Most semi-regular Catholics will simply accept Tucho's erroneous note and assume in Leo's favor that it is correct; 1988 repeats itself, and the pharisaism trumps charity.
But, there was no internet back then, and I expect this go-around will play out differently.
Thanks Kennedy, so true. I listened to the Prayerful Posse and Fr Murray stated re the decree and explanatory note "it's a real mess!"
Not to pre-empt or predict outcomes but I suspect nothing more will be decreed given Pope Leo's adherence to the hermeneutic of continuity particuarly as it relates to Pope Francis. The other 2,000 years ...well, that's another story.
Not sure anyone really understands this, but this legal sloppiness is irrelevant to the vandals of the faith. They'll just ignore and carry on with their evils.
What do you think of invoking canon 844? Michael Davies pointed this out - even if SSPX priests were all in schism and excommunicated, the new code of canon law allows for Catholics to receive sacraments from any priest who has valid orders - Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc. It's unbelievable but it's there. Wouldn't this apply to SSPX as well? For those Catholics who are not fortunate enough to have an FSSP or ICKSP or other approved TLM option (or reverent Norvus Ordo option)?
By definition, under Canon 751, the SSPX is in schism. That canon does not say anything about the spiritual condition of the Pope, which it should. The underlying presumptions remain silent. There is another principle which says that if one is in a heretical state, he cannot excommunicate another. Two questions occur to me. (1) If Pope Leo participated in a ceremony in Peru honoring the false god Pachamama when he was a bishop, and there are pictures showing him doing this, and if Fernandez has said, in writing, that he believes everyone will be saved, contrary to Catholic teaching, are either or both of them heretics? (2) Since all bishops are equals by apostolic succession and none, other than Peter, has authority over another, can anyone other than the Pope issue a decree of schism and excommunication? The decree issued to the SSPX was issued by Fernandez, not Leo. Does Fernandez have the authority to do that?
Too many people have already suggested that there is an exquisite irony in an "excommunication" of pius souls who merely want to be devoted Catholics, while nothing is said about jokers like
the infamous Fr Martin, paca mama, so-called "ecumenism," and endless heterodoxy. It seems the
Church must always endure these aberrations, alas, papal aberrations. We were blessed with many
years of saints: John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, who will one day be called a "
doctor of the Church," and those who follow another will. "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem," OUR
If you think that the Church's history is "2000 years of beautiful faith," then I would encourage you to read about the Borgia popes during post-Medieval history...not good...
The beautiful faith of the Saints and martyrs who died for Christ. Even the Borgia popes didnt attack the liturgy of the Mass. They might have been sodomites in private but not at the Sacred Mass. This is a whole new awful creation.
This ought not to alarm or distress you terribly. Don't forget it all started with Judas, and he was chosen by our Lord Himself. Human nature always gets in the way of holiness. A few days ago I watched an exquisite Ruby-Throat Hummingbird busy at a Salvia plant. Each flower had to be examined and nectar taken. Suddenly, a second Hummer appeared, zipping right for the Salvia. Aerial warfare in miniature is swift and the loser flies away. However, the winner did not return to his feast. Instead, he sat on a flower stem, watching to be sure the competition would stay away. Was that standard territorial behavior often seen among most species? Or is this yet again a manifestation of how the Fall affects the smallest of innocent creatures? We can't escape human pride, selfishness, and along with pride, the desire for preeminence. Even nature is subject. So it is with us, on a greater and even more tragic scale. But we can beware of the person in our mirror and ever look at the Crucifix. Ignore or if needs be, fight the evil in the world, but remember the battle has already been won. If we keep that in mind, everything is easier to bear.
I'm curious if the 6 bishops are actually excommunicated, and about their sacramental abilities. They have the provision of emergency, but say that does not stand, can they still confer confirmation? And do they have any right of appeal or trial?
Excommunicated? Declared, yes — six named men, procedurally clean. Whether incurred is the contested part: cc. 1323 4° and 1324 §1 8° (necessity, even sincerely mistaken necessity — §3 excludes the LS penalty entirely). The decree never addresses these excusing clauses, so the question stays formally open. Same unresolved fight as 1988.
Confirmation? Valid regardless. Confirmation flows from episcopal orders, which are indelible — an excommunicated bishop confirms and ordains validly but illicitly. Jurisdiction isn’t the operative issue for confirmation (it is for penance), so the emergency provision doesn’t even come into play.
Appeal? Yes: hierarchical recourse (cc. 1734-1737), petition within 10 days, and per c. 1353 recourse against a penal decree suspends its execution while pending. Fr. Marcello’s Rorate analysis maps it. Notably the SSPX filed nothing — appealing concedes the decree’s presumptive validity, and their position is void ab initio. Same posture as 1988.
Two different powers. Orders (sacramental power) comes from ordination, is indelible, and no decree can remove it. Jurisdiction (governing power) is authority over persons, granted and revocable by the Church.
The split falls out of what each sacrament is. Eucharist, confirmation, baptism, anointing: the minister acts on matter (bread, chrism, water, oil) through his orders. Valid orders, valid sacrament — even from an excommunicated priest. That’s why nobody (but crazies on Facebook) disputes SSPX Masses are really the Mass.
Penance is different in kind: it’s a judicial act. The priest sits as judge and pronounces a sentence (absolution) over a person. A judge needs more than personal capacity — he needs authority over the party before him. That’s the faculty (c. 966). No jurisdiction, no valid absolution, however validly ordained the confessor.
Marriage is different again: the spouses confer the sacrament on each other; the priest is legally required witness. Church law (canonical form, c. 1108) says Catholics marry validly only before an authorized witness — so the issue is delegation, not orders at all.
So the map: orders-only sacraments can’t be touched by any decree; penance and marriage run through jurisdiction/delegation, which is why they’re the only two the Note attacks. The counter is that jurisdiction has its own supply lines — the unrevoked 2015 papal faculty, c. 144 (Church supplies jurisdiction in common error or positive doubt of law), c. 1335 §2 (undeclared censures suspend on request). The Church can and does supply the judge’s authority where the faithful need it; she never needs to supply orders, because they never leave.
However there are exceptions in need even for those two sacraments if they are revoked.
Thank you for your very comprehensive answer/explanation!
One other thing about Confession. We had the privilege of attending a talk by Kennedy a few weeks ago and, as he mentioned then, the biggest difference between Confession with a NO priest and SSPX would be in the penance given.
Kennedy, since you are so good at explaining these things (and a lot more knowledgeable than I in these matters!), would you consider dropping by "Pope Respecter" (Substack).
I lost track of the self-identified "traditional" folks who have been gushing with appreciation for someone setting things straight (no pun intended) about how we trads have erroneously maligned "Pope" Francis and now his heir, "Pope" Leo. (If you do, you might want to bring an air-sick bag with you!)
I agree with you but my point is that he couldn’t even get the decree of excommunication right. His deceptive ass couldn’t accomplish his one job in this satanic conspiracy. Evil makes us stupid.
Tucho was intentionally ambiguous (and the media picked up his maximalist version that doesn’t actually hold or work!) to try and claim more power than he possesses. He even let them pick up the implication that excommunication means damnation, which he attests not to believe in and the Vatican II Church rejects.
Every synodal document is always intentionally ambiguous. They want to exploit that ambiguity so you can never pin them down on clear doctrine and breaks with tradition, and they can do whatever they want.
The deeper paradox you’re smelling: the penalty only works on people who accept the pope’s authority. That’s why Rome dialogues warmly with Orthodox and Protestants (its rules don’t bind you if you’re outside) while dropping the hammer on the one group that insists it’s inside. Excommunication is an in-house discipline — which is why, as an outsider, you’ve never needed to understand it. Nobody inside fully does either this week.
That helps, thank you. I am an Anglican, so I understand the part about excommunication being an in-house discipline. I also agree that synodal pronouncements seem intentionally ambiguous.
We were Anglicans too, long ago, and thought the via media was the ultimate way.
It isn't. Priestesses etc were merely one thing that brought us, and many, many AngloCatholics to our knees, and then to Orthodoxy or Mother Rome. With all her
faults, confusions, contradictions, it's the very best there is. It was founded, after
all, by our Lord, and He knew all about Peter and especially, Judas.
Most semi-regular Catholics will simply accept Tucho's erroneous note and assume in Leo's favor that it is correct; 1988 repeats itself, and the pharisaism trumps charity.
But, there was no internet back then, and I expect this go-around will play out differently.
Thanks Kennedy, so true. I listened to the Prayerful Posse and Fr Murray stated re the decree and explanatory note "it's a real mess!"
Not to pre-empt or predict outcomes but I suspect nothing more will be decreed given Pope Leo's adherence to the hermeneutic of continuity particuarly as it relates to Pope Francis. The other 2,000 years ...well, that's another story.
Call Fr. Ripperger. Someone at the Vatican needs an exorcist
someone???? how about everyone
Not sure anyone really understands this, but this legal sloppiness is irrelevant to the vandals of the faith. They'll just ignore and carry on with their evils.
https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/sspx-excommunications-the-vaticans-plan-to-cancel-catholicism/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=The%20Video%20Every%20Traditional%20Catholic%20Needs%20to%20Watch%20Right%20Now&utm_campaign=Excommunication
At least Michael Matt stuck by us!!
Instead of saying "bishopette" in the image, better to replace it with "bitchop".
In full regalia! One is tempted to laugh out loud, only it's so sad. And so
unspeakably ugly! Female clergymen are simply the result of feminism gone
amok. Or maybe they just wanted to wear "pretty clothes?"
🤣🤣🤣 I LIKE that!!
What do you think of invoking canon 844? Michael Davies pointed this out - even if SSPX priests were all in schism and excommunicated, the new code of canon law allows for Catholics to receive sacraments from any priest who has valid orders - Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc. It's unbelievable but it's there. Wouldn't this apply to SSPX as well? For those Catholics who are not fortunate enough to have an FSSP or ICKSP or other approved TLM option (or reverent Norvus Ordo option)?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aHglDKN6ld8
Well said. Thank you.
By definition, under Canon 751, the SSPX is in schism. That canon does not say anything about the spiritual condition of the Pope, which it should. The underlying presumptions remain silent. There is another principle which says that if one is in a heretical state, he cannot excommunicate another. Two questions occur to me. (1) If Pope Leo participated in a ceremony in Peru honoring the false god Pachamama when he was a bishop, and there are pictures showing him doing this, and if Fernandez has said, in writing, that he believes everyone will be saved, contrary to Catholic teaching, are either or both of them heretics? (2) Since all bishops are equals by apostolic succession and none, other than Peter, has authority over another, can anyone other than the Pope issue a decree of schism and excommunication? The decree issued to the SSPX was issued by Fernandez, not Leo. Does Fernandez have the authority to do that?
I visualize the Vatican version of the Keystone Cops, without the humor…
Too many people have already suggested that there is an exquisite irony in an "excommunication" of pius souls who merely want to be devoted Catholics, while nothing is said about jokers like
the infamous Fr Martin, paca mama, so-called "ecumenism," and endless heterodoxy. It seems the
Church must always endure these aberrations, alas, papal aberrations. We were blessed with many
years of saints: John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, who will one day be called a "
doctor of the Church," and those who follow another will. "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem," OUR
Jerusalem. It's not the first time.
This is so un-believable..like an inverse parallel universe....how does 2,000 yrs of beautiful
Faith disappear in 60yrs. Blatant public mortal sins against purity and condoned by the
very people who are guarding the fort. I have been doing some serious face rubbing reading about this. Every day is something more sacrilegious.
If you think that the Church's history is "2000 years of beautiful faith," then I would encourage you to read about the Borgia popes during post-Medieval history...not good...
The beautiful faith of the Saints and martyrs who died for Christ. Even the Borgia popes didnt attack the liturgy of the Mass. They might have been sodomites in private but not at the Sacred Mass. This is a whole new awful creation.
This ought not to alarm or distress you terribly. Don't forget it all started with Judas, and he was chosen by our Lord Himself. Human nature always gets in the way of holiness. A few days ago I watched an exquisite Ruby-Throat Hummingbird busy at a Salvia plant. Each flower had to be examined and nectar taken. Suddenly, a second Hummer appeared, zipping right for the Salvia. Aerial warfare in miniature is swift and the loser flies away. However, the winner did not return to his feast. Instead, he sat on a flower stem, watching to be sure the competition would stay away. Was that standard territorial behavior often seen among most species? Or is this yet again a manifestation of how the Fall affects the smallest of innocent creatures? We can't escape human pride, selfishness, and along with pride, the desire for preeminence. Even nature is subject. So it is with us, on a greater and even more tragic scale. But we can beware of the person in our mirror and ever look at the Crucifix. Ignore or if needs be, fight the evil in the world, but remember the battle has already been won. If we keep that in mind, everything is easier to bear.
I'm curious if the 6 bishops are actually excommunicated, and about their sacramental abilities. They have the provision of emergency, but say that does not stand, can they still confer confirmation? And do they have any right of appeal or trial?
Excommunicated? Declared, yes — six named men, procedurally clean. Whether incurred is the contested part: cc. 1323 4° and 1324 §1 8° (necessity, even sincerely mistaken necessity — §3 excludes the LS penalty entirely). The decree never addresses these excusing clauses, so the question stays formally open. Same unresolved fight as 1988.
Confirmation? Valid regardless. Confirmation flows from episcopal orders, which are indelible — an excommunicated bishop confirms and ordains validly but illicitly. Jurisdiction isn’t the operative issue for confirmation (it is for penance), so the emergency provision doesn’t even come into play.
Appeal? Yes: hierarchical recourse (cc. 1734-1737), petition within 10 days, and per c. 1353 recourse against a penal decree suspends its execution while pending. Fr. Marcello’s Rorate analysis maps it. Notably the SSPX filed nothing — appealing concedes the decree’s presumptive validity, and their position is void ab initio. Same posture as 1988.
Could you please explain the jurisdiction issue regarding sacraments. How can it be operative for some sacraments but not for others?
Two different powers. Orders (sacramental power) comes from ordination, is indelible, and no decree can remove it. Jurisdiction (governing power) is authority over persons, granted and revocable by the Church.
The split falls out of what each sacrament is. Eucharist, confirmation, baptism, anointing: the minister acts on matter (bread, chrism, water, oil) through his orders. Valid orders, valid sacrament — even from an excommunicated priest. That’s why nobody (but crazies on Facebook) disputes SSPX Masses are really the Mass.
Penance is different in kind: it’s a judicial act. The priest sits as judge and pronounces a sentence (absolution) over a person. A judge needs more than personal capacity — he needs authority over the party before him. That’s the faculty (c. 966). No jurisdiction, no valid absolution, however validly ordained the confessor.
Marriage is different again: the spouses confer the sacrament on each other; the priest is legally required witness. Church law (canonical form, c. 1108) says Catholics marry validly only before an authorized witness — so the issue is delegation, not orders at all.
So the map: orders-only sacraments can’t be touched by any decree; penance and marriage run through jurisdiction/delegation, which is why they’re the only two the Note attacks. The counter is that jurisdiction has its own supply lines — the unrevoked 2015 papal faculty, c. 144 (Church supplies jurisdiction in common error or positive doubt of law), c. 1335 §2 (undeclared censures suspend on request). The Church can and does supply the judge’s authority where the faithful need it; she never needs to supply orders, because they never leave.
However there are exceptions in need even for those two sacraments if they are revoked.
Thank you for your very comprehensive answer/explanation!
One other thing about Confession. We had the privilege of attending a talk by Kennedy a few weeks ago and, as he mentioned then, the biggest difference between Confession with a NO priest and SSPX would be in the penance given.
I have noticed that also....
Three dimensional chessboard that it is, the 'make a mess' black pieces may just upend the whole thing when it becomes obvious that their game is up.
Kennedy, since you are so good at explaining these things (and a lot more knowledgeable than I in these matters!), would you consider dropping by "Pope Respecter" (Substack).
I lost track of the self-identified "traditional" folks who have been gushing with appreciation for someone setting things straight (no pun intended) about how we trads have erroneously maligned "Pope" Francis and now his heir, "Pope" Leo. (If you do, you might want to bring an air-sick bag with you!)
This would be like an episode of “The Office” if the issues involved weren’t so serious. What incompetence.
I only WISH it were incompetence! This has been meticuously planned out to bring down the One True Church.
I agree with you but my point is that he couldn’t even get the decree of excommunication right. His deceptive ass couldn’t accomplish his one job in this satanic conspiracy. Evil makes us stupid.
Absolutely! However, with 'approval' ratings for Jorge and Leo hovering around 75%, it doesn't seem to matter.
I, a non-Roman Catholic, am now totally confused.
Tucho was intentionally ambiguous (and the media picked up his maximalist version that doesn’t actually hold or work!) to try and claim more power than he possesses. He even let them pick up the implication that excommunication means damnation, which he attests not to believe in and the Vatican II Church rejects.
Every synodal document is always intentionally ambiguous. They want to exploit that ambiguity so you can never pin them down on clear doctrine and breaks with tradition, and they can do whatever they want.
The deeper paradox you’re smelling: the penalty only works on people who accept the pope’s authority. That’s why Rome dialogues warmly with Orthodox and Protestants (its rules don’t bind you if you’re outside) while dropping the hammer on the one group that insists it’s inside. Excommunication is an in-house discipline — which is why, as an outsider, you’ve never needed to understand it. Nobody inside fully does either this week.
This week??!! As you accurately stated, "intentionally ambiguous" was implemented in the Vatican II documents for that precise reason!
I meant his claim that everyone including any attending Mass were excommunicated, etc. The maximalist threat.
That helps, thank you. I am an Anglican, so I understand the part about excommunication being an in-house discipline. I also agree that synodal pronouncements seem intentionally ambiguous.
We were Anglicans too, long ago, and thought the via media was the ultimate way.
It isn't. Priestesses etc were merely one thing that brought us, and many, many AngloCatholics to our knees, and then to Orthodoxy or Mother Rome. With all her
faults, confusions, contradictions, it's the very best there is. It was founded, after
all, by our Lord, and He knew all about Peter and especially, Judas.
May God bless and keep you!
Perhaps of interest the first diocese to issue a warning letter news bulletin was issued the day before Tuchos decree. 🤔