My Support for the Society of Saint Pius X

In recent weeks, the Argentine philosopher and blogger Caminante Wanderer has repeatedly expressed his concern that the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) might no longer be able to find its way back into full communion with the Church due to unauthorized episcopal consecrations, as has happened to various other groups throughout history. At the same time, he emphasizes that the Society is correct in many of its criticisms and honors its commitment to preserving the truths of the faith and the salvation of souls. For this reason, he also gives space to supportive voices and published the following contribution by a Spanish author, which we are documenting.

My Support for the Society of Saint Pius X

By Carmelo López-Arias*

The first traditional Mass I ever attended was in 1982, at the age of eighteen, in a chapel of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). At first, I understood almost nothing. However, with the help of a missal, I gained a clear picture within three days.

Three Significant Encounters

At that time, I read the indispensable Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae by Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci regarding the New Mass.

To resolve the doubts that arose from it, I did not initially turn to priests of the SSPX. Instead, I sought out three prominent figures whose names I will keep private, as the conversations took place in confidence.

I presented them with my questions about the traditional Mass, the New Mass, and the state of the Church. All three were regarded as men of proven orthodoxy and great courage in the public defense of the faith. While they all celebrated the New Mass and none of them celebrated the traditional Mass, we did not discuss the Society itself, as it was not the subject of our conversations.

• The first was a widely known and extremely energetic priest in the battle for the faith in 1970s Spain. I wrote him a letter outlining my doubts and requesting a personal interview. When I received no reply, I wrote to him a second time, ensuring the letter had arrived. I never received an answer.
• The second was a Jesuit who still wore the cassock and enjoyed an excellent reputation as a confessor. He received me, and we were able to discuss the matter thoroughly, calmly, and with complete naturalness. He treated me with great kindness. He did not refute a single one of my arguments regarding the contrast between the traditional and the New Mass. He fully acknowledged the problem but held the view that one must submit to the directives of the Vatican. He bid me a warm farewell without imposing any directives on me.
• The third was a Dominican and one of the most important Thomist theologians of those years. I visited him together with a friend who knew him. He received me at his monastery. His demeanor was marked by great theological depth. From the nature of his answers, it became clear to me that he shared the reasoning of Ottaviani and Bacci. Although he also celebrated the New Mass, he avoided any statement that could be understood as a rejection of the traditional Mass in the sense of the Vatican directives. He bid me farewell with warmth and understanding for my concerns.

Active Collaboration in the SSPX

Following these three encounters, the decision was made to join the Society of Saint Pius X and support it in various ways. This I have done certainly not without shortcomings, but out of conviction to this day.

Then came the year 1986. Like dozens of cardinals and bishops, hundreds of priests, and millions of the faithful around the world, I learned with horror what the Pope was preparing and ultimately carried out in Assisi. Unlike those dozens of cardinals and bishops, those hundreds of priests, and those millions of faithful who preferred to remain silent, I held fast to the decision of resistance alongside the Society of Saint Pius X.

In 1988, I welcomed the decision of the two bishops, Marcel Lefebvre and Antonio de Castro Mayer both of whom passed away in 1991 to perform the episcopal consecrations that incurred their excommunication; an excommunication, moreover, that was neither threatened nor applied then or now against hundreds of bishops who have manifestly deviated from Catholic doctrine and morals.

Through a lecture by Archbishop Lefebvre, I became acquainted with a work that did not originate from the Society but which he strongly recommended: Iota Unum: A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century (1985) by Romano Amerio. I contacted the SSPX priest who was managing the publication of this work and became its translator into Spanish, as well as the editor and distributor of the two Spanish editions (1995 and 2003). I know that the work was read and highly esteemed by countless Catholics outside the SSPX, because they recognized the significance and depth of one of the most important books on the Church to appear in the last fifty years.

For many years, I shared an excellent personal friendship with one of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, the Spanish-Argentine Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, toward whom I have nothing but words of gratitude and appreciation.

In 2012, Marcel Lefebvre, the excellent biography written by another of the bishops he consecrated, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, was published in Spain. Although I did not directly contribute to this work nor do everything I should have done, to my surprise and completely undeservedly, I received a copy personally inscribed by the author. He passed away in the year 2024.

Special circumstances made it possible for me to gain insight into certain instances of the relations between the Roman authorities and the SSPX. I mention this to recall that mutual disagreements never prevented the Vatican from being clear about the fact that the Society of Saint Pius X is a Catholic institution, even if no canonical status has been granted to it to this day.

Two Remarkable Aspects

I would like to point out two distinct but, to me, significant points.

First: Life has allowed me to become acquainted with various works of Catholic evangelization that arose after and were inspired by the Second Vatican Council. Although I disagree with them on important points, they have helped me recognize the good they contain, as well as their beneficial effect on the Church. I hope that this good will multiply in the near future, and I am convinced that God will bring this about.

Second: The Society of Saint Pius X endeavored twice to be received by Leo XIV. I certainly appreciate some of his words, inclinations, and gestures, and the Society recognizes him as Pope, just as it has recognized all successors of Pius XII. Since Leo XIV refused this audience while granting it to global organizations of non-Catholic or even anti-Catholic religious, ideological, or socio-political orientations, the Society of Saint Pius X found itself compelled to announce the episcopal consecrations of July 1st, which are necessary for its current situation. The Holy Father's attitude on this point seems incomprehensible to me, however much I esteem him in other respects.

Unwanted Silence

The SSPX's announcement for the year 2026 coincided with a health problem on my part, which prevented me over the past months from supporting and collaborating with the Society to the extent that I would have wished.

Precisely in the days leading up to the recent episcopal consecrations, I had to undergo major surgery. Apart from a single SSPX priest whom I asked for prayers at the last moment, I spoke about it with none of my priestly acquaintances in the Society. Before the operation, I wanted to quietly express to God my explicit support for what was to take place on July 1st. For if I had to appear before Him as the sinner, unfortunately terrible in every respect, that I am, I wanted at least to compensate a little by supporting this Catholic reality.

With Mind and Heart

Having successfully come through this trial, I wish to publicly declare my support for the Society of Saint Pius X. I do so in a form that is unusually simple for me. As a writer, I usually avoid the personal, striving instead for the factual and doctrinal rather than the individual.

It has been an undeserved grace of my life to get to know the Society of Saint Pius X and to be allowed to cooperate with it in many ways, though always less than I should have done. My attachment is based exclusively on its Catholic principles in the service of the Church.

That the SSPX has its imperfections goes without saying. I know them very well after nearly half a century of working together. This is the case with every ecclesiastical reality throughout history. For the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ is perfect as the source of those four marks named in the Creed, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, but the concrete human expressions striving to realize these marks are not.

Despite its shortcomings, the fidelity of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Catholic Church, its doctrine, its morals, and its sacraments, is just as evident as the injustice it has just suffered.

*Carmelo López-Arias is a Spanish Catholic journalist, translator, and publicist. He works primarily on topics concerning the Church, liturgy, and theology, and became known through his work translating and editing specialized Catholic texts and for digital Spanish-language media; he has also repeatedly commented on issues regarding Tradition, the Second Vatican Council, and ecclesiastical developments.

Translation: Giuseppe Nardi 

Image: SSPX (Screenshot)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

The SSPX Plays The Canonical Card

Since the Roman response to the unauthorized episcopal ordinations of 2026 operates on a completely different level of legal status than in 1988, the SSPX (FSSPX) is taking the legal route and appealing to the Holy See against the decree of excommunication.

The conflict between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X enters a new phase. Following the decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 2, 2026, the Society is pursuing the designated path of canon law and lodging an appeal. By doing so, the SSPX is not relying on a political declaration or a demonstrative rejection of Rome's actions, but rather on the legal order of the Church itself.

The Society's General House announced on July 13 that a preliminary administrative appeal (remonstrance) pursuant to Canons 1734 ff. of the Code of Canon Law was submitted to the same dicastery on July 11. This step is the necessary prerequisite for a potential hierarchical appeal. According to the SSPX, the application has a suspensive effect under Can. 1353 CIC, thereby staying the execution of the contested decree. (fsspx.news)

A Legal Remedy with a Clear Signal

The significance of this step does not lie solely within the judicial process. The Society is explicitly invoking a right available to anyone affected by an ecclesiastical administrative act. The appeal was made, according to the statement from Menzingen, "in a spirit of respect toward ecclesiastical authority" and out of fidelity to "justice, truth, and the good of the Church."

Vatican journalist Diane Montagna viewed the move as remarkable because the Society of Saint Pius X is conducting the dispute within the framework of canon law. Especially given the decades of tension between Rome and the Society, the decision carries weight: the SSPX is not fundamentally questioning the competence of canon law, but is instead attempting to have what it views as an erroneous administrative decision reviewed through the established legal channels.

In 1988, the legal path was not pursued. This was due to various reasons, chiefly because Pope John Paul II issued the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei at the time, in which he spoke of a "schismatic act." A Motu Proprio possesses a vastly different legal status than a mere decree from a Roman dicastery. A Motu Proprio is a law for the universal Church, issued directly by the Pope, and therefore precludes the legal path of appeal. The Society of Saint Pius X therefore opposed it primarily on a theological-canonical level. With the election of Benedict XVI, the path of direct talks was then taken.

Point of Contention: Assessment of the Episcopal Ordinations

The starting point of the conflict is the decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith following the SSPX's episcopal ordinations on July 1 in Ecône. The dicastery declared that by performing episcopal ordinations without a papal mandate, the participating bishops had committed an "act of a schismatic nature" and imposed the corresponding canonical sanctions provided for since 1958 and 1983 respectively.

The Society disputes this assessment. In a more detailed statement on the decree, it argues that the Roman accusation of schism conflates disobedience with schism, invoking classical canonical distinctions. According to the SSPX, the assessment of the event is not convincing from a theological and canonical standpoint.

Tradition-Minded Voices See a Precedent

In tradition-minded Catholic circles, the appeal was widely welcomed. Commentators such as Father John Zuhlsdorf pointed out that lodging an appeal is an explicitly provided canonical remedy, though the outcome remains open.

This is precisely where the real explosive potential lies: the Society of Saint Pius X is not demanding special treatment outside the law, but rather a review within the legal system that it frequently criticizes in other areas. The appeal thus also becomes a test case for how far ecclesiastical administrative law applies in a highly sensitive field of conflict.

Between Confrontation and Potential Dialogue

While Vatican officials portray the event as a reaction to a grave breach of the ecclesiastical order, the Society views it as a correction of what it considers an unjust decision.

Whether the appeal is merely another stage in the long conflict between Rome and the SSPX or whether it opens up a new level of dialogue remains open at present. What is certain, however, is that by going before the canon law authorities, the Society has shifted the dispute to a new arena.

The focus is no longer just on the question of the permissibility of the episcopal ordinations, but also on the fundamental question of how internal Church conflicts can be legally resolved. The further course of the proceedings is therefore likely to attract attention far beyond this specific case.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi 

Image: fsspx aktuell (Screenshot)

Trans: Tancred velron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Don Nicola Bux: “The understanding of ecclesial communion has been lost”

July 7, 2026

Francesco Borgonovo interviewing Don Nicola Bux for Radio Cusano

Don Nicola Bux, the well-known liturgist and longtime personal friend and confidant of Pope Benedict XVI, gave an interview to the private broadcaster Radio Cusano. The interview was published on YouTube a few days after the valid but illicit episcopal ordinations by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X. 

Matteo Matzuzzi, mentioned in the interview, has been editor-in-chief of the Italian daily newspaper Il Foglio since 2020. The interview with Don Nicola Bux was conducted by Francesco Borgonovo, deputy editor-in-chief of the daily newspaper La Verità.

Moderator: Here we are again with Calibro 9 on Radio Cusano. We welcome Don Nicola Bux, who has commented both in writing and verbally in recent days on this event, which the newspapers are calling a schism. Don Nicola, what should we make of this? Why, in your view, has it come to this?

Don Nicola Bux: Good day. I believe we have reached this point because — not just today, but at least since 1985, when Ratzinger pointed it out in his famous book The Ratzinger Report (Zur Lage des Glaubens) with Vittorio Messori — the Catholic understanding of the reality of the Church has been lost, both in theology and in public opinion. People no longer believe that the Church is a reality willed by Christ; instead, they see it as something that can be reshaped at will, as if it were made of Lego bricks. On one side I am thinking of the Lefebvrists, and on the other of the Germans. In the end, the contents of faith and morals become arbitrary.

Moderator: What is the real difference? Let’s try to explain this to our listeners. Why are the Lefebvrists being punished — apart from the fact that they ordained bishops without papal approval and thereby refused obedience to the Pope? I already said earlier in the conversation with Matteo Matzuzzi that much of what is happening in Germany, and also here, seems to me theologically far more serious and further removed from the teaching of the Church than what the Lefebvrists stand for. Or am I seeing this wrong?

Don Nicola Bux: That is the most common objection: Why punish precisely those who appear so orthodox and faithful to Catholic principles, while allowing others to do as they please even though they permit almost anything in matters of faith and morals? In reality, the punishment has nothing to do with what they believe, but with what they have done. They have committed an act that canon law expressly designates as a grave delict: the ordination of bishops without a papal mandate.

Remember that a similar case occurred with the bishops ordained without papal mandate in China, already under Pius XII and later as well. This is an extraordinarily serious act, more serious than problematic views on marriage or other moral questions. Why? Because such views initially remain mere opinions and stay on the level of opinion. Let me give an example: Just last week the Dicastery for Divine Worship responded to the Germans and made it clear that the homily at Holy Mass may not be given by a layperson. So such clarifications do exist.

If, nevertheless, people act accordingly, a sanction will inevitably follow sooner or later. Therefore one must be careful not to simply equate different behaviors. In my opinion, the real problem is that people no longer understand what the Church as a community means. It is like a family in which there is communion, though one in which disputes certainly occur. But if every time differences of opinion arise the door is slammed and the community is broken, then nothing can endure. The problem is that many people no longer even know what ecclesial communion actually means.

Moderator: In your opinion, could this break have been prevented? What exactly was expected of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X? That it should simply gradually dissolve? That the bishops whose excommunications had been lifted would die and no new ones would be ordained, so that the problem would eventually solve itself? How could things have turned out differently?

Don Nicola Bux: If the Pope had called the responsible parties to himself months ago and said, “Good, let’s sit down and talk,” perhaps with the help of experts, then this break might — I say explicitly: might — have been avoided. Unfortunately, that did not happen. On the other hand, there have been attempts at dialogue in the past, including on the part of Ratzinger and other cardinals.

The truth, however, is that the Society has sometimes been very inflexible in its convictions, especially regarding the Ecumenical Council. For not everything has the same rank. There are fundamental statements of the Council that must be accepted; after all, a solemn act of the Church’s magisterium is infallible. In addition, there are statements of a more time-conditioned nature about which one can certainly discuss. Apparently this distinction has been given too little consideration. Why that is, I do not know. Perhaps because the Bergoglian-Vatican environment — even though it now owes obedience to the new Pope — still shapes the governing apparatus. The Pope does not yet fully control this machinery and must therefore rely on those who steered it before him. Possibly this prevented a different development.

One could draw many further conclusions from this. I remain, however, at this point: The understanding of ecclesial communion as a reality in which one wrestles together and arrives at the faith together has been lost. The Church is not a democracy, but a sacramental, that is, a hierarchical reality. Its structures are reformable and can always be reviewed; but in its essence the Church belongs neither to the one side nor the other, but to Christ. Precisely this awareness has, in my opinion, been lost, and I hope that we regain it.

Moderator: Can one still turn back?

Don Nicola Bux: Yes, it is possible. One can turn back. But this requires good will. The sanctions provided for in canon law have now been imposed, yet it would be very desirable for the dialogue to be resumed. A certain elasticity is needed, especially on the part of the Society. For example, it should rediscover Saint John Henry Newman, especially his thoughts on the relationship between doctrine and the development of doctrine. It seems to me that in some respects it has remained stuck in the 19th century. It should reflect on that. In any case, we must never give up hope that an understanding remains possible.

Moderator: I thank Don Nicola Bux very warmly. Here we are dealing with questions of fundamental importance for the Church. It is a problem that, besides the spiritual and faith-related dimension, could also have political consequences. There are considerable tensions surrounding these decisions that go beyond theology. Isn’t that so?

Don Nicola Bux: Well, but that would actually be inappropriate. Political categories cannot be applied to the Church. That is a mistake. Certainly there may be influences by individual persons. But I believe that in the Church we must learn to step back ourselves and, as it were, disappear, so that Christ may triumph. The greatest renewers of the Church were the saints. The Church needs holiness, and the first form of holiness consists, in a sense, in seeking communion. Communion with Peter is fundamental; I would say it is the truly Catholic charism that distinguishes the Catholic Church from other ecclesial communities. If this communion is lacking, one cannot claim to want to be united with the Pope and at the same time perform actions that contradict this. That makes no sense.

As for the political aspect, I would say: Actually there isn’t one. Certainly, I have heard some commentators…

Moderator: Those would again be other fundamental questions. Many thanks, Don Nicola. We will now take a short break and be right back.

Don Nicola Bux: Thank you. All the best to you!

Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Radio Cusano/YouTube (Screenshot)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

On Excommunication and Its Distinction

In connection with the episcopal consecrations of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), there is frequent talk of excommunication and schism. Often, however, these terms are used imprecisely or even incorrectly. 

A clarification.

By Don Michael Gurtner*

In recent days surrounding the events of Écône it seems that the cudgel of excommunication is being wielded with the aim of frightening those who still take the Catholic faith truly seriously and want to be sincerely Catholic. It appears intended to trigger scruples in the faithful to discourage them and prevent them from receiving the Holy Sacraments from the Society of St. Pius X and participating in its activities.

It is striking how imprecisely commentators and even clergymen use the term excommunication. Furthermore, almost no distinction is made between the different types of excommunication. Whether this happens out of ignorance or by calculation will vary from case to case.

Therefore, it appears to be a work of justice toward the bishops, priests, and faithful of the SSPX to point out a few things regarding excommunication in general and in particular. In many media reports and commentaries, they are portrayed as schismatics standing outside the Church with whom, in contrast to Protestants and Muslims, any contact should best be avoided. This portrayal even comes from people who, by virtue of their office, ought to know better.

To correctly grasp and contextualize excommunication in general, we must first make a few ecclesiological preliminary remarks.

Ecclesiological Foundation

In God's plan of salvation, the Church was already laid out and prepared in Genesis. It is a single and indivisible Church, and provisionally still a Church in a broader sense, so to speak, which prepares the Church as a visible societas perfecta (perfect society). It encompasses all who belong to God, such as the righteous of the Old Covenant and the angels of heaven.

Christ added a new aspect to this one and only Church: He made it visible, instituted by His will and founded by His actions. The actual beginning of the "visible Church" lies in the side wound of Jesus, from which flowed blood and water (connoting Baptism and the Eucharist, or the redemptive sacrifice), and at Pentecost, she is finally revealed.

It is always the one, self-same, and unique Church, which henceforth has two aspects.

• The first aspect, the invisible dimension of the Church, concerns invisible realities: the interior reality of grace, the supernatural life of the soul with God, and the Holy Spirit as the "soul" of the Church by which she is animated.
• The second aspect, which comes through Christ, bestows upon the Church a "visible body," so to speak: the sacraments, the hierarchy, the profession of the true Catholic doctrine, and the visible belonging to the community of her individual members.

Thus, we have a single Church that has, as it were, a body and a soul, two aspects, whereby the visible aspect ultimately does nothing other than externalize the invisible aspect.

Church Means Belonging to God

With Christ, the Church in the sense of belonging to God is externally manifested. This communio sanctorum, the communion of saints who themselves stand in communion with God, is mirrored in the communion of the faithful with one another, and this in turn in communion with the hierarchy, at whose head stands the Pope.

Christ Himself instructed us on what is necessary for salvation: baptism and the right faith (Mk 16:16). Through baptism, one goes from being a creature of God to a child of God, entering the state of grace and being incorporated into the visible Church. Yet the right faith is also a prerequisite for being a member of the Church. It is not enough simply to have just any faith; rather, it requires the profession of the one true faith, that faith which was revealed to us by the Father through the Son.

Therefore, he belongs to the Catholic Church who is baptized and professes the right, true Catholic faith, thereby also becoming an external participant in a communion embodied by the Pope as the visible head of the Church within this world.

Two Types of Excommunication

From this, it follows that there are circumstances which, automatically and by virtue of the facts, cause one to "fall out" of the Church, so to speak, and cease to be its member. These are, first of all, matters concerning the faith:

• Heresy concerns individual truths of faith that are denied.
• Apostasy concerns the faith as such: in the case of apostasy, the faith is rejected as a whole, not merely partially as in heresy.

These are objective facts that lead to exclusion from the Church not as a punishment, but because they are incompatible with the very definition of Church membership. For this reason, no ecclesiastical authority could grant Church membership to a heretic or an apostate. Were this to happen, he would be granted the rights and privileges that Church members enjoy, but on an ontological level, he would still not be what is claimed. He would be treated as a Catholic, but that alone would not ontologically make him a Catholic, even if there were a consensus about it.

Conversely, the same applies: if a majority accuses someone of heresy, for example, without that person actually denying a truth of God, that person would still not have "fallen out" of the Church despite such a flawed judgment.

Furthermore, there is schism. This consists in a willful separation from the Church. One can be completely orthodox but nonetheless schismatic, for example, by believing everything that is Catholic but not wanting to be part of the ecclesiastical community that forms out of the communion of faith. Schism behaves just like heresy and apostasy: it is determined solely by objective facts, not by opinion, polemics, or assertions. A schism cannot possibly arise where the will for unity exists.

Exclusion from the Church community through schism, apostasy, and heresy affects membership in the Church as a whole and as such: not merely the communion of the visible Church, but the Church also regarding the interior life of grace. It refers to the invisible, supernatural aspect of the Church. One is no longer part of the Church because one has fallen out of communion with God, so the state of grace has been extinguished.

"Excommunication" in this sense is therefore not understood as a punishment, but denotes a fact that has objectively occurred through external circumstances because these circumstances oppose the essential, internally necessary prerequisites of Church membership. This is independent of whether it has been externally established or not; an external declaration is not a prerequisite for falling out of supernatural Church membership, but merely establishes this fact after the fact, whereby others must also apply the external consequences to the person concerned.

For this reason, even a Pope could not validly lift an excommunication concerning these three scenarios, as it would still not restore supernatural Church membership. The Church no longer has jurisdictional power over such excommunicated persons, since heretics, apostates, and schismatics are no longer members of the Church. For the Church only has legal authority over those who are actually members of the Church.

Distinguished from this is another form of excommunication, namely excommunication in the sense of an ecclesiastically imposed medicinal penalty (Beugestrafe). This is a completely different kind of excommunication of a different nature: it does not concern leaving the communion with God, i.e., it does not inherently mean falling out of the invisible aspects of the Church, but rather exclusion from the natural community of the faithful. The person excommunicated in this manner is forbidden access to the Church's means of salvation, as well as access to offices and functions. However, he remains a member of the Church, which is why the Church still has jurisdictional power over him. This is the case, for example, when the Church imposes excommunication as a medicinal penalty due to perceived or actual misconduct.

In summary, it must be noted that there is a supernatural Church membership, which concerns the supernatural belonging to God, and a natural Church membership, which concerns belonging to the community of the faithful with one another. The first can only be recognized and declared by the Church, whereas the second is imposed.

On the Case of the Society of St. Pius X

These preliminary remarks, and particularly these distinctions, are important to better contextualize the excommunication of the bishops, priests, and faithful of the Society of St. Pius X.

First, it should be highlighted positively that the Holy See distinguishes the "double excommunication" more clearly than it did in 1988: on one side stand episcopal consecrations without a papal mandate as a ground for excommunication, and on the other side stands the accusation of schism as an independent ground for excommunication. In this context, the accusation of schism is derived from the unauthorized episcopal consecrations; however, both are formally and materially distinct.

Regarding the accusation of schism, the excommunication only takes effect if a schism actually exists. Excommunication based on a schism affects the supernatural, invisible aspect of the Church, as we have seen above. This is bound to objective facts and is not based on ecclesiastical laws; rather, a schism results from a fundamental attitude toward the Church. It must therefore not be confused with disobedience, for example.

An episcopal consecration without a mandate is not a certain, sufficient, and inherently unambiguous sign that a schism necessarily exists. For a schism, to be such, requires knowingly and willfully severing oneself from the Church, no longer understanding oneself as part of the Catholic Church, and therefore rejecting any ecclesiastical authority, specifically that of the Pope, per se and generally. Where this is not present, one can argue depending on the specific case whether it constitutes disobedience; but one certainly cannot speak of a schism.

It is entirely conceivable that someone is a member of the Church and wishes to remain so, recognizes the papal primacy and any ecclesiastical authority generally, but nevertheless disregards individual prohibitions or commands for certain well-founded motives and, for example, consecrates bishops. If the will to separate from the Church is lacking and ecclesiastical authority is generally recognized, no schism can exist, and thus no excommunication either. For excommunication based on a schism is not a simple medicinal penalty, but arises entirely on its own from the fact of having severed oneself from the Church.

Although the Church can and should establish this in such a case, she does so after the fact based on realities that essentially oppose Church membership. A schism does not occur because the Church claims it has occurred; rather, it occurs when certain objective facts are present that cannot be arbitrarily determined, but are dogmatically predefined and can merely be established by the Church when they actually exist.

Now, as far as the Society of St. Pius X is concerned, the situation was unambiguously assessed incorrectly: through word and deed, it has consistently proven, and continues to do so, that it does not sever itself from the Church, but on the contrary sees itself as part of it and also recognizes the hierarchy, especially the Pope, as such. Since, despite claims to the contrary, no schism exists and episcopal consecrations without a mandate are not automatically schismatic, the priests and the faithful of the Society of St. Pius X cannot be excommunicated either. As we stated at the outset, a flawed assessment does not affect supernatural Church membership.

Their situation is comparable to that of a good child who does not carry out the unjust or harmful command of his father, by which the father would inflict severe damage upon himself and his child. The child nevertheless recognizes his father as such, and also recognizes his authority, but uses his God-given intellect to avert great harm.

On the other hand, regarding the episcopal consecrations without a mandate, it must first be considered that the Church fundamentally evaluates this as a criminal offense. Therefore, she provides for excommunication as a medicinal penalty for the consecrating and consecrated bishops (and only for these) as a punishment, that is, which affects the visible aspect of the Church and still views the punished person as part of the Church.

It should only be mentioned in passing that this alone is a contradiction to excommunication based on a schism; for a schismatical person is no longer part of the Church, and thus the Church no longer has jurisdiction over him, rendering a medicinal penalty obsolete. Imposing a medicinal penalty implies that the punished person is a member of the Church and therefore cannot be a schismatic.

But apart from that, in the case of the Society of St. Pius X, those canons of canon law (1323 and 1324) are not applied which clearly and distinctly reduce or even exclude the penalty of excommunication if the persons concerned act on the basis of a real or perceived state of necessity (Notstand), even if this should turn out to be an error.

The Society of St. Pius X is therefore still Catholic; it is a part of the Church, and its priests and faithful are as well. The accusation of schism is based on the false assumption that episcopal consecrations without a mandate, or internal or external assent to them, are ipso facto a certain sign of a schism. Since this is not the case, no schism exists, and since no schism exists, they are still Catholic and not excommunicated, even if they are treated as such externally.

But how many of those who wrongfully claim that the priests and, more recently, also the faithful of the SSPX are schismatic and therefore no longer part of the Catholic Church are in reality themselves no longer part of it because they reject dogmas of the Catholic faith?

*Mag. Don Michael Gurtner is a diocesan priest originally from Austria who resisted the public ban on Masses during the Corona era, thereby earning great merit for the salvation of souls. He is the author of several theological books. In 2023/24, he published the series "On the Situation of the Church" on Katholisches.info, which has also appeared in book form.

Image: FSSPX (Screenshot)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG