We know that Cardinal McElroy believes that the Church needs to change the Church’s teaching on Holy Orders to allowed women to be ordained. As well he believes that the Church should be inclusive and welcoming of all aspects of the LGBTQ+++ movement and soft-pedal repentance of sexual sins, mocking marriage and mocking God when it comes to the two genders He created in His likeness and image. Yet, the FSSPX does not accept certain teachings of Vatican II. Cardinal Fernandez proposes a way through different levels of adherence to non doctrinal or dogmatic aspects of Vatican II. One way it to ignore those teachings like so many Catholic bishops today ignore actual dogmas and doctrines of the Church. 
COMMUNIQUÉ
FROM THE GENERAL HOUSE
On 12 February 2026, Reverend Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, was received at the Palace of the Holy Office by His Eminence Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. This meeting had been proposed by the Cardinal following the public announcement, on the 2nd of February, of future episcopal consecrations within the Society of Saint Pius X.
The conversation, held one-on-one at the Cardinal’s request, lasted an hour and a half and took place in an atmosphere that was both cordial and frank. It enabled Father Pagliarani to listen attentively to the Prefect and to clarify the scope of the 2nd of February announcement, as well as the meaning of the steps taken with the Holy See over the recent months.
The Superior General was thus able to present, in person, the current situation of the Society of Saint Pius X and its duty, in the spiritual necessity in which souls find themselves, to ensure the continuation of the ministry of its bishops.
Above all, he [Pagliarani] emphasised the spirit of charity in which the Society envisages these consecrations, as well as its sincere desire to serve both the souls and the Roman Church.
Finally, he renewed his desire that, given the wholly particular circumstances in which Holy Church finds itself, the Society may continue to operate in its current situation – exceptional and temporary – for the good of the souls who turn to it.
For his part, Cardinal Fernández offered a different approach to the question. Relayed in an official communiqué swiftly published by the Holy See, his proposal consists of “a specifically theological path of dialogue, according to a very precise methodology, […] in order to highlight the minima necessary for full communion with the Catholic Church”, which would make it possible “to define a canonical status for the Society”.
These exchanges would seek, in particular, to reach agreement on “the different degrees of adherence required by the various texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and their interpretation”. The Cardinal stated orally that, while it would be possible to engage in dialogue about the Council, its texts could not be corrected.
As a prior condition for this dialogue, it is required to suspend the decision regarding the announced episcopal consecrations.
The Prefect of the Dicastery specifically asked the Superior General to present this proposal to the members of his Council and to take the necessary time to evaluate it.
Father Pagliarani will therefore respond within the next few days. He will write directly to Cardinal Fernández and will also make his response known to the faithful.
The Superior General renewed to Cardinal Fernández his wish to be able to meet personally with the Holy Father. He remains very peaceful and is grateful for all the prayers offered. He continues to commend this situation to the prayers of the faithful.
Menzingen, 12 February 2026
23 comments:
Speaking of Cardinal McElroy, as well as the SSPX:
The SSPX has proclaimed from its founding that the (Latin) Church is mired in a shocking state of spiritual, as well as liturgical, collapse. The SSPX has insisted that the collapse in question has centered upon the Papacy.
The SSPX has insisted that beginning with Pope Saint Paul VI, each Pope has attempted the impossible...to blend modernism with Tradition. That has resulted in the collapse of the Church, according to the SSPX.
If we are to believe the SSPX, our Popes have permitted Modernism, dissent, and chaos to flourish within the Church.
That brings us to Father McDonald's take on Cardinal McElroy.
To view Father's take in question from the SSPX's view...
Why has Pope Leo XIV permitted Cardinal McElroy to spread supposed spiritual destruction within the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. and beyond?
Why has Pope Leo XIV made it clear that Cardinal McElroy, a supposed destroyer of the Faith, enjoys solid communion with His Holiness?
Example:
https://www.cathstan.org/faith/archbishops-including-cardinal-mcelroy-receive-palliums-from-pope-leo-xiv-who-encouraged-them-to-promote-unity
-- Archbishops including Cardinal McElroy receive palliums from Pope Leo XIV...
Photo caption: "Pope Leo XIV presents the pallium to Cardinal Robert W. McElroy of Washington during Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican June 29, 2025, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.
"The pallium, which symbolizes an archbishop’s authority and unity with the pope, is given to metropolitan archbishops. (CNS photo/Lola Gomez)"
=======
Is the SSPX correct that Pope Leo XIV must convert to their way of thinking and governing to lift the Church from Her supposed state of collapse?
The SSPX has made it clear that it's their belief that until he "converts" to the Society's understanding of Holy Tradition, Pope Leo XIV will ensure the Church's continued collapse.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
To follow up on my previous post:
Why has the SSPX insisted that Pope Leo XIV will continue to lead the Church into ruination?
From: Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius :
"With the legacy left to us by Pope Francis, the fundamental reasons that justified the consecrations of 1988 still exist and, in many respects, impel us with renewed urgency.
"The Second Vatican Council remains more than ever the compass guiding today’s churchmen..."
"Furthermore, the major orientations already taking shape in this new pontificate — particularly through the most recent consistory — only confirm this.
"An explicit determination to preserve the line of Pope Francis as an irreversible trajectory for the entire Church is discernible."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
You must be an ostrich burying your head in the sand. But ostriches don’t do that and neither should you. The SSPX has many valid and prophetic critiques of the post Vatican II Church. No one in the Church is above examination, evaluation and critique.
Speaking of Vatican II:
Here is Father Davide Pagliarani's, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, solution as to how to deal with the Council:
"How often have we asked ourselves the question: when will the Council be corrected? Will the Council have to be rejected? Can it be simply forgotten?
"The real Second Vatican Council, it must be rejected. The Catholic Church cannot regenerate herself if it is not rejected."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."The SSPX has many valid and prophetic critiques of the post Vatican II Church. No one in the Church is above examination, evaluation and critique."
Okay.
Therefore, the SSPX has made it clear that in their view, Pope Leo XIV is not above examination, evaluation and critique.
In turn, the SSPX has guaranteed that Pope Leo XIV will lead the Church down the path of destruction.
The SSPX has insisted also that Vatican II must be destroyed as said supposed error-filled Council has poisoned the Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
To be fair, Mark Thomas's statement seems to be very much in line with what your church requires you to believe. It doesn't seem accurate to suggest that "no one is above examination, evaluation and critique." You aren't permitted to publicly critique a pope -- you are required to submit to his teachings with docility. And you certainly aren't permitted to publicly dissent from the universal magisterium, as exercised here in what you consider to be an ecumenical council.
But every pope and ecumenical council has had their share of criticism. And poor Paul VI got it from all sides, because of promulgating Bugnini’s hatcet job on the Mass to the encyclical Humanae Vitae and the heterodox hated, I mean hated, JPII and Benedict XVI. Mike Lewis types never had a “Where Peter Is” during those papacies.
MT, have you rejected the Council of Trent and did not Vatican II correct it and change course? Hmm
Your comment kind of proves my point: the people who were doing the criticizing were heterodox, according to you. The thing that made them heterodox was criticizing the pope (and the ecumenical council).
That’s my point. Everyone is heterodox and the left leaning ones are the worse, yet it is the right leaning ones who get crucified. But that’s always happened. Just think of the Great Schism when the Eastern Orthodox got excommunicated and then all the excommunicating chaos in Eastern Orthodoxy itself. The Council of Trent allowed the Church, in the counter reformation period to become coherent, disciplined and orthodox. Vatican II ended all of that, thus we spiraling out of control. I don’t know how poor Pope Leo can bring it altogether. He’ll need divine assistance.
But the point is that, in your paradigm, the definition of "heterodox" is to be critical of the pope; hence, you are not permitted to engage in that criticism. By claiming that the SSPX has valid criticisms of an ecumenical (according to your church) council, you are putting yourself at odds with all the popes who followed that council with whom you are not permitted to publicly disagree. In short, you are being heterdox... Mark Thomas is the only one here who is being consistent!
Of course I’m heterodox. We all are. At least the true Church, the one with the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, Successor to the Prince of the Apostles, is the true Church. The FSSPX are more in full communion with the true Church, than, lets say, any of the Eastern Orthodox who actually are heterodox rejecting Jesus choice of have Peter to be the Prince of the Apostles and the Supreme Pontiff. There’s heterodoxy and then there’s heterodoxy. The Eastern Orthodox have perfected orthodox heterodoxy. Just saying’.
Orthodox believe that St Peter was the leader of the Apostles. It doesn't follow from that belief that the bishop of Rome is a universal, infallible bishop.
Obviously, you don't really believe that the pope is a universal, infallible bishop either, or you wouldn't have a blog where you criticize what he says and does.!
Come on Marc, many of the national eastern orthodox churches don’t believe the pope is a Christian and certainly not validly ordained. Talk about schism with the visible head of the Church not to mention heresy heterodoxy . But he’s not Jesus nor above criticism.
Yes, I agree with those churches.
But your church tells you to submit to him with docility. What’s the phrase? “Religious submission of intellect and will” or something?
Marc thank you for stating the obvious. You are not only schismatic but also heretical and for someone of your intellect, down right silly. But that’s the case with you Othodox heterodox and schismatics.
Yet I’m not the one with a blog where I daily criticize my hierarch!
True, but if you did wouldn’t your parish priest expel you? Perhaps you belong to a schismatic cult?
Definitely not a schismatic cult.
We don’t have one guy who assigned to himself the property of infallibility and tells everyone they have to do what he says or they’ll go to hell.
Fortunately you are in invincible ignorance, so more than likely you’ll make it to the purifying and enlightening fires of purgatory and not the eternal fires of hell. Popes teach Divine Mercy towards those in invincible ignorance. What are grace.
I assure I’m not ignorant - invincibly or otherwise.
And there’s no such thing as purgatory, as my patron saint, St. Mark of Ephesus, boldly explained to the Latin heretics at the false council in Florence.
Ok, no Divine Mercy or purification for you. Have it St. Mark’s way. You are condemned to hell.
Have a good weekend, Father!
Post a Comment