THE TRAGIC CASE OF THE FSSPX AND THEIR ARROGANCE AND GNOSTICISM

Sileri non possum has a very sober commentary on the hypocrisy and schismatic attitudes of the leadership of the FSSPX who in my most humble opinion are also heretical when it comes to the ecclesiology of the Church. They are heterodox and place their own authority and Gnosticism above that of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church headed by the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ. 

They know better than the Church. And in this regard, they are like the German Heretical Syondal Way, which also believes they are above the Pope and the Universal Church. The SSPX are heterodox in a faux-traditional way and the Germans are the same but in a left wing heterodox way that is not only schismatic but heretical. 

I am not very hopeful that the SSPX will be fully reconciled to the Church and if they go ahead and ordain bishops without papal approval, they will placed themselves back as they were prior to Pope Benedict lifting the excommunications of the bishops that Lefebrev ordained. 

Will they be declared schismatic, not just the bishops, but the entire structure? Time will tell.

This may also send a message to the German heretical/schismatic syndol way for they may face excommunication too if they don’t cease and desist. 

 From Sileri non possum, English version.

What lies behind the Society of Saint Pius X operation: pressure on Leo XIV and the manoeuvres of pseudo-traditionalists

Vatican City – Yesterday, 5 February 2026, an interview was published with the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, Fr Davide Pagliarani, in which the line the Society has chosen to follow is set out in black and white: after the 2 February announcement, the stated intention is to proceed on 1 July with five new episcopal consecrations even without a prior pontifical mandate. It is worth recalling that an episcopal consecration carried out without a mandate violates can. 1013 CIC and constitutes a canonical offence that also entails latae sententiae excommunication for both the ordinandsand the consecrators.


In the picture now taking shape, the move looks increasingly like a lever of pressure on the pontificate of Leo XIV. For weeks there has been growing activism from circles that describe themselves as traditionalist, yet in practice operate as schismatic groups, often aligned with an extremist right-wing agenda: they advance demands, turn up the volume of polemic, brandish the liturgy as an identity standard and, in the same gesture, cultivate systematic mistrust towards priests, bishops and, ultimately, towards the Pope. It is the familiar grammar of allusive and corrosive remarks: “let’s see how it goes”, “he’s a new Francis” - formulas that do not seek discernment but prepare the ground for delegitimization.

Pressure on Leo XIV from problematic actors

Already in the first months of his pontificate,Leo XIV has had to contend with a script that repeats itself: cardinals and bishops who first let complaints and claims seep to the press, and then present themselves to request an audience. The theme is, invariably, the repeal of Traditionis custodes. The request, in itself, is legitimate; what jars – gravely - is the method: this is not an orderly ecclesial exchange, but a pressure campaign built in stages, between media exposure and the political management of dissent, as though the life of the Church were a negotiating table rather than a place of communion and obedience.

On the matter of the Holy Mass according to the older Missal, the request for broader access remains legitimate and, as far as we are concerned, even desirable, so that those who wish to may return to it without being treated as a problem to be managed. The modalities, however, are deplorable. And above all there is a factor that is becoming harder to ignore: the initiative of an objectively schismatic reality appears to move in step with certain circles that continue to present themselves as “Catholic”, fuelling a dynamic of growing and coordinated pressure on Leo XIV. The tension, indeed, has risen by degrees. First, the sequence of audiences requested and also constructed through media channels; then the consistory, where some cardinals who call themselves “traditionalist” - among them Burke and Sarah- declared themselves dissatisfied because their brother cardinals, in an entirely ordinary manner and even “democratically” in the ecclesial sense of the term, judged there to be matters far more urgent than the liturgy. Immediately afterwards, the same prelates handed over to their friendly “journalists” texts that were confidential, turning dissent into a communications operation. And now the Society arrives, to play what looks like a final card: not an act of communion, but an attempt to force the issue, further raising the level of confrontation. Even the sequence reconstructed by Pagliarani himself is revealing. First, the request for an audience with the Pope: in months in which Leo XIV has received requests from thousands of people and personalities, it is entirely plausible that a meeting is not scheduled immediately. The audience does not appear to have been denied; it appears, more simply, not yet granted, because the diary is saturated and priorities must be weighed. And yet, on this objective datum, Pagliarani - and those operating within the perimeter of his strategy - built the next step: a second letter that does not merely urge, but announces the intention to proceed in July with new episcopal consecrations. It is a stark change of register: from a request to an announced fait accompli. At that point, from the Apostolic Palace the matter is channelled through the ordinary route and forwarded to the competent Dicastery. Then comes the response of Prefect Fernández, who recalls the canonical norms and invites dialogue: the only sensible path when someone seeks to replace the law of the Church with the logic of pressure.

Hypocrisy reigns supreme

It is bitterly amusing to see a certain galaxy of psycho-blogs outrage themselves because Rome states the obvious: a consecration without a pontifical mandate is not a “gesture of freedom” or a “concern for the salvation of souls”; it is an act that pushes towards rupture. And here the double standards of part of these milieus - and of certain prelates who lend them legitimacy - explode, now without masks: if someone distances themselves from the Church according to dynamics they label “modernist”, they immediately invoke condemnations and sanctions; if, instead, the distancing proceeds “from the right”, with postures more taliban-like than Catholics themselves, suddenly everything becomes tolerable. indeed “necessary”, because “useful” as a counterweight. As for the attacks against Cardinal Fernández, they become almost grotesque when read in the light of recent history: with a Prefect like Joseph Ratzinger, the response would plausibly have been swifter and more severe, because Ratzinger had clearly grasped an elementary principle that always holds: outside the Church there is no salvation, and one can place oneself outside both by leaving “from the left” and by leaving “from the right”. In both cases, it is not Tradition that is being served, but the ego of those who presume to dictate conditions to Rome.

fr.A.D.
Silere non possum