The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X has disseminated the response of its General Council to the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith following the meeting held on February 12 in Menzingen. In the text, the Fraternity welcomes the possibility of dialogue, but emphasizes that, given the persistent doctrinal divergences, the only realistic path is that of pastoral charity and care for souls. Far from seeking privileges or legal advantages, it insists on its willingness to continue serving the Church and to act, in the current circumstances, moved exclusively by fidelity to Tradition and the spiritual good of the faithful.
Menzingen, February 18, 2026
Ash Wednesday
Most Eminent and Reverend Sir:
First of all, I thank you for having received me on February 12, as well as for having made public the content of our meeting, which favors perfect transparency in communication.
I can only welcome favorably the openness to a doctrinal discussion manifested today by the Holy See, for the simple reason that it was I myself who proposed it exactly seven years ago, in a letter dated January 17, 2019. At that time, the Dicastery expressed no real interest in such a discussion, with the reason—stated orally—that a doctrinal agreement between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X was impossible.
On the part of the Fraternity, a doctrinal discussion was—and remains—desirable and useful. Indeed, even if no agreement is reached, fraternal exchanges allow for better mutual understanding, refining and deepening one’s own arguments, better understanding the spirit and intentions that animate the interlocutor’s positions, above all his real love for the Truth, for souls, and for the Church. This holds true, at all times, for both parties.
That was precisely my intention in 2019, when I suggested a discussion in a serene and peaceful moment, without the pressure or threat of an eventual excommunication that would have made the dialogue less free—which, unfortunately, is happening today.
That said, although I am of course pleased by this new openness to dialogue and the positive response to my 2019 proposal, I cannot accept, for intellectual honesty and priestly fidelity, before God and before souls, the perspective and objectives in whose name the Dicastery proposes to resume dialogue in the current situation; nor, moreover, the postponement of the July 1 date.
I respectfully set forth the reasons, to which I will add some complementary considerations.
We both know in advance that we cannot agree on the doctrinal level, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.
This disagreement, on the part of the Fraternity, is not a mere divergence of opinion, but a true case of conscience, born of what reveals itself as a break with the Tradition of the Church. This complex knot has unfortunately become even more inextricable with the doctrinal and pastoral developments that have occurred during recent pontificates.
Therefore, I do not see how a common dialogue process could lead to jointly determining what would be “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church,” since—as you yourself have frankly recalled—the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the Liturgical Reform be called into question.
It is supposed that this dialogue will allow for clarifying the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. But this is already clearly given in the post-conciliar period and in the subsequent documents of the Holy See. The Second Vatican Council does not constitute a set of freely interpretable texts: 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 manifested 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 in which the Holy See intends to situate any discussion is already determined.
The proposed dialogue is presented today in circumstances that cannot be ignored. Indeed, we had been waiting seven years for a favorable reception of the doctrinal discussion proposal formulated in 2019. More recently, we have written twice to the Holy Father: first to request an audience, and then to clearly and respectfully set forth our needs and the concrete situation of the Fraternity.
However, after a long silence, only when episcopal consecrations are evoked is a resumption of dialogue proposed, which thus appears dilatory and conditional. Indeed, the outstretched hand of openness to dialogue is unfortunately accompanied by another hand already ready to impose sanctions. Talk is of a break in communion, of schism, and of “grave consequences.” Moreover, this threat is now public, which creates pressure hardly compatible with a true desire for fraternal exchanges and constructive dialogue.
On the other hand, it does not seem possible to us to undertake a dialogue to define what the minimum necessary for ecclesial communion would be, simply because that task does not correspond to us. Over the centuries, the criteria for belonging to the Church have been established and defined by the Magisterium. What had to be believed obligatorily to be Catholic has always been taught with authority, in constant fidelity to Tradition.
Therefore, it is not seen how those criteria could be the object of a common discernment through dialogue, nor how they could be reevaluated today to the point of no longer corresponding to what the Tradition of the Church has always taught, and which we desire to observe faithfully from our place.
Finally, if a dialogue is envisaged with a view to arriving at a doctrinal declaration that the Fraternity can accept regarding the Second Vatican Council, we cannot ignore the historical precedents of the efforts made in that direction. I call your attention in particular to the most recent one: the Holy See and the Fraternity traveled a long path of dialogue begun in 2009, especially intense for two years, and then continued more sporadically until June 6, 2017. During all those years, precisely what the Dicastery now proposes was sought.
However, everything ended finally in a drastic manner with a unilateral decision by the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Müller, who in June 2017 solemnly established, in his own way, the “minimum necessary for full communion with the Catholic Church,” explicitly including the entire Council and the post-conciliar period. This shows that if insistence is placed on a doctrinal dialogue that is too forced and without sufficient serenity, in the long term, instead of obtaining a satisfactory result, the situation is only aggravated.
Thus, in the shared realization that we cannot reach agreement on doctrine, it seems to me that the only point on which we can agree is charity toward souls and toward the Church.
As a cardinal and bishop, you are above all a pastor: allow me to address you in that title. The Fraternity is an objective reality: it exists. That is why, over the years, the Supreme Pontiffs have taken note of that existence and, through concrete and significant acts, have recognized the value of the good that it can accomplish, despite its canonical situation. Also for that reason we are talking today.
This same Fraternity asks you only to be able to continue accomplishing that same good for the souls to whom it administers the holy sacraments. It asks nothing more of you, no privilege, not even a canonical regularization which, in the current state of affairs, is impracticable due to the doctrinal divergences. The Fraternity cannot abandon souls. The need for consecrations is a concrete short-term necessity for the survival of Tradition, at the service of the holy Catholic Church.
We can agree on one point: neither of us wishes to reopen wounds. I will not repeat here everything we have already expressed in the letter addressed to Pope Leo XIV, of which you have direct knowledge. I only emphasize that, in the present situation, the only truly practicable path is that of charity.
During the last decade, Pope Francis and you yourself have widely promoted “listening” and understanding of particular, complex, exceptional situations, outside ordinary schemes. You have also desired a use of law that is always pastoral, flexible, and reasonable, without pretending to resolve everything through legal automatisms and pre-established schemes.
The Fraternity asks nothing else of you at the present moment—and above all does not ask it for itself: it asks it for those souls of which, 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 must animate us: the time that separates us from July 1 is a time of prayer. It is a moment in which we implore from Heaven a special grace and, on the part of the Holy See, understanding. I pray in particular for you to the Holy Spirit and—to take it not as a provocation—to his most holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all graces.
I sincerely thank you for the attention you have given me and the interest you wish to grant to the present matter.
I beg you to accept, Most Eminent and Reverend Sir, the expression of my most distinguished greetings and my devotion in the Lord.
Davide Pagliarani, Superior General
+ Alfonso de Galarreta, First General Assistant
Christian Bouchacourt, Second General Assistant
+ Bernard Fellay, First General Counselor, Former Superior General
Franz Schmidberger, Second General Counselor, Former Superior General