Invalid Sacraments, Excommunications, and the SSPX

A Theological Explanation

The much-anticipated response from Rome to the July 1st episcopal consecrations by the Society of Saint Pius X has been promulgated by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. It takes the form of a decree and an explanatory note attached to the decree, as is typical in such cases. Additionally, the DDF has issued guidelines for the reconciliation of priests and laymen from the SSPX which help contextualize the case.

The decree is as follows:

Despite the admonitions addressed to the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, having committed an act of a schismatic nature by means of the episcopal consecration of four presbyters, without pontifical mandate and against the will of the Supreme Pontiff, has incurred ipso facto the penalties provided for by can. 1387 and can. 1364 §1 of the CIC 2021.

I therefore declare, for all juridical purposes, 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, and having thereby publicly adhered to the schismatic act, has incurred the latae sententiae excommunication provided for by can. 1364 §1 of the CIC 2021.

Clerics and lay faithful are admonished not to adhere to the schism of the Society of Saint Pius X, for they would incur ipso facto the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication.

The explanatory note treats the question in more detail and clarifies the status of clerics and laymen involved in the Society, along with the validity of their sacraments:

From the time of St. Paul VI until the most recent conversations held at this Dicastery, the manifold attempts to bring back those adhering to the movement begun by Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre to full communion with the Catholic Church have proven vain. This situation has been further aggravated by the recent episcopal consecrations celebrated without pontifical mandate, against the will of the Holy Father, in open violation of canon law. Therefore, this Dicastery, in the faithful exercise of the functions entrusted to it, holds it necessary to note that this act has configured the offense of schism, with the canonical consequences for the sacred ministers and for the lay faithful involved. Indeed, as already declared in 1988, “such disobedience—which carries with it a practical rejection of the Roman Primacy—constitutes a schismatic act” (cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, 3).

In this regard, henceforth:

1. Sacred ministers belonging to the Society of St. Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatic (cf. Ecclesia Dei, 5 c; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note on the Excommunication for Schism Incurred by Adherents to the Movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, 24 August 1996, 5–6), and are subject to the excommunication provided by law (can. 1364 §1 CIC).

2. As regards the lay faithful, those are to be held schismatic and excommunicated who formally adhere to the Society of St. Pius X under the conditions established in the Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of 1996 (cf. ibidem, 7), still in force, which this Dicastery makes its own.

3. Finally, the holy People of God are advised that the sacred ministers of the Society of St. Pius X illicitly (illicite) administer the sacraments, and that the sacrament of penance administered by them, and the marriages assisted by them, are invalid (invalida).

The Church, as a solicitous mother, will welcome with sincere affection and lively concern all those who wish to return to full communion. The Apostolic Nuncios will arrange the procedures which the Ordinaries may use in the various cases.

Finally, all the faithful are exhorted 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 abstain from participating in the celebrations and activities promoted by the aforementioned Society of St. Pius X.

Before I get to my own analysis of these texts, there is an interesting line I want to highlight: “under the conditions established in the Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of 1996, still in force, which this Dicastery makes its own.” Hence, there is a third document that is relevant to understanding Rome’s response to the recent episcopal consecrations.

To understand the decree, we need first to understand two concepts that are important to distinguish: excommunication and schism. Excommunication is the penalty that the Church inflicts, separating an individual in some way from the Church. As St. Thomas admirably explains, when we are baptized, we are united to the Church in two ways, as members of the Church and as participants of the Sacraments. The Church, as a juridical body, is able to remove members from either union. To be removed merely from participation in the sacraments is called minor excommunication, and to be removed from membership in the Church is called major excommunication. Here, we are referring to the latter type of excommunication.

We are united as members of the Church by the profession of faith, ecclesiastical communion, and baptism. If we violate these by grave crimes in the public sphere (public acts of heresy, schism, or apostasy), then we are no longer members of the Church. According to the more common opinion, it does not matter whether one is culpable or inculpable for these acts, as long as they are public. Further, if the ecclesiastical authorities remove one from membership in the Church (excommunication), one is actually removed from membership in the Church, even if it is an unjust excommunication.

Hence, when discussing the SSPX, it is important to distinguish these two questions: Whether there is schism? Whether there is excommunication? Due to the provisions of law touching culpability, not all who are separated from membership in the Church by publicly schismatic acts fall under the penalty of excommunication. This is quite sensible since a mere lack of membership in the Church (which applies to all public schismatics) is a much more lenient penalty compared to a major excommunication, which includes a whole litany of penalties attached to it beside a mere lack of membership in the Church (hence, it only applies to public schismatics not exempt from the penalty). To give an example, the penalties of excommunication only apply to those who have reached their 16th year. Hence, a 15 year old might be a public schismatic, but they are not ipso facto excommunicated in virtue of their publicly schismatic acts, yet they are still separated from membership in the Church.

First, we can divide excommunication into just excommunication and unjust excommunication. An unjust excommunication can either be unjust on the part of the person decreeing (e.g., if he has sinful anger while declaring) or unjust on the part of the decree itself. On the part of the decree itself, it can either be unjust on account of the lawful form not being followed (e.g., a bishop tweets out an excommunication) or unjust on account of its being without a just cause (e.g., the Pope excommunicates me because I drink a cup of water). If it is unjust in the first sense (as lacking legal validity), then it has no effect, and the excommunicated person is still a member of the Church. If it is unjust in the second sense (with legal validity, yet without moral validity), then it does have an effect, and the person is truly severed from membership in the Church.

This bears repeating: excommunications done in the legal form, yet without just cause, are not without effect. This is the common teaching of theologians and is the teaching of St. Thomas:

Second, on the part of the excommunication, through there being no proper cause, or through the sentence being passed without the forms of law being observed. In this case, if the error on the part of the sentence be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect, for there is no excommunication; but if the error does not annul the sentence, this takes effect, and the person excommunicated should humbly submit (which will be credited to him as a merit), and either seek absolution from the person who has excommunicated him, or appeal to a higher judge. If, however, he were to contemn the sentence, he would ipso facto sin mortally. (ST.IIISup.Q21.A4)

This sober doctrine of St. Thomas does not require much explanation. Those who are unjustly excommunicated sin mortally by contemning their sentence and are truly removed from membership in the Church.

Second, we can divide excommunication based on the manner in which the penalty is incurred. To understand this, we ought to consider how the penalties of the Church differ from the penalties of the state. In civil society, when someone commits a crime, we (usually) cannot simply declare that they are punished. Rather, we need to capture them and inflict punishment upon them, since the punishments of the state only directly concern the body and other temporal goods. Yet, the Church primarily inflicts punishments that touch the soul; hence, the primary way in which punishments are inflicted by the Church is via declaration.

As you can imagine in such a situation, punishments can be incurred in two ways: either a) the Church simply decrees that “x crime gets y punishment,” hence once the condition of “x crime” is met, then “y punishment” is inflicted, or b) the Church can reserve the right to decide whether to prosecute the crime or not. The first category of crime tends to be those crimes that are more grave, while the second category of crime tends to be those crimes that are less grave (hence, the Church reserves discretion for herself in these cases).

This first kind of excommunication is called latae sententiae excommunication, while the second kind of excommunication is called ferendae sententiae excommunication.

There are three groups that are excommunicated in the three documents: bishops, clerics, and laymen.

For the episcopal consecrations themselves, the bishops are in violation of Can. 1387 of the CIC: “Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” This is what the decree is primarily about: establishing that the consecrator, co-consecrator, and consecrated bishops are excommunicated. Hence, the first three paragraphs concern this issue, while the last paragraph contains a brief note about schism directed towards the clerics of the Society and the lay faithful who attach themselves to their liturgies.

It is important to note that the canon itself does not mention the co-consecrator or assisting presbyters (much less the lay faithful). While the 1917 Code originally provided for the penalties for the co-consecrators and assisting presbyters, such was changed by a decree of April 9, 1951, and the penalties were restricted to the consecrator and the consecrated. Hence, for the co-consecrator, the decree does not declare excommunication from Can. 1387, but from Can. 1364:

I further declare that Bishop Bernard Fellay, having directly participated in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator, and having thereby publicly adhered to the schismatic act, has incurred the latae sententiae excommunication provided for by can. 1364 §1 of the CIC 2021.

The assisting presbyters are not explicitly mentioned in the decree, except under the general heading of a warning not to adhere to the schism of Lefebvre. Yet, this distinction between the two penalties is quite important. For the direct participation by Bishop Fellay in the liturgical celebration of the consecrations is declared to be public adherence to a schismatic act. Hence, it would also seem to reasonably follow that the same can be said of the assisting presbyters. This is confirmed by the Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law:

It must be concluded that the co-consecrating bishops and the assisting presbyters normally do not incur the penalty. However, if such a consecration, whatever the particular circumstances, signifies a schism, then everyone, including the bishops and presbyters mentioned, incurs unreserved latae sententiae excommunication (c. 1364 § 1).

While some will cite mitigating factors which they argue will render the excommunications null (namely, the provision of can. 1323, 4°), this was rejected by the aforementioned document from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts:

The validity of the excommunications of bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree cannot reasonably be questioned. In particular, it does not appear that any exempting or mitigating circumstance can be found regarding the imputability of the penalty (Cf. CIC, canons 1323–1324). As for the state of necessity in which Archbishop Lefebvre thought he found himself, it must be kept in mind that such a state must objectively occur, and that there is never a need to ordain bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This, in fact, would mean the possibility of “serving” the Church by attacking its unity in a matter connected to the very foundations of this unity.

Related to this, the principle in can. 1323, 4° that “No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept…acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience” includes the following exception: “unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls.” Now, as the Exegetical Commentary notes, this is meant primarily to be in reference to acts that necessarily involve contempt for the faith or ecclesiastical authority in their outward or objective character. As the Exegetical Commentary notes:

In comparison to CIC/1917, the restrictions ‘contemptum fidei vel ecclesiasticae auctoritatis’ (cf. cc. 2205 § 3, 2229 § 3, 3° CIC/1917) have disappeared. It seems obvious, however, that they should be assumed in the two current cases to the degree that, as Miguélez rightly pointed out apropos of the parallel norm in CIC/1917, a) this is not the contempt that comes from the agent’s intention; it is objective and comes from the very nature of the act or the circumstances; b) it is not simply a lack of reverence, honor, or obedience that is implied in breaking a law, but that the delinquent act must be such that it is coupled in a special way with the necessary and direct contempt for faith or authority.

The final sentence of the decree mentions the effects on the clerics and lay faithful who attach themselves to the SSPX: “Clerics and lay faithful are admonished not to adhere to the schism of the Society of Saint Pius X, for they would incur ipso facto the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication.” Above, we have already seen the distinction between the penalties in can. 1364 and can. 1387. Here, the clerics and faithful are warned that they are in danger of the penalties of can. 1364: “An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication…”

In the decree itself, we see that the co-consecrator was in violation of the canon. In the Exegetical Commentary, we see that the assisting presbyters were in violation of the canon as well. Yet, the explanatory note goes further than the decree, explaining in more detail what was meant in the last paragraph of the decree: “This Dicastery, in the faithful exercise of the functions entrusted to it, holds it necessary to note that this act has configured the offense of schism, with the canonical consequences for the sacred ministers and for the lay faithful involved.” While the decree explicitly mentions the co-consecrator as incurring the penalties of can. 1364, the explanatory note extends this to the ministers and lay faithful involved in the consecrations. This seems necessarily to follow from the principles outlined above as indicating that participation in such a liturgy (despite one’s degree of involvement) necessarily involves public adherence to the schismatic act.

Yet, the explanatory note goes further. First, it declares that sacred ministers of the Society in general (even if they did not participate in the consecrations) are excommunicated: “Sacred ministers belonging to the Society of St. Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatic, and are subject to the excommunication provided by law.” While some may be surprised by this, there is actually no change here. This has been the case for decades. The aforementioned 1996 Explanatory Note already stated that “In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests, it seems clear that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two requirements mentioned above are met and that there is therefore a formal adherence [to the schism].”

Second, the explanatory note also makes note of the lay faithful who attach themselves to the movement (as distinct from those lay faithful who participated in the liturgy): “As regards the lay faithful, those are to be held schismatic and excommunicated who formally adhere to the Society of St. Pius X under the conditions established in the Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of 1996, still in force, which this Dicastery makes its own.”

The 1996 Explanatory Note set forth two principles for determining whether the lay faithful formally adhere to the schism of Lefebvre. First, “in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism,” which is of an internal character. Primarily, this concerns obedience to the Roman Pontiff. Second, in the “externalization” of this internal character. It is to be noted that schism is both a sin and a crime. When the Code speaks of “schism” or “heresy,” these are not in reference to schism or heresy as sins, but as crimes, which require some sort of externalization. This is described by the Explanatory Note as “the exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian ‘ecclesial’ acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church.” Yet, it is to be remembered that there is both a positive element to this (i.e., that such participation be ‘exclusive’) and a negative element to this (i.e., that participation in the acts of the Catholic Church be lacking), which are two sides to the same coin. Hence, the Explanatory Note explains that “there is the possibility that some faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of Lefebvre’s followers without sharing their schismatic spirit.” If the negative element is lacking and a member of the faithful participates in both, then they do not fall under the crime of schism. If the positive element is lacking and a member of the faithful attends Lefebvrian liturgies with a willingness to attend the liturgies of the Catholic Church, then they do not fall under the crime of schism.

From the complexities involved in evaluating the individual cases of laymen, the following is stated (which is referenced and accepted by today’s Explanatory Note):

In the case of other faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrian movement, without adopting the movement’s attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity, is not sufficient to constitute formal membership in the movement. In pastoral practice, it may be more difficult to assess their situation. It is necessary to take into account, above all, the individual’s intention and the translation of this interior disposition into action. The various situations must therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in the competent bodies of the external and internal forums.

Some helpful examples of those who generally do and do not adhere to the schism are given by the DDF in their guidelines for the reconciliation of laymen. Those who are “members of the Third Order of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X” and those who “habitually participate in the celebrations of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, formally sharing its doctrinal positions” are presumed to formally adhere to the schism. On the other hand, those who “have frequented the Priestly Society of St. Pius X solely for liturgical or spiritual reasons” or those who “while aware of the tensions with the Holy See, do not reject the Magisterium or the authority of the Roman Pontiff” are not presumed to formally adhere to the schism.

Further, the Explanatory Note makes a judgment regarding their sacraments: that their sacraments are generally illicit (i.e., against the law), while their confessions and marriages are invalid (i.e., do not exist as sacraments): “The holy People of God are advised that the sacred ministers of the Society of St. Pius X illicitly (illicite) administer the sacraments, and that the sacrament of penance administered by them, and the marriages assisted by them, are invalid (invalida).” While the Church can grant faculties for the validity of these sacraments (which Pope Francis did in 2015), such has been revoked.

Lastly, the faithful are generally exhorted to avoid the liturgies celebrated by the Society: “Finally, all the faithful are exhorted…to abstain from participating in the celebrations and activities promoted by the aforementioned Society of St. Pius X.” For this reason, even those who do not formally adhere to the schism are required (according to the DDF guidelines) to “approach a priest in full communion, with the resolve not to frequent the Priestly Society of St. Pius X in the future.”