LEFEBVRIAN QUESTIONS

Illustrative image: The four episcopal consecrations by the hands of Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre and Msgr. Antônio de Castro Mayer (June 30, 1988, Écône, Switzerland).

Several of my readers have asked me about the upcoming episcopal consecrations of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. Well, here is my position, expressed pedagogically in the form of questions and answers:

1. Will the Lefebvrists commit a mortal sin with these episcopal consecrations?

— No, not at all.

2. Is it not a schismatic act?

— No, formally it is not.

3. Why is it formally not a schism?

— Because, for a “perfect schism” to occur, there must be a clear intention to perform a schismatic act and to establish, with the new bishops, a hierarchical jurisdiction parallel to the one existing in the Roman Catholic Church. In this case, neither of these two things will occur.

4. Could it at least be an act of disobedience?

— Yes, indeed it is, at least materially, since Rome does not want these consecrations to take place.

5. Then, do they commit a mortal sin by disobedience?

— No, because in this case the intention of the authority of the SSPX, of the consecrators and of the future ordinands appears to be upright. They invoke the “state of necessity”, which would justify the “material disobedience”. In this regard, we have no objective reasons to doubt their conscience nor their upright intention, which is the good of the souls they assist.

6. But the “latae sententiae” excommunication will occur, that is, automatic and immediate, right?

— From a canonical perspective, yes, but, in my humble opinion, that excommunication will be null; I believe there are sufficient theological and philosophical-juridical reasons to conclude this, although I know that a large part of canonists will deny it from a purely legalistic point of view. However, I think that, in addition to the fundamental motive of the “state of necessity”, the “formal reason” why such a penalty should actually be incurred fails, since there is no objective intention of formal schism nor will a parallel jurisdiction be created, I repeat.

7. Did Msgr. Lefebvre receive the penalty of excommunication?

— Yes, as these bishops will surely receive it, but his excommunication was also null, since, on the supernatural level of the Mystical Body, that bishop never ceased to be in communion with the Church.

8. What do you mean by that?

— The essence of communion is threefold, namely: doctrinal, sacramental and hierarchical. I therefore consider that Bishop Lefebvre and, by extension, the SSPX, did not deny any of these three “essential dimensions” of ecclesial communion.

9. Is the SSPX in doctrinal communion?

— Of course, it has never ceased to teach what the Church has always believed.

10. But don’t the Lefebvrists constantly question the documents of the Second Vatican Council?

— They do not make a total amendment, as people commonly believe, considering that in its texts there are elements that form part of the “depositum fidei”, but they address, with a critical spirit, certain “delicate” issues in which theological discussion is legitimate.

11. How can you say such a barbarity?

— I can say it because the very “nature” of the Council allows me to do so.

12. What do you mean by that?

— I mean that Vatican II was a council of a “pastoral nature”, not dogmatic, and therefore did not enjoy the charism of infallibility, because at no time did it intend to define or condemn anything infallibly; that was the express decision of the majority of the Council Fathers. However, in the post-conciliar period, despite this “pastoral nature”, some have tried to turn that council into a “super-dogma”.

13. Super-dogma? This is disrespectful. Why are you using the Lefebvrian narrative?

— I am in fact using the very words of Joseph Ratzinger, who, during a visit to the bishops of Chile (1988), used these same terms.

14. On the other hand, is it true that the SSPX is in sacramental communion?

— Its sacraments are not only valid, but they are celebrated according to the traditional rites that the Church has used from time immemorial.

15. But it is obvious that the SSPX is not in hierarchical communion, right?

— Although, at the canonical level, its “institutional situation” is irregular and imperfect, the Fraternity does not cease to recognize the Pope of Rome as the supreme pastor of the universal Church. In fact, it also recognizes and respects the jurisdiction of all the bishops of the Catholic world.

16. Can you give me proof of what you are saying?

— In every Mass of the SSPX, without exception, the priests name, in the “canon missae”, the Pope and the local bishop.

17. Isn’t this a very weak argument?

— By God, it is not. The most formal and public manifestation of hierarchical recognition takes place precisely in the holy Mass, specifically in the canon.

18. Are you a Lefebvrist or a pro-Lefebvrist?

— Neither one nor the other, sir; I go my own way. I am simply Catholic and, as such, I have a critical spirit, that is, the good habit of using reason and the judgment of discernment.

19. But it seems that you agree with the SSPX on everything?

— No, I do not. In certain attitudes and issues I do not agree, but these, in my view, are secondary and accidental. In what is “essential”, I agree 100% with the Fraternity and therefore I will not contribute to its unjust and disproportionate public “demonization”.

20. Can you tell me what is essential?

— The “essential” is its “Catholicity”. Full stop.

21. But aren’t you worried about the “drift” of the Lefebvrists?

— I am much more concerned about the swarm of heterodox, blasphemous and sacrilegious people that exist everywhere, especially in Germany. I am also troubled by the double standard that seems to exist when it comes to applying penalties and censures by ecclesiastical authority.

22. So, what solution do you see to the current Lefebvrian problem?

— First of all, I believe that Rome should be benevolent and formally accept the consecration of these next bishops, while at the same time it should recognize the spiritual fruits of the apostolate of the SSPX. I think this would be a true gesture of mercy and intelligence; both things are not mutually exclusive.

23. Aren’t you afraid that you will be criticized for these opinions?

— No, because I am a priest of the Catholic Church, not the pastor of a sect, and therefore, with respect, I can and must exercise, in my life of faith, the true freedom of the children of God.

Dr. Mn. Jaime Mercant Simó

------------------------------

Illustrative image: The four episcopal consecrations by the hands of Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre and Msgr. Antônio de Castro Mayer (June 30, 1988, Écône, Switzerland).

Source: @JaimeMercant on Twitter/X.

War, Just and Unjust

Roger I & Robert Guiscard Receive the Keys to Palermo [from Arab Muslims] by Guiseppe Patania,1830 [Palazzo dei Normanni, Palermo, Sicily]

By Robert Royal on Monday, March 2, 2026

Nuclear weapons, like other modern technological developments, have placed great strains on traditional moral principles. Just as modern medicine has changed our appreciation of the beginning and end of human life, the tremendous destructive power of modern weapons, nuclear and not, has made careful thought about war not only urgent, but – to use the fashionable term – existential.

That’s probably the main reason why the Vatican has seemed quasi-pacifist in recent decades. But the Church has a well-developed set of criteria about just and unjust uses of force. Indeed, in the past, it even – rightly – called for crusades. (I’ll explain another time.) But those criteria – still valid in themselves – need further elaboration to confront the conditions in which we find ourselves.

I have immediate family members who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, been active in U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East, and worked in the Pentagon managing defense preparedness. Some of my grandchildren have been forced into air-raid shelters in Jerusalem; the others may someday face terrorism at home or, themselves, have to take part in foreign wars. Millions of Americans – and not only Americans – have similar stories. And unless we keep the human costs of warfare front and center in our minds, we may be tempted to take just-war theory as merely a political or intellectual exercise.

That said, there are, of course, things worth dying for – and, regrettably, things worth killing for. That’s precisely why just-war theory, a tradition of moral reflection that began in the ancient world, was developed – notably by Augustine and Aquinas, and is the common heritage of most modern militaries. Some of the best-informed students I’ve ever had on just war over the years learned that tradition during U.S. military training. Academic types often scoff at this, but it’s true.

A good summary of just-war principles can be found here. (Our friend Phil Lawler has been re-examining them in strict fidelity to the Catholic tradition online here). But I want to look closely at just a few of them here to highlight some special circumstances that they now face.

I’m not sure whether the U.S. attack on Iran these past few days is justified. A lot of people already claim to know, one way or the other. But I’ve seen enough similar situations to be willing to suspend judgment until we know more. (I’ve misjudged in the past.) Still, I am sure that the way to decide should be on Catholic just-war grounds, not just the wearying and utterly predictable pro- and anti-Trump tug-of-war.

The first criterion is last resort. Resort to arms is a life-and-death matter. It should only be done when other means of addressing a threat have failed. But who decides when all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted? You can always claim that something else might be pursued. In the meantime, great evils may spread:

                                       Nature’s polluted,
There’s man in every secret corner of her
Doing damned, wicked deeds.

More: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2026/03/02/war-just-and-unjust/

Blessed Leonella Sgorbati, pray for us.

Shot four times in Mogadishu, she did not cry out in rage. With her final breath she spoke three times, quietly and deliberately, “I forgive.”

This was Blessed Leonella Sgorbati, an Italian Consolata Missionary Sister who gave her life not in theory but in long fidelity. For decades she served in Africa as a nurse and midwife, forming local healthcare workers, strengthening fragile systems, and standing beside mothers and children whose lives were precarious and easily forgotten. Her vocation was not dramatic. It was patient, incarnational, and deeply Catholic.

In 2006 she returned to Mogadishu, reopening a hospital amid violence and instability. She chose presence over safety, service over retreat. On 17 September that year, extremists ambushed her outside the hospital gates. Gravely wounded, she managed to stagger back inside. There, instead of denunciation, she uttered a trinitarian cadence of mercy: “I forgive… I forgive… I forgive.” These were her last words on earth.

Her death was not an accident of geopolitics but a participation in the logic of the Gospel. The Church recognised this when Pope Francis confirmed her martyrdom and she was beatified in 2018. In her we see that forgiveness is not sentimental weakness but metaphysical strength. It is the refusal to allow evil the final word. It is an assertion that grace is more real than violence.

In an age that confuses vengeance with justice and outrage with courage, Blessed Leonella offers a more demanding anthropology. The human person, even when violated, retains the capacity to choose mercy. Forgiveness does not deny evil. It overcomes it.

If faith is to be credible, it must be visible at the hour of trial. Her witness challenges us. Whom do we still refuse to forgive. Where do we allow resentment to calcify into identity.

Blessed Leonella Sgorbati, pray for us. Teach us that the Gospel is strongest not when it dominates, but when it forgives.

Mark Lambert @sitsio

BREAKING: Cardinal 'brought mobile phone into top-secret conclave'

The 133 cardinal-electors enter the Sistine Chapel at the start of the conclave last May - Vatican Pool

A cardinal brought a mobile phone inside the top-secret conclave that elected Pope Leo XIV last year in a massive security breach, according to a new book.

The papal conclave, an 800-year-old selection process held at the Sistine Chapel, Vatican City, is one of the world’s most mysterious and secretive traditions.

Vatican Church officials are cut off from the outside world and forced to surrender phones for the duration of the vote, which can last anywhere from a few days to years.

But May’s proceedings were interrupted when an elderly cardinal was found with the device in his pocket, according to the book titled The Election of Pope Leo XIV.

Gerard O’Connell, veteran Vatican correspondent, who wrote the book alongside Elisabetta Piqué, told The Telegraph: “He was disoriented and distressed. He was as surprised as everyone else was.”

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/cardinal-brought-mobile-phone-into-top-secret-conclave/ar-AA1XjITB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=69a5ae81f585454a9dbadcb7ae1c5e44&ei=9

Leo XIV To Schneider: "Young People Told Me They Converted Thanks to the Traditional Latin Mass"

Bishop Athanasius Schneider told Robert Moynihan on February 16 about the 30 minutes private audience with Pope Leo XIV on December 18.

He described the tone as open and cordial: “The Pope was very kind, attentively listening to me, very, very fraternal and simple.”

Two drafts for Leo XIV

Bishop Schneider handed Pope Leo XIV two drafts during the audience.

1) A solemn Profession of Faith

He proposed a solemn Profession of Faith, modeled on Paul VI’s 1968 Credo of the People of God. Schneider emphasized that such a text would need concrete implementation, not merely publication.

2) A universal legal settlement for the Roman Rite

Monsignor Schneider urged Leo XIV to grant equal standing to the Roman Rite and to the Novus Ordo: “I came to ask you for the liturgical peace in the Church… to grant the same rights, the same dignity to the traditional form of the Roman Rite and the Novus Ordo, and to let them peacefully coexist.”

Monsignor Schneider advised against another motu proprio “ping-pong.” Instead, he suggested a more solemn juridical act - such as an Apostolic Constitution - as a stable settlement.

He also mentioned that the “one rite = unity” rationale associated with Traditionis custodes is historically false and even contradicted by current approved diversity within the Roman Rite. As examples, he referenced the Anglican Ordinariate and the Zaire rite.

“Pax Liturgica Leonina”

Bishop Schneider told Leo XIV that establishing liturgical peace could define his legacy: “When you will do this, then it will go down in history as a so-called Pax Liturgica Leonina.”

Monsignor Schneider mentioned that Leo XIV was "smiling when I said this".

The Bishop added: “He himself said that he had met young people — and I was surprised to hear this from his own lips — who told him that their conversion to God had come through the Traditional Latin Mass.”

The “Five Wounds”

Bishop Schneider also offered Leo XIV a diagnosis of the present crisis by listing five “wounds” of the Church:

1. - Doctrinal confusion (with the Profession of Faith as remedy).

2. - Liturgical anarchy and a “war” against the Mass in the Roman rite (peaceful coexistence as remedy).

3. - Unworthy, worldly bishops and cardinals aligned with secular agendas.

4. - Deficient priestly formation in seminaries (doctrine, morals, liturgy).

5. - Harm to cloistered contemplative life, referencing Cor Orans.

Modernist Prelates Promoted to Strategic Dioceses

On episcopal appointments, Schneider told the Pope: “Holy Father, the third wound in the Church is the wound of unworthy, worldly bishops and cardinals who are the new Sadducees of today, who collaborate with the agenda of the political elites, of the ideological elites of this world.”

Elsewhere in the conversation, he also described appointments as a “great wound” of the Church, criticizing the promotion of prelates known for modernist or liberal tendencies to “strategic” offices in Rome and dioceses.

Bishop Schneider also spoke about the Vatican dialogue with the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X. This video sequence is here

Roberto De Mattei on Leo XIV: Unity, Vatican II, and a Risky Repeat of Benedict

Speculation around Leo XIV and the course of his papacy continues relatively unabated. The first Pope from the U.S. has so far conducted a pontificate marked by notable discretion, especially when contrasted with that of his predecessor. 

For many Vatican analysts Leo’s major appointments in the Roman Curia will be the most telling, but so far he has only filled the prefect position which was made vacant by his own election. In the face of this relative silence, therefore, and the implicit continuation of some of the Francis-era elements, many have sought to describe Leo as a Francis II while others sought (especially early on) to claim him as an ardent champion for the cause of tradition. 

For Professor Roberto de Mattei, Leo is neither. The prominent Church historian and veteran of the Rome scene argued that the Pope displays some characteristics of John Paul II along with Benedict XVI, but that he is fundamentally his own man.  

Interviewed by this correspondent for Pelican+, de Mattei urged caution and nuance when trying to understand Leo:  

“The first point I would like to stress is that the thesis of those who judge Leo XIV to be a progressive in line with his predecessor seems to me just as superficial as that of those who would like to turn him into a conservative or traditionalist Pope. In my opinion, he reconnects—albeit with the new characteristics of his own personality—to the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He is therefore, at least up to this point, neither a Francis nor a Saint Pius X.” 

Leo’s various addresses and speeches have highlighted the themes of unity, while also urging a

Paywall: https://x.com/pelicanbriefhq/status/2024164027790716955?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w

New Network Offers Lifeline to Converts From Islam to the Catholic Faith

Lay-run St. Nicholas Tavelić network quietly forms 300-strong underground community of ex-Muslims seeking sacraments, catechesis and a truly Catholic home.

A portrait of St. Nicholas Tavelić, a 14th‑century Croatian Franciscan martyr who is the namesake for a network that supports Muslim converts (photo: Courtesy of TavNet)

Edward Pentin WorldFebruary 17, 2026

A new support network for converts to the Catholic faith from Islam is flourishing as increasing numbers of Muslims turn to Christ, with many parishes struggling to offer the catechumens the help they need.

The “St. Nicholas Tavelić Network for Morisco Catholics” — TavNet for short — is a lay-run Catholic missionary network that since 2024 has served converts living in Muslim-majority communities or societies where ordinary parish structures cannot easily reach them.

 More: https://x.com/crean_fr/status/2024134412284071971?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w