Conference of Fr. Pagliarani in Buenos Aires

The Superior of the FSSPX has given, three days ago, a brief conference or talk at the priory of Buenos Aires. It has been just 26 minutes touching the usual topics, the common places already exhausted in relation to Rome, and omitting any inconvenient or controversial issue. Answer a couple of questions at the end. We include our comments in red.

Start by saying that about the situation with Rome, things will surely happen in the future, but you have to take everything “calmly”, not in a passionate way, and “take distance from electronic media”. Actually with Rome "nothing happens ."

The superior of the SSPX seems to take the faithful of his congregation as idiots. After all the events that Francisco's actions have shown in recent years to “normalize” the Fraternity, plus the active participation of a conciliar bishop who now resides in internal dependencies of the same Fraternity, Fr. Paglariani says that "nothing happens".

“Rome keeps asking to accept all the reforms of the council and the post-council. Also that we accept that the New Mass is valid and legitimate. We cannot accept it. It would be a betrayal. ”

What did you say? The legitimacy of the new mass was solemnly accepted by Bishop Fellay, former superior, in his doctrinal statement of April 2012 (*). As for the council, he accepted that "95% is good," and that "religious freedom is very, very limited." They have already accepted the diocesan interference on marriages and in the Fraternity the reception of the canons of the new modernist code is advancing at the expense of the San Pío X code.
(*): 7 We declare to recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and of the Rituals of the Sacraments legitimately promulgated by popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

Then criticizes Amoris laetitia for a while. "The Fraternity cannot accept this."

He says that since 2009 many rumors began in Rome (Mons. Pozzo, etc.) "that they were in the sense that they would not require us to accept the council." "Expressions that led to a possible solution in a pragmatic framework, where doctrinal issues do not seem to matter to the Romans."

That is to say, that it was arranged - as it was about to enter Rome in 2012 - to accept a "pragmatic framework", something very different from a "doctrinal framework".

He says that the SSPX does not cut off any relationship with the Roman hierarchy, which it never did because it considers it legitimate.

Not having relations with these authorities does not mean that one does not recognize them as legitimate. The justification of P. Pagliarani is weak. Didn't Mons. Lefebvre say at the end of his life the following words, now very evil in the SSPX ?: “For every priest who wants to remain Catholic, it is a strict duty to separate from this conciliar church as long as she does not return to the tradition of teaching of the Church and of the Catholic faith ” . ("Spiritual Itinerary", 1991). And, by the way, that did not amount to proclaiming a sedevacantist.

"The Fraternity continues to promote the doctrinal debate."

Imagine St. Pius X promoting the debate with the modernists ... He called to fight them, he called them the worst enemies of the Church, those who hide within it to do more damage. From what we will see below in the words of Fr. Pagliarani himself, this turns out to be simply or an excuse to obey a Roman strategy, or a great naivety, or a pure illusion. Discuss who honors Luther by introducing his statue in the Vatican?

“Francisco's purpose is in continuity with what preceded him. Francisco can have an original, new, extravagant presentation. But it is a continuity ... (...) It wants to impose democracy in the Church, the synodality. ”

In the face of the greatest destroyer of the Church of modern times, before whom he does not tire of actively fighting everything that is Catholic, of fulfilling the Masonic agenda of the New World Order, of promoting heresy, blasphemy and desmere; Pagliarani avoids, as always in the Neo-Fraternity, every virile and strong criticism, necessary and just, like the one that Mons. Lefebvre dared to do with the Roman hierarchs, to put things in their place. The strongest thing he says is that he is “extravagant” (!), Which in a certain sense could be said of several of his predecessors, and could still be, at times, an aspect of sympathy that does not detract from his doctrinal position. It is clear that either there is fear or there is an order "not to be hard on Pope Francis." But that is nothing but lack of zeal against those who destroy the Church!

“There are interesting reactions against this pontificate and this situation, but they do not reach the root of the problem. Here is the role of the Fraternity: explain, show, that the problem is rooted in the council. Pope Francis did not appear out of nowhere ”(…)“ The debate with Rome is a way to show that we continue to recognize official authority ”(…) Discuss religious freedom, ecumenism (…) the salvation of the Jews, which in the new catechism says that they are saved by waiting for the Messiah for the first time ... (...)

“Does Rome have an interest in doctrinal discussion? So far, none.”

“In Rome we are very well received. But they want to talk about something else. What is doctrinal does not seem to interest. ”

“The FSSPX is still waiting for an answer to its doctrinal proposition. It will take time. ”

We have highlighted these three statements of the Superior General with bold letters because they cast aside his supposed "strategy" of "doctrinal debate" to restore Tradition in the Church. We are totally involved in the land of the absurd. The Fraternity says he wants to argue. They just did it. Does the reader remember that for two years there were "doctrinal conversations" with Rome that did not lead to any results ... from Rome? The SSPX says it wants to discuss the doctrine and also says that Rome is not interested in discussing the doctrine. So? Why try to argue with someone who not only says he is not interested in Catholic doctrine, but acts to destroy everything that is Catholic? What justification is there for this absurdity? If it is a matter of expressing recognition of official authority, there are many other less ridiculous, less scandalous, and less dangerous means than seeking to sit down to discuss the Truth with liberal and modernist prelates who are unwilling to discuss the Truth. None of those present at the talk came up to ask about this, or if it occurred to anyone, he dared not ask. It is really amazing that this nonsense is overlooked. So much seems to have come the numbness of the faithful of the Fraternity, that nobody seems to care that the modernist enemy that occupies Rome has caught the Fraternity in its cunning network of "dialogue and sympathy" and friendly "discreet but not secret contacts "While the Superior says that" nothing is happening "... It is the devastating" laxotanil "effect with which the poor faithful have been bombarded for years ... While Rome continues its task of softening the fraternal resistance and Francisco continues with his steamroller.

Questions were asked:

- "Will there be consecration of bishops?"

“The conditions of 30 years ago continue and get worse. However, it is an exceptional event, justified by a real need. Mons. Lefebvre waited as much as possible. The Fraternity will do it when there is no other. You can continue with two active bishops. But the Fraternity will try to obtain a permit from Rome that is what corresponds. ”

We will see what names the FSSPX will propose to Rome at that time ...

- "Can the Fraternity attract groups that left the Fraternity?"

“It is not possible, but not because of the Fraternity. They made decisions that lock them in their positions. Once these decisions have been made, it must be justified. They have to look for elements to justify themselves ... " There is no talk as before ... Monsignor Huonder ... " If there is no Monsignor Huonder there is something else ... (...) It's like when two people forgive the comparison, two people are to divorce. When they divorce, the perspective changes, one feels the freedom, reads back all his past and his present depending on what is happening to him now. There is a rejection of the Fraternity that is not purely rational, a rejection that is made visceral, to justify itself. And also because they suffered I don't know what ... other things are mixed, we are all human, many times they are people who can be hurt, they feel disappointed, there are many elements. My answer is very general. It's hard. The door is open…"

Here appears all the animosity that carefully avoided towards the modernist destroyers of the Church. He falls into "the passionate", which was the first thing he asked his listeners to put aside. There are no problems in the Fraternity, it is simply exalted imaginations of people whose rejection is not entirely rational, who have been hurt and disappointed ... It touches - before anyone touches it - the theme of Bishop Huonder, as it is if it were something minor, irrelevant, or normal ... Before that, Father Pagliarani criticized the Jews slightly but says nothing about the fact that in the fraternity they have introduced a bishop who is an excellent friend of the Jews (see this article ) and who is there to fulfill the mission of bringing the Fraternity closer to Francisco. As we said years ago in this blog, “ oh, well, a cluster of precise, concordant, serious and indesmentible facts that prove liberal drift, accordist will and betrayal of the dome of the FSSPX to the full,” but this one "He wants to persuade us that there are no certainties of the liberal drift and consequent betrayal of the FSSPX, but mere judgments of intentions, doubts, suspicions and reckless judgments."

"When a priest savors freedom, returning to a structure, with a prior, with a superior, with common life, with some restrictions, is not easy, it is men ..."

The Superior of the Neo-Fraternity generalizes, making believe that all the priests who are outside and criticize the Fraternity are “independent”. But although there are such cases, there are also those who are grouped in a congregation, the SAJM. They have also been forced to break with the Fraternity, among others, the Benedictine monks of Brazil and the Dominicans of Avrillé, who are not precisely "independent" ... in such a way that Fr. Pagliarani leaves aside any doctrinal question to caricature the dissidents or detractors as unbalanced ones who only aspire to be independent.