Canonist Explains SSPX’s Appeal of Decree of Excommunication

 Of course, as Dr Stine asked, "Does an organisation (the SSPX)  with no 'legal' existence have legal rights under the Code of Canon Law?

From Aleteia

By I. Media

Canonist Pierre Chaffard-Luçon explains why the Society of St. Pius X's recourse is legitimate, even if the excommunication penalty remains.

On July 13, 2026, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) announced it had filed a recourse against the decree of excommunication published against it by the Holy See on July 2. In an interview with I.Media, canonist Pierre Chaffard-Luçon explained that this procedure is legitimate, but the excommunication penalties continue to apply due to the certainty of the facts in question.

In a press release published on its website this Monday, the SSPX announced it had filed a preliminary recourse with the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith against the July 2 decree. In that decree, the Holy See took note of the schism — and thus the excommunication — of six bishops who participated the day before in an episcopal ordination Mass in Switzerland without a pontifical mandate. The decree also applied to Lefebvrist priests and any laypeople who “formally adhere” to the SSPX.

The preliminary recourse filed by the Lefebvrist leaders “is allowed by the law,” Chaffard-Luçon tells I.Media, noting that the SSPX claims to belong to the Catholic Church. Indeed, Canon 1353 provides a suspensive effect that can legitimately apply to the July 2 decree, as the SSPX claims.

A distinction between decree and penalty

However, the French canonist notes that in the present case, one must distinguish the decree from the announced penalty. The decree is a declarative act of a latae sententiae penalty, which is incurred by the very commission of the act.

“By declaring the latae sententiae penalty of excommunication, the decree of July 2, 2026, gave it a form of legal certainty,” he notes. “With the decree suspended, it is this certainty that is being debated. However, the recourse does not erase the act carried out by the fraternity: the episcopal ordinations without a pontifical mandate. No one can deny that they took place, as the fraternity took great care to publicize this liturgy.”

The recourse therefore suspends the legal certainty brought by the decree, but not the reality of the facts or the canonical consequences that flow from them. Chaffard-Luçon cites jurisprudence affirming that “an appeal or recourse does not, however, have a suspensive effect on the obligation to observe the effects of a penalty previously incurred latae sententiae.”

He notes that the Vatican's actions are in continuity with the condemnations pronounced in 1988, after the first episcopal ordinations celebrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

“Some might consider this approach more as an instrumentalization of canon law than a genuine pursuit of truth,” the canonist notes. However, he says it is not up to a canonist to judge “the heart and the intention” of SSPX members. It is “therefore appropriate to fully carry through with their appeal.” For the procedure to move forward, the SSPX must formally file an appeal explicitly detailing the reasoning behind its request. The group has 30 days to do this.