SSPX head says ‘catastrophic’ Pope Francis decisions would justify new bishops

(LifeSiteNews) — Father Davide Pagliarani, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, addressed questions surrounding episcopal consecrations and the Church’s present crisis during a December 13 talk in Friedrichshafen, Germany, urging prayer, patience, and what he called “supernatural prudence.”

Speaking in French and translated at points into German, Pagliarani told those present that he would not offer “dates or names” regarding future consecrations, instead asking the faithful to take the matter up as a serious prayer intention. The address was attended by senior SSPX figures, including former Superior Generals Bishop Bernard Fellay and Father Franz Schmidberger.

Pagliarani framed the discussion around the question of a “state of necessity,” recalling that in 1988 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre judged such a state to exist in the wake of the 1986 Assisi interreligious meeting. He argued that the situation has only intensified since then, particularly in light of the pontificate of Francis.

“After the pontificate of Pope Francis,” Pagliarani said, that period contained decisions that were “epochal, catastrophic … and which remain.”

He added that “his pontificate, from beginning to end, represents and expresses this state of necessity – which in general, independent of the consecrations, justifies the apostolate of the society.”

While noting that Francis has since died, he insisted that the effects of those decisions endure. In his assessment, the entire pontificate “represents and expresses this state of necessity,” a condition that, he said, already justifies the society’s apostolate independently of any question of consecrations.

He defined the state of necessity in concrete terms:

When we enter a normal church, an ordinary, common parish, we unfortunately no longer find today the guarantees of finding the necessary means to work out our salvation: the preaching of truth, and the sacraments.

According to Pagliarani, this reality is “much easier to observe” today than it was in 1988.

Turning to Lefebvre’s actions, Pagliarani described the 1988 consecrations not merely as a bold decision, but as “an act of virtue” and, more precisely, “an act of supernatural prudence.” He stressed that Lefebvre waited, prayed, and acted publicly only when the moment was ripe, despite significant disagreement at the time.

“The more time passes,” he said, “the wider is the camp of those who recognize” the value of that act. He emphasised that the SSPX does not act in defiance of the Church, but to serve her, even when using “extraordinary means” proportionate to the gravity of the crisis.

The 1988 episcopal consecrations resulted in a declaration of an automatic excommunication on the part of Lefebvre, his co-consecrator Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, and the four men consecrated. The validity of this excommunication was always contested by the Society of St Pius X. In 2009, several years after the deaths of the consecrators, the Vatican declared that the excommunication of the remaining four men had been lifted. Since then, two of the bishops have died, leaving only Bishops Bernard Fellay and Alfonso de Galarreta.

If further consecrations were ever to take place, Pagliarani said, the society would need to prepare not only arguments and ceremonies, but “hearts,” through prayer and spiritual readiness. Any such step, he added, would be undertaken for the good of the Church herself, not merely for the society’s internal needs.

Pagliarani concluded by reaffirming continuity within the SSPX: when the time comes, the society would explain its actions to Rome and to the faithful “in the greatest transparency.” The SSPX’s spirit, he said, “is the same as always,” likening it to a rocket that may change speed or altitude, but remains the same rocket.

Fr. Davide Pagliarani’s address

Translated with the help of AI and checked by a French speaker.

“The future belongs to God, and to Eternal Truth.”

It’s a million-dollar question, it’s a question… Of course, I risk disappointing most of you. I’m not here to give dates or names, but certainly to entrust you with this prayer intention.

So what can we say? First, the question of the state of necessity. Is there today a state of necessity, as in ’88? If you remember, Archbishop Lefebvre considered the ecumenical meeting of ’86 in Assisi somewhat a sign of providence.

Today, especially after the pontificate of Pope Francis, a pontificate that contains decisions which were… epochal, catastrophic… and which remain. Pope Francis has entered into eternity, but all these decisions remain. For my part, I believe his pontificate, from beginning to end, represents and expresses this state of necessity – which in general, independent of the consecrations, justifies the apostolate of the society.

This is very important to understand.

And this state of necessity, concretely – because we must always return to these principles – the state of necessity is the fact that when we enter a normal church, an ordinary, common parish, we unfortunately no longer find today the guarantees of finding the necessary means to work out our salvation. The preaching of truth, and the sacraments. This, I would say, is much easier to observe, to demonstrate today than in ’88.

In this extremely delicate question, we would like as much as possible to follow the supernatural prudence of Archbishop Lefebvre. What Archbishop Lefebvre did in ’88 is an act of virtue. I would say more than that, it’s an act of supernatural prudence which shows, I would say, his docility to the Holy Spirit. It wasn’t so obvious: not everyone agreed in ’88 with this decision.

Archbishop Lefebvre knew how to wait, knew how to pray; the matter matured well, and when the moment came, he made his decision in a clear, noble, and public manner, explaining the reasons. And we would like, as much as possible, to imitate this supernatural prudence of Archbishop Lefebvre.

It’s an act by which Archbishop Lefebvre made it work (sic). The more time passes, the more… the camp of those who recognize them is wide, wider. It’s an act that was done, accomplished with the Spirit, to serve the Church. That’s what’s very important. That’s what must be well explained to all new faithful. Everything the society does, it is not a challenge to the Church. It’s a way to serve the Church, and I would say – to return to the consecrations – if one day we arrive there, we must not only prepare the ceremony, give the apologetic reasons, if I may say; we must prepare hearts.

It’s a grace, it’s a grace, and above all it’s something, once again, that we accomplish for the good of the Church herself. It’s something that goes beyond our immediate necessity. Why? Because the society itself is a work that exists to serve the Church, certainly with extraordinary means, but which are proportionate to the gravity of the crisis. It’s very important, I think, to prepare the heart in prayer.

And that’s it.

Certainly, when the time comes, the society will make its approaches to the Holy See to explain the situation, the reasons, to explain our spirit; and of course when the time comes, in the greatest transparency, everything will be explained to the faithful; what we say, what we do, and in what spirit.

But I would say the spirit; you already know it, I think, with what we’ve just said, you can already grasp that the spirit of the society is the same as always. Yes, and this rocket changes speed, changes altitude a bit, but it’s always the same rocket.

I think that’s the whole beauty of today, it’s really to feel that the society has remained faithful to the reasons for which it was founded. And the person of Father Schmidberger and Bishop Fellay in particular, was no less so.