+- The Catacombs (https://thecatacombs.org)
+-- Forum: Publications (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Forum: The Recusant (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=36)
+--- Thread: The Recusant #66 - Summer 2026 (/showthread.php?tid=8580)
The Recusant #66 - Summer 2026 - Stone - 08-19-2026
Contents
- Comparing the SSPX then and now, 1988 - 2026
- “World’s Apart: Forty Years, Two SSPXs” (Analysis of two videos: 1986 vs. 2026)
RE: The Recusant #66 - Summer 2026 - Stone - 08-19-2026
Taken from pages 1-4 of this issue of The Recusant [slightly adapted]:
"The truly Catholic press is altogether Catholic, that is to say, it defends Catholic doctrine in all its principles and applications; it opposes all false teaching (known as such) always and entirely, opposita per diametrum [diametrically opposed], as St Ignatius says in that golden book of his Exercises.
Arrayed with unceasing vigilance against error, it places itself on the frontier, always face-to-face with the enemy. It never bivouacs with the hostile forces, as the compromising press loves to do. Its opposition is definite and determined; it is not simply opposed to certain undeniable manoeuvres of the foe, letting others escape its vigilance, but watches, guards, and resists at every point." — Liberalism is a Sin, p.140
☩ ☩ ☩
FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR:
Dear Reader,
Well, it seems I was wrong. I will happily admit that I thought the SSPX would never quite summon up the nerve to go ahead and consecrate new bishops for the first time since 1988. And yet, thirty-eight years later, they did just that. I suppose in hindsight it ought not to surprise any of us. Two of the four have died and the remaining two aren't young any more: almost four decades have gone by, after all. Had they the courage of Archbishop Lefebvre, the ceremony would have happened in 2008 or thereabouts: they left it as long as they dared and then in the final instance, acted out of self-preservation. Had they not done this, the SSPX would have gradually ceased to exist.
And yet it doesn't quite feel the same as 1988, does it? Anecdotally, we hear from people who went from England that the spirit was rather lacklustre and that it was really only the small group from our country that seemed to have any enthusiasm: that the vast majority of those, people from France and Switzerland, didn't seem especially enthusiastic and that the overall atmosphere felt nothing like 1988, where spontaneous applause can be seen even on the video recording of the event. As I say, that is word of mouth and can be disputed by anyone. Make of it what you will. The consecrations do provide the world with a very useful yardstick, however, by which we may compare 1988 to today, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX which he bequeathed to his successors with the SSPX which those successors have fashioned in the almost four decades which have passed since.
And what better comparison than the sermon delivered at the ceremony? Fr. Pagliarani's sermon says lots of things which are true. And yet it is a bad sermon, because of what it doesn't say. One has only to compare it to the Archbishop's sermon in 1988 to see just how far things have slid. There is no attack, it is entirely defensive. It is longer than the Archbishop's sermon, but it says far less. The main thrust and tenor seems to be a plea, an appeal that "we" are really on the side of "the Church" and not the evil baddies which many make us out to be. And of course, there is no mention of Vatican II, the conciliar church, the New Mass, the fact that the current Roman authorities stand condemned by their own predecessors. And, of course, absolutely no hint of a global conspiracy, nor of various Catholic prophecies of a crisis in the Church (Quito, La Salette, Fatima…) And it does not quote Archbishop Lefebvre even once. Take a look at page 11 to see for yourself.
So what about these new bishops then, what are the men like? I once met Fr. Goldade, albeit briefly, twenty-odd years ago. We were travelling over to France by minibus for the Chartres Pilgrimage and he hitched a lift. I don't think I heard him say two words together and wasn't left with much of an impression, favourable or unfavourable. Make of that what you will. But without knowing any of them personally, it is surely safe to assume that they were chosen for being loyal company men. The SSPX authorities would never in a million years risk having another bishop go "rogue," embarrass them, or worse, leave them and start doing his own thing.
Here is something interesting, however. The four bishops chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 were selected in part with a view to their international credentials, the languages they spoke, etc. This time that no longer seems to be the case. Two of them are Frenchmen, one a Swiss German speaker and one a native English speaker. No native Spanish speaker, curiously enough. Also, the ages are interesting. Marc Hanappier is 36, but in Fr. Schreiber they chose a man who was already 54 years old. Consider this: 1988 to 2026 is a gap of 38 years between consecrations. If another 38 years go by, Bishop Schreiber will be 92 years old if he is still alive. A curious choice, one would have thought.
Lastly, one wonders why only four new bishops: they knew they would be getting into trouble and blotting their proverbial copybook with their "new friends" in Rome — well, in that case it hardly matters how many new bishops they consecrate, does it? The SSPX has grown quite a bit in size since 1988 and one might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.
So what are we to make of it? More than once recently, well-meaning SSPX relatives and friends have asked whether we will be giving up the Resistance and returning to the SSPX because of these consecrations happening. Incredible though it may sound, this seems to be a genuine line of thinking on the part of people still going to the SSPX. Presumably the idea in their mind is that, by "repeating 1988" as it were, the SSPX is now back to where it was in 1988. Facile though it may be, one can see a certain simplistic logic to the thing.
Well, for the record, the reason why we stopped going to the SSPX was never "because they still haven't yet consecrated new bishops" — would that matters were as simple as that! The reason we stopped supporting the SSPX was because the SSPX stopped opposing Vatican II, changed its doctrine officially with the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, and began a process of top-down (and outwards from within) liberalisation, accompanied by a self-centred navel gazing whereby, having given up their very raison-d'être, they began to see themselves as an end in its own right. The SSPX of 2026, alas, whilst it may have acted in self-preservation, is still a Society which teaches that the New Mass, while inferior to the Traditional Mass, is nonetheless legitimate; that Vatican II can be interpreted in a traditional way; that the new conciliar Code of Canon Law is acceptable; that creation is billions of years old contrary to what Sacred Scripture and Our Lord Himself very clearly indicate; that parents shouldn't have "too many" children; and many more horrors besides. And of course, that the conciliar church is the Catholic Church. Yes, they may have a beautiful liturgy, yes they have valid orders, yes they may preach edifying sermons about the Saints. But they are a different organisation with a new purpose. The fight has gone and selfishness has taken its place.
The Spirit of 1988: Self-Sacrifice
If there is one thing which marks the spirit of 1988, as also the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre in general, it is surely a spirit of self-sacrifice. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. And if physical martyrdom is not the order of the day, then the laying down of one's "life" in other ways is what has to be done. Archbishop Lefebvre willingly laid down his life in ways which most of us will never be able fully to appreciate. He laid down his good name, his reputation, the good opinion of all his old friends and colleagues of decades past, all the credit and reward earned from a lifetime of service to the Church.
His act of consecrating new bishops against the explicit wishes of Rome was without precedent and it was done not solely for the benefit of the SSPX but for the whole Church. If that sounds like an academic distinction, carefully consider what he says in his sermon (page 6) about why he is doing it. It is unmistakable that he was convinced (correctly, as it happens) that the SSPX was fulfilling a vital role in the survival of the Church, by combatting the conciliar church and safeguarding Tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre didn't perform his great act of heroic self-denial merely to further the interests of one measly little organisation called the Society of St Pius X, he had far more important goals in mind. For him, the SSPX was a means to an end, not an end in itself. He saw what was really at stake and acted accordingly.
By contrast, in 2026 the modern SSPX had for their episcopal consecrations a very clear precedent to lean on as well as a post-Francis Vatican which has lost even the remaining prestige which it had still had in the minds of many in the JPII era of the 1980s — and yet it still took them up until the last minute, as long as they dared wait, to go ahead and do it! More importantly, because the modern SSPX of 2026 has now become little better than yet one more Indult "TLM" group, like the FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King and all the others, they cannot be said to fill a unique and vital role. They therefore cannot claim that their act of consecrating new bishops for the SSPX is vital for the Church, for the survival of the Faith, in quite the same way. And it is interesting to note that, in fact, they don't claim that. Nowhere in Fr. Davide Pagliarani's sermon at the 2026 consecrations will you find this idea expressed. Why? Because, unlike in 1988, they are doing it purely for themselves, for the good of their own organisation, which they view as an end in itself.
This, I am convinced, is the heart of the matter. There is more than just a profound problem with the modern SSPX: it is a different organisation to the one which used to exist. It trades on the same brand, it owns all the real estate of the old organisation, it even inherited many of the same personnel. But it despises what that old organisation stood for, even as it lives parasitically off its inherited capital. The conciliar church of the 1970s onwards was no different. We of the Resistance today are to the modern SSPX what the SSPX of the 1970s was to the average Catholic parish or diocese. They may have the buildings, but we have the Faith. If that seems too hard to explain to those around you, you might wish to show them a video made by the old SSPX and ask them to compare it to the recent "Traditio" videos made by the modern SSPX. Ask them to see if they can spot a different spirit, a different focus, between the two. Our article on page 8 should be helpful in that regard.
A Correction
It is not often that this newsletter has to print corrections or retractions, but I am more than happy to do so now. In the last-but-one issue (64) we outlined the case of Fr. Urrutigoity and said that Bishop Williamson had made Fr. Urrutigoity his vice-rector. In the intervening months a priest who was at Winona at the time informs us that this is untrue: Fr. Urrutigoity was on the seminary staff, but he wasn't vice-rector.
Very well. I accept that. For the record, then: in 1989 Bishop Williamson only rehabilitated a homosexual expelled from seminary for harassing of other seminarians; ignored the pleas of the SSPX rector who had expelled him, even when he travelled across continents to beg him in person; ordained him to the priesthood and appointed him to the staff of the SSPX's North American seminary which enabled him to eventually split off and found his own Indultist "Society of St John" where he went on to molest teenage boys. I still don't see how that is significantly better, but for what it is worth there it is.
I notice, meanwhile, that nobody has tried correcting anything which has appeared in these pages concerning the three other homo-pederast protégés of Bishop Williamson: Fr. Abraham, Fr. Peignot and Fr. Moran. As you read this, Fr. Abraham is still travelling to London regularly to minister to the Fake Resistance, who for their part tell newcomers that there is no truth at all to any of the accusations. Let them say that in public if they dare.
— The Editor
"The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below. … God raised up the Priestly Society of St. Pius X for the maintenance and perpetuity of His glorious and expiatory sacrifice within the Church. … This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. Since this Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls." — Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to the future bishops, 29th August, 1987
"We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. … [The faithful] have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism." — Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin by forty superiors of the SSPX, July 1988
"It is because we love the Vicar of Christ that we no longer wish this humiliation for the Pope, a humiliation which falls upon the whole Church, treated on an equal footing with false religions. ... We speak the language of the Faith, the language of Tradition. And, before us, we are dealing with a language which operates at another level, which speaks of other things. It is the language of inclusion, of listening, of dialogue and of accompaniment." — Fr. Pagliarani, Episcopal Consecrations Sermon, 1st July 2026