Posted on 05/15/2026 2:36:01 PM PDT by ebb tide
Fri May 15, 2026 - 2:54 pm EDTFri May 15, 2026 - 4:18 pm EDT
(Society of Saint Pius X) — “Physician, heal yourself” (Lk 4:23).
1. The Vatican Press Office published, on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, the following statement from Cardinal Fernandez, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith:
Regarding the Society of Saint Pius X, we reiterate what has already been communicated. The episcopal ordinations announced by the Society of Saint Pius X are not accompanied by the corresponding papal mandate. This action constitutes “a schismatic act” (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei , no. 3) and “formal adherence to schism constitutes a grave offense against God and entails the excommunication prescribed by Church law” (ibid., 5c; cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, August 24, 1996).
The Holy Father continues, in his prayers, to ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X so that they may reconsider the very serious decision they have made.
From the Vatican, May 13, 2026
2. This therefore involves matters of Canon Law, specifically concerning the penalties imposed for potential offenses. But this is not new. The novelty that appears in this declaration from Rome is that the episcopal consecrations scheduled for July 1st will not be “accompanied by the corresponding papal mandate.” Coming from a Prefect of a Vatican dicastery, this remark is quite clearly an attempt to convey to the Society that Pope Leo XIV will refuse to authorize the consecrations.
3. In a certain way, this too is not new, for it is a repetition of what the Society already experienced in 1988. In the homily he delivered on the day of the consecrations, June 30, Archbishop Lefebvre already alluded to various canonical studies written by specialists in the field, which could be used to legitimize the act of episcopal consecration on that occasion of June 30. Among these studies, [1] that of Professor Rudolf Kaschewsky [2] was initially published in the March-April 1988 issue of Una Voce-Korrespondenz.
4. This specifically concerns the question of penalties incurred for a potential offense. The New Code of Canon Law of 1983 indicates in canon 1323 the situations in which the act committed will not, from the legal perspective of canon law, constitute an offense. Canon 4 specifies: “A person who, having violated a law or precept: […] acted […] out of necessity, or to avoid serious harm, is not punishable by any penalty, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or causes harm to souls.”
RELATED: SSPX responds to Vatican threats with profession of faith
Canon 1324 specifies in paragraph 1 that “if the offense is intrinsically evil or if it harms souls,” the one who violates the law “is not exempt from punishment, but the punishment prescribed by law or precept must be mitigated, or a penance must be substituted for it, if the offense was committed by someone who acted […] driven by need or to avoid serious harm.” Paragraph 3 of the same canon further specifies that “in the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1, the guilty party is not subject to a latae sententiae punishment .”
Thus, according to Church law, one who disobeys the law does not commit a punishable offense, provided he is driven to it by necessity and that this disobedience does not amount to an intrinsically evil act or one prejudicial to souls. Even if this equivalence were verified, the act, then considered an offense, could not be sanctioned by a latae sententiae penalty, which is incurred by the very fact of the offense.
5. Canon 1323, paragraph 7, further specifies that the act committed will not, from the legal standpoint of canon law, constitute a crime not only if it was actually committed due to necessity (paragraph 4) but also if the person who committed it “believed that one of the circumstances provided for in paragraph 4 existed”—that is, the circumstance of necessity. In other words, even if one admits that there is no real necessity to justify the act, the mere fact that the perpetrator committed the act driven by what he believed to be a real necessity is sufficient to excuse him from the crime.
Canon 1324, paragraph 1, number 8, also states that someone who, “through an error of which he is guilty, believed that one of the circumstances mentioned in canon 1323, number 4, had occurred,” is not exempt from punishment, but this punishment must be mitigated, or a penance must be substituted for it. And what is stated in paragraph 3 of the same canon 1324 still applies here: in such a case, the penalty of latae sententiae is not incurred.
6. Thus, according to Church law, one who does not respect the law commits no punishable offense provided that he is driven to it by a necessity that is not only real but even putative, that is to say, wrongly assumed due to a subjective error, provided that this error is not culpable but accompanies the most complete good faith. And even if the error were culpable, the then-offense could not be sanctioned with a latae sententiae penalty, incurred by the very fact of the offense.
7. More fundamentally, and as Don Davide Pagliarani, following Archbishop Lefebvre, constantly reiterates, the Society seeks the good of the Church, which is the good of souls. This is why it disregards this application of ecclesiastical law that would accuse it of a crime and impose the corresponding penalty. Why? Simply because ecclesiastical law cannot be applied to the detriment of the salvation of souls. And it is precisely to respond to the grave and urgent need for the salvation of souls that the Society is considering these episcopal consecrations.
In all reality, there is no wrongdoing, no schism on the part of the Fraternity. But only the same zeal which remains unchanged, even if it takes on paradoxical forms in the eyes of the world, for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
8. Excommunicated? But by whom? By those who receive the blessing of a schismatic woman, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally? By those who authorize the blessing of Fiducia supplicans? And who kneel before Pachamama? … In the Church, punishments are medicinal. But then, shouldn’t the words of Our Lord in the Gospel rise to the lips of the Catholic of good will: “Medice, cura teipsum” (Lk. 4:23)? [3]
[1] They were published in June 1989 by Editions du Courrier de Rome, in a separate booklet entitled La Tradition excommuniée. The study we are referring to here appears on pages 51-57.
[2] Rudolf Kaschewsky (1939-2020), a Doctor of Theology and renowned sinologist specializing in Buddhism and China, was a lecturer at the University of Bonn from 1974 to 2004. He became interested in the canonical aspects of episcopal consecration due to well-known events that had occurred within the Church in China. See his article: “Zur Frage der Bischofsweihe ohne päpstlichen Auftrag” in China heute . Informationen über Religion und Christentum im chinesischen Raum. Jahrgang VIII (1989), no. 5 (45), pp. 124-128.
[3] “Physician, heal thyself.”
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Ping
Trouble in River City?
In my opinion, the core of the issue is humility. While the Church is perfect, its members certainly are not. SSPX claims to believe there should be a pope, just not this one, or the ones after John XXIII.
There may be any number of arguments to support the non-impeccability of popes since Vatican II, however, clerics are obliged “...to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and their own ordinary.” (Can. 273)
It is plain to see that SSPX has no intention of obedience in this matter to the Supreme Pontiff.
They would be wise to follow the example of saints such as St. Padre Pio, St. John of the Cross, St Margaret Mary Alacoque, who suffered great injustices, but remained obedient.
“Regarding the Society of Saint Pius X, we reiterate what has already been communicated. The episcopal ordinations announced by the Society of Saint Pius X are not accompanied by the corresponding papal mandate. This action constitutes âÂÂa schismatic actâ (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei , no. 3) and âÂÂformal adherence to schism constitutes a grave offense against God and entails the excommunication prescribed by Church lawâ (ibid., 5c; cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, August 24, 1996).”
So by St. John Paul II.
OK ...
In your opinion ...
What should the Guy in the White Zuchetto do?
In my opinion, he’s the one causing trouble, spreading confusion, and encouraging heresy and other mortal sins.
Great question!!
In charity, he should seek to listen and hear the concerns of SSPX in earnest.
However, as Supreme Pontiff, he is obligated to promote unity and demand obedience.
If SSPX doesn’t wish to live by Canon Law and the norms of the Church, they are free to declare themselves their own thing, but not free to claim themselves in communion with the Catholic Church. That would require, you guessed it, obedience to the Supreme Pontiff.
It puzzles me that there are people, not specific to SSPX, that wish to identify themselves as Catholic, yet unwilling to accede to Her teachings and authority of Her ministers.
Who did Pacman piss off?
Who died and made that guy in the funny hat the pope? Oh, right, those other guys in the funny hats. ;)
Yep ... these people continue to promote sodomy as a positive good, to clamor for ordaining women, to argue that abortion is not evil, to support illegal immigration, to promote religious indifferentism ...
Yes, it truly amazes me that there are people, some in roman collars, some even wearing miters, red robes ... or even WHITE robes ... who publicly reject or create confusion about the Churh's teachings.
I didn’t address the second part and thank you again for your thoughts.
In many respects, he is in a tough spot and a very difficult job requiring a whole lot of prayers. Like any leader, some will love him without question, and some will think he can do no right. The truth lies in the middle. He has to shepherd the Universal Church on a day-to-day basis, all the while trying to herd the German cats back into the inerrant teachings of the Church. He has to gain the cooperation of the Curia, while limiting any who seek to frustrate the legitimate exercise of his Petrine Ministry. He also needs to bring clarity where ambiguity exists.
This is particularly hard, as modern communication particularly social media, quickly create and spread opinions and impressions that aren’t always accurate. Finally, modern man is addicted to sound bites. Many people don’t take the time to seek the full context and end up oversimplifying or misunderstanding the full meaning. Some people are just intellectually dishonest and seek to promote a point of view for the own agendas.
I would challenge you to clearly point out where he is encouraging heresy and mortal sin. Perhaps I only see it through my lens, but I’ve heard the Holy Father reiterate there should be no attempt to sanctify or quasi-sanctify irregular unions (whether same sex or not). I witnessed a Usus Antiquior at the Altar of the Chair. I have heard reiteration of the all-male clergy. Since I can’t know everything, maybe I’m just not seeing what you are.
You are absolutely right in your comments about some in Roman collars, miters, and red robes who create confusion and actively sow discord, confusion, and false teachings.
Despite it all, the promise of Christ remains:
“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
He could start by consecrating and appointing bishops who clearly and publicly affirm the teachings of the Church. He just appointed a "former" illegal alien to be the Bishop of Wheeling-Charleston, right here in West Virginia. It's a clear slap in the face to faithful Catholics. It's par for the course with Francis (previously) and with Leo.
He has to gain the cooperation of the Curia,
Some pointed mass firings might help ... If for no other reason that he has to convince We the Faithful that he's serious about defending the Faith. He might start by removing all of Frankie's restrictions on the Latin Mass. He has to convince We the Faithful that he's serious about preserving The Church. For just a couple of suggestions ...
Those things would be a great start. He has been in office for a year, now ... Time to get started.
And that's why I'm still Catholic, and still hold to the Faith I learned in my youth.
I don't abandon America because of the Clintons and Obamas and Bidens ... much less would I abandon The Church because of miscreant clerics from "Father Fag" all the way up.
Oh, by that guy who kissed a Koran; who invoked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam; and who held the Assisi Hug-fests?
That guy?
Sorry; but the above saints did not have to contend with "synodal" popes who had outlawed their Masses, who winked at homosexual and adulterous conduct with heretical documents like Fiducia Supplicans and Amoris Laetia, who have rejected the dogma of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus", and who have worshipped Pachamama idols over St. Peter's tomb.
That's a blatantly false statement. The SSPX has always acknowledged the popes, including those following John XXIII.
The question is why has Pope Leo refused to even grant an audience with the SSPX; while on the other hand, he's congratulating a fake female "bishop" on her election, meeting with muslim imams, David Axelrod, etc.
The communist Chines government is appointing bishops without a papal mandate. Only to be rubber stamped after the fact.
But it's apparent that rubber stamp will not be available to "confirm" traditional Catholic bishops.
The whole reason of Tradtionis Custodes is to eliminate the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass and the priests who offer the "most beautiful thing this side of Heaven".
He is obligated to promote unity IN the Faith- not to his own person. He cannot legitimately demand obedience in things which would cause others to sin or to lose their salvation.
Canon law (and common sense) provides for these exceptions.
Unfortunately we live in an exceptional time in the life of the Church.
Obedience is not a Theological Virtue. The positive error is Servility. Also note that the SSPX does obey those things which do not endanger the souls under their care (even when they disagree with them).
The Catholic Faith is a real thing which exists and does not change based upon the whims of the current Pontiff. We are obligated to defend it especially when those in charge teach things in contradiction to it and do not explain themselves- merely proclaiming “OBEY or ELSE!”
Athanasius roamed the wilderness for years when necessary. We are called to do no less. If it puzzles you please start by recognizing that obedience to the Pontiff is not synonymous with obedience to God.
We will all be judged on this- none are allowed to sin or neglect their duty before God just because someone in authority asked them to. Obedience has limits to all human authority- even to the Pope. Yes there may be consequences and you may be called names by people on the Internet or even the Pope- doesn’t necessarily make it true. This has always been understood by Catholics up until the modernist heretics decided to use “obedience” as a cudgel to promote their novelties.
So why is Pope Leo not threatening the heretic German bishops with excommunication over their disobedience regarding formal blessing of sodomite couples and plans for ordaining female deacons and priests?
After all, unlike the SSPX priests and bishops, these German heretics are by their very disobedience "amounting to intrinsically evil acts or ones prejudicial to souls".
However, as Supreme Pontiff, he is obligated to promote unity and demand obedience.
Like this unity:
MESSAGE OF POPE LEO XIV ON THE OCCASION OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE "ARCHBISHOP" OF CANTERBURY
I know that the office for which you have been chosen is a weighty one, with responsibilities not only in the Diocese of Canterbury, but throughout the Church of England as well as the Anglican Communion as a whole. Moreover, you are commencing these duties at a challenging moment in the history of the Anglican family. In asking the Lord to strengthen you with the gift of wisdom, I pray that you may be guided by the Holy Spirit in serving your communities, and draw inspiration from the example of Mary, the Mother of God.
...
What is more, the unity which Christians seek is never an end in itself, but is directed towards the proclamation of Christ, in order that, as the Lord Jesus himself prayed, “the world may believe” (Jn 17:21). In addressing the Primates of the Anglican Communion in 2024, Pope Francis declared that “it would be a scandal if, due to our divisions, we did not fulfil our common vocation to make Christ known” (Address to Primates of the Anglican Communion, 2 May 2024). Dear sister, I willingly make these words my own, for it is through the witness of a reconciled, fraternal and united Christian community that the proclamation of the Gospel will resound most clearly (cf. Message for the 2026 World Mission Day, 2).
With these fraternal sentiments, I invoke upon you the blessings of Almighty God as you take up your high responsibilities. May the Holy Spirit come down upon you and make you fruitful in the Lord’s service.
Why such kind, "fraternal" words for heretics like this "sister" of his; but only threats of "excommunication" for traditional Catholics?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.