Dr. K’s Weekly Roundup, February 7, 2026

SSPX Consecrations

Readers of Tradition & Sanity will no doubt have seen my own response to the news, announced by Don Davide Pagliarani, about the episcopal conscrations for the Society of St. Pius X on July 1st. So, I will not add much here, except to recommend a few additional readings.

First and foremost, the extensive interview given by Don Pagliarani, which is remarkably thorough, clear, and winsome. I would say it is crucial in understanding the mens or mind of the Society; indeed, it is one of the best overall summaries of their position I’ve ever read. A few key passages:

It is sad to acknowledge, but it is a fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation. Missing, in particular, are both the integral preaching of Catholic truth and morality, and the worthy administration of the sacraments as the Church has always done. This deprivation is what constitutes the state of necessity. In this critical context, our bishops are growing older, and, as the apostolate continues to expand, they are no longer sufficient to meet the demands of the faithful worldwide....

We place what we preserve at the service of the Church. We offer the Church, not a museum of old and dusty things, but Tradition in its fullness and fruitfulness. Tradition, which sanctifies souls, transforms them, and gives rise to vocations and authentically Catholic families. In other words, it is for the Pope himself, as such, that we preserve this treasure until the day when its value will once again be understood and when a Pope will wish to make use of it for the good of the whole Church. For it is to the Church that Tradition belongs....

It is quite simply a question of charity. We do not wish to attribute to ourselves a mission that we do not have, but at the same time, we cannot refuse to respond to the spiritual distress of souls who are increasingly perplexed, disoriented, and lost. They are calling for help. And, after searching for a long time, it is quite natural that they find deep joy, light, and consolation in the riches of the Tradition of the Church. To these souls, we have a true responsibility, even if we do not possess an official mission. It is the same for someone in the street—if he sees another in danger, he is bound to come to that person’s aid according to his means, even if he is neither a fireman nor a policeman....

This charity is a duty which commands all others. The very law of the Church provides for it. In the spirit of ecclesiastical law, which is the juridical expression of this charity, the good of souls comes before everything else. It truly represents the law of laws, to which all others are subordinate and against which no ecclesiastical law can prevail. The axiom “suprema lex, salus animarum”—”the supreme law is the salvation of souls”—is a classic maxim of canonical tradition which is explicitly taken up by the final canon of the 1983 Code. In the present state of necessity, it is upon this highest principle that the entire legitimacy of our apostolate and of our mission towards the souls who turn to us depends. For us, we fulfil a role of supplying for a deficiency, in the name of that same charity.

People will rush to deny that his negative assessment of the mainstream Church is true of parish X or parish Y, where they have the super-orthodox preacher or the unicorn Novus Ordo (or both). But any sober realist will admit that if you were to attend just any Catholic church at random, nearly anywhere in the world, Pagliarani’s assessment would be spot-on. I get emails practically every day with horror stories from this or that city, state, or country (just the other day, one from Croatia; the day before that, from South Africa; and on it goes). It’s incredible how bad things are out there.

Anyway... read the whole interview, it’s quite interesting, especially Pagliarani’s analysis of the Bergoglio/Fernandez approach to doctrine and mission, which he believes is being continued in this pontificate.

I agree with Kennedy Hall, who at Crisis Magazine makes a sort of meta-argument that is lost on too many commentators.

After poring over thousands and thousands of pages and documents on the subject, I can confidently say that, generally speaking, the conclusion one comes to regarding the Society has, ultimately, little or nothing to do with Canon Law or the historical facts. I say this because, given the varied and complex nature of the situation, lawyers of all stripes can argue different points, even pointing to the same canons in the Code of Canon Law; some decry the SSPX as schismatic, and others do not. In addition, you will find myriad statements from saints and popes of the past that will either support or detract from an argument in favour of or opposed to the Society. What one thinks about the SSPX, in a sense, is in the eye of the beholder. Because of this, arguing someone into a different opinion is almost impossible because it comes down to a personal decision to view the crisis in the Church as grave enough to warrant the application of necessity to the case of the SSPX.

His discussion of canon 1387, 1323, and 1752 is helpful.

I came across an incredibly pertinent passage in Fr. Leonardo Castellani, SJ, written in the 1940s. Think today about the constant drum-beat of “unity” from ideologues in high places:

When an organism begins to gravitate “inward”… cancer is its name. It’s a bad sign for a social body when “unity” is its main worry to the detriment of “purpose.” (Oh my God! I’ve just been listening to a man raving endlessly about the need for a greater “unity among Spaniards.” What rubbish! I mean, unity, unity… for what? Tell us for what in the first place…) It’s a dreadful symptom when anybody begins to reflect too much about himself, especially if that concern puts into shadow the real object of a society, its very raison d’être: which is exactly what happens to sick people. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed. “The end of anything whatsoever cannot be its own preservation.”

It’s quite curious to think about Don Pagliarani meeting with Cardinal “Tucho” Fernandez, of all people. Speaking of whom, Delia Gallagher analyzes some of Tucho’s speeches and finds very strange ideas in them, incompatible with the faith of which he is the putative dicasterial defender:

Part of the progressive playbook is to move away from any sort of metaphysical or moral certainty, which they deem too arrogant and narrow-minded, to a larger view of the mystery of God, the not-knowing, and the beauty of love and mercy, better expressed through poetry than doctrine. They speak of the “central truths of the Gospel” to distance the life and teachings of Jesus from doctrine which they find too constraining. That the “central truths of the Gospel” and moral and metaphysical truth might actually fit together and be one of the great achievements of the Catholic Church does not seem to be a consideration for them. The Bergoglian/Fernandez approach involves a competition between love and truth wherein truth has played a divisive and damaging role and love is the answer.

Robert Lazu Kmita’s argument in “What Is Tradition? Fidelity and Treason” is highly relevant to this situation:

The same professor who first mentioned to me the liturgical revolution that occurred in the post-conciliar Catholic Church also paid great attention to the etymology of significant words such as “Tradition.” His insights were often very helpful. In this case, we know that the word comes from the Latin traditio, a noun meaning “handing over” or “delivery.” The matter becomes even more significant when we learn that this noun derives from the Latin verb tradere—whose meanings are “to hand over, to deliver,” or “to betray.”

What is truly remarkable is the fact that from this same verb tradere, modern languages have inherited two distinct words: “tradition” and “treason.” Philologists call such pairs “doublets” —words born from the same, unique root. The profound meaning of the relationship between “tradition” and “treason” becomes crystal clear if we recall a teaching of Saint Paul from his Epistle to the Galatians: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so now I say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8–9).

In the above words of the holy Apostle Paul we immediately discover a reference to the simplest—but also the most powerful— meaning of Tradition: nothing is to be added to what has already been received. Translated into the terms of our discussion, nothing can be added to Tradition—to what has already been handed down to us. The only quality required of those who have received the Gospel is fidelity. If this fidelity is not preserved, the result is betrayal of the Gospel. Returning now to the two related words, “tradition” and “treason,” we can understand their connection: where the received content is preserved and transmitted faithfully, we speak of Tradition; where that content is altered through additions or omissions, we speak of treason.