The Society of St Pius X, without Vatican permission, proceeded with consecrating new bishops on July 1st 2026. This was done under appeal to a "state of necessity" as described in canon law as an exception to normative ecclesial law.
KEY TAKEAWAY: VATICAN HAS TO ENGAGE CONCERNS
In their June 2026 Profession of Faith, the SSPX raised concerns about several "modern errors" harming souls in the Church today, such as: naturalism which attacks the necessity of grace, subjectivism, immutability of dogma, false ecumenism, and liturgical attacks, to name a few.
In moving forward with these bishop consecrations, the SSPX frequently referenced the Code of Canon law #1324, which states the penalty of violating a law
"must be diminished or a penance substituted in it's place, if the offence was committed by...one...who acted by reason of necessity. ...in the circumstances mentioned, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae [i.e. automatic] penalty, but may have lesser penalties or penances imposed for the purposes of repentance or repair of scandal.”
That paragraph corresponds to the 1917 Code of Canon law, which says in paragraph 2205:
"Additionally, grave fear, even if it is only relative, necessity, and even grave inconvenience for the most part thoroughly toll a delict, if it concerned a merely ecclesiastical law."
You see in each case the concept of "necessity" can be a deal-breaker in part or entirely when violating a particular ecclesial law.
Because this exceptional circumstance is described in Canon Law, it is reasonable to expect those who opine on the current SSPX situation to account for that exception, given that the SSPX is appealing to it. A large number of commentators have not done so. Pointing out the normative ecclesial laws is insufficient. An analogous situation would be the obligation a child has to obey his parent. This is normative lest the parent issues an immoral or unfulfillable directive, for example. And pointing out the normative law to honor one’s parents minus the existing context would be insufficient to address such a situation.
Ultimately, the SSPX believes their role in preserving Church Tradition and the Traditional Liturgy is one of serving souls. On May 12, 2026, the SSPX explained how even in the current pontificate, Cardinal Roche wrote that allowing the TLM was a "concession that in no way envisioned its promotion." The SSPX lamented this as one of the Church hierarchy's "modern errors" and therefore it is:
"more necessary than ever to allow the maximum number of souls to benefit from the treasures of Tradition and, given its worldwide expansion, two bishops aged nearly 70 are no longer sufficient to meet the expectations of all the faithful and seminarians."
The problem is neither the Vatican nor the Pope have confronted this the SSPX argument that they are in a state of necessity to proceed with the ordinations. The closest the Vatican has come to addressing the SSPX's contention is an invitation to "dialogue" about what the SSPX is required to believe – not, apparently, to address the SSPX’s concerns about the state of the Church in lieu of Vatican II or otherwise.
Some have criticized the SSPX because they are not the sole order promoting the Traditions they seek to restore to commonplace. Other societies or orders include the ICKSP or the Canons Regular. Yet, given the SSPX’s desire to serve the “maximum number of souls” with Traditional Rites and culture, this criticism falls short that would require the SSPX to be the only such society in order to justify consecrations.
SSPX-VATICAN RECENT TIMELINE
Let's look at a general timeline of key events.
A February 8, 2026 statement by the SSPX seminary director stated:
"[O]ur Superior General requested an audience with the Pope several months ago. But alas, this audience has still not been granted. He has written several letters to the Pope and, so far, the only response he has received from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is a negative one."
The SSPX requests for meeting with the Pope extend back several years.
Finally, they were able to meet with Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Fernandez is known for a number of scandalous sexual writings in his past and more recently his heretical opinion endorsing the blessing of same-sex "couples" as “couples” in his work Fiducia Supplicans and since.
On February 12, Fernandez met with the superior general of the SSPX, Fr. Davide Pagliarani. After the meeting, Fernandez invited the SSPX for further "dialogue." Fernandez mentioned that they discussed "certain points" that the SSPX had brought up as far back as 2017, such as the "question of the divine will regarding the plurality of religions." He said "the aim of this dialogue is to highlight, in the topics under discussion, the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church..."
Pagliarani responded within a week, rejecting this invitation to "dialogue" on several grounds. Among them are that Fernandez allegedly told them no text of the Vatican II council can be corrected nor the legitimacy of the liturgical reform challenged. Another reason Pagliarani gave is the Vatican’s desire to now "dialogue" instead of approving the consecrations and still offering dialogue. Pagliarani stated: "We have been waiting for seven years... only when episcopal consecrations are mentioned that an offer to resume dialogue is made, which thus seems dilatory and conditional." He also mentioned that Fernandez included publicly made "threats" of schism as part of his communication inviting dialogue. Pagliarani also noted that what is the "minimum requirement" to be believed has already been established in Tradition and isn't something their dialogue can re-evaluate.
Later, Fernandez addressed the SSPX on May 13, 2026 in a 2-paragraph message saying the SSPX "do not have the requisite papal mandate" to ordain bishops.
The communication still lacked engagement with the SSPX's concerns about the Vatican Council or otherwise; nothing about their claim to "state of necessity" to ordain bishops; and no engagement with the SSPX's larger concerns about the state of the Church or "modern errors." Fernandez's statement merely says no, and does not provide any theological satisfaction as to why. A sound confrontation with grievances issued by the SSPX in a manner transparent to the entire Church could have gone a long way. If the Vatican had good reason to deny the episcopal consecrations, it would have been edifying for the entire Church to see that laid out.
For his part, Pope Leo has been mostly silent. During an informal media Q&A, the Pope said, "[The SSPX] refuse to accept some fundamental elements of the Church, beginning with several points of the Second Vatican Council." Yet, he offered no specifics on what these “fundamental” points of the Second Vatican Council are.
On June 29, two days prior to the consecrations, the Pope issued a short letter to the SSPX. He neither engaged with any of the SSPX's concerns. He merely asked them to not commit a "schismatic act" and to "please turn back."
EXCOMMUNICATION IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH
July 1 came and went and the Vatican quickly issued a statement that the SSPX members were excommunicated and considered schismatic. https://wherepeteris.com/decree-of-excommunication-for-the-sspx/
Even after Fernandez declared the SSPX excommunicated, he issued a statement meant for any priests and lay faithful with the SSPX. Fernandez's statement included the command to "accept the Second Vatican Council." Many have observed: what exactly does that even mean?
There has been no public communication from the Vatican as to why the SSPX request to ordain bishops was denied, nor what these mysterious fundamentals of the Second Vatican Council are that apparently contradict the SSPX's June statement of faith?
It's also worth noting that then-Cardinal Ratzinger, prior to his election as Pope Benedict XVI, said of Vatican II:
"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of “super-dogma” which takes away the importance of all the rest."
What are we to do with that fact? If Vatican II defined no dogma, then what "fundamental" "points" does it uniquely contain that are apparently so important as to be held lest one risk excommunication?
The SSPX issued a lengthy Profession of Faith in June. If parts of that Profession contradicted Church teaching - whether articulated through Vatican II or otherwise - what were those objectionable parts, according to Fernandez? He never addresses the question.
The faithful are left with three main options here:
One, is to speculate what "points" in the documents of the Second Vatican Council rise to the level of dogmatic requirement of belief? - points that evidentally escaped the notice of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI who said the council issued no dogmas?
Second, is to adopt a cynical belief and presume Fernandez (and the Pope by permission) seek to stifle the ministry of a traditional society to protect the very modernist path the SSPX says is poisoning the Church.
Third, is to acknowledge the complexities of the whole scandal and let the matter play out without drawing any consequential conclusions.
DAMAGE TO VATICAN'S MORAL AUTHORITY
This lack of theological engagement by the Pope and Vatican officials is significant, particularly when the last two pontificates have so frequently pushed the concept of "synodality" and "dialogue" with everyone on the planet, but not the SSPX. It’s hard to accuse the SSPX of avoiding dialogue when they waited unsuccessfully for several years for papal engagement, issued lengthy detailed theological positions, and were met almost entirely with silence or vague denials.
So the situation the Church is now in, with relation to the SSPX, is that this order and it's members merit decrees of excommunication and schism, but not bishops who promote "LGBT" or who even call to "bless" same-sex "couples" as does Cardinal Fernandez – the very man who is supposed to uphold the doctrines of the Church. We are told the SSPX merits excommunication but not the bishops in China who the rest of the world understands as appointed by the state government. Even this past week a bishop with heretical views on sexuality was appointed bishop of a new ordinary in Germany.
Crisis Magazine Editor Eric Sammons - in an article condemning the SSPX for breaking unity with the Pope - still recognized the Vatican's hypocrisy:
"Popes meet with every heretical Christian leader on the planet, with promoters of immorality, and with degenerate Hollywood celebrities, but not with the head of a thriving, growing community within its ranks. All because the community supposedly doesn’t “accept Vatican II” (a sin the Vatican will not actually define). If only the Vatican had been so bold over the years in disciplining Catholics who rejected Vatican II’s condemnation of birth control (Gaudium et Spes 51) or the Council’s defense of the necessity of the Church for salvation (Lumen Gentium 14)."
In their untoward treatment of the SSPX, or even other traditionalists in recent years, while cozying up to numerous persons or groups promoting immorality and outright heresy (like the recent female in the Anglican Church pantomiming as a "bishop"), Vatican officials have been sterilizing their moral authority. Henceforth, some form of "why didn’t you treat the SSPX this generously?" will accompany Vatican officials' future collaborations with anti-Catholic parties.
This decree of schism and excommunication is particularly vexing coming from Fernandez because in October 2025, Fernandez censored the title of "Co-redemptrix" for Our Lady because, according to him, "When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful." Yet, here is Fernandez's decree of schism and excommunication, accompanied by zero explanation, no engagement with the SSPX's concerns, leaving the faithful unclear as to what parts of Vatican II rise to the level of dogma in contradistinction with the SSPX's statement of faith, etc. Under this vague nebula, Fernandez declared a religious order schismatic and excommunicated.
Remember, the only hint Fernandez provided as to why the SSPX is excommunicated and schismatic is that they don’t “accept” unspecified points of Vatican II. Yet, there are plenty of statements from the documents of the Second Vatican Council that many priests disobey, including the Vatican itself at times.
For example, Vatican II confirmed that salvation only exists through the Catholic Church, yet in September 2024, Pope Francis famously said, “Every religion is a way to arrive at God.”
Sacrosanctum Consilium #36 states: "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." Yet the Vatican hasn't remotely enforced this directive.
Nowhere does Vatican II call for ad populum posture when the priest says mass facing the congregation, instead of ad orientum as he had for centuries.
One criticism of the SSPX that some traditionalists are making is the timing of the SSPX's consecrations. For example, Dr. Taylor Marshal expressed reservations "about the prudence of doing this this early in the pontificate of Pope Leo." Other traditionalists hedged there criticism as well. In his Crisis Magazine article, Eric Sammons said the SSPX should not have done the consecrations because it set them against the Pope, the source of unity in the Church, however, he said, "I think the pope should have approved the episcopal consecrations in an act of mercy and reconciliation."
What many of the faithful would like to have seen is the Pope or his Vatican representative present a thorough engagement with the SSPX's concerns, to handle the matter with full transparency, in a manner easy to understand.
IS THE DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION AND SCHISM AGAINST THE SSPX VALID?
There are at least 3 perspectives on this question.
The first argument is YES - that the decree of excommunication and schism against the SSPX is valid because it belongs to the office of the Papacy or his representative to wield this jurisdiction. The Vatican holds this position and have declared the SSPX excommunicated automatically for ordaining bishops without papal permission and thus schismatic for disuniting with the Pope on this matter.
This argument is also predicated on the Papacy as the source of unity throughout the centuries. What complicates this position is that the SSPX openly recognizes Pope Leo XIV. The question is whether their disobedience constitutes disunity with the Pope in the sense it has meant throughout the centuries.
The second argument is NO - that the decrees of excommunication and schism against the SSPX are void because the SSPX is said to be innocent of the crimes which they are accused of doing. Prior to the declared excommunication/schism, Monsignor Jaime Mercant Simo, professor and doctor in Thomistic Studes, address the questions this way:
But the "latae sententiae" excommunication will occur, that is, automatic and immediate, right? — From a canonical perspective, yes, but, in my humble opinion, such excommunication will be null; I believe there are sufficient theological and legal-philosophical reasons to conclude this, although I know that a large part of canonists will deny it to me from a purely legalistic viewpoint. However, I think that, in addition to the "state of necessity" being present as the fundamental motive, the "formal reason" for which such a penalty should effectively occur fails, given that there is no objective intention of formal schism nor will a parallel jurisdiction be created, I repeat.
Why isn't it formally [schism]? — Because, for a "perfect schism" to occur, there must be a clear intention to perform a schismatic act and to establish, with the new bishops, a hierarchical jurisdiction parallel to the one existing in the Roman Catholic Church. Now, in this case, neither one nor the other will happen.
After Cardinal Fernandez issued his excommunication and schism decree, a number of canon experts opined that the penalty lacks force. Those holding this view include InfoVaticana and Canon of Shaftesbury - a judicial vicar in a major archdiocese.
The Canon of Shaftesbury amplifies what appears to be a relevant canon in the penal process. Canon 1720 states that in a penal process, the ordinary must "inform the accused of the accusation and the proofs, giving an opportunity for self-defense..." It seems neither of these requirements were met.
Fernandez, as we have mentioned several times above, has issued no detailed rebuttal nor "proof" of what beliefs the SSPX hold that are objectionable. The generic idea that they must "accept the Second Vatican Council" is not-specific enough to be understood and cannot qualify as a "proof" of impropriety. It follows that the SSPX was not afforded an opportunity for self-defense either.
Others, like EWTN canon lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray, have observed that Pope Francis had endorsed the SSPX's faculties to hear confessions and preside over marriages. Cardinal Fernandez's decree claims to have revoked those privileges. However, those faculties require papal reversal given that they were issued by a prior Pope.
Related to this second argument is one posited by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who observes that the Church even unto ancient times did not consider an episcopal consecration made without papal approval a schismatic act. Rather it was disobedience given a suspension.
The third argument is NO - that the decrees of excommunication and schism against the SSPX are void because the one issuing the decree - namely Cardinal Fernandez - is himself a heretic and thus his faculties to issue such a degree were forfeited. This argument would point to something like Fernandez's apparent denial of an objective truth like the objective immorality of same-sex behavior, which he denies in his encouragement to offer a blessing over that objective immorality. Or it could be another of his positions that are considered heretical.
This third argument also appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa 2.2.39, who stated:
"On the other hand, the power of jurisdiction is that which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Such a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably: so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid."
This third argument would have difficulty if Pope Leo formalizes the excommunications while no sound case of heresy was established of him. In any case, it is implausible that the Pope would declare Fernandez heretical at this point, and he would be the most fitting one to do it. If this third argument were true, it would foremost beheld in the eyes of God.
AN AVOIDABLE SCANDAL
This entire scandal could have been avoided on several fronts.
Obviously, the modernist tendencies of the Church have been poisonous for several decades, from liturgical abuses to "cancelled" priests to affronts to dogmatic sexual teaching to contradicting Sacred Tradition. These matters are serious and are the impetus for the SSPX's actions.
Of course, the SSPX, for their part, could have submitted to the Pope's request to not consecrate the bishops, or they could have given the Pope more time, etc. Certainly, the Vatican's failure to give the SSPX a reasonable engagement with problems in the Church today also contributed to any impatience of which the SSPX may be guilty.
The Pope also could have simply approved the SSPX's request for consecrating the bishops. Why was this denied? Because the SSPX had grievances about the trajectory of the Church that were so untenable to Fernandez as to remain unspecified? But that would not explain why Fernandez wouldn't have declared the SSPX schismatic and excommunicated prior to the consecrations. If the Pope (and Fernandez) truly desired the dialogue they claimed to desire, this could have been done just as easily if the SSPX had 4 more or less bishops.
At worst, the Vatican through Fernandez have committed an injustice against the SSPX and the Church throughout centuries of Tradition. At best, the Vatican rightfully sanctioned the SSPX, but their hypocritical in how they treat other clearly heretical clergy is amplified.
Ultimately, the faithful are left with yet another scandal.
