Fr Thomas Crean OP has offered an unusually serious proposal for reconciliation between the Holy See and the Society of St Pius X. Writing in Peter Kwasniewski’s Tradition and Sanity, he challenges the assumption that Catholic obedience requires unquestioning approval of Vatican II’s disputed propositions, the Pauline liturgy or every exercise of ecclesiastical authority. His argument deserves particular attention following Rome’s declarations of schism and excommunication in July 2026. Yet Crean also challenges the Society’s own sacramental and ecclesiological assumptions. The resulting argument cuts in both directions: Rome must cease confusing fidelity to Tradition with rebellion, while the Society must ensure that the preservation of Tradition does not become a practical repudiation of the Church’s visible constitution. Neither side can purchase peace at the expense of Catholic truth.
Fr Thomas Crean OP has performed a considerable service to the Church by addressing the Society of St Pius X as a serious theological interlocutor rather than an ecclesiastical embarrassment requiring administrative correction. His essay, What the SSPX Should, and Should Not, Have to Accept, published on 22 October 2026, deserves careful consideration in the aftermath of the episcopal consecrations at Écône on 1 July and the subsequent Vatican declarations of excommunication and schism. Crean’s approach is especially valuable because he begins not with disputed administrative arrangements but with the doctrine of the Church herself.¹
His opening proposition is uncompromising: “From a doctrinal point of view, it should not be difficult for the SSPX to be recognised as Catholic.” He then explains why. The Society, notwithstanding more than half a century of controversy, “has not denied any dogma defined by the Church or taught by her universal and ordinary magisterium.” Crean pointedly contrasts this record with that of numerous clerics currently enjoying regular canonical standing. The significance is obvious. Administrative recognition is not a substitute for doctrinal fidelity, and the possession of ordinary faculties does not guarantee that their holder faithfully professes the Catholic religion.
Crean reinforces the argument by invoking St Jerome’s judgement that “there is no schism that does not devise some heresy for itself, that it may appear to have had a reason for separating from the Church.” The application is provocative. The Society’s characteristic complaint is not that the Church has taught too much, but that her authorities have permitted the abandonment or obscuring of doctrines and practices previously regarded as essential. It professes the Roman primacy, accepts the defined dogmas, prays for the Pope and maintains that its exceptional circumstances are directed towards preserving Catholic priesthood and worship. Whether its actions are canonically justified is a further question. But a proper assessment must acknowledge what the Society actually believes.
The Vatican’s judgement of 2 July was considerably more categorical. The decree signed by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández described the episcopal consecrations as an atto di natura scismatica, an act of a schismatic nature, performed without pontifical mandate and contrary to the Supreme Pontiff’s will. It declared that Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, the four newly consecrated bishops and Bishop Bernard Fellay had incurred excommunication. The accompanying explanatory note extended Rome’s judgement beyond the consecrating bishops to the Society’s wider ministry.²
Its first numbered provision declares: “I ministri sacri appartenenti alla Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X, sono nello scisma” — the sacred ministers belonging to the Society of St Pius X are in schism. Its third provision further states: “il sacramento della penitenza da loro amministrato e il matrimonio da loro assistito sono invalidi” — the sacrament of penance administered by them and marriages at which they assist are invalid. These are not merely warnings against future disobedience. They constitute a comprehensive assessment of the Society’s ecclesiastical and sacramental position, with potentially grave consequences for clergy and faithful alike.³
The distinction between the decree and the explanatory note is therefore crucial. The decree identifies six bishops and particular episcopal acts. The note asserts a collective schismatic condition and declares further sacramental consequences. The two documents must be read together, but they do not perform identical juridical functions. In particular, the canonical responsibility of a consecrating bishop, the status of priests associated with him and the individual imputability of lay faithful cannot simply be collapsed into one undifferentiated accusation.
Crean’s argument challenges precisely the tendency to substitute such categories for theological analysis. If the Society recognises the Roman Pontiff and the divinely established constitution of the Church, the accusation of schism must explain how its particular actions demonstrate a refusal of that submission. A grave act of disobedience may indeed constitute a schismatic act, especially when it concerns episcopal consecration and hierarchical communion. But disobedience and schism are not interchangeable definitions. The objective nature of the act, the authority rejected, the intentions manifested and the conditions governing canonical penalties all require examination.
Crean’s proposed starting point is the protocol signed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on 5 May 1988. He calls it “a natural and useful starting point in the quest for doctrinal peace.” The importance of that agreement is not merely historical. It demonstrates that Rome once contemplated reconciliation without demanding the complete surrender of traditionalist theological objections. The protocol recognised papal authority, accepted the relevant teaching of Lumen Gentium concerning the Magisterium, and provided for continued examination of disputed conciliar and postconciliar propositions.⁴
Crean also corrects an important misunderstanding concerning Lefebvre’s subsequent withdrawal. The Archbishop did not simply repudiate the doctrinal declaration he had signed. Rather, Crean observes, he “came to believe, rightly or wrongly, that Pope John Paul II and the Vatican could not be relied on to protect his priestly society.” The distinction matters because the dispute concerned not only doctrine but confidence in the practical guarantees necessary to preserve the Society’s apostolate. The experience of subsequent restrictions upon the traditional liturgy has hardly rendered that historical anxiety unintelligible.
The 1988 protocol required the Society to adopt “a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See” concerning disputed questions. Crean reasonably asks why any Catholic should wish to adopt another attitude. Fidelity to Tradition does not require the refusal of legitimate theological enquiry. Nor does communion with Rome demand silence concerning apparent contradictions. The original approach contemplated discussion within a shared profession of Catholic principles rather than agreement secured through the suppression of unresolved difficulties.
This becomes especially important in Crean’s treatment of Vatican II. He firmly maintains that it was a legitimately convened ecumenical council whose documents were duly promulgated. He rejects the argument that describing it as pastoral deprived its authentic doctrinal teaching of all authority. Yet he immediately adds that recognition of its legitimacy does not mean that the Society must endorse every proposition or pastoral judgement contained within its documents. Crean’s distinction is decisive: “Obviously this requirement to accept Vatican II as a legitimate ecumenical council does not imply that the SSPX are obliged to accept the truth of all the propositions contained in its documents.”
He continues by recognising the right to seek clarification where teachings are ambiguous or apparently inconsistent with earlier doctrine, together with “the duty to reject any manifest errors that have slipped into the texts.” This is an unusually forthright formulation from a theologian arguing for reconciliation. It places the question where it belongs: not upon the false opposition between accepting and rejecting Vatican II indiscriminately, but upon the precise doctrinal authority and theological content of particular propositions.
The implication for recent negotiations is substantial. Rome cannot reasonably demand assent to every disputed formulation merely by invoking the Council’s ecumenical character. Equally, traditionalists cannot dismiss authentic teaching simply because the Council issued no new solemn definitions. The proper Catholic approach requires distinguishing definitive doctrine, non-definitive magisterial teaching, pastoral recommendations and prudential judgements, and then examining their continuity with the previously received faith.
Crean approaches the traditional objections to religious liberty, collegiality and ecumenism with the confident assertion that “none of these three topics should be a barrier to doctrinal peace between the SSPX and the Holy See.” That is a welcome ambition, but it is not yet a demonstrated conclusion. In the case of Dignitatis Humanae, he cites Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais’s concession that the declaration’s qualifications permitted a Catholic interpretation of its strictly doctrinal content. Yet the possibility of such an interpretation does not establish that subsequent applications have preserved the Church’s earlier teaching concerning the rights of Christ and the duties of civil authority.⁵
The problem is especially evident in Crean’s treatment of ecumenism. He writes that “there is no ‘doctrine of ecumenism’ taught by the Second Vatican Council which any Catholic need contradict.” This is perhaps the least persuasive claim in an otherwise carefully reasoned essay. Ecumenism is not reducible to a series of practical arrangements whose theological implications can be assessed independently of their underlying ecclesiology. Common religious declarations, shared worship and the presentation of separated Christian bodies as possessing complementary ecclesial identities necessarily express assumptions about the nature of the Church and the conditions of Christian unity.
Crean reasonably distinguishes cooperation with non-Catholics in defence of the natural law from practices which obscure or compromise Catholic doctrine. But that distinction does not resolve the question raised by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos: whether Christian unity can be pursued through arrangements which obscure the Catholic Church’s unique identity and the obligation to profess the fullness of revealed truth. Nor does it answer the difficulties raised by attempts to present interreligious encounters such as Assisi as normative expressions of the Church’s contemporary teaching. The traditional objection is not to charity or legitimate cooperation. It concerns the substitution of religious accommodation for the Church’s missionary claim to possess the truth revealed by Jesus Christ.
Crean’s argument becomes considerably stronger when he turns to the Pauline Mass. He observes that the 1988 protocol required the Society to recognise the validity of the reformed rite but did not oblige it to offer an unqualified endorsement of its legitimacy. Here he identifies the ambiguity underlying much of the subsequent controversy: “The problem with this word is that it lacks a clear meaning.” A rite may be legitimate in the narrow juridical sense of having been promulgated by competent authority, while its theological expression and pastoral consequences remain open to serious criticism. The distinction between sacramental validity, lawful promulgation and liturgical excellence is not a traditionalist invention. It arises from the nature of the questions themselves.
Crean then states a principle which ought to be central to any renewed negotiations: “it cannot be proved that popes are divinely guaranteed not to give their sanction to liturgical books which are worthy of serious criticism.” This challenges the increasingly common assumption that recognition of papal authority requires Catholics to regard every authorised liturgical reform as intrinsically beneficial. The Pope’s power over liturgical discipline is real, but the possession of that power does not confer prudential impeccability upon every decision made through its exercise.
Crean’s treatment of Pius VI’s Auctorem Fidei exposes the historical irony. The condemnation commonly invoked to defend the postconciliar reform was originally directed against Jansenist innovators who wished to criticise and reconstruct the Church’s inherited discipline. Crean argues that Pius VI was not “intending to write a blank cheque for himself and his successors, guaranteeing that any liturgy that they might choose to promulgate would be a work of the Holy Ghost and therefore beyond criticism.” The observation is forceful. A condemnation defending traditional ecclesiastical discipline against innovators should not casually be transformed into an unlimited defence of subsequent liturgical innovation.⁶
Nevertheless, Crean’s interpretation requires an important theological qualification. The Church’s indefectibility does impose real limits upon universal ecclesiastical discipline. The traditional manualists did not invent this principle merely to embarrass critics of the Pauline Mass. The question is how that principle applies to a reform which traditional Catholics regard as a substantial departure from inherited worship. One cannot solve the difficulty by declaring every authorised innovation irreproachable. Equally, one cannot maintain that the Church has universally imposed a sacramental order intrinsically destructive of souls without confronting the implications for her indefectibility. A serious reconciliation must address this question rather than conceal it beneath the ambiguous word legitimacy.
Crean proceeds to an even more fundamental claim. The Society, he argues, should be permitted to maintain “that it is ultra vires for a pope simply to suppress a form of Mass that can trace its pedigree to the apostles, and replace it with another one, even if the new one were to be abstractly superior.” The proposition concerns the limits of papal jurisdiction itself. Supreme authority over ecclesiastical discipline is not identical to an unrestricted competence to reconstruct the Church’s sacred inheritance. The Pope is the guardian of the deposit of faith and the Church’s worship, not the proprietor of an institution whose inherited forms exist solely at his discretion.
Crean illustrates the issue by asking whether a pope could forbid the Patriarch of Alexandria to use the Coptic rite and require the Pauline Roman Mass instead. The question is deliberately provocative, but its force is considerable. If an ancient Eastern liturgy possesses an integrity which ecclesiastical authority must respect, why should the Roman rite’s centuries of organic development be considered merely provisional? The traditional Roman liturgy is not an arbitrary collection of ceremonial preferences. Its prayers, sacrificial language, gestures of adoration and hierarchical expressions communicate Catholic doctrine through the Church’s public worship.
He further recognises that different forms of celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice may have different spiritual consequences. Crean concludes that “there is nothing that requires us to believe that a sacrifice cannot be offered in ways that are more or less pleasing to Him.” The infinite objective worth of Christ’s sacrifice is not in question, nor is the validity of the Pauline Mass thereby denied. The issue concerns the relationship between the manner of offering the sacrifice, the Church’s liturgical expression and the dispositions encouraged among those who participate in it.
This is a more serious argument than the caricature that traditional Catholics merely prefer Latin, elaborate vestments or ceremonial solemnity. The inherited Roman rite communicates the propitiatory nature of the Mass, the sacrificial priesthood, divine transcendence and the distinction between sacred and profane through an integrated theological language. Its replacement cannot be judged solely by determining whether the essential sacramental form remains valid. The question is whether the reform preserves the doctrinal expression and spiritual formation historically embodied in the Roman liturgical inheritance.
Crean nevertheless places a necessary limitation upon traditionalist criticism. The Society, he argues, should refrain from expressions suggesting that Catholics cannot sanctify their souls through the Pauline Mass. That warning deserves acceptance. Valid sacramental worship cannot be declared spiritually sterile merely because its liturgical form is judged deficient in comparison with an inherited rite. Catholic theology distinguishes the objective efficacy of the sacraments from the differing dispositions of ministers and recipients, and from the variable fruitfulness associated with particular forms of worship. A sound traditionalist critique must preserve these distinctions.
The question of canonisations introduces another important element. Crean challenges the demand that the Society accept an unqualified judgement concerning every recent canonisation, particularly where procedural reforms have raised questions about the investigations formerly considered necessary. He himself favours the traditional theological position concerning the infallibility of canonisations and disagrees with the Society’s scepticism. Nevertheless, he recognises that the Church has not definitively settled every disputed theological question concerning the scope of that infallibility.
His conclusion is pointed: “I do not see how it can be reasonable for communion to be denied to members of the SSPX until they sign a document declaring that Paul VI and John Paul II are in heaven.” The question is not whether Catholics may publicly disparage canonised saints without consequence. Nor does criticism of the circumstances surrounding a pontificate establish that its holder was incapable of attaining sanctity. The issue is whether a particular theological judgement, whose precise status remains disputed, may reasonably be elevated into an indispensable condition of ecclesiastical reconciliation.
Crean’s treatment of Assisi illustrates the distinction. He considers it legitimate to argue that the interreligious gatherings associated with John Paul II would have presented serious obstacles to his canonisation under earlier procedures. That is a judgement concerning historical conduct and ecclesiastical prudence, not necessarily a denial of the Pope’s ultimate sanctity. The question must be examined with proper theological precision rather than collapsed into a demand that all criticism of a canonised pontiff cease.
Having identified substantial areas where Rome might reasonably accommodate traditionalist objections, Crean turns his criticism towards the Society itself. He believes that its treatment of postconciliar ordinations represents a serious practical obstacle to reconciliation. He acknowledges that particular ordinations may require investigation where concrete evidence raises doubt about sacramental matter, form or intention. What he rejects is the presumption that ordinations performed outside traditionalist circles are generally suspect.
His formulation is unequivocal: “What is not legitimate is for all the ordinations in the world outside the SSPX and its allies to be treated a priori as suspect and as therefore needing to be investigated.” The argument has considerable force. The Catholic Church cannot be presumed to have lost the ordinary means of perpetuating her priesthood merely because the rites of ordination were reformed or because particular bishops hold objectionable theological opinions. The sacramental validity of Holy Orders depends upon objective sacramental requirements, not membership of a particular ecclesiastical association.
Crean grounds the argument in the Church’s indefectibility, invoking Christ’s promise of perpetual assistance to His Church. His concern is that systematic suspicion of the wider hierarchy may gradually produce an ecclesiology in which the Society becomes the practical arbiter of sacramental legitimacy. Such a development would be profoundly problematic. The Society exists, according to its own profession, to preserve the Catholic priesthood and serve the Church. It cannot consistently maintain that profession while treating the Church’s ordinary sacramental life as presumptively unreliable.
Nevertheless, Crean’s criticism must not be extended beyond its proper scope. Positive doubts concerning particular ordinations may legitimately require examination. The Church has never required Catholics to ignore demonstrable defects in sacramental matter, form or intention. The distinction is between prudent investigation supported by evidence and generalised suspicion arising principally from hostility towards the postconciliar ecclesiastical establishment. The former may be necessary; the latter risks becoming an institutional ideology.
This is also where Crean’s proposal becomes less convincing. He treats excessive suspicion concerning modern ordinations as the principal practical obstacle to reconciliation. But the events of July 2026 demonstrate that the immediate difficulties are considerably wider. They concern episcopal jurisdiction, the canonical interpretation of schism, imputability, the status of the Society’s priests, sacramental faculties and the position of lay Catholics attending its chapels. These questions cannot be resolved simply by persuading the Society to modify its approach to ordinations.
The Vatican’s explanatory note is particularly problematic when considered alongside earlier pontifical provisions concerning the Society’s sacramental ministry. Francis granted SSPX priests faculties to hear confessions validly and licitly, while the 2017 provisions concerning marriages authorised local Ordinaries to arrange or delegate assistance at marriages involving the Society. The 2026 note’s declaration of invalidity therefore requires precise explanation concerning the continuing or extinguished juridical effects of those earlier provisions. A change of canonical status may have serious consequences, but those consequences must be established according to law rather than left to inference.⁷
The position of lay Catholics requires equal care. The 1996 explanatory note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, expressly invoked by the Dicastery in 2026, distinguished formal adherence to schism from participation in traditional liturgical celebrations motivated by attachment to the rite. It recognised that outward participation is not necessarily an unequivocal indication of schismatic intention and that individual circumstances must be assessed accordingly. The 2026 declaration must be read in light of those qualifications rather than employed to suggest that attendance at an SSPX chapel automatically establishes excommunication.⁸
This is not a minor pastoral consideration. Catholics may approach the Society because they seek the traditional Mass, sound doctrinal instruction, reverent sacramental worship or spiritual care unavailable elsewhere. Such motives do not themselves demonstrate rejection of the Pope. The distinction between the canonical condition of a minister and the intentions of those receiving his ministry is indispensable to any just assessment.
The Society’s continuing canonical recourse is therefore significant. Its communiqué of 13 October confirmed that the available procedures had been pursued and that the bishops sought examination of the juridical and doctrinal objections raised against the documents of 2 July. This does not establish that the recourse will succeed or that the penalties were unjustly declared. It does establish that the dispute remains before the competent authorities and that its legal questions deserve adjudication according to the Church’s own norms.⁹
The wider ecclesiastical context makes the controversy still more troubling. As previous Nuntiatoria commentary has repeatedly observed, traditional Catholics are frequently required to demonstrate their obedience by accepting disputed postconciliar developments, while theological and disciplinary innovations elsewhere are treated with considerably greater patience. The defence of lay homilies in Switzerland, continued discussion of women’s alleged calling to ordained ministry, the elevation of lived experience within synodal discourse, and the uncertainty surrounding sacramental discipline under Amoris Laetitia illustrate the imbalance.
The issue is not whether every proposal made within a synodal discussion constitutes formal heresy. It is whether the same principles of doctrinal fidelity and ecclesiastical discipline are being applied consistently. If obedience requires assent to authentic Catholic teaching, then advocates of innovation are no less bound by that obligation than those defending Tradition. If theological clarification is possible concerning disputed postconciliar formulations, then traditionalists cannot be condemned merely for requesting it.
There is a danger that acceptance of the postconciliar settlement has become an informal test of ecclesiastical loyalty. Crean’s essay challenges precisely that development. Catholic doctrine is not determined by the theological preferences currently dominant within ecclesiastical administration. The Magisterium exists to transmit and defend the deposit of faith, not to transform disputed reforms into unquestionable measures of orthodoxy.
Nevertheless, the corresponding danger within traditionalist circles must also be acknowledged. Prolonged canonical irregularity can encourage habits of judgement which gradually become independent of the Church’s ordinary hierarchical constitution. A necessary distinction between legitimate resistance and schism may eventually be obscured if exceptional circumstances are cultivated as an enduring ecclesiastical identity.
The Old Roman experience offers a pertinent caution. Fidelity to inherited doctrine and worship can coexist with irregular canonical circumstances without implying the establishment of an alternative Catholic Church. Such circumstances are not an independent source of jurisdiction or a desirable permanent condition. Those seeking to preserve the Roman Catholic inheritance must remain faithful to the Roman primacy and the divine constitution of the Church, even where the actions of particular ecclesiastical authorities are seriously contested.
Crean’s concluding admonition to the Society is therefore necessary. He calls upon Don Davide Pagliarani and his confrères to consider whether they truly believe that the Holy Ghost has remained the “indestructible soul of the Catholic Church” despite the betrayals and failures of her ministers. His warning is that distrust of postconciliar ecclesiastical government must not become practical distrust of the Church’s continued sacramental and hierarchical existence.
The challenge is sound, but it cannot be addressed to the Society alone. If the Holy Ghost preserves the Church, then the ecclesiastical authorities entrusted with her government cannot treat her inherited doctrine and worship as obstacles to communion. The Petrine office exists to confirm the brethren in the faith, not to make approval of every disputed reform an indispensable condition of ecclesiastical belonging.
Crean’s proposals reveal that substantial doctrinal agreement remains possible. The Society can recognise the legitimacy of Vatican II without regarding every disputed formulation as irreformable. It can acknowledge sacramental validity without declaring every liturgical reform excellent. It can profess the Roman primacy without treating every administrative decision as beyond criticism. It can maintain legitimate sacramental caution without assuming invalidity throughout the wider Church.
Rome, correspondingly, must recognise that attachment to the traditional Roman liturgy and criticism of disputed conciliar developments are not themselves evidence of schism. Where acts of disobedience are alleged to constitute schismatic conduct, that conclusion must be established according to the nature of the acts and the relevant juridical principles, not merely inferred from the persistence of traditionalist objections.
The purpose of reconciliation cannot be the Society’s unconditional absorption into a settlement whose theological premises it continues to regard as deeply problematic. Such an arrangement might produce administrative regularity while leaving the underlying difficulties unresolved. Nor can reconciliation consist in the indefinite perpetuation of a parallel sacramental life increasingly detached from the Church’s ordinary structures of government.
It must involve genuine theological clarification, just canonical procedures and practical guarantees that fidelity to the Catholic inheritance will not be treated as an ecclesiastical offence.
The problem is ultimately the relationship between authority and Tradition. The Pope possesses supreme jurisdiction in the Church, but he does not possess an unrestricted power to redefine the deposit of faith or reconstruct the Church’s worship according to contemporary preferences. His authority is divinely instituted for the preservation and transmission of what Christ entrusted to the Apostles.
Those who resist particular exercises of that authority must remain faithful to its divine constitution. Those who exercise it must remain faithful to the inheritance it exists to protect.
Crean’s essay deserves serious engagement precisely because he has refused to treat these obligations as inherently contradictory. His proposals will not resolve every doctrinal or canonical difficulty. His optimism concerning religious liberty and ecumenism requires further theological demonstration, while his account of universal ecclesiastical discipline invites more exact treatment of the Church’s indefectibility. Nevertheless, he has established that reconciliation need not require the repudiation of legitimate traditionalist criticism.
The tragedy of the present division is that Catholics professing the same Roman primacy, the same sacramental priesthood and the same defined dogmas remain separated by disputes concerning the exercise of authority and the theological interpretation of reforms. Such disputes are serious. They cannot be resolved by administrative formulas alone. But neither should they be allowed to become permanent obstacles where Catholic principles permit a genuine resolution.
The Society must recognise that communion with the successor of St Peter belongs to the Tradition it seeks to preserve. Rome must recognise that fidelity to Tradition belongs to the very purpose for which the Petrine office was established.
Neither party may claim exemption from these obligations.
Peace cannot be purchased through silence concerning doctrinal difficulties, nor secured by an ecclesiology which normalises separation. It must be founded upon the recovery of a common understanding of Catholic authority: supreme within its divinely established sphere, bound to the deposit of faith, and directed towards the salvation of souls.
The Roman primacy does not exist by permission of Tradition, and Tradition does not exist by permission of the Roman primacy. Both belong to the constitution of the Church established by Christ.
That is the foundation upon which reconciliation must rest. Anything less may produce an administrative settlement, but it will not resolve the underlying ecclesiastical crisis.
¹ Fr Thomas Crean OP, What the SSPX Should, and Should Not, Have to Accept, Tradition and Sanity, 22 October 2026; introductory commentary by Peter Kwasniewski.
² Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decreto, 2 July 2026.
³ Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Nota esplicativa, 2 July 2026, nn. 1–3.
⁴ Holy See and Society of St Pius X, Protocol of Agreement, 5 May 1988, doctrinal declaration, nn. 1–5.
⁵ Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, 7 December 1965; Pius IX, Quanta Cura, 8 December 1864; Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, 20 June 1888.
⁶ Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 28 August 1794, proposition 78; Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947.
⁷ Francis, Misericordia et Misera, 20 November 2016, n. 12; Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Letter on Faculties for Marriages of the Faithful of the Society of St Pius X, 27 March 2017.
⁸ Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Nota esplicativa sulla scomunica per scisma in cui incorrono gli aderenti al movimento del Vescovo Marcel Lefebvre, 24 August 1996, nn. 5–9.
⁹ Society of St Pius X, Communiqué from the General House: The Appeal against the Decree of Excommunication Is Ongoing in Rome, 13 October 2026.
¹⁰ Fr Peter Scott SSPX, Must Priests Who Come to Tradition Be Re-ordained?, The Angelus, September 2007; Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, 30 November 1947.
¹¹ Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 6 January 1928; John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, 2 July 1988.
Leave a Reply