SSPX: Leo XIV “Please Turn Back” — Then Open the Road!
Pope Leo XIV has appealed personally to the Society of Saint Pius X to abandon the episcopal consecrations planned for Écône. The Society’s immediate refusal to alter its plans is deeply regrettable. Yet Rome still asks Écône to turn back without providing the lawful episcopal future, canonical security and binding timetable that would open the road to reconciliation.
See Addendum below for Fr Pagliarani’s formal response…
“Please Turn Back”—Then Open the Road
On 29 June 2026, the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Pope Leo XIV addressed a personal letter to Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X.
The timing could scarcely be more significant. The appeal came barely forty-eight hours before the episcopal consecrations scheduled for 1 July at Écône. It was issued on the feast of the Apostles who consecrated Rome by their blood: Peter, to whom Our Lord entrusted the keys and the command to confirm his brethren; and Paul, who spent himself for the unity, doctrine and extension of the Church.
Leo XIV wrote “with a paternal heart” and explicitly invoked “the responsibility entrusted to me by the Lord as the Successor of the Apostle Peter”. He recognised the Society’s devotion to liturgical life, commitment to priestly formation, apostolic zeal and desire for fidelity to Tradition. He then pleaded:
“Please turn back!”
This is a serious intervention. It is also a welcome change of tone.
For once, the Society is not described merely as a canonical problem or an obstacle to be managed. The Pope recognises publicly that those attached to it are moved by recognisably Catholic goods. He addresses Father Pagliarani directly. He writes as a father, not merely as the head of an administration.
The Society was obliged to take that appeal seriously.
Its immediate public response, however, was blunt. Marc-André Mabillard, speaking as its media representative, said that the Society felt “great sadness” at not being understood by its leader, but added:
“We are changing absolutely nothing in our plans.”
At the time of writing, no fuller formal reply signed by Father Pagliarani or issued by the General House has appeared. Nevertheless, the public message is unmistakable: the four consecrations are expected to proceed.
That response is inadequate.
Those who profess that Leo XIV is Pope and that the Roman primacy is of divine institution cannot treat his direct personal appeal as though it were merely another hostile press statement. Episcopal consecration without pontifical mandate is objectively grave. It risks deepening separation, hardening attitudes and placing priests and faithful in a still more difficult canonical position.
The Society should not proceed simply because preparations are complete, expectations have been raised or postponement might be interpreted as weakness. There is no dishonour in stepping back from an irreversible act when the Successor of Peter has appealed personally for restraint.
Nor is sadness at being misunderstood an answer.
Every serious dispute produces mutual claims of misunderstanding. The relevant question is not whether Rome has understood every aspect of the Society’s position. It is whether a Catholic priestly society may proceed with an act of such magnitude without making one final attempt to respond concretely to a personal appeal from the Pope whom it acknowledges.
The Society says that the crisis of the Church and the necessity of its apostolate compel it to act. Even so, necessity must not become a formula by which every contrary judgement is dismissed in advance. If the Society’s submission to the Roman Pontiff is real, that submission must have some practical consequence precisely when obedience is most difficult.
It should therefore pause.
But the Pope’s letter also exposes the continuing weakness of Rome’s position.
Leo XIV asks the Society to turn back. He does not say where it is to turn.
He pleads for desistance. He offers no episcopal provision.
He invokes dialogue. He gives no timetable.
He speaks of understanding. He names no delegate, approves no candidate, proposes no canonical structure and offers no concrete guarantee that the Society’s legitimate needs will be met.
The Society has been asked to turn back.
Rome has not yet opened the road.
The phrase “The Church is open to a path of dialogue and understanding” is encouraging, but it is no longer sufficient. The Society has spent decades on paths of dialogue. It has entered discussions, submitted professions of faith, proposed canonical solutions, presented candidates and petitioned successive Popes.
Its complaint is not that Rome has never spoken to it. Its complaint is that discussion has repeatedly failed to produce a stable future.
At this late hour, “dialogue” cannot mean another process without dates, obligations or consequences.
The Pope’s letter exercises only one side of Petrine authority.
It prohibits. It does not yet provide.
It warns. It does not yet resolve.
It asks Écône to trust Rome, but gives Écône no concrete act upon which renewed trust may rest.
That remains insufficient, even after the Society’s ill-judged refusal to pause.
The Society’s need for assured episcopal provision is real. Priests must be ordained. Confirmations and the other ministries ordinarily or exclusively entrusted to bishops must be provided for. A worldwide priestly society cannot be left indefinitely without an assured episcopal future and then be condemned when it attempts to secure one unlawfully.
The remedy proposed by Écône may be wrong. The need which produced it is not imaginary.
If Rome says that the consecrations are unlawful, Rome must provide a lawful alternative.
If the proposed candidates are unacceptable, Rome must name acceptable candidates.
If Leo XIV asks for postponement, he must offer a definite timetable and binding commitments.
If Rome demands obedience, it must make obedience practically possible.
The Pope possesses the authority to do this.
He can approve one or more candidates. He can choose others. He can grant a mandate under precise conditions. He can limit faculties, forbid territorial jurisdiction, appoint Roman oversight and establish a suitable canonical structure. He can guarantee the Society’s traditional liturgical life while disputed doctrinal questions continue to be examined.
The same authority by which he asks the Society to desist is the authority by which he can remove the alleged necessity for unilateral action.
That is why his invocation of Petrine responsibility matters so much.
Leo XIV does not write as an observer or mediator. He writes as the man who holds the keys.
A plea is not enough when the remedy lies in the hands of the man who pleads.
The Pope warns that the proposed act would deprive the faithful of the licit and, in some cases, valid reception of the sacraments. The warning should be treated seriously, but it also requires canonical precision. Episcopal consecration without mandate would be illicit, not invalid. Sacraments which do not require jurisdiction would not simply cease to be valid. Confession and marriage involve distinct questions of faculties and jurisdiction, though Rome has already made pastoral provision for both.
The consequences of a rupture would nevertheless be grave. Priests and faithful could be plunged into deeper uncertainty. Families could inherit another generation of suspicion and alienation. The wounds of 1988 could be reopened and hardened.
But that is precisely why the Pope must do more than predict the danger.
He must prevent it.
Leo XIV writes that to tear the seamless garment of Christ is a sin of extreme gravity. He is right. But the garment may be torn from more than one side. It may be torn by those who act without canonical mandate. It may also be strained by pastors who fail to employ the authority, patience and lawful flexibility necessary to preserve communion.
The Society must not imagine that the crisis in the Church gives it unrestricted licence to act. Rome must not imagine that possession of legal authority absolves it from responsibility for how that authority is used.
The Society’s response has now sharpened its own responsibility.
Before the Pope’s letter, Écône could say that Leo XIV had not received Father Pagliarani personally and had not addressed the Society himself. That defence has weakened. The Pope has now spoken personally, publicly and paternally. He has asked it to desist. To proceed without even a brief pause would appear not merely as resistance to a dicastery, but as a conscious refusal of a direct Petrine appeal.
That does not remove Rome’s responsibility. It does remove any excuse for treating the appeal as though it had never been made.
The question now is therefore twofold.
Will Father Pagliarani pause?
Will Leo XIV govern?
The proper response from Écône remains clear. The Society should announce a short postponement and request an immediate personal audience with the Pope. It need not accept indefinite delay. It need not surrender its theological position. But it should give Peter a final opportunity to act and make clear what concrete provision would permit it to desist.
The proper response from Rome is equally clear.
Not another communiqué.
Not another indefinite commission.
Not another demand for trust unsupported by action.
A bishop.
A mandate.
A structure.
A timetable.
Leo XIV could authorise one bishop now, under strict papal conditions, and require the postponement of the remaining consecrations while other candidates are examined. He could appoint a papal delegate with authority to negotiate a binding settlement. He could guarantee the Society’s liturgical life and create a canonical framework in which doctrinal questions may continue to be discussed.
Such an act would not surrender papal authority.
It would exercise it.
It would also test the Society far more effectively than another warning. If the Pope provided lawful episcopal provision, liturgical security and a viable canonical future, the Society could no longer appeal plausibly to necessity. If it then proceeded independently, responsibility for rupture would rest overwhelmingly upon Écône.
Rome has not yet made that test.
The Society has answered the Pope’s plea with an immediate refusal to alter its plans. That refusal should not be defended or minimised. It should be reconsidered before the first hand is imposed at Écône.
But Leo XIV must also recognise that a father does more than call his son back from danger. He opens the gate, lights the road and provides the means of return.
The Pope has appealed.
He must now provide.
The Society has been asked to turn back.
Rome must now open the road.
The final hours should be used for direct action, not reciprocal denunciation. Father Pagliarani should request an immediate audience. Leo XIV should grant it. The consecrations should be suspended long enough for the Pope to place a concrete proposal upon the table.
The feast of Saints Peter and Paul is an especially fitting moment for such an intervention. Peter was given the keys not merely to condemn, but to bind and loose for the salvation of souls. Paul did not labour to preserve administrative convenience, but to gather men into the one Body of Christ.
The Pope concluded by entrusting the crisis to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of Good Counsel.
That invocation is apt. Good counsel is not pious language without decisive action. Neither is it stubborn adherence to a course already announced when new circumstances require reconsideration. It is the virtue by which right reason identifies the means required to secure the good.
The good is the unity of the Church.
The duty of Écône is to pause before inflicting an irreversible wound.
The duty of Rome is to make that pause fruitful rather than indefinite.
Leo XIV’s letter may yet become the beginning of reconciliation.
But only if the Society’s “We are changing absolutely nothing” gives way to a final act of prudence, and the Pope’s “Please turn back” is followed by:
“Here is the road home.”
The Society must not tear the garment of Christ.
The Pope must not merely lament the threatened tear while leaving the needle unused.
Addendum — Écône Replies to Pope Leo XIV
Since the publication of this editorial, Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, has issued a formal reply to Pope Leo XIV, dated at Écône on 30 June 2026.
The letter is respectful, filial and carefully framed. Father Pagliarani thanks the Pope for his “paternal solicitude”, professes his sincere desire to serve the Church, and explicitly rejects any intention of separating the Society from the Roman Church. He asks the Holy Father to judge the Society’s intentions before reaching a final decision concerning the proposed episcopal consecrations, and appeals to the pastoral fruits of the SSPX among souls who, through its apostolate, have recovered the Catholic Faith and the practice of religion.
He also recalls the Holy See’s previous use of Bishops Vitus Huonder and Athanasius Schneider as interlocutors with the Society, observing that both bore public witness to its Catholic spirit. The letter concludes with prayer for the Pope and an appeal to Saint Rita, patroness of impossible causes. Twice, Father Pagliarani insists: “It is not yet too late.”
This reply should be represented with justice. It is not the language of open schism, nor of contempt for the Roman Pontiff. It is the language of a superior seeking to persuade the Pope that the Society acts from necessity rather than rebellion.
Yet the decisive difficulty remains. Father Pagliarani asks Leo XIV to take the time necessary for discernment, but he does not offer to suspend the consecrations while that discernment proceeds. Écône asks Peter to reconsider, but does not itself step back from the act Peter has solemnly asked it not to perform.
The letter therefore clarifies the Society’s intention has solemnly asked it not to perform.
The letter therefore clarifies the Society’s intention without resolving the collision. Both sides profess concern for the unity of the Church. Both appeal to the good of souls. Both insist that rupture is not their aim. Yet each asks the other to move first.
The Society’s answer is not: “We reject Rome.” It is rather: “Holy Father, understand why we believe we cannot obey in this matter.”
That distinction is real and important. But it does not remove the danger.
The appeal made in this editorial therefore stands with even greater urgency: Écône must pause, and Peter must open the road home.
- Leo XIV, Letter to Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, 29 June 2026.
- Associated Press, “Pope Begs Breakaway Traditionalist Group to Back Off Bishop Consecrations”, 30 June 2026; statement attributed to Marc-André Mabillard, media representative of the Society of Saint Pius X.
- Luke 22:32; John 21:15–17, Douay-Rheims Bible.
- Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), canons 331–333, 85–93, 882–888, 966, 1108, 1321–1324, 1387 and 1752.
- Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, 10 March 2009.
- Francis, Apostolic Letter Misericordia et misera, 20 November 2016, no. 12; Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Letter concerning faculties for marriages of the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X, 27 March 2017.
- Matthew 7:9, Douay-Rheims Bible.
RELATED ARTiCLES
LATEST ARTICLES
- Ecône Remembers: Why the SSPX Answered Leo XIV as It DidFather Pagliarani’s response to Pope Leo XIV reflects a complex history between the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) and the Vatican. Despite expressing respect and a desire for reconciliation, Pagliarani’s refusal to delay episcopal consecrations signals entrenched mistrust rooted in past ecclesiastical conflicts. The SSPX perceives ongoing threats to its mission, prompting cautious dialogue with Rome.
- SSPX: Leo XIV “Please Turn Back” — Then Open the RoadPope Leo XIV has urged the Society of Saint Pius X to cancel its planned episcopal consecrations in Écône, recognising their commitment but expressing concern over their actions. Despite his appeal, the Society responded resolutely, showing a lack of engagement with his request. The situation highlights the need for clear, actionable solutions from Rome.
- Today’s homily: Commemoration of St PaulSt Paul’s apostolate fulfilled the Gospel appointed for his feast: sent among wolves, delivered before councils, governors and kings, yet sustained by the Holy Ghost to persevere unto martyrdom. Every prison became a sanctuary, every tribunal a pulpit, and every suffering a means of carrying Christ to the nations.
- Today’s Mass: June 30 Commemoration of St Paul, ApostleThe commemoration of St. Paul and St. Peter highlights the significance of these apostles in the early Church. St. Paul’s transformation from persecutor to preacher showcases divine intervention and the establishment of his mission among Gentiles. Through their intercession, the faithful seek spiritual benefits and guidance for salvation.
- Sermon for Commemoration of St. PaulYesterday’s feast celebrated St. Peter and today focuses on St. Paul. His epistles reveal his journey from persecutor to apostle, emphasising salvation through divine grace, not human efforts. New interpretations suggest his Jewish faith remained pivotal, acknowledging two covenants. Ultimately, St. Paul invites both Jews and Gentiles to embrace faith in Christ.
CURRENT EDITION
Today’s Mass Propers
- Today’s Mass: June 30 Commemoration of St Paul, Apostle
The commemoration of St. Paul and St. Peter highlights the significance of these apostles in the early Church. St. Paul’s transformation from persecutor to preacher showcases divine intervention and the establishment of his mission among Gentiles. Through their intercession, the faithful seek spiritual benefits and guidance for salvation.
Leave a Reply