland. It was at the very end of the 2 day event. I was leaving but wished to thank Fr P in person for his Masses, sermons etc. He was seated at a large round table in a crowded hall in conversation with fellow priests and members. I had the temerity to interrupt whilst standing and asked if I might have a brief word. He insisted that I sit down. I was deeply impressed by his humble demeanour and the things he said during a conversation of about 5 minutes.
I am humbled to have known +Williamson personally and hope I will always be ready to acknowledge my profound spiritual indebtedness to him.
So... as can be imagined, all this leaves me with a profound sense of unease because what was done to +Williamson by those running the SSPX though the early 2000's is very difficult to forgive.