Mexico Trip: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexico

Real Estate for Life:

https://realestateforlife.org/

iCatholic Mobile:

https://www.icatholicmobile.com/

In my last piece, I wrote about the canonical disaster that Tucho created with his pseudo-excommunication of the SSPX, and fraudulent claims about the whole Society as such being in schism. Since it was published, my conclusions have been vindicated in the mainstream. Father Gerald Murray attested to the fact that the priests and laity had not been excommunicated in a segment on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo, and a Canon Lawyer writing for Rorate Caeli explained the same thing.

In addition, they confirmed that not only has the SSPX not been excommunicated and is not in schism, but, technically speaking, the priests still have the faculties that were recognized by Pope Francis. Now, we will leave the notion of supplied jurisdiction aside for now, it is explained in my aforementioned essay.

In any event, for the Society priests to lose their faculties, Pope Leo would have to essentially undo what Francis did, and he will have to do it specifically. That is the law. The Pope can change the law, and he is not bound by it personally (according to most opinions, I believe) but he must govern by it so long as it is still the law.

This creates quite a problem for Leo, which has seemingly been caused by Fernandez.

To put it mildly, the dynamic duo of New Springtime devotees have created an utter train-wreck, and they have humiliated all those commentators who have been claiming for years that the Society was in schism, as well as the reactionaries who jumped online as soon as the Decree was issued to wax sophistically about the new SSPX schism… which doesn’t exist.

Let me explain.

The very fact that Tucho wrote in his Note that the Society was to be consider as schismatic “from now on,” is an admission that before “from now on,” they have not been in schism. Of course, they were not put into schism, as the Note has about as much juridical weight as the weightless PDF it was released in. Nevertheless, it is a clear admission that the Society was not in schism beforehand. And, since it is not in schism now… this means it never has been.

But! How is that possible! Some people on podcasts and blogs have said it was in schism for so long!!

Well, I know that everything on the internet is usually true, but, sadly, in this case, it was not so.

So, first and foremost, can we have an apology for all the slanderous claims that have been made about the Society for years?

Don’t hold your breath; it was always negligent, and maybe even prideful to make judgements about an entire group of people that were not consistent with the Church’s position on said group — so much for “obedience!” — and negligent and prideful people don’t usually eat humble pie.

At any rate, the bind that Leo has been strangled with is even tighter.

You see, Leo threatened in his last-minute email to Don Pagliarani that the sacraments of the SSPX requiring jurisdiction would be invalidated, and Tucho attested to as much in his opinion piece. But, of course that isn’t true — at least not yet — which is the real problem.

If Pope Leo wants to take away the favours granted for the SSPX, he will have to deal with them as his subjects, which will mean they are under his authority… which will mean they are in the Church.

Sure, Fernandez has released the farcical document outlining a path to “return” to the Church, for priests and laity. But, if any priest (and I will be surprised if any do) does take up that offer, the whole Francis-faculty question will be moot in that case anyway. So, what is Leo to do?

Should he come out and release some sort of Motu Proprio — or other such document — officially revoking the favours granted by Francis? And, would that be addressed to the SSPX, which is a recognized body of priests of the Church under his authority? And, would that mean they are part of the Catholic Church that he governs?

Oh boy, that would be very embarrassing for Tucho, because it would be a papal admission of the invalidity of his schism claims.

Now, in theory, maybe Pope Leo wants to actually go nuclear and seek to officially smash the SSPX in some astonishing way. Well, if that were to happen, to my mind, it would only be more evidence that the so-called Conciliar Church (a term coined by the Vatican in the 70s, by the way) is even more off the rails that we thought. Also, it will still be evidence that basically everything Fernandez recently did was legal fiction.

And, while I can’t go into it here, it would be such an absurd act that it would seem like the poor man had gone mad, and mad Popes can’t make sound decisions, no matter how many times you scream “OBEDIENT” in capslock in comments sections.

Kyrie Eleison

On July 2, 2026, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released two documents concerning the previous day’s episcopal consecrations by the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX): a Decree and an accompanying Explanatory Note (Note). Commentary since has treated the two as a single act, as though the DDF had excommunicated six bishops, seven hundred priests, and an unknown number of laity in one stroke. It did not.

Fernandez and company released a set of documents outlining the procedure for not only SSPX clerics, but members of the faithful to “return to full communion” with the Church. We will discuss that at the end of this and how it is as dubious, if not legally flaccid, as the Decree and the Note.

Read against the actual canons the Code supplies for the imposition and declaration of penalties, the Decree does one thing and the Note does another, and only the Decree has any penal teeth at all, questions about the validity of the penalties notwithstanding, which will be dealt with elsewhere, and are outside the scope of this essay.

So, did this particular act, as drafted, actually do what many assume it did? The answer, canon by canon, is no.

Before we continue, this essay is strictly concerned with the legal, rather the illegal, reality before us, and is not an apologetic for the Society as such. I have done that, and will continue to do that, in other writings. But, here we are concerned merely with the legal question and will attempt to deal with it on the firm foundation of the Code of Canon Law.

Yes, I am biased and in favour of the SSPX, but a man who loves something will defend that thing. If my reasoning stands, then it stands, regardless of what you think about me or the Society.

Some may retort that I am not a Canon Lawyer — this is true — but the Code of Canon Law (Code) is not a gnostic document which requires special powers to unlock. It is logical, formulaic, and there is a wealth of canonical information available for anyone to read. In addition, I have consulted relevant experts for the sake of writing this, and they will remain anonymous for the sake of their professional credibility in their work as Canon Lawyers.

Also, in each section, I will ensure to provide the most accessible explanations in layman’s terms possible to ensure that the general reader can understand.

“Nolite timere! Codex vere est amicus vester!” “Do not be afraid! The Code is truly your friend! Or at least it’s supposed to be!”

What the Decree Actually Does

Six men are named in the Decree: the four bishops consecrated on July 1, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta as the principal consecrator, and Bishop Fellay as the co-consecrator. The charge against the four newly consecrated bishops rests on can. 1387, which governs episcopal consecration without pontifical mandate:

“A bishop who consecrates some person a bishop without a pontifical mandate, and the person who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”

The canon, strictly speaking, binds the consecrator and the one consecrated, under the same penalty. Fellay, however, is charged only under can. 1364 §1, the general schism provision:

“An apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

So, according to the Code, consecration of bishops without a mandate is a penalty worthy of excommunication, and, notably, the Code does not de facto apply the penalty of schism for such an act. It is the opinion of Fernandez that this act is inherently schismatic, which follows the logic of John-Paul II who wrote in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta (which is referenced as source material for the decision in the Note):

“In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.”

As will be seen below, it has not been the practice of the Church for almost 40 years to actually consider the priests and bishops of the SSPX as schismatic, and it is dubious to suggest that a single act of canonical disobedience to the Pope would constitute the offence of schism. Disobeying an order or command does not entail the rejection of the Roman primacy; it is merely disobedience, and the act must be judged on its own merit, because it is not the case that a single act of disobedience to any authority, even the Pope, is indicative of a fundamental rejection of said authority. John-Paul II seems to understand this, yet ignores it. He admits that it is an act of disobedience inherently, then makes a logical leap to a conclusion not found in the premise that a practical rejection of the “Roman primacy” is implied.

Notice the language used, “rejection of the Roman primacy.” That is a very grave accusation and goes beyond the scope of the act. The canon used to describe the sin of schism is can. 751, which states: “...Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Storied Canon Lawyer, Father Denzil Meuli, now deceased, once commented on this phenomenon:

“The relevant canon is 751. The defining word in that canon is detrectatio, by which is meant a refusal of all submission. It is precisely this all-encompassing rejection which differentiates schism from disobedience.”

The Latin term detrectatio has been adopted by the Church because of its perennial meaning, which is rooted in usage referring to things like refusing or retreating from military service, or formally stepping away from a principled belief.

In laymen’s terms, it is the difference between saying, “No” to a commanding officer and leaving the military dishonourably; or, saying in a particular circumstance that a principle does not bind due to the conflict with a higher principle, and giving up the principle entirely.

John-Paul II, if he were a military commander, would seem to have assumed that saying “No” was equivalent to going AWOL. Or, that saying to the Holy Father, “I believe in your authority, but I cannot do this thing that you have asked me to do, or must do this thing you have asked me not to do,” is equivalent to saying, “You have no power over me.”

This is how a Marxist Despot rules, and is not how the Successor of Saint Peter is supposed to act.

Importantly, both canons describe latae sententiae penalties, meaning penalties incurred automatically by the act itself. But an automatic penalty and a declared penalty are not the same thing, and the difference matters enormously for what follows.

The Mechanism for Declaring a Latae Sententiae Penalty

Two Entirely Different Things Happening in Canon Law

1. Incurring a penalty ipso facto (de facto, “automatically”)

A latae sententiae penalty is one that attaches to the person the moment he commits the delict, by the force of the law itself, with no human intervention required. All of this assumes the person is guilty in the first place.

Can. 1314 explains the distinction:

“A penalty is usually ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until it has been imposed; it is latae sententiae, however, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed, if the law or precept expressly establishes this.”

So the moment a bishop consecrates another bishop without pontifical mandate, if all the conditions of can. 1387 and the imputability requirements of cann. 1323-1324 are actually met in that man’s particular case; the excommunication exists. It exists in the internal forum.

This is similar to how we view law in civil society, or general morality for that matter, as when one, for example, steals bread, we would consider him to be guilty of theft, but he still must be dealt with by the courts, assuming he is apprehended, to see if he is actually guilty of a crime when taking the logic of the law into account.

We would do well to follow Thomas Aquinas to understand how one can commit a crime in one instance, but the same action by the same man or a different man in a different setting would not constitute a crime.

The following consideration is based on the Summa Theologiae, Secunda Secundae (II-II), Question 66, Article 7: “Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need?”

In extreme necessity, all things become common. There is a difference between ordinary circumstances and extraordinary circumstances wherein there is a grave necessity.

He writes:

“If the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.”

The logic is that human ordinances (like property law) — Canon Law is human law, and not divine, or eternal — cannot derogate from natural or divine law, and that positive law regarding property was instituted to serve human need, not override it in cases of necessity:

“Whatever certain persons have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor... Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent...”

He comments further:

“It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another’s property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need.”

The passages from Aquinas demonstrate that an act itself does not make someone guilty of a crime associated with that act generally. The only exception would be in cases where the act is intrinsically evil. The consecration of bishops without a mandate is not intrinsically evil, or schismatic, as the historical record attests. For a detailed explanation on how a State of Necessity could apply, which is not discussed in depth here, can be read here.

Whether or not a man is truly guilty of a crime covered under a latae sententiae censure is not known to the public at the time of the act, and is only fully known to God and perhaps, imperfectly, in the man’s conscience. Canonically, it has not yet been established as a matter of external, binding record for anyone else, including the man himself in the external forum, including the Church’s own governance.

2. The penalty being declared

Declaration requires: notification of the accused, an actual opportunity to answer the charge and raise defenses (including the exempting circumstances of 1323-1324 — ignorance, fear, necessity, and so on), a finding of certainty about both the external act and its imputability, and a decree stating the reasons in fact and in law. Only after this has it become binding as a matter of external ecclesiastical record, invocable by third parties, enforceable in practice, and listed in official acts.

Now, the Code does not leave the declaration of an already-incurred censure to an informal announcement. Can. 1720 sets out the procedure an Ordinary must follow to move from “this penalty exists in law” to “this penalty is now a matter of binding external record”:

“If the Ordinary considers that the matter must proceed by extrajudicial decree: he is to inform the accused of the accusation and the proofs, giving an opportunity for self-defense... he is to weigh carefully all the proofs and arguments with two assessors... if the delict is certain and the criminal action is not extinguished, he is to issue a decree, expressing at least summarily the reasons in law and in fact.”

Can. 1341 supplies the governing principle behind this caution:

“An ordinary must take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has ascertained that fraternal correction, rebuke, or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, and reform the offender.”

Nothing comparable was done for the priests of the Society or for the laity attached to it.

We could argue the same is the case for how the Bishops were warned, because a couple of short, vague public statements, and an invitation to “dialogue” which is not a legal mechanism, are insufficient.

Regarding the priests, no accusation was communicated to each man individually; no opportunity for defence was offered; no decree “expressing the reasons in law and in fact” was issued naming any of the more than seven hundred by name. What exists instead, for everyone outside the six, is the Note.

As we will see below, the Note does absolutely nothing, legally speaking.

The Practical Importance of These Distinctions Regarding the Priests of the SSPX

According to can. 1331 §1, a person who has received, legitimately, such a penalty is: barred from the sacraments, from exercising office, from ecclesiastical acts of governance.

Now, for the faithful, can. 1335 §2 is vital:

“If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the restriction is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just reason.”

The notion of “just reason” is open-ended. Wanting to go to Heaven is probably the most just reason you can have to do anything in this life. So, wanting to avoid heresy, to ensure sacramental validity, worship God reverently, and participate in the sacred traditions of your ancestors since time immemorial are all just reasons. In fact, even John-Paul II would agree, when he called the attachment that many Catholics have to the traditions of the Church “rightful aspirations” in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, 5c. “Rightful” is a synonym for “just”, and, in fact, “rightful” is narrower, and “just” is broader. Ergo, following John-Paul II’s logic, it is “just” in nature to desire even more than is listed in this regard in the aforementioned document, which only speaks of liturgical and disciplinary traditions. It is therefore just to seek out more than that, namely, the perennial doctrine of the Church, which is hard to come by in the normal parish.

So, an undeclared latae sententiae censure — even a real one, even one that genuinely exists in the internal order — does not stop the faithful from validly and licitly requesting the sacraments from the censured minister, for any just cause.

The same objective fact — a man has incurred excommunication — produces radically different practical and canonical consequences depending on whether it has crossed from the first category into the second. This, of course, assumes validity in the first place.

Why the Note Cannot Do What Is Being Claimed For It

The Code recognizes a limited set of instruments by which the Church binds: law (cann. 7-22, 29ff.), general executory decree (cann. 31-33), singular decree, penal precept (can. 1319), judicial sentence, or declaratory decree under can. 1720. An explanatory note fits none of these categories. It was not promulgated as law. It carries no executory clause. It does not purport to be a penal precept threatening a specific penalty for a specific future act. It is, as its own title says, explanatory: a doctrinal gloss accompanying the Decree, not an independent juridical act.

This distinction is vitally important. Can. 18 requires strict interpretation of anything that establishes a penalty or restricts the free exercise of rights:

“Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.”

Strict interpretation does not mean what it sounds like in colloquial speech. When we think of something being “strict,” we generally think of being heavy-handed. In the canonical tradition, the opposite meaning is understood. Meaning, we have to adhere strictly to what something says, legally speaking, and cannot extend beyond the scope of the law. And, since a Note is not a legal function, we cannot apply its meaning, as if it were law, to the Decree.

This means:

• The law means exactly what it says, no more and no less.

• Penalties apply only in the cases explicitly covered.

• Any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the accused/restricted party, not against them.

• Excusing circumstances must be presumed operative unless positively proven otherwise.

This is the direct opposite of the instinct to read penal canons broadly and extend their application by inference or analogy.

In the case of the SSPX, for example, this means that any talk of schism or excommunication can only apply to those specifically named in a particular ruling, and not extend to all those associated with the Society, if even the Note says otherwise. And, unless it can be proven that excusing circumstances do not apply, they must be presumed to be operative. So, when we consider that Canons 1323–1325 provide guidance on how one could be exempt specifically from penalties associated with the unapproved consecrations of bishops, we must allow for those exemptions, even if we do not agree with them personally. If we fail to do so, we are not consistently following the logic of the Code and the Church’s canonical norms.

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that John-Paul II’s or Cardinal Fernandez’s assessment were correct by the letter of the law, that does not constitute the whole story, legally speaking. The situation in 1988, and the present Decree are limited in scope and do not tell the whole story.

• They judge a particular act — the consecrations themselves — not a category of persons.

• They do not judge the Society as an institution to be in schism. In each case, it is only stated as a fact taken for granted, that formally adhering to an undeclared schism would be sinful. To extend his judgment to cover “the SSPX” or “all who attend SSPX Masses” is to make a judgment that is illegal — and to make oneself, in effect, a greater judge than the legislator or the Code.

• They do not address the excusing clauses. Canons 1323 through 1325 provide a substantial list of circumstances — including necessity, fear, and even incorrectly but sincerely believed necessity — that would eliminate or reduce the canonical penalty. The documents do not mention these canons, which means the judge did not rule them inapplicable. Under the principle of strict interpretation (Canon 18), if the judge did not explicitly exclude the excusing clauses, they cannot simply be assumed to have been ruled out.

Now, we should also mention, that in 1988, the Motu Proprio released by John-Paul II was not actually the Decree that expressed excommunication of the bishops involved. That Decree was released on July 1, 1988, by Cardinal Gantin, and is essentially identical to the one released July 2, 2026, in that it names the bishops, and warns the priests and laity. John-Paul II’s letter was, in essence, his own Note, yet more extensive and verbose. We have been referencing John-Paul II’s Motu Proprio for context, since it is referenced numerous times in the present Note, and most people are more familiar with it.

When a penal canon is at issue, the excusing clauses are not optional considerations. The law must be understood as a whole, and rulings cannot arbitrarily ignore relevant legal principles. A judge who applies a penalty without addressing whether the excusing circumstances exist has rendered an incomplete judgment — he has not disposed of the whole case.

Not uncommon amongst general commentary on the Society situation is something like this: “The pope (or in this case, the cardinal) didn’t say the excusing circumstances applied, therefore they don’t apply.” However, from a canonical perspective, this is backwards. Under strict interpretation of penal laws, the burden runs the other direction entirely. The excusing circumstances are presumed operative unless they are positively proven not to apply. If a judge is silent, this does not constitute an elimination of the principles related to the circumstances. Therefore, if the judge remains silent on them, the question of whether they apply remains open.

The Grammar of the Two 2026 Documents Is Damning

Now, there are inconsistencies that are genuinely damaging to the Dicastery’s own position; they deserve consideration, because they may actually nullify aspects of the Decree as such.

The Decree, addressing itself to the wider body of clergy and faithful attached to the Society, does not tell them they are excommunicated. It warns them. Read it carefully.

The formula used is that those who adhere to the schism would incur, ipso facto, the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae. In case you are wondering if this is a mistranslation, it is not. In Italian, it says incorrerebbero, which means “would incur.” I am fluent in Italian, and I can attest to this meaning.

Grammatically, this is a conditional protasis pointed at a future, eventual act: if you do this thing, this is what will follow. It refers to the “if” clause in a conditional statement that sets up a condition (e.g., “If it rains,” in the sentence “If it rains, the game is canceled”).

It is the language of a warning sign, not a verdict. The penalty is being held out as a consequence that attaches to conduct not yet judged to have occurred, or at least not yet judged in the form the Code requires.

Translation: there has been no judgment that the priests have incurred the excommunication, which, in any event, cannot be declared under these circumstances to a group of people as such, because each one has to be named.

The Note, issued the same day, under the same heading, over the same signatures, does not use this language at all. It shifts without explanation into the indicative and the present: the ministers of the Society are in schism, and must be considered schismatics, subject to a censure already provided by law.

So, the Note takes the Decree and extends the penalties, which do not exist in the case of the priests, to the whole group of priests as such, yet they are not condemned in the Decree, and the Note cannot condemn them. It is a legal fiction, and a vile one at that.

We have two texts from one date with one set of signatures that present incompatible grammar and contradict one another. The Note condemns where the Decree does not, yet the Note cannot condemn at all. So, the head of the DDF is telling the world, in a document that can do no such thing, that more than seven hundred men have been excommunicated, when they have not been, according to his own Decree.

This is insanity.

Can. 18 tells us how to resolve a contradiction of exactly this kind. Where the two texts disagree, the resolution must favour the instrument that actually possesses penal form, which is the Decree, and it must favour the narrower reading, which is the conditional. A note cannot, by asserting something as already true, retroactively convert a warning about future conduct into a declaration of present censure; that would be extending a penal provision by inference, which is precisely what strict interpretation forbids.

Furthermore, any talk of the laity being excommunicated because of what is said in the Decree is also fiction.

You Cannot Excommunicate a Group This Way

Even if we were to assume that a Note could do what it cannot do, a latae sententiae excommunication is never incurred by class membership.

Can. 1321 §1 makes gravely imputable violation, by malice or culpability, the condition for any penalty binding at all:

“No one can be punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.”

In laymen terms, we should understand this logic how we understand our basic catechism that we teach to children for their first Holy Communion: for something to be gravely sinful, if the action is not intrinsically evil, there must be ill intent to do something we know and believe to be wrong, and we must do it freely. In civil law we would speak of mens rea and actus reus in a similar fashion. There must be a guilty mind, and a guilty act.

And cann. 1323-1324 list a long train of circumstances that remove or diminish that imputability: inculpable ignorance of the law or of the attached penalty, grave fear even if only relatively grave, necessity or grave inconvenience, diminished culpability from various causes.

None of this individualized assessment has been made, or could be made, in a document addressed to hundreds of priests at once. Can. 1720’s requirement of accusation, defence, and a case-specific finding “in law and in fact” is not optional when the numbers are large; if anything, the numbers make it more indispensable, not less. This is because an excommunication of almost a thousand clerics is a very grave matter, and it is untenable and, quite frankly, diabolical, to attempt to do so in a haphazard way that makes a mockery of the Law of the Church.

It is a disgrace.

The Note Itself Argues Against Automatic Lay Excommunication

The 2026 Note leans on a 1996 text from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (PCLT) addressing formal adherence to schism. That text was never raised to the level of authentic interpretation under can. 16 §1, which requires the legislator’s own act or a specific grant of that power; it remains a doctrinal opinion published in the PCLT’s bulletin.

The 1996 text’s content, in any case, cuts against blanket application. It requires a double element: an internal element, a genuinely schismatic will that places private judgment above obedience to the Roman Pontiff, and an external element, some act that manifests that will. Mere attendance at Society Masses, without embracing the underlying disciplinary rupture as one’s own, does not suffice; the PCLT text insists that each case be judged individually. A 2026 Note that imports these conditions cannot simultaneously produce the automatic, collective result being attributed to it.

Cardinal Fernández’s language that the Dicastery “makes its own” the 1996 text does not make any difference, because the Code is specific about what it takes to convert a document into binding law, and adopting a thirty-year-old opinion by reference does not suffice.

Can. 7 states the first requirement plainly: “A law is established when it is promulgated.”

Can. 8 §1 explains how this works: universal laws of the Church are promulgated by publication in the official Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and take effect only after the vacatio legis the canon prescribes, unless the law itself provides otherwise. An explanatory note published in a PDF, referencing an older document, is not a promulgation in this sense; nothing in the Decree or the Note purports to promulgate the 1996 text as universal law, and the ordinary channel for doing so was never used.

Vacatio legis, in the canonical system, means that after a law has been promulgated in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, a period of, generally, three months is required before it becomes binding, to ensure that it is properly known before it can bind the Church. Fernandez attempted to do this in the time it takes to send an email.

Can. 29 provides further clarification, since it governs the only category of instrument by which an executive dicastery could bind a “community capable of being governed by law” the way the Note attempts:

“General decrees are norms which are established for a community capable of being governed by law, by which the community itself is regulated.”

What This Means

A “general decree” is one of the specific instruments the Code recognizes for binding a community, sitting alongside — but distinct from — universal law proper. Three elements define it:

1. It’s issued for a community capable of being governed by law — not a single individual, but a defined group with the juridic capacity to be subject to legislation (a diocese, a religious institute, the universal Church, etc.).

2. It regulates that community as such — it lays down a general, common norm applying to everyone in the community by virtue of their membership in it, not a ruling addressed to a particular case or a particular person.

3. It is governed by the canons on laws — this is the operative consequence. Can. 29 doesn’t create a separate, looser category of norm-making; it expressly subjects general decrees to the same rules that govern laws. That means everything already discussed applies: promulgation (can. 7-8), the requirement of competent legislative authority, non-retroactivity absent express provision (can. 9), strict interpretation where penal or restrictive (can. 18), and so on.

So, to go after the whole group, they would have to essentially have them established as a juridically recognized body, and then take action following these norms. Again, if they want to excommunicate all of them, they have to do it the right way, or they don’t do it at all. That is, if they care about the law, which is not obvious.

Furthermore, if they were a juridically recognized group within the Church, then any talk of schism since 1988 would be even more laughable than it already is. In addition, to speak of them as being excommunicated and put into schism now, makes the claim that they have already been in schism just as laughable, as you cannot “kick out” someone who is not already in.

I will wait for all the commentators who have been crying “schism” for decades to issue apologies. Although I will probably be waiting longer for that than Maple Leaf fans have been waiting for a Stanley Cup.

In any event, can. 30 supports and adds a significant limitation:

“One who possesses only executive power is not able to issue the general decree mentioned in can. 29, unless in particular cases the competent legislator has expressly granted this power to him and the conditions established for the exercise of that power have been observed.”

The DDF possesses executive and doctrinal competence, not legislative competence; nothing in the Note recites a specific grant of legislative power from the Roman Pontiff for this act, and can. 30 makes such a grant, not mere reference, the condition for validity.

There is also the deeper structural point that governs how any curial document acquires the Pope’s own authority in the first place. A dicastery document carries the weight of an act of the Roman Pontiff himself only when it is specifically approved by him in forma specifica, meaning the Pope personally makes the content his own act of governance, as opposed to in forma communi, the ordinary approval given to routine business of a dicastery, which leaves the document as an act of the dicastery alone. The Note nowhere claims specifica approval; it claims that the Dicastery, of its own authority, “makes its own” a document from 1996 that was itself never more than a PCLT opinion. Adoption by reference, by a body exercising executive rather than legislative power, without the Pope’s specific personal act and without promulgation in the Acta, produces exactly nothing in the way of new law. It is the Dicastery restating an opinion it finds persuasive, not the Church legislating.

Can. 16 §1, already noted, confirms the same conclusion from the other direction: only the legislator, or one to whom the legislator has specifically granted that power, can authentically interpret a law so as to bind in its application. The Dicastery’s invocation of the 1996 text meets none of these tests, whether analyzed as an attempt at authentic interpretation, at a general decree, or at law simply. Whatever the Note is, it is not law, and Cardinal Fernández’s declaration that the Dicastery embraces its contents does not make it so.

Confessions and Marriages Rest on Different Canons Entirely

The validity of SSPX confessions and marriages does not turn on excommunication as such; it turns on faculty and delegation. Can. 966 §1 requires the faculty to absolve in addition to priestly orders; can. 1108 requires canonical form for marriage, ordinarily supplied through delegation. Both were supplied by papal act: Misericordia et misera n. 12 in 2016 for confession, and the 2017 Ecclesia Dei letter for marriage delegation.

Can. 21 holds that revocation of a prior law is never presumed in doubt, and a dicastery cannot derogate a papal act without specific papal approval to do so. The Note revokes neither grant by name.

Now, the Holy Father may release a document seeking to ratify what Fernandez has released. And, he may specifically revoke the faculties, which would be in keeping with the “Church of Mercy” he intends to continue after his predecessor.

Even if that happens, can. 144’s supplied jurisdiction in common error or positive and probable doubt would rescue the validity of sacraments received by the faithful acting in good faith, a contingency the Note does not so much as mention.

The Church supplies jurisdiction in cases of good-faith doubt or mistake. It can happen that one could entertain positive doubts about the scope or validity of the application of a certain law. A positive doubt occurs when you have a real, reasonable basis for doubt in a given situation. There may be something in a situation that gives a rational person grounds to be unsure. It is also the case that one could have a negative doubt, which is different than a positive doubt. A negative doubt is when one resorts to “what-if” in their consideration of a circumstance. This sort of doubt occurs often in people struggling with scrupulosity. “What if the priest didn’t actually say the right words when he absolved me?” “What if I wasn’t truly sorrowful for my sins and my confession is therefore invalid?” Etc. Negative doubt occurs in an atmosphere of endless hypothetical uncertainty that is not established in observable or verifiable circumstances.

In cases of negative doubt, this is a personal matter that a good priest would attribute either to your own nervousness or the devil, and these doubts should be ignored. However, in the case of positive doubts, we have real, concrete facts that cause uncertainty because something is unresolved, or at least unresolved to us. Where there is a real basis for positive doubt, because something in the life of the Church is unclear or ambiguous — such as the status of the SSPX throughout these decades of endless contradiction and confusion emanating from inconsistent statements about their legality — then what is legally required for something sacramental, like confession, is supplied. This is not meant to be a loophole, but is consistent with the aforementioned principles that ensure the Church governs justly and does not burden her subjects unnecessarily or unfairly.

Simply put, the situation in the Church is an insane mess, and if we will not get clarity or precision from our leaders, we cannot be expected to act in a way that is contrary to reason.

This applies to both priests and laymen. There are reasons for SSPX priests to have positive doubts about the legal status of the SSPX, for the myriad reasons discussed in a thousand places, including this essay, so they must make a choice and act in good conscience for the salvation of souls. In these cases, the Church, acting as a good Mother of souls, supplies the jurisdiction in cases of good-faith doubt, so that the sacrament works as it should for people approaching it sincerely, without requiring them to have resolved every background canonical question first. This is particularly relevant for the Society, considering that even for the priests and bishops, there remain clear and sound reasons for positive doubt, and there will remain such questions even after July 1, 2026, when more bishops are consecrated, because the canonical and doctrinal mess that has precipitated this situation is as far from being resolved as it has ever been.

Common Error is similar to the situation wherein a Positive Doubt exists, although slightly different. When we speak of Common Error, what we mean in the canonical tradition is that the situation is such that, even if one may be in error about a situation, the error about fact or law is such that the average man could hold the same opinion, even if erroneous.

Common Error exists when a normal, reasonable person in that situation would have made the same mistaken judgment. It is not about what you personally believe — it is about what the ordinary person, looking at the same circumstances, would have concluded. The question is not “were you unusually careless?” but “would any reasonable person have read the situation the same way?”

Regarding the Society, it is easy to see how one could be mistaken about a canonical fact, or, about the extent and scope of a law in a given circumstance, due to the nature of the situation. Now, this is not to say that I believe the Society is in error, or knows it is in error but proceeds anyway, but it is only to illustrate that even if it were in error, it is in line with the canonical tradition that, because the situation is confusing — even for high-ranking Churchmen — it is the case that errors can be held by men in good faith with no bad intentions.

Common Error is more for the faithful than for the priests. A concrete example would be if a priest without faculties, even a penalized priest, were to set up on a park bench with a sign saying “Confessions.” The random layman walking by would have no way of knowing what canonical state the priest was in, so the Church would supply the jurisdiction in that case for the good of the penitent. The culpability on behalf of the clergyman is another story, but the penitent needn’t worry.

In the case of the SSPX, the concepts of both Doubt and Common Error are applicable when we consider the history of marriages witnessed by Society priests.

The Precedent of Three Pontificates Backs the Conditional Reading

The 1988 affair supplies what we might call a control case, and it points in the same direction as the grammar of the Decree and the Note. When the Congregation for Bishops remitted the excommunications on January 21, 2009, it remitted them only for the four bishops consecrated that year, the only individuals who had ever actually been declared censured by name. Benedict XVI’s own letter of March 10, 2009, explaining that decision to the world’s bishops, placed the Society’s priests on an entirely different plane: irregular in canonical status, lacking legitimate ministry, but not himself describing them as excommunicated. Three pontificates now, across nearly forty years, have converged on the same restrictive practice: individual, declared censure for the consecrating bishops; a lesser, non-excommunicating irregularity for the priests. A 2026 Note asserting collective, present-tense excommunication of seven hundred clergy is not merely in tension with the Decree issued the same day; it breaks with the Church’s own consistent handling of this exact scenario since 1988.

What the Church Actually Did on July 1

Six men were named in the Decree. Everyone else, named — well merely referred to without name — only in a text that is not a law, not a decree, not a precept, and not a sentence; addressed collectively where the Code demands individual judgment; and silent on the very papal grants that would need to be revoked for the invalidity claims circulating to hold any water.

The Dicastery may yet correct this. A proper declaratory decree, individually addressed, following can. 1720, could still be issued against named priests. It has not been. Until it is, the sweeping claims of mass excommunication are not a conservative or cautious reading of what Rome has done; they are simply not what the text says. And, I am not sure if they have the manpower or the desire to issue either an extremely long decree with more than seven hundred names or more than seven hundred separate decrees, thus opening up almost a thousand potential appeals and rights to defence.

Speaking to a Canon Lawyer friend, he informed me that the Roman courts are backed up beyond belief, so I can’t see this happening any time soon, if ever.

Regarding the Recent Set of Documents Outlining the Procedure for Not Only SSPX Clerics, but Members of the Faithful to “return to full communion” with the Church

As was stated at the outset, we will discuss the recent documents released to supposedly aid priests and members of the faithful in returning to the Church.

Well, we needn’t spend any time doing that. Nothing happened to you, so nothing has changed. You are still simply Catholic, so spend more time praying for Fernandez et al than worrying about legal fictions.

Ultimately, these released documents change virtually nothing, even if read strictly and without any appeal to necessity. So, as they say, it is business as usual.

Kyrie Eleison

Mexico Trip: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexico

Article I wrote:

The principal contention of those sympathetic to the SSPX, but in disagreement with the consecrations of bishops in 2026, is as follows: While in 1988 it could have been argued that a state of necessity for the survival of Catholic Tradition existed, this is not the case today because the Traditional Latin Mass is more accessible, even after Traditionis Custodes, when compared to 1988; and, men who wish to become Traditional Priests do not have to join the SSPX because of the FSSP, and other such groups.

I am paraphrasing the argument, but this is the general gist. Father Gerald Murray, a man I have never met personally, but for whom I have great respect, has made this claim on numerous occasions in interviews. In addition, in my conversations with other Traditionalists, or SSPX sympathizers, who do not share the SSPX’s view that extraordinary consecrations are legitimate in 2026, I have found this sort of line of thinking to be common.

The argument goes further as well, and can be summarized with the following points:

1. In 2026, there are more Bishops, Priests, and laymen devoted to the Traditional Rite than there were in 1988

2. In 2026, there are even Cardinals who celebrate the Old Rite, and there were essentially zero in 1988

3. The general fervour for Vatican II and its ambiguity and errors has largely collapsed, at least compared to the hysteria that enwrapped the Church in 1988

4. More people attend the Old Mass in 2026, and largely because of that, more Mass-attending Catholics are orthodox in belief than in 1988

5. What could be called “Papolatry” has, or is collapsing, and Catholics in general, especially after Pope Francis, are more willing to call foul on the shenanigans coming out of Rome

There are perhaps other points that could be addressed; however, I believe that these will suffice for the purpose of this essay, and, if there are other points, they are likely related to, if not practically identical to the aforementioned points in substance.

Ultimately, it boils down to the notion that, since the Traditional Liturgy is relatively widespread and gaining steam, despite suppression, the State of Necessity no longer exists as it did in 1988. It may be argued by those sympathetic to these points that we are in some way even close to a solution to the current problem, and that the SSPX consecrations may work against that solution being realized.

We will address these below; however, before doing so, it is necessary to lay some groundwork. If we are going to do our job well, we must define terms and ensure that we are thinking with the same definitions, principles, etc. In that spirit, I believe it is necessary to consider what a State of Necessity even is, and if that applies to the case of the SSPX and the consecration of bishops without papal mandate, and, even against the will of the Pope.

Before we continue, some commentators like to quibble about the difference between doing something without permission and doing things when permission is not only absent, but is strictly denied. The thinking goes: it is one thing to do something without permission, but it is worse to do something when you have been told not to.

This line of reasoning is contextual, and the context makes all the difference. A son may do something that he is not normally supposed to do without first asking his father, or he may ask his father, and then after he is told no, he may do it anyway. It could be argued that it is worse to do so without even asking, because he made absolutely no attempt to recognize his father’s authority, whereas, if he asked and his request was negated, it could be argued that he at least showed his principle subjection to his father’s rule. What would validate or invalidate his actions would be whether going against his father’s will, passively or actively, was warranted due to a necessity.

What is a State of Necessity?

Father Jean-Michel Gleize summarizes State of Necessity:

“A state of necessity is an extraordinary situation in which the necessaries of natural or supernatural life are threatened in such a way that to safeguard them one finds oneself habitually obliged to break the law. Now, law is essentially intended by legislators to procure these necessaries to their subjects. In the Church, the whole edifice of ecclesiastical law is by definition ordered to the preaching of the doctrine of faith and the administration of the sacraments.[5] If the application of the law goes against the end of the law intended by the legislators, it is no longer legitimate because selfcontradictory. The subjects can and must take no notice of it in order to obtain the end of the law despite the authorities who apply the law contrary to the law.”

Admittedly, this poignant and concise summary is likely jarring to some readers, especially if we come from predominantly Anglo-Liberal nations, like America, Canada, etc. We have imbibed, to varying degrees, the sickness of Legal Positivism, which is essentially the notion that the Legislator makes the law, so it must be lawful. This mentality has arisen in modern times saturated with Revolution, and we are not accustomed to thinking otherwise. However, in the received European Tradition, which is still more active in some European mentalities, there is much more nuance. We may think of the maxim uttered by men like Saint Thomas Aquinas and others, which states, “An unjust law is no law.”

Premodern thinkers could understand this easily because they could understand the distinction between the law, which has been promulgated in a code of law and the Law, as in the metaphysical principle that guides legislation. For example, it is not unlawful, morally speaking, to have some sort of taxation. However, if it so happens that laws about taxation become so burdensome that citizens cannot afford their basic necessities if they pay their taxes, then the law is sufficiently unjust to be no law at all.

The law is meant to govern a society, spiritual or religious, so that it can obtain its end, which must include the common good of the subjects. So, an unjust law truly is no law at all, because it does not function as a law should and works against its purpose.

This should be common sense, and while it is easily understandable in theory, it is harder for many to accept in practice. This is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to the consecration of bishops by the SSPX.

Now, the perennial understanding of Necessity applies to all societies of people, both secular and religious. It is easy enough for us to understand in the secular sphere, but how might we understand it in the religious sphere?

When assessing the theological tradition, we see five degrees of necessity:

1. Ordinary (or common) spiritual necessity is that in which any sinner finds himself in ordinary circumstances;

2. Grave spiritual necessity is that when a soul finds herself threatened in spiritual goods of great importance (e.g., faith and morals);

3. Spiritual necessity almost extreme is the status of a soul which, without someone else’s help, could be rescued only with great difficulty;

4. Extreme spiritual necessity is that status of a soul is situated which, without the help of someone else, could not be able to be saved or would be able to do so with such difficulty that her salvation would be considered morally impossible;

5. Grave general (or public) spiritual necessity is that when several souls find themselves threatened in spiritual goods of great importance (e.g., faith and morals). Canonists and theologians commonly adduce as examples of grave general or public spiritual necessity epidemics and the public spreading of a heresy.1

Now, a state of Spiritual Necessity is more urgent than a state of Material Necessity, because spiritual goods are higher and more vital than material goods. This is easily understandable if we consider parenting: if a father is a poor material provider but provides his children with the Faith and a good education, we would say he is a better father than a man who provides material wealth and comfort, but without the spiritual and metaphysical formation. Ideally, a father could provide both, but the material will always be secondary. Furthermore, we could say that a moral and religious society that serves Christ the King is superior to a wealthy society that is indifferent to Christ.

If we assess the degrees listed above, it should be easy to see that the fifth degree fits our present situation.

Notice how it is not necessary that all souls be deprived of requisite spiritual goods, but only that it is public or common. Can we say with a straight face that the spreading of heresy is not common today, and has not been for decades? I believe it is unnecessary to point out the myriad examples of spiritual deprivation in our day, but perhaps a paragraph summarizing the situation could suffice.

We live in an age of universal (meaning, in all places) spiritual deprivation. Liturgically, catechetically, educationally, and even legislatively, if we consider the effete and ineffective application of the law in the Church. Every Pope since John-Paul II has made public displays of Ecumenism that were universally regarded as condemnable before Vatican II (compare Assisi and the Pachamama event to Mortalium Animos, for example). The present head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has a history of writing what should be called theological erotica. The former head of the DDF, Cardinal Muller, seems to have denied, at least materially, perennial dogmas about the Blessed Mother.2 Pope Francis okayed the reception of Holy Communion by couples in an objective state of mortal sin. And, practically speaking, parents the world over experience great difficulty in raising their children in the Faith because of the general state of parishes. Furthermore, Mass attendance is abysmal globally (even in Africa, it is not as you may think, at least in many countries), and statistics show us that the majority of Catholics do not believe basic dogmas like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Again, this is all public knowledge, and I assume the reader of this publication will be aware of this and more.

What Must be Done?

Given what we have read thus far and what we already know, we must now consider how we ought to respond to a bona fide State of Grave Public Spiritual Necessity.

We would do well to consider the teachings of numerous Popes.

1. St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907)

Pius X warned that modernism had penetrated even “the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself,” threatening “the foundations of the faith itself.” He wrote: “The danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her.” And crucially, he defined Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies” because it seeks to “lay the axe not to the branches and shoots but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibres,” so that “there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched.”

2. Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae (1890)

This encyclical is the richest magisterial source for the duty that arises from this condition. Leo XIII taught that “when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: ‘Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.’”

And the duty becomes active and public: Leo XIII declared that “under such evil circumstances, each one is bound in conscience to watch over himself, taking all means possible to preserve the faith inviolate in the depths of his soul, avoiding all risks, and arming himself on all occasions, especially against the various specious sophisms rife among non-believers.”

More strikingly, the Pope frames silence in the face of attack as a kind of moral failure: “To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe.” And the chief duties of Catholics follow directly from necessity: Leo XIII identified “professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power” as the chief elements of this duty.

3. Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (1950)

Pius XII taught that “the duty incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly ‘to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,’ is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist.” He also described neo-modernist errors as “false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine.”

4. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (1896)

Leo XIII warned that “there is nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole series of doctrines, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, taint the real and simple faith taught by Our Lord and handed down by apostolic tradition.” The Church’s historical response to such threats is also established: Leo XIII noted that “the practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Pius X demonstrates for us the gravity of the Modernist situation, which, in his opinion, was so grave that it struck at the very foundation of the Church. Can you imagine what he would say today?

Leo XIII hammers home the duty of those with the requisite power to do everything they can to affirm their brethren in the Faith and to ensure they hold fast to the Faith themselves. In addition, he makes explicit the perennial understanding of the Church, stemming from the Church Fathers, that true Communion cannot be found with those who deviate even an inch from the binding doctrines of the Church. Again, imagine what he would say if he were here today.

And, Pius XII shows us that we should flee, not just from full-blown heresy, but “those errors which more or less approach heresy.”

It would be too cumbersome here to do a deep dive into the writings of Pius X and Pius XII on Modernism and Neo-Modernism, but if you read their writings, you will find that virtually every jot and tittle of what they warned us of has been instantiated in some way in the institutional life of the Church.

So, we can gather that we have at least a Double Necessity from the writings of these Popes.

On the one hand, as individuals, we must flee from heresy and have nothing to do with heretics, as far as we can help it, whether they be formally condemned or not. As an aside, we cannot expect that every heretic would be formally condemned, especially in a time of great confusion; we must use our judgement as best we can, and there is nothing wrong with that. A child who knows his Catechism can identify heresy from the pulpit without needing a formal letter from Rome validating what he knows to be true by the use of his reason.

On the other hand, it is the duty of individuals with authority to fight heresy, and so forth, with all the power. Leo XIII explicitly invokes necessity: “When necessity compels, not only those who are invested with the power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: ‘Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.’”

Leo XIII takes it as a given that those invested with the power of rule would take the necessary steps.

I imagine it could be retorted that Pope Leo was, at least in the context of Sapientiae Christianae, to Christians in nations where revolution had taken hold in the civil sphere. This is true. But it is also true that any principles that implore us to defend the Faith in the secular sphere must apply to the religious sphere, because the safeguarding of religion in the Church is a higher good than the safeguarding of religion in secular society. In fact, we cannot expect any success regarding the safeguarding of religion in the public forum if it is not first safeguarded and confirmed in the ecclesial forum.

Now, what happens if a situation arises wherein those with the power of rule, even a Pope, are negligent in their duty? Well, that does not negate our duty as individuals to safeguard our souls from error and to stand firm in the Faith, even publicly.

However, as laymen, we cannot do this without priests and bishops who give us the sacraments and confirm us in the Faith. I am a layman, and I may be correct in what I say, but I have no authority behind me, so you are not bound to listen to me. You may choose to listen to me, but you can simply ignore me if you like, as I am sure many of you will.

We need Men of the Cloth to confirm us in the Faith, or we will die a spiritual death.

Of course, this logic led Archbishop Lefebvre to act in 1988, and the SSPX to act in 2026 under the leadership of Don Davide Pagliarani.

So, now, without considering the case of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society in 2026 specifically, we must investigate as to whether or not episcopal consecrations, without mandate, and with the intention of safeguarding Tradition for the sake of souls, is an appropriate response.

You do not have to agree that it is the only possible response, and you do not have to agree with the act itself in a particular context wherein men of goodwill may disagree on prudential matters; but, the principles behind the act must be coherent to be permissible, and all men of goodwill and common sense should at least consider them.

What Has Been Done. Is it Permissible or Necessary?

To save myself time and effort, what follows is essentially copy and pasted (with slight modifications) from my book SSPX: The Defence, pp. 151-157. I have already treated of this issue in there, and it does not make sense for me to write something substantially similar again.

A criticism from reasonable people about the 1988 SSPX consecrations is often formulated thusly: “I understand there is a crisis, I believe Lefebvre was saintly, but I still think God would have found another way to secure Catholic Tradition, and he shouldn’t have done the consecrations.”

I sympathize with this view, and I understand why it is not uncommon.

But there are a couple of issues about it that should be addressed.

First, whenever we opine about how we may have had a desired result without history having to be what it was, we are essentially saying that if history were different, then we could have still had the same results or at least similar results.

While this could be true, it is not much different from saying “if I had my way, history would have been different.” Again, it is possible, but it is not worth saying.

Secondly, any talk of “God would have” is merely speculation and runs the risk of manifesting ignorance of the will of God, rather than knowledge of it.

What I mean to say is that if something that happened in history was in fact God’s will, but someone opines that it was not and that God could have or would have done something different than what He did, then ultimately there is a danger of suggesting that God’s will was not done, when in fact it was.

It is not mysterious to discern what God’s will is in history. We need not look for mystical signs or private revelations, as it suffices to analyze events and to see if they are morally upright and if they seek to build up or tear down the faith. In addition, we can see through the lens of history if someone is vindicated, which is not always visible while they live.

For example, Joan of Arc was excommunicated, but is, of course, a great saint. The response to this comparison from the enemies of the Society will likely be that Saint Joan of Arc demonstrated her extraordinary mission through signs and wonders, which proved she was acting in accordance with God’s will.

This objection from critics falls short, however, because although the work of the SSPX has been called extraordinary, the SSPX has not claimed to have an extraordinary mission in the sense that critics have claimed it has. In addition, although Saint Joan of Arc did have an extraordinary mission, she did not manifest this by miracles or signs and wonders. The proof of her mission from God is that she prophesied, and her seemingly impossible prophecies came true, and they came true by the acts of ordinary men.

While it is true that some saintly souls have claimed to have an extraordinary mission to justify some out-of-the-ordinary work of the Church, like Saint Joan of Arc or St. Catherine Labouré, the mission of the SSPX does not compare to any such examples.

As esteemed Catholic scholar Brian McCall wrote: “The Society of St. Pius X has never claimed to have an extraordinary mission like that of St. Catherine Labouré or St. Margaret Mary. They have merely claimed to participate in the ordinary commission given by Our Lord to the Church by and through the Church. The bishops and priests of the Society exercise this ordinary mission under extraordinary circumstances, but it is the circumstances, not the mission, which are extraordinary. Likewise, St. Athanasius, when expelled from his See and excommunicated by the pope, continued exercising his ordinary mission as a bishop but under extraordinary circumstances of persecution.”3

Archbishop Lefebvre started his priestly society in a normal way, and without an appeal to the supernatural, and merely did what ordinary bishops have always done, as he transmitted the ordinary Catholic Faith. What made his activity extraordinary was the extraordinary crisis buttressed by the extraordinary ineptitude of the vast majority of the hierarchy.

Ultimately, if Lefebvre was an instrument of Providence, then his actions must be vindicated by the highest principles of morality, in line with the Catholic Faith, and have contributed to the building up of the Body of Christ.

Self-Defence and the Right to Act

If there is a state of necessity – which there clearly is! – then the principle of self-defence and various conditions must be considered before rendering any action lawful.

Referring to the rights of a Catholic to resist or even attack a pope (the term attack is used here equivocally), Francisco Suarez (1548–1617) of the School of Salamanca, a Jesuit priest and theologian, considered by many to be one of the greatest Scholastics after St. Thomas Aquinas himself, wrote:

“If the Pope lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defence.”

Sylvester Prieras (1456–1523), a Dominican theologian, appointed master of the Sacred Palace by Pope Leo X and known for his detailed rebuttal to Luther’s 95 Theses, wrote:

“In answer to the question, “What should be done in cases where the Pope destroys the Church by his evil actions?”: “He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion, nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension[.] … [H]e does not have the power to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is licit to resist him. The result of all of this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandate prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates’ abuse of authority stems also from natural law[.] … As Cajetan observes, we do not affirm all this in the sense that someone could have competence to judge the Pope or have authority over him, but meaning that it is licit to defend oneself. Indeed, anyone has the right to resist an unjust act, to try to prevent it and to defend himself.”

These citations from storied theologians represent a wealth of knowledge from Catholic theology, expressing the rights that Catholics have in resisting what amount to evil actions on behalf of a Pope. The point of these statements is not to accuse a given Pope of evil, but instead to point out that we can use our reason and come to an opinion that is within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy that justifies the right of defence against even a Pope if need be.

Critics will, of course, find citations from great saints that allude to opposite opinions, but this does not prove that the opinions of these theologians were false, but only that some faithful Catholics come to different conclusions about different problems.

This distinction is at the heart of the Marcel Lefebvre/SSPX question, as critics act as if there is some sort of de fide pronouncement that makes Lefebvre and his priests’ actions indefensible, when clearly an honest look at Church history and theological opinions says otherwise.

If it is possible that a Pope could “destroy” the Church in some way, then for the sake of the Church and for the honour of Christ Who founded the Church, a prelate has the right to do something about it.

It should be said that when we speak of a Pope “destroying” the Church, we do not mean that the gates of Hell will prevail, but rather that a Pope could act in a way that is destructive and could harm the institutions of the Church and her faithful.

If it is licit for a man to defend himself against the evil actions of a Pope, then it is, of course licit to defend others. And, given the fact that bishops are prelates who are charged with the duty to care for souls, we might say that a bishop must do something to defend others, as was explained above.

Because a bishop must defend Catholics from threats to their faith, he has a right to act, just as a father who must defend his family from an aggressor has a right to defend them.

That being so, there are five conditions to consider when assessing how one could act in a way of self-defence without crossing a moral line.

The five conditions are:

1. There must really be a state of necessity.

2. One must have attempted to remedy it by ordinary means.

3. The “extraordinary” act performed must not be intrinsically evil and no harm must result to one’s neighbour.

4. In this breaking of the law, one must keep to the limits of the requirements really imposed by the state of necessity.

5. In no way should the validity of the competent authority be questioned and that, on the contrary, one could presume that in normal circumstances, it would have given its consent.

Was there – is there – a state of necessity? Yes.

Did Lefebvre attempt to remedy the state of affairs by ordinary means? Yes, as is demonstrated by the historical record, and we can also say that Don Pagliarani and the Society since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre have done the same.

Is it intrinsically evil to consecrate bishops, even without a mandate? No.

We must take a quick detour here, because there is an opinion, most often promoted by theologians and writers who are from, or are attached to Ecclesia Dei communities, like the FSSP, that argues for the opposite opinion.

Father Gleize recently published a series of articles defending the Society’s actions and doctrinal position regarding consecrations against accusations and criticism found in a study published by the Fraternity of Saint Peter publication Claves, which is a French publication.

Gleize’s response is a three-part study that first appeared in the Courrier de Rome. For the sake of brevity — although I recommend reading it (it is called De la Nature de L’Épiscopat: L’Explications Facile de la Fraternité Saint Pierre) — I will offer here a summary of his arguments, with the relevant details, in a few paragraphs, after a brief explanation of the context.

For context, it is the position of those opposed to the Society that bishops cannot be consecrated without a mandate, because, among other things, both the power of order and jurisdiction are conferred in the consecration. The accusation is that, since this is supposedly the case, any consecration without the Pope’s blessing is necessarily schismatic, because it would be impossible to consecrate a bishop without also giving jurisdiction, which would be schismatic. Now, this is refuted by Pope Pius XII, who wrote in Mystici Corporis:

Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. (Emphasis added)

What this means is that the power of jurisdictions comes from the Pope, not from the act of consecration. Vatican II seems to contradict this where it says in Lumen Gentium, no. 21, paragraph 2:

“Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the offices of teaching and of governing, which, however, of their very nature, can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.”

What this seems to say is that the consecration of bishops confers both the power of orders and jurisdiction, de facto. However, the nota included at the end of the Vatican II document attempts to clarify, where it says:

“In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions [munera]; this is absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included. The word ‘functions [munera]’ is used deliberately instead of the word ‘powers [potestates],’ because the latter word could be understood as a power fully ready to act. But for this power to be fully ready to act, there must be a further canonical or juridical determination through the hierarchical authority. This determination of power can consist in the granting of a particular office or in the allotment of subjects, and it is done according to the norms approved by the supreme authority. An additional norm of this sort is required by the very nature of the case, because it involves functions [munera] which must be exercised by many subjects cooperating in a hierarchical manner in accordance with Christ’s will.”

In typical Vatican II fashion, the explanation is a bit unclear and is left open to interpretation. Although, to be fair, when interpreted from the vantage point of Tradition, it can be summarized thusly: When a bishop is consecrated, he receives, fully, the power of orders, and the power of jurisdiction in potency. And this potency (power) must be “activated” by an action of the Pope.

The opposite opinion, held by the Fraternity of Saint Peter publication, is that both powers are in fact actualized during consecration, but it is illicit to act on those powers without explicit mandate. Now, this position is not consistent with Tradition, and seems to be the application of a Conciliar novelty to a supposedly traditional critique of the Society.

At any rate, here is a summary of Father Gleize’s position.

The Fraternity of Saint Peter’s recent attempt to undercut the SSPX’s case for the July 1 consecrations rests on a single move: collapse the distinction between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction, so that any bishop without canonical mission becomes a kind of theological impossibility. Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize’s three-part response in Courrier de Rome shows that this move doesn’t survive contact with the sources it claims to be built on. Trent, Leo XIII, St. Thomas, even Vatican II’s own Nota Praevia — in every case, restoring the citation to its full context turns up the opposite of what “Theologus” (the pen name of the theologian who authored the Fraternity piece) needs it to say. St. Thomas’s line about the bishop’s “quasi-royal” charge over the Mystical Body, for instance, is offered in the very passage that explains why a deposed bishop, once restored to jurisdiction, is never reconsecrated — because what he kept through the deprivation was precisely his power of order, distinct from jurisdiction. The episcopate, on the Church’s own traditional terms, has never required the fusion the FSSP study needs.

What makes this more than a technical dispute is what’s actually riding on it. If the two powers are genuinely separable — which Trent, the Angelic Doctor, and even a fair reading of the Council itself all support — then there is nothing intrinsically incoherent about bishops consecrated for the sole purpose of preserving the power of order: ordaining priests, confirming the faithful, handing on a valid and integral priesthood through a moment when those entrusted with jurisdiction are failing to do so. That is the entire shape of the SSPX’s claim. The FSSP’s case against it isn’t really an argument from doctrine so much as a redefinition of the episcopate convenient to the conclusion it wants — and convenient, not incidentally, to a settlement that has left its own priests dependent on a hierarchy whose doctrinal and liturgical drift after the Council the FSSP itself doesn’t officially deny.

And that’s the deeper point Gleize keeps returning to: the entire debate over munus and potestas is a way of not talking about the thing that actually justifies the consecrations, which is the State of Necessity itself. Nobody disputes that the post-conciliar crisis is real, or that the promises made in 1988 have not held, or that Traditionis Custodes exposed exactly how contingent the FSSP’s own position remains. The question was never whether bishops normally need a papal mandate — of course they do. The question is what happens when the ordinary channels for safeguarding the faith of souls are themselves compromised, and whether, in that extraordinary situation, the Church’s own theology of the episcopate leaves room for what Archbishop Lefebvre did in 1988 and what the Society has done again. Read honestly, in full, and in context, it does.

Now, keeping that in mind, did Lefebvre remain within the bounds of what the State of Necessity required? Yes, he did not consecrate bishops with jurisdiction, and thus did not set up a parallel Church or hierarchy.

Did Lefebvre question the validity of the Pope’s office or powers as such? Not at all, in fact, the sermon from the consecration ceremony said as much. Also, the SSPX is very hard on the sedevacantist position and has had constant communication and interaction with the Popes since 1988.

Ultimately, in no way did Archbishop Lefebvre commit an intrinsically evil act, and he did what he did in order to build up the Body of Christ by ensuring that orthodox priests could be ordained and that the faithful could receive the Faith and sacraments without the fear of all the catechetical errors and sacrileges that have become ubiquitous in the so-called New Springtime. The same is happening now.

The Society’s actions are not schismatic and are proportional to the threat of destruction we are currently living under. It would be wrong to create a new jurisdictional structure, but it would also be wrong not to do everything possible, considering what is permissible during a State of Necessity, to help souls who are left orphaned.

Addressing the Five Objections

Now, let us return to the five objections listed above, which are:

1. In 2026, there are more Bishops, Priests, and laymen devoted to the Traditional Rite than there were in 1988

2. In 2026, there are even Cardinals who celebrate the Old Rite, and there were essentially zero in 1988

3. The general fervour for Vatican II and its ambiguity and errors has largely collapsed, at least compared to the hysteria that enwrapped the Church in 1988

4. More people attend the Old Mass in 2026, and largely because of that, more Mass-attending Catholics are orthodox in belief than in 1988

5. What could be called “Papolatry” has, or is collapsing, and Catholics in general, especially after Pope Francis, are more willing to call foul on the shenanigans coming out of Rome

I will respond to them in order.

1, 2. This argument is speculative because we can’t know what all the clerics and laymen believed in 1988. In fact, it was merely 18 years after the destructive reform of the liturgy, so the vast majority of Bishops, Cardinals, and Priests would have grown up in the pre-conciliar period, and many of them would have said the Old Rite for decades. The same would have been true for innumerable members of the lay faithful. Today, any memory of the “before-time” is functionally gone, and we are in a moment of rediscovery. While it is helpful that more Catholics are seeking out Tradition than in other times in recent history, it is also the case that the foundation has been almost totally lost, so the effort required to rebuild is herculean.

3. I believe this is the opposite, at least officially. I understand there are many tradition-minded priests and laymen, but we cannot say with any certainty that the post-conciliar trajectory of the hierarchy has diminished in any meaningful way. In fact, we have gone from the “Spirit of Vatican II” to the “Spirit of Synodality,” and so on. Pope Leo has repeatedly affirmed his commitment to “Vatican II harder,” and there is no sign of slowing down. Sure, it may be against the desires of many members of the faithful, but, as was stated above, we need bishops to do the work, because it is beyond our pay grade as laymen to do anything meaningful. Also, the vast majority of Catholics worldwide do not practice the Faith at all, so they care about Tradition as much as they do about Vatican II, which is to say, not at all.

4. Yes, it is true that more Mass-attending Catholics attend the Old Mass than in 1988, but that only buttresses the need for Society bishops, because about a million of those Catholics attend Masses offered by the Society. Remember, it is not necessary for a Grave General State of Spiritual Necessity for there to be a universal crisis, but only that several souls are afflicted. We are daft if we think that if the Society were to be without bishops, the lot of modernist churchmen would suddenly convert and step in. Yes, some friendly bishops to help the Ecclesia Dei groups when required, but this does not fix the problem. And, the issue is not primarily liturgical, but is instead about a total rejection of Modernism, not just personally, but as such by the Society. For all the good work that the Fraternity and other groups do, they do not, as such, reject the errors promulgated in and through Vatican II, at least officially. We need not only “friendly to Latin Mass” Bishops, but Bishops who completely and wholeheartedly reject the novelties, errors, and heresy that have been institutionalized.

5. Now, the notion that “Papolatry” has lost favour is not actually true, in my opinion. Take Cardinal Muller’s intervention at the recent consistory, where he hammered home the primacy of Peter — which I do not doubt — but then, in the next breath, stated: “It is our duty by virtue of our office, both individually and as a college, to reject the scandalous accusation that the Roman Church has departed from the Catholic faith.”

In other places, Cardinal Muller had this to say about a document promulgated with Roman authority — Fiducia Supplicans:

“Blessing a reality that is contrary to creation is not only impossible, it is blasphemy,” Müller said. “God cannot send his grace upon a relationship that is directly opposed to him and cannot be ordered toward him.” He went further, calling such a blessing “a sacrilegious and blasphemous act against the Creator’s plan and against Christ’s death for us.”

So, on the one hand, Muller thinks it is beyond the pale to state that Rome has promulgated errors, and on the other, he is free to say that a Roman teaching document is blasphemous, etc.

We could also cite remarks from Cardinal Burke on Amoris Laetitia, and other such statements from Cardinal Sarah, etc.

Whether or not Papolatry is on the downswing in the general zeitgeist is besides the point, because the hierarchy is still more than happy to swallow blasphemy and heresy, so long as they can reaffirm that Peter is Peter.

Again, we need Prelates to do the work for us, and even the “conservative” Cardinals and Bishops — but for a small handful of men like Schneider and Strickland — are not fit for the job.

Now, a fina objection that I did not list above, but follows from the logic of the afformentioned objections, is that the Society’s decision to consecrate is unwise, because, prudentially speaking, it will do more harm than good as far as a true reconciliation with Tradition is concerned for the Church at large. In essence, the thinking goes: Tradition has made headway, and these consecrations seek to bring us back to the drawing board and start over.

I believe this is untrue for a number of reasons.

First, the historical record shows us that the toleration of at least the Traditional Mass is the result of the Society’s principled stance. For evidence, see the 1984 letter published under Pope John-Paul II authorizing the Indult Mass, which made it clear that the purpose of the letter was to give Traditional Catholics somewhere to attend Mass that was “regular.” Now, there may have been a smattering of independent chapels in 1984, but the majority of Catholics who attended the Old Mass were doing so at Society chapels, so the document refers to them.

Second, I do not see how we can say that we are closer to a “solution” at this point, especially in the aftermath of Pope Francis’ smackdown of the Traditional Mass, and Pope Leo’s intention to follow in Pope Francis’ footsteps and accelerate the program of Modernism via Synodality, etc. Again, it is not only about the Mass, but the Faith, and, even if the Old Rite is tolerated, we cannot say that any true solution is on the horizon if it is tolerated in a sea of heresy.

Third, I would argue in a bit of an ironic sense that the actions of the Society may implore the Holy See to be more generous with “approved” parishes offering the Old Rite, as this has been the standard operating procedure in Rome whenever the SSPX takes a principled stand for Tradition.

Fourth, and I do not mean to offend good men and women whose home is at an Ecclesia Dei parish, but the approved orders and parishes do not foment a true solution. This is because these groups are tolerated as options for Catholics, as John Paul II put it in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, “who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition.” The logic of the toleration of these groups is based on providing alternatives for Catholics “attached” to liturgical and disciplinary customs, but there is no mention of doctrine. The effect of this is a ghettoization of Tradition via the reduction of Tradition to a liturgical preference that is available in some places for some people who desire it.

Of course, I know that many of the faithful who attend are truly Traditional Catholics, and they understand that there has been a true rupture, and their desire is for the fullness of Tradition to be restored. Nevertheless, when the Traditional Mass — to say nothing of the fullness of the Traditional Faith — is merely tolerated as a “charism,” as the Fraternity says, then we are no closer to a solution than we were in 1988.

The only solution will be when Rome returns to Tradition, which can only happen if at least some Princes of the Church, along with priests, are able to stand for the rights of Tradition, which should not only be tolerated, but enshrined, because the alternative, counterfeit experiment that we are living through should not be tolerated at all.

I don’t know when this solution will be realized, but I do know that it will only be realized if the fight for Tradition is clearly and unambiguously about more than the Old Rite, as magnificent and important as it is.

For my money, the Society offers a comprehensive resistance to the errors that lord over us, and they are in a unique position to not only serve the faithful with Tradition, but their prelates can stand tall and preach against the Smoke of Satan with true parrhesia, and this makes them indispensable, and their actions laudable.

Real Estate for Life:

https://realestateforlife.org/

Mexico Trip: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexico

Kennedy’s Books: https://kennedyhall.ca/books

Real Estate for Life: https://realestateforlife.org/

Mexico Trip: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexico

Kennedy’s Books: https://kennedyhall.ca/books

As many of you know, last October we welcomed our sweet Gabriel Augustine into the world, and shortly thereafter, he entered the Beatific Vision after being baptized, confirmed, and loved beyond measure by his family.

Well, not long after, we conceived, and my wife is with child. Praise God!

She is due in a couple of months, and the baby is doing just fine, which is such a blessing.

However, recently, my wife has been hospitalized due to a full placenta previa and because of the risks associated therewith. So far, she has had 7 C-sections, so they are taking extra precautions.

We are hoping that she won’t have to stay there the whole time until the baby comes, but she won’t be able to come home to our house because we live too far from the hospital. So, she will have to stay with family in the city, and I will be home with our six living children on my own.

Of course, the only thing that matters in this situation is that my beautiful wife and baby (it is a girl, by the way!) are cared for and healthy. Mom has been through A LOT, and she needs rest, and no one deserves it more than she does!

Nonetheless, this may help to explain why I haven’t been consistent over the last couple of weeks with videos and articles, and why some of you have not received replies to questions and emails.

I promise I am doing my best, and I am working out a plan to be able to balance work, visits with Mom and the kids (she is an hour away), homeschooling, etc.

I ask that you be patient with me, because we are just getting through this first hurdle, and things should stabilize soon enough, and, hopefully, we will settle into our new routine and can get back on track.

Of course, I ask primarily for your prayers for Mom and our baby girl. And, to reiterate, they are both okay, and Mom being taken care of is the best thing for them.

As always, thank you for your continued support, and I will see you soon.

There is a question that most Catholics — even many traditionally-minded Catholics — have never quite thought to ask. They have argued about whether Vatican II was a good council or a bad one; whether its documents are orthodox or heterodox; whether its reforms were wise or catastrophic. But very few have stopped to ask the prior question: was it a council at all?

What follows is not my argument. It belongs to the late Father Gregory Hesse, an Austrian Dominican theologian who was, by any honest assessment, one of the most formidable Catholic theologians in recent memory. Fr. Hesse held a doctorate in canon law from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome and had served for years as personal secretary to Cardinal Stickler. Many of his lectures are online in audio and video format, and sometimes he can be dismissed as unserious by some, because he was a delightfully eclectic and eccentric man. He was, in the true sense of the word, a Renaissance man, in that his interests — and expertise — covered a wide range of topics, including everything from dogmatic theology to canon law, to G.K. Chesterton to Sommellerie. He was Austrian, but spoke perfect English, and would read English dictionaries for pleasure, and he could seemingly cite Denzinger manuals from memory down to the paragraph number, although he denied having a photographic memory.

He was a trained canonist and theologian who followed an argument wherever it led, regardless of how uncomfortable the destination. And, many of his talks do make people uncomfortable, but that is because they sting with conviction and the truth.

Fr. Hesse was himself careful to note that this line of argument did not originate with him either. He first encountered it in the 1990s in the pages of Sì Sì No No — a rigorous Italian theological journal known in France as Courrier de Rome and in German as Anzeiger. It was there, he said, that he first understood the question was not whether Vatican II was a flawed or imperfect council. The question was whether it met the conditions for being a council at all.

I am presenting his argument here because I think it deserves a wider hearing; and because, the more I have examined it, the more I find it not only defensible but very difficult to refute. I have done my best to render it faithfully, adding only some additional documentation and commentary where it strengthens the case. Any errors in the presentation are mine; the argument is his. Also, I fully understand that what I say here could be rebutted, and I am not infallible — far from it! — but, since the “Conciliar Church” (a term coined by Roman officials and not by Archbishop Lefebvre, by the way) seems to have no problem with “separated brethren” who do not accept numerous Ecumenical Councils (or Councils at all) or the Papacy as such, then I would hope that the agitators who deplore my work could be “obedient” to the Spirit of Vatican II and the subsequent papacies, and afford me as much charity as they would be required to give actual schismatics and heretics.

The Framework

The framework Fr. Hesse applies is drawn from sacramental theology: matter, form, and intention — the same three categories by which the Church has always evaluated the validity of sacramental functions.

In the Church, intention is everything, and this surely applies to sacraments, which I believe none of us would doubt, but intention is required not merely for sacraments. For example, we have all likely been present for a blessing from the old Roman Ritual of an item, or Holy Water, etc. While it is true that a priest could give a general blessing to basically anything (even a block of ice, like Pope Leo, as silly as it looks), it is also true that there are different rituals for the blessings of different things. When a priest breaks out the Ritual, he says very specific prayers that are designed to invoke a particular blessing for whatever thing is being blessed. In addition, the prayers are extremely precise, which is a manifestation of following the command of Our Lord,

“Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened,” (Matthew 7:7-8).

When Our Lord tells us to ask or to knock, we must understand that He means what He says. So, if we ask for a general blessing of “stuff” — “Heavenly Father, bless our stuff” — then we will get a general blessing, whatever that entails. However, if the priest prays very specific prayers over an item to either bless it or exorcise it for clear reasons, we will see a clear intention to ask for a concrete reality and not something else.

As an aside, I remember being present one time when a priest at my former Novus Ordo parish blessed water to make it Holy Water. I don’t remember what he said, but it was something like “Heavenly Father, bring your blessing down upon this water in the name of the Father, Son…etc”

He didn’t use a ritual, or follow any rubrics. Now, I don’t know if that means no holy water of sorts was made, but it very well could be the case that nothing substantial happened. Certainly, the water was not exorcised, because he didn’t pray anything to that effect, and there is no exorcism of water in the post-Vatican II ritual for sacramental prayers pertaining to water. In the Old Rite, the water is blessed and exorcised. We see here, that even something so seemingly simple as holy water is not the same thing, according to the intention of the prayers, in the New Rite as it is in the Old.

In addition, in the New Rite, no exorcized salt is added to the water, either.

This is but one example of many. But, we should ask ourselves, if it was always understood that holy water was made via prayers that included exorcisms, then does the New Rite even have holy water in the same way?

The intention is different, the form is different, and the matter is different (no salt added). So, again, is it even holy water in the New Rite?

Precision and intention are key; if we don’t ask for something, we won’t receive that thing, and if we ask for something in the most general sense, we will receive a general reply, so to speak.

And, of course, when it comes to sacraments and not just sacramentals, precision and intention are key for validity.

Now, a council is not a sacrament, but it is far more than a board meeting. And, as we will see, a Council is liturgical, and supremely so; therefore, ritual and specificity are paramount, as is the case in every proper liturgical setting. Ignoring this can lead to disastrous consequences.

Read more

iCatholic Mobile: https://www.icatholicmobile.com/

REAL ESTATE FOR LIFE: https://realestateforlife.org/

SSPX BOOK ONLINE: https://tradgpt.ai/author/kennedy-hall

Read more

If you attend the SSPX, or have ever conversed with someone who has, you may have heard, or said, something, “I’m not SSPX, but I sympathize with them.” Or, “I have a lot of sympathy for Catholics in the SSPX.”

Now, without coming off as cantankerous or unnecessarily flippant — not that I have ever done that! — I would like to say: Respectfully, no sympathy is needed.

When someone dies, like a colleague’s parent, you head down to the grocery store and peruse the greeting card section. Naturally, for such an occasion, you look in the sympathy card section to find the requisite card.

“I am so sorry for your loss,” it might read, and you give this card to someone to show your sympathy with their plight.

Sympathy is defined as: the feeling of sincere concern, pity, or sorrow for someone else’s misfortune. In addition, the word can be used to show a general agreement with someone’s opinion or actions, although usually it is used in this context to suggest there is not full agreement.

I understand that the term is most often used in the context of the second meaning, but it still annoys me.

Here’s why.

While it is likely that the term is often used with the second meaning, I also think that there is often a bit of the first meaning underlying the statement.

When people speak to me of the impending consecrations, the tone is frequently very sombre. “I sympathize, but what a tragedy.” Or, “I sympathize, but what a sad day for the Church.”

I am going to have to disagree.

Sympathy is not required, because it is not a tragic situation. A tragic situation is one wherein something terrible happens to a person, or something terrible happens in their midst. A natural disaster is tragic; being robbed of your valuables is tragic; a child getting seriously ill is tragic; etc.

What is happening on July 1 is not tragic. On July first, besides it being Dominion Day (our national holiday in Canada), a very great thing is happening; a very great thing indeed. I say this because I understand, vicerally, as someone who depends on the Society for sacraments, spiritual direction, and Catholic formation for my children.

Like many Catholics who attend the SSPX, finding a chapel was a cause for great joy. It isn’t that we hated our former parish, or that every time we attended the New Mass we had a deep feeling of cringe; no, when we found the Society, we found a place where we could finally be, nothing more than Catholic. From the pulpit we began to hear pure Catholicism for the first time — no chicken soup for the soul, warm and fuzzy modern nonsense, no heresy; and we didn’t have to hear non-sacred music, or worry about clerical transgerndersim (females all over the sanctuary performing sacred functions). We didn’t realize it before, but when we found the Society, we were finally free to simply be Catholic. And, a free man does not need your sympathy.

Now, we certainly experienced deep and acute pain in our personal lives, as many of our former parishoners — many who we considered good friends — excommunicated us from their lives due to our “schism.” Mind you, they had no problem attending mixed Protestant-Catholic worship events in order to be “ecumenical” like the pope wants. If anything, have sympathy for them.

Listen, I get it: what is happening on July 1 is surely a controversial act, but every act of principle is controversial. Thomas More was controversial; Thomas Beckett also; the Cristeros were controversial, and so on. Doing the right thing is always going to be controversial to some.

Why do I say it is the right thing?

Well, because I believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ as the King of Kings and Son of God. So, I believe what He says. He says to us, “I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you” (John 14:18). He didn’t just say that to a small number of people while simultaneously meaning, “Well, some of you will be orphaned.” No, He said to EVERYONE that He will not leave us orphans. An orphan is a child without parents, and we have not been orphaned.

The legions of Catholics in the developing world who have been served by the courageous missionaries of the Society were orphans, and now they are not.

The mother and father trying to hold on for dear life and raise their kids in an environment where the Chancery, the school system, and the parish seem hell-bent (pun intended) on doing everything they can to make sure their children are malformed, were spiritually orphaned, and then, because a priest of the Society showed up, now they aren’t.

The Church is big — really big — and there are about a million of us who, for one reason or another, have found our way to the Society, and we couldn’t be happier. And, July 1 is a cause for joy, not sympathy, because we know, while Rome takes eons to figure out that trying to Vatican II and Ecumenism harder is about as effective as trying to vote harder, we can stay freed from their exercise in futility and simply focus on saving our souls, and our children’s souls. We know that, whatever happens, our seminarians — which are in seminaries bursting at the seams — will have bishops to ordain them, and our children will have bishops to gently slap them on the cheek as they are confirmed.

Having sympathy for the faithful who attend the SSPX is, honestly, quite strange, like having sympathy for a man who is sick and finally finds a doctor who can cure him. Imagine going to the store, buying a sympathy card and giving it to your friend after he has been cured of cancer. How strange!

Yes, some Catholics have access to the fullness of the Faith and proper liturgical settings and don’t seek out the SSPX, and if that is you, then I say, “Congrats!”

I know, I know, many are worried about us becoming schismatics… well, besides the fact that the Roman officials haven’t believed in schism for a long time… how is that we will become schismatics? I thought we were already schismatics because of 1988? Will we now be in some sort of double, super schism? If the Society, and by extension, us, have been schismatics since 1988, then how can we be schismatics again? Can you kill a man twice?

If anything, have sympathy for the malcontents who have been running around for years claiming we are, in fact, schismatics, because they have some egg on their face. And, after July 1, they will be saying we are somehow schismatics again, even though the same thing happened as in 1988, more or less, and we were somehow not in enough schism to not be threatened with schism again. So, we are like schismatics who are both in and not in schism at the same time in the same place. I think that is called Schrödinger Schism.

And have sympathy for the Pope and his Cardinals who call actual schismatics and heretics “brethren” but reject the courage, devotion, and fidelity to the Church demonstrated by SSPX priests who would literally get on a plane every 48 hours to bring the sacraments to Catholics across entire continents. It must be terrible to be so blind and hard-hearted as to reject such a wonderful group of priests.

And, please, don’t tell me that the Society is rejected because there is something wrong with them, unless something happened to substantially change the Faith in 1965, and as a result, the SSPX doesn’t believe “enough Catholicism” to truly be Catholic. You may as well say that pre-conciliar Catholics were living in the dark until the New Springtime brought us a golden age. Well, that is exactly what many post-conciliar theologians do, at least implicitly, say; so, have sympathy for them too.

In any event, as I mention at the outset, July 1 is also Dominion Day, so, as I set off fireworks for my children and grill burgers and hot dogs, I will be a smiling patriot, still patriotic to his Church, and I will rest easy knowing that the following Sunday, I will still have priests to save my soul and help to guide my children.

No sympathy required.

Hey Friends,

As you likely know, I left Pelican+ about a month and a half ago.

As part of the ecosystem there, paid subscribers of that platform were given complimentary access to this SubStack.

That complimentary access ends today, and if you had that complimentary access, you will have already received an email.

In any event, it is difficult with the SubStack system to be completely precise with the process, so I am worried that some individuals who were not part of the Pelican ecosystem may have accidentally lost their access.

If your access to paid-member content has been accidentally shut off, PLEASE let me know, and understand that it was unintentional and a mistake on my part!

If you have any questions, please email me at meretradition@gmail.com.

Thank you to all of you for your support, because, truly, I couldn’t do this without you!

Your generosity helps to provide for my family, and we couldn’t be more grateful!

Cheers

Kennedy

Mexico Trip: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexico

Kennedy’s Books: https://kennedyhall.ca/books

Mexico Trip: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexico

Kennedy’s Books: https://kennedyhall.ca/books

SSPX BOOK ONLINE: https://tradgpt.ai/read/kennedy-hall_sspx-the-defence

LINKS TO EVERYTHING KENNEDY DOES, INCLUDING BOOKS: https://linktr.ee/meretraditionkh

Read more

Read more

Read more

SSPX BOOK: https://kennedyhall.ca/books

CATHOLIC SCHOOL FUNDRAISER: https://www.zeffy.com/en-CA/ticketing/our-lady-of-mount-carmels-2nd-annual-vehicle-raffle--2026

Read more