Copied from Vatican News:
Pope’s final appeal to Society of Saint Pius X: Do not tear the seamless tunic of Christ
Vatican News
“With a father’s heart, I wish to address you,” Pope Leo XIV writes, “and, through you, the bishops, priests, seminarians, and faithful attached to the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, mindful of the responsibility that the Lord has entrusted to me as Successor of the Apostle Peter. The Church recognises the attachment to the liturgical life, the commitment to priestly formation, the apostolic zeal, and the desire for fidelity to Tradition that characterise many persons and communities associated with your Society. This has inspired the attitude of attention and benevolence that my Predecessors have consistently shown towards you.”
“With this spirit, and filled with Christian affection,” the Pope continues, “I implore you and ask you with all my heart: turn back from this course! I urge you to consider the spiritual good of the faithful carefully, because the schismatic act that you would commit would deprive them of the lawful reception, and in some cases even the valid reception, of the Sacraments that they cherish and seek for their sanctification.”
“The Church,” the papal letter continues, “remains open to a path of dialogue and understanding that the Holy Spirit can make possible and fruitful. I pray for you, because tearing the seamless Tunic of Christ is a sin of the utmost gravity. May the Lord enlighten your consciences and awaken your hearts. By the authority I have received from Christ, with a sorrowful heart yet still full of hope, I feel bound to ask you to desist from your intention, and I entrust these intentions to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of Good Counsel.”
The letter, written in French and addressed to the Society’s Superior General, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, thus constitutes a further appeal by the Pope to refrain from carrying out the schismatic act of episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate. Significantly, the central argument advanced in the letter concerns the spiritual welfare of the faithful attached to the Society, since such an act would render the sacraments they receive illicit and, in certain cases—namely sacramental confession and marriage—even invalid.
Here is the actual letter:
LETTER OF POPE LEO XIV
TO THE REVEREND DAVIDE PAGLIARANI
SUPERIOR GENERAL
OF THE PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X
___________________________________
With a paternal heart, and aware of the responsibility entrusted to me by the Lord as the Successor of the Apostle Peter, I address you and, through you, the bishops, priests, seminarians and faithful connected to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
The Church recognizes the devotion to liturgical life, commitment to priestly formation, apostolic zeal and desire for fidelity to Tradition that characterize many people and communities connected to your Fraternity. This has motivated the attentive and generous attitude that my Predecessors have consistently shown to you.
In this spirit, and filled with Christian affection, I plead with you and ask you with all my heart: please turn back! I urge you to consider carefully the spiritual good of the faithful, because the schismatic act you are about to undertake would deprive them of the licit and, in some cases, even valid reception of the Sacraments, which they love and seek for their sanctification.
The Church is open to a path of dialogue and understanding that the Holy Spirit can make possible and fruitful.
I pray for you, because to tear the seamless garment of Christ is a sin of extreme gravity. May the Lord enlighten your consciences and awaken your hearts. With a sorrowful yet hopeful heart, I feel it is my duty, through the authority received from Christ, to ask you to desist from your intended act. I entrust these intentions to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of Good Counsel.
From the Vatican, 29 June 2026
Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul
LEO PP. XIV
37 comments:
Well maybe Pope Leo should enter into a "dialogue" or "accompany" them.
No one has yet produced a list of Catholic doctrines SSPX has rejected.
It is moral and canonical, blatant disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff.
Father McDonald,
Thank you for confirming that it is not doctrinal, a good thing. What you and I witnessed in our lifetime was a Revolution and the Church is much, much weaker for it. There are a myriad of Cardinals, Bishops and priests who are blatantly defying the Roman Pontiff all of the time but they are still around.
It is long past the time, for Leo to sit down like a man with the SSPX and have a frank and honest discussion. Leo needs to admit that the liturgical reform was an utter disaster and drove millions away from the Faith. Pope Benedict did the right thing when he issued Summorum Pontificum. I belonged to a couple of different parishes where both forms of the Roman Rite co-existed peaceably. The reality was that the TLM attracted more of the young people and that is what Francis and his ilk could not abide. I hope and pray Leo restores Summorum Pontificum and aggressively disciplines bishops who flout it as well as opposing the celebration of the Novus Ordo in accordance with its very rubrics. Enough is enough.
They also seem to deny the Roman Catholic idea that an Ecumenical Council approved by the pope is infallible.
Marc, Vatican II was a pastoral, not doctrinal, Council
Everything an ecumenical council teaches is normative and authoritative, but not everything is infallible. Who taught you that? Certainly not I lord!
Ecumenical councils are an exercise of the extraordinary universal magisterium, which is considered infallible on the basis of how you all interpret the pope's infallibility according to Vatican I. See Denz. 3011.
Even "normative and authoritative" teaching is safe for belief; hence, the requirement of submission to the teaching.
The SSPX, on the contrary, explicitly believe that some of the teachings of Vatican II are erroneous and harmful to believe.
Can you point to the specific Roman Catholic teaching that explains that distinction?
Marc! F-!
Not everything taught by an ecumenical council is considered infallible. The extraordinary magisterium, which includes ecumenical councils, can issue teachings that are infallible, but this is not universally applicable to all teachings of such councils.
Infallibility Criteria
Ex Cathedra Statements: For a teaching to be infallible, it must be a definitive decision made by the pope or an ecumenical council that addresses matters of faith and morals, often referred to as an "ex cathedra" statement
.
Consensus of Bishops: The teaching must reflect the consensus of the bishops in union with the pope, which is a hallmark of the extraordinary magisterium
.
Non-Infallible Teachings
Many teachings from ecumenical councils may be authoritative but not infallible. These can include pastoral directives or disciplinary measures that do not meet the criteria for infallibility
.
In summary, while ecumenical councils can teach infallibly, not all their teachings are infallible; only those that meet specific criteria are considered so.
Now point me to the infallible list that distinguishes between those statements of Ecumenical Councils that are infallible and those that aren't.
Oh Marc!
Yes, several ecumenical councils besides Vatican II have taught or held non-infallible positions.
Understanding Non-Infallible Teachings
Ecumenical councils can issue both doctrinal definitions (which may be infallible) and pastoral decisions (which are typically non-infallible).
Pastoral decisions are binding but do not carry the same weight of infallibility as doctrinal definitions.
Examples of Councils with Non-Infallible Teachings
Vatican II (1962-1965): Primarily pastoral, focusing onthe Church's role in the modern world without issuing condemnations
.
Lateran IV (1215): While it defined important doctrines, it also included pastoral directives that were not infallible
.
Trent (1545-1563): Although it made significant doctrinal definitions, some of its decrees were pastoral in nature
.
Conclusion
Many councils have included non-infallible teachings, emphasizing the Church's evolving understanding and pastoral mission.
I'm not doubting there are infallible teachings in Ecumenical Councils. What I'm questioning is who separates the infallible teachings from the fallible ones in an infallible way. That would seem to be a task for your infallible pope. So, surely there's an infallible list of infallible teachings somewhere. Where can one find that list?
Schismatics and Protestants don’t get the full teachings of the Church, they pick and choose. As a schismatics, I recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The pope doesn’t split hairs on what is infallible and simply normative and authoritative pastoral disciplines and man made laws.
So there's not an infallible list of infallible teachings, then? Are people then left to determine for themselves what is infallibly taught? Because that sounds an awful lot like Protestantism where each person uses the text and his own intellect and conscience to pick and choose which of the teachings are infallible and which aren't...
"Infallible" can't apply to that which is not doctrine or morals. For instance, Dei Verbum #25: "Furthermore, editions of the Sacred Scriptures, provided with suitable footnotes, should be prepared also for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation. Both pastors of souls and Christians generally should see to the wise distribution of these in one way or another." While this is a statement from an ecumenical council, it is not infallible.
Who decides which statements do or do not address faith and morals?
Marc - If you think "footnotes" and the distribution of editions of the Sacred Scriptures have anything to do with faith or morals, then there is no help for you. You'll continue on your denominationally peripatetic path, always asking why, why, why and, on this side of the tombstone, remaining unsatisfied.
"Have you ever in your lifetime commanded the morning or shown the dawn its place?"
You're missing the point -- I am inquiring as to your epistemic grounding for the determination of what involves faith and morals and what doesn't. Stating that it is obvious doesn't cut it.
In this discussion, there are those suggesting that Vatican II (or some unspecified parts of it) do not involve faith and morals and is, therefore, not binding or not infallible (there's a lack of precision going on here). Is it your opinion that such a determination is to be made by individuals on the basis of their own judgment?
As for my being "denominationally peripatetic" (good phrase, by the way), I was an atheist, became a Roman Catholic in my 20's, and then converted to Orthodoxy. I suppose there was some wandering along the way through the desert of so-called Traditionalist Roman Catholicism, but ultimately, for reasons you'd probably agree with, it became clear that was nonsense. I'm quite satisfied to have found the Truth on this side of the tombstone.
Marc! Pastoral teachings of any EC are binding but not infallible. Loosing and binding of these belong to the pope or bishops depending on the nature of the need. The same is true of the binding nature of canon law that are purely manmade. Dispensations galore are given. Just war, which could be adjusted as well as killing in self defense are dispensations from God’s infallible 10 Commandments!
Okay, but my question is which are the pastoral teachings that are binding but not infallible and which are the doctrinal teachings that are binding and infallible?
This discussion started because I noted that the SSPX appears to reject the Roman Catholic belief that an Ecumenical Council ratified by a pope (namely, Vatican II) is infallible. You asserted that this is incorrect, that some portions are not infallible (yet, still binding). So, taking your point, the issue here is whether the SSPX rejects those portions of Vatican II that might be considered infallible. But it seems there's no way to know which portions are infallible since no one with the authority to do so within your system has determined which parts are infallible and which aren't: there's been no authoritative determination made as to what is pastoral and what is doctrinal.
VII certainly reiterates infallible teaching. The nature of the revision of the Mass and even the theology behind it is binding until the pope says it isn’t. SP is an example and unfortunately so is TC reversing the relaxation! Both were/are binding until they’re not. But only the pope loosens or binds non infallible norms of an EC or Canon Law. Not your schismatic bishops or any Church of Eastern Orthodoxy, even in a group.
So, one must make a judgment about what has been reiterated to determine what is infallible and everything not reiterated is fallible, but binding. But one's judgment about what's been reiterated isn't infallible so it's impossible to have any certainty about what's infallible and what isn't, making the whole endeavor pointless if one desires such certainty.
The upshot, then, since nothing can be established as infallible is that everything is subject to revision. And the pope can "loosen or bind" whatever he likes since no one could establish with certainty that anything was infallible in the first place.
Have I got this right now?
Over the centuries various councils have had a mixture of infallible declarations and non-infallible disciplinary declarations. Only what a council declares is binding upon the faithful about faith and morals is infallible. In the case of Vatican II, this was nothing.
The Creeds are infallible. With the AI tools you and I have, you can find out what is infallible in the Church and what isn’t. Mary as Co-Redeemer is not an infallible teaching—it has a theology behind it, like limbo for children, but never elevated to a doctrine much less a defined dogma. Your Churches allow for more than one marriage (independent of an annulment), is that infallible? How do you know since it goes against Scripture? I recognize, though, your bishops in an infallible way have determined that there is only a set number of marriages after divorce that can be had in the Church—how do you know that that is infallible? And the same is true that your Church says Catholics aren’t baptized. Who made that infallible decision and why? And who declared infallibly in your Church that the current pope in Rome isn’t truly the Sucessor of Saint Peter, a form of Sedevacantism? You poor thing, you have to figure it out by doing research, but at least you and I have AI tools to assist that others in the past never had.
Also, who in your Church said that all the Ecumenical Councils since the Great Schism are invalid. How do you know that is an infallible decision. Could it be wrong? How do you know?
AI isn't infallible -- that's an absurd suggestion!
Orthodoxy doesn't deal with issues of infallibility in the way Roman Catholicism does. So, your conflation doesn't really work. Take the possibility of divorce for example: Christ himself established a permissible reason for divorce and remarriage. Following Christ, the Church (even when Rome was part of the Church) has always allowed for divorce and remarriage in limited circumstances. That the Church has always taught this is the epistemic ground for the belief. The administration of how that plays out in concrete circumstances is up to the bishop.
The difference in your system is that your epistemic grounding for the belief is in one person, and since your teachings have changed over time, what he says cannot be said to be grounded in what the Church has always taught.
Another example is how we know that the Bishop of Rome isn't actually a bishop and, consequently, no longer a successor of St. Peter. The basis for communion within the Church has always been concelebration of the Eucharistic liturgy, including mutual commemoration amongst the hierarchs. The pope was removed from mutual commemoration and has no part in the Eucharistic synaxis. Therefore, he is not a bishop and not a successor of St. Peter. The justification for his excommunication was based on his repudiation of the Orthodox Faith handed down from the Apostles by, among other things, rejecting the Creed. The epistemic grounding for the Creed is that it is a summary of the beliefs handed to the Apostles, which beliefs are preserved within the Theanthropic Body of the Church. When one no longer adheres to the Creed, one is outside that Body.
Similarly, that is one way we know what is an Ecumenical Council and what isn't. When the Body of Christ, including but not limited to the bishops, accepts the teachings of a Council, we know it is pan-Orthodox (there can be no more "ecumenical" councils since there's no longer an emperor, and it was the emperor who called such councils). When the Body of Christ rejects the teachings put forth in a purported council, we know that it is not pan-Orthodox. Again, the epistemic certainty is based on the fact that the Church is the Body of Christ and cannot err. The certainty can be verified by reference to the teachings of the Apostles and the Fathers.
So, the difference in these conceptions comes down to one's grounding for a doctrine. Since your grounding is in the person of the pope, you have a difficulty in determining what is infallible when the pope hasn't clearly stated whether something is infallible or not. Orthodoxy doesn't have that issue because infallibility really doesn't matter all that much. What matters is the consistency of the praxis that manifests the doctrines and keeps those doctrines intact.
To answer specifically who said that your councils since the Great Schism were invalid: it is plain from reading the 1848 Encyclical of the Patriarchs to Pius IX: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
In that letter, they refer to various aspects of the eight Ecumenical Councils, not 20 something like you all claim to have. How can we trust this letter? It was attested to by three patriarchal synods and has been generally accepted as authoritative by the Church, which is the Body of Christ, who is God.
Your bishops who healed the schism at the Council of Florence were cowards and wanted the reunion to save the East from invasion and sacking as they are more like the Mullahs of Islam who thrive off of political power of which the Great Schism of the East was built—truths about God were secondary. So when they went back and the West’s military might did not materialize and they stuck their wet finger in the air to see how it was going in terms of reunion, they reversed their infallible signing onto the Council of Florence to save their hides. And poor Constantinople was in ruins, the largest Eastern Church in Constantinople now a mosque and the city’s name changed to Istanbul. I’d say that’s a sign of God’s displeasure with the East that has Old Testament backing. And you accept the lies the East teaches about the pope, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as truth, infallible truths and something your valid bishops, and yes, valid but illicit, sent to the pope two centuries ago in 1848 as infallible too. But I take solace that you are joking on all of this.
I agree: many of the bishops at Florence were cowards. They were also essentially imprisoned by the pope and made to starve in an effort to secure their fealty.
Constantinople was uniate at the time it fell so I'm not sure how your conclusion of God's judgment holds up. Might it be a sign of God's displeasure with false union?
Since you're the one suggesting we use AI to determine what teachings are infallible, it seems you're the one joking on all of this!
I forgot the full implications of what this term means now but I thought Constantinople followed a form of governance referred to as Caesaropapism?
It so happens at the Great Schism of the East, not all in the East went into schism, the most important, the Maronites. But not all the Churches of the East were excommunicated—thus, there was no consensus about your belief now (your Church’s) that the West went into Schism, when the opposite is true, the east did but not all of the east—so no infallible consensus in the east about their infallible truths that the East is right and the West wrong and not even a Church—really absurd!
Let’s use AI to summarize all of this for you and it only took a few seconds:
Yes, the Maronite Church uniquely retained full, uninterrupted communion with Rome at the time of the Great Schism (1054). Isolated in the mountains of Lebanon, they were physically separated from the religious controversies tearing through Europe and the Byzantine Empire, and later formalized their ties with the Crusaders.While the Maronite Church stands out as the only Eastern Church that remained entirely in communion, the historical picture is nuanced:The Maronite Exception: The Maronites are considered the only Eastern Catholic church that never broke communication with the Pope. When the Crusaders encountered them in the 12th century, the Maronites re-established contact with Rome and were recognized as full members of the Catholic Church while retaining their Syriac liturgical traditions.The broader Orthodox world: The Great Schism of 1054 was initially a localized rupture strictly between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople (led by Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael Cerularius). Other Eastern patriarchates, such as Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, were not automatically excommunicated, and many did not formally cut ties with Rome until later.Subsequent Unions: Over the centuries following the Great Schism, several other Eastern churches formally entered into or returned to full communion with Rome, forming what are now known as the Eastern Catholic Churches.
There's no numerical prerequisite involved, so I'm not sure what the Maronites have to do with anything. But using your logic, it would seem to prove you're wrong considering all the patriarchates save Rome ultimately remained in communion with each other and not with Rome...
It seems like with Constantine and especially after the acceptance of Christianity in the Roman Empire, the whole empire adhered to Caesaropapism -- the prime example being the emperor's calling of Councils to resolve doctrinal disputes to return peace to the Ecumene. So, it's not strictly a "Constantinople" thing except that city happened to be the capital of the empire at the time.
From our view, we'd note that, with the splitting of the empire and the fall of Rome, a power vacuum occurred, which the popes (with the assistance of their Frankish overlords) ultimately filled, creating a system sometimes called Papalocaesarism, essentially the inverse of caesaropapism wherein the pope now places himself above the emperor in both the church and secular realms.
Marc - I'm not missing the point. The flaw/weakness/confusion/uncertainty is in you, not in my epistemic reasoning or in the statements of the VAT II.
The Matthean exception for divorce was for consanguinity - marriages that, by their nature, are invalid.
Well, you’re definitely missing the point, but that’s okay. I’m more intrigued now by this bizarre understanding of Scripture you have…
That’s not how the Fathers exegeted the passage. Where did you get that interpretation?
The interpretation comes from the Church. "Many Church Fathers and modern scholars argue the original Greek word porneia refers to invalid marriages or illicit unions (such as incest), rather than infidelity within a valid marriage. Therefore, the exception means "unless the marriage is unlawful from the start, it cannot be dissolved." (see John P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew, 248–57)
Annulments are granted for conditions that existed at the time of the marriage. Adultery, or the desire/intention to commit adultery, does not necessarily exist from the time of the marriage, whereas the impediment of consanguinity does.
Who are these "many Church Fathers"? St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. John Chysostom do not have that interpretation... rather, "porneia" means fornication in their interpretation. Blessed Theophylact gives the consensus of the Fathers by saying, "But I say to you, Christ says, that it is good to divorce as an adulteress a wife who has committed fornication, but if one divorces a wife who has not committed fornication."
Post a Comment