The Vatican has declared that the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X have excommunicated themselves. The day after the episcopal consecrations in Écône, which saw Fr Pascal Schreiber, Fr Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, Fr Marc Hanappier and Fr Michael Goldade consecrated as bishops, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released a decree stating:
“Notwithstanding the admonitions addressed to the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, having performed a schismatic act by means of the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and against the will of the Supreme Pontiff, has incurred ipso facto the penalties provided for in can. 1387 and can. 1364 §1 CIC 2021.”
Signed by Cardinal Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mons. Armando Matteo, Secretary for the Doctrinal Section, and Archbishop John J. Kennedy, Secretary for the Disciplinary Section.
The decree goes beyond the excommunications declared in 1988 by stating that “clergy and lay faithful are admonished not to adhere to the schism of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, lest they incur ipso facto the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication.” Therefore, SSPX faithful also face the possibility of incurring excommunication declared by Rome. In this instance, the decree has been issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, whereas in 1988 the document was issued by the Congregation for Bishops.
In the explanatory note that follows the decree, further questions are raised for SSPX faithful: “It is finally noted that the Holy People of God are informed that the sacred ministers of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X administer the sacraments and the sacrament of Penance illicitly, and that the marriages assisted by them are invalid.”
The decree and the explanatory note represent the most comprehensive canonical action against the SSPX since Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s illicit episcopal consecrations in 1988, and arguably go further than anything issued during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.
The most striking development comes not in the penalties imposed upon the bishops, but in the Vatican’s assessment of the Society’s clergy as a whole. Rather than issuing individual declarations against every SSPX priest, an obvious practical impossibility given the Society has around 800 clergy worldwide, the explanatory note states categorically that “the sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics”, adding that they are consequently subject to the excommunication laid down in Canon 1364 §1.
It also extends its warning to the laity. Echoing a controversial 1996 explanatory note from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, the Vatican says that those lay faithful who “formally adhere” to the Society under the conditions outlined in that earlier document “are to be considered schismatics and excommunicated”.
The Holy See is careful to refer only to formal adherence rather than occasional attendance, but it nonetheless marks the strongest warning issued to the faithful regarding involvement with the SSPX since the Lefebvre affair.
More importantly, Rome has yet to clarify what formal adherence means. The 1996 explanatory note of the then Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts addressed when lay Catholics attending SSPX chapels would themselves incur the canonical crime of schism. According to the document, formal adherence involved more than occasional participation; it required a conscious and voluntary identification with the Society’s rejection of submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with those in union with him.
The July 2026 explanatory note explicitly relies upon that 1996 interpretation, stating that it borrows “the conditions established in the Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of 1996″ by which members of the SSPX “are to be considered schismatics and excommunicated”, thereby reviving one of the most controversial canonical texts ever issued regarding the Society.
However, perhaps even more consequential in practical terms is the Vatican’s treatment of the sacraments. The explanatory note declares that SSPX priests “administer the sacraments and the sacrament of Penance illicitly, and that the marriages assisted by them are invalid”.
The reference to confession deserves particular attention because it marks an important change in the Society’s position. Unlike the question of schism, the validity of absolution depends upon a priest possessing the necessary faculties. During the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy in 2015, Pope Francis granted SSPX priests faculties to hear confessions validly, a concession he later extended indefinitely. Those faculties allowed penitents approaching Society priests to receive valid absolution despite the Society’s irregular canonical status.
The explanatory note now states that SSPX confessions are invalid. Although it does not explicitly revoke the faculties granted by Pope Francis, the conclusion is difficult to avoid. If absolutions are now invalid, the faculties previously granted can no longer be regarded as operative. The issue is therefore distinct from the declaration of schism itself. Confessions become invalid not because a priest is necessarily in schism, but because he lacks the canonical faculties required for valid absolution.
The same principle applies to marriages. The Society’s marriages have long required special canonical provisions because SSPX clergy ordinarily lack the delegation necessary to assist validly at marriages. The new text leaves little room for ambiguity, stating simply that marriages celebrated by Society priests are invalid.
The explanatory note also reveals a marked change in tone from previous Vatican attempts to deal with the SSPX. Even after the 1988 consecrations, Ecclesia Dei adflicta combined firm condemnation with an explicit desire for reconciliation. Successive pontificates maintained that objective. Benedict XVI lifted the bishops’ excommunications in 2009 as a gesture intended to facilitate dialogue, while Pope Francis granted important pastoral concessions regarding confession and marriage despite the Society’s unresolved canonical position.
This latest decree contains the customary appeal for reconciliation, insisting that “the Church, as a loving mother, will welcome with sincere affection and lively solicitude all those who desire to return to full communion”. Apostolic Nunciatures are instructed to facilitate the process.
Another point of interest will be the relationship between the decree and the explanatory note itself. The decree formally declares excommunications against the named individuals involved in the episcopal consecrations. The explanatory note then extends the consequences far beyond those directly named, effectively providing a juridical explanation for why the Society’s clergy generally should now be regarded as schismatics. It offers a practical solution to an otherwise impossible problem: the Holy See cannot realistically issue hundreds of individual decrees against every SSPX priest, so it instead explains that their canonical status follows automatically from the Society’s position.
The explanatory note also raises an interesting canonical question in its treatment of the Society’s priests. It first states that “the sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics”, before concluding that they are consequently subject to the latae sententiae excommunication provided for in Canon 1364 §1. The note therefore appears to declare the priests to be schismatics before stating that they are excommunicated.
Strictly speaking, the Church does not excommunicate people who are already outside the Church in the sense of never being subject to its jurisdiction. Excommunication is a canonical penalty imposed on those who are still juridically members of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the wording is likely to attract scrutiny from canon lawyers because of the order in which those conclusions are presented.
Whether that approach will satisfy all canon lawyers is another matter. Canonical penalties have traditionally required careful precision, and some may question whether a general explanatory note can bear the weight of such sweeping conclusions, even if the penalties themselves are understood to arise ipso facto through the law.
The decree is ultimately a repeat of 1988. However, it appears intended to close any lingering ambiguity about the SSPX’s ecclesial status following years of pastoral concessions and prolonged negotiations.
Whatever the debates that now follow, Thursday’s documents leave little doubt that Rome considers the illicit episcopal consecrations not merely another episode in a long-running dispute, but the decisive point at which the Society crossed a canonical threshold. The explanatory note then sets out the wider consequences for the Society’s priests, its faithful and its sacramental life, making this the most far-reaching Vatican intervention against the SSPX in nearly four decades.
