Four months after the episcopal consecrations celebrated by the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X absent pontifical mandate, the canonical effects of the decree and the explanatory note published on July 2 by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) remain controversial. A reconstruction by Infovaticana on November 3 reports that the Dicastery for Legislative Texts attempted several times to reach a solution with the DDF, but the prefect, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, was not available. Infovaticana‘s reconstruction (here) is based on an article written by Guido Horst published in Die Tagespost (here). Infovaticana‘s report also attributes to Horst the hypothesis that the issue might require intervention by Leo XIV.

What do the July 2 documents establish?

The decree declares that Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, the four priests he consecrated, and Bishop Bernard Fellay, who was to have participated as co-consecrator, have incurred latae sententiae excommunication following the consecrations without papal mandate. The explanatory note, attached to the decree of excommunication, expands on the consequences for the ministers of the Society and for the faithful: it designates the sacred ministers of the SSPX as schismatics and states that laypeople who formally adhere to the schism incur canonical punishment.

The passage from the explanatory note reads as follows: “As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X under the conditions established in the Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of 1996 (cf. ibid., 7), still in force, which this Dicastery adopts, are to be considered schismatic and excommunicated.”

Infovaticana‘s summary notes that it remains unclear what concretely constitutes formal membership and whether simply attending a Fraternity Mass can have consequences. I had already explored this issue in various articles published last July; all referred to a canonical chaos due to the juridical imprecision in the text of the “explanatory note.” Guido Horst, in his article, refers to the colorful expression “written with one’s feet,” used by some.

The point, according to the reconstruction, is not to dispute the seriousness of episcopal consecrations without papal mandate, which remains such, but to clarify the legal significance of the documents. The controversy focuses primarily on their relationship with previous papal provisions, particularly those regarding confessions and marriages. The July 2 note is interpreted as incompatible with these faculties, although it is not specified whether they were revoked and by what act.

Faculties for confessions and marriages

In 2015, on the occasion of the Jubilee of Mercy, Pope Francis authorized the faithful to validly and licitly receive absolution from priests of the SSPX. With the apostolic letter Misericordia et Misera of November 2016, this faculty was extended beyond the conclusion of the Holy Year. Furthermore, in March 2017, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, with the Pope’s approval, indicated that diocesan bishops could grant priests of the Society the necessary faculties to assist at the weddings of faithful associated with the SSPX, under certain conditions.

So, we’re talking about acts approved directly by a Pope. And such an act can only be revoked by another act expressly approved by a Pope. This is the fundamental point. Simply put, a cardinal cannot nullify what the Pontiff has declared valid.

The question raised is whether a dicastery note—which undoubtedly has a lesser legal nature and force than an act approved by the Pope, who is the supreme authority of the Church—can revoke concessions approved by the Pontiff, in the absence of an explicit papal revocation. In the Infovaticana text, the problem appears particularly clear for confessions, since the faculty would have been granted directly by the Pope; for marriages, however, validity would depend on the delegation of the competent ordinary, according to the conditions established in 2017.

“According to Horst, the Dicastery for Legislative Texts has already intervened to clarify to a papal delegation that the Doctrine of the Faith does not indicate that the Pope had expressly approved the derogation from the 2017 marriage provisions,” Infovaticana reports.

Therefore, in the reconstruction, not all marriage cases would necessarily be comparable; it is necessary to distinguish those celebrated without delegation from those authorized according to papal provisions.

Observations by Juan Ignacio Arrieta

The issue had already been discussed publicly by Archbishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, a canonist and former secretary of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts. The article refers to an interview with him published by Infovaticana, in which Arrieta argued that the absolutions would remain valid until the Pope revokes the faculties granted. The reported formulation is explicit: “These priests received the faculty to hear confessions through a pontifical act, and to revoke it, an act of the same nature is necessary.”

Arrieta distinguishes this situation from that of marriage, which requires the delegation required by canon law. The interview reports that marriages celebrated without the necessary authorization could be null and void due to a defect in form, while those celebrated in accordance with the 2017 provisions would be in a different situation.

On the faithful’s level, Arrieta challenges the automatic correlation between attending the Society’s chapels and formal adherence to the schism; both an internal will to adhere to the separation and an external manifestation of it are required. His observations, the text specifies, are not intended to minimize the gravity of the consecrations, which he defines as “a profound wound to the unity of the Church established by Christ.”

Mark Lambert, wittily, in a post on X observes:

It cannot simply be assumed that a Catholic drawn to the traditional liturgy, even if he regularly attends a chapel of the Society of Saint Pius X, has committed the canonical crime of schism. An ecclesiastical penalty of this gravity requires an adequate evaluation of the individual’s actual beliefs, conduct, and culpability. Equating attendance with formal membership would be a grave injustice. And here is the extraordinary irony: the same Roman authority that rightly insists that Catholics must respect the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff has produced an explanatory note whose sacramental conclusions appear to ignore the decisions made by that very authority.

The Church cannot credibly insist on obedience to papal authority while appearing to ignore its own rules governing that authority!

Attempts at clarification and the still unresolved issue

This is where the news attributed to Horst comes in: the Dicastery for Legislative Texts has repeatedly attempted to work with the DDF to resolve the ambiguities. The reconstruction adds that the Dicastery provided clarification to a papal delegation that the July 2 note did not imply a revocation of the 2017 marriage provisions approved by the Pope. However, there was no public correction of the documents by the DDF, nor a declaration by Leo XIV resolving the conflict.

A second reconstruction, published on the SSPX website, highlights the fact that the position taken by those outside the DDF—see the interview with Arrieta—is now being supplemented by information from Horst’s article, which reports that even Vatican officials—read the Dicastery for Legislative Texts—have raised the thorny issue. But, apparently, so far, to no avail, blaming Fernández for the lack of cooperation. This is serious, given that these are acts, confession and marriage, that are directly related to the salvation of souls. A Catholic, for example, has the right to know whether his or her sins have been forgiven.

The same source claims that the Society’s appeal against the decree is still ongoing and reports the hypothesis, formulated by Ed Condon of The Pillar and echoed by Horst, that the failure to clarify the canonical consequences could fuel calls for an early replacement of the prefect, whose term is due to end in 2028.

And here we come to the crucial point, as Mark Lambert writes in his X post: “An extraordinary situation is developing in Rome, which raises further and serious questions about the suitability of Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández to hold the office of Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.” And then: “Four months after the decree, these fundamental questions remain unresolved. Pope Leo XIV must intervene, establish the precise canonical position, clarify the status of papal concessions, and ensure that Catholics are not left questioning the validity of the sacraments because of contradictory statements from Rome.”

Given the current state of the collected texts, three questions remain unanswered: Which sacramental faculties are still in force; What conduct constitutes formal adherence to the schism for the faithful; and, Whether the July 2 note modified previous papal concessions, particularly those regarding marriages. The most prudent conclusion is that the cited sources refer to attempts at clarification and a still unresolved legal debate, but do not document a definitive public decision from the Holy See. An official clarification will be able to define with certainty the canonical effects for priests and faithful.