[Editor’s note: Republished with permission from the author’s Substack.]

In the wake of Rome’s response to the SSPX’s illicit consecrations, the objection we all were expecting has emerged. Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the SSPX, called the imposed censures “objectively unjust and invalid.” Rebuttals and analyses continue to be churned out explaining the opinions of why the DDF’s decrees have no legal force, made all the more urgent by the fact that these censures appear to be much more severe than in 1988. The central objection is that the declared censure of excommunication on the priests and potentially the laity is invalid because it was issued in an explanatory note from a dicastery and not a decree directly from Pope Leo.

But this misses a very simple fact, one that most people appear to be overlooking. The reason it was spelled out in an explanatory note is because these same censures have been in force since 1988. Cardinal Fernandez did not issue a new ruling; he simply confirmed and reiterated what was already in place.[1]

The SSPX has always been formally schismatic. Their priests have always been excommunicated. And the potential for the laity to be excommunicated for following the movement has always been present.

The 1988 Consecrations and John Paul II

In Pope St. John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei, written in response to the SSPX’s illicit consecrations in 1988, he stated in paragraph 5c:

In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.

There are two terms I want to highlight: “movement” and “formal adherence.”

The first has to be examined in tandem with the term “schism” in the last sentence. The common objection before 2026 was that there was never a formal declaration of schism, and that the schism that John Paul II referred to was the act of consecrations, not the organization or movement itself. But declaring that a punishment can be incurred for “formal adherence to the schism” clearly implies the subject in question is not the act of consecrating. How does one “formally adhere” to an episcopal consecration? The context just does not support this position. The “schism” in question here refers back to “the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre,” as was clarified in 1996.

The 1996 PCILT Explanatory Note

On August 24, 1996, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (now named the Dicastery for Legislative Texts), in an explanatory note titled On the Excommunication for Schism Incurred by Members of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Movement, provided a lengthy clarification of Ecclesia Dei.[2] There are several terms and sections I would like to highlight from this document.

Firstly, we must note the purpose of this Dicastery. From its website:

It is the function of the Dicastery to formulate the authentic interpretation of the Church’s laws, approved in forma specifica by the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Legislator and Interpreter, after having consulted, in questions of greater importance, the competent curial institutions and offices of the Roman Curia with regard to the particular matters being considered.

It is clear the DLT has the authority to interpret magisterial texts and their application. And in its explanatory note of Ecclesia Dei in 1996, it said the following:

From the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of 2nd July 1988 and from the Decree Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre of the Congregation for Bishops, of 1st July 1988, it appears above all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate reaction to the episcopal ordinations conferred on 30th June 1988 without pontifical mandate (cf. CIC, can. 1382). All the same it also appears clear from the aforementioned documents that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.

The act of consecrating bishops in 1988 was indeed declared a “schismatic act” by John Paul II, but the offense of schism was not restricted merely to this illicit act. The act was the natural conclusion of a schismatic mentality and ministry that had been perpetuated for over a decade at that point. The debate continues to rage about the link between an isolated act of disobedience and in what degree it relates to the crime of schism as a whole, but John Paul II did not view the schism as a single act in 1988. As paragraph 2 of the explanatory note says:

The no. 5.c) warns that a “formal adherence to the schism” (by which one must understand “the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre”) would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364, para. 1).

The Dicastery charged with authoritatively interpreting John Paul II’s apostolic letter made it abundantly clear thirty years ago: the movement of Lefebvre is a schism.[3] This was explicitly confirmed in the very next paragraph:

As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.

This was later explicitly confirmed by Pope Francis in his letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes in 2021:

Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice … was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.

Notice that, once again, the pope referred to the schism of the movement of Lefebvre, not the individual consecrations. The schism was never resolved; only the punishment associated with it was lifted.[4] In the same way that Paul VI lifted the excommunications on the Orthodox but they remain in a state of schism, the SSPX found themselves in a very similar situation. Now, it is true that in the years between 1988 and 2026, it seems that Rome very deliberately avoided using the language of “schism” in an effort to heal the breach, opting instead for terms like “not in full communion.” This was an exercise in prudence so as to not exacerbate the situation. However, the decision to adopt a tactful approach does not nullify the decrees at the source.

In a simple summary, John Paul II declared that the movement of Lefebvre was a schism, and those who formally adhere to it would incur excommunication. As the PCILT then clarified, the 1988 consecrations only formed the consummation of this global schismatic movement, but the whole Lefebvrian movement was to be considered schismatic, because John Paul II declared it so in Ecclesia Dei. This was never revoked or lifted by his successors. The SSPX has always been in schism.[5] Concessions or exceptions granted to them were gestures of generosity, but did not nullify the state of schism. It was not a single act of disobedience to the pope that brought them to this state; it was decades of establishing an alternative to the Church around the world in the form of unauthorized churches, sacraments, canonical rulings, and so on.

The 2026 Decree and Explanatory Note

With this context, we can re-examine the decree and explanatory note on the 2026 consecrations. As noted, many are saying that the excommunications only apply to those specifically named (in this case, the six bishops of the SSPX), but not to the priests or the laity because this was not stated via an authoritative medium. But this is not correct.

The decree says the following in its conclusion:

Clerics and lay faithful are warned not to join the schism of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, because they would ipso facto incur the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication.

The explanatory note further says:

The sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics (cf. Ecclesia Dei, 5.c; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note on the Excommunication for Schism Incurred by Members of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Movement, 24.08.1996, 5–6), resulting in them being subject to the excommunication provided for by law (can. 1364, § 1, CJC).

Some have spilled digital ink over the differing tenses of the verbs here, as the first is future tense and the second is present tense, and therefore it appears that the contradiction nullifies the declaration. To be quite blunt, I struggle to understand the confusion. The first says that priests and faithful must not join the schism, otherwise they will incur the penalty; the second says that those who are already part of the schism have already incurred said penalty. These do not contradict each other.

The citations in parentheses refer to the aforementioned content of John Paul II and the DLT. Ecclesia Dei, 5.c, says that “formal adherence to the schism … carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.” The PCILT’s Explanatory Note, 5–6, cited in the note, says the following:

As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5.c, the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who “adhere formally” to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of “formal adherence to the schism” would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this Pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements: a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church); b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalizing of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing, however, with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit). In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.

According to Ecclesia Dei and its authoritative interpretation, the clerics of the SSPX formally adhere to the schism by virtue of the fact that they are ordained ministers of the movement, and thus, they have always been excommunicated. Formal adherence brings excommunication. The priests formally adhere. Therefore they are, and have always been, excommunicated. It’s very simple. The persistent rebuttal that this censure is invalid because they profess submission to the pope is nonsense; they profess it in word and not deed. They have operated for decades against the express will of the Roman Pontiff. Similarly, the objection that each individual priest would need a canonical trial to incur excommunication does not align with the already established precedent for incurring this penalty where the stated criteria are met. Must every member of an unapproved organization receive their own trial? Or is it sufficient to simply profess adherence to the organization and its tenets to incur this penalty?[6]

The 2026 explanatory note also says with regard to the laity:

As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X under the conditions established in the Explanatory Note by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of 1996 (see ibid., 7), still in force, which this Dicastery adopts.

The DDF confirmed that this 1996 explanatory note has always been in force, and is simply being reiterated for the application of the current situation. (As paragraph 5 noted, “the question of the exact import of the notion of ‘formal adherence to the schism’ would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” Now known as the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, it adopted the exact terms laid out in 1996.) If the laity adhere to the SSPX’s position over the teachings of the Church and exclusively attend SSPX chapels, they also formally adhere to the schism and are excommunicated.

(Note: Supporters of the SSPX often point to the “Hawaii Six” case, where six lay people were declared excommunicated by the local bishop after receiving sacraments from the SSPX. The case was appealed, and the Vatican determined that the excommunication was null. While this is often seen as proof that the laity are not excommunicated for following the movement, this is simply a clear application of the principles at hand. The competent authority examined the case and determined that these six individuals did not meet the criteria for “formal adherence,” and therefore were not excommunicated. This case study does not exclude the possibility of excommunication.)

The 2026 declarations appear significant because they abandon the cautious and measured approach Rome has been using for years, but they remain consistent with the original declarations condemning the Lefebvrist movement. This is hardly unexpected or extreme; it is simply restating what has been in place since the beginning.

Conclusion

I continue to patiently wait for Pope Leo to comment on the current situation, but ultimately he does not have to, because everything necessary for the interpretation of the two new declarations already exists.

The closing sentence in the 2026 DDF decree regarding excommunication is clarified by its explanatory note.

The explanatory note confirms that the PCILT’s 1996 explanatory note has always been, and is still, in effect, and the same criteria apply now.

The 1996 explanatory note clarified beyond any shadow of a doubt that Pope John Paul II declared the SSPX to be in formal schism (paragraph 5.c, which refers to the schism as the movement in its entirety, constituting “a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter”). The note gave the conditions for what John Paul II meant by “formal adherence” (paragraphs 5–7), and confirmed what would bring the sentence of excommunication. And this has always been in force.

It does not matter that the DDF’s judgment was issued in the format of an explanatory note and not an authoritative decree, because what it says is already in force from an authoritative decree. And it does not matter that the 1996 PCILT document was in the same format, because it simply explains what John Paul II declared in Ecclesia Dei.

Notes

[1] I will refrain from addressing the question of faculties for confession and marriage here, as that is a separate issue from the documents and previous rulings in question. It should suffice to note that Pope Leo’s letter to Fr. Pagliarani made very clear that the act of consecrations would redact their faculties, and that a subsequent declaration confirmed this. Also, the main rebuttal being cited, from “Canonical Analysis: The 2026 DDF Decree on the SSPX,” published at Rorate Caeli, leans on canon 21, saying, “Under can. 21, repeal of a prior law is never presumed.” But this is not what the canon says. It says, “In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.” There is no doubt as to what this declaration intended or that it intended to repeal a prior judgment.

[2] The original text in Italian is here:

Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, explanatory note (Italian original). I am using the English translation from Catholic Culture for readability.

[3] If I may be so bold as to tag Matt Fradd here, he said he had never seen a clear statement from Rome on whether or not the SSPX is in schism prior to 2026.

[4] Supporters of the SSPX will say that since Pope Benedict XVI lifted the 1988 excommunications in 2009, any charges of schism in whatever capacity were nullified. At face value, this would appear to align with the statement above, which states that the schism would continue as long as no changes were made which would re-establish communion between the SSPX and the Church. But this is not the case. Every gesture toward reconciliation (both the lifting of the excommunications and the granting of faculties for confession and marriage) was accompanied by clauses clarifying that these permissions were granted in the hopes of bringing the SSPX back into full communion with the Church.

[5] Some have objected that if the 2026 consecrations incurred schism, how could they be in schism before? Does this “double” the schism? Again, I struggle to understand the confusion. To draw an analogy, one can commit a felonious act, become a registered felon, then threaten to commit another felonious act, be warned that it would be a felony, then commit it and be guilty of a felonious act again. They would always remain in a “state of felony.”

[6] One is reminded of a certain secret society that those of a Lefebvrist inclination are quick to note brings automatic excommunication with membership.

---

Image: YouTube Screenshot