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).
Thank you so much for this explanation that makes complete sense. I wish more clerics would genuinely try to understand this situation accurately. My oldest son is discerning a vocation to the priesthood and would like to go to St. Mary's in Kansas. He was accepted there and it's pretty much the only college our family of 10 can afford. Our parish priest and the monks at Clear Creek Abbey (where my son would ultimately like to be) have advised him not to go to St. Mary's in the fall because he would be excommunicated. What are we supposed to do....
Your son would not be excommunicated by attending St. Mary's — and that's not a trad opinion, it's Rome's own published position, dated the same day as the decree. The DDF's reconciliation procedures state that imputability "is not to be presumed automatically, but must be assessed case by case," and that those who attend SSPX churches "solely for liturgical or spiritual reasons," or who do not reject the Magisterium or the pope's authority, are not imputable. A college student attending the school his family can afford, who acknowledges Leo XIV as pope, does not meet the definition of schism (canon 751 — refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff) and cannot incur the penalty. The decree excommunicated six named bishops. Nobody else — no priest, no student, no family in a pew.
Your priest and the monks are advising in good faith from the headlines, but the headlines are wrong, and the documents themselves say so. If it helps, show them the DDF's own imputability language — they may simply not have read past the decree.
The vocation question is separate and real: a Clear Creek vocation coming out of St. Mary's may face friction, and that's a prudential conversation worth having with the abbey directly. But it should be had on true premises. "He'll be excommunicated" is not one of them.
The Clear Creek angle matters more than the canonical one. The monks may be signaling "we won't accept an applicant from St. Mary's in the current climate" — that's an admissions warning dressed in canonical language, and it's within their power regardless of canon law. If so, the family's real question is whether St. Mary's costs him the abbey.
Thank you George. That is the real question - I can't have this cost him his vocation. Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to me. God bless you.
Then get the answer from the source before he declines the acceptance. Write the vocations director at Clear Creek directly and ask the specific question: "Would attending St. Mary's College foreclose my son's candidacy?" Not "what do you think of the SSPX" — the concrete admissions question. Monasteries answer concrete questions; they've handled this exact situation before, since a meaningful share of their vocations come from traditional communities of every canonical stripe.
Three things worth knowing going in. The advice your son received came days after the decree, when everyone is being maximally cautious — an answer in writing, after the dust settles, may differ from a warning given in the panic week. Second, a Benedictine discernment runs on years; the canonical landscape in 2029, when he'd actually be applying, will not look like July 2026 — it never has before (1988's excommunications were lifted; faculties were granted; climates change). Third, if Clear Creek does say St. Mary's is disqualifying, that's not the vocation dying — Wyoming Catholic, Christendom, and Thomas Aquinas all have real aid for large families, and a monastery that would take him at 22 will still take him at 23 from a different school.
The one thing not to do is choose based on the excommunication claim, because that claim is false. Make the decision on true premises: the abbey's actual admissions posture, in writing.
I would just like to say that my son was also accepted to Thomas Aquinas College. We were also told about their generous aid, but we did not experience that. They came back with less than half the $44K of the first year's tuition. So we'd have to come up with over $24K. It's extremely frustrating.... You would think this would be a major consideration of Catholic universities - affordability especially for large families. Only St. Mary's actually does this.
Well done, Kennedy, and thanks for including some insights of Fr. Meuli again. I have tried via various forums to get Fr. Meuli's available 2001 analysis (e.g., https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2026/05/a-compelling-defense-of-sspx-by-fr.html) of what took place in 1988 with application to today into more and more hands. In addition, I have also challenged various parties through a variety of forums to honestly engage Fr. Meuli's analysis (also featured in your book on the SSPX), and if they can demonstrate that Fr. Meuli's analysis and conclusions are in the wrong, I will be happy to also honestly engage, but I expect them to also reconsider their positions on the SSPX if they cannot refute Fr. Meuli's arguments.
So far, either these people have not received my challenge (even when sent to their offices), or they have decided to ignore it in a manner reminiscent of that infamous two-step known as the 'Francis Dubia Dance' because they don't really want any serious challenge to beliefs they may held for many years.
You will recognize the following among those I have issued the challenge to:
Eric Sammons
Fr. Gerald Murray (canon lawyer)
Dr. Taylor Marshall
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski
Dr. Robert Royal
Timothy Gordon
Raymond Arroyo
Dr. Larry Chapp (super hater of the SSPX)
Perhaps on one of your upcoming shorter podcasts, you can make it simply about the work of Fr. Meuli wherein you highlight his credentials, and then you cap it off with a detailed showing of his 2001 analysis in big letters on the screen. You end the podcast by also issuing the challenge to any and all to seriously and honestly engage Fr. Meuli's analysis to see if they can refute his conclusions, and if not, will they be honest enough to reconsider their positions, especially those who believe that the SSPX is definitely in the wrong.
I don't think anyone will be able to refute Fr. Meuli's defense of the SSPX, and if they are honest about it, they wll change their stances. For some, alas, I suspect we might get the "he's the Holy Father, end of story" bogus rationale, but that will also be very telling.
Fr. Meuli's superb analysis needs more publicity and it needs to be honestly engaged by those in opposition to the SSPX, and you can help in this regard for the benefit of all of us. Go for it, and God Bless you and your loved ones.
Sorry. I may not be a canon lawyer but I am a lawyer and I stopped reading the moment you started going off the rails in trying to parse canon 1387 versus canon 1364, section 1. Or maybe "latae sententiae excommunication" isn't supposed to mean that one is excommunicated by one's action without the necessity of a formal trial or official decree.
Dr. Hall is being misleading on what the note is alleging and on what a Latae Setencia excomunication means. And in doing so endangers souls.
One must seperate out Being excomunicated and suffering the penalty of excommunication. In the 1988 note it describes this as the Sin of Schism and Crime of Schism. If one commits the Sin of Schism they are excomunicated automatically. No need for a declaration. This is a grave sin staining their mortal soul. As Schism is a violation of Divine Law.
But this does not mean that the Church has the ability to give penalties. For that the Church must issue a formal declaration as laid down by Canon 1720. Dr. Hall is right to point out that this penalty of excommunication has not been applied to any of the Priests or Laity of the SSPX. His analysis is generally right about what this functionally means. Although his interpretation of what is a Just Cause is debatable.
Now on to what the note states. The note is only states that Priests and some laity (those in formal adherence) have committed the Sin of Schism and have been excomunicated automatically under Canon 1364. It nowhere states to be applying any penalties nor making any formal declarations. Cannon 1364 makes this even more clear as it states "he or she may also be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4." Even at the end the note only exhorts (strongly encourages) that no one participate in SSPX sacraments. This is no different from the Church in any informal way saying someone committed X sin. Yes there has been no judicial procedure but there also doesn't need to be one to say someone committed a sin.
Now as to what formal adherence means. The 1996 notes state it has 2 requirements.
a ) one of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism, that is, in opting in such a way for the followers of Lefebvre that this option is placed above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);
b ) another of an external nature, consisting in the externalization of that option, the most evident sign of which will be the exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, a non-univocal sign, since there is the possibility that some faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of Lefebvre's followers without sharing their schismatic spirit).
If you think you fit into either category please for both your own sake and your clear Love of God confess and repent of the sin.
It’s like these guys walked in off of the street and put on funny hats and started ordering people around. Where is their (at a minimum) corporate competence? Did Fernández have any executive training or management experience? This is startling incompetence. They need to stay out of the Italian gay bars and catch a webinar about executing policies and procedures. I wouldn’t pay one of these clowns to run a convenience store. That said, thank you for the analysis 🧐! Incredible. Can you imagine the crimes being committed by the Vatican Bank? It’s got to be the largest group of gay money launderers in the world.
I am amazed that the Holy Father, a well-respected Canon Lawyer himself, would allow such ambiguous and misleading statements to be issued in a decree said to have the force of law.
I would think Pope Leo would want to review and correct this; Fernandez is no canonist.
Fr. Rasicci: You know that ambiguity is frequently a strategy of those with more modernist tendencies, because ambiguity allows for more bogus interpretation to carry the day.
Consider the decision to ignore the early Dubia sent to Pope Francis. His refusing to answer was yet another engagement of intentional ambiguity so he could do things that should not have been done, but make it look like he was not going against definitive Church teaching. Fernandez, Leo, and other fellow travelers continue to make ambiguity a weapon, because it allows them to also come back (watch for it here again in the not too distant future) in a short time to claim that X really means Y, and they will spin it, as always, as fully in line with Church teaching.
Yes consider the media fanfare pushed. Hidden assumptions, the ambiguity of SSPX faithful excommunicated (which no such thing occurred) and the unstated assumption that they're all damned (which Fernandez holds no belief in) https://georgeoflydda.substack.com/p/excommunication-is-not-a-sentence
Neither is he a member of the Catholic Church (ie., a public heretic who is firmly convinced of universal salvation), and as such has no standing to excommunicate anyone.
There are good canon lawyers and there are bad canon lawyers. No different than in civil society. Pope Leo has shown his true colors. Pray for his conversion and return to the one true faith.
This is a fascinating legal argument that may have merit (I am not a canon lawyer, so what do I know?), but I feel like the more pressing concern (which was not the focus of the article, but which I hope someone would address) is whether “formally adhering” to the SSPX makes someone (whether religious, clergy or laity) ipso facto a schismatic. Assuming neither the note nor the declaration carries legal weight, are “formal adherents” (understood in reference to the 1996 note) not formally schismatic and, consequently, outside the canonical bounds of the Church? That is concerning to me.
Edit: I suppose, though, the answer to that question depends on whether one believes the SSPX is, in fact, outside the Church: if you believe the SSPX is outside the Church, then yes; if not, then no—at least, that is how I would see the argument running.
At any rate, this whole situation is sad. Mother Mary, pray for your Son’s Church that we might all be one🙏
The question answers itself once you see what the 1996 note means by "formal adherence": an interior choice sharing the substance of the schism — i.e., personally refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff — plus external manifestation of that choice. So yes, a formal adherent is ipso facto a schismatic, but tautologically: "formal adherence" just is committing the delict of schism yourself (c. 751). The definition isn't a transmission mechanism, it's a restatement.
Which is why your edit's framing — "depends on whether the SSPX is outside the Church" — is the wrong axis. Schism is personal, not corporate. There's no membership test that puts you in or out based on the Society's status. Even granting the six bishops are schismatics, that determines nothing about an attendee; conversely, a man who rejects papal authority is a schismatic even if his parish is fully regular. The only question is ever: does this person refuse submission to the pope? For SSPX attendees the answer is almost always no — they attend while professing his authority, and Rome's own July 2 reconciliation procedures say exactly that: imputability case-by-case, those attending "solely for liturgical or spiritual reasons" not imputable.
So the concerning scenario — masses of faithful silently sliding outside the Church by association — has no canonical mechanism. Nobody adheres to a schism by accident.
I've never been to an SSPX Mass, although I thought I might have an opportunity to soon.
LOTS to think about. I haven't even finished it but the explanation is refreshing to read as I've been reading so many negative posts about the SSPX, mostly on Catholic Facebook pages. I had to share a portion because (as I put it) there are ALWAYS two sides to every coin. Humility and obedience. God's permissive Will. So much to think about.
Dr. Hall where in the note is it applying a penalty for excomunication? The note from what I can see only appeals to Cannon 1336 which does not always apply Penalties for the excommunications. And as you yourself point out Latae Setencia excomunications don't need a declaration to occur, only for penalties to apply.
The Vatican hardly needs to apply any penalties since they hold that the priests are all already suspended and lack canonical mission in the first place.
This is a fascinating analysis. If your canonical argument is correct, it almost seems as though Providence is preventing the SSPX from being formally excommunicated as a whole.
From a believer's perspective, one cannot help but wonder whether God is allowing even an imperfect legal formula to keep the door open for a future reconciliation, rather than closing it definitively. Of course, we cannot claim to know God's intentions with certainty, but history has often shown that Providence works even through human limitations and juridical imperfections.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and well-researched article.
Thank you so much for this explanation that makes complete sense. I wish more clerics would genuinely try to understand this situation accurately. My oldest son is discerning a vocation to the priesthood and would like to go to St. Mary's in Kansas. He was accepted there and it's pretty much the only college our family of 10 can afford. Our parish priest and the monks at Clear Creek Abbey (where my son would ultimately like to be) have advised him not to go to St. Mary's in the fall because he would be excommunicated. What are we supposed to do....
Your son would not be excommunicated by attending St. Mary's — and that's not a trad opinion, it's Rome's own published position, dated the same day as the decree. The DDF's reconciliation procedures state that imputability "is not to be presumed automatically, but must be assessed case by case," and that those who attend SSPX churches "solely for liturgical or spiritual reasons," or who do not reject the Magisterium or the pope's authority, are not imputable. A college student attending the school his family can afford, who acknowledges Leo XIV as pope, does not meet the definition of schism (canon 751 — refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff) and cannot incur the penalty. The decree excommunicated six named bishops. Nobody else — no priest, no student, no family in a pew.
Your priest and the monks are advising in good faith from the headlines, but the headlines are wrong, and the documents themselves say so. If it helps, show them the DDF's own imputability language — they may simply not have read past the decree.
The vocation question is separate and real: a Clear Creek vocation coming out of St. Mary's may face friction, and that's a prudential conversation worth having with the abbey directly. But it should be had on true premises. "He'll be excommunicated" is not one of them.
The Clear Creek angle matters more than the canonical one. The monks may be signaling "we won't accept an applicant from St. Mary's in the current climate" — that's an admissions warning dressed in canonical language, and it's within their power regardless of canon law. If so, the family's real question is whether St. Mary's costs him the abbey.
Thank you George. That is the real question - I can't have this cost him his vocation. Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to me. God bless you.
Then get the answer from the source before he declines the acceptance. Write the vocations director at Clear Creek directly and ask the specific question: "Would attending St. Mary's College foreclose my son's candidacy?" Not "what do you think of the SSPX" — the concrete admissions question. Monasteries answer concrete questions; they've handled this exact situation before, since a meaningful share of their vocations come from traditional communities of every canonical stripe.
Three things worth knowing going in. The advice your son received came days after the decree, when everyone is being maximally cautious — an answer in writing, after the dust settles, may differ from a warning given in the panic week. Second, a Benedictine discernment runs on years; the canonical landscape in 2029, when he'd actually be applying, will not look like July 2026 — it never has before (1988's excommunications were lifted; faculties were granted; climates change). Third, if Clear Creek does say St. Mary's is disqualifying, that's not the vocation dying — Wyoming Catholic, Christendom, and Thomas Aquinas all have real aid for large families, and a monastery that would take him at 22 will still take him at 23 from a different school.
The one thing not to do is choose based on the excommunication claim, because that claim is false. Make the decision on true premises: the abbey's actual admissions posture, in writing.
I would just like to say that my son was also accepted to Thomas Aquinas College. We were also told about their generous aid, but we did not experience that. They came back with less than half the $44K of the first year's tuition. So we'd have to come up with over $24K. It's extremely frustrating.... You would think this would be a major consideration of Catholic universities - affordability especially for large families. Only St. Mary's actually does this.
Another option is the Benedictines in Silver City, NM.
https://ourladyofguadalupemonastery.com/
Listen to the advice.
I would have appreciated engagement with Ethan's comment. It looks like it was deleted.
Keep kicking satan in the shorts Kennedy, while educating and enabling others to do the same!
Well done, Kennedy, and thanks for including some insights of Fr. Meuli again. I have tried via various forums to get Fr. Meuli's available 2001 analysis (e.g., https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2026/05/a-compelling-defense-of-sspx-by-fr.html) of what took place in 1988 with application to today into more and more hands. In addition, I have also challenged various parties through a variety of forums to honestly engage Fr. Meuli's analysis (also featured in your book on the SSPX), and if they can demonstrate that Fr. Meuli's analysis and conclusions are in the wrong, I will be happy to also honestly engage, but I expect them to also reconsider their positions on the SSPX if they cannot refute Fr. Meuli's arguments.
So far, either these people have not received my challenge (even when sent to their offices), or they have decided to ignore it in a manner reminiscent of that infamous two-step known as the 'Francis Dubia Dance' because they don't really want any serious challenge to beliefs they may held for many years.
You will recognize the following among those I have issued the challenge to:
Eric Sammons
Fr. Gerald Murray (canon lawyer)
Dr. Taylor Marshall
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski
Dr. Robert Royal
Timothy Gordon
Raymond Arroyo
Dr. Larry Chapp (super hater of the SSPX)
Perhaps on one of your upcoming shorter podcasts, you can make it simply about the work of Fr. Meuli wherein you highlight his credentials, and then you cap it off with a detailed showing of his 2001 analysis in big letters on the screen. You end the podcast by also issuing the challenge to any and all to seriously and honestly engage Fr. Meuli's analysis to see if they can refute his conclusions, and if not, will they be honest enough to reconsider their positions, especially those who believe that the SSPX is definitely in the wrong.
I don't think anyone will be able to refute Fr. Meuli's defense of the SSPX, and if they are honest about it, they wll change their stances. For some, alas, I suspect we might get the "he's the Holy Father, end of story" bogus rationale, but that will also be very telling.
Fr. Meuli's superb analysis needs more publicity and it needs to be honestly engaged by those in opposition to the SSPX, and you can help in this regard for the benefit of all of us. Go for it, and God Bless you and your loved ones.
BMA
Sorry. I may not be a canon lawyer but I am a lawyer and I stopped reading the moment you started going off the rails in trying to parse canon 1387 versus canon 1364, section 1. Or maybe "latae sententiae excommunication" isn't supposed to mean that one is excommunicated by one's action without the necessity of a formal trial or official decree.
Dr. Hall is being misleading on what the note is alleging and on what a Latae Setencia excomunication means. And in doing so endangers souls.
One must seperate out Being excomunicated and suffering the penalty of excommunication. In the 1988 note it describes this as the Sin of Schism and Crime of Schism. If one commits the Sin of Schism they are excomunicated automatically. No need for a declaration. This is a grave sin staining their mortal soul. As Schism is a violation of Divine Law.
But this does not mean that the Church has the ability to give penalties. For that the Church must issue a formal declaration as laid down by Canon 1720. Dr. Hall is right to point out that this penalty of excommunication has not been applied to any of the Priests or Laity of the SSPX. His analysis is generally right about what this functionally means. Although his interpretation of what is a Just Cause is debatable.
Now on to what the note states. The note is only states that Priests and some laity (those in formal adherence) have committed the Sin of Schism and have been excomunicated automatically under Canon 1364. It nowhere states to be applying any penalties nor making any formal declarations. Cannon 1364 makes this even more clear as it states "he or she may also be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§ 2-4." Even at the end the note only exhorts (strongly encourages) that no one participate in SSPX sacraments. This is no different from the Church in any informal way saying someone committed X sin. Yes there has been no judicial procedure but there also doesn't need to be one to say someone committed a sin.
Now as to what formal adherence means. The 1996 notes state it has 2 requirements.
a ) one of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism, that is, in opting in such a way for the followers of Lefebvre that this option is placed above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);
b ) another of an external nature, consisting in the externalization of that option, the most evident sign of which will be the exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, a non-univocal sign, since there is the possibility that some faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of Lefebvre's followers without sharing their schismatic spirit).
If you think you fit into either category please for both your own sake and your clear Love of God confess and repent of the sin.
It’s like these guys walked in off of the street and put on funny hats and started ordering people around. Where is their (at a minimum) corporate competence? Did Fernández have any executive training or management experience? This is startling incompetence. They need to stay out of the Italian gay bars and catch a webinar about executing policies and procedures. I wouldn’t pay one of these clowns to run a convenience store. That said, thank you for the analysis 🧐! Incredible. Can you imagine the crimes being committed by the Vatican Bank? It’s got to be the largest group of gay money launderers in the world.
Sin makes you stupid, and sins against nature make you an imbecile over time
Just stop. You know these guys are wrong. Stop defending them.
Any truly devout Catholic who knows and studies his faith would disagree with you.
Tucho is wrong, not the SSPX. Stop accusing them.
I am amazed that the Holy Father, a well-respected Canon Lawyer himself, would allow such ambiguous and misleading statements to be issued in a decree said to have the force of law.
I would think Pope Leo would want to review and correct this; Fernandez is no canonist.
Fr. Rasicci: You know that ambiguity is frequently a strategy of those with more modernist tendencies, because ambiguity allows for more bogus interpretation to carry the day.
Consider the decision to ignore the early Dubia sent to Pope Francis. His refusing to answer was yet another engagement of intentional ambiguity so he could do things that should not have been done, but make it look like he was not going against definitive Church teaching. Fernandez, Leo, and other fellow travelers continue to make ambiguity a weapon, because it allows them to also come back (watch for it here again in the not too distant future) in a short time to claim that X really means Y, and they will spin it, as always, as fully in line with Church teaching.
Yes consider the media fanfare pushed. Hidden assumptions, the ambiguity of SSPX faithful excommunicated (which no such thing occurred) and the unstated assumption that they're all damned (which Fernandez holds no belief in) https://georgeoflydda.substack.com/p/excommunication-is-not-a-sentence
Neither is he a member of the Catholic Church (ie., a public heretic who is firmly convinced of universal salvation), and as such has no standing to excommunicate anyone.
There are good canon lawyers and there are bad canon lawyers. No different than in civil society. Pope Leo has shown his true colors. Pray for his conversion and return to the one true faith.
This is a fascinating legal argument that may have merit (I am not a canon lawyer, so what do I know?), but I feel like the more pressing concern (which was not the focus of the article, but which I hope someone would address) is whether “formally adhering” to the SSPX makes someone (whether religious, clergy or laity) ipso facto a schismatic. Assuming neither the note nor the declaration carries legal weight, are “formal adherents” (understood in reference to the 1996 note) not formally schismatic and, consequently, outside the canonical bounds of the Church? That is concerning to me.
Edit: I suppose, though, the answer to that question depends on whether one believes the SSPX is, in fact, outside the Church: if you believe the SSPX is outside the Church, then yes; if not, then no—at least, that is how I would see the argument running.
At any rate, this whole situation is sad. Mother Mary, pray for your Son’s Church that we might all be one🙏
The question answers itself once you see what the 1996 note means by "formal adherence": an interior choice sharing the substance of the schism — i.e., personally refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff — plus external manifestation of that choice. So yes, a formal adherent is ipso facto a schismatic, but tautologically: "formal adherence" just is committing the delict of schism yourself (c. 751). The definition isn't a transmission mechanism, it's a restatement.
Which is why your edit's framing — "depends on whether the SSPX is outside the Church" — is the wrong axis. Schism is personal, not corporate. There's no membership test that puts you in or out based on the Society's status. Even granting the six bishops are schismatics, that determines nothing about an attendee; conversely, a man who rejects papal authority is a schismatic even if his parish is fully regular. The only question is ever: does this person refuse submission to the pope? For SSPX attendees the answer is almost always no — they attend while professing his authority, and Rome's own July 2 reconciliation procedures say exactly that: imputability case-by-case, those attending "solely for liturgical or spiritual reasons" not imputable.
So the concerning scenario — masses of faithful silently sliding outside the Church by association — has no canonical mechanism. Nobody adheres to a schism by accident.
See the following: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2026/05/a-compelling-defense-of-sspx-by-fr.html
I've never been to an SSPX Mass, although I thought I might have an opportunity to soon.
LOTS to think about. I haven't even finished it but the explanation is refreshing to read as I've been reading so many negative posts about the SSPX, mostly on Catholic Facebook pages. I had to share a portion because (as I put it) there are ALWAYS two sides to every coin. Humility and obedience. God's permissive Will. So much to think about.
Dr. Hall where in the note is it applying a penalty for excomunication? The note from what I can see only appeals to Cannon 1336 which does not always apply Penalties for the excommunications. And as you yourself point out Latae Setencia excomunications don't need a declaration to occur, only for penalties to apply.
The Vatican hardly needs to apply any penalties since they hold that the priests are all already suspended and lack canonical mission in the first place.
Touche Tucho 😂
This is a fascinating analysis. If your canonical argument is correct, it almost seems as though Providence is preventing the SSPX from being formally excommunicated as a whole.
From a believer's perspective, one cannot help but wonder whether God is allowing even an imperfect legal formula to keep the door open for a future reconciliation, rather than closing it definitively. Of course, we cannot claim to know God's intentions with certainty, but history has often shown that Providence works even through human limitations and juridical imperfections.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and well-researched article.
Everyone is talking about the SSPX “excommunications.” I think they’re asking the wrong question. The real issue was never the penalties—it was apostolic mission.https://louismontfort.substack.com/p/the-sspx-consecrations-never-solved?r=791jfn&utm_medium=ios
I am reading the document and it says, “ has incurred”. I agree with what SSPX . 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼