The SSPX is right that excommunications aren’t infallible. Its Slipyj precedent is weaker than it sounds
James Vogel, the SSPX’s communications director, told LifeSiteNews the 2026 excommunications are grave but not infallible, and pointed to three bishops Cardinal Josyf Slipyj consecrated without papal approval in 1977. Both statements check out; the precedent differs in ways that matter.
By TradWatch™ staff
4 min read
Verdicts at a glance
- Accurate
Excommunications are grave, but they are not infallible. · James Vogel, communications director of the SSPX
- Accurate
Cardinal Slipyj consecrated three bishops in secret without asking Paul VI, and the Holy See later accepted them. · James Vogel, communications director of the SSPX
In this brief · 7 sections
On 8 October 2026 LifeSiteNews published an interview with James Vogel, communications director of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), recorded after his talk at the Catholic Identity Conference in Pittsburgh. InfoVaticana reported it the next day in English and Spanish. Vogel made two statements that can be checked: that excommunications are not infallible, and that Cardinal Josyf Slipyj once consecrated bishops without papal permission and saw them later accepted by the Holy See.
What was said
Statement 1: James Vogel, communications director of the SSPX
LifeSiteNews · October 8, 2026
Excommunications are in themselves grave, but they’re not infallible.
In brief: Excommunications are grave, but they are not infallible.
Our verdict: AccurateThe record supports the claim as stated.
See the record for statement 1This content is embedded for purposes of commentary, criticism, and news reporting. TradWatch is not affiliated with LifeSiteNews. Views quoted are those of the speaker.
Statement 2: James Vogel, communications director of the SSPX
LifeSiteNews · October 8, 2026
So he consecrates three bishops in secret. It’s true he did not ask Paul VI permission to do this
In brief: Cardinal Slipyj consecrated three bishops in secret without asking Paul VI, and the Holy See later accepted them.
Our verdict: AccurateThe record supports the claim as stated.
See the record for statement 2This content is embedded for purposes of commentary, criticism, and news reporting. TradWatch is not affiliated with LifeSiteNews. Views quoted are those of the speaker.
Context
The SSPX consecrated four bishops at Écône on 1 July 2026 without a pontifical mandate. On 2 July the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith declared six SSPX bishops excommunicated (vatican.va).
On statement 1 · James Vogel, communications director of the SSPX
Vogel said this after noting that the Society has appealed the 2 July decree. He added that “there are some examples in history where excommunications were later deemed invalid or unjust.”
On statement 2 · James Vogel, communications director of the SSPX
Vogel offered the example in his conference talk as a case of bishops consecrated without papal approval out of necessity. LifeSiteNews reports that he went on to say the consecrations were later accepted by the Vatican and that one of the bishops, Lubomyr Husar, was made a cardinal by John Paul II.
The record
What the sources show, statement by statement.
Verifiable factcan be checked against the sources cited.TradWatch analysisis our interpretation, clearly labelled.Statement 1 · James Vogel, communications director of the SSPX
Excommunications are grave, but they are not infallible.
Verifiable fact Infallibility covers definitive teaching, not penalties
Canon law attributes infallibility to the Pope and the college of bishops when they proclaim “by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held”, and adds that “no doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident” (CIC can. 749). A decree declaring a penalty is an act of governance, not a definition of doctrine, so Vogel’s statement is correct.
Source
- 2
Official Church source
CIC can. 749
Code of Canon Law, Book III
Holy See (vatican.va)
- 2
Verifiable fact The law provides a remedy, and the Society has used it
The Code provides that “an appeal or a recourse against judgements of a court or against decrees which impose or declare any penalty has a suspensive effect” (CIC can. 1353). The SSPX lodged a recourse against the 2 July decree in July (America). Vogel told LifeSiteNews that its outcome is not yet known.
TradWatch analysis Fallible is not the same as mistaken
Almost every act of Church governance is fallible in this sense, so the point alone does not show that a particular penalty is unjust. Whether this one stands will be decided through the recourse the Society has filed. Vogel himself said the answer is not “we don’t really care about excommunications”.
Statement 2 · James Vogel, communications director of the SSPX
Cardinal Slipyj consecrated three bishops in secret without asking Paul VI, and the Holy See later accepted them.
Verifiable fact Three bishops in 1977, regularised in 1996
Cardinal Slipyj, then head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in exile, consecrated Lubomyr Husar, Ivan Choma and Stepan Chmil on 2 April 1977 at the Studite monastery in Grottaferrata, near Rome. Chmil died in January 1978. On 22 February 1996 the Holy See appointed both Husar and Choma titular bishops, and John Paul II created Husar a cardinal on 21 February 2001 (Catholic-Hierarchy: Husar; Choma; Chmil).
Sources
Verifiable fact In 2026 the Pope asked the Society not to proceed
Vogel says Slipyj never asked Paul VI, so the Pope never refused. The 2026 consecrations followed a direct request: on 29 June Leo XIV wrote to the Superior General asking the Society to desist (vatican.va). The 2 July decree cites those warnings and declares the act schismatic (vatican.va).
TradWatch analysis A real precedent, with real differences
Vogel’s facts are right, and the Slipyj case does show bishops consecrated without a mandate later received by Rome. But the regularisation came nearly twenty years later, through the Holy See’s own appointments. It was a decision of Rome, not something the consecrations secured. The 2026 consecrations also went ahead after an explicit papal request not to proceed. Readers can weigh how far the comparison carries.
Bottom line
Both statements are accurate. A penalty decree is not an infallible act, and canon law lets it be challenged, as the Society has done. Cardinal Slipyj did consecrate three bishops without asking Paul VI, and Rome later received two of them. As a precedent, though, it differs from 2026: Rome regularised those bishops on its own initiative years later, and Slipyj had not been asked to refrain.
The original
Sources
- 1.Primary sourceCited in statement 1
EXCLUSIVE: SSPX official: Excommunications are ‘grave’ but ‘not infallible’
LifeSiteNews · October 8, 2026
lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-sspx-official-excommunications-are-grave-but-no…
- 2.Official Church sourceCited in statement 1
CIC can. 749 — Code of Canon Law, Book III
Holy See (vatican.va)
vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib3-cann747-755_en.html
- 3.Official Church sourceCited in statement 1
CIC can. 1353 — Code of Canon Law, Book VI
Holy See (vatican.va)
vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib6-cann1311-1363_en.h…
- 5.HistoricalCited in statement 2
Catholic-Hierarchy
- 6.HistoricalCited in statement 2
Catholic-Hierarchy
- 7.HistoricalCited in statement 2
Catholic-Hierarchy
- 8.Official Church sourceCited in statement 2
Letter of the Holy Father to the Reverend Father Davide Pagliarani (29 June 2026)
Holy See (vatican.va) · June 29, 2026
vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/letters/2026/documents/20260629-lettera-fraternit…
- 9.Official Church sourceCited in statement 2
Decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (2 July 2026)
Holy See (vatican.va) · July 2, 2026
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20260702_decre…
Corrections & updates
No corrections have been made to this brief. Spotted an error? Request a correction.
We invite the people and outlets discussed here to respond. Submit a response and we’ll publish it alongside this brief.
Help us keep the record straight
If we’ve made a mistake, tell us — we correct errors openly and log every change. People and outlets we write about can respond, and we publish their replies here.
More analysis
- The SSPX episcopal consecrations of 2026Was the SSPX excommunicated for ‘fidelity’? What the 2026 documents give as the groundsRemnant headlines framed the SSPX excommunications as punishing fidelity and as part of a plan to ‘cancel Catholicism’. The Holy See’s published texts state different grounds and a different aim. · 13 min read
- Papal-critique and 'resistance' mediaBishop Schneider’s ‘hostile takeover’ warning: what was said, and what can be checkedAt the Catholic Identity Conference, Bishop Athanasius Schneider said a ‘hostile takeover’ within the Church’s administrative structure is marked by ‘brazen heresies’ among senior clergy. The reported excerpts name no examples, which limits what can be tested. · 8 min read
- Liturgy law: from the 1984 indult to Traditionis custodesPittsburgh's unauthorized Latin Mass: the Sunday obligation, and what Quo Primum can and can't doThe Diocese of Pittsburgh says a Latin Mass it didn't authorize does not fulfil the Sunday obligation; LifeSiteNews says Quo Primum makes the old Mass permanently free to celebrate. Both claims need context from canon law. · 5 min read