I.Media: A Summary of the Various Aspects of the July 1st Consecrations Explained: Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X

 +

JMJ

Rorate published an article by I.Media (Rorate link, Original Source) that annoyed me.  

Here's the passages in question with my questions / thoughts: 

• The Mandate
• In the Catholic Church, every episcopal consecration must obtain a mandate from the Pope. The selection of a new bishop follows a rigorous procedure carried out by the nuncio — the Pope's ambassador — and the Dicastery for Bishops. They present three candidates to the pontiff, who then makes the final choice and may also choose a bishop not included on this list of three. To proceed with consecrations without a properly issued pontifical mandate constitutes an offense under the rules of currently applicable ecclesiastical law (canon 1013 [of the Code of Canon Law]).

I find it hard to reconcile the lack of response to Chinese consecrations and all the fuss over that of the SSPX (link). Even Pope Francis gave a blanket reconciliation of the Chinese bishops in 2018 (link). Then we have more recent consecrations (Catholic Herald link).  This uneven  application of the law appears to be somewhat hypocritical.  I can see two motivations. First avoiding a more extensive persecution of Catholic by the Chinese Government and the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association uses the Novus Ordo Missae. So I guess there isn't a conflict on the program of Vatican II.

• What Is a "Schism"?
• By committing a deliberate act of disobedience toward the authority of the pontiff, those involved place themselves in a schismatic situation. Schism is defined as a refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church (canon 751). It is a matter of discipline, not to be confused with heresy — which is obstinate persistence in doctrinal error — or with apostasy, which is a repudiation of the faith. All three offenses carry the penalty of excommunication.

Tradicat: Here again, I take issue with the definition.  

In 1988, the canon of schism was not cited and the case put forward by Cardinal Fernandez cites the study that took place after the fact in 1988. 

Next, the deliberate active of disobedience is not a schismatic act. So at this point they are simply repeating the false narrative.  In order for a consecration without or even against Papal orders, the disobedience has to be accompanied by a second act that demonstrates the rejection of the papacy or communion with the rest of the Church.  

It is noteworthy that Bishop Fellay is charged not under can. 1387 but under can. 1364 §1, the general schism provision. This is a legally significant divergence. The Code does not automatically treat unauthorized episcopal consecration as schism. Cardinal Fernández's invocation of Ecclesia Dei Adflicta (1988) to characterize the act as schismatic relies on a logical leap (from an act of disobedience to a wholesale rejection of papal primacy, but it is not a true leap, since they have reaffirmed their fidelity to the Holy Father) that the text of can. 751 does not support. Canon 751 defines schism as a withdrawal of submission: a total, wilful repudiation of authority, not a single act of disobedience. Disobedience and schism are distinct offenses. One can say ‘I cannot do this’ while still acknowledging an authority; that is not the same as saying ‘You have no authority over me.’ See Rorate Caeli: Canonical Analysis: The 2026 DDF Decree on the SSPX (link).

• What Exactly Is Excommunication? 
• Excommunication — rupture of communion with the Church — is the sanction that flows from the schismatic act. In the event that the SSPX carries out its plan to consecrate four bishops, the excommunication will be latae sententiae: it is automatic, inherent in the gravity of the act and in the publicity given to it. Rome will be able to publicly note a situation already established, as was the case in 1988 with the apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei.

Tradicat: This is really a mess.  Anyone curious about the nuances and distinctions that have been glossed over in the above needs to look at reputable sources of Catholic Doctrine, Canon Law and Moral Theology.

• Does Excommunication Send Someone to Hell? 
• No. In the Church's theology, the rupture of communion produces consequences for earthly life: those who are "excommunicated" can no longer receive the sacraments. The Church does not, however, pronounce judgment on the salvation of the sanctioned person, which belongs to God alone.

Tradicat: Well at least they got this right!

• Who Will Be Subject to Excommunication on July 1st? 
• The bishops who confer the consecration and those who receive it will be personally excommunicated by the very fact of the commission of the offense. But this act also has an institutional dimension: it is the SSPX as an institution that is proceeding with this consecration. Its Superior General, Father Davide Pagliarani, made the announcement and declared his intention to pursue this project without a pontifical mandate. As a result, all persons enrolled within the organization — clergy and religious — as well as the laypeople who adhere to this act, also find themselves in a schismatic situation in the eyes of the Church and potentially incur excommunication. It should be noted that during the first illicit consecrations in 1988, presided over by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Rome declared excommunication only for the consecrating and consecrated bishops — not for the entirety of the SSPX membership.

Tradicat: Yeah, that's not the way it works. Update: What they are implying is guilt by association all founded on the assumption that there is a refusal of submission to the Vicar of Christ  (i.e. ... is a refusal to recognize the authority of the head of the Church, or to communicate with those subject to him. link)  Simple version is that you have to want to separate yourself from the Church in order to separate yourself from the Church.  If there is no desire to separate - it doesn't happen. (see above link section: 1364. Schism.--Schism (etymologically, a split, rent) is defined: "A voluntary separation of oneself from the unity of the Church.")

• What Steps Would Be Required for Them to Return to Communion with the Church? 
• The lifting of excommunication is personal. It is a decision of Rome at the conclusion of a process of repentance. But it can also be a papal initiative intended to encourage a path of dialogue. In 2009, Benedict XVI had the excommunications of 1988 lifted by decree, explaining that he was making "a discreet gesture of mercy" in order to invite "the four bishops once more to return" to the fold of the Church. There exists an "admission to full communion," which consists of a liturgical act including, notably, the recitation of the Creed before a representation of the Catholic community.

Tradicat: This is messy and not worth pursuing in the rinse and repeat context. As the 2026 consecrations are following the same template all of the developed perspectives should still be largely in place. In otherwords, in spite of the best, worst or incompetence of Cardinal Fernandez - the SSPX remains 'Not in full communion'. 

• And for Excommunicated Bishops or Suspended Priests, 
• Are There Exceptions Where the Sacraments They Celebrate Are Both Valid and Licit? Church law provides for the case of a faithful person who is in articulo mortis — at the point of death — and wishes to receive a sacrament urgently. In that situation, any priest or bishop, even one subject to a prohibition, recovers the capacity to hear confession in a fully valid and licit manner, for the good of the dying person. This is not a favor granted to the excommunicated priest, but a matter of giving priority to the soul of the faithful person and to his or her salvation.

Tradicat: See Rorate Caeli: Canonical Analysis: The 2026 DDF Decree on the SSPX (link) for a more fulsome explanation.

P^3