+
JMJ
With the new consecrations, old news and half truths are flooding the internet.
How about we look at some of them:
- Vatican recognition of Orthodox sacraments (New)
- Orthodox Churches Are Not in Formal Schism — While not in full communion with Rome, ...
- Tradicat: I guess they didn't ask if the Orthodox accept Pope Leo XIV as the Vicar of Christ etc. Also I'm not certain if it is all the various branches or just one or two.
- https://www.ncregister.com/cna/why-does-the-vatican-recognize-orthodox-marriages-but-not-those-of-the-sspx
- https://www.eurasiareview.com/10072026-vatican-recognition-of-orthodox-marriages-vs-sspx-whats-the-difference-analysis/
- The SSPX is in schism (Old News)
- Given how the Vatican backed off on the schism accusation over the years following the 1988 consecrations
- My own evidence of 'Not in Full Communion' status
- The Orthodox are no longer Schismatics but 'Not in Full Communion' (see above)
- 'Not in Full Communion' being used as code for schismatic.
- So if the SSPX is is 'schism' and the Orthodox who don't recognize Leo XIV are in 'Not Full Communion' How does that work???
- (https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/05/who-is-catholic-sspx.html)
- The SSPX walked / refused the agreement in 2018 (edit: I wasn't aware of these contacts.)
- In Bishop Fellay's talks and my personal conversation:
- When he presented the document to Rome (2012), he indicated that it represented the extreme position of the SSPX and that 'if they changed one word' he wouldn't be able to proceed.
- He was told that the Pope had agreed to it. So when he arrived in Rome he expected that they would simply sign the agreement and the SSPX would become regularized.
- When he arrived two footnotes had been added that changed the documents meaning to the extent (I believe on the New Mass and Vatican II or post-V2 Magisterium), that he had to decline.
- The SSPX just posted a timeline with their contacts with Rome. Including exchanges that happened in 2018 - which I didn't know about. See ▲ link below.
- https://sspx.org/en/news/no-capitulation-what-unity-pozzo-interview-5418
- https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/07/archbishop-pozzo-former-head-of.html
- https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/07/doctrinal-preamble-april-15-2012-vs.html
- ▲ https://sspx.org/en/news/timeline-society-saint-pius-xs-july-1-2026-episcopal-consecrations-60126
- Koch says that the SSPX is not really in schism
- Where Peter Is freaks out and works overtime to explain it away instead of asking the Cardinal himself.
- https://wherepeteris.com/the-context-to-cardinal-kochs-sspx-schism-comments/
- https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/07/cardinal-koch-prefect-of-christian.html
- https://advaticanum.com/article/cardinal-koch-says-reconciliation-with-sspx-remains-possible/
- https://angeluspress.org/blogs/blog/cardinal-koch-and-the-sspx
- Confusion over the Vatican's declaration
- So there remains a lot of arguments pro and con whether and who was excommunicated.
- Some have made the argument that the consecration against Papal order is a schismatic act - ergo it is ... I'm not certain I follow that given my previous analysis.
- The Decree (Google Translate)
- Despite the warnings addressed to the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, having committed a schismatic act through the episcopal consecration of four priests, without papal mandate and against the will of the Supreme Pontiff, has ipso facto incurred the penalties provided for by canon 1387 and canon 1364 § 1 CIC 2021.
- I therefore declare for all legal purposes that both the aforementioned Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Marc Hanappier have ipso facto incurred a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
- I further declare that Bishop Bernard Fellay, having directly participated in the liturgical celebration as a co-consecrator, and thus having publicly adhered to the schismatic act, has incurred the latae sententiae excommunication provided for by canon 1364 § 1 CIC 2021.
- Clerics and lay faithful are warned not to adhere to the schism of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, as they would ipso facto incur the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication.
- From the Dicastery, July 2, 2026
- https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20260702_decreto-scomunica-fsspx_it.html
- https://edwardpentin.substack.com/p/full-text-of-vatican-decree-and-accompanying
- https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-07/holy-see-decrees-excommunication-lefebrians-consecrations.html
- https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/07/canonical-analysis-2026-ddf-decree-on.html
- https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2026/07/02/sspx-schism-and-excommunication/
- https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/07/a-canonical-analysis-of-applicability.html
- https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/canon-lawyer-vaticans-sspx-schism-decree-necessary-church-unity
- https://www.catholicregister.org/item/4112-after-the-vatican-declares-sspx-in-formal-schism-whats-next-for-the-church
- https://youtu.be/8xyTZvwsVEc
- https://youtu.be/VMyv7O-P0yo
- https://youtu.be/a8cpnH-K70g
- https://youtu.be/WpD9L-oypwU
- https://youtu.be/nOpKwpdzxo4
- https://youtu.be/ZUFrxUJpty0
- https://youtu.be/auXWghWwjjU
So let's break all this down:
- The SSPX remains 'not in full communion' because:
- There is no schismatic act (i.e. intent to schism).
- The act was essentially the same as that of 1988 and we know that this resulted in a 'not in full communion' decision that was formalized by Pope Benedict XVI.
- Arguments that the Pope says it was ergo it is are akin to the Pope saying Black is White and Catholics being obliged to agree with the logical contradiction. Canon Law is what it is ... I agree that you can say it was a disobeying the order of the Pope and that this is a serious decision.
- If the Orthodox are in 'Not in full communion' and they reject the Papacy, then how is the SSPX who accepts the Papacy in schism?
Some food for thought!
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment