The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is approaching schism through rebellion against the Pope. Its superior, Fr. Pagliarani, however, believes he is legitimized by Providence.

---

 

A new lengthy interview has been released by Fr. Davide Pagliarani.

Few people know him, yet he is the superior of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), the traditionalist community founded by Marcel Lefebvre in 1970 in opposition to the Second Vatican Council.

The French archbishop was excommunicated in 1988 for ordaining bishops without papal mandate (in 2009, Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the four consecrated bishops, while Lefebvre died in 1991).

 

The SSPX Nearing Schism

Today, the Society finds itself in the very same situation, being determined to proceed with episcopal ordinations without pontifical mandate for its own survival: the only remaining bishops are now very elderly.

A gesture that canon law considers extremely grave, to the point of constituting schism.

The temptation toward disobedience has always existed within the Society, often damaging itself in the process.

Indeed, even Lefebvre’s right-hand man, Richard Williamson (known for denying the Holocaust), was expelled in 2012 because he refused obedience to his superiors. In other words, the very same thing the entire SSPX is now doing toward Rome.

Williamson’s schism therefore led to the creation of the Marcel Lefebvre Priestly Union, a separate community hostile to the SSPX. Dynamics commonly found within the Protestant-Lutheran world.

 

---

Stay updated by subscribing to our new channels:

---

 

 

Against Rome in the Name of Freedom

The recent interview with Fr. Pagliarani reinforces the image of a group of faithful (around 1,000 members) accustomed to living inside a communal bubble, convinced that they are the authentic guide of the Church and its spiritual epicenter.

What emerges is the remarkable ability to turn reality upside down in their own favor.

Thus, for example, the upcoming consecrations announced by the SSPX are described by Fr. Pagliarani not as an objective act of defiance and betrayal, but rather as “an act of fidelity” required by the “preservation of the freedom necessary to profess the faith and transmit it to souls.”

So a small Catholic community openly disobeys the Pope in the name of freedom to profess the faith. Calling such reasoning illogical would be an understatement.

 

Is the SSPX Guided by Providence?

A second example, even more striking, is the claim that divine will stands behind them in order to justify both the actions and the very existence of the SSPX.

Fr. Pagliarani repeats this frequently; one only has to count how many times he uses the word “Providence.”

The traditionalist priest claims that the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X is supposedly an “instrument of a salutary shaking” for all Catholics, a “shaking that only Providence can bring about.” It is likewise Providence, he says, that grants the Society “the opportunity to contribute something the Church needs today more than ever, for her good and renewal.”

Is Providence guiding the SSPX to disobey Rome in order to teach the Church herself a lesson that would supposedly lead her back onto the right path?

Any doubt of misunderstanding disappears when the concept is repeated.

“In the current confusion,” Fr. Pagliarani explains again, “Providence provides the Society of Saint Pius X with the means to proclaim clearly the eternal rights of Our Lord,” and therefore it would supposedly be “a grave sin on our part to withdraw from this obligation imposed upon us by faith and charity.”

It is obedience to the will of God, he says, that allows one “to understand why the Society of Saint Pius X exists and why it is proceeding today with these episcopal consecrations.”

As if this were not yet clear enough, the superior of the SSPX repeats it for the third time.

“The role that Providence seems to have reserved for the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X,” he solemnly declares, “is the unique role of being a sign of contradiction: a thorn in the side of the reformers.”

And the more one tries to remove the thorn, “the more deeply it penetrates: it is not the thorn itself that produces this therapeutic effect, but rather the two thousand years of Tradition that it embodies and represents.”

The issue thus takes on an eschatological dimension. It is the SSPX that must save the Church, evidently considering itself the true guardian of apostolic succession.

Frankly, we do not see much difference from the extravagant sermons of former italian priest Fr. Alessandro Minutella, who proclaimed himself the Great Prelate and successor of Peter after receiving ecclesiastical excommunication.

Like Pagliarani, he too habitually justifies his actions as the direct will of Providence, allegedly intent on preserving a small remnant of Catholics as a sign of conversion for everyone amid the iniquity manifested by the Church.

 

Bishops Supporting the SSPX

Another interesting element of Fr. Pagliarani’s interview is his enthusiasm for the support received from two bishops.

One might say the “usual” two traditionalist bishops: Athanasius Schneider (Kazakhstan) and Joseph Strickland (United States), both major supporters of the excommunicated Carlo Maria Viganò.

The first already served as an official visitor to the SSPX, while the second was removed from his office as bishop of Tyler after calling Pope Francis a “diabolically disoriented clown.”

By contrast, Cardinals Müller and Sarah have firmly opposed the SSPX, earning from Fr. Pagliarani the accusation of living in a “permanent dichotomy.”

 

The Shadow of Luther

Fr. Pagliarani’s long intervention once again reveals disparaging judgments against the Church and her shepherds, beginning with Pope Francis.

Nothing particularly new, except for the recollection of a personal experience he recounts: “When I requested a meeting with Francis at the Vatican, I obtained an audience in less than 24 hours, and he was especially cordial.”

There is little else worth preserving in an interview that, once again, openly displays the intention to reject ecclesial obedience in the name of a supposed divine mandate.

It seems almost unnecessary to recall that, in the authentically Catholic vision, the only objective criterion of communion and truth is the succession of Peter. That is where Providence acts consistently throughout history.

Claiming to correct the Church against the Pope by appealing to Providence is not zeal for the truth: it is truth in disguise. Luther already tried it, and it did not end particularly well.