To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.
 |
| Cardinal Vincent Fernández (r) Father Davide Pagliarani (l) |
 |
The Vatican's threats of excommunication against the SSPX are unjust, not canonical, and not consistent with Catholic doctrine.
I fully support what the SSPX is doing. I do not represent them. I’m not paid by them. I’m not their spokesman. I simply am someone who attends the SSPX for Mass every Sunday. I know the priests, many of them in the Society. I know other people that attend it. And it’s all about preserving the faith in the Catholic tradition.
This is the Society is up against: ultimately, it comes down to the preservation of the Catholic faith; this has become a huge issue. Normally, it really wouldn’t have been that big of a deal, but the Vatican has chosen to make it a big deal by threatening the Society with excommunication.
I have noticed that many do not understand the issues involved. I don’t blame them; this sort of thing is not necessarily easy if you don’t know where to look. Well, I’m going to dispel all of that for you and help guide you through that process so you can see exactly what’s going on and understand the issues properly.
 |
| Leo has time to meet a robot but not the SSPX |
I’m confident that you’ll see why the SSPX is right, and I’m sure you will support the consecrations coming up in July 2026 if you look at this with a fair mind.
We will begin at the beginning with the most recent statement from Cardinal Fernandez about the threat of excommunication if the Society goes forward with the consecrations in July. Then we will go through the canonical arguments and some theology to show you why the Vatican would be completely unjust in excommunicating anybody.
The Excommunication Threat
Let’s begin with Cardinal Fernandez’s statement dated May 13th of 2026. He says with all his citations included,
“With regard to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, we reiterate what has already been communicated. The episcopal ordinations announced by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X do not have the requisite papal mandate. This act will constitute “a schismatic act” (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, no. 3) and “formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offence against God and entails the excommunication established under Church law” (ibid., 5c; cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, 24 August 1996).
“The Holy Father continues in his prayers to ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten those responsible for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X so that they may reconsider the extremely grave decision they have taken.”
This is the threat. This threat consists of basically two parts: Fernandez is saying the episcopal ordinations do not have the requisite Papal mandate, which is part one, and that this act will constitute a schismatic act, which is part two of the threat. We’re going to look at both of those allegations and show you it’s completely wrong, completely unjust, and not Catholic.
The 1996 Explanatory Note and Ecclesia Dei
Dated August 24, 1996, the title is “Excommunication for Schism Incurred by the Adherence of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Movement.” Now, keep in mind this was the document just referred to by Fernandez, so he’s relying on this in support of the Vatican’s position.
And what it basically says, responding to a council letter from the Bishop of Sion in Switzerland, is that this prelate received information from the press asking for an authoritative interpretation of the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, and of the subsequent decree of the congregation concerning the excommunication imposed on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the four bishops ordained by him, and bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer. The 1996 text goes on to state:
“I have the honor to tell you that the problem raised by the ordinary of Sion does not seem to require an authentic interpretation either of the moto proprio Ecclesia Dei or the decree of the congregation of bishops of the relative canons of canon law 1364 and 1382.” (web browser translation of Italian to English).
This is very interesting because this dicastery [on legislative texts] could provide a formal interpretation of what John Paul II put in the Ecclesia Dei document. What they’re saying is that they were not going to do a formal interpretation. Nor were they going to interpret anything about the canon laws that are being used to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. They were not going to give an official interpretation on that. They just did not feel the need to do it.
Further down, [the 1996 legislative text] does say in fact that paragraph four of Ecclesia Dei explains what the doctrinal root was of the “schismatic act.” Then it references canon law 1364 which has to do with schism. The decree of the congregation of bishops also makes explicit reference to schismatic nature. And so, what this dicastery is saying is that they did not need to explain any of this because it just speaks for itself. Just go read those documents. We are not going to get any more detail on that!
Now, what they do is go into more detail on is this issue of those “who formally adhere to the schismatic movement.” That’s a reference to something John Paul II put in Ecclesia Dei. But that has to do with those who were not directly involved in the consecration of bishops without Papal mandate. So, other priests in the Society, for example. It gives some direction on whether bishops should consider those persons part of the excommunication. I’m not going to get into that specifically, not because it’s not important, but because it’s not really relevant to the key issue.
What I am interested in is the basis for the Vatican’s claim that the Society in general, or the bishops themselves, should be excommunicated. And whether it’s schismatic at all. Those two issues are what matter. Because if it’s not schismatic and there’s no punishment under canon law, then what’s happening here is radical persecution of the Society.
I am claiming that this legislative note from 1996 really didn’t give you any information whatsoever. All it says is that the SSPX’s actions were schismatic because it says so in Ecclesia Dei. And this is the document that Cardinal Fernandez relies on in addition to Ecclesia Dei. Everything is seemingly pointing back to the Ecclesia Dei document.
What is Ecclesia Dei? This is an apostolic letter given by John Paul II back in 1988, specifically on July 2nd, 1988. This is the document in which John Paul II rebukes Archbishop Lefebvre for consecrating bishops without Papal permission. In this letter, he states that this act was schismatic.
This is where everyone is getting the idea that consecrating a bishop without Papal mandate is schismatic. It all comes back to Ecclesia Dei, primarily because John Paul II asserted it. It has nothing to do with what schism is or what’s outlined in canon law regarding schism.
This is extremely important, and we will revisit Ecclesia Dei. What I’m going to show you may shock and disturb you because it exposes the root of not only the dispute between Rome and the Society but also the entire basis of the persecution of the Society, which is rooted in heresy condemned by previous Popes and the First Vatican Council (Vatican I). All of this is arbitrary, capricious, and unjust.
 |
| Arbitrary, capricious and unjust? |
The root of it lies in the Ecclesia Dei document, which Cardinal Fernandez referred to and cited for authority, along with a 1996 document that merely points back to John Paul II’s assertion that Archbishop Lefebvre’s decision to consecrate bishops without Papal mandate was schismatic. We will come back to this document because it is the key to understanding all of this.
The 1988 Decree of Excommunication1
The 1988 Decree of Excommunication itself further supports and explains the canon laws they are referencing. On July 1, 1988, the supposed excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre stated that despite formal warnings and repeated appeals to desist from his intention, he performed a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff.
Thus, he incurred the penalties outlined in canon 1364 paragraph 1 and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.
In this Decree, the authority the Vatican uses in canon law is made clear. Therefore, we must examine this to determine if any of it makes sense. What you will see is that the basis for the excommunication of Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 is fundamentally faulty and incorrect under the terms of canon law itself. And we are going through this exercise because this is exactly the same codes of canon law they are going to be relying on to excommunicate members of the SSPX if they move forward with the consecration of bishops in July of 2026.
If it was wrong then, it’s wrong now. But let’s go ahead and take a look at the code first.
The Codes of Canon Law
Now, under canon 1387, and I say 1387 and not 1382 as was contained in the 1988 Decree of Excommunication because they changed the numbers since then. So it’s a little confusing in that way but the current code is now 1387. It’s exactly the same as the 1382 reference from the Decree in 1988. So don’t get thrown off by that.
Canon 1387 (formerly 1382) says that both the bishop who without a pontifical mandate consecrates a person a bishop and the one who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. What that means is that it’s an automatic excommunication. An automatic excommunication as opposed to a ferendae sententiae excommunication.
Now this does have some importance when we are talking about truth, justice and charity because if it’s an automatic excommunication then the terms of the code of canon law itself are the ones that serve to justify the excommunication and it’s not based on any type of trial or opportunity to present your defense.
There is no opportunity under this to make a case before an independent judge as to whether you should be excommunicated or not for doing something canon law says you should not do. It’s an automatic excommunication.
I’m not saying there should never be automatic excommunications. There are reasons to have that. My point is simply that if you’re going to have a latae sententiae excommunication, you might want to follow what’s in the canon law to make sure it’s just!
Canon 1387 does condemn the act. What is the act issue? The act is the consecration of another bishop by a bishop without pontifical mandate or permission. That’s it. That’s the act.
So, if you do that, according to Canon 1387, you will be automatically excommunicated. And if you just stop at 1387, and many people really like to do that, it really leaves no question. The problem is you cannot just stop at 1387 because there are other provisions in canon law that apply to the problem at hand.
If you go to canon 1323, these are general provisions that apply to any penal sanctions under canon law and excommunication for consecrating a bishop without papal permission is a penal sanction. So, 1323 applies. It says,
“no one is liable to a penalty who when violating a law or precept acted under the compulsion of grave fear even if only relative, or by reason of necessity, or grave inconvenience, unless however the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls.” (emphasis added).
Well, no one argues that consecrating bishops is intrinsically evil. So, we don’t have to worry about that. What’s relevant here, and what the Society refers to correctly in my opinion, is that there was a “reason of necessity” to consecrate bishops without papal permission.
 |
The necessity being, in short, the need to preserve tradition and the truths of the Catholic faith that are jeopardized, quite frankly, by those who occupy the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and the thousands of bishops around the world who are not preserving the tradition and depriving Catholics of that right to practise and understand the truths of the faith.
What constitutes necessity is not required, as we will see. We’re focusing on the canon law aspect here. And what I’m telling you is that canon law provides that you shall not be excommunicated for consecrating bishops without papal mandate if there is a reason of necessity to do so.
Again, this is where people say, “Aha, there’s no reason or good reason or necessity to do that.” Well, scroll down a little more in canon 1323. And it also says,
“No one is liable to a penalty who when violating a law or precept thought through no personal fault that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in note 4 or 5 above.”
Well, by reason of necessity, as I just discussed, is in note 4. In other words, if you think that reason and necessity exist, you’re still excused even if perhaps you are objectively wrong. It’s a subjective standard, not an objective standard. This is a point a lot of people conveniently like to miss.
Did Archbishop Lefebvre truly believe there was a reason to consecrate bishops in order to preserve the traditions of the Catholic faith? Yes, he truly did believe that. And quite frankly, in my opinion, I think he’s right. And I think there is an objective necessity.
We’ll see proven in itself, this necessity, when we go back to look at the Ecclesia Dei document again. It’s just unbelievable how it just points back to itself. John Paul II’s condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre is proof in itself that there is a reason of necessity.
But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter because it’s a subjective standard and not an objective one. But let’s just say, well, maybe he still was at fault. Maybe he’s still at fault somehow. Let’s look at canon 1324 of canon law. It says,
“the perpetrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished or a penance substituted in its place if the offense was committed by one who erroneously culpably thought that someone of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in canon 1323 note 4 and note 5.”
So again, canon law says, look, even if there was some sort of personal fault with Archbishop Lefebvre or the bishops consecrating new bishops in July 2026, the penalty of excommunication should be mitigated and not applied.
And in substitute, perhaps penance or at least some other form of punishment, but not excommunication if they thought one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned, and in this case, everybody in the Society is arguing that a state of necessity exists and that is contained in canon 1323 note 4. There’s really no way around this, my friends.
In canon law, excommunications in the situation that existed back in 1988, as well as potentially in July 2026, do not apply under the code of canon law. And by the way, just for interest, some of you may be wondering: what did the 1917 code of canon law say about all this? If it’s so terrible and schismatic to consecrate a bishop without papal permission, what did they do back in 1917? It must have been harsher, right? Wrong.
According to the code of canon law from 1917, canon 2370, a bishop consecrating another bishop without an apostolic mandate are by law suspended until the apostolic see dispenses them. So, you weren’t excommunicated even under the code in 1917 if you consecrated a bishop without papal mandate.
And that just tends to show you that these allegations of schism attached to consecrating bishops without papal mandate are bogus. They are made up. There’s no basis in canon law for them. Certainly, if it's schismatic now, it would have been schismatic in 1917 too.
Let's talk about this issue of schism. The code of canon law does say in 1364 - again we’re back now to the 1983 code - an apostate from the faith or heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. He or she may also be punished with penalties mentioned in canon 1336 sections 2 and 4.
So again, if you are schismatic, that incurs an automatic excommunication. Here is the second basis for the argument the Vatican is making for excommunications. The first one was the simple act of consecrating a bishop without permission. We just dispensed with that under the code of canon law. But this is the second basis under 1364 section 1 for being a schismatic.
Now it does not say here what it means to be a schismatic. You just need to know what a schismatic is. The code provides sort of a definition that is in canon 751. It says “schism is the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the church subject to him.”
Well, that helps us a little bit. But we still have the question of what is “refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff” or of communion with the members of the church subject to him? Is consecrating a bishop contrary to the desire of the supreme pontiff a refusal of submission?
Here is the amazing part about all of this: Pope John Paul II doesn’t even directly mention canon 751 when he talks about Archbishop Lefebvre committing a schismatic act by consecrating those bishops. Nor does the Decree of Excommunication. There’s no reference whatsoever to canon 751.
John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei Modernist Idea of Schism
What does he say? John Paul II says in section 4 of the Ecclesia Dei document that the root of the schismatic act, the consecration of bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre, can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. Well, wait a second here.
He’s saying that Archbishop Lefebvre has an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition, and that is the root of the schismatic act. He says it is incomplete because
“it [Lefebvre’s understanding of tradition] does not take sufficiently into account the ‘living character of tradition’ which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, ‘comes from the apostles and progresses in the church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on.
"This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.’ (emphasis added).
“But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.”
So why is this important? It’s important for two reasons, my friends. The first reason is that John Paul II is saying that the reason why consecrating bishops is schismatic is, yes, in some way being disobedient to the pope. But he says the root of it is Archbishop Lefebvre’s and the Society’s incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. And then he goes on to explain what tradition is.
Now that’s very interesting, isn’t it? Because Pope St. Pius X, for whom the Society is named, who is a saint of the Catholic Church, in 1907 talked about this very definition and understanding of tradition.
One would think John Paul II would be consistent with his predecessor Pius X. Let’s look at Pascendi Domenici Gregis from 1907. This encyclical condemned the heresy of Modernism. And in here, the saintly pope talks about what modernism is and he explains what modernists do, their attitudes, and what they teach.
Beginning in paragraph 14 of Pascendi:
“it is an established and certain fact that the divine reality does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the Believer rests, they answer: In the experience of the individual.”
Pius X discusses how far off we are from Catholic teaching. He references the decree of Vatican I, highlighting the divergence from traditional teachings. In paragraph 15 of Pascendi:
“But this doctrine of experience is also under another aspect entirely contrary to Catholic truth. It is extended and applied to tradition, as hitherto understood by the Church, and destroys it. By the Modernists, tradition is understood as a communication to others, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula, of an original experience.” (emphasis in the original).
Do you see what’s happening here? Pope Pius X almost word for word, prophetically condemns what Pope John Paul II would claim 80 years later in Ecclesia Dei. He contends the modernists’ understanding of dogma and tradition is based on the experience of the individual and must be condemned. Yet, Ecclesia Dei specifically mentions that the living character of tradition accounts for the spiritual realities that the faithful and believers experience, as well as the preaching of that experience. This is shocking.
What does Vatican I teach? In short, it emphasizes that the meaning of sacred dogmas must always be maintained as declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext of a more profound understanding. While understanding, knowledge, and wisdom may grow over time, it must be within the same doctrine, sense, and understanding.
What did Ecclesia Dei say? John Paul II mentions the living character of tradition, stating that Vatican II teaches that tradition comes from the apostles and progresses with the help of the Spirit, allowing for growth in insight into the realities and words being passed on.
Is this not contrary to what Vatican I taught? The answer is yes; it is. All of this is to say what is contained in Ecclesia Dei is heretical.The part of the document that is heretical is precisely the portion that condemns and rebukes Archbishop Lefebvre for consecrating bishops without papal permission.
The entire case against Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX is rooted in the modernist heresy because everything points back to this Ecclesia Dei document. There is no other basis provided by the Vatican for designating as “schismatic” the SSPX effort to consecrate bishops without Papal mandate beyond what John Paul II asserted in Ecclesia Dei.
I have searched for other Vatican documents or references that would suggest an independent basis for the claim of schismatic acts due to this alleged disobedience. In the end, they always revert to saying that since John Paul II labeled it schismatic, that is the end of the discussion. As the 1996 legislative note said, we’re not even going to interpret that. John Paul II just explained it all to you right there. Well, we are reading the explanation, and this explanation is not Catholic.
The Catholic Understanding of Schism
The question remains: if John Paul II reinvented schism using a modernist formula to rebuke Archbishop Lefebvre, and if canon law does not provide a detailed explanation, what exactly is schism according to Catholic Tradition, and does it apply?
If you look at the Catholic Encyclopedia from the early twentieth century, it tells you that schism comes from the Greek word “schisma,” which means division or a rent or a division and in the language of theology and canon law results in rupture of ecclesial union and unity. In other words,
“the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies, the ties which bind him to the social organization of the church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of disassociation or separation which is the result of that act.”
Now, first of all, my friends, how can you be torn from the person that claims to be the pope by defending the faith itself? That is part of what the crisis in the Church is in the first place. And that’s the point the SSPX is trying to make. We have a crisis in the Church because while some faithful Catholics are defending the Church’s faith and her traditions, it is at odds with what is coming out of the Vatican and the hierarchy. That’s a problem.
But how can you be in schism if your acts, and the point of what you’re doing, is an effort to defend the teachings of the Church? Also, in the same encyclopedia article, it talks about disobedience, and this is very relevant to the issue with the SSPX.
According to the Encyclopedia, not every disobedience is a schism. In order to possess this character, schism must include, besides the transgression of the commands of the superior, the “denial of their divine right to command.”
This is exactly what the SSPX is saying. They’re saying, “Look, at worst, what you’re accusing us of is a disobedience to a command by consecrating bishops without permission. But that is not schism!”
Disobeying a command is not enough to constitute schism. You also have to deny the rights of the Pope to command in general, the office itself essentially, like Luther did. That is necessary to complete a schism. Simple disobedience is not.
And I suspect that those in the hierarchy, including John Paul II, understood this. Which is why they completely abandoned trying to argue under what everybody understood schism to be and completely shifted the ground and said, “Well, it’s just schism because John Paul II said it is.”
And then John Paul II says it’s because the Archbishop doesn’t follow tradition the way Vatican II understood tradition. But the SPPX consecrations have nothing to do with the rejection of the Papal office itself. Quite the opposite, actually. The SSPX and all Catholics must defend the office of the papacy, which is under attack with this current synodal process.
One final point, because people often like to say, “Oh, well, how can you not be schismatic if you’re at odds with your local ordinary, your local bishop?” Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia article also addresses that:
“Long before St. Ignatius of Antioch laid down this principle: Where the bishop is, there is community. Even where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Now, through the centralizing evolution which emphasizes the preponderant role of the sovereign pontiff in the constitution of ecclesiastical unity, the mere fact of rebelling against the bishop of a diocese is often a step toward schism. It is not a schism in him who remains or claims to remain subject to the Holy See.” (emphasis added).
In other words, even if you’re operating without the permission of the local ordinary, that also does not make you a schismatic. As long as you are not denying the right of the Holy See, the Pope, to be the primary authority in the Church, you are not denying his divine right to command in general. The SSPX has never done that.
The Synodal Hypocrisy
I want to just point out a hypocrisy along those lines. A recent synodal study group document number seven says that each diocese periodically should activate processes of discernment regarding how bishops should be selected. This is a very interesting question and seems relevant to the SSPX issue. According to the Vatican’s Synodality Press Room,
“As an Episcopal succession approaches, the bishop is to convene a presbyterial council and the diocese and pastoral council whose members express in a collegial manner an opinion on the needs of the diocese and submit to the bishop in a sealed envelope the names of priests they consider suitable for the episcopate. Where possible, consultation is also to include the cathedral chapter, finance council, the lay council, and representatives of consecrated persons, young people, and the poor.”
In other words, we’re going to make this a community effort about who’s selecting the bishops. Isn’t this interesting? Because this is what synodality is: it deconstructs the authority of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
Is the SSPX doing that? Not even in the slightest. The SSPX is opposed to synodality. The SSPX is opposed to any reduction in the authority of the hierarchy and the Pope, and the ordinary bishops. They’ve always been of that opinion.
The only ones attacking the authority of the bishops and the Pope are those who support synodality. You see, this is a crisis. This is a problem. This is why tradition needs to be passed on. All it does is prove the SSPX correct.
And by the way, the bishops are going to consecrate bishops who will not have any ordinary jurisdictional authority. They’re not claiming it whatsoever. They’re simply doing it to continue the ability to ordain new priests and perform other sacraments. They’re not claiming any jurisdictional authority whatsoever.
So, you can’t possibly say they’re setting up some parallel Church. It’s absurd. The only ones setting up a parallel church are those who are pushing the synodal process, which was the agenda that Leo said would be adopted from Francis upon his election last year in 2025.
Do you see the confusion? Do you see the insanity? Certainly, you can see the craziness. Well, so does the Society. And that’s why there is a need to move forward with consecrating bishops and preserve tradition in the face of what is going on right now in the Church.
 |
| Insanity |
Summary and Conclusion
The first point is that the SSPX’s consecration of bishops without papal permission in July 2026 is not schismatic. The consecration of bishops without Papal permission, in itself, is not a schismatic act. There’s no basis in canon law or theology whatsoever even to suggest that.
The second point is that the threatened excommunications are not called for under canon law. I showed you that canon law specifically provides relief from the consequences of the act itself, and the act itself here is the consecration of bishops without Papal permission. Canon law addresses that and says excommunication is not proper under these circumstances.
The facts of this case with the SSPX, both in 1988 and also today, are the same issues, and canon law relieves the Society of any consequences. This is significant because the Vatican claims this is an automatic excommunication; however, automatic excommunications only apply if the terms of canon law are met.
There is no trial. There is no judgment after an opportunity to defend oneself before impartial judge. So, you have to follow canon law. Otherwise, it would just be a horrible, arbitrary, capricious, and unjust decision. And certainly, we would not accuse anyone in the Vatican of doing that! Okay, we will.
Point three: the schism allegation is based on the arbitrary decision of John Paul II. This is really big. As I showed you, you cannot justify schism under the code of canon law for this. The only thing they can argue is that John Paul II said it was a schism in 1988, therefore, it is now in 2026. Why? What’s the basis?
John Paul II said it was schismatic because Archbishop Lefebvre had an incorrect understanding of tradition. And then I showed you that, in fact, John Paul II had the incorrect understanding of tradition. As a matter of fact, John Paul II’s understanding of tradition and the Second Vatican Council, which he relied on, is nothing more than the heresy of modernism, as Pope St. Pius X and the First Vatican Council explained.
The entire basis of the schismatic claim against Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX is heresy. This should be shocking, but it points to the entire problem in the first place. This is why we have a state of necessity.
Do you see how it all circles back? This is the Society’s point in the first place. We have a situation where we have people in authority who are using heresy to govern the Church and to punish people, and they’re not passing on the faith for the salvation of souls. And this is why there’s a state of necessity in the church as used under canon law.
What we learned from John Paul II is contrary to the tradition of the Catholic Church and the Church’s understanding of what tradition itself is. As I showed you, the issue is doctrine, and the Society’s defense of tradition. That’s what we’re really talking about here.
And this is so important and you can understand why this is becoming such a big deal. Because what we’re really talking about is what do we believe as Catholics? It’s the doctrines. What is tradition? That’s the issue in this case. It’s not really what is schism.
Fourth point. I showed you what the Enyclopedia said about schism and that clearly doesn’t apply. Nor is John Paul II really claiming what in the encyclopedia applies. What matters is what we believe as Catholics. And how can you have unity if you don’t believe the same things? If Catholics today do not believe what Catholics in 1907 believed, there is a problem. And the Society is simply recognizing that. That’s all.
And finally, this persecution against the Society is arbitrary, capricious, and lacks any sense of due process. You’ll notice here that no one from the Society has been able to present their defense to an independent judge or even to Leo himself. He’s refused any type of audience. There’s no due process there. There’s no justice there, and there’s certainly no charity.
Please continue to pray for Holy Mother Church. Pray for the restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass throughout the world. Pray for Leo. Pray for Cardinal Fernandez (I know it’s hard.) And pray for the Society. Pray for those bishops who are doing the consecrations, those who receive the consecrations, and all those who attend the SSPX chapels. (Redacted.)
Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications against the four remaining bishops of the SSPX on January 21, 2009. However, it is the position of the Society, and of this author, that the purported excommunications were never valid or just to begin with for the reasons set forth in this article. https://catholicesquire.substack.com/p/a-complete-defense-of-the-sspx-consecrations
Mary, Co-Redemptrix, pray for the Church
