Vatican City - Only a few hours remain until the morning of 1 July, when the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X is due to consecrate four new bishops at Ecône, Switzerland, without a pontifical mandate. On the eve of that event, and on the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul - the feast which more than any other speaks of the Church’s unity - Leo XIV has made one final attempt to avert a new schism, through a personal letter.
The text, written in French and addressed to the Fraternity’s Superior General, Fr Davide Pagliarani, is dated 29 June 2026. The Pope writes “with a paternal heart”, not simply to its recipient but also, “through you, [to] the bishops, priests, seminarians and faithful connected to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X”.
The Church, Leo writes, recognises “the devotion to liturgical life, commitment to priestly formation, apostolic zeal and desire for fidelity to Tradition” which mark those communities. After this acknowledgement, the Pope moves to a direct plea: “please turn back!”
The Pope explains that the act the Fraternity is preparing to carry out would deprive the faithful “of the licit and, in some cases, even valid reception of the Sacraments” which they seek for their sanctification. The closing words set aside all diplomatic caution and take on the tone of an anguished appeal: “to tear the seamless garment of Christ is a sin of extreme gravity”. He continues: “With a sorrowful yet hopeful heart, I feel it is my duty, through the authority received from Christ, to ask you to desist from your intended act.” Prevost entrusts these intentions “to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of Good Counsel”.
An appeal long anticipated
The letter did not come out of the blue. Leo XIV had already discussed the matter with journalists at Castel Gandolfo when he was questioned about it. In recent weeks, moreover, the Pope had repeatedly consulted the Cardinal Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, other prefects and further advisers in order to finalise the text. Although the advice he received urged caution and diplomacy, Prevost chose not to shelter behind purely formal language. He preferred to speak as a pastor, with the concern of someone who knows he has a duty to protect his flock.
Behind this letter lie months of confidential contacts, entrusted by the Pope to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which produced no tangible result. In that context, the Pope’s decision not to receive Fr Pagliarani personally at the Vatican is also significant, despite the latter having requested an audience. The choice was criticised by many who style themselves Catholics, but it conveys a precise message: the Pope places complete trust in his collaborators. Accept the Council, and then the rest can be discussed. The historical parallel is unavoidable. Thirty-seven years after Marcel Lefebvre’s consecrations in 1988, which led to excommunication and rupture, the pattern is being repeated almost identically. With it comes the risk - in truth, the certainty - that history is about to repeat itself.
A door the Fraternity has already shut
Anyone expecting a last-minute reversal from Ecône would do well to reread what the Fraternity itself put in writing only days ago. On 24 June, on the eve of the Consistory and with the consecrations already imminent, the FSSPX published an open letter to Leo XIV and all the cardinals, accompanied by a “Catholic profession of faith” divided into 154 points and 17 chapters. The document bears the signatures of the Superior General Pagliarani, the two General Assistants Alfonso de Galarreta and Christian Bouchacourt, and the two former Superiors General Bernard Fellay and Franz Schmidberger.
That text rejects wholesale “the errors of liberalism, indifferentism, modernism, ecumenism and secularism”, presenting itself as the hoped-for basis “for a frank discussion with the Holy See”. Above all, it contains a formula which says more than any declaration of intent: the signatories state that they are not “a group of nostalgics”, but that they express their faith “peacefully and resolutely”. It is in that word, “resolutely”, that the distance between the two letters can be measured. While Rome pleads with them to desist, Menzingen makes clear that its decision has already been made.
The profession of faith of 24 June and the appeal of 29 June speak mutually incompatible languages. That incompatibility emerges clearly in the words of Leo XIV, who once again recalled the authentic meaning of unity in the Church: “This faithful and patient concern for unity is well expressed by the symbol of the keys, by which he is so often recognised. A key, after all, does not break down doors: it opens and closes them, finding the right mechanisms within and guiding their movement, so that locks are released, bolts slide back and doors swing freely on their hinges, joining rooms together and turning many isolated spaces into one welcoming home. In the same way, communion in the Church is not built by entrenching ourselves in our own positions, but by seeking, in everyone’s hearts, the points at which we can meet in the Truth. Only in its light can each one become for the other an instrument of growth.”
Those words describe exactly what neither the Lefebvrists nor those “traditionalists” who continue to call themselves Catholics do while filling blogs, armchair-psychology sites and online forums in order to denigrate others, mock them, attack people and foster suspicion.
For them, faith becomes a fence to patrol, a frontier to guard, an excuse to decide who is worthy and who must be excluded. Unfortunately, they themselves provide the clearest proof that some of the ideologies they claim to uphold cannot even be honoured in practice. Unity is not born of permanent distrust, insults or caricatures of others. Nor can it arise from those who invoke Truth while refusing to let it judge, first and foremost, their own language and conduct.
In short, the Fraternity asserts a doctrinal continuity which it believes the Council betrayed; Leo XIV, by contrast, asks that the faithful’s sacramental life should not be made subordinate to that claim. These are two understandings of unity which have failed to meet for decades and which, on the morning of 1 July, risk moving definitively further apart.
What happens on 1 July
Unless Ecône reverses course in response to the Pope’s plea, the matter will enter a new phase, governed no longer by exhortation but by canonical consequences. Episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate would constitute, according to the Church’s constant teaching and canon law, a schismatic act, with the sanctions that follow for both those consecrating and those consecrated. Until the final moment, there remains the opening which the Pope has left available: the Church’s willingness to undertake “a path of dialogue and understanding that the Holy Spirit can make possible and fruitful”. It is a door left slightly ajar which, in the light of the documents issued in recent weeks, appears destined to confront a determination already consigned to history.
The real issue? Money
It should not be forgotten that these positions also rest on economic interests which are far from negligible. The Fraternity knows full well that it can count on financial support from far-right circles, and a return to Rome would not be without consequences: it would require accepting aspects of the Council which those very funders have no intention of recognising. For these people, faith has been reduced to a political party, nothing more. It is difficult to imagine that a letter from Leo XIV could alter the course of events only hours before an occasion on which the Fraternity has invested tens of thousands of euros. So much so that it has even launched a range of wines, sold at 75 Swiss francs and presented as a “memento of this extraordinary event”.
Behind the seamless garment which Leo XIV rightly says has been torn apart through culpable action, there are not merely liturgical claims. There is money, support and media attention. That too helps explain why, for decades, every appeal for unity has gone unanswered.
fr.L.R.
Silere non possum