19/02/2026
𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐂𝐈𝐋 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐎𝐂𝐈𝐄𝐓𝐘 𝐎𝐅 𝐒𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐓 𝐏𝐈𝐔𝐒 𝐗 𝐓𝐎 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐅𝐄𝐂𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐎𝐂𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐀𝐈𝐓𝐇.
𝗠𝗲𝗻𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗻, 𝟭𝟴 𝗙𝗲𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
𝗔𝘀𝗵 𝗪𝗲𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗱𝗮𝘆
Most Reverend Eminence,
First of all, I thank you for receiving me on 12 February, and for making public the content of our meeting, which promotes perfect transparency in communication.
I can only welcome the opening of a doctrinal discussion, as signalled today by the Holy See, for the simple reason that I myself proposed it exactly seven years ago, in a letter dated 17 January 2019.[𝟭] At that time, the Dicastery did not truly express interest in such a discussion, on the grounds—presented orally—that a doctrinal agreement between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X was impossible.
For the Society’s part, a doctrinal discussion has always been—and remains—desirable and useful. Indeed, even if we do not reach an agreement, fraternal exchanges allow us to better know one another, to refine and deepen our own arguments, and to better understand the spirit and intentions behind our interlocutor’s positions—especially their genuine love for the Truth, for souls, and for the Church. This holds true, at all times, for both parties.
This was precisely my intention in 2019, when I suggested a discussion during a calm and peaceful time, without the pressure or threat of possible excommunication, which would have undermined free dialogue—as is, unfortunately, the situation today.
That said, while I certainly rejoice at a new opening of dialogue and the positive response to my proposal of 2019, I cannot accept the perspective and objectives in the name of which the Dicastery offers to resume dialogue in the present situation, nor indeed the postponement of the date of 1 July.
I respectfully present to you the reasons for this, to which I will add some supplementary considerations.
1. 𝘞𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘝𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵, 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘹 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴.
𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘢 𝘫𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 “𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩”, 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦—𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴—𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥.
2. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘝𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵-𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘺 𝘚𝘦𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘝𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: 𝘐𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥, 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘹𝘵𝘺 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴.
𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴, 𝘜𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘶𝘮 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘌𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘪 𝘨𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘶𝘮, 𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘴 𝘭æ𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘢. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮, 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘴. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘺 𝘚𝘦𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥.
3. 𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘯 2019. 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘸𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘺 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳: 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭-𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺.
𝘠𝘦𝘵, 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭. 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘮,[𝟮] 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 “𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴”. 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤, 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦.
4. 𝘍𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘤𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦, 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘶𝘮. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.
𝘛𝘩𝘶𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦, 𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦-𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵—𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦.
5. 𝘍𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘪𝘧 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘪𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘝𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘐 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵: 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘺 𝘚𝘦𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦, 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 2009, 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 6 𝘑𝘶𝘯𝘦 2017. 𝘛𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴.
𝘠𝘦𝘵, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘔ü𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘸𝘩𝘰, 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘶𝘯𝘦 2017, 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥, 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘺, “𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩”, 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵-𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥.[𝟯] 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘪𝘧 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮, 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.
Thus, in the shared recognition that we cannot find agreement on doctrine, it seems to me that the only point on which we can agree is that of charity toward souls and toward the Church.
As a cardinal and bishop, you are above all a pastor: allow me to address you in this capacity. The Society is an objective reality: it exists. That is why, over the years, the Sovereign Pontiffs have taken note of this existence and, through concrete and significant acts, have recognised the value of the good it can accomplish, despite its canonical situation. That is also why we are speaking today.
This same Society asks you only to be allowed to continue to do this same good for the souls to whom it administers the holy Sacraments. 𝙄𝙩 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙚𝙡𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪—𝙣𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙚𝙨, 𝙣𝙤𝙧 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝, 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨, 𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙙𝙪𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙙𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙎𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙩𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙨. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙩𝙚, 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙩-𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙢 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙫𝙖𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙞𝙣 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙃𝙤𝙡𝙮 𝘾𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙘 𝘾𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙝.
We can agree on one point: 𝙣𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙪𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙣 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙨. I will not repeat here all that we have already expressed in the letter addressed to Pope Leo XIV, of which you have direct knowledge. I only emphasise that, in the present situation, the only truly viable path is that of charity.
Over the last decade, Pope Francis and yourself have abundantly advocated “listening” and understanding of non-standard, complex, exceptional, and particular situations. You have also wished for a use of law that is always pastoral, flexible, and reasonable, without pretending to resolve everything through legal automatism and pre-established frameworks. At this moment, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙎𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨—𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙞𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙨𝙠 𝙞𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙩𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛: 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙨, 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙬𝙝𝙤𝙢, 𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙮 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙃𝙤𝙡𝙮 𝙁𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧, 𝙞𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙚 𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙍𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝘾𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙝.
Finally, there is another point on which we also agree, and which should encourage us: the time separating us from 1 July is one of prayer. It is a moment when we implore from Heaven a special grace and, from the Holy See, understanding. I pray for you in particular to the Holy Ghost and—𝙙𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣—His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.
I wish to thank you sincerely for the attention you have given me, and for the interest you will kindly take in the present matter.
Please accept, Most Reverend Eminence, the expression of my most sincere greetings and of my devotion in the Lord.
𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢, 𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙂𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡
✠ 𝐀𝐥𝐟𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐨 𝐝𝐞 𝐆𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚, 𝙁𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩 𝘼𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙂𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡
𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗕𝗼𝘂𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁, 𝙎𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙 𝘼𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙂𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡
✠ 𝗕𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗙𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘆, 𝙁𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩 𝘾𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙧 𝙂𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡, 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙚𝙧 𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙂𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡
𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘇 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗶𝗱𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗿, 𝙎𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙧 𝙂𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡, 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙚𝙧 𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙂𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡
--------------------
𝗔𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘅 𝗜: 𝗟𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗙𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶 𝘁𝗼 𝗕𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗽 𝗣𝗼𝘇𝘇𝗼, 𝟭𝟳 𝗝𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟵 (https://fsspx.news/en/news/letter-father-pagliarani-bishop-pozzo-17-january-2019-57304)
𝗔𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘅 𝗜𝗜: 𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗝𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (https://fsspx.news/en/news/order-and-jurisdiction-futility-schism-accusation-57305)
𝗔𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘅 𝗜𝗜𝗜: 𝗟𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗠ü𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗕𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗽 𝗙𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗮𝘆, 𝟲 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟳 (https://fsspx.news/en/news/letter-cardinal-muller-bishop-fellay-6-june-2017-57307)
--------------------
[𝟭] 𝘊𝘧. 𝘈𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘹 𝘐.
[𝟮] 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺, 𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩'𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘺 𝘚𝘦𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯—𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘊𝘧. 𝘈𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘹 𝘐𝘐.
[𝟯] 𝘊𝘧. 𝘈𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘹 𝘐𝘐𝘐.
