By 
The Vatican’s doctrine chief warned Wednesday that the plan of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to consecrate new bishops without papal mandate will represent a schismatic act resulting in excommunication.
“This act will constitute ‘a schismatic act’ and ‘formal adherence to schism constitutes a grave offense against God and entails the excommunication established by the law of the Church,’” said Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The cardinal’s brief statement quoted from St. Pope John Paul II’s letter Ecclesia dei, which the late pope wrote shortly after the society’s unlawful ordination of four bishops conferred by SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in June 1988.
Fernández went on to say that the Holy Father “continues in his prayers to ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten the leaders of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X so that they may reconsider the very grave decision they have made.”
Under canon law, a bishop who consecrates another bishop without a papal mandate and the person who receives that consecration incur automatic excommunication.
The SSPX has declared it intends to proceed with illicit episcopal consecrations at its international seminary in Écône, Switzerland on July 1, in defiance of the Vatican’s warnings of schism.
The decision to proceed with the consecrations without papal approval was confirmed in a Feb. 18 letter penned by SSPX superior general Father Davide Pagliarani a week after his Feb. 12 meeting with Cardinal Fernández, during which the Vatican proposed a structured theological dialogue in order to avoid ecclesial rupture.
The SSPX, which exclusively celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass, maintains doctrinal differences with certain teachings and reforms of the Second Vatican Council, particularly with regard to religious freedom and the Church’s approach to other faiths.
Cardinals Gerhard Müller and Robert Sarah, prominent supporters of the Traditional Latin Mass, have spoken out against the SSPX’s decision to defy the Vatican. Cardinal Joseph Zen, the retired archbishop of Hong Kong, has also urged the traditionalist group to avoid schism “at all costs.”
The proposed July 1 date for the episcopal consecrations coincides with the anniversary of the 1988 excommunication of SSPX founder Archbishop Lefebvre for consecrating four bishops without the permission of Rome.
The Society of St. Pius X did not immediately respond to a request for comment from EWTN News.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Note the IRONY IN EXTREMIS? Cardinal KissLips delivers.
I have a couple boring points to make. I do not attend an SSPX parish and do not support the schismatic act of a bishop consecrating priests without papal mandate.
However, I love the TLM and attend it at an FSSP-run parish. I do not attend Mass at an SSPX chapel. The SSPX order differs from the FSSP order. My FSSP parish is subject to the diocesan-approved, valid and licit oversight of a valid and licit bishop consecrated WITH papal mandate. Many (EWTN) article writers do not make distinctions clear.
Excommunication occurs to any bishop who consecrates another a bishop without papal mandate. The priest who is so consecrated also incurs excommunication as a result of the schismatic act of accepting episcopal consecration without papal mandate.
The society as a whole is not excommunicated but neither is it lawfully recognized in canon law, which makes it subject to the labels illicit and schismatic.
Mass attendance and reception of Holy Eucharist at a Mass said by a priest in the SSPX order is not per se a schismatic act. The SSPX order is not licit (not lawful) but its Mass is valid. Catholics who attend Mass by an SSPX priest attend a valid Mass and receive valid Holy Communion.
Pope Francis expanded pastoral faculties of SSPX priests to include—in addition to saying Mass—sacramental confession and marriage. Therefore, it is not logical that the order in its entirety be seen to be in schism and excommunicated. Its bishops who perform and are consecrated without papal mandate ARE excommunicated and in schism.
Catholic persons who receive sacraments of Eucharist, marriage, and Confession from SSPX priests are neither excommunicated nor in schism (unless they personally proclaim and/or through certain sins, want themselves to be).
All that being said, the hierarchy of the RCC does not recommend Catholics receive sacraments via SSPX priests unless exigent circumstances require it; at the same time, however, the RCC allows sacramental receipt through SSPX, ruling the sacraments valid.
Meiron:
You have provided some of the basic canon law provisions regarding consecrations without papal mandate, and by way of application, your summary also pertains to the accepted narrative of what occurred and what has been perceived to have occurred to the SSPX back in 1988, and what is threatened to occur again in a few months.
However, back in 1988, Pope John Paul II significantly and substantively erred in his application of canon law, and this error was such that it rendered the so-called excommunications dead upon pronouncement. And note well that this reality was not changed by the so-called lifting of the phantom excommunications by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009.
To see why the 1988 consecrations were not acts that brought about the penalty of excommunication, and that pronunciations made by Pope John Paul II cannot be viewed as overriding intentions that simply erase or ignore his canonical mistakes, read with very thoughtful concentration (and perhaps 2 or 3 times at least) an analysis and assessment of the 1988 consecrations and alleged excommunications by a recognized expert among experts in canon law, the Rev Dr. Denzil Meuli (1926 – 2019) S.T.D.,U.J.D., Ph.L., LL.B., Advocate for the Holy Roman Rota, Barrister for the High Court of NZ, that can be accessed at the following website:
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2026/05/a-compelling-defense-of-sspx-by-fr.html
After thoroughly absorbing the remarkable insights and extraordinarily astute analysis of Father Meuli, also note the canon law’s specific exceptions that permit or allow to take place without penalty some “extraordinary actions” that are taken in response to a perceived crisis in the Church, and that this perception does need to be proven. Archbishop Lefebvre appealed to such exceptions in 1988, and the current SSPX leadership has also indicated that they are also appealing to the same canon law exceptions in support of the planned July consecrations.
Lastly, regardless of how much you may or may not like the analysis of Father Meuli, if you recognize the truth in his assessment (which, by the way, he challenged any and all so inclined to dispute his conclusions to freely address them with counter arguments; as far as is known, no one ever did, including other canon lawyers), I urge you to accept his analysis and reconsider your current position on the SSPX and the conclusion you have reached that the planned consecrations will automatically bring about excommunications. Many will still conclude this, including the astoundingly incompetent and horrifically unqualified leader of the DDF, but you (and hopefully many others as well who also take the deep dive I have recommended for you) will no longer agree with and support these ravenous wolves who seek the destruction of sacred tradition as faithfully practiced by the SSPX.
Necessary and important correction of a “write-o” in the penultimate paragraph. The perception of a crisis in the Church to support taking actions such as consecrating bishops without papal mandate does NOT need to be proven. Per Canon 1323, a person acting in good faith in believing a necessity compels taking certain actions is sufficient to avoid a canonical penalty.
Meiron, the main difference between the Society of Saint Pius X and the Fraternity of Saint Peter is that the latter endorses all the novelties in the texts of Vatican II that are in contradiction with previous Church magisterium, and which are responsible for the crisis in the Church that Fernandez embodies so perfectly. That Pope Leo still wants him to be his mouthpiece in the conduct of the SSPX “file” is proof enough that there is a state of necessity in the Church.
Fr. Pagliarani of the SSPX replied to Fernandez’ offer of talks saying he was delighted that the Vatican was again interested in discussion, but pointed out that this would not prevent the consecrations happening on the due date. Nor were these talks likely to lead to agreement on the texts of Vatican II as they stand; there needed to be some explicit action by Rome to ensure these really can be understood in the light of tradition alone, and not in the prevalent post-conciliar sense endorsed by the Fraternity of Saint Peter and others (which, despite their excellent work, cannot hope to end the situation of necessity in the Church because they endorse and promote the dangerous directives issuing from the Council). As with the Council of Constance, Vatican II will be revisited in order to fix the confusion. The Church has seen all this before. Thanks heavens new generations of clergy are appearing who don’t think the world began with Vatican II and are capable of understanding how flawed it was, and how easy it could be to fix, if there was a will.
Friends, check which side, the SSPX or the present leadership of the CC, goes against or defends Holy Scripture:
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. AND SAINT AUGUSTINE:
“Those sins which are against nature, like those of the men of Sodom, are in all times and places to be detested and punished. Even if all nations committed such sins, they should all alike be held guilty by God’s law” (Confessions 3.8).
The whole SSPX situation doesn’t interest me much. They’ve been in a decades-long conflict with the pope, and their need for more bishops just shows they’re growing and want to serve their flock. What worries me more is the pope tolerating heresy and quietly accepting bishops who openly and knowingly go against Tradition, doctrine, Truth, and the Holy Spirit. To me, that’s a bigger crisis than a small group of Catholics trying to look after their members.
But the SSA advocates of Study Group 9 and the mendacious German Episcopate skate through…and then, there is always Marko Rupnik.
The only inviolate concept maintained in post-conciliar katholicism is the authority of the episcopate, soon to be replaced by the politburo of the LGBTQ+ synodalism.
We understand it to be a paradigm shift achieved through active non-violence.
I will leave the Roman Catholics who know the Canon Law well to judge how that “excommunication” looks law-wise.
However, when I read “the threats” which are coming from the mouth of Fernandez, I laughed. If a warning of excommunication was given by Cardinal Ratzinger or Cardinal Muller then it would definitely mean that the “excommunicated to be” was wrong re: the Church. But, coming from the Cardinal whose most known work is titled ‘Heal Me with Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing’ sounds so farcical that I burst into wild laughter. (Thank you, Cardinal Fernandez because usually the news from the Vatican makes me depressed).
I am not sure if anything else should be added. I will finish with the quotes of Fernandez:
“That’s why you don’t ask
that it happens to my mouth.
Kill me already
with your next kiss,
bleed me to death,
she-wolf,
Give me back my peace
without mercy.”
(‘Heal Me with Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing’)
But then it stops being funny:
“I am going to try to describe, with my poor words, an experience of love, a passionate encounter with Jesus told to me by a sixteen-year-old teenager. “I caress your face, Jesus, and I reach your mouth. […] I caress your lips, and in an unprecedented impulse of tenderness you allow me to kiss them softly. […] Then I caress your delicate legs, which seem to me perfectly sculpted columns, full of strength and vitality. I caress them, I kiss them…”.
(‘Mystical Passion: Spirituality and Sensuality’)
This is how Fernandez understands Christian mysticism – not as a union of two persons, human and divine, but as an act of sex devoid of any emotional component, as he put it, “a mystical orgasm”. (I could not find the full quote but “the girl” then adds that “the Virgin Mary was observing that approvingly” – this is enough to reveal that there was no sixteen-year-old girl as no girl would have a fantasy which includes a mother of her lover. This is Oedipal fantasy which includes a mother as a sexual object which cannot be touched – so she is given a role of an observer.)
And here is a really bad news: Fernandez and those who keep him in his position, of the head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, not only do not “get” the mystical theology (love between God and soul, not “sex”), they also do not “get” human love reducing it to “sex”, often perverse. This is an accidental conclusion but I believe it conveys a modern vector of “reinterpreting” – theology and just everything in the Church, according to an emotionally immature human psyche which is unable to conceive something high and noble (God, love). The result is farcical and ugly.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of expressing my outrage.
God Bless Anna.
Ironically, from his own mouth…and this ecclesial bureaucrat gets to decide the fate of faithful priests? Leo has a mess to clean up. Is he man enough? Is he faithful enough?
Anna I am not a new Catholic but a confused and scared Catholic. I am so upset by Pope Leo’s actions that I am considering becoming Greek Orthodox. I attend St. Patrick’s in NYC and I unfortunately have a new Bishop (also from Chicago) who has removed what small amount of Latin our church had. He begins speaking every time in Spanish followed in English “welcome to Saint Patrick’s, America’s Parish Church”. For the first time I didn’t do my full monthly tithe and God knows I owe him and plan to pay in full once I decide WHO MY CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOW AND WHERE DID IT GO? Thank you for telling us about Fernandez’s awful book. My Godmother warned me of these times before her death but I didn’t understand what she meant. Is there a way to follow you (Anna) so that I can learn about what is truly happening before I jump ship? God bless.
ChristiF,
I do not use social media like FB. I publish my bigger texts on my website
https://orthodox-christian-icons.com/
measure and and also comment here when God propels me to do so.
Do not be afraid, we are likely to live in Apocalipse. Stick to Christ, making Him your sole focus and measure and meaning, and you will not fall. If you haven’t done it, read Carmelite authors, especially St John of the Cross – they are the best to develop a close relationship with Our Lord. At least they were such for me – and I read lots, starting from the Church Fathers. I am absolutely sure that all depends on that relationship now, no matter in which Church you are. My conviction is that soon it will be no matter which church, Orthodox or Catholic – only how much it is faithful to Christ matters.
(NB: “Greek Orthodox” refers to a particular jurisdiction, not to the whole Orthodox Church).
Sorry, I was very tired when I wrote hence some misplaced words. I hope the meaning is clear – Christ, holding on Him:
Christ Is My Utmost Need
Late, late the mind confessed:
Wisdom has not sufficed.
I cannot take one step into the light
Without the Christ.
Late, late the heart affirmed:
wild do my heart-beats run
When in the blood-stream sings one wish away
From the incarnate Son.
Christ is my utmost need.
I lift each breath, each beat for Him to bless,
knowing our language cannot overspeak
our frightening helplessness.
Here where proud morning walks
And we hang wreaths on power and self-command,
I cling with all my strength unto a nail-
Investigated hand.
Christ is my only trust.
I am my fear since, down the lanes of ill,
My steps surprised a dark Iscariot
Plotting in my own will.
Past nature called, I cry
Who clutch at fingers and at tunic folds,
“Lay not on me, O Christ, this fastening.
Yours be the hand that holds.”
Sister Miriam of the Holy Spirit, O.C.D. (Jessica Powers), 1952
“Under canon law, a bishop who consecrates another bishop without a papal mandate and the person who receives that consecration incur automatic excommunication.”
Under Canon Law, a man, who as a cardinal condoned same sex sexual unions and thus same sex sexual acts, as long as this union was not called a marriage, ipso facto having defected from The Catholic Church can not be elected Pope as he would have neither the ability or desire to accept The Office of The MUNUS, and thus The Ministerial Office.
The last validly elected Pope was Benedict XVI, so who in the Vatican, has the authority to give a papal mandate?
The SSPX’s exclusive celebration of the TLM is not in itself problematic and is therefore a misleading part of this article, though sadly it is common. Imagine a priest who exclusively celebrates the NOM and advocates never attending the TLM and also espouses heresies such as the woman wearing the clothes of an archbishop is in fact the Archbishop of Canterbury or who heretically says women can be ordained or that men can marry men. Imagine such disturbing, shocking views. Yet they are far more widely held even among the cardinals and certainly among ordinary Catholics across the US. That’s the real news story.
A very excellent and encouraging article overall, but we also read: “Finally, and most obviously, Fiducia forbids the use of these blessings as a blessing on the union as such [?], and what is being blessed are merely two individuals who have asked for a blessing in order to lead a better and more Christian life.”
Two very reluctant comments:
FIRST, from the back bleachers, we can’t quite put lipstick on that pig…
Fiducia used the word “couples” by categorically fogging the meaning of the word “blessing” (now “spontaneous, non-liturgical, non-scandalous”), thusly without actually crossing any red line of contradiction. For some such reconcilers of mere polarities, there are no red lines. Better coverage would be to notice that there is no better person than a re-evangelized Cardinal Fernandez to now draw the line clearly for SSPX, and this is what has happened, CWR May 13: Vatican says SSPX faces excommunications for ‘schismatic’ bishop consecrations – Catholic World Report
SECOND, then there’s the problem of C.S. Lewis who wrote: “If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong[…] All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual.”
About the diabolical, why is it that exposed homosexual clerics often sidestepped by claiming that they had never violated their “vow of chastity”? Is it the very nature of the diabolical (of any sort) to still acknowledge human nature and natural law, but then to simply claim a categorical exemption (as from merely binary chastity)? But not a contradiction?
SUMMARY: The diabolical IS the serpentine ambiguity to self-identify as the real Father, but not “most obviously” as the “Father of Lies” (Jn 8:44).
About the universal natural law, “what has Jerusalem to do with Athens” (Tertullian), and likewise, what has the spirituality of human sexuality to do with the non-exempt homosexual lifestyle?
This comment was meant for the Chapp article this date, May 14.
Tucho Fernandez is the Vatican’s “doctrine chief.” This article should have stopped right there, because that is the only relevant point. The fact that this perverted cleric is the “watchdog” for orthodoxy in Rome today absolutely proves, beyond ANY shadow of doubt, that there is an EXTREME necessity for the SSPX to consecrate new bishops. I am disappointed that I will not be able to be in Écône, Switzerland, for the July 1 consecrations. But I will make a special point of attending Mass at an SSPX chapel on that date.
Pope Francis changed the trajectory of the former CDF now the DDF as reported by the NCRegister 7.6.23:
“As the new prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, I entrust to you a task that I consider very valuable, the Pope wrote. Its central purpose is to guard the teaching that flows from the faith in order to to give reasons for our hope, but not as an enemy who critiques and condemns.
The Dicastery over which you will preside in other times came to use immoral methods, Pope Francis continued. Those were times when, rather than promoting theological knowledge, possible doctrinal errors were pursued. What I expect from you is certainly something very different” (Scott Smith for the NCReg).
This was allegedly not a rebuke of the former long term CDF prefect Cardinal Ratzinger, and later after Ratzinger became Benedict XVI, Cardinal Gerhard Muller [although Francis fired three of Muller’s best CDF priest guardians of the faith]. Scott Smith continues:
“But what then of the talk from Archbishop Fernández and Pope Francis, focusing more on promoting theological knowledge, rather than punishing doctrinal error? Surely that means the DDF will no longer be acting as a doctrinal watchdog, and that the time of its prefects being known as ‘God’s Rottweiler’ is gone for good?”.
Then there’s the Fr Marko Rupnik case.
The threat of excommunication is meaningless as long as the Vatican is silent about:
1. James Martin SJ
2. Homosexual teaching by the Synod of Bishop’s Report
3. Cardinal Karl Marx of Germany and the German church of Sodomites
4. Homosexual priests, bishops and cardinals at the Vatican and elsewhere
5. Popes praying in mosques
6. Treating the woman from Canterbury masquerading as an archbishop as though she really was one
Bishop Athanasius Schneider gave a strong argument in favor of the SSPX appeal to Leo XIV for approbation of their intention to ordain bishops. Their intent is to remain faithful to Apostolic tradition.
Compelling because Schneider argued the appeal was couched as a desire to remain within the Church and submissive to the Roman pontificate. He noted Rome has acquiesced to the CCP regarding the selection of bishops, that the German Synodal Weg has departed from a Catholic identity yet remains within the Church without sanction.
From this writer’s perception Rome gives the impression that canonical approbation is more a matter of selective judgment. Whether the SSPX qualifies as Protestant because of their disaffection with Rome, may be a question regarding the orthodoxy of the current Vatican. For example, we see bishops like Weisenburger exceed policy regarding TLM, the religious freedom of professors to espouse doctrinal orthodoxy. Rome does nothing to correct this.
Four prelates have offered a range of separate perspectives on the SSPX (reported in “Inside the Vatican,” May-June 2026, pp. 12-13). Here’s a sketch plus a question…
Cardinal MULLER urges the SSPX “to turn away from the wrong path of distancing themselves from the Church and their self-isolation among like-minded people and to entrust themselves with confidence to the guidance of the Successor of Peter, to whom the Lord of the Church has personally entrusted the dare of his flock.” Cardinal SARAH concludes “To leave the Barque of Peter and to organize oneself autonomously, in a closed circle like a sect, is to deliver oneself to the waves of the storm.” Cardinal BRANDMULLER: “Both sides should impartially study chapter II of the conciliar constitution ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium’ and evaluate the subsequent developments in it light. It would become clear how far post-conciliar practice has strayed from the constitution, which, it should not be forgotten, was also endorsed by Archbishop Lefebvre. (Brandmuller was among the four who signed the first dubia of 2016; he and Sarah were among the five who signed the second dubia of 2023.)
And, Bishop SCHNEIDER proposes, “the Church’s practice and understanding during the time of the Church Fathers, and for a long period thereafter, argue against this view [that ‘consecration carried out without the consent, or even against a papal prohibition, constitutes in itself a schismatic act’]…According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, an episcopal consecration carried out against the will of the Pope was punished not with excommunication, but only with suspension. By this, the Church clearly manifested that she did not consider such an act to be schismatic.[….]”
QUESTION: With regard to Schneider, does the 1983 Code of Canon Law have to say; and has the SPPX made a fatal tactical error by conflating the proposed and definitive consecration with past and explicit/manifest (?) and non-recanted (?) rejection (alleged? real?) of the very legitimacy of Vatican II and of our most recent popes (Paul VI, John Paul I and II, Benedict, Francis)?
That is, is the proposed “disobedience” (formerly punishable by only suspension and not by excommunication) also inseparable from a “schismatic” background?
Certainly the consecration of new bishops sans papal consent isolates the SSPX as schismatics. Agree with all your points.
The issue as I perceive it, is why did not Leo XIV himself meet with his straying sheep? He had the opportunity to be a true shepherd rather than a bureaucrat who leaves the hard work to his lackeys. And he couldn’t have chosen anyone more repugnant to a very conservative, still faithful Catholic pleading for papal accommodation and unity with the Church.