From the time of Saint Paul VI until the most recent talks…
So begins the Explanatory Note published today by the Dicastery for the Destruction of the Faith regarding the (conciliar) excommunications resulting from the SSPX episcopal consecrations of July 1, 2026. [Translation of the Italian provided by Info Vaticana]
How entirely fitting to begin the Note thus!
Indeed, something changed, and drastically so, with regard to Catholic life beginning with the time of the alleged “Saint,” Paul VI.
From the womb of Vatican Council II, the Council over which he presided, a new church emerged, one that Paul VI himself called the “conciliar church.”
This church, although it dares to arrogate to itself the name Catholic, exists for the purpose of propagating a new religion, one markedly incompatible with the faith that comes to us from the Apostles.
Its purpose bears little resemblance to the mission given to the Catholic Church by Christ, rather, it exists for the sole purpose of implementing the proposals that are set forth in the sixteen conciliar documents that bear the signature of this same Paul VI.
In 1976, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre accurately described this rogue enterprise as follows:
This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new liturgy, already condemned by the Church in many official and definitive documents.
This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s response to the notice from Rome that he had incurred “suspension a divinis” for “proceeding to the ordination of subjects not his own.”
Scarcely a decade after the closing of Vatican Council II, already it was becoming clear to Archbishop Lefebvre that the conciliar enterprise is not the Catholic Church of all time.
It is true that the Archbishop later provided some nuance to his 1976 comments. It is likewise true that, prior to his death in 1991, he never publicly and definitively declared the conclusions that naturally arise from his earlier observations – namely, that the head of this church simply cannot also be the head of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Today, however, we – and this includes the SSPX, its leadership, its priests, and its adherents – have the benefit of an additional 35 years of perspective. As I write some half-a-century after the close of Vatican II, nothing could be more obvious:
The conciliar church, presently under the headship of Robert Prevost, is not the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, it exists for the sole purpose of promoting the new conciliar religion, one that is foreign to the Holy Catholic religion.
And yet, SSPX leadership insists on calling the counterfeit church “Catholic” and its head “Holy Father.”
Why is that?
One might even wonder: Are they stupid?
The answer is no, they are not stupid, they are deeply committed.
To what, one may ask?
They are deeply committed to the SSPX franchise and growing its footprint in the so-called “trad” marketplace.
Does that seem harsh?
Perhaps, but the truth plainly spoken often does.
The SSPX brand stands on the illusion that it exists to valiantly defend Catholic tradition from within the blossom of Holy Mother Church, despite whatever slings and arrows it may have to endure at the hands of the misguided, but Most Holy, Father.
To admit the obvious truth that neither the organization presently in occupation of the Vatican, nor its current CEO, Leo XIV, nor the religion it espouses, are Catholic would be to totally undermine its allegedly unique place in the trad marketplace.
It would also amount to an act of humility that, evidently, these same men simply do not have. Better, they convince themselves, to keep up the charade, misleading the poor naïve souls in their care that men like Jorge Bergoglio and Robert Prevost are to be viewed and addressed as Vicars of Christ.
That said, let’s return now to the aforementioned Explanatory Note which states among other things:
As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity 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. ibid., 7), still in force, which this Dicastery makes its own.
Info Vaticana, and others, are of the mind that this is “the harshest measure of recent history,” as if it goes beyond the Unholy See’s response to the 1988 consecrations.
The truth is, it’s not very different at all.
In 1988, the text of Ecclesia Dei, the author of which was John Paul II (not just the head of the CDF, Ratzinger) stated:
Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.
“Everyone” obviously includes the laity, but evidently questions remained, namely, as it concerns what constitutes “formal adherence.”
Notice that the current Note actually references one published in 1996, the purpose of which was to define what it means to “formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.”
It explains that there are two ways that this can take place:
a ) one of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism, that is, in opting 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 usually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);
b ) another of an external nature, consisting in the externalization of that option, the most evident sign of which will be the exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, a non-univocal sign, since there is the possibility that some faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of Lefebvre’s followers without sharing their schismatic spirit).
In substance, there is no noteworthy differences between the 1988 text, Ecclesia Dei, and the Explanatory Note published by the DDF today.
So, how will the SSPX and its “formal adherents” respond?
In 1988 (and 1996) social media was practically non-existent, there was no X, no Facebook, no blogs. The reaction trickled out very slowly by present day standards.
Today, reactions are swift and ubiquitous.
As for what I envision, I fully expect SSPX leadership to treat the excommunication decree and Explanatory Note as a marketing opportunity, leveraging them as branding tools to underscore its uniqueness as the defenders of tradition who refuse to leave the household of God just because its father and head is abusive.
I also expect some of its lay adherents to posture according to the seductive lie fed to them by their leaders that they are warriors, committed to fighting for the honor of Holy Mother Church from within, refusing to leave her in her time of need.
I’m not sure exactly who coined the phrase “fake and gay,” but hats off to you whoever you are. That is exactly what this SSPX charade has long since become.
Hopefully, by the grace of God, those presently blinded to the truth will have their eyes opened at last.
