Some trads will be familiar with the name and works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn because he was frequently referred to in Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments.1 Others might be familiar with the many conferences given at various times and places by Dr. David Allen White.2 And still others may only be familiar with his notorious 1978 Harvard University graduation speech, in which he roundly indicted the Western world for its materialism, and seemed to suggest it was heading right back to the Gulags he had survived in Russia.3

But although it is certain that The Gulag Archipelago was his most famous work, and that which was responsible for his name becoming familiar to Western readers, arguably his greatest work has been, by concerted and coordinated effort, hidden and obscured from view, for reasons which will become obvious.

The book is called “200 Years Together,” and was published in two volumes, in Russian, in 2001-2002, and covers the cohabitation of Russians and Jews from 1795-1995.

In Vol. I (titled “Before the Revolution”), we are given a cursory history of the origin of the Jews who emigrated to Russia, from their beginnings in Khazaria, their Judaizing within Russia once there, and their general activities until the revolution of 1917.

Vol. II recounts their post-revolutionary activities within the Soviet Union.

For years, I had searched for this book online, but until fairly recently, unexpurgated translations had only existed (somewhat surprisingly) in German and French. The reader will still search in vain for any such paper copies in English. No booksellers (brick and mortar or online) would carry it. And no websites which have attempted to make this manuscript available have remained online for long.

Other excellent works exposing the Jewish plot against Christian society abound (e.g., The Plot Against the Church by Pinay, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, or The International Jew by Ford), yet Solzhenitsyn’s book appears to be strictly verboten. It is THE book, before all others, to be forbidden. So while the others are simply maligned, and potential readers guilt-shamed into ignoring them, this one is to be eradicated from the public gaze.

All that said, I’d thought to have found a surprise breakthrough on Abe Books, which advertised a handsome red leatherbound single volume edition printed in India, but to my chagrin upon receiving it (and having paid handsomely for it), the table of contents revealed that nearly half of the entire book had been excised.

Take a look:

I had nearly given up hopes of ever getting my hands on a complete English translation over the next few years, until today, when I happily stumbled upon this webpage, which contains the whole manuscript!

I have also downloaded the complete PDF below for posterity, as it seems that websites and webpages which have attempted to make this document available are routinely removed or deleted:

Solzhenitsyn 200 Years Together Encrypted (1)

6.46MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

If The Seraphim should ever become unexpectedly inaccessible, you now know the reason.

I hope the potential readers of this work will not be so timid as to believe that a Nobel Prize winner was some cheap antisemite (the label assigned to all who have the intellectual boldness not to be satisfied with taking the guided tour).

If you even deigned to read nothing more than Ch. 1 (Vol. 1), you’ll know more than 99.9% of the world about Jewish history in Russia.

Since opening The Seraphim last July, we’ve posted just over 100 “Notes” (i.e., interesting blurbs which aren’t developed into full-length articles), and these are contained in the “Notes” section located at the top of the homepage banner.

For one reason or another, the Notes just don’t generate as much interest as regular articles. I’d be interested in hearing your speculations on why that might be, as it seems counterintuitive to me (i.e., +Williamson used to keep most of his Eleison Comments to one page precisely because he believed nobody read books or articles anymore. Most people just don’t have the patience and attention span).

Of the 100+ notes published in the last year, only five have generated more that 1,000 hits (i.e., a significantly lower ratio than the articles).

To draw some attention to this neglected section, I post the top 5 most viewed Notes (in reverse order), and I have to admit I would not have thought ANY of these would have made such a list, but here you go:

5. Pope St. Pius V’s Response to Sodomites

   9/7/25

   1,006 views

4. I’m Going Novus Ordo!

   1/11/26

   1.334 views

3. Restack

   “Taming the Tongue’s Deadly Power in Marriage: How Husbands and Wives Wound Each Other with Words”

   7/19/26

   1,530 Views

2. Anonymous Response of “Abenader” to The Remnant Regarding the term “Sedevacantism”

   11/20/25

   1,572 Views

1. My 1 Year-Old Refuting Conciliar Ecclesiology

   3/26/26

   1.839 Views

In November, 2022 I travelled to St. Mary’s, KS to interview +Williamson (who had gained entry into the United States from Mexico using a fake COVID Passport). It would be the last time His Lordship would step foot on American soil, and the last time I would ever see him.

The occasion for the interview, coming as it did in late 2022, was a review of the Resistance movement at its 10-year anniversary. However, the subject matter of the interview was the history of the SSPX ralliement to modernist Rome, going back to the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, and progressing to the (then) present.

The interview is therefore nearly four years-old, and in fact it is old news. So why post it here? Why now?

About a year or so after the interview was published on YouTube in 5 parts, Part 3 was banned. Fortunately, others had quickly uploaded it onto other video websites, where it survived. A year after that, Part 4 disappeared, likewise banned by YouTube.

As time passes by, these banned parts are becoming harder and harder to find, and although posting them here now seems a rather abrupt departure from the subject matter of my previous article, I had the inspiration to give this interview a home here, where I (and others) will be able to reference it from time to time.

The links below are all to the Odysee.com platform, and consequently will only function so long as that platform remains available (and does not remove the videos itself).

A more permanent PDF of the entire interview is also available below, for those who prefer to read, or would like to copy/paste quotes. The PDF doc notes where the various parts of the interview end:

Bishop Williamson Interview

668KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Part 1 of 5: Here

0:00 - What is the Resistance?
7:15 - Cracks form after +Lefebvre's death
14:00 - Is Resistance God's will, despite divisions?
20:45 - Lefebvre's principle of action in 1988
25:47 - Why they immediately began chasing legality
34:10 - More on why +Lefebvre changed in 1988
36:43 - Why conciliarists can't tolerate any Tradition
37:54 - Accordists deny existence of +Lefebvre's principle
42:46 - Why didn't the secret dissenters leave?
50:05 - From the magnet of Lefebvre and truth, to that of authority after he died
51:20 - Beginning the "prophecy" of Madame Rossiniere and +Fellay

Part 2 of 5: Here

0:00 - Mme. Rossiniere "prophesizes" to +Fellay (Continued)
2:48 - Rossiniere backlash causes +Fellay to keep GREC meetings secret?
10:08 - GREC meetings culminate in duplicitous pilgrimage to Rome
12:35 - +Fellay trying to remove +Williamson from Winona since 1999
15:41 - +Fellay condemns Campos accord (but continues working for one)
21:15 - Incessant conferences on relations with Rome to build desire
22:00 - +Fellay uses Fr. Celier's book for his blueprint
25:00 - The Holocaust Interview: A monkeywrench in +Fellay's plan
34:08 - +Fellay sidelines +Williamson to get a deal
43:27 - +de Galarreta's Albano "Reflections" show loyalty to company comes 1st
47:59 - +Fellay says he'll accept a practical accord, and sparks Resistance movement
50:08 - "Letter of the Three Bishops" to +Fellay

Part 3 of 5: Here

0:00 - The Letter of the Three Bishops
3:29 - +Fellay's response to The Letter
6:10 - Independent pockets was not the original Resistance plan
9:58 - April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration and SSPX General Chapter
11:13 - +Williamson to be expelled from SSPX
12:40 - +Williamson refuses option for pension/residence
14:57 - Fr. Pfeiffer creates poor image (also misconstrues +Fellay offer)
18:18 - +Williamson returns to Holocaust Interview: Its about truth
21:07 - +Williamson expelled for going to the rescue of Santa Cruz
23:14 - Fr. Pfluger's 2011 letter against +Williamson on the Holocaust
25:25 - Cognitive Dissonance - Selling the deal to yourself
27:55 - SSPX schisms reemerge within Resistance (Fr. Pfeiffer)
29:39 - Consecration of +Faure for the continuation of truth
36:29 - SSPX condemns the consecration as attack dogs for Rome
39:29 - Apostolate stabilized/sustained by truth, not organization
42:24 - The emergence of +Vigano
44:30 - Answering +Vigano criticism #1: Won't say "Jew"
45:40 - Answering +Vigano criticism #2: Opus Dei contacts.
51:05 - Ladislaus coins the "Vigano Effect" (continues into Part 4)

Part 4 of 5: Here

0:00 - Ladislaus and the "Vigano Effect" (Con't.)
4:30 - +Vigano Objection #3: Giving Trump a pass on the vax
11:19 - +Vigano objection #4: Support for Putin
16:20 - A subject which cannot be named
25:53 - +Vigano objection #5: Episcopal consecration
33:31 - New sacraments: From doubt to invalid intention
38:30 - +Vigano objection #6: Heading for sedevacantism?
44:15 - Final word on +Vigano (Overwhelmingly positive)
45:26 - Final word on Putin (Overwhelmingly positive)
49:20 - From Putin to the works of Oliver Stone

Part 5 of 5: Here

0:00 - The human element of the Church is destroyed.
1:30 - God will intervene to clean house by chastisement.
2:35 - You will have two weapons (Re: Rosary and Garabandal)
3:50 - Bishop Williamson's interesting defense of Garabandal.
5:36 - How will we withstand the chastisement?
6:30 - Pray 15 decades/day to protect your families and right the ship.

A. Introduction

Bishop Williamson once explained that in the Catholic Church, truth and authority are welded together, with the latter being in the service of the former. What would be the consequence, then, if the two became unhinged, and authority (or apparent authority) worked in opposition to the truth? How would men process, intellectually and spiritually, the divorce between the two, seeing that they could no longer remain in the service of both, since they were now pitted against each other? Pious souls would then be plunged into a state of intellectual and spiritual vexation:

“If I acknowledge these men are legitimate Church authorities, I must acknowledge that which I have heretofore rejected: That popes and councils can promulgate heresy in their official magisterial acts to the universal Church.”

A reasonably intelligent man will immediately apprehend the serious danger to his faith presented by accepting such a proposition, as it directly militates against the institution of the papacy (i.e., If a legitimate pope can teach heresy in his official magisterium, then the papacy itself is superfluous). He would then progress to realizing that if such could be the case, it also militates against the divinity of Jesus Christ, who would not only have instituted a superfluous institution in the papacy, but who’s prayers for Peter (ie., “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail thee not.”) have failed. Suddenly God is not all-powerful, and His will can fail. The mind will next question whether such a being could truly be considered divine: Was Jesus really God?

By going down this path, then, the faith is mortally wounded: The papacy, the Catholic religion, and the very divinity of Christ are all called into question.

One would think, then, that all reasonable men would flee such a trajectory. And yet, more often than not, the opposite is the case. They say within themselves:

“If I do not acknowledge these men as legitimate authorities, I do not see how my Catholic faith can survive the apparent demise of apostolicity, indefectibility, visibility, perpetual successors, etc., etc.”

Now the fact that for this latter position, there are doctrinally unassailable responses which resolve all these apparent and/or superficial objections, whereas in embracing the former position (i.e., accepting heretics as legitimate authorities), the faith of the believer in unavoidably doomed, is not of primary interest for this article. Rather, what garners our attention here is the cognitive dissonance which emerges in the souls of the attentive faithful, the dishonest means which are taken to suppress it, and the actual course of action which ought to be undertaken to vanquish dissonance outright, in order that the troubled believer may arrive at the truth.

B. Cognitive Dissonance

Before we can really discuss how cognitive dissonance operates and disturbs the souls of Catholics confronted by the contradictions manifested between the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar church, we must first define that term.

Cognitive dissonance is described as:

“a mental phenomenon in which people unknowingly or subconsciously hold fundamentally conflicting cognitions. Being confronted by situations that create this dissonance or highlight these inconsistencies motivates change in their cognitions or actions to reduce this dissonance, maybe by changing a belief, by explaining something away, or by taking actions that reduce perceived inconsistency.”2

Examples of such “conflicting cognitions” confronting Catholics at and after Vatican II might include the ecclesiology of Mystici Corporis Christii vs that of Lumen Gentium and Dominus Iesus, or the conciliar document Dignitatis Humanae professing a right to religious liberty vs Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Pius IX, Libertas Praestantissimum and Immortale Dei of Leo XIII denying precisely that claim.

In such cases, the Catholic is confronted by doctrinal contradiction, and per our definition of cognitive dissonance above, he looks for a solution to reduce this uncomfortable perplexity.

Some of the means he might entertain to resolve the dissonance could include seeking counsel, embarking upon diligent study, praying for light and peace, and if all else fails, acknowledging that the solution is beyond his powers of cognition, and abandoning himself to God (which might be, after all, precisely the reason God has permitted the dissonance to remain). All of these means would be honest and honorable.

There is, however, another means of resolving dissonance which is neither honest nor honorable, and unfortunately, if the history of the Catholic Church for the last 60 years is any indication, seems to be the preferred method, which we will call variously “crimethink” or “crimestop.”

C. Crimestop (or Crimethink) in “1984”

Readers familiar with Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984” will be familiar with the concept of crimestop/crimethink, though it was used for a different purpose in the novel than it is being used in the conciliar church today.

In the book, “crimestop” referred to a mental process by which the citizenry of Oceania protected themselves from involuntarily betraying secret opposition to the official party line propaganda of the totalitarian government by actually making themselves believe the most blatant falsehoods:

“In George Orwell’s 1984, crimestop is the mental discipline of instinctively halting any thought that could lead to thoughtcrime. It functions as a form of protective stupidity, where Party members train themselves to avoid dangerous ideas before they fully form.

Crimestop operates through several psychological mechanisms:

Instinctive Halt: The mind develops a “blind spot” whenever a dangerous thought appears. The process becomes automatic, like a reflex, stopping the thought at the threshold.

Willful Ignorance: It involves the power of not grasping analogies, failing to perceive logical errors, and misunderstanding simple arguments if they contradict Ingsoc (English Socialism).

Emotional Repulsion: Practitioners train themselves to feel bored or repelled by any train of thought that could lead to heresy, making dissent feel physically unpleasant.

Active Self-Censorship: Unlike passive ignorance, crimestop is an active effort to rewrite one’s own perception of reality to align with the Party, such as accepting that “the Party says the earth is flat” without questioning the evidence.”3

D. Crimestop (or the “Hermeneutic of Continuity”) in the Conciliar Church

At the Second Vatican Council, Fr. Ralph Wiltgen has documented in his book “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” the “outlets” by which the revolutionaries were able to convince formerly-traditional bishops to vote for documents which included doctrines contradicting the pre-conciliar magisterium, and which, precisely because of this contradiction, would normally have incited the emergence of cognitive dissonance:

The method was to revise voting procedures to allow a placet iuxta modum (i.e., voting yes, but with reservation) or submitting a modi (i.e., modification request) alongside their affirmative vote. In another famous incident, during the deliberations on Lumen Gentium, Paul VI intervened to add a nota explicativa praevia (i.e., an explanatory note) as a preamble to the document, in an attempt to assure the traditional bishops that collegiality was not intended to undermine the authority of the sovereign pontiff.

But all these devices were but stratagems intended to ease the consciences of bishops who otherwise would have resisted ambiguous, equivocal, and outright heretical doctrines by consoling themselves that they personally had held to the faith and not violated their consciences.

But those techniques only held good while the council was in session.

At the close of the council, 16 documents were promulgated which were likely satisfactory to none of the conservative or traditional bishops, yet all went along with them, despite containing doctrines condemned not only by their predecessors, but even themselves in former years.

Had not Cardinal Suenens gleefully declared that Vatican II was the French Revolution in the Church? Hadn’t Congar acknowledged that Dignitatis Humanae said the opposite of Pius IX’s Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors? Did not John Paul I admit in his biography (cited at the top of this article) that he had to “convince himself” that the Church had formerly been wrong in order to be at peace with what he obviously considered a new and contradictory doctrine?

The revolutionaries had succeeded in gaining the bishops’ votes at the council, but now how do they ease the internal tensions these bishops felt for what they were now responsible for foisting onto the faithful and their subordinate clergy (doctrines many of them did not believe, and which were destabilizing their faith)? It was a serious issue for the revolutionaries, because if they allowed cognitive dissonance to fester within the souls of these prelates, one day some of them might rebel against the conciliar church (think Lefebvre).

The “solution” was eventually provided by John Paul II, who stated the conciliar documents were to be read “in the light of Tradition,” and this theme was later developed by Cardinal Ratzinger, becoming known as the “hermeneutic of continuity.” Much like crimethink (in which the practitioner has trained himself in accepting glaring leaps of logic, not understanding analogies, not noticing contradictions, and feeling repulsed by any thought which might question the orthodoxy of Ingsoc Vatican II, or stop his mind at the precipice of any dangerous thought which might lead in that direction), it was a psychological artifice by which every contradiction could be interpreted as a “development:”

Newman said a contradiction could never be a development? What’s the problem? Congar said the preconciliar and postconciliar teachings say the opposite? That’s a development too! John Paul I had to make himself believe the preconciliar church was wrong? Well, no technique is perfect!

It was by this dishonest practice of self-deception that dissonance was relieved, and it has been the same dishonest promulgation of the hermeneutic of continuity that has sustained the entire conciliar edifice ever since.

Here is Bishop Williamson explaining the hermeneutic of continuity as only he can, in 2 minutes:

Combining the crimethink/hermeneutic method of cognitive dissonance dissipation to remove the negative internal rebuke of conscience for betrayal, alongside the spectacle of witnessing 2,000 (now 4,000+) of their brother bishops all refusing to point out the emperor is wearing no clothes has provided the necessary psychological support to ensure near unanimous unity in apostasy.

Our Lord had warned us that false shepherds would arise, and preach a false gospel. These men cannot (or will not) believe the reference pertains to them, even though they are semi-conscious of having deceived themselves into “believing” the new theology, taking refuge in the hermeneutic and gaining security through the assurance of numbers. But in fact, the beginning of the problem was that these men did not love the truth enough to stand up against the tide, as was their duty, and allowed their ears to be tickled by the enemy, who soothed them with these deceptive methods.

“Oh senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth?” (Gal. 3:10).

“Therefore, God shall send them an operation of error, to believe lying.” (2 Thess. 2:11).

E. Bewitching the Faithful

Vatican II was a shock to the consciences of all devout Catholics. No, not the liberal Catholics, but those pious souls who rightly made the practice of the faith their overarching duty in life, as was intended. Seeing the applecart overturned practically overnight was a destabilizing event in the lives of such persons: New sacraments, canon law, ecclesiology, vestments, feasts, omission of penances and feasts, etc. All of this threatened to upset the revolution, and inaugurate counterrevolusion.

The way to stop it was to pass crimethink down to the masses.

Surely many readers will have had this experience: Back in your Novus Ordo days, you asked a conciliar priest how Vatican II could change everything. But the priest (knowing what was at stake should he acknowledge a substantial mutation in the confession of the faith), replied, “Huh? Vatican II didn’t change anything!” Like me, you looked at such a priest bewildered, and he looked back at you with a smile, and explained variously either that the same religion was simply given a new expression to fit the modern times, or, that conciliarism was simply a development of doctrine, more explicitly expressing the faith.

Most people, at least of a conservative or traditionalist bent, upon hearing such an explanation, doubted it. Some embraced it in the same way as the bishops did, and have tranquilized themselves with the hermeneutic ever since. Others (like you and I) were plunged into intense cognitive dissonance, finding such answers blatantly false, unsatisfying, and creating within the soul a reticence to converse with such priests any longer. We saw them as false shepherds, and in fact they are.

But then the problem arises: If in fact there has been a substantial mutation of faith, and the Catholic Church (or the organization promoting itself as such) has morphed into something else which the Apostles and popes of the first 1900 years would not recognize as Catholicism, what does it imply for the faith?

How does one reconcile a rupture of faith with the credibility of the Catholic religion?

Clearly, one must either deny (despite all evidence to the contrary) that any substantial deviation has taken place, or, one must acknowledge the revolution and accept the consequence, and this is where the potential logjam occurs.

F. Facing the truth

It is at this point (i.e., acknowledging that a revolution in the Catholic Church has taken place), that men doctrinally unprepared to deal with the implications of that realization become intellectually vexed, and are plunged into cognitive dissonance, and it is a shame, because the torment and suffering of the vexed conscience is so unnecessary. The primary cause of perplexity is of course, a fear that if one arrives at the conclusion that public heretics instituting another religion under the pretext of modern Catholicism have betrayed the faith and apostatized, then the faith of the individual cannot survive, because it would be tantamount to defection of the Holy See (which isn’t supposed to be able to happen).

A nervousness or anxiety then develops from prolonged dissonance, which has driven some to the point of nervous breakdowns, and refuge is taken in a makeshift compromise position most commonly known as “recognize and resist” of either the SSPX/Resistance, or indult variety (depending on how advanced the doctrinal formation of the victim faithful is). I have great empathy for those seeking shelter by this means, as they do it not to betray the faith (as those we have discussed above have done), but to retain it. I myself was of this camp for nearly 25 years. I understand it from the inside out. And while I will not presume to paint all R&R Catholics (for they truly are Catholic) with a broad brush, I can say at least as regards myself, that there was always a distant semi-conscious or pre-conscious recognition that the sedevacantists might be right, but not knowing how to deal with the consequences of arriving openly at that conclusion, I resisted it as a threat from hell to be suppressed.

Without the doctrinal formation to understand how the credibility of the Catholic faith can survive in the face of an extended papal vacancy, I was as good as dead, spiritually. So even if the compromise and self-deception was significantly less than the conciliar bishops and many (I do not even say most) of the clergy and faithful, there was still a small intellectual obex which was jealously guarded, just as Winston in 1984 taught himself not to see logical leaps, contradictions, and not grasping analogies, etc. (not for fear of being liquidated by a tyranical government, but for fear of losing the faith).

G. Escaping the Dissonance

Before going further, it is important to recall that all of this is a consequence of an attack upon the Catholic Church by the devil. It was he who inspired the betrayal, and therefore it is he who (at least remotely) is the cause of the ensuing dissonance, knowing as only an angelic intelligence can, that the desire to escape dissonance would cause the overwhelming majority of Catholics to embrace a lie (i.e., crimethink/hermeneutic), thereby safeguarding and preserving the revolution in the Church.

The cure for the dissonance brought on by vexation of intellect is doctrinal formation: A man will recoil from a conclusion if he believes assenting to it will be ruinous for his faith, but he will be open to the conclusion if he can be brought to understand that the reasons he fears embracing it are illusory. This should be fairly obvious:

How can a man accept that these recent papal claimants are of (at least) doubtful legitimacy, if by doing so he believes he is simultaneously rejecting apostolicity, perpetual successors, indefectibility, visibility, etc.? Some way or another, he must be exposed to the doctrine of the classical theologians which address those issues and refute those superficial arguments. If he can be made to understand that, for one issue after another, there are doctrinally satisfying arguments which dissolve his fears, by the progressive and cumulative removal of these objections, he will, in such proportion, become open to the possibility of an extended papal vacancy, and likewise the dissonance will evaporate in direct proportion.

Obviously, the first major step to escaping the dissonance, then, is to bring oneself to read the arguments. Substacks like The Seraphim, which explain the psychological mechanics, might aid in disposing Catholics to taking that step, and websites like the WMReview.org compile and address the various objections according to the teachings of the popes, councils, and theologians.

How God brings about the inspiration for men to take that first step is a mystery of grace. But in His good time, it will happen (if not through reason or logic leading to conviction, then through circumstances, as in the case of Vigano).

H. A Potential Sticking Point

Just as scruples can have either intellectual or supernatural causes, so too can dissonance (i.e., a disturbance of the soul).

Some of my readers might be familiar with Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson’s novel The Dawn of All, set in a time where practically the entire world has become Catholic. Ireland is one big Carthusian monastery, and all the psychologists are Carthusian monks. The main character of the story is a monsignor who has suffered a mental breakdown, and is sent to the monastery to be treated by the Carthusian doctors. After having explained that 80% of all mental illness is to one degree or another a result of demonic possession or obsession, and almost always curable, the Carthusian examines the monsignor and hearing what troubles him, offers this pertinent diagnosis:

“A great deal of what you say, Monsignor, is merely the effect of a nervous strain. A nervous strain means that the emotional or receptive faculties gain an undue influence over the reasonable intelligence. You admit that the logic is flawless, yet that fact does not reassure you, as it would if you were in a normal condition.

‘But-

‘Wait, please, till I have done. I know what you wish to say. It is that your sense of protest is not merely sentimental, but rather moral, is it not so?

‘Monsignor nodded. It was precisely what he wished to say.

‘That is not true, however. It is true that your moral sense seems outraged, but the reason is that you have not yet all the data (the moral sense is a department of the reason, remember).”4

The “data” for our purposes is, of course, doctrinal study.

But supposing you are a naturally analytical and/or nervous type anyway, and all the study in the world doesn’t help you as it does the other 85% of humanity? For you, the path to peace is different. Yes, you must still study the doctrine to understand that acknowledging an extended papal vacancy does not call the credibility of our faith into question as you feared, at least at the level of logic. But for this type of soul, the answer is abandonment to God, and I will explain.

If one has ever read Josef Pieper’s masterpiece “The Cardinal Virtues,” the section on the virtue of fortitude is particularly instructive. After having defined fortitude as a willingness to fall in battle, he explains that practically every neurosis is in some way caused or related to a deficiency or defect in this virtue, and in particular, the fear of letting go.

Yes, we are saying that a fear which persists despite being illogical is irrational, and is in fact not actually caused by doctrinal considerations, but psychological phenomena tied to the virtue of fortitude. So if the cause is a reticence to let go (i.e., to fall in battle if one must), then the cure to escaping anxiety from dissonance for this type of soul is practicing abandonment to the will of God:

“Lord, thou knowest I have spent years trying to figure out what thou would have me do, and for the life of me I simply cannot gain certainty, or peace. It is apparently beyond my efforts. But thou knowest that not for anything would I contravene thy holy will. If therefore it is not within my power to arrive at peace and certitude in this matter, then I cast myself at thy feet, and abandon myself to thee. Place me where thou wilt, O Lord, and by circumstances which are thy marching orders, put me where you want me.”

This is letting go, and it is the solution to all morose anxieties (including the illogical persistence of dissonance).

1

Cited by the Journal of American Reform, here:

The Journal of American Reform

Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanæ, Substantial Continuity or Rupture?

“The thesis I found hardest to live with was the one on religious freedom. For years I had taught the public law theses of Cardinal [Alfredo] Ottaviani, according to which only the truth [as held by …

Read more

a year ago · 52 likes · 1 comment · American Reform

Original Source here: https://archive.org/details/currentbiography0000unse_v1v9/page/208/mode/2up

SSPX Files Appeal against the July 2 Decree

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X announced that it is formally challenging the Vatican decree issued on 2 July by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith that excommunicated its six bishops. On 11 July, it filed the required preliminary appeal under canon law. According to the Society, this filing temporarily suspends the enforcement of the decree while the appeal process is underway.

Communiqué of 13 July
The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X announces that, in response to the decree issued on 2 July 2026 by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, it submitted on 11 July a preliminary recourse to the same Dicastery, in accordance with canons 1734 and following of the Code of Canon Law.

This request, which constitutes the mandatory preliminary step before the possible introduction of a hierarchical recourse, has the effect of suspending the execution of the decree, in accordance with canon 1353 of the Code of Canon Law.

By this recourse, the Society intends to exercise the right which the Church recognizes to any person who considers himself harmed by an administrative act to seek its correction, in a spirit of respect for ecclesiastical authority and of faithful attachment to justice, truth and the good of the Church.

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X entrusts this request to the competent authorities and commends this undertaking to the prayers of all the faithful.

https://gloria.tv/post/rdeBGQpeVPhq2MXi26SX7GZSZ

Can these consecrations be equated with those performed by Archbishop Lefebvre?

Not entirely, it seems to us, and for several reasons. For several years now, the SSPX has gradually distanced itself from Archbishop Lefebvre’s position on several important points, such as:

- Doubts regarding the validity of all Novus Ordo sacraments, due to the minister’s intention.

- The distinction between the Catholic Church and the conciliar church.

- The non-acceptance of the new Code of Canon Law, until a legitimate authority—the only one capable of deciding the matter—tells us what to do.

- The impossibility of seeking recognition from the conciliar authorities before a doctrinal agreement is reached.

This difference makes the 2026 consecrations more difficult to defend than those of 1988, since the state of necessity can no longer be invoked in the same way.

Indeed, the state of necessity is based on:

1) The validity of the sacraments, and

2) The intact and integral transmission of the deposit of the Faith.

Validity of the sacraments

Archbishop Lefebvre, as we have seen, relied on the state of necessity to justify his grave act of consecrating without a papal mandate. And this necessity—here is how he presented it: “You know very well, my dearest brothers, that there can be no priests without a bishop. All these seminarians who are here today—if tomorrow the Good Lord calls me back—and that will no doubt be very soon—well, these seminarians, from whom will they receive the sacrament of Holy Orders? From conciliar bishops, whose sacraments are all doubtful. Because we do not know exactly what their intentions are. That is not possible. Now, which bishops have truly preserved the Tradition, who have preserved the sacraments as the Church has administered them for twenty centuries up until the Second Vatican Council? Well, they are Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself. I can’t help it, but that’s the way it is.”

However, since the superiors of the SSPX no longer distinguish between the Catholic Church and the conciliar church, they no longer—or hardly ever—consider the question of intention in the sacraments, contenting themselves with examining the matter, the form, and the minister (and whether the minister properly follows the rubrics). Consequently, they are more and more accepting the Novus Ordo sacraments as valid a priori.

Thus, they have accepted that Bishop Huonder (a bishop dubiously consecrated in the Novus Ordo) consecrate their holy oils, which are necessary for the validity of the sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Unction (not to mention all the anointings and consecrations made with these oils).

Thus, several priests from the Novus Ordo who join the SSPX are sent to the faithful without having first been ordained conditionally. We have even known of a case where a Novus Ordo priest requested this and was refused: he had to be re-ordained conditionally in secret by Bishop Williamson at Bishop Zendejas’s residence in N. Y.

Another example: the District of England published an article written by Rev. Father Nicholas Mary, CSSR, on the question of whether one must be reconfirmed conditionally when one has received Confirmation in the Novus Ordo. This article concludes in the negative, unless there is a positive doubt: this teaching goes directly against the Council of Trent.

We could cite many more concrete examples, but the limitations of a sermon do not allow us to do so. But in fact, the SSPX of Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pagliarani acts and preaches as if the Novus Ordo sacraments were to be considered valid, unless the contrary can be proven.

But then, they can no longer rely on Archbishop Lefebvre’s argument. It is no longer a matter of saving the sacrament of Holy Orders: for according to their logic, the bishops of the conciliar Church are, a priori, validly consecrated as bishops. One wonders, then, what the state of necessity means to them.

They get around this by saying that the situation is precarious (Fr. Gleize, “New Episcopal Consecrations: An SSPX Theologian Answers Young People” – 05/01/26). But the question then is: Is a precarious situation sufficient to legitimize a consecration without a papal mandate? This act is so grave that an ipso facto excommunication was decreed by the Holy Office on April 9, 1951.

It should be noted that the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Fraternity of Christ the King, and the Institute of the Good Shepherd (to name just a few) find conciliar prelates every year to ordain their priests. Bishop Schneider and Bishop Strickland, who support the SSPX, would likely have agreed to ordain the priests of the SSPX. So, is there really a state of necessity (from their point of view)? The SSPX struggles to establish this. They had denied the state of necessity for the consecrations of Bishop Williamson; they now assert it for themselves, but since they have some difficulty justifying it, they tell the faithful that it is too complicated for them and that they must not doubt the SSPX but trust them! (Sermon by Fr. Gleize at Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnay, April 12, 2026). To put it bluntly, one could summarize the situation as follows:

• Archbishop Lefebvre performed consecrations in 1988 for the sake of the Church, to ensure the continuity of the priesthood.

• The SSPX in 2026, (if we look at it from their perspective), ordained bishops out of convenience, for its own benefit.

Transmission of the Deposit of Faith

But there is also the question of preserving and preaching the Faith. Bishops also have a mission to preach and condemn errors. In this area, the SSPX feels more comfortable invoking the state of necessity. But this brings a somewhat sad smile to one’s face, because for years it has toned down its condemnation of errors in order to establish good relations with the authorities and obtain “gifts” from them, such as jurisdiction over confessions, marriages, or ordinations. This, incidentally, was the advice they had received from the branding firm they consulted: “Emphasize positive communication; criticism is seen as a negative strategy.”

Oh, certainly! Here and there, there have been condemnations of the excesses of conciliar Rome, but without displaying exceptional courage or taking great risks: certain diocesan bishops, and even some cardinals, have publicly condemned these excesses.

Of course, there are still priests in the SSPX who make their voices heard, such as the District Superior for France, Father Peignot, who wrote a beautiful letter defending the honor of Our Lady. And there remain good priests in the SSPX who continue Archbishop Lefebvre’s good fight, but they are few and far between and are often isolated, even persecuted (I know of several cases personally). And these good priests who remain, feel so isolated that they gradually end up toning down their denunciations. This was one of the first things Father Dominique Rousseau wrote when he left the SSPX: he could once again preach against errors without feeling moral pressure. Another priest from the SSPX told me personally that when he compared his sermons as a young priest to those he gives today, he noticed a decline in his fighting spirit. He was known for opposing this desire for reconciliation, and he was so marginalized and sidelined because of it that he eventually left the SSPX. A seminarian from ******** with whom I remain on good terms, told me he was having trouble with his superiors because he shares Archbishop Lefebvre’s views on the Novus Ordo sacraments: today, he does not know if he will be ordained a priest.

Bishop Williamson was expelled; Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was censured (a letter from the Dominicans was banned in the U.S. by Father Rostand because it included Bishop Tissier’s article on the conciliar Church). Priests who oppose the reconciliation are gradually being sidelined and replaced by young priests trained in the new school of thought.

A friend of mine, a priest in the SSPX, told me, “We no longer make bold, sweeping declarations, but we send well-prepared documents to Rome. It’s more effective.” Except that the faithful are no longer being formed or protected, and in Rome, they couldn’t care less about their documents: they’ll just gather dust on the shelves!

Of course, there have been the recent professions of faith by the superior, Father Pagliarani. But a profession of faith is not enough to wipe away with a stroke of a pen everything the superior has allowed to happen and continues to allow to happen—and for which he is accountable before God. Sins of omission are more serious when committed by a superior. Yet it was under Father Pagliarani that we witnessed the “Bishop Huonder” episode, that priests from the Novus Ordo are sent every Sunday to the faithful (in the U.S. and Poland) to administer doubtful sacraments, that priests refused to grant conditional Confirmation to the faithful, that one priest invited his parishioners to attend the Indult Mass at the end of a procession, and that another invited a priest from the Fraternity of St. Peter to replace him during his absence. And these are not baseless accusations on my part; the context of a public sermon calls for a certain degree of discretion, but in private, I can name a specific person behind each of these incidents.

All of this makes their invocation of a state of necessity for the consecrations less tenable than it was in 1988.

Everything to this point on both sides seemed to be proceeding according to the 1988 script, but this letter breaks that pattern:

In the wake of the 1988 excommunications, the collected superiors of the SSPX wrote to Cardinal Gantin, asking to be joined in the censure as a badge of honor, signaling a break in relations between Menzingen and Rome until after Lefebvre died.

Against all expectations, this letter of Fr. Pagliarani seems to indicate a willingness to continue dialogue, and on Rome’s side, Cardinal Parolin has expressed the same desire.

Conversely, see here in an interview of Stephen Heiner with +Sanborn at minute 8:34 - 15:00 for an analysis of what the SSPX formerly said in 1988 (and ought to have said again), compared to the response of Fr. Pagliarani.

So whereas I’d previously written that excommunications would be the only proof this whole affair was not “Kabuki theatre,” it seems, unbelievably, that excommunication and declaration of schism may not have killed the ralliement after all.

Letter to the Holy Father concerning the decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith

JULY 3, 2026

SOURCE: FSSPX NEWS

The Superior General
To His Holiness
Pope Leo XIV

Écône, July 3, 2026

“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or a fish, and instead of a fish, will give him a snake? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:11-13)

Most Holy Father,

The notification of the decision taken by the Holy See with regard to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, signed by His Eminence Cardinal Fernández, has reached us and is now public knowledge.

It seems to us that this decision once again highlights the extremely tragic situation in which the universal Church finds itself. What the Society of Saint Pius X has done and will continue to do is nothing less than an extreme initiative to help souls amidst the doctrinal and moral confusion in which the Church is plunged. We in no way claim to replace the Church, and we have no other ambition than to remain faithful to her.

In good conscience, we did not consider that we could shirk the moral duty we have towards souls, as we have already explained, both privately and publicly, to Your Holiness.

We had asked for bread, that is to say a little understanding for a sincere case of conscience, a gesture of fatherhood not so much towards the Society of Saint Pius X as towards souls, promising to make them true sons of the Roman Church; unfortunately, we received a stone.

We had asked for a fish, that is to say, the possibility of temporarily obtaining the necessary means to continue to train good priests, so that they may continue their mission of making Our Lord known to souls; unfortunately, we received a snake.

We had asked for an egg, promising to return it as soon as possible. Indeed, the holy Tradition that we preserve in our souls belongs to the Church, our Mother—and not to the Society of Saint Pius X—and we are certain that one day a Pope will want to use it for the good of the universal Church; unfortunately, we received a scorpion.

We had asked to be instructed and confirmed in the faith of all time; instead, we were declared schismatics a second time.

Despite the sanctions imposed upon us, the Society of Saint Pius X sincerely renews the promise it had already made to Your Holiness. Allow me, in this regard, to freely reiterate what I have already expressed:

“The Society promises you […] to dedicate all its energies to preserving Tradition and placing it at the service of the Church. In doing so, the Society of Saint Pius X does not merely maintain ancient practices; it fosters and preserves priestly vocations, religious vocations, large and deeply Christian families; in short, everything that manifests the vitality of the Church, of grace, and of the Catholic faith. Our intention is not to offer the Church a museum of antiquities, but the complete, fruitful Tradition, the source of spiritual life, embodied and lived in souls.”

I am certain that one day You Yourself or one of Your successors will be able and willing to use this service, the offering of which, in and for the Church, constitutes our sole reason for being.” (Personal letter addressed to His Holiness on November 21, 2025)

But above all, the Society of Saint Pius X promises you today not to welcome these new sanctions — which are objectively unjust and invalid — with bitterness or revolt.

The recent condemnations, like those of the past, strike at the very core of our being: our attachment to our Mother, the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, even in this trial, everything must work together for the good of souls and of the Church itself. This is why these condemnations impel us to love the Holy Church even more and to provide for her needs with all our might, more than ever. For this very reason, the Society of Saint Pius X willingly offers the suffering caused by these new sanctions, for the good of the universal Church and of Your Holiness.

We are certain that one day You Yourself or one of Your successors will want to adopt the program of Saint Pius X: “To restore all things in Christ,” Instaurare omnia in Christo . On that day, the Holy Father will discover in the Society of Saint Pius X, not a mass of serpents and scorpions, but a small army of loyal sons, ready to do anything to support Him in the restoration of all things in Our Lord, and to claim before all humanity the inalienable rights of Christ the King over all souls and all nations.

On that day, the Holy Father will discover with great joy and deep consolation authentically Catholic souls, whose bond with the Church has never been based on the shifting sands of ambiguous dialogue, but on the rock of Peter’s faith.

We ask the Most Holy Virgin Mary to hasten the coming of that day, and we especially wish Your Holiness to experience this joy and consolation as soon as possible.

In the meantime, if You can, despite Your recent decision, bless us as Your sons. For us, nothing has changed and nothing ever will.

Trusting in divine Providence, from which nothing escapes and which reads to the depths of every man’s heart, I remain, Most Holy Father, your most devoted son in the Lord.

Don Davide Pagliarani

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:

PROCEDURES FOR THE RECONCILIATION OF PRIESTS FROM THE PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X

The procedure followed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, effective July 1, 2026, stipulates that a priest who has decided to leave the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X and is willing to accept the Second Vatican Council and the legitimacy of the novus ordo Missae—even while remaining attached to the usus antiquior—must:

1) Find an Ordinary (diocesan bishop, major superior of religious institutes of pontifical right, and of societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, etc.) willing to accept him ad experimentum.

2) Write a letter in his own hand to the Holy Father in which he introduces himself and requests the remission of the censures incurred due to having been ordained by an excommunicated or irregular bishop, or—having been validly and legitimately ordained—subsequently joining the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.

3) Attach the certificate of priestly ordination.

4) Attach the Professio fidei and the Formula adhaesionis, dated and signed (cf. Attachments A–B).

5) Have the Ordinary send the three aforementioned documents to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; in the accompanying letter, the Ordinary must express his willingness to admit the individual on a trial basis (ad experimentum) into his own diocese or institute.

As soon as the three documents are received from the Ordinary, the Dicastery drafts the Rescript of remission of censures, which will be signed by the Prefect and the Secretary of the Doctrinal Section.

The Dicastery will send this Rescript to the Ordinary along with an accompanying letter authorizing him to accept the requesting priest for a probationary period of at least one year and no more than three, at the end of which his incardination may proceed.

It was recently decided that if the established probationary period is not successful, the Ordinary shall return the Rescript to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, attaching a report explaining the reasons for the failure to incardinate.

_________________________________________________

PROCEDURES FOR THE RECONCILIATION OF CERTAIN LAY PEOPLE FROM THE PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X

This procedure relates to the question of accountability or the degree of subjective responsibility of lay faithful who have formally joined or attend the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X and who seek to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church.

The imposition of a penalty on laypeople belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X cannot be assumed automatically, but must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Since accountability requires full awareness and deliberate consent, examples of proven accountability may include:

1. Laypeople who are members of the Third Order of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X;

2. Laypeople who habitually participate in the celebrations of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, formally sharing its doctrinal positions.

Conversely, the following are not to be considered accountable:

3. Laypeople who have attended the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X solely for liturgical or spiritual reasons;

4. Laypeople who, while aware of the tensions with the Holy See, do not reject the Magisterium or the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

Any procedure to be followed for laypeople belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X who have been subjected to a penalty and who request to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church involves a formal act of full adherence to doctrine and obedience to the Catholic hierarchy, under the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary, who is the guarantor of the unity of the particular Church.

Therefore, a lay faithful, as referred to in nos. 1–2, who has decided to leave the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X must: Submit to the local Ordinary the Professio fidei and the Formula adhaesionis, dated and signed (cf. Annexes A–B).

Once the documentation has been received, the local Ordinary will proceed to welcome the lay faithful member in the manner and within the timeframe he deems most appropriate, using, for example, the Rite of Admission to Full Communion with the Catholic Church for Those Who Have Already Been Validly Baptized, duly adapted.

As for the lay faithful referred to in nos. 3–4, it will suffice for them to approach a priest in full communion, with the decision not to attend the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X in the future.

_________________________

PROFESSION OF FAITH

I,___________________, firmly believe and profess all and each of the things contained in the Creed, namely:

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light, God from God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary, and became man; for our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried; and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there will be no end; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets; and in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins, and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. I also firmly believe all those things which are contained in the written or transmitted Word of God and are proposed by the Church, either by solemn judgment or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed.

I also firmly embrace and hold all and every one of the things that are taught definitively by the same Church concerning doctrine on faith or morals. Furthermore, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the doctrines which the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops sets forth when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim them by a definitive act.

________________________

FORMULA OF ADHESION

I,___________, Promise fidelity to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor of the Church, Vicar of Christ, Successor of the blessed Peter in his Primacy and Head of the College of Bishops, abstaining from any public declaration that would oppose his person or his Magisterium (cf. cann. 1373 and 1365 CIC).

I accept the doctrine taught in no. 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the Magisterium of the Church and the obedience due to it. Regarding certain doctrines taught by the Second Vatican Council, or concerning later reforms of either the Liturgy or Canon Law, which some find difficult to reconcile with previous declarations of the Magisterium, I assume the obligation to follow the positive approach to interpreting doctrine under the guidance of the Magisterium, so that no one may separate it from the rest of the sacred deposit of the Church’s teaching.

I also declare that I accept 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 found in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals published by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

I finally promise to adhere to the common discipline of the Church and its laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II.

All of which I have subscribed with my own hand,

Place: ________________________

Date: _______________________

Decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, 02.07.u2026

[B0568]

Prot. N. 99/2009

DECREE

Despite the warnings addressed to the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, having committed an act of a schismatic nature through the episcopal consecration of four priests, without a pontifical mandate and against the will of the Supreme Pontiff, has ipso facto incurred the penalties provided for by canon 1387 and canon 1364 § 1 CIC 2021.

I therefore declare for all legal purposes that both the aforementioned Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry and Marc Hanappier have incurred ipso facto the latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

I further declare that Bishop Bernard Fellay, having directly participated in the liturgical celebration as a co-consecrator, thus publicly adhering to the schismatic act, has incurred the latae sententiae excommunication provided for by canon 1364 § 1 CIC2021.

Clerics and lay faithful are warned not to adhere to the schism of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, because they would ipso facto incur the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication .

From the Dicastery Building, 2 July 2026

Víctor M. Card. Fernández
Prefect

John J. Kennedy
Titular Archbishop of Ossero
Secretary for the Disciplinary Section

Monsignor Armando Matteo
Secretary for the Doctrinal Section

Prot. N. 99/2009

EXPLANATORY NOTE

From the time of Saint Paul VI until the most recent discussions held at this Dicastery, multiple attempts to bring the members of the movement initiated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre back into full communion with the Catholic Church have proven futile. This situation has been further aggravated by recent episcopal consecrations celebrated without papal mandate, against the will of the Holy Father, in open violation of canon law. Therefore, this Dicastery, in the faithful exercise of the functions entrusted to it, deems it necessary to note that this act constituted the crime of schism, with canonical consequences for the sacred ministers and lay faithful involved. Indeed, as already declared in 1988, “such disobedience—which entails a practical rejection of the Roman Primacy—constitutes a schismatic act” (cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia De i , 3).

In this regard, from now on:

1. The sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatic (cf. Ecclesia De , 5 c; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note on the excommunication for schism incurred by the adherents of the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre , 24.08.1996, 5-6), resulting in them being subject to the excommunication provided for by law (can. 1364 § 1 CJC).

2. As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X under the conditions established in the Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of 1996 (cf. ibid ., 7), still in force, which this Dicastery adopts, are to be considered schismatic and excommunicated.

3. Finally, the holy People of God are warned that the sacred ministers of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X administer the sacraments illicitly and that the sacrament of penance administered by them and the marriage assisted by them are invalid.

The Church, as a caring mother, will welcome with sincere affection and deep concern all those who wish to return to full communion. The Apostolic Nuncios will have access to the procedures that Ordinaries may use in various cases.

Finally, all the faithful are exhorted to remain firm in communion with the Roman Pontiff, with the Bishops in communion with him and with the whole Church (cf. Lumen Gentium , 22; can. 751 CIC ), and to abstain from participating in the celebrations and activities promoted by the aforementioned Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.

From the Dicastery Building, 2 July 2026

Víctor M. Card. Fernández
Prefect

Monsignor Armando Matteo
Secretary for the Doctrinal Section

John J. Kennedy
Titular Archbishop of Ossero
Secretary for the Disciplinary Section

________________________________________________

[Translation of the little-known 1996 Explanatory Note referenced above]

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

EXPLANATORY NOTE

V. On the excommunication for schism incurred by adherents of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre’s movement

(Communicationes, 29 [1997] 239–243)

Following recent reports in certain media outlets, this Pontifical Council deemed it appropriate to make public an Explanatory Note that it had sent to the Congregation for Bishops.

Vatican City, August 24, 1996

Your Most Reverend Eminence,

By letter dated July 26 of this year, Ref. No. XXX, Your Most Reverend Eminence forwarded to this Pontifical Council a letter from His Excellency Bishop Norbert Brunner of Sion, Switzerland, in which the Bishop—in light of certain confusing press reports—sought an authoritative interpretation of the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” and the subsequent Decree of this Congregation concerning the excommunication imposed on Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the four bishops ordained by him, and Bishop Emeritus Antonio de Castro. At the same time, Your Eminence requested the opinion of this Dicastery regarding the wording of the reply to be given to the aforementioned prelate.

In this regard, I have the honor to inform you that the issue raised by the Ordinary of Sion does not appear to require an authentic interpretation of either the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” of July 2, 1988, or the Decree of this Congregation for Bishops of July 1, 1988, or the relevant canons of the Code of Canon Law: 1364, § 1, and 1382.

In fact, the Bishop bases his request on pastoral considerations, seeking to put an end to erroneous interpretations, but he offers no evidence suggesting the existence or well-founded likelihood of an authentic “dubium iuris” in the provisions of the aforementioned documents—a condition indispensable for an “authentic interpretation.”

Nevertheless, in order to accommodate the request of this Dicastery, the attached Note offers some considerations and suggestions in the hope that they may be of use for the clarifying response that this Congregation intends to give to the Bishop of Sion.

If, on the other hand, the confusion mentioned by the Prelate in his letter were significant from a pastoral standpoint—not least because it extends to other dioceses and nations where the Lefebvrian movement is active—one might envisage a general declaration by the Holy See, to be prepared in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cf. Note, n. 5).

I take this opportunity to reaffirm, with profound veneration,

to Your Most Reverend Eminence

most devotedly

Julián Herranz,

Titular Archbishop of Vertara

President

Marino Maccarelli

Under–Secretary

* * *

NOTE

1. From the Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei” of July 2, 1988, and from the Decree “Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre” of the Congregation for Bishops, dated July 1, 1988, it appears first and foremost that Archbishop Lefebvre’s schism was declared to be directly related to the episcopal ordinations performed on June 30, 1988, without a papal mandate (cf. CIC, can. 1382). However, it also clearly appears from the aforementioned documents that this most grave act of disobedience constituted the culmination of a progressive, overall situation of a schismatic nature.

2. In fact, no. 4 of the Motu proprio explains what was the “doctrinal root of this schismatic act,” and no. 5 c) warns that “formal adherence to the schism ” (meaning “the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre”) would entail the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364, § 1). The decree of the Congregation for Bishops also makes explicit reference to the “schismatic nature” of the aforementioned episcopal ordinations and recalls the most grave penalty of excommunication that would result from adherence “to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre.”

3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act that gave rise to the Motu proprio and the Decree has done nothing but bring to completion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner—through a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff—a process of separation from the communio hierarchica. Until there are changes leading to the restoration of this necessary communio, the entire Lefebvrian movement is to be considered schismatic, as there is a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.

4. No judgment can be made on the arguments of Murray’s controversial thesis because it is unknown, and the two articles that mention it appear confusing. In any case, the validity of the excommunications of the bishops declared in the Motu proprio and the Decree cannot reasonably be called into question. In particular, it does not appear that any exculpatory or mitigating circumstances can be found regarding the imputability of the penalty (cf. CIC, canons 1323–1324). As for the state of necessity in which Archbishop Lefebvre believed himself to be, it must be borne in mind that such a state must exist objectively, and that there is never a necessity to ordain bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of “serving” the Church by attacking its unity in a matter connected with the very foundations of that unity.

5. As stated in Motu proprio no. 5 c), the latae sententiae excommunication for schism applies to those who “formally adhere” to said schismatic movement. Although the question of the exact scope of the notion of “formal adherence to schism” should be referred to the competent Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this Pontifical Council that such adherence must involve two complementary elements:

a) one of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism—that is, in opting in such a way for the followers of Lefebvre that this choice is placed above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);

b) another of an external nature, consisting in the outward expression of that choice, the most manifest sign of which will be exclusive participation in Lefebvrian “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, not an unambiguous sign, since it is possible for some faithful to take part in the liturgical services of Lefebvre’s followers without, however, sharing their schismatic spirit).

6. In the case of Lefebvrian deacons and priests, it seems beyond doubt that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two requirements mentioned above (no. 5) are met and that there is therefore formal adherence.

7. In the case of other members of the faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrian movement—without adopting the movement’s attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity—is not sufficient to constitute formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice, it may prove more difficult to assess their situation. Above all, one must take into account the person’s intention and the translation of that inner disposition into action. The various situations must therefore be judged on a case-by-case basis by the competent authorities of both external and internal jurisdiction.

8. In any case, it will always be necessary to distinguish the moral question regarding the existence or absence of the sin of schism from the legal-penal question regarding the existence of the crime of schism and its consequent sanction. To the latter, the provisions of Book VI of the CIC (including canons 1323–1324) must be applied.

9. It does not seem advisable to further formalize (though the competent Dicastery should be consulted on this matter: cf. Apostolic Constitution “Pastor Bonus,” art. 52) the requirements for the crime of schism. There is a risk that stricter penal regulations might create more problems by failing to adequately cover all cases: either by excluding cases of substantial schism or by including external behaviors that are not always subjectively schismatic.

10. Again from a pastoral perspective, it would also seem appropriate to further recommend to the sacred Pastors all the norms of the Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei,” through which the Vicar of Christ urged dialogue and the implementation of the necessary supernatural and human means to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrians to full ecclesial communion.

Vatican City, August 24, 1996

In the name of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Preamble

1. I profess and embrace the entire truth of the Catholic Faith, as it was “received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating”, then faithfully preserved and transmitted to us in unbroken succession within the Catholic Church, through the preaching of Popes and bishops, the writings of the Fathers of the Church and of theologians, and the definitions of holy councils.

2. I firmly receive each and every truth which the infallible Church has proposed as divinely revealed and necessary for salvation, whether through the definitions of her solemn Magisterium or through the unanimity of her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. I likewise receive all that belongs to Catholic doctrine by reason of its necessary connexion with the revealed Deposit, and I hold as certain the truths which the Church has taught with constancy in order to safeguard that Deposit against errors.

3. I consequently reject all errors contrary to this Faith, and in particular those of liberalism, indifferentism, modernism, ecumenism, and laicism, condemned by Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII. These errors obscure revealed doctrine, falsify Tradition, disfigure the sacred liturgy, corrupt morals, weaken the missionary spirit, and disintegrate the Christian social order, gravely harming the salvation of souls.

4. I profess this Faith and reject all errors contrary to it, because I wish to remain faithfully subject to the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church, Mistress of truth, and to the Pope, Vicar of Christ, in attachment to eternal Rome, which has received the mission of guarding holily and expounding faithfully the revealed Deposit until the end of time.

5. I add that, in the present confusion, it is no longer sufficient to recall a few isolated truths. It has become indispensable to set in full light the entire order of Catholic doctrine, in its supernatural coherence and luminous harmony, omitting no dogma, diminishing no truth, and substituting for the received Faith no equivocal or truncated language which, under the pretext of ecumenism or adaptation to the world, disfigures this doctrine with ever greater audacity.

6. Charity itself demands that this doctrine be professed with clarity, patience, and strength, for the glory of God, the honour of the Church, and the salvation of souls.

I. Divine Revelation, the Faith, and Tradition

7. I believe that God, in His goodness, has called man, through the gift of grace, to obtain the Beatific Vision. I hold firmly and profess that this exaltation of man surpasses the powers and exigencies of human nature, and that it is a gratuitous gift of God, that is to say, a supernatural gift.

8. I believe that God has not left man to his natural powers alone, but has revealed to him the mysteries of His divine life and the supernatural destiny to which He calls him. Thus, having spoken of old through the Prophets in the Old Covenant, He has spoken definitively through His only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the New Covenant, with which Divine Revelation received its perfect fulfilment.

9. This Revelation is the true Word of God, entrusted to the Church as a Deposit, and proposed to men as the Rule of Faith in the form of a body of doctrine, in which the mysteries are formulated in a manner that renders them intelligible and expressible in words. Revelation is not the progressive expression of a religious consciousness, nor the fruit of a collective experience of the believing community; it is the very truth of God supernaturally communicated to the minds of men for their salvation.

10. I believe that the Deposit of the Faith was completed with the death of the last Apostle. After the Apostles, the Church receives no new Revelation: she guards, explains, defends, and transmits the Deposit received.

11. I recognize the external proofs of Revelation, in particular miracles and prophecies, as most certain signs by which the divine origin of the Christian religion is demonstrated in a manner suited to the human intellect, in every time and place. I likewise recognize the Church herself, through her unity, holiness, catholicity, fruitfulness, and invincible stability, as a permanent motive of credibility and an irrefutable witness to her divine mission.

12. I profess that faith is the supernatural submission of the intellect, under the motion of grace, to the truth revealed externally by God. It rests neither upon the evidence of things seen, nor upon private judgement, nor upon experience of what is lived, but upon the very authority of God Who speaks and Who, being the first Truth, can neither deceive nor be deceived. Faith is therefore neither a blind religious sentiment, nor an emotion of the soul, nor an intimate conviction produced by personal or collective consciousness. It is the supernatural virtue which elevates the human intellect and enables it to know God as He is, thanks to the testimony that God gives of Himself, while awaiting the Vision.

13. I consequently reject the error of modernism, as it still rages today, which reduces faith to an interior experience, to a sensible aspiration, or to a progressive realization in the believing community. Such a conception destroys the very notion of dogma and renders the obligation to believe impossible, replacing divine truth with subjective sincerity and handing doctrine over to the fluctuations of history.

14. I further profess that the Deposit of doctrine revealed by God is contained in its two sources, namely Sacred Scripture and Tradition. I profess that Tradition contains many truths revealed by God which are not found in Scripture, and that consequently Scripture must be read and understood in dependence upon Tradition.

15. I profess that Sacred Scripture, whose books were written integrally, in all their parts, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is truly the Word of God, free from all error, and entrusted to the authentic interpretation of the Magisterium of the Church, according to the norm of Tradition and according to the Analogy of Faith.

16. I therefore reject rationalist exegesis, which treats the sacred books as documents having only man for their author, which excludes a priori the possibility of the supernatural, artificially separates the historical Christ from the Faith of the Church, dissolves miracles into symbols, or subjects Scripture to the shifting hypotheses and manipulations of naturalistic critical methods. True biblical scholarship must be placed at the service of the understanding of the Faith; it is not to be made the rule, the interpreter, or the judge of the Word of God.

17. I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense that it changes its meaning, but in the sense that the living Magisterium proposes throughout the centuries, in an ever clearer and more explicit manner, the same truth according to the same meaning. What has been believed by all, everywhere, and always, as belonging to the Faith, cannot be denied or called into doubt by any theological fashion, pastoral pressure, diplomatic necessity, or alleged exigencies of the modern world.

II. God, Principle and End of All Things, Holy Trinity

18. I profess the existence of one God, personal, living, and true, first principle and last end of all things, Who in the beginning created Heaven and earth, all things visible and invisible, from nothing. Infinitely perfect, eternal, and almighty, immutable, incomprehensible in His essence and sovereignly free in His works, He is distinct from the world which He freely created, which He conserves in existence, and which He governs by His Providence.

19. I profess that God can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from His creatures, as a cause is known from its effects. The Catholic Faith recognizes that the human intellect is capable of truly attaining the reality of things, often of knowing their causes, and of arriving at genuine certitudes.

20. I therefore reject modern agnosticism, philosophical scepticism, idealist subjectivism, and all doctrines which limit the scope of human knowledge to sensible phenomena or to the constructions of consciousness, thereby denying the very possibility of an ecclesiastical Magisterium and of a true theology.

21. I confess that in the one Divine Nature there subsist three really distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, consubstantial and indivisible Trinity. The Father is without principle; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from a single principle. But these three Persons are one and the same Divine Substance: They are one Eternal, not three Eternals; one wise, good, and almighty God, not three equally wise, good, and almighty gods; they are one in the Divine Will and Providence, and enjoy one and the same glory.

22. I reject the diminished professions of trinitarian faith which, under pretext of religious unity or ecumenical prudence, deliberately pass over in silence what God has revealed about Himself. It does not suffice to say with the Jews and Muslims that God is one; it does not suffice to acknowledge with the Arians that the Son is of the same nature as the Father; nor does it suffice to confess with the schismatic Greeks that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father while passing over in silence the Filioque. This false irenicism pursues an illusory concord: by omitting to profess certain revealed truths, it substitutes confusion for clarity and threatens the integrity of the Faith.

III. The Creation of Man and the Supernatural Order of Grace

23. I believe that God created man in His image, endowed with a spiritual and immortal soul, capable of knowing truth, of loving the good known by natural reason, and of freely turning towards his Creator. Man is therefore not the necessary product of a blind evolution, nor the simple result of material forces; he comes from God as from his creative cause, depends upon God, Who maintains him in being, and is ordered to God as to his end.

24. I profess that God did not destine man to his natural perfection alone, but has freely called him to a supernatural end which absolutely surpasses the powers and rights of created nature: the Beatific Vision, by which the soul shall see God face to face and participate in the intimate life of the Most Holy Trinity. That man is called to become a child of God, a partaker of the Divine Nature and an heir of Heaven, is not the necessary fulfilment of his nature, but a pure effect of divine liberality.

25. I therefore reject every doctrine which dissolves the distinction between nature and grace, which makes supernatural life a requirement of human nature, or which presents grace as a simple interior development of man’s natural capacities. Such a confusion destroys both the gratuity of the supernatural and the reality of nature. It ends by reducing faith to a religious anthropology, and Redemption to a revelation of man to himself.

26. I likewise profess that grace neither destroys nor replaces nature: it heals, elevates, and perfects it whilst preserving it. The supernatural order calls into question neither reason, nor the natural law, nor creatures; it heals them and subordinates them to a higher end. This is why the modern opposition between human freedom and grace, between the dignity of the person and dependence upon God, between culture and the Faith, is radically false.

27. I reject the false religious humanism which celebrates man in himself, as though the Incarnation had revealed first and solely the image of God in the creation of man, rather than the misery of sin and the mercy of God stooping towards the sinner. Man is truly great only when he humbly receives the grace which heals and elevates him, does penance for his sins, submits to the truth, and lives as a child of God. In separating himself from God, he does not exalt himself: he destroys himself.

28. I profess that human dignity, by which God has established His creature at the summit of the material world, can never be invoked against the law of God, against the necessity of conversion, or against submission to revealed truth. This dignity is wounded by sin: it must be restored and raised to the dignity of the adoptive children of God, through grace.

IV. Original Sin and the Condition of Man

29. I believe that our first parents were established by God in a state of original justice and holiness, and endowed with the gifts of integrity, impassibility, and immortality. By a particular favour of God, they possessed not only the integrity of their own nature, but also the supernatural gifts which ordered them to the very life of God. Adam, head and principle of the human race, was additionally given the gift of knowledge.

30. I profess that, by his disobedience, Adam truly committed the original sin, which is transmitted to all men by generation. This sin is for all a sin of nature, which condemns them to death, suffering, ignorance, and concupiscence. Having been stripped of sanctifying grace and of preternatural gifts, which they could no longer transmit to their descendants, Adam and Eve were driven from the earthly paradise.

31. In Adam, however, the nature of man was not destroyed, but only wounded: his intellect, though darkened, remains capable of knowing truth; his free will, though weakened, remains capable of willing and loving natural good. I therefore reject all doctrines which, in a despairing pessimism, judge man to be irremediably corrupt and incapable of any good.

32. I likewise reject all doctrines which, in a senseless optimism, minimize original sin, naively exalt the native goodness of man, or claim to found universal peace upon the moral, technical, political, or cultural progress of humanity alone. The tragedies of history, the disorders of societies, and the darkness of the human heart are explained fundamentally, first and foremost, by the deep wound of sin.

33. I profess that man needs to be saved by a redemption which delivers him both from original sin and from all his personal sins. This redemption — or ‘buying back’ — requires the gift of God’s grace in Christ: without it, man cannot save himself by his natural works, his culture, his science, or his religious sincerity. Without the sanctifying grace of Christ, he remains incapable of attaining his supernatural end.

34. I therefore reject modern naturalism, whether theoretical (in philosophy or theology) or practical (in morality, politics, or pastoral work). Every doctrine which speaks of fraternity, peace, dignity, or progress, without acknowledging sin, the Cross, or the necessity of grace, builds upon an illusory foundation and ends by deceiving the souls it claims to serve.

35. I profess at the same time that the gravity of sin should never lead to despair, for God, in His mercy, did not abandon man after his fall, but from the very beginning promised him a Saviour born of the Woman, Whose coming He progressively prepared throughout the history of salvation.

36. In all this, I profess that the facts recorded by the Book of Genesis concerning the foundations of the Catholic religion are to be taken in their literal, historical sense: for example, the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the commandment given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine precept at the instigation of the devil in the form of the serpent; the fall of our first parents from that primal state of innocence; and the promise of the Redeemer to come.

V. Jesus Christ, Word Incarnate, Sole Mediator and Redeemer

37. I believe and profess that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Eternal Word of God, true God and true man, consubstantial with the Father in His Divinity and of the same nature as ourselves in His humanity, like us in all things save sin. He is the sole Mediator between God and men, the sole Saviour of the human race, the sole King of souls and of societies, promised by God in His mercy to our first parents and announced by the prophets.

38. I profess that, in the fullness of time, the Son of God became incarnate, not to confirm man in his human dignity or to reveal to him the image of God within himself, but to save him from sin and once again give him access to eternal life. Born of the Virgin Mary, without ceasing to be God, He took a true human nature, lived among us, taught the truth, fulfilled the prophecies, manifested His Divinity by His miracles, and then freely offered himself on the Cross as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world.

39. I profess that the Redemption is a true satisfaction offered to Divine Justice, in reparation for original sin and personal sins. Christ, Priest and Victim in His holy humanity, redeemed us by His Blood. By bearing our sins and undergoing the punishment due to us, He offered to His Father a perfect act of obedience, an act of love and reparation, to which the dignity of His Divine Person conferred an infinite meritorious value.

40. I therefore reject every doctrine which would reduce the Redemption to a simple manifestation of God’s love, to a solidarity of Christ with human sufferings, to a revelation of the dignity of man, or to a purely moral, political, or social liberation. The Cross is not merely a sign: it is the altar of the redemptive Sacrifice. Christ did not merely announce salvation: He merited it by His Sacrifice. His voluntary Passion and Death on the Cross constitute the sole redemptive Sacrifice by which humanity is reconciled with God.

41. I profess that on the third day He rose glorious from the dead, and that this Resurrection is properly a historical fact. It is the most resplendent sign of His definitive victory over sin, death, and hell. It constitutes the foundation of Christian hope and the pledge of our own resurrection. It also represents the principal motive of credibility for the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

42. I believe that forty days later He ascended into Heaven, that He now sits at the right hand of His Father, that He invisibly governs His Church through His Vicar, and that He intercedes for us constantly, awaiting the time when He shall come again in glory at the end of time to judge the living and the dead.

43. I likewise profess that, although Christ died for all, not all are thereby saved. The merits of the Passion must be applied to souls, which ordinarily takes place when they receive, with the required dispositions, the sacraments which communicate to them sanctifying grace. He who refuses the sacraments, receives them unworthily, or remains voluntarily in sin, shuts himself off from the salvation which Christ has gained for him.

44. I therefore reject the false optimism of a universal redemption already accomplished in every man, independently of his conversion and perseverance. Such a doctrine destroys the urgency of preaching, weakens missionary zeal, renders penance useless, and contradicts the very words of the Saviour: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”

45. I profess finally that Jesus Christ is not only the Redeemer of individuals, but the centre of all history and the King of all Creation. All things were created by Him and for Him; all things must be restored in Him. No culture, no society, no law, no human wisdom finds its true and complete perfection outside His reign.

VI. The Most Holy Virgin Mary in the Economy of Salvation

46. I believe that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary holds a unique place in the history of salvation, willed by God from all eternity, and that her condition is therefore not the common condition of other creatures. He Who had resolved to give His Son to men had also resolved to give Him a Mother.

47. I profess that the Blessed Virgin Mary, by a singular privilege, was immaculate from the first instant of her conception, so as to be the worthy Mother of Jesus Christ: preserved from original sin in anticipation of the merits of Christ and thus redeemed in a more sublime manner, filled with grace from the first instant of her existence, Mary always showed herself perfectly faithful to the Will of God.

48. I believe that she remained ever virgin, before, during, and after childbirth; her perpetual virginity manifests the divine origin of her Son and her total consecration to the work of God.

49. I profess that, truly Mother of God and Mother of men, she was associated in a unique and incomparable manner with the redemptive work of her divine Son: the new Eve beside the new Adam, her Fiat opened the way to the Incarnation; her silent fidelity accompanied the entire life of the Saviour; her sorrowful Compassion at the foot of the Cross united her with one heart to the redemptive Sacrifice.

50. I profess that, thus united to her Divine Son, she merited by congruity in her Compassion what Christ merited by strict justice in His Passion; not as the principal cause of the Redemption, but as a subordinate associate, dependent upon and wholly relative to her Son, in one and the same act of the Redemption of our souls. It is in this sense that Catholic piety, supported by the traditional teaching of Popes and theologians, rightly calls her, by reason of this Compassion, ‘Co-redemptrix’, and consequently ‘Universal Mediatrix’.

51. I consequently reject with indignation the modern tendency to diminish the privileges of the Most Blessed Virgin under pretext of ecumenical prudence, of dialogue with false religions, or from a fallacious fear of obscuring the unique redemptive Mediation of Jesus Christ. To weaken Marian doctrine is not to honour Christ better: it is to misunderstand the order willed by God, Who wished to come to us through Mary and to lead us to Himself through her.

52. I believe that at the end of her earthly life, she was taken up, body and soul, into celestial glory, where she reigns beside the throne of God, alongside the holy humanity of her Divine Son, over angels and men, exercising her maternal role as Dispensatrix of all Graces.

53. I finally profess that the authentic and special cult rendered to His Mother in no way diminishes the worship due to God; on the contrary, it increases it, because it recognizes the marvels of divine grace in the most perfect of creatures, and leads souls more surely to Jesus Christ. True Catholic restoration cannot be separated from the honour rendered to her who crushes the head of the serpent.

VII. The Catholic Church, Mystical Body of Christ and Sole Ark of Salvation

54. I firmly believe that, to perpetuate and prolong the work of Redemption until the end of time, Our Lord Jesus Christ founded one Church, visible, hierarchical, indefectible, and necessary for salvation. This Church, purchased by the Blood of Christ, entrusted to Peter and his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, is none other than the Roman Catholic Church.

55. I profess that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. She is One in her Faith, her worship, her government, and her end. She is Holy by her Founder, by her doctrine, by her sacraments, and by the saints whom she ceaselessly brings forth. She is Catholic because, sent to all peoples and established throughout the whole world, she is everywhere fitted to procure the salvation of men of every condition. She is Apostolic because she remains founded upon the Apostles, preserves their doctrine, and continues their mission, governed by their successors.

56. I profess that the Church is identically a visible society and the Mystical Body of Christ. Christ is her Head; the faithful are her members; the supernatural life purchased upon the Cross is communicated in her through the sacraments received in faith, and flourishes in charity.

57. I profess that the Church is the Immaculate Bride of Christ. Christ loved her to the point of delivering Himself for her, in order to sanctify her and present her to Himself without spot or wrinkle. If her members can sin, she herself, in her doctrine, her sacraments, her divine constitution, and her end, remains the faithful and pure guardian of the revealed Deposit, and the dispenser of the mysteries of God. The faults of churchmen cannot be imputed to the Church as such; they arise from the fact that these men have not lived according to her holy laws. I therefore reject the unjust and blasphemous accusations levelled against the Church in the name of the sins of her children, and likewise the acts of repentance which seem to lay upon the Bride of Christ the faults of those who have betrayed her.

58. I profess that the Church is the Mother of souls. She begets them to the divine life through Baptism, nourishes them through the Eucharist, raises them up again through Penance, strengthens them through Confirmation, sanctifies families through Matrimony, consecrates priests through Holy Orders, and assists the dying through Extreme Unction. Her motherhood is supernatural and salvific: she gives to men the bread of sound doctrine, grace, and the means of eternal life.

59. I profess that God willed to make the Church the necessary means of salvation; just as there is under Heaven no other name given to men than that of Jesus Christ by which we must be saved, so there is no supernatural salvation independent of the Catholic Church. For all salvation comes from Jesus Christ; and every saving grace is either given in and through the one Church He has founded, or orders the one who receives it to that same Church.

60. This truth means that no one can be saved without Christ and His Church, through a false religion as such, nor be assured of His salvation outside the visible structure of the Church. If men are saved without belonging to the visible society which is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, it is by a supernatural ordination to the one Church of salvation, and in spite of the errors of the false religions in which they find themselves, from which they free themselves by not refusing the grace offered to them and by corresponding to it.

61. I therefore reject false ecumenism, which rests upon the idea that the Holy Ghost would not refuse to use separated communities as means of salvation, as though the Church of Christ were present and active in them, or as though these communities possessed in themselves a salvific value whose efficacy would derive from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. If any man comes to the revealed truth or receives a grace of sanctification outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church, that truth and that grace belong by right to that same Church and unequivocally call to Catholic unity, and the Holy Ghost does not give these as means of salvation by using separated communities as such, of which souls can never be warned too much.

62. I likewise reject the idea that non-Christian religions might reflect a ray of truth which illumines every man, or might be legitimate paths by which God positively leads men to salvation. Some fragments of natural truth, or distorted vestiges of ancient truths, may indeed be encountered among the adherents of these false religions; but these religions taken as such, and insofar as they mingle error with their worship, are the work of the devil and cannot be acceptable to God. The Holy Ghost does not use them as paths to salvation, and in them there is no proper virtue of the one Church of Christ, the sole light which enlightens every man in the darkness.

63. I further reject the idea of an ‘anonymous Christianity’, according to which any man who leads a naturally honest life, whether ‘believer’, atheist, or agnostic, would be oriented towards Christ and therefore saved by Him, as a ‘Christian’ without knowing it.

64. I finally profess that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled, surpassed, and rendered obsolete by the New Covenant, which is the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham, in Christ and in His Church. The figures of the old Law have found their realization and their cessation in the Sacrifice of the true Lamb, Mediator of the New Covenant and Priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. By the eternal Will of God, the true descendant of Abraham is Christ, together with those who belong to Him in His Mystical Body, which is the Church.

65. I therefore reject the new ecclesiology, which destroys the missionary impulse by relativizing the uniqueness of the Church, the sole ark of salvation.

66. I likewise reject inculturation understood as the indiscriminate adoption of the religious, moral, or symbolic categories of pagan cultures and their practices. The Gospel can assume what is naturally good, true, and noble in peoples; it can never consecrate idolatry, superstition, error, or customs contrary to the natural law. The mission of the Church is not an indefinite dialogue, a humanitarian cooperation, or a mutual recognition of religious traditions: it is the command received from Christ to teach all nations, to baptize them, and to teach them to observe all that He has commanded.

VIII. The Holy Ghost, Sanctifier of Souls and Soul of the Church

67. I profess that the Holy Ghost, the third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, true God with the Father and the Son, has spoken through the prophets, inspired the Scriptures, sanctified the just, formed the humanity of the Word Incarnate in the virginal womb of Mary, and was visibly sent at Pentecost to manifest the Church and to give her life until the consummation of the ages.

68. I believe that, sent by the Father and the Son, He abides in the Church until the end of time, in accordance with the promise of Our Lord. He is the uncreated Soul of the Church, not as a substantial form which would abolish the distinction between Christ and His members, but as the invisible principle and efficient cause of her supernatural life, of her unity of profession of Faith and worship, of the holiness of her government and her Magisterium, and of her fruitfulness in her works.

69. I profess that the whole life of the Church depends upon His action. It is He Who assists the ecclesiastical Magisterium, and especially that of the Pope, so that it may preserve, declare, and explain the revealed Deposit without error: not that it may invent new doctrines, but that it may penetrate more deeply, in the same sense and the same meaning, the truth already revealed by God to the Apostles.

70. I believe that it is He Who communicates to souls, in the sacraments, the grace gained by the Saviour, dwells in them through that grace, and conforms them to Christ; He Who enlightens minds by His wisdom, sustains wills by His power, and pours His charity into hearts; He Who gives rise to good works, inspires fraternal charity, and leads souls towards their perfection.

71. It is He Who has sustained the martyrs, enlightened the Doctors, raised up missionaries, nourished the contemplative life, fructified religious orders, and caused holiness to flourish in all states of life. The great works of Christian civilization, fruits of Catholic culture, themselves bear witness to this discreet yet fruitful presence of the Spirit of God in the Church throughout the centuries.

72. I therefore reject every claim to invoke the Holy Ghost in order to justify doctrinal adaptations that break with Tradition, moral reversals, or synodal procedures by which what the Church has received from God is put in question. The Spirit of truth cannot today inspire the contrary of what He inspired yesterday. He does not invite the Church to listen to the world in order to receive its aspirations from it; on the contrary, He impels her to teach the world, to convert it, and to sanctify it. His work consists neither in stirring up anarchic inspirations, nor in encouraging doctrinal creativity, nor in grounding spiritual life upon the search for extraordinary charismatic phenomena; it consists in guiding souls by enlightening their faith and defending them against their spiritual enemies, in order to complete in them the work of their salvation and to lead them into the light of eternity.

IX. The Roman Pontiff, the Episcopate, and the Hierarchical Constitution of the Church

73. I recognize in the Roman Pontiff the successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the supreme and universal Pastor, the visible head of the whole Church, possessing, by divine institution, a power of truly proper, supreme, full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction over all pastors and over all the faithful baptized in the Church.

74. I believe that this authority does not come to him from a delegation by the community, but directly from Christ Himself, Who instituted this office for the safeguarding of the doctrine of faith, the sanctification of souls, and the government of the Church.

75. I recognize that by reason of this proper and genuine power, pastors and faithful owe him respect and filial obedience in all that concerns the legitimate exercise of his office. Thus, the unity of communion with the Roman Pontiff and the unity of profession of the same Faith being safeguarded, the Church of Christ constitutes one flock under one supreme Pastor.

76. I likewise recognize that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles, which makes them true pastors by divine right, possessing in the Church, by the will of Christ, a particular and subordinate jurisdiction which they receive immediately from the Roman Pontiff. United with him, in submission to his supreme authority, they legitimately exercise their own authority in their respective dioceses, as established by the Holy Ghost in the hierarchical order willed by Christ.

77. I further recognize that the body of bishops, united with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without that head, can be the extraordinary and non-permanent subject of a full and supreme power over the universal Church, but that this takes place only in the act of an ecumenical council, on the initiative and at the order of the Roman Pontiff alone, and within the limits of his exclusive will.

78. I consequently reject the collegialist conceptions which would make the college of bishops a permanent moral person in the Church, or a second subject of supreme power, distinct from the successor of Peter. The monarchical constitution of the Church is of divine and inviolable institution, and it will remain so until the end of time, for no one can redefine the function that Christ Himself conferred upon Peter in His Church.

79. I likewise reject the synodalist conceptions which tend to transform the hierarchical Church into a consultative, parliamentary, or democratic structure, subject to the fluctuating opinions of the Christian people or to the pressures of the world. The collective conscience of the faithful, pastoral surveys, cultural sensibilities, and the expectations of the world are not sources of Revelation. The legitimate hearing of souls can never become a continual adaptation of the life of the Church, her doctrine, and her divine constitution to the spirit of the world, under pretext of interpreting the ‘sensus fidei’ of the people of God.

X. The Magisterium, Guardian of the Revealed Deposit

80. I believe that the Roman Pontiff enjoys infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, fulfilling his office as pastor and doctor of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that a doctrine concerning faith or morals is to be held by the universal Church.

81. I further profess that the power of the Magisterium in the Church is essentially ordered to the safeguarding of the revealed Deposit and, through this means, to the salvation of souls. The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter so that they might manifest new doctrine, but so that they might guard holily and expound faithfully the Deposit transmitted by the Apostles.

82. This is why the present Magisterium cannot substantially contradict the prior Magisterium. The living Magisterium is not current preaching set in opposition to past preaching; it is the continual and uninterrupted preaching of the same truth of Faith with the same meaning throughout the centuries. The Pope and the bishops are not the masters of Revelation; they are its guardians and are subject to it as a disciple is subject to his master. They can neither change the Faith, nor modify the divine constitution of the Church, nor declare good what is contrary to the law of God.

83. I therefore reject every evolutionist conception of dogma, according to which revealed truths would change their meaning over the course of history. There can be within the Church a homogeneous progress in understanding, which perceives better, in a more distinct and explicit manner, the meaning of revealed truth, but never a mutation in the meaning of that truth. What has already been taught by the living Magisterium of the Teaching Church, and believed in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, cannot become false; what has been condemned as contrary to the Faith cannot become legitimate; what belongs to the divine constitution of the Church cannot be remodelled according to the categories of the modern world or the historico-cultural context.

84. I therefore reject the notion of a new Magisterium, which would claim the authority of the present day to impose doctrines opposed or foreign to what is constant Tradition. I likewise reject the artificial opposition between the Magisterium of yesterday and that of today, as if the sole living Magisterium of the Bride of Christ were that of the present, and could, under pretext of better adapting it, renounce what the Church has always taught, believed, and condemned since the time of the Apostles.

85. I hold that, the legitimate freedom of research and opinion of theologians in relation to open or disputed doctrinal questions remaining intact, the Magisterium of the Church has the legitimate duty to exercise supervision and, where appropriate, censorship over publications, to prevent them from endangering the faith of the faithful. I therefore reject the accusation levelled against the holy Church of having lacked charity in anathematizing heresies and excommunicating heretics.

86. I also reject the perpetual dialogue established in the spirit of the last Council, by which the hierarchy renounces the exercise of a true Magisterium, and claims sometimes to receive its inspiration from the ‘sense of faith’ of the believing people, sometimes to converse on equal terms with the adherents of false religions or even with unbelievers.

87. I finally reject the subjectivist conception of theological pluralism which flows from such a resignation of the magisterial function. I hold that the Church is not an assembly in permanent search, but the guardian of a truth revealed by God and transmitted by the Apostles, and that her authentic Magisterium is the proximate and universal rule of truth in matters of faith and morals, ensuring the uninterrupted transmission of the revealed Deposit throughout the centuries.

XI. The Moral Order and the Law of God

88. I profess that there exists a moral order truly founded in the eternal wisdom of God. Human acts are good or evil according to their conformity or opposition to the divine law, which is holy and indefectible. Individual opinions, social consensus, subjective intentions, and historical circumstances cannot change the inviolable value of these principles of Christian morality.

89. From the immense goodness by which God has raised man up to the supernatural order, it follows that man has but one ultimate end, supernatural in character, to which he remains ordered according to God’s design, even after sin. This supernatural end assumes, raises, and perfects the end of man’s natural order.

90. The natural law, inscribed by God in human nature, remains knowable by right reason and binds all men. The positive revealed law, being of the supernatural order, confirms, raises, and clarifies the natural law whilst surpassing it. There is therefore no opposition between the law of the Gospel and the natural law; furthermore, the same grace gives man the strength to be supernaturally faithful to the demands of both, and thus to enjoy that liberty of the children of God by which, freed from the power of sin, man can tend towards his ultimate end.

91. I therefore reject situation ethics, according to which concrete circumstances could render actions that are intrinsically evil good. In particular, I hold that no circumstance can ever legitimize recourse to contraception, abortion, or euthanasia. I reject every doctrine which would claim that a course of action objectively contrary to the commandments of God could constitute, for some persons, the generous response demanded by God in that moment. God never commands sin, nor what is impossible; He never blesses moral disorder and never justifies what contradicts His own law; but to him who does his utmost, He never refuses the grace to keep His commandments.

92. I profess that adulterous unions, unions contrary to nature, and all public situations contrary to the divine law cannot be presented as imperfect goods, gifts of God, positive steps, or realities which may be blessed as such. Such a misleading presentation gravely distorts the principles of Christian morality, and harms the sacred institution of marriage and the good of families.

93. I therefore reject as contrary to the Faith and to the constant discipline of the Church the claim to admit to the sacraments, and most especially to the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist, those who publicly persist in such states without renouncing their disorder. True mercy calls the sinner to conversion; it does not ratify sin under the pretext of pastoral accompaniment or discernment of particular situations.

94. I likewise reject the modern dissociation between doctrine and pastoral practice. A pastoral practice that contradicts doctrine is not pastoral; it leads souls astray. Charity does not consist in silencing truth to avoid suffering, but in speaking truth with benevolence in order to lead to salvation. The medicine of the Church can heal only by naming evil, calling to penance, and offering the remedies of grace.

95. I finally profess that God is not only the author and end of the moral order, but also its guardian, its judge, and the sovereign rewarder of good and evil. Forgetfulness of divine judgement engenders a false mercy, sentimental and powerless, which saves no one because it converts no one.

XII. The Social Kingship of Christ and Christian Civilization

96. I profess that the Most Holy Trinity can and must be acknowledged and adored not only by each individual, but also by families, institutions, and civil societies. No human authority is independent of God, for all authority comes from Him and must be exercised according to the eternal law.

97. I profess that civil societies, like persons, have the duty to acknowledge and honour this one and only true God, Who is Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, and to render Him the worship due to Him, in the true religion revealed and instituted by Him.

98. I profess that the authorities which govern these societies must procure the common good by conforming themselves to the twofold divine law, natural and revealed. The use of freedom does not consist in giving free rein to all the caprices of concupiscence, but in choosing the best manner of using the goods of this world in view of eternal salvation.

99. I thus reject modern laicism, which claims to organize society as if God did not exist. The public refusal to recognize God as sovereign Lord is not neutrality, but a social injustice towards the Creator and a profound cause of disorder among peoples. Indeed, a society which refuses God the honour due to Him progressively destroys the foundations of its own justice: it severs human law from its eternal source and delivers peoples to the shifting wills of fallen man.

100. I profess that Our Lord Jesus Christ, because He is the Word Incarnate and because He has redeemed men by His Blood, is King not only of individuals, but also of families, institutions, peoples, and nations. All power has been given to Him in Heaven and on earth: His reign is not limited to the interior forum of consciences or to the private sphere; it must extend to the external forum, to laws, morals, education, culture, and public life. His Kingdom is eternal and universal: a kingdom of truth and life, a kingdom of holiness and grace, a kingdom of justice, love, and peace.

101. I profess that civil society, though perfect in its own order, does not possess all the means necessary to lead man to his true perfection, which remains inaccessible to fallen human nature without the help of grace, which heals and raises up.

102. This is why I profess that those who govern society must submit to the salutary influence of the Church, which enlightens minds through her Magisterium, heals and strengthens wills through the grace of the sacraments, and directs man towards his true supernatural destiny, of which she is the guardian. The good of society consequently demands that heads of state recognize their right and duty to favour and protect the holy Church, and likewise to oppose by the laws of their government whatever would obstruct her necessary influence, which is that of the one true religion.

103. I therefore reject political and religious liberalism: not only that which claims for error the same rights as for truth, and for false forms of worship the same official and public recognition as for the true; but also that which, in the name of human dignity and a false religious freedom, attributes to everyone the right to act publicly according to his conscience without being hindered by civil authority, even when that conscience is erroneous and opposed to the common good or to the true religion.

104. I acknowledge that error can in certain cases be tolerated to avoid greater evils, or to preserve the greater good of civil peace, but I profess that it does not possess in itself a moral right to be defended or encouraged on the same footing as truth, nor in the name of a false freedom of conscience never to be impeded.

105. I likewise hold that, although man possesses an ontological dignity which raises him above material beings, the human dignity to be respected is not indifferent to the truth and error professed by persons, nor to the good and evil they accomplish: he who professes error or does evil forfeits his moral dignity. This is why legitimate authority in no way attacks human dignity when it punishes crimes according to the demands of justice, by proportionate penalties, in order to defend the common good against grave disorders.

106. I also reject that modern form of personalism which would assign to the Church the mission of safeguarding the dignity of the human person, and of establishing a universal fraternity upon the foundation of this allegedly common dignity of the human race — without making any distinction between, on the one hand, the true dignity of the Christian who renounces sin in order to live according to evangelical morality in the Catholic Church, and, on the other, the false dignity of those who, lost in error and vice, refuse the path of salvation.

107. I reject the falsification that flows from this, which tends to make the Church, if not the servant, at least the collaborator of the world in the realization of its own ideal: that of a purely earthly and temporal peace, founded upon a naturalistic perfecting of humanity, devoid of supernatural perspective. This ideal fosters the independence of man with regard to God, His law, truth, and the good; it implies contempt for the Social Kingship of Christ and for Christendom, and leads ultimately to atheism and the substitution of man for God.

108. I likewise reject the modern prejudice which presents Christian civilization as oppressive, obscurantist, or hostile to human dignity. Far from destroying what is good in different cultures, the Christian order assumes and purifies it. Thus, from revealed doctrine and through the radiance of Catholic theology, especially that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Common Doctor of the Church, there was constituted, under the vigilance of the Magisterium, a true Christian culture of universal scope, integrating the finest elements of Greek and Latin culture. An authentic fruit of the Gospel, it contributed to educating peoples and causing them to grow in faith and Christian virtues. Even if it was never perfect, men always remaining sinners, this civilization was nonetheless in history the highest realization of the Christian social order.

109. Conversely, the modern refusal of the Social Kingship of Christ has produced a regression of civilization, through the secularization of institutions, the dissolution of marriage, the destruction of authority, education without God, the tyranny of the passions, and the progressive effacement of the spirit of sacrifice in once-Catholic nations. Against this public apostasy, we profess that all things must be restored in Christ, Who alone is holy and Who, through His Mystical Body, is the only sanctifier of souls and of peoples.

XIII. The Sacraments of the New Law

110. I believe that there are seven sacraments properly so called of the New Law, instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ to confer efficaciously the grace which they signify: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.

111. I profess that the sacraments must be validly celebrated with the prescribed matter, form, and intention, observing the liturgical rites which clearly express the Catholic Faith; and that they must be received with the required dispositions.

112. I believe that Baptism is the door of the Church and that it is necessary for salvation. Ordinarily, no one can be saved without receiving it; through this sacrament, man is washed from original sin, incorporated into Christ, marked with the Christian character, and made a member of the Church. I therefore reject the practice of deferring without grave cause the Baptism of children who have not the use of reason. However, one who, after the age of reason and without fault on his part, is prevented from accessing this sacrament, can be saved in an extraordinary manner by Baptism of Desire, that is, by a supernatural act of faith and perfect charity which orders him to the Church.

113. I profess that Confirmation strengthens the baptized through the gift of the Holy Ghost, so that he may courageously confess the Faith, resist the enemies of salvation, and live as a witness to Christ. In a time of confusion, this supernatural strength is particularly necessary, for no one can keep the Faith without combat.

114. I profess that Penance remits sins committed after Baptism, by means of the acts of the penitent, which are contrition, confession, and satisfaction. I firmly reject every pastoral approach which weakens the sense of sin, minimizes the necessity of sacramental confession, or reduces satisfaction to a mere act of reparation towards oneself or others, without reference to the offence committed against God.

115. I profess that Extreme Unction relieves and strengthens the sick, remits sins when this is applicable, powerfully contributes to effacing the punishment due to sin, and prepares the Christian soul to appear before God.

116. I affirm that Matrimony is the stable and indissoluble union of one man and one woman, elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. The purpose of this union, established by God, the Orderer of nature, is twofold: the generation and education of children on the one hand, which constitutes the primary and principal end of marriage; the mutual support of the spouses and the remedy for concupiscence on the other, which are its secondary ends: true and essential ends, but naturally subordinated to the first.

117. I therefore reject every doctrine which considers unions contrary to marriage as real, if imperfect, participations in it; or which, wishing to define marriage in terms of the love of the spouses alone, destroys the hierarchy of the ends of marriage, at the risk of legitimizing divorce, the refusal of children, and thereby contraception, which is contrary to the natural law.

118. I confess that the sacrament of Holy Orders imprints upon him who receives it the sacerdotal character which configures him to Christ the Priest, and that no woman can receive it at any degree whatsoever. Thereby, the priest receives the power to offer the salutary Sacrifice for the living and the dead, to remit sins, and to sanctify the faithful. I thus reject all confusion between the priesthood, in the true and proper sense of the ministers of Christ, and the common priesthood, used in an improper sense with reference to the faithful: the faithful offer spiritually with the priest and through the priest; but only the duly ordained priest realizes and offers sacramentally the Sacrifice in the Person of Christ.

XIV. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Holy Eucharist, and the Catholic Liturgy

119. I profess that the Mass is truly, in the proper sense of the word, a Sacrifice. It is not merely a memorial of the Last Supper or of the Passion; celebrated by a duly ordained priest, it sacramentally represents the unique Sacrifice of Calvary, and renews it in an unbloody manner, without however multiplying it. The Victim is the same, the principal Priest is the same; only the manner of offering differs.

120. In the Mass, and through the action of His minister, Our Lord Jesus Christ offers Himself to His Father as a Sacrifice of adoration, thanksgiving, propitiation, and impetration. By uniting herself to this action of Christ, which is identical to that of the celebrating priest, the Church renders to God the perfect worship due to Him, and applies to the souls of the living and the dead the merits of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

121. I believe that, through the words of Consecration validly pronounced by a priest, the bread and wine are changed in their entire substance into the Body and Blood of Christ, though their sensible accidents remain. This admirable change is rightly called Transubstantiation.

122. I believe that the Most Holy Eucharist occupies the centre of the life of the Church, and that it truly, really, and substantially contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I adore the Most Blessed Sacrament of the altar and reject every doctrine or practice which weakens faith in the Real Presence, diminishes the respect due to the Eucharist, trivializes Holy Communion, or alters the sacred character of the sanctuary.

123. Because it is the privileged expression of faith, the liturgy is also the permanent school in which the Christian soul is formed. Through its orientation, its silence, its gestures, its canon, its sacred language, its spirit of adoration, and its theocentric structure, the liturgy nourishes faith and exercises a profound influence upon souls. Through it, peoples learn to think according to God, to judge according to eternity, to love what is holy, to despise what is transient, and to order their entire life to the Sacrifice of Christ. It also shapes morals and inspires the arts, institutions, feasts, and customs of the Christian people. This is why, when divine worship becomes prosaic, hollow, equivocal, profane, or anthropocentric, it weakens the very understanding of the Faith.

124. I profess that the traditional Roman Mass, celebrated according to the rite in use before the reform of the Novus Ordo Missae, expresses with incomparable clarity the Catholic doctrine of Sacrifice, the priesthood, and the Real Presence. But I observe with sorrow that the contemporary liturgical reforms have departed considerably from the traditional liturgy, on the whole as in its details: in so doing, they have obscured the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass, fostered a democratic conception of worship, brought Catholic liturgical expression closer to Protestant conceptions, and thereby contributed preponderantly to the loss of the sense of the sacred, the corruption of the Christian spirit, the decline of vocations, and the general weakening of the Faith.

125. I therefore reject every liturgical reform or usage which, through omission, doctrinal ambiguity, or practical orientation, favours heresy, weakens faith, departs from the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as formulated at the Council of Trent, or turns the faithful away from the adoration due to God. The public worship of the Church must express the Catholic Faith without equivocation.

126. I am certain, finally, that the Catholic restoration of peoples necessarily involves the restoration of divine worship, through the traditional liturgy of all time. Where the Mass is celebrated as the true Sacrifice of Christ, faith, piety, the life of grace, Christian families, vocations, and the desire for eternal goods are reborn.

XV. Christian Life, Holiness, and the Perfection of Charity

127. I believe that the supreme vocation of man is holiness. Created by God, redeemed by Christ, and sanctified by the action of the Holy Ghost, man is called to participate in the very life of God through a growing conformity to His Will, so as to attain perfect and definitive union with Him in glory.

128. I believe that sanctifying grace makes man an adoptive child of the Father, a member of Jesus Christ, a temple of the Holy Ghost, and an heir of eternal life. It makes the soul pleasing to God, communicates to it a created participation in the Divine Nature, makes it capable of supernatural acts, and orders it to the Beatific Vision. The theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity unite the soul directly to God; the infused moral virtues order its conduct to the divine law; the gifts of the Holy Ghost make it apt to receive His inspirations with docility, conferring upon the virtues their ultimate perfection.

129. I believe that the Christian life involves, to a very great and by no means negligible degree, a spiritual combat. Since the fall, man remains exposed to the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Grace does not suppress this combat: it gives the necessary strength to engage in it victoriously.

130. I believe that the path to holiness is by imitation of Jesus Christ, obedience to His commandments, prayer, the sacraments, penance, self-renunciation, fidelity to one’s duty of state, and love of the Cross. The disciple is not above his Master: if he wishes to enter into glory, he must walk in the footsteps of the crucified Christ.

131. I therefore reject the false Christianity without the Cross, which promises earthly peace without conversion, mercy without penance, brotherhood without dependence upon the Fatherhood of God, and holiness without heroism. The Church has never canonized mediocrity, adaptation to the world, or merely natural goodwill; she has proposed, for the imitation of her faithful, saints whose faith was integral, whose charity was heroic, and whose lives were conformed to that of Christ.

132. I therefore reject every reduction of the Christian life to a vague philanthropy, social awareness, or commitment to the affairs of this world. Christian charity is first measured not by shared emotion or visible utility, but by the supernatural love of God above all things and of one’s neighbour for God’s sake. Corporal mercy itself loses its true meaning and its authentic value when it is no longer ordered to spiritual mercy and eternal salvation.

133. I profess that holiness is the most beautiful fruit of the Church. Martyrs, confessors, virgins, monks, missionaries, doctors, pastors, and all holy faithful souls bear witness to the power of truth, the fruitfulness of grace, and the victory of Christ over sin.

XVI. The Last Things and Christian Hope

134. I believe that the present life is a time of preparation for eternity and therefore of trial. Man has no lasting dwelling here on earth: he is created for a supernatural destiny which infinitely surpasses the passing goods of this world. I believe in life after death, which one enters by the separation of soul and body.

135. I believe that at the end of his earthly life, each person will appear first before the tribunal of Christ for the particular judgement and will receive, according to his thoughts, words, actions, and omissions, the sentence of his eternal destiny; I also believe that at the end of time, Our Lord Jesus Christ will return in His glory to preside over the general judgement.

136. I maintain with love and trembling that both mercy and justice shine forth in the works of God. The sin of man has offended the glory of the Creator, man has become the debtor of God, and divine justice demands reparation; but, in His incomparable mercy, God has given us a Redeemer Who, as Head of humanity, has offered Himself for the sins of the whole world: a satisfaction which calls for the concurrence of our own.

137. I trust in the infinite mercy of God: there is no sin He cannot pardon, nor any misery He does not wish to relieve; but I firmly condemn that mercy without justice preached by the new humanism, that of a god who does not chastise sin, condemns no one, and demands no conversion, justifying the sin rather than the sinner.

138. I profess that souls who die in a state of mortal sin are condemned to the dreadful abyss of hell, the eternal punishment of privation of God and the eternal punishment of fire. I reject every doctrine which denies the eternity of hell, diminishes the reality of eternal punishments, or implies that all men will ultimately be saved, hell remaining empty.

139. I believe that souls who die in a state of grace, but still liable for temporal punishment, are purified in purgatory. I therefore profess the necessity of praying for the departed, of applying to them the suffrage of the Church, and I reject the falsehoods which promise to all immediate entry into the house of the Father, thereby extinguishing the pious custom of the Church of praying constantly for the dead.

140. I reject in particular the false pastoral language which, for fear of troubling consciences, passes over in silence judgement, hell, and the necessity of penance. There is no charity in hiding from men the eternal peril in which sin places them. The preaching of the Last Things belongs to the mercy of the Church, because it awakens souls and turns them towards salvation.

141. I affirm, finally, that souls who die in the friendship of God, perfectly purified, enter immediately into eternal life and enjoy the Beatific Vision. They contemplate God face to face, as He is, and possess in Him their eternal rest. The Christian life is ordered to this beatitude; every pastoral approach which reduces human happiness to earthly well-being, social peace, or merely psychological fulfilment betrays the supernatural end of the Gospel.

142. Christian hope is therefore neither earthly optimism nor uncertainty mingled with fear. It is the confident expectation of the eternal Kingdom, founded upon the promises of God and nourished by grace. It gives the Christian the strength to labour here below without forgetting that his homeland is in Heaven, and to combat the errors of the age without losing his peace of soul.

XVII. The Modern Crisis and the Duty to Confess the Faith

143. I believe that the Church, assisted by divine Providence, remains indefectible until the end of time. The promise of Christ cannot fail: the gates of hell shall never prevail against her.

144. I believe, however, that the history of the Church knows periods of trial, in which the profession of the true Faith is gravely diminished, in which errors spread, in which discipline weakens, and in which many souls are led astray.

145. I acknowledge in particular that modern errors represent a dreadful threat to the whole of the Catholic order, and that their penetration into the life of the Church, under the influence of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar reforms, has provoked a crisis of exceptional gravity: agnosticism attacks the knowledge of God; naturalism attacks the necessity of grace; subjectivism attacks the supernatural motive of faith; relativism attacks the immutability of dogma; situation ethics attacks the divine law; liberalism attacks the Social Kingship of Christ; false ecumenism attacks the uniqueness of the Church; collegiality and synodality attack the divine constitution of the Church in her hierarchy; liturgical anthropocentrism attacks the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

146. The current crisis therefore cannot be reduced to a mere conflict of sensibilities, liturgical preferences, or pastoral options. It touches upon the very foundations of faith and morals, of the priesthood and worship, of the Church and the Kingship of Christ.

147. These errors do not remain abstract; they have produced visible fruits: the weakening of doctrinal preaching, the extinction of the missionary spirit, the trivialization of sin, the crisis of the family, the ruin of the liturgy, the loss of the sense of God, the scarcity of vocations, the silent apostasy of Christian nations, and the profound confusion of the faithful.

148. This is why it is no longer sufficient today to affirm Catholic truths in general terms, without simultaneously denouncing the errors which seek to corrupt them. Charity towards souls demands the clarity of the whole truth, without any ambiguity.

149. This crisis can only be overcome by the restoration of all things in Jesus Christ, through the return to the Faith, to the life of grace, to divine worship, and to the pursuit of holiness.

150. In these painful circumstances, without judging anyone nor usurping the authority of the Church, I cannot but confess the Faith whose profession is being diminished, recall the Tradition which is being banished, defend morality, guard the liturgy, and proclaim the rights of Christ.

Conclusion

151. Faithful to eternal Rome which guards the Deposit transmitted by the Apostles, I wish to preserve this heritage integrally, without diminution, without alteration, and without fear, not as a particular opinion within the Church of today, but as the Faith received from the Church that is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman.

152. For this Faith does not belong to me: I have received it in order to remain faithful to it, to live by it, to transmit it, and, if God so asks, to suffer for it, in the confident expectation of the triumph of truth and of grace, for the salvation of souls and the glory of the Most Holy Trinity.

153. I ask God to keep me firm in this profession of Faith until the last instant of my life. I entrust this profession of Faith to the intercession of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the holy Apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, and all the saints who have preceded us in fidelity to Christ.

154. And in the hope of the resurrection and of the life of the world to come, I place my soul, the Church, and all things in the hands of God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to Whom belong honour, glory, and power forever and ever.

Amen.

Given at Menzingen, on 24 June 2026, the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist

Introduction:

In November 2023, Fr. Francois Chazal gave a Resistance conference in England in which he responded to a question from one of the faithful regarding concerns about the questionably valid episcopal consecration of Archbishop Vigano (having been consecrated in 1992 by John Paul II in the new 1968 rite of Paul VI), stating obliquely of +Vigano that, “he has done the necessary,” before moving on to other topics. From there, the statement caught fire and news of the conditional consecration spread over the internet, but without any confirmation from either +Williamson or +Vigano.

From that time, the world awaited a declaration (or at least an acknowledgement) from either +Williamson or +Vigano that in fact the conditional episcopal consecration had taken place, and for good reason: The Resistance had vigorously opposed the incorporation of Bishop Vitus Huonder into the sacramental life of the SSPX not only because he was sent by Bergoglio to facilitate the incremental absorption of the SSPX into the conciliar church, but more than this, because having himself been ordained and consecrated in the new doubtful 1968 rites, a shadow would hang over all the sacraments he conferred which required valid ordination or episcopal consecration. How then could the Resistance itself collaborate with a bishop who himself labored under suspicion of invalid episcopal consecration?

Moreover, in this YouTube short, +Sanborn stated what most of us were thinking:

Nevertheless, in January 2025, +Williamson would suffer a cerebral hemorrhage and pass away without ever having confirmed or denied the fact of the conditional consecration of +Vigano publicly. At that point, the matter became more problematic, because now, even were +Vigano to come out publicly and affirm the fact of the consecration, in the absence of pictures and/or videos of the consecration, the world would be placed in the undesirable position of having to take his word for it.

The consecrator having died, and the consecrated -already 85 years-old- manifesting no intention of affirming the fact of the consecration, the church would therefore be deprived of prima facie proof of the event, historically significant because of its value in testifying to the questionable validity of the new rite: If even the formerly 11th highest ranking official in the conciliar church questions the validity of the rite by which he was consecrated to govern it, the fact becomes a powerful argument for the scholars and ecclesiastical historians of posterity in seeking to oppose and correct the wayward course of the church since Vatican II. Moreover, the example of +Vigano’s conditional consecration, precisely because of his eminence in the church, is a powerful example for the conversion of the confused conciliar masses today.

The Proof of Conditional Consecration:

Therefore, it was precisely to prevent against the possibility that both prelates might pass from this world without ever acknowledging in the public forum the fact of the consecration, that I reached out to +Vigano on November 8, 2023 thusly:

“On Wednesday, November 8th, 2023 at 2:51 PM, Sean Johnson <Sean_J-5472@protonmail.com> wrote:

Greetings Your Excellency-

I was reliably informed a couple months ago that Your Excellency had been conditionally consecrated (and ordained)1 in the old rite.

Some thought that information should be kept private, lest those Your Excellency might otherwise influence who are still trapped in the conciliar church consider it a “step too far,” and Your Excellency lose the moral influence over them he might otherwise exert.

Others perhaps think that, whatever the truth of the above statement might be, nevertheless, Your Excellency’s stature would rise amongst those traditionalists desperately in need of leadership, but who are skeptical regarding the authenticity or completeness of Your Excellency’s conversion to Tradition.

If perhaps it is not my place to ask such a question, might I nevertheless inquire whether Your Excellency has any plans to reveal this information?

I will not be offended, and would understand, if Your Excellency chose not to respond

Semper Idem,

Sean Johnson

USA

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

Having received no response from His Excellency, I wrote to him again on December 10:

From: Sean Johnson <Sean_J-5472@protonmail.com>
Date: On Sunday, December 10th, 2023 at 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Conditional ordination and consecration

Greetings Your Excellency-

Wonderful news that Your Excellency is opening a seminary!

A consideration:

Almost nobody knows about Your Excellency’s recent conditional ordination/consecration2 (outside a very small circle of Resistance clergy and laity), but one of the criticisms being voiced on the internet blogs/forums regarding Your Excellency’s recently announced plan to form and ordain traditional priests centers upon this very point:

Regardless of the disputed validity or invalidity of the new rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination, almost no Resistance (or sedevacantist) candidates would attend such a seminary, as the doubt (however great or small) will certainly dissuade any such candidates from entering, since all know the Church teaches us that, as regards sacramental validity, we must take a tutiorist/rigorist position, and therefore even small doubts preclude such collaboration.

Ultimately, this would mean that only diocesan and Ecclesia Dei-oriented candidates (who harbor no such doubts about the new rites of 1968) would consider such a seminary, which in turn would make your seminary but another Fraternity of St. Peter/indult-style seminary (e.g., Who among them could attribute error to Vatican II in se, if they cannot even bring themselves to attribute doubt to “legally promulgated” rites, much less a universally recognized papal claimant?).

All this said, if Your Excellency’s goal is to simply bring conservatives a bit further toward integral Tradition, then the secrecy regarding Your Excellency’s conditional consecration is moot (since for conservatives, it is not an issue). But if Your Excellency desires to attract fully traditional seminary candidates as might be found amongst the families attached to the Dominicans of Avrille (France), the Benedictines of Santa Cruz Monastery (Brazil), the various Resistance chapels around the world, and even some in the SSPX who have not yet been conditioned to accept the questionable ministry of +Huonder, then this would certainly become a stumbling block for most.

So it seems that one way or the other, Your Excellency stands to risk losing support by announcing or not announcing your conditional consecration.

That being the case, the real question becomes: Who’s support and orientation does Your Excellency most wish to support and promote?

I fully understand I have no rite to an answer to such questions, but only desire make Your Excellency aware of the public discussion now taking place in some quarters surrounding this question. God bless Your Excellency, and thank you especially for your excellent writings!

Semper Idem,

Sean Johnson

On December 14, I forwarded this email to Bishop Williamson, and received the “money shot” response from him that you are all waiting for on the same day [I attach it here not as a copy/paste, but as a screenshot, in order that the authenticity of such an important matter cannot be questioned]:

And there it is: A clear and unequivocal statement by +Williamson that he conditionally consecrated +Vigano.3

But Why the Wait, and Why Divulge Now?

In other correspondences with +Williamson (and +Faure), I had argued that the fact of the consecration should be made public, largely for the reasons already mentioned, adding that while I understood the strategic reasons originally adduced for keeping it secret (e.g., revealing the matter in 2023 would serve to further isolate +Vigano, who was making some headway, and reaching people because of his former stature in the conciliar Church, and now having come over fully to Tradition), by late 2023 the concern about isolation was becoming less persuasive: He’d recently been cancelled by Michael Matt from The Remnant, banned from the CIC, and blackballed by most of Trad Inc. The isolation was taking place because +Vigano had publicly rejected the legitimacy of Bergoglio as Pope. Then in July, Cardinal Fernandez would declare +Vigano excommunicated from the conciliar church.

The concern about isolation seemed no longer to remain, in the wake of the “excommunication,” which in the eyes of any formerly sympathetic conciliarists had now already accomplished that unfortunate task.

Perceiving this, I reached out to +Williamson a few days after the excommunication and again broached the matter of revealing the fact of the conditional consecration, there now seeming to be no legitimate concern regarding isolation or impacting His Excellency’s influence amongst conciliarists.

This is that exchange:

On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 at 02:03, Sean Johnson <Sean_J-5472@protonmail.com> wrote:

Greetings Your Lordship-

It is somewhat perplexing that even after the “excommunication” of Archbishop Vigano, he still has not told the world that Your Lordship conditionally consecrated him last year.

Two questions in this regard:

1. Does Your Lordship have any idea why +Vigano is reluctant to reveal a fact which would only serve to enhance his status among traditionalists?

1. As it would be a shame if this historically significant consecration were never publicly verified by Your Lordship or +Vigano, may I ask Your Lordship whether he would at least provide me with a date, location, and names of witnesses attending, in order that at least a written record will survive?

Semper Idem,

Sean Johnson

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

What follows is another screenshot of +Williamson’s response:

Unfortunately, His Lordship would pass away only 6 months later, and the requested date of the consecration, location, and names of witnesses never came. Nevertheless, what is provided reaffirms the bishop’s earlier attestation of the fact of the conditional consecration, as he was considering providing me the additional details.

In any case, we have a disagreement regarding the reason adduced for maintaining the secrecy, even in the wake of an “excommunication,” for the isolation was already as pronounced as it could be. What more could divulging the consecration do to isolate an “excommunicate?” And as for the concern +Williamson expressed in the screenshot regarding the conciliarists who followed Vigano, how they could continue to be influenced by an “excommunicate” but scared away by a conditional consecration is not clear to me.

All in all, the reasons for maintaining secrecy seem to have become, by the passage of time, obsolete.

Lessons from the Clandestine Resistance Consecrations:

Shortly before the +Vigano conditional consecration, and at the height of the COVID19 farce, +Williamson performed three episcopal consecrations of resistance priests to provide for the needs of the faithful amidst the very real concerns of travel restrictions and global lockdowns. The consecrations were performed “in pectore” (a term which means “close to the heart” and references things done secretly), and for two years, the world was unaware that Fathers Ballini, Stobniki, and Morgan had been consecrated bishops.

But foreseeing the doubt which would be cast upon the fact of these consecrations should +Williamson die without ever publicizing the matter, and that such doubt would frustrate the very reason for which the consecrations were undertaken in the first place (as the Resistance faithful would shun a doubtfully consecrated Resistance bishop every bit as much as a +Huonder), one of the three announced his intention, in private correspondence, to reveal the consecration while +Williamson was yet alive. To that point, +Williamson had resisted, as he was aware of contention between the secret bishops and some of the other Resistance clergy. But ultimately, he would announce the fact of the consecrations in late 2022, and save the Resistance the turmoil which would ensue had he passed without publicizing the matter.

The same would seem to hold true in the case of +Vigano: He has a seminary. He performs priestly ordinations. He confers confirmations. There are men with vocations considering where to go for formation who need to know whether this man is certainly a bishop.

Conclusion:

In the history of the Church, clandestine consecrations (e.g., behind the Iron Curtain, etc.) were always later publicized once the conditions or circumstances which necessitated the secrecy changed or disappeared, and this for the peace and unity of the Church. So too should it be in the case of +Vigano:

The fear of isolation, and/or alienating the semi-conciliar portion of his faithful, especially in the wake of the far more serious matter of “excommunication” (at least in their eyes) having now become irrelevant, it would seem the same ought to apply here. Adding to this the great value his personal example gives to the faithful, the value and lesson it gives for posterity and the scholarly debate regarding the questionable validity of the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration (which must at some point be addressed before the Church crisis can be healed), and there seemed to be no more convincing reason to maintain the secrecy.

Neither can it be maintained that such a revelation would deprive the faithful formerly ministered to by +Vigano of peace of soul, for fear of having received doubtful sacraments: The validity of +Vigano’s priesthood has never been in question, and therefore neither have his confessions, marriages, or Masses/Communions. As regards any past confirmations, although an exceedingly valuable sacrament, especially in these apostate times, it is nevertheless not strictly necessary for salvation. And of course baptisms require no Orders at all. As regards past priestly ordinations, we want those ordained in the new rite to question and resolve the matter of their Orders, for the good of the Church and the faithful they minister to (but having sepnt most of his episcopal career in the diplomatic corps of the Vatican, did he even ever perform any before his conditional consecration?). And finally, as regards these latter (i.e., conciliar faithful), if their ignorance regarding the doubtful new rites is practically invulnerable, then how could learning +Vigano has been conditionally consecrated, and/or that the priests formerly ordained by him (if there are any) might not have been validly ordained cause them any anxiety, when they reject our concerns about the new rites out of hand as radical nonsense?

Therefore, for all these reasons, and that all might have certitude in the matter, I have published +Williamson’s explicit affirmation of the fact of the conditional consecration of +Vigano.

As I had posted a note a few weeks ago announcing I was going to be commencing a personal study on the disputed validity of episcopal consecrations conferred by Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục (at least those which pertained to +des Lauriers and +Carmona Rivera, who’s episcopal lineages account for most of the subsequent sedevacantist episcopal consecrations and priestly ordinations in the USA), a viewer directed me to an event which I was unaware had taken place: a 2002 video recorded debate between Fr. Jenkins (SSPV), maintaining the doubtful validity of +Thuc consecrations, and Fr. Anthony Cekada, defending the moral certitude of their validity.

It seems the context of the debate was that a parishioner of Fr. Cekada’s had been denied Holy Communion at an SSPV chapel, and the two priests decided to meet in a public forum to debate the matter as to whether such action was justified according to Church law.

The debate is several hours long, and broken up into 16 distinct YouTube videos. I had intended to post each one in chronological order below, so that they’d all be available on a single page, but received a notice that the owner had disabled playback on other websites.

Therefore I’m simply embedding a YouTube link to the first installment here, which in turn will bring you through the rest of the installments in their proper sequence.

A post this brief would normally be better positioned as a “note,” but as those are often overlooked, I decided to post it here on the main page instead, in the hope of eliciting constructive commentary from the readership.

In caritate,

The Seraphim

Introduction:

Now that the names of the SSPX candidates for episcopal consecration on July 1 have been released, there have been many discussions about their various characters, strengths, positions, traits, and of course the inevitable comparisons to current and former SSPX bishops. As regards one of the four to be consecrated, Fr. Michael Goldade, some have thought to discover in him various parallels to the late Bishop Richard Williamson, noting that Fr. Goldade received most of his seminary formation under +Williamson, appears to have taken a recent interest in the writings of Fr. Fahey, and was himself a seminary rector.

From these superficial and incidental commonalities, some are harboring hopes in their hearts that Fr. Goldade will become the next Bishop Williamson. The purpose of this article is to throw cold water on those hopes, supply a heavy dose of reality, and explain why that simply isn’t going to happen.

The Seminary:

I was myself providentially enrolled in the SSPX seminary in Winona at a most interesting point in history: Arriving in the fall of 2001, I was there not long after the GREC-organized 2000 pilgrimage of the SSPX to Rome put the ralliement of the SSPX into its public phase. I was there when Campos capitulated. And I was there when the divide between the competing visions of +Williamson and +Fellay first began to quietly circulate amongst the priests and seminarians, causing all of us to secretly take sides for or against a deal with Rome.

Of course, Fr. Goldade was also there. As he was an upper level seminarian, we did not converse much, but my impression of him at the time was generally favorable. He was sober, temperate, and struck me as rather plain (i.e., he did not have any of the eccentricities some of the other seminary transients had). Consequently, I never knew his position. But the division was already alive and well in Winona: You were either a Fellay man, or a Williamson man, since you could not be both at the same time vis-a-vis Rome without violating the principle of non-contradiction, their positions being mutually exclusive.

The point here is that being formed by a Williamson-run seminary is not in itself an indicator that one shared his positions. And as one reflects upon the way things panned out under +Fellay from 2001-2012, literally hundreds of priests formed by the English bishop either actively opposed him, or sat silently on the sidelines, content to watch his demonization in prelude to expulsion.

Fr. Goldade was more than just one of these latter Nicodemus types, as we shall see.

Fr. Goldade vs the Resistance:

In America, the SSPX’s anti-resistance purges reached their apex in 2012, under the leadership of the serial pedophile, Fr. Arnaud Rostand. At that time, there was an excellent website called sossaveoursspx.com. One of the first Resistance websites, it exposed and chronicled the compromises, changes, and contradictions of the neo-SSPX as it transformed itself in preparation for insertion into the conciliar church, by documenting sermons, articles, conferences, providing website links, defending the first Resistance priests, and doing what it could to sound the alarm that all was not well with the Society (hence the name “SOS” which stood for “Save Our SSPX”).

At that time, Fr. Goldade was serving at the SSPX’s Christ the King chapel in Ridgefield, CT which also happened to be the same chapel the editor of the sossaveoursspx.com website attended. On September 16, while Fr. Rostand was in town for a conference on then-current dealings with Rome, Fr. Goldade passed over the editor at the communion rail in front of hundreds of people (the website being the reason). At the conference afterwards, Fr. Rostand told him to take it down. Not long after, it vanished. You can read all about that sorry affair on Cathinfo.com here.

Whether this incident was on order from Fr. Rostand, or was the initiative of Fr. Goldade himself is not pertinent. What is pertinent is that +Williamson was a promotor of the Resistance and militantly opposed to any practical accord with unconverted Rome, and was willing to go so far as suffering expulsion in order to bring the SSPX resisters sacraments,1 whereas Fr. Goldade denied the sacraments to this man. I do not know if there were other instances, or whether this man’s family (he had 8 children and a wife at the time) were included in this interdict.

The point here is that the traits which most characterized +Williamson were his anti-conciliarism and his fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre. Neither of those traits are conspicuous in Fr. Goldade, in fact he actively persecuted that which +Williamson actively promoted (at least on this occasion).

A Final Note:

I can easily imagine Fr. Goldade being quite surprised to learn that some are placing in him their hopes of finding the next Bishop Williamson.

His first question, like my own, would be “Why?”

Quite frankly, I think the SSPX will never get another +Williamson, because they don’t deserve one. They threw him out on the street, and all who backed him, yet I’m to believe they somehow failed to recognize that the priest they’re about to consecrate is actually a Williamsonesque protege?

No, what they’ll get instead are quiet, plain, ordinary, subservient, controllable, and unremarkable bishops who will all be good company men (perhaps even open to an accord with modernist Rome some day).

SOURCE: FSSPX NEWS

https://fsspx.news/fr/news/la-maison-generale-annonce-les-noms-des-futurs-eveques-59319

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE GENERAL HOUSE

In this octave of Pentecost, Father Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, has the joy of announcing the names of the priests of the Society who have been chosen to receive, on July 1st ⁱⁿ Ecône, episcopal consecration.

In a show of respect for the supreme authority of the universal Church, the files of these priests were presented to the Holy Father, accompanied by some explanations required for a proper understanding of this process, in the very particular and exceptional context of these episcopal consecrations.

The four priests are:

• Father Pascal Schreiber, of Swiss nationality;

• Father Michael Goldade, of American nationality;

• Father Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, of French nationality;

• Father Marc Hanappier, of French nationality.

The Superior General reaffirms that the selection and consecration of these elected officials do not stem from any desire to claim jurisdictional power or to establish a parallel authority within the Church. They in no way constitute a denial, a refusal, or a challenge to the supreme, full, and immediate jurisdictional power of the Vicar of Christ over the universal Church.

The ceremony on July 1st ^will have no other purpose than to maintain the administration of the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation, as well as that of the sacramentals reserved for bishops, according to the traditional rite of the Holy Roman Church, and the faith of all time.

The episcopate that these priests will receive is therefore only considered as a service rendered to souls and to the Church, in the midst of this unprecedented crisis of faith.

Our will to serve the holy Catholic Church remains unshaken, in the awareness of the imperative duty to faithfully and fully transmit what we have received, that is to say what the Church has always believed, taught and practiced.

Menzingen, May 26, 2026

Father Pascal Schreiber

Father Pascal Schreiber, aged 53, was born into a Catholic family of five children from the canton of Aargau, Switzerland. In 1992, he entered the Herz Jesu seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany, before continuing his studies in Écône, Switzerland, where he was ordained a priest in the summer of 1998.

After five years of ministerial service in Germany and French-speaking Switzerland, he was entrusted, in 2003, with the management of a boys’ secondary school in Mels, in German-speaking Switzerland.

Two years later, he took responsibility for the Wil girls’ primary and secondary school, a ministry he held for nine years.

Called to Rickenbach in 2014, to the headquarters of the Swiss district, he first served as bursar for two years, before being appointed district superior.

Since August 15, 2020, he has been the director of the Herz Jesu seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany, where he is dedicated to the formation of more than 50 future priests and brothers from 16 countries. He is fluent in German and French, and also speaks English.

Father Michael Goldade

Originally from North Dakota, having grown up in St. Marys, Kansas, in the United States, Father Michael Goldade comes from a Catholic family of ten children which includes three Sisters of the Society of Saint Pius X. At the age of 18, he entered the seminary in Winona, where he was ordained a priest in 2004.

He served in Armada, Michigan, for five years before being called to lead the retirement home in Ridgefield.

In 2014, he was appointed prior in Kansas City, where he oversaw the priory, a large parish, a school, and a community of nuns. In 2021, he also assumed the role of assistant to the district superior.

Appointed director of Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Virginia in the summer of 2023, he now oversees the training of nearly 100 seminarians. Aged 45, he speaks English, has studied French, and also has some knowledge of Spanish.

Abbot Michel Poinsinet of Sivry

Father Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, a French national from a Catholic family of seven children, is 42 years old. He completed his priestly training at the seminary in Flavigny, France, and then in Écône, where he received priestly ordination in 2008.

Beginning his ministry at the Saint-Joseph-des-Carmes school in the south of France, he was entrusted in 2011 with the direction of the Saint-Louis primary school in Paris. He held this position for five years, while also serving a chapel in Seine-Saint-Denis and participating in the apostolate of the Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet church in Paris.

He then headed the Saint-Jean-Baptiste-de-La-Salle high school and middle school in Camblain-l’Abbé, near Arras, for six years, before being appointed superior of the Benelux district in 2022, a position he still holds today. In addition to French, he also speaks English and continues to study German and Dutch.

Father Marc Hanappier

Father Marc Hanappier, of French nationality, was born in 1990 into a Catholic family of ten children with several vocations: one of his brothers is a priest of the Fraternity, another, a priest with the Capuchins of Morgon, and one of his sisters is a Dominican teaching nun of Saint-Pré.

Trained at the seminaries of Flavigny and Ecône, he received priestly ordination in 2013. He began his ministry in France in teaching, first at the Étoile-du-Matin school, near Bitche, then at the Saint-Michel school, not far from Châteauroux.

In 2020, appointed professor at the Dillwyn seminary in Virginia, he began by perfecting his mastery of English for a year in Scotland, while collaborating in parish ministry.

At the seminary, he primarily teaches metaphysics and dogma, while also providing pastoral ministry in several chapels on Sundays. He is fluent in French and English, has studied German, and has also begun learning Spanish.

This sample will suffice to inform readers whether or not this book will be of interest to them. Of course, I am being besieged to translate and post Chapter X all by itself, but I think it needs to be contextualized by what Dom Grea writes before.

The attached sample PDF contains all the approbations, table of contents (which will change), errata, preface, and all three chapters of the introduction.

I hope you enjoy, or at least gain something even from this snippet of the 550+ page opus. If you like this much, you’ll like all the rest.

General notes:

1. The translation works from this edition of Dom Grea’s manual.

2. Where footnotes are in Latin, they have been preserved. Where they are in French, they have been translated into English. Where they are Greek, they have been preserved.

3. Dom Grea’s list of errata will eventually vanish, as I incorporate the changes and corrections he noted therein into this translation.

4. The page numbers in the table of contents will also change (i.e., they are Dom Grea’s for the French edition, and will change for the English version).

5. In the final hardcover print edition (as well as the free PDF I will make available), I will insert my own preface and introductions, while also retaining those of Dom Grea.

6. I am as yet undecided regarding indexing or style of index.

NB: As additional pages are translated, I will list revision dates below, in order that those interested in following along may more conveniently do so, without the need for me to pepper the Substack with incessant update notices. At each revision listed, the old PDF will be replaced with the most current version.

Latest Update:

• 7/12/26: 5 more pages.

On The Church And Its Divine Constitution

526KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Before my dismissal on 15 August 2015, I had spent twenty-six years in the FSSPX, having held various offices in different countries, and I had devoted myself unsparingly and with sincere intention to serve God, the Church and souls. I was completely unaware that I was in error regarding the situation of the Supreme See, and that I was ignorant of the infidelity, and even a certain perversity, of my superiors.

Of course, before entering this congregation, I had reflected on which doctrine or opinion was the true one: sedevacantism or the position of the FSSPX of “accepting the popes after 1964 and resisting”.

The argument of Monsignor Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that I found in my research was then the following: a formal heretic is outside the Church, but not a material heretic. To be formal, the heretic must have been admonished twice by his superiors and persevere in his error. Since the popes have no superiors, they cannot be properly admonished; therefore, even after having publicly expressed a heresy, they can never become formal heretics. Consequently, they can never be considered or placed outside the Church. And to consider a true pope as an antipope is schismatic, something to be avoided like hell itself.

In 2015, having been appointed chaplain to the Carmel of Quiévrain, I had more time to study. I found in the *Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique* articles which demonstrate that, according to the Tradition of the Church, indeed “the Supreme See is judged by no one”, but that there is this exception: “unless it is established that he has deviated from the faith”.

I searched further and found that this doctrine is common in the Church. No one had ever spoken to me about it in the FSSPX.

I decided to consult the teaching Church, that is, the bishops of the FSSPX. There were three in 2015:

1) At the beginning of the month of July, Mgr Tissier de Mallerais came to visit the Carmel and took his meals with me. I shared my findings with him. He replied that I was right, that Vatican II is heretical, that Paul VI was a heretic and therefore was not pope until his death (sedevacantist position). But he assured me that he would not speak about it, nor would the other superiors, because otherwise the FSSPX would lose too many faithful and priests who would not want to follow. He warned me that I had no right to speak about it to the faithful or to the other priests.

2) I then telephoned Mgr Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the FSSPX at the time, to ask him what was happening. He told me personally, in July 2015, that I was authorised to be sedevacantist in private and to celebrate the “non una cum” Mass, on condition that: I speak to no one about it and especially not publicly, and that I mention the name of “Francis” in the public prayer (as during the Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament or in the solemn prayers of Good Friday), with the following mental restriction: “Francis, pope (as people think)”.

He told me that the errors of Vatican II are not heresies and therefore not serious enough to consider a pope as deposed. But he admitted that if a pope utters a public heresy, he would lose his papacy.

Some time later, Mgr Fellay signed a letter accusing “the pope” of heresies. The “Filial Correction” (September 2017), signed by 250 theologians, priests and traditionalist academics, indeed accused “Pope” Francis of having supported and propagated seven heretical propositions, notably in his apostolic exhortation *Amoris Laetitia* concerning the family and the sacraments. Mgr Fellay was the most prominent signatory of this initiative.

Mgr Fellay never proclaimed that Francis was therefore a heretic and an antipope. Illogical behaviour on the part of the Superior General.

3) Mgr de Galarreta had visited the Carmel a few weeks later, still in that same month of July 2015, and complained that the talks and theological discussions between the FSSPX and Rome were blocked on the following point: the theologians of the FSSPX had proved that Vatican II is contrary to Tradition and therefore heretical, but the theologians of Rome replied: “We are the living magisterium, therefore we decide how Tradition must be understood, and we declare that Vatican II is in agreement with Tradition, and vice versa.”

I replied to Mgr de Galarreta that there was a solution: namely that, if the healthy part of the Church establishes that Rome has deviated from the faith, we can declare that the pope is outside the Church. Mgr de Galarreta asked me for my sources. I printed them all and handed them to him, and Mgr de Galarreta later thanked me, saying that it was very interesting.

4) The sisters of the Carmel gradually noticed that I no longer recited the prayers for the “pope” during the Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament as usual, but replaced them with another formula. They threatened to throw me out. They consulted Mgr de Galarreta, but he told them: “Let him do it.”

Bishop Fellay had also said to me: “You need the FSSPX more than you think.” Yes, I was sixty-three years old, without savings, without a wealthy family, with only a handful of faithful willing to follow me. I had no unemployment benefits nor pension. I had only the Gospel, which says: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.” I therefore trusted Jesus more than this unworthy bishop and… I never lacked anything. Apparently, this is something Mgr Fellay had not foreseen.

And the Mother Superior of the Carmel, for which I served as chaplain, said to me in mid-August 2015: “We pray that you die before committing a mortal sin by becoming a sedevacantist.” She refused to listen to my arguments and even threatened me that, during the sermon, she would have all the sisters sing the Creed if I dared say anything to the faithful.

She added: “We had already prayed for another priest who was about to fall into mortal sin, and he died.”

… I am still alive at seventy-three years of age and in good health. I had forgotten to answer her: “Pray for the same grace for yourself.”

5) Mgr Lefebvre admitted at the time that 15 percent of traditional faithful are sedevacantists. And Mgr Fellay told me that several priests in the FSSPX have accepted the “mental restriction”. Indeed, I know a priest of the FSSPX who secretly celebrates the non una cum Mass, but who does not have the courage to leave the FSSPX. Others have said to me: “We think like you, but we do not take it so seriously.” I do not understand how priests can be so lax.

I can attest to all this under oath if necessary. Of course, I refused to act in this way, because it would be a mortal sin to deceive the faithful on such an important matter, and it would be lying before God Himself during the Holy Liturgy. To accept an antipope as pope is schismatic. Then one would have to tell the faithful that one hour of fasting is sufficient to receive Communion (according to Paul VI after his heresy) instead of the three hours prescribed by Pius XII, as well as to change the fasting and abstinence on the prescribed days. All this is grave matter; therefore I would have plunged the faithful and myself into mortal sins by obeying my superiors.

Obedience stops at sin, and all the more so at mortal sin, of course.

O my God, give us the courage always to seek Your will and rather to die than to betray Your truth.

Our Lady, Guardian of the Faith, save us.

Who was Dom Adrien Gréa?

Dom Adrien Gréa (1828–1917) was a prominent French Catholic historian, priest, and the founder of the Canons Regular of the Immaculate Conception. Born in Lons-le-Saunier, he studied law and history at the École des Chartes in Paris, graduating first in 1850, before becoming a priest in 1856.

He served as Vicar General of Saint-Claude starting in 1863, where he became convinced that the clergy needed to live a common, communal life similar to the early Church. In 1871, he established the Congregation of the Canons Regular of the Immaculate Conception, aiming to restore regular canonical life based on the rules of Saint Augustine and Saint Benedict.

Gréa is also renowned for his theological works, most notably “De l’Église et de sa divine constitution” (1885), which was highly praised by cardinals and bishops for its exposition of ecclesiology and liturgy. Other significant publications include La Sainte Liturgie (1909). The congregation he founded expanded internationally, with communities established in Canada, Italy, Peru, Brazil, the United States, and the United Kingdom. He died in Rotalier, France, in 1917.

Intention to Translate Dom Grea’s Manual of Ecclesiology:

To date, Dom Grea’s opus magnum does not exist in the English language. I intend to change that. We will be translating from the French, not from the Latin, and will be using this copy as our original.

A perusal of the translated table of contents will quickly reveal its utility in orienting confused Catholics amidst the present crisis in the Church, particularly as we consider the implications of a vacant See, possible solutions for the recovery of the Church, limits on extraordinary episcopal power, etc.

The Seraphim will add a new section atop the home page in the next couple days to house the translation installments, which will be added chapter by chapter until completed, at which time a PDF document will be compiled, and in the spirit of Catholic charity, be made available to any and all, gratis.

For now, in this introductory post, I supply the table of contents for your review (and apologize for the limited formatting/spacing options available on the Substack platform).

Introduction

Chapter I

On the Place of the Church in the Divine Plan (p.1)

Chapter II

On the Nature and Excellence of the Order That God Has

Established in the Church (p.13)

Chapter III

On the Church’s Relations with the Angelic Society and the

Human Society Descended from Adam (p.28)

BOOK ONE

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE CHURCH’S HIERARCHY

Chapter I

General Concept of Hierarchy (p.41)

Chapter II

On the first and divine hierarchy: God is the head of Christ (p.45)

Chapter III

On the second hierarchy: Jesus Christ is the head of the Church (p.56)

Chapter IV

On the third hierarchy: the bishop is the head of the particular Church (p.61)

Chapter V

On the integrity and indivisible unity of the Church (p.70)

Chapter VI

On the power conferred upon the hierarchy. On the threefold object of

this power: magisterium, ministerium, imperium (p.80)

Chapter VII

On hierarchical power as it pertains to those vested with it; on its power and its exercise; on order, hierarchical communion, title, and the actual exercise of jurisdiction (p.100)

Chapter VIII

On the form of hierarchical operations: they imitate the forms and manifestations of divine operation (p. 120)

BOOK TWO

ON THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH

PART ONE

On the head of the Universal Church and his government.

Chapter I

The head of the Church, Jesus Christ, has appointed a vicar; the essence of this institution (p.135)

Chapter II

On the authority of the Vicar of Jesus Christ regarding its object. This object, according to the Council of Vatican, is twofold: the teaching of the faith and the authority of government (p.147)

Chapter III

The perpetuity of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. The See of Rome (p.153)

Chapter IV

On the Roman Church associated with the prerogative of St. Peter and guardian of this deposit (p.163)

Chapter V

Communication of the principality of St. Peter: on patriarchs and metropolitans (p.173)

Chapter VI

On the great patriarchal delegations; origin of the primates and secondary patriarchates (p.185)

PART TWO

On the episcopal college and the bishops cooperating in the governance of the universal Church under their head, Saint Peter.

Chapter VII

On general or ecumenical councils (p.190)

Chapter VIII

On particular councils (p.203)

Chapter IX

On the dispersed episcopate (p.212)

Chapter X

On the extraordinary action of the episcopate (p.214)

Chapter XI

On the equality of bishops in the episcopal college under the authority of their head, and on the order they maintain among themselves (p.238)

Chapter XII

On the Institution of Bishops (p.243)

BOOK THREE

ON THE PARTICULAR CHURCH

Chapter I

On the Constitution of the Particular Church; the Nature and Divine Right

of This Constitution (p.271)

Chapter II

On the Bishop, Head of the Particular Church (p.280)

Chapter III

On the Order of Priests in the Particular Church (p.290)

Chapter IV

On the Order of Deacons and Other Ministers in the Particular Church (p.302)

Chapter V

On the division of duties among the members of the clergy of the churches (p.307)

Chapter VI

On hierarchical acts within the particular Church (p.321)

Chapter VII

On churches without titular bishops forming the constituent parts

of the diocese under the authority of the bishop of the episcopal see (p.337)

Chapter VIII

On the constitution of dioceses; on synods; on the hierarchy of churches (p.350)

Chapter IX

On monastic churches (p.360)

Chapter X

On mission in the particular Church (p.370)

Chapter XI

On the constitution of the particular Church throughout its history in the various periods of Christian times (p.386)

Chapter XII

On the Religious State (p.422)

Chapter XIII

On the Immediate Authority of the Supreme Pontiff in the Particular Churches and Over All the Faithful (p.469)

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Origins of Human Society (p.481)

Appendix B

Principal Texts of Saint Ignatius the Martyr Concerning the Hierarchy (p.501)

Appendix C

Excerpt from the Tradition of the Church on the Institution of Bishops by Messrs. de Lamennais (p.505)

Appendix D

Historical Remark on Episcopal Government (p.511)

“In papal history, zelanti (“zealous ones”) and politicani (“politicians”) represented two distinct factions within the College of Cardinals, particularly during the 18th and 19th centuries. The zelanti were conservative, intransigent clergy who opposed secular influences, favored a centralized church, and vehemently resisted liberal reforms, while the politicani were moderate cardinals who advocated for a conciliatory approach to address new ideologies and political challenges.”1

In this recent conference, +Sanborn discusses how these two parties produced popes with competing visions, one after another, for nearly 200 years, until the politicani won out at Vatican II.

We draw your attention specifically to the segment from 1:11:29 - 1:18:55, to learn about this little known page in papal history.

Declaration of Catholic Faith addressed to His Phoniness Nope Leo XIV by Fr. Davide Pagliarani Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X

Most Holy Father,

For more than fifty years, the Society of Saint Pius X has endeavoured to set before the Holy See a matter of conscience in the face of the errors that are destroying Catholic faith and morals. Regrettably, all the discussions entered into have remained without result, and none of the concerns expressed have received any truly satisfactory response.

For more than fifty years, the only solution truly considered by the Holy See has appeared to be that of canonical sanctions. To our great regret, it seems to us that canon law is thus being used, not to confirm in the Faith, but to lead away from it.

In the text that follows, the Society of Saint Pius X is glad to express to You, filially and sincerely, its devotion to the Catholic Faith, concealing nothing, either from Your Holiness or from the Universal Church.

The Society places this simple Declaration of Faith in Your hands. It seems to us to correspond to the minimum indispensable to be in communion with the Church, and to truly call ourselves Catholics and, consequently, your sons.

We have no other desire than that of living and being confirmed in the Roman Catholic Faith.

“Thus, remaining firmly rooted and established in the true Catholic Faith, strive always to be worthy ministers of the divine Sacrifice and of the Church of God, which is the Body of Christ.

For, as the Apostle says: ‘all that is not of faith is sin’,1 schismatic and outside the unity of the Church.”2

DECLARATION OF CATHOLIC FAITH

In the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, divine Wisdom, the Word Incarnate, Who willed one sole religion, Who rendered the Old Covenant definitively null and void, Who founded one sole Church, Who triumphed over Satan, Who conquered the world, Who remains with us until the end of time and Who shall come again to judge the living and the dead.

He, the perfect Image of the Father, the Son of God made man, was appointed the sole Redeemer and Saviour of the world through the Incarnation and the voluntary offering of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Our Lord satisfied divine justice by shedding His Most Precious Blood, and it is in that Blood that He established the New and Eternal Covenant, abolishing the Old. He is therefore the sole Mediator between God and men and the sole way to come to the Father. Only he who knows Him knows the Father.

By divine decree, the Most Holy Virgin Mary has been directly and intimately associated with the entire work of Redemption; to deny this association — in the terms received from Tradition — is therefore to alter the very notion of Redemption as willed by divine Providence.

There is only one Faith and one Church by which we may be saved. Outside the Roman Catholic Church, and without the profession of Faith that she has always taught, there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.

Consequently, every man must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to save his soul, and there is but one baptism as the means of being incorporated into her. This necessity concerns the whole of humanity without exception and embraces without distinction Christians, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists.

The mandate received by the Apostles, to preach the Gospel to every man and to convert every man to the Catholic Faith, remains binding until the end of time and responds to the most absolute and most pressing necessity in the world. “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”3 Therefore, to renounce the fulfilment of this mandate constitutes the gravest of crimes against humanity.

The Roman Church alone possesses simultaneously the four marks that characterize the Church founded by Jesus Christ: Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity.

Her unity flows essentially from the adherence of all her members to the one true Faith, faithfully preserved, taught, and handed down by the Catholic hierarchy throughout the centuries.

The denial of even a single truth of the Faith destroys faith itself and renders radically impossible all communion with the Catholic Church.

The only possible path to restoring unity among Christians of different confessions consists in the urgent and charitable appeal addressed to non-Catholics to profess the one true Faith within the one true Church.

The Catholic Church can in no way be regarded or treated on an equal footing with a false form of worship or a false church.

The Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, is the sole possessor of supreme authority over the whole Church. He alone directly confers on the other members of the Catholic hierarchy jurisdiction over souls.

“The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might make known, by His revelation, a new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is, the Deposit of the Faith.”4

To a unique Faith there corresponds a unique form of worship, the supreme, authentic, and perfect expression of that same Faith.

The Holy Mass is the perpetuation in time of the Sacrifice of the Cross, offered for many and renewed upon the altar. Although offered in an unbloody manner, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is essentially expiatory and propitiatory. No other form of worship offers perfect adoration. No other form of worship that is not ordered to it is pleasing to God. No other means is sufficient for the sanctification of souls.

Consequently, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can in no way be reduced to a mere commemoration, to a spiritual meal, to a sacred assembly celebrated by the people, to the celebration of the Paschal mystery without sacrifice, without satisfaction of divine justice, without expiation of sins, without propitiation, and without the Cross.

The help afforded to souls by the Sacraments of the Catholic Church is sufficient in every circumstance and in every age to enable the faithful to live in a state of grace.

The moral law contained in the Decalogue and perfected in the Sermon on the Mount is the only one practicable for obtaining the salvation of souls. Every other moral code — founded, for example, on respect for creation or on the rights of the human person — is radically insufficient to sanctify and save souls. In no way can it replace the one true moral law.

Following the example of St. John the Baptist, true charity obliges us to warn sinners and never to renounce the means necessary to save their souls.

He who eats the Body of Our Lord and drinks His Blood whilst in a state of sin eats and drinks his own condemnation, and no authority can alter this law contained in the teaching of St. Paul and in Tradition.

Sins of impurity that are against nature are of such gravity that they always and in every circumstance cry to God for vengeance, and are radically incompatible with every form of authentic Christian love. Such a ‘lifestyle’ can therefore in no way be recognized as a gift from God. A couple practising this vice must be helped to free themselves from it, and can in no way be blessed — formally or informally — by ministers of the Church.

The submission of institutions and nations, as such, to the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ flows directly from the Incarnation and the Redemption. Therefore, secularism of institutions and nations constitutes an implicit denial of the divinity and universal kingship of Our Lord.

Christendom is not a mere historical phenomenon, but the only order willed by God among men.

It is not for the Church to conform herself to the world, but for the world to be transformed by the Church.

It is in this Faith and in these principles that we ask to be instructed and confirmed by Him Who has received the charism to do so. With the help of Our Lord, we would rather die than renounce them. It is in this immutable Faith that we desire to live and die, in the hope that it may give way to the direct vision of the immutable eternal Truth.

Menzingen, 14 May 2026,
on the Feast of the Ascension of Our Lord

Davide Pagliarani

• 1 Rom. 14:23

• 2 Roman Pontifical, Admonition to ordinands to the subdiaconate

• 3 Mark 16:16

• 4 Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4