Common opinion holds that only the SSPX bishops were excommunicated in 1988, and that Cdl. Fernández has raised the stakes. This is only partly true.
By S.D. Wright
Lifesite News
July 3, 2026
Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, has issued a decree of excommunication against the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) for Wednesday's episcopal consecrations, accompanied by an explanatory note.
Yesterday, I explained the principle, expressed by Pope St. Celestine and others, which holds that the preachers of heresy are unable to excommunicate others. He wrote the following of the heretic Nestorius:
If anyone has been excommunicated or stripped of the dignity of bishop or cleric by Bishop Nestorius, or by others who follow him, from the time they began to preach such things, it is manifest that this person has persisted and does persist in our communion; and we do not consider him removed, because the sentence of one who had already shown himself deserving of removal could not remove anyone. 1 [Emphasis added]
This letter, and others from St. Celestine expressing the same doctrine, were taken up by later saints, doctors, theologians, and canonists: the doctrine was considered something " easily proved," and used to derive conclusions on other disputed matters.
Whether one holds Leo XIV, Cdl. Fernández, and others to be personally guilty of heresy or not, they are on record as habitually preaching heresy. This record has been systematically documented by LifeSiteNews (and is indeed one cited reason for the necessity of episcopal consecrations without pontifical mandate). These men are, therefore, unable to excommunicate; they are similarly unable to issue declaratory sentences of automatic excommunications, or to designate groups as schismatic sects.
Notwithstanding the invalidity of the present decree, this article will compare its provisions (and those of the explanatory note) with those of the previous declaration of excommunication issued after the previous episcopal consecrations in 1988, as well as the explanatory note of 1996, cited in the 2026 documents.
The alleged status of the SSPX bishops
As expected, the 2026 decree states that the four new bishops, along with the two consecrating bishops, have incurred an automatic excommunication. The decree states:
Notwithstanding the warnings addressed to the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, having carried out an act of a schismatic nature by means of the episcopal consecration of four presbyters, without pontifical mandate and against the will of the Supreme Pontiff, has incurred ipso facto the penalties provided for by can. 1387 and can. 1364 §1 CIC 2021.I therefore declare, for all juridical effects, that both the aforesaid Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Marc Hanappier have incurred ipso facto the excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.I further declare that Bishop Bernard Fellay, having participated directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator, having thus publicly adhered to the schismatic act, has incurred the excommunication latae sententiae provided for by can. 1364 §1 CIC 2021.
The present decree itself is almost identical in its wording, structure, and phrasing to that issued on July 1, 1988, against Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the other bishops involved with the episcopal consecrations at that time. 2
As stated, Fernández is incapable of issuing a declaratory sentence against the six bishops. Nonetheless, this would not prevent an automatic excommunication from taking effect, if it has been validly established in law; it would only prevent it being enforceable in the external forum. The validity of the particular automatic excommunications will turn on whether the episcopal consecrations are justifiable, and whether they are "imputable" as canonical crimes - which is outside the scope of this article.
The alleged status of the SSPX priests
https://ads.lifesitenews.com/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=0&campaignid=0&zoneid=2&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fanalysis%2Fhistory-repeating-itself-a-closer-look-at-the-vaticans-sspx-excommunications%2F%3Futm_source%3Dpopular&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2F&cb=13700c0f5b|ads.lifesitenews.com
However, the decree appears to go further in its treatment of the priests of the SSPX. The "explanatory note" to the 2026 decree states:
1. 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 those adhering to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre', 24.08.1996, 5-6), and are subject to the excommunication prescribed by law (can. 1364 § 1 CIC).
However, the references cited show that the 2026 document is only clearer, and perhaps more certain in its judgement of the SSPX's ministers:
Ecclesia Dei, John Paul II, n. 5cc) 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.To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.
The other text cited explains what is meant by the phrase "formal adherence" to the SSPX:
Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note on the excommunication for schism incurred by those adhering to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre5. As the Motu Proprio declares at no. 5(c), the latae sententiae excommunication for schism concerns those who "formally adhere" to the said schismatic movement. Even though the question of the exact scope of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" ought to be put to the competent Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this Pontifical Council that such adherence must imply two complementary elements:(a) one of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing in the substance of the schism - that is, in opting for the followers of Lefebvre in such a way that this option is placed above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will habitually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);(b) another of an external character, consisting in the exteriorisation of that option, the most manifest sign of which will be exclusive participation in Lefebvrist "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, a sign that is not univocal, since it is possible that some of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre without, however, sharing their schismatic spirit).6. In the case of Lefebvrist deacons and priests, it seems beyond doubt that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two requisites mentioned above (no. 5) are met and that there is therefore a formal adherence.
Thus we see that the documents relating to the previous excommunications already stated that the priests and sacred ministers of the SSPX "formally adhered" to the "schism" of Abp. Lefebvre, and thus alleged that they were in schism and automatically excommunicated.
This is contrary to the common opinion, which generally considered only the bishops of the SSPX to have been excommunicated.
The justification for such a provision would appear to rest on the allegedly schismatic nature of the SSPX; and this cannot be declared by one who is responsible for the habitual preaching of heresy.
The alleged status of the laity
The decree states the following regarding the laity:
Clerics and lay faithful are warned not to adhere to the schism of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, for they would incur ipso facto the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae. 3The explanatory note also states:
2. 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 of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of 1996 (cf. ibidem, 7), still in force, which this Dicastery makes its own, are to be regarded as schismatics and excommunicated.The cited n. 7 of the 1996 text states:
7. In the case, however, of other faithful, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrist movement, carried out without making one's own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity of that movement, is not sufficient for one to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice it may prove more difficult to judge their situation. Account must be taken above all of the intention of the person, and of the translation of that interior disposition into acts. The various situations must therefore be judged case by case, in the competent settings of the external forum and the internal forum.Even while referring to this paragraph from 1996, the new note appears to be more emphatic. Both notes allege that the laity incur an automatic excommunication if the two elements in n. 5 of the 1996 document are verified. However, the 1996 note was more reserved about the situation of individuals, and held that "it does not seem advisable to formalise further the requirements for the delict of schism."
The 2026 note appears stronger: while maintaining the conditionality of "formal adherence," it now simply states that such laity "are to be regarded as schismatics and excommunicated."
However, once again, the allegation of schism cannot be established on the basis of a declaration from someone who habitually preaches heresy.
Finally, we have already seen (in n. 5 of the 1996 text, above) that the Vatican considers "formal adherence" to consist of more than Mass attendance, and less than the inscription of one's name as a member of the SSPX (e.g., as a tertiary). The period 1988-2009 also saw the Vatican act in ways that may have appeared to undermine the more expansive interpretation of the documents - such as in the case of the " Hawaii Six" in 1991. However, the 2026 note now states:
[A]ll the faithful are exhorted to remain steadfast in communion with the Roman Pontiff, with the Bishops in communion with him, and with the whole Church (cf. Lumen Gentium, 22; can. 751 CIC), and to refrain from participating in celebrations and activities promoted by the aforesaid Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.The status of SSPX sacraments
The explanatory note also implicitly revokes the faculties for confessions and for marriages established under Francis, stating:
3. The holy People of God are advised, finally, that the sacred ministers of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X administer the sacraments illicitly, and that the sacrament of penance administered by them and marriages assisted by them are invalid.For decades, the SSPX held that these sacraments were valid due to various canonical arguments relating to the concept of supplied jurisdiction. It seems that the organization will have to return to the arguments previously employed with regard to the validity of these sacraments.
Summary of the situation
Thus, the 2026 explanatory note does not appear to establish a different situation to that which was in force between 1988 and 2009, except insofar as the provisions it seeks to impose are stated with greater clarity and certainty.
- All the "sacred ministers" of the SSPX - both bishops and the others - are now clearly stated to be in schism with the Vatican, and excommunicated. It no longer merely "seems beyond doubt," as it was said in 1996, that the sacred ministers of the SSPX "formally adhere" to Abp. Lefebvre's "schism": the new decree now simply says that the ministers "are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics [...] being subject to the excommunication provided for by law."
- The situation of the laity is identical to that following 1988: it is conditional on "formal adherence" (as defined in the 1996 document), and expressed with only a little more clarity or certainty: "[T]hose who formally adhere to the [SSPX] under the conditions established [in 1996], still in force, which this Dicastery makes its own, are to be regarded as schismatics and excommunicated."
- Permissions for the valid confessions and marriages appear to have been revoked.
If the aftermath of 1988 is indicative of what may follow now, we might expect an indefinite period in which the SSPX and its defenders employ canonical arguments against the validity of these excommunications, while partisans of the Conciliar/Synodal Church argue the opposite.
But to repeat the line of argument stated at the outset: it is certain that those who preach heresy are unable to excommunicate. But Leo XIV and many of his collaborators preach heresy. Therefore, they are unable to excommunicate. They are similarly unable to issue declaratory sentences of automatic excommunications, or to designate groups as schismatic sects.