“If we come to be declared excommunicated and schismatic, this would not mean that we seek such a sanction or rejoice in it, for it would be objectively unjust. It is one thing to rejoice in receiving a new humiliation to offer to God, and it is quite another to rejoice (in a spirit of defiance) in an evil and an objective injustice that causes scandal to the whole Church. Caritas non gaudet super iniquitatem — ‘charity rejoiceth not in iniquity.’” (Fr. Davide Pagliarani, March 7, 2026)
Long before Cardinal Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández issued his letter of excommunication to punish the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) for consecrating bishops without papal approval, the SSPX had been preparing the faithful for such an eventuality. Many of us had prayed that Rome might refrain from taking this action, but we knew it would likely come and we have no intention of abandoning our beliefs simply because those in Rome insist that we must. As often happens, God did not grant our prayers to avoid the excommunications but it seems that He has given us a result that in many ways is far more beneficial and salutatory for those of good will: He has allowed it to become more clear than ever that the crisis in the Catholic Church continues because Rome no longer tolerates the immutable Catholic Faith.
The 2026 excommunications reveal far more than Rome intended—they reveal what today’s Vatican truly believes about Catholics who refuse to compromise the Faith.
This reality appears to us first of all through the stunning harshness of the punishment, which goes well beyond the 1988 excommunications. As reported by Rorate Caeli, those priests who want to leave the SSPX to “return to the Church” must perform what looks like an elaborate humiliation ritual that stands in stark contrast with the way in which the Vatican coddles apostate and immoral priests:
“The procedure followed by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, effective July 1, 2026, provides that a priest who has decided to leave the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, who is willing to accept the Second Vatican Council and the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae, while remaining attached to the usus antiquior, must: (1) Find an Ordinary (a diocesan bishop, a major superior of a clerical pontifical institute of consecrated life, a clerical pontifical society of apostolic life, etc.) who is willing to receive him ad experimentum. (2) Write, in his own hand, a letter to the Holy Father introducing himself and requesting the remission of the censures incurred either because he received priestly ordination from an excommunicated or otherwise canonically irregular bishop, or because, although validly and licitly ordained, he subsequently joined the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. (3) Attach his certificate of priestly ordination. (4) Attach the Profession of Faith and the Formula of Adherence, dated and signed (see Appendices A and B). (5) Have the Ordinary send the above-mentioned three documents to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith together with a covering letter expressing the Ordinary’s willingness to receive the priest ad experimentum into his diocese or institute. Upon receipt of these three documents from the Ordinary, the Dicastery shall prepare the Rescript remitting the censures, to be signed by the Prefect and the Secretary of the Doctrinal Section. The Dicastery will then transmit the Rescript to the Ordinary together with a covering letter authorizing him to receive the petitioner for a probationary period of not less than one year and not more than three years, at the conclusion of which the priest may be incardinated.”
One wonders at the satisfaction that Tucho must have had in drawing up these measures, perhaps recalling how Traditional Catholics had condemned his authorization of blessings for same-sex unions and his attacks on Our Lady’s titles of Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces. In any case, the Vatican’s antipathy toward the SSPX’s defense of the immutable Catholic Faith is made palpable with this and the other punishments inflicted by Tucho.
All of this becomes even more clear when we reflect on the fact that these punishments constitute a complete departure from what Rome represents as some of its most fundamental guiding lights: religious liberty, ecumenism, and the “accompaniment” of all souls through the Synodal process. To grasp how this cocktail of errors ought to operate, we can consider words from Leo XIV’s encyclical on artificial intelligence (and many other subjects), Magnifica Humanitas, in which he presented a novel interpretation of the story of Babel:
“The story of Babel appears in the Book of Genesis, at the origins of humanity, immediately after the genealogies of Noah’s sons. After settling in a plain in the land of Shinar, the people decided to build a city and a tower ‘with its top in the heavens’ (Gen 11:4). Fearing being scattered across the earth, they sought to guarantee stability and power for themselves, and above all to ‘make a name’ for themselves. It was an impressive feat: a single language, a single technology, a single direction. However, the project concealed a profound danger. It was a project conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion. When a city is built on pride and the claim to self-sufficiency, communication breaks down, languages are confused, and people no longer understand each other. The result is not unity, but dispersion. Babel thus reveals the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency, and aspires to reach heaven without God’s blessing.”
As with Francis and the Synod on Synodality, Leo XIV stressed the need to pursue unity through encouraging diversity and human dignity rather than uniformity. This concept of “unity in diversity” has been used to justify inclusion of those who depart from the Church’s teaching in matters of doctrine and morality.
The issue is no longer simply whether the SSPX is right or wrong. The issue is why a Church that preaches limitless inclusion suddenly finds no room for Catholics attached to immutable Tradition.
As discussed in a previous article, we saw this same idea at work in the Synod’s Document for the Continental Stage, issued on October 27, 2022:
- “Everyone is called to take part in this journey, no one is excluded.” (Paragraph 103)
- “Synodality is a call from God to walk together with the whole human family.” (Paragraph 43)
- “This is how many reports envision the Church: an expansive, but not homogeneous dwelling, capable of sheltering all, but open, letting in and out (cf. Jn. 10:9), and moving toward embracing the Father and all of humanity.” (Paragraph 27)
- “The vision of a Church capable of radical inclusion, shared belonging, and deep hospitality according to the teachings of Jesus is at the heart of the synodal process.” (Paragraph 31)
Unless our working hypothesis is that the members and faithful of the SSPX are not part of the human family, one would have to assume that they are welcome in Leo’s Synodal Church, which celebrates unity in diversity. And so why is it now so clear that none of this actually applies to the SSPX? Why have they been excommunicated from the “big tent” that welcomes everyone?
As it turns out, Francis’s Synodal architects answered that with one of the first documents of the Synod on Synodality. As detailed in a 2021 article, the Preparatory Document for the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops presented an image of three figures (actors): Jesus, the protagonist; all the people who follow Jesus; and the apostles. Curiously, though, the Synodal document went on to describe an “extra” actor:
“Then, there is the ‘extra’ actor, the antagonist, who brings to the scene the diabolical separation of the other three. Faced with the perturbing prospect of the cross, there are disciples who leave and mood-changing crowds. The insidiousness that divides—and, thus, thwarts a common path—manifests itself indifferently in the forms of religious rigor, of moral injunction that presents itself as more demanding than that of Jesus, and of the seduction of a worldly political wisdom that claims to be more effective than a discernment of spirits. In order to escape the deceptions of the ‘fourth actor,’ continuous conversion is necessary.”
It is worth really studying these words from one of the first official documents of the Synod on Synodality. This is clearly portraying Traditional Catholics as almost subhuman and diabolical, unworthy of even being included among the three actors.
These punishments are not merely disciplinary measures—they are an unmistakable window into the priorities of the Synodal Church.
So the recent excommunications of even the faithful who “formally adhere” to the SSPX are cruel and unnecessary — of course — but they are also a perfect reflection of what Rome actually believes. In other words, this is not the result of the simple failings of human nature to which we are all subject: this is the plan for the Synodal Church, which is designed to exclude those who insist on adhering to the immutable Catholic Faith. Thanks be to God for this clarifying moment afforded by the unjust punishments!
This fundamental reality of Rome’s opposition to the immutable Catholic Faith is now more evident than ever to the entire world, but it has been clear to the SSPX for decades. In this light, the SSPX’s “Apostolic Mandate” for the episcopal consecrations appears not only appropriate but entirely necessary:
“It is the Catholic and Roman Church, always faithful to the holy traditions received from the Apostles, who, in entirely exceptional circumstances, demands that we provide for the upholding of these holy traditions – that is, the deposit of faith – and that we take the means necessary to transmit them faithfully to all men for the salvation of their souls. From the Second Vatican Council up to the present day, the authorities in the Church have been animated by a spirit that is contrary to that of the Faith, and have been acting against holy Tradition – ‘they will no longer endure sound doctrine, turning away their hearing from the truth, and turning towards fables,’ as St. Paul says to Timothy in his second epistle (4:3-5). Therefore, before God, we consider it a sacred duty towards Holy Church and towards souls to proceed with the consecration of bishops who are entirely faithful to her holy Tradition and to her constant Magisterium.”
Because God has given them the grace to see this, it would have been a gravely sinful violation of their sacred duties for the SSPX’s leaders to abandon course to pursue further dialogue with those in the Vatican who evidently despise the Church’s immutable truths and those who hold them.
In March, Fr. Pagliarani’s words above about not rejoicing in excommunications almost seemed like a misprint — after all, why bother telling the SSPX not to rejoice in something that would give no sane person reason to rejoice? But today those words look a little different because God has made it SO ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the SSPX is right and the Vatican is wrong that one might be tempted to rejoice in the injustice itself. We can, however, rejoice both in the clarity and in this new humiliation to offer to God, which in a real way can serve to call down graces on Tucho, Leo, and the entire Catholic Church. Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces, pray for us!
