Anathema Sit!

A Badge of Honor

Introduction:

According to a report by Diane Montagna a few days ago, Cardinal Victor Fernandez “has prepared a declaration of schism should the Society of St. Pius X proceed with episcopal consecrations in Écône on July 1. The Vatican is also making pastoral arrangements to welcome those who may leave the SSPX after it ordains new bishops without papal permission.”

But not content with a mere re-run of JPII’s 1988 decree Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, Niwa Limbu (Vatican correspondent and editor of the Catholic Herald) reports that this time around, the Vatican will up the ante, including in its punitive post-consecratory declaration of schism not only the bishops involved, but all SSPX priests.

And going one step further, Bishop Fellay announced from the pulpit in St. Mary’s, KS on Good Shepherd Sunday that even the SSPX faithful would likely be declared schismatic:

“I prefer not to be a prophet here, but I’m pretty sure that there is an enormous probability that all of you, we included, may be excommunicated, declared schismatic, there is a very high probability because they already said it in public. So, they are so to say forcing themselves to do it. But whatever, God can do miracles. It’s not the end.”¹

As The Seraphim has published several recent articles expressing concerns regarding the authenticity of the drama presently unfolding between Rome and Menzingen (i.e., that the apparent conflict might be staged, with Rome secretly agreeing to the consecration of several more liberal candidates behind closed doors), and opining that only declared excommunications could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the consecrations were not just another “advance” of the long ralliement of the SSPX to Rome which began with the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, it seemed apropos to comment on these latest reports.

The Romans’ Skillful Use of Pressure:

Rome has learned much about SSPX psychology from the imprudent dialogues of the last 30 years. They are aware of the tension existing in the hearts of many of those who recognize the legitimacy of the putative conciliar authority, yet find themselves forced to systematically and indefinitely resist them in matters of faith and morals.

For them, truth and authority have parted ways, and Catholics who recognize the putative hierarchy as legitimate are immediately confronted by the uncomfortable fact that they must choose one or the other, but they cannot choose both, since these are now opposed to each other.

We have written at length elsewhere about the cognitive dissonance which arises within a person when they person hold two or more conflicting beliefs, then attempt to justify their actions in order to dissipate the discomfort.

It was in this way that the “recognize and resist” position was created. It seemed a necessary compromise, or rather, the only way to preserve something of both truth and authority (but in reality, only at the expense of damaging both).

The point is that Rome has not been blind to the spiritual tension inherent in this unnatural position, particularly as it has been the beneficiary of countless formerly traditionalist defectors who have “reconciled” with authority since 1988. Rome has also watched just as many leave the SSPX for sedevacantism (choosing truth over authority).

Knowing that the pressure resulting from cognitive dissonance is inherently destabilizing, and that the normal reaction is to relieve it by some means or another (i.e., eventually choosing either truth or authority), it appears that the conciliar Rome of 2026 has learned from its mistakes in 1988, and decided to ratchet up the pressure. At that time, only the six bishops involved were declared to have incurred excommunication. But the priests and faithful were free of the censure, and although some feared to associate with a perceived schism and flocked to conciliar authority, the run of the mill clergy and faithful secretly consoled themselves by knowing only the bishops were “excommunicated.”

Rome has decided to close that escape hatch this time around, knowing that if it benefitted from defections after the 1988 consecrations, it will benefit even more if it includes the clergy and faithful in the upcoming sanctions.

Predictions:

Will this “high pressure” strategy have the effect of eliciting massive defections from the SSPX, or will it be largely ignored or scoffed at by the average priest and layman? Unfortunately, there are indicators which point in both directions, but I think one side has an edge:

On the one hand, the SSPX did itself no favors with the quid pro quo compromises, changes, and contradictions it made in pursuit of a practical accord, particularly from 2009-2018, because the message which was sent to the average man in the pews was “we need to get approval.” Those who didn’t want or need one were chased from the ranks and became the Resistance. Add to this the timorous souls who only came to the SSPX because the legal obstacles were removed (e.g., The withdrawal of the excommunications in 2009, or Francis giving jurisdiction to hear confessions in 2015, etc.), and the influx of refugees who came from their indult parishes during the COVID years, and you have a sizeable constituency of those who are only in the pews because Rome said it was OK. But what happens when Rome not only changes its mind, but says they are all excommunicated? It is hard to imagine these types (i.e., soft) disregarding the threat.

On the other hand, as wild as things have become since Francis, many might be less impacted by the pressure of excommunication simply because they themselves secretly, in places they don’t talk about at parties, wonder if the sedevacantists might not be right after all! Had the threat come under a pseudo-conservative like BXVI, the pressure would be much greater. But an excommunication from Leo? What can that be worth?

At least for Rome’s part, they are letting it be known that they are already lowering the lifeboats for the “pastoral care” of those who do not want to associate with an excommunicated movement. They are confident their maneuver will yield the intended harvest, as it did in 1988 with the formation of the FSSP and the Ecclesia Dei commission. They’ve been at it a long time. I’m reluctant to bet against their worldly cunning. I think the clergy losses will be minimal, but the losses among the faithful might be much greater (perhaps in the 20% range worldwide).

More than this, the excommunications will stunt conversions and the influx of new parishioners to SSPX chapels in the short term.

The dissonance will do its work.

Why the Excommunications Are a Good Thing:

All that said, even those who observe the papal vacancy should cheer for the upcoming episcopal consecrations and the ensuing excommunications (even despite the incoherence of the R&R position), for a number of reasons:

• Declared excommunications are the best possible outcome for the recovery of the Church, because the largest traditional Catholic organization will finally make a definitive break with the conciliar authority. I think that’s something we can all get behind.

• Excommunications will evince that the consecrations are not a mutually agreed upon furtherance of the ralliement (i.e., with Rome deciding upon some liberal candidates it can live with in exchange for good behavior and a continued and gradual acceptance of conciliarism).

• Excommunications will clarify party lines between trads and conciliarists (i.e., vs the current muddled specter of SSPX trads trying to be acceptable to conciliarists in pursuit of approval).

• Excommunications will torpedo the ralliement for at least another generation, and the SSPX may be encouraged to find its old voice again.

• The threat of (worthless) legal repercussions may purify the ranks of clergy and faithful who have diluted the esprit d’corps of the Society, with conciliar and covid refugees who only came because the legal obstacles had been removed (e.g., Francis granting jurisdiction for confessions, etc.).

• A definitive break with the counterfeit church should have the effect of calling into question the legitimacy of the popes and council which created it (or at least cause one to question the possibility, as did Lefebvre).

• As in 1988, excommunication from the counterfeit church would serve as a badge of honor, and demonstrate to the clergy and faithful that their leaders are not in communion with a conciliar church and hierarchy.

For all these reasons, I say “anathema sit!”

A Note On Unjust Excommunications:

Back in 2020, I’d written a letter to Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re regarding an article I’d read on a French-language SSPX website which had claimed that the 2009 remission of the excommunications of the four Society bishops also applied to Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer. The Cardinal replied that since they were already dead, they were not mentioned in the Decree, stating that because of this, they were “no longer subject to human justice, but to divine justice.”

But is that really true? Is one who dies under the odor of an unjust excommunication inexorably and eternally stigmatized, such that the censure can never be lifted?

There are historical precedents proving otherwise, and foremost among them is that of St. Joan of Arc:

“[St.] Joan of Arc was excommunicated on May 30, 1431, just two days before her execution by burning at the stake in Rouen. The tribunal, controlled by English allies and led by Bishop Pierre Cauchon, declared her a relapsed heretic after she resumed wearing men’s clothing, a violation of her earlier abjuration which she claimed was signed only under fear of the fire.

The sentence of excommunication declared her a “limb of Satan” and “cut off from the Church,” transferring her to secular authorities for execution. Although she was denied the Eucharist upon this final declaration, historical accounts note she had received Communion earlier in the day despite her excommunicated status, a procedural irregularity that some historians suggest indicated internal doubt among her judges.

Nullification and Rehabilitation The excommunication was formally nullified in 1456 following a papal inquiry (the Trial of Nullification) launched by Joan’s family. Pope Callixtus III’s court ruled that the original 1431 trial was corrupt, violated Church law, and was motivated by secular vendetta rather than genuine theological concern. This rehabilitation paved the way for her eventual beatification in 1909 and canonization as a saint in 1920.”²

Obviously, then, death under an unjust censure of excommunication is not irrevocable, and it is difficult to believe Cardinal Re would be unaware of the case and example of St. Joan of Arc. What is clear is that God does not honor unjust censures.

These are terrors for children, not well-formed Catholics! So when the other shoe drops on July 2, and the declaration of excommunications rings out “anathema sit!,” stand up and be recognized as such. It will be to you a badge of honor, and a sign of fidelity to the true faith, outside of which absolutely none can be saved (including those in white cassocks).

1. https://advaticanum.com/article/fellay-warns-of-sspx-faithful-excommunication-as-rome-prepares-its-response-to-episcopal-consecrations/

2. https://search.brave.com/search?q=st.+joan+of+arc+excommunication&source=desktop&summary=1&conversation=0910ab87d7c539fa744f89e6e6669207519f