The SSPX calls its excommunications ‘objectively unjust and invalid’: what the decree and the record show

The excommunication was not an unannounced measure. On 13 May the DDF’s prefect, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, stated that the planned consecrations would constitute a schismatic act and recalled that formal adherence to schism entails the excommunication established by the law of the Church (Vatican News; EWTN News). On 29 June Pope Leo XIV wrote to Fr. Pagliarani asking the Society to turn back and to desist from the consecrations (vatican.va). The 2 July decree begins by noting the warnings addressed to the Superior General and is declaratory in form. It finds that Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, the principal consecrator, incurred the penalties of canon 1387 (episcopal consecration without a pontifical mandate) and canon 1364 §1 (schism), and declares that he and the four priests he consecrated have incurred ipso facto the latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; it declares that Bishop Bernard Fellay, who took part as co-consecrator and so, in the decree’s words, publicly adhered to the schismatic act, incurred the latae sententiae excommunication of canon 1364 §1 (official Italian text, vatican.va; Rorate Cæli translation; Where Peter Is translation; Vatican News). Canon 1387 provides that both the bishop who consecrates without a pontifical mandate and the one who receives the consecration incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See (vatican.va). Because the excommunication declared for Bishop de Galarreta and the four new bishops is reserved to the Apostolic See, its remission is likewise reserved to the Holy See (can. 1355 §1); Catholic World Report put it more simply, reporting that the excommunications can only be removed by the pope (vatican.va; Catholic World Report). The decree was signed by Cardinal Fernández and countersigned by the secretaries of the DDF’s doctrinal and disciplinary sections (Vatican News; Rorate Cæli).

The 3 July letter states the Society’s verdict on the sanctions without setting out a canonical argument for it; it appeals instead to conscience and to the moral duty the Society says it owes to souls (FSSPX.News). The reasoning appears elsewhere. An explanation by Fr. Patrick Troadec, published on FSSPX.News on 12 May, presents the consecrations as an exceptional measure linked to what it calls an unprecedented crisis in the Church, needed so that the Society’s seminarians can be ordained and its faithful confirmed (FSSPX.News). After the decree, FSSPX.News published a 5 July sermon by Fr. Bernard de Lacoste, director of the Écône seminary, under the title ‘Invalid Punishments, Valid Sacraments’. It argues first that the consecrations were not a schismatic act, because schism is a rebellion against the papal office itself and the Society recognises Leo XIV as Pope and names him in the Canon of the Mass, and that there can be no ecclesiastical penalty without grave sin. It then argues that no punishment can be incurred by one who acts out of necessity, that the consecrations were performed in such a case of necessity, and that even someone mistaken about the existence of necessity escapes a latae sententiae penalty (FSSPX.News). The sermon cites no canon numbers. The relevant provisions are canon 1323 4°, which exempts one who acted by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls; canon 1323 7°, which covers one who blamelessly believed such circumstances existed; and canon 1324, which in related cases, including a culpable error about necessity, reduces the penalty and excludes latae sententiae penalties (vatican.va). On 16 July the SSPX’s US District published an article by Fr. Scott Gardner, SSPX, which argues that the consecrations involve no rejection of subjection to the Roman Pontiff and so are not schismatic, that the bishops can plead necessity or grave inconvenience, and that the explanatory note cannot extend the penalties to priests and lay faithful or withdraw the faculties for confessions and marriages granted under Pope Francis. It concludes that the Society’s priests and lay faithful are not bound by any latae sententiae excommunication, which it says is ‘neither based in fact nor declared in the Decree’; the DDF’s explanatory note, by contrast, states that confessions heard and marriages assisted at by SSPX priests are invalid (SSPX US District; Catholic Culture). The Holy See’s documents do not address the necessity argument directly. They do reject the Society’s position that the act is not schismatic: the DDF and Pope Leo warned on 13 May and 29 June that the consecrations would be a schismatic act, and the 2 July decree declares that the penalties were incurred. How the necessity provisions apply is examined in a companion TradWatch™ analysis.

Canon 1353 provides that an appeal or recourse against judgements of a court or against decrees which impose or declare any penalty has a suspensive effect; this is the provision the Society invokes. The procedure it began is set out in canon 1734 §1, which requires a person to ask the author of a decree, in writing, to revoke or amend it before proposing recourse; canon 1736 §1 adds that this petition suspends execution in matters where hierarchical recourse itself does (vatican.va, Book VI; vatican.va, Book VII). The 2 July decree is declaratory: it states that the bishops have incurred the excommunication ipso facto, that is, by the act of consecration itself, and declares that fact (official Italian text, vatican.va; Rorate Cæli translation; Vatican News). The Code distinguishes a latae sententiae penalty, which canon 1314 says is incurred automatically upon the commission of an offence, from the further effects listed in canon 1331 §2, which apply once a latae sententiae excommunication has been declared. The penalty had been announced in May as the consequence of proceeding (EWTN News). The explanatory note also urges the faithful to remain in communion with the Roman Pontiff and says the Church will welcome all who wish to return to full communion (Vatican News). In the reporting reviewed for this draft (to 8 October 2026), TradWatch found no published decision by the Holy See on the SSPX’s recourse.