Concerning the July 1 Society of St Pius X (SSPX) episcopal consecrations and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s (DDF) decree declaring excommunication, many have reached out to me as a retired canonist and Catholic apologist — one who once specialized in the SSPX’s 1988 consecrations and excommunication. Sifting through contradictory and often confusing commentary of clergy, canonists, and Catholic apologists, I sympathize with fellow Catholics struggling to wrap their heads around what has taken place.
Speaking candidly, I too am struggling to understand the sudden breakdown of relations between Rome and Écône. It seems quite sudden following Pope Francis’s death. What I did not imagine was finding clarity through Wayne Gretzky. Yes, Canada’s retired hockey legend.
Appealing to a professional athlete to resolve ecclesiastical schism feels sacrilegious, if not sardonic. Ironic in that the consecrations took place Canada Day (July 1st) and I am the only Canadian I know who does not follow hockey. Yet I retired from canon law and apologetics precisely to devote more time and energy to my family — which now includes coaching my children’s activities.
Gretzky is the source of the first lessons I pass on when teaching young people: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.”
Where is the SSPX going?
It was while passing on Gretzky’s lesson to my son’s soccer team (“Run to where the ball is going, not to where the ball is right now!”) that a Vicar General friend messaged. Had I read the exchange between Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Müller over the scope and validity of the recent excommunications, Father wondered. What were my thoughts as a canonist, apologist, and former SSPX adherent?
My answer, through a series of texts, surprised even me. “I’m less concerned with the minutiae of canon law than I am Church History,” I replied. “I cannot discern the canonical status of each layperson connected to the SSPX less than a week following the excommunications. But where will the SSPX be 50 years from now?
“I know Pope Leo XIV’s successor will still be the successor of St Peter, Bishop of Rome, and visible head of the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. I don’t know where the SSPX will be. Will they have reconciled with Rome in 50 years? Maybe, but there is no guarantee like Christ guarantees those who remain in visible communion with St Peter. In fact, Church History suggests the opposite.
“When I reflect upon the history of the Catholic Church, I cannot think of a single schism following an ecumenical council that eventually healed.” (The Great Western Schism was caused by secular politics and not theological differences arising from a Church council.)
Church History or Canon Law?
We now know Nestorius never professed Christ was two persons despite this heresy being named Nestorianism after him. The Oriental Orthodox Churches were in fact miaphysite — a position permissible to orthodox Christians — and not monophysite as condemned at the Council of Chalcedon. The mutual excommunications of 1054 were between persons and not Churches. They were also invalid according to the canon law of both Rome and Constantinople.
The buying and selling of indulgences immediately preceding the rise of Martin Luther today meets the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s definition of simony. There is no doubt following the First Vatican Council that Catholic immigrants from Eastern Europe were poorly treated by Irish- and German-American bishops and clergy. This provoked Byzantine Catholics into abandoning Rome to re-establish communion with Constantinople, while Polish-American Catholics sought holy orders from the Old Catholics and founded the Polish National Catholic Church.
Today the Catholic Church has corrected the catalyst for each of the aforementioned schisms. In the case of the Eastern Churches there has even been mutual lifting of excommunications. Yet sadly the historical schism remains as both sides struggle to restore full communion.
Schism Begins as Psychology
Church History trumps Canon Law. This is my deepest concern for the SSPX and its adherents in trying to understand the consecrations, subsequent excommunications, and current ecclesiastical status. As I mentioned in my two previous comeback pieces for Where Peter Is, prolonged separation from the Roman Pontiff and fear of psychological schism weighed on the conscience of Archbishop Lefebvre’s closest collaborators following the 1988 consecrations. The Archbishop’s closest friend Dom Gérard Calvet and the Archbishop’s co-founder Fr. Paul Aulagnier are two notable examples.
To be transparent, my indebtedness as a former SSPX adherent to Dom Calvet and Fr. Aulagnier is deeper than that of most Catholic traditionalists in Canada or the United States. I was first catechized and schooled by French-Canadian sisters who ran the local French Catholic grade school. I discovered the rosary as a child praying it daily in French as led by the French sisters. I received First Holy Communion and Confirmation at the French parish near our school, and I was introduced to the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) through French SSPX clergy and a French-Canadian oblate of Ste Madeleine du Barroux Traditional Benedictine Monastery.
I knew both Dom Calvet and Fr. Aulagnier personally. I am deeply sympathetic to these two French pioneers of the traditional Catholic movement. They were unwavingly loyal to Archbishop Lefebvre and the movement to preserve and restore Catholic Tradition during the confusion following the Second Vatican Council. Yet the fear of temporary separation from Rome prolonging into permanence is what caused Dom Calvet to break with Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, and Fr. Aulagnier to break with the SSPX approximately 15 years later.
Likewise, several SSPX friends and readers from the international community shared that my two previous articles gave them pause. Not because of my canonical arguments — these readers mostly disagreed on canon law, citing arguments circulating in Catholic social media updated from those following the 1988 excommunications. Rather these readers felt the weight of historical arguments first raised by Calvet and Aulagnier.
Psychology begets schism. Schism, in turn, begets historical and ecclesiastical uncertainty that slowly becomes a new normal.
As a personal aside, my non-SSPX critics mentioned the SSPX and traditional Catholicism merely in passing. Most were upset I had criticized White Christian Nationalism or Cultural Marxism. I do not believe these critics ever attended the SSPX regularly. This may explain why I found my SSPX-affiliated critics more candid (not to mention pleasant) in their correspondence. SSPX leaders since Pope Leo’s election have been more deferential in their public criticism of the Holy Father than have the pundits, preachers and politicians inspiring White Christian Nationalism. The latter include Catholic clergy and lay apologists who circumspect through excuse, faint condemnation, and implied comparison left unsaid.
Canon Law and the Mind of Pope Leo XIV
Let us now turn to the DDF’s decree of excommunication itself. I found it written in language simple and easy to understand by most clergy, canonists, and laity with nothing to grift from potential controversy.
There is one fundamental canonical principle that underlies how most bishops and canonists interpret any given canonical text. That principle is expressed in canon 17 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law: “Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator” (emphasis added).
As an aside, I shared a previous draft of this analysis with my Vicar General friend mentioned above. He recommended I appeal to the first paragraph of canon 16 instead of canon 17. Canon 16 §1 states: “The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.” The Church’s Supreme Legislator at present is of course Pope Leo XIV.
Personally, I concede happily to Father that canon 16 provides a clearer argument from the perspective of canon law. Nevertheless, personal experience has taught me canon 17 is more convincing in a Catholic apologetics context. Regardless, these two canons share the same basic principle: the Roman Pontiff as the Church’s Supreme Legislator determines how canon law is to be interpreted by Catholics.
In examining any of the texts surrounding the SSPX’s 2026 excommunications, and comparing them to the parallel 1988 texts, what stands out most to me as a canonist is the clarity of Pope Leo XIV’s mind as the Church’s supreme legislator, executive, and judge. This clarity is immediately apparent in Pope Leo XIV’s letter to the SSPX two days before the consecrations.
To begin, the Holy Father addresses his letter to “The Reverend Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.” Pope Leo XIV appeals to Fr. Pagliarani both sacramentally as a fellow priest and juridically as SSPX superior general.
“With a paternal heart, and aware of the responsibility entrusted to me by the Lord as the Successor of the Apostle Peter, I address you and, through you, the bishops, priests, seminarians and faithful connected to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X,” Pope Leo XIV states. In short, the Holy Father formally invokes his papal office. He writes as Pope Leo XIV, successor to St Peter the Apostle, and not as Simon or Robert Prevost the office holder.
Additionally, as St Peter’s successor Pope Leo addresses himself to the entire SSPX — including priests, seminarians, and lay faithful connected to the SSPX. The Holy Father does not limit his warning to the SSPX superior general, the two bishops, and the four bishops-elect. Nor does Pope Leo limit his warning to formal members of the SSPX — bishops, priests, deacons, seminarians, religious, and third order laity. Pope Leo specifically identifies all laity connected to the SSPX as subject to his warning.
Schism, not Protestantism
The next paragraph is important in that our Holy Father recognizes the SSPX’s various gifts. “The Church recognizes the devotion to liturgical life, commitment to priestly formation, apostolic zeal and desire for fidelity to Tradition that characterize many people and communities connected to your Fraternity,” Pope Leo states.
In the aftermath of the episcopal consecrations, there is a tendency among many apologists and canonists to reap nothing but condemnation upon the SSPX. Or to misrepresent the SSPX as the latest branch of the Protestant Reformation. Regrettably, I was guilty of such polemic following the 1988 excommunications.
Note that polemical comparison is not the mind of our Holy Father. Pope Leo wishes the SSPX to remain in communion with Rome because he recognizes their distinctly Catholic liturgical life, their commitment to forming sacramental priests, and their fidelity to apostolic Tradition. Although the SSPX sadly disregarded the Holy Father’s warning and once again broke communion with Rome, a comparison to Protestantism is neither fair to the SSPX nor to our Protestant brothers and sisters.
Like Pope Leo XIV, we must appeal to what is Catholic in the SSPX. Especially when encouraging them to restore communion with the successor of St Peter. “In this spirit, and filled with Christian affection, I plead with you and ask you with all my heart: please turn back!” Pope Leo writes. His appeal is heartfelt and directed towards the entire SSPX flock.
Canonical Consequences Forewarned
“I urge you to consider carefully the spiritual good of the faithful, because the schismatic act you are about to undertake would deprive them of the licit and, in some cases, even valid reception of the Sacraments, which they love and seek for their sanctification,” Pope Leo states.
Here, acting as the Church’s Supreme Pontiff, Pope Leo lays out the devastating consequences upon all members of the SSPX and their affiliated faithful should the SSPX proceed with its intended episcopal consecrations against his will.
The act will cause the SSPX to schism from the Catholic Church. The faithful — including laity — will be deprived from receiving the sacraments lawfully. Some sacraments administered by the SSPX will even become invalid. All this will deny the faithful the very sanctification they seek through reception of the sacraments.
Any canonist, bishop, or cardinal confused by the canonical consequences of the unlawful consecrations needs only brush up on canons 16 and 17. Then apply them to Pope Leo XIV’s June 29 letter to Fr. Pagliarani and the SSPX-at-large. Neither grift nor pseudo-sedevacantist tendencies cloud the clarity of Pope Leo XIV’s mind as the Church’s supreme pontiff.
Fr. Pagliarani vs Pope Leo’s Critics
Even SSPX Superior General Fr. Davide Pagliarani — in contrast to the grifters sowing confusion — recognizes the clarity of Pope Leo’s intent. Concerning his public response as SSPX superior general to the DDF’s excommunication decree and explanatory note, Fr. Pagliarani addresses Pope Leo XIV directly. Thus Fr. Pagliarani implicitly acknowledges that the two texts, while published by the DDF, ultimately originate with Pope Leo XIV himself.
“The notification of the decision taken by the Holy See regarding the Society of Saint Pius X, signed by His Eminence Cardinal Fernández, has reached us and is now a matter of public knowledge,” Fr. Pagliarani states in his response addressed to the Holy Father. Thus Fr. Pagliarani acknowledges the decision to declare the SSPX excommunicated is that of the Holy See and not merely that of Cardinal Fernández and the DDF.
“We had asked to be instructed and confirmed in the faith of all time; instead, we have been declared schismatic a second time,” Fr. Pagliarani adds. Of course the SSPX superior general rejects the label schismatic and the censure of excommunication, claiming a canonical state of necessity and appealing to Pope Leo or one of the Holy Father’s successors to change his mind towards the SSPX. In doing so, Fr. Pagliarani appeals to a pope in the future. The SSPX superior general does not dispute that at present Pope Leo believes the SSPX schismatic and has declared them excommunicated for schism.
Excommunication
Excommunication is the Church’s highest censure. Censures are also known as medicinal penalties because their purpose is not to punish but to help the censured individual repent and return to the practice of the Catholic faith. The two lesser censures are suspension and interdict.
A censure can come into force in one of two ways. The first is ferendae sententiae in which the censure is imposed by a competent Church authority after a trial or other judicial process.
The second is latae sententiae, which is also known as automatic excommunication. That is an individual automatically incurs a censure when they break certain laws identified in canon law. Two acts that incur automatic excommunication in canon law are schism (canon 1364 §1) and consecrating bishops or receiving episcopal consecration without papal mandate (canon 1387).
That said, a competent Church authority must still declare latae sententiae excommunications for the Church to act upon them. Thus while the excommunications happened automatically on July 1 when the SSPX consecrated four new bishops, Catholics could not act upon the excommunications until July 2 when the DDF on behalf of Pope Leo XIV declared the excommunications had occurred.
Plain Meaning of the Decree of Excommunication
Let us now turn to the DDF’s decree of excommunication itself. First, the decree addresses the six bishops who participated in the unlawful consecrations, declaring they have incurred automatic excommunication.
Five of the six bishops are declared excommunicated on two counts: (1) schism and (2) consecrating or receiving episcopal consecration without papal mandate. The five are Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta as consecrator, and the four bishops-elect (Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Marc Hanappier) for having unlawfully received episcopal consecration. The excommunication of the five is reserved to the Holy See. This means only the Roman Pontiff or one delegated by him can lift it.
The Holy See then declares co-consecrator Bishop Bernard Fellay (a former SSPX superior general) automatically excommunicated for schism. The co-consecrator is present for sacramental backup and ironically to signify unity with the wider Church. Because only one bishop (Alfonso de Galarreta) actually consecrates the four bishops-elect, Bishop Fellay is not declared excommunicated on a second count for administering episcopal consecration. Only for schism.
Surprisingly, given the context, the decree sticks closely to the wording of canon 1364 in not declaring Bishop Fellay’s excommunication reserved to the Holy See. Nevertheless, I doubt any local diocesan bishop, outside of danger of death, would lift Bishop Fellay’s excommunication without first consulting and obtaining approval from the Holy See.
Also surprising to me personally is the decree of excommunication does not mention Fr. Pagliarani by name. The DDF references Pope Leo XIV’s previous warning to the SSPX through its superior general, confirming the decree and accompanying explanatory note follow the mind of Pope Leo XIV as the Church’s supreme canonical authority. However, Fr. Pagliarani is mentioned by office and not by name.
This is not to say Fr. Pagliarani avoided excommunication. As SSPX superior general, he both announced and authorized the unlawful episcopal consecrations. Moreover he participated in the consecrations as a presbyter. Finally, he responded to the decree of excommunication on behalf of the SSPX. Even before turning to the DDF’s explanatory note one can presume safely Fr. Pagliarani has incurred automatic excommunication for adhering to the SSPX schism. Nevertheless, the Holy See has yet to formally declare Fr. Pagliarani excommunicated by name.
The DDF then closes its decree warning clergy and lay faithful not to adhere to the SSPX schism lest they too incur automatic excommunication for schism. Thus the Holy See makes clear the SSPX’s schism is not limited to the six bishops. The SSPX schism also includes presbyteral, diaconal, and lay adherents.
Explanatory Note
Because it draws from parallel places (texts following the 1988 excommunications) and explains the mind of Pope Leo XIV as the Church’s Supreme Legislator, in accordance with canons 16 and 17, the DDF’s explanatory decree (Protocol 99/2009) will guide the Church in the interpretation and application of canon to situations arising from the 2026 schism.
The highlights are as follows:
First, the DDF confirms the episcopal consecrations not only lacked papal mandate, but they were carried out “against the will of the Holy Father.” As the Holy Father is the Church’s Supreme Legislator, the SSPX acted in opposition to the principles of canons 16 and 17 in which one always seeks to interpret canon law in accordance with the mind of the legislator.
Second, the DDF confirms that the act of consecrating bishops against the will of the Holy Father is indeed an act of schism according to canon law. This in turn invokes the canonical processes and penalties that arise from a formally schismatic act.
Third, despite past canonical action towards rapprochement and reconciliation (lifting of excommunication, granting limited faculties and jurisdiction to confer sacraments), from July 2 onward:
- The Holy See declares all SSPX bishops, priests, and deacons to be in schism and thus to be treated as schismatic by the Church.
- The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts 1996 explanatory note is formally back in force as adopted by the DDF. This text will inform the Church in discerning whether lay faithful formally adhere to the SSPX schism. Laity who do are likewise regarded as schismatic and automatically excommunicated. (For instance, rejection of the Second Vatican Council and/or the Novus Ordo would constitute formal adherence to schism, whereas simply attending a baptism or funeral of an SSPX friend or family member does not in itself bring about excommunication.)
- Marriage and confessions administered by SSPX clergy are now invalid. The administration or reception of the five other sacraments is unlawful. Of course this presumes outside of danger of death.
- Finally, the Church sincerely desires SSPX faithful to return to full communion with Rome, and will welcome them back. Faithful who do not adhere to the schism are encouraged to remain steadfast in their communion with Rome.
Concluding Thoughts
There is much to consider about the SSPX’s recent excommunication and return to schism. In concluding this canonical analysis, I would like to recap three thoughts for your consideration as reader.
The first is as follows: Church History trumps Canon Law when it comes to the Catholic Church and schism.
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren,” says Our Lord in St Luke’s Gospel (22:31-33).
In this passage Christ promises not only to protect the faith of St Peter, but of Simon the office holder individually. We can be confident three generations from now Pope Leo XIV’s successor will lead the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Can we be confident future SSPX generations will follow?
This was the worry that led Dom Calvet and Fr. Aulagnier as pioneers of the traditionalist movement to see past their close friendship with Archbishop Lefebvre and reconcile with Rome.
The second thought is canon law is an extension of the Supreme Pontiff’s governance and must be interpreted according to his mind. Those who reduce the interpretation of canon law to a game of “Simon-Pete says” end up with a “sola scriptura” approach to canon law. Such an approach is neither Catholic nor sustainable in a Church of 1.4 billion adherents.
Pope Leo XIV has made his mind clear in his letter to the SSPX preceding the consecrations: The consecrations are against his will. The Holy Father considers their completion an act of schism. And should the SSPX complete this act of schism they will incur automatic excommunication and lose the jurisdiction necessary to validly witness marriages and hear confessions.
Having made his mind clear as the Church’s Supreme Pontiff, Pope Leo XIV provides us with what is necessary under canons 16 and 17 to interpret canon law.
Lastly, I would like to end with a second quote from Wayne Gretzky that I also share often when coaching: “You miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take.”
While Pope Leo XIV’s response to the SSPX’s 2026 consecrations has admittedly been much tougher than St John Paul II’s following the 1988 consecrations, both successors to St Peter speak with the same paternal heart of St Peter acting on behalf of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Likewise, to his credit, SSPX Superior General Fr. Pagliarani’s response to the excommunication decree, while not conciliatory, is at least filial and respectful towards the papal office. This is in stark contrast to the lies, insults and denunciations of White Christian Nationalists who have taken to criticizing Pope Leo XIV on social media. Or spiritually barren and politically-motivated clergy and Catholic influencers who refuse to defend the Holy Father from such insults.
Pope Leo recognizes much that is Catholic in the SSPX. He desires their return to the fold. Let us therefore pray the SSPX takes one more shot at reconciliation before schism hardens into history.
St Peter the Apostle, St Leo the Great, St Gregory the Great, St Pius V, St Pius X, St Paul VI, and St John Paul II, orate pro nobis.
%20Rosaria%20Butterfield%20FULL%20Testimony%20From%20LGBTQ%20Activist%20to%20Christian%20-%20YouTube.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment