VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — The Vatican declared that the Society of St. Pius X no longer offers licit sacraments after bishops, clergy and – under certain conditions – lay members of the Society of St. Pius X were excommunicated after the consecration of four bishops without papal approval.
On July 2, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) published a decree according to which Bishops Alfonso de Galarreta, Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, Marc Hanappier, and Bernard Fellay have incurred automatic excommunication after Wednesday’s episcopal consecrations, carried out without a pontifical mandate and against the express will of the Pope.
As a result, the sacraments of confession and marriage have been ruled “invalid,” while other sacraments remain valid but administered “illicitly,” according to the dicastery.
The decree, signed by DDF Prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, secretary for the dicastery’s Disciplinary Section Archbishop John Kennedy, and secretary for the Doctrinal Section Monsignor Armando Matteo, states:
Despite the warnings addressed to the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, having carried out an act of a schismatic nature by conferring episcopal consecration on four priests without pontifical mandate and against the will of the Supreme Pontiff, has incurred ipso facto the penalties established by can. 1387 and can. 1364 §1 of the 2021 Code of Canon Law.
I therefore declare, for all juridical purposes, that the aforementioned Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, as well as Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Marc Hanappier, have ipso facto incurred 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 thereby publicly adhered to the schismatic act, has incurred the latae sententiae excommunication foreseen by can. 1364 §1 CIC 2021.
Clerics and lay faithful are admonished not to adhere to the schism of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, for they would ipso facto incur the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication.
WATCH: Society of Saint Pius X consecrates four bishops
Soon after, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an explanatory note outlining the reasons for its decision. The note stated that efforts spanning several decades to restore full communion “between the Catholic Church and the movement founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had not succeeded.”
According to the dicastery, the episcopal consecrations, performed “without papal authorization and contrary to the Pope’s wishes,” represented an open violation of canon law and therefore constituted the crime of schism. Consequently, clergy within the Society “illicitly administer the sacraments.”
The explanatory note cited Pope John Paul II’s 1988 apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei, repeating its assessment that disobedience involving a “practical rejection of papal primacy” constitutes a schismatic act.
According to the note, all sacred ministers – Father Davide Pagliarani included – belonging to the SSPX “are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics, being subject to the excommunication established by Canon law.”
Furthermore, “with regard to the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X are to be considered schismatics and excommunicated, 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 hereby adopts.”
That note from 1996 explains:
It seems to this Pontifical Council that such adherence (to the schism) must involve two complementary elements:
a) an internal element, consisting in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism – that is, in choosing in such a way for the followers of Lefebvre that this option is placed above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will habitually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);
b) an external element, consisting in the outward manifestation of that option, the most evident sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian ‘ecclesial’ acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, not an unequivocal sign, since it is possible that some faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre without sharing their schismatic spirit).
And further, the same 1996 note explains:
In the case of the faithful, it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrian movement – done without adopting the doctrinal and disciplinary disunity of that movement – is not sufficient to speak of formal adherence to the movement.
In pastoral practice it may be more difficult to judge their situation. One must take into account above all the person’s intention, and the translation of that interior disposition into concrete acts. The various situations must therefore be judged case by case, in the competent forums of the external and internal forum.
Nevertheless, the 2026 note reads: “Finally, the holy People of God are warned that the sacred ministers of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X illicitly administer the sacraments, and that the sacrament of penance administered by them and the marriages at which they assist are invalid.”
In Catholic theology and canon law, the sacraments of confession and marriage differ from the others inasmuch as they require not only the power of order (the priestly faculty conferred by ordination) but also the power of jurisdiction, which comes exclusively from the Roman Pontiff.
This jurisdiction enables the minister to act in the name of the Church’s authority, which is essential for the validity of these two sacraments: absolution in confession and the assistance at marriage both involve acts of governance, not merely sacramental administration.
However, a confession is always licit and valid, according to Canon 976, “even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions,” if the penitent is in danger of death, since this is the state of necessity par excellence.
By contrast, the other sacraments – such as the Eucharist, baptism, or anointing of the sick – depend solely on the power of order and are therefore valid but illicit when administered by ministers not in communion with the Pope. They remain sacramentally effective, though performed outside legitimate ecclesial authority, whereas confession and marriage are invalid without the jurisdiction granted by the Supreme Pontiff.
For decades, the SSPX held that these sacraments were valid due to various canonical arguments relating to the concept of supplied jurisdiction. It seems that the organization will have to return to the arguments previously employed with regard to the validity of these sacraments.