The WM Review

Eastern Orthodoxy? St Gregory the Great and the 'Universal Bishop' title (Brownson)

Mon, 10 Aug 2026 15:51:23 GMT

Pope St Gregory the Great – Fr Lawrence Lew OP. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

In the early Church, the title ‘Universal Bishop’ was rejected. What does this mean for the Papal claims?

Editors’ Notes

This is the eighth part of a serialisation of Orestes’ Brownson’s engagement with “Eastern Orthodoxy.”

It was originally published in two articles.

Article I

The background of this engagement – including that of the ex-Catholic author Abbé Vladimir (René-François) Guettée and his book The Schismatic Papacy – can be found in the first part. Here are the parts we have seen so far:

Those parts made up one article; Brownson then proceeded to a second, much longer article. As such, this fifth part is also the eighth part of the second article.

Article II

Why are we publishing this?

For more on why we might bother republishing a nineteenth century review of a nineteenth century book, see the previous part. In short, Guettée’s book continues to bring the ill-informed into the Photian schism, and so Browson’s review and refutation continues to be of enduring importance.

As the contemporary “Orthodox” are publishing such works and encouraging Roman Catholics to enter into schism and heresy, they surely cannot complain about us publishing Brownson’s piece in response. We do so in good will, with the hope that they will instead return to the Church of Christ – outside of which there is absolutely no salvation whatsoever.

Subscribe now

St Gregory the Great and the ‘Universal Bishop’ title

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

Orestes Brownson
Originally published as “Guetté’s Papacy Schismatic’1
From The Catholic World, 1867
Published in The Works of Orestes A. Brownson, Vol. VIII
Thorndike Nourse, Deroit, 1884. pp 491-500
Headings and some line breaks added by The WM Review

St Gregory the Great’s rejection of the title of ‘universal bishop’

The author imagines that he gets an argument against the papacy from St. Leo’s refusal to accept the title of universal bishop offered him by the Council of Chalcedon, as we learn from Pope St. Gregory the Great. He also thinks the argument is strengthened by the fact that St. Gregory himself disclaimed it; and he therefore claims both of these great pontiffs and great saints as witnesses against the pretensions of the bishops of Rome. If they had believed in their jurisdiction by divine right over the whole church, would they have refused the title of universal bishop?

John the Faster, Bishop of Constantinople, on some occasion summoned a particular council, and signed its acts, which he transmitted to Pope Pelagius II as universal patriarch, for which, as St. Gregory says, Pelagius, “in virtue of the authority of the apostle St. Peter, nullified the acts of the synod.”

Gregory succeeded Pelagius, and immediately on his accession to the pontificate wrote to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, condemning the title, and warning them and the whole church of the danger it threatened; and also he wrote to John the Faster himself, admonishing him of the impropriety of the title, not only as savoring of pride and vanity, but as involving a most serious error against faith, and beseeching him to lay it aside, lest he be obliged to cut him off from the communion of the church, and depose him from his bishopric.

What St Gregory the Great actually said

He does not at all disclaim his own authority as supreme pastor and governor of the universal church, but quietly assumes it. Thus, he writes to the Emperor Maurice, as cited by the author:

“All who know the gospel know that the care of the whole church was confided by our Lord himself to Peter, the first (St. Gregory says prince) of all the apostles.
“Indeed, he said to him, ‘Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.’ Again he said to him: ‘Satan has desired to sift thee as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ It was also said to him: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’
“He thus received the keys of the celestial kingdom; the power to bind and loose was given him; the care of all the church and the primacy [principatus—principality, or primacy of jurisdiction] were committed to him, and yet he did not call himself universal apostle.
“But that holy man John (bishop of Constantinople), my brother in the priesthood [cosacerdos], would fain assume the title of universal bishop! O tempora! O mores!” (pp. 212, 213.)

“It is certain,” St. Gregory continues…

“… that this title was offered to the Roman pontiff by the venerable council of Chalcedon, to honor Blessed Peter, prince of the apostles.
“But none of us has consented to use this particular title, [title of singularity,] lest by conferring a special matter on one alone, all priests would be deprived of the honor which is their due.
“How, then, while we are not ambitious of the glory of a title which has been offered us, does another, to whom no one has offered it, have the presumption to take it?” (pp. 214, 215.)

In his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, St. Gregory is more explicit still:

“As your holiness, whom I particularly venerate, well knows, this title of universal, was offered by the Council of Chalcedon to the bishop [pontiff of the apostolic see, which by God’s grace I serve. But none of my predecessors would use this impious word, because in reality, if a patriarch be called universal, it takes from all others the title of patriarch.”

Subscribe now

The true grounds of the problem with the title of ‘universal bishop’

The author [Guettée], after quoting a passage from another letter to Eulogius, adds:

“Thus did Pope Gregory condemn even in the person of the bishops of Rome the title of pope and universal.”

But in this he is mistaken, as his own quotation shows. Eulogius answers that he will not give the title of universal patriarch to the bishop of Constantinople, but that he gives that of universal pope to the Roman pontiff. “No,” says St. Gregory, “if your holiness calls me universal pope, you deny yourself what I should then be altogether.”

The author interpolates in his quotation the copulative and, which is not in St. Gregory’s text. It is not to the title of pope that St. Gregory objects, which was and is applied to simple presbyters, but the title universal, which he will not permit to be applied to any man, because it excludes others from all participation in the hierarchy, or even the priesthood.

If you call a man a universal presbyter, you deny that any others are presbyters; if you call any one universal bishop, you exclude all others from the episcopate; if you call any one universal patriarch, you deny the patriarchate to all others; and if you call the bishop of Rome universal pope, since as such he possesses the priesthood, and both the apostolate and the episcopate in their plenitude, you exclude all others from sharing the priesthood, the episcopate, or the apostolate, even the pope himself from the church, and deny the solidarity of apostles, bishops, and presbyters, asserted, as we have seen, by St. Cyprian.

Eulogius was priest, bishop, and patriarch, and as such was the brother of the Roman pontiff. This brotherhood remained all the same, whether the Roman pontiff had or not supreme jurisdiction over the whole church. When Eulogius called St. Gregory, not, as the author says, pope and universal, but universal pope, he denied this brotherhood, and deprived himself of his own priestly, episcopal, and apostolic character. Hence, St. Gregory, after saying to him and other bishops, “I know what I am, and what you are; by your place or office, you are my brothers, by your virtues, my fathers,” he adds, in reference to the title of universal which Eulogius had given him:

“I beseech your holiness to do so no more in future, for you take from yourself what you give in excess to another. I do not ask to increase in dignities, but in virtues. I do not esteem that an honor by which my brethren are deprived of theirs.
“For my honor is the honor of the universal church, my honor is the unshaken firmness of my brethren. Then am I truly honored when to no one is denied the honor that is his due. For, if your holiness calls me universal pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be confessed to be universally. Sed absit hoc. Recedant verba quæ vanitatem inflant, et charitatem vulnerant.”2

What this means for the papacy

We may call the bishop of Rome pope of the universal church, but not universal pope, nor universal bishop, because he only possesses in its plenitude what is possessed in a degree by every member of the hierarchy, and even now, as always, the pope addresses the bishops in communion with him as “Venerable Brethren.”

The argument against the claim of the bishop of Rome to jurisdiction in the universal church, which the author attempts to build on the refusal of the title of universal bishop by St. Leo, and that of universal pope, papa universalis, by St. Gregory, is refuted by St. Gregory himself, as cited in the volume before us, pp. 212, 213.

The holy pontiff and doctor, after asserting that our Lord had given to Peter the primacy of jurisdiction, and confided to him the care of the universal church, adds that Peter “did not call himself universal apostle.” Peter was not the only apostle, and the others could not be excluded from the apostleship. He was prince of the apostles, their chief, the centre of apostolic unity and authority, as St. Cyprian explains, and had the care and jurisdiction (principatus) of the universal church, as Gregory asserts, but inclusive, not exclusive of the other apostles. Peter held in relation to the other apostles and the whole church all the supremacy claimed by Catholics for the bishop of Rome.

If, then, the refusal of the title of universal apostle by St. Peter did not negative his supreme authority, why should the refusal of the title of universal bishop or universal pope by the bishops of Rome negative their supremacy, or their primacy of jurisdiction in the whole church? Peter held that primacy, and yet was not universal apostle, and why not, then, the bishop of Rome, without being universal bishop or universal pope?

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Eastern 'Orthodoxy' Mug

(Now, now, our Eastern “Orthodox” friends, don’t get too stressed. It’s all in good humour. We wish you well, and pray for your good.)

'Stripped of jurisdiction by God' – Fr Palmieri SJ on the Pope Question

Fri, 07 Aug 2026 07:56:57 GMT

Photo by Christian GAFENESCH on Unsplash. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

If Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ is an authority for ‘recognise and resist’ theology, then why does he hold that a heretical Pope loses office automatically?

Editor’s Notes

The following is another extract from Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ’s Treatise on the Roman Pontiff – namely, Scholion I of Thesis XXXII. This Scholion deals with the question of the “heretical Pope” – and whether he is deposed or should be deposed. It shows, once again, that Fr Palmieri cannot be cited as an authority for those who seek to recognise the post-conciliar claimants to the Papacy, while resisting their teaching and universal laws.

After considering whether it is possible for a Pope to fall into heresy in a private capacity – and he believes it is – Fr Palmieri states the following:

“Granting the hypothesis, the opinion is to be understood as follows: that a Pontiff obstinate in heresy – obstinate, I say: for if he himself yields to the Church’s admonition, nothing further remains to be done – is deposed not by man but by God Himself, who takes away the jurisdiction that was given; the Church merely declares that he is a heretic and that he has therefore been stripped of jurisdiction by God (Suarez, loc. cit., c. 7, n. 3).”

Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silva has argued that “deposition by God” is a misunderstanding of Bellarmine’s teaching, which Fr Palmieri appears to be following here. The actual “mechanism”, according to da Silva, is that the manifestly heretic deposes himself, tacitly renouncing the office by his embrace of that which is incompatible with it.

What St Robert Bellarmine really taught about a heretic pope losing office 'ipso facto'

There is here a clear analogy with Can. 188, and while some argue that this canon cannot apply to a Pope, due to his being above canon law, it appears in part to enshrine principles of reason and the natural/divine law – as discussed eleswhere.

However, the point here is not Can. 188, but the theological point at hand: the heretical Pope is not resisted, but is rather deposed by God. He is not the Pope.

But when does this take place? As the above text indicates, Fr Palmieri also alludes to “the Church’s admonition” as a means by which obstinacy is established. Such allusions are often used to undermine the idea that the manifestly heretical Pope loses office ipso facto, without any declaration. However, even if we conceded this point for the sake of argument, we could answer with the following:

“The Church's admonitions” pertain to resolving the status of the Pope, not to indefinite resistance to his teaching and laws. If such resistance constitutes an admonition, then Paul VI was sufficiently admonished decades ago.
Building on the previous, the Pope has no superior on earth. As such, the need for an admonition is a reference not to an action of authority, as there is no authority over the Pontiff, but rather to clarity and publicity. The Fifth Position of St Robert Bellarmine pertains to one who is manifestly or openly heretical, and so such clarity and publicity is required. But if this clarity and publicity are achieved by other means, then it is hard to see why admonitions by a Council or specific churchmen are necessary for the per se effect to take place (i.e., the loss of the papacy, at least formally). The declaration which follows is merely making authoritatively clear what has already happened.
1. On the other hand, it is not necessary to deny that an act of authority is needed “quoad nos”, in the sense that the recognition and cognitive judgement of the vacancy is not imposed upon the faithful except by those who have authority over them. As such, the act of authority could be understood as being in some sense over the faithful, rather than the (former) Pope; but the necessity of such an act of authority for making recognition of the vacancy extrinsically obligatory does not mean that it is necessary to make such recognition possible, nor indeed intrinsically obligatory.
Fr Palmieri states that “if [the Pope] himself yields to the Church’s admonition, nothing further remains to be done”. We arrive here at a point similar to that which we have made in reference to the “Fourth Position” of Cajetan. Those of our contemporaries who wish to take refuge in ideas that entail nothing happening until a declaration is made seem to forget that the debate is between those who think that the heretical Pope is deposed (depositus) on the one hand, and is to be deposed (deponendus) on the other. The deponendus position, or the interpretation of the depositus position which requires a declaration, are not justifications for indefinite resistance to a heretical Pope, or to one imposing heresy, errors, evil laws and a new religion. Perpetual resistance, pleas for liturgical crumbs, and discussions about obtaining canonical standing do not form a part of this. On the contrary, the fourth and “declarative” fifth positions require work towards what is necessary for deposition. Is this what is happening? It is evidently not – and those who argue advocate “resistance”, and justify it by claiming to prefer the deponendus or declarative depositus positions, appear to be horrified at the very idea of a deposition or working towards one.

And thus, the “Recognise and Resist” arguments about the Heretic Pope question appear to be little more than ways of avoiding the true meaning of the Fifth Position. And this is to say nothing of the fact that the Heretic Pope question is “downstream” of the vacancy: it can be established without reference to the personal heresy of the papal claimants through other arguments, and the principles behind the Fifth Opinion offer an explanation of how these men may have ceased (or never became) true Popes. As such, even if it were to be conceded that a declaration were needed to deprive an heretical pope of office, the post-conciliar claimants still would not be true Popes.

Further, even with concessions regarding admonitions, it is once again clear: Palmieri cannot be marshalled as an authority for the “recognise and resist” ecclesiology.

You can read more about Fr Palmieri here.

Subscribe now

Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia

Fr Dominico Palmieri SJ

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata
Prati, 1891, pp. 704–709

Available at Archive.org

The following text is for WM+ members.

The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.
However, we also provide WM+ articles – additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.
This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible for all.

Eastern Orthodoxy? 'Orthodox proofs' from Chalcedon undermine their own case (Brownson)

Thu, 06 Aug 2026 15:46:06 GMT

Pope St Leo the Great – Fr Lawrence Lew OP. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

What kind of mind appeals to Pope St Leo the Great and the Council of Chalcedon against the papacy?

Editors’ Notes

This is the seventh part of a serialisation of Orestes’ Brownson’s engagement with “Eastern Orthodoxy.”

It was originally published in two articles.

Article I

Those parts made up one article; Brownson then proceeded to a second, much longer article. As such, this seventh part is also the fourth part of the second article – which systematically dismantles Guettée’s attempted appeal to the Councils:

Article II

This present part contains ringing Brownson remarks such as the following, made in the face of “Orthodox” appeals to Pope St Leo the Great:

“Leo Magnus is our ideal of a pope, or visible head of the universal church, and we cannot sufficiently admire the hardihood or the stupidity that would claim him as a witness against the primacy he adorned, and the papal authority which he so gracefully and so majestically wielded, and with such grand effects for the church and the empire.”

As the contemporary “Orthodox” are publishing such works as Guettée's and encouraging Roman Catholics to enter into schism and heresy, they surely cannot complain about us publishing Brownson’s piece in response. We do so in good will, with the hope that they will instead return to the Church of Christ – outside of which there is absolutely no salvation whatsoever.

Subscribe now

‘Orthodox proofs’ from the Council of Chalcedon undermine their own case

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

Back to the twenty-eighth canon

The refusal of St. Leo to confirm the twenty-eighth canon gave rise to the report that he had refused to confirm the acts of the council, and the Eutychians, against whom its definitions of faith were directed, began to raise their heads and boldly assert that they were not condemned, that the definitions of the council against them counted for nothing, since the Roman pontiff had refused to confirm them, as he refused to confirm the doings of the Ephesian Latrocinium.

The imperial court became alarmed, and the emperor wrote to St. Leo for an explicit statement of what he had done. St. Leo answers that he has confirmed all the decrees of Chalcedon defining the faith, but that he has not confirmed the decree erecting the church of Constantinople into a patriarchal church. This fact does not seem to favor the author’s theory that the Roman pontiff was held to have only a primacy of honor, nor that St. Leo did not claim universal jurisdiction.

It will have been observed that the Council of Chalcedon undertakes to support, very illogically indeed, the twenty-eighth canon on the authority of the third canon of the first Council of Constantinople, which gave the bishop of Constantinople simply the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome. But St. Leo, in the letter to the empress just cited, denies the authority of that canon, on the ground that it had never been communicated to Rome, and therefore could have no effect.

We have dwelt at great length on the sixth canon of Nicæa, the third canon of Constantinople, and twenty-eighth of Chalcedon, because they are the author’s three strongholds, and we have wished to show that they do not in the least aid him—do in no sense contradict the papal authority, but, as far as they go, tend to confirm it.

The author claims St. Leo as a witness against the Catholic doctrine of the papal supremacy, and we have thought it well to show that he has in him about such a witness as he had in St. Cyprian, or as he would have in our holy father, Pius IX, now gloriously reigning. Leo Magnus is our ideal of a pope, or visible head of the universal church, and we cannot sufficiently admire the hardihood or the stupidity that would claim him as a witness against the primacy he adorned, and the papal authority which he so gracefully and so majestically wielded, and with such grand effects for the church and the empire. No nobler man, no truer saint, no greater pontiff ever sat in the chair of Peter, and no higher or more magnificent character is to be found in all history. Sancte Leo Magne, ora pro nobis.

Inadequacy of Guettée’s authorities

The author says:

“The canons of the first œcumenical councils throw incontestably a strong light upon the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome. They are the complement to each other. The twenty-eighth canon contains nothing less than the doctrine we defend, even though the opposition of the West in the person of the bishop of Rome should strip it of its ecumenical character, as certain theologians maintain.” (p. 102)

M. Guettée finds but two canons that in any respect favor his doctrine, the third of the second general council, and the twenty-eighth of the fourth, neither of which was ever accepted by the universal church, and both of which have remained from the first without Catholic authority. A doctrine sustained or favored only by irregularity and violent innovation needs no refutation.

“St. Leo,” the author continues…

“… did not protest against it, (the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon,) as opposed to the divine and universal authority of the see of Rome, for which he claimed only an ecclesiastical primacy, but simply because it infringed upon the sixth canon of the council of Nicæa.”

That he claimed only an ecclesiastical primacy for his see is not true, for he claimed to annul the canon by authority of Peter. Nor did he object to it only because it infringed the sixth canon of Nicæa, but because it contained a grave innovation in the constitution of the church, and attempted to found the authority of bishops on a temporal instead of a spiritual and apostolic basis.

It proposed to change entirely the basis of the pontifical authority, which had hitherto rested on Peter, and to make it rest on the empire. The church of Constantinople was not an apostolic see, and only the bishop of an apostolic see could be clothed with patriarchal authority. This seems to us to be the great objection of St. Leo. Therefore, he writes to the emperor, as already cited:

“Let not the bishop of Constantinople disdain the imperial city, which he cannot make an apostolic see.”

Hitherto only apostolic sees and indeed only sees founded by Peter, had been clothed with the authority of patriarchal sees; and to give to a non-apostolic and non-Petrine church authority over other metropolitan churches was to strike at apostolic authority itself, and especially at that of Peter. The whole organization of the church was from the first based on Peter as the immediate representative of Christ and prince of the apostles.

The twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon was therefore aimed at Peter, and in the name and by the authority of Peter, whom he fully represented, St. Leo annulled it, and declared it void, and the author, without knowing well what he concedes, says: “St. Leo was right.”

Subscribe now

Guettée’s dilemma revisited

“One fact is certain, that they (the Roman pontiffs) did not convoke the first four ecumenical councils, that they did not preside over them and that they did not confirm them.”

This is certain only of the second general council, or first of Constantinople. But suppose it, what follows? Simply that they were not councils of the church at all—which will be very pleasant news to Unitarians and rationalists, who wish a Christianity without Christ—and can have the authority of general councils only by the ex post facto sanction of the universal church; but, as the two canons on which the author bases his anti-papal theory have never received that sanction, they have no authority, and never have had any.

Hence, the author’s theory, on any ground he chooses, has nothing in the church to sustain it. We shall, therefore, pass over what he adduces to prove the part taken by the civil authority in the councils, with the simple remark that the acts of several of them depend entirely on the confirmation of the Roman pontiff and the ex post facto sanction of the church for their authority.

‘Proofs’ of Orthodoxy prove Catholicism

M. Guettée’s proofs are not seldom proofs of the contrary of what he alleges.

“It is undeniable fact,” he says…

“… that the dogmatic letter addressed by St. Leo to the fathers of the council was there examined, and approved for this reason: that it agreed with the doctrine of Celestine [his predecessor] and Cyril, confirmed by the council of Ephesus.” (p. 118)

That the letter was read in the council, and that the council adopted its definitions of faith, is true; but that it was approved for the reason alleged does not appear from the proofs the author adduces. He continues, pp. 118, 119:

“At the close of the reading, the bishops exclaimed:
“‘Such is the faith of the fathers; this is the faith of the apostles. We all believe thus. Anathema to those who do not thus believe. Peter has spoken by Leo. Thus taught the apostles. Leo teaches according to piety and truth, and thus has Cyril taught.’”

Any one not bent on proving the papacy schismatic would gather from this that the bishops approved of the letter because they recognized in it the doctrine of the apostles and the tradition of the fathers.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Eastern 'Orthodoxy' Mug

(Now, now, our Eastern “Orthodox” friends, don’t get too stressed. It’s all in good humour. We wish you well, and pray for your good.)

Eastern Orthodoxy? No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy (Orestes Brownson)

Wed, 05 Aug 2026 07:26:41 GMT

By Francisco Herrera the Younger - [2], Public Domain. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

The ‘Orthodox’ priest whose work Orestes Brownson is critiquing next tries to claim that Pope St Leo the Great rejected papal primacy. Unsurprisingly, this is false.

Editors’ Notes

This is the sixth part of a serialisation of Orestes’ Brownson’s engagement with “Eastern Orthodoxy.”

Article I

Those parts made up one article; Brownson then proceeded to a second, much longer article. As such, this sixth part is also the third part of the second article – which systematically dismantles Guettée’s attempted appeal to the Councils:

Article II

As the contemporary “Orthodox” are publishing such works like Guettée's and encouraging Roman Catholics to enter into schism and heresy, they surely cannot complain about us publishing Brownson’s piece in response. We do so in good will, with the hope that they will instead return to the Church of Christ – outside of which there is absolutely no salvation whatsoever.

Subscribe now

No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

The status of Chalcedon and the role of the Pope

The council [of Chalcedon] is generally accepted as the fourth general council, but only by virtue of the papal confirmation, and only so far as the pope confirmed its acts.

In many respects the council was a scandalous assembly, almost wholly controlled by the emperor and the Byzantine lawyers or magistrates, who have no authority in the church of God. The part taken by the emperor and civil magistrates wholly vitiated it as a council of the church, and all the authority its acts had or could have for the church was derived from their confirmation by St. Leo the Great.

But bad as the council was, the twenty-eighth canon never received its sanction. It was introduced by the civil magistrates, and when only one hundred and fifty bishops, all orientals, out of the six hundred composing the council, were present, and no more subscribed it. It was resisted by the legates of the Roman pontiff and protested against; the patriarchal churches of Alexandria and Antioch were unrepresented. Dioscurus, bishop of the former, was excluded for his crimes, and Macarius of Antioch had just been deposed by the emperor and council for heresy and expelled; a large number of prelates had withdrawn, and only the rump of the council remained. It is idle to pretend that the canon in question was the act even of the council, far less of the universal church.

The dilemma for the ‘Orthodox’

Now, either Leo the Roman pontiff had authority to confirm the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and by his authority as supreme pastor of the church to heal their defects and make them binding on the universal church, or he had not.

If he had, the controversy is ended, for that is precisely what Mr. Guettée denies; if he had not, as Mr. Guettée contends, then the acts of Chalcedon have in themselves no authority for the church, since through the tyranny of the emperor Marcian and the civil magistrates it was not a free council, and, though legally convoked and presided over, was not capable of binding the church.

The author may take which horn of the dilemma he chooses, for the pope refused to confirm the twenty-eighth canon, and declared it null and void from the beginning.

The fathers of the council, or a portion of them, in the name of the council, addressed a letter to the Roman pontiff in which they recognize him as the constituted interpreter of the words and faith of Peter for all, explain what they have done, the motives from which they have acted, and pray him “to honor their judgment by his decrees” that is, confirm their acts. St. Leo confirmed those of their acts that pertained to the definition of faith, but refused to confirm the twenty-eighth canon, which he annulled and declared void, as enacted without authority, and against the canons.

The attempted escape

Mr. Guettée says, pp. 97, 98, that the council did not ask the Roman pontiff to confirm the canon in question,

“… but by his own decrees to honor the judgment which had been rendered. If the confirmation of the bishop of Rome had been necessary, would the decree of Chalcedon have been a judgment, a promulgated decision, before that confirmation?”

An authoritatively “promulgated decision” certainly not; but the author forgets that the canon had not been promulgated, and never became “a promulgated decision.” As to its being a judgment, a final or complete judgment it was not, and the council, by calling it nostrum judicium, do not pretend that it was. They present it to the Roman pontiff only as an inchoate judgment, to be completed by his confirmation. They tell the pope that his legates have protested against it, probably because they wished to preserve to him its initiation, and that in adopting it they…

“… had deferred to the emperor, to the senate, and the whole imperial city, thinking only to finish the work which his holiness, who always delights to diffuse his favors, had begun.”

The plain English of which is, We have enacted the canon out of deference to the civil authority and the wishes of the imperial city, subject to your approval. Rogamus igitur, honora et tuis sententiis nostrum judicium. “We pray you, therefore, to honor our judgment by your decrees.”2

If this does not mean asking the pope to confirm their act or judgment, we know not what would so mean. It is certain that St. Leo himself, who is one of the author’s anti-papal authorities, so understood it, as is evident from his replies to the emperor, the empress, and Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, the assertion of M. Guettée to the contrary notwithstanding.

Further evidence of the necessity of papal approval

The Emperor Marcian wrote expressly to St. Leo, begging him to confirm by his apostolic authority the acts of the council, and especially the twenty-eighth canon, because without his confirmation they would have no authority. The Empress Pulcheria wrote him to the same effect, and finally Anatolius did the same. To the emperor the Roman pontiff replied, and set forth the reasons why he could not confirm the canon in question.

He makes short work with M. Guettée’s doctrine, broached in the second council, and extended in the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, that the rank and authority of the see derive from the rank, authority, or importance of the city in which it is established. He denies that the fact that Constantinople was the second capital of the empire, or the new Rome, was any reason for elevating its bishop to the patriarchal rank and authority.

“Let, as we desire, the city of Constantinople have its glory, and, protected by the right hand of God, may it long enjoy the reign of your clemency; but different is the reason of secular things from the reason of divine things, and no edifice will be stable unless it is built on that rock (St. Matthew xvi. 18) which the Lord has laid for a foundation.
“Who covets what is not his due shall lose what is his own. Let it suffice this man (Anatolius), that by the aid of your piety and my assent and favor, he has obtained the episcopate of so great a city. Let him not disdain the imperial city because he cannot make it an apostolic see; and let him by no means hope to enlarge his power at the expense of others.”

It is very clear from this that St. Leo did by no means concede that the bishop of Constantinople was entitled to be clothed with patriarchal power and take precedence of the patriarch of Alexandria, because he had his see in what had become the second capital of the empire. Alia ratio est rerum secularium, alia divinarum; nec præter illam petram quam Dominus in fundamento posuit, stabilis erit ulla constructio; that is, only what is built on Peter, the rock, will stand, and in vain do you build on the greatness, splendor, and dignity of earthly cities.3

If M. Guettée had remembered this, he would never have turned from the chair of Peter, or allowed himself to be seduced by the nationalism of the Greek sophists, and the misguided ambition of the bishop of Constantinople. Alas! he left his father’s house, and, famished in the far country to which he has wandered, he is forced to feed on husks with the swine he tends. What can that man think of the church of God who holds that the dignity and authority or its prelates have only a secular origin?

Subscribe now

Why St Leo refused the canon

St. Leo unequivocally refuses, in his reply to the solicitations of the emperor, to confirm the twenty-eighth canon.

“And why,” asks the author, p. 98…

“… did he refuse his assent? Because the decree of Chalcedon took from the bishop of Alexandria the second rank, and the third from the bishop of Antioch, and was in so far forth contrary to the sixth canon of Nicæa, and because the same decree prejudiced the rights of several primates or metropolitans…”

… that is, of Pontus, Asia Minor, and Thrace.

This we think was reason enough, and proves that the Roman pontiff was not only the chief custodian of the faith, but also of the canons. “The bishop of Constantinople,” says St. Leo, as cited by the author…

“… in spite of the glory of his church, cannot make it apostolic; he has no right to aggrandize it at the expense of churches whose privileges, established by the canons of the holy fathers, and settled by the decrees of the venerable Council of Nicæa, cannot be unsettled by perversity nor violated by innovation.”

St. Leo in the whole controversy appears as the defender of the canons against innovation, and of the catholicity of the church against Greek nationalism.

The author continues, same page:

“In his letter to the Empress Pulcheria, St. Leo declares that he has ‘annulled the decree of Chalcedon by the authority of St. Peter.’ These words seem at first sight to mean that he claimed for himself a sovereign [supreme] authority in the church in the name of St. Peter.”

Undoubtedly, not only at first sight, but at every sight. The pope uses the strongest terms to be found in the Latin language, and terms which can be used only by one having the supreme authority, irritus and cassare. He refuses to ratify it, declares it null, and says, “per auctoritatem Beati Petri apostoli,” he makes it void. He could make no greater assumption of authority.

Another contrived escape refuted

“But,” adds the author, upon a more careful and unbiased examination of his letter and other writings…

“… we are convinced that St. Leo only spoke as the bishop of an apostolic see, and that in this character he claimed the right, in the name of the apostles who founded his church, and of the Western countries which he represented, to resist any attempt of the Eastern Church to decide alone matters of general interest to the whole church,” pp. 98, 99.

If he is convinced, we are not. If such was St. Leo’s meaning, why did he not say so? Why did he annul when he only meant that the canon was null, because decreed by Orientals alone; or why did he not assign that reason for annulling it, and not the reason that it was repugnant to the canons of the holy fathers and the decrees of the Council of Nicæa?

“The proof that he regarded matters in this light (p. 99,) is that he does not claim for himself any personal authority of divine origin, descended to him from St. Peter, but that, on the contrary, he presents himself as the defender of the canons, and looks upon the rights and reciprocal duties of the churches as having been established by the fathers and fixed by the Council of Nicæa. He does not pretend that his church has any exceptional rights, emanating from another source.” (p. 99)

This proof is inconclusive. St. Leo had no occasion to claim personal authority for himself, for whatever authority he had was official, not personal, and inhered in him as the successor of Peter in the apostolic see of Rome, and in this capacity he most assuredly did claim to have authority, when he declared to the Empress Pulcheria, as we have seen, that, “by authority of Peter, he annulled and made void and of none effect,” the decree of Chalcedon.

What the author says he did not do, is precisely what he did do. He does not annul and make void the decree by authority vested in him by the canons, or which he holds by ecclesiastical right, but “by the authority of Peter.”

He, moreover, was not defending the rights and prerogatives of his own see, nor his authority as metropolitan, patriarch, or supreme pontiff, for this was not called into question; the council most fully recognized it, and in his letter defining the faith against Eutyches, it professed to hear the voice of Peter. He was defending the canons, not for himself, nor for churches subjected to him as patriarch of the West, but for Alexandria, Antioch, and the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia Minor, and Thrace, which the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon sought to subject to the bishop of Constantinople; and he therefore had no occasion to dwell on the exceptional rights, or rights not derived from the canons, but from God through Peter, of the Roman Church. It sufficed him to exercise them, which he did do effectually.

“By ecclesiastical right he is the first bishop of the church,” the author continues…

“… besides, he occupies the apostolic see of the West; in these characters he must interfere and prevent the ambition of one particular church from impairing rights that the canons have accorded to other bishops too feeble to resist.”

Wherefore must he do so? In these characters he might offer his advice, he might even refuse his assent to acts he disapproved; but he could not authoritatively interfere in any matters outside of his own particular diocese, or his own patriarchate, far less to annul and make void acts which did not concern him in either of these characters. He had no right to interfere in the way he did, except as supreme pontiff and head of the whole church, and Roman theologians have never claimed for the Roman pontiff greater power than St. Leo exercised in the case of the Council of Chalcedon.

Absurd conclusions drawn from the premises

“After reading all that St. Leo has written against the canon of the council of Chalcedon, it cannot be doubtful what he meant.”

We agree to that, nor is it doubtful what he did. He annulled and made void by authority of Peter an act of a general council, and null and void it remained.

“He does not claim for himself the autocracy which Roman theologians make the groundwork of the papal authority.”

Very likely not, for nobody claims it for the Roman pontiff, as we showed in our former article. He is the supreme pastor, not the autocrat, of the church.

“In his letter to the fathers of the council of Chalcedon he only styles himself ‘guardian of the Catholic faith and of the constitutions of the fathers,’ and not chief and master of the church by divine right.”

Does he deny that he is chief and master by divine right? Certainly not, and no one can read his letters without feeling that in every word and syllable he speaks as a superior, in the language and tone of supreme authority. His reply to Anatolius is such as could be written only by a superior not only in rank, but in authority, and while replete with the affection of a father, it is marked by the majestic severity of supreme power.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Eastern 'Orthodoxy' Mug

(Now, now, our Eastern “Orthodox” friends, don’t get too stressed. It’s all in good humour. We wish you well, and pray for your good.)

'They miserably deceive themselves who think they can adhere to the Roman See while resisting the Pontiff' – Fr Palmieri SJ

Fri, 31 Jul 2026 15:11:53 GMT

Bossuet, a great preacher, but regrettably an advocate for the ideas Palmieri refutes. By Hyacinthe Rigaud - copy by uploader, from original version Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet 2.jpg, by Carolus., Public Domain. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ directly refutes the ‘recognise and resist’ ecclesiology of the Gallicans.

Editor’s Notes

This is the second half of Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ’s Treatise on the Roman Pontiff, Thesis XXX. In this chapter, the Jesuit theologian refutes aspects of the Gallicanist theology of the Papacy.

As is clear from his treatment, this theology has much in common with the principles behind what is today called the “recognise and resist” movement. This movement holds (a) that a true Pope may teach error and even heresy, and promulgate universal disciplinary laws which are harmful to souls; and that in response, Catholics should (b) continue to recognise him as Pope, whilst (c) resisting his harmful teaching and universal laws. Fr Palmieri himself has been cited in support of this movement's ecclesiology.

In the first half, Fr Palmieri explained how the See and the “Seated” occupant may be distinguished – and how they may not be distinguished. He proceeds to explain how and why the rights of the See are indeed the rights of the Seated, and then considers how a vacancy of the Holy See affects the preceding points.

In this part, however, he takes direct aim at the Gallicans conception of the papacy, and explicitly rejects the idea of resisting the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his teaching and governing authority.

Nor can his comments be limited to infallible ex cathedra definitions: although he does address this matter, his treatment refers to the immunity of the Roman See from all error. Referring to the Patristic texts from Pope Hormisdas and others, he asks:

“But if holy doctrine is always celebrated in that See, how can error at times creep in?”

This matter is also addressed in our long study Spotless and Unsullied:

‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy.

He answers his own question by stating the Gallican concept of the Papacy as entailing “that the institution of Christ would be wholly perverted and rendered vain.” He also described a Papacy, as the Gallican hypothesis conceived it, as being “altogether inept and unworthy of God” – and contributing nothing to the Church.

As such, it is clear: Palmieri cannot be marshalled as an authority for the “recognise and resist” ecclesiology. In fact, he himself not only recognised an earlier form of it in his day: he also resisted it in the strongest terms.

You can read more about Fr Palmieri here.

Subscribe now

Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia

Fr Dominico Palmieri SJ

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata
Prati, 1891, pp. 704–709

Available at Archive.org

THESIS XXX: Corollary

Recap of the Thesis Statement:
Every prerogative of the Roman See resides in the very person of the Roman Pontiff as in its subject; and therefore these prerogatives are most truly called personal, and the same prerogatives belong equally to each of Peter’s successors. Hence, although it is lawful in one respect to distinguish between the See and the Seated [inter sedem et sedentem], nevertheless such a distinction must be utterly rejected as false and absurd when it is directed to this end, namely, that the prerogatives and rights of the See should be different from the prerogatives and rights of those occupying it, and that the Roman See, or the whole series of the succession, should indeed enjoy the privilege of indefectibility or infallibility in faith, but not each individual successor of Peter separately.

Corrollary: Therefore those men miserably deceive themselves who think that they can adhere to the Roman See and the Roman Church while resisting the Pontiff.

The infallibility of every individual Pope

IV. Now the second point must be proved, namely, that the individual Pontiffs are infallible.

Bossuet (Defensio, l. 10. c. 5.) teaches that although certain Pontiffs may not preach the true faith, but may err in it, nevertheless the faith of the Roman See remains invariable. For the defect of one Pontiff will either be repaired by the same Pontiff himself or by his successor. He therefore wishes the whole succession of the Roman Pontiffs to be considered as though together constituting the person of Peter, whose faith shall never totally fail. This faith can waver and at times fail in some particular Pontiff, just as, according to him, it failed in Peter when he denied Christ; but shortly afterwards it shall be restored, so that error cannot strike roots in this succession.

Thus the whole series is indefectible in faith, but not each one of the successors. Cardinal de Luzerne says:

“An infallible authority is one which can never err, even for one moment, in decisions of faith. Indefectibility of faith consists in this, that the faith cannot wholly perish; but if at some time it fails, it is promptly restored: so that if some Pope professes or teaches error, shortly afterwards the error may be corrected either by himself or by his successor.” (part 2. c. 2.)

But what sort of indefectibility is this? Is it properly infallibility? Those who claim the privilege of infallibility only for the universal Church or for a Council, as Bossuet does, must also teach that the indefectibility of the Roman See consists in this, that it indefectibly holds the faith which the Church teaches; but therefore not by teaching, but by learning: namely, that its infallibility is not active, but only passive, as Tournely says in the cited place. Certain men, however, seem to understand active indefectibility in such a way that, as we have just said, they concede infallibility to the See, but not to the one occupying it; they are perhaps not far from this interpretation (cf. Mourray, De Ecclesia, disp. 20. sect. 3. § 3.). For it must be recalled that distinctions of this sort arose from polemical controversy and were devised by all these men in order to meet the arguments of the Roman theologians, and therefore were adjusted according to necessity.

But in fact, the true doctrine entails much more…

The following comments are for WM+ members.

The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.
However, we also provide WM+ articles – additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.
This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible for all.

The See and the Seated: Fr Dominic Palmieri SJ against Gallican theology of the Papacy

Wed, 29 Jul 2026 22:00:04 GMT

Image from Fr Lawrence Lew OP. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

Fr Dominic Palmieri sets the grounds for a devastating refutation of the Gallican conception of the Papacy – and its descendants today.

Editor’s Notes

Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ was an Italian Jesuit theologian. Born in 1829, he was ordained a priest in 1852 and entered the Society of Jesus in the same year. As a Jesuit he taught a number of subjects, and spent sixteen years as a professor in the Roman College. He also held a position in the curia from 1893, and was one of the first opponents of the modernist Alfred Loisy. He also wrote a commentary on Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy.

Palmieri has recently been cited as an authority for the so-called “recognise and resist theology”, which holds (a) that a true Pope may teach error and even heresy, and promulgate universal disciplinary laws which are harmful to souls; and that in response, Catholics should (b) continue to recognise him as Pope, whilst (c) resisting his harmful teaching and universal laws. For instance, Palmieri wrote:

“In the event that the Pontiff behaves badly, unjustly inflicts harm, and persecutes the Church, it is permissible to resist the Pontiff.”

In this context, Palmieri cites St Robert Bellarmine; but, as we have discussed elsewhere, Bellarmine’s “resistance quotes” do not provide any grounds for the modern “recognise and resist theology”. Bellarmine himself cites both Cajetan and Torquemada, both whom make clear that their conception of “destroying the Church” excludes the teaching of error or promulgation of evil laws.

Palmieri’s theology also excludes such an interpretation. The extract below is the first half of Thesis XXX of his work on the Roman Pontiff, Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum prolegomeno de Ecclesia. This extract amply demonstrates that Palmieri cannot be marshalled as an authority for this theology. In this first part, he explains how the See and the “Seated” occupant may be distinguished – and how they may not be distinguished. He proceeds to explain how and why the rights of the See are indeed the rights of the Seated, and then considers how a vacancy of the Holy See affects the preceding points.

All this is a preparation for the final point, which he summarises as follows:

“Therefore those men miserably deceive themselves who think that they can adhere to the Roman See and the Roman Church while resisting the Pontiff.”

His treatment of this final point will form the following part.

Let us proceed to the first part of Thesis XXX.

Subscribe now

Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia

Fr Dominico Palmieri SJ

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata
Prati, 1891, pp. 704–709

Available at Archive.org

THESIS XXX

Every prerogative of the Roman See resides in the very person of the Roman Pontiff as in its subject; and therefore these prerogatives are most truly called personal, and the same prerogatives belong equally to each of Peter’s successors. Hence, although it is lawful in one respect to distinguish between the See and the Seated [inter sedem et sedentem], nevertheless such a distinction must be utterly rejected as false and absurd when it is directed to this end, namely, that the prerogatives and rights of the See should be different from the prerogatives and rights of those occupying it, and that the Roman See, or the whole series of the succession, should indeed enjoy the privilege of indefectibility or infallibility in faith, but not each individual successor of Peter separately.

Note that the distinction between the See and the Seated [the occupant of the See] can be applied to all the jurisdiction and rights of the Primacy. Nevertheless, it was devised in the question concerning infallibility, and therefore we speak of it here in that connection. Yet what we say on the occasion of this question can easily be adapted to the other prerogatives of the Primacy.

The following comments about are for WM+ members.

The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.
However, we also provide WM+ articles – additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.
This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible for all.

If you want to ensure that this continues, join WM+ today.

(Clergy and seminarians can contact us for free membership.)

Eastern Orthodoxy? Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city (Orestes Brownson)

Wed, 29 Jul 2026 11:02:39 GMT

Council of Chalcedon, by Vasily Surikov, Public Domain. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

Eastern ‘Orthodox’ Abbé Guettée’s appeal to Constantinople and Chalcedon collapses under Brownson’s scrutiny.

Editors’ Notes

This is the fifth part of a serialisation of Orestes’ Brownson’s engagement with “Eastern Orthodoxy.”

Article I

Those parts made up one article; Brownson then proceeded to a second, much longer article. As such, this fourth part is also the first part of the second article – which systematically dismantles Guettée’s attempted appeal to the Councils.

Article II

Subscribe now

Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

The First Council of Constantinople

M. Guettée pretends that the third canon of the second general council, the first of Constantinople, contains a denial of the papal authority by divine right. The canon, as he cites it, which is only the concluding part of it, says:

“Let the bishop of Constantinople have the primacy of honor (priores honoris partes) after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the new Rome.”

Hence he concludes that as the primacy conferred on the bishop of Constantinople was only a primacy of honor, the bishop of Rome had only a primacy of honor; and as the primacy of honor was conferred on the bishop of Constantinople because that city was the new Rome, so the primacy of the bishop of Rome was conferred because he was the bishop of old Rome, or the capital of the empire.

The reasoning, which is Guettéean, if we may coin a word, is admirable, and we shall soon see what St. Leo the Great thinks of it. But the canon does not affect the authority, rank, or dignity of the bishop of Rome; it simply gives the bishop of Constantinople the precedence of the bishop of Alexandria, who had hitherto held the first rank after the bishop of Rome. It conferred on him no power, and took nothing from the authority of any one else. It was simply a matter of politeness.

Besides, the canon remained without effect.

The Council of Chalcedon

From the second general council the author rushes, pp. 96, 97, to the fourth, the Council of Chalcedon, held under the pontificate of St. Leo Magnus, in 451, and lights upon the twenty-eighth canon of that council, which, as he gives it, reads:

“In all things following the decrees of the holy fathers, and recognizing the canon just read (the third of the second council) by the one hundred and fifty bishops well beloved of God, we decree and establish the same thing touching the most holy church of Constantinople, the new Rome.
“Most justly did the fathers grant privileges to the see of ancient Rome, because she was the reigning (capital) city. Moved by the same motive the one hundred and fifty bishops well beloved of God grant equal privileges to the most holy see of the new Rome, thinking, very properly, that the city that has the honor to be the seat of the empire and the senate should enjoy in ecclesiastical things the same privileges as Rome, the ancient queen city, since the former, although of later origin, has been raised and honored as much as the former.
“In consequence of this decree the council subjected the dioceses of Pontus, Asia (Asia Minor), and Thrace to the jurisdiction of Constantinople.”

Of course the author cites the canon with his usual inexactness, and makes it appear even more illogical and absurd than it really was.

The alleged canon professes to decree and establish the same thing decreed and established by the one hundred and fifty bishops who composed the second council, in their third canon, which, as we have seen, was simply that the bishop of Constantinople should have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, that is the second rank in the church. The canon, therefore, does not deprive the Roman pontiff of his rank, dignity, and authority as primate of the whole church, and therefore did not, as it could not, raise the see of Constantinople to an equal rank and dignity with the see of Rome.

This was never pretended, and is not pretended by the author himself. The council never could, without stultifying itself, have intended any thing of the sort, for it gave to the bishop of Rome the title of “universal bishop,” and it says expressly

“We consider the primacy of all and the chief honor, according to the canons, should be preserved to the most beloved of God, the archbishop of Rome.”2

The non-united Greeks and the author himself concede that the church of Rome was and is the first church in rank and dignity.

Whatever value, then, is to be attached to this twenty-eighth canon it did not and was not designed to affect in any respect the rank, dignity, or authority of the Roman pontiff. What was attempted by it was to erect the non-apostolic see of Constantinople or Byzantium into a patriarchal see, with jurisdiction over the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia Minor, Thrace, and such as should be ordained in barbarous countries, that is, in countries lying beyond the limits of the empire, and to give its bishops the first rank after the patriarch of the West.

It sought to reduce the bishop of Alexandria from the second to the third, and the bishop of Antioch from the third to the fourth rank, but it did not touch the power or authority of either. It violated the rights and privileges of the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia Minor, and Thrace, by subjecting them to a patriarchal jurisdiction from which, by ancient usage, confirmed by the sixth canon of the Council of Nicæa they were exempt.

The real reason this canon is cited

The author relies on this canon because it asserts that the privileges of the see of Rome were granted by the fathers, and granted because Rome was the capital city of the empire. This sustains his position, that the importance the fathers attached to the see of Rome was not because it was the see of Peter, but because it was the see of the capital—a position we showed, in our previous article, to be untenable—and also that the authority exercised by the Roman pontiff over the whole church, which he cannot deny, was not by divine right, but by ecclesiastical right.

But even if this last were so, since there is confessedly no act of the universal church revoking the grant, the power would be legitimate, and the author and his friends the non-united Greeks would be bound by a law of the church to obey the Roman pontiff, and clearly schismatics in refusing to obey him.

But we have seen from St. Cyprian, the author’s own witness, that the primacy was conferred by our Lord himself on the Roman pontiff as the successor of Peter to constitute him the visible centre and source of unity and authority. Besides, a canon, beyond what it decrees or defines, is not authoritative, and it is lawful to dispute the logic of a general council, and even the historical facts it alleges, at least so far as they can be separated from the definition or decree itself. The purpose of the canon of Chalcedon was not to define or decree that the privileges of the see of Rome were granted by the fathers, and because it was the see of the capital of the empire, but to elevate the see of Constantinople to the rank and authority of a patriarchal see, immediately after the see of Rome, and simply assigns this as a reason for doing so; and a very poor reason it was, too, at least in the judgment of St. Leo the Great, as we shall soon see.

But there is something more to be said in regard to this twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Eastern 'Orthodoxy' Mug

(Now, now, our Eastern “Orthodox” friends, don’t get too stressed. It’s all in good humour. We wish you well, and pray for your good.)

Eastern Orthodoxy? Why the sixth canon of Nicæa isn't an argument (Orestes Brownson)

Mon, 27 Jul 2026 09:26:01 GMT

Depiction of the Council of Nicaea at Hagia Sophia. 6wGagAS8xvs8Ng at Google Cultural Institute, Public Domain. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Reading List.

Was the Roman Church preeminent just because of the city’s civil status? Was St Peter ever its bishop? Orestes Brownson shows Orthodox apologist Guettée is grasping at straws.

Editors’ Notes

This is the fourth part of a serialisation of Orestes’ Brownson’s engagement with “Eastern Orthodoxy.”

The background of this engagement – including that of the ex-Catholic author Abbé Vladimir (René-François) Guettée and his book The Schismatic Papacy – can be found in the first part:

Eastern Orthodoxy? ‘The Schismatic Papacy’ and Guettée’s absurd imposture

Image: Brownson (Wiki Commons).

The second part addressed Guettée’s surprising attempts to claim St Cyprian of Carthage as evidence for a patristic rejection of papal primacy.

Eastern Orthodoxy? St Cyprian is not a witness for schism

St Cyprian of Carthage, Doctor of the Church and Martyr (Image by Fr Lawrence Lew OP)

In the third part, Brownson addresses Guettée’s misuse of Tertullian, the so-called Apostolic Tradition and the history of the Church.

Eastern Orthodoxy? Schism defended with false history

St Peter being crucified in Rome, Caravaggio (Public Domain, Wiki Commons).

Those parts made up one article; Brownson then proceeded to a second, much longer article. As such, this fourth part is also the first part of the second article.

In this part, then, Brownson addresses an argument, which uses the Council of Nicæa’s sixth canon to argue that the Roman primacy was based on the city’s civil status, rather than the Pope’s divine right. Brownson obliterates this argument in his usual style, trapping the apostate cleric Guettée between the horns of a dilemma, both of which refute him.

Brownson stresses that he is not making a positive case for the Roman Catholic Church, but specifically refuting the appalling and nonsensical arguments proposed by Guettée.

Why bother publishing this old review?

Why bother republishing a nineteenth century review of a nineteenth century book – especially by Orestes Brownson, a man with doctrinal problems of his own?

For a start, because the arguments mounted by the Eastern Orthodox have not significantly changed. As Brownson says at the end of this piece:

“The work is rambling, and made up of details most wearisome to read, and difficult to bring into a shape in which its real value can be brought to the test, but it is a fair specimen in spirit and arrangement of the works written against the Roman and Catholic Church, and contains in some form all that schismatics allege first and last against her.
“We may as well make it our text-book for the discussion as any other.”

Many Catholics continue to be seduced into schism by such arguments – and by a faulty understanding of the contemporary crisis in the Church.

Further, Guettée’s book is still in print, by an “Orthodox” publisher whose catalogue includes a two-volume work titled The Errors of the Latins, The Rise and Fall of the Papacy, and other pro-schism and anti-Catholic works:

In 2024, an “Orthodox” account on Twitter told us that Guettée’s book continues to be popular today:

If Guettée’s book continues to bring the ill-informed into the Photian schism, then Browson’s review and refutation of enduring importance.

Subscribe now

Ex-Catholic Guettée proposes an argument based on the sixth canon of Nicæa

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

Introduction: Guettée’s Two Central Claims Against Roman Primacy

M. Guettée, it will be remembered, undertakes to establish two propositions. First:

“The bishop of Rome did not for eight centuries possess the authority of divine right which he has since sought to exercise”

And second,

“The pretension of the bishop of Rome to the sovereignty of divine right over the whole church was the real cause of the division,” or schism between the East and the West.

Summary of the Argument Thus Far

To the first proposition, we have replied, the bishop of Rome is in possession, and it is for the author to prove that he is not rightfully in possession. This he can do only by proving either, first, that no such title by divine right was ever issued; or, second, that it vests in an adverse claimant.

He sets up no adverse claimant, but attempts to make it appear that no such title as is claimed was ever issued. This he attempts to do by showing that the proofs of title usually relied on by Catholic writers are negatived by the Holy Scriptures and the testimony of the fathers and councils of the first eight centuries.

We have seen that he has signally failed so far as the Holy Scriptures and the fathers of the first three centuries are concerned; nay, that instead of proving his proposition, he has by his own witnesses refuted it, and proved that the title did issue, and did vest in St. Peter, and consequently now vests in the bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor.

This alone is enough for us, and renders any further discussion of the first proposition unnecessary. After the testimony of St. Cyprian, who is his own witness, the author really has nothing more to say. He has lost his case. But, ignorant of this, he proceeds in the fourth division of his work to interrogate the fathers and councils of the fourth and fifth centuries, but even less successfully, as we now proceed to show. We only beg the reader to bear in mind that we are not adducing our proofs of the papacy by divine right, but are simply examining the proofs the author adduces against it. We do not put forth the strength of our cause, which is not necessary in the present argument; we are only showing the weakness of the case the author makes against us.

Guettée’s Misinterpretation of the Sixth Canon of Nicaea

The author attempts to devise an argument against the papal authority from the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea. This canon, as he cites it, reads:

“Let the ancient custom be preserved that exists in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the bishop of Alexandria have authority in all these countries, since that has also passed into a custom for the bishop of Rome. Let the churches at Antioch and in the other provinces preserve also their privileges.”

It must not be supposed that the author cites the canon with any degree of exactness, or faithfully renders it; but let that pass. From this canon two consequences, he contends, necessarily follow. First:

“[That] the council declared that the authority of the bishop of Rome extended over a limited district, like that of the bishop of Alexandria; and second that this authority was only based on usage.” (p. 95.)

But the authority of the bishop of Rome was not in question before the council, for that nobody disputed. “The object of the canon,” the author himself says, pp. 93, 94…

“…was to defend the authority of the bishop of Alexandria against the partisans of Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, who refused to recognize it in episcopal ordinations… therefore was merely to confirm the ancient customs respecting these ordinations, and, in general, the privileges consecrated by ancient usages.
“Now, according to an ancient custom Rome enjoyed certain prerogatives that no one contested. The council makes use of this fact in order to confirm the similar prerogatives of Alexandria, Antioch, and other churches.”

The question before the council, and which it met by this canon, evidently was not the primacy of the see of Rome—although it would seem from the form in which the papal legate, Paschasinus, quoted it, without contradiction, in the Council of Chalcedon, that the Council of Nicæa took care to reserve that primacy—but certain customary rights, privileges, and dignities which the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and some other churches held in common with the bishop of Rome. As the ancient custom was preserved in the Roman church, the council says, so let it be in Alexandria, Antioch, and other churches. The council refers to the custom in Rome as a reason for confirming the similar custom which had obtained elsewhere, and which had been violated by Meletius of Lycopolis in Egypt, and by his partisans.

The Ancient Pattern of Decentralized Church Administration

To understand this, we must recollect that prior to the fall of the great patriarchates of Alexandria and the East, the administration of ecclesiastical affairs was less centralized than at present. Now nearly all, if not all, bishops depend immediately on the Holy See, but in the early ages they depended on it only mediately.

The bishops of a province or of a patriarchate depended immediately on their exarch, metropolitan, or patriarch, and only mediately through him on the bishop of Rome. The appointment or election of the patriarch, and of the exarch or metropolitan of a church independent of any patriarch, as were the churches of Asia Minor, Pontus, and Thrace, needed the papal confirmation, but not their suffragans or the bishops subject to their immediate jurisdiction. The patriarch or metropolitan confirmed their election, ordained or deposed them by his own authority, subject of course to appeal to Rome.

Lycopolis, by ancient custom or canons of the fathers, depended on the bishop of Alexandria, who was its bishop’s immediate superior. For some reason, Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, had been deposed by the bishop of Alexandria, and deprived of his functions; but he refused to submit, ordained bishops by his own authority, contrary to the ancient custom, and created a schism. It was to meet this case, and others like it, that the council decreed the sixth canon.

Subscribe now

Distinguishing Patriarchal from Papal Authority

The authority confirmed by that canon was the authority of patriarchs, as they were subsequently called, and of metropolitans by usage independent of any patriarchal jurisdiction, and therefore the authority of the bishop of Rome which it recognized as derived from usage, could have been only his authority as metropolitan of the Suburbicarian churches, called the Roman territory, or as patriarch of the West.

That this authority was limited, and dependent on ancient usage or custom, nobody disputes; but this is distinct from his authority as supreme pontiff or governor of the whole church. There are instances enough on record of metropolitan churches, like Aquileia, and those of Illyrium and Bulgaria, disputing their immediate dependence on the bishop of Rome, that never dreamed of calling in question his authority as supreme pontiff, or governor of the whole church.

The schismatic Armenians do not deny and never have denied the supreme authority in the whole church of the bishop of Rome; they only assert that the pope gave to their apostle, Gregory the Illuminator, and to his successors, the independent government of the church in Armenia. St. Cyprian depended on the bishop of Rome, and acknowledged the papal authority, but it is questionable if he depended on him as patriarch of the West. We suspect Carthage was independent of patriarchal jurisdiction, and that St. Cyprian had no superior but the pope.

However this may have been, the fact that churches did not depend immediately on the bishop of Rome did not in any sense deny or impair his universal authority as supreme pontiff. So the argument against the papacy from the sixth canon of the Council of Nicæa, like the author’s other arguments, proves nothing to his purpose.

Guettée’s Self-Defeating Logic Regarding Nicaea’s Authority

M. Guettée, in his blind hatred of Rome, after having alleged the authority of the Council of Nicæa in his own favor, undertakes to prove that it was no council of the church at all, but merely a council of the empire. He labors hard to prove that it was convoked by the Emperor Constantine by virtue of his imperial authority alone, that the emperor presided in its sessions, and confirmed and promulgated its acts.

Does he not see that if it was so, the council had no ecclesiastical authority, and therefore that its acts have no bearing on the question before us? If any thing is certain, it is that the church, as a polity, is independent of the state, and that civil rulers or magistrates, as such, have no authority in her government. Civil rulers have often usurped authority over the church and oppressed her: they did so at Constantinople, as Gregory III complains; they attempted to do so all through the middle ages in the West, and they do so now to a most fearful extent in the Russian Empire, as in all European Protestant states; but the authority they exercise is usurped, and is repugnant to the very nature and constitution of the church. Our Lord said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

The non-united Greeks as well as Catholics hold that there is and can be no ecumenical council without the bishop of Rome to convoke it, preside over it, and to confirm and promulgate its acts; and hence they confess their inability to hold an ecumenical council, and therefore really acknowledge that they are not the Catholic Church in its integrity, though they claim to hold the orthodox faith.

They admit the Roman church is the primatial see, and that the presidency of a general council belongs to the bishop of Rome by the right and dignity of his see. If he did not preside in the Council of Nicæa in person or by his legates or representatives, and approve formally or virtually its acts, it could not, by their own doctrine have the authority of a general council. The confirmation and promulgation of its canons by the emperor might make them laws or edicts of the empire, but could not make them canons of the church.

The Historical Reality: Rome’s Role in Convening and Ratifying Nicaea

It would be no difficult matter to prove that the author is as much out in his facts as in his inferences. The universal church has recognized the Council of Nicæa as a legitimate council, and there are ample authorities to prove that its convocation and indiction were at the request or with the assent of the Roman pontiff, that he presided over it by his legates, Osius, bishop of Cordova, and Vitus and Vincentius, two Roman presbyters; that he virtually, if not formally, confirmed and published its acts; and that whatever the emperor did was merely executory; but the question is foreign to our present argument, and we have no space to indulge in extraneous or irrelevant discussions.

If we were endeavoring to prove the papacy, we should adduce the proofs; but our line of argument requires us only to refute the reasons the author alleges for asserting that the papacy is schismatic. If the Council of Nicæa was simply an imperial council, we have nothing to do with it; if it was a true general council of the church, it makes nothing for the author, for the sixth canon, the only one relied on, has, as the author cites it, no reference to the jurisdiction of the holy apostolic see of Rome.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Eastern 'Orthodoxy' Mug

(Now, now, our Eastern “Orthodox” friends, don’t get too stressed. It’s all in good humour. We wish you well, and pray for your good.)

Heretics can't excommunicate: Drawing the arguments together

S.D. Wright — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:32:49 GMT

Image from Séminaire Saint-Pie X – Écône, YouTube (Fair Use). As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

Having dealt with the issue from different perspectives across several articles, this essay brings together everything we published on why heretics cannot excommunicate.

In the lead-up and aftermath of the SSPX episcopal consecrations, I published a number of articles about excommunications, whether those who preach heresy can excommunicate, and a translation of Causa XXIV, Quest. I, from Gratian’s Decretum on this topic. The occasion for these articles was the imminent probability, swiftly confirmed, that the Vatican would declare the SSPX to be excommunicated following the episcopal consecrations.1

This article brings the disparate points together in one place.

Introduction

Around 1140 AD, an Italian monk named Gratian collected and ordered the great mass of canonical legislation which had built up over the centuries before. Prior to the codification of Canon Law in 1917, the Church’s law was considerably less neat and tidy – but Gratian’s work marked the beginning of a new period of order.

This work came to be known as Gratian’s Decree, or Decretum. In some ways similar to Denzinger’s work, Gratian’s Decretum was not an official work, but – as Bouscaren et al. put it – “it was so useful that it soon became the best-known book of canon law.” After Gratian’s death, it was supplemented with other collections, such as the Decretals of Gregory IX, and collections by Boniface VIII, John XXII and others.

The Decretum is far from being solely a book of legislation. It contains many theological texts from magisterial and patristic texts, as well as Gratian’s comments. Its influence is clear, when we consider that these theological texts are cited by theologians, with the references customarily assigned to them in the Decretum.

As already mentioned, the texts cited in the Decretum have their own intrinsic and theological authority, given that they are derived from Popes, saints and fathers. As such, the codification of Canon Law in 1917 – which abrogated various laws which it did not expressly contain – does not touch the theological reasoning and authority of various points cited in the Decretum, or the Decretum’s own witness to the tradition of the Church.

Causa XXIV is no exception. Doctor of the Church St Robert Bellarmine, as well as Cardinal Juan de Turrcremata OP and others, refer to this section of the Decretum, and in particular its canon Audivimus.

This canon, and the discussion as a whole, deals with the question of whether heretics can validly excommunicate non-Catholics.

The C. IV Audivimus

Audivimus (“We have heard”) appears in the second part of the Decretum, in Causa XXIV, Quest. I.

Gratian opens the discussion with the following:

“A certain bishop, having lapsed into heresy, deprived some of his priests of their office and marked them with a sentence of excommunication. After his death he is accused of heresy and condemned, together with his followers and his entire household.
“(Qu. I.) Here it is first asked whether one who has lapsed into heresy can deprive anyone of office or mark them with a sentence [of excommunication].
“(Qu. II.) Secondly, whether anyone can be excommunicated after death.
“(Qu. III.) Thirdly, whether an entire household is to be excommunicated for the sin of one person.”

Audivimus is the fourth canon in Quest. I, which starts with the following statement:

“That someone cannot be deposed or excommunicated by a heretic is easily proved.”

Here is Audivimus itself, which is taken from a letter of Pope Alexander II:

C. IV. [Audivimus] An excommunicated person cannot excommunicate another.
We have heard that Henry, called Archbishop of Ravenna, has attempted to excommunicate you. But since, being excommunicated, he could not excommunicate you, by apostolic authority we command you, absolving you and your people, never to trouble yourselves about it.

Audivimus is immediately followed by Gratian’s commentary. Having already explained at the outset that one who has “lapsed into a heresy already condemned” is condemned by the existing legislation, and cannot condemn others, Gratian also makes clear that the “excommunicated person” in question is especially one excommunicated for heresy.

Gratian also explains the canon in the terms mentioned in c. XXXV and XXXVI below – namely that the inability to excommunicate arises “from the moment [the heretic] began to preach such things” opposed to the faith:

“But if he fabricated a new heresy from his own heart, from the moment he began to preach such things, he could condemn no one – because one who is already prostrate cannot cast down another.
“For the power of binding or loosing was given by the Lord to true priests, not to false ones. For when He was about to say to the Apostles, ‘Whose sins you shall remit,’ etc., He first said, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost,’ so as to show clearly to all that he who does not have the Holy Ghost cannot retain or remit sins. Moreover, no one receives the Holy Ghost except within the Church, because the Spirit Himself creates that very unity through grace.
“§. 1. Whence, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost’ was said only to those gathered together in one place, nor did the Holy Ghost descend on the day of Pentecost except upon those gathered together in one place. And just as He is not received outside the Church, so He effects nothing outside her. Since, therefore, as the Apostle says, the Spirit makes us ask and the Spirit obtains, outside the Church He neither causes us to ask nor to obtain. Whence the Lord, about to say, ‘Whatever you shall ask,’ etc., first said, ‘If two of you shall agree on earth,’ etc. And again: ‘Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them;’ showing clearly to all that He does not dwell in the hearts of those who, following the singularity of pride, tear themselves away from the structure of the Body of Christ.
“But in those in whom Christ does not dwell, the Holy Ghost, fleeing the divisions of minds, has no place. Since, therefore, to remit or retain sins, to excommunicate or reconcile, is the work of the Holy Ghost and the power of Christ, it is manifest that those who are outside the Church can neither bind nor loose, nor restore to ecclesiastical communion by reconciliation, nor deprive of that fellowship by excommunication – a fellowship which they themselves, polluted by heresy or schism or branded by sentence, are proved to lack entirely. Whence, when the Lord gave to all the disciples equal power of binding and loosing, He promised to Peter, for all and before all, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, saying: ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’
“Whoever, therefore, has been estranged from the unity of the Church (which is understood through Peter), cannot execrate, cannot consecrate; he has no power of excommunication or reconciliation. Whence the Apostle, when he wrote that the fornicator of Corinth was to be excommunicated, said: ‘I indeed, absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as if present him who has so acted, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.’
“In this, showing the form of excommunication, he taught that only a faithful person is to be censured, and only by a faithful person. For in the name of the Lord and with His power cooperating, only a faithful person can effect anything, since no one can say ‘Lord Jesus’ except in the Holy Ghost. Likewise, since the Lord forbids the lamb to be eaten outside the Catholic Church, those who by their profession of faith are estranged from her are not expelled from a participation which they abandoned of their own will, but are allowed to depart – just as those who, hearing ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood,”’etc., said: ‘This is a hard saying, and who can hear it?’ and so went away backwards, not repelled but allowed to depart.
“Hence also the Apostle, when treating of those to be excommunicated, prefaced his words with: ‘If anyone who is called a brother;’ but regarding unbelievers he added, saying: ‘Those who are outside, God will judge.’ But regarding those who are within, He has committed judgment to us. Just as it is apparent from the Apostle’s word “brother,” and from what he added concerning believers and unbelievers, that only a believer is to be excommunicated, so from the fact that this is written only to the faithful – or rather, because just as he who blesses is greater than him who is blessed, so he who curses by office is greater than him who is cursed – it is perfectly clear that he who departs from the integrity of the Catholic faith has no power whatsoever of malediction or benediction.
“For he cannot curse a Catholic, since the Catholic is his superior; nor can he pass sentence upon one estranged from the faith, as upon one equal to himself.
“Now these things which have been said about heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons – namely, that they do not have the power of binding or loosing – are proved by the authorities of many.”2

Other authorities in Causa XXIV, Quest. I

Gratian proceeds to present many other authorities and comments about the status of the Roman Church, which can be found in the full text. However, nearly thirty canons later, he returns to the same subject again:

C. XXXI. Heretics utterly lack the power of sacred office.
Likewise Cyprian, greeting Magnus his son [Book I, Letter 6].
We say that absolutely all heretics and schismatics possess nothing of power or right.
For this reason Novatian neither ought nor can be exempted from himself being counted among the adversaries and antichrists, since he stands outside the Church and acts against the peace and love of Christ. […]

Gratian also presents a canon which relate to the heretic Nestorius. In the 420s AD, Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, preached the first of his sermons against the term Theotokos, or Mother of God – denying its legitimacy in reference to Our Lady. These sermons caused an outcry, notably from the layman Eusebius, who denounced Nestorius in the church. Eusebius later became a bishop, and a saint.

Similarly, St Hypatius also ceased naming Nestorius in the diptychs of the Mass – whilst maintaining communion with Bishop Eulalius, who disagreed with this course of action.3

Nestorius proceeded to excommunicate and depose those who opposed him (as well as use physical violence against them). Monks of Constantinople approvingly reported to the emperors that the populace had come to exclaim:

“We have an emperor, but we do not have a bishop.”4

Nestorius was later condemned by the Council of Ephesus. In response to the excommunications and depositions, Pope St. Celestine was reported as teaching, on more than one occasion, that “from the time (Nestorius and his allies) began to preach (their errors),” they were unable to excommunicate or depose anyone. These texts are included in the Decretum and, as is clear from the subtitles, reaffirmed by Pope St Nicholas the Great.

C. XXXV. From the moment a bishop teaches things contrary to the faith, he cannot despoil another.
Likewise Pope Nicholas writes to the Emperor Michael [Letter VII].
Pope Celestine says, writing to the Eastern bishops:
“If anyone has been excommunicated or stripped of the dignity of bishop or cleric by Bishop Nestorius, or by others who follow him, from the time they began to preach such things, it is manifest that this person has persisted and does persist in our communion; and we do not consider him removed, because the sentence of one who had already shown himself deserving of removal could not remove anyone.”

C. XXXVI. Those who are excommunicated by heretics are not to be considered excommunicated.
The same [Pope Celestine], to the Clergy of Constantinople.
“The authority of our See,” he says, “has openly decreed that no bishop, nor cleric, nor anyone of any Christian profession, who has been cast down from communion or from his position by Nestorius or those like him, from the time they began to preach such things, is to be regarded as having been cast out or excommunicated; but all of these continue to this day in our communion, because one who wavered in preaching such things could not cast down or remove anyone.
“Do you understand, Emperor, from the above-mentioned authorities, that those who had themselves long since been removed could not remove – I will not say their own superior – but anyone at all; nor could those already prostrate cast down anyone else?”5

St Cyril of Alexandria also refers to these letters in one of his own letters to Nestorius:

“With all those who have been excommunicated or deposed by your devoutness on account of the faith, both laymen and clergy, all of us are in communion, for it is not right that those committed to orthodox tenets should be wronged by your verdicts, because they acted admirably in opposing you; this fact you mentioned in the letter you wrote to our colleague the most holy Celestine bishop of great Rome.”6

It might be objected that Nestorius was later condemned by the Council of Ephesus and the Pope, and that for this reason a declaration is necessary in order for “the layman in the pew” to realise that a given person lacks the ability to excommunicate. But on the contrary, St Eusebius was a “layman in the pew”, and denounced Nestorius in Church – and his memory is glorious for this act.

Further, Pope St Celestine said specifically that Nestorius lacked the ability to excommunicate and depose “from the moment” he began preaching his heresies – rather than at some later date, or upon an official intervention. Gratian and those whom he cites also place great stress on “the moment” at which the person “began to preach” his heresies. It is from this “moment” that the inability arises, rather than at some later date, or upon an official intervention. This objection is essentially a denial of what Pope St Celestine et al. said; and these texts were taken up by the tradition of the Church in the way described in this argument.

Therefore, the objection falls.

Other theologians addressing these authorities

How have the great theologians of the Church have understood the texts cited above?

St Thomas Aquinas set out the principle, without reference to Gratian. He wrote:

“[T]he power of jurisdiction is that which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Such a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably: so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid.
“Accordingly when it is said that such like persons [schismatics] have no spiritual power, it is to be understood as referring either to the second power [viz., jurisdictional], or if it be referred to the first power [viz., sacramental], not as referring to the essence of the power, but to its lawful use.”7

The fourtheenth century Dominican William Peter de Godino OP, in his Tractatus de causa immediata ecclesiastice potestatis (often attributed to Peter de Paludanus OP) recognised the application of the principle in question, citing Causa XXIV and Audivimus. In his defence of the premise Christ did not confer any power of jurisdiction upon the other Apostles apart from Peter, he wrote:

“Fifthly, neither through the sacerdotal power of consecrating [the Eucharist], which they received at the Supper, because even a degraded cleric, a schismatic, and a heretic possesses that power, and all of them truly confect the Body of Christ, among whom nevertheless there is no power of jurisdiction.
“Because they cannot loose or bind, as is said in 24 q. 1 Audivimus (Gratian, C.24 q.1 c.4), where it reads: ‘Those who are outside the Church can neither bind nor loose’ – yet they can confect true sacraments, as Augustine says Contra Faustum, and it is found in q. 4, Quid faciat (Gratian, C.23 q.4 c.25).”8

St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, refers to C. XXXV and XXXVI (citing Pope St Celestine) in his treatment of the “heretical pope” question as part of his case for the fifth opinion. They form part of his evidence that “the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

He also refers to these texts and C. IV Audivimus in his tome De Ecclesia, in which he discusses the differences between open and secret heretics:

“Next the same thing [viz. that secret heretics remain members of the Church] is proven from the testimonies of those Fathers who teach in a common consensus that those who are outside the Church have no authority or jurisdiction in the Church. Moreover, right reason manifestly teaches the same thing: By what arrangement can it be devised or imagined that one might have jurisdiction and hence be the head of the Church, who is not a member of the Church? Whoever heard of a head which was not a member?
“Moreover it is certain, whatever one or another might think, a secret heretic, if he might be a Bishop, or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will; for this reason, Celestine and Nicholas say (loc. cit.) that a heretical Bishop, to the extent that he began to preach heresy, could bind and loose no one although without a doubt if he had already conceived the error, were it before he began to preach publicly, he could still bind and loose.
“The fact is likewise confirmed from the canon Audivimus, 24, quaest. 1, where we read: ‘But if he will have devised a new heresy in their heart, to the extent that he begins to preach such things, he can condemn no man.’”9

Merely misspeaking or erring in good faith is most probably not sufficient for the man to become unable to excommunicate. But provided the preacher is not simply misspeaking, or speaking under correction, this “moment” at which he “began to preach” is when the heresy is externalized in a public fashion, and thus the moment at which the previously secretly heretical member of the Church becomes a non-Catholic and loses his office.10

Before Bellarmine, Cardinal Juan de Turrecremata (Torquemada) OP also referred to Audivimus (and the wider Causa XXIV, and a later gloss on its C. I, Achatius) in the context of a heretic “pope” ceasing to be Pope:

“Fourthly, this is gathered from the same St Thomas in the fourth book, distinction 19, where he states that if the pope falls into heresy he becomes less than any of the faithful whatsoever. And the Gloss on cap. Achatius, 24 quaest. 1, has the same, saying thus: ‘This is the case in which a pope can bind a pope, in which the pope falls under a canon of latae sententiae.’ Nor does the rule stand against this: an equal cannot loose or bind an equal; because if the pope is a heretic, insofar as he is a heretic he is less than any Catholic. So says the Gloss.
“Fifthly, this appears to be gathered from many chapters in the Decree: such as from cap. Quod autem, and cap. Achatius, and cap. Audivimus, 24 quaest. 1; whence in cap. Audivimus it is expressly stated: ‘But if he has devised in his heart a new heresy, from the moment he began to preach such things, he was unable to condemn anyone, because he who is already cast down cannot cast down another.’ Likewise from cap. Omnis qui recedit et non permanet in doctrina Christi, etc., cap. cau. et quaest., and from cap. Didicimus, in the same place, where blessed Cyprian says thus: ‘We say that all heretics and schismatics whatsoever have no power or right.’ Likewise from 6, with these authorities, in the same cause and question, where it is stated thus: ‘By these authorities it is plainly shown that from the moment anyone begins to teach anything against the faith, he can neither cast down nor condemn anyone.’
“Whence, properly speaking, a pope is not deposed by a council on account of heresy, but rather is declared not to be pope, when it is shown that he has fallen into heresy and perseveres in it obstinately and incorrigibly. Whence the Gloss on cap. 1, extra, De schismaticis, on the word careant firmitate, says: ‘Because when the Church has a heretical or schismatic pastor, it is understood to be vacant,’ above, De praescrip., cap. 1. But that one who has pertinaciously fallen into heretical depravity is deprived ipso iure of all ecclesiastical power, we shall show more fully, God helping, in the fourth book of this work, when the discussion concerns heretics.”11

He makes the same argument in Book IV, Part II, Chapter XVIII:

“Sixthly, to the same effect there is c. Achatius, C. 24, q. 1, where Gelasius says that whosoever falls into a heresy once condemned involves himself in its condemnation. The gloss says: ‘Here is a case in which a pope can bind a pope, in which the pope falls under a sentence latae sententiae. Nor does the rule oppose this — ‘an equal cannot loose or bind an equal’ — because if the pope is a heretic, in that he is a heretic he is less than any Catholic” (C. 12, q. 1, Scimus, § Promulgator), ‘because the law marks the deed even without a sentence’ (cf. Dig., De ritu nupt., l. Palam, § ult.).
“Seven, to the same effect, in c. 2 Achatius, § Si ergo, it says thus: ‘If therefore that bishop fell into a condemned heresy, one who is condemned by an established excommunication cannot condemn others; for an excommunicated person cannot excommunicate others.’
“Eight, to the same effect there is c. Audivimus, where it says thus: ‘If however he has devised a new heresy in his heart, from the moment he began to preach such things he could condemn no one, because one who is already prostrate cannot cast down another.’
“Nine, [sic; continuing from Audivimus] to the same effect is what is read at the end of the same chapter, where it says thus: ‘It is clear that he who has departed from the integrity of the Catholic faith has in no wise the power of cursing or blessing — inasmuch as he who cannot curse one superior to himself cannot pass sentence upon one who, as an alien from the faith, is as it were his equal.’”

We see here that the inability of the preacher of heresy to excommunicate rests on the fact that he is not the superior of the Catholic. Although the inability to excommunicate is the more fundamental fact, and can perhaps be accepted whilst continuing to hold that the preacher remains the superior of a Catholic in some sense, the loss of office and jurisdiction appears to be the most consistent way of explaining it.

The seventeenth century moral theologian Juan Azor SJ, also referred to the principle and Audivimus in the following terms:

“It is asked, first, whether the Roman Pontiff who has fallen into heresy loses the Pontifical power by right.
“[T]he Church is the congregation of the faithful, c. Ecclesia, de consec. dist. 1; therefore a heretic is outside the Church, and consequently is not reckoned a member of the Church. How, then, can he be head of the Church who is not a member of the Church?
“Finally, the same conclusion appears to be deduced from c. Quod autem, c. Achasius, c. Audivimus, 24. q. 1; c. Omnis qui recedit, c. Didicimus, and § His auctoribus, same cause and question — in which places it is laid down that heretics possess no right and no power; and because a heretic is excommunicated by divine right, according to those words of Christ the Lord: ‘Let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican’ (Matt. 18:17), if he will not hear the Church.”

Azor himself leaned towards what he treated as the second opinion – which Bellarmine would have called the “fourth” – namely, “that a Pope who has become a heretic is removed from his power and the dignity of jurisdiction by divine right; rather, he is to be removed.” However, Azor held that the principle in question, and the authorities in Causa XXIV, pointed towards an ipso facto loss of office by heretics.

Azor’s text is reproduced in the works of the nineteenth century canonists Eugène Roquette de Malvies and D. Craisson to the same effect.12 Although these men also leaned towards the “fourth position” (viz. that the heretic Pope should be deposed), they followed Azor in treating Audivimus, and the principle in question, as evidence for an ipso facto loss of office.

Application to our time

In short, Gratian’s comment provides modern Catholics with everything they need to combat the modernists occupying our structures, and preaching heresy.

However, while the theological principles behind this ancient canon and its commentary are easily applicable to Leo XIV, his colleagues, and his predecessors, it is incumbent on those allegedly excommunicated to make the argument – viz., to insist that it applies to these men as preachers of heresy, and not simply to seek refuge in arguments about “the salvation of souls” or “unjust excommunications.”

It is not even slightly difficult to establish that Leo XIV preaches heresy. Leaving aside the question of Vatican II and his post-conciliar predecessors, Leo XIV preached heresy before the May 2025 conclave (along with taking part in Pachamama worship), and the period since has featured a constant series of denials of the Catholic faith, including:

Alleging that a unity of faith exists with heretics, and communion with Muslims
Denying the legitimacy of the death penalty (which he also did on several occasions prior to his election)
Praising the interreligious prayer meeting of Assisi in 1986, and the Abu Dhabi declaration
Denying the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation through his endorsement of his predecessor’s error of the “ecumenism of blood”
Praising Fiducia Supplicans and Amoris Laetitia
Denying the immutability of Catholic dogma, by countenancing the possibility of changes if “attitudes” change
Presenting a naturalistic vision for world politics, along with errors condemned by previous Popes
Preaching the undiluted doctrine of modernism very soon after his election, with what appear to be many deliberate allusions to Pope St. Pius X’s condemnation of the heresy.

The SSPX recently released a 154-point Profession of Faith, which contains points denied by Leo XIV and his recent predecessors. The very purpose of such a document is to respond to the preaching of heresy.

In short, neither Leo XIV, nor his colleagues, nor his recent predecessors, are capable of excommunicating anyone. No-one who considers Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, and all the rest to be manifest departures from the faith has any reason to be scrupulous about excommunications levelled by men such as Leo XIV; and scrupulous is precisely what such anxieties are. It is irrational to condemn the heretical teaching and laws of the Conciliar/Synodal Church on the one hand, and then on the other hand respect the excommunications and sanctions of its teachers and legislators.

But while it is easy to establish that these men are preachers of heresy, some shrink from doing so – perhaps because of the implications of such an assertion, or previous rejections of the possibility of establishing heresy without a declaration from authority. For this reason, they cut themselves off from recourse to this argument.

And yet we can note that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not afraid to make this argument in advance of his own “excommunication” in 1988.

The witness of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988

In a press conference on 15 June 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefevbvre expressed the same argument. At the end of an explanation of the rationale behind the episcopal consecrations, he said:

The Osservatore Romano will probably publish the excommunication, a declaration of schism, naturally. What does all that mean?
Bon. Excommunication by whom?
By a modernist Rome. By a Rome which no longer fully holds the Catholic faith, which no longer thinks in a Catholic way, which no longer acts in a Catholic way.
One cannot say that when there is a gathering such as Assisi, one is still Catholic. It is not possible. One cannot say that, when there is Kyoto, and the declarations which were made to the Jews at the Synagogue, and the ceremony which took place at Santa Maria in Trastevere last year, no? In the heart of Rome! C’est scandaleux, absolumment scandaleux. It is not Catholic any more.
So we are excommunicated, by the modernists: by the people who have been condemned by the previous popes.
Alors, what could that really do to us? We are condemned by people who are themselves condemned, because they are people who should condemned publicly. Alors, it is indifferent to us. It hasn’t, it has no value, obviously.
Declaration of schism. Schism with what? Schism with the Pope, successor of Peter? Non.
Schism with the modernist Pope? Oui.
Schism with the ideas which the Pope spreads everywhere – the ideas of the Revolution, modern ideas, no? Oui. We are in schism with that. We do not accept it, of course.

It is possible to watch his frank and matter of fact delivery of this argument in the following video:

As Lefebvre noted, there is indeed a schism; but the schism on the side of those who are adhering the heresies and the new, false religion of Vatican II. He himself said in 1987:

“Schism?” retorted the Archbishop. “If there is a schism, it is because of what the Vatican did at Assisi and how you replied to our Dubia: the Church is breaking with the traditional Magisterium. But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.”

This explanation has nothing to do with “grave fear” or canonical loopholes. It is also completely clear: the problem is on the side of the Vatican. While one might wish that the Archbishop had simply stated the illegitimacy of its occupants, he certainly stated the principle which we have been defending, and he was certainly the one on the offensive.13

By contrast, it is a temptation, when dealing with situations like the excommunications of the SSPX, for Catholics to adopt a legalistic mentality and search for canonical technicalities as the basis of ignoring these penalties. In so doing, they forget two key points.

First, few are convinced by such arguments. Generally, such arguments only convince those who want to be convinced; they are also complicated, and can lack certainty. Without an authoritative repeal or quashing of the sentence, all the legal loopholes in the world would remain insufficient and unconvincing to most men.

Second, even if these arguments held, the presumption is in favour of the superior. If, as many hold, Leo XIV is the true Pope, and his officers hold authority, then they enjoy the benefit of the doubt.

Third, such technicalities ultimately do not matter. Consider the following from Pope Pius IX in Quartus Supra:

“For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church.”
“All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic.”
“Most men feel that the Church’s supreme head and shepherd should decide who are Catholics and who are not.”

If the Roman Pontiff, or those whom he delegates to act on his behalf, declares that a man or group is excommunicated, or in schism, and sets up legal machinery reflective of this for the rest of those subject to him, then such legalistic arguments are to no avail.

This is the additional problem caused around the disputed force of unjust and invalid excommunications.

Unjust excommunications should be feared

St Thomas Aquinas taught the following of an unjust excommunication:

“[I]f 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.”14

Before publishing these article, the canon lawyer Mr Marc Balestrieri (who also assisted with finding the best edition of Gratian) drew my attention to the following by the sixteenth century Dominican Bartolomeo Fumo:

“Excommunication, even if it be unjust – so long as it is not null,15 and even if it ought to be annulled – is to be feared, according to Petrus] de Paludanus (4. sent., dist. 18. q. 1. art. 3). [This is so] whether it be unjust on the part of the excommunicated person, who is innocent, or on the part of the one excommunicating, who does not issue it from zeal for justice but from hatred or some other bad motive, or on the part of the procedure, because it proceeded by false witnesses, or without a warning, or the like.
“And he who should despise it would sin mortally on account of disobedience to the Church and would incur the penalties of the law; and then it is just. Absolution is therefore to be sought, and [the excommunication] is to be observed.
“But if it is entirely null, and by not observing it no scandal follows, it is neither to be feared nor to be observed. If, however, by not observing it scandal follows for others, it is to be observed on account of the scandal. But if it is unjust but secret, see what is said under the actual effect of excommunication.”16

These principles are confirmed by the magisterium of the Church. Consider the following proposition of the English heretic John Wycliffe, condemned in the letter Super periculosis of 1377:

“A curse or excommunication does not bind absolutely except when it is given against an opponent of the law of Christ.” (DH 1131)

The same document condemned the following:

“Excommunication by the pope or by any prelate is not to be feared, because it is the censure of the Antichrist.” (DH 1180)

Wycliffe, like the Protestants who followed him, believed the papacy to be an Antichrist institution. Notwithstanding certain comments made by Lefebvre about recent claimants being “antichrists”, this is clearly not what the SSPX believe.

In 1418, Pope Martin V confirmed a decree condemning a number of propositions of John Hus. The erroneous propositions included the following:

17. A priest of Christ who lives according to his law, knows Scripture, and has a desire to edify the people ought to preach, notwithstanding an alleged excommunication. And farther on: if the pope or any superior orders a priest so disposed not to preach, the subordinate ought not to obey.
18. Whoever enters the priesthood receives a binding duty to preach; and this mandate ought to be carried out, notwithstanding an alleged excommunication. (DH 1217–8)

Pope Clement XI also condemned the following propositions of the Janesnists in the Bull Unigenitus:

91. The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from her, as long we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity. —Jn 9:22-23.
92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth is to imitate St. Paul; it is far from rebelling against authority or destroying unity. —Rom 9:3 (DH nn. 2491–2)

The global censure given he gave to the various condemned propositions is as follows:

“We declare, condemn, and reject ... the preceding propositions, as the case may be, as false, fraudulent, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspect of heresy, and having the flavor of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those that are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen and, indeed, accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.” (DH 2502)

Pope Pius IX later referred to these condemned errors in the following terms:

“[The ‘neo-schismatics’] follow the example of heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. For ‘the whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment.’
“The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice. Each person should perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication. Our predecessor of happy memory Clement XI in his constitution Unigenitus against the errors of Quesnell forbade and condemned statements of this kind. These statements were scarcely in any way different from some of John Wyclif’s which had previously been condemned by the Council of Constance and Martin V.
“Through human weakness a person could be unjustly punished with censure by his prelate. But it is still necessary, as Our predecessor St. Gregory the Great warned, ‘for a bishop’s subordinates to fear even an unjust condemnation and not to blame the judgment of the bishop rashly in case the fault which did not exist, since the condemnation was unjust, develops out of the pride of heated reproof.’
“But if one should be afraid even of an unjust condemnation by one’s bishop, what must be said of those men who have been condemned for rebelling against their bishop and this Apostolic See and tearing to pieces as they are now doing by a new schism the seamless garment of Christ, which is the Church?” (Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra, n. 10. 1873.)

In short, unjust excommunications are not without effect – and, for similar reasons, even invalid declaratory sentences by legitimate authority also have real consequences, and (all things being equal) must be observed until they are repealed.17

This is not the case, however, for those issued by preachers of heresy, as is clear from the authorities cited throughout this article. The simple, straightforward argument presented – based on unimpeachable authorities, and expressed by Archbishop Lefebvre himself – is manifestly sufficient to explain why the Vatican’s interventions are without force, and why they should be disregarded (viz. not observed).

It has become clear, however, that many associated with these excommunications prefer to have recourse to the canonical arguments, and to prescind from the argument presented here.

Summary of the argument

As we arrive at the end of this survey, we can summarise our argument relevance for the Society of St Pius X – or anyone else excommunicated by modernists.

The idea that one should simply ignore an unjust excommunication, and continue to fulfil one’s duties for the salvation of souls, seems to be condemned by the Church. The same also seems to apply to unjust declaratory sentences. All things being equal, it appears to be necessary to treat even invalid or unjust declaratory and condemnatory sentences as valid until such time as they can be overturned (although this duty would seem to be a question of prudence, and to turn on the facts.)
However, the preacher of heresy does not have the power to excommunicate; he also seems to be deprived of the power to issue declaratory sentences of automatic excommunications
It would appear that the SSPX could have recourse to the principle discussed in this article: that the preachers of heresy cannot excommunicate Catholics.
But to have recourse to this principle, it would be necessary to assert that Leo XIV et al. are indeed preachers of heresy, at least in some sense.
The heresy preached is not even slightly difficult to establish, but it may be difficult for some to hold, given the implications.
The implications are made clear in Gratian’s Decretum: “he cannot curse a Catholic, since the Catholic is his superior” (comment on C. IV); this is because “heretics utterly lack the power of sacred office” (C. XXXI); they are also not “able to have the weight of ecclesiastical authority against those same persons” (Comment at C. XXXVII).
The Church’s theologians – including St Robert Bellarmine and Cardinal Juan de Turrecremata – make the same point, and explain further: the heretic cannot excommunicate a Catholic because he is not a Catholic, has lost jurisdiction, and has no authority.

As should be clear, none of this constitutes a canonical argument on behalf of anyone excommunicated by the modernist Vatican – not least because a canonical argument would have to have reference to the Code of Canon Law, rather than the Decretum of Gratian and the theologians. It also prescinds from the legitimacy of the episcopal consecrations in question, and deals only with the effects of authoritative sentences. Further, it is a theological argument, based on the underlying theological principles expressed by the authorities in the Decretum.

Does this involve saying the preacher is a heretic, or has lost office?

Based on the authorities cited above, I concluded the following a previous article about the SSPX excommunications:

“[S]uch an argument would only make sense on behalf of the SSPX if they wish to recognise that Leo XIV is a heretic – and accept the consequences of such a conclusion.
“Without such a recognition, it is difficult to see how they could consistently disregard a positive condemnation of excommunication from him and those whom he has putatively empowered.”

I stand by this. However, there are a number of points to observe. First, let us note how these authorities proceed.

The tradition enshrined in the Decretum – that heretics cannot excommunicate – is the primary fact, and the primary certainty. It is the datum used to reach other conclusions.
The conclusion that this inability is based on a loss of office is an explanation of that primary fact, and it is based on subsequent reasoning.

I believe that this reasoning is correct, and that we can and should follow St Robert Bellarmine and the others in their interpretation.

However, we must acknowledge that terms like “jurisdiction” admitted of a variety of different terms, and that as a result, these texts are sometimes explained in ways that appear to contradict Bellarmine’s interpretation. For example, Gratian himself states that “both powers” – viz. that the power of baptising and the power of office – remain in heretics.”18 He also states that “the power of office is one thing, and its execution another”, and that sometimes the latter is taken away without the former.

St Thomas appears to say something similar in IV Sentences (D18. Q2. A2. Q3. Resp. 1), stating that an excommunicate “does not lose his jurisdiction, nevertheless he loses the use of his jurisdiction.”19

Confusion arises from passages such as this, because terms like power, jurisdiction and the keys can sometimes be used interchangeably, and sometimes with quite distinct meanings. By way of example, in the second reply of the same question (D18. Q2. A2. Q3. Resp. 2), St Thomas writes:

“To consecrate follows on the power of the character, which is indelible… but it is different with excommunication, which follows on jurisdiction, which can be taken away and bound.”20

If jurisdiction meant the same thing in both replies, St Thomas would be contradicting himself within a matter of lines – affirming that the excommunicated does not lose his jurisdiction in one, and then that he does lose it in the next. But while he is not contradicting himself, this shows the importance of paying attention to the use of the terms in question.

Further, Rev. Joaquin M. Alonso CMF explains that St Thomas’ concept of jurisdiction “does not exactly coincide with that of contemporary canonists and ecclesiologists”,21 and that the Angelic Doctor sometimes employs the term jurisdiction or power of office to indicate a radical capacity for jurisdiction (which, being rooted in Holy Orders, cannot be lost), or the exercise of jurisdiction.22

What can we take from this, with regards to the question at hand?

Conclusion: Application of the principle is not restricted to ‘sedevacantists’

The conclusion that someone like Leo XIV has no power to excommunicate rests on the recognition that he preaches heresy, and is not the superior of any Catholic. If one wishes to claim that he is one’s superior in spite of this preaching of heresy, one must argue that only the power to excommunicate is restricted – and this is not the argument followed by the Church’s doctors and theologians.

However, it would be understandable that some may accept the principle that heretics cannot excommunicate, without concluding that heretics have lost office. It would also understandable that some will hold that merely expressing heretical ideas – even if by mistake, or in good faith – is enough to deprive someone of the ability to excommunicate, without the “excommunicator” being personally heretical.

I follow St Robert Bellarmine’s thesis, is that the heretic lacks the ability to excommunicate because he is “deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.” I think that any conclusion other than the vacant See is mistaken, and inconsistent with the logic of the argument. I think that any other explanation will ultimately lead to contradictions with truths that must be held, and to absurdities.

But while inconsistency might be a mark of error, there is no “Consistency Police Force”; and if there was, my personal views would not be the standard which it would enforce.

I do not make this concession out of any uncertainty of the conclusion. I am merely making clear that the fundamental certainty is that Leo XIV et al. cannot excommunicate, and that this explanation is based on subsequent arguments; arguments which I believe to be certain, but of a lower degree of certainty than what is established by the authorities cited. I would rather see people hold to the fundamental principle in an inconsistent way, than to reject it – especially if this drives them back to the arms of the modernists.

Nonetheless, as already stated, the line being pursued (at least for now) is one which considers Leo XIV and his Vatican as having the ability to excommunicate and issue declaratory sentences, and bases itself on canonical recourse, defensive legal reasoning, and even an organisation’s supposed right to consecrate bishops.

One may hope that this changes, if and when the canonical routes fail. In the meantime, it is regrettable. On the one hand, “the best defence is a good offence”; on the other, the world very badly needs to hear “a spade called a spade” – namely, that Leo XIV and his collaborators are not simply “bad fathers” who give stones, serpents and scorpions – but preachers of heresy.

Subscribe now

Postscript: Answers to objections

Since these articles have been published, a few misunderstandings or objections have been presented.

Obj. 1. If this argument was true, anyone could invent an accusation of heresy against a prelate, and thus do whatever he wanted to do. This would be chaos, and therefore it is wrong.

Resp. 1. Such hypothetical consequences are not refutations. Further, we are already living in chaos, and this chaos is principally caused by those who have treated these men as if they have papal authority. Finally, anybody who denies that these men have been preaching heresies for the last sixty years, and compares this to someone inventing an accusation, demonstrates that they are living on another planet.

Obj. 2. The layman has no authority to declare anyone else a heretic. Therefore no one is bound by his judgments, and he is to be ignored.

Resp. 2. Indeed, the layman has no authority to render an authoritative judgment with legal effect or binding upon anyone else. However, he is competent to make a cognitive judgment; indeed, he is bound to do so when presented with teaching which contradicts that to which he is already bound, or told that he is excommunicated, or must desist from a particular line of conduct. He must judge the right thing to do, enlightened by faith, prudence and conscience.

Further, there is no reason for him to be ignored; on the contrary, his arguments should be refuted if they are false.

Obj. 3. This theory is very convenient for you. Therefore this theory is wrong.

Resp. 3. This is a worthless objection in itself. As an argument, it does not follow (the hidden minor premise to make it follow would need to be “That which is convenient for you is wrong”, which is obvious nonsense). It is also implicitly blasphemous, in that it suggests that Christ’s Church must function solely on inconvenience; whereas in fact, faith is the foundation of Christ’s Church, and it is very fitting that there be convenient solutions for problems relating to heresy, which is opposed to faith.

Obj. 4. It does not matter how bad the authority is. It is the authority, and you must accept it.

Resp. 4. We agree that the person holding authority can be morally bad. But the question is not about the morality of the person, but whether he is a heretic, and/or whether he teaches that which is heretical.

We should respond to such an objection by saying that it presupposes an entirely voluntaristic and naturalistic notion of authority, and thereby shows itself to be faulty.

Obj. 5. You are saying that papal authority only applies when you agree with the Pope.

Resp. 5. No, I am saying that we are obliged to assent to divine revelation and the teaching of the Church. When someone, even a prelate, attempts to impose propositions upon us which are contrary to what we are already bound to believe, we are obliged to either reject the new teaching in favour of the old, or the old in favour of the new. It is not possible to hold two contradictory propositions at the same time. Further, this is precisely what St Paul tells us to do in Galatians, and the saints and theologians have interpreted him in precisely this way.

Obj. 6. You are a Protestant, because you believe in a “right of scrutiny” over papal teaching.

Resp. 6. See Mgr Guérard des Lauriers’ treatment of this issue below:

‘The Right of Scrutiny’ and the drawing of consequences

Fr (later Bishop) Guérard des Lauriers. Cahiers de Cassicicum, n. 1.

We can now see in what sense it may be affirmed that: “every Catholic exercises a legitimate right of scrutiny over Authority and over the form of its decrees.”

This is true simpliciter, that is, absolutely, a priori and positively, within a human collective that belongs solely to the natural order. Whereas in the human collective that is the “Church,” whose Authority and norms are divinely instituted, the right of scrutiny belongs to subordinates only a posteriori and negatively.

We say a posteriori, because the object of this “right of scrutiny” is neither Authority in itself, nor the very form of its decrees; rather, the object of this right is the consequences of the acts performed by Authority. The “right of scrutiny” formally concerns the consequence. It is a posteriori.

We say negatively, because it does not belong to the faithful to judge positively that such-and-such an act of Authority is truly in conformity with the “marks” of the Church. But it is excluded that anything which truly emanates from Authority – whether in word or in deed – should sustain a contradiction, or practically a contrariety, with the “marks” of the Church. The faithful have the right of scrutiny regarding this exclusion; that is, they have the right to observe that this exclusion is concretely manifested, under the form of antagonisms and tensions, in reality. Thus, the consequences of what truly emanates – whether in word or in deed – from Authority must not entail contradiction or contrariety with the marks of the Church. In this sense, then, the “right of scrutiny” may be exercised; and it can be seen that this must be done only negatively: MUST NOT.

It must further be added that, with this right of scrutiny thus specified, to exercise it is not merely a right – it is a duty; a duty impelled by the instinct of Faith, and expressed in the testimony of Faith.

Fulfilling this duty never entails that the faithful have positively, a priori, a “right of scrutiny” over Authority. For if the opposition which is by right excluded is manifestly and continually present – if, in fact, there is real contradiction and actual contrariety between, on the one hand, the marks of the Church, and, on the other, what emanates from what appears to be Authority – then the faithful must conclude that, in reality, there is no exercise of Authority, or even that Authority no longer exists. The “right of scrutiny” of the faithful thus pertains not to Authority, but to the fact that Authority does not exist.

This right and this duty consist in observing that a given “subject” is no longer metaphysically capable – according to the ontology proper to the divinely instituted order – of exercising Authority, even though he occupies the See of Authority. This subject holds “authority” materialiter, but he is not invested with it formaliter. Therefore, the faithful never have to oppose Authority formaliter. The so-called “duty to disobey” is nothing but a mirage, whose artificiality takes shape only by the elasticity of language.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Give a gift subscription

Are you mad? G.K. Chesterton on maniacs and lunatics

Wed, 22 Jul 2026 21:45:13 GMT

Image: Based on the Pepe Silvia meme. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

In his classic work ‘Orthodoxy’, G.K. Chesterton paints a portrait of the madman – and shows him how to escape his fate.

Editor’s Notes

Following on from the extended quote from G.K. Chesterton in my article on suicide, here are the famous English convert’s thoughts on lunatics and lunacy.

These comments pertain to conspiracy theories.

History is full of men conspiring together in order to advance their ends – often at the expense of the common good. Those who dispute this, or think that something can be refuted by calling it a “conspiracy theory” are living in denial.

It is not necessary to prove conclusively the existence of a given conspiracy in order to justify acting as if it is or could be true (i.e., acting by taking certain prudent steps to protect oneself, proportionate to the probability established).1

However, while it is not necessary to have complete documentary evidence of a conspiracy in order to take such steps, it is necessary to have some evidence before accusing others, and for this evidence to be more than intuition, fantasy, paranoia, and coherence with one’s prejudices. The graver and more specific an accusation, and the more publicity which it is to receive, and the more harm which it will cause, the stronger such evidence and reasons must be.

We are all bound by the usual standards of the moral law – such as the Eighth Commandment:

“Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

Similarly, we are all obliged not to harm a person’s reputation without just cause, and to avoid the sins of detraction, calumny and rash judgment. Believing oneself to have special insights into how the world “really” works does not dispense from these obligations.

The relevance of this to Chesterton’s comments will be clear upon reading the latter.

Subscribe now

The Maniac

G.K. Chesterton

Orthodoxy, Chapter II, pp. 23–35. Lane, New York, 1909.
Headings and some line breaks added for ease of reading online.

Insanity, a fact of life

Though moderns deny the existence of sin, I do not think that they have yet denied the existence of a lunatic asylum. We all agree still that there is a collapse of the intellect as unmistakable as a falling house. Men deny hell, but not, as yet, Hanwell [a lunatic asylum in London]. For the purpose of our primary argument the one may very well stand where the other stood. I mean that as all thoughts and theories were once judged by whether they tended to make a man lose his soul, so for our present purpose all modern thoughts and theories may be judged by whether they tend to make a man lose his wits.

It is true that some speak lightly and loosely of insanity as in itself attractive. But a moment’s thought will show that if disease is beautiful, it is generally some one else’s disease. A blind man may be picturesque; but it requires two eyes to see the picture. And similarly even the wildest poetry of insanity can only be enjoyed by the sane. To the insane man his insanity is quite prosaic, because it is quite true. A man who thinks himself a chicken is to himself as ordinary as a chicken. A man who thinks he is a bit of glass is to himself as dull as a bit of glass. It is the homogeneity of his mind which makes him dull, and which makes him mad. It is only because we see the irony of his idea that we think him even amusing; it is only because he does not see the irony of his idea that he is put in Hanwell at all.

In short, oddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dulness of life. This is also why the new novels die so quickly, and why the old fairy tales endure for ever. The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his adventures that are startling; they startle him because he is normal. But in the modern psychological novel the hero is abnormal; the centre is not central. Hence the fiercest adventures fail to affect him adequately, and the book is monotonous. You can make a story out of a hero among dragons; but not out of a dragon among dragons. The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad world. The sober realistic novel of to-day discusses what an essential lunatic will do in a dull world.

Insanity is more prosaic than thought

Let us begin, then, with the mad-house; from this evil and fantastic inn let us set forth on our intellectual journey. Now, if we are to glance at the philosophy of sanity, the first thing to do in the matter is to blot out one big and common mistake.

There is a notion adrift everywhere that imagination, especially mystical imagination, is dangerous to man’s mental balance. Poets are commonly spoken of as psychologically unreliable; and generally there is a vague association between wreathing laurels in your hair and sticking straws in it. Facts and history utterly contradict this view. Most of the very great poets have been not only sane, but extremely business-like; and if Shakespeare ever really held horses, it was because he was much the safest man to hold them. Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason.

Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination. Artistic paternity is as wholesome as physical paternity. Moreover, it is worthy of remark that when a poet really was morbid it was commonly because he had some weak spot of rationality on his brain. Poe, for instance, really was morbid; not because he was poetical, but because he was specially analytical. Even chess was too poetical for him; he disliked chess because it was full of knights and castles, like a poem. He avowedly preferred the black discs of draughts, because they were more like the mere black dots on a diagram. Perhaps the strongest case of all is this: that only one great English poet went mad, Cowper. And he was definitely driven mad by logic, by the ugly and alien logic of predestination.2

Poetry was not the disease, but the medicine; poetry partly kept him in health. He could sometimes forget the red and thirsty hell to which his hideous necessitarianism dragged him among the wide waters and the white flat lilies of the Ouse. He was damned by John Calvin; he was almost saved by John Gilpin.

Everywhere we see that men do not go mad by dreaming. Critics are much madder than poets. Homer is complete and calm enough; it is his critics who tear him into extravagant tatters. Shakespeare is quite himself; it is only some of his critics who have discovered that he was somebody else. And though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators.

Subscribe now

An excess of ‘reason’

The general fact is simple. Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason3 seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion, like the physical exhaustion of Mr. Holbein. To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.

It is a small matter, but not irrelevant, that this striking mistake is commonly supported by a striking misquotation. We have all heard people cite the celebrated line of Dryden as “Great genius is to madness near allied.” But Dryden did not say that great genius was to madness near allied. Dryden was a great genius himself, and knew better. It would have been hard to find a man more romantic than he, or more sensible. What Dryden said was this, “Great wits are oft to madness near allied”; and that is true. It is the pure promptitude of the intellect that is in peril of a breakdown.

Also people might remember of what sort of man Dryden was talking. He was not talking of any unworldly visionary like Vaughan or George Herbert. He was talking of a cynical man of the world, a sceptic, a diplomatist, a great practical politician. Such men are indeed to madness near allied. Their incessant calculation of their own brains and other people’s brains is a dangerous trade. It is always perilous to the mind to reckon up the mind. A flippant person has asked why we say, “As mad as a hatter.” A more flippant person might answer that a hatter is mad because he has to measure the human head.

And if great reasoners are often maniacal, it is equally true that maniacs are commonly great reasoners. When I was engaged in a controversy with the Clarion on the matter of free will, that able writer Mr. R. B. Suthers4said that free will was lunacy, because it meant causeless actions, and the actions of a lunatic would be causeless. I do not dwell here upon the disastrous lapse in determinist logic.

Obviously if any actions, even a lunatic’s, can be causeless, determinism is done for. If the chain of causation can be broken for a madman, it can be broken for a man. But my purpose is to point out something more practical. It was natural, perhaps, that a modern Marxian Socialist should not know anything about free will. But it was certainly remarkable that a modern Marxian Socialist should not know anything about lunatics. Mr. Suthers evidently did not know anything about lunatics.

‘Everything is connected, hiding in plain sight’

The last thing that can be said of a lunatic is that his actions are causeless. If any human acts may loosely be called causeless, they are the minor acts of a healthy man; whistling as he walks; slashing the grass with a stick; kicking his heels or rubbing his hands. It is the happy man who does the useless things; the sick man is not strong enough to be idle. It is exactly such careless and causeless actions that the madman could never understand; for the madman (like the determinist) generally sees too much cause in everything.

The madman would read a conspiratorial significance into those empty activities. He would think that the lopping of the grass was an attack on private property. He would think that the kicking of the heels was a signal to an accomplice. If the madman could for an instant become careless, he would become sane. Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze.

If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness.

If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s.

Why the madman is wrong

Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed.

Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large.

In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large. A bullet is quite as round as the world, but it is not the world. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many modern religions. Now, speaking quite externally and empirically, we may say that the strongest and most unmistakable mark of madness is this combination between a logical completeness and a spiritual contraction.

The lunatic’s theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way. I mean that if you or I were dealing with a mind that was growing morbid, we should be chiefly concerned not so much to give it arguments as to give it air, to convince it that there was something cleaner and cooler outside the suffocation of a single argument. Suppose, for instance, it were the first case that I took as typical; suppose it were the case of a man who accused everybody of conspiring against him.

If we could express our deepest feelings of protest and appeal against this obsession, I suppose we should say something like this:

“Oh, I admit that you have your case and have it by heart, and that many things do fit into other things as you say. I admit that your explanation explains a great deal; but what a great deal it leaves out! Are there no other stories in the world except yours; and are all men busy with your business?
“Suppose we grant the details; perhaps when the man in the street did not seem to see you it was only his cunning; perhaps when the policeman asked you your name it was only because he knew it already. But how much happier you would be if you only knew that these people cared nothing about you! How much larger your life would be if your self could become smaller in it; if you could really look at other men with common curiosity and pleasure; if you could see them walking as they are in their sunny selfishness and their virile indifference!
“You would begin to be interested in them, because they were not interested in you. You would break out of this tiny and tawdry theatre in which your own little plot is always being played, and you would find yourself under a freer sky, in a street full of splendid strangers.”

Or suppose it were the second case of madness, that of a man who claims the crown, your impulse would be to answer:

“All right! Perhaps you know that you are the King of England; but why do you care? Make one magnificent effort and you will be a human being and look down on all the kings of the earth.”

Or it might be the third case, of the madman who called himself Christ. If we said what we felt, we should say:

“So you are the Creator and Redeemer of the world: but what a small world it must be! What a little heaven you must inhabit, with angels no bigger than butterflies! How sad it must be to be God; and an inadequate God! Is there really no life fuller and no love more marvellous than yours; and is it really in your small and painful pity that all flesh must put its faith? How much happier you would be, how much more of you there would be, if the hammer of a higher God could smash your small cosmos, scattering the stars like spangles, and leave you in the open, free like other men to look up as well as down!”

Casting out a devil

And it must be remembered that the most purely practical science does take this view of mental evil; it does not seek to argue with it like a heresy but simply to snap it like a spell.

Neither modern science nor ancient religion believes in complete free thought. Theology rebukes certain thoughts by calling them blasphemous. Science rebukes certain thoughts by calling them morbid. For example, some religious societies discouraged men more or less from thinking about sex. The new scientific society definitely discourages men from thinking about death; it is a fact, but it is considered a morbid fact.

And in dealing with those whose morbidity has a touch of mania, modern science cares far less for pure logic than a dancing Dervish. In these cases it is not enough that the unhappy man should desire truth; he must desire health. Nothing can save him but a blind hunger for normality, like that of a beast. A man cannot think himself out of mental evil; for it is actually the organ of thought that has become diseased, ungovernable, and, as it were, independent. He can only be saved by will or faith.

The moment his mere reason moves, it moves in the old circular rut; he will go round and round his logical circle, just as a man in a third-class carriage on the Inner Circle will go round and round the Inner Circle unless he performs the voluntary, vigorous, and mystical act of getting out at Gower Street.

Decision is the whole business here; a door must be shut for ever. Every remedy is a desperate remedy. Every cure is a miraculous cure. Curing a madman is not arguing with a philosopher; it is casting out a devil.

Subscribe now

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Give a gift subscription

The Church’s teaching on suicide: Everything you need to know

S.D. Wright — Sat, 18 Jul 2026 13:26:55 GMT

Photo by Kris Møklebust. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

What does the Catholic Church teach about suicide – and why?

(WM Round-Up) – Although it is not always evident here, long-time readers of The WM Review may know that both editors have an interest in the Catholic understanding of psychology, and in mental health.

One of our most popular articles of all time is ‘It’s not a sin to be depressed: What St Philip Neri and St Thomas Aquinas have to say’. In a world in which natural ailments like depression are “supernaturalised” or “spiritualised”, and even presented as moral faults, many readers living with depression found this article refreshing and helpful.

Incidentally, I was interested to note that Bishop Donald Sanborn expressed similar ideas in the June 2026 livestream for Roman Catholic Media:

In a similar vein, LifeSiteNews have just published a lengthy article by myself on the topic of suicide. The article was prompted by the Archdiocese of Chicago’s recent unveiling of a monument to those who have committed suicide.

Here are the Contents of the article, to give an idea of the topics discussed:

CONTENTS

Introduction – The Archdiocese of Chicago’s Monument
The traditional teaching of the Church on suicide
- Voluntary and involuntary suicide
- Direct and indirect suicide
What the Church teaches on the morality of suicide
The reasons the Church gives for judging suicide to be evil
‘Suicidal ideation’: Temptations to suicide
Talking about temptations to suicide
The eternal fate of suicides
Can suicides repent – and can we hope or presume that they did?
- The anecdote of St John Vianney, Curé d’Ars
- What is mortal sin, and what is perfect contrition?
- The practical importance of thinking about eternity
The Church’s traditional practice regarding suicides
Are suicides incapable of exercising free will?
Evaluation of the Chicago monument
Conclusion – G.K. Chesterton on suicide

You can find the article here at LifeSiteNews:

The Church’s teaching on suicide: everything you need to know

Here are some necessary disclaimers, included in the article:

WARNING: The following essay deals with very serious issues. Some readers may be troubled by its content, especially if they have lost loved ones to suicide. Reader discretion is required.

And here are some necessary resources, also taken from the article:

Suicide is preventable.
The CDC has some resources here: https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/resources/index.html
You can also read about warning signs and how to talk to someone in your life who may be at risk.
You can call or text 988 to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (The Lifeline is toll-free, available 24/7, 365 days a year). You can also chat at Chat at 988lifeline.org
You should also consider reaching out to a traditional Catholic priest in your area.

Subscribe now

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Give a gift subscription

What's the best explanation for the crisis in the Church?

S.D. Wright — Fri, 17 Jul 2026 16:03:00 GMT

Photo by Bruno Silva. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

Abductive reasoning shows us that an extended vacancy is the explanation that best fits the facts of the last sixty years or so. In fact, it is the only explanation that fits those facts.

Introduction

This is Chapter III of my latest “book”, ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy. This chapter deals with the doctrine of indefectibility itself – before proceeding, in later chapters, to examine other interpretations in light of it.

This chapter covers the following topics:

Chapter III: Indefectibility and an Extended Vacancy

Abductive reasoning
What indefectibility does not prevent: A falling away, and an extended vacancy
The effect of an extended vacancy
An extended vacancy is possible

Spotless and Unsullied is Part III of my response to Fr Thomas Crean OP’s article “A City Set on a Hill Cannot Be Hidden: The Perpetual Visibility of the Catholic Church Under the Pope.” Peter Kwasniewski described Fr Crean’s article as “a definitive rebuttal of sedevacantism, at the level of first principles.”

All the parts may be found here:

Although Spotless and Unsullied builds on the previous two parts, and the various “ancillary” articles published since I began this response, it can be read independently of them.

How we are publishing Spotless and Unsullied

Although Fr Crean only published a short and popular article against “sedevacantism”, it contained many points that need to be addressed. I am grateful to him for prompting this response, which has ranged over many different topics.

Spotless and Unsullied is not as long as Zero Marks (the previous part), but it is still very long and detailed for a single article – running to nearly 26,000, including notes (which contain a lot of interesting material).

For this reason, I will again be making it available first for WM+ members, and then releasing each of the four chapters separately for all readers over the coming weeks. The previous chapters are available here:

Substantial work of this length and depth is only possible thanks to those who subscribe to WM+, to whom we are very grateful.

If you would like to read the whole essay immediately, sign up to WM+ plus today:

‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy

Subscribe now

Other resources

I discussed this chapter with Stephen Kokx over at Integrity Magazine.

A video playlist of interviews on these studies with may be found here:

Video Series

This chapter refers to other recent articles which provide further and better particulars of what is discussed. They can be found here:

Readers are also advised to consult the treatment of the topic of indefectibility in the many works of ecclesiology available, as well as Fr Damien Dutertre ICR’s study on the same topic:

Fr Damien Dutertre ICR: On the Indefectibility of the Church

Subscribe now

Chapter III: Indefectibility and an Extended Vacancy

Abductive reasoning

Both “sedevacantists” and “sedeplenists” like Fr Crean are broadly united in their recognition of the facts of the last sixty years. Where we differ is our understanding of how these facts are to be explained.

The method of reasoning based on an inference to the best explanation is known as abduction.

Abductive reasoning seeks to infer from the evidence the best explanation of various effects. In inferring the best explanation, abductive reasoning favours simplicity, explanatory power, prior probability and normality (i.e., explanations which are the least extraordinary), although none of these criteria can be wholly decisive. In our use of abduction, we must specifically mention coherence with Catholic doctrine as a criterion, as any explanation which contradicts Catholic doctrine must be rejected.

But before considering this line of argument, let us note the following.

“Sedevacantists” hold the vacancy of the Holy See to be certain, and this certainty may be attained in several ways.

For instance, Mgr Guérard des Lauriers’ argument, based on the impossibility of a true Pope promulgating the documents of Vatican II on 8 December 1965, is referred to as his deductive argument. This argument continues to hold for other “impossibilities” that have occurred since then, and because Paul VI’s successors have at least tacitly renewed the “impossibilities” of their predecessors.

Mgr Guérard des Lauriers also proposed another argument, referred to as his inductive argument, which held that, as Paul VI’s acts converged towards the destruction of the Church and its replacement with a false religion, he lacked the habitual intention to procure to “good-end” of the Church, a necessary condition for being the Pope. Again, as Paul VI’s successors have followed his programme, they demonstrate their own lack of this necessary condition.

We could add that the convergence of their actions also demonstrates conclusively that Paul VI and his successors have been heretics and schismatics, and thus neither Catholics nor Popes.

What Leo XIV’s ‘complete commitment’ to Vatican II REALLY means

Both deductive and inductive arguments for the vacancy arrive at certainty.1 But we may also reach this conclusion through abductive arguments, and even if their logic does not necessarily attain certainty, they can reinforce the conviction arising from other arguments.

Thus, without regard for the certainty already attained, let us consider why an extended vacancy is the best explanation for the last sixty years, in light of the Church’s indefectibility.

What indefectibility does not prevent: a falling away, and an extended vacancy

Indefectibility does not prevent the failure of parts of the Church. As to this point, Berry is explicit:

“Indefectibility has been promised to the Church as a whole, not to its various parts. The Church as it exists in particular places may fail; even the Church of a whole nation may fall away as history abundantly proves. The Apostolic See of Rome is the only particular Church to which the promise of perpetual indefectibility has been made.”2

This passage describes the basis of our explanation of what has happened since Vatican II. “Various parts” of the Church have failed; but the Apostolic See has not failed, because it has been vacant. This vacancy is proved with certainty in the ways mentioned – one of which is the impossibility of its authority being engaged in the confirmation of Vatican II, and the subsequent aberrations of the Conciliar/Synodal Church. Thus, in spite of the chaos, the Church and the Holy See remain spotless and unsullied.

As a posteriori evidence, our situation is precisely what one would expect during such a vacancy. To understand this, let us consider Vatican I’s teaching on the reason Christ instituted the papacy.

In the discussion of the basis of the Church’s indefectibility, we considered the following text from Vatican I, which expresses the raison d’être of the Papacy itself:

“Now this charism of truth and of never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair in order that they might perform their supreme office for the salvation of all; that by them the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous bait of error and be nourished by the food of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be preserved as one and, resting on her foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.”3 (Emphasis added)

To this, we may add the following from the same Council:

“The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity. […]
“In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.”4

“[B]y unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd.5

The Council repeats the same idea throughout Pastor Aeternus. Pope Leo XIII teaches the same truth in terms of causation:

“[St Cyprian] calls [the Roman Church] the principal Church, on account of the primacy conferred on Peter himself and his legitimate successors; and the source of unity, because the Roman Church is the efficient cause of unity in the Christian commonwealth.”6

But an efficient cause produces its effect by acting. The Roman Pontiff is not a “Totem Pope”, who secures the unity of the Church merely by his continued existence on the See of St Peter. A “Totem Pope” cannot at all be described as an “efficient cause”.

On the contrary, this unity is secured by the exercise of his powers of magisterium and jurisdiction; by teaching and governing the Church.

Without this efficient cause, the effect is not produced – at least, not in the same way. The theologian Cardinal J.B. Franzelin explains how the Church’s indefectibility, infallibility and unity function during a vacancy of the Holy See:

“It is most important to consider the very root of the whole life of the Church, by which I mean the indefectibility and infallible custody of the deposit of the faith.
“Certainly there remains in the Church not only indefectibility in believing (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility in proclaiming the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church for all days even to the consummation of the world.
“The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy. For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and center of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See even when vacant, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come […]”7

The full text is here:

2 weeks or 60 years: Which fits Franzelin’s account of sede vacante?

However, while this unity remains, a vacancy necessarily suspends the active exercise of the papal jurisdiction and magisterium, which are the means by which the Church is held together as one in faith and in charity. As Romano Amerio wrote in 1985:

“The external fact is the disunity of the Church, visible in the disunity of the bishops among themselves, and with the Pope. The internal fact producing [this disunity] is the renunciation, that is, the non-functioning, of papal authority itself, from which the renunciation of all other authority derives.”8

(Amerio did not embrace the conclusion of an extended vacancy, but we have discussed why his ideas on this and other matters point to this conclusion, rather than to sixty years of habitual inaction by legitimate popes, in Chapter IV of Zero Marks.)

The “non-functioning” of powers that exist to secure unity predictably results not only in doctrinal confusion, but also in many falling out of communion with the Church – even while the Church as a whole cannot lose this unity of faith and communion.

Further, this falling away can only exacerbate the doctrinal confusion if, due to the vacancy and non-functioning of papal authority, those who fall away are not authoritatively declared as non-Catholics, and if errors are not corrected (or are even proposed by usurpers).

Franzelin’s explanation of the state of the Church during a vacancy is offers further light on this:

“When the Pope dies, says Cano [a leading theologian of the 16th century], the Church, without doubt, remains one, and the Spirit of truth remains in her; but she is left crippled [manca] and diminished without the Vicar of Christ and the one pastor of the Catholic Church.
“Therefore, although truth even then is in the Church; but if controversies over the faith and religion should arise, the judgments of the Church which is without a head on earth will not be as certain.”9

The Church is currently “crippled” in the sense that “controversies” and pressing questions cannot be resolved. These controversies include matters of doctrine, as well as personnel (viz., who is and is not a member or officer in the Church). In fact, controversies over personnel are the defining note of our time, in that more men seem to have fallen away from the whole than those who have remained – and yet both classes are considered to make up the Church. But there is nothing to exclude this possibility, as we discussed in Zero Marks (Chapter II).

The rampant spread of error – and indeed of a false religion, presented as the Catholic religion – is on the outer extreme of what is meant by the Church’s “judgments” being “less certain”. But in spite of the duration and extent of the crisis, our current situation differs by degree from a short interregnum, and not in kind.

The duration and extent of the “crippling” and “uncertainty” produce a grave obscuration of the Church’s visibility, and not a defection. But as I demonstrated in Radically Insufficient, this visibility admits of degrees, and may be gravely obscured without being lost.

To demonstrate this, let us now consider (a) the possibility of an extended vacancy, and (b) the response to the objection that an extended vacancy in our time, as the explanation for our crisis, would constitute a defection, due to the consequences alleged to flow from it.

An extended vacancy is possible

Cardinal Franzelin writes:

“The seat, that is the perpetual right of the primacy, never ceases, on the part of God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and on the part of the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted on behalf of the individual successors of Peter, and of securing their succession by a fixed law; but the individual heirs or those sitting [sedentes] in the Apostolic seat are mortal men; and therefore the seat can never fail, but it can be vacant and often is vacant.”10

The traditionalist pioneer Fr Louis Coache explains why this is the case:

“The Holy See — or Apostolic See — is a moral person of divine law (Can. 100). It is therefore an institution willed in itself by Our Lord. […]
“Thus the Holy See is a (moral) person of divine institution: autonomous, independent, permanent, and infallible. It is the permanence of the authority of the Roman Church — sovereign authority over the universal Church.”11 (All bold text from Fr Coache is from the original)

The full text is here:

How long can the Holy See be vacant? Fr Louis Coache (and context)

The conclusion which he draws from this is based on the distinction between moral persons of ecclesiastical law and of divine law:

“A moral person of ecclesiastical law is perpetual by nature (can. 102), meaning that it cannot disappear except by the explicit and legitimate will of the competent authority; it even possesses a survival of one hundred years if it ceases de facto to be in exercise.”
“A moral person of divine law cannot die; the Church can therefore remain for a very long time without a Pope – the Holy See is always alive with the permanence of papal authority.”

By contrast, he adds that when the Pope himself does die – whether literally or “morally” – “[t]he authority of the Holy See does not die.”12

He specifies various ways in which, during a vacancy, “the authority of Peter endures in all that authentically expresses it.” In addition to the machinery of the Apostolic See itself, he points to “the Documents of Holy Church” and “her tradition.” A similar account is given by Cardinal Billot,13 Fr René Goupil,14 and the BAC commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law.15

Cardinal Franzelin expresses the consequence when he explains how the “the unity of communion” is maintained during a vacancy, through “the right and duty of […] keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See even when vacant, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come.”16 As Fr Coache put it:

“One can therefore be separated from the physical person without being separated from the moral person (on 9 October 1958, we were separated from the person of Pope Pius XII, but we remained united to the Holy See). Let us understand well: “separated from the physical person” because that person fails, or disappears physically or canonically.”17

Nonetheless, such a vacancy is not without consequences. In his work on the Apocalypse, Fr Berry stated the following:

“It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come.”18

Fr Herman Bernard Kramer, in his work on the same subject, also stated that

“[A]n extended interregnum in the papacy is always disastrous and more so in a time of universal persecution. If Satan would contrive to hinder a papal election, the Church would suffer great travail.”19

The effects of an extended vacancy can indeed be described as “terrible and distressing.” However, the nineteenth century theologian Fr Edmund O’Reilly SJ, Professor of Theology and described as “one of the first theologians of the day” and a “great authority” by John Henry Cardinal Newman,20 wrote the following:

“[C]ontingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”21

If an extended vacancy was “excluded by the Divine promises”, then (a) no extended vacancy, even if shorter in duration than that which we posit, could have taken place in history – and yet they have; and (b) theologians would not discuss the possibility of such a vacancy in the way that they do.

In fact, it is beyond question that such an extended vacancy is possible – even though many pundits do question it today. Aside from the testimony of history,22 it has been expressly recognised by theologians such as:

Cardinal Louis Billot23
Fr E. Sylvester Berry (who, in his de Ecclesia, stated that the See could “be vacant for many years”)24
Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ25
Fr Raphael Cercia SJ26
Fr Anton Straub SJ27
Dom Prosper Guéranger OSB28
Fr Edmund O’Reilly SJ29

Their statements may be found here:

‘Sedevacantism’ as a ‘pestiferous heresy’? Fr Ripperger’s accusation analysed

Other theologians have recognised that the Church’s indefectibility is not jeopardised by the Holy See’s material occupation by illegitimate claimants.30 Some of the authorities cited in Radically Insufficient also recognised the havoc which would be caused by an extended vacancy of the Holy See, or of a situation in which a given papal claimant is of doubtful legitimacy.

But while an extended vacancy (and the turmoil which attends on it) is possible for the indefectible Church, it is not possible for the Church to defect; neither during a vacancy, nor under a true Pope. The manifest defection of the Conciliar/Synodal Church demonstrates that its recent papal claimants have not been true Popes – and that the body constituted by at least nominal communion with them is not the Catholic Church.

To summarise, an extended vacancy is indeed the best possible explanation for the facts:

It is simple: not in that it is simplistic, but in that it posits a single cause to describe all the events and problems of the last sixty years (e.g., how Vatican II could teach condemned errors, other authoritative documents enshrining error, the habitual teaching of error, evil laws, impossible canonisations, doubtful sacraments, the absence of the four marks in the body, the dissolution of authority into both tyranny and anarchy, and the mass apostasy of so many from the Church – in which many former Catholics continue to be treated as Catholics), rather than each event and problem requiring a separate cause (as is necessary in the alternative explanations)
Related to its simplicity, this explanation has the strongest explanatory power: the vacancy explains the multiplicity of problems arising since Vatican II, mentioned above.
The crisis itself, however it is to be explained, is utterly improbable; but given that it is here, an extended vacancy has a greater degree of prior probability. There have been comparable (if less grave) scenarios in the past, and Catholic theologians have recognised the possibility of an extended vacancy and the harm that it would cause. By contrast, the idea that the Church could suffer sixty years of Popes carrying out or even tolerating the phenomena just described, with Catholics needing to “recognise” their legitimacy whilst “resisting” their acts, has no prior probability at all.
It has normality, in the specific sense that the principles behind the explanation have been acknowledged by Catholic authorities in the past; whereas principles of the “recognise and resist” or “contrive a reconciliation between contradictions” explanations have not. Further, the theology upon which the extended vacancy is based is classical, as has been demonstrated throughout; whereas advocates of the latter two explanations both (a) recognise the need to “rethink” this classical theology, and even (b) sometimes rely on misunderstandings or distortions of what these authorities have written (e.g., St Robert Bellarmine’s “resistance” comments).
It coheres with Catholic doctrine, without doing violence to the doctrines discussed, as I have explained in these responses. Every difficulty can be answered with reference to theological authorities, with all points of doctrine respected. On the other hand, the alternative requires the “rethinking” mentioned, and the overlooking of the crucial aspects of the Church’s indefectibilty and other points of doctrine.

In this essay, focused particularly on indefectibility, the final point is the most important. Our account is compatible with indefectibility; Fr Crean’s, unfortunately, is not.

To read the final chapter NOW, sign up to WM+ plus TODAY:

‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy

Subscribe now

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

The Passion and the Eclipse

Peregrinus — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 15:48:42 GMT

Image created with Grok. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Reading List.

Following on from his article comparing the crisis in the Church with the Passion of Christ, Peregrinus now compares it with the eclipse that took place while Our Lord was on the Cross.

The Passion and the Eclipse

By Peregrinus

In an earlier article, Peregrinus wrote about the parallels between the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Passion of His Mystical Body, which is the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Roman Church.

Today, he writes about another mystical connection between the two.

The Testimony of Holy Scripture

Erat autem fere hora sexta, et tenebræ factæ sunt in universam terram usque ad horam nonam. Et obscuratus est sol, et velum templi scissum est medium.
And it was almost the sixth hour; and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. (Luke 23:44,45)

The Latin verses are from the Vulgate Bible, St. Jerome’s faithful translation from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. For centuries, the Vulgate was the only version of Scripture used in the Western Church, and it was the basis for vernacular translations until the mid-twentieth century. The Douay-Rheims Bible was translated directly from the Vulgate.

The verses describe what happened as Our Lord Jesus Christ commended His spirit into the hands of His Eternal Father. Let us focus on the beginning of the second verse, describing the sun, and the word “darkened.”

St. Luke is the only Evangelist to mention the sun. In the Vulgate the word given is obscuratus, which can mean darkened, concealed, or hidden. However, in astronomy, one of the ways of saying “the sun was eclipsed” is exactly obscuratus est sol, a phrase popular in authors from the Middle Ages because of the influence of that form in the Vulgate.

In the Greek texts, the phrase is (toû hēlíou) eklipóntos, which comes from the verb ekleípō, with various meanings (e.g. to faint, to fail, or to depart). When used in astronomy it means to be eclipsed, and it is the origin of the word ékleipsis - eclipse. This is why the modern NAB translation, which is translated from the Greek rather than from the Vulgate, translates this part as (darkness came...) because of an eclipse of the sun.

Further Testimony

Is there, then, any other mention of a total solar eclipse occurring during the Crucifixion?

Indeed there is, in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. This “Gospel” was not included in the Bible, because it was not certain that it was divinely inspired – but it was very popular during the Middle Ages, and the Catholic Encyclopedia says that it is “of orthodox composition and free from Gnostic taint”.1 It is precisely from this text that we learned the names of St. Longinus (the Roman centurion who pierced the side of Jesus) and of St. Dismas (the Good Thief).

The Gospel of Nicodemus has Pilate asking the Jews if they saw the darkness, and they answer: “There has been an eclipse of the sun in the usual way”2, which means precisely that it was not in the usual way – solar eclipses last only about 7.5 minutes, not 3 hours – because they did not want to admit to him that something extraordinary happened.

In her visions, Anne Catherine Emmerich also describes the unnatural eclipse, and the great anxiety it caused among both men and beasts, with the Pharisees insisting to Pilate that it was a completely natural event.3

A Mystical Allegory

Why is all this important, and how is it connected to the Passion of the Church?

Since the Mystical Passion of the Church parallels the Passion of Christ, I do not think we could find a parallel that describes the state of the Church today as precisely as that phenomenon of an extended total solar eclipse – which we have good cause to believe was present at the Crucifixion.

Let us imagine a man who did not know what a total solar eclipse is, experiencing one for the first time. When he went out of the house and saw it in the sky, he would think that he was looking at one body, the Sun, which had for some reason gone dark, and only an outer ring could be seen. The Earth would be covered in darkness.

If, for the sake of our consideration, such an eclipse continued for years, he would simply think that that is how the Sun had come to look. His children, born after the eclipse started, would not even know that a different Sun existed.

Well, the Catholic Church is, fittingly, the Sun, since she illuminates the world with sanctity of life and heavenly doctrine. The dark Moon obscuring the Sun is the Modernist sect (those who publicly confess the Modernist heresies, and especially the intruders who occupy the churches and usurp the positions of authority), which has placed itself in the position of the Sun4, obscuring it (“Et obscuratus est sol”) so that the observer can see but a tiny fragment of its rays (the true doctrine and Mass now found in few places). The Earth covered in darkness represents the world which lost its moral compass and sank into the worst sins and faithlessness, now that the Church is occupied by Modernists, and her visibility and guiding light is diminished.

Just as the observer thinks that what he is seeing is the Sun having gone dark, people think that they are seeing the Catholic Church changing her doctrine and rites, and ceasing to shine with the holiness and purity that they (even non-Catholics) had previously observed in her. Those born after the change do not even know of a different church than that dark entity with a shiny edge they grew up seeing.

But to a few, it is given to see that the Church is not that entity; that what they see is just an appearance. It is in fact two bodies that they see: one, bright, which is the Church, the body being eclipsed; the other, dark, the Modernist sect, the body eclipsing the former.

The unnaturally long duration of the eclipse at the Crucifixion is another parallel, since it was over 24 times longer than the longest natural eclipse; the current vacancy of the Apostolic See, depending on which year is taken as the start, has been from 22 to over 24 times longer than the longest “normal” vacancy (2.76 years, in the late 13th century).

Subscribe now

Further Explanation

To the common observer, the appearance is that of one body, composed of…

(a) Catholics, deceived into thinking that the Conciliar Church represents the Catholic Church (which is not surprising, because materially it seems to be the same body with the same name and succession of pastors), and also

(b) all kinds of Modernist heretics,

… with each category confessing a multitude of opposing doctrines.

This mirage of one body is the Conciliar Church – those who recognise the Conciliar pretenders as popes and submit to them. It is no wonder, then, that the Conciliar Church is not united in faith, since it is not in fact one body.

On the other hand, Traditional Catholics are that shining remnant of the Sun visible at the edge, marginalised and small, but still showing the beauty and holiness of the True Church in her rites and her doctrine, so that even so obscured, she is always attracting new converts. One of the distinguishing features of Traditional Catholics is precisely this refusal to submit to the darkness of the Modernists, and even though some verbally recognise the usurpers, none truly submit to them. The eyes of Traditional Catholics are not veiled by that darkness and by ignorance of the Faith (unlike those who are still Catholic but trapped in the N.O.), they are not mixed up in the chaos of the Conciliar Babylon (“Go out from her, my people...”5). They are the ones who obey what God commands through His Apostle:

Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith:
I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Cor. 6:14-18)

Reflection

This Crisis has lasted a long time. The sea is relentless, the little ship is now filled with water, and the storm is raging all around us. We can do nothing to stop it; we are powerless. Our Lord seems asleep.

Let us pray that He may soon rebuke the wind and calm the waves, but let us not be of little faith: He is in control. All will marvel when He miraculously intervenes to end these times of darkness, just as they marveled at the See of Galilee.6 To quote Mr. , “this crisis is a crisis of faith”; as such, a renewal of faith is the answer.

Note

The analogy of the eclipse was adopted because it seems to be the best phenomenon to describe the state of the Church, and because it seems to show another parallel between the Passion of Christ and the Passion of His Mystical Body.

Not counting the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich (which are neither approved nor condemned by the Church), this article is not intended to promote any supernatural messages or books containing such, and especially not those condemned by the Church.

We know that there is a multiplication of various false messages in modern times. If such are found to mention the same phenomenon, that does not mean that the analogy presented in this article is false (or that those messages are true), because even in false supernatural messages there are often elements of truth to make them more believable.

Subscribe now

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Give a gift subscription

Integrity Magazine Interview: No Pope since Vatican II? The 'Extended Vacancy' of the Chair of St Peter

S.D. Wright — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 22:05:12 GMT

In this interview with Stephen Kokx from Integrity, we discussed ‘abductive logic’, and an extended vacancy as the best explanation for the crisis in the Church.

(WM Round-Up) – On Wednesday 15 July 2026, I appeared on Integrity Magazine’s podcast with to continue our new series about the indefectibility of the Church, and my long article ‘Spotless and Unsullied’ – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy.

The conversation focused on Chapter III: Indefectibility and an Extended Vacancy.

Spotless and Unsullied is the third part of my response to Fr Thomas Crean OP’s article The Perpetual Visibility of the Catholic Church Under the Pope.

Much of what Fr Crean writes about indefectibility in this article is correct; however, it overlooks or obscures extra elements of this attribute of the Church, and this allows him to use it in an argument against “sedevacantism.”

Topics in this interview included:

Abductive reasoning as a means of reaching an explanation
The criteria of abductive reasoning
The ‘epistemology of the crisis’, and docility to one’s teachers
What indefectibility does not prevent: A falling away, and an extended vacancy
The effect of an extended vacancy.

We did not get to the topic of the possibility of an extended vacancy, which we will pick up in the next interview.

Clarification: I misspoke, stating that did not read The WM Review, and that this encouragingly showed that his recent video on the same subject was the fruit of his own independent work and research. In fact, I meant that he had not read Spotless and Unsullied, and he was kind enough to say in the comments on YouTube:

Thank you for the shoutout, gentlemen!

To clarify, I am familiar with Sean’s work and I greatly admire it. He’s one of the few people I subscribe to on Substack. So, I have certainly read the WM Review— just not this particular piece yet!

God bless you both. Great show.

We will be releasing Chapter III of Spotless and Unsullied for all readers next week. But you can read it NOW in the book-length article discussed here:

Spotless and Unsullied – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy

(NB: It is not necessary to have read Radically Insufficient or Zero Marks before reading Spotless and Unsullied.)

Subscribe now

Other parts in the Zero Marks series:

‘Radically insufficient’ – Reply to Fr Crean on the Church’s visibility, Part I
‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church (Reply to Fr Thomas Crean) (All chapters and conclusion)
- Introduction, and Chapter I: Unity
- Chapter II: Holiness
- Chapter III: Catholicity
- Chapter IV: Apostolicity as a Mark
- Chapter V: Apostolicity as a Property
- Conclusion: ‘Hovel in the Valley’
Spotless and Unsullied – Indefectibility and the Extended Vacancy (Part III)
- Chapter I: What is indefectibility, and what are the ‘Gates of Hell’?
- Chapter II: Fr Crean’s account of indefectibility

The previous interviews

This interview was a follow up to our previous conversations of the other parts of my response to Fr Crean.

Here is the first interview, on the visibility of the Church (Part I):

Here is the second, on the property of unity (Part II, Ch. 1):

Here is the third, on the property of holiness (Part II, Ch. II):

Here is the fourth, on the property of catholicity (Part II, Ch. III):

Here is the fifth, on the note of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. IV):

Here is the sixth, on the property of apostolicity (Part II, Ch. V):

Here is the seventh, on the conclusion to Zero Marks:

Here is the eighth, on the first chapter of Spotless and Unsullied:

Here is the ninth, on the second chapter of Spotless and Unsullied:

Thank you to Stephen for having me on again. I hope readers of The WM Review enjoy it – and give a follow too.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Give a gift subscription

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

'Bread from their hands': Private revelation and Catholics today

Fri, 10 Jul 2026 13:05:28 GMT

Fr Reid Hennick sets out the proper place of private revelations in the life of Catholics.

Editor’s Notes

Fr Reid Hennick RCI has kindly given us permission to publish the sermon which he preached on the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost, 2026.

This sermon deals with a topic we have considered on several occasions at The WM Review – namely the place that private revelations and extraordinary phenomena should play in the life of a Catholic.

Fr Hennick is a personal friend, and you can read more about his recent move to Massachusetts here.

Subscribe now

‘Bread from their Hands’

Fr Reid Hennick RCI

Sixth Sunday after Pentecost
Headings added by The WM Review for ease of reading.

The role of the Apostles in feeding the multitude

He broke and gave to his disciples for to set before them. And they set them before the people.

A great crowd has followed Our Lord into the desert, and for three days they have had nothing to eat. Now despite these hunger pangs, they do not grumble. They do not clamor for a sign. They wait on Our Lord. And Our Lord has compassion on them.

Our Lord, of course, could have fed them in any way He pleased. Bread could fall from the sky, it could fill each hand at once. But see how He chooses. See how He chooses to feed them. He multiplies the loaves and then hands them to His disciples. The apostles set them before the people. The apostles. No man in that desert is fed except from hands appointed by Christ. This image captures the entirety of today’s sermon.

With that in mind, mark what it is Our Lord truly feeds the multitude today, because the loaves are the lesser gift, the lesser gift. For three days, Our Lord has been feeding them on His doctrine. A much more nourishing bread. This was His entire purpose in dealing with the people to begin with. This was His mission, and to continue this mission beyond a few thousand men in the desert, He founded a Church. And He entrusted to this Church His teaching, the apostles to guard it, their successors after them, that this greater bread might be set before every generation until the end of time. We Catholics do not take Our Lord’s words straight from His own lips. We receive it from the Church.

The role of the miracle

And now, what of the miracle? Well, we should appreciate that the miracle today is worked not so much, not chiefly, to fill stomachs. Remember, the loaves are the lesser gift. The miracle today is God’s own testimony that the teaching they have been fed on for the past three days was from Heaven. Not from man. For how were they to know? How were they to know that this preaching was God’s word and not only a man’s? Well, they knew because they saw seven loaves feed four thousand. This visible marvel vouched for the invisible food.

The truth is, we human beings sometimes need these impressive visual prompts to point out to us what is worth listening to, to begin with. And God caters to this need by teaching us with miracles. St. Thomas puts it thus:

“The preached word needs to be confirmed in order that it be rendered credible. This is done by the working of miracles.”

Vatican I says the same thing. It calls miracles, quote, “the most certain signs of revelation, suited to the understanding of all.” It seems everyone can understand that God alone can work a miracle. Therefore, the miracle is His selective endorsement of that to which it is attached.

Our Lord’s miracles are meant to draw our attention to His revelation. They are a means to that end. Our jumping to that end, our embracing His teaching without some sort of external proof, would be rash. It would be rash on our part. Why? Because we ought to hold high critical standards in this world of lies. We ought to. In every age, dubious messengers are competing for our attention. And their words, by themselves, are cheap. Our Lord knows these confusing surroundings of ours, and therefore He doesn’t leave us with bare assertions. He pays us the courtesy of proving the authority of His own words. Hence today’s multiplication. Our Lord says of His miracles elsewhere,

“The works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.”

Once again, Our Lord’s teaching is the food. The miracle is the certification of that food. The miracle encourages us to listen in faith to Christ, to Christ’s teaching, to Him teaching in His Church. “He that heareth you, heareth me.” We are fed from her hands. The Church is our doctrinal reference point, and no later wonder could possibly unseat her for us.

The role of the Church in our faith

Imagine the absurdity of this scenario: someone puts his faith in the Church after witnessing the miracle of the morning of Pentecost, and then later reneges on that faith because he witnesses one of the wonders wrought by Simon the magician. This is absurd. A Catholic should know well that not every wonder is from God. St. Paul foretells, quote, “one whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders.” Any spectacle that would pull us from what the Church teaches is, by that fact, a lying wonder. No real miracle could certify a food other than that of the Magisterium’s.

Subscribe now

Public and private revelation

And the bread of the Magisterium is none other than “the faith once delivered to the saints.” That’s how St. Jude puts it. The Church teaches us by drawing from this once-delivered faith, this revelation, which ended with the death of the last Apostle. This is called Public Revelation. It’s the revelation that Our Lord intended for the entire human race. The Catholic Church is the guardian and the interpreter of this revelation.

All revelations made since then are, by default, private revelations, even if they pertain to the spiritual benefit of the Church at large, even if they serve this broad, social function.

Some examples: the voices that led St. Joan of Arc to the deliverance of France; the Holy Face devotion; Our Lady of Lourdes, La Salette, Fatima — all private revelations, full stop. Why? Because we are not bound to receive them without qualification. This is the hinge of the whole matter: however true a particular private revelation may be, it adds not one word to the faith once delivered.

And with that in mind, we should see how relatively little weight a private revelation can bear, even a good one. When the Church comes across a private revelation, one that meets certain standards of orthodoxy, she may, let us say, acknowledge it by degrees.

First, she may tolerate it, or perhaps permit it. This is when she is not fully at ease with it, but she would rather not condemn it outright, lest she unnecessarily upset faithful who are innocently attached to it.
Secondly, she may approve it negatively. This means that she has found nothing in its immediate message or happenings that is contrary to faith and morals. And in that case, the faithful may receive it without fear of believing or doing anything unauthorized by the Church. Here we might group many of the revelations recorded in the lives of canonized saints.
And thirdly, she may approve it positively. This is when she’s actually asserting its divine origin. She might even endorse it by, for instance, including it in encyclicals or catechisms, or by weaving it into her liturgy, or by granting indulgences for pilgrimages. A most uncontroversial example here, the Sacred Heart.

Now, after such approval, after this kind of public approbation, to despise a revelation, a private revelation, would be reprehensible on our part. Because for a loyal son or daughter of the Church, this would be to fail in piety. It would be to fail in the respect due to Holy Mother Church.

The different types of assent owed

Nevertheless, the highest assent we could give to this private revelation does not rise above human faith. This is the teaching of Pope Benedict XIV. He teaches about private revelations in general:

“It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith.”

This all goes to say that we may be very much certain of a private revelation’s divine origin, and at the same time, very much less certain of the authenticity of all its details. Unlike Sacred Scripture, these details are neither inspired nor infallible. Insofar as they’re merely repeating what the Church has already definitively taught, as much of the message of the Sacred Heart does, that much is certain, that much is inerrant.

But this goes to say that even though a revelation may be true in the main, it may gather errors on its long road to us. God surely gives the seer, the visionary, the recipient, much light, but this recipient often cannot grasp the whole of what’s been revealed. Misunderstanding and misinterpretation are possible even here, at its source. A good example is in the life of St. Joan of Arc. Even when her martyrdom was foretold to her explicitly, St. Joan of Arc nevertheless held on to the word “deliverance.” She told her interrogators:

“I do not know if this will be to be delivered from prison, or if some disturbance may happen by which I shall be delivered.”

She was thinking literally — she was thinking this meant her escape, her temporal escape. When the truth was, she was to be delivered by the victory of her martyrdom. And that was the case all along.

Now, added on top of this source, we have the hazardous transmission process. It often falls to others, non-recipients, to “clarify” what was seen, originally seen, or recorded. And again, misunderstanding, misinterpretation. And mistranslation as well.

The Catholic attitude towards these revelations

This might sound a bit deflating, but the reality is that there is a lot less certainty in this domain than we might like to believe. Which is perhaps why someone like Anne Catherine Emmerich could say:

“In spiritual things, I never believed anything except what was revealed by God and proposed for my belief by the Catholic Church. What I saw in visions, I never believed in this way.”

These words, from someone whose visions were far from ever being positively approved, they nonetheless show forth a profoundly Catholic spirit, profoundly Catholic estimation of things. At bottom, they are attesting to this: no vision, no locution, no dream could bring a baptized soul one step closer to God than a simple act of faith, hope, and charity. Our goal in this life is simple union with God by means of these three theological virtues.

This is attested to with one voice by the spiritual giants, by the spiritual giants of our tradition — St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Ávila, St. John of the Cross. St. John of the Cross is actually quite severe with the appetite that would look past the ordinary way. He writes, “The desire for revelations” – he means private revelations –

“… deprives faith of its purity, develops a dangerous curiosity, which becomes a source of illusions, fills the mind with vain fancies, and often proves the want of humility and of submission to Our Lord, Who, through His public revelation, has given all that is needed for our salvation.”

That kind of warning falls squarely on a certain type of soul.

Subscribe now

Warnings for Catholics

While this type might not request from God revelations for itself — which, by the way, St. John of the Cross calls a venial sin — this type does seem to live vicariously through the revelations made to others. Let us call this type, for lack of a better word, the apparitionist. The Church has never meant to breed the apparitionist and his or her single-minded agitation. It’s a very bad fruit, because this disposition tends to carry men away from the very hands that feed them. Here is a good synopsis, but a stern one, from a moral theologian of the highest regard:

“There are many persons endeavoring to lead a holy life who occupy themselves a great deal with so-called revelations made to pious persons, even to the exclusion of all other spiritual reading matter. Sometimes such persons study the revelations made to some particular saint, drawing all their spiritual nourishment from them; then, having their appetite whetted by the perusal of one book of this kind, they eagerly devour anything of the same nature that they are able to lay hold of. They believe in these revelations as firmly as they believe in the Gospels, and are strongly disposed to brand as heretics, or at least as suspects, all who do not put the same faith in them as they do themselves. This disposition alone is sufficient to prove that the perusal of these private revelations is not a healthy spiritual exercise for all indiscriminately.”

We need only beware of this danger. Because of our own narrowness, we may derive from these revelations, even approved ones, a rather one-sided spirituality. And that’s on our part. We may end up laying great stress on things of secondary importance, sometimes trifles, and, taken to the extreme, otherwise pious people can become quite silly in the process. Sometimes pitiable. They begin to fancy themselves as further advanced in the ways of perfection than others, or further advanced in the knowledge of faith and morals than their clergy. Cardinal Ottaviani lamented exactly that. He writes:

“Persons who do not know the first words of the Creed make themselves the apostles of an ardent piety. They are not ashamed to speak of the clergy in terms of open reprobation, then become indignant when the latter do not share their ardor or join in the furor of certain popular movements.”

How to avoid these pitfalls

How do we preserve ourselves from this outcome? Quite simply, we go to the appointed hands. Our religious impulse must be guided by the Church, not our curiosity — guided like the whole of our lives, but even more severely. We should not be hankering after the higher things before we have grasped and put into practice the ordinary, necessary things. So we strive to stay in a state of grace, to stay close to the Mass and the sacraments. We settle on simple reading — a catechism first of all, accessible writings of the saints, a Catholic edition of Holy Scripture with an edifying commentary, the Gospel, the Psalms.

This sermon should not be construed as anti-private revelation. The approved ones can, in a very real, healthy way, accentuate our devotional lives. That’s their merit. This sermon is meant only to encourage a sense of proportion, a Catholic sense of proportion. Obsessing over the “true meaning” of some message, or chasing the latest turn in the Fatima saga, as if these things were indispensable to our sanctification – this is laying on our shoulders a burden heavier than the light one Our Lord intended. Far heavier.

I hope that we can all see, rather, what it is I am extolling. Extolling. Because there is an ascending nobility to what we know. All things equal, I’m sure we can appreciate this: a grasp of geopolitics, a grasp of the world’s affairs, outranks knowledge of sports results or celebrity gossip. Moving along, a knowledge of approved private revelation outranks geopolitics. But the knowledge a child draws from his catechism surpasses them all. Infinitely. And why? Cardinal Ottaviani answers, and recaps everything we’ve covered:

“A good Christian knows, and knows from his catechism, that true religion is in Revelation, which ended with the death of the last Apostle and was confided to the Church, who is its interpreter and guardian. Nothing else could be revealed to us which would be necessary for our salvation… Even if the most respectable of visions could furnish us with new motives of fervor, they would give us no new elements of life and of knowledge.”

So the irony here is that the apparitionist gorges in his feeding frenzy and is never filled. The child eats plainly from the appointed hands and is filled. And that is because there is no surer food on earth.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Subscribe now

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Give a gift subscription

Mgr Guérard des Lauriers on SSPX excommunications

S.D. Wright — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 21:57:37 GMT

McKenna and Guérard des Lauriers – see note on permissions at the end of this article. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

Shortly before his death in 1988, the French Dominican bishop Mgr Guérard des Lauriers reflected on the rumoured episcopal consecrations, which Archbishop Lefebvre conferred soon after.

Introduction

On 2 July 2026, the six bishops of the SSPX were declared to be in schism and excommunicated – along with all the ministers of the organisation, and any laymen who “formally adhere” to it. The meaning of this “formal adherence” is explained in a 1996 note to which yesterday’s documentation refers.

Later in the day, the Vatican released a process for those who wished to “reconcile” themselves, featuring such humiliations as suggesting that SSPX Third Order members should submit to the RCIA programme.

Much commentary has already been published on this matter.

However, in this article I shall provide a survey of pertinent texts delivered by Mgr Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers in the final years of his life. The French Dominican bishop was and remains a significant figure in post-Vatican II theological controversies. We publish this survey for its historical interest both in itself, and for its treatment of the matter of the excommunications – without endorsing the positions and opinions expressed within.

Joy over the excommunications?

Both before and after 1 July 2026, we have been told that these excommunications should not be the source of joy or triumphalism. The reason given for this is that such excommunications would be unjust and scandalous; and thus nothing to be glad about.

However, it often arises that an event or phenomenon that is evil under one aspect is good under another; and it can indeed be celebrated under the aspect of the latter. The Dominican moral theologians McHugh and Callan write:

237. Sinful joy is an act of the will by which one takes delight in sins already committed by oneself or by others. We must distinguish between sinful joy and joy about things that are sinful.
(a) Sinful joy rejoices over the iniquity contained in past acts, either because it loves that iniquity in itself, or because it loves it as the cause of some gain. Examples: An unjust and revengeful man rejoices when he thinks of the oppression he exercised against some helpless person who had incurred his wrath. A criminal recalls with joy the perjuries by which his helpers secured his escape from justice.

However, they continue:

(b) Joy about things that are sinful or consequent on sin rejoices, not that what was done was wicked, but over other circumstances that were good or indifferent. Examples: An employer admires in the conduct of a dishonest employee, not the injustice committed, but the shrewd manner in which the fraud was perpetrated. A bystander is very much amused to witness a fight, not because he likes discord, but because the acts and remarks of the fighters are comical. A man rejoices when he hears that a friend has committed suicide and made him his heir, if the joy is confined to the second part of the news.

Under some circumstances, the latter can be dangerous or even sinful. But on other occasions, it can be right, proper and even virtuous.

Rejoicing at the excommunications is manifestly an example of the latter. In order to explain the aspect under which these excommunications may legitimately give rise to joy, let us consider the words of the SSPX’s District Superiors, written in 1988 – who themselves clearly distinguish between grief for evil done and joy in good consequent upon this evil:

We are deeply grieved by the blindness of mind and the hardness of heart of the Roman authorities. […]
On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to that system which styles itself the “Conciliar Church,” and which defines itself by the Novus Ordo Missæ, by indifferentist ecumenism, and by the secularisation of the whole of society. Yes, we have no part — nullam partem habemus — with the pantheon of religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of your Eminence or of another dicastery would be only the irrefutable proof of this.
We would ask for nothing better than to be declared ex communione from the adulterous spirit which has blown through the Church for twenty-five years, excluded from the impious communion with unbelievers. […]
To be therefore publicly associated with the sanction which strikes the six Catholic bishops, defenders of the faith in its integrity and totality, would be for us a mark of honour and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. For these faithful indeed have a strict right to know that the priests to whom they turn do not belong to the communion of a counterfeit Church – evolving, Pentecostal, and syncretist.

It is in this context that we shall consider what Mgr Guérard des Lauriers wrote about what, at that stage, were rumours of impending consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre.

Mgr Guérard des Lauriers: The 1986 article

The late Dominican bishop died in 1988, a few months before Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s episcopal consecrations the same year – as well as the SSPX’s consecration of Bishop Rangel in 1991.

The relationship between the two Frenchmen was, to put it mildly, strained – but it is interesting to see the hope that Mgr Guérard des Lauriers retained for Archbishop Lefebvre.

The former believed it necessary that bishops be consecrated – although not at any cost. In 1986, in an article titled To Consecrate Bishops?, Mgr Guérard des Lauriers discussed the rumours that Archbishop Lefebvre would imminently consecrate men to the episcopate without the permission of John Paul II. He considered it essential that such consecrations be carried out on the explicit basis that the Holy See was vacant (formaliter) – and that they not be carried out with the permission of John Paul II.

Regarding this point, Mgr Guérard des Lauriers even discussed the possibility that these consecrations might happen with the “ultra ultra secret” permission of John Paul II, without the faithful knowing it. It was for this reason that he also considered it essential that Archbishop Lefebvre be declared to have incurred a latae sententiae excommunication by the act of consecration: this would be the proof that there were no secret agreements. Some might consider this to be needless speculation – or even a “conspiracy theory” – especially with hindsight.

Nonetheless, Mgr Guérard des Lauriers presented his reasons for such a consideration in the 1986 article mentioned:

“[T]he fact is that Mgr L., suspended a divinis, continues nonetheless to ordain priests (1), to confirm, and even to “give” to certain of these priests the power to confirm (2). How then can it be that Mgr L., disobeying in the gravest matter him [W.] of whom Mgr L. affirms with pertinacity that he [W.] is the Authority [“bad Pope, but Pope”], how can it be that Mgr L. is not excommunicated?”

He explains that from the perspective of faith, this is ultimately because “W. is not the Authority”.1 However, he continues:

“[W]hat is evident in the Light of the most holy Faith remains densely obscure from the standpoint of Mgr L. and of W. They are agreed in affirming, in proclaiming, not only in words but in deeds: “W. is the Authority.” How then can it be that, without protest, “the said Authority” allows a Bishop suspended a divinis not only to exercise his powers, but to extrapolate them? That such a conjuncture, periodically repeated, should crystallise into a commonly accepted state of affairs – this leads ineluctably to regarding as very positively possible the hypothesis of an ultra-secret pact.
“This pact – here is what it would consist of, stated by W. addressing Mgr L.: ‘Continue to ordain and to confirm, as you see fit. You will not be troubled in any way. On one condition only, however – that of affirming and proclaiming that I am the Authority.’
“The greatest ‘service’ one can render to W., in his own light which is that of Satan, is to accredit him as the Authority. It is this ‘service,’ objectively ordered [and, by the Providence of God, derisively so] to the destruction of the Church, that Mgr Lefebvre accomplishes, and compels those who follow him to accomplish – unconsciously, I hope – but in any case obstinately. How, under these conditions, can one fail to suspect the insidious trap of Satan: ‘All this – a universal share in my Wojtylan church – all this, to thee, Marcel Lefebvre, I will give, if falling at [my feet] thou wilt prostrate thyself before me, W.’ (cf. Matt. IV, 9).
“I do not say that such a pact exists. I say that there are grounds to fear it. For, whilst saying IN WORDS: ‘There is nothing to be expected from Rome,’ Mgr L. continues to go to Rome – that is, IN ACT, to recognise W. as the Authority. Whether or not he is conscious of it – we repeat – Mgr L. renders, still now and always, to W. the ‘service’ [excellent service!] which the latter expects of him.”

He then applied this concern to the prospect of the consecrations:

“This being so, a threatening cloud hangs over the said episcopal consecrations. Supposing they take place, are they not destined to be the inexorably logical prolongation of the priestly ordinations? It will suffice, the pact becoming ultra ultra secret, to extend it to a new clause which will be the venom of slow death expertly injected into the entire work of Mgr L., and thereby into the traditional phalanx: ‘You may not only ordain, confirm, delegate: you may even consecrate Bishops. You will not be troubled in any way. On one condition only, namely: the Bishops consecrated by you [Mgr L.] shall recognise and proclaim, as you yourself do so well, that I, W., am the Authority.’
“It will therefore be fitting, should the said consecrations take place, not to rejoice prematurely.”

He continued:

One will have to examine whether the question of the ‘Roman mandate,’ normally required for every episcopal consecration, has been clearly posed and resolved – either by YES [in which case, quod Deus avertat, Mgr L. would be nothing more than a vassal of W., fully sharing in his capital schism], or by NO [in which case, Mgr L. being ipso facto, and even under the new ‘canon law,’ excommunicated latæ sententiæ, he would have to be declared excommunicated (as I myself was, together with Mgr THUC), by Mgr Ratzinger acting in the name of the ‘Authority’].
“One will therefore be able to rejoice with good reason at the Consecrations performed by Mgr L. only when the declaratory sentence of the excommunication incurred by him shall have been promulgated by ‘rome.’ It is this hypothesis that I suppose to have been realised. I considered it necessary to make this clear. For it would not be fitting for reasons of a doctrinal order to be alleged, even indirectly, with a view to appearing to justify conduct that would be consonant neither with truth nor with loyalty. Episcopal Consecrations performed according to the traditional rite, but ultra ultra secretly “una cum W.” – such Consecrations would be valid; but, foreign to sound doctrine, laden with sacrilege since injurious to the Testimony of the most holy Faith, they could be explained only by the cunning of Satan.”

It is intriguing that Mgr Guérard des Lauriers seems not to have countenanced the scenario that actually occurred: Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four men (a) without John Paul II’s mandate, and thus (b) with an excommunication, but whilst (c) openly maintaining a profession of union with the “pope”.

Perhaps he thought such a scenario as too absurd and implausible to consider – and that Archbishop Lefebvre could not possibly justify proceeding to an episcopal consecration without pontifical mandate without first concluding that John Paul II was not the Pope.

After much analysis of various factors, the bishop presents the following premises:

α’. IT IS NECESSARY to pursue the Missio, even in the Church in a state of privation.
β’. – NOW, it is impossible to pursue the Missio without Bishops.

He thus reaches the conclusion, in which he also refers to the possibility of Archbishop Lefebvre being excommunicated:

γ’. – THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY to consecrate Bishops.
This conclusion flows from the two premisses α’ and β’. It is necessarily binding, and its proof has not been refuted.
How is it that the faithful who claim to be attached to the Tradition generally refuse it in practice, even if, practising an [unconscious?] super-liberalism, they say they accept it ‘speculatively’? The true reason is that these faithful ‘of little Faith’ have need of security far more than of light. They therefore spontaneously prefer to cling to someone who is SEATED [and, humanly speaking at least, W. is seated very comfortably!], which leads them to consider neither the Truth nor the arguments that would prevent them from doing so. And the priests who, in exercising the Missio, feed these faithful, fear ‘losing’ them by affirming CLEARLY the whole Truth. Then these priests ‘diminish the truth’, or disguise it, or keep silent about it; and they are able to ‘keep’ … blind men who in fact hold above all else to remaining blinded. To what ends? God knows. God will judge; God already judges. That Mgr L. is preparing to consecrate Bishops – this is a most happy piece of news: Mgr L., by this act, will no longer be among those priests!
“One ought therefore to rejoice and give thanks – or at least prepare to do so. On condition, however, that, as has been explained [cf. 1], Mgr L. be declared by the ‘authority’ as being ipso facto excommunicated latæ sententiæ.”

Thus we see that, for Mgr Guérard des Lauriers, the excommunications of the modernists were not simply something about which to rejoice, but a positive sign of the legitimacy of Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions, and demonstrative of his separation from the modernists.

Subscribe now

The 1987 interview

In 1987, Mgr Guérard des Lauriers was quite harsh on the matter – questioning whether one could have certainty that Archbishop Lefebvre was truly a member of the Church, and sharply delineating the conditions under which episcopal consecrations without pontifical mandate could be justified.

In a famous interview, he stated:

9. Sodalitium: What are your thoughts on the eventual consecration of Bishops on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre, who recognizes John Paul II as Pope, but regularly disobeys him?
Bishop des Lauriers: The eventual consecrations of Bishops on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre.
[I.] What is of primary concern in this event [that is, with regard to the state of the Church] is evidently the person of the ‘Consecrated’. Therefore, to specify [or examine] the conditions concerning the person of the Consecrator, it is necessary to start from those concerning the person of the ‘Consecrated’.
[II.] Now, the Bishop capable of perpetuating the MISSIO in the Church militant must satisfy the following conditions:
A Be validly consecrated, licitly, legally as much as is possible [see 7]. CERTAINLY, to be part of the Church. Now, in order that it could be affirmed with [moral] certainty that a faithful integrally professes the whole of the MISSIO, that this faithful has effectively the Faith and that is part of the Church militant, it is necessary, as we have demonstrated2:
B that this faithful sets as a principle that every member of the Church militant must carefully examine the question of the Pope until he has resolved it categorically;
C that this faithful affirms the vacancy at least ‘formaliter’ of the Apostolic See;
D that this faithful professes of having to submit himself to the Pope when Christ will give one to the Church.
[III.] Could a Bishop consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre satisfy these conditions?
An affirmative response would not present a difficulty except for conditions B and C. Archbishop Lefebvre, affirming that Bishop Wojtyla is Pope and commanding his faithful not to examine the question, renders it IMPOSSIBLE to be able to affirm with CERTAINTY that he himself is part of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. One must certainly desire it, and one can suppose it; but it is impossible to be sure. As long as Archbishop Lefebvre continues to recognize and demands to recognize that W. is invested with supreme Authority, that same uncertainty would evidently weigh on a Bishop consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre.
[IV.] The answer to question [9] is subject to the declaration that Archbishop Lefebvre will make [?] in the act of a possible consecration.
IF, on the occasion of a possible Consecration, Archbishop Lefebvre disavows his current position and affirms the vacancy (at least the formal one) of the Apostolic See, all conditions [II] will be fulfilled. We will then only have to rejoice. The MISSIO would be ensured by the work of Écône which would finally blossom, LOYALLY, into reality.
After all, it is precisely Archbishop Lefebvre, former Archbishop of Dakar and Tulle, who is in charge of completing this work; since Archbishop NGO DINH THUC died on December 13, 1984, and, at least as far as action is concerned, Archbishop de Castro Mayer only follows Archbishop Lefebvre. As for me, IF Archbishop Lefebvre FINALLY professes the sound doctrine that ALONE can justify his action, I want nothing more than to remain in the solitude from which I have not emerged except for the OBLATIO MUNDA.
IF, on the occasion of a possible Consecration, Archbishop Lefebvre DOES NOT EXPRESSLY AND PUBLICLY DECLARE the disavowal of his current position, even if outwardly he does not reaffirm that he recognizes W. as acting Vicar of Jesus Christ: then the duplicity3 which Archbishop Lefebvre systematically implements DEMANDS fear for the worst of compromises. Such ‘Consecrations’ would be ordered, satanically and masterfully, to better ensure the ‘ralliement’ (adhesion)4 of the ‘Traditional’ phalanx to the official church.

Once again, we see that Mgr Guérard des Lauriers did not seem to countenance the possibility that Archbishop Lefebvre would act contrary to the will of John Paul II and thus be excommunicated without first declaring him to lack authority.

The 1988 sermon

As Mgr Guérard des Lauriers approached death, he maintained the same views discussed above – the necessity of openly declaring the “formal vacancy” of the Holy See prior to any episcopal consecrations, and the necessity of an excommunication.

However, in his final sermon, he expressed these ideas in a slightly more hopeful way. On 3 January 1988, he stated his wish to rally behind Archbishop Lefebvre – if the conditions were right, of course – and stressed the importance of an excommunication, for the sake of making the lines clear.

“I believe I have already reminded you that when Saint Ignatius had just founded his order, there was in Spain another ecclesiastic, in the same conditions, who had equally consecrated to God generous designs. He had thought to do exactly the same thing as Saint Ignatius. In some way he found himself in competition. And when this person, whose name I no longer remember, learned that Saint Ignatius had this design, the latter had already begun to group the few companions who were to be the pillars of his company. This person then made the sacrifice, purely and simply of his project.
“‘Since Saint Ignatius does what I want to do; since it seems that there are all the sufficient assurances to believe that effectively, the will of God is on the side of Saint Ignatius to accomplish his work, I renounce it and I enter into silence’.
“And indeed, he renounced his work. He had, however, nourished this project; he had cherished it with love and solicitude, and taken all his dispositions to put it into action... he counted on realizing a grandiose design, he was attached to it by all the fibres of his being in view of its realization. And therefore to renounce such a project, is to renounce oneself. And well I believe that it is God who disposed this man to found the company at the same moment, at the same time as Saint Ignatius. Saint Ignatius in external action, and he in the sacrifice of himself and of all that he had most dear.
“And well you see, at bottom, the situation in which I find myself is the comparison that I propose to you. Archbishop Lefebvre has undertaken something – and you know that, at the beginning I helped him with all my power. He deviated on the points that we know, and of which I have just reminded you. But if Archbishop Lefebvre finally decided to consecrate – he said on Good Shepherd Sunday, but he has said so many times deadlines which, passed have seen nothing happen, that one can only wait… But if Archbishop Lefebvre decided to consecrate and to face excommunication for his consecrations – and well it is he, it is he evidently who, because he was a bishop, because he has an organisational talent that is top class, and because he has succeeded in many happy things in what has been accomplished – then it is well that I efface myself. I am quite ready, you see, to sacrifice myself and to renounce everything. I do not know what I would do.
“I have made a considerable sacrifice, you are not unaware of it, in leaving Etiolles to come to Raveau to try to found there a seminary of clean oblation. And it seems that the Good God forbids it to me, since he does not permit me even to keep the only disciple I had with me, to whom I no longer have the strength to give the courses to which he would be entitled. And therefore, the enterprise that I believed I should undertake – it seems that the Good God does not want it from me. And it is well, if he wants it by Archbishop Lefebvre – and if he shows it by the crucial sign, crucial...6 – that Archbishop Lefebvre finally decides to consecrate bishops; not to have them consecrated by Wojtyla but by him. If Archbishop Lefebvre does that, then it is well and with joy that I abandon all that I have done, all the sacrifices that I have made, so that the work of salvation continues through him.”

Within a few weeks, Mgr Guérard des Lauriers went to his reward.

The 1988 obituary

Finally, as an addition point of interest, Mgr Guérard des Lauriers’ disciple M. Adrien Loubier stated the following in his obituary for the late bishop (still before Jun 1988):

“The two churches now confronting each other must excommunicate one another, for they do not share the same faith. The Church for whom man is the road and whose pope is the pope of the rights of man, and the Church whose Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and whose doctrine is that of the rights of God over the city and over souls; these two churches whose confrontation is concretized by the battle for Tradition, by the antagonism between the pure oblation ‘non una cum’ and the conciliar synaxis, and between the catechism of all time and the new catechisms – these two churches must exclude one another. The ambiguity must cease.
“And whether Mgr Lefebvre consecrates with the agreement of present-day Rome, thereby leading the whole of the resistance he has gathered behind him into a rallying to the bosom of the Conciliar Church; or whether he faces excommunication from present-day Rome and at last consents to address head-on the problems of the current crisis of authority – in either case we shall know where we stand. Either we shall have bishops like the others, Lustigers or Ratzingers in union with Wojtyla, whom we must reject for the same reasons – or else we shall have Catholic bishops, and the true Church will continue in the Cross, awaiting the hour when it shall please God to regenerate her.”

Loubier then states the following about the reading of the mandate:

“Let us not forget that the preliminary of the ceremony of the consecration of bishops is liturgically constituted by the reading of the Roman mandate. It is the beginning of the Pontifical. This prerequisite is obligatory, and if it is lacking, then, as Mgr Guérard des Lauriers did, it must be replaced by the exposition of the reasons for which one believed it necessary to proceed without it.”

Mgr Guérard des Lauriers’ “expositions” are extant, having been published in Sous la Bannière. We may translate some of them in due course.

In the SSPX’s 1988 consecrations, the answer to the ceremonial question about the Roman mandate was “Habemus” – we have it. This was widely criticised, because there was no such Roman mandate. What was read, instead, was a text similar to that described by Mgr Guérard des Lauriers, explaining why the consecrations were necessary.7 Similar criticisms were raised about the 2026 consecration, although this time, the answer was not “Habemus”, and the ceremony proceeded with an exposition read from a ceremonial scroll.8 Unsurprisingly, neither “exposition” professed the Holy See to be vacant.

By way of comparison, we can also note that Bishop Donald Sanborn recently explained that, for his own consecration by Bishop Robert McKenna, this “exposition” was delivered prior to the ceremony.9 Such “expositions” were also delivered at his consecrations of Bishops Joseph Selway and Germán Fliess.10

Conclusion

In this article, we have considered the ideas Mgr Guérard des Lauriers expressed on Archbishop Lefebvre’s conferring episcopal consecration without pontifical mandate. He believed that this was necessary, and held a positive view of a declaration of excommunication from the modernists, and explained the rationale for this view. He believed that these excommunications themselves were necessary – and said that his own excommunication by Cardinal Ratzinger “cheered [him] up”.

As a significant historical figure in the “traditionalist response” to Vatican II, the views which Mgr Guérard des Lauriers expressed are of interest for their own sake, whatever one thinks of them, or the “Thesis” which he propounded. There can be little doubt, however, that he would have disapproved of all three sets of SSPX episcopal consecrations.

While they took place against the will of John Paul II and Leo XIV, the men involved continued to insist that they were true Popes. As previously stated, Mgr Guérard des Lauriers does not seem to have entertained the idea that such a scenario could have occurred. The excommunications which he desired did follow, and they were indeed rejected – although not consistently on grounds which he would have accepted, and along with the continued profession of belief in the legitimacy of the papal claimants.

In short, the actual events are not precisely what Mgr Guérard des Lauriers hoped they would be, nor precisely what he feared and said would be condemnable. The excommunications of 1988 were not sufficient to drive the Society to reconsider its position on the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy. Although the harsher treatment of 2026 may have this effect, it seems unlikely at the present time.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Give a gift subscription

Abp. Lefebvre and the 'heretics can't excommunicate' argument

Sat, 04 Jul 2026 20:25:30 GMT

Just before the 1988 episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre himself presented the argument which we have been proposing this week.

Editors’ Notes

Yesterday, we shared the letter from SSPX Superior General Fr Davide Pagliarani, responding to the Vatican decree declaring excommunications and schism against the Society. That article also included a republication of the Open Letter of the SSPX District Superiors, dated 6 July 1988.

This present article is a new translation of a press conference given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, on 15 June 1988 – two weeks before the famous episcopal consecrations. In the conference, he discusses the imminent prospect of excommunications and declarations of schism – and why he is unafraid of such measures:

The Osservatore Romano will probably publish the excommunication, a declaration of schism, naturally. What does all that mean?
Bon. Excommunication by whom?
By a modernist Rome. By a Rome which no longer fully holds the Catholic faith, which no longer thinks in a Catholic way, which no longer acts in a Catholic way.
One cannot say that when there is a gathering such as Assisi, one is still Catholic. It is not possible. One cannot say that, when there is Kyoto, and the declarations which were made to the Jews at the Synagogue, and the ceremony which took place at Santa Maria in Trastevere last year, no? In the heart of Rome! C’est scandaleux, absolumment scandaleux. It is not Catholic any more.
So we are excommunicated, by the modernists: by the people who have been condemned by the previous popes.
Alors, what could that really do to us? We are condemned by people who are themselves condemned, because they are people who should condemned publicly. Alors, it is indifferent to us. It hasn’t, it has no value, obviously.
Declaration of schism. Schism with what? Schism with the Pope, successor of Peter? Non.
Schism with the modernist Pope? Oui.
Schism with the ideas which the Pope spreads everywhere – the ideas of the Revolution, modern ideas, no? Oui. We are in schism with that. We do not accept it, of course.

The explanation is the very same argument I have been advancing over the last week – and has nothing to do with “grave fear” or canonical loopholes. It is also completely clear: the problem is on the side of the Vatican. While we might have wished that the Archbishop had simply stated the illegitimacy of its occupants, he certainly stated the principle which we have been defending, and he was certainly the one on the offensive.1

The argument in question, which is based on sound Catholic authorities, states:

That heretics, excommunicates, and those who preach heresy, are unable to excommunicate.
By analogy and for similar reasons, such persons are also unable to issue declaratory sentences of automatic excommunications, or to designate organisations as schismatic sects (such that others incur automatic excommunications by involvement with them).

The practical conclusion for our day is that Leo XIV's and his officers cannot excommunicate, issue declaratory sentences, or condemn groups as schismatic sects, and that their attempts to do so should be disregarded.

(Whether or not the consecrations were justified is a separate question, as are the related questions of whether the six men involved incurred automatic excommunications, and, if so, how these undeclared excommunications should be treated by Catholics.)

The passage above represents the principal reason for sharing the text; however, the conference contains many other points of interest, and we prefer to give readers the full context for such passages. The conference also sheds further light on the relations between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican – and the various responses to Cardinal Fernández’s 2 July 2026 decree of excommunication.

Why the ‘heretics can’t excommunicate’ argument is important

As stated, I have been repeatedly explaining that heretics are unable to excommunicate. As Pope St Celestine said, “those already prostrate [cannot] cast down anyone else”. “From the moment” which such persons begin preaching and exteriorising heresy (as opposed to misspeaking, or speaking under correction) they are unable to excommunicate anyone else. However this is to be explained (e.g., loss of office, automatic excommunication, etc), this inability is the primary fact.

(To my mind, St Robert Bellarmine et al. are correct, and should be followed on this matter; they hold that the heretic lacks the ability to excommunicate because he is “deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.” I think that any conclusion other than this is mistaken, inconsistent with the logic of the argument, and ultimately lead to contradictions with truths that must be held, and to absurdities. See more on this here.)

There is a temptation, when dealing with situations like the excommunications of the SSPX, for Catholics to adopt a legalistic mentality and search for canonical technicalities – forgetting two key points.

First, few are convinced by such arguments. Generally, such arguments only convince those who want to be convinced; they are also complicated, and can lack certainty. Further, even if these arguments held, the presumption is in favour of the superior. If, as many hold, Leo XIV is the true Pope, and his officers hold authority, then they enjoy the benefit of the doubt.

Second, and building on the first, such technicalities ultimately do not matter. Consider the following from Pope Pius IX in Quartus Supra:

“For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church.”

“All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic.”

“Most men feel that the Church’s supreme head and shepherd should decide who are Catholics and who are not.”

I have also already explained here why it is that unjust excommunications are not without effect – and for similar reasons, even invalid declarations by legitimate authority also have real consequences, and (all things being equal) must be observed until they are repealed. This is not the case for those excommunicated by heretics, as is clear from the authorities cited in the full explanations:

For these reasons, all the legal loopholes in the world would remain insufficient, and unconvincing to most men. By contrast, this simple, straightforward argument – based on unimpeachable authorities, and expressed by Archbishop Lefebvre himself – is manifestly sufficient to explain why the Vatican’s interventions are without force, and why they should be disregarded (viz. not observed).

Therefore, anyone who considers Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, and all the rest to be manifest departures from the faith has no reason to be scrupulous about this; and scrupulous is precisely what such anxieties are. It is irrational to condemn the heretical teaching and laws of the Conciliar/Synodal Church on the one hand, and then on the other hand respect the excommunications and sanctions of its teachers and legislators.

S.D. Wright

This conference is shared for its historical interest, and for Archbishop Lefebvre’s expression of the argument in question. The WM Review does not adhere to all the views expressed in it; principally, the editors firmly hold that the Holy See has been vacant since at least 1965.

You can see our reflections on the reasons for sharing texts from Archbishop Lefebvre below:

Should we care what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say?

Subscribe now

Press Conference, 15 June 1988

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Delivered at Écône, Switzerland.
Some headings and line breaks added for ease of reading online.

Full conference (audio only):

Introduction

We have taken the liberty of inviting you, as we did thirteen years ago now, in 1975, at the time of the difficult events between Rome and Écône which struck us. We are once again, one might say, in a hot summer.

Before coming directly to the events of these past few days and the days ahead, I should like first to give you a brief account, so that you may better understand the situation, and so that in the reports you write in the newspapers you may produce, as far as possible, objective accounts.

The events taking place today and those which will take place tomorrow – particularly the episcopal consecration of four young bishops on the 30th of June – must be placed in the context of our difficulties with Rome, not only since 1970, since the foundation of Écône, but since the Council.

The Council as the root of it all

At the Council, I myself and a certain number of bishops fought against modernism and against the errors which we considered inadmissible and incompatible with the Catholic faith. The fundamental problem is precisely that. It is a formal, profound, radical opposition to the modern and modernist ideas which passed through the Council.

You will say to me: but what do you mean by that? Well, I shall cite for you some of the subjects of this modernism. They are, for example, the acceptance of the Rights of Man of 1789.

It is the equal right in civil society of all religions – that is to say, the principle of the secularity of the State.

It is ecumenism, or the association of all religions. It is Assisi; it is Kyoto; it is the visits to the Synagogue, to the Protestant Temple; and within the Church, it is collegiality, with the synods, the episcopal conferences, the change of the liturgy, the change of catechesis, the increase of lay and female participation in religious affairs. You have spoken of these things in your newspapers; you know them well, since all of this appeared on the occasion of the Roman synods. It is the negation of the Church’s past. There is a battle being waged within the Church to make the past disappear – the tradition of the Church. This continual persecution against those who wish to remain Catholic, as the popes were before Vatican II. That is our position. We continue what the popes taught and did before Vatican II. We oppose what Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II have done, because they have accomplished a rupture with their predecessors. We prefer the tradition of the Church to the work of a few rare popes who set themselves against their predecessors.

Nevertheless, we wished to maintain contact with Rome throughout these years, since 1976, when we received the suspensio a divinis, because we continued to perform priestly ordinations. We wished to maintain contact with Rome, hoping that Tradition would one day recover its rights. But it was labour lost.

Requests for bishops

Faced with Rome’s refusal to take into consideration our protests and our requests for a return to Tradition, and faced with my age – for I am now eighty-two years old, I am in my eighty-third year, and it is evident that I feel the end approaching – I need a successor. I cannot leave five seminaries across the world without a bishop to ordain these seminarians, since one cannot make priests without a bishop. And as long as there is no agreement with Rome, there will be no bishops willing to perform ordinations. I therefore find myself in an absolute impasse, and I have a choice to make: either die and leave my seminarians in this state of abandonment, leave my seminarians orphaned, or else make bishops. I have no choice.

So I asked Rome several times: let me make bishops; allow me to have successors. That is why, on the 29th of June last (1987), I made a clear allusion in my sermon here at Écône, on the occasion of the ordination of seminarians. I said: I am going to perform episcopal consecrations, since Rome will not listen to me, will not hear us, and abandons us. I see myself obliged to provide myself with successors. Consequently, on the 25th of October next, I shall consecrate bishops for my succession.

Great consternation at Rome!

It was from this declaration that Rome was profoundly stirred, and that I received a letter on the 28th of July, after having met Cardinal Ratzinger on the 14th of July, to whom I said:

“Either Rome grants me permission to make bishops, or I do it myself.”

In his letter of the 28th of July, Cardinal Ratzinger replied to me:

“As regards bishops, you must wait until your Society is recognised. As for the rest, we can perhaps make concessions to you on the liturgy, on the existence of your seminaries, and then, at a pinch, send you a visitor.”

I had indeed asked for a visitation, so that we might be known, since they did not know us – they never came to see us. There was therefore an opening on the part of Rome at that moment.

Subscribe now

How the discussions proceeded

I confess that I hesitated a great deal. Should I accept this opening, or should I refuse it? I very much wanted to refuse it, because I have no confidence whatsoever in these Roman authorities – I must say so plainly – for their ideas are completely opposed to ours. We are not at all on the same wavelength, and I therefore had no confidence.

We had always been persecuted. It was still the time of Port-Marly, of the persecution of Fr Lecareux for his parishes, approved by Rome moreover, the bishops being approved by Rome. All of this inspired in us no confidence at all in placing ourselves in the hands of Rome – of a Rome which was fighting Tradition.

Nevertheless, we wished to make an effort: let us try; we shall sound out what Rome’s dispositions towards us will be. It was in this spirit that I went to Rome, and that we then received the visitation of Cardinal Gagnon. It seems that this visitation was favourable. I confess that I know nothing of it, since I have not had a single word about the result of this visitation, which took place seven months ago. I said as much to Cardinal Ratzinger: it is inadmissible. A visitation is conducted in order to find out whether we are doing well, whether we are doing badly, whether there are reproaches to be made to us, whether there are compliments to be paid us – and they tell us nothing. I learnt nothing from the visitation of the two Belgian prelates in 1974, who came here to visit the seminary fourteen years ago now. I have never received a single line telling me what the result of that visitation was.

So Cardinal Gagnon came, and then afterwards they proposed colloquia to us, to draw up a protocol preparing an agreement intended to establish the institutions which would have governed tradition. We therefore had these colloquia. I confess that I should very much have liked to take part myself in the first of the colloquia, but they preferred that I not be there, and that I designate a theologian and a canonist. This I did. I designated Fr Tissier de Mallerais and Fr Laroche to go to Rome to confer with representatives of Cardinal Ratzinger. They were three: a theologian, a canonist, and Father Duroux, who chaired the meeting.

A first draft was finalised after forty-eight hours, settling the doctrinal questions and the disciplinary questions. We were surprised to see that they wished to have us sign a doctrinal text. Given the opening which Cardinal Ratzinger had manifested by his letter of the 28th of July the previous year, there was no longer any question of doctrinal problems. We were therefore somewhat surprised that they should put before our eyes again what had been the object of a misunderstanding for fifteen years. We had been in opposition on doctrinal questions precisely.

But since Article 3 of the doctrinal portion of the protocol assured that we could acknowledge that there were points in the Council, in the liturgy, and in the Code of Canon Law which were not perfectly reconcilable with Tradition, that gave us satisfaction. In a manner, they were giving us satisfaction on those points. It allowed us to discuss points in the Council, in the liturgy, and in the Code of Canon Law. That is what enabled us to sign this doctrinal protocol; without that, we should not have signed it.

And then came the disciplinary questions. There was above all the question of the bishop, and that of a bureau in Rome – a bureau in which Rome would have had five members and we only two. This did not please us much. We discussed the matter because we found that we were truly put in a minority on this Roman bureau. But on the other hand, to a certain degree, we were exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishops.

The second meeting – and the accord

In the course of a second meeting, this time with Cardinal Ratzinger and myself, and with the various theologians and canonists who had already discussed matters amongst themselves, we arrived at a conclusion which was, on paper, acceptable. Cardinal Ratzinger signed first; I signed on the 5th of May, at Albano. The protocol was therefore signed.

The press announced: agreement between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican. It seems that things are being arranged, that everything is going to be settled. Personally, as I told you, I went forward with mistrust. I always felt a sense of mistrust, and I must confess that I always thought that everything they were doing was aimed at reducing us, at getting us to accept the Council and the post-conciliar reforms.

They cannot admit – and moreover the Cardinal said it recently in an interview with a German newspaper:

“We cannot accept that there should be groups, after the Council, which do not admit the Council and the reforms which have been made since the Council. We cannot admit that.”

The Cardinal repeated it several times:

“Your Grace, there is only one Church; there cannot be a parallel Church.”

I said to him:

“Eminence, it is not we who are making a parallel Church, since we continue the Church of all time. It is you who are making a parallel Church, by having invented the Church of the Council – the one which Cardinal Benelli called the conciliar Church. It is you who have invented a new Church, not we. It is you who have made new catechisms, new sacraments, a new Mass, a new liturgy – not we. We continue what was done before. It is not we who are making a new Church.”

We therefore felt, throughout the whole course of these colloquia, a desire, a will to bring us back to the Council.

The real intentions revealed

Very well. Despite everything, I signed; I tried to show good will. But from the very day on which we decided to sign, on the subject of the bishop I asked Cardinal Ratzinger:

“So now, we are going to sign the protocol – could you already give us the date for the consecration of the bishop?”

(It was the 4th of May.)

“You have time between now and the 30th of June to give me the mandate for the bishop. I myself took part in the presentation of bishops when I was Apostolic Delegate, for thirty-seven bishops; I know how it is done.”

I had presented the names. The names were already on the desk at the Vatican – three names: what is called the terna. It is a classical term at Rome for the three names of the bishops who are proposed, and the Holy See chooses from among these three names. I therefore gave three names.

“Between now and the 30th of June, you have time to prepare, to conduct an enquiry, and to give me the mandate.”
“Oh no, no, no – impossible. The 30th of June is impossible. – Then when? The 15th of August? At the end of the Marian Year? – Oh no, no, no, Your Grace. You know very well, on the 15th of August there is no one left in Rome. From the 15th of July to the 15th of September it is the holidays; you must not count on the 15th of August, it is not possible. – Then let us say the 1st of November, All Saints? – Oh, I do not know; I cannot tell you. – By Christmas? – I cannot tell you.”

I said: it is finished; I have understood. They want to lead us on. It is over; it is finished; I no longer have any confidence. I was quite right not to have confidence; they are playing us. I have lost confidence completely. And on that very day, the 5th of May, I wrote a letter to the Pope and a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, saying: I had hoped to arrive at a result; I believe it is finished. We see very well. There is a will on the part of the Holy See to subject us to its wishes and its orientations. It is pointless to continue. We are utterly opposed to one another.

Great consternation at Rome, of course, at that moment, on the subject of the letter I had written:

“What – you are denouncing the protocol! That is not permitted! It is deplorable!”

Yes, but I can read to you quickly a few extracts from the letter I wrote; it was the 6th of May (see the text of this letter in the documents, together with Cardinal Ratzinger’s reply). Enclosed with the Cardinal’s letter was a draft of a letter to be addressed to the Pope, in which I was to ask forgiveness – not for this, but for everything that had been done during the past thirteen years, for whatever wrongs I might have committed, even in all good faith. It is they who write this for me to sign; it is not I.

“In all good faith one can commit errors. Therefore I humbly beg you to forgive all that, in my conduct or that of the Society, may have offended the Vicar of Christ and the Church.”

All these things which had been dropped – they were putting them before our eyes again. The petty harassments which they put before our eyes showed that there was no good will towards us, and that the sole desire of the Holy See was to bring us back to the Council and to the reforms.

Subscribe now

Breaking the news to the Vatican

That is why you have been given the letter which I ultimately wrote to the Pope on the 2nd of June.

“Most Holy Father, the colloquia and discussions with Cardinal Ratzinger and his collaborators, although they took place in an atmosphere of courtesy and charity, have convinced us that the moment for a frank and effective collaboration has not yet arrived…”

… given that the aim of this reconciliation is not at all the same for the Holy See as for us.

I added:

“That is why we shall provide ourselves with the means to pursue the work which Providence has entrusted to us.”

Naturally, alarm at Rome! I then received a letter from the Holy Father, signed by himself, beseeching me to preserve unity – the unity of the Church – not to divide the Church, to remain in fidelity to the Church.

Doctrinal reasons: Different conceptions of truth

But precisely, we are not within the same truth. For them, truth is evolutionary; truth changes with time; and Tradition is Vatican II today.

For us, Tradition is what the Church has taught from the Apostles down to our own day.

For them, no: Tradition is Vatican II, which sums up in itself everything that was said before. The historical circumstances are such that now one must believe what Vatican II has done. What happened before no longer exists. It belongs to the past. That is why the Cardinal does not hesitate to say:

“The Second Vatican Council is an anti-Syllabus.”2

One wonders how a cardinal of the Holy Church can say that the Second Vatican Council is an anti-Syllabus – a very official act of Pope Pius IX in the encyclical Quanta Cura. It is unimaginable.

I said one day to Cardinal Ratzinger:

“Eminence, we must choose: either religious liberty as it is in the Council, or the Syllabus of Pius IX. They are contradictory, and one must choose.”

Then he said to me:

“But Your Grace, we are no longer in the time of the Syllabus.”

“Ah!” I said.

“So truth changes with time! Then what you tell me today, tomorrow it will no longer be true. There is no longer any way of reaching an understanding; we are in a continual evolution. It becomes impossible to speak.”

They have this in their minds. He repeated to me:

“There is now only one Church: it is the Church of Vatican II. Vatican II represents Tradition.”

Unfortunately, the Church of Vatican II sets itself against Tradition. It is not the same thing.

So the Pope beseeches me not to shatter the unity of the Church. He threatens me with canonical penalties if I carry out these consecrations on the 30th of June next.

I confess to you that the atmosphere in which the colloquia preceding the drafting of the protocol unfolded, and then the facts which have befallen those who rallied to Rome, give cause for reflection.

The fate reserved for those who rallied

I take the example of Dom Augustin, who has a convent at Flavigny in which there are twenty-four priests whom I myself ordained – Benedictines – and who leaves me and says to me:

“Your Grace, I can no longer remain with you; I am rallying to Rome; I am returning to obedience with Rome; I cannot remain with you.”

Very well. He rallied to Rome with the hope that they would preserve for him the Tradition which he would keep in his monastery – that is to say, the traditional Mass for his monks, for the conventual Mass. Well, Rome required that for the conventual Mass it should be the Mass of the Council, and not the old Mass. Instead of saying to us: you may keep Tradition – they change Tradition.

Let us take a second example: another monastery, Fontgombault. They had accepted, out of obedience, to keep the new Mass for fifteen years, because the bishops had said it was necessary to adopt the new Mass; and they did so. Then comes the indult from Rome: all those who had accepted the new Mass would henceforth be permitted to say the old Mass. This applied perfectly to Fontgombault. Refusal from the Archbishop of Bourges. You cannot say the old Mass for the conventual Mass. You must keep the new Mass – that is how it is. The Abbot of Fontgombault goes to see Monsignor Mayer at the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome, who says to him: “You know, it is difficult; try to see the Pope.” The Pope sends him back to Cardinal Mayer, saying: “Make an effort; perhaps we can arrange something…” Cardinal Mayer ends by sending him back to the Bishop of Bourges, and they still have the new Mass for the conventual Mass.

And yet they perfectly fulfilled the conditions of the indult.

We cannot have confidence; it is not possible. And I shall cite you a final example: an extraordinary example.

The real ‘Naughty Nine’ (not who you think)

You have no doubt heard – and you wrote some articles in the newspapers two years ago – about the defectors from Écône, the famous defectors from Écône! Nine seminarians had left from here, from Écône. The one who was the ringleader, so to speak, of this little rebellion – the abbé – had remained in the seminary for a certain time; he concealed his game well, and managed to persuade eight other seminarians to leave Écône. He put himself in contact with Fr Grégoire Billot, who is here in Switzerland, at Baden; this Fr Billot is himself in contact with Cardinal Ratzinger; he speaks German. He telephoned Cardinal Ratzinger:

“There you are – there are at Écône nine seminarians who are ready to leave. What do you promise them? What do you do with them?”

Oh, it is marvellous! A unique opportunity! If they are promised the earth, there will be others who will come. He said it explicitly. Cardinal Ratzinger said it:

“I am glad that some have left Écône, and I very much hope that others will follow the first.”

You know very well: they set up the famous seminary Mater Ecclesiae, directed by a cardinal – Cardinal Innocenti – with Cardinal Garrone and a third cardinal, Cardinal Ratzinger, approved by the Pope officially in L’Osservatore Romano. A worldwide affair. Every newspaper in the world spoke of this traditional seminary, made with the defectors from Écône, and which would likewise bring together seminarians who had the same sensibility.

They went there, and found themselves perhaps twenty seminarians.

I assure you that it is worth reading the letter which the abbé – who was the instigator of the departure of these seminarians – has just sent us these past few days. He writes: “I regret” – in large letters at the head of his letter.

“I regret. We have lost everything. Not a single promise has been kept. We are wretches. We do not even know where to go any more.”

Well, there you have it, for people who wished to rally to Rome! That is going to be our case. We are more and more convinced of it. The more we reflect upon the atmosphere of these colloquia, the more we realise that we are being led into a trap, that we are being trapped, and that tomorrow they will tell us: henceforth the traditional Mass is finished; you must accept the new Mass as well; you must not be against the new Mass. That, they have told us.

Subscribe now

The expectations of Rome

Here is an example which Cardinal Ratzinger gave:

“For instance, at Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, Your Grace – when the protocol is signed, when matters are settled, it is evident that Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet is not going to remain as it is now. – Why? – Because Saint-Nicolas is a parish of Paris and falls under Cardinal Lustiger. Consequently, it will be absolutely necessary that in the parish of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet there be a new Mass regularly, every Sunday. One cannot accept that the parishioners who desire a new Mass should be unable to go to their parish for that new Mass.”

You see! That is the beginning of the introduction: accept the new Mass; bring us into line… It is not possible! We feel ourselves caught in a mechanism from which we can no longer escape.

Inextricable difficulties will arise with the bishops, with the movements of the dioceses which will insist that we collaborate with them if we are recognised by Rome. We shall have every difficulty possible and imaginable. So that is why I think, and it seemed to me in conscience, that I could not continue. I decided… Hence my letter of the 2nd of June to the Holy Father, and the announcement of the consecration of the four bishops, which will take place on the 30th of June.

You have, on a sheet which has been distributed to you, the particulars regarding these future bishops.

What does all this mean? Archbishop Lefebvre on excommunication and schism

The Osservatore Romano will probably publish the excommunication, a declaration of schism, naturally. What does all that mean?

Bon. Excommunication by whom?

By a modernist Rome. By a Rome which no longer fully holds the Catholic faith, which no longer thinks in a Catholic way, which no longer acts in a Catholic way.

One cannot say that when there is a gathering such as Assisi, one is still Catholic. It is not possible. One cannot say that, when there is Kyoto, and the declarations which were made to the Jews at the Synagogue, and the ceremony which took place at Santa Maria in Trastevere last year, no? In the heart of Rome! C’est scandaleux, absolumment scandaleux. It is not Catholic any more.

So we are excommunicated, by the modernists: by the people who have been condemned by the previous popes.

Alors, what could that really do to us? We are condemned by people who are themselves condemned, because they are people who should condemned publicly. Alors, it is indifferent to us. It hasn’t, it has no value, obviously.

Declaration of schism. Schism with what? Schism with the Pope, successor of Peter? Non.

Schism with the modernist Pope? Oui.

Schism with the ideas which the Pope spreads everywhere – the ideas of the Revolution, modern ideas, no? Oui. We are in schism with that. We do not accept it, of course.

We personally have no intention whatsoever of a rupture with Rome. We wish to be united to the Rome of all time, and we are convinced that we are united to the Rome of all time, because in our seminaries, in our preaching, in our whole life and the life of the Christians who follow us, we continue the traditional life as it was before the Second Vatican Council and as it was lived for twenty centuries. So I do not see why we should be in rupture with Rome because we do what Rome herself counselled be done for twenty centuries. That is not possible.

That is the present situation. It must be properly understood, so as not to quibble over it.

The judgment of God

One might think: you had a bishop – that is good. You could have had a few more members on the Roman council.

But that is not what concerns us. It is the fundamental problem which is always behind us and which frightens us. We do not wish to be collaborators in the destruction of the Church. I wrote in my book Open Letter to Perplexed Catholics – I concluded with this:

“I do not want, when the good Lord calls me back, that He should say to me: what have you done down there on earth? You contributed to demolishing the Church too?”

It is not true. I have not contributed to demolishing the Church. I have contributed to building it. Those who are demolishing it are those who spread ideas which destroy the Church and which were condemned by my predecessors. That is the heart of these events.

These events which we are about to live through in the coming days will of course cause much talk, and there will be a tremendous crowd at the ceremony of the 30th of June for the consecration of these four young bishops who will be at the service of the Society. Well! These four bishops will be at the service of the Society – there you have it.

The one who will in principle have the responsibility for relations with Rome when I am gone will be the Superior General of the Society, Fr Schmidberger, who still has six years of his generalate to serve. It is he who will eventually have the contacts with Rome henceforth, to continue the colloquia – if they continue, or if contact is maintained – which is unlikely for some time, since in the Osservatore Romano the headline will read: “Schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, excommunication…”

For a number of years – perhaps two years, three years, I do not know – there will be a separation.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Écône, 15 June 1988.3

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

STOP PRESS: SSPX Superior General responds to excommunications

Fri, 03 Jul 2026 16:29:49 GMT

Image from Séminaire Saint-Pie X – Écône, YouTube (Fair Use). As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

Fr Davide Pagliarani has responded to the sanctions levelled against the SSPX.

(WM Round-Up) – Just after publishing our article ‘Heretics REALLY can’t excommunicate: More clarifications in light of SSPX excommunications’, Fr Davide Pagliarani’s responseto the sanctions levelled against the SSPX was published.

Niwa Limbu of Ad Vaticanum has broken the SSPX Superior General’s response to the decree of excommunication, 2 July 2026.

@RealAdVaticanum ","username":"NiwaLimbu1988","name":"Niwa Limbu","profile_image_url":"https://pbs.substack.com/profile_images/1956370197431902208/_dnW7SKL_normal.jpg","date":"2026-07-03T15:04:54.000Z","photos":[{"img_url":"https://pbs.substack.com/media/HMT9BozWsAALDSy.jpg","link_url":"https://t.co/M2IPI04HcH"},{"img_url":"https://pbs.substack.com/media/HMT9B-jWcAEJmfF.jpg","link_url":"https://t.co/M2IPI04HcH"},{"img_url":"https://pbs.substack.com/media/HMT9CLiWgAA-G1L.jpg","link_url":"https://t.co/M2IPI04HcH"}],"quoted_tweet":{},"reply_count":4,"retweet_count":9,"like_count":64,"impression_count":2343,"expanded_url":null,"video_url":null,"video_preview_media_key":null,"belowTheFold":false}" data-component-name="Twitter2ToDOM">

Fr Pagliarani describes the sanctions as “objectively unjust and invalid”, although he does not explain the grounds for this conclusion. He maintains the “filial” tone which has characterised his interventions with regard to the consecrations.

We present the text here, followed by the response of the SSPX District Superiors in 1988 for historical interest.

See also:

Should we care what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say?

Subscribe now

Letter to Leo XIV

From Fr Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the SSPX

3 July 2026

Society of Saint Pius X
The Superior General

To His Holiness
Pope Leo XIV

Ecône, 3 July 2026

Among yourselves, if a father is asked by his son for bread, will he give him a stone? Or for a fish, will he give him a snake instead of a fish? Or if he is asked for an egg, will he give him a scorpion? Why then, if you, evil as you are, know well enough how to give your children what is good for them, is not your Father much more ready to give, from heaven, his gracious Spirit to those who ask him? (Lk XI, 11-13)

Most Holy Father,

The notification of the decision taken by the Holy See regarding the Society of Saint Pius X, signed by His Eminence Cardinal Fernández, has reached us and is now a matter of public knowledge.

It appears to us that this decision once more brings to light the profoundly tragic context in which the universal Church finds herself. What the Society of Saint Pius X has done, and will continue to do, is nothing other than an extraordinary initiative for the salvation of souls, amidst the doctrinal and moral confusion into which the Church is plunged. We in no way claim to substitute ourselves for the Church, and we have no ambition other than to remain faithful to her.

In conscience, we did not believe we could evade the moral duty we owe to souls, as we have already explained, both privately and publicly, to Your Holiness.

We had asked for bread, that is to say, a measure of understanding for a sincere case of conscience—an act of fatherhood directed not so much toward the Society of Saint Pius X as toward souls, promising You to form them into true sons of the Roman Church; unfortunately, we received a stone.

We had asked for a fish, that is to say, the possibility of temporarily obtaining the necessary means to continue forming good priests, so that they might pursue their mission of making Our Lord known to souls; unfortunately, we received a serpent.

We had asked for an egg, promising to return it as soon as possible. Indeed, the holy Tradition that we preserve within souls belongs to the Church, our Mother—and not to the Society of Saint Pius X—and we are certain that one day a Pope will wish to employ it for the good of the universal Church; unfortunately, we received a scorpion.

We had asked to be instructed and confirmed in the faith of all time; instead, we have been declared schismatic a second time.

Despite the sanctions levelled against us, the Society of Saint Pius X sincerely renews the promise it has already expressed to Your Holiness. Allow me, in this regard, to freely reiterate what I have previously stated:

“The Society promises You […] to devote all its energies to preserving Tradition and placing it at the service of the Church. In doing so, the Society of Saint Pius X does not merely maintain ancient customs; it fosters and preserves priestly vocations, religious vocations, and large, deeply Christian families—in a word, everything that manifests the vitality of the Church, of grace, and of the Catholic faith. Our intention is not to offer the Church a museum of antiquities, but rather the entirety of Tradition: fruitful, a source of spiritual life, embodied and lived out within souls.
[...] I am certain that one day You yourself, or one of Your successors, will be able and willing to utilise this service, the offering of which, within the Church and for the Church, constitutes our sole reason for being.” (Personal letter addressed to His Holiness on 21 November 2025)

But above all, the Society of Saint Pius X promises You today that it will not receive these new sanctions—objectively unjust and invalid—with bitterness or revolt.

These recent condemnations, like those of the past, strike at what we hold most dear: our attachment to our Mother, the Roman Church. Yet, even in this trial, all things must work together for the good of souls and of the Church herself. Therefore, these condemnations compel us to love Holy Church even more, and to provide for her needs with all our strength, now more than ever. For this very reason, the Society of Saint Pius X willingly offers up the suffering caused by these new sanctions for the good of the universal Church and of Your Holiness.

We are certain that one day You yourself, or one of Your successors, will wish to adopt the program of Saint Pius X: “To restore all things in Christ,” Instaurare omnia in Christo. On that day, the Holy Father will discover in the Society of Saint Pius X not a nest of serpents and scorpions, but a small army of loyal sons, ready to do anything to sustain Him in the restoration of all things in Our Lord, and to vindicate before all mankind the imprescriptible rights of Christ the King over all souls and over all nations.

On that day, the Holy Father will discover, with great joy and profound consolation, authentically Catholic souls whose bond with the Church was never founded upon the shifting sands of an ambiguous dialogue, but upon the rock of the faith of Peter.

We ask the Most Holy Virgin Mary to hasten the dawning of that day, and we pray, above all, that Your Holiness may experience this joy and consolation as soon as possible.

In the meantime, if You are able, despite Your recent decision, bless us as Your sons. For us, nothing has changed, and nothing ever will change.

Trusting in Divine Providence, from which nothing is hidden and which reads into the depths of every man’s heart,

I remain, Most Holy Father, your most devoted son in the Lord.

D. Pagliarani

Don Davide Pagliarani

Subscribe now

Historical: Open letter from the Superiors of the SSPX (1988)

To Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops,

6 July 1988
Published in Fideliter N° 64 July-August 1988, pp. 11-12.
Translated by The WM Review

Archival photo of the superiors with Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, on the occasion of this Open Letter (6 July 1988) – fair use.

Your Eminence,

United around their Superior General, the Superiors of the districts, seminaries, and autonomous houses of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X deem it right to express respectfully to you the following reflections.

You have thought it necessary, by your letter of the past 1 July, to make known to His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, to His Excellency Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, and to the four bishops whom they consecrated on 30 June last at Écône, their excommunication latæ sententiæ. Judge for yourselves, therefore, the worth of such a declaration coming from an authority which, in its exercise, breaks with that of all its predecessors up to Pope Pius XII, in the worship, the teaching, and the government of the Church.

For our part, we are in full communion with all the popes and all the bishops who preceded the Second Vatican Council, celebrating exactly the Mass which they codified and celebrated, teaching the catechism which they composed, and standing firm against the errors which they many times condemned in their encyclicals and pastoral letters. Judge, therefore, on which side the rupture lies. We are deeply grieved by the blindness of mind and the hardness of heart of the Roman authorities.

On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to that system which styles itself the “Conciliar Church,” and which defines itself by the Novus Ordo Missæ, by indifferentist ecumenism, and by the secularisation of the whole of society. Yes, we have no part — nullam partem habemus — with the pantheon of religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of your Eminence or of another dicastery would be only the irrefutable proof of this.

We would ask for nothing better than to be declared ex communione from the adulterous spirit which has blown through the Church for twenty-five years, excluded from the impious communion with unbelievers. We believe in the one God, our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we shall ever remain faithful to his one Spouse, the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church.

To be therefore publicly associated with the sanction which strikes the six Catholic bishops, defenders of the faith in its integrity and totality, would be for us a mark of honour and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. For these faithful indeed have a strict right to know that the priests to whom they turn do not belong to the communion of a counterfeit Church – evolving, Pentecostal, and syncretist. United with these faithful, we make our own the words of the prophet (1 Kings vii, 3):

Preparate corda vestra Domino et servite Illi Soli: et liberabit vos de manibus inimicorum vestrorum. Convertimini ad Eum in toto corde vestro, et auferte deos alienos de medio vestri.
“Attach your heart firmly to the Lord and serve him alone: and he will deliver you from the hands of your enemies. It is with all your heart that you must return to God; put away from among you the strange gods.”

Confident in the protection of her, she who has crushed all heresies throughout the whole world, we beg you, Eminence, to accept the assurance of our devotion to him who is the only way of salvation.

At Écône, 6 July 1988.

There then follows the signatures of the Superior General and of all the Superiors of the districts, seminaries, and autonomous houses of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X throughout the whole world:

Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior General
Fr. Paul Aulagnier, District Superior, France
Fr. Franz-Josef Maessen, District Superior, Germany
Fr. Edward Black, District Superior, Great Britain
Fr. Anthony Esposito, District Superior of Italy
Fr. François Laisney, District Superior, United States
Fr. Jacques Emily, District Superior of Canada
Fr. Jean Michel Faure, District Superior of Mexico
Fr. Gerard Hogan, District Superior of Australasia
Fr. Alain Lorans, Superior, Seminary of Ecône
Fr. Jean Paul André, Superior, Seminary of France
Fr. Paul Natterer, Superior, Seminary of Germany
Fr. Andrès Morello, Superior, Seminary of Argentina
Fr. William Welsh, Superior, Seminary of Australia
Fr. Michel Simoulin, Rector, St. Pius X University
Fr. Patrice Laroche, Vice-Rector, Seminary of Ecône
Fr. Philippe François, Superior, Belgium
Fr. Roland de Mérode, Superior, Netherlands
Fr. Georg Pflüger, Superior, Austria
Fr. Guillaume Devillers, Superior, Spain
Fr. Philippe Pazat, Superior, Portugal
Fr. Daniel Couture, Superior, Ireland
Fr. Patrick Groche, Superior, Gabon
Fr. Frank Peek, Superior, Southern Africa

Taken from de Fideliter N° 64 July-August 1988, pp. 11-12.

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Donate

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

If you liked this article, why not get it in mug form?

Get your Archbishop Lefebvre Mug today:

Lovely Lefebvre Mug

Heretics REALLY can't excommunicate: More clarifications in light of SSPX excommunications

S.D. Wright — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 16:11:19 GMT

Image from Séminaire Saint-Pie X – Écône, YouTube (Fair Use). As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

Some clarifications about a principle which seems ‘too good to be true’ – but is true, nonetheless.

STOP PRESS:

Just after publishing this article, Fr Davide Pagliarani has responded to the sanctions levelled against the SSPX.

You can find the response here:

Introduction

On the 30^th June, the day before the SSPX’s episcopal consecrations, I published an explanation of why heretics are unable to excommunicate – along with a translation of Causa XXIV, Quest. I, from Gratian’s Decretum, which deals with this topic.

Some of the texts which state this are as follows:

C. IV. [Audivimus] An excommunicated person cannot excommunicate another.
[Pope Alexander II writing to Bishop Valerius the Martyr]
We have heard that Henry, called Archbishop of Ravenna, has attempted to excommunicate you. But since, being excommunicated, he could not excommunicate you, by apostolic authority we command you, absolving you and your people, never to trouble yourselves about it.

C. XXXV. From the moment a bishop teaches things contrary to the faith, he cannot despoil another.
[Pope Nicholas writing to the Emperor Michael (Letter VII)]
Pope Celestine says, writing to the Eastern bishops:
“If anyone has been excommunicated or stripped of the dignity of bishop or cleric by Bishop Nestorius, or by others who follow him, from the time they began to preach such things, it is manifest that this person has persisted and does persist in our communion; and we do not consider him removed, because the sentence of one who had already shown himself deserving of removal could not remove anyone.”

C. XXXVI. Those who are excommunicated by heretics are not to be considered excommunicated.
(The same [Pope Nicholas], to the Clergy of Constantinople cited Pope St Celestine again, as follow.)
“The authority of our See has openly decreed that no bishop, nor cleric, nor anyone of any Christian profession, who has been cast down from communion or from his position by Nestorius or those like him, from the time they began to preach such things, is to be regarded as having been cast out or excommunicated; but all of these continue to this day in our communion, because one who wavered in preaching such things could not cast down or remove anyone.
“Do you understand, Emperor, from the above-mentioned authorities, that those who had themselves long since been removed could not remove – I will not say their own superior – but anyone at all; nor could those already prostrate cast down anyone else?”

The application of this is clear.

Paul VI and his successors, and their collaborators, have habitually preached heresy
But those who habitually preach heresy are unable to excommunicate
Therefore, Paul VI and his successors, and their collaborators, are unable to excommunicate.

These texts and others are addressed here:

Some find this argument hard to believe – perhaps because it seems “too good to be true”, or too contrary to the voluntaristic authoritarianism – ultimately a form of liberalism – that has infected many minds. Some also fear where such arguments may lead.

In this article, we shall address these points, and consider:

Exactly what Cardinal Fernández did on 2 July 2026
Certain disputed points about heretics excommunicating
What this means for ‘non-sedevacantists’
Certain objections which need to be answered.

Subscribe now

What Cardinal Fernández did on 2 July 2026

The explanations I published were considering the possibility that the Vatican would issue a condemnatory sentence of excommunication against the other members of the SSPX, or the faithful who associate with them.

A declaratory sentence states that an automatic excommunication has already been incurred, and changes aspects of how the penalty is to be observed; a condemnatory sentence, however, imposes an excommunication in its own right.

The latter is not exactly what we saw on 2 July 2026. Instead, we see in the Decree that:

Card. Fernández declared that Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and the four new bishops had incurred an automatic excommunication for the 1 July episcopal consecrations themselves (Can. 1387, CIC 2021), which he described as “an act of a schismatic nature” – referring also to the canons which define the delict of schism and penalise it (Can. 751, Can. 1364 §1, CIC 2021)
He also declared that Bishop Bernard Fellay had incurred an automatic excommunication for the delict of schism (Can. 1364, CIC 1983), due to acting as the co-consecrator on 1 July
He warned priests and faithful “not to adhere to the schism of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X”, because this would result in the incurring of automatic excommunication.

Fernández stated that the consecrations “constituted the delict of schism”, and that:

The sacred ministers of the SSPX “are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics”, and excommunicated; and
The laity “who formally adhere” to the SSPX “are to be regarded as schismatics and excommunicated.”
The sacraments of the SSPX were illicit, and that the sacraments of penance and marriage are invalid (implicitly revoking permissions granted by Francis).

Leaving aside the question of the sacraments, Fernández’s measures can be reduced to three main headings:

Declaring automatic excommunication against the Bishops involved on 1 July
Designating the SSPX as a schismatic group, principally on the basis of the consecrations, but also on grounds set out in a 1996 document
Establishing, on the basis of that designation, that those who “formally adhere” to the SSPX (viz., all clerics, and some laymen) now incur an automatic excommunication for schism (Can. 1364, CIC 1983).

The Church’s teaching, which we shall revisit in this article, is clear.

Fernández – and, for the same reason, Leo XIV and his collaborators – are unable to excommunicate, because they habitually preach heresy. By analogy, they are unable to issue declaratory sentences of automatic excommunications, or to designate organisations as schismatic sects, such that others incur automatic excommunications by involvement with them.

We leave aside, for now, the question of whether these measures were defective in some procedural manner, and take them on face value.

Further, for the sake of argument, we can admit that the six bishops could have incurred the automatic penalty for participating in the episcopal consecrations without a Roman mandate, as this penalty is established in law.1 However, whether the penalty is actually incurred will depend upon whether the act is actually imputable as a crime, as well as the absence of reasons which prevent the penalty being incurred (cf. can. 2218, CIC 1917). Our personal view is that episcopal consecrations without pontifical mandate are broadly justified by the crisis in the Church and the extended vacancy of the Holy See – but even if this were to be incorrect, there is no way that Leo XIV and his collaborators can impose penalties on others.

Clarification of my position: Is this a ‘sedevacantist’ argument?

I have been pleased to see this argument gain traction since the publication of the essays on 30^th June.

, of Integrity Magazine, stated the following:

However, Kokx was challenged on this argument on at least two grounds.

The first ground was that of ignorance: those who are unaware of the tradition of the Church on this matter alleged that that argument is essentially wishful thinking, or a refusal to recognise legitimate authority.

This ground is, of course, worthless. These challengers should make themselves aware of the texts we have made available.

The second ground of challenge was stated in the following terms:

“No ability to excommunicate = no jurisdiction = Leo is not Pope = sede vacante.”

But is this true? Does the principle in question necessarily mean that the heretic has no jurisdiction?

St Thomas Aquinas thought so. He wrote:

“[T]he power of jurisdiction is that which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Such a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably: so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid.
“Accordingly when it is said that such like persons [schismatics] have no spiritual power, it is to be understood as referring either to the second power [viz., jurisdictional], or if it be referred to the first power [viz., sacramental], not as referring to the essence of the power, but to its lawful use.”2

St Robert Bellarmine also thought so, adding that this deprivation of jurisdiction also entailed a loss of office. He specifically referred to the texts in the Decretum in his treatment of the “heretical pope” question. They formed part of his evidence that “the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ‘ipso facto’ deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

Bellarmine also refers to these texts and C. IV Audivimus elsewhere, when he wrote:

“Moreover it is certain, whatever one or another might think, a secret heretic, if he might be a Bishop, or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or the name of the head in the Church, until either he separates himself publicly from the Church, or being convicted of heresy is separated against his will; for this reason, Celestine and Nicholas say (loc. cit.) that a heretical Bishop, to the extent that he began to preach heresy, could bind and loose no one although without a doubt if he had already conceived the error, were it before he began to preach publicly, he could still bind and loose.
“The fact is likewise confirmed from the canon Audivimus, 24, quaest. 1, where we read: ‘But if he will have devised a new heresy in their heart, to the extent that he begins to preach such things, he can condemn no man.’”3

Cardinal Juan de Turrecremata OP also referred to these texts and principles in the same context, as I demonstrated in a previous article. As well as affirming the principle they enshrine – that one who preaches heresy cannot bind or loose another – he also used this principle to conclude the following:

“Whence, properly speaking, a pope is not deposed by a council on account of heresy, but rather is declared not to be pope, when it is shown that he has fallen into heresy and perseveres in it obstinately and incorrigibly. Whence the Gloss on cap. 1, extra, De schismaticis, on the word careant firmitate, says: ‘Because when the Church has a heretical or schismatic pastor, it is understood to be vacant,’ above, De praescrip., cap. 1. But that one who has pertinaciously fallen into heretical depravity is deprived ipso iure of all ecclesiastical power, we shall show more fully, God helping, in the fourth book of this work, when the discussion concerns heretics.”4

The seventeenth century moral theologian Juan Azor SJ, also referred to the principle and Audivimus in the following:

“It is asked, first, whether the Roman Pontiff who has fallen into heresy loses the Pontifical power by right.
“[T]he Church is the congregation of the faithful, c. Ecclesia, de consec. dist. 1; therefore a heretic is outside the Church, and consequently is not reckoned a member of the Church. How, then, can he be head of the Church who is not a member of the Church?
“Finally, the same conclusion appears to be deduced from c. Quod autem, c. Achasius, c. Audivimus, 24. q. 1; c. Omnis qui recedit, c. Didicimus, and § His auctoribus, same cause and question — in which places it is laid down that heretics possess no right and no power; and because a heretic is excommunicated by divine right, according to those words of Christ the Lord: ‘Let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican’ (Matt. 18:17), if he will not hear the Church.”

Azor’s text is reproduced in the works of the nineteenth century canonists Eugène Roquette de Malvies and D. Craisson to the same effect.5

Subscribe now

Based on these authorities, I concluded the following in the previous article:

“[S]uch an argument would only make sense on behalf of the SSPX if they wish to recognise that Leo XIV is a heretic – and accept the consequences of such a conclusion.
“Without such a recognition, it is difficult to see how they could consistently disregard a positive condemnation of excommunication from him and those whom he has putatively empowered.”

I stand by this. However, there are a number of points to observe.

First, let us note how these authorities proceed.

The tradition enshrined in the Decretum – that heretics cannot excommunicate – is the primary fact, and the primary certainty. It is the datum used to reach other conclusions.
The conclusion that this inability is based on a loss of office is an explanation of that primary fact, and it is based on subsequent reasoning.

I believe that this reasoning is correct, and that we can and should follow St Robert Bellarmine and the others in their interpretation.

However, we must acknowledge that terms like “jurisdiction” admitted of a variety of different terms, and that as a result, these texts are sometimes explained in ways that appear to contradict Bellarmine’s interpretation. For example, Gratian himself states that “both powers” – viz. that the power of baptising and the power of office – remain in heretics.”6 He also states that “the power of office is one thing, and its execution another”, and that sometimes the latter is taken away without the former.

“To consecrate follows on the power of the character, which is indelible… but it is different with excommunication, which follows on jurisdiction, which can be taken away and bound.”8

Further, Rev. Joaquin M. Alonso CMF explains that St Thomas’ concept of jurisdiction “does not exactly coincide with that of contemporary canonists and ecclesiologists”,9 and that the Angelic Doctor sometimes employs the term jurisdiction or power of office to indicate a radical capacity for jurisdiction (which, being rooted in Holy Orders, cannot be lost), or the exercise of jurisdiction.10

“Therefore,” Alonso adds, “when one tries to appeal to his authority in the debated question concerning the specific division of powers in the Church, it is perhaps not always done with precision.”11

What is said of St Thomas also applies to the use of terms by others around the same time or before.

Conclusion: Application of the principle is not restricted to ‘sedevacantists’

What can we take from this, with regards to heretics excommunicating?

We can conclude that it is understandable that some may accept the principle that heretics cannot excommunicate, without concluding that heretics have lost office.

It is also understandable that some will hold that merely expressing heretical ideas – even if by mistake, or in good faith – is enough to deprive someone of the ability to excommunicate, without the “excommunicator” being personally heretical.

In short, it is understandable that some will see that Leo XIV et al. do not have the power to excommunicate, without also concluding that the Holy See is vacant. While I think that they should draw this conclusion, I do not think it can be made a condition for recognising and applying the fundamental principle. The same cannot be said, however, for recognising the heretical nature of what is preached.

But while inconsistency might be a mark of error, there is no “Consistency Police Force”; and if there was, my personal views would not be the standard which it would enforce.

I would rather see people hold to the fundamental principle in an inconsistent way, than to reject it – especially if this drives them back to the arms of the modernists.

Subscribe now

Postscript: Answers to objections

Since these articles have been published, a few misunderstandings or objections have been presented.

Obj. 1. The laity are not entitled to be “heretic referees.” Nestorius was later condemned by the Council of Ephesus and the Pope. Therefore, a declaration is necessary in order for us to realise that a given person is a heretic and thus lacks the ability to excommunicate. Otherwise, it would be a kind of Protestantism for the “guy in the pew” to make this judgement.

Resp. 1. On the contrary, St Eusebius was a “man in the pew”, and denounced Nestorius in Church. Further, Pope St Celestine said specifically that Nestorius lacked the ability to excommunicate and depose “from the moment” he began preaching his heresies. This objection is simply a denial of what he said; and his letters were taken up by the tradition of the Church in the way described in these articles. Therefore, the objection falls.

Obj. 2. If this argument was true, anyone could invent an accusation of heresy against a prelate, and thus do whatever he wanted to do. This would be chaos, and therefore it is wrong.

Resp. 2. Such hypothetical consequences are not refutations. Further, we are already living in chaos, and this chaos is principally caused by those who have treated these men as if they have papal authority. Finally, anybody who denies that these men have been preaching heresies for the last sixty years, and compares this to someone inventing an accusation, demonstrates that they are living on another planet.

Obj. 3. The layman has no authority to declare anyone else a heretic. Therefore no one is bound by his judgments, and he is to be ignored.

Resp. 3. Indeed, the layman has no authority to render an authoritative judgment with legal effect or binding upon anyone else. However, he is competent to make a cognitive judgment; indeed, he is bound to do so when presented with teaching which contradicts that to which he is already bound, or told that he is excommunicated, or must desist from a particular line of conduct. He must judge the right thing to do, enlightened by faith, prudence and conscience.

Further, there is no reason for him to be ignored; on the contrary, his arguments should be refuted if they are false.

Obj. 4. This theory is very convenient for you. Therefore this theory is wrong.

Resp. 4. This is a worthless objection in itself. As an argument, it does not follow (the hidden minor premise to make it follow would need to be “That which is convenient for you is wrong”, which is obvious nonsense). It is also implicitly blasphemous, in that it suggests that Christ’s Church must function solely on inconvenience; whereas in fact, faith is the foundation of Christ’s Church, and it is very fitting that there be convenient solutions for problems relating to heresy, which is opposed to faith.

Obj. 5. It does not matter how bad the authority is. It is the authority, and you must accept it.

Resp. 5. We agree that the person holding authority can be morally bad. But the question is not about the morality of the person, but whether he is a heretic, and/or whether he teaches that which is heretical.

We should respond to such an objection by saying that it presupposes an entirely voluntaristic and naturalistic notion of authority, and thereby shows itself to be faulty.

Obj. 6. You are saying that papal authority only applies when you agree with the Pope.

Resp. 6. No, I am saying that we are obliged to assent to divine revelation and the teaching of the Church. When someone, even a prelate, attempts to impose propositions upon us which are contrary to what we are already bound to believe, we are obliged to either reject the new teaching in favour of the old, or the old in favour of the new. It is not possible to hold two contradictory propositions at the same time. Further, this is precisely what St Paul tells us to do in Galatians, and the saints and theologians have interpreted him in precisely this way.

Obj. 7. You are a Protestant, because you believe in a “right of scrutiny” over papal teaching.

Resp. 7. See Mgr Guérard des Lauriers’ treatment of this issue below:

‘The Right of Scrutiny’ and the drawing of consequences

Fr (later Bishop) Guérard des Lauriers. Cahiers de Cassicicum, n. 1.

We can now see in what sense it may be affirmed that: “every Catholic exercises a legitimate right of scrutiny over Authority and over the form of its decrees.”

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Give a gift subscription

EXCOMMUNICATED – Vatican declares SSPX bishops and priests 'schismatics' and excommunicated, threatens laity

S.D. Wright — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 13:48:07 GMT

Image from Séminaire Saint-Pie X – Écône, YouTube (Fair Use). As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

Leo XIV’s Vatican has issued a statement declaring that the six bishops and priests are in schism and excommunicated.

(WM Round-Up) – Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, the supposed Prefect of the “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith”, has issued a decree of excommunication against the SSPX, accompanied by an explanatory note.

While some are claiming that the provisions of this decree go further than those of 1988, this does not seem to be the case. Its provisions are, in some cases, stated with greater clarity or certainty – but the common opinions about the 1988 excommunications appears to be incorrect.

You can read my analysis of the differences and similarities here.

History repeating itself? A closer look at the Vatican’s SSPX excommunications

The summary of this analysis was as follows:

Thus, the 2026 does not really seem to establish a different situation to that which was in force between 1988 and 2009, except insofar as the provisions it seeks to impose are stated with greater clarity and certainty.
All the “sacred ministers” of the SSPX – the bishops, as well as priests and other ministers – are now clearly stated to be in schism with the Vatican, and excommunicated.
It no longer merely “seems beyond doubt”, as it was said in 1996, that the sacred ministers of the SSPX “formally adhere” to Archbishop Lefebvre’s “schism”: the new decree now simply says that the ministers “are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics […] being subject to the excommunication provided for by law.”
The documents do not directly discuss the status of brothers, religious of either sex, or members of the Third Order; but line of argument would seem to include them.
Some of the laity “are to be regarded as schismatics and excommunicated”
The situation of the laity is identical to that following 1988: it is conditional on “formal adherence”1 (as defined in the 1996 document), and expressed with only a little more clarity or certainty: “[T]hose who formally adhere to the [SSPX] under the conditions established [in 1996], still in force, which this Dicastery makes its own, are to be regarded as schismatics and excommunicated.”
Permissions for the valid confessions and marriages appear to have been revoked.

Regarding the last point: Being without authority himself, the provisions of Francis did not cause any intrinsic change to the validity of these sacraments. However, the SSPX will now have to return the arguments previously employed with regard to the validity of these sacraments – arguments which certain parties associated with the SSPX have, to some extent undermined in the course of defending the Bergoglian provisions.

However, all this is null and void – for the following reason.

Heretics cannot excommunicate

As I have been explaining over the last few days, Pope St Celestine and others, which holds that the preachers of heresy are unable to excommunicate others. He wrote the following of the heretic Nestorius:

If anyone has been excommunicated or stripped of the dignity of bishop or cleric by Bishop Nestorius, or by others who follow him, from the time they began to preach such things, it is manifest that this person has persisted and does persist in our communion; and we do not consider him removed, because the sentence of one who had already shown himself deserving of removal could not remove anyone. (Emphasis added)

This letter, and others from St Celestine expressing the same doctrine, were taken up by later saints, doctors, theologians and canonists: the doctrine was considered something “easily proved“, and used to derive conclusions on other disputed matters.

In other words, the problem is on the side of those issuing the excommunications and not on the injustice of the penalty or the righteousness of those unjustly excommunicated. This is why the previously mentioned article concludes as follows:

[I]t is certain that those who preach heresy are unable to excommunicate. But Leo XIV and many of his collaborators preach heresy. Therefore, they are unable to excommunicate. They are similarly unable to issue declaratory sentences of automatic excommunications, or to designate groups as schismatic sects such that those “formally adhering” to them incur an automatic excommunication.

The question of whether the automatic excommunication for consecrating bishops without Roman mandate applies today, in the extended vacancy of the Holy See (which is not recognised by the SSPX), is debated. If this penalty did apply, then the bishops involved would indeed incur it.

But even if we conclude that it does not apply, one would have to consider whether one is bound to abide by the effects of a declaratory sentence, even for an excommunication which did not in fact take place. The penalties levelled against the other ministers, the laity, and the organisation itself are also latae sententiae, but are based on the judgement that the SSPX is a schismatic movement; thus, the establishment of these penalties depends on the validity of such a judgement.

The answer to these questions – and to those relating to the priests and laity “formally adhering” to the SSPX – turn not on the justice or validity of the excommunication, but the persons attempting to inflict it.

Readers may find the full explanation of this argument – and its important implications for the alleged legitimacy of Leo XIV and his recent predecessors – in the article below:

The relevant decrees can be found at the end of this article.

Subscribe now

More about 1988’s excommunications

According to canon law, consecration of a bishop without pontifical mandate carries a latae sententiae excommunication for the consecrating and consecrated bishops.

In 1988, the Vatican responded within hours, stating that the six bishops involved (Lefebvre, de Castro Mayer, Fellay, Williamson, de Galarreta and Tissier de Mallerais) had indeed excommunicated themselves. This statement was formalised by the Congregation of Bishops on 1 July 1988.

As mentioned above, common opinion held that this was limited to the bishops – but a closer reading of the Vatican’s texts show that they applied it to the other ministers and even to the laity, even if this was not always enforced (and notwithstanding behaviour appearing to be to the contrary – such as the case of the “Hawaii Six”).

In 1991, soon after the first consecrations, three of the SSPX bishops consecrated Fr Licínio Rangel for the Catholic remnant in the Dioceses of Campos. Both the fourth bishop (Bishop Fellay), and the Superior General (Fr Schmidberger), were in attendance. It is unclear whether permission was sought from the Vatican for this consecration.

Bishop Rangel died in 2002, having come to an agreement with the Vatican in 2001. The Vatican does not appear to have declared Rangel to have been excommunicated for this, nor did the 2009 “lifting” of the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops mention it. However, in 2001, the Vatican did refer to “the excommunication [which Bishop Rangel] incurred on 28 July 1991.” To our knowledge, the Vatican did not declare Bishop Williamson to have incurred excommunication for the episcopal consecrations which he conferred after being ejected from the SSPX.

However, in July 2024, the Vatican did declare Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to have incurred an automatic excommunication – for “the reserved delict of schism”.

Reactions to the 1988 excommunication

In response to the 1988 excommunication, the District Superiors of the SSPX issued a powerful Open Letter, which stated:

“[W]e have never wished to belong to that system which styles itself the ‘Conciliar Church,’ and which defines itself by the Novus Ordo Missæ, by indifferentist ecumenism, and by the secularisation of the whole of society.
“Yes, we have no part – nullam partem habemus – with the pantheon of religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of your Eminence or of another dicastery would be only the irrefutable proof of this.
“We would ask for nothing better than to be declared ex communione from the adulterous spirit which has blown through the Church for twenty-five years, excluded from the impious communion with unbelievers. […]
“To be therefore publicly associated with the sanction which strikes the six Catholic bishops, defenders of the faith in its integrity and totality, would be for us a mark of honour and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful.
“For these faithful indeed have a strict right to know that the priests to whom they turn do not belong to the communion of a counterfeit Church.”

Open Letter from the Superiors of the SSPX – July 1988

While we agree with the sentiment, we cannot agree with the idea that an excommunication by a true Pope can serve as a badge of honour, even if it is only a mistaken declaration of an alleged automatic excommunication which never occurred. The Church has also repeatedly condemned that idea that an unjust excommunication is not something to be feared, and – all things being equal – to be observed, if declared.

But all things are not equal: these declarations are issuing from some of the most monstrous heretics the world has seen. Aside from continued adherence to the “super-heresy” of Vatican II, we could consider the following for Leo XIV alone:

Alleging that a unity of faith exists with heretics, and communion with Muslims
Denying the legitimacy of the death penalty (which he also did on several occasions prior to his election)
Praising the interreligious prayer meeting of Assisi in 1986, and the Abu Dhabi declaration
Denying the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation through his endorsement of his predecessor’s error of the “ecumenism of blood”
Praising Fiducia Supplicans and Amoris Laetitia
Denying the immutability of Catholic dogma, by countenancing the possibility of changes if “attitudes” change
Presenting a naturalistic vision for world politics, along with errors condemned by previous Popes
Preaching the undiluted doctrine of modernism very soon after his election, with what appear to be many deliberate allusions to Pope St. Pius X’s condemnation of the heresy.

Further, there is indeed a schism; but the schism on the side of those who are adhering the heresies and the new, false religion of Vatican II. As Archbishop Lefebvre himself said in 1987:

“Schism?” retorted the Archbishop. “If there is a schism, it is because of what the Vatican did at Assisi and how you replied to our Dubia: the Church is breaking with the traditional Magisterium. But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.”

In short, neither Leo XIV nor Fernández are capable of excommunicating anyone.

Will Fr Pagliarani, or the current district superiors of the SSPX, issue a statement as strong as that of 1988?

This would be surprising, given Fr Pagliarani’s very “fillial” response to Leo XIV’s letter dated 29 June 2026, and the nature of his sermon at the consecrations. However, he did refer to the “exaltation of man” that lies at the heart of the Vatican II religion – and the newly consecrated Bishop Michael Goldade went so far as to call it a “new religion”.

A statement like that of 1988 may be surprising, but surprising things can and do happen.

Subscribe now

RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Prot. N. 99/2009

DECREE

Notwithstanding the warnings addressed to the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, having carried out 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 CIC 2021.

I therefore declare, for all juridical effects, that both the aforesaid Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Marc Hanappier have incurred ipso facto the excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.

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

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

From the Palace of the Dicastery, 2 July 2026

Víctor M. Card. Fernández
Prefect

John J. Kennedy
Titular Archbishop of Ossero, Secretary for the Disciplinary Section

Msgr Armando Matteo
Secretary for the Doctrinal Section

Explanatory Note of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, 02.07.2026

Prot. N. 99/2009

EXPLANATORY NOTE

From the time of Saint Paul VI until the most recent discussions, held recently at this Dicastery, the manifold attempts to bring the adherents of the movement begun by Msgr Marcel Lefebvre back to full communion with the Catholic Church have proved fruitless. 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, deems it necessary to point out that this act has constituted the delict of schism, with the canonical consequences for the sacred ministers and for the lay faithful involved. Indeed, as was 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, Ap. Letter Ecclesia Dei, 3).

In this regard, henceforth:

The sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics (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, 24.08.1996, 5–6), being subject to the excommunication provided for by law (can. 1364 §1 CIC).
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. ibidem, 7), still in force, which this Dicastery makes its own, are to be regarded as schismatics and excommunicated.
The holy People of God are advised, finally, that the sacred ministers of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X administer the sacraments illicitly, and that the sacrament of penance administered by them and marriages assisted by them are invalid.

The Church, as a caring mother, will welcome with sincere affection and heartfelt solicitude all those who wish to return to full communion. The Apostolic Nuncios will have at their disposal the procedures that Ordinaries may employ 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 refrain from participating in celebrations and activities promoted by the aforesaid Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.

From the Palace of the Dicastery, 2 July 2026

Víctor M. Card. Fernández
Prefect

Msgr Armando Matteo
Secretary for the Doctrinal Section

John J. Kennedy
Titular Archbishop of Ossero, Secretary for the Disciplinary Section

[01078-IT.01] [Original text: Italian]

[B0568-XX.01]

Subscribe now

V. On the excommunication for schism incurred by adherents to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre

Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts

Communicationes, 29 [1997] 239–243

Following information recently disseminated by certain media outlets, this Pontifical Council has deemed it appropriate to make publicly available an explanatory Note which it had sent to the Congregation for Bishops.

Vatican City, 24 August 1996

Most Reverend Eminence,

By letter of 26 July of the current year, Prot. N. XXX, Your Most Reverend Eminence forwarded to this Pontifical Council a letter from His Excellency Msgr Norbert Brunner, Bishop of Sion in Switzerland, in which the Prelate — in view of certain confused reports in the press — requested an authoritative interpretation of the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” and of the subsequent Decree of that Congregation concerning the excommunication imposed upon Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the four Bishops ordained by him, and Bishop Emeritus Antonio de Castro. At the same time, Your Eminence requested the opinion of this Dicastery regarding the terms of the reply to be given to the above-mentioned Prelate.

In this regard, I have the honour to inform you that the problem raised by the Ordinary of Sion does not appear to require an authentic interpretation either of the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” of 2 July 1988, or of the Decree of that Congregation for Bishops of 1 July 1988, or of the relevant canons of the CIC: 1364, §1 and 1382.

The Prelate in fact bases his request on needs of a pastoral nature, in order to put an end to erroneous interpretations, but he does not offer any element suggesting the existence or well-founded probability of a genuine “dubium iuris” in the normative provisions of the aforesaid documents — an indispensable condition for an “authentic interpretation.”

Nonetheless, in order to meet the request of that Dicastery, the attached Note offers certain considerations and suggestions, in the hope that they may be of use for the clarifying response which that Congregation intends to give to the Bishop of Sion.

If, on the other hand, the confusion of which the Prelate speaks in his letter were significant from a pastoral point of view — also because it extends to other dioceses and nations where the Lefebvrist movement is active — one might envisage a general declaration by the Holy See, to be prepared in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cf. Note, no. 5).

I take this occasion to confirm myself, with sentiments of profound veneration,

of Your Most Reverend Eminence

the most devoted

Julián Herranz
Titular Archbishop of Vertara
President

Marino Maccarelli
Under-Secretary

NOTE

1. From the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” of 2 July 1988 and from the Decree “Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre” of the Congregation for Bishops, dated 1 July 1988, it appears first of all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate relation to the episcopal ordinations carried out on 30 June 1988 without a pontifical mandate (cf. CIC, can. 1382). Nevertheless, it also appears clearly from the aforesaid documents that this most grave act of disobedience constituted the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic nature.

2. Indeed, no. 4 of the Motu Proprio explains what the “doctrinal root of this schismatic act” was, and no. 5(c) warns that a “formal adherence to the schism” (by which is to be understood “the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre”) would entail the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364, §1). The Decree of the Congregation for Bishops likewise makes explicit reference to the “schismatic nature” of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and recalls the most grave penalty of excommunication that would be entailed by adherence “to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre.”

3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act that gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did nothing other than bring to completion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner — through a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff — a process of distancing from the communio hierarchica. As long as there are no changes leading to the re-establishment of this necessary communio, the entire Lefebvrist movement is to be regarded as schismatic, a formal declaration of the Supreme Authority existing in this regard.

4. No judgement can be offered on the arguments of Murray’s disputed thesis, because it is not known, and the two articles that allude to it appear confused. In any case, the validity of the excommunications of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree cannot reasonably be called into doubt. In particular, it does not seem that any exempting or attenuating circumstance can be found with regard to the imputability of the penalty (cf. CIC, cann. 1323–1324). As for the state of necessity in which Msgr Lefebvre believed himself to be, it should be borne in mind that such a state must be verified objectively, and that there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would indeed signify the possibility of “serving” the Church by means of an attack against her unity in a matter connected with the very foundations of that unity.

5. As the Motu Proprio declares at no. 5(c), the latae sententiae excommunication for schism concerns those who “formally adhere” to the said schismatic movement. Even though the question of the exact scope of the notion of “formal adherence to the schism” ought to be put to the competent Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this Pontifical Council that such adherence must imply two complementary elements:

(a) one of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing in the substance of the schism — that is, in opting for the followers of Lefebvre in such a way 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) another of an external character, consisting in the exteriorisation of that option, the most manifest sign of which will be exclusive participation in Lefebvrist “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, a sign that is not univocal, since it is possible that some of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre without, however, sharing their schismatic spirit).

6. In the case of Lefebvrist deacons and priests, it seems beyond doubt that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two requisites mentioned above (no. 5) are met and that there is therefore a formal adherence.

7. In the case, however, of other faithful, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrist movement, carried out without making one’s own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity of that movement, is not sufficient for one to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice it may prove more difficult to judge their situation. Account must be taken above all of the intention of the person, and of the translation of that interior disposition into acts. The various situations must therefore be judged case by case, in the competent settings of the external forum and the internal forum.

8. In any event, it will always be necessary to distinguish the moral question of whether or not the sin of schism exists from the juridical-penal question of the existence of the delict of schism and its consequent sanction. To the latter, the provisions of Book VI of the CIC are to be applied (including cann. 1323–1324).

9. It does not seem advisable to formalise further (though the competent Dicastery should be consulted on the matter: cf. Ap. Const. “Pastor Bonus,” art. 52) the requirements for the delict of schism. There would perhaps be a risk of creating more problems through a penal-type normative rigidity that does not capture well all the cases: leaving out cases of substantial schism, or encompassing external behaviours that are not always subjectively schismatic.

10. Also from the pastoral point of view, it would seem appropriate to recommend further to the sacred Pastors all the norms of the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” by which the solicitude of the Vicar of Christ encouraged dialogue and the employment of the supernatural and human means necessary to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrists to full ecclesial communion.

Vatican City, 24 August 1996

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

Give a gift subscription

The WM Review

Eastern Orthodoxy? St Gregory the Great and the 'Universal Bishop' title (Brownson)

Editors’ Notes

Why are we publishing this?

St Gregory the Great and the ‘Universal Bishop’ title

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

St Gregory the Great’s rejection of the title of ‘universal bishop’

What St Gregory the Great actually said

The true grounds of the problem with the title of ‘universal bishop’

What this means for the papacy

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Read Next:

'Stripped of jurisdiction by God' – Fr Palmieri SJ on the Pope Question

Editor’s Notes

Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia

Fr Dominico Palmieri SJ

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis EmendataPrati, 1891, pp. 704–709

The following text is for WM+ members.

Eastern Orthodoxy? 'Orthodox proofs' from Chalcedon undermine their own case (Brownson)

Editors’ Notes

‘Orthodox proofs’ from the Council of Chalcedon undermine their own case

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

Back to the twenty-eighth canon

Inadequacy of Guettée’s authorities

Guettée’s dilemma revisited

‘Proofs’ of Orthodoxy prove Catholicism

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Read Next:

Eastern Orthodoxy? No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy (Orestes Brownson)

Editors’ Notes

No, Pope Leo the Great is not a witness against papal primacy

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

The status of Chalcedon and the role of the Pope

The dilemma for the ‘Orthodox’

The attempted escape

Further evidence of the necessity of papal approval

Why St Leo refused the canon

Another contrived escape refuted

Absurd conclusions drawn from the premises

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Read Next:

'They miserably deceive themselves who think they can adhere to the Roman See while resisting the Pontiff' – Fr Palmieri SJ

Editor’s Notes

Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia

Fr Dominico Palmieri SJ

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis EmendataPrati, 1891, pp. 704–709

THESIS XXX: Corollary

The infallibility of every individual Pope

The following comments are for WM+ members.

The See and the Seated: Fr Dominic Palmieri SJ against Gallican theology of the Papacy

Editor’s Notes

Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum Prolegomeno de Ecclesia

Fr Dominico Palmieri SJ

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis EmendataPrati, 1891, pp. 704–709

THESIS XXX

The following comments about are for WM+ members.

If you want to ensure that this continues, join WM+ today.

Eastern Orthodoxy? Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city (Orestes Brownson)

Editors’ Notes

Rome did not have primacy merely for being the capital city

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

The First Council of Constantinople

The Council of Chalcedon

The real reason this canon is cited

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Read Next:

Eastern Orthodoxy? Why the sixth canon of Nicæa isn't an argument (Orestes Brownson)

Editors’ Notes

Why bother publishing this old review?

Ex-Catholic Guettée proposes an argument based on the sixth canon of Nicæa

Guettée’s ‘The Schismatic Papacy,’ Part 2.1

Introduction: Guettée’s Two Central Claims Against Roman Primacy

Summary of the Argument Thus Far

Guettée’s Misinterpretation of the Sixth Canon of Nicaea

The Ancient Pattern of Decentralized Church Administration

Distinguishing Patriarchal from Papal Authority

Guettée’s Self-Defeating Logic Regarding Nicaea’s Authority

The Historical Reality: Rome’s Role in Convening and Ratifying Nicaea

If you enjoyed this article, then why not get it in mug form?

Read Next:

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata
Prati, 1891, pp. 704–709

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata
Prati, 1891, pp. 704–709

Editio Altera Aucta Et In Nonnullis Emendata
Prati, 1891, pp. 704–709