The Vatican responded and said talks are still open. This isn't necessarily an imminent split.

The Banned said:

---

The Vatican responded and said talks are still open. This isn't necessarily an imminent split.

---

Fr. Pagliarani's sermon from Monday (where the announcement was made) indicated that he hoped for discussion.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Brother they released a handbook drafted by both Bishops and lay Catholics of Germany, that specifically speaks to the blessing of gay and irregular couples.

The most diabolical double speak you could ever imagine, wherein the "spontaneous" blessings are planned ahead of time and include scriptural readings and music.

This is something entirely different from their synods, this is working guideline for pastors and their flock issued by the German episcopate

---

I hate the position the Germans put me in, because it looks like I'm trying defend them. The document referenced was a set of guidelines offered by a committee during their synods. It was not officially voted on or instituted. Yes, some bishops and priests are moving forward anyway, but the official "crime" (for lack of a better word) of formally teaching heresy hasn't technically happened.

I do agree this is insidious on their part. They know what they're doing. If I were pope, I doubt I'd be able to restrain my anger and would start handing out excommunications like candy. It's a good thing I'm not pope

747Ag said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The Vatican responded and said talks are still open. This isn't necessarily an imminent split.

---

Fr. Pagliarani's sermon from Monday (where the announcement was made) indicated that he hoped for discussion.

---

I think Leo is going to be much more cordial to the trads that our previous pope.

The Banned said:

---

747Ag said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The Vatican responded and said talks are still open. This isn't necessarily an imminent split.

---

Fr. Pagliarani's sermon from Monday (where the announcement was made) indicated that he hoped for discussion.

---

I think Leo is going to be much more cordial to the trads that our previous pope.

---

There's been several glimmers of hope in that regard.

The Banned said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Brother they released a handbook drafted by both Bishops and lay Catholics of Germany, that specifically speaks to the blessing of gay and irregular couples.

The most diabolical double speak you could ever imagine, wherein the "spontaneous" blessings are planned ahead of time and include scriptural readings and music.

This is something entirely different from their synods, this is working guideline for pastors and their flock issued by the German episcopate

---

I hate the position the Germans put me in, because it looks like I'm trying defend them. The document referenced was a set of guidelines offered by a committee during their synods. It was not officially voted on or instituted. Yes, some bishops and priests are moving forward anyway, but the official "crime" (for lack of a better word) of formally teaching heresy hasn't technically happened.

I do agree this is insidious on their part. They know what they're doing. If I were pope, I doubt I'd be able to restrain my anger and would start handing out excommunications like candy. It's a good thing I'm not pope

---

The optics are indeed infuriating and frustrating. Yet, we also know that Rome can act relatively swiftly... see +Strickland.

The Banned said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

Brother they released a handbook drafted by both Bishops and lay Catholics of Germany, that specifically speaks to the blessing of gay and irregular couples.

The most diabolical double speak you could ever imagine, wherein the "spontaneous" blessings are planned ahead of time and include scriptural readings and music.

This is something entirely different from their synods, this is working guideline for pastors and their flock issued by the German episcopate

---

I hate the position the Germans put me in, because it looks like I'm trying defend them. The document referenced was a set of guidelines offered by a committee during their synods. It was not officially voted on or instituted. Yes, some bishops and priests are moving forward anyway, but the official "crime" (for lack of a better word) of formally teaching heresy hasn't technically happened.

I do agree this is insidious on their part. They know what they're doing. If I were pope, I doubt I'd be able to restrain my anger and would start handing out excommunications like candy. It's a good thing I'm not pope

---

We fellow Catholics love to assign weight to different documents, and I agree with you that it was merely a set of guidelines and not anything super official, but it did have the approval of the German Bishops who were a member of that synodal session. Anything that has approval from a bishop, actual spoken/written approval, even if not actually issued from the office itself, is extremely problematic.

I believe that the Vatican's document concerning the Blessed Mother as Co-Redemtrix and Mediatrix of All Graces may have been the proverbial " straw that broke the camel's back" for the SSPX. I will say, that I refuse to accept that document.

Mark Fairchild said:

---

I believe that the Vatican's document concerning the Blessed Mother as Co-Redemtrix and Mediatrix of All Graces may have been the proverbial " straw that broke the camel's back" for the SSPX. I will say, that I refuse to accept that document.

---

What about the document is a problem?

I could not have said it better myself. Thanks!

Interview with the Superior General of the SSPX on reasons for the consecrations and relations with Rome.

https://sspx.org/en/news/interview-superior-general-priestly-society-saint-pius-x-57064

Mark Fairchild said:

---

I could not have said it better myself. Thanks!

---

God bless you brother

Severian the Torturer said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Mark Fairchild said:

---

I believe that the Vatican's document concerning the Blessed Mother as Co-Redemtrix and Mediatrix of All Graces may have been the proverbial " straw that broke the camel's back" for the SSPX. I will say, that I refuse to accept that document.

---

What about the document is a problem?

---

The fact that it's nonsensical. They don't argue with the reasoning behind the titles or their historical usage, merely the fact that it requires explanation to put in proper context.

We're the church where you need a fairly in depth understanding of Aristotelian metaphysics to understand the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

There are tomes written about just war doctrine, the principle of double effect, thomistic predestination, and the economy of the Holy Spirit; but a few hundred words about how the titles refer to her singular role in bringing salvation to the World is a bridge too far.

---

Just to make sure it's clear, all the document did was decline to dogmatize the titles. It does not say Catholics are forbidden from using their titles in the personal devotions. It simply isn't elevated to a level where it can be used formally by the Church. This does not change the status these titles held prior to the document. The titles of Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix have not formally changed at all. If you weren't upset the day before, there is no reason to be upset the day it published.

The bolded is the reason cited for declining the elevation. If these titles had tomes dedicated to them that could make theology behind the terms crystal clear, the titles could have been dogmatized. In time that may happen.

I think it's important that Catholics recognize we have our own "gotcha" journalism that is happy to foment turmoil rather than giving an even handed account of what's been said.

SSPX has rejected the Vatican's overtures. So schism coming July 1.

Zobel said:

---

Point of order. Break in communion and schism aren't the same thing. Schism occurs when you set up opposing bishops.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

---

Accepted.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

SSPX has rejected the Vatican's overtures. So schism coming July 1.

---

Haven't you been claiming they're already schismatic?

---

Yes, I have believed they are since 1988.

fc2112 said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

SSPX has rejected the Vatican's overtures. So schism coming July 1.

---

Haven't you been claiming they're already schismatic?

---

Yes, I have believed they are since 1988.

---

Then how is Schism coming July 1?

Professor Jaime Mercant Simo, a diocesan priest of Majorca is a doctor of Thomistic philosophy and law, professor at the Center for Theological Studies, and director of the diocesan library. Below he goes through a q&a format on the SSPX situation. It's in Spanish, but if you click through to X, it should translate for you.

CUESTIONES LEFEBVRIANAS

Varios de mis lectores me han preguntado acerca de las próximas consagraciones episcopales de la Fraternidad Sacerdotal de San Pío X. Pues bien, he aquí mi posición, expresada pedagógicamente en forma de preguntas y respuestas:

1. ¿Pecarán mortalmente… pic.twitter.com/Jshg8iHUhY

— Mn. Jaime Mercant Simó (@JaimeMercant) February 21, 2026

The BQ Jock said:

---

I'd like to add that the "excommunications" were lifted without requiring anything from the SSPX (public repentance, formal rejection of the "errors" that lead to the excommunications, formal agreements between Rome and the SSPX, etc.) which seems to imply, at least on the surface, an admission that there was no wrongdoing in the first place. Excommunications require some public repentance before being lifted.

If I'm wrong on that feel free to correct me. Clearly, I am no canon lawyer.

---

The 4 bishops that were illicitly consecrated asked to have the excommunications lifted and stated in that petition that they " acknowledged the supreme authority of the Holy Father.." The angle was Lefebvre was the one who took the illicit action when they were not yet bishops. Now that they are bishops, they want to be in full communion.

Not even two decades later it looks like that was a lie, but they haven't done the consecrations yet. We'll see what happens.

Severian the Torturer said:

---

747Ag said:

---

Severian the Torturer said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The BQ Jock said:

---

I'd like to add that the "excommunications" were lifted without requiring anything from the SSPX (public repentance, formal rejection of the "errors" that lead to the excommunications, formal agreements between Rome and the SSPX, etc.) which seems to imply, at least on the surface, an admission that there was no wrongdoing in the first place. Excommunications require some public repentance before being lifted.

If I'm wrong on that feel free to correct me. Clearly, I am no canon lawyer.

---

The 4 bishops that were illicitly consecrated asked to have the excommunications lifted and stated in that petition that they " acknowledged the supreme authority of the Holy Father.." The angle was Lefebvre was the one who took the illicit action when they were not yet bishops. Now that they are bishops, they want to be in full communion.

Not even two decades later it looks like that was a lie, but they haven't done the consecrations yet. We'll see what happens.

---

I think they would like to be in full communion, but not if it comes with the price of having to accept the abortion that was Vatican II.

---

Most of the opinions I see online about the SSPX that are against the SSPX fail to actually address the SSPX position.

---

The lay very online Catholic is a complete charlie foxtrot of internal dissonance. Loves the Orthodox because of the icons, vestments, incense and their tradition, hates the SSPX because of supposed disobedience to the Pope.

Even Sedevacantists are closer to the Catholic Church than the Orthodox Church. I love the Orthodox Church, but if you've got problems with people not obeying the Pope, you probably won't like the Orthodox position.

Dudes who will argue that Protestants are somehow mystically joined to the body of Christ, will claim the SSPX aren't.

I can't make it make sense.

---

Canon law, which is man-made and not Divine law, provides several "outs" for material disobedience. SSPX cites canon 1323 with respect to necessity and couches it in 1752 with respect to the salvation of souls (the supreme law).

Furthermore, in the aftermath of Traditiones Custodes, many bishops cited canon 87 as reason to not implement.

BuT yOu CaN't DiSoBeY rOmE! Cardinal Iosif Slipyj did ordain/consecrate bishops contrary to Paul VI's ostpolitik position. Virtually no one calls him a schismatic or protestant.

Fr.Z on +Schneider's letter to the Holy Father...
https://wdtprs.com/2026/02/brief-summation-of-bp-schneiders-appeal-to-pope-leo-about-the-sspx/