SSPX responds: ‘Excommunicated? But by whom? By those who kneel before Pachamama?’

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.”

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.”