THE QUESTION ROME DID NOT ANSWER: Papa Stronsay, Sedevacantism and the Consecration of Bishop Michael Mary FSsR
On 25 July 2026, Father Michael Mary Sim was consecrated a bishop at Golgotha Monastery on Papa Stronsay by three sedevacantist bishops. Earlier that day, the Diocese of Aberdeen announced that he had been convicted of schism, excommunicated, dismissed from office and prohibited from sacramental ministry. The completed canonical process did not concern the consecration itself. It concerned the deeper claim upon which it rested: that Leo XIV is not Pope and that the hierarchy united to him no longer represents the Catholic Church.
On Saturday, 25 July 2026, Father Michael Mary Sim, founder and Rector Major of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, received episcopal consecration at Golgotha Monastery on Papa Stronsay. Bishop Pierre Roy acted as principal consecrator, assisted by Bishops Rodrigo Ribeiro da Silva and Fernando Altamira.¹ The community subsequently presented the consecration of Bishop Michael Mary Sim as an act undertaken both for the congregation and for what it described as the Holy Catholic Church.²
The ceremony gave sacramental and institutional form to the position the community had adopted during the preceding months: that the Roman See was vacant, that Leo XIV and the bishops united with him were not to be recognised as Catholic authorities, and that episcopal provision was necessary to preserve Catholic doctrine, worship and sacramental life outside the existing ecclesiastical order.³
The Diocese of Aberdeen had meanwhile been pursuing a canonical process against Father Michael Mary Sim for several months. Its statement of 25 July said that the proceedings arose from statements and actions of the community, particularly its adoption of sedevacantism under his leadership. The diocese also identified its refusal to recognise Leo XIV and the bishops in communion with him, its doubts concerning the validity of postconciliar ordinations, and its opposition between an “old” and a “new” Church.⁴
Bishop Hugh Gilbert announced that Father Michael Mary Sim had been found guilty of the charges, “most notably that of schism”. He was declared excommunicated, dismissed from ecclesiastical office and prohibited from celebrating Mass or the other sacraments. Gilbert said that the relevant Roman dicasteries had been kept informed throughout the process and that the penalties could be lifted following sincere repentance and appropriate reparation.⁵
The chronology is important. The trial completed by that morning did not concern the episcopal consecration which followed later on 25 July. The consecration brought further potential canonical consequences and, in Gilbert’s words, compounded the situation, but it was not the offence upon which the completed judgment had principally rested.⁶ The adjudicated case concerned the community’s sedevacantism and the alleged schism which followed from it.
The diocesan charge therefore presupposed precisely what Father Michael Mary Sim denied. Aberdeen maintained that he had refused submission to the Roman Pontiff and broken communion with the bishops subject to him. Father Michael Mary Sim maintained that Leo XIV was not the Roman Pontiff and that the bishops united with him no longer constituted the Catholic hierarchy. This was not an incidental technical objection but the central question upon which the charge depended.
In an open letter published on 6 May 2026, Chris Jackson of the Hiraeth in Exile Substack argued that the Transalpine Redemptorists should not merely refuse to recognise the tribunal or decline to answer its charges. They should require the prosecution to establish the assumptions concealed within the accusation. A charge of refusing submission to Leo XIV presupposed that Leo XIV possessed the papal office. A charge of breaking communion with his bishops presupposed that those bishops continued to profess the Catholic faith and exercise Catholic authority. A declaration that the monks had placed themselves outside the Church presupposed that the hierarchy judging them had not itself publicly defected from the religion it claimed to administer.⁷
Such a defence would have forced the proceedings onto the ground which the existing authorities were least likely to permit. The issue would no longer have been simply whether the monks submitted to Leo XIV, but whether Leo XIV’s claim to obedience could withstand the allegation of doctrinal and institutional rupture.
The Redemptorists’ canonical adviser reportedly considered that strategy imprudent. It may indeed have been imprudent in the narrow forensic sense. A tribunal operating within the present canonical order was hardly likely to place the legitimacy of the reigning pontiff and the postconciliar hierarchy in the dock. Yet the alternative strategy did not avert conviction, excommunication or dismissal from office. It merely allowed the principal theological question to remain unanswered.
Bishop Michael Mary’s position touches the foundational claim of the postconciliar establishment. He does not merely seek reform within the acknowledged system. He denies that Leo XIV possesses the papal office. He does not simply allege bad government, doctrinal ambiguity or persecution of Tradition. He maintains that the institutional structure represents a different ecclesial reality and has forfeited the authority it continues to claim. The community’s declaration, The Dogma to Steer By, explicitly opposed the Catholic Church to what it described as a Modernist or counterfeit body occupying her visible institutions.⁸
That is the form of dissent which the postconciliar establishment cannot absorb. Progressive Catholics may reject doctrine in practice, disobey liturgical law, demand female ordination, contradict Roman instructions and reconstruct Catholic life from within the institution. They continue to recognise the authority whose commands they ignore. They preserve the structure while altering the religion practised within it.
The sedevacantist reverses the pattern. He may preserve much of the older doctrine, worship and discipline while denying the legitimacy of the structure administering the new settlement. Rome understands the difference immediately. The German revolutionary still needs Rome: its dioceses, institutions, finances, canonical recognition and, ultimately, its authority to ratify the revolution he wishes to complete. The sedevacantist says that Rome, as presently constituted, is itself the problem. Progressive dissent challenges what Rome teaches or commands; sedevacantism challenges Rome’s title to teach and command at all.
The reactions to the consecration confirmed this fault line almost immediately. Bishop Hugh Gilbert described the ceremony as compounding the community’s existing separation and as a “clear break with the Church”. He instructed the faithful of the Diocese of Aberdeen to have no dealings with the congregation or its deposed superior. The episcopal act was therefore interpreted not simply as the violation of a disciplinary law, but as the public completion of an ecclesiological rupture already expressed in the community’s sedevacantist declarations.⁹
Mainstream Catholic reporting adopted substantially the same frame. The Catholic Herald described the Papa Stronsay consecration as smaller in scope than the recent Society of Saint Pius X consecrations but more extreme in its theological position. The comparison was important: both involved episcopal consecration without a papal mandate, but Papa Stronsay acted upon the prior conclusion that the man from whom the mandate would ordinarily proceed was not Pope at all.¹⁰
Other commentators concentrated upon the practical consequence of the ceremony. Luke Coppen observed that possession of a bishop gives the community an independent source of continuity, enabling future ordinations and confirmations without recourse to Rome. That assessment was intended as a description of the institutional effect rather than an endorsement of it, but it identified precisely what had changed. Papa Stronsay had ceased to depend upon the recognised hierarchy for the continuation of its priesthood and sacramental apostolate.¹¹
Sedevacantist reaction naturally regarded the same development as cause for rejoicing. Novus Ordo Watch, which had previously welcomed the Transalpine Redemptorists’ repudiation of the postconciliar claimants as a return “home”, circulated the consecration approvingly and described the ceremony in celebratory terms. Its response accepted Bishop Michael Mary’s title without qualification and treated the event as an advance for the remnant Catholic Church rather than a departure from it.¹²
The opposing reactions therefore agreed upon the significance of the event even while reversing its moral meaning. Aberdeen and the mainstream Catholic press saw a congregation securing an independent future through schism. Sedevacantist supporters saw the same congregation securing an independent future from a false ecclesiastical structure. Both understood that the consecration was not merely about one bishop. It concerned the perpetuation of an entire sacramental body outside the authority of Leo XIV and the bishops united with him.
This agreement about the institutional consequence makes the underlying theological question more, not less, urgent. If Leo XIV is Pope, the ceremony represented the consolidation of a rupture. If he is not Pope, the consecration may appear as a necessary provision for Catholic survival. The canonical judgment assumed the first proposition; the consecrators acted upon the second. Neither act, by itself, demonstrated the premise upon which it depended.
This institutional asymmetry does not prove sedevacantism correct, but it explains why it is treated more severely than almost every other form of postconciliar dissent. It strikes not merely at a policy, decree or doctrine, but at the recognised hierarchy’s claim to be the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
The sedevacantist challenge cannot therefore be answered by dismissing it as private judgment. Every Catholic must use reason. Every Catholic must identify the Church, recognise legitimate authority, distinguish a lawful command from an immoral one and compare new propositions with the received deposit of faith. A conclusion does not become Protestant merely because it is reached by an individual intellect.
The sedevacantist claims not to invent a private rule but to apply Catholic doctrine to public facts. His argument is that a public and manifest heretic is no longer a member of the Church and therefore cannot remain her visible head. If a Roman Pontiff becomes publicly and manifestly heretical, he loses the papal office. If the postconciliar claimant has publicly and manifestly professed heresy, the conclusion follows that he is not Pope.
This is the force of Saint Robert Bellarmine’s fifth opinion in De Romano Pontifice. Bellarmine maintained that a manifest heretic could not remain head of a body of which he was no longer a member. On that theory, a Pope would fall from office through manifest heresy itself; a subsequent ecclesiastical declaration would recognise the vacancy rather than produce it.¹³
The sedevacantist therefore denies that he is deposing a Pope. He claims that the man has already ceased to be Pope through public defection from the faith. He similarly answers the principle that the First See is judged by no one by saying that he is not judging a Pope, but recognising that the former claimant has already become a private person. Canon 1404 states that the First See is judged by no one; it does not itself resolve the anterior dispute over whether a manifestly heretical claimant has already ceased to occupy that See.¹⁴
Sedevacantists also expose a genuine circularity in the contrary position. If no bishop or cardinal may recognise a vacancy until competent authority has declared it, how could any ecclesiastical body begin the process? Those initiating an imperfect council or declaratory act would already have to conclude that the claimant no longer possessed authority over them. Some prior judgment concerning the facts appears unavoidable.
Recognise-and-resist traditionalists cannot evade this difficulty by condemning all such reasoning as private judgment. They too judge that certain papal teachings are erroneous, certain disciplines harmful, certain commands unlawful and certain apparent exercises of authority incompatible with Tradition. The sedevacantist may fairly ask why reason remains competent to reach all those conclusions but becomes incapable of considering whether manifest defection from the faith entails loss of office.
The appeal to indefectibility gives the sedevacantist case still greater force. Catholic theology holds that the Church cannot defect from her divine constitution, cease to teach the true faith, or impose upon the universal faithful something intrinsically destructive of faith and morals. Pius XII described the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ and distinguished sins which wound ecclesial life from heresy, apostasy and schism, which sever a person from the Body in a more radical manner.¹⁵
The sedevacantist applies this doctrine institutionally. If the postconciliar establishment has universally promulgated false religion, intrinsically harmful worship or disciplines destructive of Catholic faith, then either the traditional doctrine of indefectibility is false or the authority responsible is not the authority of the Catholic Church. The argument is formidable precisely because it seeks to defend the traditional doctrine of the papacy rather than diminish it: a true Pope cannot employ the authority of the Church to impose the destruction of the faith; therefore, the man authorising that destruction cannot be a true Pope.
The Society of Saint Pius X and the Old Roman Apostolate may agree with much of this indictment. Both recognise that the postconciliar crisis reaches beyond isolated abuse into doctrine, worship, discipline and ecclesiastical identity. Both may judge that ambiguities have been tolerated at the highest levels, that the traditional liturgy has been unjustly suppressed, that missionary certainty has been weakened, and that practices once condemned as destructive of the faith have been normalised within the visible structures of the Church.
Both also reject absolute obedience. No pope can command against divine law or require assent to contradiction. Particular teachings may be resisted by appeal to the prior and definitive Magisterium; particular commands may be refused when obedience would endanger faith or souls. The dispute is therefore not between Catholics who perceive a crisis and those who do not, but between different conclusions drawn from a crisis all three positions recognise as profound.
The sedevacantist concludes that the apparent hierarchy has publicly defected from the faith and therefore no longer constitutes the Catholic hierarchy. The SSPX and the Old Roman Apostolate stop short of that conclusion. They need not deny that the sedevacantist case is serious, coherent or supported by recognised theologians. They deny that a theological determination reached by private persons, however persuasive or ultimately vindicable it may be, can be treated as the definitive judgment of the Church.
The Society has repeatedly stated that it recognises Leo XIV as Pope and head, addresses him as a subject addresses his superior, and does not claim to constitute a parallel or autonomous Church. Its priests name him in the Canon of the Mass, and its bishops describe their episcopate as serving the Church without claiming an alternative hierarchy or ordinary territorial jurisdiction.¹⁶ The Society’s consecrations, however gravely disputed in canon law, were undertaken upon the stated premise of necessity within the Catholic Church, not upon the declaration that no Pope and no Catholic hierarchy existed.¹⁷
The Old Roman Apostolate follows the same essential restraint. Its public statements reject both sedevacantism and the construction of an alternative Church, recognise the reigning Pope, and describe the apostolate as preserving Catholic doctrine and sacramental life in irregular circumstances while awaiting restoration of proper ecclesiastical order.¹⁸ Its position is not that every act of the contemporary hierarchy is sound, nor that contradiction must be renamed development. It is that resistance to identifiable error does not confer authority to determine, for the universal Church, that the Pope and the bishops united to him have lost office.
This is the decisive parallel. The sedevacantist, the SSPX and the Old Roman Apostolate may share much of the same diagnosis. They differ over who may pronounce the final sentence. The first treats the evidence as sufficient to conclude that the recognised hierarchy is no hierarchy at all. The latter two refuse to elevate their own theological assessment, however grave or well-founded, into a judgment binding upon the Church.
That restraint is not intellectual timidity or papal positivism. It is an ecclesiological discipline: one may judge a particular proposition against the objective rule of faith without claiming the authority to decide the occupancy of the Apostolic See for the universal Church. One may resist an unlawful command without declaring the superior to have lost office. One may preserve Tradition under abnormal conditions without asserting that one’s own conclusion has become the judgment of the Church.
The difference, then, is not between thought and blind obedience, but between resisting acts and condemning the hierarchy itself. The first may become a duty when authority threatens faith, worship or souls. The second touches the visible constitution of the Church and therefore requires an authoritative determination which private clergy cannot impose by acting as though it had already been rendered.
Here Papa Stronsay departed not only from Rome but from the recognise-and-resist tradition. Bishop Michael Mary did not merely resist Leo XIV. He concluded that Leo XIV was not Pope, that the bishops united with him were not the Catholic hierarchy, and that Catholic episcopal life might therefore be established outside them. A formidable theological opinion was given sacramental and institutional finality before the Church herself had rendered the judgment.
The weakness in the sedevacantist position therefore lies neither in its diagnosis nor in the bare fact that private persons have reasoned to a conclusion. It lies in the degree of certainty claimed for that conclusion and in the ecclesial consequences drawn from it.
The first difficulty concerns the mechanism by which a heretical Pope would lose office. Bellarmine’s opinion is weighty, but it was not the only orthodox Catholic position. Cajetan and John of Saint Thomas assigned a more substantial role to an intervention or declaration by the Church. John of Saint Thomas held that, however publicly heretical a Pope might appear according to private observation, the relevant fact had to be established ecclesially before the faithful could be bound to treat him as deposed.¹⁹
This disagreement matters because the sedevacantist is not simply applying an undisputed dogma to an undisputed fact. He selects one recognised theological opinion, rejects another and treats his chosen mechanism as sufficiently certain to support public ecclesiastical action. Bellarmine may be correct, but automatic loss of office before any ecclesiastical declaration has never itself been defined as dogma. The existence of competing orthodox schools prevents one disputed mechanism from being presented as though every Catholic were obliged to accept it.
The second difficulty lies within the expression “manifest heretic”. Canon law defines heresy not as every doctrinal error, ambiguity or false prudential judgment, but as the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.²⁰ It must therefore be shown that the proposition in question contradicts such a truth, that the contradiction is genuine rather than apparent, that the denial is obstinate, and that this pertinacity is externally manifest to the degree required by the theological theory being invoked.
Formal heresy does not require a theatrical declaration of anti-Catholic intent. Pertinacity may be inferred from repetition, correction, refusal to retract and official enforcement. Sedevacantists are right to reject the caricature that a Pope could never be identified as formally heretical unless he openly admitted that he knew the Church’s doctrine and consciously intended to repudiate it.
Yet grave evidence of pertinacity is not always identical with certainty. A man may employ erroneous formulations repeatedly, reinterpret doctrine through Modernist categories, contradict himself and resist correction while continuing to claim adherence to the defined faith. Such conduct may be culpable, destructive and objectively incompatible with Catholic doctrine. It does not follow automatically that every condition required for loss of the papacy has become incontestable.
Father Gregory Hesse’s strongest point was not that formal heresy could never be externally recognised. It was that evidence of grave doctrinal defection is not necessarily conclusive proof that formal, manifest and office-destroying heresy has occurred.²¹
A third difficulty arises from the peaceful adherence of the universal Church. Traditional theologians, among them Cardinal Louis Billot, treated the universal and peaceful acceptance of a particular man as Pope as an exceptionally strong—and in Billot’s formulation infallible—sign of his legitimacy. The reason was ecclesiological: the whole Church could not adhere to a false Pope as her visible head and living rule of faith without a failure in the Church’s visibility and indefectibility.²²
Sedevacantists answer that postconciliar acceptance was not truly peaceful because traditional Catholics resisted the conciliar revolution, or that universal acceptance establishes only the legitimacy of the original election and cannot preserve a Pope who later defects from the faith. Those replies have force, but they do not remove the counterevidence. Resistance to papal teaching or government is not identical with denying that the man possesses the papal office. Throughout the postconciliar period, the overwhelming moral body of bishops, including bishops sharply critical of Rome, continued to recognise the claimant as Pope.
At the least, universal acceptance makes the sedevacantist conclusion less than indisputable. A major pre-conciliar theological tradition holds that the public adherence of the Church establishes the contrary. The sedevacantist must therefore demonstrate either that universal acceptance never occurred, that it protected only the original election, or that a later defection can overturn the certainty which acceptance had supplied. Those arguments can be advanced, but they have not been established with the degree of certainty required to make sedevacantism the constitutional premise of a new episcopal succession.
Catholic law also distinguishes an objective fact from its public juridical enforceability. Canon 194 provides that one who publicly defects from the Catholic faith or communion may be removed from ecclesiastical office by the law itself, but specifies that the removal can be enforced only after the fact has been established by the declaration of competent authority.²³ The canon does not directly regulate the unique case of the Roman Pontiff, but it reveals a pertinent juridical distinction: an alleged fact and all its public consequences do not become enforceable throughout the Church merely because an individual believes the fact to be morally certain.
This was the unresolved question confronting Papa Stronsay on 25 July. Even if Bishop Michael Mary personally reached moral certainty that Leo XIV was not Pope, what public and institutional acts could legitimately be built upon that certainty?
A Catholic may refuse an unlawful command before a tribunal has ruled upon it. A priest may decline to preach a proposition contrary to defined doctrine. A layman may avoid a pastor who is manifestly dangerous. Conscience cannot be suspended until every controversy has been formally adjudicated.
An episcopal consecration undertaken for the continuation and government of what is claimed to be the true Catholic Church belongs to a different order. It does not merely protect an individual conscience. It gives permanent sacramental and institutional effect to a contested judgment concerning the constitution of the universal Church.
The consecration had been announced as being for the good of the Catholic Church and the Transalpine Redemptorist congregation.²⁴ Bishop Michael Mary presented it as the culmination of a long process of study and experience, undertaken amid what he regarded as the replacement of Catholicism by a new religion and the need to preserve sacramental life for future generations.²⁵ Papa Stronsay therefore concluded not only that Leo XIV was not Pope, but that the existing canonical order could be disregarded and episcopal provision made outside it as the continuation of Catholic life.
That is not merely an opinion concerning Rome. It is an attempt to settle, in practice, the question of where the Church now resides.
The divisions among sedevacantists do not by themselves refute the position. Catholics have always disagreed about grave questions. The deeper problem is that sedevacantism presently possesses no authority recognised by all its adherents which can resolve those disagreements for the universal Church. Some locate the vacancy at the death of Pius XII; others accept John XXIII but reject Paul VI; some follow the Cassiciacum thesis; others have descended into conclavism and elected claimants of their own. The significance of these divisions is not merely that the groups quarrel, but that there is no common ecclesiastical court whose competence they all recognise. Each body returns to its own assessment of the evidence and its own preferred theological mechanism.
That difficulty bears directly upon the visibility of the Church. Christ did not establish the papacy merely as an abstract office whose true possessor could remain unknowable except through rival theological investigations. Vatican I described the Roman primacy as a perpetual principle and visible foundation of unity for bishops and faithful.²⁶ A theory which makes Catholic communion depend upon reaching the correct answer to an unadjudicated theological dispute therefore carries an immense burden of proof.
An unprecedented crisis may obscure the Church’s visibility without destroying it, but the longer the alleged vacancy continues, the more acute the difficulty becomes. Episcopal succession, papal election, canonical mission and the practical identification of the Church all begin to depend upon authorities whose competence rests upon the original disputed conclusion.
This does not prove that a vacancy is impossible. It does show why even a formidable sedevacantist case may be insufficient to justify the consequences drawn from it.
The fair conclusion is not that Bishop Michael Mary Sim and the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer have embraced an absurd theory. Their argument is serious, internally coherent and rooted in recognised theological authorities. It confronts real contradictions in the postconciliar settlement and forces Rome to answer questions it has repeatedly avoided.
Nor did the Diocese of Aberdeen’s judgment answer those questions. It stated that Leo XIV was the true Pope, that the bishops united with him were to be recognised, and that the community’s repudiation of them constituted schism.²⁷ Those premises are sufficient for a tribunal operating within the present canonical system. They are not, by themselves, a theological refutation of the sedevacantist indictment of that system.
Papa Stronsay, however, committed the opposite error. It treated Rome’s failure to demonstrate continuity as proof of vacancy, and a formidable theological case as sufficient warrant for irreversible ecclesial action.
The monks were right to ask whether the postconciliar establishment remained continuous in faith, worship and authority with the Catholic Church which preceded it. Rome should be required to answer that question rather than merely assume its own legitimacy. Yet Rome’s failure to answer does not by itself establish the vacancy of the Apostolic See, still less demonstrate with sufficient certainty that a small body of clergy may establish an episcopal succession outside the universally acknowledged hierarchy and present that act as the continuation of the Catholic Church.
The SSPX and the Old Roman Apostolate occupy the more disciplined position. They may agree with much of the sedevacantist indictment, resist what they judge contrary to the faith and preserve Tradition under extraordinary conditions. What they will not do is elevate their own theological judgment—however grave, coherent or ultimately vindicable—into a sentence declaring that the Pope and the hierarchy have lost office. They await an authoritative judgment of the Church rather than acting as though their own conclusion were already that judgment.
Aberdeen’s judgment did not answer the sedevacantist indictment; it presupposed the legitimacy which Bishop Michael Mary denied. Papa Stronsay treated that unanswered indictment as though it had already become the settled judgment of the Church. The first response was inadequate. The second presumed a certainty, and gave it an ecclesial force, which had not been established.
¹ Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, “Episcopal Consecration of Most Reverend Father Michael Mary, F.SS.R.,” 25 July 2026.
² Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, “Bishop Michael Mary, F.SS.R.,” 26 July 2026.
³ Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, The Dogma to Steer By, 2 May 2026; Father Michael Mary Sim, “Declaration concerning the Upcoming Episcopal Consecration on 25 July 2026,” 8 July 2026.
⁴ Diocese of Aberdeen, “Statement of the Diocese of Aberdeen,” 25 July 2026.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Ibid.; Bishop Hugh Gilbert distinguished the completed judgment from the consecration later conducted on 25 July, which he said compounded the situation and exposed those involved to further penalties.
⁷ Chris Jackson, “An Open Letter to the Transalpine Redemptorists,” Hiraeth in Exile, 6 May 2026.
⁸ Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, The Dogma to Steer By, 2 May 2026.
⁹ Diocese of Aberdeen, “Statement of the Diocese of Aberdeen,” 25 July 2026.
¹⁰ Catholic Herald, “The Week Ahead: Illicit Consecrations, Germany’s Synodal Way and a New Bishop for Hawaii,” 27 July 2026.
¹¹ Kieran Andrews, “Orkney Monks Excommunicated by Church after New Bishop Consecrated,” The Times, 25 July 2026; comments attributed to Luke Coppen.
¹² Novus Ordo Watch, “Home At Last: Transalpine Redemptorists Become Sedevacantists,” May 2026, together with its subsequent coverage of the episcopal consecration.
¹³ Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, chapter 30.
¹⁴ Code of Canon Law, canon 1404: Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur.
¹⁵ Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943.
¹⁶ Society of Saint Pius X, “What to Make of the Decree of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith of July 2, 2026,” 9 July 2026; Bishop Michel de Sivry, sermon at his first Pontifical Mass, 16 July 2026. The Society stated that it recognises Leo XIV as its head, does not claim to constitute a parallel Church, and names him in the Mass.
¹⁷ Society of Saint Pius X, Communiqué of the General House, 19 February 2026; “The Good and the Bad Schismatics,” 6 July 2026; “Operation Survival: The Story of the Episcopal Consecrations,” 4 July 2018. These texts present the bishops as serving the Church without ordinary territorial jurisdiction and distinguish their consecration from the establishment of a rival hierarchy.
¹⁸ Old Roman Apostolate, “The Old Roman Apostolate: A Manifesto of Fidelity to the Catholic Tradition,” 13 March 2025; “About: What the Old Roman Apostolate Is Not”; and ✠Jerome Lloyd, “Neither Triumph nor Despair,” 1 July 2026. These texts reject sedevacantism, deny that the apostolate constitutes an alternative Church, recognise the reigning Pope and describe Old Romans as “Roman Catholics in irregular circumstances”.
¹⁹ John of Saint Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, treatment of the deposition of a heretical Pope; compare Cajetan, De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii.
²⁰ Code of Canon Law, canon 751.
²¹ Father Gregory Hesse, “Sedevacantism,” recorded interview, YouTube; see also the supplied transcript and critical assessment.
²² Louis Cardinal Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, thesis concerning the universal and peaceful acceptance of a Roman Pontiff.
²³ Code of Canon Law, canon 194 §§1–2.
²⁴ Bishop Pierre Roy, “Announcement of the Episcopal Consecration of Very Rev. Fr Michael Mary, F.SS.R.,” 18 June 2026.
²⁵ Father Michael Mary Sim, “Declaration concerning the Upcoming Episcopal Consecration on 25 July 2026,” 8 July 2026.
²⁶ First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, chapters 2–3.
²⁷ Diocese of Aberdeen, “Statement of the Diocese of Aberdeen,” 25 July 2026.
RELATED ARTICLES
LATEST ARTICLES
- THE QUESTION ROME DID NOT ANSWER: Papa Stronsay, Sedevacantism and the Consecration of Bishop Michael MaryOn 25 July 2026, Father Michael Mary Sim was consecrated a bishop by sedevacantist bishops, despite being excommunicated by the Diocese of Aberdeen for schism. This act exemplified the community’s stance that Leo XIV is not Pope. The consecration raised significant theological and canonical questions regarding ecclesiastical authority and the status of the Catholic Church.
- Today’s homily: St PantaleonSaint Pantaleon, physician and martyr, first had to receive from Christ the healing he would later bring to others. Restored from spiritual indifference, he placed his medical skill at the service of mercy and confessed the Faith during Diocletian’s persecution at Nicomedia. His witness teaches that bodily health is a gift, but the salvation of the soul is the greater good; that science must remain subject to truth; and that the Christian, healed by grace, must become an instrument of Christ’s compassion without fear, compromise, or hatred.
- Today’s Mass: July 27 S. Pantaleon, MartyrIn the Middle Ages St Pantaleon came to be regarded as the patron saint of physicians and midwives, and became one of the fourteen guardian martyrs. From early times a vial containing some of his blood has been preserved at Constantinople. On the feast day of the saint the blood is said to become fluid and to bubble. Relics of the saint are to be found at St. Denis at Paris; his head is venerated at Lyons.
- Today’s homily: St Anne, Mother of the Mother of GodThe content reflects on the significance of Saint Anne, highlighting her recognition of God’s visitation and her humble acceptance of Mary as a divine gift. It contrasts Jerusalem’s failure to recognise Christ with Anne’s faithfulness. The message emphasises the importance of nurturing faith at home, preparing children for their spiritual journeys, and recognising God’s presence in everyday life.
- Today’s Mass: July 26 St Anne, Mother of the Blessed Virgin MarySaint Anne, mother of the Virgin Mary and wife of Saint Joachim, is venerated for her role in Christianity. She devoted her daughter to God, leading Mary to the Temple at a young age. The relics of Saint Anne were discovered in France, fostering widespread devotion, especially in the 16th century.
Leave a Reply