Skip to comments.
[Catholic Caucus] Interview with the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X
Google Translate via La Porte Catine ^
| La Porte Catine
Posted on 02/05/2026 1:58:18 PM PST by ebb tide
[Catholic Caucus] Interview with the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X
“Suprema lex, salus animarum”.
“The supreme law is the salvation of souls.” The entire legitimacy of our apostolate ultimately depends on this higher principle.
1. SSPX News: Mr. Superior General, you have just publicly announced your intention to proceed with episcopal consecrations for the Society of Saint Pius X on July 1st . Why did you make this announcement today, February 2nd?
Father Davide Pagliarani: The Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary is very significant in the Fraternity. It is the day when candidates for the priesthood receive the cassock. The Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple, which we celebrate today, reminds them that the key to their formation and preparation for Holy Orders lies in self-giving, which is bestowed through the hands of Mary. It is an extremely important Marian feast, because by announcing a sword of sorrow to Our Lady, Simeon clearly demonstrates her role as co-redemptrix alongside her divine Son. We see her associated with Our Lord from the beginning of his earthly life until the consummation of his sacrifice on Calvary. Likewise, Our Lady accompanies the future priest in his formation and throughout his life: it is she who continues to form Our Lord in his soul.
2. This announcement had been a persistent rumor in recent months, particularly since the death of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in October 2024. Why did you wait until now?
Like Archbishop Lefebvre in his time, the Society of Saint Pius X has always been careful not to precede Providence but to follow it, allowing itself to be guided by its indications. Such an important decision cannot be taken lightly or hastily.
In particular, since this is a matter that obviously concerns the supreme authority of the Church, it was necessary to first approach the Holy See—which we did—and wait a reasonable amount of time for its response. This was not a decision we could make without concretely acknowledging the authority of the Holy Father.
3. In your homily, you did mention having written to the Pope. Could you tell us more about it?
Last summer, I wrote to the Holy Father requesting an audience. Having received no reply, I wrote him another letter a few months later, in a simple, filial manner, without concealing any of our needs. I mentioned our doctrinal differences, but also our sincere desire to serve the Catholic Church tirelessly: for we are servants of the Church, despite our unrecognized canonical status.
To this second letter, we received a reply from Rome a few days ago, from Cardinal Fernández. Unfortunately, it completely disregards the proposal we put forward and offers nothing that addresses our concerns.
This proposal, given the very particular circumstances in which the Fraternity finds itself, essentially consists of asking the Holy See to allow us to continue temporarily in our exceptional situation, for the good of the souls who turn to us. We have promised the Pope to devote all our energy to safeguarding Tradition and to making our faithful true sons of the Church. It seems to me that such a proposal is both realistic and reasonable, and that it could, in itself, receive the Holy Father's approval.
4. But then, if you have not yet received this approval, why do you feel you must still proceed with episcopal consecrations?
This is an extreme measure, proportionate to a real and equally extreme necessity. Of course, the mere existence of a need for the good of souls does not mean that any initiative is immediately justified in responding to it. But in our case, after a long period of waiting, observation, and prayer, it seems to us that we can now say that the objective state of grave necessity in which souls, the Fraternity, and the Church find themselves demands such a decision.
With the legacy left to us by Pope Francis, the fundamental reasons that justified the 1988 consecrations remain fully valid and, in many respects, appear even more relevant than ever. The Second Vatican Council remains, more than ever, the compass guiding Church leaders, and they are unlikely to change course in the near future. The broad outlines already emerging for the new pontificate, particularly through the last consistory, only confirm this: they reveal an explicit determination to maintain Francis's path as an irreversible course for the entire Church.
"We promised the Pope that we would devote all our energy to safeguarding Tradition, and to making our faithful true sons of the Church."
It is sad to acknowledge, but it is a fact: in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the necessary means to ensure their eternal salvation. This particularly concerns the full preaching of Catholic truth and morality, as well as the administration of the sacraments as the Church has always done. This is the essence of the situation. In this critical context, our bishops are aging, and with the continuous growth of the apostolate, they are no longer sufficient to meet the needs of the faithful throughout the world.
5. In what ways do you think last month's consistory confirms the direction taken by Pope Francis?
Cardinal Fernández, speaking on behalf of Pope Leo, invited the Church to return to Francis's fundamental intuition, expressed in Evangelii Gaudium, his key encyclical: to simplify somewhat, it involves reducing the proclamation of the Gospel to its essential, primitive expression, in very concise and impactful formulas—the " kerygma " —for the sake of an "experience," an immediate encounter with Christ, setting aside everything else, however precious it may be—specifically, all the elements of Tradition, considered secondary and incidental. It is this method of new evangelization that has produced the doctrinal void characteristic of Francis's pontificate, which a whole sector of the Church has keenly felt.
Of course, from this perspective, we must always strive to provide new and appropriate answers to the questions that arise; but this task must be accomplished through synodal reform, and not by rediscovering the classic and still valid answers provided by Church Tradition. It is in this way, in the "breath of the Spirit" of this synodal reform, that Francis has been able to impose catastrophic decisions on the entire Church, such as authorizing communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, or the blessing of same-sex couples.
In summary: the “kerygma” isolates the proclamation of the Gospel from the entire body of traditional doctrine and morality; and synodality replaces traditional responses with arbitrary, easily absurd, and doctrinally unjustifiable decisions. Cardinal Zen himself finds this method manipulative, and attributing it to the Holy Spirit blasphemous. I fear, unfortunately, that he is right.
6. You speak of service to the Church, but in practice, the Fraternity can give the impression of challenging the Church, especially when considering episcopal consecrations. How do you explain this to the Pope?
We serve the Church, first and foremost, by serving souls. This is an objective fact, independent of any other consideration. The Church, fundamentally, exists for souls: its purpose is their sanctification and salvation. All the fine speeches, the various and sundry debates, the grand themes that are discussed or could be discussed, are meaningless if they do not have the salvation of souls as their objective. It is important to remember this because there is a danger today for the Church of becoming preoccupied with everything and nothing. Ecological concerns, for example, or preoccupation with the rights of minorities, women, or migrants, risk obscuring the essential mission of the Church. If the Society of Saint Pius X strives to preserve Tradition, with all that it entails, it is solely because these treasures are absolutely indispensable to the salvation of souls, and it aims at nothing other than that: the good of souls, and that of the priesthood ordained to their sanctification.
"In an ordinary parish, the faithful can no longer find the necessary means to ensure their eternal salvation. That is what constitutes a state of necessity."
In doing so, we place at the service of the Church itself what we preserve. We offer the Church, not a museum of old and dusty things, but Tradition in its fullness and fruitfulness, the Tradition that sanctifies souls, that transforms them, that fosters vocations and authentically Catholic families. In other words, it is for the Pope himself, as such, that we preserve this treasure, until the day when its value is once again understood, and when a pope wishes to use it for the good of the whole Church. For it is to the Church that Tradition belongs.
7. You speak of the good of souls, but the Fraternity has no mission concerning souls. On the contrary, it was canonically suppressed more than fifty years ago. On what grounds can any mission of the Fraternity concerning souls be justified?
It is simply a matter of charity. We do not want to take on a mission we do not have. But at the same time, we cannot refuse to respond to the spiritual distress of souls who are increasingly perplexed, disoriented, and lost. They cry out for help. And after searching for a long time, it is quite naturally in the riches of the Church's Tradition, fully lived, that they find, with profound joy, light and comfort. We have a true responsibility for these souls, even if we have no official mission: if someone sees a person in danger in the street, they are obliged to help them according to their means, even if they are neither a firefighter nor a police officer.
The number of souls who have turned to us in this way has grown steadily over the years, and has even increased considerably during the last decade. To ignore their needs and abandon them would be to betray them, and thereby betray the Church itself, for, once again, the Church exists for souls, and not to fuel vain and futile talk.
This charity is a duty that governs all others. Church law itself stipulates this. In the spirit of Church law, the legal expression of this charity, the good of souls takes precedence. It truly represents the law of laws, to which all others are subordinate, and against which no ecclesiastical law prevails. The axiom " suprema lex, salus animarum : the supreme law is the salvation of souls" is a classic maxim of canonical tradition, explicitly reiterated, moreover, by the final canon of the 1983 Code; in the present state of necessity, the entire legitimacy of our apostolate and our mission to the souls who turn to us ultimately depends on this supreme principle. For us, it is a role of substitution, in the name of this same charity.
8. Are you aware that considering episcopal consecrations could place the faithful who rely on the Fellowship in a dilemma: either the choice of integral Tradition with all that it implies, or "full" communion with the hierarchy of the Church?
This dilemma is only apparent, in reality. It is clear that a Catholic must both maintain the integrity of Tradition and communion with the hierarchy. He cannot choose between these two goods, which are both necessary.
But we too often forget that communion is essentially based on the Catholic faith, with all that this implies: beginning with a true sacramental life, and the exercise of a government which preaches this same faith and makes it put into practice, using its authority not arbitrarily, but truly for the spiritual good of the souls entrusted to its care.
It is precisely to guarantee these foundations, these conditions necessary for the very existence of communion in the Church, that the Fraternity cannot accept anything that opposes and distorts this communion. Even when it comes—paradoxically—from those who exercise authority in the Church.
9. Could you give a specific example of something the Fraternity cannot accept?
The first example that comes to mind dates back to 2019, when Pope Francis, during his visit to the Arabian Peninsula, signed the famous Abu Dhabi Declaration with an imam. He and the Muslim leader affirmed that the plurality of religions had been willed as such by divine Wisdom.
It is obvious that a communion based on, or including, the acceptance of such a statement would simply not be Catholic, for it would include a sin against the first commandment and the negation of the first article of the Creed . I find such a statement to be more than a mere error. It is simply unimaginable. It cannot be the foundation of Catholic communion, but rather the cause of its dissolution. I believe a Catholic should prefer martyrdom to accepting such a statement.
10. Worldwide, awareness of the errors long denounced by the Society is growing, particularly online. Would it not be more appropriate to let this movement develop in trust in Providence, rather than intervening with a strong public gesture such as episcopal consecrations?
This movement is certainly positive, and we can only rejoice in it. It certainly illustrates the soundness of what the Fraternity defends, and this dissemination of truth should be encouraged by all available means. That said, it is a movement that has its limits. For the fight for the faith cannot be restricted and exhausted by discussions and positions taken on the web or social media.
The sanctification of a soul depends, of course, on a genuine profession of faith, but this must lead to a true Christian life. Now, on Sundays, souls don't need to consult an internet platform. They need a priest to hear their confession and instruct them, to celebrate Holy Mass for them, to truly sanctify them and lead them to God. Souls need priests. And to have priests, we need bishops. Not "influencers." In other words, we must return to reality. That is, the reality of souls, of their concrete, objective needs. Episcopal consecrations have no other purpose: to guarantee, for the faithful attached to Tradition, the administration of the sacrament of Confirmation, Holy Orders, and all that flows from it.
11. Do you not think that, despite its good intentions, the Fraternity could in some way end up mistaking itself for the Church, or attributing to itself an irreplaceable role?
In no way does the Fraternity claim to replace the Church, or to assume its mission: on the contrary, it retains the profound awareness of existing only to serve it, based exclusively on what the Church itself has always and universally preached, believed and accomplished.
The Fraternity is also deeply aware that it is not the one who saves the Church, for Our Lord alone keeps and saves his Bride, He who never ceases to watch over her.
The Society is quite simply, in circumstances it did not choose, a privileged means of remaining faithful to the Church. Attentive to the mission of its Mother, who for twenty centuries has nourished her children with doctrine and the sacraments, the Society is filially dedicated to the preservation and defense of the integral Tradition, taking upon itself the means of unparalleled freedom to remain faithful to this heritage. In the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society is simply a work "of the Catholic Church, which continues to transmit doctrine"; its role is that of "a postman carrying a letter." And it desires nothing more than to see all Catholic pastors join it in fulfilling this duty.
12. Let us return to the Pope. Do you believe it is realistic to think that the Holy Father could accept, or at least tolerate, the Society consecrating bishops without papal mandate?
A pope is first and foremost a father. As such, he is capable of discerning a righteous intention, a sincere desire to serve the Church, and above all, a genuine case of conscience in an exceptional situation. These elements are objective, and all those familiar with the Society can recognize them, even without necessarily sharing its views.
13. This is understandable in theory. But do you think that, in practice, Rome could tolerate such a decision from the Society?
The future remains in the hands of the Holy Father and, of course, Providence. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the Holy See is sometimes capable of demonstrating a certain pragmatism, even surprising flexibility, when it is convinced it is acting for the good of souls.
Let us consider the very current case of relations with the Chinese government. Despite a genuine schism within the Chinese Patriotic Church; despite the uninterrupted persecution of the Church of Silence, faithful to Rome; despite agreements regularly renewed and broken by the Chinese government: in 2023, Pope Francis retroactively approved the appointment of the Bishop of Shanghai by the Chinese authorities. More recently, Pope Leo XIV himself ended up retroactively accepting the appointment of the Bishop of Xinxiang, designated in the same manner during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, while the bishop faithful to Rome, imprisoned several times, was still in office. In both cases, these are clearly pro-government prelates, unilaterally imposed by Beijing with the aim of controlling the Chinese Catholic Church. It is important to note that these are not simply two auxiliary bishops, but rather residential bishops, that is, ordinary pastors of their respective dioceses (or prefectures), with jurisdiction over the local priests and faithful. In Rome, the purpose for which these pastors were chosen and unilaterally imposed is well known.
"The Society of Saint Pius X aims at nothing other than this: the good of souls, and that of the priesthood ordained to their sanctification."
The case of the Society is quite different: our aim is clearly not to support a communist or anti-Christian power, but solely to safeguard the rights of Christ the King and the Tradition of the Church, in a time of general crisis and confusion when these are seriously compromised. The intentions and objectives are obviously not the same. The Pope knows this. Moreover, the Holy Father is perfectly aware that the Society in no way intends to give its bishops any jurisdiction whatsoever, which would amount to creating a parallel Church.
Frankly, I don't see how the Pope could fear a greater danger to souls from the side of the Fraternity than from the side of the Beijing government.
14. Do you think that, in relation to the traditional Mass, the need for souls is as serious as it was in 1988? After the vicissitudes experienced by the rite of Saint Pius V, its liberation by Benedict XVI in 2007, the restrictions imposed by Francis in 2021… in what direction are we going with the new Pope?
As far as I know, Pope Leo XIV has maintained a certain discretion on the subject, which is generating considerable anticipation in conservative circles. But very recently, a text by Cardinal Roche on the liturgy, initially intended for the cardinals attending last month's consistory, was made public. And there is no reason to doubt that it corresponds, in its broad outlines, to the direction desired by the Pope. It is a very clear text, and above all, logical and coherent. Unfortunately, it rests on a false premise.
In concrete terms, this text, perfectly consistent with Traditionis Custodes, condemns Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical project. According to the latter, the old and new rites are two roughly equivalent forms, expressing in any case the same faith and the same ecclesiology, and therefore mutually enriching. Concerned with the unity of the Church, Benedict XVI was thus keen to promote the coexistence of the two rites and published Summorum For many, providentially, this was a rediscovery of the traditional Mass, but in the long run, it also provoked a movement questioning the new rite; a movement that appeared problematic, and which Traditionis Custodes, in 2021, attempted to stem.
Faithful to Francis, Cardinal Roche, in turn, advocates for the unity of the Church, but according to an idea and with means diametrically opposed to those of Benedict XVI: while maintaining the affirmation of continuity from one rite to another through reform, he firmly opposes their coexistence. He sees it as a source of division, a threat to unity, which must be overcome by returning to authentic liturgical communion: “The primary good of the unity of the Church is not obtained by ‘freezing’ division, but by coming together all in the sharing of what can only be shared.” The Church “must have only one rite” in full harmony with the true meaning of Tradition.
A just and consistent principle, since the Church has only one faith and one ecclesiology, it can only have one liturgy that adequately expresses them… But a poorly applied principle since, logical with the new post-conciliar ecclesiology, Cardinal Roche conceives of Tradition as evolving, and the new rite as its only living expression for our time; the value of the Tridentine rite can therefore only be obsolete, and its use, at most a “concession”, “in no way a promotion”.
That there is therefore a "division" and current incompatibility between the two rites is now clearer. But make no mistake: the only liturgy that adequately expresses, in an immutable and unchanging way, the traditional conception of the Church, of Christian life, of the Catholic priesthood, is the one that has always existed. On this point, the Holy See's opposition appears more irrevocable than ever.
15. Cardinal Roche is at least honest enough to acknowledge that there are still some problems in the implementation of the liturgical reform. Do you think this might lead to an awareness of the limitations of this reform?
It is interesting to see that, after sixty years, a real difficulty in implementing the liturgical reform is still acknowledged, a difficulty whose richness should be explored: this is a refrain we have always heard, every time this subject is broached, and one that Cardinal Roche's text does not shy away from. But instead of sincerely questioning the intrinsic deficiencies of the new Mass, and therefore the general failure of this reform, instead of acknowledging the fact that churches are emptying and vocations are declining, instead of asking why the Tridentine Rite continues to attract so many souls… Cardinal Roche sees no other solution than the urgent prior formation of the faithful and seminarians.
Without realizing it, he enters a vicious circle: indeed, it is the liturgy itself that is supposed to form souls. For almost two thousand years, souls, often illiterate, were edified and sanctified by the liturgy itself, without any need for prior training. To fail to recognize the Novus Ordo 's inherent inability to edify souls, while demanding even better training, seems to me a sign of irremediable blindness. This leads to shocking paradoxes: the reform was intended to encourage the participation of the faithful; yet they abandoned the Church en masse because this bland liturgy failed to nourish them; and this supposedly has nothing to do with the reform itself!
16. Today, in many countries, groups outside the Society still benefit from the use of the 1962 missal. Such possibilities were almost nonexistent in 1988. Would this not be a sufficient alternative for the time being, making new episcopal consecrations premature?
The question we must ask ourselves is this: Do these possibilities correspond to what the Church and souls need? Do they adequately meet the needs of souls?
It is undeniable that wherever the traditional Mass is celebrated, it is the true rite of the Church that shines forth, with that profound sense of the sacred not found in the new rite. But one cannot disregard the context in which these celebrations take place. Now, regardless of the goodwill of those involved, the context seems clear, especially since Traditionis custodes, confirmed by Cardinal Roche: it is that of a Church where the only official "normal" rite is that of Paul VI. The celebration of the traditional rite is therefore carried out under a system of exception: adherents of this rite receive, as a gratuitous act of kindness, dispensations that allow them to celebrate it, but these dispensations are part of the logic of the new ecclesiology, and they therefore presuppose that the new liturgy remains the criterion of the faithful's piety and the authentic expression of the life of the Church.
17. Why do you say that we cannot disregard this exceptional framework? Isn't some good being done despite everything? What concrete consequences would be regrettable?
This situation results in at least three harmful consequences. The most immediate is a profound structural fragility. Priests and the faithful who enjoy certain privileges allowing them to use the Tridentine liturgy live in fear of the future: a privilege is not a right. As long as the authorities tolerate them, they can carry on their religious practice without being disturbed. But as soon as the authorities make certain demands, impose certain conditions, or suddenly revoke the granted permissions for one reason or another, priests and faithful find themselves in a conflict, without any means of defending themselves to effectively guarantee the traditional support that souls have a right to expect. Now, how can such dilemmas of conscience be avoided in the long term when, between two irreconcilable conceptions of the life of the Church, embodied in two incompatible liturgies, one is given full legitimacy while the other is merely tolerated?
Then—and this is undoubtedly more serious—the reason for these groups' attachment to the Tridentine liturgy is no longer understood, gravely compromising the public rights of Church Tradition, and thereby the good of souls. Indeed, if the Mass of all time can accept that the modern Mass be celebrated throughout the Church, and if it claims for itself only a particular privilege, linked to a preference or a specific charism, how can we understand that this Mass of all time is irremediably opposed to the new Mass, remains the only true liturgy of the whole Church, and that no one can be prevented from celebrating it? How can we know that the Mass of Paul VI cannot be recognized because it constitutes a considerable departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass, and that no one can be compelled to celebrate it? And how are souls effectively turned away from this poisonous liturgy, to drink from the pure sources of the Catholic liturgy?
"The Fraternity is simply, in circumstances it did not choose, a privileged means of remaining faithful to the Church."
Finally, a more far-reaching consequence stemming from the two previous ones is the need to avoid jeopardizing a fragile stability through disruptive behavior. This forces many pastors into a forced silence when it comes to speaking out against scandalous teachings that corrupt faith or morals. The necessary denunciation of errors that are destroying the Church, demanded by the very good of souls threatened by this poisonous nourishment, is thus paralyzed. One or another is enlightened in private, when the harmfulness of a particular error can still be discerned, but it is now nothing more than a timid whisper, where the truth struggles to express itself with the required freedom… especially when it comes to challenging tacitly accepted principles. Here again, it is souls that are no longer being enlightened, and that are being deprived of the bread of doctrine for which they nevertheless remain hungry: over time, this gradually alters mentalities and leads little by little to the general and unconscious acceptance of the various reforms affecting the life of the Church. Toward these souls as well, the Fraternity feels the responsibility to enlighten them and not abandon them.
This is not about casting blame or judging anyone, but about opening our eyes and acknowledging the facts. We are compelled to recognize that, insofar as the use of the traditional liturgy remains contingent upon at least the implicit acceptance of the conciliar reforms, the groups that adhere to it cannot provide an adequate response to the profound needs of the Church and its people. Conversely, to reiterate an idea already expressed, we must be able to offer Catholics today an uncompromising truth, presented without preconditions, with the means to live it fully, for the salvation of souls and the service of the entire Church.
18. That said, do you not think that Rome could be more generous in the future with regard to the traditional Mass?
It is not impossible that Rome might adopt a more open attitude in the future, as it did in 1988 under similar circumstances, when the old missal was given to certain groups in an attempt to dissuade the faithful from the Society. If this were to happen again, it would be highly political and hardly doctrinal: the Tridentine missal is meant to be used exclusively for worshipping divine majesty and nurturing faith; it cannot be used as a tool for pastoral adjustment or a means of appeasement.
That said, greater or lesser benevolence would not change the harmfulness of the framework described above, and would therefore not substantially alter the situation.
Moreover, the scenario is actually more complex: in Rome, Pope Francis and Cardinal Roche have clearly observed that expanding the use of the missal of Saint Pius V inevitably triggers a questioning of the liturgical reform and the Council, on a troubling and, above all, uncontrollable scale. It is therefore difficult to predict what will happen, but the danger of becoming trapped in political rather than doctrinal considerations is real.
19. What would you like to say especially to the faithful and to the members of the Fellowship?
I would like to tell them that the present moment is first and foremost a time for prayer, for preparing hearts, souls, and also minds, in order to dispose ourselves to the grace that these consecrations represent for the whole Church. This should be done in recollection, in peace, and in trust in Providence, which has never abandoned the Fraternity and will not abandon it now.
20. Do you still hope to be able to meet the Pope?
Yes, absolutely! It seems extremely important to me to be able to speak with the Holy Father, and there are many things I would be happy to share with him that I haven't been able to write down. Unfortunately, the response I received from Cardinal Fernández does not provide for an audience with the Pope. Instead, it mentions the threat of further sanctions.
21. What will the Fraternity do if the Holy See decides to condemn it?
First of all, let us remember that in such circumstances, any canonical penalties would have no real effect.
However, should such a fate befall us, the Fraternity would certainly accept this new suffering without bitterness, just as it has accepted past sufferings, and would sincerely offer it up for the good of the Church itself. It is for the Church that the Fraternity works. And it has no doubt that if such a situation were to arise, it could only be temporary; for the Church is divine and Our Lord does not abandon her.
The Fraternity will therefore continue to work to the best of its ability in fidelity to Catholic Tradition, and to humbly serve the Church by responding to the needs of souls. And it will continue to pray filially for the Pope, as it always has, while awaiting the day it may be delivered from these possible unjust sanctions, as was the case in 2009. We are certain that one day, the Roman authorities will gratefully recognize that these episcopal consecrations will have providentially contributed to maintaining the faith, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.
Interview given in Flavigny-sur-Ozerain on February 2, 2026
on the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Message from Jim Robinson:
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
20. Do you still hope to be able to meet the Pope?
Yes, absolutely! It seems extremely important to me to be able to speak with the Holy Father, and there are many things I would be happy to share with him that I haven't been able to write down. Unfortunately, the response I received from Cardinal Fernández does not provide for an audience with the Pope. Instead, it mentions the threat of further sanctions.
1
posted on
02/05/2026 1:58:18 PM PST
by
ebb tide
To: Al Hitan; Fedora; irishjuggler; Jaded; kalee; markomalley; miele man; Mrs. Don-o; ...
2
posted on
02/05/2026 1:59:14 PM PST
by
ebb tide
(Francis' sin-nodal "church" is not the Catholic Church.)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
