Tensions Among Roman Dicasteries Over the Decree of SSPX Excommunication

When the DDF issues an unthought-out Decree, it is only to be expected that the Dicastery for Legislative Texts might have something to say.

From Rorate Cæli

Translated from the French original here, courtesy of FSSPX News.

The schism remains elusive, but divisions are spreading to Rome itself. Four months after the consecrations in Écône, the condemnation of the Society of Saint Pius X is becoming a headache for the Vatican.

The decree of excommunication issued in the wake of the episcopal ordinations in Écône is now causing difficulties within the Roman Curia itself. In an investigation published on October 30, 2026, by the German Catholic daily Die Tagespost, journalist Guido Horst reveals that the Dicastery for Legislative Texts has repeatedly attempted, in collaboration with the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, to resolve the legal contradictions contained in the documents of July 2. But these efforts were thwarted by a lack of cooperation from Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who seems unwilling to revise the texts published under his authority.

The matter is becoming all the more embarrassing for Cardinal Fernández as the objections are no longer coming solely from the Society or independent canonists, but from the Roman body responsible for interpreting canon law and ensuring the consistency of ecclesiastical legislation.

Papal Concessions Ignored

One of the main contradictions concerns confessions and marriages celebrated by priests of the Fraternity, the validity of which the explanatory note accompanying the July 2 decree purports to contest—without even taking into account the provisions expressly established a few years earlier by Pope Francis, which, moreover, were in addition to the canonical foundations on which the Fraternity has always relied.

On the occasion of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy in 2015, he had expressly recognized the right of the faithful to validly and lawfully receive absolution from priests of the Fraternity, a provision initially limited to the Jubilee Year but later extended by the Apostolic Letter Misericordia et misera of November 20, 2016, until further notice. While expressing its gratitude to the Supreme Pontiff for this paternal gesture, the Fraternity had recalled that it had always relied, with complete certainty, on the extraordinary jurisdiction provided for by canon law, due to the state of necessity of souls. Francis’s intervention therefore did not alter the validity of the absolution granted by its priests, but allowed Catholics who might still have had some scruples to turn to them without concern, as the General House emphasized at the time.

A few months later, on March 27, 2017, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei published, with the express approval of the Supreme Pontiff, new provisions concerning the marriages of the faithful of the Fraternity, allowing, in particular, diocesan bishops to delegate a priest of the SSPX to receive matrimonial consents. Welcomed by the Society, these measures were intended to put an end to the unfounded challenges to marriages that were fully valid under the provisions of canon law applicable to states of necessity.

Not only have these decisions by Pope Francis never been revoked, but a mere explanatory note issued by a dicastery could not, in any case, nullify the powers granted by the Pope himself. Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, former secretary of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, had in fact reiterated this principle in July, in an interview with the Catholic media outlet AdVaticanum, emphasizing that a faculty granted by pontifical decision could be revoked only by an act of equal authority.

The warnings issued to the faithful who attend the Society’s chapels are no less questionable, since they raise the specter of excommunication for adherence to an alleged schism, whereas the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts itself acknowledged, in an explanatory note dated August 24, 1996, concerning the canonical consequences of the 1988 consecrations, that participation in the services did not constitute formal adherence to the schism. Attending the Society’s chapels cannot be considered a schismatic act today either, since the SSPX has never ceased to profess its membership in the Catholic Church and its recognition of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

Repeated Approaches to Cardinal Fernández

According to information gathered by Guido Horst, the Dicastery for Legislative Texts has therefore sought on several occasions to work with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to resolve these inconsistencies, without succeeding in obtaining Cardinal Fernández’s cooperation.

The German journalist also reports that a diplomatic mission of the Holy See, in a country where the Society has a particularly strong presence, received clarification from the Dicastery for Legislative Texts stating that Cardinal Fernández’s note did not constitute a revocation of the 2017 matrimonial provisions expressly approved by the Supreme Pontiff.

Despite these efforts, no public clarification has been issued to correct the disputed documents, to the point that Cardinal Fernández’s alleged refusal to cooperate could ultimately necessitate a personal intervention by Leo XIV to resolve this dispute between two Roman dicasteries.

The matter could also have consequences for the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith himself. Guido Horst quotes Ed Condon, co-founder of the American Catholic media outlet The Pillar, who states that the dicastery’s persistent failure to clarify the canonical consequences of the episcopal consecrations could strengthen calls for the early replacement of Cardinal Fernández, whose current term is scheduled to end in 2028.

These revelations come as the Society of St. Pius X continues to pursue its appeals against the July 2 decree. In a statement released in October, the General House confirmed that it had continued to pursue the remedies provided for by canon law, while exercising the discretion necessary for the proceedings to unfold.

Unable to establish the schism it claims to be sanctioning, Rome now finds its own dicasteries divided over the legal consequences of this condemnation, in a cacophony that reveals the impasse in which the Holy See finds itself in this matter.