The following decree of excommunication with its accompanying note were issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 2nd, 2026. These unjust documents refer to the July 1st, 2026 episcopal consecrations of the Society of Saint Pius X and impose the penalty of excommunication on the two consecrating bishops as well as the four new bishops.
Further, the Note explains that the faithful who ‘formally adhere’ to the SSPX are also excommunicated and to be considered schismatics. Additionally, any sacraments dispensed by the clergy of the SSPX are now illicit and the sacraments of penance and matrimony are now considered by Rome to be invalid.
It goes without saying that these excommunications themselves are not valid since the consecrations took place due to the grave necessity raising from the crisis of Modernism infecting the Church.
Decree of excommunication
| Decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, 02.07.2026 Prot. N. 99/2009 DECREE Despite the warnings addressed to the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, having committed an act of a schismatic nature by consecrating four priests as bishops without a pontifical mandate and against the will of the Supreme Pontiff, has incurred ipso facto the penalties provided for in can. 1387 and can. 1364 §1 of the 2021 Code of Canon Law (CIC). I therefore declare, with all juridical effects, that both the aforementioned Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Marc Hanappier have incurred ipso facto the latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. I further declare that Bishop Bernard Fellay, having directly participated in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator, thereby publicly adhering to the schismatic act, has incurred the latae sententiae excommunication provided for in can. 1364 §1 CIC 2021. Clerics and lay faithful are warned not to adhere to the schism of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, lest they incur ipso facto the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication. From the Palace of the Dicastery, 2 July 2026 Víctor Manuel Cardinal Fernández Prefect John J. Kennedy Titular Archbishop of Ossero Secretary for the Disciplinary Section Msgr. Armando Matteo Secretary for the Doctrinal Section |
The Dicastery’s Note
From the time of Saint Paul VI up to the most recent talks, held recently at this Dicastery, the many attempts to bring the members of the movement begun by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre back into full communion with the Catholic Church have proved vain.
This situation has been further aggravated by the recent episcopal consecrations celebrated without pontifical mandate, against the will of the Holy Father, and in open violation of canon law.
Therefore, this Dicastery, in the faithful exercise of the functions entrusted to it, considers it necessary to state that this act constituted the delict of schism, with the canonical consequences for the sacred ministers and lay faithful involved. Indeed, as was already declared in 1988, “such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act” (cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, 3).
In this regard, from now on:
1. The sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics (cf. Ecclesia Dei, 5 c; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note on the excommunication for schism incurred by those adhering to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, 24.08.1996, 5-6), and are subject to the excommunication prescribed by law (can. 1364 § 1 CIC).
2. As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are to be considered schismatics and excommunicated under the conditions established in the 1996 Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (cf. ibidem, 7), which remains in force and which this Dicastery adopts as its own.
3. Finally, the holy People of God are warned that the sacred ministers of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X administer the sacraments illicitly, and that the sacrament of penance administered by them and marriages assisted by them are invalid.
The Church, as a caring mother, will welcome with sincere affection and lively solicitude all those who wish to return to full communion. The Apostolic Nuncios will arrange the procedures that Ordinaries may use in the various cases.
Finally, all the faithful are urged to remain steadfast in communion with the Roman Pontiff, with the Bishops in communion with him, and with the whole Church (cf. Lumen Gentium, 22; can. 751 CIC), and to refrain from taking part in celebrations and activities promoted by the aforementioned Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Explanatory Note
This explanatory note was written in 1996 in response to media reports in the years after Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication. It explains, among other items, what is required for ‘formal adherence’ to the Society of Saint Pius X, that is, what the Vatican believes will cause a layperson to incur the penalty of excommunication/schism.
The entire Note is quite long; sections relevant to the faithful who attend SSPX chapels is highlighted below in yellow.
V. On the excommunication for schism incurred by members of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre’s movement
(Communicationes, 29 [1997] 239–243)
Following the news recently spread by some media, this Pontifical Council has deemed it appropriate to make public an explanatory note sent by the same to the Congregation for Bishops.
Vatican City, August 24, 1996
Most Reverend Eminence,
By letter dated 26 July ca, Prot. N. XXX, Your Most Reverend Eminence sent this Pontifical Council a letter from St. AND. Monsignor. Norbert Brunner, Bishop of Sion in Switzerland, in which the Presule – awaited some confusing press information – asked for the authoritative interpretation of the Motu Proprio « Ecclesia Dei » and of the subsequent Decree of this Congregation concerning the excommunication imposed against Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the four Bishops he ordained and Bishop Emeritus Antonio de Castro. At the same time, Your Eminence asked the opinion of this Dicastery regarding the terms of the answer to be given to the aforementioned Presule.
In this regard, I have the honour to inform you that the problem raised by the Ordinary of Zion does not seem to require an authentic interpretation of either the Motu Proprio « Ecclesia Dei » of 2 July 1988, nor of the Decree of this Congregation for Bishops of 1 July 1988, nor of the relative canons of the CIC: 1364, § 1 and 1382.
In fact, the Presule bases his request on pastoral needs, to put an end to erroneous interpretations, but does not offer any element that suggests the existence or well-founded probability of an authentic « dubium iuris » in the legislation of the aforementioned documents, an indispensable condition for an authentic « interpretation ».
Nonetheless, to accommodate the request for this Dicastery, some considerations and suggestions are offered in the united Note with the hope that they may be useful for the clarifying response that this Congregation intends to give to the Bishop of Zion.
If, however, the confusion mentioned by the Presules in His letter were relevant from a pastoral point of view, also because it extended to other dioceses and nations where the Lefebvrian movement operates, one could hypothesize a general declaration of the Holy See, to be prepared in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cf. Note, n.5).
Profit of circumstance to confirm me with senses of deep veneration
of Your Most Reverend Eminence
Julián Herranz,
Archbishop tit. by Vertara
PresidentMarino Maccarelli
Undersecretary
* * *
NOTE
1. From the Motu proprio « Ecclesia Dei » of 2 July 1988 and the Decree « Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre » of the Congregation for Bishops, of 1 July 1988, it appears first of all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate relation to the episcopal ordinations carried out on 30 June 1988 without a papal mandate (cf. CIC, can. 1382). However, it also appears clearly from the aforementioned documents that this very serious act of disobedience constituted the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic nature.
2. In fact, No. 4 of the Motu proprio explains what was the « doctrinal root of this schismatic act » and the n. 5 c) warns that a « formal adherence to the schism » (being understood by such « the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre ») would entail excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364, § 1). The decree of the Congregation for Bishops also explicitly refers to the «schismatic nature » of the aforementioned episcopal ordinations and recalls the very serious penalty of excommunication that would entail joining « the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre ».
3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act that gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree only completed, in a particularly visible and unequivocal way –with a very serious formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff – a process of distancing from the hierarchical communio. As long as there are no changes that lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communio, the entire Lefebvrian movement is to be considered schismatic, with a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority in this regard.
4. No judgment can be given on the arguments of Murray’s controversial thesis because it is not known, and the two articles that mention it appear confusing. However, the validity of the excommunications of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree cannot reasonably be questioned. In particular, it does not seem that any exigent or mitigating circumstances can be found regarding the imputability of the sentence (Cf. CIC, cann. 1323–1324). As for the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought he was there, it must be kept in mind that this state must occur objectively, and that there is never a need to ordain Bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops.Ciò infatti significherebbe la possibilità di « servire » la Chiesa mediante un attentato contro la sua unità in materia connessa con i fondamenti stessi di questa unità.
5. As Motu Proprio No. 5 c), the latae sententiae excommunication by schism concerns those who «formally adhere » to the said schismatic movement. Although the question of the exact scope of the notion « formal adherence to the schism » should be posed to the competent Congregation for the Doctrine of the said faith, it seems to this Pontifical Council that such adherence must imply two complementary elements:
a) one of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism, that is, in thus opting for Lefebvre’s followers to place this option 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, whose most manifest sign will be exclusive participation in Lefebvre’s « ecclesial » acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is in any case a non-unique sign, since there is the possibility that some faithful will take part in the liturgical functions of Lefebvre’s followers without sharing their schismatic spirit).
6. In the case of Lefebvrian deacons and priests it seems undeniable that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two above requirements are given (n. 5) and that there is therefore formal membership.
7. In the case of other faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrian movement is not sufficient for one to speak of formal adherence to the movement, done without adopting the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity of that movement. In pastoral practice it can be more difficult to judge their situation. Above all, the intention of the person must be taken into account, and the translation into acts of this internal disposition. The various situations must therefore be judged on a case-by-case basis, in the competent external and internal courts.
8. However, it will always be necessary to distinguish the moral question of whether or not the sin of schism exists from the legal–criminal question of the existence of the crime of schism and its consequent sanction. The provisions of Book VI of the CIC should be applied to the latter (also the cann. 1323–1324).
9. It does not seem advisable to formalize more (but the competent Dicastery should be consulted on this matter: cf. Cost. Ap. « Pastor Bonus », art. 52) the requirements for the crime of schism. Perhaps there would be a risk of creating more problems through a penal-style regulatory tightening that fails to capture all cases well: leaving out cases of substantial schism, or contemplating external behaviors that are not always subjectively schismatic.
10. Still from a pastoral point of view, it would also seem appropriate to further recommend to the sacred Pastors all the norms of the Motu proprio « Ecclesia Dei » with which the solicitude of the Vicar of Christ stimulated dialogue and to place the supernatural and human means necessary to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrians to full ecclesial communion.
Vatican City, August 24, 1996
Leave a Reply