We Do Not Save the Faith Against the Pope
A Response to Bishop Schneider Regarding the SSPX
Personal Note: I read this article (in French) a few days ago and was so impressed by its charity and clarity that I wrote to the publisher to ask if I could translate it. You may find it, therefore, on La Nef too, but do know that I received explicit permission to translate this article and that I couldn’t agree more with its contents. The author is a monk of Le Barroux, which is probably my favorite place on earth.
Bishop Schneider, a bishop well-known in traditionalist circles, published a “Fraternal Appeal to Pope Leo XIV to Build a Bridge with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius” on February 24, 2026. Father Cyrille, of Le Barroux, sensed himself compelled to respond and to methodically address certain arguments put forward, which he found problematic. This is a powerful and precise article that provides solid keys to understanding - prior to the probable episcopal consecrations in July. The current article distinguishes and examines certain elements of doctrine, some elements of Church history, some reminders from Canon Law, and certain interpretive misunderstandings in regard to figures such as St. Athanasius or Metropolitan Josyf Slipyj.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider is auxiliary bishop of Astana, which is an immense diocese in its geographical extent, and has approximately 53,000 Catholic faithful and 37 priests. It appears, however, that few attend Mass on Sundays. The country is actually experiencing significant emigration of native Catholics - particularly those who are from Germany, Poland, and Korea - and this is gradually reducing the Catholic presence and undermining the ordinary transmission of the faith. Priestly ministry is thus often carried out “on the road,” well beyond urban centers. According to two witnesses who conducted on-site investigations, male participation remains low at places of worship, and there are very few solidly established Christian families to be found there. All these factors, combined with a challenging human and social climate, highlight all the more the faithful and persevering commitment of Bishop Schneider, who has devoted himself to this mission for nearly twenty-five years in a land-locked country with a harsh climate.
Beyond this demanding local ministry, Bishop Schneider has gained wide recognition in the so-called traditional Catholic world, notably through his writings, participation at international conferences, public appearances broadcast on the internet, and his regular presence in various media. His geographical location, at the heart of the peripheries of the Christian world in Central Asia, as well as his particular (and sometimes misunderstood) status as an auxiliary bishop, effectively grant him a certain freedom of speech.
The author of the observations presented below wishes first to express his sincere admiration for Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s pastoral work and the witness of fidelity and faithfulness. It is therefore only with restraint and in a fraternal spirit that the author humbly offers a few remarks regarding the “Fraternal Appeal to Pope Leo XIV for the Building of a Bridge of Dialogue with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X”.
The current situation regarding the episcopal consecrations within the Society or Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (FSSPX or simply SSPX in most of the English-speaking world) has suddenly stirred up strong emotions throughout the Church. Shortly after the announcement, on February 2, of the SSPX’s decision to proceed with these consecrations, an intense and often passionate debate emerged in many Catholic circles. The opinions expressed in this debate range from understanding, goodwill, neutral observation, and common sense to irrational rejection, peremptory condemnation, and even open hatred. Although there are reasons to hope (and this hope is by no means unrealistic) that Pope Leo XIV might actually approve these episcopal consecrations, draft texts for a bull of excommunication against the SSPX are already circulating online.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s appeal to the Pope in favor of these episcopal consecrations by the Society of Saint Pius X clearly demonstrates a sincere desire for unity, and many of the faithful are grateful to him for this. That said, to consider entrusting the priests of the Society with an episcopal mandate, without clearly formulated conditions, could create - even unintentionally - very concrete difficulties. In the absence of a recognized and clear framework, some would see this as the establishment of a form of de facto autonomy, which over time would lead to divergences in practice (formation, pastoral organization, relations with dioceses) and more difficult-to-determine responsibilities in the event of a dispute.
The point is therefore not primarily, as Bishop Schneider seems to believe with commendable goodwill, simply a matter of intentions, but rather of basic doctrinal clarity and long-term stability within defined structures: for a rapprochement to bear fruit, it must be sustainably structured, in order to avoid misunderstandings and not give the impression (even unintentionally) of endorsing still-sensitive doctrinal disagreements, as demonstrated by the immediate reaction of the Society of Saint Pius X’s own council.
In this spirit, with all due respect to Bishop Schneider, it seems wiser that any decisive step be taken within a clear, public, and solid framework. This requires prior dialogue. Yet the dialogue that had been rightly proposed by the Vatican was rejected by the Society.
<<The negative reactions, though often well-intentioned, reveal that the heart of the problem has not yet been grasped with sufficient honesty and clarity. There is a tendency to remain at the surface. Priorities within the life of the Church are reversed, elevating the canonical and legal dimension—that is, a certain juridical positivism—to the supreme criterion. Moreover, there is at times a lack of historical awareness concerning the Church’s practice with respect to episcopal ordinations. Disobedience is thus too readily equated with schism. The criteria for episcopal communion with the Pope, and consequently the understanding of what truly constitutes schism, are viewed in an overly one-sided manner when compared with the practice and self-understanding of the Church in the Patristic era, the age of the Church Fathers.
In this debate, new quasi-dogmas are being established that do not exist in the Depositum fidei. These quasi-dogmas maintain that the Pope’s consent to a bishop’s consecration is of divine right, and that a consecration carried out without this consent, or even against a papal prohibition, constitutes in itself a schismatic act. However, the Church’s practice and understanding during the time of the Church Fathers, and for a long period thereafter, argue against this view. Furthermore, there is no unanimous opinion on this matter among the recognized theologians of the Church’s two-thousand-year tradition. Centuries of ecclesial practice, as well as traditional canon law, also stand in opposition to such absolutizing assertions. According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, an episcopal consecration carried out against the will of the Pope was punished not with excommunication, but only with suspension. By this, the Church clearly manifested that she did not consider such an act to be schismatic.>>
Bishop Schneider’s intention is to be commended. He is right to point out that one must not confuse all disobedience with schism, and that in both law and theology the question of intention and the rupture of communion is decisive. A schism is not reducible to a legal irregularity.
The 1983 Code defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him” (can. 751). In other words, schism is formal when there is, explicitly or implicitly, a concrete and lasting refusal of primacy and a concrete challenge to ecclesial communion.
From this perspective, Bishop Schneider will no doubt acknowledge that three cumulative elements tip serious disobedience toward a schismatic logic: an objective element - an act that, by its nature, wounds the visible unity of the Church; a subjective element - persistence in refusing to submit to the authority of the Pope, who commands that this act not be performed; an ecclesiological element - the act of positioning oneself to function autonomously according to one’s own criteria and with one’s own hierarchical network. Can Bishop Schneider sincerely affirm that these three points are not fulfilled in the consecrations at Écône?
Historically speaking, Bishop Schneider is correct in recalling that the 1917 Code attached a suspensio a divinis (and not excommunication) to episcopal consecration without an apostolic mandate: “suspended by law, until the Apostolic See has dispensed them” (can. 2370). Nevertheless, a significant disciplinary shift occurred in the 20th century: by decree of the Holy Office (April 9, 1951), the penalty was increased to excommunication latae sententiae, “even if [one acts] under grave fear .” This point does not in itself settle the entire theological question, but it objectively changes the legal framework: the Church wished to mark more clearly the ecclesial gravity of such consecrations when they are performed outside the mission received from the Apostolic See [1].
Finally - and this fact seems decisive - regarding the events of 1988, one must take into account the explicit judgment issued by John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei (July 2, 1988). The Pope affirms there that the consecration of bishops in defiance of the pontifical prohibition that had just been issued constitutes “a schismatic act,” precisely because it entails “a genuine rejection of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome,” and he expressly refers to canon 751. One can naturally discuss, in a spirit of calm, how to interpret certain historical elements and subjective conditions (ignorance, fear, alleged state of necessity, etc.) however, for a balanced presentation of the 1988 consecrations, it is important to consider simultaneously: the canonical definition of schism (can. 751), the disciplinary evolution regarding consecrations without appointment or mandate (1917 and then 1951), and John Paul II’s public judgment of the 1988 act in Ecclesia Dei.
My intention is certainly not to question Bishop Schneider’s sincerity or his concern for unity, but to invite him to a more comprehensive reading of the normative and magisterial texts that frame this debate, bearing in mind that, according to all classical Catholic theologians, when the Pope addresses the faithful as pastor and teacher of all the faithful to judge a dogmatic matter (in this case, to determine whether an act is schismatic or not) he engages his apostolic charism of primacy. John Paul II’s statement in Ecclesia Dei, 3, seems to apply to this situation: “In itself, this act was a disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff in a matter of great gravity and of vital importance for the unity of the Church, since it concerns the ordination of bishops, through which the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. That is why such disobedience, which constitutes in itself a genuine rejection of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, constitutes a schismatic act. ”
<<The acceptance of papal primacy as a revealed truth is often confused with the concrete forms—forms that have evolved throughout history—through which a bishop expresses his hierarchical unity with the Pope. To believe in the Papal Primacy, to acknowledge the actual Pope, to adhere with him to all that the Church has taught infallibly and definitively, and to observe the validity of the sacramental liturgy, is of divine right. Yet, a reductive view that equates disobedience to a papal command with schism—even in the case of a bishop’s consecration performed against his will—was foreign to the Church Fathers and to traditional canon law. For example, in 357, St. Athanasius disobeyed the order of Pope Liberius, who instructed him to enter into hierarchical communion with the overwhelming majority of the episcopate, which was in fact Arian or semi-Arian. As a result, he was excommunicated. In this instance, St. Athanasius disobeyed out of love for the Church and for the honor of the Apostolic See, seeking precisely to safeguard the purity of doctrine from any suspicion of ambiguity.>> AS
Bishop Schneider is right to distinguish between two levels that are sometimes confused: the primacy of the pope as a truth of faith (by divine right), defined dogmatically (at Vatican I, and confirmed by Vatican II); and, on the other hand, the historical and disciplinary modalities through which hierarchical unity is expressed (the role of metropolitans, appeal procedures to Rome, papal mandates, etc.), which have varied greatly over the centuries. He rightly emphasizes that, in patristic tradition as in classical canon law, disobedience - even grave disobedience - does not automatically amount to schism. This has already been noted above. However, these distinctions are not sufficient to resolve concrete situations.
The oft-cited example of Saint Athanasius, from this perspective, must be handled with caution: as Patriarch of Alexandria [translator’s note: second in rank only to the Bishop of Rome, according to Nicaea], he faced considerable imperial and ecclesiastical pressure during a complex doctrinal crisis, in which many positions were adopted under duress and due to a lack of clarity in the terminology used. The Council of Nicaea, though rightly venerated, is not immune to certain criticisms regarding misunderstandings of vocabulary that had to be resolved. It was entirely to the credit of Saint Basil that he succeeded in clarifying the meaning of the words. The Creed we sing at Mass is the formula of the Council of Constantinople (381): it does not merely supplement the Nicene Creed, but perfects it in several respects.
Perhaps it is also worth recalling that Pope Liberius, after courageous resistance and the ordeal of an exile, signed - under heavy pressure from imperial authority - a formula that was theologically imperfect but not explicitly heretical (357), while Athanasius intended to remain faithful to Nicaea. Pope Liberius’s perfect orthodoxy was studied very closely in 1870. If a pope could have thus officially erred in the faith, this would call into question the doctrine of papal infallibility.
The idea that Athanasius would have disobeyed an explicit order from Liberius requiring him to maintain hierarchical communion with a majority that was then Arian or semi-Arian seems anachronistic in the context of the time. The customary relations in the 4th century between Rome and a major patriarchate were ill-suited to such a scenario. Similarly, the claim of a formal papal excommunication of Athanasius by the pope does not align with the facts. The condemnations against Athanasius came from the Eastern synods under imperial influence. While the pope’s attitude was certainly too hesitant in his support of Athanasius (which is known as Liberius’s fall or fault) it did not result in excommunication. The case illustrates a crisis of governance rather than a doctrinal rupture. It is therefore not correct and just to claim that Athanasius “resisted Rome,” with all due respect to the author.
Moreover, even if - hypothetically - one were to admit direct disobedience, the example of Athanasius cannot be generalized to legitimize any serious disobedience: every crisis is unique. Looking to the past calls for greater caution in judgment rather than providing ammunition to justify this or that current position. Anachronism is a real danger in history.
<<In the first millennium of the Church’s life, episcopal consecrations were generally performed without formal papal permission, and candidates were not required to be approved by the Pope. The first canonical regulation on episcopal consecrations, issued by an Ecumenical Council, was that of Nicaea in 325, which required that a new bishop be consecrated with the consent of a majority of the bishops of the province. Shortly before his death, during a period of doctrinal confusion, St. Athanasius personally selected and consecrated his successor—St. Peter of Alexandria—, in order to ensure that no unsuitable or weak candidate would assume the episcopate. Similarly, in 1977, the Servant of God Cardinal Iosyf Slipyj secretly consecrated three bishops in Rome without the approval of Pope Paul VI, fully aware that the Pope would not allow it because of the Vatican’s Ostpolitik at the time. When Rome learned of these secret consecrations, however, the penalty of excommunication was not applied.>>
Bishop Schneider is absolutely right. Nicaea is the first normative ecumenical conciliar text on the consecration of bishops, and it required consecration by the bishops of the province, with the decisive role of the metropolitan. There is no mention of the Bishop of Rome. The reason is stated in Nicaea when it specifies that recourse to the metropolitan may be dispensed with if he is too far away. It would have been impossible, given the means of communication at the time, for the Bishop of Rome to confer a canonical mandate on bishops far removed from him. The Church was therefore structured in a concrete way that differed from our day.
But even if the Bishop of Rome did not intervene, he remained nonetheless the source from whom the unity of the episcopate emanated - “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia,” as St. Ambrose said - insofar as the appointments of bishops and their canonical installation took place with his tacit consent.
Even at that time, as the canons of the Council of Sardica (343) would later recall, the pope reserved for himself the ultimate right to judge appeals against bishops, to overturn a bishop’s deposition, or to depose a fallen or failing bishop. These provisions prove that even if the pope did not directly appoint bishops, he remained the head of the episcopate and the sole judge in such matters. The absence of Roman opposition thus amounted to indirect authorization, based not on a formal mandate but on the bishop’s effective integration into the communion of the universal Church. Papal authority was thus exercised primarily a posteriori, as a body of appeal and regulation, and not a priori as a centralized decision-making power.
The modern practice of prior papal authorization, beginning with the Gregorian Reform [2], thus constitutes a subsequent, consistent disciplinary development, compatible with tradition, even if it changes the practice of the first millennium.
It also seems that, living in a context of extreme doctrinal confusion, Athanasius used all his influence to ensure a proper succession, that of his brother Peter. But did he truly consecrate him as a bishop? The sources seem to indicate that the latter was consecrated according to the customs of the time, after Athanasius’s death. There is nothing irregular about this.
Bishop Schneider rightly cites the exception of the Servant of God Slipyj as an example of a consecration without Rome’s permission. But Rome did not justify this by challenging the normal canonical rule. It took into account the circumstances of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which was in a state of systematic persecution. Even as a refugee in the West, Slipyj lived in fear. He also invoked the canonical law of his Church (the Eastern Code had not yet been promulgated). Rome recognized that the rigid application of disciplinary norms would have compromised apostolic continuity and sacramental life in this instance. A decisive factor was the total absence of schismatic intent on the part of Cardinal Slipyj, who did not claim to be establishing an independent hierarchy. Consequently, the act was judged objectively irregular but subjectively excusable. One of the three bishops ordained clandestinely (Lubomyr Husar) was eventually elected Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics (January 25, 2001), and John Paul II confirmed his election the following day. This is the accepted system in the East.
Bishop Schneider: <<To avoid misunderstanding, under normal circumstances—and when there is neither doctrinal confusion nor a time of extraordinary persecution—one must, of course, do everything possible to observe the canonical norms of the Church and to obey the Pope in his just injunctions, in order to preserve ecclesiastical unity both more effectively and visibly.
But the situation in the life of the Church today can be illustrated with the following parable: A fire breaks out in a large house. The fire chief allows only the use of new firefighting equipment, even though it has been shown to be less effective than the old, proven tools. A group of firefighters defies this order and continues to use the tried-and-tested equipment—and indeed, the fire is contained in many places. Yet these firefighters are labelled disobedient and schismatic, and they are punished.
To extend the metaphor further: the fire chief permits only those firefighters who acknowledge the new equipment, follow the new firefighting rules, and obey the new firehouse regulations. But given the obvious scale of the fire, the desperate struggle against it, and the insufficiency of the official firefighting team, other helpers—despite the fire chief’s prohibition—selflessly intervene with skill, knowledge, and good intentions, ultimately contributing to the success of the fire chief’s efforts.
Faced with such rigid and incomprehensible behavior, two possible explanations present themselves: either the fire chief is denying the seriousness of the fire, much like in the French comedy: Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise! [a classic song, meaning: everything’s fine! But your husband just suffered a dire calamity]; or, in fact, the fire chief desires that large parts of the house burn, so that it may later be rebuilt according to a new design.>>
Without denying their educational intent, which is often commendable, might we dare suggest to Bishop Schneider that little stories or anecdotes prove nothing in theology: “A comparison is not proof!” The parable of the fire station presents certain difficulties that its author may not have noticed, and he has not developed it with sufficient precision.
1. The Church is not a fire station. She was divinely founded by Jesus Christ on the visible foundation of Peter and his successors, with the promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her. Leo XIII: “Here is the meaning of this divine word: the Church, supported by Peter, no matter the violence or the skill deployed by her enemies, can never succumb or fail in anything. ” (Encyclical Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896). Pius IX specifies: “Let the faithful peoples remember that here lives and presides, in the person of his successors, Peter the Prince of the Apostles, whose dignity does not even cease in an unworthy heir. Let them remember that Jesus Christ Our Lord placed upon this Chair of Peter the impregnable foundation of His Church, for which He prayed that Peter’s faith might never fail, commanding him to confirm his brothers in this faith. ” (Encyclical Nostis et nobiscum, December 8, 1849)
2. In the case of a physical fire, one must above all be effective (use the right equipment). In the context of an intervention in a doctrinal crisis within the Church, one must above all be in the truth. Jesus did not say, “I have come to bear witness to effectiveness,” but, “I have come to bear witness to the truth.” It is therefore not a matter of old or new equipment, of old or new methods, but of applying doctrinal principles in accordance with the tradition of the Church. To do this, one must first and foremost remain within the framework of the Church, “outside of which there is no salvation.” Yet belonging to the Church depends as much on fidelity to the faith and tradition as on not separating oneself from the apostolic succession. Father Bryan Houghton said this to Archbishop Lefebvre just before the consecrations: “One does not defend the faith by destroying the Church.” A bishop can exercise his office only by entering into the apostolic succession through a mission from the competent authority, which in the West is expressed through the apostolic mandate. As we saw above, there have certainly been episcopal ordinations that were legitimate from the outset (in the early Church or even in the Eastern Churches today), or legitimized later (the current Ukrainian case), which took place WITHOUT the Pope’s consent, but the Church has never accepted recognizing as Catholic those bishops who are ordained AGAINST the Pope’s prohibition. That would be a contradiction in terms.
3. Has Bishop Schneider ever witnessed the fight against a major fire like the one at Notre-Dame de Paris? That might help him refine his parable. Here is how Notre-Dame was saved, it seems. Just when the danger was concentrated on the north tower, it is reported that a staff sergeant who knew the cathedral well proposed a plan to save the tower in extremis. The idea was relayed to the chain of command. The sergeant suggested an operation via the upper walkways and the passageway. At the same time, engineers on site warned of the risk of a domino-effect collapse if the north tower fell. This underscored the urgency of a decisive maneuver. This would involve a team entering an unstable area with potentially no way out. Such a dangerous operation could not be an individual initiative: it required decision-making, coordination, and accountability at the highest level of command. Generals Gallet and Gontier assumed this responsibility within a structured chain of command. Firefighters, who are soldiers, never act without orders during a major fire. The perfect coordination of the troops is a prerequisite for success. The same is true in the broad outlines of the life of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre wanted the following inscribed on his tomb: Tradidi quod et accepi. But as Jean Madiran pointed out: “Consecrating bishops contrary to the Pope’s formal order … Archbishop Lefebvre did not receive this from tradition.” This has never been seen, anywhere or at any time. The Pope had, moreover, offered a bishop to Archbishop Lefebvre for August 15, 1988, and a memorandum of understanding under the leadership of Cardinal Ratzinger had been signed, which could have led to further consecrations. The “fire chief” had therefore not refused to use the old equipment. As at Notre-Dame de Paris, he had given the green light for the survival operation. He had integrated it into the titanic battle against the fire that the Church is waging today. But the leader of the small group of Lefebvrist firefighters broke ranks and refused to use the equipment in unity with the other firefighters. One may doubt that in the fight against a fire such an attitude truly “pays off effectively”.
4. In the context of the consecrations currently being prepared, the fire chief also offered a dialogue that would allow the Society of Saint Pius X to play its role within the vast and universal organization of the Church, provided there was agreement on a minimum of doctrinal consensus. This dialogue was refused. It is this refusal of communion on the part of the Society of Saint Pius X with the Pope and those subject to him that constitutes the schism. Nothing else.
5. Finally, here is the moving letter that “the fire chief,” John Paul II, wrote on June 9, 1988, to the leader of the small group that wanted to separate itself from the others. In it, John Paul II presents himself as “guided solely by concern for the unity of the Church in fidelity to revealed truth… ” and he recalls that “solutions had been worked out, accepted, and signed … which allowed the Society of Saint Pius X to exist and work within the Church in full communion with the Supreme Pontiff, guardian of unity in the truth… In the letter you addressed to me, you seem to reject all the achievements of the previous colloquia, since you clearly express your intention to ‘provide yourself with the means to continue your work,’ notably by proceeding quickly, and without an apostolic mandate, to one or more episcopal ordinations… with a fatherly heart, but with all the gravity required by the present circumstances, I urge you, Venerable Brother, to renounce your plan, which, if carried out, can only be seen as a schismatic act whose inevitable theological and canonical consequences are known to you. I earnestly invite you to return, in humility, to full obedience to the Vicar of Christ. Not only do I invite you to this, but I ask it of you by the wounds of Christ our Redeemer, in the name of Christ who, on the eve of his Passion, prayed for his disciples “that they may be one.” To this request and invitation, I add my daily prayer to Mary, Mother of Christ. Dear brother, do not allow the year dedicated in a very special way to the Mother of God to bring a new wound to her Mother’s heart! From the Vatican, June 9, 1988, Joannes Paulus secundus.”
It is time to conclude these brief remarks regarding some of Bishop Schneider’s letter. This in no way discredits his personal intentions. His professed love for the Church, his attachment to the Catholic faith, and his courage to recall certain truths deserve to be acknowledged once again.
If Saint John Paul II ‘s letter from June 9, 1988, has been quoted so extensively at the end of these reflections, it is because it manifests, in a situation that is objectively dramatic for the unity of the Church, the very voice of the Magisterium exercising its mission as “ guardian of unity in the truth .” It shows how the Church, when tested from within, ceaselessly calls for holding together what the spirit of intra-ecclesial conflict sometimes tends to dissociate: doctrinal fidelity and visible obedience to the successor of Peter.
Recent history shows, even with the best of intentions, just how great the risk is of slipping from legitimate criticism into a logic of isolation, and then of rupture, in the name of a good that one believes one must save alone. All too often we forget all those who work with us for the salvation of souls. Simply because they find themselves outside our small, familiar circles. We withdraw into groups of like-minded people and look down on others. This mindset can lead to the worst - let us not forget that!
Rereading the texts from the painful days of 1988, comparing them with current positions, and drawing lessons from them has no other purpose than to aid discernment, especially for troubled faithful seeking sure points of reference. May these debates (which are necessarily heated at times but also necessary) never lose sight of Christ’s prayer “that all may be one,” nor stray from the humble and patient framework within which the Church, assisted by the Holy Spirit, navigates the crises of Her history.
Thank you - thank you very much! - to Bishop Athanasius Schneider for helping us in this way to reflect on the theme of true fidelity, where truth and mercy embrace rather than oppose one another.
Father Cyrille, a Monk of Le Barroux
[1] Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, April 9, 1951: AAS 43 (1951) 217 ff., the translation of which is as follows: “A bishop, of whatever rite or dignity, who consecrates as a bishop someone who has not been either appointed or expressly confirmed by the Apostolic See, and the one who receives the consecration, even if they were compelled by grave fear (can. 2229, § 3, 3°), incur ipso facto the excommunication reserved in the most special manner to the Apostolic See.” Canon 2229, § 3, 3°: “Grave fear, if the offense amounts to contempt for the faith or contempt for ecclesiastical authority or public harm to souls, does not excuse latae sententiae penalties. ” The consecration of a bishop without a pontifical mandate was therefore considered by Pius XII to be an act that in itself amounts to contempt for the faith or contempt for ecclesiastical authority or public harm to souls.
DECRETUM : DE CONSECRATIONE EPISCOPI SINE CANONICA PROVISIONE
Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, ex speciali facultate sibi a Summo Pontifice facta, hoc edidit decretum:
Episcopus, cuiusvis ritus vel dignitatis, aliquem, neque ab Apostolica Sede nominatum neque ab Eadem expresse confirmatum, consecrans in Episcopum, et qui consecrationem recipit, etsi metu gravi coacti (c. 2229, § 3, 3°), incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem Apostolicae Sedi
specialissimo modo reservatam.
Hoc decretum vim suam exeret ab ipso promulgationis die.
Datum ex Aedibus Sancti Officii, die 9 Aprilis 1951.
Marinus Marani, Supremae S. Congr. S. Officii Notarius
[2] It is somewhat more complex for the East, where the method of appointment has, moreover, varied. There, one does not find the principle of the apostolic mandate permitting episcopal ordination and the assignment of a function, much less a free and direct appointment by the Pope, but rather a nihil obstat from the Holy See prior to the publication of the election made by the synod of the Eastern patriarch or major archbishop. In any case, the principle is upheld: consecration does not take place in defiance of a formal prohibition by the Pope. Logically speaking, “absence of opposition” is the opposite of “express refusal.”
Note from the translator: I have added the Latin from the AAS, because this important decree has been almost completely overlooked or ignored in the discussion hitherto. That is, during the Pontificate of Pius XII, the consecration of a bishop without a papal or “pontifical/apostolic” mandate, brought with it an immediate excommunication, reserved in the most particular or restrictive manner (specialissimo modo) to the Apostolic See itself. Therefore, it was not simply with the promulgation of the 1983 Code that excommunication became the penalty for the act that the SSPX is planning to carry out. This also seems important because some traditionalists would otherwise consider a change in law that was initiated by John Paul II to be somewhat dubious or questionable, at least; not even the Sedevacantists, however, would question the validity and primacy of Pius XII in 1951.
Also, I have standardized (by UK/US standards) the terms, titles and orthography most commonly used in English to describe church affairs.
Council of Trent, Session 23, Canon VII: If any one saith, that bishops ... who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but
